A Song Of Ice And Fire

I also think that Stannis has a really good chance of actually beating Ramsay, considering the situation in the books is much different than the show. Yes, Stannis is having supply issues, but he still has the vast majority of his army and is onto Ramsay and Roose's tricks. If anything the Boltons are in a worse position, because they had to send out a big force just to keep their army from tearing itself apart.

Also, shitty or not Twynn is his father, Tyrion know that and is still fill guilty about it, he is kinslayer a this point.

No, I don't think Stannis sacrificing Shireen is going to achieve much of anything. That's Stannis' climax. The moment he breaks. He breaks after he burns her and nothing happens not before. At best, maybe it would ward off the WW temporarily.

But I imagine, it'll be kind of like the ending of The Mist.

That's where the dad kills everyone in the car including his son right before the monsters come because he thinks they're about to die only for him to find that the sounds they were hearing were vehicles clearing everything away and he killed his son for nothing.

Quentyn/Stannis/Robb Stark: Oh, he thought. Then he began to scream.

edited 6th Dec '17 12:19:31 PM by MadSkillz

Madskillz : I thought on The Mist too,but more precisely this interpretation of The Mist ending : https://www.reddit.com/r/FanTheories/comments/3go12d/theory_about_the_famous_last_scene_from_the_mist/

The religious woman at the store = Melisandre

edited 6th Dec '17 3:39:21 PM by LoutishHelminthic

I think Shireen burning will achieve something but the emotional cost would cripple Stannis after having endured so much.

But you never know. The show version is clearly much different since D&D clearly don't get Stannis.

Didn't get Stannis, didn't get Dorne...

This is the Idea, Stannis can put his duty as rightfull king/Azhor Ahai above even his familly or personal gain,contrasting Cersei and the Hightower (who close himself with his daughter in the Euron invasion at the Old Town) who maybe will have similar desicion scenarios .

I think it's more likely that Melisandre will burn Shireen while Stannis is at Winterfell than that Stannis will sentence his own child (and sole heir) to a horrific death.

edited 6th Dec '17 7:22:40 PM by Galadriel

Stannis' story is very much a Greek tragedy.

There's no real climax to Stannis' arc without burning Shireen.

Renly-> Edric -> Shireen

Rule of three.

Like Stannis never actually chose whether or not to burn Edric. Davos ripped that out of his hands before he could. That's a thread that needs closure. But Stannis says he would burn any kid no matter how good if it meant saving millions of other kids and he generally means what he says.

So.....I'm not sure why GRRM wouldn't play with that more once he sees the Others. Makes for juicy drama at the least.

Not sure why you're including Renly in there. Renly had to die, he wasn't an innocent child, he was a traitor and a usurper.

'cause he's family still.

Brynden B Fish just concluded his Horn of Joramun essay.

Stuff we've already theorized but he did point out that Jon already sounded the horn that he found North of the Wall and he thinks that's what threw the Others into attacking the NW at the Fist of the First Men.

He calls it the equivalent of Frodo slipping on the Ring for the enemy to sense. It also explains why so many wights came after Sam and Gilly and why BR sent them so much help. He was trying to get the Horn out of the the danger zone.

I feel like Stannis is more likely to push for burning Shireen than Melisandre at this point. He's had a perfectly awful few months, pushing him into a psychological corner, while meanwhile Mel's just been hanging out at the wall, apparently blissfully unaware of that fact that she comes across as super creepy when she's trying to be helpful.

Because Renly was is family and he murder it for it, Stannis who is super adherent to the law never punish mel for killing him without is permission, you dont get to be inocent of that.

He didn't *murder* Renly, Renly took up arms against him and Stannis had him killed. Renly was trying to kill Stannis as well.

Killing him in his tent with blood magic is still murder (call it assassination if you prefer), and distinct from killing him on the field of battle.

edited 7th Dec '17 3:54:28 PM by Galadriel

There's nothing wrong with having an enemy general assassinated on the eve of battle. Stannis didn't break a truce or some rule of war. He just made a smart move.

At that moment Renly was basically gloating over how he was going to have his brother - and his rightful liege lord - singled out on the battlefield.

edited 7th Dec '17 4:29:40 PM by Sigilbreaker26

Yeah, Stannis assassinating Renly isn't actually murder.

Murder is the unlawful killing of a person. Stannis killing Renly is lawful by virtue of being a traitor and Stannis being king.

GRRM doesn't even seem to think there's a difference between killing someone in a tent and killing them on a battlefield.

But everyone's morals are different.

I still think that is one of Martin's most stupid quotes. Renly isn't Hitler by a long shot (the only comparable character is the Mad King). so the entire metaphor is hurled by the wayside.

Generally I'd agree assassinating Renly seems like a low blow even if Renly was a greasy politician.

Renly's not a greasy politician, he's threatening to upset the entire political order of Westeros. His power grab is easily as bad as that of the Lannisters and might even have more dangerous consequences.

It's a naked power grab without a single shred of legitimacy and since Stannis has no other options except fight a battle he would almost certainly lose, I'm not sure what people are expecting him to do. Die along with all of his men?

edited 7th Dec '17 6:04:03 PM by Sigilbreaker26

Thinking about Martin's problems on the writing,I see how hard will be to describe the much theorised and plausible Eldrich Apocalipse , Martin said that have issues on writing the Red Wedding,you can now imagine the difficulty of show Krakens being summoned and destroying Redwine's fleet and Old Town and after that you have to show the guy blowing a horn that will turn every dead person on Wights,all in the point of view of one of the sacrifices (Aeron) how hard will be to wrote in a way that will be terrifing to the reader ? maybe he is having issues with that scene .

edited 7th Dec '17 6:11:07 PM by LoutishHelminthic

I think you're missing the point a bit. There are massive differences in the scales involved and the nature of some of the moral judgments made, but from the point of view of avoiding a battle (or an entire war) by committing one questionable act, you can see a similarity. Kill the ultimate commander of the enemy force to drive the command structure down and hopefully cause them to either switch sides, negotiate for peace, or desert the field.

He's saying that the rules that apply to enemy combatants are open to criticism when one evaluates them based on the expected casualties of following the more traditional course to end the war. It all boils down to whether you'd agree that killing the enemy commander - whether it's Hitler or Renly, or anyone - in an underhanded way, be it magic or assassination, or something along those lines - is less wrong than continuing to fight the war as it is, with the number of casualties that both sides would expect.

I try to avoid using Hitler as an example or comparison for anything because it's so cliched and you have to think about whether you're bringing up an unnecessary number of hot button issues that'll be diversions for the conversation you're trying to have, and that's why things like Godwin's Law exist.

The problem with that is that almost everyone knows at least the basics of Hitler, so it's very easy to default to him as an example of just about anything. GRRM could've made the same point by saying that using atom bombs against Japan was good because the expected casualties for both sides would've been much greater in a conventional invasion of the main islands. (That particular comparison is complicated by the fact that virtually none of the casualties in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were what you could honestly describe as military targets, but the underlying point is still the same.)

Alternatively, GRRM could've used an example of a real-life assassination that did succeed, such as that of Caesar: if Caesar was going to destroy the Republic, was it right to murder him? (With hindsight we know that the aftermath of the conflict that arose from his death was the ultimate undoing of the Republic, but you could argue that the assassins might have genuinely thought that the dictator's powers would be restored to the Senate, had they been able to dissuade the Caesarian loyalists from seeking revenge.)

Hitler is an extreme example because it's so easy to suggest that his death would have prevented so much suffering, and that he deserved to die for his actions. I think GRRM went for the Hitler card here because he wanted to make the former comparison, not the latter. (I do think Renly was wrong to try to usurp the throne, but obviously he wasn't anywhere near as bad as Hitler - that's not the point.)

I get Martin's point just fine, but it was the most daft comparison he could make.

The general gist is "Assassinating Renly would spare more lives than giving him a fair fight". That's a reasonable statement. But when you frame Renly as Hitler, that doesn't work. Hitler (and other mass murderers) are the Godzilla Threshold of morality, we're accepted to do almost anything against him because we know for an actual fact if we didn't put him down he'd find more ways to commit atrocities.

I can see that. By using an example as extreme as Hitler, you're evoking any number of comparisons that you probably didn't want to raise.

The example I suggested, with Caesar, might be a little bit more useful because it also includes the idea that the laws that govern the division and succession of political power in society have been violated, and a drastic act can be seen as a way to take the old rules back.

With Caesar, he had basically forced the Senate to give him dictatorial powers for life, but until then, dictatorial power was always very temporary, and those who help power (dictatorial or otherwise - usually the latter, obviously) were held accountable for their actions once their term was over. That's a solid basis from which you can argue that Caesar has twisted the law to protect himself from accountability, and thus has to die for the sake of the Republic. (Caesar's power was also mostly based on his military success, especially in the civil war, which was a non-traditional way to gain power.)

With Renly, the problem is that he has declared himself King while having no legitimacy, and the only argument he can make is that he has been able to gather more military and political assets to his faction, elevating him above at least one of the more legitimate claimants. Normally, there is a well-defined order of succession, and while there is controversy about the legitimacy of Robert's alleged heirs, there is no plausible argument, other than military force, for why Renly should inherit power instead of his older brother. This challenge to the laws of succession is a very clear threat to the stability of the realm, and if Renly was to win the war, he would set a very dangerous precedent that would be used to legitimise future revolutions.

So there are many ways in which Renly is similar to Caesar, and some of the arguments that are used to justify the assassination of the one are also applicable to the other.

The thing is, the points I've made here are not the point that GRRM was making. The one thing GRRM's comment has going for it is that at least it's very simple. Mine requires a slightly more nuanced understanding of history than his, and if you're speaking to the general public, dumbing down can be a good strategy (albeit one that feels quite jarring when you notice it's being used).

I'm sure if GRRM was asked that question in a variety of settings over a long period of time, he'd come up with any number of answers. The one he reached for there was, in my opinion, a decent point relatively well made, but I do agree that his choice of example was not ideal.

edited 7th Dec '17 7:12:46 PM by BestOf

Regardless of your views on the morality or immorality of assassination, it is qualitatively different from a soldier killing someone on the battlefield. And ACOK makes it clear that the action haunts Stannis to the point where he can't bring himself to admit he did it.

Moreover, the action didn't help Stannis' cause; it harmed him. Enough of Renly's followers, the Tyrells included, were sufficiently outraged by it that they joined the Lannisters, resulting in Stannis' defeat at the Blackwater and the loss of nearly all his forces. It cannot be defended by "the ends justify the means", because it was counterproductive.

For my part, I find the argument that Renly was a deep threat to heredity succession unconvincing. Aegon I became king by military force; Robert Baratheon became king by military force; if Renly had become king by military force, then (as with siblings fighting in the Dance of the Dragons) his victory and rule would have been retroactively justified in some way. The fact that Stannis is obsessed with legitimate succession doesn't make it some kind of moral law.

edited 7th Dec '17 7:51:22 PM by Galadriel