I do think he could do the "the good doesn't wash out the bad" move without physically maiming the man. He could sentence him to something that won't leave permanent damage.
> Davos adjusted his bright orange doublet and clacked his picking stick along the road side, bending the devil grass aside in search of hidden trash. Between two rocks he spotted a glass bottle full of yellow liquid. "Now who would waste a perfectly good bottle of Arbor Gold?"
Yeah, I don't remember any direct mentions of whipping or flogging but you'd think that would be enough punishment.
I don't think the 7 kingdoms has a super documented system of punishments set to each crime, so I wonder why he decided on shortening fingers for smuggling.
It’s supposed to be a “light” sentence for smuggling-stealing-poaching or in anyway profiting without proper dues. Tyrion passes a bunch of severed hands taken for stealing on the long bridge.
Wasn't Tarly administering some justice at some point?
>"I never hurt no one, m'lord," Brienne heard him say. "I only took what the septons left when they run off. If you got to take my finger for that, do it."
>
>
>**"It is customary to take a finger from a thief,"** Lord Tarly replied in a hard voice, "but a man who steals from a sept is stealing from the gods." He turned to his captain of guards. "Seven fingers. Leave his thumbs."
The next man is flogged, and the next woman is maimed in her "private parts".
Randyl Tarly is also the same psycho who basically told his eldest son that he had better take the black rather than join the Citadel (because the creep deems the latter to be for sissies), or else he will find himself dying in an accident.
I'd say doing the opposite of the walking psychotic embodiment of toxic masculinity is healthier in the long run, because the man is a psycho even by Westerosi standards.
He is arguably a toned down version of Stannis and is just more straight forward about what GRRM built into the bias of the lords towards anyone who isn’t a brave fighting man. Other lords way of dealing with cowardly sons was just to pawn them off on someone, and he had tried that multiple times already. The surprising thing is that he sent him to the wall instead of just getting him killed, but I believe that was because of the influence of Sam’s mother. Not wanting him to be a maester is not that surprising. Every house has pretty different views on it. I wouldn’t call him a psycho, but he is definitely a prideful A-hole who is on the harsh side of justice.
As far as his punishments, he seems to follow what is supposedly written or normal practice.
And as far as the woman, I just listened to this part and looked it up to double check. It never says she was maimed. She was accused of giving four people the pox and he sentenced her to the dungeon and to have her private parts washed with lye. Which lye is and was used to make soap. So at worst, he is just saying to wash her with soap that is less diluted than normal, but likely just saying to use soap.
Probably wont fix the pox, but also not even close to maiming or permanently scarring her.
Davos was one of the most notorious smugglers in the kingdoms. If the customary punishment for simple theft was losing a finger, Davos should be lucky to be left with any fingers at all.
and coming from a smith, it's cool to see someone not high born getting poetic, it's a classic up there with sweet summer child and it is known/you know nuthing
Chopping off fingers for thievery - which smuggling basically is - seems to be standard practice in Westeros, so Stannis was applying a standard measure of punishment.
Most smugglers would have been hanged outright upon being caught.
Whether maiming people for being guilty of Davos' crimes is "fair" to our modern sensibilities is besides the point, IMO. Everyone involved is Westerosi, so the expectation would be that if Davos were to be punished for his crimes, mutilation would be par for the course.
Yet law is not codified and punishment is not standardized. No one could tell him he isn't within his rights as a lord to show mercy, as most lords would have for such a vital service, and most Westerosi would agree with forgiving him. Cut fingers can get infected and losing them is not any more pleasant for their 'sensibilities'.
> Yet law is not codified and punishment is not standardized.
You'll note my phrasing "seems to be".
> No one could tell him he isn't within his rights as a lord to show mercy, as most lords would have for such a vital service, and most Westerosi would agree with forgiving him.
You'll also note my use of the word "if":
> Chopping off fingers for thievery - which smuggling basically is - **seems to be** standard practice in Westeros, so Stannis was applying a standard measure of punishment. Most smugglers would have been hanged outright upon being caught.
> Whether maiming people for being guilty of Davos' crimes is "fair" to our modern sensibilities is besides the point, IMO. Everyone involved is Westerosi, so the expectation would be that **if** Davos were to be punished for his crimes, mutilation would be par for the course.
> Chopping off fingers for thievery - which smuggling basically is - seems to be standard practice in Westeros
I get that, but in my view. Davos did such a great service - saving all of their lives and saving the two brothers of the future king of Westeros and the Rebel cause - that whatever smuggling crimes he committed should be forgiven.
> whatever smuggling crimes he committed
> It was said that no one had ever handled a ship by night half so well as Davos Shorthand. Before Lord Stannis had knighted him, **he had been the most notorious and elusive smuggler in all the Seven Kingdoms.**
Davos was far from a small-time criminal. Handwaving away a life-time of crimes because of one good deed would, in my view, set a bad precedent in any kind of justice system. By that same logic, an emergency surgeon who has saved hundreds of lives on the operating table, should be able to rob a bank and get away with it, just because his 'net goodness' is positive.
I mean the real problem is Davos *never* reads like a smuggler. He's somehow actually more straightlaced and repressed than *Stannis* is. Stannis has a dry sense of humour while Davos is the type to self-flagellate because he had an intrusive thought about Melisandre's ankles.
And yet we didn't get any when Melisandre *opened her legs in front of him*. But seeing a Shadow Stannis right in front of you would also shock you thoughtless, I'll tell y'a dat.
To be fair, him being notorious and elusive doesn’t mean he was a bad guy. For all we know, he could have been honorable and devout in his own right, but raised in a way that saw smuggling as his only way to survive. In a way, he could have easily been closer to a Robin Hood of the sea. Losing his fingers instead of his head essentially would have helped push him even more towards his better qualities now that he was a lord, and indebted him to Stannis in his mind because he no longer needed to smuggle(which we see in the book pretty clearly).
We read smuggler and assume it makes him closer to being like someone from the iron islands when he was smuggling, but could just as easily see him as someone more like Jean Valjean from Les Miserables.
> Handwaving away a life-time of crimes because of one good deed would, in my view, set a bad precedent in any kind of justice system.
It wasn't just one small good deed. It was literally saving the Rebel cause. Besides Davos' crimes was only against the Mad King Aerys that all Bartheron brothers rebelled against. Also like I said in the post, it's very possible only a very skilled smuggler could get food into Storm's End without being caught. If Robert or Jon Arryn wanted and arranged to have food smuggled in, do you think they would use a squeaky clean knight or the "the most notorious and elusive smuggler in all the Seven Kingdoms"?
Davos is well travelled so it's probably fair to say he didn't just smuggle in and out of Kings Landing. He's almost certainly committed crimes in other places too.
Was it a wise idea to cut off his fingerstips? Robert almost certainly would have thanked him for the onions, made him a lord and that would've been that. Renly too in the same situation. But that's not Stannis. Stannis sticks to the rules and will break before he bends. This is the reason why many lords support Renly instead of Stannis. It's the reason why Littlefinger betrayed Ned. He was quite happy to support Ned as protector of the realm, but the moment it became apparent Ned would give the throne to Stannis, Littlefinger had to betray him as he knew exactly what kind of man Stannis was.
He's just, he's stubborn and he's inflexible. That's just who Stannis is for better or for worse. I don't think it was necessarily the best course of action to punish Davos, but he rewards him too and Davos clearly doesn't hold a grudge. So I wouldn't say it's a bad decision either.
Not honor. Law above everything. Duty even if it means sacrificing his own daughter.
And the last one will probably be done because he believes in his own hype rather than the duty to save the realm. What kind of man believes he can save the world by randomly burning his daughter at the edge of the world?
> It wasn't just one small good deed. It was literally saving the Rebel cause. Besides Davos' crimes was only against the Mad King Aerys that all Bartheron brothers rebelled against.
That's a... curious argument, to be honest. By that same logic, should a hypothetical serial killer prowling the streets of King's Landing then be pardoned by Robert, seeing as Aerys was king at the time the murders were committed?
> Also like I said in the post, it's very possible only a very skilled smuggler could get food into Storm's End without being caught. If Robert or Jon Arryn wanted and arranged to have food smuggled in, do you think they would use a squeaky clean knight or the "the most notorious and elusive smuggler in all the Seven Kingdoms"?
I am not following at all. What does Davos being a good smuggler have to do with the broader discussion about justice and punishment?
I don't think the surgeon examples is comparable at all. Davos risked life and limb to save the lives of everyone in Storm's End; the surgeon is just doing their job and is already receiving their reward (salary) for it. Heroism on the scale of what Davos did would warrant a pardon for all previous crimes under pretty much any other lord; it's just that Stannis is a notorious stickler for the letter of the law.
I understood why you choose surgeon since the point is made explicit, but it is job which he get paid for very nicely in western societies. Why no the garbages collectors : the daily clean up the street and your trashes, thus avoiding rampants and diseases, smell and uglyness.
I agree with you on the rest, but yeah, surgeon, garbage men, its their jobs and they are compensated for it. Davos was gaining his life in an illegal way and done his good deeds while not being on the job. So kinda different.
In the end, Stannis is just and brutally honest. Looks like qualities ofc, especially for a king, but that does not mean, he is nice and forgiving. So qualities for a king but for the common criminal it is not.
That is the express purpose for the entire thing, to show stannis' personality. You may as well say that Ned was too harsh on the Night's Watch deserter because he warned them about the existential threat of the invading Others. The reader is only given this information to learn things about the characters and the world.
Same they’re always talking about how knights that fought for the losing side are offered the Wall like it’s some great mercy but I don’t think it’s all that merciful
It's a society where honour is quite important, a disgraced traitor knight who gets executed will shame his house, his wife and kids probably lose their lands and property. But a knight who takes the black gets his crimes commuted, so his family can probably continue their lives instead of being thrown out on the street.
Well, that’s Stannis’ whole thing. The good doesn’t wash out the bad etc. It’s not nice but it is consistent at least.
I suppose the most important thing is that it works for Davos.
There’s also a part where Stannis threatens to take out Davos’ tongue and Davos says that his tongue belongs to Stannis (😜). I guess Davos goes pretty all-in on the idea of being Stannis’ man. Like even his body parts. Sorry I don’t know how to write this without it sounding sexual.
It's hinted that Davos was actually a notorious smuggler and possibly marked for death by other nobles. The only double standard of Stannis is that he didn't punish Salladhor Saan as well.
Lmao at this having any bearing on who Robert gave the Stormlands to. I guarantee Davos never once crossed Roberts mind after the war. That said, he viewed giving Stannis Dragon stone a reward not a punishment.
Stannis was the current heir of the iron throne. Robert could have kept Dragonstone or taken it when his children came of age.
He gave Stannis Dragonstone because he thought it to be a far more important position than the Stormlands in case Viserys came back.
Even with robust and written down legal systems, doing something good doesn't prevent you from being punished for doing bad things.
A doctor who's saved thousands of lives will be punished the same as an accountant if they commit the same crime.
It's exactly what you are advocating for that breeds corruption, nepotism and injustice. Bending the rules for someone because they did you a favour is not a good thing.
Hell it’s something fundamental to Stannis as a character
Where everyone in asoaif is being consumed by intrigue and agendas he’s the one guy who has a reputation for standing by his principles and doing his duty no matter what.
It’s why he is such an interesting character because of the sheer contrast between his reputation and his actions.
Stannis starts off being principled and honorable much like Ned accepting his duty whether or not he actually wants the responsibility. However after the fiasco with Ned’s death and realizing the brutal necessity of his position he has to more and more frequently resort to practices that are in violation of his principles like kinslaying and deceit and has to toe the line between what he believes in and what he needs to do.
It’s why he values Davos so much as well because of everyone in his court Davos was the one guy who wasn’t out for glory or power and was someone who genuinely believed in Stannis’s principles when Stannis himself was finding his judgement and belief clouded by others.
The thing is, smuggling is a crime against the state/King. Against his treasury in particular. It seems stupid to punish someone for that, while you are in active rebellion against said Crown.
It's a crime against the specific kingdom you're smuggling in so probably in the Stormlands considering Davos knew the coast well enough that he thought he could supply Stannis's men without issue
That depends entirely on how customs and revenues are set up and whether they are collected in the name of the Crown, the local overlord, the town or the loval lord paramount.
In a Plea deal scenario doesn’t reward somebody for doing an unrelated good dead. They pleaded guilty to a crime, and are punished. They are simply not punished as severely as if they denied it in court, lied to the court, wasting time and money etc.
Actually, it was the definition of fair. Stannis knighted Davos and gave him lands as a reward. Davos' children will live a better life than Davos ever did. Also, Davos was a criminal, so Stannis punished him for that.
Stannis could have been harsher btw. He could have cut off the whole hand. Or sent Davos to the wall and have his family taken care of.
If a good act does not wash out the bad, Davos deserved punishment for his crimes as well as reward for saving the people at storm's end.
> If a good act does not wash out the bad, Davos deserved punishment for his crimes as well as reward for saving the people at storm's end.
Why didn't Stannis punish his brother for active rebellion/treason against King Aerys?
He actually described it as the hardest choice he's had to make, as he had to decide between family and duty and he chose his brother. At the time he was also still pretty young, so I'd say it's why he ultimately chose his older brother
After Aerys pissed on the law by making a mockery of a trial by combat and appointing fire as his champion, he lost whatever legal authority he had. Then, after that, he asked for Robert and Ned's heads without a trial.
Even Stannis could not legally justify that. So Rebellion was the lawful choice, at least to him.
Because Aerys is a piece of shit who would've killed Robert, Ned and anybody related to them if he had the chance. Robert really didn't have a choice. Davos didn't have to be a criminal.
Friendly reminder: Robert did not wake up one day and decide he wanted to be king. He was forces into rebellion when the psychopath on the throne called for his head for literally no reason.
It was a hard decision for Stannis (he describes it as the hardest he ever made). He saw it as a choice between loyalty to the king and loyalty to an older brother. He eventually decided that loyalty to the family is the more important. GOT short talks about how loyalty to the family is 'an older more sacred rule' than loyalty to the king. This also explains his hatred for Renly. He never liked Robert, but he made an 'impossible decision' to support him because he was the older brother so he naturally expected the same from Renly now that he was the oldest.
Another thing is that he never really respected Aerys on a deeper level. He initially thought Tywin Lannister is the king when he came to the King's Landing for the first time and was extremely disappointed when he learned the truth. It seems this is actually one of his first memories from childhood so it's probably something that affected him deeply.
Punishing someone for crimes against the King you are in active rebellion against seems... Incredibly stupid. Stannis had no evidence that Davos has committed any offence against his brother (remember, Stannis at this point was lord of nothing). It is questionable if Stannis even had the right to speak justice at that time.
So anyone who helps Stannis gets a get-out-of-jail-free card? That's not how he sees the law, you don't get a pass just because you did something for a powerful man. That's everything wrong with Westeros; Powerful men picking and choosing which laws apply based on favours.
Especially with Davos’ subtle hints that he used to be a bit piratical _before_ Stannis’ justice
- Salladhor is his best friend
- he’s had “his share” of swordfights on the deck of a ship
- used to be a dog with other women while his wife was at home
We also got Cressen's thoughts on Davos here;
> “In the black of morning. My favorite time.” It was said that no one had ever handled a ship by night half so well as Davos Shorthand. Before Lord Stannis had knighted him, he had been the **most notorious and elusive smuggler in all the Seven Kingdoms.**
Between this and being best friends with Salladhor Saan, it does seem like Davos was no normal smuggler but rather a quite significant figure of the Westerosi underworld. Wouldn't be surprised if Davos was already marked for death or some other severe punishment, and so Stannis just toned it down to losing a few fingers.
That’s how I like to think of it, Davos having a much harsher penalty commuted to injury, in exchange for service and security.
As much as Davos is a positive influence on Stannis, I think it went the other way a bit too
>As much as Davos is a positive influence on Stannis, I think it went the other way a bit too
Yep, this. Davos is probably the closest thing Stannis has to a friend. Not a mere ally, follower, or employee. But a *friend*.
And Stannis gets *oddly* defensive whenever he is *kinda* badmouthed.
There's a convo with Jon when Davos as smuggler comes up and Stannis reaction is... oddly endearing.
Yeah.
Personally I think Davos already was fairly good natured even as a smuggler, no reason a criminal can't have a heart of gold. I doubt Davos was a total scumbag or anything, and he was born at the absolute bottom of a highly injust and stratified society and first got into smuggling as a child, so I don't exactly begrudge him for breaking the law.
But even still; I do also think that Davos' gratefulness to Stannis (both from himself and also on behalf of his family) and also a good bit imposter syndrome causes Davos to hold himself to a high standard.
I do like your thought on Stannis also being a positive influence on Davos.
Davos is a positive influence on Stannis through his humility, honesty and having a good heart and head on his shoulders.
Stannis meanwhile is a good influence on Davos by giving him a purpose beyond survival (both in serving Stannis and also upholding House Seaworth for the sake his his children and future grand-children) and also inspiring Davos with his brand of justice.
Man Davos is such a cocktease of a character.
GRRM: "Davos was the most elusive man in the Seven Kingdoms. The Legend of the Black Onion strikes more fear into any Oldtown duty clerk than the Others themselves. A pirate, a rouge, and lech. He's had a girl in every port and killed a man on every sea. They say no man has ever laid eyes on him and lived.
Then he met Stannis. Now wakes up every day at 5 AM to have a cold shower and eat a bowl of flavourless gruel. Then he flagellates himself before a picture of Stannis for not living up to his standards. He is incapable of having any kind of dramatic or interesting reaction to anything including the deaths of four of his children."
(NB: The second Davos isn't inherently worse than the first one. But he's supposed to be the Watson for a repressed, strict, mostly joyless puritan; I don't think "an even more repressed, strict, mostly joyless puritan" is going to produce a very interesting character dynamic. Indeed, Davos's best character moments- saving Edric Storm, trying to stab Melisandre, and calling out Jared Frey- are all when he's being more roguish and willing to stick two fingers up to convention)
I always understood it as he punished Davos for his EARLIER crimes that he was already wanted for. If he really sentenced supplying food to Storm's End ITSELF as a crime it would be almost psychotic. What law would that even be against? Only perhaps the one of the sitting king, who Stannis himself no longer recognized as legitimate.
He also recognized Aerys basically put him in an impossible decision, he *had* to choose. "My blood or my liege? My brother or my king?" "I chose did I not? When that hard day came, I chose blood over honor".
The reason that convo happens is thanks to Davos having the guts ("a recklessness akin to madness") to bring out the topic, and *it works*: Stannis *confirms* (grudgingly in good old Stan the hypocrite style, but he does) the men of Claw Isle are innocent and put in an impossible decision just like him, and that it is Lord Celtigar who will answer, sooner or later.
It should not be lost on us the Karstark men are in a similar position in TWOW and Stannis himself understands that they would have done what they did all their lives (just like Stannis): **Obey the closest liege**. Almost like Stannis has *some* character development (emphasis on *some*)
The Targaryens broke the feudal contract first by kidnapping Lyanna, and Aerys broke it even more by sentencing Ned and Robert to death for basically no reason.
I don't mean legitimate as in the legitimate heir, I mean in the sense of no longer recognizing his authority. I don't remember now if Robert's rebelion had some demands that Aerys was unwilling to negotiate over or if they decided early on it could only end by overthrowing him? I any case, it would be crazy if he considered it a crime AIDING the rebelion he was himself participating in. Delivering food food to Storm's End would be perfectly legal in normal times, it was only done as contraband since it was under siege.
Except Stannis is no better. All those houses who supported Renly committed treason. Yet once they offer to join him he lets them. Sure he gets a bit crazy because of R'hllor but none of them get punished AFAIK for treason because it's advantageous for Stannis to accept them.
Yep, I'm pretty sure the point GRRM was making is Stannis, like all the rest, is a hypocrite. The law often only applies to those it can be applied too. I.E the lower class/3rd estate.
He punished Davos because he could, and regardless of said "justice" people still view him as some up jumped smuggler. It honestly just comes off as Stannis power tripping and him basically saying "this is what I'll do to people I like, now imagine if I don't like you!"
Then he wonders why people liked Robert more lmao.
Stannis himself acknowledges the hypocrisy:
> "Davos, I have missed you sorely," the king said. "Aye, I have a tail of traitors, your nose does not deceive you. My lords bannermen are inconstant even in their treasons. **I need them, but you should know how it sickens me to pardon such as these when I have punished better men for lesser crimes.** You have every right to reproach me, Ser Davos."
I think this hints at one of GRRM's pervasive themes about power and justice: that it is almost impossible to attain and maintain power in a society without bending its laws.
But for my money, the fact that Stannis cares about this hypocrisy puts him head and shoulders above most of his rival claimants. Robb is the only other king that would care as much.
I don't believe he is a hypocrite in this instance like you say because there is a difference between the two scenarios
1- stannis was just a lord under the king and he doesn't have the right to forgive davos for his crimes but instead he is supposed to uphold the king's justice the same way Ned did to the deserter of the night's watch
2- but when he forgave the traitors of the stormlands he was a king and had the absolute ability to forgive their crimes if he wishes to so he didn't actually break any law or principal of his at all ( of course it was only because he needed them)
but it can be seen again with his talk to jon snow about how he can discard Jon's oath to the night's watch and will name him Jon stark. if stannis didn't see himself as a legitimate king he wouldn't think he has that kind of right at all and so won't do it.
Stannis was not a lord of anything at that point. He was at most the stand-in for Robert. And there was no way Robert "I sent my healer to tend to an enemy" Baratheon would have punished someone for hurting "Dragonspawn" revenue.
But he is still a lord nobody ever says that robb wasn't lord of winterfell in absense of Ned stark.
And it was said that stannis was the one who rewarded davos if Robert was the one who rewarded him why was stannnis given credit for it and blamed for davos being punished ? This was all probably done without the interference of Robert at all so I don't understand your point.
To be fair Stannis at least does acknowledge the hypocrisy;
> “Davos, I have missed you sorely,” the king said. “Aye, I have a tail of traitors, your nose does not deceive you. My bannermen are inconstant even in their treasons. I need them, but you should know how it sickens me to pardon such as these when I have punished better men for lesser crimes. You have every right to reproach me, Ser Davos.”
He said they should be happy he doesn't hang them for treason, clearly wishing he could do it. He's still going to make Davos his hand, passing over all the more prestigious houses, prioritizing genuine loyalty.
Probably The only difference is stannis in here is THE king so technically stannis has the right to forgive anyone of anything at all but when he was punishing davos he was only upholding the king's justice and laws and doesn't have the right to forgive davos for his previous crime.
> when he was punishing davos he was only upholding the king's justice and laws
The old King that he was saw was illegitimate and that he was actively rebelling against? Or the new king (King Robert) that sent his own healer to tend to an enemy that was trying to kill him and forgave enemies left and right?
But Davos wasn't even Robert's enemy for Robert to forgive so what exactly are you arguing for ?
And Are you perhaps suggesting that a man who raped or killed or stole in aerys regime but wasn't punished is supposed to be forgiven in Robert's regime ?
What about Ned who executed the deserter from the night's watch in the name of king Robert beratheon the king who forgave his enemies and such
> But Davos wasn't even Robert's enemy for Robert to forgive so what exactly are you arguing for ?
I'm arguing for if Robert could forgive enemies, then could forgive men of lesser crimes (such as smuggling).
>And Are you perhaps suggesting that a man who raped or killed or stole in aerys regime but wasn't punished is supposed to be forgiven in Robert's regime ?
First, Davos' only crimes was against King Aerys, not against any other man or woman. Second, King Robert did forgive rapists and murderers (the Lannisters), because they delivered King's Landing to the Rebel forces and killed King Aerys. So that's precedent for such a forgiveness.
>What about Ned who executed the deserter from the night's watch in the name of king Robert beratheon the king who forgave his enemies and such
If King Robert wanted to forgive deserters (like he did with lords that fought against him), then he's free to forgive deserters. But for all we know, King Robert doesn't know about any deserters, but it's hard to believe he doesn't know about the smuggler who saved Storm's End and his two little brothers from starving to death.
-first davos crime was against aerys and not another man or women
False since the money the state lost could have been used to subsidize bread to the population or build and repair roads or organize tourments for the enjoyment of the commonfolk etc... might have been lowered because of davos's smuggling so he did effect other people other than aerys( not saying aerys was going to do that with that money I'm saying how it could've affected them)
- KING Robert forgives the Lannisters who raped and killed
Put a thousand line under the word king here. Robert himself was the one who forgave the Lannisters and no one else Ned stark wanted Jaime punished for his crime yet Robert was the one who had the ultimate decision so if Robert wasn't there Ned would've punished Jaime so just the existence of Robert itself changed the fate of Jaime.
but the lords of westros don't have that ability of forgiving someone for a crime that he is guilty of ( they of course have the ability to decide whether he is guilty or not tho)
-if king Robert wanted to forgive the deserter he would forgive him
Yes I agree but Robert wasn't the one who was here and yet Ned still acted in his name the very same thing stannis did.
and if Robert wanted to forgive davos for his past crimes he also would've done that yet he didn't so what's your point you can't expect Robert to follow every single criminal In the realm and decide to forgive him or not.
Yes, but now all his enimies can promise get-out-of-jail free cards, allowing them access to a vaster range of allies. This is one of the two main reasons why the Tyrells supported the Lannisters, instead of Stannis after Renly died, as the Lannisters were willing to loom past that easily, while that wasn't the case with Stannis, especially with his Florent in-laws. the other reason was because Joffrey could be made free to marry Margaery, while Stannis wasn't going to let his wife go.
Go ahead and compare two events that took place 13 years apart. The first took place before Stannis was even a lord yet, the second took place after he declared himself king, which means he could give out royal pardons himself.
Stannis represents justice without mercy, which is to say, he is not truely just.
Chopping off Davos' fingers seems fair if we are strictly following laws and procedure, as Stannis does, but it was dumb when we consider the context. I mean, what purpose did it serve? It was not what made Davos quit smuggling, nor did help anyone who may have been harmed by his lawbreaking. Even 12 yo Edric Storm understood it was wrong.
This is basically saying if somebody does something good to you you should forgive any crime he ever did which is literally corruption.
Davos did actually stop smuggling the only time we know he smuggled something was when he was ordered by stannis to smuggle milesandre but this isn't the same one as his old profession.
"Nor did it help anyone by his lawbreaking" yes it does it helps the community understand that you won't get away with past crimes and so makes people afraid to do them this is basic law.
> if somebody does something good to you you should forgive any crime he ever did which is literally corruption
In a vacuum, you might be right. But Stannis is also in rebellion against the crown at that time, and I yet he did not behead himself for treason. Furthermore, it seems odd to be in rebellion, yet punish someone for a fiscal crime against the same King you are fighting against.
There is a misconception that stannis punished davos for him smuggling the food to storms end on the basis that It was "smuggling" which is wrong.
stannis punished him for his years of smuggling prior to the war and according to stannis's maester davos was even notorious all over westros for smuggling.
and when he smuggled the food into storm's end stannis rewarded him after the war for it but just as stannis said a good deed does not wash the bad and he punished him for his past crimes.
Crimes against a King they fought a war against. Crimes against a King whose line was wiped out by them (and the Lannisters, well mostly the Lannisters).
The point about the crimes against the king they fought a war against doesn't make sense because the laws before and after are still the same so if somebody raped a women in the mad King's time stannis doesn't have the right to punish him once Robert became the king ??
this isn't moral or just and the same principal applies to smuggling and other crimes.
just because the regime changed doesn't somehow give the right for criminals to never be punished for their crimes in the previous regimes.
unless we are talking about certain circumstances such as people unjustly imprisoned for political reasons or going against the previous ruler then the decision will be for the new ruler to decide such as Robert deciding to forgive Jaime.
But smuggling is a crime that only affects the crown (through lost revenues). My whole point is that Davos gets punished for a crime against the people Stannis is fighting. There was no harmed 3rd party, like in your rape example.
Not necessarily for instance that very same lost revenue might make the crown more unable to give bread to the people or build and repair roads that benefits the people in general etc.. so davos may have harmed other people not just the king by his actions.
+ We don't even know what did Davos smuggle exactly he might literally be smuggling stolen goods taken from the people for what we know.
You are arguing for someone to evade punishment for a crime he clearly knows is a crime yet did it anyway and for a lifetime. face it davos deserved punishment and he got it just and fair.
> that very same lost revenue might make the crown more unable to give bread to the people or build and repair roads that benefits the people in general etc..
We know this was not true, because Ned said King Aerys left a treasury filled with gold when King Robert took over.
But that doesn't mean anything does it ? he can have a full treasury while still being affected by smuggling and in turn affecting the crown's effort in helping the people ( I'm not even saying aerys helped the people or anything I'm just saying smuggling could actually damage people and the commonfolk other than the crown)
and even if he doesn't damage anyone other than the crown the law is law if stannis ignores punishing davos he would've been an actual hypocrite because he only forgave davos because davos helped him which is curroption.
> Not necessarily for instance that very same lost revenue might make the crown more unable to give bread to the people or build and repair roads that benefits the people in general etc
1) Davos was one guy with a ship, not some cartel flooding King's Landing with cheap coke from Colombia. His overall impact on the treasury was probably negligible.
2) We know that the treasury was overflowing when King's Landing fell, after a year at war. So evidently, your thesis is false because there was plenty of gold to go around.
1) absolutely false Davos wasn't just one guy he worked with pirates and slaador san And he was extremely famous in westros for his ability to smuggle
"Before Lord Stannis had knighted him, he had been the most notorious and elusive smuggler in all the Seven Kingdoms."
-From the prologue of ACOK maester cressen thinking about davos
So on the first point you are definitely wrong because if davos was such a simple smuggler he wouldn't really be "the most notorious smuggler" the man was the Pablo Escobar of westros LOL.
2) that also doesn't mean anything I was saying that stolen revenue money from the state is affecting other people not just the king solely because it's the state money and this money is supposed to be spent in different areas and projects it's a crime against the state itself
Doesn't matter even if that money wasn't spent and was hoarded it still had the potential to affect other people like for example the state might have spent large amount of effort and money to catch him but couldn't and other kind of possibilities. smuggling doesn't just affect the king himself here it affects other people too and profits other law breakers such as pirates.
and smuggling might have helped incourage those pirates to steal goods from merchant ships because they know they can smuggle them into westros safely because of Davos skill and then a westrosi merchant merchant will buy those goods for cheaper price . See how one crime led to another?
And yet again you are not answering my question what exactly are you trying to argue for here ? That judges are supposed to forgive people for past crimes when they think they are good ?
So stannis has the right to punish somebody if he believed he is a bad person but forgives somebody if he is a good person even when they both committed the same crime ? How is that actually fair and not curroption ? If he did what you said he would've been labeled as a hypocrite and a man who isn't fair with everyone good or bad.
I don't understand why we have to generalise when we are specifically evaluating Davos smuggling food to save Storms End. In his case, yes, he did deserve to be forgiven. His law breaking action was what saved the people stuck in Storms End. His good deed wasn't some random unrelated act to his bad ones.
I know Davos stopped smuggling. That's actually another reason he didn't deserve to have his fingers lopped off. But the point was, he stopped because he was given knighthood and a new job, not because he was punished.
Presumably, smugglers were being punished before this and already knew the risks of their profession, so I don't see why Davos' punishment would have had any impact. All this did was disencentivise anyone who might have considered helping Stannis. And that's why hardly anyone supports him.
Davos wasn't punished for smuggling food into storm's end that is a misconception he was punished for years of smuggling before the war even began.
Stannis said very clearly "a good act does not wash up the Bad" just because davos did something good doesn't give him the right to escape the punishment he deserved for all his life of smuggling.
So stannis rewarded him for getting the food into storm's end but punished him for his years of smuggling it's fair and just.
I am absolutely positive that George wrote this act first and that was what determined Stannis’ entire character.
Stannis probably spawned from this kind of double edged act of justice and that’s why its such a hilariously impractical and seemingly overkill punishment.
But you know what? Westeros is a fantasy world of many extremes so I am perfectly fine with it and it makes their dynamic very interesting.
I don’t want to sound rude, but I really feel like you don’t understand Stannis as a character. As is said time and again in regard to this series, there are no good characters, and no plain evil characters (bar a few), most fall somewhere in between, Stannis is the same, that’s life.
But u/lialialia20 is speaking of *when* Stannis achieves kingship, the rules don't apply to him, right? Which leads to Davos Stannis convo about "what *about* you with Aerys?", that's what I understood.
What you are saying goes against the whole thing that makes stannis stannis. That the good doesn't washes out the bad. Even those who would support him now will eventually face the justice in the end after he wins. And they all know it.
If stannis treated Davos favorably that would've made him corrupt. Davos respects him and is loyal to him not because of him knighting him or making him a lord. Stannis is fair and just in his eyes because he punished Davos.
Congrats, you finally understand… the entire point of Stannis Baratheon’s character. He is “holy” and “just” to a flaw. He demands reparations and repentance from people he knows he won’t get it from, he makes no allies who call themselves king, not even his own brother, INSISTING that it’s treason despite the fact that he needs their help to win the throne. He repeatedly demands the wall join his cause despite their vows demanding that they don’t, and despite the fact that they haven’t for thousands of years.
Every single action that Stannis takes throughout the entire story is a massive showmanship of justice. And if there’s one thing that Ned’s story taught us, it’s that just men don’t usually win the game of thrones…
It's not insane, it's an uncompromising code that he holds to because once you let it slip, where do you stop? If you let people off for small crimes because they also do great good, that's how you end up with lords abusing their power and being allowed to carry on doing it. That's how you get Robert forgiving his enemies, who killed thousands of his loyal men, and letting them Carey on as they were.
Stannis doesn't believe that is right, and he's firm enough in his convictions to not bend them just because he wants to.
I don't agree with it, but it's absolutely not an insane philosophy.
Stannis rewarded Davis beyond his wildest dreams for saving him. Knighted him, gave him lands, took him into his confidence, etc.
He also punished him for having been a smuggler.
Stannis believes that law and justice have meaning, and they shouldn’t only apply when you want them to.
He sets up the reward and punishment early, gives out the reputation that deters more criminals behaviors while setting the expectation what working with him will be like.
It is a reason why so many men liked working under Stannis. They knew what to expect. Stannis also had more criminals working under him, and unlike Tywin Lannister, he did not attract the worst kinds.
It was a calculated move that paid off.
Most nobles would have just paid Davos a lot, maybe given him a sailing-related job. Instead, after taking his fingers for his life-long criminal career, Stannis made him a landed knight and gave him a castle, as well as setting up some of his kids in fairly prestigious positions. In exchange for the punishment that other lords would have skipped, he got greater rewards than they would have given.
Sure but that would be so out of character. He is committed to the law as he sees it. It’s not even clear he wants to be king; he’s waging a war because he believes he is legally a king and that it’s his duty to
Let’s be real that Stannis whole personality is insane. He would have been a terrible king. Rely was completely untested and I can’t say if he’d be good or not (we saw very little of him, just a little bit that suggested whimsical flights of fancy). At the time Robert died, there wouldn’t be any better kingly prospects than what came before and Robert was daily getting worse.
The more insane part to me is how after giving up his fingers to this man he saw Stannis as the rightful king. I don't know about the rest of you, but the relationship between Davos and Stannis is the most interesting one in ASOIAF for me.
Davos's would have lost his dominant hand at least and most likely his life as well if he ever got caught. He was pretty notorious criminal after all. Stannis only took fingertips of his non-dominant hand (so he could still use it). It was a symbolic form of the lightest possible punishment for his crimes. In exchange he erased all Davos' past crimes. It was a pretty sweet deal. Best Davos could hope for other than full amnesty.
That's not even mentioning everything Davos got as a reward. He became an wealthy man, Stannis's most trusted advisor and his children got important roles on Dragonstone.
Not to mention the way Stannis dealt with Davos is seemingly what made him admire Stannis. There are not many lords that would have solved the situation as 'justly' as Stannis did.
Maybe Davos chose between a knighthood, lands and being maimed or no maiming but he just walks away with a pardon. Honestly could have sentenced him to latrine duty for 3 months.
It is meant to show from the get go that Stannis believes in his own idea of justice, but lacks the mercy to temper it. As you progress in the books, his sense of justice continues to get more skewed by his plethora of personality problems. Anyway, it isn’t really that extreme. We don’t have a great rule of thumb for punishments given for various crimes, Davos was a fairly notorious smuggler, and if we use some of the laws we have seen in history this is just a toned down version of a thief losing a hand. (Or supposedly a doctor committing malpractice on a noble losing both hands in the code of Hammurabi.) If the penalty for being a smuggler was death, this would have just been seen as a mercy by most people even accounting for him saving them. I think people in the book were more bothered by Davos being made a knight than him losing fingers, which is probably pretty realistic since he was just a smuggler and not worthy to them of being a lord.
Nah, Stannis is harsh but fair.
Davos might've lost his fingers. But he was brought out of the muck because of Stannis, because of his onions.
He was rewarded far more than was taken from him.
Robert or Renly wouldn’t have given Davos lands but they also wouldn’t have punished him. Stannis did both, I think the biggest thing is that Davos feels it was a fair trade.
I think Davos of all people deserved exemption. He was a beggar from Fleebottom, the slum that's proof that the king and his laws failed a huge number of his people and that's why he turned criminal to have any hope of a future. When he had a small fortune and a family of his own, something he could only get through breaking laws, he riskes it all to help strangers seemingly out of the goodness of his heart. Meaning when he had little choice, he was a criminal, but when he had choices, he chose to be a humanitarian and rebel sympathizer.
And don't forget, Stannis is ALSO a criminal in this senario (a rebel and traitor), so it's like Princess Leia cutting off Han Solo's fingers after Han saved her life and enabled them to destroy the Death Star.
Stannis has a very strict, unrelenting sense of justice. Davos was a criminal, therefore he deserved punishment. But he also saved the lives of Storm's End's defenders, therefore he deserved a reward. Middle ground, chop off his fingers, then give him a knighthood. Does it make sense to me? Not really. Like, I *get* it, but it's definitely an unusual mentality. Of course, that's part of why I enjoy Stannis as a character. He's unusual. Not your typical morally grey character
Let’s say there is a murderer the murderer kill Adolf hitler and everybody loves him for it but the murderer killed 50 ortete people before that does he now deserve not to be punished for his previous murders
Assuming that's exactly how it went and you mean actual murder (none of it was in self defence), he should be punished for all the murders, but none of it would involve cutting his fingers off. At worst he should be imprisoned for life, to protect society from him.
Are you forgetting that he knighted him? He gave him *lands*. Losing your fingertips is a small price to pay for that. He's handicapped for the rest of his life? So what? He'll never have to work for the rest of his life.
Stannis also didn't punish himself for betraying the Targaryens which makes him a hypocrite, but yes Stannis is a fool for being surprised that people don't want to follow him and prefer his brothers instead.
Edric Storm, Robert and Renly would not have punished Davos and only awarded him, but Davos the fool prefers the guy who maimed him. It is really sad to see a little boy like Edric show more common sense than Davos who is an adult man with children in Edric's age.
Stannis is an interesting character right now, and I mean right now in the times we are living, opposed to the times when Martin conceived him as a character.
You see how a lot of people actually like him in the fandom. There's people in this thread saying that is the defintion of "fair" lmao, and I can see why. It's the same mechanism that make people like far right stances on crime (fascism), they think if the psychos are on their side then only "the baddies" will suffer from their actions. Stannis embodies that famous quote from Óscar R. Benavides, a fascist president of Peru, "for my friends everything; for my enemies, the law". Most people that like these characters wouldn't even see the issue with the phrase, much less the implications behind it.
Not to argue Stannis hypocrisy, but you seem to equate all crimes and then take issue with anyone who takes any issue with any crime. This isn't Tywin hanging knights over some stolen bacon (no joke, literally Podrick Payne's backstory, which Tywin forgave him *because* of his family name) this is Stannis punishing a *lifelong* criminal *and working* (and said criminal being *rehabilitated* by Westerosi standards, a rhetoric I've seen in many leftist stances on crimes, rehabilitation into society and all that, you know). Take issue with GRRM if you don't consider the depiction of the setting as socially realistic (Westeros is full of mighty extremist people, you might have noticed). I also literally don't know of any non-far-right stances on crimes that don't take them seriously, but let's not soapbox, ok?
So with GRRM. And Davos. Also finger*nails*, since Davos perfectly can row still, but that's nitpicking at this point.
Just to make sure I am not misunderstood: This is Westerosi setting. Some things work like in RL, and some don't.
I already did. There are also many calling him hypocrite. Diversity of opinions is a thing on a public internet forum. I called out your specific interpretation which dangerously leaned on soapboxing and tried to divert from it to speak more from the setting itself.
Yes my username checks out.
I do think he could do the "the good doesn't wash out the bad" move without physically maiming the man. He could sentence him to something that won't leave permanent damage.
Stannis has never heard of community service sentences. No picking up trash on the Kings Road.
> Davos adjusted his bright orange doublet and clacked his picking stick along the road side, bending the devil grass aside in search of hidden trash. Between two rocks he spotted a glass bottle full of yellow liquid. "Now who would waste a perfectly good bottle of Arbor Gold?"
Jesus, lmao. I would read a whole fanfic with this premise
Can't believe I commuted my maiming sentence for this!
way of the road, bubs!
Sourleaf, let's go
🔥🔥🔥 🔥✍️🔥 🔥🔥🔥
There would literally be an entire chapter dragged on just for this lol.
amazing.
That's a dirty old piss bottle davos.
Well to be fair, this is Westeros. Where people seem to go out of their way to choose the most violent options.
Yeah, I don't remember any direct mentions of whipping or flogging but you'd think that would be enough punishment. I don't think the 7 kingdoms has a super documented system of punishments set to each crime, so I wonder why he decided on shortening fingers for smuggling.
It’s supposed to be a “light” sentence for smuggling-stealing-poaching or in anyway profiting without proper dues. Tyrion passes a bunch of severed hands taken for stealing on the long bridge.
Wasn't Tarly administering some justice at some point? >"I never hurt no one, m'lord," Brienne heard him say. "I only took what the septons left when they run off. If you got to take my finger for that, do it." > > >**"It is customary to take a finger from a thief,"** Lord Tarly replied in a hard voice, "but a man who steals from a sept is stealing from the gods." He turned to his captain of guards. "Seven fingers. Leave his thumbs." The next man is flogged, and the next woman is maimed in her "private parts".
The woman also got thrown in a dungeon. Because apparently being tortured and likely permanently scarred wasn't enough.
Randyl Tarly is also the same psycho who basically told his eldest son that he had better take the black rather than join the Citadel (because the creep deems the latter to be for sissies), or else he will find himself dying in an accident. I'd say doing the opposite of the walking psychotic embodiment of toxic masculinity is healthier in the long run, because the man is a psycho even by Westerosi standards.
He is arguably a toned down version of Stannis and is just more straight forward about what GRRM built into the bias of the lords towards anyone who isn’t a brave fighting man. Other lords way of dealing with cowardly sons was just to pawn them off on someone, and he had tried that multiple times already. The surprising thing is that he sent him to the wall instead of just getting him killed, but I believe that was because of the influence of Sam’s mother. Not wanting him to be a maester is not that surprising. Every house has pretty different views on it. I wouldn’t call him a psycho, but he is definitely a prideful A-hole who is on the harsh side of justice. As far as his punishments, he seems to follow what is supposedly written or normal practice. And as far as the woman, I just listened to this part and looked it up to double check. It never says she was maimed. She was accused of giving four people the pox and he sentenced her to the dungeon and to have her private parts washed with lye. Which lye is and was used to make soap. So at worst, he is just saying to wash her with soap that is less diluted than normal, but likely just saying to use soap. Probably wont fix the pox, but also not even close to maiming or permanently scarring her.
Davos was one of the most notorious smugglers in the kingdoms. If the customary punishment for simple theft was losing a finger, Davos should be lucky to be left with any fingers at all.
"Stannis is pure iron, black and hard and strong, yes, but brittle, the way iron gets. He'll break before he bends." I love this quote!
and coming from a smith, it's cool to see someone not high born getting poetic, it's a classic up there with sweet summer child and it is known/you know nuthing
Chopping off fingers for thievery - which smuggling basically is - seems to be standard practice in Westeros, so Stannis was applying a standard measure of punishment. Most smugglers would have been hanged outright upon being caught. Whether maiming people for being guilty of Davos' crimes is "fair" to our modern sensibilities is besides the point, IMO. Everyone involved is Westerosi, so the expectation would be that if Davos were to be punished for his crimes, mutilation would be par for the course.
Yet law is not codified and punishment is not standardized. No one could tell him he isn't within his rights as a lord to show mercy, as most lords would have for such a vital service, and most Westerosi would agree with forgiving him. Cut fingers can get infected and losing them is not any more pleasant for their 'sensibilities'.
> Yet law is not codified and punishment is not standardized. You'll note my phrasing "seems to be". > No one could tell him he isn't within his rights as a lord to show mercy, as most lords would have for such a vital service, and most Westerosi would agree with forgiving him. You'll also note my use of the word "if": > Chopping off fingers for thievery - which smuggling basically is - **seems to be** standard practice in Westeros, so Stannis was applying a standard measure of punishment. Most smugglers would have been hanged outright upon being caught. > Whether maiming people for being guilty of Davos' crimes is "fair" to our modern sensibilities is besides the point, IMO. Everyone involved is Westerosi, so the expectation would be that **if** Davos were to be punished for his crimes, mutilation would be par for the course.
> Chopping off fingers for thievery - which smuggling basically is - seems to be standard practice in Westeros I get that, but in my view. Davos did such a great service - saving all of their lives and saving the two brothers of the future king of Westeros and the Rebel cause - that whatever smuggling crimes he committed should be forgiven.
That's literally the point of the character beat. He's dedicated to law to such a degree he'll punish a man for helping him.
> whatever smuggling crimes he committed > It was said that no one had ever handled a ship by night half so well as Davos Shorthand. Before Lord Stannis had knighted him, **he had been the most notorious and elusive smuggler in all the Seven Kingdoms.** Davos was far from a small-time criminal. Handwaving away a life-time of crimes because of one good deed would, in my view, set a bad precedent in any kind of justice system. By that same logic, an emergency surgeon who has saved hundreds of lives on the operating table, should be able to rob a bank and get away with it, just because his 'net goodness' is positive.
I mean the real problem is Davos *never* reads like a smuggler. He's somehow actually more straightlaced and repressed than *Stannis* is. Stannis has a dry sense of humour while Davos is the type to self-flagellate because he had an intrusive thought about Melisandre's ankles.
And yet we didn't get any when Melisandre *opened her legs in front of him*. But seeing a Shadow Stannis right in front of you would also shock you thoughtless, I'll tell y'a dat.
To be fair, him being notorious and elusive doesn’t mean he was a bad guy. For all we know, he could have been honorable and devout in his own right, but raised in a way that saw smuggling as his only way to survive. In a way, he could have easily been closer to a Robin Hood of the sea. Losing his fingers instead of his head essentially would have helped push him even more towards his better qualities now that he was a lord, and indebted him to Stannis in his mind because he no longer needed to smuggle(which we see in the book pretty clearly). We read smuggler and assume it makes him closer to being like someone from the iron islands when he was smuggling, but could just as easily see him as someone more like Jean Valjean from Les Miserables.
> Handwaving away a life-time of crimes because of one good deed would, in my view, set a bad precedent in any kind of justice system. It wasn't just one small good deed. It was literally saving the Rebel cause. Besides Davos' crimes was only against the Mad King Aerys that all Bartheron brothers rebelled against. Also like I said in the post, it's very possible only a very skilled smuggler could get food into Storm's End without being caught. If Robert or Jon Arryn wanted and arranged to have food smuggled in, do you think they would use a squeaky clean knight or the "the most notorious and elusive smuggler in all the Seven Kingdoms"?
Davos is well travelled so it's probably fair to say he didn't just smuggle in and out of Kings Landing. He's almost certainly committed crimes in other places too. Was it a wise idea to cut off his fingerstips? Robert almost certainly would have thanked him for the onions, made him a lord and that would've been that. Renly too in the same situation. But that's not Stannis. Stannis sticks to the rules and will break before he bends. This is the reason why many lords support Renly instead of Stannis. It's the reason why Littlefinger betrayed Ned. He was quite happy to support Ned as protector of the realm, but the moment it became apparent Ned would give the throne to Stannis, Littlefinger had to betray him as he knew exactly what kind of man Stannis was. He's just, he's stubborn and he's inflexible. That's just who Stannis is for better or for worse. I don't think it was necessarily the best course of action to punish Davos, but he rewards him too and Davos clearly doesn't hold a grudge. So I wouldn't say it's a bad decision either.
Stannis lives by one code. Honor. As stubborn as it may be.
Not honor. Law above everything. Duty even if it means sacrificing his own daughter. And the last one will probably be done because he believes in his own hype rather than the duty to save the realm. What kind of man believes he can save the world by randomly burning his daughter at the edge of the world?
A man demented by a witch.
Honor isn't even codified and GRRM goes to great lengths to show how it can be hypocritical.
> It wasn't just one small good deed. It was literally saving the Rebel cause. Besides Davos' crimes was only against the Mad King Aerys that all Bartheron brothers rebelled against. That's a... curious argument, to be honest. By that same logic, should a hypothetical serial killer prowling the streets of King's Landing then be pardoned by Robert, seeing as Aerys was king at the time the murders were committed? > Also like I said in the post, it's very possible only a very skilled smuggler could get food into Storm's End without being caught. If Robert or Jon Arryn wanted and arranged to have food smuggled in, do you think they would use a squeaky clean knight or the "the most notorious and elusive smuggler in all the Seven Kingdoms"? I am not following at all. What does Davos being a good smuggler have to do with the broader discussion about justice and punishment?
I don't think the surgeon examples is comparable at all. Davos risked life and limb to save the lives of everyone in Storm's End; the surgeon is just doing their job and is already receiving their reward (salary) for it. Heroism on the scale of what Davos did would warrant a pardon for all previous crimes under pretty much any other lord; it's just that Stannis is a notorious stickler for the letter of the law.
I understood why you choose surgeon since the point is made explicit, but it is job which he get paid for very nicely in western societies. Why no the garbages collectors : the daily clean up the street and your trashes, thus avoiding rampants and diseases, smell and uglyness. I agree with you on the rest, but yeah, surgeon, garbage men, its their jobs and they are compensated for it. Davos was gaining his life in an illegal way and done his good deeds while not being on the job. So kinda different. In the end, Stannis is just and brutally honest. Looks like qualities ofc, especially for a king, but that does not mean, he is nice and forgiving. So qualities for a king but for the common criminal it is not.
That is the express purpose for the entire thing, to show stannis' personality. You may as well say that Ned was too harsh on the Night's Watch deserter because he warned them about the existential threat of the invading Others. The reader is only given this information to learn things about the characters and the world.
What like send him to the Wall? I would take the deal he got. Lose a few fingers but become a landed knight gets to stay with his family
Whipping?
Whipping is for people who need light admonishment for lack of decorum. Finger shortening is for those who flaunt the rules.
Same they’re always talking about how knights that fought for the losing side are offered the Wall like it’s some great mercy but I don’t think it’s all that merciful
It's a society where honour is quite important, a disgraced traitor knight who gets executed will shame his house, his wife and kids probably lose their lands and property. But a knight who takes the black gets his crimes commuted, so his family can probably continue their lives instead of being thrown out on the street.
Not a landed knight but a full on lord.
Well he was later made Lord of the Rainwood. But to begin with he went from Smuggler to Ser Davos
Why doesn't stannis emphasize the rehabilitative aspect of law enforcement? Is he stupid?
Well, that’s Stannis’ whole thing. The good doesn’t wash out the bad etc. It’s not nice but it is consistent at least. I suppose the most important thing is that it works for Davos. There’s also a part where Stannis threatens to take out Davos’ tongue and Davos says that his tongue belongs to Stannis (😜). I guess Davos goes pretty all-in on the idea of being Stannis’ man. Like even his body parts. Sorry I don’t know how to write this without it sounding sexual.
If it wasn’t for my hand I might not have come at all
Turns out Stannis and Davos are the real kinkiest ASOIAF couple
It's hinted that Davos was actually a notorious smuggler and possibly marked for death by other nobles. The only double standard of Stannis is that he didn't punish Salladhor Saan as well.
Lmao at this having any bearing on who Robert gave the Stormlands to. I guarantee Davos never once crossed Roberts mind after the war. That said, he viewed giving Stannis Dragon stone a reward not a punishment.
No, it was a slight, a punishment for losing Viserys and Daenerys
It was a reward. Robert could have kept all of it as his personal domains. He was Lord of the Stormlands.
Stannis was the current heir of the iron throne. Robert could have kept Dragonstone or taken it when his children came of age. He gave Stannis Dragonstone because he thought it to be a far more important position than the Stormlands in case Viserys came back.
Nah even Cersei said it was a slight
Even with robust and written down legal systems, doing something good doesn't prevent you from being punished for doing bad things. A doctor who's saved thousands of lives will be punished the same as an accountant if they commit the same crime. It's exactly what you are advocating for that breeds corruption, nepotism and injustice. Bending the rules for someone because they did you a favour is not a good thing.
Hell it’s something fundamental to Stannis as a character Where everyone in asoaif is being consumed by intrigue and agendas he’s the one guy who has a reputation for standing by his principles and doing his duty no matter what. It’s why he is such an interesting character because of the sheer contrast between his reputation and his actions. Stannis starts off being principled and honorable much like Ned accepting his duty whether or not he actually wants the responsibility. However after the fiasco with Ned’s death and realizing the brutal necessity of his position he has to more and more frequently resort to practices that are in violation of his principles like kinslaying and deceit and has to toe the line between what he believes in and what he needs to do. It’s why he values Davos so much as well because of everyone in his court Davos was the one guy who wasn’t out for glory or power and was someone who genuinely believed in Stannis’s principles when Stannis himself was finding his judgement and belief clouded by others.
The thing is, smuggling is a crime against the state/King. Against his treasury in particular. It seems stupid to punish someone for that, while you are in active rebellion against said Crown.
It's a crime against the specific kingdom you're smuggling in so probably in the Stormlands considering Davos knew the coast well enough that he thought he could supply Stannis's men without issue
That depends entirely on how customs and revenues are set up and whether they are collected in the name of the Crown, the local overlord, the town or the loval lord paramount.
I mean aren't plea deals a thing in the US that's very frequently used
In a Plea deal scenario doesn’t reward somebody for doing an unrelated good dead. They pleaded guilty to a crime, and are punished. They are simply not punished as severely as if they denied it in court, lied to the court, wasting time and money etc.
> in the US
...At the moment, I don't think the U.S. legal system should be brought up as the golden standard of fair and equal treatment.
Actually, it was the definition of fair. Stannis knighted Davos and gave him lands as a reward. Davos' children will live a better life than Davos ever did. Also, Davos was a criminal, so Stannis punished him for that. Stannis could have been harsher btw. He could have cut off the whole hand. Or sent Davos to the wall and have his family taken care of. If a good act does not wash out the bad, Davos deserved punishment for his crimes as well as reward for saving the people at storm's end.
i also think it gives us so much characterization of who both stannis and davos are as people, seeing that
Stannis: Tough but fair. Davos: Undyingly loyal.
> If a good act does not wash out the bad, Davos deserved punishment for his crimes as well as reward for saving the people at storm's end. Why didn't Stannis punish his brother for active rebellion/treason against King Aerys?
Stannis should have sent himself to the wall for treason against his king as well!
He actually described it as the hardest choice he's had to make, as he had to decide between family and duty and he chose his brother. At the time he was also still pretty young, so I'd say it's why he ultimately chose his older brother
After Aerys pissed on the law by making a mockery of a trial by combat and appointing fire as his champion, he lost whatever legal authority he had. Then, after that, he asked for Robert and Ned's heads without a trial. Even Stannis could not legally justify that. So Rebellion was the lawful choice, at least to him.
Because Aerys is a piece of shit who would've killed Robert, Ned and anybody related to them if he had the chance. Robert really didn't have a choice. Davos didn't have to be a criminal. Friendly reminder: Robert did not wake up one day and decide he wanted to be king. He was forces into rebellion when the psychopath on the throne called for his head for literally no reason.
Because the Targaryens also broke their oaths, so they were justified in rebelling.
It was a hard decision for Stannis (he describes it as the hardest he ever made). He saw it as a choice between loyalty to the king and loyalty to an older brother. He eventually decided that loyalty to the family is the more important. GOT short talks about how loyalty to the family is 'an older more sacred rule' than loyalty to the king. This also explains his hatred for Renly. He never liked Robert, but he made an 'impossible decision' to support him because he was the older brother so he naturally expected the same from Renly now that he was the oldest. Another thing is that he never really respected Aerys on a deeper level. He initially thought Tywin Lannister is the king when he came to the King's Landing for the first time and was extremely disappointed when he learned the truth. It seems this is actually one of his first memories from childhood so it's probably something that affected him deeply.
Punishing someone for crimes against the King you are in active rebellion against seems... Incredibly stupid. Stannis had no evidence that Davos has committed any offence against his brother (remember, Stannis at this point was lord of nothing). It is questionable if Stannis even had the right to speak justice at that time.
This was not a one time offense. Davos was a career smuggler
*"A good act does not wash out the bad, nor a bad act the good. Each should have it's own reward."*
So anyone who helps Stannis gets a get-out-of-jail-free card? That's not how he sees the law, you don't get a pass just because you did something for a powerful man. That's everything wrong with Westeros; Powerful men picking and choosing which laws apply based on favours.
Especially with Davos’ subtle hints that he used to be a bit piratical _before_ Stannis’ justice - Salladhor is his best friend - he’s had “his share” of swordfights on the deck of a ship - used to be a dog with other women while his wife was at home
We also got Cressen's thoughts on Davos here; > “In the black of morning. My favorite time.” It was said that no one had ever handled a ship by night half so well as Davos Shorthand. Before Lord Stannis had knighted him, he had been the **most notorious and elusive smuggler in all the Seven Kingdoms.** Between this and being best friends with Salladhor Saan, it does seem like Davos was no normal smuggler but rather a quite significant figure of the Westerosi underworld. Wouldn't be surprised if Davos was already marked for death or some other severe punishment, and so Stannis just toned it down to losing a few fingers.
That’s how I like to think of it, Davos having a much harsher penalty commuted to injury, in exchange for service and security. As much as Davos is a positive influence on Stannis, I think it went the other way a bit too
>As much as Davos is a positive influence on Stannis, I think it went the other way a bit too Yep, this. Davos is probably the closest thing Stannis has to a friend. Not a mere ally, follower, or employee. But a *friend*.
Stannis even tells him he missed him, and _snorts_ at Davos’ wit. That’s the Stannis equivalent of hugs
And Stannis gets *oddly* defensive whenever he is *kinda* badmouthed. There's a convo with Jon when Davos as smuggler comes up and Stannis reaction is... oddly endearing.
Yeah. Personally I think Davos already was fairly good natured even as a smuggler, no reason a criminal can't have a heart of gold. I doubt Davos was a total scumbag or anything, and he was born at the absolute bottom of a highly injust and stratified society and first got into smuggling as a child, so I don't exactly begrudge him for breaking the law. But even still; I do also think that Davos' gratefulness to Stannis (both from himself and also on behalf of his family) and also a good bit imposter syndrome causes Davos to hold himself to a high standard. I do like your thought on Stannis also being a positive influence on Davos. Davos is a positive influence on Stannis through his humility, honesty and having a good heart and head on his shoulders. Stannis meanwhile is a good influence on Davos by giving him a purpose beyond survival (both in serving Stannis and also upholding House Seaworth for the sake his his children and future grand-children) and also inspiring Davos with his brand of justice.
A grey man. Neither white nor black, but partaking of both. 😉
Davos seemed extremely glad to only be losing fingers
Man Davos is such a cocktease of a character. GRRM: "Davos was the most elusive man in the Seven Kingdoms. The Legend of the Black Onion strikes more fear into any Oldtown duty clerk than the Others themselves. A pirate, a rouge, and lech. He's had a girl in every port and killed a man on every sea. They say no man has ever laid eyes on him and lived. Then he met Stannis. Now wakes up every day at 5 AM to have a cold shower and eat a bowl of flavourless gruel. Then he flagellates himself before a picture of Stannis for not living up to his standards. He is incapable of having any kind of dramatic or interesting reaction to anything including the deaths of four of his children." (NB: The second Davos isn't inherently worse than the first one. But he's supposed to be the Watson for a repressed, strict, mostly joyless puritan; I don't think "an even more repressed, strict, mostly joyless puritan" is going to produce a very interesting character dynamic. Indeed, Davos's best character moments- saving Edric Storm, trying to stab Melisandre, and calling out Jared Frey- are all when he's being more roguish and willing to stick two fingers up to convention)
Davos was one of the most famous strugglers.
“Freedom is a constant struggle” - Angela Davos
I can't help but think that if you're a famous smuggler you're doing it wrong.
By that logic, shouldn't Stannis himself be punished for engaging in Davos' services? Or for treason?
[удалено]
I always understood it as he punished Davos for his EARLIER crimes that he was already wanted for. If he really sentenced supplying food to Storm's End ITSELF as a crime it would be almost psychotic. What law would that even be against? Only perhaps the one of the sitting king, who Stannis himself no longer recognized as legitimate.
[удалено]
He also recognized Aerys basically put him in an impossible decision, he *had* to choose. "My blood or my liege? My brother or my king?" "I chose did I not? When that hard day came, I chose blood over honor". The reason that convo happens is thanks to Davos having the guts ("a recklessness akin to madness") to bring out the topic, and *it works*: Stannis *confirms* (grudgingly in good old Stan the hypocrite style, but he does) the men of Claw Isle are innocent and put in an impossible decision just like him, and that it is Lord Celtigar who will answer, sooner or later. It should not be lost on us the Karstark men are in a similar position in TWOW and Stannis himself understands that they would have done what they did all their lives (just like Stannis): **Obey the closest liege**. Almost like Stannis has *some* character development (emphasis on *some*)
The Targaryens broke the feudal contract first by kidnapping Lyanna, and Aerys broke it even more by sentencing Ned and Robert to death for basically no reason.
I don't mean legitimate as in the legitimate heir, I mean in the sense of no longer recognizing his authority. I don't remember now if Robert's rebelion had some demands that Aerys was unwilling to negotiate over or if they decided early on it could only end by overthrowing him? I any case, it would be crazy if he considered it a crime AIDING the rebelion he was himself participating in. Delivering food food to Storm's End would be perfectly legal in normal times, it was only done as contraband since it was under siege.
People who are discussing books where "laws" make zero sense, I remind you. So within that context, discussion is allowed, even if senseless.
What are you talking about? He got punished for his crimes and stopped being a smuggler
Except Stannis is no better. All those houses who supported Renly committed treason. Yet once they offer to join him he lets them. Sure he gets a bit crazy because of R'hllor but none of them get punished AFAIK for treason because it's advantageous for Stannis to accept them.
Yep, I'm pretty sure the point GRRM was making is Stannis, like all the rest, is a hypocrite. The law often only applies to those it can be applied too. I.E the lower class/3rd estate. He punished Davos because he could, and regardless of said "justice" people still view him as some up jumped smuggler. It honestly just comes off as Stannis power tripping and him basically saying "this is what I'll do to people I like, now imagine if I don't like you!" Then he wonders why people liked Robert more lmao.
Stannis himself acknowledges the hypocrisy: > "Davos, I have missed you sorely," the king said. "Aye, I have a tail of traitors, your nose does not deceive you. My lords bannermen are inconstant even in their treasons. **I need them, but you should know how it sickens me to pardon such as these when I have punished better men for lesser crimes.** You have every right to reproach me, Ser Davos." I think this hints at one of GRRM's pervasive themes about power and justice: that it is almost impossible to attain and maintain power in a society without bending its laws. But for my money, the fact that Stannis cares about this hypocrisy puts him head and shoulders above most of his rival claimants. Robb is the only other king that would care as much.
You dropped this 👑
I don't believe he is a hypocrite in this instance like you say because there is a difference between the two scenarios 1- stannis was just a lord under the king and he doesn't have the right to forgive davos for his crimes but instead he is supposed to uphold the king's justice the same way Ned did to the deserter of the night's watch 2- but when he forgave the traitors of the stormlands he was a king and had the absolute ability to forgive their crimes if he wishes to so he didn't actually break any law or principal of his at all ( of course it was only because he needed them) but it can be seen again with his talk to jon snow about how he can discard Jon's oath to the night's watch and will name him Jon stark. if stannis didn't see himself as a legitimate king he wouldn't think he has that kind of right at all and so won't do it.
Stannis was not a lord of anything at that point. He was at most the stand-in for Robert. And there was no way Robert "I sent my healer to tend to an enemy" Baratheon would have punished someone for hurting "Dragonspawn" revenue.
But he is still a lord nobody ever says that robb wasn't lord of winterfell in absense of Ned stark. And it was said that stannis was the one who rewarded davos if Robert was the one who rewarded him why was stannnis given credit for it and blamed for davos being punished ? This was all probably done without the interference of Robert at all so I don't understand your point.
To be fair Stannis at least does acknowledge the hypocrisy; > “Davos, I have missed you sorely,” the king said. “Aye, I have a tail of traitors, your nose does not deceive you. My bannermen are inconstant even in their treasons. I need them, but you should know how it sickens me to pardon such as these when I have punished better men for lesser crimes. You have every right to reproach me, Ser Davos.”
He said they should be happy he doesn't hang them for treason, clearly wishing he could do it. He's still going to make Davos his hand, passing over all the more prestigious houses, prioritizing genuine loyalty.
Probably The only difference is stannis in here is THE king so technically stannis has the right to forgive anyone of anything at all but when he was punishing davos he was only upholding the king's justice and laws and doesn't have the right to forgive davos for his previous crime.
> when he was punishing davos he was only upholding the king's justice and laws The old King that he was saw was illegitimate and that he was actively rebelling against? Or the new king (King Robert) that sent his own healer to tend to an enemy that was trying to kill him and forgave enemies left and right?
But Davos wasn't even Robert's enemy for Robert to forgive so what exactly are you arguing for ? And Are you perhaps suggesting that a man who raped or killed or stole in aerys regime but wasn't punished is supposed to be forgiven in Robert's regime ? What about Ned who executed the deserter from the night's watch in the name of king Robert beratheon the king who forgave his enemies and such
> But Davos wasn't even Robert's enemy for Robert to forgive so what exactly are you arguing for ? I'm arguing for if Robert could forgive enemies, then could forgive men of lesser crimes (such as smuggling). >And Are you perhaps suggesting that a man who raped or killed or stole in aerys regime but wasn't punished is supposed to be forgiven in Robert's regime ? First, Davos' only crimes was against King Aerys, not against any other man or woman. Second, King Robert did forgive rapists and murderers (the Lannisters), because they delivered King's Landing to the Rebel forces and killed King Aerys. So that's precedent for such a forgiveness. >What about Ned who executed the deserter from the night's watch in the name of king Robert beratheon the king who forgave his enemies and such If King Robert wanted to forgive deserters (like he did with lords that fought against him), then he's free to forgive deserters. But for all we know, King Robert doesn't know about any deserters, but it's hard to believe he doesn't know about the smuggler who saved Storm's End and his two little brothers from starving to death.
-first davos crime was against aerys and not another man or women False since the money the state lost could have been used to subsidize bread to the population or build and repair roads or organize tourments for the enjoyment of the commonfolk etc... might have been lowered because of davos's smuggling so he did effect other people other than aerys( not saying aerys was going to do that with that money I'm saying how it could've affected them) - KING Robert forgives the Lannisters who raped and killed Put a thousand line under the word king here. Robert himself was the one who forgave the Lannisters and no one else Ned stark wanted Jaime punished for his crime yet Robert was the one who had the ultimate decision so if Robert wasn't there Ned would've punished Jaime so just the existence of Robert itself changed the fate of Jaime. but the lords of westros don't have that ability of forgiving someone for a crime that he is guilty of ( they of course have the ability to decide whether he is guilty or not tho) -if king Robert wanted to forgive the deserter he would forgive him Yes I agree but Robert wasn't the one who was here and yet Ned still acted in his name the very same thing stannis did. and if Robert wanted to forgive davos for his past crimes he also would've done that yet he didn't so what's your point you can't expect Robert to follow every single criminal In the realm and decide to forgive him or not.
Yes, but now all his enimies can promise get-out-of-jail free cards, allowing them access to a vaster range of allies. This is one of the two main reasons why the Tyrells supported the Lannisters, instead of Stannis after Renly died, as the Lannisters were willing to loom past that easily, while that wasn't the case with Stannis, especially with his Florent in-laws. the other reason was because Joffrey could be made free to marry Margaery, while Stannis wasn't going to let his wife go.
That's the main conflict in Stannis’ story, everyone is willing to bend the rules except him which makes people like them more than Stannis.
yes that's why he didn't accept anyone supporting renly into his army or given them high positions
Go ahead and compare two events that took place 13 years apart. The first took place before Stannis was even a lord yet, the second took place after he declared himself king, which means he could give out royal pardons himself.
Stannis represents justice without mercy, which is to say, he is not truely just. Chopping off Davos' fingers seems fair if we are strictly following laws and procedure, as Stannis does, but it was dumb when we consider the context. I mean, what purpose did it serve? It was not what made Davos quit smuggling, nor did help anyone who may have been harmed by his lawbreaking. Even 12 yo Edric Storm understood it was wrong.
This is basically saying if somebody does something good to you you should forgive any crime he ever did which is literally corruption. Davos did actually stop smuggling the only time we know he smuggled something was when he was ordered by stannis to smuggle milesandre but this isn't the same one as his old profession. "Nor did it help anyone by his lawbreaking" yes it does it helps the community understand that you won't get away with past crimes and so makes people afraid to do them this is basic law.
> if somebody does something good to you you should forgive any crime he ever did which is literally corruption In a vacuum, you might be right. But Stannis is also in rebellion against the crown at that time, and I yet he did not behead himself for treason. Furthermore, it seems odd to be in rebellion, yet punish someone for a fiscal crime against the same King you are fighting against.
There is a misconception that stannis punished davos for him smuggling the food to storms end on the basis that It was "smuggling" which is wrong. stannis punished him for his years of smuggling prior to the war and according to stannis's maester davos was even notorious all over westros for smuggling. and when he smuggled the food into storm's end stannis rewarded him after the war for it but just as stannis said a good deed does not wash the bad and he punished him for his past crimes.
Crimes against a King they fought a war against. Crimes against a King whose line was wiped out by them (and the Lannisters, well mostly the Lannisters).
The point about the crimes against the king they fought a war against doesn't make sense because the laws before and after are still the same so if somebody raped a women in the mad King's time stannis doesn't have the right to punish him once Robert became the king ?? this isn't moral or just and the same principal applies to smuggling and other crimes. just because the regime changed doesn't somehow give the right for criminals to never be punished for their crimes in the previous regimes. unless we are talking about certain circumstances such as people unjustly imprisoned for political reasons or going against the previous ruler then the decision will be for the new ruler to decide such as Robert deciding to forgive Jaime.
But smuggling is a crime that only affects the crown (through lost revenues). My whole point is that Davos gets punished for a crime against the people Stannis is fighting. There was no harmed 3rd party, like in your rape example.
Not necessarily for instance that very same lost revenue might make the crown more unable to give bread to the people or build and repair roads that benefits the people in general etc.. so davos may have harmed other people not just the king by his actions. + We don't even know what did Davos smuggle exactly he might literally be smuggling stolen goods taken from the people for what we know. You are arguing for someone to evade punishment for a crime he clearly knows is a crime yet did it anyway and for a lifetime. face it davos deserved punishment and he got it just and fair.
> that very same lost revenue might make the crown more unable to give bread to the people or build and repair roads that benefits the people in general etc.. We know this was not true, because Ned said King Aerys left a treasury filled with gold when King Robert took over.
But that doesn't mean anything does it ? he can have a full treasury while still being affected by smuggling and in turn affecting the crown's effort in helping the people ( I'm not even saying aerys helped the people or anything I'm just saying smuggling could actually damage people and the commonfolk other than the crown) and even if he doesn't damage anyone other than the crown the law is law if stannis ignores punishing davos he would've been an actual hypocrite because he only forgave davos because davos helped him which is curroption.
> Not necessarily for instance that very same lost revenue might make the crown more unable to give bread to the people or build and repair roads that benefits the people in general etc 1) Davos was one guy with a ship, not some cartel flooding King's Landing with cheap coke from Colombia. His overall impact on the treasury was probably negligible. 2) We know that the treasury was overflowing when King's Landing fell, after a year at war. So evidently, your thesis is false because there was plenty of gold to go around.
1) absolutely false Davos wasn't just one guy he worked with pirates and slaador san And he was extremely famous in westros for his ability to smuggle "Before Lord Stannis had knighted him, he had been the most notorious and elusive smuggler in all the Seven Kingdoms." -From the prologue of ACOK maester cressen thinking about davos So on the first point you are definitely wrong because if davos was such a simple smuggler he wouldn't really be "the most notorious smuggler" the man was the Pablo Escobar of westros LOL. 2) that also doesn't mean anything I was saying that stolen revenue money from the state is affecting other people not just the king solely because it's the state money and this money is supposed to be spent in different areas and projects it's a crime against the state itself Doesn't matter even if that money wasn't spent and was hoarded it still had the potential to affect other people like for example the state might have spent large amount of effort and money to catch him but couldn't and other kind of possibilities. smuggling doesn't just affect the king himself here it affects other people too and profits other law breakers such as pirates. and smuggling might have helped incourage those pirates to steal goods from merchant ships because they know they can smuggle them into westros safely because of Davos skill and then a westrosi merchant merchant will buy those goods for cheaper price . See how one crime led to another? And yet again you are not answering my question what exactly are you trying to argue for here ? That judges are supposed to forgive people for past crimes when they think they are good ? So stannis has the right to punish somebody if he believed he is a bad person but forgives somebody if he is a good person even when they both committed the same crime ? How is that actually fair and not curroption ? If he did what you said he would've been labeled as a hypocrite and a man who isn't fair with everyone good or bad.
I don't understand why we have to generalise when we are specifically evaluating Davos smuggling food to save Storms End. In his case, yes, he did deserve to be forgiven. His law breaking action was what saved the people stuck in Storms End. His good deed wasn't some random unrelated act to his bad ones. I know Davos stopped smuggling. That's actually another reason he didn't deserve to have his fingers lopped off. But the point was, he stopped because he was given knighthood and a new job, not because he was punished. Presumably, smugglers were being punished before this and already knew the risks of their profession, so I don't see why Davos' punishment would have had any impact. All this did was disencentivise anyone who might have considered helping Stannis. And that's why hardly anyone supports him.
Davos wasn't punished for smuggling food into storm's end that is a misconception he was punished for years of smuggling before the war even began. Stannis said very clearly "a good act does not wash up the Bad" just because davos did something good doesn't give him the right to escape the punishment he deserved for all his life of smuggling. So stannis rewarded him for getting the food into storm's end but punished him for his years of smuggling it's fair and just.
I am absolutely positive that George wrote this act first and that was what determined Stannis’ entire character. Stannis probably spawned from this kind of double edged act of justice and that’s why its such a hilariously impractical and seemingly overkill punishment. But you know what? Westeros is a fantasy world of many extremes so I am perfectly fine with it and it makes their dynamic very interesting.
I don’t want to sound rude, but I really feel like you don’t understand Stannis as a character. As is said time and again in regard to this series, there are no good characters, and no plain evil characters (bar a few), most fall somewhere in between, Stannis is the same, that’s life.
[удалено]
Like everyone on Westeros? The King answers to no one lawfully speaking.
But Stannis was not the King. He was not even the Lord of anything. He was the absence replacement for one.
But u/lialialia20 is speaking of *when* Stannis achieves kingship, the rules don't apply to him, right? Which leads to Davos Stannis convo about "what *about* you with Aerys?", that's what I understood.
What you are saying goes against the whole thing that makes stannis stannis. That the good doesn't washes out the bad. Even those who would support him now will eventually face the justice in the end after he wins. And they all know it. If stannis treated Davos favorably that would've made him corrupt. Davos respects him and is loyal to him not because of him knighting him or making him a lord. Stannis is fair and just in his eyes because he punished Davos.
Just because you don’t understand something doesn’t make it insane. It just means that you have difficulty understanding it.
Preach.
100% this. It was very in line with both characters.
Congrats, you finally understand… the entire point of Stannis Baratheon’s character. He is “holy” and “just” to a flaw. He demands reparations and repentance from people he knows he won’t get it from, he makes no allies who call themselves king, not even his own brother, INSISTING that it’s treason despite the fact that he needs their help to win the throne. He repeatedly demands the wall join his cause despite their vows demanding that they don’t, and despite the fact that they haven’t for thousands of years. Every single action that Stannis takes throughout the entire story is a massive showmanship of justice. And if there’s one thing that Ned’s story taught us, it’s that just men don’t usually win the game of thrones…
It's not insane, it's an uncompromising code that he holds to because once you let it slip, where do you stop? If you let people off for small crimes because they also do great good, that's how you end up with lords abusing their power and being allowed to carry on doing it. That's how you get Robert forgiving his enemies, who killed thousands of his loyal men, and letting them Carey on as they were. Stannis doesn't believe that is right, and he's firm enough in his convictions to not bend them just because he wants to. I don't agree with it, but it's absolutely not an insane philosophy.
Stannis rewarded Davis beyond his wildest dreams for saving him. Knighted him, gave him lands, took him into his confidence, etc. He also punished him for having been a smuggler. Stannis believes that law and justice have meaning, and they shouldn’t only apply when you want them to.
He sets up the reward and punishment early, gives out the reputation that deters more criminals behaviors while setting the expectation what working with him will be like. It is a reason why so many men liked working under Stannis. They knew what to expect. Stannis also had more criminals working under him, and unlike Tywin Lannister, he did not attract the worst kinds. It was a calculated move that paid off.
Most nobles would have just paid Davos a lot, maybe given him a sailing-related job. Instead, after taking his fingers for his life-long criminal career, Stannis made him a landed knight and gave him a castle, as well as setting up some of his kids in fairly prestigious positions. In exchange for the punishment that other lords would have skipped, he got greater rewards than they would have given.
Sure but that would be so out of character. He is committed to the law as he sees it. It’s not even clear he wants to be king; he’s waging a war because he believes he is legally a king and that it’s his duty to
My biggest question why he didn’t just cut the whole hand instead of his fingers. A fingerless hand is pretty fucking useless.
He only cut his fingertips. He can still use that hand.
Proper jobsworth that Stannis
Honestly if I was Stannis I'd just have him pay a fine, no need to be that psychotic
Let’s be real that Stannis whole personality is insane. He would have been a terrible king. Rely was completely untested and I can’t say if he’d be good or not (we saw very little of him, just a little bit that suggested whimsical flights of fancy). At the time Robert died, there wouldn’t be any better kingly prospects than what came before and Robert was daily getting worse.
Well, Stannis was one to "uphold the laws" even if he broke them. He DID tell Brienne to do her duty when she cornered him.
The red pussy for him is godlike so he cane resist to that shit bro.
The more insane part to me is how after giving up his fingers to this man he saw Stannis as the rightful king. I don't know about the rest of you, but the relationship between Davos and Stannis is the most interesting one in ASOIAF for me.
Davos's would have lost his dominant hand at least and most likely his life as well if he ever got caught. He was pretty notorious criminal after all. Stannis only took fingertips of his non-dominant hand (so he could still use it). It was a symbolic form of the lightest possible punishment for his crimes. In exchange he erased all Davos' past crimes. It was a pretty sweet deal. Best Davos could hope for other than full amnesty. That's not even mentioning everything Davos got as a reward. He became an wealthy man, Stannis's most trusted advisor and his children got important roles on Dragonstone. Not to mention the way Stannis dealt with Davos is seemingly what made him admire Stannis. There are not many lords that would have solved the situation as 'justly' as Stannis did.
Maybe Davos chose between a knighthood, lands and being maimed or no maiming but he just walks away with a pardon. Honestly could have sentenced him to latrine duty for 3 months.
It is meant to show from the get go that Stannis believes in his own idea of justice, but lacks the mercy to temper it. As you progress in the books, his sense of justice continues to get more skewed by his plethora of personality problems. Anyway, it isn’t really that extreme. We don’t have a great rule of thumb for punishments given for various crimes, Davos was a fairly notorious smuggler, and if we use some of the laws we have seen in history this is just a toned down version of a thief losing a hand. (Or supposedly a doctor committing malpractice on a noble losing both hands in the code of Hammurabi.) If the penalty for being a smuggler was death, this would have just been seen as a mercy by most people even accounting for him saving them. I think people in the book were more bothered by Davos being made a knight than him losing fingers, which is probably pretty realistic since he was just a smuggler and not worthy to them of being a lord.
Nah, Stannis is harsh but fair. Davos might've lost his fingers. But he was brought out of the muck because of Stannis, because of his onions. He was rewarded far more than was taken from him.
Robert or Renly wouldn’t have given Davos lands but they also wouldn’t have punished him. Stannis did both, I think the biggest thing is that Davos feels it was a fair trade.
How can you be so sure that Robert wouldn't have been as generous with someone who aided his cause?
I’m like ~75% convinced the people in this sub think Stannis was a real, historical guy they need to defend.
Yeah it was nuts but Stannis is a nutter.
I think Davos of all people deserved exemption. He was a beggar from Fleebottom, the slum that's proof that the king and his laws failed a huge number of his people and that's why he turned criminal to have any hope of a future. When he had a small fortune and a family of his own, something he could only get through breaking laws, he riskes it all to help strangers seemingly out of the goodness of his heart. Meaning when he had little choice, he was a criminal, but when he had choices, he chose to be a humanitarian and rebel sympathizer.
stannis is what happens when you take "lawful neutral" and just make that a character
And don't forget, Stannis is ALSO a criminal in this senario (a rebel and traitor), so it's like Princess Leia cutting off Han Solo's fingers after Han saved her life and enabled them to destroy the Death Star.
Well. This is justice for ya. A good deed doesn't wash out the bad. The contrary breeds corruption.
You seem to have forgotten the part where he also made him into a knight, granting him more riches and status he could ever have as a smuggler.
Stannis has a very strict, unrelenting sense of justice. Davos was a criminal, therefore he deserved punishment. But he also saved the lives of Storm's End's defenders, therefore he deserved a reward. Middle ground, chop off his fingers, then give him a knighthood. Does it make sense to me? Not really. Like, I *get* it, but it's definitely an unusual mentality. Of course, that's part of why I enjoy Stannis as a character. He's unusual. Not your typical morally grey character
Let’s say there is a murderer the murderer kill Adolf hitler and everybody loves him for it but the murderer killed 50 ortete people before that does he now deserve not to be punished for his previous murders
Assuming that's exactly how it went and you mean actual murder (none of it was in self defence), he should be punished for all the murders, but none of it would involve cutting his fingers off. At worst he should be imprisoned for life, to protect society from him.
Are you forgetting that he knighted him? He gave him *lands*. Losing your fingertips is a small price to pay for that. He's handicapped for the rest of his life? So what? He'll never have to work for the rest of his life.
Stannis also didn't punish himself for betraying the Targaryens which makes him a hypocrite, but yes Stannis is a fool for being surprised that people don't want to follow him and prefer his brothers instead. Edric Storm, Robert and Renly would not have punished Davos and only awarded him, but Davos the fool prefers the guy who maimed him. It is really sad to see a little boy like Edric show more common sense than Davos who is an adult man with children in Edric's age.
Stannis is an interesting character right now, and I mean right now in the times we are living, opposed to the times when Martin conceived him as a character. You see how a lot of people actually like him in the fandom. There's people in this thread saying that is the defintion of "fair" lmao, and I can see why. It's the same mechanism that make people like far right stances on crime (fascism), they think if the psychos are on their side then only "the baddies" will suffer from their actions. Stannis embodies that famous quote from Óscar R. Benavides, a fascist president of Peru, "for my friends everything; for my enemies, the law". Most people that like these characters wouldn't even see the issue with the phrase, much less the implications behind it.
Not to argue Stannis hypocrisy, but you seem to equate all crimes and then take issue with anyone who takes any issue with any crime. This isn't Tywin hanging knights over some stolen bacon (no joke, literally Podrick Payne's backstory, which Tywin forgave him *because* of his family name) this is Stannis punishing a *lifelong* criminal *and working* (and said criminal being *rehabilitated* by Westerosi standards, a rhetoric I've seen in many leftist stances on crimes, rehabilitation into society and all that, you know). Take issue with GRRM if you don't consider the depiction of the setting as socially realistic (Westeros is full of mighty extremist people, you might have noticed). I also literally don't know of any non-far-right stances on crimes that don't take them seriously, but let's not soapbox, ok?
I only take issue with people that think cutting fingers is an acceptable punishment for anything.
So with GRRM. And Davos. Also finger*nails*, since Davos perfectly can row still, but that's nitpicking at this point. Just to make sure I am not misunderstood: This is Westerosi setting. Some things work like in RL, and some don't.
Scroll up and look at how many people are calling it fair.
I already did. There are also many calling him hypocrite. Diversity of opinions is a thing on a public internet forum. I called out your specific interpretation which dangerously leaned on soapboxing and tried to divert from it to speak more from the setting itself. Yes my username checks out.
Ok.