Olly didn't deserve that

[Rise]

I think Olly deserved to be hanged, because he murdered Jon. But he had good reasons to do it, he saw Jon making peace with the man who was part the croup who killed his parents. It will make everyone go over the edge. So i understand why he did it and i don't hate him.

[Simbacca]

17 hours ago, Ice Spider said:

2) Jon, nor the Night watch, never allied themselves with Stannis. Yes, they provided him shelter and food, after Stannis had come to Jon's rescue. Nothing more. They never choose sides. 

Providing food and shelter to an enemy of the "state" during a time of war, wouldn't that be treason.  If you aid a criminal, you become a criminal.   Also, how does this look to the average Westeros citizen.  It looks like the bastard son of the traitor Ned Stark is providing aid and allying with the traitor Stannis Baratheon.  And allowing Wildings, more enemies of Westeros, through the Wall and giving them aid makes things look worse. 

[Ice Spider]

36 minutes ago, Simbacca said:

Providing food and shelter to an enemy of the "state" during a time of war, wouldn't that be treason.  If you aid a criminal, you become a criminal.   Also, how does this look to the average Westeros citizen.  It looks like the bastard son of the traitor Ned Stark is providing aid and allying with the traitor Stannis Baratheon.  And allowing Wildings, more enemies of Westeros, through the Wall and giving them aid makes things look worse. 

You obviously don't understand neutrality. No one in Westeros would raise a brow to the fact John provided food and shelter to Stannis after Stannis had prevented to wildling invasion, thus saving the very lives of those who later gave them shelter. Take note that when Stannis wanted help from the NW before he invaded WF, John denied that help. 

[Simbacca]

1 hour ago, Ice Spider said:

You obviously don't understand neutrality. No one in Westeros would raise a brow to the fact John provided food and shelter to Stannis after Stannis had prevented to wildling invasion, thus saving the very lives of those who later gave them shelter. Take note that when Stannis wanted help from the NW before he invaded WF, John denied that help. 

You obviously don't understand treason. Or understand that helping a wanted criminal is a crime.  Jon giving food and shelter is helping.  

The people of Westeros would see Stannis as a Pretender King, a rebel, and a traitor, who only fought the Wildings in order to try to get more people to support him in his war against the Crown. They would see two enemies of Westeros fighting each other.

[Ice Spider]

2 hours ago, Simbacca said:

You obviously don't understand treason. Or understand that helping a wanted criminal is a crime.  Jon giving food and shelter is helping.  

The people of Westeros would see Stannis as a Pretender King, a rebel, and a traitor, who only fought the Wildings in order to try to get more people to support him in his war against the Crown. They would see two enemies of Westeros fighting each other.

LMAO, you just don't get it. The night's watch has never involved itself in the wars of Westeros, ever. Had it been the Lannister Army at the wall, they would have offered them the same food and shelter. This is neutrality. Denying someone aid is not being neutral. 

[Rhollo]

10 hours ago, Simbacca said:

You obviously don't understand treason. Or understand that helping a wanted criminal is a crime.  Jon giving food and shelter is helping.  

To commit treason by aiding Stannis, the NW would have to be legally bound the the Iron Throne. But they aren't, otherwise they would not be politically neutral anymore.

 

[Pink Fat Rast]

Some thoughts:

0) I think most of the "Olly hatred" is ironic - people understand that he's a grey character who can be sympathized with, but for various psychological reasons it's fun to pretend that he's the worst shite in the 7ks and "worse than Joffrey and Ramsay" so people do just that.

1) I don't get why he was looking at Jon with that psycho hatred, when, during the murder, he was holding back tears and clearly seemed reluctant - I feel there's some kind of arc missing there.

The best I can say about this is that the "seething hatred look" actually has some layers to it and comes off as Olly trying to force himself into sporting that look - out of defiance, to suppress other emotions he might have, out of inertia, or some other reason; it's kind of like that prolonged fury look Rodrik threw at Theon - probably a part of him thought he shouldn't have spit at him under those circumstances, but he kinda forced himself into maintaining that angry expression to, well, maintain face, stay true to himself, defiance, or something along those lines.

Still, I don't get why Alliser and his colleagues all got to say those nuanced, sympathetic last words and Olly was just given the angry psycho look - could've been justified and interesting, but, again, there's a piece or two missing there.



2) The whole conflict was poorly (=incompletely) handled on the show - Jon did it because 
-the Wildlings turned out to be "not as bad", except the Thenns, and
-he understood that the WWs are the true enemy, and all the Wildlings did was try to run away from them and who wants a bunch of new freefolk wights etc. etc.

But, Alliser didn't believe it? Or, or he was just stubborn? Set in his ways? It seemed like he was just against it because the plot demanded him to, and it's never quite clear what he, or Olly were truly thinking or what their worldview was.

What could've been an interesting, nuanced conflict along the lines of "yes, I see your point, but here's a number of reasons why letting the Wildings in is STILL bad news, and would only prevent us from fighting off the WWs" (with some irrational stubborness thrown into the mix) instead ended up being something, well, less than that.


2a) So now you can also question why Jon had to execute any of them - shouldn't he at least have tried to persuade them again by, you know, the virtue of the fact that he had just RISEN FROM THE DEAD?
Whatever was stopping those guys from fully accepting the reality of the situation, seeing a dead guy come back to life should've put a serious damper on it.

And then when even THAT failed, then maybe execute them?

They also could've done a thing where Jon, in the style of LS and Beric, came back with a bit of a tunnel vision and lacked the ability to think clearly - so he'd be driven to execute them out of revenge or because he thought it was his "duty as LC" without really considering the larger context, and then maybe Edd or Tormund or whoever might try to talk sense into him, and then Alliser's crew.


But, apparently instead of giving JON a plot-justified tunnel vision, the writers suffered under that same tunnel vision themselves; which is... meta? I guess?


3) With Jon dead and Alliser removed and arrested, shouldn't someone have been elected as LC - at least temporarily? Maybe Dolorous Edd, already BEFORE Jon reemerged?
Then that LC would've been the one to execute Alliser and Olly - or, name Jon as LC afterwards, which would've been funny if he then gave back the title as soon as he hanged them.

Again - another missed opportunity, where the show could've portrayed the confusion and uncertainty that was introduced into the NW's otherwise rigid rules by Jon's resurrection and fully explored all those different views and facets; instead, the show itself seemed to be confused about the situation, and why Jon would rightfully execute the traitors but then just got to desert because he was dead.


____________
So, in conclusion:

a) Olly probably didn't "deserve" to die, but from the perspective of a harsher, more honor-based moral code, maybe he did for betraying his friend and mentor.

He was DUE to die according to the rules.

c) But, the rules clearly have become confused and flexible with the whole resurrection thing, so I guess  doesn't really count to the extent it used to and no one really understands what's going on,