Armand Gargalen Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 12 hours ago, rsx_titan said: I don't agree with your interpretation at all. In fact you are the first person I've heard even question the reason for Jon being killed. It's seems painfully obvious Martin needed a way to release Jon from the night's watch. I suspect the story grew organically as they usually do in writing and Jon became a much bigger part of the story then initially intended. I guess we'll find out when the next book comes out I have not read Dance in the last 3 years, and I do not have it at home at the moment, so I may be mistaken, but IIRC, Jon said in front of all the Watch that he was leaving Castle Black to march on Winterfell, I am open to the idea that for some this may not mean he is deserting, but at least, the conflict is there. It does not seem obvious to me that Martin "needed a way to release Jon for the NW". Just the opposite. Martin knew since AGoT that Jon will be one of the mean characters, as he already planted the seed at the Tower of Joy dream scene. He, nevertheless, decided to send him to the NW, because he was planning to make the conflict between duty to an obsolete and inefficient institution and Jon's personal values a core part of his character arc. Trying to release Jon from this duty via a "legal loophole" is a cheap way to solve the conflict, so I doubt that is what Martin will do. Finally, Martin is also aware that in a society where it is not believed that people can be brought back from the dead, vows are supposed to be for LIFE. If you go around claiming that you are relased from a vow because you died and were resurrected you will be both mocked and executed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bayard Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 2 hours ago, RedShirt47 said: Even if Jon has not been released from his vows he is still fulfilling them.by protecting the lands of men. By unifying The North he can prepare them to fight The Others. With Ramsey in Winterfell the NW stood no chance against the coming onclaught, now they have a fighting chance. Jon won't forget his NW friends like Edd. Yeah, he used that argument himself... why exactly did the North not have a chance with Ramsay in charge?? He seems to be a very competent, ruthless leader, unlike Jon. Isn't someone like that needed for the war to come?? He had already gathered around him most of the houses of the North, including 2 of the big ones: Karstark and Umber. He had more men.... What did this war achieve?? The complete and utter destruction of all the Northern fighting men.... how is this better?? Sure, I get it, he's abusive, a monster.... well, maybe someone like that is perfect to defeat other monsters. The Stark children are selfish .... that's it. The uniting the North stuff is just an excuse... they could have united the North very well by combining their force with Ramsay's ... Sansa could have gone to Essos. Now instead of let's say an army of 10.000 + a giant they have what? 500 men? . As lord commander if he cared only about the interests of the NW he would have accepted Ramsay's offer... but he didn't, so he wasn't acting for the Watch, plain and simple... he was there in the interest of House Stark. Sorry for being a little off topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armand Gargalen Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 I don't think you are off topic. Just the opposite, you are hitting the nail on the head. It is clear that Jon's decision to attack Winterfell is not on the NW or even humanity's best interest. He is just being loyal to his family and, therefore, a deserter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farm_ecology Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 3 hours ago, Armand Gargalen said: Trying to release Jon from this duty via a "legal loophole" is a cheap way to solve the conflict, so I doubt that is what Martin will do. This is the way I see it. Getting out of the watch with no conflict whatsoever because technically he died is somewhat similar to someone getting out of the watch because they had a cardiac arrest but were brought back. Getting out of the watch because of a technicality (Because the vows didn't account for magical resurrection) defeats the spirit of taking the vow in the first place. You could make similar arguments saying someone broke the vows because they jokingly pretend to wear a crown ( I shall wear no crowns), or that they only need to be part of the NK during nighttime (for this night and all the nights to come). It's worth noting they not only pledge their life, but their honour ( I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy is not No One Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 3 hours ago, Bayard said: Yeah, he used that argument himself... why exactly did the North not have a chance with Ramsay in charge?? He seems to be a very competent, ruthless leader, unlike Jon. Isn't someone like that needed for the war to come?? He had already gathered around him most of the houses of the North, including 2 of the big ones: Karstark and Umber. He had more men.... What did this war achieve?? The complete and utter destruction of all the Northern fighting men.... how is this better?? Sure, I get it, he's abusive, a monster.... well, maybe someone like that is perfect to defeat other monsters. The Stark children are selfish .... that's it. The uniting the North stuff is just an excuse... they could have united the North very well by combining their force with Ramsay's ... Sansa could have gone to Essos. Now instead of let's say an army of 10.000 + a giant they have what? 500 men? . As lord commander if he cared only about the interests of the NW he would have accepted Ramsay's offer... but he didn't, so he wasn't acting for the Watch, plain and simple... he was there in the interest of House Stark. Sorry for being a little off topic. That's a little harsh don't you think? I agree that the show Jon hasn't been a great leader in certain aspects (he has been a great leader of the wildlings but bad with the northern ppl and only ok with the watch). But he is getting better. And I don't think he is selfish at all. He fights to save his family and the north from being ruled by a monster. And he fights to get the north united to fight the ww. Mel says he is AA and since he has been brought back to life (plus other clues from the book) I believe her. So at some point he will lead the army of living against the ww. Which puts him firmly in the good guy category. as for Ramsey, he wouldn't be a good leader of the north right now bc he doesn't believe the ww are coming. Since he lacks such knowledge (and let's be honest, he wouldn't believe anyone who told him) he wouldn't mobilize an army or do anything, leaving the north vulnerable to attack. ergo Jon had to take him out. Now Jon is free to call his/Sansa's banner men and get an army up to the wall to fight. its said that Robb took almost 20k men with him for war. Rodrik and maester lewin commented that given enough time, the north could send another 20k army to Robb. So the north should be able to get around 20k to Jon, plus the vale 10k. And everyone will fight with a common purpose rather than just being scared of Ramsey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tagganaro Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 1 hour ago, farm_ecology said: This is the way I see it. Getting out of the watch with no conflict whatsoever because technically he died is somewhat similar to someone getting out of the watch because they had a cardiac arrest but were brought back. Getting out of the watch because of a technicality (Because the vows didn't account for magical resurrection) defeats the spirit of taking the vow in the first place. You could make similar arguments saying someone broke the vows because they jokingly pretend to wear a crown ( I shall wear no crowns), or that they only need to be part of the NK during nighttime (for this night and all the nights to come). It's worth noting they not only pledge their life, but their honour ( I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch ) Yeah, I'm thinking this was a show-created loophole and GRRM will be doing something darker or at least more gray. Also interesting that the show has cut out pretty much everything magical about Jon- there is minimal Ghost appearance, no warging, and the resurrection itself was more of a plot point than anything that the show chose to dwell on in any fashion. Jon hasn't been "changed" by his death at all, which goes directly against what GRRM has said about characters coming back to life. 4 hours ago, Bayard said: Yeah, he used that argument himself... why exactly did the North not have a chance with Ramsay in charge?? He seems to be a very competent, ruthless leader, unlike Jon. Isn't someone like that needed for the war to come?? He had already gathered around him most of the houses of the North, including 2 of the big ones: Karstark and Umber. He had more men.... What did this war achieve?? The complete and utter destruction of all the Northern fighting men.... how is this better?? Sure, I get it, he's abusive, a monster.... well, maybe someone like that is perfect to defeat other monsters. The Stark children are selfish .... that's it. The uniting the North stuff is just an excuse... they could have united the North very well by combining their force with Ramsay's ... Sansa could have gone to Essos. Now instead of let's say an army of 10.000 + a giant they have what? 500 men? . As lord commander if he cared only about the interests of the NW he would have accepted Ramsay's offer... but he didn't, so he wasn't acting for the Watch, plain and simple... he was there in the interest of House Stark. Sorry for being a little off topic. I think the show has simplified things so much with regards to Northern politics that you don't get the same sense from what's in the books- which is essentially that the North hates the Boltons/Freys too much to ever get behind them and that the Boltons need to be deposed and a Stark needs to lead the charge to unite the disparate houses. The show cut out the Grand Northern Conspiracy entirely which was a big driver of events in the books. The show I think was more focused on the fact that Ramsay would never believe in the White Walkers until it was too late...you'd need someone in charge who can prepare everyone and mobilize them and truly lead them, a task Ramsay/Roose doesn't seem like they're up to or concerned with. Even all this is being pretty generous to the Show's portrayal of the Northmen- it's always been extremely simplified and seems more like they are working backwards off a script of events they want to happen and so they will make the show get to that point even if it doesn't make much sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noneofyourbusiness Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 On June 20, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Future Null Infinity said: there is no warden of north now to kill Jon, we are in a law loophole That's more or less it. The situation in the Seven Kingdoms is so chaotic and the Night's Watch so undervalued these days that if he wants to desert the Night's Watch and declare himself commander of the Stark forces, these lords and ladies aren't going to care much. Not with wars and banditry going on and shifting political allegiances to watch out for. What Jon Snow is doing with and calling himself these days is just one more such move on the board. Ned was one of the last people who would have both cared and had the luxury to execute a deserter on sight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiery Heart Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 I disagree, since his death released him from that vow, however at this point in time it really doesn't matter if Jon is a deserter or not. The north have no choice but to unite in the great war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jandslegate Posted June 24, 2016 Share Posted June 24, 2016 On 6/23/2016 at 7:57 AM, Bayard said: Yeah, he used that argument himself... why exactly did the North not have a chance with Ramsay in charge?? He seems to be a very competent, ruthless leader, unlike Jon. Isn't someone like that needed for the war to come?? He had already gathered around him most of the houses of the North, including 2 of the big ones: Karstark and Umber. He had more men.... What did this war achieve?? The complete and utter destruction of all the Northern fighting men.... how is this better?? Sure, I get it, he's abusive, a monster.... well, maybe someone like that is perfect to defeat other monsters. The Stark children are selfish .... that's it. The uniting the North stuff is just an excuse... they could have united the North very well by combining their force with Ramsay's ... Sansa could have gone to Essos. Now instead of let's say an army of 10.000 + a giant they have what? 500 men? . As lord commander if he cared only about the interests of the NW he would have accepted Ramsay's offer... but he didn't, so he wasn't acting for the Watch, plain and simple... he was there in the interest of House Stark. Sorry for being a little off topic. Roose was a capable and shrewd leader. Once he was gone Ramsay was a powder keg waiting to blow everyone up. Long term, Ramsay has the crown against him (for whatever that's worth), the Frey heir (let's be honest, Walder wouldn't give a shit about his daughter) died immediately after Roose's 'accident'. Walder Frey is despicable but he isn't stupid. I mean the fact that Ramsay was willing to meet Jon's army is proof enough of his failing as a leader. Roose would have simply let them try to siege WF and they would have failed. Not to be overly symbolic but Ramsay was literally a mad dog that broke free of his leash. The Northern houses would have rebelled eventually. Tyranny only lasts for so long. Roose drove the point home to Ramsay time and time again and it was what ultimately brought him down. His arrogance toward Jon, his cruelty to well...everyone. I mean his dogs were arguably the closest thing to a friend he had and look how that panned out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tugela Posted June 24, 2016 Share Posted June 24, 2016 Jon's story will end when Sansa beheads him as a deserter, as her family have done for millennia to such people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jandslegate Posted June 24, 2016 Share Posted June 24, 2016 4 minutes ago, tugela said: Jon's story will end when Sansa beheads him as a deserter, as her family have done for millennia to such people. and then the Night's King came with his unholy army and no one knew how to fight them - that secret died with Jon Snow and Sam Tarly, the only other living person who knew the secrets, refused to share them because 'screw them...they killed my friend'. Thus, Spring was just a fading dream strangled by the rime covered grasp of Winter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vastet Posted June 27, 2016 Share Posted June 27, 2016 He run into a fight. But the NW doesn't take part into kings wars. So that was wrong no matter how you put it. Whether he deserted or fulfilled his obligation, he's no longer a member of the NW; so that charge cannot stick. And how has each scene a specefic goal when they put TWO f***ing scenes of Tyrion trying to be friends with GreyWorm and Missandei? Those scenes are probably more to do with contractual and other obligations. All those characters are 1st and 2nd tier. Tyrion is one of the most popular characters. They can't ignore him for half a season like they ignored Bran for a season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Being Daenerys Targaryen Posted June 27, 2016 Share Posted June 27, 2016 On 20/06/2016 at 7:58 PM, Quyen Thuy Tran said: Jon will be crowned king of the north, not a girl who has married to 2 of her enemies. The Vale surely would want Sansa to rule Winterfell but the Northern houses don't trust her. They would rather choose a bastard who could fight than Sansa IMO. They would rather choose a bastard... I like your idea... That's what I thought at first. But then I was like... "A BASTARD and a DESERTER of the night's watch. " Oh and also the man who fought WITH the wildings AGAINST the people he had to protect... OK. we all know that There is a bigger threat beyond the wall. Death is marching south and is coming for everyone. but they don't know that. Actually they don't believe those stories. It's fantasy for them ... BUT they don't know that Jon died... They don't know that death is marching to them. Actually, they know NOTHING. So I reckon something very big has to happen to Jon so that people will easily follow him. Khaleesi had 2 fires. The first one was small in front of a bunch of people. but the second one was bigger and had thousands of people as witnesses. I'm not saying that Jon will die again (I don't know. The gods decide) but something greater than just him, being brought back to life in front of wildings, rapers, thieves and sorcerer, has to happen. IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quyen Thuy Tran Posted June 27, 2016 Share Posted June 27, 2016 4 hours ago, Being Daenerys Targaryen said: They would rather choose a bastard... I like your idea... That's what I thought at first. But then I was like... "A BASTARD and a DESERTER of the night's watch. " Oh and also the man who fought WITH the wildings AGAINST the people he had to protect... OK. we all know that There is a bigger threat beyond the wall. Death is marching south and is coming for everyone. but they don't know that. Actually they don't believe those stories. It's fantasy for them ... BUT they don't know that Jon died... They don't know that death is marching to them. Actually, they know NOTHING. So I reckon something very big has to happen to Jon so that people will easily follow him. Khaleesi had 2 fires. The first one was small in front of a bunch of people. but the second one was bigger and had thousands of people as witnesses. I'm not saying that Jon will die again (I don't know. The gods decide) but something greater than just him, being brought back to life in front of wildings, rapers, thieves and sorcerer, has to happen. IMO. Nah, I think one time being reborn is too much already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Being Daenerys Targaryen Posted June 28, 2016 Share Posted June 28, 2016 I see many replies quoting the vows... I reckon the topic "Jon IS a deserter of the night's watch" is more about what do PEOPLE or the REALM know about him not being the lord commander anymore. Ok. You are watching the show and you know that Jon was dead and Mel Mel brought him back to life. But if you remember, it'd happened in a small room and there were only rapers, thieves, and wildings as witnesses. The northern houses are not aware of his death. So from their perspectives, Jon IS in FACT a deserter. IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingInTheBay Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 The nights watch killed itself when it murdered the second lord commander in a row. The best thing Jon could ever do for it is become King, and decree the northern lords must garrison the castles on the wall. By itself, the NW will extinct within the year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Commentator Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 On 6/20/2016 at 2:25 PM, BlackwaterPark said: So, is everyone just ignoring the fact that Jon Snow is a deserter? Yes, I know. One could say that dying and being brought back released him from his vows (still arguable, but I like the concept) but are they telling that to everyone? I don't think so, and even if they are, then who would believe it? First episode of the series we see Ned Stark beheading that poor deserter without hesitating, I'd expect any northerner to do the same. To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if the show completely ignores this, I'm more concerned on how the books will handle it. I don't think GRRM will miss this fact. He is a deserter. Unfortunately, there is no one at the moment to enforce the rule. Someone will hopefully take Jon's head off next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaysman Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 He is only a deserter if the Night's Watch names him a deserter. He did not slink away in the night or sneak out. He beheaded some traitors, gave the cloak to Edd and said his watch has ended. He then packed his shit, put on his civvies and had a talk with Edd about the whole thing. The fact is he was dead for almost 24 hours. Someone mentioned Cardiac arrest earlier. Sorry, but not the same as multiple stab wounds. As for someone enforcing the rule? What rule, he died no one denies that. When the vows were decided upon I do not think anyone thought through to resurrection. They may revisit this portion of the oath at a later date, or they may not depending on the out come of the Great War, the Night's Watch may just be disbanded. That and Jon is King in the North now, as decided by a convention of all the northern houses that actually matter. This was also supported by the Vale lords in attendance. As far as no one not making a big deal of his "desertion" no one made a big deal about the fucking giant in his army either. Also, why do people want Jon to get beheaded and die? He did die once, and the political climate and the players in the area literally said nope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.