Widowmaker 811

Child of Ice and Fire: More harmful than helpful

46 posts in this topic

4 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

I would even say that Jon is partly responsible for the breaking of guest rights.  His thugs killed people who worked for their host, Roose Bolton while they sheltered in his home.  Jon basically declared war on the Boltons when he sent the wildlings to steal Arya from Ramsay.   

Except everything else Winterfell doesn't belong to the Boltons. Hence no one broke anything.

1 hour ago, Adam Yozza said:

Mance was sent to lead a fleeing girl back to Castle Black from Long Lake, not sneak into Winterfell, kill a bunch of people and steal Ramsay's wife (not that they were wrong to do so).

That is an excelent point that it is rarely mentioned and by rerely I mean that iirc this is the first time I have seen it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ftheking said:

Ramsay is Rheagar in this comparison. Ramsay stole the girl. Jon is quite literally in the position of the BROTHER of the kidnapped and raped girl. Like what the hell, how could you possibly turn the roles around like that? (Nobody *took* his bride. You might have noticed that she was literally fleeing together with another prisoner. Nobody who could have been by any stretch of imagination sent by Jon held any kind of power over her, so what are you talking about?)

Roose even told Ramsay he is a fool to publically mistreat "Arya" because that might actually cost him the loyalty of lords who have nothing specific to do with Arya, because Ramsay is objectively in the absolute wrong and boldly disrespecting the Starks. .

All of this is no longer Jon's concern.  He had already said his vows and he's a man of the watch.  He was no longer a Stark.  Jon was the one in the wrong for making this his business when he should have kept his mind on the wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

Dead wrong. He didn't send Mance to do anything, Melisandre did. Jon knew that Mance was going to Long Lake to intercept what they thought to be Arya, but knowing about it and ordering it are separate things. Plus, even if he had opposed Melisandre's decision to send Mance, he had no authority to stop him. So no, Jon provoked nothing.

This is the most mealy mouthed argument I've ever heard on the subject.  Jon is the Lord Commander, everything that happens on the Wall is his responsibility.  The idea that Jon gets a pass because it was Mel who sent Mance to Winterfell to steal Jon's sister, with Jon's knowledge, for Jon's benefit, is absurd.  And the idea that Jon has no authority over Mel and Mance is doubly absurd.  Amd it doesn't matter if it was meant to be on the road rather than inside WF, you are still abducting the Warden of the North's daughter-in-law.

9 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Jon provoked that fight.  He should have stayed out of the Bolton's business and let fArya fend for herself, even to die if she has to.   Sending your thugs (Mance and the spear women) to steal away the bride of a noble man is an act of war.  Jon was the one at fault in this situation.  He was in the wrong and he was about to commit an even bigger treason if Bowen Marsh had not stopped him.

Yikes!  The fact that Jon has no legal right to act as he did does not change the fact that morally he was undeniably in the right.

Which is the point, of course.  GRRM created a situation, several, in fact, where Jon had to chooooose between his vows to the Watch and doing the right thing.  That conflict was the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to the OP, R+L=Surtr, a Norse giant destined to usher in the Ragnarok by breaking the Bifrost Bridge between the world of the Gods and the giants of ice and fire.

Now that having been said, I don't think GRRM will be painting Jon as a villain, I think there is still a great deal to learn about the Others and the true history of Westeros. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, thehandwipes said:

This is the most mealy mouthed argument I've ever heard on the subject.  Jon is the Lord Commander, everything that happens on the Wall is his responsibility.  The idea that Jon gets a pass because it was Mel who sent Mance to Winterfell to steal Jon's sister, with Jon's knowledge, for Jon's benefit, is absurd.  And the idea that Jon has no authority over Mel and Mance is doubly absurd.  Amd it doesn't matter if it was meant to be on the road rather than inside WF, you are still abducting the Warden of the North's daughter-in-law.

Yikes!  The fact that Jon has no legal right to act as he did does not change the fact that morally he was undeniably in the right.

Which is the point, of course.  GRRM created a situation, several, in fact, where Jon had to chooooose between his vows to the Watch and doing the right thing.  That conflict was the point.

Exactly.

Night Watch's castles don't have walls except for the Wall exactly to make them unable to defend from an attack by any of the North / Seven Kingdoms. Call that Medieval accountability if you will. As good as his motivations were, Jon did mess with the politics of the Seven Kingdoms, which is not the Night Watch's call.

We tend to pick Jon's side because he is a hero and Ramsay is a villain. But this is not Lord of the Rings: it is hard to know what is the Right Thing to do, and sometimes people have to break some eggs to make an omelette.

I hope Jon's reaction to the Pink Letter will eventually make sense, but I can't understand yet what good he thought he could get from his reaction to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, thehandwipes said:

 

Yikes!  The fact that Jon has no legal right to act as he did does not change the fact that morally he was undeniably in the right.

Which is the point, of course.  GRRM created a situation, several, in fact, where Jon had to chooooose between his vows to the Watch and doing the right thing.  That conflict was the point.

Jon was undeniably in the wrong for messing with the Boltons.  A person in a position of leadership has to put priority on the greater good and trading the defense of the entire continent for one little girl is not being in the right.  Definitely not something a lord commander should do, 

Just to get back to the main topic of this post.  I also don't see the evidence to support that the union of fire and ice is a good thing.  It has brought nothing but problems from the start.  The omen at the start of the story, the dead direwolf, could have been a warning.  I agree  there.  The Stark blood must not mix with Baratheon blood.  What's special about the stag?  I say it's not the stag itself that's not compatible, it's the small amount of the blood of the dragon in the stag.  R + L is trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

18 hours ago, thehandwipes said:

 The fact that Jon has no legal right to act as he did does not change the fact that morally he was undeniably in the right.

I mean, I agree, but...

Quote

 you are still abducting the Warden of the North's daughter-in-law.

Who is "You"? Please draw me a picture of this you-person abducting Roose Bolton's daughter in law, I can't remember reading anything about it. Jon sure as hell did not. If anything you could make a tiny claim Theon did,as he pushed her down the wall and carried her away, very much as his own -or her - agent and not talking orders from Jon (who as Theon very well knew never asked for this girl), but making use of the spearwives Mance chose to save Arya after conspiring with Mel.

Jon had a completely passive role in this story. He only chose to be active when the pink letter arrived, because of Ramsay's open threats. That's really the only choice of Jon worth discussing. Before he was laying low and worrying about his sister, like the mopey saint he is, while other people drove that plot. 

For the general question: Jon Snow is undeniably both R+L and a good thing that happened to Westeros. Please, Frodo looks like a morally grey anti-hero next to him. For GRRM to turn the story around and have Jon be bad news instead of the savior wouldn't a twist, it would just be trolling.

Edited by ftheking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ftheking said:

I mean, I agree, but...

Who is "You"? Please draw me a picture of this you-person abducting Roose Bolton's daughter in law, I can't remember reading anything about it. Jon sure as hell did not. If anything you could make a tiny claim Theon did,as he pushed her down the wall and carried her away, very much as his own -or her - agent and not talking orders from Jon (who as Theon very well knew never asked for this girl), but making use of the spearwives Mance chose to save Arya after conspiring with Mel.

Jon had a completely passive role in this story. He only chose to be active when the pink letter arrived, because of Ramsay's open threats. That's really the only choice of Jon worth discussing. Before he was laying low and worrying about his sister, like the mopey saint he is, while other people drove that plot. 

I feel like it really ought to be obvious that the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch doesn't have the option of playing "a passive role" when people under his charge are plotting to "steal" (very much with her consent) the Warden of the North's daughter-in-law, with his full knowledge, and for his benefit.

11 hours ago, Holley 4 Barrel said:

Jon was undeniably in the wrong for messing with the Boltons.  A person in a position of leadership has to put priority on the greater good and trading the defense of the entire continent for one little girl is not being in the right.  Definitely not something a lord commander should do, 

You are technically correct (the best kind of correct), Jon's aggressive behavior towards the Boltons throughout ADWD undermined his own hard work in preparing for the battle against the Others.  Most of the first two novels are dedicated to why exactly men of the Night's Watch swear those vows and leave their families behind to guard the realms of men.  As LC Mormont said, they have other wars to fight.  And Jon says himself, if any of the men under his command came to him with same story, he would have told them that it was none of their concern anymore.  On an unrelated note, Lot was undeniably correct to offer his virgin daughters to an angry crowd rather than let them harm two guests under his roof.

I don't blame Jon at all for despising the Boltons, assisting Stannis, and not wanting to leave his sister in the hands of Ramsay Bolton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ftheking said:

For the general question: Jon Snow is undeniably both R+L and a good thing that happened to Westeros. Please, Frodo looks like a morally grey anti-hero next to him. For GRRM to turn the story around and have Jon be bad news instead of the savior wouldn't a twist, it would just be trolling.

I just don't think this is a story of good vs evil.  It never has been and it would be disappointing if it ended that way.  Jon isn't the savior, the Others aren't the villains.  GRRM has already trolled you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Holley 4 Barrel said:

Just to get back to the main topic of this post.  I also don't see the evidence to support that the union of fire and ice is a good thing.  It has brought nothing but problems from the start.  The omen at the start of the story, the dead direwolf, could have been a warning.  I agree  there.  The Stark blood must not mix with Baratheon blood.  What's special about the stag?  I say it's not the stag itself that's not compatible, it's the small amount of the blood of the dragon in the stag.  R + L is trouble.

It was the wrong thing to do to interfere with the Botlons.  Jon committed one of the worst decisions in the whole story and it will have wide ranging consequences.

I believe some people would choose to do as Jon did even if it's illogical, treason, and unethical.  The problem is, most people are not the lord commander of the force whose mission it is to stay out of politics and keep their minds on defending against a specific threat.  While I can understand why Jon would want to help Arya, I cannot forgive him for acting on those feelings.   Jon willingly took an oath.   He accepted the job of lord commander.  He had a responsibility to forget about Arya.

1 hour ago, thehandwipes said:

You are technically correct (the best kind of correct), Jon's aggressive behavior towards the Boltons throughout ADWD undermined his own hard work in preparing for the battle against the Others.  Most of the first two novels are dedicated to why exactly men of the Night's Watch swear those vows and leave their families behind to guard the realms of men.  As LC Mormont said, they have other wars to fight.  And Jon says himself, if any of the men under his command came to him with same story, he would have told them that it was none of their concern anymore.  On an unrelated note, Lot was undeniably correct to offer his virgin daughters to an angry crowd rather than let them harm two guests under his roof.

I don't blame Jon at all for despising the Boltons, assisting Stannis, and not wanting to leave his sister in the hands of Ramsay Bolton.

This.  The R+L is one of the probable reasons why the white walkers are ready to attack.  Those two should have never gotten together even for coffee.  They started the "snowball" that destroyed the realm and it looks like their son just destroyed the night's watch.  I don't think any good will come of R+L.  It might be better if Lyanna had a miscarriage and the child just died. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/18/2017 at 7:35 AM, Steelshanks Walton said:

I agree with this.  I have not read a good argument why such a child is actually needed.  A hybrid of the two elemental forces is not natural and would be seen by both sides as a curse.  R + L = bad.  Rhaegar already proved that by his actions, the rebellion was triggered and if Jon is his son, the boy did more harm than help at the wall.  The song is bad news. 

More harm than good? How was that? Was it when he tried to weaken the army of the dead by taking away thousands of wildlings away from the enemy or when he started manning more castles on the wall to better protect the realm or wait it must've been when he made a deal with the iron bank to be able to feed everyone on the wall through winter or when he advised stannis on how to take the north away from the boltons as to better defend against the walkers? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/20/2017 at 7:31 AM, Holley 4 Barrel said:

Just to get back to the main topic of this post.  I also don't see the evidence to support that the union of fire and ice is a good thing.  It has brought nothing but problems from the start.  The omen at the start of the story, the dead direwolf, could have been a warning.  I agree  there.  The Stark blood must not mix with Baratheon blood.  What's special about the stag?  I say it's not the stag itself that's not compatible, it's the small amount of the blood of the dragon in the stag.  R + L is trouble.

Could be this.  Rhaegar and Lyanna probably got a similar warning.  Lyanna was cursed from the start.  Robert had a small amount of dragon blood himself.  Either way, Lyanna was on the path to cause death and destruction for the realm.  Instead of a dead direwolf with a stag horn on the side, Lyanna might have gotten a burnt direwolf but she ignored the warning.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, thehandwipes said:

I just don't think this is a story of good vs evil.  It never has been and it would be disappointing if it ended that way. 

It really, really is. The Long Night is bad news for humans and needs to be stopped. For that we need heroes. The main hero is Jon Snow and  he happens to be a complete and total sweetheart of the "Don't bully the fat kid"" kind, we love so much in the 21st century, while not lacking in fighting skills, bravery or a stereotypical tragic backstory. I fail to see how GRRM could make his heroics any more obvious. Don't delude yourselves.

So while I'm in no way underestimating Jon Snow's role as the main character, main hero, and apparently messiah, he did not save Jeyne Poole (never mind steal her) by being Lord Commander of the NW and therefore automatically responsible for everything that happens on the planet and everyone he ever met. He had maybe 5% positive influence there, simply by making it known that he loves and is worried about Arya.

ETA: PS: Would anyone blame or laud Joffrey for something that is done "for his benefit" while he is king of Westeros? Ridiculous. We blame Tywin for Tywin's actions, Cersei for Cersei's actions, Jaime for Jaime's actions and Joff only for his very own actions and commands.

Edited by ftheking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ftheking said:

It really, really is. The Long Night is bad news for humans and needs to be stopped. For that we need heroes. The main hero is Jon Snow and  he happens to be a complete and total sweetheart of the "Don't bully the fat kid"" kind, we love so much in the 21st century, while not lacking in fighting skills, bravery or a stereotypical tragic backstory. I fail to see how GRRM could make his heroics any more obvious. Don't delude yourselves.

Like I said, GRRM has already trolled you.

6 hours ago, ftheking said:

So while I'm in no way underestimating Jon Snow's role as the main character, main hero, and apparently messiah, he did not save Jeyne Poole (never mind steal her) by being Lord Commander of the NW and therefore automatically responsible for everything that happens on the planet and everyone he ever met. He had maybe 5% positive influence there, simply by making it known that he loves and is worried about Arya.

ETA: PS: Would anyone blame or laud Joffrey for something that is done "for his benefit" while he is king of Westeros? Ridiculous. We blame Tywin for Tywin's actions, Cersei for Cersei's actions, Jaime for Jaime's actions and Joff only for his very own actions and commands.

You're misrepresenting the facts and my previous posts, for some reason.  Jon was fully aware of the plan and that it was being conducted for his benefit.  Melisandre called it her gift to him.  This makes him complicit in the act, the fact that he is the Lord Commander of the NW and the only person on the Wall who personally has the legal and moral authority and responsibility to stop it and ensure that the integrity of the Watch is maintained makes him far more than complicit.  He is literally a co-conspirator.  Like I said, I really feel like this blatantly obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A co-conspirator by being somewhat informed doesn't deserve any credit, and only limited consideration and blame. Yes, if you know of an awful crime being planned, you need to inform the police or you share some respnsibility. If you hinder the resistance from freeing innocent prisoners from a fascist regime, you also share some of the responsibility, though. I hope your concience will guide you well. For Jon to actively work against Arya escaping Ramsay is a completely bizarre thought. Also, it would have been morally wrong.

So Jon did nothing wrong, did hardly anything at all, and a potentially dangerous situation still arose by Ramsay threatening the wall. As Ramsay is constantly a threat to all human beings that shouldn't be that much of a surprise. I guess the guy gotta die. (and I seriously hope you can see how this is not a bad outcome that does more harm than good to the world). Not everything is caused by Jon.

PS: Jon Snow and his band of heroes are gonna save the world or die trying. Don't say no one warned you. 

Edited by ftheking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, ftheking said:

A co-conspirator by being somewhat informed doesn't deserve any credit, and only limited consideration and blame. Yes, if you know of an awful crime being planned, you need to inform the police or you share some respnsibility. If you hinder the resistance from freeing innocent prisoners from a fascist regime, you also share some of the responsibility, though. I hope your concience will guide you well. For Jon to actively work against Arya escaping Ramsay is a completely bizarre thought. Also, it would have been morally wrong.

So Jon did nothing wrong, did hardly anything at all, and a potentially dangerous situation still arose by Ramsay threatening the wall. As Ramsay is constantly a threat to all human beings that shouldn't be that much of a surprise. I guess the guy gotta die. (and I seriously hope you can see how this is not a bad outcome that does more harm than good to the world). Not everything is caused by Jon.

Oh, Jon did a lot wrong.  Ramsay only directly threatened Jon because Jon sent his flunkies to steal his bride.  Looking at it from a moral angle, it is best to serve the greater good and Jon chose to do the opposite.  His conscience told him to do his job and put the needs of the many over the one but his heart told him to rescue the girl he loves.  He took the selfish road and gave in to his heart.  He was about to make the situation worse if Bowen Marsh had not killed him.

Mellisandre only gave Jon the idea of using Mance.  Jon made the decision and planned the rescue mission with Mance.  By all the laws of the land, Jon should have executed Mance.  Mance is a deserter and many brothers of the watch died because of Mance.  Jon let Mance get out of punishment because it served his (Jon's) personal interests.  Very, very unethical if you ask me and made his execution of Janos Slynt unjust.  Slynt's offenses at the wall were minor compared to Mance Rayder's crimes against the wall.  Jon is the worst lord commander since the Night King.

Edited by Midnight Confession

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Midnight Confession said:

  Looking at it from a moral angle, it is best to serve the greater good and Jon chose to do the opposite. 

There are two opinions in that sentence that I disagree with. It CAN BE the moral choice to sacrifice the few for the many. It really depends. Never can it be the moral choice to give one child up for rape and torture (or say, burn one alive) not even if it hinders the sun from exploding. In such a case the damn sun sucks and shall explode!

How does the quote go?

What is the life of one bastard boy compared with the wellbeing of the realm?

Davos: Everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Midnight Confession said:

Jon sent his flunkies to steal his bride

Never happened. Mance and his spearwives were never Jon's supporters let alone servants and as it had been mentioned before Jon allowed them to bring the grey girl travelling on a dying horse from Long Lake, he never sent them to WF to take Jeyne.

 

Edited by The Doctor's Consort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hold on, if we are going to make a legal argument here, in a monarchy, can we ask who the rightful king is? Despite all of his flaws, it's Stannis, at least until Danny shows up. (Unless it is actually Jon.) So Stannis, warts and all, is Robert's rightful heir. He is the only person acting like a proper king and trying to protect the Wall from the Wildlings and the Others, and he is is going to war now to remove a lord (Roose) who was complicit in the murder of the rightful lord of Winterfell, Rob, in violation of guest rights and his illegitimate son who is believed to be complicit in murdering Rob's heir, Bran. Ramsey is not legitimate (Tomen is not legitimate and therefore has no authority to legitimize Ramsey). He has no lawful claim to Winterfell, and no one with legal authority to give Arya to him as a wife has done so.

So Jon's big sin is that he has not interfered with an agent of the legitimate King, Melsiandre, in her attempt to rescue Arya. Even though interfering with Melisandre's efforts would actually be a violation of his vows. When he receives the pink letter, one of the requests, iirc, is to hand over Shireen. So, Jon can either fight, or he can hand over Shireen, who if Stannis is dead, is the legitimate Queen of the Seven Kingdoms, to a an illegitimate criminal. There is simply no way Jon can comply with the terms of the pink letter without committing treason.

 

(And yes it is rather convenient that this legal argument dovetails nicely with what Jon actually wants to do.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Durran Durrandon said:

Hold on, if we are going to make a legal argument here, in a monarchy, can we ask who the rightful king is? Despite all of his flaws, it's Stannis, at least until Danny shows up. (Unless it is actually Jon.) So Stannis, warts and all, is Robert's rightful heir. He is the only person acting like a proper king and trying to protect the Wall from the Wildlings and the Others, and he is is going to war now to remove a lord (Roose) who was complicit in the murder of the rightful lord of Winterfell, Rob, in violation of guest rights and his illegitimate son who is believed to be complicit in murdering Rob's heir, Bran. Ramsey is not legitimate (Tomen is not legitimate and therefore has no authority to legitimize Ramsey). He has no lawful claim to Winterfell, and no one with legal authority to give Arya to him as a wife has done so.

So Jon's big sin is that he has not interfered with an agent of the legitimate King, Melsiandre, in her attempt to rescue Arya. Even though interfering with Melisandre's efforts would actually be a violation of his vows. When he receives the pink letter, one of the requests, iirc, is to hand over Shireen. So, Jon can either fight, or he can hand over Shireen, who if Stannis is dead, is the legitimate Queen of the Seven Kingdoms, to a an illegitimate criminal. There is simply no way Jon can comply with the terms of the pink letter without committing treason.

 

(And yes it is rather convenient that this legal argument dovetails nicely with what Jon actually wants to do.)

Jon loses the legal argument.  He should have told Melissandre that he was not interested in getting Arya out of Ramsay's hands and then called Ed to fetch the block and remove Mance Rayder's head.  But Jon didn't do that.  He asked Mance what he needed to complete the mission, Mance asked for several women, and Jon sent his men to gather the women that Mance had asked for.  Jon did more than sign off on that mission.  His guilt is deeper than that. 

The Pink Letter only happened because Jon started that war with his actions.  Jon was just trying to cover his ass when his treason became public.  He was trying to cover his guilty ass and he was still trying to help Arya. 

9 hours ago, Durran Durrandon said:

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.