Jon was rightfully "terminated" by the Watch

[snow is the man]

Okay jon didn't desert he left for a night then came back. Not the most honorable thing to do but not desertion.

2. you do realize that every wildling that dies north of the wall becomes a wight. So even an old tiny women or a toddler become serious fighters who are very hard to kill. So every one of the wildlings jon saves are one less enemy to fight. Hardhome was a risky move but not stupid.

3. Janos slynt not only refused an order three times but he insulted jon snow each time and the last time he did it in front of everyone. That execution was justified.

4. Jon wasn't sending manse to get arya from winterfell. Based on what we have read he was supposed to find her on the road and bring her back. Sorry that does not involve infilitrating winterfell. He needed women with him because what twelve year old girl is gonna see a lone man on the road and go "yeah let's trust this guy".  This argument about this is old and stupid.

5. This is where jon broke the rules. In my opinion he should have waited  to see if the boltons were gonna attack before going off like he did. I think he should have wrote back that he didn't have arya stark or theon and explained that mel and that queen were under guest rite. Val too. But this was the decision that through up red flags and was a big mistake.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

True.  Very true.  The policy of the NW keeping out of kingdom politics enabled to survive and do their jobs unmolested because they are not a threat.  Jon broke ten thousand years of company rules for Arya.  I find it tragic.

Well, I can quote myself to reinforce a certain point here:

You can say exactly the same thing in regards to Jon's favoritism towards his little sister and Stannis. His duty is to the realms of men, not his sister or the king who happened to help him. What is the difference between a man like the Weeper and Roose or Ramsay? I tell you - there is none. Yet Jon makes no attempt to win the Boltons over to support him in his fight against the Others. If he can't do that why on earth should Bowen have be willing or eager to accept the help of a man like the Weeper, who actually slew dozens or even hundreds of good watchmen, his sworn brothers?

And in general - we should not even have to discuss the question whether Bowen Marsh was justified in killing Jon or whether was Jon in the right when he broke his vows. It is obvious that he is not. Not acknowledging that is essentially a denial of reality. George made it so that Jon made a mistake and got entangled in impossible choices. Admitting that he broke his vow or did something stupid or bad doesn't mean his actions aren't understandable or that he had any other choice.

And acknowledging that Bowen Marsh had more than just a point when he killed Jon does also not mean that we liked it that he died or that we wanted him do die (I did not). I didn't want Robb to die, either, but it was quite clear that he was in the wrong both when he crowned himself and when he broke his solemn promise to marry one of Lord Walder Frey's daughters. I also like it that Jon actually supports Stannis' cause and I want them both to kill as many Boltons and Freys as they can find. But that doesn't mean it is the right thing for Jon to do. He made mistakes and he got killed for that. He could have prevented it if he had been a little bit smarter and more aware of the feelings of the people around him. It is not that he wasn't warned repeatedly throughout the book that something of that sort might happen. Far from it, actually.

But the really interesting question is what this means for the story and characters and how it goes from there. 

[snow is the man]

Also their decision was based on his decisions with the wildlings for the most part. Janos slynt hd nothing to do with it and most didn't even know about his midnight ride. Sorry but they did this because they believed jon was giving the realm to the wildlings.

[300 H&H Magnum]

On 6/12/2017 at 8:42 PM, Barbrey Dustin said:

I feel like that the termination of Jon Snow by Bowen Marsh was appropriate.  The Lord Commander served for life so the only way to remove a crazy leader like Jon from power is to kill him.  That is their way of firing an unfit, incompetent,  treasonous commander.  It's been said before but I will repeat it here.  

Ramsay Bolton gave Jon the Pink Letter.  Bowen Marsh gave Jon the Pink Slip.  

1. Jon was already a known deserter.  Correct
2. He started making foolish decisions near the end.  The Hardhome mission was dumb and only wastes resources.  He let his affection for the free folk compromise his judgment.  The mission had a low chance of success and you can add the rescue party to the army of the dead.  It was an idiot move by Jon.
3. The execution of Janos Slynt became unjust when Jon spared Mance Rayder, a man who has committed more crimes against the Watch and against the kingdom than Slynt has done.  Mormont showed mercy to Jon for desertion.  Jon could have shown mercy to Janos Slynt's initial insubordination.  The execution of Slynt itself was legal and harsh but it would have been just if Jon had applied the standards across the board.  Jon gave Mance the pass after learning he's alive because Mance could help Arya.  Jon put personal matters, of which there should not have been any, ahead of his duties.  Slynt's execution became unjust when Jon let Mance get off unpunished.  Mance is not only a threat but a criminal who did a lot of harm to the kingdom he was supposed to protect.
4. Sending Mance and the spearwives to rescue his sister, or what he thought was his sister, is an attack on a noble house of the realm.  Jon's agents murdered Bolton servants while enjoying Bolton hospitality and shelter.  This is little different from what the crows did to Craster and his family.  Yes it was a violation of guest rights by Mance and Jon is guilty because he commanded the wildlings to steal Arya away from Ramsay.
5. Jon's announced plans to attack the Boltons is the last straw for any honest man of the Watch.  It violated the oaths of the watch and Jon knew it.  Instead of helping unite the north, Jon's actions made unity less likely to happen.  Jon betrayed the watch, the realm, and his brothers over Arya.  He is guilty of treason and attacking a northern family.

To sum up, I support Bowen Marsh and his decision to end Jon's appointment.  In an ideal world, Jon would be taken under arrest after getting fired from his job.  Then he would have been executed like he did to Slynt.  But the wildlings had the numbers and they want to go rescue Mance.  They will stand in the way and prevent his arrest. The only way to stop Jon was assassinate him like they did.  The wildlings will still ride out but at least there won't be a crow with them.  BM can still send a raven with a warning message to the Boltons. 

I would have helped Bowen Marsh if I had been there.  Jon became a complete liability to the watch and to Westeros. 

[300 H&H Magnum]

2 hours ago, snow is the man said:

Okay jon didn't desert he left for a night then came back. Not the most honorable thing to do but not desertion. 

2. you do realize that every wildling that dies north of the wall becomes a wight. So even an old tiny women or a toddler become serious fighters who are very hard to kill. So every one of the wildlings jon saves are one less enemy to fight. Hardhome was a risky move but not stupid.

3. Janos slynt not only refused an order three times but he insulted jon snow each time and the last time he did it in front of everyone. That execution was justified.

But Jon let Mance go unpunished for crimes that are thousands of times worse than Slynt's.  Jon failed to carry out justice.  His personal interests got in the way of justice.  Jon is a crap commander. 

4. Jon wasn't sending manse to get arya from winterfell. Based on what we have read he was supposed to find her on the road and bring her back. Sorry that does not involve infilitrating winterfell. He needed women with him because what twelve year old girl is gonna see a lone man on the road and go "yeah let's trust this guy".  This argument about this is old and stupid.

Are you saying Jon would kindly bring Arya back to Winterfell to the Boltons?  Because that is the only way his rescue mission could be justified.  The debate is actually valid.  Jon's supporters have no defense for it and would like for it to go away, but it is a fair topic to condemn Jon on.

5. This is where jon broke the rules. In my opinion he should have waited  to see if the boltons were gonna attack before going off like he did. I think he should have wrote back that he didn't have arya stark or theon and explained that mel and that queen were under guest rite. Val too. But this was the decision that through up red flags and was a big mistake.

At least you admit it was a mistake.  Some of Jon's supporters don't even acknowledge that.  What Jon should have done is tell Ramsay he doesn't have Arya and swear that if she should turn up, he would promptly send her back to Winterfell.  He should apologize for sending his wildlings.  Most importantly, follow through with his promise.  We know it's not Arya but Jon doesn't.  Even if it was the real Arya Jon should still follow through and send her back.  He was wrong to even attempt to sneak her out in the first place.

 

[300 H&H Magnum]

On 6/13/2017 at 11:11 AM, Coolbeard the Exile said:

It might objectivly be a bad decision but heck man the cruelest and vilest man in the world was having his way with his sister you cant blame him bro.

We should have compassion for his plight.  It's not easy to put family out of mind but we know it happens all the time because most of the crows have stuck to their vows and serve loyally.  We can understand his feelings but still condemn his actions.  I don't think Bowen hated Jon.  He didn't hate the man, he hated what the man did and what the man was about to do. 

[Moiraine Sedai]

32 minutes ago, 300 H&H Magnum said:

We should have compassion for his plight.  It's not easy to put family out of mind but we know it happens all the time because most of the crows have stuck to their vows and serve loyally.  We can understand his feelings but still condemn his actions.  I don't think Bowen hated Jon.  He didn't hate the man, he hated what the man did and what the man was about to do. 

Stab with compassion.  

[Makk]

4 hours ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

True.  Very true.  The policy of the NW keeping out of kingdom politics enabled to survive and do their jobs unmolested because they are not a threat.  Jon broke ten thousand years of company rules for Arya.  I find it tragic.

I have to disagree with this strongly. Before Jon became commander, the Nightswatch were basically finished. They certainly were not capable of protecting the realm against any credible threat. And one must presume the Others are more than credible. They will only be able to continue to function with support from the South, which is what they got from Stanis (mainly because it was politically conveniant). The Nightswatch needs the Starks or Stanis to gain control of the North again if they have any hope in actually holding the wall.

[Yucef Menaerys]

Jon needed to go. He would have ruined the NW with his foolish schemes, he should never have been selected to lead in the first place. 

Simply allowing the wildlings to cross was a betrayal and insult to the thousands of NW men who have died over the course of thousands of years in wars against the savages. And to think after all this the wildlings somehow feel entitled that they should safely cross and not obey the laws of the seven kingdoms is mind boggling. Go to hell. It's like saying I want to immigrate to the US but I wouldnt want to follow any of their laws whilst doing so and living there.

[Wolf's Bane]

That's my issue with the wildlings.  They don't want to bend the knee but at the same time they cross the wall and steal from the kingdom.  I don't think Westeros would have any problems with the wildlings if they stayed on their side of the wall instead of making raids.

Jon went off the deep end with regards to Arya and Mance.  I can see why his own men would kill him for his actions and what he intended to do.  It's really sad that someone who swore their vows and holds others to theirs would break his over one girl.  He was elected to office and entrusted with the wall and he betrays his brothers over wanting to rescue Arya. 

I don't think the north would look too kindly on Jon when he comes back to life.  He helped arrange the marriage of a northern noblewoman to a wildling man.  That Thenn now controls her lands and her small folk will have to answer to that man.  That won't go easy with anybody in the north.  Ramsay has Mance on display.  That's evidence of a betrayal of N/W rules right there.  Jon even admits in his pov that Mance deserved to get executed for his crimes.  

 

Quote

 

 

[The Hoare]

9 hours ago, Makk said:

I have to disagree with this strongly. Before Jon became commander, the Nightswatch were basically finished. They certainly were not capable of protecting the realm against any credible threat. And one must presume the Others are more than credible. They will only be able to continue to function with support from the South, which is what they got from Stanis (mainly because it was politically conveniant). The Nightswatch needs the Starks or Stanis to gain control of the North again if they have any hope in actually holding the wall.

The boltons could help too, but Jon isn't interested in trying to prove the existence of the Others to them.

Supporting Stannis is dangerous, as it put half of the North and the whole South agains't the NW.

[The Commentator]

11 hours ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

Stab with compassion.  

That's the Sorrowful Men.

1 hour ago, The Hoare said:

The boltons could help too, but Jon isn't interested in trying to prove the existence of the Others to them.

Supporting Stannis is dangerous, as it put half of the North and the whole South agains't the NW.

Jon could have done better proving the existence to his own men.

[cpg2016]

On 6/15/2017 at 10:15 AM, HallowedMarcus said:

   Upon making their vow for the Night's Watch they say  I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post.

   He would have gone south of the Wall into North of Westeros to remove the Boltons from power in Winterfell. He has to die at his post. He cannot take any side on any Westeros war.

   Aemon Targaryen was Maester of the Night Watch. When Robert Baratheon defied the Mad King, Aerys II he did not leave the Night's Watch to join his family against him. When Prince Rhaegar was killed by Robert he stayed on the Watch. When Aerys II  and 2 of Rhaegar's sons were murdered and the rest Targaryens were exiled he did not leave the Night's Watch because they seek no glory wear no crowns; defend no crown, even when the King holding the Crown is his family (Aemon's case), they die on their post.

   Jon Snow broke his vow when he wanted to leave his post as Lord Commander and use the Night's Watch to fight for his family against the Boltons.

What you said was that by "intervening in the affairs of the kingdom" Jon is breaking his vows.  Which is not true.  His oath very explicitly does not say he can take no part in a Westerosi war, merely that if he does, it must be part of the greater purpose of the Night's Watch.  Not saying the Bolton's are in league with the Others, but if Jon suspected that, he would be perfectly within his rights to intervene south of the Wall.

Not participating in Southern politics is a way for the Wall to maintain it's neutrality and ensure a continued supply of recruits and gifts.  There is literally nothing preventing them from intervening in the South; in fact, they often do, because they hunt wildling armies and bandits well south of the New Gift, which is, technically, an unjustified invasion.  Legally speaking, the Watch is not supposed to be in the business of hunting men down, and certainly not on lands owned by other lords, any more than the USA has a legal right to pursue criminals in other countries; it is a violation of sovereignty.

Now, in practice, you are right.  I just want to point out that you have fallen sway to the same mission drift that the Night's Watch has.  You've confused their true purpose with their assumed purpose.  The Watch exists to look for, and combat, the Others if they should ever return.  That is it.  Literally, that is their only purpose, is to guard mankind from the genocidal ice demons lurking beyond the curtain of light at the end of the world.  Their oath allows them to do effectively anything in pursuit of that goal. They are restricted only from actions that might distract or deter them from it.  And since there is an actual history (or assumed to be actual history) of human collaboration with the Others, the NW has precedence of fighting other men as part of their fight against the Others (both the Night's King and Craster fall into this category).

Now I want to emphasize that I think Jon was wrong, too, and his motives clearly aren't "further the fight against the Others".  I'm only pointing out that Bowen Marsh and his conspiracy don't deserve any credit for that, because they hatch their plot beforehand, and all of the justifications for why it's okay for them to do so rely on the same faulty, shortsighted logic that Marsh & Co themselves use.  Namely, that the wildlings are the enemy and not a group to be assisted.  And to repeat; Bowen Marsh is the WORST person to be having this attitude, because he has the least experience in dealing with people North of the Wall.  The Rangers seem to have a working relationship with many wildlings, which allows them to understand their basic humanity (literally).  Bowen Marsh is a stupid and mutinous bigot, full stop.

Quote

And to think after all this the wildlings somehow feel entitled that they should safely cross and not obey the laws of the seven kingdoms is mind boggling. 

They don't feel entitled to cross, and they never say so.  They are looking to conquer their way across the Wall.  When that fails, Jon makes the very intelligent decision that he needs to let them through and make common cause with their enemies, because even at worst, a bunch of reaving wildlings can be dealt with more easily, and are more palatable, than a bunch of evil genocidal magic ice demons.

[Sea Dragon]

I don't know if Jon is really dead. I don't think George Martin would make Danaerys marry a zombie. I think what he did was stupid and dumb no matter what. 

[Lord Varys]

5 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

What you said was that by "intervening in the affairs of the kingdom" Jon is breaking his vows.  Which is not true.  His oath very explicitly does not say he can take no part in a Westerosi war, merely that if he does, it must be part of the greater purpose of the Night's Watch.  Not saying the Bolton's are in league with the Others, but if Jon suspected that, he would be perfectly within his rights to intervene south of the Wall.

Considering that the NW does not actually specify the enemy the NW is fighting against you are reaching here. Jon, most likely quite correctly, assumes that the Others are meant but since they are not mentioned in the vow that's just an assumption.

The NW is the border garrison of the Seven Kingdoms. They man and maintain the Wall. They don't tell the kings and lords of the Seven Kingdoms what to do. If they struck a deal with the wildlings or the Others or whoever else might live in the Lands of Always Winter they don't have to ask the NW for permission first.

And they also have the right to disband the NW or destroy the Wall if they so choose.

Quote

Not participating in Southern politics is a way for the Wall to maintain it's neutrality and ensure a continued supply of recruits and gifts. There is literally nothing preventing them from intervening in the South; in fact, they often do, because they hunt wildling armies and bandits well south of the New Gift, which is, technically, an unjustified invasion.  Legally speaking, the Watch is not supposed to be in the business of hunting men down, and certainly not on lands owned by other lords, any more than the USA has a legal right to pursue criminals in other countries; it is a violation of sovereignty.

Can you give us any quotes where it is said that the NW does pursue wildling raiders on the lands of the lords of the Seven Kingdoms? Something like that is never mentioned in the books. In fact, during the series the NW doesn't even have the men to do something like that and when they still did they most likely had no reason to do something like that because they were able to prevent such raids from happening.

I'm pretty sure the Umbers and clansmen would not look kindly on armed black brothers entering their territories without their leave.

Quote

Now, in practice, you are right.  I just want to point out that you have fallen sway to the same mission drift that the Night's Watch has. You've confused their true purpose with their assumed purpose.  The Watch exists to look for, and combat, the Others if they should ever return.  That is it.  Literally, that is their only purpose, is to guard mankind from the genocidal ice demons lurking beyond the curtain of light at the end of the world.  Their oath allows them to do effectively anything in pursuit of that goal. They are restricted only from actions that might distract or deter them from it.  And since there is an actual history (or assumed to be actual history) of human collaboration with the Others, the NW has precedence of fighting other men as part of their fight against the Others (both the Night's King and Craster fall into this category).

That certainly is the case and because this is the case we can lay the blame for the bad relations between the Watch and the wildlings at the feet of the wildlings. They began to kill black brothers and crossed the Wall to bring war to the Northmen who support the NW. If the 50% or 20% of the black brothers were made up of wildling recruits things would be much different, most likely. But this is not the case. If the NW didn't defend itself and the Seven Kingdoms against the wildlings when they became a threat they would have been long gone. Either because the wildlings had killed them or because the Seven Kingdoms had dismantled the Watch and taken the defense of their territories into their own hands.

6 hours ago, The Hoare said:

The boltons could help too, but Jon isn't interested in trying to prove the existence of the Others to them.

Supporting Stannis is dangerous, as it put half of the North and the whole South agains't the NW.

It is not just that. The pointless fighting between Stannis and the Boltons is only going to play into the hands of the Others. Only they will profit from the hundreds or thousands of men who are likely to die at Winterfell in the very near future.

And while Jon's decision to save as many wildlings as he could from the cold and the Others was a reasonable decision it might still help the Others because it will drain the provisions of the Watch much quicker, meaning that whoever is left to defend the Wall when they finally make the move will be weaker than they could have been if they had no refugees to feed.

8 hours ago, Steelshanks Walton said:

I don't think the north would look too kindly on Jon when he comes back to life.  He helped arrange the marriage of a northern noblewoman to a wildling man.  That Thenn now controls her lands and her small folk will have to answer to that man.  That won't go easy with anybody in the north.  Ramsay has Mance on display.  That's evidence of a betrayal of N/W rules right there.  Jon even admits in his pov that Mance deserved to get executed for his crimes.

Yeah, those are interesting elements to consider. The Boltons having Mance could be a blow to Stannis' and Jon's credibility if he does indeed have him and did not just capture at least one of his women (keep in mind that Mance still has the glamor; if he disguised himself again as Rattleshirt he may evade detection in Winterfell). But we also have to keep in mind that the Boltons lost 'Arya' and thus the crucial element that gave legitimacy to their rule. Without a Stark at Winterfell many of the Northmen in Roose's army might desert him or defect to Stannis if things begin to look bad for Roose, especially if they conclude/realize that Stannis' agents have freed 'Arya'.

The Thenns are not likely to become that much of a problem considering that they came to the rescue and support of the legitimate heiress of Karhold (assuming Harrion Karstark is dead or going to die). In addition, they don't have the problematic free folk attitude of raiding and stealing women. The Valley of Thenn was a fertile place and the Magnar the absolutist god-king of a loyal population. Sigorn and Alys should be able to use that to their advantage. They can restore order in the Karstark lands without raising all that much opposition. It doesn't seem as if Arnolf and his brood are much loved in Karhold. Alys believes her father's people will open the gates for her and Sigorn. Perhaps things will get complicated if Harrion Karstark ever gets back. We have to wait and see.

[kimim]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

It is not just that. The pointless fighting between Stannis and the Boltons is only going to play into the hands of the Others. Only they will profit from the hundreds or thousands of men who are likely to die at Winterfell in the very near future.

And while Jon's decision to save as many wildlings as he could from the cold and the Others was a reasonable decision it might still help the Others because it will drain the provisions of the Watch much quicker, meaning that whoever is left to defend the Wall when they finally make the move will be weaker than they could have been if they had no refugees to feed.

OK, North must unite, right? They won't unite under the Boltons, thanks to the RW. Boltons would be able to settle things had they some years, but they don't. They have to die. Someone more palatable (even STANNIS is more palatable) has to take control and unite this place, because in the crudest sense, the Big Bad is coming, and the North will be the first place to meet it.

Jon's decision to save wildlings is based on denying Others an army: Others raise the dead. Thousands of vulnerable wildlings are potentially an army of thousands of zombies for the Walkers. This is shown in the prologue to Dance. No LC would want that coming at him. The mystery for me is that supplies or no, any crow should be able to see that preventing that at any cost is worth it, even if the cost is that the wildlings are allowed to die of starvation once they're safely past the Wall.

 

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, kimim said:

OK, North must unite, right? They won't unite under the Boltons, thanks to the RW.

Do we know that for sure? Shouldn't people who know that ice-demons exist and use zombies to fight against mankind beyond the Wall be of the opinion to either ignore or peacefully overcome whatever other differences they have. For Jon, Stannis, the Watch, and the wildlings this is no abstract threat. They know firsthand or from reports they trust that those creatures exist.

If that was the case for me and I was a politician or person of power I'd try everything in my power to form a coalition or alliance against those monsters. Am I smarter than Jon Snow and Stannis?

2 hours ago, kimim said:

Boltons would be able to settle things had they some years, but they don't. They have to die. Someone more palatable (even STANNIS is more palatable) has to take control and unite this place, because in the crudest sense, the Big Bad is coming, and the North will be the first place to meet it.

That is true but the North won't be able to defeat the Others anyway. What Stannis and Jon are doing right now is not helping with uniting the North. It is weakening it. Stannis by fighting the Boltons and Jon by taking the wildlings in while he doesn't have the food or the resources to do that properly.

The smart thing would have been to actually try to talk over this whole thing with all the lords of Westeros. And that would have been the duty of the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch. He is not supposed to interfere, a fact that could have enabled him to send envoys to all the warring factions, from Dorne to the Wall. But he doesn't even make the attempt to do something like that.

2 hours ago, kimim said:

Jon's decision to save wildlings is based on denying Others an army: Others raise the dead. Thousands of vulnerable wildlings are potentially an army of thousands of zombies for the Walkers. This is shown in the prologue to Dance. No LC would want that coming at him. The mystery for me is that supplies or no, any crow should be able to see that preventing that at any cost is worth it, even if the cost is that the wildlings are allowed to die of starvation once they're safely past the Wall.

They saw that. Bowen Marsh did agree with that. He accepted Jon's decision to allow Tormund and his people through the Wall. What he doesn't like is putting weapons in the hands of those people.

The expedition to Hardhome is a very bad idea because it most certainly would have been a suicide mission. There is pretty much no chance that those wildlings are going to be saved. Cotter Pykes's letters very much suggest that the Others are already there. The only way to help the people up there would be by ship. An expedition overland is pretty much doomed.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Let's just settle the technicality, then we can get to what actually matters. Was Jon breaking the technical rules/laws/vows of the Night's Watch? Sure he was. Could Bowen Marsh feel justified in what he did? Again, sure. Was Marsh technically acting lawfully (according to the Night's Watch?) when he murdered his Lord Commander? I guess that could be argued, but it is perhaps a bit more murky.

Now, with that out of the way, here's the bigger issue. Who cares? The Night's Watch consists of about 500 dregs of society at the edge of civilization. Soon to be number closer to zero, once the Wall inevitably falls.

Is Daenerys acting lawfully in all of her actions? Nope. Might makes right where her goals are concerned. Have the Lannisters been acting lawfully over the course of this series? Have the Boltons or Freys? Did Balon Greyjoy act lawfully? How about Euron Greyjoy?

In short, who cares that Jon broke the rules of a bunch of misfits at the edge of the world, when others are overthrowing whole kingdoms, whole civilizations in pursuit of their own ambitions and causes which they believe worthy. At least Jon is trying to act justly to the best of his ability. And acknowledges to himself when he is not able to live up to the ideals his father instilled in him. George did say that Jon is the truest character in the series, after all.

So this debate is pretty meaningless in the bigger scheme of things. It is just a convenient stick used by Jon haters to try and justify their dislike of the character. Pretty much yawn inducing to me.

Jon acted how any sane person would act, if his sister was forcibly married and being raped daily by a sadistic monster like Ramsay Bolton.

Rise up from the dead Jon Snow-Targaryen, and unleash your vengeance on all those who stand against you, I say.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

4 hours ago, Sea Dragon said:

I don't think George Martin would make Danaerys marry a zombie. 

Jon is in the story just in order to marry Dany?

[snow is the man]

18 hours ago, 300 H&H Magnum said:

 

okay mel gave the impression that the girl on the horse (supposed to be arya)  was dying and needed help. Would jon have sent her back to the boltons. no he would not have sent her back even if it was the real arya and anyone who could send their sister back to that is a monster. That said he could have sent her away and not asked or been told where she would go.  That would have given him an out and would have been smart.

Yes jon should have killed mance and that was a mistake. But janos slynt forced jons hand by not only refusing an order but insulting him in front of everyone to the point where jon would have lost all sense of order if he didn't. Janos slynt was the cause of his own death.

 

Yes jon made mistakes but most were reasonable. How wouuld he have gone against stannis though? I think we all know that stannis would have seen it as treason if the nights watch didn't help him and his soldiers would have decimated the nights watch or at least jon and then the next lord commander would have done as stannis wanted. I do think he wanted to help stannis but even if he didn't he had no real choice.