Jon was rightfully "terminated" by the Watch

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

And you must also be aware that Jon doesn't know Mance is going to Winterfell, and that the laws of the realm end at the wall, and as George has said, he bases his realistic pints of he story in actual history/myth/whatever, but he always twists it to be his own.

It doesn't matter whether Jon knew Mance went to Winterfell or not. So stop mentioning that again and again. It is irrelevant. And the talk about the laws ending at the Wall isn't coherent. Jon himself doesn't believe that. If that was true then the murders of Jeor Mormont and Craster weren't crimes, and neither is desertion when you are beyond the Wall (or in Essos, where Dareon was when he was murdered by Arya Stark).

This was an argument Jon used to save Mance's life because he could be useful in the days to come but he himself doesn't believe it. He thinks he should have taken the man's head.

But even if the laws would end at the Wall the NW is not based beyond the Wall. The laws still hold sway where they live. Just as they do in the North where Mance committed his crimes in the name of Jon Snow.

But is no quote where Jon explicitly forbid Mance to go to Winterfell, no? And the plan Mance laid out certainly included the possibility of infiltration. We don't yet know why they did go to Winterfell but they most likely wouldn't have gone there if Jon had forbidden it. They were going down south on his behalf and at his command, after all.

4 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Your conclusions are based on the Targaryens "finally" and "rightfully" end up on a throne (that is probably going to be null and melted down soon) and that the "unwashed" dirtbag wildlings all die to save 10 people. 

You really think that is what our hippy author is saying? Is that really the song of the story? 

This has nothing to do with the question at hand.

4 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Seriously, in this series, might makes right. And in this case once Jon gains "might", he will make right something which wasn't even wrong in the first place.

That doesn't have anything to do with the question, either. Power does not restore honor or makes you popular. Just look at Jaime or Bloodraven? Did people not call them Kingslayer or kinslayer just because they had power and prestige? Or do people accept the Red Wedding as a great scheme just because Roose Bolton is in power right now?  No. Jon broke his vow and was killed for that. And people won't forget that.

4 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

And Roose Bolton violated laws by partaking in first night "right" which Ramsay was the resulting whelp. And now Winterfell is held unlawfully by known usurpers. 

That is irrelevant, too. The Night's Watch takes no part. For Jon it has to be irrelevant how somebody came in possession of Winterfell.

1 hour ago, Darkstream said:

No, what's sad is your inability, or unwillingness to recognize context, circumstance, and intent.  To be a treasonous traitor, one must commit an act with the willful intent to sabotage the cause of those that you are aligned to. In none of the examples you've provided - in which Jon has either broken, or walked the line in breaking his vows - was he intending to impede the cause of the Nights Watch, nor had his allegiance to the Watch faltered. And in fact, he made great sacrifice for the Watch, and had to make some very difficult decisions - of which can be argued, there was no right option - wherin he always made the choice that he felt was for the sake and benefit of the Watch, and of mankind. 

I don't care about your ideas about Jon's reasoning. I care about the meaning of vows and the fact that Jon doesn't deserve special pleading regardless what he or you think he did.

Jon tries to attack the realms of men when he is killed. Ramsay and Roose are just as much parts of the realms of men as the wildlings are. Jon had neither a right to antagonize the Boltons with the Mance thing nor had he a right to declare war on them.

1 hour ago, Darkstream said:

And what's sad is that's you don't realize how worthless these vows actually are. Sure, the intent and purpose of these oaths may have admiral goals in mind, and are all fine and dandy in theory, however, life and the tribulations that you must face throughout, are not as black and white as you would put forth, and wish them to be. The reason that GRRM  reinforces the importance of these vows in AGoT, as you've pointed out, is so that he can effectively show the dire consequences of one commiting themselves to such limiting and binding shackles. Where is the honor and duty in upholding yourself to a vow your swore, when doing so inhibits you from fulfilling the purpose of taking those vows in the first place? Where is the sense in abiding by laws, put in place to establish and maintain order and civility, when doing so results in a despairing and chaotic society that rewards the vile actions of deplorable and sadistic individuals such as Ramsey and others of his like? What you don't seem to realize is that these vows are to blame for the dire state that the Watch has fallen to. Why do you think the Watch is largely made up of criminals who had no other real options, other  than to serve at the Wall?

Because people no longer give a shit about the Night's Watch and its purpose?

The vow is the foundation of the Night's Watch. In a continent of a Hundred Kingdoms those petty kings came together and created a powerful order warrior monks who defended their common border, their realms of men, against a supernatural foe that had the power to destroy them all. This worked for thousands of years because the men serving in that order knew that their families and friends down in those petty kings were nothing to them after they had said the words. If they had not known that the Watch wouldn't have survived a century, never mind millennia.

The brothers and fathers of Stark princes who were skinned alive by a Lord of the Dreadfort would served under a Bolton Lord Commander up there without trying to avenge their families on him. Former enemies would have fought and lived side by side at the Wall for generations.

Jon Snow's issues with Ramsay Bolton are nothing special. And he does not deserve special treatment. Never mind his good intentions.

1 hour ago, Darkstream said:

What's really sad, is that due to your own personal bias, you take Jon's actions and decision that were made with the best of intentions, and made in the attempt to do what was the right thing, to the best of his knowledge or understanding, and use them to demonize and condemn him. Did he make mistakes, or let his own bias and feelings cloud his judgement at times? Of course. Who hasn't been guilty of that at some point?

I don't care about other people. We are discussing Jon here. And just because other people are making mistakes doesn't mean Jon's mistakes suddenly get better. They have nothing to do with each other.

1 hour ago, Darkstream said:

But to take these mistakes, and moments of poor judgement, and use them in an attempt to label Jon as a treasonous, oath breaking traitor, or to compare him to the likes of people like Daerion or Janos is just a ridiculously ignorant and asinine stance. Whether or not you agree with the decisions and moves that John made, and whether or not some of those decisions may have happened to coincided in benefiting the personal desires and bias of John, that does not change the fact that he always attempted to do what he felt was best for the prosperity and survival of the Watch, and of mankind. These are not motives and decisions of a treasonous, oath breaking traitor.

Can you give me any quotes where Jon actually cares about either 'prosperity or survival of the Watch' or that of 'mankind'. As far as I know he never gives any hint that those things are motivating his actions.

And it is quite clear that saving Arya didn't help either the Watch nor mankind. It endangered both. As did his Hardhome idea and (to a lesser degree) his decision to allow the wildlings through the Wall. And then, of course, the madness of declaring war on the Boltons. That was just suicide. Jon can count himself lucky that Marsh got to him first. Ramsay wouldn't have been that kind.

3 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Lots of people take maester Aemon's words to Jon about love being the death of duty as gospel. He is after all a very old and wise sweet man, so he must be right. Right? Wrong. Love is what will save the day (or night?). Love for your fellow human beings, regardless of where they were born or how they were brought up. 

Then why doesn't Jon love Ramsay? Jon himself made a commitment when he joined the NW. He knew what that vow meant and he spoke it anyway. If you enter into such a contract you uphold or you die. There is no middle ground. That's not something the people hide behind, it is something they want to do. Failures like Jon are killed, they don't get a second chance. Jon is behaving like a little child, like a boy who wants to be a monk and then realizes that he also wants to marry. That doesn't work.

2 minutes ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

Wouldn't Yoren be an oath breaker as well then? For sneaking Arya away from the Crown and trying to take her back to Winterfell. Was that not interfering with the affairs of the realm? 

He was, actually, but he also showed us how taking no part goes when Tyrion was taken in the inn. But yeah, he is interfering with the affairs of the Realm and taking sides a lot and then he gets punished for that. First when he informs Ned about Tyrion's abduction (the wiser cause would have been to do nothing) and then when he takes Arya in. Taking Gendry in might have been problematic, too, but here he at least as the excuse that somebody from court - most likely Varys - commanded him to take the boy. However, it is quite clearly treason not to hand Gendry over to the City Guard.

[kissdbyfire]

15 minutes ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

Wouldn't Yoren be an oath breaker as well then? For sneaking Arya away from the Crown and trying to take her back to Winterfell. Was that not interfering with the affairs of the realm? 

Yes and yes. 

[Lord Varys]

6 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

What? So in one thread you argue that Stannis is a rambling mad man that everyone in the realm hates, making absurd claims that he has no proof of, but then to suit your argument in this thread, all of a sudden you contradict that, and state that he has a reputation of honesty, and should be trying to convince that very faction - which he is currently at war with, and of whom consider him to be a traitor - of the situation beyond the wall. This makes no sense at all.

That is not mutually exclusive. Stannis has a reputation of being just and honest but he is also the case that nobody likes the man because he is very unsympathetic and inflexible.

And he has no proof for his claims. I'm pretty sure more people believe Stannis than Cersei but that in and of itself doesn't convince anyone to actually support Stannis.

[kissdbyfire]

@Lord Varys, you asked for quotes on Jon thinking about the survival of the watch and humankind in general. I'm usually more than happy to provide quotes, but to paraphrase what you said to another poster a while back, it's not my job to do your work for you. You've read the books, right? 

As to your extremely silly argument, "why doesn't Jon love Ramsay then", I honestly have nothing to say to that other than it's one of the silliest arguments I've ever read. 

ETA: And the argument that if you make a vow you either live by it or die, there's no middle ground is also extremely silly imo. That type of rigidity doesn't equal honour but stupid inflexibility.

 

[Lord Varys]

52 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

@Lord Varys, you asked for quotes on Jon thinking about the survival of the watch and humankind in general. I'm usually more than happy to provide quotes, but to paraphrase what you said to another poster a while back, it's not my job to do your work for you. You've read the books, right? 

That was a rhetorical question. We both know there are no so such quotes. Nobody contests Jon takes the threat of the Others seriously and tries to do his best to deal with that. But he doesn't have all that many good ideas nor is he very successful at that front. And that he fails is his fault, and his fault alone. He was warned repeatedly that people close to him are planning to kill him.

52 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

As to your extremely silly argument, "why doesn't Jon love Ramsay then", I honestly have nothing to say to that other than it's one of the silliest arguments I've ever read. 

I can return that compliment insofar as your argument that love is going 'to save the day (or night)' is concerned. I was commenting on that one in an ironic way.

52 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

ETA: And the argument that if you make a vow you either live by it or die, there's no middle ground is also extremely silly imo. That type of rigidity doesn't equal honour but stupid inflexibility.

I'd agree with that on principle. But it is one thing to join an institution with strict rules of your own free will and theoretically discuss this thing. Nobody forced Jon to join the NW. If you are thinking Jon has better or more effective rules to replace the vow of the Night's Watch then point me towards those. I don't see them.

[Shi Qiang]

7 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

You would have to include the Starks in that company.  Even Osha knew they were looking in the wrong the direction. 

It looks to me like Rickard, Brandon, Eddard, and Catelyn forgot their duties in the north and turned their attention south. 

 

4 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

A brilliant post, I couldn't possibly agree more. 

Words are wind! It's not what you say, it's what you do. And it's not for nothing that Martin wouldn't let his editor remove a single one of the many "words are wind" from the book. 

If Tommen wants you to saddle his horse, obey him. If he tells you to kill his horse, come to me.

It's so easy to hide behind vows and orders... that's the refuge of cowards - "I was just following my vows/orders!"

Lots of people take maester Aemon's words to Jon about love being the death of duty as gospel. He is after all a very old and wise sweet man, so he must be right. Right? Wrong. Love is what will save the day (or night?). Love for your fellow human beings, regardless of where they were born or how they were brought up. 

 

Jon's crimes went beyond breaking his vows.  He started a war with the Boltons for the sake of fake Arya.  That is a crime for a member of the night's watch that is far greater than the breaking of vows. 

Even if we remove the crime of oath-breaking from Jon's record, Bowen would still be in the rights to kill him because Jon was about to do something very wrong.  Leading a pack of wildlings, who were supposed to stay and defend the wall and not fight Jon's personal battles, to attack Ramsay is treason. 

Loving your fellow man is a fine thing to do.  But a person holding an important title that carries a responsibility for the good of many people cannot and should not put his love for the one compromise his duties. 

[the snow dragon]

 

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It doesn't matter whether Jon knew Mance went to Winterfell or not. So stop mentioning that again and again. It is irrelevant. And the talk about the laws ending at the Wall isn't coherent. Jon himself doesn't believe that. If that was true then the murders of Jeor Mormont and Craster weren't crimes, and neither is desertion when you are beyond the Wall (or in Essos, where Dareon was when he was murdered by Arya Stark).

This was an argument Jon used to save Mance's life because he could be useful in the days to come but he himself doesn't believe it. He thinks he should have taken the man's head.

But even if the laws would end at the Wall the NW is not based beyond the Wall. The laws still hold sway where they live. Just as they do in the North where Mance committed his crimes in the name of Jon Snow.

 

why doesn't it matters that mance was sent to another location but he ended up in Winterfell without the knowledge of jon snow?if jon is responsible for the act of every one of his man than shouldn't jeor morment held responsible for the actions of yoren or the lord commander qorgoil for mance's desertion?  it is even more important in the light of the fact that mance is not under jons command.he was pardoned by king stanis not jon snow.mace offered his services to one plan but executed totally another.jon is not resposible for that.

[the snow dragon]

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 

But is no quote where Jon explicitly forbid Mance to go to Winterfell, no? And the plan Mance laid out certainly included the possibility of infiltration. We don't yet know why they did go to Winterfell but they most likely wouldn't have gone there if Jon had forbidden it. They were going down south on his behalf and at his command, after all.

This has nothing to do with the question at hand.

That doesn't have anything to do with the question, either. Power does not restore honor or makes you popular. Just look at Jaime or Bloodraven? Did people not call them Kingslayer or kinslayer just because they had power and prestige? Or do people accept the Red Wedding as a great scheme just because Roose Bolton is in power right now?  No. Jon broke his vow and was killed for that. And people won't forget that.

That is irrelevant, too. The Night's Watch takes no part. For Jon it has to be irrelevant how somebody came in possession of Winterfell.

I don't care about your ideas about Jon's reasoning. I care about the meaning of vows and the fact that Jon doesn't deserve special pleading regardless what he or you think he did.

Jon tries to attack the realms of men when he is killed. Ramsay and Roose are just as much parts of the realms of men as the wildlings are. Jon had neither a right to antagonize the Boltons with the Mance thing nor had he a right to declare war on them.

 

Ha there is also no quote saying that jon ordereded the Winterfell infiltration. You are just interpretating things the way you want. And what plan mance proposed that included infiltration? Now as you just said we dont know why they went to Winterfell we have no idia about ulterior motives. So why assume that they wouldn't go if forbidden by jon.afterall mance is his own man now.   

And jon didn't attaked the raelms of men when he was murdered. Vows say you have to save realms of man. Thay dont say you should not defend yourself if those realms of men threaten your life.

 

[lojzelote]

3 hours ago, the snow dragon said:

 

 

why doesn't it matters that mance was sent to another location but he ended up in Winterfell without the knowledge of jon snow?if jon is responsible for the act of every one of his man than shouldn't jeor morment held responsible for the actions of yoren or the lord commander qorgoil for mance's desertion?  it is even more important in the light of the fact that mance is not under jons command.he was pardoned by king stanis not jon snow.mace offered his services to one plan but executed totally another.jon is not resposible for that.

The thing is, Jon should have never sent Mance Rayder anywhere. He should have either swiftly executed him for being a Night's Watch deserter that joined the wildlings and led aggressive war against the NW, or he should have pretended he's not aware that Rattleshirt is in fact Mance Rayder in disguise and kept him locked up as a prisoner of war.

Jon Snow knows that Mance Rayder cannot be fully trusted - because he has already turned against the Watch once and because Jon happened to personally betray Mance and his wildlings not so long ago in ASoS. Mance is a trickster, and he might want to get even.

Jon believes he did not act wisely in sending Mance away:

Quote

A grey girl on a dying horse, fleeing from her marriage. On the strength of those words he had loosed Mance Rayder and six spearwives on the north. “Young ones, and pretty,” Mance had said. The unburnt king supplied some names, and Dolorous Edd had done the rest, smuggling them from Mole’s Town. It seemed like madness now. He might have done better to strike down Mance the moment he revealed himself. Jon had a certain grudging admiration for the late King-Beyond-the-Wall, but the man was an oathbreaker and a turncloak. He had even less trust in Melisandre. Yet somehow here he was, pinning his hopes on them. All to save my sister. But the men of the Night’s Watch have no sisters.

Quote

Jon walked to the edge of the Wall and gazed down upon the killing ground where Mance
Rayder’s host had died. He wondered where Mance was now. Did he ever find you, little sister? Or were you just a ploy he used so I would set him free?

Jon Snow is certainly under no impression that Mance Rayder is acting upon the order King Stannis, is he?

So yeah, he sent a potentially highly untrustworthy guy away with a small band of fighters on a mission that would be considered treasonous, and he has done so secretly, because he knows that his actions would never fly with the rest of the NW establishment. (He's not the first one to do so - Catelyn's freeing Jaime in exchange for daughters comes to mind. She also knew it was not wise, but she was just desperate.)

As for where he sent him - it doesn't matter. The important thing is that he should not have sent him at all. By sending him away, he risked that Mance and his spearwives will be caught and forced to talk about who sent them and why, or even if they safely made it back to the Wall with Arya, they might have been followed by random onlookers/villagers/scouts or someone at the Wall might feel it's his duty to alert the Boltons that Arya Bolton, Lady of Winterfell, is being shipped away without her husband's knowledge and on someone else's orders. How much plausible deniability would Jon have that Mance's party was not acting on his orders? What if they threatened or tortured anyone who might possibly know something? What if they found out that it was Edd, Jon's personal squire, that had a part in the mission? Even if they didn't find any clue leading directly to Jon, they still might see fit to punish him (and possibly the entire organization) for not having any clue what is going on at the Wall while it is under his command.

The possibilities in which Mance's mission could have gone wrong are endless, and once the Boltons would have caught the wind that someone in the NW meddles in their affairs, it would have brought their wrath upon the institution - and that's why Jon's decision-making here is problematic. As the LC he's the one responsible for the good of the NW and its members. By sending Mance and co after Arya, he prioritized the well-being of Arya Stark Bolton over the NW  and its men. That's a terrible breach against the trust they put into him when they had chosen him (or at least accepted him) as their leader. If he's aware that the Boltons are cruel and/or unreasonable that makes it all the worse, because then they can prove cruel and unreasonable while dealing with the NW.

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, the snow dragon said:

why doesn't it matters that mance was sent to another location but he ended up in Winterfell without the knowledge of jon snow?if jon is responsible for the act of every one of his man than shouldn't jeor morment held responsible for the actions of yoren or the lord commander qorgoil for mance's desertion?  it is even more important in the light of the fact that mance is not under jons command.he was pardoned by king stanis not jon snow.mace offered his services to one plan but executed totally another.jon is not resposible for that.

You don't understand. If you live in Westeros and your men - one of your retainers, a member or your clan or family - attacks or hurts or damages or steals the property of another nobleman on your behalf you are responsible for that. Mance Rayder and his women did not just kill a few Bolton men they also stole Lady Bolton from her lord husband on Jon Snow's behalf. The man is responsible for this.

Now, if a man deserts or goes outlaw then the lord is no longer to blame. But you to publicly announce that. For instance, if Tywin Lannister had publicly declared that Gregor Clegane and a bunch of other knights and lordlings had gone rogue before they attacked the Riverlands in AGoT he wouldn't have been responsible for their actions. But as things stand he is.

And you apparently read neither the books nor my quotes from the books where it is made very clear that Stannis put Mance and all the other wildlings at the Wall under Jon's jurisdiction. And Jon himself makes it clear that he sent Mance down south to save his sister. He says nothing about sending him only to Long Lake or forbid him to infiltrate Winterfell. In fact, he does not write a letter to Lord Bolton to warn him of Mance's coming after he realized that Melisandre's vision had been referring to Alys Karstark. Then he would have known that 'Arya' would not be fleeing and could thus not be saved by Mance. Which would have meant he should have taken steps to prevent Mance from trying to break 'Arya' out or from him doing anything. Sending a letter to Winterfell or sending some men after Mance and the women could have helped with that. Instead he did nothing.

4 hours ago, the snow dragon said:

Ha there is also no quote saying that jon ordereded the Winterfell infiltration. You are just interpretating things the way you want. And what plan mance proposed that included infiltration? Now as you just said we dont know why they went to Winterfell we have no idia about ulterior motives. So why assume that they wouldn't go if forbidden by jon.afterall mance is his own man now.   

That is nonsense. 'Arya Stark' means nothing to Mance Rayder. Why would he and the women go to Winterfell to save her if they are not doing this on Jon Snow's behalf? He wanted them to save his sister. That is their mission. If you send out a man to do your dirty work you are responsible for his actions. Period. Only if Mance had gone completely against his mission by, say, gathering some men to attack Karhold for some stupid reason could you say Jon was not directly responsible. But he would still be indirectly responsible because he was the one sending them out in the first place. If your are assembling an army and send them out to take a castle and your men commit unspeakable atrocities on the way there and while taking the castle you are to blame, too, even if you commanded them not to commit unspeakable atrocities.

4 hours ago, the snow dragon said:

And jon didn't attaked the raelms of men when he was murdered. Vows say you have to save realms of man. Thay dont say you should not defend yourself if those realms of men threaten your life.

The members of the NW have only one duty. To sit at that Wall and defend the realms of men against unspecified enemies. That is their job. If they no longer do that everybody in the Seven Kingdoms is free to kill them. Because they are then deserters. Jon Snow was a deserter and that's why he was killed.

The idea that the NW can decide on its own what their duties are and that can defend themselves against 'evil people' from 'the realms of men' that are attacking is the same kind of rationale the Night's King and other bad Lord Commanders would have used in the past. It is a bunch of crap. After all, the Others are not mentioned in the vow of the NW, so the Night's King did nothing wrong when he married that woman and worshiped the Others, right?

The NW is a military order that serves the realms of men (i.e. the Seven Kingdoms). They are no independent political entity in their own right but are defenseless against attacks from the South and pursuing a policy of strict neutrality. Once they break that they are done. They no longer at the NW but another faction in the game of thrones. And that's what Jon becomes in ADwD. He plays at politics instead of doing his duty.

1 hour ago, lojzelote said:

As for where he sent him - it doesn't matter. The important thing is that he should not have sent him at all. By sending him away, he risked that Mance and his spearwives will be caught and forced to talk about who sent them and why, or even if they safely made it back to the Wall with Arya, they might have been followed by random onlookers/villagers/scouts or someone at the Wall might feel it's his duty to alert the Boltons that Arya Bolton, Lady of Winterfell, is being shipped away without her husband's knowledge and on someone else's orders. How much plausible deniability would Jon have that Mance's party was not acting on his orders? What if they threatened or tortured anyone who might possibly know something? What if they found out that it was Edd, Jon's personal squire, that had a part in the mission? Even if they didn't find any clue leading directly to Jon, they still might see fit to punish him (and possibly the entire organization) for not having any clue what is going on at the Wall while it is under his command.

If any of that happened he would be fried. He has no right to keep Lady Bolton at Castle Black or anywhere against her lord husband's wishes. The NW isn't a sanctuary for women. It is no sanctuary at all.

1 hour ago, lojzelote said:

The possibilities in which Mance's mission could have gone wrong are endless, and once the Boltons would have caught the wind that someone in the NW meddles in their affairs, it would have brought their wrath upon the institution - and that's why Jon's decision-making here is problematic. As the LC he's the one responsible for the good of the NW and its members. By sending Mance and co after Arya, he prioritized the well-being of Arya Stark Bolton over the NW  and its men. That's a terrible breach against the trust they put into him when they had chosen him (or at least accepted him) as their leader. If he's aware that the Boltons are cruel and/or unreasonable that makes it all the worse, because then they can prove cruel and unreasonable while dealing with the NW.

Indeed. This is Jon Snow's double standard at work. He can endanger the lives of the men who elected him their leader but his men have to be above their petty emotions and prejudices. Bowen Marsh has to become a wildling lover just as Jon Snow is. He even has to overcome his hatred of the Weeper (a man even Mance considers a considerable danger in Mel's chapter) because Jon Snow says so.

But Jon Snow can't allow his sister to suffer. No, that he can't. Never mind the vows he swore and the promises he made. He would have sure taken the head of any other black brother who pulled off the same thing he did with Mance. There is not even a question about that.

[HallowedMarcus]

On 20/06/2017 at 8:41 PM, Lord Varys said:

. Eddard Stark forged his king's last will in an attempt to make himself the Lord Regent and Protector

   Ned Stark did not forge making himself Lord Protector at all! He did not try to persuade Robert to make him so, neither did he ask for it. Robert told him that Ned would rule in his stead! Robert told him to write it in his will. That part was not adulterated in any way.

   Also, Cersei selfishly to keep power committed treason. Ned Stark didn't do anything to keep or have power. What he did he did for friendship, love and mercy. I quote: "...."Robert ..." Joffrey is not your son, he wanted to say, but the words would not come. The agony was written too plainly across Robert's face; he could not hurt him more."

   He even warned Cersei to leave King's Landing and Westeros with her children so they would be safe from Robert's wrath because he believed that Robert would kill them too. 

   Also, you did not (no obligation needed :)) addressed about all in that room knowing that Ned Stark Was the Lord Protector and Regent of the Realm. Selmy confirmed it was King Robert's will and Cersei read (Robert's Will) to all to hear "Protector of the Realm" Afterwards she said it was just a piece of paper - it was not it was Robert's will - and tore it apart. She had no authority because she was not a member of the small council, her son was a minor and she was not Regent, which she, herself, confirmed when she read that Ned was Lord Protector. As Lord Commander of the King's Guard, he should have immediately arrested her. Also, all there heard Cersei confirming Ned Stark as Protector of the Realm and therefore all there are traitors for arresting the Regent Lord Protector and Hand of the King and killing his men.

[Lord Varys]

13 minutes ago, HallowedMarcus said:

   Ned Stark did not forge making himself Lord Protector at all! He did not try to persuade Robert to make him so, neither did he ask for it. Robert told him that Ned would rule in his stead! Robert told him to write it in his will. That part was not adulterated in any way.

Don't you understand? Ned didn't tell Robert the truth about his children and then he changed 'until my son Joffrey comes of age' to 'until the heir comes of age'. That is a forgery. Robert only appointed a Lord Regent and Protector because Joffrey was still a minor. Had he known that he had no heir of his own body by Cersei but only bastard children he would have either legitimized one of those (and then also appointed Ned as Lord Regent and Protector) or - much more likely - he would have named one of his brothers his new heir, commanding Ned to ensure that the chosen heir would succeed to the throne (assuming he could not give orders ensuring this on his deathbed - he certainly could have arrested Cersei and the children while he was dying).

But in any such scenario Ned wouldn't have been named Lord Regent and Protector.

As things stand Ned uses Robert's forged will to get himself confirmed as Lord Regent and Protector of the Realm for King Joffrey while planning to unmake that king. After all, he believes that this boy is not king at all - but that also means he is no Lord Regent and no Protector of the Realm.

If Ned had just continued to act as Hand of the King he would have been honest. But not telling Robert what he knew and forging his last will was treason. Well meant treason, perhaps, but still treason.

[Lady Topspin]

On 6/21/2017 at 7:46 PM, Allardyce said:

Loving your fellow man is a fine thing to do.  But a person holding an important title that carries a responsibility for the good of many people cannot and should not put his love for the one compromise his duties. 

Jon is not the right sort of person for an important position.  He is best suited to scrub chamber pots at a third-rate Flea Bottom inn for a career.  No more than that. 

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But Jon Snow can't allow his sister to suffer. No, that he can't. Never mind the vows he swore and the promises he made. He would have sure taken the head of any other black brother who pulled off the same thing he did with Mance. There is not even a question about that.

Janos Slynt's offense was microscopic compared to that and Jon killed him.  Jon's brand of justice is inconsistent; therefore, unjust.  Chamber Pot Jon has a much better ring to it than Lord Commander Jon. 

[Damsel in Distress]

On 6/21/2017 at 3:13 PM, Ralphis Baratheon said:

Wouldn't Yoren be an oath breaker as well then? For sneaking Arya away from the Crown and trying to take her back to Winterfell. Was that not interfering with the affairs of the realm? 

And Yoren paid for his mistake with his life.  He let his personal feelings for Benjen and extended it to Ned.  He should not have done that.  Arya is of no use to the watch and she cannot take their vows.  She is not a member of their order.  Yoren was wrong to sneak Arya out of K/L.

[the snow dragon]

18 hours ago, lojzelote said:

The thing is, Jon should have never sent Mance Rayder anywhere. He should have either swiftly executed him for being a Night's Watch deserter that joined the wildlings and led aggressive war against the NW, or he should have pretended he's not aware that Rattleshirt is in fact Mance Rayder in disguise and kept him locked up as a prisoner of war.

Jon Snow knows that Mance Rayder cannot be fully trusted - because he has already turned against the Watch once and because Jon happened to personally betray Mance and his wildlings not so long ago in ASoS. Mance is a trickster, and he might want to get even.

Jon believes he did not act wisely in sending Mance away:

Jon Snow is certainly under no impression that Mance Rayder is acting upon the order King Stannis, is he?

So yeah, he sent a potentially highly untrustworthy guy away with a small band of fighters on a mission that would be considered treasonous, and he has done so secretly, because he knows that his actions would never fly with the rest of the NW establishment. (He's not the first one to do so - Catelyn's freeing Jaime in exchange for daughters comes to mind. She also knew it was not wise, but she was just desperate.)

As for where he sent him - it doesn't matter. The important thing is that he should not have sent him at all. By sending him away, he risked that Mance and his spearwives will be caught and forced to talk about who sent them and why, or even if they safely made it back to the Wall with Arya, they might have been followed by random onlookers/villagers/scouts or someone at the Wall might feel it's his duty to alert the Boltons that Arya Bolton, Lady of Winterfell, is being shipped away without her husband's knowledge and on someone else's orders. How much plausible deniability would Jon have that Mance's party was not acting on his orders? What if they threatened or tortured anyone who might possibly know something? What if they found out that it was Edd, Jon's personal squire, that had a part in the mission? Even if they didn't find any clue leading directly to Jon, they still might see fit to punish him (and possibly the entire organization) for not having any clue what is going on at the Wall while it is under his command.

The possibilities in which Mance's mission could have gone wrong are endless, and once the Boltons would have caught the wind that someone in the NW meddles in their affairs, it would have brought their wrath upon the institution - and that's why Jon's decision-making here is problematic. As the LC he's the one responsible for the good of the NW and its members. By sending Mance and co after Arya, he prioritized the well-being of Arya Stark Bolton over the NW  and its men. That's a terrible breach against the trust they put into him when they had chosen him (or at least accepted him) as their leader. If he's aware that the Boltons are cruel and/or unreasonable that makes it all the worse, because then they can prove cruel and unreasonable while dealing with the NW.

Yes you are right that Jon shouldn't have thought to help his sister.that was wrong by virtue of being nights watch member.but the crime jon did and the crime for which he is acused by ramasy is different. Actively infiltrating Winterfell, killing bolten or any other men while rescuing arya is different than helping a girl in need on the road.while the first amount to meddling in the realms affairs, the second is just helping somebody just like jon helped alys karstark.mance was infact the best option for the purpose he was sent as he wasn't a watch member, knew the area  and malisandre had assured his loyalty through her magic.but mance went behond what was asked of him and jon gets blamed for his actions.what i want to say is that jons actions doesn't justify his murder. 

[the snow dragon]

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You don't understand. If you live in Westeros and your men - one of your retainers, a member or your clan or family - attacks or hurts or damages or steals the property of another nobleman on your behalf you are responsible for that. Mance Rayder and his women did not just kill a few Bolton men they also stole Lady Bolton from her lord husband on Jon Snow's behalf. The man is responsible for this.

Now, if a man deserts or goes outlaw then the lord is no longer to blame. But you to publicly announce that. For instance, if Tywin Lannister had publicly declared that Gregor Clegane and a bunch of other knights and lordlings had gone rogue before they attacked the Riverlands in AGoT he wouldn't have been responsible for their actions. But as things stand he is.

And you apparently read neither the books nor my quotes from the books where it is made very clear that Stannis put Mance and all the other wildlings at the Wall under Jon's jurisdiction. And Jon himself makes it clear that he sent Mance down south to save his sister. He says nothing about sending him only to Long Lake or forbid him to infiltrate Winterfell. In fact, he does not write a letter to Lord Bolton to warn him of Mance's coming after he realized that Melisandre's vision had been referring to Alys Karstark. Then he would have known that 'Arya' would not be fleeing and could thus not be saved by Mance. Which would have meant he should have taken steps to prevent Mance from trying to break 'Arya' out or from him doing anything. Sending a letter to Winterfell or sending some men after Mance and the women could have helped with that. Instead he did nothing.

That is nonsense. 'Arya Stark' means nothing to Mance Rayder. Why would he and the women go to Winterfell to save her if they are not doing this on Jon Snow's behalf? He wanted them to save his sister. That is their mission. If you send out a man to do your dirty work you are responsible for his actions. Period. Only if Mance had gone completely against his mission by, say, gathering some men to attack Karhold for some stupid reason could you say Jon was not directly responsible. t he would still be indirectly responsible because he was the one sending them out in the first place. If your are assembling an army and send them out to take a castle and your men commit unspeakable atrocities on the way there and while taking the castle you are to blame, too, even if you commanded them not to commit unspeakable atrocities.

The members of the NW have only one duty. To sit at that Wall and defend the realms of men against unspecified enemies. That is their job. If they no longer do that everybody in the Seven Kingdoms is free to kill them. Because they are then deserters. Jon Snow was a deserter and that's why he was killed.

The idea that the NW can decide on its own what their duties are and that can defend themselves against 'evil people' from 'the realms of men' that are attacking is the same kind of rationale the Night's King and other bad Lord Commanders would have used in the past. It is a bunch of crap. After all, the Others are not mentioned in the vow of the NW, so the Night's King did nothing wrong when he married that woman and worshiped the Others, right?

The NW is a military order that serves the realms of men (i.e. the Seven Kingdoms). They are no independent political entity in their own right but are defenseless against attacks from the South and pursuing a policy of strict neutrality.

I understand perfectly well that jon would be blamed for mance's actons whether he ordered it or not.but i also understand that a just lord would give a chance to present jons side. The concepts of justice, honor,fair trial are also westerosi.so it is a point what jon actualy ordered and what mance actualy did.instead jon gets unjust demands that cannot be met at the risk of his life. Jon is responding to this threat and there is nothing in vows that say he cannot defend himself.that doesn't make him deserter.             nights watch's duty is to protect realms of men from others threat but but they are also free to defend themselves. As they defend themselves from wildings.no lord can attack watch on unjust grounds.now a lord can fabricate a false crime or attack on the premise of precieved crimes but that would be wrong and watch would defend themselves.

You are just bending things to suit your argument like jon didn't forbade mance on page to infilterate Winterfell he must have ordered it.it works both ways. If he didn't said to infilterate Winterfell so shouldn't we assume that he farbade it? When jon thinks about mance after alys karstark he thinks that mance has just tricked him to get himself free. Nowhere he thinks about Winterfell possibility because he hasn't considered it. So your point about warning boltens is also moot. 

Your are again assuming that mance dosent had ulerior motive to go to Winterfell. He is also working for mallisandre who in turn is working for stanis. So he can be on a mission to desatablise boltens by sowing discord a or finding a way to breach Winterfell.theon wonders same thing.

In the end i will give you that you are a clever word smith who knows how to present his argument, to leave or ingnore the points angainst your argument, to bend or interprete things as suit you and writing lengthy posts that becomes harder to reply.

[Prof. Cecily]

18 minutes ago, the snow dragon said:

I understand perfectly well that jon would be blamed for mance's actons whether he ordered it or not.but i also understand that a just lord would give a chance to present jons side.

I'm not entirely sure, but isn't  Stannis camped at the side of a lake, starving and awaiting the Bolton/Frey attack?

In any case, are deserters to the NW given trials or executed out of hand?

[sweetsunray]

37 minutes ago, Prof. Cecily said:

In any case, are deserters to the NW given trials or executed out of hand?

It appears that Gared had a trial. Bran was young and George obfuscated what actually was asked to Gared and said by Gared. But Ned asked Gared questions, and Gared gave answers. It's but a few lines in Bran's first chapter that covers it, but I'd say that was indeed a trial. Bran simply wasn't focused on it, and George didn't want us to know what Gared said exactly.

[Lord Varys]

3 hours ago, the snow dragon said:

I understand perfectly well that jon would be blamed for mance's actons whether he ordered it or not.but i also understand that a just lord would give a chance to present jons side. The concepts of justice, honor,fair trial are also westerosi.so it is a point what jon actualy ordered and what mance actualy did.instead jon gets unjust demands that cannot be met at the risk of his life. Jon is responding to this threat and there is nothing in vows that say he cannot defend himself.that doesn't make him deserter.             nights watch's duty is to protect realms of men from others threat but but they are also free to defend themselves. As they defend themselves from wildings.no lord can attack watch on unjust grounds.now a lord can fabricate a false crime or attack on the premise of precieved crimes but that would be wrong and watch would defend themselves.

Jon is given a fair chance, even by Ramsay. Ramsay makes it clear that Stannis is defeated and Jon's hopes have gone to nothing. But he doesn't say his life and the lives of his men are forfeit now. He demands that Jon return his wife, his Reek, and also hand Stannis' daughter, wife, and lover over to him. Those are not impossible or even unreasonable demands. There are a lot of insults in this letter, too, but there is no talk about a trial or anything. Jon isn't even accused of a crime. Ramsay merely makes it clear that due to his actions he is seen as an enemy combatant now and will be treated as such unless he meets Ramsay's demands.

That is actually pretty soft. Jon deserves to die for the whole Mance thing but Ramsay does not insist on that.

3 hours ago, the snow dragon said:

You are just bending things to suit your argument like jon didn't forbade mance on page to infilterate Winterfell he must have ordered it.it works both ways. If he didn't said to infilterate Winterfell so shouldn't we assume that he farbade it? When jon thinks about mance after alys karstark he thinks that mance has just tricked him to get himself free. Nowhere he thinks about Winterfell possibility because he hasn't considered it. So your point about warning boltens is also moot.

Well, then he is just a moron. Being a moron doesn't help you. And besides - it is quite clear that Jon would never warn the Boltons about anything because he considers them his enemies. That is why he warns Stannis about Arnolf Karstark's planned betrayal as soon as he hears about that. That is another instance where he drops the neutrality thing.

But if Jon really did not want Mance to bring him back his sister if it involved going into Winterfell he should not have sent him or explicitly forbidden him to do such a thing.

3 hours ago, the snow dragon said:

Your are again assuming that mance dosent had ulerior motive to go to Winterfell. He is also working for mallisandre who in turn is working for stanis. So he can be on a mission to desatablise boltens by sowing discord a or finding a way to breach Winterfell.theon wonders same thing.

We have Melisandre's own POV when they make the Mance plan. There is no hint whatsoever that she had an ulterior motive to send Mance to Winterfell. In fact, they both believe he is going to find 'Arya' in the Long Lake region.

I mean, what ulterior motive could Mance have to go to Winterfell. It is quite clear in the Theon chapters that they want to save 'Arya'. And that they do, although quite a few women are killed in the process of that.

And the chance that Mance - if he had been the one to get 'Arya' out - would then not bring her to Stannis or to Jon at the Wall is also a pretty silly idea. What else could he do?

3 hours ago, the snow dragon said:

In the end i will give you that you are a clever word smith who knows how to present his argument, to leave or ingnore the points angainst your argument, to bend or interprete things as suit you and writing lengthy posts that becomes harder to reply.

Thank you, but this isn't really a question where you can make things appear this or that way. There are a bunch of facts and those fact make it justified that Jon Snow was killed as a deserter and traitor to the Night's Watch. People who don't want to see it that way twist things around to make them fit their view. And they are more dishonest than Jon himself who actually accepts his responsibility for Mance and his actions. That is why he declares war on the Boltons. He wanted to save Arya, after all. And he threw the first stone.

[The Commentator]

11 hours ago, the snow dragon said:

Yes you are right that Jon shouldn't have thought to help his sister.that was wrong by virtue of being nights watch member.but the crime jon did and the crime for which he is acused by ramasy is different. Actively infiltrating Winterfell, killing bolten or any other men while rescuing arya is different than helping a girl in need on the road.while the first amount to meddling in the realms affairs, the second is just helping somebody just like jon helped alys karstark.mance was infact the best option for the purpose he was sent as he wasn't a watch member, knew the area  and malisandre had assured his loyalty through her magic.but mance went behond what was asked of him and jon gets blamed for his actions.what i want to say is that jons actions doesn't justify his murder. 

Was it Jon's intention to simply rescue a girl in need and then to promptly return her to Ramsay?  Because if that was his plan then his crimes are lessened a bit.  We know it wasn't.  Jon's behavior was so offensive that just the matter of letting Mance escape punishment was very wrong.  

Mance was Jon's dog.  Jon sent him to get Arya and the buck stops with Jon.