Jon was rightfully "terminated" by the Watch

[kissdbyfire]

Just now, Widowmaker 811 said:

Yes

 

Maybe so.  Val was not worth dying for.  

In your opinion but clearly ser Patrek had a different view on the subject.

[The Commentator]

On 6/24/2017 at 4:06 PM, Clegane'sPup said:

Eddard was Warden of the North, acting in the name of the king. The Starks had been the power base in the north since before some Stark bent his knee.

Separating the different scenarios --- no one wrench fits every nut   --- meaning that sometimes there are variables.

Jorah fled his land because WoftN was gonna take his head   --- Jorah was involved in slaving ---- a no no.

Gared is a supposedly a deserter from the NW. Gared was spouting off gobbly gook that no one believed ---- Gared last seen by the readers in the Haunted Forest. He didn’t return to CB and somehow managed to get south of the Wall.

A novel/saga has a system. I dunna have to agree with it, all I gotta do is try to go with the flow of the story. If I look to deeply there are many flaws in the ASOIAF saga.

Guest right has its own rules. I walk into a lords hall and if the lord has his sword lain across his lap it means I ain’t welcome there.

The Lord invites me to eat at his bread and board means this night if I stay under his roof he will not harm me.

The ^ is my interpretation of Martin’s Westeros guidelines.

Getting into the various trials is a whole different ball of wax ---- as was exhibited when the High Septon got his grasp on Cersei in DwD.  Cersei had to do her walk of shame yet  Marg & the girls were released ---- the High Septon handed the girls over to Tarly's custody and Lord Randyll swore a holy oath to deliver them for trial when the time comes."

Trial by combat in Martin’s ASOIAF world also has its variables.

As to the termination of LC Snow --- it was mutiny. Shooooooooot not like it was the first time the NW offed an unpopular LC ---- remember Mormont.

The question is still interesting.  Could Ser Jorah being a knight demand a trial by combat against Ned?  I would think the indictments forslavingare not yet clear.  The people he sold would not be there to give proof.  

[Lord Varys]

A trial-by-combat is usually a risky and something that is only done as a last resort. A powerful warrior in his prime can use it to get away with pretty much any crime since he has a big chance to win any trial-by-combat. Take men like Gregor or Sandor, for example. However, a great lord of enormous power or a member of the royal family usually is not accused of a crime. And when he is it depends on the situation whether he can get acquitted in a conventional trial (by, say, bribing the judges or begging his royal relative to let him off the hook) or whether he wants to go with a trial-by-combat. The latter is pretty much recognized to be a farce because most people in this world are not as stupid as the believe that the gods speak in this fashion. They know that people killing each other doesn't say anything whether a man is guilty of a crime or not.

That is why Margaery prefers to be tried by the Faith rather than trying a trial-by-combat. 

As to the questions of trials in general, Westeros isn't a society where you have a right to trial. Trials are only conducted when guilt is not obvious. They are not mandatory. Tyrion wouldn't have gotten a trial if his guilt had been obvious. And it is only his special status as the queen's brother and the fact that he demands a trial-by-combat in front half the Vale that he gets a trial at all. A man of lower birth and with less significant connections wouldn't have gotten a trial - neither a conventional trial nor a trial-by-combat.

And demanding a trial-by-combat only works if you are either a very good fighter yourself or powerful enough to convince a powerful champion to fight in your stead. It is something for the elite of the Realm, basically. If a man like Jorah demanded it - assuming that his guilt wasn't already obvious, which one assumes it was - Lord Eddard would decide whom Jorah or Jorah's champion would fight, and he could certainly pick a man that would make short work of Jorah.

[Clegane'sPup]

2 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

The question is still interesting.  Could Ser Jorah being a knight demand a trial by combat against Ned?  I would think the indictments forslavingare not yet clear.  The people he sold would not be there to give proof.  

Me, sometimes I just gotta go with what is relayed in the books. Jorah fled. Jorah was a northman before he was knighted. I'm thinking he knew the rules. That's all I got.

 

[King Ned Stark]

18 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Me, sometimes I just gotta go with what is relayed in the books. Jorah fled. Jorah was a northman before he was knighted. I'm thinking he knew the rules. That's all I got.

 

I had never really thought about it, but is trial by combat as big a thing in the north as the south.  Seems to be more of a faith of the seven/knightly thing now that I do think about it.

I don't think Ned would be a big proponent of trial by combat, but whether he would permit it or not is the question.  He presides over three "trials" that we know, two in book and one in the past.  All three he found guilty fairly quickly, two of those were nobility whose crimes were against the smallfolk.

[Clegane'sPup]

15 minutes ago, King Ned Stark said:

I had never really thought about it, but is trial by combat as big a thing in the north as the south.

I dunna no.

15 minutes ago, King Ned Stark said:

Seems to be more of a faith of the seven/knightly thing now that I do think about it.

I can agree with that.

16 minutes ago, King Ned Stark said:

I don't think Ned would be a big proponent of trial by combat, but whether he would permit it or not is the question.

Why would he permit it. Isn't he the Kings Justice in the North?

18 minutes ago, King Ned Stark said:

 He presides over three "trials" that we know, two in book and one in the past.

Which trials were those? Seriously I forget stuff.

 

[King Ned Stark]

3 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

I dunna no.

I can agree with that.

1 Why would he permit it. Isn't he the Kings Justice in the North?

2 Which trials were those? Seriously I forget stuff.

 

1 Just as Tyrion was able to demand a trial by combat from Lysa, was just curious if Ned would feel compelled to grant the same if it happened in Winterfell.

2 The 3 "trials", if u can call them that, Gared fleeing the NW, Jorah selling slaves, and Gregor raiding the RL.

[Clegane'sPup]

Is anyone else having problems with this site? I seem to be experiencing difficulties.

8 minutes ago, King Ned Stark said:

1 Just as Tyrion was able to demand a trial by combat from Lysa, was just curious if Ned would feel compelled to grant the same if it happened in Winterfell.

2 The 3 "trials", if u can call them that, Gared fleeing the NW, Jorah selling slaves, and Gregor raiding the RL.

Thanks for answering my question.

No one wrench fits every nut. One of my gripes about Martin is his ambiguity in story.

The person you need to be talking to is @Lord Varys not me.

[Kierria]

Jon's treason is a widely debate topic in other forums.  Not just this one.  It would help if we were to first come up with a definition for rightful termination. 

If we agree rightful means legal termination of employment then the answer to the question is no.  The Nightwatch is as close as they have to a democracy but so far as we know there is no provision for the removal of an incompetent commander like Jon.  The removal of douchebags like Jon and Aerys are both illegal.  There is no provision for the forceful removal of a king or a lord commander.  There isn't even a provision for the removal of an incompetent lord such was what Brandon Stark would have become except by the king's writ of attainder.  To forcefully remove a king or a lord commander is by their laws illegal.  Whether what Bowen and Jaime did were necessary should be the question we need to ask.  As well as whether their actions served the greater good.

Change rightful to mean "was it the right thing to do?  Was it the responsible thing to do?"  Yes.Bowen did the right thing.  Morally, he did the right thing.  The lord of Winterfell and Joramun removed the Nightking from power.  So by the laws of precedent outside of the Nightwatch the commander can be removed.  I think Bowen would get support from the lords of Westeros. 

I think it is clear that Jon had to be stopped.  He committed treason and as a brother of the watch his punishment is execution.  Forget the trial.  Slynt and Gared received none.  A guilty brother is a guilty brother.  Jon can be executed like any other brother.  But since the Nightwatch doesn't do this often and probably never actually had taken down a lord commander, there is no established procedures.  Bowen had to stop Jon and the only way is to kill him.  It was illegal but necessary.  Jon had gone mad just like Aerys.  Without an established procedure Bowen made up a new one.  Bowen had no other choice and any responsible brother of the watch would have stopped Jon.  Bowen killing Jon served the greater good and it is just.  A war between the Nightwatch and the Boltons need to be avoided and I think Bowen accomplished that.  Both Jon and Aerys were threats to many people and both were poised to do great harm if they had not been stopped.

Bowen acted on the best interest of the Nightwatch and the kingdom.  His action may save a lot of people from Jon's mad intentions.  Unfortunately for him he will be made to pay for his devotion to duty with his life. 

Alliser Thorne and the majority of the order will support Bowen's act but the wildlings outnumber them and their best move is just let the wildlings leave through the gate and ride to Winterfell.  Standing in their way would only get the few remaining men killed or injured.  Let the wildlings leave and send a raven to Ramsay explaining what happened. 

 

 

[sweetsunray]

2 hours ago, King Ned Stark said:

I had never really thought about it, but is trial by combat as big a thing in the north as the south.  Seems to be more of a faith of the seven/knightly thing now that I do think about it.

I don't think Ned would be a big proponent of trial by combat, but whether he would permit it or not is the question.  He presides over three "trials" that we know, two in book and one in the past.  All three he found guilty fairly quickly, two of those were nobility whose crimes were against the smallfolk.

I agree that trial by combat is something started by the Andals, and thus not a Northern custom. Certainly the Trial by Seven is something inspired on the Faith of the 7.  Except for Rickard Stark requesting a trial by combat in KL, we have yet to see any northerner request it. Not even Ned thought about it... heck he didn't even think of demanding a trial. He simply confessed and lost his head.

Of course, another difference is that Northern justice is how the judge must wield the sword himself. Where trial by combat is the cultural check against ending up accused and tried unjustly, in the North it relies on the ruler having to kill or apply the punishment himself (with a sword or axe, and thus close contact). The check against Northern and First Men injustice is the judge being capable of empathy, having a high sense of personal responsibility and a high degree of feelings of fairness. And apparently it's been done like that for 1000s of years.

So, overall we have a legal custom readily appealed to south of the Neck that is basically institutionalized distrust against the ability of the judge making fair decisions. While in the North you get a general trust that a Stark will judge fairly (well, unless you're an enslaving Jorah Mormont or a vindictie Karstark). This "a Stark will do justice" even permeats the South, because "The House of the Wolf" with a Stark judging kingslayers in KL during the Dance of the Dragons era is presented as "if you want justice done right, you get a Stark to judge".

Now, readers may disagree on whether Ned was right and fair in executing this or that person in the books, which is not my point. My point is that George has written the books with an entire region having faith in Starks being fair judges for 8000 years. And it isn't really questioned by lords or sons or people in-world until Karstark protests against it, enough that his men defect Robb's army. And it is in this we can glean an authorial bias that is pro-Stark - that they are a family that is inherently empathic, fair, with high sense of justice... that isn't even questioned for 1000s of years, until George needed Robb killed, because he didn't want Robb to be the boy-hero who wins the war against the injustice done to his father and family. Especially here the absence of the "trial by combat" in a Northern plot becomes dubious. Why the hell didn't Rickard Karstark demand a trial by combat? Sure he was totally guilty of murdering those two boys, but he was convinced he had a right to this blood feud and that Robb had no right to sentence him to be killed, especially because Robb didn't punish his mother harshly for her treason to set Jaime free. But if Rickard Stark had the insight to demand "trial by combat" with Aerys II, because he knew there wasn't any justice to be had otherwise with Aerys II, then it's puzzling that Rickard Karstark didn't demand it from Robb in the Riverlands.

The sole answer I can come up with is that this inconvenienced George. Either Karstark wins the trial by combat, and then Robb would be a total villain if he still chopped Rickard's head off. Or Karstark loses the trial by combat, but then you can't have all his men defect Robb Stark, since they would have seen with their own eyes that in the eyes of the gods Karstark was guilty of murdering boys. By leaving out a demand of trial by combat, George could allow for a strong vassal and ally of a Stark to question a Stark's ability to be a fair judge and make him lose men, without causing an almost institutional distrust against Starks as judges in the future. 

The only time trial by combat comes up in Northern related plots is with Rickard Stark, Arya and to a lesser extent Catelyn. George has Rickard demand it against an unfair Aerys II, to show what a cheat Aerys II actually is, because Aerys uses fire as his champion. He has Tyrion demand it to escape the injustice done to him, but equally have Cat being disgusted against trial by combat because she lost her prisoner and hostage because of it. And again Arya is disgusted by the trial of combat and with the "gods", because a man she knows to have butchered an innocent child was judged to be innocent. If she returns and lives and has any influence on how justice will be done in the post-apocalyptic Westeros we know she will be dead set against trials by combat. And her decision not to kill Sandor when she had the chance later on, reinforces the idea that Arya will hold to the principle of the judge wielding the sword and the faith that such a judge is inherently fair.

[Kierria]

Trial by combat can be denied.  Catelyn thought Lysa wrong for granting Tyrion his trial.  Tyrion played on Lysa's pride and used that to manipulate her to get his trial.  Lysa could have denied Tyrion.  It would put her honor into question but she has the right to refuse.

[kissdbyfire]

Just now, Ms. Sierra Esteban said:

Trial by combat can be denied.  Catelyn thought Lysa wrong for granting Tyrion his trial.  Tyrion played on Lysa's pride and used that to manipulate her to get his trial.  Lysa could have denied Tyrion.  It would put her honor into question but she has the right to refuse.

No, she couldn't. Tyrion is highborn, and knights and highborn cannot be denied trial by combat.

[sweetsunray]

8 minutes ago, Ms. Sierra Esteban said:

Trial by combat can be denied.  Catelyn thought Lysa wrong for granting Tyrion his trial.  Tyrion played on Lysa's pride and used that to manipulate her to get his trial.  Lysa could have denied Tyrion.  It would put her honor into question but she has the right to refuse.

There's a difference between someone having the power by might to deny someone their trial by combat and someone having the legal power to deny it. Lysa has the might to deny it, but not the legal one. The latter is exactly the reason why Tyrion can manipulate Lysa - Lysa loses all pretense of following the law if she denies him.

Meanwhile Cat's mind is all over the place. She arrests Tyrion to have King's Justice done, and thus some form of trial had to be held one way or the other (there's no way that Cat can call it King's Justice without it), but then she must give control of her prisoner over to Lysa and Robin, with on the one hand a little brat who likes to see people fly as judge or a trial by combat, while neither would actually address the issue whether Tyrion hired an assassin to murder a comatose boy.

[HallowedMarcus]

On 24/06/2017 at 9:47 PM, Lord Varys said:

All Boltons? Really? Roose didn't declare Robb his king nor did he ever do homage to him as his king or lord

   Roose Bolton paid homage to Eddward Stark as his liege Lord and when he answered to Robb Stark's Banner's call bringing up his fighting force to him, automatically he is accepting Robb as his liege Lord; otherwise, Roose would not have answered his call.

 

On 24/06/2017 at 9:47 PM, Lord Varys said:

is conflicted but this is no excuse for the things he pulls in the end.

   I already wrote many times that I agree with you that what he did at the end (asking Wildling and Night Watchers to join him to overthrow the Boltons) was a direct violation of his vows and he should have been overthrown/killed because of it. Also when you agree that it does not justifies what he did at the end, by logic, you agree that was he did before was justified or questionable, at least, in a good way.

 

On 24/06/2017 at 9:47 PM, Lord Varys said:

I know that he is conflicted but this is no excuse for the things he pulls in

   Read above.

 

   Also, he has the right to ponder things about the Watch, his family, the Other, The Realm and set things as he believes to be right or less wrong because

Spoiler

.. a   _ _ _ _ _ n   does as he pleases!

 

[Lord Varys]

14 minutes ago, HallowedMarcus said:

   Roose Bolton paid homage to Eddward Stark as his liege Lord and when he answered to Robb Stark's Banner's call bringing up his fighting force to him, automatically he is accepting Robb as his liege Lord; otherwise, Roose would not have answered his call.

That isn't so. Robb acts as his lady mother's and lord father's representative in their absence. But he isn't the liege lord of the Lords of the North. You may not recall it but Lady Catelyn (who was made the regent of the North in Lord Eddard's absence) actually contemplates to send Robb back home to Winterfell when she meets his army at Moat Cailin. She decides against that but this in and of itself shows what power Robb had at this point - only so much as his mother allowed him. He was still a minor, and he only became the Lord of Winterfell (in the eyes of his men) after his father was killed. Sure, his success in battle and war also helped him to build a reputation and win the love and respect of the men following him. But that happens later, too.

But by that time Roose and the entire infantry army had left Robb. The men with Roose did neither proclaim Robb their king nor did they do him homage as their lord and king. Now, many of the men with Roose were staunch Stark loyalists, of course, men he removed from the equation when he began to move against Robb. And we should also note that some of those men - while being staunch Stark loyalists - may still have thought this idea of Robb declaring himself king madness and folly.

But we cannot say something like 'Roose Bolton betrayed and murdered his king' during the Red Wedding. By that time Roose Bolton's king was Joffrey Baratheon, not Robb Stark. He sure as hell feigned to be Robb's and cowardly and insidiously murdered him but we cannot really say he broke a vow of fealty he had sworn to Robb as his king or lord.

This doesn't make the Red Wedding less ugly but it puts things into perspective. Roose's murder of Robb isn't the betrayal I'd care about so much since it isn't that big of a deal in light of all that. It is more that he was participating in the murders of thousands of Northmen and Riverlanders he had fought with during the war. That is the really ugly part.

[HallowedMarcus]

On 25/06/2017 at 2:54 PM, BalerionTheCat said:

He only did what was right. He was wrong when he tried to desert for Robb. But the LC was right in giving him a second chance. Like Ned was wrong in killing Gared and not helping him after what he went thru. There is no justice in the NW laws. There is no honor in holding oaths to men who don't deserve it. Oaths are like slavery if they remove the free will of the person giving it.

 

    Until Jon decided to ask for Wildlings and Night Watchers to join him to overthrow the Boltons I believe he was right or morally right. Then he clearly and openly overstepped his bounds. Ned had the right to do what he did because law/tradition demanded that from him. Yes, he did not believe him, considering for eight thousand years the Others were gone for good. He thought he "saw' things that weren't there because he was afraid/terrified. Instead of running to the South, Gared should have run back to the Wall/Night'Watch and told them what he saw. He was there for more than 40 years, even LC Mormont respected him He did not, he paid the price.

   Justice or not in the NW laws, Jon had the right to walk away from it before he took his vows. He was not a criminal forced to face justice or take the black, Jon choses to become a Watchman and willingly took his vows. Is he thought its laws unfair he should not have made his vows!

   . I agree that there is no honor in taking vows to men who don't deserve it, to wit, Lannisters and Boltons, however when Jon asked from his Watchers to join him he broke a vow of eight thousand years and that is dishonorable, lowers his dignity and sets him as another oath breaker, like Jaime, Cersei and the Boltons. While in general context he is better and morally still superior to them all, from a neutral point of view he is an oathbreaker for he set aside 8.000 years of tradition. 

[HallowedMarcus]

12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

You may not recall it but Lady Catelyn (who was made the regent of the North in Lord Eddard's absence) actually contemplates to send Robb back home to Winterfell when she meets his army at Moat Cailin.

   I stand corrected. I did not recall it. However, he accepted the Banner's call from Winterfell and that means he accepted the Starks, in a general term, as rulers/warden of the North. Roose Bolton accepted a call against "King'Joffrey and fought against his grandfather's troops. This shows his alliance to the Starks. 

   Also when I wrote that Jon believed them to be alive I meant he believed Sansa and Aray might be alive. (If I wrote brothers then I misspelled).

 

[Lord Varys]

2 minutes ago, HallowedMarcus said:

   I stand corrected. I did not recall it. However, he accepted the Banner's call from Winterfell and that means he accepted the Starks, in a general term, as rulers/warden of the North. Roose Bolton accepted a call against "King'Joffrey and fought against his grandfather's troops. This shows his alliance to the Starks.

Sure, Roose has been in general loyal to the Starks. But that isn't the point. Lord Rickard is not Lord Eddard, and Lord Eddard is not Lord (or 'King') Robb, right?

The Stormlords were also loyal to King Robert and then they rebelled against Robert's son and anointed heir, King Joffrey, without knowing or believing that the boy wasn't Robert's son. You can say they were still loyal to House Baratheon because they followed Renly in his rebellion but they still betrayed Joffrey, right?

[The Commentator]

4 hours ago, HallowedMarcus said:

    Until Jon decided to ask for Wildlings and Night Watchers to join him to overthrow the Boltons I believe he was right or morally right. Then he clearly and openly overstepped his bounds. Ned had the right to do what he did because law/tradition demanded that from him. Yes, he did not believe him, considering for eight thousand years the Others were gone for good. He thought he "saw' things that weren't there because he was afraid/terrified. Instead of running to the South, Gared should have run back to the Wall/Night'Watch and told them what he saw. He was there for more than 40 years, even LC Mormont respected him He did not, he paid the price.

   Justice or not in the NW laws, Jon had the right to walk away from it before he took his vows. He was not a criminal forced to face justice or take the black, Jon choses to become a Watchman and willingly took his vows. Is he thought its laws unfair he should not have made his vows!

   . I agree that there is no honor in taking vows to men who don't deserve it, to wit, Lannisters and Boltons, however when Jon asked from his Watchers to join him he broke a vow of eight thousand years and that is dishonorable, lowers his dignity and sets him as another oath breaker, like Jaime, Cersei and the Boltons. While in general context he is better and morally still superior to them all, from a neutral point of view he is an oathbreaker for he set aside 8.000 years of tradition. 

It's not simply the oath breaking.  What Jon basically did was execute a brother of the Night's Watch for disrespect and then later letting the worst offender in the land off the hook because that man can help his sister.  Is that justice?  No sir.  What Jon did was an insult to justice.  I know Janos Slynt was a jerk but he is not even close to being the criminal offender that Mance Rayder is.  Jon holds his men up to high standards but he himself repeatedly fails to live up to the standards expected of even the lowest ranking member of the watch.  

[The Commentator]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, Roose has been in general loyal to the Starks. But that isn't the point. Lord Rickard is not Lord Eddard, and Lord Eddard is not Lord (or 'King') Robb, right?

The Stormlords were also loyal to King Robert and then they rebelled against Robert's son and anointed heir, King Joffrey, without knowing or believing that the boy wasn't Robert's son. You can say they were still loyal to House Baratheon because they followed Renly in his rebellion but they still betrayed Joffrey, right?

In my opinion, Lord Varys, Robert's Rebellion set a bad precedent.  Renly saw his brother usurp the throne from the true rulers of Westeros.  So in his mind, if Robert could do that to a dynasty that had ruled unbroken for 3 centuries, the greatest ruling family in the known world, why certainly he could do that to big brother Stannis.