Jon was rightfully "terminated" by the Watch

[The Commentator]

18 hours ago, Ms. Sierra Esteban said:

 

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. 

 

 

Thorne was not present at the Wall when Jon was executed.  Though if he had, I think he would support Bowen.

[BalerionTheCat]

7 hours ago, HallowedMarcus said:

Ned had the right to do what he did because law/tradition demanded that from him....

I do not question Ned was not following the law by executing Gared. The law was clear about what he had to do. But as the result was (obviously for me) wrong and unjust, then the law is wrong and unjust. Like I have much difficulty, particularly in the NW case, to see a difference between oath and slavery.

7 hours ago, HallowedMarcus said:

... however when Jon asked from his Watchers to join him he broke a vow of eight thousand years and that is dishonorable,

BTW, "This creature who makes cloaks from the skins of women has sworn to cut my heart out, and I mean to make him answer for those words ... but I will not ask my brothers to forswear their vows." It was the Free Folk he was asking, not the NW. And the Free Folk who answered.

And who says he was not protecting the realms of men by dealing with Ramsey? I'm sure keeping the Wildling out was not the right thing, to start with. Neither was letting this war within the 7K.

[300 H&H Magnum]

On 6/24/2017 at 11:51 AM, Bowen Marsh said:

Thank you all for the support.  I assure you.  It brought me no pleasure to terminate Jon Snow but I had no other option to stop his raid on House Bolton.  That's water under the bridge as the saying goes in your world.  Lady Barbrey I now am in need of your advice on how to handle the mess left behind by my former LC. 

I should let the wildlings exit Castle Black.  I don't have the man power to stop them.  Then what?

• Send a raven to warn the warden of the north?  Sure
• What to do about the giant gone berserk? Wait and see.  If he proves dangerous fill him with arrows.  Let him talk if he settles down.  The knight may be the one at fault and provoked him.
• Freeze, burn, or bury the body of Jon?  Burn for sure.
• Write a letter to King Tommen's council to let them know what took place here?  Sure

 

 

[300 H&H Magnum]

On 6/25/2017 at 0:02 PM, Moiraine Sedai said:

He could have been ok as a ranger but no way he should have been commander.

Jon would still be too big of a liability as ranger.  I would put Jon in charge of cleaning out the sewers at Oldtown.  He can be the assistant to the assistant of the assistant of the city's septic engineer.

 

[300 H&H Magnum]

On 6/24/2017 at 1:26 PM, El Guapo said:

I don't know how that mangy mutt lasted as long as it did. For one it never should have been allowed in Castle Black to begin with and secondly it should have been destroyed after then recruit Jon Snow used it to intimidate other NW recruits in to interfering with Ser Alliser's training of young Sam Tarly. How Jon Snow was not punished for that treason I will never understand.

I don't have too much of a problem with Ghost yet.  It's Jon that I have a problem with.  Ghost has done less savagery than Arya's mutt.  It's Nymeria that should be hunted down and skinned.  The tracker's hounds must be poor on the scent if they can't locate her pack. 

[Dragonsbone]

What do you mean when you say "rightfully"? He broke his vow, which by law means death. BUT that does not mean that it was right. Laws are not necessary moraly right. Slavery was allowed by law during a very long period of time in the history of mankind. Slaves were properties and you could treat them as such, even torturing, abusing or killing. Whatever you wanted. And it was all rightfully by law. The Nürnberg Law declared the Jews as citizens of second class without rights even leading to the holocaust, all by law. So you see, laws don't mean a shit when you don't moraly weight them. Jon was killed by law. But it was moraly wrong.

[300 H&H Magnum]

5 minutes ago, Dragonsbone said:

What do you mean when you say "rightfully"? He broke his vow, which by law means death. BUT that does not mean that it was right. Laws are not necessary moraly right. Slavery was allowed by law during a very long period of time in the history of mankind. Slaves were properties and you could treat them as such, even torturing, abusing or killing. Whatever you wanted. And it was all rightfully by law. The Nürnberg Law declared the Jews as citizens of second class without rights even leading to the holocaust, all by law. So you see, laws don't mean a shit when you don't moraly weight them. Jon was killed by law. But it was moraly wrong.

You make some interesting points about the law sometimes not being right.  In this case, in my opinion, the wrong in that law was the lack of a process for the peaceful removal of an unfit leader.  Jon was far from rightful when he started a fight with Ramsay over his kin.  Philosophers have debated morality for hundreds of years and it seems to me that what serves the welfare of the many is preferable to one that serves the interest of the one (Arya) at the cost or the harm to the many.  Jon chose badly when he put Arya's welfare ahead of the welfare of thousands of people.  Jon was not being rightful. 

Interesting point on slavery.  Slavery is one of mankind's biggest sins. 

[HallowedMarcus]

4 hours ago, BalerionTheCat said:

BTW, "This creature who makes cloaks from the skins of women has sworn to cut my heart out, and I mean to make him answer for those words ... but I will not ask my brothers to forswear their vows." It was the Free Folk he was asking, not the NW. And the Free Folk who answered

     You are wrong or you forgot the details about it. He did not ask them to join him, meaning he won't order them to follow him south as an LC of the NW. But he asked,- not ordered - both Wildlings and Night Watchers to join him if they so feel like it is the right thing to do, to join him of their own volition/will/desire. And that is also wrong because as a Lord Commander he should not allow any Watcher to make a choice of obeying or not the vows of theirs. He should demand all to follow their vows and as LC he should be the first one to obey it.

    Don't get me wrong, I love Jon and Arya the most in ASOIAF and probably would have acted as he did, were I him in that place and time, and considering he was stabbed, if he dies I do hope he is resurrected like Beric Dondarrion did and R + L = J is true and so on. However breaking a 8000-year-old vow is wrong, especially from a neutral point od view.

[Lord Varys]

3 hours ago, BalerionTheCat said:

I do not question Ned was not following the law by executing Gared. The law was clear about what he had to do. But as the result was (obviously for me) wrong and unjust, then the law is wrong and unjust. Like I have much difficulty, particularly in the NW case, to see a difference between oath and slavery.

You have an interesting understanding of slavery. Would you also say a person joining a religious order (or her own free will, of course) makes herself a slave? Then you have an interesting concept of that, too. Now, you are not necessarily executed when you leave your monastery or religious order but at certain times and in certain societies it came pretty close to that.

Such vows are taken seriously and the people who break them are ostracized and punished by their society for doing so.

No one is forced to join the NW. Not even those criminals. They have choice. A pretty bad choice but still a choice. They are not enslaved.

3 hours ago, BalerionTheCat said:

BTW, "This creature who makes cloaks from the skins of women has sworn to cut my heart out, and I mean to make him answer for those words ... but I will not ask my brothers to forswear their vows." It was the Free Folk he was asking, not the NW. And the Free Folk who answered.

And who says he was not protecting the realms of men by dealing with Ramsey? I'm sure keeping the Wildling out was not the right thing, to start with. Neither was letting this war within the 7K.

We could replace 'this creature who cloaks from the skins of women' with 'the creature who cuts out the eyes of our brothers before he beheads them' to show Jon Snow's double standard. He is forgiving the Weeper but not Ramsay.

And no, Jon has no right to ask (or use rhetorical tricks to hide that he is actually very much asking the assembled men for their help) the wildlings to march with him against Winterfell. That is simply treason.

1 hour ago, Dragonsbone said:

What do you mean when you say "rightfully"? He broke his vow, which by law means death. BUT that does not mean that it was right. Laws are not necessary moraly right. Slavery was allowed by law during a very long period of time in the history of mankind. Slaves were properties and you could treat them as such, even torturing, abusing or killing. Whatever you wanted. And it was all rightfully by law. The Nürnberg Law declared the Jews as citizens of second class without rights even leading to the holocaust, all by law. So you see, laws don't mean a shit when you don't moraly weight them. Jon was killed by law. But it was moraly wrong.

How so? I'd say that the NW vow is both a legal law and a moral obligation. This is a pre-modern society. Nobody cares about the letter of the law because there is no law code binding to all nor are there justices and judges caring about the law. It is wax in the hands of the powerful and essentially nothing but a tool to oppress the people and keep them in line.

In the feudal societies our characters are living personal honor is everything. A nobleman's standing is dependent on his honor, and his honor demands that he keep the promises he made. Promises made to his king, his liege lord, his vassals and retainers, his family, etc. If you break such promises you are likely to suffer a lot, perhaps you will lose everything. This is best shown with Robb's promise to the Freys and the consequences of him breaking. Sure, the Red Wedding is too much but Lord Walder was entitled to get even with this boy who would be king after he pulled that off.

And the crucial vow/promise in the life of a sworn brother of the Night's Watch is that vow. It is what makes a black brother. If you break it you are literally no one, just as those turncloaks are who murdered Craster and the Old Bear.

Jon isn't some great hero who breaks some outdated or inflexible rules in favor of doing that is going to serve the common good in a better fashion, or something of that sort. He egoistically decides that the well-being of his sister is more important than the lives of the men who elected him into office. Such a man isn't a role model.

One can only hope he is going to learn something from that experience. This kind of thinking is not going to help him dealing with the Others.

[SFDanny]

46 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And no, Jon has no right to ask (or use rhetorical tricks to hide that he is actually very much asking the assembled men for their help) the wildlings to march with him against Winterfell. That is simply treason.

When is treason the right thing to do? When Jaime killed Aerys he unquestionably committed treason. He also saved the lives of thousands of innocents from the pyromancer plot. When Jon raises his wilding army to fight against the Boltons he unquestionably violates his oath. Is that treason to his mission to guard the realms of men from the threat of the Others? I think not. He must unite those forces of men in the North to stand a chance of holding the Wall. The Boltons are unquestionably the major block against this unity. What does a "honorable" man do when his oath prevents him from doing what is right? Sometimes, as Jaime tells us, one has to violate one oath to keep another in the pursuit of what is right. Jon knows this and doesn't shy from taking the violation of his oath on himself and doesn't ask it of his sworn brothers. The question is what he tried to do the right thing to do under the circumstances?

[Lord Varys]

16 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

When is treason the right thing to do? When Jaime killed Aerys he unquestionably committed treason. He also saved the lives of thousands of innocents from the pyromancer plot.

That is actually not true. Jaime saved a lot of lives when he killed Lord Rossart who was on his way to implement the wildfire plan but King Aerys II himself was no immediate threat. He wouldn't have had felt the need nor had the time to try to send somebody else to the alchemists in Rossart's stead if Jaime hadn't told him what he had done. 

Also note that Jaime claims he did not want to be known as 'the Kingslayer'. He wanted to quietly slip out of the throne room to leave Aerys II's death as much a mystery as Maegor's had been. That didn't work because Tywin's men essentially caught him red-handed. That, in turn, implies that the Lannister forces were already very close. There was no need to actually kill the king. Jaime could have overpowered him to deliver him to his father or even Robert. Or he could just have told Aerys II some story that Tywin's corpse was lying outside and he intended to show him or something of that sort. All he needed to do was to distract the man for a few minutes then he would not be forced to commit any outright treasonous actions and would still have a very good shot at seeing Aerys II die (by the hand of Tywin or at the command of Robert). 

The truth is that Jaime wanted to kill Aerys II. Else he wouldn't have done it. It was not the life of the innocent Kingslanders (whom now his father was butchering) against the life of the king. It was a sick plan and sick order ('go, kill your father if you are no traitor') that was the straw that broke the camel's back. Jaime wanted to kill Aerys II. And that is something he simply shouldn't have done.

He could have prevented the wildfire plan without becoming a kingslayer. And Jaime's entire justification for this thing isn't very convincing if you delve deep enough. Jaime knew what kind of man Aerys II was. He would have heard stories about his growing madness from his father and Cersei. And he saw the man for himself in all his 'mad glory' when he swore his Kingsguard vows at Harrenhal. He knew what he was doing and whom he is serving now.

But the basic excuse he later gives is that Aerys II was a cruel and disgusting madman and that he simply could not stand it anymore to serve that man. He never says that he killed him to save thousands of innocents. Jaime simply is sick that people judge him so harshly for killing such a piece of shit. That angers him. But he actually no longer had a right to kill that man or even judge him. He gave up that right when he spoke his vow. His murder of Aerys II could have some merit it it had been the only way to stop the burning of the city but that's obviously not the case. And even if that was the case then the conflicting of the oaths are not resolved. A Kingsguard has to protect the king. He does not kill him. If Jaime thinks a Kingsguard has the right to put some knightly vow before his Kingsguard vows, or cite the love he might have for his father and family, then he is pretty much alone in that assessment of 'vow priority'. A Kingsguard is first and foremost the king's man, not a free knight with the luxury to put the needs of others first. Thus is the view of the people of the Seven Kingdoms. And that's also the reason why those same people are disgusted by the Kingslayer. In that sense the Kingsguard is the same as the Night's Watch. Many men there have families, too, or have sworn the vows of a knight. Neither matters when you take the black, just as any old vows and feelings no longer matter when you take the white.

Deserting the king, arresting the king, manhandling him, even standing aside while others kill him would have been much more forgivable than killing the king with his own hands. But that's what Jaime did. And there is no excuse for that.

Just as there is no excuse for Jon putting the well-being of Arya before his vows. He was not only betraying his vows by doing this, he was also betraying the trust of the men who elected him their lord commander had put in him.

16 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

When Jon raises his wilding army to fight against the Boltons he unquestionably violates his oath. Is that treason to his mission to guard the realms of men from the threat of the Others? I think not.

The thing is that neither Jon Snow nor any other sworn brother of the Night's Watch ever swore a vow to defend the realms of men against the Others. They are conveniently not mentioned in that vow. It is an inference that they are meant. A very convincing inference but still an inference. Therefore we cannot say the vow demands that Jon (or any black brother) prioritize the fight against the Others over 'mundane Wall guard duty'.

It seems actually quite clear that 'the realms of men' refer to the (then) hundred of petty kingdoms south of the Wall since the Wall was built to keep those kingdoms - the kingdoms from which the men manning the Wall and joining the Night's Watch originally hailed - safe from the enemy (most likely the Others). As far as we know the wildlings deliberately chose to live in 'enemy territory' (the land of the Others north of the Wall) instead of living with their fellow First Men south of the Wall. In that sense the Night's Watch is not obliged to protect them, too.

Now, it is certainly honorable and good and not without strategic value to get as many wildlings as possible out of the territory of the Others to prevent them from becoming wights. But it is simply not true that the wildlings are part of 'the realms of men'. They are men, true, but nobody ever doubted that. And they also are - and have been - enemies of the Night's Watch for thousands of years. And Mance and his people did nothing to change that. They knew about the threat of the Others yet they did not come as refugees or potential allies to the Wall, asking the NW for help and offering information on the true enemy in exchange for that help. No. They came with intention to force their way across the Wall conquer the lands south of it. This is made more than explicit with Mance's plan to have Jarl and Styr kill all the crows at Castle Black and open the gate while the Weeper is luring the remaining crows to the Bridge of Skulls. Not to mention Mance's own attack on the Wall.

16 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

He must unite those forces of men in the North to stand a chance of holding the Wall. The Boltons are unquestionably the major block against this unity.

Are they? Are they in any way worse than, say, the Weeper? Has Jon made any attempt to offer the Boltons a deal and convince them, specifically, of the threat they are all in? Did Stannis?

No. Nothing of this sort happened. I say both Stannis' and Jon's approaches endanger 'the realms of men' because they include declaring (civil) war on 'the realms of men'. This is what Stannis continues to do after he has learned the nature of the true enemy and it is also what Jon does after he receives the Pink Letter (and to a lesser degree before that).

Stannis' and Jon's actions are less obviously against the oath of the NW and less obviously counterproductive but they still very much are. Both are on the best way to become lords of carrion crows and kings of corpses if they continue as they do now. Their campaigns and plans (Jon's Hardhome mission included) are going to kill hundreds or even thousands of the few men left that are (more or less) able to eventually fight against the Others. That is only helping the Others, nobody else.

There is actually no need for 'political unity' in the North. All that would be needed is some sort of truce and a honest assessment of the true enemy and a discussion what to do about them. Stannis, Roose, and Jon could have worked together in all that. That could actually have been easier to accomplish than the whole wildling plans. The wildlings and black brothers hate mistrust and hate each other with a passion. They have great difficulty working together.

The Northmen and the black brothers have no such issues. Here we are just talking about the animosities of their leaders, and a true leader should be able to see beyond those. That's what Jon couldn't do. He can see the specks in the eyes of others but not the log in front of his own.

It may be that George ignored this kind of plot line because he intends to have some sort of Great Council like setting during which the Others are discussed later on - between Dany, Aegon, Jon, and whoever else is left standing by then - but if that's the case then he is doing it at the cost of the rationality and intelligence of both Jon and Stannis. Both men should have at least made attempts to convince their foes that the Others are a thing and try to forge a truce or even an alliance with them. This would have been especially Jon's duty and calling as Lord Commander of the Night's Watch. He is neutral by the very nature of his order and office. He could offered to help Roose and Stannis reach a settlement. And he sure as hell had a duty to try to inform the denizens of 'the realms of men' what's going on at and beyond the Wall. But he made no such attempts, either. Not a single one. He doesn't even try to convince the Lords of the North what's going on. He didn't even sent an envoy to Last Hearth, the clansmen, or other lords close by. One assumes they would like to know that some ice demons are preparing to kill them all.

16 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

What does a "honorable" man do when his oath prevents him from doing what is right? Sometimes, as Jaime tells us, one has to violate one oath to keep another in the pursuit of what is right. Jon knows this and does shy from taking the violation of his oath on himself and doesn't ask it of his sworn brothers. The question is what he tried to do the right thing to do under the circumstances?

Well, that's the thing. It is quite clear that Jon didn't do what's right. It wasn't right to risk the lives of his men to save his sister - neither subjectively (due to his vow) nor objectively (because Jeyne isn't his sister and the Boltons could have been potential allies in the fight against the Others).

[Prof. Cecily]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is actually not true. Jaime saved a lot of lives when he killed Lord Rossart who was on his way to implement the wildfire plan but King Aerys II himself was no immediate threat. He wouldn't have had felt the need nor had the time to try to send somebody else to the alchemists in Rossart's stead if Jaime hadn't told him what he had done. 

Also note that Jaime claims he did not want to be known as 'the Kingslayer'. He wanted to quietly slip out of the throne room to leave Aerys II's death as much a mystery as Maegor's had been. That didn't work because Tywin's men essentially caught him red-handed. That, in turn, implies that the Lannister forces were already very close. There was no need to actually kill the king. Jaime could have overpowered him to deliver him to his father or even Robert. Or he could just have told Aerys II some story that Tywin's corpse was lying outside and he intended to show him or something of that sort. All he needed to do was to distract the man for a few minutes then he would not be forced to commit any outright treasonous actions and would still have a very good shot at seeing Aerys II die (by the hand of Tywin or at the command of Robert). 

 

Spoiler

The truth is that Jaime wanted to kill Aerys II. Else he wouldn't have done it. It was not the life of the innocent Kingslanders (whom now his father was butchering) against the life of the king. It was a sick plan and sick order ('go, kill your father if you are no traitor') that was the straw that broke the camel's back. Jaime wanted to kill Aerys II. And that is something he simply shouldn't have done.He could have prevented the wildfire plan without becoming a kingslayer. And Jaime's entire justification for this thing isn't very convincing if you delve deep enough. Jaime knew what kind of man Aerys II was. He would have heard stories about his growing madness from his father and Cersei. And he saw the man for himself in all his 'mad glory' when he swore his Kingsguard vows at Harrenhal. He knew what he was doing and whom he is serving now.

But the basic excuse he later gives is that Aerys II was a cruel and disgusting madman and that he simply could not stand it anymore to serve that man. He never says that he killed him to save thousands of innocents. Jaime simply is sick that people judge him so harshly for killing such a piece of shit. That angers him. But he actually no longer had a right to kill that man or even judge him. He gave up that right when he spoke his vow. His murder of Aerys II could have some merit it it had been the only way to stop the burning of the city but that's obviously not the case. And even if that was the case then the conflicting of the oaths are not resolved. A Kingsguard has to protect the king. He does not kill him. If Jaime thinks a Kingsguard has the right to put some knightly vow before his Kingsguard vows, or cite the love he might have for his father and family, then he is pretty much alone in that assessment of 'vow priority'. A Kingsguard is first and foremost the king's man, not a free knight with the luxury to put the needs of others first. Thus is the view of the people of the Seven Kingdoms. And that's also the reason why those same people are disgusted by the Kingslayer. In that sense the Kingsguard is the same as the Night's Watch. Many men there have families, too, or have sworn the vows of a knight. Neither matters when you take the black, just as any old vows and feelings no longer matter when you take the white.

Deserting the king, arresting the king, manhandling him, even standing aside while others kill him would have been much more forgivable than killing the king with his own hands. But that's what Jaime did. And there is no excuse for that.

Just as there is no excuse for Jon putting the well-being of Arya before his vows. He was not only betraying his vows by doing this, he was also betraying the trust of the men who elected him their lord commander had put in him.

The thing is that neither Jon Snow nor any other sworn brother of the Night's Watch ever swore a vow to defend the realms of men against the Others. They are conveniently not mentioned in that vow. It is an inference that they are meant. A very convincing inference but still an inference. Therefore we cannot say the vow demands that Jon (or any black brother) prioritize the fight against the Others over 'mundane Wall guard duty'.

It seems actually quite clear that 'the realms of men' refer to the (then) hundred of petty kingdoms south of the Wall since the Wall was built to keep those kingdoms - the kingdoms from which the men manning the Wall and joining the Night's Watch originally hailed - safe from the enemy (most likely the Others). As far as we know the wildlings deliberately chose to live in 'enemy territory' (the land of the Others north of the Wall) instead of living with their fellow First Men south of the Wall. In that sense the Night's Watch is not obliged to protect them, too.

Now, it is certainly honorable and good and not without strategic value to get as many wildlings as possible out of the territory of the Others to prevent them from becoming wights. But it is simply not true that the wildlings are part of 'the realms of men'. They are men, true, but nobody ever doubted that. And they also are - and have been - enemies of the Night's Watch for thousands of years. And Mance and his people did nothing to change that. They knew about the threat of the Others yet they did not come as refugees or potential allies to the Wall, asking the NW for help and offering information on the true enemy in exchange for that help. No. They came with intention to force their way across the Wall conquer the lands south of it. This is made more than explicit with Mance's plan to have Jarl and Styr kill all the crows at Castle Black and open the gate while the Weeper is luring the remaining crows to the Bridge of Skulls. Not to mention Mance's own attack on the Wall.

Are they? Are they in any way worse than, say, the Weeper? Has Jon made any attempt to offer the Boltons a deal and convince them, specifically, of the threat they are all in? Did Stannis?

No. Nothing of this sort happened. I say both Stannis' and Jon's approaches endanger 'the realms of men' because they include declaring (civil) war on 'the realms of men'. This is what Stannis continues to do after he has learned the nature of the true enemy and it is also what Jon does after he receives the Pink Letter (and to a lesser degree before that).

Stannis' and Jon's actions are less obviously against the oath of the NW and less obviously counterproductive but they still very much are. Both are on the best way to become lords of carrion crows and kings of corpses if they continue as they do now. Their campaigns and plans (Jon's Hardhome mission included) are going to kill hundreds or even thousands of the few men left that are (more or less) able to eventually fight against the Others. That is only helping the Others, nobody else.

There is actually no need for 'political unity' in the North. All that would be needed is some sort of truce and a honest assessment of the true enemy and a discussion what to do about them. Stannis, Roose, and Jon could have worked together in all that. That could actually have been easier to accomplish than the whole wildling plans. The wildlings and black brothers hate mistrust and hate each other with a passion. They have great difficulty working together.

The Northmen and the black brothers have no such issues. Here we are just talking about the animosities of their leaders, and a true leader should be able to see beyond those. That's what Jon couldn't do. He can see the specks in the eyes of others but not the log in front of his own.

It may be that George ignored this kind of plot line because he intends to have some sort of Great Council like setting during which the Others are discussed later on - between Dany, Aegon, Jon, and whoever else is left standing by then - but if that's the case then he is doing it at the cost of the rationality and intelligence of both Jon and Stannis. Both men should have at least made attempts to convince their foes that the Others are a thing and try to forge a truce or even an alliance with them. This would have been especially Jon's duty and calling as Lord Commander of the Night's Watch. He is neutral by the very nature of his order and office. He could offered to help Roose and Stannis reach a settlement. And he sure as hell had a duty to try to inform the denizens of 'the realms of men' what's going on at and beyond the Wall. But he made no such attempts, either. Not a single one. He doesn't even try to convince the Lords of the North what's going on. He didn't even sent an envoy to Last Hearth, the clansmen, or other lords close by. One assumes they would like to know that some ice demons are preparing to kill them all.

Well, that's the thing. It is quite clear that Jon didn't do what's right. It wasn't right to risk the lives of his men to save his sister - neither subjectively (due to his vow) nor objectively (because Jeyne isn't his sister and the Boltons could have been potential allies in the fight against the Others).

 

 

This is the first time I've read this reasoning expressed in writitng.

@Lord Varys, you've opened up an intriguing 'what if' scenario for my first coffee musings.

What if Ser Jaime had not slain the king after having killed Lord Rossart?

[the snow dragon]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is actually not true. Jaime saved a lot of lives when he killed Lord Rossart who was on his way to implement the wildfire plan but King Aerys II himself was no immediate threat. He wouldn't have had felt the need nor had the time to try to send somebody else to the alchemists in Rossart's stead if Jaime hadn't told him what he had done. 

Also note that Jaime claims he did not want to be known as 'the Kingslayer'. He wanted to quietly slip out of the throne room to leave Aerys II's death as much a mystery as Maegor's had been. That didn't work because Tywin's men essentially caught him red-handed. That, in turn, implies that the Lannister forces were already very close. There was no need to actually kill the king. Jaime could have overpowered him to deliver him to his father or even Robert. Or he could just have told Aerys II some story that Tywin's corpse was lying outside and he intended to show him or something of that sort. All he needed to do was to distract the man for a few minutes then he would not be forced to commit any outright treasonous actions and would still have a very good shot at seeing Aerys II die (by the hand of Tywin or at the command of Robert). 

The truth is that Jaime wanted to kill Aerys II. Else he wouldn't have done it. It was not the life of the innocent Kingslanders (whom now his father was butchering) against the life of the king. It was a sick plan and sick order ('go, kill your father if you are no traitor') that was the straw that broke the camel's back. Jaime wanted to kill Aerys II. And that is something he simply shouldn't have done.

He could have prevented the wildfire plan without becoming a kingslayer. And Jaime's entire justification for this thing isn't very convincing if you delve deep enough. Jaime knew what kind of man Aerys II was. He would have heard stories about his growing madness from his father and Cersei. And he saw the man for himself in all his 'mad glory' when he swore his Kingsguard vows at Harrenhal. He knew what he was doing and whom he is serving now.

But the basic excuse he later gives is that Aerys II was a cruel and disgusting madman and that he simply could not stand it anymore to serve that man. He never says that he killed him to save thousands of innocents. Jaime simply is sick that people judge him so harshly for killing such a piece of shit. That angers him. But he actually no longer had a right to kill that man or even judge him. He gave up that right when he spoke his vow. His murder of Aerys II could have some merit it it had been the only way to stop the burning of the city but that's obviously not the case. And even if that was the case then the conflicting of the oaths are not resolved. A Kingsguard has to protect the king. He does not kill him. If Jaime thinks a Kingsguard has the right to put some knightly vow before his Kingsguard vows, or cite the love he might have for his father and family, then he is pretty much alone in that assessment of 'vow priority'. A Kingsguard is first and foremost the king's man, not a free knight with the luxury to put the needs of others first. Thus is the view of the people of the Seven Kingdoms. And that's also the reason why those same people are disgusted by the Kingslayer. In that sense the Kingsguard is the same as the Night's Watch. Many men there have families, too, or have sworn the vows of a knight. Neither matters when you take the black, just as any old vows and feelings no longer matter when you take the white.

Deserting the king, arresting the king, manhandling him, even standing aside while others kill him would have been much more forgivable than killing the king with his own hands. But that's what Jaime did. And there is no excuse for that.

Just as there is no excuse for Jon putting the well-being of Arya before his vows. He was not only betraying his vows by doing this, he was also betraying the trust of the men who elected him their lord commander had put in him.

The thing is that neither Jon Snow nor any other sworn brother of the Night's Watch ever swore a vow to defend the realms of men against the Others. They are conveniently not mentioned in that vow. It is an inference that they are meant. A very convincing inference but still an inference. Therefore we cannot say the vow demands that Jon (or any black brother) prioritize the fight against the Others over 'mundane Wall guard duty'.

It seems actually quite clear that 'the realms of men' refer to the (then) hundred of petty kingdoms south of the Wall since the Wall was built to keep those kingdoms - the kingdoms from which the men manning the Wall and joining the Night's Watch originally hailed - safe from the enemy (most likely the Others). As far as we know the wildlings deliberately chose to live in 'enemy territory' (the land of the Others north of the Wall) instead of living with their fellow First Men south of the Wall. In that sense the Night's Watch is not obliged to protect them, too.

Now, it is certainly honorable and good and not without strategic value to get as many wildlings as possible out of the territory of the Others to prevent them from becoming wights. But it is simply not true that the wildlings are part of 'the realms of men'. They are men, true, but nobody ever doubted that. And they also are - and have been - enemies of the Night's Watch for thousands of years. And Mance and his people did nothing to change that. They knew about the threat of the Others yet they did not come as refugees or potential allies to the Wall, asking the NW for help and offering information on the true enemy in exchange for that help. No. They came with intention to force their way across the Wall conquer the lands south of it. This is made more than explicit with Mance's plan to have Jarl and Styr kill all the crows at Castle Black and open the gate while the Weeper is luring the remaining crows to the Bridge of Skulls. Not to mention Mance's own attack on the Wall.

Are they? Are they in any way worse than, say, the Weeper? Has Jon made any attempt to offer the Boltons a deal and convince them, specifically, of the threat they are all in? Did Stannis?

No. Nothing of this sort happened. I say both Stannis' and Jon's approaches endanger 'the realms of men' because they include declaring (civil) war on 'the realms of men'. This is what Stannis continues to do after he has learned the nature of the true enemy and it is also what Jon does after he receives the Pink Letter (and to a lesser degree before that).

Stannis' and Jon's actions are less obviously against the oath of the NW and less obviously counterproductive but they still very much are. Both are on the best way to become lords of carrion crows and kings of corpses if they continue as they do now. Their campaigns and plans (Jon's Hardhome mission included) are going to kill hundreds or even thousands of the few men left that are (more or less) able to eventually fight against the Others. That is only helping the Others, nobody else.

There is actually no need for 'political unity' in the North. All that would be needed is some sort of truce and a honest assessment of the true enemy and a discussion what to do about them. Stannis, Roose, and Jon could have worked together in all that. That could actually have been easier to accomplish than the whole wildling plans. The wildlings and black brothers hate mistrust and hate each other with a passion. They have great difficulty working together.

The Northmen and the black brothers have no such issues. Here we are just talking about the animosities of their leaders, and a true leader should be able to see beyond those. That's what Jon couldn't do. He can see the specks in the eyes of others but not the log in front of his own.

It may be that George ignored this kind of plot line because he intends to have some sort of Great Council like setting during which the Others are discussed later on - between Dany, Aegon, Jon, and whoever else is left standing by then - but if that's the case then he is doing it at the cost of the rationality and intelligence of both Jon and Stannis. Both men should have at least made attempts to convince their foes that the Others are a thing and try to forge a truce or even an alliance with them. This would have been especially Jon's duty and calling as Lord Commander of the Night's Watch. He is neutral by the very nature of his order and office. He could offered to help Roose and Stannis reach a settlement. And he sure as hell had a duty to try to inform the denizens of 'the realms of men' what's going on at and beyond the Wall. But he made no such attempts, either. Not a single one. He doesn't even try to convince the Lords of the North what's going on. He didn't even sent an envoy to Last Hearth, the clansmen, or other lords close by. One assumes they would like to know that some ice demons are preparing to kill them all.

Well, that's the thing. It is quite clear that Jon didn't do what's right. It wasn't right to risk the lives of his men to save his sister - neither subjectively (due to his vow) nor objectively (because Jeyne isn't his sister and the Boltons could have been potential allies in the fight against the Others).

You have some very peculiar notions.jaime would have been forgivable if he hasn't murdered the king himself and alowed Robert do it.this is the same thing jon did. He didn't participated himself or ordered his men to do work. The free folk did his work.but jon is not forgivable. 

Its absolutely not clear that wall was constructed to keep safe just pety kingdoms. How do you know that there were even Kingdoms back then.there is a greater possibility that society was more like todays wildings,no lords no kingdoms.there would not have been animosity between two sides of wall like today.so the realms of man is more apt for including every living man north or south of wall.

The vows dont state that the fight is against others. Yes it is the inference (and correct one)just like they dont state that a lord commander cannot protect his sister from a sadist.a 700 feet high magical wall is not constructed for  protection from ordinary threats.

So according to you it is only Jon an Stanis responsibility to maintain peace althogh they are right. Stanis is rightfull king and boltens are waging war angainst him.did't Stanis send letters to all lords to swear fealty?boltens refused the peacefull way.jon didn't send letters but his immediate predecessors did send.did boltens give a fig about it? No they didn't.what has changed that jon should believe now they will help.no,the only way is that the guy who did help watch should win. 

Jon was wrong when he thought to help his sister. But this is not such a big crime that he should be murdered.he didn't actively participated in saving his sister.till end he was working to increase the strenth of watch. He was recruiting new memmbers, repairing damaged castels securing money for the watch.he was going to lead a mission if succesfull would have saved thousnds of lives and denied same numbers to others army and if unsuccessful only few lives (mostly wildings) would lost.Mance made wrong decisions and jon was forced to answer for that. It wasn't desertion. It was the only option.

Even at the end jon didn't ordered anyone to fight for him. He made his case infront of everyone and asked to join him if someone thought jon was right.as many sided with him it can be assumed they thoght he was right. Only a handfull men thought it was wrong. The same man who fell for mance's bait and took whole strength of watch to fight at bridge of skulls and lost so many men. The same men who were going to elect janos slynt because they feared tywen.the same men who opposed jons every action but never provided any alternative solution.those men were narrow minded people who didn't saw behond their own prejudices. Murder of jon wasn't a noble act, it was just a back stabing. 

 

 

 

[the snow dragon]

On 2017-6-24 at 7:53 PM, The Hoare said:

Lady of Winterfell because she's married with a Bolton. And the Watch is not obligated to help any noble.

Lady of Winterfell because she is hier to the Winterfell. Ramasy become lord of Winterfell by marring her not the otherway.

Perhaps 'obliged' was a wrong word.i sand corrected. What l meant to say is that watch does help escorting important people to and from watch so heping arya would not have been exception or wrong. 

[SFDanny]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is actually not true. Jaime saved a lot of lives when he killed Lord Rossart who was on his way to implement the wildfire plan but King Aerys II himself was no immediate threat. He wouldn't have had felt the need nor had the time to try to send somebody else to the alchemists in Rossart's stead if Jaime hadn't told him what he had done. 

As long as Aerys lived there was a danger the plot could be carried out. There was a danger even after Aerys death that others in the guild would carry out the order and Jaime hunted them down to prevent this from happening. That doesn't mean Jaime's motivations were pure of heart, but it does mean he acted in a way that prevented the plot from going ahead, and he did so in a way that causes the reader to ask what was honorable, and what was right for the young knight to do? Which is the whole point of why Martin writes the character in this way.  He is a traitor to his king and broke his vows, but he may also be right in doing what he did. You have your answer to that question, all fine and good, but that doesn't make it "true."

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Also note that Jaime claims he did not want to be known as 'the Kingslayer'. He wanted to quietly slip out of the throne room to leave Aerys II's death as much a mystery as Maegor's had been. That didn't work because Tywin's men essentially caught him red-handed. That, in turn, implies that the Lannister forces were already very close. There was no need to actually kill the king. Jaime could have overpowered him to deliver him to his father or even Robert. Or he could just have told Aerys II some story that Tywin's corpse was lying outside and he intended to show him or something of that sort. All he needed to do was to distract the man for a few minutes then he would not be forced to commit any outright treasonous actions and would still have a very good shot at seeing Aerys II die (by the hand of Tywin or at the command of Robert).

You put the fulfilling of a vow over what is right. They are not always the same. In this case, Jaime could have waited for others to kill Aerys, but he did not know the outcome of the battle and he did not know if plot could go forward without Aerys or if he had other methods of ordering it to commence. What Jaime did was effective in stopping the plot - which was the right and most important thing to do - even though he breaks his vows and commits treason to do so.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The truth is that Jaime wanted to kill Aerys II. Else he wouldn't have done it. It was not the life of the innocent Kingslanders (whom now his father was butchering) against the life of the king. It was a sick plan and sick order ('go, kill your father if you are no traitor') that was the straw that broke the camel's back. Jaime wanted to kill Aerys II. And that is something he simply shouldn't have done.

He could have prevented the wildfire plan without becoming a kingslayer. And Jaime's entire justification for this thing isn't very convincing if you delve deep enough. Jaime knew what kind of man Aerys II was. He would have heard stories about his growing madness from his father and Cersei. And he saw the man for himself in all his 'mad glory' when he swore his Kingsguard vows at Harrenhal. He knew what he was doing and whom he is serving now.

We will have to disagree about most of what you say is "true" and what I take is merely your conjecture of what Jaime could have done and should have done rather than what he did. What we can absolutely disagree about is that Jaime's "straw that broke the camel's back" was Aerys's order to kill Tywin. Jaime kills Rossart before he sees Aerys and before he hears the command to kill his father. That tells us this isn't just a justification he makes up afterwards. The last "straw" was the plot itself and what it would do if carried out.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But the basic excuse he later gives is that Aerys II was a cruel and disgusting madman and that he simply could not stand it anymore to serve that man. He never says that he killed him to save thousands of innocents. Jaime simply is sick that people judge him so harshly for killing such a piece of shit. That angers him. But he actually no longer had a right to kill that man or even judge him. He gave up that right when he spoke his vow. His murder of Aerys II could have some merit it it had been the only way to stop the burning of the city but that's obviously not the case. And even if that was the case then the conflicting of the oaths are not resolved. A Kingsguard has to protect the king. He does not kill him. If Jaime thinks a Kingsguard has the right to put some knightly vow before his Kingsguard vows, or cite the love he might have for his father and family, then he is pretty much alone in that assessment of 'vow priority'. A Kingsguard is first and foremost the king's man, not a free knight with the luxury to put the needs of others first. Thus is the view of the people of the Seven Kingdoms. And that's also the reason why those same people are disgusted by the Kingslayer. In that sense the Kingsguard is the same as the Night's Watch. Many men there have families, too, or have sworn the vows of a knight. Neither matters when you take the black, just as any old vows and feelings no longer matter when you take the white.

Deserting the king, arresting the king, manhandling him, even standing aside while others kill him would have been much more forgivable than killing the king with his own hands. But that's what Jaime did. And there is no excuse for that.

One does not preclude the other. Aerys was a cruel and disgusting madman AND he had to be stopped from carrying out his greatest act of madness in the engulfing King's Landing in wildfire. Jaime witnessed the cruelty of Rickard and Brandon's deaths, the death of others by the king's order, he had to stand by while Aerys raped his sister/queen Rhaella, and many other acts I'm sure that changed the young man over time. That he grows to understand how he has been used and hates Aerys for it is to his credit. There is no vow that makes these things right. At some point if he has any real honor left he has to stand up and try to stop it.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Just as there is no excuse for Jon putting the well-being of Arya before his vows. He was not only betraying his vows by doing this, he was also betraying the trust of the men who elected him their lord commander had put in him.

The thing is that neither Jon Snow nor any other sworn brother of the Night's Watch ever swore a vow to defend the realms of men against the Others. They are conveniently not mentioned in that vow. It is an inference that they are meant. A very convincing inference but still an inference. Therefore we cannot say the vow demands that Jon (or any black brother) prioritize the fight against the Others over 'mundane Wall guard duty'.

It seems actually quite clear that 'the realms of men' refer to the (then) hundred of petty kingdoms south of the Wall since the Wall was built to keep those kingdoms - the kingdoms from which the men manning the Wall and joining the Night's Watch originally hailed - safe from the enemy (most likely the Others). As far as we know the wildlings deliberately chose to live in 'enemy territory' (the land of the Others north of the Wall) instead of living with their fellow First Men south of the Wall. In that sense the Night's Watch is not obliged to protect them, too.

Now, it is certainly honorable and good and not without strategic value to get as many wildlings as possible out of the territory of the Others to prevent them from becoming wights. But it is simply not true that the wildlings are part of 'the realms of men'. They are men, true, but nobody ever doubted that. And they also are - and have been - enemies of the Night's Watch for thousands of years. And Mance and his people did nothing to change that. They knew about the threat of the Others yet they did not come as refugees or potential allies to the Wall, asking the NW for help and offering information on the true enemy in exchange for that help. No. They came with intention to force their way across the Wall conquer the lands south of it. This is made more than explicit with Mance's plan to have Jarl and Styr kill all the crows at Castle Black and open the gate while the Weeper is luring the remaining crows to the Bridge of Skulls. Not to mention Mance's own attack on the Wall.

Hmm ... if I remember the Pink Letter it comes to Jon demanding the person who Jon thinks is Arya back. If Jon believes this letter, it tells him his sister is free and probably on her way to him. The logical move for Jon, if he put the "well being of Arya before his vows" would be to send out forces to find her, not march on Winterfell. No, though I do not doubt Jon wants Arya safe, it isn't the wish for her safety that forms his plans. It is the declaration of war on the Night's Watch he has just received from Ramsay Bolton. The claim that Stannis is dead has more to do with his plan than Arya does.

The bit about the Others being left out of the Night's Watch vow just doesn't hold water. Everything we know of the Watch tells us it was formed to defend the realms of men from the threat of the Others. That it was born out of the legendary "Long Night" and its struggle against these creatures. If you really doubt this then read the section of The World of Ice & Fire dedicated to the Night's Watch and its history.

As to the words of the Watch's oath it does not mention the Others, but the content of its mission is laid out anti clearly points to the fight against the Others as the basis for its existence.

Just read part of oath that says:

Quote

"I am the sword in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers, and the shield that guards the realms of men."

And then tell me this is not all about the threat of the Others. That you think the Wall means the Watch has no need to defend those on the northern side of it is a idea that Bowen Marsh would agree with, but lets just say Jon isn't the only one who would disagree with you and brother Marsh.

More tomorrow, my friend. I do like arguing with you!

[Roswell]

9 hours ago, SFDanny said:

When is treason the right thing to do? When Jaime killed Aerys he unquestionably committed treason. He also saved the lives of thousands of innocents from the pyromancer plot. When Jon raises his wilding army to fight against the Boltons he unquestionably violates his oath. Is that treason to his mission to guard the realms of men from the threat of the Others? I think not. He must unite those forces of men in the North to stand a chance of holding the Wall. The Boltons are unquestionably the major block against this unity. What does a "honorable" man do when his oath prevents him from doing what is right? Sometimes, as Jaime tells us, one has to violate one oath to keep another in the pursuit of what is right. Jon knows this and doesn't shy from taking the violation of his oath on himself and doesn't ask it of his sworn brothers. The question is what he tried to do the right thing to do under the circumstances?

Jon wasn't doing the right thing.  The right thing was to do his job and protect the entire realm from the white walkers.  Choosing instead to start a war with a potential ally just to get his sister out of an unwanted marriage was not right.  It doesn't do any good to save Arya when the cost to do so means leaving the realm defenseless.  Arya would die anyway.  Staying at the wall and forgetting about helping Arya is the right thing to do. 

[Tai Pan]

13 hours ago, 300 H&H Magnum said:

I don't have too much of a problem with Ghost yet.  It's Jon that I have a problem with.  Ghost has done less savagery than Arya's mutt.  It's Nymeria that should be hunted down and skinned.  The tracker's hounds must be poor on the scent if they can't locate her pack. 

I wonder why Roose himself didn't hunt Nymeria.  She would make a fine trophy to add to his undoubtedly extensive collection of hunting souvenirs.  His ancestors must have caught a few direwolves in their time and displayed their pelts at the Dreadfort. 

Nymeria is abnormal and she gets that from her bond with Arya.  Hunting and killing for thrills is not nature's way.

1 hour ago, The Transporter said:

It doesn't do any good to save Arya when the cost to do so means leaving the realm defenseless.

He wasn't thinking with his head.  He knew that on the back of his head but his emotions were on full throttle and nothing was going to stop him from bringing Arya to the wall. 

[Lord Varys]

5 hours ago, the snow dragon said:

You have some very peculiar notions.jaime would have been forgivable if he hasn't murdered the king himself and alowed Robert do it.this is the same thing jon did. He didn't participated himself or ordered his men to do work. The free folk did his work.but jon is not forgivable.

It would have been forgivable, yes, because it wasn't as serious a crime as actually killing the king with your own hands. Aerys II was still a madman who no longer should rule the Realm. There is no question about that. He had to go. Two Kingsguard also defected from Maegor the Cruel to Jaehaerys in the former's last hours. We don't know what happened to those men but I doubt Jaehaerys had them killed for treason.

5 hours ago, the snow dragon said:

Its absolutely not clear that wall was constructed to keep safe just pety kingdoms. How do you know that there were even Kingdoms back then.there is a greater possibility that society was more like todays wildings,no lords no kingdoms.there would not have been animosity between two sides of wall like today.so the realms of man is more apt for including every living man north or south of wall.

We know that from the fact that there are quite a few noble lineages that go back before the Long Night. Lann the Clever, for instance, and the Casterlys before them. The ancient lords and kings of the West, the Reynes and others among them. The same is true for the lords and kings of the Reach, the old Gardeners and Hightowers. Brandon the Builder also lived in that era and apparently was the first Stark king just as Durran Godsgrief was the first Storm King.

But it is not so important whether there were proper kingdoms or not. I actually agree that the lifestyle of the First Men of that era would have been much closer to that of the wildlings of today. The important thing is that the First Men (led, perhaps, by Brandon the Builder and others), the ancestors of the wildlings, the giants, and the Children of the Forest agreed to build the Wall where they did, effectively cutting the land in half. They conveniently seemed to have picked a spot where Westeros was very narrow so that this Wall would not have to be too long. The southern lands were the territory of the First Men, 'the realms of men', while the lands north of the Wall effectively became the territory of the Others. The Wall is the border where the First Men hoped they would one they be able to stop and throw the Others back should they ever return. This means that anybody living north of the Wall was effectively living in the territory of the Others, and thus in danger to being killed by them.

Now, I'm not saying that necessarily all First Men understood that or agreed to that risk nor that all wildlings now living north of the Wall are descended from people who moved north of the Wall around the time the Others were built. But it is a fact that it is the duty of the NW to protect the Wall, this huge border that separates 'the realms of men' from the territory of 'the enemy'.

5 hours ago, the snow dragon said:

The vows dont state that the fight is against others. Yes it is the inference (and correct one)just like they dont state that a lord commander cannot protect his sister from a sadist.a 700 feet high magical wall is not constructed for  protection from ordinary threats.

I didn't say anything about ordinary threats. The Wall could also have been built to keep those snarks and grumkins out, right? And it wasn't 700 feet high in the beginning. It grew to that ridiculous size. Whether the size does actually help in keeping the Others out remains to be seen.

5 hours ago, the snow dragon said:

So according to you it is only Jon an Stanis responsibility to maintain peace althogh they are right. Stanis is rightfull king and boltens are waging war angainst him.did't Stanis send letters to all lords to swear fealty?boltens refused the peacefull way.jon didn't send letters but his immediate predecessors did send.did boltens give a fig about it? No they didn't.what has changed that jon should believe now they will help.no,the only way is that the guy who did help watch should win.

As far as we know nobody ever sent a letter to Roose. The man was on the move, remember? And a letter asking for help against the wildlings is a different matter than a letter informing him about the Others. Roose has a vital interest in keeping the wildlings out of his lands. If he had been up north and if the Starks hadn't dragged his ass to a pointless and ridiculous war he sure as hell would have sent help to the Wall. Just as the other Northmen would have done.

The question of Stannis being the rightful king or not is irrelevant to this discussion. It does not matter who sits the Iron Throne when the dead are walking in the night, remember? But neither Jon nor Stannis seem to understand that.

5 hours ago, the snow dragon said:

Jon was wrong when he thought to help his sister. But this is not such a big crime that he should be murdered.he didn't actively participated in saving his sister.till end he was working to increase the strenth of watch. He was recruiting new memmbers, repairing damaged castels securing money for the watch.he was going to lead a mission if succesfull would have saved thousnds of lives and denied same numbers to others army and if unsuccessful only few lives (mostly wildings) would lost.Mance made wrong decisions and jon was forced to answer for that. It wasn't desertion. It was the only option.

No, it was not. And yes, the Arya thing wasn't what made things as worse as they were in the end, but it was the beginning. Jon had other options when he received the Pink Letter. But he chose to do what he did. And that was desertion and treason, and the attempt to convince others to stand with him in committing desertion and treason.

5 hours ago, the snow dragon said:

Even at the end jon didn't ordered anyone to fight for him. He made his case infront of everyone and asked to join him if someone thought jon was right.as many sided with him it can be assumed they thoght he was right. Only a handfull men thought it was wrong. The same man who fell for mance's bait and took whole strength of watch to fight at bridge of skulls and lost so many men. The same men who were going to elect janos slynt because they feared tywen.the same men who opposed jons every action but never provided any alternative solution.those men were narrow minded people who didn't saw behond their own prejudices. Murder of jon wasn't a noble act, it was just a back stabing.

That was just a rhetorical trick. Something the Night's King or Runcel Hightower or any other bad lord commander also would have done to justify his actions and to convince his men to follow him in his treason. And most of them apparently did, else outsiders hadn't been forced to put them down.

4 hours ago, SFDanny said:

As long as Aerys lived there was a danger the plot could be carried out. There was a danger even after Aerys death that others in the guild would carry out the order and Jaime hunted them down to prevent this from happening.

Well, that shows that Jaime was - as he so often is - a moron. You say there was a chance that the plan would be continued even after Aerys II's death but one guy alone hunting the alchemists down would have taken a rather long time. Time the alchemists could have used to burn down the city. And Jaime still hasn't saved it because thanks to him never telling anybody about the plan - neither his father nor his sister or King Robert - some of the wildfire might still be out there. And we know the older it gets the more likely it is that it is going to ignite itself if something bad happens.

Jaime might not have saved the city after all, only postponed its ultimate fate.

But in general, no, Aerys II being alive or dead has nothing to do with the plan being carried out. Jaime prevented that from happening when he killed Rossart.

You also have to keep in mind that while Aerys II and perhaps Rossart, too, were somewhat deranged, only the Mad King was willing to die in this whole thing. The alchemists most likely intended to survive the entire thing, which means they must have had exit strategies and the like. It is not all that likely that they would have gone along even with Rossart's orders if the man had commanded them to burn the city while Tywin's men were making it unlikely or impossible for them to get out before the fires consumed the city.

4 hours ago, SFDanny said:

That doesn't mean Jaime's motivations were pure of heart, but it does mean he acted in a way that prevented the plot from going ahead, and he did so in a way that causes the reader to ask what was honorable, and what was right for the young knight to do? Which is the whole point of why Martin writes the character in this way.  He is a traitor to his king and broke his vows, but he may also be right in doing what he did. You have your answer to that question, all fine and good, but that doesn't make it "true."

George certainly asks that question with this story. Jaime is not as bad as he could have been but this is no clear-cut decision. If I had been Jaime I'd not have killed Aerys II and still found a way to prevent the wildfire plot. And thus I'd not have become the Kingslayer. It is quite clear that Jaime wanted to kill Aerys II, and that's why he did it. It was not some sort of stupid artificial moral dilemma where you only have two options at hand. Jaime already prevented the evil deed, and arresting or distracting Aerys II would most definitely have prevented the king from issuing new orders.

Definitely saving the city is another matter entirely, and something Jaime might have failed at, actually. If that had been his top priority it is very odd that he never told anybody about the wildfire plot. I mean, he himself and his beloved sister later lived in that city. He most likely has no idea about the properties of wildfire and how dangerous it can get overtime but, again, killing all the alchemists by himself wasn't exactly a good or effective way to try to save the city.

4 hours ago, SFDanny said:

You put the fulfilling of a vow over what is right. They are not always the same. In this case, Jaime could have waited for others to kill Aerys, but he did not know the outcome of the battle and he did not know if plot could go forward without Aerys or if he had other methods of ordering it to commence. What Jaime did was effective in stopping the plot - which was the right and most important thing to do - even though he breaks his vows and commits treason to do so.

It is not Jaime's duty to try to do more than he can. He also didn't know for sure that Aerys II had given another man who wasn't Rossart similar orders. But the fact that he didn't know that doesn't mean it was wrong of him to not kill every man, woman, and child in the Red Keep.

Jaime must have known enough about the outcome of the battle, though. He would have known from reports how many men his father had and how the fighting in the city was going. Aerys II himself knew that, too. That is why he gave Rossart the order to burn the city and Jaime the order to kill his own father.

4 hours ago, SFDanny said:

We will have to disagree about most of what you say is "true" and what I take is merely your conjecture of what Jaime could have done and should have done rather than what he did. What we can absolutely disagree about is that Jaime's "straw that broke the camel's back" was Aerys's order to kill Tywin. Jaime kills Rossart before he sees Aerys and before he hears the command to kill his father. That tells us this isn't just a justification he makes up afterwards. The last "straw" was the plot itself and what it would do if carried out.

You are getting the timeline wrong here. Aerys II orders Jaime to kill his father and then Jaime goes to kill Rossart. When he comes back he Aerys II asks whether the blood on his blade and armor is Tywin's and the Jaime reveals that is Rossart's. That's when Aerys II knows what Jaime has come to do and tries to escape. And then Jaime kills him.

As far as we know it was that order that made Jaime kill Aerys II. Because, again, he could have just killed Rossart without ever going back to Aerys II nor was he forced to tell him the truth about what he had done. He could have told him anything.

4 hours ago, SFDanny said:

One does not preclude the other. Aerys was a cruel and disgusting madman AND he had to be stopped from carrying out his greatest act of madness in the engulfing King's Landing in wildfire. Jaime witnessed the cruelty of Rickard and Brandon's deaths, the death of others by the king's order, he had to stand by while Aerys raped his sister/queen Rhaella, and many other acts I'm sure that changed the young man over time. That he grows to understand how he has been used and hates Aerys for it is to his credit. There is no vow that makes these things right. At some point if he has any real honor left he has to stand up and try to stop it.

Jaime must have known about Duskendale. He knew what Aerys II was and he still wanted to be the man's Kingsguard. Sure, it is different than to actually witness people burning alive and a man raping his sister-wife than to only know that you might be forced to witness something of that sort but Jaime knew what kind of man Aerys II and volunteered for this job.

I don't pity a man who voluntarily puts himself into a position where he has to do everything a sadistic maniac tells him to. He has made his own bed.

The somewhat honorable way out of that would have been a milder form of treason like the ones I outlined above. Another way would have been to kill Aerys II and accept and suffer the consequences for those actions. By either insisting that he be executed by King Robert or by taking the black. But just getting off the hook as easy as Jaime did was clearly wrong. It made matters worse.

4 hours ago, SFDanny said:

Hmm ... if I remember the Pink Letter it comes to Jon demanding the person who Jon thinks is Arya back. If Jon believes this letter, it tells him his sister is free and probably on her way to him. The logical move for Jon, if he put the "well being of Arya before his vows" would be to send out forces to find her, not march on Winterfell. No, though I do not doubt Jon wants Arya safe, it isn't the wish for her safety that forms his plans. It is the declaration of war on the Night's Watch he has just received from Ramsay Bolton. The claim that Stannis is dead has more to do with his plan than Arya does.

The well-being of Arya thing referred to the whole Mance plan. That was the problem. Ramsay just reacted to that.

And no, Ramsay is in his right in the letter. He does not declare war on the Night's Watch. He makes demands and offers insults but it is quite clear that he will spare the lives of Jon and his men if he meets those demands.

4 hours ago, SFDanny said:

The bit about the Others being left out of the Night's Watch vow just doesn't hold water. Everything we know of the Watch tells us it was formed to defend the realms of men from the threat of the Others. That it was born out of the legendary "Long Night" and its struggle against these creatures. If you really doubt this then read the section of The World of Ice & Fire dedicated to the Night's Watch and its history.

As to the words of the Watch's oath it does not mention the Others, but the content of its mission is laid out anti clearly points to the fight against the Others as the basis for its existence.

Just read part of oath that says:

And then tell me this is not all about the threat of the Others. That you think the Wall means the Watch has no need to defend those on the northern side of it is a idea that Bowen Marsh would agree with, but lets just say Jon isn't the only one who would disagree with you and brother Marsh.

More tomorrow, my friend. I do like arguing with you!

I know that the vow most likely refers to the Others. I just pointed out that we don't hear them being mentioned to underline the fact that Jon has no strict pretext based on the words of the vow to insist that keeping the Others on their side of the Wall is their ultimate super objective.

And if 'the realms of men' where also on the northern side of the Wall one wonders how the hell the NW should protect those 'realms of men' - say the Thenns in their kingdom in the valley - from the Others. They are, after all, hundreds or thousands of miles away from the Wall.

In that sense 'the realms of men' the NW is supposed to protect are those realms south of the Wall. That is clear because the Watch is effectively a border garrison.

Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with allowing men through that border if they promise to behave themselves within 'the realms of men'. The question is will they. But what Jon did in the end is to make a deal with those new men - the wildlings - and use them as an army to attack 'the realms of men'. And that's simply treason.

[The Commentator]

15 hours ago, SFDanny said:

When is treason the right thing to do? When Jaime killed Aerys he unquestionably committed treason. He also saved the lives of thousands of innocents from the pyromancer plot. When Jon raises his wilding army to fight against the Boltons he unquestionably violates his oath. Is that treason to his mission to guard the realms of men from the threat of the Others? I think not. He must unite those forces of men in the North to stand a chance of holding the Wall. The Boltons are unquestionably the major block against this unity. What does a "honorable" man do when his oath prevents him from doing what is right? Sometimes, as Jaime tells us, one has to violate one oath to keep another in the pursuit of what is right. Jon knows this and doesn't shy from taking the violation of his oath on himself and doesn't ask it of his sworn brothers. The question is what he tried to do the right thing to do under the circumstances?

Jaime could have done both.  Stop the pyros and still take Aerys out of the city and on to safety.  George wrote the account of Barristan when he got Aerys out of Duskendale for a reason.  To tell us it was possible to sneak a king out of a walled city.

tJaime could have tried to do the same.  

[The Commentator]

18 hours ago, HallowedMarcus said:

     You are wrong or you forgot the details about it. He did not ask them to join him, meaning he won't order them to follow him south as an LC of the NW. But he asked,- not ordered - both Wildlings and Night Watchers to join him if they so feel like it is the right thing to do, to join him of their own volition/will/desire. And that is also wrong because as a Lord Commander he should not allow any Watcher to make a choice of obeying or not the vows of theirs. He should demand all to follow their vows and as LC he should be the first one to obey it.

    Don't get me wrong, I love Jon and Arya the most in ASOIAF and probably would have acted as he did, were I him in that place and time, and considering he was stabbed, if he dies I do hope he is resurrected like Beric Dondarrion did and R + L = J is true and so on. However breaking a 8000-year-old vow is wrong, especially from a neutral point od view.

I give you credit for at least realizing Jon was wrong.  That is more than most of his fans would admit to.