Barbrey Dustin

Jon was rightfully "terminated" by the Watch

397 posts in this topic

20 hours ago, BalerionTheCat said:

 

I would rather say: No one is forcing you to agree with him or her (either concerning Jaime or Jon.).
But, reciprocally, no one forbids you to express your PoV. Or force you to stay silent. Everyone is free of his/her ideas.

And yes, IMO, Jon and Jaime have some parallels. In ignoring the Law to do what they felt true.

Hi Balerion.  The biggest difference:  Jaime was serving the greater good.  Jon was serving the good of Arya at the expense of the safety of the whole watch and the whole country. 

13 hours ago, Jon Ice-Eyes said:

The way medieval law worked was that someone who was guilty, if he or she wasn't executed on the spot, would become an outlaw. This means that anyone can kill them with no repercussions. The law doesn't protect them anymore. 

So Arya killing a Night's Watch deserter is perfectly fine. He's an outlaw. And I see no indication that Braavos extends amnesty and protection to outlaws. 

The same would go for Mance if he weren't pardoned by the Night's Watch. Although it makes no difference if no one knows about the pardon or if they don't know who he is. Or, most importantly if they don't give a damn about that shit and kill him for, say, arranging to murder guardsmen. 

Sorry if this was all mentioned upthread.

Even Ned didn't have a choice in the matter when he killed Gared.  I don't think Jon can pardon Mance.  He's not a monarch but an officer of the NW.  The LC has the duty to execute or have executed a man who deserted from the watch.  Let's be honest here and admit Mance did much worse than desertion.  His actions killed his brothers.  And I won't say former brothers because he could not technically leave the watch, so in effect, Mance killed his brothers when he attacked the watch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The LC can pardon people for breaking their vows. Mormont did for Jon. All LCs do it every day for the guys who go to town for prostitutes. It's just that pardoning someone who has done so many crimes, and such egregious ones, is effectively impossible. Almost no one would let that stick. Stannis sure wouldn't, if the circumstances didn't help him fight a war. 

All that being said, the only relevant question to ask about Boltons executing NW members -- or secret agents -- is: who's gonna stop them?

The king? Nope. Another lord? Nope. The NW? Not at this time. So it's fine. At the level of lords and kings, things are only illegal if someone takes you to court (or war) and defeats you there. All of this is done after the fact. Action precedes legality. 'Illegal' and all that are labels, slapped on in hindsight. 

It's one of the main points of the story. Whether Jon was working for the greater good of humanity and therefore true to his oath, or a selfish traitor, depends completely on whether you like his decisions, and who wins in the end. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

9 hours ago, Holley 4 Barrel said:

Jon has no authority to "rescue" Arya from her marriage.  Jon has no jurisdiction anywhere outside the wall.  That puts him in the wrong for sending his wildling "friends" to fetch her.  For that alone Jon is guilty of treason against the realm and against the watch.   Don't forget that the wildlings murdered several servants and possibly an innocent little fat boy. 

Jon didn't "rescue" anyone.  Arya/Jeyne escaped.  Besides which, if Jon writes back and says "I don't have Arya" you think Ramsay is going to say "oh, okay then, bye!"?  Of course not.  He's attacking either way.

And Jon absolutely does have jurisdiction outside the Wall.  Or rather, that is a poor way to put it.  Rather, he has a right to intervene wherever he wants, whenever he wants, because his only job is to prepare for the coming of the Others.  If Ramsay is out slaughtering people who are going to fight the Others, Jon's oath demands he step in.  It's literally, literally, the only thing he's really sworn to do (aside from not having legitimate kids, declaring himself king, or seeking glory - so not literally I guess).

And even IF we assume that he shouldn't be sending people to help Arya escape (and we don't know what his orders to Mance were, so don't get ahead of yourself), how does that constitute treason against the realm?  I think you need to figure out the definition of treason.  And again, as I've said a dozen times, nothing in the Watch's oath forbids him from interfering south of the Wall.  I'm not saying he should, or that it is smart, but read it again.  Tradition is not law.  

Quote

So it's not trespassing for a wildling to cross the wall and enter a castle in disguise?  You do know Mance Rayder is a deserter and Ned had the duty to execute him on the spot like he did to the black brother in the first chapter of GoT.  Jon doesn't have the authority to pardon Mance Rayder. 

Yes, Jon does.  For the crime of being a deserter, that is.  You know how I know?  Because LC Mormont pardons Jon.  And apparently hundreds of others, too.

And your definition of trespassing needs some work.  What is trespassing?  Jon was clearly welcomed into the castle, so it's not like he was there without the knowledge of his hosts.  The rebuttal to that is that he was there under a false identity, which is a good one; but as I pointed out, many men, especially singers, live under false identities or assumed names, and no one cares.  

So again, lets make something clear.  Regardless of what you believe, the text is quite clear that Jon has supreme executive and judicial power vested in him, and is command of a sovereign entity.  Which means that any crime committed against that entity, Jon has the ability to commute or pardon.  So by the time Mance heads to Bolton-occupied Winterfell, Mance is entirely innocent of any crime.  Yes, when Mance shows up during Robert's feast, if Ned had recognized him (or Benjen) then he would be totally right to execute him.  But that crime has been pardoned.

Quote

It's one of the main points of the story. Whether Jon was working for the greater good of humanity and therefore true to his oath, or a selfish traitor, depends completely on whether you like his decisions, and who wins in the end. 

This is Jon Ice-Eyes, and I'm just bad with the quoting function.

Tell me ONE way in which Jon is a selfish traitor?  Has he betrayed a single one of his oaths?  No.  Is he obviously working against a traitorous, psychotic family that has eroded trust  in the one inalienable right in Westeros (guest right) and who are now torturing a young woman?  Yes.  Is he working on his only mission, which is to fight the Others?  Yes.  Supporting Stannis means supporting the fight against the Others, which is the only thing he duty bound to do.  He has no obligation not to involve himself in the Seven Kingdoms.  None.  Zip.  Zilch.  You show me where he swears that, and I'll rethink my position.

Bowen Marsh and his men are the selfish traitors.  They don't kill Jon because of the Pink Letter, they kill him because they're short sighted bigots who would rather let humanity die than reconcile themselves with the wildlings.  Jon makes this point explicitly, and Bowen Marsh has no rebuttal.  Again, he is a bigot; he's a member of the Westerosi KKK, joining a lynch mob to kill someone working to give equality to a group he considers to be subhuman.

Edited by cpg2016

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/06/2017 at 0:47 PM, cpg2016 said:

Bowen Marsh was planning to kill Jon well before the Pink Letter.  In other words, before any of the justifications you cite.

Mance is not a criminal, first off.  He was a threat to the Night's Watch, but he broke no laws, as the laws of the Seven Kingdoms don't apply when not in the Seven Kingdoms.

And Ramsay Bolton had threatened the Night's Watch with physical violence if they didn't turn over certain guests of theirs.  The Boltons have already justified Jon's decision for him.  Any attack he makes on them is perfectly legal; they are holding a proverbial gun to his head.  It is far MORE of a betrayal to surrender the sovereignty of the Watch to the Boltons than it is to assault them for endangering the only mission the NW has, which is protecting the realm from the Others.  Right now, a number of Stannis' men are helping defend the Wall; the demand on the part of the Boltons that he effectively disarm and surrender these men is a direct threat on the primary goal of the Night's Watch.

Not to mention that, had Jon done what Ramsay asked and delivered Selyse, Shireen and Mel, he'd be violating guest right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL, you are aware that Jaime Lannister is a member of the Kingsguard, right? And that all of Westeros, including the mortal enemies of King Aerys II Targaryen (like Eddard Stark and Robert Baratheon), despise the man for what he did. Nobody is going to despise Bowen Marsh in the same way for killing a Lord Commander of the Night's Watch who turned deserter.

Of course, not one person (well, now Brienne) knows WHY he did it.  And as Brienne's attitude shows, knowledge of his motivations might have changed Jaime's characterization by his peers dramatically.  But he was an emo teen.  So it's an awful comparison.

Jaime killed his liege to save hundreds of thousands of innocent lives.  Bowen Marsh killed his commander so he could condemn tens of thousands of people to death so he could continue to be a bigot and view them as subhuman.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But still, since Ramsay is a man of the Seven Kingdoms he might think the wildlings see Mance's son and 'the wildling princess' as somebody to follow, which would explain why he wants them, too.

He likely does, as wth Ser Patrek.  But none of that gives him the right to demand them.  To our knowledge, Val has never set foot in the Seven Kingdoms, and Mance's kid obviously never has, so there is absolutely no reason for Ramsay or any other Westerosi non-Night's Watchmen to claim any kind of jurisdiction or justice over Mance's child.  Sure, he wants them - but threatening the Night's Watch with war if he doesn't get them is super illegal and unethical and Jon is right to respond to it actively.  If Ramsay showed up and demanded all the gold, supplies, and castle of the Watch, Jon would be justified in physically resisting.  This is no different in principle.  Ramsay is insisting, at swordpoint, that the Watch surrender it's sovereignty to him.  No more, and no less.  Jon shouldn't even have tried to "desert".  He should have led all his brothers south.

Of course, that doesn't work when your brothers are engaged in a secret cabal to depose you for showing humane treatment towards the people north of the Wall.  Fighting on behalf of a wildling, even if the cause is the independence of the Watch, wouldn't go over.  Plus, I think the circumstantial evidence that Bowen Marsh is in communication/cahoots with Cersei is reasonably convincing, narratively speaking, though I can't prove it (and don't think it matters much anyway).

Quote

Guest right doesn't allow you to harbor traitors and outlaws. You can do it, of course, but then you are a traitor and outlaw, too, and are dealt with accordingly.

Uh, says who?  Guest right isn't a responsibility incumbent on a third party.  If I'm the king chasing an outlaw, and you are hosting said outlaw, I have no responsibility towards him or to respect your guest right.  YOU DO.  

And Val and baby Mance aren't traitors or outlaws, so again... it doesn't apply.  They've never been subject to the laws of the Seven Kingdoms.  Nor, frankly, does the case for Shireen or Selyse, who are at the command of their royal father/husband (or else you admit that Jon can "rescue" Arya from Ramsay without his consent).  I suppose Melisandre could be considered one, though her crimes are not knowledge available to Ramsay.

Quote

I say it was the execution of a deserter, hardly different from what Ned did to Gared or Arya presumed to do with Dareon.

But you aren't right.  Gared and Dareon were both admitted deserters found outside the Gift/New Gift, meaning they had literally deserted in addition to saying they were going to.  As LC Mormont says, many men try and desert and are forgiven.  Since Jon hadn't actually deserted, regardless of his intention, they aren't right to execute him.  And what Arya does is pretty clearly wrong, by the way.  Ned's execution at least has the trappings of formality.

Moreover, none of this addresses the point, which is whether Bowen Marsh acted ethically (was he "right") in his mutiny.  And the answer is clearly no.  He didn't kill Jon because he was deserting, he killed him because he was letting wildlings through the Wall and putting them in positions of authority within the Watch.  This is hardly up for debate; the fact that he has a coterie of mutineers ready to go within minutes notice is proof positive that he's been plotting Jon's downfall.  That he chose this moment is unrelated to his primary grievance, and totally a result of it being his last chance to get a good stab in.  So no... he didn't act "rightfully".  We can go back and forth about the technical legality, but at the end of the day, his motive was to mutiny.  If I plant an explosive in your car on Monday, and you steal something Tuesday and try to make a getaway in the car, I didn't act ethically or legally, despite the fact that you were a criminal at the moment of your death.  The situation is analogous.

Edited by cpg2016

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cpg2016 said:

on didn't "rescue" anyone.  Arya/Jeyne escaped.  Besides which, if Jon writes back and says "I don't have Arya" you think Ramsay is going to say "oh, okay then, bye!"?  Of course not.  He's attacking either way.

And if Jon had Arya, even the real one, do you think he would send her back to Ramday?  That was not his intention.  He meant to take Arya from Ramsay and never give her back. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

Moreover, none of this addresses the point, which is whether Bowen Marsh acted ethically (was he "right") in his mutiny.  And the answer is clearly no.  He didn't kill Jon because he was deserting, he killed him because he was letting wildlings through the Wall and putting them in positions of authority within the Watch.  This is hardly up for debate; the fact that he has a coterie of mutineers ready to go within minutes notice is proof positive that he's been plotting Jon's downfall.  That he chose this moment is unrelated to his primary grievance, and totally a result of it being his last chance to get a good stab in.  So no... he didn't act "rightfully".  We can go back and forth about the technical legality, but at the end of the day, his motive was to mutiny.  If I plant an explosive in your car on Monday, and you steal something Tuesday and try to make a getaway in the car, I didn't act ethically or legally, despite the fact that you were a criminal at the moment of your death.  The situation is analogous.

Bowen had a duty and a responsibility to prevent his crazed LC from raiding the Boltons.  Even the Night's King didn't lead an army to attack the people of the 7k.  What Jon was about to do and what he did prior were worse offenses than the Night's King did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

38 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

And Val and baby Mance aren't traitors or outlaws, so again... it doesn't apply.  They've never been subject to the laws of the Seven Kingdoms.  Nor, frankly, does the case for Shireen or Selyse, who are at the command of their royal father/husband (or else you admit that Jon can "rescue" Arya from Ramsay without his consent).  I suppose Melisandre could be considered one, though her crimes are not knowledge available to Ramsay.

 

The situation between Selyse and Arya's is different.  Arya's situation is more that of Lyanna.  Look how the Starks behaved when they thought their sovereign ruler's son kidnapped their sister.  The facts of Lyanna's abduction are murky but I don't think the Starks would have been any less pissed if Lyanna had run off on her own (many theories believe this) and Rhaegar was sheltering her out of some misguided sense of chivalry.  Ramsay Bolton is actually behaving more rationally than Brandon Stark in this similar situation.

 

Edited by Allardyce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

Of course, not one person (well, now Brienne) knows WHY he did it.  And as Brienne's attitude shows, knowledge of his motivations might have changed Jaime's characterization by his peers dramatically.  But he was an emo teen.  So it's an awful comparison.

Jaime killed his liege to save hundreds of thousands of innocent lives.  Bowen Marsh killed his commander so he could condemn tens of thousands of people to death so he could continue to be a bigot and view them as subhuman.

No, he did not. He killed King Aerys II Targaryen because he wanted to. I laid that out above. He had already thwarted Aerys' plans to burn KL by killing Rossart and sure as hell could have prevented Aerys from sending out another messenger by not informing the king about what he did (killing Rossart), distracting him further, or arresting him. There was no need for him to kill the man. He had other options.

I doubt men like Ned would see Jaime differently if they knew about the wildfire plot. They would judge him as a I do - by pointing out that he had other options.

43 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

He likely does, as wth Ser Patrek.  But none of that gives him the right to demand them.  To our knowledge, Val has never set foot in the Seven Kingdoms, and Mance's kid obviously never has, so there is absolutely no reason for Ramsay or any other Westerosi non-Night's Watchmen to claim any kind of jurisdiction or justice over Mance's child.  Sure, he wants them - but threatening the Night's Watch with war if he doesn't get them is super illegal and unethical and Jon is right to respond to it actively.  If Ramsay showed up and demanded all the gold, supplies, and castle of the Watch, Jon would be justified in physically resisting.  This is no different in principle.  Ramsay is insisting, at swordpoint, that the Watch surrender it's sovereignty to him.  No more, and no less.  Jon shouldn't even have tried to "desert".  He should have led all his brothers south.

You are repeating your wrong story about the NW being some sort of independent state. It is not. It is the border garrison of the realms of men which is subservient to the whims of the kings and lords of the Seven Kingdoms. They can elect their own Lord Commander, sure, they have that privilege. But they have their duty - hold the Wall against its enemies - and cannot change or reinterpret their mission as they see fit.

What the lawful authorities of the Realm want they get from the NW. That's the case with Tyrion, during his visit, with Stannis, and, of course, also with Ramsay Bolton.

There is also nothing wrong with claiming Mance's son and Val as hostages. They are kin and in-laws of Mance Rayder, and thus should work reasonably well as hostages. Mance stole Ramsay's bride, remember?

43 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

Of course, that doesn't work when your brothers are engaged in a secret cabal to depose you for showing humane treatment towards the people north of the Wall.  Fighting on behalf of a wildling, even if the cause is the independence of the Watch, wouldn't go over.  Plus, I think the circumstantial evidence that Bowen Marsh is in communication/cahoots with Cersei is reasonably convincing, narratively speaking, though I can't prove it (and don't think it matters much anyway).

You repeat yourself here. I don't care about your personal beliefs. We have no reason to believe that Cersei actually confided in Bowen Marsh that she was going to send Osney Kettleblack and some men to Castle Black to deal with Lord Commander Snow. She does not know Bowen Marsh and has no reason to trust him, even if he man was sending her some letters. Cersei most considers all those Watchmen traitors since the Watch as a whole elected Lord Commander Snow.

And again - you have no proof that Marsh intended to kill Jon Snow prior to the Pink Letter. There are hints that he might have known the contents of that letter before Jon Snow did - and that would have given him sufficient time to actual make plans for the assassination should such a move be necessary.

It is quite clear that Marsh and many others - most likely most of the NW - opposed Jon's policies. But that's not the same as plotting to kill him.

As of yet we don't even know whether Marsh was the driving force in the assassination or whether he went along with the idea reluctantly.

43 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

Uh, says who?  Guest right isn't a responsibility incumbent on a third party.  If I'm the king chasing an outlaw, and you are hosting said outlaw, I have no responsibility towards him or to respect your guest right.  YOU DO.  

So you think you can harbor any criminal no matter what he did simply by declaring him your guest? Then one wonders why criminals are punished in the Seven Kingdoms at all...

43 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

And Val and baby Mance aren't traitors or outlaws, so again... it doesn't apply.  They've never been subject to the laws of the Seven Kingdoms.  Nor, frankly, does the case for Shireen or Selyse, who are at the command of their royal father/husband (or else you admit that Jon can "rescue" Arya from Ramsay without his consent).  I suppose Melisandre could be considered one, though her crimes are not knowledge available to Ramsay.

Mance's son and Val are Stannis' prisoners. Stannis is dead, according to the Pink Letter at least, which means Stannis' prisoners and family should now go to the duly appointed representatives of the Iron Throne in the North (Roose and Ramsay). Even before Jon could have handed them to the Boltons considering that Stannis and his entire family are traitors and outlaws (as per decree of the late King Joffrey).

Jon has no right to extend guest right to people which are searched by the Iron Throne.

43 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

But you aren't right.  Gared and Dareon were both admitted deserters found outside the Gift/New Gift, meaning they had literally deserted in addition to saying they were going to.  As LC Mormont says, many men try and desert and are forgiven.  Since Jon hadn't actually deserted, regardless of his intention, they aren't right to execute him.  And what Arya does is pretty clearly wrong, by the way.  Ned's execution at least has the trappings of formality.

Jon had made it clear he was deserting and would be leading an army of wildlings against the realms of men. That is both desertion and treason.

Arya just murdered an innocent man, by the way. She wasn't in the Seven Kingdoms and she wasn't the Lady of Winterfell or any person of the legal right to execute somebody. Even if she technically were the Lady of Winterfell she is still a minor and has thus not the right to sit in judgment over people nor the right to execute them personally.

If Dareon deserved to die then Jon Snow deserved to die, too, while he was fucking Ygritte in that cave and honestly promised her that he loved her and all. If Arya had see him doing that she would have gutted him, too, never mind that he may have later changed him mind. Just as Dareon might have changed his mind, too.

43 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

Moreover, none of this addresses the point, which is whether Bowen Marsh acted ethically (was he "right") in his mutiny.  And the answer is clearly no.  He didn't kill Jon because he was deserting, he killed him because he was letting wildlings through the Wall and putting them in positions of authority within the Watch.  This is hardly up for debate; the fact that he has a coterie of mutineers ready to go within minutes notice is proof positive that he's been plotting Jon's downfall.  That he chose this moment is unrelated to his primary grievance, and totally a result of it being his last chance to get a good stab in.  So no... he didn't act "rightfully".  We can go back and forth about the technical legality, but at the end of the day, his motive was to mutiny.  If I plant an explosive in your car on Monday, and you steal something Tuesday and try to make a getaway in the car, I didn't act ethically or legally, despite the fact that you were a criminal at the moment of your death.  The situation is analogous.

You are repeating yourself again. This simply isn't true. Jon was killed because he had broken his vows and planned to attack the realms of men.

You have to prove that Marsh intended to kill Jon all along but you simply can't. Because there is no evidence for that. And again, even if he did - if I intend to kill you for an unjust or wrong reason and you provide me with the proper pretext to actually kill you for a good reason then I can kill you and not commit a crime. That I might also have killed you if hadn't given me that pretext doesn't change that. Because, you know, you gave me that pretext in that scenario. As did Jon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

19 hours ago, Here's Looking At You, Kid said:

Jon and Jaime are not really parallel.  Bowen and Jaime are parallel.  Both have had to kill their boss for the good of the many.

True for Jaime. Less for Bowen. Probably he was thinking he was doing right. But he was so wrong, so short sighted, taking sides with one king, that I can't give him the excuse of believing to do "the good of the many".

4 hours ago, Allardyce said:

The biggest difference:  Jaime was serving the greater good.  Jon was serving the good of Arya at the expense of the safety of the whole watch and the whole country.

Yes, quite possibly, Jon would have done nothing if it was not for Arya. Which would have been, I believe, the wrong decision in the long term.

I have no problem with Jon betraying the mission given to him. If this mission was to keep the Wildling out and to support the ruling lords, whatever their crimes. It is vows supporting such missions I have problem with.

Edited by BalerionTheCat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Lord Varys we can go on and on in our discussion, but I'm not sure you are getting my point. Martin purposefully presents the reader with characters who are challenged by the vows they take and doing what they think is right. Jaime, Jon, Robb, Rhaegar, Ned, Robert, and on, and on it goes., all face such challenges and the reader must consider if they make the right choice. It's fine that you see it so cut and dried in what the characters should have done, but I'm afraid not everyone has the same reaction as you do.

When I asked you the question of when is "treason right?" I expected that you would see that there are examples when it is. Perhaps that was my mistake. But reasonable people can have different opinions about this in different circumstances. Because the fifteen year old Jaime swore a vow that bound him to serve unquestioningly Aerys for the rest of his life certainly means that when he attacked Rossart, and when he slew Aerys he committed treason and broke his vow. That is not the question. The question is whether or not he was right to do so. You pose theoretical factors and say "no, he wasn't" and I do the same and say, "yes, he was." Neither is "true," Rather it is a choice of what was what we think should be done if we were in the same fantasy situation. The real point is that Martin isn't asking his readers to come to the same conclusion. He is asking his readers to consider what should be done.

So too, with Jon and his decision to fight back against Ramsay's threats. Obviously, in story we have Bowen Marsh and his conspirators reaching the same conclusion that you do, but that doesn't mean Jon's reaction to Ramsay's threats is treason, although it is certainly a violation of his vow in a strict one-sided interpretation. I would remind you that the Watch is a separate entity not bound by the laws of the king or any nobles. It is an open question as to the right of the Lord Commander to fight back against threats from people like Ramsay and the degree to which he can do so, but it isn't a question whether or not the Lord Commander must submit to commands or demands of the king or lords of the realm. He doesn't. The Watch and the Lord Commander are separate from the laws of the realm. In the distant past the Kings of the North have imposed their will on the Watch, but that doesn't make it lawful for them to do so. Perhaps it was right to depose the Night King, but Jon is not the Night King because he chooses to give Stannis the Nightfort, nor if he chooses to give shelter and guest right to refugees, including possibly his sister, from the conflicts to the south. 

I would suggest, rather, that Jon's action must be viewed in the light of the central mission of the Night's Watch - the fight to stop the threat of the Others towards all humanity. Looked at in that light, his strategy, worked out with Tormund, makes a lot of sense. If we only look at it in the light of the wording of the oath then it looks like a violation of that oath. But, once again, the oath is meant to safeguard the realms of men from the Others, not just codify the rules governing the conduct of a small subset of men. What is right, to me, means what is right for that mission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Tell me ONE way in which Jon is a selfish traitor?  Has he betrayed a single one of his oaths?  No.  Is he obviously working against a traitorous, psychotic family that has eroded trust  in the one inalienable right in Westeros (guest right) and who are now torturing a young woman?  Yes.  Is he working on his only mission, which is to fight the Others?  Yes.  Supporting Stannis means supporting the fight against the Others, which is the only thing he duty bound to do.  He has no obligation not to involve himself in the Seven Kingdoms.  None.  Zip.  Zilch.  You show me where he swears that, and I'll rethink my position.

I agree with you. That's the reality of the situation, as illustrated for us by the omniscient author. I meant this comment half in-world, ie. if the Boltons were to win in the end (which of course they will not), the only narrative anyone would ever hear is that Jon was a traitor, and so on.

I also meant it half in our perception. If Jon survives and marches tens of thousands of fighting men off to Winterfell, and that is the precise time the Others come busting through, going on to murder many thousands in the North... what will you think then? Readers' interpretation of what he was doing might change. People who right now say he was being more or less ethical might rethink their stance. And folks will throw around words like 'legal' and 'oathbreaker' and 'traitor.' At the very least it will provide some food for thought. That's what I meant. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Arya just murdered an innocent man, by the way. She wasn't in the Seven Kingdoms and she wasn't the Lady of Winterfell or any person of the legal right to execute somebody. Even if she technically were the Lady of Winterfell she is still a minor and has thus not the right to sit in judgment over people nor the right to execute them personally.

This is a complete misunderstanding of how medieval laws work. I am not totally sure as to whether the misunderstanding is yours or George's. I have a post up thread about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jon Ice-Eyes said:

The LC can pardon people for breaking their vows. Mormont did for Jon. All LCs do it every day for the guys who go to town for prostitutes. It's just that pardoning someone who has done so many crimes, and such egregious ones, is effectively impossible. Almost no one would let that stick. Stannis sure wouldn't, if the circumstances didn't help him fight a war. 

All that being said, the only relevant question to ask about Boltons executing NW members -- or secret agents -- is: who's gonna stop them?

The king? Nope. Another lord? Nope. The NW? Not at this time. So it's fine. At the level of lords and kings, things are only illegal if someone takes you to court (or war) and defeats you there. All of this is done after the fact. Action precedes legality. 'Illegal' and all that are labels, slapped on in hindsight. 

It's one of the main points of the story. Whether Jon was working for the greater good of humanity and therefore true to his oath, or a selfish traitor, depends completely on whether you like his decisions, and who wins in the end. 

 

Liking or not liking his decisions is not important.  He chose to serve his own interests and brought harm to the Night's Watch in the process.  Jon is a know-nothing idiot but even he knew quite well what he was doing and he still did it.  His actions did real harm.  George meant for Jon's decisions to be stupid.  He was set up to fail.  The girl was not Arya to start with.  George established early on in the story that violating NW rules have fatal consequences.  Jon knew that all along.  What happened is really very simple.  Jon's love for his sister overcame his ethics, professionalism, honor, and devotion to his duties.  His passion for Arya killed his honor and his duty as Aemon would say. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

3 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Not to mention that, had Jon done what Ramsay asked and delivered Selyse, Shireen and Mel, he'd be violating guest right.

It was Jon who violated guest rights when his operatives killed some of the Bolton staff. 

A guest cannot stay indefinitely.  Guest rights has its limits.  The guest may not take up residence, else they are no longer guests.  Stannis' men took control of several structures that had belonged to the watch.  That makes him a neighbor to the watch.  He made plans to settle the gift.  Those are not things a guests could do.  Stannis and his men outnumber the black brothers.  They are not under the protection of the watch.  That makes him an independent resident, more like a neighbor, not a guest.

The only people the wall can permanently harbor are the ones who swear the vows and become men of the night watch.  Then those men would be required to follow the rules governing the night's watch. 

Edited by Steelshanks Walton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Steelshanks Walton said:

It was Jon who violated guest rights when his operatives killed some of the Bolton staff. 

Can you prove that? Because Jon never sent Mance to WF he sent them to Long Lake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Doctor's Consort said:

Can you prove that? Because Jon never sent Mance to WF he sent them to Long Lake.

The proof is in those pages.  The spearwives killed the Bolton guards.  Who sent Mance on this mission to rescue Arya?  Jon.  Mance and the girls are acting on Jon's orders and on his behalf.  They are operating under Jon's command.  Jon provided the spear wives and had Dolorous Edd fetch them from Mole's Town.  Jon even admits to himself that he sent Mance Rayder loose on the north to help Arya. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Steelshanks Walton said:

The proof is in those pages.  The spearwives killed the Bolton guards.  Who sent Mance on this mission to rescue Arya?  Jon.  Mance and the girls are acting on Jon's orders and on his behalf.  They are operating under Jon's command.  Jon provided the spear wives and had Dolorous Edd fetch them from Mole's Town.  Jon even admits to himself that he sent Mance Rayder loose on the north to help Arya. 

The text say that Jon sent Mance and the speawives at Long Lake and not at Winterfell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.