A Jon and Jorah Meeting...

[Jaehaerys Stark]

40 minutes ago, Samwell_Tarly said:

Of course Ramsay wouldnt havnt mentioned the resurrection as he does know and thats Jons explanation for leaving the Nights Watch.

I maybe think its possibly bad writing again, Ramsay mentioning it was like for everyone. The shows way of bringing it up just so its been mentioned but not addressed properly. In episode 2 you would have thought Melisandre would have went into a bit more detail about Jon snow and why he was important etc. Maybe its another off screen sceen that we havnt or wont see :S who nows but im pretty sure its gone past been addressed now and it wont be mentioned.

I agree.  At this point, I don't think it will ever come up.  If/when they meet Cersei face to face, I imagine she will do the same thing Ramsey did in offering to "pardon" Jon for leaving the Night's Watch.  At SOME point, someone has to mention his resurrection, but as you stated, we may not get to see it, and it will simply be implied that it's common knowledge.  Terrible writing in that regard...

[Samwell_Tarly]

6 minutes ago, Jaehaerys Stark said:

I agree.  At this point, I don't think it will ever come up.  If/when they meet Cersei face to face, I imagine she will do the same thing Ramsey did in offering to "pardon" Jon for leaving the Night's Watch.  At SOME point, someone has to mention his resurrection, but as you stated, we may not get to see it, and it will simply be implied that it's common knowledge.  Terrible writing in that regard...

Yeah no ones going to mention about his ''deserting of the nights watch''.   His resurrection will be mentioned definitely, but not in regards to the nights watch. 

[Jordan La Cabra]

19 minutes ago, Jaehaerys Stark said:

I agree.  At this point, I don't think it will ever come up.  If/when they meet Cersei face to face, I imagine she will do the same thing Ramsey did in offering to "pardon" Jon for leaving the Night's Watch.  At SOME point, someone has to mention his resurrection, but as you stated, we may not get to see it, and it will simply be implied that it's common knowledge.  Terrible writing in that regard...

 

9 minutes ago, Samwell_Tarly said:

Yeah no ones going to mention about his ''deserting of the nights watch''.   His resurrection will be mentioned definitely, but not in regards to the nights watch. 

Has the ever been an instance when a member of the Night's Watch has left it and taken up lands? 

I can't remember ever reading that something like what Jon has done has happened before, which makes it all the more odd that it is not being addressed properly.

I know it is war times and there are more pressing matters, but deserting the NW is a big deal, especially to Northern Lords.

[Samwell_Tarly]

2 minutes ago, JordanJH1993 said:

 

Has the ever been an instance when a member of the Night's Watch has left it and taken up lands? 

Even with my deep knowledge I couldnt answer, I would assume say no, based upon the Ned stark executing the brother of the nights watch regardless of what he had seen/what he had to say etc. You desert you pay with your life end of.

2 minutes ago, JordanJH1993 said:

I can't remember ever reading that something like what Jon has done has happened before, which makes it all the more odd that it is not being addressed properly.

I know it is war times and there are more pressing matters, but deserting the NW is a big deal, especially to Northern Lords.

Yeah War time or not, you desert then as seen in the very first episode your sentenced to death. So them not questioning it at all, is damn right ridiculous and again probably down to Dumb and Dumbers lack of thought and writing skills.

[Jordan La Cabra]

4 minutes ago, Samwell_Tarly said:

Even with my deep knowledge I couldnt answer, I would assume say no, based upon the Ned stark executing the brother of the nights watch regardless of what he had seen/what he had to say etc. You desert you pay with your life end of.

Yeah War time or not, you desert then as seen in the very first episode your sentenced to death. So them not questioning it at all, is damn right ridiculous and again probably down to Dumb and Dumbers lack of thought and writing skills.

I don't remember any tales of member of the Watch deserting and getting to live a normal life afterwards in the books, nor do I remember coming across anything like Jon's situation on the ASOIAF wiki page. Jon could well be the first to have done this.

As you say, the first chapter in aGoT and the first scene in the show we see the Stark family, including Jon, is Ned executing the member of the NW that deserted. 

My only explanation could be that the Lords of the North are so happy to see a male of Stark blood, albeit a bastard (to them) back in Winterfell, leading the Northmen that they are willing to excuse him the need to explain the ins and outs of how he happened to get there.

[SansaJonRule]

On 8/4/2017 at 1:23 PM, JordanJH1993 said:

 

Has the ever been an instance when a member of the Night's Watch has left it and taken up lands? 

I can't remember ever reading that something like what Jon has done has happened before, which makes it all the more odd that it is not being addressed properly.

I know it is war times and there are more pressing matters, but deserting the NW is a big deal, especially to Northern Lords.

Couldn't the fact that Jon’s purpose in seeking aid from and reuniting all the Northern lords is to prepare them for the battle with the WW would be seen as an extension of his duties as a member of the NW? He and Davos even mention it when they meet with Lady Mormont before they even defeat Ramsey.

And although he did fight Ramsey to take back WF, he did not try to make himself lord. He insisted that Sansa was Lady of WF.

I don't think Tyrion would have brought it up unless they needed it as a bargaining chip. Antagonizing a potential ally is not a good way to win him over. Plus the same reason as above. 

Jorah was already pardoned by Robert and Dany is witness to that. 

 

[Jordan La Cabra]

7 minutes ago, SansaJonRule said:

Couldn't the fact that Jon’s purpose in seeking aid from and reuniting all the Northern lords is to prepare them for the battle with the WW would be seen as an extension of his duties as a member of the NW? He and Davos even mention it when they meet with Lady Mormont before they even defeat Ramsey.

And although he did fight Ramsey to take back WF, he did not try to make himself lord. He insisted that Sansa was Lady of WF.

I don't think Tyrion would have brought it up unless they needed it as a bargaining chip. Antagonizing a potential ally is not a good way to win him over. Plus the same reason as above. 

Jorah was already pardoned by Robert and Dany is witness to that. 

 

Yeah, that's a fair point that Jon didn't claimed any of the titles for himself, they were given to him.

I think part of my issue was that I felt the show was avoiding addressing Jon's situation with NW as it would be difficult to write or would get in the way of what they are trying to write, so I assumed they were taking they easy option of not addressing it at all, which doesn't seem logical to me. But yes, there may be a few logical reasons as to why characters are able to ignore the issues regarding Jon and the NW.

[LucyMormont]

6 minutes ago, JordanJH1993 said:

Yeah, that's a fair point that Jon didn't claimed any of the titles for himself, they were given to him.

I think part of my issue was that I felt the show was avoiding addressing Jon's situation with NW as it would be difficult to write or would get in the way of what they are trying to write, so I assumed they were taking they easy option of not addressing it at all, which doesn't seem logical to me. But yes, there may be a few logical reasons as to why characters are able to ignore the issues regarding Jon and the NW.

Thing is, we shouldn't have to make endless suppositions, continuous wonderings,   and philosophize hours, days, years, on  the possible reasons why characters do or do not the things they do. These things should be clearly addressed in the show, and no to make characters go amnesic about fundamental things previously well established, and worse, expect us to do the same. 

If the northen lords know Jon came back from the death, they should have shown some proper surprise or amazement (like his brothers or the "wildlings" when first saw him after that). If they don't know, they should have raised the issue of him deserting the Night's Watch. Period.

[Jaehaerys Stark]

On 8/5/2017 at 4:54 PM, LucyMormont said:

Thing is, we shouldn't have to make endless suppositions, continuous wonderings,   and philosophize hours, days, years, on  the possible reasons why characters do or do not the things they do. These things should be clearly addressed in the show, and no to make characters go amnesic about fundamental things previously well established, and worse, expect us to do the same. 

If the northen lords know Jon came back from the death, they should have shown some proper surprise or amazement (like his brothers or the "wildlings" when first saw him after that). If they don't know, they should have raised the issue of him deserting the Night's Watch. Period.

Jon did not break any vows or oath in leaving the NW.  He swore to serve with the NW until his watch ended, i.e. he dies.  He died.  His watch was over, thus he fulfilled his vows.  That much is without question. 

 

But, as I've said many times, it doesn't seem right that he didn't have to explain that to anybody.  Huge plot hole.  But in the end, he is justified in leaving and has every right to do so.  He gave his life for the Watch...

[Raeslewolhn]

On 8/3/2017 at 6:14 PM, JordanJH1993 said:

Being a potential deserter of the Night's Watch is a pretty big deal, though - something big enough to warrant punishment by death.

Daenerys may not take much interest in the wall or even know that deserters receive such a strong punishment, but a smart man like Tyrion who was once a King's hand should know this.

The fact he seems to have no questions as to why Jon was able to leave and take lands is something that really should have been added in. 

It is cheap writing on D&D's behalf if they are simple not letting people ask Jon the questions regarding it because Jon doesn't want to tell the answers, or as a writers they can't think up a lie on Jon's behalf that is strong enough to cover for the fact he died.

If Jorah was to meet Jon the writers would have to address the issue, as there is no way they could convince us that a northerner, a former Stark bannerman and a son of a former Lord Commander wouldn't wonder how Jon was able to leave the Night's Watch without being killed for desertion.

But punishing and dealing with the NW is 100% the job of the Lord of Winterfell. If his own ppl support him that's all that matters to the South

[LindsayLohan]

Pretty sure Jon and Tyrion would have hashed it out by now.  Weeks or months have passed since Jon first arrived on Dragonstone.  Jon and Tyrion actually had the intro conversation where Tyrion tells Jon he wants to know how a bastard in the Night's Watch became KITN.  Jon wants to know how a Lannister ended up Hand for a Targaryan queen.  They would have obviously had that conversation by now, and Tyrion obviously would have approved, or there would have been drama. 

Jon can tell the story while leaving out his stabbing based on the Pink Letter alone.  Tyrion wouldn't begrudge Jon coming down from the Wall and pulverizing a Northern lord who threatened to kill Jon, rape his sister, and slaughter the Watch.

[Pecan]

On 8/3/2017 at 3:41 PM, StarkofWinterfell said:

I still think you're giving them too much credit. It won't even be addressed, guaranteed. This thing might come up in the books if Jorah and Jon ever meet but the show doesn't have time to waste on that right now.

Yep, this right here. In the books, Jon's status in the Night's Watch is quite important as one of the opening scenes in AGOT is Ned lopping off the head of a NW deserter and then lecturing Bran on the importance of keeping one's oaths. But the show just can't go too deep into that stuff. 

[snow is the man]

It's ironic that ser jorah was such a better battle commander and advisor then tyrion was. Ser jorah was a great fighter to be sure but house mormont is small and ser jorah is for some reason more clever then tyrion and more resourceful. If he had been there then dany would have already taken out the lannisters I think. I love tyrion but he is making some very dumb decisions

[A Ghost of Someone]

I think Jon will be more than cordial and also sympathetic to him given how LC Joer Mormont was kind to him and treated him like a son. Jorah on the other hand will see Dany around Jon and will be jealous of him. Atleast Jon is not disrespectful to Dany behind her back like Daario was (bragging about her in bed to taunt Jorah was wrong and never should say that to anyone). Jorah will eventually come to respect Jon too.