“For the watch”

[kissdbyfire]

11 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

It is so easy to discount those who disagree with you as trolls isn't it?

No one could seriously ever seriously disagree with your flawless logic.

Well, since you don't reply to those who are actually trying to engage in a proper discussion, we must consider the possibility that you are indeed trolling. 

2 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I've said before & I'll say again. I'm all for a mutual discussion regarding Jon's decisions but someone who spews nonsense accusing Jon of things we all know isn't true is a troll. Plain & simple. Either you don't know what Jon did or didn't do (in which case you should reread before discussing) or you do know & choose to state it falsely anyway. 

Exactly. 

[the trees have eyes]

22 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

It is so easy to discount those who disagree with you as trolls isn't it?

No one could seriously ever seriously disagree with your flawless logic.

You gotta read the thread before you leap in at the end and parrot stuff off a crib sheet as if you are posting in a vacuum.  If you show no interest in doing so why should we press the reset button and act like we are trapped in Groundhog Day?  And given the content and tenor of your posting I saw nothing worth engaging with and was merely advising others not to play the latest game of whack-a-mole....

[Varysblackfyre321]

18 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

You gotta read the thread before you leap in at the end and parrot stuff off a crib sheet as if you are posting in a vacuum.  If you show no interest in doing so why should we press the reset button and act like we are trapped in Groundhog Day?  And given the content and tenor of your posting I saw nothing worth engaging with and was merely advising others not to play the latest game of whack-a-mole....

Did read it.

Kept seeing people say Jon couldn't have known.

I responded to one who did to try to explain why that doesn't matter in the end.

 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

15 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Did read it.

Kept seeing people say Jon couldn't have known.

I responded to one who did to try to explain why that doesn't matter in the end.

 

Couldn't have known what? I would have responded in kind had I known what post of mine you were referring to but I don't really see how you could have read the thread & thought parroting back the same stuff I've repeatedly asked for quotes for (without quotes) would engage a meaningful conversation. 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

12 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

You know even if Jon had no idea that Mance would storm winterfell like he'd done before  with the spear wives(never mind, the need for spear wears women who are geared for battle as much as any man), he still acted a bloody fucking idiot to even try to go get her in the first place, she's Ramsey's property now, whatever cruelty the bastard wants to inflict upon the girl Jon thinks is his little sister isn't his concern.

He placed the interest of *one* girl over the lives of everyone under his command as well the lives everyone in Westeroes in general.

He acted selfishly.

Hes not perfect a leader or soldier in general.

He allows his moral baggage to get in the way of accomplishing the greater good.

As a result of his selfishness, Ramsey has sufficient justification for outright taking Jon's head.

And, to just throw a heap of gasoline on the house fire, Jon decided to March a wildling horde to winterfell by all appearances to rescue Mance Rayder, turn coat whose lead the wildlings  to slaughter good peachful Northeren folk and conquer the north.

 

Basiclh insuring the watch would be destroyed in retaliation.

*Le Sigh* if you insist let's parrot then. 

 

1. Jon did not "try and go and get her"

2. fArya is a human being & should not be considered anyone's property. That is amoral. 

3. Ramsay torturing people should be everyone's concern. Also amoral. 

4. Jon has acted selflessly through the entire series. Responding to a threat to attack on him & his men & trying to leave his men safe at the wall is anything but selfish. 

5. Do tell how he has threatened the lives of everyone in Westeros.

6. Of course he isn't perfect, no one is, nor have I ever claimed he is. 

7. Jon is essentially the ONLY 'commander' excluding possibly Stannis that IS concerned with the greater good so that statement is also false. 

10. Wrong. Ramsay has no authority over Jon, Ramsay's threats to Jon & the NW Jon & Stannis both have "outright justification" to take Ramsay's head. 

11. Jon decided to march a wildling horde on WF to defend the watch. Was it to rescue the turn cloak or was it to steal his sister? There's no evidence it was to do either. 

Don't bother responding unless you have actual evidence to rebut. It's pointless to keep demanding it's so because you want it to be when the book says otherwise. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

40 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I've said before & I'll say again. I'm all for a mutual discussion regarding Jon's decisions but someone who spews nonsense accusing Jon of things we all know isn't true is a troll. Plain & simple. Either you don't know what Jon did or didn't do (in which case you should reread before discussing) or you do know & choose to state it falsely anyway. 

What did I falsely accuse him of?

He did give his approval to Melisandre's plan  for Mance to go fetch Arya.

He planned on shipping Arya as far away from Ramsey as possible.

Even if he wasn't aware of Mance  and the spear wives would literally go in and pluck her from winterfell (doubtfully), he did put the entire watch at risk for one girl he had affection for.

[divica]

27 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

1. Jon did not "try and go and get her"

2. fArya is a human being & should not be considered anyone's property. That is amoral. 

3. Ramsay torturing people should be everyone's concern. Also amoral. 

I think in westeros the brides belong to their husbands. However, jon sent mance to find a fleeing arya. NOT to rescue arya. These are 2 very diferent things because jon has no obligation to deliver runaway wives to their husbands. And as I said in a previous post, if ramsay went to the Wall and demanded jon to deliver his wife to him I think jon would have to do it. However, if jon sent arya away before ramsay got there everything would be ok because keeping a husband away from his wife and helping her run for me seem like 2 diferent things.

Lastly, for number 3 I find it very interisting that people seem to Forget that the NW never vows to not take action in the seven kingdoms. It seems more like an agreement that happened between the LC and some rulers in the past. In fact, there isn t anything in their vows that stops them from protect people from threats within the 7 kingdoms. They just have to keep their vows and do whatever they want in the 7 kingdoms. However, in the long turn it might be prejudicial for the vows of the NW to be involved but it is a decision that a LC should be allowed to make!

[divica]

8 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

What did I falsely accuse him of?

He did give his approval to Melisandre's plan  for Mance to go fetch Arya.

He planned on shipping Arya as far away from Ramsey as possible.

Even if he wasn't aware of Mance  and the spear wives would literally go in and pluck her from winterfell (doubtfully), he did put the entire watch at risk for one girl he had affection for.

And is jon obliged to deliver run away wives to their husbands?

Is he forbidden to send prisoners of the watch to go invite women travelling in the north to the NW?

Is he forbidden to help a run away bride to run further away?

 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

1 hour ago, divica said:

I think in westeros the brides belong to their husbands. However, jon sent mance to find a fleeing arya. NOT to rescue arya. These are 2 very diferent things because jon has no obligation to deliver runaway wives to their husbands. And as I said in a previous post, if ramsay went to the Wall and demanded jon to deliver his wife to him I think jon would have to do it. However, if jon sent arya away before ramsay got there everything would be ok because keeping a husband away from his wife and helping her run for me seem like 2 diferent things.

Lastly, for number 3 I find it very interisting that people seem to Forget that the NW never vows to not take action in the seven kingdoms. It seems more like an agreement that happened between the LC and some rulers in the past. In fact, there isn t anything in their vows that stops them from protect people from threats within the 7 kingdoms. They just have to keep their vows and do whatever they want in the 7 kingdoms. However, in the long turn it might be prejudicial for the vows of the NW to be involved but it is a decision that a LC should be allowed to make!

I agree with most of the first paragraph however the issue isn't if Ramsay demanded his wife back. He did demand her back. The issue is Jon doesn't have her to give. 

And while wives may be seen as a husband's property in Westeros that doesn't change the fact that a human cannot be another humans property. Was it wrong for the participants of the underground railroad to help slaves flee their "masters"? Slavery was legal in the US & helping the slaves flee was illegal. That doesn't make it right. It's morally wrong. Thankfully laws can be changed & if Jon is under any obligation (and I'm not sure he is) to give back Arya (if he had her) that law should be changed as well. A decent human being does not disregard what is right, even if the law says they are wrong, if they have the authority & means to help like Jon does. 

[divica]

23 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I agree with most of the first paragraph however the issue isn't if Ramsay demanded his wife back. He did demand her back. The issue is Jon doesn't have her to give. 

And while wives may be seen as a husband's property in Westeros that doesn't change the fact that a human cannot be another humans property. Was it wrong for the participants of the underground railroad to help slaves flee their "masters"? Slavery was legal in the US & helping the slaves flee was illegal. That doesn't make it right. It's morally wrong. Thankfully laws can be changed & if Jon is under any obligation (and I'm not sure he is) to give back Arya (if he had her) that law should be changed as well. A decent human being does not disregard what is right, even if the law says they are wrong, if they have the authority & means to help like Jon does. 

I completly agree that jon is under no obligation to give her back. I am just not sure if he should stop ramsay from coming into CB and take her if she is there when Ramsay gets there. While I don t think it is against the vows of the NW it is interfering with the 7kingdoms (which seems more of an agreement than a vow) and starting a dangerous situation for the watch.

And while I agree with your view in the morality of considering women proprierty of their husbands the NW isn t exactly jon's army that he can use to fight for what he thinks is right. This is a murky situation that would depend on a lot of factos.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

3 hours ago, divica said:

I completly agree that jon is under no obligation to give her back. I am just not sure if he should stop ramsay from coming into CB and take her if she is there when Ramsay gets there. While I don t think it is against the vows of the NW it is interfering with the 7kingdoms (which seems more of an agreement than a vow) and starting a dangerous situation for the watch.

And while I agree with your view in the morality of considering women proprierty of their husbands the NW isn t exactly jon's army that he can use to fight for what he thinks is right. This is a murky situation that would depend on a lot of factos.

Yeah I'm not sure about that either. And I agree the NW isn't Jon's army to fight what he thinks is right BUT to be fair he wasn't taking a NW army, he was taking a wildling army. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

8 hours ago, divica said:

I think in westeros the brides belong to their husbands. However, jon sent mance to find a fleeing arya. NOT to rescue arya. These are 2 very diferent things because jon has no obligation to deliver runaway wives to their husbands. And as I said in a previous post, if ramsay went to the Wall and demanded jon to deliver his wife to him I think jon would have to do it. However, if jon sent arya away before ramsay got there everything would be ok because keeping a husband away from his wife and helping her run for me seem like 2 diferent things.

Lastly, for number 3 I find it very interisting that people seem to Forget that the NW never vows to not take action in the seven kingdoms. It seems more like an agreement that happened between the LC and some rulers in the past. In fact, there isn t anything in their vows that stops them from protect people from threats within the 7 kingdoms. They just have to keep their vows and do whatever they want in the 7 kingdoms. However, in the long turn it might be prejudicial for the vows of the NW to be involved but it is a decision that a LC should be allowed to make!

 

9 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

*Le Sigh* if you insist let's parrot then. 

 

1. Jon did not "try and go and get her"

2. fArya is a human being & should not be considered anyone's property. That is amoral. 

3. Ramsay torturing people should be everyone's concern. Also amoral. 

4. Jon has acted selflessly through the entire series. Responding to a threat to attack on him & his men & trying to leave his men safe at the wall is anything but selfish. 

5. Do tell how he has threatened the lives of everyone in Westeros.

6. Of course he isn't perfect, no one is, nor have I ever claimed he is. 

7. Jon is essentially the ONLY 'commander' excluding possibly Stannis that IS concerned with the greater good so that statement is also false. 

10. Wrong. Ramsay has no authority over Jon, Ramsay's threats to Jon & the NW Jon & Stannis both have "outright justification" to take Ramsay's head. 

11. Jon decided to march a wildling horde on WF to defend the watch. Was it to rescue the turn cloak or was it to steal his sister? There's no evidence it was to do either. 

Don't bother responding unless you have actual evidence to rebut. It's pointless to keep demanding it's so because you want it to be when the book says otherwise. 

1.Agreed to Melisandre's plan, and provided Mance the women he needed for the mission.

2.What, wives aren't the property of their husband?

Thats ridiculous!

A man should be able to displine his wife in whatever way he please, it is the woman's duty to moderate herself to accomadate her husband and bear him sons.

Next you'll be telling me pillow-biters are just people instead of deviants, or that there should be no king!

Fool talk.

Is what a medeval society says.

See me and you recognize the notion of actually owning another human being is repugnant.

But, that's primarely due to the fact we were blessed enough to have been born in a time and place where such views are considered savage.

But, for a lot its history(at least in a lot of Europe and Asia) marriage had put the husband superior to his wife.

Jon by all appearances sent the mass murderer and turn coat Mance to steal Ramsey's wife.

Ramsey's property.

Saying such a thing isn't amoral.

I'm merely recognizing the fact by law Ramsey does own his wife and he has legitimate grievances with Jon.

3. No.

One girl's wellfare is not Jon's concern no matter how much he loves the girl.

Jon relinquished all familial ties with his oaths to the weretree.

His duty is to the watch, the refugees he's allowed in and preparing.

The free folk's concern is toward their family's, and many of them aren't eager to have their lives jepordized to save in their eyes some random girl.

5. The Boltons would have actual justification for taking Jon's head outright, the crows would either have to offer up Jon's head or stand by him.

 

If the latter a lot of the watch is going to die.

And those wildlings Jon hoarded yeah, they're going to pay for Jon's attempt to play big bro.

He acted irresponsibly and selfish here.

6. Then stop pretending what he did was totally not a tremendously irresponsible thing to do.

7. Where did I say he didn't?

I said he allowed his moral baggage to get in the way doing or allowing what is necessary for the greater good. 

10. This point has been made before in this thread it also bears repeating; the NW's under the laws of the iron throne.

It is some sort of sovereign state, it exists and functions as it has for thousands of years because the ruling monarchy has allowed them to do so.

Ramsey is the lord of winterfell, Roose Bolton is the warden of the north they are law in the North they act in the name of the IT.

Its weapons, it's food it ability to even recruit, is due to the ruling monarchy allowing them.

Ramsey has every right to demand Jon return what is his by all the laws of men(his wife), declare consequence on Jon if he will not do it.

Jon, has no more rights than any other lord in the north.

He no justification for Ramsey's head, for he (Jon) threw first blood.

11. Lets look at Jon's actions.

He's known to killed, a sworn brother of the watch  at the behest of half hand supposedly to "infiltrate" them, he's allowed these savages in, accepted them under his command and even let them take the oaths and promote them in key positions in the order.

With this in mind his ludicrous plan to lead a wildling horde to winterfell looks more like he's trying to carve out the north as his new kingdom and is using the wildlings to assit him in his path to power.

 

[divica]

Reading the previous post.

There is one interesting thing I have never seen discussed. Lets say jon and his wildling army go to winterfell and defeat the boltons. Who rules the north then? Lets assume that people know that arya is fake and rickon is either in unknown locations or is a kid incapable of leading the north in this time of war (IT and WW).

Will jon give the north and winterfell to someone? who? if robbs will appears would it be important?

Would the northerns believe the ww threat and elect jon as defender of the realm? Is it a position a NW brother can accept? Even if we take into account that he would be defending a kingdom of men against the ww (like he vowed) and not gaining any lands/permanente titles?

[Varysblackfyre321]

9 hours ago, divica said:

I think in westeros the brides belong to their husbands. However, jon sent mance to find a fleeing arya. NOT to rescue arya. These are 2 very diferent things because jon has no obligation to deliver runaway wives to their husbands. And as I said in a previous post, if ramsay went to the Wall and demanded jon to deliver his wife to him I think jon would have to do it. However, if jon sent arya away before ramsay got there everything would be ok because keeping a husband away from his wife and helping her run for me seem like 2 diferent things.

Lastly, for number 3 I find it very interisting that people seem to Forget that the NW never vows to not take action in the seven kingdoms. It seems more like an agreement that happened between the LC and some rulers in the past. In fact, there isn t anything in their vows that stops them from protect people from threats within the 7 kingdoms. They just have to keep their vows and do whatever they want in the 7 kingdoms. However, in the long turn it might be prejudicial for the vows of the NW to be involved but it is a decision that a LC should be allowed to make!

Oh hey Ramsey! I'm sorry Arya's not here right now, I sent her away as far away from prickly ass as possible.

Oh and no bro I didn't steal her.

Yeah, I just sent a group of super discrete killer in disguise to pick her up off the road.

We cool?

*Ramsey proceeds to torch castle black and then flays Jon and kill every wildling he sees*

Seriously, "the I didn't know defense" really isn't effective.

Also, the watch could not survive if it didn't play neutral.

The watch has been up of made of Freys, Boltons, Stark, Targaryians.

You play sides in these wars you split the watch, men may have sworn the oaths but they'd be reluctant to kill their own kin if the their LC back's their family's opponents.

Hell likely it couldn't be allowed altogether because no king would want their blades turned against him, he could not trust a group that's only alligence to its order in his backyard.

Also yeah wives are property in this setting 

[Edgar Allen Poemont]

I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on whether GRRM might be using the concept of the Divine Right of Kings in his work. I believe most who come here acknowledge that he seems to view time as a wheel and because so much of this discussion is centered on political issues, I started thinking about some things from my school days and that one popped into my mind. I wonder if he's viewing that concept as a wheel too. It would makes sense,  I believe, if a King is the top echelon of a society and "All men must serve" than he would serve God, but if it was a wheel than wouldn't he be serving the last in line? The seemingly lowest on the ladder. Just a thought I had and felt I needed to post to hear others thoughts and feelings. Thanks. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

6 minutes ago, divica said:

Reading the previous post.

There is one interesting thing I have never seen discussed. Lets say jon and his wildling army go to winterfell and defeat the boltons. Who rules the north then? Lets assume that people know that arya is fake and rickon is either in unknown locations or is a kid incapable of leading the north in this time of war (IT and WW).

Will jon give the north and winterfell to someone? who? if robbs will appears would it be important?

Would the northerns believe the ww threat and elect jon as defender of the realm? Is it a position a NW brother can accept? Even if we take into account that he would be defending a kingdom of men against the ww (like he vowed) and not gaining any lands/permanente titles?

Assuming Stannis is dead?

Jon most likely would have to be forced out of the watch to take the mantle of leadership.

Not because of the WW because in their minds that shits as real as Santa.

But because, they'd literally have no one else they could offer that wouldn't invetiatblely result in loads of infighting when they need a unified front.

[Varysblackfyre321]

On December 15, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

My issue is that the argument cannot be good if there are false allegations. There are definitely other opinions to Jon's decisions that are just as valid as mine. 

 

If the allegations is knowingly false it is hating. Not to say every poster does this but the ones I'm talking to do. I don't & cannot give Jon an excuse for something he hasn't done. 

 

And have yet to be provided with one. If you or anyone else take issue with the decisions Jon made that's ok. That's what we are here to discuss. I'm not asking for quotes that make Jon's decisions right or wrong. I'm asking for quotes to back erroneous claims. 

 

For instance the bolded is your opinion & even though it disagrees with mine I don't find it offensive nor to I ask for quotes to back it. 

Then we get to "for ordering Mance Rayder to take his sister away from the Bolton's" 

If this occurred there should be no trouble providing a quote of Jon making said command. I think we all know I can provide a quote backing my alternative claim that Melisandre sent Mance to rescue a fleeing fArya, already fled from WF & therefore not taking her from the Bolton's. 

"Jon was planning to get his sister away from Ramsay" again, not a matter of opinion on Jon's decisions but a false claim on what Jon planned or did not. Another thing there shouldn't be an issue providing a quote for. 

"He was the one who ordered his own man to bring those wildling women to Mance" he absolutely did. If you are of the opinion this was a bad decision ok. But ordering a man of the NW to get spearwives from Mole's Town does not = Jon commanding Mance to do anything. If you want to argue this act makes Jon an accomplice to the plan to rescue a fleeing fArya (the only plan Jon was aware of) I would not argue with you. But to say Jon had any part in whatever the plan was regarding WF is nonsense because Jon never knew Mance planned on going to WF. If Jon didn't know this he couldn't possibly have been a part of any plan to steal Arya from Ramsay. 

This is the quote I had been referring to.

sorry for the mix up.

[The Fattest Leech]

23 minutes ago, Edgar Allen Poemont said:

I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on whether GRRM might be using the concept of the Divine Right of Kings in his work. I believe most who come here acknowledge that he seems to view time as a wheel and because so much of this discussion is centered on political issues, I started thinking about some things from my school days and that one popped into my mind. I wonder if he's viewing that concept as a wheel too. It would makes sense,  I believe, if a King is the top echelon of a society and "All men must serve" than he would serve God, but if it was a wheel than wouldn't he be serving the last in line? The seemingly lowest on the ladder. Just a thought I had and felt I needed to post to hear others thoughts and feelings. Thanks. 

Any other thoughts on Jon (or any ruling faction) is a much better use of talky time than feeding blatant trolls that claim to have read the thread, then repeat every weak argument while ignoring the book source. That shyte has long gotten old and rank.

For anyone who needs a brushing up on the idea of the Divine Rights of Kings, here ye go:

• The divine right of kings, divine right, or God's mandate is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving the right to rule directly from the will of God. The king is thus not subject to the will of his people, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm. It implies that only God can judge an unjust king and that any attempt to depose, dethrone or restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God and may constitute a sacrilegious act. It is often expressed in the phrase "by the Grace of God", attached to the titles of a reigning monarch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings

It may be possible in a very slightly inspired way, but probably not quite so literally. If this divine rights thing is being used, then that is yet another clear heap of info piled on top of Marsh and friends as them being the ones who were wrong.

ADDING cuz' I forgot: I also am of the belief that Melisandre played a part in the mutiny by way of her stronger magic and her fanatical desire to have a Azor Ahain reborn. She has already used the "fiery hand of god" to kill that eagle over the wall when Stannis arrived. And it might not be because she thinks Jon is AAR, but rather a threat, because GRRM has confirmed in and out of the books that Mel looks for threats first in her flames.

• "Dalla died." Jon was saddened by that still. "Val is her sister. She and the babe did not require much capturing, Your Grace. You had put the wildlings to flight, and the skinchanger Mance had left to guard his queen went mad when the eagle burned." Jon looked at Melisandre. "Some say that was your doing."
  She smiled, her long copper hair tumbling across her face. "The Lord of Light has fiery talons, Jon Snow."
• Melisandre paid the naked steel no mind. If the wildling had meant her harm, she would have seen it in her flames. Danger to her own person was the first thing she had learned to see, back when she was still half a child, a slave girl bound for life to the great red temple. It was still the first thing she looked for whenever she gazed into a fire. "It is their eyes that should concern you, not their knives," she warned him.

Also, to your thought in particular on time, the way the books read to me (and others see it differently), including the ancillary books and World book as evidence for this, the author seems to have his history repeat, just with a twist each time. Maybe one day that river of time will corrects its path

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

29 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

1.Agreed to Melisandre's plan, and provided Mance the women he needed for the mission

Which is not the same as Jon trying to go & get her, which is what you originally said. 

 

29 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Ramsey's property.

Saying such a thing isn't amoral.

I'm merely recognizing the fact by law Ramsey does own his wife and he has legitimate grievances with Jon

No saying that this is how it was is not amoral. Treating another human being like they are property is amoral. Everything about Ramsay is amoral. Just because something is legal doesn't make it morally right. 

 

29 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

No.

One girl's wellfare is not Jon's concern no matter how much he loves the girl.

Jon relinquished all familial ties with his oaths to the weretree.

His duty is to the watch, the refugees he's allowed in and preparing.

The free folk's concern is toward their family's, and many of them aren't eager to have their lives jepordized to save in their eyes some random girl.

Yes. Torturing people is wrong & should not be condoned in any situation. I can't believe I even have to say that. 

Jon continues to fulfill his duties up & until he was stabbed. What duties did he not fulfill? 

Well the wildlings we're quick enough to join up with Jon so I'm not sure what you even mean there, although it may be because of the threats & claims Ramsay made & not to save some random girl since, you know, they were never asked to go save any girl random or otherwise. 

29 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

. The Boltons would have actual justification for taking Jon's head outright, the crows would either have to offer up Jon's head or stand by him.

 

If the latter a lot of the watch is going to die.

And those wildlings Jon hoarded yeah, they're going to pay for Jon's attempt to play big bro.

He acted irresponsibly and selfish here.

Nope. Jon did nothing to justify Ramsay taking his head. It is not illegal by any stretch of the imagination to help a woman fleeing seek refuge. You are assuming Ramsay would be within his rights as the Lord of Winterfell to execute Jon if Jon had stole his  wife. But Jon didn't steal his wife & we have no precedent under which to clarify he would or wouldn't have that right if Jon had stolen his wife. 

The watch standing by Jon would not make a lot of them die? How so? 

I beg to differ. Bowen Marsh & C

30 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Quote

 

o will pay for their crimes, who is going to make the wildlings pay? They did nothing wrong & Marsh certainly doesn't have the backing to hold them accountable for what he perceived as Jon's wrongs. 

He acted completely responsibly & selflessly. What do you think he should have done? Let Ramsay March on the wall?

29 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

. Then stop pretending what he did was totally not a tremendously irresponsible thing to do.

Um... Me agreeing Jon isn't perfect does not mean I agree he did something "tremendously irresponsible"

 

29 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Where did I say he didn't?

I said he allowed his moral baggage to get in the way doing or allowing what is necessary for the greater good. 

Well if you are not saying Jon did not do what is necessary for the greater good what are you saying? 

33 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

This point has been made before in this thread it also bears repeating; the NW's under the laws of the iron throne.

It is some sort of sovereign state, it exists and functions as it has for thousands of years because the ruling monarchy has allowed them to do so.

Ramsey is the lord of winterfell, Roose Bolton is the warden of the north they are law in the North they act in the name of the IT.

Its weapons, it's food it ability to even recruit, is due to the ruling monarchy allowing them.

Ramsey has every right to demand Jon return what is his by all the laws of men(his wife), declare consequence on Jon if he will not do it.

Jon, has no more rights than any other lord in the north.

He no justification for Ramsey's head, for he (Jon) threw first blood.

Why is it that you believe Jon has to follow a law that doesn't exist except in some readers minds but Ramsay is above all law? 

There is no law we are told of against what Jon did. They take a vow to not take part in matters of the realm. Period. Jon is not nor has he ever done anything against the ruling monarchy. 

Ramsay on the other hand has unlawfully acquired a title & a castle. His marriage is illegal therefore his claim to Winterfell & title as Lord of Winterfell does not exist. Furthermore he threatened the lawful King of Westeros, the Night's Watch, & the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch. He demanded things be returned to him that not only does he have no right to but also that Jon does not have &/or cannot give. He explicitly said what he would do if his unattainable demands were not met. Jon has every right under ever law IRL, in Westeros & in the NW to defend himself & the watch he commands by executing Ramsay for his crimes. 

Who threw first blood doesn't give the right to execute anyway but just because you said it: Ramsay started the fight by threatening Jon & the NW. 

42 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

He's known to killed, a sworn brother of the watch  at the behest of half hand supposedly to "infiltrate" them, he's allowed these savages in, accepted them under his command and even let them take the oaths and promote them in key positions in the order.

With this in mind his ludicrous plan to lead a wildling horde to winterfell looks more like he's trying to carve out the north as his new kingdom and is using the wildlings to assit him in his path to power.

We both know he killed Qhorin & joined the wildlings under Qhorin's command so I don't know what your point is here. Letting those "savages" in was one of the best decisions Jon made as LC & is the only reason they have any chance to survive the winter. 

Now you are just being silly. His "path to power" really? Jon didn't want the power that was thrown on him let alone more. 

[divica]

12 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Oh hey Ramsey! I'm sorry Arya's not here right now, I sent her away as far away from prickly ass as possible.

Oh and no bro I didn't steal her.

Yeah, I just sent a group of super discrete killer in disguise to pick her up off the road.

We cool?

*Ramsey proceeds to torch castle black and then flays Jon and kill every wildling he sees*

Seriously, "the I didn't know defense" really isn't effective.

Also, the watch could not survive if it didn't play neutral.

The watch has been up of made of Freys, Boltons, Stark, Targaryians.

You play sides in these wars you split the watch, men may have sworn the oaths but they'd be reluctant to kill their own kin if the their LC back's their family's opponents.

Hell likely it couldn't be allowed altogether because no king would want their blades turned against him, he could not trust a group that's only alligence to its order in his backyard.

Also yeah wives are property in this setting 

What legal right would ramsay have to atack CB? Jon did something he didn t like?

I am sorry ramsay can t kill people because the annoy him and the NW isn t ramsay's bitch. 

Otherwise if wamsay orders jon to kill all wildlings for you he would have to do it otherwise ramsay would go there and attack the watch... Not obeying ramasay's wishes isn t being a bad LC. It is being a rational human being.

And you are wrong. Lets say the watch fights against the boltons because they stole the north/are monsters/the northern army needs their help to defeat them. Do you think that if the northern army wins they will resent the watch or support it? Hell there were several corrupt LCs that attacked the 7kingdoms and the watch survived. So if the watch saves the 7 kingdoms from some tyrant it would be good for them. However, as you said it is needed a special kind of incident to make the watch intervene... 

19 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Assuming Stannis is dead?

Jon most likely would have to be forced out of the watch to take the mantle of leadership.

Not because of the WW because in their minds that shits as real as Santa.

But because, they'd literally have no one else they could offer that wouldn't invetiatblely result in loads of infighting when they need a unified front.

Even if stannis is alive but defeated and with a very small army that only appears after jon and the wildlings conquer WF and kill the boltons. What garante does the watch have that stannis will focos on the ww or the northerns that he will be interested in defending the northern in first place instead of conquering the IT? There needs to be someone that represents the north and that person isn t stannis. Why don t you think they might choose rickon as their king and jon as protector of the realm? (if stannis is out of the Picture?)