Apoplexy Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 3 hours ago, TheThreeEyedCow said: Did he break his oath? Frick yeah he did! And for many readers, it's a sort of honor that surpasses the likes of Barristan who'd humbly serve a tyrant purely to nurse his own foolish sense of pride at the cost of so many innocents. I agree. Jaime was caught between a rock and a hard place. If he upheld his oath, he would have to kill his father and watch millions die. If he didn't, he would be deemed an oathbreaker and reviled. He chose the lesser of two evils. It goes in line with Jaime telling the KG to follow Tommen's orders if he asked his horse to be saddled, but come to him if Tommen asked for his horse to be killed. He values reason and common sense over blindly following the chain of command. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 9 hours ago, the trees have eyes said: It's worth remembering that the wildfire plot to destroy KL is a closely kelp secret. I believe Westeros would judge Jaime very differently if they knew what Aerys was planning - and indeed had given the orders to execute - and what Jaime stopped. Yes, breaking an oath is dishonourable but preventing a citywide atrocity is something that society would have a different view on, and particularly those who found themsleves alive because of it. As Brienne demonstrates even the noble elite who put such stock on oaths and honour aren't slaves to this system. It's not an excuse for anything and it has it's breaking point. The irony is that Jaime is both a hero and a villain for what he does but only the villainy is in the public domain. For the hundredth time yet again - Jaime didn't prevent the wildfire plot by killing Aerys. And that's why nobody would have applauded him for killing Aerys had he told them why he had done it. He may have killed Aerys because the wildfire plan made him hate the man even more than he already hated him, but every sane person in Westeros would hold my position on the matter: Yes, the man was a bad king and a madman, and yes, he needed to be stopped. But you could have stopped him otherwise. You didn't need to kill him. And that's also the reason why you don't get off the hook. 3 hours ago, Apoplexy said: It goes in line with Jaime telling the KG to follow Tommen's orders if he asked his horse to be saddled, but come to him if Tommen asked for his horse to be killed. He values reason and common sense over blindly following the chain of command. That doesn't make a lot of sense. This isn't a democracy. And the Lord Commander of the Kingsguard is neither speaking for the king nor acting in the king's name as regent or Hand. Jaime is bound by oath to follow commands. What he does there is undermine King Tommen's (future) authority even more by treating him like a child. If the Kingsguard and others actually treat him in this manner and grow accustomed to this kind of thing they might continue to try to boss him around later on when he is a man grown. Cat allows her son Robb to continue to take charge when he decides to lead the army so that he doesn't lose face. Jaime pretty much ensured that Tommen will never get a chance to gain face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varysblackfyre321 Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 3 hours ago, Lord Varys said: That doesn't make a lot of sense. This isn't a democracy. And the Lord Commander of the Kingsguard is neither speaking for the king nor acting in the king's name as regent or Hand. Jaime is bound by oath to follow commands. Huh. Never thought of that. Its kinda similar to what Cersi is doing no? Giving him the impression of being powerless. Tommrn is king. Hes going to be expected to take a more active government as he grows giving him the impression he (a king) must adhere to the commands of those below him(his body guards) is recipe for disaster. I mean if Tommen is acting bad the only person who'd the ability to displine him would be his guardian(Cersi) or anyone she'd allow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackwater Revenant Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 21 hours ago, Lord Varys said: The reader asking the question there combines all those vows into one. But the fact remains that they are, quite visibly, not the same. George doesn't have to write a dissertation on those differences if he doesn't want to. Yes, there are differences in these vows, however, what all have in common is that you are making a solemn vow to the gods, and to your fellow man. On your honor, you are pledging an oath to serve, or making a promise to obey, or you are giving your word to renounce all former ties and rights, or abstain from specific activities, etc, etc. If one should renege on such a vow, do you think the gods would care of the specifics as to that oath? I don't think they would. Regardless of what you swore, you are offending the gods by going back on your word to them, and by breaking the vows that you swore in their name. This is what's looked down on, and why it is unacceptable to do such. Quote There are precedents for maesters losing their chains (and a prince being offered honorably to give up his chain to take a crown), there are new precedents for Kingsguard being released from their vows, but there is as of yet no precedent for a black brother leaving the NW. Yes, but in GRRM's reply to the question asked of him regarding this matter, he was fully aware of what the questioner was getting at; Regardless of grouping the separate organisation's vows together, he/she made it clear that the line of questioning was concerning Jon being released from his vows to the Watch. His response that yes there is precedent, confirms that either there is a precedent of a sworn brother being released from his vows, or - in the case that he was referring to one of the other organisations - that he considers these vows to be of the same nature, and with equal importance and consequences if reneged on. Quote My point here simply is that Robb is clearly very naive as to how he wants to free Jon from his vows. He doesn't seem to understand the nature of Jon's vow. He seems to think that Jon is 'owned' by the Watch and that he can buy his freedom if he just gives the Watch enough men in exchange for Jon. But that's not how it works. Especially not in the context of Robb just claiming kingship over two of the Seven Kingdoms. Don't you think many petty kings of old - and even the not-so-petty-kings of the Seven Kingdoms might have found themselves in a similar predicament as Robb did? Having no suitable heirs, fighting wars, and looking to the relations at the Wall as potential heirs? Especially in times where still many men of highborn families joined the Watch this kind of thing should have been pretty common. If such trades were feasible then many other kings might have done them. And considering that one man against a hundred or a thousand would have been a great deal for the declining Watch the best explanation as to why stuff like that never happened is that the people of the Seven Kingdoms wouldn't accept such nonsense. I'm not so sure if many Kings in the past would have found themselves in the same situation as Robb. It doesn't seem very likely to me. Even if so, considering it was such a "weird" and "naïve" idea, mayhaps no one had thought about trying to have a potential heir released from their vows. Or mayhaps, nobody was as bold and ingenuitive as to propose such a mutually beneficial and reasonable request, as was Robb. Either way, your argument is circular reasoning, and not very convincing. Quote I don't consider it unlikely that Jon is going to get out of his vows - perhaps he is going to use the loophole that he died (although I'd find that a weak technical excuse, something more worthy a of spineless weasel), perhaps he'll simply be out of the Watch once the Watch as such no longer exists after the Others breach the Wall. Without a Wall to protect the Night's Watch should be pretty much dead. They are a stationary order, after all. Yes, I agree here. I not convinced that he'll necessarily need to be released from his vows, and agree that his assumed death would be a cheap means of getting out of his vows. If it does come down to him being released from his vows, I also don't see it being as a result of something Jon wants or requests, but as a result of it being proposed and/or requested of him; Similar to his appointment as Lord Commander, or Stannis' - another that sees no issue with Jon being released from the Watch - offer to him. Quote It makes sense because it is somewhat ridiculous that a vow sworn by a knight can somehow bound the king he swears the vow to. I mean, the idea that a king has to suffer Kingsguard X he really, really, really can't stand is a huge stretch. I understand where you are coming from here, and concur. However, I would assume that when one is asked to give up all that is required to become a King's Guard, there would be some sort of agreement that he also cannot be stripped of his position without just cause. In regards to the situations in the examples you cited - when a new King is ascending the throne - I suppose it would bring up the question as to what the procedures are under that circumstance. I'm not sure, but I would assume that it is required for members of the KG to reaffirm their vows, and swear loyalty to that particular King. Presumably, should the King deem someone not fit to serve him, he would be dismissed before pledging his life to that King. In Selmy's case, I'm sure he had pledged his allegiance to Joffrey, and was in fact a serving member of his King's Guard. Quote While there is no precedent for a Kingsguard being dismissed prior to Selmy, there are cases where they were removed to the Wall. Lucamore Strong comes to mind Yes, but Strong was guilty of breaking his vows, and was also gelded. I would say he was lucky to be sent to the Wall as opposed to losing his head, but for obvious reasons, I'm going to say this was a punishment, not mercy. Quote And that's simply because he wears a crown. It is quite clear that being king did this to him. Robb as the heir of Winterfell - or the Lord of Winterfell - couldn't talk with his lords and family that way. But King Robb can. Ha! Greatjon Umbers' digits would like to have a word with you. Quote Even if we assume for a moment that the North would be fine with Robb getting Jon out of the Watch and making him his heir (which is very unlikely, in light of the fact that Arya Stark killed poor Dareon in distant Braavos - some brave man would also give the deserter Snow what he deserved) What? That's a ridiculous comparison. We are not talking about Jon shirking his duties and turning his back on his commitments as was Dareon. We are talking about Jon being honorably absolved of his vows, not deserting as was the case with Dareon. Quote Lords catching black brothers on their lands certainly would double-check with the Watch whether those men are on the mission they claim to be, etc. - wandering crows, say - but there is no indication that a Lord Commander can, say, allow his pet lover, etc. to leave the Wall and return back to Oldtown or Lannisport to settle down and marry there, just because the sex was so good and he thinks the guy deserves some peace far away from the Wall. Again, what? I'm not sure why you would bring up such a ridiculous scenario. I'm certainly not implying anything of the sort. Quote Robb intended to that. And pretty much only Robb wanted that. No lord of his actually raised his hand and said 'Your Grace, that's actually a great idea!', like a good little sycophant. The lords present were not even commenting on the matter. Well, the lack of Lords commenting on or approving of his idea, is certainly not confirmation that they disapprove. Quote It is pretty obvious that the Seven Kingdoms were a pretty cohesive unit on the matter of the meaning of the NW vow for, perhaps, 8,000 years. And I'm not disputing that. Considering the extreme and extenuating circumstances potentially facing the realm, there's no good reason that many should be opposed to Jon's release, other than those who have ulterior motives. Quote No, I actually mean the average Northman. Men who usually praise Lord Ryswell for sending his deserter son back to the Wall to see him and his companions put alive in the ice of the Wall above the Nightfort, so they never leave their post again. Again, we are not talking about Jon deserting. Why should the common man care either way that a man who joined the Watch under the ignorant believe that he was a bastard with no future, was honourably released from his vows for a beneficial cause? The average man of the North is certainly going to be in support of having the blood of the Ned being in charge of Winterfell over the blood thirsty, traitorous, usurping Bolton's. The common man cares not of the vicious games the Lords play, so long as they feel protected and secure under their Lord's rule, which they most certainly would be more confident of under Jon's rule than that of Roose or Ramsey. Or under the conditions of every house fighting over a claim to Winterfell, as there would be no Stark to make such a claim. If Jon is a man that the Lords of the North can rally around and support as a viable heir to Winterfell, bringing peace to the region, then the commoners would gladly turn a blind eye to Jon's vows to the Watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foot_Of_The_King Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 On 1/19/2018 at 4:13 PM, King Merrett I Frey said: On 1/19/2018 at 4:13 PM, King Merrett I Frey said: So this being said, I don't really hold a good picture of Jaime during Bob's Rebellion. He must have been an ass. Dayne, Whent and Hightower stood by the Crown until the end. That was their job as Kingsguard. They stood by Raegar. It seems be me that they abandoned the King. Court was spilt between father and son. And it's obvious that in choosing Raegar, these "no ordinary three" had giving up on the King. The "King" they chose to follow to the bitter end was the son, not the father. Also, @Lord Varys brought up a great point that I've never considered. After killing the pyromancer, Jaime did not need to kill the King to save the city. I don't blame him for doing so though. The man deserved to die and while I know Jaime was of the KG. It's totally understandable that he reached his "breaking point." Sure, it was rage filled/ vengeful murder but I understand...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varysblackfyre321 Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 5 minutes ago, Foot_Of_The_King said: Also, @Lord Varys brought up a great point that I've never considered. After killing the pyromancer, Jaime did not need to kill the King to save the city. I don't blame him for doing so though. The man deserved to die and while I know Jaime was of the KG. It's totally understandable that he reached his "breaking point." Sure, it was rage filled/ vengeful murder but I understand...... Honestly who among us wouldn't feel the slightest bit tempted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackwater Revenant Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 23 hours ago, Lord Varys said: Your view on Viserys III seems to be sort of twisted by the moniker 'the Beggar King'. Viserys and Daenerys never actually lived on the streets. They always had reasonably good lodgings and the like. They were no longer honored guests of the merchant princes, etc. of the Free Cities by the time Illyrio took them in, and Viserys did indeed have to sell his mother's crown at one point to continue to feed and clothe himself and his sister. But they were never actual beggars among beggars. If they had been, Viserys wouldn't have survived that lifestyle for more than a week. The point here is that Viserys III wasn't his mad father. If Prince Rhaegar thought he could force his father to abdicate or seize power and rule in his father's name as regent, then such a scenario would certainly also have been possible for Robert. Viserys - and any other Targaryen not in Robert's clutches - would still have been a threat to his rule in that scenario, but not as a rival king (while Aerys II yet lived) but instead as a dutiful son or grandson who intended to restore Aerys II to his rightful place. And that kind of thing wouldn't have made any such persons popular at all. Everybody knew that Aerys II was a madman. The hopes for the future of House Targaryen did not rest on Aerys II but on Rhaegar. It may sound weird, but Robert could have very effectively destroyed the Targaryen cause had the life of the Mad King been spared while all other (male) Targaryens had been killed. Parading around this caricature of a man as a chained prisoners (hairs and nails intact) would have very effectively destroyed the magical aura of House Targaryen. It could even have done so far as to draw people away from any Targaryens in exile. The way things went, Rhaegar, Aerys II, and especially Rhaegar's children are all martyrs on the Targaryen side. The way the rebellion strengthened the Targaryen cause. It did not weaken it. Eh, there's not much fact here. This is just your opinions and speculations based on your assumptions that are influenced by how you interpret the text (which we both know, we don't often see eye to eye on), and think things should be. Not to mention you are just conflicting with your previous arguments. You can't have it both ways, depending on whether it supports your stance or not. Quote You don't seem to understand that the High Septon - as the Voice of the Seven on Earth - is speaking for the gods when he releases a person from their vows. That is how Aemon was supposed to be freed from his vows, for instance. Since there is no such institution in the North - no clergy or anything - it would be pretty much impossible for Jon or Sam to walk away from the Watch with the help of the High Septon. They never swore a vow to the Seven, after all. And by the same token, there is no authority to condemn Jon for going against his vows. What you don't seem to understand is the religion of the Old Gods is a solemn and personal affair. No one that follows the Old Gods is going to care or confront Jon on this issue, that is between him and his gods. Quote And, quite frankly, we do not know whether the death penalty for desertion is 'man-made law'. Since the NW is as old as it is we don't know where the whole thing actually originated from. It most definitely precedes the arrival of the Andals. Well that's just it, the Watch preceded the Faith of the Seven, and accepts pledges from all faiths. If the vows of the Watch were a decree of the Old Gods, why would they accept vows made in the light of the Seven? Therefore this must not be a religious matter, but a matter of the laws of the Kingdom. Quote Why should the Watch care who is King in the North or Lord of Winterfell? This just special pleading. Any man in the Watch might be needed by his loved ones at home, yet they are all not allowed to leave. Why should Jon? Of course they care. Where do you think the Watch would be without the support of the Kingdom, especially Winterfell? And this isn't a matter of only Jon's loved ones needing him, it would be a matter of the entire realm, and bringing peace and unity to the North. Quote Are you really trying to sell us the idea that executing somebody means that you free them from some vows they have sworn? That is like telling us a doctor can heal somebody's cancer by killing them. Certainly not! We are discussing the novels here, not the abomination of which I shall not name, where that sort of reasoning is acceptable, and all logic is swept under the carpet. I agree with your sentiment that Jon being absolved of his vows in this manner would be a cheap technical loop hole, worthy of only a spineless weasel. I don't believe Jon would think or accept that, and I have far more faith in GRRM, than to believe he would go this route, as has that droll fan fiction version of aSoIaF. Quote But, quite frankly, I don't understand why Jon should get this free pass and Dareon did not. I mean, surely he could have come around to, remembering his vows and duty. It could have happened when Stannis' messengers arrive at Braavos, or perhaps only when the news about the attack of the Others come. Again, this is an absurd comparison. Jon leaving the Watch would not be at the peril of his brothers, and to pursue his desire to party and bag whores. You really don't seem to want to acknowledge the context, motives, and purpose that Jon being released from the Watch would serve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varysblackfyre321 Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 21 hours ago, Lord Varys said: Quote Why should the Watch care who is King in the North or Lord of Winterfell? This just special pleading. Any man in the Watch might be needed by his loved ones at home, yet they are all not allowed to leave. Why should Jon? Quite frankly I always thought the watch would probably benefit from the north not gaining Sovereignty no? Why would they (the other 5 kingdoms), care about the north's border? Why send men out of their dungeon there? Why allow certain political rivals(skilled people) to elect to abdicate there to keep their head knowing they could be bought from the watch King Robb Stark? The northern houses could deal with the wildlings. Tyrion gave Allister some men in ACOKbecause he rembered his eerie feeling while at the wall sure but do you see anyone in south who'd do the same thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 9 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said: Huh. Never thought of that. Its kinda similar to what Cersi is doing no? Giving him the impression of being powerless. Exactly. His advice 'to go away inside' when something ugly is happening is around him, is actually very bad advice, too. That way you get disassociated from your own emotions, and you can actually suffer that ugly things happen around you. That's how Jaime 'survived' being Aerys' Kingsguard. And it really raised his points on the psychopathy scale. He isn't psychopathic murderer, of course, but he is no longer the man he was before he joined Aerys' Kingsguard, either. That man would never have even contemplated murdering Bran. The advice Jaime should have given to Tommen is to stand his ground and reassert himself. He may be a young boy, but he is the king, too. And the king doesn't have to prove himself. If he doesn't want to sit through a dreadfully long (and stinking) funeral ceremony for his grandfather, then he doesn't have to. 9 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said: Tommrn is king. Hes going to be expected to take a more active government as he grows giving him the impression he (a king) must adhere to the commands of those below him(his body guards) is recipe for disaster. I mean if Tommen is acting bad the only person who'd the ability to displine him would be his guardian(Cersi) or anyone she'd allow. That is about right. Although nobody can discipline or the king physically. He is inviable. That's why he has a whipping boy. However, it is indeed a problem that Jaime demands that the Kingsguard should double-check with him rather than the Hand or the Queen Regent (who would actually speak with the King's Voice) in the case of a weirdo royal command. During the minority of the king there are 1-3 people who can speak in the name of the king - his Hand, his regent(s) (collectively or individually, depending how the regency is organized), and the Protector of the Realm (if he isn't also the Hand or a regent). The Lord Commander of the Kingsguard usually isn't among those people. Tommen might not publicly see the effects of Jaime's order there (after all, he is a nice boy, and would never give a command like 'Kill my horse') but it might lead to a tendency within the Kingsguard to actually double-check with the Lord Commander whether the king is giving the right orders even after the man has come of age. And that's not something Jaime (or anybody, really) could want for Tommen. 5 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said: Yes, but in GRRM's reply to the question asked of him regarding this matter, he was fully aware of what the questioner was getting at; Regardless of grouping the separate organisation's vows together, he/she made it clear that the line of questioning was concerning Jon being released from his vows to the Watch. His response that yes there is precedent, confirms that either there is a precedent of a sworn brother being released from his vows, or - in the case that he was referring to one of the other organisations - that he considers these vows to be of the same nature, and with equal importance and consequences if reneged on. Man, you do realize that Maester Aemon took the black after he had been offered to be released from his vows and he had denied that offer. Why did he do that? He feared that he as a maester - who had been quite stern about not wanting to be king - could still be used as a puppet and a pretender against the younger brother he wanted to see on the throne. Yet he didn't think that taking the black would have had a similar effect. You have to ask yourself why that is? The only reasonable explanation is that nobody would have risen for 'the rightful King Aemon' while the man was at the Wall. But men might have risen for a 'King Aemon' while Maester Aemon was at King's Landing, helping his brother King Aegon V to rule (or while he was continuing to serve as the maester of Dragonstone, which he seems to have been prior to taking the black). That pretty much shows that the vows of the maesters are perceived as weaker than the vows of the Night's Watch. 5 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said: I'm not so sure if many Kings in the past would have found themselves in the same situation as Robb. It doesn't seem very likely to me. Even if so, considering it was such a "weird" and "naïve" idea, mayhaps no one had thought about trying to have a potential heir released from their vows. Or mayhaps, nobody was as bold and ingenuitive as to propose such a mutually beneficial and reasonable request, as was Robb. During the Conquest, House Hoare was even in worse shape than House Stark is right now. Lord Commander Hoare - Black Harren's brother - seems to have been the last Hoare in the male line around. Shouldn't he have decided that serving his people and family was more important than to continue to guard this stupid which Wall which served no purpose for the Riverlands and the Iron Islands, anyway? And, quite frankly, we know of many royal and noble lines ending throughout the history of the Seven Kingdoms - especially but not only in the Riverlands. The idea that the Starks are the first noble line who have capable (bastard) heirs in the Watch while the trueborn heirs are butchered in some pointless war makes very little sense in the context of this story. Especially in light of the fact that the further back in time we go the more lines of petty kings we get, and the more noblemen from all over the Seven Kingdoms we would find in the Watch. 5 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said: If it does come down to him being released from his vows, I also don't see it being as a result of something Jon wants or requests, but as a result of it being proposed and/or requested of him; Similar to his appointment as Lord Commander, or Stannis' - another that sees no issue with Jon being released from the Watch - offer to him. I don't really think that is a very likely scenario. Jon has already rejected Winterfell once when Stannis offered it to him. And he wasn't even Lord Commander of the Watch then. Why should he take such an offer later? And who would offer that to him? The way things are, nobody but a king could offer Jon to release him from his vows, the way Stannis tried to do. But there are no longer any kings around who would do such things. And Robb's will would at best legitimize Jon as a Stark and name him his presumptive heir. It would not free him from his vows because Robb was himself aware that he could not do that. 5 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said: I understand where you are coming from here, and concur. However, I would assume that when one is asked to give up all that is required to become a King's Guard, there would be some sort of agreement that he also cannot be stripped of his position without just cause. Yeah, that's why I assume that there were actually never any Kingsguard who were really despised and mistrusted by their kings. Just some they might not have liked very much on a personal level, and those would have been given either tasks away from the king, or stupid tasks like Boros Blount gets right now. If we think about the things a man like Ser Owen Bush did (or were reputed to be doing) during Maegor's reign then it is really out of the question that a guy like that would have allowed to continue to serve in the Kingsguard of Jaehaerys I. But he happened to have been murdered prior to Maegor's own death. Whether Jaehaerys I could have executed him or sent him to the Wall for breaking his vows is difficult to say. After all, he seems to have been loyal to his king who most likely was also the man who named him to the Kingsguard. 5 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said: In regards to the situations in the examples you cited - when a new King is ascending the throne - I suppose it would bring up the question as to what the procedures are under that circumstance. I'm not sure, but I would assume that it is required for members of the KG to reaffirm their vows, and swear loyalty to that particular King. Presumably, should the King deem someone not fit to serve him, he would be dismissed before pledging his life to that King. In light of the fact that we see that pretty much the entire Realm is supposed to do the new King Joffrey homage it is pretty clear that the Kingsguard would have to do something like that, too. I don't think they would have to repeat their Kingsguard vows, though. 5 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said: In Selmy's case, I'm sure he had pledged his allegiance to Joffrey, and was in fact a serving member of his King's Guard. That is at least his own understanding after Robert's death. However, Selmy isn't yet aware that the succession is unclear. He thinks everything is going like it did when Jaehaerys II followed Aegon V, and Aerys II Jaehaerys II. Selmy cannot decided who the rightful king is. Others make such decisions for him. And then he has to make a decision who to follow (like Steffon Darklyn decided to abandon the pretender Aegon II for the rightful Queen Rhaenyra while his other sworn brothers stayed in KL). 5 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said: Ha! Greatjon Umbers' digits would like to have a word with you. Jon Umber is pretty much Robb's lapdog after Grey Wind bites his fingers off, isn't he? Even more so after he plays the crucial in proclaiming Robb king. 5 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said: What? That's a ridiculous comparison. We are not talking about Jon shirking his duties and turning his back on his commitments as was Dareon. We are talking about Jon being honorably absolved of his vows, not deserting as was the case with Dareon. But that is the thing - my take on the NW vow is that nobody in the Seven Kingdoms is going to like the idea that somebody can be honorably be absolved of his NW vows. That just doesn't happen. And that's why I think both Robb's and Stannis' intention of installing Jon at Winterfell (eventually) would have been doomed. I mean, sure, if we think there hadn't been a Red Wedding, if Robb had defeated the Ironborn, returned back home, and gotten around to exchange a hundred men or more for Jon (I'm not even sure how Robb would have forced a hundred men to take the black - unless he was intending to send a hundred criminals to the Wall in exchange for Jon), then this whole thing still doesn't make Jon 'Stark' accepted as the next King in the North/Lord of Winterfell. Catelyn would oppose this decision throughout the remainder of her life. And so would, likely, also Robb's Tully kin and the Riverlords. Robb would likely find himself in an even worse situation than Viserys I was. Rhaenyra was accepted as his Heir Apparent without question while he was alive. She was only challenged after her father's death. Robb and Jon both might have faced a serious rebellion on their hands long before Robb's own death. At least by the time it would have become clear that Jon would actually be the heir succeeding Robb (because his queen wasn't giving him any children). On a personal level this oathbreaker who got special treatment would have been hated and resented by most of the people he interacted with. His life would actually be worse than it was while he was still a bastard. 5 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said: Again, what? I'm not sure why you would bring up such a ridiculous scenario. I'm certainly not implying anything of the sort. Well, I could also imagine a scenario where black brother X gets permission from his Lord Commander to extend a visit at his home indefinitely. That kind of thing doesn't happen. If it was possible then many black brothers could simply take the black and then return back home wearing the black to care for their families and friends there. 5 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said: Well, the lack of Lords commenting on or approving of his idea, is certainly not confirmation that they disapprove. I didn't say that. I just said that they also do not approve of his decision. They are just commanded to act as witnesses to his last will. Robb doesn't care about their opinion, actually. Nor about the opinion of his mother. 5 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said: And I'm not disputing that. Considering the extreme and extenuating circumstances potentially facing the realm, there's no good reason that many should be opposed to Jon's release, other than those who have ulterior motives. What? I really don't see a reason why Jon shouldn't be able to fight the Others as a black brother. That works, too. And he could even end up rising to become the de facto supreme military leader in the North after Stannis' eventual death in that capacity. That anybody south of the Neck would ever even care about him isn't very likely. 5 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said: Again, we are not talking about Jon deserting. Why should the common man care either way that a man who joined the Watch under the ignorant believe that he was a bastard with no future, was honourably released from his vows for a beneficial cause? See above. If Arya Stark can murder a man leaving the Wall without having any jurisdiction there (she is neither the Lady of Winterfell nor is Braavos part of the Seven Kingdoms) then chances are very high indeed that Jon Snow would be hated and despised simply because of the fact that he got out of the Watch. 5 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said: The average man of the North is certainly going to be in support of having the blood of the Ned being in charge of Winterfell over the blood thirsty, traitorous, usurping Bolton's. The common man cares not of the vicious games the Lords play, so long as they feel protected and secure under their Lord's rule, which they most certainly would be more confident of under Jon's rule than that of Roose or Ramsey. Or under the conditions of every house fighting over a claim to Winterfell, as there would be no Stark to make such a claim. It isn't the Boltons vs. Jon, it would likely, at that point, be Sansa Stark vs. Jon Snow, or Rickon Stark vs. Jon Snow. Perhaps even the true Arya Stark vs. Jon Snow. But then, in the Robb scenario we don't have the Boltons in the mix. We just have a childless king pushing his turncloak brother on his subjects as his presumptive heir 5 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said: If Jon is a man that the Lords of the North can rally around and support as a viable heir to Winterfell, bringing peace to the region, then the commoners would gladly turn a blind eye to Jon's vows to the Watch. I really have difficulty believing that. They would never even consider the possibility that such a person could restore order in the region. Black brothers are supposed to serve at the Wall. 5 hours ago, Foot_Of_The_King said: Also, @Lord Varys brought up a great point that I've never considered. After killing the pyromancer, Jaime did not need to kill the King to save the city. I don't blame him for doing so though. The man deserved to die and while I know Jaime was of the KG. It's totally understandable that he reached his "breaking point." Sure, it was rage filled/ vengeful murder but I understand...... Sure, one can understand why he did it. What doesn't make any sense is that Jaime was in a moral dilemma. He isn't Spock in 'The Wrath of Khan'. He doesn't believe the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or one). He has just reached a breaking point and wants to see this madman dead. And he wants to be the guy who kills him. And it is not that Brienne suddenly thinks Ser Jaime is this great, compassionate guy who killed the king to protect the city. She just understands his motivation to do so. 5 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said: Eh, there's not much fact here. This is just your opinions and speculations based on your assumptions that are influenced by how you interpret the text (which we both know, we don't often see eye to eye on), and think things should be. Well, this has been discussed years ago. For one, start with Viserys III when Darry dies. He is about 12-13 years old at the time, and their servants actually still a lot of their possessions when they have to leave their house. Yet Viserys III can keep his mother's crown. That only works if the man had some protectors/benefactors around still. Or do you think the youth Viserys III would have had the strength to prevent some cook or servant from ripping the crown out of his hands? I don't think so. Dany shows signs of having been given a proper education. She speaks not only the Common Tongue, the various dialects of the Free Cities she stayed in, but also High Valyrian (which is actually no longer spoken in the Free Cities). That would only have worked if some of the places (perhaps Tyrosh where Viserys III was supposed to meet Arianne as per Doran's plans) they stayed allowed her to be properly tutored by teachers. Not to mention, you know, that she can also read, write, math, etc. Viserys III is her source on information about Westeros, but chances are not that high that he was great language teacher, etc. We also learn about Viserys III hosting and feasting the captains of the Golden Company at one point. Nothing indicates he had to loan money or was given money by third parties to do this. In addition, there is no indication whatsoever in Dany's memories that she and Viserys III ever actually lived on the streets. They were, dispossessed royals, whose funds to finance the lifestyle they were accustomed tried up more and more (and 'funds' would mean the hospitality of other rich people from the noble classes in the Free Cities). There are hints that Dany walked the streets like a normal common girl in some of the Free Cities, but there are on indication that they were actually homeless or starving at one point. They may have come close to that point when the money they had received for Rhaella's crown was about to be spent completely but it apparently never came to that, because then Illyrio took them in. The name 'Beggar King' refers more to Viserys III being perceived as a royal beggar - i.e. a king without a kingdom who has to ask/beg the rich people in the Free Cities for a place at their table. 5 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said: Not to mention you are just conflicting with your previous arguments. You can't have it both ways, depending on whether it supports your stance or not. I think I can. One could also illustrate this with Maegor's example. If some new dynasty had seized the throne in the course of the uprising against Maegor (say, some Velaryon cousin or Alyssa Velaryon and her Baratheon husband) then it may have been advisable for these people to keep a captured Maegor alive, too, if there had been heirs of Maegor's body out there who could have been made pretender kings after their father had died. After all, Maegor would have been seen as such a monster that pretty much nobody would have continued to fight in his name. But perhaps in the name of his son. 5 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said: And by the same token, there is no authority to condemn Jon for going against his vows. What you don't seem to understand is the religion of the Old Gods is a solemn and personal affair. No one that follows the Old Gods is going to care or confront Jon on this issue, that is between him and his gods. Then the vows taken by all the First Men taking the black are 'personal affairs', too? No, they are not. They are taken very seriously, and as far as we know there is no way to get out of such a vow. 5 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said: Well that's just it, the Watch preceded the Faith of the Seven, and accepts pledges from all faiths. If the vows of the Watch were a decree of the Old Gods, why would they accept vows made in the light of the Seven? Because the majority of the Seven Kingdoms converted to the Faith of the Andals and continued to honor the whole Night's Watch tradition thing? 5 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said: Therefore this must not be a religious matter, but a matter of the laws of the Kingdom. Regardless what it is, it is enshrined very deep in Westerosi culture that people who leave the NW are put down. That's how it is done. And they are not just put down by lords and kings, they can be put down by anyone. They are outlaws. 5 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said: Of course they care. Where do you think the Watch would be without the support of the Kingdom, especially Winterfell? Winterfell didn't exactly support them during Mance's attack on the Wall, did it? 5 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said: And this isn't a matter of only Jon's loved ones needing him, it would be a matter of the entire realm, and bringing peace and unity to the North. No, it is not. We are talking about Robb and Stannis trying to free Jon from his NW vows. We are not talking about everybody asking Jon to save them. Why should they? 5 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said: I agree with your sentiment that Jon being absolved of his vows in this manner would be a cheap technical loop hole, worthy of only a spineless weasel. I don't believe Jon would think or accept that, and I have far more faith in GRRM, than to believe he would go this route, as has that droll fan fiction version of aSoIaF. The way things are set up it is best to assume that Jon is going to leave the Watch when there really is no longer a Wall to protect. That will be the point when he, as a person, will realize that this entire endeavor is no longer making any sense. Uniting the North, etc. should actually be a futile thing others should do (assuming it is not done by the time he is himself/alive again), since that is not actually going to be the most crucial thing to hold the Wall. They need more people than just the Northmen to hold the Wall. And they are likely going to fail at that, anyway. 5 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said: Again, this is an absurd comparison. Jon leaving the Watch would not be at the peril of his brothers, and to pursue his desire to party and bag whores. You really don't seem to want to acknowledge the context, motives, and purpose that Jon being released from the Watch would serve. Well, I'm talking about in the context we are in right now, not some later hypothetical when the Others are pretty much at everybody's doorstep. Then the Watch won't matter anymore. 5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said: Quite frankly I always thought the watch would probably benefit from the north not gaining Sovereignty no? Why would they (the other 5 kingdoms), care about the north's border? Why send men out of their dungeon there? Why allow certain political rivals(skilled people) to elect to abdicate there to keep their head knowing they could be bought from the watch King Robb Stark? The northern houses could deal with the wildlings. Tyrion gave Allister some men in ACOKbecause he rembered his eerie feeling while at the wall sure but do you see anyone in south who'd do the same thing? That is usually my point when discussing the whole Jon thing (which isn't really the right thread to do this). If we look at the purpose of the Watch - to defend the realms of men which historically meant the Hundred Kingdoms which eventually developed into the (united) Seven Kingdoms - then it is quite clear that Watch has an obligation to all of those kingdoms. If they ended up favoring one region over the other, making common cause with pretenders like Stannis or Robb, then the other regions would quickly cease to give them any support at all. Support they are actually depended on. We see how Robb's secession actually works directly against the interests of the Watch when Tywin argues that they are going to ignore the wildlings because an invasion of the North by the wildlings would actually work to their favor. They wouldn't have had that stance if the North hadn't risen in rebellion against the Iron Throne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varysblackfyre321 Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 9 hours ago, Lord Varys said: That is usually my point when discussing the whole Jon thing (which isn't really the right thread to do this). If we look at the purpose of the Watch - to defend the realms of men which historically meant the Hundred Kingdoms which eventually developed into the (united) Seven Kingdoms - then it is quite clear that Watch has an obligation to all of those kingdoms. If they ended up favoring one region over the other, making common cause with pretenders like Stannis or Robb, then the other regions would quickly cease to give them any support at all. Support they are actually depended on. We see how Robb's secession actually works directly against the interests of the Watch when Tywin argues that they are going to ignore the wildlings because an invasion of the North by the wildlings would actually work to their favor. They wouldn't have had that stance if the North hadn't risen in rebellion against the Iron Throne. You know when thinking about how the North in general would react to this I feel it must be noted Robb's offer looks as though he's been intentionally withholding men who'd committed crimes warranting being sent the wall as leverage his bastard half brother to be able to desert or he's been arresting people indiscriminately for the very sole purpose of using them to bribe the Watch to release his bastard half-brother. Neither help his image of being that of a man who cares for honor and northern tradition. And he did this all while the wildlings are looking to launch another invasion no less. I suspect regardles if they declined his offer there'd be huge amount of pressure for him to give the watch the men they need and bigger backlash should he refuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackwater Revenant Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 18 hours ago, Lord Varys said: Man, you do realize that Maester Aemon took the black after he had been offered to be released from his vows and he had denied that offer. Why did he do that? I assume he did that to remove himself from from the cesspool that is the political landscape surrounding him and King's Landing. The strength of the vows in question would not be a factor. Either way, he would have to break a solemn vow to the gods, and renege on his commitment. Despite his insistence that he didn't want the throne, he would be faced with pressure from all sides had he remained as a Maester where all with political influence had access to, and means to coerce him. By going to the Wall, he would be beyond the reach of all influence and corruption of those who would want to use him; Essentially, he wanted to live in peace, away from the High Lords, and their game of thrones. Quote During the Conquest, House Hoare was even in worse shape than House Stark is right now. Lord Commander Hoare - Black Harren's brother - seems to have been the last Hoare in the male line around. Shouldn't he have decided that serving his people and family was more important than to continue to guard this stupid which Wall which served no purpose for the Riverlands and the Iron Islands, anyway? And, quite frankly, we know of many royal and noble lines ending throughout the history of the Seven Kingdoms - especially but not only in the Riverlands. The idea that the Starks are the first noble line who have capable (bastard) heirs in the Watch while the trueborn heirs are butchered in some pointless war makes very little sense in the context of this story. Especially in light of the fact that the further back in time we go the more lines of petty kings we get, and the more noblemen from all over the Seven Kingdoms we would find in the Watch. You are grasping at straws here, sure it's possible that the exact same circumstances facing Robb have occurred before, but it's highly unlikely; Just look at all of the improbable and chance happenings that were needed to put Robb in this position. Not only would this hypothetical King need to be in the position of needing to hastily secure an heir and have a viable one serving at the Wall, but the candidate would also have to be someone this King deemed worthy, could trust, and would want to be his heir. And even if so, the chance that one would think to consider something like this is even more so unlikely. I agree that it's a far out there and possibly an unprecedented, if not rare course of action, but that doesn't corolate into meaning others wouldn't accept it under the right circumstances. Quote I don't really think that is a very likely scenario. Jon has already rejected Winterfell once when Stannis offered it to him. And he wasn't even Lord Commander of the Watch then. Why should he take such an offer later? And who would offer that to him? The way things are, nobody but a king could offer Jon to release him from his vows, the way Stannis tried to do. But there are no longer any kings around who would do such things. And Robb's will would at best legitimize Jon as a Stark and name him his presumptive heir. It would not free him from his vows because Robb was himself aware that he could not do that. Yes, I actually agree with you here for the most part. Like I said, I'm not so sure there is going to be a need to get Jon out of his vows, you can't be held to serving an order that no longer exists after all. My point being, if it does turn out that Jon is released from his vows, it's not going to be a result of Jon's desire to turn his back on his brothers and the realm; It would be for a honorable or worthy cause. Quote Jon Umber is pretty much Robb's lapdog after Grey Wind bites his fingers off, isn't he? Even more so after he plays the crucial in proclaiming Robb king. Not sure what your point is? You claimed that Rob would never talk to his Lords as he did if he wasn't wearing the Crown. Clearly he had no problems asserting himself and standing up to Greatjon while he was still only the acting Lord of Winterfell. Quote Well, I could also imagine a scenario where black brother X gets permission from his Lord Commander to extend a visit at his home indefinitely. That kind of thing doesn't happen. If it was possible then many black brothers could simply take the black and then return back home wearing the black to care for their families and friends there. Still, I'm not talking about the LC having the authority to do anything of this sort. I mean that he would be the one to deal with any potential deserters and would be the one with the authority to forego the customary execution of said offender should he deem it unnecessary, or felt another form of discipline, or use of that man was warranted or beneficial to his cause. Quote I didn't say that. I just said that they also do not approve of his decision. They are just commanded to act as witnesses to his last will. Robb doesn't care about their opinion, actually. Nor about the opinion of his mother. Nor is he obligated to. And yes, you are implying so, by using their lack of support to back your stance that nobody would accept what Robb is proposing. Quote What? I really don't see a reason why Jon shouldn't be able to fight the Others as a black brother. That works, too. And he could even end up rising to become the de facto supreme military leader in the North after Stannis' eventual death in that capacity. That anybody south of the Neck would ever even care about him isn't very likely. Me neither, I agree. But we don't know for sure what's going to happen, and what twists GRRM still has coming. The point being, should the appropriate circumstances come about, and releasing Jon from his vows served for the good of the realm or mankind in general, many people would be perfectly willing to accept Jon being honorably released from his oath. Quote See above. If Arya Stark can murder a man leaving the Wall without having any jurisdiction there (she is neither the Lady of Winterfell nor is Braavos part of the Seven Kingdoms) then chances are very high indeed that Jon Snow would be hated and despised simply because of the fact that he got out of the Watch. That doesn't make any sense. Arya was also capable of murdering any random person she picked, with no reason at all, if she wanted to. What reason would everyone have to hate him? Again...and again...we are not talking about a situation where Jon is turning his back on his duties and commitments, and deserting. I could see your point should Jon be released because he changed his mind about serving the Watch, and just wanted to go back to his old life or something, but this would be a unique, extenuating circumstance, which could potentially benefit many. Sure, maybe it would backfire, and create more problems than it solved. But we are talking about a situation that has already drastically changed, and speculating about the results of an act in a hypothetical future that we know little of. Sure you make some valid points, but to make a blanket statement that no one would ever be OK with this is just conjecture, and quite presumptuous on your part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackwater Revenant Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 19 hours ago, Lord Varys said: <snipped for length> The name 'Beggar King' refers more to Viserys III being perceived as a royal beggar - i.e. a king without a kingdom who has to ask/beg the rich people in the Free Cities for a place at their table. Well, that's not what I was getting at. I agree with your assessment of their situation here. Quote I think I can. One could also illustrate this with Maegor's example. If some new dynasty had seized the throne in the course of the uprising against Maegor (say, some Velaryon cousin or Alyssa Velaryon and her Baratheon husband) then it may have been advisable for these people to keep a captured Maegor alive, too, if there had been heirs of Maegor's body out there who could have been made pretender kings after their father had died. After all, Maegor would have been seen as such a monster that pretty much nobody would have continued to fight in his name. But perhaps in the name of his son. I don't have much issue with your main premise in regards to this. As seems to be common in our discussions, we've seemed to stray from the issue of contention somewhat. It's some of the conclusions that you draw, and the extent to which you believe many of these scenarios influence the entire society as one whole agreeable group that we don't see eye to eye on. Quote Then the vows taken by all the First Men taking the black are 'personal affairs', too? No, they are not. They are taken very seriously, and as far as we know there is no way to get out of such a vow. As far as being condemned on religious grounds, yes. Although one would be swearing to the Old Gods, you are still making a pledge to the LC, the Watch, and the rest of the realm, even if not directly. This pledge to them is taken seriously, and would still fall under the laws of the Kingdom. Having one swear this to their gods would just be a means of reaffirming that they are taking this pledge seriously. Quote Because the majority of the Seven Kingdoms converted to the Faith of the Andals and continued to honor the whole Night's Watch tradition thing? Yes, but that still confirms that the death penalty for desertion is not a decree of their gods, unless when they converted to the Seven, it was discussed with the Father, or perhaps the Stranger, that that was their will. Quote Regardless what it is, it is enshrined very deep in Westerosi culture that people who leave the NW are put down. That's how it is done. And they are not just put down by lords and kings, they can be put down by anyone. They are outlaws. To continually parrot myself, the situation I am defending, would not be under the conditions of Jon being a deserter, or an outlaw. And you are also contradicting the assertion I've seen you make that Arya had no right to execute Dareon herself. Or is Arya being "no one" make her not eligible as "anyone" that can put down these outlaws? Quote Winterfell didn't exactly support them during Mance's attack on the Wall, did it? Oh come on. You are fully aware of the history of the Watch and the support it receives from the realm, Winterfell especially, as well as their existence being dependent on it. I mean, look at the following comment you just made in response to another poster. If I didn't know better, I might think you are making an insincere argument here. Quote ...then the other regions would quickly cease to give them any support at all. Support they are actually depended on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 10 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said: You know when thinking about how the North in general would react to this I feel it must be noted Robb's offer looks as though he's been intentionally withholding men who'd committed crimes warranting being sent the wall as leverage his bastard half brother to be able to desert or he's been arresting people indiscriminately for the very sole purpose of using them to bribe the Watch to release his bastard half-brother. Neither help his image of being that of a man who cares for honor and northern tradition. And he did this all while the wildlings are looking to launch another invasion no less. I suspect regardles if they declined his offer there'd be huge amount of pressure for him to give the watch the men they need and bigger backlash should he refuse. That is why I shortly wondered aloud what the hell Robb is dreaming about when he talks about 'offering the Watch in exchange for Jon'? What does this even mean? He cannot command/force any of his lords, knights, sworn swords, men-at-arms, etc. to take the black. That is a voluntary choice, not something you can force on somebody. Nobody is actually forced to go to the Wall. Criminals can be given the choice between being executed, losing a limb, being otherwise disfigured, etc. and voluntarily taking the black. Many of them are then taking the black (others, like Larys Strong and Gyles Belgrave, choose to be executed). In that sense, I'm really at a loss as to how Robb intended to get Jon out of the Watch in practice with his 'I'll exchange him for other men' plan. 2 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said: I assume he did that to remove himself from from the cesspool that is the political landscape surrounding him and King's Landing. The strength of the vows in question would not be a factor. Either way, he would have to break a solemn vow to the gods, and renege on his commitment. Despite his insistence that he didn't want the throne, he would be faced with pressure from all sides had he remained as a Maester where all with political influence had access to, and means to coerce him. By going to the Wall, he would be beyond the reach of all influence and corruption of those who would want to use him; Essentially, he wanted to live in peace, away from the High Lords, and their game of thrones. Sorry, this doesn't really work. Aemon takes another vow in addition to his maester's vow. And breaking his second vow usually has much more severe repercussions than breaking his first one (for one, maesters likely are not supposed to 'live and die at their posts', right?). If he had just wanted to remove himself from court he could have gone to Oldtown as an archmaester - or if that had been too dangerous, still, he could simply have removed himself to the Free Cities, the Far East, or the Summer Isles, or wherever he wanted to go. The reason why he went to the Wall is that there is no way he could ever come back from there. Nor is there any way a rebellion movement could rise in the name of King Aemon if Aemon Targaryen wore black. But apparently both Aemon and Aegon V believed it not unlikely that scrupulous men would rise against Aegon V in the name of King Aemon if Aemon remained a maester. 2 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said: You are grasping at straws here, sure it's possible that the exact same circumstances facing Robb have occurred before, but it's highly unlikely; Just look at all of the improbable and chance happenings that were needed to put Robb in this position. Not only would this hypothetical King need to be in the position of needing to hastily secure an heir and have a viable one serving at the Wall, but the candidate would also have to be someone this King deemed worthy, could trust, and would want to be his heir. Sorry, but I'm not talking about the exact circumstances Robb finds himself in right now. I'm talking about analogous circumstances that could have triggered the desire/intention in a king (or even a lord) to save his kingdom/lordship by naming an heir who had taken the black. Such a person doesn't have to a bastard brother of a king/lord. It could be his trueborn son, grandson, or brother. The issue at hand is just him getting out of the Watch. Just look at the number of houses the Starks eradicated during their own conquest of the North. The idea that Robb is the first man contemplating this is just very unlikely. It could even have happened with the Starks themselves, occasionally. I mean, if we assume that it was not uncommon in this history of the Starks that younger sons and brothers took the black (especially the farther back in time we go) then it is quite likely that there were circumstances where a Stark king was without a clear heir and would actually have preferred to see his son or brother in the Watch succeed him rather than some third or fourth cousin. Robb's decision to settle on Jon as his presumptive heir is triggered by the love and affection he feels for his half-brother. And we can be pretty sure that many a father or brother would have had similar feelings for a son or brother in the Watch when comparing him to some distant relation he wasn't really close with (or did not consider competent or capable). 2 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said: And even if so, the chance that one would think to consider something like this is even more so unlikely. I agree that it's a far out there and possibly an unprecedented, if not rare course of action, but that doesn't corolate into meaning others wouldn't accept it under the right circumstances. It is a truism that things might be/would be accepted 'under the right circumstances'. You would have to lay out those circumstances in detail to make a case that they are 'the right circumstances'. My point is that neither Robb nor Stannis have the power to bring 'the right circumstances' about. We would have to see a cultural shift where people (in the North) are actually going to accept that men can actually leave the Night's Watch. And that cultural shift hasn't happened yet. And I honestly doubt it will happen during this series. Little else so reinforced in this series as the importance of the NW vows and punishments that await the people who break it. 2 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said: My point being, if it does turn out that Jon is released from his vows, it's not going to be a result of Jon's desire to turn his back on his brothers and the realm; It would be for a honorable or worthy cause. I honestly don't understand this whole thing. I cannot imagine an 'honorable or worthy cause' that is more honorable and worthy than protecting the realms of men against the Others. And when that's done - and Jon is still alive - then the Night's Watch as an institution might be gone/abolished, too. If nobody needs 'the watchers on the walls' anymore, there will be also no need for their vows. But this would then be nothing that's exclusive to Jon Snow. All his brothers could go back home again, and have wives and children of their own (that is actually something one hopes Samwell is going to do, should he survive - if he doesn't take a maester's vow he could very well become the Lord of Horn Hill in the end). 2 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said: Not sure what your point is? You claimed that Rob would never talk to his Lords as he did if he wasn't wearing the Crown. Clearly he had no problems asserting himself and standing up to Greatjon while he was still only the acting Lord of Winterfell. The Greatjon was challenging him, then. The heir/Lord Robb did very carefully listen to the advice of both his lords and his mother. In fact, if he had already been assertive and in control as King Robb later was, 'King Robb' would have never been crowned. Because he would have stopped that madness as quickly as it began, instead of, presumably, standing dumb-founded there in the middle of the circus. 2 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said: Still, I'm not talking about the LC having the authority to do anything of this sort. I mean that he would be the one to deal with any potential deserters and would be the one with the authority to forego the customary execution of said offender should he deem it unnecessary, or felt another form of discipline, or use of that man was warranted or beneficial to his cause. I actually do not think so. I mean, it is clear that the leadership of the Watch sends out word about deserters to the Seven Kingdoms, but if the lords chance on some suspicious black brother, arrest him, and then receive a somewhat strange story from Castle Black as to what this guy is doing in their lands I don't think those lords have to heed such explanations. Keep in mind that there were corrupt/evil Lord Commanders of the Night's Watch. Men going against their vows and the customs of the NW. We honestly don't know what the customary view of a traveling black brother in the Seven Kingdoms is. The wandering crows are known, and one assumes that they usually train their own, having future wandering crows with them. Aside from them, black brothers usually do not travel the Seven Kingdoms. If a highborn black brother visits his family or court (as Benjen and Ser Alliser do) then those people most likely have a written permission with them which they can show to the authorities on the road. Not to mention that such people would also not behave like turncloaks and deserters. 2 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said: Nor is he obligated to. And yes, you are implying so, by using their lack of support to back your stance that nobody would accept what Robb is proposing. That is not the reason I'm of that opinion (although I might have given that impression). But elsewhere I think I made it clear that I think that a majority of people would simply continue to perceive Jon as an oathbreaker/turncloak no matter what King Robb or the Watch said. I think it is that deep ingrained in the culture. Just as people despise Jaime as 'the Kingslayer', never mind the fact that King Robert actually pardoned him. We recently discussed this whole issue in a topic on Robb's heir, and I laid out my position of how I think the North would have reacted to a 'Prince Jon' as Robb's presumptive heir. 2 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said: Me neither, I agree. But we don't know for sure what's going to happen, and what twists GRRM still has coming. The point being, should the appropriate circumstances come about, and releasing Jon from his vows served for the good of the realm or mankind in general, many people would be perfectly willing to accept Jon being honorably released from his oath. See above. If you can imagine or give us such circumstances we can discuss them. Without that, there is pretty much nothing to discuss. However, I'd say that the way you phrase it here is somewhat faulty - it is not enough (or rather: relevant) that releasing Jon from his vows is good for the realm or mankind. The important point is that people believe that this is the case. Only then will they be willing to go along with it or work towards bringing this about. This is also something that's relevant when people discuss what's going to happen when Jon's true parentage is going to be revealed. The important point is not that people learn the truth (whatever it is in detail) but that they believe it is true. And that they believe it is of political or prophetic/magical relevance. They could be mistaken about all that - but if they believe it either way it might have severe implications for the plot (just as Mel believing that Stannis is the savior had severe repercussions for his journey). The public 'knows' for quite some time that Cersei's children are not Robert Baratheon's children. Yet that hasn't led to the deposition or abdication of King Joffrey or Tommen. Vice versa, knowing the truth about Jon Snow might have little practical/political consequences, too. And the same goes for his believed importance in the grand scheme (his release from his vows). 2 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said: That doesn't make any sense. Arya was also capable of murdering any random person she picked, with no reason at all, if she wanted to. It is just an example. He might not be murdered. They could also simply decide to not follow such a man after King Robb died. 2 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said: What reason would everyone have to hate him? Again...and again...we are not talking about a situation where Jon is turning his back on his duties and commitments, and deserting. I could see your point should Jon be released because he changed his mind about serving the Watch, and just wanted to go back to his old life or something, but this would be a unique, extenuating circumstance, which could potentially benefit many. Again - see above. 2 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said: Sure, maybe it would backfire, and create more problems than it solved. But we are talking about a situation that has already drastically changed, and speculating about the results of an act in a hypothetical future that we know little of. Sure you make some valid points, but to make a blanket statement that no one would ever be OK with this is just conjecture, and quite presumptuous on your part. Did I actually write anywhere I think 'no one would ever be OK' with any of this? I don't think. The idea is just that Robb would have failed with his plan to make Jon his successor. 1 hour ago, Blackwater Revenant said: I don't have much issue with your main premise in regards to this. As seems to be common in our discussions, we've seemed to stray from the issue of contention somewhat. It's some of the conclusions that you draw, and the extent to which you believe many of these scenarios influence the entire society as one whole agreeable group that we don't see eye to eye on. Well, you raised this entire issue here because you felt I was arguing against myself when claiming that Aerys II's life could be spared. I think I explained now why I think this would be the case. And just to clarify: I don't think Robert would have to keep him alive forever, or anything. He could eventually die of sickness/whatever in his tower cell. The point is just that giving a show of mercy and parading this madman around the Realm (or displaying him at court) could have worked wonders in drawing the Targaryen loyalists over to the Baratheon side. The atrocities during the Sack (and Robert's refusal to punish the people committing them) caused the festering wounds that allow for a (secret) Targaryen restoration movement. 1 hour ago, Blackwater Revenant said: As far as being condemned on religious grounds, yes. Although one would be swearing to the Old Gods, you are still making a pledge to the LC, the Watch, and the rest of the realm, even if not directly. This pledge to them is taken seriously, and would still fall under the laws of the Kingdom. Having one swear this to their gods would just be a means of reaffirming that they are taking this pledge seriously. I actually don't think that is all that is to that. Think of the weirwood gate beneath the Nightfort. It opens when you speak the vow. But does it do that to every black brother, or only to those who spoke their vows in front of heart trees? There is likely a reason as to why Sam did that, just as there is a reason why George had Sam to swear his vow in front of a heart tree, too. But aside from this metaphysical stuff our differences simply are that you believe some guys in charge of things (Robb, Stannis, etc.) actually do have the power to cause a cultural shift that would the Northmen (or all of the Seven Kingdoms) simply cause to accept that a man is not only released from his NW vows but also be raised to a great lord/future king at the same time. And I think that would be a little bit much to swallow. 1 hour ago, Blackwater Revenant said: Yes, but that still confirms that the death penalty for desertion is not a decree of their gods, unless when they converted to the Seven, it was discussed with the Father, or perhaps the Stranger, that that was their will. The idea here is that it might have been the will of 'the old gods' (however they might have expressed that back in ancient times) that men who desert the Watch be put down. Committing yourself to the Night's Watch is not like any other vow. The Watch is the one institution the Hundred Kingdoms both built and support in unison. Breaking this vow should be pretty much the worst thing you could possibly do. Others vows would have been broken all the time (the various petty kings and lords sure all swore solemn vows to stop warring against each other when a peace agreement was reached, etc.). 1 hour ago, Blackwater Revenant said: I mean, look at the following comment you just made in response to another poster. If I didn't know better, I might think you are making an insincere argument here. We are talking in context of the threat of the Others - which should need the help of the entire Realm, perhaps even more - to be dealt with, not just whatever the (now ravaged) North can offer. The Seven Kingdoms are a unified Realm since 300 years. Causing the central authority to mistrust/not help you is worse on the long run than raising the ire of single secessionist kingdom which is not likely to last, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foot_Of_The_King Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 @Lord Varys I always thought of it as a moral dilemma but you are right. He killled the king because he deserved to die and he wanted to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the trees have eyes Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 On 23/01/2018 at 11:02 PM, Lord Varys said: For the hundredth time yet again - Jaime didn't prevent the wildfire plot by killing Aerys. And that's why nobody would have applauded him for killing Aerys had he told them why he had done it. He may have killed Aerys because the wildfire plan made him hate the man even more than he already hated him, but every sane person in Westeros would hold my position on the matter: Yes, the man was a bad king and a madman, and yes, he needed to be stopped. But you could have stopped him otherwise. You didn't need to kill him. And that's also the reason why you don't get off the hook. Of course he did. He killed Rossart after Aerys gave the order then he killed Aerys himself so he could not give further orders and then he hunted down and killed Garigus and Belis. The other person who knew about the plot and tried to prevent it by persuasion was Chelsted and he ended up getting burned. Jaime prevents the plot from being carried out - this is undeniable. He came to despise Aerys but without the wildfyre plot all he needed to do was ride out "to fetch his father's head" and give himself up to his father's men who would have protected him and killed Aerys in short order. Does Aerys deserve to die and does Jaime get some satisfaction from killing him? Yes. Bur he also shames himself in the eyes of all Westeros and I'm quite sure he would have preferred to avoid this and leave Aerys's killing to someone else if there had not been a pressing reason to act fast. You can repeat yourself with as much exasperation as you want but your opinion is no more canon than anyone else's and if it fails to persuade you might choose to accept that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 48 minutes ago, Foot_Of_The_King said: @Lord Varys I always thought of it as a moral dilemma but you are right. He killled the king because he deserved to die and he wanted to. If we imagine Jaime's facial expression while telling Aerys that it is Rossart's blood on his blade we should imagine him smirking or grinning, especially when he sees the fear in Aerys' purple eyes after the man realizes that Jaime has come to kill him, too. We should not expect to be in any way conflicted over this issue. He isn't in a moral dilemma. He wants to kill Aerys. Despite the fact that he doesn't need to to save anyone. Nor is there any reason as to why he has to do this ugly deed himself. Tywin's men are just outside the door. And Ned and Robert aren't that far behind, either. 20 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said: Of course he did. He killed Rossart after Aerys gave the order then he killed Aerys himself so he could not give further orders and then he hunted down and killed Garigus and Belis. You don't seem to understand: Killing Aerys wasn't the only way to prevent Aerys from giving orders to another person (assuming such people were still around - if only Rossart and the other alchemists knew about the plan, Aerys couldn't have possibly sent some servant to the alchemists, could he?). Jaime could have distracted Aerys (until Tywin's men arrived, who were only three minutes away or so), Jaime could have imprisoned or knocked out Aerys. It is quite clear that the wildfire plan was a huge part of Jaime's decision to turn against Aerys (although I'd say the last straw was indeed Aerys' command to Jaime to kill Tywin), but the idea that the man was 'forced' to murder his king to prevent the execution of said king's plans is simply factually wrong. Jaime also had no need to murder the other alchemists, by the way. They were obviously not burning the city while not receiving any orders to do so, or else KL would have burned while Jaime was sitting on the Iron Throne. Those were pointless murders, too. Counterproductive murders, as it happens, since their deaths actually led to the loss of knowledge about the hidden stashes of wildfire which, according to Hallyne, could ignite themselves under certain circumstances. If that happens in the future of the series at one point, Jaime will be the one responsible for that. Garigus and Belis could have gone to King Robert, revealing Aerys' plans for the city, and asking for the king's help to recover all the wildfire jars. Thanks to him they were never able to do so. 20 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said: The other person who knew about the plot and tried to prevent it by persuasion was Chelsted and he ended up getting burned. Jaime prevents the plot from being carried out - this is undeniable. Nobody denied that. What I deny - and what's obvious within the framework of the story - is that Jaime did not need to kill Aerys to prevent the burning of the city. But he sure as hell prevented it by killing Rossart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LynnS Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 9 minutes ago, Lord Varys said: Nobody denied that. What I deny - and what's obvious within the framework of the story - is that Jaime did not need to kill Aerys to prevent the burning of the city. But he sure as hell prevented it by killing Rossart. This is true. I often wonder if Ned was really peeved because he was denied vengeance, which doesn't seem to be a sin in the eyes of the old gods. Mind you, I still think Jaime was more merciful that the Mountain; who is just as likely to have swung Aerys around like a morningstar. What is the nature or value of a holy oath? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 8 minutes ago, LynnS said: This is true. I often wonder if Ned was really peeved because he was denied vengeance, which doesn't seem to be a sin in the eyes of the old gods. Mind you, I still think Jaime was more merciful that the Mountain; who is just as likely to have swung Aerys around like a morningstar. Quite frankly, I think Tywin would have wanted to kill Aerys himself (or hand him over to Robert), I doubt he gave commands to his dogs (or the men entering the throne room) to kill the king. What Ned intended to do to Aerys is completely unclear. We don't even know whether he wanted to kill him. Perhaps he only wanted to see him imprisoned or deposed? But one assumes he would have felt that killing him with his own hands - or by Robert's command - would have been something he had in mind. 8 minutes ago, LynnS said: What is the nature or value of a holy oath? It is basically the foundation of the social framework in this society, especially among nobles. You make solemn promises which, when kept, add to your honor. If you break them, you are an outcast. Every society where promises and vows are important sanction the breaking of such vows in drastic measures. There are even remnants of this in our modern societies when people have to swear to tell the truth at court, etc., something that is pretty outlandish and ridiculous in our day and age. But in a medieval framework that's the basis of society. In fact, the whole guest right thing is basically also a solemn vow/promise. Both host and guest agree in a ritual that neither of them is going to try the other while the guest is under host's roof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LynnS Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 15 minutes ago, Lord Varys said: But in a medieval framework that's the basis of society. In fact, the whole guest right thing is basically also a solemn vow/promise. Both host and guest agree in a ritual that neither of them is going to try the other while the guest is under host's roof. Yes, but isn't there a difference between making a vow and a holy vow? What makes it holy? Quote A Storm of Swords - Jaime VI "You don't frighten me," he called, turning as they split to either side of him. He did not know which way to face. "I will fight you one by one or all together. But who is there for the wench to duel? She gets cross when you leave her out." "I swore an oath to keep him safe," she said to Rhaegar's shade. "I swore a holy oath." "We all swore oaths," said Ser Arthur Dayne, so sadly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the trees have eyes Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 3 hours ago, Lord Varys said: You don't seem to understand: Killing Aerys wasn't the only way to prevent Aerys from giving orders to another person (assuming such people were still around - if only Rossart and the other alchemists knew about the plan, Aerys couldn't have possibly sent some servant to the alchemists, could he?). Jaime could have distracted Aerys (until Tywin's men arrived, who were only three minutes away or so), Jaime could have imprisoned or knocked out Aerys. It is quite clear that the wildfire plan was a huge part of Jaime's decision to turn against Aerys (although I'd say the last straw was indeed Aerys' command to Jaime to kill Tywin), but the idea that the man was 'forced' to murder his king to prevent the execution of said king's plans is simply factually wrong. How did I know you would say that? Sure, I understand. You can conjecture that Jaime can imprison Aerys without any risk that Aerys will escape or convey the orders to his othe pryomancers but that's all it is, conjecture. Surest way is to kill him. 3 hours ago, Lord Varys said: Jaime also had no need to murder the other alchemists, by the way. They were obviously not burning the city while not receiving any orders to do so, or else KL would have burned while Jaime was sitting on the Iron Throne. Those were pointless murders, too. Counterproductive murders, as it happens, since their deaths actually led to the loss of knowledge about the hidden stashes of wildfire which, according to Hallyne, could ignite themselves under certain circumstances. If that happens in the future of the series at one point, Jaime will be the one responsible for that. Garigus and Belis could have gone to King Robert, revealing Aerys' plans for the city, and asking for the king's help to recover all the wildfire jars. Thanks to him they were never able to do so. Garigus and Belis did nothing to reveal the problem to anyone. You can conjecture that they would have saved the day but for evil Jaime but that seems somewhat deliberately twisted (as is often your want). They were not the only other pyromancers in the guild or in KL but, like Rossart, they were taken into Aerys's confidence and worked enthusiastically to prepare the city for destruction Quote Everything was done in the utmost secrecy by a handful of master pyromancers. They did not even trust their own acolytes to help. The queen's eyes had been closed for years, and Rhaegar was busy marshaling an army. But Aerys's new mace-and-dagger Hand was not utterly stupid, and with Rossart, Belis, and Garigus coming and going night and day, he became suspicious.A Storm of Swords: Jaime V Suuuuure, these guys are altruists to a fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.