Did Jon deserve it?

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Was the attempted murder on Jon Snow justified? I know, I was absolutely horrified at the prospect of Jon dying, as he's possibly my favorite character.

"Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post. I am the sword in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men. I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night and all nights to come."

Jon did not abandon his post, nor did he take Ygritte as his wife. He infiltrated the wildlings on orders and stuck with it and defended the Wall in the end. I would argue that his decision to face Ramsay — if in fact it was him and he was acting in his full capacity — to be acting in the Watch's defense (Ramsay was directly threatening it, if you remember). He did not do it to wear a crown or take any lands. Jon didn't handle it in the best way and he didn't do himself any favors by sending his loyal, capable men away. I think that, while compassionate and prudent in the long, the men of the Watch weren't ready to live alongside wildlings. In that sense, Jon was ahead of his time.

In any case, I don't find cold-blooded murder to be justified.

[The Swaggering Bravo]

Jon did not abandon his post, nor did he take Ygritte as his wife. He infiltrated the wildlings on orders and stuck with it and defended the Wall in the end. I would argue that his decision to face Ramsay — if in fact it was him and he was acting in his full capacity — to be acting in the Watch's defense (Ramsay was directly threatening it, if you remember). He did not do it to wear a crown or take any lands. Jon didn't handle it in the best way and he didn't do himself any favors by sending his loyal, capable men away. I think that, while compassionate and prudent in the long, the men of the Watch weren't ready to live alongside wildlings. In that sense, Jon was ahead of his time.

In any case, I don't find cold-blooded murder to be justified.

I feel like I really shouldn't be defending cold-blooded murder, but... remember Jaime and how many lives he saved by killing Aerys?

[TrueMetis]

Aery's was planning on torching a city, Jon was planning on saving 10000 people.

[Bastard Walder]

Yes. That'll teach him not to be a bastard.

[Falrinn]

In going after Ramsey, Jon Snow can perhaps be seen as deserting, which can be punishable by death. However because he never intended to leave permanently, it's a little more legally fuzzy (there is plenty of precedent for sworn brothers being forgiven if they come back on their own). In addition, since Ramsey Bolton was directly threatening the Watch, the entire mission to Winterfell might be justifiable after all.

But there is something else we need to consider. Bowen Marsh's actions may have very well broken the Wall.

I seriously doubt the Wildlings are going to be kept in check by the hostages the same way natives of Westeros are. In all likelihood we are going to have fighting erupt between the Wildlings, Night's Watch, and the Queen's Men. With news of the incident fighting will spread across the Wall.

It's difficult to say who will win, especially once Stannis's men out of Nightfort enter the fighting. However the Wildlings still have the numbers are going to be far better equipped then they were at the end of A Storm of Swords, and the castles of the Night's Watch are notoriously indefensible from the south.

No matter who comes out on top, everyone will be blind to the comings and goings beyond the wall. If the Others mass for an attack, especially if they obtain the Horn of Winter, they could easily scatter the disorganized defenders of the Wall

And yeah I could understand why Jon would let Tormund through, he was a significant threat, but Hardhome? That was too far, I mean by the time those to-be Wights hobbled over to the Wall winter would be over. Come to think of it, if a 40,000 strong army of unified Wildlings were held off by a group of 100~ Black Brothers, I fail to see the danger of the Wights attacking since the Watch is now bolstered by the WIldlings and I can't imagine them climbing over the Wall.

Well as I said before, I don't think the Wildings are going to take the murder of the guy who opened the gate for them well. Even if they don't start the killing, there's a good bet Bowen Marsh or the Queen's Men will, since they aren't being held back by Jon anymore (even if he's still alive, I think it's a given he'll be incapacitated for a time)

At any rate, the Horn of Winter is still unaccounted for, if the Others obtain it then The Wall doesn't matter anymore. If they can't build a sizable army before moving south, it might be possible to stop them before they do too much damage. However with Mother Mole's sizable group of followers Wightified, even that advantage is gone and Jon knows it.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I feel like I really shouldn't be defending cold-blooded murder, but... remember Jaime and how many lives he saved by killing Aerys?

That was not cold-blooded murder. It was killing to save people. Big damn difference.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Well the problem here is what is meant by "Post". Does this mean living and dying on the Wall? A likely definition for "Post" here is as far south as the New Gift's boundary and as far North as you can go. Yoren didn't break his vows though, and he traveled all over the Seven Kingdoms, so clearly it is meant on a broader scale. Perhaps post signifies any duty that serves the Night's Watch. If Ramsay in particular was threatening it, and Jon wasn't abandoning the Night's Watch, just handing Ramsay a can of whoop-ass, then I see no issue.

Well you're definitely right about Yoren. But his post was as a recruiter for the NW so it's a little different than going off and doing something unrelated to the NW. And it's true that Ramsay was threatening the NW if he didn't get what he wanted, but I don't think the threat was imminent. I feel like not taking part in any of the struggles of the realm is contained in the idea of living and dying at the NW post, and by that logic the oath would prohibit Jon from even fighting Ramsay to deny him Arya (if he had her) and Theon. Of course I think death is wayyy to harsh for Jon breaking this, and also that what he is doing is not at all immoral.

[The Sunset King]

Although the Night's Watch remaining politically neutral and not taking sides is normally a good and logical principle there are limits to what kind of political situation is compatible with the Watch's existence. If an excessively bad Warden of the North appears, say on the level of Ramsay, it is pretty much a given that the Watch will dwidle to such a state that it won't do much good against the Others/Wights. The pressure placed on the NW from the Boltons and King's Landing show potential signs of forcing the NW to either accept their demands or risk their collective wroths.

The Ramsay threat to part of the realm is in some ways on par with that of the Others. Defending against it too is also necessary.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Although the Night's Watch remaining politically neutral and not taking sides is normally a good and logical principle there are limits to what kind of political situation is compatible with the Watch's existence. If an excessively bad Warden of the North appears, say on the level of Ramsay, it is pretty much a given that the Watch will dwidle to such a state that it won't do much good against the Others/Wights. The pressure placed on the NW from the Boltons and King's Landing show potential signs of forcing the NW to either accept their demands or risk their collective wroths.

Good point.

I'll also point out that "taking no part in the politics of the realm" is not, strictly speaking, in the vows, and probably has its root in more practical purposes — a bunch of guys from different and possibly rival families having to work and live and fight together, and neutrality being essential on that end in order to keep peace. Jon didn't face execution for going to fight for Robb, per se; he would have been executed as a deserter. But what happens when the realm decides that it doesn't want to be neutral? This "neutrality" goes both ways. The Watch doesn't play favorites and the realm leaves the Watch alone. As far as I'm concerned, the second Cersei sent someone to kill Jon (whether or not it actually happened the way she planned) and the second Ramsay sent that letter threatening the Watch, the neutrality argument was moot. People say that Jon abandoned neutrality by supporting Stannis. But Stannis was also the only monarch to give a damn about the Watch and its mission and take the threat of the Others seriously. Jon's primary job as commander is to preserve and strengthen the Watch, and as far as I'm concerned, Stannis is an ally in that regard.

[Sevumar]

Well you're definitely right about Yoren. But his post was as a recruiter for the NW so it's a little different than going off and doing something unrelated to the NW. And it's true that Ramsay was threatening the NW if he didn't get what he wanted, but I don't think the threat was imminent. I feel like not taking part in any of the struggles of the realm is contained in the idea of living and dying at the NW post, and by that logic the oath would prohibit Jon from even fighting Ramsay to deny him Arya (if he had her) and Theon. Of course I think death is wayyy to harsh for Jon breaking this, and also that what he is doing is not at all immoral.

And don't forget that Sam is at the Citadel learning to be a maester at Jon's order. He didn't abandon his post, but the singer Dareon did by his actions in Braavos.

I don't think we know enough about Jon's thinking to really be certain if what he was planning would mean a breaking of his oath. I'm eager to see how it plays out in the next book. I've said this before, but I think before the series is done, we're going to see Jon and others in the Night's Watch being forced to break their vows in letter to fulfill them in their intent. Like the Wall, the Watch has become too rigid to do its job properly. Jon is young and adapatable enough to pull this off, but the older and more conservative members of the Watch are already having a hard time in following Jon's thinking.

[The Swaggering Bravo]

That was not cold-blooded murder. It was killing to save people. Big damn difference.

I thought it was worse, not only did Jaime open Aerys' throat while he was defenseless, but he did so while he was sworn to defend him. The crucial difference here I think is that Bowen was acting on the rights of the Sworn Brothers to dispose of a Lord Commander who has broken his oath, and they believed he was.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I thought it was worse, not only did Jaime open Aerys' throat while he was defenseless, but he did so while he was sworn to defend him. The crucial difference here I think is that Bowen was acting on the rights of the Sworn Brothers to dispose of a Lord Commander who has broken his oath, and they believed he was.

It's worse in the eyes of people like Ned because Jaime was a Kingsguard who killed his king. Objectively though, Jaime killed Aerys to spare the lives of all the people in King's Landing, who would've been burned alive had Aerys burned the city down. It was NOT, to my thinking, cold-blooded murder. The fact that no one but Jaime knows this doesn't diminish the fact that Jaime acted to save the city. And if you think Jaime is bad for breaking his oath ... did Bowen Marsh not swear to obey Jon Snow, the duly ELECTED lord commander? Is he not also an oathbreaker?

I'll also thank you not to assume that Bowen Marsh speaks for all or even the majority of his "sworn brothers."

[Elaena Targaryen]

Although it is commonly said, it doesn't appear that interfering with the affairs of the Seven Kingdoms is restricted in the vows.

Why then, do some think that the stabbing of Jon was justified?

I think to answer that you need to look at the motivations of the "stabbers" The following quotes are from a thread concerning Bowen and why he wanted to kill Jon. I quoted hotweaselsoup because I liked her thoughts on the subject.

Remember the "paper shield"? On Maester Aemon's urging, Jon sends that letter to King's Landing to assure the Lannisters that the Watch "takes no part in the wars of the Seven Kingdoms", and that the black brothers are not Stannis Baratheon's men. Jon chafes at having to do it, but Sam says: "...if the Lannisters should prevail and Lord Tywin decides that we betrayed the king by aiding Stannis, it could mean the end of the Night's Watch."

I think this is Bowen's big fear, that the crown will punish the Night's Watch for giving aid to a rebel. Marsh doesn't think of the Night's Watch as an autonomous entity. First and foremost, he thinks of it as subject to the crown. When he cries "Oh, Seven save us!" when he thinks Jon has changed his mind about executing Janos Slynt, at first I thought it was said in exasperation. But upon re-reading the passage, I realize that Marsh's exclamation is one of profound relief, because he thinks Jon has come to his senses and is not, after all, going to kill Tywin Lannister's picked man. Of course Jon kills Slynt anyway, and I'd wager this act frightened Marsh deeply. And then Jon lets the wildlings through the gate, despite Marsh's warning that to do so was "nothing less than treason".

I think Bowen Marsh sees Jon Snow's every action as setting the Night's Watch in opposition to the Iron Throne. That said, as long as Stannis lives and has a chance of prevailing, things might be okay; but if Stannis should fall, what's to stop the Lannisters and Boltons from putting an end to the traitors of the Night's Watch? And then the letter comes saying that Stannis is indeed dead - I honestly don't think Marsh heard much more than that first sentence - and Marsh undoubtedly thought that the only way to save the Night's Watch from the crown's retribution was to kill the Lord Commander who conspired with the rebel Stannis. I think that Marsh believes that by offering the Lannisters Jon Snow's head (and probably Stannis' queen and heir as hostages as well), he would be able to prove that the Night's Watch was loyal, and thereby save the Watch from being put to the sword.

Well to add to your thought House Bolton is the overlord of House Marsh (even before the fall of House Stark) Then the 'crown' made the Bolton's the warden of the north, so that is another reason for Bowen to be afraid if Jon attacks the Bolton's at Winterfell. It could be considered to be breaking several oaths and treason also.

http://awoiaf.wester...php/House_Marsh

So if it's ok for Bowen to interfere with the affairs of the realm then why can't Jon?

[The Swaggering Bravo]

It's worse in the eyes of people like Ned because Jaime was a Kingsguard who killed his king. Objectively though, Jaime killed Aerys to spare the lives of all the people in King's Landing, who would've been burned alive had Aerys burned the city down. It was NOT, to my thinking, cold-blooded murder. The fact that no one but Jaime knows this doesn't diminish the fact that Jaime acted to save the city. And if you think Jaime is bad for breaking his oath ... did Bowen Marsh not swear to obey Jon Snow, the duly ELECTED lord commander? Is he not also an oathbreaker?

I'll also thank you not to assume that Bowen Marsh speaks for all or even the majority of his "sworn brothers."

Well no, I don't think it would have made him an oathbreaker if Jon was, I think it said somewhere in the books that the Sworn Brothers could remove the Lord Commander from his position if he broke his vows. The same is not true of the Kingsguard, even Ser Barristan demonstrated this, that it was more about listening without hearing, and guarding the king, not judging him. I dearly hope that the lives of all of King's Landing would take precedence over the old man's damned honor though. I think I'll have a better feeling for where Bowen's loyalty truly lies in a bit, since I've taken it upon myself to reread all of the books. Elaena Targaryen's post shed some light onto that.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

It's worse in the eyes of people like Ned because Jaime was a Kingsguard who killed his king. Objectively though, Jaime killed Aerys to spare the lives of all the people in King's Landing, who would've been burned alive had Aerys burned the city down. It was NOT, to my thinking, cold-blooded murder. The fact that no one but Jaime knows this doesn't diminish the fact that Jaime acted to save the city. And if you think Jaime is bad for breaking his oath ... did Bowen Marsh not swear to obey Jon Snow, the duly ELECTED lord commander? Is he not also an oathbreaker?

I'll also thank you not to assume that Bowen Marsh speaks for all or even the majority of his "sworn brothers."

This is off topic a little but I really wish we could find out what Ned would have thought about Jaime's actions if he knew the full extent of the situation. I feel like Ned ultimately would have sided with 'right' over 'honorable.' But back to Jon- it seems like the issue is coming down to whether or not Jon had to fight Ramsay in order to serve the NW. I feel like the traditional stance of the NW would be that- considering than Ramsay says he won't bother them if he gets what he wants- they should not be taking up arms to defend Jeyne/Arya and Theon. I think Jon's decision to fight Ramsay to defend the person that he thinks is his little sister is not an immoral decision (I would call it flat-out the correct and moral decision if not for the fact that Jon ought to know how important the NW fight against the Others is), and I don't think he deserves to die for something that is clearly not an evil act, but I do think that he has technically broken his oath.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Well no, I don't think it would have made him an oathbreaker if Jon was, I think it said somewhere in the books that the Sworn Brothers could remove the Lord Commander from his position if he broke his vows. The same is not true of the Kingsguard, even Ser Barristan demonstrated this, that it was more about listening without hearing, and guarding the king, not judging him. I dearly hope that the lives of all of King's Landing would take precedence over the old man's damned honor though. I think I'll have a better feeling for where Bowen's loyalty truly lies in a bit, since I've taken it upon myself to reread all of the books. Elaena Targaryen's post shed some light onto that.

And who gets to decide that Jon's an oathbreaker? Bowen and a few of his toadies? Wouldn't the acceptable approach then be to gather support for a trial of some kind, and have Jon defend himself? Or detain him? You think that stabbing the guy in the back like a coward while everyone else was distracted was the appropriate way to address concerns about Jon's loyalty to the Watch? I sure as hell don't.

I think Jon's decision to fight Ramsay to defend the person that he thinks is his little sister is not an immoral decision (I would call it flat-out the correct and moral decision if not for the fact that Jon ought to know how important the NW fight against the Others is), and I don't think he deserves to die for something that is clearly not an evil act, but I do think that he has technically broken his oath.

It wasn't just about Arya, though. Ramsay had claimed to have killed Stannis — who, as I said before, was the only monarch who made any attempt to assist the Watch at all — and was threatening to attack the Wall. You can disagree with Jon doing a preemptive attack instead of waiting for Ramsay to come to him — I do — but I wish people would understand that it isn't just about Arya.

[Natalia Borgia]

Bowen was hating on Jon all through ADWD it turns out Mel was right.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Bowen was hating on Jon all through ADWD it turns out Mel was right.

This brings up the question of how long Marsh and his men had been planning to kill Jon. Did they decide to do it off the cuff while listening to his speech, or had they been planning it for a while and only acted then because the opportunity was there?

[OnionAhaiReborn]

It wasn't just about Arya, though. Ramsay had claimed to have killed Stannis — who, as I said before, was the only monarch who made any attempt to assist the Watch at all — and was threatening to attack the Wall. You can disagree with Jon doing a preemptive attack instead of waiting for Ramsay to come to him — I do — but I wish people would understand that it isn't just about Arya.

Yes but I think under the strictest interpretation of the NW mandate, they are supposed to wait for Ramsay to come to them and actually let him take fake Arya away rather than defending her. And I don't quite see the importance of the fact that Ramsay had claimed to have killed the only Monarch to support the NW. If the NW were allowed to intercede on behalf of the person they say as the 'rightful' monarch, they should have been allowed to fight for Aerys, or Jon for Robb if that's what the NW decided. I think the strictest understanding of the NW mission is that they fight wildlings and Others and don't get involved at all with the wars of Lords and Kings.

This brings up the question of how long Marsh and his men had been planning to kill Jon. Did they decide to do it off the cuff while listening to his speech, or had they been planning it for a while and only acted then because the opportunity was there?

If they had been planning it for a while they are definitely wrong and treasonous themselves. I think it's possible that they had been planning it for a while given how upset they were about Jon's (in my mind correct) decision to accept the wildlings.

[Natalia Borgia]

I think it was planned and that is what Mel saw in her fires.