"This man protected the weak, as every true knight must."~ Jon’s personality.

[RoamingRonin]

I also love how Jon appreciates and defends Satin. It reminds me of when Sam came to the Wall. Satin might not be craven or weak but he most vulnerable new recruit and Jon stands up for him. Since Satin isn't highborn (and doesn't keep Jon's fires lit :lol:), I wonder if he keeps him as steward just to protect him? Easier to keep an eye on him that way. I like to think so.

[The Holy Goat]

Jon is a very moral person, I think, but that's not really what a True Knight is all about in my eyes. It's also about honor and duty and such things, like with Barristan. The reason I like Jon so much in comparison (I like Barristan to, though) is because even though he's dutiful and reliable, witha strong sense of morals, he's still very rational and reasonable about it, particularily in ADWD. Simply put, he's got principles, but he can bend them to achieve a greater good, and is not a slave to them something a True Knightly Knight might be. So, a heroic character, yes, but the ideal knight... maybe, depends on interpretation and such I suppose.

[Salinda]

He also has the fantastic ability to lull readers to sleep with his chapters

[Minsc]

It's the latest fashion around here. The next thing that we will hear here is that Jon singlehandedly created the ozone depletion.

One has to be amused by your hysterical reaction to a criticism against your precious Jon Snow. Especially, seeing how you have no trouble going off on the most extreme bile and hatred against characters that you dislike. Such as claiming they are worse then Cersei or sympathizing with child killing slavers in opposition to them.

Honestly, I haven't criticized Jon or rejoiced in his suffering to one tenth the level you do those you dislike thus your overblown reaction to my criticism. Nor am I am a Jon hater (he is in my top 15) just because I don't worship the ground that he walks on.

[SkaggCannibal]

Has anyone already mentioned "whiny" as a characteristic?

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Has anyone already mentioned "whiny" as a characteristic?

I have.

[Lady Fevre Dream]

He also has the fantastic ability to lull readers to sleep with his chapters

LOL, I more so blame the weather surrounding him. I HATE reading about cold weather and snow and such with a passion, hate, hate, hate. I had to talk myself through the weather in my first read, during the first few chapters, just to see if it was worth it. And, here I am, rereading and waiting for more, all these years later. Go figure.

[The Mad Wolf]

Jon is a great character. But I think you stretched your logic a little bit

[ghosts in winterfell]

I also love how Jon appreciates and defends Satin. It reminds me of when Sam came to the Wall. Satin might not be craven or weak but he most vulnerable new recruit and Jon stands up for him. Since Satin isn't highborn (and doesn't keep Jon's fires lit :lol:), I wonder if he keeps him as steward just to protect him? Easier to keep an eye on him that way. I like to think so.

I like this, but I think electing him as steward has more to do with having proved himself when he fought alongside him to defend the Wall from the wildlings. Of course this is likely lost on some of his fellows who think he has other reasons for wanting to keep an eye on him. Lol you know speculation on his sexuality is probably spreading like wildfire on the Wall...

[JonCon's Red Beard]

One has to be amused by your hysterical reaction to a criticism against your precious Jon Snow. Especially, seeing how you have no trouble going off on the most extreme bile and hatred against characters that you dislike. Such as claiming they are worse then Cersei or sympathizing with child killing slavers in opposition to them.

Honestly, I haven't criticized Jon or rejoiced in his suffering to the level one tenth the level you do those you dislike thus your overblown reaction to my criticism. Nor am I am a Jon hater (he is in my top 15) just because I don't worship the ground that he walks on.

I know you're not replying to me, but in my case, it's not about Jon. It's about characters in general.

Jon, Dany and Stannis have done things that it's ok for us to censor, yet, if we look as them as characters we can see they have their heads and hearts in the right place, whatever their reasons are.

Jon went to the Wall because he had no other place in the world. But, as soon as he was tasked with the duty of fighting the others, he did his best.

Dany wanted to take the Throne for quite selfish reasons. But, in the way to do it, she rather stayed in Essos and tried to get ride of slavery, whether she achieved it or not

Stannis wanted the Throne because it was his right. Then, he realised that his "kingdom" had other needs and he needed to save them and despite his aura of "he never bends", he has changed his opinion many times.

That's three good people who have committed mistakes in the way of her goals but have tried to make the best of their situations and decisions and many times, those decisions backfired on them. And those are the three characters who apparently get more hate.

Whatsoever, when we face characters who are really really bad, excuses are made for them. Tywin is a son of a bitch who looked aside at the murder of babies and approved the raping of his son's wife. But he's an excellent commander and he did what he did because he HAD to. Roose killed a man just because he felt it was his right to fuck his wife and talks like he doesn't care about his bastard trying to kill his future children. Ah, but he's funny! "Oh, don't make me rue the day I raped your mother, kid! remember? Under the tree where I killed her husband, hilarious!".

So, yes. GRRM has introduced characters who are gray for us: good people making mistakes and paying the consequences. We're supposed -I guess- to root for them and feel some kind of empathy about how it's hard for them to take decisions not taking stones from the ground to throw at them while we smile at the occurrences of the evil ones.

[Minsc]

Jon, Dany and Stannis have done things that it's ok for us to censor, yet, if we look as them as characters we can see they have their heads and hearts in the right place, whatever their reasons are.

-snip-

The issue that I find eyerolling is how JQC has a solid reputation of refusing to do that to the characters that she dislikes and instead she repeatedly demonizes them into terrible individuals. Yet, now faced with a singular criticism she is flipping out that someone dare criticize her favorite, Jon Snow.

Simply, my initial post only called Jon out for being somewhat whiny and for my distaste in regards to his actions with Gilly. No where did I claim Jon was terrible or some monster instead I only criticized his singular action in regards to Gilly. Yet, some reactions seem to be that I called Jon Snow worse then Ramsay Snow on the monstrosity scale because I don't find him morally flawless.

[Nictarion]

Dany wanted to take the Throne for quite selfish reasons. But, in the way to do it, she rather stayed in Essos and tried to get ride of slavery, whether she achieved it or not

Stannis wanted the Throne because it was his right. Then, he realised that his "kingdom" had other needs and he needed to save them and despite his aura of "he never bends", he has changed his opinion many times.

That's three good people who have committed mistakes in the way of her goals but have tried to make the best of their situations and decisions and many times, those decisions backfired on them. And those are the three characters who apparently get more hate.

So when Dany wants to retake what she feels is her birthright it's selfish? But Stannis wanting to do the same is because it's his right? I see that as hypocritical.

Also, Jon probably receives the least amount of hate of any of the main characters. He's not even in the same league compared to Dany, Cat, and Sansa.

[The Prince Not Promised]

Jon has his flaws and frankly he kind of bores me sometimes, but what exactly was he supposed to do in the situation with Gilly's baby? Tell Stannis, "Hey, now I know that you just saved us and have way more men then we do and could either kill me or wipe out all the Night's Watch, but you can't kill the baby." You know how that ends? With the baby still burned but with Jon along with it. At least this way nobody got burned. Sometimes there is no good choice, only a lesser of evils.

[Minsc]

Jon has his flaws and frankly he kind of bores me sometimes, but what exactly was he supposed to do in the situation with Gilly's baby? Tell Stannis, "Hey, now I know that you just saved us and have way more men then we do and could either kill me or wipe out all the Night's Watch, but you can't kill the baby." You know how that ends? With the baby still burned but with Jon along with it. At least this way nobody got burned. Sometimes there is no good choice, only a lesser of evils.

Interesting how so much people love Stannis and yet it seems people believe that he was so dead set on burning an innocent baby that standing up to him in opposition to that matter is pointless.

[The Prince Not Promised]

Interesting how so much people love Stannis and yet it seems people believe that he was so dead set on burning an innocent baby that standing up to him in opposition to that matter is pointless.

Stannis is an interesting but deeply flawed character. But we're talking about a man who was going to burn his own nephew alive until Davos sent him away. Do you think he would have cared about some wildling baby? Stannis is one of my favorite characters but I wouldn't pretend for a second that he's a good man or someone I would like to know in real life.

[El Guapo]

He also has the fantastic ability to lull readers to sleep with his chapters

:bowdown:

[The Night's Prince]

Minsc got too much time on your hands to keep going after a poster on here in the guise of actually discussing the thread topic. You ain't fooling nobody.

[Wmarshal]

I know you're not replying to me, but in my case, it's not about Jon. It's about characters in general.

Jon, Dany and Stannis have done things that it's ok for us to censor, yet, if we look as them as characters we can see they have their heads and hearts in the right place, whatever their reasons are. Dany is a monster for her butcher and Stannis is a torturing ass for sending men to the fire.

Jon went to the Wall because he had no other place in the world. But, as soon as he was tasked with the duty of fighting the others, he did his best.

Dany wanted to take the Throne for quite selfish reasons. But, in the way to do it, she rather stayed in Essos and tried to get ride of slavery, whether she achieved it or not

Stannis wanted the Throne because it was his right. Then, he realised that his "kingdom" had other needs and he needed to save them and despite his aura of "he never bends", he has changed his opinion many times. Jon had a lot of places to go, serve a lord, adventure the realm, take a tour around the free cities. He wanted to go to play hero. Dany assaulted three cities killed kids younger then her, then when it came time to stop the slavers and child butchers, she decided to give up and permit slavery, she is no slavery ender. Stannis is the only one I give you for this point, but his burnings and hypocrisy are bad on it's own.

That's three good people who have committed mistakes in the way of her goals but have tried to make the best of their situations and decisions and many times, those decisions backfired on them. And those are the three characters who apparently get more hate. Threating children and innocent women is evil, and no matter what "good" this characters do the evil remains.

Whatsoever, when we face characters who are really really bad, excuses are made for them. Tywin is a son of a bitch who looked aside at the murder of babies and approved the raping of his son's wife. But he's an excellent commander and he did what he did because he HAD to. Roose killed a man just because he felt it was his right to fuck his wife and talks like he doesn't care about his bastard trying to kill his future children. Ah, but he's funny! "Oh, don't make me rue the day I raped your mother, kid! remember? Under the tree where I killed her husband, hilarious!". Tywin was monster to the extreme, he earned his place in hell. Roose is funny but will anyone here shred a tear when he is dead?

So, yes. GRRM has introduced characters who are gray for us: good people making mistakes and paying the consequences. We're supposed -I guess- to root for them and feel some kind of empathy about how it's hard for them to take decisions not taking stones from the ground to throw at them while we smile at the occurrences of the evil ones.

It is hard to see hypocrites as the good guys where men who understand who they are and what they do is evil, is hard to rag on, for they know they are evil and no one can say other wise. Hypocrites are easier to hate because they hide behind a veil of good deeds and words, but in the end they are no different then any other man, a dog that would do anything to survive or for their "cause".

[Mad Monkey]

Interesting how so much people love Stannis and yet it seems people believe that he was so dead set on burning an innocent baby that standing up to him in opposition to that matter is pointless.

I think you're melding the fandom opinion of Stannis with how people in the book view Stannis. Jon may respect Stannis for what he did at the Wall but that doesn't make him a "StanStan"; he doesn't know Stannis well enough to know about all of the subtle nuances of his character that fans of the book might pick up on from combing over Stannis-related material over and over for many, many years. All he has is Stannis's reputation as a hardass as well as his cooperation with the enthusiastic R'hllor-worshippers who surround him and Melisandre.

I don't approve of what Jon did to Gilly. I don't believe that it is 'better' to murder one baby instead of another one. I think it was cruel and deeply unfair for Jon to basically put Gilly in the position of having to either choose between having one baby die or having two babies die, especially since one child was hers and that was the one she couldn't possibly save. But I'm not going to pretend that, "Oh, he should have just told Stannis to piss off," is a rational, reasonable 'solution' either. Not only would that be unlikely to work (as far as Jon knows) it would also tip his hand, making it very likely that someone (Stannis or Melisandre) would take the children in hand in case Jon tried something else.

Again, I'm not trying to rationalize what Jon did here, just rebutting the whole, "oh, just tell the King 'no'," argument.

[Nictarion]

Again, I'm not trying to rationalize what Jon did here, just rebutting the whole, "oh, just tell the King 'no'," argument.

Jon as the LC of the NW should be able to do just that though. He became too involved with Stannis, which the NW isn't supposed to do. He should have basically thanked him for the help and sent him on his way. If Stannis ended up acting like a thug and taking over the NW by force, that's pretty telling about his character honestly.