Would Jon have harmed his hostages

[GuardstheRealmsofMen]

While I 100% agree with what everyone  has been saying about the futility of taking hostages (as proved with Edmure) Jon has so many hostages that he could execute *some* if there was rebellion to show he was not bluffing, making the families with still living sons fall in line. That is the advantage of taking so many hostages of equal value. 

 

I sincerely hope that Jon would not be able toe execute the hostages however. I've thought about this question a lot and I am still firmly in the undecided camp.

[Chaircat Meow]

Killing the hostages after the rebellion breaks out may or may not prove useful in the rebellion at hand. But it certainly makes the fathers think twice in the next rebellion. 
 
 
Or you can create even more dangerous foes who will have learned your ways and use that knowledge against you while avenging their fathers.

Yeah, I know that. You argued that there was a big difference between killing the old man and hypothetically killing the hostages. I'm saying there's not.

Jon can't know, beforehand, that killing the children is absolutely necessary to preventing further rebellions/shoring up his authority. Just like Jon didn't have certainty that killing the old man would give him a better chance of getting his message through. In both cases, taking harsh action only probably led to a better outcome. So, if in the case of Queenscrown Jon wouldn't act, because he couldn't be sure he was doing something necessary, then he'll behave in the same fashion wrt the child hostages and not do the deed.

[JonSnow4President]

Yeah, I know that. You argued that there was a big difference between killing the old man and hypothetically killing the hostages. I'm saying there's not.

Jon can't know, beforehand, that killing the children is absolutely necessary to preventing further rebellions/shoring up his authority. Just like Jon didn't have certainty that killing the old man would give him a better chance of getting his message through. In both cases, taking harsh action only probably led to a better outcome. So, if in the case of Queenscrown Jon wouldn't act, because he couldn't be sure he was doing something necessary, then he'll behave in the same fashion wrt the child hostages and not do the deed.

Unless, of course, he has taken on a general mantra of making the "tougher" decisions with no regard to his honor, but rather to the benefit to the Watch/realm.  Jon as LC is very different from Jon as Wildling Raider tag-a-long, who is very different from Jon crybaby Snow at the start of his watch training.  

 

Jon the boy would not.  I'm not sure about Jon the man, and I tend to be biased towards Jon being whiter than darker.

[Mithras]

 

Cersei's children were not Ned's hostages, but the dilemma was still very similar - he made sure that the "innocent", the children of his enemy, would not be harmed even though that was a significant risk to take. Killing a hostage may have no effect on the outcome of the war at all, so why kill them? 

 

Doesn't Theon recall somewhere that Eddard tried to play the father to him but he rejected him? Anyway, I think the best way for Ned to ensure that he would not have to execute Theon (and perhaps we agree that he would not have liked to be forced to do it) was to give the general impression that he would not hesitate to do it.

 

 

It depends. If you are able to turn the decision not to kill the child to your advantage, you may still gain more than by killing him. Besides, occasionally, there may be fathers willing to sacrifice their children (or one of their children) for their goals. The hostage system is no help against that. 

 

 

That's a good point, but I still think that a good leader would consider the actual situation rather than automatically resort to the traditional solution. We do see with Jaime and Edmure that a novel approach may be more fruitful than the traditional one.

 

I hate to agree with Tywin but he was damn right when he said that a person should not make threats that he/she cannot execute. Jon cannot dare to be not taken seriously. That was the very thing Slynt was trying to do, i.e. to undermine Jon's authority. Not killing the hostages would be not being true to his word. So, Jon would lose his credibility in the eyes of both his subordinates and his enemies. Even that should be enough to kill the hostages in case of a rebellion. And note that he would kill only the sons of rebellious wildlings.

 

The hostage system might not be perfect but that is all they got and it is basically the common practice. Everyone knows the rules. Exceptions might happen every now and then but I do not see any reason why this hostage practice does not work in general.

[Mithras]

Yeah, I know that. You argued that there was a big difference between killing the old man and hypothetically killing the hostages. I'm saying there's not.

 

I am saying there is. The lives of the hostages depend on the actions of their fathers. That is the agreement. Even if Jon swings the sword, it will be their rebellious fathers who will condemn their children to death with their actions. Executing the hostages when the terms are violated is completely legal. From moral perspective, I think it is better than not executing them. Just look at Dany when she could not come to execute her hostages. The Harpy played her like a fiddle and she lost her control over the city.

 

On the other hand, killing the old man was almost certainly an illegal act and I think it would be highly immoral too. Even if Jon killed that man, he would still expect a miracle to sneak away from the Thenns and warn CB. I also mentioned how it was not a certainty that the CB needed the intelligence Jon could provide. Therefore, killing the old man would practically mean saving his own neck and that makes it a highly immoral act.

 

Jon can't know, beforehand, that killing the children is absolutely necessary to preventing further rebellions/shoring up his authority.

 

Of course he can. He knows that not doing something he promised would undermine his authority. That is why he thinks of Janos Slynt in that occasion. In fact, this is not some deep mystery. Every decent enough ruler should know this.

[Julia H.]

 

I hate to agree with Tywin but he was damn right when he said that a person should not make threats that he/she cannot execute. Jon cannot dare to be not taken seriously. That was the very thing Slynt was trying to do, i.e. to undermine Jon's authority. Not killing the hostages would be not being true to his word. So, Jon would lose his credibility in the eyes of both his subordinates and his enemies. Even that should be enough to kill the hostages in case of a rebellion. And note that he would kill only the sons of rebellious wildlings.

 

The hostage system might not be perfect but that is all they got and it is basically the common practice. Everyone knows the rules. Exceptions might happen every now and then but I do not see any reason why this hostage practice does not work in general.

 

I think it is a bit similar to power being a shadow on the wall, to power being where people think it is. The hostage system works while the people believe it to work. It fails every time a ruler has to prove that he can be as good as his word in this respect. It is a paradoxical system, a game of nerves, which subtly varies from case to case.  We see quite a few variations in the story and we can imagine more. The boys will grow up, their fathers will die, so what will happen next? Is the hostage a heir or just a younger brother? Does he even matter to the new lord? According to Alys Karstark, her uncle "declared for Stannis, in hopes it might provoke the Lannisters to take poor Harry's head."

 

Instead of occasional exceptions, I think every single situation must be different, so what works in one case, may not work in the other. In any case, Jon's reply to the Norrey is ambiguous rather than straightforward, and is very much based on the notion that the wildlings will not "try him". The answer implies that Jon understands that it is at the initial  "staring contest" phase that the hostage game is truly won, and he is prepared to win it there.

[Mithras]

 

I think it is a bit similar to power being a shadow on the wall, to power being where people think it is. The hostage system works while the people believe it to work. It fails every time a ruler has to prove that he can be as good as his word in this respect. It is a paradoxical system, a game of nerves, which subtly varies from case to case.  We see quite a few variations in the story and we can imagine more. The boys will grow up, their fathers will die, so what will happen next? Is the hostage a heir or just a younger brother? Does he even matter to the new lord? According to Alys Karstark, her uncle "declared for Stannis, in hopes it might provoke the Lannisters to take poor Harry's head."

 

Instead of occasional exceptions, I think every single situation must be different, so what works in one case, may not work in the other. In any case, Jon's reply to the Norrey is ambiguous rather than straightforward, and is very much based on the notion that the wildlings will not "try him". The answer implies that Jon understands that it is at the initial  "staring contest" phase that the hostage game is truly won, and he is prepared to win it there.

 

Arnolf didnot have the right to declare for Stannis because he was not the Lord. And that is not exactly a case of taking hostages to keep the rebellious Lords in check. The proper example would be Hoster Blackwood and the Bracken girl Jaime requested.

 

Ideally, the game should be won at the staring phase but when one fails to execute his hostages after the terms are violated, I do not see how he can win staring contests in the future.

 

- "Do not do anything stupid or this time I really execute these hostages."

- "Yeah, whatever."

[falcotron]

The answer implies that Jon understands that it is at the initial  "staring contest" phase that the hostage game is truly won, and he is prepared to win it there.

In other words, he won because Tormund believes he would execute the hostages if necessary.

So, either:

• Jon really would execute the hostages if necessary.
• Jon is lying to himself; he believes he would execute them, and thinks it would be the right thing to do, but he's actually too weak.
• Jon is lying to Tormund; he never had any intention of killing the hostages, but he's a masterful negotiator.

If you want to believe that Jon is a pure hero, and a pure hero would never kill children even when he's promised to, then you have to go with the last. And, since Jon doesn't appear to be a sociopath to whom lying comes naturally, and Tormund doesn't appear to be a naive innocent, it would have to take significant diplomatic skill to play Tormund like that. But Jon seems to be a half-way decent negotiator who's getting better as he goes along, but he's not amazing at it. True, we've mostly seen him dealing with the implacable Stannis, and maybe there's just no one anyone can make him haggle, but still, there's no evidence for Jon being Henry Kissinger.

So, I think the first one is the most likely; Jon was being honest, and Tormund has read him correctly. Sure, if he could find some effectively way to avoid killing the hostages (e.g., if he could kill the parents instead) he probably would. But if not, he'd kill them.

[Lady Blackmont]

Lying coming naturally doesn't necessarily indicate a sociopathic mind.

It can be a symptom, sure, but it is not the only deciding factor. All of the people in KL lie all the time. It wouldn't really bother me if Jon became a sharp liar.

[Mithras]

“My lord,” Sam said, “my f-f-f-father, Lord Randyll, he, he, he, he, he . . . the life of a maester is a life of servitude.” He was babbling, he knew. “No son of House Tarly will ever wear a chain. The men of Horn Hill do not bow and scrape to petty lords.” If it is chains you want, come with me. “Jon, I cannot disobey my father.”

Jon, he’d said, but Jon was gone. It was Lord Snow who faced him now, grey eyes as hard as ice. “You have no father,” said Lord Snow. “Only brothers. Only us. Your life belongs to the Night’s Watch, so go and stuff your smallclothes into a sack, along with anything else you care to take to Oldtown. You leave an hour before sunrise. And here’s another order. From this day forth, you will not call yourself a craven. You’ve faced more things this past year than most men face in a lifetime. You can face the Citadel, but you’ll face it as a Sworn Brother of the Night’s Watch. I can’t command you to be brave, but I can command you to hide your fears. You said the words, Sam. Remember?”

 

“My lord, my f-f-f-father, Lord Randyll, he, he, he, he, he … the life of a maester is a life of servitude. No son of House Tarly will ever wear a chain. The men of Horn Hill do not bow and scrape to petty lords. Jon, I cannot disobey my father.”

Kill the boy, Jon thought. The boy in you, and the one in him. Kill the both of them, you bloody bastard. “You have no father. Only brothers. Only us. Your life belongs to the Night’s Watch, so go and stuff your smallclothes into a sack, along with anything else you care to take to Oldtown. You leave an hour before sunrise. And here’s another order. From this day forth, you will not call yourself a craven. You’ve faced more things this past year than most men face in a lifetime. You can face the Citadel, but you’ll face it as a Sworn Brother of the Night’s Watch. I can’t command you to be brave, but I can command you to hide your fears. You said the words, Sam. Remember?”

 

Maybe Jon would not execute the hostages but Lord Snow would definitely do.

[Chaircat Meow]

How do we know Tormund did believe Jon?

[Julia H.]

In other words, he won because Tormund believes he would execute the hostages if necessary.

So, either:

• Jon really would execute the hostages if necessary.
• Jon is lying to himself; he believes he would execute them, and thinks it would be the right thing to do, but he's actually too weak.
• Jon is lying to Tormund; he never had any intention of killing the hostages, but he's a masterful negotiator.

If you want to believe that Jon is a pure hero, and a pure hero would never kill children even when he's promised to, then you have to go with the last. And, since Jon doesn't appear to be a sociopath to whom lying comes naturally, and Tormund doesn't appear to be a naive innocent, it would have to take significant diplomatic skill to play Tormund like that. But Jon seems to be a half-way decent negotiator who's getting better as he goes along, but he's not amazing at it. True, we've mostly seen him dealing with the implacable Stannis, and maybe there's just no one anyone can make him haggle, but still, there's no evidence for Jon being Henry Kissinger.

So, I think the first one is the most likely; Jon was being honest, and Tormund has read him correctly. Sure, if he could find some effectively way to avoid killing the hostages (e.g., if he could kill the parents instead) he probably would. But if not, he'd kill them.

 

 

I do think that Jon is a good negotiator. Stannis is not easy to negotiate with, especially that he has the superior military power, but Jon stands his ground. I also have the impression that he knows how to negotiate with Tormund. During the wildling passage, he does his best to keep up a stern Lord Commander of the Night's Watch image, and the fact that he has a direwolf for company makes him different from your average "kneeler" in the eyes of the wildlings. He shows strength, power and magical ability, the kind of things that the wildlings follow. 

 

Does Jon lie? What is a lie? (Iago in Othello never actually lies.) Jon never gives a straigthforward answer to the Norrey, he never says, yes, of course, I will execute them as soon as their fathers step out of line. Why? Perhaps because he reserves the right to decide "what needs to be done" in the given situation. I analysed the wording of their exchange above, the similarity to what Qhorin said, the ambiguity. I think the right thing to do in this case is to make sure the fathers have no doubt about what you would do. If you actually have to prove it (having no better alternatives) it is a failure in itself. It might help the next conflict, but not the present one.

 

 

Maybe Jon would not execute the hostages but Lord Snow would definitely do.

 

Perhaps... Yet, killing children, killing the innocent, as a morally unacceptable choice is a huge theme in these novels.

 

I know that hostage taking is a general practice in this world, but it is also clear that a hostage has political value only while the hostage is alive, and that the system has the added purpose of turning the next generation of your enemy into an ally. No father will live forever, and when the father (who originally agreed to the deal) is gone, the hostage will cease to be a hostage - and what then? Have you just created a resident enemy, who knows your ways and can use this knowledge against you, or can you hope to have raised a new ally?

 

But back to the morality of it: "What's the life of one bastard boy against a kingdom?" "Everything."

 

I'm totally with Davos on this. Of course, I realize that Edric Storm is not a hostage, but the dilemma is similar: Can you burn one innocent boy to save a kingdom? Can you kill innocent young boys to save your realm? Is is morally acceptable? Was Robert (morally) right when he sent assassins after Dany? (OK, maybe that's not a good question to ask you. ^_^  ) It is a dilemma that repeatedly comes up in the novel. For me, the answer that Davos gave is the ultimate one. If Lord Snow did commit such killings - with the best of intentions and with seemingly no other choice available -,  I'm pretty sure that Jon would also pay for it, and it could well be his responsibility to have let things go that far. 

[ShadowCat Rivers]

Perhaps... Yet, killing children, killing the innocent, as a morally unacceptable choice is a huge theme in these novels.

 

I know that hostage taking is a general practice in this world, but it is also clear that a hostage has political value only while the hostage is alive, and that the system has the added purpose of turning the next generation of your enemy into an ally. No father will live forever, and when the father (who originally agreed to the deal) is gone, the hostage will cease to be a hostage - and what then? Have you just created a resident enemy, who knows your ways and can use this knowledge against you, or can you hope to have raised a new ally?

 

But back to the morality of it: "What's the life of one bastard boy against a kingdom?" "Everything."

 

 

I believe that Westerosi mindset bypasses the moral issue of the hostage problem by shifting responsibility to the hostage's family. And, while (I suppose that) it might feel very wrong to individuals who are more morally driven, the reason that it continues to be a general practice is because it does function as a threat, because it is generally believed that the threat will be carried out and because it seems to be an acceptable practice by the general "public opinion": the hostage ceases to be viewed as just an innocent child but as fair game leverage.

We *must* accept that killing hostages is actually practiced, and often enough I would add (so that there is living memory of the sentence being carried out), by people generally viewed as decent: otherwise, no one would ever believe in the threat, and as a result no 'decent', or wishing to be viewed as such, --in the westerosi context and meaning-- person would still bother to take hostages, therefore the practice would have practically stopped and it would be viewed as extreme. But we have many clues that this is not the case.

 

The hostage/ward does, potentially, have an added value of growing into an ally but, as Theon's case proves, it is a double edged sword and you really never know how it will turn out: it's a gamble and you might very well end up with a resident enemy.

 

Also, it is important to notice that hostages are not necessarily heirs; in fact, more often that not, they aren't. So it is not like they raise the next lord/lady, to replace his/her enemy father with an ally; even if s/he is the heir, being away and raised by 'the enemy' weakens his/her position and might lead to be usurped by a 'local' who has the support of the local population. It seems to me that the political value of the hostages is much more likely to remain high as long as their families remain in power, supposing that they care for their wellbeing (and don't give them up as dead).

 

To the last part, I think that it is more complex than the situation of the relevent Davos' quote: it is not against the vague notion of the 'kingdom' or the 'greater good': it's against very foreseeable (and of a very deterministic nature, nothing like abstract promises of magic) consequences that involve the lives of other innocent children, women and old men (such as the one Jon decided not to kill). The mountain clans have very real and severe reasons to be worried about. I am not saying it makes it morally OK to kill children but then, if the ruler can't follow through with the threat because it's immoral then it is HIS/HER responsibility to know that in advance, to not take hostages in the first place and to find other ways of leverage that they are able to actually use. Otherwise, the deaths of all these other innocent victims are on the ruler's hands - s/he doesn't get out morally "persil", either way.

 

 

ETA - I forgot to conclude  :)

In my view, "I am a son of Eddard Stark" means, without a doubt, that he would follow through with killing hostages - hating himself for doing it for the rest of his life. 

[butterbumps!]

idk if this changes the way to answer the question, but, to be honest, I'm not entirely sure the hostages are for the benefit of the wildlings keeping peace so much as a way for Jon to convince the clansmen that he's in control in a way that they'd understand and accept.  

 

That the wildlings are acutely aware of the Others is, I think, the much larger motivator for cooperation than the hostages.   But since the clansmen wouldn't be convinced by that assurance, doing this in terms of hostages is how Jon sold them on the wildling relocation plan.   

[ShadowCat Rivers]

idk if this changes the way to answer the question, but, to be honest, I'm not entirely sure the hostages are for the benefit of the wildlings keeping peace so much as a way for Jon to convince the clansmen that he's in control in a way that they'd understand and accept.  

 

That the wildlings are acutely aware of the Others is, I think, the much larger motivator for cooperation than the hostages.   But since the clansmen wouldn't be convinced by that assurance, doing this in terms of hostages is how Jon sold them on the wildling relocation plan.   

 

I don't know. What keeps them there, at the Wall, and not flooding South, for examble... Not everyone would be motivated to stay there to fight the Others and it's not like they have a good life at the Wall. Sure they'd know that it would be difficult, dangerous and potentially destructive for their part, but some of them migh conclude that it's worth the risk anyway.

Point being, keeping order at the Wall with all those (desperate) people is not an easy thing at all, the danger is existing, and real measures are seriously needed, not as a facade to convince the clansmen.

[SeanF]

 

 

I believe that Westerosi mindset bypasses the moral issue of the hostage problem by shifting responsibility to the hostage's family. And, while (I suppose that) it might feel very wrong to individuals who are more morally driven, the reason that it continues to be a general practice is because it does function as a threat, because it is generally believed that the threat will be carried out and because it seems to be an acceptable practice by the general "public opinion": the hostage ceases to be viewed as just an innocent child but as fair game leverage.

We *must* accept that killing hostages is actually practiced, and often enough I would add (so that there is living memory of the sentence being carried out), by people generally viewed as decent: otherwise, no one would ever believe in the threat, and as a result no 'decent', or wishing to be viewed as such, --in the westerosi context and meaning-- person would still bother to take hostages, therefore the practice would have practically stopped and it would be viewed as extreme. But we have many clues that this is not the case.

 

The hostage/ward does, potentially, have an added value of growing into an ally but, as Theon's case proves, it is a double edged sword and you really never know how it will turn out: it's a gamble and you might very well end up with a resident enemy.

 

Also, it is important to notice that hostages are not necessarily heirs; in fact, more often that not, they aren't. So it is not like they raise the next lord/lady, to replace his/her enemy father with an ally; even if s/he is the heir, being away and raised by 'the enemy' weakens his/her position and might lead to be usurped by a 'local' who has the support of the local population. It seems to me that the political value of the hostages is much more likely to remain high as long as their families remain in power, supposing that they care for their wellbeing (and don't give them up as dead).

 

To the last part, I think that it is more complex than the situation of the relevent Davos' quote: it is not against the vague notion of the 'kingdom' or the 'greater good': it's against very foreseeable (and of a very deterministic nature, nothing like abstract promises of magic) consequences that involve the lives of other innocent children, women and old men (such as the one Jon decided not to kill). The mountain clans have very real and severe reasons to be worried about. I am not saying it makes it morally OK to kill children but then, if the ruler can't follow through with the threat because it's immoral then it is HIS/HER responsibility to know that in advance, to not take hostages in the first place and to find other ways of leverage that they are able to actually use. Otherwise, the deaths of all these other innocent victims are on the ruler's hands - s/he doesn't get out morally "persil", either way.

 

 

ETA - I forgot to conclude  :)

In my view, "I am a son of Eddard Stark" means, without a doubt, that he would follow through with killing hostages - hating himself for doing it for the rest of his life. 

 

I think that killing hostages is practised often enough to make it a potential deterrent.

 

But, I don't think it's the only available option to the hostage-taker, in the event that the family rebels.  The advantage of having younger sons, or nephews as hostages, is that you have someone who could be sufficiently ambitious to rule their family's domain as your vassal.  And, that's another form of deterrent.

[butterbumps!]

 

I don't know. What keeps them there, at the Wall, and not flooding South, for examble... Not everyone would be motivated to stay there to fight the Others and it's not like they have a good life at the Wall. Sure they'd know that it would be difficult, dangerous and potentially destructive for their part, but some of them migh conclude that it's worth the risk anyway.

Point being, keeping order at the Wall with all those (desperate) people is not an easy thing at all, the danger is existing, and real measures are seriously needed, not as a facade to convince the clansmen.

 

He's keeping order at the Wall by putting a bunch of wildlings and wildling-friendly leaders in charge at all those castles, and providing food and shelter in the face of total destruction.   I mean, influential wildlings are themselves strongly in favor of cooperation, so there's even control within the wildlings themselves.   

 

I really think the hostage thing is more about political theatre for the clansmen and some of the Watchmen than it is a compelling power-check for the wildlings on its own.   Some truculent wildlings could be swayed by the perceived threat, but really, the hostage-taking was his main marketing pitch to those behind the Wall.   Not to mention a way to create more Watchmen.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

But, I don't think it's the only available option to the hostage-taker, in the event that the family rebels.  The advantage of having younger sons, or nephews as hostages, is that you have someone who could be sufficiently ambitious to rule their family's domain as your vassal.

 

I don't think that this is the reason for taking hostages though; it's a potential secondary advantage, perhaps, but not the reason. It could function in the same way that forced marriages to the daughters of the defeated do, but it presupposes that you must forst defeat the rebels. And needless to say, it utterly failed as a deterrent measure, meaning -among other things- that the person you hold may not command enough respect in his/her domains, to be a useful toof for you.

[SeanF]

 

 

 

 

Perhaps... Yet, killing children, killing the innocent, as a morally unacceptable choice is a huge theme in these novels.

 

 

 

Pragmatic arguments for killing children are made sufficiently often (by Stannis, Varys, the Shavepate, Darkstar) and rejected sufficiently often for us to see it as the step that decent people can't bring themselves to take.

 

I think we'd view characters like Ned, Dany, Arianne, very differently if they'd gone down that route.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

 

He's keeping order at the Wall by putting a bunch of wildlings and wildling-friendly leaders in charge at all those castles, and providing food and shelter in the face of total destruction.   I mean, influential wildlings are themselves strongly in favor of cooperation, so there's even control within the wildlings themselves.   

 

I really think the hostage thing is more about political theatre for the clansmen and some of the Watchmen than it is a compelling power-check for the wildlings on its own.   Some truculent wildlings could be swayed by the perceived threat, but really, the hostage-taking was his main marketing pitch to those behind the Wall.   Not to mention a way to create more Watchmen.

 

And it's a bit of an extra insurance that influential wildlings have given children of their own as hostages, no?

 

I do not underestimate the significance of the hostages as a tool to convince and reassure the northmen and parts of the Watch that the deal will be kept. But I believe it is more of a wish to just dismiss as nonexistent the possibility that it might have come to that. It would have been, IMO, a very realistic scenario that Jon might have had to take a decision about killing a hostage or not.

(And then, my view is that he would).