Olly didn't deserve that

[Meera of Tarth]

23 hours ago, ArabellaVidal said:

My problem with this scene has little to do with whether or not Olly should have paid for his part in the treachery. First of all, why only these four people? Secondly, did the camera need to linger on the face of what was essentially a dead child? If showing Stannis' execution would have been gratuitous, what was this? Thirdly, by what logic is Jon the lawful person to pass sentence and execute any of the traitors, especially since he acknowledges after the hangings that he is no longer the LC? Either Jon's vows were not null and void at the event of his death and he had the authority to do this and he committed treason himself by deserting the Watch; or his watch did end with his death and he committed an act of arrant vengeance upon the four unlawfully condemned and executed because he no longer had the right to do so. Ned's execution of the deserter from s1 comes to mind. Ned was Warden of the North. What is Jon's status/authority? The issue becomes even more complicated by his own desertion/murder.

In light of this scenario, Olly's death becomes even more disturbing particularly if this is a flaw in the narrative (indicated by the lack of uproar by the NW) and not a signal to Jon becoming darker (in which case people in the NW need to react to his actions with a call for justice).

1. Good point. Something is gratuitous when they decide it to be. Or Maybe Brienne made a Stannisburger.....because she is so brute.............
2. I'm not very concerned about this, but that's a plothole. Apparently, he decides his Watch has ended because he has died, but I think it's like burocracy: maybe on the paper, your watch has ended, but you have a few hours/days before it can be formally  applied. So he was a temporarily LC when he killed the traitors, before the next LC is formally the next LC. It's the only reasonable explanation I can find. Anyway, the situation was weird in itself: it has never happened before, so they can be less rigid in that sense. 

 

[Ingelheim]

As tragic as Ollie was, he deserved the punishment. He is a member of the NW, and he killed his LC and friend, the one who named him Steward and looked after him.

Also, he already got his revenge. He killed Ygritte, and Jon killed Styr. His hatred towards the wildlings does not mean he is free to murder and betray his LC.

 

[autarkh]

Not keen on executing kids, but within the terms of the show, for the crimes of treason and pre-meditated murder, Olly deserved exactly what he got. 

He's basically Brutus minus the ostensible noble motive to save the Republic, because the animosity toward Jon in the show is driven by resentment of the Wildlings, not any decision by Jon to take part in Northern politics.  But Jon's letting the Wildlings across the Wall, in light of the threat posed by the Others, is pretty unassailable. It could have been sold better, maybe. But poor persuasion doesn't excuse or even mitigate the Olly's culpability in killing Jon.   

[Maid So Fair]

I think that to be upset about Olly you first have to take him seriously as a character and the show has made him so obnoxious that's its hard to see him as more than a toxic plot device. They've tried way too hard to make people like him and have produced the opposite effect. I have mourned the death of the Northern plotline,which he helped to assassinate, more than I have ever cared about Olly.

[Vastet]

This is war. I tend to lean liberal generally, and in other circumstances I too would be against execution. But there's a time and place for compassion and understanding. A war for your very existence is not that time. The insurrectionists chose to ignore the fact they were weakening their own side. None of them can be permitted a second chance. They all must die.

[INCBlackbird]

Just to clarify, I can understand if you're happy he's dead cause he was a bad character (I am too). That's not what I'm talking about. i'm also not talking about "according to the law in westeros...." or "he had to die for the greater good" I'm talking about whether or not he deserved it. It can perfectly be possible for someone to have to die for the greater good and that being the best opition available but that still wouldn't mean that person deserves it.

[Cas Stark]

3 minutes ago, INCBlackbird said:

Just to clarify, I can understand if you're happy he's dead cause he was a bad character (I am too). That's not what I'm talking about. i'm also not talking about "according to the law in westeros...." or "he had to die for the greater good" I'm talking about whether or not he deserved it. It can perfectly be possible for someone to have to die for the greater good and that being the best opition available but that still wouldn't mean that person deserves it.

Yes, he deserved it as a character.  He was taken under Jon Snow's protection, elevated to his steward, taken into his confidence, to be groomed for command.  Not only did he betray all of this trust, but he took arguably the most active role, by delivering the lie about Benjen to get Jon outside.  Why would his life be spared?  If anything, he should have had MORE allegiance to Jon personally than to the NW.  And, also he never even bothers to confront Jon, he talks to Sam but blows off the answer.

Of course he mostly deserved death for the 1000000 reaction shots of his grimace and evil eye looks and being a terrible cardboard cliche.

[INCBlackbird]

9 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Yes, he deserved it as a character.  He was taken under Jon Snow's protection, elevated to his steward, taken into his confidence, to be groomed for command.  Not only did he betray all of this trust, but he took arguably the most active role, by delivering the lie about Benjen to get Jon outside.  Why would his life be spared?  If anything, he should have had MORE allegiance to Jon personally than to the NW.  And, also he never even bothers to confront Jon, he talks to Sam but blows off the answer.

Of course he mostly deserved death for the 1000000 reaction shots of his grimace and evil eye looks and being a terrible cardboard cliche.

But you are judging from Jon's perspective? I'm not judging Jon for what he did, i'm judging whether or not Olly deserved to die, that means I'm looking at the situation from Olly's perspective. Have you done that? have you imagined yourself in his place, thought about why he betrayed Jon...? I mean.... I remember a certain scene where the wildlings killed his parents and then told him they were going to eat him, was he supposed to just forget about that?

[Cas Stark]

1 minute ago, INCBlackbird said:

But you are judging from Jon's perspective? I'm not judging Jon for what he did, i'm judging whether or not Olly deserved to die, that means I'm looking at the situation from Olly's perspective. Have you done that? have you imagined yourself in his place, thought about why he betrayed Jon...? I mean.... I remember a certain scene where the wildlings killed his parents and then told him they were going to eat him, was he supposed to just forget about that?

You are just excusing him.  Everyone always has some reason for whatever crimes they commit.  Wildlings killed my parents so I can betray my current protector, who showed me personal forgiveness for killing his lover...and when he, Olly, has been privy to all of Jon's meetings so he should know that like, the army of the dead is a real thing...  Why should he get a pass?

[INCBlackbird]

5 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

You are just excusing him.  Everyone always has some reason for whatever crimes they commit.  Wildlings killed my parents so I can betray my current protector, who showed me personal forgiveness for killing his lover...and when he, Olly, has been privy to all of Jon's meetings so he should know that like, the army of the dead is a real thing...  Why should he get a pass?

I'm not excusing him, I just understand why he did what he did. And yes, everyone has reasons and those reasons should be examined because they can be valid not valid, in Olly's case I think they were valid. This kid had every reason to believe the wildlings were bad news, he saw it first hand, can't expect him to be objective on the matter. And the Ygritte thing, i'm sure it was hard for Jon but ygritte killed Olly's father right in front of him, not to mention that at that point Olly had no way of knowing that Jon had any kind of relationship with her, for all he knew she was about the kill Jon (which she probably was anyways) So I don't think Olly needs to be forgiven for that... (I also wouldn't have blamed Jon if he'd sent him away though, because I could understand that from his perspective, just like I understand Olly from his perspetive)

[Le Cygne]

1 hour ago, Cas Stark said:

Yes, he deserved it as a character.  He was taken under Jon Snow's protection, elevated to his steward, taken into his confidence, to be groomed for command.  Not only did he betray all of this trust, but he took arguably the most active role, by delivering the lie about Benjen to get Jon outside.  Why would his life be spared?  If anything, he should have had MORE allegiance to Jon personally than to the NW.  And, also he never even bothers to confront Jon, he talks to Sam but blows off the answer.

Of course he mostly deserved death for the 1000000 reaction shots of his grimace and evil eye looks and being a terrible cardboard cliche.

The bold especially.

But seriously, he committed a serious crime, for which the penalty was death. It would have been very odd had he not been punished.

(And yes, we are kidding about the bold... the character is cardboard...)

[INCBlackbird]

2 minutes ago, Le Cygne said:

The bold especially.

But seriously, he committed a serious crime, for which the penalty was death. It would have been very odd had he not been punished.

Just because the penalty is death doesn't mean that punishment is deserved. In the middle east the punishment for women who get raped is to be stoned to death, I hope we all agree that they don't deserve that. Just because a certain punishment is part of a culture doesn't mean that punishment is just or deserved.

[Jan Snieg]

He had to die. He commited the highest treason, no matter the reasons. Can u really see him sticking around after what he did? Who could trust him after that? Im kinda dissapointed that he didnt say his last words.

[Le Cygne]

On 5/12/2016 at 5:00 PM, thehandwipes said:

I didn't deserve to be subject that god awful D&D created "character" (ie nodding cardboard cutout).  And I think that's where the joy over his death is coming from, although I was sincerely praying he was gonna nod at Jon one last time before he was hung.

That having been said, its got nothing to do with the actor that plays Olly.  I can't say whether he was really very good or not, as he wasn't given anything to work with, but Daniel Day Lewis couldn't nod any better.

Yeah, I think it was difficult to take the character seriously, so that's where some of the reactions are coming from. Plus he killed Jon Snow.

[Cas Stark]

3 minutes ago, INCBlackbird said:

Just because the penalty is death doesn't mean that punishment is deserved. In the middle east the punishment for women who get raped is to be stoned to death, I hope we all agree that they don't deserve that. Just because a certain punishment is part of a culture doesn't mean that punishment is just or deserved.

Killing your commanding officer is a big deal.  If such treason isn't punished severely then order can't be maintained.  Everything falls apart.  All of the traitors believed they had good reason for what they did, they believed they were the ones upholding the right side...just like assassins think they're justified and so do terrorists.  But, society can't function unless these types of transgressions come with the most severe penalty.

What would you think should have been done to Olly and the rest of the traitors?  Surely you aren't giving just Olly a pass when he has the least reason of any of them to betray Jon.

[INCBlackbird]

1 minute ago, Jan Snieg said:

He had to die. He commited the highest treason, no matter the reasons. Can u really see him sticking around after what he did? Who could trust him after that? Im kinda dissapointed that he didnt say his last words.

No, I didn't see him stick arround, and I didn't want him to either, i'm glad he's gone for plot reasons and because he was a bad character. And I also think that what happened is quite normal in this world, they do not consider mitigating circemstances, but "I" do, and I don't think he deserved it. I would have expected more people think so but apparently most people seem to think that the people in universe consider it just, it "is" just, I don't agree with that. This universe isn't just to begin with, most of the laws aren't either so I don't think that the law is any way to termine whether or not he deserved what he got or not.

[Le Cygne]

10 minutes ago, INCBlackbird said:

Just because the penalty is death doesn't mean that punishment is deserved.

No, but I am saying that I don't blame Jon for this particular thing. I'm not talking about anything else.

[INCBlackbird]

1 minute ago, Cas Stark said:

Killing your commanding officer is a big deal.  If such treason isn't punished severely then order can't be maintained.  Everything falls apart.  All of the traitors believed they had good reason for what they did, they believed they were the ones upholding the right side...just like assassins think they're justified and so do terrorists.  But, society can't function unless these types of transgressions come with the most severe penalty.

What would you think should have been done to Olly and the rest of the traitors?  Surely you aren't giving just Olly a pass when he has the least reason of any of them to betray Jon.

Again, I'm not talking about the law or even why it's there. I know that treason is a big deal and vows are a big deal because it's their best way to keep everything under control. But something being nessacary, still is not the same as someone deserving what they got.

How does Olly have the least reason? he's the one who saw the wildlings kill his family, plus he's a child...

[INCBlackbird]

2 minutes ago, Le Cygne said:

No, but I am saying that I don't blame Jon for this particular thing. I'm not talking about anything else.

I don't blame Jon either, not one bit. But just because I don't blame Jon doesn't mean that I need to think that Olly deserved it. i'm perfectly capable of looking at the situation from both of their perspective and understanding them both. I don't need to pick a side and become all black and white about the side I'm against...

[Cas Stark]

1 minute ago, INCBlackbird said:

Again, I'm not talking about the law or even why it's there. I know that treason is a big deal and vows are a big deal because it's their best way to keep everything under control. But something being nessacary, still is not the same as someone deserving what they got.

How does Olly have the least reason? he's the one who saw the wildlings kill his family, plus he's a child...

Because Jon showed him extreme kindness by making him his steward.  That a personal, father/son type of relationship far beyond just being a NW brother.

The rest of the NW have a few reasons already to distrust Jon, starting with the fact that he killed the halfhand and was friendly with the wildlings long before there was any substantiated army of the dead.  All of this was before Olly's time, so it has no bearing on how he sees Jon, all he knows of Jon is a guy who took special care of him, and who he betrayed.