Bowen Marsh was right to remove Jon from office.

[kissdbyfire]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, that's quite clear. Mance and Benjen were also visiting Winterfell while they served. And the wandering crows do a job. But if you leave the Wall without permission of your superiors you are a deserter by default. If you return late from a ranging for a (good) reason you are not, of course. If some of your brothers see you with the wildlings you are. And so on.

But the Lord Commander cannot declare on the Seven Kingdoms (i.e. the realms of men) without, well, being killed by his own men or expecting to face an attempt on his life.

Oh goody, we finally agree! Because since Jon is the freaking Lord Commander, he has no "superior". Problem solved!

 

[SFDanny]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That really depends. If the Wall could keep the zombies out - and we don't yet that it can't - then it is irrelevant how many wildlings become wights.

It doesn't depend if you are a member of the Free Folk who are being kept out of safety behind the Wall, and it shouldn't depend for a Lord Commander whose mission it is to protect them from the Others. Clearly in both cases, it matters if thousands upon thousands of people are callously left to become zombies. This is not a simple tactical calculation. It is, and should be, a moral imperative. Jon gets this. Marsh doesn't.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But Jon simply can't do that. He cannot magically create food, nor is gold going to help him with getting food when it is really scarce. If the Reach is going to suffer a full-scale war, if not only the Riverlands and portions of the Crownlands, the West, and the North are going to have to buy food from other regions to feed their people in winter (as they already do), but large tracts of the Reach and the Stormlands as well (as things are looking right now) then nobody is going to sell food to the NW if they can also make huge profits by selling it to the wealthy lords of the Seven Kingdoms, from Dorne to the Wall.

Jon has a good priority but if he has to kill Northmen to see and understand those priorities he is as much an unwitting ally of the Others as Robert, Eddard, or Robb. It does not matter that he kills men who could guard the Wall for a good reason. It matters that he kills them.

We don't know if Jon's plan will work. What we do know is that Marsh's plan won't work if by work it includes the goal of saving the lives of the Free Folk, or of bringing them into an army that can both guard the Wall and fight the Others. Marsh's plan would have the few men who make up the Night's Watch man the Wall by themselves while they seal the gates of all the castles of the Watch except three. That his what he advocates and it would be a disaster.

We do know Jon's plan not only is to save wildlings beyond the Wall, but it is to use them to augment the Watch in the Wall's defense. It is to continue to plea with all the contending forces in Westeros to send aid to the Wall, but to take action even if they don't. It is to win the people of the North to his cause and bring them together with the wildlings to fight as one. In that regard, the immediate dangers include getting the Free Folk to fight under his leadership and to eliminate the Bolton's leadership of the North who refuse to  consider anything but the submission of all other people to their rule. A rule that has nothing to do with fighting the threat of the Others. His plan to march on Winterfell with a army of Free Folk stands a better chance of accomplishing those last two aims than sitting back and submitting to Ramsay's threats.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

I disagree, but you already knew that. I don't care one fig if Jon's decisions made him a treasonous oathbreaker, because I still think those were the right decisions, every last one of them. And C3PO (sorry, can't remember the poster's name, will come back and edit in a bit) @cpg2016 made some excellent points about Jon's so-called desertion and all that. Dareon is a slightly different situation, but it isn't a discussion that belongs here.

Well, I guess then preferences have gotten the better of you, I guess. Jon's story is supposed to be controversial, just as Dunk's actions leading to the death of Baelor Breakspear is supposed to be controversial. There is no easy answer to that.

But there is an easy answer to the question whether Jon's killers were justified in doing it. And they were. Denying that is ridiculous. Walder Frey also had a very good reason to turn against Robb.

Quote

I can't even. Everyone has the right to kill anyone who, in their view, has committed a crime? Maybe we're reading different books... that would explain why we never seem to agree on anything. 

That is the part of being an outlaw. If you are an outlaw anyone can kill you. And if you desert the Watch you become an outlaw by default.

Quote

In your opinion. In mine it means Ramsay had access to the pink wax but not the seal, something Roose probably guards very closely. So, Ramsay simply applied a smear of pink wax thinking it would be enough to pass the letter as being a proper Bolton letter. 

That is a possibility but not all that likely. Nothing indicates that Roose participated in the writing of the earlier letters. Roose didn't sign those, either. And Roose has no reason whatsoever to object to the Pink Letter just as he had no reason to object to any of the other intimidation letters Ramsay wrote earlier. Roose has no disadvantage whatsoever from that letter.

40 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

@Lord Varys when you say, "Dunk wasn't a knight" it becomes clear why we can't agree on stuff. You are correct, Dunk wasn't a knight, at least not when we first meet him, and he is posing as one. Brienne isn't a knight either... and yet, these two non-knights, who according to you don't even have the right to claim their were doing their knightly duties when they protect the weak and the innocent, are the truest, most valiant embodiment of knighthood in the story. But you probably think they're not worthy of licking the boots of the likes of Boros Blount or Meryn Trant. Go figure. 

Why do you have to make this about personal preferences, insinuating I like people like Blount or Trant?

Dunk lives up to the knightly ideal right now, but we'll have to wait and see what he does when he is actually a Kingsguard and it is King Aerys' or King Maekar's or King Aegon's wishes or life against the well-being or life of an innocent... What decision will he make then?

And what about Brienne? We don't know what Catelyn will do to Jaime but she may believe that Cat is going to kill him. Was that the right decision?

There is no easy answer to all that because the author likes to put his characters into conflicts where you can understand both sides of the story. 

27 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Oh goody, we finally agree! Because since Jon is the freaking Lord Commander, he has no "superior". Problem solved!

Well, no because the Lord Commander cannot decide that his duty or post are now in Winterfell. He has to remain at Wall and do his duty there. Else Lord Bloodraven could have taken the black and continued to serve as Aegon V's Hand, couldn't he?

25 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

It doesn't depend if you are a member of the Free Folk who are being kept out of safety behind the Wall, and it shouldn't depend for a Lord Commander whose mission it is to protect them from the Others. Clearly in both cases, it matters if thousands upon thousands of people are callously left to become zombies. This is not a simple tactical calculation. It is, and should be, a moral imperative. Jon gets this. Marsh doesn't.

Sure, but that is moral decision is also endangering the Wall in a number of ways.

1. The situation with the food and clothing. It is good to help refugees but the NW are a military order, not a refugee relief effort. They don't have the resources at the Wall to help the wildlings. And if they help them anyway - like Jon does - the Watch will suffer (as it does throughout ADwD). And with the Watch suffers the mission of the Watch.

2. The way this is seen in the South - both in the North and beyond the Neck. The wildlings are seen as the enemies of the Seven Kingdoms. Anybody making common cause with them could be seen as a person trying to attack or invade the Realm (as both Stannis and then Jon actually intend to do), and that could lead to the lords of the Realm refuse to support the Watch even once they actually believe the Others are a thing because they will consider their allies against this wildlings army/secessionist movement.

25 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

We don't know if Jon's plan will work. What we do know is that Marsh's plan won't work if by work it includes the goal of saving the lives of the Free Folk, or of bringing them into an army that can both guard the Wall and fight the Others. Marsh's plan would have the few men who make up the Night's Watch man the Wall by themselves while they seal the gates of all the castles of the Watch except three. That his what he advocates and it would be a disaster.

We actually don't know that. But Marsh seems to have come around to the wildlings thing, at least to a degree. He does not kill Jon over opening the gates, he kills him over the Pink Letter affair.

I don't defend Marsh's take on the entire thing. He is very limited there. I'm just saying his objections to Jon's plans have merit.

The right thing would have been to not antagonize the Boltons and try to win the support of the Northmen and eventually the entire Seven Kingdoms against the Others. If Jon had gotten permission from some Northern lords to settle wildlings or other lands to send them down south to settle them in the Reach or the Stormlands that would have been fine. But feeding them on the scarce resources of the Watch is not helping the mission. 

And especially the Hardhome mission overland (not via ship) was suicidal. Selyse is right on that one. She very poignantly makes it clear that this mission is going to lead to Jon's death, and most likely all the men he takes with him.

25 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

We do know Jon's plan not only is to save wildlings beyond the Wall, but it is to use them to augment the Watch in the Wall's defense. It is to continue to plea with all the contending forces in Westeros to send aid to the Wall, but to take action even if they don't. It is to win the people of the North to his cause and bring them together with the wildlings to fight as one. In that regard, the immediate dangers include getting the Free Folk to fight under his leadership and to eliminate the Bolton's leadership of the North who refuse to  consider anything but the submission of all other people to their rule. A rule that has nothing to do with fighting the threat of the Others. His plan to march on Winterfell with a army of Free Folk stands a better chance of accomplishing those last two aims than sitting back and submitting to Ramsay's threats.

The Watch doesn't have the resources to man all the castles. Jon is gambling with the lives of the men who elected him, the men he is responsible for. The wildlings don't made him Lord Commander, his own sworn brothers did. And he has an obligation to them. He has no right to give away the winter provisions to other people, nor does he have a right to suddenly triple or quadruple the men in the Watch without having a really good plan how to feed all those people.

Again, if the Others come knocking only in few years in a winter lasting half a decade or more then they might win precisely because Jon manned all those castles with wildlings because they have either all starved to death or too weak to fight efficiently against the wights.

But the really crucial thing is his attack against the Boltons. This infighting helps only the Others. He has the grace to forgive a man like the Weeper but not the Boltons? That is just wrong. If he had reached out both to King Tommen and the Boltons the same way he did reach out to Tormund I'd not complain. But he did not.

[kissdbyfire]

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, I guess then preferences have gotten the better of you, I guess. Jon's story is supposed to be controversial, just as Dunk's actions leading to the death of Baelor Breakspear is supposed to be controversial. There is no easy answer to that.

What preferences? I'm not sure what you mean by that. And of course there's internal struggles, inner conflicts, bad and good decisions, etc etc, the whole 9. And what matters is not a stupid fucking vow - words are wind! - but if one is capable of making the right choices, regardless of how hard or unpopular they might be. And wrong again, because both Jon and Dunk did the right thing, regardless of how hard or unpopular... I feel like I'm repeating myself. I'm sure you get the gist. So, no, the answer is really, really easy. 

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

But there is an easy answer to the question whether Jon's killers were justified in doing it. And they were. Denying that is ridiculous. Walder Frey also had a very good reason to turn against Robb.

No, it's not ridiculous. It's because different people have different opinions on things. And I had abso-fucking-lutely no doubts you would think Walder Frey was justified. 

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That is the part of being an outlaw. If you are an outlaw anyone can kill you. And if you desert the Watch you become an outlaw by default.

I am sorry, but this make no sense whatsoever. 

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That is a possibility but not all that likely. Nothing indicates that Roose participated in the writing of the earlier letters. Roose didn't sign those, either. And Roose has no reason whatsoever to object to the Pink Letter just as he had no reason to object to any of the other intimidation letters Ramsay wrote earlier. Roose has no disadvantage whatsoever from that letter.

We'll find out sooner or later.

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Why do you have to make this about personal preferences, insinuating I like people like Blount or Trant?

Huh? I never made it about personal preferences at all, and I never insinuated anything. Perhaps more reading comprehension fail on your part? I simply picked what I thought, and still think, were good examples. On one hand, A) Dunk and great-granddaughter Brienne, both non-knights. On the other hand, Blount and Trant, two "proper knights" -  - who serve as Kingsguards to boot. Compare the two pairs, and tell me which pair, A or B, is the embodiment of knighthood? Hint: THE ANSWER IS "A".

 

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Dunk lives up to the knightly ideal right now, but we'll have to wait and see what he does when he is actually a Kingsguard and it is King Aerys' or King Maekar's or King Aegon's wishes or life against the well-being or life of an innocent... What decision will he make then?

Sure, anything is possible. But I don't find it very likely, tbh. 

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And what about Brienne? We don't know what Catelyn will do to Jaime but she may believe that Cat is going to kill him. Was that the right decision?

Cat is dead. But I think there's a very good chance that LSH will want Jaime killed. Brienne will never in a gazillion years do it. And yes, it will absolutely be the right decision. 

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

There is no easy answer to all that because the author likes to put his characters into conflicts where you can understand both sides of the story. 

He develops the characters, yes? So that whatever happens to them in the next chapter is not some preposterous asspull that comes outta nowhere. And yeah, I agree, to a point, that Martin is really good at making you see both or even several sides of a conflict. But that is not the same thing as "there's no easy answer". In some of these conflicts, I find the answers to be extremely easy. 

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, no because the Lord Commander cannot decide that his duty or post are now in Winterfell. He has to remain at Wall and do his duty there. Else Lord Bloodraven could have taken the black and continued to serve as Aegon V's Hand, couldn't he?

He is the Lord Commander. He is the Big Kahuna. He can order any crow, himself included, to carry out any orders that he considers part of his duties to defend the realms of men. 

Wut. The Bloodraven argument is ludicrous b/c serving as Hand to a King on the IT has fuck all to do w/ the LC's duty of defending humanity.

 

[Lord Varys]

3 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

What preferences? I'm not sure what you mean by that. And of course there's internal struggles, inner conflicts, bad and good decisions, etc etc, the whole 9. And what matters is not a stupid fucking vow - words are wind! - but if one is capable of making the right choices, regardless of how hard or unpopular they might be. And wrong again, because both Jon and Dunk did the right thing, regardless of how hard or unpopular... I feel like I'm repeating myself. I'm sure you get the gist. So, no, the answer is really, really easy. 

Words are not wind. That is part of the themes of this series. People kill you because of the words you speak. And they hold you responsible to things you promise.

You seem to suggest that promises and vows are all binding and only matter if you make (and break) the right promises. Defending the realms of men the way you (re-)define it is okay, but doing it another way is wrong. But those aren't the rules of this world.

3 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

No, it's not ridiculous. It's because different people have different opinions on things. And I had abso-fucking-lutely no doubts you would think Walder Frey was justified. 

Don't you think he was justified in being angry about the broken promise? Do you deny that he had the right to demand Robb's life for this? The Red Wedding can't be justified but abandoning, betraying, and killing Robb over this is fine by the standards of this world.

3 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

I am sorry, but this make no sense whatsoever. 

Sure, it does. If you an outlaw in a medieval society everybody has the right to kill you with impunity. That's what an outlaw is. And Jon became an outlaw in the eyes of Marsh and his allies when he declared that he would march a wildling army against Winterfell.

3 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Huh? I never made it about personal preferences at all, and I never insinuated anything. Perhaps more reading comprehension fail on your part? I simply picked what I thought, and still think, were good examples. On one hand, A) Dunk and great-granddaughter Brienne, both non-knights. On the other hand, Blount and Trant, two "proper knights" -  - who serve as Kingsguards to boot. Compare the two pairs, and tell me which pair, A or B, is the embodiment of knighthood? Hint: THE ANSWER IS "A".

Yeah, but we are in agreement on that. I don't like Trant and Blount either but you made it appear as that's what I most likely do.

Blount is a failure both as a knight and a Kingsguard, by the way.

3 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Sure, anything is possible. But I don't find it very likely, tbh. 

So you think Dunk did 'the right thing' when he fought a trial-by-combat against the Laughing Storm, defending the honor of either his king or that king's heir? He risked killing an old friend in that trial, a man who risked his own life to defend Dunk's life and honor back at Ashford all those years ago? 

And that's just one potentially controversial example we know of.

3 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Cat is dead. But I think there's a very good chance that LSH will want Jaime killed. Brienne will never in a gazillion years do it. And yes, it will absolutely be the right decision. 

Brienne essentially lured Jaime into a trap and enabled Catelyn to kill him. And that is still her name. Was this the right thing to do? In light of the fact that she pretty much loves the man thinks he is a good guy?

3 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

He develops the characters, yes? So that whatever happens to them in the next chapter is not some preposterous asspull that comes outta nowhere. And yeah, I agree, to a point, that Martin is really good at making you see both or even several sides of a conflict. But that is not the same thing as "there's no easy answer". In some of these conflicts, I find the answers to be extremely easy. 

You know, I sure as hell would have done exactly the same things as Jon in ADwD. Aside from, perhaps, not ignoring my wolf or sending away most of my closest friends. I'd not care about words I spoke when the lives of beloved family members were at stake. I'd also have named my replaced the old guard with my own men. My own Lord Steward and sure as hell my own caretaker of the ravens.

But I can be of this opinion and still agree that the people killing Jon were perfectly right from their point of view. Jon broke his vows, and those who do that are punished very harshly in this world.

I don't think Jaime should have killed Aerys II (especially if he intended to live thereafter) but I certainly agree with his betrayal of him and the murder of Rossart and in general his decision to abandon Aerys.

3 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

He is the Lord Commander. He is the Big Kahuna. He can order any crow, himself included, to carry out any orders that he considers part of his duties to defend the realms of men. 

No, he can't do that. He has a mission within certain boundaries and he cannot simply decide on a whim to defend the realms of men in front of the gates of Winterfell, or something. That's just crap. The Watch operates at the Wall, in the Gifts, and beyond the Wall. They have no right to interfere with things in the Seven Kingdoms. Just as Lord Tully has no right to interfere with how Lord Tyrell treats his wife, children, retainers or peasants.

3 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Wut. The Bloodraven argument is ludicrous b/c serving as Hand to a King on the IT has fuck all to do w/ the LC's duty of defending humanity.

How is that ludicrous? Brynden Rivers could have taken the black and then the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch could have appointed him his liaison at court. A sworn brother of the Night's Watch serving as the Hand certainly could have helped the cause of the NW at court.

But we do very much know that aside from the wandering crows and very scarce family visits the place of the black brothers is at the Wall. You go there and you never come back. Your place is there. No Lord Commander of the NW can reinterpret his vows meaning that the walls he watches are, say, in Qarth or Asshai, and that he is defending 'the realms of men' there from their enemies.

And Jon himself makes it clear that what he is going to do is breaking his vow. He accepts this. And so should we. He also doesn't give the rationale that defeating Ramsay is necessary to deal with the Others.

[giant snake]

I don't care if people disagree with me but I think we're just engaging in pure sophism at this point if we are arguing over Jon's actual motivations.  We have his damn POV which means we can literally read his mind.  We have the perspective of the whole world that no single character has.  The pro-Bowen argument I'm seeing here is just being autistic about completely irrelevant details.  I don't mean foreshadowing or speculation, just a hair's breadth of evidence that Jon somehow violated his Oath.  They didn't present any proof or make any declarations about it.  If they had some sort of proof, they probably would have.  I mean they had to bushwack him and literally stab him in the back.  It's redonk!  Jon carried out the execution of Janos Slynt in full view of the garrison, after Slynt publicly and loudly declared his intention to not abide by his oath.  That's how it is done, with the authority of office and the Duty to dispense justice.  The conspirators made their plans whispering in the shadows...because getting caught would obviously get you thrown in an ice cell...you know, for flagrantly breaking your oath.

Somehow I get the feeling that there are people here who actually white knighted for Slynt even before ADwD came out.

 

I don't follow this Varys derail into Westeros being some sort of hopelessly flawed society.  If you hate the idea of Westeros society, why even read the books?  It makes no sense to me.  This isn't dystopian fiction.  We can talk about the merits of feudalism or whatever somewhere else.  It's not relevant to the issue.

For my money, I think the way Westeros is depicted (especially in the later books) is actually altering over time, maybe with the author's perceptions.  I don't know why it changes - lack of new ideas, increasing cynicism as GRRM gets older.  Whatever - I made a whole thread about him being increasingly negative right here:  

 

The silly thing is that why would you criticize the system from its core and, at the same time, try and justify murder because you say someone violated those same supposedly unjust laws?

[Denam_Pavel]

13 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

And still you are willfully ignoring or just not knowing of what the other four books have said about Marsh and his conspirators. And Jon's character development compared to the other "magical" ones like Bran and Dany. And you are not considering Mel in this mutiny, which is a huge mistake. You are looking at the story through a tiny pinhole perspective when it is much bigger than that. The story is a massive web of tales, and you can't remove one strand and expect it to hold up. 

What Marsh did was the same paranoia wishfullfilment that we see Cersei do with Melara. If Marsh acted alone with Mel's intervention, then Marsh was responsible for bringing down the wall, because as we are told in the books that wall is only as strong as the men who hold it, and Marsh made the red star bleed. Jon is the "sun" in this story, and the sun is a red star in George's world, so Marsh "killed" the day and brought on the night by making the red star bleed. The wall fell because of Marsh. Marsh made it happen. 

Yes, I'm looking at it through a tiny pinhole. To the argument that Marsh was just a bigot, traitor and coward and to absolutely zero degree was punishing Jon Snow for what he perceived to be a breaking of his oath and genuine endangering of the Watch only his perspective matters. The information available to Marsh. WE are inside Jon's head, can see to what degree his personal feelings influence his actions. He has massive sympathy for the wildlings, likes Mance Rayder and Tormund Giants personally as friends more then 99% of the Night's Watch, still loves his family, has desires to be Lord of Winterfell and prefers Stannis as King rather then the Lannisters. We also know that despite these things he makes decisions with the wellbeing of Watch in mind. Marsh sees these things but does not get to be inside his head. Can only judge Jon coming to rescue Arya, Stannis and Mance that subsequently would declare the Night's Watch as absolutely In Stannis' camp in this war between Houses, personally conquering Winterfell in the process from a third party perspective.

His reaction to this need not be informed by his personal feelings towards the wildling army Jon deciding to lead anymore then he himself is correct about what personal feelings Jon is letting make his decisions for him. 

13 hours ago, giant snake said:

Denam: You keep talking about everything from the character's perspective and what facts they know and don't know - I think that's a tacit admission that you know that they are in the wrong.  After the Lannisters win the first war (or first phase of the war) we see them openly plotting to subvert the Watch.  We see Slynt's betrayal firsthand.  We see Ramsay for what he is and we know all of the backstory - irrelevant.  No technicality justifies murdering your commander.  I am sure you are right that Marsh is autistic AF and able to remember details, but that isn't everything required of a soldier, and a soldier is what he is:  So you disagree with your commander and you kill him?  Basically you are advocating that somehow an abstract notion of law (because the Law itself is not personified without a Lord Commander) should just keep everyone in line, but as long as you don't disobey certain parts of your oath you can do whatever the hell you want?  That's not how a Military order works.  It's just so fuckin absurd: the fact at the end of the day is that Marsh murdered his Lord without bringing him to trial.  No amount of excuse making can make up for it.  Hell even if he was correct and Jon was wrong, he should still be executed for his actions.

 

Jon could have easily have lied or even rationalized his actions differently - everyone in the North probably knows what Ramsay is like, and how he is treacherous.  The problem is that Marsh, like all rats, shouldn't have been trusted in the first place.  They call them rats because a rat will do anything to survive.  This is overall a story of plots and betrayal - I think that we all understand the situation and if we were in their world with the knowledge we have, we would divert all of the strength of Westeros to fighting the Others.  Whether they are prescient to the facts or not, at the end of the day there are factions which think they are fighting for their own ends but who are fighting against Humanity's interests - they are on the side of the literal devil, or what passes for the devil in the world of Ice and Fire.  The Night's Watch are the ones who actually know all of this to be true.  Bowen Marsh has no excuse - he isn't a common criminal sent to the wall because nowhere else will have him.  He can't feign ignorance about the Others because, to use your logic here: They all KNOW it as a fact that they not only exist in the present but that they are on the warpath against the Wall and the lands of men.  That supersedes any technicality he wants to fixate on to justify his actions - he is literally breaking the oath of the Watch directly (to protect the realms of men) so any horseshit about Jon not doing things in proper form can be dismissed outright.  

More than that, he's a rat who cares more about preserving his pathetic existence for as long as possible and will throw the entire world under just to have it.  Loathsome! 

First of all everyone in the North does NOT know what Ramsay is like. Even the Starks, their maester and castellan didn't know about Ramsay's existence until the war started and they are the Bolton's rulers. Why would stewards on the Wall know anything about Ramsay beyond what letters decide to tell them?

And again. Sam tricked the Wall into making Jon LC and Stannis forced them to accept the outcome. And the former is very easy to ascertain for someone in talks with both Pyke and Mallister. Marsh is not absolved by sticking to letter of the law but his actions should be judged by the reality he was presented with. The one where following Jon's every order doesn't neccesarily aquate to the only and best means for the Wall's survival and subsequently Westeros' survival. Because Jon was LEAVING THE WALL, taking hundreds with him, and was not guarenteed to come back. And was making more enemies for the Wall in doing so south of them too. 

He knows the Others are out there, he does not know Jon is the Prince Who Was Promised, he does however know Jon has many personal stakes in a fight against Boltons at Winterfell that have nothing to do with defending the realms of men. 

11 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Actually, you have no evidence Jon sent him.  Jon is obviously aware, but it's pretty clear that Stannis and Mel conceive the plot (which Mel explains to Jon, not the other way around) with Mance.  Because Stannis, as a canny political operator, knows that Arya is all that holds the various factions in Winterfell together.  Mel brings Jon in because she has to (a) explain what happened to "Rattleshirt" and (b) because she wants to gain Jon's trust by helping him, and being seen to do it.

And the idea isn't that Ramsay is in touch with Marsh, it's that Marsh is in touch with Cersei.  Remember how Cersei is sending those 100 able bodied men to the Wall (specifically to assassinate Jon, I might add)?  That is why people, myself included, think Marsh is in cahoots.  And Castle Black has tons of ravens, why is it so absurd to think he can get one to go to Kings Landing?  My personal theory, which I've read elsewhere, is that Bowen Marsh was waiting for the men to show up from KL so that he had the definitive manpower to carry out his coup, as right now he has to deal with loyalist brothers and wildlings who owe their lives to Jon and are personally loyal to him.  He can't succeed in his plot without more than his small coterie of co-conspirators.  He acts when he does solely because it's his last chance to kill Jon, not to keep him from dishonoring the NW or some such nonsense.  He's Brutus or Cassius, if they were bigots - he kills Jon when he does because if he doesn't, he'll never be able to, and he does it so that he can go back to being king of the heap and not have to watch all these "savages" rise in power and authority.  

Great catch, Sherlock.  He's the Chief fucking Steward, of course he's good at keeping accounts.  It's his job.  You know who else has that job?  Some 300 odd other guys at the Watch.  Does he have more information at his fingertips because he's in charge?  Sure.  Does that mean someone else couldn't have done that job competently?  No, obviously not.  What does this have to do with anything?  Hitler was a genius orator, and a psychopath.  Thomas Jefferson was a brilliant polymath, but also a proponent of slavery and a serial rapist.  Being good at your job doesn't make you a good person.

Yes, Jon Snow is aware of the extent of the culpability that Jon Snow has in Mance Rayder's continued survival. Because Jon Snow has a front row seat to all of Jon Snow's actions, through the benefit of BEING Jon Snow. Marsh, and the rest of the Night's Watch are not Jon Snow and only know what Jon Snow tells them. And the only thing Jon Snow tells them are contents of the Pink Letter, which lays the blame with Jon Snow. Thus the Night's Watch is under the impression that Jon Snow was indeed involved in keeping Mance Rayder alive. 

And the others DON'T have his job. He has his job, I said he could choose to suck at it, thus cause the wildling camp to be unspeakable deteriment to the Night's Watch survival and prove the bigotry right in short order. Not kill himself and see how things work out in his complete absence.

And Bowen would need several ravens all trained to make the long journey to KL AND King's Landing would need several raven all trained to go to some seperate off site facility where Marsh can safely receive them rather then just Castle Black for this age old conspiracy to be upheld all this time. Marsh has not had absolute control of the receiving of letters at Castle Black for the entire time that people argue this conspiracy has been going on. Even after Sam and Aemon left it wasn't that cut and dry.

[SFDanny]

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, no because the Lord Commander cannot decide that his duty or post are now in Winterfell. He has to remain at Wall and do his duty there. Else Lord Bloodraven could have taken the black and continued to serve as Aegon V's Hand, couldn't he?

Let me answer this before moving on to our discussion. Clearly Ser Jeor Mormont shows a Lord Commander isn't bound to the Wall. If his mission takes him elsewhere then so be it. That's one of the lessons Jon learns from the ranging. Just as clearly, the Wall is the greatest defensive assist the Watch has and that means the Lord Commander needs to plan to build up that defense - which is what Jon is trying to do with his reopening of the watch castles and his desperate need for more people to join the Watch or, at least, work under the Watch to defend the Wall. None of this prevents the Lord Commander from going to Hardhome or Winterfell or any place else if he decides his duty demands it.

If Jon were to decide to take up a title like "King in the North" or "Lord of Winterfell" it would contradict part of his oath, but, again, that must be weighed against the primary purpose of his mission. Not that I think this is likely, but what is likely is that Jon will - assuming he survives the assassination attempt - need to bring the forces of the North together to fight against the Others. How he will do that, and where he will do that, I believe, we are just beginning to see the outlines of his plans.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, but that is moral decision is also endangering the Wall in a number of ways.

1. The situation with the food and clothing. It is good to help refugees but the NW are a military order, not a refugee relief effort. They don't have the resources at the Wall to help the wildlings. And if they help them anyway - like Jon does - the Watch will suffer (as it does throughout ADwD). And with the Watch suffers the mission of the Watch.

2. The way this is seen in the South - both in the North and beyond the Neck. The wildlings are seen as the enemies of the Seven Kingdoms. Anybody making common cause with them could be seen as a person trying to attack or invade the Realm (as both Stannis and then Jon actually intend to do), and that could lead to the lords of the Realm refuse to support the Watch even once they actually believe the Others are a thing because they will consider their allies against this wildlings army/secessionist movement.

1. The Night's Watch is indeed a military order, but it is one designed to not only fight a war against the Others, but to defend the "realms of men." Meaning to defend humanity from the Others. Not to help refugees fleeing from the threat of the Others would be a dereliction of Jon's duty. Sitting on his store of goods for the small number of the men actually currently in the Night's Watch would be to miss doing what is necessary to build the army for the fight against the Others. Jon has to look outside the box of Marsh's count of supplies to last through the upcoming winter. His deal with the Iron Bank is only the first step in the direction of what he will have to do.

2. The people of the South have no inkling of the threat of the Others, and that means Jon has to convince them. That does not mean he has to sacrifice the Free Folk to die at the Others's hands in order to smooth the southron prejudices. The Lannisters, the Tyrells, and many others have their own idea of what kind of war must be fought and against whom it must be fought, but that just means they will have to be forced to see what faces them. In the meantime the fight must go on and the preparations to fight it must continue as if there will be no help from southron lords. That means winning all the people of the North, and Stannis's forces to fight together. Sometimes that may include fighting against those who refuse to do so.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We actually don't know that. But Marsh seems to have come around to the wildlings thing, at least to a degree. He does not kill Jon over opening the gates, he kills him over the Pink Letter affair.

I don't defend Marsh's take on the entire thing. He is very limited there. I'm just saying his objections to Jon's plans have merit.

The right thing would have been to not antagonize the Boltons and try to win the support of the Northmen and eventually the entire Seven Kingdoms against the Others. If Jon had gotten permission from some Northern lords to settle wildlings or other lands to send them down south to settle them in the Reach or the Stormlands that would have been fine. But feeding them on the scarce resources of the Watch is not helping the mission. 

And especially the Hardhome mission overland (not via ship) was suicidal. Selyse is right on that one. She very poignantly makes it clear that this mission is going to lead to Jon's death, and most likely all the men he takes with him.

I do think we know that Marsh's plan is a disaster, especially for what it would have meant for the Free Folk.

We shall have to disagree about why Marsh and his fellow conspirators try to kill Jon. I think it is clear this has been in the planning from long before and the events of the evening of the arrival of the Pink Letter is a moment they chose to enact their long standing plan. Marsh's accusations of treason, his plotting with Slynt and Thorne point to this being the case.

The "merits" of Marsh's objections are those of a man who can only think within his own experience. He sees the stores as the only way to get a small company of the Night's Watch through a winter he has no real way of knowing how long it will last. He sees only the number of sworn brothers as the people to take into his accounts. This has merits only if one assumes all the things Marsh assumes. Otherwise, it is stupidity and a recipe for failure.

Contrary to your assertion, Jon has done nothing to "antagonize" the Boltons beyond what he should have done. First and foremost, he welcomed the arrival of Stannis and his army to the fight. This while no one else arrived to help the Watch, including the "Warden of the North" Roose Bolton. Being neutral in claims to leadership or titles does not mean rejecting those who help his mission. The Boltons have now become the biggest threat to unifying the North in the battle with the Others. Which means Jon must decide what to do in a war others started, but in which the Watch has a great interest in the outcome. For some reason, it seems some readers, and I think that includes you, think this should mean Jon must placate any or all demands made upon him or the Watch. It does not.

Settling the Free Folk in the Gift and the New Gift is solely the decision of the Lord Commander. These are lands given over to the Night's Watch for their use as they see fit. No one would have a problem if the various schemes of sending new settlers into the Watch had come for an agreement between Winterfell and the Watch, but that is not the only solution possible, and with the needs of both the Watch and the Free Folk being what it is in the story, Jon's solution makes tremendous sense.

As to the Hardhome mission, I don't think Martin means us to take Selyse's "wisdom" as a serious evaluation of the mission. There are thousands of Free Folk at Hardhome. If the Lord Commander ignores their plight then he sends a message to all others beyond the Wall that their fate is of no concern to the Watch. That is the opposite of what Jon sees as the need of the moment and he is right. Yes, the mission is a risk. One taken mostly by Free Folk who would make up the bulk of such a force, but it is a risk worth taking for two very good reasons. It could save many of those thousands in danger, and it is a venture in which the Watch and the Free Folk would share the danger. Convincing the wildlings to trust him is a crucial part of Jon's overall mission. Both the Hardhome mission and fighting against Ramsay's threats in the Pink Letter would go a long way to building that trust.

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The Watch doesn't have the resources to man all the castles. Jon is gambling with the lives of the men who elected him, the men he is responsible for. The wildlings don't made him Lord Commander, his own sworn brothers did. And he has an obligation to them. He has no right to give away the winter provisions to other people, nor does he have a right to suddenly triple or quadruple the men in the Watch without having a really good plan how to feed all those people.

Again, if the Others come knocking only in few years in a winter lasting half a decade or more then they might win precisely because Jon manned all those castles with wildlings because they have either all starved to death or too weak to fight efficiently against the wights.

But the really crucial thing is his attack against the Boltons. This infighting helps only the Others. He has the grace to forgive a man like the Weeper but not the Boltons? That is just wrong. If he had reached out both to King Tommen and the Boltons the same way he did reach out to Tormund I'd not complain. But he did not.

If you want to call planning for what is coming "gambling" then ok Jon is gambling with the lives of many people. But the worst bet would be to do what Marsh wants. That roll of the dice is a sucker's bet. What Jon is all about is trying to change the odds stacked against him. Doing nothing but freezing the gates of abandoned way castles does nothing to change those odds.

With the Boltons, the infighting is going on. Jon can't stop that. He can help those who help the Watch - Stannis and his northern allies - and he can bring the Free Folk into the joint battle. And he did reach out to all the contenders to the Iron Throne in Westeros, and only Stannis has of yet answered his call.

[BalerionTheCat]

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Whatever Marsh and the others planned prior to the Shieldhall meeting is irrelevant. Jon broke his vow and deserted the Night's Watch during that meeting. That means everyone can kill him, just as anyone has a right to kill an outlaw. And that's what Marsh and the others did.

I agree with that. It just illustrates the NW laws are stupid. Because Jon is right anyway. Stannis is the only "king" helping. And Jon can't get the North with Ramsay and the Boltons at Winterfell. Can't get the South without Stannis.

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That really depends. If the Wall could keep the zombies out - and we don't yet that it can't - then it is irrelevant how many wildlings become wights.

I bet it will not. Not without more men. And not if the Long Night is lasting.

[giant snake]

smh the Boltons have a skinned man on their banner and thousands of years of reputation, not to mention that Ramsay is the son of a traitor.  No side taking in all of this - it makes no difference which king he betrayed, just that they are new to power which they had attained by murdering the Lord who was popular enough to rally the whole north behind him.  Assuming that the whole of the North (as large as the rest of the Seven Kingdoms) suddenly went full Karstark because of Robb's defeat more unrealistic than to assume the whole of the North doesn't know about Ramsay's reputation.  Chances are they do know his reputation - people talk.  Everyone of importance in the South knew about what the Mountain that Rapes was like before the war even started.  We're not exactly making giant logical leaps here.

tangent: no, Roose is not a grotesque villain and I think he's actually a good character and very interesting

 

All of this justification because the conspirators don't know what Jon Snow isn't any more convincing in the way you're throwing it out there.  Like I said already, they had to conspire because they were up to know good to begin with and they knew it.  Not going to repost all of that in detail again.

Talking about what people know - the Night's Watch had been telling the lords of the realm for years that threats from beyond the wall were increasing, and every single veteran of the former Lord Commander was prescient to the fact that the Others are not only real but on the warpath.  The lords are the ones who don't know their place in the order of the realm.  I think that's made pretty obvious from the intro of the first book and every time thereafter that we see a small council meeting where they discuss the Watch.  You understand that open war is normally followed up with subterfuge, right?  That's the reason that spies historically had no rights and could be summarily executed even until very recently IRL.  Not going into a tangent explaining how all of this works.  Suffice to say, the Boltons and the Lannisters had been taking an increasingly belligerent stance towards the watch for years and that Ramsay was openly hostile.  You want to say that Jon took an unprecedented step in fighting a Lord who declared war on the Watch?  Show me where it had happened before where anyone in the Seven Kingdoms did this before you start calling it illegal or traitorous or whatever loaded words you have.

It's really absurd when you think about it - someone declares war on you and you are supposed to impose a kind of straightjacket mentality on yourself because there is no clear explanation on the books what to do in that situation.  That's why you have a Lord Commander in the first place, to make decisions ffs

People don't like that he took the initiative?  I miss the part of the Oath where it says that you just do whatever the hell you want when your commander makes a strategic decision you disagree with.

[Ser_Jon_General]

Since much of the reasoning of Jon's "crimes" are based around him planning on leaving the Wall to lead men against the Boltons it must be remembered that we've already seen a similar situation.

ADWD - Jon X

Quote

Cregan Karstark had turned up a day behind his niece. With him came four mounted men-at-arms, a huntsman, and a pack of dogs, sniffing after Lady Alys as if she were a deer. Jon Snow met them on the kingsroad half a league south of Mole's Town, before they could turn up at Castle Black, claim guest right, or call for parley. One of Karstark's men had loosed a crossbow quarrel at Ty and died for it. That left four, and Cregan himself.

Fortunately they had a dozen ice cells. Room for all.

At the point at which this occurs Cregan Karstark had been of no threat to the Watch itself, only a threat to a guest of the Watch and yet he's imprisoned by Jon.

And nobody batted an eyelid.

No one spent hours debating the legality of Jon's actions, he's not even mentioned in the pink letter, quite simply Jon recognised a threat to a guest of the Watch and intervened.  As such we must assume that those actions were within the rights of the Watch and the realm.

Whilst Bolton (assuming he wrote the letter) isn't actually yet riding on Castle Black, he has threatened guests of the Watch and from the example of Cregan Karstark it would appear that Jon is quite within the laws to leave the Wall to deal with a threat from the South.

[Denam_Pavel]

1 hour ago, giant snake said:

smh the Boltons have a skinned man on their banner and thousands of years of reputation, not to mention that Ramsay is the son of a traitor.  No side taking in all of this - it makes no difference which king he betrayed, just that they are new to power which they had attained by murdering the Lord who was popular enough to rally the whole north behind him.  Assuming that the whole of the North (as large as the rest of the Seven Kingdoms) suddenly went full Karstark because of Robb's defeat more unrealistic than to assume the whole of the North doesn't know about Ramsay's reputation.  Chances are they do know his reputation - people talk.  Everyone of importance in the South knew about what the Mountain that Rapes was like before the war even started.  We're not exactly making giant logical leaps here.

tangent: no, Roose is not a grotesque villain and I think he's actually a good character and very interesting

 

All of this justification because the conspirators don't know what Jon Snow isn't any more convincing in the way you're throwing it out there.  Like I said already, they had to conspire because they were up to know good to begin with and they knew it.  Not going to repost all of that in detail again.

Talking about what people know - the Night's Watch had been telling the lords of the realm for years that threats from beyond the wall were increasing, and every single veteran of the former Lord Commander was prescient to the fact that the Others are not only real but on the warpath.  The lords are the ones who don't know their place in the order of the realm.  I think that's made pretty obvious from the intro of the first book and every time thereafter that we see a small council meeting where they discuss the Watch.  You understand that open war is normally followed up with subterfuge, right?  That's the reason that spies historically had no rights and could be summarily executed even until very recently IRL.  Not going into a tangent explaining how all of this works.  Suffice to say, the Boltons and the Lannisters had been taking an increasingly belligerent stance towards the watch for years and that Ramsay was openly hostile.  You want to say that Jon took an unprecedented step in fighting a Lord who declared war on the Watch?  Show me where it had happened before where anyone in the Seven Kingdoms did this before you start calling it illegal or traitorous or whatever loaded words you have.

It's really absurd when you think about it - someone declares war on you and you are supposed to impose a kind of straightjacket mentality on yourself because there is no clear explanation on the books what to do in that situation.  That's why you have a Lord Commander in the first place, to make decisions ffs

People don't like that he took the initiative?  I miss the part of the Oath where it says that you just do whatever the hell you want when your commander makes a strategic decision you disagree with.

The Mountain had been a public menace for a decade and a half. Moreover, he specifically did his most notorious wrongdoing during the Sack of King's Landing. Tywin after the Sack of King's Landing send a good number of the loyalists stationed there, like Alliser Thorne, to the Wall. So it makes sense those stories spread because as you say, people talk. No similiar in flux of witnesses of Ramsay's deeds happened. Like you said, they had been neglecting the Watch for years. Less new people means less new talk. When you consider that it is shown even other Lords that work side by side with Roose don't know anything about Ramsay, it is entirely unreasonable to epect it to be public information among the rank and file of the Night's Watch. As for the popularity of Roose Bolton on account of his backstabbery. they KNOW that Stannis is having far bigger trouble gaining support in the North then the Boltons. Because Stannis' men were at the Wall, the wrong way Rangers were coming and going and people talk. And Jon Snow is on crusp of making it unilaterally clear that they are on Stannis' side all the way in the most unambigious way possible.

Jon Snow admits he was breaking his oath when he marched south. He does see it that way, even if you don't. It can be construed as being for the well being of the Watch, despite this. Likewise, preventing Jon Snow from further antagonising the biggest (and if the Pink Letter is to believed now only) military presence in the North is also against the law but very much can be seen as acting in the Watch's best interest.

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, SFDanny said:

Let me answer this before moving on to our discussion. Clearly Ser Jeor Mormont shows a Lord Commander isn't bound to the Wall. If his mission takes him elsewhere then so be it. That's one of the lessons Jon learns from the ranging. Just as clearly, the Wall is the greatest defensive assist the Watch has and that means the Lord Commander needs to plan to build up that defense - which is what Jon is trying to do with his reopening of the watch castles and his desperate need for more people to join the Watch or, at least, work under the Watch to defend the Wall. None of this prevents the Lord Commander from going to Hardhome or Winterfell or any place else if he decides his duty demands it.

We know that Lord Commanders can range beyond the Wall, although there are officers objecting to Mormont going because this kind of thing is actually the duty of the First Ranger. But we know Bloodraven also ranged and then disappeared beyond the Wall, so that is certainly possible. But it is quite clear that Watch cannot range or check on the things down in the South.

4 hours ago, SFDanny said:

If Jon were to decide to take up a title like "King in the North" or "Lord of Winterfell" it would contradict part of his oath, but, again, that must be weighed against the primary purpose of his mission. Not that I think this is likely, but what is likely is that Jon will - assuming he survives the assassination attempt - need to bring the forces of the North together to fight against the Others. How he will do that, and where he will do that, I believe, we are just beginning to see the outlines of his plans.

There is no primary duty defined in the vow of the Night's Watch. The part about wearing no crowns and winning no glory is pretty straightforward.

Your line of argument simply helps to justify treason. Take the brother of Harren the Black, for instance. He could have said that his primary duty is to defend the realms of men. For that he needs the NW in top condition. Let's now say Harren the Black was a very good friend of the Watch (or his brother, then Lord Commander, saw him as such). Wouldn't Harren's brother then have been justified in leading the 10,000 men of the Night's Watch down south to defeat the Targaryens in front of Harrenhal?

If you say only the important thing - the defense of the Wall against the enemies beyond it - matters then a Watchman can break any part of his vow that has nothing to do with the part of defending the realms of men. And even that part is open to interpretation because it is not necessarily clear what those realms are and where they end. Why not defend the realms of men on the Summer Isles?

Note, that the vow speaks about 'the watchers on the the walls'. There is no talk about this specific ice wall at the end of the world. So they could technically abandon that and choose other walls to watch, right?

Jon is not likely 'to bring the North together' in any meaningful way. Many men will die at Winterfell, and nothing indicates that the clansmen are willing to join the Night's Watch. No northern house sent help to the Wall while Mance came knocking at the door. That most likely means they can't afford to do this. And if they couldn't do it before the Stannis-Bolton war they won't be able to do it afterwards.

Not to mention the food situation.

4 hours ago, SFDanny said:

1. The Night's Watch is indeed a military order, but it is one designed to not only fight a war against the Others, but to defend the "realms of men." Meaning to defend humanity from the Others. Not to help refugees fleeing from the threat of the Others would be a dereliction of Jon's duty. Sitting on his store of goods for the small number of the men actually currently in the Night's Watch would be to miss doing what is necessary to build the army for the fight against the Others. Jon has to look outside the box of Marsh's count of supplies to last through the upcoming winter. His deal with the Iron Bank is only the first step in the direction of what he will have to do.

That is simply not true. The Watch protects that Wall at the end of the world from enemies - mortal or supernatural - beyond that. And as I've pointed out already the vow of the Night's Watch does not mention the Others at all. We don't know exactly whether the NW was truly formed to protect the realms of men from the Others. It is very, very, very likely. But if we are talking about the vow Jon cannot say we have to protect all men from the Others because that's simply not what the vow says.

And the wildlings are the ones who endangered the mission of the Watch for hundreds of years by raiding the gifts and the lands of the closest allies of the Watch. They also did never support the Watch with either men joining their ranks or food or lend the Watch other support. The wildlings may be men, but they are not part of those 'realms of men' the Night's Watch protect. Those realms are the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros. The kingdoms from which the men taking the black originally come from. The Watch also has no moral obligation to protect the Braavosi or Pentoshi from the Others. If the Others built a fleet beyond the Wall and sent an army of wights to the Axe or the Flatlands then the Watch wouldn't be under any moral obligation to abandon their posts and fight the wights in Essos.

It is not wrong to protect the wildlings from the Others but it is a risk. A very big risk, in fact. A man like the Weeper (and many other wildlings) might simply not care about the promises he makes or the the lives of the hostages he offers. Such men might only want to get out of the lands of the Others and into 'the realms of men' to continue their ways there. And those ways might very well include to continue to cut out the eyes and behead the men of the Night's Watch.

By ignoring the bad blood between the wildlings and the Watch and insisting that the Watch accepts his policy of reconciliation while not doing the same for the Boltons Jon applies a double standard. 

4 hours ago, SFDanny said:

2. The people of the South have no inkling of the threat of the Others, and that means Jon has to convince them. That does not mean he has to sacrifice the Free Folk to die at the Others's hands in order to smooth the southron prejudices. The Lannisters, the Tyrells, and many others have their own idea of what kind of war must be fought and against whom it must be fought, but that just means they will have to be forced to see what faces them. In the meantime the fight must go on and the preparations to fight it must continue as if there will be no help from southron lords. That means winning all the people of the North, and Stannis's forces to fight together. Sometimes that may include fighting against those who refuse to do so.

Jon has a moral obligation to first think about the men of the Watch. The men who elected him. After that come the lives of the men who support the Watch - and those are the people of the Seven Kingdoms, from Dorne to the Wall. He has to do anything in his power not to antagonize (a majority of) those people.

What he is doing by antagonizing the Boltons and essentially allying with Stannis had the chance for success on the short term, but weakening the North and then, perhaps, taking it over is not going to help his overall mission. If the North sticks with Stannis or secedes again from the larger Realm neither it nor the Watch can expect or demand help from the people south of the Neck.

And that does not only include Tommen/Cersei/the Tyrells but also Aegon or even Daenerys. Neither of them is under any obligation to help people who want to make a living by themselves or threw their lot in with some pretender.

This doesn't mean that some of those people won't still recognize the common enemy they are facing but it won't be Jon Snow who is convincing them of that danger. Rather, say, Archmaester Marwyn in the case of Daenerys.

4 hours ago, SFDanny said:

We shall have to disagree about why Marsh and his fellow conspirators try to kill Jon. I think it is clear this has been in the planning from long before and the events of the evening of the arrival of the Pink Letter is a moment they chose to enact their long standing plan. Marsh's accusations of treason, his plotting with Slynt and Thorne point to this being the case.

Marsh, Thorne, and Slynt plotted to influence the election of a new Lord Commander just as Samwell, Aemon, Mallister, and Pyke did. That is neither treason nor inherently problematic.

Jon is somewhat focused on the real danger but he fails to see the bigger picture in real politics. He doesn't make plans or considers the implications of Stannis losing and Tommen/the Lannisters winning. If that happens the Walls and the realms of men both might be finished simply because the Iron Throne no longer gives a damn about the Watch.

Jon has no chance now to ever convince Roose, Ramsay, Cersei, Tommen, etc. about the true danger because he betrayed them all. He sided with Stannis against them.

4 hours ago, SFDanny said:

The "merits" of Marsh's objections are those of a man who can only think within his own experience. He sees the stores as the only way to get a small company of the Night's Watch through a winter he has no real way of knowing how long it will last. He sees only the number of sworn brothers as the people to take into his accounts. This has merits only if one assumes all the things Marsh assumes. Otherwise, it is stupidity and a recipe for failure.

I take it you don't first ensure that you yourself and your family are fed and clothed before you spend money on things you don't necessarily need to survive?

Jon's visions for the future are irrelevant when his men might all be dead before the Others even attack. And that's a real danger. It is quite clear that the stores are not full enough for a really long winter, that's why the Watch goes on winter rations long before winter even begins.

4 hours ago, SFDanny said:

Contrary to your assertion, Jon has done nothing to "antagonize" the Boltons beyond what he should have done. First and foremost, he welcomed the arrival of Stannis and his army to the fight. This while no one else arrived to help the Watch, including the "Warden of the North" Roose Bolton. Being neutral in claims to leadership or titles does not mean rejecting those who help his mission. The Boltons have now become the biggest threat to unifying the North in the battle with the Others. Which means Jon must decide what to do in a war others started, but in which the Watch has a great interest in the outcome. For some reason, it seems some readers, and I think that includes you, think this should mean Jon must placate any or all demands made upon him or the Watch. It does not.

Again, Jon has no right nor a moral obligation 'to unify the North'. Stannis can try that all day long but Jon has no right to assist him in that. If Stannis had remained at the Wall they could have worked together to fight against the Others (and wildlings, if the Weeper was mounting another attack, as he is preparing right now). But Jon actually supported Stannis in his fight against 'the realms of men' (or at least part thereof).

Also note that Robb Stark is to blame for Roose Bolton being unable to send help to the Wall when the need arose. The man was stuck down in the Riverlands when the wildlings attacked.

4 hours ago, SFDanny said:

Settling the Free Folk in the Gift and the New Gift is solely the decision of the Lord Commander. These are lands given over to the Night's Watch for their use as they see fit. No one would have a problem if the various schemes of sending new settlers into the Watch had come for an agreement between Winterfell and the Watch, but that is not the only solution possible, and with the needs of both the Watch and the Free Folk being what it is in the story, Jon's solution makes tremendous sense.

As long as the wildlings actually stay in the Gifts this is true. But how likely is that? How likely is it that people who followed a king who led their escape from the Others stand and fight against them when they come in force in the middle of winter? Those people all abandoned their homes for a place in the sun. They don't want to die in the fight against the Others - they could have had that back in their homes and villages. They want to live.

4 hours ago, SFDanny said:

As to the Hardhome mission, I don't think Martin means us to take Selyse's "wisdom" as a serious evaluation of the mission. There are thousands of Free Folk at Hardhome. If the Lord Commander ignores their plight then he sends a message to all others beyond the Wall that their fate is of no concern to the Watch. That is the opposite of what Jon sees as the need of the moment and he is right. Yes, the mission is a risk. One taken mostly by Free Folk who would make up the bulk of such a force, but it is a risk worth taking for two very good reasons. It could save many of those thousands in danger, and it is a venture in which the Watch and the Free Folk would share the danger. Convincing the wildlings to trust him is a crucial part of Jon's overall mission. Both the Hardhome mission and fighting against Ramsay's threats in the Pink Letter would go a long way to building that trust.

So you don't think it very likely that the Others would have counted on such a relief effort, just as they counted upon Mormont leading a ranging beyond the Wall when they put those two wights near the Wall? That they would shadow the expedition, and attack them at an ideal spot in the middle of nowhere, about as far away from the Wall as of Hardhome? That they would destroy the entire group and then continue killing the wildlings at Hardhome?

Do you really think they could have gotten to Hardhome in time? Pyke's letter makes it pretty clear that the Others are already there, killing the wildlings. How quickly do you think the expedition could get to Hardhome if they were stuck in a true winter storm (cooked up the Others) ten leagues beyond the Wall?

Can Jon afford to risk his own life - and the lives of men who can fight - in such a mission?

The goal is commendable but the question is what he is going to lose if his mission fails.

And we have not yet talked about how he thinks he can get thousands of people - many of them starving women and children - back to the Wall without ships. Having them march back to the Wall in a large column might play into the hands of the Others even more. At Hardhome they can fight and build up palisades and walls, etc. to keep the wights out. But out in the open they would be completely defenseless for weeks.

4 hours ago, SFDanny said:

If you want to call planning for what is coming "gambling" then ok Jon is gambling with the lives of many people. But the worst bet would be to do what Marsh wants. That roll of the dice is a sucker's bet. What Jon is all about is trying to change the odds stacked against him. Doing nothing but freezing the gates of abandoned way castles does nothing to change those odds.

I never said he should be doing that. But then - that might come back to haunt him if the wights actually can pass through those gates. It is much easier destroy a few iron gates than hack yourself through a magical ice wall. We don't know whether the magic of the Wall hinders the wights and Others to pass through the conventional gates the NW created. I actually doubt that because that would defeat the purpose of the Black Gate. Originally it would have been the only way to pass through the Wall and it is magical. The others are not.

4 hours ago, SFDanny said:

With the Boltons, the infighting is going on. Jon can't stop that. He can help those who help the Watch - Stannis and his northern allies - and he can bring the Free Folk into the joint battle. And he did reach out to all the contenders to the Iron Throne in Westeros, and only Stannis has of yet answered his call.

No, he didn't do that. He wrote no letter nor did he send any messenger to any lord or king after Mance was defeated and he elected Lord Commander. He sent a paper shield to Tommen but made no effort to convince him or any of the people at his court what's going on at the Wall. In that paper shield he speaks abstractly about their foes from beyond the Wall and also makes it clear that NW is sworn to the defense of the Realm - meaning the Realm of the Iron Throne - not humanity in general.

4 hours ago, BalerionTheCat said:

I agree with that. It just illustrates the NW laws are stupid. Because Jon is right anyway. Stannis is the only "king" helping. And Jon can't get the North with Ramsay and the Boltons at Winterfell. Can't get the South without Stannis.

Nobody will get the South with Stannis. Stannis is done. A few thousand Northmen can't help him take the Iron Throne. It could be a turning point if it was just Stannis against some boy king nobody likes, either. But it is Stannis against Euron, Aegon, and eventually Daenerys. He doesn't stand a chance against either of those.

And I really don't care whether you think the NW laws or the vows are stupid. Jon swore those vows of his own free will. He cannot complain if we take him at his words.

I don't really see a problem with the vows. The problem are the wildlings and their constant raidings of the North and their attacks on the Watch. That ensured that Watch could eventually do nothing else but see the wildlings as their sworn enemies. The wildlings are a large part of the reason why the Watch declined. They are directly responsible the people living in the Gifts migrated down south.

4 hours ago, BalerionTheCat said:

I bet it will not. Not without more men. And not if the Long Night is lasting.

Sure. I expect the Others to destroy the Wall. There is a reason why we are getting hints that this might be possible. However, our guys don't really see that threat as of yet. Jon and Stannis both think they will fight their decisive battles at the Wall. They don't think the Others could breach or destroy it.

Men on the Wall can help preventing the wights, Others, or ice spiders to climb over it. But we don't know whether that's the plan. It is a very bad position to actually attack the Others/wights, especially in the middle of snowstorm. They wouldn't even be able to see that the Others are there. It is quite difficult to see anything 200 feet away in the middle of a snowstorm, after all.

[BalerionTheCat]

9 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Nobody will get the South with Stannis. Stannis is done.

I agree with that. As you seem to agree the Wall will fall or will let pass the Others. But Stannis is still his best option as far as Jon knows. Aegon and Daenerys are unknown to him.

9 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And I really don't care whether you think the NW laws or the vows are stupid. Jon swore those vows of his own free will. He cannot complain if we take him at his words.

He swore them as a naive boy. And he still invite other to swear them, Free Folk or not. But they are still unjust and counterproductive. Marsh took some "logical" decision from these wows. It was an error that will get fixed. Period.

9 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The problem are the wildlings and their constant raidings of the North and their attacks on the Watch. That ensured that Watch could eventually do nothing else but see the wildlings as their sworn enemies. The wildlings are a large part of the reason why the Watch declined. They are directly responsible the people living in the Gifts migrated down south.

The wildlings raidings should have help keeping the Wall fully manned. The decline is due the vows unattractiveness. It is time for a change. Tormund sees it. Not Marsh.

[The Fattest Leech]

Some people are forgetting that "Good" Queen Alysanne is responsible for a large part of the decline of the Nights Watch. As the books tell us. To ignore that is to ignore the source. 

Also, Visenya also took honor away from the Watch which contributed to the first decline of the Watch when she started the kingsguard for Aegon. The author set them up as dichotomies of each other. Including oaths and vows=words are Wind. Doing what is right is the correct thing to do.  

[Lord Varys]

36 minutes ago, BalerionTheCat said:

I agree with that. As you seem to agree the Wall will fall or will let pass the Others. But Stannis is still his best option as far as Jon knows. Aegon and Daenerys are unknown to him.

Stannis is not the best option to protect the realms of men, no. The man is pretty much doomed. He saved the Watch, yes, but afterwards Jon should have allowed to ride him to his death outside the Dreadfort.

If we imagined for a moment that Dany and Aegon weren't coming - and that Jon wasn't their close relation which is likely going to come out at some point, contributing to the gestation of whatever alliance that eventually defeats the Others - then Jon would have to find ways to get the Iron Throne, the Reach, the Vale, the Stormlands, the West, and Dorne on board of his campaign against the Others.

Allying with Stannis doesn't accomplish that goal. It makes it all but impossible. And if Stannis is still alive when Aegon or Daenerys push their claims to the North they might all have to pay a very steep price. He will never bend the knee.

36 minutes ago, BalerionTheCat said:

He swore them as a naive boy. And he still invite other to swear them, Free Folk or not. But they are still unjust and counterproductive. Marsh took some "logical" decision from these wows. It was an error that will get fixed. Period.

That is just a shortsighted view. The Watch was always neutral and completely focused on the their sacred duty because of the vows they swore (and the punishment that awaited any oathbreaker). How often do you think a Stark served aside a Bolton who had skinned some of his family members at the Wall? How often did a Lannister and a Gardener who were mortal enemies before they took the black save each other's lives there? The Watch surviving as long as it did is a testament how important and wise those vows were. It wouldn't have worked otherwise.

It's Jon's petty and selfish emotions feelings for his sister that ruin everything, not the vows he swore. Even if there weren't any vows it would have been stupid to consider your sister more important than the men who made you their Lord Commander (or all of humanity).

I'm curious, how do you imagine the 'new Watch' with the wildlings included? Do you think they will live and die at their posts as the sworn brothers are supposed to? Do you think they will act as selflessly as a man like Qhorin Halfhand did? Do you think they will put their own lives and the lives of their women, children, relatives, and friends behind their duty?

I don't think so. Why should they? They didn't stay and fight for their own lands, they fled. What makes you believe they will stay and fight to defend a Wall which is hated by most of them?

The men of the Watch stay on their posts because they know they cannot go anywhere else. But the wildlings can. And they accustomed to do whatever they want to do. They recognize no authority but their own.

36 minutes ago, BalerionTheCat said:

The wildlings raidings should have help keeping the Wall fully manned. The decline is due the vows unattractiveness. It is time for a change. Tormund sees it. Not Marsh.

Sure, serving on the Watch is also unattractive. That is true and the other main reason why the Watch has declined. But the Gifts could still be full of people (and potential recruits for the Watch) right now if there hadn't been any wildling raids. The Watch would also have much more food for the wildling refugees if the Gifts were still full of peasants producing it.

The wildlings attacked the realms of men for thousands of years, and they did the best they could to destroy 'the shields that guard the realms of men' by attacking the Watch under Mance Rayder and other kings-beyond-the-Wall.

27 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Some people are forgetting that "Good" Queen Alysanne is responsible for a large part of the decline of the Nights Watch. As the books tell us. To ignore that is to ignore the source. 

That is open to interpretation. But then, if hundreds or thousands of Northmen - and other Westerosi people - would have joined the NW each year it wouldn't have declined. The people are to blame. The rulers can force only criminals to take the black. You have to swear the vow of your own free will, after all.

Giving more land to the Watch would have helped them to recover and become an even greater institution if the more men had volunteered for the Watch. But Queen Alysanne couldn't exactly create black brothers (or men willing to take the black) out of thin air, could she?

27 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Also, Visenya also took honor away from the Watch which contributed to the first decline of the Watch when she started the kingsguard for Aegon. The author set them up as dichotomies of each other. Including oaths and vows=words are Wind. Doing what is right is the correct thing to do.  

What is that supposed to mean? Creating another order based on the vows of the NW doesn't take anything away from the Watch. That's like saying me making a meal based on a recipe you invented takes something away from you.

[The Fattest Leech]

 

Quote

That is open to interpretation.

It is not open to interpretation and you know that because between the World book and the main series the reader is both told and shown this to be true. The author uses both forms of story telling tondrive this point across. 

Quote

What is that supposed to mean? Creating another order based on the vows of the NW doesn't take anything away from the Watch. That's like saying me making a meal based on a recipe you invented takes something away from you.

Actually, that is a good analogy. If I bake cinnamon rolls using only cinnamon as an ingredient, but you bake them and use cinnamon and then add the more expensive, more glorious ingredient cardamom, then your recipe wins because people will want to use that one instead. 

Thats what the kingsguard did. It became the cardamom of the cinnamon roll world and took attention away from the original, delicious cinnamon roll because cardamom is like gold! 

[Lord Varys]

1 minute ago, The Fattest Leech said:

It is not open to interpretation and you know that because between the World book and the main series the reader is both told and shown this to be true. The author uses both forms of story telling tondrive this point across. 

Blaming the Gifts for the decline of the Watch makes no sense. The eventual depopulation of the lands making up the New Gift can be blamed on the continued decline of the Watch. But Queen Alysanne is not responsible for that. The men of the Seven Kingdoms are, who consistently and continually decided not to join the NW.

And both lords and kings greatly relish in capital punishment instead of offering criminals to take the black. Just look what Robb did to Lord Rickard and Joffrey to Ned. Both could have gone to the Wall but the people executing them didn't care.

1 minute ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Actually, that is a good analogy. If I bake cinnamon rolls using only cinnamon as an ingredient, but you bake them and use cinnamon and then add the more expensive, more glorious ingredient cardamom, then your recipe wins because people will want to use that one instead. 

Are you trying to say that the Kingsguard somehow became a rival organization to the Night's Watch? An order consisting of only seven men? Sure, it would have been better if seven more men took the black but I daresay that this wouldn't have made a difference.

Neither the NW vow nor the Kingsguard vow is wrong. You want determined and loyal men to die for you or the mission in both orders. And nobody is forced to join the KG or the NW. If you don't want to serve a mad or cruel king don't swear the vow. You have that choice. But don't complain afterwards that your life sucks. You have a brain and can't think. And yes, that includes swearing the vow to Aegon V and then dying to defend a madman like Aerys II. Kings die and are succeeded by other men. You know you will have to serve your entire life.

[The Fattest Leech]

Just now, Lord Varys said:

Blaming the Gifts for the decline of the Watch makes no sense. The eventual depopulation of the lands making up the New Gift can be blamed on the continued decline of the Watch. But Queen Alysanne is not responsible for that. The men of the Seven Kingdoms are, who consistently and continually decided not to join the NW.

Nope. Not what the books say. This is your preferred personal version. 

[Lord Varys]

12 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Nope. Not what the books say. This is your preferred personal version. 

Nope, as the book proves. Yandel's words:

Quote

Later still, it was said that the Starks were bitter at the Old King and Queen Alysanne for having forced them to carve away the New Gift and give it the Night’s Watch; this may be one reason for why Lord Ellard Stark sided with Corlys Velaryon and Princess Rhaenys at the Great Council of 101 AC.

That means the Starks were mainly pissed because they had to give away land.

That's the sidebar:

Quote

Though in these days it is said that Lord Ellard Stark was glad to aid the Night’s Watch with the Gift, and took little convincing, the truth is otherwise. Letters from Lord Stark’s brother to the Citadel, asking the maesters to provide precedents against the forced donation of property, made it plain that the Starks were not eager to do as King Jaehaerys bid. It may be that the Starks feared that, under the control of the Castle Black, the New Gift would inevitably decline—for the Night’s Watch would always look northward and never give much thought to their new tenants to the south. And as it happens, that soon came to pass, and the New Gift is now said to be largely unpopulated thanks to the decline of the Watch and the rising toll taken by raiders from beyond the Wall.

This makes it clear that it is merely speculation that the Starks may have feared their former lands (now property of the Night's Watch) would decline under the aegis of the Watch. It may be true that those were part of the reasons they did not want to part with the land. But perhaps they also just wanted to keep land they had ruled for a very long time. The only thing we know for sure is that they opposed to give away their lands. Everything else is clearly marked as speculation in the text.