Jaime broke an oath when he killed Aerys

[Varysblackfyre321]

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We are talking in context of the threat of the Others - which should need the help of the entire Realm, perhaps even more - to be dealt with, not just whatever the (now ravaged) North can offer. The Seven Kingdoms are a unified Realm since 300 years. Causing the central authority to mistrust/not help you is worse on the long run than raising the ire of single secessionist kingdom which is not likely to last, anyway.

Meh, the others to minds of most in Westeroes at this point are merely a fairytale.

But the watch does serve a higher purpose than Robb getting a kingdom and his vengeance; protecting civilization itself from the savages who seek to destroy the very structure of society and launch it into anarchy. 

Robb's proposal does just (possibly), extend the war if Jon is made his presumptive heir and released from his vows(through bribery/threatening with the prospect of giving/withholding men who want to join the brotherhood), and ultimately would lead to far more instability to the realm

And  Robb can just bend the knee. Hell he doesn't actually think he couldn't do this it was merely famial pride keeping him from doing so.

[Geddus]

5 hours ago, LynnS said:

This is true.  I often wonder if Ned was really peeved because he was denied vengeance, which doesn't seem to be a sin in the eyes of the old gods.

I think Ned was angry at Jaime because he thought he killed Aerys on Tywin's orders. That's what it would have looked like when he arrived at King's Landing, after all.

Maybe he also believed the Lannisters were trying to take the throne?

[kissdbyfire]

7 minutes ago, Geddus said:

I think Ned was angry at Jaime because he thought he killed Aerys on Tywin's orders. That's what it would have looked like when he arrived at King's Landing, after all.

Maybe he also believed the Lannisters were trying to take the throne?

And the fact that Tywin pulled a Walder Frey and sat on his arse until the rebellion was all but over. 

[Geddus]

Yeah, that too. Though he had a good reason, Jaime was essentially Aerys' hostage.

[Clegane'sPup]

What fascinates me about the dilemma story wise is that Jaime was wearing his golden armor when he did the deed.

A Storm of Swords - Jaime II      Jaime had slipped in through the king's door, clad in his golden armor, sword in hand. The golden armor, not the white, but no one ever remembers that. Would that I had taken off that damned cloak as well.      When Aerys saw the blood on his blade, he demanded to know if it was Lord Tywin's. "I want him dead, the traitor. I want his head, you'll bring me his head, or you'll burn with all the rest. All the traitors. Rossart says they are inside the walls! He's gone to make them a warm welcome. Whose blood? Whose?"/

There is a rebellion going on. A war. Wait a minute --- the war/rebellion started because a woman grown went missing and her brother & companions showed up demanding the Prince come out and play. Then the fathers of the upstarts were summoned to court. They die leaving a lonely squire alive. Then the lonely squire rides with Eddard and dies at Rheagar’s tower of joy.

I have read on numerous occasions that Pycelle is a Lannister lackey. Pycelle is in charge of the ravens that flutter back and forth betwixt here and yonder.

Knowing the rift between Aerys and Tywin I cannot but wonder if Pycelle & Tywin had been communicating.

If I think about it, it kinda makes sense that Jaime donned his Lannister armor, killed his King and was sitting the throne with a naked blade across his lap when Eddard arrived.

Add insult to injury Pycelle was the one that encouraged Aerys to open the gates to Lannister. Varys advised the King to not open the gates.

What Jaime said:

A Storm of Swords - Jaime V     "My Sworn Brothers were all away, you see, but Aerys liked to keep me close. I was my father's son, so he did not trust me. He wanted me where Varys could watch me, day and night. So I heard it all." <snip>   "Ned Stark was racing south with Robert's van, but my father's forces reached the city first. Pycelle convinced the king that his Warden of the West had come to defend him, so he opened the gates. The one time he should have heeded Varys, and he ignored him. My father had held back from the war, brooding on all the wrongs Aerys had done him and determined that House Lannister should be on the winning side. The Trident decided him.    "It fell to me to hold the Red Keep, but I knew we were lost. I sent to Aerys asking his leave to make terms. My man came back with a royal command. 'Bring me your father's head, if you are no traitor.' Aerys would have no yielding. Lord Rossart was with him, my messenger said. I knew what that meant.

I have to wonder as Tyrion did:

A Clash of Kings - Tyrion VI    "For the realm! Once Rhaegar died, the war was done. Aerys was mad, Viserys too young, Prince Aegon a babe at the breast, but the realm needed a king . . . I prayed it should be your good father, but Robert was too strong, and Lord Stark moved too swiftly . . ."     "How many have you betrayed, I wonder? Aerys, Eddard Stark, me . . . King Robert as well? Lord Arryn, Prince Rhaegar? Where does it begin, Pycelle?" He knew where it ended.

I dunna know how the saga ends or how much is going to be revealed in the two remaining books. Now that Pycelle is dead I'm not going to know what he knew.

 

[Lord Varys]

16 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

Sure, I understand.  You can conjecture that Jaime can imprison Aerys without any risk that Aerys will escape or convey the orders to his othe pryomancers but that's all it is, conjecture.  Surest way is to kill him.

LOL, that isn't conjecture, that is a fact in the story. And a fact both Jaime and Aerys are aware of. Aerys himself tells Jaime that Tywin's men are already in the castle, and the throne room isn't exactly the least conspicuous place. Tywin's men will be there (and are there) in a couple of minutes when Jaime kills Aerys.

That means Jaime would only have to keep Aerys distracted, arrested, knocked out, whatever for a mere couple of minutes. And we do know that he could have done that. After all, Aerys didn't even try to fight back when Jaime killed him.

Additionally, Jaime could have kept both his vows that way if he had not told Aerys about Rossart's death (preventing the man from attempting to send another messenger, or distracting him in another way from contemplating that) while also defending Aerys against Tywin's men. It would have been hopeless in the end, of course, but no man of Tywin's would have attempted to harm Jaime Lannister - Tywin would have given his men very specific orders in regards to Jaime, threatening to kill anyone in the cruelest way possible (and possibly their entire families, too) who would dare lay a hand on his beloved son. Which means Tywin's men would eventually have taken both Jaime and Aerys prisoner, and Jaime would have preserved his honor the way Ser Barristan Selmy did.

If you kill a person simply on the basis that you think the person might commit a crime later on his life - or tell other people to commit a crime - you are simply a murderer. No judge is going to call that self-defense or defense of a third person/party.

Quote

Garigus and Belis did nothing to reveal the problem to anyone.  You can conjecture that they would have saved the day but for evil Jaime but that seems somewhat deliberately twisted (as is often your want).  They were not the only other pyromancers in the guild or in KL but, like Rossart, they were taken into Aerys's confidence and worked enthusiastically to prepare the city for destruction

Suuuuure, these guys are altruists to a fault.

LOL, you don't get it again. The alchemists know that wildfire stashed too long will become volatile and develop a tendency to ignite itself. Do you think those men could sleep soundly at night knowing that the city they live in could explode any moment?

Now, perhaps they would have fled KL in the future, but they had not made any such attempts at the time Jaime killed them - which didn't happen immediately after Aerys' death since Jaime most definitely had neither time nor opportunity to sneak away after Robert had formally pardoned him for his kingslaying. And he didn't arrive immediately after Ned.

As to the pyromancers guilt:

They hadn't yet done anything, did they? And they were acting on the orders of the king. Stashing the wildfire at key points isn't the same as actually igniting it, is it? Perhaps they wouldn't have done it? We don't know.

We also don't know how enthusiastic they were, or how much of a choice they had. Rossart dragged them into Aerys' plan, and once they knew about the plan they were trapped. One assumes that telling the king to not go down that route would have led to them suffering the same fate as Chelsted and many other people who displeased Aerys. We are talking about a madman here. Everybody pretty much humored him. But that doesn't mean those men were actually all committed to the plan heart and soul.

[Ralphis Baratheon]

Maybe Jaime really believed Aerys was going to turn into a dragon and roast everyone in Westeros alive. 

[Blackwater Revenant]

On 25/01/2018 at 3:37 AM, Lord Varys said:

Sorry, this doesn't really work. Aemon takes another vow in addition to his maester's vow. And breaking his second vow usually has much more severe repercussions than breaking his first one

Of course it works. Just because you don't like that explanation, or it's not something you would do, doesn't mean it couldn't work for Aemon. 

Him taking another vow is irrelevant, what does that prove? 

Quote

(for one, maesters likely are not supposed to 'live and die at their posts', right?).

I'd say wrong. Where do you get that notion from?

Maester Luwin and Maester Cressan both felt obligated to die at their posts in loyal service to their respective Lords. Pycel too 'lived and died at his post', all three were serving at quite a ripe old age; just how old do you think retirement comes to one in the Seven Kingdoms?

How many Maesters do you know of who didn't die as a Maester?

Quote

If he had just wanted to remove himself from court he could have gone to Oldtown as an archmaester - or if that had been too dangerous, still, he could simply have removed himself to the Free Cities, the Far East, or the Summer Isles, or wherever he wanted to go.

Oldtown would not be away from the politics of the realm. And yeah, he certainly could have gone to the Free Cities, the Far East, or the Summer Isles, or wherever he wanted to go. But don't presume to know where he wanted to go, because you have no idea what he wanted. He could have very well wanted to go to the Wall, where he felt he could still serve his Kingdom, without actually having to be involved in the politics of it all. Perhaps he felt serving there was an honorable and worthy cause. You don't get to dictate what would have and what wouldn't have worked for Aemon.

Quote

Sorry, but I'm not talking about the exact circumstances Robb finds himself in right now.

Then your objection that nobody would  be willing to accept Robb's proposal on the grounds that it would have been done before is invalid, and is still circular reasoning. 

Quote

 

I'm talking about analogous circumstances that could have triggered the desire/intention in a king (or even a lord) to save his kingdom/lordship by naming an heir who had taken the black.

So am I.

Quote

Such a person doesn't have to a bastard brother of a king/lord. It could be his trueborn son, grandson, or brother. The issue at hand is just him getting out of the Watch.

I didn't say anything about him needing to be a bastard or a brother.

Quote

Just look at the number of houses the Starks eradicated during their own conquest of the North. The idea that Robb is the first man contemplating this is just very unlikely. It could even have happened with the Starks themselves, occasionally. I mean, if we assume that it was not uncommon in this history of the Starks that younger sons and brothers took the black (especially the farther back in time we go) then it is quite likely that there were circumstances where a Stark king was without a clear heir and would actually have preferred to see his son or brother in the Watch succeed him rather than some third or fourth cousin.

Maybe, still doesn't prove anything, or even support your argument.

Quote

It is a truism that things might be/would be accepted 'under the right circumstances'.  You would have to lay out those circumstances in detail to make a case that they are 'the right circumstances'.

Well you don't know what the circumstances would, or will be like if Robb's hypothesised plan were to come to fruition, so you cannot make the argument that it would not be accepted.

The only circumstance that need be, is that it would benefit the ones you claim wouldn't accept it, and then they would accept it. It's irrelevant that you don't believe Jon being released from the Watch would be beneficial.

Quote

My point is that neither Robb nor Stannis have the power to bring 'the right circumstances' about.

How do you know? 

Quote

We would have to see a cultural shift where people (in the North) are actually going to accept that men can actually leave the Night's Watch. And that cultural shift hasn't happened yet. And I honestly doubt it will happen during this series. Little else so reinforced in this series as the importance of the NW vows and punishments that await the people who break it.

You really haven't been pay attention to the story that GRRM has been telling, if you don't see a huge cultural change coming. Seriously, one of the main themes of ASoIaF is about the absurdity of these types of vows, and the detriment to society that they can be.

Quote

I honestly don't understand this whole thing. I cannot imagine an 'honorable or worthy cause' that is more honorable and worthy than protecting the realms of men against the Others.

Who says that Jon needs to be a member of the Watch in order to protect the realms of men from the Others? In fact, if you had been paying attention to all that's been going on at the Wall throughout the series, you would know that one of the biggest obstacles facing Jon's attempt to save mankind from this threat has actually been the ways of the Night's Watch and his vows, and that it/they bind him from doing what needs to be done.

Quote

 - if he doesn't take a maester's vow he could very well become the Lord of Horn Hill in the end).

But according to you, he still could become Lord of Horn Hill even if he does become a Maester.

Quote

The Greatjon was challenging him, then. The heir/Lord Robb did very carefully listen to the advice of both his lords and his mother. In fact, if he had already been assertive and in control as King Robb later was, 'King Robb' would have never been crowned. Because he would have stopped that madness as quickly as it began, instead of, presumably, standing dumb-founded there in the middle of the circus.

I don't even know what you are going on about here, but to your original point, I don't agree with you that Robb doesn't take council from others. Just because a King make a decision that goes against what others have advised, that does not mean he didn't consider that council. What would be the point of him being the one with the power to make the decisions, if he were to just do what everyone told him to do?

Quote

I actually do not think so. I mean, it is clear that the leadership of the Watch sends out word about deserters to the Seven Kingdoms, but if the lords chance on some suspicious black brother, arrest him, and then receive a somewhat strange story from Castle Black as to what this guy is doing in their lands I don't think those lords have to heed such explanations.

Perhaps not, if it sounded suspicious, but I'm sure they would if it sounded reasonable.

Quote

Keep in mind that there were corrupt/evil Lord Commanders of the Night's Watch. Men going against their vows and the customs of the NW.

So what? That is irrelevant. Should one not heed the commands of their King just because there have been corrupted Kings before?

Quote

That is not the reason I'm of that opinion (although I might have given that impression). But elsewhere I think I made it clear that I think that a majority of people would simply continue to perceive Jon as an oathbreaker/turncloak no matter what King Robb or the Watch said. I think it is that deep ingrained in the culture. Just as people despise Jaime as 'the Kingslayer', never mind the fact that King Robert actually pardoned him.

Yeah, and Jaime's authority and position are still secure, no one has started a rebellion to fight the injustice of him being pardoned. 

Quote

However, I'd say that the way you phrase it here is somewhat faulty - it is not enough (or rather: relevant) that releasing Jon from his vows is good for the realm or mankind. The important point is that people believe that this is the case. Only then will they be willing to go along with it or work towards bringing this about.

Yeah, I'd say that is obvious.

Quote

The public 'knows' for quite some time that Cersei's children are not Robert Baratheon's children. Yet that hasn't led to the deposition or abdication of King Joffrey or Tommen. 

Exactly, yet you claim that having one man released from the Watch would insight this huge backlash and it would not be accepted. How could that upset people more than having a treasonous bastard illegitimately sitting the Iron throne and ruling over them? It seems that you've just squashed your entire argument with that point; You've just provided evidence strait from the books that would conflict with your assertion.

[Varysblackfyre321]

10 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Exactly, yet you claim that having one man released from the Watch would insight this huge backlash that would not be accepted. How could that upset people more than having a treasonous bastard illegitimately sitting the Iron throne and ruling over them? It seems that you've just squashed your entire argument with that point. You've just provided evidence strait from the books that would confli

They know Stannis is claiming such.  

 

11 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Yeah, and Jaime's authority and position are still secure, no one has started a rebellion to fight the injustice of him being pardoned. 

Quote

Robert didn't pick Jamie(a glorified bodyguard), to be his heir. Would people rebel if he was. Likely.

 

15 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Who says that Jon needs to be a member of the Watch in order to protect the realms of men from the Others. In fact, if you had been paying attention to all that's been going on at the Wall throughout the series, you would know that one of the biggest obstacles facing Jon's attempt to save mankind from this threat, has actually been the ways of the Night's Watch and his vows, and that it/they bind him from doing what needs to be done.

Robb isn't planning to bribe/extort the watch by threatening to give/withhold potential recruits for the release of Jon  to better contend with some possible world-ending catascatatropic threat such as the others.

He wants Jon out because he thinks if he dies before siring an heir and to continue the war-effort against the south and avenge daddy.

The purpose of the watch is far more holy than the purpose Robb has for his bastard half-brother.

 

[Bernie Mac]

On 26/01/2018 at 9:46 AM, Lord Varys said:

LOL, that isn't conjecture, that is a fact in the story. And a fact both Jaime and Aerys are aware of. Aerys himself tells Jaime that Tywin's men are already in the castle,

Is that genuinely stated by Aerys? That Tywin's men are in the castle?

"It fell to me to hold the Red Keep, but I knew we were lost. I sent to Aerys asking his leave to make terms. My man came back with a royal command. 'Bring me your father's head, if you are no traitor.' Aerys would have no yielding. Lord Rossart was with him, my messenger said. I knew what that meant."

This suggests that the castle was not yet breached. Is there another quote you are referring to?

On 26/01/2018 at 9:46 AM, Lord Varys said:

 

and the throne room isn't exactly the least conspicuous place. Tywin's men will be there (and are there) in a couple of minutes when Jaime kills Aerys.

I don't know if it was a couple if minutes, but even if it was the point is that Jaime could not have known that. The castle, according to Ned Stark, was full of thousands of loyalists, some of whom were still fighting even after Aerys had been killed

"The castle is ours, ser, and the city," Roland Crakehall told him, which was half true. Targaryen loyalists were still dying on the serpentine steps and in the armory, Gregor Clegane and Amory Lorch were scaling the walls of Maegor's Holdfast, and Ned Stark was leading his northmen through the King's Gate even then, but Crakehall could not have known that.

All it would take is some of them coming to the throne room with Jaime and the captured King and Jaime to be in trouble as the mad King ordered his death and messages to be sent to the other pyromancers. 

What I disagree with is Jaime's motivation. I think him saving the city comes second to saving his own life and the life of his father and the other Westerland men. Jaime did what any rational person would have done. 

On 26/01/2018 at 9:46 AM, Lord Varys said:

That means Jaime would only have to keep Aerys distracted, arrested, knocked out, whatever for a mere couple of minutes. And we do know that he could have done that. After all, Aerys didn't even try to fight back when Jaime killed him.

Jaime would have to be certain that the next people in that room were rebels and not loyalists. That is something he can not be certain about. It is pure 50/50, why would anyone make that kind of gamble when Aerys was going to die no matter what?

Obviously Jaime broke his oaths, Aerys being mad does not seem to be a factor in this at all. 

She would not hear it. "Aerys was mad and cruel, no one has ever denied that. He was still king, crowned and anointed. And you had sworn to protect him."

[Varysblackfyre321]

5 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Jaime would have to be certain that the next people in that room were rebels and not loyalists. That is something he can not be certain about. It is pure 50/50, why would anyone make that kind of gamble when Aerys was going to die no matter what?

 

Actually if there is a chance of the people on the other side being enemies wouldn't distracting him be the way to go about it? Besides killing him which would get him killed...

[Blackwater Revenant]

On 25/01/2018 at 3:37 AM, Lord Varys said:

I actually don't think that is all that is to that. Think of the weirwood gate beneath the Nightfort. It opens when you speak the vow. But does it do that to every black brother, or only to those who spoke their vows in front of heart trees? There is likely a reason as to why Sam did that, just as there is a reason why George had Sam to swear his vow in front of a heart tree, too.

Sure there's more to it, but that is aside from the point. Pretty much the entire realm doesn't believe in all of what is actually going on. They don't believe in the existence of the Others, or in the true purpose of the Watch. Why would they be holding to this? It's quite clear that what they hold to now, is the ignorant beliefs that have formed over the many years since the true purpose of the Watch was forgotten. The importance of the vows as it stands now, is in conjunction with the ways and laws of the current society, not to some possible decree from the Gods, of which has long since been forgotten.

Quote

But aside from this metaphysical stuff our differences simply are that you believe some guys in charge of things (Robb, Stannis, etc.) actually do have the power to cause a cultural shift that would the Northmen (or all of the Seven Kingdoms) simply cause to accept that a man is not only released from his NW vows but also be raised to a great lord/future king at the same time.

And I think that would be a little bit much to swallow. 

Why is that to much to swallow? Cultural change has to start somewhere, and it's certainly coming to Westeros. Who better to do that than one of the main protagonists of the story? It's not Robb or Stannis that would do this, it would be Jon.

...Or can that kind of thing only come from a character that you are a fan of? 

Quote

We are talking in context of the threat of the Others - which should need the help of the entire Realm, perhaps even more - to be dealt with, not just whatever the (now ravaged) North can offer. The Seven Kingdoms are a unified Realm since 300 years. Causing the central authority to mistrust/not help you is worse on the long run than raising the ire of single secessionist kingdom which is not likely to last, anyway.

Sooo...um, what? Are you claiming that the existence of the Watch isn't dependent on the support of the realm, and that Winterfell hasn't played a prominent role in ensuring the strength of the Watch? Or are you just trying to deflect from the fact that you have been called out on asking a question implying a clearly erroneous sentiment? That being: 

Quote

Why should the Watch care who is King in the North or Lord of Winterfell? 

[Bernie Mac]

1 minute ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Actually if there is a chance of the people on the other side being enemies wouldn't distracting him be the way to go about it? Besides killing him which would get him killed...

With Aerys dead he can at least concentrate 100% on protecting himself and fighting/killing/persuading any guards that enter. Aerys alive complicates matters, forces Jaime to split his concentration.  Plus with Aerys alive and able to send word to the other pyromancers Jaime is dead even if he manages to kill the guards who entered and Aerys as the city would possibly be already aflame before he could track them down. 

Why take the risk over someone who is going to be executed no matter what? 

it is only come AFFC do we finally see a mature Jaime, willing to think what his actions might mean. Before that, especially in AGOT, he is rash in his decision making with no fear of the consequences. I can only imagine how much more impulsive he would have been as a teenager. I kind of doubt that Jaime really considered the long term consequences to his reputation until after Aerys was dead. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

8 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

that to much to swallow? Cultural change has to start somewhere, and it's certainly coming to Westeros. Who better to do that than one of the main protagonists of the story? It's not Robb or Stannis that would do this, it would be Jon.

...Or can that kind of thing only come from a character that you are a fan of? 

Jon is a bastard and if Robb's proposal accepted would be seen as an oathbreaker (not that they'd be wrong). By virtue of having released Jon and saying it's good doesn't suddenly cause a cultural shift where not a lot of the north particularly the nobility would have a problem with that. The culture would need to change first (which Westeroes really hasn't done much of since the start of series), for that possible to be feasible.

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

9 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

With Aerys dead he can at least concentrate 100% on protecting himself and fighting/killing/persuading any guards that enter. Aerys alive complicates matters, forces Jaime to split his concentration.  Plus with Aerys alive and able to send word to the other pyromancers Jaime is dead even if he manages to kill the guards who entered and Aerys as the city would possibly be already aflame before he could track them down. 

Why would he have to kill anyone? Guards see him and a perfectly breathing Aerys they'd no reason to attack him. If they're his father's men he can step aside. If they're Aerys' he'd be dead(he's a excellent swordsman) but he can't take out 5 guys himself.And  the plan was close knit. Only those who took a direct part knew of it and Jamie had killed all of them by the time he'd confronted Aerys.

[Blackwater Revenant]

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

They know Stannis is claiming such.  

There are those who know, and believe Stannis' accusations, only chose to turn a blind eye as it suits their own cause. Renly knows the truth, but denies it as he doesn't care, and it validates Stannis' claim over his. Hell, even Robert, deep down, likely knows that joffrey isn't his, but chooses to not believe it.

That's the whole point, people tend to believe, or not believe something, depending on what it means to their own interests. The same goes for the importance of the Nights Watch vows. It's would only be an issue with those that have an ulterior motive in not wanting to see Jon get out. Those that support and respect the Starks in the North - which is the vast majority of the region - would not have an issue with it.

Quote

Robert didn't pick Jamie(a glorified bodyguard), to be his heir. Would people rebel if he was. Likely.

Not necessarily, it would depend on how Jaimie being heir would affect them personally.

Quote

He wants Jon out because he thinks if he dies before siring an heir and to continue the war-effort against the south and avenge daddy.

Or he wants Jon as his heir because he thinks he is worthy, and has Stark blood, giving the people of the North a reason to support and accept him as a true heir to Winterfell. Your assertion is purely unsupported conjecture.

 

[Blackwater Revenant]

45 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Jon is a bastard

Not if he is decreed legitimate by the King, of which Robb was.

Quote

 

and if Robb's proposal accepted would be seen as an oathbreaker (not that they'd be wrong).

You would not be seen as an oath breaker if you were honorably absolved of those vows. We're not talking about Jon deserting, and turning his back on the cause of the Watch. It could be argued that he could do far more for the Watch's cause as King in the North, than he could do as the Lord Commander, and bound by the shackling rules and vows that come with being a sworn brother of the Watch.

Quote

By virtue of having released Jon and saying it's good doesn't suddenly cause a cultural shift where not a lot of the north particularly the nobility would have a problem with that. The culture would need to change first (which Westeroes really hasn't done much of since the start of series), for that possible to be feasible.

How would the culture change first, without having an unprecedented event to be the catalyst for that change? That's exactly the sort of thing that does bring on a cultural shift, and the way society views issues.

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

ere are those who know, and believe Stannis' accusations, only chose to turn a blind eye as it suits their own cause. Renly knows the truth, but denies it as he doesn't care, and it validates Stannis' claim over his. Hell, even Robert, deep down, likely knows that joffrey isn't his, but chooses to not believe it.

Mostly those who profess this to be true  are Stannis's' followers. Convient. Renly didn't know if he did he'd tell Robert or Ned when he was trying to get him to take the children captive. There is literally no evidence that had presented for Stannis had claimed and admits he could not prove his claim.

1 hour ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

hat's the whole point, people tend to believe, or not believe something, depending on what it means to their own interests. The same goes for the importance of the Nights Watch vows. It's would only be an issue with those that have an ulterior motive in not wanting to see Jon get out. Those that support and respect the Starks in the North - which is the vast majority of the region - would not have an issue with it.

Yes they would have a problem with the watch being blackmailed/bribed into allowing a man foresake his oaths for political gain.

Its the height of dishonor.

And they may very well refuse to honor such a thing if Robb died for it should have never been done in the first place.

1 hour ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

ot necessarily, it would depend on how Jaimie being heir would affect them personally.

The sworn body guard to the king stabs his liege in the back and has no blood claim to the throne and gets elected to be the new one at some point...yeah people would have an out cry about that. Robert had a claim(although weak), to the throne that made it possible to avoid the infighting over exactly who should be king. 

 

1 hour ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Or he wants Jon as his heir because he thinks he is worthy, and has Stark blood, giving the people of the North a reason to support and accept him as a true heir to Winterfell. Your assertion is purely unsupported conjecture.

 

Your assertion ignores the context of the reasons given by Robb for why he must release Jon in favor of the notion he was doing so out of some pure altruistic sentiment. 

His reasons given to Catelyn were that he knew if he died before siring an heir the movement would die with him. Bran and Rickon are dead from his knowledge. Sansa is in the hands of the lions. Robb makes very clear he wants vegence nearlly time peace proposed to him and he says he will not bend the knee because the royal family killed his beloved father. 

That's why he feels Jon is needed.

So the north's war-effort doesn't die.

As well as make sure the IT couldn't use Sansa as a way to secure the north.

[Varysblackfyre321]

23 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Not if he is decreed legitimate by the King, of which Robb was.

A king. Well rebel trying to become king

And a bastard would he be still seen.

23 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

You would not be seen as an oath breaker if you were honorably absolved of those vows. We're not talking about Jon deserting, and turning his back on the cause of the Watch. It could be argued that he could do far more for the Watch's cause as King in the North, than he could do as the Lord Commander, and bound by the shackling rules and vows that come with being a sworn brother of t

No we're talking about Robb bribing/blackmailing the watch into releaseing his bastard-half brother for his political interests by offering/threatening to give/withhold 100 potential recruits. Right after a wildling invasion no less. 

 

 And a Stark king means the rest of the realm (especially the IT) are likely to cut off supplies and men to the watch and given he'd abandon his oaths so quickly the Watch would probably think once king the boy wouldn't put that much thought for his "brothers".

And the war would put that as the only real priority when it's going on. 

And Ned deeply respected the watch and its purpose but the watch still was in disarray; why would his son being king make their position any better? It wouldn't. And if he won even then it'd take years to rebuild and likely in the future  Westeroes would be plagued with war more wars with the north and South where plenty of boys(who may have went to the watch) are going to have to be drafted, and the north again would put that as their top priority.

23 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

How would the culture change first, without having an unprecedented event to be the catalyst for that change? That's exactly the sort of thing that does bring on a cultural shift, and the way society views issues.

What Robb is proposing isn't going to cause a cultural shiftby simply doing something unprencdented.

The lords who were and indoctrinated to with having a very specific view on the world and the places of everyone to which group should be able to rule and who should not aren't going to suddenly become uber progressive on the issue of Jon(a bastard and oathbreaker), becoming king. Hundreds and thousands of years of prejudices that entrench a society to its core don't suddenly become not a big deal because the new leader in society says so instantly with no massive pushback.

[Blackwater Revenant]

25 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

His reasons given to Catelyn were that he knew if he died before siring an heir the movement would die with him. He's makes very clear he wants vegence nearlly time peace proposed to him and he says he will not bend the knee because the royal family killed his beloved father. 

That's why he feels Jon is needed.

So the north's war-effort doesn't die

Where do you get this crap from?

He states the reason for needing an heir (not Jon as his heir, an heir in general) is so his kingdom does not die by falling into the hands of the Lannisters. He states nothing about vengeance, or about his father.

A Storm of Swords - Catelyn V

Quote

 

"Young, and a king," he said. "A king must have an heir. If I should die in my next battle, the kingdom must not die with me. By law Sansa is next in line of succession, so Winterfell and the north would pass to her." His mouth tightened. "To her, and her lord husband. Tyrion Lannister. I cannot allow that. I will not allow that. That dwarf must never have the north."

"No," Catelyn agreed. "You must name another heir, until such time as Jeyne gives you a son." 

 

And the only reason he gives to justify it being Jon is this:

A Storm of Swords - Catelyn V

Quote

"Jon's more a Stark than some lordlings from the Vale who have never so much as set eyes on Winterfell."

Stop making shit up, and stating your biased, twisting of the text conjecture as to what motivated Robb as a fact.