The execution of Janos Slynt was spot on

[Three-Fingered Pete]

2 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Yeah, deary this a forum of Ice and Fire books. Welcome to the crowd. Beware that you will meet many who talk in circles.

Then perhaps a proper application of the Dardo philosophy is best in this situation.

[Clegane'sPup]

4 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Exactly.

Damn it!  ewe be supposed to let this shite go

[Clegane'sPup]

3 minutes ago, Trefayne said:

Then perhaps a proper application of the Dardo philosophy is best in this situation.

Now, you gonna make me google

[Three-Fingered Pete]

3 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Now, you gonna make me google

LOL! Well, this ought to be interesting.

[Ralphis Baratheon]

1 hour ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Let it go. In my opinion you aren't dealing with ASOIAF books fans now.  You are dealing with Slynt"s.

Well Janos did say Janos Slynt has a good many friends. They have come to support their lord.

[Clegane'sPup]

Just now, Ralphis Baratheon said:

Well Janos did say Janos Slynt has a good many friends. They have come to support their lord.

Play on words and you got it.

[kissdbyfire]

17 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Damn it!  ewe be supposed to let this shite go

Sometimes it's really hard! 

 

[Clegane'sPup]

24 minutes ago, Trefayne said:

LOL! Well, this ought to be interesting.

Well, I didn't much like my google choices. Saw no relevance to martin's story. So you best be tellin' me wtf you talking bout.

[Three-Fingered Pete]

6 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Well, I didn't much like my google choices. Saw no relevance to martin's story. So you best be tellin' me wtf you talking bout.

I'm not surprised, it is a very obscure reference and has nothing to do with anything GRRM has done. If you're still interested I'll tell you.

[Lord Varys]

6 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Wait, wait, do you assume that Mormont always knows for sure with what purpose his men ride to Mole's Town? For all he knows some of them may ride there with the single purpose of visiting the brothel, while others may ride off with the purpose of deserting, then have second thoughts while riding, so they stop in Mole's Town, let the steam off, then return. Some of them may ride further than Mole's Town, then turn back and pretend that they have only been to Mole's Town and never wanted to do anything else.

I honestly don't care what Mormont thinks about the men he allows to break their vows by abusing women in a shitty brothel at Mole's Town - all we do know is that he knows men go whoring there and that he allows to do it.

In Jon case he knows the boy did not go whoring but deserted the moment he left CB. That's just a fact. You cannot dance around that.

6 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Mormont only knows that Jon intends to desert because he knows him and the circumstances. But there may be circumstances in other cases he does not know. What matters is that the boy comes back.

Nope, the fact that he comes back does not matter. When we ask whether he deserted then the question whether he deserted and whether he was punished for that or not, matters. We do know that men going whoring are not seen as deserters - but deserters are. And Jon is one of the latter.

Mormont's treats Jon like one of the whoring men, but he is not. And they both know it.

6 hours ago, Julia H. said:

There is nothing to suggest that Jon receives special treatment here - what is actually implied by Mormont's words is that such things happen and there is a certain amount of tolerance precisely because everyone can experience a crisis, everyone can make a bad decision - if they don't follow through with it, it is fine. The Watch would really be wasting resources if they executed everyone who temporarily wavers due to getting bad news from home or due to love, etc. We see that Jon actually becomes more dutiful and committed to the NW after Mormont has talked to him, so Mormont is justified in his tolerance.

There is no indication for anyone getting some slack on desertion, there is only indication that you can go whoring if you like. Perhaps you also have to informally tell somebody that you are off to Mole's Town (the men talk about that and go there together, as we know) so that you are not considered a deserter.

Perhaps you also get a night's leave without being condemned as a deserter - we don't know. But Jon didn't come back of his own free will, he came back because his friends forced him to come back. He didn't even regret that he had deserted. He doesn't deserve lenient treatment.

6 hours ago, Julia H. said:

A ranger's job is important, too. Which is more important? It depends. I think ability and personality are the things to consider here. No, Thorne wasn't a good master-at-arms, but perhaps his quarrelsome and sarcastic nature had proved to be harmful during rangings as well. It is also possible that Thorne had been master-at-arms before Mormont became LC, and he couldn't find anyone better to replace him with. The good fighters were all good rangers, and they didn't have enough of those anyway. 

Rangers are just guys. Master-at-arms is an important position at every castle in Westeros as you well know. It is a much better position than being 'just a ranger'.

And, sorry, baseless speculation as to why your idea that Mormont always judged Thorne's character correctly and only dumped him on the boys (a ridiculous appointment in my opinion, just as Mormont's reason for doing so is) is going to lead us nowhere. If George gave us such reasons - fine. But what we do not know we do not know.

6 hours ago, Julia H. said:

None of this is a reason that justifies mocking and goading a brother in distress. Thorne may hate Jon or Ned all he wants, this is not the time to act on his hatred. His behaviour is disgusting and motivated by base intentions.

As far as I know there is no requirement that you treat your brothers always with love and kindness. Rast was just following the command of his master-at-arms, no? Yet his brother recruits threatened him with violence and a direwolf. 

It is still not nice what Thorne did, but there is no indication he did something he was not allowed to do. This is a hard world. People who cannot suffer it be insulted or mocked to their faces should better stay in bed all day.

One should also keep in mind that Jon presumed to mock Ser Alliser to his face, too - something that was completely improper in a military environment when dealing with a superior officer.

6 hours ago, Julia H. said:

The latter is a very hypocritical suggestion. In fact, no one is expected to feel nothing towards their former family or to deny family relationships. Mormont grieves for his son and still refers to him as his son, Maester Aemon grieves for Rhaegar and his children, and still refers to them as family, Benjen Stark still visits Winterfell as the family home and receives letters from the Starks, even Sam refers to his father and brother as his father and brother. Why, even Bloodraven in the tree can remember that he had a sister. What is expected, however, is to put aside old family and personal grievances and quarrels, so since Thorne has said the words, he should no longer be a Targaryen loyalist and he should have given up all his politically motivated hatred towards the Starks long ago, especially with regard to a brother within the NW. 

Sure, they can visit and write letters, etc. all day long. But they are writing to their former families, not to their families. And most of the black brothers understand that. They are apart from their old families now. Jon doesn't. Not in AGoT and not in ADwD.

I'm not sure Thorne is a Targaryen loyalist anymore, by the way. But he was - and he knows Ned Stark is part of the reason why he is stuck at the Wall. He has every right to not like that fact. Because Alliser Thorne did not take the black because he had a choice. He had to choose between a rope and the black.

6 hours ago, Julia H. said:

How about "He knew I was going through a shock and the greatest emotional crisis in my life, trying my best to cope, and yet, he knowingly and malevolently started pushing my buttons to make me feel even worse, and, by the way, it wasn't the first time he treated me like this"? 

Jon paid him back in kind. But Thorne never beat him or tried to kill him, no? He treated him pretty fairly. And, well, Jon is just Ned's bastard. Thorne might not exactly know that Jon is as obsessed with Ned Stark as he is. Usually bastards don't have the closest of relationships with their fathers (not that Thorne would care) but it is a little bit, well, over the top to describe this as 'the greatest emotional crisis' of Jon's life as if Thorne (or anyone) has an obligation to care about any of that.

They can, of course, but this is, again, not a world where people give shit about your family and little problems. I don't see Jon ever inquiring with any of his brothers about their emotional crises relating to their families - it would be a very odd thing to do at the Wall.

6 hours ago, Julia H. said:

And it's not like Thorne was actually injured. Yes, I know Jon attacked him, and it was his friends who stopped him, but "attempted murder" is a bit strong. (As far as I remember he was going for Thorne's eyes, not his heart.  ) He attacked Thorne and was definitely going to injure him, but that is all that can be proved, and, in the end, Thorne wasn't harmed (or not much). Since you mention our modern world, even in our modern world, it matters whether the attack was successful or not, and the emotional state also matters, as does the fact that the attacked person has a well-documented history of mocking and humiliating the attacker (as well as other people) abusing his position and his power over him. People can be driven to extremes when they are regularly mocked and humiliated, and verbal aggression is also aggression. 

Oh, come on, this gets ridiculous. If I attack your eyes with knife long enough to go straight through your skull and I do this in a manner which makes it very likely that I might go through said skull (like throwing myself at you, say) then it is a completely ridiculous assumption that I didn't know and didn't accept that I might kill you in the process of stabbing/cutting out your eyes.

By the way, do you also think Owen Bush and Maladon Moore did not murder Ceryse Hightower (assuming the story is true)? After all, they just tried to cut out her tongue...

6 hours ago, Julia H. said:

And when a lot of men are locked up together in a military environment and officers don't treat  recruits "most fairly", fights are bound to occur. It is the Lord Commander's right and duty to maintain justice considering all circumstances. Discipline has to be maintained, that's why Janos Slynt was executed, but no military leader should expect that regular, uncalled for verbal abuse will always go unanswered and without consequences. They are raising fighters here, not sheep.   

If people can't behave themselves, they can't behave themselves - and they are punished. If you are insulted or unfairly treated you respect the chain of command and complain. You don't draw knife and take the law in your own hands.

6 hours ago, Julia H. said:

I'm sure Slynt knew the rules and possible consequences. Do you think he, as the LC in KL, would have patted a goldcloak on the back when the goldcloak had just told him where to stick it? I don't think so. He definitely thought that he, personally, was somehow immune to those consequences, because he had "friends". He was wrong about it, but that does not matter. I can't imagine a justice system that regards the culprit's (mistaken) belief in his personal immunity (due to his connections or because he doesn't expect to be found out or whatever reason) as a mitigating circumstance. Otherwise anyone could say, "sorry I only committed the crime because I was sure I would be exempt from punishment". 

Slynt didn't know what he was getting himself into. That is how the text looks, regardless what you think your image of Slynt should have known.

We also do know virtually nothing about the City Watch under Slynt - but newsflash: those men aren't proper soldiers nor necessarily trained to be soldiers.

There is a reason why Tywin is near a heart attack when he learns of the rumors that Joff wants to lead the City Watch against Robb.

As to what you think the justice system of Westeros is not:

Of course connections can safe you from proper punishment - not just due to corruption and favoritism but also thanks to the protection that come with noble/high birth and rank. The very fact of the ridiculous institution of trial-by-combat proves that. That means every criminal who has a right to it (only nobility and knights) can get away with pretty much any crime if he either has the ability to defeat most men in combat or has the coin to buy himself a good enough champion.

But, of course, many people are never going to be charged with any crimes due to their rank and station, never mind what they actually did.

6 hours ago, Julia H. said:

BTW, I can perfectly imagine that Thorne was egging Slynt on in order to test Lord Commander Snow (and to make him look ridiculous if possible) without taking any personal risks. 

Don't think so, actually, since the text seems to indicate that Thorne actually wanted to dissuade Slynt.

6 hours ago, Julia H. said:

But he didn't.

And how could Jon possibly know this? Is he reading the Cersei, Tyrion, Jaime, and Sansa chapters of ASoIaF?

6 hours ago, Julia H. said:

I can agree with this, too. My point was (I may not have expressed it very well) that Slynt's IQ is not as low as he wouldn't be responsible for his actions. You know, he is a moron, but not someone who would be considered today a medical case or someone with no legal responsibility. 

We have no reason to declare he must have known what he was getting himself into - and all that's needed for mitigating circumstances would be the benefit of the doubt.

6 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Well, at this point it was just normal foresight to think of the possibility that Slynt might not have changed his mind, and in this case Jon had to be prepared to deal with him. 

He certainly needed men to be capable of overwhelming him. But Jon's men don't seem to be surprised over the death sentence there. Which is pretty telling. Jon was in no rush to execute Slynt. He could have sentenced him to death without actually executing him on the spot.

6 hours ago, Julia H. said:

A good message, actually, especially in a penal-military colony. 

Not if you are also sending the message 'I'm biased against you' to the Iron Throne.

6 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Sure, but here again the outcome is what matters. Especially in light of the fact that there was another wight in the castle, which killed several black brothers, including Ser Jeremy Rykker, and Jon dealt with this one with only the help of his wolf.

Nope. The outcome is not what matters. When are talk whether somebody is a hero or did a heroic deed it does not matter what he did, but that he actually knew what he was doing when he did it. If I fall down the stairs and slay/incapacitate a robber I didn't even know was there then you can very well thank me, but I'm no hero.

Jon wasn't doing anything exceptional when he was trying to defend himself against wight with with steel and then, in his helplessness, throw a lamp at him.

6 hours ago, Julia H. said:

An attack that might or might not have been attempted murder. Again, Jon was actually going for his eyes. But a publicly provoked attack in any case.

Even if it wasn't attempted murder (which I still think it was) it was still an attack on a superior officer with the intention to severely injure the man and deal him wounds that could very well kill him. Which would also give Jon the death penalty in my book.

In fact, in a proper military this should get you court-marshaled immediately.

6 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Totally irrelevant. Jon didn't attack Thorne because he wanted him to "fraternize" with anyone, nor because of any command. It doesn't matter whether Thorne is "factually wrong" or not. 

The point being there is that Thorne is under no obligation to be nice to Jon. The Watch call each other brothers, but they are not, in fact, brothers, nor are they required to like each other.

6 hours ago, Julia H. said:

As I  said, those who were still there were used to obeying anyone who gave orders, and Thorne was an actual officer they knew. (The "shadow on the wall" - should I really explain that to  Lord Varys?) That they thought Slynt had authority there doesn't mean he had any, from a legal viewpoint though. Maester Aemon knew this. Why do you think Slynt cannot command him not to write to Pyke?

Sorry, but here you are just inventing things you don't know. Aemon must likely just sent a letter, and did not ask anyone whether he was allowed to do so.

Whether Slynt is an Eastwatch man or Thorne still assigned to CB is completely unknown. You can't invent your own facts there.

6 hours ago, Julia H. said:

No, not in a fortress system, where every commander has almost soverign power in his castle (they are responsible to the one person who appointed them - in RL it's likely the king, here the LC). Imagine Mallister also sending a "commander" to the same castle at the same time. It would be chaos. Nor can the castle "in disarray" wait  for another garrison to solve their problem. They have to deal with it immediately.

That doesn't make a lot of sense. There has to be a chain of command as there is in any military-like organization, and neither Jon nor Noye were part of that - Thorne and Slynt were, though. As was Cotter Pyke.

6 hours ago, Julia H. said:

I do think this is the greatest bluff in ASOIAF, showing that power lies where people think it lies. No one ever says who gave Slynt the power. As I said before, Cotter Pyke can give orders to Slynt not because he has authority in CB but because Slynt is an Eastwatch man, stationed momentarily in CB.

Sure, power lies where people think it lies. But that doesn't change that institutions do call certain type of power 'official power' and that military organizations have chains of command. And when somebody presumes to exert power in such organizations who is not authorized to do so then this means he is ... wrong.

6 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Nor does it mean he is wrong. Those are two unrelated questions, so I don't know what you mean by this. The fact is that the men of the NW must follow their commander. No soldier in any military organization has the right to decide whether they obey their appointed / chosen commander or not. If they decide they do not obey because of their personal opinion, then they must know it is mutiny. It may happen that you rather choose mutiny than follow orders for reasons of conscience - but then you should be prepared to suffer the consequences for your conviction or you'd better not start the whole thing. Starting mutiny just because you think you can get away with it, is not the right reason from a moral viewpoint. What Slynt actually brings up against Jon as his reason for disobedience is "traitor's bastard" and "just a boy". Not something one can actually respect. 

The NW is *not* a military organization where blind obedience to the guy at the top is a virtue or even expected of them. 

6 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Mormont has tried. They got Slynt as "help". Nothing has changed since then, and the IT actually wants the North to bleed. In any case, Stannis has been convinced, and that's something real, something tangible and potentially useful.

And this absolves them of the need/duty to ask for more help how and why?

This is ridiculous - even if nobody is going to send them so much as a single man they sure as hell should tell everybody that they are IN REAL DANGER from ICE DEMONS and WALKING DEAD. They never did that in any proper way.

Even the letter to Stannis didn't talk about the Others (because Samwell, that great hero, failed to actually send proper information to CB). They asked for help against the wildlings.

And, sure - the Iron Throne doesn't have to help the NW against the wildlings. But if anybody down there actually got believable information about ice demons and walking dead that would have an impact.

It would have an impact on any human being.

6 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Yet, it was necessary, and we all know why. The LC of the NW has to see to the defences of the Northern border, that's his priority. Whether he wins sympathy with it is (while desirable) entirely secondary.

That is nonsense. As a commander you have to think on the long run as much as on the short run. Especially if you are as young as Jon Snow.

6 hours ago, Julia H. said:

There is no point in guessing what "another king" would have done. One could imagine a million different types, including ones who would give their full support to the NW 

While this is true, we can most definitely say that any such kings who weren't occupied with civil wars would have sent help to prevent an invasion of their territory by savages. That's pretty much self-evident.

[Clegane'sPup]

5 minutes ago, Trefayne said:

I'm not surprised, it is a very obscure reference and has nothing to do with anything GRRM has done. If you're still interested I'll tell you.

go ahead spill it

[kissdbyfire]

15 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

In Jon case he knows the boy did not go whoring but deserted the moment he left CB. That's just a fact. You cannot dance around that.

Come on, that's a silly argument, especially this late in the game. 

But I'll play... Show me where is the NW code of law, and point to where does it specify what constitites desertion. 

Is it walking 10 yards past the southernmost building? Maybe 20 yards? One hundred? More? Less?

Because as far as I can tell from the actual text, it is for the LC to decide. You know, the same way it's up to the LC to decide on what punishment is adequate/warranted for each offence. 

[Three-Fingered Pete]

5 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

go ahead spill it

It is a line from an old Burt Lancaster movie The Flame and the Arrow (1950). Unfortunately the line isn't in the trailer above, but before they manage to get him involved with the conflict he flippantly blows off all their pleas and problems with a rather profound line, that strangely enough, could be well applied to all in the lands of ASoIaF:

"Never get involved with things. Because things lead to people, and people lead to problems."

Come to think of it, I think you just gave me my sig. line.

[Clegane'sPup]

14 minutes ago, Trefayne said:

It is a line from an old Burt Lancaster movie The Flame and the Arrow (1950). Unfortunately the line isn't in the trailer above, but before they manage to get him involved with the conflict he flippantly blows off all their pleas and problems with a rather profound line, that strangely enough, could be well applied to all in the lands of ASoIaF:

"Never get involved with things. Because things lead to people, and people lead to problems."

Come to think of it, I think you just gave me my sig. line.

[Varysblackfyre321]

54 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Even if it wasn't attempted murder (which I still think it was) it was still an attack on a superior officer with the intention to severely injure the man and deal him wounds that could very well kill him. Which would also give Jon the death penalty in my book.

In fact, in a proper military this should get you court-marshaled immediately.

Agreed. And the excuse of Jon having heard something that hurt his feelings isn't really going to be seen as mitigating circumstance. Thieves are never given any leeway by mere fact they and/or their family were starving and they only stole to avoid starvation, or given any real leeway because of their age, Lommy wasn't that far off from  Jon in terms of age and the only chance for freedom after having been guilty of stealing dye was a life in the watch. We don't see those of weak state of mind being given reprieve because  of it; if Gerion did tell Ned about the others we don't see Ned decide to spare Gerion who honestly would sound insane.. A military cares for your personal problems even less-it is simply not their problem. Thorne said negative things about Jon's father. I honestly don't see most military commander giving a shit about one of their officers having made fun of a recruit (at least one whose regular), during a time said recruit is feeling sensitive about whatever. If the recruit tries to murder or blind(which lets be real stabbing at person's eyes, the chance of killing their superior is going to be likely to not honestly see as an attempt on the man's life), the recruit would typically die for that offense alone. 

[the trees have eyes]

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It is not a good reason for defiance, I agree, but such reasons are a spectrum (there are even people who say Marsh had no reason to assassinate Jon Snow after the man publicly declare he was breaking his vows), and the point I'm making is just that Slynt may have had a pretty good reason to mistrust Jon - never mind the the boy was duly elected LC of the NW.

No, it's not a good reason for oathbreaking.  Whatever his misgivings it's the first week of Jon's command and there is nothing to find fault with.  I really don't want to get into the Ides of Marsh but Marsh can at last argue "For the Watch".  Slynt can't at all.  It's "For myself".  There's really no argument to make when the guy is bragging about his connections and being the Lord of Harrrenhall. 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There were other men who were duly elected, too, and who a majority of the NW apparently followed to such a high degree that outsiders had to restore order.

Within a week?  Refusing to obey orders a week after a landslide election hardly compares with the NK or the other examples.  They are not relevant to the circumstances in hand.

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That in and of itself indicates that it is a virtue in the Watch to double-check whether your officers actually continue to go along with the mission or pursue their own goals.

I think you have it backwards: Slynt is pursuing his own goals.

Your argument here seems to be that the men police their commanders which is unlike any military or feudal organisation ever.  We have several examples of people going off the deep end in story - the NK and Aerys - but their examples don't indicate that this feudal and hierarchical society has checks and balances or that the NW, and our illustrious Janos Slynt, get to refuse orders based on misgivings about whatever is on their mind.

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Majority opinion is irrelevant when facts are concerned.

Except we, the readers, know the facts of the situation and he is dead wrong.

In any case the election leaves him and his suspicions in a small minority.  I doubt The Commander of the Shadow Tower or his men would have been prepared to vote for Jon if they had suspicions he had murdered Qhorin and turned his cloak.  It is his duty to obey not to spit on the NW processes and institutions and elevate himself over the hundreds of brothers who just chose their 999th Lord Commander in the customary tradition.

Who the bejasus is Slynt to decide to reject all that and chart his own course thinking he is protected from any consequences?

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I honestly don't care about your assessment of the situation. You are neither Ned Stark nor Jeor Mormont and you don't know what they would have done or not.

Well I don't care for yours a great deal and neither do you so don't be so argumentative.

Ned is above all known to be honourable.  If Mormont punished Jon we can be sure it would be justly and Ned would in my opinion accept it.  We have a tale of a Stark Lord of Winterfell who's son deserted and he sent him back to face his punishment.  He did not ride off to Castle Black to replace the Lord Commander and totally undermine the NW.  I expect with a high degree of confidence that Ned would have done the same.

So, yeah, it seems baseless to me.

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Nor is there any indication Mormont took a personal interest in Jon Snow or his character - he never meets or interacts with him during his days a recruit as far as we know, and Jon doesn't even realize that becoming the steward of the LC is meant to be an honor.

The idea that 'the special treatment' Jon gets from Mormont is therefore based on Mormont's assessment of Jon's character doesn't hold much water.

Jon is the son of the Lord of Winterfell, and that makes him special.

It's both though.  As the son of Eddard Stark, raised at Winterfell and trained by a castellan he has a large edge over the other recruits in terms of training and experience.  He has the same upbringing as Robb, let's not forget that.  There is a presumption that he will be able to lead in time (hence Mormont's talk of high hopes for him) but if he was a complete Lemon - see Sam (sorry Sam) - they would quickly realise he was a dud and forget about those hopes.  As the quote from Aemon shows they are aware of both his physical and mental aptitude.

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, Benjen was the chosen successor - while he was still there, that is. Afterwards it became Jon. Mallister is an old man, and Pyke completely unsuited to lead the Watch.

Benjen is an obvious candidate, yes.  Now take what you said about Jon and consider whether this younger brother of Ned Stark got to be First Ranger because of his ability or because of his birth.  If he was a doofus, he never would have got that high.  The NW is not a preferment system for or a personal feudal possession of the Starks: they have a competitive advantage because they are raised for command, that is the role of noblemen in a feudal society but they are not guaranteed command if they have no aptitude for it.  Some fail, like Sam.

I disagree Jon was the chosen successor at age 15/16, Mormont was looking way down the line.  After Mormont's death no one looked tot Jon for leadership and they had to be persuaded that he was an acceptable compromise.  Both Mallister and Pyke would have been more experienced and realistic choices for the next 10 or 20 years but elections can be funny things when deadlocked.

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Jon is wrong about Sam's ability as a black brother. He should never have gone there - or perhaps he should only have shown up as maester. But Samwell Tarly fucks his duty up when they are at the Fist of the First Men. He is the one who takes care of the ravens and the guy who can write, and he fucks it up.

Sam doesn't belong beyond the Wall, I agree, he belongs at Castle Black with other stewards or builders.  The point is he would never have passed basic training but this is not a selection process and he is not a volunteer: his father sent him under a threat of death if he refused to go.  The question is how to use him and Jon's idea of using him to help Aemon with the ravens rather than driving him to a breakdown under Thorne was a good one, the idea of training him up as a maester is an even better one.

A lot of people fucked up beyond the wall, it's why only a handful of men made it back.  Sam had no blame for that, though, yes, he did indeed right royally screw up sending the messages.  Messages that would have said "we are being overrun by dead men and a bear" so it's hard to see how that would have helped anyone or been believed at all.

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Man, what differentiate 'a person being absent' from 'desertion' is the reason behind the deed. If I break my leg on the way to my post I didn't desert. The same, perhaps (in the twisted mind of Jeor Mormont, at least) when I run away for a night to go whoring with the intention of returning in the morrow.

But Jon didn't go to Mole's Town. He didn't leave with the intention to return. And thus he was a deserter, never mind what Mormont says. Mormont doesn't want to take Jon's head, so he himself invents and accepts excuses. I can do that, too. But they still remain excuses, and the entire thing a travesty of justice.

Nah.  He intended to but did not actually desert.  That's the heart of it really.

To be a deserter you have to abandon your post and not return.  The two parts are equally necessary so despite your arguments to the contrary 1) black brothers visiting Mole's Town are doing neither - they are off duty men visiting a prostitute - and 2) Jon's escapade is not a desertion because he is back before dawn.

If he had been assigned to walking the Wall then there is a much stronger case to answer because he would have left his post.  It's analogous to a sentry leaving their post on a hostile border which is a very serious matter in the military.  On duty and off duty have different ramifications.

Well, I mentioned earlier about lawyering up and how any written law has reams and reams of interpretation and case by case examples setting judicial precedent and then modifying or developing it. I'm definitely going with Mormont, former Lord of Bear Island and longtime Lord Commander of the NW on this one because I think he knows what he is talking about far better than you could expect to based on your arbitrary feel for things.

I do feel he mentioned Mole's Town to make clear what is and is not acceptable and he very clearly warns Jon about making another attempt to desert: that he would be taken and not be friends.  The implication seems to me that had he not been back by dawn he would have been branded a deserter.

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I don't care about your opinion on that, either. The NW protects the 'realms of men' - which means all the Seven Kingdoms since the men manning it come from all the Realm. Which means that the LC is obliged to do his best to inform the realms of men of the dangers they are all in.

Then bite your lip and don't reply then, you're being something of a jerk.

I know exactly what the NW are for but The IT doesn't see any threat to the realm, just a problem for the rebellious North and the ingrates of the NW who had the temerity to choose Jon Snow and not Janos Slynt like they were told to.

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Your 'knowledge/claim' that the IT wouldn't do this or that has no effect on the duties of the LC of the NW. Especially in light of the fact that Jon Snow has no way of knowing what you think you know - which don't know, either, since Cersei, Kevan, the Tyrells, etc. were never actually properly informed about the danger the Others pose, no?

Yeah, it's human nature not to believe in fairy stories and not to do anything about an unbelievable problem in a place a vast distance away.  Only Stannis believed anything and he had Mel's visions to help out.  The attempt to take the wight's hand as hard evidence to convince doubting Thomases at KL met with ridicule.  It would be the same for Slynt they would think he was mad.  I'm sure a letter from Jon would convince no one either.  Cersei and the Tyrells are locked in a power battle, it's naive to think they would suddenly start to care about traitors in the North.  The author gave us Stannis and very probably Dany for that.

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

For trying to murder a superior officer, deserting once, and breaking his vows with Ygritte.

The attack on Thorne was a crime and warranted punishment.  It's quite possible the slash aimed at Thorne's face would have seriously injured and badly scarred him but you would not try that as attempted murder in any legal system on Earth: affray or attempted wounding maybe.  What Mormont would have applied is unknown because Jon saved his life in the night and he felt that outweighed Jon's crime.

He didn't desert so no case to answer.

I'm not aware that he either married Ygritte or fathered a child with her so I'm not sure abut the last.  He definitely had an affair of the heart with her that he feels guilty about because sleeping or even loving a wilding seems to run counter to what he thinks his NW duties demand but I don't see any oathbreaking.  And then there's this thing called context: he was ordered by Qhorin to infiltrate the wildlings and the only way he gets accepted by them is sleeping with her.  That's a fairly large mitigating circumstance and one Donal Noye and Aemon were able to weigh up in a matter of moments.

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We don't see any man being forgiven what Jon did.

We don't see anyone being punished for what Jon did.

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That has no bearing on whether his vows were actually broken. Jon himself is very aware of the fact that fucking Ygritte means that he broke his vow.

And his vow didn't include do whatever it takes to survive and fulfill your role as spy, or even to obey a superior officer in all things. It says you should take no wife and father no children. Jon, more or less, took a wife in Ygritte and he did his best to try to get her pregnant.

No.  Mance married Dalla and had a son with her, the oddly engagingly named monster.  Oh and he also deserted, like, you know, actually deserted.

See the difference?

I seem to remember someone arguing a while back that the black brothers visiting Mole's Town were breaking their vows because they were actively trying to father children.  Someone else helpfully pointed out that prostitutes are not known for getting pregnant as it impacts with their means of earning a living.  Seeing your argument here I wonder if the first person was you?

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

They do know that the dead walk - and Jon didn't need Mormont's speech about 'when the dead walk again it makes no matter who sits the Iron Throne' to have that thought himself - a thought he could and should have had before he deserted. The boy cared more about things he no longer has a right to care about than the survival of mankind.

Sure, they saw two dead men.  They had no idea what that signified as they no longer believed in the Others and went and walked straight into an ambush in the Haunted Forest.

Jon knows his duty, we have his whole arc on the Wall for that but a man has said he's in agreement with Faulkner's view that the only thing worth writing about is the human heart in conflict with itself.

The bolded is a bit theatrical: of course he still cares about his family so some conflict at leaving everything behind and hearing terrible news is to be expected; and to quote Mormont the NW thought their purpose at that point was to "stop savages in skins from stealing women" not to fight for the survival of mankind.  That realization comes much later.

[Dorian Martell's son]

16 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Exactly. If I were a crow in this universe and decided to join a mutiny-in-the-making it would never ever be to take over watch. I'd mutiny just to go to Majorca Dorne and get warm!

 

Dorne?  That place is sweltering and dry. Go to Lys. Warm, but on the ocean and full of the best sex workers in the known world 

[Lord Varys]

21 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

No, it's not a good reason for oathbreaking.  Whatever his misgivings it's the first week of Jon's command and there is nothing to find fault with.  I really don't want to get into the Ides of Marsh but Marsh can at last argue "For the Watch".  Slynt can't at all.  It's "For myself".  There's really no argument to make when the guy is bragging about his connections and being the Lord of Harrrenhall. 

I never said Slynt has a good case. I said one can see mitigating circumstances there, and the fact that the new Lord Commander might be a deserter and turncloak who got away with those crimes can be seen as such a mitigating factor.

Whether Slynt actually believes Jon is just as much a traitor as his father was (who Slynt might actually think was guilty of high treason) we don't know, but since he was close to Thorne he may actually have believed that.

21 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

Within a week?  Refusing to obey orders a week after a landslide election hardly compares with the NK or the other examples.  They are not relevant to the circumstances in hand.

Those example show that the NW men are not expected to show blind obedience to their commanders.

21 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

Your argument here seems to be that the men police their commanders which is unlike any military or feudal organisation ever.  We have several examples of people going off the deep end in story - the NK and Aerys - but their examples don't indicate that this feudal and hierarchical society has checks and balances or that the NW, and our illustrious Janos Slynt, get to refuse orders based on misgivings about whatever is on their mind.

Going to war against a mad or tyrannical king are not 'checks and balances'. Checks and balances prevent men like Aerys II from taking power. Any tyrant can be assassinated, any army can be defeated in war. And any regime can be successfully rebelled against.

However, the Watch is a military order, not a military as we know it. We don't know their rules in detail, but it is quite clear that the Lord Commander doesn't even remotely have the same rights as a king or even a lord. He is, like all his men, beholden to follow the vows he spoke when he took the black. And that severely limits his decisions and his political power.

In that sense, most of those 'modern military' parallels don't really hit home here.

21 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

Except we, the readers, know the facts of the situation and he is dead wrong.

Our knowledge is irrelevant when judging the characters on the basis of their knowledge. 

21 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

In any case the election leaves him and his suspicions in a small minority.  I doubt The Commander of the Shadow Tower or his men would have been prepared to vote for Jon if they had suspicions he had murdered Qhorin and turned his cloak.  It is his duty to obey not to spit on the NW processes and institutions and elevate himself over the hundreds of brothers who just chose their 999th Lord Commander in the customary tradition.

The Watch isn't a democracy. The men of the Watch vote as their officers tell to them to vote, not as they private beliefs or conscience tells them to vote. That's why it is important that the schemers convince the important people. If they no longer want the office and tell their supporters to vote for somebody else they, apparently, do that.

And that means that Jon wasn't Mr. Popular with most of the Watch, he was just the guy Mallister and Pyke told to vote for, and then they did that. Most of those men didn't know Jon Snow personally. They were from Eastwatch and the Shadow Tower, and most of the CB men are dead.

21 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

Ned is above all known to be honourable.  If Mormont punished Jon we can be sure it would be justly and Ned would in my opinion accept it.  We have a tale of a Stark Lord of Winterfell who's son deserted and he sent him back to face his punishment.  He did not ride off to Castle Black to replace the Lord Commander and totally undermine the NW.  I expect with a high degree of confidence that Ned would have done the same.

That was a Lord Ryswell, not a Lord Stark.

Ned is known to be a very honorable, but he shits on his honor when his family is in danger. He already shat on that honor when he lied to the world and his king and his wife and told them that his nephew is actually his bastard son.

Ned would, of course, accept it if Jon was punished within reason but their can't be a question that Ned wouldn't accept it if Jon was drawn and quartered, say, or burned alive, or hanged until he died.

When Catelyn presumed to lay hands on the good-brother of the king, Ned immediately made Cat's crime his own crime. He didn't distance himself from her or said 'Well, somebody has to investigate this, I'll take a neutral stance on this one'.

He would go to war for Cat and he would go to war for Jon. They are his family. And he would do everything to protect. Never mind what they did, or how guilty they were.

That's how Eddard Stark is portrayed in this series.

But it is a hypothetical: Mormont isn't stupid enough to actually harm the Bastard of Winterfell. That's why Jon is more equal than others and gets special treatment.

21 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

It's both though.  As the son of Eddard Stark, raised at Winterfell and trained by a castellan he has a large edge over the other recruits in terms of training and experience.  He has the same upbringing as Robb, let's not forget that.  There is a presumption that he will be able to lead in time (hence Mormont's talk of high hopes for him) but if he was a complete Lemon - see Sam (sorry Sam) - they would quickly realise he was a dud and forget about those hopes.  As the quote from Aemon shows they are aware of both his physical and mental aptitude.

Those things usually go hand in hand, though. A Stark on the level of Sam wouldn't be of much use but he would still be a noble from a great house with connections. He could help the Watch in that way. I mean, Mormont is also sucking up to the dwarf, who is only a little bit more useful at the Watch as Samwell when it comes to fighting.

21 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

Benjen is an obvious candidate, yes.  Now take what you said about Jon and consider whether this younger brother of Ned Stark got to be First Ranger because of his ability or because of his birth.  If he was a doofus, he never would have got that high.  The NW is not a preferment system for or a personal feudal possession of the Starks: they have a competitive advantage because they are raised for command, that is the role of noblemen in a feudal society but they are not guaranteed command if they have no aptitude for it.  Some fail, like Sam.

Nope, it is not. Nobles and knights still get pretty much everything at the Watch, just look at the names of the men who actually hold officers. And most nobles are not like Sam - and those who are usually don't show up at the Watch. Bastards of nobility can rise high at the Watch (unlike elsewhere) but there is a glass ceiling for the commoners. Those usually don't command castles, serve as officers, or become Lord Commander. We see this when Jon actually starts making common men officers and gives them command to castles.

And even the bastard thing is most likely only happening because of necessity. No person of rank and standing takes the black anymore, so you have to fill the offices with bastards and other lesser men who would never have gotten any high offices back in the days when the trueborn sons of great houses gladly took the black.

By the way: Have you forgotten those sham elections where the Kings in the North obviously told the Watch who to choose? When Stark boys became Lord Commander at the age of ten?!

21 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

I disagree Jon was the chosen successor at age 15/16, Mormont was looking way down the line.  After Mormont's death no one looked tot Jon for leadership and they had to be persuaded that he was an acceptable compromise.  Both Mallister and Pyke would have been more experienced and realistic choices for the next 10 or 20 years but elections can be funny things when deadlocked.

Mallister is even older than the Old Bear. He knows and says that he is not going to be LC. And Pyke is not suited for the office.

That Jon is groomed to succeed Mormont is a conclusion the characters in the story reach. I see no reason to question that. Mormont most likely did not intend to die in ASoS. If he had lived another, say, 3-5 years Jon could have been his obvious successor.

21 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

Sam doesn't belong beyond the Wall, I agree, he belongs at Castle Black with other stewards or builders.  The point is he would never have passed basic training but this is not a selection process and he is not a volunteer: his father sent him under a threat of death if he refused to go.  The question is how to use him and Jon's idea of using him to help Aemon with the ravens rather than driving him to a breakdown under Thorne was a good one, the idea of training him up as a maester is an even better one.

Still, black brothers are warriors and are expected to fight. As a trained maester Sam would have been of more use, sure, but when you take the black you don't go to the Citadel.

That Sam is allowed to go there as a black brother is still very odd. If that works, then how is it that nobody sends black brothers to, you know, the great castles and cities of the Realm to inform the people there about the real threat? If men can go on extended leaves of absence to forge chains at the Citadel (which could take years, depending on Sam's progress) why is it that nobody goes to any other place?

21 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

A lot of people fucked up beyond the wall, it's why only a handful of men made it back.  Sam had no blame for that, though, yes, he did indeed right royally screw up sending the messages.  Messages that would have said "we are being overrun by dead men and a bear" so it's hard to see how that would have helped anyone or been believed at all.

Man, the difference is between a message with content and a message with no content. Whether you believe the content is another question. But if you don't get the message, you have nothing you could believe or not.

The ravens could have sent the message to CB that the Others were real and attacking them in force. Because, you know, three horn blows mean Others, not wights. Whoever blew the horn had seen at least one Other.

21 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

Nah.  He intended to but did not actually desert.  That's the heart of it really.

To be a deserter you have to abandon your post and not return.  The two parts are equally necessary so despite your arguments to the contrary 1) black brothers visiting Mole's Town are doing neither - they are off duty men visiting a prostitute - and 2) Jon's escapade is not a desertion because he is back before dawn.

How do you know it is defined that way? Obviously nobody sees a visit at Mole's Town even remotely in the same league as desertion.

Mormont twists the facts and pretends Jon were doing the same 'minor offense' as the other whoremongers. But he is not. And we know that. Which is why he is a deserter. Jon himself knows that, it is what he thinks about while he, the deserter, is riding down south.

A crime is not just a crime because the authorities know you did it and accuse you. It is a crime from the moment you commit it.

21 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

If he had been assigned to walking the Wall then there is a much stronger case to answer because he would have left his post.  It's analogous to a sentry leaving their post on a hostile border which is a very serious matter in the military.  On duty and off duty have different ramifications.

There is no indication that the black brothers are allowed to do what Jon did when they are 'off duty'. They might not be allowed to leave their castles without permission (which is why one usually does not go along whoring nor without telling anyone where one went).

21 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

Well, I mentioned earlier about lawyering up and how any written law has reams and reams of interpretation and case by case examples setting judicial precedent and then modifying or developing it. I'm definitely going with Mormont, former Lord of Bear Island and longtime Lord Commander of the NW on this one because I think he knows what he is talking about far better than you could expect to based on your arbitrary feel for things.

Mormont could hail Jon as his king for all I care. But he cannot change the facts. He can ignore, not punish, pardon, etc. crimes. But he cannot redifine what desertion is.

And it is pretty clear that both Mormont and Jon know that he is a deserter. They have no issue with that. Jon makes it clear that he doesn't want to stay, and Mormont that he knew what Jon actually did. He gets special treatment.

21 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

I do feel he mentioned Mole's Town to make clear what is and is not acceptable and he very clearly warns Jon about making another attempt to desert: that he would be taken and not be friends.  The implication seems to me that had he not been back by dawn he would have been branded a deserter.

And what when he had shown up weeping and apologizing half an hour (or half a day) after dawn? Telling a sad little story how his horse had eaten his homework broken his leg, and that's why he came so late. I mean, even from Mole's Town men might not always be back the next day.

21 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

I know exactly what the NW are for but The IT doesn't see any threat to the realm, just a problem for the rebellious North and the ingrates of the NW who had the temerity to choose Jon Snow and not Janos Slynt like they were told to.

Is that so hard to understand? If there is only one bakery in town and they don't sell you any food which you need to survive, are you then deciding to no longer try to get some because 'it is of no use' and instead contend yourself with eating dirt and grass and meager scraps you can find in your backyard, knowing fully well this is not going to support you for long?

That's what the Watch and its officers do when they do make no attempt to inform, convince, and persuade the IT and the lords of the Realm what's going on.

In addition, though, the IT is under no obligation to support or believe the Watch. Nor are the lords and people of the Realm. They have not sworn a vow to support and believe the men of the Watch. But the Watch has sworn to defend the realms of men. Which they are not doing when they do not even tell the men from which they recruit themselves that they are in danger.

21 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

Yeah, it's human nature not to believe in fairy stories and not to do anything about an unbelievable problem in a place a vast distance away.  Only Stannis believed anything and he had Mel's visions to help out.  The attempt to take the wight's hand as hard evidence to convince doubting Thomases at KL met with ridicule.  It would be the same for Slynt they would think he was mad.  I'm sure a letter from Jon would convince no one either.  Cersei and the Tyrells are locked in a power battle, it's naive to think they would suddenly start to care about traitors in the North.  The author gave us Stannis and very probably Dany for that.

That this is naive doesn't change the fact that this is THEIR FUCKING DUTY! It is NOT FOR THEM TO DECIDE what the REALMS OF MEN believe or don't believe when they are informed. All they can (and are supposed to do) is tell them. And they make no coherent or conscious and reasonable attempt to do so.

And, by the way, while the Others, wights, etc. sound like fairy-tales, this is a world where magic and dragons are real. It is not our world. Many people actually believe in magic, miracles, prayers, visions, demons, etc. - and some even know that some of that stuff is real.

21 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

The attack on Thorne was a crime and warranted punishment.  It's quite possible the slash aimed at Thorne's face would have seriously injured and badly scarred him but you would not try that as attempted murder in any legal system on Earth: affray or attempted wounding maybe.  What Mormont would have applied is unknown because Jon saved his life in the night and he felt that outweighed Jon's crime.

You can be accused of attempted murder even when you don't harm the person you tried to kill. 

21 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

I'm not aware that he either married Ygritte or fathered a child with her so I'm not sure abut the last.  He definitely had an affair of the heart with her that he feels guilty about because sleeping or even loving a wilding seems to run counter to what he thinks his NW duties demand but I don't see any oathbreaking.  And then there's this thing called context: he was ordered by Qhorin to infiltrate the wildlings and the only way he gets accepted by them is sleeping with her.  That's a fairly large mitigating circumstance and one Donal Noye and Aemon were able to weigh up in a matter of moments.

Taking a wife does not necessarily mean some sept or some weirwood marriage. We don't even know whether marriage as we know it was already a thing when the vows were formed. So one assumes that 'I'll take no wife' also means 'I'll take no paramour'. Else, why don't they have all barren women as paramours up there? Or women past their childbearing years?

The point is for them to have no romantic relationships and no children.

How Qhorin's command could overwrite the vows I'm not clear. The wildlings are not the true enemy, so breaking them to spy on them shouldn't be something that's forgiven, no?

The grand Qhorin spent his entire life butchering wildlings who were threatening the realms of men. If that wasn't the true purpose of the NW, then Jon's entire mission wasn't worth breaking his vows over, either.

21 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

We don't see anyone being punished for what Jon did.

We see men being punished for desertion. And we see Jon himself execute Slynt for a crime when Mormont did not execute Jon for his attack on Slynt (which was factually a much worse crime).

21 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

No.  Mance married Dalla and had a son with her, the oddly engagingly named monster.  Oh and he also deserted, like, you know, actually deserted.

Do we actually know they married in a proper ceremony? I don't think we do.

21 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

I seem to remember someone arguing a while back that the black brothers visiting Mole's Town were breaking their vows because they were actively trying to father children.  Someone else helpfully pointed out that prostitutes are not known for getting pregnant as it impacts with their means of earning a living.  Seeing your argument here I wonder if the first person was you?

There are children in Mole's Town. Westeros isn't birth control wonderland. But it is really great to spin things around and blame the women for men not being able to control themselves. 'Fathering children' means 'having sex'. It doesn't mean 'fuck as many women as you can as long as they ensure they don't get pregnant'.

21 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

Sure, they saw two dead men.  They had no idea what that signified as they no longer believed in the Others and went and walked straight into an ambush in the Haunted Forest.

They know a lot about the Others. They know Craster worships them and sacrifices to them. And Jon makes the Others-wights connection at Craster's, too.

Jon wasn't showing that he had brains when he decided helping to avenge his father was more important than fighting undead monsters - or finding out what they are. I mean, is he part of some military order manning an insanely huge wall of ice which was build to defend the realms of men against mythical demons?

How hard is it to come to certain conclusions there?

Why does he never write a letter to Robb/Winterfell about the wights he has seen?

21 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

Jon knows his duty, we have his whole arc on the Wall for that but a man has said he's in agreement with Faulkner's view that the only thing worth writing about is the human heart in conflict with itself.

He may know his duty, but he cares more about his sister and his birth family than his duty. He makes that clear in ADwD.

21 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

The bolded is a bit theatrical: of course he still cares about his family so some conflict at leaving everything behind and hearing terrible news is to be expected; and to quote Mormont the NW thought their purpose at that point was to "stop savages in skins from stealing women" not to fight for the survival of mankind.  That realization comes much later.

He still knew about Mance Rayder at that point. Mance may not be a threat to mankind, but certainly the North. When he ran away he didn't care about that, either.

[Wall Flower]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

I never said Slynt has a good case. I said one can see mitigating circumstances there, and the fact that the new Lord Commander might be a deserter and turncloak who got away with those crimes can be seen as such a mitigating factor.

Whether Slynt actually believes Jon is just as much a traitor as his father was (who Slynt might actually think was guilty of high treason) we don't know, but since he was close to Thorne he may actually have believed that.

Those example show that the NW men are not expected to show blind obedience to their commanders.

Going to war against a mad or tyrannical king are not 'checks and balances'. Checks and balances prevent men like Aerys II from taking power. Any tyrant can be assassinated, any army can be defeated in war. And any regime can be successfully rebelled against.

However, the Watch is a military order, not a military as we know it. We don't know their rules in detail, but it is quite clear that the Lord Commander doesn't even remotely have the same rights as a king or even a lord. He is, like all his men, beholden to follow the vows he spoke when he took the black. And that severely limits his decisions and his political power.

In that sense, most of those 'modern military' parallels don't really hit home here.

Our knowledge is irrelevant when judging the characters on the basis of their knowledge. 

The Watch isn't a democracy. The men of the Watch vote as their officers tell to them to vote, not as they private beliefs or conscience tells them to vote. That's why it is important that the schemers convince the important people. If they no longer want the office and tell their supporters to vote for somebody else they, apparently, do that.

And that means that Jon wasn't Mr. Popular with most of the Watch, he was just the guy Mallister and Pyke told to vote for, and then they did that. Most of those men didn't know Jon Snow personally. They were from Eastwatch and the Shadow Tower, and most of the CB men are dead.

That was a Lord Ryswell, not a Lord Stark.

Ned is known to be a very honorable, but he shits on his honor when his family is in danger. He already shat on that honor when he lied to the world and his king and his wife and told them that his nephew is actually his bastard son.

Ned would, of course, accept it if Jon was punished within reason but their can't be a question that Ned wouldn't accept it if Jon was drawn and quartered, say, or burned alive, or hanged until he died.

When Catelyn presumed to lay hands on the good-brother of the king, Ned immediately made Cat's crime his own crime. He didn't distance himself from her or said 'Well, somebody has to investigate this, I'll take a neutral stance on this one'.

He would go to war for Cat and he would go to war for Jon. They are his family. And he would do everything to protect. Never mind what they did, or how guilty they were.

That's how Eddard Stark is portrayed in this series.

But it is a hypothetical: Mormont isn't stupid enough to actually harm the Bastard of Winterfell. That's why Jon is more equal than others and gets special treatment.

Those things usually go hand in hand, though. A Stark on the level of Sam wouldn't be of much use but he would still be a noble from a great house with connections. He could help the Watch in that way. I mean, Mormont is also sucking up to the dwarf, who is only a little bit more useful at the Watch as Samwell when it comes to fighting.

Nope, it is not. Nobles and knights still get pretty much everything at the Watch, just look at the names of the men who actually hold officers. And most nobles are not like Sam - and those who are usually don't show up at the Watch. Bastards of nobility can rise high at the Watch (unlike elsewhere) but there is a glass ceiling for the commoners. Those usually don't command castles, serve as officers, or become Lord Commander. We see this when Jon actually starts making common men officers and gives them command to castles.

And even the bastard thing is most likely only happening because of necessity. No person of rank and standing takes the black anymore, so you have to fill the offices with bastards and other lesser men who would never have gotten any high offices back in the days when the trueborn sons of great houses gladly took the black.

By the way: Have you forgotten those sham elections where the Kings in the North obviously told the Watch who to choose? When Stark boys became Lord Commander at the age of ten?!

Mallister is even older than the Old Bear. He knows and says that he is not going to be LC. And Pyke is not suited for the office.

That Jon is groomed to succeed Mormont is a conclusion the characters in the story reach. I see no reason to question that. Mormont most likely did not intend to die in ASoS. If he had lived another, say, 3-5 years Jon could have been his obvious successor.

Still, black brothers are warriors and are expected to fight. As a trained maester Sam would have been of more use, sure, but when you take the black you don't go to the Citadel.

That Sam is allowed to go there as a black brother is still very odd. If that works, then how is it that nobody sends black brothers to, you know, the great castles and cities of the Realm to inform the people there about the real threat? If men can go on extended leaves of absence to forge chains at the Citadel (which could take years, depending on Sam's progress) why is it that nobody goes to any other place?

Man, the difference is between a message with content and a message with no content. Whether you believe the content is another question. But if you don't get the message, you have nothing you could believe or not.

The ravens could have sent the message to CB that the Others were real and attacking them in force. Because, you know, three horn blows mean Others, not wights. Whoever blew the horn had seen at least one Other.

How do you know it is defined that way? Obviously nobody sees a visit at Mole's Town even remotely in the same league as desertion.

Mormont twists the facts and pretends Jon were doing the same 'minor offense' as the other whoremongers. But he is not. And we know that. Which is why he is a deserter. Jon himself knows that, it is what he thinks about while he, the deserter, is riding down south.

A crime is not just a crime because the authorities know you did it and accuse you. It is a crime from the moment you commit it.

There is no indication that the black brothers are allowed to do what Jon did when they are 'off duty'. They might not be allowed to leave their castles without permission (which is why one usually does not go along whoring nor without telling anyone where one went).

Mormont could hail Jon as his king for all I care. But he cannot change the facts. He can ignore, not punish, pardon, etc. crimes. But he cannot redifine what desertion is.

And it is pretty clear that both Mormont and Jon know that he is a deserter. They have no issue with that. Jon makes it clear that he doesn't want to stay, and Mormont that he knew what Jon actually did. He gets special treatment.

And what when he had shown up weeping and apologizing half an hour (or half a day) after dawn? Telling a sad little story how his horse had eaten his homework broken his leg, and that's why he came so late. I mean, even from Mole's Town men might not always be back the next day.

Is that so hard to understand? If there is only one bakery in town and they don't sell you any food which you need to survive, are you then deciding to no longer try to get some because 'it is of no use' and instead contend yourself with eating dirt and grass and meager scraps you can find in your backyard, knowing fully well this is not going to support you for long?

That's what the Watch and its officers do when they do make no attempt to inform, convince, and persuade the IT and the lords of the Realm what's going on.

In addition, though, the IT is under no obligation to support or believe the Watch. Nor are the lords and people of the Realm. They have not sworn a vow to support and believe the men of the Watch. But the Watch has sworn to defend the realms of men. Which they are not doing when they do not even tell the men from which they recruit themselves that they are in danger.

That this is naive doesn't change the fact that this is THEIR FUCKING DUTY! It is NOT FOR THEM TO DECIDE what the REALMS OF MEN believe or don't believe when they are informed. All they can (and are supposed to do) is tell them. And they make no coherent or conscious and reasonable attempt to do so.

And, by the way, while the Others, wights, etc. sound like fairy-tales, this is a world where magic and dragons are real. It is not our world. Many people actually believe in magic, miracles, prayers, visions, demons, etc. - and some even know that some of that stuff is real.

You can be accused of attempted murder even when you don't harm the person you tried to kill. 

Taking a wife does not necessarily mean some sept or some weirwood marriage. We don't even know whether marriage as we know it was already a thing when the vows were formed. So one assumes that 'I'll take no wife' also means 'I'll take no paramour'. Else, why don't they have all barren women as paramours up there? Or women past their childbearing years?

The point is for them to have no romantic relationships and no children.

How Qhorin's command could overwrite the vows I'm not clear. The wildlings are not the true enemy, so breaking them to spy on them shouldn't be something that's forgiven, no?

The grand Qhorin spent his entire life butchering wildlings who were threatening the realms of men. If that wasn't the true purpose of the NW, then Jon's entire mission wasn't worth breaking his vows over, either.

We see men being punished for desertion. And we see Jon himself execute Slynt for a crime when Mormont did not execute Jon for his attack on Slynt (which was factually a much worse crime).

Do we actually know they married in a proper ceremony? I don't think we do.

There are children in Mole's Town. Westeros isn't birth control wonderland. But it is really great to spin things around and blame the women for men not being able to control themselves. 'Fathering children' means 'having sex'. It doesn't mean 'fuck as many women as you can as long as they ensure they don't get pregnant'.

They know a lot about the Others. They know Craster worships them and sacrifices to them. And Jon makes the Others-wights connection at Craster's, too.

Jon wasn't showing that he had brains when he decided helping to avenge his father was more important than fighting undead monsters - or finding out what they are. I mean, is he part of some military order manning an insanely huge wall of ice which was build to defend the realms of men against mythical demons?

How hard is it to come to certain conclusions there?

Why does he never write a letter to Robb/Winterfell about the wights he has seen?

He may know his duty, but he cares more about his sister and his birth family than his duty. He makes that clear in ADwD.

He still knew about Mance Rayder at that point. Mance may not be a threat to mankind, but certainly the North. When he ran away he didn't care about that, either.

LV, I'm glad you weren't Jon's LC or Westeros would probably be doomed!

Jon rode out at night and returned by morning to fulfil his duties as Mormont's steward. At most this is absence without leave (AWOL) not desertion, although complicated by the fact that Mormont made sure that Jon was allowed to leave (as other posters have pointed out) in the expectation that he would return. 

Mormont makes it clear that he turns a blind eye to men riding out to Moles Town at night as long as they return to fulfil their duties by morning. He would be treating Jon differently than those men if he executed him based on a judgement about his intentions (which were not fulfilled) rather than Jon's actual actions (to ride out at night and return by morning). If Jon had chosen to run again, then Mormont would have no choice but to have him brought back by force and executed.

In contrast, Slynt repeatedly refused to obey his Lord Commander's commands despite Jon giving him several chances to do so. Jon gave Slynt the night to fall into line (as Mormont gave Jon the night to return) but Slynt continued with his insubordination the next morning.

[Unacosamedarisa]

On 7/25/2018 at 1:31 AM, Lord Varys said:

all we do know is that he knows men go whoring there and that he allows to do it.

So, he knows what these men are up to, and he allows it to happen... these men haven't deserted, because he knows they'll come back. OK, that's fine. 

On 7/25/2018 at 1:31 AM, Lord Varys said:

In Jon case he knows the boy did not go whoring but deserted the moment he left CB. That's just a fact. You cannot dance around that.

No. He knows what Jon is up to, and he allows it to happen... Jon didn't desert, because he knew Jon would come back. He even says it to Jon, that he "knows his men, and his boys" or similar.