The execution of Janos Slynt was spot on

[Daemon The Black Dragon]

12 hours ago, Wall Flower said:

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.

People forget or look over the fact that Mormont made sure Jon was allowed to go on his midnight ride. Mormont was testing him and Jon passed (with help of his friends) by returning in time to resume his duties.  

[kissdbyfire]

1 hour ago, Unacosamedarisa said:

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. 

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. 

Exactly. I did ask the question a few posts back... can anyone tell me where do we hear of a NW code of law or whatever, where it's clearly defined what constitutes desertion?

Because as far as we can tell - based on the text and not on people's opinions - it's the LC who will decide whether someone deserted. 

And before someone gives a really silly example, like a crow who's been gone for weeks or months and is caught in the Stormlands or something...

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Unacosamedarisa said:

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. 

Yeah. We hear about men going in groups to the brothels. That's not a big deal. And one can, likely, also immediately differentiate between a whoremonger oathbreaker and a deserter immediately - the former is just going off for a visit whereas the latter is going to take all/most of his personal belongings since he is not going to come back. In addition to provisions that are going to last much longer than for a ride to and from Mole's Town.

That and and of itself would have given Jon and his intentions away.

1 hour ago, Unacosamedarisa said:

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. 

But he is twisting the facts there. Jon didn't intend to come back and he wouldn't have come back if he had successfully evaded his friends or if his friends had simply not found him.

Jon is forced to end his desertion, he doesn't actually regret what he did - in fact, he intends to make another attempt as soon as he can.

Mormont believed Jon is as good a man as to see reason by himself - but he is not. And Mormont even admits that when he says that the honor of Jon's friends brought him back, not his own.

Jon is not as shitty as to desert over completely selfish or irresponsible reasons, nor is he as bad a friend as to allow that his friends become complicit in his crime. That makes him all a pretty good guy if we compare him to his fellow (would-be) deserter Chett. But it has no bearing on whether he is a deserter or not.

[kissdbyfire]

It's not Mormont who is twisting the facts. Just sayin'. 

[Lord Varys]

51 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Exactly. I did ask the question a few posts back... can anyone tell me where do we hear of a NW code of law or whatever, where it's clearly defined what constitutes desertion?

Because as far as we can tell - based on the text and not on people's opinions - it's the LC who will decide whether someone deserted. 

Jon Snow himself tells us that he is a deserter because he knows he is deserting when he goes. The important criteria when somebody deserts is intention. When I'm part of an organization where I can desert it matters whether I wanted to go away or whether I was dragged away, went missing during a mission because I got injured, etc.

This is even more the case with the NW because this is an organization you are not drafted in, but one you choose of your own volition and via sacred vow expressing your own commitment to the NW.

If you are the last black brother in some camp and get the order to hold it but eventually decide to abandon it and leave and do whatever you want you are still a deserter - never mind whether the Watch ever learns that you did that or not. You are a deserter because you know what you did, and that it goes against your vows.

Jon is very aware that he is breaking his vow when he leaves CB, and that makes him a deserter.

The idea that you have to be officially branded a deserter makes little sense in light of the fact that black brothers are usually not allowed to hang out away from the Wall. There are wandering crows, but that's it. If the LC had authority over the whole desertion thing then a corrupt LC could 'assign' all the criminals and cutthroats the lords send to the Wall back to their home towns and villages, and the lords there couldn't do anything against that. That makes no sense. If you take the black you stay at the Wall and you stay there. You only visit the Seven Kingdoms under very special circumstances. Thus the default way to treat a crow showing up in a village without a good explanation is to seize him rather than ignore him. An envoy of the LC or a wandering crow would have papers proving that he is who he says he is rather than some guy on the run.

Jon himself knows that he cannot ride around in black clothes because people will see him for what he is in that outfit - a deserter. But most of the people he is going to meet on his ride are not going to receive ravens from CB, so he is not afraid because they will get his description via a letter. They will know him as a deserter on sight.

This kind of silly defense that the boy isn't a deserter actually goes against what the character of Jon Snow actually thinks and feels in the books. He knows he is a deserter and he is very aware of the fact that Robb is most likely not going to be happy to see him - although, considering Robb's later plans to free his half-brother from his vows he might actually be mistaken there.

I remember how I was disappointed that Jon didn't desert because I really wanted to see him hanging out with Robb some more. That could have been great.

[kissdbyfire]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Jon Snow himself tells us that he is a deserter because he knows he is deserting when he goes. The important criteria when somebody deserts is intention. When I'm part of an organization where I can desert it matters whether I wanted to go away or whether I was dragged away, went missing during a mission because I got injured, etc.

No, it's not one's intention that matters, it's whether they carry that out to its final outcome, i.e., deserting. That's exactly the point, btw. Mormont knew Jon was going to ride out and he thought Jon would be back. He put men watching Jon just in case his assessment of the situation was wrong. Only it wasn't. 

And intention schmintention, really. If a black brother goes to the LC's chambers in the dead of night w/ the intention of killing him, but when he gets there he changes his mind and walks away, that's it, end of story. No harm, no foul. 

As I've said a gazillion times already, ultimately, it falls to the LC to decide what constitutes desertion and what doesn't. Because there is no written rule on the matter, there's no rule saying, "if you walk 10 (or 20 or 100 or 1,000) yards past the southernmost building, you are a deserter". 

You disagree w/ Mormont? Cool. But you can't say it's desertion when he said it wasn't. You're not the LC, he is. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

This is even more the case with the NW because this is an organization you are not drafted in, but one you choose of your own volition and via sacred vow expressing your own commitment to the NW.

Huh? You can't be serious. Aren't you forgetting all the criminals who were sent to the NW? 

(Don't have time for more now but will come back later)

 

[Lord Varys]

8 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

No, it's not one's intention that matters, it's whether they carry that out to its final outcome, i.e., deserting. That's exactly the point, btw. Mormont knew Jon was going to ride out and he thought Jon would be back. He put men watching Jon just in case his assessment of the situation was wrong. Only it wasn't. 

Jon did desert. Whether for five minutes, a day, or a year doesn't really matter. That Mormont didn't punish him doesn't mean he didn't desert. What constitutes a crime has no bearing on the sentence. Those things are two different issues.

8 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

And intention schmintention, really. If a black brother goes to the LC's chambers in the dead of night w/ the intention of killing him, but when he gets there he changes his mind and walks away, that's it, end of story. No harm, no foul. 

Then nothing happens. 'Die Gedanken sind frei'. Actions are not. And last time I look riding is an action, not a thought experiment.

8 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

As I've said a gazillion times already, ultimately, it falls to the LC to decide what constitutes desertion and what doesn't. Because there is no written rule on the matter, there's no rule saying, "if you walk 10 (or 20 or 100 or 1,000) yards past the southernmost building, you are a deserter". 

The LC may punish captured deserters or not, but he doesn't define what desertion is. Just as the lords don't define what murder or treason is - but they can still pardon criminals or simply ignore that they even committed a crime.

Mormont (and possibly other LCs) also pretend whoring doesn't constitute oathbreaking never mind the fact that it obviously is. They do not persecute the trespassers yet that doesn't change that those people break their vows.

Or would you say that corrupt judges and officials not punishing people who have committed crimes as per the laws and rules those people live means that those offenses were not crimes at all because those people were not punished?

8 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Huh? You can't be serious. Aren't you forgetting all the criminals who were sent to the NW? 

Those men do not go to the Wall against their will. You get a choice between the sentence (lose your hand, imprisonment, exile, execution, etc.) and the Wall. Take it or leave it, basically. And we you take the Wall you say the words and you stay there and are treated the same way as a man who wasn't accused of a crime.

[Tagganaro]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Jon did desert. Whether for five minutes, a day, or a year doesn't really matter. That Mormont didn't punish him doesn't mean he didn't desert. What constitutes a crime has no bearing on the sentence. Those things are two different issues.

Not this discussion again...you can't desert for 5 minutes.  That is an impossibility.  You either desert or you don't, there's no in-between.  

 

[The Hidden Dragon]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Jon did desert. Whether for five minutes, a day, or a year doesn't really matter. That Mormont didn't punish him doesn't mean he didn't desert. What constitutes a crime has no bearing on the sentence. Those things are two different issues.

I completely agree with your last 2 sentences.  Of course, the important thing is "what constitutes a crime". Surely, we must have a crime committed before we can get on with determining the punishment then applying that punishment.  So, at the wall, who determines or judges what constitutes a crime?  That would be the LC.  

From AGOT......"Nor live, I hope," Mormont said, cutting his ham with a dagger and feeding a bite to the bird. "You have not deserted—yet."

According to the LC, Jon did not desert. Whatever he may have done, he did not desert. Whatever his intentions were or were not, he did not desert. That is the determination of the LC.  No need to even consider or carry out any punishment.   

[the trees have eyes]

12 hours 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.

It's not a mitigating factor for refusing a direct order to lead 30 men to repair and garrison one of the abandoned castles.  He might detest and distrust Jon but he is bound to obey his Lord Commander and when the order is in obvious fulfillment of the purpose of the NW duties his inner misgivings are irrelevant.  The alternative is for men to choose whether to obey their Lords or not.  Of course human nature is such that people will at times but that is why the sanction for doing so is death.

Slynt wanted to become Lord Commander, something he feels is his due and the letter from Tywin (his paper shield) eggs him on to try and practically undermine Jon to the point that his position becomes untenable.  He's doing this for himself not for the Watch.

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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

I don't think they show anything of relevance at all.  Jon gave him 30 men and command of Greyguard and ordered him to repair and garrison it.  This is not about blind obedience to someone working with the enemy their order was created to guard against but a simple and uncontentious command to carry out their organisation's goals.  There's nothing tyrannical or treacherous about it.  This is an odd point to keep pushing.

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

My point was that there are not checks and balances and the men do not police their commanders and have the legal means to remove them if they choose to.  Either they rebel (the Robellion) or face the consequences of oathbreaking (Slynt).  Marsh falls somewhere in the middle and we have yet to see how GRRM resolves this but I don't think he's going to be shown to be right.

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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

True but Slynt has the same knowledge as the men at Eastwatch, many of whom were friends and companions of Qhorin for years but they were able to reach a judgment Slynt  wasn't.  If indeed he actually wasn't.  The turncloak argument seems more a lever to undermine Jon's authority rather than a genuine belief.  If Jon had not warned Noye about the Thenns Castle Black would have fallen.  Old Slynty seems far too selective in what he remembers, or says he remembers at any rate.

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

You can't have it both ways.  The men put a token in a kettle.  So either they vote as their officers tell them too (in which case their authority over their men is absolute and Jon's authority over Slynt is absolute) or they have latitude to decide for themselves whether Jon is a turncloak or a deserter before casting their vote (the fact that the count changes from day to day, the fact that choosings can take months, even years, and the fact that the men vote rather than the handful of officers putting "their" block of chips in on a daily basis suggests they have latitude). 

Oh, it doesn't make Jon popular, just the Lord Commander, a position you seem curiously keen to remove of authority without any basis for doing so.

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That was a Lord Ryswell, not a Lord Stark.

Noted.  It does speak to me though of what ALL the Northern nobility would have done or have done over time as otherwise the NW would not exist with it's independence intact.

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

Eh? He sacrificed his own honour (and indirectly shamed Catelyn) in order to protect his nephew's life, yes.  This newborn baby was not an oathbreaker or a traitor.  If Jon became one I think he would regretfully acknowledge that he had earned his punishment.

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

That is literally what we are talking about though so I am glad you agree.  Hanging is a means of execution so I don't see why you include that: it is quite possible Ned would have had to accept Jon being hanged for desertion as Lord Ryswell had to not only accept for his son but return him so the punishment could be carried out.

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

I don't see any relevance to this.  Ned is preparing for war with the Lannisters (Catelyn is to pass on orders for Moat Cailin to be guarded and White Harbour's defences repaired) and both he and Cat believe that Tyrion's dagger was used in an attempt on their son's life.  They are working together towards a common goal.  Catelyn arrests Tyrion pending trial.  This does not make her guilty of a capital crime.  If anyone intended to murder his wife or actually did so I can see Ned taking steps up to and including military force to secure justice for her murder (if none was provided by the monarch) but your scenario starts on two false premises: that Cat is guilty of a capital crime and that Ned was prepared to go to war over her actions rather than those of the Lannisters (murder of Jon Arryn and attempted murder of Bran, attempt to murder Robert).

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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

Nope, you mangled the catnapping to force a series of reactions from Ned that aren't evidenced by his reactions in series and don't align with his character.

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

But this is a hypothetical too.  The only time Jon does something worthy of punishment he is imprisoned pending punishment but saves Mormont's life in the night.  There is no reason other than jaded cynicism to argue that Mormont would turn a blind eye to Jon's misdeeds regardless of their severity (see previous statement for evidence to the contrary) or that Ned Stark would break an age old tradition that underpins the Watch to exact vengeance if he did.

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Those things usually go hand in hand, though. A Stark on the level of Sam wouldn't be of much use

I'm glad we agree on this. So Jon's treatment is no different to any other bright prospect in their ranks, his potential is assumed in advance and his progress is noted.  Had he been Sam he would not have become Mormont's steward.

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

We agree then.  The presumption is that a nobleman or even a nobleman's bastard raised and trained at a castle will be of far more value in a leadership position than a poacher or a rapist from the Fingers.  The presumption can be disproved when facts are obviously different as Sam shows.

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

Seems we're really just quibbling over the timeline.  In story Jon is not the obvious successor to Mormont and he certainly was not the anointed successor or deputy.  No one considers him for leadership until Sam hits on a way of breaking the deadlock.

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

I don't disagree in principle but in practice there must be men who are invalided in battle or by accident or incapacitated through sickness or age.  The NW seem to have no mechanism for discharging useless brothers or refusing useless recruits / initiates but GRRM glosses over this.  Sam is never going to be a doughty warrior but they have to do something with him.

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

Sure, he fucked up, I agree.  Plenty of people who went beyond the Wall fucked up so it's not really a stick to beat Sam with alone.  Were the Others attacking in force though?  We see wights but not any Others that I recall.  The messages would have been garbled and difficult to assess but they would have warned Castle Black as to danger.  Arguably all the ravens coming back at about the same time without any messages actually achieves that but of course with no detail at all. 

In any event it's Mance who turns up at the Wall not the Others and his intentions and Mormont's intent to fight him were relayed earlier I think.

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

Mormont knows the rule and how it is enforced better than you or I.  Notwithstanding that the fact is half a dozen or so men rode out in the night and were back before dawn in time for active duties.  Mormont considers none of them deserters.  We can play at this for ever but I do not consider that Jon deserted, he sure intended to but was talked out of it while in the attempt, something Mormont is aware of.  Had he not come back, and only then, would he be a deserter.

And how do you know desertion is framed the way you insist?

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

This is superficial: desertion has an obvious time component to it that a crime like murder does not.  If you are at your post without neglecting any assignments you can't have deserted.  First you are at your post and second you did not neglect any duties, the two things for which you are punished when you in fact do desert.

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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).

I think there's every indication that they are not meant to which is why they creep off to Mole's Town at night rather than a bunch of them openly riding off when their duty shift finishes.  But the understanding is they are not deserting or oathbreaking, rather going off base without permission, and will not be punished if it does not interfere with their duties.

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

He does not consider it desertion, rather an abortive attempt that ended with Jon coming back.

You are not the authority on desertion and you don't get to define it, it's tiresome you lecturing everyone based on your personal notions as if that is law or canon in story. It's not....

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

Then he would be subject to punishment for being absent without leave and dereliction of his duties.  A reasonable punishment would consider how late the man was in returning, how frequent any such incidents were and the need (or not) to make an example of him to restore discipline, his general attitude and record to date, the immediacy of any serious danger (beyond the usual wildling raiding) that would magnify the gravity of his indiscipline and, if he had returned voluntarily or under escort of men sent to retrieve him.

It's this thing called context.

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

Who says they do this?  They wrote to all the Lords of the Realm and only Stannis showed up.  It seems you are forgetting that.

What we were arguing was whether Slynt was the magic bullet who would convince the realm as to the danger they faced.  I think absolutely not.  We see Jon negotiating with Stannis and with Braavos, is there any reason to believe he has not written to anyone as Lord Commander asking for help?

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

Well again you can't have it both ways.  They asked for help from the IT and none was forthcoming because the IT has no obligation or interest in helping them.   

They are asking for help but no one in the South believes the NW defends the realms of men, (hell, the NW did not believe it themselves a month ago) so are disinclined to pay any attention.

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

This made me laugh out loud.

How about you apply the logic that it's THEIR FUCKING DUTY, it IS NOT FOR THEM TO DECIDE to Janos Slynt deciding not to obey orders, hey?

And they have done that and are I imagine continuing to do that but it is unrealistic to think that Slynt is the answer to the problem or that the IT, under the Lannisters, will oblige.  Any problem in the North suits them because they don't believe in ice demons, snarks or grumkins and it's too far away to matter.

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

Absolutely no one in story believes the Others are real.  No one.  Not Ned, who thinks Gared is mad, not even the NW.  This superstitious people you claim would be alert to warnings of the danger laughed Alliser Thorne out of Court.

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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

But for that you have to attempt to kill someone rather than lashing out in anger.  A slash to the face will cut and potentially scar badly but the dagger thrust through the eye and into the brain was something you made up yourself.

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

Taking a wife means taking on obligations and commitments to someone outside the NW.  That is why is it forbidden.

Marriage has existed in every human society and is one of the most basic forms of a formal relationship there is.  Given during the Long Night Lords shivered and died in their castles as much as smallfolk in their hovels the idea that marriage did not exist is preposterous.  It's in the vows.

Having no children is obvious as well because it implies a commitment to pass on what is yours to your progeny and nurture them rather than fulfilling your duty to the NW.  It invites ownership of private property and passing on of inheritances (primarily land) that destroys the basis for the NW.

Jon does neither.

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

Qhorin believed he was fulfilling his oath, he knew nothing about the Others.  The context of his order to Jon is clear: the greater purpose or the spirit of your oath is served by doing this even if you have misgivings over it. 

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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).

We see three men who actually desert to my knowledge: Gared and the two in the Wolfswood.  All are weeks from the Wall and are actual deserters.  Jon was back performing his duties without his nocturnal ride leading to any break.  I simply don't accept your contention here.

Murdering Thorne would have been an equal crime to desertion in the NW but he slashed at him (assault) and would have been punished accordingly but for intervening circumstances.

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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

"Proper ceremonies" vary by culture.  We know Mance openly calls her his wife.  Since the vow is to take no wife the point is beyond argument. 

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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'.

It was you !  This seems another of your personal dogmas.

Children in Mole's Town?  Yeah there is more than just a brothel and prostitutes.

https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Mole's_Town

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.J

They know nothing of the Others or they would have known what was up when they found the wights.  Whatever voodoo or sacrifices Craster performs doesn't inform what they know or believe.  Craster's is after Jon tried to ride off, not before.  You can't seriously read these books and argue that the NW know a lot about the Others, it's a daft premise.

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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?

 What a load of bollocks.  The conclusions you are asking them to reach are not the ones reached in the text.   They have forgotten their true purpose, this is clear as day in story.

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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

Mormont is Lord Commander, this falls to him not Jon.

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

Well this brings us to the Ides of Marsh.  Suffice to say I believe he is doing both and that if he had not thought there was a way he would have chosen duty, as indeed he does when he first learns of her marriage to Ramsay.

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

This is a bit of a climb down from abandoning the Wall despite the threat of the Others and their zombie army sweeping over the world.

[Makk]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Jon did desert. Whether for five minutes, a day, or a year doesn't really matter. That Mormont didn't punish him doesn't mean he didn't desert. What constitutes a crime has no bearing on the sentence. Those things are two different issues.

That's not really a military definition of desertion (although they do vary). It could be considered AWOL. But desertion is permanent. I don't really see the benefit of getting dragged into semantics though we all know what happened and Jon considered himself to be an oath-breaker.

Comparing the risk/benefit of Mormont pardoning Jon  and Jon pardoning Slynt is a completely different situations though. Killing Slynt was not only acceptable within the law, but it was also essential for Jon's authority. It made the watch stronger whereas the other way around Jon is a great boon to the nightswatch and morally a much, much superior person. Mormont would have to be a complete moron to execute Jon when he could look the other way.

[kissdbyfire]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Jon did desert. Whether for five minutes, a day, or a year doesn't really matter. That Mormont didn't punish him doesn't mean he didn't desert. What constitutes a crime has no bearing on the sentence. Those things are two different issues.

I'll phrase it differently this time, even though I have a feeling it won't change anything...

Some cases are clear, others aren't. For instance, if a black brother takes off w/o permission, no one knows where he went or why, he doesn't report for duty, and after days or weeks or months or years someone finds him elsewhere, it is clear he deserted. Other cases are not so clear. And in these not so clear cases, it falls to the LC to determine whether it was desertion or not. 

And you can keep banging on and on about how Jon deserted and Mormont decided not to punish him until you're blue in the face, it won't make it true just coz you said so. Mormont is the LC, it's his call, and he clearly stated that .Jon didn't desert. 

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Then nothing happens. 'Die Gedanken sind frei'. Actions are not. And last time I look riding is an action, not a thought experiment.

Actions are not... what? I think that's German and I don't speak German. 

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The LC may punish captured deserters or not, but he doesn't define what desertion is. Just as the lords don't define what murder or treason is - but they can still pardon criminals or simply ignore that they even committed a crime.

Of course he defines what desertion is in those cases that aren't clear and obvious desertion. 

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Mormont (and possibly other LCs) also pretend whoring doesn't constitute oathbreaking never mind the fact that it obviously is. They do not persecute the trespassers yet that doesn't change that those people break their vows.

Sigh. Again, it's up to each LC. Or else show me the part of the NW vows that say, "I shall never shag anyone" or anything to that effect.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Or would you say that corrupt judges and officials not punishing people who have committed crimes as per the laws and rules those people live means that those offenses were not crimes at all because those people were not punished?

That's a completely absurd comparison. 

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Those men do not go to the Wall against their will. You get a choice between the sentence (lose your hand, imprisonment, exile, execution, etc.) and the Wall. Take it or leave it, basically. And we you take the Wall you say the words and you stay there and are treated the same way as a man who wasn't accused of a crime.

Right. /s

[Lord Varys]

13 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Some cases are clear, others aren't. For instance, if a black brother takes off w/o permission, no one knows where he went or why, he doesn't report for duty, and after days or weeks or months or years someone finds him elsewhere, it is clear he deserted. Other cases are not so clear. And in these not so clear cases, it falls to the LC to determine whether it was desertion or not. 

And you know that how? Did Ned ask for Mormont's permission to execute Gared? Did Mormont even have any reason to inform Ned that 'Gared' had deserted? The man disappeared north of the Wall, not south of it, if I'm informed correctly.

13 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

And you can keep banging on and on about how Jon deserted and Mormont decided not to punish him until you're blue in the face, it won't make it true just coz you said so. Mormont is the LC, it's his call, and he clearly stated that .Jon didn't desert. 

It is not Mormont's call to define what a crime is. He just has to execute laws and regulations and the like. He cannot say marriage is murder or blue is green, either.

He also knows Jon didn't come back of his own free will, and he knows that this boy intends to leave again. Jon indicates as much himself.

The fact that the man chooses to turn a blind eye and does not persecute oathbreakers and criminals for their offenses doesn't make them go away.

And for the hundredth time - Jon himself knows he is an oathbreaker and deserter and he rightfully expects to be punished for that. This isn't even an issue.

The NW swear a vow. They know it when they break it, and they know that they should be punished for any such transgressions. They don't have to go to their officers and superiors and ask them to call them out on their transgressions. They do know them when they commit them.

13 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Actions are not... what? I think that's German and I don't speak German. 

It is a very known phrase stating that you can thing whatever the hell you want. But Jon didn't just think about breaking his vows, he actually broke them, making your example there irrelevant. 

13 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Of course he defines what desertion is in those cases that aren't clear and obvious desertion. 

No, because a crime (like any legal term) is more or less clearly defined without the judge or official making it up out of whole cloth. Even in a society as backwards as the Seven Kingdoms know what constitute the crimes they consider crimes.

Mormont turned a blind eye to the entire affair. He didn't want to know what happened, because he did not want to have to punish Jon.

13 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Sigh. Again, it's up to each LC. Or else show me the part of the NW vows that say, "I shall never shag anyone" or anything to that effect.

LOL, the NW is referred to multiple times as a vow of celibacy. Last time I looked celibacy includes not fucking whores, too. It is a sign of innate corruption that those men do not keep their vows and even suffer a brothel on their lands. They excuses are also ridiculous if you ask me. First make a great stand that you won't have wives and father no children and then you creep in a brothel. Why swear that if you don't mean it?

13 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

That's a completely absurd comparison. 

No, it is a very fitting comparison, because if your point were hitting home it would mean men sitting in judgment over other can simply define away criminal offenses. Westeros isn't such a corrupt society as that. There are laws and the king and his lords uphold them. And considering the feudal nature of the society people all know what vows and oaths are, and what it means to break them.

And honest people actually do acknowledge that in the setting - Jon knows he is an oathbreaker when he deserts, and he knows he is an oathbreaker when he fucks Ygritte. And he is not happy about any of that. He also knows that he should be punished for that and actually expects to be punished.

Jon Snow doesn't need 'defenders' who explain away his flaws. He would actually call you out on that behavior. He is certainly glad that Mormont didn't punish him, but he knows he doesn't deserve it.

13 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Right. /s

You can laugh about that, but it is how it is. Nobody is forced to take the black. If they were forced then their vows would be meaningless - and all the guys who came with Jon had to say the words, right? It is what binds them to the Wall and makes them one with the Watch.

[Varysblackfyre321]

59 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Sigh. Again, it's up to each LC. Or else show me the part of the NW vows that say, "I shall never shag anyone" or anything to that effect.

Quote

You know  more than a few bastards have  to have been sired off of some women in moletown by black brothers in Mormont's tenure as lord commander right? Like that would be a clear cut, straight no two ways about it breaking of their oaths.  And you can't really get someone pregnant without having sex in this world. Does Mormont not seeking to punish the brothers who do sire bastards make the act itself totally ok by the rules of the watch? Or is he just excusing the brothers who do for practicality's sake?

Are you seriously arguing Mormont's negligence here means hey it's totally ok and not against the rules of the watch for its members to sire bastards? 

 

[kissdbyfire]

38 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

You know  more than a few bastards have  to have been sired off of some women in moletown by black brothers in Mormont's tenure as lord commander right? Like that would be a clear cut, straight no two ways about it breaking of their oaths.  And you can't really get someone pregnant without having sex in this world. Does Mormont not seeking to punish the brothers who do sire bastards make the act itself totally ok by the rules of the watch? Or is he just excusing the brothers who do for practicality's sake?

Are you seriously arguing Mormont's negligence here means hey it's totally ok and not against the rules of the watch for its members to sire bastards? 

 

Are you seriously saying I said that? 

You'll have no argument from me about crows having fathered children in MT or even women of the FF. But these women have access to moon tea or else MT's population would make it a big city by now. And that means only a small percentage of the sex results in births. The men who fathered children have broken their oaths (not that that matters in the grand scheme of things btw), the ones who had sex w/ no children didn't.  

[Varysblackfyre321]

26 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Are you seriously saying I said that? 

You'll have no argument from me about crows having fathered children in MT or even women of the FF. But these women have access to moon tea or else MT's population would make it a big city by now. And that means only a small percentage of the sex results in births. The men who fathered children have broken their oaths (not that that matters in the grand scheme of things btw), the ones who had sex w/ no children didn't.  

I don't know where you're getting your idea of mole town having to be the size of a big city by now without ready access to moontea. I mean miscarages, themselves are going  to fairly common.  MMR would be fairly high as well. Winter itself when it comes around probably clears a lot more. All those things should keep the population relatively stagnant no? Elaborate on your claim. And only a few brothers sure bastards are going to father bastards likely. Not all. Not most probably. But it is an inevitable consequence of allowing men to go to Mole's town to find female comfort. You didn't answer my question; does Mormont's negligence to actually try to punish brothers who do sire or really partake in acts to which can sire children, show its not against the rules of the brothers of the wall to do this? Or is he merely excusing them for breaking their oaths for practicality's sake thus we shouldn't take his verdict of who is guilty of which crime as sacrosanct, as if it is an ironclad fact.

[Clegane'sPup]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Did Ned ask for Mormont's permission to execute Gared? Did Mormont even have any reason to inform Ned that 'Gared' had deserted? The man disappeared north of the Wall, not south of it, if I'm informed correctly.

Spin a good spin. You know the novels. GoT opens with with some NW men on a ranging and being confronted by Others. Some how one of the NW men arrives south of the Wall. Someone catches him. Somehow the Stark is called. The NW man becomes a head shorter.

The opening of ASOIAF no one believes what the crazy man spouted.

[Clegane'sPup]

6 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I don't know where you're getting your idea of mole town having to be the size of a big city by now without ready access to moontea.

I mean miscarages, themselves are going  to fairly common.

MMR would be fairly high as well.

Winter itself when it comes around probably clears a lot more.

All those things should keep the population relatively stagnant no? 

Elaborate on your claim.

And only a few brothers sure bastards are going to father bastards likely.

Not all.

Not most probably.

But it is an inevitable consequence of allowing men to go to Mole's town to find female comfort. 

You didn't answer my question; does Mormont's negligence to actually try to punish brothers who do sire or really partake in acts to which can sire children, show its not against the rules of the brothers of the wall to do this?

Or is he merely excusing them for breaking their oaths for practicality's sake thus we shouldn't take his verdict of who is guilty of which crime as sacrosanct, as if it is an ironclad fact.

WTF are you yapping about?

[Annalee]

part II and the title has changed!!!

Reply to James Fenimore Cooper, Texas Holdem, and Trees have eyes from the subject area "The execution of Janos Slynt was personal and it was not justice" by Damsel in Distress.  

Janos Slynt at first resisted to his new assignment.  Samwell too was resistant.  I grant Samwell was not as vocal as Slynt.  But both men finally agreed to go in the end.  Both men needed convincing.  There was no need to murder Slynt after he agreed to go.  Robb didn't execute Edmure and it is very clear that Edmure's refusal to obey orders costed the Starks a lot more than Slynt's insubordination.  Catelyn's did more harm to Robb's authority than anything Slynt could have done and Robb didn't execute her.  We should get back to the main idea of the topic:  the execution of Janos Slynt was not justice.  The original poster (OP), Damsel in Distress, is right because it was not justice.  Jon treated two men under his command differently.  I am referring here to Slynt and Mance Rayder.  

It may be the right move politically but I am not convinced of that excuse.  Slynt had a lot of fans among the night's watch brothers and Jon became the second most hated man at the wall that moment.  Mance holds the number one place.  My opinion, it was not a smart move even when seen through the eyes of politics.  And an execution for political reasons does not make it justice.

[kissdbyfire]

21 minutes ago, Annalee said:

part II and the title has changed!!!

Reply to James Fenimore Cooper, Texas Holdem, and Trees have eyes from the subject area "The execution of Janos Slynt was personal and it was not justice" by Damsel in Distress.  

Janos Slynt at first resisted to his new assignment.  Samwell too was resistant.  I grant Samwell was not as vocal as Slynt.  But both men finally agreed to go in the end.  Both men needed convincing.  There was no need to murder Slynt after he agreed to go.  Robb didn't execute Edmure and it is very clear that Edmure's refusal to obey orders costed the Starks a lot more than Slynt's insubordination.  Catelyn's did more harm to Robb's authority than anything Slynt could have done and Robb didn't execute her.  We should get back to the main idea of the topic:  the execution of Janos Slynt was not justice.  The original poster (OP), Damsel in Distress, is right because it was not justice.  Jon treated two men under his command differently.  I am referring here to Slynt and Mance Rayder.  

It may be the right move politically but I am not convinced of that excuse.  Slynt had a lot of fans among the night's watch brothers and Jon became the second most hated man at the wall that moment.  Mance holds the number one place.  My opinion, it was not a smart move even when seen through the eyes of politics.  And an execution for political reasons does not make it justice.

Gods be good. Where to start? 

Actually, I know. Let me start by suggesting a thorough and comprehensive re-reading of all the novels. 

1. Sam was afraid. But he never refused the command he was given; not once, let alone 3 or 4 times. Also, he never told the LC to "shove it up his bastard's arse" in front of a bunch of men, nor did he insult his LC in any way, shape or form.

2. "Both men needed convincing" - the comparison and is just ludicrous, as explained above.

3. Slynt wasn't murdered, he was executed, by his LC. There's a huge difference between murder and execution. If you don't believe me, look it up.

4. Edmure never disobeyed Robb. He took initiative and that was detrimental to Robb's plans. Only Robb never shared those plans w/ Edmure. 

5. Catelyn did what most mothers who love their kids would have done, and Robb understood that. The suggestion that he should have executed his mother because of something she did while trying to save her two daughters - his own sisters - is, again, preposterous. 

6. Slynt has a lot of fans in the NW? Who is he, the Justin Bieber of Westeros now? And again, the claim is completely unfounded. 

ETA: 

7. FYI the name of the sword is Dark Sister, not Darksister.