The execution of Janos Slynt was spot on

[Varysblackfyre321]

56 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

<snip>

Hey, why exactly do you think me saying  Jon wasn't friends with all his fellow trainees,(which is simply true-Rast's life wouldn't have been threatened if Jon considered him a friend)  is contradictory to me saying he threatened, cajoled or shamed them?

Like where is the contradiction here? I've been waiting for you to actually clarify or back up your claim that I've been inconsistent in that regard. 

On July 22, 2018 at 6:32 AM, kissdbyfire said:

 

You have to make up your mind about this. If "not all the 'trainees' are Jon's friends", then Jon can't have "threatened, or 'cajoled', or shamed all his fellow 'trainees'". 

 

[Daemon The Black Dragon]

12 hours 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.

You don't see the difference between the Slynt and Sam situations? What happened with Edmure was Robb's own fault. How was Edmure to follow orders he never received? If Catelyn wasn't Robb's mother, Robb would've executed her. 

[Lord Varys]

12 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

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.  

The NW vow is a vow of celibacy. And every man who puts his cock in the vagina of a woman tries to father children. Just look at Arys Oakheart (whole vow is built on the NW vow) - he is very conflicted due to his affair with Arianne Martell yet he neither married her nor did he have children with her. He knows he is breaking his vows, and he also knows that Preston Greenfield and Lewyn Martell were breaking their vows by having mistresses and paramours. You don't have to be Lucamore the Lusty to break your vows.

As to moon tea - even if they had it (which I'd not bet on), it is not all that effective. After all, we do know that even whores in KL brothels do conceive children (like the whore who gave birth to one of Aegon II's confirmed bastards, the mother of Gaemon Palehair, and, of course, the mother of our own Barra).

And considering how many young noblewomen get bastards in their bellies, moon tea is either not that easily available, or not as effective as one might think it is.

15 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

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.

It certainly could have been a mitigating factor. It was Jon's call to deliver a sentence there. If he had wanted he could have treated Slynt the way Mormont always treated him.

And I'm not saying Jon should have treated Slynt better because of Slynt's sake - but because of his own position and the appearance he creates in and beyond the Watch when executes one of the men who killed his father for a relatively minor offense where he could also have delivered a different sentence.

15 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

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.

It is a spectrum. I'm just pointing out that the Watch isn't really a modern military. It is a military order with a very specific purpose and the men leading the Watch are bound by the rules of the Watch, too.

15 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

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.

The point is that the rules which justify the assassination/deposition of an LC (from inside and outside of the Watch) are much clearer defined then when you have 'a right' to rebel against a tyrannical lord or king. The Watchmen swear vows they are all beholden to. A king or lord does no such thing.

I think Marsh has already been shown to be 'right'. He says why he kills Jon and he has tears in his eyes. He is conflicted about the thing he had to do, meaning he is no cold-blooded murderer. When George gives a character a convincing and coherent personal motivation they are, more or less, justified in their actions. He very rarely condemns the behavior of such characters within the framework of the story.

15 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

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.

You confuse things. Qhorin is from the Shadow Tower, not Eastwatch.

The fact that Jon warned CB of the coming attack doesn't mean he was no deserter/turncloak. He could have just decided to turn his cloak again, planning to fool his brothers the way he actually fooled the wildlings. Perhaps he just had a falling out with the wildlings and decided to try the CB road after he got that arrow in his side? What would you have done in that situation if you originally just wanted to run away?

15 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

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). 

My point is just that men voting for Jon doesn't mean they like him or know him or are fans of his. They follow the lead of their officers. They don't have to do that, they just do it. They are accustomed to follow authority.

This is an important point to consider when thinking about this landslide victory of Jon's - and people sober up very quickly after that, even/especially Mallister and Pyke.

15 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

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.

The times have changed, sadly. I doubt Ned would have had Jon's head had he run from the NW like Ryswell's son did.

And keep in mind that Jon is not who he thinks he is which could cause Ned deliver the notion that 'Jon Snow's' vow wasn't binding, etc.

15 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

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.

Cat's crime is blatantly obvious. She is neither a lord nor a lady on Northern soil. She has no jurisdiction to actually arrest the brother of the queen and no right to do so. You can see that in the way she does it - she plays the role of the helpless woman and actually gets other men to arrest Tyrion for her. She is taking the law in her own hands here, and she is actually attacking the king himself by this action considering Tyrion is his good-brother. Even if Robert loathed Tyrion the way Tywin does loath him - he would still have to react to that because his own honor has been tarnished (which is also the reason Tywin has no choice but to react).

[And just to make it clear: I approve of Cat's action there. From her POV it was the smartest thing to do. If Tyrion had tried to murder her son and was conspiring against the king he could not be allowed to warn Cersei/Jaime that the Starks were up to them - and he would have been a great source to get to the bottom of the conspiracy.]

Thus Ned would have been entirely justified in washing his hands off that deed. Instead he took the crime upon himself and thus made Cat innocent of a crime because she now supposedly acted on the orders of the Hand of the King. Ned also has no idea what motivated Cat's actions (he may have some inclination but he doesn't exactly know what motivated it). But he doesn't care. He takes her side immediately without knowing the facts. Just as Robb and Cat later immediately take Ned's side after he had been imprisoned (without knowing the facts there, either).

All that shows to me that the Starks really don't care so much about 'justice' but rather about their family. They would do everything to protect their own. And they actually are aware of that when they consider what they might do when they are in Cersei/Jaime's situation when Bran is watching them, no?

In the end, family is more important than anything - which is, of course, the right thing in a world like that. Your family is your family - that's why mad sadists like Maegor, Aerion, etc. are tolerated by their sane relations. 

15 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

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.

You don't have to play it up like that. Mormont is biased to see Jon in a positive light, and he is treating him differently than he would treat some rapist with no family name. We don't know how far this would go - but it is clear that it does go pretty far with Jon.

Benjen tries to distance himself from Jon and doesn't want to appear to favor him - but make no mistake: If Jon had been in trouble Benjen would have stood with his matter, no matter what. He is his kin.

15 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

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.

That doesn't prove your point. I daresay a common rapist with Jon's natural skills would not have become the Lord Commander's steward, no?

15 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

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.

But it is not skill that determines position. Or rather - not only skill. Titles and blood are much more important than skills. You also have to have skills. But you will be preferred if you have skills and the right breeding.

And it obvious, of course, that the right breeding and blood also gives you the skills. As a nobleman or noble bastard you get training and an eduction. As a commoner you don't. With education and training you can become a pretty good fighter even if you don't have all that many natural skills - whereas natural skills use you nothing if nobody teaches you how to use them.

15 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

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.

They don't think of him because he himself makes no move. You have to want to be LC to get elected. But as soon as Sam's reminds/tells the important people that Mormont groomed Jon to be his successor this becomes a major factor.

Again - Mormont did not plan to die.

15 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

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. 

We don't have the POV of the guy who blew the horn. But it implies that Others were seen. Wights did the dirty work, but the Others were at the Fist, too.

Aemon also talks in his letters about the wights, etc. but he doesn't talk about the Others - because he doesn't have detailed information on the Fist by the time he writes his letters..

15 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

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.

We really have good indications to believe that the Watchmen don't sneak off to Mole's Town the way they would when they are going to desert. I mean, it wouldn't be unlikely to meet some officer or even Mormont himself fucking the whore next to you, no? We even have indication that they go there in groups.

15 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

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

Because Jon gives us the clue. He knows he is a deserter because that's what he is doing. He has sworn a vow and he has broken it. If I make you a promise and break it and you don't find out I've still broken it, no?

15 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

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.

Don't treat this like just an action. It is connected to a solemn vow, and that vow is broken as soon as you decide to no longer keep it. There is an outside component to it as well, but that's not the crucial aspect.

15 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

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.

The crucial part here is intention. Men going whoring intend to come back. Jon never intended to come back.

15 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

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

That's how he spins it to treat the whole thing as if nothing happened. But he knows what actually happened. As does Jon. Do you hear Jon saying he is no oathbreaker? No, he knows what he did.

15 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

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.

No, but letters can be easily ignored, unlike actual envoys.

15 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

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?

We have - because his paper shield to King Tommen apparently doesn't try to convince the boy king that he and his entire Realm are at risk. It just bores the boy king with lies and half-truths that Jon is not Stannis' man - which has nothing to do with the actual issue.

There is no indication whatsoever that Jon made any attempt to inform anyone about the threat the Others pose throughout his entire term as LC. He doesn't even try to inform the Boltons and other Northmen about this.

Let alone the entire Realm - which would be his duty.

And of course Slynt wouldn't be the magic bullet - but one of many ways to make your voice heard.

Just try to view things without wearing your Jon Snow glasses who also reads the southern POVs (like you do). How would you act as Lord Commander of the NW knowing what Jon knows and knowing what you should be doing as Lord Commander?

15 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

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.   

That doesn't absolve them from continue to try. They are beholden to the realms of men as per their vow.

15 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

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.

Sure, they defended the realms of men the entire time - from the wildlings, not the Others, but they did defend them. The realms of men were seen as the Seven Kingdoms.

15 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

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.

No excuse for not trying. No excuse for doing stuff that can only further turn the Iron Throne against you. 

15 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

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.

How do you know that? It was even tried. Alliser Thorne was laughed out of court because the Hand sitting on the throne laughed him out of court. If Tyrion hadn't laughed, nobody would have laughed. And Tyrion didn't laugh because he didn't believe him, he laughed because he was afraid Thorne was going to make fun of him.

15 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

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.

I said it could have easily gone this way considering how Jon attacked Slynt. If you do stuff like that you have no problem killing somebody (or rather: you don't care that you might). And Jon should die both for attempted murder of a superior officer, blinding him, disfiguring him, injuring him.

15 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

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

No, it is forbidden because love is the bane of honor and the death of duty. That's how Aemon describes it, and I take his word over yours.

You do not only love a wife, you also love a paramour and any children she might give you.

15 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

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.

My point is just that there may have been no meaningful difference between trueborn and bastard children. Marriage may have been, for the most part, just two people living together declaring they are together. 

15 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

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.

The whole wife thing has nothing to do with the lands thing. That's why there is a clause about lands in the vow, too. Many of the watchmen don't have lands, anyway.

15 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

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

I'd tell that a plot hole.

[TheMiddleHero]

On 7/27/2018 at 9:46 AM, Lord Varys said:

The NW vow is a vow of celibacy. And every man who puts his cock in the vagina of a woman tries to father children. Just look at Arys Oakheart (whole vow is built on the NW vow) - he is very conflicted due to his affair with Arianne Martell yet he neither married her nor did he have children with her. He knows he is breaking his vows, and he also knows that Preston Greenfield and Lewyn Martell were breaking their vows by having mistresses and paramours. You don't have to be Lucamore the Lusty to break your vows.

As to moon tea - even if they had it (which I'd not bet on), it is not all that effective. After all, we do know that even whores in KL brothels do conceive children (like the whore who gave birth to one of Aegon II's confirmed bastards, the mother of Gaemon Palehair, and, of course, the mother of our own Barra).

And considering how many young noblewomen get bastards in their bellies, moon tea is either not that easily available, or not as effective as one might think it is.

It certainly could have been a mitigating factor. It was Jon's call to deliver a sentence there. If he had wanted he could have treated Slynt the way Mormont always treated him.

And I'm not saying Jon should have treated Slynt better because of Slynt's sake - but because of his own position and the appearance he creates in and beyond the Watch when executes one of the men who killed his father for a relatively minor offense where he could also have delivered a different sentence.

It is a spectrum. I'm just pointing out that the Watch isn't really a modern military. It is a military order with a very specific purpose and the men leading the Watch are bound by the rules of the Watch, too.

The point is that the rules which justify the assassination/deposition of an LC (from inside and outside of the Watch) are much clearer defined then when you have 'a right' to rebel against a tyrannical lord or king. The Watchmen swear vows they are all beholden to. A king or lord does no such thing.

I think Marsh has already been shown to be 'right'. He says why he kills Jon and he has tears in his eyes. He is conflicted about the thing he had to do, meaning he is no cold-blooded murderer. When George gives a character a convincing and coherent personal motivation they are, more or less, justified in their actions. He very rarely condemns the behavior of such characters within the framework of the story.

You confuse things. Qhorin is from the Shadow Tower, not Eastwatch.

The fact that Jon warned CB of the coming attack doesn't mean he was no deserter/turncloak. He could have just decided to turn his cloak again, planning to fool his brothers the way he actually fooled the wildlings. Perhaps he just had a falling out with the wildlings and decided to try the CB road after he got that arrow in his side? What would you have done in that situation if you originally just wanted to run away?

My point is just that men voting for Jon doesn't mean they like him or know him or are fans of his. They follow the lead of their officers. They don't have to do that, they just do it. They are accustomed to follow authority.

This is an important point to consider when thinking about this landslide victory of Jon's - and people sober up very quickly after that, even/especially Mallister and Pyke.

The times have changed, sadly. I doubt Ned would have had Jon's head had he run from the NW like Ryswell's son did.

And keep in mind that Jon is not who he thinks he is which could cause Ned deliver the notion that 'Jon Snow's' vow wasn't binding, etc.

Cat's crime is blatantly obvious. She is neither a lord nor a lady on Northern soil. She has no jurisdiction to actually arrest the brother of the queen and no right to do so. You can see that in the way she does it - she plays the role of the helpless woman and actually gets other men to arrest Tyrion for her. She is taking the law in her own hands here, and she is actually attacking the king himself by this action considering Tyrion is his good-brother. Even if Robert loathed Tyrion the way Tywin does loath him - he would still have to react to that because his own honor has been tarnished (which is also the reason Tywin has no choice but to react).

[And just to make it clear: I approve of Cat's action there. From her POV it was the smartest thing to do. If Tyrion had tried to murder her son and was conspiring against the king he could not be allowed to warn Cersei/Jaime that the Starks were up to them - and he would have been a great source to get to the bottom of the conspiracy.]

Thus Ned would have been entirely justified in washing his hands off that deed. Instead he took the crime upon himself and thus made Cat innocent of a crime because she now supposedly acted on the orders of the Hand of the King. Ned also has no idea what motivated Cat's actions (he may have some inclination but he doesn't exactly know what motivated it). But he doesn't care. He takes her side immediately without knowing the facts. Just as Robb and Cat later immediately take Ned's side after he had been imprisoned (without knowing the facts there, either).

All that shows to me that the Starks really don't care so much about 'justice' but rather about their family. They would do everything to protect their own. And they actually are aware of that when they consider what they might do when they are in Cersei/Jaime's situation when Bran is watching them, no?

In the end, family is more important than anything - which is, of course, the right thing in a world like that. Your family is your family - that's why mad sadists like Maegor, Aerion, etc. are tolerated by their sane relations. 

You don't have to play it up like that. Mormont is biased to see Jon in a positive light, and he is treating him differently than he would treat some rapist with no family name. We don't know how far this would go - but it is clear that it does go pretty far with Jon.

Benjen tries to distance himself from Jon and doesn't want to appear to favor him - but make no mistake: If Jon had been in trouble Benjen would have stood with his matter, no matter what. He is his kin.

That doesn't prove your point. I daresay a common rapist with Jon's natural skills would not have become the Lord Commander's steward, no?

But it is not skill that determines position. Or rather - not only skill. Titles and blood are much more important than skills. You also have to have skills. But you will be preferred if you have skills and the right breeding.

And it obvious, of course, that the right breeding and blood also gives you the skills. As a nobleman or noble bastard you get training and an eduction. As a commoner you don't. With education and training you can become a pretty good fighter even if you don't have all that many natural skills - whereas natural skills use you nothing if nobody teaches you how to use them.

They don't think of him because he himself makes no move. You have to want to be LC to get elected. But as soon as Sam's reminds/tells the important people that Mormont groomed Jon to be his successor this becomes a major factor.

Again - Mormont did not plan to die.

We don't have the POV of the guy who blew the horn. But it implies that Others were seen. Wights did the dirty work, but the Others were at the Fist, too.

Aemon also talks in his letters about the wights, etc. but he doesn't talk about the Others - because he doesn't have detailed information on the Fist by the time he writes his letters..

We really have good indications to believe that the Watchmen don't sneak off to Mole's Town the way they would when they are going to desert. I mean, it wouldn't be unlikely to meet some officer or even Mormont himself fucking the whore next to you, no? We even have indication that they go there in groups.

Because Jon gives us the clue. He knows he is a deserter because that's what he is doing. He has sworn a vow and he has broken it. If I make you a promise and break it and you don't find out I've still broken it, no?

Don't treat this like just an action. It is connected to a solemn vow, and that vow is broken as soon as you decide to no longer keep it. There is an outside component to it as well, but that's not the crucial aspect.

The crucial part here is intention. Men going whoring intend to come back. Jon never intended to come back.

That's how he spins it to treat the whole thing as if nothing happened. But he knows what actually happened. As does Jon. Do you hear Jon saying he is no oathbreaker? No, he knows what he did.

No, but letters can be easily ignored, unlike actual envoys.

We have - because his paper shield to King Tommen apparently doesn't try to convince the boy king that he and his entire Realm are at risk. It just bores the boy king with lies and half-truths that Jon is not Stannis' man - which has nothing to do with the actual issue.

There is no indication whatsoever that Jon made any attempt to inform anyone about the threat the Others pose throughout his entire term as LC. He doesn't even try to inform the Boltons and other Northmen about this.

Let alone the entire Realm - which would be his duty.

And of course Slynt wouldn't be the magic bullet - but one of many ways to make your voice heard.

Just try to view things without wearing your Jon Snow glasses who also reads the southern POVs (like you do). How would you act as Lord Commander of the NW knowing what Jon knows and knowing what you should be doing as Lord Commander?

That doesn't absolve them from continue to try. They are beholden to the realms of men as per their vow.

Sure, they defended the realms of men the entire time - from the wildlings, not the Others, but they did defend them. The realms of men were seen as the Seven Kingdoms.

No excuse for not trying. No excuse for doing stuff that can only further turn the Iron Throne against you. 

How do you know that? It was even tried. Alliser Thorne was laughed out of court because the Hand sitting on the throne laughed him out of court. If Tyrion hadn't laughed, nobody would have laughed. And Tyrion didn't laugh because he didn't believe him, he laughed because he was afraid Thorne was going to make fun of him.

I said it could have easily gone this way considering how Jon attacked Slynt. If you do stuff like that you have no problem killing somebody (or rather: you don't care that you might). And Jon should die both for attempted murder of a superior officer, blinding him, disfiguring him, injuring him.

No, it is forbidden because love is the bane of honor and the death of duty. That's how Aemon describes it, and I take his word over yours.

You do not only love a wife, you also love a paramour and any children she might give you.

My point is just that there may have been no meaningful difference between trueborn and bastard children. Marriage may have been, for the most part, just two people living together declaring they are together. 

The whole wife thing has nothing to do with the lands thing. That's why there is a clause about lands in the vow, too. Many of the watchmen don't have lands, anyway.

I'd tell that a plot hole.

Being very obtuse aren't we? Holding one trying to be honorable to an a highly uncomprimising standard, yet another who has no honor to very loose standards?

[Lord Varys]

7 minutes ago, TheMiddleHero said:

Being very obtuse aren't we? Holding one trying to be honorable to an a highly uncomprimising standard, yet another who has no honor to very loose standards?

Not sure why you had to quote a lot of my stuff when you just wanted to say that.

[Only 89 selfies today]

On 7/26/2018 at 9:01 PM, 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.

The Slynt execution was not only unjust but it was a dumb political maneuver as well.  I will grant that Jon did not know how it would play out in the end but he should have considered how bad it was from the perspective of the men who supported Slynt.  If Jon had still killed Slynt and then killed Mance too, it might have passed the test of justice.   It still makes it an unwise political move but at least Jon would not lose the support that he already had.  I doubt there is any man who was the shield hall meeting who still support Jon.  

[White Ravens]

5 hours ago, Only 89 selfies today said:

The Slynt execution was not only unjust but it was a dumb political maneuver as well.  I will grant that Jon did not know how it would play out in the end but he should have considered how bad it was from the perspective of the men who supported Slynt.  If Jon had still killed Slynt and then killed Mance too, it might have passed the test of justice.   It still makes it an unwise political move but at least Jon would not lose the support that he already had.  I doubt there is any man who was the shield hall meeting who still support Jon.  

If justice would have been better served by Jon killing Mance as well as Janos, when do you think he should have killed him?  Jon, Janos, Bowen and the rest of the Watch all witnessed Mance dying as he was consumed by flames prior to Janos being killed, or at least they thought they did.  Jon even ordered his archers to kill Mance (Rattleshirt) to spare him the agony of the flames.  After that Jon was informed that Melisandre had faked Mance's death by glamoring Rattleshirt and sacrificing him in place of Mance.    Stannis and Melisandre are responsible for Mance's fate after that. 

[Clegane'sPup]

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Not sure why you had to quote a lot of my stuff when you just wanted to say that.

I canna speak for the person you are speaking to but it appears to me that quite often the whole spiel needs quoting due to the a long typically balderdash intended as a means of persuasion or as an excuse but regarded with skepticism or contempt by those who hear it.

 

[TheMiddleHero]

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Not sure why you had to quote a lot of my stuff when you just wanted to say that.

Not sure why you are commenting on the amount that was written and the quote rather than the topic at hand, and more specifically what I said. If you must know, I had snipped it but when I posted it the whole quote came back.

[the trees have eyes]

On 7/27/2018 at 2:46 PM, Lord Varys said:

The NW vow is a vow of celibacy. And every man who puts his cock in the vagina of a woman tries to father children. Just look at Arys Oakheart (whole vow is built on the NW vow) - he is very conflicted due to his affair with Arianne Martell yet he neither married her nor did he have children with her. He knows he is breaking his vows, and he also knows that Preston Greenfield and Lewyn Martell were breaking their vows by having mistresses and paramours. You don't have to be Lucamore the Lusty to break your vows.

A vow of celibacy is not a particularly hard one to word.  Celibacy is usually a religious requirement for priesthoods that believe in and demand the purity of the one becoming ordained.  The point for the NW is nothing about religion and purity but about the practicality or compatibility of having conflicting obligations and priorities.  That's why the wording is what it is.

Do we have the Kingsguard vows to compare the wording or are you making assumptions here?

On 7/27/2018 at 2:46 PM, Lord Varys said:

As to moon tea - even if they had it (which I'd not bet on), it is not all that effective. After all, we do know that even whores in KL brothels do conceive children (like the whore who gave birth to one of Aegon II's confirmed bastards, the mother of Gaemon Palehair, and, of course, the mother of our own Barra).

And considering how many young noblewomen get bastards in their bellies, moon tea is either not that easily available, or not as effective as one might think it is.

Granted there is no foolproof birth control but how many men who visit Mole's Town are openly forming a relationship with a woman and having a family with her?  None that we know of.  And how many acknowledged bastards of NW men are there at Mole's Town?  Again, none that we know of.  Should the women become pregnant and bear the children there is no indication the identity of the father is known or acknowledged which prevents a competing obligation or attachment arising.  No black brother has a family in waiting at Mole's Town he would be tempted to fly down from the Wall for.

On 7/27/2018 at 2:46 PM, Lord Varys said:

It certainly could have been a mitigating factor.

It might be a motive (though I think it's not the real one Slynt has) but it's not a mitigating factor.

On 7/27/2018 at 2:46 PM, Lord Varys said:

And I'm not saying Jon should have treated Slynt better because of Slynt's sake - but because of his own position and the appearance he creates in and beyond the Watch when executes one of the men who killed his father for a relatively minor offense where he could also have delivered a different sentence.

It's as serious as it gets in a military organisation and hierarchical quasi-feudal society.  You're misrepresenting and downplaying the situation.  If you can't understand or accept the gravity of the offense after all this debate then I feel you're missing a large and repeatedly made point.

On 7/27/2018 at 2:46 PM, Lord Varys said:

It is a spectrum. I'm just pointing out that the Watch isn't really a modern military. It is a military order with a very specific purpose and the men leading the Watch are bound by the rules of the Watch, too.

It's not modern, no, it's a far more hierarchical society more accustomed to severe punishments and the application of capital punishment for oathbreaking and treason.  That's the whole point of Slynt's execution being utterly unremarkable in the context of Westeros.

And it's precisely because Slynt refused to be bound by the rules of the NW that he paid the price.

On 7/27/2018 at 2:46 PM, Lord Varys said:

You confuse things. Qhorin is from the Shadow Tower, not Eastwatch.

The fact that Jon warned CB of the coming attack doesn't mean he was no deserter/turncloak. He could have just decided to turn his cloak again, planning to fool his brothers the way he actually fooled the wildlings. Perhaps he just had a falling out with the wildlings and decided to try the CB road after he got that arrow in his side? What would you have done in that situation if you originally just wanted to run away?

Yes, I meant Shadow Tower.  That does not change the argument that men who knew and were attached to Qhorin were prepared to believe Jon or at worst give him the benefit of the doubt.  If anyone believed Jon was playing both sides then that was an argument against him being voted Lord Commander not about refusing his orders afterwards.  The men are bound by their oaths and they just chose their Lord Commander.  If they doubt him they have to swallow those doubts until a situation which confirms those suspicions arises: again I don't want to get into Ides of Marsh but this is such a situation, Slynt being given command of Greyguard is not.  His reasons for refusing are personal enmity towards Jon and his own ambition not any mitigating factor that the orders given are not "proper" ones for the NW to fulfill.

On 7/27/2018 at 2:46 PM, Lord Varys said:

The times have changed, sadly. I doubt Ned would have had Jon's head had he run from the NW like Ryswell's son did.

And keep in mind that Jon is not who he thinks he is which could cause Ned deliver the notion that 'Jon Snow's' vow wasn't binding, etc.

I see no basis for your assertion that times and (implicitly) values have changed to the extent that Ned would shit on the NW.  Nor that Ned would not consider vows made by Jon in earnest to be invalid.  These look to be two gigantic ass pulls by you.

On 7/27/2018 at 2:46 PM, Lord Varys said:

Cat's crime is blatantly obvious.

In the end, family is more important than anything - which is, of course, the right thing in a world like that.

I disagree entirely on your characterization of the catnapping but don't intend to debate it.  Your argument that Ned cares about family and not justice and so by extension would replace Mormont for executing Jon rests on false assumptions about what Ned's reaction to Cat taking Tyrion implies.

The point about Lord Ryswell returning his son for punishment obviates your argument.  An unfounded assertion that "it's different now" carries no weight.

On 7/27/2018 at 2:46 PM, Lord Varys said:

You don't have to play it up like that. Mormont is biased to see Jon in a positive light, and he is treating him differently than he would treat some rapist with no family name. We don't know how far this would go - but it is clear that it does go pretty far with Jon.

Benjen tries to distance himself from Jon and doesn't want to appear to favor him - but make no mistake: If Jon had been in trouble Benjen would have stood with his matter, no matter what. He is his kin.

None of this changes the fact that Jon was imprisoned pending punishment for assaulting Thorne.  What changed things was that he saved Mormont's life in the night.  I highly doubt Benjen would have prevented Mormont punishing Jon, you are just writing your own story here based on conjecture. 

On 7/27/2018 at 2:46 PM, Lord Varys said:

That doesn't prove your point. I daresay a common rapist with Jon's natural skills would not have become the Lord Commander's steward, no?

It does.  Sam has none of Jon's natural skills so does not become Mormont's steward.  A common rapist with natural skills to fight, protect others, influence men around him and problem solve?  It would be a rare man wouldn't it?  Cotter Pyke and Iron Emmett are good examples of ability serving men well in the NW.

On 7/27/2018 at 2:46 PM, Lord Varys said:

But it is not skill that determines position. Or rather - not only skill. Titles and blood are much more important than skills. You also have to have skills. But you will be preferred if you have skills and the right breeding.

And it obvious, of course, that the right breeding and blood also gives you the skills. As a nobleman or noble bastard you get training and an eduction. As a commoner you don't. With education and training you can become a pretty good fighter even if you don't have all that many natural skills - whereas natural skills use you nothing if nobody teaches you how to use them.

The different examples of Jon and Sam are all the reader needs to understand ability is a requirement in the NW for leadership positions.  There are no sinecures in the NW and promotion is not based on birth but ability.   That the sons of noblemen are more likely to have those abilities than poachers is like saying privately educated children are more likely to go to top universities.  They are and maybe that's not fair but a privately educated child who was a dummy would not get in.

On 7/27/2018 at 2:46 PM, Lord Varys said:

They don't think of him because he himself makes no move. You have to want to be LC to get elected. But as soon as Sam's reminds/tells the important people that Mormont groomed Jon to be his successor this becomes a major factor.

Sam tells them a number of things including that Qhorin chose Jon for a dangerous mission and that Jon held the Wall against Mance Raydar.  It's not his birth they are considering here but what he did, aka his proven ability.  Nevertheless, neither of them considered him as a leadership candidate or sought to persuade him to stand until it looked like Stannis was going to appoint the other.

On 7/27/2018 at 2:46 PM, Lord Varys said:

We don't have the POV of the guy who blew the horn. But it implies that Others were seen. Wights did the dirty work, but the Others were at the Fist, too.

Aemon also talks in his letters about the wights, etc. but he doesn't talk about the Others - because he doesn't have detailed information on the Fist by the time he writes his letters.

We first see Others in the retreat from the Fist.  One blast for rangers returning, two for wildlings, three for Others.  What for an army of dead men?  There is not much Sam could have written since he had no information to work on other than three horn blasts and reports of dead men.  I don't see what Aemon could have written based on this that would have been believed.

On 7/27/2018 at 2:46 PM, Lord Varys said:

We really have good indications to believe that the Watchmen don't sneak off to Mole's Town the way they would when they are going to desert. I mean, it wouldn't be unlikely to meet some officer or even Mormont himself fucking the whore next to you, no? We even have indication that they go there in groups.

Do we?  I don't remember it but if we do it seems to pour cold water on your argument about a vow of celibacy.

Mormont saying "If we beheaded every boy who rode to Mole's Town in the night" seems to suggest an attempt at secrecy.

On 7/27/2018 at 2:46 PM, Lord Varys said:

Because Jon gives us the clue. He knows he is a deserter because that's what he is doing. He has sworn a vow and he has broken it. If I make you a promise and break it and you don't find out I've still broken it, no?

Intending to break =/= breaking.  He swore to live and die at his post and he attempted to but did not desert in the night, point proven by him being at his post in the morning.

On 7/27/2018 at 2:46 PM, Lord Varys said:

Don't treat this like just an action. It is connected to a solemn vow, and that vow is broken as soon as you decide to no longer keep it. There is an outside component to it as well, but that's not the crucial aspect.

Woah, think before you type, hey?  This is manifestly incorrect.  No one is punished for thought crimes except in Nineteen Eighty Four.  In universe people are punished for actual crimes.  Mormont could have punished Jon for indiscipline in attempting to desert but it's logically impossible to punish someone for desertion when they are at their post.

On 7/27/2018 at 2:46 PM, Lord Varys said:

The crucial part here is intention. Men going whoring intend to come back. Jon never intended to come back.

And yet he did come back.  This is crucial.  Given that his original intention becomes far less important.  You are giving weight to the wrong factor.

On 7/27/2018 at 2:46 PM, Lord Varys said:

That's how he spins it to treat the whole thing as if nothing happened. But he knows what actually happened. As does Jon. Do you hear Jon saying he is no oathbreaker? No, he knows what he did.

Jon knows what he intended and tried to do and does not try to lie or hide it.  This does not change the fact that he is at his post and, ergo, did not desert.  If his friends had not intervened he would not have come back and would be guilty of desertion but fortunately for him they did.

On 7/27/2018 at 2:46 PM, Lord Varys said:

No, but letters can be easily ignored, unlike actual envoys.

And envoys can be utterly ineffective, like Thorne.  No one believed him.  Slynt is not going to convince these people to believe in fairy tales any more than Thorne.

On 7/27/2018 at 2:46 PM, Lord Varys said:

We have - 

There is no indication whatsoever that Jon made any attempt to inform anyone about the threat the Others pose throughout his entire term as LC. He doesn't even try to inform the Boltons and other Northmen about this.

Let alone the entire Realm - which would be his duty.

That doesn't absolve them from continue to try. They are beholden to the realms of men as per their vow.

There is no indication that he has neglected to do so.  The author may have considered he has done enough to show that no help will come from the IT and that Jon working with Stannis and the wildlings and wildcards like Braavos is a marriage of necessity.  Whether you think he should spend ink on Jon writing and asking for help and receiving none is up to you but it won't change how the author wants the story to play out.

You could argue for sending Sam, the son of a prominent Tyrell bannerman and thus likely to be well received by the IT and someone who has actually seen and killed an Other if you were insistent on this.  For me the author has set things up the way he wants and I don't need to see more futile efforts to cause the circumstances he wants to create at the Wall.  And I'm not obsessed with Janos Slynt.

On 7/27/2018 at 2:46 PM, Lord Varys said:

Sure, they defended the realms of men the entire time - from the wildlings, not the Others, but they did defend them. The realms of men were seen as the Seven Kingdoms.

No, they didn't.  They protected one part of the realm from raiders the way the Storm Lords or Royal Fleet would protect against pirates from the Stepstones raiding the coast or merchant shipping.  This is protecting the king's realm from other men.  It's a local issue that affects one part of the realm and no one in the NW or anywhere else in the 7K had any clue about the Others or a greater purpose.  That is how the story unfolds.

On 7/27/2018 at 2:46 PM, Lord Varys said:

No excuse for not trying. No excuse for doing stuff that can only further turn the Iron Throne against you. 

So you concur with Janos Slynt that Jon dare not touch him, to the end of all discipline and Jon's command of the NW?

Not trying =/= having no other course but to comply with your notion that Slynt be sent as an envoy to KL despite the fact that he has already been effectively nominated by the IT for Lord Commander and would be in a position to cause no end of mischief or become the IT's pawn once more.  Not trying =/= overlooking Slynt's oathbreaking.

On 7/27/2018 at 2:46 PM, Lord Varys said:

How do you know that? It was even tried. Alliser Thorne was laughed out of court because the Hand sitting on the throne laughed him out of court. If Tyrion hadn't laughed, nobody would have laughed. And Tyrion didn't laugh because he didn't believe him, he laughed because he was afraid Thorne was going to make fun of him.

Oh, for god's sake.  Are you seriously contending that well educated and well read people at Court believe in the Others and Tyrion is somehow an exception?  And that they are actually entirely receptive to the idea of the Others but because Tyrion dismissed it they lost all ability to think for themselves?  Please don't be disingenuous.

And Tyrion actually heard one of the court attendees snigger at Thorne which is when he hit upon the idea of mockery.  And why would he fear mockery himself?  Why, because he risked being made a laughing stock because instead of having to deal with serious matters of governance he was being presented with children's stories and the bogey man.  No one believes in this stuff.....

On 7/27/2018 at 2:46 PM, Lord Varys said:

I said it could have easily gone this way considering how Jon attacked Slynt. If you do stuff like that you have no problem killing somebody (or rather: you don't care that you might). And Jon should die both for attempted murder of a superior officer, blinding him, disfiguring him, injuring him.

Another thought crime then, this one a presumed rather than actual thought?  He attacked Thorne and this is what he would be tried / punished for, not what the attack showed he might be prepared to do or might have done.  You are on a dangerous path of trying not what was done but what your assumptions are that this person might do based on it.

It's not attempted murder, it's assault, and that becomes more serious in context because this is a military order and Thorne is a superior officer.   Is assaulting a superior officer a capital offense?  Possibly though I doubt it and doubt it more given the circumstances that Thorne baited Jon.  In any event saving Mormont's life vitiated the need for punishment - at least in Mormont's eyes: it took this forum for me to learn that some people are incensed over the injustice of it (or say they are).

On 7/27/2018 at 2:46 PM, Lord Varys said:

No, it is forbidden because love is the bane of honor and the death of duty. That's how Aemon describes it, and I take his word over yours.

In part but Aemon is of course talking about family (Egg & co) not about romance.  The whole system (which still exists today but with inheritances split rather than passed on wholesale to the eldest through primogeniture) is to pass on what you have to your heirs.  If the NW was ever to succeed then landed nobility or gentry had to leave behind any attachment to their Houses, giving up titles, House livery (literally taking the black in place of their own House Colours) and the right to marry and have heirs to whom they would seek to pass on land.  Otherwise you would simply create an aristocracy in the Gift with petty nobles ruling their castles and the land around and seeking to pass it on to their children.  The oaths are a bundle that separate the men from their prior lives and from the system they have been a part of.  That's the purpose here, not to prevent men from having sex with a prostitute and why no one gives a rat's arse about black brothers going to Mole's Town.  They are not undermining the foundations that underpin the Night's Watch. 

On 7/27/2018 at 2:46 PM, Lord Varys said:

You do not only love a wife, you also love a paramour and any children she might give you.

Granted, you can love a paramour but the Wall is not a place women would aspire to be, there is nothing for them.  Unless of course you did not succeed in breaking the nobility out of their accustomed marriage, land ownership and inheritance pattern in: if they controlled the land and castles then they might attract paramours or more likely take wives.  And the NW is simply undone over time. 

On 7/27/2018 at 2:46 PM, Lord Varys said:

My point is just that there may have been no meaningful difference between trueborn and bastard children. Marriage may have been, for the most part, just two people living together declaring they are together.

Marriage is all about property and inheritance.  It's about who is entitled to inherit and who isn't: trueborn versus bastard.  If Lords have castles I think you have to accept that property is a big deal and that the vow requiring men to "take no wife" is a straightforward confirmation that marriage exists and functions as we know it.

On 7/27/2018 at 2:46 PM, Lord Varys said:

The whole wife thing has nothing to do with the lands thing. That's why there is a clause about lands in the vow, too. Many of the watchmen don't have lands, anyway.

The NW only exists and functions because men give up their property rights when they join up and of course the Stark King had to give up his "property right" to the Gift to enable the NW to be independent and self-sufficient (except in manpower).

Marriage is all about property rights and inheritance not about getting laid.  I seem to remember that one of the early Lord Commanders tried to pass on the position to a child of his which illustrates the whole problem of either marrying or fathering children being tied to lands and power.  It is how a feudal system works.  It's a less relevant concern for a commoner or a serf, that's a given, but then the other compelling factor, that a wife and child would lead to competing priorities and commitments and so undermine the NW's purpose, comes to the fore.

On 7/27/2018 at 2:46 PM, Lord Varys said:

I'd tell that a plot hole.

How so?  Mormont sends Thorne to KL.  There is no reason to believe he does not send a detailed report to Winterfell: after all the two men they found went ranging with Benjen Stark and he would be keeping Winterfell updated.  Why you feel Jon has to do this rather than the Lord Commander, who has access to the ravens and the responsibility to do so, I don't know.

[Nevets]

On 7/27/2018 at 7:46 AM, Lord Varys said:

I'm just pointing out that the Watch isn't really a modern military. It is a military order with a very specific purpose and the men leading the Watch are bound by the rules of the Watch, too.

You are correct, the NW is not a modern military.  It is a pre-modern military organization.  And the rules and discipline of pre-modern militarys was a lot harsher than today.  You could easily get executed for stuff that might be minor today.  Although what Slynt did isn't minor (see below)

 

On 7/27/2018 at 7:46 AM, Lord Varys said:

And I'm not saying Jon should have treated Slynt better because of Slynt's sake - but because of his own position and the appearance he creates in and beyond the Watch when executes one of the men who killed his father for a relatively minor offense where he could also have delivered a different sentence.

"Relatively minor offense?"  Telling your commanding officer, in front of much of the unit, that you flatly refuse to obey his orders, and quite reasonable ones at that, and effectively inviting the rest of the unit to do the same, is not minor in any military organization.  It is very serious, and Slynt's actions, if not actually mutinous, certainly border on it.  It cannot be tolerated by any commander who hopes to retain his authority.  And Jon has limited options, and the ones that don't involve execution leave a likely mutineer around to spread his poison.

On 7/27/2018 at 7:46 AM, Lord Varys said:

Because Jon gives us the clue. He knows he is a deserter because that's what he is doing. He has sworn a vow and he has broken it. If I make you a promise and break it and you don't find out I've still broken it, no?

We have not been given the actual precise definition of desertion, assuming that there actually is one.  The only other cases of desertion that we know of involved men found a long ways from the wall, clearly without leave.  Stating that someone who is back before dawn is not a deserter hardly seems unreasonable.  Jon certainly wanted to desert, and tried to, but failed.  And desertion, as I understand it, both in real life and from Mormont, involved intending to leave, leaving, and not returning before you are either missed of found someplace you shouldn't be.  None of this happened to Jon.

On 7/27/2018 at 7:46 AM, Lord Varys said:

No excuse for not trying. No excuse for doing stuff that can only further turn the Iron Throne against you.

Sending Janos Slynt to be an envoy has to be the stupidest idea if have seen lately.  He hates Jon, is perfectly willing to lie, cheat, steal and murder to get what he wants, has no loyalty to the NW or its mission, and a far as I know, has never even seen an Other and probably doesn't even believe that they exist.  Sending him is an absolutely terrible idea. 

 

 

[kissdbyfire]

On 7/27/2018 at 9:46 AM, Lord Varys said:

The NW vow is a vow of celibacy. And every man who puts his cock in the vagina of a woman tries to father children. Just look at Arys Oakheart (whole vow is built on the NW vow) - he is very conflicted due to his affair with Arianne Martell yet he neither married her nor did he have children with her. He knows he is breaking his vows, and he also knows that Preston Greenfield and Lewyn Martell were breaking their vows by having mistresses and paramours. You don't have to be Lucamore the Lusty to break your vows.

Show me where in the vows there's anything about not having sex and I'll drop it. And noooooooooooooo, a person having sex does not in any way, shape, or form means that they want to procreate. 

On 7/27/2018 at 9:46 AM, Lord Varys said:

As to moon tea - even if they had it (which I'd not bet on), it is not all that effective. After all, we do know that even whores in KL brothels do conceive children (like the whore who gave birth to one of Aegon II's confirmed bastards, the mother of Gaemon Palehair, and, of course, the mother of our own Barra).

Thank you for making my point for me. Yup, we know of a couple of whores who decided to keep their babies who had been fathered by freaking kings/princes/royals.

On 7/27/2018 at 9:46 AM, Lord Varys said:

And considering how many young noblewomen get bastards in their bellies, moon tea is either not that easily available, or not as effective as one might think it is.

Nope, the info we do have points to it being quite effective, actually. And I was obviously talking about MT, sorry, didn't realise I had to clarify that. 

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

Show me where in the vows there's anything about not having sex and I'll drop it. And noooooooooooooo, a person having sex does not in any way, shape, or form means that they want to procreate. 

The concept of sex in Westeros is less ... modern than our concepts. Nobody seems to care that you can have anal sex, oral sex, and do quite a few things without getting pregnant. Nobody seems to care that there effective means of birth control (which makes it irrelevant/pointless to 'guard the womb of the woman' because you could just ensure drinks moon tea whenever she is having fun outside the marriage).

Unless you want to suggest (without any evidence) that the whores in Mole's Town do not offer vaginal sex (or that nobody in the Watch likes to have sex this way) we are back to the fact that 'fathering children' doesn't work without good old vaginal sex. And usually something that looks like sex is taken as a sign that the people in question actually had vaginal sex - meaning they broke their vows if they were KG or NW.

And last time I looked Jon actually wanted to abstain from passionate Ygritte sex because, you know, he does not want to father a bastard.

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

Thank you for making my point for me. Yup, we know of a couple of whores who decided to keep their babies who had been fathered by freaking kings/princes/royals.

Last time I looked the father of Gaemon Palehair was the son of some Lysene oarsman. We do know that whores have bastards in this world, we also do know that many and more noblewoman get fucked/raped and somehow cannot prevent a pregnancy or abort the child (hello there, Tyrion Tanner).

The idea that some whores who live literally at the end of the world have better access to birth control than the highborn and wealthy is, quite frankly, not very convincing. And we can take this to other confirmed bastards, too - why did Ramsay's mother keep him, why did Glendon Ball's mother (a whore) keep him? And so on and so forth.

Could be that this is a plot hole. A society with effective birth control methods that are easily available (and 'moon tea' is supposed to work much better than real world medieval equivalents) would look much different than Westeros actually looks. There should be essentially no bastards born by noblewomen. I mean, let's take Delena Florent and Edric Storm. That woman and House Florent had been enough humiliated as it was - why on earth would her family insist that she carry the child to term? Why didn't she drink moon tea immediately after she had sex with Robert? Why doesn't any woman whose reputation is going to suffer when she gives birth to a bastard?

5 hours ago, Nevets said:

You are correct, the NW is not a modern military.  It is a pre-modern military organization.  And the rules and discipline of pre-modern militarys was a lot harsher than today.  You could easily get executed for stuff that might be minor today.  Although what Slynt did isn't minor (see below)

It also means that rules are less strict. Officers and commanders have much more leeway, as do the lords and kings in their judgments. Which is why Jon was under no obligation to execute Slynt - unlike an officer in a proper military from a more modern era where there are clearer rules of conduct.

5 hours ago, Nevets said:

"Relatively minor offense?"  Telling your commanding officer, in front of much of the unit, that you flatly refuse to obey his orders, and quite reasonable ones at that, and effectively inviting the rest of the unit to do the same, is not minor in any military organization.  It is very serious, and Slynt's actions, if not actually mutinous, certainly border on it.  It cannot be tolerated by any commander who hopes to retain his authority.  And Jon has limited options, and the ones that don't involve execution leave a likely mutineer around to spread his poison.

I agree that it is a punishable offense. I just don't see a reason to defend the fact that Jon felt he had to execute the man.

5 hours ago, Nevets said:

We have not been given the actual precise definition of desertion, assuming that there actually is one.  The only other cases of desertion that we know of involved men found a long ways from the wall, clearly without leave.  Stating that someone who is back before dawn is not a deserter hardly seems unreasonable.  Jon certainly wanted to desert, and tried to, but failed.  And desertion, as I understand it, both in real life and from Mormont, involved intending to leave, leaving, and not returning before you are either missed of found someplace you shouldn't be.  None of this happened to Jon.

That is how Mormont spins it, but as I say: That is his way to justify that Jon did nothing wrong when we all know that he did do something wrong. He didn't even regret what he did when he came back.

5 hours ago, Nevets said:

Sending Janos Slynt to be an envoy has to be the stupidest idea if have seen lately.  He hates Jon, is perfectly willing to lie, cheat, steal and murder to get what he wants, has no loyalty to the NW or its mission, and a far as I know, has never even seen an Other and probably doesn't even believe that they exist.  Sending him is an absolutely terrible idea.

That was just a potential way to make use of the man. Why give him command of a castle when you can actually send him away and consolidate your power over the Watch in his absence? Whether the man has any success down south would be irrelevant considering Jon doesn't seem to care or make any attempt to get support from down there, anyway.

And in general, since people seem to get the impression I'm the greatest Slynt fanboy on earth:

I'm not denying the man should be punished. I just don't think execution was the only way Jon could have chosen, nor do I think this was a particularly smart move on his part - neither in relation to how it looked within the Watch (he killed a former rival) nor how it looked in relation to the outside world.

[Nevets]

3 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I'm not denying the man should be punished. I just don't think execution was the only way Jon could have chosen, nor do I think this was a particularly smart move on his part - neither in relation to how it looked within the Watch (he killed a former rival) nor how it looked in relation to the outside world.

From Jon's point of view, Slynt is someone who will continue to be mutinous and undermine his authority, and quite possibly for no other reason than it's Jon authority.  Given that Jon believes at this point that he is in a battle for the existence of Westeros (against the Others), Slynt is a threat that can not be tolerated.  Whether that is an accurate assessment or not, that is how Jon sees it.  And seen that way, execution is the only response.

Whether it was smart or not - I don't know.  He certainly wouldn't be the first character to misread a situation and make a bad decision.  In fact, I think every major character has done so, although I think Jon is better than most.  And to my (ex-military) mind, executing Slynt was a perfectly reasonable option, given the circumstances.  I don't have a huge problem with it.

[Lord Varys]

12 hours ago, Nevets said:

From Jon's point of view, Slynt is someone who will continue to be mutinous and undermine his authority, and quite possibly for no other reason than it's Jon authority.  Given that Jon believes at this point that he is in a battle for the existence of Westeros (against the Others), Slynt is a threat that can not be tolerated.  Whether that is an accurate assessment or not, that is how Jon sees it.  And seen that way, execution is the only response.

There is nothing of this sort of reasoning in Jon's chapter when he decides to kill the man. He doesn't think about the Others, he just thinks about the fact that this man has publicly humiliated him and that he cannot let that stand. And then he kills him. This has nothing to do with the Others or the grand mission of the NW. Not that this is Jon's mission at that point. Jon has no men and Stannis is at the Wall with his host.

And, quite frankly, there are many ways how Jon Snow could have broken (quite literally) Janos Slynt that do not involve killing the man.

Quote

Whether it was smart or not - I don't know.  He certainly wouldn't be the first character to misread a situation and make a bad decision.  In fact, I think every major character has done so, although I think Jon is better than most.  And to my (ex-military) mind, executing Slynt was a perfectly reasonable option, given the circumstances.  I don't have a huge problem with it.

I don't have a huge problem with that, either. But the point in this (succession of) thread(s) is to discuss this thing, no? And I think especially in light of the fact that Slynt was Jon's rival, and one of the men who executed his father, it might have been smarter to actually not execute him. Or at least leave the decision what happens to him to somebody else.

I mean, even Tywin did not presume to sit in judgment over his son all by himself (despite the fact that he could have done so as Hand of the King) - he named two other judges so that nobody is going to accuse him that he let his personal bias completely determine the sentence. Tywin would not have been able to free Tyrion against Mace and Oberyn (or vice versa).

As Lord Commander of the NW Jon has to at least try to pay lip service to the neutrality thing - no matter what Slynt did, the important thing is how his execution looks when people learn about it thousands of miles away.

[Bernie Mac]

11 hours ago, Nevets said:

From Jon's point of view, Slynt is someone who will continue to be mutinous and undermine his authority, and quite possibly for no other reason than it's Jon authority. 

Jon has been commander for a week, apart from refuse a crappy position Slynt has done nothing in that week to undermine Jon's authority, certainly no more than some of the many others who did not vote for him to be Commander. 

Jon imagines that because Slynt had a fair bit of support, which is not a crime worthy of execution, and looked like winning the election before Sam fixed it, that he may cause a problem in the future. He executes the man who killed his father as a result of what he may do in the future, certainly pragmatic but not exactly justice, which is what the first thread was about. 

11 hours ago, Nevets said:

 

Given that Jon believes at this point that he is in a battle for the existence of Westeros (against the Others), Slynt is a threat that can not be tolerated.  Whether that is an accurate assessment or not, that is how Jon sees it.  And seen that way, execution is the only response.

Possibly, but he was fantasizing about chopping his head off before Stannis committed insubordination.  It reads like revenge rather than Jon not being able to use a man who rose to become a the Commander of the gold cloaks. 

As quite many people have pointed out it is an epic fist pump scene. But it does not elicit that response from the reader because some guy refused an order and deserved to die, or even because it was rival for the LC position but because Jon got to get revenge on the man who murdered his father. 

 

It was not justice, it was revenge with a hint of pragmatism. 

 

[teej6]

10 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Jon imagines that because Slynt had a fair bit of support, which is not a crime worthy of execution, and looked like winning the election before Sam fixed it, that he may cause a problem in the future. 

How does having 137 votes from a total of 588 “look like winning the election”? That’s how many votes Slynt got in the choosing before the last and he needs to 2/3rd (~392 votes) of the votes to get chosen as LC, And unless you have some imaginary text to back your claim, there’s no indication that Mallister (with 203 votes) and Pyke (with 169 votes) was thinking of casting theirs and the garrison’s vote for Slynt before Sam intervened. Why, Marsh and Thorne couldn’t even convince Yarwyck to vote for Slynt.

[Bernie Mac]

1 minute ago, teej6 said:

How does having 137 votes from a total of 588 “look like winning the election”?

The election was almost two weeks, it was not just that one vote. Sam fixes the vote because he can see who the likely winner was going to be. 

Lord Slynt seventy-four, Othell Yarwyck sixty, Bowen Marsh forty-nine, Three-Finger Hobb five, and Dolorous Edd Tollett one. Pyp and his stupid japes. Sam shuffled through the earlier counts. Ser Denys, Cotter Pyke, and Bowen Marsh had all been falling since the third day, Othell Yarwyck since the sixth. Only Lord Janos Slynt was climbing, day after day after day.

 

 

[teej6]

1 minute ago, Bernie Mac said:

The election was almost two weeks, it was not just that one vote. Sam fixes the vote because he can see who the likely winner was going to be. 

Lord Slynt seventy-four, Othell Yarwyck sixty, Bowen Marsh forty-nine, Three-Finger Hobb five, and Dolorous Edd Tollett one. Pyp and his stupid japes. Sam shuffled through the earlier counts. Ser Denys, Cotter Pyke, and Bowen Marsh had all been falling since the third day, Othell Yarwyck since the sixth. Only Lord Janos Slynt was climbing, day after day after day.

 

 

The one were Slynt won 137 votes was the last choosing before the one that elected Jon. So that’s the one that counts if you want to gauge Slynt’s support. And Slynt needs 392 votes to get elected LC. It’s a long way from 137 to 392. Again, without Mallister or Pyke’s support, there’s no way Slynt would get the 392 (2/3rd) votes required. Show me where in the text it states he would have got either one’s support if not for Sam.

[Unacosamedarisa]

9 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Sam fixes the vote

He didn't fix the vote at all. He convinced Mallister and Pyke to support Jon for LC. Perhaps slightly dishonest with telling them that Stannis was going to force the other on the Brothers, but I doubt it was any more dishonest than whatever Slynt was doing to get support.