Jump to content
kissdbyfire

The execution of Janos Slynt was spot on

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

I didnt get that impression about Slynt, at least not as strong. He ordererd the death of the children because Cersei commanded, its similar to Sandor. We see Sandors conflict within himself because hes a secondary character, Janos has less story time. I wouldn't call him evil, hes far from the Mountain or a Bolton or Tywin

I will not chastize Slynt over not resigning out of protest, over his orderers to order someone to commit a vile act. Such an act would do nothing really to stop the eradicatation. The true fault lies squarely upon Cersi. Nor for turning  Eddard Stark; for all Slynt knew the guy was a really a traitor(I am not saying he did this out of loyalty to the Ironthrone but to get on him about this is ridiculous, even honorble men would probably have behaved in the same way in this instance right up to the stabs in the backs of Eddard's men). But He did murder 2 men for being willing to testify against about his corruption.  And was so unmoved by the experience he continued to be corrupt. And he was unfazed about having ordered the killings of Robert's bastards. He's not Ramsey levels of really bad, but he's still pretty bad. Like Bronn level bad. The bad things he does are for profit-not pleasure. The one morally redeemable trait(and yes this isn't much), that's been shown is he genuinely seems to care for his family's wellbeing. 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Kissing Stannis' ass was petty but its not evil. Martin tells the world through his povs. So when Sansa sees ugly smallfolk and Jon sees the man who killed his father and is trying to kill him, thats the light. 

I would take that wager. Janos says it takes a special person to do these crimes. I would not put him on the same shelf as the Mountain and his men or the Brave Companions or Joffreys KG who beat Sansa nor Cersei or Tywin or Ramsay and thr Ghiscari nobles. The nigjt is dark and full of terrors, Janos doesnt make top 10.

The man is corrupt, vile and without any scruples. Doesn’t matter if he or Allar Deem killed the infant and her mother, the fact remains that Slynt condoned the act and shows no discomfort or remorse about those killings. Saying Slynt is not evil is like saying an evil dictator’s henchman who commits murder on behalf of his master is not evil. We are shown by the author how Slynt agrees with Joffrey’s travesty of justice. It’s not happenstance that the author shows this scene. As for murder, if you recall, Stannis implies that Slynt murdered or had someone murder all the witnesses who would have testified against him. 

As to the bolded part, you got to be kidding. You really think Slynt would have second thoughts about beating Sansa?  

In a series with really evil and despicable characters, I agree Slynt is not the worst. But that still does not absolve him. 

Edited by teej6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

Kissing Stannis' ass was petty but its not evil. Martin tells the world through his povs. So when Sansa sees ugly smallfolk and Jon sees the man who killed his father and is trying to kill him, thats the light. 

I would take that wager. Janos says it takes a special person to do these crimes. I would not put him on the same shelf as the Mountain and his men or the Brave Companions or Joffreys KG who beat Sansa nor Cersei or Tywin or Ramsay and thr Ghiscari nobles. The nigjt is dark and full of terrors, Janos doesnt make top 10.

I agree to an extent. I do think someone like Janos would make the top 10 because he is the dagger that you just can't see depending on the situation because he can't think for himself, he follows orders, and "just following orders" is the type of brainless zombie that is created in people like Slynt.

Martin has set Janos up as being about puddle deep, so in a way, he really is supposed to be not much more than an expendable plot device, across more than just Jon's arc. In doing so, it is a hugely satisfying "fist pumping" moment when this lickspittle lech that has been a wad of dirty gum stuck to the bottom of the story's shoe finally gets flicked off... and Martin gave that moment to one of his "heroes".

 

ADDING- Janos cannot think for himself. Ultimately he would be worthless:

A Storm of Swords - Samwell V

"Nine days too long. I have captives to dispose of, a realm to order, a war to fight. Choices must be made, decisions that involve the Wall and the Night's Watch. By rights your Lord Commander should have a voice in those decisions."
"He should, yes," said Janos Slynt. "But it must be said. We brothers are only simple soldiers. Soldiers, yes! And Your Grace will know that soldiers are most comfortable taking orders. They would benefit from your royal guidance, it seems to me. For the good of the realm. To help them choose wisely."
The suggestion outraged some of the others. "Do you want the king to wipe our arses for us too?" said Cotter Pyke angrily. "The choice of a Lord Commander belongs to the Sworn Brothers, and to them alone," insisted Ser Denys Mallister. "If they choose wisely they won't be choosing me," moaned Dolorous Edd. Maester Aemon, calm as always, said, "Your Grace, the Night's Watch has been choosing its own leader since Brandon the Builder raised the Wall. Through Jeor Mormont we have had nine hundred and ninety-seven Lords Commander in unbroken succession, each chosen by the men he would lead, a tradition many thousands of years old."

 

Edited by The Fattest Leech
added the book quote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Whether or not the execution was just is secondary. Is executing Slynt practical the bigger question. 

Is that the big question now then? Because we've had quite a few "big questions" but the goalposts keep changing. :dunno:

12 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

It'd been just to have hanged or beheaded or just scouraged  Jon for any number of his infractions; such attempting to kill his superior officer, attempting to desert should(if we're looking at what is just), should have ended him having been hanged, or beheaded.

A point that has been made already, by me and others, is that the decision on what punishment is fit for whatever infraction is within the purview of LC. Was Mormont too lenient w/ Jon? Personally I don't think so. Mormont thinks he can win Jon over to the true cause, and tries. He sees in Jon someone who is worthy of a second chance. It's basically the same think Jon thinks regarding Mance. The only difference is, Jon didn't actually decide to spare Mance. That was Mel w/ or w/o Stannis. Back to Mormont's "leniency", he was right. He did win Jon to the true cause, so to me that says that he was absolutely correct to handle Jon the way he did. 

12 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Even his game of having all the new trainees, deliberately make it so that Sam does not really need to go through basic training should earn him a lashing. 

Forging alliances and standing up to bullies, yeah, real nasty! :lol:

12 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

But Jon doesn't get any of his rightful punishments; because it simply would not be practical given what's happening. I have a feeling on large part on him being a favored by House Stark; if they did severely chastize Jon, it runs a risk of alienating the Watch's biggest patrons(I doubt very much if any peasant-born tried to murder his superior over having his feelings hurt they would have sent him to his room and allowed him to keep his direwolf); and there's a coming wildling invasion and there's dead people walking. Jon not getting justice for his actions I will not chastize Mormont for.  Nor would I chastize Jon should have let Mance go and demanded the turncoat deliver Arya to Stannis instead of the wall-Arya can be put to greater with Stannis than in Braavos; Stannis needs her as both a trophy  and to more firmly secure his hold upon the north; likely have her married off to one of his allies after killing Ramsey. It's not justice to let a man guilty of murder, and breaking his oaths to the watch go, but it'd be more practical than simply executing the man for all his crimes. 

The whole "Jon tried to murder his superior officer and got off light" is a tad over dramatic, isn't it? Jon jumped Thorne after being teased and baited into it. I say "big fucking deal". Seriously, are you trying to tell me that an organisation that's thousands of yrs old, comprised of "celibate" men, criminals, etc has never seen a fist fight before? 

12 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Slynt's execution does not seem to be necessary.

That's the whole point of the whole thing, including this thread and its predecessor: Slynt's execution was absolutely necessary. 

12 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

 Jon's reasons for why Slynt can't be given any less than death are contradictory to his earlier thoughts and extremely weak. Slynt by Jon's words was sent to greyguard in part so Slynt and Thorne would not be able to plot; fast track to comptemplating what punishment should Slynt be given suddenly Thorne and Slynt are going to be able to plot together regardless, directly contradicting Jon's own reasoning. Desertion is another reason. It's weak. Not many of any are going to desert a castle this close to winter and wade Stannis' allied territory just to end up at another castle in Lanister friendly. A castle pretty certain to just hang them anyway because they've lost all practical use. 

 

I don't quite what you're saying here.

9 minutes ago, Ser Leftwich said:

Did Slynt ever take the Nights Watch vow?

Good question, I can't remember. I want to say 'no', but doesn't Jon think at one point, "he said the words, he is a brother now" (paraphrasing)? Not even sure if it is irt Slynt. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Context matters: When Jon commits infractions, while Mormont is in charge, things are relatively quiet. Benjen is missing and there are rumors of Mance doing something. The realm is a peace, mostly. Jon is a hotheaded boy/man, not really mature and no experience outside of Winterfell. Mormont executing Jon would be seen as insane by the other officers of the Watch. Mormont offers Jon to be tempered, to make him better with time and Jon accepts.

On the other hand, Slynt disobeys and is insubordinate during the biggest crisis on the Wall in hundreds of years. Just as importantly, he is a grown man, with a reputation for bribery and criminality, and was effectively exiled to the Wall (regardless of what Slynt said, the rumors of his dismissal from KL would have followed him). Jon offered Slynt a command. He tried to temper Slynt, given the circumstances, but Slynt did not accept the opportunity.

No question. Jon dismisses his personal feelings and offers Slynt a command. Slynt refuses. During war time, that is a death sentence for an officer. No questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

I do more or less agree here. I don't think I've made myself very clear before, apologies. 

What I meant was that while Slynt is not "on the same shelf" as the ones you mentioned, I am not convinced he wouldn't grow into in if put in a situation where whatever despicable act would be in his best interest. 

For instance - and following the current "what if" trend... What happens if Slynt is ordered by Tywin to "dispose" of Elia, Rhaenys, and Aegon? Would he do it, or wouldn't he?  

And the answer is very clear given what the author gives us on the character imo. 

Lol, "What if" threads.  Yes he would kill Elias children. Theres nothing however to suggest that he would kill or rape Elia though. 

 

24 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I will not chastize Slynt over not resigning out of protest, over his orderers to order someone to commit a vile act. Such an act would do nothing really to stop the eradicatation. The true fault lies squarely upon Cersi. Nor for turning  Eddard Stark; for all Slynt knew the guy was a really a traitor(I am not saying he did this out of loyalty to the Ironthrone but to get on him about this is ridiculous, even honorble men would probably have behaved in the same way in this instance right up to the stabs in the backs of Eddard's men). But He did murder 2 men for being willing to testify against about his corruption.  And was so unmoved by the experience he continued to be corrupt. And he was unfazed about having ordered the killings of Robert's bastards. He's not Ramsey levels of really bad, but he's still pretty bad. Like Bronn level bad. The bad things he does are for profit-not pleasure. The one morally redeemable trait(and yes this isn't much), that's been shown is he genuinely seems to care for his family's wellbeing. 

Exactly, hes loyal loves his famliy and isnt afraid to get his hands dirty. Bronn is a good comparison, so is Steelshanks. Smallfolk are usually terrible people who struggle in the world.

 

24 minutes ago, teej6 said:

The man is corrupt, vile and without any scruples. Doesn’t matter if he or Allar Deem killed the infant and her mother, the fact remains that Slynt condoned the act and shows no discomfort or remorse about those killings. Saying Slynt is not evil is like saying an evil dictator’s henchman who commits murder on behalf of his master is not evil. We are shown by the author how Slynt agrees with Joffrey’s travesty of justice. It’s not happenstance that the author shows this scene. As for murder, if you recall, Stannis implies that Slynt murdered or had someone murder all the witnesses who would have testified against him. 

As to the bolded part, you got to be kidding. You really think Slynt would have second thoughts about beating Sansa?  

In a series with really evil and despicable characters, I agree Slynt is not the worst. But that still does not absolve him. 

Just following orders is no excuse, i get that. Im not absolving him, i just see him diffrently then Jon. If any of the other "evil" characters arrived at CB instead of Slynt things probably would have turned worse.

I do think hed have thoughts about beating Sansa. Beheading a traitor in public is a regular kingly order. Beating and stripping a child in open court is insane.i 

33 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

I agree to an extent. I do think someone like Janos would make the top 10 because he is the dagger that you just can't see depending on the situation because he can't think for himself, he follows orders, and "just following orders" is the type of brainless zombie that is created in people like Slynt.

Martin has set Janos up as being about puddle deep, so in a way, he really is supposed to be not much more than an expendable plot device, across more than just Jon's arc. In doing so, it is a hugely satisfying "fist pumping" moment when this lickspittle lech that has been a wad of dirty gum stuck to the bottom of the story's shoe finally gets flicked off... and Martin gave that moment to one of his "heroes".

 

I fist pumped during my first read. Less and less with the rereads 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Slynt's execution does not seem to be necessary.  Jon's reasons for why Slynt can't be given any less than death are contradictory to his earlier thoughts and extremely weak. Slynt by Jon's words was sent to greyguard in part so Slynt and Thorne would not be able to plot; fast track to comptemplating what punishment should Slynt be given suddenly Thorne and Slynt are going to be able to plot together regardless, directly contradicting Jon's own reasoning. Desertion is another reason. It's weak. Very weak. Not many if any are going to desert a castle this close to winter and wade Stannis' allied territory just to end up at another castle in Lanister friendly. A castle pretty certain to just hang them anyway because they've lost all practical use to the lanisters given that they just deserted and would not pardon turncoats.

 

You have this all mixed up. You said, "suddenly Thorne and Slynt are going to be able to plot together regardless, directly contradicting Jon's own reasoning." when actually Jon comes to this reasoning below. Additionally, Slynt is showing signs of religious zealotry here, and if you know anything about the way the author structures his stories, anytime there is a religious zealot like this, he doesn't belong on the "ship"--- to paraphrase Abner and York (among a few others).

 

A Dance with Dragons - Jon II

"Lord Janos," Jon said, "I will give you one last chance. Put down that spoon and get to the stables. I have had your horse saddled and bridled. It is a long, hard road to Greyguard."
"Then you had best be on your way, boy." Slynt laughed, dribbling porridge down his chest. "Greyguard's a good place for the likes of you, I'm thinking. Well away from decent godly folk. The mark of the beast is on you, bastard."
"You are refusing to obey my order?"
"You can stick your order up your bastard's arse," said Slynt, his jowls quivering.
Alliser Thorne smiled a thin smile, his black eyes fixed on Jon. At another table, Godry the Giantslayer began to laugh.
"As you will." Jon nodded to Iron Emmett. "Please take Lord Janos to the Wall—"
and confine him to an ice cell, he [Jon] might have said. A day or ten cramped up inside the ice would leave him shivering and feverish and begging for release, Jon did not doubt. And the moment he is out, he and Thorne will begin to plot again.
—and tie him to his horse, he might have said. If Slynt did not wish to go to Greyguard as its commander, he could go as its cook. It will only be a matter of time until he deserts, then. And how many others will he take with him?
"—and hang him," Jon finished.
 
ADDING CUZ I JUST REFOUND IT: Apparently Jon was at least mostly correct in his assumptions:

A Dance with Dragons - Jon III

Marsh hesitated. "Lord Snow, I am not one to bear tales, but there has been talk that you are becoming too … too friendly with Lord Stannis. Some even suggest that you are … a …"
A rebel and a turncloak, aye, and a bastard and a warg as well. Janos Slynt might be gone, but his lies lingered. "I know what they say." Jon had heard the whispers, had seen men turn away when he crossed the yard. "What would they have me do, take up swords against Stannis and the wildlings both? His Grace has thrice the fighting men we do, and is our guest besides. The laws of hospitality protect him. And we owe him and his a debt."
"Lord Stannis helped us when we needed help," Marsh said doggedly, "but he is still a rebel, and his cause is doomed. As doomed as we'll be if the Iron Throne marks us down as traitors. We must be certain that we do not choose the losing side."
Edited by The Fattest Leech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

I fist pumped during my first read. Less and less with the rereads 

Grease up the ol'elbow, we have two books left. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

A point that has been made already, by me and others, is that the decision on what punishment is fit for whatever infraction is within the purview of LC. Was Mormont too lenient w/ Jon? Personally I don't think so. Mormont thinks he can win Jon over to the true cause, and tries. He sees in Jon someone who is worthy of a second chance. It's basically the same think Jon thinks regarding Mance. The only difference is, Jon didn't actually decide to spare Mance. That was Mel w/ or w/o Stannis. Back to Mormont's "leniency", he was right. He did win Jon to the true cause, so to me that says that he was absolutely correct to handle Jon the way he did. 

No Jon does spare Mance. He does not think this little mission of Mance and Melisandre is being authorized by Stannis. It'd be totally in his power and would be the most just course if Jon gathered some brothers to overpower and execute Mance. 

Mormont was not too lenient. He was lenient to stretching upon reason given the mitigating circumstances; killing Jon(though completely just for what's Jon done), would be really dumb. Not just because has the potential to be a loyal follower; but because of what Jon actually is.   

 

54 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Forging alliances and standing up to bullies, yeah, real nasty! :lol:

Quote

It is befitting of reprimand. It is insubordination. This is a military order after all, until Mormont otherwise, every recruit has to go through basic training. Jon is trying to make Sam an exception by having his fellow trainiees defy a superior to help out his friend. 

And he threaten to kill a fellow trainiee over this.

54 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

The whole "Jon tried to murder his superior officer and got off light" is a tad over dramatic, isn't it? Jon jumped Thorne after being teased and baited into it. I say "big fucking deal". Seriously, are you trying to tell me that an organisation that's thousands of yrs old, comprised of "celibate" men, criminals, etc has never seen a fist fight before? 

Fistfight? Jon literally pulled out a dagger and tried his earnest to kill Alliser with it. What else would you call it someone lunged at you with a dagger slashing at your face? Jon heard a conversation he didn't like. That's not something that really holds import to whether or not what he did deserves execution. Which it clearly does.

Jon VII
And then he heard the laughter, sharp and cruel as a whip, and the voice of Ser Alliser Thorne. "Not only a bastard, but a traitor's bastard," he was telling the men around him.
In the blink of an eye, Jon had vaulted onto the table, dagger in his hand. Pyp made a grab for him, but he wrenched his leg away, and then he was sprinting down the table and kicking the bowl from Ser Alliser's hand. Stew went flying everywhere, spattering the brothers. Thorne recoiled. People were shouting, but Jon Snow did not hear them. He lunged at Ser Alliser's face with the dagger, slashing at those cold onyx eyes, but Sam threw himself between them and before Jon could get around him, Pyp was on his back clinging like a monkey, and Grenn was grabbing his arm while Toad wrenched the knife from his fingers.
Later, much later, after they had marched him back to his sleeping cell, Mormont came down to see him, raven on his shoulder. "I told you not to do anything stupid, boy," the Old Bear said. "Boy," the bird chorused. Mormont shook his head, disgusted. "And to think I had high hopes for you."
 
 
 
54 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

That's the point whole point of the whole thing, including this thread and its predecessor: Slynt's execution was absolutely necessary. 

Quote

The last thread's op put forth Jon's executing Slynt wasn't just. That it was emotionally motivated. I thought the point of this thread was to discuss whether or not Jon's executing of Slynt was necessary. Do you want only people you agree with your premise to respond to your thread? That it was completely just? That it was completely necessary? 

54 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

don't quite what you're saying here.

1 hour ago, Ser Leftwich said:

That Jon's reasoning for Death is the only option is weak to say the least. 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Lol, "What if" threads. 

Right? :wacko:

9 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

 

Yes he would kill Elias children. Theres nothing however to suggest that he would kill or rape Elia though. 

 

Fair point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mance is in disguise. It is not like Mance waltzes in and takes a dump on Jon's dinner like Slynt does, in front of the rest of the Watch. Jon can get away with letting Mance's punishment slide for the time being, just like Mormont could get away with letting Jon off easy, back when he pulled the knife on Thorne.

Slynt had to go. Period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Exactly, hes loyal loves his famliy and isnt afraid to get his hands dirty. Bronn is a good comparison, so is Steelshanks. Smallfolk are usually terrible people who struggle in the world.

Smallfolk usually have to be scum to move up in the world it seems to me. Hes corrupt however. Not a renegade cop. He doesn't seem to be loyal to any significant degree to anything. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

No Jon does spare Mance. He does not think this little mission of Mance and Melisandre is being authorized by Stannis. It'd be totally in his power and would be the most just course if Jon gathered some brothers to overpower and execute Mance. 

No, Jon doesn't spare Mance, Mel does. I think Stannis is in on it, but it can't be stated w/o doubt at this point. 

You can argue that later on, when he learns Mance is alive, he could have taken action. He could have had Mance arrested and executed for desertion, and he doesn't. But again, Mance was Stannis' prisoner not his. But more importantly, Jon decides not to do anything. The LC of the NW decides the punishment, and same as Mormont did with him, he decides against it. 

Also worthy of mention here is the fact that we are talking about Jon's decision to execute Slynt, not Mormont's decision to be lenient. I'll also say this, it makes for a poor argument against Jon. I mean, unless you are complaining that one is too lenient and the other too strict? 

1 minute ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Mormont was not too lenient. He was lenient to stretching upon reason given the mitigating circumstances; killing Jon(though completely just for what's Jon done), would be really dumb. Not just because has the potential to be a loyal follower; but because of what Jon actually is.   

See above.

1 minute ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

 

It is befitting of reprimand. It is insubordination. This is a military order after all, until Mormont otherwise, every recruit has to go through basic training. Jon is trying to make Sam an exception by having his fellow trainiees defy a superior to help out his friend. 

Nope. Jon knows Sam can be a useful asset and he knows chances are Sam won't be able to get through the basic training. Especially because all the other boys who are his friends will have been assigned posts and Sam would be alone at Thorne's hands. And ultimately it isn't Jon's decision. He brings the matter to .Mormont and Aemon, and they see how right he is. It's called making decisions and being able to think for yourself instead of blindly following a rule book. 

1 minute ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Fistfight? Jon literally pulled out a dagger and tried his earnest to kill Alliser with it. Literally like stab in the face. What else would you call that? 

Hyperbole. Still, my point remains. Are you trying to tell me that an organisation that is thousands of years old and has only men including several criminals of the worst kind has never seen scenes like that before?

1 minute ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

The last thread's op put forth Jon's executing Slynt wasn't just. That it was emotionally motivated. I thought the point of this thread was to discuss whether or not Jon's executing of Slynt was necessary.

The issue is the same, before and now. Only difference is the title of the threads.

1 minute ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

That Jon's reasoning for Death is the only option is weak to say the least. 

It isn't, and I have yet to see one single convincing argument.

And not directed at you or anyone in particular, but rather a general observation, "because I said so" isn't an argument. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Grease up the ol'elbow, we have two books left. :)

Lol ima run out of grease. No worries, winter is coming :)

19 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Smallfolk usually have to be scum to move up in the world it seems to me. Hes corrupt however. Not a renegade cop. He doesn't seem to be loyal to any significant degree to anything. 

Thats true, even Davos started off as a smuggler. 

He didnt give up Cerseis name when Tyrion asked who ordered the death of the baby. Thats some degree of loyalty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Nope. Jon knows Sam can be a useful asset and he knows chances are Sam won't be able to get through the basic training. Especially because all the other boys who are his friends will have been assigned posts and Sam would be alone at Thorne's hands. And ultimately it isn't Jon's decision. He brings the matter to .Mormont and Aemon, and they see how right he is. It's called making decisions and being able to think for yourself instead of blindly following a rule book. 

First, not all the trainiees are Jon's friends. Again Jon had to literally threaten to kill one to get him to fall in line. And yes Jon is doing something deserving of reprimand. Jon is having the rest of the trainees commit insubordination. It is his decision to have them do this. This warrants reprimand. Aemon agrees to take Sam under his wing later after Jon threatened, or cajed, or shamed all his fellow trained, his into disobeying their superior officer to protect Sam. No one would obey Alliser in regards to sparring with Sam because of Jon. If Jon had only gone to Aemon convincing the old man to get Sam excused to fill the role of assisting Aemon, he would have committed no offenses to which would deserve punishment. But Jon did far more than what can be viewed as acceptable by a military order to get Sam off the hook from doing basic training. If a brother instructed, or threatened others into not obeying Jon's orders in front of Jon, Jon would also be acting justly by having that person punished. 

8 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Hyperbole. Still, my point remains. Are you trying to tell me that an organisation that is thousands of years old and has only men including several criminals of the worst kind has never seen scenes like that before?

Quote

What do you specifically find hyperbolic? I can quote the excerpt again detailing how Jon lunged at Thorne with a dagger slashing wildly at Thorne's face. Or are you saying you yourself were being hyperbolic? If so, are you saying you didn't think me calling what Jon did attempted murder overdramatic(if you do think I was being overdramic please tell me what would you call it),  No I'm not trying to say what Jon did so extraordinary that nothing like it has ever happened before in the Watch's history before. I'm pretty sure there have been instances of other brothers in the past trying to murder or stab their superiors because they got their feelings hurt by said superior;I'm betting most (at least those who weren't really well connected) were hanged or beheaded for it-without much thought of it.And it would have been just. Delivering justice to Jon over this is not practical however. Are you arguing if a brother  tried to kill Jon(their superior), just because Jon said something the brother didn't like Jon would not be just in having the brother executed? That Jon should shrugg and say big f*cking deal? 

8 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

No, Jon doesn't spare Mance, Mel does. I think Stannis is in on it, but it can't be stated w/o doubt at this point. 

You can argue that later on, when he learns Mance is alive, he could have taken action. He could have had Mance arrested and executed for desertion, and he doesn't. But again, Mance was Stannis' prisoner not his. But more importantly, Jon decides not to do anything. The LC of the NW decides the punishment, and same as Mormont did with him, he decides against it. 

Jon thinks Stannis is not privy to Melisandre's plot. That can be definitely stated because he plans to ship Arya away from Westeros(even though Stannis would need her). Mamce is a turncoat. He is responsible for the murder of dozens of Jon's brothers. Jon, lord commander anything less than making sure this man is executed would not be just. And Stannis did decree Mance would be executed for him having turned his coat. The only punishment to which would do justice for Mance's crimes would be death.  Jon however elects to spare Mance. It is in his power to see Mance destroyed, the man from Jon Pov is no longer in Stannis' custody, no longer the king's prisoner. Jon being the highest  authority at the wall it falls squarely upon him on what's to be done Mance; he chose to let Mance go;that can be fine; If Jon wasn't planning shipping Arya and planned to give her Stannis for his war effort or demanded Mance take Arya to Stannis instead of the watch; there she should do the most good. But he didn't. And he didn't do nothing. He gave Mance 7 spearwives to help him in his mission. 

8 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Also worthy of mention here is the fact that we are talking about Jon's decision to execute Slynt, not Mormont's decision to be lenient. I'll also say this, it makes for a poor argument against Jon. I mean, unless you are complaining that one is too lenient and the other too strict? 

I've stated multiple times now, it would have been dumb to deliver justice to Jon over his actions due to the mitigating circumstances. Its not an argument against Jon; it's argument against the notion when a lord commander deals with someone whose broken the rules he should put justice at the forethought of his mind. 

8 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:
Quote

 

The issue is the same, before and now. Only difference is the title of the threads.

Quote

Ah so you don't just want those who agree that it was necessary to make posts on this thread. You actually want debate I apologize for thinking otherwise. I don't mean to be snide, I genuinely apologize for thinking you just wanted an echo-chamber, to where the only views expressed would be yours that it was necessary.

8 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

and I have yet to see one single convincing argument.

And not directed at you or anyone in particular, but rather a general observation, "because I said so" isn't an argument. 

It is. It ignores the reason the vast majority of scum who make up the watch won't desert the watch even when a wildling invasion is coming. That reason being they'll  be hunted down and killed. Literally the best bet to staying alive is going to be seen as just staying at the greyguard. And ignores the fact taking Slynt's tongue would render him unable to even try to convince anyone to commit suicide by deserting.

It ignores Jon's own reasoning; that sending Slynt to greyguard would make the threat of Slynt plotting with Thorne no longer an issue. 

 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

Thats true, even Davos started off as a smuggler. 

He didnt give up Cerseis name when Tyrion asked who ordered the death of the baby. Thats some degree of loyalty

Some degree of self-preserveation. Cersi can have him killed should he give her up. Again I'm pretty sure it's safe to assume he would have slit all the throats of members of the royal family if it benifitted him. 

And Davos himself only aided Stannis during the siege at SE in the firstplace because he could profit. Ramsey is another example of a peasant(yes I'm counting him as a peasant) whose able to rise above his caste because he was scum. The only peasant I can really think of that's not scum and whose risen above his caste is well Duncan the tall. I maybe mistaken.

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Some degree of self-preserveation. Cersi can have him killed should he give her up. Again I'm pretty sure it's safe to assume he would have slit all the throats of members of the royal family if it benifitted him. 

And Davos himself only aided Stannis during the siege at SE in the firstplace because he could profit. Ramsey is another example of a peasant(yes I'm counting him as a peasant) whose able to rise above his caste because he was scum. The only peasant I can really think of that's not scum and whose risen above his caste is well Duncan the tall. I maybe mistaken.

I dont think Janos was that bad, but whatever.

Ramsay wasnt smallfolk he had more going then Janos or Davos. It was his fathers personal men after all who were with him. And Ramsay has skill.

Janos probably had skill too. He was appointed by Petyr who usually appointed men good at their job. 

Lem and Tom O Sevens are cool enough, theres probably something scumy about them if we look close enough though, like Jon executing Janos lol. Dunk is an exceptional good character though smallfolk or not

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Ramsay wasnt smallfolk he had more going then Janos or Davos. It was his fathers personal men after all who were with him. And Ramsay has skill.

 Janos probably had skill too. He was appointed by Petyr who usually appointed men good at their job. 

Lem and Tom O Sevens are cool enough, theres probably something scumy about them if we look close enough though, like Jon executing Janos lol. Dunk is an exceptional good character though smallfolk or not

Ramsey was raised a peasant. His father may have noble blood but that doesn't make him anything more than a peasant. Like would you call Gendry not smallfolk given the fact he is the son of a king?  And Ramsey was only able to be seen as being use after his noble-half brother died(likely at Ramsey's hand), because of his willinglyness and ability to do horrible things. 

Did you mean Janos was appointed by Arryn? Petry was just a teenager when Slynt was appointed.

Tom and Lem aren't really examples of people moving above their caste; if they weren't mere peasants before(with little we know of Tom he probably was), they're now mere outlaws. They didn't really move  in society. If anything their current  is probably a step down. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Ramsey was raised a peasant. His father may have noble blood but that doesn't make him anything more than a peasant. Like would you call Gendry not smallfolk given the fact he is the son of a king?  And Ramsey was only able to be seen as being use after his noble-half brother died(likely at Ramsey's hand), because of his willinglyness and ability to do horrible things. 

Did you mean Janos was appointed by Arryn? Petry was just a teenager when Slynt was appointed.

Tom and Lem aren't really examples of people moving above their caste; if they weren't mere peasants before(with little we know of Tom he probably was), they're now mere outlaws. They didn't really move  in society. If anything their current  is probably a step down. 

Gendry was unacknowledged and had to work. Ramsay was given Reek and had some type of fatherly presence. He was only made use after he destroyed Stark and Theon. Killing his brother made him heir. Ramsay owes his success to himself.

I didnt realize that.

They call themselves knights but yeah I get what your saying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ser Leftwich said:

Did Slynt ever take the Nights Watch vow?

It's never stated one way or another.

I have a different question/observation along a similar line of thinking.....It would appear that Sylnt is also excused from the basic training that Jon and the other recruits go through, using this example, it would appear that we can assume that knights and lords are excused from this and allowed(or forced? Not sure how it works when you dontn volunteer) to take your vows immediately.

Edit...read some more of the thread and want to address the jon/mance stuff. In my opinion, The only thing jon could have done(other than what was written) is ask stannis for mance. Thats it..the NW can not take him by force, even with Stannis and most of his army gone, it is way too risky to attempt to defy him openly, Stannis has forces at more than one castle on the wall, the watch at this point(especially the men under Jons direct command at castle black) are barely soldiers,and would likely not fare very well at all against Stannis' men in a direct engagement. 

I also am of the opinion that Jon may recognize that his position as LC is not nearly secure enough to even attempt such a controversial thing as treason.(Stannis might not be the king on the IT, but he is the one who came when the watch asked for help). He has too many rivals within the watch who could potentially use such a situation to get rid of Jon.

Edited by Back door hodor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×