Jump to content
kissdbyfire

The execution of Janos Slynt was spot on vol 2

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, Ygrain said:

I'd say being told explicitely "this is your last chance" pretty much qualifies.

Last chance before what? Who would believe anyone would go from nothing to execution over this? I've had "last chances" that I didn't take (as a child), and while I was punished, I wasn't met with the greatest punishment possible.

18 hours ago, Ygrain said:

:bs:

The crux of forethought is, giving thought to future action. The crux of impulsive is, not giving thought to anything,  future action included. Try harder next time, and don't teach a linguist meanings of words.

You may be a linguist, but you're wrong, regardless. Don't be so arrogant as to assume you can't be. Your measure of impulsive implies that only instinctive reactions can be impulsive, which is obviously untrue. You have to think of something before you do it (excepting instinct), otherwise you cannot come to the decision. Poor thinking and hasty action are the hallmarks of impulsive behaviour, not a complete (and impossible, mind you) lack of prior thought.

18 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

I'd be good w/ one chance. Give him the order, and if he refuses - even w/o all the insults and attitude, chop his head off right then and there.

And you truly think that'd be just? I thought you were arguing that Slynt's execution was necessary because of his repeated and dangerous disregard for Jon's authority, undermining him not only with his refusal, but with his demeaning words, also. Are you now arguing that refusal of one order should be met with execution? Or is this solely for Slynt? Couldn't be.

Regardless, I'd be fine with that, other than the execution. I heartily agree that Jon should've had Slynt dragged out into the yard and punished for his initial refusal, in their private meeting. 

18 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Yes, I have been in the past (as a child) and still am at times being told to do things I don't necessarily want to do (for instance, at work). 

But I am not a member of a military organisation in a medieval type setting, so I think this is a poor comparison.

I think it's a fine comparison. The parent/child dynamic is similar enough to a military organisation in a medieval setting. The parent has ultimate authority, the child is expected to obey. Disobedience is punished, at the discretion of the parent.

Anyway, I'm sure your guardian didn't simply repeat their instructions, should you not have obeyed an order you found distasteful. Well, that is to say, I'm sure that, if repeating instructions didn't make you follow the order, you weren't punished in the harshest way possible. Punishments for disobedience tend to be met with light punishments at the beginning, progressively getting harsher in the face of further disobedience, until you learn to obey without issue. You don't start with the harshest punishment.

18 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

This is a very silly argument. Jon gives Slynt the order in private, and tells him to be ready to leave the next morning. Slynt says he won't go, but Jon hopes that Slynt will change his mind after sleeping on it. Mind you, at that point Slynt had insulted Jon but the order hadn't been really refused yet since Slynt was only supposed to leave the next day. 

So, insults aren't worth punishment, but disobeying a single order is worthy of execution. Or it's worthy of execution, when paired with the insults, that by themselves aren't worth punishment?

I'm not sure I understand your position.

12 hours ago, Buell Rider said:

To kill a broken man who finally agreed to follow orders is just butchery.  

Eh, what choice does he have at this point? Once he gave the order to kill Slynt, he didn't have much of a choice but to follow through. I don't approve of Jon giving the order, but backing down would have been foolish, indeed. He'd forever be seen as too weak to follow through on his threats. A wishy-washy reputation is significantly worse than a harsh reputation. Weakness doesn't inspire much loyalty.

10 hours ago, Rufus Snow said:

I firmly believe GRRM wrote that whole section to show Jon overcoming his 'personal' issues in favour of what serves the Watch better - ie giving Slynt something to do that would be useful, and make use of his experience as a commander.

It's all in the interpretation, isn't it? I'd say that GRRM wrote that section to show that Jon couldn't overcome his personal issues, despite attempting to. We see this later, when he sends Mance off to get Arya, and later again when he abandons the Watch entirely because he can't let his sister go, and is murdered for it. He wants to be a loyal man of the Watch, but cannot let his past life go.

It's similar, I think, to Arya throwing away the trappings of her old life, to join the House of Black and White, but being unable to part herself from Needle.

8 hours ago, Ygrain said:

If you want to see a man unable to put aside his personal grudge (death of a father figure), watch here and tell me if you really think this is what Jon did.

Well, Jon's no Alistair. Jon at least tried to put his issues aside. He's also a hell of a lot more mature than Alistair. But I do think the situations are a bit similar. Loghain is a very nuanced character (the speech he gives if you win the Landsmeet, before the fighting starts, is wonderful), yet Alistair refuses to see him as anything other than the man who killed my "father". Jon, likewise, can't manage to part Slynt and the death of his father. Jon tried, but when the opportunity to kill the man came up, he took it.

Bit off topic, but I strongly believe that is the best game ever made.

4 hours ago, Rufus Snow said:

Sometimes I'm glad that I don't live in the same country where some of these Slynties are going to grow up and eventually be allowed to vote :bang:

As Churchill said: "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." There are worse people than the likes those on this forum, voting in every democratic election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Rufus Snow said:

Sometimes I'm glad that I don't live in the same country where some of these Slynties are going to grow up and eventually be allowed to vote :bang:

ah yes, those awful 'Slynties' who feel that turning down an order is not worthy of execution, or who feel judges should take longer than a split second to sentence someone.  I can see why that prospect might scare you, luckily for you not enough 'Slynties' were old enough to vote in the last american election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

ah yes, those awful 'Slynties' who feel that turning down an order is not worthy of execution, or who feel judges should take longer than a split second to sentence someone.  I can see why that prospect might scare you, luckily for you not enough 'Slynties' were old enough to vote in the last american election.

Ah be quiet. You love Slynt because you don't think Jon was totally acting a perfect hero by executing the man. Sure you may explicitly stated on how you recognize Slynt is bad multiple times but that doesn't matter. It's clear you're a rabid fanboy. 

 

 

Jk.

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Eddard Stark described Stannis as just bit harsh-not immoral.  And his brother was prepared to kill him as well. Yeah no, you don't have to be a Stannis fan to recognize the guy is not of the same tier of likes of the likes of Euron or Ramsey-you're entire point here is that only the only lords we've seen use mutilation as punishment are utterly dark/evil lords-that simply is not true. Jon can geld or take Slynt's tongue without him being looked at as anymore wretched than he was after he executed Slynt.  

He is not in the same league as Euron or Ramsay but he is not a good guy, either, and he is spiralling downwards, towards a place where I wouldn't want Jon to be.

4 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Well that is impossible, we are incapable of making a decision without thinking about it. An impulsive purchase is still something that is thought about. an impulsive decision is something that is quickly thought about. 

Well, everyone in their right faculties is thinking about their action in the sense that they are aware of what they are doing but they don't think, quickly or not, about the consequences.

Impulsive behaviour:

- somebody triggers you off, you fly off the handle and give him your piece of mind

- you see something yummy, you grab it and eat it

- you see a big red button, you press it to see what it does

Non-impulsive behaviour:

- somebody triggers you off, you bite your tongue and take a moment to decide whether to turn your back on him or respond in kind

- you see something yummy but you realize that you have been trying to lose weight, so you don't eat it

- you see a big red button, you ponder why it is there and what trouble you might get into if you press it

What Jon did was not "damn, I want the man dead, so let's", he went through an action-consequence thinking process.

 

4 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

lol no, he didn't. we see the thought process, it was done mid sentence, it was the opposite of thorough. Most people spend longer thinking if they want fries with their burger than the time it took for Jon to sentence someone to death

of course it was impulsive, it took a second for him to come to that conclusion. 

And what brought you to the conclusion that Jon never thought beforehand about what he might do if Slynt doesn't change his mind?

4 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

a judge can only try someone for the crime they commited, repeat offenders who have been tried before can get longer punishments

And why do they get longer punishments? Because their history and their personality allow for little to no hope for a change. Plus, even a first-time offender would get a longer sentence if the manner of their crime was off the charts. And for Slynt, both apply - repeatedly refuses an order, and the second time does so publically in a highly aggravating manner.

 

1 hour ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Last chance before what? Who would believe anyone would go from nothing to execution over this? I've had "last chances" that I didn't take (as a child), and while I was punished, I wasn't met with the greatest punishment possible.

Well, you didn't take vows to serve a military order, or did you?

If one of Slynt's man dared to refuse his orders in such a manner, Slynt wouldn't hesitate to give him a sharp lesson (pun intended). However, Slynt doesn't expect such a lesson for himself not because it would be an inappropriate response to the offence but because he considers Jon a weak boy and himself protected by his "important friends".

1 hour ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

You may be a linguist, but you're wrong, regardless. Don't be so arrogant as to assume you can't be. Your measure of impulsive implies that only instinctive reactions can be impulsive, which is obviously untrue. You have to think of something before you do it (excepting instinct), otherwise you cannot come to the decision. Poor thinking and hasty action are the hallmarks of impulsive behaviour, not a complete (and impossible, mind you) lack of prior thought.

See above.

1 hour ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Well, Jon's no Alistair. Jon at least tried to put his issues aside. He's also a hell of a lot more mature than Alistair. But I do think the situations are a bit similar. Loghain is a very nuanced character (the speech he gives if you win the Landsmeet, before the fighting starts, is wonderful), yet Alistair refuses to see him as anything other than the man who killed my "father". Jon, likewise, can't manage to part Slynt and the death of his father. Jon tried, but when the opportunity to kill the man came up, he took it.

Glad to see we agree on something. The problem is that during that final exchange with Slynt, the thought of his father or revenge or anything like that never crosses Jon's mind. All we get is a Commander's decision-making process, pretty much detached from emotions.

Loghain is indeed a wonderfully nuanced character, not some one-dimensional moustache-twirling villain. Yet, his head rolled by my Cousland's hand because, unlike Jon, he couldn't set aside his personal grudges, and Loghain's crimes were merely a convenient excuse for revenge. And I really don't see this playing out on-page with Jon.

1 hour ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Bit off topic, but I strongly believe that is the best game ever made.

:agree:100%, though Mass Effect comes close.

Pity Bioware was unable to pull the same trick again with the DA sequels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

He is not in the same league as Euron or Ramsay but he is not a good guy, either, and he is spiralling downwards, towards a place where I wouldn't want Jon to be.

His mutilation of Davos was in his lighter days-and his treatment of the smuggler afterwards was uber generous given he'd already paid Davos for the fish and onions. 

He was in my mind a good guy when he mutilated Davos in my opinion and is a lighter grayish character now. You're arguement of only evil/dark lords , being shown to use mutilation as punishment is absurd. 

Mutilation as punishment is generally seen as acceptable as punishment-for such minor in fractions as stealing.  Hell I imagine it's unlikely Eddard Stark did not oversee some rapists were gelded or a thief lost a finger; he did not always give the people be dealt with to the watch(as evidenced by his want to take Jora's head for selling people into slavery).

Stannis was not shown as  morally repressible for when he did this-the impression of it was it justice, not cruelty. 

Jon mutilating Slynt would not steer him anymore down a dark path than Jon executing Slynt did. 

If Stannis is getting "spiraling downwards" maybe it could do with the literal fate of mankind being on his shoulders? Instead of having mutilated Davos? 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:
18 hours ago, Buell Rider said:

 

Eh, what choice does he have at this point? Once he gave the order to kill Slynt, he didn't have much of a choice but to follow through. I don't approve of Jon giving the order, but backing down would have been foolish, indeed. He'd forever be seen as too weak to follow through on his threats. A wishy-washy reputation is significantly worse than a harsh reputation. Weakness doesn't inspire much loyalty.

True. Once Slynt decided upon execution it'd be ill of him to retroactively the man would not be executed-truth be told I feel Jon said Slynt should be hanged downgrading to beheading isn't particularly good as well. 

5 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

tion, isn't it? I'd say that GRRM wrote that section to show that Jon couldn't overcome his personal issues, despite attempting to. We see this later, when he sends Mance off to get Arya, and later again when he abandons the Watch entirely because he can't let his sister go, and is murdered for it. He wants to be a loyal man of the Watch, but cannot let his past life go.

It's similar, I think, to Arya throwing away the trappings of her old life, to join the House of Black and White, but being unable to part herself from Needle.

14 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Interesting point on Arya-I can see a parallel there. Yesh, I just realized after thinking of all the times Arya has failed to you stop being Arya stark and be an none-judgmental assaination. the irony of Arya murdering Daeron over having broken his oaths to the brotherhood(not really knowing anything about why he's abandoned the brotherhood or his stated  story on how he got there being caught having consensual sex with a lord's daughter), while it'd being apparent she will abandon the FM in the future and violates its code.  I can see an argument of sending Mance or someone else to get Arya as a thing that can benifit the watch-if Jon gives her to Stannis it would undoudbtly help the man. Jon knows if Stannis successful will allocate the appropriate amount resources to the watch to do its job. Arya is a really good bargaining chip to secure the north as well as his vassals lotalty(they need to be shown the blood their spilling for him is worth it), bringing her over to the wall and shipping her off to Braavos or whatever simply is not in the interest of the watch.  Jon is acting like a good big brother to Arya Stark here. Not the lord commander of the NW. 

 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


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

Although the first couple of lines, I disagree. I believe Slynt believes he's calling the shots, but I also believe that Thorne's pulling his strings more often than not. To such a degree that he probably believed Thorne 'had his back' if he mutinied. Ooooops.....

But that doesn't change the fact that Slynt is making the decisions and the others do all obey him. I mean, are you going to say that Cersei, Jon Arryn, Ned or some goon on the council is 'the king' rather than Robert, because Robert usually listens to these people? No - Robert wears the crown, sits the Iron Throne, and calls the shots when he bothers to rule. He is the king.

The fact that the guy in charge can be manipulated doesn't change that.

8 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

@Lord Varys, I disagree. Slynt certainly thinks and acts as if he's the big kahuna, but he's Thorne's puppet. It's, again, spelled out and it's not misdirection.

Again - Thorne's idea but Slynt's decision/command. And Thorne constantly defers to Slynt. I mean, if Slynt had not been given command by Pyke why on earth didn't Thorne or Hewett seize command at CB? Why did they allow Slynt to do that, a man who was never even at CB? Why didn't they make Slynt their crony rather than becoming his?

On his own, Slynt has no power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Completely irrelevant to my overall point-the guy I was responding claimed we've only seen utterly despicable charachters to which most fans are supposed to be revolted by use mutilation as punishment-Stannis clearly is not such a charachter yet mutilated Davos in response to his crime. 

Mutilation isn't something just shown as being used as punishment by the "evil charachters; 

That's because you originally proposed tongue-cutting as a punishment fitting Slynt's insubordination.

And it is shown repeatedly in the text that tongue-cutting is ordered as a punishment, and more often than not, to please the needs of "amusement" of characters like the Mad King, Roose, Euron, who are all criminally insane to say the least. 

Does Jon Snow's personality fits the above? 

And Stannis punishing Davos with chopping his fingers is not a fit comparison to Slynt's crime and punishment at all to begin with.  

Jon doesn't have the ASOIAF books, he is not informed about every possible punishment we know happened through history. He knows what his father thought him and what he's seen through his short period of time spent at the Wall.

If he was more experienced/older, then he might've even managed to escape the whole situation and avoid dealing with all the consequences for both him and Slynt. Atm he reacted the only way he could.

A man in this story is hanged for a stolen ham. I don't see anyone crying over it. Could whoever judged him decided otherwise? Chop off his fingers? Cut off the hand he stole the ham with? Put him on a three months strict diet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, The Sunland Lord said:

That's because you originally proposed tongue-cutting as a punishment fitting Slynt's insubordination.

And it is shown repeatedly in the text that tongue-cutting is ordered as a punishment, and more often than not, to please the needs of "amusement" of characters like the Mad King, Roose, Euron, who are all criminally insane to say the least. 

Does Jon Snow's personality fits the above? 

And Stannis punishing Davos with chopping his fingers is not a fit comparison to Slynt's crime and punishment at all to begin with.  

Jon doesn't have the ASOIAF books, he is not informed about every possible punishment we know happened through history. He knows what his father thought him and what he's seen through his short period of time spent at the Wall.

If he was more experienced/older, then he might've even managed to escape the whole situation and avoid dealing with all the consequences for both him and Slynt. Atm he reacted the only way he could.

A man in this story is hanged for a stolen ham. I don't see anyone crying over it. Could whoever judged him decided otherwise? Chop off his fingers? Cut off the hand he stole the ham with? Put him on a three months strict diet?

This is still completely irrelevant to my point-the guy I was responding to claimed only lords were "supposed" to be revolted have been shown throughout the series to use mutilation as punishment. He's wrong. Do you agree with him? Do you think Stannis was evil when he mutilatated Davos as punishment for his smuggling? 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


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

As Churchill said: "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." There are worse people than the likes those on this forum, voting in every democratic election.

No, Churchill didn't say that. Biggest urban myth going.... or dare I say, 'faaaake noooze' (which is a pity, cos I quite like the 'quote'.;)) I do think a major misquote of a major political leader kinda makes my point, no?

6 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

ah yes, those awful 'Slynties' who feel that turning down an order is not worthy of execution, or who feel judges should take longer than a split second to sentence someone. 

I have no problem with people having different feelings about the text; I do have a problem when people seem to have their own personal version of the text to justify those feelings.

Quote

I can see why that prospect might scare you, luckily for you not enough 'Slynties' were old enough to vote in the last american election.

Oh, that's so funny. I used to assume you were in the USA, too :D

Edited by Rufus Snow
adding some linkiness to some truthiness....

Share this post


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

This is still completely irrelevant to my point-the guy I was responding to claimed only lords were "supposed" to be revolted have been shown throughout the series to use mutilation as punishment. He's wrong. Do you agree with him? Do you think Stannis was evil when he mutilatated Davos as punishment for his smuggling? 

If you extend the discussion on mutilation, rather than only tongue-cutting and gelding, that's a diffetent matter. Yet, it still doesn't fit Slynt's crime and the circumstances both him and Jon were in.

I think the punishment Davos received doesn't make Stannis an evil man.

If Davos was caught smuggling in different circumstances, he probably would've received worse punishment. Stannis is a tightarse in general but leaving Davos with no consequences would've looked worse imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Sunland Lord said:

That's because you originally proposed tongue-cutting as a punishment fitting Slynt's insubordination.

And it is shown repeatedly in the text that tongue-cutting is ordered as a punishment, and more often than not, to please the needs of "amusement" of characters like the Mad King, Roose, Euron, who are all criminally insane to say the least. 

That is not so. Cutting out tongues is an established punishment in this world, and a fitting at that for people who lie or falsely accuse people of crimes. It would be a fitting punishment for a man who talks back at his lord commander, lord, king, etc.

Aerys II, Roose, Euron, etc. overuse this punishment - but we also see Viserys I use it, a man not known for his cruelty or madness.

6 minutes ago, The Sunland Lord said:

If you extend the discussion on mutilation, rather than only tongue-cutting and gelding, that's a diffetent matter. Yet, it still doesn't fit Slynt's crime and the circumstances both him and Jon were in.

I think the punishment Davos received doesn't make Stannis an evil man.

If Davos was caught smuggling in different circumstances, he probably would've received worse punishment. Stannis is a tightarse in general but leaving Davos with no consequences would've looked worse imo.

Davos isn't mutilated because he smuggled - the whole thing is a summary punishment for all the years Davos spent as a criminal. It is, most likely, already a merciful compromise - as notorious a smuggler as Davos Seaworth would most likely deserve to be hanged, not get away with losing a few bits of his fingers. Lord Borrell tells us that Stannis once descended on the Three Sisters and forced to hang quite a few of his smuggling friends. That's how this world usually deals with smugglers.

But Stannis' individual decision in the Davos case - as well as Joff decreeing that two knights have to fight to the death over some land - show that judges have enormous leeway in this world. They can do whatever the hell they want. They can be cruel, they can be mild, they can be harsh, they can be merciful.

The idea that Jon had to punish Slynt the way he did is as ridiculous as the idea that Robert had to pardon/ignore the crimes of Jaime, Tywin, Gregor, and Lorch. Or that Robb 'had to' execute Karstark. Those people chose to do what they did, and it is ridiculous to argue they had no other choice. 

Whether it was the right cause is up to debate - but just because Jon Snow did it, it is not correct and sacrosanct. I mean, some people argue the NW vows are 'wrong' because Jon Snow couldn't keep them. That is ridiculous, too. Jon Snow is not the measurement for right and wrong in this series. He is just a guy among many, making a good deal of mistakes.

And he himself admits that frankly and openly in the text, unlike many of his fanboys and -girls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, The Sunland Lord said:

If you extend the discussion on mutilation, rather than only tongue-cutting and gelding, that's a diffetent matter. Yet, it still doesn't fit Slynt's crime and the circumstances both him and Jon were in.

I think the punishment Davos received doesn't make Stannis an evil man.

If Davos was caught smuggling in different circumstances, he probably would've received worse punishment. Stannis is a tightarse in general but leaving Davos with no consequences would've looked worse imo.

 Gelding and tongue-cutting are literally types of mutilation. And such punishments fit perfectly for Jon's situation; the Watch is in sort supply of rescources and men at the moment; mutilating Slynt as punishment is more appropriate for his offense than flat-out killing the guy. Even tongueless or a Eunich hed still be able to serve as a steward, and he'd be made into a prime example of why you should not disobey Jon Snow.  

Jon's reasoning for executing the man was weak. It ignores the inevitable death sentence Slynt would get should he desert and his earlier reasoning of Slynt being sent to the Greyguard being a way to stop the plotting between Slynt and Thorne.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That is not so. Cutting out tongues is an established punishment in this world, and a fitting at that for people who lie or falsely accuse people of crimes. It would be a fitting punishment for a man who talks back at his lord commander, lord, king, etc.

Aerys II, Roose, Euron, etc. overuse this punishment - but we also see Viserys I use it, a man not known for his cruelty or madness.

Except that Jon might not know another way in how to deal with insubordination and offense. He is not Joffrey, he is not Aerys. He is not as creative in dealing justice as these above mentioned are. He was thought by his father differently. This is how he would act. Or he should've read some history first before he acted? 

Quote

Davos isn't mutilated because he smuggled - the whole thing is a summary punishment for all the years Davos spent as a criminal. It is, most likely, already a merciful compromise - as notorious a smuggler as Davos Seaworth would most likely deserve to be hanged, not get away with losing a few bits of his fingers. Lord Borrell tells us that Stannis once descended on the Three Sisters and forced to hang quite a few of his smuggling friends. That's how this world usually deals with smugglers.

That's right. That's exactly what I wrote. Except, Davos spent most of his criminal life being a smuggler. So he got some fingers chopped off, but also many rewards and benefits for his family. 

And Davos, his punishment, or Stannis, have NOTHING to do with Jon/Slynt situation. I mean, it is not comparable in any possible way.

Janos Slynt wasn't executed for spreading lies or gossip. 

Quote

But Stannis' individual decision in the Davos case - as well as Joff decreeing that two knights have to fight to the death over some land - show that judges have enormous leeway in this world. They can do whatever the hell they want. They can be cruel, they can be mild, they can be harsh, they can be merciful.

They can. Jon chosed this way. What's wrong with it?

Quote

The idea that Jon had to punish Slynt the way he did is as ridiculous as the idea that Robert had to pardon/ignore the crimes of Jaime, Tywin, Gregor, and Lorch. Or that Robb 'had to' execute Karstark. Those people chose to do what they did, and it is ridiculous to argue they had no other choice. 

They had other choices, so what?

Does anyone cry over the member of House Payne, being hanged for a stolen ham? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Sunland Lord said:

Except that Jon might not know another way in how to deal with insubordination and offense. He is not Joffrey, he is not Aerys. He is not as creative in dealing justice as these above mentioned are. He was thought by his father differently. This is how he would act. Or he should've read some history first before he acted? 

His father would have done similar things. Eddard Stark would have mutilated his deal of criminals during his time as Lord of Winterfell, just as he executed a lot of people.

2 minutes ago, The Sunland Lord said:

They can. Jon chosed this way. What's wrong with it?

They had other choices, so what?

The point is that people here seem to be arguing that Jon *had to* execute Slynt for his crime. And that simply is not the case. He could have pardoned him like the Old Bear pardoned him two times for similar crimes. Or he could have treated him like he treated Mance later.

The issue here is that Jon makes no attempt at a consistent justice policy. His sentences are very arbitrary. At times he is very harsh (with Slynt) and then he is mild beyond reason or sense (Mance) while at the same time profiting from the fact that he himself is treated with the greatest possible amount of leniency and clemency there is.

If the Starks are known for something then that they do what's right, not what's convenient. Killing Slynt was convenient, killing Mance was not. Trying to save 'Arya' was false, but Jon did it anyway. And breaking his vows to avenge Stannis was bringing everything to a new level.

Robb and Ned showed what the Starks are - they do the right thing even if it doesn't profit them, even if it can (and does) lead to the fall of their own house and the end of their own lives.

Jon is light years away from that. He is faced with the greatest threat to humanity and he can only think about his sister.

Share this post


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

 Gelding and tongue-cutting are literally types of mutilation. And such punishments fit perfectly for Jon's situation; the Watch is in sort supply of rescources and men at the moment; mutilating Slynt as punishment is more appropriate for his offense than flat-out killing the guy. Even tongueless or a Eunich hed still be able to serve as a steward, and he'd be made into a prime example of why you should not disobey Jon Snow.  

How exactly a ballsless or a tongueless Slynt would've been better? He wasn't good for anything of greater good to begin with. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

His father would have done similar things. Eddard Stark would have mutilated his deal of criminals during his time as Lord of Winterfell, just as he executed a lot of people.

Do we have any example of a local man figuratively spitting in Eddard's face and refusing to obey a simple command?

My guess is that Eddard would've cut his head off. Closest thing to this is when Robb tells the Greatjon what Eddard taught him - showing steel to your liege is a death sentence. Not the same, but close.

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The point is that people here seem to be arguing that Jon *had to* execute Slynt for his crime. And that simply is not the case. He could have pardoned him like the Old Bear pardoned him two times for similar crimes. Or he could have treated him like he treated Mance later.

OK, he could have pardoned Slynt. He didn't.

And why would he pardon him? What use of Slynt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, The Sunland Lord said:

Do we have any example of a local man figuratively spitting in Eddard's face and refusing to obey a simple command?

My guess is that Eddard would've cut his head off. Closest thing to this is when Robb tells the Greatjon what Eddard taught him - showing steel to your liege is a death sentence. Not the same, but close.

Quote

Ned doubtless took fingers from thieves and balls from rapists. Jon having grown up as a trueborn son of Eddard Stark would have seen his father use mutilation as punishment for one unlawful acts. 

Robb didn't kill Greatjon; the man said he would desert over not getting a position in battle he wanted(he would let Ned die over this-such a scoundrel), publicly insulted Robb, then threw his sword after being told he would be executed for his treason, and only after having been mutilatated did the man get in line. 

Robb was able to make Greatjon submit. And the man is much harder than Slynt. Jon breaking Slynt  through similar methods is not unrealistic. It should have been tried immediately after his first meeting with the man.

51 minutes ago, The Sunland Lord said:

d have pardoned Slynt. He didn't.

And why would he pardon him? What use of Slynt?

For your second question a common steward if no longer the commander of the castle, and  I'm sure being literate could be of some use at greyguard. And might trying using him to pin a letter to the lanisters begging for assistance and saying ice-zombies are real(him being a tool of theirs they could be reasonably  be expected to more likely put more thoughts in his words than anyone at castle-black.

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think some people perhaps just do not understand medieval society.

GRRM has stated that this is set in pseudo-medieval European times and therefore the Night’s Watch is very different to the modern military, with the rules of discipline and obedience much harsher.

I was discussing the subject thread with a military historian on the weekend (who is also a fan of the books) and he couldn’t believe that this was even a discussion thread!  Janos Slynt showed utter contempt for LC Snow by firstly not showing up remotely on time when requested to do so, then refused his order to garrison another castle several times; finally, he does so in front of a large gathering and insults Jon and finally denies that Jon as LC has any authority over him. 

It wasn’t a ‘first offence’ – the first offence was not turning up when requested, a minor offence granted but it’s still called disrespecting your commanding officer.  Add in to the events that followed, with Janos repeatedly showing contempt for Jon as LC.

The only option for Jon at that point is to execute Janos.  There’s no other punishment that’s ‘appropriate’.  There’s no ‘mitigating circumstances’ either.  And I certainly cannot see any evidence in the text provided by GRRM that Jon is doing this out of revenge over Ned Stark; there has not been a single convincing post to conclude that.

The military historian also said that the fact that Jon even runs through other options in his head is *because* he’s a new LC and therefore is ‘checking’ that the punishment is going to be the right one.  No other commander would even hesitate or bother to consider other options.  In those times, that was the punishment – execution.  Anyone on this board who claims that Twyin, Jon Arryn, Stannis etc would do differently or that they are the ‘extremes’ are fooling themselves.  This is how things were in medieval times.

Janos begging for his life whilst on the block is not him ‘admitting he was wrong’ and therefore could be punished differently or would now be a man that Jon could count on, it was exactly what it was – Janos begging for his life.  Do those people who claim that Jon should then have backed off believe that none of the deserters who were about to be executed were all quiet when on the block or did they then start begging for their lives and the chance to go back to the Wall?  It doesn’t matter.

I mentioned that some people on this board thought that Jon should have tried to get Janos to work with him by using persuasion etc and again, the military historian I was discussing this with couldn’t believe that either.  The past crimes might have been wiped away by joining the Watch but that doesn’t mean suddenly that people should not obey orders when instructed or can pick and choose what they want.

I’m also at a loss to understand those who keep claiming that the Brothers were only following the LC due to ‘tradition’ and that they had no obligation to do as ordered.  What do these people think is the whole point of there being a LC?  Of course it’s to give orders; it’s the highest rank in the Watch and that means that *everyone* else follows the orders given by the LC.  It doesn’t matter if people have ‘doubts’ that Jon was previously a turn cloak; he was elected as the LC *after* the allegations were made, so clearly they don’t matter and Janos had no excuse for not following an order by Jon.

Janos was given a prestige position; it might be hard work getting it up and running but there’s no reason to suggest that he should have been given something easy.  Jon was taking advantage of the skill set that Janos is believed to have by the fact that he was previously in charge of the Gold Cloaks; someone who should therefore have the skills and experience necessary to get the garrison working the way it needed to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

This is still completely irrelevant to my point-the guy I was responding to claimed only lords were "supposed" to be revolted have been shown throughout the series to use mutilation as punishment. He's wrong. Do you agree with him? Do you think Stannis was evil when he mutilatated Davos as punishment for his smuggling? 

1) I said: "Most lords, certainly, but the ones we are shown, like Randyll Tarly, are definitely not the men who are supposed to be fan-favorites."

Note, please, that I mentioned Randyll as an example, not outright psychos like Ramsay, as an example, and I don't think that we are supposed to endorse all of Stannis' actions, either. I don't think he should have taken Davos' fingers - the man went far out of his way and risked his life to save Stannis' ass, even though he was under absolutely no obligation to do so. 

"Just but harsh", said Ned about Stannis, and despite mutilations being the custom of the time, we never see a scene where Ned would order one. There might be a reason why it is not so, or why Robb or Jon never seem to consider the possibility.

2) I'm not a he.

 

Share this post


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

×