Bowen Snowslayer redemption arc

[Prince Yourwetdream Aeryn]

I hardly imagine Bowen Marsh in the bath telling why he killed Jon Snow as his face gets redder because of hot water. Would it work if he was more handsome?

[HoodedCrow]

Bowen Marsh will be wighted.

[Bael's Bastard]

I doubt he will survive the next scene he's in, if he lives to a next scene.

[Euron III Greyjoy]

No matter what there is no way he's getting out of TWoW alive. 

Maybe Melisandre will burn him and the rest of the traitors. Selyse and the Queen's Men might see what Jon was going to do as protecting the Queen and her daughter, and therefore might be pissed that Bowen Marsh stopped him . . . . Or maybe they will just see Wun Wun lassoing Ser Patrek's mangled corpse in the air and side with the traitors. 

I cant remember if there was anyone else in the yard aside from those that stabbed Jon and Wun Wun, but if there was I imagine there will be traitors, loyal Nights Watchmen, Wildlings, Queen's Men, and one angry giant all trying to kill each other. Bowen Marsh could quite easily die in that skirmish.  

There are many debates on how it will happen, but I think most of us can agree that one way or another Jon Snow is coming back. If Bowen Marsh miraculously makes it that long then Jon will probably kill him. 

[Minsc]

Why would Marsh need a redemption arc?  Marsh and company only performed their duty to execute a rogue Lord Commander. One that just admitted to them that he planned to march south and wage war on the Warden of the North. 

[Bael's Bastard]

15 minutes ago, Minsc said:

Why would Marsh need a redemption arc?  Marsh and company only performed their duty to execute a rogue Lord Commander. One that just admitted to them that he planned to march south and wage war on the Warden of the North. 

He took part in murdering his Lord Commander. There is a huge difference between murder and execution. If he thought he had a good case against Jon, he and his faction would have taken a more appropriate route than just murdering him.

[Minsc]

48 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

He took part in murdering his Lord Commander. There is a huge difference between murder and execution. If he thought he had a good case against Jon, he and his faction would have taken a more appropriate route than just murdering him.

He executed him. Marsh and his fraction took the steps required to stop him from further breaking the oaths of the NW. It isn't like they could walk up and arrest Jon with Jon just accepting their sentencing. Especially with Jon appearing to be gathering a Wildling army around him. 

[kissdbyfire]

15 minutes ago, Minsc said:

He executed him. Marsh and his fraction took the steps required to stop him from further breaking the oaths of the NW. It isn't like they could walk up and arrest Jon with Jon just accepting their sentencing. Especially with Jon appearing to be gathering a Wildling army around him. 

Marsh had no authority to judge let alone execute his LC. First chapter we see him again will be as pomegranate purée. 

[Minsc]

5 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Marsh had no authority to judge let alone execute his LC. First chapter we see him again will be as pomegranate purée. 

He has every authority as a brother of the NW. Jon had just announced his intent to gather an army and march south to attack the Boltons. Jon at that moment was an oath breaker and that is not including other abuses of his authority as LC that he had engaged in. As Lord Steward of Castle Black Marsh is one of the ranking officers of the NW. Thus granting him authority to deal with a rogue LC. 

[kissdbyfire]

12 minutes ago, Minsc said:

He has every authority as a brother of the NW. Jon had just announced his intent to gather an army and march south to attack the Boltons. Jon at that moment was an oath breaker and that is not including other abuses of his authority as LC that he had engaged in. As Lord Steward of Castle Black Marsh is one of the ranking officers of the NW. Thus granting him authority to deal with a rogue LC. 

You do understand that's not how it works, right? Oh wait, you so don't.  

According to you then any officer who has a problem w/ the LC and his decisions can just kill the LC and be done w/ it.

[Lord Varys]

If you see a tyrant, you kill him. That's how you get rid of them.

Jon is not a tyrant as such, but an oathbreaker trying to attack the realms of men rather than protect them (at least those section of the realms of men represented and led by one Lord Ramsay Bolton, trueborn Lord of Winterfell ;-)).

This doesn't seem something the officers and men of the NW can just allow to happen. Just like Brutus and his buddies can't accept that Caesar just makes himself King of Rome.

One imagines there were some true and loyal men of the Watch who tried to put down the Night's King and his corpse bride once they saw their true colors - back then they could also call on the help of the Starks and the wildlings to help them vanquish the evil one - that is a course of action not open for Marsh.

Or do we think the duty of the NW was to follow the Night's King and his corpse bride just because the Night's King was the duly elected Lord Commander of the NW?

If Jon had led an army of wildlings down to Winterfell the Watch would most likely not survive that. But even if they did survive it - the LC doing that was still breaking his vows.

The idea that you convene some council to talk with the LC about his oathbreaking and then humble ask him to step down so he can be tried for his crimes or something like that doesn't sound feasible to me. And it is not as if people hearing Jon weren't knowing what he did. It is crystal clear. He knows it, Marsh knows it, and we know it. He broke his vows.

I mean, are we also assuming Ned and Robert should have humbly asked King Aerys to not demand their heads?

If they had had the chance to gut the man where he stood - then and there, before a war broke out, then they should have done that rather than calling their banners and get thousands of men killed in some war.

And no, Ramsay threatening Jon after a lackey of Jon's who should be dead tried to steal his bride does not give Jon the right to declare war on Ramsay. If we go by that logic, then LC Hoare would also have had the right to avenge Black Harren, Maester Aemon the right to avenge his poor grandnephew, and Jon Snow the right to join Robb in his war. But they don't. And we know that, too.

If you take the black, your life sucks. And you actually have to live with that and stop bitching about it. You are not a lord or a king as LC of the NW. You are just a guy overseeing a military order who has effectively become a penal colony you yourself are not allowed to leave.

[Bael's Bastard]

2 hours ago, Minsc said:

He executed him. Marsh and his fraction took the steps required to stop him from further breaking the oaths of the NW. It isn't like they could walk up and arrest Jon with Jon just accepting their sentencing. Especially with Jon appearing to be gathering a Wildling army around him. 

Marsh and his faction do not have the authority to pass judgement on and execute the Lord Commander. What they did is no different than those who murdered LC Mormont.

[Lord Varys]

Just now, Bael's Bastard said:

Marsh and his faction do not have the authority to pass judgement on and execute the Lord Commander. What they did is no different than those who murdered LC Mormont.

See above. If we allow for the right of 'justified rebellion' for kings and lords, then the Watchmen get the same right. They perhaps even more, since the LC is only LC by their choosing. They made him, and they can, presumably, unmake him if he breaks his vows. And if that's not an option the way it was done with the other rogue LCs then they can kill him.

And while we don't know who saw Jon's murder and identified the attackers, while we don't know how many men of the Watch are in camp Marsh, how well Marsh prepared things for this moment, etc. I'd not bet on him biting the dust soon.

Depending on George's plans it might be a much more intriguing story to continue a plot about escalating violence at CB and the entire Wall rather than end things there. George most likely made Hewett castellan of Eastwatch for a reason - the man is no friend of Jon's. The other castles might be drawn into the fighting, and a majority of the wildlings might simply not care and jump on the big chance Jon's death gives them - go away down south and forget what's happening up at the Wall. Like everybody else does.

Not to mention that Marsh's guys might already have the wildling hostages. That should make them back down if they care about their family members.

[Aline de Gavrillac]

3 hours ago, Minsc said:

Why would Marsh need a redemption arc?  Marsh and company only performed their duty to execute a rogue Lord Commander. One that just admitted to them that he planned to march south and wage war on the Warden of the North. 

Absolutely correct!  Bowen Marsh should be rewarded for removing the worst lord commander since the Night's King.  Jon put the watch and Westeros in danger.  Bowen had a responsibility to stop Jon from attacking the Boltons.  

[Aline de Gavrillac]

9 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Marsh and his faction do not have the authority to pass judgement on and execute the Lord Commander. What they did is no different than those who murdered LC Mormont.

Jon created that situation.  The unjust execution of Janos Slynt.  Sending Mance Rayder to find his sister instead of executing him.  Sticking his nose in the political affairs of the Boltons.  Bowen had to do what he did to try and save the watch from Jon's bad decisions.

[Aline de Gavrillac]

7 hours ago, Prince Yourwetdream Aeryn said:

I hardly imagine Bowen Marsh in the bath telling why he killed Jon Snow as his face gets redder because of hot water. Would it work if he was more handsome?

It might be interesting to get a point of view chapter from Bowen Marsh.  

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

If you see a tyrant, you kill him. That's how you get rid of them.

Jon is not a tyrant as such, but an oathbreaker trying to attack the realms of men rather than protect them (at least those section of the realms of men represented and led by one Lord Ramsay Bolton, trueborn Lord of Winterfell ;-)).

This doesn't seem something the officers and men of the NW can just allow to happen. Just like Brutus and his buddies can't accept that Caesar just makes himself King of Rome.

One imagines there were some true and loyal men of the Watch who tried to put down the Night's King and his corpse bride once they saw their true colors - back then they could also call on the help of the Starks and the wildlings to help them vanquish the evil one - that is a course of action not open for Marsh.

Or do we think the duty of the NW was to follow the Night's King and his corpse bride just because the Night's King was the duly elected Lord Commander of the NW?

If Jon had led an army of wildlings down to Winterfell the Watch would most likely not survive that. But even if they did survive it - the LC doing that was still breaking his vows.

The idea that you convene some council to talk with the LC about his oathbreaking and then humble ask him to step down so he can be tried for his crimes or something like that doesn't sound feasible to me. And it is not as if people hearing Jon weren't knowing what he did. It is crystal clear. He knows it, Marsh knows it, and we know it. He broke his vows.

I mean, are we also assuming Ned and Robert should have humbly asked King Aerys to not demand their heads?

If they had had the chance to gut the man where he stood - then and there, before a war broke out, then they should have done that rather than calling their banners and get thousands of men killed in some war.

And no, Ramsay threatening Jon after a lackey of Jon's who should be dead tried to steal his bride does not give Jon the right to declare war on Ramsay. If we go by that logic, then LC Hoare would also have had the right to avenge Black Harren, Maester Aemon the right to avenge his poor grandnephew, and Jon Snow the right to join Robb in his war. But they don't. And we know that, too.

If you take the black, your life sucks. And you actually have to live with that and stop bitching about it. You are not a lord or a king as LC of the NW. You are just a guy overseeing a military order who has effectively become a penal colony you yourself are not allowed to leave.

Meh, I in large apart agree with this; the idea of how the black brothers are supposed to deal with a renegade commander, is to put the guy on trial is naive-simply put, such a thing likely can I be cannot option the lord commander in question would never agree to it, and the idea that anyone who works against them is a traitor automatically is ridiculous.

That every brother has to simply tolerate  their duly elected lord commander, decisions. Whether  to take on a wife, father a litter of bastards, decide to travel the world looking for glory or wage war for control of land and glory etc.

I honestly can't put the label of traitor on any of the men who killed Jon; in their eyes, he legitimately broke his oaths, and put the watch in the position of being destroyed, he excused a turncoat whose responsible for heaps of their brothers being murdered, and his plan to war with house Bolton with a wildling horde can honestly be seen as having less likely to suceed than simply giving up everything that they could give to house Bolton(the rebels and Jon), and hope that they'd be placated with that-Jon has given them no real reason to trust him, or even think he could pull his sceme off. 

[Lord Varys]

8 minutes ago, Aline de Gavrillac said:

It might be interesting to get a point of view chapter from Bowen Marsh.  

I don't think we need that. Marsh's motivation is pretty clear. He does something he doesn't want to do. He likes Jon as a person but he feels he has no other choice. The man didn't weep because it was so cold or anything. He wept because he felt he had no other choice but to do what he did.

And I'd not be surprised if Jon actually understood what drove him. I'd not even be surprised if he actually realized that his entire plan was utter nonsense when he finally enters into his undead state.

If it is out then that Arya Stark was never at Winterfell, that Stannis never lost the battle down there, and that the Boltons have been hacked to pieces by the clansmen then the very notion of his grand campaign will evaporate and he'll realize what a fool he was - and what a success it was that he didn't go through with his plan (especially the Hardhome plan, but also the Winterfell plan).

I'm not so sure he is going to like being dead, though. And resurrected. I can him tell it the people who have nothing better to do than bringing back smelling flesh - 'Who the hell told you that I'm the hero in this story? I don't want to be a fucking steward! I'm not going to save Gilly! I don't want to be Lord Commander of the Night's Watch! I didn't want to be fucking resurrected! I liked being dead. It is the natural state of things after you are being gutted! Leave me alone! Oh ... and fetch Satin on your way out, would you?'

[Aline de Gavrillac]

Just now, Lord Varys said:

I don't think we need that. Marsh's motivation is pretty clear. He does something he doesn't want to do. He likes Jon as a person but he feels he has no other choice. The man didn't weep because it was so cold or anything. He wept because he felt he had no other choice but to do what he did.

And I'd not be surprised if Jon actually understood what drove him. I'd not even be surprised if he actually realized that his entire plan was utter nonsense when he finally enters into his undead state.

If it is out then that Arya Stark was never at Winterfell, that Stannis never lost the battle down there, and that the Boltons have been hacked to pieces by the clansmen then the very notion of his grand campaign will evaporate and he'll realize what a fool he was - and what a success it was that he didn't go through with his plan (especially the Hardhome plan, but also the Winterfell plan).

I'm not so sure he is going to like being dead, though. And resurrected. I can him tell it the people who have nothing better to do than bringing back smelling flesh - 'Who the hell told you that I'm the hero in this story? I don't want to be a fucking steward! I'm not going to save Gilly! I don't want to be Lord Commander of the Night's Watch! I didn't want to be fucking resurrected! I liked being dead. It is the natural state of things after you are being gutted! Leave me alone! Oh ... and fetch Satin on your way out, would you?'

Is it needed?  Well, no.  But it would be interesting to me.  Bowen is like a career army man who listened as his general tells him how he ordered a traitor to get his sister from the Warden of the North to the ruin of the watch.  That must be devastating.  

[Lord Varys]

In relation to Jon's assassination one should ask oneself what the Kingsguard should do when the Lord Commander suddenly decided that he is not going to be a Kingsguard anymore but would rather want to wage some private war against some supporters of the king. Would the Kingsguard be bound by their vows to follow such a man? Or should they apprehend and/or kill him? Same with other weird ideas of such a man - taking wives, fathering children, not protecting the king or his family and instead going hawking all day.

I mean, we do know that the KG themselves actually gelded their sworn brother, Lucamore Strong, right?

Or take the Grand Captain of the Warrior's Sons - what are the good knights of that military order likely to do if this man suddenly blasphemes against the Seven, denounces the High Septon, attacks the Faith and its members, takes a wife, etc.?

Should they just follow his example because he is their Grand Captain, or should they, well, check whether his behavior is in line with the vows he swore and what their holy order stands for and remove him from their ranks should they come to the conclusion that it is not?

Jon fits into that category, too. And one really cannot pretend Jon's approach on the Boltons is something his vows permit him to do. Or rather - that it is something his sworn brothers have to see as something they have to accept. I mean, perhaps Lucamore the Lusty and Jaime the Kingslayer have some great justifications at hand as to why taking a bunch of wives and fathering an army of children and killing the king are completely in line with the Kingsguard vows. But as far as we know it would be very hard to convince sane people to see their point of view.