Is Jon to blame? #NotMyKing

[Euron III Greyjoy]

1 minute ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Luxury, bloody luxury.

Well I normally don't like to brag, but since you brought it up I'd also like to point out that they're double glazing windows. 

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

2 minutes ago, EloImFizzy said:

Well I normally don't like to brag, but since you brought it up I'd also like to point out that they're double glazing windows. 

I bet that comfy bed has blankets and everything too.

[AlaskanSandman]

16 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

18 minutes ago, EloImFizzy said:

Its easy for us to shit on Jon when we are sitting on our comfy beds, sipping on our favourite drink, and basking in the rays of the sun,

Why is your bed outside?

Seriously?....

                                                             Windows, bed, sunshine, drinks.... id be happy with a candle and a piss pot smdh 

As for wildlings coming south past the wall, ask Allister or any of the other grumbling watch members.  Far as they're concerned, its the only enemy they've really been fighting for years. Yes they should be smart enough to see Jon's point, but they dont. So it leaves open Jon's decision 

[Euron III Greyjoy]

5 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

I bet that comfy bed has blankets and everything too.

That and more my friend, that and more. 

[Ylath's Snout]

44 minutes ago, EloImFizzy said:

but that's pretty much one of the main points of ASOIAF, that no one is this perfect saint who follows the rules 24/7.

This is such a good point. I'd like to add that people that follow the rule 24/7 can't be saint. Just looks at the King's GUard standing by as Aerys raped his sister, commited all sorts of atrocities and doom his dynasty by setting of Robert's Rebellion. They might have followed the rules and been "honorable" but I hope most most folk won't call them saints.

Jon was in a lose/lose scenario and he picked the option that would hopefully reduce the total number of zombies trying to eat all of Westeros.

[Euron III Greyjoy]

35 minutes ago, Ylath's Snout said:

This is such a good point. I'd like to add that people that follow the rule 24/7 can't be saint. Just looks at the King's GUard standing by as Aerys raped his sister, commited all sorts of atrocities and doom his dynasty by setting of Robert's Rebellion. They might have followed the rules and been "honorable" but I hope most most folk won't call them saints.

Jon was in a lose/lose scenario and he picked the option that would hopefully reduce the total number of zombies trying to eat all of Westeros.

Your right, everyone remembers people like Gerold Hightower, Barristan Selmy and Arthur Dayne fondly, yet they look at Jaime Lannister with scorn, and he was the only one who wanted to stop Aerys from raping Rhaella. 

I think Jon Snow was the perfect person to make Lord Commander. People like Alliser Thorne and Bowen Marsh are old men too set in their ways to change, and because he traveled with the wildlings for a time Jon didn't have this completely biased opinion of them. 

[Ylath's Snout]

6 minutes ago, EloImFizzy said:

I think Jon Snow was the perfect person to make Lord Commander. People like Alliser Thorne and Bowen Marsh are old men too set in their ways to change, and because he traveled with the wildlings for a time Jon didn't have this completely biased opinion of them. 

Yes but you see that is sensible and fits with the story so clearly you are wrong, evil evil-wrong and a Stark-apologist.

8 minutes ago, EloImFizzy said:

Your right, everyone remembers people like Gerold Hightower, Barristan Selmy and Arthur Dayne fondly,

You mean in-univers right? Because Hightower and Dayne come off as far worse than Ned in my book when it comes to being honorable fools that needlessly let people die for principles.

10 minutes ago, EloImFizzy said:

yet they look at Jaime Lannister with scorn, and he was the only one who wanted to stop Aerys from raping Rhaella. 

Yeah but to an extent that's on Jaime for his pigheaded pride not allowing him to say "Aerys was going to kill a million people and I wasn't okay with that".

[Euron III Greyjoy]

8 minutes ago, Ylath's Snout said:

You mean in-univers right? Because Hightower and Dayne come off as far worse than Ned in my book when it comes to being honorable fools that needlessly let people die for principles.

Yeah I mean in-universe. We don't really know the complete story of the Tower of Joy, but if it went down anything like the TV Show then I feel like one of the the three Kingsguard present could've given Ned the rundown. 

 

11 minutes ago, Ylath's Snout said:

Yeah but to an extent that's on Jaime for his pigheaded pride not allowing him to say "Aerys was going to kill a million people and I wasn't okay with that".

Agreed, and I'd say that makes it all the worse when someone with Jaime Lannister's personality has better morals then then the other Kingsguard. 

[Three-Fingered Pete]

Yes, Jon is to blame since the Wall is his command and Stannis isn't the king to whom he bends the knee.

He is in a lose-lose situation though and if he had been more savvy (and less Stark) he would have shrugged his shoulders and told his brothers "Hey, I don't like it any more that you do, but what am I supposed to do? He just saved our bacon and he is a king after all", even though he was really in favor of it.

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

12 minutes ago, Trefayne said:

Stannis isn't the king to whom he bends the knee.

Who says? One of the problems with the idea of not taking sides, is that there's no definitive answer to that issue.

[Starkz]

20 minutes ago, Trefayne said:

Yes, Jon is to blame since the Wall is his command and Stannis isn't the king to whom he bends the knee.

He is in a lose-lose situation though and if he had been more savvy (and less Stark) he would have shrugged his shoulders and told his brothers "Hey, I don't like it any more that you do, but what am I supposed to do? He just saved our bacon and he is a king after all", even though he was really in favor of it.

That’s not called savvy, that’s called deflecting, which isn’t a very good quality to have.

[Ylath's Snout]

46 minutes ago, EloImFizzy said:

I feel like one of the the three Kingsguard present could've given Ned the rundown. 

More to the point they could have just let Ned see his damn sister.

 

24 minutes ago, Starkz said:

That’s not called savvy, that’s called deflecting, which isn’t a very good quality to have.

Seems pretty handy when a bunch of edjets with shanks come after you. = P

[Three-Fingered Pete]

15 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Who says? One of the problems with the idea of not taking sides, is that there's no definitive answer to that issue.

 A good portion of the realm says. Most have bent the knee, even if hesitantly. Even those opposed to the current reign in KL haven't acknowledged Stannis' claim at that time. The Vale has stayed completely neutral so far so it isn't impossible. Jon made a tough call, but he is still responsible for it.

 

9 minutes ago, Starkz said:

That’s not called savvy, that’s called deflecting, which isn’t a very good quality to have.

 

Neither is turning your back on the "legitimate" ruler and siding with an outlaw and a traditional enemy.

Not cooperating with Stannis is less perilous than cooperating with him. Stannis actually wants Jon to break regulations and side with him when Stannis has never even set foot in the capital as ruler and absolutely no one with any authority or say in the matter has acknowledged him as such. Most likely he would be pissed and take his army and storm off, but if Jon fell on the duty and protocol argument, someone like Stannis could hardly complain. Stannis offered Jon Winterfell and the Wardenship of the North and Jon demurred to duty and the Lord Commandership. How could Stannis retaliate if Jon used the same argument to dodge the Wildling question or even come out as opposed to it? The appearance, at least, of non cooperation with Stannis might have kept Jon on sounder footing with his men, but he went with his emotions over his time spent with the Wildlings to sway his judgment.

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

7 minutes ago, Trefayne said:

A good portion of the realm says. Most have bent the knee, even if hesitantly. Even those opposed to the current reign in KL haven't acknowledged Stannis' claim at that time. The Vale has stayed completely neutral so far so it isn't impossible. Jon made a tough call, but he is still responsible for it.

That’s a strange way to interpret “taking no sides”, as it implies a judgment call on behalf of the Lord Commander, weighing up who happens to have greater support at a particular moment, or who happens to be winning, then only doing what they say, and not others.

The only consistent things to do, when the conflict is ongoing, are to either refuse to interact with any of them, or interact with all of them. That’s of course complicated when, like happened in this case, one side arrives at the Wall. Which is unprecedented.

[Corvo the Crow]

Knights watch doesn't interfere with the internal affairs of the 7K but it is still a part of the realm that is a military order mostly protecting the realm from the external threats to the North. It is not a realm apart or an independent order.

[Starkz]

1 hour ago, Trefayne said:

 A good portion of the realm says. Most have bent the knee, even if hesitantly. Even those opposed to the current reign in KL haven't acknowledged Stannis' claim at that time. The Vale has stayed completely neutral so far so it isn't impossible. Jon made a tough call, but he is still responsible for it.

 

 

Neither is turning your back on the "legitimate" ruler and siding with an outlaw and a traditional enemy.

Not cooperating with Stannis is less perilous than cooperating with him. Stannis actually wants Jon to break regulations and side with him when Stannis has never even set foot in the capital as ruler and absolutely no one with any authority or say in the matter has acknowledged him as such. Most likely he would be pissed and take his army and storm off, but if Jon fell on the duty and protocol argument, someone like Stannis could hardly complain. Stannis offered Jon Winterfell and the Wardenship of the North and Jon demurred to duty and the Lord Commandership. How could Stannis retaliate if Jon used the same argument to dodge the Wildling question or even come out as opposed to it? The appearance, at least, of non cooperation with Stannis might have kept Jon on sounder footing with his men, but he went with his emotions over his time spent with the Wildlings to sway his judgment.

The “legitimate” ruler according to the Baratheon regime is Stannis by succession. Jon wants the Wildlings to come through the Wall to save them and integrate them into Northern society, treating them as subhuman and continuing to practice xenophobia isn’t going to help anyone. Good leaders make tough decisions, Jon running/pretending to run his platform on xenophobia is rather illiberal and foolish. Stannis wants to bring the Wildlings South and so does Jon. Playing on the fence leaves you bound to fall, which is what happened to him. Jon’s problem was he didn’t fully commit to anything and tried to do everything at once. Hopefully, Jon will see this and see the path he needs to take to make real change. 

[Three-Fingered Pete]

4 minutes ago, Starkz said:

The “legitimate” ruler according to the Baratheon regime is Stannis by succession. Jon wants the Wildlings to come through the Wall to save them and integrate them into Northern society, treating them as subhuman and continuing to practice xenophobia isn’t going to help anyone. Good leaders make tough decisions, Jon running/pretending to run his platform on xenophobia is rather illiberal and foolish. Stannis wants to bring the Wildlings South and so does Jon. Playing on the fence leaves you bound to fall, which is what happened to him. Jon’s problem was he didn’t fully commit to anything and tried to do everything at once. Hopefully, Jon will see this and see the path he needs to take to make real change. 

 

Until people actually believe that Joff, Tommen and Myrcella are incest bred bastards, they are the "legitimate" line of succession. Otherwise, Cersei and Jaime wouldn't have a storyline as their heads would be tarred and on pikes.

 

1 hour ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

That’s a strange way to interpret “taking no sides”, as it implies a judgment call on behalf of the Lord Commander, weighing up who happens to have greater support at a particular moment, or who happens to be winning, then only doing what they say, and not others.

The only consistent things to do, when the conflict is ongoing, are to either refuse to interact with any of them, or interact with all of them. That’s of course complicated when, like happened in this case, one side arrives at the Wall. Which is unprecedented.

 

Accepting help in defense of the realm and then garrisoning and provisioning those forces is about as far as Jon could go without being called a traitor by KL (and with the Lannisters in charge even that might not go over at all). Openly negotiating and bending to Stannis' will would be treasonous since even the NW in under the rule of the (perceived legitimate) crown and subject to loyalty to such. I would say that your idea of taking no sides would apply only in a situation where there was no clear ruler declared at all and factions were fighting over who would eventually rule. In the current situation there is a clear and declared ruler, but there is civil war over that decision. The NW is still duty bound to the crown.

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

2 minutes ago, Trefayne said:

Accepting help in defense of the realm and then garrisoning and provisioning those forces is about as far as Jon could go without being called a traitor by KL (and with the Lannisters in charge even that might not go over at all). Openly negotiating and bending to Stannis' will would be treasonous since even the NW in under the rule of the (perceived legitimate) crown and subject to loyalty to such.

The question there is where’s the line? Clearly Stannis considers himself the legitimate ruler, and he’s there, the Lannisters aren’t. Just by cooperating with him Cersei considers Jon a traitor, while Stannis thinks Jon’s not doing enough, so the line is in the eye of the beholder.

3 minutes ago, Trefayne said:

In the current situation there is a clear and declared ruler, but there is civil war over that decision. The NW is still duty bound to the crown.

Again, a matter of interpretation. If there was a clear usurpation with no legitimacy. Say, Renly won and took the crown - is NW duty bound to him because he sits on the IT? The whole point is the NW can't make these calls on legitimacy, otherwise the whole "taking no sides" falls apart.

Also, if the North succeeds, is the NW duty bound to only recognise the IT? Even though their order predates a united realm, and the Wall is in the North. That would be, to say the least, difficult.

I'm not advocating one particular course or another by the way, just pointing out how Jon's position is difficult.

[Three-Fingered Pete]

3 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

I'm not advocating one particular course or another by the way, just pointing out how Jon's position is difficult.

 

Oh, I agree, but that doesn't make Jon any less responsible for his decisions, which is the topic of the thread.

Anyway, as a point of procedure and law, the person sitting on the IT at the time had the blessing of the religious and civil authorities and that makes their claim more viable than Stannis', regardless of what he, or anyone else, believes. Until he can prove his assertions to a person or persons who will be able to sway the realm's opinion, or win on the field of battle, Stannis is an outlaw.

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

1 minute ago, Trefayne said:

Until he can prove his assertions to a person or persons who will be able to sway the realm's opinion, or win on the field of battle, Stannis is an outlaw.

Mayhaps. But the problem is that the NW saying this is essentially taking sides. Of course, it wouldn’t matter if Stannis hadn’t turned up on their doorstep, but he did.