Jump to content
silverwolf22

true motivation of jon snows assassination ( counter to the claims I have seen made)

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, CAllDSmith said:

So quoting this, but also wanting to comment on your double post. He executed Slynt because Slynt disobeyed an order, not because Slynt insulted him. Summary execution for disobedience is something that has existed for thousands of years.There were men executed for less at D-Day.

Couldn't agree more. You should have seen a few months ago, the endless discussion on Jon “murdering Slynt for revenge”. The awesome takeaway was, Janos Slynt has almost as many fans as Ramsay Bolton and Walder Frey! 

Share this post


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

Couldn't agree more. You should have seen a few months ago, the endless discussion on Jon “murdering Slynt for revenge”. The awesome takeaway was, Janos Slynt has almost as many fans as Ramsay Bolton and Walder Frey! 

Why was I under the impression this forum would be more sane than the reddit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎4‎/‎4‎/‎2019 at 8:36 PM, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

He didn't actually - no-one who stabbed him knew about Mance. They obviously stabbed him because they felt his decisions were going to bring the Watch to ruin. A debatable point, but it had nothing to do with him hiding the truth about Mance.

I’ve said this a hundred times, but I’m constantly shocked at how people who are avid fans of these books consistently overlook one of its central themes, and make sweeping and strident moral judgments. One of the main points these books consistently make is that it's never black and white. There are shades of grey. Sometimes bad decisions are made for good reasons, and sometimes there is no clear and obvious "good" decision. You can, of course, make the case that Jon shouldn’t have made the decisions he did; but the idea that there is some sort of clear-cut answer to the complex issues he was facing is ridiculous.

 Jon’s primary consideration, one that he has consistently grappled with throughout the books, is how to remain true to his vows while also fulfilling the obligations the vows are designed for. He needs to ensure, to the best of his ability, that the 7K are defended against the Others.

 The difficulties arise when keeping the letter of those vows comes into conflict with that overriding obligation. Preserving the 7K required him to ride with the Wildlings and sleep with Ygritte. Should he have stood by the letter of his vows, refused to do so, and got killed by the Wildlings?

 One strict interpretation of his vows would have meant his refusal to cooperate with Stannis at all. Stannis would have simply had him killed, and either wiped out the NW entirely, or replaced Jon with someone who would have done what he required. Would that have been a better outcome?

 Throughout ADWD, we see Jon try to navigate a difficult situation, where he tries to preserve the NW’s independence, fulfil its central obligations, while not blindly leading it to ruin.

 As to the issue with the Pink Letter. Yes, there’s a clear case to be made that he crossed a line there by deciding to go into armed conflict with the Boltons But I fail to see how that could have been avoided anyway, if he didn’t march on them, they would march on him. The letter said they would. What alternative actions do people suggest?

 On the decision to send Mance south – he did so on the assumption Arya was already riding North. As others have said, he never sent Mance to steal her from Winterfell. Furthermore, would anyone really do any differently? Not just if it were their own sister, but any child under threat of rape and torture? Even if you would (or would like to pretend you would for weird argumentative reasons), do you really so stridently condemn others who wouldn’t? Frankly, I find that a bit creepy.  

I find 2 things extremelly interesting in this discussion.

First, the most vow breaking decision jon did was helping alys karstark, imprisioning her male relative, marry her to a wildling and warn stannis of the karstark plot. While some of these actions can explained or justifiable there is no way that by doing all that jon didn t break his vows. However nobody ever talks about this…

Lastly, near all of jon's action were made because they needed to be done. They were the best way to move forward even if they weren t right, honorable or legal. And most people criticize ned for behaving honnourably when he should have been smart… well, despite his shortcomings jon is behaving as it is needed and people criticize him for not being like ned...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, CAllDSmith said:

Why was I under the impression this forum would be more sane than the reddit?

And it is! For the most part anyway. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/30/2019 at 2:06 AM, Allardyce said:

Breaking an oath did not release Mance Rayder from his vows.  He is legally and permanently committed to the NW.  

  Not if he dies. When you die you are free from your vows. In their sworn oath to the Watch, they say that they'll serve until death. Well, Jon has been killed. If he returns he will not be bound at all. His death has possible three main reasons: First, release from his oath. Leaving the Watch without being an oathbreaker; second, allowing him to take the wildlings to Winterfell and finally terminate the Boltons once and for all and maybe a third one: his ascension to Azurai or at least one of the three heads with Dany and another, the third one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, divica said:

First, the most vow breaking decision jon did was helping alys karstark, imprisioning her male relative, marry her to a wildling and warn stannis of the karstark plot. While some of these actions can explained or justifiable there is no way that by doing all that jon didn t break his vows. However nobody ever talks about this…

I completely appreciate the wider point you are making. Yes, this seems a less widely discussed aspect of all the conflicts that Jon has faced, and how many grey areas, or just outright conflicts there are between vows and doing the right thing.

But can I put my pedant hat on for this one?:) Just for a bit!

1. Alys sought guest rights and there was no oath-breaking involved. Technically the other brothers who took her in and provided 'first aid' might already have activated guest rights, before Jon was even aware of the situation.

2. Yes, Cregan was planning to do the same, but when Jon rode out a significant distance out to meet him, one of Cregan's party loosened a crossbow quarrel at Ty, and so provided Jon with a reason to take them into custody without eligibility to guest rights. Was riding out to meet them a bit of a strategem? Absolutely! Did Jon breach his oaths or break any other laws or codes of chivalric conduct? Technically, no. If Cregan had kept order over his men it would have been different. Call it plot armour if you will, but they happened to provide a causus belli, GRRM's intention here is to show the progress Jon is making in dealing with these difficult situations. He's learnt to be smart, while doing the right thing.

3. Marrying her off: She did marry willingly. Why did Jon have to be the one to give her away? It can be argued as LC he is a figure of respect in the North and he is honouring Alys, or you could say he is the only one present who can be said to confirm who she is (having met once in childhood, and based on the conversations he has had with her at CB, there is no doubt in his mind that she is who she says she is). There is no proof of a technical oath-breach here IMO.

4. Warning Stannis: This is a more difficult one certainly, and the discussion could really go on and on. Jon was already counseling Stannis when S was at CB and convinces himself that providing counsel does not constitute a breach of 'the Watch takes no part'. This is an extension of the same.

<The Pedant hat has been blown away by the winds of winter now>

In reality as other posters on this and similar threads have pointed out much better than I'm about to, Jon really had no choice with regards to the relationship with Stannis. Stannis showed up to defeat the Wildlings, who were about to overrun the watch. Jon took Stannis in and provided him with guest rights and subsequently bargained as hard as a 'fishwife' to keep as many NW castles and other assets as he could without Stannis just ordering his army to seize everything. Once Stannis had physically left CB, could Jon then have chosen to not send a message of the Karstark betrayal plan? He technically could have, but I don't think there were would be so many of us debating on this forum and caring what happens to the characters in this series of his character development had headed that way IMO.

I've digressed a bit here - to your point of whether point 4. above is an oath-breach, I think not, or perhaps we are in a grey area there, facilitating the jump to a complete renunciation later. Thank you for reminding us of this here, it's a very good point.

Edited by Ser Hedge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, divica said:

First, the most vow breaking decision jon did was helping alys karstark, imprisioning her male relative, marry her to a wildling and warn stannis of the karstark plot. While some of these actions can explained or justifiable there is no way that by doing all that jon didn t break his vows. However nobody ever talks about this…

Nobody ever talks about this because we're not bloody idiots. He didn't just "imprison her male relative", he prevented an abuse, where an uncle would force his teenage child to marry his adult son in order to make claim to his brother's keep. Details matter dude, why ignore them? That's an act of compassion and humanism on Jon's part. Do you disagree?

How did he break his vows? Point to the line in the vows that deals with this issue.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Nobody ever talks about this because we're not bloody idiots. He didn't just "imprison her male relative", he prevented an abuse, where an uncle would force his teenage child to marry his adult son in order to make claim to his brother's keep. Details matter dude, why ignore them? That's an act of compassion and humanism on Jon's part. Do you disagree?

How did he break his vows? Point to the line in the vows that deals with this issue.

 

 

 

At some point, basic fucking morality trump's Jon's vows.

I swear some of these people would actively support Jamie not killing Aerys, because that violated his vows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Eddard Waters said:

At some point, basic fucking morality trump's Jon's vows.

I swear some of these people would actively support Jamie not killing Aerys, because that violated his vows.

Yup. This attitude ignores one of the series' basic premises - that sticking to the letter of the law isn't necessarily the most moral decision. That sometimes moral judgments aren't easy.

A lot of this seems to have been off loaded onto Jon recently, but it goes around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Nobody ever talks about this because we're not bloody idiots. He didn't just "imprison her male relative", he prevented an abuse, where an uncle would force his teenage child to marry his adult son in order to make claim to his brother's keep. Details matter dude, why ignore them? That's an act of compassion and humanism on Jon's part. Do you disagree?

How did he break his vows? Point to the line in the vows that deals with this issue.

 

 

 

Wether he did the right thing or not the fact is that he clearly interfered in the politics of westeros and the Watch should be neutral. And while helping a girl is a good thing we know that in westeros law men decide the fate of their female relatives or do you think that alys would be the first forced marriage? Or that good lords don t force their daughters to marry people they don t like? However I admit that I have no idea if her uncle(?) had the right (by law) to force her to marry or not...

Then jon imprisoned the guy. I doubt he can do that… Even if one of his men shot at jon (going by what was written by someone some posts above) I don t really think that the NW can hold nobles without writing to the warden of the north so that he can decide what should be done…

After this he suported a marriage between a noblewoman and a wildling. Again, this sort of marriage has to be aproved by someone with authority no?

And finally he wrote to stannis exposing the karstark plot.If he was neutral regarding the politcs of westeros then he shouldn t have done this. Let the lords of westeros fight between themselves and he would talk with whoever is in charge...

18 minutes ago, Eddard Waters said:

At some point, basic fucking morality trump's Jon's vows.

I swear some of these people would actively support Jamie not killing Aerys, because that violated his vows.

 

12 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Yup. This attitude ignores one of the series' basic premises - that sticking to the letter of the law isn't necessarily the most moral decision. That sometimes moral judgments aren't easy.

A lot of this seems to have been off loaded onto Jon recently, but it goes around.

 You are the guys that are confusing 2 very diferent things. If jon broke his vows or if jon breaking his vows is a bad thing. 

One of the things I said in my first post is that the honorable thing to do isn t necessarily the right thing to do. And that jon is doing the things that must be done instead of behaving like ned that always tried to do the honorable thing.

Finally, you can t use modern values to justify the actions of characters in asoiaf. It just weakens your arguments… You have to use the values in asoiaf to justify the actions of characters in that world...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, divica said:

Wether he did the right thing or not the fact is that he clearly interfered in the politics of westeros and the Watch should be neutral.

This is where it matters. The debate is whether he did the right thing. You can't just say "technically, by the letter of the law he shouldn't have done it", and claim some kind of moral superiority. His duty is to defend the realms of men, and saving his sister from a torturer and a rapist maybe doesn't fall under that remit. But what kind of shit doesn't try to save his sister from that?

13 minutes ago, divica said:

And while helping a girl is a good thing we know that in westeros law men decide the fate of their female relatives or do you think that alys would be the first forced marriage? Or that good lords don t force their daughters to marry people they don t like?

Let's not take this in isolation, or it may appear disingenuous. Alys wasn't just going into an arranged marriage. Her uncle was forcing her to marry her cousin in order to steal her brother's keep. Let's acknowledge the details please. They matter.

13 minutes ago, divica said:

I don t really think that the NW can hold nobles without writing to the warden of the north so that he can decide what should be done…

Please cite the clause in Westros law?

Of course, in usual circumstances, the LC of the NW doesn't just meet out justice to Northern lords. They'll refer the matter to the Stark. It's not normal circumstances. The realm and the North are torn apart by civil war. Some improv is required...

13 minutes ago, divica said:

After this he suported a marriage between a noblewoman and a wildling. Again, this sort of marriage has to be aproved by someone with authority no?

Turns out it doesn't. Again, in normal circumstances, yes. In this situation, no.

13 minutes ago, divica said:

And finally he wrote to stannis exposing the karstark plot.If he was neutral regarding the politcs of westeros then he shouldn t have done this. Let the lords of westeros fight between themselves and he would talk with whoever is in charge...

He recognised the dodgy ground he was on, but out of all the claimants to the IT, Stannis is the only one who recognised the danger of the Others. Of course Jon should support him.

 

Edited by Shouldve Taken The Black

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Eddard Waters said:

At some point, basic fucking morality trump's Jon's vows.

I swear some of these people would actively support Jamie not killing Aerys, because that violated his vows.

Jon Snow was not acting out of morality.  The murder of Janos Slynt certainly was not.  And then to let another man (Mance Rayder) whose offenses are far greater to get away with his crimes because that man could get his sister out of her marriage, that was not morality.  It was unjust.  It showed Jon's lack of ethics and his inability to deliver justice.  Morality is what does the most good for the most people.  Putting the lives of the many in grave danger in order to help one was not an act of morality.  It was an act of selfishness on the part of Jon Snow. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Great Oshiro said:

Jon Snow was not acting out of morality.  The murder of Janos Slynt certainly was not.

Oh ffs. It was not an act of morality. He did it because it had to be done, because Slynt was actively engaged in undermining his leadership. Morality barely enters into it.

9 minutes ago, Great Oshiro said:

And then to let another man (Mance Rayder) whose offenses are far greater to get away with his crimes because that man could get his sister out of her marriage, that was not morality.

Yep, also true. He didn't let Mance carry on carrying on out of a sense of morality towards Mance, but because he hoped Mance would help save his sister from a maniac. Who wouldn't?

11 minutes ago, Great Oshiro said:

It showed Jon's lack of ethics and his inability to deliver justice

What do those words mean to you? To me it showed Jon trying to navigate between the words of his vows and the reality that's facing him.

Is it more ethical or just to abandon a child to torture and rape because your vows suggest you should be neutral? Or maybe, just MAYBE, life is more complicated than that?

12 minutes ago, Great Oshiro said:

Morality is what does the most good for the most people.

That's utilitarianism. A valid philosophy, but not the end word on what morality is.

13 minutes ago, Great Oshiro said:

Putting the lives of the many in grave danger in order to help one was not an act of morality.

It was and it wasn't. You have to factor in his ability to save the one being concrete, while the others being put in danger being vague. You know, acknowledging nuance and stuff. Like adults do...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, divica said:

 I don t really think that the NW can hold nobles without writing to the warden of the north so that he can decide what should be done…

As @Shouldve Taken The Black says, these are not normal times. Neither the Warden of the North (or his representative) nor Cregan show up at the wall when the Wildlings were attacking in force. There is a power vacuum. Also, the 'Warden of the North' had been appointed by one side of a still on-going Baratheon civil war. The other Baratheon claimant actually did bother to answer the call. 

 

37 minutes ago, divica said:

After this he suported a marriage between a noblewoman and a wildling. Again, this sort of marriage has to be aproved by someone with authority no?

Her Grace Queen Selyse is happy enough with the match. Again, there is an unresolved civil war still going on here.

 

37 minutes ago, divica said:

Finally, you can t use modern values to justify the actions of characters in asoiaf. It just weakens your arguments… You have to use the values in asoiaf to justify the actions of characters in that world...

 

Spot on. And whenever we refer to the current incumbent on the Iron throne or the warden he has appointed, we sometimes seem to talking their legitimacy for granted as in a real world authority. No, Westeros is currently a failed state. Consider the anarchy that the Riverlands were in until very recently. Consider the chaos in the North not that long ago when the Iron Born held MC and no one was sure what had happened at WF.

Yes, I agree that in AFFC and ADWD 2, we see the Lannister-Tyrell-Frey-Bolton axis slowly re-establish control, but this is really quite recent to the current timeline. Stannis is still a credible claimant to the IT. He holds the ancestral Baratheon and Targaryen strongholds (at the end of ADWD at least) and now has a foothold in the North. The logic that he and Renly based their claim on (Joffrey and Tommen's illegitimacy) was widely supported not that long ago.

So while I don't mean you particularly, all this reference to the Iron Throne and Warden and 'illegal' acts is quite naive IMO. Things were often not very clear cut in the Real World Middle Ages.

Edited by Ser Hedge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ser Hedge said:

So while I don't mean you particularly, all this reference to the Iron Throne and Warden and 'illegal' acts is quite naive IMO.

OI don't think it's naivety to be honest. I think it's a weird dogmatic interpretation of the text used to attack a certain character. For reasons that escape me.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

A lot of the world building GRRM has done is to create a regime that has a few capable military commanders (Jaime, Tarly, Redwine), but post-Kevan is run by nincompoop clerks like Ser Harys Swift and Lord Merryweather. Parts of the country are governed by rapacious, unchivalrous regional strongmen (Bolton and Frey). In this set up, there is no use appealing to authority like a bunch of boy scouts.

And finally, let's distinguish between NW vows and general 'illegality' (or failure to comply with Iron Throne) as some of you seem to see it. They are two different things.

Edited by Ser Hedge

Share this post


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

Finally, you can t use modern values to justify the actions of characters in asoiaf. It just weakens your arguments… You have to use the values in asoiaf to justify the actions of characters in that world...

That's pretty absurd. Westeros doesn't actually exist. It's perfectly valid to look at the themes being explored in Westeros through the lens of our own modern-day experiences and assumptions.

These novels are being written by a 20th/21st century man for an audience of 20th/21st century readers. It would be odd indeed if they did not reflect the society in which they were written and the people for whom they were written. They're not strictly a set of pot-boilers (not that there's anything wrong with that) that have no purpose beyond being page-turners. They're meditations on the nature of power, ambition, honor, oaths, sexism, the patriarchy, and much more besides.

Why do novels exploring themes exist, if not to hold up a mirror to the reader's society so they can see the reflection and ponder the meaning of what they see? Why would anyone bother to read them at all if they didn't at least attempt to do that?

So, no. We don't "have to use the values in asoiaf". It's possible to see the books as having a broader and richer complexity than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

OI don't think it's naivety to be honest. I think it's a weird dogmatic interpretation of the text used to attack a certain character. For reasons that escape me.  

IMO, several of the recent Jon hate posts are from fans of another character *cough*Dany*cough* who seem incapable of accepting competition of any kind to their beloved heroine and need to attack the morality of Jon (who the author just recently compared to a good and moral leader) lest he steal her thunder. There have been threads in the past with Jon’s leadership and judgements questioned but the motives behind these threads were more honest and the arguments more nuanced and sensible. Recently, on the other hand, it’s mostly been rubbish arguments like the injustice meted out to Slynt or the virtues of Marsh or the victimization of Ramsay. 

Edited by teej6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, teej6 said:

IMO, several of the recent Jon hate posts are from fans of another character *cough*Dany*cough* who seem incapable of accepting competition of any kind to their beloved heroine and need to attack the morality of Jon (who the author just recently compared to a good and moral leader) lest he steal her thunder. There have been threads in the past with Jon’s leadership and judgements questioned but the motives behind these threads were more honest and the arguments more nuanced and sensible. Recently, on the other hand, it’s mostly been rubbish arguments like the injustice meted out to Slynt or the virtues of Marsh or the victimization of Ramsay. 

A lot of the Jon haters have basically turned into apologists for the Boltons, which is downright repugnant to say the least.

I have no idea how liking Dany means you now have to vilify Jon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×