Why Did the Show Turn on Jon?

[CrypticWeirwood]

49 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, that was murder, even more so within the framework of this society - where it is completely up to the whim of the monarch/victor whether her enemies are granted pardons or not (which means nobody even has the right to criticize the monarch or demand that she spare the lives of people in her power - they can advise, but they cannot demand).

Dany wasn't threatening Jon personally, and she was unsuspecting. It was actually a very insidious murder, on par with Joffrey's poisoning.

You may be right, but the question had to be asked. Pretending that all human-caused deaths are by definition “murders” is stultifyingly naïve. That isn't how these things work, for by that “reasoning” Dany “murdered” Cersei and Jaime, too; maybe even Missandei. It’s silly pandering.

Of course Dany was a mass murderer at the weapons-of-mass-destruction level of unspeakable war crimes for what she did to King's Landing. But that's hardly the first time she did that; in Astapor she lied and cheated and murdered her way into stealing all the Unsullied, and then she went on to have all the town’s nobility to the sword. That's monstrous; she wasn't even at war with the people she not only dishonorably broke her word but then went on to rob and murder her way into getting what she wanted, the nobility of the city be damned.  It's clear she will dishonor herself whenever she wants something badly enough. 

It's strange that people held Dany to be queen of Westeros at the end. How did that happen? Did the Starry Sept send her a new High Septon to crown her in the Light of the Seven? Or did she automatically become queen when she murdered Cersei, and if so by what right?

Certainly not bloodright, because if that principle held she was a usurper and Jon her lawful king, whose judgements in capital matters is summary law no matter whether or not he himself swings the sword to carry out the lawful execution of a murdering usurper who’d had the temerity to threaten his family to his face and on more than one occasion. 

There are potential many paths that could lead to it not being murder, just lawful execution or justifiable defence of others.

Do I believe all that? No, I don't. But I don't believe Dany was ever queen, either. She was just faking being queen when she “legitimized” her cousin Gendry. She just thinks she’s queen. That doesn’t make her queen.

Since she was uncrowned, that means it wasn't regicide when Jon killed her. You might call it the horrible kinslaying act of matertericide, but that’s something else altogether.  

[Lord Varys]

28 minutes ago, Nightwish said:

What convience Sansa?

Killing The mother of Dragons proved to be easier, more time efficient and far less dangerous for his mental health.  It also came with free tickets for the forgotten ice lands of the wild north. Miss such an opportunity?

One wonders why he didn't just run away the way he does later before he murdered Dany. Why not let them all sort this thing out themselves? He clearly doesn't care about running things afterwards, does he?

[CrypticWeirwood]

21 minutes ago, It_spelt_Magalhaes said:

But I meant that no amount of rationalization will change the facts. Dany's a mass murderer. Jon's a murderer.

Jon killed one of his own men, one who was trying to rape and likely then kill someone. That wasn't murder, either. It was his right and even his duty as the commanding officer to take that life. 

That wasn't murder. That was Jon doing his duty. Of course he'll have hated taking a life, but he saved others' that way.

[RFL]

Jon cannot turn down the kingship and serve as judge, jury, and executioner.  It’s murder.  Even when he did serve as judge and executioner in his role as Lord Commander he did so “in the light of day” not by subterfuge. 

[Vanadis]

I still feel the right thing for Jon to do in a situation where he felt Dany was unfit to rule, was to press his own claim.

If Dany was "Mad Queen" she might have killed him. But when she talked to him after the assault on King's Landing, she spoke calmly, she made it clear that she loved him, and she obviously wasn't paranoid or she wouldn't have let him get close enough to stab her. She didn't seem mad, just full of herself after her victory.

So the honorable thing to do would have been to say "Sorry aunt, I can't let you do this anymore. I am Aegon Targaryen etc etc."

I doubt that the Dany we saw would have killed her nephew and the man she loved. And had she tried, well, then we could have gotten a fight where he deserved to kill her.

In the show ending, with Dany being dead, Drogon is free to raze any city he likes. Bran seems to be cool about the loose dragon, indicating that perhaps he can control it. But if so, he could have helped wrest control from Dany too had she tried to resist Aegon's rule through dragon force.

Dany would still have had her troops, but at least the Northerners and the remaining Lannisters were there to fight them, I'm pretty sure fifty percent of the Lannister troops were still alive...

It would have worked out just fine.

 

[RFL]

More and more it’s clear that, in Westeros, the destruction of a city as an act of war is accepted.  Jaime didn’t live down his moniker just because he saved millions. Nor was he loved. 

[It_spelt_Magalhaes]

12 minutes ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

Jon killed one of his own men, one who was trying to rape and likely then kill someone. That wasn't murder, either. It was his right and even his duty as the commanding officer to take that life. 

That wasn't murder. That was Jon doing his duty. Of course he'll have hated taking a life, but he saved others' that way.

In this, you're absolutely right. 

The way he approached each act is different.

Someone was being attacked by a man under his command. He stopped that attack as it occurred.

Though she was not The Queen as confirmed and accepted by all ? He had repeatedly told her, directly, she was his queen. He led an army for her, as is. She was his commander in chief?

Even without it, it was a man deciding to kill a woman per his own reasoning. Going up to her, talking to her, kissing her and sticking a blade in her.

If what you're implying is that he felt her to be an imminent threat that demanded immediate action just like the soldier he killed, then why the dog and pony show with Tyrion? 

If he'd managed, somehow, to kill her as she was destroying Flea Bottom, I'd say it was the same.

[RFL]

My guess, in game of thrones land, you can kill someone below you in your chain of command with immunity.   But Dany is Jon’s acknowledged queen.  No “legal” justification. 

[Lord Varys]

47 minutes ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

You may be right, but the question had to be asked. Pretending that all human-caused deaths are by definition “murders” is stultifyingly naïve. That isn't how these things work, for by that “reasoning” Dany “murdered” Cersei and Jaime, too; maybe even Missandei. It’s silly pandering.

'Murder' is the only way to properly describe the murder of Daenerys. Anything else makes no sense. I didn't use that word lightly up there.

Quote

Of course Dany was a mass murderer at the weapons-of-mass-destruction level of unspeakable war crimes for what she did to King's Landing. But that's hardly the first time she did that; in Astapor she lied and cheated and murdered her way into stealing all the Unsullied, and then she went on to have all the town’s nobility to the sword. That's monstrous; she wasn't even at war with the people she not only dishonorably broke her word but then went on to rob and murder her way into getting what she wanted, the nobility of the city be damned.  It's clear she will dishonor herself whenever she wants something badly enough. 

Are there such things as war crimes in Martinworld? I don't know. Nobody accused Aegon the Conqueror of war crimes for Harrenhal. The nobility don't give a damn what you do to the peasants or even cities to accomplish your goals. Monarchs were seen as tyrants because they were starting to execute noblemen to a rather high degree - and for arbitrary reasons. Nobody gives a damn about the smallfolk in George's books.

Your commander/general/king decides what's permissible or not. Stannis does not allow his men to rape women during/after battle. But other generals/leaders have different standards.

And Dany was never in any feudal or otherwise honorable agreement/relationship with the slavers of Astapor. They were business partners who sold her soldiers. They cannot tell her what to use those soldiers for, can they? He who sells the sword shall die by the sword, no?

If killing evil/disgusting people for pretty good reasons when you can means you also will eventually kill good people for no reason at all, then we could not entrust law enforcement to actually kill people in combat, no? Because they of course only kill people to save others/themselves when they have no other choice, right? But if that leads inevitable to corruption - which basically is the ridiculous picture Tyrion draws of Dany in the books - then everybody deserves to be murdered by their lover - to prevent us from becoming 'evil'.

And if you look at the places many of the so-called 'good characters' go in the books - just think of Wyman Manderly or Catelyn's thugs - then the only difference between them and Dany is the scale of the burning of KL. But as far as I know it was the largest city in Westeros, so whatever atrocities are too follow thereafter shouldn't be that over the top.

Interpretations of the behavior of other people isn't the same as knowing what they will do. Trump could decide to nuke the entire world tomorrow (I daresay one could assume the man is capable of that considering his past conduct) but does that mean anybody has a right to blow his brains out today?

Quote

It's strange that people held Dany to be queen of Westeros at the end. How did that happen? Did the Starry Sept send her a new High Septon to crown her in the Light of the Seven? Or did she automatically become queen when she murdered Cersei, and if so by what right?

Who cares? Nobody gives crap about that in the show. The people treat her as the queen and thus she is the queen. And all the people fighting in her army acknowledged her as such throughout that season.

Quote

Certainly not bloodright, because if that principle held she was a usurper and Jon her lawful king, whose judgements in capital matters is summary law no matter whether or not he himself swings the sword to carry out the lawful execution of a murdering usurper who’d had the temerity to threaten his family to his face and on more than one occasion. 

That is nonsense considering that said 'lawful king' repeatedly gave up any claim or right he may have had to sit the throne. Unlike the show's ridiculous story, no monarch has ever been crowned against his will - as Jon made pretty clear. If I acknowledge you as my queen you are my queen, never mind that I might technically have a better claim. And Jon basically does nothing else this season but making it clear again and again and again that Dany is his queen.

Quote

There are potential many paths that could lead to it not being murder, just lawful execution or justifiable defence of others.

But as it is depicted it is murder. Get over it.

Quote

Do I believe all that? No, I don't. But I don't believe Dany was ever queen, either. She was just faking being queen when she “legitimized” her cousin Gendry. She just thinks she’s queen. That doesn’t make her queen.

Now are you utterly ridiculous. Everybody in this world just thinks they are a lord or a knight or a monarch. Dany is seen as such just as the others are. And all of Westeros but the Lannisters acknowledged her as queen. Nobody ever calls her fake queen or pretender or anything of that sort (not clear if the show even has such concepts).

Even in the books Dany has long been a queen. She is styled and treated as such not only by her own people but by others as well.

Quote

Since she was uncrowned, that means it wasn't regicide when Jon killed her. You might call it the horrible kinslaying act of matertericide, but that’s something else altogether.  

Again, she was Jon's queen because he acknowledged her as such. And why do you care what this vapid travesty of George's 'Jon Snow' did, anyway? He has nothing to do with the character George created, and the show world is completely inconsistent.

41 minutes ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

Jon killed one of his own men, one who was trying to rape and likely then kill someone. That wasn't murder, either. It was his right and even his duty as the commanding officer to take that life. 

That wasn't murder. That was Jon doing his duty.

Considering they all swore to obey the queen and the queen's example showed that sacking and plundering and raping was okay, it was definitely not his duty to stop anything there.

And we can be pretty sure that the real Jon would actually not stop this kind of thing in the books. I think you recall that he wants to bring down 'death and destruction on House Lannister', right? Including innocent King Tommen and, presumably, all the other innocent women and children of House Lannister (and there are a lot of those).

If they actually had to burn down and sack a city full of Lannister cronies, men, women, and children who abandoned them all in the fight against the Others, who stood by and did nothing while Ned, Robb, Catelyn, etc. were killed, etc. I doubt he would lift so much as finger to stop them. And why should he? Honestly? What could his motivation be in a world as shitty as that? Did anybody ever demand 'justice' for the Kingslanders Tywin butchered during the sack? Did anybody ever demand 'justice' for the hundreds or thousands of Reynes Tywin drowned in Castamere?

Sentimentality is not the kind of luxury any of the characters living through the nightmare that is ASoIaF will be able to afford. Jon is likely to become a much crueler and less human master of Westeros than Dany could ever be. He is the one who has been killed by his own men (the ultimate betrayal which is not exactly going to make him a trusting and jolly fellow afterwards), the one who will have to cope with the fact of death itself ... and then he will have to (help) guide people through a winter with essentially no food, fighting a war against an enemy they still have no clue how to defeat. Deciding to sacrifice thousands to save hundreds of thousands (or even vice versa) is going to become a part of his day-to-day routine.

The chance that this guy is going to give a damn about the people of city in which his 'father' was betrayed and executed is astronomically slim. What emotional connection has he to those people?

[RFL]

Jon empathizes with people.  The wildings has been dehumanized his whole life for instance. 

[CrypticWeirwood]

6 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Sentimentality is not the kind of luxury any of the characters living through the nightmare that is ASoIaF will be able to afford. Jon is likely to become a much crueler and less human master of Westeros than Dany could ever be. He is the one who has been killed by his own men (the ultimate betrayal which is not exactly going to make him a trusting and jolly fellow afterwards), the one who will have to cope with the fact of death itself ...

That's interesting. I wonder whether that's where he picked the habit up from.

[CrypticWeirwood]

9 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And why do you care what this vapid travesty of George's 'Jon Snow' did, anyway? He has nothing to do with the character George created, and the show world is completely inconsistent.

To be honest, I pretty much don't, and for those very reasons.

I do think questions should always be asked. That doesn't mean I agree with the viewpoint.

[Techmaester]

Kings Landing and it's current rulers killed Jons uncle, his grandfather and his actual father. They attempted to kills his aunt and waged war on the kingdom of his mother's family. They purged the kingdom of his father's family.

He shouldn't have raised a finger at its burning, it would be a celebration.

 

[It_spelt_Magalhaes]

7 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Considering they all swore to obey the queen and the queen's example showed that sacking and plundering and raping was okay, it was definitely not his duty to stop anything there.

Didn't even think about this. What was he going to do, kill all of the Northern soldiers who failed to hold? But he might consider he was honorbound to?

I know we are repeatedly told the North Remembers. Do the soldiers truly distinguish individuals from the people that stood to watch Ned be executed?

And bland!Jon would be just the type to ignore duty and even allegiance for the ideal of the 'right thing'.

I hope the character never becomes this one dimensional idiot we saw on the show.

[teej6]

3 hours ago, a_song_of_ice_and_fire said:

Since the very start of Game of Thrones it was made perfectly clear that this series is more based on realism than any other...

So I will never get this hate for Jon not getting what he deserved.

Realism really?? Did you see the Great Council (or whatever garbage that collection of random nobles and non-nobles was) scene? Is that really realism for you? In a real setting, Tyrion would have been executed by the unsullied a thousand times over (and so would Jon). He would be looked upon as pariah by most of the other Lords and Ladies of Westeros. Instead he gets to choose the next King and becomes his hand all in 5 mins. All he had to do was convince them that Bran had the best story. Yeah real believable and realistic. Ugh!

As to Jon not getting what he deserved, most people on this forum is not criticizing the Jon storyline and/ or the entire show for that matter because Jon doesn’t get what he deserved, but because his character and storyline defies   all logic and is beyond belief. If you’ve read the books you’ll know why a lot of book readers are upset that D&D totally destroyed a central character in the story that was well-written and fleshed out by the author. 

[CrypticWeirwood]

23 minutes ago, Techmaester said:

Kings Landing and it's current rulers killed Jon’s uncle, his grandfather, and his actual father. They attempted to kills his aunt and waged war on the kingdom of his mother's family. They purged the kingdom of his father's family.

If we're going to be keeping score, then remember that the city rulers also killed Jon’s half-sister and half-brother.

But I have to ask, which grandfather of Jon’s are you referring to? Jon lost both his grandfathers to that city!  

Then again, so did Joffrey and Tommen.  

 

[Rose of Red Lake]

"You have to be smarter than Father. You need to be smarter than Robb.”

 wow I cant wait to read about another Stark making the same mistakes all over again

[Rose of Red Lake]

50 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The chance that this guy is going to give a damn about the people of city in which his 'father' was betrayed and executed is astronomically slim. What emotional connection has he to those people?

I'm sure the the guy who saw the injustice of condemning people to death because of an arbitrary geographic barrier will just say "oh well they deserved it they all betrayed my kweeeen!" Death by fire is the purest death right? And death by ice zombies is the "real fight." As a humanist Jon Snow would absolutely not give a damn about people in this location. But he will care about people in other locations. 

[Rose of Red Lake]

1 hour ago, RFL said:

Jon cannot turn down the kingship and serve as judge, jury, and executioner.  It’s murder.  Even when he did serve as judge and executioner in his role as Lord Commander he did so “in the light of day” not by subterfuge. 

Philosophy has reflected on tyrannicide for centuries and it is usually justified under tyranny when the assassin does not aim to gain personally from the tyrants death. Those who act without personal gain are rare. Jon fits this criteria. 

Tyrannicide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrannicide

[RFL]

So if a subject of a leader determines said leaders actions are tyrannical in nature said subject has the moral justification to kill them?  What about someone who authorizes air strikes that kill innocents?  Or authorizes the use of nuclear weapons?  What is the line that allows it?   As noted clearly the nobility of Westeros was not overly disturbed by the destruction of Kings Landing.  They branded Jaime as dishonorable for his role in preventing the same. They were remarkably undisturbed with Cersei’s destruction of the Sept.  in the past they bent the knee when confronted with similar weapons. In Westeros at least Danys actions are not unprecedented.