Jump to content

On Janos Slynt


kissdbyfire

Recommended Posts

On 11/30/2019 at 9:54 PM, Dothraki Khal said:

He absolutely was Jon's man.  Jon is his Lord Commander.  Desertion in the past does not release Mance Rayder from his oaths to the Watch.  He had to follow Jon's orders.  He was not given a choice, he had to go to Winterfell to find Arya.  

 

 

On 11/30/2019 at 10:26 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Desertion does release him though. It isn't as if Jon could have let him join back up with the other men of the Watch & carried on as if nothing happened. He no longer has the option to be a member of the NW because of his desertion. Now, typically deserters are relieved of their head for deserting, and maybe Mance should have been too but you cannot ignore that these are not typical circumstances. 

I would like to see a quote of Jon giving an order to Mance to go to WF to get Arya &/or a quote implying Mance had no choice or felt as if he had no choice. 

You & I both know that didn't happen so why say it unless to be purposefully inflammatory? 

 

What people want is not important.  Mance Rayder is still part of the order.  Jon should have executed the man but he chose not to.  That did not give Mance a discharge from the order.  He is a member of the order as long he has not permanently stopped breathing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sire de Maletroit said:

 

What people want is not important.  Mance Rayder is still part of the order.  Jon should have executed the man but he chose not to.  That did not give Mance a discharge from the order.  He is a member of the order as long he has not permanently stopped breathing. 

He isn't. He is no longer welcome in the order. If deserters were allowed to remain a member of the NW upon their return what would be the punishment or incentive to not desert? 

I agree typically the punishment is death & maybe it should have been in this case too but there are atypical circumstances that led to Jon not killing him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

He isn't. He is no longer welcome in the order. If deserters were allowed to remain a member of the NW upon their return what would be the punishment or incentive to not desert? 

Exactly. It’s a silly argument and makes no sense. Shocking, I know.

1 minute ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I agree typically the punishment is death & maybe it should have been in this case too but there are atypical circumstances that led to Jon not killing him. 

Yeah, again, I agree. Special circumstances and all. And what you said earlier, too. About Mance being an asset, and someone who they can trust to join in the fight against the undead that is coming. Even Stannis recognises this, it is a fact. But, again, it’s the same problem... absolute obedience is stupid; following every law or regulation blindly no matter what is stupid; blindly sticking to every vow no matter what is... wait for it... stupid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Exactly. It’s a silly argument and makes no sense. Shocking, I know.

Yeah, again, I agree. Special circumstances and all. And what you said earlier, too. About Mance being an asset, and someone who they can trust to join in the fight against the undead that is coming. Even Stannis recognises this, it is a fact. But, again, it’s the same problem... absolute obedience is stupid; following every law or regulation blindly no matter what is stupid; blindly sticking to every vow no matter what is... wait for it... stupid. 

For sure. Mance isn't going to fit into this neat little box of rules because it's a special circumstance.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/2/2019 at 10:12 AM, kissdbyfire said:

This. 

I mean, both can align at at times, but they don’t necessarily walk hand in hand. 

And that’s why I keep saying that duty and honour are not the same thing, and that characters and readers are left to make up their own minds in most if not all instances. 

Duty, for instance is sticking to one’s vows, no matter what. Like, say, guarding your queen’s bedroom door and listening while her hubby the king beats her and rapes her, and doing nothing b/c “my kg vows”.

Whereas honour is doing the right thing, even if that means going against your vows, it’s doing the right, no matter how hard or difficult. 

I agree that for the most part honor trumps duty in the moral department but honor doesnt always equate to doing the right thing. For instance Jon pretending to deflect to Mance was against his honor.

Sometimes duty over honor is the right thing as well. Like when Jaime thinks over Joffreys death. Honor means capturing his killer and avenging his king, while duty is to payback Tyrion or send Brienne to look after Sansa.

Or when Jon deserted to avenge his father and fight for Robb and Starks honor, duty brought him back to the Wall.

Sometimes honor is doing the wrong thing. Like Walder reinstating Frey honor after Robbs betrayal

On 12/1/2019 at 11:58 AM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

So, I don't mean that deserting gets you out of your oath, I mean that after you have deserted you no long have the option of returning to serve as a black brother of the NW, if that makes sense? 

Well that all depends on the LC id say. The Old Bear excused Jon for his 15 minutes of desertion so the precedent is there. 

The wall needs men, itd be silly to treat deserters who came back with a sword instead of open arms.

Especially if said deserter was as good of a swordsmen as Mance, especially when he commands the respect of the wildlings and has extensive knowledge on the geography of both sides of the wall. And especially when hes battled more wights then any one in known history

On 12/1/2019 at 11:58 AM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

So in a sense he has been released from his vows because he broke them. At this point he is only subject to the punishment - which is usually death. 

To themselves they may think theyre released. To the rest of Westeros theyre no different then a common outlaw or one of Roberts bastards. 

But to the LC, idk, like you say; Usually death isnt always death.

On 12/1/2019 at 12:07 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Yeah & probably the other NW members too. 

Oh, them. Yea they especially wont be happy.

On 12/1/2019 at 12:07 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Yeah I would think only the LC can pardon someone. What happens if say, Jon didn't kill Mance but then Jon dies & another LC comes along & decides he will not suffer an oath breaker. Does the first LC's decision stand? Or does the next one get to make his own decision?

Good question. Its certainly a possible scenario in the future.

Id say yea, like Cersei ripping Roberts will in court. We have a new king now. LCs are similar to kings, as in they act like absolute rulers. They can do whatever they want really, call it justice or call it murder, but all of their constituents are their men to do as they please

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/2/2019 at 5:40 PM, Sire de Maletroit said:

 

What people want is not important.  Mance Rayder is still part of the order.  Jon should have executed the man but he chose not to.  That did not give Mance a discharge from the order.  He is a member of the order as long he has not permanently stopped breathing. 

Correct.  I agree.  Mance is not released from his vows.

What the brothers want and how they feel are not important.  @Lyanna<3Rhaegar It matters not whether they want to welcome a deserter.  The deserter remains a brother of the watch.  Just because some dumbass commander like Jon Snow gave the perpetrator a pass does not mean he is no longer obligated to the watch.  Mance Rayder is still tied to the watch for as long as he is breathing and his heart is beating. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Lord of the Crossing said:

Correct.  I agree.  Mance is not released from his vows.

What the brothers want and how they feel are not important.  @Lyanna<3Rhaegar It matters not whether they want to welcome a deserter.  The deserter remains a brother of the watch.  Just because some dumbass commander like Jon Snow gave the perpetrator a pass does not mean he is no longer obligated to the watch.  Mance Rayder is still tied to the watch for as long as he is breathing and his heart is beating. 

I don't see how. We don't have one other instance where a deserter is welcomed back into the watch & in an institution where the leader is elected by majority vote & the members greatly outnumber the leader, I think it would make the LC a dumbass to ignore what the members of the watch want. 

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that Jon should or shouldn't have executed Mance nor am I saying Mance is not lawfully subject to punishment. What I am saying is that he is no longer a brother of the NW. He deserted, he left his post, he is no longer worthy or trusted to hold that station & thus is not the same as the other members of the NW. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bowen Marsh said:

Ahhhhh the debate that never dies. 

 

 

Well, it never dies because some people repeatedly spew the same nonsense & when faced with facts & quotes from the text they either ignore it or don't reply. 

That's not to say there aren't things worth discussing & many grey areas. Honestly I think for the most part this thread was a great discussion 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/5/2019 at 3:32 AM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

What I am saying is that he is no longer a brother of the NW. He deserted, he left his post, he is no longer worthy or trusted to hold that station & thus is not the same as the other members of the NW. 

I'm not sure it works like that. Theoretically, worthy or not, foresworn or not, only his death can release him from the vows. Like, if you break law, you are still subject to it and its punishment. Yet, he is definitely not a brother any more... man, I don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mance broke his vows and he should have died for that. Especially after he not only deserted but actively tried to destroy the Night's Watch and all it stood for.

This is especially important because it is the simple fact that you know you are killed when you desert that keeps the NW together as an institution. They are essentially all scum up there - if they realized they did not have to do as they are told, remain on their post, etc. they would just all go their separate ways.

In fact, chances are not that bad that things like that will happen soon. They suffered so many losses and the people in charge did so many shitty things that chances are not that low that things like the Lord Commander deserting/declaring war on the Seven Kingdoms, him being killed, Mance Rayder being spared, etc. is going to cause the average black brother to call it a day, abandon the Wall and try to raid and rape himself through a defenseless North. It is not that the lords would have much power to stop them or be able to prioritize hunting down small parties of outlaws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/29/2019 at 11:18 PM, Nevets said:

@Lord Varys @Lyanna<3Rhaegar

I don't think Mance is Jon's man, exactly.  If he's anyone's it's Mel's.  There is the ruby, plus she is the reason he is still alive.

That goes directly against the text. Mance Rayder is Jon's man in a legal and feudal sense from the moment Stannis hands Rattleshirt over to Jon and Mance himself says that he is Jon's man.

He also follows Mel's lead who played a crucial role in saving his life. But in legal sense Mance is no longer Stannis's men but Jon's. Melisandre of Asshai is no ruler or lady in her own right. She is just Stannis' mistress and advisor. She has no men of her own and only informal influence and authority. All the men she has are those Stannis has given her ... and Mance Rayder clearly is not one of those.

On 11/29/2019 at 11:18 PM, Nevets said:

Mance specifically tells Jon he needs women so that Arya will trust him.  No reason for Jon to doubt that.  He probably thinks that, if Arya sees a bunch of strange men, she will think they are Ramsay's, and will hide, or even fight them.  What Mance's ploy was, I don't know.  I don't know if Jon knows either.

It makes no sense to speculate what Jon may have known if we don't get the information what he did know. What we do know is that Jon unleashed a man on the North who murdered people in Winterfell and abducted Lady Bolton and he is responsible for that.

Even if Jon had no clue about any of what Mance did or intended to do - that still doesn't get him off the hook. And the character as described by George R. R. Martin knows and understands that. Jon is his father's son in this regard. Like Ned he takes responsibility for both his own actions as well as those done by his people. Mance's actions are Jon's - he makes them his own when he reads the Pink Letter to the crowd at the Shieldhall. He tells all the world what was done at his behest and then tells them all 'FUCK YOU!' because he now has a wildling army and can rouse them to actually attack the Boltons.

It is like Ned did when he took Tyrion's abduction on himself, making Cat's action not only his own but something he, Ned, had commanded, never mind that this was a blatant lie.

People trying to make it appear Jon didn't know what he was doing or didn't take responsibility for Mance's actions there does a disservice to the character. He understood what he was doing and he owns that. One might not agree with what he was doing (I certainly don't although I definitely understand why he did that) but one has to admit that he owned his actions, especially in the end. That's the reason why they killed him, after all.

On 11/29/2019 at 11:18 PM, Nevets said:

I very much doubt that Jon had any idea that Mance would go to Winterfell.  It is quite clear from his previous thoughts that he felt he could not help Arya so long as she was in Ramsay's control.  It was only the belief that she had escaped that led him to accept help for her.  And even then, he is one step removed from it, as he might be able to claim that Mance is Mel's man doing her bidding (or so Jon hopes).

Sure, that's how Mel tries to sell it to Jon - but informing and asking for Jon's permission to do it - and him giving it - undermines all that. It makes Jon the person who sanctioned the plan.

Unlike you Jon has the grace to publicly admit to what he did and take responsibility to it. He did not denounce Ramsay as a liar or washed his hands of responsibility of Mance's actions by pointing the finger at Melisandre, claiming what Ramsay had written in the letter was a lie. No, he stands by what Mance did for him and his sister and part of the reason why he wants to march at Winterfell is to free him.

On 11/29/2019 at 11:18 PM, Nevets said:

My guess is that he planned to sneak Arya into and out of Castle Black without anybody noticing or knowing who she is, probably sending her to Braavos.  Whether any of this is wise, or legal, is debatable.  But doing something  unwise and illegal merely puts him in the mainstream for characters in ASOIAF.  I, for one, wholly approve.

Whether you approve or not is pretty much irrelevant. And it is quite clear that we all approve that neither Arya nor Jeyne should ever be at the mercy of a creature like Ramsay. The issue is just whether it was right that Jon as a man of the Watch and their Lord Commander should have done what he did and, more importantly, whether by the rights and customs of the society they all lived a man like Ramsay was not justified by what Jon and Mance did to demand satisfaction for those actions. Not to mention that Marsh and company definitely were also justified in putting down Jon like a mad dog (sort of like many other corrupt Lord Commanders were in the past) because his actions and intentions had endangered the Watch.

The fact just remains that Jon had no right to offer his sister sanctuary or help. And even less so help her escape.

Even the Karstark thing might come back to haunt Jon. He effectively handed Karhold to the Thenns. What's going to happen if Alys and Sigorn set themselves up as effectively rulers of the Karstark lands and Harrion comes back alive and demands what is his? What if he doesn't suffer wildling savages on his lands, eating his meager winter provisions?

You can compare Jon's situation to that of Lord Commander Hoare during the Conquest or to the hypothetical scenario of Aemon harboring or supporting or plotting with Viserys III. If King Robert had found out anything about that - in fact, if Mormont or Ned had found out about it - Aemon's head would have rolled - and justifiably so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ygrain said:

I'm not sure it works like that. Theoretically, worthy or not, foresworn or not, only his death can release him from the vows. Like, if you break law, you are still subject to it and its punishment. Yet, he is definitely not a brother any more... man, I don't know.

Right that's exactly what I mean. It is muddy for sure but yeah only death can release you, he is still subject to punishment, but isn't a brother anymore. It's odd for sure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Mance broke his vows and he should have died for that. Especially after he not only deserted but actively tried to destroy the Night's Watch and all it stood for.

This is especially important because it is the simple fact that you know you are killed when you desert that keeps the NW together as an institution. They are essentially all scum up there - if they realized they did not have to do as they are told, remain on their post, etc. they would just all go their separate ways.

In fact, chances are not that bad that things like that will happen soon. They suffered so many losses and the people in charge did so many shitty things that chances are not that low that things like the Lord Commander deserting/declaring war on the Seven Kingdoms, him being killed, Mance Rayder being spared, etc. is going to cause the average black brother to call it a day, abandon the Wall and try to raid and rape himself through a defenseless North. It is not that the lords would have much power to stop them or be able to prioritize hunting down small parties of outlaws.

Yeah, I'm conflicted about whether or not Mance should die. From a legal standpoint he should absolutely. From a moral standpoint though I'm not so sure. He is good man & a good leader. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Yeah, I'm conflicted about whether or not Mance should die. From a legal standpoint he should absolutely. From a moral standpoint though I'm not so sure. He is good man & a good leader. 

He appears that way, yes. He is a very sympathetic guy. But think about what he did. He wanted to destroy the Night's Watch and the Wall. And he worked with men who cruelly murdered his own brothers, and did do the very same thing himself.

Mance would have been a great man if he had tried to offer negotiations and information about the Others before marshalling an army. But he never did that. He never intended to use reason or diplomacy to get access to the Seven Kingdoms - he tried to use force. He never even seems to have considered that he was playing into the hands of the Others with his entire campaign.

17 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Right that's exactly what I mean. It is muddy for sure but yeah only death can release you, he is still subject to punishment, but isn't a brother anymore. It's odd for sure. 

He is the same kind of guy Gared was. A deserter, a turncloak, an oathbreaker. And unlike Gared, proud of all that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Yeah, I'm conflicted about whether or not Mance should die. From a legal standpoint he should absolutely. From a moral standpoint though I'm not so sure. He is good man & a good leader. 

Which is why the choice to let him live is also very pragmatic - he is able, and can be trusted. Unlike Slynt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That goes directly against the text. Mance Rayder is Jon's man in a legal and feudal sense from the moment Stannis hands Rattleshirt over to Jon and Mance himself says that he is Jon's man

It doesn't. We have text, we have quoted it, showing Mance is Mel's man. If you take the earlier text to mean certainly, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he is Jon's man then how can you ignore the later text showing he is literally bound to Melisandre?

 

36 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

He also follows Mel's lead who played a crucial role in saving his life. But in legal sense Mance is no longer Stannis's men but Jon's.

Well this is where it gets muddy to me. Mance is only Jon's man in a legal sense if he is a brother of the NW & he is not. I agree Jon would be in his legal rights to execute Mance because he is a deserter of the NW but in order to be under Jon's command he should be a member. There mere fact that Mance was under Stannis's command muddies it up even more. If Mance is under Stannis's command then he is not Jon's man. Stannis gave him a man to utilize but in this sense he is no different than the other wildlings or men that have not taken the black but have agreed to follow Jon's orders in regards to defense of the wall. 

39 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Melisandre of Asshai is no ruler or lady in her own right. She is just Stannis' mistress and advisor. She has no men of her own and only informal influence and authority. All the men she has are those Stannis has given her ... and Mance Rayder clearly is not one of those.

I don't think you can ignore the special circumstances surrounding Mance. Context matters. I would argue Stannis is, himself, Mel's man. Mance clearly is a man she has either been given by Stannis or she has taken for her own. If she took him for her own then she obviously does have enough authority to do that, because she has. 

43 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

It makes no sense to speculate what Jon may have known if we don't get the information what he did know. What we do know is that Jon unleashed a man on the North who murdered people in Winterfell and abducted Lady Bolton and he is responsible for that.

But you are arguing he did know. Is the same not true either way? 

What we do know is that Jon was complicit in a plot to rescue his sister upon fleeing from a sadist. That's it. He had no cause to believe Mance was going to murder anyone, nor does he hold responsibility for that. It's absurd to say one man murdering another is someone else's responsibility. 

45 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Even if Jon had no clue about any of what Mance did or intended to do - that still doesn't get him off the hook. And the character as described by George R. R. Martin knows and understands that. Jon is his father's son in this regard. Like Ned he takes responsibility for both his own actions as well as those done by his people. Mance's actions are Jon's - he makes them his own when he reads the Pink Letter to the crowd at the Shieldhall. He tells all the world what was done at his behest and then tells them all 'FUCK YOU!' because he now has a wildling army and can rouse them to actually attack the Boltons.

Correct, Jon understands he holds some weight in this, but Mance's actions are not Jon's. When does Ned take responsibility for something his "people" did? He took responsibility for something his wife did but that wasn't because it was his responsibility or his fault - the exact opposite is true actually. It was not his responsibility or his fault, he took it because he was protecting his wife. For this argument to have relevance you would need to be saying Jon took responsibility for Mance's actions to protect Mance & he clearly didn't. He feels some regret or worries that he might feel some regret for his role in the whole thing but this was not a one man job. Jon does not hold sole responsibility here. Of him, Mel, & Mance he is the least responsible. 

Reading the PL does not make Mance's actions Jon's. How so? If reading the pink letter to the world was telling them Mance's actions were his own & that they were done at his behest, why in the world would Jon read the letter aloud to everyone? He read the letter aloud to offer some explanation for what he was about to do. He wanted people to understand what he was fighting for & why. 

I've read the speech he gave to them several times & have hard time gathering a 'FUCK YOU!' from it. 

51 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

People trying to make it appear Jon didn't know what he was doing or didn't take responsibility for Mance's actions there does a disservice to the character. He understood what he was doing and he owns that. One might not agree with what he was doing (I certainly don't although I definitely understand why he did that) but one has to admit that he owned his actions, especially in the end. That's the reason why they killed him, after all.

Yes he understood what he was doing & takes the blame for what he did. People that attribute malicious intentions to Jon's actions or place blame on him where it doesn't belong are the ones doing him a disservice. 

53 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, that's how Mel tries to sell it to Jon - but informing and asking for Jon's permission to do it - and him giving it - undermines all that. It makes Jon the person who sanctioned the plan.

He ok'd it yes. She never asked permission. There isn't anywhere in that passage where he is asked permission for them to do this thing. Mel tells him of the plan to see his reaction because her goal is to get him to trust her. When he has a negative reaction to Rattleshirt going she changes the plan. Jon allowing Mel & Mance to follow through with this does not undermine the fact that he didn't know Mance was going to infiltrate WF, help fArya escape from there, or murder people. We don't even know if Mel knew this. 

56 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Unlike you Jon has the grace to publicly admit to what he did and take responsibility to it. He did not denounce Ramsay as a liar or washed his hands of responsibility of Mance's actions by pointing the finger at Melisandre, claiming what Ramsay had written in the letter was a lie. No, he stands by what Mance did for him and his sister and part of the reason why he wants to march at Winterfell is to free him.

The only thing Ramsay accuses him of in the PL is lying about burning Mance - we know this isn't a lie & that Jon very much believed he witnessed Mance being burned & didn't find out until later it wasn't Mance. So he wasn't lying when Mance was burned & No man among them other than Tormund during the initial reading even questions it so there really isn't any reason to deny or explain considering it was not his ploy to tell. 

He actually specifically says why he is marching to WF & it isn't to free Mance. 

"It is not for us to oppose the bastard of Bolton, to avenge Stannis Baratheon, to defend his widow and daughter. This creature who makes cloaks from the skins of women has sworn to cut my heart out, and I mean to make him answer for those words."

 

He means to make the bastard of Bolton answer for his words. 

As to the bolded what should @Nevets admit publicly to? This is an ad hominem fallacy, implying Nevets does not have grace or is somehow wrong by having a different opinion as to what Jon is responsible for. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Whether you approve or not is pretty much irrelevant. And it is quite clear that we all approve that neither Arya nor Jeyne should ever be at the mercy of a creature like Ramsay. The issue is just whether it was right that Jon as a man of the Watch and their Lord Commander should have done what he did and, more importantly, whether by the rights and customs of the society they all lived a man like Ramsay was not justified by what Jon and Mance did to demand satisfaction for those actions. Not to mention that Marsh and company definitely were also justified in putting down Jon like a mad dog (sort of like many other corrupt Lord Commanders were in the past) because his actions and intentions had endangered the Watch.

I think Jon as the LC of the NW should absolutely have done what he did. The things Ramsay does are not justified in any setting, ever. 

This is my issue with the arguments - Jon shouldn't have executed Slynt (a waste of good oxygen) but should have executed Mance (someone with much more to offer the world). Jon was wrong in even allowing Mance to attempt to help Arya but Marsh & co were absolutely right to execute Jon. You may not mean it this way but it very much comes across as hypocritical & bias against Jon. It seems as if no matter what is done, if Jon does it he is wrong, & on the other side no matter what is done, if it's harmful to Jon in some way then it is right. 

I'm only aware of the NK being put down, were there others? 

How have his actions endangered the watch? He commanded the men of the NW to ride for Hardholme - something that I think probably had more to do with the assassination attempt than Jon's decision to ride for WF but he wasn't wrong in this either. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

The fact just remains that Jon had no right to offer his sister sanctuary or help. And even less so help her escape.

Well, he hasn't offered her sanctuary or helped her escape so that wouldn't have had anything to do with the mutiny. I would point out though he offered Alys sanctuary & no one tried to kill him for it. 

The issue to me is - it is always, always, always, right to do the right thing. Regardless of laws or rules, duties or responsibilities. You cannot use the excuse that you are just doing what you are told if you are doing something wrong. You are supposed to do what is right regardless of what you are told. Not everyone has the strength to do that & I understand that fully but the people who do shouldn't be ridiculed for it. 

It is never morally wrong to offer an innocent person sanctuary from a life threatening situation. I'm not aware of any rules for the NW where this is contradicted & when the rules were set forth it was a very different situation than what we have now. There don't seem to be many hard & fast rules in the NW & a lot is left up to the LC. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

He appears that way, yes. He is a very sympathetic guy. But think about what he did. He wanted to destroy the Night's Watch and the Wall. And he worked with men who cruelly murdered his own brothers, and did do the very same thing himself.

Yeah, on the flip side of this the NW has killed his men also. Maybe the NW should be destroyed? or at the very least revamped. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Mance would have been a great man if he had tried to offer negotiations and information about the Others before marshalling an army. But he never did that. He never intended to use reason or diplomacy to get access to the Seven Kingdoms - he tried to use force. He never even seems to have considered that he was playing into the hands of the Others with his entire campaign.

He had no reason to believe any negotiations would be heard though. The LC of the NW could have offered negotiations with the wildlings at any point & never did either - that doesn't mean all the LC's were bad men. He intended to use force because it was the only way to save his people. I don't know how that plays into the hands of the Others but if it does it's not because Mance wanted it that way, its because he didn't see it the way you do. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

He is the same kind of guy Gared was. A deserter, a turncloak, an oathbreaker. And unlike Gared, proud of all that.

Sure, he is also a natural born leader, smart, open minded, & a good King - I would be proud of these things also. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

Which is why the choice to let him live is also very pragmatic - he is able, and can be trusted. Unlike Slynt.

I agree. I do understand from a legal standpoint people arguing he should have been executed, because we are told that deserting = death. But clearly this is not a typical situation & just because deserting usually = death does not mean it always has to. 

People argue that Jon "deserted" & thus is the same as Mance Rayder. While I wholly disagree, is this not further proof that deserting does not always = death? That the how's & why's of the situation are up to the LC to judge? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

That the how's & why's of the situation are up to the LC to judge? 

That's my reading, as well. The death punishment is customary but not codified. I believe that if the LC has a profound reason, it might be within his authority to decide otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...