Jump to content

On Janos Slynt


kissdbyfire

Recommended Posts

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.

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

How has he played into the hands of the Others?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 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.

Oh he is still a brother of the watch.  Being wanted has no effect on his status.  After all, nobody wanted Samwell Tarly.  But they had to take him.  A coward is a dangerous person to have at the wall because he can never be depended on.  Yet they took him.  Mance Rayder can't escape his oaths to the watch.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours 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.

We have been told from the beginning that desertion is very bad and the consequence is nothing less than death.  That scene with Gared was shown to us to make it clear that everybody knew the consequences.  To remove any excuse in the future.  Jon witnessed it and should have known better than to spare Mance Rayder.  His inconsistency created injustice.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours 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.

Mance Rayder is not a good man.  He can't really be trusted.  Both men should have been judged equally because they both belonged to the same order.  Either let both live or execute both.  Jon showed favoritism and bias.  

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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

I don't believe so.  Mance could have taken his wildlings at the wall, unarmed and on their knees.  They could have immediately offered to swear fealty and obedience to the laws of the seven kingdoms and give up the wildling ways for good, offered their labor,  in return for sanctuary.  But oh no.  He chose to come in force because he wanted the least compromise.  That freedom-loving and rules-hating criminal caused the deaths of many watch brothers.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

I don't believe so.  Mance could have taken his wildlings at the wall, unarmed and on their knees. 

Right he could have but that would be a poor decision I think. 

9 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

They could have immediately offered to swear fealty and obedience to the laws of the seven kingdoms and give up the wildling ways for good, offered their labor,  in return for sanctuary.

Why would they give up their freedom willingly to just be able to survive? Why not fight the watch & insist they give up their anti-wildling ways for good? 

10 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

But oh no.  He chose to come in force because he wanted the least compromise.  That freedom-loving and rules-hating criminal caused the deaths of many watch brothers. 

& the freedom hating rule loving brothers have caused the death of many wildlings also. 

I don't really think the watch is freedom hating but they are rule loving & why would freedom loving be a bad thing? Rules aren't right just because they are rules. I'm sure you've heard this argument before but it was once legal to own slaves. It was illegal to help them escape slavery. But it was as wrong then as it is in this instance. 

Why should Mance & Co bow down to the rules of the watch or of the realm when the watch nor the realm take their well-being or way of life into consideration when these laws are set forth? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

6 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Mance Rayder is not a good man.  He can't really be trusted.  Both men should have been judged equally because they both belonged to the same order.  Either let both live or execute both.  Jon showed favoritism and bias.  

I don't believe so.  Mance could have taken his wildlings at the wall, unarmed and on their knees.  They could have immediately offered to swear fealty and obedience to the laws of the seven kingdoms and give up the wildling ways for good, offered their labor,  in return for sanctuary.  But oh no.  He chose to come in force because he wanted the least compromise.  That freedom-loving and rules-hating criminal caused the deaths of many watch brothers.  

Ah, bullshit. Mance chaffed under the NW's rigid rules which were, ultimately, no use anyway, and he fought the NW because there was no way any agreement with them could be reached, due to their rigid perceptions of their duty. The NW wouldn't have let them in under any circumstances - look at the shit Jon gets for letting them in, even though they were basically doing what you said.

Unlike Slynt, Mance knew who the real enemy was and was willing to cooperate. Slynt refused to believe.

And just BTW, Jon actually ordered Mance to be killed. Not his problem that Mel pulled her little scheme, the exposure of which would have harmed the NW's alliance with Stannis. Blame Mel if you want to blame anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

The NW wouldn't have let them in under any circumstances - look at the shit Jon gets for letting them in, even though they were basically doing what you said.

Right! Look at the shit Jon gets in for returning from a spy mission with the wildlings - they almost killed him! Can you imagine what they would have done to Mance? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, redriver said:

How has he played into the hands of the Others?

By uniting the wildlings against the NW and the Seven Kingdoms. Mance played right into the hands of the Others, just as pretty much anyone at the Wall did up to this point.

1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

Unlike Slynt, Mance knew who the real enemy was and was willing to cooperate. Slynt refused to believe.

Mance murdered his ranger brothers and tried to destroy the Night's Watch and invade the Seven Kingdoms. He cooperated with no one and never made any attempt to use diplomacy. He certainly jumped on the chance Stannis and Mel gave him not to burn - but that's not cooperation. That's saving your own skin.

1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

And just BTW, Jon actually ordered Mance to be killed. Not his problem that Mel pulled her little scheme, the exposure of which would have harmed the NW's alliance with Stannis. Blame Mel if you want to blame anyone.

Jon should have killed Mance and Melisandre the moment he found out what they did - and he should have denounced Stannis as liar and false king after had Mel's and Mance's heads on spikes.

That would have been a way to restore the honor of the Watch. Instead he became a willing participant and co-conspirator in their little schemes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Ah, bullshit. Mance chaffed under the NW's rigid rules which were, ultimately, no use anyway, and he fought the NW because there was no way any agreement with them could be reached, due to their rigid perceptions of their duty. The NW wouldn't have let them in under any circumstances - look at the shit Jon gets for letting them in, even though they were basically doing what you said.

 

This x 1,000. The NW lost sight of their true purpose a long time ago and became a penal colony. I’m willing to bet even the vows (as they are now) have changed over millennia. I’m feeling lazy so won’t go into it much now, but... if we think about the centuries when the Wall was being built, the whole “no wife, lands, title whathaveyou” it makes no sense whatsoever. It’s safe to assume the land near the Wall was even less populated than now, and those involved in its construction probably had their families nearby. I think back in the day there were little villages/settlements where the 19 castles are now. All FM, of course. And now, thanks to Jon’s initiative, pragmatism, and commitment to defending the realms of men, we have again a majority of FM at the Wall. There’s a nice little hint in Dance. I think the influx of FM blood at the Wall will play a part in the near future. 

ADwD, Jon XII

“As you say, Lord Snow.” The words were stiff. The tone suggested that Bowen Marsh knew where he would put them.
The castle Jon returned to was far different from the one he’d left that morning. For as long as he had known it, Castle Black had been a place of silence and shadows, where a meagre company of men in black moved like ghosts amongst the ruins of a fortress that had once housed ten times their numbers. All that had changed. Lights now shone through windows where Jon Snow had never seen lights shine before. Strange voices echoed down the yards, and free folk were coming and going along icy paths that had only known the black boots of crows for years. Outside the old Flint Barracks, he came across a dozen men pelting one another with snow. Playing, Jon thought in astonishment, grown men playing like children, throwing snowballs the way Bran and Arya once did, and Robb and me before them.”

 

2 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Unlike Slynt, Mance knew who the real enemy was and was willing to cooperate. Slynt refused to believe.

Refused to believe, acted like a proper arsehole, counted on his buddies getting him out of the mess he made, and when he realised no one would lift a finger, behaved like the cowardly moron he is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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?

Don't you understand the difference there? Legally, Melisandre is no one. She doesn't hold lands, titles, or crowns. She is nothing in the legal sphere. Jon Snow is the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch and Mance entered his service after Stannis gave him to Jon. Melisandre is, in a sense, also Jon's woman. She remained at the Wall to advise Jon. She is also Stannis' woman, of course, but she works with and for Jon, not against him, just as Stannis does.

4 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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.

That's just wrong. Jon takes men into his service who do not take the black. All the wildlings for instance, who become Jon's responsibility (i.e. his men) after Stannis leaves the Wall. It was the price for Jon's help in the Deepwood issue.

4 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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. 

Those are then all Jon's men and are rightfully seen as such by other parties. What you are doing here is pretend some guy doing stuff for Beric Dondarrion in the Riverlands isn't his man because he is not formally sworn to him. Which would just be nonsense.

In Mance's case we even have some sort of feudal obligation established - Mance himself tells us that he would do whatever Jon commanded him to do aside from wearing black.

4 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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.

Stannis might do what Mel advises, but he is not her man because she has only informal power.

And it is quite clear that the ruby is just the glamor. We see in Mel's own chapter that she can neither read Mance's thoughts nor control him directly in any way.

4 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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

I think it is very likely that Jon was not stupid enough to believe Mance would just pick up a girl on the road - he would not have needed Mance to do that. But if it this were the case it is quite clear that Jon is responsible for everything Mance did at KL.

A Frey would weasel out of his responsibility with legal prattle. A Stark would eat the meal he cooked for himself and praise the poison.

4 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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.

Not in this context. Jon unleashed one of his vassals/sworn men and had them infiltrate another man's cause, abducting the lady of said castle and murdering a bunch of people in the process of that.

What Ramsay is has nothing to do with any of that - not to mention that Jon essentially knows nothing about Ramsay but rumors. His knowledge does not justify what he authorizes Mance to do.

4 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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. 

Ned makes the actions of his wife his own - he could have also distanced himself from her actions. Ned also decided to marry the betrothed of his late brother, honoring the word House Stark had given the Tullys. Lyanna took it upon herself to protect her father's bannermen from those squires - and correctly blamed their knightly masters for the transgressions of said squires. Gregor Clegane and Amory Lorch as seen as brutes doing their master's bidding, not as loose cannons who raped and murdered royal women and children because they felt like it.

If you want to create a scenario where anyone would interpret Mance as an independent operative not acting in Jon Snow's name you have to change the rules of Westerosi feudal society.

4 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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. 

He gave a Caesar-like speech, admitting to his crimes by reading the letter, making it clear he didn't give a damn and manipulating people into joining him by creating a scenario where he would march alone against the enemy if nobody joined him.

4 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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

He makes that clear in his thoughts when he admits he no longer leads Marsh and the gang because he now has the wildlings.

4 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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. 

There are no malicious actions there, just illegal actions that actually give the Boltons the right to strike back at him. Ramsay is justified to write the Pink Letter - perhaps his threats are a bit too much but his demands are not.

4 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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. 

If Jon had refused to allow Mance to leave CB he would have stayed there - or he would have to sneak away in the night and be hunted down like the deserter that he is. He gave Mance permission to go, hence the Boltons have every right to blame Jon for Mance's actions. He threw the first stone.

4 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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. 

Ramsay has no way of knowing that, nor has anyone at CB.

4 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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."

But one certainly assumes that he would also free Mance were he still alive when he took Winterfell, no? And the wildlings assembled likely care much more about Mance than, you know, kill some guy they don't know.

4 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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. 

It is clear what Jon is responsible for by the rules of the society he lives in. There is no reason to free Jon from his responsibility by pointing at Mel, Mance, or anybody but Jon.

4 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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.

Jon as Lord Commander of the NW has no right to involve himself in the affairs of the Seven Kingdoms.

4 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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 think if Jon deserved as many second chances as he got Slynt would also have deserved another.

A man who cares about justice wouldn't have executed Mance. I understand why they did not, but executing Slynt and painting him as the most evil guy alive and praise Jon for this thing is hypcrisy if one doesn't admit that Jon then should also have killed Mance. Because Mance committed much, much worse crimes than Slynt ever did.

4 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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

Sure, Runcel Hightower and a couple of others.

4 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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. 

Allowing Mance to go endangered the Watch. The Boltons now have a right to reataliate and if Ramsay told the truth they are all dead if they resist. The wildlings and NW would never stand a chance against the Boltons. Not if they crushed Stannis.

4 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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.

He could afford to do that because he made a gamble. The Karstarks were essentially all with Arnolf - and he hoped Stannis would deal with them.

4 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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.

But there is no clear right or wrong in this series. That's the entire point of characters being in various moral conflicts.

Risking the lives of essentially mankind for Arya is not the right thing. And it was mankind which was at stake if Jon were crucial in the fight against the Others but might get himself killed by the Boltons before they made their move. Even if mankind would survive it it definitely endangered all the men under his command.

Jon no longer has a right to favor his family after he has taken black - especially after he has become Lord Commander.

4 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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. 

With Arya the problem were that once the Boltons found out about that they might be unwilling to let this offense unanswered. They might decide to destroy the NW - meaning Jon would be indirectly responsible for a conflict that could get his men and institution destroyed. His duty is to stay out of the conflicts of the Seven Kingdoms, not participate in them.

4 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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.

The Watch has no trouble with the wildlings whatsoever. Only with those who cross the Wall and invade their lands (the Gifts) and the Seven Kingdoms beyond. The Watch doesn't patrol the lands beyond the Wall to butcher every wildling they find - only raiders who cross the Wall.

There are wildlings named Alfyn Crowkiller - but there are no black brothers known as 'Wildlingkiller'.

The NW existed for thousands of years and this system works just fine. There is no need to change any of their internal rules. The approach to the wildlings - sure. But not the rule to leave everything behind when you take the black.

4 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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. 

Mance was the wildling king. He assembled an army and marched against the Wall and actually tried to keep his plans as a secret for as long as possible. He found out about the Others and never bothered to inform his former brothers nor did he ever offer an alliance to anyone. I mean, you do recall that this guy was a fucking Winterfell, right? And did he do anything to inform Eddard Stark or Robert Baratheon of the danger they were all in? No, he did not.

Mormont had no reason to reach out to Mance until the wight attack - and then he went on a ranging to find out what was going on.

4 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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

You would be proud of breaking your vows, turning your back on your friends and leading a war against them???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

You would be proud of breaking your vows, turning your back on your friends and leading a war against them???

If my so-called friends were a bunch of xenophobic bigoted arseholes who would deny me and thousands more passage into a safe[r] place, they probably wouldn’t be my friends in the first place. But I’ll answer your question, for argument’s sake: damn straight I would. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

If my so-called friends were a bunch of xenophobic bigoted arseholes who would deny me and thousands more passage into a safe[r] place, they probably wouldn’t be my friends in the first place. But I’ll answer your question, for argument’s sake: damn straight I would. 

I don't recall asking you about that, did I ;-)?

Mance betrayed and turned his back on his friends long before he tried to save some new friends of his - and he never actually asked his old friends whether they would allow his new friends to pass through the Wall, did he?

As I said, that turncloak scumbag actually sat in Winterfell with Eddard Stark and Robert Baratheon - and did he tell him about the plight of his people? About the bad situation they were in? That they needed help against the enemies of mankind?

No, he did not. I don't understand why he didn't do that but he did not. He also never made any attempts to tell Mormont or Qhorin or any of his other old friends what was going on.

[And I'm aware that revealing himself at Winterfell may have meant his death but being there he could have taken some wildlings with him who were not turncloak scumbags and who could have approached Ned or Benjen or Robert. That he did not reflects very badly on him. The only sense I can make of that weirdo personal issues of his meant more to him than the safety of his people.]

Attacking the Watch and depleting its strength and destroying the gates in the Wall itself all played in the hands of the Others. Regardless whether Mance knew it or not - he was the greatest ally of the Others which is likely also the reason why the Others allowed him to marshal his army in the first place. They only attacked the Watch at the Fist, they never made an attempt to take down Mance's host - likely because the Others knew their attack on the Wall would profit them, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Not in this context. Jon unleashed one of his vassals/sworn men and had them infiltrate another man's cause, abducting the lady of said castle and murdering a bunch of people in the process of that.

What Ramsay is has nothing to do with any of that - not to mention that Jon essentially knows nothing about Ramsay but rumors. His knowledge does not justify what he authorizes Mance to do.

This again? How many quotes have people put here that jon authorized mance to help a girl ridding a dying horse near a lake?

He never authorized mance to infiltrate winterfel, or to abudct anyone and much less to kill someone. That was mance doing whatever he wants.

45 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Ned makes the actions of his wife his own - he could have also distanced himself from her actions. Ned also decided to marry the betrothed of his late brother, honoring the word House Stark had given the Tullys. Lyanna took it upon herself to protect her father's bannermen from those squires - and correctly blamed their knightly masters for the transgressions of said squires. Gregor Clegane and Amory Lorch as seen as brutes doing their master's bidding, not as loose cannons who raped and murdered royal women and children because they felt like it.

If you want to create a scenario where anyone would interpret Mance as an independent operative not acting in Jon Snow's name you have to change the rules of Westerosi feudal society.

Is robb responsable for jaime's cut hand? Is ballon responsable for theon taking winterfell and faking the starks deaths? Is Jaime responsable for tyrion killing tywin? Is ned responsable for beric creating the BwB?

NO. People sometimes disobey orders and do whatever they want. 

51 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

He gave a Caesar-like speech, admitting to his crimes by reading the letter, making it clear he didn't give a damn and manipulating people into joining him by creating a scenario where he would march alone against the enemy if nobody joined him

Admiting to what crimes? 

52 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

He makes that clear in his thoughts when he admits he no longer leads Marsh and the gang because he now has the wildlings.

what? He does what? Seriously, please provide a quote.

 

53 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

There are no malicious actions there, just illegal actions that actually give the Boltons the right to strike back at him. Ramsay is justified to write the Pink Letter - perhaps his threats are a bit too much but his demands are not.

Yeah… Because Ramsay has the right to decide who the LC allows to reside in CB and the gift. The LC obviously has to offer his guests as hostages to ramsay if he demands it… And if ramsay's bride arrived in CB the law clearly forbids the LC from letting her in and helping her...

Obsiously this is all false. The LC isn t a vassal of the north. He can do as he pleases in his lands.

58 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

If Jon had refused to allow Mance to leave CB he would have stayed there - or he would have to sneak away in the night and be hunted down like the deserter that he is. He gave Mance permission to go, hence the Boltons have every right to blame Jon for Mance's actions. He threw the first stone.

Damn ned stark for allowing beric to go to the riverlands. The BwB is ned's fault!

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

I think if Jon deserved as many second chances as he got Slynt would also have deserved another.

A man who cares about justice wouldn't have executed Mance. I understand why they did not, but executing Slynt and painting him as the most evil guy alive and praise Jon for this thing is hypcrisy if one doesn't admit that Jon then should also have killed Mance. Because Mance committed much, much worse crimes than Slynt ever did.

Jon judged slynt as one man under his orders that repeatdly refused to obey orders and insulted him in public.

Jon treats mance as the King of the wildlings and not a NW man. Therefore he can t apply the same standards to mance as he aplies to slynt. Even if you want to argue that mance is a turncloak and deserves to die his acomplishments give him a diferent standard. Besides the fact that jon is accepting all wildlings. It would be hypocritical for him to kill mance in these conditions.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Risking the lives of essentially mankind for Arya is not the right thing. And it was mankind which was at stake if Jon were crucial in the fight against the Others but might get himself killed by the Boltons before they made their move. Even if mankind would survive it it definitely endangered all the men under his command.

Jon simply sent someone to help arya finish her ride to CB. And even without the arya scenario what was he suposed to do when ramsay demanded val and stannis familly? Give them to ramsay because he can t put the N in risk? 

Protecting people doesn t matter? His word doesn t matter? Him being independent from the north doesn t matter?

If the current Lord of winterfell is abusive and doesn t know his limits is jon suposed to become his bitch to avoid conflict?

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

The NW existed for thousands of years and this system works just fine. There is no need to change any of their internal rules. The approach to the wildlings - sure. But not the rule to leave everything behind when you take the black.

Yeah, the NW is clearly an exemple of success. The present Nw is clearly the best it ever was. Their recruits are great warriors and exemples of chivalry. All castles are in pristine conditions and nearly at full capacity. Westerosi children dream of joining the NW when they are older...

Please. The NW is a huge failure. IT is nearly finished... If it is suposed to live on then their rules have to change in big ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VOWS AND OATHS.

Some around here have missed entire themes that the author has made central to this story.This is one of them.

You can hurl abusive epithets at Mance."Turncloak,oathbreaker".

Same with Jaime. "Kingslayer, child murderer".

Just as with the Hound. "Child murderer,turncloak, coward"

Theon. "Kinslayer,turncloak,child killer".

And a favourite of our Lord Varys "Arya the serial killer".

Yes they may all be labelled such technically.But realistically these are characters in conflict with failed institutions with failed goals and intentions.

Frankly it amazes me that allegedly intelligent, and certainly prolific posters stick to black and white blanket labelling, when if nothing else Martin is thematically exploring and condemning issues of oath swearing and everlasting loyalty to people and institutions who themselves change from what you swore to.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

I don't recall asking you about that, did I ;-)?

My bad, I thought a public discussion forum was for... well, public discussion. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, redriver said:

Frankly it amazes me that allegedly intelligent, and certainly prolific posters stick to black and white blanket labelling, when if nothing else Martin is thematically exploring and condemning issues of oath swearing and everlasting loyalty to people and institutions who themselves change from what you swore to.

Not only that, but institutions and people who may not be deserving of blind obedience anymore, if they ever were to begin with. 

No wonder one of Martin’s editors wanted to remove some of the several “words are wind” from Dance, and Martin said no. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

No wonder one of Martin’s editors wanted to remove some of the several “words are wind” from Dance, and Martin said no. 

One of the best quotes of the series came from Iron Emmett. I think it sums things up nicely. 

"Men are men, vows are words, and words are wind." (Jon VII, ADwD 35)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Alexis-something-Rose said:

One of the best quotes of the series came from Iron Emmett. I think it sums things up nicely. 

"Men are men, vows are words, and words are wind." (Jon VII, ADwD 

And the next anti Stark poster here will start raving about oath breaking.

And as a timely reminder can even ONE of them provide a quote to back up their bullshit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

My bad, I thought a public discussion forum was for... well, public discussion. :P

That particular account holder may have slipped out of his Varys guise and into his Rugen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...