The Dark Fate of the Starks

[TheLastWolf]

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

You're confusing me with some other poster. I shall feel nothing but delight when Ramsay and Walder Frey get what is coming to them.

Not you mate , but the other knights in shining armor who think they rush to Dany's defense by attacking the Starks and North. 

[SeanF]

Just now, TheLastWolf said:

Not you mate , but the other knights in shining armor who think they rush to Dany's defense by attacking the Starks and North. 

There's no reason why one can't like Daenerys and the Starks, as characters.

[TheLastWolf]

6 minutes ago, SeanF said:

There's no reason why one can't like Daenerys and the Starks, as characters.

Tell that to them. And please don't ask who are they 

[SeanF]

2 minutes ago, TheLastWolf said:

Tell that to them. And please don't ask who are they? 

I'm never sure if people who argue Bowen Marsh was justified, Walder Frey was justified, and Janos Slynt was the victim of injustice, actually believe such things, or if they're just playing devil's advocate.

[Aline de Gavrillac]

On 9/26/2020 at 9:44 AM, Rondo said:

Jon's downwards path towards the darkness began before that.  He tried to escape his vows early on to fight for the Starks.  I say he never stopped fighting for the Starks.  That has been his problem all along.  

This and the giant chip on his shoulders. 

[Only 89 selfies today]

On 9/26/2020 at 9:49 AM, Rondo said:

 

Check my facts but he also said it was a one way trip with no going back if the human body dies.  

 

It's a one way ticket if the body dies. 

[Only 89 selfies today]

On 9/27/2020 at 4:34 PM, James Fenimore Cooper XXII said:

That passage is the foreshadowing of Bran Stark becoming corrupted by his considerable abilities.  He lost his legs and much of life's pleasures are no longer available to him.  He will fall easily into despair.  It won't be long after that and he will turn to the darkness.

Desperation, anger, hate, and love push people to do some bad things.  I can see this happening to Bran Stark. 

[The Commentator]

8 hours ago, Only 89 selfies today said:

Desperation, anger, hate, and love push people to do some bad things.  I can see this happening to Bran Stark. 

An interesting parallel can happen between Bran and Kingslayer.  Put Bran in a situation where he has to decide between saving Meera and Rickon.  Only one can live. 

[The Commentator]

On 9/29/2020 at 9:30 AM, SeanF said:

I'm never sure if people who argue Bowen Marsh was justified, Walder Frey was justified, and Janos Slynt was the victim of injustice, actually believe such things, or if they're just playing devil's advocate.

I can't believe some people are claiming Jon's killing of Janos Slynt was justice.  In my opinion, the attachment that some of the fans have to the Starks is due more to emotions than logic.  Maybe they have a sister and cannot make themselves admit that Jon was wrong to mess with the Boltons in order to get her out.  That's emotion talking.  I believe they know, deep inside, that Jon was wrong to drag the NW into conflict with the Boltons. 

[SeanF]

36 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

I can't believe some people are claiming Jon's killing of Janos Slynt was justice.  In my opinion, the attachment that some of the fans have to the Starks is due more to emotions than logic.  Maybe they have a sister and cannot make themselves admit that Jon was wrong to mess with the Boltons in order to get her out.  That's emotion talking.  I believe they know, deep inside, that Jon was wrong to drag the NW into conflict with the Boltons. 

Certainly, if my sister was being raped and tortured, I would intervene, rather than look the other way,  and pretend that made me the most moral of men.  As I said up thread, it's the same mindset of the Knights who looked on and did nothing as Aerys committed enormities.

[chatty83]

51 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

I can't believe some people are claiming Jon's killing of Janos Slynt was justice.  In my opinion, the attachment that some of the fans have to the Starks is due more to emotions than logic.  Maybe they have a sister and cannot make themselves admit that Jon was wrong to mess with the Boltons in order to get her out.  That's emotion talking.  I believe they know, deep inside, that Jon was wrong to drag the NW into conflict with the Boltons. 

Some have a very strange and warped version of morality on here.

Jon killed Slynt for the good of the NW. He'd been able to put emotions to side time and again, Slynt had constantly undermined Jon, acted the bully even though hes a coward and was purposely looking to defy orders and thus put the NW in harms way.

Not sure if Jon knows for certain but at the very least he likely has a suspicion that Slynt played a part in his fathers death being the commander of the city watch at the time.

Still though, he puts all that aside and gives him a task in which Slynt would actually be a leader still. Slynt still turns it down and is given ample time to change his mind, when he again defys orders Jon makes the decision that he is a liability to everyone and beheads him. 

We also have to remember Slynt is a murderer and a corrupted knight hence being sent to the wall.

As for Arya, hes always going to be conflicted but he doesnt do anything at first and lets things roll, its Melisandre who coaxs him into acting and has everything already set up ready to go. The switch of Rattleshirt and Rayder, Rayder ready to go free 'Arya' and Jon just agrees to it as it allows him to focus on the wildlings and the others.

Even when drawn in by Ramseys letter he offers to go alone and not drag the NW into it but is stabbed before we find out what would have happened.

So sure, he does some things against a better nature and obviously murder is a pretty big sin in todays world but were not looking at morality from our own timelines POV but from a medievil fantasy perspective and tbf in that world murder is easily justified.

Under extreme pressures of leadership in a wartorn land on one side and the walking dead on the other, he does what he feels is rights to save everyone and Slynt dying is one of the lesser atrocities that happens in the entire books. I doubt many have sympathy for Slynt, more so when his death was his own doing.

[Mordred]

48 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Certainly, if my sister was being raped and tortured, I would intervene, rather than look the other way,  and pretend that made me the most moral of men.  As I said up thread, it's the same mindset of the Knights who looked on and did nothing as Aerys committed enormities.

I think the problem is, you are not a lord commander.  Jon cannot make that same choice.  And it is very stupid to endanger the wall just to save a sister or a brother.  They're dead anyway if the watch fails to do its job.  A dock worker can be forgiven for endangering his place of work, the docks, in order to get his sister away from a bad marriage.  A lord commander, king, general, empress, emperor cannot be forgiven for making such an irresponsible choice. 

1 hour ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

I can't believe some people are claiming Jon's killing of Janos Slynt was justice.  In my opinion, the attachment that some of the fans have to the Starks is due more to emotions than logic.  Maybe they have a sister and cannot make themselves admit that Jon was wrong to mess with the Boltons in order to get her out.  That's emotion talking.  I believe they know, deep inside, that Jon was wrong to drag the NW into conflict with the Boltons. 

[Mordred]

10 hours ago, Only 89 selfies today said:

It's a one way ticket if the body dies. 

[Nathan Stark]

34 minutes ago, chatty83 said:

Some have a very strange and warped version of morality on here.

Jon killed Slynt for the good of the NW. He'd been able to put emotions to side time and again, Slynt had constantly undermined Jon, acted the bully even though hes a coward and was purposely looking to defy orders and thus put the NW in harms way.

Not sure if Jon knows for certain but at the very least he likely has a suspicion that Slynt played a part in his fathers death being the commander of the city watch at the time.

Still though, he puts all that aside and gives him a task in which Slynt would actually be a leader still. Slynt still turns it down and is given ample time to change his mind, when he again defys orders Jon makes the decision that he is a liability to everyone and beheads him. 

We also have to remember Slynt is a murderer and a corrupted knight hence being sent to the wall.

As for Arya, hes always going to be conflicted but he doesnt do anything at first and lets things roll, its Melisandre who coaxs him into acting and has everything already set up ready to go. The switch of Rattleshirt and Rayder, Rayder ready to go free 'Arya' and Jon just agrees to it as it allows him to focus on the wildlings and the others.

Even when drawn in by Ramseys letter he offers to go alone and not drag the NW into it but is stabbed before we find out what would have happened.

So sure, he does some things against a better nature and obviously murder is a pretty big sin in todays world but were not looking at morality from our own timelines POV but from a medievil fantasy perspective and tbf in that world murder is easily justified.

Under extreme pressures of leadership in a wartorn land on one side and the walking dead on the other, he does what he feels is rights to save everyone and Slynt dying is one of the lesser atrocities that happens in the entire books. I doubt many have sympathy for Slynt, more so when his death was his own doing.

The Stark haters do like to bend the text into what they want it to say, rather than taking it for what it is. They want the Starks to be the unholy villians, so they read everything through that lens. I suspect they will be greatly dissapointed at the Stark comeback in the upcoming books.

[SeanF]

4 hours ago, Mordred said:

I think the problem is, you are not a lord commander.  Jon cannot make that same choice.  And it is very stupid to endanger the wall just to save a sister or a brother.  They're dead anyway if the watch fails to do its job.  A dock worker can be forgiven for endangering his place of work, the docks, in order to get his sister away from a bad marriage.  A lord commander, king, general, empress, emperor cannot be forgiven for making such an irresponsible choice. 

And a Kingsguard who wants to avoid moral responsibility will no doubt make a similar argument.

[Bowen 747]

On 9/29/2020 at 9:25 AM, SeanF said:

There's no reason why one can't like Daenerys and the Starks, as characters.

I can agree with you on this.  Still, we all have preferences and mine is for Daenerys Targaryen to win and live to rule Westeros for many decades to come.  Daenerys ranks higher on my list of favorites.  At the top actually.  What happens to the Starks and Jon is not that important to me as long as they go back north and stay there.   

[Bowen 747]

23 hours ago, SeanF said:

And a Kingsguard who wants to avoid moral responsibility will no doubt make a similar argument.

To be fair, the situations are not the same.  Aerys was being whimsical and abusive.  The stakes were not the safety of Westeros.  Jon had a duty to the wall, which in turn has its mission to stop the white walkers from passing through.  As has been mentioned already, the stakes were very high at the wall.  Jon should have been able to weigh the consequences and through self-discipline kept his focus on the wall instead of causing a conflict with the Boltons.  It was a hard choice but a lord commander should be able to push his sister on the back of his mind and do what needs to be done to hold the wall together. 

[SeanF]

6 hours ago, Bowen 747 said:

To be fair, the situations are not the same.  Aerys was being whimsical and abusive.  The stakes were not the safety of Westeros.  Jon had a duty to the wall, which in turn has its mission to stop the white walkers from passing through.  As has been mentioned already, the stakes were very high at the wall.  Jon should have been able to weigh the consequences and through self-discipline kept his focus on the wall instead of causing a conflict with the Boltons.  It was a hard choice but a lord commander should be able to push his sister on the back of his mind and do what needs to be done to hold the wall together. 

The die was cast the moment that Stannis came to the Wall, answering their call for help.  That already put the Nights Watch in Stannis' debt, and made the new Lord Commander an enemy in the eyes of Kings Landing (Cersei plans to send assassins for Jon Snow).  In the eyes of the government, Jon Snow is already a traitor.

From the point of view of saving the North, Stannis is a much better bet than the Boltons.  Ramsay is widely known to be a mad dog, detested throughout the North.  

The neutrality of the Nights Watch was a ship that sailed, even before Jon Snow was elected.  There is nothing to be gained by not helping Arya escape the Beast.  Leaving aside that most Northerners would consider it totally dishonourable not to rescue "The Ned's Daughter."

[Pontius Pilate]

On 9/30/2020 at 7:26 AM, Only 89 selfies today said:

It's a one way ticket if the body dies. 

Yes.  If the body dies while the mind is in the host.  The mind will be trapped.

[Lady Topspin]

On 9/30/2020 at 7:29 AM, Only 89 selfies today said:

Desperation, anger, hate, and love push people to do some bad things.  I can see this happening to Bran Stark. 

Howling-at-the-moon bad.