Was Jon wrong to kill Janos Slynt?

[Only 89 selfies today]

On 12/28/2021 at 2:29 PM, Odej said:

Reading some posts about Jon Snow's attitudes as Lord Commander I realized that many people don't agree with Jon killing Janos Slynt and that made me curious. I always thought Jon's attitude was correct. Janos disrespected and disobeyed him publicly, letting his behavior go unpunished would make Jon weak in front of his subordinates. In an environment like the Wall, how to respect a leader whom an underling can curse and disobey him without serious consequences? Especially considering how many men who serve on the Wall were thieves, rapists and murderers.

 What do you guys think of Jon's decision?

It was an immoral decision from Jon Snow.  He should have sent Janos Slynt to the cells for a few days.  Execution was not justified.

 

[Only 89 selfies today]

On 12/29/2021 at 2:02 PM, Darryk said:

I think a part of Jon wanted revenge for Ned, else he may have dealt more leniently with Slynt.

That said, on a legal basis, he was completely within his rights to execution Slynt for treason.

Janos Slynt didn't commit treason.  He was resistant at first and insulting.  But those are forgivable offenses.  The NW is not a monarchy.  The Lord Commander must judge fairly.  Jon did not do that.  He was easy/soft on Mance Rayder, who is more deserving of death.  Mance Rayder, Jon Snow, and Janos Slynt are all brothers of the NW.  Jon will be remembered as the commander who failed Westeros in its hour of need. 

[Jaenara Belarys]

2 minutes ago, Only 89 selfies today said:

Janos Slynt didn't commit treason.  He was resistant at first and insulting.  But those are forgivable offenses.  The NW is not a monarchy.  The Lord Commander must judge fairly.  Jon did not do that.  He was easy/soft on Mance Rayder, who is more deserving of death.  Mance Rayder, Jon Snow, and Janos Slynt are all brothers of the NW.  Jon will be remembered as the commander who failed Westeros in its hour of need. 

Janos Slynt disobeyed strict orders from the Lord Commander (You can dispute with a brick wall if he was "foaming at the mouth" to kill him, since I'm quickly running out of patience) to rebuild and garrison a castle, as its commander. Tell me, is this an unacceptable assignment? Promotion to an important position, men to boss around, he can sit his butt down and watch them work. 

Janos threw that offer into his face instead, insulted him publicly, and undermined his authority. For a organization like the NW, as @Nevets said, this is going to be treated seriously. Plus, Jon even runs his options through his head and concludes, correctly that none of them work. 

You must be positively psychic if you can figure out what fictional characters are going to feel about some obscure northern bastard. 

[Julia H.]

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

The 8000 years has seen lots, sure. Like forgetting the Black Gate, or how half the oath being in English the other half being near gibberish seems to me like the phrase got extended. But the biggest change gotta be Aegon right? (Or really when Stark annexed the North, but whatever) The NW now doesn't rely on hundreds of warring kingdoms anymore but 7 (still kinda warring) kingdoms under KL. It's gotta be more simple now, right?

So if cb was one of a thousand independent castles for thousands of years without fucking up neutrality then I don't see how Jon's gotta do it 1 month into the job, unless of course neutrality wasn't a thing for thousands of years and only became recently (relatively). 

Hmm... Ok whether it was with good intentions or not, the Sunsets granted the crows neutrality in exchange for moneys and bodies, the trappings of power in exchange for it's control. Somewhere along the line the Lord Commander became a slave to it's subjects, it's duty replaced by grumkins and snarks. I wouldn't be surprised if around this time the oath became extended and coherent and instead of fathering children the crows are now fully at the mercy of the Sunset kingdoms. 

I guess there are very few things that can happen in Westeros and have not yet happened in 8000 years. The purpose of neutrality is to keep the watchmen at their own special job full time. It is a measure invented to secure the permanent protection of the realm(s) from the North. But the purpose of the Watch is the protection of the realm, not the neutrality. If one of the two needs to be sacrificed, then the Lord Commander should sooner make political decisions than lose an ally that can help with the protection of the realm. 

I also think that the words of the vow were probably modified at some point and that is how all the prohibitions came in.  

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

Please, Aegon made it out of his war by the skin of his teeth. (Balerions teeth) 

His entire army consisted of two sisters, one half brother a sad excuse for a navy and 3 animals. The rest were waiting for the first chance of weakness (that took 300 years lol), we see Aegon travel a few hundred miles to Dorne before realizing he made a Gob Bluth level of a mistake. Dude got lucky.

If it is so, then all the armed men of the South should have been enough to defeat Aegon and his dragons. Perhaps you are right, but that war was not Night's Watch responsibility. And the question still remains, even if Lord Commander Hoare had wanted to do something to save his brother, what could he have done for his brother by the time the news of the fate of Harrenhal reached him?  

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

As for what could Harren who wears the black do, well what would any LC with aspirations of playing the game of thrones do? Let the wildlings in of course

I appreciate your sense of humour, but the comparison is wrong. Aegon's war was fought in the South. Letting in the wildlings would not have affected the dragons, and I don't see why Black Harren's death would suddenly give the Lord Commander brand new political aspirations.

It has never been mentioned that at the time of the conquest anyone would have wanted to involve the Night's Watch in that war or in politics or that the NW could not continue its work without getting involved in internal affairs. The resources from the South must have been scarce for a while, but the country immediately behind their back, the North, was not touched by the war directly. There were no battles in the North, no dragons, no power vacuum. The king took off his crown and took on the mantle of the Warden of the North, which must have been hard on him, but his country did not have to suffer. The job of the Night's Watch was not especially difficult - the Others were not driving all the wildlings to the Wall, there was no impending Long Night, only the usual business of random looters to defend the border from. Lord Commander Hoare did not need to get involved in politics to keep the Watch functioning.

Jon, of course, did not let the wildlings in because he perhaps wanted to play the game of thrones. He let the wildlings in so that the Watch could better protect the realm against the Others and also in order to save more humans from the Others.

[Darryk]

21 minutes ago, Only 89 selfies today said:

Janos Slynt didn't commit treason.  He was resistant at first and insulting.  But those are forgivable offenses.  The NW is not a monarchy.  The Lord Commander must judge fairly.  Jon did not do that.  He was easy/soft on Mance Rayder, who is more deserving of death.  Mance Rayder, Jon Snow, and Janos Slynt are all brothers of the NW.  Jon will be remembered as the commander who failed Westeros in its hour of need. 

How did he fail Westeros in its hour of need? He's like, the only guy trying to marshal everyone against the White Walkers.

[Lord Lannister]

On 1/1/2022 at 6:26 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

dishonorably discharged

Man, if only all those deserters just remembered being insubordinate would get you out of the Night's Watch.

[FictionIsntReal]

On 1/1/2022 at 7:44 PM, Julia H. said:

all major players want something from the Watch

What is it that players other than Stannis want?

Quote

Mance was supposed to find her on the way. That's a far cry from stealing. There is nothing wrong with protecting a helpless girl, regardless of who she is.

If she's married to Ramsay, then it matters very much "who she is". That would put CB in conflict with the Warden of the North, leading to Ramsay's ultimatum.

Quote

It wasn't Jon who had supposedly executed Mance, but Stannis

Jon had archers shoot him before he could burn to death.

Quote

A political necessity and still a crime? It depends on how we define the word.

It would be very much in keeping with the series.

Quote

Look, we can say that freeing the slaves in Slaver's Bay and turning them against their former masters is a crime because I'm sure it is a crime according to local law.

Daenaerys makes war on those locals. Jon is supposed to be serving the Seven Kingdoms whose law he's under.

21 hours ago, Julia H. said:

But the purpose of the Watch is the protection of the realm, not the neutrality.

Jon attempts to lead a wildling army against the Warden of the North. That's not "protecting the realm", that would be the opposite of what the NW is supposed to do.

20 hours ago, Lord Lannister said:

Man, if only all those deserters just remembered being insubordinate would get you out of the Night's Watch.

Yes, that wouldn't apply in this situation. It's just an example of something other than execution that would happen in an actual military.

[The Commentator]

On 12/28/2021 at 2:29 PM, Odej said:

Reading some posts about Jon Snow's attitudes as Lord Commander I realized that many people don't agree with Jon killing Janos Slynt and that made me curious. I always thought Jon's attitude was correct. Janos disrespected and disobeyed him publicly, letting his behavior go unpunished would make Jon weak in front of his subordinates. In an environment like the Wall, how to respect a leader whom an underling can curse and disobey him without serious consequences? Especially considering how many men who serve on the Wall were thieves, rapists and murderers.

 What do you guys think of Jon's decision?

It was murder for the sake of satisfying his desire for revenge. Jon was wrong to do it. 

[Hugorfonics]

23 hours ago, Julia H. said:

If it is so, then all the armed men of the South should have been enough to defeat Aegon and his dragons. Perhaps you are right, but that war was not Night's Watch responsibility. And the question still remains, even if Lord Commander Hoare had wanted to do something to save his brother, what could he have done for his brother by the time the news of the fate of Harrenhal reached him?

 

They were. I'm probably not lol. 

Word, in fact KL made the NW job a whole lot easier (easier and lax) so at first glance it looks better now. If anything fighting Aegon is counterintuitive to the NW. (Although, maybe not. Lax watch after all.)

I was joking but letting the wildlings in would surely have wrecked Targaryens fledging life (1/2 of it).

He's also sitting on 10k swords.

23 hours ago, Julia H. said:

It has never been mentioned that at the time of the conquest anyone would have wanted to involve the Night's Watch in that war or in politics or that the NW could not continue its work without getting involved in internal affairs.

I, mean, Aemon mentioned it. He mentions a lot of things

Quote

"The men who formed the Night's Watch knew that only their courage shielded the realm from the darkness to the north. They knew they must have no divided loyalties to weaken their resolve. So they vowed they would have no wives nor children.

"Yet brothers they had, and sisters. Mothers who gave them birth, fathers who gave them names. They came from a hundred quarrelsome kingdoms, and they knew times may change, but men do not. So they pledged as well that the Night's Watch would take no part in the battles of the realms it guarded.

"They kept their pledge. When Aegon slew Black Harren and claimed his kingdom, Harren's brother was Lord Commander on the Wall, with ten thousand swords to hand. He did not march.

Relevant. He is still Aemon though, the guy who thinks it's a good idea to start off a letter Dear 5 kings. So maybe he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

23 hours ago, Julia H. said:

But the purpose of the Watch is the protection of the realm, not the neutrality. If one of the two needs to be sacrificed, then the Lord Commander should sooner make political decisions than lose an ally that can help with the protection of the realm

It's a permanent breach though. While neutrality may not be a cornerstone of the NW it surely is of Westeros. And we're not talking some silly Cersei expelling Bari nonsense, this actually matters. There's no turning back, for all purposes the watch we know and love (the ones I just compared to wights) is over.

Why should some Dornish woman's husband go to the wall if it's just a stormland project? Fighting grumkins and snarks is funny, Stannis isn't funny (I mean). So, realms saved today but NW gone tomorrow, unless it becomes a stormland project... Or a king of winter project.

But that's the thing right, there were kings of winter who ruled alongside Lord Commanders. The jobs too important, can't be averted by squabbling with petty lords over a water stream, or deciding which wildling warlord will marry the runaway bride. Well, maybe not, all history is written by septons and maesters and Brandon allegedly built both the Wall and Winterfell... And Stormsend! Lmao, that's great. 

[Julia H.]

2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

What is it that players other than Stannis want?

Tywin wants to interfere with the election and get his own puppet elected. He also wants the military conflict with the wildlings to continue in the North because he thinks it's good for him. Not exactly good for the realm though.

Cersei wants to have the Lord Commander assassinated mainly because he is Eddard Stark's son.

Robb wanted to "buy back" Jon Snow from Mormont.

Ramsay wants to be sure that the Stark bastard will never try to claim any rights to Winterfell - it is no accident that Jon gets an invitation to the wedding. Even before the FArya business, Ramsay is probably not happy to know that Jon is alive and commands an army. 

Mance obviously has plans for the wildlings south of the Wall and those plans must involve the Night's Watch one way or another.

Melisandre wants the magical power that she can feel at the Wall. She also wants support for Stannis, kingsblood, a donor for her next shadowbaby, new converts for R'hllor, whatever she can get. 

I think the GNC is probably a thing and it involves plans with Jon and consequently with the Night's Watch.

2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

If she's married to Ramsay, then it matters very much "who she is". That would put CB in conflict with the Warden of the North, leading to Ramsay's ultimatum.

A girl on a dying horse. It is winter, freezing cold, the roads are cold and dangerous, there are wild animals in the woods, and the girl Jon is thinking of may be married but is in reality a child yet, and she is alone, probably with no resources. If the horse is dying, the rider is obviously also in danger, easily in mortal danger. Anyone who stumbles upon such a helpless creature and is in a position to help has a moral obligation to save her, regardless whether he knows  the girl or not. A "true knight" would certainly help her before starting to wonder how the girl's husband will react to this.

No decent husband, no decent person would take offence at someone who saves his wife in a life-threatening situation. Ramsay, of course, would because he is a psychopath, and he does not regard his "wife" as a person, but as a chattel serving only his ends. Not to mention that Jon Snow could easily identify Arya as fake. As I said above, the existence of Jon Snow must necessarily be a problem for the Boltons. Sure, they got the title and the castle and a fake Stark wife even, but they are far from being secure in their position, and the last living son of Eddard Stark may represent a danger to their power in more ways than one. The conflict is inevitable whatever Jon does or does not do. Yet, someone whose life-purpose is to protect people cannot turn away easily from the plight of a child who has no other hope.

2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Jon had archers shoot him before he could burn to death.

That was mercy killing. It was not Jon who had sentenced Mance to death but Stannis. Jon ordered the archers to put an end to "Mance's" suffering when he couldn't save him. It was an act of mercy rather than anything else. 

2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

It would be very much in keeping with the series.

Oh, yes, it would. One possibility I see for Jon Snow's future story arc is that there may come a time, a bitter and difficult time when he finds that he is willing to break more rules and even to completely abandon the Watch in order to keep the single most important clause of his vow - to protect people. 

2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Daenaerys makes war on those locals. Jon is supposed to be serving the Seven Kingdoms whose law he's under.

Dany started a war in order to radically reform the laws and social structure of those cities, although she was a foreigner and one could say she had no business interfering there. Her only excuse is that her goal is humanitarian and serves social justice - which we probably regard as "the greater good" when we compare it to the values of social stability and respect for the time-honoured laws of Slaver Bay.  

Jon, on the other hand, recognized the demands of reality and broke the dated custom of NW neutrality, which no outsiders respected any longer anyway, and became a "player" in order to serve the greater good of making the realm better prepared for the impending danger, true to his vow. He changed some rules and became a player to serve the Seven Kingdoms.

2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Jon attempts to lead a wildling army against the Warden of the North. That's not "protecting the realm", that would be the opposite of what the NW is supposed to do.

The Warden of the North though, had sent a letter in which he had threatened the Night's Watch. Where does it serve the good of the realm if - in a crucial situation like the present one - the border guard army gets massacred on the orders of a mad psychopath? Jon rides forth with a wildling army to stop the attack and to keep the Watch out of this conflict, in other words to preserve the lives and resources of his men for a worthier cause. 

[Julia H.]

35 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

He's also sitting on 10k swords.

I, mean, Aemon mentioned it. He mentions a lot of things

Relevant. He is still Aemon though, the guy who thinks it's a good idea to start off a letter Dear 5 kings. So maybe he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

I'm not sure what the point of this line of conversation any longer. 10k swords to protect the realm in the North. The NW did not march on Aegon because:

1) it was not their job

2) they could only have done it if they had abandoned their actual job

3) if they had started right after getting the news of Harrenhal, by the time they would have reached the nearest battlefield, the dragons might have won the war or become defeated without them

4) they had no idea how to fight against dragons (no one had)

5) the Lord Commander's brother was dead and there was no way to save him 

6) Aegon did not threaten the NW

The situation is hardly comparable to the NW's situation in ADwD.

35 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

It's a permanent breach though. While neutrality may not be a cornerstone of the NW it surely is of Westeros. And we're not talking some silly Cersei expelling Bari nonsense, this actually matters. There's no turning back, for all purposes the watch we know and love (the ones I just compared to wights) is over.

I don't want to go over it again, I wrote a long post above on why the neutrality is gone long before Jon breaks it. It is not a good thing but it is the reality. Denying it is as futile as denying the coming of the Others.

35 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Why should some Dornish woman's husband go to the wall if it's just a stormland project? Fighting grumkins and snarks is funny, Stannis isn't funny (I mean). So, realms saved today but NW gone tomorrow, unless it becomes a stormland project... Or a king of winter project.

By ancient custom, the lords of the realm (or at least the King of Winter / Lord of Winterfell) should fight side by side with the Lord Commander against the wildlings and aganist the Others. Whose fault is it if it's not happening and if the little help that the Watch can get comes at a price?

[Hugorfonics]

18 hours ago, Julia H. said:

I'm not sure what the point of this line of conversation any longer.

It sure as hell isn't about Janos

18 hours ago, Julia H. said:

I don't want to go over it again, I wrote a long post above on why the neutrality is gone long before Jon breaks it. It is not a good thing but it is the reality. Denying it is as futile as denying the coming of the Others.

 

18 hours ago, Julia H. said:

By ancient custom, the lords of the realm (or at least the King of Winter / Lord of Winterfell) should fight side by side with the Lord Commander against the wildlings and aganist the Others. Whose fault is it if it's not happening and if the little help that the Watch can get comes at a price?

No doubt but I still say the NW is an enslaved institution and that it's impossible for a master to brake neutrality with it's slave. I think that without guaranteed submission to every inch of Westeros, the NW will soon cease to exist.

By custom the king fights alongside the lc, but what you've shown in that post a bit back is that Jon has usurped the power and responsibilities of the king. So unless he fights with Ghost at his side there's no way the LC can fight alongside the king. This too I believe is another fatal stroke against the longevity of the NW

[Julia H.]

1 minute ago, Hugorfonics said:

No doubt but I still say the NW is an enslaved institution and that it's impossible for a master to brake neutrality with it's slave. I think that without guaranteed submission to every inch of Westeros, the NW will soon cease to exist.

I, on the other hand, think that the NW would be better off as a proud order of (paid and appreciated) volunteers and professionals than as an enslaved penal colony. As we can see, the watchmen have long forgotten their original purpose now, and they have difficulty sorting out what is really important in a crisis. Plus they are despised by the realm for which they are supposed to freeze and bleed and die. Yes, you should stay and fight because they will kill you if you desert, but you may well be killed if you stay and fight as well. Not very inspiring, on the whole. 

Let me be even more radical: Yes, having a family may distract you from your job but that's true in every profession - so why don't kings or the members of the Small Council dedicate themselves entirely to the good of their realm? On the other hand, what do you care for a kingdom where you seriously have no one that you love or care for? Having a family and maybe a piece of land in the country you are protecting may actually give you a good reason to protect that country. 

1 minute ago, Hugorfonics said:

By custom the king fights alongside the lc, but what you've shown in that post a bit back is that Jon has usurped the power and responsibilities of the king. So unless he fights with Ghost at his side there's no way the LC can fight alongside the king. This too I believe is another fatal stroke against the longevity of the NW

It's not the survival of the NW that is at stake now but the survival of the realms of men. There is a saying (a piece of ancestral wisdom) which goes "Do it yourself, Sir, if you have no servant". Jon's case is the opposite -in the absence of a king he undertakes the kingly duties himself. A good, practical Northman as he is. 

[Lord Lannister]

2 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

Let me be even more radical: Yes, having a family may distract you from your job but that's true in every profession - so why don't kings or the members of the Small Council dedicate themselves entirely to the good of their realm? On the other hand, what do you care for a kingdom where you seriously have no one that you love or care for? Having a family and maybe a piece of land in the country you are protecting may actually give you a good reason to protect that country. 

I've thought this as well. Let the people serve twenty years in the NW, and as retirement they're released from their vows and get a plot of land on the Gift. They can marry a girl from Mole's Town, have some kids, and have something to look forward to in life. Those kids grow up to be future NW members, those retirees grow food for the watch and keep the Gift safe from Raiders, it's a win win. 

[Hugorfonics]

1 hour ago, Lord Lannister said:

I've thought this as well. Let the people serve twenty years in the NW, and as retirement they're released from their vows and get a plot of land on the Gift. They can marry a girl from Mole's Town, have some kids, and have something to look forward to in life. Those kids grow up to be future NW members, those retirees grow food for the watch and keep the Gift safe from Raiders, it's a win win. 

On a practical issue, the NW is seriously underfunded and doling out social security may cripple them economically.

But on a metaphysical issue, crows are like wights, and I've never seen an Other sell a time share. 

Quote

Our honor means no more than our lives, so long as the realm is safe. Are you a man of the Night's Watch?"

There's a higher calling in play that can't be averted by things like honor, love, or pina coladas. Crows dress in black, on some MiB shit, because it's the last suit they're ever gonna wear (again)

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

I, on the other hand, think that the NW would be better off as a proud order of (paid and appreciated) volunteers and professionals than as an enslaved penal colony. As we can see, the watchmen have long forgotten their original purpose now, and they have difficulty sorting out what is really important in a crisis. Plus they are despised by the realm for which they are supposed to freeze and bleed and die. Yes, you should stay and fight because they will kill you if you desert, but you may well be killed if you stay and fight as well. Not very inspiring, on the whole. 

The problem with the NW is their job is being on call, like a paramedic. But unlike paramedics who work long hours, (prepandemic and obviously currently) the NW hasn't had an honest day of work since the last hero convinced all his friends and dog to travel north.

My issue with Myshaing the slaves is with free will. Over the course of millenniums, the volunteers will forget that theyre on call for something official. They would have long decided that wildlings are humans, grumkins aren't real and it's fucking cold. With no whip, the slaves will leave their plantation.

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

Let me be even more radical: Yes, having a family may distract you from your job but that's true in every profession - so why don't kings or the members of the Small Council dedicate themselves entirely to the good of their realm? On the other hand, what do you care for a kingdom where you seriously have no one that you love or care for? Having a family and maybe a piece of land in the country you are protecting may actually give you a good reason to protect that country. 

It's a distraction. Tyrell of old, for example, loves his Red Widow so despite See Useless getting robbed of his spittoon, Tyrell will side with its family. Now obviously, who the fuck cares because we're dealing with a few people. It gets crazy when it's King Robert ordering the release of his brother in law despite not having a trial. 

Family is messy. It turns a rational person into a not. Think clearly, your on call.

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

It's not the survival of the NW that is at stake now but the survival of the realms of men. There is a saying (a piece of ancestral wisdom) which goes "Do it yourself, Sir, if you have no servant". Jon's case is the opposite -in the absence of a king he undertakes the kingly duties himself. A good, practical Northman as he is. 

Its both. The Starks, over 10,000 years, have never had a ruler in both Winterfell and the Wall (wya Brandon), and I believe if they did it would be detremental to the order of the NW, and possibly the entire north.

[Julia H.]

6 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

On a practical issue, the NW is seriously underfunded and doling out social security may cripple them economically.

It's not a private business but a national organization. They shouldn't be underfunded if they are important to the realm.  

6 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

But on a metaphysical issue, crows are like wights, and I've never seen an Other sell a time share. 

Crows are definitely not wights. They are living human beings, every single one of them, with the physical and spiritual needs of a living human.

6 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

There's a higher calling in play that can't be averted by things like honor, love, or pina coladas. Crows dress in black, on some MiB shit, because it's the last suit they're ever gonna wear (again)

Only people who work of their own free will can have a "higher calling". I'm rather convinced that the original Watch consisted of free men who regarded the job of protecting the realms of men as their vocation.

6 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

The problem with the NW is their job is being on call, like a paramedic. But unlike paramedics who work long hours, (prepandemic and obviously currently) the NW hasn't had an honest day of work since the last hero convinced all his friends and dog to travel north.

In this case, time for some reforms, no? Or just let them go.

6 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

My issue with Myshaing the slaves is with free will. Over the course of millenniums, the volunteers will forget that theyre on call for something official. They would have long decided that wildlings are humans, grumkins aren't real and it's fucking cold. With no whip, the slaves will leave their plantation.

I either misunderstand you or you are advocating the benefits of slave work now. 

At the same time you also say that slaves need the whip to keep working. That means it's better to have free men with a sense of vocation to do the job, so that you don't need a whip.

6 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

It gets crazy when it's King Robert ordering the release of his brother in law despite not having a trial. 

You mean the release of the man who was never officially charged with a crime?

6 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Family is messy. It turns a rational person into a not. Think clearly, your on call.

I don't know if it's your philosophy or your life experience that makes you say that. In my opinion, having a family is the normal condition for a person. People without a family or people living in a dysfunctional family are at risk of mental and physical diseases and are at a disadvantage socially. It is no accident that members of orders such as the NW and the KG call each other "brothers". It comes from the need to have some substitute for their families.

6 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Its both. The Starks, over 10,000 years, have never had a ruler in both Winterfell and the Wall (wya Brandon), and I believe if they did it would be detremental to the order of the NW, and possibly the entire north.

We don't really know what did and did not happen in 10,000 years. If you mean that the same person did not rule from both places, well, it obviously was not the arrangement, but necessity may have brought about all sorts of situations at times, including situations where the Lord Commander (who may or may not have been a Stark) had to substitute for the king or vice versa. Regardless, right now, there is no Stark in Winterfell. Jon, by the way, is not ruling in two places, he simply does what needs to be done for the realm. 

[Hugorfonics]

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

 

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

In this case, time for some reforms, no? Or just let them go

Most definitely.

59 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

I either misunderstand you or you are advocating the benefits of slave work now. 

At the same time you also say that slaves need the whip to keep working. That means it's better to have free men with a sense of vocation to do the job, so that you don't need a whip.

Woah! 

Ok, so my personal belief is, well I've always thought this emoji says it best(I like the hat)

Imo throughout all of asoiaf I think I feel the strongest regarding Mance and Daeron (I like the bards). For me the ideal landscape would be, no wall.

Unsullied at least get a new name, instead of forced to wear the same rags day in and out. Daerons fate imo is equally disgusting to Tyrion's and Penny's. In no way do I wish to come across advocating slavery. And it's no surprise to me that Mance chose freedom over teamwork in the face of armageddon. (Obviously Mance is now Melis slave, but I digress)

I think Jon dismantling Brandon's institution will be the greatest moment in Westeros history (along the same lines as Dany dismantling Aegons institution)

That is, until the Others return lol.

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

In my opinion, having a family is the normal condition for a person

Agreed. But crows are not normal, they're more like wights. (of course they're not) Family is important in asoiaf, it causes Lord Florent to give into treason, causes Ned to lie and confess his treason, uh, that Vale guy who's now lord of the gate, etc. 

People put their childrens interest first, their life long work reduced to inheritance. The task of the NW is too important to get bogged down in family drama. 

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

We don't really know what did and did not happen in 10,000 years. If you mean that the same person did not rule from both places, well, it obviously was not the arrangement, but necessity may have brought about all sorts of situations at times, including situations where the Lord Commander (who may or may not have been a Stark) had to substitute for the king or vice versa. Regardless, right now, there is no Stark in Winterfell. Jon, by the way, is not ruling in two places, he simply does what needs to be done for the realm.

True 

Jon may not be the Stark physically inside Winterfell, but he's going beyond what the king needs to do regarding Alys. He might as well start legitimizing bastards.

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

Only people who work of their own free will can have a "higher calling"

Idk. Half hand and his whole crew were pretty gungho on death, the archer, Jon, himself.  There's not a drop of free will among them yet all knew their duty was beyond life.

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

You mean the release of the man who was never officially charged with a crime?

Lolz. Anything but Janos. Yo, come on! Numerous knights of Westeros arrested a suspect for attempted murder. In lieu of an arrest warrant I think it's pretty clear Tyrion was legally incarcerated

[FictionIsntReal]

On 1/3/2022 at 5:48 PM, Julia H. said:

Ramsay wants to be sure that the Stark bastard will never try to claim any rights to Winterfell

That already follows from his NW oaths.

Quote

No decent husband, no decent person would take offence at someone who saves his wife in a life-threatening situation. Ramsay, of course

Ramsay's letter doesn't contain any objection to "sav[ing] his wife in a life-threatening situation" but instead to sending Mance into Winterfell to steal her.

Quote

Jon, on the other hand, recognized the demands of reality and broke the dated custom of NW neutrality, which no outsiders respected any longer anyway

Amory Lorch didn't, but then Amory Lorch also attacked loyal vassals of the regime he's supposed to be serving. Tywin hoped the wildlings broke through, but he hadn't actually done anything to ensure that (he just neglected to support the Watch). Cersei's plan blew up in her face long before it could reach CB.

Quote

and became a "player" in order to serve the greater good of making the realm better prepared for the impending danger

Going to war with Ramsay over Arya (or "Arya") doesn't do that.

Quote

The Warden of the North though, had sent a letter in which he had threatened the Night's Watch. Where does it serve the good of the realm if - in a crucial situation like the present one - the border guard army gets massacred on the orders of a mad psychopath?

Jon's decision to send in Mance & the spearwives (who've killed men in Winterfell) predates that letter. He's not in any position to act like a threatened neutral once he's already aggressed against the Boltons.

4 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Yes, having a family may distract you from your job but that's true in every profession - so why don't kings or the members of the Small Council dedicate themselves entirely to the good of their realm?

You're getting close to Stirner's "What is to be my concern?", but the king is supposed to have an heir to inherit the throne, and this is supposed to incentivize them to care about the long-term good of the realm they're ruling. The NW is supposed to be willing to die for the realm, with no inheritance required. It's a bit like asking why the queen ant/bee has lots of offspring while the soldiers don't. Humans aren't haplodiploid, but in this society they are divided into such functions.

4 hours ago, Lord Lannister said:

I've thought this as well. Let the people serve twenty years in the NW, and as retirement they're released from their vows and get a plot of land on the Gift. They can marry a girl from Mole's Town, have some kids, and have something to look forward to in life. Those kids grow up to be future NW members, those retirees grow food for the watch and keep the Gift safe from Raiders, it's a win win. 

That sounds like a rather late-Roman solution, of the sort that eventually gave rise to feudalism. And since Westeros is already feudal, it wouldn't be that big a leap for them!

[Julia H.]

6 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

In no way do I wish to come across advocating slavery. 

6 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Agreed. But crows are not normal, they're more like wights. (of course they're not) Family is important in asoiaf, it causes Lord Florent to give into treason, causes Ned to lie and confess his treason, uh, that Vale guy who's now lord of the gate, etc. 

People put their childrens interest first, their life long work reduced to inheritance. The task of the NW is too important to get bogged down in family drama. 

It is love that makes people vulnerable, yet people cannot live without love (except psychopaths). That's in our nature. Now if someone can give up his life for the love of the realm or for an honest profession that he is suited for, so be it. However, forcing people to give up family ties or the ability and need to love is not going to work. We see it in the story again and again. Nor is it generally harmful. Benjen Stark totally kept in touch with his family, yet, he was a good ranger and loyal to the Watch. It was his example that inspired Jon Snow's decision to join the NW.

Quote

 

Yet he could not let the wildlings breach the Wall, to threaten Winterfell and the north, the barrowlands and the Rills, White Harbor and the Stony Shore, even the Neck. For eight thousand years the men of House Stark had lived and died to protect their people against such ravagers and reavers . . . and bastard-born or no, the same blood ran in his veins. Bran and Rickon are still at Winterfell besides. Maester Luwin, Ser Rodrik, Old Nan, Farlen the kennelmaster, Mikken at his forge and Gage by his ovens . . . everyone I ever knew, everyone I ever loved. 

 

It is easy to see where Jon's love for the realms of men originates: It all grew out of his love for his family, his love for his homeland, his knowledge of the history of his ancestors.

6 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

True 

Jon may not be the Stark physically inside Winterfell, but he's going beyond what the king needs to do regarding Alys. He might as well start legitimizing bastards.

He might. Alys Karstark asked him to protect her as her only hope. Jon is the one who has sworn to protect people. Also, the succession crisis of House Karstark needed to be addressed - the story of Lady Hornwood is a clear warning what might happen if the king / overlord has no time to solve such issues. Jon also happened to have a wildling lordling who could be turned into an enemy as well as an ally, and he chose to make him an ally. Those were wise and necessary decisions.

6 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Idk. Half hand and his whole crew were pretty gungho on death, the archer, Jon, himself.  There's not a drop of free will among them yet all knew their duty was beyond life.

Not a drop of free will among them? I doubt that. 

6 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Lolz. Anything but Janos. Yo, come on! Numerous knights of Westeros arrested a suspect for attempted murder. In lieu of an arrest warrant I think it's pretty clear Tyrion was legally incarcerated

Perhaps but Robert ordering the release of Tyrion without questions would be more infuriating for me if someone had actually brought the case to him (as Ned was planning to do) with reasonable evidence of Tyrion's guilt. 

[Julia H.]

5 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

That already follows from his NW oaths.

That does not necessarily feel for Ramsay as absolutely the best reassurance he can have. Ramsay does not like to take chances when it comes to inheritance.

5 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Ramsay's letter doesn't contain any objection to "sav[ing] his wife in a life-threatening situation" but instead to sending Mance into Winterfell to steal her.

Jon sent out Mance to bring back Arya who was (according to the information given by Melisandre) already on her way to Castle Black, riding a dying horse along some lake. Jon never told Mance to go to Winterfell and steal Arya. When I said "No decent husband, no decent person would take offence at someone who saves his wife in a life-threatening situation", I referred to the decision to rescue a solitary girl already in trouble and possibly in life-threatening danger, and not to stealing someone's wife. 

5 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Amory Lorch didn't, but then Amory Lorch also attacked loyal vassals of the regime he's supposed to be serving. Tywin hoped the wildlings broke through, but he hadn't actually done anything to ensure that (he just neglected to support the Watch). Cersei's plan blew up in her face long before it could reach CB.

Yet, all these people (and others) contributed to ending the famous neutrality of the Watch. These actions and attitudes are symptomatic of a "neutrality" that nobody respects any longer. Do you think Bowen Marsh was not playing the game when he supported Slynt for the single reason that Slynt was recommended by Tywin? (Tywin's interference also showed utter disrespect for the neutrality.) Doing things to please any of the players outside the Watch is also politics. Taking no part does not mean you support the party you think has the most power. 

5 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Going to war with Ramsay over Arya (or "Arya") doesn't do that.

Jon did not become a player when he "went to war" with Ramsay but long before that - and it was for the sake of the realm.

Incidentally, he was not going to start a war for Arya - it is a very simplified view. (The letter itself told him that Arya was no longer in Ramsay's possession.)

5 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Jon's decision to send in Mance & the spearwives (who've killed men in Winterfell) predates that letter. He's not in any position to act like a threatened neutral once he's already aggressed against the Boltons.

He is not acting like a threatened neutral (why would he?), he is acting like a Lord Commander of the Night's Watch when the Night's Watch is threatened by a sadistic madman.

5 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

You're getting close to Stirner's "What is to be my concern?", but the king is supposed to have an heir to inherit the throne, and this is supposed to incentivize them to care about the long-term good of the realm they're ruling. The NW is supposed to be willing to die for the realm, with no inheritance required. It's a bit like asking why the queen ant/bee has lots of offspring while the soldiers don't. Humans aren't haplodiploid, but in this society they are divided into such functions.

The king is supposed to have an heir to inherit the throne only because family is such a central concept in this society. A new king could be chosen every time once the old one dies just as easily as a new Lord Commander is chosen. The reason why it does not happen so is that people want their own children, not some stranger, to inherit their power and their wealth. And before that, people want to have children. Yet, somehow they manage to function in their positions, even in important ones. A person can choose not to have a family, not to father children, but to truly and fully leave behind and forget already existing loved ones (mother, father, siblings) is too much to expect humans to do. (BTW, humans are not bees.) Maester Aemon may have chosen not to do anything when his family members were killed during the rebellion (not that he could have done much), but that it did not disturb him is clearly not true.

5 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

That sounds like a rather late-Roman solution, of the sort that eventually gave rise to feudalism. And since Westeros is already feudal, it wouldn't be that big a leap for them!

It might be a big leap for the Watch though. Especially if one considers the watchmen essentially slaves, as @Hugorfonics does.