Was Jon wrong to kill Janos Slynt?

[Rondo]

On 1/2/2022 at 6:29 PM, 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. 

It was Jon who becomes guilty of treason soon after he killed Janos Slynt.  He ordered a sworn man of the watch to take his sister from Ramsay.  It's illegal and violates the law of the watch.  It's not neutral to get involved in Ramsay Bolton's affairs.  If one of the two deserved to die, it's Jon.

[Lord Lannister]

1 hour 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!

On a wider cultural level in Westeros? Probably not. I'd say the evolution from slave soldier for life to feudalism is an improvement for the immediately involved parties though. 

[Skahaz mo Kandaq]

Was Jon wrong to kill Janos Slynt?   Yes he was.  Nothing Slynt did called for an execution. 

[Back in Black-Snow]

I know the scene between Cat and Jaime where he talks about taking so many oaths and how they all conflict with each other is part of building Jaime's character and arc, but I believe it is also a picture of what each character must face. Specifically Jon Snow.

He has to choose between keeping an oath and do the right thing (if/when they are not the same).

I know from personal experience that it is almost never an easy choice. Sometimes when you are doing what you know is right in your heart, it can conflict with what is "normal" or "what is expected". And so you must choose, as Master Aemon said. And even when you KNOW what you are doing is right, there are always going to be those who strongly disagree, and will even fight you every step of the way. Oftentimes because they think what THEY are doing is right.

And there have been times when I KNEW I was doing the right thing only for it to be a disaster. I was either flat-out wrong, maybe I didn't have critical information, etc.

I am a Jon Snow fan, but this is one of my favorite debates/topics. Because I can see/understand it from both sides. But ultimately I think Jon is/was on the right track, and is obeying the "spirit" of his oath/law to the Night's Watch, if not necessarily the "letter" of his oath/law - protect the realmS of men.

[Northern Sword]

On 1/2/2022 at 4:06 PM, Nevets said:

The Night's Watch is a military organization, and in a conflict zone to boot.  Insubordination, especially as Slynt did it, is going to be treated as a serious matter.  Even today, if Slynt did what he did, especially in a combat zone, he might consider himself lucky to merely see his career come to a screeching halt.  No commander, ever, is going to tolerate it.  Confinement, either to quarters or the brig, loss of rank, loss of pay, and/or unfavorable separation would be distinct possibilities.  And that's in a modern military.  Historically, I'm quiet sure men have been executed for disobeying even illegal orders, which this clearly wasn't. 

By the way, Slynt gave Jon an illegal order, and a likely fatal one at that: to kill Mance Rayder during a parley.  I'm assuming killing during a parley is about as acceptable as killing under guest right.  Slynt would have executed Jon had he refused.  Slynt really has nothing to complain about. 

Also, as others have pointed out, it's essentially a promotion.  A sensible officer would regard it as a plum; a chance to shine and possibly gain further advancement.  Not Slynt, though.

He gave Jon no real choice.  R.I.P. Janos Slynt. 

This is along my thinking as well. Slynt isn't the smartest of people and he sure didn't read the room very well. He directly challenged a brand new boss publicly. Plain and simple, he disobeyed a direct order. This isn't in our bubble wrapped, soft society where he is going to get a timeout. This is a medieval military order in a warzone. Plus, it's not like he stabbed him in the back with a spear or anything...

[Hugorfonics]

23 hours ago, Julia H. said:

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.

Ben's a good example, but I believe that family bond is a rarity in the watch. Some family is no good though, like when Aemon was supposed to help Sam become a maester he instead went totally ballistic over Dany, who he doesn't even know. (And while azor ahai is probably supposed to go toe to toe with the others, thus NW essential, Aemon only cares about seeing his superhero niece for an autograph and a picture with her pets)

23 hours ago, Julia H. said:

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.

Perhaps it originates there, like Sansa singing Blackwater. But it's not exclusively there as we see them choose to save their enemy. (Ygritte, Lancel) Then there are other gentle hearted characters like Dany who has no loving family (wya Aemon) but is nevertheless a good person who cares for the realms.

23 hours ago, Julia H. said:

tAlso, 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.

What's the issue? A noble woman is getting incestuously raped on her wedding night? This is Westeros. (Not an endorsement) 

Some Northern warlord would be running a castle built by other people thousands of years ago instead of some really northern warlord running a castle someone else built thousands of years ago. Smallfolk won't notice the difference, so why'd Jon interfere? Politics. Which is really emphasizing his king of the north hat over his lord commander hat.

23 hours ago, Julia H. said:

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

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

"Yes, but—"

"There is no but, Jon Snow. You are, or you are not."

Jon sat up straight. "I am.

.

Not a fucking drop  It's crazy stuff, but they're basically wights. Like how can Jon respond to that? (He shoulda asked Janos that) 

The NW isn't alone in this, see the king, and free will isn't totally erased from the watch, see Bowen, but they really do a better job then anyone else in Westeros, KG included. (I would say everywhere but blood riders are pretty damn loyal)

The oath, the monotonous colors and the guaranteed repetitiveness of a dismal life, mixed with the oath a few times over again, isn't an accident. It's delebrate brainwashing

23 hours ago, Julia H. said:

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. 

Agot isn't on Prime. Minimum shipping 3-5 business days.

The great thing about this is the evidence is obviously exonerating, but fuck the law, right Lannister? Destroy them all instead, lol. And then the king falls in like, what. I feel you, no one's following the law these days, why should Jon?

 

On 1/4/2022 at 4:12 PM, Hugorfonics said:

 

 

[Julia H.]

2 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Ben's a good example, but I believe that family bond is a rarity in the watch. Some family is no good though, like when Aemon was supposed to help Sam become a maester he instead went totally ballistic over Dany, who he doesn't even know. (And while azor ahai is probably supposed to go toe to toe with the others, thus NW essential, Aemon only cares about seeing his superhero niece for an autograph and a picture with her pets)

It may be a rarity, but still not a bad thing. Obviously, there must be those who totally lack a family when they get to the Wall, but we see the family backgrounds of quite a few black brothers. For better or worse, those bonds are there, and breaking them does not happen on someone's command. 

2 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Perhaps it originates there, like Sansa singing Blackwater. But it's not exclusively there as we see them choose to save their enemy. (Ygritte, Lancel) Then there are other gentle hearted characters like Dany who has no loving family (wya Aemon) but is nevertheless a good person who cares for the realms.

Absolutely. When I say "originates", I mean that is where it started and then it got extended to all mankind (giants included).

Yes, a good person cares for other people. In Dany's case, I think her ability to love is due to the love she received from old Willem Darry when she was a young child.

2 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

What's the issue? A noble woman is getting incestuously raped on her wedding night? This is Westeros. (Not an endorsement) 

Some Northern warlord would be running a castle built by other people thousands of years ago instead of some really northern warlord running a castle someone else built thousands of years ago. Smallfolk won't notice the difference, so why'd Jon interfere? Politics. Which is really emphasizing his king of the north hat over his lord commander hat.

Lady Hornwood was locked up and starved to death and her lands were taken with force (an enforced marriage). I see an issue there - like a piece of stability vs. a piece of chaos. Besides, noble ladies also deserve protection, not only the smallfolk.

Yes, King-in-the-North, undoubtedly. The only one worthy of that mantle. 

2 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

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

"Yes, but—"

"There is no but, Jon Snow. You are, or you are not."

Jon sat up straight. "I am.

.

Not a fucking drop  It's crazy stuff, but they're basically wights. Like how can Jon respond to that? (He shoulda asked Janos that) 

LOL, I thought of the same quote when I was writing my last post, but I didn't want to make the post longer. This quote gives me totally different vibes, maybe because Jon "sat up straight" - it sounds like he is making a choice rather than just submits. (I mean resigned submission would probably be accompanied by some different body language.) But it's debatable, for sure.

2 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

The NW isn't alone in this, see the king, and free will isn't totally erased from the watch, see Bowen, but they really do a better job then anyone else in Westeros, KG included. (I would say everywhere but blood riders are pretty damn loyal)

The oath, the monotonous colors and the guaranteed repetitiveness of a dismal life, mixed with the oath a few times over again, isn't an accident. It's delebrate brainwashing

Yes, certain ideas are hammered into them, I agree, and yet, somehow the most important aspect of their existence got lost over the centuries. It just can't be the way the Watch was originally designed to be.

A long time ago, there was a wonderful thread with very insighful posts, where once Jon Snow's situation on the Wall was compared to those of his siblings in the South with the finding that Jon gets a surprising amount of relative agency in the Night's Watch. Similarly, Sam basically becomes liberated in the NW, getting much, much more agency than ever before. 

You know, regarding free will, one of my favourite scenes in the whole series is in ADwD, where Jon Snow is in the weirwood grove watching over some new black brothers taking the vows and he is praying to the gods of the forest. It is very beautifully written, and I think this is basically the point where Jon confirms his vows and his allegiance to the realms of men as an adult and as a person who now knows what he is undertaking and what is at stake. You could say that he is not really free to make this decision then, but we see that officers in the Night's Watch can choose to live a very comfortable life, perfunctorily following the letters of the vows but doing nothing more (e.g., Bowen Marsh counting the turnips and Ser Alliser telling off the newbies as his daily job). Compared to that, it is possible to choose to really care and to really serve and protect humanity even at the price of personal risks and sacrifices, in what I believe to be the original spirit of the Watch.

[Hugorfonics]

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

In Dany's case, I think her ability to love is due to the love she received from old Willem Darry when she was a young child.

We're talking real young, like maybe 4 or 5 years old. Idk if she remembers much. But her brother loved her, even if he was a dick and went crazy.

Imps a good guy (he is! lol), not much love there. Well, Jaime. And now... Nah they're both still good (Jaime less), and both still love each other ( poor bad guys lol)

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

Lady Hornwood was locked up and starved to death and her lands were taken with force (an enforced marriage). I see an issue there - like a piece of stability vs. a piece of chaos.

Mandrely knights were fighting Bolton soldiers in Hornwood, Ramsay got married and the knights pulled out. 

With the king indisposed the lords settled it themselves without oversight and the lands now peaceful. Essentially business as usual

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

Besides, noble ladies also deserve protection, not only the smallfolk

Right. So Ramsay's a monster and too clever by half so oversight is needed. And while taking off his LC hat (other hat) and replacing it with a king hat is good for the realms it is worrisome that its a Targaryen like hat. Really more then the absolute Targs because he can skinchange and the old gods is his younger brother. It's all dicey.

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

Yes, King-in-the-North, undoubtedly. The only one worthy of that mantle.

I suppose. The north is a big place though, for all we know Rickon is king of the unicorns. 

Yea I suspect his two rivals (glance over the prodigy player Sansa and the current owner of Winterfell the prodigy fighter Arya) Ramsay to fall to Jon and Stannis to bend the knee.

 

So Jon gains some free will when Sam (Old Bears crow) made him take off his wight hat and put on his other hat. He chose to keep Satin close for some reason (obvious reason), chose to not listen to Meli about trappings of power (boots on the ground), but that's kinda it. (Sent Pup away, but that's because Starks have no sense of humor)

I mean sure, he chose to open the gate, chose to arrest Karstark and marry off his niece (I guess he really chose who she should marry but it's either a wildling or a Florent and they wanna be eligible for Val) and yes, chose to kill Janos, (and I guess chose to march on Rams but that didn't go so well) but every single one of those choices, is fucking obvious. Some of them like Ramsay is a choice for survival (lol, irony)

2 hours ago, Julia H. said:

LOL, I thought of the same quote when I was writing my last post, but I didn't want to make the post longer

A post could always use a good quote

2 hours ago, Julia H. said:

. This quote gives me totally different vibes, maybe because Jon "sat up straight" - it sounds like he is making a choice rather than just submits. (I mean resigned submission would probably be accompanied by some different body language.) But it's debatable, for sure

It's probably top 10 quotes for me. I really respect/detest it. For me it's straight "ten hut". It's not resigned submission, it's subconsciously responding to the drill sergeant. (Thanks Alliser). This is the moment of meaning, on some cult shit, the long hours of 24/7 and living with a bunch of dudes who can't wear red has finally paid off. Men of the nights watch may not have honor, but they certainly have pride

2 hours ago, Julia H. said:

A long time ago, there was a wonderful thread with very insighful posts, where once Jon Snow's situation on the Wall was compared to those of his siblings in the South with the finding that Jon gets a surprising amount of relative agency in the Night's Watch. Similarly, Sam basically becomes liberated in the NW, getting much, much more agency than ever before. 

Sam has the option to sleep alone, or with Gilly, or with warlocks or whatever. But Sam's not a Stark.

None of the kids have free will, there's that scene where Meera pretends Bran does and Arya kindaish has some briefly when she was the ghost, and when she left Harrenhall. But that's about it.

Really ya girl. She tattled but that may have been unnecessary, everything else though from the first chapter of agot to deep in affc (my only, and valid, complaint of adwd) Sansa has been brisket around with frodo like speed and at nearly every step mayhem and destruction follows. And its getting sad now because I think she's begining to realize it.

2 hours ago, Julia H. said:

You know, regarding free will, one of my favourite scenes in the whole series is in ADwD, where Jon Snow is in the weirwood grove watching over some new black brothers taking the vows and he is praying to the gods of the forest. It is very beautifully written, and I think this is basically the point where Jon confirms his vows and his allegiance to the realms of men as an adult and as a person who now knows what he is undertaking and what is at stake. You could say that he is not really free to make this decision then, but we see that officers in the Night's Watch can choose to live a very comfortable life, perfunctorily following the letters of the vows but doing nothing more (e.g., Bowen Marsh counting the turnips and Ser Alliser telling off the newbies as his daily job). Compared to that, it is possible to choose to really care and to really serve and protect humanity even at the price of personal risks and sacrifices, in what I believe to be the original spirit of the Watch.

Well it got twisted into something perverse, and reconstructing what was once the original group, as noble and lovely as they were, will only lead to further perversions, where the institution resembles the enemy they face.

Yea I would say he's doubling down on himself subconsciously, but still kinda changing it. I mean we're talking Wun Wun and Leathers here, he's definitely not like any LC recently but he is imo saying the words to the gods (his brother) because it feels good and why the hell not. He makes it clear he's not reifirming his vow because it's already maxed out.

I would say Thorne and Marsh are prideful of their institution and do more then count turnips, I mean for the watch? For the watch?

[Moiraine Sedai]

On 1/4/2022 at 8:06 PM, Rondo said:

It was Jon who becomes guilty of treason soon after he killed Janos Slynt.  He ordered a sworn man of the watch to take his sister from Ramsay.  It's illegal and violates the law of the watch.  It's not neutral to get involved in Ramsay Bolton's affairs.  If one of the two deserved to die, it's Jon.

It was treasonous to send Mance Rayder, a man who has taken the vows, to do something illegal. He also even got Tolett involved in his illegal activities. Jon’s fatal fault is similar to Robb’s. They have double standards and cannot be relied on to carry out justice. Jon is the worst violator of rules behind Mance Raider. It’s disgusting why such a person would be allowed to pass judgment on anybody. 

[Bowen Marsh]

Worry no more.  I assassinated Jon.  This abuse use of power is behind us now.  I shall bury both of them in the same grave hole.  Two a-holes in one hole.  After all, they are Brothers. 

Jon abused his power in order to murder a man who he does not like. 

[Julia H.]

20 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

We're talking real young, like maybe 4 or 5 years old. Idk if she remembers much. But her brother loved her, even if he was a dick and went crazy.

Imps a good guy (he is! lol), not much love there. Well, Jaime. And now... Nah they're both still good (Jaime less), and both still love each other ( poor bad guys lol)

She doesn't remember much, but the love a little child receives teaches the child that (s)he is lovable and makes him / her also able to love. Tyrion was born and raised in a castle. It is totally possible that he received love, as a baby, from someone, for example, a good-hearted wetnurse, and that he was cuddled and kissed, even if he does not remember.

20 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Mandrely knights were fighting Bolton soldiers in Hornwood, Ramsay got married and the knights pulled out. 

With the king indisposed the lords settled it themselves without oversight and the lands now peaceful. Essentially business as usual

In Ned Stark's time, this sort of "solution" sure would not have been the usual business.

20 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Right. So Ramsay's a monster and too clever by half so oversight is needed. And while taking off his LC hat (other hat) and replacing it with a king hat is good for the realms it is worrisome that its a Targaryen like hat. Really more then the absolute Targs because he can skinchange and the old gods is his younger brother. It's all dicey.

I don't see why any of those things would be a problem, especially that Jon does not even know about them.

20 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

I suppose. The north is a big place though, for all we know Rickon is king of the unicorns. 

That would be cute. 

20 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Yea I suspect his two rivals (glance over the prodigy player Sansa and the current owner of Winterfell the prodigy fighter Arya) Ramsay to fall to Jon and Stannis to bend the knee.

Sorry, I can't figure out the meaning of this sentence.

20 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

So Jon gains some free will when Sam (Old Bears crow) made him take off his wight hat and put on his other hat. He chose to keep Satin close for some reason (obvious reason), chose to not listen to Meli about trappings of power (boots on the ground), but that's kinda it. (Sent Pup away, but that's because Starks have no sense of humor)

I mean sure, he chose to open the gate, chose to arrest Karstark and marry off his niece (I guess he really chose who she should marry but it's either a wildling or a Florent and they wanna be eligible for Val) and yes, chose to kill Janos, (and I guess chose to march on Rams but that didn't go so well) but every single one of those choices, is fucking obvious. Some of them like Ramsay is a choice for survival (lol, irony)

No, that's not what I meant at all. It is totally natural, normal and necessary that a Lord Commander has a fair amount of agency and authority. What I meant was before that. In AgoT Jon, as a green recruit, approaches Maester Aemon and asks him to save Sam and suggests that Sam could be the right man to serve the old maester himself, and Maester Aemon listens to this advice and accepts it. Jon also manages to convince his peers to let Sam be - despite Alliser encouraging aggression against Sam. So Jon can successfully negotiate with his peers and with an officer to solve a problem. In ACoK, Qhorin tells Jon to do what needs be done and lets him decide what it is, and even explains it to him afterwards (and agrees with his decision). So Jon learns that he has competence and agency to decide what needs to be done in a critical situation. And so on.

20 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Sam has the option to sleep alone, or with Gilly, or with warlocks or whatever. But Sam's not a Stark.

Not only that, but Sam learns to play the game and works as a very successful election campaign manager. He would never have got this far if he had stayed at home as his father's heir. He also enjoys his research tasks in the library of CB - an enjoyment he had probably been shamed for at home. Those are very important developments in his arc. Not to mention that he is able to stand up to an Other and win! (To me, it suggests that maybe it is the inherent humanity of the heroes that will ultimately defeat the Others rather than some special weapon.)

20 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Yea I would say he's doubling down on himself subconsciously, but still kinda changing it. I mean we're talking Wun Wun and Leathers here, he's definitely not like any LC recently but he is imo saying the words to the gods (his brother) because it feels good and why the hell not. He makes it clear he's not reifirming his vow because it's already maxed out.

I'm not sure why you think so. To me it is clear that he confirms his commitment and makes it clear to himself (and to the Old Gods) what exactly he is committed to. 

20 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

I would say Thorne and Marsh are prideful of their institution and do more then count turnips, I mean for the watch? For the watch?

To me Thorne comes across as extremely bitter, and I can even understand why. He was sent to the Wall for remaining loyal to his king. He may have been offered to bend the knee to Robert and said no, but he may be secretly regretting it now. I have a feeling that he detests and despises the Night's Watch as it is, and he takes his bitterness and anger out on the new recruits (who are all extremely unworthy of having a knight to teach them, of course). Pridefulness of the institution, I see not. 

Marsh may be thinking he is acting for the Watch, but I don't think upcoming events will justify this belief. He is loyal to the Night's Watch which was for him a rather comfortable workplace (he probably liked counting because he was good at it) and allowed him to have some sort of a career without having to do the nastier jobs, like ranging and fighting and dirtying his hands in general. But this new Watch, preoccupied with Others and wights, making an alliance with the wildlings to the extent that the wildlings are now all over Castle Black and in some otherwise empty castles, and the Lord Commander actually thinks they are part of the realms of men, and some of them are actually women, and all sorts of unheard things are happening, there are unwelcome guests on the Wall - this is really uncomfortable and no wonder he is upset. Yet, we never catch him worrying about how the Watch will fulfil the real purpose. 

[Fool Stands On Giant’s Toe]

I always assumed Tyrion sent him to the wall for Jon to kill like a gold black dead thing 

[Lord Lannister]

15 hours ago, Bowen Marsh said:

Worry no more.  I assassinated Jon.  This abuse use of power is behind us now.  I shall bury both of them in the same grave hole.  Two a-holes in one hole.  After all, they are Brothers. 

Jon abused his power in order to murder a man who he does not like. 

Your payment of gold for a job well done has been sent. Make sure your next Lord Commander is more attentive to King Tommen's wishes. 

[Hugorfonics]

12 hours ago, Julia H. said:

She doesn't remember much, but the love a little child receives teaches the child that (s)he is lovable and makes him / her also able to love. Tyrion was born and raised in a castle. It is totally possible that he received love, as a baby, from someone, for example, a good-hearted wetnurse, and that he was cuddled and kissed, even if he does not remember.

Word. Imo upbringing definitely matters but I think anybody is capable of being a loving person

12 hours ago, Julia H. said:

In Ned Stark's time, this sort of "solution" sure would not have been the usual business.

Idk, one lord tried dabbling in slavery and another lord successfully raped a peasant then cut her husband's tongue off because solutions are easy to come by.

Dunk and Lady Webber make it clear that minor lords suiting up without going to the authorities is a Sunset tradition. Especially regarding land.

12 hours ago, Julia H. said:

I don't see why any of those things would be a problem, especially that Jon does not even know about them.

He doesn't know a king is absolute? (Reed bartered, protection for loyalty though. But Mandrely got mad vows that 9 year olds are supposed to understand. So judging Mormonts 9 year olds approach , I'd guess it's more similar to Mandrelys, along with most lords. Absolute loyalty demanded) 

Not that I think Jon would abuse his powers, if anything he might reform them like he did at the wall. And I totally don't expect a utopian democracy or something at the end but I also dont expect to Jon have have an easy ride at/ to the top.

12 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Sorry, I can't figure out the meaning of this sentence.

The two biggest claimants for king of the north, that's not Jon, is Ramsay and Stannis (I expect Ramsay to off papa and day now). I think Ramsay will be killed by Jon while Stannis will bend his knee to king Jon.

But I'm expecting the queens of the north too. One is Jeyne/Arya. She is the official ruler of Winterfell and a whole lot more. Dangerous girl, who loves her brother so much Jaime should move over so I think that's ok on Jon's front.

I don't think Sansa or Jon wants to war on the other, I'm sure they love each other. But there's confusion with them changing names and dying. Some northern and riverlords swore Jon over Sansa already but The riverlords distrust Cats stepson, so I see all sorts of angles for the queen of winter to reign. (They refer to her as "the north")

12 hours ago, Julia H. said:

No, that's not what I meant at all. It is totally natural, normal and necessary that a Lord Commander has a fair amount of agency and authority. What I meant was before that. In AgoT Jon, as a green recruit, approaches Maester Aemon and asks him to save Sam and suggests that Sam could be the right man to serve the old maester himself, and Maester Aemon listens to this advice and accepts it. Jon also manages to convince his peers to let Sam be - despite Alliser encouraging aggression against Sam. So Jon can successfully negotiate with his peers and with an officer to solve a problem

I suppose? I would kinda say though, like the execution of Janos Slynt, he turned a problem into a solution and a much bigger problem.

Chett did not take Aemons decision gracefully, and planned on killing Sam and others in vengeance. He failed but his accomplices killed Mormont.

Jon convinced some peers, Ghost convinced the rest. Like Chett, this did not win him favors. 

12 hours ago, Julia H. said:

In ACoK, Qhorin tells Jon to do what needs be done and lets him decide what it is, and even explains it to him afterwards (and agrees with his decision). So Jon learns that he has competence and agency to decide what needs to be done in a critical situation. And so on

Not sure he agreed. But whatever, I do. Plus she saved him later.

He's the least frodo like outta the bunch, for sure. (Which is saying something because you know my feelings lol)

12 hours ago, Julia H. said:

I'm not sure why you think so. To me it is clear that he confirms his commitment and makes it clear to himself (and to the Old Gods) what exactly he is committed to. 

Ill give it a reread

12 hours ago, Julia H. said:

I have a feeling that he detests and despises the Night's Watch as it is

Well, it's terrible there lol

12 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Pridefulness of the institution, I see not. 

He didn't run when he went to KL, more then Daeron can say. Perhaps it's because of his mission in acok, which was extremely important. (More then Daerons, recruit fat reachmen, by... song? Lol come on Jon)

12 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Yet, we never catch him worrying about how the Watch will fulfil the real purpose. 

Yea but he doesn't really argue when Jon brings up the others. I mean we never catch Leathers or Grenn worrying about them either but that doesn't mean much. (Grenn especially, cuz he really knows the enemy)

[Darryk]

17 hours ago, Bowen Marsh said:

Worry no more.  I assassinated Jon.  This abuse use of power is behind us now.  I shall bury both of them in the same grave hole.  Two a-holes in one hole.  After all, they are Brothers. 

Jon abused his power in order to murder a man who he does not like. 

You're gonna get what's coming to ya, Bowen Marsh.

[TheNecromancerofMirkwood]

On 1/4/2022 at 2:16 PM, 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

The "take no family" bit reeks of Andal religiosity anyway. Its highly unlikely that it was ever part of the original Night's Watch vows. In fact, its dumb beyond belief as it removes the possibility of having an actual way to get ahead in a society that is stratified. A life sentence at the ass end of the world where you potentially freeze to death is just asking for rebellion. And if you strip away the Andal monastic tendency, you would simply be returning The Watch to its ORIGINAL purpose.

What SHOULD happen is Jon (or whomever after him) reforms The Watch to include having a family AFTER a period of time served, depending upon the nature of how you arrived. Those who arrive to take the black who were accused of capital crimes (murder, rape, etc) should have to serve a longer time (15+ years) before they are discharged if they wish (some men may serve their entire life as they see fit). Others who take the black voluntarily serve a much shorter period of time.

After their tenure they should be allowed to wed, father children AND be given a plot of land to homestead somewhere within The Gift & The New Gift. However, they SHOULD be required to be a Ready Reserve Force at times of need, being recalled (as it were) like a Bannerman to a southern lord. The new farmsteads will eventually lead to new settlements/towns that would supply The Night's Watch with not just food and materiel, but also potential new recruits.

This becomes win-win for everyone. The Watch is no longer penal servitude without possibility of parole and it can potentially grow itself into a respected and even desired organization. And anyway, never forget that The Wall is inspired partly by both Hadrian's Wall and The Antonine Wall. While the latter was abandoned, the former had limitanei serving there at the end during the Roman evacuation that had families. And those families had helped to supply the garrisons with men and the like.

[FictionIsntReal]

On 1/4/2022 at 7:01 PM, Julia H. said:

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.

Ramsay caught them in Winterfell, after they'd already killed some of his bannermen. He's certainly not reacting to some prophecy Melisandre imparted to people other than Ramsay. And after Jon's agents were caught in Winterfell and Ramsay sends that ultimatum, Jon's response is not to clarify that he never told Mance to do any of that stuff but instead to march against Ramsay.

Quote

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.

I don't think you can generalize to that extent. Yoren wasn't being interfered with until he ran into Amory (who is not "everybody", thus the set excluding him is not "nobody"), and since then the only military force that has gotten involved with the NW are the wildlings & Stannis' army.

Quote

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.)

The watch was hosting Stannis Baratheon when Bowen said that, and Bowen was afraid that this would put them in the crosshairs of Tywin (who'd already beaten Stannis at the Blackwater). Tywin's letter praising Slynt is small beans in comparison to that (and indeed the Watch didn't pick the guy Stannis hated, which the Iron Throne can't really do much about).

Quote

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.

Is going to war with Ramsay "for the sake of the realm"?

Quote

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.

What LC of the NW ever previously sent a squad south of the Wall to retrieve the wife of some noble? What LC of the NW previously marched against any nobles south of the Wall?

Quote

The king is supposed to have an heir to inherit the throne only because family is such a central concept in this society

It's a central concept in basically every society, though that is more the case in an aristocratic society than one based on meritocracy/bureaucracy.

Quote

Yet, somehow they manage to function in their positions, even in important ones.

The position of most Westerosi involves being primarily concerned with the good of their own family.

Quote

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.

I make no claims that it did not disturb him. He had to choose between his loyalty to his family and his vows, and like the previous times his vows were tested he stuck by them. If he'd been married and had children, that might have worked out quite differently.

On 1/5/2022 at 7:12 PM, Julia H. said:

You could say that he is not really free to make this decision then, but we see that officers in the Night's Watch can choose to live a very comfortable life, perfunctorily following the letters of the vows but doing nothing more (e.g., Bowen Marsh counting the turnips

Bowen is a steward, so counting turnips is exactly the sort of thing he's supposed to be doing. But he was also wounded when he defeated the Weeper at the Bridge of Skulls, so he doesn't just do the "comfortable" thing.

Quote

Compared to that, it is possible to choose to really care and to really serve and protect humanity even at the price of personal risks and sacrifices, in what I believe to be the original spirit of the Watch.

Going to war with Ramsay isn't really protecting "humanity". Instead it's more like Robb warring against Joffrey or Ned warring against Aerys. Both understandable as a Stark sticking up for their wronged kin, but Jon's perspective isn't supposed to be that parochial anymore.

5 hours ago, TheNecromancerofMirkwood said:

The "take no family" bit reeks of Andal religiosity anyway. Its highly unlikely that it was ever part of the original Night's Watch vows. In fact, its dumb beyond belief as it removes the possibility of having an actual way to get ahead in a society that is stratified. A life sentence at the ass end of the world where you potentially freeze to death is just asking for rebellion. And if you strip away the Andal monastic tendency, you would simply be returning The Watch to its ORIGINAL purpose.

The maesters also predate the Andal invasion, and they're also celibate monastics. I don't think the worldbuilding there makes much sense (everyone in Westeros speaks the same Andal tongue, despite how huge it is and how long many places have been settled), but that's just how it is. Celibate orders just seems to be a recurring thing for GRRM in this series.

[Julia H.]

7 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Word. Imo upbringing definitely matters but I think anybody is capable of being a loving person

Ramsay should try harder. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) 

7 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Idk, one lord tried dabbling in slavery and another lord successfully raped a peasant then cut her husband's tongue off because solutions are easy to come by.

Dunk and Lady Webber make it clear that minor lords suiting up without going to the authorities is a Sunset tradition. Especially regarding land.

But Lady Hornwood and her suitors did bring up the problem in Winterfell. If Ned had been there, I'm pretty sure he would have settled the matter. Bran didn't feel it was his place to do it, which is understandable, but it ended badly.

Alys Karstark also went to the only available "king" to ask for help instead of wanting to settle the problem with her relatives on her own. It's one thing when all involved parties want to settle a dispute among themselves. When at least one of them requires the overlord's help / sense of justice, it's a different situation.

7 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

He doesn't know a king is absolute? (Reed bartered, protection for loyalty though. But Mandrely got mad vows that 9 year olds are supposed to understand. So judging Mormonts 9 year olds approach , I'd guess it's more similar to Mandrelys, along with most lords. Absolute loyalty demanded) 

I mean he doesn't know of his Targaryen ancestry, he knows very little of his skinchanging abilities, and he has no idea of what's going on with Bran (or that Bran is even alive). 

7 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Not that I think Jon would abuse his powers, if anything he might reform them like he did at the wall. And I totally don't expect a utopian democracy or something at the end but I also dont expect to Jon have have an easy ride at/ to the top.

The two biggest claimants for king of the north, that's not Jon, is Ramsay and Stannis (I expect Ramsay to off papa and day now). I think Ramsay will be killed by Jon while Stannis will bend his knee to king Jon.

But I'm expecting the queens of the north too. One is Jeyne/Arya. She is the official ruler of Winterfell and a whole lot more. Dangerous girl, who loves her brother so much Jaime should move over so I think that's ok on Jon's front.

I don't think Sansa or Jon wants to war on the other, I'm sure they love each other. But there's confusion with them changing names and dying. Some northern and riverlords swore Jon over Sansa already but The riverlords distrust Cats stepson, so I see all sorts of angles for the queen of winter to reign. (They refer to her as "the north")

Yes, those are all possibilities and points to consider. Jon has made it clear before that he does not want to usurp his siblings' rights. To what extent he rules, it comes and will come from necessity. 

7 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

I suppose? I would kinda say though, like the execution of Janos Slynt, he turned a problem into a solution and a much bigger problem.

Chett did not take Aemons decision gracefully, and planned on killing Sam and others in vengeance. He failed but his accomplices killed Mormont.

Jon gave sound advice to Maester Aemon because Sam was much more suitable to be an apprentice maester than Chett was. (It would have been a waste to let Alliser and some bullies kill Sam on the pretext of "training".) Jon didn't know Chett though, and it wasn't his responsibility to compensate Chett for losing his position. Maester Aemon as Chett's immediate boss could have figured out something to make Chett less unhappy. That he did not think of it, instead (apparently) just threw Chett out of the office and straight into the kennels suggests that Aemon may not have been very happy with Chett in the first place, and that he was, in fact, very happy to get rid of him as soon as a more suitable person for the job was recommended to him. Knowing Chett, it is not very surprising, and it's likely that he wouldn't have been kept on forever by Maester Aemon.

Therefore, it is also very likely that Chett eventually would have made trouble anyway. Keeping incompetent people in positions they are not suited for just to stop them from causing trouble (murdering people) is hardly the kind of advice good leaders would follow. Jon is not responsible for what Chett did. Chett may have blamed his lot on Jon, but we know exactly what kind of person Chett was, and what he had done before. He had, for example, blamed the girl he killed for not loving him. He was stupid and evil, and that was the reason why he blamed others for his misfortunes. Had he tried to make himself a valuable assistant to Maester Aemon while he had the chance, his fate would surely have been different - but then he wouldn't have been Chett.

7 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Jon convinced some peers, Ghost convinced the rest. Like Chett, this did not win him favors. 

Ghost was also "Jon".  There was only one person (Rast) who needed to be convinced by Ghost, and in this case the other recruits were glad to help. No problem resulted from it, except that Ser Alliser hated Jon even more, but he had hated him before that anyway. 

7 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

He didn't run when he went to KL, more then Daeron can say. Perhaps it's because of his mission in acok, which was extremely important. (More then Daerons, recruit fat reachmen, by... song? Lol come on Jon)

Better than Daeron, for sure, but then he was a knight and an officer of the Watch, not some misguided singer. Also, Daeron was outside the Seven Kingdoms when he deserted and in a position to earn money for himself in a way he enjoyed, so he must have thought it was the chance of his life; whereas Alliser would have had to desert before leaving the Seven Kingdoms, which would have seemed more risky. Much as he hated the Watch, he probably did not cherish the idea of becoming an outlaw and getting caught / killed before leaving the realm, and then there was no comfortable home to wait for him in Essos. He could only have been a sellsword somewhere, which is really not that great an alternative to being a master-at-arms in the NW.

7 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Yea but he doesn't really argue when Jon brings up the others. I mean we never catch Leathers or Grenn worrying about them either but that doesn't mean much. (Grenn especially, cuz he really knows the enemy)

Thorne disagrees with letting the wildlings in. As for the Others - though we don't see him do any ranging before Jon sends him on a ranging expedition in ADwD, he is probably a ranger. Experienced rangers apparently know about the Others already at the beginning of the series, although are reluctant to speak about them. Alliser may have heard stories from those who had been beyond the Wall, and, as an officer, he may have heard about Mormont's worries as well.  

[Jaenara Belarys]

@Julia H. @Hugorfonics.......is this all about if Jon was wrong to kill Janos Slynt? 

[Darth Sidious]

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 embarassment to justice. Jon Snow hated Janos Slynt and used the moment to kill him.