Jump to content

Immediate consequences of Jon's betrayal of the NW


Rondo
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

All right, I see. I just don't think that Ned performing this act of justice in the land that he rules is a good example. 

But you do see that in this very specific instance, if Ned was less hands on with his duty and sent Gareds head with the body still attached, it could potentially be a politically shattering moment when the knowledge of others becomes a thing?

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

Well, that's the way of kings in connection with everyone

Indeed.

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

There is absolutely no correlation between Ned and Lorch or Ramsay. Ned executed a deserter, someone who had already removed himself from the NW and happened to be captured in Northern territory. Lorch attacked a group of watchmen who were on their way to the Wall in totally legal business. Ramsay is threatening the Watch

Lorch was ordered by the regent to apprehend Gendry. The king gets his way, according to KL Lorch was following the law. 

Ramsay is the true born heir of Winterfell, whatever that means, but he wants his wife back. A highlord getting his kidnapped wife back is understandably legal. 

Neutrality is just a fancy word for submission

 

 

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

Makes for a very good read.

Truly. Honestly they may be my favorite interactions in the series. (I love how Stannis doesn't seem to have a sense of humor but keeps knocking these jokes out the park, which confuses Jon to no end because Starks definitely have no sense of humor)

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

The Starks have had special relations with the Watch for thousands of years, and he probably uses his influence with Ned to promote the interests of the Watch

Benjin (obviously) is so mysterious. The Old Bear says Ben knew that Craster gave his sons to the gods. Then Gared is the the 4th or 5th this year, and we know that the brothers talk because Ben's in Winterfell telling Jon not to join the NW ( Mormont assumed Jon was sent purposely by Ned). Lots of questions here 

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

If you are arguing against the death penalty, I totally agree. But no one in ASOIAF, not even Mormont, is enlightened enough to start a campaign to abolish it.

Inadvertently lol. 

I won't put anything past Jon, besides he understands the more dead equals more others

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

Maybe there isn't. But Mormont dies thinking of his son, I can't believe he does not think of him every day while he lives. "The poor boy committed a crime, but it wasn't really his fault, was it? So who am I, in charge of these poor youngsters not to pardon their transgressions?" Something like this. Or not. 

Not his fault? He human trafficked so he didn't have to pawn jewels and could stay in bed with his wife for an extra half hour.

But I see where your getting at.

I think hes ashamed that Jorah didn't take the black, (his son would be his brother? I thought this wasn't KL) kinda morphing his before life and after life. I kinda think Jorah may go to the wall, if it's still a thing, but only after continuing his arc. (I'm like obsessed with Jorah, he's such an interesting character)

2 hours ago, Julia H. said:

The original idea must have been that both needed the other one.

But do they? King Stannis defeated Mance, he's also the one mining for dragonglass. The crows if anything seem to make the job more difficult. (It doesn't help that Stannis immediately marches south)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Hrulj said:

Watch can’t afford to be abolished or destroyed.

Which is why they had to take action against Ramsay when he threatened to kill them all and they couldn't fulfill the terms of his letter.

4 hours ago, Hrulj said:

Find a better argument. I hate Daenarys and her abolishment of slavery.

My argument is that Jon was completely morally justified in taking action to prevent a thirteen year old being raped repeatedly by a sadistic psychopath and possibly forced to have sex with a dog. In the same way I think Daenerys is completely morally justified in liberating the slaves. I don't see anything wrong with my argument. If we are removing all moral components and looking at strictly legal ones then Jon may have been in the wrong and so is Daenerys. But I can't fault them for this since they have perfectly good moral reasons for what they are doing - protecting the innocent.

4 hours ago, Hrulj said:

He has no right to raise arms and attacks or defend off the wall. 

He does have the right to raise arms in defence of the wall because he is lord commander of the Night's watch.

4 hours ago, Hrulj said:

To leave it means he’s a deserter and has to be murdered.

Deserters are to be executed, not murdered. Whether Jon was a deserter is debatable.

4 hours ago, Hrulj said:

Dany is a claimant and watch isn’t

That has nothing to do with whether she is interfering in the realms affairs. Which she will be, when she invades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Maia said:

Well, it was one way to prevent enemies from punching through, as they have already tried to do.

But it leaves the Watch blind. It is an action rooted in fear of the wildlings, so I think it can be interpreted as a sign of cowardice. Marsh fears to face them.

4 hours ago, Maia said:

But it has never been a good idea to alienate Tywin Lannister, so Marsh not wanting to do so is understandable, IMHO.

It is but I still think it can be seen as cowardly - he fears retribution from Tywin, fearing for his own life seems to be what motivates his actions. But I think it goes a bit beyond just self-preservation. Even when other options are available that keep him safe he always chooses the ones that completely isolate him from danger at that moment to the point where other advantages are lost, and his proposed solutions to avoid facing these problems would cause issues later on.

Bowen prioritises keeping himself safe in one moment so much that he doesn't see the bigger picture and think about keeping himself safe later on. For example backing Janos Slynt. He does it because he fears retribution from Tywin. But he doesn't think about the later consequences to his safety - if Slynt is an ineffective leader and gets him killed, if it antagonsises Stannis etc. Same with wanting to seal the gates - he won't be able to see the Wildlings coming later on. Even killing Jon could be another example.

But if it was self preservation alone I think he would eventually want to take action to eliminate the enemy. I think Bowen might be in denial about the threat of the Others.

Marsh's actions can also be interpreted as prudent but I think we are supposed to see him as cowardly. Or at least a hypocrite. The way he attacks Jon is cowardly too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Which is why they had to take action against Ramsay when he threatened to kill them all and they couldn't fulfill the terms of his letter.

My argument is that Jon was completely morally justified in taking action to prevent a thirteen year old being raped repeatedly by a sadistic psychopath and possibly forced to have sex with a dog. In the same way I think Daenerys is completely morally justified in liberating the slaves. I don't see anything wrong with my argument. If we are removing all moral components and looking at strictly legal ones then Jon may have been in the wrong and so is Daenerys. But I can't fault them for this since they have perfectly good moral reasons for what they are doing - protecting the innocent.

He does have the right to raise arms in defence of the wall because he is lord commander of the Night's watch.

Deserters are to be executed, not murdered. Whether Jon was a deserter is debatable.

That has nothing to do with whether she is interfering in the realms affairs. Which she will be, when she invades.

Except that when Jon believed that Arya was being raped and abused by Ramsay at Winterfell he did . . . nothing.  It was only after she had apparently escaped that he took action, by sending a party to rescue her from a wilderness.  Admittedly he had no intention of returning her, but that is a separate matter; he also had no intention of taking her from Winterfell itself.

Jon took no action against Ramsay until directly threatened.  So moral arguments aren't really helpful here.

Another point: Jon can obviously say that Arya is a fake, which she is.  It doesn't mean he will be believed.  The Boltons will brand him as a liar, and Jon has clear motive in any event.  I suspect the Northerners would suspect he was lying to protect his sister, as well as cause trouble for the Boltons, although they would be happy to use Jon's statement against the Boltons.  Not that it's likely to matter.  FArya will probably come and go while Jon is out of commission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

It works both ways.  If Ramsay threatens The NW they can make tactically sound decisions.  Castle Black has no defences to the south so waiting for Ramsay to attack would be suicide.  And Jon of course takes no member of the NW to meet Ramsay (or at least that was the plan). He's attempting to meet Ramsay's challenge without involving the NW, that much is clear:

A Dance with Dragons - Jon XIII

The roar was all he could have hoped for, the tumult so loud that the two old shields tumbled from the walls. Soren Shieldbreaker was on his feet, the Wanderer as well. Toregg the Tall, Brogg, Harle the Huntsman and Harle the Handsome both, Ygon Oldfather, Blind Doss, even the Great Walrus. I have my swords, thought Jon Snow, and we are coming for you, Bastard.
Yarwyck and Marsh were slipping out, he saw, and all their men behind them. It made no matter. He did not need them now. He did not want them. No man can ever say I made my brothers break their vows. If this is oathbreaking, the crime is mine and mine alone.

Tactically sound decision is not to attack and give Jon to Ramsay if he comes for him. That’s all. It has no defenses south for that exact reason. 
 

as member of NW he can’t do that without involving NW. He swore an oath and has to stay at the wall. If he decides to leave watch should kill him. It is pathbreaking and crime is his and punishment was just. 

3 hours ago, Aejohn the Conqueroo said:

If Ramsay's attack would leave the wall undefended (and it would - even the loss of 5 men at this point would be crucial) then how can Jon in good conscience sit and wait for it to happen? That would be akin to abandoning his post. 

Jon is not in an ivory tower he's in the real world and his actions have to be in line with achieving his goal of defending the Wall against the Others, not filtered through some esoteric interpretation of what his vows really mean and whether or not any little transgression of them is treason. Every decision that Jon has made including answering Ramsay's threats has been towards the end of ensuring the Wall will be as strong as he can make it when the Others come. Judge him on their efficacy sure, but asserting that he should have sat there and waited in an indefensible position for slaughter by a rogue 'lord' like Ramsay is ludicrous. 

He can sit and surrender himself to Ramsay if it comes to that. Watch takes no part. 
 

wrong. Jon makes selfish decisions over and over again. If he wanted what’s best for the wall he’d accept Stannis offer or surrender himself. He’s a selfish teen who only looks out for things he cares for. 

33 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Which is why they had to take action against Ramsay when he threatened to kill them all and they couldn't fulfill the terms of his letter.

My argument is that Jon was completely morally justified in taking action to prevent a thirteen year old being raped repeatedly by a sadistic psychopath and possibly forced to have sex with a dog. In the same way I think Daenerys is completely morally justified in liberating the slaves. I don't see anything wrong with my argument. If we are removing all moral components and looking at strictly legal ones then Jon may have been in the wrong and so is Daenerys. But I can't fault them for this since they have perfectly good moral reasons for what they are doing - protecting the innocent.

He does have the right to raise arms in defence of the wall because he is lord commander of the Night's watch.

Deserters are to be executed, not murdered. Whether Jon was a deserter is debatable.

That has nothing to do with whether she is interfering in the realms affairs. Which she will be, when she invades.

1. Action to take is fulfill all parts that you can. 
2. He isn’t. Take no part means take no part. Kids and women get raped everywhere. He didn’t care until it was his own family. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Nevets said:

Except that when Jon believed that Arya was being raped and abused by Ramsay at Winterfell he did . . . nothing.  It was only after she had apparently escaped that he took action, by sending a party to rescue her from a wilderness.  Admittedly he had no intention of returning her, but that is a separate matter; he also had no intention of taking her from Winterfell itself.

But I thought he sent Mance and co. to Winterfell to rescue her. Why were they there otherwise? Jon is influenced by Melisandre's vision, but he acts as soon as he hears of the wedding of Ramsay and Arya, e.g. as soon as he knows Arya will be in danger. As far as I can recall. I don't think he waits until he hears she's escaped, according to the wiki he hears of the Wedding and then sends disguised Mance out to find her.

Regardless he's still acting to keep her away from Ramsay anyhow, either by sending men to take her from Winterfell or to ensure she is not recaptured by the Boltons, so I think my point still stands that Jon's actions were morally justified because they protected innocents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

But you do see that in this very specific instance, if Ned was less hands on with his duty and sent Gareds head with the body still attached, it could potentially be a politically shattering moment when the knowledge of others becomes a thing?

It could be (provided Gared were phyiscally able to make that revelation) - but Ned acted on the information he had and on the law that he knew. 

2 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Lorch was ordered by the regent to apprehend Gendry. The king gets his way, according to KL Lorch was following the law. 

Lorch was following an order, not the law. The order, however, violated the principle of NW neutrality, which is a sign that this neutrality is not taken seriously by the royal court, and the NW should draw the conclusions. The order also targeted a boy who had done nothing wrong. That is very different from what Ned did with an obvious lawbreaker. And Ned was taking full responsibility for his verdicts, which is another reason why the comparison with Lorch does not hold. Lorch was a paid executioner not interested in whether the order he was following was just, while Ned himself made the decision that he thought was best for the country.

2 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Ramsay is the true born heir of Winterfell, whatever that means, but he wants his wife back. A highlord getting his kidnapped wife back is understandably legal. 

The "wife" was definitely not kidnapped but ran away and was happy enough to do it - and for very understandable reasons. Wanting back one's wife is one thing, using the wrong sort of means is another. Ramsay did not only want his "wife" back, he also demanded a number of totally innocent people (including a baby) to be handed over to him, and was threatening the whole of an institution collectively - how is that comparable to Ned executing a single deserter?

We also know that Jeyne was nothing but a slave and her marriage was not legal - after all, she had been forced to marry under a false name. It means Ramsay was not her legal husband (he had never married "Jeyne") any more than Jorah had been the husband of the poachers he had sold, so what right did Ramsay have to demand her back besides the "right" of a slave-owner? 

 

2 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Neutrality is just a fancy word for submission

That's basically the interpretation of those who argue that Jon should have waited for Ramsay to flay the whole Watch if he so pleased. I think the neutrality was something that used to be invented to ensure the peaceful alliance between the Watch and the lords of the realm. In the current situation, I don't see how submission to one kind of power (e.g. the Boltons) at the expense of another kind of power (cf. handing over Stannis's family) is "neutral". So, no. Submission is unconditional, the neutrality principle can only be based on reciprocity.

2 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Not his fault? He human trafficked so he didn't have to pawn jewels and could stay in bed with his wife for an extra half hour.

Well, what can a poor husband do? It was all the wife's fault. It is known. :P

2 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

But do they? King Stannis defeated Mance, he's also the one mining for dragonglass. The crows if anything seem to make the job more difficult. (It doesn't help that Stannis immediately marches south)

The Watch currently does not have the stength or the resources it was originally meant to have. That's one problem. Most players in the realm do not recognize the importance of protecting the Northern border any longer. That's another problem. The situation has changed and the old solutions are not working any more. The status of the Watch is not what is should be.

King Stannis does not save the realm just for the sake of saving the realm, he wants to be recognized as the one true king. So the help he gives the NW is essentially a mercenary one. Yet, Jon has to realize that no other king or lord is going to offer a better deal to help the Watch.

Edited by Julia H.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Hrulj said:

1. Action to take is fulfill all parts that you can. 

I don't understand what you mean here.

9 minutes ago, Hrulj said:

2. He isn’t. Take no part means take no part. Kids and women get raped everywhere. He didn’t care until it was his own family. 

Are you saying that Jon has no moral justification because he only saved Arya? And that last part isn't true because he also saved Alys from a forced marriage. Jon can't save people he has no knowledge of. Saving Arya, even one person, is still morally right. Or are you arguing that Jon only saved Arya because she was his sister? Again he also saved Alys from a similar situation so it isn't limited to family unless you count Alys as a really distant Stark relative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

But I thought he sent Mance and co. to Winterfell to rescue her. Why were they there otherwise? Jon is influenced by Melisandre's vision, but he acts as soon as he hears of the wedding of Ramsay and Arya, e.g. as soon as he knows Arya will be in danger. As far as I can recall. I don't think he waits until he hears she's escaped, according to the wiki he hears of the Wedding and then sends disguised Mance out to find her.

Regardless he's still acting to keep her away from Ramsay anyhow, either by sending men to take her from Winterfell or to ensure she is not recaptured by the Boltons, so I think my point still stands that Jon's actions were morally justified because they protected innocents.

He sent Mance and the spearwives to the region near Long Lake to rescue the gray girl on a dying horse fleeing a wedding that Melisandre saw in a vision and believed was Arya. (It was apparently Alys Karstark). There is nothing in the text about Jon sending them to Winterfell, and his previous thoughts clearly indicated his belief that he could do nothing for her while she was under Bolton control.

Why Mance went to Winterfell is a very good question; one we don't have an answer to.  I don't believe it's because Jon purposely sent him there.

Edited by Nevets
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Nevets said:

He sent Mance and the spearwives to the region near Long Lake to rescue the gray girl on a dying horse that Melisandre saw in a vision and believed was Arya.

Does Jon know that the Boltons, specifically Ramsay, have Arya before he hears of the wedding? If he believes Arya is just a captive he probably thinks she is not at risk because she is a valuable highborn captive. It is the wedding and the situation that being Ramsay's wife entails that causes Jon to really believe she is at risk of certain harm, at least that's how I interpreted it. Please forgive me as I don't have the book to hand, I am relying on the Wiki and A Search of Ice and Fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Does Jon know that the Boltons, specifically Ramsay, have Arya before he hears of the wedding? If he believes Arya is just a captive he probably thinks she is not at risk because she is a valuable highborn captive. It is the wedding and the situation that being Ramsay's wife entails that causes Jon to really believe she is at risk of certain harm, at least that's how I interpreted it. Please forgive me as I don't have the book to hand, I am relying on the Wiki and A Search of Ice and Fire.

Ramsay sent a message to all the North announcing his upcoming marriage to Arya.  A copy was sent to the Wall, which Jon read.  Stannis also mentioned it in his letter from Deepwood Motte.   Immediately after Jon received the letter from Ramsay, Mel mentions the vision, but says it is in the future.

Jon thinks of Arya, and that she will probably fight back and be hurt or killed for it.  But it is only when Mel offers Mance that he takes action, and even then is only contemplating a wilderness rescue.

Obviously, he intended to keep her from being returned to the Boltons, but that is very different from taking her out of Winterfell itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

It could be (provided Gared were phyiscally able to make that revelation) - but Ned acted on the information he had and on the law that he knew. 

I'll take it 

36 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

Lorch was following an order, not the law.

Ask Cersei what the difference is, she won't have an answer (neither would her father, son, husband or moonboy for all I know)

36 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

The order, however, violated the principle of NW neutrality, which is a sign that this neutrality is not taken seriously by the royal court, and the NW should draw the conclusions. The order also targeted a boy who had done nothing wrong. That is very different from what Ned did with an obvious lawbreaker. And Ned was taking full responsibility for his verdicts, which is another reason why the comparison with Lorch does not hold. Lorch was a paid executioner not interested in whether the order he was following was just, while Ned himself made the decision that he thought was best for the country.

We know Gendrys a protagonist and targeted solely for his birth but Lorch just has an arrest warrant and doesn't know that he's recreating hide and go seek under the bed. 

I also think the NW should draw conclusions and when targeted as the enemy by absolute scum like Lorch it no longer makes sense to play neutrality. That's at least the decision reached by Yoren.

(I do take issue that Ned is not a paid executioner like Illyn. True he has a tongue, which is why he opens asoiaf with Ice in front of the protagonist spewing "In the name of Robert of House Bara..." like the switch flicking executioner he is, who didn't get the pardon call from the governor despite staring at the phone.

It's the eyes that get me. Jon didn't kill Ygritte because his father said before you flick the switch look in their souls. Jon did, Robb did. Even the 6 year old did. Gods know what Ned saw, like it matters. We all saw him hiding behind Roberts name. Lol ok, invertance over.)

44 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

The "wife" was definitely not kidnapped but ran away

She said she doesn't want to and then they physically tossed her from the walls. But, I mean for sure. She definitely wanted out

45 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

However, we know that Jeyne was nothing but a slave and her marriage was not legal - after all, she had been forced to marry under a false name. It means Ramsay was not her legal husband (he had never married "Jeyne") any more than Jorah had been the husband of the poachers he had sold, so what right did Ramsay have to demand her back besides the "right" of a slave-owner? 

But Jon doesn't know this, for all we know Ramsay doesn't know either. (Of course he does) At the least he publicly says that's Arya. 

I was gonna say he wants his Reek back because I like that line but I didn't specifically because of the concept of slavery. You can't own men, but when you put a ring on it in this Westerosi patriarchy you most definitely can own women. (We see a similar situation with Alys where Jon chooses right over custom, another stretching of neutrality)

50 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

But Ramsay did not only want his "wife" back, he also demanded a number of totally innocent people (including a baby) to be handed over to him, and was threatening the whole of an institution collectively - how is that comparable to Ned executing a single deserter?

Oh, them. Rams is a wild one. He pushes boundaries.

59 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

The Watch currently does not have the stength or the resources it was originally meant to have. That's one problem.

I don't even know anymore. I used to think human wights vs other wights was just ironic but now complemented with the ridiculous relations with their southern kingdoms, I think it's also a mistake.

Whatd the old school heroes do? Build a snowfort to keep a bunch of Ygritte and Crasters huddled up with Others, was the builder a Craster? What the hell were they thinking and why is Jon the first to decide to get the sheep away from the zombie wolves? 

I like to think of 10k years of fuck ups and not like, the old door that Sam found was created with an ulterior motive but either way, almost everythings fucked up.

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

King Stannis does not save the realm just for the sake of saving the realm, he wants to be recognized as the one true king. So the help he gives the NW is essentially a mercenary one. Yet, Jon has to realize that no other king or lord is going to offer a better deal to help the Watch.

(No he certainly didn't, Stannis saved the realm because the superstitious nut wanted to kill Davos out of, like, sad fury? However the virtuous knight hit community chest last turn and had a get out of jail free card. Because Melisandre cheated and put the card there. Every thing Davos did in asos, from bumping and being charmed by big ears to creating his title to forcing his hand and making him free Edric was all because she willed it. Crazy witch)

Exactly. Stannis is the best that's coming, so why is he playing the facade of a lawyer and bickering over fish? He should just end the watch because the system is flawed and broken. (I mean, so is Stannis')

56 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

That's basically the interpretation of those who argue that Jon should have waited for Ramsay to flay the whole Watch if he so pleased I think the neutrality was something that used to be invented to ensure the peaceful alliance between the Watch and the lords of the realm. In the current situation, I don't see how submission to one kind of power (e.g. the Boltons) at the expense of another kind of power (cf. handing over Stannis's family) is "neutral". So, no. Submission is unconditional, the neutrality principle can only be based on reciprocity.

https://youtu.be/k8ws_APXilE

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

I'll take it 

Ask Cersei what the difference is, she won't have an answer (neither would her father, son, husband or moonboy for all I know)

We know Gendrys a protagonist and targeted solely for his birth but Lorch just has an arrest warrant and doesn't know that he's recreating hide and go seek under the bed. 

I also think the NW should draw conclusions and when targeted as the enemy by absolute scum like Lorch it no longer makes sense to play neutrality. That's at least the decision reached by Yoren.

(I do take issue that Ned is not a paid executioner like Illyn. True he has a tongue, which is why he opens asoiaf with Ice in front of the protagonist spewing "In the name of Robert of House Bara..." like the switch flicking executioner he is, who didn't get the pardon call from the governor despite staring at the phone.

It's the eyes that get me. Jon didn't kill Ygritte because his father said before you flick the switch look in their souls. Jon did, Robb did. Even the 6 year old did. Gods know what Ned saw, like it matters. We all saw him hiding behind Roberts name. Lol ok, invertance over.)

She said she doesn't want to and then they physically tossed her from the walls. But, I mean for sure. She definitely wanted out

But Jon doesn't know this, for all we know Ramsay doesn't know either. (Of course he does) At the least he publicly says that's Arya. 

I was gonna say he wants his Reek back because I like that line but I didn't specifically because of the concept of slavery. You can't own men, but when you put a ring on it in this Westerosi patriarchy you most definitely can own women. (We see a similar situation with Alys where Jon chooses right over custom, another stretching of neutrality)

Oh, them. Rams is a wild one. He pushes boundaries.

I don't even know anymore. I used to think human wights vs other wights was just ironic but now complemented with the ridiculous relations with their southern kingdoms, I think it's also a mistake.

Whatd the old school heroes do? Build a snowfort to keep a bunch of Ygritte and Crasters huddled up with Others, was the builder a Craster? What the hell were they thinking and why is Jon the first to decide to get the sheep away from the zombie wolves? 

I like to think of 10k years of fuck ups and not like, the old door that Sam found was created with an ulterior motive but either way, almost everythings fucked up.

(No he certainly didn't, Stannis saved the realm because the superstitious nut wanted to kill Davos out of, like, sad fury? However the virtuous knight hit community chest last turn and had a get out of jail free card. Because Melisandre cheated and put the card there. Every thing Davos did in asos, from bumping and being charmed by big ears to creating his title to forcing his hand and making him free Edric was all because she willed it. Crazy witch)

Exactly. Stannis is the best that's coming, so why is he playing the facade of a lawyer and bickering over fish? He should just end the watch because the system is flawed and broken. (I mean, so is Stannis')

https://youtu.be/k8ws_APXilE

 

Lorch knows nothing about Gendry's presence in the holdfast.  He initially thinks they are Dondarrion's men; at some point he doesn't care.  I doubt he believes they're really Nights Watch though.  In any case, Gendry had nothing to do with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/26/2022 at 5:49 PM, Rondo said:

Lord Commander Jon Snow betrayed the NW and dragged the ancient Brotherhood into conflict with Roose Bolton.  The immediate consequence is chaos within Castle Black.  This unrest will spread to the other forts on the wall and will lead to a divided Brotherhood.  While most will agree with Bowen Marsh, there will undoubtedly be some who will disagree with the assassination of their lord commander.  Regardless of how erratic and incompetent Jon was, he was their elected lord commander.  What will happen shortly after Jon takes his last breath:

  1. Wun the Giant will be killed but not without trouble.
  2. Bowen Marsh will take over as the interim Lord Commander.  He will organize Castle Black but the wildlings will not be placated.
  3. I do not think Bowen and the Brother will be able to stop the wildlings from leaving the castle to attack the Boltons.
  4. The Weeper and his people will come calling just when the castle is in disorder.

What else?

Jon dies and the scene where his body grows cold will play.  The Wildlings will ride to war to get Mance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

He should just end the watch because the system is flawed and broken.

I don't think Stannis can end traditions like that too many times, if he goes against tradition and law and precedent too much he may start questioning why he made a claim based on those things in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Nevets said:

Another point: Jon can obviously say that Arya is a fake, which she is.  It doesn't mean he will be believed.  The Boltons will brand him as a liar, and Jon has clear motive in any event.  I suspect the Northerners would suspect he was lying to protect his sister, as well as cause trouble for the Boltons, although they would be happy to use Jon's statement against the Boltons.  Not that it's likely to matter.  FArya will probably come and go while Jon is out of commission.

There is also (F)Arya herself.  As long as she is believed to be Arya Stark the Boltons need to possess her so Ramsay can have her produce what he claims is a Bolton-Stark heir to rally the Northerners around.  Her only options out are death, flight and hiding, or to reveal she is really Jeyne Poole and beg for mercy/asylum.  There is already suspicion about her identity, we see that with Mors Umber questioning her to see if she knew the people of Winterfell, sadly mostly now dead.  Her identity could be corroborated by either Jon or whatever survivors taken from Winterfell to The Dreadfort still live.

13 hours ago, Hrulj said:

(1) Tactically sound decision is not to attack and give Jon to Ramsay if he comes for him. That’s all. (2) It has no defenses south for that exact reason. 

(3) as member of NW he can’t do that without involving NW. He swore an oath and has to stay at the wall. If he decides to leave watch should kill him. It is pathbreaking and crime is his and punishment was just. 

(4) He can sit and surrender himself to Ramsay if it comes to that. Watch takes no part. 

(5) wrong. Jon makes selfish decisions over and over again. If he wanted what’s best for the wall he’d accept Stannis offer or surrender himself. He’s a selfish teen who only looks out for things he cares for. 

1.  But Ramsay has not just demanded Jon and he has not just threatened Jon if the other people he has demanded are not handed over, he has threatened The NW.

2.  Obviously it's because Castle Black has no defences that Jon intends to meet him on ground he can have some advantage on.

3.  There is no need to repeat (well, maybe there is) but Jon intends to take no members of The NW with him to face Ramsay.  He's threading the eye of the needle but given Ramsay's demands he's doing it pretty well. 

4. Killing Jon or Jon surrendering is not the answer to anything.  Imagine if Ramsay turned up at Castle Black to demand Arya and then impaled Marsh and The NW present (like the Ironborn at Moat Cailin) for not complying.

5. Jon refuses Stannis's offer to make him Lord of Winterfell, despite how much he reflects that he wants it.  He embraces duty instead.  How is refusing Stannis selfish? :huh:

13 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Lorch was following an order, not the law. The order, however, violated the principle of NW neutrality, which is a sign that this neutrality is not taken seriously by the royal court, and the NW should draw the conclusions. The order also targeted a boy who had done nothing wrong. That is very different from what Ned did with an obvious lawbreaker. And Ned was taking full responsibility for his verdicts, which is another reason why the comparison with Lorch does not hold. Lorch was a paid executioner not interested in whether the order he was following was just, while Ned himself made the decision that he thought was best for the country.

Cersei sent six Goldcloaks after Gendry.  Lorch led one of the three reaving forces Tywin unleashed on The Riverlands (Gregor Clegane and Amory Lorch the others).  As well as causing mayhem, Lorch was looking for Dondarrion and I always thought he simply didn't believe Yoren's claims that they were not his men.

12 hours ago, Nevets said:

He sent Mance and the spearwives to the region near Long Lake to rescue the gray girl on a dying horse fleeing a wedding that Melisandre saw in a vision and believed was Arya. (It was apparently Alys Karstark). There is nothing in the text about Jon sending them to Winterfell, and his previous thoughts clearly indicated his belief that he could do nothing for her while she was under Bolton control.

Why Mance went to Winterfell is a very good question; one we don't have an answer to.  I don't believe it's because Jon purposely sent him there.

I don't really understand why Mance went to Winterfell given how far it is and he could easily have missed (F)Arya while heading there. 

It could be he is determined to secure her so he could force Jon to hand over The Monster in exchange but I don't know if he knows his son is out of reach or why he would go to Winterfell rather than search around Long Lake assiduously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...