Did he deserve it?

[KAH]

So...our humble Lord Commander Crow.

Falling prey to an assassination plot is not something you'd wish upon anyone, but sometimes, they're pretty much asking for it. The fineries of diplomacy is not a huge aspect of Jon Snow's leadership.

Another question in this case, aside from asking for it, is if he also actually deserved it.

Let me just say - I was, and am still - a Jon fan. I'm rooting for him and all his Gary Stu angst. Yet, he's made so much of his oaths that I was of the firm opinion that there was no way he'd break his vows again (unless for the explicit benefit of the Watch, I guess).

And what does he do? One pink-dabbed letter, and he's all a-ragin' to take off southwards and give Ramsay Snow his whatfor. Yep, Jon, you send your men to their deaths and undeaths beyond the Wall, but one little taunt from a fellow bastard, and you're storming off into the other direction. Nice going, Jonny-boy.

You could, of course, argue that his planned foray was for the best of the Watch...yet, does he (or do we?) actually have any concrete proof of that? He did not actually do much to investigate the claims - no scouts were sent out, as I recall. For one letter, the principle of taking no part in the realm's quarrels was openly and irrevocably breached. The Lord Commander set out to abandon the Wall when the Others - no longer an abstract (not to say mythical) threat, but a clear and present danger - could strike at any time.

Jon Snow deserved what he got.

Discuss.

[The Blind Eye]

While he did think to himself that what he was doing would be breaking his vows, I am not so sure he was correct in his assumption. The Nights Watch vows simply prohibit him from, fathering children, marrying, holding land, wearing a crown and winning glory. while winning glory is a debatable outcome for murdering Ramsay he didn't try do it because of the glory part (I think). Ramsay sent him a letter essentially telling him that he was gonna come and kill him. Jon, retorted by declaring that he was going to go kill Ramsay for Ramsay saying he was going to kill him (Jon). No vows broken so far i think. It could also be argued that Jon was acting to protect the realms of men from Ramsay because that guy is a buggering nut case with a direct LSD line into his brain. AND Jon, as LC, can give himself permission to leave the wall, like recruiters get, to go and take care of some NW related business.

While other NW may not approve and Jon's actions really do shattered the spirit of the NW vows, the letter of the law looks pretty clean and i think Jon was unfairly treated. However Bowen or someone should have at least tried to talk him out of it (wildlings excluded, all they want to do is fight rape and plunder).

[WapitiWoman]

Hello. This is only my second post at this site, so please be gentle with me. :drunk:

First of all, the letter from Ramsay Snow was a near total sham. IF it were true, Ramsay would have known where Reek and his bride the fake Arrya were. I do think he killed at least one of Mance's women that were with him at Winterfell.

Ramsay is assuming Reek/Theron Turncoat and fake Arrya are with Jon at the wall. Instead they are with Baratheon.

I think Jon was going to Winterfell to retrieve Mance. After all, at one time he was of the Night Watch. One of Jon's mistakes was moving all those loyal to him away from him. Just a few thoughts.

[eggV]

What he deserved was maybe a trial with some defense/explication option .

and for the "character developement" reasons he deserved some lesson on consequences of neglecting "public relations " department and the and emotional "last moment" decisions- if there was really one and not some elaborated , unknown as yet plan who's gone awry.

It seems that the assasination project was elaborated by a minority , just desperate enough to do it like they did :(hey, poison, stab in the back at night etc would be less risky!).I'm still having this impression that the"fall out at the wall" was too crazy a situation to be exactly what it seems.

There are the puzzels missing! The 2 hour long discussion with Tormund, warg among the wildings, Melisandre et Selyse "disparition"...and all this "sacrifice-like""ritual-like" circumstances("for the watch" words and tears, stubbing one by one all Caesar-like when one well placed flesh would be enough...).

You are right that there was HUGE diplomacy failure in Jon Snow style of command and any failure can cause character's death as well as any stupid accident/smallpox/flue/infected minor wound could. i doubth the death in martin's world is about deserving it like in fairy tales, or cersei wouldn't make it to the 5 th book (being bad AND stupid).

And maybe some immaturity has kicked up in the worst moment possible and then everyone just loose it -that happens in real life too, like peaceful manifestation that turns into a blood bath etc.

[brashcandy]

And what does he do? One pink-dabbed letter, and he's all a-ragin' to take off southwards and give Ramsay Snow his whatfor. Yep, Jon, you send your men to their deaths and undeaths beyond the Wall, but one little taunt from a fellow bastard, and you're storming off into the other direction. Nice going, Jonny-boy.

You could, of course, argue that his planned foray was for the best of the Watch...yet, does he (or do we?) actually have any concrete proof of that? He did not actually do much to investigate the claims - no scouts were sent out, as I recall. For one letter, the principle of taking no part in the realm's quarrels was openly and irrevocably breached. The Lord Commander set out to abandon the Wall when the Others - no longer an abstract (not to say mythical) threat, but a clear and present danger - could strike at any time.

You may have had a point if these events had taken place in AGOT, which they did in a way, except back then Jon was heading off for different reasons and was stopped without being murdered. The Jon back then is completely different from the Jon we have now, and so is the organization of the Night's Watch.

The code of neutrality that the Night's Watch holds was not broken by Jon, but rather by the dire circumstances of the time. With Stannis being the only King to respond to the threats facing the Watch, there was little sense in continuing to pretend that they hadn't in fact chosen to take a side in the realm's affairs. Also, Jon basically authorises the mission by Mance and the spear wives to go retrieve Arya. There is no sense in holding to an outdated code of neutality when madmen like Ramsay and supernatural forces like the Others are moving about.

I think Jon's men were fearful, and from what we've seen, resistant to changes even when they are clearly warranted. Jon may have looked like he was merely running off to deal with Ramsay because of a taunt but in reality it was probably better to bring the fight to Ramsay, rather than risk him showing up there and conquering the Wall that's already struggling with limited resources and poor defences.

[KAH]

It could also be argued that Jon was acting to protect the realms of men from Ramsay because that guy is a buggering nut case with a direct LSD line into his brain. AND Jon, as LC, can give himself permission to leave the wall, like recruiters get, to go and take care of some NW related business.

While other NW may not approve and Jon's actions really do shattered the spirit of the NW vows, the letter of the law looks pretty clean and i think Jon was unfairly treated. However Bowen or someone should have at least tried to talk him out of it (wildlings excluded, all they want to do is fight rape and plunder).

Leaving the letter of the oaths aside, I think it's pretty clear Jon broke the spirit of them, which in my mind is the worse crime.

Protecting the realm from Ramsay is commendable enough, but hardly something Jon should be concerned about, lest he actually believed that the Night Watch was likely to be attacked by Ramsay.

That Jon could give himself permission to leave - presumably he can, but he did not do much to find out if it actually was necessary. Instead, he openly pulls the Night's Watch into the whole power play imbroglio in the North, thereby threatening the Night's Watch continued existence at a crucial point of time.

[KAH]

Hello. This is only my second post at this site, so please be gentle with me. :drunk:

First of all, the letter from Ramsay Snow was a near total sham. IF it were true, Ramsay would have known where Reek and his bride the fake Arrya were. I do think he killed at least one of Mance's women that were with him at Winterfell.

Ramsay is assuming Reek/Theron Turncoat and fake Arrya are with Jon at the wall. Instead they are with Baratheon.

I think Jon was going to Winterfell to retrieve Mance. After all, at one time he was of the Night Watch. One of Jon's mistakes was moving all those loyal to him away from him. Just a few thoughts.

Well, if no one has said so yet - welcome to the board! :)

I agree with the notion that the letter was mostly a sham. Jon should at the very least have gathered some information on this supposed threat to the Watch before he acted.

[KAH]

What he deserved was maybe a trial with some defense/explication option .

and for the "character developement" reasons he deserved some lesson on consequences of neglecting "public relations " department and the and emotional "last moment" decisions- if there was really one and not some elaborated , unknown as yet plan who's gone awry.

It seems that the assasination project was elaborated by a minority , just desperate enough to do it like they did :(hey, poison, stab in the back at night etc would be less risky!).I'm still having this impression that the"fall out at the wall" was too crazy a situation to be exactly what it seems.

A trial was not in the cards by any standard - the Wildlings would not stand for it, and the conspirators hence could not have forced the issue. It's an act of desperation, a suicidal act..and ultimately, a stupid and hopeless act, but they probably thought they had no choice.

Anyway, I made this thread not so much to defend Bowen et al, as to give Jon a little shit. :P

[ZooDane]

There's no way that Jon deserved an assasination.

Jon declined land, glory, power, and legitimization to remain true to the Nights Watch. He remains true to his word when he is offered Winterfell and to become a true Stark. The final straw that pulls him from the Wall and his duties is the savage actions of the Boltons. Jon is finally pulled away from his duty for unselfish reasons. He wants to save his last (known) living sibling whom he has a connection with, avenge those who were savagely tortured by the Boltons, and the other war crimes the Boltons have commited - he doesn't move south for his own selfish reasons and gains. Jon is defending the realms of men by going south to hold Ramsay accountable for his actions. Flaying men and women and all the betrayal that goes along with Ramsay and the Boltons is harmful to Westeros. Not only that, but Jon's fathers bannermen are all with Ramsay Bolton. Perhaps Jon had in the back of his mind that he would make the Boltons answer for their crimes, turn his fathers bannermen to his cause, and raise more support for the Wall.

Jon has also been an excellent Lord Commander leading up to his decision to go South to Ramsay. He has lived as a wildling and understands their culture. He therefore is able to create a bridge between the two cultures that will save the realm. Not only are the Wildlings not attacking the Wall now and throwing their lives away, they are now manning the Wall against the Others. Jon knows that he must sacrifice a few to save the many. He is sacrificing his men to save the thousands of wildlings to prevent them from dying and rising against as Wights. Jon is one of the few people south of the Wall that truly understands the imminent threat that the Others pose.

Also, Jon hadn't actually deserted yet. The minute he moved south is when action should have been taken, if it were to be taken. Yes, we all know that deserters are to be killed, but he hadn't deserted yet. I'm sure people talk about running from the Wall all throughout it's history, but I bet many of those same people didn't. And even if he did desert, there is no reason for an assasination. They should have captured him and killed him with honor - not an assasination.

[KAH]

You may have had a point if these events had taken place in AGOT, which they did in a way, except back then Jon was heading off for different reasons and was stopped without being murdered. The Jon back then is completely different from the Jon we have now, and so is the organization of the Night's Watch.

The code of neutrality that the Night's Watch holds was not broken by Jon, but rather by the dire circumstances of the time. With Stannis being the only King to respond to the threats facing the Watch, there was little sense in continuing to pretend that they hadn't in fact chosen to take a side in the realm's affairs. Also, Jon basically authorises the mission by Mance and the spear wives to go retrieve Arya. There is no sense in holding to an outdated code of neutality when madmen like Ramsay and supernatural forces like the Others are moving about.

I think Jon's men were fearful, and from what we've seen, resistant to changes even when they are clearly warranted. Jon may have looked like he was merely running off to deal with Ramsay because of a taunt but in reality it was probably better to bring the fight to Ramsay, rather than risk him showing up there and conquering the Wall that's already struggling with limited resources and poor defences.

I vehemently disagree that there was no reason for Jon to continue his pretence of non-support. Leaving aside for the moment the very real possibility that this will mean the definitive end of new recruiting and support from down south - even if Stannis did succeed in defeating the Boltons, he would then be leading the sorry remains of the North...back to the Wall? Or southwards, on a very likely doomed bid to defeat the Lannisters? In fact, the best Jon could hope for from that particular situation was that the Boltons and Stannis killed eachother off, leaving a power vacuum where he might be able to rally the remainders to defend the Wall.

I don't necessarily disagree that it would be better to take the fight to Ramsay, given that the contents of the letter was the pure and whole truth...but Jon doesn't know this. He takes it for granted without making the slightest effort to gather in more info.

[Black Crow]

On the surface Jon was certainly riding for a fall and in an interview GRRM has said that the conspirators were acting in character insofar as from their point of view he was on his way to destroying the Watch, or more accurately the Watch in which they'd served so complacently and so long.

On the other hand Jon also has had ample justification for his actions in dealing with a situation which none of the previous Lord Commanders (in living memory at least) has ever had to face.

The trouble is that he's young and impatient and like a lot of young, impatient and terribly talented young officers, he's ploughed on without first making sure that his subordinates fully understand what he's doing, why he's doing it and why there really isn't a viable alternative. Young officers come unstuck all the time doing this. Marsh and the others have already seen one Lord Commander lead the Watch to disaster and the last thing they want is a repeat which is why Marsh is so mad keen on sealing up the gates and probably sleeps in his mail with a candle by his bed and enough swords, axes and arrows to start the 30 years war.

The Watch, in short, is on its last legs and this young fool is intent on finishing it off if he isn't stopped first.

That's one, very legitimate point of view, which requires no warging, glamours or other sorcery to induce Marsh and his mates to act as they do.

Whether they are right, and whether Jon really does know what he's doing is a very different matter.

Personally I reckon its one of those impossible situations where it doesn't matter what he does because sooner or later somebody on one side or the other had to stick a knife into Jon in order to incapacitate him long enough for either the Three-eyed-Crow or Bran or both to get into his mind and guide him where he really has to go to resolve the whole story.

[Free Northman]

Let me just say that I would choose my family over some oath 10 times out of 10.

I would have broken my oath when Ned was beheaded and gone off to join Robb.

I would have broken my oath at the Red Wedding.

And I would have broken my oath for Arya.

And I would have been proud of it.

Choosing your own honor over the wellbeing of your family is the ultimate selfishness, if you think about it.

And choosing the brotherhood of a bunch of rapists and other dregs of society over your real family, that is also a ridiculous expectation.

Family comes first in my book. Always.

[brashcandy]

Leaving the letter of the oaths aside, I think it's pretty clear Jon broke the spirit of them, which in my mind is the worse crime.

Protecting the realm from Ramsay is commendable enough, but hardly something Jon should be concerned about, lest he actually believed that the Night Watch was likely to be attacked by Ramsay.

That Jon could give himself permission to leave - presumably he can, but he did not do much to find out if it actually was necessary. Instead, he openly pulls the Night's Watch into the whole power play imbroglio in the North, thereby threatening the Night's Watch continued existence at a crucial point of time.

But the NW had already been pulled into this crazy power play! :) Ok, so he may have been blinded by sheer hatred for Ramsay, but that doesn't mean that his action wasn't the right one to take. And of course he has to be concerned about Ramsay. The man married his sister and is a known sadist. I know the NW are supposed to forsake all ties to family etc etc, but Jon's fury on this is understandable. I guess my point is that Jon had long since broken the "spirit" of those vows, and it was the necessary thing to do. The NW was supposed to have been at war with the wildlings too, but he brings them over to prevent a further catastrophe from occuring. We've seen the dangers of blind allegiance to vows and it's a hallmark of Jon's that he doesn't stick his head in the sand when adapting to new situations is necessary.

[The Blind Eye]

That Jon could give himself permission to leave - presumably he can, but he did not do much to find out if it actually was necessary. Instead, he openly pulls the Night's Watch into the whole power play imbroglio in the North, thereby threatening the Night's Watch continued existence at a crucial point of time.

So Jon is suffering for his Child-like impatience. I believe that. I am surprised I forgot to mention how fast he acts (although one can really say Tormund dropped the ball during that 2 hour planning session were he presumably did not try to dissuade Jon). So maybe a little fact finding was in order; but Ramsay did out and out say he would cut Jon's heart out and eat it if his demands weren't met.

And those claiming that Jon should stick to neutrality would then need to not give in to Ramsay's demands, since that would be choosing his side, which would then entail Ramsay attempting the afore-mentioned heart eating. all-in-all Jon's stuck in a pretty shitty catch-22, not all of which is his own making (although he shares some blame not being able to convince Marsh and co. of his intentions).

[KAH]

There's no way that Jon deserved an assasination or any physical harm.

Jon declined land, glory, power, and legitimization to remain true to the Nights Watch. He remains true to his word when he is offered Winterfell and to become a true Stark. The final straw that pulls him from the Wall and his duties is the savage actions of the Boltons. Jon is finally pulled away from his duty for unselfish reasons. He wants to save his last (known) living sibling whom he has a connection with, avenge those who were savagely tortured by the Boltons, and the other war crimes the Boltons have commited - he doesn't move south for his own selfish reasons and gains. Jon is defending the realms of men by going south to hold Ramsay accountable for his actions. Flaying men and women and all the betrayal that goes along with Ramsay and the Boltons is harmful to Westeros. Not only that, but Jon's fathers bannermen are all with Ramsay Bolton. Perhaps Jon had in the back of his mind that he would make the Boltons answer for their crimes, turn his fathers bannermen to his cause, and raise more support for the Wall.

[snip]

Also, Jon hadn't actually deserted yet. The minute he moved south is when action should have been taken, if it were to be taken. Yes, we all know that deserters are to be killed, but he hadn't deserted yet. I'm sure people talk about running from the Wall all throughout it's history, but I bet many of those same people didn't. And even if he did desert, there is no reason for an assasination. They should have captured him and killed him with honor - not an assasination.

Regarding selfish reasons...actually, acting on the behalf of his sibling is considered on of the 'selfish' reasons the Watch is supposed to avoid, but be that as it may.

Attacking the Boltons and those bannermen that has sworn to him, doesn't exactly sound like a foolproof way to sway them over to his side. Jon has no formal legitimacy as a lord in the North. Even if he won, the surviving lords could readily accuse him of treason, and leave him with the bitter choice of lopping off heads until they were swayed to his side, or send them home. Or alternatively, take their oaths and hope they didn't stab him in the back before he could get back to the Wall.

As for the claim that Jon hadn't deserted yet - as soon as those words were spoken aloud in such a public gathering, I am of the belief that it counts as desertion. The word would have spread like wildfire along the Wall, crushing morale.

[The Blind Eye]

As for the claim that Jon hadn't deserted yet - as soon as those words were spoken aloud in such a public gathering, I am of the belief that it counts as desertion. The word would have spread like wildfire along the Wall, crushing morale.

I still say Jon wasn't deserting. That to me means he's leaving and never coming back. Jon clearly meant that he was gonna go kill a douchebag then return to the wall and fight the others (which he can't do safely with Ramsay at his back nursing an insult/grudge).

[brashcandy]

I vehemently disagree that there was no reason for Jon to continue his pretence of non-support. Leaving aside for the moment the very real possibility that this will mean the definitive end of new recruiting and support from down south - even if Stannis did succeed in defeating the Boltons, he would then be leading the sorry remains of the North...back to the Wall? Or southwards, on a very likely doomed bid to defeat the Lannisters? In fact, the best Jon could hope for from that particular situation was that the Boltons and Stannis killed eachother off, leaving a power vacuum where he might be able to rally the remainders to defend the Wall.

I don't necessarily disagree that it would be better to take the fight to Ramsay, given that the contents of the letter was the pure and whole truth...but Jon doesn't know this. He takes it for granted without making the slightest effort to gather in more info.

In my mind Jon has already taken care of new recruiting by bringing the wildlings over, and they're a lot more useful than the criminals and other societal cast offs that that Watch has been getting in the last few years. As for support from down South... there was none coming in the forseeable future anyways. As for leaving Stannis and the Boltons to duke it out, I don't see the sense in that. Although at this moment Stannis doesn't have a prayer in the world for taking the South, his winning against the Boltons is still an important step in reestablishing some integrity in the North, along with a unified purpose in fighting the others.

[KAH]

On the surface Jon was certainly riding for a fall and in an interview GRRM has said that the conspirators were acting in character insofar as from their point of view he was on his way to destroying the Watch, or more accurately the Watch in which they'd served so complacently and so long.

On the other hand Jon also has had ample justification for his actions in dealing with a situation which none of the previous Lord Commanders (in living memory at least) has ever had to face.

The trouble is that he's young and impatient and like a lot of young, impatient and terribly talented young officers, he's ploughed on without first making sure that his subordinates fully understand what he's doing, why he's doing it and why there really isn't a viable alternative. Young officers come unstuck all the time doing this. Marsh and the others have already seen one Lord Commander lead the Watch to disaster and the last thing they want is a repeat which is why Marsh is so mad keen on sealing up the gates and probably sleeps in his mail with a candle by his bed and enough swords, axes and arrows to start the 30 years war.

The Watch, in short, is on its last legs and this young fool is intent on finishing it off if he isn't stopped first.

That's one, very legitimate point of view, which requires no warging, glamours or other sorcery to induce Marsh and his mates to act as they do.

Whether they are right, and whether Jon really does know what he's doing is a very different matter.

Personally I reckon its one of those impossible situations where it doesn't matter what he does because sooner or later somebody on one side or the other had to stick a knife into Jon in order to incapacitate him long enough for either the Three-eyed-Crow or Bran or both to get into his mind and guide him where he really has to go to resolve the whole story.

I have no reason to doubt that Bowen and the rest of them didn't act of their own volition.

As for Jon - yes, he's young and impatient, sure, but this time I think his temper got the better of him. And I agree that it was probably necessary to get Jon out of the current situation.

What irks me is that he has built himself up so much around his oaths and his own interpretation of how to follow them with honour (i.e. break them if it's for the greater good and not his own), that when he so rashly steps out of that particular character, it jars greatly.

[Black Crow]

As for the claim that Jon hadn't deserted yet - as soon as those words were spoken aloud in such a public gathering, I am of the belief that it counts as desertion. The word would have spread like wildfire along the Wall, crushing morale.

Quite, and I think that's what pushed Marsh over the edge because consciously or otherwise, by repudiating his personal vows, making common cause with the Wildlings and in effect setting up as an independent warlord he's apparently on his way to being the Night's King come again - that's what Marsh and co., rightly or wrongly, are so afraid of.

[KAH]

I still say Jon wasn't deserting. That to me means he's leaving and never coming back. Jon clearly meant that he was gonna go kill a douchebag then return to the wall and fight the others (which he can't do safely with Ramsay at his back nursing an insult/grudge).

That interpretation is a luxury any leader certainly cannot allow themselves. What the world sees, is a commander leaving his post at a crucial point of time. At the very least, he owes his men to first find out if that move was, in fact, necessary.