Did Jon deserve it?

[The Swaggering Bravo]

Was the attempted murder on Jon Snow justified? I know, I was absolutely horrified at the prospect of Jon dying, as he's possibly my favorite character.

"Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post. I am the sword in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men. I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night and all nights to come."

Note that Jon's relationship with Ygritte did not necessarily break his vows, as she did not become pregnant nor was she his wife. During all of his time in the Night's Watch, he also did not abandon it, (His time with the Wildlings was following Qhorin's final orders.) he never made a claim over any land, he rejected Stannis' offer to become Lord of Winterfell (Even though it was more tempting in my perspective since Robb said Jon should inherit it should he die.), he won no glory for himself with ambitious motives. Finally, he never abandoned the Night's Watch, this is kind of a repeat of the first vow. Although it is commonly said, it doesn't appear that interfering with the affairs of the Seven Kingdoms is restricted in the vows.

Why then, do some think that the stabbing of Jon was justified?

[JonTargStark]

Killing someone is never justified.

Especially stabbing someone in the back.

[The King in the South]

Depends.

I think most people here view saving the Wildlings from what could have been described as imminent death as a good deed, and personally see the whole concept of the oath in regards to the Wildlings rather hypocritical in how it is detailed. (Which Jon himself points out)

However, if you look at the effect of the Wildlings coming in and living off of the Night's Watch's food supplies than the question gets murky. Because of Jon's actions, the entire NW itself (along with the WIldlings) might very well perish because of diminishing stores.

Thus the question is, can you justify risking the lives of 1000 or so men in an attempt to save 10000ish? Or is it better to gurantee the lives of those 1000 men?

The NW themselves obviously thought the 2nd option preferable, (and it makes sense if you look at it from their point of view), and thats why Jon is dead bleeding out profusely.

[The King in the South]

Killing someone is never justified.

Especially stabbing someone in the back.

Really...

Someone comes at you with a knife and there is no one else around, do you sit there and let him kill you?

A mass murderer/genocidal dictator is captured and convicted of his crimes?

A person is about to poison a Well that will end up killing 100s of people, and no one is going to be able to get to him in time...except you have a crossbow in your hands?

[JonTargStark]

learn to read between the lines. don't state the obvious.

[salt]

When you use the word "never" there arent any lines to read between.

[The King in the South]

learn to read between the lines. don't state the obvious.

Don't use straightforward unwavering words like "never" than.

And besides. Bowen Marsh sees Jon's actions as possibily life threatening to him and his brothers, so yes there is an arguement on his part. (although we as readers may disagree)

[The Swaggering Bravo]

Depends.

I think most people here view saving the Wildlings from what could have been described as imminent death as a good deed, and personally see the whole concept of the oath in regards to the Wildlings rather hypocritical in how it is detailed. (Which Jon himself points out)

However, if you look at the effect of the Wildlings coming in and living off of the Night's Watch's food supplies than the question gets murky. Because of Jon's actions, the entire NW itself (along with the WIldlings) might very well perish because of diminishing stores.

Thus the question is, can you justify risking the lives of 1000 or so men in an attempt to save 10000ish? Or is it better to gurantee the lives of those 1000 men?

The NW themselves obviously thought the 2nd option preferable, (and it makes sense if you look at it from their point of view), and thats why Jon is dead bleeding out profusely.

I don't think Jon gave a damn about the women or children or elders dying, this isn't Dany who tries to be a mother to everyone. He only let them past the Wall because he needed to fill the other castles and he knew that 1000s of dead Wildlings = 1000s of Wights.

[Revan Baratheon]

There's already a pretty big thread called "did he deserve it?" either here or in ADWD section,i suggest u view that thread cause it has like 200+ replies then ull know wat people think.

Always search for existing threads before making new ones..

[The King in the South]

I don't think Jon gave a damn about the women or children or elders dying, this isn't Dany who tries to be a mother to everyone. He only let them past the Wall because he needed to fill the other castles and he knew that 1000s of dead Wildlings = 1000s of Wights.

Hmm, I'm not a Jon fan or anything, but I at least feel the dude has a little bit of compassion in him. At least, he's not the character I would see letting innocent people die if he couldn't help it.

[The Swaggering Bravo]

There's already a pretty big thread called "did he deserve it?" either here or in ADWD section,i suggest u view that thread cause it has like 200+ replies then ull know wat people think.

Always search for existing threads before making new ones..

That thread I found was quite thoroughly dead, and my major point was that in the vow before joining the Night's Watch, interfering with the affairs of the realm isn't included in the oath.

[The Sunset King]

Those that set out to murder Jon lack effective ideas about how to handle the Wildling and other situations. They also do not seem to exhibit the kind of mentality needed to get beyond serious impasses. The Seven Kingdoms have long needed to reach some kind of accomodation with the Wildlings. The conspirators violated their own vows and, in the unlikely event that they prevail and establish a stable grip, will end up doing a worse job than Jon. With the realm being ravaged to an almost insane degree by civil war and worsening weather, remaining 100% neutral in politics is becoming less realistic. If certain political authorties prevail the Night's Watch will essentially become a useless shell of what is once was.

[The Mother of The Others]

yes and no

[Maester Hodor]

Jon's actions in ADwD were complete folly. He was risking members of the Nights Watch for rescuing wildlings. I know it's a good idea in principle, but it's a very good way in making your men hate you.

I just hope Jon survives and Ghost too

[Revan Baratheon]

That thread I found was quite thoroughly dead, and my major point was that in the vow before

joining the Night's Watch, interfering with the

affairs of the realm isn't included in the oath.

Oh ok then.Tbh,i was really eager to see Jon march with the wildlings for winterfell,to defeat

Ramsay.then Ides Of Marsh happened...

But yea all those other decisions like hardhome were basically suicidal,and i think the NW fleet is also destroyed cause of hardhome?

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Interfering with the affairs of the realm is not included in the oath but I think desertion is covered by "I shall live and die at my post" so the question sort of comes down to what constitutes desertion. Would it have been desertion for Jon to have gone off to fight alongside Robb in the War of Five Kings? If so (and I think so), it's also desertion for Jon to go off and fight Ramsay. So I think in terms of oathbreaking, the law is on Bowen Marsh's side. I also think that Jon knows damn well that the NW fight against the others is more important than whatever Ramsay Bolton is doing, so he is making the wrong decision in leaving. Ultimately though, I think that death is not a reasonable penalty for oathbreaking or desertion, especially under these circumstances. It sort of comes down to the issue oh whether honor=morality which GRRM uses to challenge the reader on issues of Ned lying and abandoning his honor to protect his daughters or Jaime abandoning his oath and honor to kill Aerys while saving thousands. So I think Jon made the wrong decision because he should have known that the Others were the real fight, but that his decision was not immoral, and certainly not the kind of action that deserves punishment of death. Of course, I don't think he is actually dead, but that was the intention of Bowen Marsh.

[Sevumar]

I don't think Jon gave a damn about the women or children or elders dying, this isn't Dany who tries to be a mother to everyone. He only let them past the Wall because he needed to fill the other castles and he knew that 1000s of dead Wildlings = 1000s of Wights.

It goes beyond just that. Remember him pointing out to other NW members that they took an oath to defend the realms of men, and Wildlings are people too? There's an ideological element to Jon's decision, but to the extent that he does any explaining, he usually sticks with the "fewer wights" approach because it's easy for every Night's Watch member to understand.

I don't think that Jon deserved to get stabbed, but I think he contributed to the buildup by failing to communicate his plans clearly and making an effort to secure more support from his sworn brothers. There's a lot about the situation that Martin's left deliberately vague, and I think those details are going to matter when Jon's storyline picks up again. As other posters have said, what great alternative did Bowen Marsh and his co-conspirators present? Sticking their heads in the sand and trying to plug the gaps in the Wall?

The last thing the Watch needs right now is internal conflict. I think we're finally going to be seeing the Others in force pretty soon, and the NW is going to need all the unity and resources they can get to meet the threat.

[The Swaggering Bravo]

Oh ok then.Tbh,i was really eager to see Jon march with the wildlings for winterfell,to defeat

Ramsay.then Ides Of Marsh happened...

But yea all those other decisions like hardhome were basically suicidal,and i think the NW fleet is also destroyed cause of hardhome?

Totally, I had complete deja vu when he looked to see Bowen Marsh holding the dagger, imagining Jon looking up in despair muttering "Y tu, Bowen?" before collapsing.

And yeah I could understand why Jon would let Tormund through, he was a significant threat, but Hardhome? That was too far, I mean by the time those to-be Wights hobbled over to the Wall winter would be over. Come to think of it, if a 40,000 strong army of unified Wildlings were held off by a group of 100~ Black Brothers, I fail to see the danger of the Wights attacking since the Watch is now bolstered by the WIldlings and I can't imagine them climbing over the Wall.

[The Swaggering Bravo]

Interfering with the affairs of the realm is not included in the oath but I think desertion is covered by "I shall live and die at my post" so the question sort of comes down to what constitutes desertion. Would it have been desertion for Jon to have gone off to fight alongside Robb in the War of Five Kings? If so (and I think so), it's also desertion for Jon to go off and fight Ramsay. So I think in terms of oathbreaking, the law is on Bowen Marsh's side. I also think that Jon knows damn well that the NW fight against the others is more important than whatever Ramsay Bolton is doing, so he is making the wrong decision in leaving. Ultimately though, I think that death is not a reasonable penalty for oathbreaking or desertion, especially under these circumstances. It sort of comes down to the issue oh whether honor=morality which GRRM uses to challenge the reader on issues of Ned lying and abandoning his honor to protect his daughters or Jaime abandoning his oath and honor to kill Aerys while saving thousands. So I think Jon made the wrong decision because he should have known that the Others were the real fight, but that his decision was not immoral, and certainly not the kind of action that deserves punishment of death. Of course, I don't think he is actually dead, but that was the intention of Bowen Marsh.

Well the problem here is what is meant by "Post". Does this mean living and dying on the Wall? A likely definition for "Post" here is as far south as the New Gift's boundary and as far North as you can go. Yoren didn't break his vows though, and he traveled all over the Seven Kingdoms, so clearly it is meant on a broader scale. Perhaps post signifies any duty that serves the Night's Watch. If Ramsay in particular was threatening it, and Jon wasn't abandoning the Night's Watch, just handing Ramsay a can of whoop-ass, then I see no issue.

[Natalia Borgia]

Seven hells no!!!