|
Post by CynicalDreamer2 on Jul 28, 2017 3:22:24 GMT
Yes. Sansa's more concerned with personal revenge, whilst Jon looks at the big picture. It is not big picture thinking to work with your enemies. The only reason Sansa will be wrong on this one is if the story demands it because common sense is definitely not at play here. If Jon wanted to use them, they should have been sent to the Wall and rather than losing their lands, they would gain them back after the war. That would require changing the rules which Jon doesn't have the power to do. It's best IMO to leave them in their houses and let their house rally around Jon in light of his being fair.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 28, 2017 3:38:36 GMT
It is not big picture thinking to work with your enemies. The only reason Sansa will be wrong on this one is if the story demands it because common sense is definitely not at play here. If Jon wanted to use them, they should have been sent to the Wall and rather than losing their lands, they would gain them back after the war. That would require changing the rules which Jon doesn't have the power to do. It's best IMO to leave them in their houses and let their house rally around Jon in light of his being fair. Jon has already changed the rules. Case in point... The rules have usually been that betrayal, which this clearly was, often results in forfeitures of land and life so Jon is changing the rules by doing absolutely nothing to the Houses that betrayed him and his family.
|
|
|
Post by CynicalDreamer2 on Jul 28, 2017 3:48:01 GMT
That would require changing the rules which Jon doesn't have the power to do. It's best IMO to leave them in their houses and let their house rally around Jon in light of his being fair. Jon has already changed the rules. Case in point... The rules have usually been that betrayal, which this clearly was, often results in forfeitures of land and life so Jon is changing the rules by doing absolutely nothing to the Houses that betrayed him and his family. But he can't change the rules of The Wall is what I'm saying. By sending those kids to The Wall for only a specific period of time changes rules he's no longer in charge of. He may be able to convince the new Lord Commander to treat it as a different sort of prison but there's no guarantee. Edited to add: Those children didn't betray him. Can they keep punishing kids for the sins of the father and survive?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 28, 2017 3:52:50 GMT
Jon has already changed the rules. Case in point... The rules have usually been that betrayal, which this clearly was, often results in forfeitures of land and life so Jon is changing the rules by doing absolutely nothing to the Houses that betrayed him and his family. But he can't change the rules of The Wall is what I'm saying. By sending those kids to The Wall for only a specific period of time changes rules he's no longer in charge of. He may be able to convince the new Lord Commander to treat it as a different sort of prison but there's no guarantee. He can control who goes to the Wall to help defend it or to punish. The Umbers & Karstarks wouldn't be prisoners, but conscripted soldiers. He had just sent the people North of the Wall to help defend it with no obligation they stay there. As King of the North, he can do as he wishes or the Wall can refuse the help although that seems unlikely considering they readily accepted Stannis' help.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 28, 2017 3:56:50 GMT
Jon has already changed the rules. Case in point... The rules have usually been that betrayal, which this clearly was, often results in forfeitures of land and life so Jon is changing the rules by doing absolutely nothing to the Houses that betrayed him and his family. Edited to add: Those children didn't betray him. Can they keep punishing kids for the sins of the father and survive? It happens all the time in Westeros. Those kids pledged allegiance to their house first and are pledging loyalty to Jon simply becausethey have to. It's ridiculous to think they aren't a little salty that they've lost their families. Besides, they are going to have to fight anyway so it's hardly a punishment, they just shouldn't mingle with the more loyal subjects of Jon until they've proven they are true bannermen.
|
|
|
Post by CynicalDreamer2 on Jul 28, 2017 4:01:26 GMT
But he can't change the rules of The Wall is what I'm saying. By sending those kids to The Wall for only a specific period of time changes rules he's no longer in charge of. He may be able to convince the new Lord Commander to treat it as a different sort of prison but there's no guarantee. He can control who goes to the Wall to help defend it or to punish. The Umbers & Karstarks wouldn't be prisoners, but conscripted soldiers. He had just sent the people North of the Wall to help defend it with no obligation they stay there. As King of the North, he can do as he wishes or the Wall can refuse the help although that seems unlikely considering they readily accepted Stannis' help. Interesting theory but people sent to The Wall, commit to it by taking the vow. There's no evidence in the books or show that I can recall where people just spend a sentence. It became a way out for criminals but prior to that I thought people went and committed because they were believers in the defense of the North. Ned or Benjen said Starks had always served and there's also no evidence that Mormont or Benjen were there outside of their own will and honor. No, no one would be obligated to stay north of The Wall. Who was sent that wasn't in the Watch?
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 28, 2017 4:06:54 GMT
That would require changing the rules which Jon doesn't have the power to do. It's best IMO to leave them in their houses and let their house rally around Jon in light of his being fair. Jon has already changed the rules. Case in point... The rules have usually been that betrayal, which this clearly was, often results in forfeitures of land and life so Jon is changing the rules by doing absolutely nothing to the Houses that betrayed him and his family. Why do you keep imagining things? Just because Jon didn't listen to your favorite Sansa? If there was such a rule then Boltons won't have existed because they frequently conspired against Starks in the days when Starks ruled the North. In fact Jon followed the principles of Eddard and simply the principles of Starks in not punishing children of karstarks and Umbers because of fault of their parents. That's what lord Eddard also did in protecting cersei's children.
|
|
|
Post by CynicalDreamer2 on Jul 28, 2017 4:11:08 GMT
Edited to add: Those children didn't betray him. Can they keep punishing kids for the sins of the father and survive? It happens all the time in Westeros. Those kids pledged allegiance to their house first and are pledging loyalty to Jon simply becausethey have to. It's ridiculous to think they aren't a little salty that they've lost their families. Besides, they are going to have to fight anyway so it's hardly a punishment, they just shouldn't mingle with the more loyal subjects of Jon until they've proven they are true bannermen. Right now it's about numbers. Jon can't afford to destroy houses with the threat coming, it wouldn't serve any purpose. They both lost one person of their family, it's awful but they'll be ok. When did the children pledge allegiance to their house? They were born into it sure, but that doesn't mean they agreed with the actions. We just don't know and maybe we'll find out that Jon is just as wrong as Robb was by trusting Theon but at this moment I think mercy was the right decision. Can you imagine the houses supporting him if he either banished the houses to The Wall? How hard would it be to remove the new inhabitants? The kids might be salty but that doesn't always overcome common sense. Their dads were wrong.
|
|
|
Post by CynicalDreamer2 on Jul 28, 2017 4:15:20 GMT
Jon has already changed the rules. Case in point... The rules have usually been that betrayal, which this clearly was, often results in forfeitures of land and life so Jon is changing the rules by doing absolutely nothing to the Houses that betrayed him and his family. Why do you keep imagining things? Just because Jon didn't listen to your favorite Sansa? If there was such a rule then Boltons won't have existed because they frequently conspired against Starks in the days when Starks ruled the North. In fact Jon followed the principles of Eddard and simply the principles of Starks in not punishing children of karstarks and Umbers because of fault of their parents. That's what lord Eddard also did in protecting cersei's children. For the nth time you keep supporting Sansa in everything even at cost of often indulging in belittlement of wiser and better people like Jon and Arya. Sansa is not as special a character as Jon and Arya. Put it in your head, Smithy. I agree for the most part but Arya? No, she's an emotional little girl but how she treated The Hound can't be forgiven at this point.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 28, 2017 4:16:23 GMT
Jon has already changed the rules. Case in point... The rules have usually been that betrayal, which this clearly was, often results in forfeitures of land and life so Jon is changing the rules by doing absolutely nothing to the Houses that betrayed him and his family. But he can't change the rules of The Wall is what I'm saying. By sending those kids to The Wall for only a specific period of time changes rules he's no longer in charge of. He may be able to convince the new Lord Commander to treat it as a different sort of prison but there's no guarantee. Edited to add: Those children didn't betray him. Can they keep punishing kids for the sins of the father and survive? There are no such things as 'rules' when it comes to punishment of family members for betrayal by someone from a family. Usually, the person who betrays is punished. In regards to what happens to children of those who indulged in betrayal, people make decisions based on "principles" and not rules. The Lannisters might like to finish the entire family but Starks usually are kinder.
|
|
|
Post by CynicalDreamer2 on Jul 28, 2017 4:31:13 GMT
But he can't change the rules of The Wall is what I'm saying. By sending those kids to The Wall for only a specific period of time changes rules he's no longer in charge of. He may be able to convince the new Lord Commander to treat it as a different sort of prison but there's no guarantee. Edited to add: Those children didn't betray him. Can they keep punishing kids for the sins of the father and survive? There are no such things as 'rules' when it comes to punishment of family members for betrayal by someone from a family. Usually, the person who betrays is punished. In regards to what happens to children of those who indulged in betrayal, people make decisions based on "principles" and not rules. The Lannisters might like to finish the entire family but Starks usually are kinder. True, as in the case of Edmure. IMO He needs to hang.
|
|
|
Post by DSDSquared on Jul 28, 2017 12:18:44 GMT
Jon was right. No one can convince me otherwise. He has seen the Night King and his army. He knows that they are outmatched and will probably all die. He knows they need every man, woman, and child in order to even stand a chance. He gained powerful new allies and a lot more men by doing what he did. Normally, I would agree that they need to be punished, but this is not a normal circumstance. They need to band together. The game is not important anymore and Jon is the only one who seems to know this.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 28, 2017 14:11:32 GMT
Jon has already changed the rules. Case in point... The rules have usually been that betrayal, which this clearly was, often results in forfeitures of land and life so Jon is changing the rules by doing absolutely nothing to the Houses that betrayed him and his family. Why do you keep imagining things? Just because Jon didn't listen to your favorite Sansa? If there was such a rule then Boltons won't have existed because they frequently conspired against Starks in the days when Starks ruled the North. In fact Jon followed the principles of Eddard and simply the principles of Starks in not punishing children of karstarks and Umbers because of fault of their parents. That's what lord Eddard also did in protecting cersei's children. Stop being ridiculous.
You conveniently only know portions of history regarding the North. You mention the Boltons rebellion and surviving but ignore the fact that the house that joined in the rebellion, Greystark, became extinct and their home owned by the Manderly's. Maybe you haven't read enough yet, but that isn't my problem in dismissing your argument.
The reality is that the Starks have no issues with killing to keep the north united & protected. Theon as a kid would have been killed instantly by Ned if Balon rebelled.
But please, by all means, continue to bring up stuff that happened a thousand years ago to support an argument based on weeks.
Enough of the history lesson...You're reading too much into what I say & especially since you continually say Sansa is my favorite just because I like Sansa in addition to the other Starks.
No one is saying the kids should be killed for what their fathers do. I am saying yet again that there is no reason whatsoever to trust those houses so soon after the betrayal to the Starks. Go ahead and recall how many times that's happened, oh master of all things Game of Thrones...
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 28, 2017 14:26:50 GMT
Why do you keep imagining things? Just because Jon didn't listen to your favorite Sansa? If there was such a rule then Boltons won't have existed because they frequently conspired against Starks in the days when Starks ruled the North. In fact Jon followed the principles of Eddard and simply the principles of Starks in not punishing children of karstarks and Umbers because of fault of their parents. That's what lord Eddard also did in protecting cersei's children. Stop being ridiculous.
You conveniently only know portions of history regarding the North. You mention the Boltons rebellion and surviving but ignore the fact that the house that joined in the rebellion, Greystark, became extinct and their home owned by the Manderly's. Maybe you haven't read enough yet, but that isn't my problem in dismissing your argument.
The reality is that the Starks have no issues with killing to keep the north united & protected. Theon as a kid would have been killed instantly by Ned if Balon rebelled.
But please, by all means, continue to bring up stuff that happened a thousand years ago to support an argument based on weeks.
Enough of the history lesson...You're reading too much into what I say & especially since you continually say Sansa is my favorite just because I like Sansa in addition to the other Starks.
No one is saying the kids should be killed for what their fathers do. I am saying yet again that there is no reason whatsoever to trust those houses so soon after the betrayal to the Starks. Go ahead and recall how many times that's happened, oh master of all things Game of Thrones...
You were being ridiculous when you created an imaginary rule that Jon apparently broke. My Principle based way of dealing with family members can easily explain greystarks. Unlike Boltons who had made series of rebellions, greystarks made one. They were unfortunate to be dealt like that by the Stark of their time. It was just individual decision of Stark of that time to wipe out Greystarks. Such a rule as you mention would have wiped out the Boltons multiple times. And Ned Stark gave his life for saving 3 incest born kids so think a bit before you speak. You parade your views regarding Sansa as a fact and have been going on against Jon's decision as if your personal opinion is some sort of fact.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 28, 2017 14:32:33 GMT
Stop being ridiculous.
You conveniently only know portions of history regarding the North. You mention the Boltons rebellion and surviving but ignore the fact that the house that joined in the rebellion, Greystark, became extinct and their home owned by the Manderly's. Maybe you haven't read enough yet, but that isn't my problem in dismissing your argument.
The reality is that the Starks have no issues with killing to keep the north united & protected. Theon as a kid would have been killed instantly by Ned if Balon rebelled.
But please, by all means, continue to bring up stuff that happened a thousand years ago to support an argument based on weeks.
Enough of the history lesson...You're reading too much into what I say & especially since you continually say Sansa is my favorite just because I like Sansa in addition to the other Starks.
No one is saying the kids should be killed for what their fathers do. I am saying yet again that there is no reason whatsoever to trust those houses so soon after the betrayal to the Starks. Go ahead and recall how many times that's happened, oh master of all things Game of Thrones...
You were being ridiculous when you created an imaginary rule that Jon apparently broke. My Principle based way of dealing with family members can easily explain greystarks. Unlike Boltons who had made series of rebellions, greystarks made one. They were unfortunate to be dealth like that by the Stark of their time. It was just individual decision of Stark of that time to wipe out Greystarks. Such a rule as you mention would have wiped out the Boltons multiple times. And Ned Stark gave his life in saving 3 incest born kids so think a bit before you speak. You parade your views regarding Sansa as a fact and have been going on against Jon's decision as if your personal opinion is some sort of fact. and one only has to remember what not forgiving karstarks brought to Robb. His army became substantially weak.
|
|
pk9
Sophomore
@pk9
Posts: 987
Likes: 152
|
Post by pk9 on Jul 28, 2017 21:54:51 GMT
Theon as a kid would have been killed instantly by Ned if Balon rebelled. I think this point is pretty debatable. 90% of the time hostage takers aren't actually ready to kill their hostages, they're simply using the threat as leverage. I do think Jon is being too trusting. He probably should have hostages which would be consistent with tradition. But other than the new heads, I don't know if there are valuable youngsters left in those houses. And Jon doesn't have time for it; he's taking a risk because he hopes that when the White Walkers come, no one would be stupid enough to play house politics. Jon's plan has flaws, but if I had to choose solely between his plan and Sansa's, Jon's is better.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 29, 2017 0:32:04 GMT
Theon as a kid would have been killed instantly by Ned if Balon rebelled. I think this point is pretty debatable. 90% of the time hostage takers aren't actually ready to kill their hostages, they're simply using the threat as leverage. Not sure about that. Ned was usually ready for anything and Theon was pretty sure of it too as was Balon. The notion of killing the hostage was common enough that in the books one of the houses basically tried to change leadership by trying to get the Lannisters to kill hostages. Sansa's plan wasn;t a big deal. She was simply saying not to trust the Houses that just helped kill their family. It didn;t change Jon's plan at all as they would still be used in the battle, just in a way that could have greater benefit to the north & Jon's more loyal subjects. One way is just a sign of intelligence & experience and the other way one of ignorance. I don't know why people keep forgetting that Sansa knows more about politics & strategy at this point than anyone this side of Littlefinger in the North since she has lived it.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 29, 2017 1:02:54 GMT
I think this point is pretty debatable. 90% of the time hostage takers aren't actually ready to kill their hostages, they're simply using the threat as leverage. Not sure about that. Ned was usually ready for anything and Theon was pretty sure of it too as was Balon. The notion of killing the hostage was common enough that in the books one of the houses basically tried to change leadership by trying to get the Lannisters to kill hostages. Sansa's plan wasn;t a big deal. She was simply saying not to trust the Houses that just helped kill their family. It didn;t change Jon's plan at all as they would still be used in the battle, just in a way that could have greater benefit to the north & Jon's more loyal subjects. One way is just a sign of intelligence & experience and the other way one of ignorance. I don't know why people keep forgetting that Sansa knows more about politics & strategy at this point than anyone this side of Littlefinger in the North since she has lived it. Sansa has learned politics from one of the most incompetent person "Cersei" who invited a butcher to be Lord of Harrenhal. Even Lord Tywin found her and her council to be stupid. She has lost far more by now than she ever gained. She then learned from Littefinger. That's fine. She also learned from Ramsey whose own father called him mad dog. Just because someone has spent time with those who played politics doesn't make them know more about politics. Sansa's politics is based on revenge whereas Jon's based on traditions and need of the moment. and there was no moment in the book and the show which suggests Ned would kill a child for his or her parent's faults. That said I don't believe Sansa is an incompetent leader. She is doing well. But she still needs a lot to earn about politics.
|
|
pk9
Sophomore
@pk9
Posts: 987
Likes: 152
|
Post by pk9 on Aug 5, 2017 7:48:03 GMT
It has now occurred to me that this entire thing wasn't about the Umbers and Karstarks. It was about establishing a precedent that Jon will not punish children for the sins of their parents. The payoff was in 7x03 The Queen's Justice, because without this attitude there is no way Jon could ally with Daenerys or support her claim to the Iron Throne. Even with Jon's revised parentage, her father still murdered his grandfather and uncle, and her Hand is a Lannister, kin to those responsible for the death of his (adoptive) father and brother.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 5, 2017 12:17:29 GMT
Not sure about that. Ned was usually ready for anything and Theon was pretty sure of it too as was Balon. The notion of killing the hostage was common enough that in the books one of the houses basically tried to change leadership by trying to get the Lannisters to kill hostages. Sansa's plan wasn;t a big deal. She was simply saying not to trust the Houses that just helped kill their family. It didn;t change Jon's plan at all as they would still be used in the battle, just in a way that could have greater benefit to the north & Jon's more loyal subjects. One way is just a sign of intelligence & experience and the other way one of ignorance. I don't know why people keep forgetting that Sansa knows more about politics & strategy at this point than anyone this side of Littlefinger in the North since she has lived it. Sansa has learned politics from one of the most incompetent person "Cersei" who invited a butcher to be Lord of Harrenhal. Even Lord Tywin found her and her council to be stupid. She has lost far more by now than she ever gained. She then learned from Littefinger. That's fine. She also learned from Ramsey whose own father called him mad dog. Just because someone has spent time with those who played politics doesn't make them know more about politics. Sansa's politics is based on revenge whereas Jon's based on traditions and need of the moment. and there was no moment in the book and the show which suggests Ned would kill a child for his or her parent's faults. That said I don't believe Sansa is an incompetent leader. She is doing well. But she still needs a lot to earn about politics. Sansa didn't learn politics from Cersei Lannister or Ramsay imo. She's not even a politician now. However, I agree that Sansa is a good leader. She's just not Jon who is a good leader too but also has severe flaws in the trust department. He works to trust everyone and risks betrayal. For example, his trip to Dragonstone was foolish, but luckily paid off. Sansa, after constant betrayal, trusts no one until they prove themselves trustworthy. For example, her mistrust of Littlefinger almost caused the North to lose the battle with Ramsay. Her conversation with Littlefinger in the last episode probably helped entrench this.
|
|