Re-reading the Night's Watch Oath: Father no Children

[cpreas]

As I was rereading the Night's Watch Oath, it struck me that "take no wives, hold no lands, and father no children" was so prominently featured at the very beginning of the oath---right up front, as though it is the most important part. I asked myself for the zillionth time : Why is the Night's Watch obsessed with chastity? NO family of any kind? It seems really harsh.

And then I remembered: Craster gives his sons to the Others.

So the Others like babies, and the Night's Watch men are prevented by oath from having any.

What if the Oath is MORE than it appears. What if it is literally a way of keeping the Others at bay? The Others are lured by the presence of babies. They HUNT them.

Craster offers them up one after another, so they leave Craster alone. But that's not the normal scenario. Normally they have to scavenge wildling babies.

Winter is coming, so the wildlings start making their way south. Mance Rayder notices the increased presence of the Others

So he unites the wildlings together in a massive force--one big travelling herd of people, children and all--- and heads south.

The primary food source (?) of the Big Blue-Eyed Badguys is moving south, en masse. They have no choice but to follow.

They are following one medium-sized herd, but once they cross the Wall, they will find another gigantic herd.

The Night's Watch didn't just make up that Oath. They worded it purposefully. They knew what the Others were after, and didn't want to lure them into the South.

[Ghost's Shadow]

I don't think that's the reason why the NW men aren't allowed to father children, because they're on the other side of the Wall and so are all the babies in the 7 Kingdoms.

I've seen it being speculated before that the NW added those vows of chastity, no children, no lands AFTER the Night's King's 13 year reign at the Wall, where he supposedly mated with a female Other. Or not... A pity those records were destroyed because that's something people need to be aware of that could happen rather than hiding it away.

The original vows would have been those that are needed to open the door to the tunnel at The Nightfort.

We don't know what the Others do with the babies, though I don't think it's likely they're eating them. Perhaps it is so that they're turning them into Others, who knows?

[Ko Rakharo]

Wasn't the Dark Gate @ Nightfort built before the Night's King's reign? From what I remember the Night's King reigned at Deep Lake (not explicitly stated but assumed via dates).

Anyway, the Night's King's story is most likely -- if not obviously -- a tale for a few reasons: how could an Other be unharmful to a human?; if there is no evidence that the First Men mated with the Children of the Forest (like Tolkien's elves and men sometimes did, for example), why would we assume the Others and men in Westeros could mate as if they were just races of the same species?; how would a White Walker get past the Wall?; et cetera.

I think the act of chastity mentioned in the vows is merely to keep them off affection with anybody other than their Black Brothers and their duty -- don't the Silent Sisters, the Maesters, the Septons of the FotS and the Kingsguard take similar oaths?

[Sapphireghost18]

I don't think so. The KG also includes this in their oath.

Aemon also explains to Jon how family can make it impossible to be truly committed to the NW in AGoT when Jon wants to leave to help Robb in his quest to gain justice for Ned's death.

[Kikajon]

Wasn't the Dark Gate @ Nightfort built before the Night's King's reign? From what I remember the Night's King reigned at Deep Lake (not explicitly stated but assumed via dates).

Anyway, the Night's King's story is most likely -- if not obviously -- a tale for a few reasons: how could an Other be unharmful to a human?; if there is no evidence that the First Men mated with the Children of the Forest (like Tolkien's elves and men sometimes did, for example), why would we assume the Others and men in Westeros could mate as if they were just races of the same species?; how would a White Walker get past the Wall?; et cetera.

I think the act of chastity mentioned in the vows is merely to keep them off affection with anybody other than their Black Brothers and their duty -- don't the Silent Sisters, the Maesters, the Septons of the FotS and the Kingsguard take similar oaths?

I also think the act of chastity mentioned in the vows is merely to keep them off affection with anybody other than their Black Brothers and their duty, but what about already existing children?

Mormont's son proved not worthy, had he been instead his rightful heir, should have Mormont have been allowed in the NW? On account that he would have renounced also any affection for him?

[Ko Rakharo]

I also think the act of chastity mentioned in the vows is merely to keep them off affection with anybody other than their Black Brothers and their duty, but what about already existing children?

Mormont's son proved not worthy, had he been instead his rightful heir, should have Mormont have been allowed in the NW? On account that he would have renounced also any affection for him?

It was on Cersei and Littlefinger's plans to send Lord Eddard to the Wall before Joffrey ordered his head.

Jorah was the rightful Lord of Bear Island when he was condemned for slaving, meaning Jeor took the black in favour of him (it's also explicitly stated by Mormont in a talk with Jon, though I don't remember the book). I also doubt all those peasan-born ex-criminals in the Watch have no sons of their own blood.

So yeah, that makes the act of chastity pointless aside from avoiding affections acquired after taking the black. It could as well just be tradition for Sworn Brothers of any order, as the kingsguard and the maesters of Oldtown, for example. From the point where they take their respective oaths onwards, they live to serve.

[Rhaquentis]

I don't think so. The KG also includes this in their oath.

Aemon also explains to Jon how family can make it impossible to be truly committed to the NW in AGoT when Jon wants to leave to help Robb in his quest to gain justice for Ned's death.

Yes. Unsullied, Kingsguard, Night's Watch, it's all the same. You cannot be fully committed when you desire and love.

[DrunkSister]

OT but it just occurred to me that black brothers must have sired some kids on Mole Town's women, and that girl children (at the very least :dunno:) probably became prostitutes themselves, which leads me to believe that NWatchmen must know which kids are theirs otherwise :ack:.

I mean, it would be a tad hypocritical of them to condemn Craster and not know if they are banging their own daughters.

So, they know their own kids?

[Archmaester_Aemma]

This would tie in very nicely with a thread that's opened up elsewhere, proposing the NK to be the last hero and founder of the NW... It sounds a very bizarre theory, but as crackpot goes, it's relatively convincing...

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/104473-reconciling-northern-myths-last-hero-is-nights-king/

[Dildo_Baggins]

After seeing that the white walkers need to convert babies to bolster their army, it makes sense why the "father no children" was introduced to the nights watch oath. Maybe it was introduced right after the nights king was defeated.

[Blazfemur]

ahem:

The Others take Craster's babies (and wildlings), they *take* them, so they dont *father* any

The Others take only the *boys*, not *girls*, so no possibility for wives

The Others as far as we know are nomadic thus far, so they too *hold no lands*

your welcome. link for full theory is in my signature.

[bemused]

Here's another possibility ... what if "father no children" is a very recent addition ? (Relatively speaking)

Among the old tales of the NW ,there is the one of the Lord commander who tried to leave his title and the NW to his son. Now, in TWoIaF, there's a slight elaboration, including (roughly) how long ago that was...

Lord Commander Runcel Hightower attempted to leave the Watch to

his bastard son some five hundred years ago. - TWoIaF , p. 146

I'm among those who think the oath contains a very old magical core (perhaps even part of a spell) and other more recent political addendums. It seems to me that this episode might have provoked the addition of "father no children".

Also, because I've been busy, my head is spinning from trying to read TWoIaF piecemeal - but I think this is a spoiler..

the KG was formed to emulate the NW by Visenya

(Information from TWoIaF will start making it's way into the wiki after Nov. 27)

Yes. Unsullied, Kingsguard, Night's Watch, it's all the same. You cannot be fully committed when you desire and love.

But you cannot prevent people from desiring and loving .. that's the catch. It's part of the human condition .. in spite of any oaths or even physical mutilation ( e.g...the Unsullied frequenting brothels just to be held ).

Aemon says "love is our bane and our glory". Love itself can cause problems anyway , without wives or children entering into the equation.

It's pretty obvious that Alf of Runnymudd loved Garth Greyfeather.. which led him to blame Jon for Garth's death .. and on to conspiring against his LC .. and possibly into the assassination attempt . (We'll know in TWoW)

OTOH , according to Barristan... “Prince Lewyn was my Sworn Brother. In those days there were few secrets amongst the Kingsguard. I know he kept a paramour. He did not feel there was any shame in that.” (ADWD)

... and it didn't seem to prevent him from being true to his duty.

So I think the prohibition against fathering children was a knee jerk reaction against a human political action.. not a magical one. And I don't think it really solved the problem. Before his death Tywin was planning to seize control of the NW and making it his - without love, wives or children being involved.

Edit : correction