Jump to content

The (Attempted) Muder of Jon was Legally Justifiable (Part II)


SeanF

Recommended Posts

I'lll continue.

Hear Me Meow said:-

Not if there were civil wars about this or Stark authority was contested. And yes, supposedly is important there, we don't really know what happened, so there isn't much point talking about what is unprecedented. Are you seriously trying to say this is the first time in 8,000 years the rule of law has broken down, or the power of Winterfell has been imperilled or ceased to be respected in places. Believe that if you want.

But the essential problem faced by Jon will have come up before.

We have limited information, so we can't be entirely certain. However, I would suggest that the complete collapse of legitimate authority in the North (and consequent absence of the Rule of Law) is unprecedented. Or, at any rate, if it happened before, it happened so long ago, that no one recalls any precedent for how to deal with it.

Just as it was unthinkable, in modern times, for the Watch to regard the Others as the true enemy, and the Wildlings as allies, prior till the battle on the Fist of the First Men, so it was unthinkable for the Watch to "take a part." Now, the Watch has to take a part, if the fundamental part of their obligation, to defend the Realms of Men, is to be fulfilled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@butterbumps!

It would be dishonorable to not abide by it if "taking part" would damage the Watch's ability to perform its function. That is to say, when the situation calls for keeping neutral, then the Watchman must keep neutral. If the situation calls for taking part in order to enable the Watch serve its mission, then this is the right thing to do.


Um, what has this to do with Aemon and his ravens. Presumably, in your view, Aemon is saying sometimes purity and honour (as represented by the raven) has to be set aside in order to complete the mission. Aemon cannot really be saying neutrality is merely pragmatic and can be set aside without dishonour if the situation demands it.
I don’t think he was speaking to the neutrality issue anyway. I think the comments about the ravens are very general and are meant to tie in with his discussion about the sacrifices an individual watchman must make in order to fulfil his mission.

Let me ask you something. The Watch has spent years fighting wildlings, yet they are covered under the vow as being one of the "realms of men" the Watch is supposed to protect. Do you believe that the Watch was wrong for defending the Wall against them throughout the series? That is, they are covered by the vow, but they also posed a challenge to the Wall's existence, correct? So the Watch needed to preserve the Wall, and in order to do this, fighting this "realm of men" was requisite, yes?
So why aren't you applying this logic to what's south of the Wall? If they can take up arms and involve themselves in the affairs of wildlings when wildling pose a threat to their mission-- and wildlings are covered by the very explicit words of the vow-- then why is protecting themselves against other "realms of men" who threaten the integrity of the Wall so egregious and counter to the vow?


It seems clear that taking no part doesn’t apply to the wildlings as they are a threat from the north and a traditional enemy of the watch.

Again, "take no part" is not the inevitable, indisputable meaning of the sum of the vows prohibitions. It's how the Watch has interpreted it for ages, but not a self-evident, divinely sacred part of the vow. It's not even remotely the only interpretation.


I think ‘take no part’ is what the prohibitions mean, although obviously I recognize people can dispute this. Again though, the purpose and spirit behind all of the oath requires an interpretation, given this is not found in the words themselves. So the fact take no part is an interpretation, and not an indisputable one, while true, is also a pretty irrelevant point.
The real question is not whether ‘take no part’ it is an interpretation, or an indisputable one, but whether it is the correct interpretation. I think it is, for the reasons I’ve given in other posts. You are required to offer another ‘correct’ interpretation of these prohibitions, and you take this to be ‘do not compromise the watch.’ I explain why this was dubious given the oath itself pretty clearly judges some specific types of behaviour to be compromising, so it can’t be viewed as leaving the watch’s behaviour open ended such that anything can be done providing it can be claimed to preserve the core mission. At the same time the prohibitions don’t add up to a consistent general duty without an interpretation, and this is provided by Aemon, and affirmed by others as ‘take no part.’

The "sanctity" of the neutrality custom derives from the fact that in the previous world order, this is what enabled the Watch to preserve itself and carry out its mission. When this no longer becomes a solution to preserving the Watch and performing its mission, then neutrality is no longer sacred. If that was the interpretation of the vow, put into custom for ages as a pragmatic method, but a time comes when it is no longer pragmatic, then going back to the core of the vow and analyzing it in relation to the current set of obstacles in relation to its mission is requisite. And in so doing, there is nothing in the vow that unequivocally yields an imperative to remain neutral.


Well, you can assert this but … I’ve never seen any evidence to suggest take no part wasn’t a proper interpretation of the oath on a par with interpretations such as ‘protect the realm from the Others.’
If something is in a vow then it is fair to say it is sacred. Possibly vows will conflict and an aspect of an oath will have to be dumped. You can say this causes it to no longer be sacred if you want. The point though, imo, is that ‘taking no part’ is a duty entailed by the oath and it demands that the nw defends the realm by preserving its neutrality.

If you're only referring to Jon's handling of the Letter in Jon XIII as an isolated issue, I think that's a different argument that what I was thinking about. I was referring to all of his actions prior to that, such that had he embraced a more critical view of the "take no part" custom, Jon XIII wouldn't have played out that way in the first place. I think Jon failed before that, precisely because he took half measures about this, and needed to get further on the "taking part" side. So maybe that aspect was just a miscommunication on my part in response to your assertion.


There wasn’t even much the watch, as an institution could do to help Stannis beyond what Jon did anyway. Jon was the organization’s only asset wrt Stannis. Most of the black brothers would have to stay and man the wall anyway so why would further interference have served any purpose? It is actually clear there was no reason for the watch to abandon neutrality to help Stannis in that struggle because they would have brought him minimal help in return for likely destruction if he lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have limited information, so we can't be entirely certain. However, I would suggest that the complete collapse of legitimate authority in the North (and consequent absence of the Rule of Law) is unprecedented. Or, at any rate, if it happened before, it happened so long ago, that no one recalls any precedent for how to deal with it.

The nw think their vows bind them to preserve their neutrality so they have a guide for their behaviour.

Just as it was unthinkable, in modern times, for the Watch to regard the Others as the true enemy, and the Wildlings as allies, prior till the battle on the Fist of the First Men, so it was unthinkable for the Watch to "take a part." Now, the Watch has to take a part, if the fundamental part of their obligation, to defend the Realms of Men, is to be fulfilled.

I don't think taking no part is really thought conditional on peace in the north, or the strong rule of the Starks. The north must have been without strong rule for some periods over 8,000 years. Aemon's discussion in GoT suggests that wars between the realms of men, of whatever variety, were pretty much expected.

The degree to which the nw could have actually helped itself by taking part is also being grossly overstated. Yea, ok, Jon was pretty helpful to Stannis but really it would have been pointless for the watch to do more. Even leaving the wall totally unmanned (not a good idea) would have been pretty unlikely to tip the scales in the war with Roose and the consequences of failure would have been continuous war with the IT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um, what has this to do with Aemon and his ravens. Presumably, in your view, Aemon is saying sometimes purity and honour (as represented by the raven) has to be set aside in order to complete the mission. Aemon cannot really be saying neutrality is merely pragmatic and can be set aside without dishonour if the situation demands it.

I don’t think he was speaking to the neutrality issue anyway. I think the comments about the ravens are very general and are meant to tie in with his discussion about the sacrifices an individual watchman must make in order to fulfil his mission.

I thought you were asking me what I thought about that in some broader sense, not what Aemon was saying.

My interpretation of this is honestly very simple: Aemon's remarks about ravens suggest that nothing should get in the way of a Watchman's mission, and the Watchman must do all he can toward that end. I'm not trying to assert that Aemon is specifically enumerating "dos and don'ts" with this, but is framing his thoughts about the Watch from the perspective that their mission is what matters, and the Watchman must pursue pragmatic necessities in service to that mission.

It seems clear that taking no part doesn’t apply to the wildlings as they are a threat from the north and a traditional enemy of the watch.

Now, the debate about this really ought to have ended with my last post on the subject, because there is no logical way to maintain your view that "taking no part" is an intrinsic part of the vow, while simultaneously endorsing the Watch's "taking part" against a realm of men.

Unless you believe that the Watch was wrong to take arms against the wildlings over the course of the series and to involve themselves in the wildling's affairs throughout DwD, then your argument has obliterated itself.

Conversely, if you really want to keep disagreeing over this, then you can try to argue that the wildlings aren't covered under the "protect the realms of men clause," but you'd then have to answer how the Watch gets to pick and choose which "realms of men" they're sworn to protect. I'd advise against this path, as it necessitates very arbitrary distinctions that will actually end up supporting my side of the debate.

It looks like this is where you're going with it. If you justify the Watch's taking arms against this realm of men due to the fact that the wildlings are north of the Wall and a traditional enemy of the Watch, then how can you stop there? The Starks were the traditional defenders of the Watch, and the Boltons their sworn, historic enemies. Why is it ok to declare the wildlings an enemy of the Watch, and therefore, not under protection of the vow, but by the same arbitrary historic distinctions, not consider the Boltons one? Especially in light of how since Stannis' arrival the Boltons see the Watch as their enemy in a very current context? Not to mention, the Boltons' very direct and inescapable role in taking out the Starks?

Look-- either the Watch was oathbreaking when they took up arms against the wildlings throughout the series and involved themselves in their affairs, or "protecting the realms of MEN" by all practical measures is what the oath entails. Including, at times, defending the Watch against those the Watch has sworn to protect in order to fulfill their mission.

As an aside, if you accept that the true meaning of the vow had been lost and turned into custom, why are you so resistant to the idea that the "take no part" issue is intrinsically part of the vow and not similarly a pragmatic addition ingrained by custom?

I think ‘take no part’ is what the prohibitions mean, although obviously I recognize people can dispute this. Again though, the purpose and spirit behind all of the oath requires an interpretation, given this is not found in the words themselves. So the fact take no part is an interpretation, and not an indisputable one, while true, is also a pretty irrelevant point.

The real question is not whether ‘take no part’ it is an interpretation, or an indisputable one, but whether it is the correct interpretation. I think it is, for the reasons I’ve given in other posts. You are required to offer another ‘correct’ interpretation of these prohibitions, and you take this to be ‘do not compromise the watch.’ I explain why this was dubious given the oath itself pretty clearly judges some specific types of behaviour to be compromising, so it can’t be viewed as leaving the watch’s behaviour open ended such that anything can be done providing it can be claimed to preserve the core mission. At the same time the prohibitions don’t add up to a consistent general duty without an interpretation, and this is provided by Aemon, and affirmed by others as ‘take no part.’

Well, you can assert this but … I’ve never seen any evidence to suggest take no part wasn’t a proper interpretation of the oath on a par with interpretations such as ‘protect the realm from the Others.’

If something is in a vow then it is fair to say it is sacred. Possibly vows will conflict and an aspect of an oath will have to be dumped. You can say this causes it to no longer be sacred if you want. The point though, imo, is that ‘taking no part’ is a duty entailed by the oath and it demands that the nw defends the realm by preserving its neutrality.

There wasn’t even much the watch, as an institution could do to help Stannis beyond what Jon did anyway. Jon was the organization’s only asset wrt Stannis. Most of the black brothers would have to stay and man the wall anyway so why would further interference have served any purpose? It is actually clear there was no reason for the watch to abandon neutrality to help Stannis in that struggle because they would have brought him minimal help in return for likely destruction if he lost.

Ok, if we're going to keep insisting that "take no part" is actually an intrinsic part of the vow, then the Watch has been oathbreaking for 8,000 years or whatever the hell it's been by virtue of the fact they've been taking up arms against a realm of men, so accusing anyone of "oathbreaking" is fairly meaningless. You could say Jon is part of a long and fulfilling tradition of constant oathbreaking, and therefore, completely in line with the spirit of the oathbreaking Watch, which has always "taken a part."

OR, we can be reasonable about this and look at the vows more critically, interpreting the sum of these prohibitions to yield something closer to "do nothing that will compromise your ability to defend the realms of men." Especially given that we have other cases where the vow had been misinterpreted over time to specify a wildling enemy, and exclude wildlings from the relamS the Watch is meant to defend.

Adjacently, we can examine what "taking no part" actually means, and whether such a concept even has meaning in the context of the Wot5K, especially after Stannis arrives at the Wall and no one views the Watch as "taking no part" from that point on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a two way relationship, really. The watch protects the realm. On the other hand, the realm should protect and help the watch. Stannis is the only one who does this. The Boltons are openly stating that they will attack the watch unless their demands are fulfilled. This, more or less, makes Stannis' enemies the watch's enemies. They didn't help the watch when asked to, and they are actively trying to kill the guy who did.



As per the watch's perspective, the true king, representing the "realm" they should protect, is the one who helped them - which in this case is Stannis, and noone else. So yeah, I agree with butterbump's assessment (I know I'm oversimplifying it) that the situation is such that they can't simply "take no part" as they are actively involved already, whether they like it or not.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a two way relationship, really. The watch protects the realm. On the other hand, the realm should protect and help the watch. Stannis is the only one who does this. The Boltons are openly stating that they will attack the watch unless their demands are fulfilled. This, more or less, makes Stannis' enemies the watch's enemies. They didn't help the watch when asked to, and they are actively trying to kill the guy who did.

As per the watch's perspective, the true king, representing the "realm" they should protect, is the one who helped them - which in this case is Stannis, and noone else. So yeah, I agree with butterbump's assessment (I know I'm oversimplifying it) that the situation is such that they can't simply "take no part" as they are actively involved already, whether they like it or not.

The Boltons would not be threatening the NW or Jon if he hadnt taken away Ramsay's politically important bride. Jon made enemies with the Boltons, not the other way around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The nw think their vows bind them to preserve their neutrality so they have a guide for their behaviour.

IT.

Jon, however, is not without supporters in the NW. There must therefore be members of the organisation who consider that taking a part is consistent with defending the Realms of Men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Boltons would not be threatening the NW or Jon if he hadnt taken away Ramsay's politically important bride. Jon made enemies with the Boltons, not the other way around.

The Boltons have already kicked apart every line of defence on which the North depends. They've sacked Winterfell, massacred its reserve army, murdered Robb Stark, massacred thousands of his men, imprisoned the Greatjon, and alienated the vast majority of surviving Northern lords. Complaining that Jon tries to save Arya from being raped by Ramsay is frankly trivial in that context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Boltons would not be threatening the NW or Jon if he hadnt taken away Ramsay's politically important bride. Jon made enemies with the Boltons, not the other way around.

You didn't respond to my response about this in the last thread, where you asked me what I thought the repercussions of the missions were, and answered that where I believe Jon failed was in handling this sloppily.

Is your contention with this still because you believe "taking no part" is a fundamental part of the vow (if so, please see my above post), or is it because of how it actually played out? Would you agree that there would have been virtue in removing Arya from Ramsay in the big picture provided that Jon went about it in a different fashion, or is Jon's being part of Arya's removal at all the issue in your view?

Further, this isn't what rendered the Watch an enemy of the Boltons. Completely independently and prior to this, Cersei and the small council declare the Watch enemies of the state by virtue of tolerating Stannis' presence there. The Boltons, appointed Wardens of the North by the Lannisters, are automatically enemies to the Watch by virtue of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought you were asking me what I thought about that in some broader sense, not what Aemon was saying.

My interpretation of this is honestly very simple: Aemon's remarks about ravens suggest that nothing should get in the way of a Watchman's mission, and the Watchman must do all he can toward that end. I'm not trying to assert that Aemon is specifically enumerating "dos and don'ts" with this, but is framing his thoughts about the Watch from the perspective that their mission is what matters, and the Watchman must pursue pragmatic necessities in service to that mission.

I'm saying the passage is too vague to justify drawing conclusions about neutrality so there is no support from Aemon for your view.

Now, the debate about this really ought to have ended with my last post on the subject, because there is no logical way to maintain your view that "taking no part" is an intrinsic part of the vow, while simultaneously endorsing the Watch's "taking part" against a realm of men.

Unless you believe that the Watch was wrong to take arms against the wildlings over the course of the series and to involve themselves in the wildling's affairs throughout DwD, then your argument has obliterated itself.

Conversely, if you really want to keep disagreeing over this, then you can try to argue that the wildlings aren't covered under the "protect the realms of men clause," but you'd then have to answer how the Watch gets to pick and choose which "realms of men" they're sworn to protect. I'd advise against this path, as it necessitates very arbitrary distinctions that will actually end up supporting my side of the debate.

I doubt this process will be as arbitrary as you suppose though.

I don't think the wildlings are a realm of men the nw is supposed to protect. I'm unsure if the oath and the nw itself originally took them into consideration, or even if it was perhaps assumed that the lands beyond the wall would be evacuated. But the nw is tied to the wall, as the wall is the main defence against winter and the realm of men beyond the wall is clearly not protected by that wall. If we take the realm to mean the domain, or the land then this is obvious.

You build a wall in front of the stuff you want to protect, not behind it. Very obviously the lands beyond the wall are not being protected and, actually, it would best for the nw if there were no wildlings up there (as this would deprive the Others of an army).

It looks like this is where you're going with it. If you justify the Watch's taking arms against this realm of men due to the fact that the wildlings are north of the Wall and a traditional enemy of the Watch, then how can you stop there? The Starks were the traditional defenders of the Watch, and the Boltons their sworn, historic enemies. Why is it ok to declare the wildlings an enemy of the Watch, and therefore, not under protection of the vow, but by the same arbitrary historic distinctions, not consider the Boltons one? Especially in light of how since Stannis' arrival the Boltons see the Watch as their enemy in a very current context? Not to mention, the Boltons' very direct and inescapable role in taking out the Starks?

There is nothing traditional about fighting lords of westeros opposed to the Starks. Historically the watch always took no part even though Stark fought Bolton. The watch has, on the other hand, always been understood as the guardian of the southern lands from the threat from beyond the wall and that threat until recently has been thought to be the wildlings.

As an aside, if you accept that the true meaning of the vow had been lost and turned into custom, why are you so resistant to the idea that the "take no part" issue is intrinsically part of the vow and not similarly a pragmatic addition ingrained by custom?

As I see no evidence it is a custom separate from the vow.

Ok, if we're going to keep insisting that "take no part" is actually an intrinsic part of the vow, then the Watch has been oathbreaking for 8,000 years or whatever the hell it's been by virtue of the fact they've been taking up arms against a realm of men, so accusing anyone of "oathbreaking" is fairly meaningless. You could say Jon is part of a long and fulfilling tradition of constant oathbreaking, and therefore, completely in line with the spirit of the oathbreaking Watch, which has always "taken a part."

OR, we can be reasonable about this and look at the vows more critically, interpreting the sum of these prohibitions to yield something closer to "do nothing that will compromise your ability to defend the realms of men." Especially given that we have other cases where the vow had been misinterpreted over time to specify a wildling enemy, and exclude wildlings from the relamS the Watch is meant to defend.

The vows, even aside from my views on taking no part, don't even say this. The sum of the propositions can't just be do nothing to compromise the watch. The prohibitions are specific about certain acts, so it is not a case of asking people to do nothing to compromise the watch as a general rule and leaving that to their discretion, the vows already undertake to prescribe specific courses of action. The sum of these specific prohibitions is to 'take no part.' If the general duty was 'don't compromise us,' you'd need something broader in the oath itself.

Adjacently, we can examine what "taking no part" actually means, and whether such a concept even has meaning in the context of the Wot5K, especially after Stannis arrives at the Wall and no one views the Watch as "taking no part" from that point on.

I think it has a pretty clear meaning. If the watch takes Stannis's side against the lannister-Boltons they would be taking part. Given the difficult circumstances there are issues about how to do that, and to what degree engagement with Stannis or KL violates neutrality and its benefits, but the overall policy is still perfectly comprehensible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it justifiable for them to take part though because Stannis is actually trying to defend the realms of men, not partake in the various internecine dynastic conflicts in Westeros? He's fighting the Boltons cause he needs men at the wall, a united north behind him(or seemingly) would give that to him. I think its fair for the night watch to bend their vows or make them somewhat malleable if it serves their larger mission statement of "defending the realms of men."


Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Boltons have already kicked apart every line of defence on which the North depends. They've sacked Winterfell, massacred its reserve army, murdered Robb Stark, massacred thousands of his men, imprisoned the Greatjon, and alienated the vast majority of surviving Northern lords. Complaining that Jon tries to save Arya from being raped by Ramsay is frankly trivial in that context.

So, if Robb had his way the entire nothern army would still be fighting in the south or dead. I guess Robb should have been declared an enemy of the watch as well since he severely weakened the northern defenses.

The point is that whatever treachery the Boltons committed has nothing to do with the NW.

Maester Aemon's entire family was butchered to death, but he did not seek retribution because he knew he had a duty to the Watch. Unfortunately, Jon does not have that wisdom.

If Jon wanted to save Arya thats fine, but he should not have done so as LC. That is putting all the NW at risk when he behaves irresponsibly like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it justifiable for them to take part though because Stannis is actually trying to defend the realms of men, not partake in the various internecine dynastic conflicts in Westeros? He's fighting the Boltons cause he needs men at the wall, a united north behind him(or seemingly) would give that to him. I think its fair for the night watch to bend their vows or make them somewhat malleable if it serves their larger mission statement of "defending the realms of men."

How is Stannis not trying to partake in the various internecine dynastic conflicts in Westeros? Stannis's main goal is to win the Iron Throne (which is going to take all the strength he has), not aide the NW. The only solid men he left behind were a guard for his wife. Even the guards he left Melisandre were weak and unfit for battle.

The Boltons and IT have not been previously hostile towards the NW either. They even sent men to the wall with Alliser Thorne.

Jons motivation for going against the Boltons is personal, plain and simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stannis wants to win the Iron Throne to protect the country from the Others. He even refers to them explicitly as the only enemy that matters. But first he has to consolidate and unite Westeros. Herculean task but he's undertaking it all the same. Admire his courage. He left behind such a paltry guard because he needs all the men he can muster in the coming battle against the Boltons it wasn't some sort of slight or indifference to the NW.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm saying the passage is too vague to justify drawing conclusions about neutrality so there is no support from Aemon for your view.

For the umpteenth time, I'm not claiming that Aemon is using the raven anecdote to specifically endorse non-neutrality.

The raven anecdote is about pragmatism in service to a mission. That's what I'm pointing to. Aemon precedes his discussion of the practical realities of upholding the Watch's mission framed by an anecdote about pragmatism in service to a mission. I'm using this passage to emphasize the need for pragmatism, and not claiming that Aemon is saying anything specific about neutrality, though he does say "ravens can defend against hawks."

I doubt this process will be as arbitrary as you suppose though.

I don't think the wildlings are a realm of men the nw is supposed to protect. I'm unsure if the oath and the nw itself originally took them into consideration, or even if it was perhaps assumed that the lands beyond the wall would be evacuated. But the nw is tied to the wall, as the wall is the main defence against winter and the realm of men beyond the wall is clearly not protected by that wall. If we take the realm to mean the domain, or the land then this is obvious.

The vow says "realmS of men." Who are you to decide which realms are included? Could you actually be saying context matters in interpreting the vow?

You seem to want to place this arbitrary division at the Wall. So, if the Watch is not supposed to take up arms against anyone from the South, then those filthy oathbreakers were in violation of their vow when they fought Styr's band who came up from the South. According to your little distinction, the right thing would have been to peacefully allow them to do whatever they wanted to do, because we're using the Wall as the division line. And the Watch had no business trying to fight back in all of those historic cases where wildlings got South of the Wall-- they needed to stand aside and let the realm handle it, because they are supposed to be waiting at their post for Others, not fighting against a realm of men inside another ream of men. Worse yet, Jon and the Watch have absolutely no right to influence the various wildling leaders once past the Wall and part of the realm in terms of making sure the wildling influx does not interrupt the rest of the North. As in, keeping wildling hostages is apparently oathbreaking.

You build a wall in front of the stuff you want to protect, not behind it. Very obviously the lands beyond the wall are not being protected and, actually, it would best for the nw if there were no wildlings up there (as this would deprive the Others of an army).

There is nothing traditional about fighting lords of westeros opposed to the Starks. Historically the watch always took no part even though Stark fought Bolton. The watch has, on the other hand, always been understood as the guardian of the southern lands from the threat from beyond the wall and that threat until recently has been thought to be the wildlings.

As I see no evidence it is a custom separate from the vow.

The vows, even aside from my views on taking no part, don't even say this. The sum of the propositions can't just be do nothing to compromise the watch. The prohibitions are specific about certain acts, so it is not a case of asking people to do nothing to compromise the watch as a general rule and leaving that to their discretion, the vows already undertake to prescribe specific courses of action. The sum of these specific prohibitions is to 'take no part.' If the general duty was 'don't compromise us,' you'd need something broader in the oath itself.

I think it has a pretty clear meaning. If the watch takes Stannis's side against the lannister-Boltons they would be taking part. Given the difficult circumstances there are issues about how to do that, and to what degree engagement with Stannis or KL violates neutrality and its benefits, but the overall policy is still perfectly comprehensible.

Look, if you really want to play the "wildlings are the historic enemy from the north and the Wall delimits which realms are included and therefore, they're excluded" game then this very same logic needs to be applied to the opposite angle. As in, the Starks have traditionally, historically been the backbone of the Watch's defenses, enabling its continued survival to perform its mission, and therefore, the Starks must be kept in a position to perform this historic service. That is, if you want to draw on historic precedent and traditions in determining who is an enemy of the Watch, then apply this consistently.

OR, again, we can be reasonable about this and look at the vows more critically, measuring pragmatic solutions that enable the Watch's mission in a variety of contexts, not insist on emphatically defining this as "take no part" within the vow, which is incompatible with the current context.

Your final point is meaningless. The fact that all of Stannis' enemies view the Watch as having "taken part" by virtue of Stannis' merely being at the Wall means that there is no neutrality to speak of. There is, therefore, no such thing as "taking no part" from that point forward. So either with every waking breath the Watch is engaging in oathbreaking from the moment Stannis arrives, and therefore, the vow is wildly flawed since it prevents execution of its mission in certain contexts and should be rewritten. Or, your interpretation of what's actually embedded in the vows is what's flawed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are, my fire the one, desire beleive when I say I want it that way

On a totally unrelated note why is "attempted" on the title? It wasn't an attempt, they did it, he was stabbed multiple times and is now dead. I demand the title of this thread be changed.

Tell me why I never wanna hear you say, I want it that way!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stannis wants to win the Iron Throne to protect the country from the Others. He even refers to them explicitly as the only enemy that matters. But first he has to consolidate and unite Westeros. Herculean task but he's undertaking it all the same. Admire his courage. He left behind such a paltry guard because he needs all the men he can muster in the coming battle against the Boltons it wasn't some sort of slight or indifference to the NW.

First, Stannis has to WIN the Iron Throne and as it stands right now, that's an unlikely assumption. For all Jon knew Stannis could have been dead when he decided to ride to meet Ramsay just as the letter said. Jon knew parts of it were true so there was no reason to assume that wasnt.

Besides, these are Jon's thoughts right after reading the letter when hes considering what to do next.

"The Nights Watch takes no part. What you propose is nothing less than treason. He thought of Robb, with snowflakes melting in his hair. He thought of Bran, clambering up a tower wall, agile as a monkey. Of Rickon's breathless laughter. of Sansa, brushing out Lady's coat and singing to herself. You know nothing, Jon Snow. He though of Arya, her hair as tangled as a bird's nest. I made him a warm cloak from the skins of the six whores who came with him to Winterfell...I want my bride back... I want my bride back.... I want my bride back... 'I think we had best change the plan' Jon Snow said."

All about his family and how he thinks hes committing treason, nothing about what he's doing is truly what's best for the watch. Jon isnt that delusional. He didnt try to rescue Arya for the watch either. He did it for his little sister. Why else keep it a secret and not use any people from the watch to do it? Jon's motivation is clear. Its Jon Snow's motivation, the bastard of Winterfell, not the LC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the umpteenth time, I'm not claiming that Aemon is using the raven anecdote to specifically endorse non-neutrality.

The raven anecdote is about pragmatism in service to a mission. That's what I'm pointing to. Aemon precedes his discussion of the practical realities of upholding the Watch's mission framed by an anecdote about pragmatism in service to a mission. I'm using this passage to emphasize the need for pragmatism, and not claiming that Aemon is saying anything specific about neutrality, though he does say "ravens can defend against hawks."

Look, Aemon isn't speaking to the issues we disagree about here, so I don't think there is much point to bringing up the ravens. In any case, I don't think pragmatism is the big take way here.

The vow says "realmS of men." Who are you to decide which realms are included? Could you actually be saying context matters in interpreting the vow?

The realms behind the wall. I'm not denying the vow needs an interpretation am I?

You seem to want to place this arbitrary division at the Wall.

Real arbitrary.

So, if the Watch is not supposed to take up arms against anyone from the South, then those filthy oathbreakers were in violation of their vow when they fought Styr's band who came up from the South.

Except those men were from beyond the wall and the nw was defending the realms behind the wall from them.

According to your little distinction, the right thing would have been to peacefully allow them to do whatever they wanted to do, because we're using the Wall as the division line. And the Watch had no business trying to fight back in all of those historic cases where wildlings got South of the Wall-- they needed to stand aside and let the realm handle it, because they are supposed to be waiting at their post for Others, not fighting against a realm of men inside another ream of men. Worse yet, Jon and the Watch have absolutely no right to influence the various wildling leaders once past the Wall and part of the realm in terms of making sure the wildling influx does not interrupt the rest of the North. As in, keeping wildling hostages is apparently oathbreaking.

I think drawing the line at the realms that are supposed to be protected at the wall is perfectly sensible and obvious. you are just being silly about this now. Jon and co made a deal with the wildlings (before they crossed). They are from beyond the wall and so aren't one of the realms the nw don't interfere with.

Look, if you really want to play the "wildlings are the historic enemy from the north and the Wall delimits which realms are included and therefore, they're excluded" game then this very same logic needs to be applied to the opposite angle. As in, the Starks have traditionally, historically been the backbone of the Watch's defenses, enabling its continued survival to perform its mission, and therefore, the Starks must be kept in a position to perform this historic service. That is, if you want to draw on historic precedent and traditions in determining who is an enemy of the Watch, then apply this consistently.

No one thinks the nw has a duty to uphold the power of Winterfell so there's no inconsistency in what I'm saying. The nw tradition is to remain neutral.

OR, again, we can be reasonable about this and look at the vows more critically, measuring pragmatic solutions that enable the Watch's mission in a variety of contexts, not insist on emphatically defining this as "take no part" within the vow, which is incompatible with the current context.

'Take no part' is in the vow, and it tells the watch how to fulfil its duty. There's nothing strange about the vow laying down a specific way to enable the watch to defeat the Others, and indeed, it does this anyway with the prohibitions that are literally in the vow. The idea that the prohibitions mean don't compromise the watch doesn't make sense. It is possible to imagine circumstances where the watch might be compromised if someone didn't violate one of the prohibitions.

Your final point is meaningless. The fact that all of Stannis' enemies view the Watch as having "taken part" by virtue of Stannis' merely being at the Wall means that there is no neutrality to speak of. There is, therefore, no such thing as "taking no part" from that point forward. So either with every waking breath the Watch is engaging in oathbreaking from the moment Stannis arrives, and therefore, the vow is wildly flawed since it prevents execution of its mission in certain contexts and should be rewritten. Or, your interpretation of what's actually embedded in the vows is what's flawed.

Sure there is. As I explained it is the duty of the watch to create the space for neutrality by being pro-active in the way it secures its ability to take no part. On Stannis's arrival neutrality was certainly threatened but there were ways of dealing with this. Your view that taking no part was over and done with is absurd.

What you are actually doing is arguing that taking no part is a zero sum game, and any involvement, of any kind, is oathbreaking. There is no reason to think this. There wasn't any oathbreaking that I would worry about until Jon sent off Mance. This is unless you descend to the depths of absurdity like some do, and argue letting Stannis stay, or Bowen refusing to burn Tywin's letter as soon as he gets it constitutes taking part and oathbreaking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

snip

What you are actually doing is arguing that taking no part is a zero sum game, and any involvement, of any kind, is oathbreaking. There is no reason to think this. There wasn't any oathbreaking that I would worry about until Jon sent off Mance. This is unless you descend to the depths of absurdity like some do, and argue letting Stannis stay, or Bowen refusing to burn Tywin's letter as soon as he gets it constitutes taking part and oathbreaking.

If you don't believe that Jon was oathbreaking in making a deal with the wildlings as part of their becoming part of the realm south of the Wall, then you cannot also maintain that "taking no part" is inherently part of the vow.

Don't you see the leap you made? You're appealing to the context that this is a pragmatic solution to the issue of integration of a new people into the realm, and agreed upon beyond the Wall. But if "the Watch takes no part" is truly in the vow, then this is not the Watch's place to be making this pragmatic arrangement! According to the "take no part" construct, they are not the arbiters of controlling the behavior of these members of the realm. When the wildlings cross, they become part of the realm. Holding hostages of members of the realm would be therefore prohibited.

Either this is oathbreaking, or "take no part" is not part of the vow.

You keep appealing to context and historic tradition to negate the wildlings from "protected realms of men" to support your interpretation that "taking no part" is part of the oaths, but deny that action needs to be taken to maintain the extra-Watch support system that across history and tradition enables its existence. That seems extremely inconsistent to me. I'm not actually of the belief that the Watch should actively work to make sure the Starks are always in power, but pointing out that appealing to tradition inconsistently is arbitrary logic.

On your last point, now you're talking about how there's degrees of "taking no part," and that some forms of "taking part" are apparently not "oathbreaking." How, pray tell, do you draw this interpretive line in the sand? Could it be defined, perhaps, as "taking part in affairs provided that doing so is in service to the overriding mission and purpose of the Watch, defined as protecting the realms of men from winter?"

As in, the prohibition is not, in fact, about "taking part," but rather against jeopardizing the security of the Watch and would prevent fulfillment of its mission?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...