Jon Snow, Stannis and Oathbreaking

[SlowLoras]

“Our honor means no more than our lives, so long as the realm is safe. Are you a man of the Night’s Watch?”

Here's the key, I think. Jon is mini-Ned so he holds himself to a much higher standard than most - he takes his vows very seriously, perhaps more seriously than he needs to. (just check him out, fretting over sleeping with Ygritte when he knows full well that many of his Sworn Brothers frequently go digging for buried treasure in Mole's Town.) But the fact is, the main responsibility of the Night's Watch is to 'guard the realms of men' (including the Wildlings, which I think was an important thing to recognise.) If Jon needs to curry Stannis' favour in order to keep the realm safe, then surely his primary responsibility as Lord Commander is to do just that?

Qhorin Halfhand recognised the importance of Jon's mission with the wildlings, even though it would mean Jon breaking his oath (temporarily, at least) - and at a cost of Halfhand's own life. Jon's become more pragmatic as time has worn on, realising that his own ideals of honour and 'right' aren't necessarily the best way to do what needs to be done (hello, Ned, and bye-bye Ned's head.)

[Shireen Shireen]

Here's the key, I think. Jon is mini-Ned so he holds himself to a much higher standard than most - he takes his vows very seriously, perhaps more seriously than he needs to. (just check him out, fretting over sleeping with Ygritte when he knows full well that many of his Sworn Brothers frequently go digging for buried treasure in Mole's Town.) But the fact is, the main responsibility of the Night's Watch is to 'guard the realms of men' (including the Wildlings, which I think was an important thing to recognise.) If Jon needs to curry Stannis' favour in order to keep the realm safe, then surely his primary responsibility as Lord Commander is to do just that?

Qhorin Halfhand recognised the importance of Jon's mission with the wildlings, even though it would mean Jon breaking his oath (temporarily, at least) - and at a cost of Halfhand's own life. Jon's become more pragmatic as time has worn on, realising that his own ideals of honour and 'right' aren't necessarily the best way to do what needs to be done (hello, Ned, and bye-bye Ned's head.)

:agree:

[butterbumps!]

I don't see your point here. if Mance is Stannis' prisoner, then Jon had no job in helping him escape.

I don't think that Jon only planned to intercept Arya in third party lands.If that was the case, why do you need Mance and the spearwives for it? The plan was always to do whatever was necessary to rescue Arya.

Granted that he wasn't thinking about this mission in political terms, but that only added to his folly - he should have considered the political consequences as well, which is were I think we both agree. And it is equally breaking neutrality even if he does it for personal reasons.

When Jon puts it together that he needs Stannis to win, he still refuses the offer and instead offers Stannis the mountain clans.At this point, Stannis' chances were bleak and would have increased manifold if he had a Stark with him.

1. Mance: But Jon didn't "help" Mance escape from Stannis. You said that Jon was in the wrong for not executing Mance as a deserter. I pointed out that as Stannis' prisoner, it isn't Jon's business to execute Mance. But additionally, Mance is brought forth as a gift for Jon by Stannis' "true queen" and high counselor, Mel. And Jon sees that Mance is essentially on her electric leash. So Mance isn't being aided in escaping from Stannis-- Stannis being the person Mance's discipline apparently belongs to.

Just as a reminder, we were looking at the "technicality" of this-- not my personal assessment of the reality of the situation, but rather, the loopholes this was sold as. As it happens, I'd have put Mance to an entirely different use at the outset, before the burning.

2. We actually don't know exactly what parameters of the plan Jon was aware of, and I think part of that is purposeful in that Jon's trying to pretend that he's not involved. But we do know that right before Jon comes into Mel's chamber, Mance and Mel discuss the operation, and Mel says that Arya is fleeing around the Long Lake area (third party lands). Prior to this, Mel told Jon that she'd seen a girl on a dying horse feeling a marriage-- meaning, Jon was told previously by Mel that Arya was already on the road making her way to the Wall. I think it's pretty clear that Jon was under the impression that this mission was to intercept her.

I have no doubt that Mel gave Mance the direction to bring Arya back at any cost, but I'm not so certain that's the impression Jon has of this. Additionally, I have no doubt Mance has his own objective in this as well, perhaps independently of anything Mel knows. When Jon thinks of the mission later, he kind of thinks he's been duped a bit-- it's clearly taking longer than he thought, and he wonders what other plan Mel's cooked up for him.

While I guess a "lawyer" might say that Jon was a victim of fraud in terms of what the mission was sold as versus the reality (we were discussing the technicalities), I've been pretty vocal about Jon's lack of engagement in knowing the full parameters, outlining some of his own and figuring out safety measures as being a huge problem. I think he tried to put his head in the sand regarding the parameters of the mission, as though his not knowing made him not involved.

3. Yes, that's the major problem with the reality of the situation I've been criticizing-- that Jon isn't thinking in political terms with this. The "loophole" Jon's thinking about in terms of non-involvement is the issue that this is a personal mission for his sister, when a Watchman has no sisters. The "technical defense" is that this wasn't intended to be a political issue-- it's about aiding his already fleeing sister escape a predator.

But according to the parameters we saw Mel and Mance discuss, I'm not so certain that's breaking neutrality. I guess, did Jon break neutrality when the Watchmen he'd placed in the Gift to look out for Arya (in case she was past Mance's party) helped Alys Karstark make it up to the Wall?

4. Would Stannis' chances of victory truly increase multiply if Jon took Winterfell in Jon IV?

Jon points out that Stannis can have his Stark-- Sansa. Stannis repeatedly rejects "Lady Lannister" for the sole reason that she is married to Tyrion, and doesn't want any Lannister to have any sort of claim. Despite the fact that the news that Tyrion killed Tywin and is therefore an accursed kinslayer and therefore probably not going to cash in on any claims is known as well.

I'm not so certain that the North would just automatically flock to Jon as lord of Winterfell. First, Jon knows that there's at least 1 trueborn sibling with a claim to it, so it raises the issue of contestable claim-- what if Sansa returns? Would the Northmen prefer the trueborn to the newly unminted "unbastard," minted by a Southron king they aren't recognizing presently, and for all intents and purposes, looks like some scam the 2 cooked up together to get Stannis on the throne? Secondly, we know that Bran and Rickon are known to be alive, so the reality is that this claim might be even more contested than Jon realizes.

[RK Rajagopal]

1. Mance: But Jon didn't "help" Mance escape from Stannis. You said that Jon was in the wrong for not executing Mance as a deserter. I pointed out that as Stannis' prisoner, it isn't Jon's business to execute Mance. But additionally, Mance is brought forth as a gift for Jon by Stannis' "true queen" and high counselor, Mel. And Jon sees that Mance is essentially on her electric leash. So Mance isn't being aided in escaping from Stannis-- Stannis being the person Mance's discipline apparently belongs to.

Just as a reminder, we were looking at the "technicality" of this-- not my personal assessment of the reality of the situation, but rather, the loopholes this was sold as. As it happens, I'd have put Mance to an entirely different use at the outset, before the burning.

1. I see what you mean when you are talking about the "technicalities". My assessment is that Jon is guilty even technically but I agree that it can be argued. As you say, a good lawyer might get Jon out.

2.

2. We actually don't know exactly what parameters of the plan Jon was aware of, and I think part of that is purposeful in that Jon's trying to pretend that he's not involved. But we do know that right before Jon comes into Mel's chamber, Mance and Mel discuss the operation, and Mel says that Arya is fleeing around the Long Lake area (third party lands). Prior to this, Mel told Jon that she'd seen a girl on a dying horse feeling a marriage-- meaning, Jon was told previously by Mel that Arya was already on the road making her way to the Wall. I think it's pretty clear that Jon was under the impression that this mission was to intercept her.

I have no doubt that Mel gave Mance the direction to bring Arya back at any cost, but I'm not so certain that's the impression Jon has of this. Additionally, I have no doubt Mance has his own objective in this as well, perhaps independently of anything Mel knows. When Jon thinks of the mission later, he kind of thinks he's been duped a bit-- it's clearly taking longer than he thought, and he wonders what other plan Mel's cooked up for him.

While I guess a "lawyer" might say that Jon was a victim of fraud in terms of what the mission was sold as versus the reality (we were discussing the technicalities), I've been pretty vocal about Jon's lack of engagement in knowing the full parameters, outlining some of his own and figuring out safety measures as being a huge problem. I think he tried to put his head in the sand regarding the parameters of the mission, as though his not knowing made him not involved.

Please tell me why Jon would have consented to give 6 pretty spearwives if this is just about rescuing a fleeing Arya.

3.

3. Yes, that's the major problem with the reality of the situation I've been criticizing-- that Jon isn't thinking in political terms with this. The "loophole" Jon's thinking about in terms of non-involvement is the issue that this is a personal mission for his sister, when a Watchman has no sisters. The "technical defense" is that this wasn't intended to be a political issue-- it's about aiding his already fleeing sister escape a predator.

But according to the parameters we saw Mel and Mance discuss, I'm not so certain that's breaking neutrality. I guess, did Jon break neutrality when the Watchmen he'd placed in the Gift to look out for Arya (in case she was past Mance's party) helped Alys Karstark make it up to the Wall?

Aiding his already fleeing sister is also breaking neutrality, considering that the said sister is fleeing from a Lord. As Jon himself says,

If one of my men told me his sister was in peril, I would tell him that was no concern of his.

4. Would Stannis' chances of victory truly increase multiply if Jon took Winterfell in Jon IV?

Jon points out that Stannis can have his Stark-- Sansa. Stannis repeatedly rejects "Lady Lannister" for the sole reason that she is married to Tyrion, and doesn't want any Lannister to have any sort of claim. Despite the fact that the news that Tyrion killed Tywin and is therefore an accursed kinslayer and therefore probably not going to cash in on any claims is known as well.

I'm not so certain that the North would just automatically flock to Jon as lord of Winterfell. First, Jon knows that there's at least 1 trueborn sibling with a claim to it, so it raises the issue of contestable claim-- what if Sansa returns? Would the Northmen prefer the trueborn to the newly unminted "unbastard," minted by a Southron king they aren't recognizing presently, and for all intents and purposes, looks like some scam the 2 cooked up together to get Stannis on the throne? Secondly, we know that Bran and Rickon are known to be alive, so the reality is that this claim might be even more contested than Jon realizes.

Jon did not know that Bran and Rickon were alive. I believe we are talking about this from Jon's point of view, given the information he had at the time. And at that moment, Stannis had no one other than the Karstarks - who later prove to be treacherous. The whole North lost kin at the Red Wedding, so they all have reasons to hate the Boltons. My guess is that a lot of bannermen will indeed flock to the last surviving son of Ned Stark.

[butterbumps!]

1. I see what you mean when you are talking about the "technicalities". My assessment is that Jon is guilty even technically but I agree that it can be argued. As you say, a good lawyer might get Jon out.

2. Please tell me why Jon would have consented to give 6 pretty spearwives if this is just about rescuing a fleeing Arya.

3. Aiding his already fleeing sister is also breaking neutrality, considering that the said sister is fleeing from a Lord. As Jon himself says,

4. Jon did not know that Bran and Rickon were alive. I believe we are talking about this from Jon's point of view, given the information he had at the time. And at that moment, Stannis had no one other than the Karstarks - who later prove to be treacherous. The whole North lost kin at the Red Wedding, so they all have reasons to hate the Boltons. My guess is that a lot of bannermen will indeed flock to the last surviving son of Ned Stark.

2. Mance gives the reason-- Arya would be more comfortable and trusting of women rather than a lone wildling man. Mance also says he has a "certain ploy" he's looking to pull off, but it's unspecified what this ploy is. In the context of the conversation, it looks like a ploy to get Arya to trust him.

One thing is pretty clear-- Jon doesn't seem to have any idea this mission would involve breaking into Winterfell as Abel and extracting Arya from Ramsay's bed. Jon thinks that he screwed up by "loosing Mance on the North," and thinks he's been conned by Mel and Mance when the mission is taking much longer than he expected. This tells us he thought the parameters were much closer to an interception than outright extraction.

3. If someone has already escaped and is fleeing toward Jon, is it truly a case of "getting involved" to intercept them? That is, if she is not consenting to her political marriage and removes herself to go to the Wall for sanctuary, is it really a case of active partaking to simply streamline the process? Wouldn't that be a case of the fleeing sister already involving Jon/ the Watch by virtue of her making a political statement (rejecting the marriage) and putting the target on Jon anyway by going to him in the first place?

4. I know Jon doesn't know Bran and Rickon are alive. I specifically pointed out that this is something we know that casts doubt on the true efficacy of Stannis' offer. Are you looking at this issue exclusively from Jon's POV, or the true reality of the situation?

What Jon does know is that Sansa is alive and that Winterfell belongs to her. I know that she's currently missing, but Stannis refuses to even consider her simply because of the Tyrion connection. But the point I'm making is that given what these characters know, Winterfell belongs to Sansa, i.e. a Stark that the North can be rallied behind, and Stannis rejects this option. Jon is all for the concept of a Stark in the North to rally-- but there's a an actual Stark out there who is not him.

As a side note, you keep rejecting "things we know but the characters don't," but an appeal like "a lot of the bannermen will flock to Jon" is an appeal to something we might "know," but they don't necessarily. And when we get into those types of speculations, then consideration of other things, like whether this is true based on the Northmen's knowledge of Bran and Rickon starts becoming highly salient.

But for argument's sake, let's assume that some northmen would flock to "Lord Jon Stark of Winterfell" as you say. How does this improve Stannis' Northern PR, and what exactly do you see Stannis doing all this while? Just to get on the same page, Stannis' plan for Jon is to have Northmen flock to Jon, to get the North organized and swear fealty to Stannis. As Stannis' subjects, they would be tasked with fighting the Lannisters and Boltons. It's unclear what Stannis plans to do during this time, but it looks like he might have wanted to stay at the Wall.

Now, let's say this goes to plan. Why, in holy hell, would the Northmen see themselves as Stannis' subjects rather than Jon? Jon will be the one who rallied the North against its enemies, so why be Stannis' subjects? What did Stannis do to earn their loyalty?

If all the Northmen would truly be so keen on Jon that they'd just flock to him (a big "if"), and Jon does the dirty work and wins the North, then Stannis' plan would have essentially made Jon KitN, and rendered Stannis "redundant." So I actually kind of think Stannis' plan to put Jon in WInterfell might have undermined his own cause.

But, ok, let's assume Jon can rally them for King Stannis. What then does Stannis do with this newly sworn army? Does he use them all to guard the Wall? Or, does he command them to fight his other political battles to get him closer to the throne? Bear in mind, Stannis thinks that he's going to miraculously defeat the LN, so it's quite unclear just what sort of preparations he's making for this. So if Stannis orders Jon to do something-- unrelated to, or even counterproductive to the LN (since Stannis and Jon have very different ideas about how that will work)-- then as Stannis' vassal, he's supposed to comply. He'd be in Stannis' debt and subject to Stannis' plans for him, which is a much different position than being his ally.

Even more disastrous, what if the Northmen refuse to follow Jon to accept this "Southron fool" as their king, and reject both as pretenders in cahoots?

Look, the strategy Jon designed for Stannis to win the North directly so that the Northmen would actually see Stannis as their king is actually in Stannis' better interests than the Winterfell plan. This way Jon is not the middleman-- Stannis would be earning their loyalty directly. It's a slightly longer road to organizing the North, but ultimately, the wiser choice in terms of Stannis' overcoming the political conflict in light of the LN issue.

The problem is that Jon was so resistant to "taking part" that he didn't think to come up with this plan for about 7 chapters after getting the Winterfell offer. By Jon II/ FFC Sam I, Jon seems to recognize that Stannis needed to win, and the argument I'd make is that this stupid neutrality custom dragged out the process until Jon simply stopped caring about it.

Part of the issue is the fact that Jon and Stannis communicate at cross-purposes for these 7 chapters-- like, the LN is always the afterthought of their conversations, and neither put all of the preceding pieces into that perspective when communicating with each other. For example, Stannis tries to sell the Winterfell offer as the personal dream-come-true for any bastard boy rather than as a keystone to his Northern-LN plan.

What I'm trying to say is that it's not until Jon IV that Jon and Stannis get on the same page, delaminating the whole Northern picture, and looking at the essence of the issues together. That is, Stannis wants Jon in Winterfell because the Northmen won't get behind him, so the issue here is really to come up with a plan to get the Northmen to accept him. In those terms, that's exactly what Jon gives him-- earn their love by taking part in their customs, gather momentum, take out the Ironborn, and gain more momentum as their recognized king.

So basically, what I'm saying is that the plan Jon devises in Jon IV is better than the Winterfell offer in terms of the big picture.

[RK Rajagopal]

2. Mance gives the reason-- Arya would be more comfortable and trusting of women rather than a lone wildling man. Mance also says he has a "certain ploy" he's looking to pull off, but it's unspecified what this ploy is. In the context of the conversation, it looks like a ploy to get Arya to trust him.

One thing is pretty clear-- Jon doesn't seem to have any idea this mission would involve breaking into Winterfell as Abel and extracting Arya from Ramsay's bed. Jon thinks that he screwed up by "loosing Mance on the North," and thinks he's been conned by Mel and Mance when the mission is taking much longer than he expected. This tells us he thought the parameters were much closer to an interception than outright extraction.

I see your point. it can indeed be argued that Jon had no idea.

3. If someone has already escaped and is fleeing toward Jon, is it truly a case of "getting involved" to intercept them? That is, if she is not consenting to her political marriage and removes herself to go to the Wall for sanctuary, is it really a case of active partaking to simply streamline the process? Wouldn't that be a case of the fleeing sister already involving Jon/ the Watch by virtue of her making a political statement (rejecting the marriage) and putting the target on Jon anyway by going to him in the first place?

Yes,I think it is "getting involved". It would have been different if Arya had come to the gates of the Night's Watch. Sending a party to intercept her for personal reasons isn't something a watchman should be doing. Even in the case of Alys Karstark, I do not think that accepting her was the "neutral" thing to do.

4. I know Jon doesn't know Bran and Rickon are alive. I specifically pointed out that this is something we know that casts doubt on the true efficacy of Stannis' offer. Are you looking at this issue exclusively from Jon's POV, or the true reality of the situation?

I thought we clarified earlier that this is from Jon's POV.

What Jon does know is that Sansa is alive and that Winterfell belongs to her. I know that she's currently missing, but Stannis refuses to even consider her simply because of the Tyrion connection. But the point I'm making is that given what these characters know, Winterfell belongs to Sansa, i.e. a Stark that the North can be rallied behind, and Stannis rejects this option. Jon is all for the concept of a Stark in the North to rally-- but there's a an actual Stark out there who is not him.

As a side note, you keep rejecting "things we know but the characters don't," but an appeal like "a lot of the bannermen will flock to Jon" is an appeal to something we might "know," but they don't necessarily. And when we get into those types of speculations, then consideration of other things, like whether this is true based on the Northmen's knowledge of Bran and Rickon starts becoming highly salient.

But for argument's sake, let's assume that some northmen would flock to "Lord Jon Stark of Winterfell" as you say. How does this improve Stannis' Northern PR, and what exactly do you see Stannis doing all this while? Just to get on the same page, Stannis' plan for Jon is to have Northmen flock to Jon, to get the North organized and swear fealty to Stannis. As Stannis' subjects, they would be tasked with fighting the Lannisters and Boltons. It's unclear what Stannis plans to do during this time, but it looks like he might have wanted to stay at the Wall.

Now, let's say this goes to plan. Why, in holy hell, would the Northmen see themselves as Stannis' subjects rather than Jon? Jon will be the one who rallied the North against its enemies, so why be Stannis' subjects? What did Stannis do to earn their loyalty?

If all the Northmen would truly be so keen on Jon that they'd just flock to him (a big "if"), and Jon does the dirty work and wins the North, then Stannis' plan would have essentially made Jon KitN, and rendered Stannis "redundant." So I actually kind of think Stannis' plan to put Jon in WInterfell might have undermined his own cause.

But, ok, let's assume Jon can rally them for King Stannis. What then does Stannis do with this newly sworn army? Does he use them all to guard the Wall? Or, does he command them to fight his other political battles to get him closer to the throne? Bear in mind, Stannis thinks that he's going to miraculously defeat the LN, so it's quite unclear just what sort of preparations he's making for this. So if Stannis orders Jon to do something-- unrelated to, or even counterproductive to the LN (since Stannis and Jon have very different ideas about how that will work)-- then as Stannis' vassal, he's supposed to comply. He'd be in Stannis' debt and subject to Stannis' plans for him, which is a much different position than being his ally.

Even more disastrous, what if the Northmen refuse to follow Jon to accept this "Southron fool" as their king, and reject both as pretenders in cahoots?

Look, the strategy Jon designed for Stannis to win the North directly so that the Northmen would actually see Stannis as their king is actually in Stannis' better interests than the Winterfell plan. This way Jon is not the middleman-- Stannis would be earning their loyalty directly. It's a slightly longer road to organizing the North, but ultimately, the wiser choice in terms of Stannis' overcoming the political conflict in light of the LN issue.

The problem is that Jon was so resistant to "taking part" that he didn't think to come up with this plan for about 7 chapters after getting the Winterfell offer. By Jon II/ FFC Sam I, Jon seems to recognize that Stannis needed to win, and the argument I'd make is that this stupid neutrality custom dragged out the process until Jon simply stopped caring about it.

Part of the issue is the fact that Jon and Stannis communicate at cross-purposes for these 7 chapters-- like, the LN is always the afterthought of their conversations, and neither put all of the preceding pieces into that perspective when communicating with each other. For example, Stannis tries to sell the Winterfell offer as the personal dream-come-true for any bastard boy rather than as a keystone to his Northern-LN plan.

What I'm trying to say is that it's not until Jon IV that Jon and Stannis get on the same page, delaminating the whole Northern picture, and looking at the essence of the issues together. That is, Stannis wants Jon in Winterfell because the Northmen won't get behind him, so the issue here is really to come up with a plan to get the Northmen to accept him. In those terms, that's exactly what Jon gives him-- earn their love by taking part in their customs, gather momentum, take out the Ironborn, and gain more momentum as their recognized king.

So basically, what I'm saying is that the plan Jon devises in Jon IV is better than the Winterfell offer in terms of the big picture.

You bring about a lot of finer details, which can theoretically be negotiated. If suppose Stannis had agreed to give Jon autonomy of the Watch and the Wall, would you be in support of the plan?

I believe that all said and done, accepting Stannis' offer would have improved Stannis' chances of winning. I am hoping you do not disagree with that. Given that Stannis' prospects were pretty bleak overall, and also given that a Stannis victory is the only hope for the Watch, don't you think it is prudent to do all one can to support Stannis' victory?

[butterbumps!]

You bring about a lot of finer details, which can theoretically be negotiated. If suppose Stannis had agreed to give Jon autonomy of the Watch and the Wall, would you be in support of the plan?

I believe that all said and done, accepting Stannis' offer would have improved Stannis' chances of winning. I am hoping you do not disagree with that. Given that Stannis' prospects were pretty bleak overall, and also given that a Stannis victory is the only hope for the Watch, don't you think it is prudent to do all one can to support Stannis' victory?

I would be very cautious of what Stannis' offering autonomy of the Watch and Wall would actually entail. As it was, Stannis made a point of telling the Watch (pre-election) that he intended to take the Gift from them, with force if it wasn't forthcoming, and then demanded the Watch turn over their abandoned castles, which he wanted to give his men as rewards for loyalty, asked for Watch money to support his pirate navy, and used the Watch's food and resources as his own.

I mean, if Stannis is going to give a political entity autonomy over the Watch, why would he give that to Jon and not himself? He was essentially sort of annexing it for himself as it was. Why would he turn the Watch over to the Lord of Winterfell rather than just annex it entirely as his own? So I don't think it would even make sense.

But maybe we should look at the essence of the Winterfell deal. The purpose of this wasn't that Jon gets Winterfell as an end, but a shortcut to getting Stannis Northern support. The purpose is about getting Stannis an army, and the method he suggests is via Jon at Winterfell. So the operative thing here is getting Stannis support and an army. With this in mind, why would you consider the Winterfell offer to yield an improved chance of Stannis' victory over Jon's plan for Stannis to build support directly from the Mountain tribes and Mors Umber, to battle Ironborn, to eventually getting Manderly and other lords to see him as legit, and go this route?

[Ranzadule]

There are oaths and then there are oaths. I admit to being a fan and possibly an apologist for Rhaegar's kid.

Jon said the Words. That is the basic vow. Some of that vow has been interpretted in ways which allow for seeming breach like digging for gold in Moletown and so on. When the Halfhand gave Jon his orders, I believe this to be a more focused vow to a superior and also a deathbed wish granted. It appears to be traitorous but is in fact heroic and anything he did to accomplish this task, even those things that seemed to break the vow, were in fact adhering to a higher vow.

Not meddling in the affairs of the kingdoms seems to be a pretty strong tradition but the actual rules are that they do not take sides. Using Stannis to help against the Wildlings and whatnot and bargaining favors to him is still within the spirit of the rules.

Jon is on a slippery slope and looks to many to be breaking vows and such, but really is being heroic, like his Uncle/Dad.

[RK Rajagopal]

I would be very cautious of what Stannis' offering autonomy of the Watch and Wall would actually entail. As it was, Stannis made a point of telling the Watch (pre-election) that he intended to take the Gift from them, with force if it wasn't forthcoming, and then demanded the Watch turn over their abandoned castles, which he wanted to give his men as rewards for loyalty, asked for Watch money to support his pirate navy, and used the Watch's food and resources as his own.

I mean, if Stannis is going to give a political entity autonomy over the Watch, why would he give that to Jon and not himself? He was essentially sort of annexing it for himself as it was. Why would he turn the Watch over to the Lord of Winterfell rather than just annex it entirely as his own? So I don't think it would even make sense.

He would do it because Jon demanded it of him. He would consider it a small price to pay for Jon's support.

But maybe we should look at the essence of the Winterfell deal. The purpose of this wasn't that Jon gets Winterfell as an end, but a shortcut to getting Stannis Northern support. The purpose is about getting Stannis an army, and the method he suggests is via Jon at Winterfell. So the operative thing here is getting Stannis support and an army. With this in mind, why would you consider the Winterfell offer to yield an improved chance of Stannis' victory over Jon's plan for Stannis to build support directly from the Mountain tribes and Mors Umber, to battle Ironborn, to eventually getting Manderly and other lords to see him as legit, and go this route?

I do not understand clearly what you are saying. Do you or do you not think that Jon accepting Stannis' offer would increase Stannis' chances of victory? And he could also give Stannis the mountain clans even after swearing to him. The thing is, Stannis' chances of winning are so small that he needs every bit of help he can get, and for the Watch, Stannis losing isn't an option.

[butterbumps!]

He would do it because Jon demanded it of him. He would consider it a small price to pay for Jon's support.

I do not understand clearly what you are saying. Do you or do you not think that Jon accepting Stannis' offer would increase Stannis' chances of victory? And he could also give Stannis the mountain clans even after swearing to him. The thing is, Stannis' chances of winning are so small that he needs every bit of help he can get, and for the Watch, Stannis losing isn't an option.

I'm comparing two "quantities:" the Winterfell offer against Jon's Northern strategy from Jon IV (the plan for Stannis to win the North himself).

I'm saying that the point behind the Winterfell offer is for Stannis to gain Northern support. That is, Jon's taking Winterfell is meant to be a means to the end of Stannis' winning Northern support and men.

So the issue we're really evaluating here is what the best way for Stannis to win the North and men would be.

Do I think that Jon's accepting Stannis' offer is the best way for Stannis to win the North? No. Absolutely not. Not based on what they know, nor what we as readers know.

Jon's alternative is superior to the Winterfell plan.

[RK Rajagopal]

I'm comparing two "quantities:" the Winterfell offer against Jon's Northern strategy from Jon IV (the plan for Stannis to win the North himself).

I'm saying that the point behind the Winterfell offer is for Stannis to gain Northern support. That is, Jon's taking Winterfell is meant to be a means to the end of Stannis' winning Northern support and men.

So the issue we're really evaluating here is what the best way for Stannis to win the North and men would be.

Do I think that Jon's accepting Stannis' offer is the best way for Stannis to win the North? No. Absolutely not. Not based on what they know, nor what we as readers know.

Jon's alternative is superior to the Winterfell plan.

Jon's alternative has advantages and disadvantages. While you have mentioned the advantages, the disadvantage is that Stannis' chances are now weaker than they could have been.

[butterbumps!]

Jon's alternative has advantages and disadvantages. While you have mentioned the advantages, the disadvantage is that Stannis' chances are now weaker than they could have been.

How do you figure? Because it's being executed 7 chapters later? Can you explain exactly why you think this plan means Stannis' chances are weaker than with Jon as LoW?

[RK Rajagopal]

How do you figure? Because it's being executed 7 chapters later? Can you explain exactly why you think this plan means Stannis' chances are weaker than with Jon as LoW?

not because it is being executed late, but because it would help Stannis get the support of more lords more quickly and easily. Since this is a fantasy series, we are likely going to see Stannis defeat the Boltons and control the North, but at the time Jon offers Stannis the mountain clans, he had a pretty weak chance.

[RK Rajagopal]

How do you figure? Because it's being executed 7 chapters later? Can you explain exactly why you think this plan means Stannis' chances are weaker than with Jon as LoW?

Also, I'm not quite sure why we are debating this. I thought this was meant to be made "obvious" in the books - precisely because Stannis asks Jon - twice! Also, I argue that Jon shoud do both - ie give Stannis the mountain clans as well as accept his offfer.

[Ser No One]

It's weird to me how people can be so strict with some characters (Dany, Stannis, Cat, Tyrion,...), and so lenient with others, Jon being the best example.

I agree that he's a great character, and we all want him to survive and to become someone who will be able to influence the fate of others, and even the ending of the books. I think R+L=J has a lot to do in this leniency toward Jon.

It's true he always has noble goals, but what he's done in ADWD doesn't deserve so many praises... He enangered the Watch by taking part, with a King who has seemingly very little chance of winning the IT in the end. He took (good but) controversial decisions during the whole length of the book, and never took time to explain them to his brothers, when they opposed him. He was warned several times of danger by Melisandre, yet completely disregarded his own security, while continuing to break his vows (at least in other people’s eyes).

He never took the time to think about (much less prepare the Watch to):

-What would happen to the Watch if Stannis failed

-What would happen to the Watch if he died (now we have a Wall stuffed with wildlings, mutinees, loyalists, and queen’s men)

[Buried Treasure]

I would be very cautious of what Stannis' offering autonomy of the Watch and Wall would actually entail. As it was, Stannis made a point of telling the Watch (pre-election) that he intended to take the Gift from them, with force if it wasn't forthcoming, and then demanded the Watch turn over their abandoned castles, which he wanted to give his men as rewards for loyalty, asked for Watch money to support his pirate navy, and used the Watch's food and resources as his own.

I mean, if Stannis is going to give a political entity autonomy over the Watch, why would he give that to Jon and not himself? He was essentially sort of annexing it for himself as it was. Why would he turn the Watch over to the Lord of Winterfell rather than just annex it entirely as his own? So I don't think it would even make sense.

But maybe we should look at the essence of the Winterfell deal. The purpose of this wasn't that Jon gets Winterfell as an end, but a shortcut to getting Stannis Northern support. The purpose is about getting Stannis an army, and the method he suggests is via Jon at Winterfell. So the operative thing here is getting Stannis support and an army. With this in mind, why would you consider the Winterfell offer to yield an improved chance of Stannis' victory over Jon's plan for Stannis to build support directly from the Mountain tribes and Mors Umber, to battle Ironborn, to eventually getting Manderly and other lords to see him as legit, and go this route?

I don't think 'annexing' is quite right. Stannis sees the NW as already part of his inheritance, because he sees it as just another organisation within the Seven Kingdoms (albeit a specialised one). If the king on the Iron Throne had for the past 300 years ruled a kingdom of only the North, Riverlands and Stormlands and the other separate kingdoms had still sent men to the NW, I think Stannis would have not viewed the NW as automatically coming under his authority once he arrived at the Wall - he would have recognised it as an institution outside his kingdom. No doubt he would still have wanted to be in command as the only king present at the Wall, but I think the NW would be able to accept that - after all, the NW frequently accepted the commands of Stark kings before the conquest. And of course, Jon does not see the NW as part of Stannis' inheritance - he is one king who's claim to the Iron Throne andis honoured by the NW just as Tommen's is, or Renly's would have been if he'd turned up at the Shadow Tower.

On your latter point, I am certainly of the opinion that making Jon Lord of Winterfell would not have magicked Jon an army. The north was in disarray after the RW not because of the lack of King / Lord to be figurehead but the lack of a kingdom. Due to the RW hostages most bannermen were not free to fight for an independant north and Jon being named a lord would not have changed that - the northmen love the Starks but there is absolutely nothing to suggest they love them more than their own families. Of the major Houses only the Mormonts and the clans seemed to be hostage free. The Mormonts joined with Stannis' army without a Stark figurehead and Jon knew to advice Stannis to go into mountains because that was what Ned (a Stark!) used to do, so it seems unlikely the clans would have responded to Lord Jon's summons without him doing the same.

It's weird to me how people can be so strict with some characters (Dany, Stannis, Cat, Tyrion,...), and so lenient with others, Jon being the best example.

I agree that he's a great character, and we all want him to survive and to become someone who will be able to influence the fate of others, and even the ending of the books. I think R+L=J has a lot to do in this leniency toward Jon.

R+L=J gets blamed for everything. It really shouldn't, it doesn't do much at all to change people's opinions on whether they like Jon or think he will be king or deserves to be king. It's a theory that is widely accepted as true because the evidence for the theory is considered strong, but the implications of R+L=J are not widely agreed on and I have seen many posters who agree with the theory but would prefer it were not true, or still do not think he is likely to become king or still do not like Jon.

I also disagree with your first sentence here. I always find it problematic to lump together different posters on the board as all having the same behaviours. There are a few particularly prolific posters here that I know particularly love (or hate) one character but for the most parts I can never remember what opinion an individual forum member has on each of Dany, Stannis, Cat, Tyrion and Jon. I really don't think most members (other than the ever increasing troll population) operate on a double standard when judging characters. I just think all of us readers judge the characters by different criteria; honour /wittiness / badassness/ cleverness / compassion. You may have the impression Jon is overall treated leniently but it is not necessarily individual posters criticising Dany or Cat for one thing and not criticising Jon for the same thing.

[messem]

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 the nights to come.

The oath is ambiguous enough to be both, depending on your POV. e.g. The bolded part is very straight forward. Why did no LC guard the "realm beyond the wall"? Were they all oathbreakers?

[Ser No One]

R+L=J gets blamed for everything.

Sorry about that ;)

It just seems to me that people (me included) love that theory so much they want to see Jon as the main part of the whole plot. And what better way for it than picture him like an ideal leader? (even if in the end he might never sit the IT, it makes for a more compelling case if he looks ideal for the job)

[Mourneblade]

Jon Snow does not break his vow in these interactions, not even the spirit of it with his sister. Based on Mel's estimated location of Arya, she is in the gift, and under the protect of the Night's Watch. Jon was not a part of the real plan to send Mance to Winterfell.