Thank you 'Show Sam': Nights Watch Vows and Jon

[Skagosi High Chef]

I have been in so many debates here on this forum about the true extent of the NW vows and whether Jon broke them and the impact that has on his future. I have always said he has never and never will break his vows.

People don't like to hear this because so many R+L=J folks want Jon to become king and find all kinds of loopholes for him to abandon his post. Such as technical, but not actual death. He has already broke them. The vows are just words and so many others.

Thanks Sam for backing me up in 409 that Jon has not broken his vows. Nor will he ever. He is the "Watcher on the Wall".

[Lady Woodland]

The words of the "Oath"

"Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post. I am the sword in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men. I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night and all nights to come "(I: 651. II: 691)

Nowhere does it state "I will take no part in the quarrels of the Realm" "I shall never seek personal vengeance for myself or family honour" he hasn't broken the with the words, he fully intends to come back & resume his watch, he's already turned down WF. He see's the bigger picture, the Wall & the Watch are to protect all men, & he's learnt from Quorin, Maester Aemon, LC Mormont, & Mance that the wall is THE big picture. Benjen took off to visit WF & see the King, that was not considered "abandoning his post" he went back. Yoren travelled the kingdom's collecting men for the watch = still a Black Brother.

I don't think the "Oath" is thousands of years old either, I think the bolded in the Oath were adapted out of the histories of the past, Otherwise what would be the point of having "The New Gift" & "Brandon's Gift"

Lord Commander Runcel Hightower tried to bequeath the Watch to his bastard son (III: 612) Lord Commander Rodrik Flint thought to make himself King-beyond-the-Wall (III: 612) Tristan Mudd, Mad Marq Rankenfell, and the bastard Robin Hill were Lord Commanders who nearly destroyed the Watch when they forgot their vows in favor of their pride and ambition (III: 612. SSM: 1) 600 years ago, the commanders at Snowgate and the Nightfort went to war against each other. When their Lord Commander sought to intervene, they joined forces to murder him. The Stark in Winterfell had to take a hand, and their heads (III: 612)

Also not in the "Oath" is the expected punishment for desertion bolded, I wonder if this is where that tradition started from.

[IRON BANK]

I do not think there will even be a watch left after the current events within the story. 1st their is a horn designed to bring down the wall, 2 the wight walker threat - zombie apocalypse, 3 the wildlings are in force beyond the wall half of the nights watch sided with jon and all the wildlings. so those brothers that stabbed jon and sided against him will be wiped out.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Jon most certainly broke his vows, and expressed intent to desert.

Nowhere does it state "I will take no part in the quarrels of the Realm" "I shall never seek personal vengeance for myself or family honour" he hasn't broken the with the words, he fully intends to come back & resume his watch, he's already turned down WF. He see's the bigger picture, the Wall & the Watch are to protect all men, & he's learnt from Quorin, Maester Aemon, LC Mormont, & Mance that the wall is THE big picture. Benjen took off to visit WF & see the King, that was not considered "abandoning his post" he went back. Yoren travelled the kingdom's collecting men for the watch = still a Black Brother.

Traditional custom *is* law in these contexts. There is no explicit rule preventing Queen Elizabeth vetoing parliamentary legislation, but custom dictates that it is Not A Done Thing (if she ever tried it, there'd be a full-scale constitutional crisis).

If you absolutely have to tie the "no meddling" rule to the oath, you can take a broad reading of "I shall wear no crowns" i.e. I shall not get involved with the Game of Thrones, and hence shall not take political sides in the battles of the realm.

(As for Yoren and company: they're on Night's Watch business, not personal or political business. Very different from Jon).

[Red Beard]

The words of the "Oath"

"Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. ....

I think this is the relevant part. Jon is dead now and will be brought back to life by Melisandre, thus he can do anything he wants and no longer risk breaking an oath.

[horizon]

TV show things in this part of the forum? Against the sticky rules! ;)

[The Marquis de Leech]

Depends on how you define death. Is death that is reversible death for the purposes of the oath? Or must the death be permanent?

Common sense would dictate the latter.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Depends on how you define death. Is death that is reversible death for the purposes of the oath? Or must the death be permanent?

Common sense would dictate the latter.

Playing devil's advocate here (I'm not a fan of Jon getting out on a technicality; I'd rather he take the "fuck the police" route), but ... how often, wights excepted, does a Watch brother die and then come back to life? That's the sort of freak incident that makes people look at the wording and see a loophole. If guys were dropping dead and resurrecting left and right, then there might be cause to word it, "Until my death where I stay dead." But I highly doubt that the people who worded the vows as they did envisioned someone in Jon's situation.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Playing devil's advocate here (I'm not a fan of Jon getting out on a technicality; I'd rather he take the "fuck the police" route), but ... how often, wights excepted, does a Watch brother die and then come back to life? That's the sort of freak incident that makes people look at the wording and see a loophole. If guys were dropping dead and resurrecting left and right, then there might be cause to word it, "Until my death where I stay dead." But I highly doubt that the people who worded the vows as they did envisioned someone in Jon's situation.

Hence the oath referring to "until my death". They didn't need to specify, because they (like us) see death as permanent and irreversible. Since the purpose of the oath is to bind an individual to the Watch for as long as they are able to fight/think/move, the definition of death best suited to the oath is permanent death. Allowing people to escape their duties via reversible death defeats the oath's purpose.

I therefore think common sense would dictate that Jon remains bound by his vows, and "death" be interpreted as such.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Who the f**k will care about oaths and vows after zombapocalypse?

Anyway book canon is book canon and series canon is series canon. I don't think that this belong here. There is even a reminder at the top of the page. http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/forum-20/announcement-67-rules-reminder-threads-touching-on-the-show/

[Errant Bard]

Who the f**k will care about oaths and vows after zombapocalypse?

Whoever has to choose a man for leader?

I like that way of thinking:

"Who the f**k will care about incest after zombapocalypse?"

"Who the f**k will care about claims after zombapocalypse?"

"Who the f**k will care about guest right after zombapocalypse?"

"Who the f**k will care about Starks after zombapocalypse?"

It's just too easy.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Whoever has to choose a man for leader?

I like that way of thinking:

"Who the f**k will care about incest after zombapocalypse?"

"Who the f**k will care about claims after zombapocalypse?"

"Who the f**k will care about guest right after zombapocalypse?"

"Who the f**k will care about Starks after zombapocalypse?"

It's just too easy.

Your point is? I don't believe that Jon will take the Throne because of his claim, his claim will be only a footnote. The same way that I don't believe that anyone will care about the vows to a destroyed institution.

[TheCrannogDweller]

Show-Sam did have a good point when he found that loophole in the rules - and I am completely sympathetic to the motivation behind his interpretation. However.

The oath is supposed to be etched in the memory of every Black Brother - which is why it is so concise and clearly worded. If you went about it by trying to forsee every possible situation, it would look less like a vow and more like a Terms and Conditions agreement.

So while whoring is silently allowed in the Night's Watch, it does implicitly go against their oath.

[Errant Bard]

Your point is? I don't believe that Jon will take the Throne because of his claim, his claim will be only a footnote. The same way that I don't believe that anyone will care about the vows to a destroyed institution.

My point is that the perception of who a man is is important, and if you think the man is an oathbreaker, you could choose not to follow him, just like some people could choose not to follow Ramsay, or Stannis, or, heh, Jon himself (why the heck do you think he gets stabbed exactly? You want to argue that those who stabbed him don't know about the zombies, maybe?) even if there IS a zombie apocalypse underway.

My point was also that dismissing what you don't like because of "zombie apocalypse" is dumb, or dishonest, as you don't seem to be willing to say that people won't care about Jon because "Zombie Apocalypse".

[Lointain]

Show-Sam did have a good point when he found that loophole in the rules - and I am completely sympathetic to the motivation behind his interpretation. However.

The oath is supposed to be etched in the memory of every Black Brother - which is why it is so concise and clearly worded. If you went about it by trying to forsee every possible situation, it would look less like a vow and more like a Terms and Conditions agreement.

So while whoring is silently allowed in the Night's Watch, it does implicitly go against their oath.

The problem of loopholes is that "allows" people to break the spirit of laws and rules, while following their text.

It is something like the combat trial of Rickard Stark, the problem there is that the other champion was fire...

[Jon's Queen Consort]

My point is that the perception of who a man is is important, and if you think the man is an oathbreaker, you could choose not to follow him, just like some people could choose not to follow Ramsay, or Stannis, or, heh, Jon himself (why the heck do you think he gets stabbed exactly? You want to argue that those who stabbed him don't know about the zombies, maybe?) even if there IS a zombie apocalypse underway.

My point was also that dismissing what you don't like because of "zombie apocalypse" is dumb, or dishonest, as you don't seem to be willing to say that people won't care about Jon because "Zombie Apocalypse".

I think that I haven’t made myself clear. I don’t believe that after LN2.0 people will care for insipid things. Nothing is more important than survival, if the survival depends on unity and there is only one person who is able to unify them then I don’t believe that anyone will care about petty details.

[sj4iy]

I laughed when Sam pointed it out because I have done so in debates, too. It was appropriate, I feel.

[The Marquis de Leech]

It's not necessarily a loophole, just a matter of how broadly you want to read the provision. "Take no wife and father no children", literally, does what Sam says it does: prohibit marriage and reproduction. It doesn't say anything about the sex act itself or (curiously) adoption ( "I didn't father this child - I just adopted him"). Nor does it say anything about homosexual relationships.

That's why a broader reading is preferred. Since you want people to comply with the spirit of the rule, you would read "take no wife and father no children" as meaning "have no relationships but us, and have no family but us".

[Lady Woodland]

http://whitlamdismissal.com/

Jon most certainly broke his vows, and expressed intent to desert.

Traditional custom *is* law in these contexts. There is no explicit rule preventing Queen Elizabeth vetoing parliamentary legislation, but custom dictates that it is Not A Done Thing (if she ever tried it, there'd be a full-scale constitutional crisis).

If you absolutely have to tie the "no meddling" rule to the oath, you can take a broad reading of "I shall wear no crowns" i.e. I shall not get involved with the Game of Thrones, and hence shall not take political sides in the battles of the realm.

(As for Yoren and company: they're on Night's Watch business, not personal or political business. Very different from Jon).

I'm not an expert on law but I would disagree with this statement, we are not talking about 21st century politics here it's more equivalent to King Jon who tried to dismiss the Magna Carta, or Henry VIII creating his own Religion so he could get a divorce. Back in the medieval times a monarch could pretty much do anything, that's the whole problem with a monarchy ruling things, Westeros does not have politicians elected by the people.

If we are talking about today's laws & politics, I have posted a link to a situation that occurred some years ago in Australia under the reign of QEII, you might even be aware of. Whether what happened was Right or Wrong a Government elected by the people was sacked for alleged incompetence, & the opposition was given power by Australia's Governor General acting on the Queen's behalf.

Also you use the term of a broad reading however the Oath is verbal not written & signed, probably because many of the Watch are illiterate so this is more sensible, however I don't think you can assume one line of phrase encompasses a broader rule of law in this case, but we may agree to disagree on this, as my interpretation Jon does not intend to desert for good I believe he hopes to come back but I'm happy to reconsider my interpretation if you can find a phrase that positively links Jon's intent to desert permanently.

[The Marquis de Leech]

I'm not an expert on law but I would disagree with this statement, we are not talking about 21st century politics here it's more equivalent to King Jon who tried to dismiss the Magna Carta, or Henry VIII creating his own Religion so he could get a divorce. Back in the medieval times a monarch could pretty much do anything, that's the whole problem with a monarchy ruling things, Westeros does not have politicians elected by the people.

Not quite. Powerful people used and abused laws, but the notion of "law" as dependent on social rules is a different thing from so-called palm-tree justice (where there are no rules beyond arbitrary exercises of power). The Common Law (which England, Australia, NZ, the US, Canada, India, South Africa, and so on still use) is ultimately nothing more than tradition built up by centuries of judges. As a system of law, it goes all the way back to ancient Germanic tribes, where certain wise men (these days we'd call them judges) were held to know and pronounce the customs of oral tradition. The Civil Law (Continental Europe, Scotland, Latin America) is descended from Roman Law, where this stuff was written down. Either way, you do have a legal system.

In the case of Westeros, the sheer force of tradition about certain things (guest right and so on) is analogous to the Common Law. Things operate this way because they always have.

If we are talking about today's laws & politics, I have posted a link to a situation that occurred some years ago in Australia under the reign of QEII, you might even be aware of. Whether what happened was Right or Wrong a Government elected by the people was sacked for alleged incompetence, & the opposition was given power by Australia's Governor General acting on the Queen's behalf

That's what I meant about certain things that are Not Done. On paper, the (raving alcoholic) Kerr was perfectly entitled to sack Whitlam - but tradition says that the Governor General's job is to sit in the corner, wear a silly hat, and do whatever the Prime Minister says. Hence the massive constitutional crisis that erupted, and Kerr being hounded out of Australia to go and drink himself to death in London.

Also you use the term of a broad reading however the Oath is verbal not written & signed, probably because many of the Watch are illiterate so this is more sensible, however I don't think you can assume one line of phrase encompasses a broader rule of law in this case, but we may agree to disagree on this,

The Oath has a purpose. The purpose is to keep the Watch bound to a single aim - defending the Wall against what lies to the North. We should therefore interpret the Oath as trying to fulfil the purpose for which it exists. This is what I mean by broad reading - making the application wider than simple literalism, and why although the Oath simply reads "father no children," it makes sense to consider it a ban on adoptions too.

In the case of Jon, consider the phrase "wear no crowns". Does this mean that Jon can involve himself in the Game of Thrones, or even proclaim himself King, so long as he doesn't wear a particular type of hat? No, that would be ridiculous. OK, does it mean Jon can involve himself in politics, so long as he's not the leader of a faction? More reasonable, but if Jon is someone's Second In Command, he's still not complying with the purpose of the Oath. That's why I suggested that "wear no crowns and hold no lands" should be justification for the "no meddling" rule, a rule that, in any case, carries with it the full weight of tradition in a society where traditions matter.