127 replies to this topic

[Buried Treasure]

Arya Targaryen, on 18 March 2012 - 03:39 PM, said:

Jon made the oath in front of the weirwood tree, to the Old Gods. IMO either the Old Gods release him (but since they don't have septons, it's kind of tricky) or he dies. When a NW member dies, the Watch releases him, saying: "And now his watch ended".
…I don't know how the Old Gods could possibly release him. So his only chance is if the other NW members say "his watch ended". Which they will, either if he is dead (and later resurrected) or they just think he is dead. Those words do matter (just like the words of the oath). If they say it, his watch clearly ended, even if afterwards he turns out to be alive. I think this is the way the NW can release someone (and probably Robb wanted to do something similar: he wanted the NW to declare Jon's watch has ended, and in turn he sends a 100 men.

As to whether he will stay there: I don't think so. By now he must have realised that the Watch alone won't stand against the Others. And Stannis made an excellent point: the North will more likely accept a son of Ned than him. I don't think Jon ever doubted that. He could bring the North together, especially now, with his wildling army, against the Boltons.  He realizes how important that would be. But he never wanted to break his vows. But if he is legally released? I don't think he will stay as a NW member. But he will do anything to help them, like a Stark in Winterfell should do. He doesn't have to be a sworn brother to fight the Others.

Tricky question: Is Mance released from his vows now? When "he" got burnt, Jon said the words. Is is valid now? Because from now on, it would mean he is not a deserter, he got released legally.

Tricky philosophical question, do the NW say 'his watch is ended' because they are releasing their brother of his oaths or because dead men are usually pretty useless at keeping watch / blowing horns / protecting realms?

More to the point, do you think every man in the Nights Watch is going to agree on whether Jon is free of his oaths? It's not a question that has ever had to be asked before and the response from the new LC (if one is elected) is likely to be politically motivated. If Marsh or Thorne is in charge they would be less likely to allow Jon to go his own way than to order him to be killed again. If Jon loyalists are running things they might tell him how everything has gone to shit since he died and he needs to sort it out.

OnionAhaiReborn, on 18 March 2012 - 03:24 PM, said:

It might be like GRRM to misdirect us, but do you have any thoughts on who else Robb could possibly have named?

It's a really unpopular opinion and I don't think I have ever managed to win anyone over but I think it was Harrion Karstark. The Karstarks were founded as a cadet branch so although they aren't anymore related to the Starks than any of the other houses they are percieved as more 'Stark' & are the most likely to give up their own house name to take the name Stark.

My main reasoning though is that I believe Robb was very smart and able to kill two birds with one stone. The Karstarks were in rebellion but Robb did not hate them and needed their swords so he must have wanted to win them back not destroy them. Harrion was with Glover's army (probably in custody or on parole) and Robb was expecting to meet up with them before arriving at the Twins. Harrion (Robb presumes) hates Robb so Robb would have to keep him prisoner to keep the rest of the Karstarks in line. But if Robb died in battle then Harrion is on hand to take over and would no longer have any Starks to hate, and the loss of the northmens talisman is mitigated by the fact that all the houses of the North are united again.

Edited by Buried Treasure, 18 March 2012 - 06:06 PM.

[Baitac]

OnionAhaiReborn, on 18 March 2012 - 11:48 AM, said:

I don't see how this would work, because Jon isn't really signing a contract, he's making an oath. He doesn't sign a piece of paper with the name Jon Snow or even say in his vows, I, Jon Snow, pledge my life and honor...he just says 'I' pledge my honor. So whether he is Jon Targaryen, Jon Stark, or Jon Snow, it's covered by 'I.'

Of course, that's just my opinion. Anyone know any Westerosi lawyers we can call up?

Is an oath somewhat like a verbal contract? You swear to do something in exchange for something else? If you are not the person who swore, then you shouldn't be held to the oath, no?

[Falrinn]

Baitac, on 18 March 2012 - 07:59 PM, said:

Is an oath somewhat like a verbal contract? You swear to do something in exchange for something else? If you are not the person who swore, then you shouldn't be held to the oath, no?

A name change or finding out your father wasn't who you thought does not make you a different person.

[Baitac]

Falrinn, on 18 March 2012 - 08:25 PM, said:

A name change or finding out your father wasn't who you thought does not make you a different person.

I think this is more about your actual legal identity. If you really aren't the person who took the vow, or swore the oath, then these should be void and null.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Baitac, on 18 March 2012 - 09:08 PM, said:

I think this is more about your actual legal identity. If you really aren't the person who took the vow, or swore the oath, then these should be void and null.

But Jon is the person who took the oath. Jon Snow by any other name is still the same person. And he didn't sign a written contract with the wrong name, or speak the wrong name when he took the oath. He said 'I pledge my honor...'

[Baitac]

OnionAhaiReborn, on 18 March 2012 - 09:11 PM, said:

But Jon is the person who took the oath. Jon Snow by any other name is still the same person. And he didn't sign a written contract with the wrong name, or speak the wrong name when he took the oath. He said 'I pledge my honor...'

Yes, but who is "I"? If I is Jon Snow, then there's no issue, but if "I" is Jon Stark, then he is a different legal identity. They thought that they were getting Jon Black, but that's not their brother. Getting the correct person is important to the Brotherhood too.

[Baitac]

Baitac, on 18 March 2012 - 09:21 PM, said:

Yes, but who is "I"? If I is Jon Snow, then there's no issue, but if "I" is Jon Stark, then he is a different legal identity. They thought that they were getting Jon Black, but that's not their brother. Getting the correct person is important to the Brotherhood too.

This is why to solidify this matter they always say:  "Repeat after me. I, state your name,..."  This is a vital piece of info in oaths or vows.

[Dragonfish]

Baitac, on 18 March 2012 - 09:24 PM, said:

This is why to solidify this matter they always say:  "Repeat after me. I, state your name,..."  This is a vital piece of info in oaths or vows.

No one ever states their name when reciting Night's Watch vows. As OnionAhaiReborn noted, they only say "I".

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Baitac, on 18 March 2012 - 09:24 PM, said:

This is why to solidify this matter they always say:  "Repeat after me. I, state your name,..."  This is a vital piece of info in oaths or vows.

But they didn't do this with the Night's Watch oath. They just say 'I,' they only refer to themselves using a term that can't refer to anyone other than themselves. There is no confusion about who took the oath, the person known as Jon Snow (to himself known as 'I' or 'me') took the oath.
We could really get lost down a philosophical rabbit hole here on the nature of identity, but I think the most common conception is that things do not depend on their names for their identities.

So if Jon says 'I,' he is referring to himself, no matter whether we are calling him Jon Snow but he is in actuality Jon Targaryen (which seems quite likely), or if on Tuesday we call him Jon Snow but on Wednesday we call him Jon Stark. The person hasn't changed, just the name we call the person.

[Baitac]

Dragonfish, on 18 March 2012 - 09:34 PM, said:

No one ever states their name when reciting Night's Watch vows. As OnionAhaiReborn noted, they only say "I".

I understand that, and therein lies the oath's weakness and an open door for Lord Stark.

[Ser Justin Scummy]

Baitac, on 18 March 2012 - 09:21 PM, said:

Yes, but who is "I"? If I is Jon Snow, then there's no issue, but if "I" is Jon Stark, then he is a different legal identity. They thought that they were getting Jon Black, but that's not their brother. Getting the correct person is important to the Brotherhood too.

This is not the Eragon seris were people can get out of the vows but changing who they are...This is a world about Honor....Jon is a Stark even thouhg he does not have a Stark name.

He was raised that you keep to your word and live by your Honor that is what Ned taught him and that is who he is

It does not matter if he is Jon Snow...Stark...Targaryen...or Dayne...or Whatever he is going to keep to his vow as a brother of the night's watch aslong as he belives he can

Now I believe that he has come to a point were he believes that he must break his vow to save the wall and Nights watch he will

Just like Jamie killed the King to stop KL from burning and has lived with what people calling Kinslayer I believe that if and When Jon breaks his NW vows he will live with it because that is who he is and how he was raised...

[Baitac]

OnionAhaiReborn, on 18 March 2012 - 09:39 PM, said:

But they didn't do this with the Night's Watch oath. They just say 'I,' they only refer to themselves using a term that can't refer to anyone other than themselves. There is no confusion about who took the oath, the person known as Jon Snow (to himself known as 'I' or 'me') took the oath.
We could really get lost down a philosophical rabbit hole here on the nature of identity, but I think the most common conception is that things do not depend on their names for their identities.

So if Jon says 'I,' he is referring to himself, no matter whether we are calling him Jon Snow but he is in actuality Jon Targaryen (which seems quite likely), or if on Tuesday we call him Jon Snow but on Wednesday we call him Jon Stark. The person hasn't changed, just the name we call the person.

In these books, I disagree. "Things" DO depend on names and identities. Jon went into the group thinking that he was one person. If indeed he wasn't, then he is relieved from the oath.  This is particularly so when done under false pretenses. The oath is dissolved. That didn't happen here, but the result is the same.

[Ser Justin Scummy]

Baitac, on 18 March 2012 - 09:48 PM, said:

In these books, I disagree. "Things" DO depend on names and identities. Jon went into the group thinking that he was one person. If indeed he wasn't, then he is relieved from the oath.  This is particularly so when done under false pretenses. The oath is dissolved. That didn't happen here, but the result is the same.

I disagree some people would try to weasle there way out of thier vows by claiming that loop hole but you have to take in account that Jon was raised by Ned Stark to be honorable and keep to his word and vows...

I believe that it does not matter to Jon really who he is except that he is LC of the night's Watch and thier for responsible for them Jon will do everthing he believes he can before breaking his vows

[Baitac]

Alek Snow The Wild Wolf, on 18 March 2012 - 09:45 PM, said:

This is not the Eragon seris were people can get out of the vows but changing who they are...This is a world about Honor....Jon is a Stark even thouhg he does not have a Stark name.

He was raised that you keep to your word and live by your Honor that is what Ned taught him and that is who he is

It does not matter if he is Jon Snow...Stark...Targaryen...or Dayne...or Whatever he is going to keep to his vow as a brother of the night's watch aslong as he belives he can

Now I believe that he has come to a point were he believes that he must break his vow to save the wall and Nights watch he will

Just like Jamie killed the King to stop KL from burning and has lived with what people calling Kinslayer I believe that if and When Jon breaks his NW vows he will live with it because that is who he is and how he was raised...

Absolutely, it is about honor. Jon, albeit being a Snow, decided to break his oath and desert the wall, for which there's a penalty of death, in order to attend to Winterfell. He almost did it when Stannis asked him to. What always held him back was that he was a Snow, that his sisters and brothers entailed before him. Had he known that he was now Lord of Winterfell, he wouldn't have taken that oath, because his duty was now to Winterfell. I insist that his oath became invalid when Jon Snow took it, when he, in fact was Jon Stark, Lord of Winterfell. These are two separate legal entities.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Baitac, on 18 March 2012 - 09:48 PM, said:

In these books, I disagree. "Things" DO depend on names and identities. Jon went into the group thinking that he was one person. If indeed he wasn't, then he is relieved from the oath.  This is particularly so when done under false pretenses. The oath is dissolved. That didn't happen here, but the result is the same.

Well, agree to disagree I guess. But I think Jon is the person he thought he was when he joined. He just has a different legal name than he thought he had.

[Prince of Dragonstone]

I simply cannot see Jon having any feelings of loyalty left to the Night's Watch after they all betrayed him. Even if he DID want to remain there and serve as a black brother, how could he? No one wants him as Lord Commander anymore. Dozens of knives to the back kinda sends a message!

[Baitac]

Alek Snow The Wild Wolf, on 18 March 2012 - 09:53 PM, said:

I disagree some people would try to weasle there way out of thier vows by claiming that loop hole but you have to take in account that Jon was raised by Ned Stark to be honorable and keep to his word and vows...

I believe that it does not matter to Jon really who he is except that he is LC of the night's Watch and thier for responsible for them Jon will do everthing he believes he can before breaking his vows

Jon would never weasel out of anything. He killed his brother in order to become embedded with the wildlings! The question is, what duty is the higher duty: to the wall (yes, if he's Jon Snow) or to his castle, his house seat, his lordship and all it entails in a besieged Winterfell. Yo! I'm willing to take bets.

[Ser Justin Scummy]

Baitac, on 18 March 2012 - 09:59 PM, said:

Absolutely, it is about honor. Jon, albeit being a Snow, decided to break his oath and desert the wall, for which there's a penalty of death, in order to attend to Winterfell. He almost did it when Stannis asked him to. What always held him back was that he was a Snow, that his sisters and brothers entailed before him. Had he known that he was now Lord of Winterfell, he wouldn't have taken that oath, because his duty was now to Winterfell. I insist that his oath became invalid when Jon Snow took it, when he, in fact was Jon Stark, Lord of Winterfell. These are two separate legal entities.

wrong he wasn't a stark when he took his vows..he was still a snow because His brothers were alive and Robb hand an heir in Bran and Rickton..

He was not Lord of winterfell or heir until after he said his vows

[Baitac]

OnionAhaiReborn, on 18 March 2012 - 10:02 PM, said:

Well, agree to disagree I guess. But I think Jon is the person he thought he was when he joined. He just has a different legal name than he thought he had.

Ok. If you think that Jon as a Stark would be the exact person as Jon Snow , with the rights and responsibilities, or lack thereof, that the Stark name change entails, then, yes. We agree to disagree. Because to me the title changes everything. And in the case of Arya Stark, the correct identity is everything too.

[Baitac]

Alek Snow The Wild Wolf, on 18 March 2012 - 10:08 PM, said:

wrong he wasn't a stark when he took his vows..he was still a snow because His brothers were alive and Robb hand an heir in Bran and Rickton..

He was not Lord of winterfell or heir until after he said his vows

Correct. He who vowed is no longer Jon Snow. His status has changed. This presents the opportunity for either the watch or Stark to say. Hey, this was not what either one of us signed up for.

Edited by Baitac, 19 March 2012 - 08:59 PM.