“The Watch Takes No Part:” Analyzing Jon’s “Oathbreaking”

[Ludd]

If Bolton is in fact in league with the others (which I happen to think) then going after him is entirely consistent with vows.

[Mithras]

1. The NW vows do not contain political neutrality. It looks like a principle.

2. In any case, the current NW is in a crisis and the Realm is in danger. Worse, the Realm is divided between claimants. At such difficult times, a true brother of the NW can break his vows so long as the Realm is safe (courtesy of Qhorin).

3. “Taking no part” is not possible under current environment. Even by taking no part, a person takes part too.

4. I don’t blame Jon for throwing his lots with Stannis (whether willingly or not). That is what he should have done. Stannis has shown some interest to the threat of the Others. The Lannisters OTOH still think that it is all snarks and grumkins. Jon cannot trust the Bolton Rule in the North to allow him to keep his position (or his head). If he is out, a Lannister toad would be chosen as the LC and their understanding of dealing with the Others (seal the gates and sit on your ass) is disastrous. And as he told Sam, with Tywin dead, the Lannisters did not seem as powerful as they have been.

[wulfrache]

I'm confused as to why everyone thinks Roose would be unable to defend the wall. He doesn't want dead people running all over his lands. At present he is trying to secure his hold over the north, just like Stannis. Granted Roose did not go to the aid of the wall like Stannis did, but why assume he won't when the magnitude of the threat is revealed to him? He would also have the support of the Iron Throne which Stannis would lack.

excellent point. I also see this as the biggest flaw in this argument. Especially at this time Roose is by far the best man to be the Northern Warden. Ramsey is going to most likely be lord of Winterfell not Lord Paramont of north. And Jon was planning to attack him not Roose. Unless he also is planning on waging war against the Dreadfort and the rest of the North this in no way would be a fight to stabilize the North. Even in Jons mind he is doing this knowingly breaking his oath. So its hard to argue that he is not, in his own words HR IS. Not that I don't support his actions, but he is still oathbreaking. One thing that I wonder about however is the timing of the attack on Jon. The coup against him seemed to already be planned. He was not even done his speech yet before One-one was attacked (not sure if that was planned to be a part of it), and Jon was teamed up on as soon as this was happening. How could they have planned this based on Jon moving against Ramsey if he only just announced the plan? Who even had time to discuss it behind his back unless Marsh and the others were not in the shield hall during Jons speech? I'm not sure of it stated if they were there or not. OT seemed like his fate was already determined. I mean sure there was already enough they had to be angry about and maybe already had been planning it and this just pushed all doubt from their minds. I've always been a bit suspicious about that. Was this possibly part of the Queens plan? I wasn't sure if she had managed to get people loyal to her into the NW yet, anyone that can confirm/deny that?

[Mithras]

Taking no parts works both ways. The King on the IT threatened to not send any further help if their man was not chosen. Another King came to the Wall and requested obedience from the NW. Bowen Marsh chose the King on the IT. Jon chose the King Who Came.

[The_lost_arryn19]

He really should just never have joined. Before he took his oath and when on a ride where he thought about how everything he would never be able to do was standing in front of him. He ABSOLUTELY should have taken stannis's offer in storm. No one on the wall other than his friends would have missed him; in fact everyone in charge virtually wanted him gone. The story in my opinion just would have been way more awesome if Jon was Jon stark lord of winterfell in adwd instead of lord commander jon snow. But at the same time I did enjoy his chapters he is my favorite but still.

[Pod The Rod]

He really should just never have joined. Before he took his oath and when on a ride where he thought about how everything he would never be able to do was standing in front of him. He ABSOLUTELY should have taken stannis's offer in storm. No one on the wall other than his friends would have missed him; in fact everyone in charge virtually wanted him gone. The story in my opinion just would have been way more awesome if Jon was Jon stark lord of winterfell in adwd instead of lord commander jon snow. But at the same time I did enjoy his chapters he is my favorite but still.

You realize that in order to accept Stannis's offer he would have to burn the Winterfell godswood correct? Thus turning his back on everything House Stark stands for?

That decision was about him affirming the principles of House Stark while rejecting its name.

[The Mother of The Others]

Jebus! This issue twists brains into twizzler sticks. So much twistedness of thought, all in order to keep seeing Jon in a particular light. As if some great prize were at stake. All our various streams of energy will end up going to the same place anyway when the story continues and sweeps away all our minds like tributaries into a river of fantastic woe and oooh and meh and oh!

In the meantime, though, so many lawyer tactics regarding what's not really in the oath! (When the story itself treats the oath as something that binds you to take no part in the affairs of the realm, plain and simple). And what is all of this stretching of credulity for? To defend Jon when Jon doesn't need defending. His crimes are crimes you can embrace while still remaining an enthusiastic Jon fan. Because he's still a sympathetic character, and as such he's likely to be forgiven by the next regime. Just let go of the notion that he's right as light. Jon never claimed that. Why are we claiming it on his behalf? Why so much hesitance to face what happened on the page right in front of us? Why instead launch an extensive search for odd arguments involving ancient history just to keep Jon in the right? The author doesn't want him there. Which is why he took Jon off the beaten path into a culvert. This was the reason GRRM had Stannis stick around, to get Jon embroiled and trip him up.

Thankfully, it's all clear to me.

There is no one who's right, because the situation is too complicated for that.

Jon isn't right. Jon's stabbers aren't right. Ramsay, nope. Crown neither. Stannis? No. He's imposing. Mel? Tormund? Come on.

What we've got is a bunch of people trying to find the best available option. Then they just disagree on what that is. They're under time pressure and survival pressure, so they're rabbiting in different directions, understandably, especially when the oath holding them together imploded in that last chapter in plain sight--that's when it all fell apart like Sauron's castle disintegrated when Frodo melted down the Ring.

I'm a Jon fan who doesn't get why other Jon fans feel the need to hold on to the idea he's still doing the right thing here. It's spelled out for you that he's not. He's doing what he feels is the best thing, but obviously it could have been done with better results, which implies it wasn't the best possible way for Jon to conduct himself. He got the Watch "involved" alright, even sooner than he intended, and instead of prolonging the organization's lifespan he's hastened their demise. And he should have seen that coming. The entire region is off the rails, and the Watch isn't immune. They're victims of the forces of destabilization, same as the entire North. It's infectious, and Stannis' damned status within the realm rubbed off onto them, they're glowing now with the heat of his hell brand for lost souls. (Okay, that was overkill.) I'm not saying they should do nothing and wait for death. But getting yourself dead right away isn't preferable. And Jon propelled the knives into him with his words, so why hold him blameless? When he breaks, call him broken.

There's been a gradual nudging of the Watch away from their proper state of being ever since the nose of the camel was allowed into their tent (when Stannis was included among them). Again, this is all the result of circumstances, it's not Stannis' fault that Stannis was needed at the Wall, and it's not Jon's fault, he tried his best to keep things prim and proper, but from the moment they all started co-habitating they were doomed to pressure each other into an improper stance, a jumbled power structure that's not supposed to be, and it was inevitable the crown & Boltons would see the Watch & Stannis as illegally colluding with one another. Because they were. It was an irresistable temptation, like a sneeze you know is building and you know you're not going to be able to shake off. It was like the force of gravity was pulling them into trouble.

What's being missed is that you can still like Jon just as much by seeing him as he's shown: a sympathetic character who reached the end of his patience, got frazzled, lost his cool and went off the rails at the end. It happens. When chaos rains on all the world, all the world gets wet. And Ramsay (?) tricked Jon into jumping into the pool and getting totally soaked. The letter tricked Jon into thinking "The last one into the pool loses! Jump now! Get involved!" when really it was more like, "The first one totally soaked to the bone in wrongness loses!" The Boltons were losing ground, losing their legitimacy. But they succeeded in getting Jon to throw away his legitimacy first. Which puts the Boltons back in the lead. For the moment.

See? Easy.

[Ser Knute]

I'm confused as to why everyone thinks Roose would be unable to defend the wall. He doesn't want dead people running all over his lands. At present he is trying to secure his hold over the north, just like Stannis. Granted Roose did not go to the aid of the wall like Stannis did, but why assume he won't when the magnitude of the threat is revealed to him? He would also have the support of the Iron Throne which Stannis would lack.

I don't think it has anything to do with that per se' as far as Jon's concerned. He had letters sent to KL explaining the plight (as did Mormont). KL gave them nothing but silence. Jon is clever enough to understand that the Lannisters are using his relationship to the Starks (as a bastard or not) as a reason for not fulfilling THEIR responsibility to the watch. So, in effect they're breaking the 'agreement'. In such a case, what would any reasonable person expect Jon to do? Do you think it's reasonable for Jon to think, oh I should resign my position as LC (even though he didn't want it and we can thank Sam for that) because the Lannisters down in KL don't like Starks? Does he have any real tangible proof that even doing so would result in KL reversing their position? I'd argue no. If Jon felt that way as well, then he doesn't have too many other options. The skirting of the Vows for Stannis does serve the purpose of aiding the NW directly for the interim; it then follows for Jon to think past the interim and into the long-term. Stannis is the only political figure in the realm at present taking an ACTIVE interest in the NW's plight. It's my belief that Jon had very little other choices and of those choices, none were as likely to affect a long-term solution as Stannis.

Yes, it will piss off some northern lords to let Wildlings through but here's the thing: Jon knows full well the IMMEDIATE threat to minimize is the broken-host of Mance's to be ushered through the wall as fast as possible and in as great of numbers as possible so as to minimize the addition to the Others' army; which any leader should see is a smart move.

Now, you also have Stannis trying to liberate WF from Roose, who's considered to have had a hand in the RW, which isn't going to make the Northern Lords happy to back Roose. Roose in-turn has to be reasonably suspected as having betrayed their Liege Lord for the Lannisters, a southron House, for HIS own benefit, not the benefit of the entire North (which you could almost assuredly say that Ned wouldn't do). If Stannis fails, as far as Jon's concerned, he not only then has no ally at the IT level, he also has a serious threat right outside his backyard, where the NW is at a distinct disadvantage. Now I will agree that on the surface it appears to be personal for Jon and I'm sure to a degree it is; but that also doesn't fully account for the political position Jon would find himself and the NW in should Roose prevail. If Stannis prevails, Jon can at least retroactively go to or get word to the Northern Lords that his decision to allow Wildlings south of the Wall was in "The Realm's" best interest; or in other words he can work on damage control. He also then retains Stannis as an Ally because who else is taking the concern of the NW seriously?

Now, one might argue that he should've stepped aside or resigned his position but in Jon's shoes, who would even be worthy of LC at this point? Jon sees the threat of the Others, while the other officers are quibbling about shit that won't matter if this threat isn't taken seriously. There is no way a leader who takes his position seriously would relinquish that authority with no real advocate to his position (relating to the Others) as the alternative; meaning, even if he had resigned his position as LC to anyone else, he still had no guarantee that KL would reverse their position and then he and the NW are in no better position than before and likely are only in a worse position if that new LC doesn't take the threat of the Others as seriously as he does.