Jon Snow, Stannis and Oathbreaking

[butterbumps!]

No, Jon isn't hiding behind a loophole. He knows he is oath breaking. Mel just gave him a way for him to do it in secret, where hopefully everything goes well, no one ever finds out and there are no consequences for the watch. That's how I think about it.

I don't think i agree with you here. If he was scared of the power dynamics, he could have negotiated with Stannis that he would still have absolute say on the Wall and the Watch. He does not consider doing so.

More importantly, it gives Stannis a much better chance of winning, which gives the Watch a much better chance of surviving, in the first place,

Maybe I still misunderstand how you're applying this Mance thing. Are you talking about how Jon feels about it in terms of classifying it as "oathbreaking," or are we talking about how it looks "on paper?" I'm pointing to what it looks like "on paper"-- the way it was designed and sold as explicitly a loophole to maintain neutrality.

The fact that Jon wasn't thinking about power dynamics is precisely my problem with the way Jon's been handling the spirit of the vows-- unable to see the full picture. Even still, I think based on the reason Jon rejected the offer-- burning the weirwood-- is correct.

I thought you were asking if Jon was wrong to not take Winterfell from our perspective. That's how I answered-- what the implications of his taking Winterfell would have been. Stannis has a R'hllorist understanding of how to conquer the LN; the Watch and the North have a different, somewhat incompatible view. I'm less hopeful that the R'hllorist version, including Stannis leading a battle against the Others with his fake Lightbringer, is the right answer to this. Not only that, but Stannis quickly made clear he intended to consume the Watch as, essentially, his own.

Not that Jon has explicitly articulated this, but from my viewpoint, Jon was correct to reject it, at least from the time he became LC, because it would have rendered Jon subject to Stannis' plans for the North and the LN, some of which is probably disastrous considering the way Stannis seems to understand his role in relation to the LN. Not to mention, another LC may not have been able to stand up to Stannis and negotiate, and the Watch would not have remained independent. I think Jon needs more power than the LC position affords him, such that someone with power needs to be focused on the big picture wrt LN, but that couldn't happen within the terms of the offer.

Things would have probably gone easier for Stannis in the short term (that is, if the North accepted Jon, which isn't a sure thing), but in the long-term, I think it would have been bad news. Forgive my presumption, but Stannis isn't the person who's going to overcome the Others with a fake sword. He doesn't really have a plan for the LN beyond "I am Azor Ahai, apparently, and darkness flees before me."

Jon, as a powerful Northern figure with no goal other than vanquishing the LN is, I think, the right place for him to be, while Stannis, a political figure, should be rallying the political side of this. They are certainly connected, but the Jon in Winterfell scenario leaves us with "Azor Ahai" and his fake sword at the Wall. So my point is that Jon needs more power and agency, he and Stannis need to work together, but that this doesn't require his being lord of Winterfell to assume this role (he was gaining a broader following throughout DwD).

ETA: in case this looks like I'm arguing that Jon is AA, I want to state for the record that I'm not. Stannis seems to have a more miraculous view of how this will sort out, while Jon has a more empirical grasp on the situation. Further, I think having someone with power focused on the LN and not concerned about additional goals, such as winning the throne, is rather imperative in context. So my argument for Jon at the Wall rather than a fake "AA" has more to do with the way they plan to actually handle the LN situation, not about who's the "real" AA.

[Mithras]

The NW takes no part, is not directly a part of their vows. But I think it is established as an unwritten complementary of the vows through the lessons learned and prices paid in the history of NW.

The first time he had seen Castle Black with his own eyes, Jon had wondered why anyone would be so foolish as to build a castle without walls. How could it be defended?

“It can’t,” his uncle told him. “That is the point. The Night’s Watch is pledged to take no part in the quarrels of the realm. Yet over the centuries certain Lords Commander, more proud than wise, forgot their vows and near destroyed us all with their ambitions. Lord Commander Runcel Hightower tried to bequeathe the Watch to his bastard son. Lord Commander Rodrik Flint thought to make himself King-beyond-the-Wall. Tristan Mudd, Mad Marq Rankenfell, Robin Hill . . . did you know that six hundred years ago, the commanders at Snowgate and the Nightfort went to war against each other? And when the Lord Commander tried to stop them, they joined forces to murder him? The Stark in Winterfell had to take a hand . . . and both their heads. Which he did easily, because their strongholds were not defensible. The Night’s Watch had nine hundred and ninety-six Lords Commander before Jeor Mormont, most of them men of courage and honor . . . but we have had cowards and fools as well, our tyrants and our madmen. We survive because the lords and kings of the Seven Kingdoms know that we pose no threat to them, no matter who should lead us. Our only foes are to the north, and to the north we have the Wall.”

I think it is obvious that taking part in the quarrels of the Realm does a great harm to the NW in the long term. By staying neutral and posing no threat to any power, they do not suffer attacks from other lords so that they can do their duties and keep their vows.

The problem GRRM likes to explore is that at the present time, it is not clear whether taking parts (and more importantly which part to take?) or staying neutral involves a larger threat to the well-being of the NW.

[butterbumps!]

I think it is obvious that taking part in the quarrels of the Realm does a great harm to the NW in the long term. By staying neutral and posing no threat to any power, they do not suffer attacks from other lords so that they can do their duties and keep their vows.

The problem GRRM likes to explore is that at the present time, it is not clear whether taking parts or staying neutral involves a larger threat to the well-being of the NW.

For thousands of years the Starks were powerful, and could uphold that neutrality. They were essentially the muscle of the Watch, protecting its interests. So for thousands of years, the Starks ensured that the Watch could afford to "take no part." They "took part" for them, essentially.

This requirement doesn't appear to have been transferred over to the IT 300 years ago. That is, the Watch continued to be the "Stark's problem," but the Starks' power position within the realm vastly changed. At present, there are no Starks of Winterfell with any power to perform its duty as a buffer to protect the Watch's interests. Hence, neutrality is impossible, as neutrality required the cooperation and policing by the realm to uphold it. Which is no longer happening.

In short, I think we very much are being led toward a conclusion that "neutrality" was a pragmatic requirement of the past, but that it's an out-dated custom in the context of a post-Conquest, and especially, current state of affairs.

[jons nissa]

In short, I think we very much are being led toward a conclusion that "neutrality" was a pragmatic requirement of the past, but that it's an out-dated custom in the context of a post-Conquest, and especially, current state of affairs.

which is what i think we're meant to think about many vows and oaths in the series. nicely put!

[RK Rajagopal]

Maybe I still misunderstand how you're applying this Mance thing. Are you talking about how Jon feels about it in terms of classifying it as "oathbreaking," or are we talking about how it looks "on paper?" I'm pointing to what it looks like "on paper"-- the way it was designed and sold as explicitly a loophole to maintain neutrality.

I argue that the plan served not as a loophole to maintain neutrality. It instead served as a way to make it look as if neutrality is maintained, when it actually isn't. If you say that Jon did not break neutrality by sending Mance by some loophole, I disagree with you. If you say Jon did break neutrality, but Mel's plan made it easier for him to do it, then I agree with you.

The fact that Jon wasn't thinking about power dynamics is precisely my problem with the way Jon's been handling the spirit of the vows-- unable to see the full picture.

I agree with this.

I thought you were asking if Jon was wrong to not take Winterfell from our perspective. That's how I answered-- what the implications of his taking Winterfell would have been. Stannis has a R'hllorist understanding of how to conquer the LN; the Watch and the North have a different, somewhat incompatible view. I'm less hopeful that the R'hllorist version, including Stannis leading a battle against the Others with his fake Lightbringer, is the right answer to this. Not only that, but Stannis quickly made clear he intended to consume the Watch as, essentially, his own.

I asked this from Jon's perspective, given the information he has. Stannis might have made his intentions clear, but Jon could have at least tried negotiation if having control of the watch is his only issue. I think given his limited options, any king other than Stannis would have likely meant in the destruction of the Watch. He was all in with Stannis, and should do his best to put him on the throne.

[Mithras]

In short, I think we very much are being led toward a conclusion that "neutrality" was a pragmatic requirement of the past, but that it's an out-dated custom in the context of a post-Conquest, and especially, current state of affairs.

I agree with this conclusion and hope Jon realizes this as well. I think once he establishes his power back (by taking the heads of the traitors) he will present his reforms and persuade the NW/wildlings Free Folk why should they take arms against the Boltons. Only a united North can protect the Wall as long as it stands.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

if Jon accepts Stannis as his king, then yes, Winterfell is his to give. Also, note how Jon refers to Stannis as "King Stannis" in his thoughts

Agreed, and, conversely, if he accepts lordship of Winterfell from Stannis, he also acknowledges him as king. So, back to your question, no, Jon shouldn't do that.

(BTW, he refers to Tommen as king, too: "Pleasing one king is difficult enough. Pleasing two is hardly possible".)

[butterbumps!]

I argue that the plan served not as a loophole to maintain neutrality. It instead served as a way to make it look as if neutrality is maintained, when it actually isn't. If you say that Jon did not break neutrality by sending Mance by some loophole, I disagree with you. If you say Jon did break neutrality, but Mel's plan made it easier for him to do it, then I agree with you.

I agree with this.

I asked this from Jon's perspective, given the information he has. Stannis might have made his intentions clear, but Jon could have at least tried negotiation if having control of the watch is his only issue. I think given his limited options, any king other than Stannis would have likely meant in the destruction of the Watch. He was all in with Stannis, and should do his best to put him on the throne.

I see what you mean now I think. Well, I'd say that technically, he didn't break neutrality-- like, this was an independent, non-Watch related mission. Like, a lawyer would get Jon out of this, I'm trying to say. To add, Mance wasn't supposed to literally take Arya from Ramsay at Winterfell or anything; it was supposed to be an interception of an already fleeing Arya somewhere outside of Umber lands I think. In other words, the whole design of it was more of an interception by an unrelated party to escort Arya to the Wall.

We know it's bullshit though, especially given how it played out-- it became much more politically-charged as it transformed into a plot to literally extract Arya from within Winterfell, away from the "lawful" lord of Winterfell. And in the aftermath, whatever technical lines Mel tried to draw in the sand about Jon's involvement, Ramsay seems to be under the impression that Jon was behind it.

About Jon's perspective: Well, Jon's only motivation for considering the offer is because he personally wanted it, right? So he puts that desire aside when his taking it would mean that he'd have to rip out the heart of Winterfell. So is your query that he should have taken Winterfell despite the religious requirement because it would be more pragmatic? Even though Jon's looking at this very personally, and his going ahead with burning the godswood would be service to his fullfilling his desire to hold Winterfell rather than any big-picture concerns?

I think this might just go back to the larger point that Jon (and Stannis as well, looking back on those aSoS chapters) weren't framing any of these issues in service to the LN early on. Like, Stannis didn't exactly sell the Winterfell offer as a key to overcoming the Others, and neither had a very defined understanding of how all the pieces fit together.

I think it would be a different conversation if Stannis approached the offer as a means to the end of protecting the realm against the LN. The conversation about it was pretty divorced from that causality at first.

[SeanF]

I think if Jon accepted Stannis' offer, (and assuming Stannis dropped the godswood demand) Jon would only be a claimant for Winterfell (albeit one with a strong claim). He'd have to fight for it. And, he'd also be Stannis' vassal, rather than Stannis' ally.

[RK Rajagopal]

I see what you mean now I think. Well, I'd say that technically, he didn't break neutrality-- like, this was an independent, non-Watch related mission. Like, a lawyer would get Jon out of this, I'm trying to say. To add, Mance wasn't supposed to literally take Arya from Ramsay at Winterfell or anything; it was supposed to be an interception of an already fleeing Arya somewhere outside of Umber lands I think. In other words, the whole design of it was more of an interception by an unrelated party to escort Arya to the Wall.

We know it's bullshit though, especially given how it played out-- it became much more politically-charged as it transformed into a plot to literally extract Arya from within Winterfell, away from the "lawful" lord of Winterfell. And in the aftermath, whatever technical lines Mel tried to draw in the sand about Jon's involvement, Ramsay seems to be under the impression that Jon was behind it.

How could a lawyer get Jon out of it? Jon should have executed Mance when he found out that he is alive. He instead willfully sent him on another mission. I also don't buy that he had no idea of the "rescue" given that he arranged 6 "pretty" spearwives, but I see your point that that can be argued. But there is no excusing the fact that he deceived everyone for his personal aims.

About Jon's perspective: Well, Jon's only motivation for considering the offer is because he personally wanted it, right? So he puts that desire aside when his taking it would mean that he'd have to rip out the heart of Winterfell. So is your query that he should have taken Winterfell despite the religious requirement because it would be more pragmatic? Even though Jon's looking at this very personally, and his going ahead with burning the godswood would be service to his fullfilling his desire to hold Winterfell rather than any big-picture concerns?

I think this might just go back to the larger point that Jon (and Stannis as well, looking back on those aSoS chapters) weren't framing any of these issues in service to the LN early on. Like, Stannis didn't exactly sell the Winterfell offer as a key to overcoming the Others, and neither had a very defined understanding of how all the pieces fit together.

I think it would be a different conversation if Stannis approached the offer as a means to the end of protecting the realm against the LN. The conversation about it was pretty divorced from that causality at first.

How about the motive that it would help Stannis win and defeat the Lannisters and Boltons? How about the motive that it would now potentially give him much more power to help the watch, given that he is the Lord of Winterfell under a King who actually cares about the realm? And how about the motive that if he doesn't accept, Stannis' chances fall drastically? If Stannis falls, there is no hope for Jon or the Watch.

[SeanF]

A lawyer would argue that Mance was Stannis' prisoner, and it is therefore for Stannis to punish him or pardon him.

[Cita]

Guys. If Jon were to accept Winterfell, he would be holding lands. The oath is pretty clear on that bit. "I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children." Accepting Winterfell, from anyone, is very unambiguous oathbreaking.

[butterbumps!]

How could a lawyer get Jon out of it? Jon should have executed Mance when he found out that he is alive. He instead willfully sent him on another mission. I also don't buy that he had no idea of the "rescue" given that he arranged 6 "pretty" spearwives, but I see your point that that can be argued. But there is no excusing the fact that he deceived everyone for his personal aims.

Well, first, Mance is Stannis' prisoner, so he'd arguably not be held accountable for not executing him.

Secondly, the argument isn't that Jon was unaware of the rescue. The argument is that the mission morphed into something more politically charged than what Mance and Mel originally discussed, which was to intercept Arya, who was fleeing a marriage and riding up near Long Lake. It was more like aiding Arya in the escape she was already undergoing in third-party lands. Which is a lot less of a political statement than taking Arya Stark-Bolton out of her bed in Winterfell and absconding with her.

The next level of "technical defense" on this is that Jon wasn't putting this into political terms at all. That is, he wasn't seeing Arya as "Arya Bolton-Stark, political entity," but rather as his sister. Granted, a "brother has no sisters," but the point in terms of neutrality is that he was not considering this as a political mission, and rather as a personal one, allowing an independent party (who offered) do the interception so that he wouldn't leave his post for a personal matter.

And while this all serves as a "technical defense" in terms of neutrality, that last part is especially the most damning in terms of violating the spirit of the vow. He wasn't putting this into the big picture, thinking about the ramifications about this in terms of the Watch or the Watch mission, and subsequently drawing out better parameters, taking more control over the parameters, or even scrapping the whole mission and coming up with a different one. Had he recognized this as a political move in the first place, he could have put it into a fuller strategy that worked toward the Watch's goals and gone about it in a completely different manner.

How about the motive that it would help Stannis win and defeat the Lannisters and Boltons? How about the motive that it would now potentially give him much more power to help the watch, given that he is the Lord of Winterfell under a King who actually cares about the realm? And how about the motive that if he doesn't accept, Stannis' chances fall drastically? If Stannis falls, there is no hope for Jon or the Watch.

But neither Jon nor Stannis have hammered it out in those terms by that point. And the goal isn't simply to make Stannis win, but have Stannis win for the sake of rallying the North for the LN.

Besides, from the angle we see, it's clear that for the sake of the LN Jon be in a position independent of Stannis as an ally rather than a minion-- Jon understands that Stannis' plan for the LN is kind of nonsense after reading the Jade Compendium, so he's skeptical of this "Azor Ahai" plan, and the implication is that he seems to have more faith in the Watch for whatever's coming than relinquishing his position to have Stannis stay to defend it. By Jon III, it's clear Jon's put a lot of this together, as well as that Stannis' political failure will result in a failure of the Watch since the rest of the realm now sees the Watch as Stannis' ally by virtue of simply tolerating him at the Wall. So yes, by this point it's imperative that Stannis wins, elsewise Stannis' enemies descend on the Watch.

BUT, by the next chapter, Jon has that plan for Stannis to take the North and win his own support that renders the Winterfell offer unnecessary. All put into perspective, keeping the Watch separate and Jon at the helm, who has empirical knowledge of the Others, as well as a singular focus, with Stannis performing the supporting "Stark" role in the North, is what I think makes the most sense.

[JLE]

So long as the enemy is the Wildlings, who are themselves men, then it doesn't matter who supports the Watch, it doesn't matter what the Watch do, there might as well not *be* a Watch - if it wasn't for the watch, the manpower of the Lord of the North would stop the wildlings (and probably more effectively, too.) No matter whether the Lord of the North is a Stark or a Bolton, that would be all one to the Watch or the Kingdom. The Watch could even afford to stand aside, let the wildlings through the wall, and let the Northern lords deal with them as they will, whether crushing them or allowing them to settle.

Once the Others and the Walking Dead come into the equation, it changes, because THEY, not the Wildlings, were the threat that the Watch was founded to protect against. The Watch must focus north, it's true, and on protecting the entire realm from the supernatural threat. While all kings ignore the supernatural threat, it doesn't matter which does what: but as soon as one ruler (Stannis) sees and responds to that threat, while another (Tywin, though not a king, acting in place of a king) quite openly ignores it but threatens Watch autonomy by demanding the appointment of his own creature (Janos) as Commander, then the Watch not only can but MUST act.

Their business is to preserve the realm. Two forces currently contend for the North: Stannis, and House Bolton. No help will come from further south, due to the weather and the fact that the South has never really cared. If House Bolton takes the North, then the Watch will remain as it is: the wildling alliance has strengthened it (and that is thanks to Stannis), but it will get no further help. And if the result of *that* is that the Watch should risk failing in its duty, and the realm fall to the Others, then the Watch destroys itself by its refusal to take sides. Whereas if Stannis can conquer the North at least now, he will not be able to go south until winter is over and the Others defeated anyway, but at least he will be able to put himself wholeheartedly into the fight against the Others. The south, of course, won't help, but the south were never going to help anyway, and a Stannis victory in the North will mean thousands more men, a lot more money and a lot more organisation into the real fight, which could make the difference between the Watch being victorious or defeated in the fight against the Others.

So, no matter who rules in King's Landing, it is at the very least in the interests of the Watch to take a hand in the business of who rules the North. In the days of Stark supremacy, it was never necessary even when the Boltons went up against the Starks in war, they might kill a lord or two but would never have a hope of actually taking Winterfell: and meanwhile the Starks regularly sent men with leadership ability to the Wall. Younger sons, younger brothers and even bastards regularly made the journey north to take the black: the King in the North sometimes took a hand when two people at the Wall fought over commandership, and indeed once allied with the Wildling King Beyond The Wall to bring down Night's King when he turned to the Others. One might even say, that it would be a total fallacy to suggest the Wall was ever truly independent from House Stark or the King in the North, but they took no hands in battles *between* the Seven Kingdoms: and, by and large, there was no need for them ever to take a hand in battles *within* the North.

But all that changed when the Northern lords looked south. Now that House Stark has lost Winterfell, and even House Bolton has fallen into ill hands - Roose, if the sole governor of the north and if he had a reasonable heir to follow him (for instance, Domeric) might have considered it politic to aid the Wall, but Ramsay will never care, and Ramsay is Roose's only heir, so House Bolton's rule at Winterfell will be short even if it is unopposed - then if it's a choice between Stannis who will aid them, and the Boltons who will not, then the Watch not only can but *must* take sides, not because they care who rules, but because a time has come when it is in the greater interest of the fight against the Others for them to have a friendly ruler at least locally, rather than a hostile or indifferent one.

[RK Rajagopal]

Well, first, Mance is Stannis' prisoner, so he'd arguably not be held accountable for not executing him.

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

Secondly, the argument isn't that Jon was unaware of the rescue. The argument is that the mission morphed into something more politically charged than what Mance and Mel originally discussed, which was to intercept Arya, who was fleeing a marriage and riding up near Long Lake. It was more like aiding Arya in the escape she was already undergoing in third-party lands. Which is a lot less of a political statement than taking Arya Stark-Bolton out of her bed in Winterfell and absconding with her.

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.

The next level of "technical defense" on this is that Jon wasn't putting this into political terms at all. That is, he wasn't seeing Arya as "Arya Bolton-Stark, political entity," but rather as his sister. Granted, a "brother has no sisters," but the point in terms of neutrality is that he was not considering this as a political mission, and rather as a personal one, allowing an independent party (who offered) do the interception so that he wouldn't leave his post for a personal matter.

And while this all serves as a "technical defense" in terms of neutrality, that last part is especially the most damning in terms of violating the spirit of the vow. He wasn't putting this into the big picture, thinking about the ramifications about this in terms of the Watch or the Watch mission, and subsequently drawing out better parameters, taking more control over the parameters, or even scrapping the whole mission and coming up with a different one. Had he recognized this as a political move in the first place, he could have put it into a fuller strategy that worked toward the Watch's goals and gone about it in a completely different manner.

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.

His thoughts kept returning to Arya. There is no way I can help her. I put all kin aside when I said my words. If one of my men told me his sister was in peril, I would tell him that was no concern of his.

But neither Jon nor Stannis have hammered it out in those terms by that point. And the goal isn't simply to make Stannis win, but have Stannis win for the sake of rallying the North for the LN.

Besides, from the angle we see, it's clear that for the sake of the LN Jon be in a position independent of Stannis as an ally rather than a minion-- Jon understands that Stannis' plan for the LN is kind of nonsense after reading the Jade Compendium, so he's skeptical of this "Azor Ahai" plan, and the implication is that he seems to have more faith in the Watch for whatever's coming than relinquishing his position to have Stannis stay to defend it. By Jon III, it's clear Jon's put a lot of this together, as well as that Stannis' political failure will result in a failure of the Watch since the rest of the realm now sees the Watch as Stannis' ally by virtue of simply tolerating him at the Wall. So yes, by this point it's imperative that Stannis wins, elsewise Stannis' enemies descend on the Watch.

BUT, by the next chapter, Jon has that plan for Stannis to take the North and win his own support that renders the Winterfell offer unnecessary. All put into perspective, keeping the Watch separate and Jon at the helm, who has empirical knowledge of the Others, as well as a singular focus, with Stannis performing the supporting "Stark" role in the North, is what I think makes the most sense.

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.

[Shireen Shireen]

Guys. If Jon were to accept Winterfell, he would be holding lands. The oath is pretty clear on that bit. "I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children." Accepting Winterfell, from anyone, is very unambiguous oathbreaking.

I think a King can release you from your oaths.

[Mithras]

Guys. If Jon were to accept Winterfell, he would be holding lands. The oath is pretty clear on that bit. "I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children." Accepting Winterfell, from anyone, is very unambiguous oathbreaking.

The flames were burning low by then, the warmth fading. “The fire will soon go out,” Qhorin said, “but if the Wall should ever fall, all the fires will go out.”

There was nothing Jon could say to that. He nodded.

“We may escape them yet,” the ranger said. “Or not.”

“I’m not afraid to die.” It was only half a lie.

“It may not be so easy as that, Jon.”

He did not understand. “What do you mean?”

“If we are taken, you must yield.”

“Yield?” He blinked in disbelief. The wildlings did not make captives of the men they called the crows. They killed them, except for…“They only spare oathbreakers. Those who join them, like Mance Rayder.”

“And you.”

“No.” He shook his head. “Never. I won’t.”

“You will. I command it of you.”

“Command it? But…”

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

“Yes, but—”

“There is no but, Jon Snow. You are, or you are not.”

I am not so conservative about the vows. If there is no other option, Jon would certainly take wives, hold lands, father children and even be king.

[Denam_Pavel]

On the subject of whether Jon should take Stannis' offer, I don't think "it would be bad for the Watch in the long term" really matters. It's pretty clear that the Long Night will be THIS Winter. And if White Harbour and the rest don't declare for Stannis it'll be Lannister army vs Stannis army at Castle Black with the Night's Watch caught in the middle. Not taking part isn't even an option. Stannis is here, how difficult it is for his enemies to get to him is the one and only thing that is keeping the Watch alive. Not any letter to Tommen an LC can write. If Jon can make it much more difficult, that would be in Watch's best interest.

Besides, from the angle we see, it's clear that for the sake of the LN Jon be in a position independent of Stannis as an ally rather than a minion-- Jon understands that Stannis' plan for the LN is kind of nonsense after reading the Jade Compendium, so he's skeptical of this "Azor Ahai" plan,

I agree that Jon knows Lightbringer isn't real and that Stannis may not be the chosen one but what plan are talking about. I haven't seen Stannis tell Jon about any incredibly stupid combat strategy for vanquishing the Others that they'll be committing manpower towards.

[RK Rajagopal]

The flames were burning low by then, the warmth fading. “The fire will soon go out,” Qhorin said, “but if the Wall should ever fall, all the fires will go out.”

There was nothing Jon could say to that. He nodded.

“We may escape them yet,” the ranger said. “Or not.”

“I’m not afraid to die.” It was only half a lie.

“It may not be so easy as that, Jon.”

He did not understand. “What do you mean?”

“If we are taken, you must yield.”

“Yield?” He blinked in disbelief. The wildlings did not make captives of the men they called the crows. They killed them, except for…“They only spare oathbreakers. Those who join them, like Mance Rayder.”

“And you.”

“No.” He shook his head. “Never. I won’t.”

“You will. I command it of you.”

“Command it? But…”

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

“Yes, but—”

“There is no but, Jon Snow. You are, or you are not.”

I am not so conservative about the vows. If there is no other option, Jon would certainly take wives, hold lands, father children and even be king.

Well said, I share the same opinion, though I replace "Jon would xxx" with "Jon should xxx"

[RK Rajagopal]

On the subject of whether Jon should take Stannis' offer, I don't think "it would be bad for the Watch in the long term" really matters. It's pretty clear that the Long Night will be THIS Winter. And if White Harbour and the rest don't declare for Stannis it'll be Lannister army vs Stannis army at Castle Black with the Night's Watch caught in the middle. Not taking part isn't even an option. Stannis is here, how difficult it is for his enemies to get to him is the one and only thing that is keeping the Watch alive. Not any letter to Tommen an LC can write. If Jon can make it much more difficult, that would be in Watch's best interest.

I agree that Jon knows Lightbringer isn't real and that Stannis may not be the chosen one but what plan are talking about. I haven't seen Stannis tell Jon about any incredibly stupid combat strategy for vanquishing the Others that they'll be committing manpower towards.

Yes, good point. I still think he probably should have taken up Stannis' offer.