Jon is a traitor to the Night Watch

[Fox of House McCloud]

1 hour ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

 

By most you mean the 4 who stabbed him?

Not everyone who thinks he's a traitor has to become a traitor as well by killing the LC. I think the books and the show make it fairly clearly he's unpopular with a lot of the men even around the time he's chosen as LC, and it gets worse from there as he, y'know, brings all the wildlings in.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Well I would say that most Jon supporters like him MORE for choosing his family over his vows to some forgotten brotherhood of misfits at the end of the world.

Who WOULDN'T choose their family over their duty, truth be told?

[Jon's Queen Consort]

20 minutes ago, Fox of House McCloud said:

Not everyone who thinks he's a traitor has to become a traitor as well by killing the LC. I think the books and the show make it fairly clearly he's unpopular with a lot of the men even around the time he's chosen as LC, and it gets worse from there as he, y'know, brings all the wildlings in.

Being unpopular isn't the same with being considered as a traitor.

15 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Well I would say that most Jon supporters like him MORE for choosing his family over his vows to some forgotten brotherhood of misfits at the end of the world.

True.

[Philokles]

Trying to avoid politics is impossible for the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch - even when you don't have an army belonging to one of several claimants to the throne on their doorstep. This makes Jon just as much as a traitor as every other LC in history. Of course, as someone who holds personal honour in high esteem, it hurts him a lot more than it would most others to act as he must.

[gregg22]

This confrontation with Ramsay is inevitable, wether it's over fArya or some future Stark prisoner or Theon or whoever. Ramsay will eventually deal with Jon, he cannot let him be. If Jon doesn't go south to meet him Ramsay will attack Castle Black from the south, it weakest point.

Think about it, fArya (or maybe someday Bran, Rickon, Sansa, whoever) escapes and heads for Jon at the Wall. Jon has no control over that. It is even worse if they DON'T go to Jon, because Ramsay will assume they did, and Jon cannot turn over what he does not have.

Jon knows this confrontation cannot ultimately be avoided, but that type of critical thinking is well beyond his NW brothers abilities.

[Fox of House McCloud]

38 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Being unpopular isn't the same with being considered as a traitor.

Technically it isn't, but in this case it seems that those who dislike Jon dislike him because he betrayed the watch by first joining the wildlings (and sleeping with one), then later letting thousands of wildlings through the wall.

I think it's not too bold of a leap to say those he's not popular with consider him a traitor.

[Wolf's Bane]

17 hours ago, Franklin VI said:

Jon betrayed the Night Watch when he engaged in illegal activities to help fake Arya get away from her husband. 

1. He allowed a murdered and a night watch traitor like Mance Rayder to escape from execution so he can help Arya.
2. The act of sending your agents to steal the wife of a nobleman is an act of war.  Jon basically declared war on the Boltons.
3. Jon immediately forms an army of wildlings after reading the Pink Letter.  He announced his intentions to ride out and fight the Boltons.  His own thoughts reveal that he was willing to commit treason to help Arya.

 

I'm in agreement with you.  I would go so far as to say Jon is also partly guilty of the violation of guest rights.  Mance was acting under Jon's orders.  Mance was sheltered in Winterfell when he committed murders and stole the bride of his hosts.  That's breaking guest rights. 

[Wolf's Bane]

1 hour ago, Fox of House McCloud said:

Technically it isn't, but in this case it seems that those who dislike Jon dislike him because he betrayed the watch by first joining the wildlings (and sleeping with one), then later letting thousands of wildlings through the wall.

I think it's not too bold of a leap to say those he's not popular with consider him a traitor.

What made Jon a traitor are the actions he took to get fArya free from her marriage.  Jon was not supposed to do all of those things.  He basically picked a fight with the Boltons.  Mance, acting under Jon's directions, even murdered people inside Winterfell.  Winterfell now belong to the Boltons and the Boltons were the host.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

15 minutes ago, Steelshanks Walton said:

He basically picked a fight with the Boltons

You would had been correct if the PL hadn't said that Ramsey was going to attack the Wall.

16 minutes ago, Steelshanks Walton said:

acting under Jon's directions

Please point me where in the text Jon ordered Mance to save FArya?

16 minutes ago, Steelshanks Walton said:

Mance, acting under Jon's directions, even murdered people inside Winterfell

Again; Please point me where in the text Jon ordered Mance to save FArya? 

[Orphalesion]

Jon acted sensibly and proactive, given the extraordinary circumstances Westeros is currently facing.

The Night's Watch are a pathetic agglomeration of outcasts that's more than a cult-like in behavior and mindset

[Fox of House McCloud]

14 minutes ago, Steelshanks Walton said:

What made Jon a traitor are the actions he took to get fArya free from her marriage.  Jon was not supposed to do all of those things.  He basically picked a fight with the Boltons.  Mance, acting under Jon's directions, even murdered people inside Winterfell.  Winterfell now belong to the Boltons and the Boltons were the host.

Are we defining what technically makes him a traitor, or what makes the men of the Watch consider him a traitor?

[Buried Treasure]

Jon's decision to act against the Boltons is well set up earlier in ADwD. Through the book he goes through an evolution in his understanding of what his vows mean; when he takes the new brothers to swear their oaths at the godswood he reflect on the oath to guard the realms of men, looks at some wildling stragglers and sees only men. The realm has accepted the Nights Watch fighting wildling raiders for centuries, but as soon as you accept that is only geography that makes wildlings different then the natural conclusion is that the Watch's purpose is to oppose those monsters that are preying on common men.

Jon sees Ramsey as one such monster, by his own boasts he is as bad as raiders such as Dogshead or Rattleshirt ever were. Jon certainly knew that others would see marching south against Ramsey as oathbreaking, but by his own understanding of his vows he was not certain 'if this is oathbreaking'.

[Bowen Marsh]

6 hours ago, Steelshanks Walton said:

What made Jon a traitor are the actions he took to get fArya free from her marriage.  Jon was not supposed to do all of those things.  He basically picked a fight with the Boltons.  Mance, acting under Jon's directions, even murdered people inside Winterfell.  Winterfell now belong to the Boltons and the Boltons were the host.

Correct.  Jon did not have any high-level principles in mind, he just wanted to rescue his sister, no matter the danger he would put the realm and the night watch in, no matter that it could cause problems at the wall.  Jon just did it.  He was wrong to do this. 

6 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

You would had been correct if the PL hadn't said that Ramsey was going to attack the Wall.

 

Ramsay wanted to attack the wall because Jon sent his men to steal his bride!  Jon started that fight.  Sending your men to steal a lord's wife and kill his armsmen in the process is an act of war.

 

[Nevets]

On 5/21/2016 at 3:59 PM, Franklin VI said:

Jon betrayed the Night Watch when he engaged in illegal activities to help fake Arya get away from her husband. 

1. He allowed a murdered and a night watch traitor like Mance Rayder to escape from execution so he can help Arya.
2. The act of sending your agents to steal the wife of a nobleman is an act of war.  Jon basically declared war on the Boltons.
3. Jon immediately forms an army of wildlings after reading the Pink Letter.  He announced his intentions to ride out and fight the Boltons.  His own thoughts reveal that he was willing to commit treason to help Arya.

 

1.  Actually, he had nothing to do with Mance Rayder's survival.  In fact, he ordered his shot with arrows during his burning.  It turned out it wasn't Mance, but Jon didn't know that.  As for his subsequent actions, Mance was under the control of Melisandre, who wasn't inclined to just give him up.

2.  He sent agents to rescue someone he had reason to believe had already escaped and was lost in the wilderness.  He did so as a private individual using non-night's Watch resources.  It may have been unwise, but I'm not convinced it as treasonous.  Jon seems to be doing everything he can at this point to stay within the bounds of his vows.

There is every indication that had Jon known that FArya was at Winterfell, he would not have sent rescue.  His thoughts after he hears about the pending marriage indicate that he felt he couldn't help her and she was on her own.  Only the apparent escape changed his mind.

3.  He does indicate an intention to go out and fight the Boltons with wildlings.  Jon has mixed motives here.  Ramsay is making unreasonable and unmeetable demands.  He also has concerns for the well-being of his sister.  But again he is doing what he can to avoid involving the NW as an institution.  He may be breaking his vows, but he seems to be trying to act in a way that is consistent with the NW's historical neutrality while dealing with a "monster in human clothes".. I don't think he successfully threads that needle, but he seems to be doing all he can to avoid betrayal of the NW.

[House Beaudreau]

Jon Snow and all the other Nights watch have broken there oaths and forgotten the Watches true purpose. Sam and Jon both come to the same conclusion about forgetting the watches true purpose. I believe after the long night a deal was struck between the First men and the Others. The terms included building the wall to separate the territory, the south belonging to Men and the North side belonging to the Others, the creation of the Nights Watch was to keep the First men from crossing the Wall to the Other's side and obviously they failed miserably by the number of wildlings on the North side of the wall. So they begin to fight the wildlings and end up forgetting their true purpose. The last part of the deal is that the First Men provide the Others with babies so the Others can expand their gene pool (Which means the Others are Humans!). This is what the Nights Watch was originally suppose to do to keep the others at bay.  That why Mormont is okay with Craster giving his sons to the Others.  

There is way more to this theory if you want me to elaborate i will.   

[-Winterfellian-]

On 21/5/2016 at 3:59 PM, Franklin VI said:

Jon betrayed the Night Watch when he engaged in illegal activities to help fake Arya get away from her husband. 

1. He allowed a murdered and a night watch traitor like Mance Rayder to escape from execution so he can help Arya.
2. The act of sending your agents to steal the wife of a nobleman is an act of war.  Jon basically declared war on the Boltons.
3. Jon immediately forms an army of wildlings after reading the Pink Letter.  He announced his intentions to ride out and fight the Boltons.  His own thoughts reveal that he was willing to commit treason to help Arya.

 

This seems an oversimplification of Jon's actions.

1. I definitely agree that Jon's role here does not paint him in the best light. For me personally, it is his biggest mistake as LC. Ironically, I think is because he tried in a way to preserve his vows. He wanted to save Arya but he was prevented from involving himself directly so I can see him rationalizing that Melissandre is not the NW. The problem is that in trying to preserve this show of neutrality he rescinded all responsability for Mance's actions failing to take notice that the accountability for any consequences resulting of said actions will not be directed exclusively at Mel. My take is that he went half way about the whole thing in an effort to keep the vows. He should have involved himself entirely on it or put a stop to it altogether.

2. Wrong. Jon never sent Mance to WF or to steal Arya. The conversation between Mel, Mance and Jon in ADWD makes it very clear that the mission was to retrieve a fleeing Arya on the road. 

3. Leaving aside that we are not informed about all the particulars of Jon-s plan, what are you proposing for him to do? The threat was already placed by Ramsey. At this point the issue becomes almost one of survival, vows be damned. Is not as if Jon could send a letter back to Ramsey explaining he did not have his bride or his Reek. Sitting around in CB was almost suicidal, with the castle being completely undefended from the South. More importantly, Jon did not even have some of the people Ramsey is requesting back. 

 

[Stormourne]

I would rather have Jon be a traitor to the Night's Watch rather than a traitor to his family, and the whole realm in general. The NW is a broken system, which would rather watch the wall fall than accept the fact that Wildlings south of the Wall is much smarter than the alternative. People will always resist change. What option is left to you if your so-called brothers are so short sighted that in order to preserve outdated notions of what the Night Watch really stands for. 

There was never going to be a win-win situation for Jon. He did what he thought was right, and where he went wrong was due to his communication skills with his subordinates. He became estranged from the majority, which would evidently lead to his assassination. He knew why the threat of the White Walkers was so central, and why more Wildlings that survive mean less thralls in the dead army.... He should have actually communicated these concerns to all the NW, reminding them that the Others are the real threat, not the Wildlings. He just probably assumed that everyone knew this because he knew this.

Anyway, my favorite characters are Jon and Arya... so him forsaking his vows in order to save her was awesome. =) Jon died, guys, so when he is resurrected, all his sins should be washed away. He has already paid for his 'traitorous' actions with his first life.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

If we're going to try to define Jon in "traitor" or "loyal" terms, the debate won't ever end because it's up to anyone. Also, it depends on whether people wants their favourite character be a white pure snowflake or a dark sinister traitor

Does it matter if Jon somehow "betrayed" the Night Watch? If he did, he didn't do it for ambition or personal gain. He did it because he HAD to.

And honestly, you all saying he didn't need to go back to book one when this development is heavily foreshadowed: Jon wants to abandon the Watch to help Robb. He's told "Love is the Death of Duty". We can romanticise Jon's actions all we want but his love for Arya KILLED his duty. That's the point: he was conflicted. If there is a loophole on it, then there is not a tragedy for Jon's development. It was a direct betray of his vows, YET, he DID CHOOSE RIGHTFULLY. Anyone would have done the same. If he was killed, it was because his former decisions clashed with the old-minded members of the Watch. This was just the cherry on the top.

 

[the trees have eyes]

18 hours ago, Buried Treasure said:

Jon's decision to act against the Boltons is well set up earlier in ADwD. Through the book he goes through an evolution in his understanding of what his vows mean; when he takes the new brothers to swear their oaths at the godswood he reflect on the oath to guard the realms of men, looks at some wildling stragglers and sees only men. The realm has accepted the Nights Watch fighting wildling raiders for centuries, but as soon as you accept that is only geography that makes wildlings different then the natural conclusion is that the Watch's purpose is to oppose those monsters that are preying on common men.

Jon sees Ramsey as one such monster, by his own boasts he is as bad as raiders such as Dogshead or Rattleshirt ever were. Jon certainly knew that others would see marching south against Ramsey as oathbreaking, but by his own understanding of his vows he was not certain 'if this is oathbreaking'.

13 hours ago, Nevets said:

1.  Actually, he had nothing to do with Mance Rayder's survival.  In fact, he ordered his shot with arrows during his burning.  It turned out it wasn't Mance, but Jon didn't know that.  As for his subsequent actions, Mance was under the control of Melisandre, who wasn't inclined to just give him up.

2.  He sent agents to rescue someone he had reason to believe had already escaped and was lost in the wilderness.  He did so as a private individual using non-night's Watch resources.  It may have been unwise, but I'm not convinced it as treasonous.  Jon seems to be doing everything he can at this point to stay within the bounds of his vows.

There is every indication that had Jon known that FArya was at Winterfell, he would not have sent rescue.  His thoughts after he hears about the pending marriage indicate that he felt he couldn't help her and she was on her own.  Only the apparent escape changed his mind.

3.  He does indicate an intention to go out and fight the Boltons with wildlings.  Jon has mixed motives here.  Ramsay is making unreasonable and unmeetable demands.  He also has concerns for the well-being of his sister.  But again he is doing what he can to avoid involving the NW as an institution.  He may be breaking his vows, but he seems to be trying to act in a way that is consistent with the NW's historical neutrality while dealing with a "monster in human clothes".. I don't think he successfully threads that needle, but he seems to be doing all he can to avoid betrayal of the NW.

Agree with all of this. 

The whole ASOS arc for Jon with the wildlings then ADWD as LC is about him understanding, in a way that Marsh and others apparently don't, what the NW is supposed to do.  The first thing Jon has to do in order to guard the realms of men is make an alliance with the wildlings, the second is solidify a three sided alliance with the Northmen and Stannis.  The first of these is in embryo but progressing nicely the second more in outline but as Jon is seen as the Ned's son the Northmen are practically waiting for him to take the lead.

The only people who don't fit into this alliance system are the Bolton-Freys (and the branch of the Karstarks under Arnulf who tried to usurp Harion) because they butchered Robb and half the northern / riverlands nobility.  Since the Red Wedding a conflict and resolution has been inevitable and Manderly is the perfect standard bearer for this. 

But Jon does not go looking for conflict with the Boltons himself.  Mel has a vision of a grey girl on a dying horse heading towards the Wall and sends Mance to rescue her.  When that actually turns into Theon and Jeyne's escape from WF Ramsey demands Jon hand over Theon and Farya, Melisandre, Selyse and Shireen, even Val and the monster (supposedly Mance's son though actually Gilly's). Whether people feel this is tit for tat by Ramsey and Jon / Mel started it it's not something Jon can agree to so he correctly, imo, decides to use the wildlings to snuff out Ramsey.  Is this oathbreaking?  Technically, yes, but the idea that the NW don't involve themselves in politics goes out the window once the realm decides to involve them, whether Stannis turning up at the Wall, Tywin / Cersei telling Thorne who to vote for as LC, or Ramsey's pink letter.  And besides, we have been shown what the NW is supposed to do: Jon can't smash apart the fragile coalition of NW, wildlings and Queens Men he has at the Wall in order to keep the "technical neutrality" clause of his contract while completely abandoning the letter, spirit and whole purpose of his vow to guard the realms of men against the others.  Marsh does not get this so he breaks that alliance apart at the end of ADWD to preserve the 500 men (?) of the NW in their "neutrality" or glorious isolation, which doesn't exist of course and he is actually siding with the Boltons against the surrounding Northern clansmen and families.

6 hours ago, JCRB's Honeypot said:

If we're going to try to define Jon in "traitor" or "loyal" terms, the debate won't ever end because it's up to anyone. Also, it depends on whether people wants their favourite character be a white pure snowflake or a dark sinister traitor

Does it matter if Jon somehow "betrayed" the Night Watch? If he did, he didn't do it for ambition or personal gain. He did it because he HAD to.

And honestly, you all saying he didn't need to go back to book one when this development is heavily foreshadowed: Jon wants to abandon the Watch to help Robb. He's told "Love is the Death of Duty". We can romanticise Jon's actions all we want but his love for Arya KILLED his duty. That's the point: he was conflicted. If there is a loophole on it, then there is not a tragedy for Jon's development. It was a direct betray of his vows, YET, he DID CHOOSE RIGHTFULLY. Anyone would have done the same. If he was killed, it was because his former decisions clashed with the old-minded members of the Watch. This was just the cherry on the top.

 

I'm not so sure about this.  The ADWD development arc is about "killing the boy to let the man be born".  He agonises over Arya but effectively leaves her to her fate until Mel tells him she has escaped and is heading north.  If he can find her and offer her guest right / refuge like with Alys Karstark then he can protect her. 

Does this accelerate a showdown with Ramsey / Roose?  Yes, sure.  But the meta environment is that the North is simmering after the Red Wedding and the Bolton-Freys are fair game for all.  They in turn need to hunt down the Stark children or their days are short so its only a matter of time before they turn on Jon.  The conflict is coming regardless of whether an assassin is sent to sneak up on him or an open challenge is issued, which is waht the pink letter is of course.

I think GRRM wants to show us how difficult widling power and making decisions is, that sometimes even the individual does not know what is right or wrong / treason or not but that Jon "gets it" in terms of duty.  His prioirity list (pretty long in full, but in short) is 1) build up wildling-NW strength south of the Wall and garrison castles effectively, 2) rescue as many wildlings as possible from zombification at Hardhome, 3) secure additional resources from the Braavosi to maintain his force / refugees in the coming winter, 4) dance the dance with Stannis of how much he can and can't involve himself in "politics" while keeping Stannis out of his hair and 5) allowing Stannis to coalesce the North around one figure rather than a bloody civil war with all-comers sniping at Roose / Ramsey.  Arya is a wildcard in this and of course Jon is torn between his love of his little sister and his duty but she does not kill his duty.  Everything he does is broadly consistent with his aims and the response to the pink letter, cooked up in secret with Tormund before being revealed, seems consistent with protecting the grand alliance that 1 and 5 entail.

[The Commentator]

On 5/22/2016 at 11:55 AM, Steelshanks Walton said:

I'm in agreement with you.  I would go so far as to say Jon is also partly guilty of the violation of guest rights.  Mance was acting under Jon's orders.  Mance was sheltered in Winterfell when he committed murders and stole the bride of his hosts.  That's breaking guest rights. 

If you hold commanders accountable for the crimes of their soldiers, then yes.  Jon is indeed guilty of violating guest rights.  I think Bowen was shocked when he found out the extent of Jon's illegal activities.  He stabbed Jon to keep the situation from getting worse, to keep Jon from making things worse.  Jon should have kept his nose out of Bolton business.  He brought all this down on himself.