Jon is a traitor to the Night Watch

[Adam Yozza]

12 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

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.

Except he didn't get involved in the Bolton's business. He sent Mance to intercept Arya on the road, but it turned out to be Alys. Mance then went to Winterfell of his own violation, and therefore, Jon carries very little responsibility. He even tells Mel that Arya is on her own once he hears of the marriage.

[Greg B]

On 5/22/2016 at 0:14 PM, Jon's Queen Consort said:

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

The funniest thing about all the people trying to lawyer Jon out of personal responsibility for the covert mission to steal "Arya" is that Jon himself thinks he is responsible.

"A grey girl on a dying horse, fleeing from her marriage. On the strength of those words he had loosed Mance Rayder and six spearwives on the north."

I agree with Jon, and I'm glad that as a leader of men he doesn't indulge in these verbal gymnastics to dodge responsibility for what he's done.

Jon was responsible for the covert mission to steal the wife of the lord of the Dreadfort and heir to the Warden of the North. Jon was responsible for inciting a wildling army to war in open rebellion against the crown. By the time he is assassinated, Jon is no longer lord commander of the Night's Watch. He's chosen to become a rebel warlord instead.

[Elisabetta Duò]

On 21/5/2016 at 11:59 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.

 

I think he will betray the NW also deciding to leave  (as he left in the show, he will leave in the books, maybe not in the same way but of course GBRRM has to take him out of there bring him into the world) .. because yes, technically he died, but the NW is for life meaning that as long as you live, you are to stay and people are not supposed to have more than one life... his dead and 'resurrection' (regardless to how it will happen in the books) were just an escamotage to 'allow' him to leave and I don't like this kind of deus ex machina situations.

[King Ned Stark]

By letter of the law sure, Jon turned on an institution that has lost sight of its true objective (choosing to let thousands die because of their fear of the Others - their true purpose), become grossly inefficient (Jon is the only one being proactive and preparing for possibly the greatest threat to the realm in thousands of years, as opposed to Marsh et al who are worried about Lannisters and Boltons), and corrupt (murdering the last two commanders).  Is it not treason to act so unilaterally?  Isnt there some kind of protocol to depose a treasonous LC?

Claus von Stauffenberg was a traitor as well.  Aerys's kingsguard may be a cautionary tale of such institutions, and how they can lead to institutionalized evil.

At some point people need to be morally accountable beyond established draconian rules and laws, even at the risk of their own person.  Jon did not steal some lord's wife, he rescued a kidnapped teenage girl who through fear and coercion was forced to marry as part of a coup being by treasonous war criminals.

Jon is a traitor to the Nights Watch, and should be applauded for it.

[JonisHenryTudor]

On 5/22/2016 at 7:45 AM, 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.

Jon sent most of his "enemies" away. 

 

On 5/22/2016 at 7:38 AM, gregg22 said:

This confrontation with Ramsay is inevitable

 

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

Yep. Eventually the Bolton's would have attempted to kill Jon or march on the wall. Bastard or not, he carried the Stark name in part, and that is enough to pose a threat to their northern designs....

 

 

I

[the trees have eyes]

2 hours ago, King Ned Stark said:

By letter of the law sure, Jon turned on an institution that has lost sight of its true objective (choosing to let thousands die because of their fear of the Others - their true purpose), become grossly inefficient (Jon is the only one being proactive and preparing for possibly the greatest threat to the realm in thousands of years, as opposed to Marsh et al who are worried about Lannisters and Boltons), and corrupt (murdering the last two commanders).  Is it not treason to act so unilaterally?  Isnt there some kind of protocol to depose a treasonous LC?

Claus von Stauffenberg was a traitor as well.  Aerys's kingsguard may be a cautionary tale of such institutions, and how they can lead to institutionalized evil.

At some point people need to be morally accountable beyond established draconian rules and laws, even at the risk of their own person.  Jon did not steal some lord's wife, he rescued a kidnapped teenage girl who through fear and coercion was forced to marry as part of a coup being by treasonous war criminals.

Jon is a traitor to the Nights Watch, and should be applauded for it.

I know, it's almost like GRRM wants us to think about these things.  Where does the greater good lie?

In Jaime remaining loyal to his vow to Aerys or in killing Aerys and Rossart and preventing the destruction of KL by wildfire?

In Jon remaining hidebound to political neutrality and keeping the wildlings north of the Wall or in working to form a grand coalition of NW / wildlings / Stannis & Northmen and acting to protect that alliance against Ramsey's demands in the pink letter?

It's pretty straightforward when you get down to it but despite the role GRRM has set up Roose, Ramsey, Slynt, Marsh and Thorne to play in this story there are a surprising number of people who seem to think they are right and Jon is the problem here.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

On 22/5/2016 at 1:29 AM, Danka Fan said:

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.

Do you have any quote from the book that Jon sent a men of the NW to save FArya?

[Dolorous22]

Yes, Jon is a traitor. I think the majority of bookreaders would agree with that. But being a traitor isn't necessarily a bad thing. It depends on who or what you're betraying. Americans are fond of a number of men from the revolution, a lot of whom can be called traitors, depending on your own allegiance/politics/beliefs. I can easily forgive Jon for glancing about himself and arriving at the conclusion that most men are stupid ignorant fools who simply aren't capable of making a wise or informed decision.

Actually....

Jon/Ygritte/Jaime/Stannis/Sansa/RobWolf/Ned/Tyrion/Arya - These are all traitors too.

Hang on, so is: Barristen Selmy, Robert B, the Hound, Arianne, Theon, Roose Bolton....

It seems to me that most if not all people have shit for honor. I'd say this was largely down to the fact that it's impossible to remain loyal to everyone and yourself. It is this which drives the independent character arcs despite the emergence of dragons and Icy bastards. 

Time makes fools of us all.

And you don't have to like Jon. I am stumped as to how you've completed five books which seem to point towards him as being a central figure and maintained a disliking towards him. But each to their own.

 

[Thersites]

No he isn't.

If, during the peak of the Night's Watch, any Lord Commander recieved a letter saying "Bastard, give me back my Jabberwocky or I will kill you all", he would

A) Go over there in person and stomp on the idiot's head until it turns in an unrecognisable stain at the end of his boot

B ) Write to all the lords in westeros saying "That knucklehead threatens the Night's watch with destruction. Any of you have the foggiest what a "Reek" is? No? Ah well. Could you stomp on his head for us, since we're a bit preoccupied with being the shield that guards the realms of men and all that? Thanks."

C) Both.

The Night's Watch takes no part in the conflicts of the realm. It does however take part in the conflicts of the Night's Watch. Nowhere is it mentioned that if attacked the brothers must stand meekly by with their throats exposed for convenience.

Jon takes it upon himself, bearing the responsibility not because he is not in the right, but because he might lose. It is within his rights to demand Ramsay Bolton's head from all the lords of Westeros (What's that? His bride? Pray tell me the name of any brother of the Night's Watch within stone's throw of Winterfell's outer walls, let alone the bastard of Bolton's bedchamber.) But then everyone else would be a traitor and he and all his brothers dead, not the most desirable of outcomes. Taking it upon himself is ensuring the Night's Watch continued existence, not closing a loophole.

And holding Ramsay's bride down while he rapes her is not in the Night's Watch duties. Made aware of any plots concerning her made by a third party, or the military plans of one of the warring kings, or anything going on south of the wall, Jon can voice his personal opinion, but it is perfectly within his rights to say "Not my problem. The Night's Watch takes no part. Good luck avoiding the horrible death you deserve, I would have Dareon make a song of it but I sent him to become a recruiter. Now excuse me, but I'll be over there Lord Commandering."

[Maxxine]

Everything the OP said is true, but I can't blame Jon for it. The NW's vows are very hard to keep and somewhat unrealistic especially if you find out your family is in danger. It's not exactly easy to forget you have a family. Yeah I know Aemon did it, but it wasn't easy and there seems to be a bit of regret when he talks about it. It's really interesting to me that people are so hard on Jon for this. I think it's partially because we all know that it's not the real Arya. If we didn't have Arya chapters and Jaime & Theon explicitly telling us it's not Arya so it was a complete mystery to the reader too would people be so hard on him for wanting to save his little sister?

[Make Shadowbabies Not War]

I do agree with the OP, Jon was certainly a traitor. I love Jon, he is one of my favourite characters, but I do see the points of those who turned against him.  Jon was doing what he, and the reader for the most part, thought was right. By the Watch's standards, however, he was not only breaking their sacred creed, but doing so as an authoritative figure.

The way to look at it, is that if Thorne had done exactly as Jon had, nobody in the fanbase would defend him. I love Jon's character, and the way he is one of the few willing to do what has to be done, but saying he did not break the rules specifically laid out by the Watch is foolish, as he did it numerous times.

1. To be honest, I counted him lucky to get away with his first desertion. He did desert, after all. The vow says nothing about changing your mind.

2. Ygritte counts. I know the vows don't explicitly outlaw sex, but he betrayed the Watch here by being with her simply because he  though it did. The fact that he, himself, sees it as betrayal is damning enough.

3. Letting the Wildlings through is actually the most grey of his offences, even if it had the most impact. By the initial vows of the Watch, this would probably have been less of an issue, but by the time Jon became LC it clearly was. That said, going by the vow, he could defend this through the 'shield of the world of men' part of the vow, which the Wildlings certainly are a part of.

4. However, announcing an attack on Winterfell, the capital city of the North, with these Wildlings breaks that defence. Suddenly Jon and his army are in open war with the world of men that he was supposed to shield, a direct violation of his code.

 

To summarise, Jon Snow clearly broke his vows, and the Watch were in their rights to turn against him (although not in the way that they did). Of course, that does not make him a bad person, just someone who has to make some of the hardest choices possible and tries to make the best of it. Sadly for him, it didn't work out how he would have liked.

[ramla]

Saying Jons a traitor to the Nights Watch is a stretch. Did he break a few rules? yes he did. However, the Nights watch was not formed to simply fight wildlings... They were formed to watch for the return of the others and another long night. This is the confusion of the watch. Being a traiter means he trades sides.

As far as him sending agents to steal back his young sister... This was what the whole thing about "killing the Boy" was About... doing what needs to be done. Jon did what was right. The nights watches vows don't match the era. The point of it all was lost years ago.

He broke his vows but breaking your vows doesn't make you a traitor.

[JonisHenryTudor]

8 minutes ago, ramla said:

Saying Jons a traitor to the Nights Watch is a stretch. Did he break a few rules? yes he did. However, the Nights watch was not formed to simply fight wildlings... They were formed to watch for the return of the others and another long night. This is the confusion of the watch. Being a traiter means he trades sides.

As far as him sending agents to steal back his young sister... This was what the whole thing about "killing the Boy" was About... doing what needs to be done. Jon did what was right. The nights watches vows don't match the era. The point of it all was lost years ago.

He broke his vows but breaking your vows doesn't make you a traitor.

Yep. I get the feeling that some posters are a bit hazy over the terms meaning. 

 

[The Lord of the Crossing]

Jon is more than just a traitor to the Night Watch.  He is an oathbreaker.  He attacked one of the houses that he was supposed to protect.  Look, no one likes the Boltons, but there is room in the Night Watch to protect only those who you like.  Jon really went wrong when he found out there was a way to help Sansa.  He broke every rule to help little Arya.  I can't blame the men for using Jon as a dart board.  That dumb boy asked for it.

[The Lord of the Crossing]

On 5/25/2016 at 3:56 PM, ramla said:

Saying Jons a traitor to the Nights Watch is a stretch. Did he break a few rules? yes he did. However, the Nights watch was not formed to simply fight wildlings... They were formed to watch for the return of the others and another long night. This is the confusion of the watch. Being a traiter means he trades sides.

As far as him sending agents to steal back his young sister... This was what the whole thing about "killing the Boy" was About... doing what needs to be done. Jon did what was right. The nights watches vows don't match the era. The point of it all was lost years ago.

He broke his vows but breaking your vows doesn't make you a traitor.

Sending Mance Rayder and the wildling girls to sneak out Arya from Ramsay made Jon a traitor.  He's a traitor because  he was the lord commander of the order.  Had one of his own men done the same thing to help his sister, Jon would have taken off his head. 

[Nevets]

50 minutes ago, Lame Lothar Frey said:

Sending Mance Rayder and the wildling girls to sneak out Arya from Ramsay made Jon a traitor.  He's a traitor because  he was the lord commander of the order.  Had one of his own men done the same thing to help his sister, Jon would have taken off his head. 

Jon sent Mance and the spearwives into the wilderness to rescue someone who he thought had already escaped the Boltons.  They went to Winterfell on their own initiative.  There is no evidence to suggest that he would have approved their going to Winterfell and plenty to suggest that he wouldn't have.  If you're going to suggest Jon is an oathbreaker, at least get the basic facts straight.

[Thersites]

1 hour ago, Lame Lothar Frey said:

on is more than just a traitor to the Night Watch.  He is an oathbreaker.  He attacked one of the houses that he was supposed to protect.  Look, no one likes the Boltons, but there is room in the Night Watch to protect only those who you like.  Jon really went wrong when he found out there was a way to help Sansa.  He broke every rule to help little Arya.  I can't blame the men for using Jon as a dart board.  That dumb boy asked for it.

Explain to me what is the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch supposed to do with a rabid weasel that threatens to cut out his heart and eat it. Maybe have Three-Finger Hobb prepare it beforehand, to protect him from indigestion? If we extend the duties of the Night's Watch to cover policing Ramsay's bedchamber, including his privy is not much of a stress.

Even accepting the interpetation "It is the Night's Watch's purpose to retrieve misplaced victims of serial killers for them, and to dig a hole in the ground and stick their head in while the Others slaughter men, women and children and amass an army of wights to end all life from the Wall to the Arbor " does not make this point defensible, one could say.

But hey, maybe it is. (And maybe the Freys were right in killing Robb for turning into a werewolf and massacring them indiscriminately. Not that he did, as far as we know. But it probably crossed his mind a couple of times during the Red Wedding, and if he was actually capable of doing so he would without a doubt be sorely tempted. Same thing actually.)

If so, what exactly should a loyal, true and faithful Lord Commander do when presented with the Pink Letter?

[Greg B]

16 hours ago, Thersites said:

If so, what exactly should a loyal, true and faithful Lord Commander do when presented with the Pink Letter?

Well, a "loyal, true and faithful lord commander" wouldn't have been presented with the Pink Letter, because he'd never have "loosed Mance Rayder on the North" in the first place. This puts you in a pickle because your illegal covert mission and associated deception of the Night's Watch has been exposed, so your command is probably history. But having already committed this act of deception and treason, and given that it's been exposed, you might do something like this:

Seek out the counsel of your officers, including your opposition, and not just your wildling friend. Share the contents of the letter with them. Own up to the true charges in it. Yes, you already know what they're going to say, but maybe this time you could pretend to listen to them and consider their advice. Defend your actions as you can but accept their judgment. You may be seized and thrown in the ice cells. Even if you aren't, you should remove yourself from command. Either way, argue strongly that the Watch should take no action until the contents of the letter (beyond the charges you know to be true) can be verified. Most critically, you must verify if Stannis is actually dead and his army defeated. It's not the Watch's place to turn over hostages to Ramsay Bolton, at least while Stannis remains a claimant to the Iron Throne. Maybe not even then -- "the Watch takes no part" may be the appropriate response. Perhaps only one person need be handed over to Bolton -- you. And this only after the contents of the letter have been verified.

What a "loyal, true and faithful lord commander" probably wouldn't do is swallow the claim that Stannis is dead and defeated with no verification whatsoever, march into the Shieldhall and read the letter aloud with no prior consultation with his officers or defense of his actions, incite a wildling army to war against the realm, and then act surprised when his opposition within the Watch removes him from command with extreme prejudice. A gullible lord commander with an extremely limited ability to foresee the consequences of his own actions who has been caught in an act of treason and gone warlord might do that, though it strains suspension of disbelief, but not a "loyal, true and faithful lord commander" of the Night's Watch.

For the record, I support Jon's decision to break his oath, forfeit his office as lord commander and go warlord. I try to chalk up the moronic way he did it to poor editing, as much as possible.

 

[Thersites]

3 hours ago, Greg B said:

Well, a "loyal, true and faithful lord commander" wouldn't have been presented with the Pink Letter

Yes he would.

Jon not having heard the word "Reek" used as anything other than a verb in his life did not deter the writer of the pink letter from demanding him. If the writer is not Ramsay, Jon's guilt or innocence don't matter. And if the writer is Ramsay, Jon is implicated by the confession of someone under torture. Who could probably add Robert and Joffrey's murders and the tragedy at Summerhall to his crimes if that's what Ramsay wanted to hear.

Considering turning over hostages, let's see... People you've broken bread together with... For some reason images of the Rat Cook and Walder Frey spring to mind...
Oh yeah. Guest right. And then Jon would deserve those bright new dagger holes.

But even if Melisandre, Selyse, Shireen, Val and the baby were handed over, what makes you think Ramsay would reply "You sure you don't have an heir to Winterfell and one to the Iron Isles around the place? Checked your back pockets? Allright, I'll go back to check if I have spares then."? Even if Jon's heart was presented to him cooked to perfection for his convenience, how likely it is he will not raze Castle Black to the ground?

Frankly I'm amazed that not interfering with a plan implemented by someone Jon has no power over under the command of someone else Jon has no power over is considered treason, but giving advice to Stannis that played a decisive role in avoiding his destruction is not. It would be different if Jon took it upon himself, or ordered brothers of the Night's Watch to go in his stead. But as things stand, if Stannis attacks Winterfell instead of the Dreadfort, or if a prisoner taken from him by Stannis and disguised by Melisandre takes it upon himself to infiltrate Winterfell, it is simply not his problem.

But I digress. Assuming that by the end of ADWD Jon is executed for sneezing at Ramsay's general direction, and the perfect Lord Commander takes over. An ideal one, not one of the possible alternatives. How would he handle the situation? Waiting to verify the threat could leave the Watch completely undefended. Throwing oneself at the mercy of Ramsay I-made-lady-Hornwood-eat-her-fingers Bolton is not an optimal survival strategy. Neither is "Sorry, your princess is in another castle.".

[Chaircat Meow]

37 minutes ago, Thersites said:

Yes he would.

Jon not having heard the word "Reek" used as anything other than a verb in his life did not deter the writer of the pink letter from demanding him. If the writer is not Ramsay, Jon's guilt or innocence don't matter. And if the writer is Ramsay, Jon is implicated by the confession of someone under torture. Who could probably add Robert and Joffrey's murders and the tragedy at Summerhall to his crimes if that's what Ramsay wanted to hear.

Considering turning over hostages, let's see... People you've broken bread together with... For some reason images of the Rat Cook and Walder Frey spring to mind...
Oh yeah. Guest right. And then Jon would deserve those bright new dagger holes.

But even if Melisandre, Selyse, Shireen, Val and the baby were handed over, what makes you think Ramsay would reply "You sure you don't have an heir to Winterfell and one to the Iron Isles around the place? Checked your back pockets? Allright, I'll go back to check if I have spares then."? Even if Jon's heart was presented to him cooked to perfection for his convenience, how likely it is he will not raze Castle Black to the ground?

Frankly I'm amazed that not interfering with a plan implemented by someone Jon has no power over under the command of someone else Jon has no power over is considered treason, but giving advice to Stannis that played a decisive role in avoiding his destruction is not. It would be different if Jon took it upon himself, or ordered brothers of the Night's Watch to go in his stead. But as things stand, if Stannis attacks Winterfell instead of the Dreadfort, or if a prisoner taken from him by Stannis and disguised by Melisandre takes it upon himself to infiltrate Winterfell, it is simply not his problem.

But I digress. Assuming that by the end of ADWD Jon is executed for sneezing at Ramsay's general direction, and the perfect Lord Commander takes over. An ideal one, not one of the possible alternatives. How would he handle the situation? Waiting to verify the threat could leave the Watch completely undefended. Throwing oneself at the mercy of Ramsay I-made-lady-Hornwood-eat-her-fingers Bolton is not an optimal survival strategy. Neither is "Sorry, your princess is in another castle.".

It is worth noting that Jon claimed that the nw are under no obligation to help Selyse, Shireen and co in his speech to the shieldhall. Granted, you could argue he doesn't privately believe this, but if it was so obvious that standing aside and letting Ramsay have them was wrong he is very unlikely to have said this.