KarlDanski Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 Are the Nights Watch vows more helpful or damaging to it's members, and the organization as a whole? We know that Lord Ellard Stark who was the Lord of Winterfell around 101AC felt that the New Gift was going to be damaging to the Nights Watch, because they would neglect it in favor of looking over the wall instead of behind it, this is important as the Nights Watch around Aegons Conquest was 10k, and now numbers less than 1k. This could be the only reason the Nights Watch is diminishing as they held all of the Castles on the Wall for thousands of years until the Targaryens came. Back to my main point though, do the vows that the Nights Watch Recruits take hurt them more than help them? "Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post. I am the sword in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men. I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night and all the nights to come." The key vows that a Nights Watchman takes are that he shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children, wear no crowns, and win no glory. The ones that don't really effect the NW are the ones about holding lands, wearing crowns, and winning glory, but the children, and wife one sounds like a bad idea. If Nights Watchman were allowed to have families, children, and wives to support the NW, they would have a steady recruitment pool, and way to increase the NW wealth, and stocks in food/weapons/armor etc. It's the same with the Jedi Order, had they allowed relationships, they would of had a likely steady pool of force sensitive children to use for the order. You have the Aemon Targaryen quote where, "Love is the death of duty", but that isn't the case as love can drive someone to fulfill their duty, and just the same can no love be the death of duty. The lack of love shown to Tyrion may be one of the biggest reasons he didn't do his duty his house. It seems like if the Nights Watch had little towns, and settlements on the Gift that were populated with the families of members of the NW who would provide a tithe to the Watch in exchange for protection would serve to strengthen it rather than weaken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James West Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 Those vows are there for a very good reason. The Night's Watch cannot function unless it is perceived as non-players of the game of thrones by the kingdoms that make up the realm. The Watch must appear neutral and therefore, not a threat to anyone's interest, at all times. They serve for life and agree to give up family. Absolute dedication and complete focus require the person who took the vow to give up family, romantic relationships, and no fighting on behalf of his old house. The Night's Watch does not and should not pick and choose who they protect in the kingdom. Everyone gets equal protection. The brother forgives whatever wrong another house may have committed against his in the past and puts all of that aside. He has a new family in the Watch and that is all that matters. This is why, in my opinion, Jon was wrong to put Arya ahead of the kingdom. He took his vows and he is the lord commander. It's his responsibility to stop thinking about Arya. It is definitely wrong to start a war with the Boltons. Jon was wrong when he rode out to side with Robb against the Lannisters. He deserved to get executed if Samwell had not brought him back. I would argue the bastard deserved to get executed anyway. Sending the wildlings to take Arya from Ramsay was even worse. Putting together a wildling raiding party to attack the Boltons is the worst and thankfully he was stopped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlDanski Posted April 23, 2017 Author Share Posted April 23, 2017 Allowing them to have families, and children doesn't seem like something that would affect their neutrality. Allowing them to have families, and children would help them increase their numbers, and give them better self-sufficiency instead of relying on hunting, and Northern Lords giving them parts of their harvest. Set up a town for every castle along the wall with the families of the members stationed at that castle in their. Give them leave from time to time to spend time with their families, and let the families work the land from either harvest, hunting, or fishing be if you occupied Westwatch or Eastwatch. Just that alone would increase their food production, recruit production, and make them less reliant on the North or more neutral as the North gives them the most support. It would also increase dedication, and morale for Watchmen to visit their families, and make it more appealing to join, and most likely cause less desertions. BTW, I'm not arguing about the rights or wrongs of what Jon did either with Robb or Arya, I'm not going to argue that, because that isn't the point of this discussion, and doesn't affect it. Jon's a single person, and some people wouldn't quit the watch to save their family, a perfect example is Lord Commander Hoare, the leader of the Nights Watch during Aegon's Conquest who saw his family og up in ashes, and he was most likely the brother of Harren the Black. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James West Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 From Maester Aemon himself, "love is the death of duty, the death of honor" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlDanski Posted April 23, 2017 Author Share Posted April 23, 2017 1 hour ago, KarlDanski said: You have the Aemon Targaryen quote where, "Love is the death of duty", but that isn't the case as love can drive someone to fulfill their duty, and just the same can no love be the death of duty. The lack of love shown to Tyrion may be one of the biggest reasons he didn't do his duty his house. True, but if the Watchman have family behind them, and the enemy infront, they're going to fight for all their worth, not just because if they don't they'll die, but if they don't, they'll die along with their family. In the military, the soldiers can serve in extreme temperatures like the North, and have a family back home, and fight even stronger for their family rather than fighting for no one back home. Love may be the death of duty, but so can the lack of love, greed, lust, gluttony, pride, wrath, and a bunch of other reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlDanski Posted April 23, 2017 Author Share Posted April 23, 2017 Also, while Maester Aemon is probably one of the most intelligent characters in the ASOIAF world, he still lives in a world that is 1000's of years backwards in advancement, and technology. He's a smart man, and his reasoning is sound, but if love was the death of duty, then what was Jon's first desertion to avenge his father? Was that not love? He loved his brother, his father, and his siblings still stuck in the South just as much as anybody loves their family, but duty brought him back, honor brought him back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
300 H&H Magnum Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 Absolutely those vows are helpful. The order of the night's watch has survived for 8,000 years and they have managed to remain independent. The watch is not the same as a conscripted army of farmers and laborers. It is a full-time warrior organization with a narrow but important mission. A city watch guard can have a family because it is a 9-5 job and he goes home at the end of his shift. But a city guard is a very compromised person. Suppose KL is under siege and a city watchman knows of a secret way out of the city. Will this man leave his post to take his wife and children out of the city or will he do the right thing and stay at his post? Most decent men will stay at their post but more than a few will pick family over duty. The watch cannot afford that kind of compromise from its ranks, let alone its leaders. The recruits come from families all over the realm and from all walks of life. You can't have an effective organization and unity unless the recruits are required to leave old loyalties and family attachments behind. To use Jon as our example, if Ramsay were to end up at the wall and take his vows, I expect Jon to take an arrow for him. I expect Jon to take an arrow for Theon. Jon is a deeply flawed guy but I can see someone like Q Halfhand doing that for a brother. Jon wouldn't do it for an enemy of the Starks but I can see Samwell doing it for an enemy of the Tarlys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
300 H&H Magnum Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 23 minutes ago, KarlDanski said: Also, while Maester Aemon is probably one of the most intelligent characters in the ASOIAF world, he still lives in a world that is 1000's of years backwards in advancement, and technology. He's a smart man, and his reasoning is sound, but if love was the death of duty, then what was Jon's first desertion to avenge his father? Was that not love? He loved his brother, his father, and his siblings still stuck in the South just as much as anybody loves their family, but duty brought him back, honor brought him back. Jon already deserted. His friends brought him back. He has no honor. Jon puts the Stark family ahead of duty. That is why I cannot ever see that chub ever being good at leading. He would make for an awful ruler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralphis Baratheon Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 The fact so many criminals are brother's of the Night Watch certainly does't help their reputation. Though without those criminals the Night's Watch would be even smaller. Kids dream of being in the Kingsguard not of being a ranger in the Night's Watch. Even though you'd see more action as a Ranger. The Night's Watch needs better PR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vaedys Targaryen Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 I personally think that what could help the Night's Watch is that the service could be temporary; instead of serving for life, they could, like in the sellsword companies in Essos, sign a contract and serve for a few years and, if they felt like it, renew the contract after the service is done and after each service (or after a major job has been done), they would get payment for it. This way, not only would the Watch be much more appealing to poor men who lack skills and money, but after each service, they would emerge from the Watch with a new skills which would allow them to get different jobs, and with the money, they would be able to buy some property and make them much more suitable for marriage. Young boys would be able to join the Watch for service in order to send some of the money they'd make back to their families. They would still have to keep some of their vows, like hold no crown, hold no land or titles, take no wife and father no children, but again, these will only be temporary and once their service would be over and they did not wish to renew their contract, they'd be free to go and marry and have children. I'm thinking that the crown should make sure that the Night's Watch has money, however, as the Night's Watch is legitimately keeping the Realm safe from wildlings and the Others, and keeping the Realm safe through them is in the interest of the king and the Realm itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlDanski Posted April 23, 2017 Author Share Posted April 23, 2017 Part 1: It's already got that type of compromise with people like Jon Snow or Mance Rayder leaving the Watch for love, had they had that in the beginning they likely would of stayed true, similar to the Jedi Order as I mention time and time. You'll always have compromised men whether they be city guard or Nights Watch, the past two LC have been killed by their own men. When men of the wall have their families behind them, and a bunch of barbarians infront of them, they'll likely fight harder just to keep them safe, similar to the US Military. Part 2: I'm not going to argue Jon Snow being a bad ruler, he would make for a decent Lord and mediocre Commander, but bad Lord Commander, because he doesn't have the sole dedication to duty such as others like Stannis. Family, Duty, Honor are the Tully words, and that echoes well with Jon. He puts his family ahead of his duty, and honor. Ned Stark in the end did the same thing, telling a lie to keep his family safe. Tywin who has no honor put family first, so the idea that Honor makes a great leader is absurd. Stannis is a good honorable leader, Tywin is a good leader without honor with the same being with Roose. Jaime Lannister would make for a terrible ruler, and commander, but people are mixed on his honor as recently he's tried to be the honorable person, but his past mistakes follow him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sea Dragon Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 I think people forget just how bad Jon was at everything. That is why Daenerys is coming to Westeros. To clean up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 Definitely harmful, I believe that those vows were among the reasons why the NW declined. Much like what happened to the Jedi Order before Luke. Also the fact that the Wall has been used as a prison and the mojority of people didn't went there because they wanted is another reason. 3 minutes ago, Sea Dragon said: That is why Daenerys is coming to Westeros. To clean up. Like how she cleaned up Slaver's bay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sea Dragon Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 Just now, The Doctor's Consort said: Definitely harmful, I believe that those vows were among the reasons why the NW declined. Much like what happened to the Jedi Order before Luke. Also the fact that the Wall has been used as a prison and the mojority of people didn't went there because they wanted is another reason. Like how she cleaned up Slaver's bay? I don't think she is done with Slaver's Bay. I think she will return with Drogo and straighten that out once and for all. George seems to really want her to struggle before becoming the main queen of the entire series. I guess to help her learn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 1 minute ago, Sea Dragon said: I don't think she is done with Slaver's Bay. I think she will return with Drogo and straighten that out once and for all. George seems to really want her to struggle before becoming the main queen of the entire series. I guess to help her learn? Learning isn't an excuse for countless deaths and genocide. At least Jon hasn't ordered the death or torture of innocent children. So he is better than Dany at least at this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sea Dragon Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 1 minute ago, The Doctor's Consort said: Learning isn't an excuse for countless deaths and genocide. At least Jon hasn't ordered the death or torture of innocent children. So he is better than Dany at least at this. Jon is an oath breaker and that seems how George is making Jon learn. By killing him. Daenerys has to learn things her own way and making big mistakes and then fixing them is just one big way. The author has to prepare each of them to get together and rule Westeros. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 Just now, Sea Dragon said: Jon is an oath breaker and that seems how George is making Jon learn. By killing him. Daenerys has to learn things her own way and making big mistakes and then fixing them is just one big way. The author has to prepare each of them to get together and rule Westeros. Again, order the death and murder of children and genocide isn't an excuse for learning. I don't give a damn if that is Dany's way of learning, it's wrong and evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sea Dragon Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 2 minutes ago, The Doctor's Consort said: Again, order the death and murder of children and genocide isn't an excuse for learning. I don't give a damn if that is Dany's way of learning, it's wrong and evil. Well, I think breaking a thousands year old tradition to keep Westeros safe is pretty bad too. That puts lots of lives in danger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 22 hours ago, Sea Dragon said: Well, I think breaking a thousands year old tradition to keep Westeros safe is pretty bad too. That puts lots of lives in danger. Tradition? What tradition? Endangering someone isn't the same with killing someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.