Is The Concept Of The Night's Watch Obsolete?

[Varysblackfyre321]

29 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

That's hardly fair, he was pursuaded by his fellow Nights watch comrades to return when they gave him a stirring rendition of the Nights Watch vows which reminded him of his duty. It's not like they bashed him over the head and dragged him back in chains. 

He left and came back. 

 

He left and planned to never come back. His comrades dragged him back having to continuesly guilt-trip through reminding him of his oaths to cease his struggling. By all reason he should have executed for what had planned/attempted to do. His daddy being murdered isn't more a justification for what he did than  Watchman x attempting to desert because he wants to go to the Riverlands to bang a certain woman because she may die soon due to the war, or Watchman z deserting because he's was the sole bread winner for his peasant family and he needs to get back there to provide for them and get them out of harms way. 

There is always going to be an excuse for desertion and Jon's wasn't particularly unique in that it could possibly justify his behavior. Mormont was simply overly lenient with the boy he favored to be his successor and who was the blood of a man and house he deeply respected.

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

11 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

He left and planned to never come back. His comrades dragged him back having to continuesly guilt-trip through reminding him of his oaths to cease his struggling.

I don't know why you have to put a spin on it. They convinced him to return by reminding him of his duty. Yes, he left, planning to go south and fight the Lannisters because his father died. Yes, his friends had to ride out to convince him to come back. But they did convince him, and he did return. Your point's valid enough without having to frame it in misleading terms. 

13 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

By all reason he should have executed for what had planned/attempted to do.

I'd say that would be a rather hard interpretation of the rules? Granted, desertion is punishable by death, but Jon rode off, was convinced it was a mistake, and returned. If anything, it was a very real test of his loyalty to his vows, which he passed. He had a crisis of conscience and identity. Came very close to breaking his vows, and decided that his loyalties lay with the Nights Watch.

The whole point of the Old Bear's nod and wink about boys riding of to Moles Town and not getting strung up for it, is that he's pointing out that he needed to have a slightly liberal interpretation of the rules in order to keep the Watch running. The kind of rigid interpretation you seem to be advocating would have sunk the NW much earlier. 

16 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Mormont was simply overly lenient with the boy he favored to be his successor and who was the blood of a man he respected.

Perhaps, but Momont makes it clear "I know my men". In other words, he knows the difference between Jon having a bit of a hissy, but eventually coming down on the right side, and those who given half a chance would turn south and keep running. 

[AlaskanSandman]

Well a quick thought im not sure if mentioned but, any one facing life in the Black Cells or the Headsmen axe, the wall most certainly should be a much better life. Even if for life. They allow you to even go whoring and drinking in moles town. It's not like it's exactly that shitty of a life in comparison. Sure it's cold, but aside from some occasional wildlings, at least they're alive, fed, fucked, and drunk. And best of all, given the chance to kill more people with no consequence. 

Id say if you wanted a thoughtless army willing to put down, opress, and kill an opposing force (wildlings), then your doing a pretty decent job of finding the right thugs. Mixed with the occasional noble trash to help lead them and counciled from afar by the Citidel since even the Night fort was used. 

Id say that if they're possibly doing exactly what they're supposed to. Putting down the Wildlings, allowing no cities beyond the wall, and no kings beyond the wall. 

The Wall was put up for a reason and possibly not for what we think.

Garth the Green was the first High King of Westeros before the Wall was made. That means he ruled the lands now north of the wall. 

Then a curse was placed on the Barrow of the First King. Making any who seek to rise so high, to turn corpse like in appearace (Cue Grey King). 

Hence the Wall being built to split the kingdom. So even Aerys II never ruled all of Westeros as Garth the Green had. 

Just a thought.

[AlaskanSandman]

It may even be that Jon allowing the Wildlings to pass south was a bad bad thing, dispite his noble intentions. Perhaps the Wildlings disobeyed the rules and thats why the others are coming. Thats why the wildlings are always stopped at the wall and no invasions of the Others in all these years.

The lands of the North are for the others, and any who live beyond those lands must have no cities, no kings and sacrifice their young to the Others (Craster)

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

11 minutes ago, AlaskanSandman said:

d say if you wanted a thoughtless army willing to put down, opress, and kill an opposing force (wildlings), then your doing a pretty decent job of finding the right thugs. Mixed with the occasional noble trash to help lead them and counciled from afar by the Citidel since even the Night fort was used. 

This is a good point, there's a long history of countries using their misfits and criminals to do things like this. The British Empire famously pressed criminals into the army, and used penal labour to colonise Australia. The French Foreign Legion was essentially made up of criminals from all over the world. 

The problem with the NW, as Maester Aemon pointed out, was that the Desirable:Undesirable ratio went too far in the wrong direction, and there weren't enough honourable men to keep the psychos in line. 

[Angel Eyes]

2 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

This is a good point, there's a long history of countries using their misfits and criminals to do things like this. The British Empire famously pressed criminals into the army, and used penal labour to colonise Australia. The French Foreign Legion was essentially made up of criminals from all over the world. 

The problem with the NW, as Maester Aemon pointed out, was that the Desirable:Undesirable ratio went too far in the wrong direction, and there weren't enough honourable men to keep the psychos in line. 

And nobody believed that there was a threat other than the wildlings. 

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

3 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said:

And nobody believed that there was a threat other than the wildlings. 

Another good point.

For contemporary intelligent opinion on the subject, you can't go far wrong with Tywin and Tyrion. Both seem to view it as a kind of penal colony where criminals and traitors are sent off to freeze to death and bully natives. 

 

[The Sunland Lord]

 

13 hours ago, Bwana said:

He should have kept his nose out of it, that Stark sympathizer got himself into trouble on his own. 

In fact, the Lannister regime breaks the rules here (or everywhere, while at it). If I remember correctly, they sent people to kill Gendry, who was taken by Yoren to the Night's Watch.

As far as the regime enforcers and leaders were concerned, they had no business to interfere in NW's matters. But guess what? They didn't care.

You are basically implying that Yoren should have gave up Gendry to be killed.

Instead, the regime kills a NW's officer and recruits for the Watch. 

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

13 minutes ago, The Sunland Lord said:

In fact, the Lannister regime breaks the rules here (or everywhere, while at it). If I remember correctly, they sent people to kill Gendry, who was taken by Yoren to the Night's Watch.

As far as the regime enforcers and leaders were concerned, they had no business to interfere in NW's matters. But guess what? They didn't care.

You are basically implying that Yoren should have gave up Gendry to be killed.

Instead, the regime kills a NW's officer and recruits for the Watch. 

Unless @Bwana is referring to Yoren's clear sympathy with the Starks? Warning Ned about Tyrion's capture and his aiding Arya?

If so, there's more of an argument there, but I'd still tend towards letting Yoren off the hook on that one. The Starks are friends of the Watch. We see a dramatic difference in how most Southron lords treat the Watch compared to the North, and the Starks in particular. While Yoren's sailing pretty close to the wind by helping the Starks, I think it's justifiable. His rescuing Arya can, in my opinion, be perfectly justified as just the right thing to do morally - saving a young girl from potential death and taking her home.  

[The Sunland Lord]

44 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Unless @Bwana is referring to Yoren's clear sympathy with the Starks? Warning Ned about Tyrion's capture and his aiding Arya?

If so, there's more of an argument there, but I'd still tend towards letting Yoren off the hook on that one. The Starks are friends of the Watch. We see a dramatic difference in how most Southron lords treat the Watch compared to the North, and the Starks in particular. While Yoren's sailing pretty close to the wind by helping the Starks, I think it's justifiable. His rescuing Arya can, in my opinion, be perfectly justified as just the right thing to do morally - saving a young girl from potential death and taking her home.  

The hate towards Jon Snow and the Starks is ridiculous and it poisons every single thread on the forum. So I decided not to reply to those posts, because the trolling is so obvious.

I had to respond here though, in order to get to know how is it OK to kill a NW's officer and his recruits by an outside party and to blame the victims, while praising the neutrality as a quality at the same time. 

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

57 minutes ago, The Sunland Lord said:

The hate towards Jon Snow and the Starks is ridiculous and it poisons every single thread on the forum. So I decided not to reply to those posts, because the trolling is so obvious.

People do seem to have taken a dislike to the Starks, though most of it's just a kind of contrarianism than anything else.

57 minutes ago, The Sunland Lord said:

I had to respond here though, in order to get to know how is it OK to kill a NW's officer and his recruits by an outside party and to blame the victims, while praising the neutrality as a quality at the same time.

Cersei was on a bit of a rampage by that point, and clearly didn’t give a damn about legality and tradition. Aside from the general slaughter she engaged with in seizing power, she also tore up the king’s last will and testament, sacked Selmy, etc.

It’s worth noting the very different attitudes that the South and the North have towards the NW. The NW is seen as an honourable calling by the Starks (and by most of the North), the Lannisters see it as a gang of baseborn cut-throats, who at best are merely another (minor) actor in the Game. When the Lord Commander position becomes vacant, Tywin sees it as an opportunity to install one of his toadies. When Jon becomes LC, Cersei assumes he’ll use the position to attack the Iron Throne and support Stannis. Interestingly, the Blackfish also assumes that Jon would “politicise” the job, though he suspects that Tywin had him installed because as a bastard he’d betray the Starks.

The point is, while we tend to sympathise with the Starks and believe the NW’s neutrality should be respected, more cynical types, epitomised by the Lannisters, don’t respect tradition, and assume nobody else does either. They wouldn’t allow a rival claimant/proof-of-incest such as Gendry live simply because of some nicety like respecting the NW’s independence.  

[The Commentator]

2 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Another good point.

For contemporary intelligent opinion on the subject, you can't go far wrong with Tywin and Tyrion. Both seem to view it as a kind of penal colony where criminals and traitors are sent off to freeze to death and bully natives. 

 

Tyrion and Tywin should be grateful for those criminals who keep the wildlings off their precious land.  The Lannisters benefit from the wall and the men guarding her as much as the other houses do.  The wall doesn't stop all the flow of wildlings but it stops them from coming and going as they please. 

 

37 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

People do seem to have taken a dislike to the Starks, though most of it's just a kind of contrarianism than anything else.

Not really.  There are very good reasons to dislike some of the Starks.  I say some because you can't label an entire family with the same tag.  Jon did some horrible things at the wall that will lead to its collapse. he's too emotional and makes his decisions based on how he feels about someone.  Arya is a souless murderer.  Sansa is very selfish.  Those are good reasons to dislike somebody. 

37 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Cersei was on a bit of a rampage by that point, and clearly didn’t give a damn about legality and tradition. Aside from the general slaughter she engaged with in seizing power, she also tore up the king’s last will and testament, sacked Selmy, etc.

It’s worth noting the very different attitudes that the South and the North have towards the NW. The NW is seen as an honourable calling by the Starks (and by most of the North), the Lannisters see it as a gang of baseborn cut-throats, who at best are merely another (minor) actor in the Game. When the Lord Commander position becomes vacant, Tywin sees it as an opportunity to install one of his toadies. When Jon becomes LC, Cersei assumes he’ll use the position to attack the Iron Throne and support Stannis. Interestingly, the Blackfish also assumes that Jon would “politicise” the job, though he suspects that Tywin had him installed because as a bastard he’d betray the Starks.

That's because the north is in the direct path of any wildling raiding.  The north suffers from the wildlings more than any other kingdom. 

37 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

The point is, while we tend to sympathise with the Starks and believe the NW’s neutrality should be respected, more cynical types, epitomised by the Lannisters, don’t respect tradition, and assume nobody else does either. They wouldn’t allow a rival claimant/proof-of-incest such as Gendry live simply because of some nicety like respecting the NW’s independence.  

Sometimes life just isn't fair.  It just isn't easy.  But that's no excuse.  The watchmen have a sworn duty to protect the realm.  Not just the good guys and not just the friends of their families.  They defend all from the white walkers and the wildlings.  Misbehavior from the people south of the wall is not justification for the watchmen to engage in politics themselves.  The men of the watch is required to always hold the higher moral ground.  I know it's not easy.  It's not easy to stay at your post at the wall while your family rebelled in the south.  It's not easy to do your job and remain objective when your little sister is married into the family who took your house down.  That's why the men of the watch take the vows that they do.  They leave their past lives behind.  None of the past matter anymore.  A logical man would realize the best way to protect loved ones is to stop the white walkers.  Most men figure this out and the great majority of them don't try to escape back to their families.  They accept their new life and move on.  Those who can't or choose not to end up on the chopping block.  Smart criminals like Mance Rayder run to the north and most of them die up there.  Mance Rayder is wrong for deserting the watch.  If anybody should get beheaded it's Mance.  I'm surprised by the number of people on this forum who like this man. 

[The Commentator]

16 hours ago, Bwana said:

Yoren wasn't playing neutral.  Yoren took sides,  Something he never, ever should have done.  He should have kept his nose out of it, that Stark sympathizer got himself into trouble on his own. 

I like Yoren but I agree with you.  He should have kept his knowledge instead of warning Ned in the first place.  It's almost as if he was partial to the Starks over the Lannisters when it was Catelyn Tully-Stark who started the quarrel.  Yoren could have tried to talk Catelyn out of arresting Tyrion, in the interest of the greater good to prevent a war.  The icing on the cake of partiality is Yoren smuggling little Arya back to the north when he knew very well that the Lannisters were looking for her.  And his recruits do not enjoy the protection of the wall because they have not said their vows.

[The Commentator]

5 hours ago, AlaskanSandman said:

It may even be that Jon allowing the Wildlings to pass south was a bad bad thing, dispite his noble intentions. Perhaps the Wildlings disobeyed the rules and thats why the others are coming. Thats why the wildlings are always stopped at the wall and no invasions of the Others in all these years.

The lands of the North are for the others, and any who live beyond those lands must have no cities, no kings and sacrifice their young to the Others (Craster)

Good point.  It's not like the wildlings don't tolerate humans.  They tolerate Craster.  Maybe it's that horn.  Mance stole the horn.

[Angel Eyes]

3 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Another good point.

For contemporary intelligent opinion on the subject, you can't go far wrong with Tywin and Tyrion. Both seem to view it as a kind of penal colony where criminals and traitors are sent off to freeze to death and bully natives. 

 

And Tywin wanted to bring the Night's Watch under control via Janos Slynt. Plus, he sees it as a Northern system, despite Southerners being among its ranks, such as Endrew Tarth and Waymar Royce.

[The Commentator]

4 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said:

And Tywin wanted to bring the Night's Watch under control via Janos Slynt. Plus, he sees it as a Northern system, despite Southerners being among its ranks, such as Endrew Tarth and Waymar Royce.

Look, the watch has been operating for ten thousand years.  This is not the first time that some ambitious nobleman tried to dragged them into their game.  Throughout all that time, the watch has maintained its integrity and managed to keep itself above the games that nobles play.  There is no excuse for the watch to let itself get dragged into the conflict between families. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

9 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

I don't know why you have to put a spin on it. They convinced him to return by reminding him of his duty. Yes, he left, planning to go south and fight the Lannisters because his father died. Yes, his friends had to ride out to convince him to come back. But they did convince him, and he did return. Your point's valid enough without having to frame it in misleading terms. 

I don't think I'm using misleading terms. They did have to drag him back. They reminded Jon of his oaths to cease his struggling to be sure but what had ultimately stopped  him was them making it clear they would not let him go; he could either kill them(he would never), or he could come back with them. He chose the latter but if his friends gave any indication they would let him go if they couldn't change, I don't think he would have relented and went back with them.

 

9 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

t would be a rather hard interpretation of the rules? Granted, desertion is punishable by death, but Jon rode off, was convinced it was a mistake, and returned. If anything, it was a very real test of his loyalty to his vows, which he passed. He had a crisis of conscience and identity. Came very close to breaking his vows, and decided that his loyalties lay with the Nights Watch.

I'd say it's a rather fair interpetation of the rules. Jon rode off with the intention of never coming back. Whatever convinces him to turn back at that point really doesn't matter. He's guilty. Quite frankly I don't see him having passed anything. Like I said plenty brothers likely have families in harms way because of the eruption of the war, yet they didn't skirt their oaths to go save their loved ones-Jon did however. For that he deserves no applause for how he reacted to the news of his father's execution.  To be clear, I feel sorry for the guy; he clearly needed to have sit down with his father on the pros and cons of joining the watch, why he wants to do it, and what other options he could have; he didn't. 

9 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

The whole point of the Old Bear's nod and wink about boys riding of to Moles Town and not getting strung up for it, is that he's pointing out that he needed to have a slightly liberal interpretation of the rules in order to keep the Watch running. The kind of rigid interpretation you seem to be advocating would have sunk the NW much earlier. 

The kind of lenient interpetation you seem to be advocating for would make brothers think if caught trying to desert all they need to do is apologize, tempting more people to actually fully cut and run. There is a distinct difference between allowing a brother to go to mole's town for some loving, and excusing a blantant attempt to abandon the watch altogether. One could be argued to have some good(I doubt it given masturebation is an option which could relieve a person of sexual frustration) , but the other simply cannot. Brothers must know the watch is a life career and the only way out is death.  

[Tagganaro]

In many ways the NW has become obsolete by the time the first book comes around.  And it's a bit tragic that as the NW is becoming more and more obsolete, the true purpose behind the NW is revealing itself and becoming a threat again.  I think nothing sums up the status of the Wall and the NW better than LC Mormont in ASOS:

Quote

"We never knew!  But we must have known once.  The Night's Watch has forgotten its true purpose, Tarly.  You don't build a wall seven hundred feet high to keep savages in skins from stealing women.  The Wall was made to guard the realms of men...and not against other men, which is all the wildlings are when you come right down to it.  Too many years, Tarly, too many hundreds and thousands of years.  We lost sight of the true enemy.  And now he's here but we don't know how to fight him."

Of course, Jon Snow independently comes to this exact same conclusion later on in ADWD.  He shuts down Marsh when he complains about the wildlings coming through being treason by throwing this exact same line at Marsh:

Quote

"I am the shield that guards the realms of men.  Those are the words.  So tell me, my lord- what are these wildlings, if not men?"

Of course, Marsh's response to this is to be caught looking like a fool, stunned into silence with a flush creeping up his neck.

I find it interesting that both Jon and Mormont arrive at the same conclusion- something about being the commander of the NW, Bloodraven warging the bird that follows them around perhaps?  And I find it interesting that both Jon and Mormont are attacked/murdered by the pathetic dregs representing the decline of the NW.  Here's what Mormont complains about openly to Tyrion early on in AGOT:

Quote

"Alliser Thorne?  Bowen Marsh?  I would have to be as blind as Maester Aemon not to see what they are.  The Night's Watch has become an army of sullen boys and tired old men...Once the Watch spent its summers building, and each Lord Commander raised the Wall higher than he found it.  Now it is all we can do to stay alive."

You have both Mormont and Jon being "killed" by these "sullen boys and tired old men" later on.  And I also find it interesting that Mormont ends his tirade waxing nostalgia about the old days of the Watch, and in Jon's final chapter before he is "killed" in ADWD Jon has that final lament about the Shieldhall and how it used to be covered with the shields of the noble houses that had sons who served on the NW but now there's nothing left.

So yeah, in short I'd say pretty much everything about the NW has become obsolete by ADWD.  The true threat they were built up to stop is here, and you have Jon making a legitimate effort to prepare the NW to fight that threat, but he is stymied by the Bowen Marshes of the NW who don't see the true threat and only care about fighting wildlings.

[Tagganaro]

5 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I don't think I'm using misleading terms. They did have to drag him back. They reminded Jon of his oaths to cease his struggling to be sure but what had ultimately stopped  him was them making it clear they would not let him go; he could either kill them(he would never), or he come back with them. He chose the latter but if his friends gave any indication they would let him go if they couldn't change his mind they'd let him go, I don't think he would have relented.

 

I'd say it's a rather fair interpetation of the rules. Jon rode off with the intention of never coming back. Whatever convinces him to turn back at that point really doesn't matter. He's guilty. Quite frankly I don't see him having passed anything. Like I said plenty brothers likely have families in harms way because of the eruption of the war, yet they didn't skirt their oaths to go save their loved ones-Jon did however. For that he deserves no applause.  To be clear, I feel sorry for the guy; he clearly needed to have sit down with his father on the pros and cons of joining the watch, why he wants to do it, and what other options he could have; he didn't. 

The kind of lenient interpetation you seem to be advocating for would make brothers think if caught trying to desert all they need to do is apologize, tempting more people to actually fully cut and run. There is a distinct difference between allowing a brother to go to mole's town for some loving, and excusing a blantant attempt to abandon the watch altogether. One could be argued to have some good(I doubt it given masturebation is an option which could relieve a person of sexual frustration), but the other simply cannot. Brothers must know the watch is a life career and the only way out is death.  

huh?  Except he didn't.  This is like saying someone's guilty of murder if they conceive of a plan to murder someone, but before they even reach the location of their target they are convinced otherwise and don't follow through with the murder.  Are they still guilty of murder?  Jon thought about "skirting his oaths to go save loved ones", but he didn't.  So he wasn't executed.  There was no crime, any more than the men who go off every night to Mole's Town aren't deserting.  Jon took a ride during the night when he could have been sleeping and did not have duties to attend to, he was back in the morning to fulfill the duties he had when he was needed to.  How is it desertion?

[Angel Eyes]

58 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Look, the watch has been operating for ten thousand years.  This is not the first time that some ambitious nobleman tried to dragged them into their game.  Throughout all that time, the watch has maintained its integrity and managed to keep itself above the games that nobles play.  There is no excuse for the watch to let itself get dragged into the conflict between families. 

My point was that in the timeline of the books, Jon wasn’t the only person to drag the Watch into the conflicts. Tywin refused to aid the Watch unless Janos Slynt was named Lord Commander... which is rather stupid, considering that Slynt is an incompetent.