Is The Concept Of The Night's Watch Obsolete?

[Tagganaro]

20 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Tywin has not taken any vows.  It's unethical to be sure.  But a man of the watch has no excuse.  He has taken the vows and therefore does not interfere in the quarrel that happens between houses, regardless of how he feels about it, regardless of the outcome for the family where he came from.  Regardless of what a man like Tywin might try to do.  A dedicated brother of the watch does not take sides.  A man of the watch, like Halfhand, puts all of that behind him and dedicates himself, totally, to the watch.  The halfhand was just a ranger.  Jon was the lord commander who had a greater obligation to the watch.  Lard boy was wrong to get him elected.  Sam's feelings got in the way.  He should have known better after Snowman already tried to escape to help Robb.

Again, there's nothing in the vows about "not interfering in quarrels" or "taking no sides" or any nonsense like that.  So there's no difference between what Tywin is doing and what Jon is doing.  

On 2/26/2018 at 2:32 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

If a person is caught in the process of going to murder someone, (they've purchased a gun and they've let their intentions known and started their way on their target)and has to be talked down from actually doing it by law enforcement, the person would be still be arrested and tried and likely convicted. Jon wasn't going about for a leisure stroll around the woods of castle black thinking about what if he left. He was caught attempting to desert and freely admits had his friends not stood in his way he wouldn't have stopped riding south to try to save his kin. Its not just thinking.

Yes, the person may be arrested for conspiracy to commit murder or worst-case attempted murder, but he would not be arrested for murder.  You can't have a murder if you know, nobody is actually murdered.  Likewise, there's no treason if you don't actually have a treason.  At best under a criminal code you would have conspiracy.  As Mormont points out, the way you would be trying to enforce this all the brothers who go to Mole's Town should also be convicted and killed for treason, which would make a population of about 2 people in the Night's Watch maybe?

[Varysblackfyre321]

11 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

I think you're misreading the chapter. The whole thing is clearly an internal struggle for Jon as he decides what to do and who he is. He has a similar struggle when Stannis offers him Winterfell. These are "tests" for him, just like fArya.

Yes. It is. How does that any refute what I said? If his friends had simply went "Ah Jon your oaths, Your oaths" without making perfectly clear they'd never let him leave likely Jon(as he admits on his own he wouldn't have come back), would do just that; leave. He can either kill them or go back with them; he broke to the pressure of his brothers to do the honorble thing and relented. He failed this test. Again, plenty of brothers have families who'd been likely put at risk due to the implosion of the war, much more than the Starks if they're peasants in the areas to which the war is being fought; we do not see any of them galavanting off to save their loved ones, as Jon had done. Jon refused Stannis's offer; pragmatic towards his interests and practical I'd say. Jon let loose possibly the worst turncoat the watch has ever had and mass murderer of the men he'd called his brothers for the express purpose of fetching his sister; he fails miserably here. 

12 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

This is an example of realistic and humane leadership over harsh versions of justice such as Stannis. Simply executing people because they violated the letter of the law would be bonkers. Jon had an internal struggle and came out stronger for it. The Old Bear had a choice between continuing to train a talented and dedicated successor, or executing him because he had a momentary lapse. It's really no choice, and quite bizarre that you think lopping Jon's head off would have been an appropriate response to his behaviour. 

On February 26, 2018 at 9:39 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Its quite bizarre this effort to mitigate the severity of what Jon had done as something totally minor, that to execute a man for attempting to desert is somehow a overally "harsh" punishment. A lot of brothers will  fantasize about "what if I left the watch". That's normal. Who wouldn't? I'm sure many a man want go home see their families and homes, at least one more time before they died. Some/a lot may gush out loud the unfairness of it all; that to be expected; life in the watch is hard and cold. Such things must be tolerated. What should not be tolerated is when thoughts become actions. The idea a brother if caught trying to desert merely has to surrender(eventually) peacefully,  apologize for his wrong doing to avoid any sort of reprisal I find invites other to attempt similar feats;"how far can I go before getting caught? And if I get caught will I get in trouble?" They will think and ever more tempted to actually try. There can be no room for confusion; if you try to/do leave the brotherhood, you will have a severe consequence; your father getting   murdered is no more an excuse for doing such a thing than a man having simply left by virtue of being bored. I wager if Jon wasn't  caught by those not beholden to him, that it was knowledge for all what Jon did, Jeor knows he'd have no choice but execute Jon or risk the brothers thinking they too could try to abandon the order. Yes, Jeor likely skirted doing his duty as lord commandeder and giving Justice to Jon largely impart because of who Jon is and his plans for the boy. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

13 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

Yes, the person may be arrested for conspiracy to commit murder or worst-case attempted murder, but he would not be arrested for murder.  You can't have a murder if you know, nobody is actually murdered.  Likewise, there's no treason if you don't actually have a treason.  At best under a criminal code you would have conspiracy.  As Mormont points out, the way you would be trying to enforce this all the brothers who go to Mole's Town should also be convicted and killed for treason, which would make a population of about 2 people in the Night's Watch maybe?

Yes you can't be be charged with murder with murder if there hasn't been a murderer to charge you with. You'd likely avoid the death penalty in a lot of countries having not actually killed someone; likely you'll get life(near it) for the attempt. A punishment still for the action to which was illegal. Attempting to do something illegal I'm pretty sure is still a crime; just because you were caught while in the process of going to commit treason doesn't mean suddenly you're off the hook since you couldn't completely follow through with your plan. In a feudal context likely the attempt alone would justify executioning a person. Going to mole town for a screw(though could be stopped without the destruction of the watch a gelding and hanging or two would likely dissuade many from besmirching protocol and men could pleasure themselves when nature calls-I honestly think Jeor is just really sympathetic to the bros plight and wants to make their burden a little bit more bearable at least), is not the same thing as trying to desert the order all together, which is what Jon did. The situations are not a perfect parallel and the lenient treatment for brothers who do take some RNR at moles town is really going to viewed as justification for why a man could attempt to ditch the order all together, get caught and all he has to do is simply say I'm sorry. Quite frankly, Jon is lucky his friends had been the ones to have discovered trying to do this; if it had been anyone else not even Jeor could justify such an action to go unpunished. 

[Bullrout]

On 2/26/2018 at 5:12 PM, Julia H. said:

Yoren wasn't killed for being a Stark sympathizer. No one knew he was hiding Arya. They knew he had Gendry, but Gendry was protected by the law: Whatever you have done, you will be absolved of guilt if you join the NW. (That's one of the few benefits the NW actually offers to recruits.) They were all bound for the Wall in the company of the NW recruiting officer, so their intention was totally clear. It was not only Yoren's right but also his duty to defend his recruits in the name of the NW and the law.      

As a matter of fact, Yoren broke no rules by attempting to accompany Arya to Winterfell. Arya wasn't on any public "wanted" list that Yoren should have known about - the Lannister soldiers and the goldcloaks were looking for her privately, and her disappearance from the Red Keep was kept a secret. She was a child and a girl, not one of the politically active members of her family, and Yoren didn't steal her from the Lannisters. Interfering in the Catelyn-Tyrion conflict would have qualified as "taking part", but there is no rule that prohibits NW members from taking home a lost orphan they've found in the street, instead of leaving her out there to starve to death. 

1. Gendry doesn't have protection until after he says his words.  He doesn't get absolved until then. 
2. Yoren knew the authorities were looking for Arya even if there was no public announcement. 

[The Sunland Lord]

6 hours ago, Bullrout said:

1. Gendry doesn't have protection until after he says his words.  He doesn't get absolved until then. 
2. Yoren knew the authorities were looking for Arya even if there was no public announcement. 

So do you think that if Gendry has spoken the words, Cersei would say : "Oooooh, he said the words...Well, we're just gonna let it go then." ? 

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

11 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yes, Jeor likely skirted doing his duty as lord commandeder and giving Justice to Jon largely impart because of who Jon is and his plans for the boy. 

There is zero indication in the books that that was Mormont's reasoning. Instead, he clearly states that he's lenient because he recognises the relative innocence of Jon's actions. 

Frankly, your continued insistence on this matter is getting a little weird. 

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

12 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

The idea a brother if caught trying to desert merely has to surrender(eventually) peacefully,  apologize for his wrong doing to avoid any sort of reprisal I find invites other to attempt similar feats;"how far can I go before getting caught? And if I get caught will I get in trouble?" They will think and ever more tempted to actually try. There can be no room for confusion; if you try to/do leave the brotherhood, you will have a severe consequence; your father getting   murdered is no more an excuse for doing such a thing than a man having simply left by virtue of being bored. I wager if Jon wasn't  caught by those not beholden to him, that it was knowledge for all what Jon did, Jeor knows he'd have no choice but execute Jon or risk the brothers thinking they too could try to abandon the order. Yes, Jeor likely skirted doing his duty as lord commandeder and giving Justice to Jon largely impart because of who Jon is and his plans for the boy. 

It's interesting that two people can have so wildly different interpretations of the text. I honestly didn't think this point was debatable!

In my opinion, what Jeor shows here is real leadership. Ask any half decent manager, and they'll tell you that when it comes to discipline, one of the key skills is knowing the difference between when someone has had a lapse, but has real potential and is worth investing time and support into, and when someone is beyond help. The details of the actual infraction are a secondary consideration to whether they are likely to do it again, whether there's room for improvement, or whether the infraction is a reflection of their character or just a mistake.

A good leader, like Mormont, will know the difference between a man like Jon, who is genuinely struggling with his vows and their implications, but is fundamentally honest and moral, and really does try to do the right thing, and someone like, say, Chett, who doesn't give a damn about his vows and only keeps to the rules because of fear of the consequences. 

 

[Julia H.]

9 hours ago, Bullrout said:

1. Gendry doesn't have protection until after he says his words.  He doesn't get absolved until then. 
2. Yoren knew the authorities were looking for Arya even if there was no public announcement. 

1. Quote, please? Yoren obviously disagrees with you, and I suppose he knows the law / rules regarding the vows and especially the status of fresh recruits. Also, the recruits who arrive at the Wall to avoid punishment and who train with Jon obviously enjoy protection during their training period, as no one requires them to say the words at once, yet they are not kept in prison before taking the vows. Is there anything in the text that supports your opinion?

2. So what? He was intelligent enough to guess what Cersei would want, but he wasn't required to obey any unspoken demands.

Anyway, even if he knew, his murderers didn't know he knew or that he had Arya. He was killed despite claiming NW neutrality, even though he didn't take part in the fights until his party was attacked. That shows blatant disregard for Watch neutrality on the part of the soldiers. 

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

1 minute ago, Julia H. said:

2. So what? He was intelligent enough to guess what Cersei would want, but he wasn't required to obey any unspoken demands.

Anyway, even if he knew, his murderers didn't know he knew or that he had Arya. He was killed despite claiming NW neutrality, even though he didn't take part in the fights until his party was attacked. That shows blatant disregard for Watch neutrality on the part of the soldiers.

Absolutely. Also, I think it's truly bizarre that people think that Yoren "intervening" to save Arya is somehow a mark against him. 

Firstly, the NW are obligated to not intervene in conflicts between houses, they're not obligated to hand over little girls to be executed, or leave them to die in the streets. There's nothing in their vows which prevents them from helping people who need help is there? 

Also, surely it's just common decency to look after a child whose father's just been killed, and try to get her to safety, vows or no vows. When Yoren came across Arya at Ned's execution, what was he meant to do, just walk away? I think any decent human being would try to help her, and I wouldn't really trust anyone who wouldn't. 

[Julia H.]

On 2018. 02. 26. at 5:40 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

So what do you specifically recommend the NW do to improve? 

I have to trying to offer the same benefits of the Kingsguard seem not doable. There are plenty of tourneys for the King's guard to delve into because they're in the south where there is a knight culture; north not really. 

They will be seen continuously with the king so there will always be seen with the king (naturally) so they get plenty of respect; and they'd live in luxury in the king's own castle and families would put forward there sons who show talent forward as canindates because it reflects really kindly on them and perhaps win favor with the monarch. 

I didn't suggest that NW members should enjoy the same privileges as KG members. Of course, that would be impossible. Still, there is a lot of room between the benefits KG members enjoy and what the black brothers receive. If they want more recruits (and not only criminals and old men) in the NW, then they should make the status of NW members (at least of those who do not come straight from prison) less punitive and more attractive. Whether it should be land or a retirement scheme or the possibilty to have a family or glory and recognition or a more comfortable life while in service should probably depend on what sort of recruits they want to attract most of all and on what is possible to offer. Jon, for example, when he wanted to recruit wildlings, offered terms that were designed to be attractive to the wildlings. If you want to attract, for example, knights, you will need to offer something that will be attractive to them. If you want to invite peasant boys most of all, it's worth tailoring the rules according to that. If you want warriors from all walks of life, you have to design conditions that can attract lots of different people. If you can't give anything more than what the NW can offer at the moment, then at least try to take away less from the recruits.   

On 2018. 02. 27. at 0:13 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

And giving that tidbit of information? 

Telling Ned that Cat had taken Tyrion prisoner? I don't see what is wrong with that. Yoren had direct information about a member of Ned's family, informaton that Ned would probablly want to know. Yoren had an audience with the Hand, who offered help to the Night's Watch and showed genuine respect towards the organization Yoren represented as well as towards the envoy himself. So Yoren had the opportunity to share this information with him. I guess if it had been Cersei, not Ned, to treat Yoren in that kind and respectful way, it would have been Cersei to hear that bit of information from Yoren, as it also concerned a family member of hers. 

This information wasn't some strategic military secret that Yoren would have found out specifically in order to serve the Starks. Yoren just happened to be the first to inform Ned. In addition, at this point Ned wasn't taking part in any war against any family. Cat had arrested Tyrion in the Riverlands with the help of her father's bannermen, while emphasizing what they owed to her father and to her Tully family. The conflict could have been between the Tullys and the Lannisters or just between two people (Catelyn and Tyrion). For all Yoren knew, Ned might have been able to prevent the conflict from accelerating and stop the war before it started.    

The purpose of the neutrality of the Night's Watch is to prevent the Wach from supporting one of the warring factions in an internal conflict with its military power or from starting an internal conflict using the NW's (former) military might. It doesn't mean that specific NW members are prohibited from talking to anyone who might be or become (in the future) involved in an internal conflict, even war, or that they have to break all ties and communication with a long-time supporter of the Watch just because the lord in question has a quarrel with another lord. The NW must not go to war on behalf of one lord against the other, but they do not promise to become deaf, blind and mute. 

On 2018. 02. 27. at 0:13 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

 Also what would you do to improve the watch?

I tried to answer this question above, but I do not claim to have the ultimate recipe. I only know that you either have a strong, respected organization with devoted and talented members or a military prison colony. You can't have both. So if you want to have a better NW, you need changes, and those changes should raise the NW from a punitive colony to an organization that is regarded as a realistic vocational option for skilled young warriors. The rules should be examined so they could see which ones are dated and impractical and which ones serve their purpose well. New rules may be taken into consideration, and so on. There is nothing wrong with that in itself, lots of circumstances change over time, human laws and rules are bound to change as well. The important thing is that they should improve when they change. 

Based on what we see happening in the books, I find it a very convincing theory that the original NW vow included only the first part, the clauses about identification and not the more punitive ones about what you have to give up. After all, if you wholeheartedly identify with your role as the sword in the darkness, the shield that protects the realms of men, and so on, then why do you need those inhumanly strict rules that make you give up everything a human being may hold dear? 

 

[The Commentator]

22 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

Again, there's nothing in the vows about "not interfering in quarrels" or "taking no sides" or any nonsense like that.  So there's no difference between what Tywin is doing and what Jon is doing.  

Yes, the person may be arrested for conspiracy to commit murder or worst-case attempted murder, but he would not be arrested for murder.  You can't have a murder if you know, nobody is actually murdered.  Likewise, there's no treason if you don't actually have a treason.  At best under a criminal code you would have conspiracy.  As Mormont points out, the way you would be trying to enforce this all the brothers who go to Mole's Town should also be convicted and killed for treason, which would make a population of about 2 people in the Night's Watch maybe?

There is a big difference between what Tywin and Jon are doing.  Tywin is an outsider.  He's not a sworn brother of the Watch.  Now, understand, I'm not saying Tywin has the right to interfere with the Night's Watch.  He doesn't.  He's not supposed to.  But Jon is held to a much higher standard because he is a man of the Watch and he is subject to the rules and the laws that govern the Watch.  Jon is not supposed to send his agents to take Ramsay's wife away.  Jon was completely wrong. 

[Julia H.]

1 hour ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Absolutely. Also, I think it's truly bizarre that people think that Yoren "intervening" to save Arya is somehow a mark against him. 

Firstly, the NW are obligated to not intervene in conflicts between houses, they're not obligated to hand over little girls to be executed, or leave them to die in the streets. There's nothing in their vows which prevents them from helping people who need help is there? 

Also, surely it's just common decency to look after a child whose father's just been killed, and try to get her to safety, vows or no vows. When Yoren came across Arya at Ned's execution, what was he meant to do, just walk away? I think any decent human being would try to help her, and I wouldn't really trust anyone who wouldn't. 

Thank you, I totally agree. I can see why it is undesirable that the NW as a more or less independent military organization should get involved in internal fights. But it is unrealistic and unreasonable to demand that every single NW member should avoid all communication and interaction with everyone who may be just remotely involved in an internal conflict, even to the detriment of the noblest of human instincts, such as the protection of a child in trouble. How would the realm benefit from that?

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

18 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

The purpose of the neutrality of the Night's Watch is to prevent the Wach from supporting one of the warring factions in an internal conflict with its military power or from starting an internal conflict using the NW's (former) military might. It doesn't mean that specific NW members are prohibited from talking to anyone who might be or become (in the future) involved in an internal conflict, even war, or that they have to break all ties and communication with a long-time supporter of the Watch just because the lord in question has a quarrel with another lord. The NW must not go to war on behalf of one lord against the other, but they do not promise to become deaf, blind and mute. 

Once again, @Julia H. is spot on. The purpose of the NW vows is to ensure that they focus solely on guarding the Wall, rather than getting involved in internal conflicts in the 7K. Their purpose isn't to make NW members completely disinterested to what's going on.

16 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Jon is not supposed to send his agents to take Ramsay's wife away.  Jon was completely wrong.

Jon broke the rules of the Nights Watch, but that's not the same as being wrong. If my little sister is being raped by a madman, I'm breaking every rule there's ever been to save her. At that point, fuck the rules.  

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

2 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

Thank you, I totally agree. I can see why it is undesirable that the NW as a more or less independent military organization should get involved in internal fights. But it is unrealistic and unreasonable to demand that every single NW member should avoid all communication and interaction with everyone who may be just remotely involved in an internal conflict, even to the detriment of the noblest of human instincts, such as the protection of a child in trouble. How would the realm benefit from that?

Again, spot on. 

[The Commentator]

8 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Once again, @Julia H. is spot on. The purpose of the NW vows is to ensure that they focus solely on guarding the Wall, rather than getting involved in internal conflicts in the 7K. Their purpose isn't to make NW members completely disinterested to what's going on.

There is a big difference between being interested and taking action.  Look, I'm sure Ser Alliser wants to see the Baratheon monarchy to die.  But wanting it, wishing it, dreaming it is not the same as taking action to make it happen.  Jon was never neutral.  He always was very partial to the Starks.  As long as he doesn't act upon it, it's not a sin.  But when he let that bias affect his judgment of a disorderly brother, Slynt and the worst criminal, Mance, it became a problem.  Jon was no longer able to carry out justice.  

Jon broke the rules of the Nights Watch, but that's not the same as being wrong. If my little sister is being raped by a madman, I'm breaking every rule there's ever been to save her. At that point, fuck the rules.  

If Jon was an ordinary farmer who put the welfare of his daughter ahead of his community and in the process put the safety of that community at risk, yes, he would be wrong.  Selfish.  For the lord commander of an organization whose mission is to protect the kingdom, yes, Jon was wrong.  Very wrong.  So you would break every rule to save your sister and you would be very wrong.  You would be in the wrong.  Just the kind of person who would try to defend Jon's actions at the wall.  

 

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

12 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

If Jon was an ordinary farmer who put the welfare of his daughter ahead of his community and in the process put the safety of that community at risk, yes, he would be wrong.  Selfish.  For the lord commander of an organization whose mission is to protect the kingdom, yes, Jon was wrong.  Very wrong.  So you would break every rule to save your sister and you would be very wrong.  You would be in the wrong.  Just the kind of person who would try to defend Jon's actions at the wall.  

Yes, the world is harder on people at the bottom of the pile than the top. I agree.

As to the rest, I don't really know how to argue against it. Yes, of course some vows I may have made to some smelly old dudes dressed in black mean less to me than my love for my sister. Are we really debating that?

[Julia H.]

Jon being biased against that "disorderly brother", Slynt (LOL): Yes, he is biased, as everyone would be in his place, yet, he does everything that is possible not to act upon his bias. He gives the man command of a castle, to remove him from his sight to avoid possible conflicts. He gives a very similar task to Giant, who humbly accepts the position and the responsibility, while Slynt, who, by the way, is also biased, refuses the chance Jon is giving him. Then Jon gives him another chance, still trying not to punish the man, and then yet another. I'm pretty sure the repeated chances are given because Jon knows he is biased and does not want to punish him because of his bias. But Slynt doesn't change his mind. Moreover, his behaviour becomes more and more provoking so that Jon has to do something about him.  

As for Slynt being "disorderly", it sounds as though he had left his bedroom in a mess or had drunk a glass too many. No, what Slynt is trying to do is undermine the chosen Lord Commander's authority, the chain of command that a military organization is based on. Worst still, Slynt was a commander himself, he understands what the chain of command means, so he knows exactly what he is doing. And what is his explanation? He finds Castle Black a more comfortable place than a castle which would be his job to restore and put to good use - a totally selfish reason. It is not hard to imagine what damage it would do if Jon let him get away with this behaviour after repeated warnings. 

Mance was a deserter but he also tried to save thousands of people from the Others. He spent years among the wildlings and became their military and political leader. When Jon meets him, he sees him not primarily as a deserter but as the leader of the enemy force, someone to fight against but also someone who could be negotiated with when it came to peace talks and even someone who could be a potential ally against the common enemy, which could be useful for the Watch and the realm. A true leader cannot be narrow-minded, and if you must judge a man, you should consider both the negative and the positive qualities. 

2 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

As to the rest, I don't really know how to argue against it. Yes, of course some vows I may have made to some smelly old dudes dressed in black mean less to me than my love for my sister. Are we really debating that?

Apparently, some people do. 

Not taking the human factor into consideration is always a mistake. In real history, we have seen whole army units desert rather than being forced to fight against their compatriots. 

Jon gave up his family voluntarily in order to serve the realm at a time when giving up his family meant sacrifice on his part but he could be sure that his family members would do fine without him, as the Starks were a powerful and prosperous family. When Jon gave up his family to join the Night's Watch he intended to sacrifice himself for the realm (a noble sacrifice), not to sacrifice his family (a not so noble sacrifice).  

Then his family was gradually destroyed. Jon eventually accepted that fighting for the whole realm was more important than avenging the death of his father - he couldn't bring him back anyway. He also accepted that Robb had others to rely on, even Bran and Rickon had people to look after them and protect them (until they were "killed", at least), and Sansa was out of his reach, and as "Lady Lannister" perhaps not requiring much help. But then suddenly he is informed that his little sister, alone, in mortal danger, with no one alive to protect her any more, possibly starving in a cold, wild and very dangerous place (on a dying horse), is fleeing to him, as her only surviving family member, for help. Giving up protecting this little sister in this desperate situation was never the sacrifice Jon meant to make when he gave up his family for the Watch.

I don't even know how I could trust a man who in this situation could remain indifferent towards his sister with the protection of the whole realm and of all humankind. Don't we notice that the main war in this novel is between the human (flawed and precarious but also great and wonderful) and the inhuman, symbolized by the cold, unknown threat from the North but also manifest wherever children and other helpless, innocent people are killed, raped or tortured? 

[Julia H.]

3 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

There is a big difference between what Tywin and Jon are doing.  Tywin is an outsider.  He's not a sworn brother of the Watch.  Now, understand, I'm not saying Tywin has the right to interfere with the Night's Watch.  He doesn't.  He's not supposed to.  But Jon is held to a much higher standard because he is a man of the Watch and he is subject to the rules and the laws that govern the Watch.  Jon is not supposed to send his agents to take Ramsay's wife away.  Jon was completely wrong. 

Tywin is the Hand of the King, holding the second highest position in the realm. The NW is part of the realm, and the right of the black brothers to choose their own commander also means they have the right to be left alone, in this respect, by the powers that be. The rules concerning the relationship of the NW and the rest of the realm (such as the degree of independence the NW enjoys and the neutrality) are not only NW rules, but also the laws of the realm. As officially the second most powerful person of the realm, Tywin should be held to the highest possible standard when upholding the laws and rules of the realm. 

[The Commentator]

2 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Yes, the world is harder on people at the bottom of the pile than the top. I agree.

As to the rest, I don't really know how to argue against it. Yes, of course some vows I may have made to some smelly old dudes dressed in black mean less to me than my love for my sister. Are we really debating that?

The vows you made to those men in black are more important than your sister.  Put the greater good ahead of what's good for your sister or your family.  

If that same farmer who saved his sister and put his community at risk in the process was the mayor, you can be sure the people of the town would vote him out and he would never be elected again.  People who are leaders have a greater responsibility than looking out for little sister.  For that reason, I supported Bowen Marsh and his decision to end Jon's leadership.  Bowen had the right of it.  

We have gone away from the main topic of the NW and changes.  The watch can adapt to the threat but the watch should never change to the extent that it starts playing the game of thrones.  It would not exist very long after it takes that road and involves itself in the feuds between the noble families.  

Look, it comes across as unsympathetic to have high expectations of the Men In Black.  But you know, there is high expectations for the fighting men on the front lines of battle.  The rules are harsh and even as recently as WWI, a soldier can be shot for cowardice.  I believe the expectations are justifiable because of the needs of the kingdom and the seriousness of their tasks.  I know, some men are not cut out for it and they choose the easy way out, like Mance Rayder.  That's fine, but they should pay the price like Gared did in chapter 1 if/when they get caught.  

[The Commentator]

3 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

Tywin is the Hand of the King, holding the second highest position in the realm. The NW is part of the realm, and the right of the black brothers to choose their own commander also means they have the right to be left alone, in this respect, by the powers that be. The rules concerning the relationship of the NW and the rest of the realm (such as the degree of independence the NW enjoys and the neutrality) are not only NW rules, but also the laws of the realm. As officially the second most powerful person of the realm, Tywin should be held to the highest possible standard when upholding the laws and rules of the realm. 

Sure, Tywin was the Hand of the King.  That same king should stop Tywin from what he was about to do, meddle with the affairs of the watch.  But unfortunately, there was nobody around Tywin who had the fine morals of Bowen Marsh to tell him so.  In this regards, the Men in Black who assassinated Jon, are better people than the ones around Tywin.