The (attempted) murder of Jon was legally justifiable.

[Bedwyck]

Odd, aren't the wildlings men? NW takes up arms against them regularly.

They are. All those who did take up arms against them should not be held accountable though because it was the Nights Watch as a whole who perpetrated a long-standing, systematic, breakage of the vows that way.

Jon has no such excuse for how he broke his vow.

[butterbumps!]

Do you have an argument other than the insistence that oaths entail no duties other than those literally stated? If you do present it.

When I say x is part of a vow I mean the vow obliges me to perform the duty x. So I'm being precise because I do not ever mean to imply the words 'I shall take no part' are words in the oath.

Funny that Stannis, Jon and Mel all seem to think this too and Aemon says taking no part is the purpose of the prohibitions. Why did Martin write all this if he didn't want us to think taking no part was in the oath ...

I actually do think GrrM did mean the vow to oblige the nw to defend the realm from the Others and it is to their shame that they forgot this.

What's your argument for insisting that they are part of the vow? Because when one swears the vow, it's taken as a given that keeping neutrality is expected of them? The fact that all these Watchmen believed killing wildlings was part of their vow and duty for centuries goes to exemplify that the meaning of the vow has been lost over time, and custom and tradition have become conflated with the actual intention of the words.

There is no denying that this is an expectation of a sworn brother. It is embedded in the duty of being a Watchman. But, once again, it's not actually part of the vow.

The reason I think this is an important distinction is because if we take the things that are actually spelled out in the vow and hold it as sacred-- "protect the realms of men" in particular-- then it would seem to emphasize a rather different priority to judge actions against. That is, is keeping neutral what's sacred, or is protecting the realm the sacred duty? It's not enumerated in the other guidelines, which are about not winning glory, holding lands or titles or having a family of your own. These are the "sacred" methods of protecting the realm. Remaining neutral is decisively omitted from this as an objective or a method.

I think that this is omitted from the actual vow is interesting, in that it shows this neutrality clause, so often repeated, is custom rather than the sworn words. It shows us the custom the Watch adopted in order to maintain its existence in the past, and to that end, is understood to be the duty of every Watchmen, which has a lot of residue. But we're now given a context where the actions of the realm removed the Watch's ability to "take no part," and in fact, in order to perform the actually enumerated duty of "protecting the realms of men," further involvement is key.

If "take no part" were actually in the vow, then this would be an example of contradictory vows, as we have a circumstance where neutrality is just impossible in light of the actual duty the vow articulates. You'd end up breaking one part of the vow by virtue of either no longer existing or taking a part.

The inflexible part of the vow is what should be prioritized. The adjacent customs and duties have their place, but cannot be understood as being part of the vow simply because time has conflated them.

[KalibakCruel]

They are. However, until recently they werent considered a realm. All those who did take up arms against them should not be held accountable because it was the Nights Watch as a whole who perpetrated a long-standing, systematic, breakage of the vows that way.

Jon has no such excuse for how he broke his.

So then the whole NW should be brutally shivved. Wildings are men, their realm is beyond the wall, and they've been slaughtered due to bigotry. Bowen himself would love to continue to slaughter them.

Disband the NW, they've been breaking their own vows forever.

[Bedwyck]

All those who did take up arms against them should not be held accountable though because it was the Nights Watch as a whole who perpetrated a long-standing, systematic, breakage of the vows that way

[Bedwyck]

So then the whole NW should be brutally shivved. Wildings are men, their realm is beyond the wall, and they've been slaughtered due to bigotry. Bowen himself would love to continue to slaughter them.

Disband the NW, they've been breaking their own vows forever.

Bowen is not at all as bloodthirsty as you make him out to be. His major misgiving about befriending the Wildlings is that they wont have the food to feed them. He even helps Jon bring them through the wall and settle them.

[KalibakCruel]

All those who did take up arms against them should not be held accountable though because it was the Nights Watch as a whole who perpetrated a long-standing, systematic, breakage of the vows that way

So it being systemic and widespread makes it NOT as bad? Ok sure.

The NW is then wholly incompetent and not fit for protecting livestock.

Edit: If you as an organization cannot even read your own vows correctly, a disbanding at the very least is in order.

[Djinn]

Why is Ramsay a unacceptable monster but the Weeper isn't?

[Bedwyck]

So it being systemic and widespread makes it NOT as bad? Ok sure.

The NW is then wholly incompetent and not fit for protecting livestock.

If you were in the Nights Watch you had to go against the Wildlings. You werent given a choice.

[KalibakCruel]

If you were in the Nights Watch you had to go against the Wildlings. You werent given a choice.

Then the organization that forced me to break the vows it forced me to uphold to begin with should be immediately disbanded for incompetence at best, and superior officers should be put to death since they as leaders should've known better.

Apply logic universally or not at all

[butterbumps!]

The oath says "I am the watcher on the wall, the fire that burns against the cold". That means that Nights Watch are concerned only with the threats up north, not going around correcting injustice to the south that has nothing to do with the wall.

Taking up arms against one of the "realms of men" is oathbreaking. Theres no disputing it.

Can you cite some text where Bowen says he killed Jon because Jon chose the losing side? The only thing he ever says about it is "For the Watch"

I will cite something Jon said to all the men after reading the letter to them. "This creature who makes cloaks from the skins of women has sworn to cut my heart out,"

A part of the letter reads "I will have my bride back. If you want Mance Rayder back, come and get him. I have him in a cage for all the north to see, proof of your lies. The cage is cold, but I have made him a warm cloak from the skins of the six whores who came with him to Winterfell. I want my bride back"

So not only did Jon not deny any of it, he actually affirmed the part about Ramsay making Mance a cloak from the skins of the women who were with him.

It is clear that Jon had clearly done something to really piss Ramsay off, else no raging sociopathic letter would have ever been sent. In the letter, Ramsay stresses that he "wants his bride back' and for Jon to "send them to me". Ramsay wouldnt be sending an angry letter, demanding his bride back if Jon truly had nothing to do with it.

These are slanderous accusations of oathbreaking. If they were false. Jon would have made a big point about denying them. Simple as that.

As per my previous post, neutrality is not actually part of the goddam vow. There is no swearing to take no arms in that oath. If there were, then we'd have a case of contradictory vows since we have a circumstance such that Stannis' arrival removed any chance of the Watch's keeping neutral, while opposing him in any way would have meant the Watch wouldn't exist as the Watch, and therefore, wouldn't be able to perform their actually specified duty. Tolerating Stannis at the Wall at all would be "oathbreaking."

Jon didn't deny it, but also didn't confirm it. You know, reading out loud how Ramsay thinks he has Mance, is blaming Jon for it and goes around skinning people makes Ramsay look like a raving lunatic. It doesn't make Jon look like he's guilty of something.

All those who did take up arms against them should not be held accountable though because it was the Nights Watch as a whole who perpetrated a long-standing, systematic, breakage of the vows that way

You mean that Lorch, under Cersei's command shouldn't be held accountable for breaking Watch neutrality when he attacked Yoren's party? Or Tywin trying to strongarm the Watch into electing Slynt with the threat of cutting off resources is justified? These actions were the Watch's fault, and anything the Watch does to not be trampled on is more wrong than those doing the trampling?

If you want to make an anti-Jon argument, I think the better route is to stop harping on this neutrality business and criticize him for not going far enough, taking half measures with it. The Arya mission was a half measure. That's where I think he fucked up with it.

[Lady Blizzardborn]

Why is Ramsay a unacceptable monster but the Weeper isn't?

Where does anyone say the Weeper is acceptable?

Ramsay is playing at being a noble Lord of Westeros. The Weeper isn't pretending to be something he's not. Besides, he's a Wildling and they are expected to be savages. ;)

[Bedwyck]

Then the organization that forced me to break the vows it forced me to uphold to begin with should be immediately disbanded for incompetence at best, and superior officers should be put to death since they as leaders should've known better.

Apply logic universally or not at all

They should be restructured, not disbanded.

[KalibakCruel]

They should be restructured, not disbanded.

Disbanded. If you couldn't read your own vows correctly and your leaders ordered the breaking of said vows, ordered the deaths of men, it should be disbanded, and those officers should face trial and execution.

That is a massive amount of incompetence to not read your own vows correctly for such a long time. An organization with that level of incompetence needs to be disbanded yesterday.

[Jasta11]

Well, I can and I just have. Choosing the LC is a nw matter and since Lord Tywin's help would be nice they can consider whether to appoint Slynt, especially so as this might avoid placing them in a situation were they have to take part in the affairs of the realm by fighting the IT over accusations of disloyalty. Do you seriously think Bowen was taking part in the affairs of the realm by showing his colleagues a letter he received in response for help! That seems pretty crazy to me. Are you really maintaining that by divulging the contents Bowen's actions were equivalent to Jon's attempted march on Ramsay?

Yes there is. Write to Ramsay or approach him by messengers and explain the situation in some way. This gives him time to cool down and be more reasonable if he wants, or if his father forces him. So long as the ball is in Ramsay's court Jon is observing the neutrality required by the nw.

Actually it is not because people want different things from neutrality. The nw wants to preserve its ability to guard the realm and not to be drawn into politics. By responding in the way he did Jon made the deleterious consequences of taking part unavoidable while negotiation of any form would have at least given the watch the chance to avoid them.

I do think the RW would not have happened if Robb had not married Jeyne and GrrM agrees with me, you can check out the SSMs.

If you think ''taking no part'' is an absolute and set in stone, then yeah siding with Slynt because he's backed by Tywin is bad. Because that's involving the NW in realm politics. Or you could be pragmatic about the tradition. I'm not saying Jon didn't break his vows, I'm saying that Marsh of all people is among the last that can judge him for it because he tried to do the same thing, on a lesser extent of course but he still did. Pragmatically the situations aren't equal but you seem to take a moral stance. Let's just know which is which is all.

And negociate with the guy who sent a letter saying you either do what he says (which involves destroying everything you built as a leader and then some) or he kills you? Yeah, that will work. What can Jon offer that will cool Ramsay off, anyway? Jon can't exactly just sing a lullaby to him and hope for the best. He would have to offer him something. And offering him anything is taking part. Placating people like the Boltons is going to take a lot more than sweet words. Especially when they ask for so much in the first place.

Also, let's remember how the Boltons ''negociate''. At the Moat. With the squatters of Winterfell. These guys don't exactly have a stellar reputation. Trusting them to uphold their end of a bargain out of principle seems risky at best. And since they have the (much) bigger end of the stick, there's nothing stopping them from going back on their end of the bargain if they wish to.

The SSM said it wouldn't have happened as it did. Not that Robb would have been safe and sound and Walder/Roose would have had no second thoughts about staying on the losing side. The situations have lots of similarities, and Marsh is not an impartial guy who only ever cares about tradition and never has ulterior motives. He saw Stannis was on the losing side, and didn't want to be involved with him. So he acted. Stupidly, but he acted.

[Hodor the Articulate]

The main argument justifying the assasination seems to be that Jon was breaking the neutrality of the NW, but has been mentioned, the NW does not explicitly vow to not interfere with the Realm's affairs. Jon was, technically, not an oathbreaker.

Even if it was part of their vows, I think it would be rather impractical and impossible to keep, in certain situations, as many vows are. How can the Watch continue to "take no part" in the disputes of the Realm when the Realm involves the Watch in their disputes? Not assisting Stannis in any way, automatically means he is supporting Tommin, and vice versa. Similarly, Jon would be meddling in politics no matter how he responds to Ramsey's demands. Bowen Marsh stabbing Jon could be seen as a political act as well (and it undoubtedly was), supporting Ramsey and, by extension, Tommin, over Stannis...which means someone would have to stab him, and then someone else would have to stab that guy. The NW would be empty if everyone were that rigid.

[Chaircat Meow]

What's your argument for insisting that they are part of the vow?

Because when one swears the vow, it's taken as a given that keeping neutrality is expected of them?

It is not just taken as a given, it is actually said explicitly in DwD to be part of the vows by Jon and Stannis. This is also Mel's impression. Why do they all think this if it is obvious, on account of the fact the express words do not appear, that taking no part is not in the vow? A rather elementary mistake to make, no, especially as people's honour depends on this stuff.

The fact that all these Watchmen believed killing wildlings was part of their vow and duty for centuries goes to exemplify that the meaning of the vow has been lost over time, and custom and tradition have become conflated with the actual intention of the words.

True, but I think the metaphors in the oath do point towards the Others being the real menace and this point is made by Mormont, Jon and others. It seems obvious the threat is from the north as well, given other menaces to the realm are never thought to be the province of the nw.

There is no denying that this is an expectation of a sworn brother. It is embedded in the duty of being a Watchman. But, once again, it's not actually part of the vow.

Except so many say it is and you know when I say it is part of the vow I don't mean the words literally appear.

The reason I think this is an important distinction is because if we take the things that are actually spelled out in the vow and hold it as sacred-- "protect the realms of men" in particular-- then it would seem to emphasize a rather different priority to judge actions against. That is, is keeping neutral what's sacred, or is protecting the realm the sacred duty? It's not enumerated in the other guidelines, which are about not winning glory, holding lands or titles or having a family of your own. These are the "sacred" methods of protecting the realm. Remaining neutral is decisively omitted from this as an objective or a method.

2 points.

Aemon in GoT was pretty clear that there was a broader reason behind some of those prohibitions. The nw take no wives and children because love is the bane of duty but this was thought to be a problem, according to him, because it split loyalties. The men who took no wives and children still had other relatives and these relatives still posed the same problem. Split loyalties is apparently the issue because they would cause the nw to take part in the quarrels of the realm. So taking no part appears to be the reason for the prohibitions, and, crucially, Aemon thereby implies that the no wives and children issue is only one aspect of the problem. The divided loyalties leading to intervention were the real issue, but because you can't specifically prohibit people having brothers (for obvious reasons) there is no literal indication in the vow all divided loyalties were supposed to be ended in order to 'take no part.' So, by Aemon's explanation the vow is kind of incomplete. It contains some middle level duties, like taking no wives, and wearing no crowns that allow you to fulfil the real duty (taking no part). Sub duties are assumed to be part of this too, as we see when Jon assumed sleeping with Ygritte means he broke a vow (again, he's a dunderhead if it is common sense to assume he was bound to no such duty).

Point 2

The actual prohibitions are often a bit meaningless. How do you not 'win glory.' They are also pointless. Not wearing a crown is clear cut but surely it is what the crown symbolizes that is the problem (power, a stake in the power struggle). So it follows that they all actually add up to something that is comprehensive and meaningful and that is withdrawal from the affairs of the realm in order to protect the realm.

I think that this is omitted from the actual vow is interesting, in that it shows this neutrality clause, so often repeated, is custom rather than the sworn words. It shows us the custom the Watch adopted in order to maintain its existence in the past, and to that end, is understood to be the duty of every Watchmen, which has a lot of residue. But we're now given a context where the actions of the realm removed the Watch's ability to "take no part," and in fact, in order to perform the actually enumerated duty of "protecting the realms of men," further involvement is key.

I don't actually think their ability to take no part was removed, especially not if we see them as having a duty to actually create the space for their own neutrality.

In any case though, why do people think taking no part is 'in' the vows. It certainly isn't actually claimed to be a tradition by anyone at the wall (although Pycelle's wording might support you) so the fact the words are not themselves present apparently does not interest anyone in story. Why if their omission is an indication taking no part is not even in the oath? Why even bother beating yourself up about something so obvious. It would be really silly.

If "take no part" were actually in the vow, then this would be an example of contradictory vows, as we have a circumstance where neutrality is just impossible in light of the actual duty the vow articulates. You'd end up breaking one part of the vow by virtue of either no longer existing or taking a part.

Any time you take an oath is always possible it will become impossible to fulfil. This doesn't speak to the question of what behaviour the vows bind to.

The adjacent customs and duties have their place, but cannot be understood as being part of the vow simply because time has conflated them.

All real duties apart from the trivial ones need interpretation and custom to mean anything. Splitting the text and the prevailing interpretation on the grounds the latter is custom and tradition is totally pointless. It doesn't work, it gives you no meaningful duties.

Who do you defend the realm from? Pirates, Dornish ...

How do you win no glory ...

Is exercising the powers of a king ok providing you don't wear a crown.

What even are the realms of men. Does that include wildlings. Free cities?

Using the literal wording is so reductive it means no one really has any duties and so can't ever break the oath, which is super pointless.

[Lady Blizzardborn]

People, it's very simple. The question posed through the topic title answers itself. The topic title calls it murder. Not an execution for desertion, not a punishment for wrongs done, not even a precautionary measure. It's murder--assassination at that.

Even in The Hedge Knight when a prince of the blood wants Dunk's head there has to be an arrest and a trial. Point me to the arrest and trial in the performance of Bowen and the Stabbers and I'll gladly agree that it was legal. Otherwise, show me the bylaws of the NW that allow for assassination of anybody in the Watch, let alone the LC. Until such time as either bit of information can be produced, I leave you with a wonderful quote about perspective and legality:

John Dickinson: "Are you seriously suggesting we publish a paper declaring an illegal rebellion is, in fact, a legal one?"

Benjamin Franklin: "Mr. Dickinson, I'm surprised at you! A rebellion is always legal in the first person such as 'our rebellion.' It is only in the third person--'their rebellion'--that it is illegal."

[juanml82]

Why is Ramsay a unacceptable monster but the Weeper isn't?

Because neither of the women who the Weeper raped was the Lord Commander' sister.

It's definitely a very good point.

[juanml82]

Where does anyone say the Weeper is acceptable?

When Jon decided to let him through, basically granting him an amnesty.

[Jasta11]

When Jon decided to let him through, basically granting him an amnesty.

If he had killed the Weeper, he would have needed to kill every single Wildling. The point is that they were defeated and accepted south of the Wall out of pragmatism, when they posed a much lesser threat, with conditions to boot. Ramsay sends a threat to the entire Watch, and is on the side of the Wall where they can't do anything to defend against him. Jon didn't let the Weeper through out of the kindness of his heart. But he simply couldn't start picking and choosing which wildlings were OK and which were bad.