The (attempted) murder of Jon was legally justifiable.

[Bedwyck]

C'mon you're kidding right? Marsh was choosing sides based on who he thought was going to win. Giving the Lannisters control over the NW isn't an egregious violation of neutrality? The NW would turn into the northern branch of the Lannister clan.

Marsh was politicizing as much as Jon, the difference is Jon had Stannis on his doorstep, hell in his house really, after saving their asses.

Marsh is a coward who did what he did because of his politics. Period.

So you think that as Lord Commander, Janos Slynt would have taken up arms against Stannis? I doubt it. Stannis was considering appointing him as LC himself. The only nice thing the Lannisters did for Janos Slynt was Harrenhal. Then they took that away and sent him to the wall. Littlefinger raised him up to lead the gold cloaks, not the Lannisters. Slynt being LC does not give the Lannisters control over the NW. Hes just an LC that they approve of.

Also, I dont ever remember Tywin or anyone talking about getting Slynt and the NW to fight against Stannis when they thought to support him for LC.

What did Marsh ever do/advocate doing that would involve himself or the NW in the war?

[Bedwyck]

Bowen getting what he wanted would have kept the NW out of the affairs of the realm how though? Stannis is still there, and you essentially made the choice to get him involved.

If he asks for help from KL, he's involving them, if he (I should say janos, but you know what i mean) tries to simply get Stannis to leave, he's involving them.

Marsh was politicking as much as anyone and in the end, the NW still takes part in one way or another.

Stannis involved himself in their war. The NW did not involve themselves in the War of the Seven Kingdoms (except for Jon giving Stannis military strategy, but no one knows about that) until Jon sent Mance to take Ramsay's bride away from him and people found out about it.

[E-Ro]

I thought you were since you were claiming 'take no part' was not in the vows because it wasn't literally stated there. Either I misunderstood or you have now dropped this argument.

I actually gave three arguments in my last post as to why 'take no part' was evident 1. Aemons's explanation, 2. the fact the specific prohibitions relate to a divorce from feudal politics and therefore entail not just not compromising the watch, but not doing so in a specific way, and 3. people who ought to know say taking no part is in the vow with some frequency.

That's one interpretation and not one I share. The bit about ravens suggests nwmen can become stronger and better able to fulfil their mission by doing distasteful things (i.e. eating the dead and so on). Given the tenor of Jon's comments those distasteful things appear to be leaving their relatives to be slain and severing themselves from feelings of love. This interpretation has the advantage of fitting with what Aemon then goes on to say about the need to make sacrifices to ensure the survival of the watch.

In any case, this is much too vague. Is Aemon suggesting that 'taking no part' is in the vows but that moral purity can sometimes be set aside, hence the rejection of the pure dove? You can go for this if you want, but at the same time you are admitting Aemon does think taking no part is a vow there (given it could only be seen as wrong, in a certain sense, to defend oneself and dirty one's hands if this ran against an oath). This doesn't gel with your view of the place of taking no part in the nw. I don't think Aemon is specifically addressing the question of watch neutrality at this point either, the point of the conversation is about the sacrifices entailed in keeping the vows and remaining at the wall. Making a point about the folly of neutrality in some circumstances is pretty out of place in Aemon's talk.

I disagree for the reasons I have given. I'll add that all prohibitions and commands apart from living and dying at my post point towards a withdrawal from feudal politics and the mechanisms of that, something which strongly supports the notion that the vows require not just not compromising the watch but not compromising it in a specific way. Again, this is backed up statement about the vows in the text.

Again, you can't sever custom and interpretation from the meaning of the vow. I've given the reasons for thinking that 'taking no part' is indeed a duty you swear to uphold on taking the oath. Sure, you could come to believe that taking no part prevents you from defending the realms of men, in which case you have to choose which aspect of your vow to uphold, but there is no reason to describe taking no part as custom or tradition. It is not in the sense that it is separate from the vow.

You know I have to agree with this, tbh. Its something I struggle with a bit ya know? Since I do love Stannis, but Jon was wrong. I think your points here are pretty solid, and im putting aside my pro stannis bias for this.

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.

Slaughtered due to bigotry? Or you know, the fact that they attack the north and steal women and food. Completely unprovoked.

[ChaosImprisonateMe]

I feel people view the Night's Watch as being a perfect purity in the sense of values and beliefs. I view the vows of the Night's Watch as one that is not very dynamic and consistent with the changes brought to Westeros. As such, dealing and not dealing with the affairs of the realm aren't as clear cut.

[Jasta11]

So you think that as Lord Commander, Janos Slynt would have taken up arms against Stannis? I doubt it. Stannis was considering appointing him as LC himself. The only nice thing the Lannisters did for Janos Slynt was Harrenhal. Then they took that away and sent him to the wall. Littlefinger raised him up to lead the gold cloaks, not the Lannisters. Slynt being LC does not give the Lannisters control over the NW. Hes just an LC that they approve of.

Also, I dont ever remember Tywin or anyone talking about getting Slynt and the NW to fight against Stannis when they thought to support him for LC.

What did Marsh ever do/advocate doing that would involve himself or the NW in the war?

Tywin denying the NW support until they elect his crony is meddling in its affairs, however. No matter what Slynt himself thinks about it. And wanting Slynt elected because KL wants him is taking part in realm politics; not as bad as Jon going to war against the Boltons obviously, but it still is. That's the thing about vows that Martin underlines time and again in the books, that it's impossible to take them to the letter most of the time.

I'm still wondering why we're faffing about arguing about vows and semantics, however. It seems very clear to me no amount of oathbreaking or perceived oathbreaking allows anyone to murder the Lord Commander.

[l2 0 5 5]

He certainly deserved what he got. I understand Jon's actions, however. Unlike Aemon, Jon could not simply ignore all of the destruction that was happening to his family and the realm. His reaction to Ramsay's letter is a very honest response.

What did him in was letting the Wildlings into the NW. That's something that the other prominent members of the Watch could not overlook. Looking at this from Jon's perspective, I understand once again why he did it. Stannis told Jon that he needed to find enough men to man the abandoned castles along the Wall or he'd find someone else. I think it's commendable that Jon could find a way to get the Wildlings to forget centuries of reciprocated hatred, and to enter the NW.

Having said all of that, Jon's murder was justifiable. Not everyone can understand Jon's reasoning. Jon got attacked and possibly killed due to the decisions he made; which I will never have an issue with when it comes to a character death.

[To catch a Lannister]

You know I have to agree with this, tbh. Its something I struggle with a bit ya know? Since I do love Stannis, but Jon was wrong. I think your points here are pretty solid, and im putting aside my pro stannis bias for this.

Slaughtered due to bigotry? Or you know, the fact that they attack the north and steal women and food. Completely unprovoked.

Yeah for real this guy gets it. The Wildlings were a foreign army attacking a key strategic location of Westeros, attacking them ain't bigotry sweetheart. Stannis did Westeros a tremendous favor in dispatching them. Then he had the foresight to allow them passage through the wall and to assimilate with the Watch knowing it could aid them against the White Walkers.

[E-Ro]

Yeah for real this guy gets it. The Wildlings were a foreign army attacking a key strategic location of Westeros, attacking them ain't bigotry sweetheart. Stannis did Westeros a tremendous favor in dispatching them. Then he had the foresight to allow them passage through the wall and to assimilate with Watch knowing it could aid against the White Walkers.

I definitely agree with this. Fantastic name and av btw.

Its so odd though, I don't even know you yet I can already tell you are going to be a great poster. I just feel this weird kinship towards you.

[To catch a Lannister]

I definitely agree with this. Fantastic name and av btw.

Its so odd though, I don't even know you yet I can already tell you are going to be a great poster. I just feel this weird kinship towards you.

Thanks man, I'm pretty new so go easy on me, wow 10,000 posts! You must be a legend around here!

[E-Ro]

Thanks man, I'm pretty new so go easy on me, wow 10,000 posts! You must be a legend around here!

I actually am a legend, a westeros.org legend. My name is spoken with hallowed whispers all through-ought the land.

Anyway, yeah, your new so im sure everyone will go easy with you. Just watch out for that poster with the butterball av, she can be really difficult sometimes.

[Hodor the Articulate]

.........If a fireman refuses to save a hermaphrodite and then claims that herms weren't specifically mentioned in his mandate to protect the "men and women of Florida" from harm, he really has no case. It was generally understood that he needed to save that hermaphrodite too. His fire dept. has a long standing tradition of aiding those with genitals, no matter how complicated.....

etc

Irrelevant analogy. Fireman aren't bound by oaths, the NW isn't a job, and saving people from a fire is not the same as not sticking your nose in Realm business.

The topic of this discussion is whether or not Bowen Marsh et al. lawfully killed Jon. Since Jon didn't break any explicit vows, I say, no. And that's not even taking to account the fashion in which Jon was killed, and the lack of a trial.

[To catch a Lannister]

I actually am a legend, a westeros.org legend. My name is spoken with hallowed whispers all through-ought the land.

Anyway, yeah, your new so im sure everyone will go easy with you. Just watch out for that poster with the butterball av, she can be really difficult sometimes.

Yeah there are a couple posters like that, I use to lurk the boards a long time before posting, this one guy basically died for Stannis' sins. He had a really cool AV though.

[E-Ro]

Yeah there are a couple posters like that, I use to lurk the boards a long time before posting, this one guy basically died for Stannis' sins. He had a really cool AV though.

Its an unfortunate side effect of war, you lose good men. He wont ever be forgotten though, the champions will raise a statue in his honor when all is said and done.

[To catch a Lannister]

Its an unfortunate side effect of war, you lose good men. He wont ever be forgotten though, the champions will raise a statue in his honor when all is said and done.

Hah yeah you know people come and go....so I guess you're a big Stannis fan? I've definitely always thought he was a bit of a bamf. Nice to know there are other fans out there!

[SeanF]

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 from the North

That's your interpretation.

What if someone to the South is a threat to the Realms of Men?

[Bedwyck]

Tywin denying the NW support until they elect his crony is meddling in its affairs, however. No matter what Slynt himself thinks about it. And wanting Slynt elected because KL wants him is taking part in realm politics; not as bad as Jon going to war against the Boltons obviously, but it still is. That's the thing about vows that Martin underlines time and again in the books, that it's impossible to take them to the letter most of the time.

I'm still wondering why we're faffing about arguing about vows and semantics, however. It seems very clear to me no amount of oathbreaking or perceived oathbreaking allows anyone to murder the Lord Commander.

I still dont see how Marsh supporting Slynt elected as LC is taking part in realm politics. Thats NW politics. If Marsh and Slynt were to then support/declare Tommen as King, that would be taking part in realm politics.

[The Mother of The Others]

What's an Electronic Ro?

Hodor, I appreciate you branching out to speak multiple words. And thanks for taking my fireman seriously. I'd reply that Jon was given a trial. They tried him and succeeded. When you're me, you also read that passage as Jon refusing to fight back against them because when he realized what was happening he took a moment to put himself on trial and found that he felt too guilty to kill his brothers in self defense.

[Formerly Tetrarch42]

You know I have to agree with this, tbh. Its something I struggle with a bit ya know? Since I do love Stannis, but Jon was wrong. I think your points here are pretty solid, and im putting aside my pro stannis bias for this.

Wow.

[Bedwyck]

That's your interpretation.

What if someone to the South is a threat to the Realms of Men?

It says "the watcher on the wall, the fire that burns against the cold, I shall live and die at my post, etc.." All of those heavily imply that they are to stay focused on the threats up north, beyond the wall.

The wall itself is clearly made for doing just that, not dealing with wars in the south. To get themselves involved in the southern wars is to neglect the threat up north that they are sworn to protect people against

[Formerly Tetrarch42]

It says "the watcher on the wall, the fire that burns against the cold, I shall live and die at my post, etc.." All of those heavily imply that they are to stay focused on the threats up north, beyond the wall.

The wall itself is clearly made for doing just that, not dealing with wars in the south. To get themselves involved in the southern wars is to neglect the threat up north that they are sworn to protect people against

If the southerners kill all the people at the wall, then the people at the wall can't very well defend the wall from attack from the north.