The (Attempted) Muder of Jon was Legally Justifiable (Part II)

[FNF]

legally, what the chocked coward of a king did to ned was justified...

Kind of, but not really. He committed no treason, but in the end he was coerced into admitting guilt.

OT: Of course the attempted assassination is justifiable because what would the crown think knowing the LC of the Night's Watch was marching against the Boltons? At the end of the day what Jon did threatened the position of the Night's Watch, no matter our personal feelings towards it.

[Bedwyck]

You didn't respond to my response about this in the last thread, where you asked me what I thought the repercussions of the missions were, and answered that where I believe Jon failed was in handling this sloppily.

Is your contention with this still because you believe "taking no part" is a fundamental part of the vow (if so, please see my above post), or is it because of how it actually played out? Would you agree that there would have been virtue in removing Arya from Ramsay in the big picture provided that Jon went about it in a different fashion, or is Jon's being part of Arya's removal at all the issue in your view?

Further, this isn't what rendered the Watch an enemy of the Boltons. Completely independently and prior to this, Cersei and the small council declare the Watch enemies of the state by virtue of tolerating Stannis' presence there. The Boltons, appointed Wardens of the North by the Lannisters, are automatically enemies to the Watch by virtue of this.

Cersei never declared the Watch enemies of the state. They never even considered it. The only person they thought to name an enemy was Jon Snow, not the entire watch, and they didnt even do that. The only thing Cesei did was toy with a secret fickle plot to send the NW men who would assassinate Jon Snow. This plot never came into fruition however and neither Jon Snow, or the Boltons knew about it so its actually irrelevant to the conversation.

The Lord commanders role in taking away the Lord of Winterfell and son of the Warden of the North's bride away from him is my issue here. There is always great risk in a daring mission like this. It shouldnt surprise anyone they ended up getting caught. The Lord Commander took it upon himself to symbollically damage and severely antagonize the people who control the largest army in the north (while killing some of their men in the process). This action was meant to serve no one, but himself (so he could free his little sister) while it puts the Nights Watch as a whole in jeopardy.

[butterbumps!]

Cersei never declared the Watch enemies of the state. They never even considered it. The only person they thought to name an enemy was Jon Snow, not the entire watch, and they didnt even do that. The only thing Cesei did was toy with a secret fickle plot to send the NW men who would assassinate Jon Snow. This plot never came into fruition however and neither Jon Snow, or the Boltons knew about it so its actually irrelevant to the conversation.

The Lord commanders role in taking away the Lord of Winterfell and son of the Warden of the North's bride away from him is my issue here. There is always great risk in a daring mission like this. It shouldnt surprise anyone they ended up getting caught. The Lord Commander took it upon himself to symbollically damage and severely antagonize the people who control the largest army in the north (while killing some of their men in the process). This action was meant to serve no one, but himself (so he could free his little sister) while it puts the Nights Watch as a whole in jeopardy.

Well, actually, that is what happens:

“The Night’s Watch is sworn to take no part in the wars of the Seven Kingdoms,” Pycelle reminded them. “For thousands of years the black brothers have upheld that tradition.”

“Until now,” said Cersei. “The bastard boy has written us to avow that the Night’s Watch takes no side, but his actions give the lie to his words. He has given Stannis food and shelter, yet has the insolence to plead with us for arms and men.”

“An outrage,” declared Lord Merryweather. “We cannot allow the Night’s Watch to join its strength to that of Lord Stannis.”

“We must declare this Snow a traitor and a rebel,” agreed Ser Harys Swyft. “The black brothers must remove him.”

Cersei cooks up a plot to kill Jon specifically, but it's very clear KL is taking the Watch's actions as involvement. The Boltons, appointed by the Lannisters and their allies, are enemies to the Lannister enemies, and the Lannisters just called the Watch enemies.

I think you can make the argument that the Mance mission hastened up the Bolton's involvement, but not a case that without this event, the Boltons would have never troubled the Watch.

From the rest of your comments, it looks like you take issue with the way Jon was thinking about the mission, executed it badly, and the fact that it failed. I think now we're getting somewhere; these are my complaints with it too. Are you now seeing the issue as one of execution of the mission, not necessarily condemning it for the mere fact that it was an example of "taking part?"

[Chaircat Meow]

If you don't believe that Jon was oathbreaking in making a deal with the wildlings as part of their becoming part of the realm south of the Wall, then you cannot also maintain that "taking no part" is inherently part of the vow.

Why not? He's following in the outlines of a policy laid down by the king, and as the lord of the gift he's allowed to have some say in how people behave on it.

Don't you see the leap you made? You're appealing to the context that this is a pragmatic solution to the issue of integration of a new people into the realm, and agreed upon beyond the Wall. But if "the Watch takes no part" is truly in the vow, then this is not the Watch's place to be making this pragmatic arrangement! According to the "take no part" construct, they are not the arbiters of controlling the behavior of these members of the realm. When the wildlings cross, they become part of the realm. Holding hostages of members of the realm would be therefore prohibited.

I think is becoming ridiculous. I honestly don't see how this stacks up to taking part in the affairs of the realm. Jon isn't attacking any one faction in the realm, or endangering the neutrality of the watch. He made a deal with a leader from beyond the wall as well.

You keep appealing to context and historic tradition to negate the wildlings from "protected realms of men" to support your interpretation that "taking no part" is part of the oaths, but deny that action needs to be taken to maintain the extra-Watch support system that across history and tradition enables its existence. That seems extremely inconsistent to me. I'm not actually of the belief that the Watch should actively work to make sure the Starks are always in power, but pointing out that appealing to tradition inconsistently is arbitrary logic.

By tradition the nw don't preserve their support system do they, if this entails 'taking part.'

On your last point, now you're talking about how there's degrees of "taking no part," and that some forms of "taking part" are apparently not "oathbreaking." How, pray tell, do you draw this interpretive line in the sand? Could it be defined, perhaps, as "taking part in affairs provided that doing so is in service to the overriding mission and purpose of the Watch, defined as protecting the realms of men from winter?"

No, I mean the nw can do things to endear themselves to one side or the other, providing they don't fight for them, or declare for them, if the consequence of not acting in such a way is being forced to take a side and further embroil themselves in the affairs of the realm. Most of the stuff cited as taking part is usually nw matters anyway, like picking the lc.

As in, the prohibition is not, in fact, about "taking part," but rather against jeopardizing the security of the Watch and would prevent fulfillment of its mission?

You secure the watch and its mission by not taking part, and you can do that actively by taking steps to make sure you don't get caught up in the realms struggles.

[butterbumps!]

Why not? He's following in the outlines of a policy laid down by the king, and as the lord of the gift he's allowed to have some say in how people behave on it.

I think is becoming ridiculous. I honestly don't see how this stacks up to taking part in the affairs of the realm. Jon isn't attacking any one faction in the realm, or endangering the neutrality of the watch. He made a deal with a leader from beyond the wall as well.

By tradition the nw don't preserve their support system do they, if this entails 'taking part.'

Holding hostages of members of the realm to ensure good behavior would be strictly prohibited by a vow to "take no part." Stannis did not tell Jon to do this, and the fact that the agreement was made beyond the Wall has no bearing on the reality that the NW is holding members of the realm hostage in exchange for good behavior. This is taking a very active and direct role in the affairs of the realm.

Honestly, this isn't worth debating any further, as your position on this has been torn to hell. When you write that there are degrees to neutrality:

What you are actually doing is arguing that taking no part is a zero sum game, and any involvement, of any kind, is oathbreaking. There is no reason to think this. There wasn't any oathbreaking that I would worry about until Jon sent off Mance. This is unless you descend to the depths of absurdity like some do, and argue letting Stannis stay, or Bowen refusing to burn Tywin's letter as soon as he gets it constitutes taking part and oathbreaking.

and not all of it counts as oathbreaking, you start defeating your position and begin supporting mine.

No, I mean the nw can do things to endear themselves to one side or the other, providing they don't fight for them, or declare for them, if the consequence of not acting in such a way is being forced to take a side and further embroil themselves in the affairs of the realm. Most of the stuff cited as taking part is usually nw matters anyway, like picking the lc.

You secure the watch and its mission by not taking part, and you can do that actively by taking steps to make sure you don't get caught up in the realms struggles.

So now "taking no part" means "making sure the way you take part doesn't involve declaring for one side or literally taking up arms against anyone who has historically resided South of the Wall." And based on that new definition, the Arya mission falls outside of it, as Mance wasn't sent in a political context or to take up arms against Ramsay. How interesting.

Or, once again, we can be reasonable about this and interrogate the actual vow against the context it exists in. Which, in so doing, would read "put everything into the context of the Watch's survival and mission and do nothing that jeopardizes the Watch and prevents the Watch's mission." Which, for the record, would damn Jon for his handling of the Arya mission, as he went against this principle.

I'm not really interested in continuing to debate all these little provisos you're adding to your increasingly eroded "take no part" argument. If you really think there's any way for the Watch to not get caught up in the realm's struggles regardless of their action, and that taking an active part in disentangling themselves from these struggles in order to continue their mission is against the actual oath they take, then I certainly hope you have the sense to condemn such an oath.

[Chaircat Meow]

Holding hostages of members of the realm to ensure good behavior would be strictly prohibited by a vow to "take no part." Stannis did not tell Jon to do this, and the fact that the agreement was made beyond the Wall has no bearing on the reality that the NW is holding members of the realm hostage in exchange for good behavior. This is taking a very active and direct role in the affairs of the realm.

Honestly, this isn't worth debating any further, as your position on this has been torn to hell. When you write that there are degrees to neutrality:

and not all of it counts as oathbreaking, you start defeating your position and begin supporting mine.

What I've said is perfectly consistent. The wildings aren't a realm of men with which the watch is sworn to take no part as they come from beyond the wall and the watch has traditionally been at war with them. You can make a meal out of the fact they are now settled on the other side of the wall (in the gift, I might add) but I'm not getting into pedantic debates about when people become members of the realm or realms. The wildlings are not in the category of people against whom the nw ought to preserve neutrality because they come from beyond the wall. They haven't been neutral wrt them for thousands of years so it is a bit odd to suggest they start now.

I am actually pragmatic about how 'take no part' is to be enforced but I think it is a goal the nw are bound to pursue. To remain neutral sometimes you have to be proactive about it. Most of the stuff Jon and Bowen did before mid-DwD might have entailed involvement in the realm (which, if viewed very strictly, can't be avoided) but it was in service to ensuring the watch took no part in the realm's struggles. They wanted to avoid being seen to take a side and thereby being attacked. I see this is quite consistent with the oath. So I'm not puritanically against all involvement with the realm but the oath requires that involvement should not draw the watch into the realm's struggles and the nw have to work towards that.

So now "taking no part" means "making sure the way you take part doesn't involve declaring for one side or literally taking up arms against anyone who has historically resided South of the Wall." And based on that new definition, the Arya mission falls outside of it, as Mance wasn't sent in a political context or to take up arms against Ramsay. How interesting.

Come on. I said the nw had a duty to make sure they didn't get themselves into a situation where they would find it difficult to avoid taking sides or going to war, and sponsoring a mission to abduct someone's bride certainly falls within that. It effectively is a declaration of war as you can't reasonably expect anyone to take it lying down. I wrote a lot of posts in the old thread about how the watch had to actively create the conditions for neutrality.

Or, once again, we can be reasonable about this and interrogate the actual vow against the context it exists in. Which, in so doing, would read "put everything into the context of the Watch's survival and mission and do nothing that jeopardizes the Watch and prevents the Watch's mission." Which, for the record, would damn Jon for his handling of the Arya mission, as he went against this principle.

I've given the reasons many times for 'take no part' being in of the vow, and being an actual duty to which the watch is bound to. The vow literally prohibits specific behaviours for this purpose, so it is not asking the watch to be open ended about how they preserve themselves. You've never addressed this point and maintaining it without argument is not reasonable.

I'm not really interested in continuing to debate all these little provisos you're adding to your increasingly eroded "take no part" argument. If you really think there's any way for the Watch to not get caught up in the realm's struggles regardless of their action, and that taking an active part in disentangling themselves from these struggles in order to continue their mission is against the actual oath they take, then I certainly hope you have the sense to condemn such an oath.

Don't then. No one is forcing you.

I don't think doing things to avoid embroilment and destruction is against their oath. That's why I keep saying it is ok to take some action to promote neutrality.

[Mourneblade]

The Boltons plan to secure the North includes eliminating Jon. He is a threat to Bolton rule due to being the known bastard of Ned. Just as Joffery kills as many of Roberts bastards as he can to secure his Crown, Roose would do the same.

Also in Jon's defense he sent Mance to find Arya expecting her to be in or near the Gift, he did not send him to Winterfell.

[butterbumps!]

What I've said is perfectly consistent. The wildings aren't a realm of men with which the watch is sworn to take no part as they come from beyond the wall and the watch has traditionally been at war with them. You can make a meal out of the fact they are now settled on the other side of the wall (in the gift, I might add) but I'm not getting into pedantic debates about when people become members of the realm or realms. The wildlings are not in the category of people against whom the nw ought to preserve neutrality. They haven't been neutral wrt them for thousands of years so it is a bit odd to suggest they start now.

The wildlings do become part of the realm once they cross. Explicitly stated so in the text. So if you believe that the practical necessity of keeping wildling hostages in order to maintain peaceful integration within the realm, once past the Wall, is not oathbreaking because it's a practical necessity that works toward the overall health of the Watch and its mission, then you cannot keep arguing that neutrality is at the core of the Watch's oath. Either the Watch can hold members of the realm hostage in certain contexts (getting very directly involved in affairs), or they cannot involve themselves thusly. End of story.

I've given the reasons many times for 'take no part' being in of the vow, and being an actual duty to which the watch is bound to. The vow literally prohibits specific behaviours for this purpose, so it is not asking the watch to be open ended about how they preserve themselves. You've never addressed this point and maintaining it without argument is not reasonable.

I did address it. Multiple times. The specifically enumerated prohibitions of the vow do not yield the singular, incontestable conclusion of "take no part." Taken as a whole, they align much more closely with: "put everything into the context of the Watch's survival and mission and do nothing that jeopardizes the Watch and prevents the Watch's mission." And the way you're picking and choosing about degrees of neutrality and who should be protected under the vow by appealing to pragmatics just supports this reading.

Anyway, I don't think there's anything to further to say about this.

[To catch a Lannister]

Mr. Meow this has been going on for like 50 some odd pages, and we all just want to get home to our families, I think she's got you brah

[Chaircat Meow]

The wildlings do become part of the realm once they cross. Explicitly stated so in the text. So if you believe that the practical necessity of keeping wildling hostages in order to maintain peaceful integration within the realm, once past the Wall, is not oathbreaking because it's a practical necessity that works toward the overall health of the Watch and its mission, then you cannot keep arguing that neutrality is at the core of the Watch's oath. Either the Watch can hold members of the realm hostage in certain contexts (getting very directly involved in affairs), or they cannot involve themselves thusly. End of story.

The wildlings are obviously a special case. They are not members of a realm of men the watch have to defend. They have been at war with the watch for millennia. The watch was and is bound to take no part with the lords and kings to the south of the wall (the realms of men it defends). If it makes you feel better Jon took the hostages before Tormund crossed and as the price for that and moreover Tormund isn't incorporated into a southern princedom (and realm usually implies kingdom, or royal domain). He's effectively a bandit chief with whom the lc made an alliance. Jon keeping hostages from Tormund once on the south side of the wall may therefore represent an interesting conundrum for the overly pedantic but to claim it means Jon is taking part in the affairs of the realm contrary to the oath really is off.

I did address it. Multiple times. The specifically enumerated prohibitions of the vow do not yield the singular, incontestable conclusion of "take no part." Taken as a whole, they align much more closely with: "put everything into the context of the Watch's survival and mission and do nothing that jeopardizes the Watch and prevents the Watch's mission." And the way you're picking and choosing about degrees of neutrality and who should be protected under the vow by appealing to pragmatics just supports this reading.

No, you just keep asserting that the prohibitions align with your proposition and I've pointed out this is implausible because the oath itself works to inhibit discretion as to how the watch is to behave to preserve itself. The oath takes certain actions off the table, it doesn't leave the options open ended. That coheres with a duty to preserve the watch in a certain way, i.e. taking no part, but not with the idea anything is an option providing it helps fight the Others.

Aemon, Jon and co also disagree with you, so my position in this is much more plausible.

Anyway, I don't think there's anything to further to say about this.

If you say so.

[Mourneblade]

The biggest thing about this assassination is that it is just that, an assassination. Almost like the Ides of March, the assassins feel like they are justified, but in truth they did not follow due process. They should have charged him publicly with oath breaking and left it to the men of the Nights Watch to decide his guilt or innocence.

However Jon is popular, and the assassins do not want him to be found innocent, meaning they do not believe it is a complete open and shut case, meaning they murdered him justifiable to only those who share their views on the oath and neutrality of the watch. Which means it was not legal, and just as those who conspired to kill Julius Caesar, the actions of these men will not be seen as anything else than cold blooded murder, or attempted murder lol.

[FittleLinger]

The biggest thing about this assassination is that it is just that, an assassination. Almost like the Ides of March, the assassins feel like they are justified, but in truth they did not follow due process. They should have charged him publicly with oath breaking and left it to the men of the Nights Watch to decide his guilt or innocence.

However Jon is popular, and the assassins do not want him to be found innocent, meaning they do not believe it is a complete open and shut case, meaning they murdered him justifiable to only those who share their views on the oath and neutrality of the watch. Which means it was not legal, and just as those who conspired to kill Julius Caesar, the actions of these men will not be seen as anything else than cold blooded murder, or attempted murder lol.

To be fair to them, they know that the wildlings are Melisandre like him a lot, and probably think that an eventual process wouldn't be just.

[Mourneblade]

To be fair to them, they know that the wildlings are Melisandre like him a lot, and probably think that an eventual process wouldn't be just.

The wildlings and Mel would have no legal say in a hearing, the assassins instead choose to conspire and take justice into their own hands. While that can be debated as to whether or not he Jon breaks his oath, there is no debate on the actions of the assassins, unjust and illegal according to how things are handled at the Wall.

[butterbumps!]

Come on. The wildlings are obviously a special case. They are not members of a realm of men the watch have to defend. They have been at war with the watch for millennia. The watch is bound to take no part with the lords and kings to the south of the wall (the realms of men it defends). Jon taking hostages from Tormund once on the south side of the wall may represent an interesting conundrum for the overly pedantic but to claim it means Jon is taking part in the affairs of the realm contrary to the oath really is off.

No, you just keep asserting that the prohibitions align with your proposition and I've pointed out this is implausible because the oath itself works to inhibit discretion as to how the watch is to behave to preserve itself. The oath takes certain actions off the table, it doesn't leave the options open ended. That coheres with a duty to preserve the watch in a certain way, i.e. taking no part, but not with the idea anything is an option providing it helps fight the Others.

Aemon, Jon and co also disagree with you, so my position in this is much more plausible.

If you say so.

if "special cases" allow the Watch to "take part" in the realm without "oathbreaking," then "special cases" allow the Watch to "take part" in the realm without "oathbreaking." For god's sake, how are you appealing to this as a practical necessity that doesn't interfere with an oath you claim includes "taking no part" when it so clearly is an example of taking a very active part? And simultaneously fail to see other situations of "taking part" as "special cases," such as, for example, the current state of the 7 kingdoms, and not conclude that involvement wouldn't be oathbreaking either? Or even more rationally, realize the critical part of the vow's prohibitions is to put everything into the context of the Watch's survival and mission and do nothing that jeopardizes the Watch and prevents the Watch's mission, which would reconcile all aspects of this?

And wow, people in the Watch conflate "taking no part" with the vow itself. Just like how they thought they were supposed to be protecting the realm from wildlings, and had not considered wildlings to be one of the realms of men (Jon later does re-interpret that portion to include wildlings, so if we're going off Jon's beliefs then we're back to my point about how the Watch oathbroke for the last 8,000 years due to taking up swords against a realm of men, and that the concept of oathbreaking would be completely meaningless).

[Mourneblade]

if "special cases" allow the Watch to "take part" in the realm without "oathbreaking," then "special cases" allow the Watch to "take part" in the realm without "oathbreaking." For god's sake, how are you appealing to this as a practical necessity that doesn't interfere with an oath you claim includes "taking no part" when it so clearly is an example of taking a very active part? And simultaneously fail to see other situations of "taking part" as "special cases," such as, for example, the current state of the 7 kingdoms, and not conclude that involvement wouldn't be oathbreaking either? Or even more rationally, realize the critical part of the vow's prohibitions is to put everything into the context of the Watch's survival and mission and do nothing that jeopardizes the Watch and prevents the Watch's mission, which would reconcile all aspects of this?

And wow, people in the Watch conflate "taking no part" with the vow itself. Just like how they thought they were supposed to be protecting the realm from wildlings, and had not considered wildlings to be one of the realms of men (Jon later does re-interpret that portion to include wildlings, so if we're going off Jon's beliefs then we're back to my point about how the Watch oathbroke for the last 8,000 years due to taking up swords against a realm of men, and that the concept of oathbreaking would be completely meaningless).

I am finding that the oath seems to be a law open to interpretation and taken on an individual bases. Its hard for any one action, other than flat out desertion, or full on insubordination, to be black and white. Everything else, including Jon's actions seem to be more on a case by case basis and can be interpreted either way.

That is the biggest reason I feel that assassinating him without due process is completely unjust and is more in line with mutiny.

[FittleLinger]

The wildlings and Mel would have no legal say in a hearing, the assassins instead choose to conspire and take justice into their own hands. While that can be debated as to whether or not he Jon breaks his oath, there is no debate on the actions of the assassins, unjust and illegal according to how things are handled at the Wall.

Oh I totally agree, I am just adding this to their possible list of motivations, not saying that it's justifiable because of said motivations.

They have no legal say, but they have influence. Try explaining to a bunch of wildlings that their beloved saviour will be executed because he wants to save his little sister from a psychopat.

[Chaircat Meow]

if "special cases" allow the Watch to "take part" in the realm without "oathbreaking," then "special cases" allow the Watch to "take part" in the realm without "oathbreaking." For god's sake, how are you appealing to this as a practical necessity that doesn't interfere with an oath you claim includes "taking no part" when it so clearly is an example of taking a very active part?

I'm not. I don't understand this criticism. Tormund and his buddies are not part of the realm the affairs of which Jon is bound to take no part in. He's a wildling chief from the lands beyond the wall. He was formerly at war with the watch, so he and Jon made terms.

And simultaneously fail to see other situations of "taking part" as "special cases," such as, for example, the current state of the 7 kingdoms, and not conclude that involvement wouldn't be oathbreaking either? Or even more rationally, realize the critical part of the vow's prohibitions is to put everything into the context of the Watch's survival and mission and do nothing that jeopardizes the Watch and prevents the Watch's mission, which would reconcile all aspects of this?

But the state of the SK isn't a special case at all though. Taking no part is there precisely to ensure the watch doesn't get wrapped up in wars and power struggles, as explained by Aemon. The oath was made when there were dozens of feuding kingdoms.

Again, the prohibitions do forbid very specific things, and so are not open ended about what the watch can do to realize its mission. Why do you keep ignoring this? Why have an oath that demands you do x,y and z to safeguard your mission and then claim any act is acceptable if it fits with the survival of the watch and its mission? Why, if the oath is there to enable people to take any action that serves the watch's mission are very specific actions removed from individual discretion. That makes a total nonsense of the oath. Five specific prohibitions would be pointless and misleading. You never address this.

And wow, people in the Watch conflate "taking no part" with the vow itself. Just like how they thought they were supposed to be protecting the realm from wildlings, and had not considered wildlings to be one of the realms of men (Jon later does re-interpret that portion to include wildlings, so if we're going off Jon's beliefs then we're back to my point about how the Watch oathbroke for the last 8,000 years due to taking up swords against a realm of men, and that the concept of oathbreaking would be completely meaningless).

Well, if lots of people who should know all tell you one thing and you think the other you need to do more to justify yourself.

People can be wrong about the oath (although they knew that had to defend the lands behind the wall from the threat from the north) but you are jumping through a whole tonne of hoops if you want to go against Aemon, Jon, Stannis and Mel on this. Pretty much everyone assumes taking no part is in the oath and we can see why that is given the fact we agree the prohibitions point to a more general duty.

Jon does say that, but the location of the wildling lands on the wrong side of the wall does militate pretty strongly against the watch having a duty to defend those lands or 'realms' if you like.

[Mourneblade]

Oh I totally agree, I am just adding this to their possible list of motivations, not saying that it's justifiable because of said motivations.

They have no legal say, but they have influence. Try explaining to a bunch of wildlings that their beloved saviour will be executed because he wants to save his little sister from a psychopat.

I agree with why they chose assassination to process. They were not 100% sure their position would win through, and many other smaller factors, maybe even being charged with insubordination themselves, but I think we will find that their fate will be the same as the Ides of March members lol.

[Lady Blizzardborn]

You are, my fire the one, desire beleive when I say I want it that way

On a totally unrelated note why is "attempted" on the title? It wasn't an attempt, they did it, he was stabbed multiple times and is now dead. I demand the title of this thread be changed.

Tell me why I never wanna hear you say, I want it that way!

It's attempted because we don't know if it was successful, i.e. Martin did not write "and then he breathed his last" or something similar that would be hard to interpret as continuing to live. What he did write "he never felt the fourth knife, only the cold," implies he can still feel something. I can't speak from personal experience but I'm guessing that dead people would have a hard time determining temperature values such as hot and cold. Jon could still be alive, but in seriously bad shape. Or he could have died after the end of the chapter, but we really don't know yet.

[Tagganaro]

if "special cases" allow the Watch to "take part" in the realm without "oathbreaking," then "special cases" allow the Watch to "take part" in the realm without "oathbreaking." For god's sake, how are you appealing to this as a practical necessity that doesn't interfere with an oath you claim includes "taking no part" when it so clearly is an example of taking a very active part? And simultaneously fail to see other situations of "taking part" as "special cases," such as, for example, the current state of the 7 kingdoms, and not conclude that involvement wouldn't be oathbreaking either? Or even more rationally, realize the critical part of the vow's prohibitions is to put everything into the context of the Watch's survival and mission and do nothing that jeopardizes the Watch and prevents the Watch's mission, which would reconcile all aspects of this?

And wow, people in the Watch conflate "taking no part" with the vow itself. Just like how they thought they were supposed to be protecting the realm from wildlings, and had not considered wildlings to be one of the realms of men (Jon later does re-interpret that portion to include wildlings, so if we're going off Jon's beliefs then we're back to my point about how the Watch oathbroke for the last 8,000 years due to taking up swords against a realm of men, and that the concept of oathbreaking would be completely meaningless).

Not just Jon but the Old Bear as well. He comes to the same conclusion shortly before his death. To me, it's pretty clear (to be fair I haven't read through this entire argument), that the whole point of the Oath is that the Watch must be put above all else. That is the Oath. Any thing that goes against that, or has the potential to jeopardize that (i.e. holding lands, having a wife and kids) is outright prohibited in the oath. I think it's pretty clear that "taking no part" is subservient to being the Shield that guards the realms of men. If it is present in the Oath at all, it is only because over the years it has been interpreted to be helpful in terms of guarding the realms of men.

That being the case, especially with the return of the Others, everything Jon (and the NW) do, should be towards that goal of defeating the Others. It's very clear to me (and I think it should be to all readers), that the Watch has lost its mission over the years, and that the fight with the Wildlings, as far as it saps of the NW of potential numbers and strength (and in response gives numbers to the Others who then reanimate the dead from that war), does contravene the Oath, and is a corruption of its mission.

My interpretation is, and was, that pursuant to the Shield goal, Jon should have helped Stannis even more, because the Lannisters/Boltons have failed on their end, and it is clear that if the Watch can get away with helping Stannis (or picking the winning side as it has been stated), then that's what the Watch must and should do. Because Stannis is far and away a better candidate to help the Watch be the shield that guards the realm.