Why I think Jon didn't break his vows at the end of ADwD.

[Mal Malenkirk]

I already answered this question of yours on another thread, but this thread really addresses the issue, so I'll post it here as well.

Jon didn't send Mance to Winterfell. He sent Mance to find Arya (who according to Melisandre was fleeing North: "a grey girl on a dying horse").

As far as Jon knew, Arya (the grey girl, or so he believed), was fleeing North to him. So he wouldn't be stealing her from Ramsay. She was coming to him and he just sent Mance and the spearwives out to find her, wherever she was in the wild.

I don't understand why you think that this distinction makes any difference.

''Arya'' is the wife of Ramsey Bolton and her claim are key to Roose plans.

Whether picked up inside or outside of Winterfell, it was always gonna be a Casus Belli, it was always gonna be considered 'stealing her from Ramsay' and it always carried the risk of conflict with Bolton's men.

[King Crow]

And why would someone write such a letter to Jon, hmm? Was it unprovoked? Oh wait, I seem to remember someone authorizing a raid to deprieve Ramsay Bolton of his wife.

Jon had already broken the Watch neutrality several chapters ago. Trying to save your little sister from a monster is heroic stuff. But trying to steal the bride of the heir of a Lord Paramount, when said brides's claim are crucial to his plan, is basically an act of war.

Jon is a great guy and a good leader but a piss poor politician. He acted against the interests of the watch in this matter. Mormont would never have approved of that.

Jon did right by his heart and common decency but failed in his sworn duty. Martin loves this stuff.

I don't think Mance being sent to retrieve Arya should be considered Jon breaking his vows. Mance and all the wildlings that are sent to save Arya were forced to bend the knee to Stannis. They are all Stannis' men. Stannis lent Jon some of his men to man the Wall. They have to heed Jon's orders concerning the wall, but Jon doesn't have the authority to send those men off to conduct any kind of raid. The only thing Mel needed from Jon is for Mance to be release from his commitment to guarding the Wall. Also, there are personal reasons to want Arya rescued,but Arya also has a strategic value. She is the reason that Stannis is being forced to conduct a costly winter siege.

[Visenya Stark]

I don't understand why you think that this distinction makes any difference.

''Arya'' is the wife of Ramsey Bolton and her claim are key to Roose plans.

Whether picked up inside or outside of Winterfell, it was always gonna be a Casus Belli, it was always gonna be considered 'stealing her from Ramsay' and it always carried the risk of conflict with Bolton's men.

It does make a difference. "Arya" may be Ramsay's wife, but as far as Jon is concerned, she left Ramsay and is heading North. Such a thing wouldn't be considered stealing.

The conflict with Bolton's men was there from the moment the NW accommodated Stannis.

[RoamingRonin]

Only Jon's life was threatened, not the Night's Watch. So the whole idea Jon was waging a preemptive war to protect the Wall is completely wrong.

The Pink Letter was sent because Jon broke his vows. He aided Stannis more than he should have. He plotted with Mel and Mance to bring back Arya. Jon wanted his sister safe and I don't grudge him for it. But to say he planned to march on Winterfell because he wanted to protect the Night's Watch is not true. Helping Mance and Mel is why the letter was sent.

Besides... just because someone threatens you in a letter doesn't mean you are in any real danger. Jon reacted to the letter because he thought Stannis was dead and Ramsay had won the battle. It was not about protecting the NW. It was about revenge.

[Bryanfury]

It's not oath-breaking to defend the Watch from an external threat south of the Wall. It never will be. The Watch takes no part means the Watch doesn't choose sides in conflicts of the Iron Throne. It does NOT mean that when a subject of the Iron Throne declares war on the Watch that the Watch has to bend over and open wide. Ramsey attacking the Watch is no different to the Wildlings attacking the Watch. Its a threat that the Watch has every right to defend itself against.

And yes, the Pink Letter does threaten the Watch, no matter how anti-Stark your bias is. It blatantly states the crows will not be troubled if they obey the demands

[RoamingRonin]

It's not oath-breaking to defend the Watch from an external threat south of the Wall. It never will be. The Watch takes no part means the Watch doesn't choose sides in conflicts of the Iron Throne. It does NOT mean that when a subject of the Iron Throne declares war on the Watch that the Watch has to bend over and open wide. Ramsey attacking the Watch is no different to the Wildlings attacking the Watch. Its a threat that the Watch has every right to defend itself against.

And yes, the Pink Letter does threaten the Watch, no matter how anti-Stark your bias is. It blatantly states the crows will not be troubled if they obey the demands

The letter was sent because the Night's Watch broke the neutrality.

[Mithras]

Only Jon's life was threatened, not the Night's Watch. So the whole idea Jon was waging a preemptive war to protect the Wall is completely wrong.

The Pink Letter was sent because Jon broke his vows. He aided Stannis more than he should have. He plotted with Mel and Mance to bring back Arya. Jon wanted his sister safe and I don't grudge him for it. But to say he planned to march on Winterfell because he wanted to protect the Night's Watch is not true. Helping Mance and Mel is why the letter was sent.

Besides... just because someone threatens you in a letter doesn't mean you are in any real danger. Jon reacted to the letter because he thought Stannis was dead and Ramsay had won the battle. It was not about protecting the NW. It was about revenge.

Stannis thinks that he didnot help him enough.

As I wrote before, Jon had to take part in the affairs of the Realm. This is an extraordinary time and Qhorin gave him a free pass to do what is best for the safety of the Realm. People seem to forget that Bowen and his cronies also took part by supporting the Lannisters who have zero interest to the real threat, who stopped sending help as soon as Stannis came to Wall and helped the NW, who tried to make their own puppet the LC who was going to execute Jon as soon as he got the office etc.

There is absolutely no hint of Jon wanting to avenge Stannis, as he plainly told his brothers during the Shieldhall speech.

[Bryanfury]

The letter was sent because the Night's Watch broke the neutrality.

No it wasn't, it was sent in response to Stannis and Mel's plan to rescue Arya after Mance is supposedly captured. At no point does the letter even remotely suggest it was sent because of broken neutrality, nor does it accuse the Watch of doing so

[Visenya Stark]

Only Jon's life was threatened, not the Night's Watch. So the whole idea Jon was waging a preemptive war to protect the Wall is completely wrong.

The Pink Letter was sent because Jon broke his vows. He aided Stannis more than he should have. He plotted with Mel and Mance to bring back Arya. Jon wanted his sister safe and I don't grudge him for it. But to say he planned to march on Winterfell because he wanted to protect the Night's Watch is not true. Helping Mance and Mel is why the letter was sent.

Besides... just because someone threatens you in a letter doesn't mean you are in any real danger. Jon reacted to the letter because he thought Stannis was dead and Ramsay had won the battle. It was not about protecting the NW. It was about revenge.

1) Threat to the Night's Watch and it's Lord Commander:

....Send them to me, bastard, and I will not trouble you or your black crows.

2) What vows are you talking about? This is the exact oath:

Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post. I am the sword in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men. I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night and all the nights to come.

There's no mention of refusing help and not accommodating guests at the Wall. Stannis understands about their common enemy: the White Walkers. When the Long Night comes, the Night's Watch will need as many men as it can get.

3) You do know that Castle Black has no defense from the South. Ramsay could march an army up the Kingsroad and wipe out the Night's Watch. Jon choosing to ride out against this threat is the only reasonable choice at this point. It's for the good of the Night's Watch and in the big picture, for the good of the realm. And why would Jon want to get revenge for Stannis's death?

[RoamingRonin]

No it wasn't, it was sent in response to Stannis and Mel's plan to rescue Arya after Mance is supposedly captured. At no point does the letter even remotely suggest it was sent because of broken neutrality, nor does it accuse the Watch of doing so

Jon was complicit in this plan... which is why the letter was addressed to him.

[Bryanfury]

Jon was complicit in this plan... which is why the letter was addressed to him.

No, he wasn't complicit. He was aware, but he took no part and had no authority on allowing or denying a mission conceived and enacted by an advisor of Stannis. And no, even if Jon WAS complicit, the letter does NOT suggest he was complicit. It suggests only that Ramsey believes Reek and fArya went to the wall and that he'll 'trouble' the crows to get them back.

[Mikeygigs]

Jon plans to march on Winterfell after a plan he sanctioned was botched, the objective of which was to steal a lord's wife, after providing aid and advice to said lord's major enemy (Stannis).

Not arguing the morality, because I was rooting for Jon the entire time. He was doing the right thing, but he most certainly broke his oath. Lets not attempt to find loopholes, or provide false logic as to why he is completely, morally absolved from making one of the most difficult, though ultimately correct, decisions in the entire story.

No, he wasn't complicit. He was aware, but he took no part and had no authority on allowing or denying a mission conceived and enacted by an advisor of Stannis. And no, even if Jon WAS complicit, the letter does NOT suggest he was complicit. It suggests only that Ramsey believes Reek and fArya went to the wall and that he'll 'trouble' the crows to get them back.

You told the world you burned the King-Beyond-the-Wall. Instead you sent him to Winterfell to steal my bride from me.

~Excerpt from, The Pink Letter.

It clearly suggests that Ramsay believed Jon was behind the plot, not that fArya and Theon went to the Wall for protection. Not sure how you can argue that Jon wasn't complicit anyway, based on the fact that Melisandre had to first reveal that Rattleshirt was actually Mance before Jon gave his blessing.

[UtherSnow]

Ramsay is very confrontational, plus he's a few screws loose. He would send something worded exactly like The Pink Letter. That, in itself, is an act of provocation and a threat. Does anyone believe a force lead by Ramsay, if it was to head north, would only single out Jon? Again, we're talking Ramsay here. Does he love a good scrap or not? Does he love making an excuse for a fight? Does he ever need one in the first place? Ramsay leading a Bolton force would be an attack on Castle Black and all within its walls. Let's not forget there are wildlings in the area around CB. Don't forget there is a part of Stannis' force there too.

So, is Jon (as current Lord Commander) breaking vows when he states he's leading a force to face Ramsay? I don't think so. It's a clear case of House Bolton (flying the Realm banner) taking the fight to The Night's Watch.

[butterbumps!]

Only Jon's life was threatened, not the Night's Watch. So the whole idea Jon was waging a preemptive war to protect the Wall is completely wrong.

The Pink Letter was sent because Jon broke his vows. He aided Stannis more than he should have. He plotted with Mel and Mance to bring back Arya. Jon wanted his sister safe and I don't grudge him for it. But to say he planned to march on Winterfell because he wanted to protect the Night's Watch is not true. Helping Mance and Mel is why the letter was sent.

Besides... just because someone threatens you in a letter doesn't mean you are in any real danger. Jon reacted to the letter because he thought Stannis was dead and Ramsay had won the battle. It was not about protecting the NW. It was about revenge.

It's not completely wrong. The letter makes it clear that the Boltons are blaming Jon for sparing Mance and sending him to take Arya, but it contains a threat to the Watch-- deliver these hostages, and I won't decimate you or the Watch ("Send them to me, bastard, and I will not trouble you or your black crows.") So that's a threat.

Further, look at what the letter is actually saying/ doing. The purpose of the letter is to get Jon taken out of the game, and I don't think that's being lost on Jon. The letter is meant to divide and alienate Jon by setting up division between Jon and the Watchman (by blaming him for Arya and sparing Mance, the latter of which he didn't actually do), and/ or by causing reason for civil war between the factions (2 of 3 factions were asked for hostages-- guess what the Boltons are playing at with that). The letter opens a third way to take him out-- in the event Jon turns fake Arya over to the Boltons, he'll lose any chance of having the North follow him forever (he doesn't realize Arya is fake yet, but the point is that even entertaining the possibility of hostage turnover will undermine him, which directly impacts his LC business in light of how he needs good relations with them because of the wildling deal he just made with the clansmen). The point, though, is that the letter already attempts to destabilize Jon and the Watch no matter what choice he makes on this.

And no. He sold the idea of revenge to the wildlings because that's a cause he knew they'd get behind him for. Are we to believe he was really going to perform a one-man siege of Winterfell too, just because that's how he was selling it?

[Dolorous22]

If only the Lords and ladies of Westeros were that reasonable.

Ultimately, I don't think Ramsey wrote the letter BUT technically as LC he should obey The Lord of WF and the Warden of the North and do as he's bid. They were appointed by the King so their orders are suppose to be followed.

I'm not saying that's what I want him to do but Westerossi protocol seems to be very rigid and inflexible. I was surprised with just how easily JS walked back into the NW considering how ruthlessly disciplined they are suppose to be.

[Trigger Warning]

Doing the right thing and keeping his oaths aren't the same thing in this instance.

GRRM brings this up quite a lot.

[sj4iy]

If only the Lords and ladies of Westeros were that reasonable.

Ultimately, I don't think Ramsey wrote the letter BUT technically as LC he should obey The Lord of WF and the Warden of the North and do as he's bid. They were appointed by the King so their orders are suppose to be followed.

I'm not saying that's what I want him to do but Westerossi protocol seems to be very rigid and inflexible. I was surprised with just how easily JS walked back into the NW considering how ruthlessly disciplined they are suppose to be.

The NW are completely autonomous and have no obligation to "do as they're bid" by ANY King or Lord.

[butterbumps!]

If only the Lords and ladies of Westeros were that reasonable.

Ultimately, I don't think Ramsey wrote the letter BUT technically as LC he should obey The Lord of WF and the Warden of the North and do as he's bid. They were appointed by the King so their orders are suppose to be followed.

I'm not saying that's what I want him to do but Westerossi protocol seems to be very rigid and inflexible. I was surprised with just how easily JS walked back into the NW considering how ruthlessly disciplined they are suppose to be.

I don't think there's actually all that much rigid protocol that determines outcomes in general. Laws and customs aren't really imbued with the sort of authority that everyone invests in and follows.

But putting that aside, do you mean that Jon should have turned over the hostages? I think what would follow could be pretty disastrous-- it gives the queensmen and wildlings reason to team up against the Watch to protect their interests, and even if the Watch gains control, it serves to destabilize it (as a side note, Selyse was already actually trying to do this with the wildlings right before Jon gets the letter). And then turning over fake Arya (assuming she and Theon show up to be turned over) creates a permanent division between the Watch and the northmen, because they're not going to be pleased about this (more like, they'd be incandescently angry), and won't be very inclined to follow Jon or honor the arrangements they've just made wrt the wildling cooperation or anything else in terms of supporting the Wall with Jon in charge.

[Mithras]

Technicalities no longer matter during such a period.

[RoamingRonin]

Jon plans to march on Winterfell after a plan he sanctioned was botched, the objective of which was to steal a lord's wife, after providing aid and advice to said lord's major enemy (Stannis).

Not arguing the morality, because I was rooting for Jon the entire time. He was doing the right thing, but he most certainly broke his oath. Lets not attempt to find loopholes, or provide false logic as to why he is completely, morally absolved from making one of the most difficult, though ultimately correct, decisions in the entire story.

~Excerpt from, The Pink Letter.

It clearly suggests that Ramsay believed Jon was behind the plot, not that fArya and Theon went to the Wall for protection. Not sure how you can argue that Jon wasn't complicit anyway, based on the fact that Melisandre had to first reveal that Rattleshirt was actually Mance before Jon gave his blessing.

That's all I'm saying.

Ramsay has no intentions of taking on the Night's Watch so this preemptive strike idea is bunk. Ramsay doesn't say, "I'm bringing the Watch down starting with you, Jon!" His letter is addressed to the "bastard". Coming for Jon affects the Watch (obviously) but this is between Ramsay and Jon -- anyone who gets in the way will suffer. Ramsay is only threatening Jon because Jon got involved.

In the end, Jon wanted revenge ("I'm coming for you, bastard") because a plan he was part of (a plan that also goes against his vows) failed. Jon was playing a very dangerous game by offering Stannis castles and council. We knew that. He knew that. And now his hand in all of Stannis' operations has been revealed.

As I said before, just because someone sends you a letter saying, "I killed everyone and now I'm gonna kill you too lulz" doesn't mean you need to hold a conference and openly declare war. Jon could have continued to act in secret, gathering intel so he could be sure the letter was true. He decided to march because he thought all hope was lost. Also: Arya.