Yoren the oathbreaker

[SnowCastle]

Yoren was at Baelor's expecting to take Ned to the Wall, then things went sideways and there's Arya, about to witness it all. Yes, the Night's Watch has more of a tie to the Starks than any other family in the realm, both historically and to the current generation, but ultimately Yoren was protecting an innocent child, which he continued to do until he died. Sometimes protecting the realm entails protecting it from itself.

Thank you. He was adhering to the spirit if not the letter of the vow, although I'd even say he was shielding Arya since she was of the realms of men. How many threads are we going to have lambasting the actual good guys anyway? This is ridiculous. Hurry up, WoW.

[Cladinator]

He wasn't seeking glory. He was helping a young, helpless, and innocent girl. Also, the Starks were friends of the Watch and Yoren knew that. He wasn't breaking any vows.

[Lion of the West]

Yoren was a member of the Watch and is supposed to be neutral, that he takes part to aid one side of a conflict is not being neutral and while Yoren might be a Stark fan-boy as well that's no reason for being excused from having to follow the same rules that applies to everyone.

I'm ready for the storm so bring it on!

[Eden-Mackenzie]

Yoren was a member of the Watch and is supposed to be neutral, that he takes part to aid one side of a conflict is not being neutral and while Yoren might be a Stark fan-boy as well that's no reason for being excused from having to follow the same rules that applies to everyone.

I'm ready for the storm so bring it on!

Amory Lorch broke the Watch's neutrality by attacking Yoren while searching for Gendry, Yoren was just defending his charges. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we don't know for sure who told Yoren to take Gendry. It may have been Ned, or it may have been Varys, either one of whom would have been working for the crown at the time. The Arya situation is completely separate, and as we have seen in the events following Arya's escape from King's Landing, it has had zero impact on either side.

Sam protected Gilly, Jon protected Alys Karstark, Yoren protected Arya. The Watch protects the Realm, even if it is just one innocent person at a time.

Not really a storm, but I'm just relieved to see a discussion based on interpretation of actual events in the books, rather than crazy crackpot hypotheticals ;).

[Lion of the West]

Amory Lorch broke the Watch's neutrality by attacking Yoren while searching for Gendry, Yoren was just defending his charges. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we don't know for sure who told Yoren to take Gendry. It may have been Ned, or it may have been Varys, either one of whom would have been working for the crown at the time. The Arya situation is completely separate, and as we have seen in the events following Arya's escape from King's Landing, it has had zero impact on either side.

Sam protected Gilly, Jon protected Alys Karstark, Yoren protected Arya. The Watch protects the Realm, even if it is just one innocent person at a time.

Not really a storm, but I'm just relieved to see a discussion based on interpretation of actual events in the books, rather than crazy crackpot hypotheticals ;).

And I agree that Amory attacking Yoren was a breach of the Night's Watch neutrality however I fail to see how Amory acting in the wrong makes it ok for Yoren to have acted in the wrong even before that. Two wrongs does not make a right.

[JonisHenryTudor]

Let's not become to legalistic here, or before you know it you're going to be defending serial killers because they technically fell within the law. Exaggeration I know, but the only thing Yoren is guilty of is dying before reaching CB.

[Nevets]

Technically, there is no conflict occurring, at least as far as Yoren knows. True, Ned was executed for treason, but that doesn't affect his children. If the crown can't keep track of them, that's their problem, not his. I don't think he knows Robb called the banners, and certainly doesn't know that a full-blown war is brewing, or he wouldn't have taken the Kingsroad. As far as Yoren is concerned, he's taking the young niece of his black brother home, and he doesn't have to do anything special, just add her to his convoy. He's not taking a side, because there are no sides to take yet.

[Cladinator]

Yoren was a member of the Watch and is supposed to be neutral, that he takes part to aid one side of a conflict is not being neutral and while Yoren might be a Stark fan-boy as well that's no reason for being excused from having to follow the same rules that applies to everyone.

I'm ready for the storm so bring it on!

Really?

[TimJames]

Yoren didn't break his oath. Arya ate food he gave her and slept in his camp, so he was bound by guest right to keep her safe for the duration of the journey.

[Pecan]

All Yoren did was help a little girl that needed help. Arya hadn't broken any laws and wasn't wanted for any crimes.

[Neds Secret]

I don't think yoren broke his oaths or was seeking glory. It was similar to when Samwell wanted to "steal" gilly to protect her from craster. Arya was in danger and she is part of the realm and the nights watch fight to protect the realm so yoren wanted to get her away from danger by returning her home. If anything I believe he was serving his vows by trying to shield the helpless and innocent from danger, the fact that she is also Benjens niece made it an even more honourable and perhaps even crucial thing to attempt to do. It put him in danger and he did it anyway, it was chivalrous!

[Greymoon]

1) neutrality is impossible during conflict. Not taking any action to counteract an abusive authority, can be viewed as taking a side, as an implicit agreement, or cooperation. It's a neutrality vs morality conflict.

2) there's plenty of debates today about what 'neutrality' means. There a huge difference between absolute neutrality (in theory, the Red Cross approach) and relative neutrality (in theory, Doctors Without Borders' approach.) I'm taking these as example, because it makes it easier to understand the dilemma of neutrality, more on that below for those that are interested :) :

Doctors Without Borders was founded by volunteers of the Red Cross, as a direct answer to the Red Cross's policy (that's the myth in any case, the reality looks different). The young volunteers didn't agree with the neutral policy of the Red Cross, that forbid them to speak out against human right abuse. To argue the point, Doctors Without Borders often pointed out that during WWII, the Red Cross had access to prisoners of concentration camps, and said nothing of what they witnessed.

The Red Cross justified their silence on the basis of 'neutrality' and the estimation that speaking out would do more harm than good -- if they spoke out, they would no longer have access to patients.

In short, the Red Cross will say 'silence for access', and Doctors Without Borders will say 'silence kills'.

3) both of these NGOs consider themselves 'neutral' > they have a different view on neutrality. The Red Cross will often consider that speaking out breaches the principle of neutrality, and constitutes a political act. Doctors Without Borders will consider that speaking out doesn't constitute a true political act -- It's an act of raising awareness that has political consequences, but not political in itself.

4) in practice, neutrality has to be negotiated at every turn, you weight pros and cons.

So to come back to our topic of the Night's Watch's neutrality, and Yoren's 'oathbreaking'...

1) it's not stated in the vows, so it's not clearly defined and a matter of interpretation.

2) if we follow the idea of 'relative neutrality' speaking doesn't constitute a breach of that neutrality. In that case, Jon giving Stannis council, doesn't constitute vow breaking.

3) if there is an ongoing conflict, wherein an authority is abusing power and innocents suffer from it, then you'd only fool yourself in claiming to be 'neutral', and you'd risk sacrificing you own ethics/moral, by doing nothing.

imo, Yoren helping little Arya Stark to return home, is not at all, vow breaking. The Night's Watch vows doesn't stipulate "You shall help no innocent in need", or even "You shall bend to the will of the Iron Throne."

In fact, 'neutrality' goes both ways. The Night's Watch recognizes no King or Queen, so there's nothing obligating Yoren to yield to Cersei's demands -- whether it means yielding Arya, or Gendry. The Gold Cloaks are actually doing away with any theoretical neutrality of the Night's Watch by attacking them after Yoren refused to cooperate. Yoren's refusal was legitimate, because neutrality should also mean that one can safely refuse cooperating, without fear of reprisal.

Neutrality is not just a 'principle', it's also a 'right' -- the right of not being attacked, of refusing cooperation, and of maintaining political autonomy.

Jon letting the wildlings stay at the wall, is not a breach of that neutrality, because he's maintaining the political autonomy of the watch. His dealings with Stannis, may be seen as such, yet I'd argue that most of Jon's actions were done to benefit the Watch, and that here too, he managed to maintain it's political autonomy. In any case, if Jon's an oath breaker, Bowen Marsh is a worse one.

When Tywin Lannister corresponds with Bowen Marsh and promises help in return of the election of Janos Slynt as LC, Tywin is breaching the NW's neutrality by melding in their affairs. And by agreeing to his plans, Bowen is gambling with the Watch's political autonomy.

[eyenon15]

He wasn't seeking glory. He was helping a young, helpless, and innocent girl. Also, the Starks were friends of the Watch and Yoren knew that. He wasn't breaking any vows.

yeh, I think he wasn't conducting Nights Watch business by helping her. He was acting on his own accord.

[The_lost_arryn19]

It doesn't matter if his glory seeking, gold seeking, or political meddling was intentional or not. His actions make those other things happen so no matter what he's oathbreaking. I don't think there is some clause in the vows that says as long as it's not intentional you're good. Yea it was the morally right thing to so but it doesn't change the fact that he broke his vows

[sweetsunray]

It doesn't matter if his glory seeking, gold seeking, or political meddling was intentional or not. His actions make those other things happen so no matter what he's oathbreaking. I don't think there is some clause in the vows that says as long as it's not intentional you're good. Yea it was the morally right thing to so but it doesn't change the fact that he broke his vows

Have you actually read the vows?

"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."

Taking Arya along does NOT break any of his vows: he's not taking her for a wife, he's not getting any land out of it, he's not fathering children, he's not gaining a crown over it and he's not doing it for a glorious title to get points for a knighthood request. He dies at his post, he's a sword against darkness (abusing little girls and murdering bastards) and shields the realms of men by smuggling innocents along - one to become a recruit and the other might give him food, money or men for the NW.

There's nothing in that vow that says "I shall not interfere with a queen or king's requests".

[walkingWITHcersei]

There's a theory out there that Yoren was in at least a small way an agent of Varys. Mainly as a passer of information way not a full blown crony. The evidence for it is intriguing but not necessarily compelling, but if true puts his rescuing of Arya in a different light. Varys seemed interested in getting Ned back North and it's possible sending Arya along was a prelude to Varys recruiting Ned in some way to his cause. Where it gets really interesting is if Varys involvement explains how Jaqen new who Arry really was. Maybe it was Varys who brought Arya to the attention of the FM. He certainly knew her martial nature, and who better than Varys would recognize the potential weapon a FM trained Stark female could become. Not to mention the way every person in Planetos seems to be attempting to fulfill one prophecy or another who the hell knows what ancient scroll Varys and the FM might believe Arya will fulfill. If Yoren took the spiders coin the possible story lines are limitless.

[Trigger Warning]

He was helping the young niece of a fellow brother in a terrible situation.

Maybe his saying of an oath didn't wipe out his humanity if that's possible.

[Clegane'sPup]

The topic of Yoren being an oath breaker is subjective. Using the context of the story, Yoren was on a recruiting mission for the NW. He pays a visit to Eddard Stark, who is now the Hand, and asks for men. Stark gives Yoren the pick of the dungeons. Arya was present when Yoren arrived to speak with her father.

There is a history between the Starks and NW, a bond, a loyalty, a respect, an understanding.

Yoren is in KL to get recruits for the NW. But something changes. Eddard is accused of being a traitor. As part of Eddard’s plea deal he is to be allowed to take the Black. Yoren is to wait at a specific spot and add Eddard to his recruits. No oath breaking there.

Chapter 58 or Eddard XV. Varys in disguise visits Ned in the dungeon. Varys tells Ned that Arya escaped and fled & that Sansa has pleaded that Ned’s life be spared.

Varys drop’s the bomb: “I trust you realize that you are a dead man, Lord Eddard.” I interpret that to mean that it does not matter what Ned does or does not do, Ned is a dead man.

Varys & Eddard carry on their conversation. Eddard asks

Would you at least consent to carry a message out for me? “That would depend on the message. I will gladly provide you with paper and ink, if you like. And when you have written what you will, I will take the letter and read it, and deliver it or not, as best serves my own ends.”

Remember Arya was present when Yoren arrived to speak with her father. Yoren knows what Arya looks like. […]Yoren grabs Arya to protect her from the sight of seeing her father beheaded. I think it was a coincidence that she was near the spot where Yoren was to pick up Eddard. No oath breaking there.

Then in ACOK chapter 1 or Ayra I Yoren tells her

“Here’s something you don’t know. It wasn’t supposed to happen like it did. I was set to leave, wagons bought and loaded, and a man comes with a boy for me and a purse of coin, and a message, never mind who it’s from. Lord Eddard is to take the Black, he says to me, wait, he will being going with you. Why do you think I was there? Only something went queer.

If the insinuation that Yoren was an oath breaker is based on the purse of coin, I would claim that that the coin was a donation NW.

Yoren has his recruits. His task is to deliver them to the NW which he continues to try to do. No oath breaking there.

And yes, he does tell Arya he will drop her at WF. No oath breaking there. He is merely trying to protect the child of a man he respects.

[James Arryn]

Adult protects child from harm. Not really political in and of itself. I agree it seems most rules have Starkceptions, but I'm not sure this is a good example.

[Clegane'sPup]

Adult protects child from harm. Not really political in and of itself. I agree it seems most rules have Starkceptions, but I'm not sure this is a good example.

Is Yoren an oath breaker in your MHO?