Is The Concept Of The Night's Watch Obsolete?

[Julia H.]

4 hours ago, Skahaz mo Kandaq said:

The rules are taken into consideration and effectively addressed.  They have the solutions in place to mitigate the problems caused by human nature.  It's called rules, policies, procedures, laws, and oaths.  And those are broken there is punishment.  Ice cells or in extreme cases, execution. 

Oh, yes, I'm aware of the procedures they have to keep up discipline and prevent desertion. Sure, it works for many of those who are already there. That doesn't mean that many of the rules are not against human nature. 

Quote

There policies, rules, and oaths work very well in almost all cases.  That is why even a person who was once a criminal can be counted on to put his life on the line to defend the kingdom.  As far as reward, the fact that the brothers are fed, sheltered, and cared for is a good reward in those uncertain times before there was such a thing as the 401(K) and social security benefits.  It's a job for life and all you have to do is follow the rules. 

Some people will defend the kingdom because they believe in their oaths. Some will do that because of a charismatic leader they follow. Some will do that because they have no choice - they have nowhere to go and do not dare to desert. But there are also those who desert, who only wait for a chance to get away from the Wall, who even conspire to assassinate the Lord Commander. Food and shelter can indeed be attractive, but they will only draw those people who have nowhere else to go, the ones who cannot find (military or other) service in a more comfortable place, where they do not have to make all the sacrifice the NW demands. Just food and shelter will not attract experienced and powerful fighters, knights, noblemen with military training, men with education, because they will find better opportunities. You have to follow the rules wherever you are, but those who have a choice will think twice about which set of rules to choose.

Quote

Most commoners called to battle in support of their lords win no glory.  The best they can hope for is plunder and spoils of war. 

And look how happy and enthusiastic they are to be called to battle. (By the way, they can also hope to survive the battle and return to their homes, to their families, to their little land, something that a watchman cannot hope.) These commoners are just arrow fodder in battle, not skilled fighters, and they are forced to fight without even knowing what they are fighting for. The lords couldn't win their battles only with them. Likewise, the NW needs more than just the most desperate and least skilled parts of the available fighting force. 

4 hours ago, Skahaz mo Kandaq said:

Oh, and the lords are no threat to them unless they do something completely stupid like Jon, who sent wildlings to get his sister away from her husband.

I mentioned examples:

Yoren, a travelling black brother with a group of fresh recruits, was killed just because he was travelling across a war territory. No one cared about his neutrality although he was wearing the black uniform.

Also, Stannis on the Wall was a clear threat, as his army was much larger than the whole NW and he made demands. He did not accept NW neutrality, and he behaved as though he was in his own castle - made personal threats, demanded castles and weapons, decided about the war prisoners, etc.  

Tywin tried to influence the LC election, on the basis of his political power.

Cersei tried to arrange the assassination of the LC.

Did they really respect the neutrality of the Night's Watch?

When the NW sent out requests for help "to all five kings" (what can be more neutral than that?), it was considered offensive by some. The lords expect the Watch to be neutral when their enemies need recognition but not so neutral when they themselves want recognition, perhaps even help. 

Quote

The wall has criminals on its roster.  That is true.  In most cases, those criminals accept their lot and serve the watch.  Most don't go running off and leaving their posts.  The few who do get executed.   They honor their vows.  They stay at their posts.  They put their lives on the line because they accepted it as their duty.

And because they have no other choice.

I'm not sure the point of my previous post was totally clear. I agree that there are means to keep the criminals inside the NW. The problem is that this won't make the NW a strong, respected and prestigious organization. The main problem is not the number of deserters. The main problem is that very, very few people join voluntarily, and you simply cannot protect the realm effectively with only those who are forced to do it, while the best they can expect in return is mere survival.

Quote

Neutrality is very important.  No military outfit like the watch can expect to go unmolested and untouched by the conflicts between houses without maintaining a long tradition of neutrality.  If the watch could not be counted on to maintain its neutrality they would have been disbanded a long time ago.  The NW has to stay neutral and avoid getting itself entangled in the games that the lords play. 

Yes. That doesn't contradict what I've said, which is that neutrality cannot be one-sided. If it isn't respected by all parties, then neutrality is an illusion. Perhaps a beautiful illusion, but still an illusion. 

Quote

The world of fire and ice is not full of opportunities like ours is.  A bastard has few prospects in life.  A fifth son of a minor noble has limited options.  He's not going to work the land and farm.  That's beneath his station.  He's not going to inherit much if anything at all.  To such, the Night's Watch is a good option. 

So then why don't we see young men flocking to the NW all the time? Why does Yoren have to clear the prisons of the realm in order to produce some new recruits? If the NW were a good option, a lot of young people would recognize it and would be happy to join. 

Quote

The comparison with the Kingsguard is unfair.  Those men are renowned for their fighting prowess.  At least they were historically before Robert took the throne.  The Night's Watch asked nothing in the way of a prerequisite.  They accept the recruits, give them basic training, and place them where they can do the most good.

Sorry, that's like putting the cart before the horse. The king can choose the best fighters for the Kingsguard because the Kingsguard members get rewards for their service, thus it is a prestigious organization to join, and some of the best fighters will actually apply for a place there. The NW will ask no prerequisite because they have to accept whoever comes their way and it is because they have next to nothing to offer in exchange. The comparison is valid because both organizations demand total and lifelong dedication (and a vow), but the Kingsguard members receive an attractive compensation package, while NW members don't. The result is predictable: the Kingsguard will be able to choose some of the best, while the NW will have to do with some of the worst.

Quote

The Night's Watch shows favoritism towards the noble born and noble bastards.  It's not the same as the democracy and equal opportunity that we enjoy today.  But by their standards, it is a place where a farmer's son can rise to the ranks and become an officer.  It's a place where a man gets what he deserves in the end. 

Ideally, yes. But somehow we don't see any more farmer's sons eager to join just for the great opportunity the NW offers than fourth and fifth sons and bastards of lords. Why?

Quote

There were more recruits in the past because there were more conflicts in the past when the land was all separate kingdoms of minor kings who never stopped fighting among themselves.  The Targaryens brought about long periods of peace between wars.  Stability.  The Targaryens brought stability.  A great lord chosen by the Targaryen king can expect to remain the gl and nobody challenged him because everyone followed the king's laws.  Stability.  The lords are no longer constantly pushing and shoving for a place on the high table.  With a unified kingdom, each person had a place.  There was no need to punish sons of the losing houses by sending them to the wall.  Conflict was less common between the houses, thanks to the Targaryens. 

That, in fact, corroborates what I said: the NW is / has become in effect a prison camp, barely kept alive by the condemned and the defeated, its prestige destroyed. This is not the kind of organization that will attract large numbers of those with skill, education and the opportunity to choose. 

[Curled Finger]

The watch was once a very desirable place to be for many different types of men.  That a character like Aemon Targaryan would accept and dedicate his life to the organization says something about the NW as an organization.  He was a prince and maester--of all people he did not have to stay on the Wall.  Still he took the oath and made the Watch his family over a far more hospitable life somewhere else.  Whatever it is that attracted Aemon surely attracted Mormont and Benjen Stark, maybe Raymar Royce and Jon Snow.  Whether we can define the quality that makes the Watch appealing is not at issue.  Some quality is there.  Now I've read each post and agree with very nearly everything written on both sides of the issue.  It's not a nice place, still it is attractive to some maybe only rare and noble men and boys, yet they come and stay.  Even Sam who didn't want to go and didn't want to stay has carved a belonging out among misfits and perhaps that is all there is to it--belonging.  

There are inhabitants at all but 2 castles (and the Nightfort) along the Wall.  Wildlings have taken the vows as free men.  Girls have tried to hide their identities to join.  They've offered their children, warriors and treasures.  Could be for survival and could be they dig the gig.  Still, the castles are primarily manned by Wildlings who have agreed to act in concert with the NW.  Val and Tormund have come and gone and come back again.  I think it would be a disservice to any conversation regarding the Nights Watch not to include it's most recent members and associates who happen to be bitter enemies only a short time ago.  Love or hate Jon he did this and the Watch's numbers have swollen dramatically.

Is the concept obsolete?  Nah.  It's already changed which I imagine it's done over the thousands of years it's been in place.  The Wildlings are the New Nights Watch and they understand the real threat.  Could it be a more attractive, democratic and productive organization?  Sure, everything can be improved upon.  I doubt any Wildlings will be given lands and castles to reward their efforts, but these castles are theirs now.  If they survive they will be running the entire show along the Wall and that is bound to be monumental and drastic change.  

[Big P]

Yoren wasn't playing neutral.  Yoren took sides,  Something he never, ever should have done.  He should have kept his nose out of it, that Stark sympathizer got himself into trouble on his own. 

[Daemon The Black Dragon]

13 minutes ago, Curled Finger said:

The watch was once a very desirable place to be for many different types of men.  That a character like Aemon Targaryan would accept and dedicate his life to the organization says something about the NW as an organization.  He was a prince and maester--of all people he did not have to stay on the Wall.  Still he took the oath and made the Watch his family over a far more hospitable life somewhere else.  Whatever it is that attracted Aemon surely attracted Mormont and Benjen Stark, maybe Raymar Royce and Jon Snow.  Whether we can define the quality that makes the Watch appealing is not at issue.  Some quality is there.  Now I've read each post and agree with very nearly everything written on both sides of the issue.  It's not a nice place, still it is attractive to some maybe only rare and noble men and boys, yet they come and stay.  Even Sam who didn't want to go and didn't want to stay has carved a belonging out among misfits and perhaps that is all there is to it--belonging.  

There are inhabitants at all but 2 castles (and the Nightfort) along the Wall.  Wildlings have taken the vows as free men.  Girls have tried to hide their identities to join.  They've offered their children, warriors and treasures.  Could be for survival and could be they dig the gig.  Still, the castles are primarily manned by Wildlings who have agreed to act in concert with the NW.  Val and Tormund have come and gone and come back again.  I think it would be a disservice to any conversation regarding the Nights Watch not to include it's most recent members and associates who happen to be bitter enemies only a short time ago.  Love or hate Jon he did this and the Watch's numbers have swollen dramatically.

Is the concept obsolete?  Nah.  It's already changed which I imagine it's done over the thousands of years it's been in place.  The Wildlings are the New Nights Watch and they understand the real threat.  Could it be a more attractive, democratic and productive organization?  Sure, everything can be improved upon.  I doubt any Wildlings will be given lands and castles to reward their efforts, but these castles are theirs now.  If they survive they will be running the entire show along the Wall and that is bound to be monumental and drastic change.  

Well to be fair, Aemon only joined the NW so he couldn't be used somehow  against his younger brother.

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Curled Finger said:

Even Sam who didn't want to go and didn't want to stay has carved a belonging out among misfits and perhaps that is all there is to it--belonging.  

Jon had carved a belonging out among misfits for Sam-from getting it to he's exempt from the basic training every recruit needs to getting the boy a job to completey caters to his interests. 

1 hour ago, Curled Finger said:

Could it be a more attractive, democratic and productive organization?  Sure, everything can be improved upon.

More Democratic quire frankly would stifle productivity-I mean the Night's watch is a military order after all not a country.

[Curled Finger]

2 hours ago, Daemon The Black Dragon said:

Well to be fair, Aemon only joined the NW so he couldn't be used somehow  against his younger brother.

He didn't have to stay.  He could have taken other paths with the Watch as merely a stop.  Marwyn says Aemon should have been an archmaester.  We don't know what happened, but I think as a Targaryan, strings could have been pulled to get him off the Wall if that was Aemon's desire. 

[Curled Finger]

36 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Jon had carved a belonging out among misfits for Sam-from getting it to he's exempt from the basic training every recruit needs to getting the boy a job to completey caters to his interests. 

More Democratic quire frankly would stifle productivity-I mean the Night's watch is a military order after all not a country.

I meant with regard to nepotism, Ser.  I will try to be more clear in the future.  How is Jon forming a friendship and protecting Sam not making Sam feel as though he belongs?  We know Sam establishes his place among the friends eventually.  Sam's assignment to Maester Aemon served the Watch far better than Sam with a sword or Clydas writing letters.   I never considered the assignment catering to Sam's interests in the least.   It was a good fit all the way around.  It isn't as though Sam hasn't proven his worth.   He did kill an Other.  He did his duties well when the Wildlings attacked the Wall.  He was utterly devoted to maester Aemon.  He practices his archery.  Seems to me he's had much better training in the environment Jon created than anything Aliser Thorne had in mind.    

[Son of Man]

On 2/23/2018 at 7:49 PM, The Sunland Lord said:

The sworn Brothers of the Night's Watch are there for life.

Also, they are not allowed to marry, have children, or inherit. Seems like their only motivation to protect the realm on a constantly poor life conditions is only their life in its lowest form. And there are even people who don't have to choose between life and death, but still go to the Wall voluntarily.

But then again, how much can life be dear to them if the life itself has next to no personal meaning for a black brother? 

Would you defend a society which rejects you-for one reason or another? Would you defend people who generally look down on you? A realm that castrates you (not literally), and strip you of every natural right and desire? 

That being said, what would you change in the concept of the Night's Watch's functioning? Do you think that it actually will suffer some changes by the end of the story in order to be more productive and less rigid? 

Or, if you think that it is good to stay this way, would you elaborate?

Why do you think the NW is static and doesn't change?  The NW evolved over time.  It adjusted to the needs of the realm.  Why go through the expense of defending every castle when the only threat for the last 9,999 years are the wildlings.  The wildlings raid and steal.  But the damage those cause is less than the cost of maintaining every castle at the wall.  You don't buy a 20K safe to prevent someone from stealing a three hundred dollar Seiko. 

Having rigid rules is necessary to enforce discipline and keep every member in line.  Most of the men at the watch are dedicated to their jobs.  The watch has a culture and most recruits will fall in line and accept that culture.  These men know they can redeem themselves through self-respect.  Camaraderie and fellowship give the recruits a sense of belonging.  The watch is their family now. 

The function of the watch is to protect the realm.  They can't do that without bias unless each recruit formally gives up his former family.  All former allegiances must be set aside and forgotten.   This is part of the reason why I don't like Jon.  Jon never could get this through his head.  He left Castle Black and intended to ride south to help the Starks fight the Lannisters.  Different from the occasional oversexed brother who just needs to blow off steam at whore's town, Jon had no intentions of coming back that morning.  He broke his oaths already and if it were not for his brothers who had more honor and are better people, Jon would have never come back.  Jon knew better after watching what happened to Gared.  Jon rode out knowing it was wrong to do it. 

Keeping a respectful distance away from the politics of the realm is important to the N-W.  By showing favoritism towards none and prejudice towards none they are better able to protect the realm instead of playing the game of thrones.  The focus always was to the other side of the wall.  Leaving behind family allegiances and alliances means each brother will start a new life clean.  Clean of old family loyalties and clean of all crimes they committed during their previous lives.  Those who come in voluntarily come in without the burden of family obligations and they too get to start clean.  One of the lessons learned in the last book is why the watch must keep itself above the squabbles of the kingdom.  If it truly believes that the biggest threat to man is on the other side of that wall then it is a good reason to make every recruit forget about what and who they left behind.  Because none of that matters if the others cross the wall.  Taking Arya from Ramsay doesn't mean anything if the others cross the wall.  She will be worse than dead.  Whereas she may only die in Bolton hands if she doesn't keep her nasty temper in check.  Jon was not thinking with his head in the last book. 

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

4 hours ago, Curled Finger said:

I meant with regard to nepotism, Ser.  I will try to be more clear in the future.  How is Jon forming a friendship and protecting Sam not making Sam feel as though he belongs?  We know Sam establishes his place among the friends eventually.  Sam's assignment to Maester Aemon served the Watch far better than Sam with a sword or Clydas writing letters.   I never considered the assignment catering to Sam's interests in the least.   It was a good fit all the way around.  It isn't as though Sam hasn't proven his worth.   He did kill an Other.  He did his duties well when the Wildlings attacked the Wall.  He was utterly devoted to maester Aemon.  He practices his archery.  Seems to me he's had much better training in the environment Jon created than anything Aliser Thorne had in mind.    

My point was Jon is entirely responsible for Sam having the opportunity to have such a feeling of belonging-Jon made it his specific goal to make the watch as comfortable for this pitiable boy as Jon can-such as bringing Sam into his inner circle and demanding his friends treat Sam kindly(to which in result got Sam to open up to be sure-but Sam isn't really taking an initiative to make friends) to getting all the rest of recruits to specifically go easy on him in practice even going as to threaten to murder one into falling in line-and yes screwing a guy out of his position as Aemon's assistant to give to Sam(it wasn't for some greater good of the watch-it was to help his weak friend survive)Sam did not have to adjust to cater to the watch's needs  in any real degree which would be expected as much for many recruits instead the watch needed to be bent by Jon to cater to Sam. Such a thing can not be done for every recruit-people need to understand they might be forced to st make some changes to their own character if they wish to join the brotherhood. 

[Son of Man]

41 minutes ago, Curled Finger said:

He didn't have to stay.  He could have taken other paths with the Watch as merely a stop.  Marwyn says Aemon should have been an archmaester.  We don't know what happened, but I think as a Targaryan, strings could have been pulled to get him off the Wall if that was Aemon's desire. 

It's not a good idea to make an exception to allow Aemon to leave the watch.  Let one dude off the hook and you open the doors for others to start doing the same.

[Varysblackfyre321]

8 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Oh, yes, I'm aware of the procedures they have to keep up discipline and prevent desertion. Sure, it works for many of those who are already there. That doesn't mean that many of the rules are not against human nature. 

Some people will defend the kingdom because they believe in their oaths. Some will do that because of a charismatic leader they follow. Some will do that because they have no choice - they have nowhere to go and do not dare to desert. But there are also those who desert, who only wait for a chance to get away from the Wall, who even conspire to assassinate the Lord Commander. Food and shelter can indeed be attractive, but they will only draw those people who have nowhere else to go, the ones who cannot find (military or other) service in a more comfortable place, where they do not have to make all the sacrifice the NW demands. Just food and shelter will not attract experienced and powerful fighters, knights, noblemen with military training, men with education, because they will find better opportunities. You have to follow the rules wherever you are, but those who have a choice will think twice about which set of rules to choose.

And look how happy and enthusiastic they are to be called to battle. (By the way, they can also hope to survive the battle and return to their homes, to their families, to their little land, something that a watchman cannot hope.) These commoners are just arrow fodder in battle, not skilled fighters, and they are forced to fight without even knowing what they are fighting for. The lords couldn't win their battles only with them. Likewise, the NW needs more than just the most desperate and least skilled parts of the available fighting force. 

I mentioned examples:

Yoren, a travelling black brother with a group of fresh recruits, was killed just because he was travelling across a war territory. No one cared about his neutrality although he was wearing the black uniform.

Also, Stannis on the Wall was a clear threat, as his army was much larger than the whole NW and he made demands. He did not accept NW neutrality, and he behaved as though he was in his own castle - made personal threats, demanded castles and weapons, decided about the war prisoners, etc.  

Tywin tried to influence the LC election, on the basis of his political power.

Cersei tried to arrange the assassination of the LC.

Did they really respect the neutrality of the Night's Watch?

When the NW sent out requests for help "to all five kings" (what can be more neutral than that?), it was considered offensive by some. The lords expect the Watch to be neutral when their enemies need recognition but not so neutral when they themselves want recognition, perhaps even help. 

And because they have no other choice.

I'm not sure the point of my previous post was totally clear. I agree that there are means to keep the criminals inside the NW. The problem is that this won't make the NW a strong, respected and prestigious organization. The main problem is not the number of deserters. The main problem is that very, very few people join voluntarily, and you simply cannot protect the realm effectively with only those who are forced to do it, while the best they can expect in return is mere survival.

Yes. That doesn't contradict what I've said, which is that neutrality cannot be one-sided. If it isn't respected by all parties, then neutrality is an illusion. Perhaps a beautiful illusion, but still an illusion. 

So then why don't we see young men flocking to the NW all the time? Why does Yoren have to clear the prisons of the realm in order to produce some new recruits? If the NW were a good option, a lot of young people would recognize it and would be happy to join. 

Sorry, that's like putting the cart before the horse. The king can choose the best fighters for the Kingsguard because the Kingsguard members get rewards for their service, thus it is a prestigious organization to join, and some of the best fighters will actually apply for a place there. The NW will ask no prerequisite because they have to accept whoever comes their way and it is because they have next to nothing to offer in exchange. The comparison is valid because both organizations demand total and lifelong dedication (and a vow), but the Kingsguard members receive an attractive compensation package, while NW members don't. The result is predictable: the Kingsguard will be able to choose some of the best, while the NW will have to do with some of the worst.

Ideally, yes. But somehow we don't see any more farmer's sons eager to join just for the great opportunity the NW offers than fourth and fifth sons and bastards of lords. Why?

That, in fact, corroborates what I said: the NW is / has become in effect a prison camp, barely kept alive by the condemned and the defeated, its prestige destroyed. This is not the kind of organization that will attract large numbers of those with skill, education and the opportunity to choose. 

So what do you specifically recommend the NW do to improve? 

I have to trying to offer the same benefits of the Kingsguard seem not doable. There are plenty of tourneys for the King's guard to delve into because they're in the south where there is a knight culture; north not really. 

They will be seen continuously with the king so there will always be seen with the king (naturally) so they get plenty of respect; and they'd live in luxury in the king's own castle and families would put forward there sons who show talent forward as canindates because it reflects really kindly on them and perhaps win favor with the monarch. 

Trying to play at Neutrality is the best thing they could do quite frankly given they rely utterly upon the good will of those in power for their survival-if they back the wrong side the order can be justifibly destroyed all together. 

[Lord of Raventree Hall]

I personally think that the concept that you should not have a wife or children is an old fashioned and stupid one. Real world example : Catholic Priests. In case you don't know, there has been tons of controversy arround then raping little boys. The plain fact is that starving someone of one of one of the things we hold dear leads to then acting in desperate ways. My suggestion is that they still must give up land, ect., but they can have a wife and children. In fact, I think their wives could serve on the Night's Watch as well. Why not? If not,  there could be whole towns in the Gift purely ran by the wives or children of Night's Watchmen. You could have a leave program simar to the military that allowed them to see their wives and children for so long every year. I think its absolute bullshit that limiting someone in that way makes them a better watchman. You can still make desertation's penalty death. Look I have had a job and been single and lonely. I have had a job and been happily married. If anything, being married provides me with hope and support. It provides me with MORE motivation to work, not less. Current motivation : Hold this sword or we kill you. Possible motivation : Hold this sword or we kill you and charge a fine to your wife (or darker option, and kill your wife). Actually, while on this subject, the Kinsguard goes into this as well. I just think it is bull, and I would guess if Westeros had Psychologists, they would agree with me. My mother's masters was in psychology and family counseling and if there is anything I've learned from her is limiting people's access to conmections normally has a negative affect on their psyche not a positive one. Also having the Night's Watch for non-criminals be a temporary thing might increase enrollment. I mean serve in a grand order protecting thr realm for 5 years sounds better than for life to me. 

p.s. Since everyone keeps talking about neutrality, I agree with that part of their oaths. Perhaps with my marriage option, their wife and children would have to also be neutral as long as they were on the night's watch or something. Again, real world example, my dad is a minister. He is married to my mom. My mom also goes to church. I don't now that I'm an adult but I did as a child. I did not limit his spirituality or his ability to help people. If anything he was better able to help people as he experienced the same trials they had. I am sorry but ya'll acting like having a wife would stop you from protecting the realm. I haven't heard of mass desertions of the Army of people who are married or something like that. I don't think their is any evidence that being married or having kids makes anyone less likely to do their job well. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

4 hours ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

I personally think that the concept that you should not have a wife or children is an old fashioned and stupid one. Real world example : Catholic Priests. In case you don't know, there has been tons of controversy arround then raping little boys. The plain fact is that starving someone of one of one of the things we hold dear leads to then acting in desperate ways. My suggestion is that they still must give up land, ect., but they can have a wife and children. In fact, I think their wives could serve on the Night's Watch as well. Why not? If not,  there could be whole towns in the Gift purely ran by the wives or children of Night's Watchmen. You could have a leave program simar to the military that allowed them to see their wives and children for so long every year. I think its absolute bullshit that limiting someone in that way makes them a better watchman. You can still make desertation's penalty death. Look I have had a job and been single and lonely. I have had a job and been happily married. If anything, being married provides me with hope and support. It provides me with MORE motivation to work, not less. Current motivation : Hold this sword or we kill you. Possible motivation : Hold this sword or we kill you and charge a fine to your wife (or darker option, and kill your wife). Actually, while on this subject, the Kinsguard goes into this as well. I just think it is bull, and I would guess if Westeros had Psychologists, they would agree with me. My mother's masters was in psychology and family counseling and if there is anything I've learned from her is limiting people's access to conmections normally has a negative affect on their psyche not a positive one. Also having the Night's Watch for non-criminals be a temporary thing might increase enrollment. I mean serve in a grand order protecting thr realm for 5 years sounds better than for life to me. 

p.s. Since everyone keeps talking about neutrality, I agree with that part of their oaths. Perhaps with my marriage option, their wife and children would have to also be neutral as long as they were on the night's watch or something. Again, real world example, my dad is a minister. He is married to my mom. My mom also goes to church. I don't now that I'm an adult but I did as a child. I did not limit his spirituality or his ability to help people. If anything he was better able to help people as he experienced the same trials they had. I am sorry but ya'll acting like having a wife would stop you from protecting the realm. I haven't heard of mass desertions of the Army of people who are married or something like that. I don't think their is any evidence that being married or having kids makes anyone less likely to do their job well. 

First Catholic priests are no more  likely to molest children than men in general; celibacy does not automatically give way to deviancy:https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/blog/do-the-right-thing/201003/six-important-points-you-dont-hear-about-regarding-clergy-sexual%3famp

The issue comes about when the church (shamefully), tried hIf the predators in their mist to avoid scandal.

Second, the watch very well needs to be entirely dedicated to the one goal of protecting civilization; their alligence can not be to their families, they can't be tempted galavant back to society to their family's  home every time there's some big war; wifes and children divide their loyalty given they can be taken and held hostage, the wive's side of the family could very well be taken hostage and thus the wife will beg her husband to do things that may hurt the watch . I mean we're talking about men tasked with protecting civilization itself before that mankind itself.

Third, a little bit more recruits may come to the watch but ultimately it wouldn't make up towards the people being let go; most people are going to leave such a cold desolate place the second they are able to and not come back to re-enlist-lords can conscript boy and men if needed to make up for a shortage of men; the watch can't. The Watch needs all their recruits for life for they have very little ways to actually recuperate their losses should they be let go.

[BRANDON GREYSTARK]

On ‎2‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 7:49 PM, The Sunland Lord said:

The sworn Brothers of the Night's Watch are there for life.

Also, they are not allowed to marry, have children, or inherit. Seems like their only motivation to protect the realm on a constantly poor life conditions is only their life in its lowest form. And there are even people who don't have to choose between life and death, but still go to the Wall voluntarily.

But then again, how much can life be dear to them if the life itself has next to no personal meaning for a black brother? 

Would you defend a society which rejects you-for one reason or another? Would you defend people who generally look down on you? A realm that castrates you (not literally), and strip you of every natural right and desire? 

That being said, what would you change in the concept of the Night's Watch's functioning? Do you think that it actually will suffer some changes by the end of the story in order to be more productive and less rigid? 

Or, if you think that it is good to stay this way, would you elaborate?

Yes it is obsolete . 1 ) The defense of the north is the sole province of the warden of the north , 2) Using criminals to defend realm is reckless , since there only goal is to escape their loyalty will always be suspect .

[Varysblackfyre321]

5 hours ago, Son of Man said:

The function of the watch is to protect the realm.  They can't do that without bias unless each recruit formally gives up his former family.  All former allegiances must be set aside and forgotten.   This is part of the reason why I don't like Jon.  Jon never could get this through his head.  He left Castle Black and intended to ride south to help the Starks fight the Lannisters.  Different from the occasional oversexed brother who just needs to blow off steam at whore's town, Jon had no intentions of coming back that morning.  He broke his oaths already and if it were not for his brothers who had more honor and are better people, Jon would have never come back.  Jon knew better after watching what happened to Gared.  Jon rode out knowing it was wrong to do it. 

True. Jon by all reason should have lost his head for his desertion-Jeor mormont quite frankly was showing undue leniency for the boy. An execution was called for. But, Jon apparently was a special case. I suspect largely because of him being a son of Ned Stark. Sad to see Jon do a similar thing for excusing Mance for his desertion and going along with Melisandre's plot to use him to fetch Arya. Mance murderer of his own brothers and deserter should have died by Jon's hand given his role as not only a Nighswatchman but the lord commander.

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

14 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Jon by all reason should have lost his head for his desertion-Jeor mormont quite frankly was showing undue leniency for the boy. An execution was called for. But, Jon apparently was a special case. I suspect largely because of him being a son of Ned Stark.

That's a touch harsh isn't it? Jon left, but came back. The Old Bear's clever enough to know the difference between a teenage boy having a bit of a meltdown after his father was murdered and a genuine attempt at desertion. 

 

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

With regards to the OP, in my opinion the Nights Watch was just about able to survive so long as the 7K weren’t in crisis. While the Warden of the North was still at Winterfell, and able to intervene if the Wildlings broke through the Wall or got too dangerous, it’s ok to have the day-to-day drudgery of guarding the Wall left to a glorified penal colony. The danger of the NW mutinying was less serious, as again, the Warden of the North could simply march up there and take care of it.

With the entire realm, and the North, in pieces, and the NW left to its own devices, all the problems with it came to the fore.

[Stormking902]

I personally do not believe there will be a clear victor of the long night 2.0, it stands to better reason some form of truce will be formed AGAIN. 

The NW will be rebuilt and volunteers will come pooring in again and the order will be respected by all 8K. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

14 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

That's a touch harsh isn't it? Jon left, but came back. The Old Bear's clever enough to know the difference between a teenage boy having a bit of a meltdown after his father was murdered and a genuine attempt at desertion. 

 

Jon came back because he was quite almost literally dragged back by his peers. He did not choose to come back under his volition as much as he was forced to come back by his friends. He attempted to desert. If they hadn't he would not have stopped and neither the old bear nor Jon thinks otherwise. He knew the consequences and he still did it. Mormont by all reason should have executed Jon. And I'm sorry Jon's excuse isn't that special. Plenty of men and boys in the Watch would  have families and loved who were put in danger because of the war-probably more so than Jon's family  because they aren't of the Starks rank-they don't get to desert because of that nor would that mitigate their guilt for their sin if they did.

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

1 minute ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Jon came back because he was quite almost literally dragged back by his peers.

That's hardly fair, he was pursuaded by his fellow Nights watch comrades to return when they gave him a stirring rendition of the Nights Watch vows which reminded him of his duty. It's not like they bashed him over the head and dragged him back in chains. 

3 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

He attempted to desert.

He left and came back.