Is The Concept Of The Night's Watch Obsolete?

[Julia H.]

Yoren wasn't killed for being a Stark sympathizer. No one knew he was hiding Arya. They knew he had Gendry, but Gendry was protected by the law: Whatever you have done, you will be absolved of guilt if you join the NW. (That's one of the few benefits the NW actually offers to recruits.) They were all bound for the Wall in the company of the NW recruiting officer, so their intention was totally clear. It was not only Yoren's right but also his duty to defend his recruits in the name of the NW and the law.      

As a matter of fact, Yoren broke no rules by attempting to accompany Arya to Winterfell. Arya wasn't on any public "wanted" list that Yoren should have known about - the Lannister soldiers and the goldcloaks were looking for her privately, and her disappearance from the Red Keep was kept a secret. She was a child and a girl, not one of the politically active members of her family, and Yoren didn't steal her from the Lannisters. Interfering in the Catelyn-Tyrion conflict would have qualified as "taking part", but there is no rule that prohibits NW members from taking home a lost orphan they've found in the street, instead of leaving her out there to starve to death. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

Yoren wasn't killed for being a Stark sympathizer. No one knew he was hiding Arya. They knew he had Gendry, but Gendry was protected by the law: Whatever you have done, you will be absolved of guilt if you join the NW. (That's one of the few benefits the NW actually offers to recruits.) They were all bound for the Wall in the company of the NW recruiting officer, so their intention was totally clear. It was not only Yoren's right but also his duty to defend his recruits in the name of the NW and the law.      

As a matter of fact, Yoren broke no rules by attempting to accompany Arya to Winterfell. Arya wasn't on any public "wanted" list that Yoren should have known about - the Lannister soldiers and the goldcloaks were looking for her privately, and her disappearance from the Red Keep was kept a secret. She was a child and a girl, not one of the politically active members of her family, and Yoren didn't steal her from the Lannisters. Interfering in the Catelyn-Tyrion conflict would have qualified as "taking part", but there is no rule that prohibits NW members from taking home a lost orphan they've found in the street, instead of leaving her out there to starve to death. 

And giving that tidbit of information? Also what would you do to improve the watch?

[kissdbyfire]

Just now, Varysblackfyre321 said:

And giving that tidbit of information?

What about it? Cat took Tyrion prisoner in a public place, it's not as if Yoren divulged a secret Ned wouldn't have learned otherwise. 

[Myrish Lace]

On 2/24/2018 at 1:49 AM, The Sunland Lord said:

That being said, what would you change in the concept of the Night's Watch's functioning? 

Disband it.

Without Others on the horizon for all to see, Night's Watch is bound to lose prestige and become what it is now. A glorified penal colony with a handful of swords tackling an impossible task. Not only is it useless for its prime function, Night's Watch separates the players with actual power - Northern Lords - from the threat, makes them complacent and detached from the reality beyond the Wall.

Consider this: there is no Wall. There is no Watch. Northern Lords have to protect themselves from the Wildlings - so they build keeps and holdfasts to defend the land. They regularly send scouts to sniff out what's out there. They trade with less violent Wildlings, probably engage in some kind of diplomacy with more rational actors. In this situation, the word about something marching from the beyond would spread across the North much faster. Preparations that Ned envisioned would be made much sooner because people with power, soldiers and big bucks would be aware of the situation years in advance.

Night's Watch seemed like a good idea after the Long Night, but in long term its eventual stage - an emaciated shadow of itself -  probably did more harm than good.

[Varysblackfyre321]

34 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

What about it? Cat took Tyrion prisoner in a public place, it's not as if Yoren divulged a secret Ned wouldn't have learned otherwise. 

That's a totally fair point. 

[Angel Eyes]

2 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Yoren wasn't killed for being a Stark sympathizer. No one knew he was hiding Arya. They knew he had Gendry, but Gendry was protected by the law: Whatever you have done, you will be absolved of guilt if you join the NW. (That's one of the few benefits the NW actually offers to recruits.) They were all bound for the Wall in the company of the NW recruiting officer, so their intention was totally clear. It was not only Yoren's right but also his duty to defend his recruits in the name of the NW and the law.      

As a matter of fact, Yoren broke no rules by attempting to accompany Arya to Winterfell. Arya wasn't on any public "wanted" list that Yoren should have known about - the Lannister soldiers and the goldcloaks were looking for her privately, and her disappearance from the Red Keep was kept a secret. She was a child and a girl, not one of the politically active members of her family, and Yoren didn't steal her from the Lannisters. Interfering in the Catelyn-Tyrion conflict would have qualified as "taking part", but there is no rule that prohibits NW members from taking home a lost orphan they've found in the street, instead of leaving her out there to starve to death. 

“Sooner or later you must answer for every good deed”

Calvera, The Magnificent Seven

[talvikorppi]

Oh great. My lengthy, considered piece seems to have disappeared in some cyberhell.

All I wanted to say is that Jeor Mormont (and Jon Snow after him) had the right idea: the Night's Watch has forgot their true purpose. 

[Angel Eyes]

22 minutes ago, talvikorppi said:

Oh great. My lengthy, considered piece seems to have disappeared in some cyberhell.

All I wanted to say is that Jeor Mormont (and Jon Snow after him) had the right idea: the Night's Watch has forgot their true purpose. 

So how can it be regained?

[talvikorppi]

It seems the Night's Watch was instituted during or right after the Long Night. When people still remembered. So it was a good, honourable career choice. As people began to forget, the NW lost prestige and eventually became the sorry penal colony it now is - just when it would be needed.

As to the future of the NW. It depends on how things pan out. They're a busted flush right now. They cannot protect the realms of men. Other people, other armies will have to do that.

Afterwards, if the Others are decisively defeated, there's no need for a Night's Watch. However, if the victory is less than decisive, the realms of men will need a frontline defence for the future, and the Night's Watch could again become a prestigious and honourable career choice.

I'm thinking of the real-life example of Roman legions. 20 (or whatever) years of service, the grant of a small parcel of land (in the Gift), opportunity to start a family... For highborns, let's say nobody can be knighted before they've served 2-3 years with the NW. The NW gains prestige and desireability, some nobs (younger sons) might decide to stay and make a career.

Whatever happens, it won't be the same.

[talvikorppi]

9 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said:

So how can it be regained?

Haha, I wish I knew!

Take my word on it, I wrote the most brilliant thing, haha!

[The Fattest Leech]

40 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said:

So how can it be regained?

Jon is in the midst of showing that to the people of Westeros now because the North remembers.

In general to the OP, the problem is, the politicians in King's Landing are sticking their fingers up their asses in their ears and are being typically close minded and greedy. The Nights Watch, including Jon (AFFC Sam I & ADWD Jon II show us this), have pleaded for help only to be ignored and those that are supposed to help and protect the kingdom (the King and KL politicians) are, in fact, the ones who have played largest hand in dooming the nation and its people.

A Storm of Swords - Samwell II

"We never knew . . ."

"We never knew! But we must have known once. The Night's Watch has forgotten its true purpose, Tarly. You don't build a wall seven hundred feet high to keep savages in skins from stealing women. The Wall was made to guard the realms of men . . . and not against other men, which is all the wildlings are when you come right down to it. Too many years, Tarly, too many hundreds and thousands of years. We lost sight of the true enemy. And now he's here, but we don't know how to fight him. Is dragonglass made by dragons, as the smallfolk like to say?"

A Storm of Swords - Jon VII

[plenty of double entendre in this section]

The first time he had seen Castle Black with his own eyes, Jon had wondered why anyone would be so foolish as to build a castle without walls. How could it be defended?

"It can't," his uncle told him. "That is the point. The Night's Watch is pledged to take no part in the quarrels of the realm. Yet over the centuries certain Lords Commander, more proud than wise, forgot their vows and near destroyed us all with their ambitions. Lord Commander Runcel Hightower tried to bequeathe the Watch to his bastard son. Lord Commander Rodrik Flint thought to make himself King-beyond-the-Wall. Tristan Mudd, Mad Marq Rankenfell, Robin Hill . . . did you know that six hundred years ago, the commanders at Snowgate and the Nightfort went to war against each other? And when the Lord Commander tried to stop them, they joined forces to murder him? The Stark in Winterfell had to take a hand . . . and both their heads. Which he did easily, because their strongholds were not defensible. The Night's Watch had nine hundred and ninety-six Lords Commander before Jeor Mormont, most of them men of courage and honor . . . but we have had cowards and fools as well, our tyrants and our madmen. We survive because the lords and kings of the Seven Kingdoms know that we pose no threat to them, no matter who should lead us. Our only foes are to the north, and to the north we have the Wall."

Only now those foes have gotten past the Wall to come up from the south, Jon reflected, and the lords and kings of the Seven Kingdoms have forgotten us. We are caught between the hammer and the anvil. Without a wall Castle Black could not be held; Donal Noye knew that as well as any. "The castle does them no good," the armorer told his little garrison. "Kitchens, common hall, stables, even the towers . . . let them take it all. We'll empty the armory and move what stores we can to the top of the Wall, and make our stand around the gate."

George has frequently used the current geo-political climate as reference to this same thing happening in the books. He even mentioned this a while back in one of his Dreamsong anthologies. Ecology, and the respect for such, means a lot to GRRM and he has used it as literary inspiration many times.

The dynamic we see between the Watch & Jon pleading for help from the Others and KL ignoring the pleas is the same we see with rapid climate change (the Others, the wall falling, icebergs melting, etc) and scientists asking for help all while the politicians ignore the facts and in turn make the situation worse/unmanageable. Whether or not this is the readers personal opinion doesn't matter, it is that of our hippy author and it is his story we are reading.

[AlaskanSandman]

 

Quote

 

The World of Ice and Fire - The Targaryen Kings: Viserys I

On the third day of the third moon of 129 AC, while entertaining Jaehaerys and Jaehaera from his bed with a tale of their great-great-grandsire and his queen battling giants, mammoths, and wildlings beyond the Wall, the king grew tired. He sent his grandchildren away when the tale was done and fell into a sleep from which he never awoke. He had ruled for six-and-twenty years, reigning over the most prosperous era in the history of the Seven Kingdoms but seeding within it the disastrous decline of his house and the death of the last of the dragons.

 

 

 

I know i've shared else where, though others may not have seen it. The above quote is Viserys I talking to his grandkids about Jaehaerys I and Alysanne fighting at the wall with dragons against wildlings, mammoths, and giants. 

Why does the citidel not report this? There is a Maester at every castle manned at the wall. Why is it not recorded or spoke of else where in the histories? Did it go against the purpose of the watch, or for it, and maesters want it forgotten.

 

What ever the purpose of the Wall is, its bound up with the Citidel imo. 

[AlaskanSandman]

Mentioned this else where and is part of a larger connection about the Maesters and the Wall, but thought this relevant to share here.

Black brothers ------------------------------------->Maesters

No kids                                                          check

No lands                                                         check

No wives                                                         check

Live and die at post                                        check

Protect realms of Men                                     check 

Light (Knowledge) in the dark (Ignorance)      check

Weirwood on or near grounds                        check

Serve wall/castle and no other                        check

 

White brothers, Grey Brothers, Black Brothers. 

1.?wall              2.Walls of Old Town, 3.Thee Wall.

 

Quote

 I am the watcher on the walls

 

[The Commentator]

On 2/26/2018 at 1:27 PM, Angel Eyes said:

My point was that in the timeline of the books, Jon wasn’t the only person to drag the Watch into the conflicts. Tywin refused to aid the Watch unless Janos Slynt was named Lord Commander... which is rather stupid, considering that Slynt is an incompetent.

Tywin has not taken any vows.  It's unethical to be sure.  But a man of the watch has no excuse.  He has taken the vows and therefore does not interfere in the quarrel that happens between houses, regardless of how he feels about it, regardless of the outcome for the family where he came from.  Regardless of what a man like Tywin might try to do.  A dedicated brother of the watch does not take sides.  A man of the watch, like Halfhand, puts all of that behind him and dedicates himself, totally, to the watch.  The halfhand was just a ranger.  Jon was the lord commander who had a greater obligation to the watch.  Lard boy was wrong to get him elected.  Sam's feelings got in the way.  He should have known better after Snowman already tried to escape to help Robb.

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

On 26/02/2018 at 5:09 PM, Widowmaker 811 said:

Tyrion and Tywin should be grateful for those criminals who keep the wildlings off their precious land.  The Lannisters benefit from the wall and the men guarding her as much as the other houses do.  The wall doesn't stop all the flow of wildlings but it stops them from coming and going as they please. 

True, and Tyrion comes to recognise that, while Tywin doesn't, which is a reflection on their characters. 

 

On 26/02/2018 at 5:09 PM, Widowmaker 811 said:

Jon did some horrible things at the wall that will lead to its collapse. he's too emotional and makes his decisions based on how he feels about someone.  Arya is a souless murderer.  Sansa is very selfish

All at the harsher end of the scale, but there are kernels of truth in it. I think the flaws you point to in Jon and Sansa are really just examples of human weaknesses though. It's too soon to tell how Arya will turn out, and she clearly has a soul (or conscience), she's just been twisted by an extremely hard period in her childhood. 

On 26/02/2018 at 5:09 PM, Widowmaker 811 said:

That's because the north is in the direct path of any wildling raiding.  The north suffers from the wildlings more than any other kingdom.

Of course. 

On 26/02/2018 at 5:09 PM, Widowmaker 811 said:

They defend all from the white walkers and the wildlings.  Misbehavior from the people south of the wall is not justification for the watchmen to engage in politics themselves. 

I think Jon's POV showed just how hard that is. 

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

On 26/02/2018 at 5:19 PM, Angel Eyes said:

And Tywin wanted to bring the Night's Watch under control via Janos Slynt. Plus, he sees it as a Northern system, despite Southerners being among its ranks, such as Endrew Tarth and Waymar Royce.

I think Tywin's major fault is thinking everyone thinks like he does. It's a common problem for cynics. 

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

On 26/02/2018 at 5:39 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I don't think I'm using misleading terms. They did have to drag him back. They reminded Jon of his oaths to cease his struggling to be sure but what had ultimately stopped  him was them making it clear they would not let him go; he could either kill them(he would never), or he could come back with them. He chose the latter but if his friends gave any indication they would let him go if they couldn't change, I don't think he would have relented and went back with them.

I think you're misreading the chapter. The whole thing is clearly an internal struggle for Jon as he decides what to do and who he is. He has a similar struggle when Stannis offers him Winterfell. These are "tests" for him, just like fArya. 

 

On 26/02/2018 at 5:39 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I'd say it's a rather fair interpetation of the rules. Jon rode off with the intention of never coming back. Whatever convinces him to turn back at that point really doesn't matter. He's guilty

This is an example of realistic and humane leadership over harsh versions of justice such as Stannis. Simply executing people because they violated the letter of the law would be bonkers. Jon had an internal struggle and came out stronger for it. The Old Bear had a choice between continuing to train a talented and dedicated successor, or executing him because he had a momentary lapse. It's really no choice, and quite bizarre that you think lopping Jon's head off would have been an appropriate response to his behaviour. 

On 26/02/2018 at 5:39 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

The kind of lenient interpetation you seem to be advocating for would make brothers think if caught trying to desert all they need to do is apologize, tempting more people to actually fully cut and run.

Not at all, it requires a nuanced and grown-up understanding of people and situations. You have to know that your followers are going to be tempted to break their vows, some will overcome that temptation and some will not. Yes, if someone rides off and you capture them, you have to punish them or the NW's whole value is undermined. If someone rides off then comes back all of their own volition, or even if their friends have to persuade him, then you can decide no harm done, they made the right decision in the end, and let the matter drop. 

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

On 26/02/2018 at 7:56 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I'm actually surprised there isn't much homosexuality shown in the watch-I mean how much money could they get to even go to mole's town for some companionship anyway. I mean a good chunk of the watch are northerners  and northerners worship the old gods  who say nothing about homosexuality.

SIDEBAR: We don't know how many homosexuals there are at the wall, but I'd like to just point out that having sex with men because there are no women isn't "homosexuality", as such. (This might seem like pedantry, I know, but worth saying I think.

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

On 26/02/2018 at 11:13 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

And giving that tidbit of information? Also what would you do to improve the watch?

 

On 26/02/2018 at 11:42 PM, kissdbyfire said:

What about it? Cat took Tyrion prisoner in a public place, it's not as if Yoren divulged a secret Ned wouldn't have learned otherwise

Another point - Ned was Hand of the King at the time, so who should Yoren have reported it to? Granted, he was probably motivated by sympathy with the Starks, his helping Arya seems to confirm that, but reporting a kidnapping to the Hand seems to be technically in keeping with the law. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

SIDEBAR: We don't know how many homosexuals there are at the wall, but I'd like to just point out that having sex with men because there are no women isn't "homosexuality", as such. (This might seem like pedantry, I know, but worth saying I think.

Meh, semantics. But yes, having sex with guys doesn't make you gay. Hell Savien may very well not be gay by virtue of being a whore(I assume men were his only  clientele). Though, we don't really see Jon or Sam make note of any such behavior among the brothers and if it wasn't scarce I'm sure one would have given they've both grew up in fairly conservative households.