Mrstrategy Posted February 15, 2021 Share Posted February 15, 2021 Can someone sent to the watch for a crime crime or a volunteer be released from the Night's Watch by order of a king like any targaryens loyalists if daenerys or Aegon takes the iron throne or stannis when he attempted to legitimize and release Jon snow?or when the member of night's watch is the last of a noble family? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alyn Oakenfist Posted February 15, 2021 Share Posted February 15, 2021 There is no precedent, but as long as the ruler "freeing" the bloke acts as basically a blank "you can desert pardon" then yes. Like if the ruler has someone desert and then pardons him for all the realm it's the same as freeing him from his vows pretty much, which is something he definitely can do. Inheritance would be a bit messy, but again, royal decree can sort things out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Universal Sword Donor Posted February 15, 2021 Share Posted February 15, 2021 There's not a precedent for it but as Robb himself and @Alyn Oakenfist, royal decrees and other compensation can grease the wheels of justice. Robb was going to send 100 men in Jon's place, and Cersei was going to send 100 men and Osney to kill Jon for a pardon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexis-something-Rose Posted February 15, 2021 Share Posted February 15, 2021 I don't think precedent matters because a person can create the precedent. Barristan Selmy took similar vows that they take at the Wall and was essentially fired by Joffrey, who gave a white cloak to Sandor who was not a knight. Osmund Kettleblack received a white cloak even though he was probably never knighted. Cersei stripped Boros Blount of his cloak, but he was for some reason reinstated by Tywin. Robb thinks that sending 100 men to the Wall will be enough to have Jon released from his oath. And Stannis doesn't even seem to care what the Night's Watch wants or how the men will react when he offers Jon to legitimize him and give him Winterfell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Megorova Posted February 15, 2021 Share Posted February 15, 2021 3 hours ago, Alexis-something-Rose said: I don't think precedent matters because a person can create the precedent. Barristan Selmy took similar vows that they take at the Wall and was essentially fired by Joffrey And Stannis doesn't even seem to care what the Night's Watch wants I've been wondering about this. If I remember correctly it was said by the people at The Wall, that the Night's Watch takes no part in 7K's politics and other civil matters. That they take no sides, and something like they aren't ruled by the King of 7K, instead they have their own laws/rules, and their Lord Commander is their only sovereign. If the King of 7K will order them to join his troops, and to fight this or that enemy of his, they won't do it, because they are not his servants, Night's Watch is independent from the Iron Throne. If that is so, then shouldn't the same parameters apply to how laws/rules of Night's Watch are treated on the rest of 7K's territory, outside of The North? Shouldn't the King be able to release from Night's Watch's vows whoever he will want to, if this will be happening not in The North? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugorfonics Posted February 16, 2021 Share Posted February 16, 2021 5 hours ago, Mrstrategy said: Can someone sent to the watch for a crime crime or a volunteer be released from the Night's Watch by order of a king like any targaryens loyalists if daenerys or Aegon takes the iron throne or stannis when he attempted to legitimize and release Jon snow?or when the member of night's watch is the last of a noble family? This is a Varys riddle, you can pick your own answer. So on side A, lets call it uh, A Wall; Sure! Kings got finesse like that, Quote Sansa might someday be queen. Her sons could rule from the Wall to the mountains of Dorne. the ruler of Westeros calls the shots, its their way or the illyn payne way. But then theres the B side, Be fucking careful. I mean, ya remember what you had for breakfast? Ok good start, remember this? "Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. Yea, they do. 1 hour ago, Megorova said: I've been wondering about this. If I remember correctly it was said by the people at The Wall, that the Night's Watch takes no part in 7K's politics and other civil matters. That they take no sides, Ok 1 hour ago, Megorova said: and something like they aren't ruled by the King of 7K, instead they have their own laws/rules, and their Lord Commander is their only sovereign. Nu-uh. Sovereign is the sovereign, the kings laws are the kings laws. The Lord Commander usually just tells people where to sleep 1 hour ago, Megorova said: If the King of 7K will order them to join his troops, and to fight this or that enemy of his, they won't do it Correct 1 hour ago, Megorova said: because they are not his servants Incorrect, they are. Just they dont have to serve, unless its the Lord Commander whos always in need of fresh pillow cases 1 hour ago, Megorova said: Night's Watch is independent from the Iron Throne Alright so, the most accurate wording with all Westeros legality backing it up would be "You know, whatever" Yeah, that looks right. Make no mistake the king is head honcho, if he says Jon bend your fucking neck because you wont give me some burnt down huts he'll bend his neck just as fast as Davos ever could. But that wont get him his shanties. Like most of Westeors history it starts with the conquerer. He conquered. Harrenhall for example can be given to the local butcher shop or to some fella who grew up in a meadow where sheep fuck. With no one around it falls back to KL. When the dragon flew to the wall (but not past it, pussies) it didnt conquer. It kept the same laws that the insert number here kingdoms did pre dragon (which to my reckoning would take place around the Nights King so thatd be, roughly the year, never happend, b.c). So LC do have some sort of independence which is blinding to a tyrant like Stannis, but its actually hardly worth mentioning 1 hour ago, Megorova said: If that is so, then shouldn't the same parameters apply to how laws/rules of Night's Watch are treated on the rest of 7K's territory, outside of The North? Shouldn't the King be able to release from Night's Watch's vows whoever he will want to, if this will be happening not in The North? Kings can say whatever they want. Its usually a good idea to listen to them. KL court has something similar with CB. Words are wind. Every where actually. Quote I am still a brother of the Night's Watch. I knelt before a heart tree and swore to hold no lands and father no children." "Jon." Melisandre was so close he could feel the warmth of her breath. "R'hllor is the only true god. A vow sworn to a tree has no more power than one sworn to your shoes. Uplifting advice! Until you realize that every king since the Unworthy has been labeled a pretender and theyve been dropping pretty quickly these days. Do you really wanna desecrate the core of Westeros vows to hitch a ride on a wannabe usurper? When at the race track, check for limps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowen Marsh Posted February 16, 2021 Share Posted February 16, 2021 9 hours ago, Mrstrategy said: Can someone sent to the watch for a crime crime or a volunteer be released from the Night's Watch by order of a king like any targaryens loyalists if daenerys or Aegon takes the iron throne or stannis when he attempted to legitimize and release Jon snow?or when the member of night's watch is the last of a noble family? It can be done but it is no easy matter. Aemon took his vows to avoid the throne. House Targaryen carry a lot of authority. Queen (or better yet, Empress) Daenerys Targaryen will be obeyed if she chose to release a man of the watch from his vows. Say a loyalist like Aliser Thorne. Aegon, if he should be legit, would have the same authority. Having dragons will absolutely help too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowen Marsh Posted February 16, 2021 Share Posted February 16, 2021 8 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said: There's not a precedent for it but as Robb himself and @Alyn Oakenfist, royal decrees and other compensation can grease the wheels of justice. Robb was going to send 100 men in Jon's place, and Cersei was going to send 100 men and Osney to kill Jon for a pardon. It will be much, much more difficult for Robb to accomplish such a thing. He was in the act of rebellion. The north was not yet independent. And he was at war with the sitting king. The Night's Watch would understandably refuse to honor Robb's request. It can be seen as choosing a side. Worse, siding with a rebel. The NW would more than likely refuse to honor Robb's request. He was not yet a king. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alyn Oakenfist Posted February 16, 2021 Share Posted February 16, 2021 3 hours ago, Bowen Marsh said: It can be done but it is no easy matter. Aemon took his vows to avoid the throne. House Targaryen carry a lot of authority. Queen (or better yet, Empress) Daenerys Targaryen will be obeyed if she chose to release a man of the watch from his vows. Say a loyalist like Aliser Thorne. Aegon, if he should be legit, would have the same authority. Having dragons will absolutely help too. Yeah, the Watch can blabber on about how it takes no part, but when there's one person controlling the recruits stream they don't have much choice. 3 hours ago, Bowen Marsh said: It will be much, much more difficult for Robb to accomplish such a thing. He was in the act of rebellion. The north was not yet independent. And he was at war with the sitting king. The Night's Watch would understandably refuse to honor Robb's request. He was king, just a self proclaimed one. Now, I still think the Watch would have agreed, simply due to short term power. The Watch takes no interest blah blah blah, but Robb is still the one who controls the North and most of the recruiting pool. Sure the Lannisters are a thing, but the Lannisters can't march a thousand men and end the Watch on a whim. Robb can. Basically, obeying Robb could have bad long term consequences, but disobeying him would have very bad short term consequences. Add in the hundred men Robb wants to send, for which the Watch would be desperate for, and they'll definitely agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexis-something-Rose Posted February 16, 2021 Share Posted February 16, 2021 6 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said: Basically, obeying Robb could have bad long term consequences, but disobeying him would have very bad short term consequences. Add in the hundred men Robb wants to send, for which the Watch would be desperate for, and they'll definitely agree. Releasing Jon from his vows works in the NW favor in more ways than just giving them 100 men. Jon wouldn't just be Robb's heir, he would also be an heir who was formerly one of their numbers. Jon saw the dead rise and he knows about the Others. The NW isn't just desperate for men, the NW desperate for someone to believe that the cold winds are rising and help them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reekazoid Posted February 18, 2021 Share Posted February 18, 2021 I see it like this: You take your Night's Watch oath for life. Oaths are more or less sacred throughout the various intersecting cultures of Westeros. And yes, Jamie, all the oaths are confusing and they conflict, but in general they are held in high regard by other people. You can judge a person based on how well they uphold their oaths in public. No one likes an oath-breaker. Night's Watch deserters are automatically despised for abandoning their oaths to serve for life. I believe the Ned summed it up when explaining the execution of Will to Bran. When you take the Black you leave behind your own life. All binding legality (if there is such a thing) aside, the social convention between the Night's Watch and "the realms of men" is basically: Send us your people, we will take them, and give them a new life, and their past is erased, so even if you would otherwise execute them, once they are with us they are untouchable. Conversely if any of our guys desert us and re-enter the "realms of men" then please execute them on sight. Now the Iron Throne's authority is certainly paramount throughout the 7 kingdoms and therefore if a King were to say, Alister Thorne, I release you from your Night's Watch vows, and welcome you back to the realms of men, well then all the king's subjects had better not execute the guy. But in reality what the King has done is just choose to ignore the realms' half of the social contract, and force his subjects to do the same. If the deserter ever showed his face at the Wall again, or beyond it, I would assume that the Nights' Watch would be within their rights to execute the guy at that point. I don't actually thin the King has the authority to release anyone from a vow that was not made to the king or to a predecessor or to someone under the King's authority, which the NIght's Watch is not. Like it was said above, you can pick your answer regarding what the actual legality of the Watch vs Iron Throne is, but in practical terms all the King can really do is protect a deserter from execution. And that only technically. King's Landing is a long way from the Wall. I would not give Alister Thorne or any other deserter high chances of survival if they were to chance upon a party of Wulls, Flints, or Norreys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reekazoid Posted February 18, 2021 Share Posted February 18, 2021 On 2/16/2021 at 8:03 AM, Alexis-something-Rose said: Releasing Jon from his vows works in the NW favor in more ways than just giving them 100 men. Jon wouldn't just be Robb's heir, he would also be an heir who was formerly one of their numbers. Jon saw the dead rise and he knows about the Others. The NW isn't just desperate for men, the NW desperate for someone to believe that the cold winds are rising and help them. YES! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reekazoid Posted February 18, 2021 Share Posted February 18, 2021 On 2/15/2021 at 12:17 PM, Alyn Oakenfist said: There is no precedent, but as long as the ruler "freeing" the bloke acts as basically a blank "you can desert pardon" then yes. Like if the ruler has someone desert and then pardons him for all the realm it's the same as freeing him from his vows pretty much, which is something he definitely can do. Inheritance would be a bit messy, but again, royal decree can sort things out. You said what I said only you said it sooner, more concisely, and with better grammar. Not sure how I missed your post, must have scrolled right past it by mistake. Agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alyn Oakenfist Posted February 18, 2021 Share Posted February 18, 2021 8 minutes ago, Reekazoid said: You said what I said only you said it sooner, more concisely, and with better grammar. Not sure how I missed your post, must have scrolled right past it by mistake. Agree. No problem, though as you yourself pointed out, doing so would create a clusterfuck of epic proportions. The edict would be hard to enforce as well as break the informal contract with the Watch so I doubt anybody would do that unless extremely starved for heirs, like Robb was. In Robb's case it makes sense, because as I outlined before, an heirless King is basically painting "kill me" on his shirt, due to having no heirs to avenge him in the case of assassination, which is something Tywin, Roose and Walder exploit quite hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Universal Sword Donor Posted February 19, 2021 Share Posted February 19, 2021 On 2/15/2021 at 10:42 PM, Bowen Marsh said: It will be much, much more difficult for Robb to accomplish such a thing. He was in the act of rebellion. The north was not yet independent. And he was at war with the sitting king. The Night's Watch would understandably refuse to honor Robb's request. It can be seen as choosing a side. Worse, siding with a rebel. The NW would more than likely refuse to honor Robb's request. He was not yet a king. Increases their population tenfold for a bastard who willingly joined and only one of the officers liked? I highly highly doubt it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.