Jump to content

Was Jon wrong to kill Janos Slynt?


Odej

Recommended Posts

On 1/9/2022 at 12:06 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

The maesters and the NW both predate the Andal invasion and practice celibacy

The amount of stretching you're engaging in is breathtaking. Andal religion is basically medieval Roman Catholicism but with multiple-faceted/7-aspected god instead of a single one. Again, celibate monasticism is hand-in-hand with Andal religion, otherwise septons and septas of the The Faith of the 7 would be free to marry. And The Faith Militant is basically a Planetos version of The Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and the Temple of Solomon (Knights Templar) and/or The Military and Hospitaller Order of St. John of Jerusalem (Knights Hospitaller), again a celibate monastic military order based on real-world Roman Catholic military orders of the Crusades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/9/2022 at 11:46 AM, Back in Black-Snow said:

Do knights foreswear their knighly vows when they take the vows of the Night's Watch? I would hope not.

I would assume so, since any non-hedge knight would be sworn in service to a lord. In joining the NW, they must throw off any sort of poltical tie and instead serve only the NW. Similarly, if a man is married his NW vows would override his marriage vows (and joining the clergy can likewise trump such vows).

Quote

Am I wrong?

Yes, I think you might be trying to analogize a knight being raised up to the Kingsguard. The KG are already knights (except for Sandor, the first not to be) and so they just transfer their knightly allegiance to the king specifically. But the NW are, for the most part, not knights. The NW vows are thus not expected to really be like knightly vows (particularly for stewards or builders).

Quote

Isn't this the dilemma of the whole ASOIAF saga?

I wouldn't say "the whole", but it is certainly part of it.

On 1/9/2022 at 2:47 PM, TheNecromancerofMirkwood said:

In no way was Slynt being sent on a suicide mission. He was being given command of a fort which needed rebuilding and re-manning.

Maybe Slynt is being confused with Thorne, who threatens to come back as a wight once he's killed ranging.

On 1/9/2022 at 3:36 PM, Jaenara Belarys said:

Maybe I should tell my dad that when he's working around the house.

Not his house, but there's a scene in Kevin Smith's "Clerks" where a contractor compares someone working on a mob boss' house to the people working on the unfinished Death Star 2 in Return of the Jedi. Working on your own home is only dangerous in the expected way involving things like falling off a ladder.

On 1/9/2022 at 6:13 PM, Julia H. said:

Well, it was you who complained that Jon wasn't trying to explain what had happened. Maybe the above is the reason why.

I'm explaining why Jon is in a hole, not why he shouldn't have tried to get out rather than digging further. His agent killed Ramsay's people in Winterfell, so it's incumbent upon him now to establish his innocence (which he's not going to do because he really is hostile to Ramsay and only wishes Mance hadn't gotten caught).

Quote

one could wonder if these wildlings were not escaped prisoners wanting revenge on the NW and / or stirring up trouble in the North

If the NW had notified people in advance that their highest value prisoner (the king of the wildlings) had escaped, that could have alerted the nobles of the North and indicated they weren't in league. But of course Jon didn't do that because Mance was on a mission for him that he didn't want Ramsay to know about.

Quote

Moreover, normally, the Lord of Winterfell would also wonder why on earth the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch would want to steal his wife, and even more so when said wife is the Lord Commander's sister

Them being siblings doesn't make it mysterious at all, especially if the LC is the son of a man executed for treason against the regime the Bolton's now serve, and another sibling of his was killed by Roose Bolton himself.

Quote

There is no way the NW can betray their guests and put them in mortal danger.

There's certainly no practical way, as you quoted Jon discussing how Stannis has more swords than him.

Quote

As for sending the guests on their way and washing his hands of them, well, that would hardly satisfy Ramsay.

He might be unhappy about it, but what is he going to do about the people he wants not being there? His vassals aren't going to put up him with him attacking CB out of pique to accomplish nothing.

Quote

I think we are meant to notice a comparison here. It is often said that Walder Frey arranged the Red Wedding and broke the guest right in that hideous way because he was protecting his family by proving his loyalty to the Lannisters.

Walder Frey was already a vassal of the Tullys, and had additionally sworn his allegiance to Robb when Robb came south. It was this pre-existing relationship Robb was trying to maintain via Edmure's hand that resulted in him being willing to be a guest under Walder's roof in the first place. Catelyn knew that her host could physically overpower Robb's men, but relied on guest-right to protect them all. Jon & Stannis do not have that kind of political relationship (Jon is still officially neutral and rejects being released from his vows to serve as Stannis' Warden of the North). Stannis can overpower his host, so he did not actually need to rely on guest-right for protection. Walder Frey was not in imminent danger of an army marching on him either. He could have simply & openly switched his banners after the Blackwater, as many of Stannis' former men did. He chose to violate guest-right because he wanted revenge on the Starks & Tullys for disrespecting him, and he wanted favors from the Lannister regime (which resulted in his family acquiring Riverrun).

Quote

Yet, it is quite clear that it was a morally despicable act. Jon, however, is not the person who saves his skin by sacrificing women who are guests under his roof.

It's not just women who are guests under his roof, but also one who was under Ramsay's roof until Jon sent Mance.

Quote

That's another thing that wouldn't satisfy Ramsay. If Jon could be certain that Ramsay is sitting in Winterfell waiting for his answer, it would be one thing. But Ramsay could actually be on his way to Castle Black right now, so sending out futile answers would only mean losing valuable time.

It actually would be viable for Jon to send a peace envoy, offering to let in some of Ramsay's men to verify that the people they sought weren't there (Amory Lorch had asked of Yoren that men be let in to verify his story, but was refused). After Jon is dead, Bowen Marsh would presumably have to demonstrate the absence of "Arya" & Reek to him as well. But Jon's not going to do that because he DOES seek to keep such people away from Ramsay.

Quote

The Gold Cloaks.

They showed up with a warrant for Gendry, Yoren told them NW recruits have immunity and sent them back. They're a city watch, intended as law enforcement rather than a military force. They wouldn't even be able to project force all the way to the Wall.

Quote

And we never see his soldiers stop and wonder, "Is this right?"

They follow orders, and Amory is not the sort to give much time to wondering.

Quote

I mean how much more space should the writer dedicate to this detail?

If the NW had fought off an attack on one of their castles, that would establish that they weren't regarded as neutral, but that only applies to the wildlings. They were being left alone until Ramsay sent his letter.

Quote

If the LC thinks it is in the interest of the Watch to ride against a self-declared enemy, it is not desertion.

That's like "If the President does it, then it's not illegal".

Quote

"Leaving at all" is clearly not desertion, otherwise Yoren, Benjen, Ser Alliser and Sam would all be deserters.

Jon was not on a mission on behalf of the NW to gather recruits or deliver a message asking for support. He was fighting Ramsay at the head of an army as a result of him sending a squad take his sister from Ramsay. Jon knew he couldn't send other NW members for that reason: it was his own personal conflict, not that of the NW. Jon himself says "The Night's Watch takes no part in the wars of the Seven Kingdoms [...] It is not for us to oppose the Bastard of Bolton, to avenge Stannis Baratheon, to defend his widow and his daughter. [...] I mean to make him answer for those words … but I will not ask my brothers to forswear their vows." He then thinks "He did not want them. No man can ever say I made my brothers break their vows. If this is oathbreaking, the crime is mine and mine alone"

Quote

But something must be done, otherwise Ramsay could destroy the Watch.

Bowen Marsh does something to prevent that, though it requires him to commit mutiny. Bowen does not need to march out against Ramsay.

Quote

Ramsay is not the person who is appeased by submission, especially when he does not get what he wants.

The northern vassals have knuckled under to the Boltons (at least outwardly), and as a result the Boltons have let them be. Ramsay is more irrational/psychotic than his father, but so far has accepted the submission of such lords.

Quote

It is quite similar to what Eddard did - when he learned that Catelyn had captured Tyrion, he, as head of the family, immediately claimed responsibility for this action, even though he had had no idea about it before

Eddard hadn't sent Catelyn to get Tyrion, Jon HAD sent Mance to get Arya, knowing full well the Boltons would be seeking her. He just hoped to get away with it. Eddard doesn't march at the head of an army to keep Tyrion a prisoner, instead he takes back the office of Hand after Robert orders him to release Tyrion.

Quote

Can the NW survive anyway?

Bowen Marsh certainly thinks so. He (like everyone in the NW but the Starks) has no obligations towards Jon's sister, so he doesn't need to be in a conflict with Ramsay.

Quote

Why wouldn't it have happened? Sending a "squad" (a few people, non-members) southwards to escort the LC's sister to the Wall is hardly the same as joining the wars of the realm.

Women are rarely at the Wall, and if they did travel to it they would already have their own escort. The squad are indeed "non-members", they are wildlings who are not on a mission on behalf of the NW but instead acting on behalf of Jon personally.

Quote

It is never included in the vows that the black brothers have to sever all ties with their family members (Benjen regularly visited his brother, Aemon corresponded with Rhaegar).

The First Ranger can visit the Lord of Winterfell and discuss shared concerns like the threat from Mance Rayder. And the maester of CB can communicate with the royal family, as continues to be the case after the Targaryens are gone. But their loyalty to the NW overrides any obligation to their family. Aemon could not leave the Wall when his family was under threat, not if he wasn't going to be an oathbreaker.

Quote

It was established for men who would take the vows voluntarily.

It seems to have taken prisoners for as long as it has existed.

Quote

The prohibitions are not necessarily as old as the organization. It is quite possible that the prohibitions were introduced after the NW started to be used for punitive purposes

What makes you say that? Where is the evidence for it? Aemon is a learned maester who's been at the Wall for a long time, with access to its library, and he explains the logic of the prohibitions without reference to the Wall being punitive (as it wasn't for him, or Jon). Instead he attributed it to the men who "formed" the NW in the first place.

Quote

Cersei.

Whose plan was just an idea in her head that never actually got off the ground before blowing up in her face, which is why none of the NW are even aware of it.

Quote

I'm not sure the founders would even agree that the organization they founded has really "persisted".

The NW has repeatedly fought off threats from north of the Wall. When an arrogant twerp of a ranger, Waymar Royce, encounters the Others he does his duty as best he can (even while it's a 1-on-3 fight) and fights to the death. His surviving brothers endeavor to find out what happened to him (and Benjen's ranging sent for the same purpose), and they fight the undead at the Fist of the First Men. They're in a sorry state to fight the Others (thanks in part to all the men lost on these rangings), but they have persisted to do so.

Quote

But a maester is not prohibited from becoming a quasi family member in his lord's family

That's not really a falsifiable/verifiable status, and of course the maester is supposed to be loyal to the family he's serving under so it's not really a conflict of interest if they have a tight relationship (unless someone else seizes the castle from them).

Quote

It would also be interesting to know what the third (or first?) occasion was.

He implies the last time was during Robert's rebellion. One possibility for the first is the "woman's love" temptation he mentions. Pate the novice plans to desert the Citadel with Rosie the barmaid, and Aemon could have felt similarly around that age.

Quote

which he probably did not want

I'm less certain of that. If he did want it on some level, then it could qualify as another one of those times he was tempted to violate his vows and leave his position.

Quote

Why did they never think of making the black brothers very rich so they would never need to sell their allegiance to anybody for gold?

That's expensive (expensive in a medieval society with poor state capacity), and rich men are not that willing to die.

Quote

Why did no one ever realize that longing in vain for a woman's love or for a family could be extremely disturbing for some, or that frustrated, dissatisfied men might not be able to concentrate on the greater purpose so well?

Because the NW has served its purpose for thousands of years with those prohibitions.

Quote

How about the men who joined as they were getting older and already had children (fathered long before their NW service began)? Isn't it a terrible risk to let them join?

The Catholic Church allows men to become priests if they had gotten married before converting to Catholicism. I think the idea is that there won't be many of them, and only unusually dedicated men would do that.

Quote

All this shows that trying to (hopelessly) remove the one "weakness" that makes people human - love - while comfortably leaving room for all sorts of other weaknesses is rather ridiculous.

Ridiculous to you, not to an institution trying to persist while minimizing conflicts of interest.

Quote

Both Robb and Stannis think that Jon could leave the NW for a good enough political reason.

Robb & Stannis aren't members of the NW. The NW's priorities are not their own. And there's no reason to think the rest of the NW would find their logic acceptable (Jon himself turns Stannis down).

Quote

That also means that there can be specific situations where the morally better thing to choose may involve breaking the vow or breaking the usual rules - or deserting even.

There is a version of that where Quorin Halfhand orders Jon to "desert" and appear to forsake his vows for the larger goals of the NW. But that's different from what Aemon's talking about, in which someone might genuinely forsake the NW. Of course, the decision being up to each person is just a fact of life, regardless of whether any morality can trump the NW. Jon's own decision isn't the result of him performing some kind of moral calculus, but instead his friends in the NW coming for him.

Quote

Finally there is the moral choice of saving his little sister fleeing to him or abandoning her. The choice does not involve desertion as his previous choices did, so is it really the morally better option to turn away from a family member, a child who (unlike Robb previously) has no other hope but Jon Snow?

His sister hasn't even come to him. Instead it's Melisandre telling him about this, having already perverted NW justice by glamouring Rattleshirt in Mance's place so that Mance could undertake this mission for Jon. If his sister had actually come to him, he wouldn't have the problem of Mance & the spearwives getting caught in Winterfell after multiple killings. There would still be the dilemma of the pitch letter, which has Jon & Benjen send Catelyn north of the Wall to her death because they can't actually offer her refuge.

Quote

So what sort of a moral coward would be a man who could abandon his little, orphan, abused sister in this life-threatening situation?

See the pitch letter for something like that happening in a similar context.

Quote

Certainly not the kind of man who could safely be trusted with the loyal protection of the whole realm.

Actually, that's precisely the kind of man. As Karl Smith once wrote if the government cut off seniors and/or soldiers from their benefits, that would send the strongest possible signal to debt-holders that it was more fanatically dedicated to paying off bondholders than any actually existing democratic government has ever been.

Quote

It is worth noting how Jon's choices relate to the two divine laws of Westeros, guest right and the kinslaying taboo, and how he chooses to obey the divine laws even if he needs to break the man-made ones.

His kin aren't actually guests yet available for him to slay.

Quote

The vows refer to the realms of men. Not the realms of kings (as Jon points out to Marsh).

The kingdoms were not politically unified when the Wall was found, of course the NW was not supposed to be loyal to any specific king if it were to be a pan-kingdom institution. But their protection only ever extended to those realms, not north of the Wall. It's like if people formed a co-op. The benefits of that co-op flow to the members, which gives them an incentive to contribute to the co-op rather than to shirk. There's a practical problem that southrons like Tywin can decide to shirk, gambling that the Wall already exists with men on it and the spillover will be limited to affecting his enemies. The wildlings, throughout their long history, have done the opposite of contributing by instead attacking (with Mance Rayder nearly succeeding in defeating the NW and breaching the Wall).

Quote

The purpose of the Wall is to keep out the Others, not "anything" that is up there.

Why is it built so far south?

Quote

The wildlings are humans, thus they belong to the realms of men, and the true purpose of the Watch is to protect humans

The Wall can't protect people north of it. There were humans north of the Wall when it was built, and it was known they were beyond its protection then. The existence of wildlings like Craster who give sacrifices to the Others should tip you off as to why the NW would abandon any protection to some humans.

Quote

That is the reason why the wildlings must be allowed to return to the North.

"Return"? They never lived south of the Wall in the first place. How do you think they got up there?

Quote

Despite the differences, culturally the wildlings and the Northerners have a lot in common, they have a shared origin, so these peoples are simply being reunited now.

They were divided by the Wall. A Wall built for a very good reason. A Wall built in a specific place rather than north of any wildlings, closer to the Heart of Winter.

Quote

It is better to have more people to defend the Wall

The wildlings include an abundant number of women, children, the elderly etc that have to be fed in addition to Stannis' host. Mock the chief steward for counting turnips if you must, but the NW's ability to defend the Wall depends on them being able to feed their actual members through the long winter.

Quote

I'm afraid it does indicate just that. Not consciously, but subconsciously perhaps.

In other words, in your head.

Quote

These are not randomly occurring words but the ones the author chose to give Marsh.

I agree. It would be entirely expected for a person to refer to their own experience. They know it well, and it's recent and thus salient. It would be weird if Marsh went on about Raymun Bedbeard instead.

Quote

Bowen uses the memory of a personal grievance

Bowen wasn't personally insulted or snubbed at the bridge. He fought on behalf of the NW. Unlike Jon's concern with his sister, this is NW business he's talking about. He's been in the NW a lot longer than Jon has, so to adapt an old expression this is a whippersnapper trying to teach his grandpa how to suck eggs.

Quote

It is the business of the LC as soon as the sadistic madman threatens the NW.

He threatened Jon specifically as a result of Jon's actions.

21 hours ago, TheNecromancerofMirkwood said:

Andal religion is basically medieval Roman Catholicism but with multiple-faceted/7-aspected god instead of a single one. Again, celibate monasticism is hand-in-hand with Andal religion, otherwise septons and septas of the The Faith of the 7 would be free to marry.

GRRM's approach to religion is different from actual medieval (western) Europe. Clergy were typically the only people who could read, to the extent that accused criminals could escape the jurisdiction of secular courts by proving they could read. But Westeros has maesters, who perform many of the functions that clergy ("clerics" -> "clerks") did then. At the same time, these maesters represent skepticism toward the supernatural (which actually exists in his universe). The Catholic Church was a transnational institution more powerful than medieval kings, capable of forcing rulers to beg for forgiveness after excommunication. The Faith of the Seven is subordinated to Targaryen authority in something closer to Orthodox caesaropapism. Catholicism took over every part of Europe which wasn't already part of the eastern schism, with even rival Christian strains like Arianism being put down. In Westeros the Faith gave up trying to convert the Iron Islands or the North, with them even retaining their own quasi-Westphalian religious autonomy despite being politically unified under Aegon. And the North, importantly, is where the Wall is located. Andals can't force non-believers up there to adopt Andal religious customs. Drilling down from the large scale politics to individuals, medieval Europeans seriously believed in Christianity even when their own personal behavior was far from saintly. You really can't understand them if you assume they thought like "the WEIRDEST people in the world". The closest we get to a Faith-ful POV is Davos, and he's serving the heretic Stannis! The brief version is that GRRM was raised Catholic but isn't particularly interested in actual medieval Catholicism and just borrows things like celibacy for multiple orders that he made up. He loves "the heart in conflict with itself" and subjecting people to that sort of order for the greater good is exactly in his bag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Not his house, but there's a scene in Kevin Smith's "Clerks" where a contractor compares someone working on a mob boss' house to the people working on the unfinished Death Star 2 in Return of the Jedi. Working on your own home is only dangerous in the expected way involving things like falling off a ladder.

On 1/9/2022 at 4:13 PM, Julia H. said:

Eh, it was basically an afterthought. You're mostly correct (the mostly being when the brackets holding the ladders above the shed door collapsed thirty seconds after we walked out the door.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/28/2021 at 2:29 PM, Odej said:

Reading some posts about Jon Snow's attitudes as Lord Commander I realized that many people don't agree with Jon killing Janos Slynt and that made me curious. I always thought Jon's attitude was correct. Janos disrespected and disobeyed him publicly, letting his behavior go unpunished would make Jon weak in front of his subordinates. In an environment like the Wall, how to respect a leader whom an underling can curse and disobey him without serious consequences? Especially considering how many men who serve on the Wall were thieves, rapists and murderers.

 What do you guys think of Jon's decision?

Jon was 100% wrong.  Janos did not do anything that deserved a death sentence.  Time in confinement was the more appropriate sentence.  Jon's lack of leadership talent resulted in an unjust sentence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, James West said:

Jon was 100% wrong.  Janos did not do anything that deserved a death sentence.  Time in confinement was the more appropriate sentence.  Jon's lack of leadership talent resulted in an unjust sentence. 

Actually as a son of butcher Jonos was a nobody. After all in Westeros pedigree matters. So by trying to raise above his natural status in society Janos made suicide. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@FictionIsntReal

Quote

Them being siblings doesn't make it mysterious at all, especially if the LC is the son of a man executed for treason against the regime the Bolton's now serve, and another sibling of his was killed by Roose Bolton himself.

That's part of the reason why I've said the Boltons know they are guilty of foul play.

Quote

He might be unhappy about it, but what is he going to do about the people he wants not being there? His vassals aren't going to put up him with him attacking CB out of pique to accomplish nothing.

This is what the Pink Letter says:

Quote

Send them to me, bastard, and I will not trouble you or your black crows. Keep them from me, and I will cut out your bastard's heart and eat it.

Not much room for middle ground.

Quote

Stannis can overpower his host, so he did not actually need to rely on guest-right for protection.

That does not make guest right any less relevant. It is for a reason that the writer brings it up several times before the Pink Letter arrives. However, when Stannis goes to war and leaves behind Melisandre and a dozen "mostly useless" men in Castle Black, and Selyse arrives with a retinue of fifty men, the NW could easily overpower them - but Jon tells Selyse that they are guests.

Quote

It actually would be viable for Jon to send a peace envoy, offering to let in some of Ramsay's men to verify that the people they sought weren't there (Amory Lorch had asked of Yoren that men be let in to verify his story, but was refused). After Jon is dead, Bowen Marsh would presumably have to demonstrate the absence of "Arya" & Reek to him as well. But Jon's not going to do that because he DOES seek to keep such people away from Ramsay.

So, what then, let them search Castle Black? How about the other castles of the Night's Watch? If Ramsay thinks Jon is hiding the persons he wants, he won't be persuaded that they are not there. But Bowen Marsh definitely deserves a chance to explain to Ramsay that they have neither "Arya", nor Reek.

Of course, Jon does try to keep the Baratheon women and the baby from Ramsay, the rapist and murderer who flays women. This is the sort of thing that makes a character a hero.

Quote

Women are rarely at the Wall, and if they did travel to it they would already have their own escort.

Normally they would. But Jon gets the specific information that his sister is riding to him alone, on a dying horse. That's indeed unusual, and that is exactly why sending an escort seems necessary. 

Quote

The First Ranger can visit the Lord of Winterfell and discuss shared concerns like the threat from Mance Rayder. 

And during this visit the First Ranger would never think of talking to anyone else ... like a nephew? Because that would be oathbreaking? (No.)

If the First Ranger can meet the Lord of Winterfell, then the Lady of Winterfell can also seek help from the Lord Commander, and the Lord Commander is allowed to receive the Lady of Winterfell - a Stark by birth - in Castle Black. There would be nothing strange about it at all if the present Lord of Winterfell weren't a sadistic psychopath. 

Quote

If the NW had fought off an attack on one of their castles, that would establish that they weren't regarded as neutral, but that only applies to the wildlings.

That's the only thing that would establish it? Wow. Not the slaughter of peacefully travelling black brothers by the royal forces for which no amends are ever made? Not the interference with their election? 

Quote

"Because," his father said, in a tone that suggested Tyrion was quite the simpleton, "if they do not vote as they are told, their Wall will melt before it sees another man."

Quote

"The commander of the Shadow Tower is a Mallister of Seagard. Eastwatch is held by an ironman." Neither would serve his purposes, Lord Tywin's tone said clear enough.

So... the election candidates are judged by their left-behind families and geographical origins and rejected because their families and countries are not pro-Lannister? And the NW should choose as they are told? That's blatant disrespect of political neutrality. That the Wall will melt is an obvious threat even if Tywin did not have time to act on it. 

Quote

It seems to have taken prisoners for as long as it has existed.

What makes you say that? Where is the evidence for it? Aemon is a learned maester who's been at the Wall for a long time, with access to its library, and he explains the logic of the prohibitions without reference to the Wall being punitive (as it wasn't for him, or Jon). Instead he attributed it to the men who "formed" the NW in the first place.

It seems to have been formed by free men, who took those vows voluntarily, so hardly a prison colony from the beginning. That's certainly implied by Aemon's words. Or here:

Quote

The history of the Night's Watch is a long one. Tales still tell of the black knights of the Wall and their noble calling. 

Apparently, no prisoners or criminals were there in the beginning, according to the recorded sources or oral tradition. I don't recall it ever being said that the NW started out as a prison camp. Taking the black was apparently meant to be a noble calling, a voluntary sacrifice, which is probably the only reason why it is still an honourable option for noblemen.

The vows in their present form have a punitive tone, however. Why would, for example, warriors voluntering to take the black vow to wear no crowns (in the plural)? And why are they prohibited from gaining glory? Those clauses sound as though they were invented for defeated enemies, former or would-be kings who may have been the first kind of prisoners to take the black, and the "noble calling" may have been extended to ordinary criminals and trespassers later on. If we compare just two phrases from the vows:

Quote

I shall live and die at my post.

Quote

I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night and all the nights to come.

They basically refer to the same thing (why twice?), yet, the first one sounds like a narrow-minded, down-to-earth, punitive promise of someone who has lost his freedom and emphasizing the prisoner status of the person ('I won't leave this place ever'), while the second one sounds like the proud promise of someone with honor, who gives his life as a voluntary, honourable sacrifice to the Night's Watch (not to a "post") as an organization. I think the second sentence, which by itself pledges all the man has, may well go back to the beginnings, while the first one - not necessarily.

I don't think Aemon has a copy of the vow from 8000 years ago. But his explanation of the "no wives" vow from the founders comes hand-in-hand with their pledge to "take no part". Both sound like the voluntary promises of these men based on what they thought right. But the "take no part" clause is not in the vows. There is no telling whether these promises at the time were individual (voluntary) promises or a formal, unified vow, as they are today. We don't know when the words became exactly the same for everyone, but it is very likely that the text changed over 8000 years, as all texts passed down from generation to generation change over time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/13/2022 at 2:48 AM, FictionIsntReal said:

That's like "If the President does it, then it's not illegal".

Jon was not on a mission on behalf of the NW to gather recruits or deliver a message asking for support. He was fighting Ramsay at the head of an army as a result of him sending a squad take his sister from Ramsay. Jon knew he couldn't send other NW members for that reason: it was his own personal conflict, not that of the NW. Jon himself says "The Night's Watch takes no part in the wars of the Seven Kingdoms [...] It is not for us to oppose the Bastard of Bolton, to avenge Stannis Baratheon, to defend his widow and his daughter. [...] I mean to make him answer for those words … but I will not ask my brothers to forswear their vows." He then thinks "He did not want them. No man can ever say I made my brothers break their vows. If this is oathbreaking, the crime is mine and mine alone"

Where is it said that the reason for which the place can be temporarily left by a black brother is limited to two or three options? And yes, it is the competence of the "President" to make such decisions. Unusual situations may require unusual decisions. (Marsh also made an unusual decision.) Jon's thoughts above directly support what I said: He is protecting the NW, not only by preventing an attack by Ramsay but also by saving them from any semblance of oathbreaking.

On 1/13/2022 at 2:48 AM, FictionIsntReal said:

Bowen Marsh does something to prevent that, though it requires him to commit mutiny. Bowen does not need to march out against Ramsay.

Let's hope Ramsay will also stay away from him.

On 1/13/2022 at 2:48 AM, FictionIsntReal said:

The northern vassals have knuckled under to the Boltons (at least outwardly), and as a result the Boltons have let them be. Ramsay is more irrational/psychotic than his father, but so far has accepted the submission of such lords.

So far Ramsay has also had everything he wanted. 

On 1/13/2022 at 2:48 AM, FictionIsntReal said:

Because the NW has served its purpose for thousands of years with those prohibitions.

And in the meantime, it has dwindled to a portion of its original size. At the beginning of the story, the Wall is mostly manned by prisoners (with some notable exceptions), and the black brothers have no idea how to face the threat of the Others - many of them (Bowen Marsh included) don't even seem to realize that this is the purpose the NW must serve. Mormont knows the Watch is not what is should be. Jon knows. The World Book also laments the decline of the Watch. We also know that they couldn't even fight off a massive wildling attack without the help of Stannis. So how are they prepared to face the Others, who so easily massacred the best of the Watch on the Fist?

On 1/13/2022 at 2:48 AM, FictionIsntReal said:

Ridiculous to you, not to an institution trying to persist while minimizing conflicts of interest.

Trying is an important word here.

On 1/13/2022 at 2:48 AM, FictionIsntReal said:

There is a version of that where Quorin Halfhand orders Jon to "desert" and appear to forsake his vows for the larger goals of the NW. But that's different from what Aemon's talking about, in which someone might genuinely forsake the NW. 

Of course, it's different.

On 1/13/2022 at 2:48 AM, FictionIsntReal said:

His sister hasn't even come to him. Instead it's Melisandre telling him about this, having already perverted NW justice by glamouring Rattleshirt in Mance's place so that Mance could undertake this mission for Jon. If his sister had actually come to him, he wouldn't have the problem of Mance & the spearwives getting caught in Winterfell after multiple killings.

Jon acted on the information he was given. How was he to know that the information was false without having it verified?

On 1/13/2022 at 2:48 AM, FictionIsntReal said:

His kin aren't actually guests yet available for him to slay.

What do you mean? Kinslaying and guest right are two different laws. Kinslaying has nothing to do with your kin being your guest or not.

On 1/13/2022 at 2:48 AM, FictionIsntReal said:

The Wall can't protect people north of it. There were humans north of the Wall when it was built, and it was known they were beyond its protection then. The existence of wildlings like Craster who give sacrifices to the Others should tip you off as to why the NW would abandon any protection to some humans.

"Return"? They never lived south of the Wall in the first place. How do you think they got up there?

The wildlings and the Northerners are culturally very close. They speak the same language and still understand each other. They follow the same religion. They have the same words for many of the constellations. If they had been truly separated 8000(!) years ago, they would be much more different. We also know that the King-beyond-the-Wall joined forces with the King of Winter to defeat the Night's King, who was in league with the Others. That's a pretty clear indication of when and how the realms of men must unite against the Others. Wherever the wildlings live, they are humans, and humans fight, unfortunately. Yet, the time has come to cooperate. As for Craster, Ygritte specifically denies that Craster is a typical wildling or that his practices are accepted by the wildlings. Craster didn't think he needed to flee as most wildlings did.

On 1/13/2022 at 2:48 AM, FictionIsntReal said:

They were divided by the Wall. A Wall built for a very good reason. A Wall built in a specific place rather than north of any wildlings, closer to the Heart of Winter.

There are also the CotF, who live north of the Wall. They helped men during the Long Night, and they probably also wanted some territory of their own that was not part of the realms of men. They don't seem to be fleeing to the realms of men even now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/13/2022 at 12:00 AM, Loose Bolt said:

Actually as a son of butcher Jonos was a nobody. After all in Westeros pedigree matters. So by trying to raise above his natural status in society Janos made suicide. 

It is rather odd that he continued to think he was so well-connected and untouchable even after Tyrion pulled a chair out from under him. Shouldn't he remember how he got to the Wall in the first place?

17 hours ago, Julia H. said:

That's part of the reason why I've said the Boltons know they are guilty of foul play.

Roose is certainly aware that he engaged in foul play when he betrayed & killed Robb Stark, but that's not any business of the NW.

Quote

Not much room for middle ground.

Jon's not currently "keep[ing] from" Ramsay people who weren't with him in the first place, which is of course the case with Ramsay's wife & "Reek".

Quote

Jon tells Selyse that they are guests.

Fair enough.

Quote

So, what then, let them search Castle Black? How about the other castles of the Night's Watch?

Yeah, sure, why not?

Quote

If Ramsay thinks Jon is hiding the persons he wants, he won't be persuaded that they are not there.

Who is going to go along with him after his people have already searched everywhere?

Quote

This is the sort of thing that makes a character a hero.

I've been arguing a similar point in another thread. Jon is a tragic hero, and that is indeed one of his heroic points. But as LC of the NW he's got responsibilities which conflict with his heroic impulses.

Quote

But Jon gets the specific information that his sister is riding to him alone, on a dying horse.

He gets that info from Melisandre, who he knows subverted justice by ensuring the wrong man was executed for Mance's desertion & attack on the NW. A woman he had little reason to regard as reliable, and who turned out to mistake Alys Karstark for Arya.

Quote

And during this visit the First Ranger would never think of talking to anyone else ... like a nephew? Because that would be oathbreaking?

The oath does not micromanage officers as to their conversations while on NW business. And the thing they discussed was Jon joining the NW, after which Benjen told Luwin about it, resulting in Ned sending Jon.

Quote

then the Lady of Winterfell can also seek help from the Lord Commander

What kind of help is the LC even able to give? In the pitch letter both Benjen & Jon have to send the Lady of Winterfell (Cat) beyond the Wall because their oath prohibits them from sheltering her.

Quote

That's the only thing that would establish it?

If Cersei's plan hadn't immediately blown up in her face, that would be another thing that could do it.

Quote

Not the slaughter of peacefully travelling black brothers by the royal forces for which no amends are ever made?

I don't think the regime is even aware any brothers were killed by their forces (nor is the NW aware of what happened to Yoren: "vanished and presumed dead").

Quote

Not the interference with their election?

It was just a letter speaking well of Janos. Not only did Janos not get elected, but the rival elected in his place executed Janos shortly after (hence this thread). After Jon was elected, as far as everyone is aware the regime did nothing about it.

Quote

Taking the black was apparently meant to be a noble calling, a voluntary sacrifice

And you think that "sacrifice" didn't involve the "prohibitions" that all men who voluntarily take the oath now must abide by?

Quote

Why would, for example, warriors voluntering to take the black vow to wear no crowns (in the plural)?

Because the NW was formed in the context of a politically fragmented Westeros of many kingdoms, and the idea was for their institution to be above all that and removed from such politics.

Quote

And why are they prohibited from gaining glory?

Ambition is not supposed to be cultivated in them. They are a defensive institution without the capacity for glorious conquests.

Quote

They basically refer to the same thing (why twice?)

The oath isn't a set of clauses in a dry legal contract. It's part of a ritual for getting members to adopt the goals of the broader organization. They repeat the oath to remind themselves.

[the first one sounds like a narrow-minded, down-to-earth, punitive promise of someone who has lost his freedom]
Like a person who avows "I will die on this hill" about their favorite cause?

Quote

(not to a "post")

It's a military organization and members are supposed to carry out orders. Each man doing what is right in his own eyes and as he perceives would be for the good of the NW would not work.

Quote

it is very likely that the text changed over 8000 years, as all texts passed down from generation to generation change over time.

In real history, dynasties rise and fall. GRRM isn't into the restrictions of reality. The Starks can be in Winterfell for all the thousands of years Winterfell existed, as far back as anyone can remember. The Wall can be taller than any premodern structure could realistically be. And the NW can persist roughly as it is to as far back as the Long Night, even keeping track of the numbers of Lord Commanders.

8 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Where is it said that the reason for which the place can be temporarily left by a black brother is limited to two or three options?

Not two or three delimited options, but only for NW purposes. And the LC himself usually isn't the one who travels, instead he remains with the NW and dispatches an underling. Jon himself is aware that he's breaking his oaths, which is why he thinks to himself that it will be limited just to him rather than his brothers.

Quote

And yes, it is the competence of the "President" to make such decisions.

The Night's King acted as if he could break all the rules, but he was an anathema whose true name has been struck from history.

Quote

Marsh also made an unusual decision.

Yes, he can be considered guilty of mutiny, and cried as he did it.

Quote

He is protecting the NW, not only by preventing an attack by Ramsay but also by saving them from any semblance of oathbreaking.

He thinks of himself as doing that, but that doesn't mean it's what he's actually doing. Jon is the one who sent the NW deserter Ramsay captured in the first place, and if Ramsay defeats the army headed by Jon after that ultimatum, what is Ramsay going to think of the NW that Jon was leading?

Quote

Let's hope Ramsay will also stay away from him.

His letter was addressed to Jon specifically, there's no reason for him to have anything against people that mutinied against Jon & killed him.

Quote

So far Ramsay has also had everything he wanted.

Not that pair of Dustin boots :)

Quote

Trying is an important word here.

That's the nature of life. They can't guarantee that no one will ever desert the NW, but enough adhere to their oaths for it to have persisted.

Quote

How was he to know that the information was false without having it verified?

Why was he to think it was reliable? He doesn't know Melisandre well, and he doesn't even believe in R'hllor!

Quote

Kinslaying has nothing to do with your kin being your guest or not.

If they were your guests, then it would be both. But his kin aren't his guests, so he can commit neither of those with them.

Quote

They speak the same language

Some speak the Old Tongue instead of the Andal language. Really, it makes no sense even for Andals in Westeros to still speak the same language after all that time and over all that distance, but GRRM is into fantasy rather than realism.

Quote

They follow the same religion

Jeor has to tell Jon that "the wildlings serve crueler gods than you or I". Weirwood trees beyond the Wall contain human sacrifices (of the sort Bran sees in visions). The Night's King was seduced into making Craster-like sacrifices by a woman from beyond the Wall.

Quote

If they had been truly separated 8000(!) years ago, they would be much more different.

Realistically, yes. GRRM isn't into realism and he can't math.

Quote

There are also the CotF, who live north of the Wall.

Yes, and the NW aren't tasked with protecting them either.

Quote

some territory of their own that was not part of the realms of men

So you agree that north of the Wall is not part of the "realms of men"? Though I should note the claim that CotF also live on the Isle of Faces, well south of the Wall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2022 at 8:36 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

Who is going to go along with him after his people have already searched everywhere?

Whoever thinks he can give them orders they must blindly follow.

On 1/14/2022 at 8:36 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

He gets that info from Melisandre, who he knows subverted justice by ensuring the wrong man was executed for Mance's desertion & attack on the NW. A woman he had little reason to regard as reliable, and who turned out to mistake Alys Karstark for Arya.

The glamour on Mance was done by Melisandre, but it was probably with consent from Stannis, and the idea of letting Mance live may well have come from Stannis, and Melisandre only provided the means. Letting Mance live was what Jon himself had requested because he thought Mance's experience with the Others could be useful.

The info Melisandre gave Jon concerned the well-being of someone he loved and who had no other relatives to help her but Jon. That's the kind of info people rarely just ignore. (In my country recently there have been criminals who exploited just this impulse. They called old people on the phone saying that their grandchild had had an accident, was in no condition to contact anyone personally, but needed money. You have no reason to trust complete strangers, but when it is about the life or well-being of someone you love, people may easily risk being deceived rather than not help their loved one, should the emergency be real.) Jon had only one way to verify whether Melisandre said the truth or not, but just the glamour on Mance and Rattleshirt made it clear the woman had real magical powers, so ignoring her information was not a reassuring solution. After the arrival of Alys, Jon became more suspicious about Melisandre's knowledge.

On 1/14/2022 at 8:36 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

The oath does not micromanage officers as to their conversations while on NW business. And the thing they discussed was Jon joining the NW, after which Benjen told Luwin about it, resulting in Ned sending Jon.

The conversation was started by Benjen though, and not on the topic of the NW. Benjen had no way of knowing where it would lead. He started it simply as an uncle talking to a teenage nephew who was drinking too much.

On 1/14/2022 at 8:36 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

What kind of help is the LC even able to give? In the pitch letter both Benjen & Jon have to send the Lady of Winterfell (Cat) beyond the Wall because their oath prohibits them from sheltering her.

But that's clearly not the story GRRM is writing.

On 1/14/2022 at 8:36 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

If Cersei's plan hadn't immediately blown up in her face, that would be another thing that could do it.

I don't think the regime is even aware any brothers were killed by their forces (nor is the NW aware of what happened to Yoren: "vanished and presumed dead").

It was just a letter speaking well of Janos. Not only did Janos not get elected, but the rival elected in his place executed Janos shortly after (hence this thread). After Jon was elected, as far as everyone is aware the regime did nothing about it.

Still, those attitudes indicate that players totally disregard the NW neutrality as soon as the neutrality does not suit their purposes. I think the reason why the neutrality is not in the vows is precisely that it has to be mutual. Besides, in a situation where one king helps, even saves the NW in their fight, while the others don't, remaining totally neutral does not sound like the best idea. Neutrality is depicted as an unrealistic ideal in certain circumstances at least.

On 1/14/2022 at 8:36 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

And you think that "sacrifice" didn't involve the "prohibitions" that all men who voluntarily take the oath now must abide by?

We don't know how it began. It may have been at first just a bunch of warriors deciding to dedicate their lives to this purpose, forming a sacred order, each of them taking his own, voluntary oath (not necessarily with the same details but whatever may have been the most relevant to each), which could later be "codified" and its text finalized as more people joined, and it may well have been extended when prisoners started to be added.

On 1/14/2022 at 8:36 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

Because the NW was formed in the context of a politically fragmented Westeros of many kingdoms, and the idea was for their institution to be above all that and removed from such politics.

But "wearing no crowns" is not a good way of saying 'I won't be involved in politics'. It means only they will seek no personal power or royal titles. It could still allow for the NW supporting a king against other kings for some reason.

On 1/14/2022 at 8:36 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

Ambition is not supposed to be cultivated in them. They are a defensive institution without the capacity for glorious conquests.

Defense can also be glorious. Ambition and glory can motivate some people. I mean: no divided loyalties - fine; no personal wealth or wordly title - fine; never again leaving the Wall unless on NW business - fine; dying for the realm - fine. But not even getting recognition for all that? I think there are only two options here: They either expected only saints to join them (and how many were they going to have?) or some parts were invented for those who were put into to NW for punitive purposes, and they needed to accept the conditions on which they were allowed to go on living. 

On 1/14/2022 at 8:36 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

The oath isn't a set of clauses in a dry legal contract. It's part of a ritual for getting members to adopt the goals of the broader organization. They repeat the oath to remind themselves.

Sure, but each clause has been included for a purpose. Part of the oath speaks about legendary heroes, another part more about prisoners.

On 1/14/2022 at 8:36 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

[the first one sounds like a narrow-minded, down-to-earth, punitive promise of someone who has lost his freedom]
Like a person who avows "I will die on this hill" about their favorite cause?

No, not really like that. This really means spending a lifetime in a place. It is not impossible that there was a time when difference was made between those who were there for a noble calling and those who bought their lives with it - if only in the oaths themselves.

Of course, one could argue what "post" means. Does it always have to be on the Wall? Just for the sake of an example, what if Jon found that (for some reason) he absolutely needed to rule from Winterfell in order to properly defend the realm against the Others? Would that be his "post"? Or, if the Wall comes down, will it be oathbreaking if the black brothers continue fighting the Others from some Northern fortress or from different Northern fortresses?

On 1/14/2022 at 8:36 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

It's a military organization and members are supposed to carry out orders. Each man doing what is right in his own eyes and as he perceives would be for the good of the NW would not work.

Sure enough.

On 1/14/2022 at 8:36 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

In real history, dynasties rise and fall. GRRM isn't into the restrictions of reality. The Starks can be in Winterfell for all the thousands of years Winterfell existed, as far back as anyone can remember. The Wall can be taller than any premodern structure could realistically be. And the NW can persist roughly as it is to as far back as the Long Night, even keeping track of the numbers of Lord Commanders.

True, but changes have happened in history. The Starks are no longer the Kings of Winter, and we also know that the NW as an organization has greatly changed - declined - compared to what it was or what it was meant to be. Much is made of the need to remember and specifically that the NW should remember - because they have clearly forgotten a lot, and that's only possible if important things have changed. 

On 1/14/2022 at 8:36 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

Not two or three delimited options, but only for NW purposes. And the LC himself usually isn't the one who travels, instead he remains with the NW and dispatches an underling. Jon himself is aware that he's breaking his oaths, which is why he thinks to himself that it will be limited just to him rather than his brothers.

That's all true, but I think this is a special case where breaking the oaths can be for NW purposes. Jon's actually words are a bit ambiguous:

Quote

No man can ever say I made my brothers break their vows. If this is oathbreaking, the crime is mine and mine alone.

He thinks if this is oathbreaking, and that people won't be able to say he made his brothers break their vows. This may mean Jon himself does not think he is really breaking the vows, but he knows other people will say that. So in his view he does what needs to be done even if he will be accused of oathbreaking, but no one else needs to have the same taint or burden either on their own consciusness or in the eyes of the world. It is somewhat similar to what Jon has done before: Seemingly breaking the vows and deserting to join the wildlings but still acting in the interest of the NW.

On 1/14/2022 at 8:36 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

The Night's King acted as if he could break all the rules, but he was an anathema whose true name has been struck from history.

That the Night's King broke all the rules means he allied himself with the Others, the very power the NW's purpose is to stand up to.

Isn't is interesting, another historical person whose proper name is not known is the Last Hero.

On 1/14/2022 at 8:36 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

He thinks of himself as doing that, but that doesn't mean it's what he's actually doing. Jon is the one who sent the NW deserter Ramsay captured in the first place, and if Ramsay defeats the army headed by Jon after that ultimatum, what is Ramsay going to think of the NW that Jon was leading?

Well, Ramsay is either the rightous and reasonable lord who only punishes the guilty or he is a madman. Maybe Jon was hoping that Ramsay would get killed personally in the confrontation. Then people would say it was all the Lord Commander's fault, he was leading a wildling army, after all.  

On 1/14/2022 at 8:36 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

His letter was addressed to Jon specifically, there's no reason for him to have anything against people that mutinied against Jon & killed him.

I'm not sure the NW will support the mutineers unanimously. Not to mention the wildlings who have sworn their allegiance to Jon. So even without Ramsay there can be bloodshed in Castle Black right after the assassination. If the purpose is really the survival of the NW, then the assassination attempt may easily backfire and turn out to be the worse option.

On 1/14/2022 at 8:36 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

Some speak the Old Tongue instead of the Andal language. Really, it makes no sense even for Andals in Westeros to still speak the same language after all that time and over all that distance, but GRRM is into fantasy rather than realism.

The Old Tongue is the original language of First Men, so it used to be the language of the ancestors of the Northerners. There are probably other aspects of wildling culture that used to be part of First Men culture in general.

The Andal language itself may have changed, but it is still perceived as the same language. The speakers still understand each other because there has been enough communication among them so that no new languages have evolved. Even though this is indeed unrealistic, the fact remains that some of the wildlings also speak it somehow, and their Old Tongue is also a language that used to be spoken all over Westeros. GRRM gives the same language to the people beyond the Wall as to those south of it, which emphasizes their common origin and shared history to the extent that some wildlings even speak the Andal tongue.

On 1/14/2022 at 8:36 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

Jeor has to tell Jon that "the wildlings serve crueler gods than you or I". Weirwood trees beyond the Wall contain human sacrifices (of the sort Bran sees in visions). The Night's King was seduced into making Craster-like sacrifices by a woman from beyond the Wall.

The woman from beyond the Wall is described as a "corpse queen", not as an ordinary human person. The religion of the Old Gods is the same religion on both sides of the Wall even if there are differences. Craster does seem like an anomaly rather than the rule. Mormont may see Craster as a typical wildling, Ygritte, however, a wildling herself, tells Jon:

Quote

"Craster's more your kind than ours. His father was a crow who stole a woman out of Whitetree village, but after he had her he flew back t' his Wall. She went t' Castle Black once t' show the crow his son, but the brothers blew their horns and run her off. Craster's blood is black, and he bears a heavy curse." 

That does not sound like the wildlings actually endorse what Craster is up to. In fact, neither side embraces Craster and his practices as their own. (Mormont thinks Craster is like that because he is a wildling, but Ygritte thinks Craster is like that because he had been fathered by some crow.) He is also considered cursed by the wildlings. If Craster was the typical wildling, the wildlings wouldn't need to flee from the Others.

On 1/14/2022 at 8:36 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

Realistically, yes. GRRM isn't into realism and he can't math.

But it's not just that GRRM can't do maths. He gives the wildlings and the Northerners the same language and the same religion, both going back to the First Men. He also makes them share certain aspects of their culture, though the culture has become diverse over time due to various historical events. He also gives us a historical situation where the humans from both sides of the Wall fought together against the Others. 

On 1/14/2022 at 8:36 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

Yes, and the NW aren't tasked with protecting them either.

Of course not, because the CotF do not belong to the realms of men. Nor do they want to. You know - they are not human beings but a different (magical) race.

On 1/14/2022 at 8:36 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

So you agree that north of the Wall is not part of the "realms of men"? Though I should note the claim that CotF also live on the Isle of Faces, well south of the Wall.

I don't see the realms of men as a geographical entity. Human beings belong to the realms of men. The Others and the CotF do not, no matter where they live. At some point in history, some geographical areas were designated for humanoid magical races to occupy. Apparently, some humans still live there (the CotF are not necessary happy about it), just as there may be CotF living on the Isle of Faces. It does not mean that the CotF living on the Isle of Faces belong to the realms of men, nor do I think they regard themselves as belonging there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/28/2021 at 2:29 PM, Odej said:

Reading some posts about Jon Snow's attitudes as Lord Commander I realized that many people don't agree with Jon killing Janos Slynt and that made me curious. I always thought Jon's attitude was correct. Janos disrespected and disobeyed him publicly, letting his behavior go unpunished would make Jon weak in front of his subordinates. In an environment like the Wall, how to respect a leader whom an underling can curse and disobey him without serious consequences? Especially considering how many men who serve on the Wall were thieves, rapists and murderers.

 What do you guys think of Jon's decision?

Bad decision. Obviously.  Look here, if Jon had chosen to farm in the north and then met Slynt on the Kingsroad and decided to whoop his ass with a stick.  That would have been acceptable to me.  Jon chose to join the Nightswatch and by doing so, accepted all of the rules and duties of a sworn brother.  One of those is leaving behind quarrels of the past.  The sworn man gets to start a new life at the wall.  It meant Slynt was absolved of any responsibility for any criminal offense of the past.  I don't even think he was guilty of breaking the law during his work in Kings landing.  Ned, for all the eyes to see, looked guilty.  Slynt was just part of the crew which arrested him.  Joffrey Baratheon ordered the execution and Ilyn Payne carried it out.  The back talk and disrespect at the wall earned him some time in a jail cell but not an execution.  IIRC, Jon was guilty of hitting an officer while he was a trainee.  He tried to kill Officer Thorne over a verbal insult.  So Jon is no stranger to taking an insult too seriously and at least trying to kill the other guy.  He succeeded this time.  He was sharpening his sword and preparing to kill Slynt even before he asked him to go on the mission. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/16/2022 at 9:47 AM, Julia H. said:

Whoever thinks he can give them orders they must blindly follow.

Does that describe the kind of fealty the northern vassals have toward the Boltons, or Ramsay specifically?

Quote

it was probably with consent from Stannis, and the idea of letting Mance live may well have come from Stannis

What makes you say that?

Quote

Letting Mance live was what Jon himself had requested

Showing what Jon thinks of violations of the NW oath. As Jon thinks to himself "All Mance ever did was lead an army down upon the realm he once swore to protect."

Quote

The info Melisandre gave Jon concerned the well-being of someone he loved and who had no other relatives to help her but Jon. That's the kind of info people rarely just ignore.

As a member of the NW, he's no longer supposed to have any obligations to his family. And in the pitch letter, both Jon & Benjen could not provide refuge to Catelyn & her surviving kids. As the latter says "We put aside our old families when we swear our vows. Your father will always have a place in my heart, but these are my brothers now."

Quote

Jon had only one way to verify whether Melisandre said the truth or not

Sending a NW deserter, who'd just recently attacked the Wall, south of it, to retrieve someone he knew the Boltons would be pursuing.

Quote

Benjen had no way of knowing where it would lead.

Benjen is actually the man who brought up the idea of Jon joining: "We could use a man like you on the Wall."

Quote

But that's clearly not the story GRRM is writing.

The story has developed since then, so that Catelyn got turned into a fire-wight by Beric rather than an ice-wight by the Others, and Benjen has been long missing, but the NW taking precedence over blood remains.

Quote

Still, those attitudes indicate that players totally disregard the NW neutrality

"Totally" is an exaggeration. None of them have attacked an NW fortification like Mance has.

Quote

the neutrality is not in the vows

Quote

the black brothers were sworn to take no part in the quarrels of the realm

Quote

they pledged as well that the Night's Watch would take no part

Quote

They say vows, to take no part in wars and stuff.

Quote

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. [...] 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

They appear to be a different set of vows than the ones they repeat ritualistically, perhaps because they are more relevant to a commander than a new recruit, but it's clear they are sworn vows they take as seriously as their others.

Quote

We don't know how it began.

There's no evidence the current prohibitions are not the same ones they began with.

Quote

But "wearing no crowns" is not a good way of saying 'I won't be involved in politics'.

The wording of those vows focuses on subsuming personal ambitions into the NW, hence the talk of giving up various things a person could gain.

Quote

Defense can also be glorious.

It's generally less glorious. Stannis did not win much glory for persisting through the siege of Storm's End.

Quote

They either expected only saints to join them (and how many were they going to have?)

Very high ideals alongside people who can fall short of them is a major theme in this series. Jaime Lannister & Sandor Clegane express cynicism toward knightly vows, while non-knights Brienne & Duncan the Tall live up to those ideals and through their actions show the value of them.

Quote

Part of the oath speaks about legendary heroes, another part more about prisoners.

Not explicitly, just in your mind.

Quote

if the Wall comes down, will it be oathbreaking if the black brothers continue fighting the Others from some Northern fortress or from different Northern fortresses?

Yes, I'm pretty sure that would be accepted. The Wall would no longer be functioning as the defensive line against the threat to the North, and they could not perform their defensive role north of where the enemy forces had relocated and were heading.

Quote

The Starks are no longer the Kings of Winter

Robb was declared to be just that, so the history was not quite dead even after Targaryen rule.

Quote

they have clearly forgotten a lot, and that's only possible if important things have changed.

It's easy to forget over thousands of years. Although I suppose "not being under attack by the Others" would qualify as a change.

Quote

This may mean Jon himself does not think he is really breaking the vows

Rather, I think it means Jon himself thinks he might be breaking his vows. He's granting the premise that he is in fact breaking them (rather than just opening himself up to the accusation), and rationalizing that at least he's the only one breaking them.

Quote

That the Night's King broke all the rules means he allied himself with the Others, the very power the NW's purpose is to stand up to.

If you want less extreme/magical versions of LCs who forgot their vows, Benjen lists some to Jon.

Quote

Well, Ramsay is either the rightous and reasonable lord who only punishes the guilty or he is a madman.

That's overly binary. Roose Bolton isn't the same as Ramsay, but I think he'd regard the NW as hostile in the same situation (though he might be more subtle about dealing with that hostility).

Quote

So even without Ramsay there can be bloodshed in Castle Black right after the assassination. If the purpose is really the survival of the NW

A civil war usually results in at least one faction surviving, rather than mutually assured destruction.

Quote

GRRM gives the same language to the people beyond the Wall as to those south of it, which emphasizes their common origin and shared history to the extent that some wildlings even speak the Andal tongue.

Linguistics is not his strong suit. He's always admitted he's no Tolkien and wasn't going to create entire conlangs. I'd guess that the wildlings mostly speaking Common Tongue was to make things simpler.

Quote

Ygritte thinks Craster is like that because he had been fathered by some crow.

An odd belief by which culture can be genetically transmitted, not that we know his father performed sacrifices to the Cold Gods.

Quote

He also gives us a historical situation where the humans from both sides of the Wall fought together against the Others.

The Wall didn't yet exist when the Others were last seen.

Quote

I don't see the realms of men as a geographical entity.

"Realm" is a geographic term (denoting a political domain). It essentially means "kingdom" although the "Third Reich" was not a kingdom "reich" is the German version of "realm".

Quote

It does not mean that the CotF living on the Isle of Faces belong to the realms of men

The Isle is part of the Riverlands, and as such politically considered part of that realm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/17/2022 at 11:03 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

Does that describe the kind of fealty the northern vassals have toward the Boltons, or Ramsay specifically?

Bolton soldiers? 

On 1/17/2022 at 11:03 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

What makes you say that?

It is implied that the switch between Mance and Rattleshirt was with the consent of Stannis.

Quote

Only his life's blood could pay for his crimes, your laws said, and Stannis Baratheon is not a man to go against the law … but as you said so sagely, the laws of men end at the Wall. 

It basically means that Stannis needed a loophole to be persuaded to let Mance live. Both he and Jon knew that Mance had valuable knowledge regarding the Others and wights. Stannis does not go against the law - but what if he doesn't have to?

On 1/17/2022 at 11:03 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

Showing what Jon thinks of violations of the NW oath. As Jon thinks to himself "All Mance ever did was lead an army down upon the realm he once swore to protect."

True. But again, when you are preparing for a desperate fight against a mysterious enemy, you don't want to throw away a possible source of information. 

Besides, I think Mance's situation in the NW was rather special, and Jon, of all people, can understand it. Even Qhorin understood it. 

Quote

"He was wildling born, taken as a child when some raiders were put to the sword. When he left the Shadow Tower he was only going home again."

The raiders put to the sword could be his family members. His life was spared by the rangers in the only way they were able to help this wildling child, but that does not change the fact that he was raised to fight his own people. In these circumstances, I do think that desertion - going home - is more understandable.

On 1/17/2022 at 11:03 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

As a member of the NW, he's no longer supposed to have any obligations to his family. And in the pitch letter, both Jon & Benjen could not provide refuge to Catelyn & her surviving kids. As the latter says "We put aside our old families when we swear our vows. Your father will always have a place in my heart, but these are my brothers now."

But that's it, you cannot just erase all obligations. Jon gave up his family in the knowledge that they wouldn't need him, since they were rich and powerful. Jon's loyalty to the NW has been tested several times. But his final test was a little sister in extreme need of her only surviving relative. And he wasn't going to leave the NW for her. He just wanted to have her found and taken to safety. Compared  to the pitch letter, this is a much richer and more complex story.

On 1/17/2022 at 11:03 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

Sending a NW deserter, who'd just recently attacked the Wall, south of it, to retrieve someone he knew the Boltons would be pursuing.

Well, if he had sent some NW members, he would still be condemned. 

On 1/17/2022 at 11:03 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

Benjen is actually the man who brought up the idea of Jon joining: "We could use a man like you on the Wall."

Perhaps. But I don't think he wouldn't have been allowed to talk to him if he hadn't mentioned the Wall. When Jon offered to join, he tried to dissuade him. 

On 1/17/2022 at 11:03 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

The story has developed since then, so that Catelyn got turned into a fire-wight by Beric rather than an ice-wight by the Others, and Benjen has been long missing, but the NW taking precedence over blood remains.

What remains is human beings in critical situations, faced with difficult choices, conflicts of the heart between NW and family.

On 1/17/2022 at 11:03 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

"Totally" is an exaggeration. None of them have attacked an NW fortification like Mance has.

Oh, come on. What would anyone gain by attacking their fortresses or destroying them? It is about using them in their game of thrones.

On 1/17/2022 at 11:03 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

They appear to be a different set of vows than the ones they repeat ritualistically, perhaps because they are more relevant to a commander than a new recruit, but it's clear they are sworn vows they take as seriously as their others.

Well, we don't see a commander take a different vow even though we see an election.

On 1/17/2022 at 11:03 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

There's no evidence the current prohibitions are not the same ones they began with.

The wording of those vows focuses on subsuming personal ambitions into the NW, hence the talk of giving up various things a person could gain.

That's exactly what makes me think that in the beginning they could be individual vows depending on what the person found a relevant sacrifice for himself. I'm assuming that they were enthusiastic volunteers giving up their lives and worldly ambitions to the cause of defending humanity. 

On 1/17/2022 at 11:03 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

It's generally less glorious. Stannis did not win much glory for persisting through the siege of Storm's End.

Stannis is not a good example - with his complete lack of charisma, no one who knows him is likely to sincerely glorify him. I could say examples from real history when the defenders of a castle went down in history as heroes.

On 1/17/2022 at 11:03 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

Not explicitly, just in your mind.

What happens in my mind is analysis of a text that appears in literature. I think we are supposed to do it. (I am not the only one.) But I don't like the tone of this particular comment of yours. 

On 1/17/2022 at 11:03 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

Robb was declared to be just that, so the history was not quite dead even after Targaryen rule.

The question is whether the King of Winter and the King-in-the-North are exactly the same titles. I'm not sure about that. They may belong to different historical periods.

On 1/17/2022 at 11:03 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

It's easy to forget over thousands of years. Although I suppose "not being under attack by the Others" would qualify as a change.

And it led to other changes.

On 1/17/2022 at 11:03 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

Rather, I think it means Jon himself thinks he might be breaking his vows. He's granting the premise that he is in fact breaking them (rather than just opening himself up to the accusation), and rationalizing that at least he's the only one breaking them.

He literally refers to what people will / may say. (I gave you the quote above.) That's a pretty clear indication that he is thinking of how his brothers (and himself) will be judged by other people, not of what his own conciousness says. He also uses the word if.  

On 1/17/2022 at 11:03 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

If you want less extreme/magical versions of LCs who forgot their vows, Benjen lists some to Jon.

So?

On 1/17/2022 at 11:03 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

A civil war usually results in at least one faction surviving, rather than mutually assured destruction.

Well, yes, part of the garrison in Castle Black may survive to receive the Others. 

On 1/17/2022 at 11:03 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

Linguistics is not his strong suit. He's always admitted he's no Tolkien and wasn't going to create entire conlangs. I'd guess that the wildlings mostly speaking Common Tongue was to make things simpler.

GRRM isn't doing "linguistics", much less creating any language when he decides to give the wildlings the same language as to the people in the Seven Kingdoms. He is doing world-building, which he is quite good at. It doesn't matter what his reasons are - after all we can't see into his head. What matters is that this results in a circumstance that unifies these peoples - along with other circumstances also created by the author. 

On 1/17/2022 at 11:03 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

An odd belief by which culture can be genetically transmitted, not that we know his father performed sacrifices to the Cold Gods.

No, I don't think it was genetically transmitted, nor does it matter. The point is that Ygritte, who knows the wildling society, finds Craster alien to it. It doesn't matter whether she can guess the origin of Craster's behaviour or not, what matters is that she finds it different from the wildling way. Hence her opinion that it must come from his "kneeler" ancestor.

Incidentally, Craster practises incest, among other things, and we know at which end of the continent we have seen similar practices. Note that I'm not saying that Craster is a Targaryen, only that some of his strange ways do have parallels in the South.

On 1/17/2022 at 11:03 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

The Wall didn't yet exist when the Others were last seen.

The Night's King sacrificed to the Others, had a "corpse-like" queen and kept the Watch in bondage by sorcery. That pretty much shows where he stood. It was against him that the two kings on the two sides of the Wall formed a union "to free the Watch from bondage". Interesting. 

On 1/17/2022 at 11:03 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

"Realm" is a geographic term (denoting a political domain). It essentially means "kingdom" although the "Third Reich" was not a kingdom "reich" is the German version of "realm".

Metaphor? 

Of course, people in Westeros live in kingdoms, so that is a natural word for them to use. Even the wildlings have kings.

However, realm has several meanings in English.

Cambridge Dictionary:

'an area of interest and activity'

 'a country ruled by a queen or king'

Example sentences: 

Similarly, specific regions of the human body are said to correspond to the material, celestial, and intellectual realms.

The following years saw hectic activity in religious and cultural realms.

The separate realms of nature and culture are bridged by a movement back and forth.

Idealistically speaking, changes in two major social realms outside the museum could help alleviate present problems.

Merriam Webster 

'kingdom'

'sphere, domain'

Examples: 

new discoveries in the realm of medicine 

in political and legal realms

Epstein, a millionaire moving in the social realm that passes for aristocracy in the United States;

On 1/17/2022 at 11:03 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

The Isle is part of the Riverlands, and as such politically considered part of that realm.

 

Quote

"No one visits the Isle of Faces,"

The island geographically is part of the Seven Kingdoms. But if the green men are CotF, I doubt that they care much about the human society around them. They certain don't mingle. People don't even know for sure who they are. I doubt that they pay tax to the king.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Bolton soldiers?

Assume Steelshanks Walton attacks Castle Black despite people there making clear there's no wanted person there. What would the northern vassals do in that situation?

Quote

It basically means that Stannis needed a loophole to be persuaded to let Mance live.

And Jon tried that argument, which Stannis rejected. The idea that the law against desertion ends at the Wall would be a complete non-starter for him (and most Westerosi, I'd expect).

Quote

Stannis does not go against the law - but what if he doesn't have to?

Stannis would not see this swap as not going against the law, which "should be made of iron, not of pudding".

Quote

Even Qhorin understood it.

Qhorin was trying to fight Mance. He had wildlings tortured to obtain information about him, and said that members of the NW should be willing to sacrifice their lives as well their honor to protect the realm from the likes of Mance.

Quote

I do think that desertion - going home - is more understandable.

Understandable or not, Qhorin still deems him an oathbreaker. A dangerous one who can threaten the Wall.

Quote

But that's it, you cannot just erase all obligations.

According to the NW, you can and must. If it was always easy, it would be no sacrifice.

Quote

Jon gave up his family in the knowledge that they wouldn't need him, since they were rich and powerful.

The oaths are not conditional on such things.

Quote

I don't think he wouldn't have been allowed to talk to him if he hadn't mentioned the Wall

I also don't think anyone is monitoring his conversations for permissible topics.

Quote

What remains is human beings in critical situations, faced with difficult choices, conflicts of the heart between NW and family.

Precisely!

Quote

What would anyone gain by attacking their fortresses

Stannis has hosted his army there, so there's something very obviously to be gained. And the castle is deliberately constructed to be vulnerable to an attack from the south precisely to prevent any lord from regarding the NW as threats.

Quote

It is about using them in their game of thrones.

How were they going to do that? By having the NW march against Stannis' army?

Quote

That's exactly what makes me think that in the beginning they could be individual vows depending on what the person found a relevant sacrifice for himself.

A military order is not like a wedding, individualized vows are not permitted.

Quote

Stannis is not a good example - with his complete lack of charisma, no one who knows him is likely to sincerely glorify him.

How much credit did Tyrion get for keeping Stannis out of KL long enough for a relief force to arrive & defeat him? And Tyrion did some really impressive stuff with that chain & wildfire.

Quote

The question is whether the King of Winter and the King-in-the-North are exactly the same titles. I'm not sure about that. They may belong to different historical periods.

But Robb is declared King of Winter in the present. What period do you think those were different?

Quote

And it led to other changes.

The Soviet Union being in a desperate fight for survival in WW2 led to them inducting large numbers of prisoners into the army. Whereas the US after Vietnam has relied on an all-volunteer force of much smaller numbers precisely because we don't need that many soldiers.

Quote

That's a pretty clear indication that he is thinking of how his brothers (and himself) will be judged by other people, not of what his own conciousness says.

It's both.

Quote

He also uses the word if.

Which is why I used the word "might".

Quote

He is doing world-building

Usually world-building requires more effort in order to add more detail, not less. This is something completely unrealistic, at odds with the established history of the continent, and only amenable to a Doylist explanation. There's not really an in-universe explanation for why wildlings (usually contemptuous toward the culture of "kneelers") would adopt the Andal language, much less speak a dialect close enough to be completely mutually intelligible/indistinguishable.

Quote

It doesn't matter what his reasons are - after all we can't see into his head.

There's a lack of Watsonian reasoning on the page, which leaves only the Doylist variety.

Quote

The point is that Ygritte, who knows the wildling society, finds Craster alien to it.

She's engaged in "No True Scotsman" logic.

Quote

Note that I'm not saying that Craster is a Targaryen, only that some of his strange ways do have parallels in the South.

He holds himself above all the laws of men, as the Targaryens did to a lesser extent.

Quote

The Night's King sacrificed to the Others

Deities don't have to actually exist for people to make sacrifices to them.

Quote

Metaphor?

The NW are a military order defending a specific structure/geographic feature. They are not defending a region of the human body corresponding to a celestial realm, or any other such abstraction. When characters talk about "the realm" (such as in the title of the King), everyone knows they're talking about a specific area and not such abstractions as you listed.

Quote

But if the green men are CotF

The term "men" in contrast to "children" indicates they are human sized. Riding elks (like Coldhands does) would also be more fitting of a larger species rather than ones as small as the Children.

Quote

I doubt that they pay tax to the king.

Indeed, the ability to tax was far more limited in the past when there was less "state capacity". Feudal governments had even less of that than the Roman empire did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/28/2021 at 2:29 PM, Odej said:

Reading some posts about Jon Snow's attitudes as Lord Commander I realized that many people don't agree with Jon killing Janos Slynt and that made me curious. I always thought Jon's attitude was correct. Janos disrespected and disobeyed him publicly, letting his behavior go unpunished would make Jon weak in front of his subordinates. In an environment like the Wall, how to respect a leader whom an underling can curse and disobey him without serious consequences? Especially considering how many men who serve on the Wall were thieves, rapists and murderers.

 What do you guys think of Jon's decision?

I don't have a positive opinion of Jon.  It was an awfully bad decision.  Jon should never have killed Janos Slynt.  It was unjust.  As the leader of the watch, Jon had a duty to be honest and fair.  Jon abused the power entrusted to him to kill the man who he thought was Ned's past adversary.  Jon was a corrupt leader. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/20/2022 at 11:59 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

Assume Steelshanks Walton attacks Castle Black despite people there making clear there's no wanted person there. What would the northern vassals do in that situation?

Probably whatever you think they would. 

On 1/20/2022 at 11:59 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

And Jon tried that argument, which Stannis rejected. The idea that the law against desertion ends at the Wall would be a complete non-starter for him (and most Westerosi, I'd expect).

Stannis would not see this swap as not going against the law, which "should be made of iron, not of pudding".

Stannis openly rejected that argument, but Melisandre's words indicate that in the end he accepted the argument, privately. This is very much like Stannis - the same one who denies having had anything to do with Renly's death, yet deep down knows it would not have happened without him, the same one who does not believe in his "Lightbringer" yet lets himself be called Azor Ahai reborn because it suits his purposes. 

On 1/20/2022 at 11:59 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

Qhorin was trying to fight Mance. He had wildlings tortured to obtain information about him, and said that members of the NW should be willing to sacrifice their lives as well their honor to protect the realm from the likes of Mance.

Understandable or not, Qhorin still deems him an oathbreaker. A dangerous one who can threaten the Wall.

Yes, Qhorin considers Mance an oathbreaker because Mance is an oathbreaker, and he considers him an enemy because Mance is about to attack the Wall and invade the Seven Kingdoms - with the wildlings, who are Mance's own people. Mance's black and red cloak is a symbol of Mance trying to combine his double loyalty - his loyalty to his native people and his loyalty to the NW brothers who had raised him - into one "cloak", but in the NW it was impossible, so he chose his loyalty to his people - at the cost of breaking his vow. It does not make him less of an oathbreaker or less of an enemy but it does put him into a different light as a person. If we add to this the facts that he has influence over the wildlings, he has recent knowledge about the Others and the wights, his political goals can be reconciled with those of the Watch since they have a common enemy, then sparing his life and turning him into an ally makes more sense than killing him, from a practical viewpoint. 

On 1/20/2022 at 11:59 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

According to the NW, you can and must. If it was always easy, it would be no sacrifice.

Of course. Yet, this story is not about Maester Aemon or Lord Commander Hoare, who remained passive while their family members (otherwise protected by proper armies) were being killed far away from them, but about Jon Snow, a hero with strong family ties, who needs to give up his family again and again in situations which make it a more and more difficult decision, and is finally put in a situation where the plight of a helpless little sister, with not protective army or family behind her, comes right to his door. This story is there to make the reader think of how far a person can - should - go in the name of a promise made once in very different circumstances, as more and more things happen where the value of that promise needs to be weighed against other considerations. It is also about the question of following the rules to the letter or following the spirit of your vocation.  

On 1/20/2022 at 11:59 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

The oaths are not conditional on such things.

The oaths themselves are not. People's choices though...

On 1/20/2022 at 11:59 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

Stannis has hosted his army there, so there's something very obviously to be gained. And the castle is deliberately constructed to be vulnerable to an attack from the south precisely to prevent any lord from regarding the NW as threats.

Do you really think the reason why no armies march to the Wall to attack Stannis there is that everyone, oh, just so much respects the neutrality of the NW? 

On 1/20/2022 at 11:59 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

How were they going to do that? By having the NW march against Stannis' army?

I gave you examples of how various players were trying to interfere with the NW and extend their influence over them. Why invent imaginary situations instead of looking at the ones that are actually in the books?

On 1/20/2022 at 11:59 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

A military order is not like a wedding, individualized vows are not permitted.

This one started as a very special military order. Today it is only a shadow of what it was meant to be. 

On 1/20/2022 at 11:59 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

How much credit did Tyrion get for keeping Stannis out of KL long enough for a relief force to arrive & defeat him? And Tyrion did some really impressive stuff with that chain & wildfire.

That doesn't mean no one ever can get recognition for defending a castle. A certain period of my country's history offers various examples of soldiers who became heroes while defending castles. The idea that only conquerors can win glory seems somewhat narrow-minded to me. Sure, a conqueror may be much more motivated by the ambition to win glory than someone who "merely" protects people, because conquest has more to do with vain self-glorification than protection, which has much more to do with sacrifice. The difference between conquerors and protectors is highlighted in Jon's arc. His childhood hero was the Young Dragon, a typical conqueror. But he has come to understand that his true vocation is not to conquer but to protect. Yet, "glory" can be as simple as having a song sung about a fallen hero or having their heroic deeds or their sacrifice recorded in a "white book".  

On 1/20/2022 at 11:59 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

But Robb is declared King of Winter in the present. What period do you think those were different?

You are right "King of Winter" and "King-in-the-North" are used interchangeably. I may be wrong, but I have had the impression that the Kings of Winter were the early Stark kings because this title sounds like the title of a mythological king from a period when being the king of "winter" was more important than being the king of a political-geographical unit, and it may imply a certain magical power even. "King-in-the-North" sounds more "modern", so to speak, maybe a newer version, and it seems to refer to a political figure rather than a mythological or semi-mythological one. I should check, but I have the suspicion that the ancient kings in the crypts tend to be referred to as Kings of Winter and not as Kings-in-the-North. 

On 1/20/2022 at 11:59 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

There's not really an in-universe explanation for why wildlings (usually contemptuous toward the culture of "kneelers") would adopt the Andal language, much less speak a dialect close enough to be completely mutually intelligible/indistinguishable.

No expanation is given, but we can only assume that there is more to the wildling-kneeler relationship historically than mere raiding and fighting. GRRM took care to supply the peoples of Essos with various languages, even providing some "language history" for some of them, and he gave the CoTF and the Others languages of their own. It wouldn't have been difficult to give the wildlings their own language distinct from those spoken south of the Wall. But you know, if it were only the language, it would be easier to believe that it's just an odd, unrealistic aspect of the world-building. However, the religion is also the same. There are also people like the Thenns, who are more similar to the Northerners than the other wildling groups. We can see cultural differences and similarities between wildlings and Northerners. But we are also shown that the willdings are not a homogenous group themselves, and nor are the Northerners perhaps.  

On 1/20/2022 at 11:59 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

She's engaged in "No True Scotsman" logic.

But she wouldn't condemn Craster's practices if they were the norms of the wildlings. They are not what ordinary - or, if you like "true" - wildlings do, and that's the point. 

On 1/20/2022 at 11:59 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

Deities don't have to actually exist for people to make sacrifices to them.

But the Others exist.

On 1/20/2022 at 11:59 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

The NW are a military order defending a specific structure/geographic feature. They are not defending a region of the human body corresponding to a celestial realm, or any other such abstraction. When characters talk about "the realm" (such as in the title of the King), everyone knows they're talking about a specific area and not such abstractions as you listed.

The vow could mention the Seven Kingdoms or any number of kingdoms. It specifically mentions the "realms of men". There is no geographical or political entity, nor has there been as far as we know, called "the realms of men". So the vow refers to something that is different from a political or geographical unit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/12/2022 at 8:22 PM, James West said:

Jon was 100% wrong.  Janos did not do anything that deserved a death sentence.  Time in confinement was the more appropriate sentence.  Jon's lack of leadership talent resulted in an unjust sentence. 

Janos Slynt was guilty of mutiny in time of war. Not only did he refuse direct orders he attempted to sieze control of the Watch. The penalty for that is death. In just about any army.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/21/2022 at 3:26 PM, Julia H. said:

Probably whatever you think they would.

Refuse to accept it is my guess.

Quote

Stannis openly rejected that argument, but Melisandre's words indicate that in the end he accepted the argument, privately. This is very much like Stannis - the same one who denies having had anything to do with Renly's death, yet deep down knows it would not have happened without him, the same one who does not believe in his "Lightbringer" yet lets himself be called Azor Ahai reborn because it suits his purposes.

Those aren't examples of Stannis privately agreeing to something he publicly refuses (and of course Jon wouldn't know about the private sides of them). Letting Mance go (for a purpose chosen by Jon rather than Stannis, of all things) is not something he can lie to himself about and only have subconscious awareness "deep down". Melisandre does not share Stannis' priorities, she regards the political struggle as insignificant compared to the larger struggle against the Great Other. She's not there to uphold the law, she's not even a Westerosi who's been raised from birth to regard NW oaths as sacred. Not that she regards any oaths not made under R'hllor to be!

Quote

his loyalty to his native people

That's a weird phrasing. People are native to a place rather than another person. You might phrase it in terms of his birth family vs his adoptive family.

Quote

It does not make him less of an oathbreaker or less of an enemy but it does put him into a different light as a person.

How so?

Quote

following the rules to the letter or following the spirit of your vocation.

The "spirit" of the NW "vocation" has nothing to do with getting involved in conflicts south of the Wall.

Quote

Do you really think the reason why no armies march to the Wall to attack Stannis there is that everyone, oh, just so much respects the neutrality of the NW?

The Boltons are the ones close by, they have Ironborn to deal with and expect to play defense when Stannis attacks them. Being a reason does not mean being the only reason.

Quote

I gave you examples of how various players were trying to interfere with the NW and extend their influence over them. Why invent imaginary situations instead of looking at the ones that are actually in the books?

It was an imaginary situation because nobody else was actually attempting to use the NW to interfere with events south of the Wall.

Quote

This one started as a very special military order.

Even "very special" military orders don't permit their members to take individualized oaths.

Quote

conquest has more to do with vain self-glorification than protection, which has much more to do with sacrifice

Precisely. The oaths put that in stark terms: brothers are supposed to remember their part is to sacrifice rather than to win any glory.

Quote

But he has come to understand that his true vocation is not to conquer but to protect.

Marching at the head of an army against Ramsay doesn't really fit the NW paradigm.

Quote

No expanation is given, but we can only assume that there is more to the wildling-kneeler relationship historically than mere raiding and fighting.

Nicholas Ostler wrote "Empires of the Word" on how certain languages spread. GRRM's Planetos (and Westeros specifically) does not resemble that. There are an enormous number of languages in Papua New Guinea, as the actual tendency of people is to shift their language AWAY from neighbors to differentiate themselves. And the barriers between neighboring tribes there aren't comparable to the Wall!

Quote

But you know, if it were only the language, it would be easier to believe that it's just an odd, unrealistic aspect of the world-building. However, the religion is also the same.

It's unrealistic that the North speaks the same language as the Andals (really it's unrealistic that the Andals haven't linguistically diverged over time). Modern English is a language that formed after Britain was invaded by a volkwanderung of Angles, Saxons & Jutes, subject to Viking raids that took over some portions, and then they were all conquered by the Normans. France was also conquered by a Germanic tribe (the Franks) after the Romans, but they speak more of a Romance language. Per the history we get, the Andals weren't able to conquer north of the Neck. The North already had literate maesters, so it's not like even just the literate classes would all be adopting Common.

Quote

They are not what ordinary - or, if you like "true" - wildlings do, and that's the point.

The point of "true Scotsman" logic is that you can prove any arbitrary thing you want that way. There is no one enforcing any norm on Craster, who certainly isn't inclined to "kneel" to any such norms. We're told that every wildling regards himself as his own king, and that fits him.

Quote

But the Others exist.

People can make sacrifices to them whether or not they exist or are around.

Quote

The vow could mention the Seven Kingdoms

There weren't just Seven Kingdoms when the NW was formed. The NW has been around for thousands of years, remaining the same even as the political landscape of Westeros has changed. The vow applies to ALL the kingdoms south of them.

Quote

There is no geographical or political entity, nor has there been as far as we know, called "the realms of men"

"Is" and "entity" are singular, "realms" is plural. Of course there's no singular proper noun whose name is the same as that summary of a plural category!

Quote

So the vow refers to something that is different from a political or geographical unit.

No, the NW is a collective political creation of people south of the Wall to defend their lands from everything north of the Wall. For the thousands of years that the NW has existed that is the role they have served, fighting against the wildlings (who attack rather than contribute to the NW) rather than protecting them.

22 hours ago, Light a wight tonight said:

Janos Slynt was guilty of mutiny in time of war. Not only did he refuse direct orders he attempted to sieze control of the Watch.

That's an exaggeration. He talked back rather than following orders but he didn't "sieze" anything or make a real attempt. Mutiny as defined under law requires multiple people to act in concert, and that didn't happen.

Quote

The penalty for that is death. In just about any army.

Simple refusal to obey an order does not result in death in any first-world army I'm aware of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Refuse to accept it is my guess.

Those aren't examples of Stannis privately agreeing to something he publicly refuses (and of course Jon wouldn't know about the private sides of them). Letting Mance go (for a purpose chosen by Jon rather than Stannis, of all things) is not something he can lie to himself about and only have subconscious awareness "deep down". Melisandre does not share Stannis' priorities, she regards the political struggle as insignificant compared to the larger struggle against the Great Other. She's not there to uphold the law, she's not even a Westerosi who's been raised from birth to regard NW oaths as sacred. Not that she regards any oaths not made under R'hllor to be!

That's a weird phrasing. People are native to a place rather than another person. You might phrase it in terms of his birth family vs his adoptive family.

How so?

The "spirit" of the NW "vocation" has nothing to do with getting involved in conflicts south of the Wall.

The Boltons are the ones close by, they have Ironborn to deal with and expect to play defense when Stannis attacks them. Being a reason does not mean being the only reason.

It was an imaginary situation because nobody else was actually attempting to use the NW to interfere with events south of the Wall.

Even "very special" military orders don't permit their members to take individualized oaths.

Precisely. The oaths put that in stark terms: brothers are supposed to remember their part is to sacrifice rather than to win any glory.

Marching at the head of an army against Ramsay doesn't really fit the NW paradigm.

Nicholas Ostler wrote "Empires of the Word" on how certain languages spread. GRRM's Planetos (and Westeros specifically) does not resemble that. There are an enormous number of languages in Papua New Guinea, as the actual tendency of people is to shift their language AWAY from neighbors to differentiate themselves. And the barriers between neighboring tribes there aren't comparable to the Wall!

It's unrealistic that the North speaks the same language as the Andals (really it's unrealistic that the Andals haven't linguistically diverged over time). Modern English is a language that formed after Britain was invaded by a volkwanderung of Angles, Saxons & Jutes, subject to Viking raids that took over some portions, and then they were all conquered by the Normans. France was also conquered by a Germanic tribe (the Franks) after the Romans, but they speak more of a Romance language. Per the history we get, the Andals weren't able to conquer north of the Neck. The North already had literate maesters, so it's not like even just the literate classes would all be adopting Common.

The point of "true Scotsman" logic is that you can prove any arbitrary thing you want that way. There is no one enforcing any norm on Craster, who certainly isn't inclined to "kneel" to any such norms. We're told that every wildling regards himself as his own king, and that fits him.

People can make sacrifices to them whether or not they exist or are around.

There weren't just Seven Kingdoms when the NW was formed. The NW has been around for thousands of years, remaining the same even as the political landscape of Westeros has changed. The vow applies to ALL the kingdoms south of them.

"Is" and "entity" are singular, "realms" is plural. Of course there's no singular proper noun whose name is the same as that summary of a plural category!

No, the NW is a collective political creation of people south of the Wall to defend their lands from everything north of the Wall. For the thousands of years that the NW has existed that is the role they have served, fighting against the wildlings (who attack rather than contribute to the NW) rather than protecting them.

That's an exaggeration. He talked back rather than following orders but he didn't "sieze" anything or make a real attempt. Mutiny as defined under law requires multiple people to act in concert, and that didn't happen.

Simple refusal to obey an order does not result in death in any first-world army I'm aware of.

In a medieval army, facing a fight?  Death would be the penalty for such defiance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...