Jump to content

Jon and the Night’s Watch vow


kissdbyfire

Recommended Posts

Happy [insert holiday of choice] everyone! :cheers:
 

Let's start by looking at the Night's Watch vow.

AGoT - Jon VI
They said the words together, as the last light faded in the west and grey day became black night.

"Hear my words, and bear witness to my vow," they recited, their voices filling the twilit grove. "Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post. I am the sword in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men. I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night and all the nights to come."
The woods fell silent. "You knelt as boys," Bowen Marsh intoned solemnly. "Rise now as men of the Night's Watch."

Lots of metaphorical language used to say the sworn brothers are there to protect humanity from whatever poses a threat to it. But what isn’t there is also important. And what isn't there is anything about ‘taking no part’. 

Now, many of us readers (and some characters) believe the NW has forgotten its true purpose. There are at least three factors that play a part in this.

- the Watch has had its share of bad LCs who wanted power for themselves. 

- the fact that the Others haven’t been seen in millennia.

- and finally, the above leads to the Watch becoming little more than a penal colony.

Now the Watch must find its true purpose again because the threat of the Others is clear, present, and imminent.

And not getting involved in the affairs of the realm is not only not part of the vow, but may even be detrimental to the Watch’s ability to fulfill its purpose of protecting the realms of men. More on that further down. 

The ‘Watch takes no part’ is likely a tradition that was adopted at some point after one or, more likely, several LCs harmed the Watch and its main purpose by ostensibly taking part - not to protect humanity but rather to serve their own interests. 

Jon, the free folk, and several of the brothers know of the looming threat of the WWs; there is no doubt it is coming. Reports of what's happening at Hardhome and from the fleeing free folk highlight the urgency. Those left north of the Wall will be wightified and become pawns in the army of the undead coming for the realms of men, and leaving them to this fate goes directly against the actual vow.
So we see here the decision to send Pyke to rescue the people at Hardhome, and later Tormund with black brothers, to try to save as many as possible was not only the right one morally, but also exactly what the NW vow requires.

Then there's the decision to march on Winterfell to confront Ramsay. And again, the decision is right, because Ramsay threatened the Watch directly and its LC, on top of threatening several of the Watch's guests. All these threats, if fulfilled, would at best impair and at worst prevent the Watch's ability to, again, defend the realms of men.

And again, the decision was the right one, and is not only totally within the purview of the vow but what was necessary to uphold it.

Let's try a hypothetical to help illustrate this.

Let's say someone really bad like Euron conquers everything south of the Neck, Barrowton and White Harbor. He crowns himself King of Westeros and is now preparing to march farther north to finish conquering the rest of Westeros; one of his goals is to bring down the Wall and form an alliance with the Others. The remaining houses and clans either prepare to defend themselves or take refuge at the Wall. Should the Watch do something? Should they send those seeking refuge at the Wall back? After all, Euron is king of Westeros and the Watch shouldn't interfere in the affairs of the realm, right? No sarcasm font, so I'll spell it out: wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the point of Jaime’s character for the most part is to show the folly of sticking to the words of such broad oaths, and that one should stick to the spirit of them rather than the exact wording. 
 

like Arthur Dayne, Getold Hightower, and Oswell Whent. They were all great members of the KG, but poor knights who stood by while their king behaved like a cruel tyrant. Jaime on the otherhand did what the heroic knight should’ve done, and put a stop to Aerys’ madness. But he was a poor KG.

Jon’s vows have and probably will, continue to hold him back from keeping the spirit of his oath, and part of his story arc will be coming to terms with breaking oaths to save people I’m sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, KingEuronGreyjoy said:

Well, the point of Jaime’s character for the most part is to show the folly of sticking to the words of such broad oaths, and that one should stick to the spirit of them rather than the exact wording. 
 

like Arthur Dayne, Getold Hightower, and Oswell Whent. They were all great members of the KG, but poor knights who stood by while their king behaved like a cruel tyrant. Jaime on the otherhand did what the heroic knight should’ve done, and put a stop to Aerys’ madness. But he was a poor KG.

Agree 100% on the KG/Jaime. I also agree completely that blindly following any vow is not only stupid but may be cowardly hiding behind words for one’s own convenience in some cases. It’s not for nothing that we get so many ‘words are wind’ throughout ADwD that the editor wanted to cut some - and Martin said no. It seems he really wanted to make a point there, innit. 

21 minutes ago, KingEuronGreyjoy said:

Jon’s vows have and probably will, continue to hold him back from keeping the spirit of his oath, and part of his story arc will be coming to terms with breaking oaths to save people I’m sure.


I don’t completely agree on the NW vow tough. For instance p, I would like to know (w/ hard evidence) exactly what was the original vow, as in, was it exactly as we hear it today? Regarding the argument that Jon is being held back, I’m not so sure. He questions his decisions and goes as far as thinking to himself that if his actions are oathbreaking, the fault is his and his alone. But it makes sense that he questions this, as he, like every other character, buys into the ‘take no part’ tradition. But his instincts and his moral compass are in the right place. Also, I think the moment of his coming to terms w/ this has come already. I think that moment, or the start of this forward motion, happens when he reads the PL to Tormund and he changes his plans. I think that’s the moment he chose love & honour over duty and blind allegiance to traditions and rules and even vows - even if here he may be unknowing adhering to the vow more than if he didn’t make the choices he made. 
 

“Jon flexed the fingers of his sword hand. The Night’s Watch takes no part. He closed his fist and opened it again. What you propose is nothing less than treason. He thought of Robb, with snowflakes melting in his hair. Kill the boy and let the man be born. He thought of Bran, clambering up a tower wall, agile as a monkey. Of Rickon’s breathless laughter. Of Sansa, brushing out Lady’s coat and singing to herself. You know nothing, Jon Snow. He thought of Arya, her hair as tangled as a bird’s nest. I made him a warm cloak from the skins of the six whores who came with him to Winterfell … I want my bride back … I want my bride back … I want my bride back …

  “I think we had best change the plan,” Jon Snow said.”

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

I don’t completely agree on the NW vow tough. For instance p, I would like to know (w/ hard evidence) exactly what was the original vow, as in, was it exactly as we hear it today? Regarding the argument that Jon is being held back, I’m not so sure. He questions his decisions and goes as far as thinking to himself that if his actions are oathbreaking, the fault is his and his alone. But it makes sense that he questions this, as he, like every other character, buys into the ‘take no part’ tradition. But his instincts and his moral compass are in the right place. Also, I think the moment of his coming to terms w/ this has come already. I think that moment, or the start of this forward motion, happens when he reads the PL to Tormund and he changes his plans. I think that’s the moment he chose love & honour over duty and blind allegiance to traditions and rules and even vows - even if here he may be unknowing adhering to the vow more than if he didn’t make the choices he made. 

True Oath of the Night's Watch is probably what Sam recites before the Black Gate, as the door opens to those words. The parts that Sam doesn't recite are all the things that Night's King supposed to have done, so likely added only after NK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Corvo the Crow said:

True Oath of the Night's Watch is probably what Sam recites before the Black Gate, as the door opens to those words. The parts that Sam doesn't recite are all the things that Night's King supposed to have done, so likely added only after NK.

Yeah, that’s one theory. And it’s possible, sure, but as I said, I’d love to have hard evidence of what the vow was back in the day. Or should I say back in the long night? :D

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Yeah, that’s one theory. And it’s possible, sure, but as I said, I’d love to have hard evidence of what the vow was back in the day. Or should I say back in the long night? :D

 

Well for that we'll have to see Bran greenseeing a weirwood  that a watchmen said his vows to. Is it possible? Yes. Will we see it though? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Merry Christmas and a partridge in a pear tree to all.  Down with Queen Jadis who made it always winter but never Christmas.  See you all tomorrow on the Feast of Saint Stephen, when I will wish you two turtle doves etc., and also say goodbye to the Festival of Lights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Well for that we'll have to see Bran greenseeing a weirwood  that a watchmen said his vows to. Is it possible? Yes. Will we see it though? :rolleyes:

Unlikely I know. I’d settle for Martin saying something definitive on the matter, but that’s also highly unlikely. Still, I never said I thought we would learn, only that I would very much like to know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the OP on this.  The oath states that "I shall wear no crowns and win no glory," but that's quite different from "I shall take no side in any conflict between men."     

Iif the Lord Commander leaves the Wall to go fight in some such conflict, that certainly might look like desertion.  But if some enemy has explicitly threatened to attack the Night's Watch, then a preemptive strike could be considered part of his duty

Happy Winter Solstice to all, by whatever modern name you may call it! :cheers:

(And Yes, compared to the age of the Sun and Earth, your religion is "modern.")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Aebram said:

I agree with the OP on this.  The oath states that "I shall wear no crowns and win no glory," but that's quite different from "I shall take no side in any conflict between men."     

Iif the Lord Commander leaves the Wall to go fight in some such conflict, that certainly might look like desertion.  But if some enemy has explicitly threatened to attack the Night's Watch, then a preemptive strike could be considered part of his duty

Happy Winter Solstice to all, by whatever modern name you may call it! :cheers:

(And Yes, compared to the age of the Sun and Earth, your religion is "modern.")

Jon is the shield that guards the realm of men. Against what? We aren't told specifically. And In his own words, what are wildlings, if not men? Add to that Queen Shireen, Queen Mother Selyse, Melisandre the Red Witch, all their soldiers, retainers and serving girls and that's a whole lot of men that needs defending from the darkness that is Ramsay. Jon was in his rights as the LC to defend these people and not only was he in his right, but as a First Man he was honor bound and obliged to protect these people who are his guests.  If Selyse had taken up residence in Nightfort, then he may not have been obliged to protect them but he'd still be obliged to protect the wildlings. 

Not only is he their host, but he's also their feudal overlord now. As much as I like him, Stannis made the mistake of burning heart trees, and making them bend the knee, oaths that they gave to him, they'll likely not hold as these were starving people under threat of death if they left on the Other side of the wall.

To quote from the words of one of the bravest westerosi girls to have ever lived, Wylla Manderly, a true Northman, just like her grandfather Wyman Manderly who observes guest right and goes hunting in winter: Oaths were sworn in Wolf's Den(Castle Black is the White Wolf's Den, being home to Ghost and under control of Jon) before the true gods, the Old Gods. When they were sore beset and friendless, hounded from their homes in peril of their lives, the wolf(Jon Snow) took them in and nourished them and protected them against their enemies. They may build settlements in land he gave to them(he's settling them in castles) In return, they swore to be his men.


 

Quote

 

Amongst the stream of warriors were the fathers of many of Jon's hostages. Some stared with cold dead eyes as they went by, fingering their sword hilts. Others smiled at him like long-lost kin, though a few of those smiles discomfited Jon Snow more than any glare. None knelt, but many gave him their oaths. "What Tormund swore, I swear," declared black-haired Brogg, a man of few words. Soren Shieldbreaker bowed his head an inch and growled, "Soren's axe is yours, Jon Snow, if ever you have need of such." Red-bearded Gerrick Kingsblood brought three daughters. "They will make fine wives, and give their husbands strong sons of royal blood," he boasted. "Like their father, they are descended from Raymun Redbeard, who was King-Beyond-the-Wall."

Blood meant little and less amongst the free folk, Jon knew. Ygritte had taught him that. Gerrick's daughters shared her same flame-red hair, though hers had been a tangle of curls and theirs hung long and straight. Kissed by fire. "Three princesses, each lovelier than the last," he told their father. "I will see that they are presented to the queen." Selyse Baratheon would take to these three better than she had to Val, he suspected; they were younger and considerably more cowed. Sweet enough to look at them, though their father seems a fool.

Howd Wanderer swore his oath upon his sword, as nicked and pitted a piece of iron as Jon had ever seen. Devyn Sealskinner presented him with a sealskin hat, Harle the Huntsman with a bear-claw necklace. The warrior witch Morna removed her weirwood mask just long enough to kiss his gloved hand and swear to be his man or his woman, whichever he preferred. And on and on and on.

As they passed, each warrior stripped off his treasures and tossed them into one of the carts that the stewards had placed before the gate. Amber pendants, golden torques, jeweled daggers, silver brooches set with gemstones, bracelets, rings, niello cups and golden goblets, warhorns and drinking horns, a green jade comb, a necklace of freshwater pearls … all yielded up and noted down by Bowen Marsh. One man surrendered a shirt of silver scales that had surely been made for some great lord. Another produced a broken sword with three sapphires in the hilt.

As they passed, each warrior stripped off his treasures and tossed them into one of the carts that the stewards had placed before the gate. Amber pendants, golden torques, jeweled daggers, silver brooches set with gemstones, bracelets, rings, niello cups and golden goblets, warhorns and drinking horns, a green jade comb, a necklace of freshwater pearls … all yielded up and noted down by Bowen Marsh. One man surrendered a shirt of silver scales that had surely been made for some great lord. Another produced a broken sword with three sapphires in the hilt.

And there were queerer things: a toy mammoth made of actual mammoth hair, an ivory phallus, a helm made from a unicorn's head, complete with horn. How much food such things would buy in the Free Cities, Jon Snow could not begin to say.

After the riders came the men of the Frozen Shore. Jon watched a dozen of their big bone chariots roll past him one by one, clattering like Rattleshirt. Half still rolled as before; others had replaced their wheels with runners. They slid across the snowdrifts smoothly, where the wheeled chariots were foundering and sinking.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Happy [insert holiday of choice] everyone! /cdn-cgi/mirage/d061fbc8a99b74d9127f1b0a19a8d29641ec2a7e3541937299ee1540bc7d0bf1/1280/https://asoiaf.westeros.org/uploads/emoticons/default_cheers.gif
 

Let's start by looking at the Night's Watch vow.

AGoT - Jon VI
They said the words together, as the last light faded in the west and grey day became black night.

"Hear my words, and bear witness to my vow," they recited, their voices filling the twilit grove. "Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post. I am the sword in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men. I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night and all the nights to come."
The woods fell silent. "You knelt as boys," Bowen Marsh intoned solemnly. "Rise now as men of the Night's Watch."

Lots of metaphorical language used to say the sworn brothers are there to protect humanity from whatever poses a threat to it. But what isn’t there is also important. And what isn't there is anything about ‘taking no part’. 

Now, many of us readers (and some characters) believe the NW has forgotten its true purpose. There are at least three factors that play a part in this.

- the Watch has had its share of bad LCs who wanted power for themselves. 

- the fact that the Others haven’t been seen in millennia.

- and finally, the above leads to the Watch becoming little more than a penal colony.

Now the Watch must find its true purpose again because the threat of the Others is clear, present, and imminent.

And not getting involved in the affairs of the realm is not only not part of the vow, but may even be detrimental to the Watch’s ability to fulfill its purpose of protecting the realms of men. More on that further down. 

The ‘Watch takes no part’ is likely a tradition that was adopted at some point after one or, more likely, several LCs harmed the Watch and its main purpose by ostensibly taking part - not to protect humanity but rather to serve their own interests. 

Jon, the free folk, and several of the brothers know of the looming threat of the WWs; there is no doubt it is coming. Reports of what's happening at Hardhome and from the fleeing free folk highlight the urgency. Those left north of the Wall will be wightified and become pawns in the army of the undead coming for the realms of men, and leaving them to this fate goes directly against the actual vow.
So we see here the decision to send Pyke to rescue the people at Hardhome, and later Tormund with black brothers, to try to save as many as possible was not only the right one morally, but also exactly what the NW vow requires.

Then there's the decision to march on Winterfell to confront Ramsay. And again, the decision is right, because Ramsay threatened the Watch directly and its LC, on top of threatening several of the Watch's guests. All these threats, if fulfilled, would at best impair and at worst prevent the Watch's ability to, again, defend the realms of men.

And again, the decision was the right one, and is not only totally within the purview of the vow but what was necessary to uphold it.

Let's try a hypothetical to help illustrate this.

Let's say someone really bad like Euron conquers everything south of the Neck, Barrowton and White Harbor. He crowns himself King of Westeros and is now preparing to march farther north to finish conquering the rest of Westeros; one of his goals is to bring down the Wall and form an alliance with the Others. The remaining houses and clans either prepare to defend themselves or take refuge at the Wall. Should the Watch do something? Should they send those seeking refuge at the Wall back? After all, Euron is king of Westeros and the Watch shouldn't interfere in the affairs of the realm, right? No sarcasm font, so I'll spell it out: wrong. 

I would not disagree.

I would add that Nights Watch neutrality ended, the moment they sent out requests for aid to every claimant.

The government in Kings Landing is being requested for aid.  The government responds by letting them go hang.  Feudalism depends, not upon blind obedience, but upon mutual obligations between overlord and vassal.  Once an overlord violates their end of the bargain (protection) the vassal is free to terminate theirs (fealty).

The Nights Watch has no obligation now to follow the government or its Bolton representatives in the North.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Bad governmennt good government, the Night's Watch has endured for years because it's a non aligned movement made of people from Dorne to Skagos. If the Watch starts taking part in the affairs of the Realm it'll simply collapse.

It is one thing if the Wall itself is under threat but even Jon himself knew his reasoning to fight Ramsay were iffy at best, which is why he doesn't force the fight on all his brothers.

 

Quote

And what metal is Robb? Jon did not ask. Noye was a Baratheon man; likely he thought Joffrey the lawful king and Robb a traitor. Among the brotherhood of the Night's Watch, there was an unspoken pact never to probe too deeply into such matters. Men came to the Wall from all of the Seven Kingdoms, and old loves and loyalties were not easily forgotten, no matter how many oaths a man swore . . . as Jon himself had good reason to know. Even Sam—his father's House was sworn to Highgarden, whose Lord Tyrell supported King Renly. Best not to talk of such things. The Night's Watch took no sides. "Lord Mormont awaits us," Jon said.

 

Quote

“Jon, did you ever wonder why the men of the Night’s Watch take no wives and father no children?” Maester Aemon asked. Jon shrugged. “No.” He scattered more meat. The fingers of his left hand were slimy with blood, and his right throbbed from the weight of the bucket. “So they will not love,” the old man answered, “for love is the bane of honor, the death of duty.”

 

Quote

“The men who formed the Night’s Watch knew that only their courage shielded the realm from the darkness to the north. They knew they must have no divided loyalties to weaken their resolve. So they vowed they would have no wives nor children. “Yet brothers they had, and sisters. Mothers who gave them birth, fathers who gave them names. They came from a hundred quarrelsome kingdoms, and they knew times may change, but men do not. So they pledged as well that the Night’s Watch would take no part in the battles of the realms it guarded. “They kept their pledge. When Aegon slew Black Harren and claimed his kingdom, Harren’s brother was Lord Commander on the Wall, with ten thousand swords to hand. He did not march. In the days when the Seven Kingdoms were seven kingdoms, not a generation passed that three or four of them were not at war. The Watch took no part. When the Andals crossed the narrow sea and swept away the kingdoms of the First Men, the sons of the fallen kings held true to their vows and remained at their posts. So it has always been, for years beyond counting. Such is the price of honor. “A craven can be as brave as any man, when there is nothing to fear. And we all do our duty, when there is no cost to it. How easy it seems then, to walk the path of honor. Yet soon or late in every man’s life comes a day when it is not easy, a day when he must choose.” [...]  The old man laid a withered, spotted hand on his shoulder. “It hurts, boy,” he said softly. “Oh, yes. Choosing … it has always hurt. And always will. I know.” “You don’t know,” Jon said bitterly. “No one knows. Even if I am his bastard, he’s still my father …” Maester Aemon sighed. “Have you heard nothing I’ve told you, Jon? Do you think you are the first?” He shook his ancient head, a gesture weary beyond words. “Three times the gods saw fit to test my vows. Once when I was a boy, once in the fullness of my manhood, and once when I had grown old. By then my strength was fled, my eyes grown dim, yet that last choice was as cruel as the first. My ravens would bring the news from the south, words darker than their wings, the ruin of my House, the death of my kin, disgrace and desolation. What could I have done, old, blind, frail? I was helpless as a suckling babe, yet still it grieved me to sit forgotten as they cut down my brother’s poor grandson, and his son, and even the little children …”

I will not lie, if I were in Jon's situation and it were my baby siblings in danger I'd do the same thing too, lol. Fuck honor. But the truth of it is, Jon's situation while cruel was neither unheard of, not even rare, Westeros is almost constantly riddled with civil wars and that end houses. It is what it is.

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

I would add that Nights Watch neutrality ended, the moment they sent out requests for aid to every claimant.

How so?

While i say that Bolton gave Jon a loosely legal reason to fight him, it is obvious to everyone and their mother that Jon was being moved by revenge. Which would end eating the Watch on the inside... as it ended up happening.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, frenin said:

 

Aemon disagrees with you and it's clear why.

Bad governmennt good government, the Night's Watch has endured for years because it's a non aligned movement made of people from Dorne to Skagos. If the Watch starts taking part in the affairs of the Realm it'll simply collapse.

 

 

 

I will not lie, if I were in Jon's situation and it were my baby siblings in danger I'd do the same thing too, lol. Fuck honor. But the truth of it is, Jon's situation while cruel was neither unheard of, not even rare, Westeros is almost constantly riddled with civil wars and that end houses. It is what it is.

How so?

While i say that Bolton gave Jon a loosely legal reason to fight him, it is obvious to everyone and their mother that Jon was being moved by revenge. Which would end eating the Watch on the inside... as it ended up happening.

 

I’d not dispute that a desire for revenge is one motive for Jon’s actions (as it is for Daenerys’). 

Jon is not a selfless saint motivated by pure altruism.

But, I’m not convinced by Aemon’s arguments either.  The Nights Watch traditions have reduced the organisation to impotence.  With a handful of exceptions, people only join it as an alternative to execution.  A military organisation which did allow people to join for a fixed term, and which did allow its members the opportunity to marry, would find it much easier to recruit volunteers, than one whose members are legally dead, as soon as they swear the oath.

Choosing duty over love allows people to justify any enormity.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, SeanF said:

 A military organisation which did allow people to join for a fixed term, and which did allow its members the opportunity to marry, would find it much easier to recruit volunteers, than one whose members are legally dead, as soon as they swear the oath.

I do not doubt that for a second, just as i do not doubt that said military organization would end up being a duchy/kingdom or just defunct when its neighbour just noped out the operation and decided to end them for good.

Even in the Watch, as it's currently organized, more than one Lord Commander tried to make their position hereditary and nearly end it for good.

Ned's idea of repopulating the New Gift and making the new lords pay their taxes to the Watch instead of Winterfell/Iron Throne would have also gave the Wall a new life, alas the good ones always die first.

 

27 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Choosing duty over love allows people to justify any enormity.

Fair enough, but it's also true viceversa.

People will cling to whatever to justigy any enormity they or their current movement do or enable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, frenin said:

 

Bad governmennt good government, the Night's Watch has endured for years because it's a non aligned movement made of people from Dorne to Skagos. If the Watch starts taking part in the affairs of the Realm it'll simply collapse.

I disagree. Mostly because I think this is an oversimplification that doesn’t take into account a wide variety of issues that are bound to arise, especially when we’re talking of a timeline that spans millennia. 
And because you have any number of things happening, there simply cannot be one single immutable rule that must be applied always w/o exception. That’s why vows - any vows - don’t work. 

4 hours ago, frenin said:

It is one thing if the Wall itself is under threat but even Jon himself knew his reasoning to fight Ramsay were iffy at best, which is why he doesn't force the fight on all his brothers.

Completely disagree. As I said upthread, Jon questions whether he is breaking his oath or not because just like everyone else, he’s been hearing the ‘take no part’ mantra all his life. We know what he’s thinking, we’re in his head. So ultimately because he isn’t sure if he is breaking his vows or not, he decides not to take any watchmen with him. It’s just the solution he finds that allows him to do what he thinks is right while not putting his watch brothers at risk of being accused of oathbreaking. 

4 hours ago, frenin said:

I will not lie, if I were in Jon's situation and it were my baby siblings in danger I'd do the same thing too, lol. Fuck duty.  But the truth of it is, Jon's situation while cruel was neither unheard of, not even rare, Westeros is almost constantly riddled with civil wars and that end houses. It is what it is.

FTFY. Honour is not necessarily blindly following rules. Sometimes it is deciding to do the right thing even if it goes against the rules. 
Also the last two lines of your reply… While there can be no doubt that many, many black brothers have gone through difficult situations regarding their previous lives and families, I’m not so sure many have gone through something exactly like this. 

4 hours ago, frenin said:

How so?

While i say that Bolton gave Jon a loosely legal reason to fight him, it is obvious to everyone and their mother that Jon was being moved by revenge. Which would end eating the Watch on the inside... as it ended up happening.

 

Here I disagree w/ everything basically.
1. I think the reason Ramsay gives Jon is much stronger than you say.

2. Yes, revenge is a part of it no doubt, but wanting to do what’s right is as well. If it was only revenge he wouldn’t have had a hard time trying to decide what to do. Also, the two are not mutually exclusive.

3. The Watch was not eaten up from the inside as you say. There’s a crisis for sure, but I think your prediction is off by a lot. Of course we’ll have to wait (!!!!!) to see what happens. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no doubt that Jon was wrong to pull the Night's Watch into conflict with House Bolton.  A Song of Ice and Fire is not about praising people for breaking their vows.  Those vows are the equivalent of contracts and unbreakable promises.  Nothing about Jon is praiseworthy.  The chaos he created at the Night's Watch will not make them better prepared to defend against the White Walkers.  On the contrary, Jon made the Watch weaker.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Rondo said:

There is no doubt that Jon was wrong to pull the Night's Watch into conflict with House Bolton.  A Song of Ice and Fire is not about praising people for breaking their vows.  Those vows are the equivalent of contracts and unbreakable promises.  Nothing about Jon is praiseworthy.  The chaos he created at the Night's Watch will not make them better prepared to defend against the White Walkers.  On the contrary, Jon made the Watch weaker.  

 

I would say the contrary.  There is nothing praiseworthy about strictly adhering to a vow, when it leads one into dishonour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

I disagree. Mostly because I think this is an oversimplification that doesn’t take into account a wide variety of issues that are bound to arise, especially when we’re talking of a timeline that spans millennia. 
And because you have any number of things happening, there simply cannot be one single immutable rule that must be applied always w/o exception. That’s why vows - any vows - don’t work. 

I dunno, if the Watch starts acting like a political entity, it'll start to be treated as such if you add the fact that the crows come from every cross of the continent and that said continent cannot last 30 years without going to war...

It seems a recipe for disaster.

 

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

Completely disagree. As I said upthread, Jon questions whether he is breaking his oath or not because just like everyone else, he’s been hearing the ‘take no part’ mantra all his life. We know what he’s thinking, we’re in his head. So ultimately because he isn’t sure if he is breaking his vows or not, he decides not to take any watchmen with him. It’s just the solution he finds that allows him to do what he thinks is right while not putting his watch brothers at risk of being accused of oathbreaking. 

Jon questions whether he is breaking the oath or not because he is breaking the spirit of it and he knows that.

Doubtless with every other heir, Jon would have send a raven to their fathers and remind them the Watch took no part in the disputes of the south and command them to put their heir in check... But Jon was itching for a reason to get involved in the south, which while understandable goes against his oath.

He seized a dubious opportunity and he knew perfectly a good part of his brothers would not join him because they also knew Jon's reasoning to go south had less to do with the fact that Ramsay was ¿maybe? coming north and more to the fact that he was a psycho who had his baby sister as his hotage.

 

 

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

FTFY. Honour is not necessarily blindly following rules. Sometimes it is deciding to do the right thing even if it goes against the rules. 

Agree.

 

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

Also the last two lines of your reply… While there can be no doubt that many, many black brothers have gone through difficult situations regarding their previous lives and families, I’m not so sure many have gone through something exactly like this. 

I fail to see how.

What makes his situation different? Jon's situation or Harren's brother situation is certainly the most extreme version of that but this are men who leave their family behind in a country riddled with civil wars.

Or don't you think the peasant from the riverlands who was sentenced to death because he poached isn't thinking about his family, his mother and sisters and baby brothers? Isn't thinking about the living nightmare the Riverlands has been turned into? 

Jon's not special, it really really sucks for him but it is what it is.

 

 

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

Here I disagree w/ everything basically.
1. I think the reason Ramsay gives Jon is much stronger than you say.

2. Yes, revenge is a part of it no doubt, but wanting to do what’s right is as well. If it was only revenge he wouldn’t have had a hard time trying to decide what to do. Also, the two are not mutually exclusive.

3. The Watch was not eaten up from the inside as you say. There’s a crisis for sure, but I think your prediction is off by a lot. Of course we’ll have to wait (!!!!!) to see what happens. 

 

  1. Eh, it certainly doesn't convince his brothers, which is why most stay put. They knew about Ramsay and were read the letter as were we but they didn't seem to think Ramsay was a threat enough to break 8k years precedent for... And i kinda agree with that sentiment.
  2. What's right to his family you mean? Jon's honor bound, he would have a hard time bending his vows for just revenge.
  3. Fair enough lol.

Glad to see you around here again tho.:cheers:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rondo said:

There is no doubt that Jon was wrong to pull the Night's Watch into conflict with House Bolton.  A Song of Ice and Fire is not about praising people for breaking their vows.  Those vows are the equivalent of contracts and unbreakable promises.  Nothing about Jon is praiseworthy.  The chaos he created at the Night's Watch will not make them better prepared to defend against the White Walkers.  On the contrary, Jon made the Watch weaker.  

 

Words are wind to Dany, as she herself constantly says. There's no breaker of words worse than her. She sets out she'll free every slave, than abandons the freed men of Astapori and goes on to sign a treaty to allow slavery inAstapor and Yunkai. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...