[ADwD Spoilers] A Different Look at Jon's Decision

[tozka]

I would say the evidence of both thoughts, words, and actions of members of the NW clearly establish that there was laws that were not specifically mentioned in the Oath members took to swear in. Take in point, that if there were no laws about not participating in the politics of the South, then Jon or Mormont for that matter (to a lesser extent), would have clearly felt free to not remain neutral.

This is an institution that dates thousand of years. It is only natural that there would be traditions that are as strong as law.For example: 'The wildling are enemy', 'do not interfere in the realm', but Jon is breaking at least the first - he is making the wildlings allies. Tradition can be break, laws not so much, oaths almost never. 'The Watch takes no part' policy is as much as a law as 'the wildlings are the enemy' which is to say not at all - they are traditions. But if traditions endanger people you break them.

We have evidence again that the LC does not create all the laws. Councils are met to establish them, as with the appointment of the LC, and the council that would have relived Aemon from his vows. The LC is the supreme commander in military matters, but even he must follow guidelines.

If you mean the Great Concil - it would have relieved Aemon from his vows as Maester, he had not joined at that time the NW - he joined it after Aegon was picked as King. And they had as much right to relieve Aemon of any oaths as did Robb to relieve Jon of his oaths - none really, but they had power - and Robb says it that he would give them 200 men in exchange of relieving Jon, and who would agree to these exchange if not the Lord Commander. Which is textual evidence that maybe the LC has the authority to relieve Jon of his oaths.

But that is beside the point. The point, I think, was that even if Jon is not breaking his vows (for the sake of argument) he is at least breaking the laws. And I disagreed because ... da da da

The Night's King had his name stricken from every record, and his number removed from the roles of the Watch. I think it is more then safe to assume that he violated his oaths and broke laws...

It was more of a joke - but he could do it.

No, but mentioning this law is unenforceable is absolute proof that the law did in fact exist. Otherwise, there would be no need or framework for this conversation to take place.

Not really this is medival ages and people are set in their ways. Tradition can became as easily as strong as a law in the eyes of men but they are not laws and as I said sometimes they need to be abolished.

[Howdyphillip]

This is an institution that dates thousand of years. It is only natural that there would be traditions that are as strong as law.For example: 'The wildling are enemy', 'do not interfere in the realm', but Jon is breaking at least the first - he is making the wildlings allies. Tradition can be break, laws not so much, oaths almost never. 'The Watch takes no part' policy is as much as a law as 'the wildlings are the enemy' which is to say not at all - they are traditions. But if traditions endanger people you break them.

Not really this is medival ages and people are set in their ways. Tradition can became as easily as strong as a law in the eyes of men but they are not laws and as I said sometimes they need to be abolished.

This is a quote from GOT

The men who formed the Night's Watch knew that their courage shielded the realm from the darkness of 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.

Although I agree with you that most of the laws that I have stated are probably not written in a book and followed to the letter, there are still pledges and rules that the NW is expected to keep. Immediately after this passage, Aemon goes on to tell the tale of the NW commander that didn't come to his brothers aid to fulfill his obligation at the wall.

All of this, and plenty of other textual evidence point to the fact that Jon is breaking his vows by riding south to meet Ramsey. Now, I completely concur that this was the "right" thing to do, but since everyone in the text seems to agree that this is taking place, (including Jon himself, and the people who stab him for it), I think it is safe to assume that he is not keeping faith with the NW by his decisions.

[Yeade]

If there is ever a vote, then you absolutely have my nod for "armchair general."

Appreciate it! Sometimes I get a little embarrassed talking about strategy and tactics, never mind logistics, because my experience in such matters comes wholly from history books on the American Civil War, lol. I'm constantly at a low level of paranoia for fear that I'll commit an outrageous military gaffe and be called on my mistake by those more knowledgeable, who are offended by my ignorance. So, I try hard to think things through before I submit stuff to public scrutiny. ^_^

My problem is that you said that if my interpretation turns out to be right, you'll think the chapter was poorly conceived and that Jon was acting OOC. I asked why it would be OOC for Jon to choose love over duty if he feels he can't choose both. Your response is that you don't think love and duty are mutually exclusive in this situation and that you think Jon shares your views on this. But we agree that Jon usually has a very strict interpretation of his vows -- so why do you think it would be OOC for him to take a strict interpretation of his vows in this situation too, like I am? Also, if Jon's assessment of the choice was more in tune with mine and Maester Aemon's, do you think it would be OOC for him to choose love over duty?

Thanks for the clarification of your position! As for your questions, actually, I do not agree that Jon has a very strict interpretation of his NW vows in the sense that he's not above exploiting loopholes, bending his oath, or outright breaking it when he feels there's a greater purpose at stake. And there's nothing higher than the defense of the realm. Qhorin Halfhand teaches Jon this lesson, and he applies it twice over in his whole ACOK/ASOS spy escapade, once with regard to his vows and again by betraying the wildlings. Jon's ADWD reasoning for extending the protection of the Wall to the wildlings is yet another example of him shaping the reading of his oath to suit his desires and ultimate goals. Then there's his dealings with the Karstarks, where Jon shows a certain flexibility in acting within and around traditions like guest right. I don't see why the circumstances surrounding the Pink Letter should be any different considering Jon's been practicing how to creatively reinvent his obligations, sworn or otherwise, often under pressure, for three books and seemingly getting better at it every time.

However, I do believe Jon has a quite rigid sense of personal honor that he inherits from Ned Stark. That is, no matter how rational or even right his own justifications are for taking any action that might conceivably be perceived as violating his vows, he'll be well aware he's in dangerous waters and still feel like a traitor. Which is why I tend to consider Jon's assessments of his status as an oathbreaker rather unreliable. Especially with as much emotion involved as when Arya's life is in danger or Jon stands to gain some selfish happiness from his choices. Both these factors make Jon all the more suspicious, IMO, of his own motives and magnify his guilt, however inappropriate or misplaced, about not being able to live up to his self-imposed unrealistically high standards of honorable conduct.

In short (ha!), intellectually, Jon's proven more than capable of parsing the intricacies of the Pink Letter situation as I've proposed but, emotionally, he'll condemn himself regardless of how sensible or defensible within the framework of his oath his actions are. Jon frequently feels bitter, resigned, or guilty about being a turncloak in the eyes of others, isolated and friendless, but these emotions have seldom stopped him from pursuing the course that he thinks is correct. His calculating side's weighing the odds and playing lawyer, then spits out a plan that his sensitive side's going to likely hate to follow but won't balk at. A great deal of disassociation and repression is required of Jon, but these are hardly new psychological issues for heroic types.

So, yes, if it turns out Jon decides to summarily abandon his duties to the NW and realm for the sake of how much he loves Arya at the end of ADWD, I'd think he's OOC and be generally disappointed with how GRRM's chosen to write the character. My view of Jon suggests he'd recognize the ambiguity of the circumstances and pick the option that offers the most benefits overall while doubting himself the entire way. If there had been a chance for Jon to warn Ygritte off the Thenns' attack of Castle Black without compromising his mission, don't you think he would've? The wildlings force him to decide between the two, though, and he does his duty. Now that he's in charge, why wouldn't he try to find a balance between love and duty if one exists? My opinion's that Jon would do his damnedest to honor as many of his obligations as possible and figuring out how ending Ramsay Bolton benefits the NW isn't that difficult.

edit: BBCode formatting

[Lady of Long Lake]

[

Anyway, I really don't think Jon will keep giving a crap about the NW vows after he's just been betrayed and killed by the NW, I think that would kinda discredit the institution in his eyes.

These are not about "the human heart in conflict with itself." They're tactical errors.

Wow! I hadn't thought that idea yet. That's a good point.

[Clash]

I've been reading this thread with interest although it seems to have got bogged down in legalities in the last few pages. I think that people are forgetting that this is a medieval feudal system and that most lords in the seven kingdoms are relatively free to make their own laws for their own lands. I say relatively because if there's a conflict with the King's laws, the King will obviously trump them.

Putting that aside for the moment, the LC of the Nights Watch has much the same power as any of the lords of the seven kingdoms and within his realm, his word is law. I have no doubt that somewhere during the commands of the previous 997 LCs of the NW similar situations have occurred and been dealt with. Whether taking the fight to Ramsay Bolton was or was not involving himself in the affairs of the kingdom, by 'harbouring' Stannis at the wall, Jon would have been perceived as having already broken that 'law'. Certainly the Lannisters believed it to be so and Jon was clear minded enough to believe that this was how it would be perceived. Taking the next step of attacking Bolton would be akin to being 'hung for a sheep as a lamb' as the saying goes. By not taking men of the NW with him he probably hoped to spare them the same fate as himself should things go badly.

Overriding all this, is the threat of the 'Others' who Jon believes will eventually breach the wall one way or the other and move south into the seven kingdoms. At that point it becomes moot as to the rights and wrongs of his actions because of the huge threat to the realm that they represent. Until they do, he knows that nobody south of the wall, and especially in KL, will believe that any such threat exists. In other words, he's takiing a risk, but a calculated one.

Moving on to Melisandres visions; Jon knows that Melidandre has been quite accurate with her visions even if she (and she says this herself) doesn't always interpret them correcly - the girl on the horse being one such instance. However, with the arrival of the pink letter, another of her prophecies has come true and therefore he would be aware that the 'daggers in the dark' must also come about. That's why I believe that he knows he's going to die or at least be mortally wounded; he seems to be almost fatalistic about it. His thoughts of his brothers and sisters; seem to me to be a kind of farewell to his early life along with the repetition of the phrase 'kill the boy so the man may live'. Locking Ghost away almost seems to be an insurance that nothing will thwart the 'daggers in the dark'.

[LittleDragon]

From Bolton's perspective, it's a case of an enemy (Others) of my enemy (Jon/Night's Watch/Stannis) is my friend.

Don't forget, that people in Westeros actually don't believe in creatures like Others. Even the Citadel full of highly trained magisters can't believe is, what can we expect form the population? Lords throughout Westeros are looking only short term advantages they can drew from the war, they don't believe Others or dragons.

Altogether Jon could be a good leader if he give more information to his people, but he didn't. He is bold and creative, having good ideas and solutions, brave in fight, good in organization, good in negotiations, have a long term view on complex issues and its concequences, but for whatever reasons they never explains what and why he is doing. His measures are not only new but on the contrary of habituel doings of the Watch like letting wildlings through the gates instead of killing them, sending ships to save them instead of letting them dying, feeding wildlings, making contracts with banks etc. They are totally new things in a short term. people serving in the Watch are mostly common people, most of them can't read, they are very simple people. they cannot interpret the oath of the Watch in an extended way like Jon does it, they cannot see further on actual things. Jon should have involved them more, being more patient with them, explaining more his ideas, but he only instructs them, and this is the mistake he has and leads to his own possible death or at least to lost of his position. All of his doings are treason in the eye of the Watch: cooperating with Stannis, setting wildlings, leaving not black-crows serving on the Wall, letting spear-wives serving, opening towers and filling them with wildlings, feeding them etc., and for final thing he openly speaks on leaving the Wall and riding to south, it's an open trahison for them, it's desertion for them, and they have to kill Jon. they don't understand the reasoning behind all his deeds. Pity for the Realm also if he eventually died.

[Miriamele]

Altogether Jon could be a good leader if he give more information to his people, but he didn't. He is bold and creative, having good ideas and solutions, brave in fight, good in organization, good in negotiations, have a long term view on complex issues and its concequences, but for whatever reasons they never explains what and why he is doing. His measures are not only new but on the contrary of habituel doings of the Watch like letting wildlings through the gates instead of killing them, sending ships to save them instead of letting them dying, feeding wildlings, making contracts with banks etc. They are totally new things in a short term. people serving in the Watch are mostly common people, most of them can't read, they are very simple people. they cannot interpret the oath of the Watch in an extended way like Jon does it, they cannot see further on actual things. Jon should have involved them more, being more patient with them, explaining more his ideas, but he only instructs them, and this is the mistake he has and leads to his own possible death or at least to lost of his position. All of his doings are treason in the eye of the Watch: cooperating with Stannis, setting wildlings, leaving not black-crows serving on the Wall, letting spear-wives serving, opening towers and filling them with wildlings, feeding them etc., and for final thing he openly speaks on leaving the Wall and riding to south, it's an open trahison for them, it's desertion for them, and they have to kill Jon. they don't understand the reasoning behind all his deeds. Pity for the Realm also if he eventually died.

He tried to explain to Bowen Marsh and the new maester but they didn't get it.

Also it is both a feudal society and a military organization. Neither of them is big on explaining things to the common people.

[anexanhume]

After reading this thread, it seems people don't share opinions I thought were obvious.

Regarding NW murdering Jon:

Jon saw Bowen Marsh crying and telling Jon it wasn't him after he stabbed him in the gut. At least 4 other NW members attacked him as well (1 missed). From Bowen's reaction, it seems rather clear that the warg that Jon has a specific confrontation with as the wildings come through the wall that established him as a potential foe.

The deal with Wun Wun did two things 1) Create a situation to distract Jon and allow his murder to be possible. 2) Create a huge audience to see the NW members kill their lord commander.

It seems to be the intention on the warg to give wildings control of the wall and sow discord among the ranks as the NW saw their own brothers kill their lord commander.

However, should Jon survive, I can't imagine him not recalling Bowen's face at the time and at least honoring him enough to hear his explanation. He knows enough about wargs to at least potentially believe him and target the warg himself, which is why the situation needed to be contentious enough to likely ensure the murderers' deaths should Jon survive.

As far as Jon being alive, it's my personal opinion he will survive. I think that Melisandre has known all along that Stannis is not Azor Ahai reborn and it is in fact Jon Snow. However, she saw that Stannis was her way to get to Jon and she fully anticipated his Jon's distrust. Thus, the best way for him to get to trust her given his devotion to the Old Gods is to tell him her prophecy about his demise and actually let it come true. Between the prophecy and her healing arts, she could have a fair amount of faith he wasn't actually going to die even if the situation came up. His wounds are even described as smoking when he is stabbed, which is consistent with stuff we've seen associated with things dealing with the Lord of Light and dragons alike (re-enforcing LS+RT=JS yet again).

As far as Jon's decision to go south, I have no doubt his desire to save Ayra is underpinning it. However, he can certainly go under the guise that he demand Mance back given his life is forfeit to the Watch for being a turncloak. If Bolton refuses, he can force the issue that way and potentially be justified.

As far as what Bolton's letter said, I think it's pretty obvious that part of it is true (Bolton has Mance), but the rest is poppycock. If Bolton had truly finished Stannis, he would have his bride and Reek back.

[Chirios]

Don't forget, that people in Westeros actually don't believe in creatures like Others. Even the Citadel full of highly trained magisters can't believe is, what can we expect form the population? Lords throughout Westeros are looking only short term advantages they can drew from the war, they don't believe Others or dragons. Altogether Jon could be a good leader if he give more information to his people, but he didn't. He is bold and creative, having good ideas and solutions, brave in fight, good in organization, good in negotiations, have a long term view on complex issues and its concequences, but for whatever reasons they never explains what and why he is doing. His measures are not only new but on the contrary of habituel doings of the Watch like letting wildlings through the gates instead of killing them, sending ships to save them instead of letting them dying, feeding wildlings, making contracts with banks etc. They are totally new things in a short term. people serving in the Watch are mostly common people, most of them can't read, they are very simple people. they cannot interpret the oath of the Watch in an extended way like Jon does it, they cannot see further on actual things. Jon should have involved them more, being more patient with them, explaining more his ideas, but he only instructs them, and this is the mistake he has and leads to his own possible death or at least to lost of his position. All of his doings are treason in the eye of the Watch: cooperating with Stannis, setting wildlings, leaving not black-crows serving on the Wall, letting spear-wives serving, opening towers and filling them with wildlings, feeding them etc., and for final thing he openly speaks on leaving the Wall and riding to south, it's an open trahison for them, it's desertion for them, and they have to kill Jon. they don't understand the reasoning behind all his deeds. Pity for the Realm also if he eventually died.

He explains several times why he is doing what he is doing, he constantly seeks their counsel and allows them to speak and air their complaints. The only problem is that they give bad advice, so he ignores it.

[LittleDragon]

After reading this thread, it seems people don't share opinions I thought were obvious.

Regarding NW murdering Jon:

Jon saw Bowen Marsh crying and telling Jon it wasn't him after he stabbed him in the gut. At least 4 other NW members attacked him as well (1 missed). From Bowen's reaction, it seems rather clear that the warg that Jon has a specific confrontation with as the wildings come through the wall that established him as a potential foe.

The deal with Wun Wun did two things 1) Create a situation to distract Jon and allow his murder to be possible. 2) Create a huge audience to see the NW members kill their lord commander.

It seems to be the intention on the warg to give wildings control of the wall and sow discord among the ranks as the NW saw their own brothers kill their lord commander.

OK, maybe that's my misinterpretation, but i've thought the main message of the preface that warging humans is a temptation for the bests of wargs, but it's hardly possible, especially to relize it in a short time. it's true that Bran can warg Hodor, but one side Bran is a powerful warg, and on the other hand Hodor is not too intelligent, he is hardly above animals. People of the night watch are everyday humans with general intelligence, so I don't think it would be easy to warg them... But altogether your theory can be passable.

[anexanhume]

OK, maybe that's my misinterpretation, but i've thought the main message of the preface that warging humans is a temptation for the bests of wargs, but it's hardly possible, especially to relize it in a short time. it's true that Bran can warg Hodor, but one side Bran is a powerful warg, and on the other hand Hodor is not too intelligent, he is hardly above animals. People of the night watch are everyday humans with general intelligence, so I don't think it would be easy to warg them... But altogether your theory can be passable.

I read two possible interpretation's on Bowen's actions. Either he was Warg'ed and Jon sees him after he regains himself, or one NW member convinced him to do it under penalty of death. I don't find the latter that plausible because it would be too easy to get out in that situation or may have just come to arms between those complaining on the spot rather than Bowen agreeing to it.

Bran is a powerful Warg but lacks experience. Presumably the other is not as powerful but just as experienced. We know from Varamyr's prologue that it's very possible for a skilled warg to take over a human.

[Clash]

I read two possible interpretation's on Bowen's actions. Either he was Warg'ed and Jon sees him after he regains himself, or one NW member convinced him to do it under penalty of death. I don't find the latter that plausible because it would be too easy to get out in that situation or may have just come to arms between those complaining on the spot rather than Bowen agreeing to it.

Bran is a powerful Warg but lacks experience. Presumably the other is not as powerful but just as experienced. We know from Varamyr's prologue that it's very possible for a skilled warg to take over a human.

I think the first possibility is very unlikely. It's a great leap in conjecture to believe that a wildling newly arrived south of the wall would have such a quick grasp of the internal politics of the NW to identify Bowen Marsh as someone who is disaffected with Jon's command and the focal point for those who disagree with Jon. Bowen Marsh was crying simply because the choice he made to kill Jon put him in conflict with his duty to the Night's Watch: on the one hand he's killing his superior officer and betraying the man he's supposed to obey and on the other he's saving the NW from what he believes to be a disastrous policy of taking in the wildlings and taking up arms against a lord of the seven kingdoms. The phrase "for the Night's Watch" is their justification for their actions, but one that is also an inherent contradiction - hence the tears.

[anexanhume]

I think the first possibility is very unlikely. It's a great leap in conjecture to believe that a wildling newly arrived south of the wall would have such a quick grasp of the internal politics of the NW to identify Bowen Marsh as someone who is disaffected with Jon's command and the focal point for those who disagree with Jon. Bowen Marsh was crying simply because the choice he made to kill Jon put him in conflict with his duty to the Night's Watch: on the one hand he's killing his superior officer and betraying the man he's supposed to obey and on the other he's saving the NW from what he believes to be a disastrous policy of taking in the wildlings and taking up arms against a lord of the seven kingdoms. The phrase "for the Night's Watch" is their justification for their actions, but one that is also an inherent contradiction - hence the tears.

He would have been able to grasp the rough hierarchy of command I would think. It was also pretty clear no one in the NW supported Jon fully. Also, I said it was Bowen that held his hands up; it was actually Wick. But George points out that specific gesture either to show that Wick was forced into it by others or he had been warged. Like I said before, I don't see how he would have to be forced into it since it's not clear he wouldn't have had another out.

Also notice that the people seem to fall on him in a discrete order. Bowen attacks only after Wick had failed. Wick failed to deal a mortal wound so someone else needed to be Warged to do it. The discord in the ranks and apparent mutiny of most trusted advisors is the perfect tumult that the wildings would have wanted to create to take control of the wall.

[Black Crow]

After reading this thread, it seems people don't share opinions I thought were obvious.

Regarding NW murdering Jon:

Try reading the Sorcery in Last Jon Chapter threads. I'm afraid your opinions, while interesting, aren't quite as obvious as you think and some of us, with respect, have good reason for not sharing them. :fencing:

[anexanhume]

Try reading the Sorcery in Last Jon Chapter threads. I'm afraid your opinions, while interesting, aren't quite as obvious as you think and some of us, with respect, have good reason for not sharing them. :fencing:

I understand that people don't agree. I just don't see any other clear way to interpret Wick's actions. I think it's pretty obvious it was worded carefully to open up a lot of possibilities.

[Clash]

He would have been able to grasp the rough hierarchy of command I would think. It was also pretty clear no one in the NW supported Jon fully.

Clear to us obviously, but to wildlings? Who's going to tell them? The NW in general won't mix with them and especially Bowen Marsh and his cronies who hate the very sight of them. In fact the last thing the wildlings would want is Jon dead because he's the man who brought them through the wall and gave them shelter. Kill him and their hostages are dead along with many of their people if it came to a pitched battle. What would be the point?

I understand that people don't agree. I just don't see any other clear way to interpret Wick's actions. I think it's pretty obvious it was worded carefully to open up a lot of possibilities.

He simply backed away holding up his hands in a 'it wasn't me' gesture. Nothing mysterious there, it's a normal gesture of someone who doesn't want to fight; part surrender, part warding off an attack. He knew after all that others were going to stab Jon and he didn't want to be the only one to get killed for his trouble.

Why people have to go into wild flights of fancy when there's ample motive for Bowen Marsh and his cronies to want Jon dead and be prepared to do something about it. They were gathering together in the back of the hall when Jon made his speech and left before he was finished.

[Black Crow]

He simply backed away holding up his hands in a 'it wasn't me' gesture. Nothing mysterious there, it's a normal gesture of someone who doesn't want to fight; part surrender, part warding off an attack. He knew after all that others were going to stab Jon and he didn't want to be the only one to get killed for his trouble.

Why people have to go into wild flights of fancy when there's ample motive for Bowen Marsh and his cronies to want Jon dead and be prepared to do something about it. They were gathering together in the back of the hall when Jon made his speech and left before he was finished.

Agreed and can I therefore refer you back to the "Sorcery in Last Jon Chapter" thread where all of this has been argued over at great length and in considerable depth. All I'll re-iterate at this point is that GRRM made it clear in his Entertainment Weekly interview that Jon had given Marsh and the others plenty of reasons to want to kill him and that the assassination attempt ("You think he's dead do you?") wasn't a random occurence, far less down to Marsh and Co. acting it out against their will because somebody had warged or otherwise enchanted them.

[Clash]

Agreed and can I therefore refer you back to the "Sorcery in Last Jon Chapter" thread where all of this has been argued over at great length and in considerable depth. All I'll re-iterate at this point is that GRRM made it clear in his Entertainment Weekly interview that Jon had given Marsh and the others plenty of reasons to want to kill him and that the assassination attempt ("You think he's dead do you?") wasn't a random occurence, far less down to Marsh and Co. acting it out against their will because somebody had warged or otherwise enchanted them.

And yet people keep coming up with this nonsense, there's an unhealthy interest in Wargs and the undead on this forum... :rolleyes:

[Lady of Long Lake]

I don't think there was enough time for Bowen's eyes to tear up if he was being warged by someone else. The warg goes into Wick and he stabs. 1-2 seconds later, the warg goes into Bowen and he stabs. It was too fast for Bowen to get tears on his cheeks. The tears were there because this was a premeditated plan, I think.

[Clash]

I don't think there was enough time for Bowen's eyes to tear up if he was being warged by someone else. The warg goes into Wick and he stabs. 1-2 seconds later, the warg goes into Bowen and he stabs. It was too fast for Bowen to get tears on his cheeks. The tears were there because this was a premeditated plan, I think.

If I was a warg and wanted Jon dead, then the obvious choice is Wun Wun. No pissy little daggers and ineffectual slashes at throats, just hit him with Ser Patrek and all your troubles are at an end ;)