Jump to content

Could Lightbringer be the Night's Watch?


Recommended Posts

Dear Eira, I completely agree. There can be a new force, made up of Wildlings, women, new recruits and whoever else wants to join in the fight. But: why would that force be the equivalent of the Night's Watch as opposed to any other armed force? Just that they would follow the (former) LC? That they would swear the NW oath: aka I will take no wife, father no children and all that crap? (I don't see the Wildlings doing that, btw) Is that even necessary for a fighting force against the Others? (I guess, it could make a difference...)

I'd be very content with it as long as they cut the above mentioned crap. As long as they hold to these vows as they are at the moment, I sincerely hope that the NW will be doomed. I see the NW as an irredemably rotten institution. It doesn't have a chance to work any better in the long run either if they don't change fundamentally. And that change for me involves more then to turn them into an effective fighting force. They are now made to suppress men's best instincts, like love and compassion which imho is not necessary to fight. Why should the chance to enjoy human happiness be a deterrent to their task? Isn't love one of the (few) forces that can drive human beings to sacrifice? So why not allow it? I can see only political reasons there.

But if all that's to change, you practically wouldn't know this organization for the NW anymore, they would just be.... Jon's supporters maybe? The fellowship of AA? :D

I guess that's my main argument against the NW as Lightbringer in a nutshell. While it's a compelling theory, I don't think NW as an institution deserves the honour. And if it were to change, it wouldn't be the NW anymore. So in the end it's probably a question of what exactly defines the "true" NW.

Ah well, then I see why you are opposed to this idea :)

I agree it's a matter of definition, I think the current NW is nothing like it was supposed to be and that it is doomed, and a new "true" NW will come from the ruins, it would still be the NW, just as it was intended. The NW was probably very different in the beginning, and probably had a different purpose too. I happen to think they are supposed to protect the Wall from both sides, you may have read my theory on that...

The way I see it, the current NW is doomed because they did not respect their commander, their democratically chosen leader, it is completely different from not respecting an appointed officer. Either way they should have made a democratic choice by vote to replace him if they saw him unfit. By killing Jon (or by trying to, heh) they ruined the faith in the system. And that is besides the fact that they were fighting wildlings for a couple of thousand years, for this they had good reason it seems, even if the Realm probably cast the first stone, so to speak.

I don't think the vow itself is the main problem, but all the crap rules that have been implemented around it. I don't like the chastity oath particularily and I think that it is counterproductive but maybe that part was the "Nissa Nissa" deal, a sacrifice, so that they could have the CotF's magic infused in the wall. Magic does seem to require sacrifice of some sort. I can also imagine that the oath have been changed for political reasons, the story of the Night's King taking an Other wife (perhaps she was not an Other at all) may have caused them to add the "take no wife" part. In that case the sacrifice was something else, entirely possible to me.

About the new members of that NW, a few of the free folk have joined already and swore the oath, a few of the new recruits from the realm swore before the weirwood too, and then there is Jon's friends, and some of the older men at the Wall that all could be part of it. I am not convinced that swearing the oath is the only way to be a part of it, but if they want to be they may have to swear it. An Other invasion would convince a few more I think.

I am not certain that Jon will be the new LC to form this NW, I am actually dreading that it will be Stannis... But there are too many things that speak for Jon, and too much that speaks against Stannis so I am sticking with Jon. He has the ability to unite and already a fanbase within the NW, the wildlings and maybe the rest of the North too :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the vow itself is the main problem, but all the crap rules that have been implemented around it. I don't like the chastity oath particularily and I think that it is counterproductive but maybe that part was the "Nissa Nissa" deal, a sacrifice, so that they could have the CotF's magic infused in the wall. Magic does seem to require sacrifice of some sort. I can also imagine that the oath have been changed for political reasons, the story of the Night's King taking an Other wife (perhaps she was not an Other at all) may have caused them to add the "take no wife" part. In that case the sacrifice was something else, entirely possible to me.

Yes, the bit about the vows... As I was reading your (excellent) post, I remembered the bit in ADwD where Sam tells Jon about the books he's been reading, and how all the histories they have we're written by septons thousands of years after the Battle for the Dawn. This means probably no one (other than GRRM) really knows what the original vows were (and the BftD was possibly the NW's best moment), or even whether there were any vows at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kissdbyfire, thank you!

I also think there could have been some changes in the vow or as you say no vows at all in the beginning. At some point in time an LC could have started this tradition, because he was required to by the king or something like that.

But I have a feeling that the vows are original, that the original Watch or it's LC had to swear it to get the help from the CotF, but we don't know if all of it is the same. I think there should be some sacrifice involved but we don't know what that is for sure. The Nissa Nissa = take no wife seems to fit very well I think.

The funny thing about that part is that neither Jon or Sam has broken their vows in that aspect yet (unless Gilly is pregnant again). They did not marry infront of the Old gods (Jon just stole Ygritte in the old fashion wildling way), so they can't be considered married, and Sam had his little adventure with Gilly at sea. As Gilly said: There are no trees here, only water. So the Old gods did not see them :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kissdbyfire, thank you!

My pleasure. I always enjoy your posts.

I also think there could have been some changes in the vow or as you say no vows at all in the beginning. At some point in time an LC could have started this tradition, because he was required to by the king or something like that.

But I have a feeling that the vows are original, that the original Watch or it's LC had to swear it to get the help from the CotF, but we don't know if all of it is the same. I think there should be some sacrifice involved but we don't know what that is for sure. The Nissa Nissa = take no wife seems to fit very well I think.

I understand what you're saying. And I too think that there must have been some vows, maybe even the exact same ones, and the real issue may be in the fact that back then the vows were wholeheartedly meant whereas now it has become (for the most part) just empty words uttered by men who are not commited to the Wall and its significance.

The funny thing about that part is that neither Jon or Sam has broken their vows in that aspect yet (unless Gilly is pregnant again). They did not marry infront of the Old gods (Jon just stole Ygritte in the old fashion wildling way), so they can't be considered married, and Sam had his little adventure with Gilly at sea. As Gilly said: There are no trees here, only water. So the Old gods did not see them :)

I'm not sure about this one. I've always seen the stealing of women 'wildling way' as a type of marriage. Or that the wildlings would see it as a 'marriage', even with it being possible to steal one woman, then dump her and steal another. Something like a common-law marriage... Of course, I could be 100% wrong.

:dunno:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the vow itself is the main problem, but all the crap rules that have been implemented around it. I don't like the chastity oath particularily and I think that it is counterproductive but maybe that part was the "Nissa Nissa" deal, a sacrifice, so that they could have the CotF's magic infused in the wall. Magic does seem to require sacrifice of some sort. I can also imagine that the oath have been changed for political reasons, the story of the Night's King taking an Other wife (perhaps she was not an Other at all) may have caused them to add the "take no wife" part. In that case the sacrifice was something else, entirely possible to me.

It's possible that over the years the oath was changed but doubt it's core did, remember that sam had to repeat it part of it to open the Gate under the nightfort, a gate that is as old as the watch itself.

also without the chastity oath the NW, may not have survived this long, the whole point that after they join the watch they would have no other family but the watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand what you're saying. And I too think that there must have been some vows, maybe even the exact same ones, and the real issue may be in the fact that back then the vows were wholeheartedly meant whereas now it has become (for the most part) just empty words uttered by men who are not commited to the Wall and its significance.

I'm not sure about this one. I've always seen the stealing of women 'wildling way' as a type of marriage. Or that the wildlings would see it as a 'marriage', even with it being possible to steal one woman, then dump her and steal another. Something like a common-law marriage... Of course, I could be 100% wrong.

:dunno:

It is the wildling way of marriage, but it is not done before a weirwood, so the Old Gods don't know for sure :)

I think the vows must be meant too, that is a part of the Watch being true. I just thought about something related to that, what happens if a man is sincere when saying it the first time, but then life takes him in a different direction and he starts to doubt? Will the vow become void?

It's possible that over the years the oath was changed but doubt it's core did, remember that sam had to repeat it part of it to open the Gate under the nightfort, a gate that is as old as the watch itself.

also without the chastity oath the NW, may not have survived this long, the whole point that after they join the watch they would have no other family but the watch.

I agree on both points, but I also think that young boys was not meant to take the black in the beginning. I think it was warriors and knights that had their fare share of life and all that jazz. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's possible that over the years the oath was changed but doubt it's core did, remember that sam had to repeat it part of it to open the Gate under the nightfort, a gate that is as old as the watch itself.

Yes, well spotted. I'd forgotten this.

also without the chastity oath the NW, may not have survived this long, the whole point that after they join the watch they would have no other family but the watch.

Hmmm not so sure about this, though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is the wildling way of marriage, but it is not done before a weirwood, so the Old Gods don't know for sure :)

I think the vows must be meant too, that is a part of the Watch being true. I just thought about something related to that, what happens if a man is sincere when saying it the first time, but then life takes him in a different direction and he starts to doubt? Will the vow become void?

Hmm the plot thickens, so to speak. This is interesting, but difficult to answer. I would say 'yes'. I mean, I think the vow would have to become void if at any given moment the 'vower' stops believing. I see the whole thing with the NW remaining true as a 'collective quantum physics creating a reality' kind of thing. Does that make any sense? I'm having a fit of mental lazyness. Or a typing-indolence fit. :lol:

I agree on both points, but I also think that young boys was not meant to take the black in the beginning. I think it was warriors and knights that had their fare share of life and all that jazz. :)

lol

But I disagree. On principle, I disagree with any chastity vow. It makes me think of Catholic child molester priests (I know, a gross generalisation); I just think it's unnatural, and no good ever comes from unnatural things (and yeah, I know, gross simplification).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol:

The vower ha ha, or would the proper term be the vowee? :leer:

Don't worry about the terminology, I can read the secret message! I think you are right, the vows must be kept... I was really just trying to find a "legal" loophole that would allow our guys to get creative.

Yeah I really think chastity promises are pretty useless in trying to keep chaste, and I agree it is unnatural. I kind of hope that part of the vow is a later invention, but it fits so damn well. And I don't think older men generally have the same problem as teenage boys :huh: I can't claim to know exactly, not being an older man myself, heh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont think the vow is about chastity, it's point isnt to keep them pure but keep their loyalties in check, here in context:

"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." Vow

It's about being devoted to the Watch, cutting off any tie's/loyalties they had, it's what set them apart and what kept the watch strong, until Aegon at least. Not the Promise of defending the realm in that cold harsh place against some mystical creature who no one seen for thousands of years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading it again now with the chastity thing in mind I've realised that it doesn't actually say anything about that at all. One thing is to take no wife; that is not the same as a chastity vow. So what's the big deal about the men of the NW having sex? Am I missing something here? Don't they make somewhat of a big deal about this in the books? I can't think of many examples other than Jon's initial reluctance in regards to Ygritte, and Sam's with Gilly.

I'm seriously dumbfounded with this now. Help, please.

:bang:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's possible that over the years the oath was changed but doubt it's core did, remember that sam had to repeat it part of it to open the Gate under the nightfort, a gate that is as old as the watch itself.

But note which part of the oath the Black Gate requires; it doesn't ask Sam for the entire oath, it asks who Sam is:

"Who are you?" the door asked, and the well whispered, "Who-who-who-who-who-who-who."

Look at what Sam actually says to open the Black Gate:

"I am the sword in the darkness," Samwell Tarly said. "I am the watcher on the walls. I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the hom that wakes the sleepers. I am the shield that guards the realms of men."

"Then pass," the door said.

For all we know, that was the original oath. The whole "hold no lands, father no children" part could have been added later, when the Watch encountered problems with men doing all those things. (Kind of like how Catholic priests could originally marry and have children, a practice the Church eventually halted.)

If the Nissa Nissa tale is actually a twisted interpretation of the Watch's vows, maybe that tale is a lot more recent than people think? I.e., say that originally Watchmen could marry, and later on the Watch prevents them. Stories about the Long Night get twisted around so much that people assume the celibacy vow was always part of the vow, and "work backwards" to apply it to the original Azor Ahai?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it was the part that says: father no sons

To me that means no sex for you ser!

There is always a chance of pregnancy, and I don't think Moon tea is something that could be taken for granted, if that even existed at the time the oath was made the first time.

When I say chastity I mean no sex, what the vow implies is of course that a man of the NW can't have a family. It does not really say that he must forget his existing family, that is just interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But note which part of the oath the Black Gate requires; it doesn't ask Sam for the entire oath, it asks who Sam is:

Look at what Sam actually says to open the Black Gate:

For all we know, that was the original oath. The whole "hold no lands, father no children" part could have been added later, when the Watch encountered problems with men doing all those things. (King of like how Catholic priests could originally marry and have children, a practice the Church eventually halted.)

Oh, nice one, tze! I didn't notice that Sam says only part of the vow - or shall we say, 'the current vow'. And I couldn't agree more, the rest must have been added at a later (much?) point.

If the Nissa Nissa tale is actually a twisted interpretation of the Watch's vows, maybe that tale is a lot more recent than people think? I.e., say that originally Watchmen could marry, and later on the Watch prevents them. Stories about the Long Night get twisted around so much that people assume the celibacy vow was always part of the vow, and "work backwards" to apply it to the original Azor Ahai?

In this context this makes a lot of sense as well. :bowdown:

I'm still intrigued about the possibly more recent bit, though. Why were Jon and Sam so reluctant to engage in 'carnal pleasures'? The only explanation I can think of - well, that's not true, I didn't think it, Eira did - is the fear of getting a girl pregnant. But still, they make such a big deal about it, it seems a bit silly. Or maybe they don't make such a big deal and I'm simply remembering it like that.. :dunno:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But note which part of the oath the Black Gate requires; it doesn't ask Sam for the entire oath, it asks who Sam is:

..

Look at what Sam actually says to open the Black Gate:

that exactky what I said, that the part he had to repeat was probably it's core, I just didnt have the text in front of me, to be more specific than that.

"I am the watcher on the walls. I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the hom that wakes the sleepers. I am the shield that guards the realms of men."

Is this quote of sam from the book? so I can add it to the wiki.

For all we know, that was the original oath. The whole "hold no lands, father no children" part could have been added later, when the Watch encountered problems with men doing all those things. (Kind of like how Catholic priests could originally marry and have children, a practice the Church eventually halted.)

If the Nissa Nissa tale is actually a twisted interpretation of the Watch's vows, maybe that tale is a lot more recent than people think? I.e., say that originally Watchmen could marry, and later on the Watch prevents them. Stories about the Long Night get twisted around so much that people assume the celibacy vow was always part of the vow, and "work backwards" to apply it to the original Azor Ahai?

I am sure that 8000 year ago, the original watchmen done many things diffidently, Jon is creating/breaking traditions left and right as did the night king and many others. still we are talking about a eight THOUSAND years old organization, they must have done something right ;) and as I mentioned before IMO this new? vow it's what kept the NW strong (also what brought it's demise after Aegon united the seven kingdoms with his damn kings peace).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this quote of sam from the book? so I can add it to the wiki.

Yes, this is from ASOS.

Here's what I'd like to know: why doesn't the Night's Watch vow say "I am the watcher on the Wall"? Why does the vow say "I am the watcher on the wall(s)"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that exactky what I said, that the part he had to repeat was probably it's core, I just didnt have the text in front of me, to be more specific than that.

Is this quote of sam from the book? so I can add it to the wiki.

I think tze's post is verbatim, here's the bit copied + pasted from the book:

The door opened its eyes.

They were white too, and blind. “Who are you?” the door asked, and the well whispered, “Who-who-who-who-who-who-who.”

“I am the sword in the darkness,” Samwell Tarly said. “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. I am the shield that guards the realms of men.”

“Then pass,” the door said. Its lips opened, wide and wider and wider still, until nothing at all remained but a great gaping mouth in a ring of wrinkles. Sam stepped aside and waved Jojen through ahead of him. Summer followed, sniffing as he went, and then it was Bran’s turn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, this is from ASOS.

Here's what I'd like to know: why doesn't the Night's Watch vow say "I am the watcher on the Wall"? Why does the vow say "I am the Watcher on the wall(s)"?

Well, bugger me! I have never ever noticed that. Is it the same every time the vow appears???

Very interesting. Very confusing.

:eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...