Could Lightbringer be the Night's Watch?

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

^ I think we can all agree that in order to truly gauge the power of obsidian on its own vs. the power of saying the vow in the right place, we need some test variables. :P

We know that Sam, an old-gods-vowed Night's Watch man, successfully killed an Other with an obsidian weapon. He can be the control.

Basically, we need:

1. An old-gods-vowed Night's Watch man to go against an Other with a normal sword.

2. A new-gods-vowed Night's Watch man to go against an Other with an obsidian sword.

3. A new-gods-vowed Night's Watch man to go against an Other with a normal sword.

Who wants to volunteer?!?!

ETA: Regarding the "old gods" abandoning the wildlings to the Others just for not saying a vow, I'll point out that it isn't just the vow. These guys give up everything — wives, children, land, titles, property, personal freedom, etc. — in order to protect the realm. It's a lifestyle, not just some empty words. It makes sense to me that that sacrifice would be given in exchange for some "extra" powers that the pious but in no way pledged-to-the-realm wildlings don't have.

ETA 2: I think the "weapon" thing makes more sense if you think of the obsidian, in this argument, as merely channeling a power inherent in a properly sworn-in Night's Watch man. The obsidian is a medium; it in and of itself is not the actual "weapon."

[David Selig]

I volunteer Jon Snow for the first option. :cool4:

[tze]

The texts that Sam finds in the vaults of Castle Black specifically mention obsidian as holding the power to destroy the Others. Sam seems to find this cache of lore authoritative where is not in conflict with itself. There's also mention of the Last Hero and his dragonsteel sword. I think we have to ask, if obsidian was so effective and known to the Children, who were allies of the First Men at the time of this war, why don't we hear about it playing a larger role in the war? Why did the Last Hero have to create a weapon of some other material?

On your first point, I think it's relevant that these texts are found in Castle Black. The people reading, using, and probably writing these texts would have been Watchmen. The idea that you have to be a Watchman to "effectively" use dragonglass against the Others might not have been included because the original sources might easily have assumed that, hey, the people using this information and fighting against the Others will necessarily be Watchmen. On your second point, we still don't know what dragonsteel is. There are stories about the Children fighting with obsidian, gifting the early Watch with obsidian blades . . . but no stories associating the Children with the use of dragonsteel. It's hard to speculate here until we actually know what dragonsteel is, though. Perhaps the term actually does refer to Valyrian steel, but until we see Valyrian steel used effectively against the Others, we don't know if it's actually useful or if later humans just assumed it would be.

Or maybe "dragonsteel" is the same substance the Others' swords are made of?

The Free Folk have some bits of lore that have been lost to people south of the Wall, but it's also equally likely that the Night's Watch has access to histories and lore that the Free Folk have forgotten. I don't see that the inability of the Free Folk to fight the Others tells us much about what is effective and why.

But that's the thing: the Watch doesn't think dragonglass is useful merely because of Sam's books, they think dragonglass is useful because Sam actually used dragonglass to kill an Other. The Free Folk use dragonglass weapons more often than the Watch and have actually been fighting against the Others for some time . . . yet they don't appear to view dragonglass as useful (or at least, any more useful than anything else) in the battle against the Others. When Tormund and Jon speak, Tormund implies that he doesn't know of a way to fight "the white mists" when they rise up. Yet the Free Folk were certainly in a far better position to discover dragonglass's properties than the Watch. I find this discrepancy odd.

You mentioned the Free Folk above, who seem to have a healthy level of old god piety, yet they're unable to effectively fight the Others. This doesn't seem to make sense. If the power to fight the Others is derived from the old gods, would they be so fickle and cruel as to hold out on their most ardent human believers while they wait for the right combination of words?

Apple Martini has made some of my points for me, but I'll just point out that the Free Folk's failure to fight the Others is actually part of what inspired this idea in the first place. I think we need to ask ourselves the following question: what does Sam have that the Free Folk do not? Keeping the Seven can't be enough, because Waymar Royce presumably kept the Seven. The Free Folk certainly have dragonglass, but for reasons I've already noted, it seems to me like that wasn't enough for them. They keep the Old Gods, so clearly just keeping the Old Gods isn't enough. But the one thing Sam has that the Free Folk unambiguously do not have is the vows of the Watch. (We don't know where Mance took his vows, but given the lack of Old Gods followers on the Wall, Mance might easily have taken his vows in the sept. That might even be why he was okay with breaking those vows in the first place. Not to mention, perhaps desertion "nullifies" the effect of vows even if they were taken in the godswood.)

We've only seen two other instances in which the power of the Others/wights was thwarted, and and both of those were associated specifically with Old Gods magic: two specific magic barriers created by followers of the Old Gods (the Black Gate and the Children's hollow hill) and the raven attack that saved Sam and Gilly (sponsored by a greenseer, and it's hinted that greenseers actually become the Old Gods, in ways not even ordinary skinchangers do). This is why I'm thinking the Watch vows, as made specifically to the Old Gods, are the key, because the vows are the one thing Sam has that the Free Folk do not, and we've seen the power of the Old Gods effectively countering the Others on other occasions.

3. A new-gods-vowed Night's Watch man to go against an Other with a normal sword.

Actually, we have had this variable: Waymar Royce in the Prologue. His steel sword shattered against the Other's blade, and he died. :)

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Actually, we have had this variable: Waymar Royce in the Prologue. His steel sword shattered against the Other's blade, and he died. :)

Yes, I realized too late that the third option had already happened. :D

SO.

1. Old-gods-sworn Night's Watch man faces an Other with an obsidian sword. Result: Victory.

2. New-gods-sworn Night's Watch man faces an Other with a normal sword. Result. Loss.

3. Old-gods-sworn Night's Watch man faces an Other with a normal sword. Result: Pending.

4. New-gods-sworn Night's Watch man faces an Other with an obsidian sword. Result: Pending.

*murmurs while jotting notes on the clipboard*

"Fascinating ..."

[Sevumar]

On your first point, I think it's relevant that these texts are found in Castle Black. The people reading, using, and probably writing these texts would have been Watchmen. The idea that you have to be a Watchman to "effectively" use dragonglass against the Others might not have been included because the original sources might easily have assumed that, hey, the people using this information and fighting against the Others will necessarily be Watchmen.

The texts are found in Castle Black, but when Sam is describing them, he seems clear that some of them are copies of books that originated elsewhere, written by septons, and so on. He also mentions the annals of the Night's Watch itself, and their seeming unreliability. I don't think we can assume all of these texts were written by, or for, members of the Night's Watch alone. They seem to be a part of a general body of work accessible to other scholars. We don't know which of these books are the rare ones that don't exist at the Citadel, but I think it's fair to assume that some of these works, particularly the ones Sam refers to as "tales," were not put to paper solely for the benefit of the Watch or assuming the Watch as their audience.

There's nothing here that suggests to me that there's a connection between being a Watch member and activating the killing power of obsidian. Of course it's possible, but I don't find it as likely as the power being an inherent property of obsidian. Remember, some of the other names of obsidian, dragonglass and frozen fire. Both of these seem to suggest to me that obsidian may work in opposition to the Others because it is a permanent, fixed embodiment of fire. That seems to make more sense in Martin's world than the idea that speaking some words creates a potential to kill Others.

On your second point, we still don't know what dragonsteel is. There are stories about the Children fighting with obsidian, gifting the early Watch with obsidian blades . . . but no stories associating the Children with the use of dragonsteel. It's hard to speculate here until we actually know what dragonsteel is, though. Perhaps the term actually does refer to Valyrian steel, but until we see Valyrian steel used effectively against the Others, we don't know if it's actually useful or if later humans just assumed it would be.

I agree, there are plenty of unanswered questions about dragonsteel. That's part of what led me to write my first post of the day in this thread. How do we get a material like "dragonsteel" on a continent where bronze reigns, the Children don't work metal at all, and the Andals with their iron haven't yet arrived? One idea, as I described in my post, is that perhaps a hero, questing for a weapon to use against the Others, departed Westeros and went to Asshai to look for answers, giving birth to two different versions of his story on two different shores.

Or maybe "dragonsteel" is the same substance the Others' swords are made of?

This seems highly unlikely given the association of the Others with ice and cold and of dragons with heat and fire.

But that's the thing: the Watch doesn't think dragonglass is useful merely because of Sam's books, they think dragonglass is useful because Sam actually used dragonglass to kill an Other.

Yes, but the idea that dragonglass would be an effective weapon occurred to Jon and Lord Mormont after Jon's discovery of the cache with the dagger blades, arrowheads, and the broken horn.

The Free Folk use dragonglass weapons more often than the Watch and have actually been fighting against the Others for some time . . . yet they don't appear to view dragonglass as useful (or at least, any more useful than anything else) in the battle against the Others.

I'd find this idea more believable if we actually had someone relating a tale of obsidian's failure to hurt the Others in the hands of a Wildling. It may be that Tormund isn't aware of such a failure, or it simply hasn't happened. It seems like obsidian weapons aren't really common enough among the Wildlings for us to have had a good chance to see them in action. There's also the possibility that the Free Folk have been fighting wights and not the Others themselves.

This is why I'm thinking the Watch vows, as made specifically to the Old Gods, are the key, because the vows are the one thing Sam has that the Free Folk do not, and we've seen the power of the Old Gods effectively countering the Others on other occasions.

Like I said in my other post, I don't find it credible that the old gods/Children would hold back their Other-killing blessing/power until people have spoken a certain set of words. That would make them a pretty petty, uncaring set of patrons who wouldn't be honoring the spirit of their alliance with the First Men. You'd think that we'd have some more visions/greendreams/messages indicating that people should be kneeling before weirwoods and speaking the words in preparation for the battle to come, but I don't think we've seen anything like this.

From everything we've seen of magic in Martin's world, words seem the least likely to transmit or activate the power of magic. Blood and fire seem to be the operative ingredients in most magic, or the use of inherent capabilities. Old god worship is famously devoid of ritual, deeply personal, and lacking formulaic invocations of the kind the Watch vows would represent.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

^ But like I said though, it's not the vows themselves, per se. It's what they imply — a life of sacrifice, a lack of personal freedom, a lack of comfort and the dedication of yourself to a "greater cause." The words aren't empty; they do mean something and it's implied that after you say them, you're changed.

[Sevumar]

^ But like I said though, it's not the vows themselves, per se. It's what they imply — a life of sacrifice, a lack of personal freedom, a lack of comfort and the dedication of yourself to a "greater cause." The words aren't empty; they do mean something and it's implied that after you say them, you're changed.

I don't think that changes my question, though. What about reciting them changes you? In every other instance of magic, there seems to be a sense of exchange taking place, sealed by blood or some other material offering.

Why, if this is truly the key to fighting the others, haven't greenseers been shouting this message from the trees? Why hasn't Bloodraven been spending his time making sure that this message is transmitted (assuming his endgame has something to do with protecting the realm from the Others)?

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I don't think that changes my question, though. What about reciting them changes you? In every other instance of magic, there seems to be a sense of exchange taking place, sealed by blood or some other material offering.

I don't know what it would be exactly, but I don't think you can say that they have no power. Otherwise, reciting the vows wouldn't have allowed Sam to get through the Black Gate. Was that not magic of some kind, despite no outward exchange of bodily fluids? :P Something is going on there, even if it's not obvious what it is.

Why, if this is truly the key to fighting the others, haven't greenseers been shouting this message from the trees? Why hasn't Bloodraven been spending his time making sure that this message is transmitted (assuming his endgame has something to do with protecting the realm from the Others)?

Maybe because it has to be the Night's Watch, for whatever reason? There are pious old-god-worshiping northern families south of the Wall who aren't getting the message, either. But for some purpose — and perhaps it just hasn't been revealed yet, who knows — it's the Watch that's entrusted with the information/power.

[Sevumar]

I don't know what it would be exactly, but I don't think you can say that they have no power. Otherwise, reciting the vows wouldn't have allowed Sam to get through the Black Gate. Was that not magic of some kind, despite no outward exchange of bodily fluids? :P Something is going on there, even if it's not obvious what it is.

My best guess at what's happening here and how it's consistent with what we know about magic in Martin's world is that the gate is what's magic, perhaps even a tree with an old god/Child at its roots. Sam's participation is simply the exchange of a password, which this sentient gate recognizes and then decides to act upon by permitting passage.

Maybe because it has to be the Night's Watch, for whatever reason? There are pious old-god-worshiping northern families south of the Wall who aren't getting the message, either. But for some purpose — and perhaps it just hasn't been revealed yet, who knows — it's the Watch that's entrusted with the information/power.

It could very well be, but I'm not sure why any reasoning ruler/society would build its defense against its most feared enemy this way. I think the oath has symbolic importance, but no power to do anything of its own accord, whether that's triggering a transformation, activating an ability to use a weapon, or anything else. In fact, as I've mentioned in other threads, I think that we'll see that the true meaning of the oath is in its spirit, not its words, that Jon (or someone else) will have to break the words of his vow to fulfill them in purpose.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

My best guess at what's happening here and how it's consistent with what we know about magic in Martin's world is that the gate is what's magic, perhaps even a tree with an old god/Child at its roots. Sam's participation is simply the exchange of a password, which this sentient gate recognizes and then decides to act upon by permitting passage.

The gate probably is magical, but it works both ways. You don't think it's a big coincidence that an iteration of the vows just happens to be this password?

It could very well be, but I'm not sure why any reasoning ruler/society would build its defense against its most feared enemy this way. I think the oath has symbolic importance, but no power to do anything of its own accord, whether that's triggering a transformation, activating an ability to use a weapon, or anything else. In fact, as I've mentioned in other threads, I think that we'll see that the true meaning of the oath is in its spirit, not its words, that Jon (or someone else) will have to break the words of his vow to fulfill them in purpose.

This is why I accept that we don't know the entire story yet and not all questions can be answered. If they could, the series would be over.

[Sevumar]

The gate probably is magical, but it works both ways. You don't think it's a big coincidence that an iteration of the vows just happens to be this password?

The gate is very specifically tied to the Night's Watch, being beneath one of its castles and the Wall, so it's not surprising that the password is keyed to the Night's Watch oath. But this isn't evidence that the oath itself is magical. It's simply a form of identity verification for those wishing to use the gate.

All the magic seems to be in the gate itself. It doesn't have any way of knowing if Sam is eligible to use it until Sam provides the correct response. It can't simply look at Sam, or scan Sam and know that this guy is legit.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

The gate is very specifically tied to the Night's Watch, being beneath one of its castles and the Wall, so it's not surprising that the password is keyed to the Night's Watch oath. But this isn't evidence that the oath itself is magical. It's simply a form of identity verification for those wishing to use the gate.

All the magic seems to be in the gate itself. It doesn't have any way of knowing if Sam is eligible to use it until Sam provides the correct response. If Sam had said, "I'm Samwell Tarly of Horn Hill," I don't think the gate would have opened.

But in that case it could have been any agreed-upon password. I still think it's significant in some way that it was a form of the vow, and may even have been the original vow, without the titles/land/wife things included.

I don't know, I find Tze's explanations pretty compelling and I like the idea that the Night's Watch oaths and membership have some sort of supernatural basis. Otherwise, I don't know why there'd be such an emphasis on different ways of taking the oath, or why it would be noteworthy how few men take their oaths in front of weirwoods anymore. Intuitively, I think that matters. Like I said earlier, the only way to really test the idea is to have the various combinations I mentioned occur, and especially a weirwood-sworn Night's Watch guy fighting an Other with a normal sword and a sept-sworn guy fighting an Other with an obsidian sword. But until that happens, I see no good reason to outright dismiss any of this.

[Sevumar]

But in that case it could have been any agreed-upon password. I still think it's significant in some way that it was a form of the vow, and may even have been the original vow, without the titles/land/wife things included.

It might very well have been the original vow, but I don't think that has any impact here. The password is the most reasonable way of determining who is of the Night's Watch and who is not, in the absence of identity cards or badges. It needs to be a conclusion that a Night's Watch member can reasonably be expected to arrive at, but not something that your average person would guess offhand, therefore it needs to be something of significance to the Night's Watch.

No magic on the part of the person seeking passage is needed, and there's no evidence that any is occurring.

[Sevumar]

It looks like you added this after I responded to the original bit of your post, so I want to make a couple remarks about it.

I don't know, I find Tze's explanations pretty compelling and I like the idea that the Night's Watch oaths and membership have some sort of supernatural basis. Otherwise, I don't know why there'd be such an emphasis on different ways of taking the oath, or why it would be noteworthy how few men take their oaths in front of weirwoods anymore. Intuitively, I think that matters.

I understand the desire to find a deeper meaning in the oath of the Watch, and I think we're both doing exactly that in different ways. I think in other books with magic systems that are more dependent on spoken words and gestures, this would have a higher likelihood of being true, but I don't think it fits well with Martin's magic system.

To my mind, we've seen two types of magic on display: a sacrifice-driven exchange model (death for life, king's blood for stone dragon awakening, life essence for shadow babies) and an inborn gift model (greenseeing, warging, greendreams). In most of the cases we've seen, neither of these forms of magic seems to require recitation of a verbal formula for its success. There are vague references to "spellsinging" but it seems to be an eastern phenomenon that hasn't played much of a role in the story.

I think the explanation for different practices in taking the oath is simple: when the Andals arrived in Westeros, they gained a vested interest in the protection and upkeep of the Night's Watch. The First Men and old god worshippers are typically respectful of the beliefs of their southern neighbors and it makes sense that they'd want members to take oaths in ways that held meaning for them. If you're an Andal or a Faith follower, that means taking an oath in a sept, in the name of the Seven, because that's what you hold sacred. A man who makes an oath before a foreign god is rightly seen as less likely to hold to that oath. It simply seems a matter of practicality, not something that should impact the Watch's ability to kill Others.

Like I said earlier, the only way to really test the idea is to have the various combinations I mentioned occur, and especially a weirwood-sworn Night's Watch guy fighting an Other with a normal sword and a sept-sworn guy fighting an Other with an obsidian sword. But until that happens, I see no good reason to outright dismiss any of this.

I'm all for this experiment, but I'm not sure if we'll get to see all these conditions tested in the field. If swearing before a weirwood is truly needed to make a Night's Watch member capable of killing Others, then the Watch was basically doomed after the introduction of Andal culture and beliefs to Westeros. I'm not dismissing it as a possibility, but I am saying that it seems to be one of the least likely explanations for why obsidian worked against the Others when Sam wielded it.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

But again though, like I keep saying, it's not just spoken words and gestures. Those spoken words have to be lived up to — there are actions and a code of conduct that follow the oath; if it was just words the oath itself would be meaningless. And unlike the guys who swear in a sept to ... nothing ... a guy swearing in front of a weirwood is, more likely than not, swearing to something or someone. I think there's been enough hinting and innuendo to suggest that — somehow, for some reason, in some way — there is a difference between saying your vows in a sept and saying them before a weirwood.

[Sevumar]

But again though, like I keep saying, it's not just spoken words and gestures. Those spoken words have to be lived up to — there are actions and a code of conduct that follow the oath; if it was just words the oath itself would be meaningless.

If the person who makes the oath must swear it before a weirwood AND live up to it for it to convey Other-killing power, the Watch is in more trouble than it knows. Who becomes the arbiter of whether or not the vows are broken? How much forgiveness is there for someone who means well but makes a mistake?

And unlike the guys who swear in a sept to ... nothing ... a guy swearing in front of a weirwood is, more likely than not, swearing to something or someone. I think there's been enough hinting and innuendo to suggest that — somehow, for some reason, in some way — there is a difference between saying your vows in a sept and saying them before a weirwood.

Perhaps there is a difference in the oath's effectiveness depending on where it is sworn, but if that's the case, there may as well not be a Night's Watch with Westeros in the state that it's in now. I'm not sure that I see the concept being very successful in doing anything except restricting the pool of effective defenders of the realms of men.

[tze]

The texts are found in Castle Black, but when Sam is describing them, he seems clear that some of them are copies of books that originated elsewhere, written by septons, and so on. He also mentions the annals of the Night's Watch itself, and their seeming unreliability. I don't think we can assume all of these texts were written by, or for, members of the Night's Watch alone. They seem to be a part of a general body of work accessible to other scholars. We don't know which of these books are the rare ones that don't exist at the Citadel, but I think it's fair to assume that some of these works, particularly the ones Sam refers to as "tales," were not put to paper solely for the benefit of the Watch or assuming the Watch as their audience.

The only bit of lore that we know 100% has truth to it is the part about dragonglass---for all we know, everything else Sam reads is total bunk. And to be fair, Sam mentions that there are a ton of books that he didn't get to read; for all we know, those are the books that contain what I'm speculating about.

Regardless, I think my original point here still stands: Watchmen would have no reason to write down "you have to be a Watchman for this to work", because they'd assume anyone reading this lore or hearing these stories, who ended up having to fight the Others, would obviously be in the Watch. And non-Watchmen's only real sources would originally have been from the Watch and the early First Men, whose understanding of what a "Watchman" was probably differed drastically from that of later men. This is the sort of thing that might have been so blindingly obvious to the original Watchmen and First Men that they never recorded it, and later scholars/septons wouldn't have written about it because none of their sources, oral or written in runes, would have felt the need to mention something so obvious. We haven't heard actual accounts of non-Watchmen successfully fighting the Others, and perhaps all early sources, even among the First Men, took for granted that everyone would know being a Watchman gave a man power to defeat the Others, as to them, that might have been a good part of what being a "Watchman" actually meant.

There's nothing here that suggests to me that there's a connection between being a Watch member and activating the killing power of obsidian. Of course it's possible, but I don't find it as likely as the power being an inherent property of obsidian. Remember, some of the other names of obsidian, dragonglass and frozen fire. Both of these seem to suggest to me that obsidian may work in opposition to the Others because it is a permanent, fixed embodiment of fire.

If we look at the aftermath of Sam's killing of the Others, something interesting pops out: "Finally only the dragonglass dagger remained, wreathed in

steam as if it were alive and sweating. Grenn bent to scoop it up and flung it down again at once. "Mother, that's cold."

It's wreathed in steam, but Grenn specifically says the dragonglass is cold, not hot. And not just cold, but so cold that Grenn drops it. I don't think fire, at least, not fire alone, is the key here. Dragonglass is formed from volanic activity, but it's formed in the earth, aka the home turf of the Children. And the one time we've seen it used, it's been steaming yet cold. Incredibly cold. (Wasn't it Jojen Reed who said that "nothing burns like the cold"?) For all of Mel's talk that heat and fire is needed to fight the Others, the one time someone's actually killed an Other, there's been no actual presence of heat. To me, that hints that whatever properties of dragonglass make it effective, it's not just (or even necessarily primarily) due to the power of fire. As you note, dragonglass is also called "frozen fire". Maybe the key there isn't the "fire" part, but the "frozen" part? Obsidian is a substance that represents the power of earth overcoming the power of fire. It's "fire" that has lost all of its nature as fire. The earth "took" fire and transformed it into an object that gives off no heat. Earth and fire came together and in a way, the fire lost out to the earth. Perhaps that's the real "power" of obsidian---it's a creation of the dominance of the power of earth over fire, not the inherent power of fire itself.

And the Watch, at least originally, was associated with the cold (the conditions that bring the Others) and the power of the earth (the Old Gods, before whom the vows were sworn). The vows refer to them being "the fire that burns against the cold", but the rituals of the Watch don't incorporate fire, Sam specifically tells Bran et al not to bring fire near the Black Gate, and on the one occasion where an Other has been explicitly killed, we've seen cold, steam, a thing created out of fire in the earth, but no actual heat. It just seems to me like the Watch's power derives far more from the cold and the earth than from actual fire.

This seems highly unlikely given the association of the Others with ice and cold and of dragons with heat and fire.

Some dragons are associated with fire. But we also hear of sea dragons in AFFC. Importantly, the concept of "ice dragons" isn't unheard-of in Westeros---Old Nan tells tales of them to Jon, a constellation is named after them, etc. "Dragonsteel" might not come from fire dragons, as Jon and Sam to assume, but rather, from ice dragons. We still don't know how the Others create their weapons, after all. A steel sword will shatter bronze, but one steel sword will hold up to an equivalent steel sword. Perhaps the original Watchmen were able to forge swords out of the same substance as the Others' swords, and thus, those weapons weren't shattered in battle, a la Waymar Royce's ordinary steel sword.

I'd find this idea more believable if we actually had someone relating a tale of obsidian's failure to hurt the Others in the hands of a Wildling. It may be that Tormund isn't aware of such a failure, or it simply hasn't happened. It seems like obsidian weapons aren't really common enough among the Wildlings for us to have had a good chance to see them in action. There's also the possibility that the Free Folk have been fighting wights and not the Others themselves.

Tormund does tell Jon that the Free Folk have been facing the Others, not just wights: "A man can fight the dead, but when their masters come, when the white mists rise up … how do you fight a mist, crow? Shadows with teeth … air so cold it hurts to breathe, like a knife inside your chest … you do not know, you cannot know … can your sword cut cold?” If Tormund and the other Free Folk weren't encountering these "masters", only the wights, this passage makes no sense.

To me, the fact that Jon mentions on several occasions seeing Free Folk armed with dragonglass, yet the Free Folk claim to have met the Others and claim they don't have the ability to fight them, is pretty decent evidence to speculate that dragonglass alone isn't enough to combat the Others. The Free Folk spent a good amount of time trying to fight the Others before giving up and deciding to head for the Wall---if someone, anyone had killed an Other with dragonglass, word would have spread like wildfire. The Free Folk aren't big on keeping silent on anything. And it makes no sense for such a stubborn people to have given up if they hadn't already tried all of their weapons and found them wanting. There's no evidence that Jon has been discussing dragonglass's efficacy with the Free Folk, as his primary concern has been manning the ruined forts and keeping the peace---it might not have occurred to him that dragonglass might not have worked for the Free Folk. For all we know, if he'd brought up the story of Sam, Tormund would have been bewildered, telling Jon that he's already tried dragonglass and it didn't work. We can't say for certain because this kind of discussion hasn't taken place on-screen

If the Wildlings hadn't explicitly been described as using weapons of dragonglass, I'd agree that it makes sense that dragonglass alone is the key. But we've seen dragonglass + civilians = can't fight the Others, while dragonglass + Old-Gods-sworn Watchman = Dead Other. To me, that merits speculation.

I don't think that changes my question, though. What about reciting them changes you? In every other instance of magic, there seems to be a sense of exchange taking place, sealed by blood or some other material offering.

I don't think it's about the words as a mindless magic spell (the vows we know must be translations of the original vows, from the language of the First Men, yet they still worked as a password to let Sam through the Black Gate). I think the Watch vows inherently are an exchange: the Watchmen give up everything, and originally at least, they presumably got something in return. I speculate what they got in return was the ability to kill the Others. But if the vows aren't made in a godswood, there's no real "exchange" going on specifically with the Old Gods, as the Watchmen would be trying to exchange their lives and identities with the Seven, who don't appear to have any power at all, let alone power against the Others.

There are multiple hints that being a Watchman wasn't originally just about joining something---when a man joins the Watch, he's said to be changed on some visceral level. It's said that the Watchmen's blood runs black. (You don't hear about the Kingsguard, say, bleeding white.) It's the whole idea that being a Watchman changes your identity, your nature, down to your very blood, (regardless of whether original Watchmen actually bled black, and who knows---for all we know, Coldhands bleeds black. :) ). The Watchmen are described as being "crows", and as they originated smack in the middle of a cultural milieu in which we're seeing anthromorphism isn't just a metaphor, that terminology might have some interesting roots. And the Black Gate doesn't say "give me the password" or "what is the Night's Watch". It asks, "Who are you?" And it opens when Sam says "I am the sword in the darkness . . ."

All of these things point to the idea that being a Watchman isn't about promising to do something, it's about promising to be something. And to me, that hints that there's something in the very nature of being a "true" Watchman that will be important.

Why, if this is truly the key to fighting the others, haven't greenseers been shouting this message from the trees? Why hasn't Bloodraven been spending his time making sure that this message is transmitted (assuming his endgame has something to do with protecting the realm from the Others)?

The only people fighting the Others up until ASOS were the wildlings---the message that only the Watch could kill the Others would have done no good, since it's not like the wildlings were going to head down to a weirwood and swear to join their mortal enemy's sacred order based on a dream, or the words of a woods witch, or a raven randomly yelling at them. And for all we know, Bloodraven was spending his time doing all those things, getting that particular message out, yet nobody beyond the Wall listened. And honestly, what was Bloodraven logically supposed to do vis a vis the Watch? Via dream or raven, tell the Watchmen who swore to the Seven that they were wrong? At best they'd have thought they were going crazy. At worst, they'd have thought Bloodraven was the voice of a demon. The importance of dragonglass has been discovered, but as nobody's encountered the Others since the Fist, nobody's had the opportunity to experiment with any fine details.

[Sevumar]

The only bit of lore that we know 100% has truth to it is the part about dragonglass---for all we know, everything else Sam reads is total bunk. And to be fair, Sam mentions that there are a ton of books that he didn't get to read; for all we know, those are the books that contain what I'm speculating about.

Those books could just as easily contain information that confirms what I'm speculating about too. I don't think that appealing to the unknown content of books mentioned in passing by Sam is really going to help us zero in on any information that might shed more light on what we're talking about.

Regardless, I think my original point here still stands: Watchmen would have no reason to write down "you have to be a Watchman for this to work", because they'd assume anyone reading this lore or hearing these stories, who ended up having to fight the Others, would obviously be in the Watch. And non-Watchmen's only real sources would originally have been from the Watch and the early First Men, whose understanding of what a "Watchman" was probably differed drastically from that of later men.

What I'm talking about here seems to specifically come from sources outside the Night's Watch, so the Watch wouldn't be considered the primary audience. These materials are essentially what Sam is referencing when he talks about "tales." It does seem correct that he'd refer to the annals of the Watch that way. The annals are the only records that we can be certain were produced by, and for, members of the Night's Watch. I don't think we can reasonably conclude that most of the content Sam is relating to Jon was produced for the Watch as its audience.

If we look at the aftermath of Sam's killing of the Others, something interesting pops out: "Finally only the dragonglass dagger remained, wreathed in steam as if it were alive and sweating. Grenn bent to scoop it up and flung it down again at once. "Mother, that's cold."

It's interesting, but not inconsistent with something changing temperature in a cold environment. No mention is made of heat from Sam's point of view, and the description of being wreathed in steam and sweating sounds like condensation of moisture on a warming (though not necessarily warm in the objective sense) surface to me.

There may be an element of earthiness to the power of dragonglass, but I don't think that what we're seeing here is proof that Grenn couldn't effectively use the blade if he wanted to. I agree there's probably more about how and why obsidian works that we don't understand, but I don't see any reason to believe that it works for some people and not others, yet.

Some dragons are associated with fire. But we also hear of sea dragons in AFFC. Importantly, the concept of "ice dragons" isn't unheard-of in Westeros---Old Nan tells tales of them to Jon, a constellation is named after them, etc. "Dragonsteel" might not come from fire dragons, as Jon and Sam to assume, but rather, from ice dragons.

It might have something to do with ice dragons, but I don't think that would give us a satisfactory explanation of where steel came from in a land that only has knowledge of bronze and stone for tools. It seems more plausible to me that however the Last Hero's sword was created, he must've relied on help from someone or someplace that did have the technology to work steel and imbue it with magic. I don't think we have reason to believe that the dragonsteel sword has anything in common with the weapons of the Others. It's possible, but nothing in the text really points to it.

Tormund does tell Jon that the Free Folk have been facing the Others, not just wights: "A man can fight the dead, but when their masters come, when the white mists rise up … how do you fight a mist, crow? Shadows with teeth … air so cold it hurts to breathe, like a knife inside your chest … you do not know, you cannot know … can your sword cut cold?” If Tormund and the other Free Folk weren't encountering these "masters", only the wights, this passage makes no sense.

But Tormund and the others never make mention of the "masters" in a corporeal sense. The mist sounds like it's either a forerunner to the actual arrival of the Others, or it is the Others in non-corporeal form. It may be that the Others are only vulnerable to physical weapons when they're in their humanoid forms.

To me, the fact that Jon mentions on several occasions seeing Free Folk armed with dragonglass, yet the Free Folk claim to have met the Others and claim they don't have the ability to fight them, is pretty decent evidence to speculate that dragonglass alone isn't enough to combat the Others.

But we don't have any actual evidence of face-to-face encounters with the Others specifically. We have run-ins with wights and a description of mist that is probably associated with the Others in some way. We're never actually told of any encounters where obsidian weapons fail to kill a corporeal Other in the hands of the Free Folk.

I don't think it's about the words as a mindless magic spell (the vows we know must be translations of the original vows, from the language of the First Men, yet they still worked as a password to let Sam through the Black Gate). I think the Watch vows inherently are an exchange: the Watchmen give up everything, and originally at least, they presumably got something in return. I speculate what they got in return was the ability to kill the Others. But if the vows aren't made in a godswood, there's no real "exchange" going on specifically with the Old Gods, as the Watchmen would be trying to exchange their lives and identities with the Seven, who don't appear to have any power at all, let alone power against the Others.

I don't think the exchange you're describing is in line with the exchanges we've seen in the book. In each case, whatever is offered or given up isn't just a potential, but something that the person actually possesses at that moment. It's used as fuel for the ritual because it contains power. I don't think we've seen convincing evidence that an abstracted potential to father unspecified children or hold a title has the same meaning or same exchange value.

There are multiple hints that being a Watchman wasn't originally just about joining something---when a man joins the Watch, he's said to be changed on some visceral level. It's said that the Watchmen's blood runs black.

If this was the case, shouldn't we have a report from Jon's point of view that he feels different as a result of taking his oath? I went back and read that passage specifically looking for something like this to suggest that something was happening to Jon, but there's no indication of it. There is a vague mention of "rising a man," but I don't think this evidence of what you're proposing.

And the Black Gate doesn't say "give me the password" or "what is the Night's Watch". It asks, "Who are you?" And it opens when Sam says "I am the sword in the darkness . . ."

I don't think the wording of the Black Gate's request is all that important. It's the same challenge as a guard saying, "who goes there?" It's a request for identification and in this case, Sam identifies himself by showing knowledge of the Night's Watch oath. It's possible that there could be other valid solutions to the question.

All of these things point to the idea that being a Watchman isn't about promising to do something, it's about promising to be something. And to me, that hints that there's something in the very nature of being a "true" Watchman that will be important.

I don't disagree that this is possible in theory, but I don't think the sorting of who is a "true" Watchman is based on which gods you invoked when you took your oath. This would become a fatal flaw in the Watch with the introduction of the Andals to the realm. I think if there is to be a sorting of "true" Watchmen from false ones, it should be based on actions and intents, not how the oath was taken. But even that gets us into the murky territory of who judges and by what standard?

[tze]

My best guess at what's happening here and how it's consistent with what we know about magic in Martin's world is that the gate is what's magic, perhaps even a tree with an old god/Child at its roots. Sam's participation is simply the exchange of a password, which this sentient gate recognizes and then decides to act upon by permitting passage.

The only person we've seen open the Black Gate is Sam, who swore his vows before a weirwood tree. If Tormund gave the "password", would it work? We don't know. If Grenn or Ser Denys Mallister or Cotter Pyke gave the "password", or any answer at all, would it work? We don't know. We don't know what criteria the Gate uses in determining whether or not it will open to a certain candidate. Coldhands told Sam about the Gate, so Coldhands told him what was required. Sam tells Bran et al that only he, and not them, can open the Gate. That it required the Watch vow here, something which isn't a secret, and nothing points to it ever having been a secret, does not point to a situation where anyone could repeat those words and be allowed through, because a well-known password is a worthless password, and the Watch does not swear to keep the wording (or spirit) of its vows a secret. If just giving your personal identity is all that's required, then anyone can pass this gate, rendering it useless as an actual gate. And if anyone who says the vow and considers himself a Watchmen is always let through, then it makes little sense for the Watch to have fully abandoned the Nightfort in the first place, as a gate that the wildlings inherently could not force their way through would have been invaluable. But if Watchmen who swore before the 7 couldn't pass the gate, then the Watch's abandonment of the Nightfort makes more sense, as the more men who kept the Seven joined the Watch, the less useful the gate would have been, until one day nobody in the Nightfort remembered where the Gate even was, let alone how to open it.

Perhaps there is a difference in the oath's effectiveness depending on where it is sworn, but if that's the case, there may as well not be a Night's Watch with Westeros in the state that it's in now. I'm not sure that I see the concept being very successful in doing anything except restricting the pool of effective defenders of the realms of men.

Unless the whole point is that the Watch must return to its roots to be effective against the Others, and that it's the Watch, not Stannis, not Dany, not anyone but the Watchmen, who are the only force capable of fighting the Others (which ties into the Watch = Lightbringer idea). Perhaps one reason the Others are attacking now, after 8,000 years, is because the vast majority of the Watch has been altered on such a fundamental level that the Others know the vast majority of Watchmen literally don't have the ability to fight them? I keep thinking back to the prologue of AGOT, where Will thinks the Other is laughing at Royce. Was it because Royce didn't have dragonglass? Or was it because the Other realized Royce was inherently incapable of fighting it? Will thought to himself that, as Royce was slashing at the Other, Royce was "a true man of the Watch". But then the Other laughs, and Royce is slaughtered. Perhaps the point is that Royce wasn't a "true man of the Watch", because whatever characteristics the original Watchmen had that allowed them to fight the Others, were no longer required for someone like Royce to join up and consider himself (and have Will consider him to be) a Watchman.

Those books could just as easily contain information that confirms what I'm speculating about too. I don't think that appealing to the unknown content of books mentioned in passing by Sam is really going to help us zero in on any information that might shed more light on what we're talking about.

You asked why these books don't include this information if it's so relevant. I'm merely pointing out that the fact that the few books Sam got to read don't mention my theory isn't actually dispositive.

What I'm talking about here seems to specifically come from sources outside the Night's Watch, so the Watch wouldn't be considered the primary audience. These materials are essentially what Sam is referencing when he talks about "tales." It does seem correct that he'd refer to the annals of the Watch that way. The annals are the only records that we can be certain were produced by, and for, members of the Night's Watch. I don't think we can reasonably conclude that most of the content Sam is relating to Jon was produced for the Watch as its audience.

Until we see what Sam's specifically digging up in the Citadel for comparison, we can't say the majority of sources Sam found at Castle Black come definitively from anywhere but Castle Black. I don't think we have any idea what information is really available on the Others from written sources "outside" of the Watch because this is not a heavily literate society, and everything Sam has dug up so far has been a source found at the Wall. We don't really know how much originated at the Wall and how much didn't. But we can't assume everything came specifically from sources outside of the Night's Watch. Some stuff probably did, but I don't think there's any evidence that what Sam was relying on wasn't at least primarily written down at the Wall.

There may be an element of earthiness to the power of dragonglass, but I don't think that what we're seeing here is proof that Grenn couldn't effectively use the blade if he wanted to. I agree there's probably more about how and why obsidian works that we don't understand, but I don't see any reason to believe that it works for some people and not others, yet.

Proof? This is speculation, not proof. We've had exactly two instances in which a Watchman met an Other, with two wildly diverging results. I'm pointing out that there are more differences between Sam and Waymar Royce than just the presence of dragonglass, and GRRM might easily have created those extra differences intentionally. Until the Others actually start attacking more frequently, we can only extrapolate from those two instances and from the experiences of the Free Folk. And we can't escape the fact that the Free Folk have dragonglass, yet none of them have mentioned killing an Other with it. And they are not a humble people.

But Tormund and the others never make mention of the "masters" in a corporeal sense. The mist sounds like it's either a forerunner to the actual arrival of the Others, or it is the Others in non-corporeal form. It may be that the Others are only vulnerable to physical weapons when they're in their humanoid forms.

But we don't have any actual evidence of face-to-face encounters with the Others specifically. We have run-ins with wights and a description of mist that is probably associated with the Others in some way. We're never actually told of any encounters where obsidian weapons fail to kill a corporeal Other in the hands of the Free Folk.

I don't see how Tormund's statement here points to anything but face-to-face encounters with the Others specifically. He was speaking to Jon in the context of the guys in charge of the wights. If he was only seeing "mists", but never the corporeal Others, he wouldn't have assumed the "mists" were in any way controlling or directing the wights, rather than merely being a byproduct of the wights (or even being controlled by the wights, not being the wights' "masters"). And if there's no actual distinction between the abilities of the Free Folk and the Watchmen in the eyes of the Others, then the idea that only "incorporeal" Others would attack the former but never the latter, and only "corporeal" Others would attack the latter but never the former, makes no sense.

I don't think the exchange you're describing is in line with the exchanges we've seen in the book. In each case, whatever is offered or given up isn't just a potential, but something that the person actually possesses at that moment. It's used as fuel for the ritual because it contains power. I don't think we've seen convincing evidence that an abstracted potential to father unspecified children or hold a title has the same meaning or same exchange value.

I'm speculating that the original Watchmen weren't just exchanging their "potential" to have children or hold land when they "became" Watchmen, they were exchanging some more visceral part of themselves to the Old Gods, and in exchange, the Old Gods' power allowed them to become something "other" than ordinary men. The "take no wife, hold no lands" part of the vows could be a symptom of this exchange, not the exchange itself (i.e., that the Watchmen would not do these things because the whole point was that they were becoming something that could not do these things). When people speak of the characteristics that make someone a Watchmen, it is in oddly non-human terms: the idea of being "black of blood", for example. To take on the characteristics of "Watchmen", the original Watchmen might have actually begun a process, via an exchange begun in a godswood, that altered them in some way that specifically allowed them to kill the supernatural Others (which, coincidentally, might shed some light on what's happened to Coldhands). And as the original Watchmen would have performed any such exchange in the presence of a weirwood tree, it makes sense that this same process wouldn't work in a sept, because there could be no exchange with the Old Gods in a sept, and altering a human being is an Old Gods-based power, not something we see in the Seven.

If this was the case, shouldn't we have a report from Jon's point of view that he feels different as a result of taking his oath? I went back and read that passage specifically looking for something like this to suggest that something was happening to Jon, but there's no indication of it. There is a vague mention of "rising a man," but I don't think this evidence of what you're proposing.

No, I don't think "feeling" different would be required upon taking this vow. None of the Starks report feeling any immediate alteration in their sense of personal identity when they get the direwolf cubs. Just as getting the direwolves began the process of the Starks' skinchanger paths, I'm wondering if taking a vow in the godswood started a process among men like Jon and Sam that has to do with opposing and fighting the Others.

I don't think the wording of the Black Gate's request is all that important. It's the same challenge as a guard saying, "who goes there?" It's a request for identification and in this case, Sam identifies himself by showing knowledge of the Night's Watch oath. It's possible that there could be other valid solutions to the question.

And I think GRRM took the time to write about this event, and the specific details surrounding it, for a reason. The Gate could have just been a secret hidden door. But with the ancient face, the weirwood, the question asked and answered---these are all details that GRRM didn't have to include, but did. And he did it in conjunction with someone who became a Watchman in the "old" weirwood-based way, not the "new" sept-based way.

I don't disagree that this is possible in theory, but I don't think the sorting of who is a "true" Watchman is based on which gods you invoked when you took your oath. This would become a fatal flaw in the Watch with the introduction of the Andals to the realm. I think if there is to be a sorting of "true" Watchmen from false ones, it should be based on actions and intents, not how the oath was taken. But even that gets us into the murky territory of who judges and by what standard?

If magic is tied into being a Watchman, then the origins of the ceremony that "made" someone into a Watchman are presumably important. People who keep the Old Gods do things before a weirwood tree for a reason. They might not remember the original reason, but it seems likely there was an original reason, given that we know greenseers become the Old Gods, and the greenseers can see through weirwood trees. Bran became a greenseer by doing certain things---if he'd ingested the paste of an ordinary tree, I don't think it would have made him a greenseer. Swearing to be these particular things, in this particular place (before a weirwood), was presumably done for some reason, given the associations the Watch has with magical things (like the Wall and the Others).

I think the Watch was founded in this particular way for a specific reason. Lords could have been established along the Wall and charged to defend the border---but that's not what happened. A certain group was founded, with evidence that it was founded specifically to fight the Others. And being a Watchman isn't like being a knight---it isn't just based on a set of ideals and/or a set of actions. You don't just swear to do things (or rather, to not do things) when you enter the Watch, you swear to be certain things. But just wanting to be a sword in the darkness, when your enemy is the magical Others, is not, I think, enough. I can try to be the light that brings the dawn all I want, but when I'm facing a magical enemy, my good intentions and strong right arm won't be enough. I think that there's a transformative aspect to being a Watchman that was lost when men starting joining up who wanted to change the way "becoming" a Watchman was done because they didn't understand the roots of the brotherhood.

[Sevumar]

We don't know. If Grenn or Ser Denys Mallister or Cotter Pyke gave the "password", or any answer at all, would it work? We don't know. We don't know what criteria the Gate uses in determining whether or not it will open to a certain candidate. Coldhands told Sam about the Gate, so Coldhands told him what was required.

What I'm saying is that I don't think we have any good reason to believe that it wouldn't work for these people. I think, in the absence of evidence that these people are specifically excluded, that we don't have grounds for suspecting that the gate is seeking to separate anyone into groups besides Night's Watch and non-Night's Watch. The fact that it's in a Night's Watch castle and is requesting Night's Watch information seems a pretty strong indicator that Night's Watch identity is what it's looking for.

That it required the Watch vow here, something which isn't a secret, and nothing points to it ever having been a secret, does not point to a situation where anyone could repeat those words and be allowed through, because a well-known password is a worthless password, and the Watch does not swear to keep the wording (or spirit) of its vows a secret. If just giving your personal identity is all that's required, then anyone can pass this gate, rendering it useless as an actual gate.

I'm not claiming that it's necessarily a secret, but the gate appears to have a sentient being attached to it, or the capacity to carry a sentient being's awareness. It could easily be looking for evidence of lying, uncertainty, or something that doesn't feel right. If what it was looking for was something inherent in a person who has sworn the vows "correctly" and in so doing became "different" in some way, it makes sense that the gate would be able to detect it without the recitation of any code.

Unless the whole point is that the Watch must return to its roots to be effective against the Others, and that it's the Watch, not Stannis, not Dany, not anyone but the Watchmen, who are the only force capable of fighting the Others (which ties into the Watch = Lightbringer idea).

I think this theme is already portrayed in the story through the loss of knowledge concerning the Watch's original mission and the decay of its castles, numbers, and quality of membership. I think we've had the moment of awakening, and now it's up to the new generation of leaders to convince their brothers of what must be done to save the realm in the coming battle. By finding or relearning what's been lost and arming themselves with the proper equipment, the Watch can fulfill that mission without having to worry about which member took his oath at which location.

Perhaps one reason the Others are attacking now, after 8,000 years, is because the vast majority of the Watch has been altered on such a fundamental level that the Others know the vast majority of Watchmen literally don't have the ability to fight them? I keep thinking back to the prologue of AGOT, where Will thinks the Other is laughing at Royce. Was it because Royce didn't have dragonglass? Or was it because the Other realized Royce was inherently incapable of fighting it?

One again, this is possible, but we don't really have enough information to know for sure. The Others seem so alien right now that it seems we're meant to find their motives impossible to decipher. We've basically been told that there's more to them than a malicious enemy, that they have reason for what they're doing, but those could be just about anything.

Until we see what Sam's specifically digging up in the Citadel for comparison, we can't say the majority of sources Sam found at Castle Black come definitively from anywhere but Castle Black. I don't think we have any idea what information is really available on the Others from written sources "outside" of the Watch because this is not a heavily literate society, and everything Sam has dug up so far has been a source found at the Wall.

I think there are a few things we can tell from Sam's description of the sources, and his general overview of the available information:

• Sam mentions annals of the Night's Watch, and the fact that he's troubled by the large amount of missing information and the fact that the oldest records hint that the count of Lord Commanders is off by quite a bit.
  
• Sam makes reference to histories written by septons and to claims by archmaesters that all the extant historical texts are unreliable.
  
• Sam references "tales" that include snippets of a wide variety of information about "Other-lore" that seem to come from less rigorous sources that are neither scholarly histories nor annals of the Watch, suggesting these are pieces intended for a lay audience.
  

Obviously, given the fact that Sam found these sources in the archives of Castle Black, we know there are copies there, but that doesn't mean that these sources were created at Castle Black or for the sole use of the Watch. Rather, most of the sources outside the annals suggest that Castle Black kept a library of books in wider circulation, either for reference or entertainment purposes.

I'm pointing out that there are more differences between Sam and Waymar Royce than just the presence of dragonglass, and GRRM might easily have created those extra differences intentionally. Until the Others actually start attacking more frequently, we can only extrapolate from those two instances and from the experiences of the Free Folk. And we can't escape the fact that the Free Folk have dragonglass, yet none of them have mentioned killing an Other with it. And they are not a humble people.

There are other differences between the two than just the use of dragonglass, yes, but I don't think the supporting information is strong enough to suggest that the operative difference here is anything but obsidian. The old sources don't make any reference to restrictions on the use of obsidian, and we do have confirmation of its efficacy against the Others, albeit in a very small sample. I think we have to err on the side of assuming the widest possible application instead of proposing conditions for its use that don't seem indicated anywhere in the story.

I don't see how Tormund's statement here points to anything but face-to-face encounters with the Others specifically. He was speaking to Jon in the context of the guys in charge of the wights. If he was only seeing "mists", but never the corporeal Others, he wouldn't have assumed the "mists" were in any way controlling or directing the wights, rather than merely being a byproduct of the wights (or even being controlled by the wights, not being the wights' "masters").

What about Tormund suggests confirmation of a face-to-face encounter with the Others? Let's break down his statement and take a look:

"A man can fight the dead, but when their masters come, when the white mists rise up … how do you fight a mist, crow?"

He's not asking Jon how you fight something that has a body that's invulnerable to your weapons. Tormund distinctly asks how you fight a mist, which seems like a description of the cold and winter weather that accompanies or signifies the the presence of Others in the area. But there's nothing here resembling what we're told Others look like.

"Shadows with teeth … air so cold it hurts to breathe, like a knife inside your chest … you do not know, you cannot know … can your sword cut cold?”

Here we have shadows, something lacking substance. Cold air, cutting the cold. All of this imagery suggests that Tormund is specifically excluding the presence of an enemy that can be engaged in swordplay with physical weapons of any kind. He's definitely not relating a failed attempt to strike the body of something matching the description of an Other with a weapon of obsidian. He sounds like he's describing forces of nature associated with the Others, but not the Others themselves.

I'm speculating that the original Watchmen weren't just exchanging their "potential" to have children or hold land when they "became" Watchmen, they were exchanging some more visceral part of themselves to the Old Gods, and in exchange, the Old Gods' power allowed them to become something "other" than ordinary men.

I suppose this is possible, but I'm puzzled by the seeming lack of evidence in the story for this interpretation. I think that the most likely thing that's occurring here is that you have men participating in a ceremony to join the order, swearing an oath before the thing most sacred to them, thereby communicating their true and honest intent to serve the Watch to the best of their ability. It makes significantly less sense to me that the only way for these people to be "true" members of the Watch is for most recruits to swear oaths to gods that mean nothing to them, completely ignorant of the fact that they are cheating themselves of the ability to carry out the Watch's mission simply because they recited the oath in the way that seemed most meaningful to them.

To take on the characteristics of "Watchmen", the original Watchmen might have actually begun a process, via an exchange begun in a godswood, that altered them in some way that specifically allowed them to kill the supernatural Others (which, coincidentally, might shed some light on what's happened to Coldhands).

If there is a fundamental change taking place at the swearing of the oath, there should be some hint, some indication that this change is taking place. A typical use of magic involving the exchange principle provides visible (or otherwise detectable) feedback that the magic has either worked or failed.

No, I don't think "feeling" different would be required upon taking this vow. None of the Starks report feeling any immediate alteration in their sense of personal identity when they get the direwolf cubs. Just as getting the direwolves began the process of the Starks' skinchanger paths, I'm wondering if taking a vow in the godswood started a process among men like Jon and Sam that has to do with opposing and fighting the Others.

Then how can any Watchman reasonably be expected to know that the oath has meaning? How is he supposed to know, if there is no detectable change, that he is now "enabled" to combat the Others?

The Stark children do not feel immediately different upon acquiring their cubs, but over time, the ones who develop their warging/greenseeing abilities do notice differences compared to their prior lives. They experience wolf dreams, they find themselves able to use their worf's senses, and Bran's abilities go even further. They come to understand that their identities have fundamentally changed through supernatural experiences. In the case of the two Night's Watch PoVs we have in the story, there seems to be no corresponding experience.

If magic is tied into being a Watchman, then the origins of the ceremony that "made" someone into a Watchman are presumably important.

But we don't have any indication that magic is bound up in becoming/being a member of the Watch, or that anything magical is involved in taking the oath. All indications from the story seem to be that speaking the Night's Watch oath before whatever one holds sacred is exactly what it seems to be, the giving of an oath before something considered sacred.

People who keep the Old Gods do things before a weirwood tree for a reason.

Because they believe the presence of their gods is vested in the weirwoods. They are sacred to old god followers and therefore important. That's all that's needed.

Bran became a greenseer by doing certain things---if he'd ingested the paste of an ordinary tree, I don't think it would have made him a greenseer. Swearing to be these particular things, in this particular place (before a weirwood), was presumably done for some reason, given the associations the Watch has with magical things (like the Wall and the Others).

ADWD seems to contradict this interpretation. When the paste is given to Bran, he is explicitly told that his blood is what makes him a greenseer, and the paste will help him harness his gifts. The ability has always been a part of him and the paste is an aid to his bonding with the trees.