Did he deserve it?

[Eyron]

Thanks. It's curious to me how many of Jon's critics overlook the fact that he had absolutely no right (moral or legal) to prevent Melisandre from prosecuting the war as she saw fit. She is Stannis' deputy, and it is for Stannis to reward or punish her as he chooses for the decision she's taken.

Did he, now? All I know is that he didn't stop Melisandre from sending someone who looked like Rattleshirt to the south. This was Melisandre doing - a King's woman, and as much as I remember nightwatch doesn't take part in kings affairs.

And Bowen March didn't know about whole Mance business either.

You would say, I am taking about technicalities - but that what this whole oath business is about. On "grand moral" issue John was right anyway.

Technically Jon should have executed Mance first thing, he was in his legal right to do so. Technically he should have executed Mance when he realized he was still alive, after Melisandre revealed him as Rattleshirt.

Mance is a renegade man of the Night's Watch. He was taken north of the Wall, that is not part of the Seven Kingdoms and Stannis has no jurisdiction there and Stannis had no right to take Mance as prisoner in the first place, a turncloak crow is NW business.

Had Stannis got hold of him south of the wall and the LC was not there to perform the execution he would be in his right to take the prisoner to the Warden of the North to have him executed. I am sure that if Stannis was crowned king by the high septon he would be in his right to perform the execution, but he was not. Or else anyone can proclaim himself king and grant himself all kinds of liberties.

Jon should have prevented any actions that could reflect badly on the Watch. Melisandre is only the advisor of one of the throne pretenders, she has no jurisdiction in Castle Black or the at the Wall, no more than Stannis does. Jons is responsible for the reputation of the NW and by letting Mance go south he put the Watch in danger, because there is always a chance his involvement is revealed. Ramsay found out the thruth, and that was a risk Jon took.

As I said in my post #64 above I argue that morally Jon was right, but he did break his vows. And as I said those vows are obsolete, it does not work in times of crisis when the Watch can be used as a pawn in the game.

If we go by the standards set by the vow - Jon was wrong

If we go by our moral standards - Jon was right

I am not criticizing Jon, I am criticizing the damn Vow.

[SeanF]

Stannis had every right to take Mance prisoner. Stannis is one of the leading lords of the kingdom, and has a strong claim to the throne. Once Stannis had captured him, then it was up to Stannis to determine his fate. Stannis of course believed that he had executed him, and Melisandre deceived him, but it's up to Stannis to take action against Melisandre, not Jon.

But, I agree, that in terms of the bigger picture, what Jon did was right. He is simply facing circumstances that no Lord Commander has had to face in thousands of years.

[Nightstar]

Personally, I don't see why anyone should be bound by those vows to the NW.

They are made under duress, with death the only alternative, so why must anyone feel it's a duty to honor them?

I actually think much better of Jon for deciding to go off and fight! It proves he isn't as big of a fool as Ned was!

Besides, the NW is falling apart and was, long before Jon took command.

(Yoren speaks of the difference in which the men of the NW are regarded in Westeros; in the past they'd be welcomed and feasted, now they are shunned and ridiculed. The Nobles no longer send their sons to serve - unless like Tarly, they want to get the son out of the way to make another favored child the heir).

Bowen Marsh and his co-conspirators committed an act of desperation.

They are trying to cling to the vestiges of the past, too blind to see that the way the NW once functioned is gone forever!

[ríomhaire]

Jon was not forced to take his vows.

[Walder_Frey]

I agree with the Topic Creator, Jon forsaked his vows, and deserved execution, just as much as Janos Slynt did, heh.

[Ghost Rider]

Jon was not forced to take his vows.

A good argument can be made that he was indeed forced even though it wasn't at knife point. Jon in AGOT repeatedly thinks that he doesn't have any other options, that he has nowhere to go. Which is true as we know because Cat wouldn't tolerate his sustained presence at Winterfell. Even if it wasn't for Cat, he also feels obligated to swear this vow in his own mind because - how would he look like if he came back running to Winterfell, telling Robb that he opted out. AGOT Jon certainly would rather swear an oath, he doesn't really condone with all his heart then to admit to this kind of weakness, that it was a wrong decision to start with.

I agree with the Topic Creator, Jon forsaked his vows, and deserved execution, just as much as Janos Slynt did, heh.

Whether Jon really did break his vows is still arguable. There's not much in his vow that would prevent him from going after Ramsay and much to suggest that he is true to its spirit.

Did Jon take a wife, father children, hold lands or seek glory? - not really

Did he leave his post? - only if you want to argue that it wasn't a sensible decision in the best interest of the core objective of the NW which is to protect the realm of men. And of course he'd intend to come back.

Janos Slynt wasn't an oathbreaker and he wasn't executed for having forsaken any vows. He was executed because he repeatedly disobeyed the orders of a superior and thus tried to undermine the authority of the LC.

Who would care about keeping socially constructed vows with future of mankind at stake anyhow?

[Eyron]

Stannis had every right to take Mance prisoner. Stannis is one of the leading lords of the kingdom, and has a strong claim to the throne. Once Stannis had captured him, then it was up to Stannis to determine his fate. Stannis of course believed that he had executed him, and Melisandre deceived him, but it's up to Stannis to take action against Melisandre, not Jon.

But, I agree, that in terms of the bigger picture, what Jon did was right. He is simply facing circumstances that no Lord Commander has had to face in thousands of years.

I think we simply have two different views on the law of Westeros.

From what I understand the Kings justice end at the wall, the King decides who can act as justiciary in all parts of the realm. The king delegates his justice to the liege lords so they can act as the kings justiciary on their own lands. Stannis is not the lord over the lands in the north, and the Wall is the northern boundary of the Kingdom.

Windlings found south of the wall can be executed by the lord of the lands where they are captured, same with deserters of the Watch.

The king in the Seven Kingdoms is still Tommen, even if Stannis has a stonger claim. If Jon does not follow the kings law he is taking part in the game.

However, I think it would be impossible for Jon to act by the law in this case since he does not have the men to enforce it. It's the one with the most swords who has the power really.

[Eyron]

Oh and I don't think he should have killed Mance either, but that is another matter :)

[King Cheops]

Who would care about keeping socially constructed vows with future of mankind at stake anyhow?

A major theme of the series is the importance of keeping your vows. Mayhaps Jon thought that he could abandon his vows to save the world but Marsh et al did not agree. They saw what Jon was doing in the same light as how most of Westeros saw Jaime Lannister's, Gregory Clegane's, and Amory Lorch's actions.

We were also given insight into Jon's mind and he certainly wasn't motivated by protecting the watch -- he was motivated by thoughts of home and his little sister. The Jon apologists can come up with whatever excuses they want but in the end he didn't "kill the boy" in himself.

[Walder_Frey]

I disagree Ghost Rider. He left the wall, and was taking Wildlings, some of whom had taken the black to interfere in the wars of the kingdom. He was going off to fight for Stannis, Arya, Mance, and/or his own pride. I'd say that any of those options renders him an oathbreaker.

Also, Janos Slynt was an oathbreaker. It's part of the oath that you follow orders. If he hadn't taken that oath, he never would have been executed for refusing to follow Jon's orders.

Look, Jon is one of my favorite characters, and I have every belief that he'll come back one way or another. But his actions were not in keeping with the oaths of the Night Watch.

[SeanF]

A major theme of the series is the importance of keeping your vows. Mayhaps Jon thought that he could abandon his vows to save the world but Marsh et al did not agree. They saw what Jon was doing in the same light as how most of Westeros saw Jaime Lannister's, Gregory Clegane's, and Amory Lorch's actions.

We were also given insight into Jon's mind and he certainly wasn't motivated by protecting the watch -- he was motivated by thoughts of home and his little sister. The Jon apologists can come up with whatever excuses they want but in the end he didn't "kill the boy" in himself.

Marsh et al's *interpretation* of keeping their vows is one that would lead to the destruction of the Night's Watch and the Wall. Essentially, they don't want to believe that the Others are a real threat (despite all the evidence to the contrary) and see no need to reassess their attitude to the men North of the Wall as a result.

[lordthade]

Keep in mind Bowen and the rest of the Night's Watch only know that Rattleshirt and some spearwives were sent south. They could easily tie Mel and Jon together since they've been spending so much time around each other. Marsh doesn't need to know that Mance/Rattleshirt were sent to find Arya Stark to put some pieces together:

1. Stannis went to Deepwood Motte not Winterfell first, and they'll figure out who recommended THAT.

2. Jon took in the Karstark girl and has a lord questionably locked up in the cells... if he's not involving the Night's Watch in the affairs of the realm he sure has a funny way of staying OUT.

3. Jon continues to not only recruit Wildlings but to give them places in what is traditionally the Watch's... land in The Gift, towers and castles, positions like Master at Arms, and even give away food they KNOW they don't have enough of for the winter. For the men of the Watch they saw him fight against the Wildlings after turning his cloak, but there's growing evidence he's being seduced by the Wildlings again.

4. Don't forget, too, Val remains unmarried and protected. Rumors abound that Jon is keeping her for himself (which would violate his vows-- WE know he's not, but they don't).

5. Most important: Jon does not offer to lead an army of the men of The Watch! He proclaims to lead an army of Wildlings South. If the Night's Watch was REALLY what he was interested in protecting by marching on Winterfell... then he should have sent the Wildlings North and led the Night's Watch South. He's doing the exact opposite. To me... this is the dagger. This is his biggest "sin".

[lordthade]

I think we can agree Jon should have ignored the letter. He should have waited until the strength of the enemy was known and the circumstances were more credible to his reaction. I would posit that he's almost certainly got more strength (between the men of The Watch, the Queens' Men, and his Wildling refugees) than anything the Bolton/Freys could put together. He may not have a defensible castle from the South, but he's got miles of roads, the advantage of preparation, and ultimately the moral imperative to inform his men-- his BROTHERS-- before making such decisions. He may be a Lord Commander in name, but he's still got to learn how to lead.

You know, deep down, that Tyrion would never have fallen for this. ;)

[brashcandy]

A major theme of the series is the importance of keeping your vows.

No, this isn't true. A major theme in the series is that vows cannot be used to excuse injustices and resistance to change when it is clearly necessary., Whether you've made a vow to a King or a vow to an organization, blind allegiance in the face of cruelty, corruption or prejudice is patently wrong.

[lordthade]

Words are wind.

[brashcandy]

I think we can agree Jon should have ignored the letter. He should have waited until the strength of the enemy was known and the circumstances were more credible to his reaction. I would posit that he's almost certainly got more strength (between the men of The Watch, the Queens' Men, and his Wildling refugees) than anything the Bolton/Freys could put together. He may not have a defensible castle from the South, but he's got miles of roads, the advantage of preparation, and ultimately the moral imperative to inform his men-- his BROTHERS-- before making such decisions. He may be a Lord Commander in name, but he's still got to learn how to lead.

You know, deep down, that Tyrion would never have fallen for this. ;)

Tyrion?? He would have been dead long time. He would have disrespected Stannis, insulted Selyse, and tried to fuck Val. Not a good recipe.

[LadyoftheNorth72]

Personally, I don't see why anyone should be bound by those vows to the NW. They are made under duress, with death the only alternative, so why must anyone feel it's a duty to honor them?

Umm...because they have been handed their lives on a platter?

Look, there was absolutely no equivalent to the NW in our actual history. Murderers, rapists, thieves, etc were dealt with very harshly according to their crimes, usually with no trial, much less an opportunity at reprieve.

There have been a couple of instances where we hear that someone was sent there unfairly (Dareon and his un-rape for one; Samwell for another) but most of them were guilty as sin. They could have chosen the alternative outcome and avoided the Wall, but chose not to be killed/gelded/whatever their crime warranted. Again, not a choice RL commoners were ever given. Out of simple gratitude for not having to pay those prices, they owe the realm their vows. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. I am sure many of the soldiers Randall Tarly gelded for their crimes would happily have chosen the Wall, if they had been given the choice.

[SeanF]

As it happens, there's quite a lot of precedent in real history for men who were guilty of capital crimes being offered the option of serving in the armed forces, in return for a reprieve.

[LadyoftheNorth72]

No, this isn't true. A major theme in the series is that vows cannot be used to excuse injustices and resistance to change when it is clearly necessary., Whether you've made a vow to a King or a vow to an organization, blind allegiance in the face of cruelty, corruption or prejudice is patently wrong.

This, I totally agree with (whaddayaknow!). We see almost every character in the book, at some point, having to struggle to choose between what is right vs. what is expected of them based on their position in life, and also many cases of trying to figure out what is the least craptastic out of a selection of nothing but crappy choices.

[hotweaselsoup]

5. Most important: Jon does not offer to lead an army of the men of The Watch! He proclaims to lead an army of Wildlings South. If the Night's Watch was REALLY what he was interested in protecting by marching on Winterfell... then he should have sent the Wildlings North and led the Night's Watch South. He's doing the exact opposite. To me... this is the dagger. This is his biggest "sin".

Exactly! Moreover, the ranging he is sending north to Hardhome will be led by Tormund Giantsbane. He has set a notorious wildling in command over his Night's Watch brothers. Please tell me this is not a huge blunder by our "visionary" young commander.