Miryana Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 And if it isn't oathbreaking then WHY DID JON SAY GOING WITH HIM WOULD BE BREAKING YOUR OATH?????It's Jon. He's very anxious when it comes to his oaths and errs on the side of caution because he doesn't want to get complacent and end up in a situation where he'd justify what can't be justified. So his interpretation is sometimes more harsh than it need be. Jon isn't like Jaime, who smugly congratulated himself on keeping his oath to Catelyn after he, the confessed would-be killer of one Tully child, had threatened to have a Tully baby killed and ensured that Riverrun was handed over to the rule of those who murdered Tullys in violation of sacred guestright and mutilated their corpses... because he didn't literally raise a sword against a Tully, despite being the head of the anti-Tully army and threatening to order their deaths, it was somehow the height of oathkeeping. Jaime thinks of the most literal interpretation possible, while Jon is worried about breaking the spirit of his oath - not even always the actual oath, but some of the additional ideas about neutrality that have come to be associated with it. So just because a POV character thinks or says something, that doesn't necessarily mean it's what the law or the majority of people would agree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.