“The Watch Takes No Part:” Analyzing Jon’s “Oathbreaking”

[Ragnorak]

For clarity:

You are assuming that Jon got a second opinion from Tormund, which is fine, but still an assumption. Even if you were correct in your assumption Tormund would presumably only be able to reflect back to Jon what Jon is saying about the oath and his duty as a Black Brother. Tormund after all hasn't taken the oath, isn't of the seven kingdoms and didn't grow up inside that culture.

I was more thinking Tormund gave him opinions about the letter and Wildlings should Bolton come north. Jon has no idea what Mance was up to and Tormund knows him better and may have better insight into the truth about Mance in the letter. It was Stannis who chose to let the Wildlings through the Wall and should he fall their status south of the Wall is in doubt. Tormund would have feedback on how the Free Folk will deal with a Bolton coming north and wanting to expel or change the status of the Free Folk. My second opinion notion was more about the right way to deal the above-- still an assumption though.

I don't see 'taking no part' and being 'the shield that guards the realms of me' as being in conflict. Surely they are complimentary. The purpose of the Watch is to shield the realms of men, not to take part in their internal politics. The two concepts fit together.

I don't think the oaths themselves conflict.

I'm assuming that the Lannister's interference in the Watch (Tywin's letter, redirecting recruits to Aurane Waters) creates a conflict with "take no part" and the Boltons role in the RW and Ramsay's letter make them an extension of the Lannister interference (Post #53) I'm further assuming that the Boltons are a threat to the Free Folk among other people. I see those circumstances creating the conflict not that the two aspects are inherently in conflict.

ETA Lummel, I love the way you tied Aemon's family conflict advice through to his "Kill the boy" and then the stabbing to literally kill the boy after a boyish decision. I just read it differently.

[Arya Targaryen]

I don't see 'taking no part' and being 'the shield that guards the realms of me' as being in conflict. Surely they are complimentary. The purpose of the Watch is to shield the realms of men, not to take part in their internal politics. The two concepts fit together.

You are right, they shouldn't be in conflict. If the Watch had 10.000 loyal men and enough food to live through a 10-year-long winter, they should take no part. There wouldn't be any need to call for help (=Stannis wouldn't be at the Wall), since they alone can deal with any danger coming from beyond the Wall. But still, a Stark in Winterfell would always be a necessery backup, just in case.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I noticed a few pages back that someone (Ragnorak?) included a very lengthy list of examples of the Lannisters deliberately interfering with the Watch by trying to get prisoners, trying to force Slynt's election, and holding out on men if the Watch didn't toe the line. This is in addition to Cersei's idea to send a Kettleblack up to the Wall to assassinate Jon (which didn't happen because said Kettleblack is now in the High Septon's custody).

So, is anyone going to discuss this very tangible neutrality breach? Considering that the Boltons are Lannister stooges and everyone knows it, I dare say that that camp struck first and Jon can only react to it. He can't afford to turn away Stannis' men if King's Landing isn't sending him replacements. He can't negotiate or take no action when his very existence on the Wall isn't going to fly with that camp.

If you want to call Jon an oathbreaker, fine. I don't think he is, but I can see how it comes off that way. But don't ignore the circumstances leading up to it, and at least have the decency and intellectual honesty to admit that the Iron Throne, in Lannister control, is responsible for the situation in which Jon found himself.

[Aemrys]

Couldn't agree more with the OP. The real enemy if beyond the wall. At least that's what we're lead to believe, and what the Watch knows (mostly the smart ones in the Watch). All the rest will know it when it hits them, as they've long since forgotten its gravity and importance.

Stannis' survival really has become paramount for the Watch. Some in the NW might not like it, or admit it, but without Stannis and his men, as well as the united North he's trying to forge, the Watch is hopelessly outnumbered against the Others. As such Jon has to do what is right to achieve what is most important - protection for the Realm. To achieve that he needs Stannis to win against the hopeless and non-cooperative Boltons.

[dtones520]

I noticed a few pages back that someone (Ragnorak?) included a very lengthy list of examples of the Lannisters deliberately interfering with the Watch by trying to get prisoners, trying to force Slynt's election, and holding out on men if the Watch didn't toe the line. This is in addition to Cersei's idea to send a Kettleblack up to the Wall to assassinate Jon (which didn't happen because said Kettleblack is now in the High Septon's custody).

So, is anyone going to discuss this very tangible neutrality breach? Considering that the Boltons are Lannister stooges and everyone knows it, I dare say that that camp struck first and Jon can only react to it. He can't afford to turn away Stannis' men if King's Landing isn't sending him replacements. He can't negotiate or take no action when his very existence on the Wall isn't going to fly with that camp.

If you want to call Jon an oathbreaker, fine. I don't think he is, but I can see how it comes off that way. But don't ignore the circumstances leading up to it, and at least have the decency and intellectual honesty to admit that the Iron Throne, in Lannister control, is responsible for the situation in which Jon found himself.

Jon has no idea about Cersei plotting against him, we know that she is, but Jon certainly doesn't. The Iron Throne ignoring the pleas of sending men to the Wall is nothing new and them accepting help from Stannis should be something the Nights Watch should do, as he is offering men and the Watch doesn't care about him being a usurper or not. All Ramsay did was threaten Jon, yes it was disturbing, but it was nothing more than a threat and Jon bit on it. If the watch takes no part, Jon should just let it go and let Ramsay attack them. Then he can act.

You guys can try and twist the words in the oath all you want, the simple fact remains that through five books it is established that if you left your post to meddle in affairs unrelated to the Nights Watch, you are probably going to lose your head. Whether or not Jon was doing the right thing morally is a completely different story.

[dtones520]

Couldn't agree more with the OP. The real enemy if beyond the wall. At least that's what we're lead to believe, and what the Watch knows (mostly the smart ones in the Watch). All the rest will know it when it hits them, as they've long since forgotten its gravity and importance.

Stannis' survival really has become paramount for the Watch. Some in the NW might not like it, or admit it, but without Stannis and his men, as well as the united North he's trying to forge, the Watch is hopelessly outnumbered against the Others. As such Jon has to do what is right to achieve what is most important - protection for the Realm. To achieve that he needs Stannis to win against the hopeless and non-cooperative Boltons.

Whether or not Stannis survives or not should not be something the Nights Watch focuses on. Is him winning best for the Watch? Absolutely. But they should take no part in helping him do so. Hell, if the Watch was in the business of doing that, they should have ensured Ned sat the Iron Throne after Roberts rebellion.

[butterbumps!]

You guys can try and twist the words in the oath all you want, the simple fact remains that through five books it is established that if you left your post to meddle in affairs unrelated to the Nights Watch, you are probably going to lose your head. Whether or not Jon was doing the right thing morally is a completely different story.

No, that's wrong. No one is twisting the oath. CUSTOM says do not meddle. The OATH says "protect the realm." There is nothing in the actual NW oath that says do not meddle.

The point Lummel brought up, however, is a strong argument. I think the answer to the oathbreaking is in the interpretation of Jon's motivations to March to Winterfell. The way we drew it up, it placed Jon's motivations on service to the Watch, but Lummel maintained that Jon was motivated by personal vengeance. I'm still looking over the passages to see how I feel about it.

[Chaircat Meow]

Couldn't agree more with the OP. The real enemy if beyond the wall. At least that's what we're lead to believe, and what the Watch knows (mostly the smart ones in the Watch). All the rest will know it when it hits them, as they've long since forgotten its gravity and importance.

Stannis' survival really has become paramount for the Watch. Some in the NW might not like it, or admit it, but without Stannis and his men, as well as the united North he's trying to forge, the Watch is hopelessly outnumbered against the Others. As such Jon has to do what is right to achieve what is most important - protection for the Realm. To achieve that he needs Stannis to win against the hopeless and non-cooperative Boltons.

Jon just doesn't act like he thinks like this, though.

In his last chapter he never seems to think along these lines, nor does he attempt to justify himself to his men in this way. So if what you say is true, Jon lacks any courage of conviction.

If the wall needs Stannis Jon should have gone out of his way to help him more, as it is he says lots of things and does lots of things that only make sense if he was trying to preserve Watch neutrality.

[Ragnorak]

Jon has no idea about Cersei plotting against him, we know that she is, but Jon certainly doesn't. The Iron Throne ignoring the pleas of sending men to the Wall is nothing new and them accepting help from Stannis should be something the Nights Watch should do, as he is offering men and the Watch doesn't care about him being a usurper or not. All Ramsay did was threaten Jon, yes it was disturbing, but it was nothing more than a threat and Jon bit on it. If the watch takes no part, Jon should just let it go and let Ramsay attack them. Then he can act.

Jon doesn't know Cersei is plotting to kill him, but he does know the Lannisters sent Slynt with Thorne and they did try and kill him. Tywin sent a letter to the Watch basically saying that unless you elect Slynt LC expect no help. Aside from reading the letter, Thorne and Slynt went around to everyone driving that point home. All the men that would have gone to the NW went to Aurane Waters for his ships. So they did stop sending men as they had threatened.

Castle Black was almost wiped out by 70 men attacking from the south. They cannot defend themselves from the south. Waiting for Ramsay is utter suicide.

[stanprollyright]

Jon has no idea about Cersei plotting against him, we know that she is, but Jon certainly doesn't. The Iron Throne ignoring the pleas of sending men to the Wall is nothing new and them accepting help from Stannis should be something the Nights Watch should do, as he is offering men and the Watch doesn't care about him being a usurper or not. All Ramsay did was threaten Jon, yes it was disturbing, but it was nothing more than a threat and Jon bit on it. If the watch takes no part, Jon should just let it go and let Ramsay attack them. Then he can act.

You guys can try and twist the words in the oath all you want, the simple fact remains that through five books it is established that if you left your post to meddle in affairs unrelated to the Nights Watch, you are probably going to lose your head. Whether or not Jon was doing the right thing morally is a completely different story.

The simple fact that Ramsay threatened the Lord Commander of a neutral entity is a breach of neutrality. The Wall cannot defend itself from the South, so waiting for an attack after this warning means defeat. If Jon goes out and dies, then no one attacks the NW. If Jon goes out and wins, then there will be no attack on the Watch.

[Arya Targaryen]

I don't think that oathbreaking really matters to Jon anymore. Maybe only because what others may think of it. Jon will do whatever he thinks is right. This includes the war against the Others, but he cannot avoid dealing with the North's problems, and helping his little sister. If he thinks it is the right thing to do 8the one he can live with), he will do it.

Some readers keep complaining about Jon being boring because of the lack of his hard choices, because the circumstances usually help him to do something that turns out to be not only right choice but the honorable, not vow-contradicting one. But it would be totally OOC from Jon if he didn't do the right thing. And the right thing so far could have been argued to be the honorable one, that protects the realm and doesn't go against the oath. But the right thing can be interpreted in different ways. Is it right if he tries to protect Arya? Is it right if he helps Stannis? I think that he does all these things because he think it is the right choice. We know he sees the bigger picture, so he usually keeps in mind what will help him to defeat the Others. He thinks Stannis will help, the wildlings will help. So he does what he has to. But there are other matters as well, not connected to the Great Threat, which he can't ignore. Maybe he should, according to his vows, or at least NW custom. But that would be a choice he can't leave with. So he does whatever he thinks is right, even "if it is oathbreaking".

[Chaircat Meow]

Castle Black was almost wiped out by 70 men attacking from the south. They cannot defend themselves from the south. Waiting for Ramsay is utter suicide.

Would you at least acknowledge that Jon himself doesn't seem to think these facts give him an especially good justification for setting the watch against the Boltons. He thinks he might be involved in oathbreaking and so doesn't order any of his men to follow him. If he was convinced he was in the right and the watch ought to defend itself, why wouldn't he do this?

[dtones520]

No, that's wrong. No one is twisting the oath. CUSTOM says do not meddle. The OATH says "protect the realm." There is nothing in the actual NW oath that says do not meddle.

The point Lummel brought up, however, is a strong argument. I think the answer to the oathbreaking is in the interpretation of Jon's motivations to March to Winterfell. The way we drew it up, it placed Jon's motivations on service to the Watch, but Lummel maintained that Jon was motivated by personal vengeance. I'm still looking over the passages to see how I feel about it.

The Oath also says that "I will live and die at my post." Is Jon's post at Winterfell fighting Ramsay or is it at the Wall preparing to fight the Others? He has already established that he knows the Watches true enemy and that he was going to guard all men. Is Ramsay not a member of the "realm of men?" Do you really think that Jon is the first member of the Watch to be threatened by someone who isn't a member? Ramsay didn't threaten the Nights Watch, he threatened Jon. It would be a different story if Ramsay threatened open war against the entire Nights Watch.

[Arya Targaryen]

Would you at least acknowledge that Jon himself doesn't see to think these facts give him an especially good justification for setting the watch against the Boltons. He thinks he might be involved in oathbreaking and so doesn't order any of his men to follow him. If he was convinced he was in the right and the watch ought to defend itself, why wouldn't he do this?

He thinks it is the right choice, but it can still be viewed as oathbreaking. Jon can live with that, but he won't force his brothers to do the same.

[dtones520]

The simple fact that Ramsay threatened the Lord Commander of a neutral entity is a breach of neutrality. The Wall cannot defend itself from the South, so waiting for an attack after this warning means defeat. If Jon goes out and dies, then no one attacks the NW. If Jon goes out and wins, then there will be no attack on the Watch.

Jon actually acted first by sending Mance and the spearwives to Winterfell. If the letter is true, or somewhat true, Ramsay is acting in response to Jon openly meddling with Ramsays marriage/wife.

[butterbumps!]

The Oath also says that "I will live and die at my post." Is Jon's post at Winterfell fighting Ramsay or is it at the Wall preparing to fight the Others? He has already established that he knows the Watches true enemy and that he was going to guard all men. Is Ramsay not a member of the "realm of men?" Do you really think that Jon is the first member of the Watch to be threatened by someone who isn't a member? Ramsay didn't threaten the Nights Watch, he threatened Jon. It would be a different story if Ramsay threatened open war against the entire Nights Watch.

If Jon is acting in service to the NW by marching on Winterfell, then he is still at his post. His post is not literally being chained to the Wall. If he's marching to Winterfell to claim its title or exact personal vengeance, then he is breaching this part of the oath.

Ramsay did, in fact, threaten the NW. He threatened Jon, he asked for hostages, and said that if he didn't get said hostages, he would attack.

But I maintain that Jon's getting involved in the affairs of the realm, so long as they are performed for the explicit purpose of strengthening the Watch, is in line with the actual vow he spoke. So even if Ramsay were not attacking but preventing proper support for the Watch (which I maintain the Boltons are an impediment), I would still believe that moving to secure the North is not breaking his vow.

[Ragnorak]

I noticed a few pages back that someone (Ragnorak?) included a very lengthy list of examples of the Lannisters deliberately interfering with the Watch by trying to get prisoners, trying to force Slynt's election, and holding out on men if the Watch didn't toe the line. This is in addition to Cersei's idea to send a Kettleblack up to the Wall to assassinate Jon (which didn't happen because said Kettleblack is now in the High Septon's custody).

So, is anyone going to discuss this very tangible neutrality breach? Considering that the Boltons are Lannister stooges and everyone knows it, I dare say that that camp struck first and Jon can only react to it. He can't afford to turn away Stannis' men if King's Landing isn't sending him replacements. He can't negotiate or take no action when his very existence on the Wall isn't going to fly with that camp.

If you want to call Jon an oathbreaker, fine. I don't think he is, but I can see how it comes off that way. But don't ignore the circumstances leading up to it, and at least have the decency and intellectual honesty to admit that the Iron Throne, in Lannister control, is responsible for the situation in which Jon found himself.

There's this section from Tywin too.

Varys sighed. “They have surely earned death, Your Grace, none can deny it. And yet, perhaps we might be wiser to send them to the Night’s Watch. We have had disturbing messages from the Wall of late. Of wildlings astir…”

“Wildlings, krakens, and dragons.” Mace Tyrell chuckled. “Why, is there anyone not stirring?”

Lord Tywin ignored that. “The deserters serve us best as a lesson. Break their knees with hammers. They will not run again. Nor will any man who sees them begging in the streets.” He glanced down the table to see if any of the other lords disagreed.

Tyrion remembered his own visit to the Wall, and the crabs he’d shared with old Lord Mormont and his officers. He remembered the Old Bear’s fears as well. “Perhaps we might break the knees of a few to make our point. Those who killed Ser Jacelyn, say. The rest we can send to Marsh. The Watch is grievously under strength. If the Wall should fail…”

“…the wildlings will flood the north,” his father finished, “and the Starks and Greyjoys will have another enemy to contend with. They no longer wish to be subject to the Iron Throne, it would seem, so by what right do they look to the Iron Throne for aid? King Robb and King Balon both claim the north. Let them defend it, if they can. And if not, this Mance Rayder might even prove a useful ally.” Lord Tywin looked to his brother.

Tywin is deliberately turning men for the Watch into cripples in the hopes that the Wall will actually fall. This isn't a matter of not being able to spare men because of a war. The NW is not the "they" that no longer wished to be subject to the Iron Throne and Tywin knows it. He is simply viewing the fall of the NW as a boon of suffering for his enemies. The NW had men from all Seven Kingdoms support it while they were seven seperate kingdoms. It was never an institution solely of the North. This is not only a complete abdication of responsibility but a deliberate sabotage so that the NW will take part in the affairs of the Seven Kingdoms by being wiped out. In contrast to this we're bickering over whether Jon is an oathbreaker because he helped Stannis read a map.

[dtones520]

Jon doesn't know Cersei is plotting to kill him, but he does know the Lannisters sent Slynt with Thorne and they did try and kill him. Tywin sent a letter to the Watch basically saying that unless you elect Slynt LC expect no help. Aside from reading the letter, Thorne and Slynt went around to everyone driving that point home. All the men that would have gone to the NW went to Aurane Waters for his ships. So they did stop sending men as they had threatened.

Castle Black was almost wiped out by 70 men attacking from the south. They cannot defend themselves from the south. Waiting for Ramsay is utter suicide.

Janos was sent to the Wall by Tyrion. Thorne had no love froze Jon from day one and Jon gave them pretty good reason to question whether or not he broke his vows. He obviously didn't, but it isn't out of this world to understand their raising an eyebrow. As for Tywin's letter, he had an opinion on who should lead the watch, he gave them an ultimatum and they didn't listen. That was in their rights.

As for Castle Black, it was also defended by a token force when the Wildlings attacked. It is much more heavily guarded now with Wildling Soldiers, better men of the Watch, Queens men, a giant and Melisandre. So it's all hypothetical on how that battle would turn out.

[Chaircat Meow]

He thinks it is the right choice, but it can still be viewed as oathbreaking. Jon can live with that, but he won't force his brothers to do the same.

I'm not sure in what sense your using the word right. Do you mean right from the perspective of the oath or just right, as in, the right thing to do? Because if its the latter that doesn't necessarily address the point.

Anyway, for my part, I just find it too weird that if the Watch and the realm were Jon's primary motivations, he wouldn't either think about matters like this, or state his case explicitly.

[summer_stark]

The whole oath versus custom debate reminds me of constitional law--much of what has been interpreted as being in the constitution is nowhere in its text; however, that does not mean these laws are not part of the constitution. It just means that they're found in the "penumbras" of the text. Many privacy rights derive from the implications of the 4th and 14th amendments, but aren't found anywhere in the text of those amendments.

Therefore, for the NW having sex and taking part in politics of the realm is oath breaking because the vows are interpreted to mean that they can't do either. They are necessary, implied parts of the vow--at least in the minds of the people of westeros. We may disagree b/c sex doesn't necessarily lead to fathering children, but that's not our call to make. Also, the implication of guarding the realms of men--all men--is that they must be neutral to do so. We may disagree, but thats the penumbra for them and why they think it's an implied part of the oath.

That said, I don't think Jon has broken his oath--not yet at least. He'd have to leave without the intent to return in order to be a deserter. Intent without action is not desertion. Most crimes require both an act and the proper intent. You can't convict someone of robbery for saying they're going to rob walmart--you may be able to convict them of other crimes--conspiracy if there's more than one party. But desertion is not that type of crime. That's why Mormont posted guards to watch Jon in AGOT, instead of charging him before he left.

As for aiding Stannis, I think much of it stems from guest right and necessity. He didn't technically take part, he just offered some words of wisdom to a guest.

Either way though, it's clear that Jon is indifferent to the question of whether going to fight Ramsay is deserting. I think it's not since Sam and Benjen are proof of the fact that men leave and Benjen was going for personal interest. It's just a vacation of sorts. And it just happens that on Jon's vacation he's going to kill Ramsay.