Was Jon Really Breaking his Vows?

[nirolo]

The spirit of the Oath is to defend the Realms of men. All else is secondary.

Actually, the spirit of the Oath is to defend the Realms of men from the Others. And getting tangled in the politics of the Realm detracts the NW from achieving that.

[Ghost's Shadow]

That ship sailed when the Night's Watch appealed for help from every claimant to the Iron Throne.

The spirit of the Oath is to defend the Realms of men. All else is secondary.

Not to mention that, if the NW becomes so low in population/unpopular that brothers need to travel to KL to beg the King for more people and they can then take men from prison (and that's the largest chunk of people they seem to get these days) then there's a HUGE problem.

The need to beg = not being neutral either.

[nirolo]

Not to mention that, if the NW becomes so low in population/unpopular that brothers need to travel to KL to beg the King for more people and they can then take men from prison (and that's the largest chunk of people they seem to get these days) then there's a HUGE problem.

The need to beg = not being neutral either.

I disagree. The NW can stay neutral and has achieved in doing so (for the most part of its existence) as long as the lords of the Seven Kingdoms do not feel threatened by the NW's existence. Jon violated this neutrality when he threatened to deprive a lord of his wife.

[Chaircat Meow]

Benjen was wrong. There is no such pledge.

This is legalistic, but the criticism of Jon is legalistic.

Aemon also used the word pledge when he describes the purpose of the nw vow to Jon in GoT.

So yea, both Benjen and Aemon are wrong, ok ...

[Ghost's Shadow]

What a surprise.

[nirolo]

Benjen was wrong.

Wow.

So this is what your argument boils down to...

[SeanF]

Actually, the spirit of the Oath is to defend the Realms of men from the Others. And getting tangled in the politics of the Realm detracts the NW from achieving that.

Yes, but whatever Jon (or any alternative Lord Commander) does or doesn't do, entangles him in the politics of the Realm, once the Iron Throne has ignored the NW's appeal for help, and left them having to appeal to rivals.

[nirolo]

Yes, but whatever Jon (or any alternative Lord Commander) does or doesn't do, entangles him in the politics of the Realm, once the Iron Throne has ignored the NW's appeal for help, and left them having to appeal to rivals.

LIke I said above, neutrality is defined by whether the lords of the Seven Kingdoms feel threatened by the existence of the NW. This is made painfully clear in Benjen's quote, which you appear to not accept.

The NW begging for prisoners and outcasts from different factions of the realm does not violate this concept of neutrality because it does not threaten the lords' existence.

Jon's actions clearly violate this concept of neutrality when he conspires to get Ramsay's bride out of Westeros, thus conspiring against a lord of the Seven Kingdoms and threatening his existence.

[SeanF]

LIke I said above, neutrality is defined by whether the lords of the Seven Kingdoms feel threatened by the existence of the NW. This is made painfully clear in Benjen's quote, which you appear to not accept.

The NW begging for prisoners and outcasts from different factions of the realm does not violate this concept of neutrality because it does not threaten the lords' existence.

Jon's actions clearly violate this concept of neutrality when he conspires to get Ramsay's bride out of Westeros, thus conspiring against a lord of the Seven Kingdoms and threatening his existence.

Appealing for help to Stannis, and accepting his assistance, and provisioning him, goes way beyond seeking a few prisoners. The principle of neutrality had gone by the time Jon was elected. Times have changed.

[bemused]

The principle of neutrality was gone before that. It was broken with Tywin's letter, and Bowen , Slynt and Thorne trying to manipulate the election .

ETA; Yes , Benjen and Aemon were wrong about the oath .Everybody's concept of the oath had been warped for a very long time.The oath itself has been added to to suit the political leaders, and beyond even that , conventions are being thought of as part of the oath that haven't actually been added.

The NW was entitled to appeal to the lords individually ,as well as to the King. That those lords now call themselves King doesn't alter the NW"s right , or the lords' / kings' obligation. Even the conventions don't yet prohibit offending Tywin Lannister's pride.

[butterbumps!]

I really want to re- emphasize the lack of "The Watch takes no part" in the vow itself, as well as the fact that neutrality has been repeatedly breached numerous times. Had Lannister men not chosen to ignore the Watch's neutrality when they decided to attack Yoren, Arya would could have gotten to the Wall and "loosing Mance" would be a fairly moot point.

There's a more important consideration here, though. Never before in the history we've seen of the NW has the Watch been as vulnerable and neglected as it is currently. There doesn't appear to be a precedent to dealing with the implosion of the Watch due to neglect and antagonism from the realm. All of the previous crises of the realm did not appear to have any effect on the Watch itself (and, not to mention, a Winter apocalypse wasn't coming). While individual members of the Watch have been "tested," there's no indication that the Watch itself has ever been "tested" in this way.

So, what the Watch is facing now is completely uncharted territory. For this reason, I find it REALLY interesting that "the Watch takes no part" is not actually part of the vow. No matter how you cut it, this simply is not part of the binding oath they take. It's a custom that has made sense for the 8,000 or however many years when the Watch was uncompromised. It even became a law (Yoren states this in Clash), but part of the vow it's not. There can be no reasonable denial of the fact that in its current state, the Watch can't possibly perform the function it was sworn to do without some navigation into the territory of "taking part." And, interestingly enough, the vows of the Watch do not actually forbid this. Ergo, "taking part," in the abstract, is not actually "oathbreaking." This is exactly what I was getting at when I put down Aemon's words about preferring ravens. The Watch prefers the birds that do whatever it takes for survival.

I don't think Jon actually "broke" his vow at any point in the series. I do think he broke with the Watch, which is something slightly different.

The Vow

This is the meat of the vow, the part that speaks to the purpose of the Watch and what the men are pledging to uphold:

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

These are the "admin" parts of the vow, the parts that speak to how the men will uphold their pledge:

Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post.....I pledge my life and honor to the Night’s Watch, for this night and all the nights to come.

They are pledging to keep vigil against (implicitly) the Long Night in perpetuity. In order to do this satisfactorily, they swear to remain unmarried, leave no legacy, or gain profit while in service. They renounce inherited titles and vow to carry out their service anonymously. The reason for these clauses, as Aemon explains, is to ensure that there can be no divided loyalties that interfere with the NW service. The "spirit" of this section implies that a Watchman must remain loyal only to the NW and to not compromise the purpose of the NW.

Now things get interesting. Posters often point these clauses as stating that the spirit of the vows imply that the "Watch takes no part." I wholly reject this extrapolation. It's about compromising the Watch; it's not so circumscribed as "don't get involved." When the realm was healthier, it would have compromised the Watch to get involved in affairs. Now that the realm is what it is, it would compromise the Watch to not get involved. As long as getting involved is the course that ensures the Watch's survival, involvement does fall within the bounds of the vow itself.

Jon's compromise of the Watch

Given the cause-effect of the Arya mission in relation to Ramsay's direct threat on the Watch, it's unquestionable that the Mance mission did, in fact, compromise the Watch. But there's two major things I believe are important when considering this mission. Firstly, I don't believe that this was Jon's major break with the Watch as an intentional, conscious choice. This is a subtle point, but I think it's important in terms of Jon's character development. I think Jon actually thought he was operating within the technical loopholes of the vow as Mel laid out. Secondly, I'm not 100% certain I understand what Jon actually knew of the mission, nor am I certain how much say he really had in the matter.

Yes, undoubtedly Jon wanted Arya to be rescued. This is a case where he personally wanted something extraneous to NW business due to residual loyalties. In a moral sense, I firmly believe that trying to rescue Arya was the right thing to do. At this stage, it was clear that Arya's life would be forfeit married to Ramsay. It also seemed clear that Mance's reappearance offered the only means by which this could happen. So, yes, Jon is motivated to save her for reasons the vows forbid, though, I do think he has the moral right of it.

But it's not so simple as calling this a case where Jon is actually doing something the vows forbid (even if his own motivation points that way). He refuses to hear of any sort of rescue mission until Melisandre explains how sending Mance would keep his hands clean in terms of the oath. It could be argued that this is a case where Jon would be keeping the word of the oath, but not the spirit. But it's not even that simple. Mance isn't his prisoner, and he has no control over Mel. I mean, this is really Mel's mission. It would have happened with or without Jon's blessing. There shouldn't be any debate on that, I don't think. Jon didn't "send" Mance, and Arya was getting "rescued" no matter what.

But the "blessing" is the most interesting part of this for me. As I see it, Jon is absolved of direct responsibility in the Mance mission because his saying no wouldn't have changed it. But the fact that he wanted it is what's important. He later chastises himself for "loosing Mance" and takes responsibility. It's not that he's literally at fault for this, but the fact that he deeply wants Arya saved despite the fact that he's not supposed to have sisters floods him with guilt. Any backlash that comes from sending Mance isn't really his "fault," though the fact that he wants her saved is enough for him to accept responsibility for the mission and any repercussions to follow. So I think this is very nuanced.

[Julian Rayne]

Isn't Mance as a former member of the Watch Jon's responsibility? As long as he has anything to say about him that is?

I mean I personally don't think Mance's vows were valid but as long as they are considered binding, any action of his that's sanctioned even tacitly by Jon becomes his responsibility.

[Nyrhex]

I really want to re- emphasize the lack of "The Watch takes no part" in the vow itself, as well as the fact that neutrality has been repeatedly breached numerous times. Had Lannister men not chosen to ignore the Watch's neutrality when they decided to attack Yoren, Arya would could have gotten to the Wall and "loosing Mance" would be a fairly moot point.

There's a more important consideration here, though. Never before in the history we've seen of the NW has the Watch been as vulnerable and neglected as it is currently. There doesn't appear to be a precedent to dealing with the implosion of the Watch due to neglect and antagonism from the realm. All of the previous crises of the realm did not appear to have any effect on the Watch itself (and, not to mention, a Winter apocalypse wasn't coming). While individual members of the Watch have been "tested," there's no indication that the Watch itself has ever been "tested" in this way.

So, what the Watch is facing now is completely uncharted territory. For this reason, I find it REALLY interesting that "the Watch takes no part" is not actually part of the vow. No matter how you cut it, this simply is not part of the binding oath they take. It's a custom that has made sense for the 8,000 or however many years when the Watch was uncompromised. It even became a law (Yoren states this in Clash), but part of the vow it's not. There can be no reasonable denial of the fact that in its current state, the Watch can't possibly perform the function it was sworn to do without some navigation into the territory of "taking part." And, interestingly enough, the vows of the Watch do not actually forbid this. Ergo, "taking part," in the abstract, is not actually "oathbreaking." This is exactly what I was getting at when I put down Aemon's words about preferring ravens. The Watch prefers the birds that do whatever it takes for survival.

I don't think Jon actually "broke" his vow at any point in the series. I do think he broke with the Watch, which is something slightly different.

The Vow

This is the meat of the vow, the part that speaks to the purpose of the Watch and what the men are pledging to uphold:

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

These are the "admin" parts of the vow, the parts that speak to how the men will uphold their pledge:

Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post.....I pledge my life and honor to the Night’s Watch, for this night and all the nights to come.

They are pledging to keep vigil against (implicitly) the Long Night in perpetuity. In order to do this satisfactorily, they swear to remain unmarried, leave no legacy, or gain profit while in service. They renounce inherited titles and vow to carry out their service anonymously. The reason for these clauses, as Aemon explains, is to ensure that there can be no divided loyalties that interfere with the NW service. The "spirit" of this section implies that a Watchman must remain loyal only to the NW and to not compromise the purpose of the NW.

Now things get interesting. Posters often point these clauses as stating that the spirit of the vows imply that the "Watch takes no part." I wholly reject this extrapolation. It's about compromising the Watch; it's not so circumscribed as "don't get involved." When the realm was healthier, it would have compromised the Watch to get involved in affairs. Now that the realm is what it is, it would compromise the Watch to not get involved. As long as getting involved is the course that ensures the Watch's survival, involvement does fall within the bounds of the vow itself.

Jon's compromise of the Watch

Given the cause-effect of the Arya mission in relation to Ramsay's direct threat on the Watch, it's unquestionable that the Mance mission did, in fact, compromise the Watch. But there's two major things I believe are important when considering this mission. Firstly, I don't believe that this was Jon's major break with the Watch as an intentional, conscious choice. This is a subtle point, but I think it's important in terms of Jon's character development. I think Jon actually thought he was operating within the technical loopholes of the vow as Mel laid out. Secondly, I'm not 100% certain I understand what Jon actually knew of the mission, nor am I certain how much say he really had in the matter.

Yes, undoubtedly Jon wanted Arya to be rescued. This is a case where he personally wanted something extraneous to NW business due to residual loyalties. In a moral sense, I firmly believe that trying to rescue Arya was the right thing to do. At this stage, it was clear that Arya's life would be forfeit married to Ramsay. It also seemed clear that Mance's reappearance offered the only means by which this could happen. So, yes, Jon is motivated to save her for reasons the vows forbid, though, I do think he has the moral right of it.

But it's not so simple as calling this a case where Jon is actually doing something the vows forbid (even if his own motivation points that way). He refuses to hear of any sort of rescue mission until Melisandre explains how sending Mance would keep his hands clean in terms of the oath. It could be argued that this is a case where Jon would be keeping the word of the oath, but not the spirit. But it's not even that simple. Mance isn't his prisoner, and he has no control over Mel. I mean, this is really Mel's mission. It would have happened with or without Jon's blessing. There shouldn't be any debate on that, I don't think. Jon didn't "send" Mance, and Arya was getting "rescued" no matter what.

But the "blessing" is the most interesting part of this for me. As I see it, Jon is absolved of direct responsibility in the Mance mission because his saying no wouldn't have changed it. But the fact that he wanted it is what's important. He later chastises himself for "loosing Mance" and takes responsibility. It's not that he's literally at fault for this, but the fact that he deeply wants Arya saved despite the fact that he's not supposed to have sisters floods him with guilt. Any backlash that comes from sending Mance isn't really his "fault," though the fact that he wants her saved is enough for him to accept responsibility for the mission and any repercussions to follow. So I think this is very nuanced.

That was an excellent post butterbumps. Unfortunately, I have to disagree. I shall live and die at my post. This part of the vow is the one I think is the basis for "The Watch takes no part". It implies that the Watchmen's duty is the only task he has. Jon does not only leave his post, knowing full well that he is not supposed to leave his post and get involved in this matter, he asks if anyone wishes to join him.

Jon's actions, from his handeling with Alys Karstark, to sending Mance, to leaving the Watch to fight Ramsay, are all interventions that compromise the Watch. To us readers it feels like the right thing to do, after Martin wrote the Karstarks and Ramsay as villans. But it is against the Watch's interests to get involved. Using the first excuse to use force against Cregan Karstark, and taking him captive. Cooperate with Mel and Mance when Stannis clearly sentenced Mance to die. Gathering men to attack Ramsay for demanding Jon to remain neutral and give him what Jon did not have to give, purely out of his personal involvement. These actions are not defending the Watch. They are not promoting the interests of the Watch. And they go against the Watch's rules, code, and his sacred vow.

Yes, Jon did break his vow, and he did compromise the Watch. Pretending that Jon did not know what the rules were, or that he could rationalise his actions as falling inside the law of the Watch, is ignoring Jon's charachter, and the text itself.

“The Night’s Watch takes no part in the wars of the Seven Kingdoms,” Jon reminded them when

some semblance of quiet had returned. “It is not for us to oppose the Bastard of Bolton, to avenge

Stannis Baratheon, to defend his widow and his daughter. This creature who makes cloaks from the

skins of women has sworn to cut my heart out, and I mean to make him answer for those words … but I

will not ask my brothers to forswear their vows.

[Ragnorak]

Neutrality

With regard to neutrality, it is a two way street. The very nature of neutrality makes it so-- Switzerland could not have remained neutral in WWII if Nazi tanks started rolling across its border. If those tanks rolled it would not be have been Switzerland that violated their stance on neutrality. The same would be true if either the Axis or Allies started imposing demands on Switzerland's behavior or economic activities or disposition of foreign nationals on their soil. Again, if those demands were made it would not be Switzerland that broke neutrality.

The Watch sent out five letters to the five people claiming to be King when the Watch needed aid. For the first 7,700 years of their existence it would have been seven letters or more under similar circumstances because there were seven Kings, even more if one goes back far enough. If any two or more of those Kings had been at war those letters would not have been perceived by a single person in the realm as remotely violating the neutrality stance. In fact not sending a letter to each one could be perceived as violating neutrality. If kingdom A claimed dominion over kingdom B and the Watch chose not to send a letter to Kingdom B as a result that would be "taking part" however minor the transgression.

Had one of those Kings sent aid and the lords commanding the armies that went to the Wall had to bring their families because they were abandoning their castles to help the Watch those family members would fall under the protection of the Lord Commander. He would not only be under no obligation to turn them over to anyone in the Seven Kingdoms demanding them, it would be within his rights to shelter them, assist in their transportation to Essos, or otherwise arrange for their safe accommodations. What kind of future message does it send about the consequences of aiding the Watch if he didn't? With multiple Kings the Watch is clearly subject to no one and this is easy to see. The notion that the Watch is subject to a single King muddies the water, but on analysis makes the issue perfectly clear-- by claiming to be the one true King and demanding the Watch act accordingly it is that King that is violating the neutrality and not the Watch.

The circumstances confronting Jon with a warring Seven Kingdoms and no single ruler happen to resemble the first 7,700 years of the Watch's existence-- that's 96.25% of their history. The notion of the Watch being subject to a single King only emerged after the Conquest and is a minor blip in their overall history and a very very recent development compared to the inception of "take no part." Prior to that it was normal for the kingdoms to war and equally incumbent on the Kings to not bring the NW into their conflicts as it was on the LC not to enter them. So it is Tywin's notion that the Watch should only send a letter to him that violates the neutrality, not Jon (or Bowen Marsh) sending letters to all five Kings. The notion that the Watch takes no part originated in a time with no single ruler and a NW that was never subject to any King. Under those circumstances Jon would never be subject to any of these Kings' authority even after the war was settled. If this war were to have ended with seven separate kingdoms and Jon still as LC, nothing he did would be of any consequence relative to "taking part." He only needs to fear Kings taking the Iron Throne who would seek retribution for him not taking part on their side which pretty much says everything we need to know about who is breaking neutrality.

Mance and Winterfell

Jon did not send Mance to Winterfell-- period. That is just a fact. At the end of the semantic debates and hair splitting there should be some daylight between the accountability attributed to Jon for the role he did play and the accountability that ought to be attributed to him if he had in fact outright ordered Mance to Winterfell to steal Arya. I don't really see any of that daylight in the posts holding Jon responsible.

[Djinn]

So Jeyne is a piece of property now? Even though she's there against her will?

I'm also not sure where you're getting this "kidnapping" nonsense from. Jon did not send Mance and the spearwives to Winterfell. He allowed them to go pick up someone they thought was Arya (Alys) who was already one the road (read: not in Winterfell). Mance and his ladies did go to Winterfell, but that specifically was not at Jon's direction.

Jon had no way of knowing 'Arya' was on the road, having escaped the Boltons, based on what Mel told him. She admitted she had no idea when her visions came to pass. Jon doesn't even think the Boltons (with Arya in tow) had reached Winterfell when he 'loosed' Mance. He defined no operational limits either, which he could have done. Is Mance allowed to follow 'Arya' is she double backs or rescue her if she is recaptured before she gets to Jon ...

So what? He told him to go and get his sister. The spearwives did. He did not tell them to wait at Long Lake and then come straight back as some people would have it.

This is all the more hilarious as the poster you were responding to did not mention Winterfell at all.

Check and mate.

[jentario]

I think that he thought he was breaking his vows (whether or not he really was) and that is all that matters. Especially since it isn't his first time doing that (even if he had no choice the first time). He was already on thin ice before and the fact he was treating the Watch's enemies so well after being with them, against the request of all his men and without much explaining either... I think his last move was only the last straw. He had it coming, as much as I agree with his motivations he had it coming.

[butterbumps!]

That was an excellent post butterbums. Unfortunately, I have to disagree. I shall live and die at my post. This part of the vow is the one I think is the basis for "The Watch takes no part". It implies that the Watchmen's duty is the only task he has. Jon does not only leave his post, knowing full well that he is not supposed to leave his post and get involved in this matter, he asks if anyone wishes to join him.

I'm not buying that either. When taking no part means that the post itself will die, then it is in conflict with the real substance of the vow to protect the realm. This "takes no part" business is about not compromising the Watch, which made sense when the Watch was able to fulfill the purpose part of the vow.

Jon's actions, from his handeling with Alys Karstark, to sending Mance, to leaving the Watch to fight Ramsay, are all interventions that compromise the Watch. To us readers it feels like the right thing to do, after Martin wrote the Karstarks and Ramsay as villans. But it is against the Watch's interests to get involved. Using the first excuse to use force against Cregan Karstark, and taking him captive. Cooperate with Mel and Mance when Stannis clearly sentenced Mance to die. Gathering men to attack Ramsay for demanding Jon to remain neutral and give him what Jon did not have to give, purely out of his personal involvement. These actions are not defending the Watch. They are not promoting the interests of the Watch. And they go against the Watch's rules, code, and his sacred vow.

The Alys thing doesn't compromise the Watch, and Jon didn't send Mance, though Mance's mission did compromise the Watch ultimately.

His dealings with Stannis and Alys did, actually, help the Watch, and were done for the purposes of keeping the Watch functional.

Yes, Jon did break his vow, and he did compromise the Watch. Pretending that Jon did not know what the rules were, or that he could rationalise his actions as falling inside the law of the Watch, is ignoring Jon's charachter, and the text itself.

lol. I'm ignoring Jon's character and the text. That's a new one.

If you actually think this, could you go back over my post?

Jon very much thinks that in the chapter he agrees to the Mance mission that he's actually operating within the vows. He's lying to himself, of course, but he does think that he's within the rules. It's a bit later when he faces the fact that he really wanted her saved despite how he's not supposed to have sisters that he sees the conflict more truly.

I wrote out here where I think Jon went against the Watch and possibly even the vows themselves. To clarify, I believe that his dealings with Stannis, Ygritte, and Alys are within the spirit of his vows. I also believe that defending himself and the Watch from Ramsay is within the vow. He stepped outside of the vow in terms of his personal motivations and hopes for the Mance mission and his stated reasons for going after Ramsay.

[Dagon Greyjoy]

Why would a commander be bound to the rules, anyway? The commander leads the watch and is its ultimate authority. He makes the rules.

I find the idea of everyone being subject to fixed, unchangeable rules abhorrent. Somebody has to have the ability to say: This is bullshit, we're gonna make changes: In a sworn brotherhood, that person would be their elected commander. If nobody can, the Watch is a decadent, degenerate and stagnant organization that deserves its destruction.

[Julian Rayne]

Why would a commander be bound to the rules, anyway? The commander leads the watch and is its ultimate authority. He makes the rules.

I find the idea of everyone being subject to fixed, unchangeable rules abhorrent. Somebody has to have the ability to say: This is bullshit, we're gonna make changes: In a sworn brotherhood, that person would be their elected commander. If nobody can, the Watch is a decadent, degenerate and stagnant organization that deserves its destruction.

That's a pretty intriguing perspective. I agree in that the Lord Commander makes some rules but is subject to the others, the same way a modern President has a great deal of power but is still limited by the Constitution.

In the end the only "constitution" that the Watch has is its vows. Anything that ultimately worls towards the cause of 'defending the realms of men' can be argued as within the rules of the Watch.

[Nyrhex]

The Alys thing doesn't compromise the Watch, and Jon didn't send Mance, though Mance's mission did compromise the Watch ultimately.

His dealings with Stannis and Alys did, actually, help the Watch, and were done for the purposes of keeping the Watch functional.

Making Karhold an enemy isn't compromising the Watch? And allowing Mance to Winterfell means he is doing what exactly, following the king's order?

lol. I'm ignoring Jon's character and the text. That's a new one.

If you actually think this, could you go back over my post?

Jon very much thinks that in the chapter he agrees to the Mance mission that he's actually operating within the vows. He's lying to himself, of course, but he does think that he's within the rules. It's a bit later when he faces the fact that he really wanted her saved despite how he's not supposed to have sisters that he sees the conflict more truly.

I wrote out here where I think Jon went against the Watch and possibly even the vows themselves. To clarify, I believe that his dealings with Stannis, Ygritte, and Alys are within the spirit of his vows. I also believe that defending himself and the Watch from Ramsay is within the vow. He stepped outside of the vow in terms of his personal motivations and hopes for the Mance mission and his stated reasons for going after Ramsay.

Jon acknowledges that what he is doing is breaking his vow. He says so to everyone in the hall. You dismiss both the part of the vow that speaks of remaining at his post, and the part where he calls his action breaking his vow. You don't accept the text as is, and look further into it, to find out what Jon is actually doing, according to your interpretation. Ignoring the text isn't always a bad thing. I do it constantly in my biblical archaeology classes when the biblical text doesn't go right with the findings. However, I did not see you refering to the part of the text I quoted and which, in my opinion, shows that Jon was indeed breaking his vow, and that he was aware and accepting of it. I have read the post you linked, but there you go out of the assumption that Ramsay threatened the Watch itself, while the threat was only in case Jon breaks the neutrality first, and more importantly, against Jon himself.