What do people think Barristan should have done?

[Loose Bolton]

I think we are supposed to see Barristan the Bold as a flawed character, as with everyone in the series. I don't think that his honor is as strong as Ned's, because I feel that Barristan's honor is often fairly selfish. There is a little bit of the narcissist inside the man.

This makes sense. He was not the leader of the kingsguard during Aerys' reign. He joins under men that he revered, like the White Bull, and then, much like Sansa or Brienne, slowly watches as his king and the court destroy his sense of romance and idealization. So what does he do? He turns inward. He focuses only on his honor and his actions, and tells himself that he can't be held responsible for the actions of others. Very Kantian...and so very lame. It's an abdication of morality to sit back on one's "principles"...far harder to confront every new situation for what it is.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Knights have vows to protect women, the weak etc. Gregor is breaking those by raiding the Riverlands.

So does Barristan.

[Rinso]

Even though neither of those things happen, we never hear anyone call him a turncloak and Robert appoints him LC and he sits on the SC so he's clearly trusted.

I thought about this recently. I think it's a matter of the way they let people's... legends, for a lack of a better word, speak for them. Like the way everyone sees Tyrion as the depraved Imp, or Jaime as the vile Kingslayer, or Viserys as the pathetic Beggar King and so on. It's the same with Barristan, only reversed. The other characters don't really judge the man, they judge the legend of Barristan the Bold. If they judged the man... I honestly see no difference between him and Ser Donnel Swann who managed to swear his sword to almost every combatant in the War of the Five Kings (as lampshaded by Jaime in ASOS during a conversation with Balon Swann).

[NightStark]

So does Barristan.

Conflicting vows are part of the series, we should all know that as this stage.

The KG couldn't protect and obey Aerys' and do the same for his wife. They keep the oath to him, they're breaking their vows as a knight, If they decide to protect her, they're breaking the oath to him, they'll probably have to kill him..kingslayer.

Same in Gregor's case, can't obey his liege lord and protect the smallfolk..not that he cares about them anyway.

Can't keep all the vows, some must be sacrificed to keep others. I'm sure in some series there are shining knights that can do the impossible and keep both but this is ASoIaF.

[Blackfish Tully]

Barristan should have quit the KG when the king changed.He should have accepted Robert's fogiveness, but it was a bad move remaining at the KG. At best, he will be seen as a pretty useful sworman but a turncloak nonetheless, at worst he will be seen as a Targ suporter, so noone will trust him with his KG duties.

Did he have a choice when it came to staying in the Kingsguard? I don't think he had the option to just up and quit.

Robert seemed to have no trouble trusting him nor did Ned, They both seemed to understand that he was not responsible for the Mad King's actions.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Conflicting vows are part of the series, we should all know that as this stage.

The KG couldn't protect and obey Aerys' and do the same for his wife. They keep the oath to him, they're breaking their vows as a knight, If they decide to protect her, they're breaking the oath to him, they'll probably have to kill him..kingslayer.

Same in Gregor's case, can't obey his liege lord and protect the smallfolk..not that he cares about them anyway.

Can't keep all the vows, some must be sacrificed to keep others. I'm sure in some series there are shining knights that can do the impossible and keep both but this is ASoIaF.

You are spot on. But which oath should they adhere to? Morally? In the modern sense?

[NightStark]

You are spot on. But which oath should they adhere to? Morally? In the modern sense?

Of course the oath to protect women, Aerys was clearly the aggressor so his rights should be forfeit, just as if in another siatuation a woman attempted to kill the king, the KG would have to leave one vow aside and kill the woman to protect the king.

You have to remember that even today some places don't recognise spousal rape, it's just not a crime..men are able to 'claim their rights' as a husband if you will..legally. That would have been even more prevalent years ago, I presume it would be the same in Westeros so if the KG view it as a lesser crime than disobeying their king..then you can understand it somewhat..you don't have to like it but you have to see it through their eyes.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Of course the oath to protect women, Aerys was clearly the aggressor so his rights should be forfeit, just as if in another siatuation a woman attempted to kill the king, the KG would have to leave one vow aside and kill the woman to protect the king.

You have to remember that even today some places don't recognise spousal rape, it's just not a crime..men are able to 'claim their rights' as a husband if you will..legally. That would have been even more prevalent years ago, I presume it would be the same in Westeros so if the KG view it as a lesser crime than disobeying their king..then you can understand it somewhat..you don't have to like it but you have to see it through their eyes.

Of course. And I have no problem with the Westerosi praising Barristan and his peers for enabling Aerys raping Rhaella and the like. My problem are the modern readers doing the same.

[NightStark]

I see what you're saying but if a reader calls Barristan or any of the other KG 'honourable' etc. they're not trivialising rape or excusing his actions to whitewash him. They're saying that he meets the Westerosi definition of honourable, of course we wouldn't think he was honourable if he lived today but if he did live today he would probably gut Aerys because he would have our values.

There is pretty much nobody in ASoIaF that is completely honourable or a true knight..even Arthur Dayne who is often a benchmark.

I would call Barristan, Ned, A. Dayne etc. honourable..but honourable by the standards of their time, they've all done things which would be frowned upon now.

I just remember in the back of my mind that's it's impossible for them to keep all these different vows, their views on some situations are different and that they can only act according to the situation. I'm sure Barristan and Arthur would have preferred Aerys to be sane and not raping his wife, but that wasn't to be and they have to act as they think best and in line with how they view different acts.

[Frey Pentos]

I see what you're saying but if a reader calls Barristan or any of the other KG 'honourable' etc. they're not trivialising rape or excusing his actions to whitewash him. They're saying that he meets the Westerosi definition of honourable, of course we wouldn't think he was honourable if he lived today but if he did live today he would probably gut Aerys because he would have our values.

I find it absurd how many people judge these fictional characters living in a fictionalised world, by modern standards of morality and human rights. I really don't know how you can even get into this world if you let presentism intrude into the imagination like that.

[Gneisenau]

If we must judge ASOIAF people by modern morality, than everyone is evil by virtue of being a misogynist.

[Frey Pentos]

If we must judge ASOIAF people by modern morality, than everyone is evil by virtue of being a misogynist.

Even the women?

[Mark Antony]

Don't you bring logic into this discussion.

You want it to be one way

[Aetta]

Stauffenberg only turned against Hitler when he thought Germany had lost the war. He joined existing plotters as well. Why would Barristan have acted alone and murdered his King just because Aerys burned a couple of Starks?

And sometimes it's easy to forget that the KG are not entirely alone in the world. Barristan had a family, perhaps brothers, sisters, parents still around, etc. It would be very easy for a mad king like Aerys to make an example of anyone that crossed him by going after their family-eh hm, like calling out Jon Arryn's "sons." And frankly we don't know enough about Rhaegar to know what he would do to Barristan for killing his father.

Ned and Jamie's dynamic always stands out here-Jamie probably believes Ned owes him a big ole thank you for killing Aerys, the man that murdered Ned's family. Yet, Ned's honor dictates that there is no excuse for kingslaying, no matter the reason. What if Rhaegar felt the same way? Ser Barristan the Bold could very well be Ser Barristan of the Black Cells, or worse.

And speaking of Ned, when it came to a direct threat to his family, Ned left his honor at the door not once, with Jon, but again with his daughters when he tried to pacify Joffrey for their benefit. If-and we have no textual evidence of it-but if Barristan's family was at stake, he might just turn a blind eye and deaf ear as well.

[HexMachina]

Barristan should have quit the KG when the king changed.He should have accepted Robert's fogiveness, but it was a bad move remaining at the KG. At best, he will be seen as a pretty useful sworman but a turncloak nonetheless, at worst he will be seen as a Targ suporter, so noone will trust him with his KG duties.

You cant just "quit" the Kingsguard. Until Joffrey's dismissal.of Barristan, it was a position held until death. Barristan either had to continue to serve under Robert or refuse to accept forgiveness and likely be killed

[Faydra]

Accept Robert's forgiveness and play his part nicely until he finds an opportunity to flee and take care of Dany and Viserys.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

First off, I think the entire premise of the Kingsguard being the best knights in the kingdom is a complete perversion of the normative view of knighthood. Knights ideally work to protect the weak and defenseless in society; the royal family is the exact opposite, being the most powerful family in the country and actually the ones exploiting the common people for wealth and political power.

Having said that, assuming Barristan saw Aerys's reign through to the very end, I think it was a mistake for him to join Robert's Kingsguard. He should have declined, pointed out that by fighting for Aerys it was inappropriate, whatever, and gone into retirement or taken up some other office.

I don't even have that much of a problem with Barristan going to Dany, in and of itself. If he had declined Robert's Kingsguard invitation but then left to join Dany because he thought she was Aerys's heir, then that's one thing. But Barristan had no problem serving Robert's dynasty until he was sacked, and then he suddenly found a conscious regarding Targaryens and their rights.

[PrinceHenryris]

Let Tywin put Duskendale to the sword.

Aerys dies. Rhaeghar becomes king.

Hence Westeros does better, but we don't get these stories.

[Stan the Man Baratheon]

I don't even have that much of a problem with Barristan going to Dany, in and of itself. If he had declined Robert's Kingsguard invitation but then left to join Dany because he thought she was Aerys's heir, then that's one thing. But Barristan had no problem serving Robert's dynasty until he was sacked, and then he suddenly found a conscious regarding Targaryens and their rights.

THIS. Barristan suddenly gets an epiphany that he has to join Daenerys only after being kicked out of Baratheon rule.

The man is so full of hypocrisy. He stood idly by the rape and torture of innocent people. And when Jaime got rid of that monster, he berates and judges Jaime.

[Olligarchy]

Let Tywin put Duskendale to the sword.

Aerys dies. Rhaeghar becomes king.

Hence Westeros does better, but we don't get these stories.

I agree with this fully.