The questionable morality of the code of honor

[Bryanfury]

Honor is the greenlander excuse for oppression and sheer stupidity. That is all.

I guess reaving is just the Ironborn excuse for sociopathic tendancies

[Wmarshal]

If the king is clearly in the wrong it is time to follow the code of a knight, as Davos did.

[new djinn]

Honor has multiple interpretations within the story. Barristan, Ned, Davos, Qhorin, Jaime and even Tywin have diferent views about it. Some are about a somewhat rigid code of rules, other see it as a scale of morality and other still look at it as a aspect of reputation. A lot the story deals with the contrast and analisys\testing of these interpretations.

[MandrakeWench]

I think Jaime Lannister, of all series characters, knows the most about real honor. He is the only man in Westeros who knows what honor really is.

A horse, of course.

[Lady Blizzardborn]

desertion is a capitcal crime because that way people can be controlled. "if you don't fight we're gonna kill you anyway" there's nothing morally right about it. it's just another way to control people.

there's also a clear grey area here. the guy wasn't deserting because of amoral reasons, he was running away from white walkers, like anyone would.

He did nothing to deserve execusion.

He could have run away straight back to Castle Black. They would have dismissed his ramblings as those of someone who's finally lost it, but he would have been safe there at least for a while. And they wouldn't have sent him back out in the condition he was in. He chose to desert rather than try and warn his fellow brothers of the threat (and no it doesn't matter that they wouldn't believe it, he should have tried anyway). Maybe not death-worthy but certainly an incredibly selfish choice. He had at least one other option.

So he's actually a really lousy argument.

[INCBlackbird]

He could have run away straight back to Castle Black. They would have dismissed his ramblings as those of someone who's finally lost it, but he would have been safe there at least for a while. And they wouldn't have sent him back out in the condition he was in. He chose to desert rather than try and warn his fellow brothers of the threat (and no it doesn't matter that they wouldn't believe it, he should have tried anyway). Maybe not death-worthy but certainly an incredibly selfish choice. He had at least one other option.

So he's actually a really lousy argument.

wasn't he several days away from castle black though ? and alone, just saw his friends being murdered by the white walkers... who wouldn't be a little selfish in that moment ? I'm pretty sure anyone would have done the same.

[JonisHenryTudor]

I agree with the OP. We see the flaws in that idea of "honor" early on. Ned Stark beheads a ranger for deserting the NW, and his only crime was being terrified of the Others, for good reason. He and the majority of people admire Dayne, Hightower, Selmy and others for upholding their KG oaths - which included standing by and doing nothing while the Mad King was raping his wife and burning innocent people or murdering them in other gruesome ways, while Jaime is despised for doing what should have been done, getting rid of the tyrant (it wasn't necessary to know he was going to burn the city to see Aerys was a mad tyrant).

Yes but did he flee the wall without warning everyone? I don;t recall it has been awhile. If so, then I don't have an issue. Rules are rules, we know what they are. It is not different then if you speed at 90 mph in a 55 zone, you are going to get a ticket, or arrested. There isn't a grey area, and rules are put in place for a reason. There probably are cases when things are questionable.

But let's take the wall incident, for example. If the men who stormed Normandy during WWII decided I am too afraid I am not doing this it could have changed the course of WWII in a very bad way. Not to mention it would have showed the Germans the allies cards with no real consequence. It may seem harsh, but the reality is there are bigger consequences for desertion, etc.

Also in terms of the wall incident, I would like to point out that most rangers were convicted of one crime or another. Obviously some of the circumstances for these men were dubious. They might of have an option between death/imprisonment and the wall. Most chose to be there, and they knew the rules of the Wall. Others like Jon openly desired a position on the Wall. Some were taken from the black cells to serve on the wall. The point is, these men were not there by accident, and they knew the rules. Just as Jon would have been (should have been) executed if he deserted the NW's when Sam stopped him.

Consider this. If everyone deserted the Wall and the Wall was left unattended what consequences would that of had on the realm? I have to believe that Jon's willingness to work with the Wildlings also began a process of melting away deep rooted resentment between the two groups. Not just Jon, but the brothers who had an open mind and began to mingle. Stannis' men were there as well, and they likely began to see the humanity of the WIldlings. Obviously many will retain prior prejudicial behavior, but that is really no different from our world today. If the Wall had been abandoned and Mance was allowed to take his men south, the consequences could have been disastrous.The Wildlings would ransack everything they could. I don't think the NW will stop the Others; but there is another issue there If the NW abandoned its post because of fear, the Others could have descended on Westeros completely unnoticed. Or as a line from a rather interesting, though a romantically nauseating movie, "The Others could penetrate as far as the Twins before anyone knew they existed"...

KG - I certainly agree with your sentiment there. At the same time, several people stood by during Nazi Germany and didn't stand up because in the end they would have little effect or did not have the power or forum to help, minus Schindler. Or as Vary's said during the betrayal of Ned, I am one man without weapon or armor what should I have done... The KG could have attacked as Jaime did, but to what effect? They could have killed Aery's at which point Rhaegar would have taken over. They also might have been executed for killing Aery's in the aftermath (unless of course RHaegar extended a sympathetic hand), which could easily be argued is the honorable act.

Hindsight is horrible, because it tends to make us all armchair heroes. Being there in the moment is not the same as "Well I wouldn't have done that if I were there" type argument. When in reality you don't know, because you (not you, generally speaking) were not there. This argument was used by many people after 9/11, which disgusted me.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

wasn't he several days away from castle black though ? and alone, just saw his friends being murdered by the white walkers... who wouldn't be a little selfish in that moment ? I'm pretty sure anyone would have done the same.

Yes, about a week away.

But to get to where he was captured, he had to conciously travel several weeks to the west and cross the Gorge or several days away to an uncontrolled stretch of Wall, climbing it without equipment, and then travel several months to the South. Castle Black was the quickest way to safety.

[JonisHenryTudor]

He could have run away straight back to Castle Black. They would have dismissed his ramblings as those of someone who's finally lost it, but he would have been safe there at least for a while. And they wouldn't have sent him back out in the condition he was in. He chose to desert rather than try and warn his fellow brothers of the threat (and no it doesn't matter that they wouldn't believe it, he should have tried anyway). Maybe not death-worthy but certainly an incredibly selfish choice. He had at least one other option.

So he's actually a really lousy argument.

:agree:

[blackbastardofthewall]

I feel that Ned is far more flexible than most think. Yes, he refuses to support Renly/seize Joffrey when he should have, for honor's sake, but he also took in Jon and confessed his treason, neither of which were the "honorable" thing to do, but were the right thing to do.

[Prince of the North]

Aye, therein lies the rub. Honorable/legal isn't always right and right isn't always honorable/legal. So, what are we left to do? :dunno:

[The Bedding]

desertion is a capitcal crime because that way people can be controlled. "if you don't fight we're gonna kill you anyway" there's nothing morally right about it. it's just another way to control people.

there's also a clear grey area here. the guy wasn't deserting because of amoral reasons, he was running away from white walkers, like anyone would.

He did nothing to deserve execusion.

I had this view about the situation you're discussing, but after reading all the books and thinking about it more, I'm changing my mind. Report to your NW comrades and stay and fight. It's what they were sent to the wall to do. Other NW brothers know about it. Even Sam "once craven now the slayer" Tarly stayed and offed one of the Others on his own. The post in this thread about pardoned criminals deserting in droves helped sway me more. There would be a huge loophole. Everyone could possibly get pardoned, then desert. What originally upset me was that it seemed like Ned was executing the deserter because he didn't believe him. But I had to realize that isn't the case. It didn't matter whether Ned believed the guy, he deserted. 100,000 wildlings were marching toward the wall, and even that slimebag Janos Slynt hung around.

Edit: Fixed some minor grammar errors, I think. :)

[INCBlackbird]

Yes, about a week away.

But to get to where he was captured, he had to conciously travel several weeks to the west and cross the Gorge or several days away to an uncontrolled stretch of Wall, climbing it without equipment, and then travel several months to the South. Castle Black was the quickest way to safety.

ok, that is really weird, didn't know that and in that case I don't understand why he wouldn't go back to castle black. do we know why he didn't ?

[The Bedding]

How about Brienne? I like her a lot even though she wears her honor on her sleeve. "Oath Keeper"? I did a reread and realized she blatantly lied to lure Jamie to LS. She didn't even try a mix on words to lure him as I first thought. For instance, Ned at least says he's of my own blood, of Jon. I believe Brienne actually said something to the effect of I found Sansa, follow me to her. Noooo Brienne, it's bad enough you're already on a mission of betrayal. At least say, I found the one of the Stark ladies.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

ok, that is really weird, didn't know that and in that case I don't understand why he wouldn't go back to castle black. do we know why he didn't ?

Because he wanted to desert. That's the only explanation.

[RainGhost]

The code of honour would work fine if everyone followed it. The problem is that hardly anyone follows it. The biggest problem is with sworn oaths. Being a knight of the KG is very honourable unless that king is Mad Aerys or Joffrey, who have no honour. But if they kill the king, then there's no order.

It's all very well for the Starks to be honourable but when their enemies (the Lannisters) have no honour, then it's a fight they cannot win. But if they descend to the Lannisters' level, then what kind of state would the realm be in? There'd be no justice and there would just be anarchy.

So, the code of honour is necessary. But I think people need to think about it a bit more sensibly, like Jaime. Ned and Arthur Dayne were bound by their honour but Jaime saw that doing the morally right thing sometimes means compromising your honour. Or you're in a situation where neither option is 'honourable'. Jaime, though, at least tries to live by the code of honour in most circumstances. The problem is when you have people like Tywin, who have no notion of honour - that leaves him free to do whatever he likes.

[Julia H.]

ok, that is really weird, didn't know that and in that case I don't understand why he wouldn't go back to castle black. do we know why he didn't ?

We don't know. But he may have run away as soon as the Others got to the spot. Both Gared and Will could feel their presence all the time, and they both were awfully afraid. Ser Waymar had left Gared with the horses, so he had a chance to run when fear overpowered him. (He even had the horses.) After that, he may have been afraid to go back to Castle Black because he had deserted his post and left his fellow watchmen in danger, and that was also a sort of desertion. He couldn't know whether Ser Waymar and / or Will would get back alive or not.

Just an idea, of course, but possible.

Btw, I agree it was his duty to alert the NW - that was what Will intended to do. I think in CB the other rangers would have believed him. They knew about Craster after all, and even Gared and Will had seemed to know they needed fire. The seasoned rangers definitely knew about the Others, but the topic was somehow taboo. Ser Waymar, a newbie on the Wall, had no idea.

[Julia H.]

The code of honour would work fine if everyone followed it. The problem is that hardly anyone follows it. The biggest problem is with sworn oaths. Being a knight of the KG is very honourable unless that king is Mad Aerys or Joffrey, who have no honour. But if they kill the king, then there's no order.

It's all very well for the Starks to be honourable but when their enemies (the Lannisters) have no honour, then it's a fight they cannot win. But if they descend to the Lannisters' level, then what kind of state would the realm be in? There'd be no justice and there would just be anarchy.

So, the code of honour is necessary. But I think people need to think about it a bit more sensibly, like Jaime. Ned and Arthur Dayne were bound by their honour but Jaime saw that doing the morally right thing sometimes means compromising your honour. Or you're in a situation where neither option is 'honourable'. Jaime, though, at least tries to live by the code of honour in most circumstances. The problem is when you have people like Tywin, who have no notion of honour - that leaves him free to do whatever he likes.

Well, after he returns to KL from captivity, yes. Earlier - no. A knight (or even the ordinary honourable man) does not throw a child off a window, nor does he have sex with the wife of his king. (Actually a knight of the Kingsguard lives a completely celibate life according to the code of honour, but that is another question.)

[The Bedding]

Well, after he returns to KL from captivity, yes. Earlier - no. A knight (or even the ordinary honourable man) does not throw a child off a window, nor does he have sex with the wife of his king. (Actually a knight of the Kingsguard lives a completely celibate life according to the code of honour, but that is another question.)

Selmy did, at least. I think he has a thought about regretting not banging Ashara Dayne or some other Lady. Arys Oakheart was pretty honorable but he couldn't resist Arianne. Jon Snow gets a pass because he was technically ordered to bang Ygritte, by Quorin Halfhand in absentia.

[RainGhost]

Well, after he returns to KL from captivity, yes. Earlier - no. A knight (or even the ordinary honourable man) does not throw a child off a window, nor does he have sex with the wife of his king. (Actually a knight of the Kingsguard lives a completely celibate life according to the code of honour, but that is another question.)

OK, I'll change 'in most circumstances' to 'when it suits him'. But Jaime initially started out aspiring to be as honourable as Arthur Dayne. It was after being a KG for Mad Aerys that he became disillusioned with the whole notion of honour. Jaime threw Bran out the window to protect loved ones and other honourable men have broken vows for women. Love is the bane of honour.