Barristan Selmy... White Cloak of many Kings.

[Roxy Carmichael]

Forgot that one. But he had no qualms about serving the Baratheons or the Lannisters as soon as the Targaryens were disposed, so I'm not sure where his change of heart came from.

I guess you've never made a mistake then tried to atone for it.

[Stormland's Fury]

I guess you've never made a mistake then tried to atone for it.

Well, he did it already too often at that point. If he hadn't lost his job it wouldn't even have occurred to him. This is still about him always being honorable not his moral obligations.

[juanml82]

Nope. Once Joffrey dismissed him, he was no longer KG, and he was indeed free to change his allegiance (as much as any other lord in Westeros).

No he's not. The Lords of Westeros aren't free to change their allegiance. Declaring for anyone else other than Joffrey is, as far as Joffrey is concerned, treason. And, once they loose in the battlefield, they are made to face the consequences. Which typically involves a pardon, fines and border adjustments as they still need their men to continue the fight, but they are guilty of treason nonetheless.

Similarly, Barristan betrayed Danny by serving the Usurper, but reality meant that Danny had to pardon him. That doesn't make him less of a turncloak and traitor.

I guess you've never made a mistake then tried to atone for it.

Then issue is why and when he tries to correct his mistake. He claims Robert was no true King - therefore, his King was in exile and in dire need of protection (forget Robert's assassins, regular street thugs could have gotten them just to steal from them). He claims he would have killed Robert in the spot if he was at the Throne Room when Robert was presented with the corpses of Aegon and Rhaenerys, but he doesn't.

In other words, he plays the honorable and ideal knight, but his love for his job comes well before his honor and ideals, which makes him a hypocrite.

[Lord Reaver]

No he's not. The Lords of Westeros aren't free to change their allegiance. Declaring for anyone else other than Joffrey is, as far as Joffrey is concerned, treason.

Well, in that case, Ned was a dishonorable traitor who deserved his beheading.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

Then issue is why and when he tries to correct his mistake. He claims Robert was no true King - therefore, his King was in exile and in dire need of protection (forget Robert's assassins, regular street thugs could have gotten them just to steal from them).

Yes, he considers that treason and begs for forgiveness. As you describe it, one might think he was smug and self-righteous about it - which he is not.

He claims he would have killed Robert in the spot if he was at the Throne Room when Robert was presented with the corpses of Aegon and Rhaenerys,

Nope, he does not. Read again, why and in what circumstances Barry thinks he would have killed Robert. It's not "if only I was in the same room".

[juanml82]

Well, in that case, Ned was a dishonorable traitor who deserved his beheading.

From Joffrey's POV? Definitely. Imagine his thoughts: his father just died, he's trying to assert his authority and his late father's best friend comes into the Throne Room, accuses him not just of bastardy, but of being the product of incest and claims his uncle is the real king.

And even outside Joffrey's POV Ned was, as far as the holders of the Iron Throne so far are concerned, a confessed traitor.

Yes, he considers that treason and begs for forgiveness. As you describe it, one might think he was smug and self-righteous about it - which he is not.

Did he consider it treason while he was the LC of the KG? Was his demotion needed for him to actually think it?

Nope, he does not. Read again, why and in what circumstances Barry thinks he would have killed Robert. It's not "if only I was in the same room".

“Prince Rhaegar had two children,” Ser Barristan told him. “Rhaenys was a little girl, Aegon a babe in arms. When Tywin Lannister took King’s Landing, his men killed both of them. He served the bloody bodies up in crimson cloaks, a gift for the new king.” And what did Robert say when he saw them? Did he smile? Barristan Selmy had been badly wounded on the Trident, so he had been spared the sight of Lord Tywin’s gift, but oft he wondered. If I had seen him smile over the red ruins of Rhaegar’s children, no army on this earth could have stopped me from killing him. “I will not suffer the murder of children. Accept that, or I’ll have no part of this.”

So, if fifteen years he never found out about Robert's reaction? He never bothered to ask anyone? Nah, he could take the uncomfortable path of finding out and, once his fears are confirmed, he could kill Robert and bring his head to his rightful King.

[Starspear]

Barristan didn't bend the knee to anyone. He met Robert at the Trident, remember ? What he did was accept the position of Kingsguard after Robert had become king after Aerys. He served the 7k by protecting the King before and during the rebellion, and he continued doing so after it. Nobody in-world holds this against him (Eddard Stark included), I see no reason why we should.

A KG's loyalty is not to the realm. It's to the King and Dynasty. Not the realm. Not the IT. KG are not to be confused with Maesters.

[Eyron Stark]

I think he's a bit of a tool. He's overrated.

[Parwan]

All of these arguments about the exact meaning and significance of an oath that is nowhere quoted on this thread are very droll. Maybe there are exact words somewhere, but I haven't encountered them. I say that the whole business overlooks an assertion that is very likely to be true:

The KIngsguard oath sucks.

It is like a lot of the vows in the 7K. I'm not an historian. However, the common image presented of the way things worked in medieval times is this-- There were contracts that bound both the leader and the followers. In the 7K, all too many of the vows are essentially promises of slavish devotion. The followers are bound to do all kinds of things, the leader nothing. Thus, it is inevitable that situations will arise where the followers will not be able to follow both honor and duty. I don't think that the word "tyrant" is ever used in ASoIaF. If a man has promised to follow a lord or king, no matter what, and the lord or king commands him to do terrible things, then the man is in an impossible position. This is vastly more important than some series of deductions Barristan Selmy did or did not perform properly, according to someone's standards.

...

The vow is to the person, not to the Kinghood.

I don't know the exact words of the vow, so I can't be sure. It's likely you're right though, and this is pretty much the heart of the real problem. If you swear the vow, and the person to whom you swear is a complete jerk, then you are in an impossible position.

And the person Barristan had sworn to was dead. There's no betrayal or dishonor in him swearing to the next person holding that same office.

Maybe. Once again, the exact words would be important.

...He only looked for Danny when they told him his life as a White Cloak was at an end. If Joffrey hasn't dissmissed him, he would have reacted to Sansa Beating Time in the same fashion he reacted to Rhaella Targaryen Raping Time and, had Daennerys finally invaded Westeros, he would have fought under Joffrey's banner, against her.
...l.

Ah yes, Rhaella Targaryen Raping Time. We also have Burn Them Alive for Fun Time. This really points out that my words above are probably accurate:

The Kingsguard oath sucks.

Trying to parse this and that set of facts, trying to say who should have deduced what and when, isn't that important. It may come to little more than trivia. The entire Kingsguard was supposed to standby and do nothing about these things.

... just like the Mad King was the true King by virtue of being a descendant from Aegon the Conqueror. And dismissal doesn't allow for treason. Joining Daenerys is, if Robert was the true King, treason.

Even more reason for the accuracy of my assertion--"the Mad King was the true King..." That, to me, is much like saying, "The vile fascist dictator was the true leader." In situations like this, "treason" should be a requirement for an honorable man.

... Stannis and Renly both wanted Barristan by their side, and Tywin was infuriated with Cersei when she kicked him out. That speaks volumes about how everyone perceived Barristan. For that is honor and duty, fulfilling it even though you are not wholeheartedly with it.

...

Here is another important factor. I read all kinds of "Barristan is a traitor" and "Barristan is a hypocrite" claims. Where do i read them? In threads like this one. Where do I not read them? In the text of ASoIaF. The guy is supposedly so deficient. Unfortunately, no one in Westeros sees this. They praise him to the skies. I started a thread on this. You can find it here: http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/84076-barristan-the-barometer/

The main point is this:

"If Ser Barristan Selmy is considered a bad man, who in Westeros can be considered good?" My answer is, "essentially no one who has any significant power." This touches on a general issue that I have been considering for a while: the main problem is often the environment, not the individuals in it. To put it another way, in the seven kingdoms we have a near-total systemic breakdown, not a series of single-point failures.

By this I am not maintaining that Ser Barristan is the best man in Westeros. I am saying that virtually everyone says he is a paragon of virtue. Men who are generally taken to be very honorable have clearly encouraged their sons to want grow up to be Barristan. If the guy is half as bad as some posters maintain, then this is just more evidence for my main claims. The problems in the realm are systemic. The place is on the edge of disaster. This is because of a bad system, not because of bad men.

Edited for grammar

[juanml82]

Ah yes, Rhaella Targaryen Raping Time. We also have Burn Them Alive for Fun Time. This really points out that my words above are probably accurate:

The Kingsguard oath sucks.

Trying to parse this and that set of facts, trying to say who should have deduced what and when, isn't that important. It may come to little more than trivia. The entire Kingsguard was supposed to standby and do nothing about these things.

Even more reason for the accuracy of my assertion--"the Mad King was the true King..." That, to me, is much like saying, "The vile fascist dictator was the true leader." In situations like this, "treason" should be a requirement for an honorable man.

But the issue is when and why Barristan finally betrays the tyrant in charge. It's not when the Mad King rapes his wife. It's not when the Mad King makes a mockery of Westeros' savage traditions and burns Rickard Stark in a "trial by combat". It's not when Robert Baratheon talks about dragonspawn. It's before Joffrey gets to show what kind of king he'll be.

It's when he looses the job and social position he wanted all his life.

And that tells us a lot about what kind of character Barristan Selmy really is, and that doesn't need to match the image Westeros has of him.

[Mladen]

A KG's loyalty is not to the realm. It's to the King and Dynasty. Not the realm. Not the IT. KG are not to be confused with Maesters.

It actually can be argued that it is to whomever is sitting on the IT. The thing about KG vows being for life is that most of them saw at least two Kings in their time. I sincerely doubt that Barristan is the only KG who saw more than one King. So, it is not to the King, but to the individual who is sitting on the Throne. And if we are to talk about dynasty, Robert was part of Targaryen dynasty. Renly isn't 100% right when he said that no one cared about claims.

Here is another important factor. I read all kinds of "Barristan is a traitor" and "Barristan is a hypocrite" claims. Where do i read them? In threads like this one. Where do I not read them? In the text of ASoIaF. The guy is supposedly so deficient. Unfortunately, no one in Westeros sees this. They praise him to the skies. I started a thread on this. You can find it here: http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/84076-barristan-the-barometer/

It is like internal joke of this board. People usually don't criticize characters for their actual flaws, but for some wrong idea of the character's wrongdoings. It is almost hilarious. There are things I would gladly criticize Barristan. His honor is not one of them.

[FacelessDude]

I see it as Selmy just living through so many different kings, he never switched allegiances, just fell into them. He simply lived and saw the Iron Throne switch rulers over time. He always did what he was vowed to do, protect the king. Then that king died and he swore his oath to the next after being pardoned.

There's not much he could've done except refuse to serve or speak up to the next usurper, stating that he lives only for a specific king/house. But that would be suicide.

[Mithras]

There's not much he could've done except refuse to serve or speak up to the next usurper, refusing to serve. But that would be suicide.

Or he could have asked to the the black, which would not be a suicide at all.

[FacelessDude]

Or he could have asked to the the black, which would not be a suicide at all.

Yea or that. But Selmy lives for the KG, so taking the black would be something he would accept only as a final option.

But it also depends on if the usurper king would give him that choice.

[Mladen]

Or he could have asked to the the black, which would not be a suicide at all.

Yea or that. But Selmy lives for the KG, so taking the black would be something he would accept only as a final option.

But it also depends on if the usurper king would give him that option.

I think that you all either forget or willingly refuse to remember that KG's vows are for life. If Robert wanted to kill Barristan, it was his right. If he wanted to send him to the Wall, well, he hasn't committed any crime, since he was bound by honor to protect his King, Robert could have done that. But, Barristan chose to stay and serve according to his vows, which are for life and not "until the King you dislike comes on IT" This is not practicality issue, this is the issue of honor and duty. And Barristan was thinking he was doing his duty when he continued to serve Robert as KG.

[Stormland's Fury]

Yea or that. But Selmy lives for the KG, so taking the black would be something he would accept only as a final option.

I think Selmy got a severe case of identity crisis once he was dismissed from the KG. Probably needed to re-evaluate his life, so yeah the Black would have been only his last resort as he probably wants to protect someone.

[Batman]

He's a bit of Kingsgaurd slut.

[Parwan]

But the issue is when and why Barristan finally betrays the tyrant in charge. It's not when the Mad King rapes his wife. It's not when the Mad King makes a mockery of Westeros' savage traditions and burns Rickard Stark in a "trial by combat". It's not when Robert Baratheon talks about dragonspawn. It's before Joffrey gets to show what kind of king he'll be.

It's when he looses the job and social position he wanted all his life.

And that tells us a lot about what kind of character Barristan Selmy really is, and that doesn't need to match the image Westeros has of him.

I emphatically deny that the issue is the one you present. Actual defense of the realm and concern for its people is far more important than the exact sort of character a particular person is. The idea of betraying a tyrant shows how badly you have framed the issue. If there is anything like a decent contract involved in the governance of the Seven Kingdoms, then the tyrant is the betrayer. Those who work against him are the ones who are doing the honorable thing. If their oaths prevent them from doing this, then there is something wrong with the oaths. A person should be able to look at the situation and say, "A man of honor cannot swear this oath. It is a promise of intellectual and moral slavery." Something has gone very wrong with a society when its citizens don't see this.

[Mladen]

But the issue is when and why Barristan finally betrays the tyrant in charge. It's not when the Mad King rapes his wife. It's not when the Mad King makes a mockery of Westeros' savage traditions and burns Rickard Stark in a "trial by combat". It's not when Robert Baratheon talks about dragonspawn. It's before Joffrey gets to show what kind of king he'll be.

It's when he looses the job and social position he wanted all his life.

And that tells us a lot about what kind of character Barristan Selmy really is, and that doesn't need to match the image Westeros has of him.

Again with the strawman arguments...

The thing about Barristan is, and just like with whole Aerys' and later Joffrey's Kingsguard, is that they felt they are bound by their honor to obey the King. We can say the same thing about all of them. Darry and Hightower were exceptionally highly regarded as knights and they were those who basically witnessed the madness and even scorned Jaime for raising a voice against it. But, here is where your, yet another, strawamn argument is failing. No doubt this is a messed up situation. Barristan, as everyone else, considered him to be the Kingsguard for life. Thus it is on him to serve as a Kingsguard for life. Let we not kid ourselves about it. Barristan had nothing to gain by pursuing Daenerys or anyone else. He is already in his 60-ies, his best days behind him, his deeds are being honored across the Westeros. The motivation for going to Daenerys is not rooted in him keeping the social status, no matter how anyone spin it. We have read black on white why he joined Daenerys, and it wasn't because his social status was on question. The conclusion you are repeating ad nauseum isn't corroborated with any quote in the books, with any sort of textual evidence. It is based on God knows what. Barristan is far from infallible, but his sense of duty, loyalty and honor simply are not the place for reproaches.

[Mithras]

I think that you all either forget or willingly refuse to remember that KG's vows are for life. If Robert wanted to kill Barristan, it was his right. If he wanted to send him to the Wall, well, he hasn't committed any crime, since he was bound by honor to protect his King, Robert could have done that. But, Barristan chose to stay and serve according to his vows, which are for life and not "until the King you dislike comes on IT" This is not practicality issue, this is the issue of honor and duty. And Barristan was thinking he was doing his duty when he continued to serve Robert as KG.

In the case of a normal succession, this would be true. But Robert rebelled against the king he swore to protect, nearly wiped out the royal family. What would Ser Arthur do if he was captured severely wounded at ToJ? Get healed and resume in Robert's KG? Challenge Robert on one-on-one?

Barristan supplied undeserved legitimacy to Robert and Joffrey.