Barristan the Bold is not a true knight

[The other prince]

Round and round and round. The op is clear; is Barry a true knight since he has broke his knightly oaths? By definition he is not. It is simple really, we know what a true knight should or shouldn’t do. The oaths are clear someone has to do a,b,c,d,e etc to be a true knight. No matter the situation Barry failed to do what the oath says. So by definition he isn’t a true knight. Case closed.

And if doing A conflicts with completing E? You can try and state that you don't feel there are any true knights using this line of reasoning, but you cannot single out someone like Barristan using it. I would suggest that its not as simple as you do a,b,c,d,e and you are a true knight.

Rather it is more a matter of in this situation if you enforce a, b and c then you violate d and e. What could any knight do in this situation? All the best of them could ever do here is try and decide for this situation what most upholds the overall values of knighthood. They would have to do this according to their conscience and what they believe most holds true to the values of knighthood. The point is this would be influenced by their culture, upbringing, personal experience etc. Because you feel like they made the wrong decisions based on your perception of what a knight is doesn't make that the case.

I don't get the sense that Barristan or any of Aery's KG for that matter were "hiding behind their vows". In fact it may have well been more difficult to not try and do anything. Its easy to follow orders you like, it can be harder to follow those you don't like.

[Bryden Tully]

It's clear that Arys' KG was set up as a powerful one boosting the best knights to contrast it with the crimes that Aery's committed e.g raping Rhaella, burning warden etc. I honestly think martn is trying to show how even the most honourable and talented knights are still in a morally grey area in protecting Aerys. It just seems to fit in well together-but I could be wrong

[Aldidi]

Is it just me that has interpreted that one of the messages in the series, is that there are no true knights. That most if not all men have weaknesses that will tempt them to betray their vows. Therefore, Barristan is not a true knight nor anyone else in the series.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

snip

There isn't a conflict. If you care for the innocents then you protect them no matter what even if it is bad for yourself. But none of them did anything because that was the easy thing to do; it was easier to protect themselves hiding than actually help people. They had the right to protect themselves of course but that doesn’t mean that they haven’t failed to do what they should have done in order to be true knights.

[The other prince]

Is it just me that has interpreted that one of the messages in the series, is that there are no true knights. That most if not all men have weaknesses that will tempt them to betray their vows. Therefore, Barristan is not a true knight nor anyone else in the series.

My arguement is that there are no fairy tale verions of knights but rather they are represented much more realistically. I still think there are individuals who are worthy of being called a knight. If we are only going to count perfect men as knights then you are right there are no true knights. I however believe that Martin's point is that what it means to be a knight is different then the picture that pretty fairly tales paint for us. We know Martin was a history buff so a lot of this is like him saying these are what knight actually were. They were soldiers and warriors even at times entertainers. What they are not and never have been is like the knights of the round table.

[Rhaegars Heir]

Round and round and round. The op is clear; is Barry a true knight since he has broke his knightly oaths? By definition he is not. It is simple really, we know what a true knight should or shouldnt do. The oaths are clear someone has to do a,b,c,d,e etc to be a true knight. No matter the situation Barry failed to do what the oath says. So by definition he isnt a true knight. Case closed.

i was very clear that no one can be 100% true I their knights vows and again you ignor what I said at this point it has to be intentional either to be a troll to try and keep your point valid so I'll say it again what happens when vow a conflict with vow b what which should be followed

[The other prince]

There isn't a conflict. If you care for the innocents then you protect them no matter what even if it is bad for yourself. But none of them did anything because that was the easy thing to do; it was easier to protect themselves hiding than actually help people. They had the right to protect themselves of course but that doesn’t mean that they haven’t failed to do what they should have done in order to be true knights.

That is incorrect we know from Jaime's that some vows can conflict with others. You swear to obey and then are told to kill someone you think is innocent, how do you hold both vows? GRRMs knights are more based on what medieval warriors were. Your idea of what a knight is supposed to be seems based more on Thomas Malory's fiction then what they ever actually would have been.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

i was very clear that no one can be 100% true I their knights vows and again you ignor what I said at this point it has to be intentional either to be a troll to try and keep your point valid so I'll say it again what happens when vow a conflict with vow b what which should be followed

What you say have nothing to do with the OP and it doesn’t make sense. There are people who can be true knights: Dunk and Brienne were closer to the true knight than Barry ever was. There is no conflict there is only one choice; you want to help people or not. Simple as that.

That is incorrect we know from Jaime's that some vows can conflict with others. You swear to obey and then are told to kill someone you think is innocent, how do you hold both vows? GRRMs knights are more based on what medieval warriors were. Your idea of what a knight is supposed to be seems based more on Thomas Malory's fiction then what they ever actually would have been.

Funny how my quotes were from the books and even funnier how we have examples of people who may not be perfect true knights but they are the best next thing. Like it or not Barry isn’t one of them. He is a moral coward and a failure.

[Rhaegars Heir]

What you say have nothing to do with the OP and it doesnt make sense. There are people who can be true knights: Dunk and Brienne were closer to the true knight than Barry ever was. There is no conflict there is only one choice; you want to help people or not. Simple as that.

Funny how my quotes were from the books and even funnier how we have examples of people who may not be perfect true knights but they are the best next thing. Like it or not Barry isnt one of them. He is a moral coward and a failure.

the is a conflict Barry swore a vow to obey the king. but how about a hypothetical A man is caught stealing bread from a poor bread maker to feed his also poor family whom do you protect

[Jon's Queen Consort]

the is a conflict Barry swore a vow to obey the king. but how about a hypothetical A man is caught stealing bread from a poor bread maker to feed his also poor family whom do you protect

And if at your example the one poor were torturing, killing and raping the other then you might had made a good example.

[Rhaegars Heir]

And if at your example the one poor were torturing, killing and raping the other then you might had made a good example.

your avoiding my question

[Winterfell is Burning]

There isn't a conflict. If you care for the innocents then you protect them no matter what even if it is bad for yourself..

Like I've asked earlier: if Barristan tries to stop Aerys and fails (say, his fellow Kingsguard members stop or kill him), does that makes him a success as a knight? Or a failure? What if he doesn't help the Starks, but latter helps a lot more people (for example, helping put down the Greyjoy Rebellion, helping Dany in her crusade) and saves a lot more lives, is he a failure or a success?

Funny how my quotes were from the books and even funnier how we have examples of people who may not be perfect true knights but they are the best next thing..

And Dunk would be a corpse if Baelor Breakspear hadn't decided to help him; Baelor Breakspear who was the 2nd (if not the most) powerful man in the realm, therefore had nothing to lose but his life which would be extremely unlikely to happen ( although it did), plus had possible political gains by standing up (looking like a protector of the smallfolk, exposing the one member of the family that was extremely problematic and a psycho).

None of them had the position, skill, weapons or knowledge to do much about it, nor had most of them sworn vows to protect the weak and the innocent. That's assuming we were even talking those other people, which we weren't. We were talking about Barristan "the Bold".

The skill to kill 400 people single handely? Is Barristan Selmy the Hulk?

And again, if he kills Aerys, doesn't he fail at this oath to protect his liege lord? If he kills his fellow KG members and random guards so he can stop Aerys from killing the Starks, isn't he killing the innocent?

The problem with the line of thinking by you and Jon's Queen Consort is that you're thinking in black and white about one of the most grey situations in the books. Stop talking in absolutes and act like paragons of virtue.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Like I've asked earlier: if Barristan tries to stop Aerys and fails (say, his fellow Kingsguard members stop or kill him), does that makes him a success as a knight? Or a failure? What if he doesn't help the Starks, but latter helps a lot more people (for example, helping put down the Greyjoy Rebellion, helping Dany in her cruzade) and saves a lot more lives, is he a failure or a success?

If he died trying to do what he supposed to do then he would be considered a true knight of the best next thing. The fact that he helped later doesn't mean that he hadn't failed earlier.

And Dunk would be a corpse if Baelor Breakspear hadn't decided to help him; Baelor Breakspear who was the 2nd (if not the most) powerful man in the realm, therefore had nothing to lose but his life which would be extremely unlikely to happen ( although it did), plus had possible political gains by standing up (looking like a protector of the smallfolk, exposing the one member of the family that was extremely problematic and a psycho).

Dunk helped someone who was in need even if this means that he should endanger himself. Barry was hiding doing nothing. The end.

[Rhaegars Heir]

If he died trying to do what he supposed to do then he would be considered a true knight of the best next thing. The fact that he helped later doesn't mean that he hadn't failed earlier.

Dunk helped someone who was in need even if this means that he should endanger himself. Barry was hiding doing nothing. The end.

like how your hiding from the question I asked you

[Jon's Queen Consort]

like how your hiding from the question I asked you

your avoiding my question

No I don't mostly because your scenario doesn't make sense and have nothing to do with our "discussion". Now if you want a fanfiction that is not the place.

[Rhaegars Heir]

No I don't mostly because your scenario doesn't make sense and have nothing to do with our "discussion". Now if you want a fanfiction that is not the place.

it's a hypothetical question to make a point that thing are gray and when one vow conflicts with another what do you do then so how about you just answer it in stead of runnin. from it

[Jon's Queen Consort]

it's a hypothetical question to make a point that thing are gray and when one vow conflicts with another what do you do then so how about you just answer it in stead of runnin. from it

Only this “hypothetical question” have nothing similar than Barry’s situation.

A man sees a woman been raped and being a victim of domestic abuse along with several other people who are tortured, abused and killed by this woman’s husband. What does he do? Turn them his back and continue to walk away like nothing has happened or help the woman and the others?

That is similar to Barry’s situation.

If you want to talk about morality in general then I would recommend you either the General Chatter forum or the TTTNE in games.

[Rhaegars Heir]

Only this hypothetical question have nothing similar than Barrys situation.

A man sees a woman been raped and being a victim of domestic abuse along with several other people who are tortured, abused and killed by this womans husband. What does he do? Turn them his back and continue to walk away like nothing has happened or help the woman and the others?

That is similar to Barrys situation.

how about you answer the question and stop avoiding it or are incapable of discerning right from wrong if rape isn't involved

[Viserys - The last dragon]

Being a "true knight" is hard- and the answer we give to explain what a true knight would do will be different, since we'll not have the same definition.

In Barristans case:

i) When Aeyrs is killed: Not bend the knee; atleast not to Robert, who was the main enemy of the guy you're sworn to protect. Seek out Viserys and try and help him and Rhaella. This is the main reason why I think Barristan is a complete tool, his queen was still kicking for about a year while he was bending the knee to his new king.

ii) When Aeyrs said he would burn the city down: Help him do so. You've sworn and oath to him (yes, I know also to sworn to protect the weak etc, but lets not forget the "lex specials") Being a true knight does not mean (according to my definition) to do what is right at all times.

iii) The situation with Rhaella; a true knight (in this case being KG) would, as sworn, protect her as well. Go to her and ask how he could help. Perhaps try and help her out of the reed keep and into safety, if that was what she wanted.

[Rockroi]

This issue has been litigated before here on the forums and to me trying to measure Barristan Selmy's actions and then use those actions to decide if he is or if he is not a True Knight (or in prior discussion "True to the KIngsguard") then what you are really doing is contemplating the inherent hypocricy of the Westori culture (and just to point out that I believe that Martin did all of this very intentionally).

BUT... before we go there, answer me this question: Who was a better knight Ser Boros Blount or Ser Ayrs Oakenheart?

Both men were members of the KG; both were charged with protecting very specific members of the Kings' blood. Both men failed at that charge. IN CoK, Boros Blount was charged by Cersei to protect Tommen. He was intercepted by Hill Tribesmen hired by Tyrion and gave Tommen up without a fight. HE was jailed and then stripped, briefly, of his White cloak. In the end, many postulated that Blount was a fool for not fighting for Tommen even though it would clearly have meant his death.

Arys Oakenheart was sworn to protect Mycella, at Cersei's beheast while he was in Dorne. In this regard, Arys fell in with a Sand Snake and foolishly engaged Mycella into a plot involving several Dorne families (in a convoluted plot so void of life nobody really remembers it). When discovered, Arys sees that he and his forces are hopelessly outnumbered and there are arrows being fired at him from all directions and Areoh Hotapth and his spear are there, They command him to give up Mycella. Instead, Arys charges his attackers and is promptly beheaded, and Mycella is injured. Arys was almost universally derived as a fool for attacking people who would surely kill him and potentially hurt Mycella.

So, who was a more true knight: the guy who gave his charge up without a fight or the guy who fought to the death, namely, his own death?

Neither man will go down in the annuals of Westori history as being a true Knight; one gave up, the other just died needlessly.

The answer is that sometimes, knight are faced with terrible choices- sometimes between a Douche and a Turd Sandwich and that they are left to make that choice on their own, without the help of oaths or super-secret Knight Code Books.

Okay so lets get back to Barristan the Bold. Barristal was a great man; an exceptional warrior, an incredible leader. And he absolutely forsook his vows because, in many many ways because it made PERFECT SENSE to forsake those completely ludicrous vows.

At the Trident, Barristan fought for the Crown and the rightful King, Aerys Targaryen because that was his job. Barristan was grievously wounded and took about a year to recover. He did this under the care and protection of King Robert Barratheon I, a usurper. At the time he regained consciousness, Aerys and Rhaegar were slain. At the PRECISE MOMENT Aerys was slain (and we will get to that in a moment) Viserys III became the rightful King of Westeros. All of Selmy's vows transferred from Aerys to Viserys. Barristan- had he adhered to the letter of the law - would have immediately began plotting to escape Robert's clutches and return to the service of the Targaryen Household on Dragonstone or Braavos. Barristan did NOT do this. Why?

Because that would have been monumentally stupid. Dumb. Ridiculously unreasonable. Vapid. Void of sense. It would have been like... well... like charging into a hoard of archers and Aeroh Hoetep and his huge spear.

So, what did Barristan do? He Blounted. He gave up. He surrendered to the guy who killed Rhaegar and became HIS Lord Commander. And nobody batted an eyelash. Even Barristan semed fine with it.

Until, of course, it was inconvenient and Selmy was dismissed by Joff. Then.... suddenly... Selmy discovers his moral compass (it was in his other pants) and suddenly decides "Oh, wait! I need to serve Dany Targaryen!" Glad he got there.

To me, I have absolutely no problem whatsoever that Selmy decided the way he did. It made no sense to stick with Viserys or his brood when Westeroes needed conformity, stability and rational thought. That was coalesced in the alliance between Tywin Lannister and Jon Arryn. Here, sticking to the vow- charging into the archers a la dumbass Okenheart - would have nonsense. No- make a good decision, a wise chocie- don't give into stupid, one-size-fiots-all oaths that don't understand the nuances of honor, duty and loyalty.

In other words... don't be like Arys Oakenheart.

And if you see the world like that- as I do- that the knights are left in a near impossible situation and must use their best judgment you are left with this inescapable conclusion:

That Jaime Lannister was 100% right to kill Aerys and Ned Stark was a judgmental clown for judging him for it. Which is ironic because Selmy calls Jaime an oath-breaker... hilarious for a man who also broke an oath.

Jaime made a judgment call and is reviled; Selmy made one and is praised. But both made, in effect, the same call- to not see men needlessly die and instead serve the greater good as they saw it. Ned refused to see that in Jaime and only saw that in Selmy- because Ned was a hypocrite to the end. Ned Stark worshiped men like Gerrold Hightower ... a better man than Jaime... all agree.

So, yes, like Jaime, Selmy broke his vows and I have no problem with that at all. Because its better to be a good man and do the right thing than it is to bury your head in some oath and allow the wrong thing to happen. Jaime knew that, so did Selmy.