Words are wind! Honour versus duty, and vows...

[kissdbyfire]

This is something I've been thinking about for the longest time...

We have lots of vows in the story: the NW vows, the KG vows, vows of fealty, etc etc etc.

Where do you draw the line? How far do you go until you say, "nope, that's a bit much". And that's not even getting into the issue of good old common sense.

I love the passage below and you can never have too much Jaime - from ASoS, Jaime VIII

Ser Meryn got a stubborn look on his face. "Are you telling us not to obey the king?"

"The king is eight. Our first duty is to protect him, which includes protecting him from himself. Use that ugly thing you keep inside your helm. If Tommen wants you to saddle his horse, obey him. If he tells you to kill his horse, come to me." 

 

What do these vows really mean? Especially, what do the vows mean if not backed up by matching actions? Absolutely nothing in my opinion. Sometimes a vow can be a coward's easy way out of doing the right thing. On the other hand, the lack of a vow of some sort does not mean that a person can't act honourably and do the right thing. 

Another interesting bit of trivia, this time not in the text, is Anne Groell, (one of) Martin's editor(s) saying she suggested removing some of the numerous "words are wind" and that Martin said, "no". 

Then we have knights who are utter arseholes, like Trant and Blount, and others that were dutiful knights keen on doing their duty but in doing so didn't act very honourably. 

AFfC, Jaime II 

The sight had filled him with disquiet, reminding him of Aerys Targaryen and the way a burning would arouse him. A king has no secrets from his Kingsguard. Relations between Aerys and his queen had been strained during the last years of his reign. They slept apart and did their best to avoid each other during the waking hours. But whenever Aerys gave a man to the flames, Queen Rhaella would have a visitor in the night. The day he burned his mace-and-dagger Hand, Jaime and Jon Darry had stood at guard outside her bedchamber whilst the king took his pleasure. "You're hurting me," they had heard Rhaella cry through the oaken door. "You're hurting me." In some queer way, that had been worse than Lord Chelsted's screaming. "We are sworn to protect her as well," Jaime had finally been driven to say. "We are," Darry allowed, "but not from him." 

Jaime had only seen Rhaella once after that, the morning of the day she left for Dragonstone. The queen had been cloaked and hooded as she climbed inside the royal wheelhouse that would take her down Aegon's High Hill to the waiting ship, but he heard her maids whispering after she was gone. They said the queen looked as if some beast had savaged her, clawing at her thighs and chewing on her breasts. A crowned beast, Jaime knew.

Darry did his duty, but did he act honourably?

Compare his actions to Dunk's.

THK

The Hedge Knight 

One man-at-arms was dangling the puppets of Florian and Jonquil from his hands as another set them afire with a torch. Three more men were opening chests, spilling more puppets on the ground and stamping on them. The dragon puppet was scattered all about them, a broken wing here, its head there, its tail in three pieces. And in the midst of it all stood Prince Aerion, resplendent in a red velvet doublet with long dagged sleeves, twisting Tanselle's arm in both hands. She was on her knees, pleading with him. Aerion ignored her. He forced open her hand and seized one of her fingers. Dunk stood there stupidly, not quite believing what he saw. Then he heard a crack, and Tanselle screamed. 

One of Aerion's men tried to grab him, and went flying. Three long strides, then Dunk grabbed the prince's shoulder and wrenched him around hard. His sword and dagger were forgotten, along with everything the old man had ever taught him. His fist knocked Aerion off his feet, and the toe of his boot slammed into the prince's belly. When Aerion went for his knife, Dunk stepped on his wrist and then kicked him again, right in the mouth. He might have kicked him to death right then and there, but the princeling's men swarmed over him. He had a man on each arm and another pounding him across the back. No sooner had he wrestled free of one than two more were on him.

 

Now that's honourable. Dunk defends Tanselle against Prince Aerion. He risks his life because it was the right thing, and the honourable thing to do. 

Similarly, his descendant does the same. 

AFfC, Brienne VII

“Brienne sucked in her breath and drew Oathkeeper. Too many, she thought, with a start of fear, they are too many. “Gendry,” she said in a low voice, “you’ll want a sword, and armor. These are not your friends. They’re no one’s friends.”

“What are you talking about?” The boy came and stood beside her, his hammer in his hand.

Lightning cracked to the south as the riders swung down off their horses. For half a heartbeat darkness turned to day. An axe gleamed silvery blue, light shimmered off mail and plate, and beneath the dark hood of the lead rider Brienne glimpsed an iron snout and rows of steel teeth, snarling.

Gendry saw it too. “Him.”

“Not him. His helm.” Brienne tried to keep the fear from her voice, but her mouth was dry as dust. She had a pretty good notion who wore the Hound’s helm. The children, she thought.”

“The door to the inn banged open. Willow stepped out into the rain, a crossbow in her hands. The girl was shouting at the riders, but a clap of thunder rolled across the yard, drowning out her words. As it faded, Brienne heard the man in the Hound’s helm say, “Loose a quarrel at me and I’ll shove that crossbow up your cunt and fuck you with it. Then I’ll pop your fucking eyes out and make you eat them.” The fury in the man’s voice drove Willow back a step, trembling.

Seven, Brienne thought again, despairing. She had no chance against seven, she knew. No chance, and no choice.

She stepped out into the rain, Oathkeeper in hand. “Leave her be. If you want to rape someone, try me.”

Isn't it interesting that the two truest knights we have in the story are not knights? 

Words are wind indeed. 

And this also connects to the NW, the Wall, and the vows the black brothers take. The Wall won't fail because of anything Jon did or didn't do, it won't fail because there are too few "proper" nightswatchmen who have said the "proper" vows. It's just the opposite. The Wall will fail - and I don't necessarily mean fall - because of the decisions of the proper crows, who have sworn their proper vows. Because none of that matters, what matters is doing the right thing - not the easy or dutiful thing - at the right time. 

[aryagonnakill#2]

13 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

This is something I've been thinking about for the longest time...

We have lots of vows in the story: the NW vows, the KG vows, vows of fealty, etc etc etc.

Where do you draw the line? How far do you go until you say, "nope, that's a bit much". And that's not even getting into the issue of good old common sense.

I love the passage below and you can never have too much Jaime - from ASoS, Jaime VIII

Ser Meryn got a stubborn look on his face. "Are you telling us not to obey the king?"

"The king is eight. Our first duty is to protect him, which includes protecting him from himself. Use that ugly thing you keep inside your helm. If Tommen wants you to saddle his horse, obey him. If he tells you to kill his horse, come to me." 

 

What do these vows really mean? Especially, what do the vows mean if not backed up by matching actions? Absolutely nothing in my opinion. Sometimes a vow can be a coward's easy way out of doing the right thing. On the other hand, the lack of a vow of some sort does not mean that a person can't act honourably and do the right thing. 

Another interesting bit of trivia, this time not in the text, is Anne Groell, (one of) Martin's editor(s) saying she suggested removing some of the numerous "words are wind" and that Martin said, "no". 

Then we have knights who are utter arseholes, like Trant and Blount, and others that were dutiful knights keen on doing their duty but in doing so didn't act very honourably. 

AFfC, Jaime II 

The sight had filled him with disquiet, reminding him of Aerys Targaryen and the way a burning would arouse him. A king has no secrets from his Kingsguard. Relations between Aerys and his queen had been strained during the last years of his reign. They slept apart and did their best to avoid each other during the waking hours. But whenever Aerys gave a man to the flames, Queen Rhaella would have a visitor in the night. The day he burned his mace-and-dagger Hand, Jaime and Jon Darry had stood at guard outside her bedchamber whilst the king took his pleasure. "You're hurting me," they had heard Rhaella cry through the oaken door. "You're hurting me." In some queer way, that had been worse than Lord Chelsted's screaming. "We are sworn to protect her as well," Jaime had finally been driven to say. "We are," Darry allowed, "but not from him." 

Jaime had only seen Rhaella once after that, the morning of the day she left for Dragonstone. The queen had been cloaked and hooded as she climbed inside the royal wheelhouse that would take her down Aegon's High Hill to the waiting ship, but he heard her maids whispering after she was gone. They said the queen looked as if some beast had savaged her, clawing at her thighs and chewing on her breasts. A crowned beast, Jaime knew.

Darry did his duty, but did he act honourably?

Compare his actions to Dunk's.

THK

The Hedge Knight 

One man-at-arms was dangling the puppets of Florian and Jonquil from his hands as another set them afire with a torch. Three more men were opening chests, spilling more puppets on the ground and stamping on them. The dragon puppet was scattered all about them, a broken wing here, its head there, its tail in three pieces. And in the midst of it all stood Prince Aerion, resplendent in a red velvet doublet with long dagged sleeves, twisting Tanselle's arm in both hands. She was on her knees, pleading with him. Aerion ignored her. He forced open her hand and seized one of her fingers. Dunk stood there stupidly, not quite believing what he saw. Then he heard a crack, and Tanselle screamed. 

One of Aerion's men tried to grab him, and went flying. Three long strides, then Dunk grabbed the prince's shoulder and wrenched him around hard. His sword and dagger were forgotten, along with everything the old man had ever taught him. His fist knocked Aerion off his feet, and the toe of his boot slammed into the prince's belly. When Aerion went for his knife, Dunk stepped on his wrist and then kicked him again, right in the mouth. He might have kicked him to death right then and there, but the princeling's men swarmed over him. He had a man on each arm and another pounding him across the back. No sooner had he wrestled free of one than two more were on him.

 

Now that's honourable. Dunk defends Tanselle against Prince Aerion. He risks his life because it was the right thing, and the honourable thing to do. 

Similarly, his descendant does the same. 

AFfC, Brienne VII

“Brienne sucked in her breath and drew Oathkeeper. Too many, she thought, with a start of fear, they are too many. “Gendry,” she said in a low voice, “you’ll want a sword, and armor. These are not your friends. They’re no one’s friends.”

“What are you talking about?” The boy came and stood beside her, his hammer in his hand.

Lightning cracked to the south as the riders swung down off their horses. For half a heartbeat darkness turned to day. An axe gleamed silvery blue, light shimmered off mail and plate, and beneath the dark hood of the lead rider Brienne glimpsed an iron snout and rows of steel teeth, snarling.

Gendry saw it too. “Him.”

“Not him. His helm.” Brienne tried to keep the fear from her voice, but her mouth was dry as dust. She had a pretty good notion who wore the Hound’s helm. The children, she thought.”

“The door to the inn banged open. Willow stepped out into the rain, a crossbow in her hands. The girl was shouting at the riders, but a clap of thunder rolled across the yard, drowning out her words. As it faded, Brienne heard the man in the Hound’s helm say, “Loose a quarrel at me and I’ll shove that crossbow up your cunt and fuck you with it. Then I’ll pop your fucking eyes out and make you eat them.” The fury in the man’s voice drove Willow back a step, trembling.

Seven, Brienne thought again, despairing. She had no chance against seven, she knew. No chance, and no choice.

She stepped out into the rain, Oathkeeper in hand. “Leave her be. If you want to rape someone, try me.”

Isn't it interesting that the two truest knights we have in the story are not knights? 

Words are wind indeed. 

And this also connects to the NW, the Wall, and the vows the black brothers take. The Wall won't fail because of anything Jon did or didn't do, it won't fail because there are too few "proper" nightswatchmen who have said the "proper" vows. It's just the opposite. The Wall will fail - and I don't necessarily mean fall - because of the decisions of the proper crows, who have sworn their proper vows. Because none of that matters, what matters is doing the right thing - not the easy or dutiful thing - at the right time. 

Interesting take.  I think the best example of the walls magic probably comes from Sam bringing Bran and Co through the gate.  The Wall clearly has some sort of recognition that Sam is a member of the NW.  Sam also tells Bran that only he can open the gate, a sworn brother.  This seems to suggest that he could not have simply told Bran to say the words, as the words didn't matter, it was Sam that mattered.

[kissdbyfire]

20 minutes ago, aryagonnakill#2 said:

Interesting take.  I think the best example of the walls magic probably comes from Sam bringing Bran and Co through the gate.  The Wall clearly has some sort of recognition that Sam is a member of the NW.  Sam also tells Bran that only he can open the gate, a sworn brother.  This seems to suggest that he could not have simply told Bran to say the words, as the words didn't matter, it was Sam that mattered.

Yeah, I agree. And we'll spotted, I forgot to bring up the Black Gate, it's another good example. And it leaves an interesting possibility open regarding the magic at the Wall: did it open because Sam is a crow, or because he's a crow who swore his vows before the heart tree? And not just a heart tree but a grove of 9, unheard of! No two faces are alike... 

[The Fattest Leech]

21 minutes ago, aryagonnakill#2 said:

Interesting take.  I think the best example of the walls magic probably comes from Sam bringing Bran and Co through the gate.  The Wall clearly has some sort of recognition that Sam is a member of the NW.  Sam also tells Bran that only he can open the gate, a sworn brother.  This seems to suggest that he could not have simply told Bran to say the words, as the words didn't matter, it was Sam that mattered.

I always wondered if this was somehow the original vows of the NW brothers?

• They were white too, and blind. "Who are you?" the door asked, and the well whispered, "Who-who-who-who-who-who-who."
  "I am the sword in the darkness," Samwell Tarly said. "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. I am the shield that guards the realms of men."
  "Then pass," the door said. Its lips opened, wide and wider and wider still, until nothing at all remained but a great gaping mouth in a ring of wrinkles.

[The Fattest Leech]

In general, to the main post, I agree that words are wind. Whoever takes vows and then breaks them must have that final iron door buried in there deep, and once something comes a knocking, the morality monster comes out. That is a dangerous thing to do. It could cost your life and even those of your family.

And the funny thing is that in the story, as in life, it is often the most 'just' and noble that do the oathbreaking, or rule bending the most. They can be the most corrupt. I'm looking at you Janos Slynt

Brienne gets it from her great grandpappy

I am imagining that the title of TWOW is a clue that we readers will get all sorts of reveals, such as what vows really mean, who is a hidden Targ and who is not, who will win in the Vale, who is in "hiding" and will be ready to be outed, etc.

[kissdbyfire]

19 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

I always wondered if this was somehow the original vows of the NW brothers?

• They were white too, and blind. "Who are you?" the door asked, and the well whispered, "Who-who-who-who-who-who-who."
  "I am the sword in the darkness," Samwell Tarly said. "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. I am the shield that guards the realms of men."
  "Then pass," the door said. Its lips opened, wide and wider and wider still, until nothing at all remained but a great gaping mouth in a ring of wrinkles.

Yeah, me too. And even if it isn't, I'm still fairly sure the vow they swear now is not the original vow. 

The other thing about oathbreaking and such, I'm also interested in "proper knights" who are awful, horrible people and who embody the opposite of "knighthood" versus non-knights who are the embodiment of honour versus oathbreakers who were brave enough to break their vows for the greater good/because it was the right thing to do, 

I'm looking at you (in order), Gregor, Boros, Meryn versus Brienne and Dunk and the Hound, versus Jaime. 

[Orphalesion]

Now that is an interesting topic!!

Personally I have always had problems IRL with any sort of oath, especially when applied to abstract concepts like "the King" "the Night's Watch" "The Seven Gods" etc.

Jaime's words and thoughts about oaths are a big part of why he is my favourite character and why I despise the Night's Watch as a concept so much.

I will be arrogant and say that in most circumstances I would hope to be like Jaime when he killed Aerys and not let a vow come into the way of what I personally believe is right. I'd rather be the Kingslayer than the guy who slaps a girl because the "King" demands it.

However since I don't place any worth in oaths like that I would never be a King's Guard, or a knight or a Night's Watch man. With the Night's Watch in particular I'd rather have them put me to the sword before saying those words.

With oaths of fealty to the current regime. Well most of the time they would not be too much of a bother, but I would definitely stay out of any rebellions, especially the ones of the War of the 5 Kings, again here I have the mindset that I never understood why geography should decide my loyalties. At most I'd sent a token force so that the ruler leaves me alone. Oersonally i wouldn't pick up arms for any "King" or "Queen" and would not voluntarily surrender the lives of my smallfolk or household for any such war either.

The only vows I'd take seriously (as I do in real life) would be marriage vows and other promises made to individuals and even here there's a line I where those would fail, mainly when it comes to murder. I would not hide a murderer only because he was my friend or sibling or stuff.

[kissdbyfire]

48 minutes ago, Orphalesion said:

Now that is an interesting topic!!

Personally I have always had problems IRL with any sort of oath, especially when applied to abstract concepts like "the King" "the Night's Watch" "The Seven Gods" etc.

Me too. Swearing an oath is serious, or at least it should be. And the vagueness of whatever to an organisation that will change SO MUCH so many times is insane. 

And that's part of why the NW is no longer true, and haven't been for a long time. Because I don't think a rapist (or thief or arsonist or any kind of criminal) would mean anything by just saying the words. His words are not true, the NW will fail because of that. 

Quote

Jaime's words and thoughts about oaths are a big part of why he is my favourite character and why I despise the Night's Watch as a concept so much.

I will be arrogant and say that in most circumstances I would hope to be like Jaime when he killed Aerys and not let a vow come into the way of what I personally believe is right. I'd rather be the Kingslayer than the guy who slaps a girl because the "King" demands it.

You and me both. Jaime is such a fascinating character! I love reading his PoVs. And hell yeah, that's part of the point of the thread:

Jaime broke his vows and thus saved thousands (?), Darry dutifully kept his vows and Rhaella was raped and beaten and bitten. 

Who's the better man, the better knight, the better human? A no brainier to me.

Quote

However since I don't place any worth in oaths like that I would never be a King's Guard, or a knight or a Night's Watch man. With the Night's Watch in particular I'd rather have them put me to the sword before saying those words.

With oaths of fealty to the current regime. Well most of the time they would not be too much of a bother, but I would definitely stay out of any rebellions, especially the ones of the War of the 5 Kings, again here I have the mindset that I never understood why geography should decide my loyalties. At most I'd sent a token force so that the ruler leaves me alone. Oersonally i wouldn't pick up arms for any "King" or "Queen" and would not voluntarily surrender the lives of my smallfolk or household for any such war either.

Geography should never determine your loyalties, your brain and your heart should. 

Quote

The only vows I'd take seriously (as I do in real life) would be marriage vows and other promises made to individuals and even here there's a line I where those would fail, mainly when it comes to murder. I would not hide a murderer only because he was my friend or sibling or stuff.

I think I could hide a murderer and lie to protect the secret. Call it moral relativism, I don't really care but it's all to do with who is the murderer and who is the murdereree.

[Orphalesion]

Just now, kissdbyfire said:

 

I think I could hide a murdered and lie to protect the secret. Call it moral relativism, I don't really care but it's all to do with who is the murderer and who is the murdereree.

I will admit the same would probably be true for me as well. I know there are people I care enough about to break the law for them, particularly if it was a stupid law or there might have been very good reason to break said law, including murder. There a people I care enough about to break the law myself if it would safe them from death.

To quote my favourite character "The things I do for love..."

[kissdbyfire]

59 minutes ago, Orphalesion said:

I will admit the same would probably be true for me as well. I know there are people I care enough about to break the law for them, particularly if it was a stupid law or there might have been very good reason to break said law, including murder. There a people I care enough about to break the law myself if it would safe them from death.

To quote my favourite character "The things I do for love..."

And that's just how it should be. Isn't it?

I love many characters, and I  absolutely adore Jaime. I like to think I don't have one favourite character but if someone were to put a gun to my head and demand I pick one fave character, I'd pick Jaime. 

And if you love him you must read @LadySoftheart's blog:

http://mummersdragon.blogspot.com/

 

 

[The Hoare]

The right thing is relative. Different people can have different concepts of what it means.

If someone thought he couldn't keep a vow, he shouldn't have made one

[Lord Wraith]

On 2/10/2017 at 8:56 PM, The Fattest Leech said:

I always wondered if this was somehow the original vows of the NW brothers?

• They were white too, and blind. "Who are you?" the door asked, and the well whispered, "Who-who-who-who-who-who-who."
  "I am the sword in the darkness," Samwell Tarly said. "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. I am the shield that guards the realms of men."
  "Then pass," the door said. Its lips opened, wide and wider and wider still, until nothing at all remained but a great gaping mouth in a ring of wrinkles.

I agree on the idea of an original oath.

 

To the OP its the same things as House Tully's words: Family, duty, honor. Which do you choose. I think all the Tully's have had to make those decisions. Especially Blackfish.

[Protagoras]

3 hours ago, The Hoare said:

The right thing is relative. Different people can have different concepts of what it means.

If someone thought he couldn't keep a vow, he shouldn't have made one

This.

Swearing an oath is serious and that is why you should be forced to hold it. FORCED!

You do not have the right to say "nope, that's a bit much" nor claim common sense. The OP fails to understand that they quote from Jaime is one that makes him unsuitable, not suitable for the job. His job is to obey his king, not dictate his action and he fails at this several times. The problem has never been that Jaime is forced to obey "bad oaths", the problem is Jaimes attitude to rules.

He want to be able to do "the right thing" and yet still hold his prestigous KG-title and that is frankly absurd, not only because "the right thing" is subjective in the first place, but also since he simply have no right enforcing his personal morality on everyone else and especially not the person he is required to serve!. 

And Jaime fails to specify why certain acts are ok and certain acts not. Say Tommen wants to raise the taxes and Jaime think that is bad - should Jaime be allowed to stop him then too? Should others? No? Well, they you need to motivate in an objective way why certain interventions are needed and some are not and since nothing IS objective we will only hear his bullshit opinion. What if Trump gets shot by someone in secret service who believe he has the moral right to do so because he despises Trump and personally see him as evil and dangerous? Is this really an ideal to be applauded? No, said servicemember should spend the rest of his life in prison even if Trump was going to nuke China at that moment. He or she is not allowed to morally judge Trump. He or she should only obey. 

And because of this subjectiveity, you need to have a hard rule. That is, there are no approved cirumstances, that hasn´t been specified beforehand, that allows a wow to be broken and if you break it, you will/should be seen as a swine for doing so - regardless of reasons. Jaime refuses to accept this however, which make him moralistic asshole. 

[kissdbyfire]

2 hours ago, The Hoare said:

The right thing is relative. Different people can have different concepts of what it means.

If someone thought he couldn't keep a vow, he shouldn't have made one

It's nothing to do with being able to keep a vow, but deliberately deciding to break it. And while I partially agree that the right thing will mean different things to different people, some things won't. Some things will always be right and others will always be wrong. 

[Protagoras]

27 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

It's nothing to do with being able to keep a vow, but deliberately deciding to break it. And while I partially agree that the right thing will mean different things to different people, some things won't. Some things will always be right and others will always be wrong. 

No they won´t.

If you hold the view that, what is right or wrong doesn’t depend on what anyone thinks is right or wrong you need come kind of reference to separate it from your own or others opinion.You need to justify the claim that there is such a thing as objective moral truth. Otherwise, there will only be your (subjective) words on it. And here is the problem - you don´t really have any facts to give, like you could in say - a disagreement about the shape of the earth. You need a a universally unquestioned source - which doesn´t exist. 

Morality is based on people and those peoples opinions about it. Because what else is there to base it on? And moral disagreements are not rationally resolvable. Therefore what will be seen as right or wrong will vary - which should be evident by sheer diversity of moral opinions which exists between societies.

[kissdbyfire]

@Protagoras, I disagree. There are things that will always be wrong and reprehensible (and things that will always be right) even if some might not find them wrong and reprehensible. I am aware that this is my opinion only, but that is kind of the point. First, the things I find objectionable and wrong are in fact objectionable and wrong to me. Let me pick an easy one to use as an example... paedophilia, child abuse/murder. In my opinion, anyone who doesn't consider these things objectionable, wrong, despicable is on the wrong side of the argument. 

Going back to the OP... I'm sure there are people who think Dunk was wrong to defend Tanselle because he beat up prince Aerion. I don't, I think he was absolutely right in doing what he did. Same for Jaime killing Aerys. And I'll never understand how anyone can defend Darry and all th others who stood by Rhaella's bedroom door listening while Aerys raped her and bit her and gods know what else and did nothing. These KG stood by their precious vows, and imo they're cowards. Otoh, Jaime broke his vows and Dunk hadn't taken them at that point, and both are heroes. 

[Orphalesion]

10 hours ago, The Hoare said:

The right thing is relative. Different people can have different concepts of what it means.

If someone thought he couldn't keep a vow, he shouldn't have made one

So it's right to stand by and watch half a million people die because an obvious crazy person decides that he wants a giant, neon green barbecue?

Moral relativism only goes so far, like Kissdbyfire said, there are things that are objectively wrong.

Plus that message seems at odds with itslef: "There is not objective Right and Wrong, it's our own mindset that applies those lables! But Oaths are always right and remove all agency and right to judge!" 

[The Hoare]

57 minutes ago, Orphalesion said:

So it's right to stand by and watch half a million people die because an obvious crazy person decides that he wants a giant, neon green barbecue?

Moral relativism only goes so far, like Kissdbyfire said, there are things that are objectively wrong.

Plus that message seems at odds with itslef: "There is not objective Right and Wrong, it's our own mindset that applies those lables! But Oaths are always right and remove all agency and right to judge!" 

Who decides what is objectively wrong? A 16 year old recently knighted?

 

The moment a knight(or anyone else) swears a oath he's accepting, by his own standarts of right and wrong, the fact that his words will have consequences.

Jaime made a oath that he would always obey the King. He accepted the idea that it was a right thing for a KG to obey the King, when he killed Aerys he was proving(by his own moral standarts) to be a evil man.

 

There is no point in making oaths if it has no meaning

[kissdbyfire]

12 minutes ago, The Hoare said:

Who decides what is objectively wrong? A 16 year old recently knighted?

 

The moment a knight(or anyone else) swears a oath he's accepting, by his own standarts of right and wrong, the fact that his words will have consequences.

Jaime made a oath that he would always obey the King. He accepted the idea that it was a right thing for a KG to obey the King, when he killed Aerys he was proving(by his own moral standarts) to be a evil man.

 

There is no point in making oaths if it has no meaning

Who decides? Anyone. Any one person has the right and the responsibility of making that decision, and it happens all the time. Most times these decisions are not important, they're about inconsequential things. But what happens when they're about something important, like the deaths of hundreds or thousands of people, or even the death of one person? 

Yes, Jaime swore an oath. And the boy who dreamed of being Arthur Dayne became the Smiling Knight instead, and a cynic to boot. But what about the recipient of a vow, be it a person or an organisation or whatever? Mustn't the recipient be worthy of the vow? What happens when everything is hunky dory at the time the vow is made, and afterwards the recipient becomes someone/something different than they were when the vow was made? Is the person who swore the vow still bound by it?

[The Hoare]

10 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Who decides? Anyone. Any one person has the right and the responsibility of making that decision, and it happens all the time. Most times these decisions are not important, they're about inconsequential things. But what happens when they're about something important, like the deaths of hundreds or thousands of people, or even the death of one person?

So, any person has the right to kill someone they believe did a wrong thing?

 

14 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

 Is the person who swore the vow still bound by it?

Of course. That's what the "always" or "eternal" means.

Brienne vows to Catelyn actualy prevented this kind of thing from happening.