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

[kissdbyfire]

11 minutes ago, The Hoare said:

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

Is that what you understood from what I said? 

11 minutes ago, The Hoare said:

 

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

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

Indeed. And that's why the vows are either useless or downright stupid.

Useless because there will always be those who will break their vows; sometimes it will be for a good reason/right thing and at other times it won't. The fact remains that there will always be those who will break their vows. 

And utterly stupid because no one should be expected to keep a vow when the recipient changes somehow and becomes unworthy.  And of course, it's different if the recipient has always been unworthy, since the vow was sworn. 

[The Wolves]

3 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

@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. 

Jaime fans keep conveniently forgetting that Jaime stood outside that door and listened and did nothing also while Rhaella was getting raped and abused. Condemn Darry all you want but Jaime is not better. 

He also sat on a throne smiling while innocent men, women, and children were getting raped and murdered by his fellow westernmen and family and did nothing. 

Jaime is the biggest coward in the series hiding behind those Kings guard vows he picks and chooses to follow, he is no hero.  

[Orphalesion]

49 minutes ago, The Hoare said:

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

So a person should stand by as someone is murdered and not interfere at all because "Hey, who decides what's right and wrong?" That's pretty much what Jaime did. He interfered as Aerys was about to murder 500.000 people.

And in a way Jaime WAS following his oaths. His oaths as a knight to protect the weak and serve the realm.

Who decides which oaths are more important? The oath goddess? Can you send her a raven for clarifications in any grey areas?

There is following sensible agreements so that society can functions and there is hiding yourself behind some abstract, illusory oath deity. Oaths are worth NOTHING if they don't serve the needs and safety of the many.

If society can be helped by breaking them, then break them. And I don't think you seriously want to argue that anybody would have been helped by allowing Aerys to torch KL because "Oaths!"

 

1 hour ago, The Hoare said:

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

What does age have to do with it? Civil courage and compassion for your fellow human has nothing to do with age.

[Protagoras]

11 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

@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. 

Clearly not since you said - "that the right thing will mean different things to different people, some things won't".

So some things, according to you, will always be wrong and reprehensible - but in that case they are not really objective. In fact, it is fully possible for some one else to say "I think paedophilia is the right thing", then you wont have any good arguments against it other than that you disagree. 

Because that person claiming the opposite, one person, is all I need to show you that no, people do not agree on this. And while you certainly can define right and wrong as you please, then so can others. I also interpret you that "any person has the right to kill someone they believe did a wrong thing". Because what is really the difference between Jaime and someone who kills because of a cause or a religion? Nothing! Its just empty words that one action is more just than the other with no real backing other than "I think so". 

7 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

Who decides which oaths are more important? The oath goddess? Can you send her a raven for clarifications in any grey areas?

Since Jaime is clearly aware that his oath to Tommen supercedes the oath he gave to Catelyn and that therefore (shockingly!) different oaths have different value, you can take that question to him. 

[Protagoras]

8 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Indeed. And that's why the vows are either useless or downright stupid.

And this is why your word lacks value.

 If you promise me that you will go and have a beer with me but fail to show up and then say "Well, but I had some other duties too - I should be allowed to change my mind", I will be pissed. You DO NOT have the right to change your mind without suffering consequences from your previous choice. Yet some people, like Jaime, only care about themselves. 

7 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

There is following sensible agreements so that society can functions and there is hiding yourself behind some abstract, illusory oath deity. Oaths are worth NOTHING if they don't serve the needs and safety of the many.

If society can be helped by breaking them, then break them. And I don't think you seriously want to argue that anybody would have been helped by allowing Aerys to torch KL because "Oaths!"

There wouldn´t have been an oath in the first place if society hadn´t seen it as important. Jaime is breaking the function of the society he lives in. He kills the king - how is that not a breakdown of the society? 

And its not up to you to define how the society can be helped. Its up to the westerosi. And they, not surprisingly, seems to have an issue with Jaimes action. If they like to have a absolute monarchy, then that should be up to them to decide. Its like you know that the society will be broken down by this, doesn´t care and still falsely claim that the structure is still intact. 

In general I think the arguments from the two of you are laughable. 

[kissdbyfire]

1 hour ago, Protagoras said:

And this is why your word lacks value.

 If you promise me that you will go and have a beer with me but fail to show up and then say "Well, but I had some other duties too - I should be allowed to change my mind", I will be pissed. You DO NOT have the right to change your mind without suffering consequences from your previous choice. Yet some people, like Jaime, only care about themselves. 

There wouldn´t have been an oath in the first place if society hadn´t seen it as important. Jaime is breaking the function of the society he lives in. He kills the king - how is that not a breakdown of the society? 

And its not up to you to define how the society can be helped. Its up to the westerosi. And they, not surprisingly, seems to have an issue with Jaimes action. If they like to have a absolute monarchy, then that should be up to them to decide. Its like you know that the society will be broken down by this, doesn´t care and still falsely claim that the structure is still intact. 

In general I think the arguments from the two of you are laughable. 

That society broke down when the king went mad and no one did anything about it. They all knew he'd gone mad, including his son and heir. And yet most were hiding behind "oh I swore a vow to protect the king [and I'll keep hiding behind said vow because that's easier than doing something about it]". So very similar to, "I was only following orders!" 

And glad our arguments are keeping you entertained.

[Orphalesion]

1 hour ago, Protagoras said:

 

There wouldn´t have been an oath in the first place if society hadn´t seen it as important. Jaime is breaking the function of the society he lives in. He kills the king - how is that not a breakdown of the society? 

And its not up to you to define how the society can be helped. Its up to the westerosi. And they, not surprisingly, seems to have an issue with Jaimes action. If they like to have a absolute monarchy, then that should be up to them to decide. Its like you know that the society will be broken down by this, doesn´t care and still falsely claim that the structure is still intact. 

In general I think the arguments from the two of you are laughable. 

Remembering a previous discussion, you are the guy who didn't even know that Vikings had courts with ladies-in-waiting and nobles vying for favour (or at least who tried to construct some fantasy that the Northerners in Westeros wouldn't have them because they are "too good" for those things). So let's not talk about who makes laughable statements, kay? ;-) 

Only because something had value once doesn't make it magically immutable. The real world is a little bit more complicated than that. Jaime is a person not a computer or a machine. And a mad king, burning down the largest city in Westeros might have damaged society a tiny teeny bit more than Jaime killing him. A tiny bit. 

Who is then to decide how an individual might serve society? Should Jaime have taken a poll of every citizen inside KL's whether they are okay with him breaking the oath or whether they'd rather burn? An dI doubt the average inhabitant of Flea Bottom gets to decide whether they want an absolute Monarchy.

Are you now saying we should never question those in authority? Man that must make the world easy. Yes I'm sure those in power only want good things for everybody.

They had problems with Jaime's action because they are a primitive feudal society with a fetish for imaginary oaths.Also before Brienne he never told anybody, because nobody would have believed him. I'd argue  

If you are saying that Jaime should have stood there and watched as Aerys torched them all, should have done nothing to safe himself or the 500.000 innocents then I don't even know what.

[Protagoras]

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

Snip

 

1 hour ago, Orphalesion said:

Snip

Well, if a person have the right to take an action like that for what you believe is right, then shouldn´t everyone have that right? Why even have laws for murder, because if if I think somone is a really, really big baddie shouldn´t it be ok for me to kill him. I mean, he was really bad. And my personal morality said it was ok, so I shouldn´t be punished.

In fact, this is exactly what Aerys did with Rickard and Brandon. He punished two persons that he thought was really, really bad. In fact, with such a system of chaotic morality he comes of as better than Jaime. At least he had some basis of legal power to do what he did. Now, you might see him as mad but he should still be able to, like you, decide that some things will always be right and others will always be wrong. And he believed what was right was to kill Rickard and Brandon. With your logic, I have a hard time seeing you critizice him. Unless of course you want to prove an absolute morality and runs into the problem outlined before about the problem with absolute morality and the lack of proof.

Or should this only be allowed to do if you are a special, special little snowflake like Jaime and Jon. Because it certainly looks like that certain people is having privilegies here. And thats hardly just right. Not that the two of you give me an impression to care about justice.

Again, laughable. This will result in anarchy every single time and it has the same braindead morality as in the Sword of Truth or any book written by Brendan Sanderson, that is - the protagonists are always right because they are the good guys and can do whatever the heck they pleases. To the point of ridiculousness.

What i am saying is that Jaime should be punished regardless of his motives. And that there are no point where your oath cease to exist unless it has been specified beforehand. And that people who disagree with this has far larger issues than me to work out. That primitive feudal society are STILL the ones deciding what is good and what is bad, regardless of whatever fetishes you think they have. Their rules apply.

[kissdbyfire]

3 hours ago, Protagoras said:

Well, if a person have the right to take an action like that for what you believe is right, then shouldn´t everyone have that right? Why even have laws for murder, because if if I think somone is a really, really big baddie shouldn´t it be ok for me to kill him. I mean, he was really bad. And my personal morality said it was ok, so I shouldn´t be punished.

Have you actually read what I wrote? Because I stated that everyone has the right and the responsibility of making decisions; sometimes these will be unimportant, and decisions will be very important and have grave consequences. 

As to the rest of the paragraph, I'm not sure if you're just having a laugh or if you didn't understand my point. 

Quote

In fact, this is exactly what Aerys did with Rickard and Brandon. He punished two persons that he thought was really, really bad. In fact, with such a system of chaotic morality he comes of as better than Jaime. At least he had some basis of legal power to do what he did. Now, you might see him as mad but he should still be able to, like you, decide that some things will always be right and others will always be wrong. And he believed what was right was to kill Rickard and Brandon. With your logic, I have a hard time seeing you critizice him. Unless of course you want to prove an absolute morality and runs into the problem outlined before about the problem with absolute morality and the lack of proof.

Really? I don't know where to start. Let's see...  

No, that's not what Aerys did. We don't even know how much he knew or didn't know about the events surrounding his decision to kill Rickard and Brandon and the others. Did he know Rhaegar and Lyanna had gone missing? Had he heard rumours about Rhaegar kidnapping Lyanna? Regardless, what Aerys did was not right. If he thought Rickard and Brandon and all the other lads and their fathers were conspiring against the crown (and/or the crown prince), he should have arrested them and executed them, but he didn't. He tortured them because he was mad and a sadist. And I'll add that his actions were unlawful because Rickard demanded a trial by combat, something well within his rights, and Aerys came up with the notion that fire would be his champion. 

Quote

Or should this only be allowed to do if you are a special, special little snowflake like Jaime and Jon. Because it certainly looks like that certain people is having privilegies here. And thats hardly just right. Not that the two of you give me an impression to care about justice.

Both Jaime and Jon made decisions that would have consequences. And they knew their decisions would have consequences, and went ahead anyway because they thought it was the right thing for them to do. I can respect that. Much more in fact than a coward who hides behind words to save his own skin. "I was only following orders!" 

Quote

Again, laughable. This will result in anarchy every single time and it has the same braindead morality as in the Sword of Truth or any book written by Brendan Sanderson, that is - the protagonists are always right because they are the good guys and can do whatever the heck they pleases. To the point of ridiculousness.

No, that's not what's happening in this story. I guess you're gonna have more than a few surprises in the next books. 

Quote

What i am saying is that Jaime should be punished regardless of his motives. And that there are no point where your oath cease to exist unless it has been specified beforehand. And that people who disagree with this has far larger issues than me to work out. That primitive feudal society are STILL the ones deciding what is good and what is bad, regardless of whatever fetishes you think they have. Their rules apply.

The oath doesn't cease to exist, but oaths will be broken - for good reasons or bad reasons - and that is a fact. But if I swear a vow to a ruler and that person goes mad and starts to sadistically torture his subjects, s/he's no longer worthy of my vow. 

[The Hoare]

6 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

The oath doesn't cease to exist, but oaths will be broken - for good reasons or bad reasons - and that is a fact. But if I swear a vow to a ruler and that person goes mad and starts to sadistically torture his subjects, s/he's no longer worthy of my vow. 

Then he shouldn't have made the oath, or at least should've made a oath that prevented him from doings things he considered wrong, like Brienne made.

But no, he wanted the glory of being a KG without the duties that a KG have.

[kissdbyfire]

1 hour ago, The Hoare said:

Then he shouldn't have made the oath, or at least should've made a oath that prevented him from doings things he considered wrong, like Brienne made.

But no, he wanted the glory of being a KG without the duties that a KG have.

Brienne and Cat is a special circumstance, not your standard vow, like the KG or NW vows. 

I don't think he necessarily wanted the glory of being a KG since it wasn't even his idea, and his main motivation at first was to be near Cersei. But sure, he had dreams of becoming as famous and honourable as Arthur Dayne. And what's wrong with that? What's wrong with a young lad having such dreams? Nothing. As to his duties as a KG, from what we know, he's always fulfilled them except when he killed Aerys. Even when those duties went against his beliefs; he was a good and obedient KG then. 

I think part of the problem here is that Jaime is disliked by many people. So, let me ask you something else... What about Arthur Dayne, Oswell Whent and LC Gerold Hightower? Dayne is considered the perfect knight and all that. And it seems he and the others broke their vows as well. After all, Aerys was still alive and was still the King, and their duty was to protect the king, not the king's son, heir, etc. Protecting the king takes precedence over everything else. So, why were they at the ToJ and not KL? I don't believe Aerys told them to go to the ToJ to protect Lyanna Stark, it's much more likely that it was Rhaegar who told them to stay there. It's also very likely that they were in on Rhaegar's plans to depose Aerys. That's oathbreaking as well. 

Am I to take that you find Dayne, Whent and Hightower as despicable as Jaime?

[Protagoras]

20 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Have you actually read what I wrote? Because I stated that everyone has the right and the responsibility of making decisions; sometimes these will be unimportant, and decisions will be very important and have grave consequences. 

As to the rest of the paragraph, I'm not sure if you're just having a laugh or if you didn't understand my point. 

Really? I don't know where to start. Let's see...  

No, that's not what Aerys did. We don't even know how much he knew or didn't know about the events surrounding his decision to kill Rickard and Brandon and the others. Did he know Rhaegar and Lyanna had gone missing? Had he heard rumours about Rhaegar kidnapping Lyanna? Regardless, what Aerys did was not right. If he thought Rickard and Brandon and all the other lads and their fathers were conspiring against the crown (and/or the crown prince), he should have arrested them and executed them, but he didn't. He tortured them because he was mad and a sadist. And I'll add that his actions were unlawful because Rickard demanded a trial by combat, something well within his rights, and Aerys came up with the notion that fire would be his champion. 

Both Jaime and Jon made decisions that would have consequences. And they knew their decisions would have consequences, and went ahead anyway because they thought it was the right thing for them to do. I can respect that. Much more in fact than a coward who hides behind words to save his own skin. "I was only following orders!" 

No, that's not what's happening in this story. I guess you're gonna have more than a few surprises in the next books. 

The oath doesn't cease to exist, but oaths will be broken - for good reasons or bad reasons - and that is a fact. But if I swear a vow to a ruler and that person goes mad and starts to sadistically torture his subjects, s/he's no longer worthy of my vow. 

Yes, I have read what you wrote and I think I have made my opinion very clear on the substance on said writing as well. 

You come of as a biased apologizer who tries to apply diffrent rules for different people, claim said practice is fair and refuses to actually give consequences to the choices Jaime did. I don´t care if you think someone is no longer worthy of your vow, if you fail to keep it regardless of reasons then I consider you scum. Jaime opinion doesn´t matter - he should only obey. And if that is so hard for him then he shouldn´t have sworn the oath in the first place. 

As for me I can not respect a person who breaks the oaths he swear nor people claiming that said oaths can and should be broken, if they really need to be - without said oathbroker sufferening any consequences of course. When someone breaks an oath, the society need to respond - otherwise said rule won´t have a value anymore and if you allow a bodyguard to kill his king scot-free EVEN if said king is a class-A asshole, you are opening up for a praetorian-guard situation in the future where the real power is not the king but the people behind him, who can kill him at whim. And that is worse!

In addition to all this you seem to have a problem understanding the relativistic case made against the idea that there are one true morality and completely fail to get my point about Aerys. 

It is obvious to me that you live in a moralistic little bubble where good persons should stand up to bad persons and that this thread is shaped of the idea that duty and wows should be overriden if you really want to badly enough, thereby making it clear that your word is worthless since you believe you have the right to change it at any given time. 

And quite frankly, I am done with trying to talk some sense in this discussion. You can have your fantasy - I am out of here. 

 

[The Hoare]

20 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Brienne and Cat is a special circumstance, not your standard vow, like the KG or NW vows. 

What matters is what you've said. Standart or not, it was Jaime's choice to make the oath.

20 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

. As to his duties as a KG, from what we know, he's always fulfilled them except when he killed Aerys. Even when those duties went against his beliefs; he was a good and obedient KG then.

And when he fucked his sister.

20 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

What about Arthur Dayne, Oswell Whent and LC Gerold Hightower? 

Am I to take that you find Dayne, Whent and Hightower as despicable as Jaime?

We don't know exactly what happened there, but it's not uncommom for a King to have one or more of his KG protecting his family.

Ser Criston Cole is a example, Arys Oakheart is another

[kissdbyfire]

On 14/02/2017 at 11:38 AM, The Hoare said:

What matters is what you've said. Standart or not, it was Jaime's choice to make the oath.

But what happens when you make a vow with every intention of sticking to it with all your might, but then things change at some point in the future? I understand that for some it wouldn't matter. That regardless of how much the situation or the person changed, they would never ever break a vow or consider the breaking of a vow acceptable. And that's fine. But others would, and then there's a line, and this line will be different for different people. 

Quote

And when he fucked his sister.

Apparently many, many KG fucked someone at one point or another. So, is your big problem here with the fact that he fucked (and then you must have the same prob with many other KG), or is your big prob the twincest?

Quote

We don't know exactly what happened there, but it's not uncommom for a King to have one or more of his KG protecting his family.

Ser Criston Cole is a example, Arys Oakheart is another

Sure. But let's do a hypothetical here, just for argument's sake... Let's assume the following:

- Rhaegar was going to depose Aerys or at least try

- Dayne, Whent and Hightower were at the ToJ on Rhaegar's orders and not Aerys'

Do you consider the three as despicable as Jaime? Is their oathbreaking "better" b/c they're good guys?

 

ETA: and speaking of KG fucking, glad you brought up Oakheart and Cole!

 

[Wall Flower]

5 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

But what happens when you make a vow with every intention of sticking to it with all your might, but then things change at some point in the future? I understand that for some it wouldn't matter. That regardless of how much the situation or the person changed, they would never ever break a vow or consider the breaking of a vow acceptable. And that's fine. But others would, and then there's a line, and this line will be different for different people. 

Apparently many, many KG fucked someone at one point or another. So, is your big problem here with the fact that he fucked (and then you must have the same prob with many other KG), or is your big prob the twincest?

Sure. But let's do a hypothetical here, just for argument's sake... Let's assume the following:

- Rhaegar was going to depose Aerys or at least try

- Dayne, Whent and Hightower were at the ToJ on Rhaegar's orders and not Aerys'

Do you consider the three as despicable as Jaime? Is their oathbreaking "better" b/c they're good guys?

 

ETA: and speaking of KG fucking, glad you brought up Oakheart and Cole!

 

I think when your sister is the queen (wife of the man you have sworn an oath to) and you are committing treason every time you fuck her, it might be considered somewhat outside the KG oath. Not to mention when you are complicit in passing off your twincest bastards as the king's true born heirs. However, I do have sympathy for 17 year old Jaime acting in the face of Aerys' madness.

[kissdbyfire]

4 hours ago, Wall Flower said:

I think when your sister is the queen (wife of the man you have sworn an oath to) and you are committing treason every time you fuck her, it might be considered somewhat outside the KG oath. Not to mention when you are complicit in passing off your twincest bastards as the king's true born heirs. However, I do have sympathy for 17 year old Jaime acting in the face of Aerys' madness.

Fair enough. What about Jaime killing Aerys V Dayne, Whent and Hightower [hipothetically] breaking their vows by obeying Rhaegar and staying at the ToJ, what would be your take?

[cyberdirectorfreedom]

Oaths are a funny thing. It's a rather naive idea, honestly. To think that someone will do something, simply because they've sworn to. People say things all the time. To think that kings surround themselves with armed men, trusting that they'll never betray them. There's a reason it's not simple naivete though. It's because breaking your word has consequences. Forevermore, people will look at an oathbreaker and know that their word is worthless. Completely worthless. They could promise not to harm you; but they've broken promises before. They could promise that you're different, that you're worthy of their loyalty; but why would you believe it? They could promise that only the most extreme thing could push them to break their promise; but how far is too far? How long until they're breaking their word to you, because you're no longer worthy of their loyalty?

It's very simple; don't make promises you can't keep. If you're going to swear to serve someone's every whim for the rest of their life, you had best be sure that they'll be someone you want to serve, for the rest of their life. If you're not sure they will be, don't promise loyalty. It's really not that hard.

Jaime broke his oath. Regardless of whether or not it was the best move, the "right" thing, he broke his oath. From that day forth, his word is worthless. He is clearly willing to swear to things that he's not willing to follow through on. How can there be trust?

The cost of breaking an oath is that you're forever seen as an oathbreaker. One good act can't wash out a bad one. He saved a lot of lives. He broke his oath. He's worthy of praise. He rightfully scorned. He made one action and did two things, and he should be judged on both of them. Just because he broke an oath to help people doesn't mean he didn't break an oath.