Would Barristan have beaten Sansa?

[Varysblackfyre321]

9 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

I don't know what the pre-cut means but yes Jamie tossed a kid from a window.  What Jamie and Cersei are doing is treason. Penalty for treason is death ---- death of Cersei, Jaime and the rug rats.

27 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Pre-cut as in the Jaimie we see before having his hand cut off. Jaimie cared nothing for his children. Their lives have no factor in his decision nor does he pretend they did. It could have been anyone who stumbled upon Cersi and Jaimie's incestous act; Cersi warned Jaimie the risk of being caught was too great; Jaimie was willingly to risk having to murder whomever comes across their love making to release some of his pent up sexual frustration. It could have been a man, a woman, or even a child even younger than Bran. He didn't care.

15 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

33 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

 

Trying to clarify --- it's your thought that Jaime would indeed smack Sansa if Joffrey deemed it necessary.

33 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Pre-cut Jaime would certainly would and not feel shame at doing it. Not really joy either. It's simply a minute task that would need to be done by him. If anything it'd be boring for him. 

All he cares about at this point are his brother and sister and being able to fuck said sister.

 

[Lord Varys]

10 hours ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Are you a licensed psychiatrist?  No, I think not. 

I can (and do) not only read fantasy novels.

10 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

From memory, so not verbatim.

The king is eight. Our duty is to protect him, even from himself. If the king asks you to saddle his horse, obey. If he asks you to kill his horse, come to me. 

That is Jaime when dealing with Tommen. And it is nonsensical to make such a proclamation there because nothing bad would ever come from Tommen. Putting Tommen under the strict guidance of trustworthy adults like the men of his Kingsguard (who answer to the likes of Cersei and Jaime) isn't a positive thing. Joff needed to be restrained, but Tommen needs to be empowered to prevent that he is going to be under somebody's thumb his entire life or incapable of fulfilling the role of king.

The only advice Jaime ever gave to Tommen is to retreat inside, to let other people do things with and to him (when he told him to go away in sight while attending Tywin's funeral). As a king Tommen should have been encouraged to decide by himself how long he had to attend the stinking corpse, and perhaps even to make the call how long the entire court has to sit through shit like that.

11 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

sadism noun [ U ] 

UK  /ˈseɪ.dɪ.zəm/ US  /ˈsæd.ɪ.zəm/

 

the activity of getting pleasure, sometimes sexual, from being cruel to or hurting another person

Dictionaries reflect the usages of words, they do not define concepts.

10 hours ago, HelenaExMachina said:

Something to consider which could perhaps make this less clear cut (I am not sure if he would or not Personally) is Barristan’s opposition to assassinating Dany. Sure, that’s in the context of a council meeting, but it still opposes the King’s will. Something to chew on, but it doesn’t really sway me fully to say he wouldn’t do it. 

See above. There are hints that Selmy is actually a pretty decent guy who was never involved in anything as unpleasant as beating a little girl, neither under Robert, Aerys II, and Jaehaerys II. Mostly because back during the last Targaryen kings the Kingsguard were not used as the king's thugs. Sandor, Jaime, Trant, Blount, Kettleblack, etc. aren't the first thugs on the Kingsguard, but Aerys II didn't have any such men in his KG.

He may have had thugs, too, but they wouldn't have eaten at the table. If Aerys II had torturers and thugs - and he likely had some - they wouldn't have been members of the Kingsguard.

It is a sign of the moral bankruptcy that men like Jaime, Sandor, Kettleblack, Blount, Trant, etc. are given white cloaks (or allowed to keep). Even Tywin sees that (not with Jaime, of course) when he makes it clear that you feed your dogs at your table.

[kissdbyfire]

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I can (and do) not only read fantasy novels.

Good for you. 

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That is Jaime when dealing with Tommen. And it is nonsensical to make such a proclamation there because nothing bad would ever come from Tommen. Putting Tommen under the strict guidance of trustworthy adults like the men of his Kingsguard (who answer to the likes of Cersei and Jaime) isn't a positive thing. Joff needed to be restrained,

But you said Joff's impulses were normal, that he is the result of his upbringing and not a psycho. 

Here:

"Joffrey is (for the most part) a product of his upbringing and the society he lives in, not some evil monster."

So why now claim he needed to be restrained? 

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

but Tommen needs to be empowered to prevent that he is going to be under somebody's thumb his entire life or incapable of fulfilling the role of king.

The only advice Jaime ever gave to Tommen is to retreat inside, to let other people do things with and to him (when he told him to go away in sight while attending Tywin's funeral). As a king Tommen should have been encouraged to decide by himself how long he had to attend the stinking corpse, and perhaps even to make the call how long the entire court has to sit through shit like that.

That's ludicrous. Tommen needs parenting, like any child does, royal or not. And empowering a child, especially one who will have such huge responsibilities, is a process that should start very early on and is ongoing until said child is considered old enough to make their own decisions. Tommen is ignored, manipulated, bossed around, but he is never taught anything. 

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Dictionaries reflect the usages of words, they do not define concepts.

You are being silly. I said sadism is not necessarily sexual, and you said I was wrong, and gave us all a lecture on the subject, as follows:

"Actually, sadism is sexual concept referring to sexual arousal triggered by inflicting pain on others. If you don't feel pleasure by inflicting pain on other creatures you are not a sadist. And most sadists are not psychopaths (or otherwise severely deranged) in the sense that they get off on inflicting pain on people who do not enjoy feeling pain. That's the whole point BDSM which is actually a rather broad spectrum within human sexuality."

Sadism is only a "sexual concept" when dealing w/ sexual sadism. Which happens sometimes, as per the Cambridge Dictionary. If you disagree, you should write to them and explain that they are wrong. I'm sure they'll be delighted to learn it. 

[Lord Varys]

39 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Good for you. 

But you said Joff's impulses were normal, that he is the result of his upbringing and not a psycho. 

Here:

"Joffrey is (for the most part) a product of his upbringing and the society he lives in, not some evil monster."

So why now claim he needed to be restrained? 

There is no contradictory there. Murderers are also the product of their upbringing, yet that doesn't mean society should allow them to run amok.

Addendum: Do you think 'psychos' aren't the products of their upbringing, either? They are. Nobody is 'born evil'. Psychopaths have issues with their brains that develop and are shaped during their childhood and adolescence if they suffer through certain traumas and deal with them the wrong way. The cliché of the evil psycho monster is just that - a cliché.

I've a problem with arguments like 'Joffrey is evil because he is evil and him being evil explains everything'. Joffrey is the way he is because of his mother, and his two absent fathers (one of who also happens to be his absent uncle) and, presumably to a less degree, how he was treated by the other members of the court and the people around him.

He also may have issues with empathy and violence, but we don't really know how severe they were. When Joff cuts Mycah (a person that should be barely human from his point of view) he is quite drunk, and under the impression that some butcher's boy was interacting in an improper manner with the sister of his betrothed, a daughter of one of the greatest lord of the Realm. If the Stark guards may have chanced on Mycah hitting accidentally hitting Arya in their game he may also have been severely punished.

And it is not that he isn't around men whose profession it is to kill men (and women and children). This is a very ugly world. I mean, what is a child of Robert Baratheon/Jaime Lannister and a grandson of Tywin Lannister supposed to learn about the meaning of violence and cruelty? The former is how his fathers seized power and killed the last king, and the latter is how his grandfather restored the power of his house and sealed the rise of the Baratheon dynasty to the Iron Throne.

Joffrey would have to be even dumber than he is to not understand that you have to be violent and cruel if you want to have power. That's what the power of his family is based on.

Quote

That's ludicrous. Tommen needs parenting, like any child does, royal or not. And empowering a child, especially one who will have such huge responsibilities, is a process that should start very early on and is ongoing until said child is considered old enough to make their own decisions. Tommen is ignored, manipulated, bossed around, but he is never taught anything. 

Exactly my point. Jaime doesn't teach him anything, either.

As a child, Tommen's parents should have cared about while he still had a proper (princely) childhood. Once he is crowned king the days of his childhood are effectively over. The well-being of his parents, family, and subjects depend on him growing into a person who can deal with the strain and responsibilities that come with the kingship. In this setting the Realm and its people suffer when the king is weak since everything depends on the king.

It is understandable that Tommen's court try to use and exploit him - they are, for the most part, not his family - but Jaime is. And he does nothing to strengthen or help the boy. Cersei at least tries - she is torn between the fact that Tommen simply isn't capable of growing into a good king, her motherly desire to protect him, and her own ambition.

Quote

Sadism is only a "sexual concept" when dealing w/ sexual sadism. Which happens sometimes, as per the Cambridge Dictionary. If you disagree, you should write to them and explain that they are wrong. I'm sure they'll be delighted to learn it. 

Again, dictionaries don't define concepts. They just reflect how people use words.

[Sigella]

14 hours ago, Lollygag said:

I'm not following. Your first paragraph is about how Joff would listen to Cersei but your second paragraph demonstrates Joff not listening to Cersei.

And are you really using Cersei's sense of morality and human decency as evidence that she'd stop Sansa's beatings? Joff beat Sansa out in the open and it's unbelievable that Cersei was unaware of this. She either couldn't stop Joff or had no interest in doing so.

 

No, my first paragraph was pointing out the text support for Cersei's "calming" effect on Joff.

The second underlined that Cersei, in fact, tried to stop Ned's execution but was unable due to circumstances (in front of a great baying mass of people and Ser Ilyn being quick on the draw).

Her trying means you are wrong in claiming she wouldn't care and never do anything about it etc. At least so long as text support weighs heavier than free speculation.

I'm sorry that it was unclear, english isn't my first language so I'm a bit clumsy with it.

[Jon_Stargaryen]

I'm leaning towards a resounding "YES."

Barristan knew the type of person Joffrey was, and had to be told- more than once- to leave the Kingsguard. He only left after being shamed and embarrassed, and while he didn't personally play a hand i Aerys' deeds, he didn't stop him, or even make an attempt (from what we know). He also stood aside and let a drunken Robert get skewered (not that he could have stopped him, but while we're piling on).

Had Joffrey not stripped him of his cloak, I am confident enough to say that it would have been uncomfortable, but it would have happened.

[zandru]

It's funny how there were so many other Kingsguardsmen (?) who could have been bumped to make room for the Hound:

• Boros Blount, who appeared further over the hill than elderly Barristan
• Meryn Trant, even more so (a toad masquerding as a tiger?)
• Mandon Moore, who a sane person wouldn't want to let out of their sight
• and even Jaime Lannister, who Joffrey could have sent home to a grateful Grandpa to be the new ruler of Casterly Rock

For that matter, the Hound could have received a temporary appointment to the KG, given Jaime's unfortunate absence due to war. But that would have required some strategic thought, and would have avoided public humiliation of the Great Man, Selmy - neither of which Joffrey was capable of. I doubt that Joffrey was even looking ahead to where he'd have his fiance beaten regularly.

[Jon Fossoway]

19 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 

I'll believe Aerys II ate children and had his Kingsguard beat up little girls when I get textual evidence that he did that kind of thing, and not before. He can believe that he did all that (and that he did transform into a dragon after his death) if you want do, but I don't.

But I guess I have to shave and cut my hairs and nails more often or else people like you will suspect I rape my non-existing sister-wife or want to burn some fictional city with fictional wildfire.

This is the kind of reasoning I usually not bother responding to in this board. Aerys is a fictional character portrayed and nicknamed 'Mad'. There is plenty of evidence of his violent ways against people around him. His appearance was penned by George to enforce this impression. & why the hell are we talking about Aerys anyways.

[UnFit Finlay]

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Your mind isn't what matters, the text is. Joff is a little piece of shit, no question about that, but there is no indication that (sexual) sadism is the reason why he picks on Sansa.

He has very good reasons to hate and loathe the Starks. And he and his family and government actually have very good reasons - reasons that are perfectly accepted within the framework of the society they live in - to make her suffer and die for the actions of her family.

It is not very nice but that's how it is.

If Ned Stark was actually willing and capable of murdering Theon Greyjoy over something his father has done, then he is actually more fucked up than Joffrey. Joffrey is a child that cannot really control his cruel tendencies (yet), but Ned is actually a good man knowing that this is the wrong thing to do yet he would willing to do such a hideous thing anyway, just to prove a point or obey his king.

I disagree, obviously.

Look at his actions after the Red Wedding? The war was won, the Starks had been wiped out and. Sansa was married to a Lannister. There was absolutely NO benefit at all to continue to torture her and, yet, he demanded Robb's head to serve to her at his wedding feast!

Whose behaviour was she hostage for then? Her closest family, at that point, was Tyrion Lannister! The reaction of the other people in the room would tend to suggest that it was not acceptable behaviour either. Kevan objects in a shocked voice, Tyrion more forcefully and Cersei tries to dismiss it as a joke. Once Tywin has Joffrey removed, Tyrion compares him to The Mad King and Tywin does not disagree.

I would also question whether coldly executing a hostage and taking no joy out of it is anywhere close to as psychotic as the things Joffrey gleefully did to Sansa.

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We are not wondering whether some thugs would have beat up Sansa, we are are wondering whether Ser Barristan Selmy would have done that. And I really don't think Ser Barristan Selmy tortured or beat up anybody under Aerys II.

In fact, the whole Duskendale thing shows that the man really earned the trust and gratitude of his Mad King. Aerys II spared the life of Dontos Hollard simply because Selmy asked it of him. If did something like that - spare a person he actually wanted to kill - then it is not likely that he called on Selmy to beat up girls or torture people unless he had reason to believe Selmy wanted to do stuff like that.

And there is no reason whatsoever to believe that Selmy had any such desires or ever did stuff like that.

Joffrey has a corrupt Kingsguard full thugs and rabble. Aerys II didn't have such a KG.

I do agree with you here. There is a massive decline in quality between the two Kingsguards. They aren't even comparable.

15 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I don't believe it's particularly hard to grasp the message of my post; I'm sorry if I was unclear however.  Jaimie pre-cut is willing to kill an 7 year old for happening to see Jaimie and Cersi fucking. Quite easily I might add, didn't even have trouble sleeping that night I'd wager. And really never really shows remorse for his action prior to being cut and even post cut when he shows some disgust at what he done to Cersi he's pretending as though he impart a victim of the incident. It's bizarre to suppose the Jaime we see in AGOT would needlessly cause himself more trouble and risk Cersi's ire by refusing to hi the face of some girl who at this point had no real importance to him. He would beat Sansa if demanded, go on to fuck Cersi, and go on with his life as KG as if nothing happened.

When has Jaime ever shown himself to be particularly bothered about Cersei's ire? She was mad at him for pushing Bran and he just shrugged it off. Would "I'm not going to hit a little girl for you" really be a dealbreaker?

Aside from that, the question is whether he'd hit Sansa if JOFFREY ordered him too. I really don't see it. Jaime is, above all else, arrogant as hell. He would see it as beneath him and rightly so.

I do wonder if Joffrey would even ask Jaime actually. They don't appear to have much of a relationship but I suspect he'd be a bit more intimidated of his famous Kingslaying Uncle. Certainly more than he is of Boros Blount and co anyway.

[Lollygag]

2 hours ago, Sigella said:

No, my first paragraph was pointing out the text support for Cersei's "calming" effect on Joff.

The second underlined that Cersei, in fact, tried to stop Ned's execution but was unable due to circumstances (in front of a great baying mass of people and Ser Ilyn being quick on the draw).

Her trying means you are wrong in claiming she wouldn't care and never do anything about it etc. At least so long as text support weighs heavier than free speculation.

I'm sorry that it was unclear, english isn't my first language so I'm a bit clumsy with it.

No worries. I couldn't tell you weren't a native speaker!

Ned's beheading and Sansa's beatings aren't comparable to me. Ned is useless when beheaded, but Sansa's value as a hostage doesn't change because the beatings are carefully done to cause no permanent damage. I don't see any reason why Barristan would think that he could go to Cersei and that 1) she would want to change Joff's decision and 2) she could change his decision. Barristan as a KG would be well aware of their relationship and character. As a reader, I can see a number of reasons why Cersei would want Sansa beaten as @The Bard of Banefort pointed out upthread.

[cpg2016]

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

See above. There are hints that Selmy is actually a pretty decent guy who was never involved in anything as unpleasant as beating a little girl, neither under Robert, Aerys II, and Jaehaerys II. Mostly because back during the last Targaryen kings the Kingsguard were not used as the king's thugs. Sandor, Jaime, Trant, Blount, Kettleblack, etc. aren't the first thugs on the Kingsguard, but Aerys II didn't have any such men in his KG.

Actually, I think the hints go the other way.  And Barristan himself sort of confirms this.  His whole thing is that he considers himself a "true knight" who wouldn't have beaten Sansa, and yet he's one of the guys who stood by as the Mad King raped and literally ate Rhaella, and excused his inaction by saying his Kingsguard vows came first.

It seems to me to be pretty clear that Barristan would 100% hit Sansa, though he'd do it the way Arys does - as lightly as possible, and only after trying to dissuade Joffrey.

When Barristan is reflecting on his time under Aerys, he makes it pretty clear that he was made to participate in a lot of morally objectionable behavior, at least passively.

Moreover, this all ties in to the same moral theme GRRM explores with knights and knighthood and the oaths that come with it.  Brienne is the truest knight of all, despite not being one.  Sandor is the only Kingsguard who won't beat Sansa, despite not being a knight.  Jaime's greatest act, the one unquestionably correct thing he does, is to betray his Kingsguard oath because his oath to protect the innocent and weak was more important.  Barristan is an example of someone who doesn't rise above that - he, along with many others, thinks that it is the vow itself that has paramount importance, and not the underlying moral principle (e.g. the old debate about whether keeping the letter of the law, or the spirit of the law, is more important).  This doesn't make Barristan bad, or evil, it just means that he's one of the many people throughout history who may be a good person in service to a bad cause.  Ditto Kevan Lannister, who seems to be a genuinely okay person in that society, but who nonetheless has spent his whole life serving Tywin Lannister, one of the most egregiously evil characters we encounter.

[Lollygag]

1 hour ago, zandru said:

It's funny how there were so many other Kingsguardsmen (?) who could have been bumped to make room for the Hound:

• Boros Blount, who appeared further over the hill than elderly Barristan
• Meryn Trant, even more so (a toad masquerding as a tiger?)
• Mandon Moore, who a sane person wouldn't want to let out of their sight
• and even Jaime Lannister, who Joffrey could have sent home to a grateful Grandpa to be the new ruler of Casterly Rock

For that matter, the Hound could have received a temporary appointment to the KG, given Jaime's unfortunate absence due to war. But that would have required some strategic thought, and would have avoided public humiliation of the Great Man, Selmy - neither of which Joffrey was capable of. I doubt that Joffrey was even looking ahead to where he'd have his fiance beaten regularly.

I agree. Something really smells about Barristan's dismissal.

Below, note how when Tyrion asks Cersei about Barristan's dismissal, she blames Joff's grieving for Robert and Varys but Joff doesn't give a fig about Robert. I think this was Cersei's idea and Varys no doubt jumped at the opportunity and egged her on. If you follow Joff's feelings, it all comes out.

 

ACOK Tyrion I

"His Grace has a unique way of winning the hearts of his subjects," Tyrion said with a crooked smile. "Was it Joffrey's wish to dismiss Ser Barristan Selmy from his Kingsguard too?"

Cersei sighed. "Joff wanted someone to blame for Robert's death. Varys suggested Ser Barristan. Why not? It gave Jaime command of the Kingsguard and a seat on the small council, and allowed Joff to throw a bone to his dog. He is very fond of Sandor Clegane. We were prepared to offer Selmy some land and a towerhouse, more than the useless old fool deserved."

ACOK Sansa I

"I am sorry for your loss as well, Joffrey," the dwarf said.

"What loss?"

"Your royal father? A large fierce man with a black beard; you'll recall him if you try. He was king before you."

"Oh, him. Yes, it was very sad, a boar killed him."

 

ASOS Tyrion VI (Tywin speaking to Cersei with Tyrion in the room)

"And what were you telling him, pray? I did not fight a war to seat Robert the Second on the Iron Throne. You gave me to understand the boy cared nothing for his father."

"Why would he? Robert ignored him. He would have beat him if I'd allowed it. That brute you made me marry once hit the boy so hard he knocked out two of his baby teeth, over some mischief with a cat. I told him I'd kill him in his sleep if he ever did it again, and he never did, but sometimes he would say things . . ."

 

 

[kissdbyfire]

4 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

Actually, I think the hints go the other way.  And Barristan himself sort of confirms this.  His whole thing is that he considers himself a "true knight" who wouldn't have beaten Sansa, and yet he's one of the guys who stood by as the Mad King raped and literally ate Rhaella, and excused his inaction by saying his Kingsguard vows came first.

It seems to me to be pretty clear that Barristan would 100% hit Sansa, though he'd do it the way Arys does - as lightly as possible, and only after trying to dissuade Joffrey.

When Barristan is reflecting on his time under Aerys, he makes it pretty clear that he was made to participate in a lot of morally objectionable behavior, at least passively.

Moreover, this all ties in to the same moral theme GRRM explores with knights and knighthood and the oaths that come with it.  Brienne is the truest knight of all, despite not being one.  Sandor is the only Kingsguard who won't beat Sansa, despite not being a knight.  Jaime's greatest act, the one unquestionably correct thing he does, is to betray his Kingsguard oath because his oath to protect the innocent and weak was more important.  Barristan is an example of someone who doesn't rise above that - he, along with many others, thinks that it is the vow itself that has paramount importance, and not the underlying moral principle (e.g. the old debate about whether keeping the letter of the law, or the spirit of the law, is more important).  This doesn't make Barristan bad, or evil, it just means that he's one of the many people throughout history who may be a good person in service to a bad cause.  Ditto Kevan Lannister, who seems to be a genuinely okay person in that society, but who n

Nonetheless has spent his whole life serving Tywin Lannister, one of the most egregiously evil characters we encounter.

Great post, agree top to bottom. And the bold x 1,000.

[The Sunland Lord]

Jaime should've jerked Joffrey off on a stone instead of putting him in Cersei. 

[zandru]

1 hour ago, Lollygag said:

I agree. Something really smells about Barristan's dismissal.

Kind of looks as if once Varys learned that Joff wanted his "dog" on the Kingsguard, he saw the opportunity to enlist Ser Barristan by having Joffrey give the old dude the bum's rush. One, it dramatically reduced the honor level and respect for the Kingsguard, both by Barristan's removal and Sandor's inclusion. Two, it made Barristan available to send to Viserys and Daenerys, and embittered enough to want to leave Westeros for Essos. Three, it further tore down the Baratheon dynasty and opened the way for further chaos.

1 hour ago, Lollygag said:

"some mischief with a cat."  [Cersei]

Describing literal vivisection of a cat as "mischief" says a lot about Cersei.

[Sigella]

1 hour ago, Lollygag said:

No worries. I couldn't tell you weren't a native speaker!

Ned's beheading and Sansa's beatings aren't comparable to me. Ned is useless when beheaded, but Sansa's value as a hostage doesn't change because the beatings are carefully done to cause no permanent damage. I don't see any reason why Barristan would think that he could go to Cersei and that 1) she would want to change Joff's decision and 2) she could change his decision. Barristan as a KG would be well aware of their relationship and character. As a reader, I can see a number of reasons why Cersei would want Sansa beaten as @The Bard of Banefort pointed out upthread.

You could be right in the sense that Barrie thinks the way you proposed, though. Although my perception is that he would grasp at any straw in order to keep his honour unbesmirched.

I see your point regarding value of hostages alive/dead. But one could argue that a girl with a smashed up uterus isn't as useful for house Lannister in usurping the North as one that can give Tyrion little lions with Stark blood.

Cersei does have a grasp of PR, she wouldn't let Sansa smile when getting dumped. I'm having difficulty picturing the Cersei that doesn't give a damn that everybody knows Joff likes to pit the KG on his girlfriends.

[Aline de Gavrillac]

On 4/1/2018 at 9:24 PM, The Sunland Lord said:

For Barristan, staying aside is one thing, but engaging in such behaviour is another. We can't know it for certain. 

This.  We cannot know for certain.

What we know is this.  Barristan feels guilt for the past.  He is a changed man now.  He crossed the ocean to look for Daenerys Stormborn and found her.  Finally, he is serving the most worthy of monarchs in Meereen.  Whatever his past may have been, Ser Barristan Selmy has found redemption and forgiveness.

[Varysblackfyre321]

4 hours ago, Sigella said:

When has Jaime ever shown himself to be particularly bothered about Cersei's ire? She was mad at him for pushing Bran and he just shrugged it off. Would "I'm not going to hit a little girl for you" really be a dealbreaker?

Aside from that, the question is whether he'd hit Sansa if JOFFREY ordered him too. I really don't see it. Jaime is, above all else, arrogant as hell. He would see it as beneath him and rightly so.

I do wonder if Joffrey would even ask Jaime actually. They don't appear to have much of a relationship but I suspect he'd be a bit more intimidated of his famous Kingslaying Uncle. Certainly more than he is of Boros Blount and co anyway.

Pretty sure Joffery would see Jaimie as a coward-who stabbed his king in the back to save his ass when it became clear Aerys would lose. Which isn't exactly without merit honestly. 

Trying to kill Bran(he claims at least), was forced to do because of his love for Cers, Disobeying the king in full view of people much Joffery look weak. Joffery who Cersi loves to death. He will not risk her having to pick between him or her son, just spare the face of some girl. Bran was nothing. He could kill a thousand ramdom little boys with the line being to protect her, she would always take him back. But Joffery is her favorite son. She would try much harder. She would try much harder for Jaimie to actually avoid trying to make the boy look a fool in front of his subjects. 

But, again he didn't denigrate himself for having tried murdered a child, it's really odd to he'd shy away from hitting one when commanded  just to spare himself the headache. He's not an honorble man and he's done plenty of things that would be deemed as unbefitting of his status as well; such as robbing the corpse of his kin, trying to murder a 7 year old ect.

It's not as though he can't swallow his pride and not break his oaths to obey the king.

Robert made mockery of Jaime's kings laying ways as well yet he bit his tongue. 

[Lady Blizzardborn]

Honest answer: don't know. 

Wishful answer: no.

Barristan, of all the KG should have thought as far as remembering that Joffrey was not truly king because he was under age. Thus any such order would have to be cleared with either the Regent or the Hand, whoever was closest.

And while he didn't interfere when Aerys II did awful things, it's not quite the same thing as being ordered to do those things himself. He might well have told Joff that his duty is to protect the future queen and if he wanted her hit he'd have to do it himself. Of course Joff wouldn't have liked that but there wouldn't have been anything he could really do about it without making it obvious how awful a king he was, and none of his advisers would have allowed that.

[Lord Varys]

20 hours ago, Jon Fossoway said:

This is the kind of reasoning I usually not bother responding to in this board. Aerys is a fictional character portrayed and nicknamed 'Mad'. There is plenty of evidence of his violent ways against people around him. His appearance was penned by George to enforce this impression. & why the hell are we talking about Aerys anyways.

Because people bring up what Aerys II may have made Barristan Selmy do - or Selmy may have witnessed during his reign - to justify that Selmy would have beaten Sansa. Without them having any evidence that Aerys II ever asked Selmy to beat or even mistreat children.

The Mad King certainly eradicated entire family lines, including innocent children, but there is no evidence that he commanded or used his Kingsguard to do that. Unlike Joffrey, he had a vast pool of men who were willing to do anything to please him.

20 hours ago, UnFit Finlay said:

I disagree, obviously.

Look at his actions after the Red Wedding? The war was won, the Starks had been wiped out and. Sansa was married to a Lannister. There was absolutely NO benefit at all to continue to torture her and, yet, he demanded Robb's head to serve to her at his wedding feast!

That is a good point. At this time Sansa was also a part of the Lannister family. But I'm not sure she was no longer a hostage. She was the rightful Lady of Winterfell now - at least in the mind of the people at court - and thus also a hostage against the behavior of the Northmen. Her family might be eradicated, but the Lords of the North are still out there. They are not going to allow her to go home, obviously, and the message they are sending to the North and the Riverlords clearly - accept that you have been defeated at the Twins, or we'll eradicate House Stark both in the male and the female line.

Still, you have a point there that Joff is unnecessarily cruel there. And I never doubted that. The boy is a little shit who clearly wants to make Sansa suffer. But then - it isn't unheard of within the royal and noble circles that you break and eradicate an entire enemy house. Tywin could have spared the lives of the youngest Tarbecks, could have even married them into the Lannister line. He didn't. He had them drowned in a well.

If Joffrey wants to destroy the Starks - and humiliate or kill Sansa, too - for what they did to him then this is within the framework of the cultural norms of this society. Joff is uncharacteristically cruel at a very early age, but if you compare his treatment of Sansa to, say, Lord Wyman Manderly gleefully feeding Walda Frey Bolton (who wasn't directly involved in the Red Wedding) her close kin then I daresay that the only difference there is that Joff had the courage to loudly say what he wanted to do whereas Wyman just enjoyed himself and cryptically revealed what he had done via the song about the Rat Cook.

20 hours ago, UnFit Finlay said:

Whose behaviour was she hostage for then? Her closest family, at that point, was Tyrion Lannister! The reaction of the other people in the room would tend to suggest that it was not acceptable behaviour either. Kevan objects in a shocked voice, Tyrion more forcefully and Cersei tries to dismiss it as a joke. Once Tywin has Joffrey removed, Tyrion compares him to The Mad King and Tywin does not disagree.

Joff is actually worse than Aerys due to his clearly visible cruel tendencies at such an early age. Aerys II had no such traits at the age of thirteen, nor did he when he took his throne (or during the first ten years of his reign).

As a Stark Sansa is never part of the Lannister, just as 'Arya' is never part of the Bolton family. Those marriages were ways to imprison, control, and exploit them, not ways protect them.

20 hours ago, UnFit Finlay said:

I would also question whether coldly executing a hostage and taking no joy out of it is anywhere close to as psychotic as the things Joffrey gleefully did to Sansa.

On the personal level there is a difference there. But the crime is vastly different. When you kill a person you kill them, and then they are dead. Dead Theon wouldn't care whether Ned smothered him his sleep, took his head with Ice, or skinned him alive before he killed him.

There are better and worse ways how you can kill (or rather: murder) people, but it is murder all the same.

Joffrey never murdered Sansa, though. We don't even know whether he wanted to. But Ned and many other 'good people' are perfectly fine with killing innocent children they treat as hostages.

20 hours ago, UnFit Finlay said:

I do agree with you here. There is a massive decline in quality between the two Kingsguards. They aren't even comparable.

If Selmy, Dayne, Hightower, Whent, etc. had ever done any of things Joff's KG did then they would have been the same thugs as they are. And there is no indication that they were. They witnessed a lot of ugly things, but that's what you do when you participate in war and attend trials and executions.

We can be sure that many of the other sterner yet sane (and not particularly cruel) kings also executed a lot of people, many of which may have not deserved death but were killed to make an example. That is not just Maegor - the Conqueror, Aegon III, Daeron I, Aegon IV, Daeron II, Maekar, even Aegon V should have hanged and beheaded many people. And some of them might have even put men in crow cages and the like. Burning people alive is unpleasant, but not necessarily the worst way to die in Westeros.

19 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Actually, I think the hints go the other way.  And Barristan himself sort of confirms this.  His whole thing is that he considers himself a "true knight" who wouldn't have beaten Sansa, and yet he's one of the guys who stood by as the Mad King raped and literally ate Rhaella, and excused his inaction by saying his Kingsguard vows came first.

Aerys and Rhaella are the king and the queen. And Rhaella is not only Aerys' wife she is also his younger sister. He owns her as her brother, her husband, and her king. The Kingsguard still realized that what Aerys was doing there was very wrong, but it was still something he could do within the rights given to him by the society he lived in.

And not just because he was the king, but also because Rhaella was his wife. Ramsay can also treat Jeyne the way he does because he is her lord husband. There is, as far as I know, no indication that marital rape is a crime in the Seven Kingdoms. Robert raped Cersei occasionally, Lysa did not like to have sex with Jon Arryn, Selyse might not enjoy sex with Stannis, etc.

Nobody ever mentions that (violent) sex between husband and wife is a crime in the Seven Kingdoms. Or rather: a crime bad enough so that the servants and men-at-arms of the husband have a right to intervene.

19 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

It seems to me to be pretty clear that Barristan would 100% hit Sansa, though he'd do it the way Arys does - as lightly as possible, and only after trying to dissuade Joffrey.

I don't see that on the basis of the evidence we have. Barristan turns against Joff very quickly, and he never did that kind of thing under Aerys, either, at least not as far as we know. Standing around while the king rapes his sister-wife isn't the same as beaten a little girl (or raping a woman/the queen yourself).

19 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

When Barristan is reflecting on his time under Aerys, he makes it pretty clear that he was made to participate in a lot of morally objectionable behavior, at least passively.

He was witnessing stuff like that. To what degree he was personally involved is unclear and actually dependent on when he was attending the king and when he was elsewhere.

19 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Moreover, this all ties in to the same moral theme GRRM explores with knights and knighthood and the oaths that come with it.  Brienne is the truest knight of all, despite not being one.  Sandor is the only Kingsguard who won't beat Sansa, despite not being a knight.  Jaime's greatest act, the one unquestionably correct thing he does, is to betray his Kingsguard oath because his oath to protect the innocent and weak was more important. 

Jaime murdered his king because he wanted to, not to protect anyone. He did not have to kill Aerys II to save the people of King's Landing from the wildfire. He could have just knocked him out or arrested him. He wanted to kill Aerys because of what Aerys had done - and because of what he planned to do (to his father and his Westerland buddies who were just butchering the Kingslanders) - but he didn't do it to save anyone.

This isn't a moral dilemma. It is a man who has a pretty good justification for a murder, but it is still a murder, and a murder Jaime actually enjoyed committing.

The Sandor example is also sort of weird in that context. This man is much worse than Barristan Selmy ever could be because of the things he did - he confessed to have killed women and children - whereas Selmy most likely never did that. Selmy certainly could have prevented some things Aerys did, but it is a difference if you commit crimes yourself, and if you just do not prevent them.

Sandor treating Sansa nicely and butchering Mycah shows that his priorities lie where his own heart/sexual desires lie. He treats Sansa gently because he wants something from her, because he idolizes her, because ... whatever. He doesn't do that because he isn't a violent person or living up to chivalric values.

It is still a good thing that he doesn't hit her, of course, but one good thing among many bad things doesn't make him a 'true knight'. It certainly fits in the theme that not all bad people might be completely rotten people (and that not all good people might be perfectly good people).

19 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Barristan is an example of someone who doesn't rise above that - he, along with many others, thinks that it is the vow itself that has paramount importance, and not the underlying moral principle (e.g. the old debate about whether keeping the letter of the law, or the spirit of the law, is more important).  This doesn't make Barristan bad, or evil, it just means that he's one of the many people throughout history who may be a good person in service to a bad cause.  Ditto Kevan Lannister, who seems to be a genuinely okay person in that society, but who nonetheless has spent his whole life serving Tywin Lannister, one of the most egregiously evil characters we encounter.

Selmy isn't the greatest guy, of course, but he is certainly a much better person than both Sandor and Jaime. How good Kevan actually is we don't actually know. Just because Varys thinks he was a good man doesn't mean that's true (although it is a pretty good indication). The complete history on the Westerlands indicates that Kevan was somehow involved in the death/murder of his maternal grandfather.