Barristan Selmy: Hero or Turncoat?

[Spaceman Hobbes]

Ned and Robert probably overlooked Tyrion.

Actually they probably assumed that Joffery would release uncle Jamie from his vows after Robert died because his mommy told him too. Ned is pretty much trying to prevent the Tyrells from consolidating power.

[Cold Hands-Hot Pie]

I tend to give Barristan the Bold the benefit of the doubt when evaluating his actions.

I do have 1 quibble though. As L.C of the Kingsguard he was on the small council and so privy to a lot of info. I'm pretty sure that he knew the truth of Robert's wishes regarding Ned Stark and the regency; instead he CHOSE to side with Cersei and the Lannisters.

That to me marked the 1 time he had the opportunity to make an informed choice of consequence and he took the easy way out. Sure him going to Ned's side might not have mattered a whit, but at the same time, it's also entirely possible that with someone of Selmy's stature rallying support the Ned's cause might have succeeded. It's easy to get people to side against this cold Northerner whom noone has met before, but Barristan has been part of the court longer than anyone else there except Pycelle and would be expected to have some influence- especially with the kind of people that mattered at a time like that, the ones with swords.

[Lummel]

I suspect that Barristan Selmy was too busy being Ser Barristan the Bold Lord Commander of the Kingsguard to notice much.

If we were to judge the man by the company of the Kingsguard he keeps, either his sense of judgement or his influence with Robert, and presumably with the court as a whole, must have been poor.

[The Gallows Knight]

I do have 1 quibble though. As L.C of the Kingsguard he was on the small council and so privy to a lot of info. I'm pretty sure that he knew the truth of Robert's wishes regarding Ned Stark and the regency; instead he CHOSE to side with Cersei and the Lannisters.

This is also something that, if true, really bothers me about the good lord commander. Though of course, if everyone who should have/could have stood up to Cersei and/or her father at the right times did so these would be very short books.

[ms1191]

More of a turncoat to me.

Viserys and Dany were still alive after the War of the Usuper. Barristan's oath was to the king and the royal house. Westeros under the Targaryen's was a hereditary monarchy. Viserys was now the rightful king of iron throne. And the argument that he was hesitant to serve Viserys because he seemed to be headed towards madness never made sense to me. He served Joffery and never made any issues about his personality until he was stripped of his office.

Although maybe he can now redeem himself with Dany.

[Ser Willis Wode]

This is also something that, if true, really bothers me about the good lord commander. Though of course, if everyone who should have/could have stood up to Cersei and/or her father at the right times did so these would be very short books.

Ser Barristan sees Joffrey as the heir of Robert Baratheon. He does not know about the incestious relationship of Cercei.

So, what should a loyal Lord Commander of the Kingsguard do when the "evil" Regent wants to depose the rightfull king?

Exactly the same thing that ser Barristan did.

The only thing I blame on ser Barristan is that his Kingsguard is not what it used to be. Though you can blame Robert for this too.

[arek]

Selmy had served three kings, two mad and one who was rather mediocre.

?

He served Jaehaerys II, Aerys II, Robert I

Aerys II definately mad

Robert was medicore

But Jaehaerys II was neither mad nor mediocore. He was born sickly but seemed wise as he stated the whole thing bout the coin and Targaryens. He only ruled three years but he ruled well in those years. Jaehaerys was probably the best King Selmy served.

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

Selmy is quite clearly both a turncoat AND a hero.

He betrays his kings, but each time he does so he either: 1) has no choice or 2) is in the right.

His ultimate devotion is not, as someone said, to the monarchy, but to Westeros. He's similar to Varys.

[Spaceman Hobbes]

?

He served Jaehaerys II, Aerys II, Robert I

Aerys II definately mad

Robert was medicore

But Jaehaerys II was neither mad nor mediocore. He was born sickly but seemed wise as he stated the whole thing bout the coin and Targaryens. He only ruled three years but he ruled well in those years. Jaehaerys was probably the best King Selmy served.

I was referring to Joffery. I actually had completely forgotten about Jaehaerys II.

[Mad Monkey]

Did he really "serve" King Joffrey? He is fired during Joffrey's first official court as monarch.

[Ser Willis Wode]

Well, he did help Joffrey to keep his throne when lord Eddard Stark wanted to depose him. It is a very short serve, but he did serve him more than only in name.

I think Barristan did more of a real "serve" for Joffrey than his own father and next Lord Commander ser Jaime Lannister, who was in a cell in Riverrun for almost his entire reign.

[SFDanny]

I tend to give Barristan the Bold the benefit of the doubt when evaluating his actions.

I do have 1 quibble though. As L.C of the Kingsguard he was on the small council and so privy to a lot of info. I'm pretty sure that he knew the truth of Robert's wishes regarding Ned Stark and the regency; instead he CHOSE to side with Cersei and the Lannisters.

That to me marked the 1 time he had the opportunity to make an informed choice of consequence and he took the easy way out. Sure him going to Ned's side might not have mattered a whit, but at the same time, it's also entirely possible that with someone of Selmy's stature rallying support the Ned's cause might have succeeded. It's easy to get people to side against this cold Northerner whom noone has met before, but Barristan has been part of the court longer than anyone else there except Pycelle and would be expected to have some influence- especially with the kind of people that mattered at a time like that, the ones with swords.

What he doesn't know is the truth of Ned's claim that Joffrey is not the lawful king. Ser Barristan makes a choice between a boy he believes is Robert's rightful heir and a man he knows was Robert's choice to be the Lord Protector (he was not yet confirmed by the small council in that role however) who also has publicly proclaimed his intention to bypass the rightful heir. While the choice he makes is a bad one, I can understand why he chooses to do what he does.

To me the more interesting question about Selmy is when does he decide to join with Robert? In particular does he do so before or after he hears the news from the Tower of Joy? He isn't mentioned as accepting Robert's pardon at the coronation alongside Jaime, Pycelle, and Varys, and he is - we are told - severly wounded at the Trident, so it is possible he does not join Robert until months later when Ned returns with the news. If he chooses to support Robert while Hightower, Dayne, and Whent are still alive it puts a different spin on his decision. I'm not sure if it makes it better, but it makes it more understandable if the three are dead.

Oh, and I'm pretty sure Selmy doesn't know about Dany. She is born nine months after the sack, and news from Dragostone to King's Landing is pretty iffy at the time. Not that news that Rhaella was pregnant would necessarily have changed Selmy's course, but it might have.

To the OP's point, I agree he is both a hero and turncoat.

[Jaak]

What he doesn't know is the truth of Ned's claim that Joffrey is not the lawful king. Ser Barristan makes a choice between a boy he believes is Robert's rightful heir and a man he knows was Robert's choice to be the Lord Protector (he was not yet confirmed by the small council in that role however) who also has publicly proclaimed his intention to bypass the rightful heir. While the choice he makes is a bad one, I can understand why he chooses to do what he does.

Regardless of the truth of Ned´s claim, his actions proved him dishonourable and a traitor either way. He could not have discovered Joffrey´s bastardy in the throne room in the few seconds after Cersei tore up Robert´s will!

If Ned believed that Joffrey was bastard, he should have explained in in Little Council, instead of presenting Robert´s will and claiming to be faithful guardian of Joffrey.

When Cersei tore up the will, Barristan protested. But when Ned came out trying to supplant Joffrey with Stannis, Cersei pointed out that now Ned had exposed his treason, and ordered Barristan to arrest Ned. Which Barristan moved to do - with hesitation.

Barristan would have fought to make Ned rather than Cersei regent. But when, surprise surprise, the previously so honourable Ned came out betraying Joffrey and Robert, Barristan had to recognize that it was Cersei who was loyal to Joffrey, and although he did not like the manner Cersei had handled Robert´s will, Eddard´s words had proven Cersei correct.

[AvengingAryaFan]

It's gratifying though to note that he doesn't completely compromise all of his ethical values. When Robert was talking about having Daenerys and Viserys whacked, I think he's one of the only two members of his small council who has the empathy to see why something like that would be wrong and the courage to speak up.

Given that he was injured and unable to continue the fight when Rhaegar and Aerys died, and that no adult Targaryens remained for him to follow, it's worth considering that he may in fact have retained conflicting loyalty to the House of Targaryen. If so, then his speaking up could have been in service of residual loyalty, rather than being purely an ethical stand. At the least, the two motivations (child killing and Targaryen killing, both bad) coincided. Lucky for him. his (probably) conflicted allegiance was never substantially put to the test.

"...probably the words mentions the ruling House, but the vow itself is sacred, and thus meant to be obeyed whatever the ruling House is"

My problem with that is that the Seven Kingdoms, and any accessory institutions like the small council and the Kingsguard, were likely created by House Targaryen. Before they showed up, there wasn't a Seven Kingdoms, or a Kingsguard, or an Iron Throne. The vows would probably mention the Targaryens because there really aren't any other royal families running around and when the vows were written (around Aegon's time, I would assume) I don't think anyone was foreseeing any dynastic changes even though to us they might seem inevitable.

The Targaryens sometimes had trouble deciding which of their offspring was the legitimate ruler. As such, the words should have sworn loyalty to the agreed-upon ruler, rather than merely to their House. Indeed, all the claimants were presumably Targaryen, so mention of that fact in the vows would have been superfluous. The crucial point would be an oath of loyalty to the "legally installed ruler", I should think.

The Kingsguard isn't a council of lawyers - and even if they were, the extraordinary and murky legal issues attendant to Robert's Rebellion would have drawn contradictory opinions (notice how often our Supreme Court Justices are split in their conclusions?). Robert was a plausible claimant, and once the adult Targaryens were dead and the children exiled, his claim became even more colorably legal. It was murky enough that Selmy could allow his judgment of Aerys' unsuitability to sway him into acknowledging Robert as legitimate, without morally bankrupting himself. Unless the language of the vows was inescapably airtight, which I doubt. (Heck, I can make a good argument that Jon remained true to the letter and perhaps even the spirit of his NW vows during his foray past the Wall, and can even see him remaining compliant while effectively ruling the Seven Kingdoms, so long as he structures his behavior a little - these vows are always full of loopholes.)

Which I guess means I believe that Selmy was conflicted, but that he at no time sacrificed his honor for expediency - that the worst he did was permit his conclusion about the reality on the ground to slightly influence his precise interpretation of the vows. Of course, until we know the exact vows this is simply conjecture. I have him 90% honorable, 10% pragmatist, and don't think it's reasonable to deem him a turncloak. (Which seems to be the overwhelming majority conclusion.)

But Jaime L makes a good point about the "hero" part: is heroism in the brave and capable adherence to vows, or is heroism negated by the failures of the system one has vowed to support? I think it's too much to demand that the Kingsguard exercise independent moral judgment; it would completely subvert their purpose. They couldn't be reliable unless violating their oath was essentially unthinkable, earning the popular loathing experienced by Jaime. So even if his loyalty was ultimately counterproductive, I think it's still only fair to give him 80 or 90% for heroism. He's lucky to be have been given the freedom and opportunity to renew his loyalty to the Targaryens - after having first evaluated Dany's decency and stability. Previously he had been duty-bound to NOT evaluate those to whom he was sworn, but he makes excellent ethical use of the ambiguous status of his vows.

The tortured ethical dilemmas served up by Martin really make you appreciate his conclusion that Honor is just a horse. Something to be used to take you to your destination, but to be sacrificed to support really important matters, like war, and certainly before allowing your own death?

[Rockroi]

My opinion of Selmy has never changed: he is a turncoat; twice convicted. And … and I think he is a great and decent man who is trying, like hell, to live a good and honorable life irrespective of the non-sense heaped upon knights, especially the Knights of the Kingsguard.

I find it truly baffling that people who LOVE Selmy despise Jaime; that Selmy is considered the paragon of knightly virtue and Jaime is, in effect, a dishonorable bastard. And its not just readers who think this: Ned Stark lived his life by this. Selmy and Jaime BOTH served Aerys II, both acted at his behest, BOTH turned to serve Robert I. Why is one honorable, the other dishonorable?

Selmy is much like Jaime: both men are fully and wholly aware of their predicament- both know how they have behaved and both men are conflicted by it (Selmy more than Jaime). Both men have tried to make amends (through wildly different methods, though). Both men have paid a high price.

My opinion: I like Selmy a lot, especially because of these contradictions. He is shades of grey, not black or white, despite his white armour. We've seen little of him, but he's a very nuanced character. Somewhere (Jaime reading the Kingsguard records?) it says that Selmy joined the Kingsguard at 23, so he wasn't a kid making a rash decision; by Westeros standards he was a grown man, wordly enough to know what it meant.

Couple of points: first, I disagree that Selmy is a “contradicted” character (conflicted yes; contradicted? No.). Selmy is presented and bathed in the light of knightly virtue and honor. There is no inherent contradiction in how he has lived his life. GRRM has SPECIFICALLY created a large “opportunity” for Selmy to change his allegiance TWICE without any harm to the man’s reputation. First, when he was wounded at the Trident (more later) and second when Joff the Mad dismissed him without provocation; in BOTH scenes, the reader was given the ready-made excuse to forgive Selmy for turning sides. And, it should be noted, in neither turn was Selmy benefited: he reaped no immediate benefit for his actions, always something a reader likes to see.

Second, I also disagree that Selmy was “rash” at 23. First, that is clearly an adult by Westeroes standards. Second, even at that age, from what we know of Selmy, he was still a very stoic and serious man. Finally, if we are going to excuse Selmy at 23 as rash, that 1) does not help him as he was in his 50s by the time Robert’s Rebellion, 70s by the time he turned for Dany, and 2) than clearly Jaime at 17 was also rash. What’s good for the goose is good for the lion.

Precisely when did ser Barristan make the decision to turn coat, and what options did he have?

He was a prisoner. Wounded prisoner. Robert declared that he would not kill a man for being loyal or for fighting well. But Barristan was, for the moment, under care of Robert´s maester, in his camp….When Barristan got better... Prisoners are commonly released by prisoner exchange or ransom. But Barristan´s side was wiped out. Willum Darry certainly had no Baratheon prisoners of war in Braavos to exchange for having Barristan rejoin them in Braavos

This is after-the-fact excuse making. If we are going to pretend that the KG’s oath is absolute (as Ned does) than Selmy is a traitor (my argument is that this fact is meaningless). The KG are sworn to defend the KING! By the time Barristan Selmy has recovered from his injuries he is OBLIGED to refuse Robert’s decree of clemency because 1) Robert Baratheon is not King of Westeros and therefore has no power to grant clemency; and 2) Selmy, in his own mind, has done nothing wrong to warrant clemency. Instead, Selmy should have asked for safe passage to Braavos so that he could take up defending the RIGHTFUL King, Visaerys III. He did not. His decision was reasonable, understandable, honorable and decent.

It was the right thing to do and 100% CONTRADICTORY to his oath as a member of the KG! You cannot talk that last point away.

The precedent of Jaime was made soon after Robert arrived on Iron Throne, before Eddard departed to relieve Storm´s End. Which meant that when Barristan got better, Robert was somewhat bound not to release Barristan to civilian life. And I do not think that Robert would ever have allowed Barristan to join Viserys.

This may be true. However, its not up to Robert; Selmy is honor and oath bound to ATTEMPT to join Viserys. Even if Robert denied him outright, Selmy would have to state that at that point he was a prisoner against his will in KL at the hands of an unlawful Usurper. The first duty of a prisoner is to escape. Selmy would have had to bide his time and potentially get killed, but THAT IS NOT A BAR TO THE OATH HE SWORE! My take: the oath is gobldygook- meaningless pablum. If we are okay with what Selmy did (as many are) than by definition, we MUST be okay with what Jaime did (Killing Aerys). There is no middle ground.

My guess is that Robert offered Selmy a severance package in every sense of the word - serve me loyally and with honor or be severed from your head.

Again, if this is true, than Selmy- according to Ned –is DUTY BOUND to be executed. As stupid as that sounds.

Then again, he had his doubts about Viserys. He clearly says that he was uncomfortable with the madness of Aerys and feared about Viserys.

But not uncomfortable enough to avoid fighting for him (as I have always maintained the honorable men at the ToJ were doing). If Selmy was willing to kill and die at the Trident for Aerys the Mad, he can gain no excuse by trying to not fight for Viserys the Bat-Shit-Crazy. Selmy cannot pick and choose what kings he WILL serve and what ones he WON’T without soiling the oath. Period.

Selmy is quite clearly both a turncoat AND a hero.

:agree:

Given that he was injured and unable to continue the fight when Rhaegar and Aerys died, and that no adult Targaryens remained for him to follow, it's worth considering that he may in fact have retained conflicting loyalty to the House of Targaryen.

Except that he didn’t. He specifically states that he did not to Dany. He is ashamed of this. As far as there being “no adult Targ left” there is no such leeway in the oath he swore. Under Westeroes law, once Aerys II was slain, Viserys is the King (as far as Selmy knew). Selmy now must seek out Viserys and defend him (and reconstitute the KG). The fact that a concordance was reached to make Robert the King should not affect Selmy- either he is loyal to his oaths or not. He was not. I have no problem with that, but lets not try to dress it up and make excuses for the guy.

In the end, interestingly enough, I agree largely with AvengingAryaFan in that Selmy and Jaime are far more similar than anyone cares to say. Both broke their vows, both decided to serve Robert instead of Viserys; both could not stomach Aerys. One is loved, the other despised. To me, that is the most crystal-clear proof at the absurdity of the KG vows – in order to work, they require men to work like machines; an untenable reality. The fact was that any man would have been foolish to insist on fighting for Aerys or Viserys, And that its okay, in my mind, to accept the pardon, remove yourself by going to the ToJ or kill the Mad King.

Because these were men, not robots.

[Blackfish Blues]

My opinion of Selmy has never changed: he is a turncoat; twice convicted. And … and I think he is a great and decent man who is trying, like hell, to live a good and honorable life irrespective of the non-sense heaped upon knights, especially the Knights of the Kingsguard.

I find it truly baffling that people who LOVE Selmy despise Jaime; that Selmy is considered the paragon of knightly virtue and Jaime is, in effect, a dishonorable bastard. And its not just readers who think this: Ned Stark lived his life by this. Selmy and Jaime BOTH served Aerys II, both acted at his behest, BOTH turned to serve Robert I. Why is one honorable, the other dishonorable?

Selmy is much like Jaime: both men are fully and wholly aware of their predicament- both know how they have behaved and both men are conflicted by it (Selmy more than Jaime). Both men have tried to make amends (through wildly different methods, though). Both men have paid a high price.

:agree: I'm one of those who love both characters, exactly for the reasons you've stated.

I love trying to imagine how these guys lived and thought, back at the time of Aerys' death, but also when Selmy was young. For some reason, I see him and Arthur Dayne as having been young together. It's weird, because that would mean that Dayne was about 45 at the Tower of Joy, while many illustrations show him as a young man, and I tend to imagine him that way too; probably because it's said somewhere that he was a friend of Rhaegar's. However, an older warrior can very well be friends with a young prince.

Anyway, Rockroi, your comparison with Jaime made me imagine this situation, young Arthur and Barristan as two faces of the same coin: one the perfect knight (and this would deserve a thread of its own), the other a Jaime-like character - but the Jaime we now know he was when he was young, full of doubts and regrets while outwardly boasting his Lannister superiority and sitting on vacant thrones.

These are just ideas bouncing around in my brain. But I want GRRM to live to 120 in good health, and, after ASOIAF is finished, give us another spinoff about the War of the Usurper.

Couple of points: first, I disagree that Selmy is a "contradicted" character (conflicted yes; contradicted? No.). Selmy is presented and bathed in the light of knightly virtue and honor. There is no inherent contradiction in how he has lived his life. GRRM has SPECIFICALLY created a large "opportunity" for Selmy to change his allegiance TWICE without any harm to the man's reputation. First, when he was wounded at the Trident (more later) and second when Joff the Mad dismissed him without provocation; in BOTH scenes, the reader was given the ready-made excuse to forgive Selmy for turning sides. And, it should be noted, in neither turn was Selmy benefited: he reaped no immediate benefit for his actions, always something a reader likes to see.

Second, I also disagree that Selmy was "rash" at 23. First, that is clearly an adult by Westeroes standards. Second, even at that age, from what we know of Selmy, he was still a very stoic and serious man. Finally, if we are going to excuse Selmy at 23 as rash, that 1) does not help him as he was in his 50s by the time Robert's Rebellion, 70s by the time he turned for Dany, and 2) than clearly Jaime at 17 was also rash. What's good for the goose is good for the lion.

About your couple of points, I see what you mean by the first, though I meant (probably) that Selmy is a contradiction as seen from outside - thus the title of the thread - and conflicted inside. But as for the second, I said he WASN'T rash!!! LOL! I re-read that three times to be sure I hadn't made one of my legendary typos.

The other day I was talking with friends about a 23-year-old mutual friend who has made some dubious choices. At one point I burst out: "If we were in Westeros, he'd be dead or grown up!" Luckily all the others were GRRM geeks, so there weren't too many odd stares. :rofl:

In the end, interestingly enough, I agree largely with AvengingAryaFan in that Selmy and Jaime are far more similar than anyone cares to say. Both broke their vows, both decided to serve Robert instead of Viserys; both could not stomach Aerys. One is loved, the other despised. To me, that is the most crystal-clear proof at the absurdity of the KG vows – in order to work, they require men to work like machines; an untenable reality. The fact was that any man would have been foolish to insist on fighting for Aerys or Viserys, And that its okay, in my mind, to accept the pardon, remove yourself by going to the ToJ or kill the Mad King.

Because these were men, not robots.

:agree:

[AvengingAryaFan]

This is after-the-fact excuse making. If we are going to pretend that the KG’s oath is absolute (as Ned does) than Selmy is a traitor (my argument is that this fact is meaningless). The KG are sworn to defend the KING!

Not to disagree, but the problem is: we don't know the terms of the Kingsguard vows, and it's crucial. It's likely that they include allowance for a change in kingship; the question is how the poor Kingsguardsman is supposed to determine whether the new King deserves his allegiance (presuming he can't continue allegiance to the previous king). Your argument would be more complete if your assumptions about the terms of the vows were more explicit.

I don't think Ned necessarily believed or pretended that the KG oath is absolute. Clearly Ned accepted Selmy, so either the oath had loopholes, or else Ned didn't pretend the oath was absolute. Second, despite the similarities b/t Jaime and Selmy, there are glaring differences, too - namely that Jaime actually killed the one king that there was no doubt he was sworn to protect - he killed Aerys, before he had died or abdicated. It turns out to have been for a good reason, a compelling reason, as we find out much later, but a Kingsguard oath would be useless if it permitted the knight to substitute his judgment for the King's, especially to the point of taking the King's life! So Ned may have had a fairly low expectation for the absoluteness of the oath, except that it not fall below a minimum that I think most people could, and do, agree on.

...Selmy should have asked for safe passage to Braavos so that he could take up defending the RIGHTFUL King, Visaerys III. He did not. His decision was reasonable, understandable, honorable and decent.

It was the right thing to do and 100% CONTRADICTORY to his oath as a member of the KG! You cannot talk that last point away.

Lacking the terms of the oath, we can't judge compliance. Well, you can, but you're guessing.

Viserys was underage, exiled, and unsupported. Some combination of those facts, perhaps in view of Baratheon's colorable claim to the throne, might have permitted or even required Selmy to transfer allegiance. Or not. Hard to know, without the terms of the oath.

But these are hardly disagreements at all, more just quibbles. We largely seem to agree on Selmy, and indeed on Jaime. Jaime without doubt completely forsook his vows, yet it may indeed have been the best thing he did. From a humanitarian POV, Selmy may have held too close to his vows, but then again he probably didn't know about the plan to burn all of KL. And I agree it's fairly likely that the oath in fact did not permit Selmy to abandon Viserys to his exile (but we can't really know).

[Lummel]

Is Barristan conflicted?

Barristan seems to be at ease with himself. Despite swearing the Kingsguard oath he seems quite able to think that this oath is conditional whenever it suits him. When Dany asks him why he served Robert, Barristan answers that Robert was chivalrous while Viserys was young and had shown signs of madness. Its an odd kind of oath if it is no longer binding if the object of the oath can be considered to be too young or if the alternative ruler appears to be more chivalrous, braver and generally a better knight. Is the kingsguard oath really likely to be conditional in this way or is this just Barristans way of saying that he prefered not to go into exile to serve Viserys and was happier staying at home in Kings Landing? If Joffrey hadn't made him redundant wouldn't Barristan still be happily sitting about in Kings Landing and an honest servant of King Tommen?

[SFDanny]

My opinion of Selmy has never changed: he is a turncoat; twice convicted. And … and I think he is a great and decent man who is trying, like hell, to live a good and honorable life irrespective of the non-sense heaped upon knights, especially the Knights of the Kingsguard.

I find it truly baffling that people who LOVE Selmy despise Jaime; that Selmy is considered the paragon of knightly virtue and Jaime is, in effect, a dishonorable bastard. And its not just readers who think this: Ned Stark lived his life by this. Selmy and Jaime BOTH served Aerys II, both acted at his behest, BOTH turned to serve Robert I. Why is one honorable, the other dishonorable?

Like the post Rockroi, but I think you leave out the one very huge difference between the two men - at least in the eyes of Ned and most of Westeros. Jaime killed the king he pledged to spend his life protecting; Selmy did not. While both men make understandable choices in the eyes of the reader, and I agree both violate their oaths, there is a tremendous difference in the actions of the two based on the simple fact that one is the kingslayer and the other is not.

[Blackfish Blues]

Like the post Rockroi, but I think you leave out the one very huge difference between the two men - at least in the eyes of Ned and most of Westeros. Jaime killed the king he pledged to spend his life protecting; Selmy did not. While both men make understandable choices in the eyes of the reader, and I agree both violate their oaths, there is a tremendous difference in the actions of the two based on the simple fact that one is the kingslayer and the other is not.

SFDanny, I agree, but there could be only one Kingslayer. I can't imagine Jaime and Selmy agreeing to kill Aerys together. One was on the battlefield, struggling with whatever doubts he might have had but ultimately fighting for Aerys... and the other one was there in front of Aerys, knowing what he knew, that Aerys was planning to blow up the city and that in general he was not a nice guy. Jaime had to decide in a split second.

But Danny, you make a very good pint point (I should stop writing when I'm drunk...) Jaime's image is shaped by what other people (Ned) think of him. It's very likely that, if the roles had been inverted, Selmy would have done the same that Jaime did, and Selmy would be the Kingslayer.