Two Towers Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 "We took a vow..."Well, what about the vow about protecting the innocent and the weak? That one is older and more important, it should supersede the kinsguard vows. So, yes they were blind fools, and as Jaime notes, the one act that gave him 'shit for honor', is one of the few times he was actually keeping a vow, although he probably didn't care about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Killdragon Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 There's a difference between moral and physical cowardice. Arthur Dayne isn't afraid of death, pain, violence etc....I mean he dies defending the royal house. But he would be a coward of conscience for not stopping Aerys' plot to burn the city just because he "swore a kingsguard vow."Just because? He gave his life to those words it's more than "just a vow". It takes more courage of conscience to let so many die for the one you swore to protect. Killing Aerys would be the easy way our. It's say to be a KG when your king is beautiful and kind and the sun shines out of his arse and everyone loves him. You can only truly be a knight of the Kingsguard when things get ugly but you keep your vows anyway. I know it's sad, and scary and grim and cold and mean but that's the point of the Kingsguard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butterbumps! Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 In the words of a true Knight, Sir Davos Seaworth, loyalty means telling hard truths, including to yourself, and the truth was Aerys was unfit to rule and worthy of deposition. They should have made peace with that not fight to a pointless bitter end for morally bankrupt king.I agree with you StannisBam. I can't see honor in what they enabled Aerys to do, and I can't see the honor in keeping a vow just for the sake of keeping a vow, especially when doing so would result in nothing less than a "nuclear" winter.Perhaps this is my own bias, but I think that the protection aspect of the KG presupposes that the King himself is upholding his own honor. I'm inclined to think that when a King breaks his social contract, the Kinsguard must somehow protect the innocent from the king. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bourne Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 No one asked them to be paragons. Their vow to their King superseded any other vows they may have taken. The point of KofKG is to be loyal and unmoving where any other man might falter. They were not being cowardly as they watched Stark burn, they were fulfilling their vows and duty. How can you even suggest cowardice. You just don't understand. It takes a special type of man to be in the Kingsguard. What if Secret Service members start disagreeing with Presidential actions and decide that they can kill him if they believe he's getting out of control? That's not a personal guard it's an insurance policy.If that's true, then the kingsguard is an abomination. Any man who can do that is either a psychopath or a coward. And yes, it is cowardly to stand by and allow a mad man to rape and murder just because you took a vow to protect him. Especially for Dayne and Hightower, who had enough pull with Rhaegar to stop the king and keep their heads under the new regime. I'm pretty sure that's the definition of moral cowardice. And remember, the kings power is an illusion. If the source of his power (in this case the kg) chooses not to listen to him, there's not a hell of a lot he can do to force anyone to obey his will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Currawong Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 It takes more courage of conscience to let so many die for the one you swore to protect. Killing Aerys would be the easy way our. It's say to be a KG when your king is beautiful and kind and the sun shines out of his arse and everyone loves him. You can only truly be a knight of the Kingsguard when things get ugly but you keep your vows anyway. I know it's sad, and scary and grim and cold and mean but that's the point of the Kingsguard.I disagree very strongly. Staying with Aerys and dying 'nobly' to defend him when the rebels (assuming some of them got through the fires) was the easy way. I think it is much harder to choose to break such a powerful oath as that of the KG, and have the moral courage to do what is right, not what is easy. Feudalism implied that the king would do his part too, and uphold his nobles and their bannermen: it wasn't just a one way street. As butterbumps! said above:Perhaps this is my own bias, but I think that the protection aspect of the KG presupposes that the King himself is upholding his own honor. I'm inclined to think that when a King breaks his social contract, the Kinsguard must somehow protect the innocent from the king. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Killdragon Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Was there any bravery in the way Jon Snow was betrayed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y ddraig Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 I think it just goes to show that honour isn't such a simple thing and can't be defined by a set of rules or vows. If you look at The Lord of the Rings, for example, the clear message is that the end doesn't justifiy the means; good intentions will lead to a good outcome, etc. ASOIAF is in many ways a commentary on how unrealistic a black and white wordview is, and half of the time, there just is no honourable solution. It's not honourable to protect the king if the king is Aerys, and it isn't honourable not to protect him either. Bottom line, it's pretty damn hard to do the right thing in a screwed up world (just ask poor Ned). That said, I'll never not love Jaime for slaying the mad king. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Killdragon Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 I disagree very strongly. Staying with Aerys and dying 'nobly' to defend him when the rebels (assuming some of them got through the fires) was the easy way. I think it is much harder to choose to break such a powerful oath as that of the KG, and have the moral courage to do what is right, not what is easy.What is right would've been dying for your king. I'll reiterate my question: was there any courage or honor in Jon's murder? The men who killed him viewed him as a threat to the realm. He let in enemies, saved the lives of wildlings so he had to die. Was there any courage of conscience in that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StannisBamfatheon Posted July 10, 2012 Author Share Posted July 10, 2012 I agree with you StannisBam. I can't see honor in what they enabled Aerys to do, and I can't see the honor in keeping a vow just for the sake of keeping a vow, especially when doing so would result in nothing less than a "nuclear" winter.Perhaps this is my own bias, but I think that the protection aspect of the KG presupposes that the King himself is upholding his own honor. I'm inclined to think that when a King breaks his social contract, the Kinsguard must somehow protect the innocent from the king.That is really insightful and well said, I couldn't agree more. I've come to associate that Kirby pic with good posts! There is no point in defending the King if said King is forsaking his vow to protect the realm and uphold justice. The Kingsguard vow becomes arbitrary,needless, and even harmful if their so myopic they can't see that protecting that King is hurting the realm at large. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winter's Knight Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 I agree with you StannisBam. I can't see honor in what they enabled Aerys to do, and I can't see the honor in keeping a vow just for the sake of keeping a vow, especially when doing so would result in nothing less than a "nuclear" winter.Perhaps this is my own bias, but I think that the protection aspect of the KG presupposes that the King himself is upholding his own honor. I'm inclined to think that when a King breaks his social contract, the Kinsguard must somehow protect the innocent from the king.It's not just you Bumps, these men were knights before they were men of the KG and they failed in the very first vow a knight takes: to defend the weak and all women.As to Brandon Stark-he demanded a trial by combat and Aerys had his father burnt while he watched. Even if we accept that Bran was guilty of threatening the Crown Prince, what crime was his father accused of? His retainers, Jon Arryn's nephews every single man that accompanied him to King's Landing was burnt alive in front of these valiant, honourable men, the most puissant knights in the Seven Kingdoms.These brave men who listened to their Queen being raped and did nothing to help her-not so much as provide a distraction or pretend a false message. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Killdragon Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Who decides that? That's not their job or purpose or place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Currawong Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 What is right would've been dying for your king. I'll reiterate my question: was there any courage or honor in Jon's murder? The men who killed him viewed him as a threat to the realm. He let in enemies, saved the lives of wildlings so he had to die. Was there any courage of conscience in that? We aren't talking about Jon's murder. We are talking about the KG who stood by and did nothing while mad Aerys went on his merry way, and tortured and abused people. I am reminded of the following, when assessing the 'noble' KG members who stood by and did nothing:- "In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up." -- by Martin Niemöller, prominent German anti-Nazi theologian and Lutheran pastor, best known as the author of the poem First they came....Somewhere, sometime, the morally right thing to do is stand up for the people being abused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winter's Knight Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Who decides that? That's not their job or purpose or place.Decides what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Killdragon Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 We aren't talking about Jon's murder. We are talking about the KG who stood by and did nothing while mad Aerys went on his merry way, and tortured and abused people. I am reminded of the following, when assessing the 'noble' KG members who stood by and did nothing:- "In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up." -- by Martin Niemöller, prominent German anti-Nazi theologian and Lutheran pastor, best known as the author of the poem First they came....Your quote has nothing to do with anything it's about how karma will come back to bite bystanders in the arse or w/e we're not discussing that.And you're very clever for brushing aside Jon's murder as if it's irrelevant. Truth is, it's the same situation and you cant argue for it because there was no courage or honor in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Killdragon Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Decides what?Who decides when the King has gone too far? What if Bloros decides "the king is eating so many oatcakes that come winter, Kings Landing will have no more oatcakes, time to kill the king" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StannisBamfatheon Posted July 10, 2012 Author Share Posted July 10, 2012 Who decides when the King has gone too far? What if Bloros decides "the king is eating so many oatcakes that come winter, Kings Landing will have no more oatcakes, time to kill the king"Cause oatcakes and burning people alive are totally comparable. >_>Come on dude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winter's Knight Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Who decides when the King has gone too far? What if Bloros decides "the king is eating so many oatcakes that come winter, Kings Landing will have no more oatcakes, time to kill the king"Tch. The KG are supposed to protect the King and his family-that includes the Queen I'm assuming. You can keep the queen safe without harming the king. You can protest against the king's brutality.Sandor and Aerys both did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bourne Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Your quote has nothing to do with anything it's about how karma will come back to bite bystanders in the arse or w/e we're not discussing that.And you're very clever for brushing aside Jon's murder as if it's irrelevant. Truth is, it's the same situation and you cant argue for it because there was no courage or honor in it.That quote is about allowing evil to happen to others just because it doesn't effect you. Not about karma.And Jon's death has nothing to do Aerys kg. although yes, if they felt that Jon was a threat to the realm, they should have disposed of him. Perhaps not kill him, but remove him.Regardless, Aerys was clearly evil. It's not even a matter of judgement. If you take a vow that precludes you from protecting the innocent, then it's an evil vow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Currawong Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Who decides when the King has gone too far? What if Bloros decides "the king is eating so many oatcakes that come winter, Kings Landing will have no more oatcakes, time to kill the king"Your quote has nothing to do with anything it's about how karma will come back to bite bystanders in the arse or w/e we're not discussing that.And you're very clever for brushing aside Jon's murder as if it's irrelevant. Truth is, it's the same situation and you cant argue for it because there was no courage or honor in it. 1. The oatcakes comment is perfectly ridiculous and you know it.2. The KG didn't murder Jon Arryn, so why is his murder relevant to a discussion about the KG and their oaths?3. I'm very sorry if you don't see the relevance of Pastor Niemoller's quote to the issue of moral courage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Killdragon Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Whether or not the vows are evil have nothing to do with it! The point is that held fast to the vow. Okay let's say Robert rapes twenty women, should Barristan have opened his throat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.