Barristan Selmy's honor

[ab aeterno]

Well, anyone can be honourable in their own mind. He believes he was dishonourable and that he should have gone to them when he was better and not sworn to Robert. I don't know whether that was practical or not.

If we look from what others believe, well, Dany thinks the same as him, and everyone in Westeros thinks he is the height of honour and nobility. So, that's your answer, basically right from the books. If we are debating something what is it? I've read the posts. Barristan was a good knight before Robert, made a slip up, was a good knight for Robert, and has been a good knight since then. Not really much to it.

Perhaps everyone agrees with that, perhaps not. You appear to be missing the point of discussion. :)

[Kittykatknits]

All this discussion depends on your notion of honour. In my opinion Jaime was the only honourable one back then, questioning the spousal assault and killing the King once it became clear he was going to kill all of the people in King's Landing.

Jaime was in a similar position as Barry. He had conflicting vows as a knight and as a member of the KG. His decision to kill the mad king was a decision to protect the innocent. He made that decision and paid the price, despite feeling it was his most honorable act.

We actually see Barry doing neither. He abandoned Viserys who should have been his rightful king (as he would be ignorant of R+L=J) and we know he is aware of it because he finally does something after being fired. Then, we see him keeping silent when Robert wants to kill Dany and her unborn child. He keeps silent again when Ned is arrested and his men attacked and killed - despite knowing the content's of Robert's will.

He's incredibly brave when he has a sword. But take that sword away and Barry doesn't keep to either set of vows. He took the easy way out, service to Robert which means not having to take a stand on anything - despite the oaths he has sworn.

[Whitering]

No my point is, that's what you can see from people in the books, if you are saying we cannot debate the notion of honour from a modern morality standpoint then we have to go by like, whatever Stannis or Ned would think, and they thought he was a pretty honourable guy, though Stannis might have thought something about not dying with the previous King. Stannis never thinks ill of Barristan, nor does Ned.

Nobody thinks of him as dishonourable outside of that one decision. Can you tell me someone from the books that does, besides maybe Sandor, who is using a modern morality to judge all knights?

[ab aeterno]

No my point is, that's what you can see from people in the books, if you are saying we cannot debate the notion of honour from a modern morality standpoint then we have to go by like, whatever Stannis or Ned would think, and they thought he was a pretty honourable guy, though Stannis might have thought something about not dying with the previous King. Stannis never thinks ill of Barristan, nor does Ned.

Well, the OP was talking about what characters in the book think of him compared to what we actually know of how he has acted. We don't really have any comparable conception of "honor" today in most societies.

Barristan Selmy is generally regarded as the finest living knight in ASOIAF. But i always saw him as exactly as the kind of knights Sandor Clegane hates. Selmy has betrayed or atleast failed three out four kings that he has served till now. He betrayed Aerys by serving Robert, Robert by not enforcing his will and Joffrey by serving Dany. It can be said that he betrayed Viserys, the king of Targaryen dynasty and Daenerys too. So how is he regarded as a true knight? Thoughts?

Nobody thinks of him as dishonourable outside of that one decision. Can you tell me someone from the books that does, besides maybe Sandor, who is using a modern morality to judge all knights?

I'm not sure even Sandor is, only cynicism. There are other cynical characters though.

[Ser Lepus]

So it OK to betray your King and bend your knee as long as you still dislike the new King but if you accept the pardon and serve loyally then your a horrible person.

No. But those weren't kingsguards. They were people with homes and families and retainers. They fought for their liege, and once defeated, they bent the knee in order to survive and keep their homes. It was a practical decission, not the most honourable from a knightly point of view, but still an understable one.

Barristan had a much closer bond with the royal family. He was a f***ing kingsguard, sworn to lay his life for his liege. Once defeated he didn't just ditch the Targayren kids (that I could kind of understand, if he thought they were being taken care by Darry and he thought that Viserys was too crazy to sit on the throne), but he became kingsguard to Robert...that's like spitting on his old oaths to the Targayrens.

There is no way that Jon Arryn would allow him to be released from his vows and go serve somebody else . He knew just as Tywin Lannister knew that Barristan Semy was an important symbol to the small folk and if he joined Viserys in the free cities it would give him immediate legitimacy. Jon Arryn probably made it clear to Barristan that he would either join the Kingsguard or he would rot in the black cells.

He could have asked to be sent to the Wall. Or he could have made a solemn oath to never take the sword against Robert; they trust his honor enought that they have him as a trusted bodyguard for the new royal family, so I think they would have trusted it enough to let him go back to Harvestack Hall to live the rest of his life in peace.

[Kittykatknits]

Well, the OP was talking about what characters in the book think of him compared to what we actually know of how he has acted. We don't really have any comparable conception of "honor" today in most societies.

I'm not sure even Sandor is, only cynicism. There are other cynical characters though.

Ser Barry makes me think of Jaime's So Many Vows speech.

Also, I can't help but wonder what Brienne would make of Barry if she knew the truth behind some of his actions. I can't help she'd think well of his decision to keep silent when Ned was arrested or not speaking up when Robert wanted Dany killed. Ned was the one that had the courage to stand up to the rest of the Small Council over it.

[ab aeterno]

Ser Barry makes me think of Jaime's So Many Vows speech.

Also, I can't help but wonder what Brienne would make of Barry if she knew the truth behind some of his actions. I can't help she'd think well of his decision to keep silent when Ned was arrested or not speaking up when Robert wanted Dany killed. Ned was the one that had the courage to stand up to the rest of the Small Council over it.

I agree on both counts. I have a mixed opinion of the KG. On the one hand, it's pretty impressive and honorable to never break your vow and never judge (assuming that your KG vow supersedes all others,) but on the other hand, Jaime and "Not from him."

[Kittykatknits]

I agree on both counts. I have a mixed opinion of the KG. On the one hand, it's pretty impressive and honorable to never break your vow and never judge (assuming that your KG vow supersedes all others,) but on the other hand, Jaime and "Not from him."

I always think of the KG as a sign of what's wrong with Westeros. Knights are supposed to protect the innocent and weak right? But, then we have the KG which is made up of knights. And what does the KG swear? To protect and serve the (in theory) mightiest and most powerful person and family in the entire kingdom. Hmmmm, one of these vows is not like the other...

So, in keeping with the KG vows, we see Jaime wrestling with listening to the Mad King rape and torture his wife while told it's not his job to judge. Then, you have the Hound become a member of the KG and, at various points, lie to the king and abandon his post to save Sansa during the riot. So many vows....

[Lady Sansa Stark]

I always think of the KG as a sign of what's wrong with Westeros. Knights are supposed to protect the innocent and weak right? But, then we have the KG which is made up of knights. And what does the KG swear? To protect and serve the (in theory) mightiest and most powerful person and family in the entire kingdom. Hmmmm, one of these vows is not like the other...

So, in keeping with the KG vows, we see Jaime wrestling with listening to the Mad King rape and torture his wife while told it's not his job to judge. Then, you have the Hound become a member of the KG and, at various points, lie to the king and abandon his post to save Sansa during the riot. So many vows....

And then there are the highly regarded, honorable knights. Ser Arthur Dayne, Hightower and the other of Mad King Aerys. Heck, even Ned Stark himself still thinks they're honorable, despite knowing they watched and did nothing when his father and brother got horribly murdered. They did not do anything when they heard Aerys raping Rhaella, telling Jaime they should not protect Rhaella from him. That is exactly what is wrong with the whole honorable knights and Kingsguard stuff.

Jaime had it right when he said that there are too many vows - you always forsake one for the other.

[Kittykatknits]

And then there are the highly regarded, honorable knights. Ser Arthur Dayne, Hightower and the other of Mad King Aerys. Heck, even Ned Stark himself still thinks they're honorable, despite knowing they watched and did nothing when his father and brother got horribly murdered. They did not do anything when they heard Aerys raping Rhaella, telling Jaime they should not protect Rhaella from him. That is exactly what is wrong with the whole honorable knights and Kingsguard stuff.

Jaime had it right when he said that there are too many vows - you always forsake one for the other.

Yep, indeed. That's the big thing with Jaime's decision to kill Aerys. Ultimately, he chose to do what is right versus the honorable thing- keeping his vow.

I really don't think the institution can be fixed, the whole idea strikes me as being inherently flawed.

[ab aeterno]

I always think of the KG as a sign of what's wrong with Westeros. Knights are supposed to protect the innocent and weak right? But, then we have the KG which is made up of knights. And what does the KG swear? To protect and serve the (in theory) mightiest and most powerful person and family in the entire kingdom. Hmmmm, one of these vows is not like the other...

So, in keeping with the KG vows, we see Jaime wrestling with listening to the Mad King rape and torture his wife while told it's not his job to judge. Then, you have the Hound become a member of the KG and, at various points, lie to the king and abandon his post to save Sansa during the riot. So many vows....

I would disagree slightly. I don't think it is the KG that are wrong per se, but the king. The KG is predicated on the idea that the king is good, wise, honorable and always does the right thing, imo. The KG vows aren't problematic if the king does those things. The reality of the kings is what is wrong with the KG imo.

Having said that, I agree, swearing a vow to always follow the orders of the powerful is a very bad thing.

[Lady Sansa Stark]

Yep, indeed. That's the big thing with Jaime's decision to kill Aerys. Ultimately, he chose to do what is right versus the honorable thing- keeping his vow.

I really don't think the institution can be fixed, the whole idea strikes me as being inherently flawed.

A Kingsguard in itself ain't that flawed, it's the vow, really. Vowing to always follow the order of the powerful, as ab aeterno already said, is just inherently wrong, since that means you would also have to follow them even if the powerful are doing very bad, dishonorable things. Vowing to merely protect the King however, doesn't have to be that difficult, since a King needs to be protected..

[Kittykatknits]

I would disagree slightly. I don't think it is the KG that are wrong per se, but the king. The KG is predicated on the idea that the king is good, wise, honorable and always does the right thing, imo. The KG vows aren't problematic if the king does those things. The reality of the kings is what is wrong with the KG imo.

Having said that, I agree, swearing a vow to always follow the orders of the powerful is a very bad thing.

A Kingsguard in itself ain't that flawed, it's the vow, really. Vowing to always follow the order of the powerful, as ab aeterno already said, is just inherently wrong, since that means you would also have to follow them even if the powerful are doing very bad, dishonorable things. Vowing to merely protect the King however, doesn't have to be that difficult, since a King needs to be protected..

I hear what you both are saying but doesn't that get to the very heart of what the problem with the KG is? To look at the Jaime example again, he broke his vow and killed the king in order to protect the innocent. So, does that mean the KG must protect the king no matter what he is doing? The whole KG is predicated on the idea that they follow the king. It's great if the king is always honorable, just, merciful, fair, and what not but is that realistic? What do they do when another mad king comes along?

It seems as if there is more than just the vow, it's the whole institution which is premised on that vow. You take the vow away and the KG is no longer the KG.

[ab aeterno]

I hear what you both are saying but doesn't that get to the very heart of what the problem with the KG is? To look at the Jaime example again, he broke his vow and killed the king in order to protect the innocent. So, does that mean the KG must protect the king no matter what he is doing? The whole KG is predicated on the idea that they follow the king. It's great if the king is always honorable, just, merciful, fair, and what not but is that realistic? What do they do when another mad king comes along?

It seems as if there is more than just the vow, it's the whole institution which is premised on that vow. You take the vow away and the KG is no longer the KG.

I agree. :) I only meant that theoretically, if the king was what the king is supposed to be but almost never is, it would be okay. The KG would never work in real life, but it's theoretically tenable.

[Blackfish Tully]

Yep, indeed. That's the big thing with Jaime's decision to kill Aerys. Ultimately, he chose to do what is right versus the honorable thing- keeping his vow.

I really don't think the institution can be fixed, the whole idea strikes me as being inherently flawed.

Don't forget that Aerys was also going to kill Jamie when he burned down the city so Jamie's act was one of self preservation as well as saving the citizens of Kings Landing. I do agree that the Kingsguard is inherently a flawed institution. Barristan was put into an impossible position with the different vows that he had to uphold. I believe he did the best he could to be a good knight but obviously others disagree.

[Kittykatknits]

I agree. :) I only meant that theoretically, if the king was what the king is supposed to be but almost never is, it would be okay. The KG would never work in real life, but it's theoretically tenable.

Ah, OK. I think we are in agreement then. :)

[maesterted]

I dont think the Kingsguard is inherently flawed its that thats not their job to overthrow kings. its their job to protect the king and men like Barritsan are brought up to that level becouse they are good at protecting the King. It should be the Job of the small council to remove useless or troublesome Kings, the job of the hand of the king and people they pay to think. there must be a difference between being the congress and being the pentagon. Why he was involved in small council meetings? i dont think it was for his opinion no kingsuguard since the kingmaker has ever taken that to mean anymore then a chance to protect the king. (to be honest we dont really know whats the precedent but considering what Jaime was told i wouldn't be surprised).

as for the Bold hes an awesome soldier its up to him if he wants to prove himself a more complex human being

[MagnusPrime]

The institution is not flawed maybe the ideal but not the institution. For the most part these are men who know what they are getting into. And even when the king is bad there is always the prince to make up for him. Maegor had aegon the blessed, aegon the unworthy had Daeron, and Aerys had Rheagar. The kingsguard need only wait.

The impetous is not on the kingsguard to curb the king of his excesses but to protect his life. True friends and his family are the only ones who can have any chance of influencing the king without reproach. The Kingsguard is meant to be seen but not heard and may even be considered as a legitimizer of the person the throne. If the finest knights in the land are willing to give away all earthly possessions to guard the king then in some people's kinds he must be great.

Jaime is a coward who only killed the king after it was certain that the war for the Targs was lost and no other Kingsguard members were around to stop him. You can say that he did it to protect the innocent from burning yet before he slew Aerys, he had already slew the main subordinates who were tasked with carrying out the plan. He just performed some mopping up actions afterward. Aerys would have been guarded by men loyal to Ned, Rober, Jon, Hoster, or Tywin. And ned would have probably executed him himself.

I feel that Jaime slew Aerys because he was upset over what he had given up ANd for whom. Jaime went into becoming a Kingsguard without the noblest of intentions. He was mostly trying to rebel against Tywin and then was talked into it by Cersie in order to continue their incestuous relationship. Deep down he knew he was not worthy of the honor yet he still took it. He complains that the cloak ruined him but the truth is that the cloak was never meant for him to wear at that time.

[Santa]

You guys have to analyse the major conflict line. And everyone seems to fail to put the conflict in words and compare it to westerosi standarts:

Is it more honorable to follow the orders of the King, or more honorable to protect the weak.

Easy answer: in westeros it is more honorable to follow the orders of the King.

Barristan did the honorable thing, but he has a redemption arc and is becoming a man who does the right thing.

And I am surprised that so many of supposedly educated readers fail to analyse that Barristan did change, that he does things he would have never done before.

[The Mountain That Flies]

Barristan did the honorable thing, but he has a redemption arc and is becoming a man who does the right thing.

And I am surprised that so many of supposedly educated readers fail to analyze that Barristan did change, that he does things he would have never done before.

I think we do acknowledge that Barristan has grown as a person, and as of the end of DwD, has a much more modern and rational outlook on his life, his decisions, and what to do with his future. However, his flight to Dany and subsequent service to her is clearly an attempt to atone for his service to Robert (he all but says so himself in his POV chapter). He knows what he did was wrong, and is actively trying to make up for it. He's a good guy, but he's not quite as super-humanly honorable as most of Westeros seems to think he is.

And after reading through this entire thread, I've yet to hear a convincing argument why Barristan couldn't have joined the Night's Watch after Robert's Rebellion. He had already forsaken lands and a family, and since the king he had sworn to defend was dead and his heir was in exile, Barristan could have turned from protecting one man to protecting the entire realm.