Barristan Selmy... White Cloak of many Kings.

[yomi]

I emphatically deny that the issue is the one you present. Actual defense of the realm and concern for its people is far more important than the exact sort of character a particular person is. The idea of betraying a tyrant shows how badly you have framed the issue. If there is anything like a decent contract involved in the governance of the Seven Kingdoms, then the tyrant is the betrayer. Those who work against him are the ones who are doing the honorable thing. If their oaths prevent them from doing this, then there is something wrong with the oaths. A person should be able to look at the situation and say, "A man of honor cannot swear this oath. It is a promise of intellectual and moral slavery." Something has gone very wrong with a society when its citizens don't see this.

So true. When you are a knight, you can't really swear the kingsguard oath (except maybe to a king who made a knight's vow himself, too), or you have the problem that Jaime states: To many vows. Even the kingsguard oaths themself seem to be to much. Protect the king, obey the king. So what do you do when your king is reckless and orders things that will endanger him?

[Mladen]

In the case of a normal succession, this would be true. But Robert rebelled against the king he swore to protect, nearly wiped out the royal family. What would Ser Arthur do if he was captured severely wounded at ToJ? Get healed and resume in Robert's KG? Challenge Robert on one-on-one?

Barristan supplied undeserved legitimacy to Robert and Joffrey.

Not really. Robert won the Throne. In the time when Aerys lost legitimacy to rule, Robert rebelled. Barristan was with Aerys to his bitter end. After the death, and the exile of Targaryens, Barristan continued his servitude. I mean, it is unorthodox situation, but the Kings were changing and KG remained. Robert had all legitimacy he needed. When Targaryens lost legitimacy to rule, Robert became King. Barristan didn't supply him legitimacy in time of Rebellion. He supported Robert long after all was done.

As to what Arthur would do, let we not pretend that Arthur was some great oathkeeper while Barristan is oathbreaker. He was Rhaegar's best friend, and whatever he was doing, Arthur was with him, including one very problematic tourney at Harrenhal.

[juanml82]

I emphatically deny that the issue is the one you present. Actual defense of the realm and concern for its people is far more important than the exact sort of character a particular person is. The idea of betraying a tyrant shows how badly you have framed the issue. If there is anything like a decent contract involved in the governance of the Seven Kingdoms, then the tyrant is the betrayer. Those who work against him are the ones who are doing the honorable thing. If their oaths prevent them from doing this, then there is something wrong with the oaths. A person should be able to look at the situation and say, "A man of honor cannot swear this oath. It is a promise of intellectual and moral slavery." Something has gone very wrong with a society when its citizens don't see this.

A code of honor is not the same as doing what's best for the realm, we see this clearly in Robb and Jon's stories. And, for those of us who haven't fell in love with Ned, it's also shown how honor =/= morality either: Ned is given, twice, choices between dishonor and war and choosing war without a second thought, despite war being an incredibly immoral choice.

We tend to see "honor" as a good thing, when it's actually a warrior code and doesn't have to be good. It's not so much that a man of honor cannot swear this oath, it's that a good man can not swear the oath, which isn't the same thing.

In other words, "actual defense of the realm and concern for its people" requires dishonorable behavior.

Barristan (or Ned) won't see that because they were raised as soldiers. It was not up to them to decide what's best for the realm nor its people. They were trained to obey tyrants.

Again with the strawman arguments...

The thing about Barristan is, and just like with whole Aerys' and later Joffrey's Kingsguard, is that they felt they are bound by their honor to obey the King. We can say the same thing about all of them. Darry and Hightower were exceptionally highly regarded as knights and they were those who basically witnessed the madness and even scorned Jaime for raising a voice against it. But, here is where your, yet another, strawamn argument is failing. No doubt this is a messed up situation. Barristan, as everyone else, considered him to be the Kingsguard for life. Thus it is on him to serve as a Kingsguard for life. Let we not kid ourselves about it. Barristan had nothing to gain by pursuing Daenerys or anyone else. He is already in his 60-ies, his best days behind him, his deeds are being honored across the Westeros. The motivation for going to Daenerys is not rooted in him keeping the social status, no matter how anyone spin it. We have read black on white why he joined Daenerys, and it wasn't because his social status was on question. The conclusion you are repeating ad nauseum isn't corroborated with any quote in the books, with any sort of textual evidence. It is based on God knows what. Barristan is far from infallible, but his sense of duty, loyalty and honor simply are not the place for reproaches.

Err... what? Barristan decides to protect Viserys when he's fired. Trying to deny that is like pretending that Ned is alive. And sorry, but the man who claimed Robert was a bad king because he wasn't legitimate can't have any sense of duty, loyalty and honor when he hears that his true King (Viserys) has become a street urchin in desperate need of protection, and does nothing about it.

Barristan has a lot to win by going to Viserys after he's fired. Essentially, his self-esteem and his image of himself.

Not really. Robert won the Throne. In the time when Aerys lost legitimacy to rule, Robert rebelled. Barristan was with Aerys to his bitter end. After the death, and the exile of Targaryens, Barristan continued his servitude. I mean, it is unorthodox situation, but the Kings were changing and KG remained. Robert had all legitimacy he needed. When Targaryens lost legitimacy to rule, Robert became King. Barristan didn't supply him legitimacy in time of Rebellion. He supported Robert long after all was done.

Barristan believed otherwise.

[Roose Trollton.]

Actually for a long time I thought Barristan was secretly a coward. But his PoV chapter convinced me otherwise.

[Winterfell is Burning]

As to what Arthur would do, let we not pretend that Arthur was some great oathkeeper while Barristan is oathbreaker. He was Rhaegar's best friend, and whatever he was doing, Arthur was with him, including one very problematic tourney at Harrenhal.

Yes, like I've stated before and some of Barristan's critics refused to admit is that Dayne, for all the talk of his nobility, was a TRAITOR. He clearly sided with Rhaegar instead of Aerys, and that before Aerys had commited his crimes.

He's not Royalguard, he's KINGsguard. If he's more loyal to someone else than he is to the King, he's a traitor.

[league of blooDraven]

He's a bit of Kingsgaurd slut.

Haha honestly the best way to put it in my opinion. He's too wrapped up in the "honor" thing that he keeps making bad decisions

[Parwan]

So true. When you are a knight, you can't really swear the kingsguard oath (except maybe to a king who made a knight's vow himself, too), or you have the problem that Jaime states: To many vows. Even the kingsguard oaths themself seem to be to much. Protect the king, obey the king. So what do you do when your king is reckless and orders things that will endanger him?

I believe that Jaime's statement was self-serving. Nevertheless, it was accurate. Whatever you think of the guy, can you deny that he has considerable analytic ability? I think not. This is interesting, because he definitely is not an intellectual. it would be good for Westeros if some of its scholars (particularly maesters) saw matters as clearly as Jaime sometimes does.

Barristan Selmy is a man who tries to uphold his honor as he sees it. I don't think he always sees too clearly, but that is in part because things are often pretty damn dim in this story. He doesn't analyze things as well as some others do. It isn't accurate to call him dishonorable.

A code of honor is not the same as doing what's best for the realm, we see this clearly in Robb and Jon's stories. And, for those of us who haven't fell in love with Ned, it's also shown how honor =/= morality either: Ned is given, twice, choices between dishonor and war and choosing war without a second thought, despite war being an incredibly immoral choice.

We tend to see "honor" as a good thing, when it's actually a warrior code and doesn't have to be good. It's not so much that a man of honor cannot swear this oath, it's that a good man can not swear the oath, which isn't the same thing.

In other words, "actual defense of the realm and concern for its people" requires dishonorable behavior.

Barristan (or Ned) won't see that because they were raised as soldiers. It was not up to them to decide what's best for the realm nor its people. They were trained to obey tyrants.

...

The distinctions you attempt to make are artificial and unconvincing. They have little to do with our world, and probably less to do with the Seven Kingdoms. First of all, war does not have to be an immoral choice, incredible or otherwise. You provide no evidence that either Jon or Rob's stories show us any distinction between honor and doing what's best for the realm. Honor does not have to equal morality for honor to be moral. Love of one's parents does not equal morality, but loving one's parents is a moral thing to do. One could have a mostly immoral man who loved his mother and father. His filial devotion would be at least something of a redeeming characteristic. Similarly, a man might drink too much, be less than diligent in his work, and have a tendency to be late for meetings. If the same man invariably honors his debts, we can say that there is at least something good about him.

I see no reason to believe that the residents of the Seven Kingdoms would not see honor as a part of morality. I see a number of reasons why they would see it as a part of morality. In AGoT, Sansa is delighted to meet the Lord Commander of the Kingsguard. She talks about how even in the far north, "singers praise the deeds of Barristan the Bold." I do not for a minute believe that Sansa or the singers would separate their delight and praise from a belief in the fundamental goodness of the man.

Even if we agree that a man of honor can swear an oath that a good man cannot, how does this lead to the conclusion that you draw? Why is there any requirement that the defense of the realm and the good of its people requires dishonorable behavior?

You are ignoring the fact that Lord Stark wasn't just a soldier. He was Hand of the King and Protector of the Realm when he insisted that Stannis was the true heir. That's one of the times when you say he chose war, right? Do you really want to claim that the Lord Regent's honor required him to be immoral and do damage to the realm?

[juanml82]

The distinctions you attempt to make are artificial and unconvincing. They have little to do with our world, and probably less to do with the Seven Kingdoms. First of all, war does not have to be an immoral choice, incredible or otherwise. You provide no evidence that either Jon or Rob's stories show us any distinction between honor and doing what's best for the realm. Honor does not have to equal morality for honor to be moral. Love of one's parents does not equal morality, but loving one's parents is a moral thing to do. One could have a mostly immoral man who loved his mother and father. His filial devotion would be at least something of a redeeming characteristic. Similarly, a man might drink too much, be less than diligent in his work, and have a tendency to be late for meetings. If the same man invariably honors his debts, we can say that there is at least something good about him.

I see no reason to believe that the residents of the Seven Kingdoms would not see honor as a part of morality. I see a number of reasons why they would see it as a part of morality. In AGoT, Sansa is delighted to meet the Lord Commander of the Kingsguard. She talks about how even in the far north, "singers praise the deeds of Barristan the Bold." I do not for a minute believe that Sansa or the singers would separate their delight and praise from a belief in the fundamental goodness of the man.

Even if we agree that a man of honor can swear an oath that a good man cannot, how does this lead to the conclusion that you draw? Why is there any requirement that the defense of the realm and the good of its people requires dishonorable behavior?

You are ignoring the fact that Lord Stark wasn't just a soldier. He was Hand of the King and Protector of the Realm when he insisted that Stannis was the true heir. That's one of the times when you say he chose war, right? Do you really want to claim that the Lord Regent's honor required him to be immoral and do damage to the realm?

Robb Stark marries Jeyne to protect her honor (or so he says). In doing so, he puts Jeyne's honor ahead of the needs of his realm. We know the consequences of that. Jon decides that his duty to protect the Realm is more important than his honor and, in the event of a conflict between them, he'd rather dishonor himself.

And indeed, both Pycelle and Baelish try to appeal to Ned's sense of morality, and their appeals fall on deaf ears because Ned isn't moved by morality. He didn't care if thousands could die, and more people would end up maimed, raped, sacked and otherwise end up with their lives ruines if Daenerys was left to live. He only cared that assassinations are dishonorable. As for Ned's plan to put Stannis in the throne, to the best of his knowledge, it would cause a needless war (because, as far as Ned knows, Stannis isn't aware of the incest). I don't need to claim it. Littlefinger's arguments are in the novels and Ned doesn't even consider them.

And both Pycelle and Littlefinger's arguments do prove that at least them think morality and honor are different things.

[Starspear]

Robb Stark marries Jeyne to protect her honor (or so he says). In doing so, he puts Jeyne's honor ahead of the needs of his realm. We know the consequences of that. Jon decides that his duty to protect the Realm is more important than his honor and, in the event of a conflict between them, he'd rather dishonor himself.

And indeed, both Pycelle and Baelish try to appeal to Ned's sense of morality, and their appeals fall on deaf ears because Ned isn't moved by morality. He didn't care if thousands could die, and more people would end up maimed, raped, sacked and otherwise end up with their lives ruines if Daenerys was left to live. He only cared that assassinations are dishonorable. As for Ned's plan to put Stannis in the throne, to the best of his knowledge, it would cause a needless war (because, as far as Ned knows, Stannis isn't aware of the incest). I don't need to claim it. Littlefinger's arguments are in the novels and Ned doesn't even consider them.

And both Pycelle and Littlefinger's arguments do prove that at least them think morality and honor are different things.

It was not because Ned felt his honor would suffer from the deed, but rather the deed itself was wrong. The principle being that morality spreads from the seed out. If the seed is corrupt, the whole will be corrupted.

[Mithras]

It was not because Ned felt his honor would suffer from the deed, but rather the deed itself was wrong. The principle being that morality spreads from the seed out. If the seed is corrupt, the whole will be corrupted.

This is why Barristan can never be on equal grounds with good old Ned.

[Michael Herman]

- Served Robert, doesn't respect Robert's will.

This one is the most troublesome for me, he recognises Ned as honourable, and is saddened by his death, he also hears Ned proclaim Stannis as the true heir, he knows Ned wouldn't lie about this, but instead of staying loyal to house Baratheon, he runs back to Daenerys, even though he knows basically nothing of her, and apart from Joffrey (who he has reason to believe illegitimate) house Baratheon has done little against him, removing both justifications that Selmy had when he turned his cloak the first time.

[clawson24]

Really liked Barristan at the beginning of the series, pretty lukewarm about him now. His decision to support Dany as the best claimant to the throne probably colors my opinion significantly as I'm not a fan of hers at all. I think he's well intentioned and a terrific soldier, but sort of weak-willed. He isn't straight up with Dany about her families atrocities, he chooses to keep serving new kings instead of dying to protect the ones he's sworn to, etc.

I would also argue that while Barristan is an ideal Kingsguard member, he's not amongst the truest knights in the series. Do you really think Dunk or Brienne would sit idly by and witness atrocities done to women, children, and innocents?

[juanml82]

It was not because Ned felt his honor would suffer from the deed, but rather the deed itself was wrong. The principle being that morality spreads from the seed out. If the seed is corrupt, the whole will be corrupted.

This is Pycelle's moral argument

Grand Maester Pycelle cleared his throat, a process that seemed to take some minutes. “My order serves the realm, not the ruler. Once I counseled King Aerys as loyally as I counsel King Robert now, so I bear this girl child of his no ill will. Yet I ask you this-should war come again, how many soldiers will die? How many towns will burn? How many children will be ripped from their mothers to perish on the end of a spear?” He stroked his luxuriant white beard, infinitely sad, infinitely weary. “Is it not wiser, even kinder, that Daenerys Targaryen should die now so that tens of thousands might live?”

Ned doesn't consider it at all.

[Winterfell is Burning]

I would also argue that while Barristan is an ideal Kingsguard member, he's not amongst the truest knights in the series. Do you really think Dunk or Brienne would sit idly by and witness atrocities done to women, children, and innocents?

Would they try to stop Rickard and Brandon from dying where there are 400 people in the same room to stop them and that would not only fail but lead to certain death?

[juanml82]

Would they try to stop Rickard and Brandon from dying where there are 400 people in the same room to stop them and that would not only fail but lead to certain death?

I don't think the issue should be so much Rickard and Brandon, who were guilty of treason anyways, but Rhaella.

[Dicer]

This is Pycelle's moral argument

Grand Maester Pycelle cleared his throat, a process that seemed to take some minutes. “My order serves the realm, not the ruler. Once I counseled King Aerys as loyally as I counsel King Robert now, so I bear this girl child of his no ill will. Yet I ask you this-should war come again, how many soldiers will die? How many towns will burn? How many children will be ripped from their mothers to perish on the end of a spear?” He stroked his luxuriant white beard, infinitely sad, infinitely weary. “Is it not wiser, even kinder, that Daenerys Targaryen should die now so that tens of thousands might live?”

Ned doesn't consider it at all.

So you think the Red Wedding was justified since in the grand scheme of things the war ended sooner? So Tywin, Roose and Walder Frey did the right thing by betraying a trust so that the war ended and less lives were lost?

[Blackfish Tully]

I would also argue that while Barristan is an ideal Kingsguard member, he's not amongst the truest knights in the series. Do you really think Dunk or Brienne would sit idly by and witness atrocities done to women, children, and innocents?

If Renly was doing the atrocities then Brienne would have a hard time stopping him, would she kill Renly who she loved?

Would Duncan betray or kill Aegon to stop him from doing something horrible?

[Starspear]

This is Pycelle's moral argument

Grand Maester Pycelle cleared his throat, a process that seemed to take some minutes. “My order serves the realm, not the ruler. Once I counseled King Aerys as loyally as I counsel King Robert now, so I bear this girl child of his no ill will. Yet I ask you this-should war come again, how many soldiers will die? How many towns will burn? How many children will be ripped from their mothers to perish on the end of a spear?” He stroked his luxuriant white beard, infinitely sad, infinitely weary. “Is it not wiser, even kinder, that Daenerys Targaryen should die now so that tens of thousands might live?”

Ned doesn't consider it at all.

Because Ned is a moral absolutist. That is why he is a "good" character, unlike Pycelle, who is a scumbag.

War is part of the natural cycle. It is outside of morality, like weather.

Assassinating children is evil. And that is a moral choice. Ned makes the right one, while all the others are caught up in the Game of Thrones.

[juanml82]

So you think the Red Wedding was justified since in the grand scheme of things the war ended sooner? So Tywin, Roose and Walder Frey did the right thing by betraying a trust so that the war ended and less lives were lost?

Well, that question would derail the thread - and there is thread for that already - and it's not necessarily comparable with Daenerys assassination, as Dany's assassination is a decapitation strike to avoid a war while the RW is killing thousands of soldiers in an ongoing war.

[Starspear]

Would they try to stop Rickard and Brandon from dying where there are 400 people in the same room to stop them and that would not only fail but lead to certain death?

Yes. Precisely. Death is certain. A knight lives by other rules than those of survival. A true knight at any rate.