Barristan the Bold is not a true knight

[Prince of the North]

No honourable man sits and does nothing while innocent good men burn alive for no reason. He's loyal but he's not honourable.

Just to play devil's advocate, let's try your quote from the opposite perspective:

"No honourable man disobeys the king he swore to obey by interfering with his burning men alive if he wants to. That would be disloyal and not honourable." ;)

And things like "good" and "innocent" don't even enter into it in this situation. In a feudal society, the king will determine those values - his word is law. The king is well within his rights to be judge, jury, and executioner if he desires. Kind of sucks but that's the situation. Now, it's possible to go against the king's wishes but one had better be prepared to do so with the backing of a lot of steel because the king will have such backing.

And, if for honor's sake, one opposes the king and gets themselves executed for treason because of it I ask: is it better to be dead with honor or alive without it? Depends on who you ask, I suppose ;)

[Gregor Clegane's head]

Just to play devil's advocate, let's try your quote from the opposite perspective:

"No honourable man disobeys the king he swore to obey by interfering with his burning men alive if he wants to. That would be disloyal and not honourable." ;)

And things like "good" and "innocent" don't even enter into it in this situation. In a feudal society, the king will determine those values - his word is law. The king is well within his rights to be judge, jury, and executioner if he desires. Kind of sucks but that's the situation. Now, it's possible to go against the king's wishes but one had better be prepared to do so with the backing of a lot of steel because the king will have such backing.

And, if for honor's sake, one opposes the king and gets themselves executed for treason because of it I ask: is it better to be dead with honor or alive without it? Depends on who you ask, I suppose ;)

He could of tried advising the King to not do it, but instead he just stood there and said nothing in the defense of the Starks. He also willingly served a king who murdered someone he also swore to protect ( KG swear to defend the King's family too) also the same King who openly said Elia and her babies deserved what happened. He had no reason to accept Robert's offer and no one would of said anything if he left the KG. He was also pretty willing to serve Joffery when he knew Dany was alive still.

He's not a bad man, but he isn't honourable.

Edit: To answer your question Barristan said he would of murdered Robert if he knew he planned on killing Dany, so apparently honour's a big thing to him. He insulted Jamie for breaking his vow but was also willing to break his too. Barristan is full of shit.

[Mikkel]

"No honourable man disobeys the king he swore to obey by interfering with his burning men alive if he wants to. That would be disloyal and not honourable." ;)

How about this:

"No honourable man sacrifices his comfort and public reputation by saving an innocent woman from rape and torture at the hands of her husband"

doesn't really work for me, but to each their own

[Prince of the North]

He could of tried advising the King to not do it, but instead he just stood there and said nothing in the defense of the Starks. He also willingly served a king who murdered someone he also swore to protect ( KG swear to defend the King's family too) also the same King who openly said Elia and her babies deserved what happened. He had no reason to accept Robert's offer and no one would of said anything if he left the KG. He was also pretty willing to serve Joffery when he knew Dany was alive still.

He's not a bad man, but he isn't honourable.

Edit: To answer your question Barristan said he would of murdered Robert if he knew he planned on killing Dany, so apparently honour's a big thing to him. He insulted Jamie for breaking his vow but was also willing to break his too. Barristan is full of shit.

I'm with you. I'm just pointing out the impossibility of being a "True Knight" as described in the OP. In order to be a true knight one would have to be perfect. One would have be a knight who never has any vows come into conflict, etc. That's impossible. Also, Barristan could have told Aerys not to do it but I very much doubt Aerys would have listened. Also, I think we're guilty of looking at this situation through the perspective of our own modern values and glossing over the fact that this was a feudal society where lords are not to be questioned, etc.

How about this:

"No honourable man sacrifices his comfort and public reputation by saving an innocent woman from rape and torture at the hands of her husband"

doesn't really work for me, but to each their own

But from your statement it looks like Barristan is honourable because he didn't "sacrifice his comfort and public reputation by saving an innocent woman from rape and torture at the hands of her husband."

I think you meant "No honourable man chooses his comfort and public reputation over saving an innocent woman from rape and torture at the hands of her husband."

Also, let's remember that "her husband" in this case was also the supreme ruler of the land to whom Barristan had sworn loyalty - complicates things a bit, no?

Bottom line: the concept of a "True Knight" as talked about throughout this thread is impossible to actually achieve.

[UngarDeathbringer]

Its the same today as in the story. Loyalties. If you are a knight of the seven i imagine the principles you want Barristan to possess would ring true. As a sworn knight of KG i believe that the king comes first. If you start as a cop, sworn to protect and serve, but somehow end up secret service do you think the job changes? Is it up to our secret service to out a president they dont like? First and foremost of any solider is loyalty. Knights are soldiers with ideals to guide them.

BB often struggles with what i imagine many who serve do. This makes him human not a failure

[Roxy Carmichael]

He could of tried advising the King to not do it, but instead he just stood there and said nothing in the defense of the Starks. He also willingly served a king who murdered someone he also swore to protect ( KG swear to defend the King's family too) also the same King who openly said Elia and her babies deserved what happened. He had no reason to accept Robert's offer and no one would of said anything if he left the KG. He was also pretty willing to serve Joffery when he knew Dany was alive still.

He's not a bad man, but he isn't honourable.

Edit: To answer your question Barristan said he would of murdered Robert if he knew he planned on killing Dany, so apparently honour's a big thing to him. He insulted Jamie for breaking his vow but was also willing to break his too. Barristan is full of shit.

Do the Secret Service try to talk the President out of killing people in the Middle East?

Why should he have stuck his neck out for the Starks? He's a kingsguard, not a Starksguard. And one of the Starks had just challenged the crown prince to a fight to the death. In trying to defend the Starks he would have broken several vows, and likely died for his efforts. Barristan would have had to be a total moron to do such a thing.

If you can't understand why Barristan accepted Robert's pardon and offer after the war - especially given the circumstances - then it's not worth trying to explain it to you now.

At the point of Barristan's dismissal, Joffrey's sadistic cruelty was largely unknown.

Selmy himself admits to Dany that he should have sought her out sooner. His service as her queensguard is, in large part, an effort to make amends. Personally, I think it's pretty honorable when a person can admit fault, make changes, and do what they can to atone for their mistakes. Apparently you and many other readers subscribe to the "one strike and you're out" view of people... and too bad if they try to fix their mistakes because fuck them: they broke the wrong vows, or didn't go out of their way to save your favorite character, or did something that was anything other than what a perfect person would do.

It's ridiculous.

[Nictarion]

Do the Secret Service try to talk the President out of killing people in the Middle East?

Why should he have stuck his neck out for the Starks? He's a kingsguard, not a Starksguard. And one of the Starks had just challenged the crown prince to a fight to the death. In trying to defend the Starks he would have broken several vows, and likely died for his efforts. Barristan would have had to be a total moron to do such a thing.

If you can't understand why Barristan accepted Robert's pardon and offer after the war - especially given the circumstances - then it's not worth trying to explain it to you now.

At the point of Barristan's dismissal, Joffrey's sadistic cruelty was largely unknown.

Selmy himself admits to Dany that he should have sought her out sooner. His service as her queensguard is, in large part, an effort to make amends. Personally, I think it's pretty honorable when a person can admit fault, make changes, and do what they can to atone for their mistakes. Apparently you and many other readers subscribe to the "one strike and you're out" view of people... and too bad if they try to fix their mistakes because fuck them: they broke the wrong vows, or didn't go out of their way to save your favorite character, or did something that was anything other than what a perfect person would do.

It's ridiculous.

Well said.

[Gregor Clegane's head]

Why should he have stuck his neck out for the Starks? He's a kingsguard, not a Starksguard. And one of the Starks had just challenged the crown prince to a fight to the death. In trying to defend the Starks he would have broken several vows, and likely died for his efforts. Barristan would have had to be a total moron to do such a thing.

I guess Oakheart and the Hound broke several vows when they refused to hit Sansa when ordered. (even if Oakheart did do it in the end, he did initially refuse and I guess the Hound doesn't take vows seriously but still),

I think Barristan is the best person we have seen in the KG other then say, Oakheart. But the KG is not some honourable organization to begin with, you defend someone no matter what crimes they commit. He's a good man at heart but he's also a hypocrite when criticizing Jamie while also saying he would break his vows if he heard Robert laughing when Gregor brought Elia's children to him dead while Jamie broke his to save many lives.

Edit: Shit, my bad I forgot it was the whole Elia thing he would of murdered Robert for.

[Mikkel]

I think you meant "No honourable man chooses his comfort and public reputation over saving an innocent woman from rape and torture at the hands of her husband."

Also, let's remember that "her husband" in this case was also the supreme ruler of the land to whom Barristan had sworn loyalty - complicates things a bit, no?

Bottom line: the concept of a "True Knight" as talked about throughout this thread is impossible to actually achieve.

Of course I meant that, apparently I was being too subtle :P Note to self: Sarcasm, irony and similar is often lost in writing.

While I'll grant you that Aerys being King does complicate matters, it doesn't change the basic facts: A man abusing, raping and physically hurting a woman who can't defend herself. All with the knowledge of and acceptance-by-inaction of men sworn to protect women, the weak, and the innocent. The other members of the Kingsguard are no better, but the only other surviving member (Jaime) eventually does do something about it, so Barristan is the sole member left to take the blame.

Do the Secret Service try to talk the President out of killing people in the Middle East?

Why should he have stuck his neck out for the Starks? He's a kingsguard, not a Starksguard. And one of the Starks had just challenged the crown prince to a fight to the death. In trying to defend the Starks he would have broken several vows, and likely died for his efforts. Barristan would have had to be a total moron to do such a thing.

If you can't understand why Barristan accepted Robert's pardon and offer after the war - especially given the circumstances - then it's not worth trying to explain it to you now.

At the point of Barristan's dismissal, Joffrey's sadistic cruelty was largely unknown.

Selmy himself admits to Dany that he should have sought her out sooner. His service as her queensguard is, in large part, an effort to make amends. Personally, I think it's pretty honorable when a person can admit fault, make changes, and do what they can to atone for their mistakes. Apparently you and many other readers subscribe to the "one strike and you're out" view of people... and too bad if they try to fix their mistakes because fuck them: they broke the wrong vows, or didn't go out of their way to save your favorite character, or did something that was anything other than what a perfect person would do.

It's ridiculous.

The murder of Brandon and Rickard (without trial) is perhaps more ambiguous than what happened to Rhaella, considering Brandon at least was guilty. Executing him would be marginally defensible, but roasting Rickard in his armor? No. In any case, what Aerys did to Rhaella is what makes Barristan irredeemable to me. It's also not a case of "one strike", as this happened on multiple occasions and over a long period of time. Nor is it a single instant of indecision over conflicting vows, that at least would be understandable. But there's more than enough time to reflect on what goes on, hell Jaime-freaking-Lannister even calls out his fellow kingsguards on their hypocrisy, and yet they do nothing.

[The other prince]

Just to play devil's advocate, let's try your quote from the opposite perspective:

"No honourable man disobeys the king he swore to obey by interfering with his burning men alive if he wants to. That would be disloyal and not honourable." ;)

And things like "good" and "innocent" don't even enter into it in this situation. In a feudal society, the king will determine those values - his word is law. The king is well within his rights to be judge, jury, and executioner if he desires. Kind of sucks but that's the situation. Now, it's possible to go against the king's wishes but one had better be prepared to do so with the backing of a lot of steel because the king will have such backing.

And, if for honor's sake, one opposes the king and gets themselves executed for treason because of it I ask: is it better to be dead with honor or alive without it? Depends on who you ask, I suppose ;)

Very well said. The problem people are having is that they don't agree with how things work because they don't like it.

While I'll grant you that Aerys being King does complicate matters, it doesn't change the basic facts: A man abusing, raping and physically hurting a woman who can't defend herself. All with the knowledge of and acceptance-by-inaction of men sworn to protect women, the weak, and the innocent. The other members of the Kingsguard are no better, but the only other surviving member (Jaime) eventually does do something about it, so Barristan is the sole member left to take the blame.

The thing is the Kingsguard are the ones who swore the oath and would have a better idea what their first priority in a situation like this is. We may not like it, but that really doesn't matter. We can gather from the quote from Jon Darry I posted earlier what the expectation for the Kingsguard would be here. We can also tell the general expectation of a member of the Kingsguard in the way Jaime Lannister is viewed after he does something about it as you say by killing the king. He is reviled from that point forward. I know you are going to say that no one knew Aery's was going to burn the city but they did know about all his past actions. Even Ned Stark who lost his own father and brother is disgusted by Jaime's actions. I think this is pretty telling about what a Kingsguard member is expected to do.

[Mikkel]

Very well said. The problem people are having is that they don't agree with how things work because they don't like it.

The thing is the Kingsguard are the ones who swore the oath and would have a better idea what their first priority in a situation like this is. We may not like it, but that really doesn't matter. We can gather from the quote from Jon Darry I posted earlier what the expectation for the Kingsguard would be here. We can also tell the general expectation of a member of the Kingsguard in the way Jaime Lannister is viewed after he does something about it as you say by killing the king. He is reviled from that point forward. I know you are going to say that no one knew Aery's was going to burn the city but they did know about all his past actions. Even Ned Stark who lost his own father and brother is disgusted by Jaime's actions. I think this is pretty telling about what a Kingsguard member is expected to do.

Yes, but you're missing the point: It's not whether Barristan is doing what a Kingsguard is expected to or not, arguably he does exactly that, the point is that by being a Kingsguard, and choosing to continue to be one even when the King you're guarding is a mad, abusive pyromaniac/rapist (what a delightful fellow all round... no I'm not being serious! Apparently I need to specify those times!), it means it's impossible to remain a true knight. Therefore Barristan (and his deceased colleagues) have a choice to make, and by making that choice they condemn themselves.

I don't think Jaime is a hero, as his motivations when he does kill Aerys are a bit murky, plus some of his other actions are extremely self-serving and evil, but:

If I was judging whether Jaime was a hero because of the Kingslaying, I'd say he'd be at least as heroic, and at least as much a true knight because of the way he's viewed after the deed, not despite it. The right thing to do does not really change depending on that thing being popular or not.

[Prince of the North]

Of course I meant that, apparently I was being too subtle :P Note to self: Sarcasm, irony and similar is often lost in writing.

While I'll grant you that Aerys being King does complicate matters, it doesn't change the basic facts: A man abusing, raping and physically hurting a woman who can't defend herself. All with the knowledge of and acceptance-by-inaction of men sworn to protect women, the weak, and the innocent. The other members of the Kingsguard are no better, but the only other surviving member (Jaime) eventually does do something about it, so Barristan is the sole member left to take the blame.

You're right, of course, when judging this whole situation with our current modern values. However, Westeros doesn't operate under our current modern values. ;)

[Prince of the North]

Yes, but you're missing the point: It's not whether Barristan is doing what a Kingsguard is expected to or not, arguably he does exactly that, the point is that by being a Kingsguard, and choosing to continue to be one even when the King you're guarding is a mad, abusive pyromaniac/rapist (what a delightful fellow all round... no I'm not being serious! Apparently I need to specify those times!), it means it's impossible to remain a true knight. Therefore Barristan (and his deceased colleagues) have a choice to make, and by making that choice they condemn themselves.

I don't think Jaime is a hero, as his motivations when he does kill Aerys are a bit murky, plus some of his other actions are extremely self-serving and evil, but:

If I was judging whether Jaime was a hero because of the Kingslaying, I'd say he'd be at least as heroic, and at least as much a true knight because of the way he's viewed after the deed, not despite it. The right thing to do does not really change depending on that thing being popular or not.

You're right, no matter what choice the KG made serving under Aerys they could not remain "True Knights^TM" I will always contend that this concept of "True Knight" perfection as originally indicated in the OP and talked about throughout this thread is actually impossible to achieve.

[Roxy Carmichael]

I guess Oakheart and the Hound broke several vows when they refused to hit Sansa when ordered. (even if Oakheart did do it in the end, he did initially refuse and I guess the Hound doesn't take vows seriously but still),

I think Barristan is the best person we have seen in the KG other then say, Oakheart. But the KG is not some honourable organization to begin with, you defend someone no matter what crimes they commit. He's a good man at heart but he's also a hypocrite when criticizing Jamie while also saying he would break his vows if he heard Robert laughing when Gregor brought Elia's children to him dead while Jamie broke his to save many lives.

Edit: Shit, my bad I forgot it was the whole Elia thing he would of murdered Robert for.

Oakheart hit Sansa. The Hound wanted to bang her. I'm not sure those are great KG compared to Barristan. Oh, and later in the series Oakheart slept with Arianne and allowed her to use Myrcella, the princess he was sworn to protect, in a treasonous political plot.

Everybody criticizes Jaime because they don't know the true circumstances of Aerys' death, and not killing the king is what you learn in Kingsguarding 101. To everybody in the series it looks like Tywin showed up in KL, and Jaime sold out the king to help his dad... killing Aerys himself, and allowing the Lannister men to murder Elia and her children. Jaime does nothing to try to change people's perceptions.

[Danelle]

I guess Oakheart and the Hound broke several vows when they refused to hit Sansa when ordered. (even if Oakheart did do it in the end, he did initially refuse and I guess the Hound doesn't take vows seriously but still),

Sandor Clegane was not a sworn knight so, no, he broke no vows and due to his strong bond with Joffrey, the King never forced him to physically abuse Sansa.

[Mikkel]

You're right, no matter what choice the KG made serving under Aerys they could not remain "True Knights^TM" I will always contend that this concept of "True Knight" perfection as originally indicated in the OP and talked about throughout this thread is actually impossible to achieve.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if they wanted to remain true knights, the Kingsguard would have to abandon their Kingsguard duty, as the two cannot coexist under a King like Aerys. Most of them choose to remain Kingsguard (for various reasons) however.

I'm well aware that if they were to abandon their Kingsguard duties, and depose or kill Aerys they would be viewed as terrible people by their peers, but a true knight would know that they had done the right thing, no matter what everyone else thought. I understand somewhat why they don't, making the right choice in such a situation would be damn difficult, and erare humanum est as they say, but when the question is whether they can still be considered true knights, I'm going to have to say no. Conflicted humans who made an understandable if detestable choice, yes - true knights, no.

I'll agree in so far as the perfect knight is an ideal that is probably (very close to) impossible to achieve though, but my argument is that Aerys' kingsguard are nowhere near: It's not an instant of conflicting duties, it's extended acceptance of Aerys' behavior (by inaction, as knights they are required to act when faced with injustice and they don't). This stands in stark contrast to their overall stellar reputations, and this is why I'm interested in this topic.

[Prince of the North]

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if they wanted to remain true knights, the Kingsguard would have to abandon their Kingsguard duty, as the two cannot coexist under a King like Aerys. Most of them choose to remain Kingsguard (for various reasons) however.

I'm well aware that if they were to abandon their Kingsguard duties, and depose or kill Aerys they would be viewed as terrible people by their peers, but a true knight would know that they had done the right thing, no matter what everyone else thought. I understand somewhat why they don't, making the right choice in such a situation would be damn difficult, and erare humanum est as they say, but when the question is whether they can still be considered true knights, I'm going to have to say no. Conflicted humans who made an understandable if detestable choice, yes - true knights, no.

I'll agree in so far as the perfect knight is an ideal that is probably (very close to) impossible to achieve though, but my argument is that Aerys' kingsguard are nowhere near: It's not an instant of conflicting duties, it's extended acceptance of Aerys' behavior (by inaction, as knights they are required to act when faced with injustice and they don't). This stands in stark contrast to their overall stellar reputations, and this is why I'm interested in this topic.

I think we're very much in agreement. The only thing is, as I've said, it's a feudal society where to oppose the king is treason that would very likely result in execution, imprisonment, exile, etc. To oppose a king that one has sworn to obey/protect would be viewed as even worse. Also, very few people in Westeros have the power to tell the king that his actions are an "injustice" and certainly not the KG.

I will still go a bit further than you when you say that the ideal of a "True Knight^TM" is "very nearly impossible to achieve" and say that I still think it is completely unrealistic. From the lowliest hedge knight to the monarch who happens to have been given his spurs there would not be an instance where they never had oaths, alliances, duties, etc. that didn't come into conflict. Yes, the ideal of the perfect knight is something to strive for but it could never really be achieved.

This whole idea is trying to view the world as objective when in reality everything is subjective. As always, how something is viewed depends on one's perspective and it's always situational. There are no absolutes.

[The other prince]

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if they wanted to remain true knights, the Kingsguard would have to abandon their Kingsguard duty, as the two cannot coexist under a King like Aerys. Most of them choose to remain Kingsguard (for various reasons) however.

I'm well aware that if they were to abandon their Kingsguard duties, and depose or kill Aerys they would be viewed as terrible people by their peers, but a true knight would know that they had done the right thing, no matter what everyone else thought. I understand somewhat why they don't, making the right choice in such a situation would be damn difficult, and erare humanum est as they say, but when the question is whether they can still be considered true knights, I'm going to have to say no. Conflicted humans who made an understandable if detestable choice, yes - true knights, no.

I'll agree in so far as the perfect knight is an ideal that is probably (very close to) impossible to achieve though, but my argument is that Aerys' kingsguard are nowhere near: It's not an instant of conflicting duties, it's extended acceptance of Aerys' behavior (by inaction, as knights they are required to act when faced with injustice and they don't). This stands in stark contrast to their overall stellar reputations, and this is why I'm interested in this topic.

You know I get what you are saying, and personally i agree with it. It is jsut that the people of GRRMs world don't seem to agree that you can't be a member of the Kingsguard and be a true knight. However some of this comes down to what each of us is calling a "True Knight". I simply do not think it is possible for a true knight to exist by your standards unless he was lucky enough to serve an almost perfect lord or king during a time of complete peace. While yes this knight in this utopian society might well hold to the values you require a true knight to hold to. But does that make him a better knight then someone who has to serve a corrupt king in a time of war? I think not.

[Lord of Handle]

I'm sorry I couldn't be bothered to read through all 11 pages so I don't know if someone has already pointed this out, but when Brienne swore herself to Catelyn, Catelyn also swore an oath not to demand anything of Brienne that could bring her into dishonor. If such an oath is standard on the part of the lord or even the king when he accepts new KG, that could possible reconcile a kingsguard's many conflicting oaths, depending on what counts as "dishonor" for the knight.

We don't know what oaths if any the king swears to his KG (at least I think we don't :dunno: ) but if he makes the same oath Catelyn did, then I would argue that a member of the KG could in theory be perfectly justified to go against his king.

1. If the king has sworn not to demand anything of his Kingsguard that could bring them into dishonor
   
2. And if it brings dishonor on a member of the Kingsguard to stand idly by while an innocent is raped/burned alive by the king (thereby being forced to break the knightly vows he had taken earlier)
   
3. Then the king has not upheld their end of the deal
   
4. And then it can be argued the KG is in that situation no longer honor bound by his Kingsguard vows but only by his knightly vows
   
5. Which would mean that the KG would be obligated to and justified in intervening
   

Maybe.

ETA: Of course, this all depends on, not just if the king makes such a vow, but also on whether the obligation of one part to uphold their vows is contingent on the other part upholding theirs. This is probably very open to interpretation.

[The other prince]

I'm sorry I couldn't be bothered to read through all 11 pages so I don't know if someone has already pointed this out, but when Brienne swore herself to Catelyn, Catelyn also swore an oath not to demand anything of Brienne that could bring her into dishonor. If such an oath is standard on the part of the lord or even the king when he accepts new KG, that could possible reconcile a kingsguard's many conflicting oaths, depending on what counts as "dishonor" for the knight.

We don't know what oaths if any the king swears to his KG (at least I think we don't :dunno: ) but if he makes the same oath Catelyn did, then I would argue that a member of the KG could in theory be perfectly justified to go against his king.

1. If the king has sworn not to demand anything of his Kingsguard that could bring them into dishonor

And if it brings dishonor on a member of the Kingsguard to stand idly by while an innocent is raped/burned alive by the king (thereby being forced to break the knightly vows he had taken earlier)

Then the king has not upheld their end of the deal

And then it can be argued the KG is in that situation no longer honor bound by his Kingsguard vows but only by his knightly vows

Which would mean that the KG would be obligated to and justified in intervening

Maybe.

ETA: Of course, this all depends on, not just if the king makes such a vow, but also on whether the obligation of one part to uphold their vows is contingent on the other part upholding theirs. This is probably very open to interpretation.

I really do not get the feeling that this was in any way a standard oath. As for the Kingsguard I really do not get the sense that the king swears anything of the sort to them. What I do get from various exchanges between Darry and Jaime and Hightower and Jaime is that their service to the King is foremost in what they are suspected to do concerning their duty. Your theory works under way too many Ifs and assumptions. Catelyn had never had someone swear to her like this and there is nothing that even suggests that this is a standard oath for any knight let alone the Kingsguard.