Barristan the Bold is not a true knight

[Mikkel]

“There are no true knights, no more than there are gods. If you can’t protect yourself, die and get out of the way of those who can. Sharp steel and strong arms rule this world, don’t ever believe any different.” The Hound.

True, but in my opinion the fact that being a true knight is nearly impossible in practice does not mean all people should stop trying.

It's not admirable to stop trying and be sarcastic about it, even if the ideal is inevitably going to be out of reach.

In fact that's the nature of an ideal, it's something to strive for, never reaching it. So the fact that there is no-one else who manage to be a true knight does not take away the fact that Barristan falls very short, and he knows it himself.

[Rockroi]

Clown? Eddard knew nothing but what he saw. A man swore to protect another man, sitting over that man he just killed while sitting in his throne smirking. Jaime chooses to be a sensitive idiot about it and not tell him about his motivations, he only lets Eddard assume exactly what it looks like. Jaime killed Aerys II for power and a throne. Jaime doesn't correct him. If Eddard was judgmental its because Jaime allowed him to be.

First off, I don't want to turn this into a discussion of NEd v. Jaime; this is about Barristan and how oaths are a foolish substitution for ethical thinking. An oath gets people to ignore huge, complex issues and simply camouflage their own moral weakness by saying, "Sorry. I could not do anything because I swore an oath to (blah blah blah blah)." See Hightower, Gerold ("You were sworn to protect the King, not to judge him.")

Eddard went to KL to kill Aerys. Then, he gets there and Aerys is dead so he is morally safe from his lesser demons; for the rest of his days he can say "It was just terrible what the Lannisters did.... even though had I arrived 15 minutes earlier I probably would have done much of the same (I don't think Ned would have slain Elia's or her children, but Roose Bolton? Err.....)"

Ned then sees Jaime on the throne and what does he do? He just looks at Jaime. Does he ask any questions (like the Lannister men did when they broke in)? Does he try to see what is going on? Does he try to figure out if Jaime is friend or foe? NOPE! HE just sits there on his horse, judging. To you, you say that Jaime needed to explain stuff to Ned, when it seems like Ned should have been the one testing the temperatures of people and their actions before jumping to his conclusions. And what of Ned's conclusions? That the Lannisters were doing a power-jump? Ah... how? Tywin nor Jaime took the throne nor kept it from Robert.

But to the very end, Ned Stark thought Jaime was a bad person for ... killing the King Ned was trying to kill.

But had Ned thought as he was in that Throne Room - "You know what? I think its actually a good thing that Jaime killed Aerys and helped shorten this conflict. I mean, after all, we all knew Aerys was a terrible King and had to be dealt with. I mean, Jesus, Jaime- one of Aerys' best warriors and charged with running the war efforts for Aerys in the Red Keep, actually saved many men and lives by turning the sword on Aerys, something if I were here I would have done the same thing.... And come to think of it, Somebody had to kill Aerys. I should really be grateful that Jaime turned the sword on Aerys instead of using it to defend Aerys. Fuck, I may be alive right now because of that.

OH WAIT! No... no... sorry, I forgot that Jaime swore this oath that wiped away his human faculties to think for himself and be ethically humane. No. that's right, Jaime swore to protect Aerys- a fucking horrible person - and therefore can never do the right thing ever. Instead, men like Arthur Dayne and Gerold Hightower (Ned stops to look around the room) Who I have to admit are conspicuous by their absence - no those are real, honorable soldiers because they will continue to kill men needlessly long after the war is over. For no reason at all. Those are good, true knights those ones. So, Jaime is a bad person for killing the King I was trying to kill and that - in fact - everyone I know was trying to kill. And that's because of the oath Jaime swore....

Wait, what was that? Oh, the oaths Jon Arryn swore when he became Warden of the East and ruler of the Vale? Or the one Robert took when he became Lord of the Stormlands? Or that Hoster Tully Swore as Lord of Riverrun? Oh, well, see those ... well those don't count because Aerys is ... or was .... a terrible person and did terrible things. So that ipso facto kinda sorta made those oaths void. But certainly not the one Jaime swore. No, that one HAS to remain in place even if Aerys was a terrible maniac who wanted to kill us all. So, just Jaime's oath always counts regardless of bad acts by Aerys, but all the others we can all use our judgments to come to a decent conclusion... just not the Kingsguard.

And, what was your question? Oh, what about Ser Barristan Selmy who was wounded grievously on the Trident? Well, for starters he's totally going to die, so I don't really care. But if he were to live it would be 100% totally okay for him to stay in the KG for Robert? Why? Uh... be-because of the thingy with the .... honor... and the King being sorta Robert (even if Viserys is totally alive) and that Barristan is a swell guy and... the honor and the .... the decency of man... and .... and did I mention the honor? I did? Oh, well Selmy can ... he can serve Robert and not the Targaryens because ... welll.... Winter is COMING!!!!!!!!!

Yeah... see... it makes no sense.

And I'm fine with that. But as soon as a man says (BECAUSE HE SHOULD) that there are exceptions to oaths for Selmy and Hoster Tully and Robert Baratheon then there must be exceptions for Jaime.

Like I said, don't be like Aerys Oakenshield (or whatever his name was); don't blindly get yourself killed for nothing; be like Boros Blount and live to see your task through.

[The other prince]

And how many of them exactly know what Aerys had done and what Barry did?

Who are the thousands he had saved?

Because there is not something ambiguous. A knight has to protect and help the people that they need him, Barry himself tells it and he hadn’t done it. It’s that clear. It's better to die trying than chickening out and turning the blind eye.

Again that is bs, Barry himseld has told that a true knight "is sworn to protect those who are weaker than himself, or die in the attempt." there is nothing unclear or ambiguous about it. A true knigh,again even according to himself, should protect those who need him or die trying. The fact that Barry had faild to do it means that he isn't a true knight.

Once again what you are doing is basically saying I think certain vows like protecting the weak and the innocent is more important then other vows like obeying orders. It is fine that you feel this way but in the world of GRRM this does not appear to be the expectation. Take Balon Swann for example. He is ordered to kill Doran Martell who as far as Balon knows is innocent. Further more he is basically ordered to lie and set it up like Tyrion is responsible. Does Doran seem outraged that a knight would do this? No he does not. All he says about it is that Balon doesn't like it but he is compelled to obey. Just because you feel like something is the most central tenent for knighthood does not make it so.

True, but in my opinion the fact that being a true knight is nearly impossible in practice does not mean all people should stop trying.

It's not admirable to stop trying and be sarcastic about it, even if the ideal is inevitably going to be out of reach.

In fact that's the nature of an ideal, it's something to strive for, never reaching it. So the fact that there is no-one else who manage to be a true knight does not take away the fact that Barristan falls very short, and he knows it himself.

This is my point. For me to be a true knight doesn't mean that you have never broken a vow. In fact it is likely not even possible to never break a vow since at times to keep one vow may mean breaking another. So the true knight is one who tries their best to be a good knight. No one in GRRM's world is perfect so we are left with those that try. You can try and claim that Barristan didn't try hard enough because you don't agree with his decisions but that is only your opinion.

Next for everyone that wants to compare Barristan with Ser Duncan. This is ridiculous because they had very different situations to work through. As far as we know Dunk never had the misfortune to serve a Mad king. How would Dunk have handled things if Aegon had became mad and cruel later in life? We don't know. Would he have turned on Aegon and killed him, or would he try and talk to Aegon and just be ignored? We have no idea. Put Dunk in Barristan's shoes and we have no idea how he would have handled things.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Once again what you are doing is basically saying I think certain vows like protecting the weak and the innocent is more important then other vows like obeying orders. It is fine that you feel this way but in the world of GRRM this does not appear to be the expectation. Take Balon Swann for example. He is ordered to kill Doran Martell who as far as Balon knows is innocent. Further more he is basically ordered to lie and set it up like Tyrion is responsible. Does Doran seem outraged that a knight would do this? No he does not. All he says about it is that Balon doesn't like it but he is compelled to obey. Just because you feel like this is the most central tenent for knighthood does not make it so.

Kill Doran? What the heck are you talking about? Maybe killing Trystane? Something that we don't know if it is true?

You forget that it was Barry it self that a true knight should protect those who are weaker than himself, or die in the attempt. Barry was the one who told it not me.

[Faceless Man Friday]

True, but in my opinion the fact that being a true knight is nearly impossible in practice does not mean all people should stop trying.

It's not admirable to stop trying and be sarcastic about it, even if the ideal is inevitably going to be out of reach.

In fact that's the nature of an ideal, it's something to strive for, never reaching it. So the fact that there is no-one else who manage to be a true knight does not take away the fact that Barristan falls very short, and he knows it himself.

And that is why the Hound is such a sad character and Barriston is not.

[The other prince]

Kill Doran? What the heck are you talking about? Maybe killing Trystane? Something that we don't know if it is true?

You forget that it was Barry it self that a true knight should protect those who are weaker than himself, or die in the attempt. Barry was the one who told it not me.

Yes sorry I am speaking of Trystane. It doesn't matter if it is true. I am talking about the reaction to the information. Not if there is a plot to kill Trystane or not.

I haven't forgot what Barristan said at all. What you either forget or ignore is that this is not the only thing that a knight swears. So I would ask. Do you ignore that knights and kingsguard especially are also sworn to obey because you forget or simply because that doesn't fit your image of a knight?

[Bryden Tully]

I think people are forgetting how important the King is, and in turn the Kingsguard. They're sworn to protect their king, I never understand why people say that Barristan should of stopped the rape/helped Rhaella to escape. That's beyond treason for the KG to assault their liege lord and smuggle his wife away simply doesn't fit into what the kingsguard does. They're sworn to protect the life of their king, and there's really nothing Barristan could do-if he stopped Aerys he'd be decried a Oathbreaker/kingslayer

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Yes sorry I am speaking of Trystane. It doesn't matter if it is true. I am talking about the reaction to the information. Not if there is a plot to kill Trystane or not.

Ιf there were no plot then why bring it up? Since we don't have Balon's PoV we don't know why he was like that. From all we know it could be him feeling uncomfortable near Arianne.

I haven't forgot what Barristan said at all. What you either forget or ignore is that this is not the only thing that a knight swears. So I would ask. Do you ignore that knights and kingsguard especially are also sworn to obey because you forget or simply because that doesn't fit your image of a knight?

This is simply silly. We know from the freaking books what a knight should do, it's not my option it is in the books. Now if you don't like it because it spoils your Barry's image that's ok. But it is in the books. Barry himself tell us what they should either protect someone or died trying it. Is there anyone who said that KG's oaths>Knightly oaths? Maybe I have missed it but please enlighten me.

[The other prince]

Ιf there were no plot then why bring it up? Since we don't have Balon's PoV we don't know why he was like that. From all we know it could be him feeling uncomfortable near Arianne.

This is simply silly. We know from the freaking books what a knight should do, it's not my option it is in the books. Now if you don't like it because it spoils your Barry's image that's ok. But it is in the books. Barry himself tell us what they should either protect someone or died trying it. Is there anyone who said that KG's oaths>Knightly oaths? Maybe I have missed it but please enlighten me.

Trying to say that me pointing out that a Knight especially a member of the KG is sworn to obey is silly just tells me that you are ignoring this because you don't like or personally agree with this. Tough. You are cherry picking parts of the book that reinforce you point of view but are blatantly ignoring anything that talks about how important obeying commands are.

[The other prince]

I think people are forgetting how important the King is, and in turn the Kingsguard. They're sworn to protect their king, I never understand why people say that Barristan should of stopped the rape/helped Rhaella to escape. That's beyond treason for the KG to assault their liege lord and smuggle his wife away simply doesn't fit into what the kingsguard does. They're sworn to protect the life of their king, and there's really nothing Barristan could do-if he stopped Aerys he'd be decried a Oathbreaker/kingslayer

They are not fogetting, they just don't want to acknowledge this because it doesn't fit their personal image of what a knight is. Call it selective reading if you like.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Trying to say that me pointing out that a Knight especially a member of the KG is sworn to obey is silly just tells me that you are ignoring this because you don't like or personally agree with this. Tough. You are cherry picking parts of the book that reinforce you point of view but are blatantly ignoring anything that talks about how important obeying commands are.

Do you have any part of the books that proves me wrong? Is there anything in the books that say that KG’s oaths>Knightly oaths?

If you have noticed the OP says “true knight” we know from the book what a true knight should do. It’s in the text it’s not open for interpretation. Do you have any quote to prove me wrong? Is there any part in the books where it is stated that a true knight is able not to protect people and turn the blind eye?You can ignore it and distort it all you want I am talking based on quotes from the text not personal preferences.

[Danelle]

I think people are forgetting how important the King is, and in turn the Kingsguard. They're sworn to protect their king, I never understand why people say that Barristan should of stopped the rape/helped Rhaella to escape. That's beyond treason for the KG to assault their liege lord and smuggle his wife away simply doesn't fit into what the kingsguard does. They're sworn to protect the life of their king, and there's really nothing Barristan could do-if he stopped Aerys he'd be decried a Oathbreaker/kingslayer

That's the whole point though. The sworn knights find themselves in a conflicting situation.

Apart from Sandor Clegane, who was not a knight, so far the KG have all been knights.

Knights swear to protect the innocent.

KG knights also swear to protect the King.

When they witness the King abusing innocent people, they find themselves in a difficult position.

Being KG knights doesn't absolve them from their previous vows to protect the innocent.

If a King is protected by men who have sworn to protect the innocent and they are regarded as paragons of virtue, then this is the best PR a King can have.

A king has no secrets from his Kingsguard. Relations between Aerys and his queen had been strained during the last years of his reign. They slept apart and did their best to avoid each other during the waking hours. But whenever Aerys gave a man to the flames, Queen Rhaella would have a visitor in the night. The day he burned his mace-and-dagger Hand, Jaime and Jon Darry had stood at guard outside her bedchamber whilst the king took his pleasure.

"You're hurting me," they had heard Rhaella cry through the oaken door."You're hurting me." In some queer way, that had been worse than Lord Chelsted's screaming

. "We are sworn to protect her as well," Jaime had finally been driven to say

. "We are," Darry allowed, "but not from him."

Jaime had only seen Rhaella once after that, the morning of the day she left for Dragonstone. The queen had been cloaked and hooded as she climbed inside the royal wheelhouse that would take her down Aegon's High Hill to the waiting ship, but he heard her maids whispering after she was gone. They said the queen looked as if some beast had savaged her, clawing at her thighs and chewing on her breasts. A crowned beast, Jaime knew.

Spousal abuse is not tolerated in Westeros, Darry doesn't stop Aerys not because he is married to Rhaella, but because he is the King.

The King is important, but this doesn't mean that he is absolved of any crime or that his disgustiing behaviour ought to be tolerated.

When the King acts or forces his KG to act in a dishonourable manner, then the KG knights find themselves in a position where they have to break one oath to keep another.

Either you obey the King and tolerate the abuse of innocent or you betray the King and protect the innocent.

Which is why Jaime and Barristan are so interesting and compelling characters. :)

[The other prince]

We know from the freaking books what a knight should do, it's not my option it is in the books.

I have to point out that we know from the freaking books as you say that a member of the KG is sworn to obey do we not? I guess you didn't read that part.

[Nictarion]

Some of ideas in this thread of what a knight should be remind me of AGoT Sansa level naivety. It's simply unrealistic.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

I have to point out that we know from the freaking books as you say that a member of the KG is sworn to obey do we not? I guess you didn't read that part.

True. But do we know that his KG’s vows come before his knightly vows? Oh wait! No we don't!

[The other prince]

Do you have any part of the books that proves me wrong? Is there anything in the books that say that KG’s oaths>Knightly oaths?

If you have noticed the OP says “true knight” we know from the book what a true knight should do. It’s in the text it’s not open for interpretation. Do you have any quote to prove me wrong? Is there any part in the books where it is stated that a true knight is able not to protect people and turn the blind eye?You can ignore it and distort it all you want I am talking based on quotes from the text not personal preferences.

The Oaths for the KH are taken after the oaths to becaome a knight. So they would be taken with full knowledge that they are the primary oaths to follow from this point on. If this wasn't the case then their is no point to taking any additional oaths. You are right it is in the books you just don't acknowledge anything you don't like. Here is your quote from the books.

"So many vows. They make you swear and swear. Defend the King, obey the King, obey your father, protect the innocent, defend the weak. But what if your father despises the King? What if the King massacres the innocent? It's too much. No matter what you do, you're forsaking one vow or another."

―Jaime Lannister

I don't dispute that the two vows you keep pointing out are important. My issue comes from the fact that you will not acknowledge any of the vows you don't like. Do you see the word obey there? I do. If you protect the innocent from your king you are still breaking a vow. Period. It would not have be a moral dilemma for Jaime if it was clearly understood that one of these vows clearly was more important than another.

[Nictarion]

True. But do we know that his KGs vows come before his knightly vows? Oh wait! No we don't!

Well we know the NW vows supersede the the vows of a knight. I would assume the KG is similar.

[The other prince]

True. But do we know that his KG’s vows come before his knightly vows? Oh wait! No we don't!

To be perfectly fair you are right we do not, that means you don't know either. Yet you are judging Barristan as if you do.

Some of ideas in this thread of what a knight should be remind me of AGoT Sansa level naivety. It's simply unrealistic.

Absolutely

[Talking Hodor]

I doubt that, there was bound to have been countless signs for those who bothered to look. Just the delightful little story about cutting up a pregnant cat alone should set a lot of alarm-bells ringing. Of course, hindsight is 20/20 as they say, but I think it must have been evident to anyone as close to the royal family as Barristan that there was something seriously wrong with Joffrey.

Barristan also saw Robert punish Joffrey for this. He was primarily there to guard the king and represent him at the Small Council meetings, not watch Joffrey. The Hound guarded Joffrey and could have said more about his character.

He also remained true to his monarch until he was fired. Then he sought out the next best thing, the Targaryen heir, and vowed to protect her.

Jaime said that to uphold one vow means breaking another until it just becomes confusing (paraphrased). Selmy upheld his vows the best he could with the information he had.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

The Oaths for the KH are taken after the oaths to becaome a knight. So they would be taken with full knowledge that they are the primary oaths to follow from this point on. If this wasn't the case then their is no point to taking any additional oaths. You are right it is in the books you just don't acknowledge anything you don't like. Here is your quote from the books.

"So many vows. They make you swear and swear. Defend the King, obey the King, obey your father, protect the innocent, defend the weak. But what if your father despises the King? What if the King massacres the innocent? It's too much. No matter what you do, you're forsaking one vow or another." ―Jaime Lannister

I don't dispute that the two vows you keep pointing out are important. My issue comes from the fact that you will not acknowledge any of the vows you don't like. Do you see the word obey there? I do. If you protect the innocent from your king you are still breaking a vow. Period. It would not have be a moral dilemma for Jaime if it was clearly understood that one of these vows clearly was more important than another.

You still don't get it... The OP talks about true knight we know what a true knight should do adn we know that Barry hadn't done it which by definition means that Barry isn't one.

To be perfectly fair you are right we do not, that means you don't know either. Yet you are judging Barristan as if you do.

Yes because we know what a true knight, which btw is what the OP mentions if Barry is a true knight or not, should and shouldn't do. We freaking know that there is no space for personal interpretation it's all in the text. It's not just about a knight it's about the true knight.