Barristan the Bold is not a true knight

[The other prince]

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.

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.

No you simply don't get it. If you are going to ignore direct information from the books concerning their vows I really don't know if there is even a point trying to explain this to you. Do you not see plainly see that one of the vows Jaime thinks about is obey your king. Are you saying that vow can just be ignored? Ridiculous.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

No you simply don't get it. If you are going to ignore direct information from the books concerning their vows I really don't know if there is even a point trying to explain this to you. Do you not see plainly that one of the vows Jaime thinks about is obey your king. Are you saying that vow can just be ignored? Ridiculous.

So you say that the knightly vows will just be ignored? That make sense.

But you still miss the point: we are talking about the true knight. In the books, 5 plus the D&E we know what and how a true knight should do. True knight is the magic word not just a knight. The OP is talking about true knight, what a true knight should do not an average knight. Now if you think that the books are wrong ok.

[The other prince]

For a knight to be a knight he would need to follow all of his vows. You seem to want a knight to be able to ignore the vows that you don't like or not be considered a true knight.

As far as the KG go and how important the vows are in relation to the knightly vows I would offer this.

“ You swore a vow to guard the king, not to judge him ”
– Gerold Hightower

This is after Aery's has both Brandon and Rickard Stark killed. Rickard seems to be innocent so you would condem the knights present for not defending him. However Ser Gerold Hightower who is a knight and LC of the KG cleary indicates here what he considers the most important vow. Knowing that he is both a knight and a member of the KG I would suggest his priority here shows us what vows are considered the most important. Does anyone in the books ever mention that he is not a true knight? No they do not. I'm sorry if you don't feel like this is right but it is what it is.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Yet again you continue missing the point, we are not talking about the average knight we are talking about the crème de la crème, the very best knights; the true knight. It's very difficult to be one, sure and sometimes it could seem even impossible but that doesn't mean that the standards are going to taken down. The fact that they can cope with those high standards is what make them true knights.

[The other prince]

Yet again you continue missing the point, we are not talking about the average knight we are talking about the crème de la crème, the very best knights; the true knight. It's very difficult to be one, sure and sometimes it could seem even impossible but that doesn't mean that the standards are going to taken down. The fact that they can cope with those high standards is what make them true knights.

I am not missing your point. My point is that you are claiming Barristan is not a true knight because he did not follow some of his vows. In reality he would have broken some of his vows no matter what action or inaction he took. All he could do in this situation is prioritize his vows since there is no way he could keep them all. Just because the order he prioritizes them into doesn't match the order you would like doesn't mean he is not a true knight. By this way of thinking no KG could ever be considered a true knight. It is very clear in the books this is not considered to be the case in the Seven Kingdoms. Latching on to one or two of the vows that Barristan took while ignoring the other ones he took doesn't prove anything except that you will ignore anything that doesn't support your opinion.

You can claim that someone is not getting your point all you want. The simple fact is you are not including all the vows Barristan would have taken. You are only including the vows you seem to like. You can post your one line about a ture knight defending the weak all you want but that doesn't change the fact that this is only one part of their vows. Sorry

[Jon's Queen Consort]

I am not missing your point. My point is that you are claiming Barristan is not a true knight because he did not follow some of his vows. In reality he would have broken some of his vows no matter what action or inaction he took. All he could do in this situation is prioritize his vows since there is no way he could keep them all. Just because the order he prioritizes them into doesn't match the order you would like doesn't mean he is not a true knight. By this way of thinking no KG could ever be considered a true knight. It is very clear in the books this is not considered to be the case in the Seven Kingdoms. Latching on to one or two of the vows that Barristan took while ignoring the other ones he took doesn't prove anything except that you will ignore anything that doesn't support your opinion.

You can claim that someone is not getting your point all you want. The simple fact is you are not including all the vows Barristan would have taken. You are only including the vows you seem to like. You can post your one line about a ture knight defending the weak all you want but that doesn't change the fact that this is only one part of their vows. Sorry

Yet again; we know exactly what a true knight should and shouldn’t do from the text arguing with the text is arguing with the author. You cannot change the text because you don’t like it. You may nag about things that you have no text support, just your opinion to object something from the text. If you like it or not the text say to us what a true knight should and shouldn’t do. On one hand we have text proofs and on the other assumptions based on personal preferences and opinion. I will have the text thank you very much.

[Mikkel]

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.

While not identical, we have a somewhat-similar situation where Ser Duncan goes out of his way to protect the (innocent) puppeteer (what's-her-name.. tall-something, anyways). He does this knowing full well that he's opposing a crazed Targaryen abusing someone unable to protect themselves, and he knows full well that it's likely to cost him dearly, perhaps even his life. In fact, it very nearly does if it hadn't been for some of the decent Targaryens stepping up.

So no, they're not identical situations, but IMO they're close enough to judge how two different knights interpret their knightly vows when faced with a very difficult choice to protect the innocent, or turn their back for the sake of comfort, safety or - in Barristan's case - the cloak of duty.

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

Aye, the Hound is sad, but inexplicably he has grown on me. Perhaps it's his relatively refreshing attitude, pointing out many of the hypocrisies we're discussing in this thread. Even if he stops well short of actually doing anything about it, but merely comments and (mostly) refuses to partake. I'm probably never going to be a fan of the guy though, what he did to Mycah prevents that.

[Gnivil]

I find it very strange that Sandor, the man who rode down and killed Mycah for no reason other than "orders, brah, whatevs" is either "more honorable" or has a "bigger set of values" than Barristan, who's only grey area seems to be not knowing fully what to do about Aerys raping Rhaella because of ambiguous oaths.

I think it's the fact that the Hound's at least honest about it that people like

[The other prince]

Yet again; we know exactly what a true knight should and shouldn’t do from the text arguing with the text is arguing with the author. You cannot change the text because you don’t like it. You may nag about things that you have no text support, just your opinion to object something from the text. If you like it or not the text say to us what a true knight should and shouldn’t do. On one hand we have text proofs and on the other assumptions based on personal preferences and opinion. I will have the text thank you very much.

We know that a knight is supposed to keep his vows as well. I have already provided a quote from the book concerning some of these vows. I am not changing anything in the text at all. What you are doing is ignoring the parts you do not like. Parts like Jaime talking about how keeping one vow is breaking another. That is directly from the books yet you ignore it. Parts like Gerold Hightower clearly telling us what vows he at least considers the most important. He is LC of the Kingsguard I would imagine he has a decent idea. Yet you ignore this. What good does it do to give you information from the books if you ignore it?

While not identical, we have a somewhat-similar situation where Ser Duncan goes out of his way to protect the (innocent) puppeteer (what's-her-name.. tall-something, anyways). He does this knowing full well that he's opposing a crazed Targaryen abusing someone unable to protect themselves, and he knows full well that it's likely to cost him dearly, perhaps even his life. In fact, it very nearly does if it hadn't been for some of the decent Targaryens stepping up.

Somewhat similar yes. But what would Dunk have done here had Aerion been king and Dunk was a member of the Kingsguard at the time? Would he have just as quickly done the same thing? If he had still done the same would he feel as if he had also failed for injuring his own king he had sworn to protect? If Dunk had been in the Kingsguard and instead of Aerion it was Daeron II would Baelor have still praised the action the same? I really don't know. I do know this is what the members of Aery's kingsguard faced.

If someone serves a kind, just and noble ruler then keeping your vows and being a so called true knight is going to be fairly easy. If you are sworn to Aery's Targaryen then trying to keep all of your vows and doing your duty as a knight and a member of the Kingsguard is another matter entirely. My point is can we really say that a knight lucky enough to serve a just king, and who never had to deal with the things Aery's kingsgard faced really a better and more true knight then the members of Aery's Kingsguard?

[MooseHB]

Well said. I imagine a lot of knights would use "I was just following orders" as an excuse/defense.

Barristan certainly has his faults, as does everybody in this series, but anybody saying they wouldn't take him if they had the chance is crazy. Of all the living knights he's probably the closest to a "true knight" that you're going to get. The vows of a knight and a kingsguard seem pretty contradictory.

It's easy with Nuremburg in the rear view for us to decide that "just following orders" is inadequate as a defense. In Westeros, things are different.

The issue in the age of Westeros is more attuned to precedence of vows. Jaime points out how eventually the vows come into conflict, and there is apparently no way of sorting out which is the correct vow to uphold, in that case.

So what Westeros needs, is a system to define that precedence.

Whether an earlier vow, such as knighthood before KG, would apply, or later vows supercede earlier, as with KG over knighthood, is what is lacking; and hopefully, once the Others nearly destroy the 7K and Jon Snow saves the realm in the nick of time, a special counsel can be convened to sort it out.

:bang: . :box: . :fencing: . :bs: . :rolleyes: ...

[MooseHB]

... :bawl: . :spank: . :tantrum: . :idea: . :thumbsup: . :cheers:

I suppose it would look something like that.

[Lointain]

The oath of a knight is very clear.

If someone is a knight, he should have being in the ceremony and listened and accepted the "be brave", "be just", "defend the young and innocent" and protect the women" uttered in the ceremony by a another knight.

All the other oaths, if for some reason make the knight break any part of his oath, tarnish his honour, making him no more a true knight.

Any Kingsguard that break - actively or by innaction - any part of the knight's oath is no more a true knight.

In short: any true knight should follow with perfection the oath that demands him to be a paragon of virtue, bravery and kindness (bravery, justice, defending the weak and protecting the women); and only following other oaths, has long this new oaths doesn't make him break the knight's oath.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

We know that a knight is supposed to keep his vows as well. I have already provided a quote from the book concerning some of these vows. I am not changing anything in the text at all. What you are doing is ignoring the parts you do not like. Parts like Jaime talking about how keeping one vow is breaking another. That is directly from the books yet you ignore it. Parts like Gerold Hightower clearly telling us what vows he at least considers the most important. He is LC of the Kingsguard I would imagine he has a decent idea. Yet you ignore this. What good does it do to give you information from the books if you ignore it?

Again, Jaime comments how difficult is to keep their vows.

The oath of a knight is very clear.

If someone is a knight, he should have being in the ceremony and listened and accepted the "be brave", "be just", "defend the young and innocent" and protect the women" uttered in the ceremony by a another knight.

All the other oaths, if for some reason make the knight break any part of his oath, tarnish his honour, making him no more a true knight.

Any Kingsguard that break - actively or by innaction - any part of the knight's oath is no more a true knight.

In short: any true knight should follow with perfection the oath that demands him to be a paragon of virtue, bravery and kindness (bravery, justice, defending the weak and protecting the women); and only following other oaths, has long this new oaths doesn't make him break the knight's oath.

If I understand correctly you mean that even if Barry had took KGoaths that doesn't mean that he had to break his Knightly oaths and since/if he broke them he is not a true knight?

[The other prince]

It's easy with Nuremburg in the rear view for us to decide that "just following orders" is inadequate as a defense. In Westeros, things are different.

The issue in the age of Westeros is more attuned to precedence of vows. Jaime points out how eventually the vows come into conflict, and there is apparently no way of sorting out which is the correct vow to uphold, in that case.

So what Westeros needs, is a system to define that precedence.

Whether an earlier vow, such as knighthood before KG, would apply, or later vows supercede earlier, as with KG over knighthood, is what is lacking; and hopefully, once the Others nearly destroy the 7K and Jon Snow saves the realm in the nick of time, a special counsel can be convened to sort it out.

:bang: . :box: . :fencing: . :bs: . :rolleyes: ...

:agree:

The oath of a knight is very clear.

If someone is a knight, he should have being in the ceremony and listened and accepted the "be brave", "be just", "defend the young and innocent" and protect the women" uttered in the ceremony by a another knight.

All the other oaths, if for some reason make the knight break any part of his oath, tarnish his honour, making him no more a true knight.

Any Kingsguard that break - actively or by innaction - any part of the knight's oath is no more a true knight.

In short: any true knight should follow with perfection the oath that demands him to be a paragon of virtue, bravery and kindness (bravery, justice, defending the weak and protecting the women); and only following other oaths, has long this new oaths doesn't make him break the knight's oath.

You are working under the assumption that be brave", "be just", "defend the young and innocent" and protect the women" is the only part of a knights vows. However we know there is at least one other in there about obeying your father. So if your father orders you to kill an innocent it is either break your vow to defend the innocent or break your vow to obey your father. By your standards a knight put in that situation would never be a true knight as you call them no matter their choice or how truly good they are.

You are also suggesting that a knights original knightly vows are supposed to take precedence over the vows they would take when joining the kingsguard. That is simply your opinion and if anything the books suggest that is the other way around. A knights vows would be made to the Seven (why most northerners cannot be knights). If the faith allows a knight to take the kingsguard vows (which certainly seems to be the case) then they would be expected to follow them.

[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.

I brought it up to demonstrate that if it is the case that Balon was ordered to kill Trystane then no one seems to think that he is less of a knight for being compelled to obey the orders. It seems to be accepted by Doran that if he is ordered to kill he will do so. I really have no idea how you read this so that it seems to have caused you any confusion.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

I brought it up to demonstrate that if it is the case that Balon was ordered to kill Trystane then no one seems to think that he is less of a knight for being compelled to obey the orders. It seems to be accepted by Doran that if he is ordered to kill he will do so. I really have no idea how you read this so that it seems to have caused you any confusion.

Who said that if Balon’s plan is to kill Trystane he won’t be looked as a less knight, who ever told that Balon is a true knight and he wouldn’t be able to kill Trystane? Heck for me not even my beloved Arthur was a true knight because just like Barry he turned the blind eye to what Aerys did.

[Lointain]

:agree:

You are working under the assumption that be brave", "be just", "defend the young and innocent" and protect the women" is the only part of a knights vows. However we know there is at least one other in there about obeying your father. So if your father orders you to kill an innocent it is either break your vow to defend the innocent or break your vow to obey your father. By your standards a knight put in that situation would never be a true knight as you call them no matter their choice or how truly good they are.

You are also suggesting that a knights original knightly vows are supposed to take precedence over the vows they would take when joining the kingsguard. That is simply your opinion and if anything the books suggest that is the other way around. A knights vows would be made to the Seven (why most northerners cannot be knights). If the faith allows a knight to take the kingsguard vows (which certainly seems to be the case) then they would be expected to follow them.

And if your father ordered you to kill some innocent? Would you obbey?

I certainly not, and i would try to save the person, because some things (being a decente human being and not a despicable "yes man" or "i only followed orders") are too important to let loyalties (even familiar ones) control your behavior and make you doing terrible things.

About the oaths of the kingsguard: we know that the vows imply obeying the king and protecting him, im fine with that.

But there are a little problem.

To medieval morality when a king (or lord) behaves in a despicable, evil, way - for exemple, raping, killing with savagery his own people, harming children, etc - the vows of obedience and loyalty are null, because he is considered a tyrant, and even the Church free the people of any obligation to him, often suporting other lord or king to the place.

So, even if the oath of chivalry say something about "be loyal to your lord and king", it is perfectly clear that if a lord or king behaves in a wrong way (like Aerys II), he is no more a true king, but a tyrant, because he doesn't uphold the justice and good in the realm, but is a cause of unjustice and evil.

Im trying to say that a kingsguard should be a honourable knight, but if his duties make him doing something evil, then his king is behaving like a tyrant, tainting his own honour aswell the honour of the knights that serve him.

[Tagganaro]

To me, Barristan's one of the biggest hypocrites in ASOIAF and a coward as well. I don't know where that places him on the whole "knighthood" scale we seem to be concocting, but I never pass up a chance to kick Barry the Coward when he is down.

His child/hero worship of Dany is not redeeming either. It's creepy, and in fact pretty condescending to Dany that he views her as such a white knight child that needs his protection all the time.

[Nictarion]

His child/hero worship of Dany is not redeeming either. It's creepy, and in fact pretty condescending to Dany that he views her as such a white knight child that needs his protection all the time.

Umm...he's her queensguard ffs. That's his job lol.

[Winterfell is Burning]

And if your father ordered you to kill some innocent? Would you obbey?

I certainly not, and i would try to save the person, because some things (being a decente human being and not a despicable "yes man" or "i only followed orders") are too important to let loyalties (even familiar ones) control your behavior and make you doing terrible things.

You're speaking this when writing this on your computer, in the comfort of your home (possibly your father's home and your father's computer), in the 21st century, in a 1st World Country (I presume), with Nuremberg and Nazism long past us,in a society in which who your father or your father was before is, if not completely irrelevant, doesn't necessarily define who you will be, where you can leave your home today and never come back and go to almost anywhere in your country and many places in the world and have a comfortable life.