Jaime broke an oath when he killed Aerys

[Lord Varys]

13 minutes ago, The Sunland Lord said:

When did I say they replace them? I wrote that the new vows are "lex specialis" compared to the old (lex generalis). 

There are knights in the Night's Watch too. They are still knights, but only in name. The Watch comes first. Same here. The King comes first.

In other words, stay only a knight, and defend the innocents all you like. 

Pretty much that. The idea that a Kingsguard is seen as 'free' to choose between the various loyalties, duties, and responsibilities he might have had prior to joining the White Swords is as silly as you can possible get. That's in the same league as the idea that a soldier has a right to question the commands of a superior officer on the basis of his own code of morals or personal allegiances. He doesn't. And neither do the Kingsguard. A soldier or Kingsguard can still decide that some things are more important to him than a direct order but he has also to expect to be court-martialled for that. 

And again - there is really no textual evidence that the deciding factor in Jaime's decision to murder the Hand of the King and his king was to save innocents. He also lists the affection and obedience a man should show his sister and father in his diatribe on conflicting loyalties.

It is much more likely that Tywin's well-being and the survival of his Westermen buddies was more important to him than the lives of the rabble and scum of KL. Assuming that was important to him at all, and not simply to murder Aerys. Which clearly was the crucial motivation to murder Aerys. The burning of the city was prevented when he took out Rossart.

Jaime rightly points out that any person wanting to be a 'true knight' would have faced enormous difficulty (or might have even gone insane) serving Aerys as a Kingsguard, but there is actually no hint that his empathy or engagement for the innocents triggered his decision.

Jaime isn't Ser Duncan the Tall. He had never any high hedge knight ideals. Jaime grew up as the most privileged you prick in Westeros next to Rhaegar. Knighthood meant honor and fame to him, not sacrifice and 'doing what is right'. Even when he joined the KG he wasn't following any knightly ideals. He was just thinking with his cock.

[Lord Varys]

5 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

But you just proposed that. Namely, you suggested Jaime should have either distracted Aerys and stand aside when Lanniser soldiers came or knocked him down himself. Both go strongly against safety of the king Jaime is supposed to serve.

That is what he should have done if he cared more about daddy and the rabble than his king. I'd have probably done the same, since my father is more important to me than some lunatic, never mind what vows I may have sworn. 

He would have still been an oathbreaker and all, but not the Kingslayer. Maegor the Cruel was also betrayed by two of his Kingsguard. I'd be very surprised if Jaehaerys I - who they joined - did execute them for that crime.

If Jaime had stood aside while Tywin's men arrested or butchered Aerys then he would have still been a traitor, but people would have forgiven him. It is very hard to fight against your own father or his men.

5 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

It's either:

1) Jaime is a proper KG without free will, obeying and protecting Aerys unconditionally. If Aerys issues a command (like: help burn the city), Jaime must obey. If Tywin send his men after Aerys, Jaime must protect him to death.

2) Jaime has free will, and he's free to stop Aerys's plan, fail to protect him, or kill him if he decides that's the best thing to do.

Nope, this isn't a dichotomy. There are various degrees of treason. What I propose would have been a milder form, something that would have prevented Jaime from becoming the Kingslayer.

5 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

What you propose is some weird mixture of the two:
3) Jaime has arbitrary amount of free will. He can exercise it when deciding whether to help Aerys burn the city or protecting him when Lannister soldiers come; but he can't when deciding whether to kill Aerys personally.

It is pretty clear that murdering the king you swore to protect is the vilest form of treason a Kingsguard could possibly commit. We see in Selmy that Kingsguard can yield and be pardoned. They can also switch allegiance. Jaime could have done something like that, too. It wouldn't have made him popular among the Targaryen loyalists but most definitely not as hated and despised as he is now.

[OtherFromAnotherMother]

1 hour ago, The Sunland Lord said:

When did I say they replace them? I wrote that the new vows are "lex specialis" compared to the old (lex generalis). 

There are knights in the Night's Watch too. They are still knights, but only in name. The Watch comes first. Same here. The King comes first.

In other words, stay only a knight, and defend the innocents all you like. 

It was asking in response to you saying: 

  

 

"Knights are no more "servants" to the innocent when they join the Kingsguard."

 

Part of their knightly vows are to defend the innocent. 

[The Sunland Lord]

7 hours ago, OtherFromAnotherMother said:

It was asking in response to you saying: 

  

 

"Knights are no more "servants" to the innocent when they join the Kingsguard."

When they join, they serve the king. That's why the Kingsguard exists.

Otherwise a king can take any random knight to defend him without even taking an oath. I don't see why do you need a quote for this, it is known.  

[Julia H.]

Some really great posts here, especially @Lollygag and @LynnS.

Yes, Jaime definitely broke his oath. 

I've been thinking about why GRRM has made such a big thing out of vows, oathbraking and oathkeeping, and how this topic generates such heated discussions in a world where vows are so much less important than they used to be in earlier eras in history (just look at what happened to the marriage vow) and much less important than in the world of ASOIAF. Yes, there are still jobs in our world where you take vows, but some of the vows in ASOIAF are extremely demanding. Ultimately, I think the question GRRM presents is a philosophical one and it concerns fundamental and universal aspects of human nature. Can you - in any circumstances - give up your free will and responsibility? Can you totally give up your inner moral compass because you are duty-bound to follow orders? Can you do it without losing an important part of your humanity? Individual conscience, a free will and a sense of responsibility are essential differences between humans and animals. Or between humans and robots. Those things are embedded in human nature, regardless of what society the individual lives in. The question is not whether people should or shouldn't take vows. The question is whether it is psychologically possible to reject the responsibility for taking your own moral decision even in the most extreme situations on the basis that you have already given up your free will in the matter and you have no choice but to obey. 

When you take a vow, you should do it because you believe in the goal your vow serves. If you are lucky (and you have chosen the vow well), there will never be a situation in which you can only keep your oath if you do something that is totally against your conscience. But when you do find yourself in such a situation (and in real life there doesn't even need to be an actual vow in existence, just a simple problem of conflicting loyalties), then the question whether you still have a conscience, whether you are still responsible for your actions, whether you still have a free will or you have become a robot, a machine, something less than human, becomes a relevant one. I think Jaime's story explores this question. 

Having said that, I'm not saying Jaime thought over the philosophical and moral background of his choice. He acted impulsively, because he is an impulsive person. At the time, his age probably made him even more impulsive. But he still responded to this moral problem, following his impulse. GRRM made his choice as extreme as it could ever be. On the one hand, there are thousands of lives at stake, and you have been ordered to kill your father, committing a mortal sin in the eyes of the gods, and your duty is essentially to keep a genocidal madman in power. On the other hand, there is your vow, and nothing else. Would you go that far in order to keep your vow? Should anyone go that far? 

On some of the more practical questions brought up here: 

It was evidently a mistake for Jaime to take that vow in the first place. However, it was not a mistake that he could undo later, when he realized what sort of person Aerys was and that he couldn't psychologically endure what was involved in the job. Can you expect anyone who knows they have made a grave mistake to go on and make that mistake even worse? I don't think I can. On the other hand, I think Jaime should have resigned from the Kingsguard when Robert became a king. Not because he had "stained the white cloak", but because the white cloak had stained him. I think he believed in the vow when he became a Kingsguard for Aerys. I don't think he believed in the vow when he became a Kingsguard for Robert. 

Alternatives to killing Aerys: Perhaps Jaime could have just incapacitated Aerys instead of killing him. But as Robert said, someone had to kill Aerys, so Jaime's action would have led to the king's death anyway. In this sense, it would still have been oathbreaking. Perhaps society would have taken it better. Perhaps not. At least I don't think anyone would have praised Jaime for not killing Aerys. As for rescuing him from King's Landing and taking him to Essos, I doubt Jaime could have done that. But even if he had succeeded, what then? He would have ended up with a madman who would still have expected him to carry out his mad orders and who would still have considered him an oathbreaker for not killing Tywin etc. There was no way for Jaime to get out of this situation with his honour intact and his conscience satisfied. But as I said, I think he acted impulsively. He was young and at the end of his tether. He might have chosen a better course of action, perhaps, I don't know. (My personal opinion is that GRRM intentionally created a situation where Jaime's realistic choice was rather limited.) But Jaime answered the call of his conscience instead of following a vow and an order blindly. 

Kingsguard vow versus knightly vow: I don't think we can say that a later vow cancels an earlier one, since in that case Jaime could have taken a quick new vow right before killing Aerys and the inner conflict would have been solved. I doubt anyone else would have respected this step, however. Nor would Jaimed have taken it seriously. That makes me think the knightly vow is still valid after the Kingsguard vow (Jaime, at least, apparently feels so). It is also evident that society regards the Kingsguard vow as more important than the knightly vow - because the king is more important than the average person, because a Kingsguard is on the Iron Throne's payroll, because the Kingsguard is a more exclusive group than knights in general. Yet, at least until Joffrey and the Hound, the members of the Kingsguard are expected to be knights as well. If this is so, then their employer is morally obliged not to put them in a situation where the two vows conflict. 

In this respect, the Hound was brutally honest. He accepted the place in the Kingsguard on condition that he would not become a knight - he knew that in actual reality he couldn't keep that vow while serving Joffrey. In his own twisted way, he may have honoured the knightly vow with this refusal more than many actual Sers who took it and broke it as it suited them. Even the Hound must have taken some kind of Kingsguard vow though - or didn't he? If he did, he became an oathbreaker, too. Did it prick his conscience afterwards? Or did he consider the Kingsguard vow just an empty formality? Do we blame him for abandoning Joffrey, or do we say that Joffrey himself set the precedent that the Kingsguard vow needn't be for life?

Yes, vows are extremely important in this society. However, we also see that there seems to be a hierarchy of vows: The Kingsguard vow is regarded as more important than the knightly vow. It suggests that the importance of vows is also relative. Once we are there, I think it is fair to accept that there can be situations where the Kingsguard vow is conflicted with something more important. Is it the laws of the gods? Is it your own moral compass? Is it honour - the way you interpret it? Is it the need and the right to preserve your humanity? What would it be for you? Perhaps you can only know the answer when you have to make your own choice.  

Jaime was expected by society to keep his vow. Yet, there may be choices that are worth the disapproval of society. Risking your reputation in society in order to obey your conscience is called moral courage. As with the other kind of courage, not everybody has it. Jaime did but the burden of it damaged his personality in spite of - and maybe also because of(?) - the fact that he enjoyed immunity and a physically protected status due to being a Lannister and a brother-in-law to the new king. 

[OtherFromAnotherMother]

5 hours ago, The Sunland Lord said:

When they join, they serve the king. That's why the Kingsguard exists.

Yes, of course. But does this remove/replace the vows they take to 'defend the innocent, protect the weak' (however it goes) when they become knights? The quote from Jaime makes it seem like they are adding new vows.

5 hours ago, The Sunland Lord said:

I don't see why do you need a quote for this, it is known.  

Obviously the KG vows are viewed as more important than knightly vows. People seem to expect KG vows to take priority over knightly vows when they conflict. 

I'm simply wondering if there is anything in the text that hints, implies, or directly addresses whether the KG is supposed to do this. Obviously everyone expects the KG vows to take priority. I'm wondering if the idea of old vows vs. new vows is addressed in the books, specifically in regards to the KG vows. 

If not, not big deal. I'm just wondering. 

[the trees have eyes]

21 hours ago, The Sunland Lord said:

Catelyn is no Queen. She can promise anyone that she will not ask this person to do something dishonorable. Those are private contracts, not kingly matters.

What is the relevance of Catelyn not being a Queen?  The King / Queen is the apex of the feudal pyramid but the system of homage and oaths works in exactly the same way throughout the pyramid.  Otherwise everyone in Westeros is effectively a slave bound by their oath to their Lord or King to do whatever he commands, morality, custom or law be damned.  The medieval idea of kingship and of the feudal system rested on the idea of reciprocal duties between the oath giver and the Lord and the example of Catelyn's reciprocal undertaking to Brienne is a very useful one.  Your argument that the King is a different proposition smacks of absolutism not of the feudal system of homage and fealty and reciprocity.  Brienne is not born in the North so is not automatically a subject of King Robb / Lady Catelyn and so we get to see the system working close up - Brienne is not signing up to be an assassin or a murderer at Catelyn's whim for the rest of her life.

As to the idea that a King can ask someone to do something dishonourbale because he is God on Earth and "kingly matters" are exempt from moral judgments the example of Jon Arryn is another useful one.  If you break the law by assuming you are above it and order your subjects to commit murder you very easily end up with a rebellion.

21 hours ago, The Sunland Lord said:

Knights are no more "servants" to the innocent when they join the Kingsguard. 

And yet we have Jaime's chapters about the conflicting vows, his view that Joffrey needed killing just as much as Aerys, we have Arys Oakheart protesting at striking Sansa and we have Barristan traveling half way round the world to find someone worthy of vowing to serve.  Barristan is particulalry relevant here as he served Jaeherys, Aerys, Robert, Joffrey (for a microsecond) and Dany and he has gradually and finally come to the realisation that oaths of blind obedience are a nonsense - you have to find someone worthy of swearing to follow.

And none of these people consider that they stopped being knights when they joined the KG.  Can you point out to me when these people stopped being referred to as "Ser"?  Nope, they are still knights so there is a presumption that the orders they are given will be "kingly" and not of the type that Vargo Hoat would have given.  Of course the King can ignore this, as Joffrey does by ordering the KG to strike Sansa and the likes of Arys reluctantly obey as it is only a minor trangression.  But when you ask for larger and larger transgressions someone is going to refuse or reach breaking point, it's simple human nature.

Throughout history appointing bodyguards who will obey without question has been a tactic rulers have employed to assure their security but men are men, not robots, and often turn against their rulers, either out of ambition, grievance or horror at the behaviour of the ones they are sworn to serve.  The Roman Emperors' Praetorian Guard are a good example of this and in Westerosi history we have Criston Cole "The Kingmaker".  I don't think the KG have ever been this amoral force you seem to think, leaping to obey every command however "unknightly" or vile.  Aerys was mad so he obviously pushed things beyond the limit and, hey presto, rebellion and regicide.

21 hours ago, The Sunland Lord said:

Again, not true. By the way, if you are not offended by me in any way (I hope), I'd appreciate you wouldn't do the same. 

Surely you see why I and others say you would be a Dictator's dream?  If law and morality are irrelevant, duty is your sole abiding concern and power is absolute in the hands of the one you are bound to obey then you are effectively an instrument of the wielder not a human being and can be put to any purpose, however diabolical - even standing by and watching as an entire city full of your own people is destroyed.  I am not trying to offend you but to point out (and I'm puzzled that you would not see this) that this is where your logic leads.

[The Sunland Lord]

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

What is the relevance of Catelyn not being a Queen?  The King / Queen is the apex of the feudal pyramid but the system of homage and oaths works in exactly the same way throughout the pyramid.  Otherwise everyone in Westeros is effectively a slave bound by their oath to their Lord or King to do whatever he commands, morality, custom or law be damned.  The medieval idea of kingship and of the feudal system rested on the idea of reciprocal duties between the oath giver and the Lord and the example of Catelyn's reciprocal undertaking to Brienne is a very useful one.  Your argument that the King is a different proposition smacks of absolutism not of the feudal system of homage and fealty and reciprocity.  Brienne is not born in the North so is not automatically a subject of King Robb / Lady Catelyn and so we get to see the system working close up - Brienne is not signing up to be an assassin or a murderer at Catelyn's whim for the rest of her life.

Catelyn was a good woman, convenient for her. You are actually undermining your point. Catelyn cleared it up that she wouldn't ask from Brienne to do anything dishonest, and the latter accepted. I doubt that Jaime made it clear that if things go south, he would kill Aerys.

Quote

As to the idea that a King can ask someone to do something dishonourbale because he is God on Earth and "kingly matters" are exempt from moral judgments the example of Jon Arryn is another useful one.  If you break the law by assuming you are above it and order your subjects to commit murder you very easily end up with a rebellion.

Jon Arryn wasn't Kingsguard. He did the right thing here though, I don't deny it. 

Quote

And yet we have Jaime's chapters about the conflicting vows, his view that Joffrey needed killing just as much as Aerys, we have Arys Oakheart protesting at striking Sansa and we have Barristan traveling half way round the world to find someone worthy of vowing to serve.  Barristan is particulalry relevant here as he served Jaeherys, Aerys, Robert, Joffrey (for a microsecond) and Dany and he has gradually and finally come to the realisation that oaths of blind obedience are a nonsense - you have to find someone worthy of swearing to follow.

Barristan was dismissed from the Kingsguard by the Lannister regime. Of course he can find himself another job. 

Quote

Surely you see why I and others say you would be a Dictator's dream?  If law and morality are irrelevant, duty is your sole abiding concern and power is absolute in the hands of the one you are bound to obey then you are effectively an instrument of the wielder not a human being and can be put to any purpose, however diabolical - even standing by and watching as an entire city full of your own people is destroyed.  I am not trying to offend you but to point out (and I'm puzzled that you would not see this) that this is where your logic leads.

I haven't swore an oath to obey no one. I have no reason to be worried that I would become some mad emperor's instrument, thank you for your concern.

[the trees have eyes]

1 hour ago, The Sunland Lord said:

Catelyn was a good woman, convenient for her. You are actually undermining your point. Catelyn cleared it up that she wouldn't ask from Brienne to do anything dishonest, and the latter accepted. I doubt that Jaime made it clear that if things go south, he would kill Aerys.

How does that undermine my argument?  Where is it implicit or explicit in any of oath that an order to commit mass murder is an expectation or a requirement?  Quite obviously it isn't otherwise no one would give an oath.  The idea that an oath overrides the law is an interesting one but not one that I imagine you are able to prove.  The reality of power allows the King / Lord to give dodgy orders but it took the madness of Aerys to give truly horrendous orders and for the system to break down.  The fact that you seem to think the system should have kept running regardless like a machine is perplexing.  Aerys did not make it clear that he would destroy his capital city and everyone in it and Jaime did not make it clear he would try to stop him if he tried yet they both did.

Who do you think was right?

2 hours ago, The Sunland Lord said:

Jon Arryn wasn't Kingsguard. He did the right thing here though, I don't deny it.

He was a subject sworn to obey his King until his King broke the compact between Lord and King by giving orders that required murder and impinged on his honour (breach of trust, breach of guestright and murder) that he refused to obey.  Jaime has an additional oath to Aerys as a KG but really he is no different a position than Jon Arryn it's just things are magnified - the expectation that his oath and his honour require him to obey and the evil that will result if he does are greater.  Both requirements are monstrous though, both men made the right decision.  That seems straightforward enough, no?

2 hours ago, The Sunland Lord said:

Barristan was dismissed from the Kingsguard by the Lannister regime. Of course he can find himself another job.

The point is he is the archetypal KG and the realizations he came to, i.e. that some men are not worth following.  The oath and the notion of honour once the oath is given is a trap to be avoided and if it must be stepped into it is only after getting to know the person it is given to, this is after all why he observed Dany with his identity a secret before acknowledging her.  If you really think that Jaime's oath required him to allow the utter destruction of KL because that was his job then you can't really get offended if people point out how your arguments lend to supporting genocidal maniacs because that is exactly what you are saying.

2 hours ago, The Sunland Lord said:

I haven't swore an oath to obey no one. I have no reason to be worried that I would become some mad emperor's instrument, thank you for your concern.

No one is saying you are a member of some secret police, merely pointing out that your arguments allow this kind of system to flourish by providing justification for "following orders" at any price. Once the oath is given you argue that it has to be followed wherever that leads.  Either you would actually reject your own arguments in practice or you would follow your own logic to some pretty ugly places.

 

[Lollygag]

It’s not really provable in the books (GRRM would never make it that easy!) but I do think it’s worth discussing the possibility that the KG were given their specifically all-white, pure and honor-bound reputation/image in part because they were meant to both protect the king and also act as a balance of power to the king if need be. Basically, they're possibly the equivalent of the real-world idea that a monarch is a representative of god and thus is limited to acting in godly ways or what he can convince people is a godly way. In ASOIAF, the king is protected by the pure, white and honorable KG hence implying he is worthy of such protection.

AFFC Jaime V

"Jaime," she said, tugging on his ear, "sweetling, I have known you since you were a babe at Joanna's breast. You smile like Gerion and fight like Tyg, and there's some of Kevan in you, else you would not wear that cloak .

AFFC Jaime VII

A snowflake landed on the letter. As it melted, the ink began to blur. Jaime rolled the parchment up again, as tight as one hand would allow, and handed it to Peck. "No," he said. "Put this in the fire."

ACOK Tyrion XIV

At the ram his big red reared but the black stallion leapt the obstacle smoothly and Ser Mandon flashed past him, death in snow-white silk.

AGOT Sansa I

One knight wore an intricate suit of white enameled scales, brilliant as a field of new-fallen snow, with silver chasings and clasps that glittered in the sun. When he removed his helm, Sansa saw that he was an old man with hair as pale as his armor, yet he seemed strong and graceful for all that. From his shoulders hung the pure white cloak of the Kingsguard.

AGOT Sansa II

They watched the heroes of a hundred songs ride forth, each more fabulous than the last. The seven knights of the Kingsguard took the field, all but Jaime Lannister in scaled armor the color of milk, their cloaks as white as fresh-fallen snow. Ser Jaime wore the white cloak as well, but beneath it he was shining gold from head to foot, with a lion's-head helm and a golden sword.

...

Ser Loras was the youngest son of Mace Tyrell, the Lord of Highgarden and Warden of the South. At sixteen, he was the youngest rider on the field, yet he had unhorsed three knights of the Kingsguard that morning in his first three jousts. Sansa had never seen anyone so beautiful. His plate was intricately fashioned and enameled as a bouquet of a thousand different flowers, and his snow-white stallion was draped in a blanket of red and white roses. After each victory, Ser Loras would remove his helm and ride slowly round the fence, and finally pluck a single white rose from the blanket and toss it to some fair maiden in the crowd.

AGOT Sansa IV

Ser Boros was an ugly man with a broad chest and short, bandy legs. His nose was flat, his cheeks baggy with jowls, his hair grey and brittle. Today he wore white velvet, and his snowy cloak was fastened with a lion brooch

ACOK Sansa I

Ser Meryn entered from the west side of the yard, clad in gleaming white plate chased with gold and mounted on a milk-white charger with a flowing grey mane. His cloak streamed behind him like a field of snow.

…

In the back of the royal box, Sandor Clegane stood at guard, his hands resting on his swordbelt. The white cloak of the Kingsguard was draped over his broad shoulders and fastened with a jeweled brooch, the snowy cloth looking somehow unnatural against his brown roughspun tunic and studded leather jerkin.

ACOK Sansa V

Cersei's gown was snowy linen, white as the cloaks of the Kingsguard.

 

ACOK Catelyn VII

"No, that wasn't it." Jaime Lannister upended the flagon. A trickle ran down onto his face, bright as blood. "Snow, that was the one. Such a white name . . . like the pretty cloaks they give us in the Kingsguard when we swear our pretty oaths."

 

AFFC Cersei II

Under the Great Sept's lofty dome of glass and gold and crystal, Lord Tywin Lannister's body rested upon a stepped marble bier. At its head Jaime stood at vigil, his one good hand curled about the hilt of a tall golden greatsword whose point rested on the floor. The hooded cloak he wore was as white as freshly fallen snow, and the scales of his long hauberk were mother-of-pearl chased with gold. Lord Tywin would have wanted him in Lannister gold and crimson, she thought. It always angered him to see Jaime all in white.

As soon as the Lannisters came to a point they wished to do things differently (i.e., corruptly and abusively), they released the very honorable Barristan. Implicit in this is that while obedient, the Lannisters suspected that the extent of his obedience would come short of what they wanted to ask of him. The point is driven home repeatedly that the KG does not wear the colors of the king's house, they wear white thus making them a separate entity from the king in a way. I do wonder if we don't know the KG oath because like the NW, the KG have lost their original purpose. I think there's multiple meanings here in Tywin hating Jaime all in white: one is that it symbolizes the loss of the Lannister heir, and the other may be symbolic of the Lannisters' twisting of the KG to be more blindly obedient rather than honorable. All other KG replacements under Cersei have been less than honorable to put in mildly and has recently culminated in FrankenGregor, a true and literal monster whom Cersei expects will not only do nothing to object to her’s and Qyburn’s requests, but will also feel no moral hesitation in carrying out those orders. (I admit that I do hope for some of the Frankenstein treatment with UnGregor in that he exhibits a conscience, but that story may have already been told).

I recently came across a turn of phrase lately in connection with the news headlines lately and I think it quite applies here: Moral Abandonment.

 

[Julia H.]

37 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

It’s not really provable in the books (GRRM would never make it that easy!) but I do think it’s worth discussing the possibility that the KG were given their specifically all-white, pure and honor-bound reputation/image in part because they were meant to both protect the king and also act as a balance of power to the king if need be. Basically, they're possibly the equivalent of the real-world idea that a monarch is a representative of god and thus is limited to acting in godly ways or what he can convince people is a godly way. In ASOIAF, the king is protected by the pure, white and honorable KG hence implying he is worthy of such protection.

AFFC Jaime V

"Jaime," she said, tugging on his ear, "sweetling, I have known you since you were a babe at Joanna's breast. You smile like Gerion and fight like Tyg, and there's some of Kevan in you, else you would not wear that cloak .

AFFC Jaime VII

A snowflake landed on the letter. As it melted, the ink began to blur. Jaime rolled the parchment up again, as tight as one hand would allow, and handed it to Peck. "No," he said. "Put this in the fire."

ACOK Tyrion XIV

At the ram his big red reared but the black stallion leapt the obstacle smoothly and Ser Mandon flashed past him, death in snow-white silk.

AGOT Sansa I

One knight wore an intricate suit of white enameled scales, brilliant as a field of new-fallen snow, with silver chasings and clasps that glittered in the sun. When he removed his helm, Sansa saw that he was an old man with hair as pale as his armor, yet he seemed strong and graceful for all that. From his shoulders hung the pure white cloak of the Kingsguard.

AGOT Sansa II

They watched the heroes of a hundred songs ride forth, each more fabulous than the last. The seven knights of the Kingsguard took the field, all but Jaime Lannister in scaled armor the color of milk, their cloaks as white as fresh-fallen snow. Ser Jaime wore the white cloak as well, but beneath it he was shining gold from head to foot, with a lion's-head helm and a golden sword.

...

Ser Loras was the youngest son of Mace Tyrell, the Lord of Highgarden and Warden of the South. At sixteen, he was the youngest rider on the field, yet he had unhorsed three knights of the Kingsguard that morning in his first three jousts. Sansa had never seen anyone so beautiful. His plate was intricately fashioned and enameled as a bouquet of a thousand different flowers, and his snow-white stallion was draped in a blanket of red and white roses. After each victory, Ser Loras would remove his helm and ride slowly round the fence, and finally pluck a single white rose from the blanket and toss it to some fair maiden in the crowd.

AGOT Sansa IV

Ser Boros was an ugly man with a broad chest and short, bandy legs. His nose was flat, his cheeks baggy with jowls, his hair grey and brittle. Today he wore white velvet, and his snowy cloak was fastened with a lion brooch

ACOK Sansa I

Ser Meryn entered from the west side of the yard, clad in gleaming white plate chased with gold and mounted on a milk-white charger with a flowing grey mane. His cloak streamed behind him like a field of snow.

…

In the back of the royal box, Sandor Clegane stood at guard, his hands resting on his swordbelt. The white cloak of the Kingsguard was draped over his broad shoulders and fastened with a jeweled brooch, the snowy cloth looking somehow unnatural against his brown roughspun tunic and studded leather jerkin.

ACOK Sansa V

Cersei's gown was snowy linen, white as the cloaks of the Kingsguard.

 

ACOK Catelyn VII

"No, that wasn't it." Jaime Lannister upended the flagon. A trickle ran down onto his face, bright as blood. "Snow, that was the one. Such a white name . . . like the pretty cloaks they give us in the Kingsguard when we swear our pretty oaths."

 

AFFC Cersei II

Under the Great Sept's lofty dome of glass and gold and crystal, Lord Tywin Lannister's body rested upon a stepped marble bier. At its head Jaime stood at vigil, his one good hand curled about the hilt of a tall golden greatsword whose point rested on the floor. The hooded cloak he wore was as white as freshly fallen snow, and the scales of his long hauberk were mother-of-pearl chased with gold. Lord Tywin would have wanted him in Lannister gold and crimson, she thought. It always angered him to see Jaime all in white.

As soon as the Lannisters came to a point they wished to do things differently (i.e., corruptly and abusively), they released the very honorable Barristan. Implicit in this is that while obedient, the Lannisters suspected that the extent of his obedience would come short of what they wanted to ask of him. The point is driven home repeatedly that the KG does not wear the colors of the king's house, they wear white thus making them a separate entity from the king in a way. I do wonder if we don't know the KG oath because like the NW, the KG have lost their original purpose. I think there's multiple meanings here in Tywin hating Jaime all in white: one is that it symbolizes the loss of the Lannister heir, and the other may be symbolic of the Lannisters' twisting of the KG to be more blindly obedient rather than honorable. All other KG replacements under Cersei have been less than honorable to put in mildly and has recently culminated in FrankenGregor, a true and literal monster whom Cersei expects will not only do nothing to object to her’s and Qyburn’s requests, but will also feel no moral hesitation in carrying out those orders. (I admit that I do hope for some of the Frankenstein treatment with UnGregor in that he exhibits a conscience, but that story may have already been told).

I recently came across a turn of phrase lately in connection with the news headlines lately and I think it quite applies here: Moral Abandonment.

 

Wow, all that snowy symbolism for an organization founded by an essentially fiery dynasty! That's kind of remarkable, and it does suggest some symbolic necessity of balance - the snowy knights surrounding and protecting the fiery king and perhaps reminding him of the pure ideals of chivalry (hence the knights). In an ideal ASOIAF society, at least. If we look for karma and symbolism in the story, then any semblance of a balance was fatally upset by Aerys and his (mis)use of fire, so Jaime of the Snowy Cloak stepped in.

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

How does that undermine my argument?  Where is it implicit or explicit in any of oath that an order to commit mass murder is an expectation or a requirement? 

Unless it's specificly stated in the oath that a person cannot be compelled such acts a person can't cite that as a reason for not doing so as reason he is not an oath breaker. 

[Lady Dacey]

@Julia H. what a beautifully written piece. I agree with most of what you said. 

Most of all I believe it's fruitless for us, readers, to debate "what should have been". Obviously each one of us are going to come up with a different scenario for what would have been the right call for Jaime to make. As it's clear on your post, it's not the answer that's most important, it's the questions we pose, and the moral and ethical values that ground our reasoning - those are worth debating. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Lollygag said:

As soon as the Lannisters came to a point they wished to do things differently (i.e., corruptly and abusively), they released the very honorable Barristan.

They released him because Joffery needed someone to punish for his father's death.

Barristan did nothing to stop Tywin's corrupt actions while he was acting as the hand of Aerys, nor Aerys for when he abused his power as monarch.

1 hour ago, Lollygag said:

The point is driven home repeatedly that the KG does not wear the colors of the king's house, they wear white thus making them a separate entity from the king in a way

They serve the King.  Full stop.Not his house. Any members of his house. Which is why when Aerys was raping his wife, the very queen it was the other kings guard who held him back. 

 

They are seen as holy for duty of protecting and dedicating their lives to  the guardian of the realm. They are not automous for. They act in the direction of the king for the king.

1 hour ago, Lollygag said:

o wonder if we don't know the KG oath because like the NW, the KG have lost their original purpose.

No monarch would want their guards to have any notion that they can pick and choose which orders they should follow, that if they (the guards), find the monarch to be using his power unwisely or irresponsibly they are free to not disobey direct orders-but try to inhibit the king from carrying it out without the guard. 

[Lollygag]

39 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

Wow, all that snowy symbolism for an organization founded by an essentially fiery dynasty! That's kind of remarkable, and it does suggest some symbolic necessity of balance - the snowy knights surrounding and protecting the fiery king and perhaps reminding him of the pure ideals of chivalry (hence the knights). In an ideal ASOIAF society, at least. If we look for karma and symbolism in the story, then any semblance of a balance was fatally upset by Aerys and his (mis)use of fire, so Jaime of the Snowy Cloak stepped in.

*Facepalm* I didn't even notice that this was yet another aspect of A Song of Ice and Fire. Thank you for bringing this up! This adds some added interest to  a few passages:

When Jaime kills Aerys, he changes into his gold armor (prioritizing knight's vows), but he forgets to remove his white cloak which I take to mean that getting out of an oath isn't and shouldn't be that easy, and now that he's also acting as Ice (a sword Jaime himself will later possess) to re-establish balance to the out-of-control wildfire of Aerys.

If you've read TWOIAF about the Lannisters, Tywin always aspired to be fire finding Tytos' brand of Lannisters to be weak. Seeing Jaime in water/ice colors would be another reason why this might smart.

[Lollygag]

25 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

They released him because Joffery needed someone to punish for his father's death.

Barristan did nothing to stop Tywin's corrupt actions while he was acting as the hand of Aerys, nor Aerys for when he abused his power as monarch.

They serve the King.  Full stop.Not his house. Any members of his house. Which is why when Aerys was raping his wife, the very queen it was the other kings guard who held him back. 

 

They are seen as holy for duty of protecting and dedicating their lives to  the guardian of the realm. They are not automous for. They act in the direction of the king for the king.

No monarch would want their guards to have any notion that they can pick and choose which orders they should follow, that if they (the guards), find the monarch to be using his power unwisely or irresponsibly they are free to not disobey direct orders-but try to inhibit the king from carrying it out without the guard. 

Barristan struggles mightily with his limits and questions his decision to save Aerys in Duskendale. I already addressed your point with Barristan so I'm not sure why you excluded it. I'll repeat myself. Do you see Barristan serving on the KG as it stands at the end of ADWD? I don't. Do you see him going along with what the Lannisters aspire to become? I don't. Also, if one reason is true, it doesn't necessarily exclude other things from being true, as well. This is especially so with GRRM who writes at multiple levels.

1 hour ago, Lollygag said:

As soon as the Lannisters came to a point they wished to do things differently (i.e., corruptly and abusively), they released the very honorable Barristan. Implicit in this is that while obedient, the Lannisters suspected that the extent of his obedience would come short of what they wanted to ask of him.

Otherwise, if you wish to take a very black and white view of the text on this matter, we'll  have to agree to disagree. I don't think black and white scenarios with easy answers is what this series is about and it's also a way of reading the series which bores me.

Quote

Another element I liked about the series was the moral relativism of many of the characters. Too many Fantasies rely on the shorthand of truly evil villains in the absolute moral sense, but your characters, while they might commit terrible acts, generally do so either from short-sighted self-interest or because they truly believe they are acting for the best. Was this a deliberate decision, or is it just more interesting to write this way?

Both. I have always found grey characters more interesting than those who are pure black and white. I have no qualms with the way that Tolkien handled Sauron, but in some ways The Lord of the Rings set an unfortunate example for the writers who were to follow. I did not want to write another version of the War Between Good and Evil, where the antagonist is called the Foul King or the Demon Lord or Prince Rotten, and his minions are slavering subhumans dressed all in black (I dressed my Night's Watch, who are basically good guys, all in black in part to undermine that annoying convention). Before you can fight the war between good and evil, you need to determine which is which, and that's not always as easy as some Fantasists would have you believe.

http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/1427

 

[Cridefea]

7 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

When Jaime kills Aerys, he changes into his gold armor (prioritizing knight's vows), but he forgets to remove his white cloak which I take to mean that getting out of an oath isn't and shouldn't be that easy, and now that he's also acting as Ice (a sword Jaime himself will later possess) to re-establish balance to the out-of-control wildfire of Aerys.

He says: 

Quote

The golden armor, not the white, but no one ever remembers that. Would that I had taken off that damned cloak as well.

to Brienne:

Quote

 It was that white cloak that soiled me, not the other way around.

and Brienne again:

Quote

She did as he bid her. "The white cloak . . ."

". . . is new, but I'm sure I'll soil it soon enough."

 

For Jaime white cloak is symbolic and it reflects what he thinks about himself. He denigrates himself, and the cloak too.

[Varysblackfyre321]

40 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

Barristan struggles mightily with his limits and questions his decision to save Aerys in Duskendale. I already addressed your point with Barristan so I'm not sure why you excluded it. I'll repeat myself. Do you see Barristan serving on the KG as it stands at the end of ADWD? I don't. Do you see him going along with what the Lannisters aspire to become? I don't. Also, if one reason is true, it doesn't necessarily exclude other things from being true, as well. This is especially so with GRRM who writes at multiple levels.

I see him doing what he has always done; his king's will. He wouldn't be serving the lanisters. He would serve the Kings He is not an oath breaker. He served with Jamie(his king's murderer), and under a man who bankrupted the realm. 

40 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

I already addressed your point with Barristan so I'm not sure why you excluded it.

Apologies for having overlooked it. 

 

40 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

Otherwise, if you wish to take a very black and white view of the text on this matter, we'll  have to agree to disagree. I don't think black and white scenarios with easy answers is what this series is about and it's also a way of reading the series which b

Again, corruption and abuses of power have been the standard quo for quite sometime. 

Expecting Barristan to anyway be an impediment I find unfeasable given their actual responsibilities being to primarely to guard the king when don't need the Kingsguard to do any of the vile acts they actually  want committed. 

Also you kinda didn't address the rest of the content in my last post; just the part about Barristan. 

[Lollygag]

11 minutes ago, Cridefea said:

He says: 

to Brienne:

and Brienne again:

 

For Jaime white cloak is symbolic and it reflects what he thinks about himself. He denigrates himself, and the cloak too.

Speaking of dirty snow (cloaks)...

In my Is Craster a Casterly thread, I outlined the Lannisters (and Craster's) connection to shit and piss. We have a saying in my area: "Don't eat the yellow snow."

ASOS Jaime IV

The castleton outside the walls had been burned to ash and blackened stone, and many men and horses had recently encamped beside the lakeshore, where Lord Whent had staged his great tourney in the year of the false spring. A bitter smile touched Jaime's lips as they crossed that torn ground. Someone had dug a privy trench in the very spot where he'd once knelt before the king to say his vows. I never dreamed how quick the sweet would turn to sour. Aerys would not even let me savor that one night. He honored me, and then he spat on me.

 

[Jon Fossoway]

I think that he snapped. I won't take the claim that he wouldn't kill his own father if the King commanded it. I would even say he didn't want to break the oath. He was a hot blooded, reckless man pushed to his limits by Aerys. He was kept from battle, from Cersei and I don't really think he cared more than these two items. The fact that he endured Aerys rapings of  Rhaella, the burning of a Hand and so on actually can demonstrate that he was ok with it as long it doesn't affected him.

So this being said, I don't really hold a good picture of Jaime during Bob's Rebellion. He must have been an ass. Dayne, Whent and Hightower stood by the Crown until the end. That was their job as Kingsguard.