Jump to content

Besides Jaime all the Kingsguard were cowards


Alyn Oakenfist

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I don't think Tywin would be cool with Robert killing his daughter and grandkids? Unless Ned is also plotting to kill Tywin. And Jaime? 

Tywin would not be cool with it, but there would not be much he could do, not without a claimant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

AU???

Alternate universe.

19 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Tywin is not a strategic moron like Robb was. One Kingdom declaring independence is a bad idea

I meant that Tywin would look like the "rebel" at that point.

But if Ned killed Cersei, Joffrey, Myrcella, Tommen, and Jaime (lmaooooo) who would follow or listen to Ned after that? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ewan McGregor said:

Jaime was as much of a coward as the others.  He didn't kill Aerys for the wildfire, he did it for his own personal gratification, ignoring his duty in the process, like Jon at the Wall.

I. A. M.     R. E. S. T. R. A. I. N. I. N. G       M. Y. S. E. L. F

Spoiler

Is the Sheev spammer saying that Jaime has less guts than himself and saving the city by killing the mad king and choosing to face the realms wrath and bad name was wrong coz he didn't do his duty? Like Jon who allowed wildlings (Homo Sapiens) thru the Wall and fought against the true enemy, Others and broke his duty and was wrong and evil!? 

Sigh 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

But if Ned killed Cersei, Joffrey, Myrcella, Tommen, and Jaime (lmaooooo) who would follow or listen to Ned after that? 

Not killed. Just not tipping the off and telling Robert straight up, letting him deal with it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

The hard choice would have been to let the children to Robert. It would have been awful but it would have prevented civil war.

So it would delivering the heads of Ned and Robert when Aerys asked. "Hard choice"=/ good choice either. In fact hard choice comes off as honor in this. Should i quote Davos to you??

The hard choice by the Kingsguards were enabling Aerys because it would have prevented... insert here whatever.

 

 

2 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I don't think Tywin would be cool with Robert killing his daughter and grandkids? Unless Ned is also plotting to kill Tywin. And Jaime? 

I don't think Ned was particularly worried about how Tywin may react in either case.

 

Quote

“For a start,” said Ned, “I do not kill children. You would do well to listen, my lady. I shall say this only  once. When the king returns from his hunt, I intend to lay the truth before him. You must be gone by then. You and your children, all three, and not to Casterly Rock. If I were you, I should take ship for the Free Cities, or even farther, to the Summer Isles or the Port of Ibben. As far as the winds blow.” “Exile,” she said. “A bitter cup to drink from.” “A sweeter cup than your father served Rhaegar’s children,” Ned said, “and kinder than you deserve. Your father and your brothers would do well to go with you. Lord Tywin’s gold will buy you comfort and hire swords to keep you safe. You shall need them. I promise you, no matter where you flee, Robert’s wrath will follow you, to the back of beyond if need be.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

So I think a point that gets overlooked, is that honor is it's own kind of cowardice, avoiding doing a hard decision by hiding behind honor. The best examples are Ned, that refuses to make several hard choices due to honor, but more than anything it's Barristan, who changes teams harder than a football ball. And yet he still hides behind honor refusing to make any hard choice and judging Jaime. So, given that Jaime was the only one brave enough to do what's right, were all the other Kingsguard cowards?

Thing is, people are social creatures and are hardwired to not think with their head and instead do what they are told. So yes, they were cowards... but that cowardice is actually normal for humans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, frenin said:

So it would delivering the heads of Ned and Robert when Aerys asked. "Hard choice"=/ good choice either. In fact hard choice comes off as honor in this. Should i quote Davos to you??

 

Thing is, Davos is nor completely right there. Okay he is, but that's because Melisandre's magic isn't that effective and the leech thing was a  trick she did. There was no proof what she said would happen would actually happen.

But the greater moral dilemma of sacrifice, I can't say Davos is completely in the right on that one. He's not completely in the wrong either mind you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, frenin said:

If you follow an oath that you know it's unjust and inmoral and irrational. It sure as hell makes you a coward.

Nah it doesn’t, that only applies if you are scared that breaking your oath will lead to your death or other punishments.

15 hours ago, frenin said:

We're not talking about breaking oaths willy nilly. But the very idea that Jon Arryn was obliged to kill Ned and Robert because an oath is absurd.

That depends because a king is supposed to protect his subjects not incinerate them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Okay he is, but that's because Melisandre's magic isn't that effective and the leech thing was a  trick she did. There was no proof what she said would happen would actually happen.

She probably saw on the flames that they would die, and so she wanted to use the leech to convince stannis of her power and lead him more towards her fire god. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

The hard choice would have been to let the children to Robert. It would have been awful but it would have prevented civil war.

Something, something Carthage and salt

Do you let an appalling man do appalling things, just to prevent civil war?

How is enabling Robert to murder children any better than tolerating the enormities of Aerys?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

Nah it doesn’t, that only applies if you are scared that breaking your oath will lead to your death or other punishments.

Yes it does. If you don't do  what you believe is right for fear of consequences, that's moral cowardice.

You don't have to die. Jaime didn't die and even with the protection of Robert and Tywin, he suffered the consequences. 

 

 

5 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

That depends because a king is supposed to protect his subjects not incinerate them. 

Seems to me that you want your cake and eat it too.

 

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

How is enabling Robert to murder children any better than tolerating the enormities of Aerys?

It's not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

The hard choice would have been to let the children to Robert. It would have been awful but it would have prevented civil war.

Ned's entire ark was about "saving the children." The deaths of Rheagar's children is the root of his dislike of Tywin Lannister, he vehemently opposes killing Dany and her unborn child, even resigns because of it. Ned's moral compass does not permit him to do anything other than protect children. Resigning as Hand because he couldn't be part of child murder was actually a very courageous thing for Ned to do, because he was admitting to himself that Robert was not the man he fought a war to put on the throne for. Most people would simply have done what Barristan did; object feebly, then go along silently.

And acting to protect Cersei's children in spite of the possibility of war was a noble thing to do. I obviously don't care about Joffrey, but Mrycella and Tommen are both innocent. Allowing Robert to murder them would be evil on a smaller, more intimate scale, but it would still be evil. And Ned is not an evil man.

I say he made the right call, and got punished for it. The message George is sending isn't that we should be machiavellian and nihalistic like Tyrion, Tywin and Littlefinger. We should be honorable, merciful and just, like Ned is. Even though the world may not reward us for being like Ned, we still need to try. Ned tried when it was tough, and when doing so meant turning his back on his King. The Kingsgaurd did not try, except for Jaime. They cared more about the image of honor than actually practicing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Nathan Stark said:

Ned's entire ark was about "saving the children." The deaths of Rheagar's children is the root of his dislike of Tywin Lannister, he vehemently opposes killing Dany and her unborn child, even resigns because of it. Ned's moral compass does not permit him to do anything other than protect children. Resigning as Hand because he couldn't be part of child murder was actually a very courageous thing for Ned to do, because he was admitting to himself that Robert was not the man he fought a war to put on the throne for. Most people would simply have done what Barristan did; object feebly, then go along silently.

And acting to protect Cersei's children in spite of the possibility of war was a noble thing to do. I obviously don't care about Joffrey, but Mrycella and Tommen are both innocent. Allowing Robert to murder them would be evil on a smaller, more intimate scale, but it would still be evil. And Ned is not an evil man.

I say he made the right call, and got punished for it. The message George is sending isn't that we should be machiavellian and nihalistic like Tyrion, Tywin and Littlefinger. We should be honorable, merciful and just, like Ned is. Even though the world may not reward us for being like Ned, we still need to try. Ned tried when it was tough, and when doing so meant turning his back on his King. The Kingsgaurd did not try, except for Jaime. They cared more about the image of honor than actually practicing it.

This, absolutely. Let me just add that Ned also had the courage to take action when he found it necessary and to shoulder full responsibility for his decisions. He is a remarkably courageous character and selfless enough to choose what he considers morally right over his own personal benefits, be it personal honour or any other personal gain. 

Regarding Jaime and the rest of the Kingsguard - I wouldn't condemn anyone as absolute cowards. Courage is a scale, and some people can be courageous in one situation and not so brave in another. I agree that moral courage and physical courage are different, but I also think that circumstances may also add to or take away from the courage a given person can muster at a given moment. 

Jaime, I think, was psychologically at the end of his tether when he killed Aerys. By this time he had realized a number of things: Before having time to live, he had signed away his life and his inheritance in order to serve and protect a very unpleasant man, who was raping his own wife, keeping his own grandchildren as hostages, torturing and burning people alive (including his lords) and was now planning to blow up a whole city. Far from being appreciative of Jaime's services, the man had made it clear that he had accepted Jaime into his service in order to rob Jaime's father of his heir and to use Jaime as a hostage against the same father. Jaime's ulterior motive (being close to Cersei) had come to nothing. He was also disappointed in his hope for glory and his wish to emulate Arthur Dayne - the king hadn't even allowed him to take part in a tournament (worse, he had made it clear it was purely out of spite rather than due to some unavoidable necessity), Arthur Dayne had left with Rhaegar, while he, Jaime, was reduced to keeping watch and silently witnessing rape, torture and death. Finally, his king was demanding that Jaime kill his own father (which would make Jaime cursed as a kinslayer), while getting ready for the mass destruction of his own capital city.

All this is more than enough to demoralize even someone much more dutiful than Jaime had ever been. Earlier, Jaime had also stood by while Aerys was raping, torturing and killing - he had wondered whether they should do something to stop the madman, but he also accepted the White Bull's advice for the time being. It is possible that the older members of the Kingsguard had also been through something similar. But I don't think the loyalty of the rest of the Kingsguard had ever been tested to such a degree as Jaime's was. Perhaps it was pure courage but I think it was also a great deal of desperation that made Jaime kill the King's Hand and then the King himself. 

As for honour, there was very little Jaime could do te retain honour as he understood it. Serving Aerys meant, for him, doing dishonourable things, and there was no way to abandon the service with his honour (or at least reputation) intact. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...