Howland Reed at the Tower of Joy

[kissdbyfire]

Just now, Many-Faced Votary said:

And we still don't know anything about Lady Lyarra!

At least she has a name now!

[Bendric Dayne]

2 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

I don’t think there’s any mystery in Edric’s dad not having a name yet. W/ soooo many characters he has to give names to, it’s understandable he just didn’t bother w/ one he wasn’t going to use or at least not immediately. I mean, Ned’s mum remained nameless for decades. 

Yeah this is probably the case. I would argue that Allyria is less important than Edric's father and yet she gets a name. So yeah it's just something I find weird (particularly when he can just reuse any name if he's so unimportant, 'Robert Dayne' or something) but GRRM probably just didn't bother with a name as you say.

[three-eyed monkey]

10 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

The reason I keep going back to Eddard, is because Eddard is the one who called Arthur the finest knight he knew.  So the question is, what happened at the tower of joy that elevated Arthur above everyone else?

My guess is, Eddard would not consider Arthur the finest knight he knew because Arthur had betrayed his oath to Aerys in favor of Rhaegar.  

So something happened at the tower of joy which very much impressed Eddard as it came to Arthur’s honor.

What I think happened is that Arthur found a way around Jaime’s knight dilemma.  He knew he couldn’t carry out a vow he made as a Kingsguard without violating a more basic vow he took as a knight.  But he also knew he took a vow to Aerys to serve him throughout his life.  So as not to violate that vow, he let Eddard kill him. And my guess is in the heat of battle, it was Howland who stepped in and reminded Arthur that he was a knight before he was a Kingsguard, and unlike Gerold and Whent who fought to the death to try and stop Eddard and company from preventing them from carrying out their vow to Aerys, Arthur let Eddard win, died on the sword, and died keeping his honor intact.

I agree that Ned considered Arthur the finest knight he knew, not because of his skill with sword or lance, but because he had acted honorably at the Tower of Joy. And I get what you're saying. The easy thing to assume here is that Arthur kept his oath as a kingsguard and died for his king. But it's not as simple as that and that's where the knight's dilemma comes into it.

In the final years and days of Aerys reign, his kingsguard all faced the dilemma. Some, like Barristan, kept to their oath to the bitter end, and Barristan has regrets about that. Jaime on the other hand, foreswore his oath and killed the king, and while he has many regrets, he does not regret that. His conscience is clear on that matter because he did the right thing. He chose the lives of the innocent over the life of the king, despite it costing his "honor". So the author is showing us the solution to the dilemma through these characters, Barristan and Jaime in particular.

This is where the definition of honor comes into it. What is honor? Honor is the quality of knowing and doing the right thing. So while Jaime was judged by Westeros, including Ned, for breaking his oath to the king he swore to protect, they don't know the full story. They don't know about the wildfire plot and why Jaime did what he did. They just see it as Tywin's son turning his blade on the king during the sack.

If Ned had shared a hot bath with Jaime, then maybe he would understand why Jaime killed Aerys and see that Jaime actually did the right thing, which means he acted honorably, despite what people who only know half the story think.

So when Ned says Arthur acted honorably at the Tower of Joy, he means Arthur did the right thing, and as we know from the knight's dilemma, upholding your oath to Aerys and being a good man sworn to a bad cause, is not always the right thing.

[three-eyed monkey]

I'll add one more thing about honor that I think helps make the point.

Another character who is renowned throughout the Seven Kingdoms as an honorable man is Ser Gerold Hightower, the Lord Commander of Aerys's seven, who was of course present at the Tower of Joy.

Quote

"As for Lord Rickard, the steel of his breastplate turned cherry-red before the end, and his gold melted off his spurs and dripped down into the fire. I stood at the foot of the Iron Throne in my white armor and white cloak, filling my head with thoughts of Cersei. After, Gerold Hightower himself took me aside and said to me, 'You swore a vow to guard the king, not to judge him.' That was the White Bull, loyal to the end and a better man than me, all agree."

Ser Gerold was a better man than Jaime, all of Westeros agrees. Like Barristan and Darry, he turned a blind eye to Aerys crimes, loyal to his king and his kingsguard oath and his honor to the end. That was the White Bull.

A bull is a male elephant. And a white elephant is a useless possession that's expensive to maintain and difficult to dispose of. I think that perfectly describes honor as currently defined in Westeros.

Ser Gerold, Barristan and Darry all stood by and did nothing as Aerys committed vile crimes. They protect the innocent, but not from the king. They guard the king, not judge him. They look the other way when he commits vile crimes. If that's honor then it really is a useless possession. It's expensive too, as it costs a clear conscience as we saw with Barristan who was left with regrets about the Mad King's final years. The way to dispose of that useless possession is by doing the right thing instead, but that can be difficult sometimes as Gerold, Barristan, and Darry found when they faced the knight's dilemma.

Jaime, on the other hand, found the courage to do the right thing and in the process he disposed of the white elephant honor has become in Westeros.

[James Arryn]

23 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

I agree that Ned considered Arthur the finest knight he knew, not because of his skill with sword or lance, but because he had acted honorably at the Tower of Joy. And I get what you're saying. The easy thing to assume here is that Arthur kept his oath as a kingsguard and died for his king. But it's not as simple as that and that's where the knight's dilemma comes into it.

In the final years and days of Aerys reign, his kingsguard all faced the dilemma. Some, like Barristan, kept to their oath to the bitter end, and Barristan has regrets about that. Jaime on the other hand, foreswore his oath and killed the king, and while he has many regrets, he does not regret that. His conscience is clear on that matter because he did the right thing. He chose the lives of the innocent over the life of the king, despite it costing his "honor". So the author is showing us the solution to the dilemma through these characters, Barristan and Jaime in particular.

This is where the definition of honor comes into it. What is honor? Honor is the quality of knowing and doing the right thing. So while Jaime was judged by Westeros, including Ned, for breaking his oath to the king he swore to protect, they don't know the full story. They don't know about the wildfire plot and why Jaime did what he did. They just see it as Tywin's son turning his blade on the king during the sack.

If Ned had shared a hot bath with Jaime, then maybe he would understand why Jaime killed Aerys and see that Jaime actually did the right thing, which means he acted honorably, despite what people who only know half the story think.

So when Ned says Arthur acted honorably at the Tower of Joy, he means Arthur did the right thing, and as we know from the knight's dilemma, upholding your oath to Aerys and being a good man sworn to a bad cause, is not always the right thing.

Great post. Slight quibble; I don’t think Jaime’s feelings about killing Aerys are as settled as you do. I think part of why Jaime’s dilemma is the essential knight’s dilemma* is specifically because he felt/feels incredibly conflicted because he’s at heart a romantic who yearned to be Arthur Dayne. I think that that in part is why he’s only ever told one person, and that was ~ dying/fever/trauma. Otherwise I think he takes it to his grave, and I think Brienne sees this and it’s where her admiration for him really begins. 
 

Because part of him irrationally believes he was wrong, he should have kept all the oaths, because that’s what Arthur Dayne, in his mind, would do. It’s imo a physical impossibility and he’s bright enough to know that consciously,  but the boy inside expected more of himself and is eternally disappointed. So that’s why he takes the Kingslayer stuff and says nothing, because a part of him agrees with it. There are other elements…his father’s head played a role, etc. and once he started down that road with Ned his pride kicked in to seal the deal a bit, but I think the essence of him is the dilemma you are talking about, and I don’t think that exists in a world where he makes a clear call and is fine with it thereafter. 

*you can argue that the Hound is along the same trajectory in a way, but we don’t get inside his head so we don’t know how he really feels. 

[kissdbyfire]

6 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

I'll add one more thing about honor that I think helps make the point.

Another character who is renowned throughout the Seven Kingdoms as an honorable man is Ser Gerold Hightower, the Lord Commander of Aerys's seven, who was of course present at the Tower of Joy.

Ser Gerold was a better man than Jaime, all of Westeros agrees. Like Barristan and Darry, he turned a blind eye to Aerys crimes, loyal to his king and his kingsguard oath and his honor to the end. That was the White Bull.

A bull is a male elephant. And a white elephant is a useless possession that's expensive to maintain and difficult to dispose of. I think that perfectly describes honor as currently defined in Westeros.

Ser Gerold, Barristan and Darry all stood by and did nothing as Aerys committed vile crimes. They protect the innocent, but not from the king. They guard the king, not judge him. They look the other way when he commits vile crimes. If that's honor then it really is a useless possession. It's expensive too, as it costs a clear conscience as we saw with Barristan who was left with regrets about the Mad King's final years. The way to dispose of that useless possession is by doing the right thing instead, but that can be difficult sometimes as Gerold, Barristan, and Darry found when they faced the knight's dilemma.

Jaime, on the other hand, found the courage to do the right thing and in the process he disposed of the white elephant honor has become in Westeros.

This reply isn’t for you since I believe we see this similarly… but honour=/= duty. I agree w/ everything you wrote, only I would have used duty instead of honour (bolded). To stand by and do nothing while the king rapes and assaults his wife is the definition of a KG duty, but it has nothing to do w/ honour imo. 
Words are wind. 

[Many-Faced Votary]

19 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

This reply isn’t for you since I believe we see this similarly… but honour=/= duty. I agree w/ everything you wrote, only I would have used duty instead of honour (bolded). To stand by and do nothing while the king rapes and assaults his wife is the definition of a KG duty, but it has nothing to do w/ honour imo. 
Words are wind. 

Indeed; honor is not derived from completing an assigned duty. It is only by acting with true honor that one can do the duty that actually matters: the duty to people and to the realm.

In Aerys's Kingsguard, that would be stopping his abhorrent acts so as to protect the king's subjects from himself. In the Night's Watch, that would be abandoning the useless tradition of forced neutrality so as to guard the realms of men. In Slaver's Bay, that would be bringing Fire and Blood to the slavers so as to fulfill the needs of freedmen and slaves. In the Vale, that would be putting Littlefinger on trial to receive judgment and answer for his crimes. And so on, and so forth.

[kissdbyfire]

31 minutes ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

Indeed; honor is not derived from completing an assigned duty. It is only by acting with true honor that one can do the duty that actually matters: the duty to people and to the realm.

In Aerys's Kingsguard, that would be stopping his abhorrent acts so as to protect the king's subjects from himself. In the Night's Watch, that would be abandoning the useless tradition of forced neutrality so as to guard the realms of men. In Slaver's Bay, that would be bringing Fire and Blood to the slavers so as to fulfill the needs of freedmen and slaves. In the Vale, that would be putting Littlefinger on trial to receive judgment and answer for his crimes. And so on, and so forth.

Exactly. And irt the KG, had they acted honourably instead of dutifully, they would have protected the king from himself. 

Interstingly enough, that's exactly what Jaime tells one of Tommen's KG (Blount maybe?) when he says something along the lines of, "if the king asks you to saddle his horse, do it. If he asks you to kill his horse, come to me". The argument being that the king is 8 and must be protected from himself, much like a madman must be protected from himself. The point being, had the KG done the honourable thing, the right thing in the sense of sticking to their knightly vows instead of sticking to their duties no matter what, things could have ended very differently. 

[Many-Faced Votary]

9 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Exactly. And irt the KG, had they acted honourably instead of dutifully, they would have protected the king from himself. 

Interstingly enough, that's exactly what Jaime tells one of Tommen's KG (Blount maybe?) when he says something along the lines of, "if the king asks you to saddle his horse, do it. If he asks you to kill his horse, come to me". The argument being that the king is 8 and must be protected from himself, much like a madman must be protected from himself. The point being, had the KG done the honourable thing, the right thing in the sense of sticking to their knightly vows instead of sticking to their duties no matter what, things could have ended very differently. 

Very well-said!

Had Aerys been protected from himself, and subsequently dethroned (as mental treatment is unfortunately infeasible in Westeros), he could have lived out his days peacefully: not only no longer enabled by his position but also no longer stressed by the burdens of it. Continuance of his own dynasty notwithstanding, Westeros would have been saved from so much war and despair.

That is a crucial thematic point you explicated here. The theme around true honor isn't a detrimental cautionary tale that that doing the right thing is hard; it's a necessary reminder that doing the right thing, though it can indeed be hard, leads to the best outcomes. That's why it's the right thing to do!

[three-eyed monkey]

2 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

but honour=/= duty.

I agree that honor does not mean duty. They have different definitions. Honor is the quality of knowing and doing the right thing. Duty is a responsibility or obligation, be it moral or legal, to perform a task. These are central themes in the story and are applicable to every character and the decisions they must make, and as such they all do overlap, a point that is made in the Tully words; Family, Duty, Honor.

Maester Aemon once asked Jon if he knew why the men of the Watch took no wives and fathered no children?

Quote

 

"So they will not love," the old man answered, "for love is the bane of honor, the death of duty."

That did not sound right to Jon, yet he said nothing. The maester was a hundred years old, and a high officer of the Night's Watch; it was not his place to contradict him.

 

That did not sound right to Jon, yet he said nothing. We've seen this writing technique before, such as Jon and Qhorin or Bran and Ned, where a question is raised but an answer is not pursued. Why did it not feel right to Jon? On the surface it seems like a valid statement and Aemon is an experienced and intelligent man, but we're invited to follow Jon's instinct and drill a little deeper.

When you perform a duty, simply from a sense of obligation, then it can often feel hollow or like a chore. Just look at the characters who marry for duty instead of love. So duty can exist without love. You can protect someone because it is your moral or legal obligation, and not love them. This was the position the kingsguard were in with Aerys. But love cannot exist without a sense of duty. If you love someone then the duty to protect them is baked in, so to speak. For example, Meera is sworn to Winterfell, but we get the sense that her want to protect Bran stems from far more than her legal or moral obligation.

Love is not the death of duty, because a task performed from a sense of love rather than obligation gives the duty life and meaning. Deep down Jon knows this, which is why what Aemon said did not sound right to him. Jon's duty is to protect the realm and it comes from a sense of love.

Quote

I will kill him if I must. The prospect gave Jon no joy; there would be no honor in such a killing, and it would mean his own death as well. Yet he could not let the wildlings breach the Wall, to threaten Winterfell and the north, the barrowlands and the Rills, White Harbor and the Stony Shore, even the Neck. For eight thousand years the men of House Stark had lived and died to protect their people against such ravagers and reavers . . . and bastard-born or no, the same blood ran in his veins. Bran and Rickon are still at Winterfell besides. Maester Luwin, Ser Rodrik, Old Nan, Farlen the kennelmaster, Mikken at his forge and Gage by his ovens . . . everyone I ever knew, everyone I ever loved.

[three-eyed monkey]

2 hours ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

Had Aerys been protected from himself, and subsequently dethroned (as mental treatment is unfortunately infeasible in Westeros), he could have lived out his days peacefully: not only no longer enabled by his position but also no longer stressed by the burdens of it. Continuance of his own dynasty notwithstanding, Westeros would have been saved from so much war and despair.

Exactly. A society where people acted with true honor would prevent the realm from bleeding so much and allow healing begin. That's why the heroes of the story must choose to act with true honor, by knowing and doing the right thing, to resolve their arcs and save Westeros, not only from the Others but from itself.

2 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Interstingly enough, that's exactly what Jaime tells one of Tommen's KG (Blount maybe?) when he says something along the lines of, "if the king asks you to saddle his horse, do it. If he asks you to kill his horse, come to me".

There is very much a sense here that the kingsguard need to watch vigilantly over the king in more ways than one. Protect the king as long as the king remains true to his oath to protect the realm, but once a king breaks that vow, then it is the kingsguard who must act honorably and do the right thing.

There is a saying that people get the leaders they deserve. If you turn a blind eye to the crimes of your leaders then those crimes will only continue. For evil to persist it only takes good men to stand idly by and do nothing, as was the case with Aerys.

[James Arryn]

I’d like to add, not so much in defence, but to be explicit with it, re: the concept of the KG protecting an adult king ‘from himself/dishonour:

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? And I mean, there would have been a lot of structure in place to ensure the KG could not go all Praetorian. When deciding what behavioural conduct would have better resolved a specific situation, ask yourself how many other situations it worsens and does it make the king more or less safe, ie the entire point of the position. 
 

There are arguments that more or less lay the principal blame for decades of brutal RL civil war, upheaval, countless deaths and massive corruption specifically at the door of the Praetorians acquiring agency in the political process through their control of the Emperor’s person/safety. So a KG who saves Rhaella or Rickard is not limited to positive acts. Once they are allowed to have the power to decide what the King should do and not do, they become a major player in the game. Once that happens…well, there’s a lot of history (Preatorians, Mamluks, or…here, Wikipedia link on royal guards: 

“Because of their location, status, role and nature, royal guards have frequently been able to play a political role beyond their intended military and social ones. In times of revolution, the continued loyalty or defection of such units has often played a key part in the outcome of wider unrest. Historical examples were England in 1688, Spain in 1808, Sweden in 1809, France in 1789 and again in 1814-15, Russia in 1917 and Persia in 1906 and again in 1953, etc.”

 

Again, be wary of introducing structural changes that alleviate one specific scenario but allow/increase/cause a whole bunch of other chaos and misery because of that change. And monarchs have always known about this aspect; almost every element of the KG vows is designed to remove any political agency from them, and restrict their secondary motivations to specifically avoid them taking charge. Any change in a significant part of the process will still be a part of that process after it’s (hopefully) resolved the one thing it was designed to resolve. Remember all the ‘kings’ being introduced, promoted, etc. during the chaos of the Dance in KL, sometimes even against the will of the so-called kings by their guards? Well, that would become the new norm because humans given extreme power very, very rarely give it up of their own volition. KG are human that way. 
 

Now with specific regard to the wildfyre, you can say that was a rare exception where the cost of crossing that line would be hard pressed to be anywhere near the cost of not crossing that line, BUT, Jaime should have been thanked for saving tens of thousands and either executed, sent to the Wall or at the very least stripped of his white cloak because of what he now represents. An example had to be made, to curtail a very dangerous precedent even in extreme circumstances. That did not happen and…how is the KG doing nowadays? It’s too soon to expect it to immediately become a factor, and Jaime has been more or less ostracized, so that’s some deterrent, but I would be pretty willing to bet that KG taking control of the process will play a role moving forward…it’s already is happening in Meereen, though that’s GRRM using thematic rather than structural illustration. You could easily argue it’s ~ what happened to Jon. 
 

So as anecdotally gross as it is for the KG to listen to just Aerys hurting Rhaella or watching Rickard burn, there is a broader, potentially much more important reason that the KG are explicitly not there to judge the king. It’s a lot more than just an excuse to do nothing. Imo someone should have stepped in to account for Aerys madness…Rhaegar was beginning to take that responsibility on for himself…but each of these routes set dangerous precedents so I think Rhaegar was right in thinking it required something as extraordinary and inclusive as a ~ Great Council to do that because of those precedents and where they almost inevitably lead in time. 

[Frey family reunion]

On 3/3/2023 at 2:52 AM, three-eyed monkey said:

I agree that Ned considered Arthur the finest knight he knew, not because of his skill with sword or lance, but because he had acted honorably at the Tower of Joy. And I get what you're saying. The easy thing to assume here is that Arthur kept his oath as a kingsguard and died for his king. But it's not as simple as that and that's where the knight's dilemma comes into it.

In the final years and days of Aerys reign, his kingsguard all faced the dilemma. Some, like Barristan, kept to their oath to the bitter end, and Barristan has regrets about that. Jaime on the other hand, foreswore his oath and killed the king, and while he has many regrets, he does not regret that. His conscience is clear on that matter because he did the right thing. He chose the lives of the innocent over the life of the king, despite it costing his "honor". So the author is showing us the solution to the dilemma through these characters, Barristan and Jaime in particular.

This is where the definition of honor comes into it. What is honor? Honor is the quality of knowing and doing the right thing. So while Jaime was judged by Westeros, including Ned, for breaking his oath to the king he swore to protect, they don't know the full story. They don't know about the wildfire plot and why Jaime did what he did. They just see it as Tywin's son turning his blade on the king during the sack.

If Ned had shared a hot bath with Jaime, then maybe he would understand why Jaime killed Aerys and see that Jaime actually did the right thing, which means he acted honorably, despite what people who only know half the story think.

So when Ned says Arthur acted honorably at the Tower of Joy, he means Arthur did the right thing, and as we know from the knight's dilemma, upholding your oath to Aerys and being a good man sworn to a bad cause, is not always the right thing.

While I think, we’re not terribly far apart, I still think you have one fundamental flaw when it comes to Ned’s appraisal of Arthur. Ned thinks that Arthur is :

Quote

The finest knight I ever saw was Ser Arthur Dayne, who fought with a bald called Dawn, forged from the heart of a fallen star.  They called him the Sword of the Morning, and he would have killed me but for Howland Reed.”  Father had gotten sad then, and he would say no more.  Bran wished he had asked him what he meant.

I think the key word here is knight.  What would Eddard consider a high quality of a knight?

Here is Eddard’s problem with Jaime in a nutshell:

Quote

“Can you trust Jaime Lannister?”
        “He is my wife’s twin, a Sworn Brother of the Kingsguard, his life and fortune and honor all bound to mine.”
        “As they were bound to Aerys Targaryen’s,” Ned pointed out.”

Quote

“His sword helped taint the throne you sit on, Ned thought, but he did not permit the words to pass his lips. “He swore a vow to protect his king’s life with his own. Then he opened that king’s throat with a sword.”

Quote

“Seven hells, someone had to kill Aerys!” Robert said, reining his mount to a sudden halt beside an ancient barrow. “If Jaime hadn’t done it, it would have been left for you or me.”
        “We were not Sworn Brothers of the Kingsguard,” Ned said.”

Ned’s problem with Jaime is that he’s an oath breaker.  He can’t be trusted.  And no I don’t think, that Eddard spending time in a hot tub with Jaime would have changed his mind.  Jaime is a disgrace because he swore an oath to protect Aerys and he betrayed that oath, in the most direct way possible.  And of course it doesn’t help that Jaime continued to violate his oath, as he was continually betraying his oath to the second king he was supposed to serve with his relationship with Robert’s queen.

So would Eddard have thought that Arthur was the finest knight he knew, if he knew that Arthur had already abandoned Aerys to side with Rhaegar?  I think the answer is no, Eddard would have judged Arthur guilty of betraying his oath to serve King Aerys, and Eddard wouldnt’ have thought him as the finest Knight he knew.  Maybe a good person, but certainly not a good knight.  Knight’s fulfill their solemn vow, as long as they live.

That’s not to say that Eddard would have approved of knights robotically following their oath to serve and carry out bad orders from the King.  Especially when those orders would violate earlier vows that Knights take, for example to defend the weak.

So what can we make of what happened at the tower of joy.  Number 1, I think it’s clear that Arthur had not betrayed his fundamental vows to serve and protect King Aerys.  The fact that all three Kingsguards make it very clear that they have been good Kingsguards throughout, throughout the Trident, Sack and their presence at the tower of joy.

Number 2, I think it’s clear that their Kingsguard vow to Aerys has put them in direct opposition to Eddard, who takes a small, trusted group (that can keep a Stark secret) with him to put a stop to their vow.

Number 3., Arthur stands above Hightower, and Whent who died fully trying to fulfill this Kingsguard vow.  Which makes me think that Arthur did something that Hightower and Whent did not.  Arthur came to the realization that he couldn’t fulfill this vow without betraying his other fundamental vows as a knight.  And once he realized he couldn’t continue to serve Aerys though life, he chose death.  Dying as a Kingsguard not having to betray his vows, either as a knight or a Kingsguard.

Which is what Eddard would have wanted Jaime to do.  He would have been impressed had he known Jaime stopped Aerys plans at the King’s Landing.  But once Jaime came to the realization that he couldn’t serve Aerys’ desires, Jaime should have fallen on the sword, rather than kill the King he was sworn to protect and then take a pardon from the new King.  Whom he quickly betrays as well.

My final thought on the issue, is that whatever the Kingsguards’ final vow was to King Aerys, it must have been more complicated than merely some mad command of the King.  After all, it also seemed to line up with what Rhaegar desired as well.  My guess is that Rhaegar may have had a more justified ends, to the means, than Aerys did.  It’s also probably what made Arthur’s decision a complicated one.  He wasn’t just following his vow to the King, he was also doing a task that he knew his closest friend thought to be critically important.  And perhaps Arthur did as well.  But ultimately came to the realization that it came to a cost that was too high, and something he could not in good conscience continue to be a part of.  But once he realized he couldn’t continue to serve the King in life, he allowed Ned to kill him, forever cementing his status in Eddard’s mind as the finest Knight.

 

[ATaleofSalt&Onions]

32 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

And no I don’t think, that Eddard spending time in a hot tub with Jaime would have changed his mind.

I think Ned would have plenty of other issues with Jaime, but on the matter of killing Aerys I strongly disagree with this. We are shown time and time again that Ned’s conception of honor is not so narrow and rigid that he’d place strict adherence to an oath or his word over protecting the innocent. This is a man who lied to his king and best friend for 15 years, hiding his mortal enemy’s son right under his nose. He falsely confessed to treason to save his daughter. He gives Cersei a heads up on his plan for the sake of her children. He even modifies Robert’s will to spare him learning the truth on his deathbed. He absolutely would have killed the Mad King if the alternative was to let countless innocents die.

[the trees have eyes]

A few thoughts on this.

Ned is not himself a knight so his views on knighthood, honour and duty may not be identical or quite so straightforward.  I sometimes feel GRRM forgets this and allows himself to slip into the single meta-culture view that pervades Westeros with Ned's pov but Ned does not swear vows the way knights or the KG do.  It's possible that he sees things exactly the same way in terms of honour and duty but I find it hard to see Ned standing by while a man was roasted over an open fire.  As he is not a knight or a KG he is spared this conflict of vows and when he is - with Robert demanding he put his seal to Dany's assassination - he gets to refuse and resign as Hand in protest.  That's an option because he accepted an appointment to office rather than swearing a vow to obey but it does give him room to manoeuvre that others lack.

He admired Dayne as a knight rather than a KG so while that may be an academic distinction, I think it's pointing towards something more.  When Ned meets Dayne, Hightower and Darry, Aerys is dead so I doubt the KG are robotically following his orders like a Khal's blood riders performing their final duty.  Their duty is now to protect the new King.  With Rhaegar dead and baby Aegon too the new King is either Viserys or of course the child Lyanna is carrying.  They can't know it's a boy until birth but in any case they have a duty to protect the Royal family.  So why does Ned respect Arthur more than, say, Darry or Hightower, if all three found a way to square their KG oaths with their knightly vows by protecting a royal child from facing the fate of Aegon and Rhaenys?  Swordsmanship?  Reputation?  Both ticks in Arthur's favour.  I'm not sure it needs anything more but thematically, something more noble fits better and is certainly more compelling.  And there is that mysterious journey to Starfall afterwards.  It seems Dayne did something that Ned admired and managed to fulfil knightly principles as well as the duties of oaths.  I've no new insights on what that might be, beyond arranging for the protection of Lyanna and her child.

Last point on Ned's derision for Jaime which reinforces the above.  It stems partly from Jaime killing Aerys but equally from his arrogant manner, sitting on the Throne as if he intended to claim it when Ned entered, but I think also from him neglecting his duty to protect Rhaenys, Aegon and Elia, all being killed by his father's retainers while he ignored both his KG and knightly duties to protect them.  Ned fell out spectacularly with Robert over the murder of the children and Jaime appeared very much a Lannister foot soldier ruthlessly sweeping out the old royal family to usher in the new.  In contrast Dayne gives his life defending a royal child even though, tragically, Ned means him no harm.  Without any knowledge of the wildfire plot, Ned sees Jaime's actions in the worst possible light, actively murdering the King he swore to obey and protect and abandoning the prince's wife and children to their fate.

 

[Frey family reunion]

2 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

I think Ned would have plenty of other issues with Jaime, but on the matter of killing Aerys I strongly disagree with this. We are shown time and time again that Ned’s conception of honor is not so narrow and rigid that he’d place strict adherence to an oath or his word over protecting the innocent. This is a man who lied to his king and best friend for 15 years, hiding his mortal enemy’s son right under his nose. He falsely confessed to treason to save his daughter. He gives Cersei a heads up on his plan for the sake of her children. He even modifies Robert’s will to spare him learning the truth on his deathbed. He absolutely would have killed the Mad King if the alternative was to let countless innocents die.

I’m going to have to disagree.  Ned would have approved of Jaime’s killing of Rosart, but not in the killing of Aerys especially in the manner it occurred.  Jaime himself wishes he had removed his white cloak before he did the deed.  Jaime didn’t kill Aerys to protect King’s Landing.  He could have simply held Aerys at the throne until Jaime’s father’s troops came into the room.  He killed Aerys out of disgust, out of all the time he had to stand there and view Aerys’ atrocities.  

I’m sure Eddard did believe that Aerys needed to be killed.  Just not by Jaime.  And if Jaime did kill him, his next act should have been falling on his sword or voluntarily joining the Night’s Watch.  Not agree to keep his white cloak and remain as if nothing had happened.

As for Jaime not having any guilt over Aerys’ killing, I’m not so sure.  Remember Jaime’s dream:

Quote

“We all swore oaths,” said Ser Arthur Dayne, so sadly.
            The shades dismounted from their ghostly horses. When they drew their longswords, it made not a sound. “He was going to burn the city,” Jaime said. “To leave Robert only ashes.”
            “He was your king,” said Darry.
            “You swore to keep him safe,” said Whent.
            “And the children, them as well,” said Prince Lewyn.
            Prince Rhaegar burned with a cold light, now white, now red, now dark. “I left my wife and children in your hands.”
            “I never thought he’d hurt them.” Jaime’s sword was burning less brightly now. “I was with the king …”
            “Killing the king,” said Ser Arthur.
            “Cutting his throat,” said Prince Lewyn.
            “The king you had sworn to die for,” said the White Bull.
            The fires that ran along the blade were guttering out, and Jaime remembered what Cersei had said. No. Terror closed a hand about his throat. Then his sword went dark, and only Brienne’s burned, as the ghosts came rushing in.
            “No,” he said, “no, no, no. Nooooooooo!”

 

[Frey family reunion]

41 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

He admired Dayne as a knight rather than a KG so while that may be an academic distinction, I think it's pointing towards something more.  When Ned meets Dayne, Hightower and Darry, Aerys is dead so I doubt the KG are robotically following his orders like a Khal's blood riders performing their final duty.  Their duty is now to protect the new King.

No, I don’t think that’s true, at least not necessarily true.  The Kingsguards swore to protect and serve King Aerys until their death, their service to the King they swore to does not necessarily end with the King’s death.   So if Aerys gave them a command, or commanded them to follow someone else’s command (say Rhaegar) then they were duty bound to see try and see the command through until that task was over.  Even if the ones who originally gave the commands had died.

If their last command had been go fight at the Battle of the Trident, after that battle was over, they wouldn’t have had any further orders to see through.  As was the case of Ser Barristan.

But if their command was something they could still accomplish even if Aerys and Rhaegar had died, then they should have seen it through until they accomplished it or died trying.  Or perhaps in the case of Arthur allowing himself to be killed once he realized he couldn’t accomplish it without violating more fundamental vows.

Ser Willem Darry acted to protect the royal family.  But as the Kingsguards pointed out to Eddard, he wasn’t a Kingsguard.

 

 

 

[Alester Florent]

On 3/4/2023 at 9:56 PM, James Arryn said:

I’d like to add, not so much in defence, but to be explicit with it, re: the concept of the KG protecting an adult king ‘from himself/dishonour:

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? And I mean, there would have been a lot of structure in place to ensure the KG could not go all Praetorian. When deciding what behavioural conduct would have better resolved a specific situation, ask yourself how many other situations it worsens and does it make the king more or less safe, ie the entire point of the position.

...

So as anecdotally gross as it is for the KG to listen to just Aerys hurting Rhaella or watching Rickard burn, there is a broader, potentially much more important reason that the KG are explicitly not there to judge the king. It’s a lot more than just an excuse to do nothing. Imo someone should have stepped in to account for Aerys madness…Rhaegar was beginning to take that responsibility on for himself…but each of these routes set dangerous precedents so I think Rhaegar was right in thinking it required something as extraordinary and inclusive as a ~ Great Council to do that because of those precedents and where they almost inevitably lead in time. 

I do think this is a really good point that is too easily overlooked in the scheme of "Aerys's KG should have done xyz". Indeed, when it's laid out like this it's not too hard to imagine the KG discussing this very point, and collectively deciding that, distasteful as it is, their job is to protect the king at all costs and to start dictating the king's behaviour would be an unacceptable overreach: the precedent of Criston Cole being cited as exactly what they want to avoid; that stepping in to put an end to tyranny is the job of the Hand, the Lords Paramount, the prince of Dragonstone, whoever, but that it can't be them.

And in this scenario, Jaime would have missed this meeting, because it would have taken place long before he joined the KG, and where his brothers let him down was by not talking this through with him and leaving the guy - young and idealistic - to try to puzzle through it on his own.

I can certainly imagine that some of them reached this conclusion even if they didn't all do it collectively. To be fair, Barristan's POVs don't suggest that this was the case, but he also doesn't seem like the kind of guy who was in the habit of questioning things particularly deeply before Joffrey sacked him.

[ATaleofSalt&Onions]

4 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

aime didn’t kill Aerys to protect King’s Landing.  He could have simply held Aerys at the throne until Jaime’s father’s troops came into the room.

Eh, I think the fan speculation about “well technically he could have done X instead” is just people overthinking what Martin intends. I think he really means to present it as a binary choice between “kill Aerys or let countless innocents die.” And that scenario still involves him breaking his oath of loyalty even if not as starkly.

I’d probably agree that Ned wouldn’t continue being a KG, my overall point is that I think the degree of contempt Ned has for Jaime is very much the result of him thinking Jaime did it purely out of convenience when his dad decided to move against Aerys and it was all over for the Mad King. Knowing the context would absolutely matter to Ned a lot.

I didn’t say anything about whether Jaime feels guilty or not.

[GZ Bloodraven]

This is actually a blind spot for Ned. He understood, and can admire, that Gerold, and Arthur were doing what their king told them to, even if that meant that he and Howland had to fight them. But he doesn't respect Jaime for defying his king's order and his oath. It's a deontological "all contracts are morally and universally binding" and the breaking of that contract is worse than doing bad things in its name. I honestly don't think that, even if Ned understood Jaime's perspective, he would have been OK with what Jaime did. Ned doesn't really fault Varys or Littlefinger for suggesting they kill Daenerys, he faults Robert. In much the same way, he doesn't fault Arthur or Gerold for following orders, he faults Aerys. And he faults Jaime for, paradoxically, not following his king's orders and his oath and killing him, instead of resigning and switching sides. It's a moral blindspot that leads Ned to condemn good moral acts and ignore bad moral acts.