Jump to content

The warrior vs knight


sweetsunray
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Brandon the Builder imo was the son of a Dayne daughter, and the Daynes were proto-Valyrian dragonblood.

I think Stark blood and dragonblood may be the same thing, or spawned from the same thing at least, kingsblood.

"Because they're different," he insisted. "Like night and day, or ice and fire."
"If ice can burn," said Jojen in his solemn voice, "then love and hate can mate. Mountain or marsh, it makes no matter. The land is one."
"One," his sister agreed, "but over wrinkled."

Wrinkled like the ancient and the newborn.

3 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

So, Serwyn isn't Valyrian as much as he is proto-Valyrian imo too.

Or named by them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

adherence to what is right or to a conventional standard of conduct: sounds nice, but it also sounds like some ironborn will take your lunch money

There is the crux of the Jaime's dilemma. Adhere to what is right or to a conventional standard of conduct. The conventional standard of conduct for kingsguard is to serve, protect and obey the king, but that's not always what is right, especially if the king is mad. So there is a moral judgement involved. Taking someones lunch money, even if it is the conventional standard for the Ironborn, is not right.

Edit: I was using the Oxford English Dictionary definition of honor, which is "the  quality of knowing and doing what is morally right." But the definition you found still makes the point.

11 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Arrest the king and let Ned kill him? He woulda loved that

No, the dilemma will not occur if the conventional standard and what is right are the same thing. The point is that if the king is and remains honorable, then the men who serve, protect and obey him will not be put in the dilemma of being good men sworn to a bad cause.

11 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Every knight we meet is false. The ones who ascribe to our idea of a Galahad are Dunk and Brienne, neither knights. I dont think we should bank the entire world of Westeros as good stuff because of two good apples who lived a hundred years apart (ones whos completed stories are mysterious to us btw)

I agree, false knights and false kings are dominant in Westeros now and the realm bleeds. True knights and true kings or queens are what the realm needs to heal. This truth will eventually dawn on Westeros and readers alike.

11 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Sansa will move forward. I very much doubt she'll commit to going full on Eddard but is more likely to walk the thin line between Cersei and Littlefinger. (like Sansas right now chilling with the knight of mad mouses, hes trying to kidnap her. Knights and Sansa just dont get along.

There is no line between Cersei and Littlefinger. Sansa's choice will be to become like Cersei and Littlefinger or become like Ned.

11 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Like we explored in this thread, Westeros is under a facade. The bright patrenty of southron living is coming to a close, winter is coming and shits about to get real. I dont see Sir Galahad stepping in to kiss any wounds

It's not a story about knights in shinning armor saving the day. It's about individual characters understanding that they need to do the right thing, no matter how hard it is, because that's how to make the world they inhabit better. That's the philosophical conflict at the core of the story.

Edited by three-eyed monkey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

And glory as well?

Sorry, I forgot to address the horse symbolism.

Jaime tells us Honor is a horse. From his perspective this is only a joke because he's still searching for what it means to be honorable, something he is discovering as his arc progresses. But GRRM is also giving you a key to unlock some of the symbolism he is using. Honor is a horse.

The Dothraki would not follow Drogo anymore because he could not ride his horse. He was a khal without a horse, which meant he was no true khal. While the Dothraki meant that literally, GRRM is using symbolism to make a point. A king without honor is no true king.

So when you read about the Last Hero and how his horse died, you can take it as a rather insignificant detail with no relevance to the story, or you can see that there is a point being made using the symbolism. The Last Hero lost his honor, but he found a way to do the right thing because he ended up a hero after all.

On the other hand there is Jaime's other horse, Glory. This represents a choice between honor and glory as a man can only ride one horse at a time; the same way the kingsguard cannot adhere to the conventional standard of conduct and do the right thing at the same time unless they are the same horse. This choice between glory and honor is reflected in the Night's Watch oath.

Ultimately, if you do the right thing, then you will win glory because doing the right thing is worthy of high renown, and that's what makes a hero. But you have to put the horse before the cart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, three-eyed monkey said:

 

Jaime tells us Honor is a horse. From his perspective this is only a joke because he's still searching for what it means to be honorable, something he is discovering as his arc progresses. But GRRM is also giving you a key to unlock some of the symbolism he is using. Honor is a horse.

 

Was it a joke, though? Horses were important assets for knights, especially in ASoiaF. Even "true knights" like Dunk develop close ties to their horses. Besides, more than just means of transport, these beasts are that: living beasts. It's not like a modern car, which has mostly a instrumental use and when you maintain it, it's like once every month or so. Horses need to be groomed, soothed, fed everyday. I am not really sure Jaime was being completely ironic when he said that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Jon Fossoway said:

Was it a joke, though? Horses were important assets for knights, especially in ASoiaF. Even "true knights" like Dunk develop close ties to their horses. Besides, more than just means of transport, these beasts are that: living beasts. It's not like a modern car, which has mostly a instrumental use and when you maintain it, it's like once every month or so. Horses need to be groomed, soothed, fed everyday. I am not really sure Jaime was being completely ironic when he said that. 

Yes, you make a good point. A horse is important to a knight and I think that's why it makes for good symbolism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

There is the crux of the Jaime's dilemma. Adhere to what is right or to a conventional standard of conduct. The conventional standard of conduct for kingsguard is to serve, protect and obey the king, but that's not always what is right, especially if the king is mad. So there is a moral judgement involved. Taking someones lunch money, even if it is the conventional standard for the Ironborn, is not right.

Edit: I was using the Oxford English Dictionary definition of honor, which is "the  quality of knowing and doing what is morally right." But the definition you found still makes the point.

A man can only be brave when he is afraid.

"A craven can be as brave as any man, when there is nothing to fear. And we all do our duty, when there is no cost to it. How easy it seems then, to walk the path of honor. Yet soon or late in every man's life comes a day when it is not easy, a day when he must choose."

If we are talking in the context of ASoIaF then I think there is more nuance to the meaning of "honor" than it meaning the same thing as doing what is "right".

"Tell me, Jon, if the day should ever come when your lord father must needs choose between honor on the one hand and those he loves on the other, what would he do?"
Jon hesitated. He wanted to say that Lord Eddard would never dishonor himself, not even for love, yet inside a small sly voice whispered, He fathered a bastard, where was the honor in that? And your mother, what of his duty to her, he will not even say her name. "He would do whatever was right," he said … ringingly, to make up for his hesitation. "No matter what."
"Then Lord Eddard is a man in ten thousand. Most of us are not so strong. What is honor compared to a woman's love? What is duty against the feel of a newborn son in your arms … or the memory of a brother's smile? Wind and words. Wind and words. We are only human, and the gods have fashioned us for love. That is our great glory, and our great tragedy.

Aemon phrases the choice as being between honor and love, but Jon chooses a third option, what is right.

Jon gives the reader context, thinking of his own birth.

Aemon assumes, as you do, that doing what is right means choosing honor here.

However, the reader can deduce that Ned in fact chose love when it came to Jon, over honor, and I would argue that was still the right choice.

I would even go so far as to say that honor is the conventional standard, as opposed to some sense of objective morality, or what is "right".

When it comes to Jaime's Horses, I think we see a similar contrast:

Glory wore trappings of Lannister crimson; Honor was barded in Kingsguard white.

I would suggest that what is "right" isn't always choosing honor/duty, nor choosing love/glory, but can be a much more difficult decision. 

Stannis shows us some great examples of hard choices too.

 "It is," he said, calmer. "And I would have it speak the truth. Though the truth is a bitter draught at times. Aerys? If you only knew . . . that was a hard choosing. My blood or my liege. My brother or my king." He grimaced. "Have you ever seen the Iron Throne? The barbs along the back, the ribbons of twisted steel, the jagged ends of swords and knives all tangled up and melted? It is not a comfortable seat, ser. Aerys cut himself so often men took to calling him King Scab, and Maegor the Cruel was murdered in that chair. By that chair, to hear some tell it. It is not a seat where a man can rest at ease. Ofttimes I wonder why my brothers wanted it so desperately."
"Why would you want it, then?" Davos asked him.
"It is not a question of wanting. The throne is mine, as Robert's heir. That is law. After me, it must pass to my daughter, unless Selyse should finally give me a son." He ran three fingers lightly down the table, over the layers of smooth hard varnish, dark with age. "I am king. Wants do not enter into it. I have a duty to my daughter. To the realm. Even to Robert. He loved me but little, I know, yet he was my brother. 

And then:

"It still angers me. How could he think I would hurt the boy? I chose Robert, did I not? When that hard day came. I chose blood over honor."

Stannis chose blood over honor, and there is a pretty good case to be made that it was the "right" choice during Roberts Rebellion.

However, when he stops making hard choices and declares with rigid absolute certainty what is "right", or declares that his duty leaves no room for choice, I think he's made a mistake. 

"I know the cost! Last night, gazing into that hearth, I saw things in the flames as well. I saw a king, a crown of fire on his brows, burning . . . burning, Davos. His own crown consumed his flesh and turned him into ash. Do you think I need Melisandre to tell me what that means? Or you?" The king moved, so his shadow fell upon King's Landing. "If Joffrey should die . . . what is the life of one bastard boy against a kingdom?"
"Everything," said Davos, softly.

Be like Davos, have a heart full of doubts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

If we are talking in the context of ASoIaF then I think there is more nuance to the meaning of "honor" than it meaning the same thing as doing what is "right".

The meaning of honor is nuanced in ASoIaF. Honor has become about the second half of the definition above, adhering to a conventional standard of conduct, rather than doing what is right.

12 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

Aemon phrases the choice as being between honor and love, but Jon chooses a third option, what is right.

Exactly. Jon says Ned would do what's right, because that is the definition of honor. It's not that Jon chooses a third option, it's that he chooses the true meaning of honor.

When Aemon talks about a choice between love and honor he is talking about a choice between adhering to the conventional standard and love. In truth there is no choice to be made between true honor and love because if you truly love someone then of course you are going to do the right thing by them.

22 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

However, the reader can deduce that Ned in fact chose love when it came to Jon, over honor, and I would argue that was still the right choice.

Yes, because in choosing love over the adherence to the conventional standard, and saying Jon was his bastard, he was doing the right thing and as such acting with true honor. So like Jaime, while Ned's honorable reputation was stained in the eyes of Westeros, he was actually acting honorably.

26 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

Stannis chose blood over honor, and there is a pretty good case to be made that it was the "right" choice during Roberts Rebellion.

Same thing as above, just a reinforcement of the same theme.

28 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

I would even go so far as to say that honor is the conventional standard, as opposed to some sense of objective morality, or what is "right".

Doing what is right should be the conventional standard. That truth has been forgotten in Westeros but it needs to be remembered.

40 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

"Everything," said Davos, softly.

Be like Davos, have a heart full of doubts.

A central part of Davos character is that he tells it true. His answer shows that he understands what is right, therefore he is honorable, one of the series true knights. And when true knights find themselves sworn to bad causes they solve the dilemma by doing what is right and changing allegiance to a good cause.

Davos is a red onion now, sworn to Stannis, who the red woman says is the champion of the red god, but as I said above, red onions become blue onions, and in the end Davos will be a green onion because green onions are spring onions and characters who understand and adhere to the truth will survive to see the dawn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

I was using the Oxford English Dictionary definition of honor, which is "the  quality of knowing and doing what is morally right." But the definition you found still makes the point.

Wild! Are we speaking a different language? Lol

6 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

No, the dilemma will not occur if the conventional standard and what is right are the same thing.

So when Halfhand told Jon that their honor means nothing compared to the safety of the NW, Jon kills him and defects to the wildlings. From Jon's perspective I agree it's honorable and right but form the outside he'd be a turncloak. Dishonored his house and reputation. And only so he can actually betray Mance who's war and flight is just. It's complicated 

6 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

The point is that if the king is and remains honorable, then the men who serve, protect and obey him will not be put in the dilemma of being good men sworn to a bad cause.

If the absolute monarch is honorable? Even if this could be the case his successor may not be. 

And for sure if the king just likes to stay at home and binge TV or whatever then the job of his guard is not dishonorable, but the only chance to prove ones honor is to pull a Ser Arys whos death, although honorable was needless. (Arys is interesting because aside from sleeping with a princess he was a pretty good knight in Dorne, he really did protect the other princess. However only a few months prior he beat another princess out of her dress. In some circumstance knights can be honorable, in others?)

6 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

It's not a story about knights in shinning armor saving the day. It's about individual characters understanding that they need to do the right thing, no matter how hard it is, because that's how to make the world they inhabit better. That's the philosophical conflict at the core of the story.

There was a character who was probably true of heart, we see him in the main after all and he shows striking signs of morality and badassery. That man betrayed his king, decimated his army, stormed the capital and overpowered the throne room. 

I ask you, what did we rise against Aerys Targaryen for, if not to put an end to the murder of children?"

He did what he had to. While drenched in his own families blood he ended the reign of the mad king.

"To put an end to Targaryens!" the king growled."

And replaced him with another. Honor, justice, brute strength, something more is needed 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

So when Halfhand told Jon that their honor means nothing compared to the safety of the NW, Jon kills him and defects to the wildlings. From Jon's perspective I agree it's honorable and right but form the outside he'd be a turncloak. Dishonored his house and reputation. And only so he can actually betray Mance who's war and flight is just. It's complicated 

Qhorin told Jon their honor is worth less than their lives in defense of the realm. He means honor in terms of adhering to the conventional standard, which would see Jon as a turncloak. But the right thing to do here is to do what is required to defend the realm. That is the truly honorable thing.

Jon says he will kill Mance even though there would be no honor in it. But he would do it if it means protecting everyone he loves in Winterfell from a wildling invasion. That was before Jon began to see that the wildlings are not what he thought they were and before he gained sympathy for Mance's cause. Afterwards, he opened the gate and let them through, even though his reputation suffered once again. But he did it because it was the right thing to do, and that again is the true definition of honor.

19 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

If the absolute monarch is honorable? Even if this could be the case his successor may not be. 

This is why ideally the kingsguard remain truly honorable, because no one, even the king should be above being held to the standard of doing what is right. When Rickard and Brandon were being murdered Ser Gerold told Jaime their duty is to protect the king, not judge him. Hightower is wrong here. He's putting adherence to the conventional standard ahead of doing what is right.

Ser Gerold is held up as an honorable character in the eyes of Westeros, but that's because he adheres to the conventional standard rather than does what is morally right. The type of honor he's talking about is a white elephant - possession that is useless, hard to maintain, and difficult to dispose of. That's why he is the white bull, a bull being a male elephant.

29 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

the only chance to prove ones honor is to pull a Ser Arys whos death, although honorable was needless

I don't see how a needless death could ever be the right thing.

31 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Arys is interesting because aside from sleeping with a princess he was a pretty good knight in Dorne, he really did protect the other princess. However only a few months prior he beat another princess out of her dress. In some circumstance knights can be honorable, in others?

I agree. Honor is not something you earn one time and wear forever, like a white cloak. The choice to do the right thing is something that must be made daily, with every choice one has to make.

34 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

There was a character who was probably true of heart, we see him in the main after all and he shows striking signs of morality and badassery. That man betrayed his king, decimated his army, stormed the capital and overpowered the throne room. 

I ask you, what did we rise against Aerys Targaryen for, if not to put an end to the murder of children?"

He did what he had to. While drenched in his own families blood he ended the reign of the mad king.

"To put an end to Targaryens!" the king growled."

And replaced him with another. Honor, justice, brute strength, something more is needed 

Sorry, I don't follow your point here. Are you talking about Ned or Robert?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Qhorin told Jon their honor is worth less than their lives in defense of the realm. He means honor in terms of adhering to the conventional standard, which would see Jon as a turncloak. But the right thing to do here is to do what is required to defend the realm. That is the truly honorable thing.

But it's dishonorable in the eyes of the world, in the eyes of history, assuming Jon died along the way, or disinformation spreads which it does.

1 hour ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Jon says he will kill Mance even though there would be no honor in it. But he would do it if it means protecting everyone he loves in Winterfell from a wildling invasion. That was before Jon began to see that the wildlings are not what he thought they were and before he gained sympathy for Mance's cause. Afterwards, he opened the gate and let them through, even though his reputation suffered once again. But he did it because it was the right thing to do, and that again is the true definition of honor.

I agree, but theres an in between time when he ran away from Ygritte and his other companions which led to not just their deaths but hundreds of others at the hand of Stannis.

Mances war would be an invasion and bad but the plight of the Wildlings is depressing, waiting to get gobbled by the others isn't exactly good. So while I agree that when Jon was in command he acted with honor but when he was obeying commands it was questionable.

1 hour ago, three-eyed monkey said:

This is why ideally the kingsguard remain truly honorable, because no one, even the king should be above being held to the standard of doing what is right. When Rickard and Brandon were being murdered Ser Gerold told Jaime their duty is to protect the king, not judge him. Hightower is wrong here. He's putting adherence to the conventional standard ahead of doing what is right.

Ideally is a Sansa tale. 

Yes but according to Webster's definition that's still honorable. It's a paradox.

1 hour ago, three-eyed monkey said:

I agree. Honor is not something you earn one time and wear forever, like a white cloak. The choice to do the right thing is something that must be made daily, with every choice one has to make

Ok I thought of another knight. Ser Frog. Is stealing from the queen honorable? Colluding with sellswords in the dark of night? Doesn't sounds so.

But is understanding the Queen's desire that a dragon has three heads, with the stability of his home and father at hand honorable? Absolutely.

It's all about the way you tilt your head

1 hour ago, three-eyed monkey said:

I don't see how a needless death could ever be the right thing.

Course

1 hour ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Sorry, I don't follow your point here. Are you talking about Ned or Robert?

No I'm sorry for not being so direct 

Ned, there's little to Robert that I'd call good or honorable. Then or agot

(Robert the mad I was alluding to, who isn't Aerys but isnt exactly sane either)

Edited by Hugorfonics
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

The meaning of honor is nuanced in ASoIaF. Honor has become about the second half of the definition above, adhering to a conventional standard of conduct, rather than doing what is right.

I don't recall any time in ASoIaF when it is used to mean objectively morally right as opposed to conventionally.

2 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Exactly. Jon says Ned would do what's right, because that is the definition of honor. It's not that Jon chooses a third option, it's that he chooses the true meaning of honor.

I disagree.

I think the whole point is that reality is not a choice between two things, black and white, good and evil. This same sort of false choice is what we see from Melisandre.

Doing what is right can be dishonorable. It can be honorable. They are not the same thing.

2 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

When Aemon talks about a choice between love and honor he is talking about a choice between adhering to the conventional standard and love. In truth there is no choice to be made between true honor and love because if you truly love someone then of course you are going to do the right thing by them.

I disagree.

He is presenting a dichotomy, a hard choice.

What is right, is not always honorable, nor is it always picking love. That's part of why it is a hard choice.

2 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Yes, because in choosing love over the adherence to the conventional standard, and saying Jon was his bastard, he was doing the right thing and as such acting with true honor. So like Jaime, while Ned's honorable reputation was stained in the eyes of Westeros, he was actually acting honorably.

I think you are just inventing the concept of "true honor" here, and it doesn't really come from the text.

You can make up a definition for any concept, but I think your description here takes away from the point being made by the text.

Choosing between honor/duty and love, doesn't mean that honor just gets redefined to be whatever is right.

2 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Doing what is right should be the conventional standard. That truth has been forgotten in Westeros but it needs to be remembered.

I don't think this even makes sense. 

Honor is a set of ways of behaving... conventional norms. Doing what is right might be following those norms most of the time but not always.

I think you are conflating terms here. It's not like the issue is just that they follow the wrong convention.

2 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

A central part of Davos character is that he tells it true. His answer shows that he understands what is right, therefore he is honorable, one of the series true knights. And when true knights find themselves sworn to bad causes they solve the dilemma by doing what is right and changing allegiance to a good cause.

Right and honorable are not the same thing, that's my point.

It is dishonorable to change sides, it might be the right thing to do, but that doesn't make it honorable. Otherwise the word losses its meaning.

2 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Davos is a red onion now, sworn to Stannis, who the red woman says is the champion of the red god, but as I said above, red onions become blue onions, and in the end Davos will be a green onion because green onions are spring onions and characters who understand and adhere to the truth will survive to see the dawn.

I'm not going to touch the rainbow onion theory, but I do kind of get a kick out of the idea! haha

Edited by Mourning Star
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Sorry, I forgot to address the horse symbolism.

Jaime tells us Honor is a horse. From his perspective this is only a joke because he's still searching for what it means to be honorable, something he is discovering as his arc progresses. But GRRM is also giving you a key to unlock some of the symbolism he is using. Honor is a horse.

The Dothraki would not follow Drogo anymore because he could not ride his horse. He was a khal without a horse, which meant he was no true khal. While the Dothraki meant that literally, GRRM is using symbolism to make a point. A king without honor is no true king.

So when you read about the Last Hero and how his horse died, you can take it as a rather insignificant detail with no relevance to the story, or you can see that there is a point being made using the symbolism. The Last Hero lost his honor, but he found a way to do the right thing because he ended up a hero after all.

On the other hand there is Jaime's other horse, Glory. This represents a choice between honor and glory as a man can only ride one horse at a time; the same way the kingsguard cannot adhere to the conventional standard of conduct and do the right thing at the same time unless they are the same horse. This choice between glory and honor is reflected in the Night's Watch oath.

Ultimately, if you do the right thing, then you will win glory because doing the right thing is worthy of high renown, and that's what makes a hero. But you have to put the horse before the cart.

George uses horses constantly to hint or reveal something, usually about the rider, and it does not have to be for knights only... though in tourneys the rider + horse may be stand-ins for events and people or other characters alltogether. Gregor's black horny stallion that gets beheaded is an allusion to Robert and Ned - betting on the wrong horse, with Loras as a stand in knight on a horse bedecked with blue forget-me-nots (Lyanna).

The riders on "red stallions" die and should not be relied on: Drogo, Dontos (actually a chestnut horse, but bedecked in scarlet red on the name day tourney), ... I'll betcha that Glory is the red stallion of Jaime's two horses. Dany's Silver (like her hair) gives her "wings".

But also physical parallels: Creighton is near sighted on a horse with rheumy eyes (and a gelding ;)), Theon as Reek on a horse as wrecked as he is. Illifer's horse is half starving.

They pretty much function as avatars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

George uses horses constantly to hint or reveal something, usually about the rider, and it does not have to be for knights only... though in tourneys the rider + horse may be stand-ins for events and people or other characters alltogether. Gregor's black horny stallion that gets beheaded is an allusion to Robert and Ned - betting on the wrong horse, with Loras as a stand in knight on a horse bedecked with blue forget-me-nots (Lyanna).

The riders on "red stallions" die and should not be relied on: Drogo, Dontos (actually a chestnut horse, but bedecked in scarlet red on the name day tourney), ... I'll betcha that Glory is the red stallion of Jaime's two horses. Dany's Silver (like her hair) gives her "wings".

But also physical parallels: Creighton is near sighted on a horse with rheumy eyes (and a gelding ;)), Theon as Reek on a horse as wrecked as he is. Illifer's horse is half starving.

They pretty much function as avatars.

Before Reek, in Theons old life, he had another horse. And although idk Smilers color, he did go up in flames

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

But it's dishonorable in the eyes of the world, in the eyes of history, assuming Jon died along the way, or disinformation spreads which it does.

Yes, but only because the world has lost the true meaning of honor. That's the point. Doing the right thing cannot be dishonorable because that's the very definition of honor.

5 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

I agree, but theres an in between time when he ran away from Ygritte and his other companions which led to not just their deaths but hundreds of others at the hand of Stannis.

Mances war would be an invasion and bad but the plight of the Wildlings is depressing, waiting to get gobbled by the others isn't exactly good. So while I agree that when Jon was in command he acted with honor but when he was obeying commands it was questionable.

Well all this is quite early in Jon's development. Remember, Jon too begins the story believing that honor means adhering to the conventional standard, and honor is one of Jon's character goals. He accepts the conventional standard, which suggests bastards are dishonorable. He joined the Watch because he believed it was somewhere a bastard could rise to a place of honor. But he's always been selfless at his core, going back to the direwolf pups in Bran I, and he's always tried to do the right thing, even when it cost him personally, and that's the quality that makes him truly honorable, even before he joined the Watch.

6 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Ideally is a Sansa tale. 

Yes but according to Webster's definition that's still honorable. It's a paradox.

It's only paradoxical if you are a good man sworn to a bad cause. That's where the knight's dilemma arises. If the king has the quality of knowing and doing the right thing then the kingsguard can keep their vows without any contradiction.

6 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

It's all about the way you tilt your head

Yes, and Westeros has it's head tilted the wrong way. Like I said, this is the philosophical conflict at the core of the story.

6 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Ned, there's little to Robert that I'd call good or honorable.

I agree.

6 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

I don't recall any time in ASoIaF when it is used to mean objectively morally right as opposed to conventionally.

But it's the definition of the word. The problem is Westeros has forgotten what it truly means to be honorable.

6 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

Doing what is right can be dishonorable.

Not according to the definition of honor, which is the quality of knowing and doing what is morally right.

6 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

I think you are just inventing the concept of "true honor" here, and it doesn't really come from the text.

You can make up a definition for any concept, but I think your description here takes away from the point being made by the text.

True honor is not used in the text. I'm using that term to distinguish between what passes for honor in Westeros and what honor really is. I'm sure you'll agree there is a theme around honor in the books. Themes are where authors make their points. The point being made here is that honor has nothing to do with white cloaks or oaths or anything like that, it has to do with knowing and doing what is morally right.

6 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

Choosing between honor/duty and love, doesn't mean that honor just gets redefined to be whatever is right.

Honor does not need to be redefined to be whatever is right. Honor has a definition, you just need to apply it.

6 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

I don't think this even makes sense. 

Honor is a set of ways of behaving... conventional norms. Doing what is right might be following those norms most of the time but not always.

Again, you're seeing honor as adhering to the conventional standard, but it's the quality of knowing and doing what is morally right. That might be the same thing as the conventional standard in a fair and just society but not in Westeros.

6 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

He is presenting a dichotomy, a hard choice.

Yes it seems a hard choice, and we are meant to think about it. Love is the bane of honor and the death of duty, Aemon said. That did not sound right to Jon, yet he said nothing. It didn't sound right to Jon because it is not, as I explained above.

6 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

Right and honorable are not the same thing, that's my point.

It is dishonorable to change sides, it might be the right thing to do, but that doesn't make it honorable. Otherwise the word losses its meaning.

It might be dishonorable in the sense of the conventional standard, but if it's the right thing to do then it is honorable because that's the meaning of the word. The word has lost it's meaning in Westeros, that's GRRM's point.

6 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

I'm not going to touch the rainbow onion theory, but I do kind of get a kick out of the idea! haha

Well, why do you think he's the Onion Knight? Because he brought onions to Storm's End? The salted cod he brought would have served just as well to feed the starving garrison. GRRM chose to add onions and called Davos the Onion Knight. The onion is important. So it the red, blue, green symbolism running the story.

5 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

George uses horses constantly to hint or reveal something, usually about the rider, and it does not have to be for knights only... though in tourneys the rider + horse may be stand-ins for events and people or other characters alltogether. Gregor's black horny stallion that gets beheaded is an allusion to Robert and Ned - betting on the wrong horse, with Loras as a stand in knight on a horse bedecked with blue forget-me-nots (Lyanna).

The riders on "red stallions" die and should not be relied on: Drogo, Dontos (actually a chestnut horse, but bedecked in scarlet red on the name day tourney), ... I'll betcha that Glory is the red stallion of Jaime's two horses. Dany's Silver (like her hair) gives her "wings".

But also physical parallels: Creighton is near sighted on a horse with rheumy eyes (and a gelding ;)), Theon as Reek on a horse as wrecked as he is. Illifer's horse is half starving.

They pretty much function as avatars.

That may all be true, my point was simply about their use to symbolize honor, as demonstrated through Jaime, Drogo, and I believe the Last Hero too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

That may all be true, my point was simply about their use to symbolize honor, as demonstrated through Jaime, Drogo, and I believe the Last Hero too.

Yes, I understood your point. I was adding, expanding to your point.

Got a question though... what about Bran? He had a horse called Dancer. It died in the same fire as was Smiler. How do you fit that with your proposal?

Edited by sweetsunray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/17/2023 at 1:51 AM, Mourning Star said:

I think Stark blood and dragonblood may be the same thing, or spawned from the same thing at least, kingsblood.

"Because they're different," he insisted. "Like night and day, or ice and fire."
"If ice can burn," said Jojen in his solemn voice, "then love and hate can mate. Mountain or marsh, it makes no matter. The land is one."
"One," his sister agreed, "but over wrinkled."

Wrinkled like the ancient and the newborn.

No, I don't think it's the same thing... but the mix of greenseeing/skinchanger blood with dragonblood, like Bloodraven or Jon. So, Brandon of the Bloody Blade + a daughter of Dayne.

Kingsblood is of lesser importance. Even brigand's blood like Beric's can light up a common sword into flames.

Quote

"Pyp should learn to hold his tongue. I have heard the same from others. King's blood, to wake a dragon. Where Melisandre thinks to find a sleeping dragon, no one is quite sure. It's nonsense. Mance's blood is no more royal than mine own. He has never worn a crown nor sat a throne. He's a brigand, nothing more. There's no power in brigand's blood."

The raven looked up from the floor. "Blood," it screamed. (aFfC, Samwell I)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/17/2023 at 1:24 AM, Mourning Star said:

Maybe everything he says is not the whole truth. Maybe he is not who he appears to be.

When does the teaching begin? When does it end?

But we digress!

It doesn't matter. Syrio's lesson to Arya is still on point, and one that Brienne must learn, because at the start of her quest, she does not watch people's eyes the way Jaime or Sansa do (to read people) and "personal arms" mean nothing to her. 
 

Quote

 

"But you lied!"

"My words lied. My eyes and my arm shouted out the truth, but you were not seeing." (aGoT, Arya IV)

 

Quote

Their names meant no more to her than did their arms. (aFfC, Brienne I)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/16/2023 at 3:42 PM, Jon Fossoway said:

 

I don't get these answers of yours, to be honest. I'll leave it to rest.

You claimed that the Faith is geared towards smallfolk for their everyday practical life. And make some unfounded claim that the tree religion is only for nobles, and imply that it's less practical for smallfolk.

My point is that the Faith of the Seven is an illusion that pretends to give smallfolk some practical solace to pray to ideas of a non existing god. And with that I imply it mostly benefits the nobility, because the smallfolk's prayers are in reality useless for the smallfolk themselves. By contrast the tree religion involves actual beings who can hear the prayers and if needs be can act to try and help, such as saving Gilly and her newborn babe from being killed and taken by wights.

Wax poetic about the Faith of the Seven as much as you want, but trying to frame it as "more practical for a commoner" against a practice of seeking help from individuals who actually can help and sometimes do help just doesn't add up.

The Seven is not a practical religion for smallfolk for everyday life whatsoever. The Seven don't exist and cannot help, nor does it include a guidebook that tells you what to eat, cook, dress, sleep, etc. All it can give is some feelings of imagined solace to keep them pacified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To return to the OP

What we see is that the stories of the heroes of old that end up being referred to as knights or have ser woven into their names are the idea that "knights = heroes". It's an ideal of going to extraordinarily lengths to save, help and protect others, at risk of their own life, name, status or reputation. "Any knight can make someone else a knight" then means that such heroes are more able to recognize another hero for being heroic. Arthur Dayne recognized the heroic in Jaime and knighted him. Beric recognizes common men going out of their way to help their fellow smallfolk against better armed armies raiding their villages and lands, and calls them heroic.

In contrast, we have the Faith of the Seven who anoint men (for money and to please a lord) and call them knights before they ever proved their heroism, and churning out so many of these that the honorific has become meaningless, because most are not heroes at all, but just licensed killers. Septons appropriated the exclusive right to license killers without them ever proving they are heroes or not. On top of that they created a justice system that relies on these non-heroic killers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...