Honour and duty: “words are wind!”

[kissdbyfire]

We have lots of vows in the story: the NW vows, the KG vows, vows of fealty, etc etc etc.

Where do you draw the line? How far do you go until you say, "nope, that's a bit much". And that's not even getting into the issue of good old common sense.

I love the passage below and you can never have too much Jaime - from ASoS, Jaime VIII

Ser Meryn got a stubborn look on his face. "Are you telling us not to obey the king?"

"The king is eight. Our first duty is to protect him, which includes protecting him from himself. Use that ugly thing you keep inside your helm. If Tommen wants you to saddle his horse, obey him. If he tells you to kill his horse, come to me." 

 

What do these vows really mean? Especially, what do the vows mean if not backed up by matching actions? Absolutely nothing in my opinion. Sometimes a vow can be a coward's easy way out of doing the right thing. On the other hand, the lack of a vow of some sort does not mean that a person can't act honourably and do the right thing. 

Another interesting bit of trivia, this time not in the text, is Anne Groell, (one of) Martin's editor(s) saying she suggested removing some of the numerous "words are wind" and that Martin said, "no". 

Then we have knights who are utter arseholes, like Trant and Blount, and others that were dutiful knights keen on doing their duty but in doing so didn't act very honourably. 

AFfC, Jaime II 

The sight had filled him with disquiet, reminding him of Aerys Targaryen and the way a burning would arouse him. A king has no secrets from his Kingsguard. Relations between Aerys and his queen had been strained during the last years of his reign. They slept apart and did their best to avoid each other during the waking hours. But whenever Aerys gave a man to the flames, Queen Rhaella would have a visitor in the night. The day he burned his mace-and-dagger Hand, Jaime and Jon Darry had stood at guard outside her bedchamber whilst the king took his pleasure. "You're hurting me," they had heard Rhaella cry through the oaken door. "You're hurting me." In some queer way, that had been worse than Lord Chelsted's screaming. "We are sworn to protect her as well," Jaime had finally been driven to say. "We are," Darry allowed, "but not from him." 

Jaime had only seen Rhaella once after that, the morning of the day she left for Dragonstone. The queen had been cloaked and hooded as she climbed inside the royal wheelhouse that would take her down Aegon's High Hill to the waiting ship, but he heard her maids whispering after she was gone. They said the queen looked as if some beast had savaged her, clawing at her thighs and chewing on her breasts. A crowned beast, Jaime knew.

Darry did his duty, but did he act honourably?

Let’s compare Darry to Dunk.

THK

The Hedge Knight 

One man-at-arms was dangling the puppets of Florian and Jonquil from his hands as another set them afire with a torch. Three more men were opening chests, spilling more puppets on the ground and stamping on them. The dragon puppet was scattered all about them, a broken wing here, its head there, its tail in three pieces. And in the midst of it all stood Prince Aerion, resplendent in a red velvet doublet with long dagged sleeves, twisting Tanselle's arm in both hands. She was on her knees, pleading with him. Aerion ignored her. He forced open her hand and seized one of her fingers. Dunk stood there stupidly, not quite believing what he saw. Then he heard a crack, and Tanselle screamed. 

One of Aerion's men tried to grab him, and went flying. Three long strides, then Dunk grabbed the prince's shoulder and wrenched him around hard. His sword and dagger were forgotten, along with everything the old man had ever taught him. His fist knocked Aerion off his feet, and the toe of his boot slammed into the prince's belly. When Aerion went for his knife, Dunk stepped on his wrist and then kicked him again, right in the mouth. He might have kicked him to death right then and there, but the princeling's men swarmed over him. He had a man on each arm and another pounding him across the back. No sooner had he wrestled free of one than two more were on him.

 

Now that's honourable. Dunk defends Tanselle against Prince Aerion. He risks his life because it was the right thing, and the honourable thing to do. 

Similarly, Brienne takes after her ancestor. 

AFfC, Brienne VII

“Brienne sucked in her breath and drew Oathkeeper. Too many, she thought, with a start of fear, they are too many. “Gendry,” she said in a low voice, “you’ll want a sword, and armor. These are not your friends. They’re no one’s friends.”

“What are you talking about?” The boy came and stood beside her, his hammer in his hand.

Lightning cracked to the south as the riders swung down off their horses. For half a heartbeat darkness turned to day. An axe gleamed silvery blue, light shimmered off mail and plate, and beneath the dark hood of the lead rider Brienne glimpsed an iron snout and rows of steel teeth, snarling.

Gendry saw it too. “Him.”

“Not him. His helm.” Brienne tried to keep the fear from her voice, but her mouth was dry as dust. She had a pretty good notion who wore the Hound’s helm. The children, she thought.”

“The door to the inn banged open. Willow stepped out into the rain, a crossbow in her hands. The girl was shouting at the riders, but a clap of thunder rolled across the yard, drowning out her words. As it faded, Brienne heard the man in the Hound’s helm say, “Loose a quarrel at me and I’ll shove that crossbow up your cunt and fuck you with it. Then I’ll pop your fucking eyes out and make you eat them.” The fury in the man’s voice drove Willow back a step, trembling.

Seven, Brienne thought again, despairing. She had no chance against seven, she knew. No chance, and no choice.

She stepped out into the rain, Oathkeeper in hand. “Leave her be. If you want to rape someone, try me.”

Isn't it interesting that the two truest knights we have in the story didn’t swear any knightly vows? 

Words are wind indeed. 
 

And this also connects to the NW, the Wall, and the vows the black brothers take. The Wall won't fail because of anything Jon did or didn't do, it won't fail because there are too few "proper" nightswatchmen who have said the "proper" vows. It's just the opposite. The Wall will fail - and I don't necessarily mean fall - because of the decisions of the proper crows, who have sworn their proper vows. Because none of that matters, what matters is doing the right thing - not the easy or dutiful thing - at the right time.
What matters is doing the honourable thing, even if it goes against one’s duty. 

TLDR; As the excellent Ms. Maddow says, “watch what they do, not what they say”. 

Edited September 30, 2023 by kissdbyfire

[Groo]

Interesting discussion but you seem to be making a morality argument rather than an analysis of vows. Different vows can and do come into conflict. At some point, there has to be precedence or hierarchy to the vows. Following the precedence isn't a violation of the vows and doesn't mean the vows were empty words. Using your first example, the Kingsguard vows to obey the king come before their vow to protect the queen. You're taking the moral stance that protecting the queen should have come first in this instance. Your essentially putting morality ahead of vows, which is all well and good, but it doesn't mean vows are simply empty and meaningless.

You've also set the bar as high as it could possibly go. Your Brienne and Dunk examples are people knowingly and willingly sacrificing their selves for others. If that's your standard, then any vow is automatically meaningless. The ultimate action matters and any words before that are meaningless. But vows don't have to be so supremely dramatic. If a brother of the Night's Watch is cold, miserable, and missing family but stays because he vowed not to desert his post, does that not count? Isn't he keeping his vow even though it's hard?

[LongRider]

Vows can also have different interpretations at different times and for different people.   When Jon Snow first made his vow to 'protect the realms' of men, he did not include the wildings in that vow.  That changed over time as spent time with the wildings and developed relationships with some of them.   He realized that saving them from the Others was not only the right thing to do but could reduce the possibility of creating more of the wights. 

[kissdbyfire]

3 hours ago, Groo said:

Interesting discussion but you seem to be making a morality argument rather than an analysis of vows. Different vows can and do come into conflict.
 

Indeed, vows can and do come into conflict. As Jaime - again - tells us back in ACoK:

“How can you still count yourself a knight, when you have forsaken every vow you ever swore?”
Jaime reached for the flagon to refill his cup. “So many vows . . .  they make you swear and swear. Defend the king. Obey the king. Keep his secrets. Do his bidding. Your life for his. But obey your father. Love your sister. Protect the innocent. Defend the weak. Respect the gods. Obey the laws. It’s too much. No matter what you do, you’re forsaking one vow or the other.” He took a healthy swallow of wine and closed his eyes for an instant, leaning his head back against the patch of nitre on the wall. “I was the youngest man ever to wear the white cloak.”
“And the youngest to betray all it stood for, Kingslayer.”

But I’m not really talking about vows here… or at least not necessarily or exclusively. I am talking in a more general sense, about right and wrong in the strictest sense. The right to do isn’t necessarily one’s duty; in some cases it might be the opposite even, like when the KG stand there and allow a mad and cruel man do what he does to his wife. 

3 hours ago, Groo said:

At some point, there has to be precedence or hierarchy to the vows. Following the precedence isn't a violation of the vows and doesn't mean the vows were empty words. Using your first example, the Kingsguard vows to obey the king come before their vow to protect the queen. You're taking the moral stance that protecting the queen should have come first in this instance. Your essentially putting morality ahead of vows, which is all well and good, but it doesn't mean vows are simply empty and meaningless.

No, I’m not saying vows are empty and meaningless. I’m saying that when a vow makes you do - or don’t do - what you know it’s the right thing, there’s a problem. Because you either stick to your vow or you do - or don’t do - the right thing. That’s why I’m saying being honourable and being dutiful are different things. 
In the example you mentioned, the KG were dutiful, but not honourable. In my mind this isn’t even up for debate. 
 

3 hours ago, Groo said:

You've also set the bar as high as it could possibly go. Your Brienne and Dunk examples are people knowingly and willingly sacrificing their selves for others. If that's your standard, then any vow is automatically meaningless. The ultimate action matters and any words before that are meaningless. But vows don't have to be so supremely dramatic. If a brother of the Night's Watch is cold, miserable, and missing family but stays because he vowed not to desert his post, does that not count? Isn't he keeping his vow even though it's hard?

Again, I’m not really talking just about vows, it’s broader than that. As to Brienne and Dunk, yes, it’s a high bar, and on purpose. As I wrote in the OP, how very much like Martin to make the two truest knights to be no “proper” knights. 
On the bolded, it’s also not about being easy or hard. But of course it counts, and of course he is keeping his vows. 
The situations I was thinking about are more about choices though. When faced with a decision, should characters stick to their duties even if it’s the wrong thing to do? 
 

2 hours ago, LongRider said:

Vows can also have different interpretations at different times and for different people.   When Jon Snow first made his vow to 'protect the realms' of men, he did not include the wildings in that vow.  That changed over time as spent time with the wildings and developed relationships with some of them.   He realized that saving them from the Others was not only the right thing to do but could reduce the possibility of creating more of the wights. 

Agree. And it makes sense that people who are willing to do the right thing no matter how hard or that it goes against a vow or whatever are usually people who evolve and grow and learn. Not all characters are like that. 

[Lord Varys]

The question there is wrongly asked. George likes to put characters into conundrums. That is a pattern in many of his stories. But he doesn't care about 'honor' or 'duty' as concepts, especially not the silly pretensions of aristocratic pricks. It is about what people want to do, what they think they should do in a complicated situation. That is why we get evidence that quite a few of archmaesters have secret lovers, why Barristan loved Ashara from afar, etc.

The idea that the Rhaella example is about vows is nonsense. Lannister and Darry talk about a moral problem in such terms ... but their problem isn't a Kingsguard problem but a subject problem in general. No servant or bannermen or man-at-arms of the king could intervene in the royal marriage. Even less so as marital rape in general isn't a thing in this world. Even with Ramsay's perversions in ADwD we are not told that Ramsay cannot do this as 'Arya's' lord husband but that he better should not because 'Arya' has supporters among the Northmen at Winterfell. If Ned were pulling an Aerys on Cat then Jory Cassel could also not slay Ned and assume the world he lives in would applaud him as a hero.

And, as unusual, one has to point out that a pervert who swears vows of chastity to be able to fuck his sister some more is a poisoned source on vows and honor and duty in any case. Jaime Lannister never believed in anything but Cersei's cunt, and his desire to be a great knight is part of his narcissism, his conviction (or delusion) that he has no equal - which is something his pretentious father likely instilled in him as well as the lickspittles he grew up with who sucked up to the heir of Casterly Rock.

Nobody ever had Jaime to swear vows and vows. He wanted to be knight and he wanted to be a Kingsguard fuck Cersei. He volunteered to be the Mad King's bodyguard at the time of Harrenhal. When the king he wanted to obey and protect and serve in all things was already a lunatic with cruel tendencies for all the world to see. He is a guy deciding to be at the side of a mass murderer knowing he is a mass murderer. He has no excuse for Aerys being what he is. He wasn't tricked or led astray.

The society Jaime lives in never put restraints on him. It is his perverted desire and his arrogance which cause problems for him. Others may suffer in this world because of the world's laws and customs, but not Jaime. He just reaped what he sowed, got what he chose.

Okay, if we are willing to say that more liberal takes on incest would be great then, yeah, that would have helped Jaime a lot. Had he been able to marry Cersei when he was fifteen rather than concluding he had to swear false vows of chastity to be close to her his life - and Cersei's - would have been much better.

But that is not a take many people are willing to take. Cowards.

[Takiedevushkikakzvezdy]

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Barristan loved Ashara from afar, etc.

Judging by that passage in Dance, it seems like Barristan was ready to break his vows and have a secret affair with her had she accepted him.

[Lord Varys]

15 minutes ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

Judging by that passage in Dance, it seems like Barristan was ready to break his vows and have a secret affair with her had she accepted him.

But he never made an approach, never made a real attempt to make her notice him. That is, I think, what loving somebody from afar means. If she had noticed him and had approached him he'd have likely given in.

[Groo]

12 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

As to Brienne and Dunk, yes, it’s a high bar, and on purpose. As I wrote in the OP, how very much like Martin to make the two truest knights to be no “proper” knights.

Slight tangent but this made me consider who in the main story I actually think of as a knight. The vast majority of official knights only really register in my mind as fighters. I don't mean that as some sort of social or philosophical statement about the institution of knighthood. I just mean, as a reader, for which characters does the word "knight" come to mind when I think of that character. Brienne obviously tops the list. The other two, for me, are Barristan and Sandor. Granted, Sandor might be an odd choice, but I always think of him as the angry tormented knight. I suppose some might put Jaime on the list but there's way too much other stuff going on with him for me to think of him as a "knight".

[BalerionTheCat]

17 hours ago, Groo said:

Interesting discussion but you seem to be making a morality argument rather than an analysis of vows

I don't care a dime for vows. Only for morality of actions. Something more difficult. Rarely in your own advantage. Sometime difficult to weight the long term consequences. Much harder!

Some vows are just lies. Given for glory and pride. Such as most knights. Glorified shit. Sandor: "I am no knight. I spit on them and their vows. My brother is a knight".

Other vows are put in the wrong places. Most kings have been fools and worse. Oaths given to them did as much harm.

Other wows are given under threat of death. Some lords, knights, soldiers, losing at the game of Power. And exchanging a death sentence by serving for life in the Night Watch: fine. Same for true criminals. But for others, the NW is a shame, a travesty of justice. Or an abuse of unwary, vulnerable boys. Only slaves serve until their death, are killed if they escape.

Whatever the case, you don't need oaths to do the moral things. Vows are for glory and escaping your responsibility. I'm having difficulty to see what good they ever did.

Edited September 30, 2023 by BalerionTheCat

[kissdbyfire]

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The question there is wrongly asked.
 

That is your opinion and you’re entitled to it. I’d argue though that it is just a question, and a question I asked precisely the way I wanted to ask. There’s no right or wrong here, just different questions, and if you want to ask a different question, go right ahead and ask it. 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

George likes to put characters into conundrums. That is a pattern in many of his stories. But he doesn't care about 'honor' or 'duty' as concepts, especially not the silly pretensions of aristocratic pricks. It is about what people want to do, what they think they should do in a complicated situation. That is why we get evidence that quite a few of archmaesters have secret lovers, why Barristan loved Ashara from afar, etc.

Yes, Martin puts characters in difficult situations all the time, and that is precisely the point of this discussion. And it’s ludicrous for you to say “he doesn’t care about honour or duty” because putting characters in these difficult situations is exactly about that. And he uses these words all the time to illustrate the different situations characters are put in. And the characters themselves use them all the time as well, in speech and in their thoughts. Like Barristan, who knows deep down he’s acted dishonourably but soothes himself by thinking he’s done his duty. 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The idea that the Rhaella example is about vows is nonsense. Lannister and Darry talk about a moral problem in such terms ... but their problem isn't a Kingsguard problem but a subject problem in general. No servant or bannermen or man-at-arms of the king could intervene in the royal marriage. Even less so as marital rape in general isn't a thing in this world.

It is very much about vows, just read the text. It’s about words [that are wind] being a big part of maintaining the status quo. 

 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Even with Ramsay's perversions in ADwD we are not told that Ramsay cannot do this as 'Arya's' lord husband but that he better should not because 'Arya' has supporters among the Northmen at Winterfell. If Ned were pulling an Aerys on Cat then Jory Cassel could also not slay Ned and assume the world he lives in would applaud him as a hero.

Well, that depends on whether he acted honourably or dutifully. If he were to act honourably he’d go in and chop Ned’s head off. I would applaud. 
If these empty words are never questioned or challenged, humanity is doomed. 
But the discussion is broader, it’s not just about vows but right and wrong. 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And, as unusual, one has to point out that a pervert who swears vows of chastity to be able to fuck his sister some more is a poisoned source on vows and honor and duty in any case. Jaime Lannister never believed in anything but Cersei's cunt, and his desire to be a great knight is part of his narcissism, his conviction (or delusion) that he has no equal - which is something his pretentious father likely instilled in him as well as the lickspittles he grew up with who sucked up to the heir of Casterly Rock.

Nobody ever had Jaime to swear vows and vows. He wanted to be knight and he wanted to be a Kingsguard fuck Cersei. He volunteered to be the Mad King's bodyguard at the time of Harrenhal. When the king he wanted to obey and protect and serve in all things was already a lunatic with cruel tendencies for all the world to see. He is a guy deciding to be at the side of a mass murderer knowing he is a mass murderer. He has no excuse for Aerys being what he is. He wasn't tricked or led astray.

I don’t think this analysis of yours is a good one. Yes, Jaime joined the KG to be near Cersei, but at Harrenhal he wasn’t yet aware of what Aerys truly was, among other things.

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The society Jaime lives in never put restraints on him. It is his perverted desire and his arrogance which cause problems for him. Others may suffer in this world because of the world's laws and customs, but not Jaime. He just reaped what he sowed, got what he chose.

Okay, if we are willing to say that more liberal takes on incest would be great then, yeah, that would have helped Jaime a lot. Had he been able to marry Cersei when he was fifteen rather than concluding he had to swear false vows of chastity to be close to her his life - and Cersei's - would have been much better.

But that is not a take many people are willing to take. Cowards.

I’m not even sure what you’re trying to address here. 

[kissdbyfire]

52 minutes ago, Groo said:

Slight tangent but this made me consider who in the main story I actually think of as a knight. The vast majority of official knights only really register in my mind as fighters. I don't mean that as some sort of social or philosophical statement about the institution of knighthood. I just mean, as a reader, for which characters does the word "knight" come to mind when I think of that character. Brienne obviously tops the list. The other two, for me, are Barristan and Sandor. Granted, Sandor might be an odd choice, but I always think of him as the angry tormented knight. I suppose some might put Jaime on the list but there's way too much other stuff going on with him for me to think of him as a "knight".

I think Sandor is a much truer knight than Barristan actually. I know you are not talking about the philosophical and social aspects of knighthood, and perhaps I am. But even though I like the character, I have many issues w/ Barristan’s actions and behaviour. I think in a way he embodies the worst of typical knighthood because he will - or would, since he seems to be more aware of these issues now - do his duty no matter how vile. In that sense, he’s the worst of all.

[Takiedevushkikakzvezdy]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

If she had noticed him and had approached him he'd have likely given in.

That dynamic would have been quite interesting, even more so given that Arthur Dayne was Barristan’s sworn brother.

[Odej]

20 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

I think Sandor is a much truer knight than Barristan actually.

Why?

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

That is your opinion and you’re entitled to it. I’d argue though that it is just a question, and a question I asked precisely the way I wanted to ask. There’s no right or wrong here, just different questions, and if you want to ask a different question, go right ahead and ask it. 

Honor is an aristocratic value. If I save you from being raped by your husband I do not act 'honorably' but in accordance with the civic values and customs of our society. Which aren't aristocratic nonsense - unlike the concept of 'honor' we hear people prattle on about in those books.

In that sense I think your dichotomy between 'honor' and 'duty' is wrong. Acting 'honorably' in this world is about keeping your aristocratic face - because only aristocrats - which all knights are by virtue of their title - do have honor. Only they have a self-image that is shaped by certain values which they have to espouse and publicly display.

When Barristan feels he dishonored himself he notices a clash between outward behavior and inner values. But killing or disobeying his king would have destroyed his honor not just inwardly but outwardly, too - as it happened with Jaime.

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

Yes, Martin puts characters in difficult situations all the time, and that is precisely the point of this discussion. And it’s ludicrous for you to say “he doesn’t care about honour or duty” because putting characters in these difficult situations is exactly about that. And he uses these words all the time to illustrate the different situations characters are put in. And the characters themselves use them all the time as well, in speech and in their thoughts. Like Barristan, who knows deep down he’s acted dishonourably but soothes himself by thinking he’s done his duty. 

No, it isn't just about that, it is about different values, different aspirations, not the concepts specifically. They are just one expression of the conundrum. And duty can be the good part there - there are good duties in this world, too, duties only assholes shy away from. Like Robert, say, whose duty was to his wife, his children, and his kingdom - and he botched all three of them.

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

It is very much about vows, just read the text. It’s about words [that are wind] being a big part of maintaining the status quo. 

It is just a special case of a very special man-at-arms thinking they are very special complaining about that special relationship. The second man-at-arms to the right would suffer exactly the same problem without any special vows, etc. ... because they are all beholden to the king. This would also extend to a great lord or even a prince witnessing this. Rhaegar, say, would also be a bloody traitor if he struck his father or killed him over this thing.

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

Well, that depends on whether he acted honourably or dutifully. If he were to act honourably he’d go in and chop Ned’s head off. I would applaud. 
If these empty words are never questioned or challenged, humanity is doomed. 
But the discussion is broader, it’s not just about vows but right and wrong.

Of course, in our society I'd applaud, too. But the point of the story, here, is that the characters are conflicted, and within their moral framework and set of values there is just no easy answer to any of that. To pretend that there is is taking away complexity from the issue.

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

I don’t think this analysis of yours is a good one. Yes, Jaime joined the KG to be near Cersei, but at Harrenhal he wasn’t yet aware of what Aerys truly was, among other things.

That is just ludicrous - Jaime actually did only swear his vows at Harrenhal after he had seen this king of his. Vows are only vows when they are sworn, they are not vows when you say you are going to swear them in the future.

But more importantly - Jaime is the Hand's own son! The notion he had no clue that the guy he was wishing to serve in falsely sworn to get close to Cersei's cunny (Jaime's vows are false from the start - he doesn't want to be chaste, so he is also never a proper KG and cannot tell a sane person he actually feels compelled or bound by those vows) is utter nonsense. Duskendale was years ago, and Aerys grew ever more paranoid after that. Tywin would have talked about that to Jaime and his other family directly as well as Jaime's many friends and buddies among the Westermen. Jaime would know about Ilyn Payne's tongue, etc.

The guy just deserves no mercy.

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

I’m not even sure what you’re trying to address here. 

The point is that Jaime's actual conflict is not vows and stuff - those are excuses. His problem - the problem that fucks up his life - is that he has a secret and forbidden romance and sexual relationship with his own twin sister that eats him up from the inside. He wants it to be out in the open, he wants to marry her and not just to fuck her when nobody is seeing them.

His problem is a very clichéd 'forbidden love' conflict, not a clash of various other values - because all those things mean nothing or very little to Jaime compared to Cersei's cunny. Thus his problem is the incest taboo in his world - which has literally nothing to do with vows.

Of course - his analysis is not completely wrong - but he himself is not a victim on all of that. Nobody ever forced him to be a Kingsguard. He chose that. So he can't complain about any conflicts between those vows. It might be different for men who joined the KG because they had little to no other career choice or joined under King X known as the Sane, never knowing they would eventually be beholden to King A the Mad or King C the Cruel.

57 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

I think Sandor is a much truer knight than Barristan actually.

LOL, what? The guy butchered an innocent boy because Cersei said so - and then he joked about it. He also fuels Joff's worst tendencies at Winterfell. The guy is scum, plain and simple.

He has an inner longing for knightly values and other fairy-tale nonsense ... but that got all twisted up. A person is not judged by their inner wishes but their actions in the real world. Saving a little girl you secretly or not-so-secretly lust after doesn't even remotely absolve you of murder.

Edited September 30, 2023 by Lord Varys

[Lord Varys]

32 minutes ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

That dynamic would have been quite interesting, even more so given that Arthur Dayne was Barristan’s sworn brother.

Yeah, thinking about that she would have likely had to really want Barristan to convince him. Making it very, very clear over a longer period of time. Because he would have really struggled to break those vows and he would have known there was no future for them, so him figuring in how Arthur would feel about things if/when their shame was discovered would also figure into his thinking, I imagine.

[BalerionTheCat]

2 hours ago, Odej said:

Why?

Barristan served Aerys, Robert and Joffrey, 3 awful kings. He did all they asked. And he is still proud of his job. Is he lobotomized? At least Sandor is rebelling against this system. He is no knight, but a better man.

[kissdbyfire]

1 hour ago, Odej said:

Why?

Poor choice of words on my part. But as Balerion says below, a much better man. 
Sandor went against specific orders from his king, and more than once. I wonder what Barristan would have done had he been ordered to strip Sansa and beat her. My guess is he would have done as the KG who did beat her, but “gently” - I think that was Balon Swann?

7 minutes ago, BalerionTheCat said:

Barristan served Aerys, Robert and Joffrey, 3 awful kings. He did all they asked. And he is still proud of his job. Is he lobotomized? At least Sandor is rebelling against this system. He is no knight, but a better man.

Agree.

Edited September 30, 2023 by kissdbyfire

[Takiedevushkikakzvezdy]

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

Sandor went against specific orders from his king, and more than once.

He did run over the butcher’s boy almost of his own free will, though.

Edited September 30, 2023 by Takiedevushkikakzvezdy

[kissdbyfire]

6 minutes ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

He did run over the butcher’s boy almost of his own free will, though.

He did. I’m not arguing he’s a perfect man who’d never do anything bad.
He’s a very flawed individual, same as Jaime. But he is willing to go against vows and rules and such. The better way to put it might be that he’s willing to go against the status quo, something others considered better than him and proper knights don’t have the stomach or the spine to do. And that makes him a much better man in my book. 

[Odej]

2 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Poor choice of words on my part. But as Balerion says below, a much better man. 
Sandor went against specific orders from his king, and more than once. I wonder what Barristan would have done had he been ordered to strip Sansa and beat her. My guess is he would have done as the KG who did beat her, but “gently” - I think that was Balon Swann?

Which orders did he refuse to obey? Joffrey never comanded Sandor to beat Sansa in public. He did beat her when Joffrey showed Sansa Ned's head.

 

 

Edited September 30, 2023 by Odej