The Kingsguard of Aerys: false knights

[Kittykatknits]

He wouldn't have hit her. Otherwise he would've hit her when the King asked him to. Instead, he did nothing and Dontos started throwing a melon at her, hoping that would be enough to please the King. Of course we don't know what would've happened if Joffrey asked the Hound again to hit her, but I'm quite convinced he would stand there and do nothing.

His first refusal makes him more honorable than the ones Aerys had for Kingsguard, in my eyes at least.

And, about Jaime, he was the only one who spoke up when Aerys was raping/hurting Rhaella. Seems to be he at least has some moral sense. Not much though, but still.. He was willing to give up his vows to defend the weak.

You are agreeing with me, right?

What always surprises me, in the TVseries, Lord Stark accuses Jaime of not acting while his father burned and his brother choked, while he talks very admirably of and to Ser Barristan. I don't know if this is exactly how it happens in the books, but it always surprised me. I mean, Ser Barristan did the same as Jaime Lannister, which is nothing.

The impression I got when Jaime talks to Catelyn at the end of Clash, Ned did not know the specifics of what happened to his father and brother. I don't think the show means much in this instance.

[E-Ro]

What always surprises me, in the TVseries, Lord Stark accuses Jaime of not acting while his father burned and his brother choked, while he talks very admirably of and to Ser Barristan. I don't know if this is exactly how it happens in the books, but it always surprised me. I mean, Ser Barristan did the same as Jaime Lannister, which is nothing.

This is interesting, I usually dont like to bring the show in when discussing the books, but in the books ned is very cordial and respectful of barristan I dont understand why.

[Lady Sansa Stark]

You are agreeing with me, right?

The impression I got when Jaime talks to Catelyn at the end of Clash, Ned did not know the specifics of what happened to his father and brother. I don't think the show means much in this instance.

Yes, I was agreeing with you. ^^

And, well, that's the disadvantage of mixing up the books and series. Sometimes I don't even know what's from the books and what's from the tv-series. I thought Ned knew what happened in the Throne Room with his father and brother and that that was part of his reason to hate Jaime Lannister that much. I thought the conversation between Ned Stark and Jaime Lannister in the throne room also took place in the books, but I guess I'm wrong then.

Nevertheless, Ned should know that the whole of the Kingsguard was there when his father and brother were murdered. Including Ser Barristan. I just don't understand his admiration of Barristan.

[Winter's Knight]

Who are the innocent victims then?

His wife and sister Rhaelia, his Hand that he burnt, Jon Arryn's nephews and the other men that accompanied Rickard and Brandon to KL. All these men were burnt alive.

[Kittykatknits]

This is interesting, I usually dont like to bring the show in when discussing the books, but in the books ned is very cordial and respectful of barristan I dont understand why.

Yes, I was agreeing with you. ^^

And, well, that's the disadvantage of mixing up the books and series. Sometimes I don't even know what's from the books and what's from the tv-series. I thought Ned knew what happened in the Throne Room with his father and brother and that that was part of his reason to hate Jaime Lannister that much. I thought the conversation between Ned Stark and Jaime Lannister in the throne room also took place in the books, but I guess I'm wrong then.

Nevertheless, Ned should know that the whole of the Kingsguard was there when his father and brother were murdered. Including Ser Barristan. I just don't understand his admiration of Barristan.

For the tv series, it was a way to show the animosity between the two characters as well as give some needed backstory. I wouldn't read more in to it than that.

To be perfectly honest, I don't know why anyone feels admiration towards Ser Barristan the Not So Bold.

[StannisBamfatheon]

He was not a stupid man. He knows the capacity at which the KG serves and knows that at least one of the them are with him every waking minute. They are privy to all.

He was a member of a revolting house and he went to answer for Brandon's crimes

Pshh come on, House Stark at large was not "revolting" in any capacity when Rickard was burned alive, he, like a leal subject rode to King's Landing to answer for his son's supposed crime and the King killed him with no justification. Like Bourne said if you don't believe that Rickard and the retainers that rode with him were innocent you need to read the books.

[Alester Florent]

Hmm. I can understand all the points raised above, but I think there's a bit of values dissonance between Westeros and modern society that makes the KG look worse to our eyes than they actually were/are.

As a society we have largely forgotten or downplayed honour as anything important, but in Westeros (and in our own Middle Ages) honour was considered very important. Likewise nobody swears oaths any more, and even giving your signature to a contract is seen by many as only a basis for negotiation, but in a feudal society, oaths are the building blocks of civilisation.

I think it's a mistake, then, to look at the KG entirely through a modern moral prism. To us it seems self-evident that their oath to protect the "poor and the weak" (not entirely sure how Rickard Stark or the Queen are considered to be poor or, in a general sense, weak, but still) overcomes their oath to protect the king, because we've been raised in democratic societies where the rights of the common man are sacrosanct. In Westeros, though, the position of king is all-important, because it's from him that all authority and power stems. We're looking at the king as a man wearing a crown, while (most of) the characters are looking at him as The King. There's a big difference.

It's kind of the same with the Red Wedding. By our standards it was a pretty cheap trick, but it's possible to argue it was in some sense justified. By the standards of Westeros, it was just about the most despicable and shocking crime possible. We have to take the latter into consideration, because it's the standard by which the perpetrator will be measuring himself.

Of course, we may (and probably do) consider that our moral standards are superior to those of Westeros/history, but to judge the characters operating under different standards by our own is to miss the point slightly. Those characters who operate under a more modern moral standard may appear more sympathetic but it doesn't necessarily make them right by the standard of the setting. It doesn't necessarily make them wrong either. There's a lot of grey area.

To go back to the Kingsguard, I think it's clear that the KG consider their oath to the king to be the most important oath they swear, and therefore they have to stick by that regardless of how they feel about it. That's pretty much the point in an oath, in fact. If you swear an oath with the proviso that you can disobey if you feel like it or if your judgment indicates otherwise under the circumstances or any other get-outs, that's not really an oath. Weaselling out of oaths is dishonourable, even if to us it might appear to be the right thing to do.

I also think it's relevant that we're seeing the whole thing through the eyes of Jaime, who's young and inexperienced and dealing with all this for the first time. (He also has an interest in justifying his actions to himself).The madness had been going on for a while: Jaime probably missed the meeting where the other KG expressed their concerns. The scene where Jaime asks whether they shouldn't intervene to stop him assaulting the queen - there's a lot there we don't see. There's no reason why the other KG shouldn't have been seething about the situation too - they didn't necessarily not want to intervene. They've just determined that to do so would be in breach of their oath.

Although it's on a slight tangent to what I've discussed above, I do also think that when we're judging the KG we should take into account the Rhaegar situation. It seems likely that Rhaegar would have - if he hadn't died - "done something" about the Aerys situation, probably by taking over as regent or the like, and under the circumstances it looks far from impossible that Gerold Hightower, Arthur Dayne and co would have supported him in this. It's just that that was their first opportunity to do anything about the situation without (outright) breaking their oaths.

[Maxpey]

I think the actions of the KG are a classic example of how the power of authority alone can cause otherwise "moral" people to permit horrible things to occur.

It appears that the system of government in Westeros is an autocratic monarchy, in that the King has unrestricted political power over the people and is not bound by any other law. It does not appear that the people of Westeros recognized that any kind of implied social contract between the King and his subjects existed, as in a traditional feudal society. Rather, it appears that a culture developed where all persons were expected to submit to authority without question. Within this culture, perhaps to compensate for the lack individual rights or liberties, the concept of honor became the highest virtue a person could attain. Honor was the foundation for the culture of knighthood, with the KG supposedly representing the most honorable knights in all of Westeros.

Since the members of the KG represented these two cultural foundations, it should not surprise us then that not only did they fail to intervene when Aerys, the authority in question, committed rape, torture and murder but they justify their inaction by claiming to do so would be dishonorable. Relying on "honor" to justify their inaction was nothing more than an excuse to assuage their own guilt.

In this sense, the KG (except for Ser Jaime "I have shit for honor" Lannister) really were false knights.

[mcb]

Yes, I was agreeing with you. ^^

And, well, that's the disadvantage of mixing up the books and series. Sometimes I don't even know what's from the books and what's from the tv-series. I thought Ned knew what happened in the Throne Room with his father and brother and that that was part of his reason to hate Jaime Lannister that much.

His contempt for Jaime wasn't that personal. As Jaime didn't tell a soul about Aerys' last stunt, everyone is left to his own conclusions. And let's see how it looks from Ned's POV: Tywin Lannister offered his assistance to the King, he entered the city with his army and sacked it, and also had Elia, Rhaenys and Aegon brutally murdered. Simultaneously, his son Jaime, a sworn knight of the Kingsguard, stabbed his King in the back. Yes, it does make him look like an immoral, opportunistic traitor and murderer.

Brandon's and Rickard's deaths don't even come into the picture. Ned despised Tywin just as much.

[butterbumps!]

Basically, given how very, very little we know, and given that we lack the cultural understanding that informs such subtle choices, I'm perfectly willing to go with Ned's assessment over anyone on this board's, even if he doesn't know the exact details either. His understanding of their situation is better than ours, and therefore his judgement is likely to be better than ours, even lacking precise details.

Oh yes, I definitely recognise it. It wouldn't be a hard decision, wouldn't weigh at Barristan and Jaime so, if they didn't recognise the value of natural moral 'right' and whether it might override 'vow 'right' ' to some extent.

I think it is pretty clear though that the point at which natural definitely trumps vow is different for them than it is for a modern audience.

I don't agree that Ned's understanding of the situation is better than ours, though. It seems that he didn't know about the threat of bombing KL, and it's murky as to whether he knew the precise details of the "trial." Yes, Ned probably has a better understanding of the Westerosi honor code than we do, but we also have significantly more factual information about what transpired than Ned does.

It would be more accurate to use the "Ned litmus test of honor" if he actually had access to the sort of observations the KG did during Aerys' reign. I understand why Ned is being used as a rubric by which to establish the cultural perception of "honor" in this context, but honestly, Ned does show that at certain times vows must be broken. He did rebel once Aerys called for his and Robert's heads. I understand that it was a matter of life versus certain death by keeping vows for him in particular, but he never thinks of Jon Arryn as dishonorable for not obeying Aerys' request to surrender him and Robert. For Ned particularly, I can see how his and Robert's Rebellion is not analogous to what the KG witnessed since it was an issue of their own lives in peril. But Jon Arryn was merely called upon to deliver Ned and Robert, and Arryn disobeyed this direct order, Ned continued to hold his honor in highest regard, and I think this shows that even Ned is not such a "strict constructionist" to the word of the law/ oaths.

My main issue in this debate is whether the KG's enabling atrocities can be considered "honorable" or "true." Fundamentally, I do not believe that even by Westerosi standards that one would call a knight "true" for standing by during sadistic rapes or that joke of a trial. There is a serious disconnect between what people know of these activities versus how they maintain a definition of honor. The issue is that most people do not have full knowledge of the circumstances between the conflict of vows/ morality that we do, and those that do know the true story express outrage, remorse and shame for those who stood by. This tells me that even within the construct of the story, characters do in fact believe that standing by was a dishonorable thing to do.

It is one thing to accept that most Westerosi hold the sanctity of a vow on par with "natural law," but I think we should explore the root of that sentiment further. By the KG renouncing all family ties and claims, it's supposed to reinforce the fact that the KG are no longer acting for themselves or their former loyalties; they are agents of the king exclusively. I think that the foundation of the "honor" in keeping a vow stems from the idea of avoiding a conflict of personal interest-- that there is honor in keeping a vow when one does not personally stand to gain from keeping that vow. I do not believe that the transcendence of the KG vow is to give the King carte blanche to be himself ignoble, but to ensure loyalty to the crown versus partisan gains.

Truly, I don't believe that the fundamental principle of being a "true" knight is superseded by a vow to protect the king in particular. The vow is predicated by the idea that the King's purpose is the protector of the realm, and that these knights have a special sanctity because their purpose is so great. The KG vow is not supposed to be in conflict with the fundamental knight's vow; when a king puts the KG in this position, the onus is on the King, not the KG. A king who breaks his contract is no longer protected by the vow of the KG, because the vow of the KG is not exclusively a bodyguard arrangement, but an extension of the "knight's vow" to protect the portector of the realm.

[Bourne]

And how is accepting a second non-conflicting vow breaching the first vow? Every knight with lands has that. One vow as a knight, another to the lord that is the source of his lands. That doesn't make them all automatically in breach of their vows.

Being forced to choose between obeying the king and defending the helpless is a conflict.

Jaime is (unfairly) despised for his vow-breaking.

Aerys has already broken his compact with the high lords, so Jon, Robert and Ned aren't breaking anything when they rebel.

Sandor didn't take vows (we assume) but they made him a KG anyway. He didn't take the knights vow, for certain, and I don;t see him taking the KG vow either.

Robb considered the King to have broken his side of the vow first, nullify his loyalty. And breaking his pact with the Freys is generally considered an unwise and dishonourable move by him.

So not a single one of your examples shows that keeping vows is not considered a high moral requirement, as high (possibly) as natural morals.

As I've said earlier, if the king broke his vows (as you said he did) his subjects no longer have to honor their own vows to him. That includes the Kingsguard.

Your argument lies in the fact that breaking a vow is just as bad as murder to a Westerosi. Obviously we know that in the real world this is objectively false. My examples do show the Westerosi are capable of weighing the value of breaking a vow against other actions. The opinion of the majority is irrellevant if they are wrong and are capable of being right. The Westerosi have proven to be capable of choosing right over wrong, regardless of social pressure.

[corbon]

His wife and sister Rhaelia, his Hand that he burnt, Jon Arryn's nephews and the other men that accompanied Rickard and Brandon to KL. All these men were burnt alive.

He was within his rights as a husband and King with Rhaella. Distasteful (very!) but within his legal rights.

The Hand is not innocent. He defied his King. Its flimsy, yes, but thats a man who took power and wealth from the King and failed to do his job. He is not 'an innocent', even if he is unfairly treated.

Brandon's companions are accomplices to Treason. They are far from innocent.

Look, Aerys was a nasty piece of work at the end, no disputing that. And he stretched, even broke, the law. But his victims (the ones we know about) are all players in the game, not innocents. I don't see where the Knight's oath to protect the weak and innocent comes in for them (expect perhaps Rhaella).

[corbon]

Being forced to choose between obeying the king and defending the helpless is a conflict.

Not inherently. Therefore it is not an inherent conflict between the vows.

As I've said earlier, if the king broke his vows (as you said he did) his subjects no longer have to honor their own vows to him. That includes the Kingsguard.

But he hasn't broken his contract with them, so they have no grounds to break contract with him.

Your argument lies in the fact that breaking a vow is just as bad as murder to a Westerosi.

No, it does not (necessarily), as I have already pointed out. Aerys' KG are not asked to choose between murder and breaking their vows.

My argument is that we don't know where the point of breaking their vow (and that not all vows have the same wieght/break point) is on the moral scale. It seems reasonable that Ned knows better than us where that point is, and he has the utmost respect for these men. So in his judgment, which is probably better than ours, what these men did for Aerys did not rate as badly as breaking their vow would have.

So who are we to judge that it was so bad that they should have broken their vows?

[Alester Florent]

A king who breaks his contract is no longer protected by the vow of the KG, because the vow of the KG is not exclusively a bodyguard arrangement, but an extension of the "knight's vow" to protect the portector of the realm.

This is a very good point, but it does raise a further question, viz: who decides when that contract is broken? That, I think, is the fundamental problem faced by a knight of the Kingsguard. Such an arrangement requires them to use their judgment to determine whether the king is acting within the bounds of this unwritten contract at all times and, if they determine it's been breached, it voids their other arrangement to protect him. In practice, very few knights of the Kingsguard would, I think, feel comfortable taking action against the king based solely on their own gut feeling of when the line has been crossed.

With Aerys, where the process is gradual, it's probably even harder to identify. At what point exactly did the Kingsguard decide that he'd gone too far: the atrocities by the end probably seemed logical extensions of "harsh but fair" actions earlier on. Having stood by an let those happen would make it more difficult to make a stand on a point of principle later on.

I took Gerold Hightower's line that "you swore an oath to protect the king, not to judge him" not as a reprimand as such, but more along the lines of: "I recognise and understand your concerns, but this isn't your job; focus on protecting him." As above, if you have each member of the KG making his own decisions about such things, it ends in disaster.

However, If we go with the narrative that the KG were about to side with Rhaegar to enact his "changes", it might even be that the visible horror of new member Jaime at what the king was doing and his questioning of it was the impetus for the rest of the KG to recognise that that line had been crossed and it was the time to take action. Unfortunately at that point there was a massive civil war and all involved parties were killed, so it wasn't really relevant any more.

[Jolene Brown]

All that Chelsted did was resign his office. Tywin resigned his office. Ned resigned his office when he was pissed at Robert. That is not justification for killing him, much less burning him alive.

Brandon's companion could be argued as accomplices to treason, but not their fathers, who did nothing more than obey Aerys's command to come to King's Landing.

As far as Ned's knowledge of Brandon and Rickard's deaths is concerned, the impression I got from Jaime's conversation with Catelyn is that Ned himself was well aware of the details but had chosen not to share them with Catelyn in order to spare her the full horror of what had happened. Another thing about that conversation that has always stood out to me it is Catelyn who says in response to the story "if you would have me believe that you slew him [Aerys] to avenge Brandon Stark..." prompting Jaime's "I made no such claim. The Starks were nothing to me," which I think was defensiveness on his part in reaction to her implication that it is not credible that he cared about Brandon Stark's death. In fact, once we get Jaime's POV, we see that he was very bothered by the death of the Starks, and I think at a subconscious level, it probably did play a part in his killing of Aerys.

[Bourne]

Not inherently. Therefore it is not an inherent conflict between the vows.

But he hasn't broken his contract with them, so they have no grounds to break contract with him.

No, it does not (necessarily), as I have already pointed out. Aerys' KG are not asked to choose between murder and breaking their vows.

My argument is that we don't know where the point of breaking their vow (and that not all vows have the same wieght/break point) is on the moral scale. It seems reasonable that Ned knows better than us where that point is, and he has the utmost respect for these men. So in his judgment, which is probably better than ours, what these men did for Aerys did not rate as badly as breaking their vow would have.

So who are we to judge that it was so bad that they should have broken their vows?

I believe Butterbumps did an excellent job of answering all these points in her last post.

[ZeDisDeaD]

If obedience is the key to our understanding of honour in this matter, then Unsullied are most honourable people in the world.

What i want to know is how they took their wows. I mean, if the king want you to be in his KG, do you have say in that matter? If so, i can say "they should have declined him", if not, then you can't blame them for doing their job.

Remember how Bold watched Daenerys before pledging his sword to her. Obviously he did learn his lesson.

For me they are just people, no more or no less. Just a bunch of guys for people to point their fingers and say "thats the good guys."

[barbandazi]

Maybe they didn't wished him to rule, but they took vows and it wouldn't have helped if they stood up. Aerys would immediately kill them and take others for Kingsguard. Nothing changed.

But you're right, that doesn't mean they are not a bunch of assholes. They should've protected Rhaella against the king and I can't stand they watched and stood by during the trial or Brandon and Rickard Stark. I know Ned Stark admires Ser Barristan a lot, but I just can't understand why everyone in Westeros deem Barristan and Dayne for example, that honorable or great knights. Yes, they were great knights in the sense that they were exceptionally skilled swordfighters, but apart from that, they were absolutely not knights.

Jaime Lannister did what was right. Maybe not in an honorable manner, but I absolutely don't blame him for killing Aerys. He should've done it earlier.

These men had real loyalty for the king, that's what was admirable, if you look at the other kingsguards later, full of snakes...

[butterbumps!]

This is a very good point, but it does raise a further question, viz: who decides when that contract is broken? That, I think, is the fundamental problem faced by a knight of the Kingsguard. Such an arrangement requires them to use their judgment to determine whether the king is acting within the bounds of this unwritten contract at all times and, if they determine it's been breached, it voids their other arrangement to protect him. In practice, very few knights of the Kingsguard would, I think, feel comfortable taking action against the king based solely on their own gut feeling of when the line has been crossed.

With Aerys, where the process is gradual, it's probably even harder to identify. At what point exactly did the Kingsguard decide that he'd gone too far: the atrocities by the end probably seemed logical extensions of "harsh but fair" actions earlier on. Having stood by an let those happen would make it more difficult to make a stand on a point of principle later on.

I took Gerold Hightower's line that "you swore an oath to protect the king, not to judge him" not as a reprimand as such, but more along the lines of: "I recognise and understand your concerns, but this isn't your job; focus on protecting him." As above, if you have each member of the KG making his own decisions about such things, it ends in disaster.

However, If we go with the narrative that the KG were about to side with Rhaegar to enact his "changes", it might even be that the visible horror of new member Jaime at what the king was doing and his questioning of it was the impetus for the rest of the KG to recognise that that line had been crossed and it was the time to take action. Unfortunately at that point there was a massive civil war and all involved parties were killed, so it wasn't really relevant any more.

I agree with your counterpoints to an extent. Earlier in the thread I was teasing out a reasonable demarcation where the line could be drawn, since there is a pretty clear slippery slope argument to be made, where the KG are no longer "knights" but would cross the lines into politicking.

I do think the "trial" is a fair line to draw. As you point out, Aerys' breaking of the social contract was gradual; I think the trial was a culmination of an increasing trend, of which the KG would be aware. I think the manner in which this act was carried out, especially given the KG's knowledge of Aerys' increasing proclivities, they could easily see that this was more than simple draconian sentencing. They have unlimited access to observing the King's behavior, and as such, they could see the trial not as a single isolated act, but the "piece de resistance" of Aerys' psychopathy. With that in mind, I think that the trial very much crossed the line, and serves as an incontestable breach of the King's contract to his people, based on the illegality of the trial, as well as the senseless torture on which he got off sexually.

I don't think that you can separate the notion of "king" from "protector of the realm" in terms of honoring the vow. The KG's sanctity derives from the idea that the king is a protector of sorts; if he is no longer a protector, then he is no longer the king, and I think your last paragraph gets to that-- how the KG were arranging with Rhaegar to depose Aerys. I think the fact that they were in negotiations with Rhaegar suggests that they did truly believe that their KG vow did not cover indiscriminate protection of a jerk (to put it mildly), and they were simply too late in coming to this realization. It doesn't mean that standing by previously was honorable; in fact, I think this points toward the dishonorable nature of doing so.

[Budj]

I think part of the KG plot purpose is to be a big neon flashing sign example of everything that is f'd up with the Westerosi honor system. I do not expect it to remain static by the story's end.