The Kingsguard of Aerys: false knights

[Bourne]

While everything you said is true. That is not the way the KG views a king. They swore in front of the eyes of their gods to protect that man and his heirs with their lives. He is for all intents and purposes the physical embodiment of their god from that point on, so there are no rules. Inherent or otherwise.

And that's exactly why the Kingsguard is an inherently dishonorable if not completely immoral organization. Taking a vow that takes away your moral agency is stupid. Upholding that vow when it enables the rape, torture and murder of innocents is immoral.

As Butterbumps said, we have first-hand accounts saying the KG knew what Aerys was doing was wrong. And yet they allowed it. It's less dishonorable to break a vow than to allow the deaths of innocents.

[Ser Dunc]

It's less dishonorable to break a vow than to allow the deaths of innocents.

I don't know of the deaths of any innocents.

[butterbumps!]

different cultures and even different societies within the same culture have differing codes of honor. Protecting the king is the most honorable thing a man can do in these peoples eyes.

So while no it would not be honorable in our eyes but them it is, which is one reason Ned Stark the most honorable man in the series believes that Selmy and Dayne were the most honorable men he knew.

How much does Ned actually know about the details that the KG were privy too, though?

I don't know of the deaths of any innocents.

Rickard did not march to KL and demand Rhaegar's head. He was "guilty" of being Brandon's father, but not of treason. He obediently went to KL in good faith to settle the unpleasantness.

[Bourne]

I don't know of the deaths of any innocents.

Then read the books.

[Ser Dunc]

How much does Ned actually know about the details that the KG were privy too, though?

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.

Rickard did not march to KL and demand Rhaegar's head. He was "guilty" of being Brandon's father, but not of treason. He obediently went to KL in good faith to settle the unpleasantness.

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

[Dacie]

Why should the 7 knights of the kingsguard be morally required to lay down their Vows, forsake their gods and lose their lives for a group of strangers who came into the King's house looking for a war?

Ok, so say there is justification for murdering the Starks and their companions (I don't personally believe this, but for the sake of this argument, I'll go with it). How do you justify what he did to his wife? Not only was she his wife, but his sister, and the mother of the future king. She was just as noble as he was. And yet when he was so turned on by burning someone alive he brutally raped her, they stood by and did nothing.

[Bourne]

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

Brandon was the only one revolting. I can understand someone defending the Kingsguard for not intervening, but the defense of Aerys i did not expect.

[Ser Dunc]

Brandon was the only one revolting. I can understand someone defending the Kingsguard for not intervening, but the defense of Aerys i did not expect.

I'm not defending Aerys I personally believe he deserved a slow grueling death. I am arguing with the same thoughts that must of been running through those 7 knights minds.

[Dacie]

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

House Stark was not in revolt. He was called to court to answer for his son's crimes, dutifully obeyed and was murdered. Ned, Jon Arryn, and Robert only called their banners after this.

[corbon]

But as a nobleman, Brandon had the right to a trial, even for an open-and-shut case. It's execution only for one actually found guilty, otherwise it's called murder. Nope, at no point was Aerys in the right.

Brandon got a trial. A trial by by combat, with Rickard as his champion. Aerys chose fire as his. Mad, cruel and dangerous. But illegal? Not as far as we can tell.

Cruel or not, Brandon killed himself. If he stood by as Rickard burned he would (theoretically) have been found guilty and died a clean death by beheading/execution. Of course, Aerys was probably mad enough to have messed that up illegally.

Note I am not in any way excusing Aerys. Just point out the facts. Aerys was mad, and cruel, but as far as we know not acting illegally here. So there really can't be any argument for the KG to be stopping. No innocents are as being harmed - Rickard is a trialist and Brandon is is guilty of teason and only harmed by his own actions.

Its still sick and nasty, but the KG are not there to judge Aerys, just to protect him.

Threatening the Crown Prince would be a crime, but so is kidnapping a nobleman's daughter.

We don't actually know a nobelman's daughter was kidnapped and as far as we know neither Brandon nor Rickard ever mentioned Lyanna. So whether she was kidnapped or not is not relevant to this discussion.

A vow means nothing compared to actual moral precepts.

Unless of course, one of your major moral precepts is the sanctity of a vow.

Yes, the KG didn't stop the Mad King. Nor his Hand, his Small Council, nor the commander of the Gold Cloaks, nor any else did. Everyone, the whole realm just waited and watched Aerys II descending deeper into madness: murdering Rickard and Brandon was its peak, not by any measure its beginning. There's an exchange in the show (not in the books): "NED: And you just stood and watched? JAIME: Lord Stark. The whole court just stood and watched."

Why didn't the white cloaks try to stop him? I'll ask a different question: why didn't anyone else, not charged with specific duty to protect the king, try to stop him?

Indeed.

The KG are no more culpable than any other.

And if their moral compass hold the sanctity of vows highly, then less culpable than any other, since they are sworn to protect the king and interfering with his direct orders is anti-protective as it will leads others to do so, with the end result being rebellion and a dead or deposed king, which is antithecal to their vows to prtoect him.

A fair point, however the King's guard are reknowned as the most honorable, righteous, and admirable knights within the Seven Kingdoms. They were thought of as heroes and paragons, and I'm asserting those descriptors are false considering their inability or unwilligness to act during the horrors of the mad king's late reign.

If you are between a rock and a hard place, you have to choose one or the other. They choose the rock. We think the hard place is the better moral choice. Ned, and others generally, seem to think that their choosing the rock did not affect their moral staus, which tells us that in their culture, even though we disagree, the rock was the moral choice, or at least not an immoral one.

That doesn't stop it being a hard choice with both choices being less than prefect though.

As Butterbumps said, we have first-hand accounts saying the KG knew what Aerys was doing was wrong. And yet they allowed it. It's less dishonorable to break a vow than to allow the deaths of innocents.

Well, we think so. Clearly Westerosi generally do not. Or at least believe that it is a close enough tie that it can go either way without saying anything too bad about the chooser.

[butterbumps!]

Right, but is there textual evidence that Ned knew precisely how everything transpired with his father/ brother and the full extent of Aerys' madness? The KG keeps the King's secrets, so I'm not sure how much depravity Ned was privy to being as how he was not part of the Kingsguard himself.

Just to clarity, the Starks hadn't actually revolted at that point-- they did not call their banners. Brandon marched to KL independently of the Stark household.

But I don't understand why you're concerned with the level of guilt of the people in question. Whatever it is that Rhaegar did with Lyanna is a justifiable complaint. Brandon had a right to petition the court on this matter, but he screwed up by directly threatening the person of the royal family. Aerys had to punish that simply because of the way Brandon went about it. Rickard, however, was not a traitor. He was still obeying his king by going to KL to "answer" for Brandon.

The issue that all of us are having is with HOW Aerys executes justice.

[Dareaper]

TL:DR (well just the firts page)

what some of you are forgetting is the time frame Ice and Fire takes place in. Before ww2 in our world people followed orders, millions of autrocities were commited for hundreds if not thousends of years in human civilization because people just followed orders.

These are knights, they take a vow to defend the king and follow his orders, no matter what. It is not there place to decide what is right and wrong, it is there place to do what they are told, give the king council, and guard his secrets. Even Barrister says so to danny. The point is, a knight is nothing more then a vessal to the king. the kings pawns. They do what they are told. And if they had killed Areys whos to say his son would not of stripped them and there families of all there lands and had them all put tot he sword? You need to look at this not from our prospective of morality but theres. Then you can see very easily that the KG are honorable in there own world

[corbon]

House Stark was not in revolt. He was called to court to answer for his son's crimes, dutifully obeyed and was murdered. Ned, Jon Arryn, and Robert only called their banners after this.

Actually, he failed in a trial by combat. Was Ser Vardis Egan murdered?

Yes, it was a rigged trial.

Yes it was wrong of Aerys.

But technically illegal? We don't know. Technically it was not a murder.

Jon Arryn rebelled when Aerys demanded Ned and Robert's heads. Without any trial or justfication. That would have been murder.

He did not rebel due to the death of Rickard and Brandon. Those were brutal and horrible and showcased Aerys' utter unfitness for rulership, but were not casus belli.

[Ser Dunc]

If you are between a rock and a hard place, you have to choose one or the other. They choose the rock. We think the hard place is the better moral choice. Ned, and others generally, seem to think that their choosing the rock did not affect their moral staus, which tells us that in their culture,

even though we disagree

, the rock was the moral choice, or at least not an immoral one.

That doesn't stop it being a hard choice with both choices being less than prefect though.

thank you

[Dacie]

Jon Arryn rebelled when Aerys demanded Ned and Robert's heads. Without any trial or justfication. That would have been murder.

He did not rebel due to the death of Rickard and Brandon. Those were brutal and horrible and showcased Aerys' utter unfitness for rulership, but were not casus belli.

Yes, I understand that's why rebelled. I was simply answering the post that in fact House Stark was not in revolt prior to Rickard heading to KL. I suppose I should've been more clear.

[Vympel]

Actually, he failed in a trial by combat. Was Ser Vardis Egan murdered?

Yes, it was a rigged trial.

Yes it was wrong of Aerys.

But technically illegal? We don't know. Technically it was not a murder.

Jon Arryn rebelled when Aerys demanded Ned and Robert's heads. Without any trial or justfication. That would have been murder.

He did not rebel due to the death of Rickard and Brandon. Those were brutal and horrible and showcased Aerys' utter unfitness for rulership, but were not casus belli.

The notion that "don't get burned to death" qualifies as a "trial by combat" is absolutely ludicrous, and any argument for the legality of Aerys' actions based on this sham reasoning deserves nothing but ridicule.

[butterbumps!]

Actually, he failed in a trial by combat. Was Ser Vardis Egan murdered?

Yes, it was a rigged trial.

Yes it was wrong of Aerys.

But technically illegal? We don't know. Technically it was not a murder.

Jon Arryn rebelled when Aerys demanded Ned and Robert's heads. Without any trial or justfication. That would have been murder.

He did not rebel due to the death of Rickard and Brandon. Those were brutal and horrible and showcased Aerys' utter unfitness for rulership, but were not casus belli.

I think I normally agree with you, but on this, I don't. There is a difference between an oath, legality and morality. Accounts of the KG from Jaime and Barristan's memory reveal that they know standing by was the wrong thing to do-- they express shame and remorse, so it's not really just our modern projections on this. I do not believe that the "trial" Aerys gave was legal given the fact that it was rigged, but I would say that the immorality of the way it was carried out transcends any question of legality anyway. The issue that is the most alarming is that the KG are privy to all of Aerys' actions, and the fact that he gets sublime enjoyment out of the suffering of others is what the KG ought to be concerned about, as it points to king who is not acting in good faith, breaking a social contract.

ETA: sorry- I quoted the wrong post of yours. I'm responding to your first one.

[Bourne]

I'm not defending Aerys I personally believe he deserved a slow grueling death. I am arguing with the same thoughts that must of been running through those 7 knights minds.

Except from Jaime and Barristan's PoV and Hightowers statement that "We swore to protect the king, not judge him" (implying he was doing things worth being judged), we know they weren't thinking what you've been arguing.

[Sandy Snow]

The notion that "don't get burned to death" qualifies as a "trial by combat" is absolutely ludicrous, and any argument for the legality of Aerys' actions based on this sham reasoning deserves nothing but ridicule.

This. While choosing fire as champion is somewhat dubious in itself, the fact that the oposing champion was dangled above it and securely bound makes the argumetn that it was a valid trial completely moot. It's like choosing trial by combat and cutting your opponents arms and legs off before you start.

IMO one of the major themes of the book is the sanctity of vows, and when / if it is morally acceptable to break your vow. In my eyes, their can be no doubt that their comes a time when the choice comes (as in Aerys' KG, and Jon Snows Watch vow) between following the word of the vow, or following the morally right course. Never easy, especially since the code of honour evident in Westeros inextricabley links vows with honour in the eyes of most. The KG followed the easy path, Jaime the hard path, broke his vow and killed the king. Arguments can be made for both as being correct courses of action, but Jaime definately did 'the right thing', to me anyway.

If Dayne was too proud / vain to tarnish his honour to do the right thing, he should have fallen on his own sword rather than turn a blind eye.

[corbon]

I think I normally agree with you, but on this, I don't. There is a difference between an oath, legality and morality. Accounts of the KG from Jaime and Barristan's memory reveal that they know standing by was the wrong thing to do-- they express shame and remorse, so it's not really just our modern projections on this. I do not believe that the "trial" Aerys gave was legal given the fact that it was rigged, but I would say that the immorality of the way it was carried out transcends any question of legality anyway. The issue that is the most alarming is that the KG are privy to all of Aerys' actions, and the fact that he gets sublime enjoyment out of the suffering of others is what the KG ought to be concerned about, as it points to king who is not acting in good faith, breaking a social contract.

ETA: sorry- I quoted the wrong post of yours. I'm responding to your first one.

I don't disagree with you on the moral stance, as we see it. Nor on the total immorality if Aerys choosing Fire. Thos parts were really about correcting a few innaccurate assertions from earlier posters.

My real point is that it is clear that the westerosi moral stance places the sanctity of a vow very highly, especially one that is probably given during a great ceremony before the gods and men.

Its easy enough for us to say "the true moral right over-rides the vow". However the evidence is that westerosi in general don't hold that to be true. They clearly hold that the vow is at least equal to the 'natural' moral right. Which means that when the natural moral right is in conflict with the vow, it does not necessarily superceed the vow. Its a bad place to be, a hard choice, with following both the natural moral 'right' and the vow 'right' being honourable, so failing either being a moral failure, or therefore following one strictly (different from blindly) not being a moral failure.

That's one of the major themes in the whole series, the human heart in conflict with itself - there is an equal but opposite requirement in the hearts of these men to follow the natural moral right and to follow their vows. So its a hard choice they have to make, and its all the harder because both are right in their morality.

We know this because Ned Stark believes these mean pinacles of honour, which means he cannot consider their actions to stand by and watch while guarding Aerys dishonourable. Which means that by the highest standards of Westerosi moral codes (given how highly honourable Ned is considered by all), they were not dishonourable.

It means they have to live with their choices. Their honour has a moral cost to their humanity.

I'm just glad not to be in such a position.