Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Hodor's Speechwriter

How can Jaime justify his kingslaying?

273 posts in this topic

More importantly why the fuck did he take credit.
*Ned rolls up to a dead Aerys and a deserted throne room*
Jamie shows up
Jamie:Shit...someone killed the king while I was off to kill my father as Aerys ordered.Darn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When he easily could've overpowered Aerys and left the killing to someone who wasn't sworn to protect him?

why is it important that he swore to protect him? is a vow more important than doing the right thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overpower him and then what? Within the city, there were still a few thousand swords nominally loyal to Aerys. Suppose a few of them stumbles into the throne room. Awkward...

 

I imagine it is possible to conceive a fail-proof scenario of neutralizing Aerys while keeping him alive. But I really wouldn't require a teenage Jaime Lannister to devise and execute one on the spot. And if the plan isn't completely guaranteed fail-proof, then "don't risk it, just kill the fucker" is the right thing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More importantly why the fuck did he take credit.
*Ned rolls up to a dead Aerys and a deserted throne room*
Jamie shows up
Jamie:Shit...someone killed the king while I was off to kill my father as Aerys ordered.Darn.

 

Actually Jaime intended to sneak off and let some patsy take the credit or blame for it, but Crakehall and some other Lannister man arrived just after, asking who he wanted to crown. At that point he couldn't deny the credit anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[email protected] Oathbreaking makes someone untrustworthy.

I disagree, I'd say not caring more about "honor" or "vows" than doing the right thing makes someone trustworthy because they're not listening to their empathy they're listening to society's rules that in many cases (especially in asoiaf) are morally wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[email protected] Oathbreaking makes someone untrustworthy.

 

Standing idly by while the King torches the capital with 500.000 people in it makes someone an idiot. 

 

Oaths and vows only go so far and didn't Jaime also swear an oath to protect the city/smallfolk/the innocent?

 

Which oath is he supposed to follow in that situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say there's no real excuse for what Jaime did as he did take the vows of the Kingsguard. I would however put the situation with Aerys as a mitigating circumstances, but since that never came up it would be unreasonable to hold it against those who hate Jaime that they don't take this into account. So essentially and while Jaime is my favorite character I think that he probably should have been punished in some way, although since Kingsguard vows are for life I'd say that it was either keep him or execute him, in which case keeping him was the only real option given the Lannister's position in the postwar order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say there's no real excuse for what Jaime did as he did take the vows of the Kingsguard. I would however put the situation with Aerys as a mitigating circumstances, but since that never came up it would be unreasonable to hold it against those who hate Jaime that they don't take this into account. So essentially and while Jaime is my favorite character I think that he probably should have been punished in some way, although since Kingsguard vows are for life I'd say that it was either keep him or execute him, in which case keeping him was the only real option given the Lannister's position in the postwar order.

 

He could have been sent to the Wall no?  I get that vow are for life, but let's say a KG gets crippled and cannot walk.  Can the King not replace that KG?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree, I'd say not caring more about "honor" or "vows" than doing the right thing makes someone trustworthy because they're not listening to their empathy they're listening to society's rules that in many cases (especially in asoiaf) are morally wrong.


Yes, exactly. Doing what you know to be morally right is far more important than blindly complying with an oath.

Also is that a picture of you hugging Alfie Allen? Cause that's adorable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, exactly. Doing what you know to be morally right is far more important than blindly complying with an oath.

 

:agree:  Hence the difference between actual honour (doing the right thing no matter how others might treat you for it) and "honour"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

He could have been sent to the Wall no?  I get that vow are for life, but let's say a KG gets crippled and cannot walk.  Can the King not replace that KG?

 

The Wall could potentially work, but in regards to a crippled Kingsguard, I would assume that they'll remain Kingsguard untill they actually die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The Wall could potentially work, but in regards to a crippled Kingsguard, I would assume that they'll remain Kingsguard untill they actually die.

 

But that's just ridiculous, why have basically one man less to defend the king because you cannot fire the guy who is incapable of fighting anymore?

 

Or do you mean he would keep that title as a honour but would be replaced on active duty by an additional King's Guard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But that's just ridiculous, why have basically one man less to defend the king because you cannot fire the guy who is incapable of fighting anymore?

 

Or do you mean he would keep that title as a honour but would be replaced on active duty by an additional King's Guard?

 

I didn't make the rules! I'm just saying that since the vows are for life and Barristan Selmy was apparently the first Kingsguard to be relieved of his duty, I take it that even if crippled the slot is held by the guy untill he dies. Maybe stupid but that's how I think the rules are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I didn't mean your statement was ridiculous, I meant the rule was ridiculous.

 

I really wish Westeros would stop with those stupid lifetime appointments/memberships. They never work out.

 

I mean: "Hmmmm my body guard has lost both his legs and one arm....he couldn't defend me from a seagull but it's tradition that I can't replace him" is just pure stupidity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 
But that's just ridiculous, why have basically one man less to defend the king because you cannot fire the guy who is incapable of fighting anymore?
 
Or do you mean he would keep that title as a honour but would be replaced on active duty by an additional King's Guard?


Knights other than the KG can defend the king, and do so regularly (e.g. when the KG have their meetings in the White Sword Tower).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

INCBlackbird Yes but it is still preferable for you to avoid the oathbreaking as far as possible, no? I am not saying that Jaime shouldn't have stopped Aerys but it is Always best to keep your wovs as intact as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites