How can Jaime justify his kingslaying?

[FacelessDude]

I remember this now that you mention it. She blames him for it while Jaime is back in King's Landing. This occurs after Jaime dons his white cloak again and becomes the Lord Commander of the the kingsguard.

 

I was scanning Jamie's wiki page (I read the wikis when I need to recall specific/minor conversations, events and/or details in this vast and epic series) and this occurs in KL somewhere near the middle of AFFC.

[King Ned Stark]

Lady Sharya, well said, couldn't have done better myself.

Mediterarrano, just my opinion, but I don't think one can evenly compare the rebels to that of Jaime Lannister. A king must uphold part of a bargain that grants him the right to rule, heavy lies the crown and what not. No ruler, can expect to start arbitrarily killing powerful men and not expect some form of rebellion. Jaime, to a lot of people, stood by and watched the atrocities and did nothing, until it was going to affect him and his family. This is moral cowardice, imho. Otherwise step up and be heard before it gets to that point, like when Ned challenged Robert and Tywin about the murder of children, or when he challenged Robert about murdering Dany (a child), or when he risked his life to let Cersei escape for the sake of the children.

Jaime conviently did nothing until his neck was on the line, and then refused to tell anyone about it. Ned explained himself about his fight with Jaime after the brothel, even though it was a fight he did not start.

[JaegrM]

Lady Sharya, well said, couldn't have done better myself.

Mediterarrano, just my opinion, but I don't think one can evenly compare the rebels to that of Jaime Lannister. A king must uphold part of a bargain that grants him the right to rule, heavy lies the crown and what not. No ruler, can expect to start arbitrarily killing powerful men and not expect some form of rebellion. Jaime, to a lot of people, stood by and watched the atrocities and did nothing, until it was going to affect him and his family. This is moral cowardice, imho. Otherwise step up and be heard before it gets to that point, like when Ned challenged Robert and Tywin about the murder of children, or when he challenged Robert about murdering Dany (a child), or when he risked his life to let Cersei escape for the sake of the children.

Jaime conviently did nothing until his neck was on the line, and then refused to tell anyone about it. Ned explained himself about his fight with Jaime after the brothel, even though it was a fight he did not start.

1) Ned's... defiance towards Robert, Tywin, Cersei,... I don't think he ever thought he was putting himself at risk. He honestly thought he had a shot at swaying them to his way of thinking. And the King was basically a best friend/brother to him.
Wheras Aerys was pretty famous for not standing for people disagreeing with him Jaime speaking up against him is tantamount to suicide. Jaime acted the only time he could make a difference. It's not that he was a coward, it just literally would have been pointless.
 

2)When Ned "explained" the fight outside the brothel, it was lies. He lied to his king and BFF in order to protect his wife. This is what I was talking about earlier, Ned had mitigating circumstances. I think Ned did "The right thing". But I also believe if Ned caught someone else lying to the king for the right reasons he'd think less of them. 

[Lady Sharya]

2)When Ned "explained" the fight outside the brothel, it was lies. He lied to his king and BFF in order to protect his wife. This is what I was talking about earlier, Ned had mitigating circumstances. I think Ned did "The right thing". But I also believe if Ned caught someone else lying to the king for the right reasons he'd think less of them.

Let me get this straight, you couldn't make a case for Ned being a hypocrite for the way he judged Jaime, so now you've moved on to make a case for Ned's hypocrisy for what you think he might do?...in a Jaime thread. Good luck with that.;)

[sweetsunray]

 

We as readers are able to see the big picture.
Ned and Jaime are not able to read the series.
While Ned technically may not have sworn any vows directly to Aerys, he is operating as the Warden of the North. The Lord of Winterfell. Positions which are granted via the Iron Throne.
Ned may very well not see himself as an oathbreaker... but what do you think the Iron Throne has said about his actions? 
Ned's conclusions that he draws about Jaime may seem perfectly logical to him, or anyone in Ned's position, but Ned makes zero effort to ascertain the truth.
Likewise, Ned doesn't explain how he's totally justified to act against Aerys to Jaime, leaving Jaime to believe Ned is a big hypocrite, which again is a logical conclusion.

 

What? The whole realm knows why Ned rebelled. The crown prince kidnaps his sister, the king burns his father, strangles his brother, and then demands for Ned's head who hadn't even done anything. He rebelled for his own effing life. Just in a mont or 2 months time, the almost complete Stark family was wiped out. The man lost his whole family, over nothing really, but oooh "he's such a hypocrite for not liking Jaime" who by all available evidence looks like he finally did something against  the king almost a year after, only when daddy came riding to town. Jaime's reputation is dented, while Ned lost everything.

 

It sure didn't help that Gregor and Amory butchered Elia and her children as well. That made it look completely as an organized Lannister butchery with Jaime being complicit of it.

[sweetsunray]

Ned judging without the evidence = prejudice, if you don't know, you don't judge. and either way he's still a hypocrite, he's fighting against the king himself for very good reasons, so why wouldn't jaime have good reasons to do the same thing? perhaps because he's not Ned and Ned is higher than everyone and so he's the only one who gets to break vows? he's the only one who ever has good enough reasons to do so?

 

There was evidence:

A frail, old king, dead at the base of the stairs.

Jaime in golden Lannister army on the throne

Elia raped and children butchered by Lannisters

Tywin sacking the city

And a year of doing nothing

 

Ned doesn't think he's higher than everyone else. But he actually fought for a whole year, and is the last Stark remaining - his sister kidnapped and later turning up dead, his father burned, his brother strangled, and if he hadn't rebelled without a head himself.

 

Where's your so often cited non-judgementalness and empathy when it comes to Ned? But no.... "Oooh, Ned judges Jaime in the face of the evidence that's there and poor poor Jaime's reputation is damaged. What an arrogant man!" You empathize over a man's loss and anguish over his reputation, but not a man who's entire family was wiped out for the king's giggles and nobody doing anything about it at the time, except himself?

[INCBlackbird]

 

There was evidence:

A frail, old king, dead at the base of the stairs.

Jaime in golden Lannister army on the throne

Elia raped and children butchered by Lannisters

Tywin sacking the city

And a year of doing nothing

 

Ned doesn't think he's higher than everyone else. But he actually fought for a whole year, and is the last Stark remaining - his sister kidnapped and later turning up dead, his father burned, his brother strangled, and if he hadn't rebelled without a head himself.

 

Where's your so often cited non-judgementalness and empathy when it comes to Ned? But no.... "Oooh, Ned judges Jaime in the face of the evidence that's there and poor poor Jaime's reputation is damaged. What an arrogant man!" You empathize over a man's loss and anguish over his reputation, but not a man who's entire family was wiped out for the king's giggles and nobody doing anything about it at the time, except himself?

Exactly, Ned prejudiced Jaime based on his father's actions while he knew good and well that aerys was mad, why did he shouldn't just persume that jaime had no good reason to kill Aerys when ned himself would have killed him for good reasons.

I'm not judging Ned, I think he had every right to fight aerys and I definitly feel for him when it comes to what happened to his family and that he had to be in a war so young. It's not about that, it's about the fact that I don't like prejudiced, hypocritical self-rightious people and Ned is one of them. We all like different characters due to our own values, experiences and personalities. can I not be sympathetic to a character I don't like? actually... I cried during his execution the first time because It's such a horrible way to die so certainly I had sympathy and empathy for him...
 

[VenezuelanLord]

Ned has right to have animosity towards Jaime, I can understand his set of mind, another user mentioned it, Ned possibly was thinking that Jaime saw Rickard and Brandon die accomplishing his duty, but killed Aerys the moment he threatened with killing his father... About the wildfire part, Jaime never said anything to anyone.. He decided to carry his cross.. Perhaps he would have gotten more sympathy if he bothered to explain rossart and Aerys plan... But empathy seeking is not for Jaime..

[sweetsunray]

Exactly, Ned prejudiced Jaime based on his father's actions while he knew good and well that aerys was mad, why did he shouldn't just persume that jaime had no good reason to kill Aerys when ned himself would have killed him for good reasons.

I'm not judging Ned, I think he had every right to fight aerys and I definitly feel for him when it comes to what happened to his family and that he had to be in a war so young. It's not about that, it's about the fact that I don't like prejudiced, hypocritical self-rightious people and Ned is one of them. We all like different characters due to our own values, experiences and personalities. can I not be sympathetic to a character I don't like? actually... I cried during his execution the first time because It's such a horrible way to die so certainly I had sympathy and empathy for him...
 

 

Because all the evidence is there that he was doing his father's bidding to slaughter the remaining royal family. Tywin's own bannermen believe it, why the hell should Ned believe otherwise? Ned knows nothing of wildfire plots - zilch, nada. He could assume Aerys' made some threats about Tywin in Jaime's face, but such a threat is pretty laughable - Aerys' body stinks of piss and shit out of fear, looks frail and old, real easy to kill, and Aerys had no Tywin bound to some device in a throne room for any such threat to be anyhting more than air.

 

All the evidence available for Ned doesn't make Ned a hypocrite, but Jaime as the hypocrite.

 

And actually Jaime's silence on the wildfire does pose a problem - the wildfire is still there, buried under the city, and only the pyromancers knowing of it, and Cersei colluding with them. Let's say a secret service bodyguard discovers the president has ordered all of Washington DC fundaments to be fitted with enough dynamite to blow the whole city up. The president's mind detoriates and he orders the head of secret service dynamite-team to blow the city up. The bodyguard kills the head of dynamite-team, then the president and hunts down the men of dynamite-team as far as he knows of them. But he never reveals the dynamite is still there. You would think he at least has a moral obligation to inform the services that can disarm the dynamite about it.

 

Ned is not a self-righteous, prejudiced man. He goes by the evidence he has. We also know that he is capable of listening to people's motivations and giving them an out too. He talked with Cersei didn't he. He could see Cersei had an unhappy marriage, and her tale confirmed that. He did not want to see her dead, nor her children, despite her demand for the execution of Lady. Jaime just felt it beneath him to explain his motives to a man who had fought a year and lost all his family. If Jaime had told Ned, Ned would have said, "Your oathbreaking was not without honor". He'd likely would still have advocated Jaime to be stripped of his white cloak, but actually may even support the reinstatement of Jaime as Tywin's heir.

 

If a murderer stands before a judge, after he was found on the scene, with the murder weapon in his hand and the murder victim found without any means of defense or threat at his feet and confirms the allegation that he is the murderer, but refuses to explain himself, then it's not the judge's fault he doesn't  think - oh, but there must have been mitigating circumstances, I'll pardon him. Sure, the accused has a choice to take the stand or not. But if there are mitigating circumstances and the murderer refuses point blank to inform anyone about it, all because of the "stern" look the judge gives him, well then that murderer is stupid, petty and shouldn't afterwards complain about the judge's verdict. 

 

And you do judge Ned - you judge him to be prejudiced, self-righteous and hypocritical, based on selective and skewed evidence, ignoring other evidence available to you to the contrary, and it makes you as prejudiced, self-righteous and hypocritical as you believe Ned to be.

[VenezuelanLord]

 
Because all the evidence is there that he was doing his father's bidding to slaughter the remaining royal family. Tywin's own bannermen believe it, why the hell should Ned believe otherwise? Ned knows nothing of wildfire plots - zilch, nada. He could assume Aerys' made some threats about Tywin in Jaime's face, but such a threat is pretty laughable - Aerys' body stinks of piss and shit out of fear, looks frail and old, real easy to kill, and Aerys had no Tywin bound to some device in a throne room for any such threat to be anyhting more than air.
 
All the evidence available for Ned doesn't make Ned a hypocrite, but Jaime as the hypocrite.
 
And actually Jaime's silence on the wildfire does pose a problem - the wildfire is still there, buried under the city, and only the pyromancers knowing of it, and Cersei colluding with them. Let's say a secret service bodyguard discovers the president has ordered all of Washington DC fundaments to be fitted with enough dynamite to blow the whole city up. The president's mind detoriates and he orders the head of secret service dynamite-team to blow the city up. The bodyguard kills the head of dynamite-team, then the president and hunts down the men of dynamite-team as far as he knows of them. But he never reveals the dynamite is still there. You would think he at least has a moral obligation to inform the services that can disarm the dynamite about it.
 
Ned is not a self-righteous, prejudiced man. He goes by the evidence he has. We also know that he is capable of listening to people's motivations and giving them an out too. He talked with Cersei didn't he. He could see Cersei had an unhappy marriage, and her tale confirmed that. He did not want to see her dead, nor her children, despite her demand for the execution of Lady. Jaime just felt it beneath him to explain his motives to a man who had fought a year and lost all his family. If Jaime had told Ned, Ned would have said, "Your oathbreaking was not without honor". He'd likely would still have advocated Jaime to be stripped of his white cloak, but actually may even support the reinstatement of Jaime as Tywin's heir.
 
If a murderer stands before a judge, after he was found on the scene, with the murder weapon in his hand and the murder victim found without any means of defense or threat at his feet and confirms the allegation that he is the murderer, but refuses to explain himself, then it's not the judge's fault he doesn't  think - oh, but there must have been mitigating circumstances, I'll pardon him. Sure, the accused has a choice to take the stand or not. But if there are mitigating circumstances and the murderer refuses point blank to inform anyone about it, all because of the "stern" look the judge gives him, well then that murderer is stupid, petty and shouldn't afterwards complain about the judge's verdict. 

Well to be fair he hunted the pyromancers and some of the wildfire caches, there were too many, the ones tyrion used were the ones that Jaime couldn't find, they had to make more

[sweetsunray]

Well to be fair he hunted the pyromancers and some of the wildfire caches, there were too many, the ones tyrion used were the ones that Jaime couldn't find, they had to make more

 

Yup, in my anology I had the bodyguard hunt team dynamite as well. But Jaime does have a moral obligation to inform people that there is a huge chance that there is more hidden. It's impossible for him to have cleared and find all the caches by himself.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

Ned judging without the evidence = prejudice, if you don't know, you don't judge.

 

I'm pretty sure you are trolling, so please don't consider this post my answer to you, but rather aid for innocent bystanders who could accidentally swallow your BS.

 

There's no judging without evidence in this situation. There is no prejudice. And there's no error in judgement, either. Jaime Lannister did kill Aerys II. It was rather obvious, and he himself admitted it. And the fact that there was an additional factor, a mitigating circumstance - well, it was for Jaime to reveal that. Not for Ned to ask "Hey, by any chance, weren't there hidden caches of wildfire buried everywhere beyond King's Landing, and perhaps was Aerys just to give orders to burn down the entire city and all people in it?". It wasn't Ned's place to figure out the wildfire plot (how possibly?), it was Jaime's to tell about it, hell, to say anything suggesting it was anything but murder. If he did not, then it's all on him.

 

And I'm certain you know that perfectly well.

[INCBlackbird]

 

Because all the evidence is there that he was doing his father's bidding to slaughter the remaining royal family. Tywin's own bannermen believe it, why the hell should Ned believe otherwise? Ned knows nothing of wildfire plots - zilch, nada. He could assume Aerys' made some threats about Tywin in Jaime's face, but such a threat is pretty laughable - Aerys' body stinks of piss and shit out of fear, looks frail and old, real easy to kill, and Aerys had no Tywin bound to some device in a throne room for any such threat to be anyhting more than air.

 

All the evidence available for Ned doesn't make Ned a hypocrite, but Jaime as the hypocrite.

 

And actually Jaime's silence on the wildfire does pose a problem - the wildfire is still there, buried under the city, and only the pyromancers knowing of it, and Cersei colluding with them. Let's say a secret service bodyguard discovers the president has ordered all of Washington DC fundaments to be fitted with enough dynamite to blow the whole city up. The president's mind detoriates and he orders the head of secret service dynamite-team to blow the city up. The bodyguard kills the head of dynamite-team, then the president and hunts down the men of dynamite-team as far as he knows of them. But he never reveals the dynamite is still there. You would think he at least has a moral obligation to inform the services that can disarm the dynamite about it.

 

Ned is not a self-righteous, prejudiced man. He goes by the evidence he has. We also know that he is capable of listening to people's motivations and giving them an out too. He talked with Cersei didn't he. He could see Cersei had an unhappy marriage, and her tale confirmed that. He did not want to see her dead, nor her children, despite her demand for the execution of Lady. Jaime just felt it beneath him to explain his motives to a man who had fought a year and lost all his family. If Jaime had told Ned, Ned would have said, "Your oathbreaking was not without honor". He'd likely would still have advocated Jaime to be stripped of his white cloak, but actually may even support the reinstatement of Jaime as Tywin's heir.

 

If a murderer stands before a judge, after he was found on the scene, with the murder weapon in his hand and the murder victim found without any means of defense or threat at his feet and confirms the allegation that he is the murderer, but refuses to explain himself, then it's not the judge's fault he doesn't  think - oh, but there must have been mitigating circumstances, I'll pardon him. Sure, the accused has a choice to take the stand or not. But if there are mitigating circumstances and the murderer refuses point blank to inform anyone about it, all because of the "stern" look the judge gives him, well then that murderer is stupid, petty and shouldn't afterwards complain about the judge's verdict. 

 

And you do judge Ned - you judge him to be prejudiced, self-righteous and hypocritical, based on selective and skewed evidence, ignoring other evidence available to you to the contrary, and it makes you as prejudiced, self-righteous and hypocritical as you believe Ned to be.

EXACTLY! Ned doesn't know, he just made assumptions that is prejudice and that is what I have a problem with. along with the fact that he did pretty much the same thing jaime did and yet he judges Jaime for what he did. How about doing the right thing is more important than some stupid vows anyone swore?

 

Jaime should have spoken up about the wildfire yes, but I agree with the person in this thread who said he probably felt it was futile. I mean the whole point is that Jaime is bitter as hell about the world he lives in because of the unfairness he's witnessed. It would have been better if he'd spoken up for sure but I understand why he didn't. Either way, whether or not he told people about it is not the point, the point is that he did the right thing.

 

But he doesn't have any evidence, you yourself said that HE DOESN'T KNOW, he has no idea what happened so how can he judge what happened? that's a prejudice. Ned not wanting to see Cersei dead is a different thing from him prejudicing Jaime. I never said he was callous or liked bloodshed or anything like that. all I said is that he's prejudiced, hypocritical and self-rightious.

 

a judge shouldn't judge based on assumptions, that's why there is policework. it's not guilty until proven innocent, it's innocent until proven guilty.

 

I'm not judging Ned, i'm not talking about his actions and whether they were right or wrong, I'm talking about his character, his personality and he happens to have a personality I don't like BECAUSE he is prejudiced, hypocritical and self-rightious if he weren't those things i'd like him. because those just happen to be the things that always make me dislike characters. and I have told you many times why he is those things, it's apparent from the text, and you can believe he's perfect all you want, deny any flaws he has, have at it. enjoy your interpretation, I'll enjoy mine.

[INCBlackbird]

 

I'm pretty sure you are trolling, so please don't consider this post my answer to you, but rather aid for innocent bystanders who could accidentally swallow your BS.

 

There's no judging without evidence in this situation. There is no prejudice. And there's no error in judgement, either. Jaime Lannister did kill Aerys II. It was rather obvious, and he himself admitted it. And the fact that there was an additional factor, a mitigating circumstance - well, it was for Jaime to reveal that. Not for Ned to ask "Hey, by any chance, weren't there hidden caches of wildfire buried everywhere beyond King's Landing, and perhaps was Aerys just to give orders to burn down the entire city and all people in it?". It wasn't Ned's place to figure out the wildfire plot (how possibly?), it was Jaime's to tell about it, hell, to say anything suggesting it was anything but murder. If he did not, then it's all on him.

 

And I'm certain you know that perfectly well.

I'm not trolling, not everyone who doesn't consider Ned a saint is trolling. there IS prejudice, and it's not about Jaime killing Aerys, it's about why he did it. Ned assumes a bunch of things based on Tywin's actions, without knowing the real reason. That is prejudice. and yes, before you judge you have to ask. if they don't tell you, you don't fucking judge because you don't know.

[sweetsunray]

EXACTLY! Ned doesn't know, he just made assumptions that is prejudice and that is what I have a problem with. along with the fact that he did pretty much the same thing jaime did and yet he judges Jaime for what he did.

 

No, he didn't make assumptions... He made conclusions based on the evidence he has, and which Jaime never denied. That he didn't know about the wildfire doesn't validate the accusation he made "assumptions". He judged, yes, based on the evidence he had, and he was not given any hint even to reach any other conclusion.

 

He didn't do the same thing Jaime did. Jaime did NOTHING for a whole year, but then father comes to town and he acts.

 

 

How about doing the right thing is more important than some stupid vows anyone swore?

 

That is actually Ned's stance and line of thinking - doing the right thing is more important to Ned than vows. But you completely ignore it, only because Ned judged Jaime (your favorite) fairly but wrongly.
 

But he doesn't have any evidence, you yourself said that HE DOESN'T KNOW, he has no idea what happened so how can he judge what happened? that's a prejudice. Ned not wanting to see Cersei dead is a different thing from him prejudicing Jaime. I never said he was callous or liked bloodshed or anything like that. all I said is that he's prejudiced, hypocritical and self-rightious.

 

 

Do you even know what the word "evidence" means?

Here's the evidence

• Jaime wearing Lannister armor instead of KG armor
• Jaime sitting on the throne
• Jaime's sword bloody
• Aerys' old weak body crumpled on the flood beneath the stairs
• Jaime admitting he killed Aerys
• On top of that - Gregor raping Elia and murdering her and Rhaenys, Ser Amory bashing Aegon's head in, and Tywin presenting those bodies
• Tywin and bannermen raping and pillaging KL

There is evidence, it's just incomplete by one tiny detail, which the only person who can tell is reluctant to tell it, because he's too proud to be "judged".

 

 

 

a judge shouldn't judge based on assumptions, that's why there is policework. it's not guilty until proven innocent, it's innocent until proven guilty.

 

Where in my anology did I make it out to be a case of "assumptions"

• Murderer found with murder weapon at the crime scene with the victim
• Victim is old, weak and found without any means to threaten the life of the murderer
• Murderer admits the crime
• Murderer refuses to give his reasons

That's a clear cut case of "guilty".

 

 

 

I'm talking about his character, his personality and he happens to have a personality I don't like BECAUSE he is prejudiced, hypocritical and self-rightious if he weren't those things i'd like him. because those just happen to be the things that always make me dislike characters. and I have told you many times why he is those things, it's apparent from the text, and you can believe he's perfect all you want, deny any flaws he has, have at it. enjoy your interpretation, I'll enjoy mine.

 

And I'm telling you that's "judging" all the same, and "prejudiced" all the same because you judge Ned to have these traits while completely ignoring words and thoughts of him to the contrary as well as acting and behaving in a way that he's perfectly willing to hear anyone's side of the story.

 

I find it mind-boggling that you claim yourself to be so non-judgemental because you refuse to judge people on their actions, but at the same time are as prejudiced as you can be, because in your mind they have some character trait you don't like, especially when that character happens not to like the character you like.

 

Basically you're saying, "I don't judge people for their actions, but for what I believe their character to be"... And it's hypocritcal imo and self-delusionatl to then say, "hey, I'm not judgemental at all and I hate judging people". You judge characters for the worst possible and most subjective reasons out there - character traits, and whether they like the characters you like or not.

 

Actually the last sentence is a straw-man argument. I do not think Ned is perfect at all or that he is without flaws. I happen to like Jaime and like Ned both. They have different traits, and make different choices. Jaime did something great when he killed Rossart and ended Aerys, even as premeditated as it was. Ned judged Jaime erronously, but fairly all the same given the evidence he had, and it was Jaime's responsibility to inform him of his motivation.

[INCBlackbird]

 

No, he didn't make assumptions... He made conclusions based on the evidence he has, and which Jaime never denied. That he didn't know about the wildfire doesn't validate the accusation he made "assumptions". He judged, yes, based on the evidence he had, and he was not given any hint even to reach any other conclusion.

 

He didn't do the same thing Jaime did. Jaime did NOTHING for a whole year, but then father comes to town and he acts.

 

But those conclusions were assumptions, clearly because they weren't facts, they were wrong conclusions because we know the truth about what happened and it wasn't what Ned concluded.  and he judged based on those wrongly assumed conclusions and therein lies my problem. And you know what, I understand, everyone is judgemental to a certain extent. I remember back in highschool when they told us about first impressions and why they matter so much because people will assume everything they don't know about the person and than notice things that confirm this assumption and deny things that don't. it's human nature, and hated it, from the moment I learned about it I was like "wow, human beings are such assholes" and that's when I tried to pinpoint when I did similar things and tried to be aware of it so I could tell myself "don't judge, you don't know"

 

 

That is actually Ned's stance and line of thinking - doing the right thing is more important to Ned than vows. But you completely ignore it, only because Ned judged Jaime (your favorite) fairly but wrongly.
 

judging someone fairly but wrongly is a contradiction right there. if you judge someone wrongly it wasn't fair. I don't subscribe to the idea that Ned cared more about doing the right thing than his vows, if he did he wouldn't have said that there was no other choice when Littlefinger told him it would be war if he wanted stannis on the throne. The right thing was not approving of a war that would kill millions of innocent people. And again, I have to repeat this, I disliked Ned before I liked jaime, way before I liked Jaime. I dislike Ned because of his personality not because of anything else.

 

Do you even know what the word "evidence" means?

Here's the evidence

• Jaime wearing Lannister armor instead of KG armor
• Jaime sitting on the throne
• Jaime's sword bloody
• Aerys' old weak body crumpled on the flood beneath the stairs
• Jaime admitting he killed Aerys
• On top of that - Gregor raping Elia and murdering her and Rhaenys, Ser Amory bashing Aegon's head in, and Tywin presenting those bodies
• Tywin and bannermen raping and pillaging KL

There is evidence, it's just incomplete by one tiny detail, which the only person who can tell is reluctant to tell it, because he's too proud to be "judged".

 

That is evidence that Jaime killed Aerys yes, but no evidence that he did it on his father's orders, because guess what he didn't, and since he didn't there can't be evidence that he did.

 

 

Where in my anology did I make it out to be a case of "assumptions"

• Murderer found with murder weapon at the crime scene with the victim
• Victim is old, weak and found without any means to threaten the life of the murderer
• Murderer admits the crime
• Murderer refuses to give his reasons

That's a clear cut case of "guilty".

again, he killed aerys we all know that, but Ned didn't know why, that's what were talkiing about.

 

And I'm telling you that's "judging" all the same, and "prejudiced" all the same because you judge Ned to have these traits while completely ignoring words and thoughts of him to the contrary as well as acting and behaving in a way that he's perfectly willing to hear anyone's side of the story.

 

I find it mind-boggling that you claim yourself to be so non-judgemental because you refuse to judge people on their actions, but at the same time are as prejudiced as you can be, because in your mind they have some character trait you don't like, especially when that character happens not to like the character you like.

 

Basically you're saying, "I don't judge people for their actions, but for what I believe their character to be"... And it's hypocritcal imo and self-delusionatl to then say, "hey, I'm not judgemental at all and I hate judging people". You judge characters for the worst possible and most subjective reasons out there - character traits, and whether they like the characters you like or not.

 

Actually the last sentence is a straw-man argument. I do not think Ned is perfect at all or that he is without flaws.

 

I'm not judging Ned, i'm telling you why I don't like him, PERSONALLY. Like I said, we all like characters for different reasons, I happen to have a problem with prejudice, hypocricy and self-rightiousness so when characters display those traits I tend to dislike them. I'm not asking anyone to dislike them too for it, everyone is different, people have different values therefor other people will dislike and like characters for other reasons, why is that not ok?

[Lady Sharya]

But he doesn't have any evidence, you yourself said that HE DOESN'T KNOW, he has no idea what happened so how can he judge what happened? that's a prejudice. Ned not wanting to see Cersei dead is a different thing from him prejudicing Jaime. I never said he was callous or liked bloodshed or anything like that. all I said is that he's prejudiced, hypocritical and self-rightious.
 
I'm not judging Ned, i'm not talking about his actions and whether they were right or wrong, I'm talking about his character, his personality

You are ignoring the text and the post you are responding to when you say Ned had no evidence. He had a smoking gun and a confession for f**k sake. What he DOESN'T KNOW is that there was plot to burn KL. What he doesn't know is that Jaime's arrogant pride was more valuable to him that his percieved honor.

A lack of all facts DOES NOT EQUAL prejudice. We would all be prejudice if that were the case. Prejudice is judging without know circumstances OR regardless of the facts (which you do quite well). It was Jaimes obligation to provide the missing motive for killing Aerys...or to shut the f**k up with the whinning about being called a kingslayer.;)

How are you NOT judging Ned by talking about his character & personality?:shocked: How are you NOT prejudiced against him by judging him while IGNORING the facts? How is it NOT self-rightous to claim Ned should have known information ONLY avaliable to Jaime and YOU as the reader? How does this NOT add up to hypocracy?

Ned is NOT prejudiced, hypocritical OR self-righteous. You are projecting onto his character simply because you like Jaime.:)

[thelittledragonthatcould]

Ned is NOT prejudiced, hypocritical OR self-righteous.

 

Of course he's prejudiced. He's not a saint, it is a perfectly common human characteristic to have. It doesn't make him evil but his willingness to believe the worst from the Lannisters is prejudice.

 

Same for the escaped brother from the Nights Watch, he's a criminal so he doesn't bother to listen to his story of what's happening beyond the wall. He tells Cat that other escapee's have said similar stories but does not trust any of them.  He's also prejudiced against the Wildlings.

[A spoon of knife and fork]

With this debate I sometimes wonder (actually I'm almost convinced on this point) whether the wildfire plot as revealed in aCoK/aSoS was really a massive ret-con.

 

GRRM's letter to his editors revealing his planned plot for the series obviously has a lot of ideas in it that he ultimately rejected.  One important one was that Jaime was intended to be the major villain of the series, and never had a redemption arc (I think Tyrion was supposed to kill him?).  In fact he was supposed to be king at some point.  Most of his plot in that outline was given to Cersei, and GRRM decided to rewrite the Jaime character.  As a result, he had to make this unambiguously evil Kingslayer he portrays in Ned's PoV's in a completely different light.  Hence, the wild fire caches and "burn them all".  A convenient get out jail free card.  

 

Except...  As a result of this change, I think that the wild fire plot is just a tiny bit off and leads to these kinds of debates.  Like why the F is Brienne the first person that Jaime tells this to - that's what OP's question really ends up at.  Like I understand and can totally defend why he killed Aerys rather than just tying him up (did he even have rope?).  And while I like to defend Jaime I rather agree that it's hard to explain by anything other than arrogance why he says not a word to Ned, Tywin, or anyone else.  And I agree completely that Ned can't be to blame for having the most obvious interpretation of the scene.  GRRM left it completely unambiguous to any outsider - and not just Ned, Robert, Tywin, everyone else assumes Jaime killed Aerys for shits and giggles / to help Tywin take KL.  Hence Robert is pleased as punch (cuz he likes dead Targs) and Ned considers Jaime completely contemptible from that point on (not to mention the shit he pulls with Jory later, and I won't defend that for a second because it's really not defensible).  

 

And then of course we get Jaime's perspective of Ned which is that he considers him a hypocrite for not congratulating him on killing Aerys.  Plus it's true that Ned does extend his dislike for Tywin (based on Tywin's completely terrible actions) to all Lannisters, to some extent, so Jaime's not completely off base.  And I get it.  He'd like a little gratitude for slaying this absolute monster, rather than condemnation.  But he's got to own that choice not wallow in it. 

[King Ned Stark]

A Spoon of knife and fork,

That's interesting, I didn't know that Martin changed Jaime's arc in mid stride, kind of explains things. His "transformation" to me always seemed a bit jarring, forced and not that convincing. I thought the Blackfish summed up Jaime fairly concisely during their little chat. If Jaime truly wanted to be honorable, and be perceived that way, he should have resumed his captivity in Riverrun, as he did not deliver on his promise. That would actually sound rather good in the white book that he's concerned with. Always felt Jaime had an inferiority complex towards Ned. Doing the right thing when there is little to no risk doesn't really count.

As far as Ned being prejudice, I guess one could make that argument, but he did not have a preconceived notion on the Lannisters based on no reason or experience. He had experience with them, and those experiences were pretty awful.