Jaime Lannister, a hypocrite and criminal?

[Lady bonehead]

16 minutes ago, Protagoras said:

And that is why Jaime is unsuitable for his job, in addition to other reasons. It is not up to him to judge if the king is too young, have authority or if a request is unsuitable. Jaimes job is to obey, if not Tommen, then the regent and the small council. He is in no position to instruct his fellow kingsguard members to go to him, at best they should check with the regent first. At worst, Jaime is undermining the government - as he did with Aerys - while at the same time taking oaths to protect named goverment.

Jaime need to understand that his personal morality is not worth squat - he has no authority here and he has given up the right to act according to his morals when he took the cloak. He is a glorified bodyguard who should obey, regardless if he fins the request morally wrong.

This is just silly.  The chain of authority doesn't break down just because underlings make independent decisions, whether moral or practical.  In fact they have to because otherwise nothing would ever get done because all decisions would be referred to the king.

[Julia H.]

Perhaps I'm joining the discussion a bit late, but anyway... 

I don't see Jaime in quite such a bad light as the OP, and I definitely see him being on a path to redemption. It's happening slowly, I agree, but I like that because I think it's realistic. People don't change radically overnight. Jaime still has a long way to go if he wants to become a true knight, and, of course, he will never be able to change the past, he will always have to live with it (if he lives, that is). 

Regarding Jaime's sins - I can't blame him for killing Aerys. Sure, it was oathbreaking, but it was a critical moment and the decision he made is understandable, in my opinion. It is more difficult to understand that afterwards he was just sitting on that throne, smiling smugly, instead of looking around whether there was anything more he could do to save lives, instead of telling anybody about the dangerous fire magic material accumulated by Aerys, instead of ever telling anybody why he had killed Aerys (until he met Brienne). Still, I can put it down to his youth and to the possibility that he was secretly quite shocked by what he had done. We don't really know that, but it's possible. Pride probably also had to do with it a lot - he wasn't about to explain himself to anyone because he was Jaime Lannister.

His later behaviour:

Some posts upthread apparently say that incest is not such a big crime and that his love affair is not anyone's business. I have two problems with this: One is that he took a vow with the specific purpose of breaking it. He became a Kingsguard in order to be close to Cersei even though he knew his vow would require him to dedicate himself entirely to his job. Admittedly, the requirements are rather strict, but there are also benefits coming with the job, and he wasn't forced to become a Kingsguard - but he became one with an ulterior motive, which wasn't exactly honest. I think it's more morally wrong than taking a vow with sincere intentions to keep it and then somehow being unable to keep it. 

The other problem is even more serious, I think, because even if we accept that Jaime's private life is no one else's business, it is still totally immoral to pass off your children as another man's children. Yes, it was done primarily by Cersei, but Jaime was part of it, and he knew what Cersei would do and still continued fathering children on her. That counts as very dishonest in every society and in every historical period. 

Pushing Bran out of the window: I can't absolve him even in the knowledge that he was protecting his love and his children. It is one thing to choose your child's life over a stranger's life (even if the stranger is another child) when you are forced to. It is another thing to create a situation out of lust where your children's lives may be in danger and where you have to protect them by killing other innocent people. I mean Jaime was perfectly willing to kill an innocent child in order to protect his own children but he wasn't willing to refrain from having pleasure and sex for the same purpose? How selfish is that? They weren't at home, they were in unknown territory. Yes, they hid in that tower, but how could they be sure that no one else would go up there and discover them? They didn't know that their host's son was climbing walls, but it could just as well have been a servant or a soldier with the habit of visiting that place who might have noticed something. The fact is they didn't know Winterfell - a huge castle with lots of people in it. Therefore they could not suppose they were safe there. Sure, it's unpleasant to go without sex for months, but other people can do it and Jaime and Cersei should be able to do it for the purpose of protecting their children. A loving parent can surely give up this much - and a lot more, in fact. Jaime's priorities seem to be: sex, then his own children's safety, then the life of a child he doesn't know. I blame him for Bran because Bran became crippled so that Jaime could have his pleasure. He just made a stranger pay for it instead of his own children, but I guess most criminals would make the same decision. Decent behaviour would have been to avoid Cersei in order to avoid risking their lives. 

The breaking of guest right is actually a good point. Guest right doesn't only mean that you don't kill your guest, it also protects the host against the guests. Jaime was a guest in Winterfell and he attempted to kill and he did seriously injure his host's son.

[House Beaudreau]

I think Jamies tale is more about Transformation than Redemption. 

I believe his Transformation begins with killing Aerys. He ultimately was willing to curse himself and be a Oathbreaker because Aerys need to die. It was truly a selfless move. His transformation is put on pause until he looses his sword hand. By the time we get to AFFC he really does want Sansa to be safe and He doesn't take arms against the Starks or Tullys. Breaking the Siege was done without conflict. He goes around the Riverland ending conflict not perpetuating.  

[MostlyMoody]

On 6/3/2016 at 11:52 AM, Protagoras said:

To quote myself from another thread

Jaime is a menace. A snake that should be trampled down as quick as possible.

Denis is a Menace not Jaime.

On 6/3/2016 at 11:52 AM, Protagoras said:

I do however think Jaime lies here. Despite that he has multiple oaths, Jaime doesn't really think its hard to keep all promises (since he is later able to realize that different oaths have different priorities), but he somehow insists that he should decide the intent of said wows as well as the importance of them. He want to (like Jon Snow - which I have already discussed before in another thread) do "the right thing" without suffering for it and that is frankly absurd, not only because "the right thing is subjective in the first place, but also since he simply have no right enforcing his personal morality on everyone else. The rules exist for a reason, but for Jaime everything is right as long as it serves his desires.

People don't usually think in robotic way to rationalize priorities, they have emotions and personal morals. When a King orders to burn down a city with everyone inside, Jaime made the morally right call to kill him, sure there was probably a way to just knock him out or something that doesn't involve Kingslaying, but that would probably make a less interesting character setup - Jaime the Kingpuncher.

On 6/3/2016 at 11:52 AM, Protagoras said:

Also note - this is not a one-thing only either. Later Jaime starts to justify his own swiny behaviour and repeats the same offence with Tommen.

"If Tommen wants you to saddle his horse, obey him. If he tells you to kill his horse, come to me"

Ok Jaime. So what gives you this right and when? Say Tommen wants to raise the taxes - should you be allowed to stop him then? Should others? No? Well, they you need to motivate in an objective way why certain interventions are needed and some are not and since nothing IS objective we will only hear you bullshit opinion. And again - why should you be able to do this?

I think that quote is more of an off-hand remark in a snarky Jaime way, comparing Tommen to Joffrey, saying - oh let's hope he doesn't turn out to be a sadistic imbecile. 

All people have their bullshit opinions, you have an opinion that everything should be objectively rationalized and motivated, why is your opinion right? Can you rationalize that for me?

On 6/3/2016 at 11:52 AM, Protagoras said:

So, after the loss of his hand and his so called "redemption" he tries to put up rules on if and how the white swords should obey their king and proves that he regrets nothing. He revels in the behaviour that made him despicable in the first place. Its like the robber who starts to argue that his robbing was justified and more people should start rob each other. This quote really tells everything you need to know about Jaime. When you decide to take a job you give up your right to complain about the tasks that you are supposed to perform or at the bare minimum, do them under protest. If you don´t like to perform abortions you should not work in a place where this is required nor can you expect it to consider your conscience. If you are a pacifist, then don´t join the army. Simple stuff - unless you are Jaime. In addition, he refuses to understand that his oath is one-sided (and should be). Aerys cannot "fail his kingsguard" since he decides what constitutes a fail nor does it matter if Jaime considers Aerys his king, since by accepting the title he made an implied consent towards that idea. Yet, Jaime dreams like Sansa about true knights and fail to understand that life is not a fairy-tale. He needed (and still needs) to "grow up".

I like that you are questioning his entire story arc - "redemption". I'm sure George made a huge blunder in writing Jaime and you are the guy who inquisitively rooted it out.

I am quite sure he literally says that he doesn't regret killing the king, if that's what you're referring to. 

When Jaime joined Kingsguard he had the same idealistic view of chivalry as Sansa does, as you yourself mention. He made his vows idealistically and as time passed, things happened, circumstances changed and he broke his vows, he didn't break them because he was like "well fuck this, I am bored of following orders" he did it under pressure of a mass murder. But you would have probably kept a cool head yourself, the legend you are, and burned along with the King, your father and a million of other people.

Your analogies are way the fuck off by the way. It should be more like this - 'if you sign on to work at an abortion clinic you are expected to kill the fetus of a woman who signs up for an abortion and also kill a million other fetuses that are completely not involved'.

On 6/3/2016 at 11:52 AM, Protagoras said:

Unfortunately, I know people in real life who see the quote above as a reason why Jaime is an excellent kingsguard and I am baffled by that opinion, which I find very stupid. "Defending you from yourself" is nothing but moralizing bullshit disguised as a "favor" but only serves the purpose of the so called "helper". If you want to help me, well then - do what I want you to do! Obedience is the main trait in a bodyguard. In addition, the entire behaviour stinks of disrespect - if you promise me that you will go and have a beer with me but fail to show up and then say "Well, but I had some other duties too - I should be allowed to change my mind" I will be pissed. You DO NOT have the right to change your mind without suffering consequences from your previous choice. Yet some people, like Jaime, only care about themselves. 

On the other hand Barry the Bold stood by as a kingslaying boar tusked Bobby-B to death. Robert told him to stand by and the honor-bound Barristan stood by and watched the king he was sworn to protect die. He did great at his job, he followed orders to a letter, but in the end Barry the Bold proved to have weaker moral integrity than the dishonorable Jaime.

Another questionable analogy. If I promise to have a beer with you I am still allowed to retain my free will if I have more important things to do. Obviously I would tell you before, otherwise if you wait for me 2 hours and I don't show up you are right to be mad, but if you are mad for people changing their minds there is something not right. People only care about themselves? In your own analogy everything revolves around you, the other person is not allowed to change their mind because you might get upset. Jaime saved other people, brandishing himself a traitor and was saved execution by the luck of his noble birth.

On 6/3/2016 at 11:52 AM, Protagoras said:

In addition, I see no problem with punishing someone for an act you believe are righteous, because it breaks societal rules and Jaime really needs to be put down. The kingsguard job is to follow the king (hence the name) and if you are not willing to do that (regardless of the acts and the king) you are not suitable for the job (or any job that relies on your loyalty).

Wait so you have no problem with Jaime killing the Mad King, despite everything you said before? What?

But I do agree, he is not suitable for the job of a Kingsguard, if he gets away from Kings Landing, his sister, Kingsguard and lives the rest of his life along Brienne he will be a far better man. Jaime's issue is that he is easily influenced by his surroundings, as he says himself "the white cloak soiled me". This does not excuse him of his crimes, but it is a major character weakness on his part and should be taken into account when discussing his character.

[BalerionTheCat]

3 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Some posts upthread apparently say that incest is not such a big crime and that his love affair is not anyone's business. I have two problems with this: One is that he took a vow with the specific purpose of breaking it. He became a Kingsguard in order to be close to Cersei even though he knew his vow would require him to dedicate himself entirely to his job.

It was not Jaime's plan. It was Cersei's:

He remembered that night as if it were yesterday. They spent it in an old inn on Eel Alley, well away from watchful eyes. Cersei had come to him dressed as a simple serving wench, which somehow excited him all the more. Jaime had never seen her more passionate. Every time he went to sleep, she woke him again. By morning Casterly Rock seemed a small price to pay to be near her always. He gave his consent, and Cersei promised to do the rest.

I believe a great deal of what he did, he did it for her. Outwardly, he is the great, fearless knight. But privately, he was dominated by his sister. Yes, he made grave errors in trusting this woman. He should not have. But on the instant, it didn't seem a great price to pay.

Jaime is the man who had to chose between bad and worse. Please, anyone, don't confuse him with those who could have done good instead of bad, at no great cost.

[Julia H.]

43 minutes ago, BalerionTheCat said:

It was not Jaime's plan. It was Cersei's:

He remembered that night as if it were yesterday. They spent it in an old inn on Eel Alley, well away from watchful eyes. Cersei had come to him dressed as a simple serving wench, which somehow excited him all the more. Jaime had never seen her more passionate. Every time he went to sleep, she woke him again. By morning Casterly Rock seemed a small price to pay to be near her always. He gave his consent, and Cersei promised to do the rest.

I believe a great deal of what he did, he did it for her. Outwardly, he is the great, fearless knight. But privately, he was dominated by his sister. Yes, he made grave errors in trusting this woman. He should not have. But on the instant, it didn't seem a great price to pay.

I know it was Cersei's plan, but Jaime went along with it knowing what he was doing. I agree that he was under bad influence but that does not mean he had no responsibility. He had a choice and he decided to join the Kingsguard in order to be able to have a sexual relationship with Cersei knowing full well that he was to take a vow that would prohibit said relationship. He wasn't the "mastermind" behind the plan, but he agreed to it when he could have said no. He was aware of the implications even if he didn't think about them. He was dominated by Cersei, perhaps, but he was still old enough to understand the concept of lying. It was a moral weakness. 

43 minutes ago, BalerionTheCat said:

Jaime is the man who had to chose between bad and worse. Please, anyone, don't confuse him with those who could have done good instead of bad, at no great cost.

The only way I can understand this is with reference to his killing Aerys. That was certainly a choice between bad and worse, and I don't blame him (as I said above). But with regard to his relationship with Cersei? With regard to deceiving his king (Robert) and the whole realm? With regard to endangering his own children's lives (purely out of lust) so that he was forced (was he forced?) to make an innocent child pay the price? Jaime did a lot of utterly selfish things. 

[Jon's Queen Consort]

I don't believe that Jaime has a redemption arc anymore, I believe that Jaime has a findyourtrueselfarc. 

[Lion of the West]

1 hour ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

I don't believe that Jaime has a redemption arc anymore, I believe that Jaime has a findyourtrueselfarc. 

You are free to believe what you wish.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

6 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

You are free to believe what you wish.

And? That's all? 

[Lion of the West]

Essentially yes. I've already made my longer post on page 4 in the thread. If you'd like a longer discussion you can see my thoughts on the matter there. Since you made a short post yourself I figured that perhaps you weren't really interested in getting drawn into a longer discussion. Maybe I was wrong.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

1 minute ago, LionoftheWest said:

Essentially yes. I've already made my longer post on page 4 in the thread. If you'd like a longer discussion you can see my thoughts on the matter there. Since you made a short post yourself I figured that perhaps you weren't really interested in getting drawn into a longer discussion. Maybe I was wrong.

If I wanted or cared to discuss your thoughts I would had quoted you. It was you who quoted me without actually adding anything.

[Lion of the West]

6 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

If I wanted or cared to discuss your thoughts I would had quoted you. It was you who quoted me without actually adding anything.

That is true, yet you then made a quote which was: "And? That's all?". From my understanding of the English language I get the feeling that you were looking for or were suprised by the short reply.

[Qhorin Halfhand and Yoren]

Jaime is not in a redemption path, he is in a "think about the morality and consequences of your actions" path. Which means he can still choose poorly, but at least he will put some thought into it. He is no longer the Smiling Knight, and no longer slave to his sexual desires or pleasing Cersei. This means he has become a better person than he used to be, but not necessarily good enough or have redeemed himself.

 

Quote

Some posts upthread apparently say that incest is not such a big crime and that his love affair is not anyone's business. I have two problems with this: One is that he took a vow with the specific purpose of breaking it. He became a Kingsguard in order to be close to Cersei even though he knew his vow would require him to dedicate himself entirely to his job. Admittedly, the requirements are rather strict, but there are also benefits coming with the job, and he wasn't forced to become a Kingsguard - but he became one with an ulterior motive, which wasn't exactly honest. I think it's more morally wrong than taking a vow with sincere intentions to keep it and then somehow being unable to keep it. 

The other problem is even more serious, I think, because even if we accept that Jaime's private life is no one else's business, it is still totally immoral to pass off your children as another man's children. Yes, it was done primarily by Cersei, but Jaime was part of it, and he knew what Cersei would do and still continued fathering children on her. That counts as very dishonest in every society and in every historical period. 

Agreed. However in this case it is even far more immoral because it puts the realm's stability at risk (and to a lesser extend of importance it also matters that it endangers his own family). Jaime's actions strongly contributed to the terrible civil war and was a betrayal towards his king. Moreover, he took arms against the riverlands and contributed to the war more directly. A war that he held responsibility for. Considering the consequences of the civil war, I see his disregard for how his actions could lead to that, and his actions that did lead to it, his bigger moral transgression.

Also, before that, when the Tagaryens ruled, the plan was for Cersei to become queen and Rhaegar's bride, so the twins affair could prove dangerous even if all the other bad stuff didn't happen, and Rhaegar succeeded Aerys.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

19 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

That is true, yet you then made a quote which was: "And? That's all?". From my understanding of the English language I get the feeling that you were looking for or were suprised by the short reply.

I was sarcastic because your comment had nothing to add at what I was talking about.

[Lion of the West]

27 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

I was sarcastic because your comment had nothing to add at what I was talking about.

Ok, thanks for clearing up.

[Julia H.]

59 minutes ago, Qhorin Halfhand and Yoren said:

Jaime is not in a redemption path, he is in a "think about the morality and consequences of your actions" path. Which means he can still choose poorly, but at least he will put some thought into it. He is no longer the Smiling Knight, and no longer slave to his sexual desires or pleasing Cersei. This means he has become a better person than he used to be, but not necessarily good enough or have redeemed himself.

 

Agreed. However in this case it is even far more immoral because it puts the realm's stability at risk (and to a lesser extend of importance it also matters that it endangers his own family). Jaime's actions strongly contributed to the terrible civil war and was a betrayal towards his king. Moreover, he took arms against the riverlands and contributed to the war more directly. A war that he held responsibility for. Considering the consequences of the civil war, I see his disregard for how his actions could lead to that, and his actions that did lead to it, his bigger moral transgression.

Also, before that, when the Tagaryens ruled, the plan was for Cersei to become queen and Rhaegar's bride, so the twins affair could prove dangerous even if all the other bad stuff didn't happen, and Rhaegar succeeded Aerys.

Yes, both Jaime and Cersei were very irresponsible. I agree with you. The reason why I didn't mention to what extent Jaime is responsible for the civil war and lots of deaths is perhaps that, tolerant as I am, I can kind of accept that someone might not see the possible long-term consequences of his actions (it requires a certain degree of intelligence, after all), but he should definitely have seen the immediate consequences and the moral implications of his actions. He may not have been able to guess that eventually a war would break out (it doesn't mean he is not responsible for it though), but he should have realized how he was endangering his own family, how he was deceiving all and sundry and how morally wrong all that was.

[The King in Black]

Most characters in this series are criminals or hypocrites or both.

Courtesy , 

Your friendly neighborhood Spiderman !

 

[BalerionTheCat]

4 hours ago, Julia H. said:

I know it was Cersei's plan, but Jaime went along with it knowing what he was doing. I agree that he was under bad influence but that does not mean he had no responsibility. He had a choice and he decided to join the Kingsguard in order to be able to have a sexual relationship with Cersei knowing full well that he was to take a vow that would prohibit said relationship. He wasn't the "mastermind" behind the plan, but he agreed to it when he could have said no. He was aware of the implications even if he didn't think about them. He was dominated by Cersei, perhaps, but he was still old enough to understand the concept of lying. It was a moral weakness. 

I've read a lot recently about breaking vows, particularly concerning Jon and the NW. And I realized, most of the time, the vows serve the bad persons. You don't ask vows of your friends. Particularly if it is to the detriment of their family. Vows is another form of slavery. And vows preventing someone of having a love affair? I really don' care.

And about incest? Aerys was a son of incest. Aerys was fucking his sister and her ladies. And everyone was still licking his ass, even when he went crazy mad. Because of vows and oaths. So why should Jaime consider it that bad?

4 hours ago, Julia H. said:

The only way I can understand this is with reference to his killing Aerys. That was certainly a choice between bad and worse, and I don't blame him (as I said above). But with regard to his relationship with Cersei? With regard to deceiving his king (Robert) and the whole realm? With regard to endangering his own children's lives (purely out of lust) so that he was forced (was he forced?) to make an innocent child pay the price? Jaime did a lot of utterly selfish things. 

Killing Aerys was IMO fully the right thing. In our world, someone could have put him somewhere, where he would hurt no one. But in this world, where king's word is command, and anyone bound to obey, whatever the cost, Jaime had to kill him, on the spot.

For Bran, I don't know. If someone could tell me what he could have done without killing Cersei and her children, I'm ready to hear. He probably could have saved his life, by taking the Black. But he don't really care for it.

Yes, he did bad things. If I was in his place, in this world with no justice, would I not kill children I don't know, to save my life? I would not judge here people harshly, if I would not do better myself in their position. Do not confuse Jaime with people who had the choice, when they knew the consequence of their choices, and chose the bad path.

ETA: And about the war:

This war has been started by Catelyn. And if anyone deserves the crown of stupidity, it is her too. I agree he was hot headed, and he killed Starks men in this occasion. But if she had a charge, she had to bring it to the king. Anything else was breaking the King's Peace. She would achieve nothing by holding Tyrion. Besides, had she listened a bit to him, she would have understood both had been done.

[Julia H.]

8 minutes ago, BalerionTheCat said:

I've read a lot recently about breaking vows, particularly concerning Jon and the NW. And I realized, most of the time, the vows serve the bad persons. You don't ask vows of your friends. Particularly if it is to the detriment of their family. Vows is another form of slavery. And vows preventing someone of having a love affair? I really don' care.

And about incest? Aerys was a son of incest. Aerys was fucking his sister and her ladies. And everyone was still licking his ass, even when he went crazy mad. Because of vows and oaths. So why should Jaime consider it that bad?

The vow may be bad, but Jaime wasn't required to take it. He wasn't required to become a Kingsguard. He chose to take the vow with the initial purpose of breaking it. That is not the same as realizing, when it's too late, that the vow serves a bad purpose. I don't blame Jaime for his disillusionment with Aerys. I do blame him for starting a new life with a purposeful lie. Granted, it is not the worst of crimes that can be committed, but it is still a dishonest action. That's all I'm saying.

I don't care about the incest itself. The problem is that it was an irresponsible affair which could only be maintained through lies and deception. It is simply not right to make someone believe that a child is his when it's not, regardless of the person's status. Robert being Jaime's king makes it worse in terms of Westerosi morality. Besides, it was dangerous, too. Keeping it up could have cost Cersei's life, Jaime's life, their children's lives. 

8 minutes ago, BalerionTheCat said:

Killing Aerys was IMO fully the right thing. In our world, someone could have put him somewhere, where he would hurt no one. But in this world, where king's word is command, and anyone bound to obey, whatever the cost, Jaime had to kill him, on the spot.

Fair enough.

8 minutes ago, BalerionTheCat said:

For Bran, I don't know. If someone could tell me what he could have done without killing Cersei and her children, I'm ready to hear. He probably could have saved his life, by taking the Black. But he don't really care for it.

Yes, he did bad things. If I was in his place, in this world with no justice, would I not kill children I don't know, to save my life? I would not judge here people harshly, if I would not do better myself in their position. Do not confuse Jaime with people who had the choice, when they knew the consequence of their choices, and chose the bad path.

I don't know if you have read all of my post upthread (you quoted part of it), but I was giving my opinion precisely on the above.

On the one hand, if Jaime attempted to kill Bran to save his own life, well, I don't think that would be so easy for the average person. Killing a child is quite a strong ethical taboo. And Jaime could have fled, perhaps even taken the black.

On the other hand, if he tried to kill Bran in order to save Cersei and their children, well, I can only repeat myself: He was willing to kill a child to save lives in his own family (including his own) but he wasn't willing to temporarily refrain from carnal pleasure for the same purpose. Jaime wasn't forced by others to choose between Bran's life and Tommen's life. If he realized that the discovery of his relationship with Cersei would be so dangerous, then why didn't he wait at least until they got back to King's Landing, which was familiar territory? Jaime and Cersei got themselves into a situation where they had to choose between the survival of their family and the life of a child they didn't know. If they had truly put the safety of their children above everything else, then they should have put it above their own pleasure as well. How is it not wrong to kill a child for a purpose which you are not willing to give up your pleasure for? It wasn't a totally impossible idea that they might be discovered. Jaime must have known that in this case he would have to kill the one who saw them, but his pleasure was more important. 

Jaime did have a choice, and it was his choice that led to the situation where he apparently "had to" kill an innocent child in order to save his own children from the danger he had carelessly put them in. 

[BalerionTheCat]

35 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

Jaime did have a choice, and it was his choice that led to the situation where he apparently "had to" kill an innocent child in order to save his own children from the danger he had carelessly put them in. 

Yes, he had a choice, but it was before he knew the consequences. OK, one day or another it would have gone to hell. But Jaime is always taking risks and not measuring the consequences. The abandoned tower seemed a safe enough place. They probably had not much opportunity in the way in. And will have no more in the way out. And this travel was taking ages. I'm not sure I want to judge him for more than his intend. Not when I see the other monsters.

For Robert, I don't care. He was a fucking drunkard himself. And there was some justice in his lack of paternity.