Jaime broke an oath when he killed Aerys

[Lord Varys]

Guys, for the hundredth time:

Jaime isn't conflicted about some vows, etc. when he kills Aerys, nor is he, personally, directly involved in the wildfire plot. Aerys has kept him out of that one, Rossart is handling that shit. Jaime already prevented the wildfire plot when he murders Aerys. He kills him because he wanted to kill him. He did not have to kill him to save his daddy, his Westermen friends, or the rabble of King's Landing. He could just as well have distracted him, knocked him out, arrested him, or injured him.

Defending/excusing Jaime's murder of Aerys is, by and far, defending/excusing murder. 

If you guys found yourself in a similar situation as Jaime - let's say you overhear your boss sending out some henchman to murder his own wife and family - then you have no right to take a sword (or some other sharp object) or a gun and take these two out while there is still a chance to stop the crime in another way. And - if you feel the need to personally interfere - you only kill them if they are trying to kill you, too.

Aerys wasn't a danger to Jaime when he killed him. He was pitiful lunatic in his forties who wasn't even capable of using a weapon if he had one (thanks to his freak fingernails).

If you fall for Jaime's ridiculous justification you are fooled by him. Jaime was certainly corrupted and twisted by the stuff he had to watch at Aerys' court, but the man he became has no problems using (mortal) violence to accomplish his goals, even when this is not necessary. Aerys is one example of that, Bran and Ned's men he later butchers are other such examples. The reason why he killed Aerys is because he had grown to hate and despise the man while serving his a Kingsguard. That is understandable, too, but it doesn't excuse the fact that he murdered the man. Just as us knowing that Bran was a real problem for the well-being and lives of Jaime, Cersei, and their children doesn't excuse Jaime's attempt to murder Bran - never mind the fact that we definitely understand why he did it.

And, quite frankly, Jaime knew what Aerys was when he thought with his cock and declared his intention to join the KG. He knew that even better when he finally swore his vow at Harrenhal. Jaime is Tywin's eldest son. Him not knowing what Aerys was in 280-81 AC is about as likely as Herman Göring's hypothetical son not knowing who and what Hitler was when he decided to become his bodyguard. Tywin was Aerys' Hand!

The idea that a Kingsguard has still the right to care about earlier vows and duties is pretty silly, too. The whole point of the Kingsguard vow is to overwrite earlier allegiances and loyalties. Why do you guys think do the Kingsguard swear the vows they swear? Because they think their service to their king is conditional on their personal moral code or has to take their allegiance to other parties and causes into consideration?

No. They swear their vows so that the world and the king they serve all publicly know that they henceforth answer to one authority - and one authority only: the king.

Jaime tries to wiggle out of his responsibility by references his other vows and the allegiance and loyalty he is supposed to feel towards other people, but that's just a cop-out. Nobody cares how he feels. What's important is only what he does. And people expect a Kingsguard to stay true to his Kingsguard vows. They do not expect them to love their sisters, obey their fathers, or defend the innocent.

Just as people also only expect one thing from sworn brothers of the Night's Watch - that they keep their fucking Night's Watch vows. Nobody cares whether they had joined the KG prior to that, or married a woman prior to that, or held a lordship, or served some lord as a sworn sword or household knight - all that is null and void once they take the black.

And it is pretty much the same with the Kingsguard.

After all, else nobody would condemn Jaime for what he did. People may not have known about the wildfire plot, but everybody knew about Tywin's attack on the city. Everybody thus knew that Jaime Lannister had decided to betray his king in favor of his father and House Lannister. Yet nobody thinks this was the right or noble thing to do, never mind the fact that sons should obey their fathers.

[Varysblackfyre321]

Now that I think about he didn't really tell anyone who could do something about the WF. He kinda dropped the ball if he really was concerned with the safety of KL.

[Lollygag]

35 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I see him doing what he has always done; his king's will. He wouldn't be serving the lanisters. He would serve the Kings He is not an oath breaker. He served with Jamie(his king's murderer), and under a man who bankrupted the realm. 

Apologies for having overlooked it. 

 

Again, corruption and abuses of power have been the standard quo for quite sometime. 

Expecting Barristan to anyway be an impediment I find unfeasable given their actual responsibilities being to primarely to guard the king when don't need the Kingsguard to do any of the vile acts they actually  want committed. 

Also you kinda didn't address the rest of the content in my last post; just the part about Barristan. 

As to the bolded, this is not the KG we see under Cersei. Joff never truly ran anything, and certainly Tommen is not either. They're her creatures (so she thinks), not guardians of the King at this point. They aid Qyburn, Osney is complicit in trying to have Marg convicted and killed, Tyrion thinks she ordered his death on the Blackwater via the KG...I completely disagree that Barristan would have gone along with any of this.

Breaking his oath would not been easy for Barristan, it would have haunted him greatly, but I disagree that he would serve alongside FrankenGregor and would comply with Cersei's/Qyburn's orders.

ADWD The Queensguard

But no. That was not fair. He did his duty. Some nights, Ser Barristan wondered if he had not done that duty too well. He had sworn his vows before the eyes of gods and men, he could not in honor go against them … but the keeping of those vows had grown hard in the last years of King Aerys's reign. He had seen things that it pained him to recall, and more than once he wondered how much of the blood was on his own hands. If he had not gone into Duskendale to rescue Aerys from Lord Darklyn's dungeons, the king might well have died there as Tywin Lannister sacked the town. Then Prince Rhaegar would have ascended the Iron Throne, mayhaps to heal the realm. Duskendale had been his finest hour, yet the memory tasted bitter on his tongue.

I did address the rest of your post. Repeating myself again.

1 hour ago, Lollygag said:

 

Otherwise, if you wish to take a very black and white view of the text on this matter, we'll  have to agree to disagree. I don't think black and white scenarios with easy answers is what this series is about and it's also a way of reading the series which bores me.

http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/1427

 

But I'm feeling patient and have a bit of time at the moment, so I'll play along for as long as that patience and time last:

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

They serve the King.  Full stop.Not his house. Any members of his house. Which is why when Aerys was raping his wife, the very queen it was the other kings guard who held him back. 

 

They are seen as holy for duty of protecting and dedicating their lives to  the guardian of the realm. They are not automous for. They act in the direction of the king for the king.

No monarch would want their guards to have any notion that they can pick and choose which orders they should follow, that if they (the guards), find the monarch to be using his power unwisely or irresponsibly they are free to not disobey direct orders-but try to inhibit the king from carrying it out without the guard. 

Bolded #1: how was Aerys acting as guardian of the realm if he was going to burn a whole city alive?

Bolded #2: Of course not. But it doesn't make burning lots and lots of innocent men, women and children alive a-ok and it doesn't excuse anyone for going along with it.

It really feels like you're arguing the KG position from an abstract ideal rather than taking into account the details which actually came to define it in-story (Aerys burning people alive, Cersei's use of the KG, the KG becoming literal monsters through FrankenGregor and not just figurative monsters (Trant, etc).

 

[Clegane'sPup]

On 1/13/2018 at 8:21 PM, The Sunland Lord said:

Jaime took an oath and he broke it. 

He should have protected his king and do as he was commanded.

Aerys told Jaime to deal with the rebels who took arms against their liege.

Instead, Jaime Lannister betrays his king and kills him. 

I think that Jaime should've put aside all he was and knew before he had the great and rare honour of becoming a member of the Kingsguard.

But, he decided that this oath didn't matter when it suited him. 

What's your opinion? 

 

Jaime’s back story is a bit c-o-m-p-l-i-c-a-t-e-d-.  I seem to remember that the King to spite Tywin brought Jaime into the fold at the tourney at Harrenhal. Jaime’s back story also has a bit to do with his sister.

In the below quote Jaime is reminiscing about the day he killed his King ----two important things ---- Jaime wore the golden armor (Lannister) not the white and the King told Jaime to bring him Tywin’s head.

Seems to me, that the pawn Jaime, was going to be a Kingslayer or a kinslayer (parricide). OR Jaime could have simply thrown down his sword, walked away, and been hunted and hounded as a coward & traitor. But that is not the story the author wrote.

A Storm of Swords - Jaime II     But when he closed his eyes, it was Aerys Targaryen he saw, pacing alone in his throne room, picking at his scabbed and bleeding hands. The fool was always cutting himself on the blades and barbs of the Iron Throne. Jaime had slipped in through the king's door, clad in his golden armor, sword in hand. The golden armor, not the white, but no one ever remembers that. Would that I had taken off that damned cloak as well.     When Aerys saw the blood on his blade, he demanded to know if it was Lord Tywin's. "I want him dead, the traitor. I want his head, you'll bring me his head, or you'll burn with all the rest.

Also SoS Jaime V chapter gives a rather interesting look at what was happening when he became known as the Kingslayer. In this saga Jaime can be judged for his actions (never mind the until you walk in my shoes shite), but the way the character is written Jaime is not a liar.

 

[the trees have eyes]

5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Unless it's specificly stated in the oath that a person cannot be compelled such acts a person can't cite that as a reason for not doing so as reason he is not an oath breaker. 

That's silly.  There is such a thing as law and you don't have to incorporate every single law into an oath to justify why you don't have to commit murder if ordered to.  It is understood that the law applies and the oath regulates the oathgiver's duty to follow the orders of the one they are pledging loyalty to within the compass of the law.  The King is after all supposed to be the ultimate upholder of Law throughout the Kingdom so an oath giving an exemption from lawbreaking at the king's command would be illogical. Problems only arise when oathgivers fail to carry out valid legal commands or the Lord gives illegal orders.  In Westeros speak this would be hedged around as dishonourable but that's merely a euphemism.  Then it's all about the relative power of each party.  Aerys obviously thought his immense power meant he could act with impunity and compell any act from his subjects or KG.  He thought wrongly.

[Varysblackfyre321]

3 hours ago, Lollygag said:

As to the bolded, this is not the KG we see under Cersei. Joff never truly ran anything, and certainly Tommen is not either. They're her creatures (so she thinks), not guardians of the King at this point. They aid Qyburn, Osney is complicit in trying to have Marg convicted and killed, Tyrion thinks she ordered his death on the Blackwater via the KG...I completely disagree that Barristan would have gone along with any of this.

They're actual responsibilities. Barristan works best as protector. There is no reason to go directly to him to do anything insidious when there are plenty of people who could do it and with the expectation of far more efficiency.  You say he would've buckled if he was; I don't disagree to a point. But, he has shown he's willing to keep his oaths while his monarch and those under him to allow corruption and abuse his power.  All he would be expected to do is literally nothing to impede the plans of the Lanisters and protect the king. His dismissal was merely another rash act by Joffery. 

3 hours ago, Lollygag said:

Breaking his oath would not been easy for Barristan, it would have haunted him greatly, but I disagree that he would serve alongside FrankenGregor and would comply with Cersei's/Qyburn's orders.

He didn't leave the Kingsguard when he saw Aerys rape his queen. Nor when Aerys had filled his council with sycophants, schemers and psychopaths. Nor when he unjustly ordered a tortuous death on Rickard and Brandon Stark launching the realm in a civil war. He didn't leave when Jamie Lanister was pardoned for murdering his King and allowed to continue serving in the Kingsguard. He didn't leave when he saw Robert need to party bankrupting the realm. He didn't leave Joffery ascended to the throne knowing the boy was unfit given he shortly after his ascension needlessly launched the country into another civil war and will be governed to fufil the interests of the Lanisters a family he knows has no care for honor. He would not leave because now a zombie is a Kingsguard. Would he follow Cersi's orders when she acts as the voice of the King? Unless Tommen says otherwise-to an extent yes. He has limits true. If Cersi commanded him to ignite the wildfire still hidden in the city he'd refuse, and like Jamie with Aerys kill her and break his oath.

 

 

3 hours ago, Lollygag said:

I did address the rest of your post. Repeating myself again.

Ok the statement was really vague and given what you said prior how can you expect me to not simply assume you were just referring to my thoughts of why Barristan was dismissed when you say this matter when the only matter you actually addressed was the reasons behind Barristan's dismissal. 

 

 

3 hours ago, Lollygag said:

Bolded #1: how was Aerys acting as guardian of the realm if he was going to burn a whole city alive?

Well he was a bad one. How does that conflict with anything I said regarding why the KG are seen as holy and them not being an entity autonomous from the king?

 

3 hours ago, Lollygag said:

Bolded #2: Of course not. But it doesn't make burning lots and lots of innocent men, women and children alive a-ok and it doesn't excuse anyone for going along with it.

Then what was your point? Are the KG an insinuation created to protect but if needed keep the king in check from doing something truly heinous  or merely glorified bodyguards for the king whose purpose is to carry out the king's wishes. Point  to me exactly where I say burning hundreds of thousands of innocent men women and children alive is ok.  Point me where I said Jamie or anyone would be excused for going along with such an act. I argued Jamie would be in violation of his oath by trying to stop Aerys. I didn't say nor has anyone in this thread claimed he should have kept at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives. My very first post in this thread was saying violating his oath was worth saving KL and all the innocents in it.

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

6 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

That's silly.  There is such a thing as law and you don't have to incorporate every single law into an oath to justify why you don't have to commit murder if ordered to.  It is understood that the law applies and the oath regulates the oathgiver's duty to follow the orders of the one they are pledging loyalty to within the compass of the law.  The King is after all supposed to be the ultimate upholder of Law throughout the Kingdom so an oath giving an exemption from lawbreaking at the king's command would be illogical. Problems only arise when oathgivers fail to carry out valid legal commands or the Lord gives illegal orders.  In Westeros speak this would be hedged around as dishonourable but that's merely a euphemism.  Then it's all about the relative power of each party.  Aerys obviously thought his immense power meant he could act with impunity and compell any act from his subjects or KG.  He thought wrongly.

You don't have to include the Clause of even following orders that may seem illegal to anyone when literally asking for blind obedience. If a man promises awear he is forever for one to command  the man is absolved from warranting the title of oathbreaker having regened after the one orders the man to do something illegal. Jamie broke his oath. He was right to. 

[Lollygag]

You're contradicting yourself and changing the standards depending on the circumstance and this makes any further discussion a waste of time. You've also repeatedly mischaracterized what I've said and engaged in misdirection to "win". Good bye.

There is "no reason" to ask Barristan to do something, but earlier per you, it's all about the king's (arbitrary) prerogative meaning he needs no reason. This is exactly what happened to Jaime and is the point of the discussion of this thread.

5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

There is no reason to go directly to him to do anything insidious when there are plenty of people who could do it and with the expectation of far more efficiency.

 

 

On 1/13/2018 at 10:33 PM, divica said:

He should knock him out and run away with him and as many targs as he can. That is his duty!

By joining the KG jamie left his family. He shouldn t be worried about them.

He could have saved KL without killing aerys. Therefore keeping his vows and doing what he should have wanted.

 

On 1/13/2018 at 11:21 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

He can't harm the king's royal person. His duty is to obey the king. It is not his place to question him. And they(the lanisters) were literaly at the gate when he confronted Jamie. I'm sure is a pretty strong guy but he wouldn't be able to lug him to some place safe. He'd already break his oath in any case no use bringing down who he loves with him just because of some stupid concept of "honor".

 

 

On 1/14/2018 at 5:30 PM, Kandrax said:

Are Kingsguards obliged to obey king even if he orders them to commit sins?

 

On 1/14/2018 at 5:37 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yes. It is not their place to question-they obey.

 

 

On 1/14/2018 at 6:12 PM, Kandrax said:

Even if he orders them to kill their kin or break guest right?

 

On 1/14/2018 at 6:14 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yes.

--------------------------------------------------

Barristan's not an oathbreaker, but then he would be?????

5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Would he follow Cersi's orders when she acts as the voice of the King? Unless Tommen says otherwise-to an extent yes. He has limits true. If Cersi commanded him to ignite the wildfire still hidden in the city he'd refuse, and like Jamie with Aerys kill her and break his oath.

 

9 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Expecting Barristan to anyway be an impediment I find unfeasable given their actual responsibilities being to primarely to guard the king when don't need the Kingsguard to do any of the vile acts they actually  want committed. 

 

9 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I see him doing what he has always done; his king's will. He wouldn't be serving the lanisters. He would serve the Kings He is not an oath breaker. He served with Jamie(his king's murderer), and under a man who bankrupted the realm. 

---------------------------------------------------

Are you misdirecting or just being intentionally obtuse? You say their duty is to protect the guardian of the realm, I respond that Aerys wasn't guarding the realm, and you diminish the discussion to "well he was a bad one" and bypass the contradiction of the I pointed out totally.

10 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

They are seen as holy for duty of protecting and dedicating their lives to  the guardian of the realm. They are not automous for. They act in the direction of the king for the king.

 

8 hours ago, Lollygag said:

Bolded #1: how was Aerys acting as guardian of the realm if he was going to burn a whole city alive?

 

5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Well he was a bad one. How does that conflict with anything I said regarding why the KG are seen as holy and them not being an entity autonomous from the king?

------------------------------------------------------

My point was obviously speculation. The whole point of this thread is that there's no easy answer. You've not noticed this? And again with the misdirection... I didn't accuse you of saying that going along with Aerys is ok. I accused you of oversimplifying the KG's arrangement with the king which I explicitly said and you neglected to quote in your response. (See the quotes of yours which I pulled earlier in the post).

10 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

No monarch would want their guards to have any notion that they can pick and choose which orders they should follow, that if they (the guards), find the monarch to be using his power unwisely or irresponsibly they are free to not disobey direct orders-but try to inhibit the king from carrying it out without the guard. 

 

8 hours ago, Lollygag said:

Bolded #2: Of course not. But it doesn't make burning lots and lots of innocent men, women and children alive a-ok and it doesn't excuse anyone for going along with it.

It really feels like you're arguing the KG position from an abstract ideal rather than taking into account the details which actually came to define it in-story (Aerys burning people alive, Cersei's use of the KG, the KG becoming literal monsters through FrankenGregor and not just figurative monsters (Trant, etc).

5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Then what was your point? Are the KG an insinuation created to protect but if needed keep the king in check from doing something truly heinous  or merely glorified bodyguards for the king whose purpose is to carry out the king's wishes. Point  to me exactly where I say burning hundreds of thousands of innocent men women and children alive is ok.  Point me where I said Jamie or anyone would be excused for going along with such an act. I argued Jamie would be in violation of his oath by trying to stop Aerys. I didn't say nor has anyone in this thread claimed he should have kept at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives. My very first post in this thread was saying violating his oath was worth saving KL and all the innocents in it.

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

2 hours ago, Lollygag said:

 

You're contradicting yourself and changing the standards depending on the circumstance and this makes any further discussion a waste of time. You've also repeatedly mischaracterized what I've said and engaged in misdirection to "win". Good bye

 

Yet your post doesn't end there. You've repeatdly acted as though talking to you some sort privellage that you responding to one of my posts is some kind act I should truly be grateful for. If you truly mean "goodbye" there is was no need to continue afterwards. Or really you don't say anything back if you've  no interest in having a discussion. If you truly don't just don't respond back to this post. 

Nevertheless I'll try to address the content 

The quotes you pulled in don't show a contradiction in my position and I'd dare you to try to explain how but I know you can't. Jamie could either obey his oaths and carry out his duties at the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of lives or he could the right thing and stop Aerys. The KG are obliged to obey the king always, protect the king always. Not impede upon him. Again my very post in this thread makes quite clear I'm not arguing Jamie should let hundreds of thousands die so he could his oaths I'm arguing he'd be breaking them if he did. 

2 hours ago, Lollygag said:

My point was obviously speculation. The whole point of this thread is that there's no easy answer. You've not noticed this? And again with the misdirection... I didn't accuse you of saying that going along with Aerys is ok. I accused you of oversimplifying the KG's arrangement with the king which I explicitly said and you neglected to quote in your response. (See the quotes of yours which I pulled earlier in the post).

Then why say this:

10 hours ago, Lollygag said:

Bolded #2: Of course not. But it doesn't make burning lots and lots of innocent men, women and children alive a-ok and it doesn't excuse anyone for going along with it.

 If you didn't think I was implying in anyway it did I fail to see why you bring up the blantantly obvious. Especially when I again said in my first post is  this:

An oath is worth hundreds of thousands of people's lives? Nope. Jamie being able to feel self-righteous  (until he's burned up by wildfire), doesn't equal out to that. 

The whole point of this thread per the OP was whether or not Jamie was right to have violated his oaths to Aerys( which he clearly did) 

2 hours ago, Lollygag said:

Are you misdirecting or just being intentionally obtuse? You say their duty is to protect the guardian of the realm, I respond that Aerys wasn't guarding the realm, and you diminish the discussion to "well he was a bad one" and bypass the contradiction of the I pointed out totally.

You didn't point out a contradiction. You pointed to an action being done by the king that was immoral.  The king is still very much the guardian, of the realm even when he abuses that power. 

The kingsguard aren't granted license to impede upon the king's work if they (the kingsguard), finds his actions to be unethical or simply immoral.

They could do so but they'd be in violation of their oaths; depending on the circumstance the moral thing could be to simply break them.

2 hours ago, Lollygag said:

Barristan's not an oathbreaker, but then he would be?????

Yes. So far he is not an oath breaker and the Lanisters being the new royal dynasty and zombies being put on the KG wouldn't make him turn into if he was allowed to stay on the KG. Yes there are certian tasks he would not do at the behest of the king(or the person legally allowed who speaks for him), but he doesn't need to because loads of people could do any truly openly insidious acts the lanisters want committed a lot better.

[the trees have eyes]

11 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

You don't have to include the Clause of even following orders that may seem illegal to anyone when literally asking for blind obedience. If a man promises awear he is forever for one to command  the man is absolved from warranting the title of oathbreaker having regened after the one orders the man to do something illegal. Jamie broke his oath. He was right to. 

I'm sorry, I can't follow what you are saying, it seems there are a few typos garbling the message.  I agree with the bolded though.

[Lord Varys]

12 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

That's silly.  There is such a thing as law and you don't have to incorporate every single law into an oath to justify why you don't have to commit murder if ordered to.  It is understood that the law applies and the oath regulates the oathgiver's duty to follow the orders of the one they are pledging loyalty to within the compass of the law.  The King is after all supposed to be the ultimate upholder of Law throughout the Kingdom so an oath giving an exemption from lawbreaking at the king's command would be illogical. Problems only arise when oathgivers fail to carry out valid legal commands or the Lord gives illegal orders.  In Westeros speak this would be hedged around as dishonourable but that's merely a euphemism.  Then it's all about the relative power of each party.  Aerys obviously thought his immense power meant he could act with impunity and compell any act from his subjects or KG.  He thought wrongly.

Sorry, you seem to project a modern (democratic) understand of the rule of law on the monarchistic system of the Seven Kingdoms.

When a king or lord tells his sworn sword or household knight to kill a person because that person is a criminal or traitor than this knight doesn't have the right to demand proof that said person is indeed a criminal or traitor. The word of your liege/king should be enough for you. This is not a society where contracts or work relationships are made among people who are equal (before the law). Far to the contrary, actually.

A king or lord gives his knights and sworn swords coin, land, food, clothes, etc. and they demand loyalty in exchange for that.

If you have not sworn to serve for life - like the Kingsguard do - then you can certainly choose between leaving your liege's service (if you are not also holding land in his name as a landed knight) and fulfill a certain command, but that choice can be quickly become a choice between life and death.

Another point is that you don't really have the means to demand justice if the king gives you a command that you think is unlawful. The king is the chief justice in this society. If he gives you an order you have pretty much no institution to turn to complain about the unlawfulness of such an order. Not to mention that the average knight or sworn sword isn't exactly going to be an expert on the intricacies of the laws of the Seven Kingdoms - which are basically wax in the hands of the king and his lords.

A (great) lord certainly can hold enough personal power and prestige to defy the king on certain matters. But even he would act in legal gray area there, risking to be declared a traitor or outlaw. The idea that there are clearly defined things a king cannot command his lords to do is not exactly established in this world. The fact that certain kings gave their lords very demanding commands and did very cruel things to them indicates that this is not really case. After all, in a society where 'the law' sets the power of the king definite and clear boundaries only very few kings would actually cross certain lines, knowing fully well that this could go very bad for them.

Aerys II pretty much got away with everything he did, actually. His madness wasn't the cause of his downfall, a lost battle and subsequent betrayal was the cause of that. Daemon Blackfyre nearly toppled King Daeron II, who was both a just, sane, and good king. Robert, Ned, and Jon had pretty good reasons to rebel against Aerys II but that doesn't mean the majority of the Realm thought this man should be deposed or that their rebellion was justified. It became justified, in a sense, because they won the war, but the fact that had to wage a war in the first place means that Aerys II didn't lose all his support - unlike Maegor the Cruel in the end.

[Cridefea]

16 hours ago, Lollygag said:

Speaking of dirty snow (cloaks)...

In my Is Craster a Casterly thread, I outlined the Lannisters (and Craster's) connection to shit and piss. We have a saying in my area: "Don't eat the yellow snow."

ASOS Jaime IV

 

The castleton outside the walls had been burned to ash and blackened stone, and many men and horses had recently encamped beside the lakeshore, where Lord Whent had staged his great tourney in the year of the false spring. A bitter smile touched Jaime's lips as they crossed that torn ground. Someone had dug a privy trench in the very spot where he'd once knelt before the king to say his vows. I never dreamed how quick the sweet would turn to sour. Aerys would not even let me savor that one night. He honored me, and then he spat on me.

 

 

 

Yes, this is what he thinks about himself, his vows and most of all his story in KG. From the beginning. But this doesn't mean he shouldn't have killed Areys. @Lady Dacey and @Julia H. are right, it is not the answer, but the question. GRRM want us to reflect, to question our moral compass. If we only look  at that moment, that act, yes he broke a vow and killed his king. But if we enlarge our visions it's more complicate, and there are also many actors: Tywin, Aerys, Cersei, Varys etc.... Everyone played a role, even before he takes his white cloak.... 

[Lollygag]

4 hours ago, Cridefea said:

Yes, this is what he thinks about himself, his vows and most of all his story in KG. From the beginning. But this doesn't mean he shouldn't have killed Areys. @Lady Dacey and @Julia H. are right, it is not the answer, but the question. GRRM want us to reflect, to question our moral compass. If we only look  at that moment, that act, yes he broke a vow and killed his king. But if we enlarge our visions it's more complicate, and there are also many actors: Tywin, Aerys, Cersei, Varys etc.... Everyone played a role, even before he takes his white cloak.... 

Yes, I very much agree. When you think about how hard it must be to construct these no easy answer/no right answer scenarios not just for Jaime/Aerys but for all of the other dilemmas in the series, it really starts to make sense why the books take so long to write. Mirrors, mirrors and mirrors... all reflecting various scenarios and perspectives and the ones into which individuals gravitate becomes a mirror reflected back onto the reader.

In the end, I think it’s all really so that the series acts as mirrors reflected back onto the reader and I do think there's a significant point to be made so I'll be quite disappointed if the series is never finished and we never find out where all of these mirrors are leading, and I do think they're leading somewhere. Few are so clear as the mirror into which most of us fell: we judged Jaime harshly by his reputation and by pushing Bran out the window but we all got showed later, but not until we fell into the trap of the mirror first! Well played, GRRM.

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

6 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

I'm sorry, I can't follow what you are saying, it seems there are a few typos garbling the message.  I agree with the bolded though.

Oaths aren't purely dependent on legality. If you swear to obey a man always, you cannot cite the law for why you cannot fufill an order by that man.

You'd still be an oath breaker by virtue having refused to honor your promise. 

And depending upon the act that may be totally ok.

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

5 hours ago, Cridefea said:

Yes, this is what he thinks about himself, his vows and most of all his story in KG. From the beginning. But this doesn't mean he shouldn't have killed Areys. @Lady Dacey and @Julia H. are right, it is not the answer, but the question. GRRM want us to reflect, to question our moral compass. If we only look  at that moment, that act, yes he broke a vow and killed his king. But if we enlarge our visions it's more complicate, and there are also many actors: Tywin, Aerys, Cersei, Varys etc.... Everyone played a role, even before he takes his white cloak.... 

It doesn't mean he should not have stopped Aerys. The wise thing for him to do would be to keep Aerys distracted enough for the doors to opened, and let the soldiers arrest Aerys. That would save him at least some scorn. After all who could expect a young boy to fight and kill his father's men?  Or perhaps ask one of the soldiers to carry him out while pretending to be knocked out as to make it possible to spin his role to be a young brave knight who fought and failed to protect his king. Maybe bruise himself beforehand a little to make it look convincing.

He wanted to kill Aerys.

The question did he have killed him(clearly he didn't), but whether any of us could honestly say we wouldn't do the same thing in his place just for the satisfaction.

[Daemon The Black Dragon]

3 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

It doesn't mean he should not have stopped Aerys. The wise thing for him to do would be to keep Aerys distracted enough for the doors to opened, and let the soldiers arrest Aerys. That would save him at least some scorn. After all who could expect a young boy to fight and kill his father's men?  Or perhaps ask one of the soldiers to carry him out while pretending to be knocked out as to make it possible to spin his role to be a young brave knight who fought and failed to protect his king. Maybe bruise himself beforehand a little to make it look convincing.

He wanted to kill Aerys.

The question did he have killed him(clearly he didn't), but whether any of us could honestly say we wouldn't do the same thing in his place just for the satisfaction.

A lot of people would expect a KG member to protect the King from anyone trying to seize said King. Thats the whole point of the KG, to protect the King, not hand him over to be killed by someone. Even Tywin was worried about what Jaime would do. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

23 minutes ago, Daemon The Black Dragon said:

A lot of people would expect a KG member to protect the King from anyone trying to seize said King. Thats the whole point of the KG, to protect the King, not hand him over to be killed by someone. Even Tywin was worried about what Jaime would do. 

16 year old boy being asked to help wage war on his own father? He'd have far more sympathy if had simply stood by; people would think there was conflict between his loyalties(though he swore to have none outside the king) but they'd pity his plight far than they'd pity him if literaly murdered his own king. Like, if Jon Snow ran away to join Robb to help avenge his father(breaking his oaths to the watch), people would have far more sympathy for 14 year old boy doing that than if Jon Snow literally just decided he was bored of the watch and left for the hell of it.

And again, he could have pretended to have be wounded in the defense of Aerys(like Barristan was), if he was worried people would think him a coward-he didn't. 

He wanted to kill Aerys.

Oaths be damned Aerys was wretched in Jamie's eyes; he humiliated Jamie by pronouncing to the other KG that yes, Jamie was only picked to guar him to spite Tywin, he demanded Jamie commit patricide, and , Aerys was a dissapointment; a king should be better, strong an ideal; Not the sniveling fearful creature Aerys was.

[Dofs]

On 14/01/2018 at 1:21 AM, The Sunland Lord said:

Jaime took an oath and he broke it. 

He should have protected his king and do as he was commanded.

Aerys told Jaime to deal with the rebels who took arms against their liege.

Instead, Jaime Lannister betrays his king and kills him. 

I think that Jaime should've put aside all he was and knew before he had the great and rare honour of becoming a member of the Kingsguard.

But, he decided that this oath didn't matter when it suited him. 

What's your opinion? 

 

Yes, Jaime definitely broke his oath and he definitely is the worst Kingsguard ever. But the question of was he right or wrong is the very question Martin asks and I also believe answers as well through Brienne. Martin created Brienne as this character with pure ideals, sort of a perfect knight and Brienne takes Jaime's side in this issue. In the end she concedes that Jaime was right. And I agree with it as well, there are sometimes moments when morality > oaths, and the situation that Jaime found himself in was a clear cut example of such moment.

---------

About the knightly vs Kingsguard vows that the discussion is currently about - the latter definitely don't cancel the former. The fact that they don't is also emphasised in Sandor's arc as well - that's the very reason he refused to become a knight when he was given a position in the Kingsguard. But the society in general is programmed that obeying your lord/king is a honourable thing to do. Loyalty is at the heart of the feudal system, so a vassal must obey their lord and a Kingsguard the King's, to the point of being loyal is more honorable than doing something morally right. Hence the Kingsguard's vows > knightly ones, even though in theory they both apply. The problem with Jaime was not even that he didn't agree with this a Kingsguard > a knight system, it's the fact that he wasn't even aware of it. This loyalty above all concept wasn't programmed into Jaime's mind because he wasn't raised to be loyal, he was raised to rule as the heir of one of the Great Houses. The same way Robert didn't care at all about Jaime's kingslaying - he too was raised to be a lord of the Great House. So did Jon Arryn, who left Jaime in the Kingsguard. Jon Arryn was known to be honour obsessed, from whom Ned got all of his obsession over honour, yet he was the one to allow Jaime continue to serve in the Kingsguard despite committing the worst crime a Kingsguard can commit, likely exactly because of this reason.

[Daemon The Black Dragon]

3 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

16 year old boy being asked to help wage war on his own father? He'd have far more sympathy if had simply stood by; people would think there was conflict between his loyalties(though he swore to have none outside the king). And again, he could have pretended to have be wounded in the defense of Aerys(like Barristan was), if he was worried people would think him a coward-he didn't. 

He wanted to kill Aerys.

Oaths be damned Aerys was wretched in Jamie's eyes; he humiliated Jamie by pronouncing to the other KG that yes, Jamie was only picked to guar him to spite Tywin, he demanded Jamie commit patricide, and , Aerys was a dissapointment; a king should be better, strong an ideal; Not the sniveling fearful creature Aerys was.

All the people that hate Jaime (in the story) for killing Aerys would still hate him for standing aside and watching people take Aerys off to be killed. Never said Jaime didn't want to kill Aerys, I think its pretty clear he wanted to kill Aerys and leave the throne room before anyone found out.

[OtherFromAnotherMother]

5 hours ago, Dofs said:

About the knightly vs Kingsguard vows that the discussion is currently about - the latter definitely don't cancel the former. The fact that they don't is also emphasised in Sandor's arc as well - that's the very reason he refused to become a knight when he was given a position in the Kingsguard. But the society in general is programmed that obeying your lord/king is a honourable thing to do. Loyalty is at the heart of the feudal system, so a vassal must obey their lord and a Kingsguard the King's, to the point of being loyal is more honorable than doing something morally right. Hence the Kingsguard's vows > knightly ones, even though in theory they both apply. The problem with Jaime was not even that he didn't agree with this a Kingsguard > a knight system, it's the fact that he wasn't even aware of it. This loyalty above all concept wasn't programmed into Jaime's mind because he wasn't raised to be loyal, he was raised to rule as the heir of one of the Great Houses. The same way Robert didn't care at all about Jaime's kingslaying - he too was raised to be a lord of the Great House. So did Jon Arryn, who left Jaime in the Kingsguard. Jon Arryn was known to be honour obsessed, from whom Ned got all of his obsession over honour, yet he was the one to allow Jaime continue to serve in the Kingsguard despite committing the worst crime a Kingsguard can commit, likely exactly because of this reason.

Well said. And well written.