Jaime broke an oath when he killed Aerys

[Lollygag]

6 hours ago, Dofs said:

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.

This a great observation and it was staring us in the face all along: Aerys stole Tywin’s heir. Not only was Jaime the heir and raised to lead, he was raised by Tywin who was still trying to compensate for the deficiencies of Tytos which nearly destroyed them and this further underscores your point. Tytos and Aerys were different in a number of ways, but both were weak, incompetent and destroying their kingdom making Jaime in a way acting in parallel to Tywin removing Tytos from power. I now wonder if Jaime ever overheard Tywin make any comparison between later Aerys and Tytos?

It’s notable that one thing that all 3 of Tywin’s children have in common is a marked disregard of the rules and conventions of Westeros.

The World of Ice and Fire - The Targaryen Kings: Aerys II

Yet despite these accomplishments, Tywin Lannister was little loved. His rivals charged that he was humorless, unforgiving, unbending, proud, and cruel. His lords bannermen respected him and followed him loyally in war and peace, but none could truly be named his friends. Tywin despised his father, the weak-willed, fat, and ineffectual Lord Tytos Lannister, and his relations with his brothers Tygett and Gerion were notoriously stormy. He showed more regard for his brother Kevan, a close confidant and constant companion since childhood, and his sister Genna, but yet even in those cases, Tywin Lannister appeared more dutiful than affectionate.

The World of Ice and Fire - The Westerlands: House Lannister Under the Dragons

At the age of four-and-twenty, Tytos Lannister, his eldest surviving son, became Lord of Casterly Rock, Shield of Lannisport, and Warden of the West.

All were offices for which he was manifestly unsuited. Lord Tytos Lannister had many virtues. Slow to anger and quick to forgive, he saw good in every man, great or small, and was too trusting by half. He was dubbed the Laughing Lion for his jovial manner, and for a time the west laughed with him...but soon enough, more were laughing at him instead.

Where matters of state were concerned, Lord Tytos proved weak-willed and indecisive. He had no taste for war and laughed away insults that would have had most of his forebears shouting for their swords. Many saw in his weakness an opportunity to grasp power, wealth, and land for themselves. Some borrowed heavily from Casterly Rock, then failed to repay the loans. When it was seen that Lord Tytos was willing to extend such debts, even forgive them, common merchants from Lannisport and Kayce began to beg for loans as well.

Lord Tytos's edicts were widely ignored, and corruption became widespread.

At feasts and balls, guests felt free to make mock of his lordship, even to his face. Twisting the lion's tail, this was called, and young knights and even squires vied with one another to see who could twist the lion's tail the hardest. It is said that no one laughed louder at these japes than Lord Tytos himself.

Maester Beldon, in one of his letters to the Citadel, wrote, "His lordship wants only to be loved. So he laughs, and takes no offense, and forgives, and bestows honors and offices and lavish gifts on those who mock him and defy him, thinking thereby to win their loyalty. Yet the more he laughs and gives, the more they despise him."

As the power of House Lannister waned, other houses grew stronger, more defiant, and more disorderly. And by 254 AC, even lords beyond the borders of the westerlands had grown aware that the lion of Casterly Rock was no longer a beast to be feared.

…

In 255 AC, Lord Tytos celebrated the birth of his fourth son at Casterly Rock, but his joy soon turned to sorrow. His beloved wife, the Lady Jeyne, never recovered from her labor, and died within a moon's turn of Gerion Lannister's birth. Her loss was a shattering blow to his lordship. From that day forth, no one ever again called him the Laughing Lion.

The years that followed were as dismal as any in the long history of the westerlands. Conditions in the west grew so bad that the Iron Throne felt compelled to take a hand. Thrice King Aegon V sent forth his knights to restore order to the westerlands, but each time the conflicts flared up once again as soon as the king's men had taken their leave. When His Grace perished in the tragedy at Summerhall in 259 AC, matters in the west deteriorated even further, for the new king, Jaehaerys II Targaryen, lacked his sire's strength of will and was besides soon embroiled in the War of the Ninepenny Kings.

A thousand knights and ten thousand men-atarms went forth from the westerlands at the king's call, but Lord Tytos was not amongst them. His lordship's brother was given command in his stead, but in 260 AC Ser Jason Lannister died on Bloodstone. After his death, Ser Roger Reyne seized command of the remaining westermen and led them to several notable victories.

Lord Tytos's three eldest sons also acquitted themselves well upon the Stepstones. Knighted on the eve of the conflict, Ser Tywin Lannister fought in the retinue of the king's young heir, Aerys, Prince of Dragonstone, and was given the honor of dubbing him a knight at war's end. Kevan Lannister, squiring for the Red Lion, also won his spurs, and was knighted by Roger Reyne himself. Their brother Tygett was too young for knighthood, but his courage and skill at arms were remarked upon by all, for he slew a grown man in his first battle and three more in later fights, one of them a knight of the Golden Company. Yet whilst his cubs were fighting on the Stepstones, Tytos Lannister remained at Casterly Rock, in the company of a certain young woman of low birth who had caught his eye whilst serving as a wet nurse to his youngest son.

The return of Lord Tytos's sons from war finally heralded change. Hardened by battle, and all too aware of the low regard in which the other lords of the realm held his father, Ser Tywin Lannister set out at once to restore the pride and power of Casterly Rock. His sire protested but feebly, we are told, then retreated back to the arms of his wet nurse whilst his heir took command.

Ser Tywin began by demanding repayment of all the gold Lord Tytos had lent out. Those who could not pay were required to send hostages to Casterly Rock. Five hundred knights, blooded and seasoned veterans of the Stepstones, were formed into a new company under the command of Ser Tywin's brother Ser Kevan, and charged with ridding the west of robber knights and outlaws.

Some hastened to obey. "The lion has awoken," said Ser Harys Swyft, the Knight of Cornfield, when the collectors arrived at his castle gates. Unable to repay his debt, he turned his daughter over to Ser Kevan as a hostage instead. But elsewhere, the collectors were met with sullen resistance and open defiance. Lord Reyne reportedly laughed when his maester read him Ser Tywin's edicts and counseled his friends and vassals to do nothing.

And from here, we get the Rains of Castamere...

 

[the trees have eyes]

17 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

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

There is a presumption that the law applies.  There is also a presumption that the King as the ultimate upholder of all Law will not give an order that is inherently illegal and amoral - like burn this entire city down or murder people on a whim.  The idea you and others have expounded that swearing an oath requires an individual to do anything and they in effect become a robot is one I reject .  So, e.g., Aerys calls for Jaime to kill his father once Tywin joins the rebels and is therefore guilty of something; The Hound is ordered to kill Mycah because it is alleged (falsely) that he raised his hand agasint Prince Joffrey; when Cersei simply has Robert's bastards murdered Tyrion sends Slynt and Alar Deem to the Wall and to a watery grave.  Sure, an individual may obey such an order, and often may feel they have no choice but to do so but this very neatly shows the flaw in the system and that the Lord / King is taking a risk when he requires his oathsmen to do illegal or in Westeros-speak dishonourable things.

Honour is supposed to be present in both the Lord and the vassal and oaths are not supposed to require the giver to do something terrible on an occasional or regular basis.  If they were then the system would not have endured for so long and be so ingrained: that it is is precisely because there are limits on what can be compelled from a vassal.  The line is murky and different individuals have different responses but that is human nature in a nutshell.

An oath does not make a man a slave to their Lord.  If he swore to obey always he could be told to sleep in a kennel and walk on all fours.  Clearly this system would not work as his honour is as important in the relationship as his Lord's.  There are no written rules around oaths but the notion that legality / honour is irrelevant to how they operate is one I find strange.

[Julia H.]

On killing Aerys versus stepping aside and letting him be killed by others:

It is interesting that Jaime (presumably without knowing) follows the rule of the First Men here. 

In the critical moment when Jaime makes his decision between oathkeeping and oathbreaking, he also makes a decision (for himself at least) on whether Aerys should live or die. If he decides that Aerys should live, then he has to fight for him and possibly die for him, keeping his vow (of course, it is by no means certain that he could save Aerys, I'm merely focusing on what Jaime's intention for Aerys could be). If Jaime decides that Aerys should die (so that the people of King's Landing could live or for any other reason), then he can do one of two things. Jaime can step back and watch as someone else kills Aerys or as his father's soldiers drag the king away to be executed later (again, it is not absolutely certain that Aerys could not stay alive in some way, but there is a reasonably strong likelihood that he would die sooner or later, only not by Jaime's hand). Or Jaime can kill Aerys himself. Let me emphasize once more that both actions mean breaking his oath, in my opinion, as Jaime's oath was not about not killing the king but about protecting him and, if necessary, dying for him.

This is a moment in which the future of thousands of people is decided. Jaime's decision is that Aerys should die before further horrible crimes are committed on his orders and in his name. It is not Jaime's official or political role to judge the king and to do justice. Jaime is just an elite bodyguard, but, for a few minutes, history and circumstances have given him (him, who has seen so much of Aerys's crimes and has learned his horrible secret) the mantle of Justice. Jaime's decision to break his oath is a death sentence for Aerys. After making the decision, perhaps Jaime could just step back and leave the execution to someone else. But he has passed judgment and now he also swings the sword. In other words, his dirties his hand. (This a big theme in ASOIAF.) He takes full responsibility. Just as the First Men used to do and the Starks still do.

Perhaps the fact that Jaime actually "rests" on the Iron Throne for a few minutes symbolizes his new, temporary role. Of course, on the surface, it is probably just what a disrespectful and curious adolescent would do when he is in a defiant, taboo breaking mood - or an adolescent who is just beginning to realize the full weight of what he has just done and absent-mindedly sits down on the only available seat in the room. (There may be some other trivial reasons, but I don't think, at least, that Jaime ever had the ambition to become a king.) All that doesn't rule out the possibility that Jaime sitting a few minutes on the throne is a symbol that GRRM uses to call our attention to Jaime's temporary role as the King's Justice (though in a somewhat altered sense).

It is a brief (though historical) moment only, and for all his political immunity, Jaime will have to pay the price. Soon another "judge" enters the room and measures Jaime up with an icy glance, making him "give up" the throne and his role as judge. With this, Jaime's brief historical moment is over. In Eddard Stark's eyes he has seen how he will be judged from now on, and he doesn't even try to come forward with an explanation. He will bear the responsibility for passing the sentence and swinging the sword for the rest of his life.   

"... we hold to the belief that the man who passes the sentence should swing the sword. If you would take a man's life, you owe it to him to look into his eyes and hear his final words. And if you cannot bear to do that, then perhaps the man does not deserve  to die." 

[kissdbyfire]

Another great post, @Julia H.! It had never occurred to me, but you're right, it's very northerner-y of Jaime to pass the sentence and swing the sword.  . 

[Varysblackfyre321]

22 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.

Meh, I always took his refusal as being due to the entire concept of knights in general due to his own dealing with them showing them to mostly lower than actual dogs.

He knows knights rarely protect the innocent. 

Most in his eyes are just glorified thugs with suits of armor whose first duty is to the house they've allighned with.

22 hours ago, Dofs said:

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.

Well I have to say doing  what is "honorble" what is honorble would be seen as having done something morally right in this society no?

22 hours ago, Dofs said:

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

One certianly supercedes the other.

 

22 hours ago, Dofs said:

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.

Still as liege lord of the west he'd be certianly be taught to show homage to the king. Though, Tywin (like all lords of major houses), to house first.

22 hours ago, Dofs said:

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.

I don't think they allowed Jamie to stay in the KG out of some feeling of "kinship" giving them being destined to be heirs to great houses.

Robert hates the Targaryens and will not lambast anyone for killing a dragon spawn. 

Arryn advised Robert to get in bed with the lanisters having known their dishonorable repuataion so he's not honor obsessed(neither is Ned but that's an entirely diffrent conversation).

Quite simply there was no precedent for dismissing a KG and having released Jamie without further punishment would seem as though there is being undue favor showed toward House lanister; as if it was payment for having killed Aerys.

[kissdbyfire]

There's a huge difference between duty and honour.

[Lord Varys]

The idea that people in this setting really have the right 'to do the right thing' is pretty weird. Some of them do, but those are really larger-than-life figures like Baelor Breakspear and Ser Duncan the Tall. And they are pay a price for that kind of thing.

It is true that people have conflicting loyalties, but it is just true that this world doesn't really think highly of a man who 'does the right thing' by breaking the most solemn vow he ever swore.

This is not a society where people say 'Screw my oath, this monster has to die.' No, they say 'If you have joined the Kingsguard, you protect and obey the king, no matter what.' Just as they say 'If you took the black you live and die on your post, no matter what'. Nobody accepts crappy excuses as to why this or that guy felt he had to break his vows.

And the thing is - Jaime never said crap like 'I killed Aerys II for the rabble of KL'. He implies that his vow of 'protecting the innocent' may have figured into all that, but we really don't know to what degree. 

And for the hundredth time: Jaime didn't save anyone by killing Aerys. If he saved anyone he did that by killing Rossart.

The very idea that the Kingsguard is seen as an institution in which the members are free to choose between 'protecting the king and 'protecting the innocent' is actually ridiculously laughable if you actually properly ponder on the implications of such an idea.

Thought to its logical conclusion that would mean a Kingsguard has the right and duty to weigh whether protecting the king (say, during some battle) or protecting some innocent women and children in a given situation. Does anybody actually think that this is the working routing under which the Kingsguard operate? Does anybody think the Kingsguard at Ashford had any right to tell Maekar that they would not obey his command to fight in the Trial of Seven on the side of Daeron and Aerion, declaring that they would fight for Dunk instead - on the grounds that they were 'defending an innocent'?

That is simply nonsense. The Kingsguard simply doesn't work that way.

Jaime's case is certainly pretty extreme, but the idea that Jaime had any right to interfere with the king's business even if it meant the death of thousands of people isn't really well-founded. Aegon, Visenya, and Maegor also killed thousands or tens of thousands of people (when they unleashed their dragons and armies during the Conquest, the Dornishmen, the Faith Militant, etc.) yet nobody ever said anything about there being a right of a Kingsguard knight to judge or murder them for that. 

Jaime isn't even in trap there. He is not involved in the wildfire plot in any capacity. It is not help the king burn the city or kill him. It is standing around hearing the king's plans and deciding to do something about it when it is nearly too late, the king commands you to kill your own father, and your father and buddies would burn along with the city if the plan was executed.

That is not a man acting out of compassion or empathy. In fact, the simple fact that Jaime cites oaths, etc. when discussing the murder of Aerys II shows that he didn't act out of compassion and empathy the way a normal human being would. Just imagine what Dunk would do in Jaime's position? He would try to stop this madness from the start. He wouldn't have watched a mad Egg burning a lot of people, nor would he have stood buy watching him rape his wife Betha. 

A normal human being does not need a vow to protect innocent people from a fiery inferno.

2 hours ago, Julia H. said:

In the critical moment when Jaime makes his decision between oathkeeping and oathbreaking, he also makes a decision (for himself at least) on whether Aerys should live or die. If he decides that Aerys should live, then he has to fight for him and possibly die for him, keeping his vow (of course, it is by no means certain that he could save Aerys, I'm merely focusing on what Jaime's intention for Aerys could be). If Jaime decides that Aerys should die (so that the people of King's Landing could live or for any other reason), then he can do one of two things. Jaime can step back and watch as someone else kills Aerys or as his father's soldiers drag the king away to be executed later (again, it is not absolutely certain that Aerys could not stay alive in some way, but there is a reasonably strong likelihood that he would die sooner or later, only not by Jaime's hand). Or Jaime can kill Aerys himself. Let me emphasize once more that both actions mean breaking his oath, in my opinion, as Jaime's oath was not about not killing the king but about protecting him and, if necessary, dying for him.

Technically that may be so, but we see how it went with Selmy. He should have asked for the black or death at Robert's hands instead of accepting his forgiveness. He broke his vow, too, abandoning King Viserys III. Yet pretty much nobody blames him for that. Nor is it likely that Jaehaerys I punished the Kingsguard betraying his uncle and joining him instead.

There are various degrees of oathbreaking. Jon definitely broke his vows when he slept with Ygritte, but considering that this was, at least in part, done because he was staying true to the mission given to him by Qhorin, this kind of thing is forgivable. At least in the eyes of some people.

The funny thing with Jaime is that he could have actually died for his king - or suffered some severe injuries in his attempts of protecting him before being overpowered - and preventing the burning of the city. Surely you don't claim that Aerys II would have had opportunity or intention to send another messenger to the alchemists had Jaime not told him that he had killed Rossart (and thus prevented the burning of the city) while Jaime was dragging him out of the throne room and to same place that could be more easily defended?

The idea that Jaime had to kill Aerys to save the city is just flat-out wrong.

2 hours ago, Julia H. said:

This is a moment in which the future of thousands of people is decided. Jaime's decision is that Aerys should die before further horrible crimes are committed on his orders and in his name. It is not Jaime's official or political role to judge the king and to do justice. Jaime is just an elite bodyguard, but, for a few minutes, history and circumstances have given him (him, who has seen so much of Aerys's crimes and has learned his horrible secret) the mantle of Justice. Jaime's decision to break his oath is a death sentence for Aerys. After making the decision, perhaps Jaime could just step back and leave the execution to someone else. But he has passed judgment and now he also swings the sword. In other words, his dirties his hand. (This a big theme in ASOIAF.) He takes full responsibility. Just as the First Men used to do and the Starks still do.

That sounds like a very weird idea to me, especially in light of the fact that especially the First Men who follow actually personally kill the people they sentence to death would have most likely practiced heinous crimes and atrocities without end, especially in those good old days of the blood sacrifices.

The idea that an ancient Stark or Bolton would consider the possibility that some bodyguard or sworn sword could presume to judge him, the lord or king of the castle, is pretty much insane.

Vice versa, if there is actually a man who did not deserve to be killed the way he was it is actually Aerys II Targaryen. The man was clinically insane. We can say that with a considerable amount of confidence after TWoIaF. In any sane/enlightened society people in Aerys' condition are not considered to be (completely) responsible for their actions.

Jaime gives in to his bloodlust/hate, etc. when he kills Aerys. He doesn't do that to do a good thing.

[Julia H.]

@Lord Varys

I think we are speaking about two totally different things. I appreciate your opinion but will also keep mine.

One thing I agree about is that it would have been good if Aerys could have been sent to some asylum for the insane long before the rebellion. Too bad Westeros doesn't have any such asylums. Besides there are those medieval notions about the king's absolute power, blind obedience to him, oathkeeping, not being possible to crown a new king while the old one is alive, the will of the gods and what not, which apparently made it difficult to simply remove the king on the grounds that he was not fit to rule. But, of course, that is what "should have happened" long before the rebellion. At the moment when Aerys decides to blow up his city and actually has the means to do it though, it is kind of late to start thinking about reforming legislation in this direction. 

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

@Lord Varys

I think we are speaking about two totally different things. I appreciate your opinion but will also keep mine.

One thing I agree about is that it would have been good if Aerys could have been sent to some asylum for the insane long before the rebellion. Too bad Westeros doesn't have any such asylums. Besides there are those medieval notions about the king's absolute power, blind obedience to him, oathkeeping, not being possible to crown a new king while the old one is alive, the will of the gods and what not, which apparently made it difficult to simply remove the king on the grounds that he was not fit to rule. But, of course, that is what "should have happened" long before the rebellion. At the moment when Aerys decides to blow up his city and actually has the means to do it though, it is kind of late to start thinking about reforming legislation in this direction. 

Well, overall your interpretation there would only make real sense if we all considered Aerys II to be a sane man, completely in control of his mind and actions. Which he clearly wasn't. I mean, if the truth is that Maegor's remaining Kingsguard (or at least the four of them guarding the entrances of the throne room when everybody else retired) decided to 'sentence the man to death' and put him down then this would be one thing. Maegor seems to have been pretty much a sane monster. But Aerys II simply wasn't.

Still, this has nothing to do with Jaime's decision to murder the man. Since, you know, Jaime didn't need to kill Aerys to save the city. And he doesn't even double-check whether Aerys has sent out some other messenger as a precaution in addition to Rossart. Jaime wasn't there in the throne room while he was killing Rossart, was he? He kills the man because he wants to, and he clearly tells him what he's going to do now to see the fear in his eyes.

On a personal level one can sympathize with Jaime - who would not want to kill a man who made you go through the stuff Jaime had to see and suffer through at such a young age? But Jaime pretty much brought this upon himself. He wanted to be Aerys' Kingsguard, at a point in time when the man was already the post-Duskendale cruel madman.

On a meta-level, George clearly intends that we the readers ask ourselves what we would do in the difficult decisions the characters are in. George himself isn't a monarchist or a proponent of fucked-up feudal societies, after all. But it is not that there are many characters in his books who actually reflect on the implications of the fucked-up rules of their society.

There are some occasions where this is done - when Davos talks to Stannis about his duty, for instance - but this usually remains within the monarchic structure of a society (in Stannis case it is a king's duty to protect his people - but this is a duty that comes with the responsibility of kingship, it is not something the subjects can demand from a king as their rights).

The idea that George thinks there is something like Justice with a capital 'J' is simply not very likely. Not in our world, and not in Martinworld.

I mean, if you look at things then 'the good guys' avenging the evil things they suffered through usually leave more than a bad taste in one's mouth. Ramsay and Roose unknowingly eating Frey pie is okay to a point, but what about poor Walda? She didn't do anything to anyone? And isn't Manderly's own feasting on those Freys he had had killed more than a little troublesome? What about Arya and Raff? Or Cat's hanging of the Freys?

A great part of the reason why this books work as well as they do is because the author usually doesn't tell us what the right view is - but it is pretty clear that there are certain things like oathbreaking, kinslaying, breaking guest right (mostly in the North), etc. are considered to be unforgivable crimes within the framework of the story. It might be that people reach the conclusion that a lot of the rules their medieval society is based on - honor, oaths, promises, duty, etc. - are irrelevant when they are in the grip of winter and the Others come. But they are not there yet. And the rules they are likely going to implement then are likely going to be worse from a modern viewpoint than the feudal crap they are dealing with right now - it is likely that the people leading the war against the Others and defeating them will demand utter obedience, set up a very rigid chain of command, and demand that everybody sacrifice himself or herself for the common good (the survival of mankind and the return of the dawn) while also considering pretty much any useless mouth (and even some useful mouths) as expendable. 

[Julia H.]

@Lord Varys

I joined this discussion by pointing out that GRRM presents questions rather than answers, so you needn't tell me that. Yes, GRRM writes on multiple levels. The rules of a feudal society are important on a certain level (and I think this is the level you seem to be most interested in). However, there is also a symbolic level, there is also a level which is simply about humans on a universal scale, regardless of the structure of society they live in (I'm not sure if and how much you can appreciate these levels). And the question of Justice with a capital J is a theme in the novels. Jaime's story is one of the stories exploring that and other questions - such as the question of a free will and free conscience.

The framework of a medieval society, especially a fantasy one, where real life circumstances can be bent by the author, is very suitable for creating situations where moral questions are taken to the extreme to make the reader think about these questions. I find that  a much more interesting aspect of the novels than the question how and to what extent ASOIAF society corresponds to a real life feudal society. I am much more fascinated by the inner conflicts and motivations of various characters on the one hand and the larger, symbolic significance of their roles and actions on the other hand than by the question of judging them on the basis of the standards of their environment (which is done in the novel by other characters anyway), after all a character that does everything in accordance with everyone's expectations and has no conflict about it is a rather boring one. I don't see the point in judging them based on the standards of a totally different society either (like what we think should be done with a madman when they have none of the infrastructure, legislation or protocol that we have). That is probably one of the reasons why we will never agree. Another one is that, over the years, I have never seen you concede that someone who is of a different opinion than you may have a point somewhere, and still another one is when you imply in your response that your discussion partner's thoughts "do not make real sense". 

[LynnS]

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

This is not a society where people say 'Screw my oath, this monster has to die.' No, they say 'If you have joined the Kingsguard, you protect and obey the king, no matter what.' Just as they say 'If you took the black you live and die on your post, no matter what'. Nobody accepts crappy excuses as to why this or that guy felt he had to break his vows.

Did Jaime have a choice?  If the king appoints you to the KG, can you decline?  What choice is there for those who are sentenced to the Night's Watch for their crimes? Especially if they are falsely accused of crimes.

As I recall, Jaime thought the KG was some high honor; that being a knight meant something,  until he realized it was all BS.

Mance has certainly said "screw my oath" and willingly takes anyone else who says the same.  Stannis is offering to make Jon a great bastard, so he's saying screw the oath as well.

Any lord conspiring against the regent is also screwing the oath.  To me, it looks like screwing the oath goes on all the time especially during war when it seems that oaths and pledges are changeable.  

[Lord Varys]

19 minutes ago, LynnS said:

Did Jaime have a choice?  If the king appoints you to the KG, can you decline?  What choice is there for those who are sentenced to the Night's Watch for their crimes? Especially if they are falsely accused of crimes.

As I recall, Jaime thought the KG was some high honor; that being a knight meant something,  until he realized it was all BS.

Sorry. Jaime volunteered for the Kingsguard. And Aerys II agreed. And then he got the opportunity to swear his vow in front of the entire Realm. Jaime was thinking with his cock here, true, but it was his decision. And he didn't only find out what Aerys was at Harrenhal - although he certainly could have decided not to swear his vow there.

Jaime is the son of fucking Lord Tywin. He must have had heard stories without end on from the Lannister guards, servants, knights, etc. not only back home in the Westerlands (or from the men who fought against the Kingswood Brotherhood) but also from the Lannisters in the city when he was there for his visit when he slept with Cersei in that inn.

The idea that Jaime had no idea what Aerys is just flat-out nonsense. Sure, Aerys might not yet descended to the level of raping his own sister-wife but he was already burning people left and right and looking like a lunatic, with his tangled beard and long fingernails.

If Jaime wanted to serve this creep - and he did want to do that, although mostly (or only?) to fuck his sister some more - then he should serve that creep. 

19 minutes ago, LynnS said:

Mance has certainly said "screw my oath" and willingly takes anyone else who says the same. 

Mance isn't exactly seen as a hero or great guy south of the Wall, is he? He is seen as a traitor, oath-breaker, and turncloak, and rightfully so. I can relate to Mance on a personal level, too. But the reason he gives for running away are pretty selfish and nonsensical if you think about them.

19 minutes ago, LynnS said:

Stannis is offering to make Jon a great bastard, so he's saying screw the oath as well.

Stannis does that because he has to do. He wants to take the North. However, while kings think they can free men from their oaths, etc. that doesn't mean that others will share that view. Even if all the North were suddenly behind Stannis (which they aren't and which constitutes another problem) then this still doesn't mean every in the North were happy that this Jon Snow fellow got out of the Night's Watch. There is no precedent for this kind of thing.

19 minutes ago, LynnS said:

Any lord conspiring against the regent is also screwing the oath.  To me, it looks like screwing the oath goes on all the time especially during war when it seems that oaths and pledges are changeable.  

That is technically correct, but the solemn vows of the sworn brothers of the Kingsguard and the Night's Watch (and presumably also the Warrior's Sons) are viewed differently than your average vow. There are vows and vows, and if you pledge yourself to the Night's Watch or the Kingsguard you are supposed to do so body and soul.

Lords are not supposed to break their oaths, either, sure, but these are different categories.

48 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

And the question of Justice with a capital J is a theme in the novels. Jaime's story is one of the stories exploring that and other questions - such as the question of a free will and free conscience.

It might be that this is the point of Jaime's story. If so, I don't think it is very well done. And it is, at this point, pretty pointless to speculate what the arc of many of the characters is about while we don't yet know the ending - or even the path they are going to take to get there. Jaime's fate hangs completely in the balance right now. The man could die or end up doing pretty much anything if he doesn't die.

48 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

I don't see the point in judging them based on the standards of a totally different society either (like what we think should be done with a madman when they have none of the infrastructure, legislation or protocol that we have).

I'm actually inclined to believe that the people of the Seven Kingdoms actually do not put down their madmen or demented people on a regular basis (e.g. Archmaester Walgrave, Alannys Harlaw). In fact, Robert might even be wrong when he said 'that somebody had to kill Aerys'. They could have just imprisoned them after they had taken him. The man was pretty much a mad wreck. And chances are astronomically high that very few Targaryen loyalists would have ever risen up in rebellion in the name of an imprisoned Aerys. They knew what he was, too.

48 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

That is probably one of the reasons why we will never agree. Another one is that, over the years, I have never seen you concede that someone who is of a different opinion than you may have a point somewhere, and still another one is when you imply in your response that your discussion partner's thoughts "do not make real sense". 

I've actually changed my view on a number of topics of the years. I usually only use this 'This doesn't make any sense' routine when I really feel it doesn't make a lot of sense.

I actually thing we are not all that much apart on a number of issues. I just tend to focus more on other aspects. And I really don't care much about championing characters or their causes while we don't yet know what they will do. That pretty much goes nowhere.

The question here isn't really about Jaime's arc or anything. It is simply the question about his oath-breaking and what actually that means or entails within the framework of the society he lives in. That 'oath-breaking' - although not Jaime's murder of his king - might still 'the right thing to do' under certain circumstances when a great good is at stake is a completely different question.

I touched on that one when I said that Jon most definitely did not break his vows on that higher level when he followed Qhorin's command. However, when he actually fell in love with Ygritte and wanted to stay with her deep down in his heart he actually did break his vows. I don't think he should have been punished for that, especially after he came around and saved the Watch.

[LynnS]

33 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Sorry. Jaime volunteered for the Kingsguard. And Aerys II agreed. And then he got the opportunity to swear his vow in front of the entire Realm. Jaime was thinking with his cock here, true, but it was his decision. And he didn't only find out what Aerys was at Harrenhal - although he certainly could have decided not to swear his vow there.

Jaime is the son of fucking Lord Tywin. He must have had heard stories without end on from the Lannister guards, servants, knights, etc. not only back home in the Westerlands (or from the men who fought against the Kingswood Brotherhood) but also from the Lannisters in the city when he was there for his visit when he slept with Cersei in that inn.

The idea that Jaime had no idea what Aerys is just flat-out nonsense. Sure, Aerys might not yet descended to the level of raping his own sister-wife but he was already burning people left and right and looking like a lunatic, with his tangled beard and long fingernails.

If Jaime wanted to serve this creep - and he did want to do that, although mostly (or only?) to fuck his sister some more - then he should serve that creep. 

I had a completely different impression.  I thought Jaime was more influenced by Arthur Dayne and Rhaegar and their ideals.  His decision to offer himself to Aerys for KG seems more naive to me than anything.  I'm not sure that Jaime was the same thing then as he is now and I'm not sure what he knew or didn't know.  But yes he is the fucking son of Tywin and he was fucking his sister; so that counts for something in his character deficiencies.   

[Geddus]

Jaime joining the Kingsguard so he wouldn't have to marry Lysa Tully and could keep having sex with his sister was Cersei's idea, she convinced him by fucking his brains out. I doubt he was thinking about Arthur Dayne or Rhaegar when he agreed with her plan.

[LynnS]

13 minutes ago, Geddus said:

Jaime joining the Kingsguard so he wouldn't have to marry Lysa Tully and could keep having sex with his sister was Cersei's idea, she convinced him by fucking his brains out. I doubt he was thinking about Arthur Dayne or Rhaegar when he agreed with her plan.

Oh yes, that's right.  He was thinking with his dick.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, LynnS said:

I had a completely different impression.  I thought Jaime was more influenced by Arthur Dayne and Rhaegar and their ideals.  His decision to offer himself to Aerys for KG seems more naive to me than anything.  I'm not sure that Jaime was the same thing then as he is now and I'm not sure what he knew or didn't know.  But yes he is the fucking son of Tywin and he was fucking his sister; so that counts for something in his character deficiencies.   

Oh, I'd concede that Jaime likely didn't really think the whole Kingsguard concept through - that this is actually a pretty boring job, and not exactly one that grants you a lot of glory at tourneys unless your king allows you to participate, etc. - but it is pretty clear that Jaime couldn't have any wrong impression about the person of King Aerys II. He must have heard stories about the madness of this guy throughout his entire life. First rumors and little tales brought back home to Casterly Rock by Tywin and his men, and then later, after Duskendale, very concrete stories, including physical description of the guy that had become known as 'the Mad King'.

In that sense he - and only he - is to blame that he ended up joining the Kingsguard of Mad King Aerys. And he would have to be an utter moron to not understand that serving this guy in this capacity isn't going to be a fun ride...

[Lady Dacey]

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Just imagine what Dunk would do in Jaime's position? He would try to stop this madness from the start. He wouldn't have watched a mad Egg burning a lot of people, nor would he have stood buy watching him rape his wife Betha. 

Are you implying one or all of Aerys' kingsguard could have/should have stopped  his madness? That they should have acted before it got to the point it did? You are contradicting yourself my lord. 

[kissdbyfire]

1 hour ago, LynnS said:

I had a completely different impression.  I thought Jaime was more influenced by Arthur Dayne and Rhaegar and their ideals.  His decision to offer himself to Aerys for KG seems more naive to me than anything.  I'm not sure that Jaime was the same thing then as he is now and I'm not sure what he knew or didn't know.  But yes he is the fucking son of Tywin and he was fucking his sister; so that counts for something in his character deficiencies.   

And with all his shortcomings, he is much more honourable than many other KG... 

[Lord Varys]

16 minutes ago, Lady Dacey said:

Are you implying one or all of Aerys' kingsguard could have/should have stopped  his madness? That they should have acted before it got to the point it did? You are contradicting yourself my lord. 

This point was made about Jaime's character - the idea is that a truly empathic and normal human being doesn't need to cite vows when he or she wants to prevent a crime. He or she simply knows what's the right thing to do.

If Jaime was a good guy he would have gotten himself killed very early on during his time as Kingsguard. He would have intervened instinctively, just like Dunk did when he attacked Aerion. The fact that Jaime stood by and only killed the king when he was actually already a dead man walking pretty much shows that he was never really about 'doing the right thing'.

[LynnS]

21 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

And with all his shortcomings, he is much more honourable than many other KG... 

There are no black or white characters.  All the characters are flawed or broken in some way.  In Jaime's case, it might come down to making the right choices for the wrong reasons.

In retrospect and years later, we hear what may have driven the choice ultimately.  So I can't dismiss his confession.  But yes, the KG has fallen to new lows.  Robert Strong a member of KG? Did anyone hear his oath?  LOL.