Jaime broke an oath when he killed Aerys

[Lady Dacey]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

Lord Varys, thanks for enlightening us on the nature of the question. The OP didn't ask us if Jaime broke an oath - he stated it. And I haven't seen a single poster dispute this truth, it seems it's very straightforward, Jaime did break an oath and he's seen as a terrible person for it in-universe. He didn't get punished, which irks a lot of people in-universe as well. The OP did say what he thinks Jaime should have done (fled with the King) and it looks like a lot of the members of this forum took this as an opportunity precisely to discuss Jaime's arc: his reasons and motivations and rationalizations. Why is this not the place for such fruitful discussion? We all know what oathbraking mans in the framework of westerosi society, what could we gain from discussing it? 

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

For someone so engaged in making us see what oathbreaking entails in the framework of the society Jaime lives in you seem very out of touch with that framework. While the so-called rightful king (Aerys) is alive, there's no way Robert or anyone else could ever sit the throne. That is a given. That's why there's even rumours about Raeghar, the crowned prince, orquestrating a conspiracy to overthrow his father - it's not simple to unmake a king without killing him. It's just ludicrous to suggest Aerys could have been imprisioned and loyalists wouldn't fight it because "they knew how crazy tha king was" if it were that simple... 

On a side note, you are making a big moral distinction between "killing" and "letting die", saying Jaime would have been much better off if he had just stood aside and let Tywin's men do the killing. While I agree society in general would probably judge Jaime much less harshly, I fail to see how "letting die" would be a more honourable choice (to westerosi standards) or more ethical choice (to our standards). In fact, I believe "swinging the sword" and "blooding his own hands" as more honourable, honest behavior than just standing aside, in the context of medievalist morals. 

[Lady Dacey]

35 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

truly empathic and normal human being (...) simply knows what's the right thing to do.

Really? That's debatable in so many levels I don't think it's worth it to start... there are some philosophical schools that sort of go that route, but I'm pretty sure GRRM strongly disagrees with you. 

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, Lady Dacey said:

For someone so engaged in making us see what oathbreaking entails in the framework of the society Jaime lives in you seem very out of touch with that framework. While the so-called rightful king (Aerys) is alive, there's no way Robert or anyone else could ever sit the throne. That is a given. That's why there's even rumours about Raeghar, the crowned prince, orquestrating a conspiracy to overthrow his father - it's not simple to unmake a king without killing him. It's just ludicrous to suggest Aerys could have been imprisioned and loyalists wouldn't fight it because "they knew how crazy tha king was" if it were that simple...

We actually have sort of a precedent for a monarch replacing another. Rhaenyra ascended the Iron Throne while Aegon II was still alive. And it is certainly possible that Stannis would have done something similar had he taken KL and Joffrey had escaped in a similar manner. We also have the precedent of Ronard Storm seizing the crown of the Stormlands while his half-brother Morden II was confined to a tower cell.

Now, the Targaryens weren't the Durrandons, but Rhaegar obviously did not intend to kill his father, either. Had he ended up serving as Prince Regent or taken over in his father's place - Aerys II wouldn't have been killed.

4 hours ago, Lady Dacey said:

On a side note, you are making a big moral distinction between "killing" and "letting die", saying Jaime would have been much better off if he had just stood aside and let Tywin's men do the killing. While I agree society in general would probably judge Jaime much less harshly, I fail to see how "letting die" would be a more honourable choice (to westerosi standards) or more ethical choice (to our standards). In fact, I believe "swinging the sword" and "blooding his own hands" as more honourable, honest behavior than just standing aside, in the context of medievalist morals. 

It would have helped Jaime's honor had he not killed his king. He didn't need to do that to save anyone. And if he wanted to see Aerys dead - which obviously is the reason why he killed him with his own hands - it would have been much better for him if he had stood aside or had allowed himself to be taken by the Lannisters.

4 hours ago, Lady Dacey said:

Really? That's debatable in so many levels I don't think it's worth it to start... there are some philosophical schools that sort of go that route, but I'm pretty sure GRRM strongly disagrees with you. 

This doesn't apply in every context, but it sure as hell does in the contexts we are talking about here, i.e. brother-husbands raping their sister-wives, men hurting innocent women, madmen sentencing people to death in cruel manners, etc.

Jaime doesn't have to have sworn a knight's vow to know that it was wrong to not protect Rhaella from Aerys. He also doesn't have to have sworn a vow to defend the innocent to know that it is very wrong to burn a city full of innocent people.

[Varysblackfyre321]

4 hours ago, Lady Dacey said:

fail to see how "letting die" would be a more honourable choice (to westerosi standards) or more ethical choice (to our standards). In fact, I believe "swinging the sword" and "blooding his own hands" as more honourable, honest behavior than just standing aside, in the context of medievalis

The difference between a Stark executes someone and what Jamie did is that they were granted the authority. Jamie was not. The Starks do it front the world for all to see to show they've nothing to hide their verdict is just. Jamie planned to slink away before anyone knew of his murder. He murdered Aerys not out of justice or necessity but for his own sense of satisfaction. 

[Lady Dacey]

3 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

The difference between a Stark executes someone and what Jamie did is that they were granted the authority. Jamie was not. The Starks do it front the world for all to see to show they've nothing to hide their verdict is just. Jamie planned to slink away before anyone knew of his murder. He murdered Aerys not out of justice or necessity but for his own sense of satisfaction. 

Oh, I'm not claiming Jaime was honorable or just in killing Aerys. What I'm saying is that between two options that both lead to the king being dead (one being killing him, and the other standing aside  and allowing a random Lannister soldier to do so) dirtying his hands is more honest. I don't remember thinking Jaime took pleasure in killing Aerys while reading his chapters, actually. Do we have any quotes that suggests that? 

[Blackwater Revenant]

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

Perhaps there is no precedents of this actually happening, however there are several cases supporting that it is believed to be within the rights of a King - or even one of a lesser status than a King - to absolve one of these vows.

Not only is there Robb believing he can have Jon released, as I'm sure we all know of.

And not to mention the precedent of Selmy being released from the King's Guard - a comparable vow.

A Storm of Swords - Catelyn V

Quote

"So do the knights of the Kingsguard. That did not stop the Lannisters from stripping the white cloaks from Ser Barristan Selmy and Ser Boros Blount when they had no more use for them. If I send the Watch a hundred men in Jon's place, I'll wager they find some way to release him from his vows."

But as well, several Lords believed it was within their rights and powers to have Aemon released from his vows.

The World of Ice and Fire - The Targaryen Kings: Maekar I

Quote

In 233 AC, hundred of lords great and small assembled in King's Landing. With both of Maekar's elder sons deceased, there were four possible claimants. The Great Council dismissed Prince Daeron's sweet but simple-minded daughter Vaella immediately. Only a few spoke up for Aerion Brightflame's son Maegor; an infant king would have meant a long, contentious regency, and there were also fears that the boy might have inherited his father's cruelty and madness. Prince Aegon was the obvious choice, but some lords distrusted him as well, for his wanderings with his hedge knight had left him "half a peasant," according to many. Enough hated him, in fact, that an effort was made to determine whether his elder brother Maester Aemon might be released from his vows, but Aemon refused, and nothing came of it.

It also seems that even the High Septon has it within his power to absolve one of such vows.

A Clash of Kings - Jon I

Quote

"Yes and no. First they offered it, quietly, to Aemon. And quietly he refused. The gods meant for him to serve, not to rule, he told them. He had sworn a vow and would not break it, though the High Septon himself offered to absolve him. Well, no sane man wanted any blood of Aerion's on the throne, and Daeron's girl was a lackwit besides being female, so they had no choice but to turn to Aemon's younger brother—Aegon, the Fifth of His Name. Aegon the Unlikely, they called him, born the fourth son of a fourth son. Aemon knew, and rightly, that if he remained at court those who disliked his brother's rule would seek to use him, so he came to the Wall. And here he has remained, while his brother and his brother's son and his son each reigned and died in turn, until Jaime Lannister put an end to the line of the Dragonkings."

 

[Blackwater Revenant]

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

This seems to be quite the contradictory stance on your part, as in the other thread we were having a discussion in, you were pretty adamant that the assassination of Viserys and Daenerys were paramount in securing Robert's rule. You did claim that as long as there was a living Targaryen around, Robert's throne would never be free of the threat posed by their claims. (Regardless of the situation, or the likelihood of that threat coming to fruition)

[The Fattest Leech]

1 hour ago, Lady Dacey said:

Oh, I'm not claiming Jaime was honorable or just in killing Aerys. What I'm saying is that between two options that both lead to the king being dead (one being killing him, and the other standing aside  and allowing a random Lannister soldier to do so) dirtying his hands is more honest. I don't remember thinking Jaime took pleasure in killing Aerys while reading his chapters, actually. Do we have any quotes that suggests that? 

Correct. Remember when Petyr was giving Sansa that "lesson" in not bloodying her hands? It was told euphemistically using fruit, the stand-in for family/people. Here, Littlefinger is using his dagger to do his work while offering a slice of the "prize" to Sansa (many meanings in the passage). However, Sansa rejects Littlefingers offerings and instead swings her own sword. The northern way, and in her own more Lady-like manner.  

A Storm of Swords - Sansa VI

"So one of the Kettleblacks put the poison in Joff's cup?" Ser Osmund had been near the king all night, she remembered.

"Did I say that?" Lord Petyr cut the blood orange in two with his dagger and offered half to Sansa. "The lads are far too treacherous to be part of any such scheme . . . and Osmund has become especially unreliable since he joined the Kingsguard. That white cloak does things to a man, I find. Even a man like him." He tilted his chin back and squeezed the blood orange, so the juice ran down into his mouth. "I love the juice but I loathe the sticky fingers," he complained, wiping his hands. "Clean hands, Sansa. Whatever you do, make certain your hands are clean."

Sansa spooned up some juice from her own orange. "But if it wasn't the Kettleblacks and it wasn't Ser Dontos . . . you weren't even in the city, and it couldn't have been Tyrion . . ."

"No more guesses, sweetling?"

She shook her head. "I don't . . ."

Petyr smiled. "I will wager you that at some point during the evening someone told you that your hair net was crooked and straightened it for you."

 

[The Fattest Leech]

1 hour ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Perhaps there is no precedence of this actually happening, however there are several cases supporting that it is believed to be within the rights of a King - or even one of a lesser status than a King - to absolve one of these vows.

Not only is there Robb believing he can have Jon released, as I'm sure we all know of.

And not to mention the precedence of Selmy being released from the King's Guard - a comparable vow.

A Storm of Swords - Catelyn V

But as well, several Lords believed it was within their rights and powers to have Aemon released from his vows.

The World of Ice and Fire - The Targaryen Kings: Maekar I

It also seems that even the High Septon has it within his power to absolve one of such vows.

A Clash of Kings - Jon I

 

Totally with you here, and good book quotes used

And also from the author himself, apparently it is not totally unheard of in history either. While the occurrences are rare, and are taken seriously, exceptions do happen, and I assume that it takes something huge to make that happen... and I can think of a few monumental issues in the current story that would lead to this decision.

Q: The second concerns the oaths of the Night Watch, Maesters, King's Guard, silent sisters, etc. Both Robb and Stannis, and presumably Robb's great lords, thought it was possible that Jon could be released form his oaths. Other than the precedent established by Joffrey with Ser Barristan, is there any other past precedent with any of the other organizations were the members swear poverty, celibacy, etc. to be honorably released from their vows? I ask because if the NW has been around for 8000 years, and many great lords and/or their families may have joined (not entirely willing in some cases), there seems to be a lot of potential for "exceptions" to develop as time went on.

GRRM: Yes, there have been a few other cases, but they have been very rare. Such vows are taken very seriously.

http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/1127

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Perhaps there is no precedence of this actually happening, however there are several cases supporting that it is believed to be within the rights of a King - or even one of a lesser status than a King - to absolve one of these vows.

Not only is there Robb believing he can have Jon released, as I'm sure we all know of.

And not to mention the precedence of Selmy being released from the King's Guard - a comparable vow.

It isn't the same vow, though. The vow of the Kingsguard is sworn to the king, but the vow of the Night's Watch isn't sworn to the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch, is it?

It makes sense that the king can dismiss a Kingsguard from his service - or release him from his vows, especially if he works in concert with the High Septon (who would then speak for the gods in the matter).

But the NW is an entirely different matter. Robb mistakenly believe the issues he would have to overcome are with the Watch - but they are not the ones keeping Jon. Custom and tradition keep him there. A man leaving the Watch is a deserter and turncloak. It is not the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch who demands that deserters be executed. The people of the Seven Kingdoms demand this. And their lords do it.

In addition, Jon actually swore in front of a heart tree. The old gods are silent and have no representatives on earth (unlike the Seven) so nobody technically can release either Sam or Jon from their vows. Assuming people would accept that kind of thing. Which they likely would not.

The vows of a maester aren't on the same level as either the Night's Watch or the Kingsguard. Maesters do not necessarily serve for life, and the Citadel has the power to take the chain from maesters who misbehave (e.g. Qyburn). In that sense the comparison between Aemon and Jon are way off.

There seems to be a hierarchy in the orders we know - the vows of maester would be the least, followed by the Kingsguard vows, with the Night's Watch at the top. Nobody comes back from the Wall. The vows of a septon/septa may be on the same level as the Kingsguard or even the Night's Watch - after all, we know of no case where a High Septon offered a septon/septa to release them from their vows or agreed that he/she leave the Faith.

1 hour ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

This seems to be quite the contradictory stance on your part, as in the other thread we were having a discussion in, you were pretty adamant that the assassination of Viserys and Daenerys were paramount in securing Robert's rule. You did claim that as long as there was a living Targaryen around, Robert's throne would never be free of the threat posed by their claims. (Regardless of the situation, or the likelihood of that threat coming to fruition)

We are talking different contexts here:

Aerys II as an individual was pretty much not really a king many people would want to follow after the Trident (and perhaps even before that). But that doesn't mean that the Targaryen loyalists and others were perceiving Robert as the legitimate king - or that people suddenly viewed Robert and the Baratheons as the rightful royal dynasty. However, if he had spared the Mad King's life - the way Aerys I spared the life of the pretender Daemon II -, confining him to a tower cell, his position might have actually have been more secure than it was after the murder of Aerys II and the children.

After all, the Targaryen loyalists couldn't crown a King Viserys III while Aerys II was still alive, and a show of mercy would have helped to heal the wounds much quicker. It is the Sack and what's done there that pushes Dorne firmly back into the Targaryen camp.

[Varysblackfyre321]

2 hours ago, Lady Dacey said:

Oh, I'm not claiming Jaime was honorable or just in killing Aerys. What I'm saying is that between two options that both lead to the king being dead (one being killing him, and the other standing aside  and allowing a random Lannister soldier to do so) dirtying his hands is more honest. I don't remember thinking Jaime took pleasure in killing Aerys while reading his chapters, actually. Do we have any quotes that suggests that? 

If not for necessity(which we've both agreed he didn't have to do), he'd have to kill Aerys because he wanted to kill Aerys. Remember how Jamie walked up to Aerys with the blood of Rossert's still on it? And how Jamie basiclly told him(calmly), whose it was? It was clearly to frighten Aerys before Jamie murdered him.

Yet even killing Aerys granted him as little satisfaction as serving him did.

It'd be more honorble to allow his father's men to take the mad man into custody give him a trial for what he did, presided over those who weren't sworn to  give their life for him. And then have Justice exacted upon him. 

[Blackwater Revenant]

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It isn't the same vow, though. The vow of the Kingsguard is sworn to the king, but the vow of the Night's Watch isn't sworn to the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch, is it?

I'll give you that. Admittedly, I had mistakenly thought the second quote, from the WoIaF, was referring to after Aemon had went to the Wall. However, there is still the belief by Robb that having Jon released wouldn't be an issue (which I will expand on momentarily). As well as the quotes by GRRM, that @The Fattest Leech was so kind to provide (thank you), confirming that there in fact is precedent of a sworn brother being released of his vows.

Quote

It makes sense that the king can dismiss a Kingsguard from his service - or release him from his vows, especially if he works in concert with the High Septon (who would then speak for the gods in the matter). But the NW is an entirely different matter.

It makes sense by what precedent? Or does it only make sense because that is your opinion?

Selmy certainly didn't think it made sense, or that even the King had the authority to dismiss him without a justifiable reason; Such as him breaking his vows or the like, which of course would require his execution as well.

It would seem that both Selmy, Robb (as he directly compared the two, and used the King's Guard vows as a precedent for releasing a member of the Watch), and GRRM, all agree that the vows of the King's Guard and the Night's Watch are equally binding, and a viable comparison to each other. GRRM also seems to be OK with the vows of Maesters and Silent sisters being included in those that are just as sacred. It doesn't seem to matter who you are making the vows to, as much as the actual act of swearing away your rights and life to these vows that is important, and taken very seriously.

Quote

Robb mistakenly believe the issues he would have to overcome are with the Watch - but they are not the ones keeping Jon. Custom and tradition keep him there. A man leaving the Watch is a deserter and turncloak. It is not the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch who demands that deserters be executed. The people of the Seven Kingdoms demand this. And their lords do it.

You are not making sense here. Are Robb and all of his leal Lords not people of the Seven Kingdoms? Are they not the very Lords you just stated are the ones that demand for, and perform the execution of deserters?

And I won't even go in to the Fact that the Lord Commander would actually be the one with the highest rank in the matter of proclaiming whether or not one of his men were guilty of desertion, and deserved execution.

You claim that "others will not share that view" and that "this still doesn't mean every in the North were happy that this Jon Snow fellow got out of the Night's Watch." Yet, it's these very same people that you claim won't accept Jon being released from Wall, who are the ones petitioning to have it done.

Again, as I pointed out to you in our other discussion, you seem to not understand that no society is ever going to be one cohesive unit of agreement. There is always going to be groups or factions among a society that disagree, and don't support all decisions and actions taken.

Who are these people that won't accept it that you are referring to? The Boltons? Someone who has every other reason in the Seven Kingdoms to oppose Jon's release other than what you put forth; Who also wouldn't think twice about balking at these vows and customs should it suit their cause. Need I remind you of their adherence to vows and customs when it came to attending a certain wedding?

Again, your arguments are based on strict adherence to laws and customs of which you fail to take into account, usually only matter to one when it suits their own well-being and cause. And views held by opposing factions, who have ulterior motives for wanting to enforce those views or beliefs.

[Blackwater Revenant]

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We are talking different contexts here:

Aerys II as an individual was pretty much not really a king many people would want to follow after the Trident (and perhaps even before that). But that doesn't mean that the Targaryen loyalists and others were perceiving Robert as the legitimate king - or that people suddenly viewed Robert and the Baratheons as the rightful royal dynasty. However, if he had spared the Mad King's life - the way Aerys I spared the life of the pretender Daemon II -, confining him to a tower cell, his position might have actually have been more secure than it was after the murder of Aerys II and the children.

After all, the Targaryen loyalists couldn't crown a King Viserys III while Aerys II was still alive, and a show of mercy would have helped to heal the wounds much quicker. It is the Sack and what's done there that pushes Dorne firmly back into the Targaryen camp.

Well I disagree, I don't see that much of difference in context here. 

Although Viserys was a poor, powerless, and friendless "Beggar King" wandering the streets of the Free Cities, you claimed he was still a threat. You argued that despite him not having any means to press his claim, he was the most threatening obstacle to Robert securing his dynasty. Was not your argument that anyone with an ulterior motive could use him as rallying point and figure head to challenge the current regime? Did you not state that the mere fact that Viserys was alive, in of itself was a threat?

How is this any different than keeping the Mad King alive?

[Varysblackfyre321]

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Aerys II as an individual was pretty much not really a king many people would want to follow after the Trident (and perhaps even before that). But that doesn't mean that the Targaryen loyalists and others were perceiving Robert as the legitimate king - or that people suddenly viewed Robert and the Baratheons as the rightful royal dynasty. However, if he had spared the Mad King's life - the way Aerys I spared the life of the pretender Daemon II -, confining him to a tower cell, his position might have actually have been more secure than it was after the murder of Aerys II and the children.

After all, the Targaryen loyalists couldn't crown a King Viserys III while Aerys II was still alive, and a show of mercy would have helped to heal the wounds much quicker. It is the Sack and what's done there that pushes Dorne firmly back into the Targaryen camp.

I honestly don't know if keeping Aerys alive and in prison would be the wise choice(since it may mark unclear leadership since the current king is still alive), I do recognize there's precedent for such a thing. But then again puppet kings have aren't unheard. I have to say the main  difference I see it in sparring Dany and Viserys is that it'd be much easier to kill(which he hasn't tried) them rather than simply kidnap them by the time he actually decided to act against; they're surrounded by Dothraki and their missing presence would be noted and they'd be found rather quickly. Also, yeah the the NW establishment releasing a brother and a King releasing one of his guard is different. One swears to a specific person* the other the very institution itself with clear laws on the NW being a permanent occupation. 

And I have to point out, this also makes apparent to many Robb cares nothing for oaths even those to one of the most holy institutions in the north.  He'd bribe the watch with a hundred men to release a man from his oaths for political capital.  

[Blackwater Revenant]

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

In addition, Jon actually swore in front of a heart tree. The old gods are silent and have no representatives on earth (unlike the Seven) so nobody technically can release either Sam or Jon from their vows. Assuming people would accept that kind of thing. Which they likely would not.

I'm not sure this is really relevant, or would be a matter of contention among those opposed to Jon being released from his vows. The majority of the sworn brothers of the Watch take their vows in light of the Seven. The penalty of death for desertion is a man made law, and not a decree of the gods. Any opposition to Jon being released would be based on the Laws of the Kingdom, not due to religious fervor.

I feel as though Jon's vows to the Old Gods would be more of a personal conflict and struggle within himself, rather than an issue with others.

Quote

The vows of a maester aren't on the same level as either the Night's Watch or the Kingsguard. Maesters do not necessarily serve for life, and the Citadel has the power to take the chain from maesters who misbehave (e.g. Qyburn). In that sense the comparison between Aemon and Jon are way off.

We are not talking about being released for insubordination, or the breaking of vows though. What is being proposed is an honorable absolving of Jon's vows in light of extenuating circumstances, and for a beneficial cause or purpose.

The Lord Commander also has the power to expel a sworn brother from the ranks of the Watch if they misbehave, by sentencing them to death. They also have the power to forego the execution of a deserter should they deem so is not warranted; Otherwise we would have found Jon short a head, very early on in his tenure as a member of the Night's Watch.

[Lord Varys]

9 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

I'll give you that. Admittedly, I had mistakenly thought the second quote, from the WoIaF, was referring to after Aemon had went to the Wall. However, there is still the belief by Robb that having Jon released wouldn't be an issue (which I will expand on momentarily). As well as the quotes by GRRM, that @The Fattest Leech was so kind to provide (thank you), confirming that there in fact is precedent of a sworn brother being released of his vows.

The reader asking the question there combines all those vows into one. But the fact remains that they are, quite visibly, not the same. George doesn't have to write a dissertation on those differences if he doesn't want to. There are precedents for maesters losing their chains (and a prince being offered honorably to give up his chain to take a crown), there are new precedents for Kingsguard being released from their vows, but there is as of yet no precedent for a black brother leaving the NW.

Does this mean that this is impossible?

Certainly not.

My point here simply is that Robb is clearly very naive as to how he wants to free Jon from his vows. He doesn't seem to understand the nature of Jon's vow. He seems to think that Jon is 'owned' by the Watch and that he can buy his freedom if he just gives the Watch enough men in exchange for Jon.

But that's not how it works. Especially not in the context of Robb just claiming kingship over two of the Seven Kingdoms. Don't you think many petty kings of old - and even the not-so-petty-kings of the Seven Kingdoms might have found themselves in a similar predicament as Robb did? Having no suitable heirs, fighting wars, and looking to the relations at the Wall as potential heirs? Especially in times where still many men of highborn families joined the Watch this kind of thing should have been pretty common.

If such trades were feasible then many other kings might have done them. And considering that one man against a hundred or a thousand would have been a great deal for the declining Watch the best explanation as to why stuff like that never happened is that the people of the Seven Kingdoms wouldn't accept such nonsense.

I don't consider it unlikely that Jon is going to get out of his vows - perhaps he is going to use the loophole that he died (although I'd find that a weak technical excuse, something more worthy a of spineless weasel), perhaps he'll simply be out of the Watch once the Watch as such no longer exists after the Others breach the Wall.

Without a Wall to protect the Night's Watch should be pretty much dead. They are a stationary order, after all.

9 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

It makes sense by what precedent? Or does it only make sense because that is your opinion?

It makes sense because it is somewhat ridiculous that a vow sworn by a knight can somehow bound the king he swears the vow to. I mean, the idea that a king has to suffer Kingsguard X he really, really, really can't stand is a huge stretch. There is a reason, I think, as to why George decided to kill Ser Marston Waters (very likely the bastard knight who shipped Aegon II to Dragonstone, subsequently helping him to take the citadel there, making him directly involved in the events leading up to the death of Rhaenyra) before King Aegon III reached adulthood. Waters ended up dying for King Aegon III, but it is very unlikely that Aegon III and Viserys would have been comfortable with a man protecting them who had had such close ties with their late half-uncle.

Or let us ponder what a hypothetical King Aerion would have thought about a certain Ser Duncan the Tall serving in his Kingsguard (assuming Dunk joined the KG during the reign of Maekar or Aerys I and not only after Egg became king)? Do we really think Aerion would have suffered this man in his Kingsguard?

While there is no precedent for a Kingsguard being dismissed prior to Selmy, there are cases where they were removed to the Wall. Lucamore Strong comes to mind, and we really don't yet know what happened to the KG who yielded to the Dornish when they killed Daeron I. Him yielding means he must have survived, just as the Dragonknight did, although he did not yield. Did King Baelor and Viserys replace the turncloak at once, or only after his death? We don't yet know.

9 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Selmy certainly didn't think it made sense, or that even the King had the authority to dismiss him without a justifiable reason; Such as him breaking his vows or the like, which of course would require his execution as well.

See above. It is certainly tradition not to dismiss Kingsguard without them actually breaking their vows. And Selmy sure as hell can cite that tradition. But it is also clear that the members of the Kingsguard cannot dictate to the king how he should set up his Kingsguard. As an institution, the Kingsguard is completely in the hands of the monarch.

One assumes prior kings really didn't have any deep-seated issues with their Kingsguard the type a King Aerion definitely would have had with Dunk, or an adult Aegon III may have had with Waters.

But who knows - we learned from Selmy that there were kings who had their Kingsguard guard more distant relations and even mistresses and bastards (here the obvious candidate would be Aegon IV; and Daemon Blackfyre may have enjoyed KG protection at one point during the reign of his father). If we assume that some kings didn't feel comfortable around certain members of their Kingsguard their inherited from their predecessors then those men may have been given missions out of the king's sight. For instance, Jaehaerys I could have sent some of the men he inherited from Maegor to protect his sister Rhaena and/or her daughters, others could have accompanied the Dowager Queen Alyssa and her husband to Storm's End if that's where they dwelt in later life, etc.

That way kings could resolve minor issues they have with their Kingsguard without actually dismissing them. 

9 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

It would seem that both Selmy, Robb (as he directly compared the two, and used the King's Guard vows as a precedent for releasing a member of the Watch), and GRRM, all agree that the vows of the King's Guard and the Night's Watch are equally binding, and a viable comparison to each other. GRRM also seems to be OK with the vows of Maesters and Silent sisters being included in those that are just as sacred. It doesn't seem to matter who you are making the vows to, as much as the actual act of swearing away your rights and life to these vows that is important, and taken very seriously.

Again, it is the reader who compares these two and George doesn't object. We actually don't know what vows the silent sisters swear, but we do know you can force women to join them. And again - we don't have a precedent for anyone leaving the silent sisters, either, just as we don't have a precedent for anyone leaving the Faith.

9 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

You are not making sense here. Are Robb and all of his leal Lords not people of the Seven Kingdoms? Are they not the very Lords you just stated are the ones that demand for, and perform the execution of deserters?

Robb has a pretty weird idea here. But he is a king. Very few people question him directly. I mean, King Robb actually shows how much power a king presumes to have in this world. He is a very strong example for a king who makes his decisions alone. He may ask for advice occasionally, but in ASoS his advisers (both his lords and his mother) are little more than extras in his decision-making process. He does what he wants, and he ignores counsel he wants to ignore. And no one in his retinue even questions that attitude.

And that's simply because he wears a crown. It is quite clear that being king did this to him. Robb as the heir of Winterfell - or the Lord of Winterfell - couldn't talk with his lords and family that way. But King Robb can. 

But actually getting somewhat out of the Watch and set up such a man as his presumptive heir is a very big fish to fry. Even if the North would accept such a thing - and opposition to this would only begin when Robb was actually making a real move to get Jon out of the Watch, not while he was writing papers. He had no intention of dying, and he had no intention of not having sons by his wife, Queen Jeyne. Her children should follow him, not Jon Snow.

Even if we assume for a moment that the North would be fine with Robb getting Jon out of the Watch and making him his heir (which is very unlikely, in light of the fact that Arya Stark killed poor Dareon in distant Braavos - some brave man would also give the deserter Snow what he deserved) - the Riverlords likely wouldn't, due to the fact that Jon had no Tully blood. And the idea that a 'King Jon' could actually live in peace and with the Iron Throne is very unlikely - the vows of the NW are taken very seriously in all the Seven Kingdoms. Even if a King Robb had finally made a peace with the Iron Throne (which is certainly possible under certain circumstances) then a 'King Jon' would have likely given the perfect pretext for another war.

9 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

And I won't even go in to the Fact that the Lord Commander would actually be the one with the highest rank in the matter of proclaiming whether or not one of his men were guilty of desertion, and deserved execution.

Lords catching black brothers on their lands certainly would double-check with the Watch whether those men are on the mission they claim to be, etc. - wandering crows, say - but there is no indication that a Lord Commander can, say, allow his pet lover, etc. to leave the Wall and return back to Oldtown or Lannisport to settle down and marry there, just because the sex was so good and he thinks the guy deserves some peace far away from the Wall.

9 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

You claim that "others will not share that view" and that "this still doesn't mean every in the North were happy that this Jon Snow fellow got out of the Night's Watch." Yet, it's these very same people that you claim won't accept Jon being released from Wall, who are the ones petitioning to have it done.

Robb intended to that. And pretty much only Robb wanted that. No lord of his actually raised his hand and said 'Your Grace, that's actually a great idea!', like a good little sycophant. The lords present were not even commenting on the matter.

And George himself has commented that there is a reason why we do not know what Robb's will actually contained in the end. We should not assume that it contains what we think it did.

9 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Again, as I pointed out to you in our other discussion, you seem to not understand that no society is ever going to be one cohesive unit of agreement. There is always going to be groups or factions among a society that disagree, and don't support all decisions and actions taken.

It is pretty obvious that the Seven Kingdoms were a pretty cohesive unit on the matter of the meaning of the NW vow for, perhaps, 8,000 years.

9 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Who are these people that won't accept it that you are referring to? The Boltons? Someone who has every other reason in the Seven Kingdoms to oppose Jon's release other than what you put forth; Who also wouldn't think twice about balking at these vows and customs should it suit their cause. Need I remind you of their adherence to vows and customs when it came to attending a certain wedding?

No, I actually mean the average Northman. Men who usually praise Lord Ryswell for sending his deserter son back to the Wall to see him and his companions put alive in the ice of the Wall above the Nightfort, so they never leave their post again.

The Watch is also not the Kingsguard. The Kingsguard are just seven glorious bodyguards. It damages their reputation if the meaning of their vows are diminished, but the Kings on the Iron Throne do not actually need a Kingsguard. They could abandon the entire order with a simple decree.

The Night's Watch is much different from that. It is a very ancient military order which is actually joined by men from all classes. And it has meaning to all the men in the Seven Kingdoms - especially those in the North - that the men taking the black actually keep the black. 

[Lord Varys]

9 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Well I disagree, I don't see that much of difference in context here. 

Although Viserys was a poor, powerless, and friendless "Beggar King" wandering the streets of the Free Cities, you claimed he was still a threat. You argued that despite him not having any means to press his claim, he was the most threatening obstacle to Robert securing his dynasty. Was not your argument that anyone with an ulterior motive could use him as rallying point and figure head to challenge the current regime? Did you not state that the mere fact that Viserys was alive, in of itself was a threat?

Your view on Viserys III seems to be sort of twisted by the moniker 'the Beggar King'. Viserys and Daenerys never actually lived on the streets. They always had reasonably good lodgings and the like. They were no longer honored guests of the merchant princes, etc. of the Free Cities by the time Illyrio took them in, and Viserys did indeed have to sell his mother's crown at one point to continue to feed and clothe himself and his sister.

But they were never actual beggars among beggars. If they had been, Viserys wouldn't have survived that lifestyle for more than a week.

The point here is that Viserys III wasn't his mad father. If Prince Rhaegar thought he could force his father to abdicate or seize power and rule in his father's name as regent, then such a scenario would certainly also have been possible for Robert.

Viserys - and any other Targaryen not in Robert's clutches - would still have been a threat to his rule in that scenario, but not as a rival king (while Aerys II yet lived) but instead as a dutiful son or grandson who intended to restore Aerys II to his rightful place.

And that kind of thing wouldn't have made any such persons popular at all. Everybody knew that Aerys II was a madman. The hopes for the future of House Targaryen did not rest on Aerys II but on Rhaegar. 

It may sound weird, but Robert could have very effectively destroyed the Targaryen cause had the life of the Mad King been spared while all other (male) Targaryens had been killed. Parading around this caricature of a man as a chained prisoners (hairs and nails intact) would have very effectively destroyed the magical aura of House Targaryen. It could even have done so far as to draw people away from any Targaryens in exile.

The way things went, Rhaegar, Aerys II, and especially Rhaegar's children are all martyrs on the Targaryen side. The way the rebellion strengthened the Targaryen cause. It did not weaken it.

8 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

I'm not sure this is really relevant, or would be a matter of contention among those opposed to Jon being released from his vows. The majority of the sworn brothers of the Watch take their vows in light of the Seven. The penalty of death for desertion is a man made law, and not a decree of the gods. Any opposition to Jon being released would be based on the Laws of the Kingdom, not due to religious fervor.

You don't seem to understand that the High Septon - as the Voice of the Seven on Earth - is speaking for the gods when he releases a person from their vows. That is how Aemon was supposed to be freed from his vows, for instance.

Since there is no such institution in the North - no clergy or anything - it would be pretty much impossible for Jon or Sam to walk away from the Watch with the help of the High Septon. They never swore a vow to the Seven, after all.

And, quite frankly, we do not know whether the death penalty for desertion is 'man-made law'. Since the NW is as old as it is we don't know where the whole thing actually originated from. It most definitely precedes the arrival of the Andals.

8 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

We are not talking about being released for insubordination, or the breaking of vows though. What is being proposed is an honorable absolving of Jon's vows in light of extenuating circumstances, and for a beneficial cause or purpose.

Why should the Watch care who is King in the North or Lord of Winterfell? This just special pleading. Any man in the Watch might be needed by his loved ones at home, yet they are all not allowed to leave. Why should Jon?

8 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

The Lord Commander also has the power to expel a sworn brother from the ranks of the Watch if they misbehave, by sentencing them to death. They also have the power to forego the execution of a deserter should they deem so is not warranted; Otherwise we would have found Jon short a head, very early on in his tenure as a member of the Night's Watch.

Are you really trying to sell us the idea that executing somebody means that you free them from some vows they have sworn? That is like telling us a doctor can heal somebody's cancer by killing them.

Mormont showing mercy to Jon is pretty merciful. He seems to have that authority while pretty much no one knows what's going on. But had Jon chanced on any Northmen outside the Gifts things would have gone very wrong for him.

But, quite frankly, I don't understand why Jon should get this free pass and Dareon did not. I mean, surely he could have come around to, remembering his vows and duty. It could have happened when Stannis' messengers arrive at Braavos, or perhaps only when the news about the attack of the Others come.

[the trees have eyes]

21 hours ago, Lady Dacey said:

what oathbreaking entails in the framework of the society Jaime lives in 

It's worth remembering that the wildfire plot to destroy KL is a closely kelp secret.  I believe Westeros would judge Jaime very differently if they knew what Aerys was planning - and indeed had given the orders to execute - and what Jaime stopped.  Yes, breaking an oath is dishonourable but preventing a citywide atrocity is something that society would have a different view on, and particularly those who found themsleves alive because of it.  As Brienne demonstrates even the noble elite who put such stock on oaths and honour aren't slaves to this system.  It's not an excuse for anything and it has it's breaking point.  The irony is that Jaime is both a hero and a villain for what he does but only the villainy is in the public domain.

[Lady Dacey]

1 minute ago, the trees have eyes said:

It's worth remembering that the wildfire plot to destroy KL is a closely kelp secret.  I believe Westeros would judge Jaime very differently if they knew what Aerys was planning - and indeed had given the orders to execute - and what Jaime stopped.  Yes, breaking an oath is dishonourable but preventing a citywide atrocity is something that society would have a different view on, and particularly those who found themsleves alive because of it.  As Brienne demonstrates even the noble elite who put such stock on oaths and honour aren't slaves to this system.  It's not an excuse for anything and it has it's breaking point.  The irony is that Jaime is both a hero and a villain for what he does but only the villainy is in the public domain.

[TheThreeEyedCow]

So many great posts in this thread!

Jaime killed Aerys because he wanted to; it amused him, just as plopping his arse on the IT did. In Jaime, we have an unreserved and unrestrained character who's not afraid to call BS and you can tell that he's noticed the futility of oaths and honor - 'so many oaths'. He literally disobeys  E V E R Y O N E  in the story. His father, his sister, both of his kings, Ned too I suppose and when Bran jeopardised his relationship with Cersei he just went ahead and dealt with it. When Robb surprised them at the Whispering Wood he charged out to deal with it. When Tyrion was abducted by Catelyn he went at Ned full steam. He even wanted to make his relationship with Cersei public. He's proud and strong and handsome and I actually agree with Jon Snow's estimations that 'this is what a king should look like'. And Tyrion notes that Jaime 'wouldn't untie any knot he couldn't slash in two with his sword'. The picture we build of Jaime is a proud and defiant one, he's never set up as the dutiful son or loyal Knight. So for us retrospectively, when he see's Aerys ranting and raving, demanding Tywin's head and the burning of KL, it stands to reason that Jaime basically just said nope and cut that knot in two. Perhaps it was naive, or maybe he's too self assured to understand the big picture.  

Jaime is his own man; he has his own mind and thinks autonomously from Westerossi standards and traditions. He's aggressive in the face of an immediate threat and we see this so many times prior to his maiming, most of which I covered in the chapter above. Barristan who is essentially the poster boy for the modern KG despises Jaime for his actions, and yet serves King Robert all the same. Is that honor? I don't know. I don't think so. 

Posters on here favor empirical evidence but a rationalist approach is just as valuable as the author essentially wants you to decide for yourself. It's the same with Tyrion killing his father. Can you rationalise Tyrion honoring his overbearing father whom had his first wife repeatedly raped? 
I just don't believe you can.

One last thing, we KNOW what motivates Jaime: Love. 

His love for Cersei, his love for his brother, his perceived affection for Brienne. These motivations have seen Jaime throw himself into danger with little regard for his safety. I mean he jumped into a bear pit ffs. If you need empirical evidence to tell you that he's chivalrous then there it is! As his love dies, so too does his sense of duty. We see this happen in his relationship with Cersei and Tywin. We see it grow with his relationship to Brienne. 

Did he break his oath? Frick yeah he did! And for many readers, it's a sort of honor that surpasses the likes of Barristan who'd humbly serve a tyrant purely to nurse his own foolish sense of pride at the cost of so many innocents. 
 

Quote

"I find it passing odd that I am loved by one for a kindness I never did, and reviled by so many for my finest act."

Jaime - ACOK