Jaime's redemption

[cybroleach]

To whom did he swear not to command in this war? His oath to Catelyn Stark was to "take up no arms against Stark nor Tully."

Ahh. That's a bit of a stretch. In order for Jaime to be honorable, he should, as the Lord Commander of the Kingsguard, completely ignore an order from the Queen Regent, and go hang out with Mace Tyrell? I would argue that he did the honorable thing by doing what he was commanded to do, regardless of how he personally felt about it.

Also for Ser Vlad,

Yet, its completely honorable for him to egnore: Aerys commad to kill Tywin, her command to be the new hand or to champion her in the upcomming trial. Seems he's already had that one broken and as Jaime was explaining to Ser Meryn they arn't blindly sworn to do every stupid thing the King or Queen suggested as knights they are supposed to practice temperence and show some backbone in these situations. This was a situation where Jaime should have drawn a line and said it was something he could not do it yet he doesn't even kick up a fuss.

So because he was there at Riverrun with a sword on his hip, he bore arms against House Tully? So we'd better disarm the Police forces immediately, since they've been bearing arms against our families when we've done nothing wrong for decades.

What a boneheaded comment. First i just checked my door guess what im not beseiged by the police trying to kick me out of my house, threatening to kill my family and claim my lands.

Yes, he does. It's called the burden of leadership. He must find a solution to the Tully's occupying Riverrun, which from Royal Decree, they have been stripped of, and have no hereditary rights to any longer. They were in direct contempt of an order from the Crown. Jaime even put his oath to the Tullys and Starks OVER his oath as Lord Commander of the Kingsguard by trying to avoid shedding Tully blood first.

Revisionist history. He threatened to kill both Blackfish and Edmure. Blackfish knew he was bluffing immediately because of his missing hand. Edmure, ever the tool, did not.

He wasnt bluffing he fully intended to follow threw with his plans should it come to that.

You're blaming Jaime for Hoster Tully's decision to rally his banners to Robb Stark's rebellion against the Crown? The fact that Hoster Tully rebelled openly against King Joffery is the reason that they were stripped of Riverrun. Jaime came to enforce an edict of the Crown. By Westerosi law, Jaime is the one in the right here, whether anyone likes it or not.

Not at all, the point is he shouldn't have been there doing that if he truly wanted to keep any of the oaths he'd sworn but first chance he gets hes back at Riverrun. Law has nothing to do with his personal oath sworn less than a year ago and he didn't even sneek in a unless my Queen orders it.

He isn't beating the bushes looking for him himself, so he isn't bearing arms against Blackfish or anyone else. What is he supposed to do, again, ignore an edict of the crown to make people think he's a nice guy? He has a job to do, and he did it, in direct COMPLIANCE with the oaths he swore.

Again he follows his oaths when its convient for him. Well if commanding a besiging army isnt baring arms i dont what is except ordering people to hunt and kill someone. Hay he does both of these.

Infact if he truly wanted to honor his oath to Cat then he should have surrendered himself to the Blackfish as was suggested but that whould but ofcourse he doesn't do that because it is not in his nature to do the honorable thing. Barring that he should never have returned to Riverrun without Sansa and Arya and most certainly not to wage a war where his king's life was not being threatened.

How is that the same ol' Jaime? The old Jaime would have attacked Riverrun and wiped House Tully right out of the series.

As i said in my post he the same now he just uses his head instead of his hand.

This Jaime saved the lives of every single Tully who remained at Riverrun. Their survival is directly dependant on Jaime's problemsolving.

So he saved one guy he sent ppl to kill.

You totally missed the point of that scene, IMO.

The point of the scene is that Jaime realizes that Loras still has his honor, and should use him (Jaime) as an example, so HE WILL NOT LOSE HIS, as Jaime lost his. Jaime is simply trying to keep a young man under his command who he thinks has potential from making mistakes he himself has already made. What is the villifying point of that?

Seems you're further off base in that scene his words are you could lern from me meaning he should look up to Jaime as a mentor, :oras response is like how he learned from Ser Meryn and Ser Boros which upsets Jaime cause its almost true but he give the glib ans i learned from Ser Arthur. No where in there is meaning every directed to dont follow in my footsteps and make mistakes there conversation there is all about mentoring not do's and don'ts.

Maybe your confused and thinking of Balon who Jaime preached to about his example.

There's disliking a character, and then there's DISLIKING a character...Sheesh.

There's being a serious fanboy and then there's BEING A SERIOUS FANBOY of a character... Sheesh.

[Ironwill]

Jamie redeemed? Heavens no! Changed yes, but as his dream at the end of AFFC shows he has never been and may never be a great knight like he wished.

Let us not forget it was his desire to be close to Cersi that motivated him to become a White cloak. Sure he wanted to be a legend but he joined the kingsgurde for less than noble reasons, which is why the possition soured on him. Compare him to Ser Barriston who wanted nothing but to be a member of the Kingsgurde.

Jamie has not been redeemed (yet), he has mearly realized who Jamie Lannister really is; a man lost to both emoations and false futures.

On the subject of takeing up arms against House Tully I am reminded of the scean in Kingdom of Heaven where Bailin and the Leaper King are talking. The Leaper King says, "A king may move a man. A father may claim a son. But your soul is in your keeping alone. When you stand before God you can not say 'I was ordered to.' or 'virtue was not conveinent at the time." Not a great movie but a good scean. Jamie had a choice. Weather he made the right choice is a matter of opinion, but as the Blackfish said he did break the oaths he swore to Cat.

[Jon Targaryen]

By Westerosi law Tommen is the rightful King having been blessed by the official religion. Remember that medieval kings considered themselves having a divine right to rule from God. So really, when the High Septon blessed Tommen, Tommen became the King legitimated by the Seven Gods.

Tommen's rule comes from being Robert Baratheon's son. He is not Robert Baratheon's son so he is not the heir or the legal king. I don't think anyone is trying to say you could take some peasant and if the High Septon blesses him as king, he is king. Are you?

[Bog_Devil_of_Crannog]

Yet, its completely honorable for him to egnore: Aerys commad to kill Tywin, her command to be the new hand or to champion her in the upcomming trial. Seems he's already had that one broken and as Jaime was explaining to Ser Meryn they arn't blindly sworn to do every stupid thing the King or Queen suggested as knights they are supposed to practice temperence and show some backbone in these situations. This was a situation where Jaime should have drawn a line and said it was something he could not do it yet he doesn't even kick up a fuss.

You're contradicting yourself within the first two sentences. He does explain to Trant that you don't have to go along with every little thing the King wants to do...Which is exactly what he did by killing Aerys. He refused to allow a mad king to fufill a mad whim like roasting the city of Kings Landing. And for the record, he did tell Cersei that he shouldn't go, his place was with the King. She ordered him to go anyway. That's hardly going without kicking up a fuss.

What a boneheaded comment. First i just checked my door guess what im not beseiged by the police trying to kick me out of my house, threatening to kill my family and claim my lands.

It's not boneheaded under your guidelines for bearing arms against someone. If wearing a weapon on your hip, and being in proximity to someone is considered bearing arms against someone, which by your argument Jaime did bear arms against Riverrun, then by those same standards the police are bearing arms against all of us, since they meet the same criteria.

He wasnt bluffing he fully intended to follow threw with his plans should it come to that.

Read what I said again. I was addressing your accusation that Jaime threatened to kill Edmure, and hid behind his oath with Blackfish.

That is wrong. He threatened to kill both Edmure, and Blackfish. Blackfish just knew he was full of shit when he said it. Edmure didn't.

No doubt he planned to kill the whole Tully line if they were too stubborn or proud to surrender. Who wouldn't have?

Not at all, the point is he shouldn't have been there doing that if he truly wanted to keep any of the oaths he'd sworn but first chance he gets hes back at Riverrun. Law has nothing to do with his personal oath sworn less than a year ago and he didn't even sneek in a unless my Queen orders it.

Why would he constantly be thinking about if Cersei ordered him to besiege Riverrun? He already knows she did. By this time, he's just trying to balance both sets of oaths. Which he did admirably.

Again he follows his oaths when its convient for him. Well if commanding a besiging army isnt baring arms i dont what is except ordering people to hunt and kill someone. Hay he does both of these.

Not one single person shed one drop of blood at Riverrun in AFfC. Edmure didn't even get so much as a hang-nail. There's a difference between the threat of arms, and force of arms. He does by no means order anyone to kill Blackfish either. He send hunters and sniffers after him, not warriors.

Infact if he truly wanted to honor his oath to Cat then he should have surrendered himself to the Blackfish as was suggested but that whould but ofcourse he doesn't do that because it is not in his nature to do the honorable thing. Barring that he should never have returned to Riverrun without Sansa and Arya and most certainly not to wage a war where his king's life was not being threatened.

As i said in my post he the same now he just uses his head instead of his hand.

How would surrendering to Blackfish honor the oaths to Cat? Sure, Blackfish says he swore the oath for his freedom, but Cat gave him his freedom in hopes TYRION would send her daughters back. Jaime has tried to live up to that part of the oath as well. Brienne searched for Sansa all throughout AFfC at Jaime's bidding.

So he saved one guy he sent ppl to kill.

No. He saved every single person within Riverrun, and more than a few of his own soldiers who would have died storming the place.

And read the text...He never orders anyone to kill Blackfish. No matter how badly you would have liked him to so you could despise him for it, he didn't.

There's being a serious fanboy and then there's BEING A SERIOUS FANBOY of a character... Sheesh.

Strangely enough, I do like Jaime, but in the scope of the series, he's middle of the pack as far as who I like and dislike.

I responded to your post because I disagreed with you, not specifically to defend Jaime Lannister.

[cybroleach]

You're contradicting yourself within the first two sentences. He does explain to Trant that you don't have to go along with every little thing the King wants to do...Which is exactly what he did by killing Aerys. He refused to allow a mad king to fufill a mad whim like roasting the city of Kings Landing. And for the record, he did tell Cersei that he shouldn't go, his place was with the King. She ordered him to go anyway. That's hardly going without kicking up a fuss.

Maybe you have trouble reading but i didn't mention him Killing Aerys. And saying oh i dont want to is different than kicking uo a fuss. For the record there's a huge difference between not doing something your King tells you that you beleive is wrong and actually killing the man your sworn to protect.

It's not boneheaded under your guidelines for bearing arms against someone. If wearing a weapon on your hip, and being in proximity to someone is considered bearing arms against someone, which by your argument Jaime did bear arms against Riverrun, then by those same standards the police are bearing arms against all of us, since they meet the same criteria.

No its very bonehead. My lil joke there would be the only way that is rough paralle but even then then its not really the same.

Read what I said again. I was addressing your accusation that Jaime threatened to kill Edmure, and hid behind his oath with Blackfish.

That is wrong. He threatened to kill both Edmure, and Blackfish. Blackfish just knew he was full of shit when he said it. Edmure didn't.

No doubt he planned to kill the whole Tully line if they were too stubborn or proud to surrender. Who wouldn't have?

First off i was referring to Edmure's unborn child. Second i fully got your meaning and again he was not bluffing this isnt a debatable point we have his own personal thoughts on this he fully intended to follow threw on his threat. Maybe you should give it a re-read.

Now there is a direct contradiction of oneself if i ever saw one.

Why would he constantly be thinking about if Cersei ordered him to besiege Riverrun? He already knows she did.

You wording is very unclear here and i have know idea what point you're trying to make.

By this time, he's just trying to balance both sets of oaths. Which he did admirably.

And keeps none.

Not one single person shed one drop of blood at Riverrun in AFfC. Edmure didn't even get so much as a hang-nail. There's a difference between the threat of arms, and force of arms. He does by no means order anyone to kill Blackfish either. He send hunters and sniffers after him, not warriors.

How would surrendering to Blackfish honor the oaths to Cat? Sure, Blackfish says he swore the oath for his freedom, but Cat gave him his freedom in hopes TYRION would send her daughters back. Jaime has tried to live up to that part of the oath as well. Brienne searched for Sansa all throughout AFfC at Jaime's bidding.

They are all bearing arms though. He freedom was conditional upon the return of her daughters he swore that he would see them given back they were not. Tyrion has nothing to due with this other than you trying to pass blame off your beloved Jaime.

No. He saved every single person within Riverrun, and more than a few of his own soldiers who would have died storming the place.

And read the text...He never orders anyone to kill Blackfish. No matter how badly you would have liked him to so you could despise him for it, he didn't.

The first part is a non issue.

Well he didn't order them to take him unharmed, did he and the Blackfish woln't surrender without a fight. So most likely he'll be killed if caught. Not to mention he threatens to break his deal with Edmure and his oath just because he cant find the Blackfish.

Strangely enough, I do like Jaime, but in the scope of the series, he's middle of the pack as far as who I like and dislike.

I responded to your post because I disagreed with you, not specifically to defend Jaime Lannister.

Its okay to like bad people, you dont have to be ashamed of it just dont make them into someone they're not.

[Ironwill]

How would surrendering to Blackfish honor the oaths to Cat? Sure, Blackfish says he swore the oath for his freedom, but Cat gave him his freedom in hopes TYRION would send her daughters back. Jaime has tried to live up to that part of the oath as well. Brienne searched for Sansa all throughout AFfC at Jaime's bidding.

Because he failed to deliver on his oath. It is like being let out of jail for good behavior and then not showing up at your court date. Tyrion did swear to release Sansa, but Jamie swore their safe conduct as well. It was all in the terms for his release.

[Daemrion]

Tommen's rule comes from being Robert Baratheon's son. He is not Robert Baratheon's son so he is not the heir or the legal king. I don't think anyone is trying to say you could take some peasant and if the High Septon blesses him as king, he is king. Are you?

Obviously not, a peasant would not have a claim in the first place. Obviously, my first post was really a simplification of the real machinery of complicated medieval law which undoubtedly would have involved the church and religion heavily. Most of the Kings would have received the Faith's blessing as King...cementing their ascension to the throne.

When there are multiple claimants with what seems to at least claims which seem to be competing with each other (like Tommen and Stannis and Dany), the church plays a major role in deciding who the rightful King is by giving them the blessing. Obviously that was the effect of the High Septon blessing Tommen, making him look like the rightful King under Westerosi Law and in the eyes of the commons and the church, giving him the Divine Right.

Why else did Cersei dicker with the High Septon if he had no influence on Westerosi law. In medieval settings law was much more closely tied with religion than it is today and the church had an important role.

Maybe you have trouble reading but i didn't mention him Killing Aerys. And saying oh i dont want to is different than kicking uo a fuss. For the record there's a huge difference between not doing something your King tells you that you beleive is wrong and actually killing the man your sworn to protect

Outline me an alternate course of action that Jaime could have taken given the circumstances that doesn't end with more people dead. In Aerys's case an omission would have lead to crispy King's Landing. So I suppose there is a huge difference btwn omission and positive acts, but guess what, the positive act leads to a much better outcome from an encompassing all-world perspective. (certainly less people die). A lot of Jaime's AFFC actions all lead to less death compared to what he would have done before.

It's not boneheaded under your guidelines for bearing arms against someone. If wearing a weapon on your hip, and being in proximity to someone is considered bearing arms against someone, which by your argument Jaime did bear arms against Riverrun, then by those same standards the police are bearing arms against all of us, since they meet the same criteria.

Reply:

No its very bonehead. My lil joke there would be the only way that is rough paralle but even then then its not really the same

They are at two ends of a spectrum, Jaime's case falls in between the one end of actually fighting and this passive police type argument that is made. Obviously both ends of the spectrum illustrate their points nicely, but this falls in between, and different people have different standards and opinions. My opinion is that Jaime did his best to try to fulfill all the oaths he had sworn, and did it in the best way possible with a minimum of harm to overall society, while juggling all the oaths he has made or have been forced upon him. Theoretically he doesn't have to keep the oaths he made to Catelyn because they were made under duress, but lets say he has to because he's trying to keep them as best as he can. That's the thing, he's actually trying to make an effort to be a good man for the first time in his life.

They are all bearing arms though. He freedom was conditional upon the return of her daughters he swore that he would see them given back they were not.

Actually he never swore to return Catelyn's daughters. He swore to compel his brother to return them. It is not his fault at all that Tyrion was in no position to return Sansa or Arya by the time he got to King's Landing. If you look up the law of contract (which a promise is sort of like and you can sort of characterise these actions in letting him go in return for all these oaths at swordpoint), it's called frustration. And guess what, under the doctrine of frustration the contract/promise is no longer on foot because of the new circumstances which were not under the party's control. And Tyrion "killing" Joff was never under either Jaime's or Cat's control. And also Tyrion wasn't Hand anymore anyway - another sign pointing to frustration. (in the legal sense)

Well he didn't order them to take him unharmed, did he and the Blackfish woln't surrender without a fight. So most likely he'll be killed if caught. Not to mention he threatens to break his deal with Edmure and his oath just because he cant find the Blackfish.

Let's analyse it: he promises Catelyn, "I Jaime Lannister will do this and that etc...", but when he goes to Riverrun it is not "I Jaime Lannister am going to do this and that in contravention of the oath etc...", it is "I the Crown, acting through my agent Jaime am doing this and that which is in contravention of the personal covenant that Jaime made but I, the Crown am not bound by this personal covenant made by this agent, and he is acting at my direct orders of which if he breaks then he will be attributed high treason against the Crown. (possibly)" Notice the subtle difference there...

The Blackfish for all intents and purposes committed and is committing treason. Thus catching him is a Crown responsibility. Of course, the Crown officers in executing their job has to look after their own safety so if it comes to a fight there will be a fight and no one can be blamed for it. He's not taking up arms against Tully or Stark as a function of himself, but as an agent of the Crown which is not bound by personal promises Jaime made. He's not acting in his personal capacity but in his Kingsguard capacity as an officer of the Crown which promises obedience to the King not to whatever personal promises that person has made. And he's not personally taking arms up anyway. And anyway, Blackfish has committed treason against the King, which means that he's a dangerous criminal and criminals need to be caught.

His oath to the throne will trump the oath made to Catelyn, any day of the week. So he is trying his best to keep all the promises that he is bound to. I guess he was just silly to promise Catelyn anything at all. And guess what, no character in ASOIAF could keep all the promises that they are bound to. (not even Dany or Jon or Tyrion or Bran). The fact that he even tries to keep the oaths he made to Catelyn at swordpoint points that he is on the path to redemption - to doing something that is for the good of others not just for his own personal gain - to change from his past, he doesn't have to since they are for all intents and purposes really void because they were wrung from him at swordpoint. If X held a gun to Y's head and made them promise stuff, are those promises binding or not? More than likely they are not.

Secondly, he does say that High Lords have died beneath in the oubliettes, so I don't see where he's literally going back on his promise. And Edmure is a fool for the bluff/threat ploy anyway, it already has had success, why not repeat a successful ploy if you could be pretty much sure of its success?

[Wolf Girl]

Tommen's rule comes from being Robert Baratheon's son. He is not Robert Baratheon's son so he is not the heir or the legal king. I don't think anyone is trying to say you could take some peasant and if the High Septon blesses him as king, he is king. Are you?

If the church had the might to back it up (their new militant group?), they could choose their own king. No different from Robert claiming kingship or any other conquest. They just have to have the ability to enforce the decision.

[cybroleach]

Outline me an alternate course of action that Jaime could have taken given the circumstances that doesn't end with more people dead. In Aerys's case an omission would have lead to crispy King's Landing. So I suppose there is a huge difference btwn omission and positive acts, but guess what, the positive act leads to a much better outcome from an encompassing all-world perspective.

How bout restraint instead of murder... anyways this is a whole nother issue and not part of this discussion as its a very debateable point.

(certainly less people die). A lot of Jaime's AFFC actions all lead to less death compared to what he would have done before.

Tywin's actions in ASOS lead to less death does that make it also honorable?

Theoretically he doesn't have to keep the oaths he made to Catelyn because they were made under duress, but lets say he has to because he's trying to keep them as best as he can. That's the thing, he's actually trying to make an effort to be a good man for the first time in his life.

If he truely beileived that than why make the effort, also how much duress was he really under? Are you actually saying he was afraid Cat would kill him if he did not sware it? Because im 100% sure he'd be smart enough to recognize it for the empty threat it was.

Actually he never swore to return Catelyn's daughters. He swore to compel his brother to return them. It is not his fault at all that Tyrion was in no position to return Sansa or Arya by the time he got to King's Landing.

Well you got me there he technically wasn't responsible for their return due to the stupidity of Cat's oath.

Let's analyse it: he promises Catelyn, "I Jaime Lannister will do this and that etc...", but when he goes to Riverrun it is not "I Jaime Lannister am going to do this and that in contravention of the oath etc...", it is "I the Crown, acting through my agent Jaime am doing this and that which is in contravention of the personal covenant that Jaime made but I, the Crown am not bound by this personal covenant made by this agent, and he is acting at my direct orders of which if he breaks then he will be attributed high treason against the Crown. (possibly)" Notice the subtle difference there...

Again if he felt this way why can he break all these other crown decries yet this one that directly conflicts with his other oath he has to do or he becomes a traitor? That's almost an empty threat as Cat's, Cersei dispite being on the outs with Jaime would never name him a traitor for not taking Riverrun. Even if that's wht Cersei wanted Jaime could go around her and ask Tommen bestoe him with some other Royal mission.

Secondly, he does say that High Lords have died beneath in the oubliettes, so I don't see where he's literally going back on his promise. And Edmure is a fool for the bluff/threat ploy anyway, it already has had success, why not repeat a successful ploy if you could be pretty much sure of its success?

Wow tell me you dont see your own huge contradiction in that paragraph. Because he'd already given his word so doing that shows what his word is still worth. A man who cant honor his word cant have honor.

[Lord Stormbringer]

Made me think of Jaime and how powerful his redemption has been.

Do you believe in it? Do you think it was caused by his long incarceration?

I believe that he's trying to be a better man. But I think he's still far, far short of being truly redeemed. He's done a huge amount of harm to people and he's still serving for a truly corrupt (if not evil) cause. In that respect he's still falling quite short in my eyes; I tend to agree with the Blackfish that so much of Jaime is still the same.

I think that incarceration started it but that was, and is, only the beginning a long process that hasn't finished yet.

[Jon Targaryen]

Obviously not, a peasant would not have a claim in the first place.

Neither does a Lannister or a Lannister bastard for that matter.

When there are multiple claimants with what seems to at least claims which seem to be competing with each other (like Tommen and Stannis and Dany), the church plays a major role in deciding who the rightful King is by giving them the blessing. Obviously that was the effect of the High Septon blessing Tommen, making him look like the rightful King under Westerosi Law and in the eyes of the commons and the church, giving him the Divine Right.

Aye, "look." That is all the blessing is good for or used for. So the commons will think he is the rightful king. It doesn't change the fact that he isn't the rightful king.

Why else did Cersei dicker with the High Septon if he had no influence on Westerosi law.

Appearances. It makes Tommen's rule look better if the High Septon blesses him. It doesn't make his rule legally right.

[Antonius Pius]

I think there is some tunnelvision regarding Jaime vs Aerys; first off, Jaime already prevented KL going uop in flames by killing the pyromancers. Second, there are more options than killing Aerys and surrendering him. If he used his head, he could have worked something out. Hell, he could have kept Aerys in the throne-room by physically holding the door and then disappear as his fathers bannermen appeared. Then they would have found Aerys, and he would be clean. Or he could have gone off to try and protect young Aegon, which would actually be part of his job-description. Or he could have feigned being overcome by his fathers knights. Or Ned's, for that matter. But he didn't. He wanted to kill Aerys all along, because Aerys was such a bastard. Jaime was not wrong for wanting to kill Aerys, but he was wrong to actually do it.

Regarding Riverrun: I don't recall him being ordered to take Riverrun, but I guess thats irrelevant. He could have simply said that he had sworn a previous oath, which forbade him to carry this one out. But as a previous poster remarked, he chose family [his family's interests] over honor.

And saying that threatening to kill but not really planning to follow it through, and not being the exact one to kill off any Tully (Blackfish, Edmure or Edmure jr.) or not wielding a blade vs a Tully absolves him of his oath is playing with semantics imo. As the general in charge of the siege of Riverrun, everything is his responsibility. See Robb, who takes responsibility for Karstark's killing of the Lannister prisoners. I think we can agree that whatever Robb's failings were, lack of honor was not one of them.

By the way, how many oaths has Jaime actually sworn? Not so many I think. There is the knightly oath, and the oath for the Kingsguard. We don't know of any others, and if we do, they are "small-scale-oaths". That is, oaths for a certain mission within a certain timeframe. Unless I missed something, which I guess is quite possible. Ergo, to say there are too many oaths is the easy way out. He simply didn't care. He never has. He is merely starting to now.

Appearances. It makes Tommen's rule look better if the High Septon blesses him. It doesn't make his rule legally right.

Agreed. It's symbolic. It comes down to power, and Kings Landing has always been firmly in Lannister hands. This new High Septon simply made a deal. He can do it again. He made clear that it's the price that sways him.

[Lady of the Wall]

First, let's look at how much he has changed. Since his time with Brienne and losing his hand he has saved Brienne, largely stopped seeing Cercei, helped Brienne with her quest to save Sansa, kept his vow regarding taking up arms against Starks and Tullys (though that was largely by manipulating Edmure)...anything else?

Second, are these the sort of the sort of things he'd have done before meeting Brienne and losing his hand? It's hard to say. He probably would not have left Cercei.

Don't forget that he also finally told Tyrion the truth about his first wife. That wasn't something I saw him doing, either. I was ready to smack Tyrion when he told Jaime he killed Joffrey, though. I really hope those two don't wind up killing each other. Their lives are messed up enough already.

[Daemrion]

Neither does a Lannister or a Lannister bastard for that matter.

Aye, "look." That is all the blessing is good for or used for. So the commons will think he is the rightful king. It doesn't change the fact that he isn't the rightful king.

Appearances. It makes Tommen's rule look better if the High Septon blesses him. It doesn't make his rule legally right.

In the context of the story at that time, the people there think that Tommen is Robert's son and not a Lannister bastard. Of course the church blessing makes him look to be the rightful king. Obviously given what we as the reader actually know Tommen has no claim to the Throne, but given the context of the story, the church blessing is a powerful factor pointing to what appears to be Tommen's superior claim (when in fact he has none) over Stannis and Dany. Imagine the flip side if the church didn't bless Tommen, there would be a lot more people believing that he was actually a bastard and possibly supporting Stannis (in a covert way). It does actually make Tommen's rule right in the context of the story. We know that he is actually an illegitimate child but they do not. It is given the legal effect (deemed) to be right even if it is wrong, at the present moment. The blessing could be withdrawn and then people will start thinking...

Legally right now in a Westerosi Ecclestical Court of Law given what they know (not what we know) they would all find that Tommen is the rightful King and legal king.

How bout restraint instead of murder... anyways this is a whole nother issue and not part of this discussion as its a very debateable point.

I agree that is a whole other issue.

If he truely beileived that than why make the effort, also how much duress was he really under? Are you actually saying he was afraid Cat would kill him if he did not sware it? Because im 100% sure he'd be smart enough to recognize it for the empty threat it was.

I can't really say b/c I read ASOS before ACOK because that was the order the library gave them to me in. So I have no idea...(that was before I bought the books for myself). So I have no idea whether or not he'd think it was an empty threat or not, if I tried to make a judmgent call it would most definitely be affected at the very least by hindsight bias - having read past it. And anyway, we see all the oaths made from Jaime's hindsight which already has imbued hindsight bias in it anyway, so I can't be 100% sure that he would have recognised that he it was an empty threat, considering that he was dead drunk (so unable to make any sort of higher cognizance functions) and she had already pricked him with the sword. I mean at the end of ACOK did you feel that Jaime was going to die or not? I dunno cos I read them in reverse.

Well you got me there he technically wasn't responsible for their return due to the stupidity of Cat's oath.

Technically, Catelyn never trusted Jaime anyway, even he recognises that she puts her trust in Tyrion to honour his oath. And she knew that Jaime actually had no power to return her children (legal or otherwise). So there would have been no point to making him swear an oath to return Sansa and Arya when he couldn't do it. But Tyrion could do it, so she did the next best thing, knowing that Tyrion would at least listen to Jaime.

Tywin's actions in ASOS lead to less death does that make it also honorable

Obviously there are a lot more factors than just less death in deciding which of the two paths is more honourable. It is all about the facts in the book, and the facts illustrate that Jaime's actions were more honourable (in the sense that they were the best way of fulfilling all the oaths he had sworn) than the alternative action.

Tywin/Roose/Walder Frey's actions on the other hand broke more oaths than it fulfilled, it wasn't the best way of fulfilling all the oaths that they had sworn.

Again if he felt this way why can he break all these other crown decries yet this one that directly conflicts with his other oath he has to do or he becomes a traitor? That's almost an empty threat as Cat's, Cersei dispite being on the outs with Jaime would never name him a traitor for not taking Riverrun. Even if that's wht Cersei wanted Jaime could go around her and ask Tommen bestoe him with some other Royal mission.

Actually since Cersei is regent she speaks with Tommen's voice, she could have always told Tommen to say no, or put another decree in front of Tommen to stamp. And Cersei does think that she needs to be rid of Jaime in AFFC. Actually, technically he would be a traitor if he didn't listen, enforcement is another issue...which would make him dishonourable even more...so in effect he listened to his King's orders, given through the King's voice (the regent).

[Tyrionnosaurus Rex]

Am I the only person of the opinion that Jaime doesn't need redemption at all? I think one thing that Martin does utterly beautifully is paint the same character with different brushes while not being inconsistent. The first time I read, Theon seemed like an ass, yes, but not the hateable monster he became. The second time I read, knowing Theon already, I looked at everything he did in a different light, and saw that the monster was there all along. A friend of mine who read didn't notice at first that Randyll Tarly in the Kings Landing chapters was the father of Sam Tarly. Before making the connection, he saw Randyll as a shrewd, smart commander who was brutal when necessary. When he drew the connection, he realized that Randyll is a harsh and brutal bastard all around.

Jaime, to me, plays the opposite. On the first read, he does things that the reader in particular hates him for. He throws a kid out, but not just any kid. Bran. Our son. We don't hate The Hound as much for killing a kid because it wasn't one we cared about (most of us, anyway). Lots of people kill kids in this world and do not earn our searing hatred. At least we know why Jaime did it. He wasn't thinking, and he thought that's what Cersei wanted. It was reactionary and heartless, but not black-hearted.

He screws his sister. That was abhorrent at first. Now very few of us care. (I know, a lot of you do.)

Then he kills Jory, another crowd favorite. But as far as he knew, Ned Stark had just taken his beloved brother prisoner for no reason. He dealt with it the way a lot of people of power would have dealt with it. Admittedly, he did it in an immature and hot-headed way, but you can bet on this. The only reason a Tywin-type wouldn't have done something like that is that it's bad tactics in the overall scheme, not because it's a mean and heartless thing to do.

Once we get into Jaime's head, we can reread his apparently black-hearted actions simply as family loyalty taken to a foolish extent. Jaime was never evil. He didn't run a child porn ring for 20 years. He didn't sell crack to pregnant women and sell military secrets to mutual enemies for his own profit. If he had a show called My Name is Jaime, his list wouldn't be very long. His only chronic bad behavior has been being an arrogant prick, not using his head, and resorting to violence immediately. Martin cleverly steered that behavior into the readers' angry hearts.

I also agree with all the people who think what he did at Riverrun was honorable, especially because it damaged a reputation he's trying to clean up.

[cybroleach]

Am I the only person of the opinion that Jaime doesn't need redemption at all?

Yes, understanding that he's hothead and in love with his sister is no excuse for the attrosities he commits and doesn't absolve him of their ramafications even all the Jaime fan boys realize this.

[cybroleach]

I can't really say b/c I read ASOS before ACOK because that was the order the library gave them to me in. So I have no idea...(that was before I bought the books for myself). So I have no idea whether or not he'd think it was an empty threat or not, if I tried to make a judmgent call it would most definitely be affected at the very least by hindsight bias - having read past it. And anyway, we see all the oaths made from Jaime's hindsight which already has imbued hindsight bias in it anyway, so I can't be 100% sure that he would have recognised that he it was an empty threat, considering that he was dead drunk (so unable to make any sort of higher cognizance functions) and she had already pricked him with the sword. I mean at the end of ACOK did you feel that Jaime was going to die or not? I dunno cos I read them in reverse.

I suggest you read ACOK then becuase your missing alot of the story.

Reasons why Cat couldn't kill Jaime are she needed him alive to trade for Sansa and Arya, he was the norths most valuable prisoner, he was Robb prisoner who she whould have to answer for killing, she a soft woman who olny kills with good reason, and she had absolutely no motive for killing him. Not to mention Jaime's not afraid of death as he states a few time in ASOS.

Obviously there are a lot more factors than just less death in deciding which of the two paths is more honourable. It is all about the facts in the book, and the facts illustrate that Jaime's actions were more honourable (in the sense that they were the best way of fulfilling all the oaths he had sworn) than the alternative action.

There's a difference between Honorable and moral. While his actions were more or less moral they are no where near honorable. It the same situation where he killed his king he was sworn to protect while it also may be considered moral its no where near honorable.

Tywin/Roose/Walder Frey's actions on the other hand broke more oaths than it fulfilled, it wasn't the best way of fulfilling all the oaths that they had sworn.

Nobody broke any oaths there least of all Tywin, the only thing broken was an age old tridition by walder and his word.

Actually since Cersei is regent she speaks with Tommen's voice, she could have always told Tommen to say no, or put another decree in front of Tommen to stamp. And Cersei does think that she needs to be rid of Jaime in AFFC. Actually, technically he would be a traitor if he didn't listen, enforcement is another issue...which would make him dishonourable even more...so in effect he listened to his King's orders, given through the King's voice (the regent).

Yet he tells Meryn its ok to disobey the Kings royal command? He being a hypocrate then telling the others they can betray the king yet he has to follow orders or he's a traitor. Also, Jaime disobays several other commands of Cersei's so technically he already the traitor you labeled him and it just hasn't been enforced yet.

[Ser Vlad]

Tyrionnosaurus Rex,

Everyone is a hero in his/her own mind. It is not Jaime's beliefs that make him immoral, but his actions.

[Wolf Girl]

Jaime, to me, plays the opposite. On the first read, he does things that the reader in particular hates him for. He throws a kid out, but not just any kid. Bran. Our son. We don't hate The Hound as much for killing a kid because it wasn't one we cared about (most of us, anyway). Lots of people kill kids in this world and do not earn our searing hatred. At least we know why Jaime did it. He wasn't thinking, and he thought that's what Cersei wanted. It was reactionary and heartless, but not black-hearted.

I disagree. For one thing, I do hate the Hound for killing Mycah. But I don't hate him more than I hate Jaime for attempting to kill Bran. Both acts are vile: the reasons behind them don't matter. Where they do matter is in how and to what degree I am able to forgive them. And in that case, mindless, slavish cruelty on Jaime's part doesn't excuse him from blame or make him somehow more honorable than anyone else who kills. (And when it comes down to it, I'd almost rather he have had a good reason for doing it. That he does it so casually means he is black-hearted, in my book.)

I was ready to smack Tyrion when he told Jaime he killed Joffrey, though.

I was too, although for me it was because I thought it would make Jaime feel worse to know that Tyrion was innocent. I thought that was a bad move on Tyrion's part.

[nerdlinger]

Once we get into Jaime's head, we can reread his apparently black-hearted actions simply as family loyalty taken to a foolish extent. Jaime was never evil. He didn't run a child porn ring for 20 years. He didn't sell crack to pregnant women and sell military secrets to mutual enemies for his own profit. If he had a show called My Name is Jaime, his list wouldn't be very long. His only chronic bad behavior has been being an arrogant prick, not using his head, and resorting to violence immediately. Martin cleverly steered that behavior into the readers' angry hearts.

This guy beat up his wife and put out ciggarettes on his son and stabbed some random guy in the eye - why ? Because he was frustrated with his life going nowhere, his soul-crushing job and his boss and the whole world coming down on him - and the poor guy is just hotheaded - he may be bastard on the outside, but he is really crying inside and is really sorry for what he did. Now that we understand why he did these things, and have a better understanding of his inner demons, we should just forgive him. Right ?