houseHB Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 Ease off Jaime???? Yes I love Jaime but if we give Jaime a pass then Tyrion deserves some slack as well for the way he killed Shae. Jaime killing Jory and pushing Bran out a window is far worse than what Tyrion did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minsc Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 So? We know Stoneheart will kill innocent Freys(see Jinglebell). Collateral damage that came about because of a bout of temporary insanity. All of the rest of the Freys have been individuals that played some part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winter's Knight Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 Look, I think we're all talking over each other. We all agree that Jaime is a morally complex character capable of good or evil-he's just not a good person the way Davos or Sam or Sansa or Brienne are good people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sansa_Stark Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 Collateral damage that came about because of a bout of temporary insanity. All of the rest of the Freys have been individuals that played some part. Collateral damage? Sure she went insane, but she was going to do it regardless you know. It was a calculated move. On her "honor" as a Stark, on her "honor" as a Tully. Honor to kill a innocent and defenseless man yo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 Personally given the horrific form of slavery practised in Meereen by the slaver class, the leaders of which were crucified, I am totally fine with it. Some monsters need a bigger punishment than a quick clean death. And a message had to be send that Dany meant business (sadly she grew soft later on). No way. Multiple murderers who cause massive wars aren't in the middle of the moral scale even in Westeros. Congratulations, then, because you've just declared horrific suffering desirable and thereby invalidated the basis for your condemnation of horrific suffering in the first place. How could anyone possibly need to be punished for torture with torture when you don't even consider torture wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 Three Freys have been hanged, who were involved in the Red Wedding, Ser Ryman, Merrett, and Petyr Pimple. But, we have no idea whether the 15 retainers who were hanged with Ser Ryman played any part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs_Darcy Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 Three Freys have been hanged, who were involved in the Red Wedding, Ser Ryman, Merrett, and Petyr Pimple. But, we have no idea whether the 15 retainers who were hanged with Ser Ryman played any part. They probably did and even if they did not, they just came from besieging Riverrun, so I would call them "enemy soldiers". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butterbumps! Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 No way. Multiple murderers who cause massive wars aren't in the middle of the moral scale even in Westeros. Why are you taking such an oblique view of this? His actions caused the war in that he and Cersei had bastards together; it was carelessness, but not purposeful malfeasance. He wasn't out seeking a war for gain or malevolence, so I don't understand why the fact that his actions catalyzed events is enough to turn you against him. IIRC, she hasn't hung any Frey not connected to the RW. Meanwhile, Pod admitted to fighting for the Lannisters thus he could be classified as a Lannister soldier. Moreover, he probably isn't any younger then the traditional greenboys that are killed all the time in war thus his attempted execution is likely not that unusual. I think it's any Frey in attendance at the Wedding, and I'm not sure about entourages. I get that we're supposed to be crying out for Frey blood, but I'm not really sure that Lady Stoneheart's actions can be considered anything but morally ambiguous. I get that Pod was at the age of green boys, but it was morally ambiguous at best. I'm not so much looking to debate LS, but rather, brought this up as an example of an action by another to point out a skewed rubric when discussing Jaime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Dayne's Honor Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 So? We know Stoneheart will kill innocent Freys(see Jinglebell).Cat gets a pass on that for me. Cat has done many horrible things.-Mistreating Jon (I understand why but it doesn't make it right)-Taking Tyrion Lannister (arrested him with circumstantial evidence which led to the dart of a war)- Freeing Jaime (In hindsight trading Jaime for Sansa(and Arya as far as Robb knew) is a smart move but doing it against Robb's consent she put Robb in a horrible situation. His inaction and disciplining her was because she was his mother and you cannot expect someone to punish their mother. Freeing Jaime also undermined Robb's authority and led to the inevital Karstark betrayal and desertion. She killed Jinglebell, a Frey, when the Freys were massacring the Northmen host and she saw her son(her only child alive as far as she knew) be brutally cut down. I wish she took more Frey with her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minsc Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 Honor to kill a innocent and defenseless man yo. People in the series take hostages as a means to threaten the hostage's family into compliance or punish them if they break faith. Ned, Jon, and AFOC Jaime all do the same very thing with the only difference being the family's of those hostages cared some about their family member while Jinglebell's grandfather didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minsc Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 I think it's any Frey in attendance at the Wedding, and I'm not sure about entourages. I get that we're supposed to be crying out for Frey blood, but I'm not really sure that Lady Stoneheart's actions can be considered anything but morally ambiguous. I get that Pod was at the age of green boys, but it was morally ambiguous at best. I'm not so much looking to debate LS, but rather, brought this up as an example of an action by another to point out a skewed rubric when discussing Jaime. I just want to note that I don't consider Jaime an irredeemable black(morally) character, instead he is at most just a dark grey character similar to Theon and Sandor and like those two he is attempting to redeem himself in a way but he is not yet good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 I never found a connection with Jaime's story for some reason and I tend to ignore it a lot of the time. However, there's one aspect that I really enjoy. Theon is my favorite character and one thing that makes me love his arc so much is his issues with identity. I think Jamie experiences a lot of these same things. Jaime doesn't seem to know who he is. Or rather, he knows who he is and who he wants to be, but he doesn't know how to be who he is in the society and career he lives and works in. He makes no excuses about being an asshole nor does he explain any of the noble things he does. He's very grey, but he lives in a world where blacks and whites are the expected norms. People see him standing over the body of a king he was sworn to protect and holding a bloody sword and no one asks him why because they expect it to be for a very black reason. The dude wearing a white cloak isn't supposed to kill the king, even when the king had plans to burn a million people alive out of spite. Characters like Gerold Hightower are revered by the public despite their jobs requiring them to do morally bankrupt things when their king demands it. Hightower is fine standing aside while a woman is being raped and he's fine supporting a dynasty that a large swath of the realm has lost faith with. He's celebrated as one of the greatest knights. No matter what Jaime does, he'll continue to be reviled because he disobeyed the cultural rules once and has this black stain on his record. He obeys his king completely and restores peace in the Riverlands even when it means working to support the reviled Freys, and he's loathed for it, even though he's technically following the rules. Westeros is very black and white and that sort of thinking is problematic. Jaime has committed terrible crimes and yes, he should be held accountable for them. Still, I think that this black and white way of thinking creates people like Jaime, those who recognize that there are shades of grey and that exceptions must be made in certain circumstances. It creates a person who can barely fit in because doing the right thing can be against the rules but doing the morally corrupt thing is the expected 'right' thing. It's no wonder that Jaime experiences what amounts to an identity crisis an extreme disillusionment. Of course Jaime isn't essentially a good guy. He's an asshole and knows it, but he's also someone who is willing to step in when he knows someone else is an even bigger asshole prick. It's interesting that Jaime's idol is the dude known for not always following the rules. And yet, the Blackfish despises Jaime and calls him out for an act in which he wasn't following the rules (kingslaying) but which everyone can agree should have been done. I wonder what Jaime would think of Davos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Selig Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 Why are you taking such an oblique view of this? His actions caused the war in that he and Cersei had bastards together; it was carelessness, but not purposeful malfeasance. He wasn't out seeking a war for gain or malevolence, so I don't understand why the fact that his actions catalyzed events is enough to turn you against him. Jaime did more than just being the catalyst through carelessness. He lead an invading army when the war started. He pushed Bran which started the whole mess. And he never ever felt the slightest bit of guilt or regret for his role in starting and fighting the war. Yes, he didn't start the war for gain or malevolence, but that isn't any consolation for the millions who died in it, is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sansa_Stark Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 People in the series take hostages as a means to threaten the hostage's family into compliance or punish them if they break faith. Ned, Jon, and AFOC Jaime all do the same very thing with the only difference being the family's of those hostages cared some about their family member while Jinglebell's grandfather didn't. *number of hostages killed by those people seems to be a lot less than Stoneheart. Dany took hostages as I recall. She didn't murder them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minsc Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 *number of hostages killed by those people seems to be a lot less than Stoneheart. Dany took hostages as I recall. She didn't murder them. Balon didn't murder Ned's son in front of him, Tormund(or other widlings) didn't murder Jon's kin in front of him, Blackwood didn't murder Jaime's son in front of him. The Freys and Boltons did murder Catelyn's son in front of her. Thus, the scenario regarding their treatment of their hostages are different. And that has backfired against her, if IIRC Barristan thinks poorly on that decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sansa_Stark Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 Balon didn't murder Ned's son in front of him, Tormund(or other widlings) didn't murder Jon's kin in front of him, Blackwood didn't murder Jaime's son in front of him. The Freys and Boltons did murder Catelyn's son in front of her. Thus, the scenario regarding their treatment of their hostages are different. And that has backfired against her, if IIRC Barristan thinks poorly on that decision. Again, it doesn't matter whether hostages are taken or whatever. What matters is that Catelyn killed an innocent man out of vanity and other people who took hostages haven't so far. Don't try to deflect by bringing up the circumstances. That's an innocent life that Catelyn has taken, while other hostages were never murdered. It totally counts against her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonin Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 Jaime is one of my favorite characters. However, he is not a good guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 Again, it doesn't matter whether hostages are taken or whatever. What matters is that Catelyn killed an innocent man out of vanity and other people who took hostages haven't so far. Don't try to deflect by bringing up the circumstances. That's an innocent life that Catelyn has taken, while other hostages were never murdered. It totally counts against her. I don't think one can have any sensible discussion about the morality of individual characters' actions, without discussing the context and circumstances in which they take place. Any lord who participates in war has innocent blood on his or her hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minsc Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 Again, it doesn't matter whether hostages are taken or whatever. What matters is that Catelyn killed an innocent man out of vanity and other people who took hostages haven't so far. Don't try to deflect by bringing up the circumstances. That's an innocent life that Catelyn has taken, while other hostages were never murdered. It totally counts against her. It is ridiculous to try and dismiss the circumstances in how they change everything about the situation. Simply, the purpose for why all those individuals took hostages were the same as Catelyn's only in her case the hostage's family didn't care enough to stop their crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sansa_Stark Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 I don't think one can have any sensible discussion about the morality of individual characters' actions, without discussing the context and circumstances in which they take place. Any lord who participates in war has innocent blood on his or her hands. Maybe so. But that's not what this argument is about. What Cat did was wrong and turning around and saying other people do bad things of varying circumstances doesn't excuse or justify what she did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.