Tyrion hatred

[SerBarristantheOld]

Yea, and this is beside the point you were originally arguing against me about, which was about the extent to which Jaime is deluded in using the word "justice" in this context.

"Justice" is not synonymous with "morality." Justice is about executing the law impartially and fairly.

The problem here is not Jaime's lack of trial (trials don't seem to be legal obligations for passing judgment on smallfolk, and these men were caught in the unlawful act they were punished for). The problem here is the fact that poverty is essentially a crime-- the law itself is where the moral problem lies (not to mention the socio-economic climate where foraging, theft and squatting is the only available resources for these "broken men").

I have a problem with the definitions of Westerosi law in general; not holding trials for smallfolk is barely scratching the surface of the problem here. The fact that poor, desperate people are guilty of crimes by virtue of the fact that they are poor and desperate is the problem, and no holding of a trial would make this more moral so long as these legal definitions remain in place.

You have a problem with the law itself, as do I. But justice is about executing the law-- moral or not-- impartially and consistently. Given that Jaime found these men in the act of being poor, desperate and trespassing, they were guilty according to the law (again, not synonymous with morality).

So when Jaime executes a law impartially, he has every right to call that justice. Which is what he did. No delusion there.

See this is where we disagree and this is where we aren't coming to terms.

I think those men were owed a trial but clearly we aren't even on the same level when debating.

[Mourneblade]

See this is where we disagree and this is where we aren't coming to terms.

I think those men were owed a trial but clearly we aren't even on the same level when debating.

Butter is 100% correct here. Under the current conditions and with in the context of the story, Jamie has no reason to give them a trial. There is no Magna Carta, this is not a civilized modern society.

This is his Right as lord and commander and viewed in proper context is Justice.

[Dany Girl]

And you know that how?

Prior to the marriage Joffrey was giving every indication of how he was just itching to kill her, and probably in an interesting manner .... You forget that more than one of the Lannisters aren't sane -- or are politically unintelligent, if you prefer -- as Cersei and and Joffrey show at every turn.

I know this because it's what happens! They're not going to kill a hostage, end of story. Especially not a hostage that's key to the north. They're not. Letting Joff beat her is one thing, and something that gets stopped. Tywin never would have allowed that in the first place.

[David Selig]

This is how the high lords do things in Westeros especially in war. Jamie feels this is justice, and he clearly understands the laws and duties of command. So this would be considered justice in the context of the story.

We are talking about Jaime here, a guy who's never given a damn about any laws, who broke the laws of the realm and committed high treason regularly for more than a decade and continues to break the law it to this day without feeling the least bit guilty.

Yea, and this is beside the point you were originally arguing against me about, which was about the extent to which Jaime is deluded in using the word "justice" in this context.

"Justice" is not synonymous with "morality." Justice is about executing the law impartially and fairly.

The problem here is not Jaime's lack of trial (trials don't seem to be legal obligations for passing judgment on smallfolk, and these men were caught in the unlawful act they were punished for). The problem here is the fact that poverty is essentially a crime-- the law itself is where the moral problem lies (not to mention the socio-economic climate where foraging, theft and squatting is the only available resources for these "broken men").

I have a problem with the definitions of Westerosi law in general; not holding trials for smallfolk is barely scratching the surface of the problem here. The fact that poor, desperate people are guilty of crimes by virtue of the fact that they are poor and desperate is the problem, and no holding of a trial would make this more moral so long as these legal definitions remain in place.

You have a problem with the law itself, as do I. But justice is about executing the law-- moral or not-- impartially and consistently. Given that Jaime found these men in the act of being poor, desperate and trespassing, they were guilty according to the law (again, not synonymous with morality).

So when Jaime executes a law impartially, he has every right to call that justice. Which is what he did. No delusion there.

What law would that be? Even if Westeros trespassing while being poor isn't a capital offense.

[SerBarristantheOld]

Exactly. If Jaime is hanging people for breaking laws, then by that standard, he should be(sent to the headsmen instead).

He has no right to exact "justice" or anything.

[complexphoenix]

Exactly. If Jaime is hanging people for breaking laws, then by that standard, he should be(sent to the headsmen instead).

He has no right to exact "justice" or anything.

Westeros doesn't have anything like our well-developed system of police and courts. Justice, such as it is, is administered by the crown and by lords within their territories. Jaime is a servant of the crown, and only the crown can tell him what he can and can't do. If Tommen and Cersei have no problem with him hanging people, then he has every right to do it under the law, such as it is. Also, they have no functioning concept of equality before the law, innocent until proven guilty, or impartiality.

[Mourneblade]

I know this because it's what happens! They're not going to kill a hostage, end of story. Especially not a hostage that's key to the north. They're not. Letting Joff beat her is one thing, and something that gets stopped. Tywin never would have allowed that in the first place.

100% correct here.

They also have no idea the abuse that Sansa is going through.

But this does bring us to an interesting point. Tyrion takes a lot of heat over the marriage and wedding night.

First Sansa is a legal ward of the Iron Throne. Robb and all the other Starks are attainted traitors to the Iron Throne. From a strictly legal point of view. Tywin is well within his Right to make a marriage for Sansa. Just as Tyrion is well within his Right to marry her and bed her. The High Septon weds them, again perfectly legal in the context of the setting.

Everyone in the story gets this. From Robb to Catelyn to even, to her credit Sansa, who was ready to do her marital duty, with Tyrion. This is how things work in this world. The Starks were traitors, Catelyn abducted Tyrion illegally, and almost causes his death. It is perfectly acceptable and understandable that Tyrion would desire both Winterfell and Sansa in the context of the story. Sansa knows what is expected of her and only offers her opinion on the matter when Tyrion asks her. Under this setting and these conditions Tyrion does the heroic thing.

This whole situation is never intended to be viewed as a negative for Tyrion with in context. Now viewed from a modern perspective this is repulsive and extremely criminal.

Again just try and view Tyrion in context, timeline, and setting. Tyrion does enough later to be viewed as vile in context, but this is not one of them.

[butterbumps!]

What law would that be? Even if Westeros trespassing and being poor isn't a capital offense.

He was charged with eradicating brigands-- it's a crime to be a "broken man," war deserters who have resorted to foraging and trespassing for survival. They have overrun the Riverlands. All lords in the vicinity are working toward eradicating (i.e. executing) these men, because they are unlawful. Meribald even describes them as desperate "outlaws." "Outlaws," meaning they are unlawful. Namely because they are desperate.

We are talking about Jaime here, a guy who's never given a damn about any laws, who broke the laws of the realm and committed high treason regularly for more than a decade and continues to break the law it to this day without feeling the least bit guilty.

Exactly. If Jaime is hanging people for breaking laws, then by that standard, he should be(sent to the headsmen instead).

He has no right to exact "justice" or anything.

Yea, this is getting closer to the truth, as I suspected. Hate Jaime for all I care. The accusation was that Jaime is more deluded in terms of rationalizing his moral mishaps than Tyrion is. This was used as an example, and under further scrutiny, it didn't hold up.

I'm not defending hanging poor guys because they're poor, for gods sake, and you'll note I didn't defend Jaime's doing this as right. My contention was that this wasn't a case of delusion on his part.

It's also bizarre to me that of the hundreds of pages we get of Jaime's POV, this one incident, comprising about 3 sentances, is being dwelt on to allege that Jaime is somehow more fundamentally delusional about his morality than Tyrion is-- i.e. it's being used against my assertion that Tyrion rationalizes his morality more frequently than Jaime. And "justice" isn't even the same thing as "moral," which was my initial allegation wrt Tyrion. This is just a bit weird to me.

[SerBarristantheOld]

But Tommen and Cersei are false usurpers....

[Raving Stark the Mad]

LOL. Maybe we should only have perfect people uphold the law. Somebody seems to have taken "he who is without sin cast the first stone" to an extreme.

Its funny since, with all of Jaime's crimes, he's never seemed to be prone to going around and hanging people for no reason, but he just all of a sudden started. I guess he just woke up one morning and said to himself: "hmmmm, beautiful day for a hanging". Gathered up some random people and gave them tyburn neckties. Perfectly in character.

[Mourneblade]

We are talking about Jaime here, a guy who's never given a damn about any laws, who broke the laws of the realm and committed high treason regularly for more than a decade and continues to break the law it to this day without feeling the least bit guilty.

What law would that be? Even if Westeros trespassing while being poor isn't a capital offense.

I suggest re reading the book, he is quite familiar with the laws he chooses to follow and break, I am also not suggesting this is not hypocritical, it most certainly is.

As far as the law goes it is the Lord's Right. Roose Bolton does the same thing to squatters at Winterfell. It is the law of the land, you do not have to like it, but complain to GRRM about that not to those of us who are having a discussion in context.

[SerBarristantheOld]

I am not saying Jaime is more delusional. I am merely saying he does not revel in his horribleness. He wants to get better after all...he is totes not like Euron who is an awesome sociopathic monster

[Raving Stark the Mad]

From a strictly legal point of view. Tywin is well within his Right to make a marriage for Sansa. Just as Tyrion is well within his Right to marry her and bed her. The High Septon weds them, again perfectly legal in the context of the setting.

I agree with all the above. But outside a strictly legal standpoint, was it something to be considered moral? Would Robb have married a Lannister hostage in order to gain access to Casterly Rock?

The action was pure Lannister. Grey and pragmatic. It was a smart thing to do for their standpoint, and was not strictly illegal or even entirely immoral for the setting. But it wasn't exactly nice, was it?

[butterbumps!]

I am not saying Jaime is more delusional. I am merely saying he does not revel in his horribleness. He wants to get better after all...he is totes not like Euron who is an awesome sociopathic monster

so then why were you disagreeing with me? I never suggested he revels in his moral darkness. In fact, I specifically pointed out that he's much different than Euron on that precise point! The only point I was making was that despite Tyrion and Jaime's moral mishaps, I prefer the way Jaime engages with his dark side more than Tyrion, which I believe is a bit more detached, cynical and less rationalized (or "deluded" if you prefer) than his brother.

[SerBarristantheOld]

Yes but you pointed out he was honest about his badness. I dont think he is

[Mourneblade]

I agree with all the above. But outside a strictly legal standpoint, was it something to be considered moral? Would Robb have married a Lannister hostage in order to gain access to Casterly Rock?The action was pure Lannister. Grey and pragmatic. It was a smart thing to do for their standpoint, and was not strictly illegal or even entirely immoral for the setting. But it wasn't exactly nice, was it?

I agree with you. Tyrion could never be considered a paragon of morality, but he does have a weird moral code pre trial. He even is honest with Sansa about his whoring.

[butterbumps!]

Yes but you pointed out he was honest about his badness. I dont think he is

When he contemplates his wrongdoings, does he make excuses for why he did it? Does he try to say those actions were actually morally correct through mental gymnastics? No? Then that's what I'm talking about. Some of the bad things he did-- like catalyzing the war-- aren't connections he's made and taken responsibility for (i.e. his responsibility for the war isn't something he's thought about at all), but he doesn't pretend his wrong doing is anything other than wrong doing. The way he talks to Cersei about the things he's done in service to his love for her is exactly the sort of thing I mean.

[SerBarristantheOld]

I think he does. He thinks Bran was wretched and spying like wtf dude u have issues

[Raving Stark the Mad]

Tyrion could never be considered a paragon of morality, but he does have a weird moral code pre trial

I've been trying on my latest re-read of ACoK to figure out just what is Tyrion's moral code. It seems to me that he definitely is not cold-hearted. He feels bad at times for things that he does or threatens to do. I think he displays that he WANTS to do the "honorable" thing but that he will always choose winning, and survival, or even personal gain over being honorable.

One thing I have seen is that to Tyrion, the greatest crime you can commit is betrayal of him. If you betray Tyrion or attempt to hurt him or humiliate him or attack him in any way, you're basically on his shit list. The only people he refrained this to was his family, which he finally broke at the end of ASoS. At that point he basically becomes an individual who is out for himself.

He still seems to have a little conscience, but he is now driven by conceptions of revenge and taking his birthright as Lord of Casterly Rock.

[David Selig]

As far as the law goes it is the Lord's Right. Roose Bolton does the same thing to squatters at Winterfell. It is the law of the land, you do not have to like it, but complain to GRRM about that not to those of us who are having a discussion in context.

Yes, exactly, Roose Bolton, another guy known for his strict adherence to the law and custom, that's convincing...

The law, as far as it exists in Westeros (I don't think they even have written laws of any kind, almost everything is either very arbitrary or prescribed by custom), certainly didn't compel Jaime in any way to execute these people just because they were trespassing and squatting in an abandoned building. Could he do it and consider it "legal"? Sure, because his powers as lord and military commander in the area are almost unlimited and he can interpret the "law" very broadly, but the argument that he was just following the law impartially and that makes it justice of any kind is one I don't buy. Roose executing one of his servants because he annoys him would be legal too, but it doesn't make it justice.