Why Do You Hate Jamie?

[Artanaro]

No. You are the one who is wrong. If not, please cite the exact quote from the books that establishes that Aegon I did not worship the Seven early in life. I can easily cite the text that shows his ancestors converted long before him, with some SSMs to flesh it out.

You are correct that Aegon worshipped the Seven. I had it in my head that a conqueror wouldn't already worship the faith of a land he was going to conquer, but upon reading Westeros.org, you are right on that.

Dude, did you even read my post, let alone aCoK? Aegon never converted, his ancestors did when they first settled on Dragonstone.

Actually, it does work still, and even more effectively. You say he worshipped "the Seven." Catholics and Anglicans worship the same God, and share the majority of their sacred scripture. But in reading Westeros, I also noticed that Dragonstone had been occupied for over 200 years before the conquest. Followers of the Seven in Highgarden will not share exact doctrine of those at Dragonstone. By conquering Westeros he chooses to support the doctrine of the majority. The analogy works quite well I must say.

There used to be a custom whereby participants in a trial by combat could demand a 'Trial by Seven' in which teams of seven fighters opposed each other, rather than just two individuals. This had not been exercised for more than 100 years by the time of tHK. By your reasoning it would have lost it's legal validity through disuse, but lo and behold! That's not the way it works at all. Legal rights that have been dormant do not just disappear, they are there for the using if it occurs to someone to exercise them.

Didn't seem to hurt Trial by Seven any.

There's the difference between precedent against and simply no precedent. If something is unused, it may disappear or it may not. This is not the case with the Targaryen polygamy. They of course marry every generation, but they marry only one person. This creates a precedent to the contrary. What is there to contradict a Trial by Seven? Nothing. What is there to contradict polygamy? The preachings of the High Septon and marriage custom. It's very simple.

Any of them, except Baelor, perhaps? We even have non-Targs citing Maegor as a precedent, such as his "unmaking" of three Grand Maesters and his depriving the Faith of it's rights to conduct trials or bear arms.

Maegor unmade them by killing them. When did he unmake a Grand Maester and left them alive?

It sounds like you're exaggerating Maegor's negative reputation a bit, he's a respected historical figure, not an earlier Viserys or Maelys the Monstrous.

He's called Maegor the Cruel. How's that not a negative reputation?

Your objection seems to be based on some major errors; that Aegon the Conqueror was not raised in the Faith of the Seven but converted after his marriage (100% wrong), that this is the explanation for the decline in royal polygamy but mysteriously not a decline in royal incest, and that royal rights have some sort of built-in shelf-life like a trademark or patent. At least I got you to spell Maegor correctly, so we are seeing some progress.

But it makes perfect sense. The answer is not as simple as the ruling dynasty having free reign to disregard any religious precepts that they find unfit. That's nonsense. The majority of Westeros would never stand for that, especially after the Targs lost their dragons. Incest becomes accepted because it's prevalent among the royal family so it doesn't become taboo. The absolution of polygamy needs an explanation, and this one works. Dragonstone was a Valaryian outpost, subject to Valaryian law. This is along the lines of the Christian church in the middle ages. Christians in Ethiopia hold sacred different books from those in England. Priest among the Greek Orthodox can marry, while priests in Catholic Rome (post 1100s) cannot. It's simply a doctrinal issue that's explained by Aegon becoming the head of Westeros. There are many examples of a king converting to the faith of the majority. Saying he was always a follower of the Seven is an oversimplification of religion fact.

What is your explanation for why polygamy ended? I'm curious.

Presumably you think there is a flaw in my conjecture, but you've neglected to state what it is.

What is your timeline for this marriage? Lyanna and Rhaegar meet at Harrenhal. For Reed to witness this, they'd have to marry almost right after they meet at the end of the Harrenhal tourney. There's no logical reason for them to camp out at the Whent place afterwards, so there's no additional time for them to fall in love. So you're saying Howland Reed (who if he had known, why didn't he tell Brandon what she was doing?) was witness to two people marrying who had a week of interaction? That's baseless.

Artanaro

[Daemrion]

But there's no subject in that clause. Since it is not specificly stated what he could refuse, the context is required. That contradicts your statement. Martin was being poetic of course, but you're interpreting what "this" means nevertheless. That's not being literal.

You've lost me here. She says swear X,Y,Z and I'll free you. If you don't so swear I'll stab you.

That's the easiest literal interpretation.

It presents two alternatives: swear and go free, don't swear and get stabbed, not don't swear and get put back in jail cell.

Being wrong isn't necessarily being irrational. A schizo is irrational. The fact Catelyn got Jaime drunk and questioned him means she can weigh events and make decisions based on facts she believes exist. The ability to determine a "best" choice means she's rational. Perhaps wrong, but rational, nevertheless.

She's trusting a man with s*** for honour. Do you think that is rational.

It's part of the deal to return Sansa and Arya for his freedom. No matter what Tyrion does, if the deal cannot be rendered, he must return. When a King is ransomed for a promise of gold, if payment on the gold stops, he's require to return to captivity until payment is continued.

Severable clause. Doctrine of severability.

Opinion. No proof. There is no value in killing him. There was value in making Jaime think she was serious about later revenge. Though, a prick doesn't mean much when you're a thousand miles away, Catelyn could use the threat of what she could do to reinforce his conscience.

Again, I refer to above, refuse and I will have your blood. Again what do you think would have happened if he had refused?

Oaths, like contracts, are read to the letter of the wording. It doesn't say when Riverrun must fall. He can wait. Waiting is not fighting. Waiting is not breaking his oath.

I agree, they can be read to the letter of the wording. but remember that there are some terms that are implied by law, such as a duty of good faith. I seriously don't think that waiting is fulfilling his oath in good faith.

See, trumping an oath does not absolve someone of oathbreaking. To Catelyn Jaime is an oathbreaker. Only one person can absolve an oath. That is not the king. That is the High Septon. But in terms of whether you will be punished for superceding an oath, the king comes first. So, even if he's not at fault here, he's still an oathbreaker. You can't change that by saying oathbreaking is just. Foraging is still stealing, even if it's not found to be a crime later.

No, the said clause drops out of the personal oath because of the circumstances (Cersei as Regent's orders directly contradict the personal oath he made and the oath he has as KG to Tommen supersedes the personal oath to Catelyn - it's sort of like the gov't can resume your land even if you have a contract of sale and then the contract becomes frustrated). Therefore, once that clause has been stricken out (if it is severable from the rest of the oath), he hasn't actually broken a term. The TERM has dropped out because of supervening events.

It makes it a lot easier. Because prima facie if someone breaches a contract the other party has a right to damages. It just creates more litigation, the innocent party may well elect to sue and then the breaching party will come up with this defence of frustration, wasting court resources and time when the easier method would be to sever the clause. That's why they treat the clause as being dropped out and severed rather than being still within the contract but being justifiably breached.

You can argue that the clause is not severable and that non-compliance means that the whole oath fails. Then we try to return the parties back to their original positions as best as possible. Right, so Jaime should go back to his Riverrun cell. Whoops, this supervening oath says that he can't do this because going to jail would be non-performance of said oath with the Crown. Secondly, if he just sat and waited, he would not be performing his oath in good faith, breaching a term implied at law, he is deliberately obstructing the fulfilment of his oath which may amount to a repudiation.

[The Scabbard Of the Morning]

I don't buy your arguments, basically you've just established a rule that says whoever is in the service of the King is free to do whatever they want, because the oath to the King and the ability to carry out said oath trumps all.

So Jaime could go out and slaughter a whole village full of people, raper a hundred women, commit uncounted atrocities, all on his way to riverrun, and if the local lord tried to arrest him for these crimes he is perfectly justfied in defying capture because doing so would hinder his ability to carryout his oath to his King.

Oath to the King is not a get out of jail free card.

[Stratonice]

Oath to the King is not a get out of jail free card.

I totally agree.

Every oath is equally binding to the letter of what it says. Morality, personal preferences and conflicting oaths has nothing to do with it. Failing to fulfill an oath is oathbreaking no matter what the circumstances are. Isn't that the very issue for several charcters in the story? Agonizing over the consequences of oaths they have taken, either because they turned out to be impossible to carry out and had to be broken for that reason, broken because personal morality got in the way, one oath broken because it came into conflict with a different oath or because of the consequences keeping an oath brought with it.

There may be explanations and reasons, even very good ones, for breaking oaths but that doesn't make the oath any less broken.

This is connected to the honour system which some people seem to be confusing with morality. The "rules" or "code" of honour may have been formed from moral principles but are not the same as moral principles nor are they open to interpretation or adjustment. This means that being absolutely honourable doesn't necessarily mean you're a nice person.

Once an oath has been taken, the honourable thing to do is to honour it no matter what. If the oath clashes with what morality tells you is the right thing to do, then you need to make a choice between the two. If you choose morality over the oath, then you have also chosen it over honour. Killing somone you've sworn to protect, means you've broken the oath no matter what the circumstances are. Do nothing while those you've sworn to protect are in danger means you've broken the oath. Breaking one oath to honour another one still means you've broken an oath. In all these cases you've chosen other things over honour regardless of reasons or explanations.

There may be reasons or explanations but there are no excuses. Those who are truly honourable realize that and cope with it as best they can, do their best to honour their oaths no matter the cost to themselves. Others don't care either way. And yet others do care but in the end choose other things, like family, morality, safety or just convenience, over honour. I would place Jaime in the last category (where most people belong). He does care, but whenever there's a conflict he chooses other things over honour.

[Guest Other-in-law]

There's the difference between precedent against and simply no precedent. If something is unused, it may disappear or it may not.

There's a difference between something that has been specifically outlawed and something that has not, which is the relevant distinction. Compare the Faith's right to bear arms and hold trials, to Aerion's right to a trial by Seven. One can not occur without special legislation reversing a previous ban. The other was never banned, so sure, you can still exercise that right even if it's rare.

This is not the case with the Targaryen polygamy. They of course marry every generation, but they marry only one person. This creates a precedent to the contrary.

That's not how precedents work. If someone does something and no one stops him, and later they try to stop someone else he can say 'but that other guy was allowed to do it, so it's permitted'. To have a "precedent to the contrary" you would need a case where someone tried to do something and they stopped him. Otherwise what's the precedent? The most recent action on the issue was the last time it was permitted.

We have no indication of that ever happening with royal polygamy.

What is there to contradict a Trial by Seven? Nothing. What is there to contradict polygamy? The preachings of the High Septon and marriage custom. It's very simple.

Nope. Not so simple at all, because we have no indication that royal prerogatives can evaporate through disuse. Do we see any other example of mere disuse causing a a change in the law? The closest that I can see is the revised succession rules following the Dance of the Dragons, but that didn't actually reverse an established precedent. There was not a tradition of older sisters succeeding to the throne ahead of their brothers, there was one failed attempt; and Rhaenyra is not officially considered to have been the Queen.

Targaryen polygamy, on the other hand, had already been well established. Aegon and Maegor both had multiple wives, and the High Septons of that era had plenty of opportunity to preach against it. Either they kept their mouths shut, or their preaching was ignored and disregarded by the law. The discontinuance probably had nothing to do with the Faith....if the Targs were cowed by the HS on polygamy, why would they defy hhim about incest? Incest is generally regarded with greater horror in the real world than polygamy (which is still legal in some places, unlike incest) and the aSoIaF world is probably similar (we hear of accepted concubines and paramours in some of the cultures, why not polygamy?).

So Kings may have multiple wives in the early days (and the Faith learns to live with it), but they choose not to fairly quickly. It's not like the Faith was an arbiter of the law after Maegor defanged them anyway, that's the Crown's bailiwick....heck, it's not like the whole country even belongs to the same religion anyway.

Look at it this way: Suppose a Targaryen decides to have multiple wives in recent times. What's to stop him? The High Septon says 'you can't do that' and he'll say 'why not?'. Because 'I personally disapprove' isn't going to cut it, he can just say 'you're views are irrelevant'. Without specific legislation there is no real argument.

Another indication that Targ polygamy is still on the books is that ser Jorah Mormont came right out and urged Dany to take multiple husbands. To him, it's not inconceivable, it's even common sense. And while he does want to get into her pants he has no motive to share her with anybody else. His interpretation was just honest counsel that time.

Maegor unmade them by killing them. When did he unmake a Grand Maester and left them alive?

He's called Maegor the Cruel. How's that not a negative reputation?

It is a little negative, but not entirely so. Not nearly as bad as 'the Monstrous' or 'the Unworthy'. I'd say he's viewed with respect and fear; a hard strong ruler (most people seem to think Lord Tywin was a prick, but they emulate him all the same). He's basically the second founder of the Seven Kingdoms; he ironed out the unfinished work of the Conqueror and his version is what largely endures to the present.

If he was so atrocious why would the country let so many of his works stand after his death? Why not immediately relegalise the Faith Militant? Because outlawing it was a smart move and good for the country. People may have complained at the time, but they accepted it and the wiser heads probably recognised it as a huge benefit for the nation, even if some eggs had to get broken along the way. Maegor's works are respected precedents, until Cersei flushes them away like an idiot.

But it makes perfect sense. The answer is not as simple as the ruling dynasty having free reign to disregard any religious precepts that they find unfit. That's nonsense.

That must be why they abandoned incest, then?

The majority of Westeros would never stand for that, especially after the Targs lost their dragons.

They stood for the incest.

Incest becomes accepted because it's prevalent among the royal family so it doesn't become taboo.

It is a taboo. Just not for Targaryens. The Dragonkings are above the law. As Jaime said "...show the realm that Lannisters are above their laws, like Gods and Targaryens."

The absolution of polygamy needs an explanation, and this one works. Dragonstone was a Valaryian outpost, subject to Valaryian law. This is along the lines of the Christian church in the middle ages. Christians in Ethiopia hold sacred different books from those in England. Priest among the Greek Orthodox can marry, while priests in Catholic Rome (post 1100s) cannot. It's simply a doctrinal issue that's explained by Aegon becoming the head of Westeros. There are many examples of a king converting to the faith of the majority. Saying he was always a follower of the Seven is an oversimplification of religion fact.

And saying that Dragonstone Sevenism constituted a different sect is out and out fabrication. Small folk and knights on Dragonstone in the present don't practice incest. The exception was only ever for Targaryens, in King's Landing as it was on Dragonstone.

What is your explanation for why polygamy ended? I'm curious.

To avoid messy succession disputes, or fighting between rival branches of the family (which may have happened with Rhaenys' and Visenya's children). If it's not needed, refraining from it avoids unnecessary hassles. However it's good to keep the option open for extraordinary cases....like if the royal line is nearly extinct and the Queen is healthy but barren. Take another Queen, the realm must have an heir. Or if the Princess of Dragonstone's health is too frail to survive another pregnancy and you need a third child to fulfill a certain prophecy....

What is your timeline for this marriage? Lyanna and Rhaegar meet at Harrenhal. For Reed to witness this, they'd have to marry almost right after they meet at the end of the Harrenhal tourney. There's no logical reason for them to camp out at the Whent place afterwards, so there's no additional time for them to fall in love. So you're saying Howland Reed (who if he had known, why didn't he tell Brandon what she was doing?) was witness to two people marrying who had a week of interaction? That's baseless.

We know little enough of the specific action of the principals after the tourney, or who went where with who. I don't claim that anybody "camped out" at Harrenhall. Lyanna may have left with Howland and Rhaegar met up with them later and wooed her and they returned to Harrenhall (it's only a possibility, not a firm fact or anything). And they had probably already fallen in love, judging from the crying at the sweet songs and the crown of blue roses, you know. Brandon wasn't with Lyanna when she was "abducted". Was Ned? Was she alone? We don't know. Nor do we know where Howland was or who he was with.

[Amata]

I don't hate him, exactly, but he deserves everything that's happened to him. He's lost the two things that made him more than a jumped-up knight with delusions of granduer: Cersei, and his sword hand.

Without those he's nothing, and I love it. He's a great read, but I'm waiting for his just desserts to be handed to him, probably on a platter the size of King's Landing.

[snake]

Maegor the Cruel was a vicious man. He had untold thousands butchered during his reign and was murdered while sitting on the throne. Legend says it was the throne itself that killed him but I would think it was one of his council or Kingsguard.

The man was as bad as Aerys from what I can tell.

[tripjinx]

I love Jaime. Jaime is awesome. He's fantastically written, complex, intense, believable, has a sense of humour and a knack for poking at the pompous attitude too many of these characters share. I'm surprised readers of a book this emotionally and morally complex would be writing off a character because he's flawed.

[Kalbear]

You've lost me here. She says swear X,Y,Z and I'll free you. If you don't so swear I'll stab you.

That's the easiest literal interpretation.

No. The easiest literal interpretation is "swear X,Y,Z and I'll free you - otherwise, I won't. There's no need to put in 'or I'll kill you' when the alternative for Jaime is imprisonment and eventual death in prison.

Doesn't matter. He pushes kids out of windows. His oaths are nothing compared to that.

[Guest Other-in-law]

Maegor the Cruel was a vicious man. He had untold thousands butchered during his reign and was murdered while sitting on the throne. Legend says it was the throne itself that killed him but I would think it was one of his council or Kingsguard.

The man was as bad as Aerys from what I can tell.

The changes that Maegor enacted were kept for centuries, while they didn't stick with Aerys' one notable contribution...'execution by wildfire'. That's the relevant point here anyway, whether anyone would use Maegor as a precedent. And they all did (except Cersei), he's the second founder of the united realm.

Maegor was a hard cruel man, but the times required that. If he was any less the Seven Kingdoms would probably have disintegrated (as they were starting to under his weakling half-brother Aenys).

[Daemrion]

No. The easiest literal interpretation is "swear X,Y,Z and I'll free you - otherwise, I won't. There's no need to put in 'or I'll kill you' when the alternative for Jaime is imprisonment and eventual death in prison.

Doesn't matter. He pushes kids out of windows. His oaths are nothing compared to that.

Umm...does the phrase I will have your blood mean anything?

Oath to the King is not a get out of jail free card.

The King gives a direct order to do X. X is done.

Eg. Brienne with the Tommen's paper. That paper basically says she is on the King's business and allowed to do anything to achieve her goal.

[The Scabbard Of the Morning]

So let me get this straight.

So if Brienne had adopted the Tickler's method of extracting information about Sansa from anyone she crossed path with, all the way from KL to Maidenpool, it would have been perfect alright with you, because all she's doing is trying to achieve her goal under the king's seal.

If that's what you believe, then really there is no point in continuing the converstion. We disagree at such a fundamental level that there is no chance we could ever come to any kind of resolution.

[Antonius Pius]

Yes, that's what I said before, he places family (and, as the matter of fact, the stability of the realm) before the rest.

He certainly does place family-interests first. Before everything. He does not seem to care about the realm, it's the position of House Lannister that concerns him. I've just read AFFC, and pretty much all the thinking he does on the situation of the realm is related in his mind to the position of House Lannister, which are two different things.

I don't know why you place so much emphasis on the bounds to family. As a Kingsguard, he has publicly and completely forsaken his family's interest, serving only the king. His furthering the cause of House Lannister, is actually a continuation of his disregard for the oath he took.

But anyway, even without that, it would not be his place, or anyone from the KG, to decide who is "rightful". All they have to know is that they serve a king, and swore to serve him. Jaime isn't a Cryston Cole, for all his other failings. He's at the same level as Barristan Selmy and the old KG that bent the knee to Robert, on this one.

It is not for the KG to decide which prince has the better claim to the Iron Throne, sure, but neither is it encumbent upon them to father bastards on the queen and aid in aborting the reigning king's children. Jaime has got his boots too far in the muck to talk about what other KG should or should not do. Focusing on Jaime: he has knowingly and willingly served a bastard that he KNOWS has no legal claim to the kingship. He has helped conceal that fact, and has helped in the abortions of Robert's trueborn children.

I disagree that Selmy was as bad as he was. He and Jaime were the only ones left of Aerys' Kingsguard when Robert won the throne. The other ones died by the sword, keeping true to their oaths. Jaime betrayed everything he supposedly stood for. Selmy took a pardon after the war, when House Targaryen seemed dead. He stills feels bad about it, by the way, which is more remorse than Jaime has ever shown for his enormities.

Daemrion:

I think Tommen's paper is more a shield against interference from other lords. I don't think she can wave it about and demand everyone's obedience on the spot. I think it's more like a standing order that she is not to be hindered on the pursuit of her mission, and perhaps given leave to requisition the odd supplies here and there. But hardly that she is not bound by the laws of the realm.

[Ned Sand]

I love Jaime. Jaime is awesome. He's fantastically written, complex, intense, believable, has a sense of humour and a knack for poking at the pompous attitude too many of these characters share. I'm surprised readers of a book this emotionally and morally complex would be writing off a character because he's flawed.

I totally hate Jamie. He's fantastically written, complex, intense, believable, has a sense of humour and a knack for deflating the pompous. But, when the rubber hits the road, he can be lead around by his dick. He shows bad judgment at almost every opportunity. He refuses to accept the consequences of his acts. He values unearned loyalty over integrity.

His occasional noble acts (seldom done where they cost him anything) don't come close to redeeming him. I'm surprised readers of a book this emotionally and morally complex would be writing off the misdeeds of a character so obviously flawed. It is one thing to say that the book needs him and a completely different thing to condone or rationalize justifications for his actions.

[Daemrion]

So let me get this straight.

So if Brienne had adopted the Tickler's method of extracting information about Sansa from anyone she crossed path with, all the way from KL to Maidenpool, it would have been perfect alright with you, because all she's doing is trying to achieve her goal under the king's seal.

If that's what you believe, then really there is no point in continuing the converstion. We disagree at such a fundamental level that there is no chance we could ever come to any kind of resolution.

Isn't that what America is doing with terrorist suspects??

Look, there are probably some things that she can't do, like what Aerys did and there are some things she won't choose to do because of who she is. But the fact is if she had sworn a personal oath to say do something like 'not go to Maidenpool' and yet the evidence leads her there and Sansa is at Maidenpool, I would say that the personal oath is overruled by the King's piece of paper allowing her to go to Maidenpool to find Sansa.

Just like I think that because Jaime swore an oath to the King, and the King commanded him to take Riverrun, despite any sort of personal oath he swore, the King's command excuses him from having to obey the previous personal oath.

As far as I am concerned, if he does not take Riverrun he does open himself to a charge of treason for disobeying the King's command. The consequences of not obeying the King's direct command is quite dire.

Given that we think the King should not ask some things, but this is not one of them. Imagine if the King asked you to kill your own father. That's probably something a King should not ask his servant. Taking an enemy castle is something that one is expected to do when one takes up knightly service to the King. It's a run of the mill thing.

No matter what Cersei would have insisted that Jaime deliver the Crown Riverrun, there are no buts about it. He has to listen to what is said.

AP,

I disagree that Selmy was as bad as he was. He and Jaime were the only ones left of Aerys' Kingsguard when Robert won the throne. The other ones died by the sword, keeping true to their oaths. Jaime betrayed everything he supposedly stood for. Selmy took a pardon after the war, when House Targaryen seemed dead. He stills feels bad about it, by the way, which is more remorse than Jaime has ever shown for his enormities.

I guess, I reserve my judgement of the other Kingsguard. What I really want to know is what they would have done if they had been in Jaime's position in Kings Landing. Those that would have let Aerys carry out his plan would be in my book as evil.

However, gut feeling seems to actually point that way, that they would have let Aerys get away with it.

[Stratonice]

Given that we think the King should not ask some things, but this is not one of them. Imagine if the King asked you to kill your own father. That's probably something a King should not ask his servant. Taking an enemy castle is something that one is expected to do when one takes up knightly service to the King. It's a run of the mill thing.

No matter what Cersei would have insisted that Jaime deliver the Crown Riverrun, there are no buts about it. He has to listen to what is said.

I understand your reasoning but I desagree on this one. Breaking an oath is a really big deal and should definitley fall in the category of things a King should not ask. And the fact that the two oaths conflict doesn't mean that one of them suddenly disappears, unless he finds a way to keep both oaths he is an oathbreaker no matter what reasons or explanations he comes up with.

He could still have been usefull to the warefforts without "taking up arms against Tully or Stark". He could have been sent to deal with Stannis or the Ironborn instead, or to deal with outlaws. There are many ways the King (read: Cersei) could have found uses for the Lord Commander and still have respected his oath.

[Enguerrand]

Well,. I’m amazed I don’t have to preach Jaime’s villainy alone anymore.

Just like I think that because Jaime swore an oath to the King, and the King commanded him to take Riverrun, despite any sort of personal oath he swore, the King's command excuses him from having to obey the previous personal oath.

And how do you arrive to this conclusion? Those Westerosi who comment upon this in the book castigate him(as usual), and in the corresponding medieval history personal oaths did take precedence over duties to the king. Even in the 19th-century you could send POV:s home, on their word of honor, and expect them not to take up arms again.

[Stratonice]

Well,. I’m amazed I don’t have to preach Jaime’s villainy alone anymore.

He's not even close to being the worst one, but he's definitley not a good guy.

In the end, however, I can very well see him dying while doing something truly heroic that no one (of the other characters) will ever realize for what it was.

[Daemrion]

And how do you arrive to this conclusion? Those Westerosi who comment upon this in the book castigate him (as usual), and in the corresponding medieval history personal oaths did take precedence over duties to the king. Even in the 19th-century you could send POV:s home, on their word of honor, and expect them not to take up arms again.

Again, I pose the question:

If Cersei had absolutely insisted that Jaime personally deliver Riverrun for the Crown, is there anything he can do to get out of doing it, without breaking his oath to the Crown?

It is treason if he does not obey his King right or does it mean that he doesn't have to obey the King (read Cersei in the position of King)?

Personally I think not, but if you can come up with a way of getting out of it...

I understand your reasoning but I desagree on this one. Breaking an oath is a really big deal and should definitley fall in the category of things a King should not ask. And the fact that the two oaths conflict doesn't mean that one of them suddenly disappears, unless he finds a way to keep both oaths he is an oathbreaker no matter what reasons or explanations he comes up with.

In this case then Aerys should not have asked Jaime to kill his father (that being a God-cursed thing), or even let him know about the wildfire plot (because that would go against his oath he swore when he became a Ser to protect the innocent plebs) etc...

He could still have been usefull to the warefforts without "taking up arms against Tully or Stark". He could have been sent to deal with Stannis or the Ironborn instead, or to deal with outlaws. There are many ways the King (read: Cersei) could have found uses for the Lord Commander and still have respected his oath.

Definitely, but then again Cersei (if one does not accept that Cersei should not ask such a thing of Jaime) could absolutely insist that he take Riverrun. Then he'd be damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't which is a legal status I can't accept. There sort of has to be a right way and a wrong way to approach these problems.

I don't accept the position that no matter what one does one is legally wrong. (unless it is a form of self-sabotage which it is not)

[Enguerrand]

I have noticed that people who have no counterarguments tends to not adress the point, but ask unrelated sweeping questions.