Why Do You Hate Jamie?

[Daemrion]

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

I have noticed that people who have no answer to questions tends not to answer them but to make snarky comments.

In any case, the question is actually directly relevant to the fact in issue.

The issue is: Did Jaime break an oath by taking Riverrun for the Crown?

There are a couple of points:

1. Jaime swore personal oath to Catelyn

2. Jaime swore oath to Crown as Kingsguard to obey the King (read Regent Cersei) that told him to take Riverrun the castle (whether or not the Regent should ask the that of him, is another question entirely but the book itself points to Cersei insisting on it absolutely - probably to punish Jaime for his rejection of her in ASOS and AFFC - and yes, Cersei could have asked Jaime to deal with the Ironborn or Stannis [though if Stannis does rally some Northmen I'm sure that they sort of do count as Stark men in any case especially if they are fighting for the restoration of the Stark house in Winterfell] but, she doesn't she asks him to take Riverrun)

3. The two oaths happen to conflict when the Crown asks Jaime to take Riverrun which contradicts the personal oath Jaime made to Catelyn. Gasp! Houston we have a problem of directly conflicting oaths. . In any case, the oaths do conflict quite readily. (Again one can argue as to what 'take up arms' means but I'll use the wider definition rather than actual fighting with arms)

4. So it seems that he is breaking an oath either way - taking Riverrun would be breaking a personal oath, not taking Riverrun would be treason (because that's what not listening to the King is called )

5. There must be some way of solving this conundrum - there must be a 'right' and a 'wrong' way of doing things given this situation.

6. Thus in trying to see what opinion is of the 'right' way to do things I posed the question - does the Crown oath sworn absolve him of needing to keep the personal oath or is the personal oath absolve him of keeping the Crown oath?

7. My opinion is that the Crown oath trumps the personal oath...after all the King supposed to be more important than any other person, after all.

But there is room to argue that the personal oath would trump the Crown oath, but I personally doubt it, because the King is supposed to be the most important person in the realm aren't they? They are to be placed above all others besides God.

Furthermore, re Sansa and Arya: It is so unrealistic to expect Jaime to be able to stretch his hand accross from Riverrun to Kings Landing and to keep Tyrion in power or for him to prevent the Red Wedding, that is so silly that no legal court would ever consider such a thing to be binding at all. In any case, there's no time limit on how long Jaime has to return Arya and Sansa even though he never swore as such, he only swore to compel Tyrion to return them which Tyrion is not going to be doing. Given that they are both marked for death if they should ever appear in Westeros and thus are in hiding, one should be inclined to give a lot of time for that promise to be fulfilled.

Because in this set of promises, Catelyn actually was silly enough to tender her performance of said promises first rather than wait for both parties to tender performance at the same time. (wrt to letting Jaime go for return of Arya and Sansa). But again, that's not his fault at all since she was the one that insisted on the terms.

And in any case if one argues that the whole oath has fallen apart and that he should return to his cell, the Crown oath is very likely broken in going back to sitting in a Riverrun jail cell and probably can be construed as an act of treason regardless of explanation.

This would the position.

1. Try to return parties to their original positions because consideration has totally failed (as per equitable principles)

2. Unfortunately because of supervening circumstances, this is impossible as returning to said original position is impossible because of Cat's death, Jaime's order from the Crown etc...

In any case, one can fruther argue that a personal oath does not survive the death of one of the parties. (and no, unDeadness does not count as still being alive), but let's assume that the oath is now transferred to Edmure (being the closest relative left that is still alive and not in hiding.)

[Stratonice]

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...

Well...no one ever argued Aerys was a nice and honourable person, did they? I certainly didn't.

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)

The very fact that Jaime himself worry about his oath to Catelyn while heading to and dealing with the siege of Riverrun clearly indicates that even he thinks of that oath as equally binding. Bullying Edmure into surrendering the seat was his way of trying to find a way out of an impossible situation rather than actually having to storm the place. Why would he do that, why even worry about it in the first place, if his oath to the crown invalidated any conflicting oaths???

From a practical POV an oath to the crown usually takes precedence but that has more to do with the fact that the crown has the power to punish you severly for breaking it, an individual person usually does not. An oath to the crown is not more binding in itself but is made more binding from the fact that the crown has more power to enforce it. From a legal and (especially) a moral POV all oaths are equal.

I can understand your problem with the situation, it would be a horrible situation to be faced with, but then he knew there was a good chance that these oaths would come inte conflict with each other when he took the one to Catelyn. If he wanted to do the legally right thing, that would have been to not take that oath.

[Daemrion]

The very fact that Jaime himself worry about his oath to Catelyn while heading to and dealing with the siege of Riverrun clearly indicates that even he thinks of that oath as equally binding. Bullying Edmure into surrendering the seat was his way of trying to find a way out of an impossible situation rather than actually having to storm the place. Why would he do that, why even worry about it in the first place, if his oath to the crown invalidated any conflicting oaths???

Or there is the chance that he realises that the North doesn't legally recognise Tommen as King and so thinks that oaths to Cersei and the Crown are worthless. OR the fact that Blackfish is Tully centred and values the Catelyn oath more because it is one sworn to someone on his side rather than the other side.

I can understand your problem with the situation, it would be a horrible situation to be faced with, but then he knew there was a good chance that these oaths would come inte conflict with each other when he took the one to Catelyn. If he wanted to do the legally right thing, that would have been to not take that oath.

And may I add that Catelyn knew and yet was stupid enough to ask it of him. I dunno who's dumber.

Yes it is probably better legally if he never took the oath at all, but the fact is it does not solve the problem of conflicting oaths which has arisen because he did choose to take the oath; which is what we are trying to solve.

The answer that he shouldn't have taken the oath is really just a cop out, because it does not answer the question. We're presented with a problem, what is the right solution to the problem?

It isn't something like this: well the problem should not really have existed in the first place.

We can't sort of stuff the hatchling back into the egg. A solution must be found to the problem, otherwise he is sort of stuck in legal limbo.

Well...no one ever argued Aerys was a nice and honourable person, did they? I certainly didn't.

No, but he was King. And as King he did have certain things he could ask certain people to do that seemed to conflict with other oaths sworn.

[Stratonice]

Or there is the chance that he realises that the North doesn't legally recognise Tommen as King and so thinks that oaths to Cersei and the Crown are worthless. OR the fact that Blackfish is Tully centred and values the Catelyn oath more because it is one sworn to someone on his side rather than the other side.

I'm not sure I really understand this argument... Why would the view of Tommen's legal status held in the North and by the Blackfish influence Jaime's concience or his choice in how to deal with the siege?

In fact, if you want to defend Jaime you should actually consider the fact that he does try to find a way to keep both oaths even though they are clearly conflicting something to be counted in his favour.

And may I add that Catelyn knew and yet was stupid enough to ask it of him. I dunno who's dumber.

Yes it is probably better legally if he never took the oath at all, but the fact is it does not solve the problem of conflicting oaths which has arisen because he did choose to take the oath; which is what we are trying to solve.

The answer that he shouldn't have taken the oath is really just a cop out, because it does not answer the question. We're presented with a problem, what is the right solution to the problem?

It isn't something like this: well the problem should not really have existed in the first place.

We can't sort of stuff the hatchling back into the egg. A solution must be found to the problem, otherwise he is sort of stuck in legal limbo.

In a modern, democratic state this issue would be resolved in more or less the way you've suggested. A court would probably determine which agreement is the valid one (based on when it was made, what it contains, etc) and then the conflicting one would be considered non-existing. But the story is not taking place in a modern democratic state. There are no courts who can invalidate a given oath if it conflicts with a different one.

Once the oaths are in place his choices are:

1) Find a way to keep both of them or

2) break one of them.

He's actually trying to keep both of them as best he can, but it's also very obvious which one he'll choose when there's no other way out. When he returns to KL and finds both girls no longer there and Tyrion no longer in charge he neither returns to Riverrun nor does he drop the issue of the girls completely (as choosing one or the other could be argued to require) instead he stays but sends Brienne to look for them. Honouring the oath to Cat would require him to return to Riverrun or at the very least go look for the girls himself. Sending Brienne to look for them could, from his POV, probably be argued to be acting in the spirit of the oath (and Cat would probably be happier to have her girls back than to have him back so there's case to be made for that argument). However, if the girls WERE still in KL and Tywin refused to send them back, I seriously doubt he would have returned to resume his captivity.

When he's sent to take Riverrun, he makes Edmure surrender the castle rather than storming it (litterally taking up arms against House Tully). This time he could be argued to act in the letter of the oath but not the spirit of it. It's doubtful that Cat would appreciate the distinction though. And it's also clear that he will take up arms in the litteral sense if Riverrun does not surrender.

So there's a case to be made for him here, but that the oath to Cat became invalid when Cersei ordered him to take Riverrun is not it. He actually tries to keep both of them (if for superficial reasons) and he deserves credit for at least considering it an issue though there are other ways he could have handled it if he really cared about the honour of the thing.

No, but he was King. And as King he did have certain things he could ask certain people to do that seemed to conflict with other oaths sworn.

There's no such thing as a constitution regulating what the King can and can not do in Westeros. So long as enough Lords of the Realm supports the King, he can do anything he wants. Killing Rickard and Brandon Stark and calling for the heads of Ned and Robert was something four of the seven Great Houses could not accept which led to the Rebellion. Until that point there were no actual limits to what he could or could not do.

Since the concept of oaths are connected to the honour system, the fact that Aerys was not an honourable person is the very heart of it. An honourable person would never ask someone else to do something that would violate his/her oath. Aerys not being an honourable person and by that time completely insane didn't care and asked it anyway. That situation, if anything, should show you that Jaime has no problem with breaking oaths when HE feels the situation varrants it.

I don't blame him for not killing his father or for killing the pyromancers. Even killing Aerys would not have been a bad move if he had not sworn to protect him but that doesn't change the fact that he broke his oath. And once again, if he cared about the honour of the thing, there are other ways he could have handled the situation.

[Antonius Pius]

About the Riverrun oath: he asks Cersei to releave him of the command, since it will involve breaking his oath to the Starks/Tully's. Cersei rides roughshod over his objections, and sends him out regardless. Jaime thinks to himself that the oath to the king comes first.

In an ideal world/Westeros, the king would respect Jaime's objection to carry out a mission that would force him to break an oath he swore previously. But if the king needed the one to take the command to be KG, and his other KG were otherwise engaged, I think he would insist Jaime carry out his orders. Maybe even try to explain to the Tully's/Starks that the KG oath came first, and has to be obeyed first.

As to the oath Catelyn extracted from Jaime: there is no honourable way to get out of it. It comes down to oathbreaking or dying. I admit, not a pleasant choice, but those were Jaime's options. In the strictest sense of justice/oathkeeper, there is no other way. Note that the remaining KG (Hightower, Whent, Dayne) were prepared to die, even thought the king and most of his heirs were long since gone.

[The Scabbard Of the Morning]

Yes, that's the point, the only real honorable way out of any oathbreaking was to die, and plenty of people did in fact choose death before dishonor. Jaime just wasn't one of them.

I think dismiss Jaime's dishonor in this situation as "having no choice" shows serious disrespect to those who chose the honorable way out.

I can empathize with Jaime's dilemma, and I am not even saying that in his place I'd have done much different. But I also won't fool myself later into thinking that my choices were honorable. Words and oaths have consequences, if everyone is allowed to break them because it is inconvenient, then the entire social structure of Westeros will fall apart.

Just like here in the real world, if everytime someone has a little financial difficult, all his debts are forgiven without consequences, our entire credit and financial structure will collapse, that's why we have a credit system, that people with bad credit ratings don't get the benefit of the doubt from the banks and other financial institutions. The same is happening here with Jaime, his honor rating is in the dumps, where it deserves to be, and he no longer gets benefit of the doubt from people like Blackfish, and he doesn't deserve it.

[Guest Other-in-law]

Yes, that's the point, the only real honorable way out of any oathbreaking was to die, and plenty of people did in fact choose death before dishonor. Jaime just wasn't one of them.

It goes beyond that, though. The only way that Jaime could really satisfy the honour fundies would be if he not only fought to the death for the odious Aerys, but also carried out his orders to murder his father and didn't thwart his plans to incinerate several thousand human beings. He swore an oath to obey the King, surely obedience requires not sabotaging his plans for mass murder? That's what he owed the King, blind, unquestioning service; not independent moral action of any sort.

It's pretty obvious the point that Martin is making about the ethical bankruptcy of such oath fundamentalism, and perverse that readers would actually fault him for his deeds wrt to Aerys (Bran is another matter altogether).

[Daemrion]

LOL...all these long answers but still no workable solution.

I fully understand that he should never have sworn the oath in the first place to Catelyn.

Let's say Jaime arrives at Riverrun (the siege in AFFC), what's his next choice/step/action?

Words and oaths have consequences, if everyone is allowed to break them because it is inconvenient, then the entire social structure of Westeros will fall apart.

Yes, but in certain defined circumstances oaths 'should be'/'are' allowed to be broken. Just like in modern RL in certain defined circumstances contracts can be broken.

Just like here in the real world, if everytime someone has a little financial difficult, all his debts are forgiven without consequences, our entire credit and financial structure will collapse, that's why we have a credit system, that people with bad credit ratings don't get the benefit of the doubt from the banks and other financial institutions. The same is happening here with Jaime, his honor rating is in the dumps, where it deserves to be, and he no longer gets benefit of the doubt from people like Blackfish, and he doesn't deserve it.

Then again, if someone with bad credit rating suddenly owns/inherits some considerable property that could be used as collateral their credit rating should theoretically rise.

In any case, Blackfish does not actually call him on taking arms against Stark or Tully, he calls him on Arya and Sansa which is something that he didn't swear to do (bring them back to Riverrun).

Note that the remaining KG (Hightower, Whent, Dayne) were prepared to die, even thought the king and most of his heirs were long since gone.

Again, I'll reserve judgment until the real truth about the ToJ comes out in the books (if it ever does).

As to the oath Catelyn extracted from Jaime: there is no honourable way to get out of it. It comes down to oathbreaking or dying. I admit, not a pleasant choice, but those were Jaime's options.

At which time in the books? You mean in the dungeon in ACOK or the siege in AFFC?

I'm not sure I really understand this argument... Why would the view of Tommen's legal status held in the North and by the Blackfish influence Jaime's concience or his choice in how to deal with the siege?

If the North does not recognise Tommen as King, then the whole Kingsguard oath is invalid, meaning that there is no conflicting oath to fall back on as justification for breaking the personal oath. I could also point out that Blackfish isn't the most neutral arbiter, nor is Jaime or Cersei.

It goes beyond that, though. The only way that Jaime could really satisfy the honour fundies would be if he not only fought to the death for the odious Aerys, but also carried out his orders to murder his father and didn't thwart his plans to incinerate several thousand human beings. He swore an oath to obey the King, surely obedience requires not sabotaging his plans for mass murder? That's what he owed the King, blind, unquestioning service; not independent moral action of any sort.

Wouldn't allowing Aerys to blow up Kings Landing break his knightly oath to protect the innocent?

In which case one or the other should take precedence over the other

[Guest Other-in-law]

Wouldn't allowing Aerys to blow up Kings Landing break his knightly oath to protect the innocent?

In which case one or the other should take precedence over the other

Yup, they are in conflict. Frankly though, we've seen very little evidence that the shining lesson to the world school of KG actually gave much of a crap about those basic knightly oaths. Jon Darry specifically relegated the oath to protect women to a lower importance than obeying the King when he and Jaime were listening to the physical abuse of Rhaella.

Since it's 'obey the King above all', I think that Jaime's honourable course would have been to kill his father and facilitate the pyromancer's mass murder plot, since that was what the King wanted.

It's not that Jaime has shit for honour at all, it's that the Westerosi conception of honour is shit.

[Dhevrin]

Just read through the last page, but I was under the impression that Jaime kept his oath to not take up arms against Tully or Stark. Edmure gave up the castle and no one was harmed. So didn't Jaime keep his oath this time at least?

[Kalbear]

I still don't see why it matters whether Jaime's an oathbreaker or not. He throws kids out of windows. He could have kept every single oath he ever made, and he'd still be a Bad Person for throwing kids out of windows.

I mean, seriously - does it matter whether he broke his oath to Catelyn? Or to Aerys? Does any of that matter when you defenenstrate children?

I mean, seriously - how do people justify that action?

He's also an oathbreaker, a liar, and totally bereft of morals that don't involve his dick, but really, none of that matters that much in judging his central character.

[Stratonice]

LOL...all these long answers but still no workable solution.

That's kind of the point with the oathsystem. It's based in moral principles, but is a lot more rigid. Once the oaths are in place they no longer have anything to do with morality and if they are conflicting there are no solutions exept, keep both and if necessary die trying, or break one of them and live with the shame of being an oathbreaker.

It's really interesting that a completely honourable person is the highest ideal of the society, when being completely honourable means you're not a very nice person. Even Ned and Brienne, among the most honourable people in the story, at times stray from what honour dictates when other values are at stake.

Yes, but in certain defined circumstances oaths 'should be'/'are' allowed to be broken. Just like in modern RL in certain defined circumstances contracts can be broken.

No, not really. There are times and circumstances when you can avoid punishment for breaking oaths (when the one you swore to is too weak to enforce it), but you will still be known as an oathbreaker and your honour and integrety will be questioned.

If the North does not recognise Tommen as King, then the whole Kingsguard oath is invalid, meaning that there is no conflicting oath to fall back on as justification for breaking the personal oath. I could also point out that Blackfish isn't the most neutral arbiter, nor is Jaime or Cersei.

No, that's not how it works, the oath is still valid. The Blackfish would NOT think higher of him for betraying his KG oath either. And the North and Riverlands didn't dispute Tommen's right to rule the other five kingdoms, they disputed his (originally Joffrey's) right to rule the North and the Riverlands.

The system doesn't accept breaking any oath for any reason. There may be mitigating circumstances, but there are no excuses. For instance, if Aerys' plans for KL were widely known, people (in Westeros) would probably be less harsh on Jaime for killing him, but the oath would still be broken. That's part of it's tragedy.

I still don't see why it matters whether Jaime's an oathbreaker or not. He throws kids out of windows. He could have kept every single oath he ever made, and he'd still be a Bad Person for throwing kids out of windows.

I mean, seriously - does it matter whether he broke his oath to Catelyn? Or to Aerys? Does any of that matter when you defenenstrate children?

I mean, seriously - how do people justify that action?

He's also an oathbreaker, a liar, and totally bereft of morals that don't involve his dick, but really, none of that matters that much in judging his central character.

Well of course it's a bad thing to throw kids out of windows. There is no justification for an act like that, that's probably why there aren't much discussion on the issue.

[Antonius Pius]

Yup, they are in conflict. Frankly though, we've seen very little evidence that the shining lesson to the world school of KG actually gave much of a crap about those basic knightly oaths. Jon Darry specifically relegated the oath to protect women to a lower importance than obeying the King when he and Jaime were listening to the physical abuse of Rhaella.

We have seen no-one give a damn about the basic knightly oaths in the context you suggest, other than the Brotherhood without Banners. There are two kinds of knightly value in Westeros: the glorious knight, and the honourable knight. Glory is exemplified by Loras and Jaime (who do not care who suffers for their hunger for glory) and honour by Aerys' KG other than Jaime. That Sansa is frequently told that songs are different from real life covers knightly behaviour as well.

The oath to protect the innocent and women and children etc. has become a formula. It probably always was to a degree. If the likes of Ser Amory and Ser Gregor are knights, there is something wrong with knighthood. IMO that's an essential part of GRRM's knightly theme.

It's pretty obvious the point that Martin is making about the ethical bankruptcy of such oath fundamentalism, and perverse that readers would actually fault him for his deeds wrt to Aerys (Bran is another matter altogether).

Not necessarily bankruptcy, rather the problems arising out of dishounorable conduct and the combination of rather absolutist autonomy and madness. Aerys is a case on the fringes... At heart the system works well. It's when Aerys becomes insane that the KG end up in a bend. They are honourbound to serve, but the one they serve loses his sense and no longer acts reasonably.

Stratonice and Daemrion:

That's kind of the point with the oathsystem. It's based in moral principles, but is a lot more rigid. Once the oaths are in place they no longer have anything to do with morality and if they are conflicting there are no solutions exept, keep both and if necessary die trying, or break one of them and live with the shame of being an oathbreaker.

IMO, the honourable way for Jaime, when he returns to Riverrun, would be to resume his captivity, as the Blackfish suggest. I think Stratonice is right about the oath-system.

No, not really. There are times and circumstances when you can avoid punishment for breaking oaths (when the one you swore to is too weak to enforce it), but you will still be known as an oathbreaker and your honour and integrety will be questioned.

The only way out is if the one to whom the oath is sworn absolves the one that swore the oath of his duty to abide by it. Jaime tried to get Brynden to absolve him of his oath, but as it was Catelyn he swore it to, there was no way out. Nor was the Blackfish very disposed towards letting Jaime out.

The system doesn't accept breaking any oath for any reason. There may be mitigating circumstances, but there are no excuses. For instance, if Aerys' plans for KL were widely known, people (in Westeros) would probably be less harsh on Jaime for killing him, but the oath would still be broken. That's part of it's tragedy.

I think it's the tragedy of Jaime's pov that he would most likely get burned, no matter what happened.

[snake]

With regards to Riverrun the Kingslayer did what he did and kept his oaths. He never took up arms against the Tully's and he delivered the castle for the crown.

With regards to Aerys. Well, letting Aerys destroy Kingslanding would have meant letting Aerys kill himself. So in order to protect his King he should have killed Rossart, as he did, but then once learning of his fathers betrayal he should have attempted to get Aerys out or at least fight to defend him.

Would it have been difficult. Sure. But that's what happens at times. You have to make difficult choices. The Kingslayer, however, usually likes to take the easy way out. And don't start on about how he had to endure scorn for his slaying of Aerys because he never intended to be found out.

[Dhevrin]

I think Jaime is a tragic hero and has more balls than the rest of the Kingsguard, past and present.

No one appreciates how deeply Aerys' killing of the Starks and Arryns affected Jaime. How does he put it, "Go inside and disappear." He mentions it several times, and is repeatedly haunted by the deaths of Rickon and Brandon Stark.

His choice was to break his oath and do the right thing, or keep his oath and let a madman live. Unlike his brothers, he chose to free the kingdom from ruin, and I think were he given the choice again with Joffrey, he may have killed him as well.

Jaime always does his own killing. And ultimately, if Cersei continues to hold the throne, then I think Jaime will fulfill Cersei's prophecy.

[Ser Daven Lannister]

"Nothing is neither good nor bad; but thinking makes it so."

Isn't this just the case with Jaime?

• On the one hand, Aerys deserved to die, and Jaime did everyone a favor. On the other, he swore an oath to protect his king and then killed him in cold blood.
  
• On the one hand, he chucked Bran out a window and crippled him. On the other, there would be no three-eyed crow, probably no warging, and definitely not much of a Bran storyline without Jaime's action. I believe this was a bad thing -- otherwise we might've been spared the boring Bran chapters.
  
• On the one hand, Jaime did the nasty with his sister. On the other, there would likely be no books (in their current form) without Jaime boinking his sister and producing illegitimate heirs. At the very least, Ned would still be alive. Jon Arryn would've died anyway, and Robert probably would've too. But Jaime was the catalyst; not Cersei. After all, he could've cast her off and went straight to Tywin. But he chose not to.
  

Is he evil? No, he just makes bad decisions. He wouldn't have been captured at the Whispering Wood otherwise. Whichever side you fall on in this argument, you have to admit that the other side has some good evidence to support their claim.

I think he's just a victim of circumstance, personally. And he's one of the deepest, best written characters not only in this series, but in all literature combined!

[Kalbear]

Is he evil? No, he just makes bad decisions.

There's that wonderful moral relativism. He's not evil; he just does really evil things - but he isn't that bad.

No, he's evil. He attempts to kill innocent children to protect his own actions. How that isn't a reasonable definition of evil in this world, I don't know. Really, if there is such a thing as evil, that's a good definition of it, right there - killing innocents for selfish reasons.

If Jaime didn't do all these things, the books wouldn't exist, true. And you know what that means? That means Jaime is the BAD GUY. Because without the bad guy, the books would have been happy and go-lucky and everything would've been fine. Yeah, that would've been boring, but it certainly would've been better for all of Westeros.

[Daemrion]

AP,

IMO, the honourable way for Jaime, when he returns to Riverrun, would be to resume his captivity, as the Blackfish suggest. I think Stratonice is right about the oath-system

Can't that be construed as treason against the Crown? He isn't going to be taking Riverrun from the inside of the dungeon?

I think it's the tragedy of Jaime's pov that he would most likely get burned, no matter what happened.

Yep, but the lawylerly part of me doesn't accept the situation of legal limboness.

Kalbear,

No, he's evil. He attempts to kill innocent children to protect his own actions. How that isn't a reasonable definition of evil in this world, I don't know. Really, if there is such a thing as evil, that's a good definition of it, right there - killing innocents for selfish reasons.

By selfish you do mean entirely selfish, substantially selfish or partly selfish?

And I'd actually say the bad guys are the Others, because we wouldn't need AA or PwwP without them.

[Antonius Pius]

AP,

Can't that be construed as treason against the Crown? He isn't going to be taking Riverrun from the inside of the dungeon?

Maybe, but that would have to be considered before swearing the oath... You cannot swear an oath if part of the bargain is unacceptable. Maybe a bit like gambling without having the money you could potentially lose.

Yep, but the lawylerly part of me doesn't accept the situation of legal limboness.

That´s your problem right there!

But seriously, it IS a medieval-like society we´re speaking of, and law is probably to large degree based on custom. There will not be a rule of law for every possible occasion. If something else is required, I guess the king will decide and create a precedent or a law. I think from parts and snippets of ASOIAF we know that the king does have something of a royal corpus of law(there is some mention of king x´s law), but the custom is still a very big factor as well.

[Daemrion]

AP,

LOL, Given a theoretical King or Queen having to decide such a thing, what do you think he or she would decide?

Maybe, but that would have to be considered before swearing the oath... You cannot swear an oath if part of the bargain is unacceptable.

But the oath might have been acceptable at the time it was sworn, and then supervening circumstances have come up to make it now unacceptable but at formation of oath it was acceptable.