Why Do You Hate Jamie?

[Errant Bard]

No, You!

For the record, you come off as being at the same level than your opponent or worse, to me if not for everyone else who stumbles across this thread as I cannot speak for them. So how about lay off the personal insults and use arguments relevant to the topic? You can always settle on who writes nonsense via PM after the recess.

About the caches, let's face it, jaime may have somewhat good personal ethics, but these does not extend to being a good samaritain, and especially not to think and take initiative. He was concerned about the city blowing up under his nose, but he is not concerned with potential threats, I'm even of the opinion that he didn't even really think about consequences before losing his hand, he was a soldier type, doing his duty but never in the broader sense, unless cornered.

Re: Jaime --> he certainly does seem to decide right and wrong at other people's expense. Even if you feel that committing acts like tossing Bran out of a window are logical because they are in self-defense, the very cause of his requiring to cover up his behaviour is because it is illegal and treasonous. So morality doesn't quite come in.

Morality and legality are two completely different things. Everyone decide right and wrong at other people's expense. You are deciding Jaime is wrong, Jaime decided that what he did was right and was not at odds with his set of morals, or rather, was the best way to uphold them. What if his morals are not yours?

That doesn't make what he did less wrong if considered from the point of view of society, of course.

[Antonius Pius]

Morality and legality are two completely different things. Everyone decide right and wrong at other people's expense. You are deciding Jaime is wrong, Jaime decided that what he did was right and was not at odds with his set of morals, or rather, was the best way to uphold them. What if his morals are not yours?

Yeah, I know. I figured I'd be taken up on that. What I was struggling to make clear is that (IMO) didn't make those judgements based on morality (right or wrong) but expedience.

That doesn't make what he did less wrong if considered from the point of view of society, of course.

No arguement here.

[Daemrion]

The point that Dickums (amongst others, I believe) raised that Jaime did not seem to feel a sense of urgency to deal with the remaining pyromancers bears out that he was settling a private score, not preventing a disaster. His wearing golden armour while killing Aerys and shrugging and laughing his responsibilities off also suggests he wasn't very much concerned with saving the city but more likely that he followed his heart (vengeance on Aerys). Think of it, he makes much of his wearing golden armour, as if that somehow made clear he had forsaken his oath to Aerys and was right to do so... So he has put it on BEFORE he sets off to kill Aerys, and happens to stumble on Rossart. IIRC, he didn't go out to find Rossart, he simply ran into him. His "saving King's Landing" rap is IMO a justification ex post facto.

He personally hunted down the other pyromancers, perhaps it was felt that anyone that isn't trusted by the pyromancers would actually cause the wildfire bomb to be set off. The couple of days is not such a long time span.

The pyromancers trusted Jaime to their detriment. If they had seen a Northman or someone else they could have well have blown the jars with them causing the burning to begin.

I do think Scabbard has a point about the difference between Tommen and Aerys; it's clear to everyone that Tommen is a boy, and not an adult, so for the time being they can safely countermand his orders. Besides, he has a regent to rule the kingdom for him. With an insane king there is no contingency-plan to offset the the king's crazyness. I don't think Jaime prepares his men/vermin into not having to kill Tommen when faced by his choice, but more like imprinting upon them that HE is whom they must obey for the time being.

Crown Prince Rhaegar anyone? From all reports, sane, knightly and 'good'. People loved him etc...etc...

Re payment in advance: Then why not fake coloured water then? I don't think Aerys was going around inspecting any of it.

Aerys might have believed that he would survive, but he was insane and unbelievable (and he didn't have half a brain either).

[HarvestMoon]

A. Pius mentioned not getting distracted from the point. "Can Jamie be redemed for Bran? Why do you hate him?"

Redeming himself for Bran. If Jamie ever repents to the High Septon for what he did to Bran and Sleeping with Cercie and killing his King, then he will be clean in the eyes of the Seven.

Being forgiven by the relm is up to who ever the King is at the time. Right now Jamie is forgiven because his crimes were agaisnt Targs and Starks.....Both considered to be rebles by the Throne.

But who ever is next to sit the Throne (Dany, Stannis, John, Littlefinger, Beric, Doran....Jamie himself) I am sure will deside all over again if Jamie is redemed. Each King will have their own opinion.

But the true redemtion would have to come from Bran himself. And that is something that only Bran can deside.

If Jamie finds a way to make it up to Bran (Saves his life or another Stark) and Bran says "All is even", that is all that matters.

Even if a King still takes Jamies head....if Bran forgives him, then it is no longer a mark on his soul.

(And all of this is the same for Danny. She would have to forgive him for turning on the Targs)

As for why we hate him....I love this question. To me all these personal posts are reflections of the conversations all over Westeros about "the infamos Kingslayer" (Only we have more inside info)

The people of Westeros will never have a change of heart. If they have not forgiven him now, they never will. And the opinion of the Church or a King wont change their minds...just look at Rob and Rickard Karstark. Rob had to kill his own man over a similar issue. Nothing was going to change Karstarks mind.

I think it would take something like riding a dragon against the Others and Saving Danny and Bran along the way to get people to agree he was redemed. And even then I know some of us out there will still want him to answer for his crimes.

Jamie will have to give his life for Bran and Danny befor everyone agrees Jamie is forgiven.

[Enguerrand]

Re: anyone with half a brain --> it doesn't matter how much of a brain people have, nobody knows about the wildfire, so nobody knows Aerys is going to commit suicide.

The select pyromancers knew that he intended to blow up the city, Daemrion took it as a sign that they were committed to Aerys plan to the point of suicide. My point that was that it’s not established that they believed that he and they thought they would die.

So he has put it on BEFORE he sets off to kill Aerys, and happens to stumble on Rossart. IIRC, he didn't go out to find Rossart, he simply ran into him.

You don’t recall correctly. He sent a messenger to ask Aerys for leave to discuss terms, the messenger returned with the “bring me your fathers head†spiel and told Jaime that Rossart were with the king, which Jaime took as a sign that they were moving into the last phase, he deliberately ambushed Rossart at a postern gate.

For the record, you come off as being at the same level than your opponent or worse, to me if not for everyone else who stumbles across this thread as I cannot speak for them. So how about lay off the personal insults and use arguments relevant to the topic?

Not to me, BFB express all the worst trait of a rabid fanboy. We are discussing Jaime’s ethical makeup and find Scabbards dismissal of BFB condescending gibberish perfectly valid.

He personally hunted down the other pyromancers, perhaps it was felt that anyone that isn't trusted by the pyromancers would actually cause the wildfire bomb to be set off. The couple of days is not such a long time span.

Wow, that’s from the guy who insist Jaime had no choice but to kill Aerys immediately or the city would blow.

You think the pyromancers somehow had missed that Tywin had sacked the city? How long do you think it takes for the wildfire to ignite?

Re payment in advance: Then why not fake coloured water then? I don't think Aerys was going around inspecting any of it.

I answered this before. Most people find it difficult to defy their king, most especially so when they have personal experience of what happened to those who do.

It’s also very possible that the handpicked pyromancers approved of the plan in it’s own right, that doesn’t mean that they were suicidal.

Aerys might have believed that he would survive, but he was insane and unbelievable (and he didn't have half a brain either).

You just have great difficulty acknowledging that you are wrong, do you?

[Daemrion]

The select pyromancers knew that he intended to blow up the city, Daemrion took it as a sign that they were committed to Aerys plan to the point of suicide. My point that was that it’s not established that they believed that he and they thought they would die.

Oh, so they thought they would survive being burned alive and being turned into dragons? So who's scenario is more likely, mine or yours?

So collectively each pyromancer thought even if they set off the bomb and were at ground zero they would miraculously turn into a dragon?

The fact is, it is more likely that they would be burnt wouldn't it?

Wow, that’s from the guy who insist Jaime had no choice but to kill Aerys immediately or the city would blow.

You think the pyromancers somehow had missed that Tywin had sacked the city? How long do you think it takes for the wildfire to ignite?

Then why the hec didn't they run? Why didn't they try to escape in the chaos?

The way I see it - if everything is done in utmost secret is that the pyromancers were bunkered down with their wildfire, waiting for the messenger with word to blow everything up. When word didn't come they waited. They would have been totally isolated from the outside world so it is more than likely they missed the Sack. There would have been a total Intelligence lockdown.

When they saw Jaime, they thought he was friendly rather than enemy. Then Jaime turned on them and killed them.

I answered this before. Most people find it difficult to defy their king, most especially so when they have personal experience of what happened to those who do.

Except that this King wasn't going to last very long, was he?

You just have great difficulty acknowledging that you are wrong, do you?

Aerys was insane, his ability to discern right and wrong, fact from fiction is less than someone who believes that he is Superman or Batman.

You see, I'm right. Anyone could see that burning yourself does not turn you into a dragon without the right spells and incantations (if they exist at all). And Aerys didn't know any spells or incantations (there is no indication that he ever studied any sort of blood or fire or any magicks)...I would think he was most likely to fail and fail miserably like all the rest before him. That's what the reasonable person would think, that's what the person with half a brain would think.

[Antonius Pius]

He personally hunted down the other pyromancers, perhaps it was felt that anyone that isn't trusted by the pyromancers would actually cause the wildfire bomb to be set off. The couple of days is not such a long time span.

I kinda doubt the pyromancers would trust the Kingslayer at that point. Even if they did not understand anything else, they would have understood that the king's killer would not be trying to implement his suicidal plan for vengeance. And if Jaime wanted them found before they could go through with the plan, he would have tried to get as many men as possible to find him. You know, uncover every stone.

The pyromancers trusted Jaime to their detriment. If they had seen a Northman or someone else they could have well have blown the jars with them causing the burning to begin.

I recall no such evidence. Jaime hunted them down and killed them, that's all we know, isn't it?

Crown Prince Rhaegar anyone? From all reports, sane, knightly and 'good'. People loved him etc...etc...

Rhaegar was indeed the one to act on Aerys' madness. He deserves some blame for leaving matters as they are. Anyone else would be committing treason if they go against the king, or would likely be at grave risk to be accused of treason.

[Antonius Pius]

You don’t recall correctly. He sent a messenger to ask Aerys for leave to discuss terms, the messenger returned with the “bring me your fathers head†spiel and told Jaime that Rossart were with the king, which Jaime took as a sign that they were moving into the last phase, he deliberately ambushed Rossart at a postern gate.

OK, I stand corrected then.

[Daemrion]

I kinda doubt the pyromancers would trust the Kingslayer at that point. Even if they did not understand anything else, they would have understood that the king's killer would not be trying to implement his suicidal plan for vengeance. And if Jaime wanted them found before they could go through with the plan, he would have tried to get as many men as possible to find him. You know, uncover every stone.

I recall no such evidence. Jaime hunted them down and killed them, that's all we know, isn't it?

Because I would think that they assumed that Jaime was still a friendly unit. See my above post for further detail.

[DJDonegal]

Without reading any of the thread, I don't hate Jaime.

He has always been the henchman to Cersei's villain, and since his POV and his distance from Cersei, both physically and emotionally, I have come to like him more with each passing chapter.

[Enguerrand]

Oh, so they thought they would survive being burned alive and being turned into dragons? So who's scenario is more likely, mine or yours?

Do you simply ignore those part in my post you disagree with? When the plan was proposed and the wildfire placed, it might not have been apparent that the king would die/planned to die, The Red keep is a warren of secret passages, they could have emerged days afterwards.

Perhaps it’s a stretch but might Aerys not have had the cunning to hide a plan that led to certain death for everybody involved?

So collectively each pyromancer thought even if they set off the bomb and were at ground zero they would miraculously turn into a dragon?

As I said six or seven times before I have seen no evidence that it’s not perfectly feasible to set of the wildfire and go to a fireproof retreat. Suicide might be first things that pops into your mind when people sets up a an elaborate incendiary device, but that seems unnecessary extreme to me.

Then why the hec didn't they run? Why didn't they try to escape in the chaos?

Who is to say that they didn’t? They were known as Aerys men and quite probably not that popular in the streets filled with rebels and looters.

They would have been totally isolated from the outside world so it is more than likely they missed the Sack.

Take a deep breath and read that sentence again. Do you know what a sack is?

Except that this King wasn't going to last very long, was he?

That’s not much of a comfort if you are tortured to death in the final days of his reign, and again it seems that the conspiring pyromancers approved.

[Guest Other-in-law]

I do think Scabbard has a point about the difference between Tommen and Aerys; it's clear to everyone that Tommen is a boy, and not an adult, so for the time being they can safely countermand his orders.

It's equally clear to anyone reasonable at court that Aerys was crazy and that Joffrey was acting disgracefully by having Sansa beaten by the KG.

Besides, he has a regent to rule the kingdom for him. With an insane king there is no contingency-plan to offset the the king's crazyness.

That is a huge problem that Westeros needs to deal with if the nation is to avoid endless chaos. Currently, the only contingency plan is moral men like Jaime, and that is nothing to rely on. The realm lucked out with Aerion Brightflame's mishap, and the short reigns of some of the other crazy or otherwise dangerous or undesirable kings.

On that note, I'm very curious as to what role Ser Duncan the Tall played in calling the Great Council to decide the succession. It really was not a confusing question legally. The crown goes to the king's eldest son and if he has predeceased the king, to the eldest son's eldest son. Aerion the Monstrous had a living son. That would have been good enough for the White Bull, I'd wager. Fortunately saner heads prevailed and didn't let their overblown sense of honour get in the way of their humanity (though that son may have actually been normal, as Rhaegar was). Calling a Great Council during an interregnum is one thing, calling one against a mad sitting king risks opposition from honour fundies like Hightower.

I don't think Jaime prepares his men/vermin into not having to kill Tommen when faced by his choice, but more like imprinting upon them that HE is whom they must obey for the time being.

I don't see that at all. He offered the Regent as an alternative authority to appeal to in that speech. Jaime is profoundly uninterested in political power; see how bored he was sitting on the Small Council session in aSoS. His point was to break Meryn Trant and such of their blind obedience. He offered two seperate scenarios, normal order=fine, go ahead and obey it...lunatic order, let someone else know first...and exercise your judgement in telling the two apart. It's not just a matter of sparing them the onerous duty of kingslaying, it's to save Tommen from the peril of justified rebellions and the realm from being ruled by yet another madman.

[snake]

I don't see that at all. He offered the Regent as an alternative authority to appeal to in that speech. Jaime is profoundly uninterested in political power; see how bored he was sitting on the Small Council session in aSoS. His point was to break Meryn Trant and such of their blind obedience. He offered two seperate scenarios, normal order=fine, go ahead and obey it...lunatic order, let someone else know first...and exercise your judgement in telling the two apart. It's not just a matter of sparing them the onerous duty of kingslaying, it's to save Tommen from the peril of justified rebellions and the realm from being ruled by yet another madman.

What the Kingslayer was doing was pointing out that the Kingsguard are not a tool to be used to chastise young girls or to do the killing for the Queen or King. Their duty is to protect the king. Do you think men like the White Bull or Ser Arthur Dayne would have beaten Sansa? If you do then there's no help for you at all. There's no where in the books that suggest that Aerys Kingsguard ever did anything like Joff's did. In fact the Kingslayer himself wonders what Ser Arthur would think of them now. How low they had fallen with men of little worth and little honor. The Kingslayer admits to himself that it was him that allowed it to happen. He damaged the Kingsguard and now he's trying to put them back on the right track. Pity he's not the man to do it.

[Errant Bard]

There's no where in the books that suggest that Aerys Kingsguard ever did anything like Joff's did.

Huh... Seizing Brandon and Rickard and preparing their execution, watching an old man be roasted alive and his son strangle himself, standing guard over Aerys raping Rhaella, chastising Jaime for thinking anything else than obeying the king, helping crown prince to subdue a girl and put the kingdom into turmoil are not sufficient hints that they obey blindly and without regard about the victims?

[snake]

Huh... Seizing Brandon and Rickard and preparing their execution, watching an old man be roasted alive and his son strangle himself, standing guard over Aerys raping Rhaella, chastising Jaime for thinking anything else than obeying the king, helping crown prince to subdue a girl and put the kingdom into turmoil are not sufficient hints that they obey blindly and without regard about the victims?

Nowhere does it say that the Kingsguard seized Brandon and his men or that they helped in their executions. And only once was the Kingslayer chastised and that's when he got mad at Rhaegar. Other than that it was older men trying to council their younger brother on his duties which were to guard the king.

[BrainFireBob]

Not to me, BFB express all the worst trait of a rabid fanboy. We are discussing Jaime’s ethical makeup and find Scabbards dismissal of BFB condescending gibberish perfectly valid.

BFB's "gibberish" is pointing out that the discussion needs to be about Jaime's ethical makeup, not whether or not our morals impinge on Jaime's decision. Nor am I defending Jaime. You are re-construing my arguments in a false light, putting words into my mouth- this is libel. My tone was entirely based on my perception of that attitude in the responses I received- just because I'm not going "OMFG you're so right he is teh EVILZ!!111!!" does not mean I approve nor disapprove of Jaime, I was introducing what matters is that he's acting according to his personal ethics code.

What makes me laugh is that with one hand, Pius dismissed it- and then with the other introduced it, noting that according to Jaime's morals it wasn't wrong. Precisely. Which is why arguments based on the fact he's not guilty enough fail relevency: According to his moral code, why should he?

[Starkess]

I still maintain that he knows his actions are wrong. Look back to the scene where he pushes Bran off the tower. "The things I do for love," he says to Cersei before pushing Bran. Does that sound like someone who is thinking "To do what I believe is right, I must push this boy off the tower?" No. It implies "I know I'm about to do something wrong, but it is beneficial to me (and Cersei/kids), so I am going to do it anyway." Jaime is not doing what he thinks is "right." He is doing whatever he wants to do. This is seen in his actions throughout the series and especially his post-action reasoning in which he attempts to make what he did okay, even though he knew at the time it was wrong.

Furthermore, even if Jaime did think he was doing the right things according to his moral cods, that does not make his actions right. You cannot pardon anyone's actions by saying that according to "their moral code" it was not wrong. It comes down to the argument of objectivism vs. pluralism vs. relativism. I happen to believe there is an objective universal set of moral codes that applies to any society. How these are applied within one's one life is a matter of more interpretation. IMO, one cannot set up their own "moral code" that is completely at odds with the natural right and wrong. This is not to say that people don't think they have their own moral codes, but the word moral is a wrong word because they are not truly moral.

So either way you look at, Jaime is not a moral person.

[Guest Other-in-law]

Do you think men like the White Bull or Ser Arthur Dayne would have beaten Sansa? If you do then there's no help for you at all.

Dayne, I'm not sure. The White Bull, absolutely. He swore a vow to obey, with no exceptions for "unless it's an order to beat little girls" that we have heard of. He made his approach to interpreting his vows abundantly clear when reprimanding Jaime for "going away inside" while Aerys was creaming his smallpants over Rickard Stark's immolation.

One last time. Blind obedience=not judging. Obeying regardless of what the order is. To decide not to obey a certain order, you have to exercise your judgement on that order, which is unacceptable to Hightower. Get it?

[snake]

One last time. Blind obedience=not judging. Obeying regardless of what the order is. To decide not to obey a certain order, you have to exercise your judgement on that order, which is unacceptable to Hightower. Get it?

It seems that you are the one who doesn't get it. Show me once where it even slightly suggests that Ser Gerold ever did anything similar to what Trant, Oakheart, Blount, and the rest had done. If you cannot then consider why that is since Aerys was a helluva lot crazier than Joffery ever was. We know they stood by while Aerys had others do his evil deeds but they didn't participate. They guarded the king as their oaths required them to do but it would seem that he never asked them to do any of the vile things he had committed. Why is that?

And when the Kingslayer first took his seat as Lord Commander of the Kingsguard his thoughts were, "Worn by the bony arse of Barriston the Bold and Ser Gerold Hightower before him, by Prince Aemon the Dragonknight, Ser Ryam Redwyne, and the Demon of Darry, by Ser Duncan the Tall and the Pale Griffen Alyn Connington. How could the Kingslayer belong in such exalted company?" Why would he put Ser Gerold in with such men if he was such a pitiful Kingsguard and knight?

And one last time his duty was to guard the king not judge him which Ser Gerold tried to explain to him. Which meant keeping Aerys safe at all costs and something the Kingslayer failed to do. Get it?

[Daemrion]

Do you simply ignore those part in my post you disagree with? When the plan was proposed and the wildfire placed, it might not have been apparent that the king would die/planned to die, The Red keep is a warren of secret passages, they could have emerged days afterwards.

The Red Keep was going to collapse on top of them.

Who is to say that they didn’t? They were known as Aerys men and quite probably not that popular in the streets filled with rebels and looters.

Disguises? Slip out with the rest of the crowd?

Take a deep breath and read that sentence again. Do you know what a sack is?

Yes. But as it is said, the plan was carried out in the utmost secrecy. They most likely would have bunkered down with the wildfire. So they might not have even bothered to emerge from their bunker (especially if they planned on committing suicide). They would have been told to ignore everything on the outisde and not start the burn until the message came or anything like that.

That’s not much of a comfort if you are tortured to death in the final days of his reign, and again it seems that the conspiring pyromancers approved.

How is he going to torture you when he's dead? Fake the wildfire, it's not like Aerys is leaving the Red Keep anyway.