Why Do You Hate Jamie?

[Guest Other-in-law]

Because they were men of honor. There job was to protect the king and beating little girls had nothing to do with that. I mean, why do you think so many people think of Tommen's Kingsguard with disdain? Because they are weak, dishonorable men.

They swore an oath to obey the king. Not hitting Sansa would be oathbreaking. Oathbreaking is not honorable even for morally good reasons, like protecting innocent children or several thousands of citizens, as Jaime did. He has shit for honor, all men agree, because he wasn't made of stern enough stuff to keep his vows. Morality made him weak.

They are not fit to wear the White and most everyone knows it. Yet no where does anyone think that Aerys Seven, other than the Kingslayer, were nothing if not great knights.

As Sandor wisely explains, knights are for killing. All the rest is frill. Aerys seven were much better and more capable killers than Joff's. I'll give you no argument about that.

[snake]

They swore an oath to obey the king. Not hitting Sansa would be oathbreaking. Oathbreaking is not honorable even for morally good reasons, like protecting innocent children or several thousands of citizens, as Jaime did. He has shit for honor, all men agree, because he wasn't made of stern enough stuff to keep his vows. Morality made him weak.

He has shit for honor because he killed the king he was sworn to protect. He could have protected the innocent and his king but he didn't want to. He joined the Kingsguard so he could fuck his sister not because he wanted to wear a white cloak and give his life for his king. The Kingslayer would have killed Aerys even if there wasn't a plan to blow up Kingslanding. As he told Ser Balon, it came down to his family or his king and he chose family. You will believe as you wish but no where does it suggest that any of Aerys Seven ever done anything like Joffery's Seven. Why? Well, I'll leave that to you to figure out.

As Sandor wisely explains, knights are for killing. All the rest is frill. Aerys seven were much better and more capable killers than Joff's. I'll give you no argument about that.

Sandor is a bitter drunken brute. 'Tis true not all knights are knightly but some are. They are warriors and they're meant for battle but so are most of the people in the realm. Commoners and men-at-arms all fight and kill when their liege demands it of them. However, knights protect the innocent and defend their people from others who would do them harm. The Kingsguard were the best knights in the realm, who were sworn to the realm and were the personal bodyguard of the king. Some were not good men, as the Kingslayer points out to Ser Loras but most were true and did their duty the best they could. As Ser Kevan pointed out it once was considered a given that kinghts of the ingsguard were good and valiant knights. The Kingslayer changed that, along with Robert, and now they are only fit to beat helpless maids.

[Guest Other-in-law]

The Kingslayer would have killed Aerys even if there wasn't a plan to blow up Kingslanding. As he told Ser Balon, it came down to his family or his king and he chose family.

I doubt he would have killed the king if Rhaegar won. He would have had the hope of a decent king to serve then.

You will believe as you wish but no where does it suggest that any of Aerys Seven ever done anything like Joffery's Seven. Why? Well, I'll leave that to you to figure out.

C'mon! They proudly stood by invoking their duty to obey while the king raped and brutalised the queen. Just like Meryn and Boros would have!

But perhaps you can imagine what response the White Bull would have made when the King gave him a direct order to strike Sansa? What words would he use to break his vows with, pray tell?

However, knights protect the innocent and defend their people from others who would do them harm.

The overwhelming majority do not. Even that paragon of virtue, Brynden Tully, happily tossed his small folk out to starve when he saw a siege coming. The pretty words and conceits of chivalry don't mean that much in reality.

The Kingslayer changed that, along with Robert, and now they are only fit to beat helpless maids.

Whereas before they were fit to be lookouts for Aerys' rapes and tortures. Yeah, huge difference, morally.

[snake]

I doubt he would have killed the king if Rhaegar won. He would have had the hope of a decent king to serve then.

You're probably right. If rhaegar had won and he had killed Aerys he would have lost his head and he didn't want that. IMO, he'd have killed Aerys if there was no plot to destroy the city and his Robert would have won.

C'mon! They proudly stood by invoking their duty to obey while the king raped and brutalised the queen. Just like Meryn and Boros would have!

But perhaps you can imagine what response the White Bull would have made when the King gave him a direct order to strike Sansa? What words would he use to break his vows with, pray tell?

I don't know if they were proud of what Aerys was doing but they held to their vows. Boros and Meryn would probably have helped Aerys if he wanted them to.

He would have refused Aerys and reminded him that their duty is to protect him not to beat young girls and I don't think Aerys would have pushed the issue. Recall that Joffery never asked the Hound to beat Sansa. Why? Because he knew that the Hound would have refused him while he knew that Boros and Meryn and others would not. I recall that Ser Barriston was not afraid to tell Robert that it was not right for him to fight in the melee although Robert didn't want to hear that and he also refused to sanction Dany's murder which again went against the king's wishes. However, he would have gladly died defending Robert if the need had arose.

The overwhelming majority do not. Even that paragon of virtue, Brynden Tully, happily tossed his small folk out to starve when he saw a siege coming. The pretty words and conceits of chivalry don't mean that much in reality.

Perhaps not but that's an extreme example you're using. I doubt Ser Brynden went around abusing the smallfolk or leaving them at the mercy of bandits under normal circumstances.

Whereas before they were fit to be lookouts for Aerys' rapes and tortures. Yeah, huge difference, morally.

Before they were fit to guard the king from harm. That was their duty and they did it well. To me there is a difference.

[Enguerrand]

C'mon! They proudly stood by invoking their duty to obey while the king raped and brutalised the queen. Just like Meryn and Boros would have!

A couple of things: It’s very likely that it’s legally impossible for a man to rape his wife in Westeros. Just as he would have the right to beat her.

When a knight swears to protect the weak and innocent, I have difficulty to believe they mean the same thing as the modern readers. Who is the judge of whom are innocent? The king is afterall the highest legal authority. Should an officer take the law into his own hands if he percieves a miscarriage of justice?

As I said before, When Brienne swear her oath to Catelyn, Catelyn pledges not to ask Brienne to do anything dishonourable. I think there is a difference between observing and injustice and partaking in it.(Even if I find this line of thought hypocritical).

But perhaps you can imagine what response the White Bull would have made when the King gave him a direct order to strike Sansa? What words would he use to break his vows with, pray tell?

That he is a knight of the kingsguard and those don’t hit little girls? If Ned had thought this was proper Kingsguard etiquette would he really have called them “a shining lesson to the world�

[Guest Other-in-law]

A couple of things: It’s very likely that it’s legally impossible for a man to rape his wife in Westeros. Just as he would have the right to beat her.

So you wouldn't think poorly of Meryn or Boros if they did exactly what Jon Darry did? I smell a huge double standard in judging the old and new KG. The biggest difference was that the old ones were badass and the new ones aren't. They both obeyed orders. Perhaps they were spared that type of order because of Aerys having a more respectful notion of the KG's purpose, or perhaps not. He was happy to use the institution as a vehicle to give Tywin another slap in the face by stealing his son, after all.

When a knight swears to protect the weak and innocent, I have difficulty to believe they mean the same thing as the modern readers. Who is the judge of whom are innocent?

The king is afterall the highest legal authority.

The smallfolk thought Dunk was a good (and unusual) knight when he protected Tanselle from Prince Aerion, and it seems the gods agreed with them. If one wants to take a more absolutist view of royal authority, you could claim that if Aerys judged the entire population of King's Landing to be guilty (of treason or whatever), then he was within his rights to order their mass execution. I doubt that most Westerosi would go along with that, though.

Should an officer take the law into his own hands if he percieves a miscarriage of justice?

I certainly don't think law enforcement officers should give a free pass to powerful government officials who break the law if that's what your asking.

As I said before, When Brienne swear her oath to Catelyn, Catelyn pledges not to ask Brienne to do anything dishonourable. I think there is a difference between observing and injustice and partaking in it.(Even if I find this line of thought hypocritical).

We have zero indication that the KG oath includes any similar clause, or any obligation on the king's part at all. Stannis didn't make such a pledge when he took Davos' oath as hand, and unlike Cat he's a king.

That he is a knight of the kingsguard and those don’t hit little girls?

According to whom? The king, who "is afterall the highest legal authority"?

Or some nonexistant "we don't hit little girls" part of their oaths? Surely not in the "obey the king" part of their oaths.

When Jaime objected to being a "crutch", Darry told him to shut up and do his duty, pretty much. Obeying the king is one of the duties of the KG. Picking and choosing which orders is not part of the equation.

If Ned had thought this was proper Kingsguard etiquette would he really have called them “a shining lesson to the world�

I think Ned was laboring under cultural blinders, honestly. He must have thought standing at attention while his father was cruelly burned to death was proper KG ettiquette, so what's wrong with keeping their vow to obey the King? Apparently they're not to be held responsible for the orders that they follow, else what was the "lesson"? As far as I can tell the lesson is "loyalty to the bitter end, even for someone who doesn't deserve it, is a good thing". Either that, or maybe "Being a super duper badass swordsman is a good thing". Jaime's approach to making judgements about the orders, on the other hand, seems pretty revolutionary.

On Barristan's handling of Robert: he helped persuade the king not to participate in the melee with his psychological acumen. It was certainly good work, and I suspect this is how Arthur Dayne wrung concessions from Aerys on behalf of the Kingswood smallfolk.

On the Dany murder question, he was acting in his position as a Small Councillor. Their job is to give counsel. Robert chose to disregard his and Ned's in that case, but giving it at all is a prerogative of the Lord Commander, not of the associate brothers. And he gave it meekly enough, and made no waves when it was ignored. It's very different from refusing to obey a direct order.

[Enguerrand]

So you wouldn't think poorly of Meryn or Boros if they did exactly what Jon Darry did? I smell a huge double standard in judging the old and new KG.

No. Even today people are hesitant to interfere in spousal abuse. In a time and place that it was endorsed, I can’t really fault them for acting like members of their own culture.

If one wants to take a more absolutist view of royal authority, you could claim that if Aerys judged the entire population of King's Landing to be guilty (of treason or whatever), then he was within his rights to order their mass execution. I doubt that most Westerosi would go along with that, though.

Going by Stannis, kings don’t make law, they are the highest arbiter of law. If so the form the king judge people must be established in some fashion. I imagine summarily condemning a group of people that haven’t even gotten the opportunity of a trial would be ignoring common legal process.

(This is also my grip about the Lord Rikard’s trial. It’s one thing that he is convicted of treason on spurious grounds, another to be burned alive in a mockery of the trial by combat, I cannot imagine that last part is compatible with Westerosi legal process and would force men of honour to protest.)

I certainly don't think law enforcement officers should give a free pass to powerful government officials who break the law if that's what your asking.

No, but it’s question of judgement and not an easy one, under what circumstances is it OK to discard the due process and say screw you, this isn’t right?

We have zero indication that the KG oath includes any similar clause, or any obligation on the king's part at all. Stannis didn't make such a pledge when he took Davos' oath as hand, and unlike Cat he's a king.

Yes, but all kingsguard have taken the knightly oaths before the kingsguard vows, which leads me to believe that they must be compatible. If the obedience part infringe on the knightly tenets, a man of honour would need to be released from the former to able to swear such a vow in good faith.

I think Ned was laboring under cultural blinders, honestly. He must have thought standing at attention while his father was cruelly burned to death was proper KG ettiquette, so what's wrong with keeping their vow to obey the King?

And yet Ned is perhaps the most modern character in the series, fair, concerned about abuse of women and children. He has rebelled against the king himself, yet he seem to have no qualms about putting his family before his honour something Stannis wrestles with. We see this time and again that Ned sacrifices honour when there are lives close to him at stake. Yet he would hold people that did exactly the opposite in the highest esteem?

[Anath]

Has anyone noticed that Jaime is most hated for his most noble deed? Excuse me for thinking so low of sacred oaths and so on, but according to me staying in silent obedience while a madman is planning to organize a mass murder just because the said madman happens to be the king you so foolishly and idealistically had vowed to protect at age 15, is far more despicable than taking the decision to break your oath and save hudreds lives, not that Jaime had received a word of gratitude.

His incest with Cersei is dusguisting, of course, but then, after it HAD happened, he could not help but act on his impulse. I don't believe that his intention was to kill Bran but to stop the kid's mouth. Not that it changes the fact that he maimed a child, of course, nor makes it excusable but that's is how Jaime is - acting on his impulses with both great and horrifying consequences. Just like he threw Bran through the window, he went to help Brienne with the bear, without thinking.

About his oath to Catelyn - of course he broke it but somehow I doubt that our lady meant it like "do not take a weapon against my relatives but stepped aside, so that someone else could lead the siege and kills them". He respected his vow to her in his own eyes and in mine, too - he saved Edmur from being killed after all! Not that he received any gratitude, but I doubt he had expected one anyway - he must have learned from Aerys' case!

[Enguerrand]

Has anyone noticed that Jaime is most hated for his most noble deed? Excuse me for thinking so low of sacred oaths and so on, but according to me staying in silent obedience while a madman is planning to organize a mass murder just because the said madman happens to be the king you so foolishly and idealistically had vowed to protect at age 15, is far more despicable than taking the decision to break your oath and save hudreds lives, not that Jaime had received a word of gratitude.

If you bother too read the thread you will notice that taking the king to task for planning a massacre of the good people of King’s landing isn’t the issue. It’s the killing of the king, which was a different affair altogether.

His incest with Cersei is dusguisting, of course, but then, after it HAD happened, he could not help but act on his impulse.

Yes he fucked her on impulse for years, betraying his kingsguard vows and destroying house Baratheon and Robert that had pardoned him.

I don't believe that his intention was to kill Bran but to stop the kid's mouth.

"Yours was the hand that threw him. You meant for him to die."

His chains chinked softly. "I seldom fling children from towers to improve their health. Yes, I meant for him to die."

he saved Edmur from being killed after all! Not that he received any gratitude, but I doubt he had expected one anyway - he must have learned from Aerys' case!

Yes, clearly Edmure should be grateful for the humane way Jaime takes everything from him. Welcome too the folds of the Jaime fanboys.

[Daemrion]

No. Even today people are hesitant to interfere in spousal abuse. In a time and place that it was endorsed, I can’t really fault them for acting like members of their own culture.

That statement is just utterly disgusting. Thank God in our society, people report spousal abuse.

Yes, but all kingsguard have taken the knightly oaths before the kingsguard vows, which leads me to believe that they must be compatible. If the obedience part infringe on the knightly tenets, a man of honour would need to be released from the former to able to swear such a vow in good faith.

May I point you to the case of Sandor Clegane. Not a ser.

But assuming that he doesn't count, in any case, maybe when they made up the Kingsguard oath, people didn't take into account that someone like Aerys might come along and screw everything over. Even if the founders of the oath system believed that it would be compatible in all ways does not mean that in fact, some one later on will make a situation where they aren't compatible.

In this case, a strict honour reading would mean that they would be acting in a way that is immoral or at least amoral in their actions from a modern view of morality.

If you bother too read the thread you will notice that taking the king to task for planning a massacre of the good people of King’s landing isn’t the issue. It’s the killing of the king, which was a different affair altogether.

I'd beg to differ. The two are interrelated and one can't really analyse one act properly without taking the other into account.

[Anath]

If you bother too read the thread you will notice that taking the king to task for planning a massacre of the good people of King’s landing isn’t the issue. It’s the killing of the king, which was a different affair altogether.

Yes he fucked her on impulse for years, betraying his kingsguard vows and destroying house Baratheon and Robert that had pardoned him.

"Yours was the hand that threw him. You meant for him to die."

His chains chinked softly. "I seldom fling children from towers to improve their health. Yes, I meant for him to die."

Yes, clearly Edmure should be grateful for the humane way Jaime takes everything from him. Welcome too the folds of the Jaime fanboys.

No, the killing of the king isn't a different issue because it was the the only way that Jaime could think of to prevent the massacre.

I you had bothered to read my reply, you should have noticed that acting by impulse wasn't related to fucking Cersei - what kind of impulse could hold the incest for fifiteen years or so? - but throwing Bran throw the window. His intention wasn't to kill but to make him keep silence, so he made the connection - dead don't talk. He didn't throw him from there just for the pleasure of it. Besides, what the hell could you expect that Jaime the Bragging Lord would tell Catelyn? He loves talking about his awful deeds in a way that makes them even more awful, in case that you hadn't noticed. He brags about them, it helps him building his reputation of someone that everyone should be afraid of. It's become a habit, a part of him.

About Edmure, do you really think that somebody else would have left him something? Not only Jaime but anyone in his place would have taken him everything. It's not a matter of humanity but of polytics. If you want a repented sinner, find someone else because I doubt Jaime will ever feel a eal remorse - he just acts the way he thinks he should at the moment. And, as we all know, Jaime's thought process isn't one of a deep thought but of immediate actions which too often leads to pitiful results.

Anyway, if we should talk about cruelty, I wonder why no one seems to judge Catelyn for killing the idiotic boy on Edmure's wedding - he posed no threat for her but she still cut his throat. It seems that the only character in this series who is ever blamed for killing innocent, is Jaime.

[Daemrion]

No, the killing of the king isn't a different issue because it was the the only way that Jaime could think of to prevent the massacre.

Don't worry about that. Enguerrand is destined to never agree with such a notion even though it is perfectly reasonable for a seventeen year old kid in that place to have thought exactly the same thing.

Anyway, if we should talk about cruelty, I wonder why no one seems to judge Catelyn for killing the idiotic boy on Edmure's wedding - he was no threat for her but she still cut his throat.

Oh, well Jaime probably gets the blame for that too, for not stopping the Red Wedding.

No, to be serious check out the Catelyn hate threads going around here. I'm sure it's probably mentioned somewhere there.

And secondly, even if the lackwit was innocent he's a Frey, and so most people probably just go guilt by association.

[snake]

According to whom? The king, who "is afterall the highest legal authority"?

Or some nonexistant "we don't hit little girls" part of their oaths? Surely not in the "obey the king" part of their oaths.

When Jaime objected to being a "crutch", Darry told him to shut up and do his duty, pretty much. Obeying the king is one of the duties of the KG. Picking and choosing which orders is not part of the equation.

According to the precedent of other Kingsguard. The Kingsguard are a 300 year old institution respected throughout the realm, until recently that is. They have a set of rules to follow and the older members usually try and teach the younger ones what is expected of them like Ser Gerold taking the Kingslayer aside to talk with him. And Darry told him to guard the king which is what a Kingsguard is for wouldn't you say? Or perhaps you think they're for killing the king.

In this case, a strict honour reading would mean that they would be acting in a way that is immoral or at least amoral in their actions from a modern view of morality.

In a modern sense I agree with you. Almost everything that goes on in the series is reprehensible from a modern viewpoint. Women are basically sold, commoners are treated like chattel, and people are condemned and killed at the word of a few people in power. But from a Westerosi POV oaths are sacred and are not lightly made nor cast aside. A mans honor, and a womens as well means a lot. It means you can be trusted and people will not be afraid to deal with you because your word means something. Why do you think the Kingslayer hates the fact that he has shit for honor? Why do you think he's trying so hard( and failing miserably) to regain his honor. Because it means something to the people of Westeros.

That's why men like Ser Barriston Selmy were revered and Aerys Seven were thought of so highly. Because they were men of honor and people respected that.

[Enguerrand]

Damerion I think we just have to agree to disagree, you simply plow on in the same furrow.

No, the killing of the king isn't a different issue because it was the the only way that Jaime could think of to prevent the massacre.

Except that as we have seen in this thread that there are no compelling reason for why Jaime couldn’t have subdued the king instead of killing him. For foiling the wildfire plot nothing tangible points to the necessity of the king’s death. But if you have evidence to the contrary please feel free to share.

His intention wasn't to kill but to make him keep silence, so he made the connection - dead don't talk. He didn't throw him from there just for the pleasure of it. Besides, what the hell could you expect that Jaime the Bragging Lord would tell Catelyn?

I’m sorry you claimed that:

I don't believe that his intention was to kill Bran but to stop the kid's mouth.

Yet Jaime explicitly states that it was his intention to kill him, he even mock Catelyn for asking such a self-evident question. You think Jaime is lying?

About Edmure, do you really think that somebody else would have left him something? Not only Jaime but anyone in his place would have taken him everything.

Even if that was true, why should Edmure be grateful? If take everything you own but don’t kill you, you are going to shower me with gratitude?

It's not a matter of humanity but of polytics. If you want a repented sinner, find someone else because I doubt Jaime will ever feel a eal remorse

Jaime feels remorse all the time. It still doesn’t stop him from dishonouring himself.

I wonder why no one seems to judge Catelyn for killing the idiotic boy on Edmure's wedding - he posed no threat for her but she still cut his throat. It seems that the only character in this series who is ever blamed for killing innocent, is Jaime.

Apparently you haven’t been around here for very long. Search for Catelyn and you will have your fill of Catelyn hate. Amusingly enough she is actually the mirror image of Jaime. Everything she does is interpreted in the worst possible light. While Jaime’s supporters twist themselves inside out to find excuses for his hideous crimes.

I might be wrong but I my impression is that there is a high correlation between Jaime fanboys and Catelyn bashers. So you wont feel alone.

[Dickums]

Jaime feels remorse all the time. It still doesn’t stop him from dishonouring himself.

I agree with almost everything you have to say about Jaime, Enguerrand, but not this. I don't really think he feels remorse, but more of a self pity for his great actions (in his mind) being hated by everyone else. This is why he constantly whines about it over and over again to himself, and what's funny is the reasons he gives for these acts being great were actually after thoughts given by himself to himself after the deed was done. It seems that Jaime just deludes himself into believing that his deeds were actually for the greater good because he can't seem to cope with the fact that the reason he does these deeds is because he's a selfish, egotistical, ass and that is why all of Westeros believes he has shit for honor. Poor Jaime.

[Guest Other-in-law]

According to the precedent of other Kingsguard. The Kingsguard are a 300 year old institution respected throughout the realm, until recently that is. They have a set of rules to follow and the older members usually try and teach the younger ones what is expected of them like Ser Gerold taking the Kingslayer aside to talk with him.

Where's your evidence that none of the other KG in the past 300 years have have ever chastised female children on royal orders? You don't have any, that's where it is!

On the other side we have unequivocal evidence that KG swear a vow to obey the king, and that Joff gave such orders. His goons were just doing their honorable duty.

Hmmm...zero evidence for A, clear evidence for B...A must be the right answer!

That's why Aerys Seven were thought of so highly. Because they were men of honor and people respected that.

Or because the people who revere them are dipshits. Or the reverence had nothing to do with their ethical performance.

[Starkess]

Apparently you haven’t been around here for very long. Search for Catelyn and you will have your fill of Catelyn hate. Amusingly enough she is actually the mirror image of Jaime. Everything she does is interpreted in the worst possible light. While Jaime’s supporters twist themselves inside out to find excuses for his hideous crimes.

I might be wrong but I my impression is that there is a high correlation between Jaime fanboys and Catelyn bashers. So you wont feel alone.

I happen to be both an anti-Jaime fanboys (and mostly anti-Jaime) and anti-Catelyn.

I feel like this whole discussion is going around in a circle. Everyone is making the same points over and over again. I think at this point, I lay down my arms. Obviously, some of you think Jaime is a great person. I don't. Nothing you have said has convinced me otherwise. Nothing I have said has convinced you otherwise. I agree to disagree at this point.

[snake]

Where's your evidence that none of the other KG in the past 300 years have have ever chastised female children on royal orders? You don't have any, that's where it is!

On the other side we have unequivocal evidence that KG swear a vow to obey the king, and that Joff gave such orders. His goons were just doing their honorable duty.

Hmmm...zero evidence for A, clear evidence for B...A must be the right answer!

The Kingslayer asks Ser Boros to look in the White Book and find where it says they are to beat little girls. Ser Boros uses the following orders excuse because he's a coward and a scumbag. No one considers Joffry's Kingsguard to be honorable men or good valiant knights. they're a disgrace to the White Cloak and most everyone knows it. Ned even says that the Kingsguard were once a shining example to the world but that's not the case anymore. This from a man who's father and brother were horribly murdered by Aerys yet he still respected Aerys Kingsguard. He even found he had respect for Ser Barriston after he got to know him but you never get that from him with regards to the others.

Or because the people who revere them are dipshits. Or the reverence had nothing to do with their ethical performance.

Well I guess Westeros is populated with dipshits, including your beloved Kingslayer.

[Daemrion]

The Kingslayer asks Ser Boros to look in the White Book and find where it says they are to beat little girls. Ser Boros uses the following orders excuse because he's a coward and a scumbag.

That would be because Jaime is angry with him for obeying such a immoral order. But no doubt it was honourable if one keeps the strict oath of the Kingsguard to participate in beating Sansa. Because it's obeying what the Kings says.

Jaime's twist/watering-down thereof the Kingsguard oath gives the KG more autonomy to be able to reject orders that are obviously immoral. But given the old KG interpretation of oaths, the White Bull and the others, if so ordered would be honourbound to beat Sansa. Because the KG oath they swore asked for total obedience of direct orders.

Well I guess Westeros is populated with dipshits, including your beloved Kingslayer.

They may not be d******s, but they are totally unenlightened regarding human rights and the such as expected of a medieval society.

Daemrion I think we just have to agree to disagree, you simply plow on in the same furrow.

Perhaps so. I just probably have a different world-view to yours and it influences the way we interpret events and interpret people.

Except that as we have seen in this thread that there are no compelling reason for why Jaime couldn’t have subdued the king instead of killing him. For foiling the wildfire plot nothing tangible points to the necessity of the king’s death.

In that moment of time, to a seventeen year old - perhaps/maybe (and yes, it is a maybe or maybe not), someone in Jaime's position could necessarily feel that it was the only way to stop the wildfire plot - that is to kill the one person who could give the order to blow it. We can sit here in our chairs on our computers and analyse it in hours and days, but remember he probably only had minutes or seconds to make up his mind about what to do about Aerys.

That said, it may or may not have been the 'last straw' which pushed Jaime over the betrayal line. It's a reason of many, maybe it was significant, maybe it isn't so significant.

Even if that was true, why should Edmure be grateful? If take everything you own but don’t kill you, you are going to shower me with gratitude?

I guess, he meant that Edmure should be grateful that he isn't actually dead already. Because once Riverrun fell, he was useless and probably headed for a quick knife in the back or something like that.

what's funny is the reasons he gives for these acts being great were actually after thoughts given by himself to himself after the deed was done. It seems that Jaime just deludes himself into believing that his deeds were actually for the greater good because he can't seem to cope with the fact that the reason he does these deeds is because he's a selfish, egotistical, ass and that is why all of Westeros believes he has shit for honor. Poor Jaime.

Proof please.

[Anath]

I happen to be both an anti-Jaime fanboys (and mostly anti-Jaime) and anti-Catelyn.

I feel like this whole discussion is going around in a circle. Everyone is making the same points over and over again. I think at this point, I lay down my arms. Obviously, some of you think Jaime is a great person. I don't. Nothing you have said has convinced me otherwise. Nothing I have said has convinced you otherwise. I agree to disagree at this point.

Hello! That's a great post! Finally, a civilized answer and a normal view without insulting each other. Yes, I suppose there would be no use to try to convince each other but oh, it's so nice to have someone who just disagrees with you without being rude.