Why Do You Hate Jamie?

[Dickums]

Well, if the kingsguard for Aerys disobeyed they'd probably be the next to roast, so maybe Hightower just didn't want to see Jaime the next to roast in his armor. Yes, perhaps the KG for Aerys could have been a little better and said something to Aerys and then died for it, but all that is pointless to the topic. Is Jaime redeemable? Perhaps he is, but the reasons given by anyone in this post that what he's done redeems him to any extent IMO is crap. He feels no remorse for anyone he's killed or tried to kill (Bran). The reason of killing Aerys to save KL was crap because it was a total afterthought and not why he killed him at the time. Yes, Aerys deserved to die, but Jaime doing it doesn't make him a hero, it just shows his arrogant, egotistical, selfish, and self deluding ways because Jaime killed Aerys for his personal gain, and gives an excuse later that it was for the good of the people of KL.

[Errant Bard]

Well, if the kingsguard for Aerys disobeyed they'd probably be the next to roast, so maybe Hightower just didn't want to see Jaime the next to roast in his armor.

These are the men who suicided against Ned because "they swore an oath". Nope, they didn't fear death, and didn't care about one of them dying for the cause.

Yes, Aerys deserved to die, but Jaime doing it doesn't make him a hero, it just shows his arrogant, egotistical, selfish, and self deluding ways because Jaime killed Aerys for his personal gain, and gives an excuse later that it was for the good of the people of KL.

I wish people were more arrogant, selfish and self-deluded, maybe we could even get rid of all the fascist and tyrants on the Earth.

It just surprises me to see that Jaime is trashed for doing good things for bad reasons when he is also trashed for doing bad things for good reasons... Have a little consistency, at least praise him for the things he did with good intentions.

[Dickums]

It just surprises me to see that Jaime is trashed for doing good things for bad reasons when he is also trashed for doing bad things for good reasons... Have a little consistency, at least praise him for the things he did with good intentions.

What did he do with good intentions? All I ever see is doing what is best for his own skin. I suppose he does a few things good, but the things he does that are good don't make up for the bad by a longshot especially since the things he does that are good have very little chance of actually having a negative effect on him.

Oh, and the KG doesn't fear death, but throwing your life away for no reason I doubt is very high on the list. At the ToJ they died fighting to protect something that was in there (Rhaegar's child maybe). They didn't want the child to be killed because it is their duty to protect him and they are willing to die fighting to protect him. If Hightower says what Aerys is doing is wrong Aerys will continue doing it and then kill Hightower too. Throwing your life away for nothing is not high on their priority list I would assume.

[Ser Romin]

I personally love Jaime Lannister and think he's an amazing character. Killing Aerys was the right thing to do. You can say he did it out of arrogance or to save his own skin, but the fact of the matter is that Jaime did it because he knew that Aerys had to be stopped. Burning a man alive is one thing (a crazy, evil, and cruel thing) but killing thousands of innocent people in a suicide/mass murder scheme is something that needs to be stopped.

When he attacked Riverrun he did his best to prevent bloodshed and he did, thus he kept his oath to Catelyn . However, he was willing to break the oath to Cat if it meant keeping his oath to his family and king, which in this case is the right thing to do. Yes Riverrun were the "good guys" in this war, but they were enemies of Jaime Lannister. In most wars you don't get to pick what side you end up on, you merely play the cards you're dealt.

As for throwing Bran out of the window. It's a terrible thing to do, it was evil and cruel, but it needed to be done from Jaime's point of view. Cersei, Jaime, Tommen, Myrcaella, Joff and Tyrion probably would've been killed right then and there at Winterfell one by one at the head stump (Jaime would've died fighting I reckon) if Robert found out, which he would've. Bran would've surely would've told Cat or Ned what he saw out of innocence and Ned would be honour bound to tell his good friend Robert and Cat the same with Ned, who would've told Robert. Now if Robert kills these Lannisters you best believe Tywin is raising his banners, if only for Jaime's death, and there's a war in Westeros that would've ended the Lannister house. This is pure speculation on my part, but it is a very plausible outcome of allowing Bran to tell Ned what happened.

I want Jaime to keep living throughout the series because I feel he has so much to offer to this story. He is easily one of the deepest characters in the novels and his POV chapters are beyond entertaining to read. However, Jaime needs to, and in my opinion, will pay for what he did to Bran. Whether it be Summer tearing out his throat, Hodor breaking his neck, or (long stretch here) Bran regaining his ability to walk and killing Jaime himself by running him thru with a sword, Jaime will die by Bran's doing. And as sad as I will be if/when this happens, I will also be happy because first I love Bran more than any other character besides Arya, and second Jaime would be the first to tell you he deserves to be killed by Bran.

[Dickums]

I do like the character Jaime, and I love reading his chapters, but he's still an arrogant, selfish, egotistical prick that I think is a total asshat. Doesn't mean he's not interesting though.

[Wouter]

The problem with seeing Jaime killing Aerys as a good deed, is that he neglected to tell anybody about it. If his desire was to save KL, he should have told others so that the caches of wildfire could be removed/neutralised safely. This suggests that it was more out of personal reasons that he killed Aerys. He would also have looked better - that he didn't is his own fault, since he refused any explanation. Moreover, he failed in his duty to protect Rhaegar's children and Elia, who were not responsible for what Aerys did. He should at least have quit the kingsguard after that - it was understandable that he broke his oath to Aerys (allthough nobody could know that was honorable because the headstrong man didn't tell anyone), but he failed Rhaegar bigtime as well. AFAIK, he also didn't try to interfere with his father in stopping the sack of KL. He was quite selective in doing the right thing, during this period.

I don't know why Brynden gets attacked in this thread. His talk with Jaime is very reasonable from his POV (and from my POV as well). Jaime could hardly expect to be trusted, leave alone a cordial greeting.

I also doubt that Brynden is considered very honorable in the westerosi sense. It does seem like he quarreled with his brother, who was also his lord. This alone would diminish his honor in may eyes in westeros, regardless of whether he was right to do so from a more modern POV.

I wonder if the old KG would have beaten Sansa - I suspect that Barristan would not have, and Dayne almost certainly not. They probably would have broken their oath then. From what we saw or heard of those men, I think they are too decent to let honor take precedence over basic morality. Possibly Joffrey would not have ordered them to do anything like that, as he did with the Hound.

[Daemrion]

The problem with seeing Jaime killing Aerys as a good deed, is that he neglected to tell anybody about it. If his desire was to save KL, he should have told others so that the caches of wildfire could be removed/neutralised safely. This suggests that it was more out of personal reasons that he killed Aerys. He would also have looked better - that he didn't is his own fault, since he refused any explanation.

Actually, I challenge the fact if he would have looked better. Remeber the quote about those eyes of judgment of Ned's?

He should at least have quit the kingsguard after that - it was understandable that he broke his oath to Aerys (allthough nobody could know that was honorable because the headstrong man didn't tell anyone)

Again, IMO that is a plot device to make the story go the way that GRRM intended it to go. I still don't know why Tywin didn't ask Robert to return his son to him, it's not like Robert in his Targ-hatingness would have refused him.

I don't know why Brynden gets attacked in this thread. His talk with Jaime is very reasonable from his POV (and from my POV as well). Jaime could hardly expect to be trusted, leave alone a cordial greeting.

But we are privy to Jaime's thoughts. Two, probably because if he never intended to parley as he said, he shouldn't have accepted a parley in the first place if he were strictly honourable. Basically, he does go there to play a prank at Jaime's expense, so to speak.

I wonder if the old KG would have beaten Sansa - I suspect that Barristan would not have, and Dayne almost certainly not. They probably would have broken their oath then. From what we saw or heard of those men, I think they are too decent to let honor take precedence over basic morality. Possibly Joffrey would not have ordered them to do anything like that, as he did with the Hound.

The whole point of that long argument was what would they do if they were ordered to do so.

They were sworn to obey fully. If they had broken their oath then, they are probably not much better, if any than Jaime. That's the point.

[Red Sun]

Actually, I challenge the fact if he would have looked better. Remeber the quote about those eyes of judgment of Ned's?

Well, what do you expect anybody to think if you find a member of the kingsguard sitting on the throne with the dead king at his feet? I'm fairly sure that Ned's "eyes of judgement" were due to what must appear outright shocking to him.

I'm very much twisted about the killing of Aerys and Jaime's motivation, and I tend to agree more with AP in this case, but when I read Jaime's POV I felt sympathy for his situation, but not for his reaction to Ned, because it was unnessecarily childish and made the situation worse.

[A wilding]

But we are privy to Jaime's thoughts. Two, probably because if he never intended to parley as he said, he shouldn't have accepted a parley in the first place if he were strictly honourable. Basically, he does go there to play a prank at Jaime's expense, so to speak.

So on a thread in which various people have claimed Jaime is an honourable man, the Blackfish is not strictly honourable because he agrees to Jaime's request for a parley despite strongly doubting that Jaime has anything to say worth listening to?

[Daemrion]

So on a thread in which various people have claimed Jaime is an honourable man, the Blackfish is not strictly honourable because he agrees to Jaime's request for a parley despite strongly doubting that Jaime has anything to say worth listening to?

Yes but the fact is I don't care about strict honour. I care about morals. The Blackfish's action is not only strictly not honourable, it is immoral or amoral at best.

[A wilding]

So its "immoral or amoral at best" for the Blackfish to agree to a parley despite strongly doubting that Jaime has anything to say worth listening to?

I fear that our respective definitions of morality are so far apart that there is no point in me taking this any further.

[Guest Other-in-law]

I'd have to say that the Blackfish's conduct at the parley, while somewhat petty and mean-spirited, was really not a big deal at all.

I am suspicious of him being an oathbreaker to the Arryns, though. Surely when newly entering the service of a great lord such as Jon Arryn, and being granted an important, if mostly ceremonial office (Knight of the Bloody Gate) he would need to swear an oath of fealty? But when Lysa doesn't want to plunge the Vale into the War of the Five Kings like he wants, he goes off in a huff without permission.

Now it's possible that he only swore an oath to Jon Arryn (if indeed he swore one at all), and never to Sweetrobin. But that sort of technicality is in the same league as Arys Oakheart's treason against Tommen (who he never swore an oath to, only Robert and Joffrey).

Not to mention that he probably swore an oath to the Targaryens, like the overwhelming majority of noble Westerosi, and broke it in Robert's Rebellion. Honestly, oathbreaking is so widespread it's amazing anyone has the chutzpah to act self-righteous. Ser Bonnifer Hasty? Didn't he serve King Stannis, and then switch to Joffrey when it was convenient?

The number of people who have been through one or two of the major vicissitudes that have torn the realm without breaking an oath must be precious few. Of those currently active, I can only think of Davos Seaworth, and that's because he would never have needed to swear anything to the Targaryens back when he was a commoner.

Then there's the Starks and Tullys...when Walder Frey justifies his inaction early in the war by pointing out his duty to King Joffrey they get indignant...'What, you'd side with your King over your immediate liege lord!?' But then when Rickard Karstark orders his men to murder the Lannister hostages they get mad at those poor saps, too....'What, you'd side with your immediate liege lord over your King!?' Real consistent, guys. :sick:

[Korax]

We don't know anything about any oath the Blackfish may have sworn, though, so I don't think we can assume that he broke one - he may have always insisted on being free to resign his position if necessary. At the same time, though, he does strike me as someone more concerned with doing the right thing than with sticking to the letter of the law (his defiance of Hoster certainly suggests that sort of attitude).

I don't think that oathbreaking has to be as widespread as you say, though. As I understand the feudal system, each man swears allegiance to the one immediately above him (knight to lord, lord to king) so in a rebellion it's only the lord who is an oathbreaker, not the knight. Not that that'll save the knight if the rebellion fails, of course...

[Daemrion]

So its "immoral or amoral at best" for the Blackfish to agree to a parley despite strongly doubting that Jaime has anything to say worth listening to?

I fear that our respective definitions of morality are so far apart that there is no point in me taking this any further.

If he was never going to agree to anything then why bother parleying at all? Why not just flat out refuse a parley?

The whole point of a parley is to enter into negotiation, to try to find a solution to a problem. Blackfish entered, and exited the negotiations and showed bad faith all the way through the 'negotiations' (in fact he admits that he only went to parley to tease), to me that's a bad thing.

[A wilding]

Okay then

Certainly he could have refused the request for a parley, but that does not mean it was immoral not to do so.

I disagree that agreeing to a parley commits him in any way to negotiating a settlement to solve their differences. It commits him to hearing what Jaime wanted to tell him. It puts no moral obligation on his part to accept anything Jaime says. Suppose the Blackfish had said a response back to the parley request saying he would listen but strongly doubted Jaime could say anything that would make any difference (and for all we know he may have done) - would Jaime have really then have cancelled the parley?.

He could not be certain Jaime would not tell him anything useful or make a reasonable offer. (Who knows, Jaime might have said "I am finished with my bitch sister and these Freys disgust even me. A tip, just hold out for a few more months and things will change in Westeros"; or perhaps more plausibly "I can't give you Sansa, but I did get her out of KL away from my sister, and can tell you where she is". All things being equal, I would have said his moral obligation more was to hear what Jaime had to say rather than to refuse to hear it.

I would have said that "bad faith" implies an element of attempting to gain something by fraud or deception that I really don't see in the Blackfish's action. I suppose he could be claimed to have gained a small amount of time, but in terms of a siege that has already lasted months, this is surely negligible.

[Robar the Red]

Jaime Lannister is a mockery of a knight and a total fool. Why did you have to give him a POV George? (now we all love him) I just hope his redemption is completed by an honorable death. (hopefully by dany and drogon)

[snake]

The Kingslayer has wonderful morals. That's why he fucks his sister and betrays the first two kings he serves. That's why he tries to kill little children. Because he is a moral man.

[Dickums]

The Kingslayer has wonderful morals. That's why he fucks his sister and betrays the first two kings he serves. That's why he tries to kill little children. Because he is a moral man.

Indeed.

[Horus Ex Machina]

I personally can't stand Jaime Lannister. In my mind he's worse than Cersei.

HE DOESN'T STAND FOR ANYTHING!!

What he did to Bran doesn't affect this, in my mind that is an improvement on his character, at least there he took a stand on something! He doesn't even seem to know what's important to him anymore, does he want to be a Lannister, or is his honor more important? It seemed like he was even trying to get out of having to play a part in the Sack of King's Landing in AFFC when he spoke to Rhaegar about being assigned elsewhere, but he seemed pretty into it when the time came to sit on Aerys' throne.

It's not that this is unrealistic either. I've known plenty of people in my time as wishy washy as Jaime Lannister. But for someone of his talents, with his responsibilities to be such an emotional midget is unforgiveable. Cersei may be a stupid c%#t, but at least she's consistent. You at least know where you stand with her. It's why I find New Yorkers so refreshing.

Take Brienne for example. Although I found her chapters as boring as watching paint dry, it is a shame that she have been a victim of Jaime's own duplicity. That she thought someone as worthless and flakey as him was worth her own honor is horrifying and senile. And just a touch naive of her but then again I'd suspected that of her for some time now.

Don't get me wrong, his chapters are very enjoyable reads but his character is one I find beneath reproach. Tywin was what he was. Tyrion made no illusions, he is a cobra who attacks when cornered. Cersei is still a little girl who didn't get what she wanted 20 years ago so is going about the rest of her life making up for it. But Jaime...?

Ten bucks says he changes his mind and rescues Cersei. And sure he may be showing his tough side to the Tully's now, but off to the side where noone sees he'll fool someone else into trusting in his "honor".

As far as I'm concerned his only honor is in his pants. Hey I like women as much as the next guy, but every decision I make doesn't revolve around my disfunctional incestual feelings for a b*$ch as stupid as Cersei is.

Why do you think Kevan didn't suddenly rush into trusting him? You knock up your sister who happens to be the queen setting all your family's plans in jeopardy, and NOW SUDDENLY you want to be taken SERIOUSLY!!??

No Jaime,... you're not your father's son. Your not decisive enough to be.

As a card-carrying Democrat it pains me to use this term, but he's a flip-flopper.

[Daemrion]

Okay then

Certainly he could have refused the request for a parley, but that does not mean it was immoral not to do so.

I disagree that agreeing to a parley commits him in any way to negotiating a settlement to solve their differences. It commits him to hearing what Jaime wanted to tell him. It puts no moral obligation on his part to accept anything Jaime says.

I agree it commits him to hearing what Jaime had to say. I think it also commits him to at least consider what Jaime says, and I think it is sort of clear from the whole scene that Blackfish was not even willing to consider anything Jaime had to say. He doesn't have to accept anything Jaime says, but he must consider it. From the text it seems that he came into the parley without the intention of even considering anything that Jaime had to say. That I think is bad faith.

Quote AFFC pg 565

"Are there any terms you will accept?" he demanded of the Blackfish

"From you?" Ser Brynden shrugged. "No."

"Why did you even come to treat with me?"

"A siege is deadly dull..."

I think that pretty much shows that he wasn't even willing to consider any offer at all.

I personally can't stand Jaime Lannister. In my mind he's worse than Cersei.

I just gagged.

HE DOESN'T STAND FOR ANYTHING!!

He doesn't even seem to know what's important to him anymore, does he want to be a Lannister, or is his honor more important? It seemed like he was even trying to get out of having to play a part in the Sack of King's Landing in AFFC when he spoke to Rhaegar about being assigned elsewhere, but he seemed pretty into it when the time came to sit on Aerys' throne.

Ummm...have you conveniently missed out on the whole history of the Rebellion and its aftermath. The reason Jaime doesn't stand for anything is that his belief in 'anything' was shattered by the Kingslaying.