Why Do You Hate Jamie?

[Artanaro]

Plus, the Cat oath was wrung from him at swordpoint, yet he still thinks about it as a real oath in AFFC.

Now, this is wrong. The oath wasn't wrung from him at sword point (unless you take a really anal literal sense, but then any lord's oath fits that same criteria). It wasn't a choice between death and swearing the oath. It was a choice between freedom and remaining in prison. It is no different from when many prisoners are ransomed. They are often required to never take up arms again against their captors. That's part of the cost of freedom. For failing to return Sansa and Arya, they were part of his promise for release. The oath is binding.

And in truth, if the choice had been between death and swearing, the oath is still binding. For example, men of the Night's Watch are oath bound to the wall. The choice is often the Night's Watch or death. That doesn't invalidate their oath, why should it do the same towards Jaime?

Artanaro

Not if there was a secret marriage, and we all know that previous Targs had more than one wife simultaneously.

Two Targaryen kings have had a wife simultaneously, Aegon and Maekor, I believe. First, Rhaegar was not king. Second, the Targaryens follow the Seven. Those kings did not (Maekor may have given lip service, but his actions speak otherwise). Also, if there is no proof of a marriage it did not happen. So, he is still a bastard.

[Daemrion]

Now, this is wrong. The oath wasn't wrung from him at sword point (unless you take a really anal literal sense, but then any lord's oath fits that same criteria). It wasn't a choice between death and swearing the oath. It was a choice between freedom and remaining in prison. It is no different from when many prisoners are ransomed. They are often required to never take up arms again against their captors. That's part of the cost of freedom. For failing to return Sansa and Arya, they were part of his promise for release. The oath is binding.

And in truth, if the choice had been between death and swearing, the oath is still binding. For example, men of the Night's Watch are oath bound to the wall. The choice is often the Night's Watch or death. That doesn't invalidate their oath, why should it do the same towards Jaime?

Artanaro

ASOS Volume 1 Paperback edition UK - pg 21

They'd all done a deal of vowing back in that cell, Jaime most of all. That was Lady Catelyn's price for loosing him. She had laid the point of the big wench's sword against his heart... refuse and I will have your blood "

It was a choice between life and death.

In any case his oath towards the Crown trumps his personal oath to Cat. We don't want him to dishonour that more important oath do we?

It is no different from when many prisoners are ransomed. They are often required to never take up arms again against their captors. That's part of the cost of freedom. For failing to return Sansa and Arya, they were part of his promise for release. The oath is binding.

No, since when would a prisoner exchange suddenly forbid them from fighting against each other at a later date?

It would be so stupid. Unless it was part of a formal peace treaty or something like that.

What's the stop said knight from getting back to his side and then being ordered by his monarch to take up arms again?

And if you want to get into errata and technicalities, all he promised to do was to exert pressure on Tyrion to return Sansa and Arya. Which by the time he got to Kings Landing became impossible for him to fulfil in any case. He could have talked to Tyrion until he was blue in the face, Sansa and Arya were not going anywhere.

Would you say that not returning Arya and Sansa was his fault in any way?

[cybroleach]

When did Ned break an oath. I haven't read this entire thread yet, sorry if someone's already mentioned.

It's not something that actually happened in the books .

It's a wild construct built on aton of assumptions that go against Ned's and Jon's characters.

First we need to assume R+L=J.

Then R+L were married.

That Ned knowns about said marriage.

Then Ned would reveal these truths to Jon.

That Jon would want to press his claim.

Then Ned would support Jon in reclaiming the throne against Robert.

Nothing in the books actually happened and Ned planed all this.

Only after we establish ALL this as true is Ned betraying his oath to Robert.

But this huge hypothetical situation apparently passes as equal to what is actually known about Jaime's betrayl to his king and Ned should be judged harshly for it. Talk about jaime fanboyism to construct something so elaborate as this to try and show Ned is Jaime's equal.

[Daemrion]

When did Ned break an oath. I haven't read this entire thread yet, sorry if someone's already mentioned.

By lying to Robert as he lay on his deathbed - Acknowledging Joffrey as King when he knew Joffrey was a product of the twincest.

Even if Jon was a bastard he could have had a claim. Easily. He lied about Jon's parentage. If Jon was known to be a Targ, even a Targ bastard I think his life would have been snuffed very quickly.

[Guest Other-in-law]

Two Targaryen kings have had a wife simultaneously, Aegon and Maekor, I believe. First, Rhaegar was not king. Second, the Targaryens follow the Seven. Those kings did not (Maekor may have given lip service, but his actions speak otherwise). Also, if there is no proof of a marriage it did not happen. So, he is still a bastard.

Wrong. First, it's Maegor, not Maekor.

And second, Aegon the Conqueror worshipped the Seven the same as all the Kings after him did...the Sept on Dragonstone (built some 100 years before the conquest) had statues carved from the mast of the ship that carried the first Targs who settled there. They'd been following the Seven for generations.

And third, any distinction between the sincerity of Seven worship of early and later Targs is spurious. They married brother to sister right up to the end, despite the prohibition of incest by the faith. Therefore, they ignored the Faith when they felt like it, even such obviously pious Targaryens as Queen Naerys and Baelor the Blessed (he didn't make a vault for every woman at court, just his sisters. Nor did he screw a non-relative. His devotion manifested through complete sexual abstinence, not merely refraining from incest).

The claim that modern Targaryen polygamy is impossible is very weak, we have no evidence for it being outlawed in any way; it could as easily be a right that had just not been exercised in a long time.

As for proof, it may be the case that Lyanna's friend Howland Reed witnessed their wedding before the Harrenhall heart tree. Or not, we'll have to wait and see.

[Guest Other-in-law]

Jaime Lannister may certainly be revolted by what Aerys does. Jaime the Kingsguard might also be, but he would have to keep it to himself. It's simply not the place of the Kingsguard to correct their king's behaviour.

Let's trace this backwards. and see what exactly we're actually talking about...

AP:He was callous enough not to give a damn about anyone that was killed by Aerys in his mad state. The only time he thought about objecting was when Aerys was raping Rhaella..

D: Jaime went away inside when Aerys had the Starks killed. And he was the only one who even entertained any thoughts that Aerys was doing something wrong.

AP: 'You swore a vow to guard the king, not to judge him.' That was the White Bull, loyal to the end and a better man than me, all agree."

"Aerys..." Catelyn could taste bile at the back of her throat. The story was so hideous she suspected it had to be true. "Aerys was mad, the whole realm knew it, but if you would have me believe you slew him to avenge Brandon Stark..."

"I made no such claim. The Starks were nothing to me..."

I think it's clear he didn't give a damn.

OiL: If Hightower wasn't concerned that Jaime was in fact judging the King, then why, pray tell, would he feel the need to point that out? Jaime's revulsion obviously must have shown through his face or posture or something.

It appears that your claim that "Jaime didn't give a damn" referred to Aerys' atrocities, that Jaime was "callous enough not to give a damn about anyone that was killed by Aerys in his mad state." The subsequent posts have shown this to be false. Jaime certainly was not so callous, he cared about Aerys' crimes enough to need to employ a psychological strategy to cope with the trauma of witnessing them, and he cared obviously enough to be reprimanded about it by Hightower.

You seem to be making to much out of "the Starks were nothing to me". Jaime's point was that the identity of the victim's was not what bothered him, it was the horrific nature of the crime itself. Strange that you are simultaneously castigating Jaime for not caring enough and for caring at all!

Also the fact that he, for the first time, verbally objected to Aerys conduct when he was listening to the rape and abuse of Rhaella, shows how he tried to reconcile his natural morality and his rigid oaths. Rhaella was Aerys' only victim that he had any legal grounds to speak up for at all, since she also fell under the KG's protection mandate. Naturally, his 'shining lesson to the world' brother promptly shoots that down.

You are correct about the double bind. Jaime though: IMO it's more like he had no morality, until he was forced to take another approach.

He had enough morality to be rebuked for it by his Lord Commander, who seems to have felt that KG should have no morality at all, only blind duty.

[A wilding]

Im sorry but no. The ONLY honorable thing for a true knight to have done was to kill Aerys no matter what color your cloak is. When you become a knight you swear an oath to protect the innocent, that is and should always be a true knights first reason for being. You don't get honors and titles just because someone taped you on the shoulder with a sword and called you Ser, you are meant to serve and protect.

Sorry, it is simply not true that Jaime's action was the only honourable one. Evidence: the reaction of everybody in Westeros. His action was universally condemned. The only wriggle room to defend Jaime is that Westeros was not aware of the extent of the atrocity Aerys planned.

They'd all done a deal of vowing back in that cell, Jaime most of all. That was Lady Catelyn's price for loosing him. She had laid the point of the big wench's sword against his heart... refuse and I will have your blood "

It was a choice between life and death.

In any case his oath towards the Crown trumps his personal oath to Cat. We don't want him to dishonour that more important oath do we?

Even if Catelyn would have gone ahead and killed Jaime, he was still morally wrong to swear an oath that contradicted his KG oath. He should have chosen death instead. In Westeros oaths are to be fulfilled up to and including death. KG don't swear to protect and obey the king only as far as doing so won't get themselves killed.

Incidentally, the action of the White Bull in telling Jaime not to judge Aerys is not conclusive. We have various hints that Rhaegar was planning to depose his father, and with the help of at least some of the KG. It is perfectly possible that part of the White Bull's motives were so stop Jaime going off half cocked, which would most likely result in Rhaegar's plans getting messed up. Points to Jaime for getting upset in the first place though.

However, I think the really damming point about Jaime and oaths is that never, not once, does he let any oath prevent him from doing exactly what he wants to do. Sometimes he makes gestures, but that is scarcely the same thing.

ETA: oh and:

IMO Jaime feels entitled to the same kind of glory that surrounds Arthur Dayne, but he is frustrated that he doesn't get it, while at the same time he doesn't realise his actions are so depraved that he does not warrant glory. You know, if the oaths he takes conflict, there is a simple solution: do not swear oaths that conflict with oaths you have already sworn. Jaime doesn't, he takes the coward's way out, saying there are too many oaths. He doesn't care about the oaths, he wants the glory and he wants to emulate Dayne as a warrior. That's all he thinks of. Even now he still thinks he would have liked to kill Robert himself. What does that tell you? It tell's me that he's an arrogant airhead, used to getting his way. He has been forced to reconsider some things because he can no longer go on as he had, but that is the only reason. So IMO he still has some ways to go before redemption is on the table.

Totally.

[Seventh Pup]

This is a wonderful thread to read, and so I thought I would just add my two cents to collection.

Jaime is a very well written character. And I would say a very well written villain. He's every thing a villain should be, well written, three dimensional, and with goals that aren't too grandiose. He's relatable on some levels, which makes easy to want to excuse or diminish his truly selfish and nefarious acts.

But he is a villain. Not a tragically misunderstood hero. Actions speak much louder then a witty remake. And he has a list of adherent crimes that length of his slightly shortened arm. To start out from most destructive to least destructive, his broken King's Guard oath to King Robert, his throwing Bran out the window, his killing of Ned's men. Crimes that will likely cause more chaos and death, yet have not yet been brought to fruition, his broken vows to Catelyn, his broken King's Guard oath to the Targaryens, his disregard of his king guard oath in regard to Cersei, and his springing his brother from jail. These are not only crimes against the crown and the country, but also crimes against his character. Crimes that define his character I think firmly as a villain, albeit a very well written and interesting villain.

First off is his over a decade of oath breaking to King Robert. He slept with the queen and actively made sure that no legitimate heirs where availed, this caused the war of the five kings. More over such a reaction was a foreseeable, and predictable for these actions. Jaime made conscious discussions of his own free will that lead a war that kill hundreds of thousands, more over he has never regretted it, never owned up to it, never made amends for it.

The most common is excuse offered up for this crime is that Jaime was only doing Cersei's biding. That she manipulated him, and coerced him into these actions, and so blame should fall on her and not him. I disagree. Jaime has no mental defects that would not allow him to see the consequences of his actions or make up his own mind. He chose to let Cercei to be dominate, and he chose the bond with her over the bonds of duty. Why? Because it brought him the most joy. His reasons where egoistic and self serving. However he then took another step and made another conscious decision to help with the abortion of the only legitimate Baratheon heir to be conceived by Cersei. Again he made this decision of his own free will, with the consequences of this action very foreseeable. The fact that he did not use his completely functional mind to think them through doesn't factor into it. He had the capacity, but chose not to. He did this for selfish reasons and endangered not only himself, but also the very realm. There is no excuse for these crimes. There is no way they are not his fault. They were done for self serving reasons, with a devil be damn attitude about the human cost of them.

The next crime I would lay at his feet is attempted murder of Bran. His choices, which where completely his own to make, lead to this. He chose to sleep with Cersei in Winterfell, he chose to endanger them both, their children, and the stability of the realm, so that he could get what he wanted. He created a situation that then "mandated" that he kill any innocent witnesses that pass by. Which he did, even though it was only a child. (The fact that Bran lived has nothing to do with Jaime, and so for all intensive purposes Jaime committed child murder). He made the choices, he did the crime, and this is his fault. This is also a truly horrible crime, and casts a very real light on his character. He was willing to do anything to keep himself happy, anything. There was no price to great, no amount of other peoples suffering mattered, as long as Jaime got what he wanted. This crime was directly responsible for putting the events in motion that would lead to the seizure of Tyrion, and the Rape of the Riverlands (which Jaime helped lead). Yet another way that his constant treason lead to the war of 5 kings.

Many people who defend Jaime say that he had no choice. But this isn't true. He had a 100 choices, all of which he made with himself and his pleasure forefront in his mind. It is in no way shape or form Bran's fault for stumbling them. It is Jaime's fault for putting himself in that situation. It was his choice to murder a child and completely his choice. That he chose to do it so flippantly only makes it worse, not better. Choosing to not think about the consequences of your actions does not excuse them. It does not make them less evil or hurtful. You are still responsible for them.

Next was the murder of Ned's men. This is yet another example of his utter disregard for human life when it comes into conflict with what he wants. Jaime wanted a power trip after the capture of his brother. He wanted to exact some measure of revenge against the Starks for seeking justice for a crime he committed. And so he slaughter Ned's men and lamed Ned. Devil be damned about the realm, about the fact that he the cause of all of this, who cares Jaime feels wronged and so he is going to go out of his way to inflicted as much damage on his fellow humans as possible. Even if that is simple an old man, (Jory). Jaime has no predilections about preying on the weak when it comes into conflict with one of his urges.

These are the crimes that helped to actively lead to the war that killed hundreds of thousands. He never thinks about it, or processes. He never takes responsibility for it. Instead he focus's in on how the world has hurt him, how the world has wronged him. This massive ego is what makes him such an effective villain. Because when you see his POV you can so utterly feel his pain at what the world has made of him. Not pain for the people he's hurt or the nation he helped practically destroy. No you feel the pain of self pity shine through. He's an amazing character because even though we the readers know the extent of his depravity, you can't help but relate to him on some levels. This makes him so human.

It is easy to throw words like "monster" around. But even the most depraved and "evil" humans are not actually monsters. They are made up of the same stuff we are. They aren't aliens, or a subspecies. They are humans who utter don't care about the suffering of other humans. Jaime embodies this in many ways. He is still so human, and yet if we honestly looked at him he is so very depraved.

[Trem]

Sorry, it is simply not true that Jaime's action was the only honourable one. Evidence: the reaction of everybody in Westeros. His action was universally condemned. The only wriggle room to defend Jaime is that Westeros was not aware of the extent of the atrocity Aerys planned.

You said it yourself, the common people of westeros had no idea what really was going on. To them Arthur Dayne is a legendary hero and Jamie is a kingslayer with shit for honor, and that is because they saw Aerys as a good king who brought them peace and prosperity. In truth Aerys was an evil monster and the peace and prosperity was really due to Tywin being a good hand and all those legendary kingsguard where simply too caught up in their own honor and glory to do the right thing.

[A wilding]

Not just people who had no idea what Aerys was really like though. Ned also condemned Jaime, and Ned must have had a pretty fair idea of what had happened to his father and his brother. Enough people knew enough about Aerys to make the rebellion possible.

And note that apparently at least some of those legendary KG were working to replace Aerys with his heir in some way that would minimise bloodshed and damage to the stability of Westeros.

[Artanaro]

Reading comprehension is a dying art.

ASOS Volume 1 Paperback edition UK - pg 21

They'd all done a deal of vowing back in that cell, Jaime most of all. That was Lady Catelyn's price for loosing him. She had laid the point of the big wench's sword against his heart... refuse and I will have your blood "

First, let's use our common sense. If Jaime tells Catelyn "oh, I want nothing more than get my freedom so I can go back to King's Landing, eat good food while I bang my sister, but let's be honest, she's a bitch. If I ask her to send Sansa, she'll go do her bitchy thing and not send Sansa. I would like to help you out, but let's be serious, this won't work. Oh, and why would trust an imp?" She would listen to this.

Catelyn isn't in an irrational state of mind. All Jaime has to do explain why it's not possible what she wants. Now to reading comprehension. We have two important phrases in this paragraph, "all done a deal" and "Lady Catelyn's price". How can their be a "deal" or "price" if he is not at liberty to say no? That description would not be accurate. So you're wrong. But now let's continue with the rest of the paragraph. What does "refuse and I will have your blood" mean? Well, your interpretation would work if the previous sentences did not contradict your explanation. But it can also mean something else. Consider this follow addition "refuse [to send my children] and I will have your blood." In this wording everything fits neatly. There is no contradiction with the earlier wording now.

It was a choice between life and death.

Now, you are still wrong, but now follow my second arguement. Even if it was a choice between life and death, the oath is binding. Ser Allister Thorne's oath is still an oath even though Tywin gave him the option, death or taking the black. Using modern concepts of contracts does not apply here.

In any case his oath towards the Crown trumps his personal oath to Cat. We don't want him to dishonour that more important oath do we?

This view is also wrong. Yes, his oath to the Crown trumps Catelyn's oath, EXCEPT if he breaks her oath, he is still an OATHBREAKER. It just means he won't be held accountable for his actions. But, you also imply that serving the crown and his personal oath are mutually exclusive. This is a cop out. For example, he is given command of the Lannister forces at Riverrun. The strategy to employ is left to him. Not Cersei, not Tommen, no one but him. If he decides, well, it's a hopeless battle, let's give into Brynden's demands, both oaths are maintained. What matters isn't that the heart of an oath is kept, but the actual literal wording is met. He has the ability to keep both oaths.

No, since when would a prisoner exchange suddenly forbid them from fighting against each other at a later date?

It depends on the prisoner exchange. Some don't require it, but many do, especially high level prisoners. When Charles V of Spain released the French king, he was under oath to not take up arms against him again. Well, he did anyway.

What's the stop said knight from getting back to his side and then being ordered by his monarch to take up arms again?

Technically, nothing except that if he's captured, he will be executed onsight. He would still be an oathbreaker though. But this is how the Middle Ages (which Westeros is aking too) often worked. Knights often do take up arms again, but if your some hedge knight, no one will remember that you were previously captured. That's not the same for Jaime Lannister.

Would you say that not returning Arya and Sansa was his fault in any way?

If he can't keep his oath, he's obligated to return to his cell in Riverrun. He's an oathbreaker, because he didn't.

Artanaro

[Trem]

To start out from most destructive to least destructive, his broken King's Guard oath to King Robert, his throwing Bran out the window, his killing of Ned's men. Crimes that will likely cause more chaos and death, yet have not yet been brought to fruition, his broken vows to Catelyn, his broken King's Guard oath to the Targaryens, his disregard of his king guard oath in regard to Cersei, and his springing his brother from jail.

I agree that throwing Bran out the window puts Jamie firmly in "bad guy" territory and i seriously doubt he can do enough to redeem himself for that crime. But the others? come on...

I hated Jamie after the first book for killing Jory and the rest of Neds men whom we knew and liked, specially since Jamie had been firmly stablished as the enemy after throwing Bran out the window but after reading the rest of the books how can you see that as a crime? we would never bat an eyelash if Ned had found killed a bunch of Lannister men to get at Jamie if he found out about Bran. Jamies brother was kidnapped, Jamies COMPLETELY INNOCENT brother was taken prisoner and had it not been for Bronn he would have been summarily executed for a crime he did not commit. Jamie was perfectly justified in attacking the Starks, i wont claim it wasn't rash but i disagree it was a crime and i firmly believe if the situations where reversed and it had been some unnamed lannister guards getting cut down nobody would care.

His (drunken, at sword point) oath to Catelyn directly contradicted his oath to his king, and his oath as a kingsguard. If he had kept it then you would have that as a crime up there. Even if he wanted to keep it and it was possible (which it wasnt since Sansa was legally married, Arya was gone and Catelyn was DEAD) it was not in his power to do so. He couldnt march in to kings landing and demand their release, Jamie and Catelyn both knew that her daughters return would come from Tyrion not Jamie.

Last but not least i mantain that killing Aerys is the most honorable thing Jamie ever did. If you think its a crime to break your oath to protect someone truly evil in order to save tens of thousands of lives then theres really no point in arguing about this. Killing aerys was good, so far in the series i have not seeing a more truly heroic act than that one, Jamie gave up his honor and any future glory to save thousands of lives, he stopped being the young lion and became the kingslayer in the eyes of the world for his first real true knight act.

[Artanaro]

Wrong. First, it's Maegor, not Maekor.

You are right . I had Maegor in mind, but k and g are close in mental associations. But I guess I was right that he did have a second wife. I wasn't totally sure on that.

And second, Aegon the Conqueror worshipped the Seven the same as all the Kings after him did...the Sept on Dragonstone (built some 100 years before the conquest) had statues carved from the mast of the ship that carried the first Targs who settled there. They'd been following the Seven for generations.

Ahh, but you are wrong here on something very important. When he married his sisters, he did not worship the Seven. Saying he worshipped at a later date is immaterial. For example, let me give you a real life analogy. Catholic priests are not allowed to marry. But there are married Catholic priests. How can this happen? If an Anglican priest is married and converts to Catholicism, he is now Catholic and can continue as a priest, but this conversion does not invalidate/annul his marriage. The same principle applies here. Conversion to the Seven does not mean he has to choose to stay married to only one of his sisters. It means he can't get a third wife. Maegor was an asshole, so it doesn't matter what he believed. If someone said it's wrong to have multiple marriages, then well, he'd kill them.

And third, any distinction between the sincerity of Seven worship of early and later Targs is spurious. They married brother to sister right up to the end, despite the prohibition of incest by the faith. Therefore, they ignored the Faith when they felt like it, even such obviously pious Targaryens as Queen Naerys and Baelor the Blessed (he didn't make a vault for every woman at court, just his sisters. Nor did he screw a non-relative. His devotion manifested through complete sexual abstinence, not merely refraining from incest).

Let's introduce a few important words such as precedent and custom. Now, even if Aegon and Maegor married two women, if this does not continue to happen, then their actions are no longer applicable to later generations. It's like a trademark. If you don't take regular legal steps to insure it's maintained, your rights to that trademark will expire. So, a precedent 300 years earlier does not matter when there are 300 years of evidence to the contrary. Now, let's examine the incest relationship. Unlike the polygamy this one is maintained throughout the generations, so it becomes custom and is an "unofficial law." See how this works.

The claim that modern Targaryen polygamy is impossible is very weak, we have no evidence for it being outlawed in any way; it could as easily be a right that had just not been exercised in a long time.

Failure to continue the practice makes suggesting it very weak actually. It is not impossible, just improbable. Important distinction. Also, Aegon's case is easily explained. What Targaryen wants to use Maegor as his precedent on acceptible conduct? Answer me that.

As for proof, it may be the case that Lyanna's friend Howland Reed witnessed their wedding before the Harrenhall heart tree. Or not, we'll have to wait and see.

This is so wrong on so many things, I won't even answer. Reread the series, please.

Artanaro

[BerryHarryBear]

This is a wonderful thread to read, and so I thought I would just add my two cents to collection.

Jaime is a very well written character. And I would say a very well written villain. He's every thing a villain should be, well written, three dimensional, and with goals that aren't too grandiose. He's relatable on some levels, which makes easy to want to excuse or diminish his truly selfish and nefarious acts.

But he is a villain. Not a tragically misunderstood hero. Actions speak much louder then a witty remake. And he has a list of adherent crimes that length of his slightly shortened arm. To start out from most destructive to least destructive, his broken King's Guard oath to King Robert, his throwing Bran out the window, his killing of Ned's men. Crimes that will likely cause more chaos and death, yet have not yet been brought to fruition, his broken vows to Catelyn, his broken King's Guard oath to the Targaryens, his disregard of his king guard oath in regard to Cersei, and his springing his brother from jail. These are not only crimes against the crown and the country, but also crimes against his character. Crimes that define his character I think firmly as a villain, albeit a very well written and interesting villain.

First off is his over a decade of oath breaking to King Robert. He slept with the queen and actively made sure that no legitimate heirs where availed, this caused the war of the five kings. More over such a reaction was a foreseeable, and predictable for these actions. Jaime made conscious discussions of his own free will that lead a war that kill hundreds of thousands, more over he has never regretted it, never owned up to it, never made amends for it.

The most common is excuse offered up for this crime is that Jaime was only doing Cersei's biding. That she manipulated him, and coerced him into these actions, and so blame should fall on her and not him. I disagree. Jaime has no mental defects that would not allow him to see the consequences of his actions or make up his own mind. He chose to let Cercei to be dominate, and he chose the bond with her over the bonds of duty. Why? Because it brought him the most joy. His reasons where egoistic and self serving. However he then took another step and made another conscious decision to help with the abortion of the only legitimate Baratheon heir to be conceived by Cersei. Again he made this decision of his own free will, with the consequences of this action very foreseeable. The fact that he did not use his completely functional mind to think them through doesn't factor into it. He had the capacity, but chose not to. He did this for selfish reasons and endangered not only himself, but also the very realm. There is no excuse for these crimes. There is no way they are not his fault. They were done for self serving reasons, with a devil be damn attitude about the human cost of them.

The next crime I would lay at his feet is attempted murder of Bran. His choices, which where completely his own to make, lead to this. He chose to sleep with Cersei in Winterfell, he chose to endanger them both, their children, and the stability of the realm, so that he could get what he wanted. He created a situation that then "mandated" that he kill any innocent witnesses that pass by. Which he did, even though it was only a child. (The fact that Bran lived has nothing to do with Jaime, and so for all intensive purposes Jaime committed child murder). He made the choices, he did the crime, and this is his fault. This is also a truly horrible crime, and casts a very real light on his character. He was willing to do anything to keep himself happy, anything. There was no price to great, no amount of other peoples suffering mattered, as long as Jaime got what he wanted. This crime was directly responsible for putting the events in motion that would lead to the seizure of Tyrion, and the Rape of the Riverlands (which Jaime helped lead). Yet another way that his constant treason lead to the war of 5 kings.

Many people who defend Jaime say that he had no choice. But this isn't true. He had a 100 choices, all of which he made with himself and his pleasure forefront in his mind. It is in no way shape or form Bran's fault for stumbling them. It is Jaime's fault for putting himself in that situation. It was his choice to murder a child and completely his choice. That he chose to do it so flippantly only makes it worse, not better. Choosing to not think about the consequences of your actions does not excuse them. It does not make them less evil or hurtful. You are still responsible for them.

Next was the murder of Ned's men. This is yet another example of his utter disregard for human life when it comes into conflict with what he wants. Jaime wanted a power trip after the capture of his brother. He wanted to exact some measure of revenge against the Starks for seeking justice for a crime he committed. And so he slaughter Ned's men and lamed Ned. Devil be damned about the realm, about the fact that he the cause of all of this, who cares Jaime feels wronged and so he is going to go out of his way to inflicted as much damage on his fellow humans as possible. Even if that is simple an old man, (Jory). Jaime has no predilections about preying on the weak when it comes into conflict with one of his urges.

These are the crimes that helped to actively lead to the war that killed hundreds of thousands. He never thinks about it, or processes. He never takes responsibility for it. Instead he focus's in on how the world has hurt him, how the world has wronged him. This massive ego is what makes him such an effective villain. Because when you see his POV you can so utterly feel his pain at what the world has made of him. Not pain for the people he's hurt or the nation he helped practically destroy. No you feel the pain of self pity shine through. He's an amazing character because even though we the readers know the extent of his depravity, you can't help but relate to him on some levels. This makes him so human.

It is easy to throw words like "monster" around. But even the most depraved and "evil" humans are not actually monsters. They are made up of the same stuff we are. They aren't aliens, or a subspecies. They are humans who utter don't care about the suffering of other humans. Jaime embodies this in many ways. He is still so human, and yet if we honestly looked at him he is so very depraved.

WOW!!!! That was so well said!!!

Now don't think that there is a flip side to the coin though. Look at Cat. When she took Tyrion prisoner. Wasn't that a link in that chain that created the war as well. Isn't she equally responsible for not thinking of what her actions would cause? She had no real evidence against Tyrion, she just felt that a Lannister was responsible for the attack on Bran, so she arresats Tyrion because he was handy. That is not grounds for arresating someone. Evidence is needed against the individual not just general evidence against a family. Did she not think that the Lannisters might be offended and respond? Did she think that Jamie would just let his brother be unjustly arrested.

Still an excellent post & I am not trying to defend Jamie here, just saying that there are other occurances of Characters behaving rashly without thinking through the concequences of their actions.

Can anyone else defend Jamie now after SPs sumation???

[Artanaro]

Look at Cat. When she took Tyrion prisoner. Wasn't that a link in that chain that created the war as well. Isn't she equally responsible for not thinking of what her actions would cause? She had no real evidence against Tyrion, she just felt that a Lannister was responsible for the attack on Bran, so she arresats Tyrion because he was handy.

I smell a threadjack coming. For the record, this is wrong . She has the dagger and Littlefinger's word. That's evidence, but which turned out to be misguided. Taking Tyrion to trial was within her right. Littlefinger is lucky he never had to testify.

Can anyone else defend Jamie now after SPs sumation???

If I get bored, I will. I consider him wrong on a number of points about the definition of a villain and whether Jaime's actions determine his character to be a "villain". I consider his conclusion, as stated, to be wrong. But long posts often require long responses. So in time.

Artanaro

[Daemrion]

First, let's use our common sense. If Jaime tells Catelyn "oh, I want nothing more than get my freedom so I can go back to King's Landing, eat good food while I bang my sister, but let's be honest, she's a bitch. If I ask her to send Sansa, she'll go do her bitchy thing and not send Sansa. I would like to help you out, but let's be serious, this won't work. Oh, and why would trust an imp?" She would listen to this.

Catelyn isn't in an irrational state of mind. All Jaime has to do explain why it's not possible what she wants. Now to reading comprehension. We have two important phrases in this paragraph, "all done a deal" and "Lady Catelyn's price". How can their be a "deal" or "price" if he is not at liberty to say no? That description would not be accurate. So you're wrong. But now let's continue with the rest of the paragraph. What does "refuse and I will have your blood" mean? Well, your interpretation would work if the previous sentences did not contradict your explanation. But it can also mean something else. Consider this follow addition "refuse [to send my children] and I will have your blood." In this wording everything fits neatly. There is no contradiction with the earlier wording now.

Literal reading is the easiest. If the extra wording was meant to be in there then it should have been in there, unless you have access to an earlier manuscript with those words in there I can only assume that the book itself printed represents the substance of the oath.

In any case, Catelyn trusts Tyrion to keep his word. Obviously she would have thought long and hard about it before she even decided to let Jaime go [knowing his reputation], otherwise she was being irrational.

Furthermore, it would be unrealistically stupid of Catelyn to expect that Jaime could stretch his golden hand accross to Kings Landing and somehow keep Tyrion in power. That was not part of the deal. It's not part of the oath/deal that it is Jaime's responsibility to keep Tyrion in a position where Tyrion could have fulfilled Tyrion's promise allowing Jaime to fulfil his promise to compel Tyrion to fulfil Tyrion's promise.

The promise is better construed as if Tyrion is still in power to fulfil Tyrion's promise, you, Jaime must compel Tyrion to honour his promise, that is return Sansa and Arya. you can't really blame Tyrion's non-power by the time Jaime arrived back in Kings Landing on Jaime.

Lastly, so what would have happened if he said no? Cat would have stabbed him (in fact she pricked him anyway), there and then. I don't think it's refuse to send my children.

This view is also wrong. Yes, his oath to the Crown trumps Catelyn's oath, EXCEPT if he breaks her oath, he is still an OATHBREAKER. It just means he won't be held accountable for his actions. But, you also imply that serving the crown and his personal oath are mutually exclusive. This is a cop out. For example, he is given command of the Lannister forces at Riverrun. The strategy to employ is left to him. Not Cersei, not Tommen, no one but him. If he decides, well, it's a hopeless battle, let's give into Brynden's demands, both oaths are maintained. What matters isn't that the heart of an oath is kept, but the actual literal wording is met. He has the ability to keep both oaths.

If the Crown tells him to take Riverrun, then he has no choice but to take Riverrun, because the KG oath trumps Cat's. He's been commanded to take Riverrun AFFC pg 392. So there's no two ways about it. He has to take Riverrun and certainly Brynden was not going to leave of his own will was he?

In any case, he was justified in breaking said oath. That's what matters, the oath lost its bindingness because it was superseded by another more important oath. So he does not have to keep that part of the oath because it's been overwritten by another higher power.

In any case, you have heard of the doctrine of frustration?

If he can't keep his oath, he's obligated to return to his cell in Riverrun. He's an oathbreaker, because he didn't.

Crown oath trumps personal oath. He can't take Riverrun from a dungeon cell can he?

The next crime I would lay at his feet is attempted murder of Bran. His choices, which where completely his own to make, lead to this. He chose to sleep with Cersei in Winterfell, he chose to endanger them both, their children, and the stability of the realm, so that he could get what he wanted. He created a situation that then "mandated" that he kill any innocent witnesses that pass by. Which he did, even though it was only a child. (The fact that Bran lived has nothing to do with Jaime, and so for all intensive purposes Jaime committed child murder). He made the choices, he did the crime, and this is his fault. This is also a truly horrible crime, and casts a very real light on his character. He was willing to do anything to keep himself happy, anything. There was no price to great, no amount of other peoples suffering mattered, as long as Jaime got what he wanted. This crime was directly responsible for putting the events in motion that would lead to the seizure of Tyrion, and the Rape of the Riverlands (which Jaime helped lead). Yet another way that his constant treason lead to the war of 5 kings.

In any case, once Bran did climb up there and saw it, means that something had to be done. The thing he did could be easily justified. As Ned recognises in AGOT.

Next was the murder of Ned's men. This is yet another example of his utter disregard for human life when it comes into conflict with what he wants. Jaime wanted a power trip after the capture of his brother. He wanted to exact some measure of revenge against the Starks for seeking justice for a crime he committed. And so he slaughter Ned's men and lamed Ned. Devil be damned about the realm, about the fact that he the cause of all of this, who cares Jaime feels wronged and so he is going to go out of his way to inflicted as much damage on his fellow humans as possible. Even if that is simple an old man, (Jory). Jaime has no predilections about preying on the weak when it comes into conflict with one of his urges.

Catelyn kidnapped Tyrion without any authority or any corroborating evidence. She'd be drummed out of the police for doing something like that. She didn't take him to the place where justice was being served. Called Kings Landing. Tyrion's rights were so infringed upon, she purposely spread misinformation about where they were going so that she could keep Tyrion prisoner. Plus Tyrion was the King's own brother-in-law who was INNOCENT.

Ned bascially said that he authorised Cat to take Tyrion, that he authorised her to hide him from his family, to deny Tyrion his rights for justice at Kings Landing (since that would have been the most appropriate venue for a dispute between two of the Lords) etc...

IT was tantamount to a declaration of war

Not just people who had no idea what Aerys was really like though. Ned also condemned Jaime, and Ned must have had a pretty fair idea of what had happened to his father and his brother. Enough people knew enough about Aerys to make the rebellion possible.

And note that apparently at least some of those legendary KG were working to replace Aerys with his heir in some way that would minimise bloodshed and damage to the stability of Westeros.

No one knew about the crazy suicide plan that Aerys had. He was going to commit mass genocide on the citizens of Kings Landing. Not even Ned knew about that. Face it, he saved many many more lives than he has killed through that one act.

Oh yes, except they were all absent, or dead by the time the Sack rolled around.

[Guest Other-in-law]

Ahh, but you are wrong here on something very important. When he married his sisters, he did not worship the Seven.

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

Saying he worshipped at a later date is immaterial. For example, let me give you a real life analogy. Catholic priests are not allowed to marry.....blah blah blah.

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

Let's introduce a few important words such as precedent and custom. Now, even if Aegon and Maegor married two women, if this does not continue to happen, then their actions are no longer applicable to later generations. It's like a trademark. If you don't take regular legal steps to insure it's maintained, your rights to that trademark will expire. So, a precedent 300 years earlier does not matter when there are 300 years of evidence to the contrary. Now, let's examine the incest relationship. Unlike the polygamy this one is maintained throughout the generations, so it becomes custom and is an "unofficial law." See how this works.

I see how you're trying to spin it, but that certainly is not how it works.

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

Failure to continue the practice makes suggesting it very weak actually.

Didn't seem to hurt Trial by Seven any.

What Targaryen wants to use Maegor as his precedent on acceptible conduct? Answer me that.

Any of them, except Baelor, perhaps? We even have non-Targs citing Maegor as a precedent, such as his "unmaking" of three Grand Maesters and his depriving the Faith of it's rights to conduct trials or bear arms. It sounds like you're exaggerating Maegor's negative reputation a bit, he's a respected historical figure, not an earlier Viserys or Maelys the Monstrous.

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

This is so wrong on so many things, I won't even answer. Reread the series, please.

Artanaro

Roll on the floor like an animal all you want, but don't think you've addressed the point. Presumably you think there is a flaw in my conjecture, but you've neglected to state what it is. Do you deny that Lyanna and Howland Reed were friends? Do you deny that there is a weirwood at Harrenhall that they all would have been aware of? Do you deny that interfaith marriages are possible in Westeros? Do you deny that marriages performed in godswoods are legally binding? Do you have some ironclad proof of Howland's itinerary after the tourney that makes it impossible? Perhaps you are in need of a reread as well.

[A wilding]

Would like to follow up on this stand of the conversation for another post.

Last but not least i mantain that killing Aerys is the most honorable thing Jamie ever did. If you think its a crime to break your oath to protect someone truly evil in order to save tens of thousands of lives then theres really no point in arguing about this. Killing aerys was good, so far in the series i have not seeing a more truly heroic act than that one, Jamie gave up his honor and any future glory to save thousands of lives, he stopped being the young lion and became the kingslayer in the eyes of the world for his first real true knight act.

Firstly, this sets up a false dichotomy. Jaime had middle courses of action between allowing Aerys to blow up KL and killing Aerys.

Secondly, Jaime did not kill Aerys out of heroism, but because he despised and hated him. He certainly did not do it in the knowledge that in doing so he "gave up his honour and any future glory" - he was not sure what would happen afterwards, and his decision to keep quiet about the wildfire was made later, out of pique. He also happened to pick about the only course of action that would allow him to go on living without being branded as a total coward.

However, most RL readers would indeed be inclined to excuse his killing of Aerys given the circumstances. But in Westeros, obedience to one's superiors and keeping oaths or allegiance are the glue that holds their civilisation together. For a KG to kill his king is a blow at the very roots of their society. That is why Jaime is so despised in Westeros. Probably, if people had known of the wildfire, they would have said Jaime was justified in preventing it being lit, but they would still have expected him to die with Aerys.

Incidentally, I note that you make no attempt to defend Jaime's worst action - making Robert's heirs bastards - which made inevitable that another civil war would occur sooner or later. And his morally correct action in the dungeon was to refuse to swear Catelyn's oath, even if she killed him for it.

[Syrius]

In my eyes I feel Jaime hasn't really changed that much.

As to pushing Bran out the window.

I feel that the reason people are horrified with his act is that firstly its a child and secondly it was a character that was developing in a way that made him likeable.

If Jaime had thrown someone out of a window that we didn't like that much would we really care? I'm not sure we would. But what George does well is put characters we love in conflict with each other and leaves us with inner turmoil when we have to side one against the other.

Has anyone ever thought or said to the one they love

"I would do anything for you!"

Now maybe Jaime is better to his word where his heart is concerned than most of the rest of us.

This does not make him a better man for he would do anything heinous to ensure that the relationship he has will remain intact.

Most of us do not have a relationship which is illegal and immoral and so do not feel the sorts of pressure he is under. Again this does not make him a good man, far from it, but it may explain his motivation.

He cast Bran out of the window because his heart (and his groin) overruled his head and he was putty in Cersei's hands and truly would do anything for her love.

The change in Jaime we have seen is the seperation from the cloying and overwhelming personality of Cersei which means he has come to see her as she truly is and not on the pedastal he put her on.

He stands now on his own two feet.

He is still the same man, hard and brutal and ruthless... but now he isn't Cersei's puppet. And I feel its because he now is close to being Cersei's enemy as possible without actually becoming one we start to love him.

[Trem]

Incidentally, I note that you make no attempt to defend Jaime's worst action - making Robert's heirs bastards - which made inevitable that another civil war would occur sooner or later. And his morally correct action in the dungeon was to refuse to swear Catelyn's oath, even if she killed him for it.

I don't see how a civil war was inevitable, the civil war was cleverly engineered by Petyr, if it wasn't for him there would still be peace and nobody would be wiser. Robert cheated on Cersei and Cersei cheated on Robert, although i will give you its more likely that she did it first unless you count Robert calling Lyanas name on their wedding night. You misunderstand me, i think Jamie is a bad guy for throwing Bran out the window, i mean when even Cersei thinks you went too far then you know you did something very bad. Its when people start condemning him for things that would make anyone else a hero like killing Aerys or standing up for his crippled brother that i feel the urge to defend him. To me his only crimes are incest, which certainly doesn't seem to be as reviled in westeros as it is for us, and attempting to murder an innocent child.