Why Do You Hate Jamie?

[BerryHarryBear]

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.

I would AT LEAST add murdering Eddards men and aiding in the rape of his brothers wife to that list.

[Moosicus]

I would AT LEAST add murdering Eddards men and aiding in the rape of his brothers wife to that list.

Well, I believe him when he tells Tyrion he had no idea that Tywin was gonna have that done.

[Trem]

I would AT LEAST add murdering Eddards men and aiding in the rape of his brothers wife to that list.

Not me, just because we liked Jory and hated Jamie doesn't mean he wasn't justified in attacking Ned and his men. Rash? yes, very much so, it obviously did more harm than good but perfectly justified based on the circumstances. Tyrion was innocent, he was unjustly apprehended by Catelynn, unjustly tried by Lissa and had it not been for Bronn he would have been horribly executed or left for dead in a sky cell. The Starks where 100% wrong in this instance and where punished for it. As for Tysha, knowing Tywin do you seriously think he had any choice in the matter? he could have confessed a lot sooner though, ill give you that.

[Daemrion]

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

Then what is the middle road? If Aerys had not been killed, sooner rather than later would he had found a messenger to take his message to blow KL to kingdom come. And there was always Varys.

Personally, it was much too dangerous to leave Aerys alive to possibly give the order to blow KL to kingdom come.

[Antonius Pius]

Then what is the middle road? If Aerys had not been killed, sooner rather than later would he had found a messenger to take his message to blow KL to kingdom come. And there was always Varys.

I don't see who else would have given or passed the order to the alchemists. Jaime killed Rossart first, then Aerys. The plot was kept secret, so not many others would have known. It stands to reason that the alchemists were waiting for word from Rossart. We don't even know if Aerys would have known where to find the other pyromancers. But even if he did, if he were simply incapacitated, he would not have been able to give an order.

But really, I think that this is already stretching. When Jaime killed Aerys, his father's bannermen were already crawling over the walls of the Red Keep. Jaime knew that the castle's fall was imminent. It seems extremely unlikely that someone else would have come along to pass the word, or that the pyromancers had a second messenger waiting at Aerys' side. When Jaime killed Rossart, the plot was essentially foiled, IMO. In the confusion following the fall of the Red Keep, would have prevented Aerys from a) finding out that Rossart was dead, and finding another messenger.

Even if you disagree with that, there are still other ways. Jaime could have knocked Aerys out, he could have locked him in a room, he could have sat on him, you name it. But IMO, Jaime chose to kill Aerys because he wanted to.

[A wilding]

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.

There are always Petyrs around to take advantage of weakness; once Jaime and Cersei had provided a massive lever for a Petyr to use (or a Varys come to that - he was planning to take advantage of it too) someone was always going to make use of it at some point. Jaime's crime is not so much incest or adultery, it is in creating this lever for toppling the king he was sworn to serve.

But I think I am largely in agreement with your post. I would certainly not want to defend Robert's behaviour towards Cersei (and he did indeed cheat on her first, as we find out from Cersei's PoV in AFfC).

[Seventh Pup]

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 established 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.

I do not think it is in Ned's character to butcher people with out cause. He showed many time if he can avoid blood shed he will. Especially in pointless displays of violence. What in Ned's character makes you think he would have out of curiosity?

Unfortunately Tyrion is innocent, but the crime he is being held for crimes that Jaime and his son committed. So it's not like the Starks have missed the ball park all together. Instead of thinking of the part he had to play in his brother's imprisonment he thinks about hurting people even vaguely connected to the cause of his anxiety. And hey if that people is an old man who gives a damn right? Note this will not in anyway help Tyrion, it will only make Jaime feel more powerful, and so better. I would strongly disagree that Ned would have done something similar.

His (drunken, at sword point) oath to Catelyn directly contradicted his oath to his king, and his oath as a kingsguard.

Then he should not have made it. But he did, and so he is obligated by it.

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.

So why not let a fake Arya be sent to the Bolton's taking her claim from her? This makes it about 100 times for dangerous for the real Arya. Insuring that the North is lost to Starks? Why not take Riverrun from the Tully's?

Jaime had an obligation that he did not keep. In terms of honor he owns the Starks heavily and yet has done less then nothing for them. Especially given his oath, he should have tried harder to do right by them.

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.

Jaime utterly failed and spit on his oath to the Targaryns. I won't even talk about the king slaying because frankly I think it is the least of his crimes. And it has been discussed quite a lot on this thread. But him sitting on his haunches while Rheagar's family was brutalized and murdered is one of the greater ones.

Yes it was a stressful day for Jaime, but that doesn't give him the excuse to do nothing for the innocent he swore to protect. That they did not even cross his mind until it was to late is VERY telling. The world has not mistakenly think that Jaime utterly shamed the KG oath that day. He did completely, even if he had been justified in killing Aerys.

[Moosicus]

Then he should not have made it. But he did, and so he is obligated by it.

A lot of people would question his obligation to an oath he was forced into making (the alternative being death), especially since it eventually became impossible for him to fulfill it. As for killing Aerys, he had the choice between that, and killing his own father. Kingslayer or Kinslayer. As the former he gets pissed on as an oathbreaker, as the latter he is cursed in the eyes of gods and men.

eta: sitting by and letting Rhaegar's children be killed, well, was he in a position to stop it? IIRC Tywins men entered the throne room just after the fact (edit: after Aerys was killed), and as Jaime says to Rhaegar's shade in his dream sequence, he didn't realize any harm would come to them. I don't think he had the option to say to the knights present "wait here, I'm going to check on the kids."

[The Scabbard Of the Morning]

Yes, I would agree that although I don't have a huge problem with him killing Aerys, like Robert said, somebody had to kill him, Jaime should have done something to protect Elia and her children.

Aerys was a despicable person and deserved death, Elia and her children were innocent, decency would have required some form of attempted intervention, and a Kingsguard who have sworn his oath to defend the King owed it to defend them to the death. Remember as soon as Jaime killed Aerys, Aegon was technically the King.

So Jaime's Kingsguard tenure included killing one King, stood by as anothe King was slaughtered, and committing adultery with the third King's wife to put his own son on the throne.

And oh yeah, there was that throwing a little boy out the window to cover up his adultery, and let's not forget his threat to catapult a new born baby into the walls of Riverrun in AFFC. Really quite a guy that Jaime.

[Antonius Pius]

Unfortunately Tyrion is innocent.... Instead of thinking of the part he had to play in his brother's imprisonment he thinks about hurting people. Note this will not in anyway help Tyrion, it will only make Jaime feel more powerful, and so better.

I agree completely.

Jaime utterly failed and spit on his oath to the Targaryns. I won't even talk about the king slaying because frankly I think it is the least of his crimes. And it has been discussed quite a lot on this thread. But him sitting on his haunches while Rheagar's family was brutalized and murdered is one of the greater ones.

Agree again. Killing Aerys is not honourable for a kingsguard, no matter how mad the king. Jaime's crime, which is unwilling to comprehend, is that he killed the king while wearing the white. It's not like Aerys didn't deserve to die, it's just that a knight of the KG was the very last to do it. The oath he took is sacred, and he went against it. And Trem, he didn't give up his future honour and glory, he thought he would add to it. He's disappointed that no-one would honour him for his deed, and he still bemoans the fact that people condemn him for killing Aerys. Textbook whining. And I seriously doubt he killed Aerys to save King's Landing.

Yes it was a stressful day for Jaime, but that doesn't give him the excuse to do nothing for the innocent he swore to protect. That they did not even cross his mind until it was to late is VERY telling. The world does not mistakenly think that Jaime utterly shamed the KG oath that day. He did completely, even if he had been justified in killing Aerys.

QFT.

[Moosicus]

edited my post while others were posting it seems. Did Jaime have the opportunity to do anything about the killing of Rhaegar's kids?

[Antonius Pius]

As for killing Aerys, he had the choice between that, and killing his own father. Kingslayer or Kinslayer. As the former he gets pissed on as an oathbreaker, as the latter he is cursed in the eyes of gods and men.

I don't think it's as black and white as you suggest. Tywin was nowhere near the Red Keep, as far as we know. If he had really been put in the position, who knows what he would have done. And if he had met his father on a battle-field, he need not have killed him. I bet there are other knights surrounding Tywin, he could charge those, or maybe even negotiate a honourable surrender.

I think there is some grey area concerning the oath of Riverrun. But he did take it.

eta: sitting by and letting Rhaegar's children be killed, well, was he in a position to stop it? IIRC Tywins men entered the throne room just after Aerys was killed, and as Jaime says to Rhaegar's shade in his dream sequence, he didn't realize any harm would come to them. I don't think he had the option to say to the knights present "wait here, I'm going to check on the kids."

Jaime may not have thought them in danger, that's possible. From his chapters we do not see he thought of them at all, however. From his and Ned's chapters we see that after he is caught killing Aerys, he decides to sit the Iron Throne, and as far as we know, he doesn't get off it until Ned enters the throneroom.

I do think, however, that he should have tried to defend the children after Aerys' death, because that would be the kingsguardy thing to do. If he was only against Aerys for his mad cruelty, there's no reason not to protect Rhaegar's children. But I think Jaime already turned his cloak at that point (signified, IMO, by him wearing his golden armour).

Remember as soon as Jaime killed Aerys, Aegon was technically the King.

That's a good point, hadn't thought of that yet.

So Jaime's Kingsguard tenure included killing one King, stood by as anothe King was slaughtered, and committing adultery with the third King's wife to put his own son on the throne.

Quite the track-record...

[Errant Bard]

And oh yeah, there was that throwing a little boy out the window to cover up his adultery, and let's not forget his threat to catapult a new born baby into the walls of Riverrun in AFFC. Really quite a guy that Jaime.

I am perhaps alone in thinking that, but I see a common thread in all Jaime did, and that is the drivel to protect his intact oaths, no matter the cost. The one superseding all others is his family, and he never turns his back on it, even if it means killing children and breaking other conflicting oaths. until he has to choose between Cersei and Tommen/the realm, that is.

[Seventh Pup]

Yes, I would agree that although I don't have a huge problem with him killing Aerys, like Robert said, somebody had to kill him, Jaime should have done something to protect Elia and her children.

Aerys was a despicable person and deserved death, Elia and her children were innocent, decency would have required some form of attempted intervention, and a Kingsguard who have sworn his oath to defend the King owed it to defend them to the death. Remember as soon as Jaime killed Aerys, Aegon was technically the King.

So Jaime's Kingsguard tenure included killing one King, stood by as anothe King was slaughtered, and committing adultery with the third King's wife to put his own son on the throne.

And oh yeah, there was that throwing a little boy out the window to cover up his adultery, and let's not forget his threat to catapult a new born baby into the walls of Riverrun in AFFC. Really quite a guy that Jaime.

So well said. Don't get me wrong I think that he is well written, and that his chapters are enjoyable, but yeah he is not the tragic hero some would like him to be.

I am perhaps alone in thinking that, but I see a common thread in all Jaime did, and that is the drivel to protect his intact oaths, no matter the cost. The one superseding all others is his family, and he never turns his back on it, even if it means killing children and breaking other conflicting oaths. until he has to choose between Cersei and Tommen/the realm, that is.

His intact oaths? And which would those be? He turns his back on Cersei even though she is the Queen Regent and he is obligated by his newly reenergized KG oath to protect her. There is the fact that he knows his king is a fraud and not actually legally the king. There is the fact that even after his ephany he still springs his brother from jail even though it is in violation of his oath. Know Jaime is still doing what is ever easiest for Jaime.

[Errant Bard]

His intact oaths? And which would those be?

Protect your family, do the greater good. Interesting to note that all you said show him doing just that, even betraying Cersei is for Tommen, and the realm by extension.

[Seventh Pup]

A lot of people would question his obligation to an oath he was forced into making (the alternative being death), especially since it eventually became impossible for him to fulfill it.

He should not have made an oath that conflicted with his KG. I don't buy that Jaime thought he was going to die if he didn't agree to the oath. He sets limits on what he will and won't do, not the actions of a man fearing that a wrong word will end his life.

However if he had been desperately afraid that Lady Stark would kill him with her own two hand if he didn't agree to her demand. He still should not have sworn an oath, and got the benifits of it, if he felt it would conflict with his KG oath.

sitting by and letting Rhaegar's children be killed, well, was he in a position to stop it? IIRC Tywins men entered the throne room just after the fact (edit: after Aerys was killed), and as Jaime says to Rhaegar's shade in his dream sequence, he didn't realize any harm would come to them. I don't think he had the option to say to the knights present "wait here, I'm going to check on the kids."

Why would he not think that Elia and her children danger? His father was famous for killing every last one of his enemies. Why would Jaime assume that the Targaryns would be different? More over it is not the King's Guard duty to "assume" that a king is safe. It is his duty to make sure of it. I find it doubtful that if Jaime had yelled to the Lannistar knight "let me pass" or even lied and said "let me pass so that I can join my father" they would have prevented him. They knew he had just killed Aerys and so I'm sure they would they would not have questioned him or detained him. But he doesn't even think of the new little king that he is honor bond protect, he even made a personal promise to Rheagar that he would keep them safe. They are utter not on his mind during the sacking of the city. As I said the world did not give him shit for honor, he gave it to himself.

Protect your family, do the greater good. Interesting to note that all you said show him doing just that, even betraying Cersei is for Tommen, and the realm by extension.

No it is because she cheated on him and he feels hurt by her and resentful of her. Moreover Tommen is not the rightful king (Jaime is keeping his bastard on the throne) and so he makes a mockery of his KG oath every time that oath takes precedent. (If you argue that Tommen is the rightful king, then you must also conseed that Joff was the rightful king. And Jaime sprung Joff's admitted killer from jail. So yeah even after he is "changed", oaths mean less then nothing if they conflict with what Jaime wants.)

[Errant Bard]

No it is because she cheated on him and he feels hurt by her and resentful of her.

That's not how I see it. Jaime freed a brother that bloody killed his son, for all he knew, and only regrets it when said brother kills a father that disowned him. No, really, although it's true Cersei cheated on him, I'm convinced that his decision is not an emotional one. I mean, he's even debating with Ilyn Payne about it, and without much passion.

Moreover Tommen is not the rightful king (Jaime is keeping his bastard on the throne) and so he makes a mockery of his KG oath every time that oath takes precedent.

Yes, that's what I said before, he places family (and, as the matter of fact, the stability of the realm) before the rest.

But anyway, even without that, it would not be his place, or anyone from the KG, to decide who is "rightful". All they have to know is that they serve a king, and swore to serve him. Jaime isn't a Cryston Cole, for all his other failings. He's at the same level as Barristan Selmy and the old KG that bent the knee to Robert, on this one.

[BerryHarryBear]

Please PLEASE, correct me if I am wrong. Just going by memory here and that has been slightly off on a number of occasions. Didn't Jamie get caught killing Arys because he was screwing around (wasting time) sitting on the Throne when Ned came in?

Just Got SoS back and can correct myself.

*Ser Elys Westerling and Lord Crakehall and others of his father's knights burst into the hall in time to see the last of it,*

So much for my crappy memory.

It was after that that he sat the throne and Ned came in.

[snake]

Didn't the Kingslayer think of Aegon after he killed Aerys? Something about putting him on the throne with Lord Tywin his hand and giggles at how mad Robert and Ned would be? Didn't he also reject this because Aegon had Aerys blood in him?

So basically, he condemned the children to death even though he doesn't admit it to himself.

The Kingslayer spends most of his time pitying himself for slights real and imagined. What he rarely does is admit that he brought everything upon himself. He was, and remains, a very selfish individual.

[Artanaro]

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.

But there's no subject in that clause. Since it is not specificly stated what he could refuse, the context is required. That contradicts your statement. Martin was being poetic of course, but you're interpreting what "this" means nevertheless. That's not being literal.

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.

Being wrong isn't necessarily being irrational. A schizo is irrational. The fact Catelyn got Jaime drunk and questioned him means she can weigh events and make decisions based on facts she believes exist. The ability to determine a "best" choice means she's rational. Perhaps wrong, but rational, nevertheless.

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.

It's part of the deal to return Sansa and Arya for his freedom. No matter what Tyrion does, if the deal cannot be rendered, he must return. When a King is ransomed for a promise of gold, if payment on the gold stops, he's require to return to captivity until payment is continued.

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.

Opinion. No proof. There is no value in killing him. There was value in making Jaime think she was serious about later revenge. Though, a prick doesn't mean much when you're a thousand miles away, Catelyn could use the threat of what she could do to reinforce his conscience.

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?

Oaths, like contracts, are read to the letter of the wording. It doesn't say when Riverrun must fall. He can wait. Waiting is not fighting. Waiting is not breaking his oath.

Crown oath trumps personal oath.

I don't think this means what you think it means Daemrion.

He can't take Riverrun from a dungeon cell can he?

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.

See, trumping an oath does not absolve someone of oathbreaking. To Catelyn Jaime is an oathbreaker. Only one person can absolve an oath. That is not the king. That is the High Septon. But in terms of whether you will be punished for superceding an oath, the king comes first. So, even if he's not at fault here, he's still an oathbreaker. You can't change that by saying oathbreaking is just. Foraging is still stealing, even if it's not found to be a crime later.