What will Happen when/if dany and/or Tyrion meets jaime?

[norwaywolf123]

49 minutes ago, lojzelote said:

House Karstark didn't have anything to do with the Red Wedding.

Why was the 500 Karstark men fighting with Roose? When Harrion was captured and RIckared beheaded by Robb, Arnolf Karstark joined Roose in order to become Lord of Karhold himself

[lojzelote]

1 hour ago, norwaywolf123 said:

Why was the 500 Karstark men fighting with Roose? When Harrion was captured and RIckared beheaded by Robb, Arnolf Karstark joined Roose in order to become Lord of Karhold himself

Rickard's betrayal and execution and Arnolf's later attempt at usurpation of Rickard's children are issues separate of the Red Wedding, as far as I am aware. Arnolf and his family may not mind cooperating wit the Boltons, but it doesn't mean they had a hand in planning or executing the slaughter at the Twins. There may have been leftover Karstark men, but it doesn't necessarily mean they had been led by a Karstark. Hard to say when exactly Roose started to conspire with Arnolf, but I'd be surprised if it was so soon. Personally I think it started only after the war officially ended and Arnolf realized that Rickard, Torrhen, and Eddard are dead, and Harrion hasn't been released yet. Then he saw opportunity to improve the lot in life of his branch of family.

[chrisdaw]

17 hours ago, lojzelote said:

Why would smallfolk defend the Kingslayer? They believe he is the faithless murderer of Good King Aerys II, the last king to give them peace and plenty (as far as they know), and they despise the Lannisters generally.

Because when Dany judges Jaime he's going to explain why he did it, and word is going to get out. The narrative will be the Mad Queen has come to avenge her father the Mad King, and take vengeance on Jaime for saving them. The commons will already hate Dany for killing Aegon and having brought the dance, dothraki and everything else that's being stacked against her, Jaime is going to become symbolic.

Sansa and Arya will see to it, it's the game of thrones, and this is how one removes a dragon queen. The singers will sing of how the valiant knight put his oath to protect the smallfolk before his oath to the Mad King. Mummers will make plays out of it, there will be puppet shows. Priests will preach it in the streets. And the smallfolk will rise up, against their mad dragon queen, the top rung removed from the ladder the younger more beautiful queen is climbing.

[lojzelote]

On 22. 4. 2016 at 8:57 AM, chrisdaw said:

Because when Dany judges Jaime he's going to explain why he did it, and word is going to get out. The narrative will be the Mad Queen has come to avenge her father the Mad King, and take vengeance on Jaime for saving them. The commons will already hate Dany for killing Aegon and having brought the dance, dothraki and everything else that's being stacked against her, Jaime is going to become symbolic.

Sansa and Arya will see to it, it's the game of thrones, and this is how one removes a dragon queen. The singers will sing of how the valiant knight put his oath to protect the smallfolk before his oath to the Mad King. Mummers will make plays out of it, there will be puppet shows. Priests will preach it in the streets. And the smallfolk will rise up, against their mad dragon queen, the top rung removed from the ladder the younger more beautiful queen is climbing.

Why would anybody believe Jaime? People would just think he wants to save his pathetic hide.

Anyway, if there's a Mad Queen, then it is Jaime's own sweet sister he had been comitting High Treason with for over thirteen years, and the odds are she's going to blow up King's Landing before Dragonstone even appears on Dany's horizon. Cersei resembles Aerys in his final years more than Dany ever did down to the arsonic tendencies and the "let him be the king of ashes" mentality.

For that matter, Evil Queen Dany would have Jaime's tongue torn out by hot pincers before letting him make any sort of speech to anybody. LOL

Sorry, but what you're writing here is pure fanfic with little backing to it in the actual text. Honestly, I think you're letting your Dany hate and Jaime love blind you.

[chrisdaw]

4 minutes ago, lojzelote said:

Why would anybody believe Jaime? People would just think he wants to save his pathetic hide.

Anyway, if there's a Mad Queen, then it is Jaime's own sweet sister he had been comitting High Treason with for over thirteen years, and the odds are she's going to blow up King's Landing before Dragonstone even appears on Dany's horizon. Cersei resembles Aerys in his final years more than Dany ever did down to the arsonic tendencies and the "let him be the king of ashes" mentality.

Sorry, but what you're writing here is pure fanfic with little backing to it in the actual text. Honestly, I think you're letting your Dany hate and Jaime love blind you.

Everyone will believe Jaime because it will make sense, because Barristan stood by Aerys' side for decades and knew his nature, because Tyrion found the wildfire under KL and because the whole of KL saw that wildfire on the Blackwater. This scene is what the whole Barristan preoccupation with Jaime's dishonour is about. It's what 'by what right does the wolf judge the lion' is all about. It's what the dragon's mercy is for. It's where Dany's, Jaime's, Tyrion's and hell even Barristan's arc are all headed.

There's been enough written about why Dany's rule will be despised in Westeros, I don't care to make that argument again. Thank you for your apologies.

[lojzelote]

17 minutes ago, chrisdaw said:

Everyone will believe Jaime because it will make sense, because Barristan stood by Aerys' side for decades and knew his nature, because Tyrion found the wildfire under KL and because the whole of KL saw that wildfire on the Blackwater. This scene is what the whole Barristan preoccupation with Jaime's dishonour is about. It's what 'by what right does the wolf judge the lion' is all about. It's what the dragon's mercy is for. It's where Dany's, Jaime's, Tyrion's and hell even Barristan's arc are all headed.

There's been enough written about why Dany's rule will be despised in Westeros, I don't care to make that argument again. Thank you for your apologies.

People of King's Landing aren't Barristan Selmy or Tyrion Lannister. People of King's Landing are misinformed, uneducated suffering sods who remember Aerys' times with sentimentality and revile Tywin and Tyrion for the Sack and being an ugly Imp respectively.

Anyhow, they are more likely to believe that the Lannisters placed the wildfire cans all around King's Landing when they had been preparing the defence of the city against Stannis' forces... since as you say the Lannisters used the said wildfire for the defence of the city. No reason for the poor folks of King's Landing to believe it was Aerys who put it there with intention to transform into a dragon and burn them all alive. That's quite some reaching. They had seen the Lannisters to use it.

Oh, Dany will have a bad rep at the beginning, I believe that. "At the beginning" being the key words.  For that matter, I believe that that unpopularity will be partly caused by her having Tyrion in her camp, lol. Thank you very much, too.

[HoodedCrow]

At some point, one of the leaders of the good guys may announce that all will be forgiven if they fight the Others. Perhaps Jaime will be one and Dany and/or Jon will offer amnesty even for him, just to make the point. Jaime could be given the chance that Ned was denied, to make the new ruler a true opposite of Joffrey.

[A spoon of knife and fork]

On April 21, 2016 at 9:12 AM, OldGimletEye said:

 if Dany says or writes, "I am not killing Jaime, but I am going to send him to the Wall", then like what the fuck? I mean you either say that in Jaime's particular circumstances the killing of Aerys was justified or it wasn't. You can't really split it down the middle there. You either decide that interest of saving thousands of innocent lives is the controlling principle or that preventing Praetorian Guard situations is the controlling principle.

Couple of thoughts, I don't think it's too unreasonable to "pull a Davos" and reward + punish for the fact that Jaime did something illegal, but for the greater good.  In fact this can be good if it helps reinforce both principles simultaneously.  

The wall might not be the exact best approach.  I'm not sure what would be appropriate - it might depend a lot on circumstances.

On April 21, 2016 at 9:12 AM, OldGimletEye said:

Personally, I think saying that Jaime should have allowed Aerys to continue with his plan to destroy KL is plain nuts, even though I recognize the competing interest of not having the KG getting into the business of king making.

Dany in her judgement could emphasize a few key facts, like:

1. Aerys was at least 50% responsible for starting the war.

2. The destruction of KL served no legitimate military purpose. Whether KL was destroyed or not, Aerys was going down.

3. The extreme loss of life that would have resulted from Aerys plan.

Surely, she can emphasize the fact that she doesn't approve the KG going around and killing monarchs for any old reason. But, I think it's possible that, in some cases, it's permissible and Dany could with the way she handles Jaime's case explain what those principles are.

While I agree with this line of thinking it does presume that Dany (and whoever else involved) is 100% convinced that Jaime's telling of events is completely true.   While I'd like to see that I really wonder if it's realistic.  I suppose it's possible there is some proof?  

In a situation where Daenerys has to both consider (without any evidence) whether Jaime acted selfishly or for the good of the people, AND to weigh the above concerns, I am not sure she can set precedent solely based on the motive.  

[OldGimletEye]

26 minutes ago, A spoon of knife and fork said:

Couple of thoughts, I don't think it's too unreasonable to "pull a Davos" and reward + punish for the fact that Jaime did something illegal, but for the greater good.  In fact this can be good if it helps reinforce both principles simultaneously.  

I don't think so. It's like sending somebody to jail, once you've found their self defense claim viable in a case for murder. Sure, you don't want people going around killing other people. But, on the other hand you recognize people's right to defend themselves. If you find somebody has established sufficient cause to use lethal force, in self defense, you can't really, I don't think, say, "well ur um, er I think I am going to split the difference here and send you up the river for 3 years, rather than giving you a life sentence."

The thing Dany is going to have to decide is whether Jaime's actions, with the particular facts presented, were justified. If you think Jaime should have stopped Aerys from burning down the city you can't just say, "well it was kinda of sorta justified."

In Davos case, fact was that he was a smuggler before he came to Stannis aid. I don't think there was any justification or extreme emergency justifying Davos prior smuggling activities.

29 minutes ago, A spoon of knife and fork said:

While I agree with this line of thinking it does presume that Dany (and whoever else involved) is 100% convinced that Jaime's telling of events is completely true.   While I'd like to see that I really wonder if it's realistic.  I suppose it's possible there is some proof?  

In a situation where Daenerys has to both consider (without any evidence) whether Jaime acted selfishly or for the good of the people, AND to weigh the above concerns, I am not sure she can set precedent solely based on the motive.  

Well sure, Dany would have to believe Jaime's claims.  If Jaime's claims are not crediable, then I guess there is little for Dany to decide as far as the issue of KG killing kings is concerned. 

I don't think Jaime needs 100% proof though. Certainly there was a ton of wildfire in the city. Tyrion can corroborate that.  Aerys was a nut, I don't think anyone disputes that either. Jaime's own statements can be considered some proof. If Brienne is around, Dany can consider her statements as too.

It would be hard for Dany to say that Jaime is doing a complete ass pull here.

But even before getting to the issue of whether Jaime's claims are factually true, Dany might want to ask herself, "just assuming Jaime's claims are true, my judgement is what here?" Because if they  are presumed to be true then the case becomes more complicated than if Jaime is simply lying through his teeth. 
 

[ghostwolf84]

if Tyrion is not a lannister he might end up with cr, using just his wits like lann the cleaver didhe's the wittiest character,Jaime from affc page 492 "I shall be the kingslayer till I die" got me thinking he will kill a dragon with his left hand and be known after his death as the dragon slayer 

[SeanF]

On ‎4‎/‎24‎/‎2016 at 6:08 AM, OldGimletEye said:

I don't think so. It's like sending somebody to jail, once you've found their self defense claim viable in a case for murder. Sure, you don't want people going around killing other people. But, on the other hand you recognize people's right to defend themselves. If you find somebody has established sufficient cause to use lethal force, in self defense, you can't really, I don't think, say, "well ur um, er I think I am going to split the difference here and send you up the river for 3 years, rather than giving you a life sentence."

The thing Dany is going to have to decide is whether Jaime's actions, with the particular facts presented, were justified. If you think Jaime should have stopped Aerys from burning down the city you can't just say, "well it was kinda of sorta justified."

In Davos case, fact was that he was a smuggler before he came to Stannis aid. I don't think there was any justification or extreme emergency justifying Davos prior smuggling activities.

Well sure, Dany would have to believe Jaime's claims.  If Jaime's claims are not crediable, then I guess there is little for Dany to decide as far as the issue of KG killing kings is concerned. 

I don't think Jaime needs 100% proof though. Certainly there was a ton of wildfire in the city. Tyrion can corroborate that.  Aerys was a nut, I don't think anyone disputes that either. Jaime's own statements can be considered some proof. If Brienne is around, Dany can consider her statements as too.

It would be hard for Dany to say that Jaime is doing a complete ass pull here.

But even before getting to the issue of whether Jaime's claims are factually true, Dany might want to ask herself, "just assuming Jaime's claims are true, my judgement is what here?" Because if they  are presumed to be true then the case becomes more complicated than if Jaime is simply lying through his teeth. 
 

Dany is one of the few people who could actually verify Jaime's claims, given her vision in the House of the Undying.

I really can't be sure how he she would react.  On the one hand, here's the man who helped to ruin her family (as she sees it).  On the other, how could Aerys' plan to burn down King's Landing be justified at any level (and I'm sure that if Dany were in Aerys' position, she'd have just chosen to go down with the ship, rather than slaughtering thousands of innocent people)?

[SeanF]

On ‎4‎/‎21‎/‎2016 at 2:12 PM, OldGimletEye said:

I do not disagree that the issues are not simple. There are competing interest at stake. On hand there is an interest in the KG not becoming a Praetorian Guard, removing monarchs at its whim, potentially causing regime instability. But on the other hand, you don't want the KG aiding or abetting the king or monarch if the monarch decides to do the most vile of acts.

One function of laws is to reconcile public interest that are in tension. Arguably, good laws do that well.

Let's say you've been running around telling everyone your the rightful queen of Westeros. Well now you've got the job. There might be more to this queen thing than just riding around on dragons and being "bad ass".One of your duties, as Queen, is to promulgate good laws.That's why you get paid the big bucks.

It turns out, that in a medieval society like Westeros, the adjudication of cases often become the law. Cases have precedential value. I don't think there is a case quite like Jaime's case with regard to Aerys. It's a case of first impression. How Dany decides the case and the rationales she gives in support thereof will likely be a guide for future generations of Westerosi. It will likely help to set expectations between the monarch and the KG. Let's hope her decision is well reasoned, fairly precise, takes into account the competing interest at stake, and realistic.

If Dany decides "I ordered Jamie's Lannister's execution because gosh darn-it, Aerys was my dad!" then that's not very helpful. Likewise, if Dany says or writes, "I am not killing Jaime, but I am going to send him to the Wall", then like what the fuck? I mean you either say that in Jaime's particular circumstances the killing of Aerys was justified or it wasn't. You can't really split it down the middle there. You either decide that interest of saving thousands of innocent lives is the controlling principle or that preventing Praetorian Guard situations is the controlling principle.

Personally, I think saying that Jaime should have allowed Aerys to continue with his plan to destroy KL is plain nuts, even though I recognize the competing interest of not having the KG getting into the business of king making.

Dany in her judgement could emphasize a few key facts, like:

1. Aerys was at least 50% responsible for starting the war.

2. The destruction of KL served no legitimate military purpose. Whether KL was destroyed or not, Aerys was going down.

3. The extreme loss of life that would have resulted from Aerys plan.

Surely, she can emphasize the fact that she doesn't approve the KG going around and killing monarchs for any old reason. But, I think it's possible that, in some cases, it's permissible and Dany could with the way she handles Jaime's case explain what those principles are.

 

My impression is that Martin is not sympathetic to the argument that oaths of allegiance should be kept, regardless of what your liege lord orders you to do.  It comes back to a discussion we took part in some time ago about using superior orders as a defence to acts that are "manifestly illegal."  IIRC you said obeying orders was a conditional defence, but certainly not an absolute one.