Jaime broke an oath when he killed Aerys

[LynnS]

40 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Their obligation is to the king, personally. He is the one they swear their vows to, not some abstract 'throne'. This is a medieval monarchy where power is very much personal, held by people and families, not abstract states.

The duty of the Kingsguard is towards the king and his family, not the Realm or the king's subjects. If the king and his family live and the Realm burns then a Kingsguard has done his duty.

They give up their status and ambitions to be loyal to the king. Only the king. Not the Realm or some higher purpose. That's the brilliance of Visenya's creation. The Kingsguard vows are modeled after the NW vows but their purpose is not to protect the common good or the realms of man. Only the king. And perhaps the royal family, too, if the king is inclined to extend KG protection to his family.

That is pretty much false. This isn't a constitutional monarchy nor is there any indication that any king or lord really cares about the well-being of his subjects or the common people (if that was the case they would likely not exploit the commoners they way they do, right?). They pretend to care about that, and do their best to keep them distracted so that there are no revolutions and rebellions threatening their power.

The Kingsguard has no right to interfere with the decisions or commands of the king or the governance of the Realm. They are mainly bodyguards - and any other jobs they might have (serving as commanders, advisers, etc.) are given to them by the king.

It is also pretty clear that a knight's vows are of lesser importance than the Kingsguard vows. Just as the NW vows are more important than a knight's vows. Many men can become knights, but only seven knights can become Kingsguard. And nobody is forced to join the White Swords. It is your choice. The idea that you can pledge yourself to your king the way a Kingsguard does and at the same continue to live your life according to your hedge knight ideals is pretty much insane.

And especially Jaime deserves no pity in all that. He didn't join Aerys II's Kingsguard before the Duskendale. He spoke his vows at Harrenhal. He knew what Aerys II was yet he deliberately chose to become the thug and bodyguard of a madman. That isn't just folly or a mistake, that is a deliberate choice. Anyone making that decision has no right to complain afterwards.

The idea that the king promises stuff in return to the vows a Kingsguard makes is also not supported by textual evidence. Technically the average lord taking the average sworn sword into his service is striking a deal with such a person (e.g. Cat and Brienne or Osgrey and Dunk) but the king is the king. He is not some lord, he is the king. Everybody owes allegiance to him, anyway.

And the Kingsguard is a military order with a strict chain of command. You join that order not because you want to think for yourself but because you want obey every command your kings gives you, no questions asked. If that's not what you want to do then the KG isn't the right place for you.

The idea that Jaime 'needed to kill' Aerys II to save the city is pretty much insane. And nobody in the books ever said that this was the case. Jaime comes off as more sympathetic in ASoS when he tells his little tale because the entire scope of Aerys' madness is revealed in that tale, but the facts as presented by Jaime himself do not indicate that this whole thing was a moral dilemma of any kind.

It wasn't the certain death of hundreds of thousands of people on the one side against the life of Aerys II. It was whether Aerys II was killed by Jaime Lannister himself or whether he was killed by Tywin Lannister's men with Jaime Lannister's help.

And Jaime simply didn't want to go with option 2. He wanted to kill Aerys. He wanted to kill him all along. That's why he was wearing the golden armor instead of the white armor. He was a Lannister, after all, and he seems to have made his decision when Aerys II commanded him to kill his own father.

If George had wanted to make that a real dilemma he should have created a different scenario. One in which Aerys II was actually about to physically fire the bomb rather than being under the impression that he had already done that through his man Rossart. If Jaime hadn't told Aerys about Rossart Aerys wouldn't even have come up with the idea to perhaps send other men to the alchemists. And considering that no one was in the throne room - and Jaime a very strong guy - Aerys simply had no chance to escape after Jaime had told him the truth. He could have overpowered or knocked him out as easily as he killed him.

I knew this would draw you out of the weeds. 

i think that Jaime's confession to Brienne is the truest statement of his conscience and the events as they unfolded.  He may have decided that he could no longer wear the cloak of the KG and so I see that he is conflicted in switching his armor and continues to manifest that conflict in his dreams.   I think what you are saying is that Jaime used the threat of burning the city as an excuse for personal vengeance and I don't see it that way at all.  I don't think he did have a choice. 

Are you suggesting that Jaime could have taken some other action to protect the realm from the king?

[AlaskanSandman]

16 hours ago, The Sunland Lord said:

Jaime took an oath and he broke it. 

He should have protected his king and do as he was commanded.

Aerys told Jaime to deal with the rebels who took arms against their liege.

Instead, Jaime Lannister betrays his king and kills him. 

I think that Jaime should've put aside all he was and knew before he had the great and rare honour of becoming a member of the Kingsguard.

But, he decided that this oath didn't matter when it suited him. 

What's your opinion? 

 

He'd break one no matter what he did.

Jamie should have been protecting the king from him self and Jamie realizes it later. 

"If the king commands you to saddle his horse, saddle his horse. If the king commands you to kill you horse, come to me first." 

This is the lesson Jamie wishes he had knew then. Then his honor would still be intact.

[Varysblackfyre321]

31 minutes ago, LynnS said:

I knew this would draw you out of the weeds. 

i think that Jaime's confession to Brienne is the truest statement of his conscience and the events as they unfolded.  He may have decided that he could no longer wear the cloak of the KG and so I see that he is conflicted in switching his armor and continues to manifest that conflict in his dreams.   I think what you are saying is that Jaime used the threat of burning the city as an excuse for personal vengeance and I don't see it that way at all.  I don't think he did have a choice. 

Are you suggesting that Jaime could have taken some other action to protect the realm from the king?

Do you think Jamie would have a hard time in incapacitating Aerys? Jamie at 16 would be coming at least close to 6'0 ft, and was strong due to his daily training. Aerys was never the warrior type and health had declined considerably by the time of Robert's rebellion. Jamie being a fit spry and strong 16 teen year old male could  have easily restrained this deluded, and feeble man that Aerys had become. But, Jamie wanted vegence. The tale he's made of having to kill Aerys is one he's manufactured to give himself the sense of Martydom.

 

[Kandrax]

8 hours ago, The Sunland Lord said:

For you to tell us your opinion. 

I'm sure that no sane person would say that he shouldn't kill  Aerys ii. 

[The Sunland Lord]

17 hours ago, Curled Finger said:

You're right.   However, I know Jamie's thoughts on this.   I could not take my father's head at my king's command.  Perhaps Jamie was too young.  Read Jamie's chapters a few more times to see if you still feel this way.   So many oaths...

Jaime is, so far in the series, one of the super-privileged characters, both by the author and in the society he lives and works.

Impregnates his sister three times, participates in one of the biggest deceptions in the Seven Kingdoms, and has, no more and no less, killed the previous king he served. And yet, he stays unpunished by this society (for these crimes in specific). Seems like he is not just Tywin's golden boy, but the author's golden boy too.

Now why is this guy super-privileged? Is he in some special category which will serve some greater purpose, or, will only disappoint the readers at the end, we'll see. 

Mind you, the opening post deliberately contains a hard attitude towards Jaime. A good debate needs an opposition and various opinions. 

[The Sunland Lord]

9 minutes ago, Kandrax said:

I'm sure that no sane person would say that he shouldn't kill  Aerys ii. 

Ok, then, what do you say about this possible approach, provided by @Lord Varys?

Quote

If Jaime had cared about his vows, if he had wanted not to kill Aerys, he could have just not killed Aerys. It is not that this was necessary to save anyone. Rossart was taken care of. Jaime could have gone back into the throne room to distract Aerys, telling him the blood was indeed Tywin's (or the blood of some Lannister soldiers he had killed and that he had to take Aerys to safety now). That could have prevented him long enough from sending some other messenger to implement the wildfire plan. All he needed to do to ensure that Aerys remained harmless was giving him the impression Rossart was doing what he commanded him to do.

He could also have arrested, knocked out, or injured the king, handing him over to Tywin's men as soon as they arrived - and they apparently stormed in the throne room merely second or at best 1-2 minutes after Jaime had cut Aerys' throat. Else they wouldn't have found him there since Jaime himself admits that he actually intended to sneak out the room, essentially making Aerys' death as much a mystery as Maegor's. That didn't work out because he was caught red-handed.

 

[Kandrax]

2 minutes ago, The Sunland Lord said:

Ok, then, what do you say about this possible approach, provided by @Lord Varys?

 

Had he injured king, he would still be oathbreaker.

[The Sunland Lord]

11 minutes ago, Kandrax said:

Had he injured king, he would still be oathbreaker.

A man can knock out another person if he needs to save him from drowning while in water, if the person being in danger can not swim. How is letting this person die a better option? 

Basically, Jaime could have took the best possible care for his king, but he didn't. Keeping him alive still has some hope in it- and keeping Jaime's vows. 

[Kandrax]

5 minutes ago, The Sunland Lord said:

A man can knock out another person if he needs to save him from drowning while in water, if the person being in danger can not swim. How is letting this person die a better option? 

Basically, Jaime could have took the best possible care for his king, but he didn't. Keeping him alive still has some hope in it- and keeping Jaime's vows. 

In this case he wasn't saving his life.

[The Sunland Lord]

1 minute ago, Kandrax said:

In this case he wasn't saving his life.

Exactly. He decided to kill him instead.

[Lollygag]

Expanding on the fact that oaths are two-way things…

I’m not sure we know exactly what happens when a King is crowned unless I’m forgetting something. But one of the King’s titles (and implied sworn duty) is Protector of the Realm. If one views protecting the realm as a sworn duty of the king, then Aerys was in gross violation.

I think it’s interesting that Stannis makes Davos swear both to him and to the people. Is Stannis using an oath he was already familiar with? Are the KG sworn to both the king and the people? If so it would mirror what has happened to the NW: the institution came to have priority over the people when the two oaths came into conflict.

Stannis’ defending and saving the realm later becomes the basis of his claim taking priority over being Robert’s heir.

 

ASOS Davos IV

"And do you swear to serve me loyally all your days, to give me honest counsel and swift obedience, to defend my rights and my realm against all foes in battles great and small, to protect my people and punish my enemies?"

 

ASOS Davos VI

"Four of my sons died for you on the Blackwater. I might have died myself. You have my loyalty, always." Davos Seaworth had thought long and hard about the words he said next; he knew his life depended on them. "Your Grace, you made me swear to give you honest counsel and swift obedience, to defend your realm against your foes, to protect your people. Is not Edric Storm one of your people? One of those I swore to protect? I kept my oath. How could that be treason?"

ADWD Davos III

"Robb Stark was my liege lord," said Lord Wyman. "Who is this man Stannis? Why does he trouble us? He never felt the need to journey north before, as best I can recall. Yet he turns up now, a beaten cur with his helm in his hand, begging for alms."

"He came to save the realm, my lord," Davos insisted. "To defend your lands against the ironborn and the wildlings."

 

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, LynnS said:

 i think that Jaime's confession to Brienne is the truest statement of his conscience and the events as they unfolded.  He may have decided that he could no longer wear the cloak of the KG and so I see that he is conflicted in switching his armor and continues to manifest that conflict in his dreams.   I think what you are saying is that Jaime used the threat of burning the city as an excuse for personal vengeance and I don't see it that way at all.  I don't think he did have a choice. 

You have always a choice. Jaime killed Aerys because he wanted to kill Aerys. It was not necessary to save anyone.

Again, he could have distracted the king, he could have arrested him, he could have knocked him, or he could have injured him. He didn't have to kill him. He wanted to kill him. If he hadn't wanted to kill he wouldn't have killed him. It is that easy. This wasn't self-defense or anything of that sort.

 nor does Jaime actually ever say in word or thought that he killed the man because he wanted to save people. He implies that he was disgusted and abhorred by the wildfire plan to a very high degree - although to the degree that he talked to Rhaegar about that - but there is no textual evidence that he was thinking or caring about the lives of the Kingslanders in all that. The Kingslanders were butchered by Tywin's men.

What triggered his decision to kill Rossart and Aerys was the command to kill Tywin. It is understandable that this might cause him to break but if that was necessary - and it was necessary - for him to turn against Aerys then he wasn't really a hero or even a good man. If Jaime wanted to save anyone by killing Rossart and Aerys it is Tywin and Tywin's men. They were the ones he cared about, not the Kingslanders. And that makes him more a selfish guy, choosing his daddy over his king, which is understandable and all, but hardly heroic.

If Jaime had killed Aerys at a point where his death hadn't been certain yet - before the Trident perhaps, or even before the Sack - then we could perhaps believe his main motivation may have been the wildfire plan.

Jaime also chose to serve a cruel madman as Kingsguard when he knew what this man was. He knew, from his father as well as from the man's behavior at Harrenhal. You can very much compare him to a guy volunteering to serve Hitler as a bodyguard while it was already crystal clear what kind of a man Hitler was. Such men do not deserve pity or compassion.

2 hours ago, LynnS said:

Are you suggesting that Jaime could have taken some other action to protect the realm from the king?

Sure. See above. And he isn't protecting 'the realm'. He is at best protecting the population of the KL which is hardly the Realm. But his main motivation seems to have been to protect daddy and his Westermen friends. That is also what the golden armor and the golden sword symbolize. They represent the Lannisters of Casterly Rock, not some high principles of chivalry or knightly virtues.

1 hour ago, Kandrax said:

Had he injured king, he would still be oathbreaker.

Sure, and I never doubted that. But he would never have become 'the Kingslayer'. He would have never been hated the way he was if it had fallen to Tywin or Robert to kill Aerys. Just think of the two Kingsguard who defected from Maegor the Cruel to Jaehaerys I. They should have been executed for betraying their king, too, but I honestly doubt that did happen.

Jaime could have prevented Aerys from implementing the wildfire plan without killing him. Knocking him out or arresting him would have been treason, too, but treason easier forgivable than what he actually did. And simply distracting Aerys or deliberately leading him towards the Lannister men and then standing aside when they were arresting him might not have been seen as treason at all, while accomplishing pretty much the same goal.

If you ask yourself why a man killed another man then the excuse 'I had no other choice' only counts if there was really no other choice. Which is clearly not the case in this case.

40 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

I’m not sure we know exactly what happens when a King is crowned unless I’m forgetting something. But one of the King’s titles (and implied sworn duty) is Protector of the Realm. If one views protecting the realm as a sworn duty of the king, then Aerys was in gross violation.

A king isn't sworn in. He is simply crowned and anointed. The title of 'Protector of the Realm' refers to the king's supreme authority over the military forces in the Seven Kingdoms. It has nothing to do with any stipulated duties of the king to protect his people - and even if it did, it would fall to the king to interpret what 'protection' means in that context.

Your line of argument would work in a constitutional monarchy. There the king cannot do whatever he wants and there are clear legal boundaries to his power. But such things do not exist in the Seven Kingdoms.

Even if consider the fact that the power of the Targaryen kings was not absolute in reality (due to lack of infrastructure, etc.) then we also have to keep in mind that there are no legal boundaries to the power of a king. There are no indications whatsoever that Maegor the Cruel or Aerys II broke any laws when they extinguished the Harroways or Darklyns/Hollards, respectively. It was ugly business and all, causing people to fear for their own lives should they ever displease the king, and increasing the possibility of uprisings and rebellions, but there is no indication that the lords could cite any laws, vows, etc. said kings may have broken by doing this kind of stuff.

[Knight Of Winter]

1 hour ago, The Sunland Lord said:

Basically, Jaime could have took the best possible care for his king, but he didn't. Keeping him alive still has some hope in it- and keeping Jaime's vows. 

Jaime's first and foremost vow is to protect the king, the second being to obey him. Knocking our or arresting Aerys would be a direct contradiction of these two. Jaime would be an oathbreaker still. Besides, can one really make a moral difference between watching the "dirty" deed happen calmly (handing Aerys to Lannister soldiers) and doing the deed yourself (personally killing Aerys)? I think there is none. If the deed is good, needed or necessary, then it must be done by someone (so why not Jaime?). If the deed is bad, it should be stopped instead of allowing it to happen.

As to what Jaime should have done, I believe situation to be quite clear. Saving bazillion of lives is infinitely more important than obeying a madman, oath or not? Marya the baker, Jon the smith, Lemmy the orphan boy and countless others owe their lives to the fact that one knight had the courage to do the right thing despite the price it cost him. What possible oath is worth that? In fact, entire situation just serves to highlight the flawed concept of Westerosi honour, where flawlessly obeying random guy (who happens to have a crown on his head) is seen as highest form of virtue. Despite the fact that said guy might be corrupt, insane or outright vile.

[Dorian Martell's son]

19 hours ago, The Sunland Lord said:

Jaime took an oath and he broke it. 

He should have protected his king and do as he was commanded.

Aerys told Jaime to deal with the rebels who took arms against their liege.

Instead, Jaime Lannister betrays his king and kills him. 

I think that Jaime should've put aside all he was and knew before he had the great and rare honour of becoming a member of the Kingsguard.

But, he decided that this oath didn't matter when it suited him. 

What's your opinion? 

 

No shit. That is the whole point of his character arc and redemption. In other news, Ned is poor at politics and Littlefinger is trying to manipulate people 

[Trigger Warning]

I don't really understand the OP, obviously Jaime broke his oath, he even says one oath is basically always conflicting with another. Are we saying that breaking an oath is inherently morally wrong? Cough cough... 

"I swear to God this sacred oath that to the Leader of the German Empire and people, Adolf Hitler, supreme commander of the armed forces, I shall render unconditional obedience and that as a brave soldier I shall at all times be prepared to give my life for this oath."
 

 

[Kandrax]

Are Kingsguards obliged to obey king even if he orders them to commit sins?

[Varysblackfyre321]

5 minutes ago, Kandrax said:

Are Kingsguards obliged to obey king even if he orders them to commit sins?

Yes. It is not their place to question-they obey.

[The Sunland Lord]

1 hour ago, Trigger Warning said:

I don't really understand the OP

A starting point. 

Quote

Mind you, the opening post deliberately contains a hard attitude towards Jaime. A good debate needs an opposition and various opinions. 

 

[Kandrax]

33 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yes. It is not their place to question-they obey.

Even if he orders them to kill their kin or break guest right?

[The Sunland Lord]

12 hours ago, elder brother jonothor dar said:

I think your question comes down to what would he have done if the mad king was not mad.

If the King was not planning to burn the city and asked for Tywins head what would he do?

As has been pointed out he has broken several knightly vowes in his time protecting the King, he brakes even more and unthinkable ones by killing his King.  This is justified by the lives of everyone in KL.

We will never know but would his choice of Tywin above the King be the same if there where no innocent lives at stake?

I am quite certain that he would've done the same. It wouldn't make a difference, nor it would even make it harder or easier.

Understandable, of course.