What would Barristan have done about the wildfire?

[kissdbyfire]

7 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Considering what he does later to Hizdahr I doubt that's the case. That thing was treason, plain and simple. And he had not even be coerced or forced to do that.

It’s called character development. Selmy has finally learned that he has to make his own choices and not just blindly stick to vows. Words are wind, it’s one’s actions that matter. 

[Lord Varys]

3 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

It’s called character development. Selmy has finally learned that he has to make his own choices and not just blindly stick to vows. Words are wind, it’s one’s actions that matter. 

If he learned something, he clearly learned nothing from the wildfire thing because he never references that in his POV - not even when he regrets saving Aerys II from the Darklyns. What opened his eyes was his treatment by Cersei and Joffrey, not what he witnessed at KL.

It is also noteworthy that his regret for not defeating Rhaegar at Harrenhal revolve around both him not being able to crown Ashara - which he would have liked to do - as well as stopping the eventual war this way.

But it seems clear to me that a man like Selmy would have never stood by while Aerys II would have burned hundreds of thousands of people in a pointless gesture. This people were definitely innocents, whereas those people the king burned were at least accused or convicted traitors. That's the sphere where people like him - like anyone in Westeros serving a king or lord - are accustomed to obey. Nobody intervened when Robb insisted to execute Rickard Karstark and botched the beheading. Kings can do such things.

However, burning entire cities, cities where hundreds of thousands of people live, is not within the normal framework where kings and lords have a right to demand or expect blind obedience.

It is common mistake to assume Aerys II's atrocities before the wildfire plan were particularly cruel or exceptional. We are never given numbers, but chances are higher that he burned fewer people alive than Aegon II did after he retook KL or even fewer than Dany crucified after taking Meereen (and we don't even know how many of the people he had executed were innocent - some were, others may have been very much guilty).

The problem with Jaime is that he is the kind of opportunistic coward who picks up a stone and throw it at the bully when he has already been beaten up. He turned against his king when his daddy had come to put him down, he made no effort stop any of the atrocities Aerys II actually did - and is thus not better than any of his sworn brothers. Jaime would have proven his worth had he defied/turned against his king when there was only a small or no chance at all that he could get away with it. But he didn't do that, did he?

[frenin]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Burning traitors are not 'the greatest atrocities' (we get things in that series that are much, much worse), nor is there any indication that any of Jaime's sworn brothers watched things like that without blinking.

What traitors did he burn?? Because Rickard Stark wasn't charged with any crime, not is treason give uo your position as Hand of the King, burning innocent men alive is a great atrocitie, just as stood by and watch a complete mass murder in Duskendale.

What about brutally raping his wife and say things like shit happens??

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

As I see it, Gerold and the others did not defend Aerys II or his actions but rather did everything they could to prevent Jaime from getting himself killed by questioning or challenging their king.

 

No one ever claimed that they approved it, they just didn't want to take any part in that, because "theur duty is to guard the king not judge him" that's why they are putting in Jaime's mind, they are literally saying, watch and shut up and do not dare thinking.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

 The point to claim they approved is when they say so, not when you feel like it.

 

Again, i didn't say they approved it, i said they allowed it and they were more concerned about not staining their cloak and keeping Aerys on his Throne and sending false brothers to the seven hell than actually prevent Aerys from being a monster.

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

That's silly. Jaime is the son of the Hand who visited his father and sister at court when he decided to join the KG. He knows who Aerys II was and what he was. He was a moron doing what he did.

If you volunteer to serve Hitler in 1944 I also don't take pity on you. I think you did what you wanted to do and should get your act together and suffer the consequences - which Jaime never did, actually.

Jaime would not have talked to his dad, but also to his father's guardsmen, his retainers at court, servants, men-at-arms, cooks, stable boys, messengers, maester, you name - all the people who moved back and forth between KL and CR for the last decade.

Not to mention that he would have seen the king during his visit, and during the visits before that.

And yet you don't have a prove do you, there is nowhere in the text that says he was aware of what was going on in KL,  teen Jaime's attention is on Cersei and combat and anything related to combat,  Jaime (and Cersei for that matter) don't remember Aerys doing cruel crazy things during his visits, Cersei just remembers him being an ass.

If you don't have a prove that Jaime knew what kind of man he was serving, don't say Jaime knew what kind of man he was serving.

 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Considering what he does later to Hizdahr I doubt that's the case. That thing was treason, plain and simple. And he had not even be coerced or forced to do that.

Quote

That's an action he takes precisely because he feels remorse about not doing shit with Aerys but keeping his vows, Barri B just as Jaime changed after Aerys and Robert and both of them do things that they never would've dine 20 years before.

 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

That's something Jaime would say to justify himself, not something that's an objective fact. He also tells us the wolf cannot judge the lion and other such crap, when he doesn't even get the reason why Ned condemns him.

10 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

No?? Unless Jaime is deliberately lying, that's an objective fact, from Duskendale to the ToJ, his sworn brothers are more concerned of not staining that white cloack, more than anyone couldn't see them doing it because i bet all of them hypocrites betrayed Aerys by the time of the ToJ  incident, that actually.

Gerold telling him that he must not judge the king after said king had gruesomely executed innocent people, Jonothor Darry saying that they didn't swear to protect Rhaella from Aerys. That's people who rather not staining their honor, Barri B say that as much, than doing the right thing, while also discouraging Jaime from act, because had he ever done that, they'd be the first in put him down.

You're painting a dichotomy that is not really there, Jaime being a self centered asshole don't change that his sworn brothers were a buch of hypocrites.

 

Quote

If he learned something, he clearly learned nothing from the wildfire thing because he never references that in his POV - not even when he regrets saving Aerys II from the Darklyns. What opened his eyes was his treatment by Cersei and Joffrey, not what he witnessed at KL.

Barri B couldn't know about the wildfire plot, Jaime says that as much, the only reason he knew about th plot is because Aerys wanted to have him extremely close and when that plot started, neither Barri B nor Darry were at KL, they were sent to the Riverlands for JonCon's army.

Barri B didn't understand he must act as he sees fit because of Cersei and Joffrey, he only understands there that he's fighting "for the wrong cause".

 

Quote

But it seems clear to me that a man like Selmy would have never stood by while Aerys II would have burned hundreds of thousands of people in a pointless gesture. This people were definitely innocents, whereas those people the king burned were at least accused or convicted traitors. That's the sphere where people like him - like anyone in Westeros serving a king or lord - are accustomed to obey. Nobody intervened when Robb insisted to execute Rickard Karstark and botched the beheading. Kings can do such things.

That's a very convenient loophole to hide behind, only Brandon and his companions were ever accused of treason, their parents weren't, he just felt like it, he didn't accuse Robert and Ned of treason eithre, he just wanted their heads.

 

Quote

It is common mistake to assume Aerys II's atrocities before the wildfire plan were particularly cruel or exceptional. We are never given numbers, but chances are higher that he burned fewer people alive than Aegon II did after he retook KL or even fewer than Dany crucified after taking Meereen (and we don't even know how many of the people he had executed were innocent - some were, others may have been very much guilty).

If what he did to the Starks and co wasn't particularly cruel or exceptional, there would be no reason for the Whitebull's peptalk, Gerold remembered Jaime his vows because he knew Aerys had crossed the line.

 

 

Quote

 The problem with Jaime is that he is the kind of opportunistic coward who picks up a stone and throw it at the bully when he has already been beaten up. He turned against his king when his daddy had come to put him down, he made no effort stop any of the atrocities Aerys II actually did - and is thus not better than any of his sworn brothers. Jaime would have proven his worth had he defied/turned against his king when there was only a small or no chance at all that he could get away with it. But he didn't do that, did he?

 

Jaime did not kill Aerys out of kindness, on that much we agree, but Jaime couldn't kill Aerys until someone had come to take the city, before that Jaime was guarded very closely and before the Trident, Barri B and Jonothor Darry were there to stop him.

Jaime only acts when his daddy came, because is because his daddy came that Aerys finally decides to torch the city.

We know that Jaime wanted to intervene or that he had second thoughts, we know what his sworn brothers told him.

 

@Alyn Oakenfist

Ned is no hypocrite about that matter and Jaime knows that as much, Jaime resents both Robert and Ned because they had the high ground during the Robellion, highground that he thinks he deserves.

Ned didn't have swear nothing to Aerys,he could kill him, Jaime had sworn somethings to the man, he therefore couldn't.

[BalerionTheCat]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Considering what he does later to Hizdahr I doubt that's the case. That thing was treason, plain and simple.

Daenerys is his queen. Not Hizdahr. He believes he attempted to kill her and the dragons.

Quote

If King Hizdahr was innocent, what they did this day would be treason. But how could he be innocent? Selmy had heard him urging Daenerys to taste the poisoned locusts, shouting at his men to slay the dragon. If we do not act, Hizdahr will kill the dragons and open the gates to the queen’s enemies. We have no choice in this. Yet no matter how he turned and twisted this, the old knight could find no honor in it.

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

And as I laid out above, Jaime had dozens of choices allowing him to stop the wildfire plan while not killing the king.

Maybe Jaime could have played mummer with Aerys. But he is obviously not for subtleties. Without Pycelle, the city would have stood longer and Aerys got his orders. He killed one man to improve the chances of the others. But I agree, it pleased him to kill the mad king.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

46 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That's something Jaime would say to justify himself, not something that's an objective fact. He also tells us the wolf cannot judge the lion and other such crap, when he doesn't even get the reason why Ned condemns him.

Well when he talked about Ned judging him he is referring to the fact that Ned is an absolute hypocrite. Ned wanted to kill the Mad King (and Jaime had way better reason to do it) and broke his vow to obey the king yet he judged Jaime as ,,Kingslayer" and ,,Man with shit for honor" without even bothering to find out why he did it.

 

53 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

We have to differentiate between Jaime stopping Rossart/the wildfire plan and him killing Aerys II. Those are not the same actions. They are distinctly different. I agree that stopping the plan was in part motivated by him thinking about other people, although I doubt he gave a fig about the Kingslanders his father's men were just butchering in the streets - I think his reason to stop Rossart were motivated by his desire to save his father and his friends and fellow Westermen from the fire (and, by extension, also himself, of course).

Once Rossart is dead and the wildfire plan effectively stopped Jaime goes into the throne room to gloat. He tells Aerys II what he has done, watches how the man pisses himself in fear, and then he murders him in cold blood. That's not the deed of a man acting in self-defense or the act of a man who tries to save others. It is a cold-blooded murder later retold in a manner to Brienne that makes him look better than he actually is.

Killing Rossart was clearly motivated by his desire to save everybody in KL. A sack is one thing, the wildfire was more like detonating a nuclear bomb in the city. As for killing the Mad King I think he told the truth (he never gave a shit after that about anybody else so why lie) when he said he did it out of what felt like justice to him (and let's face it, it was). He had started being a knight out of incredibly noble ideals and when he joined the Kingsguard he must have been incredibly proud (and happy because he could be with Cersei). And then slowly that was all eroded inside him. When Aerys ordered him to kill his father and Rossart to light the wildfire it was too much for him. All that resentment and hate came out all at once and he decided to bring Aerys to his justice. I think in that moment everything came into account, Aerys raping his wife, killing the last man who tried to reason with him, killing the Starks, Aerys ordering him to kill his father and finally Aerys wanting to burn KL. So yeah I believe him that he wanted to finally bring Aerys to (his) justice.

[Lord Varys]

34 minutes ago, frenin said:

What traitors did he burn?? Because Rickard Stark wasn't charged with any crime, not is treason give uo your position as Hand of the King, burning innocent men alive is a great atrocitie, just as stood by and watch a complete mass murder in Duskendale.

The Darklyns and Hollards also stood by and did nothing when Lord Darkyn betrayed and arrested his king.

The idea that Rickard and Brandon being (sort of) innocent doesn't mean the other people Aerys II executed were (aside from those people he blamed for the deaths of his children earlier on - they were innocent, too).

34 minutes ago, frenin said:

What about brutally raping his wife and say things like shit happens??

Marital rape is no crime in Westeros. Not only Kingsguard sworn to obey wouldn't have been allowed to interfere when a nobleman or king had his ways with his lawfully married wife. Doesn't mean this wasn't a horrible thing to witness - but the world the author created didn't make that thing a crime.

34 minutes ago, frenin said:

No one ever claimed that they approved it, they just didn't want to take any part in that, because "theur duty is to guard the king not judge him" that's why they are putting in Jaime's mind, they are literally saying, watch and shut up and do not dare thinking.

Sure, and that's what a Kingsguard should do. They are sworn to obey, not to judge the king. You don't hire bodyguards to tell you what to do, no?

Judging the king as a Kingsguard usually gets the Kingsguard killed, not the king. That's what they were trying to teach Jaime.

34 minutes ago, frenin said:

Again, i didn't say they approved it, i said they allowed it and they were more concerned about not staining their cloak and keeping Aerys on his Throne and sending false brothers to the seven hell than actually prevent Aerys from being a monster.

They had no right to prevent their king from being a monster. Such are the rules of the world they live in. There is no way to be a good Kingsguard if the king you serve are evil.

34 minutes ago, frenin said:

And yet you don't have a prove do you, there is nowhere in the text that says he was aware of what was going on in KL,  teen Jaime's attention is on Cersei and combat and anything related to combat,  Jaime (and Cersei for that matter) don't remember Aerys doing cruel crazy things during his visits, Cersei just remembers him being an ass.

If you don't have a prove that Jaime knew what kind of man he was serving, don't say Jaime knew what kind of man he was serving.

There are things we can reasoably assume people like Jaime would know. It makes no sense to assume Jaime Lannister was ignorant of the fact that the so-called Mad King had been burning people and refused to shave and cut his nails since Duskendale.

That's like assume Robb Stark not knowing who Robert Baratheon was married to.

34 minutes ago, frenin said:

No?? Unless Jaime is deliberately lying, that's an objective fact, from Duskendale to the ToJ, his sworn brothers are more concerned of not staining that white cloack, more than anyone couldn't see them doing it because i bet all of them hypocrites betrayed Aerys by the time of the ToJ  incident, that actually.

Gerold telling him that he must not judge the king after said king had gruesomely executed innocent people, Jonothor Darry saying that they didn't swear to protect Rhaella from Aerys. That's people who rather not staining their honor, Barri B say that as much, than doing the right thing, while also discouraging Jaime from act, because had he ever done that, they'd be the first in put him down.

You're painting a dichotomy that is not really there, Jaime being a self centered asshole don't change that his sworn brothers were a buch of hy

Jaime just gives his own twisted version of events, his memories, and his interpretations. The man is very self-involved and not exactly a good observer or judge of character.

38 minutes ago, BalerionTheCat said:

Daenerys is his queen. Not Hizdahr. He believes he attempted to kill her and the dragons.

He has at best circumstantial evidence - but the point I was trying to make is that it seems a stretch to me that Barristan changed from 'yes-man' to a plotter staging a coup just because of his experiences in-between. I think he had the potential to do something like that all the time.

38 minutes ago, BalerionTheCat said:

Maybe Jaime could have played mummer with Aerys. But he is obviously not for subtleties. Without Pycelle, the city would have stood longer and Aerys got his orders. He killed one man to improve the chances of the others. But I agree, it pleased him to kill the mad king.

The murder didn't contribute to saving anyone. And as I pointed out, Jaime even failed to double-check whether Aerys II had sent out a spare for Rossart in case the men were cut down by Tywin's men on the way to the alchemists. Jaime actually endangered the city more, both by killing Aerys II and by later killing the other involved alchemists because that caused the wildfire to be lost in the city, meaning it could ripen to eventually explode on its own (although we have to keep in mind that he wouldn't have known that - at least not until he talked to the alchemists he killed).

And speaking of that - the fact that Selmy gives no indication at all that he knew about the wildfire stores in the city, nor that he even cares about the fact that they occasionally find some hidden wildfire strongly implies he did not know. Any sane man knowing would have tried to tell Robert that they were sitting on a ticking time bomb, no? Even if you don't know about the dangerous qualities of wildfire, you do know that a fire in the city igniting hidden wildfire would lead to a catastrophe.

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Well when he talked about Ned judging him he is referring to the fact that Ned is an absolute hypocrite. Ned wanted to kill the Mad King (and Jaime had way better reason to do it) and broke his vow to obey the king yet he judged Jaime as ,,Kingslayer" and ,,Man with shit for honor" without even bothering to find out why he did it.

Jaime doesn't want to understand what Ned's issue is - in part, because his own narcissism doesn't allow him to accept that there are better men than he is. Jaime only does what he wants, and he judges everything by his own standards - which do, in part, align with those of normal people, but there are many aspects to those that do not.

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Killing Rossart was clearly motivated by his desire to save everybody in KL. A sack is one thing, the wildfire was more like detonating a nuclear bomb in the city.

No, it would have caused horrible burns at various points in the city, but wildfire doesn't really explode. Those are the show images. Depending on the places where it was stored it might be all people in the city would have still died if Aerys II had stored some wildfire in the gatehouses of the seven gates - then very few people would have been able to flee the city even after they had realized that it was burning.

I agree that he wanted to save some people - but whether the innocent Kingslanders or the not-so-innocent (due to the fact that they were traitors) Westermen were the ones Jaime wanted to save we don't yet know. Considering he chose to move at the point he did and not, say, a week earlier (he could have killed Aerys II in his sleep, say, to then hunt down Rossart and the other alchemists) I'd say that the deciding factors were the threat to the life of his father and the threat to the Westermen he grew up with.

Jaime is not a champion of the common people, he never was.

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

As for killing the Mad King I think he told the truth (he never gave a shit after that about anybody else so why lie) when he said he did it out of what felt like justice to him (and let's face it, it was). He had started being a knight out of incredibly noble ideals and when he joined the Kingsguard he must have been incredibly proud (and happy because he could be with Cersei). And then slowly that was all eroded inside him. When Aerys ordered him to kill his father and Rossart to light the wildfire it was too much for him. All that resentment and hate came out all at once and he decided to bring Aerys to his justice. I think in that moment everything came into account, Aerys raping his wife, killing the last man who tried to reason with him, killing the Starks, Aerys ordering him to kill his father and finally Aerys wanting to burn KL. So yeah I believe him that he wanted to finally bring Aerys to (his) justice.

But that wasn't justice. This was murder. He killed a defenseless man in cold blood. Justice looks different, even in Westeros. And there is definitely an underlying persumption there - that a man like Jaime, a Kingsguard, can judge his king.

Jaime did that because he wanted to. Because he wanted payback for the shit he had to do for this guy. And this is certainly understandable on a surface level - but as I said and repeat he knew what he was signing up for. He was volunteering for Hitler in 1944. He has no excuse.

The right to punish the Mad King belonged to the men who rose up in rebellion against him, who lost friends and family fighting him, not to a guy who aided, abetted, served, and protected this guy and only decided to jump ship in the last possible moment.

[frenin]

13 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The Darklyns and Hollards also stood by and did nothing when Lord Darkyn betrayed and arrested his king.

The idea that Rickard and Brandon being (sort of) innocent doesn't mean the other people Aerys II executed were (aside from those people he blamed for the deaths of his children earlier on - they were innocent, too).

Yeah, you can call them bad people, killing even the children is an atrocity.

Rickard and the other parents who went to KL, were innocents, not sort of, no one accused them of anything and they were there to ransom their kids, Chelsted was burned for resigning, i'm not even going to touch those he executed when the children paranoia invaded him because well, no one cares about them in lore.

That's not him kill guilty people, that's just Aerys randomly killing and that's them allowing it.

 

 

21 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Marital rape is no crime in Westeros. Not only Kingsguard sworn to obey wouldn't have been allowed to interfere when a nobleman or king had his ways with his lawfully married wife. Doesn't mean this wasn't a horrible thing to witness - but the world the author created didn't make that thing a crime.

Quote

It didn't make it not horrible, they know it's wrong, they just can't bring themselves to act. 

 

 

22 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, and that's what a Kingsguard should do. They are sworn to obey, not to judge the king. You don't hire bodyguards to tell you what to do, no?

 Judging the king as a Kingsguard usually gets the Kingsguard killed, not the king. That's what they were trying to teach Jaime.

They had no right to prevent their king from being a monster. Such are the rules of the world they live in. There is no way to be a good Kingsguard if the king you serve are evil.

 

Then what are you exactly arguing?? They wouldn't dare touching Aerys because as you yourself claims, they had no right to prevent their king from being a monster, they would stood by with everything Aerys might do there, they can't speak against that, they can't touch Aerys and they can't judge Aerys.

Those KG, from Tommen's to Jaeharys' are all mindless killing machines, people want  them as mindless killing machines, encourage them to be mindless killing machines and when one of their own is not a mindless killing machine they make it clear he's got to be a mindless killing machine, so why do you think that when things come to shove... they wouldn't act like you know, mindless killing machines?? If they've never willingly chosen the path of integrity over the path of honor, why King's Landing should be any different?? On what basis??

Any decent and honorable KG would've done his duty and would've protected Aerys while the man burn them all, from the shining Barri B and  Arthur D and the Dragonknight with overrated  the noble Ser Ryam to Meryn Trant, perhaps the cravens like Boros or those totally corrupt like Cole would've acted diferently.

 

 

33 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

There are things we can reasoably assume people like Jaime would know. It makes no sense to assume Jaime Lannister was ignorant of the fact that the so-called Mad King had been burning people and refused to shave and cut his nails since Duskendale.

That's like assume Robb Stark not knowing who Robert Baratheon was married to.

Ned was Robert best friend and he didn't have a clue about how much he had changed, Jaime is a very self involved teen with zero interest in politics.

Robb would know that, that's basic history, but Robb would not have to know  whois Robert's master of laws

 

 

36 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Jaime just gives his own twisted version of events, his memories, and his interpretations. The man is very self-involved and not exactly a good observer or judge of character.

2 hours ago, BalerionTheCat said:

 

That was the White Bull, loyal to the end and a better man than me, all agree."

Jaime is bitter at the KG and he has very sound reasons to,  regardless of you think about Jaime, and i agree on many of your points, there is no doubt that the white cloaks and his alledged brothers had a very toxic influence on him, even if you want to think that everything Jaime says us a lie, those two quotes tell us all we need to know about them.

 

"You swore a vow to guard the king, not to judge him."

When you donned that cloak, you promised to obey.

Jaime: We are sworn to protect her as well.
Jonothor: We are, but not from him.

Barristan saying that he could not be blamed about not acting with Aerys, he had swore vows.

Those men are as hypocrites as Jaime paints them, that doesn't mean Jaime is not a hypocrite who uses Aerys as the loophole to hide behind just as his sworn brothers hid behind those oaths.

 

[Alyn Oakenfist]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Jaime doesn't want to understand what Ned's issue is - in part, because his own narcissism doesn't allow him to accept that there are better men than he is. Jaime only does what he wants, and he judges everything by his own standards - which do, in part, align with those of normal people, but there are many aspects to those that do not.

Okay please explain cause it seems you are just projecting a negative opinion of Jaime. What is Ned's issue besides hypocrisy. Breaking his vow? Ned did the same by rebelling. Killing Aerys? Ned sure wanted to do it? Hell Jaime had way more and better reason for killing the King then Ned. Jaime saved a city, Ned wanted to do it out of vengeance.

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

But that wasn't justice. This was murder. He killed a defenseless man in cold blood. Justice looks different, even in Westeros. And there is definitely an underlying persumption there - that a man like Jaime, a Kingsguard, can judge his king.

Jaime did that because he wanted to. Because he wanted payback for the shit he had to do for this guy. And this is certainly understandable on a surface level - but as I said and repeat he knew what he was signing up for. He was volunteering for Hitler in 1944. He has no excuse.

No he wasn't volunteering for Hitler in 1944. You have to remember Aerys's insanity didn't became known until the Tourney of Harrenhal. Jaime saw the Kingsguard as the fulfillment of his greatest dreams of both chivalry and Cersei. It was only later that he realized what he had gotten himself into. And pay attention I said giving the Mad King his justice. And no it wasn't murder it was justice. Aerys truly and 100% deserved what he got. 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The right to punish the Mad King belonged to the men who rose up in rebellion against him, who lost friends and family fighting him, not to a guy who aided, abetted, served, and protected this guy and only decided to jump ship in the last possible moment.

Please explain to me how Jaime aided the Mad King. He was a glorified hostage for all his stay in the Kingsguard. He never even had a chance to protect Aerys. And about jumping ship at the last moment, he cared enough for his vows initially. It was Aerys's threat to kill all of KL as well as his father (weird Ned revenging his father is seen as noble and just while Jaime acting to protect his still living father is seen as treasonous and cowardice) that pushed him over the edge and made him contemplate on which vows are more important protect your family and the innocent or obey the king. And seeing as he was breaking his vow to obey the king he didn't really care if he went one step beyond. It was justice long overdue in his eyes (and to be fair he was right) and so he appointed himself judge, jury and executioner, and finally did what he felt he should have done during all of Aerys's atrocities.

[Arthur Peres]

6 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Okay please explain cause it seems you are just projecting a negative opinion of Jaime. What is Ned's issue besides hypocrisy. Breaking his vow? Ned did the same by rebelling. Killing Aerys? Ned sure wanted to do it? Hell Jaime had way more and better reason for killing the King then Ned. Jaime saved a city, Ned wanted to do it out of vengeance.

 

Ned didn't swear a oath to protect Aerys with his life, Jaime did.

Ned would kill Aerys after having his father and brother mudered at a mocking trial, and he himself being targeted for no reason, if anyone has a fair reason for killing Aerys is Ned. 

Jaime is a guy that swear a oath to protect the King, but once this King was defeated, and Jaime's father had control over the city, Jaime jumped the ship and killed the king. He is seeing as a self serving traitor in the eyes of Ned with all the reasons possible.

9 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

No he wasn't volunteering for Hitler in 1944. You have to remember Aerys's insanity didn't became known until the Tourney of Harrenhal. Jaime saw the Kingsguard as the fulfillment of his greatest dreams of both chivalry and Cersei.

Aerys crazyness already was know before the Defiance of Duskendale and made public and notorious after it. Jaime never intended to serve as a dutiful KG, from the very start his motivation was Cersei, his very intend was to break one of his vows. Jaime used the whitecloak to his own selfish ends.

[kissdbyfire]

3 minutes ago, Arthur Peres said:

Ned didn't swear a oath to protect Aerys with his life, Jaime did

Jaime swore his knightly vows to protect the weak and innocent before he swore his KG vows, and by killing Aerys the nutjob, he fulfilled the former and broke the latter. Considering what was at stake in each case, thousands of innocents versus a sadistic deranged psycho, it becomes very clear to me that Jaime did the right thing. 

[Arthur Peres]

1 minute ago, kissdbyfire said:

Jaime swore his knightly vows to protect the weak and innocent before he swore his KG vows, and by killing Aerys the nutjob, he fulfilled the former and broke the latter. Considering what was at stake in each case, thousands of innocents versus a sadistic deranged psycho, it becomes very clear to me that Jaime did the right thing. 

sure for once in his lifetime Jaime made one decent decision...

But Ned doens't know about the wildfire plot, and Jaime is such an asshole that think he is above explanation.

[Lord Varys]

7 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Okay please explain cause it seems you are just projecting a negative opinion of Jaime. What is Ned's issue besides hypocrisy. Breaking his vow? Ned did the same by rebelling. Killing Aerys? Ned sure wanted to do it? Hell Jaime had way more and better reason for killing the King then Ned. Jaime saved a city, Ned wanted to do it out of vengeance.

Jaime did break a Kingsguard vow, which is different than your run of the mill vow - which Ned never took, anyway, considering he was neither a knight nor a lord when he started his rebellion. It is that and his decision to murder him rather than, you know, openly and honestly defecting him and meeting him on the battlefield. And then there is the thing that he took the throne

7 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

No he wasn't volunteering for Hitler in 1944. You have to remember Aerys's insanity didn't became known until the Tourney of Harrenhal. Jaime saw the Kingsguard as the fulfillment of his greatest dreams of both chivalry and Cersei. It was only later that he realized what he had gotten himself into. And pay attention I said giving the Mad King his justice. And no it wasn't murder it was justice. Aerys truly and 100% deserved what he got. 

You can make that case for the broader public up to a point, but not for Tywin Lannister's son. That makes no sense. If Jaime didn't know what Aerys II was in 281 AC then nobody did. And there is not the tiniest indication that Jaime himself was surprised how the king looked like or how he behaved.

It would make a fine story if he had been as surprised as Jon finding out what was going on at court, but we really cannot spin it that way. And of course Jaime didn't sign up for a civil war/rebellion thing, but he knew the king he would be serving was mad, he knew he liked to burn people even then, and he knew he had cruel tendencies, having cut out the tongue of his father's captain of the guard.

This is not something he didn't know.

7 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Please explain to me how Jaime aided the Mad King. He was a glorified hostage for all his stay in the Kingsguard. He never even had a chance to protect Aerys. And about jumping ship at the last moment, he cared enough for his vows initially. It was Aerys's threat to kill all of KL as well as his father (weird Ned revenging his father is seen as noble and just while Jaime acting to protect his still living father is seen as treasonous and cowardice) that pushed him over the edge and made him contemplate on which vows are more important protect your family and the innocent or obey the king. And seeing as he was breaking his vow to obey the king he didn't really care if he went one step beyond. It was justice long overdue in his eyes (and to be fair he was right) and so he appointed himself judge, jury and executioner, and finally did what he felt he should have done during all of Aerys's atrocities.

Jaime stood by and served his king for three years. He took part in everything he did, played his small or big role in keeping the war going and in burning people alive. He was not just a statue at the wall, he was also a person the king would trust with various other assignments, especially later on. He was the guy in charge of the Red Keep's defenses when his father came knocking.

And, if you carefully read both Jaime's words to Brienne as well as his mental recollection of events that all we get is Jaime's personal disgust with the man which slowly build up his hatred and eventually triggered the murder. We don't even see Jaime being conflicted over vows - his duty to protect the king against the lives of the innocents. The latter is the story he wants Brienne to believe - it is a justification, the way murderers try explain (away) why they did commit murder, it is not that Jaime felt in any way conflicted over the issue.

Not to mention that the whole conflicting vows thing is actually a non-issue. Every KG is a knight, and no KG has the right to put his knightly vows before his KG vows - just as no black brother has the right to put his knightly vows before his NW vows (or his KG vows before his NW vows since there actually were KG who went to the Wall). There is a hierarchy there, and everybody knows it.

7 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Jaime swore his knightly vows to protect the weak and innocent before he swore his KG vows, and by killing Aerys the nutjob, he fulfilled the former and broke the latter. Considering what was at stake in each case, thousands of innocents versus a sadistic deranged psycho, it becomes very clear to me that Jaime did the right thing. 

Nothing was at stake. Not anymore. Jaime is the guy who kills the villain after he is already in custody. He didn't anything praiseworthy, not even anything that was necessary. He just liked to kill that guy. Just as he liked to kill Rossart who he also would not have to kill, by the way. He could also have knocked him out, had him arrested, perhaps he could have even convinced him not to burn down the city he lived. Might be he would have listened to that?

Buying Jaime's story is somewhat equivalent to buying the stories and explanations serial killers write from behind bars - they all have their reasons, but it is the facts of the case that tell us what happened, not the excuses of the guilty.

[HexMachina]

13 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Jaime swore his knightly vows to protect the weak and innocent before he swore his KG vows, and by killing Aerys the nutjob, he fulfilled the former and broke the latter. Considering what was at stake in each case, thousands of innocents versus a sadistic deranged psycho, it becomes very clear to me that Jaime did the right thing. 

Killing Aerys wasn’t necessary to protect the smallfolk though - he only needed to arrest/detain/incapacitate him. This is one of the (admittedly rare!) cases where vows arent in conflict

[nyser1]

He would have stood by and done nothing. It would be another one of his "regrets" during a flashback for the reader...where that be as he burns alive in KL, is beheaded by the rebels, or the same as in OTL.

[kissdbyfire]

8 minutes ago, HelenaExMachina said:

Killing Aerys wasn’t necessary to protect the smallfolk though - he only needed to arrest/detain/incapacitate him. This is one of the (admittedly rare!) cases where vows arent in conflict

The only first-hand account we have is Jaime’s, and he seems to think he did what he had to do. I am sure other things entered his decision-making, like all the horrible things he’d witnessed Aerys doing previously. I also think he didn’t stop to consider alternative ways of dealing w/ the situation, but I still think he did the right thing. 

Also worthy of mention is the fact that Aerys was dead regardless. The throne room was stormed moments after Jaime killed him, and I very much doubt Robert, Ned & co. would let him live. 

[Lord Varys]

51 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

The only first-hand account we have is Jaime’s, and he seems to think he did what he had to do. I am sure other things entered his decision-making, like all the horrible things he’d witnessed Aerys doing previously. I also think he didn’t stop to consider alternative ways of dealing w/ the situation, but I still think he did the right thing. 

Also worthy of mention is the fact that Aerys was dead regardless. The throne room was stormed moments after Jaime killed him, and I very much doubt Robert, Ned & co. would let him live. 

You would really make a fine judge or would be great fun at a jury. The defendent said he had a good reason for his action. Let's believe him.

Also, what's that about excusing murder when the victim is already good as dead? Is that even an argument? That's something some nurse who is killing dying people in a hospital can cite as an excuse, too... Or come to think of it, any murderer since we are all going to die last time I checked...

We do have the facts of the matter closely enough. Nowhere is it even mentioned in his own mental recollection that he killed the man to save anyone. He killed him because he wanted to punish him. And that's murder.

The issue is not whether the man deserved to be tried or punished, or whether he deserved to be killed, it is whether the guy who killed him had a reason other than bloodlust and desire to murder - and he did not.

Jaime is no hero, he is a little weasel who thanks to his father and his family could even get away with the most severe breaking of trust - and due to his narcissism and entitlement he still thinks he is treated unfairly.

Jaime is one of my favorite POVs - I like his stupidity, his naiveté, his narcissism, and his sense of humor. But he is a real piece of work. And the most irresponsible guy we ever meet in the series.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The defendent said he had a good reason for his action. Let's believe him.

He isn't talking about what Jaime said to Brienne. He's talking about what Jaime thought. Why the hell would he be lying in that position.

 

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You can make that case for the broader public up to a point, but not for Tywin Lannister's son. That makes no sense. If Jaime didn't know what Aerys II was in 281 AC then nobody did. And there is not the tiniest indication that Jaime himself was surprised how the king looked like or how he behaved.

You're confusing Jaime with Tywin. remember Tywin had great plans for Jaime and I doubt he ever told him about the Mad King's madness. Plus even if he did, I doubt Jaime listened. He had 2 dreams, being a great knight and Cersei. By joining the KG he was (in his mind) achieving both.

[Lord Varys]

5 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

He isn't talking about what Jaime said to Brienne. He's talking about what Jaime thought. Why the hell would he be lying in that position.

But Jaime's mental recollection - the entire scene there - does never show him that he is conflicted about his vows or that he kills Aerys II because he wants to save anyone. Yes, he kills Rossart to prevent the wildfire plan from being executed ... and then he goes to his king to gloat and murder him. That is his plan.

5 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

You're confusing Jaime with Tywin. remember Tywin had great plans for Jaime and I doubt he ever told him about the Mad King's madness. Plus even if he did, I doubt Jaime listened. He had 2 dreams, being a great knight and Cersei. By joining the KG he was (in his mind) achieving both.

As I said that would be very odd, but even if for some reasoon that was the case, Jaime's only source about Aerys II's state of mind and his cruelty wouldn't have been Tywin himself. It would be Westermen in Tywin's entourage, his guardsmen, retainers, maesters, servants, grooms, household knights, etc. Those people would have travelled back and forth between KL and the Westerlands, and he would have talked to them.

In addition, Jaime actually served with Ser Arthur Dayne (who dubbed him a knight) and Ser Barristan Selmy in the campaign against the Kingswood Brotherhood. Are we to believe that the Kingsguard and their retainers never talked about Duskendale and the aftermath?

I don't think so.

Also keep in mind that Jaime was in KL when he and Cersei had sex and he decided to join the KG. Do you think he did not visit his father then? Don't you think he saw the king then? Don't you think he heard rumors about the king not just from Westermen at court but also from the Kingslanders living inside and outside the castle? 'King Scab' certainly would have been a topic people talked about.

Now, I agree that Jaime was naive and stupid and thinking with his cock rather than his brain when he agreed to become a Kingsguard - but that's not an excuse for entering into Aerys II's service.

And this, too, reflects very badly on him because a man who joined the KG to have (more) sex with his sister actually never kept his vows and never intended to keep them. Insofar as the Kingsguard is concerned he was a bad apple from the start, a guy who thought the rules did not apply to him. This kind of behavior certainly also made it easier for Jaime to break the most important part of the vow - after all, he also did break the part of him living chaste (or was at least willing to do so - we don't know whether he and Cersei actually saw each other and had sex while Jaime was Aerys II's KG).

[Alyn Oakenfist]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

In addition, Jaime actually served with Ser Arthur Dayne (who dubbed him a knight) and Ser Barristan Selmy in the campaign against the Kingswood Brotherhood. Are we to believe that the Kingsguard and their retainers never talked about Duskendale and the aftermath?

I don't think so.

Yeah the thing is Aerys's response to the defiance of Duskandale wasn't that mad. It was cruel and ruthless but it did served a point. It was the Reyne-Tarbeck rebellion 2.0. and no one considered Tywin mad for what he did. And after Duskandale, initially it was to be expected that Aerys would be a little jumpy and paranoid (the guy spent half a year in captivity). It was only later that people began to realize that Aerys's psyche had been completely broken by Duskandale, and only at Harrenhal did it became apparent. At the time it seemed an cruel and ruthless response to be sure but not a mad one. I mean think about it what would Tywin had done with the Darklyns?

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But Jaime's mental recollection - the entire scene there - does never show him that he is conflicted about his vows or that he kills Aerys II because he wants to save anyone. Yes, he kills Rossart to prevent the wildfire plan from being executed ... and then he goes to his king to gloat and murder him. That is his plan.

As I said I think 3 times already in this thread, Jaime didn't just do it in order to save KL (that was what pushed him over the edge). He did what he felt was justice. He finally realized that all his vows were contradictory and kinda hypocritical and he didn't care anymore. He just did what he felt was right (and yeah he did what was right from a moral point a view), stopping the wildfire plot and finally bringing Aerys to justice.

[Seams]

17 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Jaime swore his knightly vows to protect the weak and innocent before he swore his KG vows, and by killing Aerys the nutjob, he fulfilled the former and broke the latter.

I think this is one of the keys to Jaime's role in the death of Aerys. Not just because of the knighthood vows, but because he received his knighthood from him, Jaime is an heir of Ser Arthur Dayne, one of the greatest knights and someone so legendary and perfect that GRRM makes sure he is dead and gone before readers can meet him.

Oddly enough, I suspect that Jaime passes along his "Ser Arthur magic" to Bran, when he pushes him out the window. It would be interesting to see whether there are any parallels between Ser Arthur drawing blood on Jaime's shoulder when he taps him with his blade and Bran's injuries when Jaime follows through on, "The things I do for love."

17 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Please explain to me how Jaime aided the Mad King. He was a glorified hostage for all his stay in the Kingsguard. He never even had a chance to protect Aerys.

Yes and no - he is a hostage and that's how he helps the Mad King. Aerys deliberately drafted Jaime into the Kingsguard to turn him into a hostage: he knew that Jaime was Tywin's only or best hope for a Lannister heir. (Or he knew that's what Tywin believed.) So Jaime is "helping" Aerys to be safe by preventing Tywin from undermining his old friend on the throne. If Tywin organized an uprising, Aerys would turn Jaime into toast.

19 hours ago, frenin said:

Rickard and the other parents who went to KL, were innocents, not sort of, no one accused them of anything and they were there to ransom their kids,

Aerys' determination to wipe out northern and Stark heirs may appear to be irrational and lacking in just or proper motive, but I think it goes to the Knight of the Laughing Tree situation. GRRM uses tournaments to drop hints about who will win and who will lose in the Game of Thrones. Aerys was apoplectic about discovering the identity of the Knight of the Laughing Tree, but he could not get that information before the Knight disappeared. Because of the weirwood sigil, he probably believed the KotLT was from the North. The subsequent slaughter of northern lords and heirs may have been an attempt to prevent fulfillment of the "prophecy" of the tournament at Harrenhal. As we know, Ned survived in spite of Aerys ordering him to come to King's Landing and Stark heirs continued to take roles in the ongoing Game of Thrones.

19 hours ago, frenin said:

Those KG, from Tommen's to Jaeharys' are all mindless killing machines, people want  them as mindless killing machines, encourage them to be mindless killing machines and when one of their own is not a mindless killing machine they make it clear he's got to be a mindless killing machine, so why do you think that when things come to shove... they wouldn't act like you know, mindless killing machines?? If they've never willingly chosen the path of integrity over the path of honor, why King's Landing should be any different?? On what basis??

I believe the King's Guards play a much more complex role. GRRM is very specific about who is chosen to serve on the King's Guard. (As well as the Rainbow Guard for Renly and other places where "kings" are served by seven warriors - someone recently pointed out that Jon Snow is retrieved by seven friends when he attempts to desert Castle Black at the end of AGoT.)

The magic that keeps the king safe seems to involve a special "recipe" of Houses and sigils, each representing something different. We know that House Darklyn was the most prolific provider of King's Guard members. Why did so many kings choose Darklyns? What are the circumstances surrounding death, exile or forced resignation of a member of the King's Guard?

For instance, Arys Oakheart, with his oak leaf sigil, seems to have divided loyalties, becoming the lover of Arianne Martell while also guarding Princess Myrcella. He is killed by Areo Hotah - cut down with an axe. So the cutting down of a tree seems to be the symbolism here. What does it mean that Arianne seduced the tree and Areo cut it down? There is a related set of clues in the connections between Pennytree and King's Guard members Ser Duncan the Tall and Jaime Lannister. That is a long post but the gist of it is that a tree can be an entrance to the Otherworld and King's Guard members seem to have a special ability to open (and close?) those entrances.