Jaime and Loras

[Dofs]

2 hours ago, Apoplexy said:

Sure Jaime considered them a pair in a bad situation. But everything has degrees. Jaime knew cersei had wanted some things that were different than what he wanted. He just misjudged to what degree. He realized to what degree when he found out cersei was sleeping with other people and hence he could not trust.

Jaime never knew that Cersei would want something that would compromise their relationship. That's the problem, he believed that he was at the very top of her priorities the same way as she was to him. Jaime was just happy to make his own sacrifices for Cersei not to need to make them but he thought she would if needed.

2 hours ago, Apoplexy said:

The point I am making is that Jaime is not prideful with Cersei having to sleep with other people. Jaime has a problem when she lies about whom she is sleeping with and why. You are free to disagree.

Oh, I absolutely disagree and I don't see how you can claim that he was not prideful with Cersei sleeping with others when it destroyed him every time he saw Cersei going to Robert's place to the point of dreaming to kill him and then regretting he wasn't the one to do it when Robert died.

[Apoplexy]

32 minutes ago, Dofs said:

Jaime never knew that Cersei would want something that would compromise their relationship. That's the problem, he believed that he was at the very top of her priorities the same way as she was to him. Jaime was just happy to make his own sacrifices for Cersei not to need to make them but he thought she would if needed.

I agree. This tells me that Jaime knew what Cersei's nature was, but he needed/wanted her and ignored a lot of her bad behavior. And he thought in spite of her character, she wanted him too in the end. So to say he was completely blind to her character is incorrect.

35 minutes ago, Dofs said:

Oh, I absolutely disagree and I don't see how you can claim that he was not prideful with Cersei sleeping with others when it destroyed him every time he saw Cersei going to Robert's place to the point of dreaming to kill him and then regretting he wasn't the one to do it when Robert died.

We'll have to agree to disagree here.

[Dofs]

5 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

I agree. This tells me that Jaime knew what Cersei's nature was but he needed/wanted her and ignored a lot of her bad behavior.

Just how can it tell you any of that? Jaime's actions and words just scream at the fact that he didn't see anything in Cersei that would seriously bother him. Heck, Jaime wasn't just blind towards Cersei's true nature, he was blind even towards his own behaviour that losing his hand forced him to open his eyes towards.

Regarding Cersei, he simply had his own picture in his head that he projected towards real Cersei no matter what she did and said. Ironically, it reminds me of how you yourself have your own picture of Jaime in your head and how you are willing to dismiss and reinterpret Jaime's own words that directly contradict it. 

[Apoplexy]

13 minutes ago, Dofs said:

Just how can it tell you any of that?  

We'll have to agree to disagree I suppose.

[FictionIsntReal]

On 1/9/2022 at 11:52 AM, Apoplexy said:

This is exactly as Jaime claims he behaves. He would kill Bran himself if he could, not hire an assassin. He did not want collateral damage or rather thought it dishonorable.

Are Ned's men killed in the street not "collateral damage" for Jaime's beef with Catelyn? The problem with Jaime himself slaughtering half of Winterfell to kill Bran is that he'd get caught. It's not like there's anything "honorable" about throwing a child out a window.

Quote

As for Ned Stark, Jaime didn't hire anyone to kill him, he took men under his command to attack Ned Stark and his men.

So if someone is already on retainer for their capacity to wield violence on your behalf, and you tell them to kill someone, that's not "hiring" them do so because they already worked for you prior to that assignment. Maybe the problem is that Jaime just hates haggling over prices! Oliver Williamson won an economic Nobel for his "theory of the firm" as existing to deal with transaction costs, and GRRM is just so subtle in alluding to it that we (or at least I) missed what's going on.

Quote

And he didn't kill Ned Stark because he didn't think it honorable to kill an injured man who cannot fight back.

Go back and reread that passage rather than relying on your memory of the TV show. Ned first tells Jaime that Catelyn will kill Tyrion if Jaime kills him. So Jaime specifically says not to kill Ned but instead just his men, and then rides off. He's not even present when Ned is injured, and the City Watch were on their way (whereas Jaime was off to join his father to raid the Riverlands and escape consequences for his actions).

Quote

I don't see any hypocrisy in what Jaime says and does.

He says he does his own killing, which is plainly not the case when he has Ned's men killed.

[Apoplexy]

22 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Are Ned's men killed in the street not "collateral damage" for Jaime's beef with Catelyn? The problem with Jaime himself slaughtering half of Winterfell to kill Bran is that he'd get caught. It's not like there's anything "honorable" about throwing a child out a window.

The point is, Jaime would not hire an assassin.

22 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

So if someone is already on retainer for their capacity to wield violence on your behalf, and you tell them to kill someone, that's not "hiring" them do so because they already worked for you prior to that assignment. Maybe the problem is that Jaime just hates haggling over prices! Oliver Williamson won an economic Nobel for his "theory of the firm" as existing to deal with transaction costs, and GRRM is just so subtle in alluding to it that we (or at least I) missed what's going on.

Again, having men under your command is not the same as hiring an assassin. Having those men under your command attack someone in broad daylight is not the same as hiring an assassin.

23 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Go back and reread that passage rather than relying on your memory of the TV show. Ned first tells Jaime that Catelyn will kill Tyrion if Jaime kills him. So Jaime specifically says not to kill Ned but instead just his men, and then rides off. He's not even present when Ned is injured, and the City Watch were on their way (whereas Jaime was off to join his father to raid the Riverlands and escape consequences for his actions).

Ok, I misremembered. 

But if we are talking about Jaime doing his own killing, this is what Jaime says-

Ser Jaime ripped his longsword from its sheath and urged his stallion forward. “Show me your steel, Lord Eddard. I’ll butcher you like Aerys if I must, but I’d sooner you died with a blade in your hand.”

So when he says he does his own killing, he isn't being hypocritical.

23 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

He says he does his own killing, which is plainly not the case when he has Ned's men killed.

Jaime wanted to kill/capture Ned. Killing Ned's men was not Jaime's objective nor was it personal, it was meant as a punishment. The same as a battle commander might send troops to kill enemy troops.

[FictionIsntReal]

18 hours ago, Apoplexy said:

The point is, Jaime would not hire an assassin.

Why not? Is his objection to the monetary angle?

Quote

Again, having men under your command is not the same as hiring an assassin.

Unless you hired an assassin on retainer

Quote

Jaime wanted to kill/capture Ned.

He had changed his mind about killing, and his men were unlikely to capture Ned while the goldcloaks were on their way, particularly if they had to get him back to the already fleeing Jaime.

Quote

Killing Ned's men was not Jaime's objective

It was a specific order he gave.

Quote

nor was it personal

So does he only do his own killing when it's personal, not when you judge it "impersonal"? And is a punishment for Tyrion's capture not "personal"?

Quote

The same as a battle commander might send troops to kill enemy troops.

Tywin Lannister commands troops, but typically doesn't lead from the front (the opposite of riding away while your men are commanded to attack). He keeps his own literal hands clean by fobbing that work off onto subordinates. If somebody suspected him of sending an assassin after a child (which he actually did, times two, in the sack of KL), it would not be plausible for him to say "I do my own killing".

[Apoplexy]

5 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

 

Unless you hired an assassin on retainer

Which Jaime did not.

5 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

He had changed his mind about killing, and his men were unlikely to capture Ned while the goldcloaks were on their way, particularly if they had to get him back to the already fleeing Jaime.

And your point is?

5 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

It was a specific order he gave.

Again, not the same as hiring an assassin.

5 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

So does he only do his own killing when it's personal, not when you judge it "impersonal"? And is a punishment for Tyrion's capture not "personal"?

I truly dont understand your point. Are you suggesting 'doing your own killing' entails killing an entire army by yourself?

5 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Tywin Lannister commands troops, but typically doesn't lead from the front (the opposite of riding away while your men are commanded to attack). He keeps his own literal hands clean by fobbing that work off onto subordinates. If somebody suspected him of sending an assassin after a child (which he actually did, times two, in the sack of KL), it would not be plausible for him to say "I do my own killing".

Except Jaime was right there when he attacked Ned Stark.

[FictionIsntReal]

On 1/14/2022 at 6:55 PM, Apoplexy said:

Which Jaime did not.

True, his dad presumably hired* them some time back and Jaime just gave them the order to kill.
* Or otherwise obtained their service, perhaps as a form of feudal duty

Quote

And your point is?

At the time he gave the order Jaime did not "want to kill/capture Ned".

Quote

Again, not the same as hiring an assassin.

It's like having one on retainer so you don't need to negotiate a price every time you tell them to kill someone.

Quote

I truly dont understand your point. Are you suggesting 'doing your own killing' entails killing an entire army by yourself?

If Jaime said "Let's kill them", and joined in the killing, then he would be doing his own killing along with them (or perhaps "with their help" would be another way to phrase it). Riding away while others kill on his orders is not doing so.

Quote

Except Jaime was right there when he attacked Ned Stark.

He drew a sword and threatened him, but had not yet actually attacked. He had to give the order to kill Ned's men then (after he was already behind his line of swordsmen), because they were not yet in the process of killing anyone.

[Apoplexy]

32 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

True, his dad presumably hired* them some time back and Jaime just gave them the order to kill.
* Or otherwise obtained their service, perhaps as a form of feudal duty

At the time he gave the order Jaime did not "want to kill/capture Ned".

It's like having one on retainer so you don't need to negotiate a price every time you tell them to kill someone.

When Jaime said he does his own killing, he didn't mean he could literally kill an entire army. He meant that he does not kill in secret.

32 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

If Jaime said "Let's kill them", and joined in the killing, then he would be doing his own killing along with them (or perhaps "with their help" would be another way to phrase it). Riding away while others kill on his orders is not doing so.

Ned's men were outnumbered, Jaime didn't need to join in.

32 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

He drew a sword and threatened him, but had not yet actually attacked. He had to give the order to kill Ned's men then (after he was already behind his line of swordsmen), because they were not yet in the process of killing anyone.

I still don't get your point. When Jaime said he does his own killing, we basically meant he does not kill in secret. The incident with Ned happened in broad daylight.

[FictionIsntReal]

On 1/17/2022 at 4:34 PM, Apoplexy said:

He meant that he does not kill in secret.

When he threw Bran out a window, was that not "in secret"? When he admitted he talked of killing Bran before he could wake up, would that not have been secret either?

Quote

Ned's men were outnumbered, Jaime didn't need to join in.

Yes, when you have other men to do your killing for you, you don't need to do it yourself!

Quote

When Jaime said he does his own killing, we basically meant he does not kill in secret.

Except that he did secretly throw Bran out a window with the admitted intent to kill him, and admitted he talked of killing him to prevent him from waking, which would be pointless if it was done publicly! I could add that he killed Aerys' three alchemists without anybody else knowing (and he muses to himself how nobody wonders who killed Rossart).

[Apoplexy]

On 1/19/2022 at 10:27 AM, FictionIsntReal said:

When he threw Bran out a window, was that not "in secret"? When he admitted he talked of killing Bran before he could wake up, would that not have been secret either?

Well Jaime could not have called an audience to kill Bran and declared to the world that he was sleeping with Cersei. The point Jaime was trying to make was he doesnt hire assassins. By killing in secret I meant Jaime wouldn't hire an assassin to kill in secret. And that commanding men your control in broad daylight is not the same as hiring an assasin to kill in secret.

On 1/19/2022 at 10:27 AM, FictionIsntReal said:

Yes, when you have other men to do your killing for you, you don't need to do it yourself!

Again, Jaime wasn't claiming he is a one man army.

On 1/19/2022 at 10:27 AM, FictionIsntReal said:

I could add that he killed Aerys' three alchemists without anybody else knowing (and he muses to himself how nobody wonders who killed Rossart).

Assassins were not involved and everyone knows he killed Aerys.

[FictionIsntReal]

9 hours ago, Apoplexy said:

Well Jaime could not have called an audience to kill Bran and declared to the world that he was sleeping with Cersei.

He could have declared to the world that he was sleeping with Cersei, and wants to do that later, but he only tells it to Catelyn/Brienne & Ilyn Payne. He threw Bran out a window specifically to keep that secret, and then admits he talked about killing Bran before he woke up to keep it secret.

Quote

By killing in secret I meant Jaime wouldn't hire an assassin to kill in secret.

But those are different things, and what Jaime says is "I have never yet hired anyone to do my killing. Believe what you will, Lady Stark, but if I had wanted your Bran dead I would have slain him myself" without anything about it being "secret" but instead just a matter of doing it himself.

Quote

Again, Jaime wasn't claiming he is a one man army.

He was saying he does his own killing. But he didn't do that at all when he ordered Ned's men to be killed! Not only is he not a "one man army", he's not even one man in an army doing his killing in that instance.

Quote

Assassins were not involved and everyone knows he killed Aerys.

Jaime himself qualifies as an assassin for killing Aerys (the more specific term would be "regicide"). And I know Aerys isn't a secret. The alchemists are, which plainly shows that his objection is not to "secret" murders (though Bran should have already proved that).

[Apoplexy]

14 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

He could have declared to the world that he was sleeping with Cersei, and wants to do that later, but he only tells it to Catelyn/Brienne & Ilyn Payne. He threw Bran out a window specifically to keep that secret, and then admits he talked about killing Bran before he woke up to keep it secret.

Jaime wants to run away with Cersei later, under different circumstances. I dont see how that makes Jaime a hypocrite. 

14 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

But those are different things, and what Jaime says is "I have never yet hired anyone to do my killing. Believe what you will, Lady Stark, but if I had wanted your Bran dead I would have slain him myself" without anything about it being "secret" but instead just a matter of doing it himself.

And Jaime isn't contradicting himself. I don't see the hypocrisy.

14 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

He was saying he does his own killing. But he didn't do that at all when he ordered Ned's men to be killed! Not only is he not a "one man army", he's not even one man in an army doing his killing in that instance.

Define 'doing your own killing'. Do you think it means Jaime is saying he is capable to killing dozens of people singlehandedly in a melee when all of them are attacking him at the same time?

14 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Jaime himself qualifies as an assassin for killing Aerys (the more specific term would be "regicide"). And I know Aerys isn't a secret. The alchemists are, which plainly shows that his objection is not to "secret" murders (though Bran should have already proved that).

And how is that hypocritical?

[FictionIsntReal]

On 1/23/2022 at 10:38 AM, Apoplexy said:

Jaime wants to run away with Cersei later, under different circumstances. I dont see how that makes Jaime a hypocrite.

It's not Jaime's embrace of secrecy that makes him a hypocrite, because he never actually claimed to be against it. It is rather YOU who claim what he actually meant depended on the factor of secrecy.

Quote

And Jaime isn't contradicting himself. I don't see the hypocrisy.

The hypocrisy is that when he wanted Ned Stark's men killed, he didn't do ANY of that killing himself. Instead he left it to Lannister goons, who just follow orders & get paid without it being personal to them.

Quote

Define 'doing your own killing'. Do you think it means Jaime is saying he is capable to killing dozens of people singlehandedly in a melee when all of them are attacking him at the same time?

He doesn't have to kill all 3 (not "dozens") of Ned's men "singlehandedly". He just has to contribute. Instead he hid himself behind a line of his own men, gave the order, and rode off.

Quote

And how is that hypocritical?

Again, Jaime doesn't claim to decry assassination. He just says he would do the killing himself (regardless of whether it's "secret" or not) rather than fobbing off the work to a hired man.

[Alester Florent]

Good grief, it's been... five? pages of arguing about the semantics of "hiring someone else to do your killing" and we just seem to be going back and forth with absolutely no progress made whatsoever.

Firstly, I do think I should establish that in my view Jaime does undergo a transformation and he can't necessarily be considered a reliable narrator of his own reasoning by the time we get to see inside his head. Although he is full of regret for the way he carried on, he still has a number of blind spots to the way he has behaved in the past and is re-examining those from his new perspective. So we can't necessarily say that because Feast-Jaime says "I wouldn't do that" that Game-Jaime wouldn't have done, or even that Feast-Jaime recognises that he would have. This isn't unique to Jaime, it's just how people work. 

Then again, I think it's also apparent that there has throughout his life been a good man in there somewhere and as the series has worn on he's increasingly (re-)emerged from out of the bad one that Jaime became after the Kingslayer incident.

 

As to the specific point about the Jory incident, though, I think this thread, or at least some of the contributors to it, is missing the wood for the trees. What Jaime means there is that if he has a personal grievance with someone, he'll deal with it personally, and he's not afraid of, in the colloquial sense, getting his hands dirty.

This is not inconsistent with his behaviour in the Jory incident because his personal grievance is not with Jory or any of Ned's men but with Ned himself. He probably doesn't know the names of any of the men killed on his orders that night. From Jaime's perspective, these men are appendages of Ned, not individuals with any agency of their own. What he is really doing is taking Ned's "stuff" to punish Ned. His own men are, in this context, merely the tools he uses to do so. The important thing is not who physically wields the swords that kill Ned's men but that he goes in person and looks Ned in the eye when he gives the order.

We see these men as individuals because we see the scene from Ned's perspective but to Jaime they are no more than anonymous, disposable henchmen, in much the same way that we don't shed any tears for any of Jaime's soldiers killed at the Whispering Wood. They are nobodies; they don't really count.

But Jaime doesn't order his men to harm Ned, because in his mind firstly this is a warning, not a killing, and secondly Ned is his actual target, is in his mind therefore a "somebody", worthy of notice, and he won't have him harmed unless he does the job himself. This is one area where, while I still think the scene itself was a bit gratuitous, the show got it right: Jaime would rather walk away (for poorly-explained reasons in-show but consistent with his book character) than kill Ned in a "tainted" manner.

Essentially, there is a difference between killing "somebodies" (i.e. people who have personally come to Jaime's attention), which he will handle himself, and killing "nobodies" (i.e. anonymous hangers-on to the somebodies) which he is content to delegate. There is also a difference between anonymous killing, like hiring an assassin, and taking personal responsibility for it, whether publicly (as when he gives the order for Ned's men to be killed to Ned's face, in the street) or by wielding the weapon himself but without anyone finding out (as with his purge of Aerys's pyromancers), or by leading troops into battle. Once you adjust for this way of thinking, the expressed principle remains entirely consistent with the incident under discussion.

Now, is this an attractive way of thinking? No, not particularly. It may also seem a rather strange and arbitrary principle. But it's also the way that Westerosi nobles think in general - Dany, with her explicit attention on the suffering of the enemy's civilian smallfolk in war, is a marked and noted exception here. It would perhaps be nice to think that Feast-Jaime would not give the order to kill Ned's men so casually or callously, but he wouldn't see any inconsistency with his principle of doing his own dirty work any more than he does when on his "Goldenhand tour" he gives orders for criminals in the Riverlands to be executed, rather than stringing them up himself.

[Apoplexy]

2 hours ago, Adelstein said:

Good grief, it's been... five? pages of arguing about the semantics of "hiring someone else to do your killing" and we just seem to be going back and forth with absolutely no progress made whatsoever.

Welcome to the internet.

[Apoplexy]

7 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

It's not Jaime's embrace of secrecy that makes him a hypocrite, because he never actually claimed to be against it. It is rather YOU who claim what he actually meant depended on the factor of secrecy.

The secrecy element came from hiring an assassin, which Jaime hasn't done.

7 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

The hypocrisy is that when he wanted Ned Stark's men killed, he didn't do ANY of that killing himself. Instead he left it to Lannister goons, who just follow orders & get paid without it being personal to them. 

Exactly. Killing Ned's men was not personal to anyone. 

7 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

He doesn't have to kill all 3 (not "dozens") of Ned's men "singlehandedly". He just has to contribute. Instead he hid himself behind a line of his own men, gave the order, and rode off.

Why would he contribute? Why would he care enough to attack nameless men in Ned's household?

7 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Again, Jaime doesn't claim to decry assassination. He just says he would do the killing himself (regardless of whether it's "secret" or not) rather than fobbing off the work to a hired man.

Ned's men were lords of nothing, hence didn't warrant the attention of another lord. So please explain the hypocrisy. Jaime has some very unappealing qualities, hypocrisy is not one of them.

[FictionIsntReal]

On 1/25/2022 at 7:52 PM, Adelstein said:

I do think I should establish that in my view Jaime does undergo a transformation and he can't necessarily be considered a reliable narrator of his own reasoning by the time we get to see inside his head.

I agree, that could potentially serve as a Watsonian explanation for something I've been explaining Doylistically, but to get technical here we're only comparing Game to Clash (where he was not yet a POV character).

Quote

there has throughout his life been a good man in there somewhere

Is there any evidence of that in Game?

Quote

or at least some of the contributors to it

It's okay, you can name names

Quote

What Jaime means there is that if he has a personal grievance with someone

Did he have a "personal grievance" with Bran, the kid just climbing around his own family's property in a place he had no reason to expect anyone else to be? As he did it, he claimed it was "for love" rather than grievance.

Quote

he'll deal with it personally, and he's not afraid of, in the colloquial sense, getting his hands dirty

I do think that's closer to what he meant than anything about it being "secret".

Quote

What he is really doing is taking Ned's "stuff" to punish Ned.

If he had personally stolen Ice out of Ned's scabbard, that would fit. But he didn't.

Quote

The important thing is not who physically wields the swords that kill Ned's men but that he goes in person and looks Ned in the eye when he gives the order.

Now you're saying something different from your earlier quote about getting his hands dirty. Why would "look[ing] in the eye" be important? Jaime confesses that he discussed making a second murder attempt on a comatose Bran, and the reason he held off was not that Bran's eyes would be closed. And if you claim that giving an order is metaphorically getting his hands dirty, recall that Tywin arranged for Walder Frey to carry out the RW in order to keep Tywin's own hands clean with the blood just on Walder's.

Quote

But Jaime doesn't order his men to harm Ned, because in his mind firstly this is a warning, not a killing, and secondly Ned is his actual target, is in his mind therefore a "somebody", worthy of notice, and he won't have him harmed unless he does the job himself.

No, we get his explicit reason for not ordering Ned killed: Tyrion was Catelyn's hostage and Ned threatened that Tyrion would be killed in revenge for his own death.

Quote

This is one area where, while I still think the scene itself was a bit gratuitous, the show got it right: Jaime would rather walk away (for poorly-explained reasons in-show but consistent with his book character) than kill Ned in a "tainted" manner.

In what sense is it "right"? It's certainly not "more" faithful to the book than the book itself is. It IS more consistent with Jaime's later claim to Catelyn, which is precisely why I claim Jaime himself is inconsistent across those two books. D&D had access to all the books (minus perhaps ADWD) when they wrote that episode, so they could write Jaime to be more consistent with that. GRRM did not have his own books which he would yet write in the future. Hence all the "early installment weirdness" about Jaime being Warden of the East and potentially inheriting the title Warden of the West even though later books establish the KG can't inherit anything, Robert threatening (even if in jest) to pin the Hand badge on Jaime and people thinking about Jaime looking more like a king than Robert. It fits the version of Jaime in the pitch letter who's supposed to murder his way atop the Iron Throne (just as Ned got a preview of during the Sack).

Quote

There is also a difference between anonymous killing, like hiring an assassin, and taking personal responsibility for it, whether publicly (as when he gives the order for Ned's men to be killed to Ned's face, in the street) or by wielding the weapon himself but without anyone finding out

Those are very different things. How are they both "taking personal responsibility"?

Quote

It may also seem a rather strange and arbitrary principle.

Not just, to me it seems like multiple different principles!

Quote

But it's also the way that Westerosi nobles think in general

I don't think other Westerosi nobles think it's acceptable to sleep with your own sister, to kill a king you swore to protect, to cuckold another king and claim you'll kill him if he catches you, to throw a child out a window and then plot to kill that child before he can wake up, to seek out that child's sister to kill or permanently mutilate because your sister/lover asked for it in revenge for something your king already dismissed, to threaten and then violently "warn" the father of both those children (also the best friend of the king you're supposed to be serving), then to run off & abandon your post dedicated to said king in order to pursue your family's vendetta against the in-laws of said father despite your KG oath superseding any such family loyalty. Jaime is distinctive for REJECTING the normal ideals of Westerosi nobles, saying there are too many conflicting oaths for him to obey all of them, so he just dismisses them.

Quote

any more than he does when on his "Goldenhand tour" he gives orders for criminals in the Riverlands to be executed, rather than stringing them up himself.

He's lost a hand by that point (unlike when he was a prisoner and saying Robb should duel him) and has to depend more on others. It's his high regard for his own martial prowess that led to him saying things like he would just kill Robert if he got caught with Cersei.

On 1/25/2022 at 10:56 PM, Apoplexy said:

The secrecy element came from hiring an assassin, which Jaime hasn't done.

Does Jaime make any claim that it's the secrecy of doing so that he objects to?

Quote

Exactly. Killing Ned's men was not personal to anyone.

It was certainly personal to Jaime, he was very upset about his brother being seized.

Quote

Why would he contribute?

Why wouldn't he? He brags about doing his own killing, and that would be an example.

Quote

Why would he care enough to attack nameless men in Ned's household?

He cared enough to order them dead.

Quote

Ned's men were lords of nothing, hence didn't warrant the attention of another lord.

Jaime's not a lord, he's a glorified bodyguard prohibited from inheriting any such title even after his father dies. He is admittedly of noble birth though. Jory is not as highborn as him, but he does have a surname, comes from a (minor) noble house with a coat of arms, and participated in the tourney against knights like Jaime. Jory is captain-of-the-guards, and thus another bodyguard like Jaime (which would make the show-version where Jaime personally kills him fitting for their respective stations).

Quote

So please explain the hypocrisy. Jaime has some very unappealing qualities, hypocrisy is not one of them.

Jaime is very upset about Cersei cheating on him, when their entire relationship while Robert was alive was adulterous. He was going to kill or permanently mutilate Arya for something her pet did (plus hitting Joffrey with a stick) but his own (unacknowledged) child was to be spared any punishment for anything ever. As a loyal member of House Lannister (particularly loyal to Cersei, who lacks even Tywin's sense about norms are prudent to at least publicly abide by) he's dedicated to hypocritically advancing the ends of his family and disregarding everyone else.

[Apoplexy]

5 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Jaime's not a lord, he's a glorified bodyguard prohibited from inheriting any such title even after his father dies. He is admittedly of noble birth though. Jory is not as highborn as him, but he does have a surname, comes from a (minor) noble house with a coat of arms, and participated in the tourney against knights like Jaime. Jory is captain-of-the-guards, and thus another bodyguard like Jaime (which would make the show-version where Jaime personally kills him fitting for their respective stations).

Jaime is warden of the west, so to say he is at same station as Jory is wrong.

 

5 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Jaime is very upset about Cersei cheating on him, when their entire relationship while Robert was alive was adulterous. He was going to kill or permanently mutilate Arya for something her pet did (plus hitting Joffrey with a stick) but his own (unacknowledged) child was to be spared any punishment for anything ever. As a loyal member of House Lannister (particularly loyal to Cersei, who lacks even Tywin's sense about norms are prudent to at least publicly abide by) he's dedicated to hypocritically advancing the ends of his family and disregarding everyone else.

Jaime's relationship with Cersei is a completely different conversation so I wont get into that right now.

And I'm going to try a different approach to the hypocrisy issue. I disagree with everything you claim Jaime is hypocritical about. Since this thread is about Jaime's relationship with Loras, lets me ask you this. How is Loras or any other knight any different than Jaime,? They should all be hypocritical as per your description. Why single Jaime out?