The Targaryens and the wrongs done to them.

[BalerionTheCat]

18 hours ago, AlaskanSandman said:

Really? When the Others come and the Targaryen's aren't there to stop them potentially cause of Jamie's actions.

I don't think the mad king was in a position to do something useful about the Others. His son did things. My guess he focused on birthing the Promised Prince, ignoring all else. Right or wrong, we'll see. Anyway, I'm not sure, I seriously doubt, that 3 dragons, there because of Dany exile, will help a much against the Others.

ETA: And I forgot Viserys usefulness.

[AlaskanSandman]

2 hours ago, BalerionTheCat said:

I don't think the mad king was in a position to do something useful about the Others. His son did things. My guess he focused on birthing the Promised Prince, ignoring all else. Right or wrong, we'll see. Anyway, I'm not sure, I seriously doubt, that 3 dragons, there because of Dany exile, will help a much against the Others.

ETA: And I forgot Viserys usefulness.

Um, possibly not, but no one knows yet for sure. The Targaryen's thought them important though, which may hint to their usefulness against the others in the original war. A gamble not to have them

[Craving Peaches]

Whether Jaime kills Aerys or not has no bearing on him surviving as if Jaime does not kill him he just blows himself (and everyone else nearby) up. So either way there are fewer Targaryens left for whatever. Can't really blame Jaime for that one.

[SeanF]

Aerys was a monster, who had to be put down, and in the end, Rhaegar chose to fight for him.

But, Ned excepted, the rebels were not that much better.

[StarkTullies]

20 hours ago, AlaskanSandman said:

Really? Jamie knew what his father was intending.

We have a window into Jaime's POV.  He suspected, but he didn't know.

20 hours ago, AlaskanSandman said:

Jamie could have saved baby Aegon or taken a ship to Daenerys and held to his vows and saved the Targaryens.

Or he could have saved the people of Kings Landing, which was the better choice.  It is unlikely that he could have gotten very far with baby Aegon.  If Aerys caught him running off with Aegon, Jaime would die and then Aegon would die anyway when Tywin arrived.  If Tywin caught Jaime, Aegon would still die.

Holding vows are important... unless those vows are to a villainous mass-murdering psychopath.  Jaime is not a hero, but he did the right thing in killing Aerys.

20 hours ago, AlaskanSandman said:

The only Targaryen left is in Essos fighting her way back to Westeros to save Jamie's stump handed arse and his "finest moment".

No.  We also have a window into Daenerys's point of view, and she wants to serve her "enemies" with fire and blood.  And she certainly considers "the Kingslayer" to be her enemy.  What Daenerys actually does when she returns to Westeros remains to be seen, but as of now it is all about "claiming her rightful throne", not about saving anybody in Westeros... least of all "the Usurper's dogs".

20 hours ago, AlaskanSandman said:

risked the lives of all of Westeros and Essos

So Jaime should let a million people die so the Targaryens can save the world from a future threat Jaime doesn't know about?  If Jaime didn't kill Aerys and wildfire went off, Aerys would have died anyway, as would have Aegon and Rhaenys and everyone else in Kings Landing... so Jaime didn't "risk" anything because those Targaryens died anyway.

This is all assuming that the Targaryens must be in power to save the world, which I don't believe.

20 hours ago, AlaskanSandman said:

Also, how did Aerys cause the Rebellion? Did Aerys kidnap Lyanna? Did I miss something?

Rhaegar (supposedly) kidnapping Lyanna didn't start the rebellion.  The rebellion started when Aerys demanded that Jon Arryn turn over Ned Stark and Robert Baratheon to be executed.  Aerys started the rebellion.

20 hours ago, AlaskanSandman said:

I would add Jamie and Tywin's actions to the wrongs done upon House Targaryen.

Tywin is despicable.  Tywin being an evil man doesn't discount Aerys as being an evil man.  They are both villains.  Tywin absolutely should be held accountable for his wrongs against Elia and Aegon and Rhaenys, but his greater wrongs are against Kings Landing as a whole rather than House Targaryen.  Aerys brought down House Targaryen by his own actions, not Robert or the Lannisters.

Jaime is not a great person, but he committed no wrongs against House Targaryen.

[StarkTullies]

21 hours ago, Daenerysthegreat said:

The Rebel Army, having butchered The Crown Prince in the hellish Battle of the Trident, was marching towards King’s Landing, under the command of Rebel lord Eddard stark, whose brother tried to murder Prince Rhaegar in the Red Keep, and was subsequently executed for treason after losing a trial of combat, in which the Champion was his father, who was killed by the royal champion. Both father and son died and Eddard Stark, vengeful, joined the rebels.

Rhaegar wasn't butchered.  It was a one-on-one combat in which Rhaegar lost.

Brandon Stark was an idiot, assuming he actually did go to the Red Keep screaming for Rhaegar to "come out and die".  Who are the witnesses to that, though?  Brandon's allies were all killed.  Not that I doubt he said that; everything we know about Brandon from other more reliable sources is that he was a hothead, who would be rightfully angered at Rhaegar (supposedly) kidnapping his sister (an important detail to be remembered).

"Losing a trial of combat" is pushing it, and naming fire as "the royal champion" is pushing it even more.  Aerys was a lunatic, and his insane justifications for his heinous acts shouldn't be given credence.

Eddard Stark was vengeful?  His limited POV thoughts of Rhaegar aren't exactly full of rage.  Don't forget that the (justified) rebellion started because Aerys called for the heads of Robert and Ned, and then Jon Arryn too when he didn't comply.  Ned acted in self-defense, not vengeance.

There is no justification for what Tywin Lannister did.  He is evil.  Aegon and Rhaenys didn't deserve to die, and Viserys and Daenerys didn't deserve to have assassins sent after them.  We don't know what Rhaegar actually did, but he was an idiot, just like Brandon, and he brought his death upon himself.  Aerys absolutely deserved to be killed.

I agree with some of your list of wrongs against the Targaryens (and wildly disagree with others), but the biggest wrongs against House Targaryen were done by Aerys.  Add the violent beatings and rapes against Queen Rhaella done by her brother-husband to the list of wrongs.  If you are sad about the downfall of House Targaryen, blame Mad King Aerys.  The rebels had no choice but to rebel.

[Daenerysthegreat]

1 hour ago, StarkTullies said:

Rhaegar wasn't butchered.

Butchered as in his body was thrown in the river after being smashed and broken to pieces

1 hour ago, StarkTullies said:

"Losing a trial of combat" is pushing it, and naming fire as "the royal champion" is pushing it even more.

The fact that Aerys was mad cannot be helped

1 hour ago, StarkTullies said:

Eddard Stark was vengeful?  His limited POV thoughts of Rhaegar aren't exactly full of rage.  Don't forget that the (justified) rebellion started because Aerys called for the heads of Robert and Ned, and then Jon Arryn too when he didn't comply.  Ned acted in self-defense, not vengeance.

Wouldn’t anyone be vengeful when their brother and father are killed?

1 hour ago, StarkTullies said:

We don't know what Rhaegar actually did, but he was an idiot, just like Brandon, and he brought his death upon himself.  Aerys absolutely deserved to be killed.

Aerys was insane. You don’t kill insane people 

1 hour ago, StarkTullies said:

I agree with some of your list of wrongs against the Targaryens (and wildly disagree with others)

Which ones?

1 hour ago, StarkTullies said:

Add the violent beatings and rapes against Queen Rhaella done by her brother-husband to the list of wrongs.  

Ok that’s true

[Craving Peaches]

36 minutes ago, Daenerysthegreat said:

Butchered as in his body was thrown in the river after being smashed and broken to pieces

His body wasn't smashed and broken into pieces, his armour was (an occupational hazard in engaging in a duel). And it wasn't thrown in the river, he fell in the river after being beaten.  Furthermore, Rhaegar was a willing participant in the duel - he knew the risks, he didn't have to participate. I fail to see how this qualifies as butchery.

[Craving Peaches]

41 minutes ago, Daenerysthegreat said:

Aerys was insane. You don’t kill insane people

What else was he supposed to do? Westeros has no psychiatric hospitals and Aerys would not step down peacefully. 

Aerys was going to kill half a million innocent people...

43 minutes ago, Daenerysthegreat said:

The fact that Aerys was mad cannot be helped

He wasn't so mad that he didn't know what was going on at all. He knew what he was doing with that trial. He still had some sort of capacity to think rationally. It was not total alienation of reason. If Aerys was tried now as a criminal I don't think a defence of insanity would be accepted.

[StarkTullies]

1 hour ago, Daenerysthegreat said:

Butchered as in his body was thrown in the river after being smashed and broken to pieces

His body being smashed was a result of the combat.  Being thrown in the river just means he wasn't treated with any more special reverence than anyone else.  Why would he be?  Princess Rhaenys was butchered, Rhaegar wasn't.

1 hour ago, Daenerysthegreat said:

2 hours ago, StarkTullies said:

"Losing a trial of combat" is pushing it, and naming fire as "the royal champion" is pushing it even more.

The fact that Aerys was mad cannot be helped

Be that as it may, there was no legitimate trial by combat and wildfire isn't a legitimate royal champion.  Your original post implied that Rickard and Brandon's deaths were justified by legal proceedings and therefore no justification to retaliate.

1 hour ago, Daenerysthegreat said:

Wouldn’t anyone be vengeful when their brother and father are killed?

Vengeance and justice are two different things.  Vengeance often means "you kill my family, I kill yours", which Ned was very clearly against.  We don't know what Ned thought at the time of the Rebellion, but we do know that ~14 years later he wasn't harboring any resentment toward the Targaryens except Aerys himself.

Robert went to war due to vengeance (and self-defense).  Ned went to war due to self-defense (Aerys ordered his death for simply existing), justice, and the good of the realm.  If Ned had vengeful thoughts at the time, vengeance wasn't his motivating reason for going to war.

1 hour ago, Daenerysthegreat said:

Aerys was insane. You don’t kill insane people

If you have a dangerously insane non-dictator in modern society, then try to treat or help them the best you can.  This doesn't apply to King Aerys.  There were no mental health facilities and there was no way to gently remove him from power.  He was a threat to the realm and the only way to stop him was to kill him.

1 hour ago, Daenerysthegreat said:

2 hours ago, StarkTullies said:

I agree with some of your list of wrongs against the Targaryens (and wildly disagree with others)

Which ones?

I agree that everything Tywin did was wrong (throughout his entire life, not just during the Rebellion).  He didn't come to Kings Landing to "save the people".  He did it for personal gain and vengeance: holding a petty grudge against Aerys for not marrying Cersei to Rhaegar and naming Jaime to the kingsguard.  He didn't wrong "House Targaryen" specifically, but he certainly wronged Aegon and Rhaenys when he ordered their murders.

I agree that Robert's presumed intention to kill Viserys and Daenerys upon invading Dragonstone is extremely wrong.  Taking Dragonstone is an expected result of winning the war, and perhaps Stannis would have balked at the idea of killing the children (perhaps not), but Robert's passive unstated approval of Aegon and Rhaenys's murders implies he wanted Viserys and Daenerys dead too.  What the Baratheon troops would have done can never be known for certain though, since Viserys and Daenerys fled before their arrival.

My opinion of Rhaegar is uncertain at this time, since we don't know much about him yet.  I think he is probably a good person and also probably an idiot: a good guy who tragically brought his death upon himself due to his own idiocy.  That said, I don't agree that Rhaegar was "wronged" by his death at the Trident, any more than Robert would have been wronged if he died in the battle instead.

As previously stated, I strongly disagree that Jaime wronged House Targaryen by killing Aerys.  Aerys wronged the entire realm and his family's downfall is his fault.  Tywin's fault too, but two opposing sides can both be villains, and in this case they both were.

[Jon Fossoway]

Jaime Lannister was bound by a vow to defend the king. In Westeros, a vow is taken very seriously. We get a close POV on his intention and those intentions appeal to us, but in-world he is still an oath-breaker. They don't think for themselves and for the realm, but only for the safety of the monarch, and loyalty MUST be absolute. 

At the start of AGoT, Gared runs south of the Wall, scared, and pressumably tries to warn Eddard about the white walkers (Ned won't give credit to an already half-mad Gared) . He is executed by Stark anyways, since he broke a vow. No matter Gared's intentions were, he is punished because vows taken are a VERY important thing.

Aerys II wanted to burn the city? Sure. If Jaime was a lord of Casterly Rock, present at that moment, and suddenly decided to turn against the king, then he is a rebel. Having an allegiance to the Crown is different from taking a vow and entering an order. What Jaime did is considered, again in-world, one of the most condemned "sins" in the land, among with kinslaying. And the sad thing is, for a reader point of view, that as much Jaime can redeem himself in the development of his arc, he probably will never take off his "kingslayer" motto.

 

[Craving Peaches]

3 minutes ago, Jon Fossoway said:

Jaime Lannister was bound by a vow to defend the king

He also took vows to defend the innocent so no matter what he does he breaks one of his vows.

[SeanF]

9 minutes ago, Jon Fossoway said:

Jaime Lannister was bound by a vow to defend the king. In Westeros, a vow is taken very seriously. We get a close POV on his intention and those intentions appeal to us, but in-world he is still an oath-breaker. They don't think for themselves and for the realm, but only for the safety of the monarch, and loyalty MUST be absolute. 

At the start of AGoT, Gared runs south of the Wall, scared, and pressumably tries to warn Eddard about the white walkers (Ned won't give credit to an already half-mad Gared) . He is executed by Stark anyways, since he broke a vow. No matter Gared's intentions were, he is punished because vows taken are a VERY important thing.

Aerys II wanted to burn the city? Sure. If Jaime was a lord of Casterly Rock, present at that moment, and suddenly decided to turn against the king, then he is a rebel. Having an allegiance to the Crown is different from taking a vow and entering an order. What Jaime did is considered, again in-world, one of the most condemned "sins" in the land, among with kinslaying. And the sad thing is, for a reader point of view, that as much Jaime can redeem himself in the development of his arc, he probably will never take off his "kingslayer" motto.

 

Quite so.  In-universe, Jaime is considered the vilest of men, because no one knows what Aerys planned.  Ned thinks he murdered him on behalf of his family.  

And, quite likely, a lot of people would still condemn Jaime, even if they did know.  But, I think we, as readers, are entitled to question whether that is fair.  How strongly does an oath to one's liege hold, if he requires you to do something vile, or refrain from acting, while he does something vile?

Suppose, for example, Steelshanks Walton decided he could tolerate Ramsay's crimes no longer, and slew him, would we consider Walton to be a bad man?

[Jon Fossoway]

4 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

He also took vows to defend the innocent so no matter what he does he breaks one of his vows.

Jaime is a member of the Kingsguard. Their loyalty is primary to the monarch and the royal family.

 

4 minutes ago, SeanF said:

  But, I think we, as readers, are entitled to question whether that is fair.  How strongly does an oath to one's liege hold, if he requires you to do something vile, or refrain from acting, while he does something vile?

Suppose, for example, Steelshanks Walton decided he could tolerate Ramsay's crimes no longer, and slew him, would we consider Walton to be a bad man?

Sure enough, we can pass judgement on his actions since we get a most distinct picture and we are here, out of that world and holding a different set of moral and ethical standards. 

And as for your example, Walton is a captain in Bolton's household. Quite different from taking a vow in an order. His fate would depend on the next lord of the Dreadfort. I always try to stay away from terms like "good" or "bad" when reading a work of fiction since I believe they lead usually to endless and sometimes pointless discussions. Anyways, there ARE outlaws in Westeros, and Walton would probably run off and become one, unless he'd be granted a Crown's pardon. Barristan was an Aerys II' kingsguard, and was pardoned by a not-assasinated Robert, then resumed his duties as a white cloak, since his oath, as the maesters', bounds him to the Crown (or castle, in the case of the maester). That's the ultimate frontier; Jaime broke that when he actually killed the monarch. 

[Craving Peaches]

3 hours ago, Jon Fossoway said:

Jaime is a member of the Kingsguard. Their loyalty is primary to the monarch and the royal family.

Yes but he has also sworn knightly vows to defend the innocent. So if he stood by and let Aerys kill everyone in the city he would be breaking those vows.

Quote

"So many vows . . . they make you swear and swear. Defend the king. Obey the king. Keep his secrets. Do his bidding. Your life for his. But obey your father. Love your sister. Protect the innocent. Defend the weak. Respect the gods. Obey the laws. It's too much. No matter what you do, you're forsaking one vow or the other."

 

[Terrorthatflapsinthenight9]

2 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

Yes but he has also sworn knightly vows to defend the innocent. So if he stood by and let Aerys kill everyone in the city he would be breaking those vows.

 

And kinslaying is an even worse crime than kingslaying, with Aerys' last order to him being of killing his father while ordering Rossart to burn the entire city down. 

[Corvo the Crow]

.

 

 

 

 

[Jon Fossoway]

50 minutes ago, Terrorthatflapsinthenight9 said:

And kinslaying is an even worse crime than kingslaying, with Aerys' last order to him being of killing his father while ordering Rossart to burn the entire city down. 

Kinslaying is a world-wide taboo in 'planetos'. I don't think there is a valid point of comparison there, other that both words sounding similar. 

[Craving Peaches]

3 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Not ousting them from power was the worst wrong doing done to both them and the realm.

I would like to see Westeros return to its natural state of Seven Kingdoms at the end of the series.

And every dragon should be dead. Otherwise I think it is narratively a bad choice. If the Others are defeated but the dragons remain. No balance or harmony. Dragons should only still be alive if the Other threat hasn't been dealt with.

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

I would like to see Westeros return to its natural state of Seven Kingdoms at the end of the series.

And every dragon should be dead. Otherwise I think it is narratively a bad choice. If the Others are defeated but the dragons remain. No balance or harmony. Dragons should only still be alive if the Other threat hasn't been dealt with.

I think that's rather like trying to convert England back into the Seven Kingdoms of the Anglo-Saxon period, or to convert Germany back into its pre-Unification political condition.