What prevents Jaime from having a proper redemption arc ?

[SeanF]

1 minute ago, James Arryn said:

1) as I mentioned, that doesn’t matter in the moment. Your children are about to die unless you do X, right now. Do you do X? They are innocent too. Are you telling me you’d let your children die because of some abstract concept like ‘well, if we hadn’t been doing this in the first place…’? If your answer is yes, I’d be more than a little certain you’ve never had children. 
 

2) No one knows about Bran. Bran doesn’t know about Bran. The readers didn’t know about the catspaw being Joff until books later. Most assume he fell climbing, and there is exactly zero evidence contradicting that belief. How on earth is that the first blow in a war, when literally no one alive (except Joff) knows it WAS thrown and who threw it? Jaime certainly has no way whatsoever of connecting the two in that Cat has loudly declared that she kidnapped Tyrion for trying to kill Bran via catspaw, and for which she has zero proof…in that he’s innocent…and Jaime has no idea who sent the catspaw. 

Again, I think you are post-applying abstract concepts…with a very broad brush…instead of looking at this in real time as it occurs to the people involved. Most feel the war began with Tyrion’s kidnapping, for a reason. Otherwise you could say it’s really all Lysa and LF, or Robert, or the Mad King. Bran was pushed, what, months before the war began? But, what, days/moments after word came about Tyrion? It’s about Tyrion.
 

And as far as ‘escalating’, it was war. Cat actually did what people thought Rhaegar did, and on top of that Tyrion was put on trial for his life in a kangaroo court. That’s an act of war by Westerosi standards, and Tywin is responding with immediate warfare. There is no escalation, it’s war, not a an arbitration. No one in Westeros conducts gentle war. 

I would never endanger my childrens’ lives, by having an affair with my sister (and the king’s wife) in the first place.

You don’t get to claim self-defence/defence of others when you’re the one who has created the danger in the first place.

And Catelyn did not see it as an accident.  She guessed (rightly) that the Lannisters were responsible for the fall.  She just hit on the wrong Lannister.

[James Arryn]

40 minutes ago, frenin said:

There's also the fact that at every turn most of Jaime's acts of heroism includes saving his hide.

- Jaime's children would have died if Robert ever found out about the twincest... But Jaime would have gone first.

- King's Landing would have burned if Aerys carried out his plans... but so would Jaime.

I find it hard to call someone commiting horrible deeds out of self preservation a hero even if those deeds have positive ramifications.

I think we can accuse Jaime of a lot, but putting too much value on his own life is absolutely not one of them. For which Robb is thankful. In fact pretty much everyone dismisses the possibility of his sending the catspaw because everyone in Westeros knows that if Jaime Lannister wants someone killed, he does it himself at w/e risk that involves. We know Cersei had to hide bruises etc, because it would have resulted in Jaime killing Robert pretty immediately, regardless of the fact that he’d almost certainly be executed. We know that after his first Kingslaying, after saving the city, he did not flee, he did not seek out his father’s men, he sat on the throne holding the bloody sword and waited for whoever came. His life has never been of significant concern to him in moments like that. 
 

Is this a serious argument? 

[James Arryn]

9 minutes ago, SeanF said:

1) I would never endanger my childrens’ lives, by having an affair with my sister (and the king’s wife) in the first place.

You don’t get to claim self-defence/defence of others when you’re the one who has created the danger in the first place.

2) And Catelyn did not see it as an accident.  She guessed (rightly) that the Lannisters were responsible for the fall.  She just hit on the wrong Lannister.

1) again, abstract concept, real deaths of real children. You are telling me you think there are parents out there who would choose to let their innocent children die because they themselves were sleeping with the wrong person? You really think that would happen? And let go of the hypotheticals…they are out the window…heh…the moment Bran sees them. It’s life and death now, right now, right here. I think you are expecting an impossibility ivory tower kind of behaviour from Jaime. 
 

2) Agreed…well, she also thinks the fall and catspaw were the same killer too…but none of that addresses the facts. Her incorrect theory was not grounds for war, nor could it be. Ned knows everything Cat knows and when he hears about Tyrion, wonders what the hell Cat is doing. It’s grounds for trying to discover the truth, not acts of war based on exactly zero knowledge or evidence. 

[SeanF]

10 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

1) again, abstract concept, real deaths of real children. You are telling me you think there are parents out there who would choose to let their innocent children die because they themselves were sleeping with the wrong person? You really think that would happen? And let go of the hypotheticals…they are out the window…heh…the moment Bran sees them. It’s life and death now, right now, right here. I think you are expecting an impossibility ivory tower kind of behaviour from Jaime. 
 

2) Agreed…well, she also thinks the fall and catspaw were the same killer too…but none of that addresses the facts. Her incorrect theory was not grounds for war, nor could it be. Ned knows everything Cat knows and when he hears about Tyrion, wonders what the hell Cat is doing. It’s grounds for trying to discover the truth, not acts of war based on exactly zero knowledge or evidence. 

Most parents refrain from banging their siblings.  Especially when to do so endangers their children.  That's normal behaviour, not some kind of ivory tower morality. Jaime and Cersei created a situation in which innocents were put at risk.  That's on them.  It's not on Bran.

[James Arryn]

16 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Most parents refrain from banging their siblings.  Especially when to do so endangers their children.  That's normal behaviour, not some kind of ivory tower morality. Jaime and Cersei created a situation in which innocents were put at risk.  That's on them.  It's not on Bran.

Okay, one last time…regardless of incest, any of that, I’ll ask again hoping you will finally answer the question asked rather than your own: do you think there are parents out there who would let their innocent children die when they could prevent it because they are responsible for the predicament that lead to their being in danger? Who would go ‘fair cop’ and watch their innocent family slaughtered because it was, from some philosophical points of view, their responsibility? You think flesh and blood humans make that call in real life? I feel strongly that the fact you’ve ducked this question several times now indicates we both know what your answer is. 
 

edit: and btw, from a rhetorical pov I appreciate it, but in case you did it by accident, you took the ivory tower concept about choosing to let your innocent kids die because you did something you shouldn’t have and applied it to not doing something you shouldn’t have, which is obviously not what I was suggesting. 

[SeanF]

21 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Okay, one last time…regardless of incest, any of that, I’ll ask again hoping you will finally answer the question asked rather than your own: do you think there are parents out there who would let their innocent children die when they could prevent it because they are responsible for the predicament that lead to their being in danger? Who would go ‘fair cop’ and watch their innocent family slaughtered because it was, from some philosophical points of view, their responsibility? You think flesh and blood humans make that call in real life? I feel strongly that the fact you’ve ducked this question several times now indicates we both know what your answer is. 
 

edit: and btw, from a rhetorical pov I appreciate it, but in case you did it by accident, you took the ivory tower concept about choosing to let your innocent kids die because you did something you shouldn’t have and applied it to not doing something you shouldn’t have, which is obviously not what I was suggesting. 

I won’t answer the question, because you have framed it so artificially.  You ask me to forget about the incest etc, but one can’t forget about it.  The context in which this act occurs is vital.

Cersei and Jaime are not a pair of loving parents, forced, through no fault of their own, to make an agonising choice between Bran and their children.  They’re a pair of criminals who are trying to silence for good,  a witness to their crime.  

 

[James Arryn]

9 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I won’t answer the question, because you have framed it so artificially.  You ask me to forget about the incest etc, but one can’t forget about it.  The context in which this act occurs is vital.

Cersei and Jaime are not a pair of loving parents, forced, through no fault of their own, to make an agonising choice between Bran and their children.  They’re a pair of criminals who are trying to silence for good,  a witness to their crime.  

 

As I thought. And it’s not artificial, it’s Jaime’s reality the moment Bran sees them, as I initially stated. I even allowed for the inclusion of that context provided you answered the question and you still won’t which is answer enough. Your answer to the real life scenario Jamie finds himself in is to…rewind time and not be in it. That’s lovely. 
 

To go one step further, most people don’t fall in love with their twin. From both their POVs, but especially Jaime’s, these feelings go back as far as they can remember, so I’m not sure how much ‘choice’ they had. And to be clear, calling them criminals…this is you approving of the patriarchy of Westeros? Robert can fuck whoever he wants but Cersei’s body belongs to him? There’s no question that would be the medieval mindset in many places, but you are attributing moral values here pretty strongly, so I’m assuming you think this plays out morally?

[SeanF]

22 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

As I thought. And it’s not artificial, it’s Jaime’s reality the moment Bran sees them, as I initially stated. I even allowed for the inclusion of that context provided you answered the question and you still won’t which is answer enough. Your answer to the real life scenario Jamie finds himself in is to…rewind time and not be in it. That’s lovely. 
 

To go one step further, most people don’t fall in love with their twin. From both their POVs, but especially Jaime’s, these feelings go back as far as they can remember, so I’m not sure how much ‘choice’ they had. And to be clear, calling them criminals…this is you approving of the patriarchy of Westeros? Robert can fuck whoever he wants but Cersei’s body belongs to him? There’s no question that would be the medieval mindset in many places, but you are attributing moral values here pretty strongly, so I’m assuming you think this plays out morally?

Killing an innocent so that I can get away with practising incest and treason does not accord with any system of morality that I am aware of.  Incest is an offence even in modern societies, and sleeping with the king’s wife is treason in Westeros.  Cersei and Jaime are perfectly happy to enjoy all the benefits and perks that go to high nobility in their their social system.  But, sometimes there are costs, even for the most eminent.

If I were the kind of person who did such things, then perhaps I might have no qualms about killing an innocent child, but that would not reflect well upon me.  Nor does it reflect well on Jaime.

[James Arryn]

12 minutes ago, SeanF said:

1) Killing an innocent so that I can get away with practising incest and treason does not accord with any system of morality that I am aware of.  Incest is an offence even in modern societies, and sleeping with the king’s wife is treason in Westeros.  Cersei and Jaime are perfectly happy to enjoy all the benefits of their social system.  But, sometimes there are costs, even for the most eminent.

If I were the kind of person who did such things, then perhaps I might have no qualms about killing an innocent child, but that would not reflect well upon me.  Nor does it reflect well on Jaime.

Man, you are fully committed to strawmen, aren’t you? He does it to save his family. That accords with pretty much every moral system. He’s not doing it to ‘get away’ with anything…if it were up to him alone he’d have long since killed Robert, or tried, and that’s his response to the idea of being caught. Killing Bran is about protecting his family. That’s how he thinks about it, that’s how Cersei views it, etc. Now an actual argument against this position is how much it’s Cersei vs. the children and it’s possible…unknowable but feasible…that Jaime would do it just to protect Cersei and doesn’t care that much about the children. I’m open to that idea, and that would be much less morally defensible.
 

But I’m of the mind that what he says is what he means, and it were just Cersei I think he either just tries to take her and run or kill Robert and deal with the consequences later. I think the children limit his options. But anyways, this is all for me as you apparently have no interest in discussing what actually happened in favour of some detached impersonal philosophical take on accountability which, uniquely, suggests innocent children deserve to die for their parents ‘crimes’…and that their parents should agree with that. Yikes. 
 

 

[SeanF]

1 minute ago, James Arryn said:

Man, you are fully committed to strawmen, aren’t you? He does it to save his family. That accords with pretty much every moral system. He’s not doing it to ‘get away’ with anything…if it were up to him alone he’d have long since killed Robert, or tried, and that’s his response to the idea of being caught. Killing Bran is about protecting his family. That’s how he thinks about it, that’s how Cersei views it, etc. Now an actual argument against this position is how much it’s Cersei vs. the children and it’s possible…unknowable but feasible…that Jaime would do it just to protect Cersei and doesn’t care that much about the children. I’m open to that idea, and that would be much less morally defensible.
 

But I’m of the mind that what he says is what he means, and it were just Cersei I think he either just tries to take her and run or kill Robert and deal with the consequences later. I think the children limit his options. But anyways, this is all for me as you apparently have no interest in discussing what actually happened in favour of some detached impersonal philosophical take on accountability which, uniquely, suggests innocent children deserve to die for their parents ‘crimes’. 
 

 

I'm approaching it from the point of view of any lawyer, when faced with a defence of self-defence, or necessity.

A defendant does get away with making the argument that he had no option but to kill an innocent child, in order to save his family from danger, when that danger  was caused by his own commission of a crime.  Jaime intended to be a common murderer, at the point that he through Bran from the window.  (Leaving aside that breach of guest right is one of the most heinous offences in this society).

Your argument is, in essence, Jaime is entitled to kill anyone who finds out about his incest with this sister, because that knowledge could place his children in danger.  

 

[James Arryn]

10 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I'm approaching it from the point of view of any lawyer, when faced with a defence of self-defence, or necessity.

A defendant does get away with making the argument that he had no option but to kill an innocent child, in order to save his family from danger, when that danger  was caused by his own commission of a crime.  Jaime intended to be a common murderer, at the point that he through Bran from the window.  (Leaving aside that breach of guest right is one of the most heinous offences in this society).

Your argument is, in essence, Jaime is entitled to kill anyone who finds out about his incest with this sister, because that knowledge could place his children in danger.  

 

 Not remotely talking about entitlement. No charges have been laid, no court is proceeding. If there were a trial, I would convict Jaime, provided this was not also a world where the innocent children WILL be killed for their parents actions. Do you not see the importance of that distinction? Do you face that quandary in your gambits at the bar?

This is not even about what is allowable, it is about what is wholly understandable.  I am saying stop time when Bran sees them, what are the real life options and consequences Jaime is facing, and what choice would most patents in that situation make. You keep putting your fingers in your ears and insisting he should not have been in that situation and…that’s it. I hope you never play those ‘choose your story’ games…

 

Game: ”You are in the king’s vault and hear someone coming, do you A) try to hide b) attack the person or C) try to talk your way out of the situation?
 

SeanF: I shouldn’t be in the king’s vault! 

Game: That’s not how this works. Regardless of should, this is your current situation, what choice do you make? 
 

SeanF: I don’t understand the question and I won’t respond to it, insert gif. 

[Springwatch]

37 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

He does it to save his family. That accords with pretty much every moral system.

Strictly speaking, he it's one of things he does for love. He wasn't thinking of his family, only Cersei.

No matter. As a justification for murder it's not enough, not even close. There were other solutions not involving murdering an innocent child: Cersei says she could have coerced Bran into silence (when Cersei's charm works, it works amazingly well, see Sansa); or Jaime could have picked up the kids and run for Essos; or they could have demanded Ned's protection (which would definitely work, because Ned does not kill children).

Child murder isn't a great solution anyway. It's a miracle no-one saw Bran fall, and no-one saw Jaime and Cersei coming and going from the tower. It wasn't even high enough to kill him. It was a risky strategy, which Jaime chose because violence is his thing and he holds life cheap.

[Craving Peaches]

8 minutes ago, Springwatch said:

No matter. As a justification for murder it's not enough, not even close.

I think the main issue is as you say, that Jaime, strictly speaking, did not have to kill Bran to save his children/Cersei. They had other options open. Cersei could have coerced Bran into shutting up. They could have ran away to Essos. Now Jaime likely wasn't thinking that much at the time, but there were other options available to him and Cersei, as you say. Jaime wasn't put into a situation where he had to kill Bran because he had children with Cersei. He was in a precarious situation because he chose to have sex at that place and time, and they were both aware of the risks. So they both were putting their children in danger first through their own actions. Self-created risk doesn't necessarily mean he's not entitled to defend his family, but...

I know it's not a modern court but when thinking about Jaime's predicament here it reminds me of cases where the accused tries to argue a defence of necessity or coercion or self-defence when they all had the option of running away first. Harming, or even murdering another person should always be the last, last resort, and only if it is unavoidable. Jaime defaulted to killing Bran.

[frenin]

2 hours ago, James Arryn said:

I think we can accuse Jaime of a lot, but putting too much value on his own life is absolutely not one of them. For which Robb is thankful.

Being brave and being suicidal are two very different things, the idea that Jaime was okay with being burnt to death or being tortured before being killed by Robert just falls flat.

 

2 hours ago, James Arryn said:

We know Cersei had to hide bruises etc, because it would have resulted in Jaime killing Robert pretty immediately, regardless of the fact that he’d almost certainly be executed.

That's him acting without thinking. If my sister was hit by her husband, i'd lose my shit too. I still fear death tho.

 

2 hours ago, James Arryn said:

We know that after his first Kingslaying, after saving the city, he did not flee, he did not seek out his father’s men, he sat on the throne holding the bloody sword and waited for whoever came.

Come on now.

He 100% had planned to flee but he was caught red handed, he also very much seeked his father's men, Ned himself states that the throne room was full of Lannister men.

 

Quote

Ser Elys Westerling and Lord Crakehall and others of his father’s knights burst into the hall in time to see the last of it, so there was no way for Jaime to vanish and let some braggart steal the praise or blame. It would be blame, he knew at once when he saw the way they looked at him … though perhaps that was fear. Lannister or no, he was one of Aerys’s seven.

 

Quote

“I cannot answer for the gods, Your Grace … only for what I found when I rode into the throne room that day,” Ned said. “Aerys was dead on the floor, drowned in his own blood. His dragon skulls stared down from the walls. Lannister’s men were everywhere. Jaime wore the white cloak of the Kingsguard over his golden armor. I can see him still. Even his sword was gilded. He was seated on the Iron Throne, high above his knights, wearing a helm fashioned in the shape of a lion’s head. How he glittered!” “This is well known,” the king complained. “I was still mounted. I rode the length of the hall in silence, between the long rows of dragon skulls. It felt as though they were watching me, somehow. I stopped in front of the throne, looking up at him. His golden sword was across his legs, its edge red with a king’s blood. My men were filling the room behind me. Lannister’s men drew back. I never said a word. I looked at him seated there on the throne, and I waited.

Do you truly believe Jaime would have pulled that shenanigan in the throne room if he didn't have a strong army at his command? 

 

2 hours ago, James Arryn said:

Is this a serious argument? 

Surprisingly it is.

[Craving Peaches]

54 minutes ago, SeanF said:

when that danger  was caused by his own commission of a crime

Technically, where I live, creating a criminal scenario doesn't preclude self defence or defence of others, but it does prevent necessity and coercion (I think). The example given in one of my books is that if you are caught stealing someone's stuff and they then start trying to kill you, if you killed them while defending yourself you may still be able to plead self-defence (assuming the relevant conditions were fulfilled). The issue is moot here though because Jaime did not kill Bran in response to an immediate threat to his person (or another's), nor was his response proportionate, nor did he lack a reasonable means of escape. The fact that he could have just run away really means he hasn't got any defence. And it's not like Bran provoked him, Jaime's not suffering from any mental disorder.

The 'threat' is remote. It isn't immediate. There were other ways to deal with the situation that did not involve harming Bran. Cersei was faced with exactly the same scenario Jaime was and concluded that harming/killing Bran wasn't needed, and she's more of a parent to her children than Jaime is. And Jaime wasn't doing it for his children, he was doing it for her.

[SeanF]

12 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Technically, where I live, creating a criminal scenario doesn't preclude self defence or defence of others, but it does prevent necessity and coercion (I think). The example given in one of my books is that if you are caught stealing someone's stuff and they then start trying to kill you, if you killed them while defending yourself you may still be able to plead self-defence (assuming the relevant conditions were fulfilled). The issue is moot here though because Jaime did not kill Bran in response to an immediate threat to his person (or another's), nor was his response proportionate, nor did he lack a reasonable means of escape. The fact that he could have just run away really means he hasn't got any defence. And it's not like Bran provoked him, Jaime's not suffering from any mental disorder.

The 'threat' is remote. It isn't immediate. There were other ways to deal with the situation that did not involve harming Bran. Cersei was faced with exactly the same scenario Jaime was and concluded that harming/killing Bran wasn't needed, and she's more of a parent to her children than Jaime is. And Jaime wasn't doing it for his children, he was doing it for her.

That expresses it better than I have done.

[Craving Peaches]

8 minutes ago, SeanF said:

That expresses it better than I have done.

Thank you kind sir!

I think it's also important to look how Jaime reacts to the supposed 'threat'. He makes a quip and 'lazily' pushes Bran out the window. He's not panicking that his children are going to be killed, because at that point he doesn't care about them very much, and the 'threat' has not been expressed or really even implied in any way. Jaime does care about Cersei, but again there is no evidence he fears for her life in that moment. He certainly doesn't act like a man fearing the death of his lover and children. There's no desperation or panic to his actions.

[Dofs]

On 12/5/2022 at 6:57 PM, frenin said:

I find this dichotomy rather strange.

He didn't want to kill children but he very much enjoyed the sensation of being like Tywin once the threat was made.

Again, according to you he planned the threat in order to emulate Tywin and prove Genna wrong, with full knowledge he might need to hurt children, on purpose. And yet, he didn't want to say the threat at all.

You try but you just can't explain this contradiction. Simply because your entire read of the situation is wrong.

On 12/5/2022 at 6:57 PM, frenin said:

I did not, you insisted that she had not pronounced the word "soft".

Weak and soft are synonyms, so your little gotcha play is rather silly.

Wait, you are changing "soft" to "weak" due to my insistence that she didn't pronounce the word "soft"? I mean, she didn't pronounce the word "weak" either.

And no, weak and soft are not synonymous. This gotcha is simply to show that you yourself didn't follow the argument you were making, that Genna meant the opposite of "strength" in her speech. Shows very well how flawed your argument was. 

On 12/5/2022 at 6:57 PM, frenin said:

If she's not impressed by Jaime's handling of Edmure.. why Jaime reminder her how he handled Edmure would impress her?

You should ask this question to Jaime, because in his mind he thought it would. His just didn't tell it her for some reason. And what this reason would be?

On 12/5/2022 at 6:57 PM, frenin said:

It is convenient, he still tries to uphold his oath to Cat, nevermind he breaks it but k, by acting like Tywin, he is proud of how he  acted and he keeps thinking on how he's actually Tywin's son and how his aunt is just wrong.. But he's still trying to be Goldenhand lol.

So, why was he trying to uphold the oath to Cat when he was actively trying to emulate Tywin, knowing full well that this is something Tywin would never think about?

On 12/5/2022 at 6:57 PM, frenin said:

Nothing like threatening babies to be remember as "the just" amirite?

I think you missed my point in the discussion how he lost hope of being remembered as the Goldenhand after the threat. He just continues to think like "Goldenhand" without hoping for his reputation to improve as a result. Simply because that's just how he feels he should act.

On 12/5/2022 at 6:57 PM, frenin said:

Uh huh.

I mean it very much does. Most people would surrender and or behave when their chldren are threatened, it's the very reason why hostages wards are taken.

What are you even talking about. It very much does for your imagined argument you are trying to argue about in order to not address the point I am making. And I will repeat it: Edmure caved in from the first try, exactly when Jaime planned him to cave in. You trying to argue this simple fact by keeping to dance around it for so long for some reason just becomes amusing.

On 12/5/2022 at 6:57 PM, frenin said:

Yep.

Nope

On 12/5/2022 at 6:57 PM, frenin said:

Are you playing obtuse? Even when i'm clarifying my argument, instead of arguing that you keep going back to an argument i clearly did not make and you misinterpreted? 

What are you hoping to achieve by this? I honestly do not understand.

Lmao. You made a statement. Provided an argument for it. The argument was stupid, you yourself know it. Hence the statement you have made isn't true. It's that simple.

On 12/5/2022 at 6:57 PM, frenin said:

He deliberately acted like Tywin when he threatened Edmure and that is how he "kept" hia oath to Cat. By threatening children and playing the rains.

I'll repeat, he deliberately didn't act like Tywin by trying to keep his oath to Cat and releasing the Riverrun household. Even when he was directly told by Genna, to whom he was supposedly trying to proves he is Tywin's son, he continued to have un-Tywin like goals and commands.

Which means he doesn't actually want to be ruthless like Tywin and to prove to Genna that he is. He didn't want to say the threat either, just didn't see any other choice.

On 12/5/2022 at 6:57 PM, frenin said:

Yep, he is angry that his aunt believes he lacks strenght, Genna flat out tells him that she thinks she lacks strenght and that she never thought she was a worthy succesor of Tywin, his brother was always the one.

Goldenhand disappears from his mind because he now has a new goal, imitating Tywin, much like his sister and unlike his brother.

Nope, he is angry at himself for having to tell the threat.

Nope, Goldenhand disappears from his mind because he loses hope to be called like that. He didn't have much of it in the first place anyway.

On 12/5/2022 at 6:57 PM, frenin said:

Tywin's higher oath is to his House and he will calmly order the most ruthless things to that end... Sounds like certain wannabe Tywin right? The one who calmly throws children out of windows to protect himself?

You are grasping at straws here by talking about "Tywin's higher oath to his House".

On 12/5/2022 at 6:57 PM, frenin said:

• There is a difference between honorable and faithless. No one would doubt of Tywin's word, everyone would doubt of Jaime's. 
• He intended to break it because he likes being alive and he still went and broke it anyway.
• What is the big difference? Robert quite literally commanded Balon to swear fealty to him with his warhammer aiming at Balon and no one would ever tell you that oath is invalid and you are the one who argued the oath was invalid in the first place.  Jaime doesn't try to wiggle his way out of that oath, he just conveniently decides which parts matter and which do not. Or do you think he has any intention to ever return to a Tully prison camp? Hoe quickly is he to remind he took that oath at swordpoint then huh.

• Depends what either of them tell
• He intended to break it in an almost suicidal fashion
• I would tell you something about honour vs strength but I will not, as we are already posting walls of text to each other and this topic is absolutely irrelevant and a waste of time to discuss here. Fact is, Jaime made the oath valid for himself anyway.

On 12/5/2022 at 6:57 PM, frenin said:

There is no bitternerss there and again, there is no reason to believe what transpired between Edmure and Jaime is a secret.

Yes, there is bitterness there.

On 12/5/2022 at 6:57 PM, frenin said:

I mean he was acting like himself there, not trying to fill anyone's boots. 

No, sorry, according to you he was trying to act like Tywin and fill in his boots. If he was trying to show to Genna that he was Tywin's son, he would be doing this here as well. The fact that he wasn't just shows that your entire premise is wrong.

On 12/5/2022 at 6:57 PM, frenin said:

He was certainly congratulating himself and he did not feel dirty at all, there is absolutely no reason to believe he felt upset and then he felt content of how he kept his oath to Cat... by acting like Tywin.

He was not congratulating himself there and he felt dirty. There is every reason to believe he felt upset.

On 12/5/2022 at 6:57 PM, frenin said:

Said who? He is given complete power to end the chaos in the Riverlands, he is there in the Crown's name, making and fulfilling deals representing the Crown, yet he cannot destroy a castle... because you say so.

How convenient, yet again.

By that logic, Beric had power to strip lords from their Houses in Riverlands as well.

On 12/5/2022 at 6:57 PM, frenin said:

He was very much following Tywin's orders because he thought that was the best course to make, that may feel some of them very too much rewarding to people he didn't really like doesn't mean he actually had a better plan, so he followed the one that was already laid out.

Respect is not the same as obligation.

Nope, he was following Tywin's orders because he still treated Tywin as an utmost authority. He flat out said he didn't want to enact some of them, yet did anyway.

On 12/5/2022 at 6:57 PM, frenin said:

He doesn't concede his point, he pretty much mocks him. You're reading what you want from that exchange.

Nope, he doesn't argue he won't lose, only that he will take loads of Lannister men with him.

On 12/5/2022 at 6:57 PM, frenin said:

There is no such consensus, Jaime throws bravado and it doesn't really work and the rest are not that sure of the success of the operation. 

There is, in the council meeting as well. The counterarguments for it were bloodiness and that it would damage the castle.

On 12/5/2022 at 6:57 PM, frenin said:

I understand your point, i simply do not see the problem. Jaime is not a robot. There is no issue with him convening twice or wasting time needlessly. We know for a fact that he would need to convene again with his commanders at some point.

Well, it seems silly to me. 

On 12/5/2022 at 6:57 PM, frenin said:

It just isn't. Tywin never ever made a threat he never meant to oblige, Tywin never bluffed.

Bluffing with killing babies is certainly of bad taste but it's not on Tywin's level unless one means it.

For Jaime it is.

On 12/5/2022 at 6:57 PM, frenin said:

Nah, he was just thinking how he really is Tywin's son.

He was indeed surprised.

On 12/5/2022 at 6:57 PM, frenin said:

Where? Where does Jaime say that he intends to bluf his way out of that situation?

It wasn't said what plan Jaime had, just that he had a plan before going to the Frey camp. Then, in the Frey camp we see the plan being enacted.

On 12/5/2022 at 6:57 PM, frenin said:

Jaime's threats become nonsensical because you believe him incapable of doing that, not because there is any power preventing him from doing that. That's why you've gone from Jaime's actions taking a long time, to his aunt not allowing hom to do it (lol), to Jaime having already giving orders to attack h didn't give, to him simply following orders.

Your idea to make Edmure believe he would kill children is him threatening  a grown ass man and a dude cutting ropes... scarily.

No, I believe the threat to be nonsensical because it is nonsensical. Even for Tywin it would be such, but Tywin would have never made such a nonsensical threat in the first place.

I believe I made myself clear that my point wasn't that Edmure would believe Jaime would kill children due to him threatening  a grown ass man and a dude cutting ropes scarily. I've plainly said so and explained what my point actually was.

[frenin]

17 hours ago, Dofs said:

Again, according to you he planned the threat in order to emulate Tywin and prove Genna wrong, with full knowledge he might need to hurt children, on purpose. And yet, he didn't want to say the threat at all.

You try but you just can't explain this contradiction. Simply because your entire read of the situation is wrong.

There is no contradiction tho.

That he is trying to emulate Tywin does not mean he enjoys hurting children, just that he enjoys feeling like him.

 

17 hours ago, Dofs said:

Wait, you are changing "soft" to "weak" due to my insistence that she didn't pronounce the word "soft"? I mean, she didn't pronounce the word "weak" either.

And no, weak and soft are not synonymous. This gotcha is simply to show that you yourself didn't follow the argument you were making, that Genna meant the opposite of "strength" in her speech. Shows very well how flawed your argument was. 

No, she stated that Jaime lacked strenght.

And weak and soft are very much synonymous, it is not an attempted gotcha.

But Genna really meant the opposite of strenght, she literally states that "strenght" is needed as opposite to Jaime's "chivalric" approach, how on earth isn't she using those words as opposites?

 

 

17 hours ago, Dofs said:

You should ask this question to Jaime, because in his mind he thought it would. His just didn't tell it her for some reason. And what this reason would be?

Maybe and only maybe... because Genna already knows?

And Jaime doesn't think it would, he thinks it should.

 

 

17 hours ago, Dofs said:

So, why was he trying to uphold the oath to Cat when he was actively trying to emulate Tywin, knowing full well that this is something Tywin would never think about?

I doubt Tywin would try to break his oath if it doesn't conflict with his goals, Jaime, much like Tywin, was more than willing to break his oath his oath to Cat if it meant achieving his goals.

It is in his promise to Edmure where they diverge, not in his oath to Cat.

 

 

17 hours ago, Dofs said:

I think you missed my point in the discussion how he lost hope of being remembered as the Goldenhand after the threat. He just continues to think like "Goldenhand" without hoping for his reputation to improve as a result. Simply because that's just how he feels he should act.

He doesn't continue to think like Goldehand at all tho, he starts thinking about how he is really Tywin's real son.

I did not miss your point, i just disagree with it.

 

 

17 hours ago, Dofs said:

What are you even talking about. It very much does for your imagined argument you are trying to argue about in order to not address the point I am making. And I will repeat it: Edmure caved in from the first try, exactly when Jaime planned him to cave in. You trying to argue this simple fact by keeping to dance around it for so long for some reason just becomes amusing.

Uh huh, what is that moment? When did Jaime planned exactly for him to cave?

 

 

17 hours ago, Dofs said:

Nope

Yep.

 

17 hours ago, Dofs said:

Lmao. You made a statement. Provided an argument for it. The argument was stupid, you yourself know it. Hence the statement you have made isn't true. It's that simple.

Indeed, you're playing obtuse.

Even when I'm stating to you what i was trying to say, you prefer to keep beating a strawman, but if it makes you content i'm all for it.

 

 

17 hours ago, Dofs said:

I'll repeat, he deliberately didn't act like Tywin by trying to keep his oath to Cat and releasing the Riverrun household. Even when he was directly told by Genna, to whom he was supposedly trying to proves he is Tywin's son, he continued to have un-Tywin like goals and commands.

Which means he doesn't actually want to be ruthless like Tywin and to prove to Genna that he is. He didn't want to say the threat either, just didn't see any other choice.

He kept his oath to Catelyn by literally threatening babies and playing the Rains of Castamere, saying he didn't act like Tywin is just absurd.

He did not act like Tywin by letting the folk go but that is something he is again chastised for and his counter argument to that is remembering how he did act like Tywin with Edmure.

 

 

17 hours ago, Dofs said:

Nope, he is angry at himself for having to tell the threat.

Nope, Goldenhand disappears from his mind because he loses hope to be called like that. He didn't have much of it in the first place anyway.

He snaps at his aunt, not at himself. He grows angry at her comment, he wasn't angry before. Time after time, he keeps getting angry at her comments.

Goldenhand disappears because he is Tywin's son now and he knows it unlike his aunt, who does not know him at all.

 

17 hours ago, Dofs said:

You are grasping at straws here by talking about "Tywin's higher oath to his House".

His greater commitment is to his house?

Whatever you want to call it, Tywin is not known for breaking his promises, unlike Jaime.

 

 

17 hours ago, Dofs said:

Yes, there is bitterness there.

Imagined one indeed.

 

17 hours ago, Dofs said:

No, sorry, according to you he was trying to act like Tywin and fill in his boots. If he was trying to show to Genna that he was Tywin's son, he would be doing this here as well. The fact that he wasn't just shows that your entire premise is wrong.

Why would he?  His own argument is reverting back at what he did to Edmure.

 

17 hours ago, Dofs said:

He was not congratulating himself there and he felt dirty. There is every reason to believe he felt upset.

He was indeed contratulating himself and he def not not felt dirty, his first thoughts afterwards is to hiw Genna is wrong at him and how he is Tywin's son.

 

18 hours ago, Dofs said:

By that logic, Beric had power to strip lords from their Houses in Riverlands as well.

Beric is given orders by the previous Hand of the King, who turned traitor, to simply kill Gregor Clegane.

That is an incrediblt jump pf logic.

 

18 hours ago, Dofs said:

Nope, he was following Tywin's orders because he still treated Tywin as an utmost authority. He flat out said he didn't want to enact some of them, yet did anyway.

Does Jaime have other alternatives to Tywin's plans when he said he didn't want to enact some of them?

If the answer is no, and it is no, then the reason why he's following Tywin's deals is because it is the right course, not because he feels the authority of his dead father over him.

 

 

18 hours ago, Dofs said:

Nope, he doesn't argue he won't lose, only that he will take loads of Lannister men with him.

Nope, he mocks Jaime's statement that he would lose and then he states they would fight to death.

18 hours ago, Dofs said:

Well, it seems silly to me. 

People are not robots, they waste time, their thoughts often are at odds with their actions.

There is really not much more than that.

 

18 hours ago, Dofs said:

For Jaime it is.

Doubtful, Jaime knows his father and Jaime has already tried to kill children.

Jaime knows his father would follow suit. And he would too, since he is his father's son and all that.

 

18 hours ago, Dofs said:

He was indeed surprised.

He wasn't.

His thoughts are, "with a trebuchet, if my auntie was here, would she still think i'm not daddy's real son instead of Tyrion?"

There is no surprise there.

 

18 hours ago, Dofs said:

It wasn't said what plan Jaime had, just that he had a plan before going to the Frey camp. Then, in the Frey camp we see the plan being enacted.

He does not say he has a plan nor is it ever said there is plan.

The only thing Jaime thinks is that Edmure is his last chance of avoiding bloodshed, that is all.

 

 

18 hours ago, Dofs said:

No, I believe the threat to be nonsensical because it is nonsensical. Even for Tywin it would be such, but Tywin would have never made such a nonsensical threat in the first place.

I believe I made myself clear that my point wasn't that Edmure would believe Jaime would kill children due to him threatening  a grown ass man and a dude cutting ropes scarily. I've plainly said so and explained what my point actually was.

His threats are nonsensical because... Jaime can't destroy Riverrun, but he actually can, he can't stay for months to ensure its complete destruction, but he actually can and he would not kill children... but he actually can.