Tom O'Sevens at the end of AFFC

[alguien]

No. That's called "turning your coat". Doesn't seem like a popular move. The whole idea with an oath of allegiance is that you can't leave it. Your lord can relieve you.

What were the exact terms of fhe oath? Do you have a quote?

Besides, one could argue, quite justifiably, that the creature before her is no longer the woman she swore fealty to.

By a rule you just invented, I guess. Neither Brienne nor Catelyn seem to know that rule, so it doesn't apply

I hope you are being facetious. Otherwise I'm happy to explain the concept of war and enemy soldier to you.

No need to explain. Do I have to explain the concept of contracts considered null if one of the people dies? Um, its called a logical assumption. Okay, Your wife dies. You vowed to love and cherish her and stay faithful. You marry again. Is this breaking a vow? Apparently by your logic it is.

I thought I was clear: Catelyn is the leader of a band of outlaws. These outlaws are hunted and killed by King Tommen and his vassals, and vice versa. Brienne is either (1) a loyal servant to Catelyn Stark or (2) a loyal servant to Jaime Lannister (father to King Tommen, commander of his armies, would-be killer of Catelyn's child and unborn nephew, looks-like conspirator behind the Red Wedding (making him responsible for killing Robb and Cat herself!), conqueror of Riverrun, and executor of broken men). There's a mountain of evidence in favour of (2). Moreover, Brienne confirms that it's not (1).

Case closed.

Yah, I get it. By a simple black and white view its cased closed. Others might consider what people in courts refer to as..extenuating circumstances.

Well, moral... she's following her heart. She chooses love over honour. If that's moral I don't know. I'd call it selfish or love-sick or something like that.

Or maybe just trying to do the right thing. I totally disagree that she's choosing love over honor. Or do you think her murdering Jaime would be more honorable than continuing her quest to rescue Arya and Sansa?

No it's not like claiming that. Brienne is asked openly if she will accept Catelyn's command or not. There is no fabricated evidence or torture or anything like that. Her oathbreaking happens for all to see, and Brienne is made completely conscious or her choice and its consequences. I can't imagine a fairer trail. Catelyn explicitly ignores the (huge mountain of very incriminating) evidence against Brienne and lets her decide the question of her allegiance anew. What that has to do with the Inquisition I don't know. The inquisition would have fabricated evidence, or tortured her to confirm things she never did.

... in fact I didn't expect you to mention the Inquisition.

You're either misunderstanding my example or deliberately misrepresenting what I just said.

I'm not talking about the method, I meant that the term "open court" is a misrepresentation because its not open, its not fair, its not justice, its vengeance...she couldn't bring witnesses, there was no balance or justice. Justice is an impartial system. They were telling her she was going to hang before they dragged her into the room before Stoneheart.. That's why its similar to the Inquisition or a lynch mob. Which is all the BwB really has degenrated into...a lynch mob.

I need to ask, you make claims for Catelyn being justified in hanging Brienne, but do you really think that Brienne should have said, "Yes you're right, I'll go out and kill Jaime?"

Do you think that the BwB has become a force for good?

[alguien]

Not according to Brienne. According to her, no oath is as sacred as one made to the dead. I'd like to see countervailing evidence, if you have any; but otherwise I think the woman herself can be an adequate authority on how oaths operate in Westeros.

Well I agree here. I think she was honoring her oath by seeking to rescue the Stark girls.

Furthermore, Lady Stoneheart isn't dead, but I would argue that she's no longer the woman Brienne swore fealty to.

[Happy Ent]

Besides, one could argue, quite justifiably, that the creature before her is no longer the woman she swore fealty to.

But Brienne doesn't even argue that herself. You're inventing that rule.

Or do you think her murdering Jaime would be more honorable than continuing her quest to rescue Arya and Sansa?

Absolutely. That's the point, a point that Brienne would have happily explained to you two books ago. From Brienne's old point of view (the view of the chivalric honour code), Jaime Lannister did something dishonourable when he killed the monster King Aerys.

I'm not talking about the method, I meant that the term "open court" is a misrepresentation because its not open, its not fair, its not justice, its vengeance...

Again with the vengeance... what is begin avenged? I don't get it. And it's certainly justice and fair. Brienne isn't fooled or slighted or played false. It's completely fair. She gets to answer the question "Are you an oathbreaker?" herself. The fairest trial ever.

They were telling her she was going to hang before they dragged her into the room before Stoneheart.

Of course. The evidence against her is overwhelming. Yet still, Stoneheart actually asks her. Even though the evidence is a thousand times enough to condemn her for turning her cloak, Stoneheart actually gives her a trial instead of judging her on the basis of the evidence. Cat is saying that even though it sure looks like Brienne has gone over to the Lannisters, she deserves a chance.

But Brienne doesn't use the chance. Because the evidence speaks truly. She has gone over to the enemy. To the point of refusing a direct order from Lady Stark to kill her enemy #1 (or #2 if you think Lord Frey is a bigger enemy).

Which is all the BwB really has degenrated into...a lynch mob.

I don't understand your terminology at all. Could you tell me how you would describe Jaime's execution of the two broken men he encounters en route to Riverrun? (Jaime calls it "justice" and congratulates himself. I'd be curious about what you'd call it.)

I need to ask, you make claims for Catelyn being justified in hanging Brienne, but do you really think that Brienne should have said, "Yes you're right, I'll go out and kill Jaime?"

That would be the honourable thing to do. So if Brienne values that: yes. Else, no. "Sometimes there is no easy choice. Only one less terrible than the other."

(But, in truth, I know more than Brienne. I've been inside Jaime's head. So: yes.)

Do you think that the BwB has become a force for good?

I don't know what that means. I don't think there are such factions, I'm sure GRRM wants us to see that these dichotomies aren't helpful. The BwB is a faction in a war. They are no more good or bad than the soldiers of Lord Tarly. Some of the BwB people are utter swine, and have always been. Others aren't. Just like the Freys or the Lannisters or the Starks.

[alguien]

But Brienne doesn't even argue that herself. You're inventing that rule.

I'm not inventing anything. I'm saying that its reasonable for anyone to question whether an allegiance is still valid to someone after they have died and come back as a revenant, as Ser Bonnifer would have called Catelyn.

Absolutely. That's the point, a point that Brienne would have happily explained to you two books ago. From Brienne's old point of view (the view of the chivalric honour code), Jaime Lannister did something dishonourable when he killed the monster King Aerys.

Except if you're right, Brienne would have killed Jaime immediately. Brienne two books ago did everything she could to not kill Jaime, despite being disgusted at his act. As for chivalric code, I'm not familiar with every word of the andal vow of knighthood, but Brienne is no knight anyway. But I would argue that she has honor. Brienne is taking after her ancestor Duncan, making a moral choice not play a part to murder.

Again with the vengeance... what is begin avenged? I don't get it.

I think its quite clear that UnCat is out to avenge her family. Thoros himself said that once they were about justice, but no longer.

And it's certainly justice and fair. Brienne isn't fooled or slighted or played false. It's completely fair. She gets to answer the question "Are you an oathbreaker?" herself. The fairest trial ever.

But she is railroaded. That's not justice. At least not by any standard of justice that I've ever heard of, .

There's no legal precedent for vows sworn to undead.

In any case, there's no impartiality.

You argue about making up rules, but the characters themselves don't use any type of legal justification. Quite simply, they have the power, they want to kill all the Lannisters and Freys they can, and they will.

Certainly you can argue that from Catelyn's POV, its fair. I agree with you there.

I also think that she's unstable, to say the least. When the last POV we see of a person is hallucinatory worms crawling over their skin, then I'd question their judgement somewhat.

Of course. The evidence against her is overwhelming. Yet still, Stoneheart actually asks her. Even though the evidence is a thousand times enough to condemn her for turning her cloak, Stoneheart actually gives her a trial instead of judging her on the basis of the evidence. Cat is saying that even though it sure looks like Brienne has gone over to the Lannisters, she deserves a chance.

But Brienne doesn't use the chance. Because the evidence speaks truly. She has gone over to the enemy. To the point of refusing a direct order from Lady Stark to kill her enemy #1 (or #2 if you think Lord Frey is a bigger enemy).

She's fulfilling what, as far as she new, was her last obligation to Lady Catelyn, to keep her girls safe. She didn't swear an oath of allegiance to Lannister or Frey, which would have indeed made her a turncloak. Who did Brienne swear to after Catelyn? No one.

I don't understand your terminology at all. Could you tell me how you would describe Jaime's execution of the two broken men he encounters en route to Riverrun? (Jaime calls it "justice" and congratulates himself. I'd be curious about what you'd call it.)

I don't know if it is. He certainly thinks so. I never claimed that.

That would be the honourable thing to do. So if Brienne values that: yes. Else, no. "Sometimes there is no easy choice. Only one less terrible than the other."

How would murder of a man who actively helped you to fulfill your last vow to the dead (lady Catelyn) , who saved your life, who was making an attempt at redemption, be honorable?

Oaths of obedience is one thing, honor is another.

(But, in truth, I know more than Brienne. I've been inside Jaime's head. So: yes.)

Then I guess I'll just agree to disagree with you.

I don't know what that means. I don't think there are such factions, I'm sure GRRM wants us to see that these dichotomies aren't helpful. The BwB is a faction in a war. They are no more good or bad than the soldiers of Lord Tarly. Some of the BwB people are utter swine, and have always been. Others aren't. Just like the Freys or the Lannisters or the Starks.

I'm asking you to make a qualitative judgement. If you don't know what that means, I can see why you think hanging innocent people is perfectly acceptable.

GRRM may want us not to see everything in pure good and evil, but I think its wrong to assume he doesn't want us to see that morals exist.

The examples you use are extreme. If anything, Ice and Fire is about complexity and things not being so black and white. This rigid ahderence to the questionable legal ramifications of an oath to a dead woman is exactly the kind of extremism that GRRM would fault you on.

[The Man]

Let's try a different tack here. Do you, Happy Ent, believe Jaime was unjustified in killing Aerys knowing that he was going to slaughter that many of his subjects, and if so, why?

[Happy Ent]

Let's try a different tack here. Do you, Happy Ent, believe Jaime was unjustified in killing Aerys knowing that he was going to slaughter that many of his subjects, and if so, why?

Jaime did the right thing. According to the experts (Ned, Brienne, everybody else) it was not honourable.

[Happy Ent]

I'm not inventing anything. I'm saying that its reasonable for anyone to question whether an allegiance is still valid to someone after they have died and come back as a revenant, as Ser Bonnifer would have called Catelyn.

But Brienne is not using that argument at all. She clearly sees Lady Stoneheart as Lady Stark. You may think it's a good cop-out. Brienne and Cat disagree.

But I would argue that she has honor. Brienne is taking after her ancestor Duncan, making a moral choice not play a part to murder.

I think you're just confusing terms here. The short story The Sworn Sword puts Dunk into a similar situation. His oath of allegiance commands him to do things that he finds wrong – honour and decency are opposed. Now, GRRM gives Dunk an easy way out in that story. Brienne doesn't get that easy way out.

I think its quite clear that UnCat is out to avenge her family. Thoros himself said that once they were about justice, but no longer.

Of course UnCat wants to avenge her family. I just fail to see what Brienne's trial has to do with that. What injustice to Cat's family is being avenged? I don't get it. Vengeance doesn't enter into it. Brienne is killed for being an oathbreaker and having gone over to the enemy.

Thoros is right as well. The BwB is just a faction in the war, fighting House Tarly, House Lannister, and House Frey. Justice has little to do with their motivation. But Brienne received a fair trial.

But she is railroaded. That's not justice.

Maybe that's the heart of the matter. Explain. Where is she being wronged? Are you saying she wants to kill Jaime but doesn't get a chance to say so? Or are you saying that the court correctly establishes her refusal to kill Jaime? In that case, the trial arrives at the right decision. No railroading.

In any case, there's no impartiality.

A partial judge would have condemned Brienne on the basis of the evidence. Cat actually asks her.

Quite simply, they have the power, they want to kill all the Lannisters and Freys they can, and they will.

Agreed. Just as the Lannisters, Freys, and Tarlys kill all the outlaws they can. And they will.

She's fulfilling what, as far as she new, was her last obligation to Lady Catelyn, to keep her girls safe.

She's failing to do that. Spectacularly so. This board is full of readers who think GRRM "lost it" because he uses several chapters establishing that Brienne's quest is a complete failure.

So Cat gives her a new, and infinitely more useful command. Kill Jaime Lannister. That's probably going to work out a whole lot better; I expect Brienne and Jaime to live one more chapter.

I don't know if it is. He certainly thinks so. I never claimed that.

I would have liked you to call Jaime a "lynch mob" because that's what you call the BwB for a related crime.

How would murder of a man who actively helped you to fulfill your last vow to the dead (lady Catelyn) , who saved your life, who was making an attempt at redemption, be honorable?

Because she swore and oath. You're saying it's dishonourable. I'm saying it's difficult.

Oaths of obedience is one thing, honor is another.

Brienne would disagree. So would Ned. Actually, pretty much everybody who cares about this concept would.

I'm asking you to make a qualitative judgement. If you don't know what that means, I can see why you think hanging innocent people is perfectly acceptable.

Acceptable? Where did I say that? I feel quite the opposite.

This rigid ahderence to the questionable legal ramifications of an oath to a dead woman is exactly the kind of extremism that GRRM would fault you on.

You're digging your own grave now. So in your book, if Catelyn was alive, Brienne would have to accept the command? I thought it had to do with love and decency?

Let's play this out: Catelyn escapes the Red Wedding, becomes the BwB leader and then meets Brienne while alive. Everything else is the same. Catelyn is equally suspicious about Brienne having turned her cloak (the evidence is the same: Tyrion's former squire, Ser Hyle, the reforged sword, the letter from King Tommen). So Catelyn, ever the reasonable person, asks Brienne to kill Jaime – a command that Catelyn wanted to give already in Clash and that Brienne would have gladly accepted then.

Now you think Brienne should accept? Because Cat is alive? So the task suddenly becomes what you call "honourable"?

(I think Cat's state of undeath has nothing to do with the question.)

[Errant Bard]

If you look at it another way, Jaime confessed to both Brienne and Cat that he tried to kill Bran and cuckholed the king. Why wouldn't he deserve to be executed? He is a murderer, but because he seduced Brienne, he ought to be spared? Even if he changed, like Brienne says in her infatuation, is Bran suddenly not crippled, Jory alive, Tommen a Baratheon, Arya and Sansa not sold to a Bolton or with a reward on her head, and are the army massed against Riverrun suddenly not Lannisters? How, under any other rule than a Lannister's, wouldn't he be executed on the spot, by people who knew that?

Ned executing Lady comes to mind: He likes Lady, it breaks his heart to do it, but law says she has to die, so he does it, and he does it himself because he likes Lady, because she deserves better than a death at the hand of others. Brienne's situation is similar.

Of course, morals and honour are quite different. Look at Ned, again, in his cell, who seriously contemplates letting Sansa die to keep his honour, but in the end, lies and dies for her.

The old man seemed to sense his doubts. "Tell me, Jon, if the day should ever come when your lord father must needs choose between honor on the one hand and those he loves on the other, what would he do?"

[...]

"So what is your answer, Lord Eddard? Give me your word that you'll tell the queen what she wants to hear when she comes calling."

"If I did, my word would be as hollow as an empty suit of armor. My life is not so precious to me as that."

[...]

And spare a thought for this as well: The next visitor who calls on you could bring you bread and cheese and the milk of the poppy for your pain . . . or he could bring you Sansa's head.

"The choice, my dear lord Hand, is entirely yours."

[...]

"I am Eddard Stark, Lord of Winterfell and Hand of the King," he said more loudly, his voice carrying across the plaza, "and I come before you to confess my treason in the sight of gods and men."

There you have it, from the land's reference in honour. Honour is not about protecting your loved ones. Actually disregarding crimes or legalities because of your feelings makes your words as hollow as an empty suit of armor.

[Ran]

Agreed with EH.

The fact is that Brienne accepts the idea that she owes Lady Stark a duty based on her oath. It simply is not relevant whether she was dead and then came back to life. One could readily see cases where, say, a lord, having falling overboard and drowned only to be revived with primitive CPR techniques ala the ironborn, would still expect to command the loyalty of his men. Indeed, we know some ironborn are drowned relatively late in life, and doubtless there's no concern of their losing their sworn men or whatever because they briefly "died".

It really is no different. There's nothing that we know of in Westerosi law that provides for different legal outcomes in the case of someone being revived via magic and not via some other method, because magic didn't really work all that much (and, really, hadn't worked that much for a very long time) in the Seven Kingdoms.

[Lady Blackfish]

And I can see why people boggle at this whole "there are no laws for the undead" thing and why it's even being seriously discussed instead of passed off as an amusing wisecrack ... but it's really the point, it's the clash between the rational and the irrational, the natural and the supernatural. How does a manmade system begin to accommodate magic, which, irrational though it may be, does exist?

[Errant Bard]

Seems like a minor technicality to me, gods and supernatural have a place in society already, if only with the trials by combat. As for the rest, orders from beyond the grave, honour of the dead, ghosts communicating their will or last wishes, that seems to be already well integrated.

"The ghost of Catelyn bid me to fulfill one last task for her" doesn't seem really that outlandish; "Kill the ones responsible for my death and that of my family" sounds rather common too.

It's not like undeath made people less themselves. usually the ones damning Cat the strongest are the ones defending Beric the most.

[sToNED_CAT]

I think its quite clear that UnCat is out to avenge her family. Thoros himself said that once they were about justice, but no longer.

They are not just avengers (hanging Freys and Lannisters), they are still protecting smallfalk too. Remeber Lem was tracking Brave companions when they caught Brienne.

[Itkovian]

There you have it, from the land's reference in honour. Honour is not about protecting your loved ones. Actually disregarding crimes or legalities because of your feelings makes your words as hollow as an empty suit of armor.

Hum, the problem here is that Eddard's words are not related to legalities.

He is being asked to confess to crimes he did not commit, to sully his own honour and pretend he was a traitor, and indeed hide the crimes committed by Cersei. That makes his word as hollow as a suit of honour.

That said, these words are spoken before he is told of the consequences of refusal, namely that they would kill Sansa if he refuses, after which he obviously relents.

But does that mean that protecting your loved ones is anathema to Honour? Certainly not, and one might say that the greatest Honour is to be found in doing so (especially since Love figures so prominently in the chivalric myth).

Now, in this case, yes, Eddard lied and confessed to false treason to save Sansa's life. Does this make him a dishonourable person? The crimes he confesses to are dishonourable, lying about the truth is dishonourable, to be sure. But if records of his end survive and the truth be known, how would he be regarded?

For my part, I believe that even his death would be seen as honourable, as he sacrificed his own life to save that of another. When reviewing Eddard's Stark's life, and his death, I doubt very much that people would judge him dishonourable.

That said, it is important to remember that Honour is not an objective thing. There are no hard rules that define when one becomes dishonourable, as a lot of it is very subjective. Brienne is a fine example of this:

As far as UnCat is concerned, Brienne has indeed betrayed her oath and acted dishonourably by collaborating with Jaime and accepting his sword and Lannister gold.

Brienne believes, however, that she has acted Honourably, as she accomplished her initial duty (delivering Jaime), and the other part of the bargain was not accomplished because Jaime does not know where Sansa and Arya are. She also knows that Jaime has actually helped her find and rescue Sansa and Arya, by giving her royal sanction, gold, and a valyrian steel blade, and that Jaime is no longer the same man he was and seeks redemption (going out of his way to save her life as well).

As far as she is concerned, she has and is accomplishing her Oath as best as the circumstances have allowed her, and that furthermore turning against Jaime and murdering him would be DIShonourable. Not because she loves him (though clearly that is a factor), but because his failure to return Cat's daughter is not his fault, as they were gone before he was delivered, and has also done much to assist Brienne in fulfilling her Oath as best as possible.

Thus, from Brienne's POV, turning against Jaime and slaying him is an act of dishonour, which in turns makes following UnCat's command problematic, since the bond of fealty specifically states that her liege will not force her into dishonour. This is why she cannot answer "Sword or Rope". On the one hand she betrays her Honour (and certainly her love for Jaime plays a factor as well), and on the other she and her companions get to die.

Now, had UnCat been less obsessed with vengeance and her own flavour of justice, and had the court been rather fairer, Brienne might have been permitted to explain what happenned better, and perhaps cooler heads might have prevailed. Perhaps.

In fact, I think the reference to Eddard's choice is quite appropriate. Like Eddard, Brienne is forced to choose between her Honour (going after Jaime), and the life of others. Indeed, it seems quite clear to me that Prodrick and Ser (forgethisname) being hanged alongside her has a great impact, and is largely responsible for her shouting whatever word she so callously decided to wait years before actually shouting it.

I would imagine it has something to do with "sword", and that she came to the same decision as Eddard.

Anyway, this is but my (lengthy) two cents.

Itkovian

[Lady Blackfish]

But does that mean that protecting your loved ones is anathema to Honour? Certainly not, and one might say that the greatest Honour is to be found in doing so (especially since Love figures so prominently in the chivalric myth).

If this was how honor was dealt with in the book, then Catelyn's decision free Jaime to get her daughters back would be seen as honorable. I don't think you'll find that's what most people will say.

Now, had UnCat been less obsessed with vengeance and her own flavour of justice, and had the court been rather fairer, Brienne might have been permitted to explain what happenned better, and perhaps cooler heads might have prevailed. Perhaps.

Brienne might have explained had the court been more merciful. Nobody is saying UnCat is merciful.

This is GRRM messing with our minds. Remember how we groaned at Ned showing Cersei mercy? Who needs mercy, we cried!

Well, we'd like some now.

[Prince of the North]

Bullseye, Itkovian!

[Prince of the North]

If this was how honor was dealt with in the book, then Catelyn's decision free Jaime to get her daughters back would be seen as honorable. I don't think you'll find that's what most people will say.

LB,

You know, I never had any problem with Catelyn releasing Jaime on the promise he would return her daughters. The thing I found most interesting is that she would trust someone who supposedly had "shit for honor". What did she see in him, if anything? Maybe she didn't see anything and was just that desperate? I don't know. Another interesting thing is that Jaime, ironically, did his best to keep his word to Catelyn and through helping Brienne he still is

Now it may very well be Lady Stoneheart herself, through her extreme paranoia and cruelty, who will completely thwart someone who truly is trying to return her daughters to her! Great stuff, huh?!

[Lady Blackfish]

Prince,

Catelyn trusting Jaime was the action of a very desperate woman, though she depended more on Brienne's abilities and Tyrion's word. The irony is, as you said, that Jaime actually tried, while Tyrion has become the villain society always anticipated him being. Jaime's character arc rose and Tyrion's fell into darker territory. However throughout the first two books we loathed Jaime and knew him primarily as dishonorable, a kingslayer (which is still how the Blackfish, who says Catelyn should never have trusted Jaime, sees him), while we ripped our hair out at Catelyn not trusting Tyrion in the mountains of the moon. Irony abounds, because of who knows what piece of information when.

Call me an optimist, I see Brienne living. Something has got to come of the fact that she made Catelyn swear to let her have her revenge on Stannis, if you ask me.

[Happy Ent]

Another interesting thing is that Jaime, ironically, did his best to keep his word to Catelyn and through helping Brienne he still is

That's his best? What?

He sends the ugly woman away with a sword he can no longer use and a piece of paper that cost him nothing. That's all he does. Meanwhile, he does nothing to foil his sister's schemes to find Sansa and bring her back to KL. Actually, Cersei is somebody who invests in finding Sansa. Money, time, social capital. Jaime? He just gets rid of the ugly woman, and maybe eases his conscience a bit. Meanwhile, we have a gazillion competent knights like Ser Mouse trawling Westeros for Sansa to bring her back and one bumbling incompetent to protect her. That was Jaime's best? So how come Cersei is so much more effective.

And don't get me started on Arya. Jaime knows that a fake Arya is sent to the North. What did he do to prevent that? Nada.

Jaime does almost nothing. Instead, he takes Riverrun. (Hanging a few outlaws en route.) Colour me unimpressed.

[Lady Blackfish]

No, it's true that Jaime is very indolent about that particular vow. My only point was that even that much was against expectation. That doesn't make him effective about it, he doesn't even totally accept the obligation since it was taken at swordpoint. It's just the glimmer of an upswing, to be sure, but enough to present some irony IMO.

[Prince of the North]

Prince,

Catelyn trusting Jaime was the action of a very desperate woman, though she depended more on Brienne's abilities and Tyrion's word. The irony is, as you said, that Jaime actually tried, while Tyrion has become the villain society always anticipated him being. Jaime's character arc rose and Tyrion's fell into darker territory. However throughout the first two books we loathed Jaime and knew him primarily as dishonorable, a kingslayer (which is still how the Blackfish, who says Catelyn should never have trusted Jaime, sees him), while we ripped our hair out at Catelyn not trusting Tyrion in the mountains of the moon. Irony abounds, because of who knows what piece of information when.

Call me an optimist, I see Brienne living. Something has got to come of the fact that she made Catelyn swear to let her have her revenge on Stannis, if you ask me.

I'm an optimist, too. Brienne won't hang. She'll either choose "sword" and then we'll get to see her deal with the dilemma that brings or, in my most fervent of dreams, she throws the curse "oathbreaker" back at Stoneheart for hindering her quest to avenge Renly on Stannis Stoneheart needs to have her hypocrisy shoved in her face. That would rock!

That's his best? What?

...

HA! I stand corrected! Saying Jaime did his best to keep his oath was a poor choice of words on my part. I agree with you that Jaime could most definitely have done more but he did try to do something and that's more than we had seen from him to that point. I'm with LB, I think it did serve to create a little irony and showed Jaime was beginning to change.