Jaime and Aerys

[Errant Bard]

He is sitting on the throne when his father’s men crash in.

He's not. He's finishing slitting Aerys' throat. I can find the quote if you wish, but it goes like this "I couldn't go away and let some other fool take the glory, because X and Y entered just as I killed the pig".

Jaime is seated on the throne when Ned crashes into the room, and we know Ned was late compared to Lannisters, otherwise, well, Rhaenys and Aegon would be alive.

But this still holds true, in any case:

My point is that Jaime had no idea how close his father’s men were so a reasonable person cannot be blamed for taking maters into his own hands. But it matters not at all.

Fifth, I find Ned’s discomfort with Jaime for killing Aerys to be almost silly. That may not deserve high praise, but I think it does not deserve scorn either. As Robert Baratheon said so eloquently, SOMEBODY had to kill Aerys. If Ned wants to stay aloof in his Ice Tower, that’s his business, but killing Aerys was a sound decision.

Ned was ready to do it himself, he objects to someone sworn to defend the king slaughtering him instead, though. It's not the killing itself he has a problem with. But of course, he's still pretty hypocrite in that he did himself rise against his king.

[Errant Bard]

Also, let's not forget that oathbreaking IS binary: you obey and protect the king or you don't. So Jaime had a choice between oathbreaking or killing his dad and helping the city blow up. Same choice that Brienne has right now, you'll notice.

[Matarreyes]

With regards to Jaime's murder of King Aerys - am I the only poster who thinks that it was not only unjustified but also completely unnecessary for Jaime to kill Aerys? Jaime had already killed Rossart. Moreover, his father's men were already in the castle.

The necesary/unnecesary arguments aren´t valid when the book does not give enough info on this. If you choose not to trust Jaime´s POV, that´s your individual decision, but it´s not better supported by "facts" then the exactly opposite take on the situation.

As far as I can see, people arguing Jaime was wrong to kill him are either saying that it wasn´t

1: lawful - which is pretty obvious. Of course it wasn´t lawful. That is why he had to kneel before Robert and ask for forgiveness for his crime, and be granted a royal pardon.

2: proper of a KG - which is a pretty absurd thing to argue, since no one is claiming propriety here. Everyone involved realise the situation was made wronger by Jaime being a KG. He himself realises it.

3: necesary - which is an arguable point. Since we do not know enough about the situation, it can be (and has been) analised (ad nauseum) and presented in such a way that inmediate action becomes either necesary - or not. If you like Jaime, you´ll give credit to him saying he did the only thing he could think of. If you mistrust him, you´ll argue he didn´t think enough purposedly. People do not use the "was necesary/unnecesary to kill" argument to judge Jaime; they jugde Jaime and then use the argument to support whatever decision they have reached. Hence, I propose we refrain from using it altogether.

That said, the real question is what is more important to an individual reader. If the law and propriety concerns win (Ned Stark take on the situation) then Jaime is a whiny criminal who lies to himself about his own decisions. If the law and propriety concerns are deemed to be overlookable in the face of the high risk of KL burning to the ground (raising both hands and a foot here) then Jaime is a courageous person who took action and dirtied his hands for a right cause.

It´s an individual decision, and every one is free to see the situation as he/she will. That´s why it´s called a moral dilemma.

Errant Bard:

"The Lannister men storming the throne room probably heard him say "Yippie Ki-Yay motherfucker" as his sword slit the guy's throat, too.

LOL, though I disagree. The description of the precise moment made me think he was left feeling empty and confused at his own deed ("a king should not die so easily"). Jaime´s possible need for a vendetta (and I am sure he had a strong desire to do exactly what he did for about 2 years...) didn´t come into the equation in the end. He stood guard on a raping and executions so atrocious he had to invent a coping mechanism (Cersei daydreaming) to be able to get through the motions. If he didn´t snap than, he wouldn´t snap later. Had the exact situation (entire city burning, Aerys the mastermind, Jaime the only one at hand to stop it) not arisen, he´d have stood guard on rapings and burnings for many years to come, quietly hating Aerys, himself and his KG vow.

[Patrick Mallister]

My take on why Jaime killed Aerys is the same reason why Stannis stayed loyal to Robert. To him family was more important than the king. This is also why he changed into his golden armor. It symbolizes his decision to become a Lannister again (one that it now seems he is rethinking).

Despite his stay in the Kingsguard, Jaime was always a Lannister first, and why not since he was made a member of the Kingsguard to spite his family.

We (or at least I) always think of Jaime as the adult...even some of the artwork (the picture of him lounging on the Iron Throne in his gold armor) show him as an adult when he was only 17. I know in Westeros that is an adult, but when put into the context that a 17 year old kid was just ordered to go kill his dad (who, as we all know, demands loyalty more than anyone else and who has raised his son to be loyal to him above all others)by a madman who he has seen commit several atrocities, its not too hard to fathom why he chose to kill Aerys.

In regards to why not keep Aerys alive, he didn't have to kill him because Rossart was dead, etc. ... as many others have said, Aerys was still dangerous. What if he escapes and blows up the city? What if he gets word out to supporters and blows up the city? Even if Jaime doesn't care about the city blowing up I completely understand why he killed Aerys.

Ned's problem with this is that Jaime was a Kingsguard and he broke his oath. Ned obviously has a great deal of respect for both the historical KG as well as his contemporaries. He sees Jaime's act as a betrayal of what he respects.

[Liadin]

We (or at least I) always think of Jaime as the adult...

I think the opposite actually. I once saw someone (and I agree with them) arguing that the horrors he witnessed while serving as KG and his method of coping with it made him emotionally stunted--he doesn't mature at all between age 15 and his early 30s when he loses his hand. In between, he acts like a spoiled teenager, responding to everything with violence and not thinking through the consequences of his actions. Even Tyrion (who probably loves him more than anyone, considering Cersei's love is questionable to say the least) realizes that he doesn't know any way of dealing with his problems other than killing.

[Patrick Mallister]

I think the opposite actually. I once saw someone (and I agree with them) arguing that the horrors he witnessed while serving as KG and his method of coping with it made him emotionally stunted--he doesn't mature at all between age 15 and his early 30s when he loses his hand. In between, he acts like a spoiled teenager, responding to everything with violence and not thinking through the consequences of his actions. Even Tyrion (who probably loves him more than anyone, considering Cersei's love is questionable to say the least) realizes that he doesn't know any way of dealing with his problems other than killing.

I don't think we're disagreeing. I think that because I at least conceptualize him as an adult, its sometimes hard for us to understand what the situation he was would feel like for an impressionable teenager. I completely agree that these events, and Tywin, screwed him up. Until he loses his hand, he does not see himself as a member of the Kingsguard (he's a Lannister first) or responsible for his actions. Also, as you say, his only solution to every problem is kill it. Hence "the things I do for love."

[Field of Asphodel]

Ned was ready to do it himself, he objects to someone sworn to defend the king slaughtering him instead, though. It's not the killing itself he has a problem with. But of course, he's still pretty hypocrite in that he did himself rise against his king.

There's also the element of Stark's distaste for the Lannisters in general.

The Lannisters were late to join the war. It's not even that Twyin didn't declare for Robert that riles Ned up so much, it's that Twyin didn't declare for anyone. Instead, Twyin played his little sit-back-and-watch-to-see-who-wins game, which is cunning, but totally not honorable.

Then Ned says the Lannisters won KL "by treachery." This is true, if I remember correctly. Twyins forces entered KL's under false pretense, right?

Then there's the fact that Twyin was flying Lannister banners over King's Landing, not Baratheon banners.

You don't have to be Ned Stark to think that all of this smells of Lannister coup over Aerys AND Robert.

And finally, there's the icing on the cake. Finding Jamie Lannister, Twyin Lannister's son, and a sworn brother of the Kingsguard, with the king's blood on his sword. And what's more, he's wearing his Lannister lion's helm and seated on the Iron Throne. If you consider all the Lannister "treachery" that preceded this moment, it's easy to see why Stark never bothered to scratch beneath the surface and discover Jamie's true motivations. Jamie was a Lannister, and that was all that mattered to Ned. But given the context, I'm actually sympathetic to both Ned and Jamie's POV on this issue.

After reading through this thread (and having my memory jogged on a few details), I think it is fair to argue that Jamie's actions weren't outrageous given the circumstances. And I don't fault him for choosing his father over his king. Perhaps Jamie didn't actually have to kill Aerys himself, but yes, that's just his character. What's the difference between allowing the king to die and killing him yourself, after all?...You're failing him in your duty to him either way.

[Lord Mord]

I don't really see fault in Jaime slaying Aerys. Or rather, there is plenty of fault to go around, but under their imperfect circumstances I can quite understand the apparent simplicity in his murder.

Certainly, I don't think that Jaime deserves opprobrium for the death, but rather understanding.

It's one thing to let a madman live -- the difficulty is that when that man is a king, to let him live is to leave him in charge, and that means everyone suffers. Even if ending that suffering were not his motive, and I think it must have at least partly informed his decision, his actual motives were not terrible either.

[Errant Bard]

I wonder, if we switched the family names and kept existing character development before the deed, if the board would still react the same way.

Imagine:

Naive young Jaime Lannister becomes the sworn sword of Aerys. Aerys changes (or the young knight learns about his true nature) and commits acts Jaime objects with, but has no legal reason to contest. Then Aerys orders the killing of innocents and the murder or a loved one.

Now, switch "Jaime" for "Brienne" and "Aerys" for "Catelyn". Is what you want Brienne to do the same thing you would have wanted Jaime to do?

For more dissonance, Arya for Jaime and, say, Roose for Aerys.

[Guest Other-in-law]

Now, switch "Jaime" for "Brienne" and "Aerys" for "Catelyn". Is what you want Brienne to do the same thing you would have wanted Jaime to do?

For more dissonance, Arya for Jaime and, say, Roose for Aerys.

I have no problems whatsoever with:

Jaime betraying Aerys

Brienne betraying Cat

Arya betraying Roose.

Of course, some will argue that Arya's service inder Roose was involuntary, so it's not fair, blah blah blah. Though that does kind of exempt her from my criticism of Jaime and Brienne for swearing their personal sovereignty over to someone else (at least Brienne's oath had counterconditions, but those were offered freely by Cat; Brienne would have sworn anyway).

[Errant Bard]

I have no problems whatsoever with:

Jaime betraying Aerys

Brienne betraying Cat

Arya betraying Roose.

:) Yes of course, but I think there may be a sizeable part of the readership that berates Jaime for betraying Aerys, but actively wishes for Brienne to betray Cat, and more generally doesn't see any problem with heroes defaulting on their oaths.

PS: Also, for the record (if anyone having read some Catelyn-bashing threads got the wrong idea) I have no problem with Brienne betraying Cat either, just to her being spared making the choice through some sort of cop-out.

[Alexia]

:) Yes of course, but I think there may be a sizeable part of the readership that berates Jaime for betraying Aerys, but actively wishes for Brienne to betray Cat, and more generally doesn't see any problem with heroes defaulting on their oaths.

I think that most of the readership adores Jaime and doesn't see anything wrong with his betrayal of Aerys. To be perfectly honest, I'm not crying any tears that Aerys died either but I don't think Jaime saved any lives by doing it - it was for revenge. I dislike Jaime's character for a lot of reasons and Aerys' death ranks bottom on the list. :)

That being said, I think its an interesting question - especially relating to the concept of oaths in general.

[mormont]

What's the difference between allowing the king to die and killing him yourself, after all?

Quite a bit, in one sense - to stand back and allow Tywin, or his men, or Robert, or Ned, or their men to do the job is to be passive. And as I said above, that is an all too familiar situation to young Jaime.

I think that most of the readership adores Jaime and doesn't see anything wrong with his betrayal of Aerys. To be perfectly honest, I'm not crying any tears that Aerys died either but I don't think Jaime saved any lives by doing it - it was for revenge. I dislike Jaime's character for a lot of reasons and Aerys' death ranks bottom on the list. :)

That being said, I think its an interesting question - especially relating to the concept of oaths in general.

And of course, the conflict of oaths is raised by Jaime as something he obviously struggles with. It's worth remembering that what he did in slaying Aerys can be seen as a fulfilment of his oaths as a knight. And to have done nothing would certainly have been a dereliction of those oaths - oaths he already feels he betrayed by standing by as Aerys hurt innocents.

[Cruella_Da_Oz]

What's amoral is the oath itself. When you swear to stand aside and let women be raped and innocent people tortured to death in horrific fashion, or actually help with these acts, you're doing something amoral. And as this was understanding of the oath by KG (it was included in their oath), they were acting amorally.

Of course, most KGs in history I bet(as evidenced by Joff's KG) would follow King's orders b/c otherwise it would go hard for them. And then use their oaths to justify it to themselves. If women and children knights swore to protect could give them lands or take their heads off, they'd suddenly discover that this is most binding oath and that you cannot put your morality aside for your king.

[Errant Bard]

I don't think Jaime saved any lives by doing it - it was for revenge.

He saved lives by killing Rossart, though, and the Aerys slaying was done immediately following that. I am reluctant to judge actions by their results, in general, as good men can fail, and wrong deeds can yield good consequences, so the argument that he saved noone by doing it doesn't fly. Then the idea that his rebellion was only for revenge doesn't work with me, he has a grudge against the guy, but it's too easy to isolate that from other motivations. Robert and Ned were in it for revenge much more than Jaime ever was, for contrast, and I think their common grudge with Aerys was reasonable and justified, and that it warranted capital punishment.

I dislike Jaime's character

We cannot be friends. :fencing:

[3idcrow]

I think it would be beyond lame for Jaime to "overpower" Aerys and wait for his father to kill him. It would be like if he gave Bran sword and "fought" him before throwing him out of the window, and then claim that he killed him in fair fight. It would be a way to both murder the king you swore to protect AND pathetically to try to keep your hands clean and avoid the scorn. You either fight and die saving Aerys or at least have honesty to kill him yourself.

Besides, I don't think you need an excuse to murder Aerys. You need excuse not to murder him.

:agree: I can't agree more with you.

Besides, it's easy to say afterfact: Ah, he should have done this and that because the city fell and the fight was over. But at the moment Jaime had no way of knowing who will enter the room next Ned Stark or a dozen of goldencloaks ready to take an order from the rightful king. With this said he put his life at risk as well taking responsibility for kings murder while he could have easily avoided it. I see it as a pride. The same pride that kept him from explaning his reasons to anyone: he assumed the position "I don't care what nobody thinks of me" rather then running around KL and annoyng people with his excuses.

[Mad Monkey]

Honestly, this is the first time that I've ever seen anyone question whether or not Jaime should have killed Aerys as a matter of morality.

Aerys was a monster -- a violent rapist, a serial killer, and a mass murderer by both our modern standards and Westeros's fictional standards.

Jaime violated his oath; maybe he should have held Aerys for trial, maybe he should have died defending him against his own family -- to me, any of his potential options were as murky and morally questionable as what he actually did. After all, kinslaying is worse than kingslaying. Would Jaime have been expected to kill Tywin if he had somehow been there to attack Aerys?

[Field of Asphodel]

Quite a bit, in one sense - to stand back and allow Tywin, or his men, or Robert, or Ned, or their men to do the job is to be passive. And as I said above, that is an all too familiar situation to young Jaime.

But even to be passive is a violation of the oath - as you said, even Jamie thinks so. His duty was to "protect" Aerys, not "abstain from killing" him. If Jamie had swallowed his pride and explained his actions, then perhaps Westeros could have learned something from the whole sorry episode...

The assumption behind the oath of the Kingsguard is that protecting the king is synonymous with protecting the realm. Obviously, this wasn't true in Aerys' case, nor would it likely have been with Joffrey as king. Assuming the protection of the realm was Jamie's primary motivation for killing the king, then Westeros really 'ought to consider drafting a contingency plan for the kingsguard or offering conditions like Catelyn did with Brienne. But obviously this would be impossible and contradictory in a pure monarchy where the king is the government.

So what to do? Really, the "right" thing to do in Westerosi society in this situation is to "shut up and do your duty." It's not Jamie's place to have a mind of his own or to allow his personal feelings to distract him from his duty. Either Jamie does his duty or he doesn't. I know it's lame, but Jamie could have announced his "retirement" from the Kingsguard to Aerys, and walked away, precedent be damned. Totally not in character, and not very honorable either, but that's probably what I'd do.

[3idcrow]

So what to do? Really, the "right" thing to do in Westerosi society in this situation is to "shut up and do your duty." It's not Jamie's place to have a mind of his own or to allow his personal feelings to distract him from his duty. Either Jamie does his duty or he doesn't. I know it's lame, but Jamie could have announced his "retirement" from the Kingsguard to Aerys, and walked away, precedent be damned. Totally not in character, and not very honorable either, but that's probably what I'd do.

This is a thing exactly, it was a catch 22 for him with no good way out. He would be either a kinslayer or a kingslayer or a craven. In either case he would be despised for what he does or doesn't do. So he decided: screw you all, I'll do what I think must be done and whoever doesn't approve can kiss my golden ass.

[Lord Mord]

EB,

I wonder, if we switched the family names and kept existing character development before the deed, if the board would still react the same way.

Imagine:

Naive young Jaime Lannister becomes the sworn sword of Aerys. Aerys changes (or the young knight learns about his true nature) and commits acts Jaime objects with, but has no legal reason to contest. Then Aerys orders the killing of innocents and the murder or a loved one.

Now, switch "Jaime" for "Brienne" and "Aerys" for "Catelyn". Is what you want Brienne to do the same thing you would have wanted Jaime to do?

For more dissonance, Arya for Jaime and, say, Roose for Aerys.

That depends on the king (or queen's) "acts" to be "objected to."

If we're talking torture and murder under paranoid delusion, then that king or queen isn't Catelyn as I know her, and yeah, I'd have little enough problem with her biting it.