Jaime Lannisters honor?

[kwvapor]

He can't redeem himself for all of Westeros but I think he wants to redeem himself to HIMSELF. He now sees how the incest etc has no value since Cersei really didn't love him, it was all a fantasy. She was in love with herself and he feed into that.

My guess is he will spend the rest of his life doing what he think is right and WRITE it in his little whitebook. He wants to fill that whitebook up with good and wholesome deeds or die trying.

He'll die somewhere with a sword in his left hand. Westeros will still remember him as the Kingslayer.

I think. lol

[The Sleeper]

It's interesting how you manage to be all smug while missing the point. I would take the time to explain had you not decided to start with the infantile insults. What's next, name-calling? Sigh... Yes, I also behaved like that the first few years I spent online, but it grows old, all these people with the anti-social behaviour on the internet who wouldn't dare say a peep in real life.

Classy, friend. Those kind of quips not only constructively contribute to the thread, but establish you as a moral authority, and mature to boot. If only you were aware of the disparity between the image you have of yourself and how you actually come across.

You have, quite eloquently in your previous posts. Hence my responce.

[Per128]

I find it surprising how several people in this thread seem to judge ASOIAF as if it were a Disney story with distinct roles of good and evil. That's not how GRRM writes.

Hogwash.

Which claim do you regard thusly? That I'm surprised, or that GRRM does not tend to write clear-cut good or evil characters?

Moral complexity =/= inability to render any moral judgments whatsoever. It's very trendy these day to say "everything is gray" and just handwave away further scrutiny, but as Rand astutely observed (I don't agree with her on most things, but on this I do), we can only have a concept of "gray" if we first have a concept of something called "black" and something else called "white," of which "gray" is only a mixture. Proponents of blanket "moral grayness" like to style themselves as the "mature" ones who recognize the complexity of the world, but in truth just calling everything gray and having done is itself gross oversimplification.

That's pretty straightforward, and I agree with you, which makes me more uncertain as to the origin of your "hogwash" gibe, and I'm am sure you could have found a more civil way of voicing disagreement, (even though I don't see where the supposed disagreement in fact lies).

[Jamie Lannister]

Depends how you define "honour." He's very aware that he's fucked up his life so far ("That boy had wanted to be Ser Arthur Dayne, but someplace along the way he had become the Smiling Knight instead."), but he does want to change. The problem is that his progress outside of his head has been pretty minimal.

Sansa, his "last chance for honour," is a good example. He has nothing to gain by upholding that oath to the deceased Lady Catelyn, but he still goes against his own family, House, and... well, everyone to try and keep her safe. But most of his other actions that people seem to think as honourable proof of change don't really fit the bill. Even that could be seen as self-serving.

Take his freeing of Tyrion. That's one of my favourite scenes in the entire book. I felt warm and fuzzy inside when, against all odds and all evidence, Jaime saved his brother from what we know as readers is an unjust death. Was that honour, or the signs of a changed man? Not really. He's always loved and seen the best in Tyrion, and physically forcing Varys to free him under pain of death is a classic example of Jaime's impulsiveness. The way he puts up a strawman while trying to talk the Tullys into surrender (it comes down to wordplay; "I'll just destroy the Tullys without actually fighting them, because that still counts...") isn't exactly heroic either, even if it's portrayed as sympathetic from his point of view.

That's not even touching on the intricacies of his relationship with Cersei, or his paranoid jealousy. Or the fact that he's partly responsible for the war in the first place, and indirectly to blame for his own father's death. Or the fact that he's still fighting to keep the product of his incest on the throne.

He's an incredibly complex and dynamic character to me. He has a capacity for great heroism and for great antagonism. I really dislike seeing him written off as "an evil bad guy" or "a redeemed good guy;" he just doesn't fit into either camp, and that's the sign of a truly decent character.

To answer your question, though... No, I don't think he can do much to change his reputaiton, short of something so unfeasible and massive that would overshadow being the Kingslayer. Here:

"Men shall name you Goldenhand from this day on, milord."

"I will always be the Kingslayer, fool, the man with shit for honor."

He flirts with the notion after, but I think he knows deep down that it's just hoping in vain.

[Sand Snake No. 9]

You really think we would have developed to where we are today if nobody had dared go against the rules back in medieval times? Jaime's an advocate of more modern democratic values. You're probably against arranged marriage, but you're also against people opposing arranged marriage if it's part of their cultural background?

I'm not talking about arranged marriages, I'm talking about the capital crime of high treason. Many people find the death sentence a deterent, Cersei and Jaime, both arrogant Lannisters did not. But they're willing to lie, kill and fight wars to keep their great love a secret because they don't want to lose their heads. I call that a bad thing.

If I've read my history right, productive rule breaking didn't begin until the 18th and 19th Century. In the Middle Ages people mostly abided by the rules -- or died.

He's all alone with Cersei, consoling her, neither of them are getting any and they are extremely turned on in the presence of each other, and you expect them not to end up in bed...? ? ? "If he controlled himself" sounds like some kind of bible belt spiel to me. Some people grab life by the reproductives and live rich lives... others sit and worry that they are following all the nonsense "rules". I respect the one type, you respect the other. It's just a difference of opinion. However, I must say that it's to great benefit that the majority of people are concerned with following rules and remaining meek sheep.

I do, in fact, find the idea of uncontrollable passion laughable especially when beheading is involved. However I didn't make Jaime take a vow of celibacy when he joined the King's Guard; he did that all by himself. Jaime's so damn proud of being Lord Commander of the King's Guard, shouldn't he follow his own damn rules?

In Westeros it's perfectly OK for Robert to go around sleeping with anyone he wants, but his queen will be put to death if she does the same... and you condone that? And judge Jaime for not abiding such a stone-age mentality?

Do you not understand the rules of primogeniture and hereditary kingship? If Robert's fooling around it won't have any effect on his dynasty, but the Queen's fooling around will, because her children will not have royal blood. It's a stupid system that lead to stupid results (like, stupid kings) but as far as I know that's the system that was in place during the Middle Ages in Europe. More important, this whole damn series is about who has the right to be King or Queen of Westeros by birth, not to mention who can inherit what, by birth, and bastards, who can obtain nothing, by birth.

[mcb]

You might think the same of anyone who is not a submissive do-gooder.

Dude, your whole argument is: Jaime thought only about himself and his girl, and didn't give a shit about anyone else. It amazes me to no limits how in the same time you see it as a good thing. You should be a fan of Aerys II, too, as he shared the same core values as Jaime (i.e.: "me! me! myself!").

"Not a submissive do-gooder"? Please. It's not an argument, it's not even good trolling.

Next you're going to complain about his stance on greenhouse emissions and chide him for cursing?

Yes, cursing is bad. Murdering children, actually, is much worse. At least in my opinion.

[Per128]

I'm not talking about arranged marriages, I'm talking about the capital crime of high treason. Many people find the death sentence a deterent, Cersei and Jaime, both arrogant Lannisters did not.

You're as aware as I am that many of the historical figures we have great regard for now today against violated the rules of their time/place, in spite of promise of death, imprisonment and torture, without being labeled "arrogant" (which is not to say the siblings are not arrogant, but see the context here). That infernal instigator Nelson Mandela...And Mahatma Ghandi, ex-con vegetarian troublemaker... And one Jesus Christ should have left well enough alone and not ticket off the jews.

But they're willing to lie, kill and fight wars to keep their great love a secret because they don't want to lose their heads. I call that a bad thing.

I would also rather kill than be killed, and I'd fight a war to keep my love from being killed. That may well be morally objectionable to you, but what to say, I'm sure my wife would approve.

If I've read my history right, productive rule breaking didn't begin until the 18th and 19th Century. In the Middle Ages people mostly abided by the rules -- or died.

What you say is entirely correct, but Jaime isn't "people". He's not some farmer. He's the son of Tywin lannister, brother of the queen... Let's instead consider what the Lords and Ladies of the Middle Ages were up to.. now that is another matter entirely. Reference the Wars of the Roses, which took place at the tail end of the Middle Ages.

I do, in fact, find the idea of uncontrollable passion laughable especially when beheading is involved.

You know Bran discovering them was a million-to-one chance. The odds were in favor of them not getting caught like that. This, at least, I'm sure you recognize.

Do you not understand the rules of primogeniture and hereditary kingship?

I think you know full well that I do, as those are extremely basic concepts, so I'm afraid I don't see a purpose to your question.

My point was very straightforward and relates to our contemporary appreciation of the set of rules that Jaime is chided for not abiding. You yourself used the word "stupid", which echoes my own sentiments, and Jaime's. Jaime wishes for a simpler life. If he had his way, he could be with Cersei openly and without shame, and if that had been possible, a lot of problems would have been avoided. Don't forget that he has participated in the toppling of one king already, and he sees what a mess the whole political situation is. Allegiances shift. Religious dedications are swapped. He has seen people take what they want with force. All this naturally boils down to him recognizing the opportunities and possibilities of change, and a lack of regard for "rules".

If Robert's fooling around won't have any effect on his dynasty, but the Queen's fooling around will, because her children will not have royal blood. It's a stupid system that lead to stupid results (like, stupid kings) but as far as I know that's the system that was in during the Middle Ages in Europe. More important, this whole damn series is about who has the right to be King or Queen of Westeros by birth.

We both agree it was a stupid system, and Jaime showed no regard for it, neither was he interested in any political benefit or manipulations. It would be nice if everyone just followed the rules and fit into the grid, like in some kind of communist Nirvana, but life isn't like that, and personally I'm won't judge people for not living like soulless automatons.

[Sand Snake No. 9]

@Per128 -- So you reject the basic premise of the series, ignore its historical references, advocate disregard of the obligations of contract and vows and condone murder in the name of love. I shall read your future posts -- or not -- with your values in mind. Happy posting.

Snake out.

[bloodymime]

You're as aware as I am that many of the historical figures we have great regard for now today against violated the rules of their time/place, in spite of promise of death, imprisonment and torture, without being labeled "arrogant" (which is not to say the siblings are not arrogant, but see the context here). That infernal instigator Nelson Mandela...And Mahatma Ghandi, ex-con vegetarian troublemaker... And one Jesus Christ should have left well enough alone and not ticket off the jews.

The only thing Mandela, Ghandi, Christ and the Kingslayer have in common are letters of the alphabet.

[The Frosted King]

Per128 you're being profoundly silly.

Jaime desired to be a widely lauded knight, but he doesn't make the decisions that lead to such acclaim, and then he derides the silly world for calling him out as he has repeatedly shown himself to be.

Cersei desired to be queen of the seven kingdoms, first with Rhaegar and then she willingly settled for Robert.

She then decides she wants the power, but doesn't adhere to the proper channels to grasp it.

She has another man's children, and decides to pass them off as legititmate.

Putting the realm on the cusp of war, willingly.

Jaime is her partner in all this, and then still wishes to be respected as a great knight, and resents the mistrust that people heap on him.

If knighthood was just being great with a sword and shield, Jaime would be one of the greatest of his time, but its not.

Funniest line is when Jaime complains "it all stems from Aerys", as if thats an injustice, when his many other actions rightly shade him in infamy.

[Per128]

Dude, your whole argument is: Jaime thought only about himself and his girl, and didn't give a shit about anyone else. It amazes me to no limits how in the same time you see it as a good thing.

Well, you're taking it to an extreme. Jaime certainly cares about others. I see no evidence of him systematically abusing people for his own benefit, and so on. But he certainly cares about himself and Cersei before anyone else. You find that morally objectionable? It's human nature.

The central thing I observe is that no one has provided a valid alternative to pushing Bran yet. What exactly should he have done that wouldn't require him to potentially sacrifice himself, his sister, not to mention all the political noise that would follow. Robert Baratheon has few qualms about ordering the killing of children, so what would have become of Joffrey, Tommen and Myrcella?

Look, it's an age old moral dilemma: Would you kill a person to save the lives of two people? That's what GRRM is dealing with here (of course you may well disagree with that). People may choose different stances, and that's ok, but to claim to have figured out the ultimate truth of the Trolley Problem and boil it down to a Black and White issue? Forgive me, but I'm not entirely on board with that idea.

@Per128 -- So you reject the basic premise of the series, ignore its historical references,

"the basic premise" as defined by you, and undisclosed, is not something I or anyone else can relate to unless you get more specific.

You already touched on your point regarding historical reference, and I brought up Wars of the Roses, which you should read into. You'll also find interviews where GRRM states it as an influence on ASOIAF.

advocate disregard of the obligations of contract and vows and condone murder in the name of love.

Those are gross misrepresentations of what I've said. What are you doing here, taking my statements to a ridiculous extreme, and professing disagreement... with something I never said in the first place? I've seen this "technique" used in discussions before but am entirely unsure what the point of it is. Is it that people are unable to tolerate that someone disagrees with them? Evidently because I disagree with you I must be the world's biggest fool, and everything I say must be filtered and taken to an extreme so that you can easily dismiss it. It must be good to be in such a superior position.

The only thing Mandela, Ghandi, Christ and the Kingslayer have in common are letters of the alphabet.

Thank you for your contribution.

Per128 you're being profoundly silly.

People have mastered the arts of graceful disagreement on these forums. I wish there was some way of filtering posts based on birth date.

[The Taupe Grace]

Wonder what they will all think of him if he ends up killing Cersei ?

I never held that the valonqar prophecy applied to Tyrion either.

[mcb]

Well, you're taking it to an extreme. Jaime certainly cares about others.

By your own words:

Jaime doesn't truck with that political nonsense. To him it's about love. Period

'This political nonsense' is what got thousands of people killed, Jaime - by your own admission! - doesn't care. What are we arguing about?

The central thing I observe is that no one has provided a valid alternative to pushing Bran yet.

And that is simply a lie. Quite sensible alternative - not fucking the Queen, for gods's sake! - was presented to you. You even took time to reject it (on the ground that Jaime doesn't care), so it's simply childish to claim that there was no alternative provided. I don't appreciate your style of discussion, and I'm adjusting my "Manage Ignore Prefs" tab accordingly.

[Per128]

By your own words: "

Jaime doesn't truck with that political nonsense. To him it's about love. Period.". "This political nonsense" is what got ten of thousands people killed, Jaime - by your own admission! - doesn't care. What are we arguing about?

I never said directly or indirectly that Jaime doesn't care about the lives of tens of thousands. "Jaime doesn't truck with that political nonsense" was in reference to Jaime not having political motives for impregnating Cersei. I was making the point that he is a passionate and proud man, not a political player. That other person, "Just an Other" also brought that statement to an extreme. It's interesting that people get all huffed up about about their own extreme exaggerations of what someone else said.

And that is simply a lie.

The drama...

Quite sensible alternative - not fucking the Queen, for gods's sake! - was presented to you. You even took time to reject it (on the ground that Jaime doesn't care), so it's simply childish to claim that there was no alternative provided. I don't appreciate your style of discussion, and I'm adjusting my "Manage Ignore Prefs" tab accordingly.

Jaime doesn't have a DeLorean, meaning that the alternative requested is what Jaime should have done other than pushing Bran after the siblings were seen coupling. The best I can come up with is "letting him go and hoping for the best", which isn't very strong, and not the approach of a leader/take-charge kind of personality.

So, you misunderstanding my challenge somehow means that I'm childish and you have "put me on ignore" - the ultimate internet punishment.

This thread gets people really worked up. It's a discussion forum. People are going to disagree with you. Deal with it. Our views are shaped by our natures and experiences. It's misguided to think you are in possession of the ultimate truth, or that there indeed is such a thing in most cases. I'd be happy to explore this topic further, if replies come from someone who's not going to indulge in infantile jabs and who does not insist on taking my statements to an extreme.

A funny thing is, I'm apparently outrageous for suggesting there's moral ambiguity/complexity with regards to Jaime pushing Bran, despite the fact that this is clearly how GRRM is portraying it. To my understanding (you may very well see it differently). Just don't forget that we have Jaime POV chapters, ok? Those didn't portray him as the amoral monster he's being described as by some in this thread. Just sayin'.

Well, this hasn't been very productive, but I'm glad to have shared the camaraderie of fellow ASOIAF fans. Cheers.

[Howling Mad]

So Jaime's legacy will be one of dishonor; either he'll be remembered for king slaying or remembered for incest. And it'll all be written down in that lovely white book.

I agree but with the following exception - should Jaime become a dragon slayer I think they would add that to the little white book.

p.s. Go Team Bloodraven!

[Kittyhat]

Which claim do you regard thusly? That I'm surprised, or that GRRM does not tend to write clear-cut good or evil characters?

Your implication that the complexity of characters within Martin's writing enjoins us from morally judging said characters.

Or did I only imagine that you posted the following?

"I find it surprising how several people in this thread seem to judge ASOIAF as if it were a Disney story with distinct roles of good and evil. That's not how GRRM writes.

The irony is that attempting to elevate oneself by harsh judgement of others that doesn't allow for the consideration of realistic complexities tends to have the opposite of the desired effect."

Or do you mean to say that you did write that, but you were just speaking randomly and to no particular purpose, and it was in no way directed at Jaime's critics in this thread (i.e., Cersei I, myself, and some others)?

[etu]

*snip eloquently put truth*

He flirts with the notion after, but I think he knows deep down that it's just hoping in vain.

Yes. But he'll still keep trying.

Which is why Jaime is now possibly the most awesome character in the series, and on his way to being possibly the best redemption arc anywhere in fantasy.

For what it's worth, I'm with those who think it won't be fixed - either inside his head or out - without something truly massive, something he'd almost definitely die doing.

And that's how I hope he goes out.

[Stubby]

[MOD]

Guys, disagreement is fine.

Making posts that are directed to the person are not.

Please stay on the topic and discuss the issues, not the poster.

Thanks.

[/MOD]

[Kittyhat]

Jaime doesn't have a DeLorean, meaning that the alternative requested is what Jaime should have done other than pushing Bran after the siblings were seen coupling. The best I can come up with is "letting him go and hoping for the best"

Or there's, you know, owning up and taking responsibility -- an alien notion for people out of touch with such things, perhaps, but nevertheless a real option.

Yes, I know Jaime would never do this, but isn't his lack of honor or moral character after all the point of contention here?

Just don't forget that we have Jaime POV chapters, ok? Those didn't portray him as the amoral monster he's being described as by some in this thread. Just sayin'.

I don't care how they portray him! I don't care if Martin comes right out, slams his fist down, and demands that I am supposed to like and approve of Jaime! I decide my morality, I and no other!

[Sand Snake No. 9]

I agree but with the following exception - should Jaime become a dragon slayer I think they would add that to the little white book.

p.s. Go Team Bloodraven!

Indeed, dragon slaying trumps everything. (Yo, the Three Eyed Crow!)