Jaime Lannisters honor?

[Per128]

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.

That sounds noble on the surface, but let's examine this:

Consequences of option 1: One dead boy.

Consequences of option 2: Possibly thousands of dead, Tywin in all-out war. The deaths of Jaime and Cersei. With luck, Bran keeps his mouth shut, but they'll have to live in fear for how long? And how long until they start acting on that fear?

What I've been trying to say all along is that stuff like "taking responsibility" seems very noble, but to me it also seems overly simplistic.

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!

It's interesting that you should say that, because I am the only one who has been attacked for making a moral stance here. How dare I have sympathy with Jaime who's clearly irredeemable, right? I've never claimed anyone is "wrong" or not allowed to have an opinion contrary to my own, but people in this thread have felt entirely comfortable with personally attacking me for disagreeing with them. I'd say that is actually "bad guy" behaviour/attitude, coming from people who profess to be morally superior.

OK, what's the next thing someone's going to jump down my throat about?

[Kittyhat]

Consequences of option 1: One dead boy.

If his concern was for consequences, he could have not done any of this to begin with. In any case, the consequences of his actions were rather much farther-reaching than merely one dead crippled boy.

Consequences of option 2: Possibly thousands of dead, Tywin in all-out war. The deaths of Jaime and Cersei. With luck, Bran keeps his mouth shut, but they'll have to live in fear for how long? And how long until they start acting on that fear?

It actually might have ended with rather less in total damage as it turns out, but that isn't the point anyway, is it? The point is he was committing a crime, he knew it was a crime, and to cover it up, he attempted to murder a small, innocent child. That is the point.

It's interesting that you should say that, because I am the only one who has been attacked for making a moral stance here.

I at least have not attacked you, only your position.

[The Smiling Eye]

That's not why he pushed Bran. Have you considered that letting Bran live could lead to all-out war and countless deaths? And then Jaime could sit there on a pile of corpses claiming to somehow have made the right decision?

Unfortunately it's too easy to judge people and clutch to extremes, which is exactly one of the topics that GRRM deals with so expertly. It's possible to get more from his books than just high adventure. He deals with complex issues which should be treated with some finesse, not clumsily chopped in two with a Valyrian blade.

This is irrelevant. Jaime is a reactionary character, he's not a deep thinker. So you can't go and claim such and such isn't true, because it's obvious that he pushed him to keep the secret out for their own benefit. You really think he thought of that type of consequence in that situation?

Jaime pushed him out for selfish reasons first and for that he is a terrible person.

[Castel]

If his concern was for consequences, he could have not done any of this to begin with. In any case, the consequences of his actions were rather much farther-reaching than merely one dead crippled boy.

It actually might have ended with rather less in total damage as it turns out, but that isn't the point anyway, is it? The point is he was committing a crime, he knew it was a crime, and to cover it up, he attempted to murder a small, innocent child. That is the point.

I at least have not attacked you, only your position.

Yes,if he had not been fucking his sister in Winterfell there would be no issue. But after that ship had sailed all that remained was to minimize the damage. And killing Bran was the quickest, safest way to that. Also, a character can be judged by the consequences he did or should have foreseen, not those that lied outside his power, like Littlefinger and Eddard going crazy

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?

See the thing is, change doesn't happen until the time is right and the society has reached a level where they can accept certain things. Westeros clearly has not. And it comes with a cost. While Jaime may be willing to pay that price, it is not for him to put his kids at risk for a pipe dream. It's an unfortunate truth of the world, acting in the way you think is right =/= best thing for everyone

.And Jaime as an advocate for modern democratic values is laughable.

[Per128]

It actually might have ended with rather less in total damage as it turns out, but that isn't the point anyway, is it?

What actually happened in the end is irrelevant in the matter, as it's not something he could factor in. Most likely the boy would fall, die, and that would be the end of it. Keep in mind that Littlefinger had set things in motion well before that incident. Also keep in mind that Bran was likely kept alive through magical means.

The point is he was committing a crime, he knew it was a crime, and to cover it up, he attempted to murder a small, innocent child. That is the point.

If I could sympathize with you on the "crime" aspect of it, that would make everything simpler, but I just can't. There are places in the world today where gay sex is punishable with death, and people still practice it, because they want to be with the person they love. It seems that according to you, these people are just amoral troublemakers, because they don't follow the law, they are committing a crime. They should deny their passions, love and desires and follow the rules.

This is irrelevant. Jaime is a reactionary character, he's not a deep thinker.

You don't need to be a deep thinker to come to those conclusions. What do you think Jaime is, completely brain-dead? Is that how he appeared to you in his POV chapters?

Jaime pushed him out for selfish reasons first and for that he is a terrible person.

Oh give me a break :) We all care more about ourselves than we do faceless strangers. That's very easy to prove. If you, right now, sold everything you own, donated your kidney, and all organs in your body after death.. then went and offed yourself, leaving behind a will saying all your money should go to an African charity, then you could potentially save a great deal of lives down there (assming you have but an average financial situation). If you were truly selfless you would go and do that right now. But you won't... And that's fine. We're built to self-preserve, and so is Jaime. Of course his primary concern is for himself and his love, and if that makes him a terrible person, then all humans are terrible... well, except for a few people in this thread who hold god-like flawless moral standards and would make Mother Theresa look a harlot.

It's just fun to see how people have these great selfless moral standards. I've never come in contact with so many selfless people in one place before. It's a wonder they spend time writing posts on the internet when they could be working for a charity or something.

[Per128]

Cheers, Stubby.

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

It's interesting that you run with a perceived implication instead of my more explicit statements that contradict it.

Or did I only imagine that you posted the following?

[...]

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)?

Pardon me, but that whole paragraph gives me a Twilight Zone vibe. I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I'll address the quote and your perceived implication, however:

At no point do I say that people are prohibited from making moral judgments (in fact, I've made numerous statements to the opposite effect). That would be an extreme stance. Again I have to express some exasperation with people assigning extreme statements to me that I never made and then giving me a hard time about those statements that I never made. It's not so much that I'm bothered by it, I just feel stupid and left out because I don't see the benefits of such an approach.

The quote specifically refers to people that jump to conclusions, and secondarily those who claim to be morally superior to make themselves look good. All in all straight-forward and, I should think, fairly non-controversial, and in no way robbing you of having your own personal opinion about something.

I feel like making a post along the lines of "I don't like chocolate cake" and wait to see what kind of outraged responses I get from people who took it to mean I am a nazi sympathizer or something.

[oops, forgot to hit the Post button]

[Per128]

See the thing is, change doesn't happen until the time is right and the society has reached a level where they can accept certain things. Westeros clearly has not.

And it comes with a cost. While Jaime may be willing to pay that price, it is not for him to put his kids at risk for a pipe dream. It's an unfortunate truth of the world, acting in the way you think is right =/= best thing for everyone

People drive the changes (without the benefit of hindsight, by the way). As touched on earlier, Jamie has witnesses and taken part in so much dramatic change that he has the foundation for open-mindedness that goes beyond just being a passive dreamer.

And Jaime as an advocate for modern democratic values is laughable.

That was a written in a very limited context, where it makes sense, but is a completely minor point. Seems questionable to bring something up for no other reason than to insultingly dismiss it.

[kwvapor]

When you lie, you got to cover that lie up with another lie and it snowballs.

When you fuck your sister and tell the world the baby is now King of Westersos, that's a god damn big snowball.

On the topic of honor, in Westeros, not many have it. As a teenager, Jamie, he was in on the plot by his father to deceive Tyrion about that Tysha. That is when his complex with honor may have started. He continues to struggle with honor and shit hit the fan when he finally found out his sister love him because she saw herself in him.

In the eyes of Brienne at least Jamie is an honorable guy but Westeros will always see him as not what he is but what he is infamous for..Kingslaying. At least right now he is with his #1 fan.

At his son's death he doesn't even shed a tear but when he is indirectly the cause of his father's death, who ironically, just disowned him he shows signs of grief or is it self-crimination.

Jamie Lannister is one messed up dude and that's a pretty cool character in a book. But if he was your friend, watch your wife, or your son, or is he really your son? Things might snowball, winter is coming.

Definitely some room to fill in the honor cup.

He himself is trying to redeem himself through the whitebook and possibly for future generations of westeros to judge him.

[Kittyhat]

Yes,if he had not been fucking his sister in Winterfell there would be no issue. But after that ship had sailed all that remained was to minimize the damage. And killing Bran was the quickest, safest way to that. Also, a character can be judged by the consequences he did or should have foreseen, not those that lied outside his power, like Littlefinger and Eddard going crazy

And there's no way to foresee the total results of simply admitting guilt, either. Well sure, likely he and Cersei would die, but that actually just might be the end of it.

Regardless, Jaime chose to commit a crime that he knew amounted to treason and further do it somewhere he knew or should have known he could easily be caught, and then he chose to attempt to murder an innocent child to cover it up. Don't try to hide from that with sophistry, because it's always going to come right back to these inescapable facts. Excuses don't change the facts, though they're ever the first refuge of the guilty.

If I could sympathize with you on the "crime" aspect of it, that would make everything simpler, but I just can't. There are places in the world today where gay sex is punishable with death, and people still practice it, because they want to be with the person they love. It seems that according to you, these people are just amoral troublemakers, because they don't follow the law, they are committing a crime. They should deny their passions, love and desires and follow the rules.

I wouldn't pass judgment on them for engaging in homosexual sex, but I'd sure as hell pass judgment on them for murdering children to cover it up. Though it's rather insulting the way you compare homosexuality with fucking your own sister here.

It's just fun to see how people have these great selfless moral standards. I've never come in contact with so many selfless people in one place before. It's a wonder they spend time writing posts on the internet when they could be working for a charity or something.

You don't have to be selfless to have moral standards. I've never claimed to be selfless, but I wouldn't murder a child to try to cover up a crime, either, even if I thought I could get away with it.

Incidentally, your implication is a false dilemma, suggesting that either one can be utterly selfish and capable of anything, including murdering children, to avoid personal discomfort, or one can be utterly selfless, but there are no other possible places between the two extremes.

The quote specifically refers to people that jump to conclusions, and secondarily those who claim to be morally superior to make themselves look good.

So basically, it was sort of a combination of trolling and implying that people who pass moral judgments or claim to have standards are just trying to "make themselves look good." Why? Does it bother you to think we might actually have those standards? Is it so difficult to imagine? Might it be a little harder for you to justify your own apparently utterly permissive worldview to yourself if you realized that, despite what you believe, it's in fact not shared by all?

Is that why you feel the need to resort to attacking the person, not the argument, by implying that we're just lying to "make ourselves look good"?

[etu]

On the topic of honor, in Westeros, not many have it. As a teenager, Jamie, he was in on the plot by his father to deceive Tyrion about that Tysha. That is when his complex with honor may have started.

For me it starts when he realises that the biggest honour of his entire life, his ultimate accolade as a Knight - joining the Kingsguard - is solely due to the King wanted to piss off Tywin, and that the honour has simply been used as a cheap political trick.

[JaimeNotJamie]

Clearly, as my name indicates, I am a tad biased when it comes to assessing Jaime, but I must echo the previous statements made by some in this thread that reducing Jaime to simply being "evil" because of his actions regarding Bran is greatly minimizing his character and his arc, just as defining him as "good" would likewise be selling him short.

He is my favorite character in the series because he is almost impossible to analyze with such simplicity.

First, the idea that Jaime is not a "great thinker" is strange. I agree that he is reactionary, but Jaime is clearly quite intelligent. I don't know how far he had thought out the consequences of killing Bran versus not killing Bran, but I think it's certainly reasonable that he could gather in those moments that Bran spilling the beans would be a potential death sentence for Cersei and the three kids. I don't think he thought about a resulting war, but to say he couldn't have considered the rammifications is something I do not buy.

To me, that doesn't justify the action, but it is one of the few truly black deeds that he's done in the story. I also think he has changed dramatically (it is fine if you disagree, but I find it hard to read his chapters and come away with an impression that he's evil or a sociopath).

I think he's on a deeply personal journey at the moment. I understand that some will never forgive his actions in the first book, but I do think by the time we get to AFFC, he does try to be one of the morally grounded individuals in the story.

For those who say he's "evil", I just can't agree. I look at it (in an admittedly overly simplistic manner) thusly: if he was on the streets, and some innocent boy or girl was being attacked by a stranger, and intervening would put himself at significant risk, what would he do? I tend to think he would try to save them, even with no recognition/reward etc resulting. I can't term someone 'evil' when I believe that about them.

[Per128]

And there's no way to foresee the total results of simply admitting guilt, either. Well sure, likely he and Cersei would die, but that actually just might be the end of it.

Regardless, Jaime chose to commit a crime that he knew amounted to treason and further do it somewhere he knew or should have known he could easily be caught, and then he chose to attempt to murder an innocent child to cover it up. Don't try to hide from that with sophistry, because it's always going to come right back to these inescapable facts. Excuses don't change the facts, though they're ever the first refuge of the guilty.

I wouldn't pass judgment on them for engaging in homosexual sex, but I'd sure as hell pass judgment on them for murdering children to cover it up. Though it's rather insulting the way you compare homosexuality with fucking your own sister here.

You don't have to be selfless to have moral standards. I've never claimed to be selfless, but I wouldn't murder a child to try to cover up a crime, either, even if I thought I could get away with it.

Incidentally, your implication is a false dilemma, suggesting that either one can be utterly selfish and capable of anything, including murdering children, to avoid personal discomfort, or one can be utterly selfless, but there are no other possible places between the two extremes.

So basically, it was sort of a combination of trolling and implying that people who pass moral judgments or claim to have standards are just trying to "make themselves look good." Why? Does it bother you to think we might actually have those standards? Is it so difficult to imagine? Might it be a little harder for you to justify your own apparently utterly permissive worldview to yourself if you realized that, despite what you believe, it's in fact not shared by all?

Is that why you feel the need to resort to attacking the person, not the argument, by implying that we're just lying to "make ourselves look good"?

Kittyhat, I'm sorry, I just personally feel now that you're being unpleasant and argumentative, to the point where you put words in my mouth (in literally every paragraph of your last post), seemingly just to have something to be upset about. Nothing constructive can come out of continuing this discourse, so with all respect, let's just drop it. I don't have the energy to keep explaining how you're misrepresenting what I've said and I don't enjoy feeling that a person is just out to argue with me for whatever reason. Sorry if you feel this is a slight or insult; that's not how it's intended.

Clearly, as my name indicates, I am a tad biased when it comes to assessing Jaime, but I must echo the previous statements made by some in this thread that reducing Jaime to simply being "evil" because of his actions regarding Bran is greatly minimizing his character and his arc, just as defining him as "good" would likewise be selling him short.

He is my favorite character in the series because he is almost impossible to analyze with such simplicity.

Following this thread I'm a bigger fan of Jaime's than I ever was before :) I guess I just feel sorry for the guy, these guys picking on him, while he keeps dealing with those difficult situations and gets the short end of the deal.

[Sand Snake No. 9]

I think a quick review of the original post is in order:

Is there any way for Jaime Lannister to change the perception of him in the eyes of the people of Westeros. The 7 kingdoms believe him to be an amoral, sociopathic oathbreaker. Whether he is or not is not what I am asking, I am asking if he can do anything to change this perception.

IMO this question should be answered using in-universe laws, customs and mores, because the people of Westeros, obviously, would judge Jaime using their standards, not ours.

Carry on.

[JaimeNotJamie]

I think a quick review of the original post is in order:

IMO this question should be answered using in-universe laws, customs and mores, because the people of Westeros, obviously, would judge Jaime using their standards, not ours.

Carry on.

I think there's essentially nothing he can do in the eyes of the rest of the world. If he dies in a quiet dignified way protecting someone like Brienne they wouldn't know about it.

It would need to be doing something heroic in a major war/battle since I don't expect his motivation for killing Aerys to ever get out.

[Kittyhat]

Nothing constructive can come out of continuing this discourse, so with all respect, let's just drop it.

On that at least we can agree, though I find it amusing and rather telling the way you like to paint yourself as some sort of victim while constantly engaging in backhanded sarcasm and implying that people who disagree with you on Jaime are somehow lying about their moral convictions.

But to be sure, enough.

[kkae]

I liked Jaime before ASoS and after really liked him. He has been my favorite character since. I don't care what deeds he has done in the books because I don't judge fictional characters that way. I just love reading his chapters and especially I love his inner dialogue.

Like 'JaimeNotJamie' said and I think the same that Jaime is on a deep personal journey. He is trying restore his honor or worth in his own mind and we get to see how that actually translates to the things he does. He doesn't like that he thinks himself as a infamous knight (Smiling Knight) and wants to be more like Arthur Dayne but he knows also that the world will always know him as the Kingslayer who has shit for honor. I hope we get much more of his story arc in the coming books even if it has little to do with "the main story":

[Currawong]

I think there's essentially nothing he can do in the eyes of the rest of the world. If he dies in a quiet dignified way protecting someone like Brienne they wouldn't know about it.

It would need to be doing something heroic in a major war/battle since I don't expect his motivation for killing Aerys to ever get out.

Under the current laws of Westeros, I tend to agree that his motivation for killing Aerys will probably never get out, given that KG members are currently sworn to silence about actions of the king which they witness, no matter how bad. For the general community to know about his motivation, someone would need to release Jaime from his KG oath. This might be the start of some major reforms with respect to the KG itself, something which Rhaegar had hinted at.

(Slight side track given previous discussion of his honour: It's interesting that Jaime seems to have only ever told Brienne his side of the story. Why did he justify his actions and tell her of all people, when he had put up with all the public condemnation and Kingslayer taunts for years, including from fellow KG members such as Barristan Selmy? Yes, he broke his oath of silence, but to the one person whom he probably knew instinctively would never, ever break that confidence. ).

Back to restoring his honour, Perhaps his quest with Brienne to find Sansa, keep her safe and eventually restore her to her family will play a part, because it will have meant keeping his oath to Catelyn. At present of course, the odds seem almost impossible as they don't know where Sansa is, and she apparently doesn't have any family left alive other than Jon Snow. But if all the complicated pieces of the puzzle fall into place in a way that allows them to find out that Bran, Rickon and Arya plus Jon are still alive, and have Sansa meet up with at least one of them, then maybe that story will go some small way to showing Jaime in a better light.

Not sure how it would work, but maybe even his (presumed) action in eventually killing the despised Cersei could play a part, especially if it was somehow done in his role as LC of the KG to protect a new king. If Tommen and Myrcella die, then who is the new rightful knig? Stannis? If Jaime somehow acted to protect Stannis against Cersei .... On the other hand, knowing Jaime's luck, he'd just be branded as a kinslayer as well as a kingslayer :(

Edited to add:

Agree completely with kkae's post. Jaime is on a personal journey, and its not a smooth path. He questions himself and his motivations, and above all, starts to ask just "who" he is, and what it means to have a sense of personal honour. No-one (other than perhaps St Paul) can just change everything about themselves overnight, and in amongst all the progress there will be relapses and diversions, and quite a few steps back at times. Change often comes in just tiny forward steps, sometimes so small as to be almost unnoticeable.

There's good and bad in every one of us, and suggesting that Jaime is somehow irredeemably bad makes a mockery of the whole idea that a person can want to change and can change. Whether you like Jaime as a person or not is really irrelevant: he is a wonderfully written and very human person, and his story, as just one small part of the complicated ASOIAF whole, is a fascinating read. Well, for me it is, anyway! :D

[mcb]

Under the current laws of Westeros, I tend to agree that his motivation for killing Aerys will probably never get out, given that KG members are currently sworn to silence about actions of the king which they witness, no matter how bad. For the general community to know about his motivation, someone would need to release Jaime from his KG oath.

Considering that he already had killed a king (and that really is a no-no for a White Cloak), it really wouldn't be that big a deal if he told people, why.

Of course it's an entirely different question, how many people would choose to believe him. Especially after fifteen years.

[David Selig]

When you lie, you got to cover that lie up with another lie and it snowballs.

When you fuck your sister and tell the world the baby is now King of Westersos, that's a god damn big snowball.

On the topic of honor, in Westeros, not many have it. As a teenager, Jamie, he was in on the plot by his father to deceive Tyrion about that Tysha. That is when his complex with honor may have started.

The Tysha incident happened when Jaime was already in his twenties and a Kingslayer. Tyrion was 13 at this point, and Jaime is nine years older.

[WhiteWalder]

Right now he feels bad and is trying to do the right thing, but he is still being deceptive with some of the things he does. The only Honor Jamie will have is his horse.