Lion of Judah Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 My question is... Redeemed from what? He basically single handily saved the realm. Sure he pushed bran and other things but bran would not be alive for Jamie.What is it stannis says?A good act does not wash out the bad, nor the bad the goodThe notion that Jamie saved the realm by killing Aerys is bogus at best he saved KL and that might be a stretch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
locke and key Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 The notion that Jamie saved the realm by killing Aerys is bogus at best he saved KL and that might be a stretch.he didn't save the realm as such, but he saved it from anymore suffering, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
locke and key Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 he didn't save the realm as such, but he saved it from anymore suffering, at the hand of aerysEdit: sorry double quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolves Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 he didn't save the realm as such, but he saved it from anymore suffering,This is moot when a decade plus later he is the cause for the realm suffering and possibly extinction because he sired a monster. And because of this a war has broken out that's crippled the realm and have not prepared them for an inhumane race determined to kill them all. Jamie gets no recognition when at the end of the day Westeros' human population is being threatened by complete extinction from an otherworldly race and they are totally unprepared and crippled because of a war this worthless piece of shit help start Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cas Stark Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 he didn't save the realm as such, but he saved it from anymore suffering,And then he promptly forgot about "the realm" and the "smallfolk" and the "people of King's Landing" for another decade and half, wherein he first destabilized the throne and then waged war on behalf of his family, showing no concern for the realm, smallfolk or anyone else besides himself and his own family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
locke and key Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 And then he promptly forgot about "the realm" and the "smallfolk" and the "people of King's Landing" for another decade and half, wherein he first destabilized the throne and then waged war on behalf of his family, showing no concern for the realm, smallfolk or anyone else besides himself and his own family.No-one who fought in the war of five kings did it cos they were concerned about the smallfolk. if they were concerned about the smallfolk they wouldn't have gone to war in the first place, war causes more deaths, raping, pillaging, non-collection of the harvest, stealing and famine, than anything else, If the other kings had just let joffrey rule the smalfolk and the realm would be a lot more prosperous, the only regions which have managed to keep all their smallfolk safe and collect the harvest are dorne and the vale neither of whom have actually fought for any king Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cas Stark Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 No-one who fought in the war of five kings did it cos they were concerned about the smallfolk. if they were concerned about the smallfolk they wouldn't have gone to war in the first place, war causes more deaths, raping, pillaging, non-collection of the harvest, stealing and famine, than anything else, If the other kings had just let joffrey rule the smalfolk and the realm would be a lot more prosperous, the only regions which have managed to keep all their smallfolk safe and collect the harvest are dorne and the vale neither of whom have actually fought for any kingI think I would dispute that having a sadistic sociopathic twit on the throne, who at 13 is already worse than the mad king by his middle age could have possibly been good for anyone, but your point is taken. However, other nobles being concerned about the succession and their own people doesn't change the fact that Jamie showed no more concern for them than anyone else, and less concern for them than other nobles like Edmure Tully...so, its hard to put his slaying of the mad king as something he did for purely noble reasons...since that is out of character for everything else he did prior to or subsequent to the kingslaying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beets Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 No-one who fought in the war of five kings did it cos they were concerned about the smallfolk. if they were concerned about the smallfolk they wouldn't have gone to war in the first place, war causes more deaths, raping, pillaging, non-collection of the harvest, stealing and famine, than anything else, If the other kings had just let joffrey rule the smalfolk and the realm would be a lot more prosperous, the only regions which have managed to keep all their smallfolk safe and collect the harvest are dorne and the vale neither of whom have actually fought for any king :shocked: Joffrey wasn't even a teenager when he'd earned himself a reputation for undue cruelty. In CoK, Sansa is a highborn hostage who's the only thing between his uncle and death, but he beats her anyway, because he thinks it's fun. If Joff had stayed king, it wouldn't have been long before he'd have pulled an Aerys and set some high lord on fire. People were going to rebel against Joffrey regardless of what happened, because sending people's relatives home to them in crunchy, ashy piles is not an effective peacekeeping strategy.Normally, I might advocate a stealthy assassination involving shadowbabies, or possibly copious quantity of wine and another boar, but if Tommen had inherited the throne, Cersei would have reigned as regent, and the situation would have been just as bad (if not more so). Joff could not stay king. A quiet coup, with all candidates for the throne backing a single accomplished leader, would have been the best solution for the smallfolk (Stannis? he's got the best claim within the Baratheon line of succession), but everyone just deciding to shut up and leave Joffrey to his jolly murder, abuse, etc. is NOT a morally correct way to deal with things, and probably would have screwed the smallfolk over even more in the long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
locke and key Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 I think I would dispute that having a sadistic sociopathic twit on the throne, who at 13 is already worse than the mad king by his middle age could have possibly been good for anyone, but your point is taken. However, other nobles being concerned about the succession and their own people doesn't change the fact that Jamie showed no more concern for them than anyone else, and less concern for them than other nobles like Edmure Tully...so, its hard to put his slaying of the mad king as something he did for purely noble reasons...since that is out of character for everything else he did prior to or subsequent to the kingslaying.he didn't do it completely for noble reasons I agree part of it was so he wouldn't have to kill his father, but a lot of it was down to his idea that there had been enough suffering, However, jaime has done other noble things prior and subsequently, fought the kingswood brotherhood, saved brienne from a bear, sent brienne after sansa, and the way he treated pia.I'd also say that people like edmure tully were in a minority for caring, Jaime took the same attitude as most lords of the 7 kingdoms by fighting for his king instead of saving his smallfolk, Jaime also really can't be blamed for this seeing as he isn' actually a lord of anywhere and in control of no actual smallfolk plu even if he hadn't wnated to fight, he was also honour-bound to fight for joffrey by being KG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cas Stark Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 He can't really be "honor bound" as a Kingsguard anymore though, can he? Since he killed one king and committed multiple breaking of KG oaths during the reign of another, so to say he had to do anything while Joff was on the throne because he was in the KG is completely inconsistent. And, its not like he doesn't know for an absolute fact that Joffrey "Baratheon" has no right to the Iron Throne whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
locke and key Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 :shocked: Joffrey wasn't even a teenager when he'd earned himself a reputation for undue cruelty. In CoK, Sansa is a highborn hostage who's the only thing between his uncle and death, but he beats her anyway, because he thinks it's fun. If Joff had stayed king, it wouldn't have been long before he'd have pulled an Aerys and set some high lord on fire. People were going to rebel against Joffrey regardless of what happened, because sending people's relatives home to them in crunchy, ashy piles is not an effective peacekeeping strategy.Normally, I might advocate a stealthy assassination involving shadowbabies, or possibly copious quantity of wine and another boar, but if Tommen had inherited the throne, Cersei would have reigned as regent, and the situation would have been just as bad (if not more so). Joff could not stay king. A quiet coup, with all candidates for the throne backing a single accomplished leader, would have been the best solution for the smallfolk (Stannis? he's got the best claim within the Baratheon line of succession), but everyone just deciding to shut up and leave Joffrey to his jolly murder, abuse, etc. is NOT a morally correct way to deal with things, and probably would have screwed the smallfolk over even more in the long run.I think I would dispute that having a sadistic sociopathic twit on the throne, who at 13 is already worse than the mad king by his middle age could have possibly been good for anyone, but your point is taken. However, other nobles being concerned about the succession and their own people doesn't change the fact that Jamie showed no more concern for them than anyone else, and less concern for them than other nobles like Edmure Tully...so, its hard to put his slaying of the mad king as something he did for purely noble reasons...since that is out of character for everything else he did prior to or subsequent to the kingslaying.This isn't a question of morals, although joffrey was a sadistic shit he only actually was able to punish a few people like marillion and people competing in his tourneys, Cersei and the small council were the ones who made all the important decisions and they didn't advocate the same sadistic practices he did, Compare this small number of sansa, and people like ser dontos hollard and marillion to all the tonnes of smallfolk who died at tywins hand in harrenhal, or as part of the BWB's guerrila warfare and gregor cleganes pillaging or the greyjoy raids in the north,it's the same case with aerys although he was a horrible man, had roberts rebellion not taken place the only people who would've died would've been ned and robert and soem of the other lords aerys burned to death, that number pales in comparison to the amount of people who died in RRWhile I agree that an armed coup with everyone behind stannis would've been the best option, that unfortunately wasn't an option and out of the actual options: Joffrey reigning peacefully, or the war of 5 kings, far less smallfolk would have been: Raped, Killed, stolen from, Pillaged, ravished by famine and had their crops destroyed under joffrey's reign, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
locke and key Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 He can't really be "honor bound" as a Kingsguard anymore though, can he? Since he killed one king and committed multiple breaking of KG oaths during the reign of another, so to say he had to do anything while Joff was on the throne because he was in the KG is completely inconsistent. And, its not like he doesn't know for an absolute fact that Joffrey "Baratheon" has no right to the Iron Throne whatsoever.NO, although his honour is questionable, many in the kingsguard's honour has been yet while there have been cases throughout history of KG member doing despiacble dis-honorable things which are against their vows and got away with it no king has ever let a member of their KG get away with abstaining from fighting for him in a war, although most people expect little in the way of honour from people like ser meryn and ser mandon , they are still expected to fight for their king. the same applies to jaime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beets Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 This isn't a question of morals, although joffrey was a sadistic shit he only actually was able to punish a few people like marillion and people competing in his tourneys, Cersei and the small council were the ones who made all the important decisions and they didn't advocate the same sadistic practices he did, Compare this small number of sansa, and people like ser dontos hollard and marillion to all the tonnes of smallfolk who died at tywins hand in harrenhal, or as part of the BWB's guerrila warfare and gregor cleganes pillaging or the greyjoy raids in the north,Cersei could be just as sadistic sometimes; moreover, she was desperately trying to prove that she could be strong 'despite' being a woman. She's also probably insane, so I don't think the fact that she'd be making all the decisions is any consolation to the peasants of Westeros. Knowing her, she'd probably start a war over some perceived slight before long anyway.it's the same case with aerys although he was a horrible man, had roberts rebellion not taken place the only people who would've died would've been ned and robert and soem of the other lords aerys burned to death, that number pales in comparison to the amount of people who died in RRWhile I believe that Joff on the throne would have been awful for the smallfolk regardless, I'm not so sure about RR. Aerys was insane, but the fact that there are still those loyal to him (that guy Arya met on the march to Harrenhal, for example) shows that he was probably too busy burning things to cause much trouble on a grander scale. I'm no expert on RR or Aerys, but I think that if Aerys got a good Hand who he didn't end up lighting on fire and avoiding burning any Starks, that the realm might have gotten away without RR. While I agree that an armed coup with everyone behind stannis would've been the best option, that unfortunately wasn't an option and out of the actual options: Joffrey reigning peacefully, or the war of 5 kings, far less smallfolk would have been: Raped, Killed, stolen from, Pillaged, ravished by famine and had their crops destroyed under joffrey's reign,Again, questionable. We don't know for sure because all this is speculation, but I still believe that Joff and Cersei ruling would have ended terribly. I think that a coup might even have been more likely than just everyone sitting back and letting Joff have his way. If Ned had told more people about how the Lannister kids were incest-bastards, I don't think anyone would have had the grounds to oppose Stannis for the throne. With the majority of the realm backing Stan, Stan would have gotten the throne with a lot less deaths than the W5K caused, and we wouldn't have had to deal with a sociopathic boy-king. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
locke and key Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 Cersei could be just as sadistic sometimes; moreover, she was desperately trying to prove that she could be strong 'despite' being a woman. She's also probably insane, so I don't think the fact that she'd be making all the decisions is any consolation to the peasants of Westeros. Knowing her, she'd probably start a war over some perceived slight before long anyway.Well that's your opinion i'm not gonna argue with that however you can see my point that joffrey actually only caused harm to a few people in compariosn to the amount hurt by TWo5KWhile I believe that Joff on the throne would have been awful for the smallfolk regardless, I'm not so sure about RR. Aerys was insane, but the fact that there are still those loyal to him (that guy Arya met on the march to Harrenhal, for example) shows that he was probably too busy burning things to cause much trouble on a grander scale. I'm no expert on RR or Aerys, but I think that if Aerys got a good Hand who he didn't end up lighting on fire and avoiding burning any Starks, that the realm might have gotten away without RR.Yeh, thats what I'm trying to argue, personally i believe this would be the same with Joff had tyrion remained his handAgain, questionable. We don't know for sure because all this is speculation, but I still believe that Joff and Cersei ruling would have ended terribly.I think that a coup might even have been more likely than just everyone sitting back and letting Joff have his way. If Ned had told more people about how the Lannister kids were incest-bastards, I don't think anyone would have had the grounds to oppose Stannis for the throne. With the majority of the realm backing Stan, Stan would have gotten the throne with a lot less deaths than the W5K caused, and we wouldn't have had to deal with a sociopathic boy-king.Agreed, again, this would probably happen had the war not happened, however unfortunately we can only speculate as rather than just coming out with the truth ned decided to warn cersei and ended up dead leading to 4 other kings whom the kingdom's support was divided between almost equally rather than one lord like stannis who everyone other than the lannisters would stand behind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion of Judah Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 he didn't save the realm as such, but he saved it from anymore suffering,No doubt that he did, he just did it for all the wrong reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
locke and key Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 No doubt that he did, he just did it for all the wrong reasons.I think that doing it toSave the people of KL from being charred to ashesStop/in retribution for all the suffering aerys causedTo save yourself from having to kill your own fatherAre all the right reasons for killing the mad king Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion of Judah Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 I think that doing it toSave the people of KL from being charred to ashesStop/in retribution for all the suffering aerys causedTo save yourself from having to kill your own fatherAre all the right reasons for killing the mad kingJamie is not some random guy acting for the greater good of the realm, he was sworn to protect the king and did a darn good job at it up until Eddard Stark was storming through the gates of Kings Landing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
locke and key Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 Jamie is not some random guy acting for the greater good of the realm, he was sworn to protect the king and did a darn good job at it up until Eddard Stark was storming through the gates of Kings Landing.I'm not saying he is but at that time those were the reasons he killed king aerys I'd say they're pretty good reasons for doing so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cas Stark Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 I'm not saying he is but at that time those were the reasons he killed king aerys I'd say they're pretty good reasons for doing soThat action should probably go in both the good and the bad column for Jamie's tally because, really its both. It was the ultimate betrayal of his oath, and yet, the mad king had definitely gone completely mad by that time and deserved to die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion of Judah Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 I'm not saying he is but at that time those were the reasons he killed king aerys I'd say they're pretty good reasons for doing soI think we could agree that any reason to kill Aerys was a good reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.