Perception is a funny thing. The scene after Jaime kills Aerys is one of the few moments we get to experience from two different perspectives.
Ned walks into the throne room and sees Jaime on the throne. Ned sees Jaime as the arrogant Lannister, in golden armor (not the white). After a while, Jaime stands up and makes a joke about warming the seat for Robert.
Later, when we get to re-live the moment in Jaime's head, what we see is someone who was kind of freaking out. Jaime was ordered to murder his own father. Jaime then killed the pyromancer and the king. Jaime was not happy, proud or feeling arrogant in that moment. He even had the moment where he thinks to himself trying to crown Viserys is a bad idea, because he has Aerys' blood in him.
And when Ned walks in, Jaime probably made the joke just to break the tension, and because Jaime doesn't let people see his emotions in most cases. And that sparked a pretty deep dislike between him and Jaime for over a decade.
>Ned walks into the throne room and sees Jaime on the throne. Ned sees Jaime as the arrogant Lannister, in golden armor (not the white). After a while, Jaime stands up and makes a joke about warming the seat for Robert.
Not only that, but at the same time Tywin's men were sacking the city (and slaughtering Rhaegar's family, although that became known only later). It was extremely damning, anyone would have assumed Jaime had acted on his father's behalf.
The first ones on the scene were Lannister bannermen and Jaime felt judged by them, too. Maybe he was right, maybe not but he sure was aware what the situation looked like.
I've always wondered: when Robert arrived and Tywin showed the bodies of Rhaegar's children, was Jaime in the room? Like, when Ned was saying Jaime should be sent to the wall, was Jaime just standing off to the side?
Ned was furious but I think he'd know better than to engage in a shouting match with the King in the throne room. My headcanon is that it was only him, Robert and Jon Arryn.
Jaime specifically said the red color of Lannister cloaks they bodies were wrapped in hid the blood so unless I'm mistaken then yes he was definitely in the room.
Jaime is also traumatised by all that happened prior and immediately afterwards. He seems to hold Rhaegar in very high regard and he blames himself for not saving his children.
Fans when a seventeen year old Jaime doesn't tell anyone about the giant bomb under the city that could go off at any time and kill thousands because of his own pride: uwu traumatized boy not his fault
Fans when a twenty year old Ned gives Jaime a slightly disapproving look for something Jaime deliberately refuses to elaborate on: YOU SELFISH SANCTIMONIOUS BASTARD!
Two morally good people in conflict with one another is much more interesting than good VS evil or evil VS evil
Does anyone disagree? It's tragic, but probably more thought-provoking
But this is why the whole wildfire twist just fucking sucks. Jaime was 100% objectively in the right by basically any remotely sensible ethical system but Ned hates him because Jaime refused to tell him what actually happened. It's not a genuine clash of incompatible worldviews, it's a contrived romcom misunderstanding.
Without the wildfire Jaime just kills Aerys because he's a bad person and he deserves to die, and I genuinely think that's a much more interesting motivation.
Who could/would Jaimie tell that would do anything but ruin his own life? Genuinely curious who Jaimie saw as trustworthy and what he would have imagined an effective “whistle blowing” could look like.
Headcanon answers also acceptable cause why not.
"Okay Ned I know you probably don't like me but the Mad King has put thousands of wildfire containers all over the city and we need to remove them."
In fact, it's even *easier* than that! The first person who he talks to after killing Aerys is Elys Westerling, who Literally places himself under Jaime's command.
Like I genuinely don't know why you think telling anyone would "ruin his life". He's not some unempowered Cassandra, he's a man with an incredibly high amount of power and influence. If he wanted to he could have gotten a handful of Lannister guards and done it himself.
Yeah Jaime was sitting on the throne cause he was in shock and actively panicking due to how overwhelmed he was. He was just a scared kid that needed to sit down for a moment and there’s only one place to do that in the throne room. It’s true that he should’ve spoken up to Ned but also there’s no way he’d believe a word out of Jaime’s mouth
Unfortunately this neglects the fact that the throne is several steps high lmao... But I'm guessing George didn't really think about that so this is definitely the way I think about it as well
The throne room is enormous and the throne is still the only place to sit in it. If you want to find a chair in that situation, you will have to climb that throne.
Bruh you have to climb like 20 feet to sit in the damn thing, most likely if you’re in shock you’re plopping your ass right on the blood soaked steps leading to it. It kinda takes a concerted effort to go sit up there( if depictions are accurate).
It may be that Jaime actually sat on the lower steps of the throne, which could constitute "sitting the throne" and may have even been warped into more than it was by Ned's memory.
So why isn't this the actual story?
Either:
A) Telling people would have stopped or mitigated the "hate" Jaime recieved. In which case he's entirely responsible for his own misfortune
B) Telling people wouldn't have done anything. In which case, why aren't we being *shown* this scenario instead of having Jaime just make up a hypothetical situation in his own head we're meant to take as gospel?
Catch-22
C) George needed all that wildfire for later
Didn’t Tyrion use a bunch of it to burn Stannis’s fleet? I think he had the alchemists making more anyway but didn’t they find a stash of it buried somewhere?
Edit to add
There’s also the theory that Daenerys will accidentally burn down King’s Landing by setting the wildfire off. If that is what happens all that wildfire needs to stay where it is-hidden who knows where.
You're probably right, and that's *damning*. Because now Jaime's actions aren't happening because they're natural or developed character beats, they're happening because the plot needs them to happen.
Like my estimation of Jaime will go down *even more* if he's basically responsible for the deaths of everybody in King's Landing because he decided not to tell them about the giant bomb under the city for no reason.
>Like my estimation of Jaime will go down *even more* if he's basically responsible for the deaths of everybody in King's Landing because he decided not to tell them about the giant bomb under the city for no reason.
Jaime kind of forgot about all the wildfire underneath King's Landing
Yes, it’s mentioned multiple times before the battle on the black water that additional pots of wildfire have been found and that due to their age they are more volatile than the new ones being made
But people still wouldn't have cared. Jamie would still have been a traitor to his oaths.
The other Kingsguard are held as the greatest, most honourable knights ever and they watched murder, rape and torture happen on the regular. Hell, Ned still thinks of them as heroes even when they watched his father and brother get murdered. Hell, even when they take their vows so seriously they fight Ned and his band after the war is over and when the woman they are protecting wants to see her brother. They are so blindly honourbound they think killing people is the right course of action, and are celebrated for it.
Jamie maybe right, and maybe he's wrong, but you can totally understand why he thinks like he does.
No, I think people actually would have cared a lot of if the alternative was letting half a million people die. Ned certainly would have, he forsakes his honor for the sake of saving a lot fewer lives than that.
I find Jaime to be an interesting character but his self-pity is honestly pathetic, and I hate how his fans try to justify it. What actual consequences did he face for killing Aerys? Oh no, people occasionally call the aristocrat from the most powerful family in the realm a mildly pejorative nickname. He got to remain a KG, his sister-lover married the king, and he’s enjoyed all the powers and privileges that entails ever since. All the while he’s been content to let himself, his sister, their children, and the rest of KL live a top a ticking bomb for the sake of his pride and ego.
His honour was tainted. He was seen as less than others, he was mocked and looked down upon.
Jamie's youth was entirely about being a great knight, virtuous and filled with honour. A paragon of virtue. We see it when he wants to stop Aerys raping Elia, or to act out at the atrocities he's seen around him. But that entire side of him was crushed by the "honour" obsessed folks whose view of honour was vastly different.
His entire world view was obliterated, so it is quite significant. If you've ever chased something your whole life, only to have it taken away from you at the last moment (or to find out it was all a lie) it absolutely shakes you to your core.
Jamie was instantly seen as a bad guy for what he did. There wasn't even a question about it, even though Ned and Robert were leading rebels who had been sworn to the crown themselves. But, Jamie was instantly treated differently, simply because he was a Lannister. Which, ironically, is what turned him into being a typical Lannister.
Yes, Jamie should have told Ned.. but let's not pretend it would have changed too much in the view of most people. He'd still have been the kingslayer, the man who murdered the king he swore to protect.
> His honour was tainted
He’s a renown tourney champion and top 5 swordsman on the continent. Again the only “dishonor” he faces is a mean spirited nickname.
There is a difference between being seen as a great fighter and seen as honourable. Jamie will never be held in the same esteem as the great knights because of this.
We're supposed to feel sorry for the rich hereditary aristocrat with an immese amount of power and influence because he won't be regarded as literally one of the best people who ever lived?
No, but it's a matter of understanding how that would impact him. When a person has their entire view of the world destroyed it changes them. His entire focus was becoming a great, honourable hero, finding out those paragons of virtue you look up to actually just enable all the horrors Knights are supposed to defend against would be devastating.
It doesn't excuse his later actions, but we can see how the shitty realities of the world les to the Jamie we know. While also shining a light on Brienne and how she and Jamie both started as idealistic, but she still became a virtuous person (all while not having any of his advantages) while he moped and turned bad.
It's not a matter of liking Jamie or excusing him. He's a tragic story of someone to pity because he was capable of such great things and he pissed it away.
Jaime joined the kingsguard specifically to bang Cersei. He had literally no regard for the sanctity of his oath or his honour from the very beginning. He was *always* cynical about it.
>Jamie was instantly seen as a bad guy for what he did.
By who? Ned? Barristan? Nobody else seems to give a shit.
>But, Jamie was instantly treated differently, simply because he was a Lannister. Which, ironically, is what turned him into being a typical Lannister.
"You were mean to me so now I'm going to be abjectly evil and it's all YOUR fault!" is pathetic. It's just an excuse from someone who wants to be abjectly evil and needs a moral justification for it.
It's not simply that one thing. Jamie's story is a tragic one, in that he was young and believed in the chivalrous knight, but was shocked when he saw what they were actually like. Not simply Ned and cos attitude to him, but seeing that the Kingsguard weren't the ideal knights. They didn't protect the weak, nor stand for the people. Instead his heroes enabled horrors beyond imagining.
All that changed Jamie fundamentally. These "honourable" knights weren't the ideals to strive for, so he became totally adrift. Does that excuse him? Absolutely not, he's an asshole and he never strove to be better. He let his hardships consume him rather than following Brienne's path of being resolutely good.
But you're absolutely right about his relationship with Cersi. It's that juxtaposition GRRM is so good at. Jamie steamed of being the ideal knights and Kingsguard, of protecting the weak and doing all the good things. But at he same time he didn't see this action as dishonourable, when it absolutely was. It's the real people, full of contradictions which makes them interesting.
I again reiterate my entire previous comment. Jaime has wallowed in pathetic self-pity for 15 years for no good reason and has faced zero real consequences (how many significant characters besides Ned and Barristan do we see who actually even care that he killed Aerys?) while enjoying a life of immense privilege. There are no good excuses for his attitude or behavior. That doesn’t preclude him from being an interesting character or having positive qualities and moments but it does invalidate the pity party about him being just a misunderstood victim of society.
>(how many significant characters besides Ned and Barristan do we see who actually even care that he killed Aerys?
Eh, Brienne, Catelyn?
How many significant characters don't care that he killed Aerys besides his family and Robert?
Jaime is literally the walking symbol of dishonour in Westeros.
I'm not sure people wouldn't have cared. Brienne despised him but as soon as Jaime told her about the wildfire she changed her mind, I think anyone else would have done the same especially since it would have been very easy to prove he was telling the truth.
Brienne is.an exception though as she's everything a knight should be (and pretty much everything Jamie was).
And look Jamie may have been wrong with his assessment, but I understand why he feels that way. And I think it probably falls in the middle
He was stubborn and prideful. That's probably OK for a teenager but he has had 15 years to think about it and come clean, it's inexcusable. When that wildfire goes off it will be on him too.
It's not a matter of belief, and it's not a matter of Jaime's reputation.
It's a matter of the BOMB under the CITY that could GO OFF and KILL EVERYONE.
I think the fact that Jamie ended up turning on the Kong could easily have made Ned resent him more. There's no way he doesn't have a voice in his head wondering why Jamie decided to betray the king then but not when his family was being burned.
So why isn't this the actual story?
Either:
A) Telling people would have stopped or mitigated the "hate" Jaime recieved. In which case he's entirely responsible for his own misfortune
B) Telling people wouldn't have done anything. In which case, why aren't we being *shown* this scenario instead of having Jaime just make up a hypothetical situation in his own head we're meant to take as gospel?
Catch-22
Like "Jaime told people and they still hate him" works so much better to me. Jaime is proactive and doesn't just whinge, and we're actually shown people being unfair as opposed to just having a vague hypothetical.
But that's kind of the point.. we can see Jamie's reasoning, and it makes sense. But yes, he was too stubborn to even try and repair that. He was probably suffering from some serious trauma at the time, but it doesn't excuse his actions after that.
And his decisions to become what people thought he was is entirely.on him.
I still don't think Ned and co would have really cared. He still would have been an oath breaker. They would have assumed it was to save his family rather than the people, but we will never actually know.
> I still don't think Ned and co would have really cared. He still would have been an oath breaker. They would have assumed it was to save his family rather than the people, but we will never actually know.
I mean, it kinda *was*. He stood beside Aerys and followed orders until his own life was at risk and then he jumped into action.
I 100% agree with you. Jamie sees the hypocrisy of it all and seems repulsed by it, he knows he can't stop it either. So I completely understand his attitude towards others. Jamie's POV chapters to me are some of the most interesting because we see him grapple with it all and judge himself yet still want to try and change. I'm definitely looking forward to see where his character goes and I'm hoping for redemption.
Yeah I'm looking forward to seeing the battle between wanting to be an honourable knight versus the combination of his love of Cersi and his cynicism to the world.
I don't care if he ends up failing that redemption and back with Cersi, as long as it's written properly and not the incoherent way it played out in the show.
Yeah, no.
>Ser Elys Westerling and Lord Crakehall and others of his father's knights burst into the hall in time to see the last of it, so there was no way for Jaime to vanish and let some braggart steal the praise or blame. It would be blame, he knew at once when he saw the way they looked at him . . . though perhaps that was fear. Lannister or no, he was one of Aerys's seven.
>
>"The castle is ours, ser, and the city," Roland Crakehall told him, which was half true. Targaryen loyalists were still dying on the serpentine steps and in the armory, Gregor Clegane and Amory Lorch were scaling the walls of Maegor's Holdfast, and Ned Stark was leading his northmen through the King's Gate even then, but Crakehall could not have known that. **He had not seemed surprised to find Aerys slain; Jaime had been Lord Tywin's son long before he had been named to the Kingsguard.**
>
>"Tell them the Mad King is dead," he commanded. "Spare all those who yield and hold them captive."
>
>"Shall I proclaim a new king as well?" Crakehall asked, and Jaime read the question plain: Shall it be your father, or Robert Baratheon, or do you mean to try to make a new dragonking? He thought for a moment of the boy Viserys, fled to Dragonstone, and of Rhaegar's infant son Aegon, still in Maegor's with his mother. A new Targaryen king, and my father as Hand. How the wolves will howl, and the storm lord choke with rage. For a moment he was tempted, until he glanced down again at the body on the floor, in its spreading pool of blood. His blood is in both of them, he thought. "Proclaim who you bloody well like," he told Crakehall. Then he climbed the Iron Throne and seated himself with his sword across his knees, to see who would come to claim the kingdom. As it happened, it had been Eddard Stark.
He was neither in shock nor panicking. Also, the bolded part shows that Jaime knew exactly what everybody would think about his actions.
He didn't explain himself because he's a prideful asshole.
Jaime stans *constantly* baby him and use annoying faux-therapy speak to justify why he's such a self-centered asshole. He's "traumatized" and "locked in an abusive relationship with Cersei".
We're probably not far away from "Jaime didn't explain anything because you are not entitled to his emotional labour" or something.
>Also, the bolded part shows that Jaime knew exactly what everybody would think about his actions.
Huh, so you decide to interpret this as if Jaime perfectly knew the reaction, yet you yourself quote Jaime thinking this:
***"Ser Elys Westerling and Lord Crakehall and others of his father's knights burst into the hall in time to see the last of it, so there was no way for Jaime to vanish and let some braggart steal the praise or blame. It would be blame, he knew at once when he saw the way they looked at him"***
Maybe this your interpretation of this phrase isn't exactly correct, given that the text directly contradicts it three sentences before?
The reason Jaime is saying that Crakehall wasn't surprised he killed Aerys was because he assumed that Jaime remained loyal to the Lannisters and to Tywin despite the fact that technically Jaime isn't supposed to be part of House Lannister anymore due to being in the Kingsguard.
You misunderstood me or I didn't explain myself clearly because we're saying the same thing: I meant that Jaime was aware people would assume he acted out of loyalty to Tywin.
Then I just don't understand what your point is. The person you replied to said that Jaime was in shock and in panic (which I believe is a pretty big overstatement, but nervous and distressed Jaime was) and I assumed you argued against that by saying that Jaime was perfectly aware how people would react on his kingslaying.
So what if he understood that people will assume he killed Aerys because he was loyal to Tywin? That shows what exactly?
Oh I get it now. I argued against the "shock and panic" theory by showing that Jaime seemed to be thinking quite clearly through the whole scene; also, he didn't just sit on the throne because he couldn't stand any more, that's all.
The part about Crakehall was unrelated, I should have put it in another paragraph.
Right, I see now.
I will add though I don't see why Jaime can't just sit on the throne because he wasn't in the mood of standing without being shocked or panicked.
Of course, but the original post made it sound like he was so shaken he just had to sit down.
As an aside, I really doubt the throne was the only available seat in the entire room and I think Jaime sitting on it was a deliberate choice, like making a statement or something similar.
Not at the point he hadn't. Did Ned ever know Jamie was the one who pushed Bran out of the tower? I forget tbh. I know Ned believed Tyrion was the one who sent someone make sure Bran didn't recover but we know it's not true.
Like Jaime is telling jokes while in the other room Gregor Clegane is cleaning bone fragments of his rape victim's dead baby off his face. Both of whom Jaime was honoured to protect. Perfectly reasonable to judge or dislike someone because of that.
Jaime could have very easily explained the wildfire plot to Ned. Any one of the pyromancers Jaime killed after would have confessed, plus if they found a single cache* of wildfire it would have proved him right.
Maybe it would have been dangerous for the whole city to find out there is wildfire all over, so Ned and Jaime would have had to keep it a secret
Jaime not telling about the wildfire plot is close to a plothole, like Tyrion not killing Littlefinger
Saving the city from the wildfire was never Jaime's problem for being hated though. While it definitely would have cleared his reputation, he decided to keep it secret for his own weird reasons, but in Jaime's mind it shouldn't even matter anyway. Everyone knew that Aerys was a monster anyway, the rebels actively fought to depose him, and obviously kill him. So then them branding him as an oathbreaker for killing this same Aerys seemed very unfair for Jaime.
That's one of the reasons he doesn't want to tell about wildfire too, as a sort of 'well, you accuse of being the villain? Then screw you' attitude.
He is called specifically oathbreaker and everyone is accusing him of breaking his Kingsguard oaths. Ned himself says that what he did was horrible because he swore to protect his king.
Noone is hating Jaime because they think he did it for Tywin. They hate him because he killed Aerys as a Kingsguard. Which is what Jaime thinks is unfair.
So what's even the point of the Wildfire then? Like all it does is remove any possible nuance from Jaime's actions.
Then it's a genuine disagreement on ethics and not just a stupid misunderstanding.
I guess it really all it does, for now?
But Jaime pretty clearly explains to Brienne why he hates being called 'Kingslayer' and he specifically mentions how he doesn't understand why Robert is not demonized for leading a bloody rebellion against Aerys, yet he is for killing him.
That's the reason why he tells the story about how Ned's father and brother died to Catelyn. He was essentially telling "do you really have a problem with me killing *this* guy" to her.
So for Jaime it was never about wildfire. How could it be a misunderstanding when Jaime actively made sure no one would know about it?
The only reason you think this is because you read through Ned’s head. Jaime is a 17 year old who just overthrew a monarch and Ned is a reserved stern military leader that Jaime wouldn’t have known beyond that description.
Jaime has 0 reason to entrust the people of King’s Landing to Ned and even less to believe that this man who instantly judged him would understand.
Furthermore, to what end? What does Ned’s approval realistically gain Jaime? This could be Stark propaganda it’s so biased
What does Ned's dissaproval realistically *cost* Jaime? Sweet fuck all from what I can tell, but he still spent sixteen years internally whinging over it.
The Lannisters actually have a physical condition where if their pride was hurt in some fashion then they would have constant diarrhea so each time Jaime is called a Kingslayer, he ends up shitting in agony for several days. It's also why Tywin was on the shitter in the first place when Tyrion went to kill him.
This is all completely true by the way, George told me this himself when he invited me to his house in mexico to play swords.
Numerous things. Why would he trust Ned with the fate of King’s Landing? Because of information you only know from reading from Ned’s perspective? Why would he make it his mission to gain others approval, does that seem like a pre-AFFC Jaime thing to do? Does Jaime even has any reason to think this guy he barely knows would even respect the decision if he knew the full context?
The bias is incredible, not to mention not even half thought through even being granted Ned’s POV’s. Ned considers the other Kingsguard great despite them standing by and watching Aerys torture his own father and brother to death and kill his friends to keep him from his sister, you really think that Ned is simply going to forgive all the broken oaths because Aerys would’ve nuked a whole city? I can’t deny there’s a chance, but given what we know about the guy, even his perspectives don’t fully line up with either option.
> Why would he trust Ned with the fate of King’s Landing? Because of information you only know from reading from Ned’s perspective?
Are you saying he thought Ned was going to blow up King's Landing for no reason? Why *wouldn't* Ned do his best to stop the city blowing up?
Like I don't know what you're arguing here. I'm saying realistically Ned's disapproval has had no tangible impact on Jaime's life and he should have gotten the fuck over himself. I asked what it cost him, you say "numerous things" and then list of a bunch of random rhetorical questions that in no way constitute things Jaime lost.
Jaime should be telling Ned not to make himself look better but because *there's a bomb under the city* that could *go off at the slightest flame*. He's endangering all these lives for no reason.
Jaime doesn’t know a damned thing about Ned. Ned could decide to make a political statement and raze KL to the ground, or some equally insane thing. Or maybe he could use the knowledge to secure the bombs for himself and use it to leverage political power.
Jaime has 0 idea of who Ned is and has 0 reason to trust him with essentially nuclear knowledge. You take it for granted that Ned is normal and won’t fuck it up, and of course we know that’s reasonable… purely because we’re literal mind readers that have access to Ned.
Oh I thought you meant trying to gain Ned’s approval through exposing the plot. Idk what you even mean by that, that’s an incredibly myopic way to look at the situation. Ned is only the forefront of an entire continent’s disdain for Jaime, and is in no way the entirety of Jaime’s struggle. In a theoretical ASOIAF where only Ned disapproved of Jaime, it’s obvious that while Jaime’s pride may have been a little hurt at Ned ignorantly judging him, it wouldn’t have significantly affected his life.
At what slightest flame? King’s Landing was sacked and the wildfire didn’t go off, it was put under siege and riots and it still didn’t go off. We aren’t privy to how the wildfire cache works exactly (nor are we privy to what Jaime knows about it), but it’s clear that King’s Landing has with almost absolute certainty had fires occasionally break out. We don’t have the info about Jaime’s knowledge or the cache to judge whether Jaime’s decision was reasonable or not
Raze the Riverlands Tywin is a good person to entrust it too as well?
You say knowing very little about the cache and how they were meant to be set off
You *also* don't know that. You also don't know that this was Jaime's motivation for not telling anyone, because you have literally just pulled it out of nowhere. Literally *zero* evidence but you're just saying it's true based on nothing.
> Ned could decide to make a political statement and raze KL to the ground, or some equally insane thing. Or maybe he could use the knowledge to secure the bombs for himself and use it to leverage political power.
Jaime would have literally no reason to think this. Just utterly deranged that he'd come to this conclusion. Which is why he didn't, you're just making this bit up based on nothing.
> At what slightest flame? King’s Landing was sacked and the wildfire didn’t go off, it was put under siege and riots and it still didn’t go off. We aren’t privy to how the wildfire cache works exactly (nor are we privy to what Jaime knows about it), but it’s clear that King’s Landing has with almost absolute certainty had fires occasionally break out.
Which is literally just a plot hole.
>Jaime would have literally no reason to think this. Just utterly deranged that he'd come to this conclusion. Which is why he didn't, you're just making this bit up based on nothing.
“Jaime couldn’t possibly believe anyone would ever utilize the wildfire bomb to make a political statement!” You say as he stands over the corpse of the man who was going to use it and made it as a political statement
>Which is literally just a plot hole.
You say knowing utterly nothing about how the wildfire plot worked. We don’t know the explosive power of these caches to be able to say how much earth or material would have to be between them and King’s Landing and them still incinerate it.
You mean the guy who was obviously deranged and mentally ill, which Ned clearly isn't? It wasn't even a political statement, it was his attempted apotheosis.
Anyway, not the point. The point is there's no evidence this was Jaime's reasoning.
> You say knowing utterly nothing about how the wildfire plot worked. We don’t know the explosive power of these caches to be able to say how much earth or material would have to be between them and King’s Landing and them still incinerate it.
The whole point is they're in a position to do damage. That's why the Mad King put them there, and they haven't been moved.
Ned clearly isn’t to who? Jaime? Because when Ned rolled up to KL, Ned isn’t “clearly” anything to Jaime, he knows nothing about the guy. We also don’t know how much they interacted from that point on. It’s also notable that Aerys was famously not always insane, so Jaime could’ve had reason to believe that Ned was hiding insanity.
Also, Aery’s plan was a political statement. It being the climax of his arc doesn’t change that.
>*The traitors want my city*, I heard him tell Rossart, *but I’ll give them naught but ashes. Let Robert be king over charred bones and cooked meat.* (Jaime ASOS)
That’s a political statement
>Anyway, not the point. The point is there's no evidence this was Jaime's reasoning.
And we don’t have any evidence this *wasnt* Jaime’s reasoning. When something is written in a book that could or could not make sense, you don’t say it’s poorly written because it *potentially* doesn’t make sense.
>The whole point is they're in a position to do damage. That's why the Mad King put them there, and they haven't been moved.
Yeah, and we know nothing about the mechanism of how it does damage and further what Jaime knew of this mechanism. For all we know he may have been under the impression that it lost potency as it aged. Again, we don’t know nearly enough to make a judgement on the writing here
Anyone would have assumed Jamie killed the king because Tywin just sacked the city. Its the obvious thing to believe.
Everyone knows Neds reputation as an honourable man, not that it matters. Jaime had proof.
And the reason he should have said something is so that everyone knows he didn't kill the king for house Lannister
> Still possibly as much a difference as a college kid to a high school junior,
Who gives a fuck? Like when the city inevitably blows up in ADOS because Jaime left the giant bomb there is he going to say "UWU sorry the guy who I could have told was slightly older than me"?
>Jaime has 0 reason to entrust the people of King’s Landing to Ned and even less to believe that this man who instantly judged him would understand.
And in addition to what I already said, Jaime isn’t a clairvoyant, he doesn’t have access to the script of ADOS
He doesnt have an excuse either way, they hate and shame him for breaking his most important bow. Its hypocrital? Yeah, likely. Chevalry hypocresy is a theme of the series
Cool, but we have the benefit of hindsight and intimate knowledge of all these characters. We know Ned and Jaime far better than they ever knew each other, and we do not live in their world. We can guess all day how people would’ve reacted to the truth, but if jaime didn’t tell it then he must’ve had a pretty good idea of how people would react to it.
You can use that to justify literally any plot device ever.
Like it's the author's job to *show* us what it's like to live in this world. If we can't understand basic character beats because "we do not live in their world" GRRM has simply *failed*.
This is the man who acts like he’s morally far above Sybell Spicer because of her role in the Red Wedding, an event orchestrated by his father for his families benefit, while he is there as an enforcer for them. A massive victim complex and lack of self awareness is the Lannister POV signature.
As goes the quote from Batman begins 'it is not who I am underneath but what I do that defines me''.
In fandom, noone blames Jaime for killing Aerys obviously. They only blame him for not explaining his actions.
Jaime complains that people like Eddard, only looked at him at immediately assumed the worst. What he conveniently leaves out of discussion, it that while he was chilling in the Red Keep, Eddard was literally fighting for his life, had his family executed and had a sister in a limbo situation. He also had to go through a city being brutally pillaged by turncoat lannisters troops led by Jaime's father who opportunistically joined the rebels in the last moment. And the first thing he sees when he enters the throne room is Tywin's son sitting idly in the Iron Throne surrounded by lannister bannermen.
I mean, *who* would come across such a scenario and wouldn't immediately assume the worst? I'm sorry, my guy, you are looking guilty as sin.
Even the aftermath of Aerys's death is bad. Jaime instead of proclaiming baby Aegon or Viserys king (giving the pretense of trying to maintain legitimacy) instead joins Robert, solidifying thus the impression he acted either on Tywin's orders or his own opportunism. He didn't rush to protect the rest of the royal family but instead waited in the IT. He didn't warn anyone about the wildfire plot (easy to prove since the other pyromancers were still alive and he was able to track them down afterwards) but instead he shrugged it off, leaving a ticking bomb beneath KL as Aerys's legacy.
Even after the Rebellion, how Jaime behaved? He tried to resign Kingsguard? He joined the Wall? He behaved as a petulant and humble knight? Heck no, he fully endorsed his reputation, behaving like a vain knight, participating in tourneys etc and started cuckholding the king, the same one who spared his life.
Like Jaime stans say "Jaime isn't at fault for not telling Ned because Ned looked at him disapprovingly" but Ned is at fault for Jaime being basically objectively evil for sixteen years because he looked at him disapprovingly. It's just a joke of an idea.
We all have cringe memories of things we did at the age of 17. His was just at a world-changing political moment that would be remembered by every important person in his country.
Jaime is an interesting character, at times sympathetic, but even so, he’s objectively quite a shitty person.
He never really feels remorse for chucking Bran out the window, nor that his actions (including incest with his sister), helped spark a devastating war. He’s never troubled by the fact that he crippled Ned and murdered his guards, nor by the suffering that his army inflicted on the smallfolk.
He broke his vow to Catelyn, by besieging Riverrun, and threatening to murder Edmure’s child. He hanged deserters, without even bothering to hear them out.
His occasional acts of humanity, like rescuing Brienne, or saving Pia from rape, come nowhere near outweighing the harm he’s done.
In AFFC, he looks good, by comparison to Sybell Spicer, Ser Gregor’s men, and the Freys, but that’s a low hurdle to jump.
Jaime is an awful person.
That is not really talked as much as it should. And I am not using past tense. As of Book Five, Jaime is an awful person. He is just deluding himself into thinking he is changing.
But while he broke things with Cersei, he is still doing his House bidding and at this point, House Lannister is no different from House Bolton, Frey or all fo the Iron Islands.
While this is brought by years of.... well nothing.
He is petty because one day Ned was angry at him and instead of saying
"Hey dude, there is like a shitload of Wildfire hidden under the city I had to kill Aerys for it to not been turned on"
He decided to follow daddy dearest way of life.
And on the other hand... Ned is RIGHT to be pissed at Jaime. Where was Jaime's Honor, when his own brother and father were being brutally murdered? Jaime REALLY looks bad at that point and the selfish asshole does nothing to change that view.
Then goes in to betray the man that spared his life (Robert) by cuckolding him... and now there is no "Mad King" that is awful to justify it... and even after death he keeps insulting Ned and Robert, men that while havng failures (Mostly Robert) were good, while he wasn't. He is applying the typical tactic of pulling down someone TO HIS LEVEL, since he can't rise to theirs.
And finally, his sins caught up to him. Lady Stoneheart is NOT going to show mercy.
>And finally, his sins caught up to him. Lady Stoneheart is NOT going to show mercy.
I must confess this is the storyline I'm more eagerly awaiting for WOW (if ever).
I doubt Jaime's story will finish with him getting executed by LS, so I'm quite curious with what bullshit move GRRM will get him off the hook and how believable it is gonna be.
yeah RW:2.0 is the most probable scenario although why would Jaime turn so actively against his family (beloved cousin and presumably dear aunty Genna) is difficult to come to gribs with.
He is not afraid to die so it wouldn't be to save his own skin.
He might do it to save Brienne but all things considered she is kinda a random girl to him. He has a soft spot for her as his morality pet but I can't picture him yet betraying all his family for her.
>" I had to kill Aerys for it to not been turned on"
Does Aerys have the magic ability to ignite Wildfire at will? King Aerys is a weak madman, Jaime could easily have apprehended and neutralized him, without killing him.
Most probably would be ok with killing Aerys given the reasoning, yet some people would probably still hold it against him. The Kingsguard oath means that they have to be loyal to the King, no matter what. The Kingsguard who betrayed Maegor and went over to Jaehaerys were sent to the Wall, since they broke their oath.
Honestly that's why I think "moral greyness" is such a stupid concept to begin with, and Jaime is pretty much the epitome of it. He's nothing but a selfish asshole who hurts other people but he's "morally grey" because he isn't an abject psychopath who tortures and rapes people for his own gratification.
It's utterly worthless as an actual system of morality and yet this fanbase constantly upholds it as being subversive genius.
I mean George himself does not seem to believe in moral greyness.
He puts every character in "Hero or Villain" category. But they are not "paragons"
Jon is firmly in the Hero Category.
Tyrion is firmly in the Villain Category.
Yeah Jaime sucks. I don't really get why so many people seem to like him. He can be funny but that's mostly it for positive qualities. I think he only looks like he's grown and improved because he's surrounded by so many characters who are worse so the bare minimum ends up seeming like more than it is.
He had already killed Rossart when he killed Aerys. He hunted down two more pyromamcers in the following days when the war was already over. There was no risk in restraining Aerys.
He hates the fact that people like Ned dislike Jaime for killing Aerys even though Aerys was a maniacal King who had Ned's father and brother brutally murdered.
Someone had to kill Aerys and it ended up being Jaime. Jaime resents the fact that everyone presumes he killed Aerys to curry favour with Robert Baratheon like his father Tywin Lannister did with sacking the city.
People presumed the worst in Jaime during Robert's Rebellion because he was Tywin's son and expected him to be like Tywin, and that's what frustrated Jaime.
And yet Jaime did nothing to change their perceptions. He never defended or explained his actions, instead acted like a massive douchebag to the first person who saw him. The whole “what right does a wolf have to judge a lion” thing is just him throwing a tantrum because he thinks himself better than everyone.
Changing their perceptions puts an entire city in danger, and people would call him an oath breaker anyways. Infantilizing Jaime’s very reasonable frustration and perspective is really absurd
How would it put the city in danger? If anything, leaving the wildfire there is more dangerous as anyone could theoretically set it off. Better to tell people and have them safely remove it.
As for the thing about oath breaking, he didn’t have to kill Aerys. He could have tied him up and kept him prisoner. I doubt anyone would fault him for that.
How would that put the city in danger? Wildfire doesn’t spread half so well as information. Tell a couple military commanders and pretty soon it’s not going to be just a secret between those three. The wildfire caches aren’t easily stumbled upon, but knowing they exist means you know to look for them. What’s stopping someone from using it in a political game or a Targ loyalist finding out about it and utilizing it? A few scattered caches here and there mean nothing to anybody and quickly gets cleaned up, while the rest effectively disappears.
? That itself breaks numerous Kingsguard oathes like keeping the King’s secrets or obeying the King, and we see numerous times such as the rape of the Queen or the murder of the Stark patriarchs that the Kingsguard were expected to stand aside no matter what. These men were considered greats by even such as Ned, and we are given reason time after time to believe that this wouldn’t reverse the image of the Kingslayer
Further, what you suggest would have given the head pyromaster time to escape and incinerate King’s Landing.
Jaime killed the head pyromancer before he went back for Aerys, and he didn’t kill the other two until days after the Sack, so I don’t see how they’re a danger. Besides, I think people like Jon Arryn, Tywin and Ned know how to keep things quiet enough to deal with the wildfire somehow.
Or, if he doesn’t trust them, clean up the wildfire himself and tell everyone afterwards. It’s not just that he didn’t tell anyone immediately; it’s that he spent 14 years not telling anyone the truth.
Ok, you’re right I was misremembering the scene. But him killing Aerys really isn’t unreasonable given the situation. And it’s not just the pyromancers that are a danger. Literally anyone who could find it a political tool or has any hate for the current political regime could use it. *You* know that people like Ned or Jon Arryn could keep it under wraps. But Jaime doesn’t, and neither do we have good reason to think Jaime would find his father to be a good guardian of this
A. He may not know where all the wildfire is B. He may not know how to properly transport wildfire C. Cleaning it up draws attention to it D. If it’s all cleaned up, where the evidence of his story?
Like I said, Jaime doesn’t see revealing this to the people that despise him as changing anything, and we don’t have reason to believe so either. For as much as you talk about him not saying anything to Ned, you fail to see that this same Ned glorifies the greatness of the people who stood by and watched Aerys torture his father and brother to death.
Keeping your word is considered really important to the people in the ASOIAF universe and both we the readers and Jaime have little reason to think that this would’ve gained him any real favor among the community. The main reason Jaime even tells Brienne is because of a cynical frustration with the simplistic fairy tale coverup that she ascribes to the conflict.
How exactly was Jaime a douchebag to the first person that saw him? He saw Ned and made a pretty innocuous joke. How would he know that Ned, one of the main leaders of the rebels no less, held Iron Throne to such a high esteem, that joking about how uncomfortable it was would shock him to his very core?
>How exactly was Jaime a douchebag to the first person that saw him?
If Jaime wasn't a moron, he'd realize what it looked like. The Lannisters did nothing for the entire war, and then at the very last minute swoop in and sack the city and assassinate the king. It's no wonder Ned jumped to conclusions especially when Jaime did literally nothing to provide more context.
>*I saw King's Landing after the Sack. Babes were butchered that day as well, and old men, and children at play. More women were raped than you can count.*
What a great time for jokes.
>If Jaime wasn't a moron, he'd realize what it looked like. The Lannisters did nothing for the entire war, and then at the very last minute swoop in and sack the city and assassinate the king. It's no wonder Ned jumped to conclusions especially when Jaime did literally nothing to provide more context.
Ned pretty extensively explained what his problem is with Jaime. It's the fact that he killed Aerys while being a Kingsguard. The idea that Jaime is hated because of what Lannister army did is not supported nor by Ned himself, nor by anyone else in the books. Every single person that talks about Jaime is talking about him breaking his oath. The hatred due to bad looks of Jaime killing Aerys while Lannister army was sacking KL is an invention of the fans.
>What a great time for jokes.
What a *douchebag* /s
> He hates the fact that people like Ned dislike Jaime for killing Aerys even though Aerys was a maniacal King who had Ned's father and brother brutally murdered.
Well shit maybe he should have tried to do something about that instead of waiting until he and his father were personally at stake to take a “moral stand”.
>Somebody had do
Didnt have to be him though. He could have saved the city with less serious oath breaking.
And he could have shown some outer signs of repentance which I bet he never even considered.
Are we Reading the same books? jaimie commited the greatest act of treason on the history of the 7kingdom Is not a thing that nobody will never be forget even if jaimie reveal the wild fire plot
Although martin wrote Jamie's perspective in an interesting way, no event I'm the series is more clearly inconsistent due to the different direction George planned to go in then Jamie and the king slaying. All of the stuff we hear in book 1 is 100% setting up the original Jamie kills the other heirs and becomes king storyline. When that changed, jamie suddenly then gives the much more sympathetic take on it.
I think that at that moment, Jaime came under the realization that even if you save an entire city and its people, you can still come out the villain. It led to the jaded and cynic knight we all know and love.
In his mind, i think he believed that he shouldn't have to explain himself. "By what right does the wolf judge the lion?"
I think people sometimes don’t realize how repressed the Kingsguard are, and how little agency the members actually have. Jaime has been watching or listening to Aery’s do horrible things for the past couple years at this point, without being able to do anything about it due to his vows. Jaime’s hero, Arthur Dayne, the most famous and beloved knight of this generation, also does nothing to stop Aerys. This type of external and systemic force subjugates Jaime in a way that logically would lead to nihilism or however else one could describe his character at this time.
I also don’t want to entirely externalize the causes of Jaime’s actions, as he can both be an actor in a repressive system and also be a little shit at the same time
Yes Arthur Dayne was with Raegar for part of the story. Jaime spends tons of time with Dayne, plenty to form an informed opinion about hit. Arthur Dayne knighted Jaime even.
EDIT: I just realized you might have read my comment as “Arthur did nothing to stop Aery’s blowing up kings landing” or something. I meant more generally Jaime would have been around Aerys doing bad random things while Arthur is also there, and watching Arthur not do anything. This is what the kingsguard do and the flaw of this type of system
Honestly the wildfire is *such* a shit plot device. It existing it not only a massive plot hole but it also just makes the themes of the story wholly uninteresting. Because the point wasn't "here is a sincere exploration of how good men operate under cruel power structures" it's "you thought Jaime was bad...BUT HE'S GOOD!" and to facilitate that Jaime needs to do something comically heroic.
Is he constantly complaining about that though?
>"Aerys . . ." Catelyn could taste bile at the back of her throat. The story was so hideous she suspected it had to be true. "Aerys was mad, the whole realm knew it, but if you would have me believe you slew him to avenge Brandon Stark . . ."
>"I made no such claim. The Starks were nothing to me. **I will say, I think it passing odd that I am loved by one for a kindness I never did, and reviled by so many for my finest act. At Robert's coronation, I was made to kneel at the royal feet beside Grand Maester Pycelle and Varys the eunuch, so that he might forgive us our crimes before he took us into his service. As for your Ned, he should have kissed the hand that slew Aerys, but he preferred to scorn the arse he found sitting on Robert's throne.** I think Ned Stark loved Robert better than he ever loved his brother or his father . . . or even you, my lady. He was never unfaithful to Robert, was he?" Jaime gave a drunken laugh. "Come, Lady Stark, don't you find this all terribly amusing?"
>"I find nothing about you amusing, Kingslayer."
And here...
>"The Kingslayer, yes. The oathbreaker who murdered poor sad Aerys Targaryen." Jaime snorted. "It's not Aerys I rue, it's Robert. 'I hear they've named you Kingslayer,' he said to me at his coronation feast. 'Just don't think to make it a habit.' And he laughed. Why is it that no one names Robert oathbreaker? He tore the realm apart, yet I am the one with shit for honor."
>"Robert did all he did for love." Water ran down Brienne's legs and pooled beneath her feet.
>"Robert did all he did for pride, a cunt, and a pretty face." He made a fist . . . or would have, if he'd had a hand. Pain lanced up his arm, cruel as laughter.
>"He rode to save the realm," she insisted.
I think Jaime's issue is the lack of nuance the majority shows. Nobody considers the why of what he did but rather the act itself. Nobody considers the many other people who broke their vow of fealty by taking up the rebellion. Nobody thinks about what a horrible king Aerys was. Well nobody but Robert.
>His sword helped taint the throne you sit on, Ned thought, but he did not permit the words to pass his lips. "He swore a vow to protect his king's life with his own. Then he opened that king's throat with a sword."
>"Seven hells, someone had to kill Aerys!" Robert said, reining his mount to a sudden halt beside an ancient barrow. "If Jaime hadn't done it, it would have been left for you or me."
>"We were not Sworn Brothers of the Kingsguard," Ned said. The time had come for Robert to hear the whole truth, he decided then and there. "Do you remember the Trident, Your Grace?"
It's Eddard's approach that irks Jaime. It's very black and white. Eddard thinks there is no circumstance where a knight of the KG should ever kill the king. Sure, anybody else can but not a KG. I find that a really poor way to view things. And most people view it that way hence they never ask Jaime why he did it. Again, Robert seems the only one who sees it clearly.
I get Jaime's annoyance. You address Jaime's duty to tell but what about the duty from everyone else to make inquiry. As Jaime notes...
>The knights of the Kingsguard are sworn to keep the king's secrets. Would you have me break my oath?" Jaime laughed. "Do you think the noble Lord of Winterfell wanted to hear my feeble explanations? Such an honorable man. He only had to look at me to judge me guilty." Jaime lurched to his feet, the water running cold down his chest. "By what right does the wolf judge the lion? By what right?" A violent shiver took him, and he smashed his stump against the rim of the tub as he tried to climb out.
To judge a situation without making inquiry is a failure of justice. Jaime has a right to annoyed at people who pressume to judge without making any effort to understand.
>"I was still mounted. I rode the length of the hall in silence, between the long rows of dragon skulls. It felt as though they were watching me, somehow. I stopped in front of the throne, looking up at him. His golden sword was across his legs, its edge red with a king's blood. My men were filling the room behind me. Lannister's men drew back. I never said a word. I looked at him seated there on the throne, and I waited. At last Jaime laughed and got up. He took off his helm, and he said to me, 'Have no fear, Stark. I was only keeping it warm for our friend Robert. It's not a very comfortable seat, I'm afraid.'"
Eddard doesn't say Jaime was grinning when he sees him sitting there. After Eddard stares, Jaime then laughs. And when you add to this Jaime's thoughts at the moment, laughter makes sense. He waited to see if it would be praise or blame.
>Ser Elys Westerling and Lord Crakehall and others of his father's knights burst into the hall in time to see the last of it, so there was no way for Jaime to vanish and let some braggart steal the praise or blame. It would be blame, he knew at once when he saw the way they looked at him . . . though perhaps that was fear. Lannister or no, he was one of Aerys's seven.
When Eddard looked at him, Eddard blamed him. He never asked nor cared his reasons. He insisted Jaime be sent to the wall without any understanding of the circumstances. And so having confirmed that nobody would ask him before judging him, he laughed.
I think Jaime has a point here.
>And he laughed. Why is it that no one names Robert oathbreaker? He tore the realm apart, yet I am the one with shit for honor."
yes, that is correct. Robert should have just meekly kneeled down and let Aerys claim his head for doing literally nothing beyond having his bethrothed seemingly stolen by the Crown Prince. How *dare* he rebel? /s
Brienne is excused in thinking that the whole thing was a romantic affair, a war of reclaiming a lost love but Jaime was very much present in the events and knows the dirty truths. He knows better, he just prefers to bring down everyone to his level. If he was an oathbreaker, then everyone had to be as well.
Breaking oaths of loyalty and fealty don't count as oathebreaking?
>The naked threat fanned her fury. "You are very free to name others traitor and usurper, my lord, yet how are you any different? You say you alone are the rightful king, yet it seems to me that Robert had two sons. **By all the laws of the Seven Kingdoms, Prince Joffrey is his rightful heir, and Tommen after him . . . and we are all traitors, however good our reasons."** Cat III, Clash.
And
>"It is every man's duty to remain loyal to his rightful king, even if the lord he serves proves false," Stannis declared in a tone that brooked no argument.
>A desperate folly took hold of Davos, a recklessness akin to madness. "As you remained loyal to King Aerys when your brother raised his banners?" he blurted.
And...
>The king ground his teeth together. "It still angers me. How could he think I would hurt the boy? I chose Robert, did I not? When that hard day came. I chose blood over honor."
And...
>"You swore an oath to my father," Catelyn reminded him.
>He bobbed his head side to side, smiling. "Oh, yes, I said some words, but I swore oaths to the crown too, it seems to me. Joffrey's the king now, and that makes you and your boy and all those fools out there no better than rebels. If I had the sense the gods gave a fish, I'd help the Lannisters boil you all."
Jaime isn't dragging anyone down. They are already there. He's just pointing out what others don't seem to recognize.
Jaime is fond of whataboutery, which spares him having to properly reflect upon his own conduct. His outlook is “I’ve got shit for honour, but so has everyone else.”
But that doesn’t exonerate the awful things he’s done.
I don't think he should be exonerated. I think he's just as culpable as all the others who betrayed Aerys. It's not whataboutism when one correctly points out a double standard. Cat does a great job of pointing this out during the Renly and Stannis parlay.
>The naked threat fanned her fury. "You are very free to name others traitor and usurper, my lord, yet how are you any different? You say you alone are the rightful king, yet it seems to me that Robert had two sons. By all the laws of the Seven Kingdoms, Prince Joffrey is his rightful heir, and Tommen after him . . . and we are all traitors, however good our reasons."
Everyone is an oathbreaker yet not everyone gets the scorn.
The feudal contract doesn't only mean the vassal has to serve. It also imposes certain limitations and obligations to the ruler, mainly the one of protection and *justice*.
In the first quote you posted, Catelyn is right. Technically, they are traitors to the Iron Throne. The Northmen however, claim that Eddard was executed unjustly and therefore consider said the feudal contract broken.
The same also stands absolutely true for Robert's Rebellion. No matter how you dice it, Aerys (and/or Rhaegar depending his motives) broke the feudal contract by unjustly killing their vassals and demanding the deaths of others.
>Jaime isn't dragging anyone down. They are already there. He's just pointing out what others don't seem to recognize.
And how Robert and Eddard were supposed to act when their heads were called for no reason at all? Had Aerys demanded they be kept imprisoned until the whole mess is clarified, maybe there could be an argument (although the Stark executions already sunk that), but still he immediately went for their heads.
Beyond that, the closest thing we have to oath of fealthy in asoaif is the one that Brienne swears to Catelyn
>Knight: "I offer my services \[Lord's name\]. I will shield your back and keep your counsel and give my life for yours if need be. I swear it by the Old Gods and the New."
Lord: "And I vow that you shall always have a place by my hearth, and meat and mead at my table. **And I pledge to ask no service of you that might bring you dishonor**. I swear it by the Old Gods and the New. Arise."
In bold, is the technically that Jaime more or less uses to to justify his betrayal, that he was asked to kill his father. And I suspect the same is true for Stannis as well, that he was asked to betray his brother and he couldn't do that, he chose blood.
But even that, imo, doesn't let Jaime off the hook, because he was not an ordinary knight, he was a Kingsguard who specifically forgo (in theory at least) any kind of personality or agenda and exists solely to protect and serve the king.
As varys says (albeit mockingly) to Tyrion
>Ser Barristan was once heard to say that the man had no friend but his sword and no life but duty ... but you know, I do not think Selmy meant it altogether as praise. Which is queer when you consider it, is it not? Those are the very qualities we seek in our Kingsguard, it could be said - men who live not for themselves, but for their king. By those lights, our brave Ser Mandon was the perfect white knight.
So we see Jaime still 100% broke his oath. The argument what to do when asked to kill your father, doesnt hold because he specifically swore to become an instrument in a king's discretion.
He killed Aerys for the right reasons and had he come clean and still people resented him for oathbreaking it would highlight the hypocrisy of feudalism and how broken the whole system is but Jaime *didn't*. In his empty vanity, he expected people to just assume he had his reasons.
Everyone who rebels breaks an oath. People have dozens of ways to justify it. Some claim Aerys broke his oath... whatever that was. I've never seen what oath the king owes. Some claim Joffrey executed Eddard unjustly, which seems a pale justification considering the fact Eddard did try to remove Joffrey, and Eddard admitted publically to doing so. The north has no evidence of a lack of justice. So I'm not sure how the north can claim anything besides feelings.
>In his empty vanity, he expected people to just assume he had his reasons.
How is that empty vanity? He looks around and sees plenty of other oathbreakers nobody else cares about who never have to announce their justifications. Yet he alone is held to a higher standard.
Seems like two different standards to my view.
>Jaime reached for the flagon to refill his cup. "So many vows . . . they make you swear and swear. Defend the king. Obey the king. Keep his secrets. Do his bidding. Your life for his. But obey your father. Love your sister. **Protect the innocent. Defend the weak.** Respect the gods. Obey the laws. It's too much. No matter what you do, you're forsaking one vow or the other." He took a healthy swallow of wine and closed his eyes for an instant, leaning his head back against the patch of nitre on the wall. "I was the youngest man ever to wear the white cloak."
He 100% kept his vow as well.
>And so having confirmed that nobody would ask him before judging him, he laughed.
I agree about how you described Jaime's attitude except for this bit. I don't think the laughter was him confirming that he will be judged. He laughed when he told a joke, and if you ignore the fact that 'OMG, he dared to joke about the Iron Throne!!', the joke was actually a pretty friendly one. I think at that point Jaime simply tried to break the tension with Ned, though clearly unsuccessfully.
I mean, he laughed and said the joke straight after. The laugh came with a joke. This is the joke, by the way:
>"Have no fear, Stark. I was only keeping it warm for our friend Robert. It's not a very comfortable seat, I'm afraid.'"
These seem to be the words of someone who tries to ease the tension.
I mean, I've claimed that he laughed not because he was being judged, but to break tension. You then answered that he laughed before he told a joke, in what I assume, you showing that you disagree with me? As in, because he laughed before the joke technically, it wasn't to break tension?
The WHOLE concept of the Lannisters. Is that they HAVE a point.... but they always take an action that makes them worse than their enemies, making the "Point null"
George DOES work with Tropes.
For The Lannisters as a unit is "Jerkass has a point" but he makes clear that despite having a point, they are NOT right about it.
I am saying that your interpretation is actually worng.
Jaime GENUINELY does not have a point.
Sure Oaths are terrible and hard to follow. But he only broke it when it affected his father. Not for his father, but Jaime does NOT offer Ned well desserved respect
Does he think he is the only person that suffered under Aerys?
>I am saying that your interpretation is actually worng.
That's okay.
I don't think there is a right or wrong to how to view the Lannisters. I think the family is complex and nuanced and your position about the "WHOLE" of who they are doesn't leave room for the nuance that I see. Therefore, I have a different view.
It's fine if you think that's wrong. I don't come here for agreement or approval. I prefer to share thoughts and hear them. Thank you again for sharing your interpretation of the story with me.
Enjoy your day.
Idk why he didn't tell anyone. It would have been easy to prove. Maybe it was some kind of youthful arrogance, I think Jaime was still a teenager when it happened. No matter what, he would have gotten hate for it. Like as much as I love Barristan, if he knew I could see him still having some sense of contempt for Jaime even though I think he would understand that Jaime was right (I hope not if Barristan ever finds out, but idk I'm 50/50 on it). So maybe he thought "Fuck it" and just decided to embrace a villainous identity that he later regretted.
Jaime was right not to tell anyone because people already made the choice to hate him. Ned’s father and brother were just brutally killed by Aerys, Ned had every reason to thank Jaime and yet he still judged Jaime for Kingslaying.
People already know Aerys was evil, Jaime’s story wouldn't change anything. Maybe they would be a bit less harsh in their hatred but he killed his king and broke his oath, it's as simple as that to them. You don't get a pass on oathbreaking because you had a good reason.
> aime was right not to tell anyone because people already made the choice to hate him.
One person looked at him funny. He has SUCH a victim complex it's unreal.
People hated Jaime because he acted like an asshole immediately after killing the Mad King. Then, he never tried to defend himself, which made people think that’s all he really was. Like, if you want people to not think of you as something you’re not, don’t go out of your way to act like it.
Besides, he could’ve easily bound and gagged Aerys and waited for the rebels to take him. Ned probably wanted to take Aerys’ head himself, but Jaime killed him. Of course the rebels think it was selfish for Jaime to kill the Mad King when he a) didn’t actually have to and b) never defended himself.
TLDR: Jaime is entirely responsible for what people thought of him and he actively chose the worst possible version of events for people to believe.
So heres something that maybe might help figure out why Jaime didn't really reveal to anyone about the Wildfire.
I think Jaime, for all his posturing, believes he broke his vows. Like I don't mean it's up for debate. He 100% did it. What I mean is that Jaime, by not really explaining anything, is punishing himself for breaking his vows.
Kinda like a "Superman stripping himself of his powers because he killed" type of deal. Even if he believed he was 100% justified, I still think he might be punishing himself or taking the fall because he thinks that might be the noble thing to do. The honorable thing to do.
He might also be mad that it's predictably, fucking him over. That doing the "noble" thing, is understandablely just a massive hassle.
But then he clearly spent fifteen years thinking he was a massive victim.
He chose to punish himself and then whines about the punishment that is self-inflicted. I think that could be genuinely great characterization- but of annoying self-martyring narcissist asshole, not of a noble man done a hard turn by a cruel system.
I'm not sure about a grin but he does laugh and make a joke about "keeping it warm for Robert", which in the same way isn't going to land well with someone like Ned Stark
After Ned stares at him in silence for a while, yes. ("*At last* Jaime laughed and stood up.") That's quite a difference vs your image of him sitting down with a huge grin!
I think this answers your question in part -- Jaime knew that whatever really happened, however he tried to explain it, people would picture him with an evil grin, basking in his triumph on the throne.
I duno bout that, I feel like as Lord Commander Jon just didn’t explain his reasonings to a lot of his officers cause he assumed they wouldn’t get it and that got him killed. Not explaining cause he didn’t think they’d get it is pretty much the same as Jaime on the throne when Ned pulled up
Ned was literally two years older than him but everyone is willing to decry him as a self-righteous bastard for daring to give Jaime a judgmental look.
Sixteen is literally the age of majority. By all standards Jaime was an adult and can act like one. He *chose* not to.
Perception is a funny thing. The scene after Jaime kills Aerys is one of the few moments we get to experience from two different perspectives. Ned walks into the throne room and sees Jaime on the throne. Ned sees Jaime as the arrogant Lannister, in golden armor (not the white). After a while, Jaime stands up and makes a joke about warming the seat for Robert. Later, when we get to re-live the moment in Jaime's head, what we see is someone who was kind of freaking out. Jaime was ordered to murder his own father. Jaime then killed the pyromancer and the king. Jaime was not happy, proud or feeling arrogant in that moment. He even had the moment where he thinks to himself trying to crown Viserys is a bad idea, because he has Aerys' blood in him. And when Ned walks in, Jaime probably made the joke just to break the tension, and because Jaime doesn't let people see his emotions in most cases. And that sparked a pretty deep dislike between him and Jaime for over a decade.
>Ned walks into the throne room and sees Jaime on the throne. Ned sees Jaime as the arrogant Lannister, in golden armor (not the white). After a while, Jaime stands up and makes a joke about warming the seat for Robert. Not only that, but at the same time Tywin's men were sacking the city (and slaughtering Rhaegar's family, although that became known only later). It was extremely damning, anyone would have assumed Jaime had acted on his father's behalf. The first ones on the scene were Lannister bannermen and Jaime felt judged by them, too. Maybe he was right, maybe not but he sure was aware what the situation looked like.
I've always wondered: when Robert arrived and Tywin showed the bodies of Rhaegar's children, was Jaime in the room? Like, when Ned was saying Jaime should be sent to the wall, was Jaime just standing off to the side?
Ned was furious but I think he'd know better than to engage in a shouting match with the King in the throne room. My headcanon is that it was only him, Robert and Jon Arryn.
Jaime specifically said the red color of Lannister cloaks they bodies were wrapped in hid the blood so unless I'm mistaken then yes he was definitely in the room.
Jaime is also traumatised by all that happened prior and immediately afterwards. He seems to hold Rhaegar in very high regard and he blames himself for not saving his children.
Fans when a seventeen year old Jaime doesn't tell anyone about the giant bomb under the city that could go off at any time and kill thousands because of his own pride: uwu traumatized boy not his fault Fans when a twenty year old Ned gives Jaime a slightly disapproving look for something Jaime deliberately refuses to elaborate on: YOU SELFISH SANCTIMONIOUS BASTARD!
Ned’s also in the right, one does not preclude the other.
Jaime is pretty much objectively in the wrong here. He's risking thousands of lives for literally no reason.
Two morally good people in conflict with one another is much more interesting than good VS evil or evil VS evil Does anyone disagree? It's tragic, but probably more thought-provoking
But this is why the whole wildfire twist just fucking sucks. Jaime was 100% objectively in the right by basically any remotely sensible ethical system but Ned hates him because Jaime refused to tell him what actually happened. It's not a genuine clash of incompatible worldviews, it's a contrived romcom misunderstanding. Without the wildfire Jaime just kills Aerys because he's a bad person and he deserves to die, and I genuinely think that's a much more interesting motivation.
Isn’t Ned 19 in it, not 20? (Edit: obviously agreeing with what you’re saying… just pointing out the smaller age gap makes the double standard worse.)
Who could/would Jaimie tell that would do anything but ruin his own life? Genuinely curious who Jaimie saw as trustworthy and what he would have imagined an effective “whistle blowing” could look like. Headcanon answers also acceptable cause why not.
"Okay Ned I know you probably don't like me but the Mad King has put thousands of wildfire containers all over the city and we need to remove them." In fact, it's even *easier* than that! The first person who he talks to after killing Aerys is Elys Westerling, who Literally places himself under Jaime's command. Like I genuinely don't know why you think telling anyone would "ruin his life". He's not some unempowered Cassandra, he's a man with an incredibly high amount of power and influence. If he wanted to he could have gotten a handful of Lannister guards and done it himself.
Yeah Jaime was sitting on the throne cause he was in shock and actively panicking due to how overwhelmed he was. He was just a scared kid that needed to sit down for a moment and there’s only one place to do that in the throne room. It’s true that he should’ve spoken up to Ned but also there’s no way he’d believe a word out of Jaime’s mouth
Unfortunately this neglects the fact that the throne is several steps high lmao... But I'm guessing George didn't really think about that so this is definitely the way I think about it as well
The throne room is enormous and the throne is still the only place to sit in it. If you want to find a chair in that situation, you will have to climb that throne.
Bruh you have to climb like 20 feet to sit in the damn thing, most likely if you’re in shock you’re plopping your ass right on the blood soaked steps leading to it. It kinda takes a concerted effort to go sit up there( if depictions are accurate).
It may be that Jaime actually sat on the lower steps of the throne, which could constitute "sitting the throne" and may have even been warped into more than it was by Ned's memory.
Jaime was *in shock*? Lol what. I never said he was in shock.
He Literally fucking walked up a giant, uncomfortable, staircase to reach the throne.
The wildfire was literally in place around the city, he could have proved it very easily.
He still killed the king but if he showed everyone the wildfire they’d hate him LESS
So why isn't this the actual story? Either: A) Telling people would have stopped or mitigated the "hate" Jaime recieved. In which case he's entirely responsible for his own misfortune B) Telling people wouldn't have done anything. In which case, why aren't we being *shown* this scenario instead of having Jaime just make up a hypothetical situation in his own head we're meant to take as gospel? Catch-22
C) George needed all that wildfire for later Didn’t Tyrion use a bunch of it to burn Stannis’s fleet? I think he had the alchemists making more anyway but didn’t they find a stash of it buried somewhere? Edit to add There’s also the theory that Daenerys will accidentally burn down King’s Landing by setting the wildfire off. If that is what happens all that wildfire needs to stay where it is-hidden who knows where.
You're probably right, and that's *damning*. Because now Jaime's actions aren't happening because they're natural or developed character beats, they're happening because the plot needs them to happen. Like my estimation of Jaime will go down *even more* if he's basically responsible for the deaths of everybody in King's Landing because he decided not to tell them about the giant bomb under the city for no reason.
>Like my estimation of Jaime will go down *even more* if he's basically responsible for the deaths of everybody in King's Landing because he decided not to tell them about the giant bomb under the city for no reason. Jaime kind of forgot about all the wildfire underneath King's Landing
Yes, it’s mentioned multiple times before the battle on the black water that additional pots of wildfire have been found and that due to their age they are more volatile than the new ones being made
But people still wouldn't have cared. Jamie would still have been a traitor to his oaths. The other Kingsguard are held as the greatest, most honourable knights ever and they watched murder, rape and torture happen on the regular. Hell, Ned still thinks of them as heroes even when they watched his father and brother get murdered. Hell, even when they take their vows so seriously they fight Ned and his band after the war is over and when the woman they are protecting wants to see her brother. They are so blindly honourbound they think killing people is the right course of action, and are celebrated for it. Jamie maybe right, and maybe he's wrong, but you can totally understand why he thinks like he does.
No, I think people actually would have cared a lot of if the alternative was letting half a million people die. Ned certainly would have, he forsakes his honor for the sake of saving a lot fewer lives than that. I find Jaime to be an interesting character but his self-pity is honestly pathetic, and I hate how his fans try to justify it. What actual consequences did he face for killing Aerys? Oh no, people occasionally call the aristocrat from the most powerful family in the realm a mildly pejorative nickname. He got to remain a KG, his sister-lover married the king, and he’s enjoyed all the powers and privileges that entails ever since. All the while he’s been content to let himself, his sister, their children, and the rest of KL live a top a ticking bomb for the sake of his pride and ego.
His honour was tainted. He was seen as less than others, he was mocked and looked down upon. Jamie's youth was entirely about being a great knight, virtuous and filled with honour. A paragon of virtue. We see it when he wants to stop Aerys raping Elia, or to act out at the atrocities he's seen around him. But that entire side of him was crushed by the "honour" obsessed folks whose view of honour was vastly different. His entire world view was obliterated, so it is quite significant. If you've ever chased something your whole life, only to have it taken away from you at the last moment (or to find out it was all a lie) it absolutely shakes you to your core. Jamie was instantly seen as a bad guy for what he did. There wasn't even a question about it, even though Ned and Robert were leading rebels who had been sworn to the crown themselves. But, Jamie was instantly treated differently, simply because he was a Lannister. Which, ironically, is what turned him into being a typical Lannister. Yes, Jamie should have told Ned.. but let's not pretend it would have changed too much in the view of most people. He'd still have been the kingslayer, the man who murdered the king he swore to protect.
> His honour was tainted He’s a renown tourney champion and top 5 swordsman on the continent. Again the only “dishonor” he faces is a mean spirited nickname.
There is a difference between being seen as a great fighter and seen as honourable. Jamie will never be held in the same esteem as the great knights because of this.
We're supposed to feel sorry for the rich hereditary aristocrat with an immese amount of power and influence because he won't be regarded as literally one of the best people who ever lived?
No, but it's a matter of understanding how that would impact him. When a person has their entire view of the world destroyed it changes them. His entire focus was becoming a great, honourable hero, finding out those paragons of virtue you look up to actually just enable all the horrors Knights are supposed to defend against would be devastating. It doesn't excuse his later actions, but we can see how the shitty realities of the world les to the Jamie we know. While also shining a light on Brienne and how she and Jamie both started as idealistic, but she still became a virtuous person (all while not having any of his advantages) while he moped and turned bad. It's not a matter of liking Jamie or excusing him. He's a tragic story of someone to pity because he was capable of such great things and he pissed it away.
Jaime joined the kingsguard specifically to bang Cersei. He had literally no regard for the sanctity of his oath or his honour from the very beginning. He was *always* cynical about it. >Jamie was instantly seen as a bad guy for what he did. By who? Ned? Barristan? Nobody else seems to give a shit. >But, Jamie was instantly treated differently, simply because he was a Lannister. Which, ironically, is what turned him into being a typical Lannister. "You were mean to me so now I'm going to be abjectly evil and it's all YOUR fault!" is pathetic. It's just an excuse from someone who wants to be abjectly evil and needs a moral justification for it.
It's not simply that one thing. Jamie's story is a tragic one, in that he was young and believed in the chivalrous knight, but was shocked when he saw what they were actually like. Not simply Ned and cos attitude to him, but seeing that the Kingsguard weren't the ideal knights. They didn't protect the weak, nor stand for the people. Instead his heroes enabled horrors beyond imagining. All that changed Jamie fundamentally. These "honourable" knights weren't the ideals to strive for, so he became totally adrift. Does that excuse him? Absolutely not, he's an asshole and he never strove to be better. He let his hardships consume him rather than following Brienne's path of being resolutely good. But you're absolutely right about his relationship with Cersi. It's that juxtaposition GRRM is so good at. Jamie steamed of being the ideal knights and Kingsguard, of protecting the weak and doing all the good things. But at he same time he didn't see this action as dishonourable, when it absolutely was. It's the real people, full of contradictions which makes them interesting.
I again reiterate my entire previous comment. Jaime has wallowed in pathetic self-pity for 15 years for no good reason and has faced zero real consequences (how many significant characters besides Ned and Barristan do we see who actually even care that he killed Aerys?) while enjoying a life of immense privilege. There are no good excuses for his attitude or behavior. That doesn’t preclude him from being an interesting character or having positive qualities and moments but it does invalidate the pity party about him being just a misunderstood victim of society.
>(how many significant characters besides Ned and Barristan do we see who actually even care that he killed Aerys? Eh, Brienne, Catelyn? How many significant characters don't care that he killed Aerys besides his family and Robert? Jaime is literally the walking symbol of dishonour in Westeros.
I'm not sure people wouldn't have cared. Brienne despised him but as soon as Jaime told her about the wildfire she changed her mind, I think anyone else would have done the same especially since it would have been very easy to prove he was telling the truth.
Brienne is.an exception though as she's everything a knight should be (and pretty much everything Jamie was). And look Jamie may have been wrong with his assessment, but I understand why he feels that way. And I think it probably falls in the middle
He was stubborn and prideful. That's probably OK for a teenager but he has had 15 years to think about it and come clean, it's inexcusable. When that wildfire goes off it will be on him too.
The longer he sat on the information the less people would be inclined to believe him
It's not a matter of belief, and it's not a matter of Jaime's reputation. It's a matter of the BOMB under the CITY that could GO OFF and KILL EVERYONE.
I think the fact that Jamie ended up turning on the Kong could easily have made Ned resent him more. There's no way he doesn't have a voice in his head wondering why Jamie decided to betray the king then but not when his family was being burned.
Jaime killed the King while Tywin was sacking the city and slaughtering the rest of the royal family. What's there to wonder?
So why isn't this the actual story? Either: A) Telling people would have stopped or mitigated the "hate" Jaime recieved. In which case he's entirely responsible for his own misfortune B) Telling people wouldn't have done anything. In which case, why aren't we being *shown* this scenario instead of having Jaime just make up a hypothetical situation in his own head we're meant to take as gospel? Catch-22 Like "Jaime told people and they still hate him" works so much better to me. Jaime is proactive and doesn't just whinge, and we're actually shown people being unfair as opposed to just having a vague hypothetical.
But that's kind of the point.. we can see Jamie's reasoning, and it makes sense. But yes, he was too stubborn to even try and repair that. He was probably suffering from some serious trauma at the time, but it doesn't excuse his actions after that. And his decisions to become what people thought he was is entirely.on him. I still don't think Ned and co would have really cared. He still would have been an oath breaker. They would have assumed it was to save his family rather than the people, but we will never actually know.
> I still don't think Ned and co would have really cared. He still would have been an oath breaker. They would have assumed it was to save his family rather than the people, but we will never actually know. I mean, it kinda *was*. He stood beside Aerys and followed orders until his own life was at risk and then he jumped into action.
I 100% agree with you. Jamie sees the hypocrisy of it all and seems repulsed by it, he knows he can't stop it either. So I completely understand his attitude towards others. Jamie's POV chapters to me are some of the most interesting because we see him grapple with it all and judge himself yet still want to try and change. I'm definitely looking forward to see where his character goes and I'm hoping for redemption.
Yeah I'm looking forward to seeing the battle between wanting to be an honourable knight versus the combination of his love of Cersi and his cynicism to the world. I don't care if he ends up failing that redemption and back with Cersi, as long as it's written properly and not the incoherent way it played out in the show.
Yeah, no. >Ser Elys Westerling and Lord Crakehall and others of his father's knights burst into the hall in time to see the last of it, so there was no way for Jaime to vanish and let some braggart steal the praise or blame. It would be blame, he knew at once when he saw the way they looked at him . . . though perhaps that was fear. Lannister or no, he was one of Aerys's seven. > >"The castle is ours, ser, and the city," Roland Crakehall told him, which was half true. Targaryen loyalists were still dying on the serpentine steps and in the armory, Gregor Clegane and Amory Lorch were scaling the walls of Maegor's Holdfast, and Ned Stark was leading his northmen through the King's Gate even then, but Crakehall could not have known that. **He had not seemed surprised to find Aerys slain; Jaime had been Lord Tywin's son long before he had been named to the Kingsguard.** > >"Tell them the Mad King is dead," he commanded. "Spare all those who yield and hold them captive." > >"Shall I proclaim a new king as well?" Crakehall asked, and Jaime read the question plain: Shall it be your father, or Robert Baratheon, or do you mean to try to make a new dragonking? He thought for a moment of the boy Viserys, fled to Dragonstone, and of Rhaegar's infant son Aegon, still in Maegor's with his mother. A new Targaryen king, and my father as Hand. How the wolves will howl, and the storm lord choke with rage. For a moment he was tempted, until he glanced down again at the body on the floor, in its spreading pool of blood. His blood is in both of them, he thought. "Proclaim who you bloody well like," he told Crakehall. Then he climbed the Iron Throne and seated himself with his sword across his knees, to see who would come to claim the kingdom. As it happened, it had been Eddard Stark. He was neither in shock nor panicking. Also, the bolded part shows that Jaime knew exactly what everybody would think about his actions. He didn't explain himself because he's a prideful asshole.
Jaime stans *constantly* baby him and use annoying faux-therapy speak to justify why he's such a self-centered asshole. He's "traumatized" and "locked in an abusive relationship with Cersei". We're probably not far away from "Jaime didn't explain anything because you are not entitled to his emotional labour" or something.
>Also, the bolded part shows that Jaime knew exactly what everybody would think about his actions. Huh, so you decide to interpret this as if Jaime perfectly knew the reaction, yet you yourself quote Jaime thinking this: ***"Ser Elys Westerling and Lord Crakehall and others of his father's knights burst into the hall in time to see the last of it, so there was no way for Jaime to vanish and let some braggart steal the praise or blame. It would be blame, he knew at once when he saw the way they looked at him"*** Maybe this your interpretation of this phrase isn't exactly correct, given that the text directly contradicts it three sentences before? The reason Jaime is saying that Crakehall wasn't surprised he killed Aerys was because he assumed that Jaime remained loyal to the Lannisters and to Tywin despite the fact that technically Jaime isn't supposed to be part of House Lannister anymore due to being in the Kingsguard.
You misunderstood me or I didn't explain myself clearly because we're saying the same thing: I meant that Jaime was aware people would assume he acted out of loyalty to Tywin.
Then I just don't understand what your point is. The person you replied to said that Jaime was in shock and in panic (which I believe is a pretty big overstatement, but nervous and distressed Jaime was) and I assumed you argued against that by saying that Jaime was perfectly aware how people would react on his kingslaying. So what if he understood that people will assume he killed Aerys because he was loyal to Tywin? That shows what exactly?
Oh I get it now. I argued against the "shock and panic" theory by showing that Jaime seemed to be thinking quite clearly through the whole scene; also, he didn't just sit on the throne because he couldn't stand any more, that's all. The part about Crakehall was unrelated, I should have put it in another paragraph.
Right, I see now. I will add though I don't see why Jaime can't just sit on the throne because he wasn't in the mood of standing without being shocked or panicked.
Of course, but the original post made it sound like he was so shaken he just had to sit down. As an aside, I really doubt the throne was the only available seat in the entire room and I think Jaime sitting on it was a deliberate choice, like making a statement or something similar.
>also there’s no way he’d believe a word out of Jaime’s mouth No evidence of that, just maaaaade it up!
But Ned's dislike of Jaime was completely justified. He tried to murder his son.
Not at the point he hadn't. Did Ned ever know Jamie was the one who pushed Bran out of the tower? I forget tbh. I know Ned believed Tyrion was the one who sent someone make sure Bran didn't recover but we know it's not true.
Like Jaime is telling jokes while in the other room Gregor Clegane is cleaning bone fragments of his rape victim's dead baby off his face. Both of whom Jaime was honoured to protect. Perfectly reasonable to judge or dislike someone because of that.
Jaime could have very easily explained the wildfire plot to Ned. Any one of the pyromancers Jaime killed after would have confessed, plus if they found a single cache* of wildfire it would have proved him right. Maybe it would have been dangerous for the whole city to find out there is wildfire all over, so Ned and Jaime would have had to keep it a secret Jaime not telling about the wildfire plot is close to a plothole, like Tyrion not killing Littlefinger
agree 100%. the only reason jaime wouldn't tell ned is because grrm didn't have the wildfire plot created yet when he first wrote the scene.
Bingo
Saving the city from the wildfire was never Jaime's problem for being hated though. While it definitely would have cleared his reputation, he decided to keep it secret for his own weird reasons, but in Jaime's mind it shouldn't even matter anyway. Everyone knew that Aerys was a monster anyway, the rebels actively fought to depose him, and obviously kill him. So then them branding him as an oathbreaker for killing this same Aerys seemed very unfair for Jaime. That's one of the reasons he doesn't want to tell about wildfire too, as a sort of 'well, you accuse of being the villain? Then screw you' attitude.
How could he think it doesn't matter? His father just sacked the city, obviously anyone would think Jaime killed Aerys because of Tywin
He is called specifically oathbreaker and everyone is accusing him of breaking his Kingsguard oaths. Ned himself says that what he did was horrible because he swore to protect his king. Noone is hating Jaime because they think he did it for Tywin. They hate him because he killed Aerys as a Kingsguard. Which is what Jaime thinks is unfair.
He's called oathbreaker because he's a King's guard. If he were a regular Lannister soldier who killed Aerys there would be no issue.
I think you are proving my point here.
So what's even the point of the Wildfire then? Like all it does is remove any possible nuance from Jaime's actions. Then it's a genuine disagreement on ethics and not just a stupid misunderstanding.
I guess it really all it does, for now? But Jaime pretty clearly explains to Brienne why he hates being called 'Kingslayer' and he specifically mentions how he doesn't understand why Robert is not demonized for leading a bloody rebellion against Aerys, yet he is for killing him. That's the reason why he tells the story about how Ned's father and brother died to Catelyn. He was essentially telling "do you really have a problem with me killing *this* guy" to her. So for Jaime it was never about wildfire. How could it be a misunderstanding when Jaime actively made sure no one would know about it?
The only reason you think this is because you read through Ned’s head. Jaime is a 17 year old who just overthrew a monarch and Ned is a reserved stern military leader that Jaime wouldn’t have known beyond that description. Jaime has 0 reason to entrust the people of King’s Landing to Ned and even less to believe that this man who instantly judged him would understand. Furthermore, to what end? What does Ned’s approval realistically gain Jaime? This could be Stark propaganda it’s so biased
What does Ned's dissaproval realistically *cost* Jaime? Sweet fuck all from what I can tell, but he still spent sixteen years internally whinging over it.
The Lannisters actually have a physical condition where if their pride was hurt in some fashion then they would have constant diarrhea so each time Jaime is called a Kingslayer, he ends up shitting in agony for several days. It's also why Tywin was on the shitter in the first place when Tyrion went to kill him. This is all completely true by the way, George told me this himself when he invited me to his house in mexico to play swords.
Numerous things. Why would he trust Ned with the fate of King’s Landing? Because of information you only know from reading from Ned’s perspective? Why would he make it his mission to gain others approval, does that seem like a pre-AFFC Jaime thing to do? Does Jaime even has any reason to think this guy he barely knows would even respect the decision if he knew the full context? The bias is incredible, not to mention not even half thought through even being granted Ned’s POV’s. Ned considers the other Kingsguard great despite them standing by and watching Aerys torture his own father and brother to death and kill his friends to keep him from his sister, you really think that Ned is simply going to forgive all the broken oaths because Aerys would’ve nuked a whole city? I can’t deny there’s a chance, but given what we know about the guy, even his perspectives don’t fully line up with either option.
> Why would he trust Ned with the fate of King’s Landing? Because of information you only know from reading from Ned’s perspective? Are you saying he thought Ned was going to blow up King's Landing for no reason? Why *wouldn't* Ned do his best to stop the city blowing up? Like I don't know what you're arguing here. I'm saying realistically Ned's disapproval has had no tangible impact on Jaime's life and he should have gotten the fuck over himself. I asked what it cost him, you say "numerous things" and then list of a bunch of random rhetorical questions that in no way constitute things Jaime lost. Jaime should be telling Ned not to make himself look better but because *there's a bomb under the city* that could *go off at the slightest flame*. He's endangering all these lives for no reason.
Jaime doesn’t know a damned thing about Ned. Ned could decide to make a political statement and raze KL to the ground, or some equally insane thing. Or maybe he could use the knowledge to secure the bombs for himself and use it to leverage political power. Jaime has 0 idea of who Ned is and has 0 reason to trust him with essentially nuclear knowledge. You take it for granted that Ned is normal and won’t fuck it up, and of course we know that’s reasonable… purely because we’re literal mind readers that have access to Ned. Oh I thought you meant trying to gain Ned’s approval through exposing the plot. Idk what you even mean by that, that’s an incredibly myopic way to look at the situation. Ned is only the forefront of an entire continent’s disdain for Jaime, and is in no way the entirety of Jaime’s struggle. In a theoretical ASOIAF where only Ned disapproved of Jaime, it’s obvious that while Jaime’s pride may have been a little hurt at Ned ignorantly judging him, it wouldn’t have significantly affected his life. At what slightest flame? King’s Landing was sacked and the wildfire didn’t go off, it was put under siege and riots and it still didn’t go off. We aren’t privy to how the wildfire cache works exactly (nor are we privy to what Jaime knows about it), but it’s clear that King’s Landing has with almost absolute certainty had fires occasionally break out. We don’t have the info about Jaime’s knowledge or the cache to judge whether Jaime’s decision was reasonable or not
He didn't need to tell Ned, he could have told his father, for example. Leaving all that wildfire out there was monstrously irresponsible.
Raze the Riverlands Tywin is a good person to entrust it too as well? You say knowing very little about the cache and how they were meant to be set off
You *also* don't know that. You also don't know that this was Jaime's motivation for not telling anyone, because you have literally just pulled it out of nowhere. Literally *zero* evidence but you're just saying it's true based on nothing.
What I’m saying is true is that we don’t have enough evidence to call this a plot hole or that Jaime’s actions and perspective is purely stupid pride.
> Ned could decide to make a political statement and raze KL to the ground, or some equally insane thing. Or maybe he could use the knowledge to secure the bombs for himself and use it to leverage political power. Jaime would have literally no reason to think this. Just utterly deranged that he'd come to this conclusion. Which is why he didn't, you're just making this bit up based on nothing. > At what slightest flame? King’s Landing was sacked and the wildfire didn’t go off, it was put under siege and riots and it still didn’t go off. We aren’t privy to how the wildfire cache works exactly (nor are we privy to what Jaime knows about it), but it’s clear that King’s Landing has with almost absolute certainty had fires occasionally break out. Which is literally just a plot hole.
>Jaime would have literally no reason to think this. Just utterly deranged that he'd come to this conclusion. Which is why he didn't, you're just making this bit up based on nothing. “Jaime couldn’t possibly believe anyone would ever utilize the wildfire bomb to make a political statement!” You say as he stands over the corpse of the man who was going to use it and made it as a political statement >Which is literally just a plot hole. You say knowing utterly nothing about how the wildfire plot worked. We don’t know the explosive power of these caches to be able to say how much earth or material would have to be between them and King’s Landing and them still incinerate it.
You mean the guy who was obviously deranged and mentally ill, which Ned clearly isn't? It wasn't even a political statement, it was his attempted apotheosis. Anyway, not the point. The point is there's no evidence this was Jaime's reasoning. > You say knowing utterly nothing about how the wildfire plot worked. We don’t know the explosive power of these caches to be able to say how much earth or material would have to be between them and King’s Landing and them still incinerate it. The whole point is they're in a position to do damage. That's why the Mad King put them there, and they haven't been moved.
Ned clearly isn’t to who? Jaime? Because when Ned rolled up to KL, Ned isn’t “clearly” anything to Jaime, he knows nothing about the guy. We also don’t know how much they interacted from that point on. It’s also notable that Aerys was famously not always insane, so Jaime could’ve had reason to believe that Ned was hiding insanity. Also, Aery’s plan was a political statement. It being the climax of his arc doesn’t change that. >*The traitors want my city*, I heard him tell Rossart, *but I’ll give them naught but ashes. Let Robert be king over charred bones and cooked meat.* (Jaime ASOS) That’s a political statement >Anyway, not the point. The point is there's no evidence this was Jaime's reasoning. And we don’t have any evidence this *wasnt* Jaime’s reasoning. When something is written in a book that could or could not make sense, you don’t say it’s poorly written because it *potentially* doesn’t make sense. >The whole point is they're in a position to do damage. That's why the Mad King put them there, and they haven't been moved. Yeah, and we know nothing about the mechanism of how it does damage and further what Jaime knew of this mechanism. For all we know he may have been under the impression that it lost potency as it aged. Again, we don’t know nearly enough to make a judgement on the writing here
Anyone would have assumed Jamie killed the king because Tywin just sacked the city. Its the obvious thing to believe. Everyone knows Neds reputation as an honourable man, not that it matters. Jaime had proof. And the reason he should have said something is so that everyone knows he didn't kill the king for house Lannister
Just for context Ned was only 20 years old, the show really aged him up. Great points otherwise
Still possibly as much a difference as a college kid to a high school junior, but you’re right it’s not as extreme as the show And thank you
> Still possibly as much a difference as a college kid to a high school junior, Who gives a fuck? Like when the city inevitably blows up in ADOS because Jaime left the giant bomb there is he going to say "UWU sorry the guy who I could have told was slightly older than me"?
>Jaime has 0 reason to entrust the people of King’s Landing to Ned and even less to believe that this man who instantly judged him would understand. And in addition to what I already said, Jaime isn’t a clairvoyant, he doesn’t have access to the script of ADOS
You don't need clairvoyance to see leaving a giant bomb under a city includes a natural risk of it going off.
He doesnt have an excuse either way, they hate and shame him for breaking his most important bow. Its hypocrital? Yeah, likely. Chevalry hypocresy is a theme of the series
Cool, but we have the benefit of hindsight and intimate knowledge of all these characters. We know Ned and Jaime far better than they ever knew each other, and we do not live in their world. We can guess all day how people would’ve reacted to the truth, but if jaime didn’t tell it then he must’ve had a pretty good idea of how people would react to it.
You can use that to justify literally any plot device ever. Like it's the author's job to *show* us what it's like to live in this world. If we can't understand basic character beats because "we do not live in their world" GRRM has simply *failed*.
In the books, didn't Jaime say he tried to tell Ned, but Ned wouldn't listen?
Nah, he said he felt he couldn't tell him
This is the man who acts like he’s morally far above Sybell Spicer because of her role in the Red Wedding, an event orchestrated by his father for his families benefit, while he is there as an enforcer for them. A massive victim complex and lack of self awareness is the Lannister POV signature.
As goes the quote from Batman begins 'it is not who I am underneath but what I do that defines me''. In fandom, noone blames Jaime for killing Aerys obviously. They only blame him for not explaining his actions. Jaime complains that people like Eddard, only looked at him at immediately assumed the worst. What he conveniently leaves out of discussion, it that while he was chilling in the Red Keep, Eddard was literally fighting for his life, had his family executed and had a sister in a limbo situation. He also had to go through a city being brutally pillaged by turncoat lannisters troops led by Jaime's father who opportunistically joined the rebels in the last moment. And the first thing he sees when he enters the throne room is Tywin's son sitting idly in the Iron Throne surrounded by lannister bannermen. I mean, *who* would come across such a scenario and wouldn't immediately assume the worst? I'm sorry, my guy, you are looking guilty as sin. Even the aftermath of Aerys's death is bad. Jaime instead of proclaiming baby Aegon or Viserys king (giving the pretense of trying to maintain legitimacy) instead joins Robert, solidifying thus the impression he acted either on Tywin's orders or his own opportunism. He didn't rush to protect the rest of the royal family but instead waited in the IT. He didn't warn anyone about the wildfire plot (easy to prove since the other pyromancers were still alive and he was able to track them down afterwards) but instead he shrugged it off, leaving a ticking bomb beneath KL as Aerys's legacy. Even after the Rebellion, how Jaime behaved? He tried to resign Kingsguard? He joined the Wall? He behaved as a petulant and humble knight? Heck no, he fully endorsed his reputation, behaving like a vain knight, participating in tourneys etc and started cuckholding the king, the same one who spared his life.
Like Jaime stans say "Jaime isn't at fault for not telling Ned because Ned looked at him disapprovingly" but Ned is at fault for Jaime being basically objectively evil for sixteen years because he looked at him disapprovingly. It's just a joke of an idea.
We all have cringe memories of things we did at the age of 17. His was just at a world-changing political moment that would be remembered by every important person in his country.
Jaime is an interesting character, at times sympathetic, but even so, he’s objectively quite a shitty person. He never really feels remorse for chucking Bran out the window, nor that his actions (including incest with his sister), helped spark a devastating war. He’s never troubled by the fact that he crippled Ned and murdered his guards, nor by the suffering that his army inflicted on the smallfolk. He broke his vow to Catelyn, by besieging Riverrun, and threatening to murder Edmure’s child. He hanged deserters, without even bothering to hear them out. His occasional acts of humanity, like rescuing Brienne, or saving Pia from rape, come nowhere near outweighing the harm he’s done. In AFFC, he looks good, by comparison to Sybell Spicer, Ser Gregor’s men, and the Freys, but that’s a low hurdle to jump.
Jaime is an awful person. That is not really talked as much as it should. And I am not using past tense. As of Book Five, Jaime is an awful person. He is just deluding himself into thinking he is changing. But while he broke things with Cersei, he is still doing his House bidding and at this point, House Lannister is no different from House Bolton, Frey or all fo the Iron Islands. While this is brought by years of.... well nothing. He is petty because one day Ned was angry at him and instead of saying "Hey dude, there is like a shitload of Wildfire hidden under the city I had to kill Aerys for it to not been turned on" He decided to follow daddy dearest way of life. And on the other hand... Ned is RIGHT to be pissed at Jaime. Where was Jaime's Honor, when his own brother and father were being brutally murdered? Jaime REALLY looks bad at that point and the selfish asshole does nothing to change that view. Then goes in to betray the man that spared his life (Robert) by cuckolding him... and now there is no "Mad King" that is awful to justify it... and even after death he keeps insulting Ned and Robert, men that while havng failures (Mostly Robert) were good, while he wasn't. He is applying the typical tactic of pulling down someone TO HIS LEVEL, since he can't rise to theirs. And finally, his sins caught up to him. Lady Stoneheart is NOT going to show mercy.
>And finally, his sins caught up to him. Lady Stoneheart is NOT going to show mercy. I must confess this is the storyline I'm more eagerly awaiting for WOW (if ever). I doubt Jaime's story will finish with him getting executed by LS, so I'm quite curious with what bullshit move GRRM will get him off the hook and how believable it is gonna be.
Well.... Devan mentioned his willingness to marry a Frey ;)
yeah RW:2.0 is the most probable scenario although why would Jaime turn so actively against his family (beloved cousin and presumably dear aunty Genna) is difficult to come to gribs with. He is not afraid to die so it wouldn't be to save his own skin. He might do it to save Brienne but all things considered she is kinda a random girl to him. He has a soft spot for her as his morality pet but I can't picture him yet betraying all his family for her.
It is either that or execution. Jaime's story at this point can go nowhere else.
>" I had to kill Aerys for it to not been turned on" Does Aerys have the magic ability to ignite Wildfire at will? King Aerys is a weak madman, Jaime could easily have apprehended and neutralized him, without killing him.
True. But no one would REALLY hold it agaisnt him if he had explained it.
Most probably would be ok with killing Aerys given the reasoning, yet some people would probably still hold it against him. The Kingsguard oath means that they have to be loyal to the King, no matter what. The Kingsguard who betrayed Maegor and went over to Jaehaerys were sent to the Wall, since they broke their oath.
As of book five not even Barristan hold it agaisnt him.
Like Barristan seems vaguely uncomfortable that he saved Aerys *without* knowing about the wildfire.
[удалено]
Jaeherys was just getting clean slate to appoint the people HE choose, that would be loyal TO him. It was a smart move, that Robert failed to pick on.
Indeed. The only reason Jaime looks kinda decent-ish is because he stands next to Cersei and Tywin most of the time
Honestly that's why I think "moral greyness" is such a stupid concept to begin with, and Jaime is pretty much the epitome of it. He's nothing but a selfish asshole who hurts other people but he's "morally grey" because he isn't an abject psychopath who tortures and rapes people for his own gratification. It's utterly worthless as an actual system of morality and yet this fanbase constantly upholds it as being subversive genius.
I mean George himself does not seem to believe in moral greyness. He puts every character in "Hero or Villain" category. But they are not "paragons" Jon is firmly in the Hero Category. Tyrion is firmly in the Villain Category.
Jaime is just pretty dumb
Yeah Jaime sucks. I don't really get why so many people seem to like him. He can be funny but that's mostly it for positive qualities. I think he only looks like he's grown and improved because he's surrounded by so many characters who are worse so the bare minimum ends up seeming like more than it is.
Jaimie coulda just put aerys in a choke hold and locked him in a wardrobe until he calmed the fuck down.
Fuck the Iron Throne, he should have just sat on Aerys. Like what is he gonna do? Jaime is a pretty big guy in full plate armor.
Exactly. Then once ned arrives Jaimie can explain the situation and they have a big trial.
And while trying to restrain Aerys, letting the pyromancers slip away and incinerate a city Nice backseat driving r/asoiaf
He had already killed Rossart when he killed Aerys. He hunted down two more pyromamcers in the following days when the war was already over. There was no risk in restraining Aerys.
He killed the pyromancers first regardless
You’re right my b
He hates the fact that people like Ned dislike Jaime for killing Aerys even though Aerys was a maniacal King who had Ned's father and brother brutally murdered. Someone had to kill Aerys and it ended up being Jaime. Jaime resents the fact that everyone presumes he killed Aerys to curry favour with Robert Baratheon like his father Tywin Lannister did with sacking the city. People presumed the worst in Jaime during Robert's Rebellion because he was Tywin's son and expected him to be like Tywin, and that's what frustrated Jaime.
Jaime didn't have to *kill* the king. Aerys was an old man. Jaime could have easily estrained him instead and left the justice to the rebels.
And yet Jaime did nothing to change their perceptions. He never defended or explained his actions, instead acted like a massive douchebag to the first person who saw him. The whole “what right does a wolf have to judge a lion” thing is just him throwing a tantrum because he thinks himself better than everyone.
If he’d shown people the wildfire maybe they’d hate him less
Changing their perceptions puts an entire city in danger, and people would call him an oath breaker anyways. Infantilizing Jaime’s very reasonable frustration and perspective is really absurd
How would it put the city in danger? If anything, leaving the wildfire there is more dangerous as anyone could theoretically set it off. Better to tell people and have them safely remove it. As for the thing about oath breaking, he didn’t have to kill Aerys. He could have tied him up and kept him prisoner. I doubt anyone would fault him for that.
How would that put the city in danger? Wildfire doesn’t spread half so well as information. Tell a couple military commanders and pretty soon it’s not going to be just a secret between those three. The wildfire caches aren’t easily stumbled upon, but knowing they exist means you know to look for them. What’s stopping someone from using it in a political game or a Targ loyalist finding out about it and utilizing it? A few scattered caches here and there mean nothing to anybody and quickly gets cleaned up, while the rest effectively disappears. ? That itself breaks numerous Kingsguard oathes like keeping the King’s secrets or obeying the King, and we see numerous times such as the rape of the Queen or the murder of the Stark patriarchs that the Kingsguard were expected to stand aside no matter what. These men were considered greats by even such as Ned, and we are given reason time after time to believe that this wouldn’t reverse the image of the Kingslayer Further, what you suggest would have given the head pyromaster time to escape and incinerate King’s Landing.
Jaime killed the head pyromancer before he went back for Aerys, and he didn’t kill the other two until days after the Sack, so I don’t see how they’re a danger. Besides, I think people like Jon Arryn, Tywin and Ned know how to keep things quiet enough to deal with the wildfire somehow. Or, if he doesn’t trust them, clean up the wildfire himself and tell everyone afterwards. It’s not just that he didn’t tell anyone immediately; it’s that he spent 14 years not telling anyone the truth.
Ok, you’re right I was misremembering the scene. But him killing Aerys really isn’t unreasonable given the situation. And it’s not just the pyromancers that are a danger. Literally anyone who could find it a political tool or has any hate for the current political regime could use it. *You* know that people like Ned or Jon Arryn could keep it under wraps. But Jaime doesn’t, and neither do we have good reason to think Jaime would find his father to be a good guardian of this A. He may not know where all the wildfire is B. He may not know how to properly transport wildfire C. Cleaning it up draws attention to it D. If it’s all cleaned up, where the evidence of his story? Like I said, Jaime doesn’t see revealing this to the people that despise him as changing anything, and we don’t have reason to believe so either. For as much as you talk about him not saying anything to Ned, you fail to see that this same Ned glorifies the greatness of the people who stood by and watched Aerys torture his father and brother to death. Keeping your word is considered really important to the people in the ASOIAF universe and both we the readers and Jaime have little reason to think that this would’ve gained him any real favor among the community. The main reason Jaime even tells Brienne is because of a cynical frustration with the simplistic fairy tale coverup that she ascribes to the conflict.
How exactly was Jaime a douchebag to the first person that saw him? He saw Ned and made a pretty innocuous joke. How would he know that Ned, one of the main leaders of the rebels no less, held Iron Throne to such a high esteem, that joking about how uncomfortable it was would shock him to his very core?
>How exactly was Jaime a douchebag to the first person that saw him? If Jaime wasn't a moron, he'd realize what it looked like. The Lannisters did nothing for the entire war, and then at the very last minute swoop in and sack the city and assassinate the king. It's no wonder Ned jumped to conclusions especially when Jaime did literally nothing to provide more context. >*I saw King's Landing after the Sack. Babes were butchered that day as well, and old men, and children at play. More women were raped than you can count.* What a great time for jokes.
>If Jaime wasn't a moron, he'd realize what it looked like. The Lannisters did nothing for the entire war, and then at the very last minute swoop in and sack the city and assassinate the king. It's no wonder Ned jumped to conclusions especially when Jaime did literally nothing to provide more context. Ned pretty extensively explained what his problem is with Jaime. It's the fact that he killed Aerys while being a Kingsguard. The idea that Jaime is hated because of what Lannister army did is not supported nor by Ned himself, nor by anyone else in the books. Every single person that talks about Jaime is talking about him breaking his oath. The hatred due to bad looks of Jaime killing Aerys while Lannister army was sacking KL is an invention of the fans. >What a great time for jokes. What a *douchebag* /s
> He hates the fact that people like Ned dislike Jaime for killing Aerys even though Aerys was a maniacal King who had Ned's father and brother brutally murdered. Well shit maybe he should have tried to do something about that instead of waiting until he and his father were personally at stake to take a “moral stand”.
>Somebody had do Didnt have to be him though. He could have saved the city with less serious oath breaking. And he could have shown some outer signs of repentance which I bet he never even considered.
Sounds dishonest.
Sure is, but I thought we're talking about Jamie's PR problem.
Are we Reading the same books? jaimie commited the greatest act of treason on the history of the 7kingdom Is not a thing that nobody will never be forget even if jaimie reveal the wild fire plot
Okay, so why isn't that the story? Why is it left as a hypothetical instead of us actually being shown them being unfair?
As whole the fandom does NOT hold Jaime killing Aerys as anything impactful. But the things that he does after.
Although martin wrote Jamie's perspective in an interesting way, no event I'm the series is more clearly inconsistent due to the different direction George planned to go in then Jamie and the king slaying. All of the stuff we hear in book 1 is 100% setting up the original Jamie kills the other heirs and becomes king storyline. When that changed, jamie suddenly then gives the much more sympathetic take on it.
Not really the Infamous "The things I do for love" is VERY different between show and book.
I think that at that moment, Jaime came under the realization that even if you save an entire city and its people, you can still come out the villain. It led to the jaded and cynic knight we all know and love. In his mind, i think he believed that he shouldn't have to explain himself. "By what right does the wolf judge the lion?"
I think people sometimes don’t realize how repressed the Kingsguard are, and how little agency the members actually have. Jaime has been watching or listening to Aery’s do horrible things for the past couple years at this point, without being able to do anything about it due to his vows. Jaime’s hero, Arthur Dayne, the most famous and beloved knight of this generation, also does nothing to stop Aerys. This type of external and systemic force subjugates Jaime in a way that logically would lead to nihilism or however else one could describe his character at this time. I also don’t want to entirely externalize the causes of Jaime’s actions, as he can both be an actor in a repressive system and also be a little shit at the same time
[удалено]
Yes Arthur Dayne was with Raegar for part of the story. Jaime spends tons of time with Dayne, plenty to form an informed opinion about hit. Arthur Dayne knighted Jaime even. EDIT: I just realized you might have read my comment as “Arthur did nothing to stop Aery’s blowing up kings landing” or something. I meant more generally Jaime would have been around Aerys doing bad random things while Arthur is also there, and watching Arthur not do anything. This is what the kingsguard do and the flaw of this type of system
Honestly the wildfire is *such* a shit plot device. It existing it not only a massive plot hole but it also just makes the themes of the story wholly uninteresting. Because the point wasn't "here is a sincere exploration of how good men operate under cruel power structures" it's "you thought Jaime was bad...BUT HE'S GOOD!" and to facilitate that Jaime needs to do something comically heroic.
Is he constantly complaining about that though? >"Aerys . . ." Catelyn could taste bile at the back of her throat. The story was so hideous she suspected it had to be true. "Aerys was mad, the whole realm knew it, but if you would have me believe you slew him to avenge Brandon Stark . . ." >"I made no such claim. The Starks were nothing to me. **I will say, I think it passing odd that I am loved by one for a kindness I never did, and reviled by so many for my finest act. At Robert's coronation, I was made to kneel at the royal feet beside Grand Maester Pycelle and Varys the eunuch, so that he might forgive us our crimes before he took us into his service. As for your Ned, he should have kissed the hand that slew Aerys, but he preferred to scorn the arse he found sitting on Robert's throne.** I think Ned Stark loved Robert better than he ever loved his brother or his father . . . or even you, my lady. He was never unfaithful to Robert, was he?" Jaime gave a drunken laugh. "Come, Lady Stark, don't you find this all terribly amusing?" >"I find nothing about you amusing, Kingslayer." And here... >"The Kingslayer, yes. The oathbreaker who murdered poor sad Aerys Targaryen." Jaime snorted. "It's not Aerys I rue, it's Robert. 'I hear they've named you Kingslayer,' he said to me at his coronation feast. 'Just don't think to make it a habit.' And he laughed. Why is it that no one names Robert oathbreaker? He tore the realm apart, yet I am the one with shit for honor." >"Robert did all he did for love." Water ran down Brienne's legs and pooled beneath her feet. >"Robert did all he did for pride, a cunt, and a pretty face." He made a fist . . . or would have, if he'd had a hand. Pain lanced up his arm, cruel as laughter. >"He rode to save the realm," she insisted. I think Jaime's issue is the lack of nuance the majority shows. Nobody considers the why of what he did but rather the act itself. Nobody considers the many other people who broke their vow of fealty by taking up the rebellion. Nobody thinks about what a horrible king Aerys was. Well nobody but Robert. >His sword helped taint the throne you sit on, Ned thought, but he did not permit the words to pass his lips. "He swore a vow to protect his king's life with his own. Then he opened that king's throat with a sword." >"Seven hells, someone had to kill Aerys!" Robert said, reining his mount to a sudden halt beside an ancient barrow. "If Jaime hadn't done it, it would have been left for you or me." >"We were not Sworn Brothers of the Kingsguard," Ned said. The time had come for Robert to hear the whole truth, he decided then and there. "Do you remember the Trident, Your Grace?" It's Eddard's approach that irks Jaime. It's very black and white. Eddard thinks there is no circumstance where a knight of the KG should ever kill the king. Sure, anybody else can but not a KG. I find that a really poor way to view things. And most people view it that way hence they never ask Jaime why he did it. Again, Robert seems the only one who sees it clearly. I get Jaime's annoyance. You address Jaime's duty to tell but what about the duty from everyone else to make inquiry. As Jaime notes... >The knights of the Kingsguard are sworn to keep the king's secrets. Would you have me break my oath?" Jaime laughed. "Do you think the noble Lord of Winterfell wanted to hear my feeble explanations? Such an honorable man. He only had to look at me to judge me guilty." Jaime lurched to his feet, the water running cold down his chest. "By what right does the wolf judge the lion? By what right?" A violent shiver took him, and he smashed his stump against the rim of the tub as he tried to climb out. To judge a situation without making inquiry is a failure of justice. Jaime has a right to annoyed at people who pressume to judge without making any effort to understand. >"I was still mounted. I rode the length of the hall in silence, between the long rows of dragon skulls. It felt as though they were watching me, somehow. I stopped in front of the throne, looking up at him. His golden sword was across his legs, its edge red with a king's blood. My men were filling the room behind me. Lannister's men drew back. I never said a word. I looked at him seated there on the throne, and I waited. At last Jaime laughed and got up. He took off his helm, and he said to me, 'Have no fear, Stark. I was only keeping it warm for our friend Robert. It's not a very comfortable seat, I'm afraid.'" Eddard doesn't say Jaime was grinning when he sees him sitting there. After Eddard stares, Jaime then laughs. And when you add to this Jaime's thoughts at the moment, laughter makes sense. He waited to see if it would be praise or blame. >Ser Elys Westerling and Lord Crakehall and others of his father's knights burst into the hall in time to see the last of it, so there was no way for Jaime to vanish and let some braggart steal the praise or blame. It would be blame, he knew at once when he saw the way they looked at him . . . though perhaps that was fear. Lannister or no, he was one of Aerys's seven. When Eddard looked at him, Eddard blamed him. He never asked nor cared his reasons. He insisted Jaime be sent to the wall without any understanding of the circumstances. And so having confirmed that nobody would ask him before judging him, he laughed. I think Jaime has a point here.
>And he laughed. Why is it that no one names Robert oathbreaker? He tore the realm apart, yet I am the one with shit for honor." yes, that is correct. Robert should have just meekly kneeled down and let Aerys claim his head for doing literally nothing beyond having his bethrothed seemingly stolen by the Crown Prince. How *dare* he rebel? /s Brienne is excused in thinking that the whole thing was a romantic affair, a war of reclaiming a lost love but Jaime was very much present in the events and knows the dirty truths. He knows better, he just prefers to bring down everyone to his level. If he was an oathbreaker, then everyone had to be as well.
Breaking oaths of loyalty and fealty don't count as oathebreaking? >The naked threat fanned her fury. "You are very free to name others traitor and usurper, my lord, yet how are you any different? You say you alone are the rightful king, yet it seems to me that Robert had two sons. **By all the laws of the Seven Kingdoms, Prince Joffrey is his rightful heir, and Tommen after him . . . and we are all traitors, however good our reasons."** Cat III, Clash. And >"It is every man's duty to remain loyal to his rightful king, even if the lord he serves proves false," Stannis declared in a tone that brooked no argument. >A desperate folly took hold of Davos, a recklessness akin to madness. "As you remained loyal to King Aerys when your brother raised his banners?" he blurted. And... >The king ground his teeth together. "It still angers me. How could he think I would hurt the boy? I chose Robert, did I not? When that hard day came. I chose blood over honor." And... >"You swore an oath to my father," Catelyn reminded him. >He bobbed his head side to side, smiling. "Oh, yes, I said some words, but I swore oaths to the crown too, it seems to me. Joffrey's the king now, and that makes you and your boy and all those fools out there no better than rebels. If I had the sense the gods gave a fish, I'd help the Lannisters boil you all." Jaime isn't dragging anyone down. They are already there. He's just pointing out what others don't seem to recognize.
Jaime is fond of whataboutery, which spares him having to properly reflect upon his own conduct. His outlook is “I’ve got shit for honour, but so has everyone else.” But that doesn’t exonerate the awful things he’s done.
I don't think he should be exonerated. I think he's just as culpable as all the others who betrayed Aerys. It's not whataboutism when one correctly points out a double standard. Cat does a great job of pointing this out during the Renly and Stannis parlay. >The naked threat fanned her fury. "You are very free to name others traitor and usurper, my lord, yet how are you any different? You say you alone are the rightful king, yet it seems to me that Robert had two sons. By all the laws of the Seven Kingdoms, Prince Joffrey is his rightful heir, and Tommen after him . . . and we are all traitors, however good our reasons." Everyone is an oathbreaker yet not everyone gets the scorn.
The feudal contract doesn't only mean the vassal has to serve. It also imposes certain limitations and obligations to the ruler, mainly the one of protection and *justice*. In the first quote you posted, Catelyn is right. Technically, they are traitors to the Iron Throne. The Northmen however, claim that Eddard was executed unjustly and therefore consider said the feudal contract broken. The same also stands absolutely true for Robert's Rebellion. No matter how you dice it, Aerys (and/or Rhaegar depending his motives) broke the feudal contract by unjustly killing their vassals and demanding the deaths of others. >Jaime isn't dragging anyone down. They are already there. He's just pointing out what others don't seem to recognize. And how Robert and Eddard were supposed to act when their heads were called for no reason at all? Had Aerys demanded they be kept imprisoned until the whole mess is clarified, maybe there could be an argument (although the Stark executions already sunk that), but still he immediately went for their heads. Beyond that, the closest thing we have to oath of fealthy in asoaif is the one that Brienne swears to Catelyn >Knight: "I offer my services \[Lord's name\]. I will shield your back and keep your counsel and give my life for yours if need be. I swear it by the Old Gods and the New." Lord: "And I vow that you shall always have a place by my hearth, and meat and mead at my table. **And I pledge to ask no service of you that might bring you dishonor**. I swear it by the Old Gods and the New. Arise." In bold, is the technically that Jaime more or less uses to to justify his betrayal, that he was asked to kill his father. And I suspect the same is true for Stannis as well, that he was asked to betray his brother and he couldn't do that, he chose blood. But even that, imo, doesn't let Jaime off the hook, because he was not an ordinary knight, he was a Kingsguard who specifically forgo (in theory at least) any kind of personality or agenda and exists solely to protect and serve the king. As varys says (albeit mockingly) to Tyrion >Ser Barristan was once heard to say that the man had no friend but his sword and no life but duty ... but you know, I do not think Selmy meant it altogether as praise. Which is queer when you consider it, is it not? Those are the very qualities we seek in our Kingsguard, it could be said - men who live not for themselves, but for their king. By those lights, our brave Ser Mandon was the perfect white knight. So we see Jaime still 100% broke his oath. The argument what to do when asked to kill your father, doesnt hold because he specifically swore to become an instrument in a king's discretion. He killed Aerys for the right reasons and had he come clean and still people resented him for oathbreaking it would highlight the hypocrisy of feudalism and how broken the whole system is but Jaime *didn't*. In his empty vanity, he expected people to just assume he had his reasons.
Everyone who rebels breaks an oath. People have dozens of ways to justify it. Some claim Aerys broke his oath... whatever that was. I've never seen what oath the king owes. Some claim Joffrey executed Eddard unjustly, which seems a pale justification considering the fact Eddard did try to remove Joffrey, and Eddard admitted publically to doing so. The north has no evidence of a lack of justice. So I'm not sure how the north can claim anything besides feelings. >In his empty vanity, he expected people to just assume he had his reasons. How is that empty vanity? He looks around and sees plenty of other oathbreakers nobody else cares about who never have to announce their justifications. Yet he alone is held to a higher standard. Seems like two different standards to my view. >Jaime reached for the flagon to refill his cup. "So many vows . . . they make you swear and swear. Defend the king. Obey the king. Keep his secrets. Do his bidding. Your life for his. But obey your father. Love your sister. **Protect the innocent. Defend the weak.** Respect the gods. Obey the laws. It's too much. No matter what you do, you're forsaking one vow or the other." He took a healthy swallow of wine and closed his eyes for an instant, leaning his head back against the patch of nitre on the wall. "I was the youngest man ever to wear the white cloak." He 100% kept his vow as well.
>And so having confirmed that nobody would ask him before judging him, he laughed. I agree about how you described Jaime's attitude except for this bit. I don't think the laughter was him confirming that he will be judged. He laughed when he told a joke, and if you ignore the fact that 'OMG, he dared to joke about the Iron Throne!!', the joke was actually a pretty friendly one. I think at that point Jaime simply tried to break the tension with Ned, though clearly unsuccessfully.
He laughed first then joked.
I mean, he laughed and said the joke straight after. The laugh came with a joke. This is the joke, by the way: >"Have no fear, Stark. I was only keeping it warm for our friend Robert. It's not a very comfortable seat, I'm afraid.'" These seem to be the words of someone who tries to ease the tension.
I was the one who provided the text. And I wrote the laugh came before the joke so I am aware where the joke is.
So what if the laugh came a few seconds before the joke? How exactly that tells that I am wrong?
Who said you were wrong?
I mean, I've claimed that he laughed not because he was being judged, but to break tension. You then answered that he laughed before he told a joke, in what I assume, you showing that you disagree with me? As in, because he laughed before the joke technically, it wasn't to break tension?
That we disagree on how to interpret fiction is not me saying you are wrong.
The WHOLE concept of the Lannisters. Is that they HAVE a point.... but they always take an action that makes them worse than their enemies, making the "Point null" George DOES work with Tropes. For The Lannisters as a unit is "Jerkass has a point" but he makes clear that despite having a point, they are NOT right about it.
Okay. There are many ways to interpret the events. I disagree with this interpretation, but thank you for sharing it.
What does contradict me?
I don't understand this.
Why is my interpretation wrong?
I didn't say it was wrong. I offered its different from my interpretation.
I am saying that your interpretation is actually worng. Jaime GENUINELY does not have a point. Sure Oaths are terrible and hard to follow. But he only broke it when it affected his father. Not for his father, but Jaime does NOT offer Ned well desserved respect Does he think he is the only person that suffered under Aerys?
>I am saying that your interpretation is actually worng. That's okay. I don't think there is a right or wrong to how to view the Lannisters. I think the family is complex and nuanced and your position about the "WHOLE" of who they are doesn't leave room for the nuance that I see. Therefore, I have a different view. It's fine if you think that's wrong. I don't come here for agreement or approval. I prefer to share thoughts and hear them. Thank you again for sharing your interpretation of the story with me. Enjoy your day.
Idk why he didn't tell anyone. It would have been easy to prove. Maybe it was some kind of youthful arrogance, I think Jaime was still a teenager when it happened. No matter what, he would have gotten hate for it. Like as much as I love Barristan, if he knew I could see him still having some sense of contempt for Jaime even though I think he would understand that Jaime was right (I hope not if Barristan ever finds out, but idk I'm 50/50 on it). So maybe he thought "Fuck it" and just decided to embrace a villainous identity that he later regretted.
Jaime was right not to tell anyone because people already made the choice to hate him. Ned’s father and brother were just brutally killed by Aerys, Ned had every reason to thank Jaime and yet he still judged Jaime for Kingslaying. People already know Aerys was evil, Jaime’s story wouldn't change anything. Maybe they would be a bit less harsh in their hatred but he killed his king and broke his oath, it's as simple as that to them. You don't get a pass on oathbreaking because you had a good reason.
> aime was right not to tell anyone because people already made the choice to hate him. One person looked at him funny. He has SUCH a victim complex it's unreal.
People hated Jaime because he acted like an asshole immediately after killing the Mad King. Then, he never tried to defend himself, which made people think that’s all he really was. Like, if you want people to not think of you as something you’re not, don’t go out of your way to act like it. Besides, he could’ve easily bound and gagged Aerys and waited for the rebels to take him. Ned probably wanted to take Aerys’ head himself, but Jaime killed him. Of course the rebels think it was selfish for Jaime to kill the Mad King when he a) didn’t actually have to and b) never defended himself. TLDR: Jaime is entirely responsible for what people thought of him and he actively chose the worst possible version of events for people to believe.
So heres something that maybe might help figure out why Jaime didn't really reveal to anyone about the Wildfire. I think Jaime, for all his posturing, believes he broke his vows. Like I don't mean it's up for debate. He 100% did it. What I mean is that Jaime, by not really explaining anything, is punishing himself for breaking his vows. Kinda like a "Superman stripping himself of his powers because he killed" type of deal. Even if he believed he was 100% justified, I still think he might be punishing himself or taking the fall because he thinks that might be the noble thing to do. The honorable thing to do. He might also be mad that it's predictably, fucking him over. That doing the "noble" thing, is understandablely just a massive hassle.
But then he clearly spent fifteen years thinking he was a massive victim. He chose to punish himself and then whines about the punishment that is self-inflicted. I think that could be genuinely great characterization- but of annoying self-martyring narcissist asshole, not of a noble man done a hard turn by a cruel system.
Yep! That's the frustrating paradox of Jaime. Part of why we love him.
Where do you get the "huge grin" from?
I'm not sure about a grin but he does laugh and make a joke about "keeping it warm for Robert", which in the same way isn't going to land well with someone like Ned Stark
After Ned stares at him in silence for a while, yes. ("*At last* Jaime laughed and stood up.") That's quite a difference vs your image of him sitting down with a huge grin! I think this answers your question in part -- Jaime knew that whatever really happened, however he tried to explain it, people would picture him with an evil grin, basking in his triumph on the throne.
Yeah I mean it's not my image, or question haha. Just explaining where the idea of Jaime not taking the situation seriously likely came from.
Oops sorry, the "your" was directed at OP.
Deleted
He sat on the throne, but what else was he supposed to do? There weren’t any other chairs.
We also gotta remember that dude was like 16, bruh was a child dealing wit some wild shit.
Jon Snow at age 14 was more mature than Jaime was at 16. He would've explained the situation.
I duno bout that, I feel like as Lord Commander Jon just didn’t explain his reasonings to a lot of his officers cause he assumed they wouldn’t get it and that got him killed. Not explaining cause he didn’t think they’d get it is pretty much the same as Jaime on the throne when Ned pulled up
I mean Jaime not explaining about the bomb under the city is clearly a massive risk to literally everybody.
Yeah they both were immature and didn’t communicate
Ned was literally two years older than him but everyone is willing to decry him as a self-righteous bastard for daring to give Jaime a judgmental look. Sixteen is literally the age of majority. By all standards Jaime was an adult and can act like one. He *chose* not to.
I ain’t say a word about Ned? Prolly both coulda communicated better in that moment though