Game of Thrones: spoilers discussion.

[Steel_Wind]

I'm fairly certain I wouldn't have. In real-life I'm very conscientious and honest, even to my own detriment; I also wouldn't be screwing my sister

Yes, well. Seeing as this is a "spoilers" thread:

Spoiler

If you were screwing your sister - and she had been the only woman you ever loved or were ever with your entire life, and you had three children by her, and the disclosure of that fact to the King by the ten year old would almost certainly result not only in your death, but your sister's death AND the death of all three of your children?

Then under THOSE circumstances, it might be seen to be utterly reasonable for you to choose instead to sacrifice the life of a ten year old kid you had never really met over the lives of your immediate family. There is no middle ground here. When push came to shove, is that a reasonable choice?

Oh yes. Quite, imo.

It's not like Jaime came up behind the kid and whacked him for the helluva it. The reasons go a wee bit deeper than that.

If yer askin, I'm for the laid-back dope smokin granola sister over the bitter urban drama queen. Just sayin'.

 

[catsclaw227]

If yer askin, I'm for the laid-back dope smokin granola sister over the bitter urban drama queen. Just sayin'.

Ha! Probably me too!

 

[Starman]

Ha! Probably me too!

Me three.

 

[Kzach]

Then under THOSE circumstances, it might be seen to be utterly reasonable for you to choose instead to sacrifice the life of a ten year old kid you had never really met over the lives of your immediate family. There is no middle ground here. When push came to shove, is that a reasonable choice?

But my point was that I wouldn't be in that situation.

Jaime created the problem by being a low-life and continues to be a low-life by murdering a ten-year old boy who was completely innocent of any crime. On top of that, he risked exposure by screwing her there in the first place.

And the fact is, he never redeems himself for any of it. He never even regrets the action. Just because he becomes a little bit more sympathetic by getting chapters in the fourth book, doesn't make him suddenly a morally upstanding citizen. Nothing he ever does throughout any of the books points to a remotely sane conscience. He is, by modern definitions, a complete sociopath. Nothing about that ever changes.

 

[Celtavian]

re

But my point was that I wouldn't be in that situation.

Jaime created the problem by being a low-life and continues to be a low-life by murdering a ten-year old boy who was completely innocent of any crime. On top of that, he risked exposure by screwing her there in the first place.

And the fact is, he never redeems himself for any of it. He never even regrets the action. Just because he becomes a little bit more sympathetic by getting chapters in the fourth book, doesn't make him suddenly a morally upstanding citizen. Nothing he ever does throughout any of the books points to a remotely sane conscience. He is, by modern definitions, a complete sociopath. Nothing about that ever changes.

I disagree with the notion Jaime is a sociopath.

Jaime Lannister loves his family. He shows that often with his brother and even his father.

Jaime is a strange, selfish character that does many amoral acts. He isn't a sociopath. Most of what he does he does because of love for his family and an impulsive nature. His emotions run strong. He makes decisions spur of the moment, but he isn't emotionally cold. He is in fact a highly emotional character, often to his detriment. If he were a sociopath, he probably wouldn't have killed Bran right there. He would have planned it. His killing of Bran was an impulsive action that would have gotten him into more trouble than not. But lucky for him it worked out in his favor.

As far as sociopaths go, Gregor Clegane is a sociopath. He is a remorseless beast. I can't wait to see him in the series.

 

[Cor Azer]

And the fact is, he never redeems himself for any of it. He never even regrets the action.

I have to disagree with the Jaime as a sociopath as well. And while he never successful redeems himself, you have to consider that he does at least try to redeem what little honor he does have in how he gets/helps Brienne find Sansa. I believe we need to take him at face value for this, even though others don't, because we are getting some of his own perspective, and I don't recall any hint of him thinking "here now, this will throw them off my trail".

 

[Steel_Wind]

I’d go one step further: by killing Aerys (and Aerys' Hand), Jaime sacrifices his personal honour to save the people of Kings Landing. Yet, none of them respect him for it and the Right Honourable Eddard Stark, in fact, reviles him for it. Yet Jaime’s self-sacrifice of his own honour to become the Kingslayer was, in fact, the ethical thing to do and Eddard’s dogmatic approach to honour as an almost unswerving absolute is, in fact, the selfish and immoral choice.

Moreover, the series demonstrates that Eddard’s so-called honour brings utter ruin upon his family, his realm and his smallfolk. Instead of Eddard making the necessary sacrifices of his own personal honour for the greater good, Eddard makes the whole realm bleed to “save” his own honour.

So who is the more selfish? Who is the more virtuous? Jaime or Eddard? I put it to you that answer is not at all clear. The ethical calculus that Eddard subscribes to looks only at the immediate results of right and wrong, true or false, black and white -- all without probing further. It is a philosophy which both Eddard and Robb conveniently and abruptly terminate before any real introspection or contemplation of the true consequences that their selfish "honourable" choices will have upon the realm, their families and their people.

That’s why Eddard and Robb Stark lose the Game of Thrones. Not because they are moral, but because they are not. They are very "decent" men, but their approach to statecraft is personal, naive, immature and therefore, ultimately, selfish.

Sorry. It’s not as cut and dried as you might prefer it to be. GRRM does not let the reader off that easy. His tale is deliberately gray; a story where a dishonourable choice may lead to the greater good – and an honourable choice to a far greater evil.

It is this duality, an examination of both motives and results; and a steadfast refusal to let characters of the hook for the real consequences of their choices which makes Song of Ice and Fire the best work of so-called fantasy ever written.

 

[Cor Azer]

I’d go one step further: by killing Aerys (and Aerys' Hand), Jaime sacrifices his personal honour to save the people of Kings Landing. Yet, none of them respect him for it and the Right Honourable Eddard Stark, in fact, reviles him for it. Yet Jaime’s self-sacrifice of his own honour to become the Kingslayer was, in fact, the ethical thing to do and Eddard’s dogmatic approach to honour as an almost unswerving absolute is, in fact, the selfish and immoral choice.

Moreover, the series demonstrates that Eddard’s so-called honour brings utter ruin upon his family, his realm and his smallfolk. Instead of Eddard making the necessary sacrifices of his own personal honour for the greater good, Eddard makes the whole realm bleed to “save” his own honour.

So who is the more selfish? Who is the more virtuous? Jaime or Eddard? I put it to you that answer is not at all clear. The ethical calculus that Eddard subscribes to looks only at the immediate results of right and wrong, true or false, black and white -- all without probing further. It is a philosophy which both Eddard and Robb conveniently and abruptly terminate before any real introspection or contemplation of the true consequences that their selfish "honourable" choices will have upon the realm, their families and their people.

That’s why Eddard and Robb Stark lose the Game of Thrones. Not because they are moral, but because they are not. They are very "decent" men, but their approach to statecraft is personal, naive, immature and therefore, ultimately, selfish.

Sorry. It’s not as cut and dried as you might prefer it to be. GRRM does not let the reader off that easy. His tale is deliberately gray; a story where a dishonourable choice may lead to the greater good – and an honourable choice to a far greater evil.

It is this duality, an examination of both motives and results; and a steadfast refusal to let characters of the hook for the real consequences of their choices which makes Song of Ice and Fire the best work of so-called fantasy ever written.

A very interesting view, but I don't think you can go quite that far; there is a very wide middle ground that should have been ruminated by the two players: stopping Aerys and Rossart = good; killing them sans trial = ?

I am curious as to what sacrifices of honour you think Eddard should have made that would have saved his family, realm, and smallfolk? He could not let the Lannisters keep the Iron Throne - not when it appeared they were responsible for Robert and Jon's deaths (rightly or not).

Robb, yes, should have swallowed his honor and stayed true to the Freys, but other than being a bad player and not reading other player's motives correctly, I don't see what Ned's honor did wrong.

 

[Baron Opal]

I am curious as to what sacrifices of honour you think Eddard should have made that would have saved his family, realm, and smallfolk? He could not let the Lannisters keep the Iron Throne - not when it appeared they were responsible for Robert and Jon's deaths (rightly or not).

I believe Ned had a chance to wrest power for himself and some allies when the chips were down. One of the known powerful nobles approached him and said something like "We know we can't have the Lannister's running the show, and we can seize power, but only if you are with us. And, it has to be you, because of your honorable reputation. If you are involved, people will know it's just."

But, Ned chooses a legalistic method to remove the Lannisters because rebellion wouldn't be honorable. He discovers that pieces of paper can be poor chains for a determined person with a sword. If he had sided with the coup, things could have been a lot different.

 

[horacethegrey]

There's also the fact that flat out told Cersei to her face that he planned to depose her and her son. Yeah, real genius that.

Not to mention that he planned for Stannis Baratheon to sit on the Iron Throne after Robert's death, despite Littlefinger's advice that this was a bad idea. Is it any wonder why Littlefinger betrayed him?

I have to agree with Steel Wind. Ned Stark was an idiot and his rigid code of honor brought more harm than good to the Seven Kingdoms.