A Game of Thrones

[viZion]

According Varys when he visits Ned in the dungeon, it was extremely hard work keeping Robert alive for the past 15 years. Varys says that the only person he couldn't save Robert from was his friend, Eddard. Then Varys asks Eddard something like, "WTF were you thinking going to Cersei?" Something like that. Can everyone agree that that was the most bonehead move ever made?

Cersei herself certainly could have handled stealing the throne a lot better. I think her main mistakes are giving *too much* to her own house and its supporters. I mean, throw a bone or two to a few other great houses and she probably gets control of the entire kingdom. Even the Targaryens didn't completely shut out everyone else. You gotta keep people happy even though you rule them.

 

[Boaz]

It was boneheaded. But can you honestly say that you'd have done different. I'm not sure that I can. Eddard felt himself in a very strong position. He'd saved one child from Robert's wrath before... (If R+L=J, then Eddard hid Jon from Robert's revenge. We see how Robert is obsessed with killing Targs. Even though Jon is the son of Robert's true love, Robert would never be able to look at Jon without seeing the man who raped his betrothed, nor would he look at Jon without seeing a potential usurper.) Eddard thought he might be able to save more innocent children from Robert's mania.

I agree on Cersei. Cersei has the ambition, but not the skills to rule. We all know this. Her ambition got her to the top, but she'll never stay there. She is the Commodus of ASOIAF. "I am terribly vexed with you Alayaya. I'll let you live after you've been scourged, but I'll kill Tyrion. AM I NOT MERCIFUL?" So who will be her Maximus? Margaery, Dany, Tyrion, or Jaime?

 

[Aegon the Unworthy]

Here we go again....

On the battlefield (as was this between Cersei and Ned) compassion is sometimes misplaced, tis true. But never, and I do mean never, inherently wrong. Let me make this clear, Ned made a error in judgement...but it was one that was the core of Ned Stark and he should be praised for it and not condemned. I see how it led to his downfall, but at the end of the day this was Ned Stark making it and he quite frankly was of a different mettle than you or I. He is a foil that people should compare themselves to and be found wanting.

I think his story is important because he wasnt given time to learn from his mistakes. Honor and compassion are critical keys to the success of heroes in every story. Jon and Robb both share these traits, Robb only got to choose honor over practicality once. Jon chose practicality over honor and it haunts him to the current time.

How much do you think Ned would prefer being practical? By taking Renlys path he would have had to place an abomination on the throne (Joffrey)....one whom he would be forced to live with yet another lie and this one not made for love....but practicality. If he had taken the "practical" path he would have been forced to kill three children....three. And you know he would have done it himself.

"Mayhaps, if you look into a mans eyes and can not kill him....he doesnt deserve to die"

I just dont see Ned beheading Cersei, Joff, Tommen, and Myrcella. I just dont see it.

So the question becomes....if you were Ned, with all his foibles and "failings"....what would you have done?

 

[viZion]

Nah, I like Eddard but I'm not going to place him on a pedestal and say, "Man, I should really strive to be like this guy". Certainly he's of a different mettle but not necessarily the "correct" one. Not for me at least. Remember, he's dead. I certainly don't mind being found wanting compared to that.

Being honorable, noble, trying to save the children, etc does not excuse his mistakes, especially with Cersei. There's no way I'm going to praise him for the things he did. Ok, he saved those three children from Robert by doing what he did. How many hundreds of other innocent children did he kill by being one of the major catalysts for starting a war. You're supposed to sacrifice the lives of a few for the lives of the many not the other way around .

The whole situation was tragic but that's the way it goes. He still had a chance to make some things right if only Joffrey hadn't, uh, thwarted him. Now that I think about it, I think I'm going to call Joffrey lopping off Ned's head an even more boneheaded mistake than Ned going to Cersei. You just don't go around doing that to great lords; even Cersei knew that.

 

[Aegon the Unworthy]

I dont know which point you are arguing.....that the character of Eddard is unbelievable and the writing of his character too formulaic or that he made his share of mistakes. Honestly I could accept the latter, just not the former.

Yes going to Cersei was not the best of moves. But was it wrong? No, because showing compassion is never wrong. Seriously it just isnt. Just because things turned out the way they did doesnt change that truism. (Waiting patiently for Boaz to chime in with "The road to hell is paved with good intentions").

I agree with you on all practical points, really I do. I would have grabbed the three children and lopped off their fricking heads, razed Lannisport to the ground, dressed Tyrion in motley, removed Jaimes manhood (and fed it to goats), and sold Cersei as a Free Cities concubine. The history books would have recorded Ned the First as a great and wise Hand who became King, because I (as Ned) would have had them written. Thankfully Ned is not like me...

To be honest, there are some things in life worth dying for, some parts of a person that are not worth compromising to live another day....you say you would rather be Ned than dead....thats acceptable because thats who you are.....for Ned its the other way around, I think he would give his life to save even Cersei's ungrateful incestous brood. Notice he doesnt cooperate until Varys points out Sansa is in obvious danger. Its just not in him to threaten children. Its anathema to him. He risked beheading to protect Dany, why is it so odd that he didnt want to kill Cersei and her children? Is it the immediacy of the situation? Is the fact that his life is at risk change things for you in the sense of what he should have done? That doesnt seem right to me.

For some of us, the morality of conflict is lost. Ned was able to see past his need for survival and do the right thing. I really do think he should be praised for that.

 

[viZion]

I dont know which point you are arguing.....that the character of Eddard is unbelievable and the writing of his character too formulaic or that he made his share of mistakes. Honestly I could accept the latter, just not the former.

The latter. I'm still not completely convinced that the writing was perfectly in line with what a real Eddard would do rather than perfectly convenient for starting a war but it's just not worth arguing. I'd rather focus on what actually happened, not whine about wishing Martin had written it in a way that made me happy.

To me, the "right thing" would have been to do his best to prevent war from happening at all. He didn't have to go around killing kids to do it. He could have taken Cersei and her children hostage, demanded a confession,
and then put Stannis on the throne. I'm not saying it would be that simple or that other lords wouldn't rise against Stannis anyway (we know he's not well-loved) but there were indeed other options that didn't involve killing every kid in sight.

Compassion doesn't excuse anything. It's not always right. His compassion here helped start a war in which far more than three kids died. Eddard is not the model of all that is good and right in the world. He had several fatal flaws that lead to his demise. An inability to see past what was immediately the right thing to do for his precious honor is one of those flaws.

I don't think there's a single perfect character in the series. Of course, that's one of the attractions since that's what real life is like.

 

[pan naranus]

So far dany, baristan salmy and jon snow seems to walk that narrow bridge between realpolitick and honor with some grace...

 

[Aegon the Unworthy]

Hmmph....so Stannis wouldnt have had the children and Cersei killed out of hand? That wouldnt be signing a death warrant for them. I think Ned even alluded to Stannis would have to kill them.

Okay so maybe Ned did have flaws, all people do. You will never convince me that compassion is a bad idea though. Ever, at any time, and at any place. It takes man and rises him above his circumstances. Draw out any parallel you want, but sometimes all it takes is one gesture, one act of human decency to change the world. Ned was unwilling to let the circumstances of his world change who he was. Ned clearly does not suffer from circumstansial ethics which you seem to be arguing he should have.

Another point I want to make clear, Ned didnt start this war. Sure he could have prevented it, but you can not lay the blame for it with him. It was Cersei's war from the beginning, and maybe Joffreys a little too....but Cersei chose the betrayals and the treacheries, not Ned. Was Ned at fault for Roberts Rebellion as well? For the lives lost there? Was Ned at fault for the deaths at Astapor because he wouldnt hire a quality killer to kill Dany?

At the end of the day (and I say this again) going to Cersei was a mistake. Clearly it was, things turned out horribly. However it was not wrong of him to do so. Sometimes life gives us bitter unfortunate choices to make, and we dont have the luxury of hindsight.

 

[pan naranus]

I think Ned was just out of his natural territory.
Up north he was the ultimate arbiter of power - his word was sacred so being so honorable was of a great value. in court however he was another player, a vary bad player dew to early experience.
Ned could not, and probably should not lower himself to the level of littlefinger (my candidate for starting the war - Lying to cat about the dagger, persuading liysa to kill her husband, misleading Ned on the subject of gold clocks loyalty...) but then, he should not have gone south in the first place. 200 archers on moat ceiling and the hell with all the rotten kingdom was the best coerce of action. Sending investigators - better suited for the job to check about the death of Jon ayrin (the matter of the attempted assassination on Bran was not an issue at the time as I recall).
But that's evolution for you...

 

[viZion]

Okay so maybe Ned did have flaws, all people do. You will never convince me that compassion is a bad idea though. Ever, at any time, and at any place. It takes man and rises him above his circumstances. Draw out any parallel you want, but sometimes all it takes is one gesture, one act of human decency to change the world. Ned was unwilling to let the circumstances of his world change who he was. Ned clearly does not suffer from circumstansial ethics which you seem to be arguing he should have.

I completely agree that Ned was noble in his dedication to his ideals. You're right, no one could make him waver from what he thought was right. I just don't think he was right. It would have been a better idea to let the circumstances of the world change his actions because he's not the center of the world. To be truly noble he should have been thinking about *everyone* not just a few kids who may or may not have been slaughtered. Cersei's kids are worth a lot more alive than dead anyway. However noble his commitment to his ideals was, it still wasn't the best course of action and he paid the price. This is one case where it should have been obvious to anyone that being realistic was the far better choice than being idealistic. This was *not* a time to be trying to change the world with one compassionate gesture. Oh well.

Another point I want to make clear, Ned didnt start this war. Sure he could have prevented it, but you can not lay the blame for it with him. It was Cersei's war from the beginning, and maybe Joffreys a little too....but Cersei chose the betrayals and the treacheries, not Ned. Was Ned at fault for Roberts Rebellion as well? For the lives lost there? Was Ned at fault for the deaths at Astapor because he wouldnt hire a quality killer to kill Dany?

Calm down, champ. I didn't mean to imply that Ned singlehandedly started this war. But you can't deny that he played his part. Maybe, just maybe, he should have been thinking a bit more about the 16 year old boy he left in Winterfell who he knew would lead an army down to avenge him. Did he really think Robb was ready to start commanding armies? I just don't know.

At the end of the day (and I say this again) going to Cersei was a mistake. Clearly it was, things turned out horribly. However it was not wrong of him to do so. Sometimes life gives us bitter unfortunate choices to make, and we dont have the luxury of hindsight.

I think the definition of "mistake" is "something done wrong". But I understand what you're trying to say. I'll leave us by saying that, honor or no honor it should have been obvious that going to Cersei was a mistake even before he did it. He should have thought of a different way to handle it that still protected the kids and his honor. I can forgive him for trusting Littlefinger because by that point he had no one else and therefore no choice but to roll the dice there.

At least we still have Jon and Arya. If anyone can bring the Starks howling back (pun intended) it's those two!

 

[Aegon the Unworthy]

It would have been a better idea to let the circumstances of the world change his actions because he's not the center of the world. To be truly noble he should have been thinking about *everyone* not just a few kids who may or may not have been slaughtered. Cersei's kids are worth a lot more alive than dead anyway. However noble his commitment to his ideals was, it still wasn't the best course of action and he paid the price. This is one case where it should have been obvious to anyone that being realistic was the far better choice than being idealistic. This was *not* a time to be trying to change the world with one compassionate gesture. Oh well.

Cerseis children would have been killed if Stannis took the throne. They were far more valuable dead than alive. With them alive any lordling could say Stannis lied to achieve the throne and raise his banners in revolt. And with Stannis likely being unloved, that would have happened. Its just the way of things. In Storm of Swords Robb is convinced that Theon should be kept alive just so they could ransom Theons death back to whomever sat the Seastone Chair. Its a foregone conclusion in this world of Westeros that legitimate claimants to the throne need to die. What Stannis likely would have done is kept Cersei alive to hold Tywin in check and killed the children who were legitimate claimants to the throne.

I dont know how hard it is to grasp that Ned wasnt making a choice between being idealistic and being practical. Ned is idealistic and honorable, there was no "Should I plunge this world into war?" kinda debate going on. He made the choice he had based on one simple premise, he didnt wage war on children. So was Robert right in sending assasins after Dany? Thats the same thing as Robert saw it....should Stannis have sacrificed Edric Storm to raise the Stone Dragon?... because people would have surrendered in the face of that awful thing...or do you agree with Lord Tywin that its better for a "few dozen men to die at dinner than thousands to die on the battlefield" and thus are saluting the "Red Wedding". Wheres the line for you? You keep telling me ideaology and nobility has no place in this world of harsh reality so what betrayal and murder do you condone in the name of practicality?

Calm down, champ. I didn't mean to imply that Ned singlehandedly started this war. But you can't deny that he played his part. Maybe, just maybe, he should have been thinking a bit more about the 16 year old boy he left in Winterfell who he knew would lead an army down to avenge him. Did he really think Robb was ready to start commanding armies? I just don't know.

Obviously Ned didnt think he was going to lose. Thats just silly. Ned had not the luxury of hindsight that we do.

I think the definition of "mistake" is "something done wrong". But I understand what you're trying to say. I'll leave us by saying that, honor or no honor it should have been obvious that going to Cersei was a mistake even before he did it. He should have thought of a different way to handle it that still protected the kids and his honor. I can forgive him for trusting Littlefinger because by that point he had no one else and therefore no choice but to roll the dice there.

Maybe by definition mistake and wrong are synonmous but I dont think in practice they always are. Witness Garlan Tyrell at the Joff/Margaery wedding. When Joff is being unusually cruel to Tyrion he speaks up and says something like "That was ill-done Your Grace". It was a mistake because Joffrey was just insane enough to be slighted at this point and have him punished, but it was still the right thing to do. Ned and Cersei are the same thing.

At this point, I dont feel like arguing about this anymore....say your peace, Ill give you the last word but Im certain I wont agree with you.

 

[TK-421]

Well, boys if you cannot play nice.

ViZion, I know you are new and we appreciate new ideas and people but we can try to joke without being condescending.

The last word for this fascinating discussion (was I now being condescending myself )is: "Ned's dead baby, Ned's dead". Period. And so is Cat and Robb.

 

[viZion]

If you look at the Starks and the Lannisters as completely black and white, good and evil, then I suppose you might view the Red Wedding as a grievous wrong. However, the great thing about this series for me is that it's very hard to say who the good guys are and the bad guys are. We get POVs from both sides whereas in most books you get only the perspective of the "good guys" which makes it nice and easy to tell who is who. It's very easy to look at it the other way and say, "The Starks got what they deserved. Go Lannister!"

I'm not fully prepared to argue the Red Wedding at this point since I haven't gotten there in my reread but I will say that from what I remember, Robb had it coming. He broke his word and paid the price. And, yes, sacrificing the few for the lives of the many (think about the innocent smallfolk caught between two warring lords) is a good thing. It happened to be the evil Lannisters doing the sacrificing but, as you know, in this series the consensus good guy doesn't always win.

I start "A Clash of Kings" tomorrow. We'll see if anything that happens in that book changes my mind about anything that happened in "A Game of Thrones".

18th post!

 

[TK-421]

I'm not fully prepared to argue the Red Wedding at this point since I haven't gotten there in my reread but I will say that from what I remember, Robb had it coming. He broke his word and paid the price. And, yes, sacrificing the few for the lives of the many (think about the innocent smallfolk caught between two warring lords) is a good thing. It happened to be the evil Lannisters doing the sacrificing but, as you know, in this series the consensus good guy doesn't always win.

Wow, that is some rough justice. Hope you don't run for office anytime soon I'm not sure anybody 'deserves' what was done by the Freys and Lannisters at the Red Wedding. If you think so, well, I'm sure Walder (aka the most hated character in the series) would welcome you with open arms. Some are just cut from the same cloth, I suppose.

 

[YOSSARIAN]

Rhaenys' cat is, of course, none other than the black tomcat that Arya was chasing through the keep earlier in the book. The one the guards claim has been there as long as they can remember("Older than sin and twice as mean"). I just thought that was a nice little connection made by Martin as well as a possible bit of foreshadowing Daenerys' return.

I just made this connection last week during my 3,687th reread of ASOIAF. I felt so uniquely observant and I couldn't wait share this tidbit with others. And now you've ruined my moment. You're a horrible person. (Smiley face emoticon representing the facetiousness of previous statement goes here.)
This cat is also responsible for stealing Lord Tywin's dinner directly from his hand (chicken I believe.) Does this have any significance as symbolism? Please welcome this question as an excuse to begin straw-grasping.

 

[viZion]

Stupid question: Who sent the assassin to try and kill Bran? For some reason I can't remember or maybe I wasn't paying enough attention. The only thing I can remember is Tyrion(?) thinking that it probably wasn't Jaime and Cersei because the attempt was so poorly executed. For some reason this question is really bugging me right now.

 

[Aegon the Unworthy]

Joff.

Tyrion tricked him into revealing it with a flinch (Joff not Tyrion) after Joff uttered "I am no stranger to Valyrian steel" during the gathering before his wedding. You know after Joff chopped Tyrions gift in half and told him to get another present for him.

Its believed but not confirmed really that Robert uttered something like "It would be a better thing to put that boy out of his misery". So Joff, always seeking approval with his father took the knife from his fathers baggage train, hired a camp follower and had the deed done. Maybe the Hound acted as an intermediary or would know the truth....other than that we'll never really know.

 

[Boaz]

Jaime came to the same conclusion as Tyrion. They discuss this during Tyrion's escape.