Eddard Stark's failings

[Brian G Turner]

[Spoilers!!!]











When I read the books, Ned always came across as one of the few people in the world who were trying to do selfless good. After all, we followed his internal expositions and reasons for his decisions.

However, watching the second episode of the TV series of GOT, and judging characters dialogue only, Cat accuses him of using honour simply as a shield.

It struck home to me the point that Ned is just as flawed as everyone else - when faced with decisions, rather than take initiative himself, he has to weigh it against what constitutes "honour".

And yet while apparently noble in aspiration, it means that he makes decisions which are clearly "bad", but he can claim keeping his "honour" for doing so, when his "honour" merely means favouring one allegiance for another.

For example, Ned Stark, for all his "honour", rose up in rebellion against his rightful king to support the usurper Robert.

Jaime may be sneered at because he swore an oath to protect the king, but you can be pretty sure the Starks and Baratheon's also swore similar oaths of allegiance which they plainly went against when it suited them.

Therefore Ned's sense of honour is a sham - while there can be emotional justification for joining in rebellion, not least what happened to his fathers, no one with real honour would break an oath to their king for personal vengeance, and still be able to claim to be honourable without being a complete hypocrite.

So when Ned's faced with the decision to join with Robert in King's Landing, or abandon his family, the claim of doing the honourable thing is a complete farce - he's trying to maintain legitimacy for his original act of dishonour in the first place.

Simply an idea for discussion.

 

[Wiggum]

Cat was spitting venom spawned from Ned spawning a supposed ******* and a fear for Ned's safety.

I'm not sure how much dishonor there is in rebelling against someone who is known as Mad King <insert name>.

The Starks swore allegiance to the Targs, but not to poor rule.

If your bestest friend hits you in the head, I'm pretty sure there's no dishonor in smacking him back.

 

[The Imp]

Interesting thoughts Brian.

I think one of the things that separates Ned from a character such as Jaime is he has a conscince, and although his actions aren't always perfect, he does at least think beyond his own needs when making decisions. They are quite rigid though, which is his major weakness.

In the case of going south to serve as Hand, it's clearly not an easy decision for him to make. I think he ultimately makes his decision because it serves the greater good, which is something that's at the core of his belief system, and not something that benefits him personally. Cat sounded "small" and selfish when she disapproved of his decision. It is also interesting to not that in the book Ned goes south at Cat's urging.

I think if Ned is guilty of any 'crime" it's seeing the world in black and white and not recognizing there are shades of grey. I don't think he wears his honor as a shield as much as his honor dictates his actions, and is his burden rather than protection.

 

[C Of K]

Unfortunately, honor is practically always a sham. The people were brainwashed by common honorable ideals in the seven kingdoms. It was a way to get people to do things that they would not do in any normal situation. What real sense does it make for grown men to bow down to a new born baby? If you're planning to murder an enemy, what sense does it make to wait until someday after he's left your dinner table?

Cat made a lot of points in that scene, but she wasn't in her right mind at the time. She was voicing her most base emotions as though her point of view was all that mattered. In the story, it is widely accepted that dishonorable acts are cursed in some way or another, so from Ned's point of view, doing the honorable thing is what's best for him and his family. Honor may have led him to be far too trusting of people, but consider the alternative. What if the Starks were more like the Lannisters? What if Ned was more like Robert?

There haven't been many upstanding examples of humanity in this series. People like Jon Arryn, and Ned, who could see the greater good beyond their own selfish desires were able to offset the greed of the Lannisters. They were somehow able to keep the kingdom from falling apart. Take honor out of the equation and things get even worse than they were to begin with.

 

[Conor]

Great thread.
I figure no matter how honorable one is, if an insane King tortures and murders your father and brother all bets are off and time to go to war.

I felt in the book, Ned had a bad feeling or premonition about going to Kings Landing with Robert and that weighed heavily in his thought process.

 

[svalbard]

I think it shows the strength of Martin's writing in creating human characters. We all have flaws as do his characters. Ned's failings are those of a somewhat honest man who thinks he can out-plot less honest and far more devious people. And finds out to his cost that he is a bit out of practice when it comes to the cloak and dagger chicanery.

 

[xLORDSNOWx]

Great thread.
I figure no matter how honorable one is, if an insane King tortures and murders your father and brother all bets are off and time to go to war.

You hit the nail right on the head on this one.

Everyone in the book whom actions may be honorable on the surface, sometimes end in disastrous ways for them and to those close to them. One may look at the fact that Ned did the honarable thing by not uniting with Renly on his plan, which turned out bad for him and his immediate family. This is where I 100% agree with I, Brian. On the other hand you may look at Tywin's plan for the Red Wedding as a dishonorable heinous crime, but as Tywin put it, (paraphrasing) "Kill a few at dinner than thousands on the field". Looking at it it like that makes since from a person in power, but dishonarble to those on the receiving end. (even though The Freys get the brunt of the blame)

Some in power will sacrifice honor and bend the rules in their favor in order to maintain their reign. The old saying still goes "Might makes right!" Some don't have the stomach to make decisions like sending a knife for Dany, when she is an obvious threat to the current regime. These decisions can make the difference on whether your family's existence is for 50 years or 5 years. What decision would you make if looking at the bigger picture? This is something that Ned's honor limited him in his critical thinking on life or death decisions.

 

[Needle]

I believe Ned's honor is the real deal. I agree with Imp that he sees everything in black and white instead of the grey it is most of the time and allows that honor to dictate his actions. Yet at his core I don't feel it is a sham or self serving.

The difference in Ned and Jaime is that Jaime swore a personal oath to protect Aerys life, not just a general oath to the Targs (even that was sworn by generations past)

C of K brings up why should grown men bow down to a new babe, that is a problem of (can't think of the right word!) but right of rule by birth alone. All to often the son is not the father and not capable of ruling yet does so anyway by birthright.

As for guest right, that is a legitimate right both for GoT and life! There could never be any hope of peace or alliances if it was not known that all involved had a safe place to meet. You would simply invite your enemy to dinner to talk and kill him over dessert!

 

[Brian G Turner]

I think he ultimately makes his decision because it serves the greater good, which is something that's at the core of his belief system, and not something that benefits him personally.

Are you sure about that, though? All Ned's doing is ensuring a continuation of the status quo of supporting a usurper. And isn't it the case that his ultimate reason is not friendship to Robert, nor honour, but instead to help keep the Lannisters off the throne?

After all, the Lannisters represent the old Targ rule - Tywin was the Hand duing that time, and the Lannisters one of the last houses to throw themselves behind the rebellion. Time for payback?

Yet if Lannisters rule from Kings Landing, is that so great a threat against honour and the greater good? After all, House Baratheon has already pretty much given up the crown for the Lannisters to take by Robert marrying Cersei and then taking little or no interest in ruling his own kingdom.

I figure no matter how honorable one is, if an insane King tortures and murders your father and brother all bets are off and time to go to war.

So why is Ned so hard on Jaime for breaking his own oath, when Ned surely broke one himself? Justifying it with what happened to Brandon and his father false logic - it would mean following honour is conditional, and if Ned would rise against his own rightful king, then he is just as bad, surely?

Even more astonishing that Ned looks down on Jaime for sitting on the Iron Throne. What right as a usurper did Robert have to claim it as his own, other than because he said so?

Overall - I know Cat spoke hard, but she was right - Ned is using honour as an excuse to not have to face responsibility for his choices. We've seen before he can rise above claims of honour to think for himself, such as joining the rebellion, but he is using honour as a shield which makes him deeply flawed as a character - when he has shown before he can cast off honour and oaths to do his own will.

It's not so much that I'm saying Ned is an awful character - as above, it's testament to GRRM's writing that we can love Ned and hate Jaime when we read Ned's point of view, and then love Jaime when we get his own POV's.

I'm simply saying that from watching the TV series so far, I can suddenly appreciate Ned's own character flaws more because we're lacking his exposition on why he does what he does, and simply seeing him on equal terms with the other flawed characters.

 

[TK-421]

Here's a good thread on the Stark's pride, honour, etc.

http://www.sffchronicles.co.uk/forum/41974-psychoanalysis-the-stark-truth.html

 

[viZion]

I think one of the things that separates Ned from a character such as Jaime is he has a conscince, and although his actions aren't always perfect, he does at least think beyond his own needs when making decisions.

Didn't Jaime kill Aerys to prevent him from burning King's Landing to the ground and therefore saving thousands of lives? Oath or not, it seems like Jaime was thinking beyond his own needs when he made the decision to kill Aerys.

I'd even argue that he threw Bran off the ledge not to protect Cersei or even his relationship with Cersei but rather to protect his children. People do crazy stuff when it comes to protecting their kids. We see from his POVs that he's not nearly as shallow as he seems early in the books.

 

[C Of K]

As for guest right, that is a legitimate right both for GoT and life! There could never be any hope of peace or alliances if it was not known that all involved had a safe place to meet. You would simply invite your enemy to dinner to talk and kill him over dessert!

I see your point, but I was referring also to someone you planned to murder, not strictly someone you planned to meet on the field of battle. Take the red wedding, for instance. Lord Walder did not plan to talk. He wanted those people dead, and he went through a lot of trouble to do it. (I'm not justifying murder here, btw)) I was pointing out that, if you plan to murder someone, it doesn't make much sense to let a table of food stop you from doing it.

Didn't Jaime kill Aerys to prevent him from burning King's Landing to the ground and therefore saving thousands of lives?

I don't think anyone but George truly has sufficient knowledge to answer this one. the only reason Aerys would give that order was because his city was about to be sacked by Ned Stark. Hence it was obvious that there would soon be a new king. Jaime did the smart thing regardless of what the answer is.

 

[woodsman]

Why would Ned have sworn an oath to Aerys? His father probably did as head of the house, I can't see a reason why Ned would have done so. Do we even know if he even met the King?

Honour's hardly a black and white concept either though - you could argue he was obliged to avenge his father's murder/rise up and protect the people. Honour can be used to support almost any course of action.

I think Ned's thoughts on Jaime come down to a couple of things - he doesn't like him. Jaime is the complete opposite of Ned and they really don't get along. Ned also rebelled with Robert - he risked everything. Jaime on the other hand turned at the last second when victory was assured, he might have saved Kings landing and (possibly greater motivation) himself but he didn't do so until he felt he was safe.

I do agree to an extent that, yes honour can be 'used'. I'm not entirely sure Ned does this all that often though. Also didn't Cat get him to go to KL not the other way around?

 

[Brian G Turner]

Honour can be used to support almost any course of action.

Exactly.

I think there was a line in the Robert/Barristan/Jaime scene in ep 3 of the series where Jaime says "We served the same king, said the same vows".

Not sure if it appears in the books, but there's another line about those in the rebellion being traitors.

In other words, all are hypocrites to honour.

Ironically, by Jaime waiting, it could be argued that his own honour held out the longest.

However, I think what really nails the whole "honour" argument is somewhere later in the books I recall a conversation where one character argues that Barristan the Bold as the best of the Kingsguard, because he has served 5(?) kings.

The other retorts that the Kingsguard swore to lay their life to protect the life of their king, therefore Barristan had utterly failed in his duty to each of the kings he served.

Two different ways of looking at "honour".

 

[C Of K]

I thought Ned's little discussion with Arya in episode 3 was interesting. He said something to the effect that Sansa should support Joffrey, even when he is wrong. So, basically, if Joffrey orders Micah's death, then Sansa should support that. I personally had issues with what Ned told her in that scene. I can't remember if he told her that in the book.

And I can't help but think that Ned is telling his children not to do what he did when he raised arms against Aerys. I think the scene where he was watching Arya spar was very symbolic of his fear that his children may be pulled into war.

 

[TK-421]

Well, I hope we are not being a little hard on Ned. His dilemna is that:
1) he loves both his daughters
2) he loves his king like a brother and has to obey his orders
3) he cannot back out of the marriage between Sansa and Joff without a very good reason (i.e. war)
4) killing Micah is a far cry from the Mad King's actions that demanded rebellion (perhaps not by modern standards)
5) he had to show reason to Arya as to why he had to obey, kill Lady and why he did not also call Sansa a liar
6) he understands the true dynamics in a royal marriage
7) he knows Cersei is no fan of his and has a different agenda than Robert, thus he cannot show infighting within his own family (note the smirk on Cersei's face when Arya calls Sansa a liar and pulls her hair)
8) Arya would listen to him over Sansa

 

[soulsinging]

Why would Ned have sworn an oath to Aerys? His father probably did as head of the house, I can't see a reason why Ned would have done so. Do we even know if he even met the King?

Honour's hardly a black and white concept either though - you could argue he was obliged to avenge his father's murder/rise up and protect the people. Honour can be used to support almost any course of action.

I think Ned's thoughts on Jaime come down to a couple of things - he doesn't like him. Jaime is the complete opposite of Ned and they really don't get along. Ned also rebelled with Robert - he risked everything. Jaime on the other hand turned at the last second when victory was assured, he might have saved Kings landing and (possibly greater motivation) himself but he didn't do so until he felt he was safe.

He was also a kid then... 17 or so? He was cut off from family, humiliated by a king he found out only took him on as a joke, surrounded by deadly warriors... what was he going to do as the king went mad and everyone around him pretended it wasn't happening? He had to grow into a man in the midst of that and I think his final decision had more to do with him growing up and learning to take action than because he was trying to play everybody. He's impulsive, not a schemer. On some base level I'm sure he wanted to survive as much as anyone else, but I don't see anything devious in the timing of his betrayal. I think he simply was a young kid that finally got pushed too far and snapped back. I think his flippant facade was more covering a scared kid (and then later a defense against being the most loathed man in the kingdom) than anything else.

 

[Brian G Turner]

2) he loves his king like a brother and has to obey his orders

Like he was suppose to obey Aerys?

3) he cannot back out of the marriage between Sansa and Joff without a very good reason (i.e. war)

He can refuse - he just feels compelled to accept.

None of this is about knocking Ned, though, as much as noticing his own flaws, which I didn't notice so easily in the books - not least because we got to see how Ned justified everything.

 

[C Of K]

1) he loves both his daughters
2) he loves his king like a brother and has to obey his orders
3) he cannot back out of the marriage between Sansa and Joff without a very good reason (i.e. war)

But Ned does not support all of Robert's decisions. All of us who have read the book know that before Robert's fateful confrontation with the boar, Ned was preparing to leave King's Landing with both of his daughters, and all of his men, because he disagreed with Robert. I'm assuming he was also calling off Sansa's marriage to Joffrey as well. I also imagine that this will occur in the television series, so what he told Arya in episode 3 was actually honorable hogwash.

Ned doesn't agree with Robert's decision to murder Daenerys Targaryen, and hasn't since the day Robert took the throne. Had Robert not died, that would have been the second time Ned left his company and returned to Winterfell because of the same disagreement.

4) killing Micah is a far cry from the Mad King's actions that demanded rebellion (perhaps not by modern standards)

But killing Micah is dishonorable, and that's the point. Ned was basically telling Arya to accept it, and support it, because Joffrey is prince of Westeros.
Arya's response to Ned in the episode was perfect: "Why would he let his daughter wed someone like Joffrey?" Ned had no answer, and I think that says a lot.

 

[woodsman]

He was also a kid then... 17 or so? He was cut off from family, humiliated by a king he found out only took him on as a joke, surrounded by deadly warriors... what was he going to do as the king went mad and everyone around him pretended it wasn't happening? He had to grow into a man in the midst of that and I think his final decision had more to do with him growing up and learning to take action than because he was trying to play everybody. He's impulsive, not a schemer. On some base level I'm sure he wanted to survive as much as anyone else, but I don't see anything devious in the timing of his betrayal. I think he simply was a young kid that finally got pushed too far and snapped back. I think his flippant facade was more covering a scared kid (and then later a defense against being the most loathed man in the kingdom) than anything else.

OH I agree. I don't imagine Eddard forgets much though, I don't think he'd buy into this very much.

Jaime is given to us as a ready made villain and not until later on with his POV's, especially as Lord Commander do we see a bit more of him. It interesting to wonder what might have happened had Jaime gone to the Tower of Joy with The Bull and The Sword of the Morning. I imagine he'd have died alongside them.

Anyways, I think Starks honour is more his way of trying to make sense of his world. In medieval times (and today for that matter) you could apply honour to almost anything as seen, however, I'm not convinced Ned does this. I think he despises all the games etc. and basically wants a simple - honest life and makes the best desicions he can. Gut instinct if you will. This is what is so often reffered to as his honour, so yeah, I guess he does use it a as a shield in a way.

I'm not sure he bothers too much about how people view him though, providing R+L=J (I'm a believer ) he's looked like an adulterer the last 14 years or so. To prtect Jon/fulfill his oath.