The Ned Stark mercy...

[Darth Angelus]

Ok, let me say that I have only watched the first season of the show, and not read anything yet, so my knowledge of this series is limited. However, there is one thing I have come to consider, having watched the first season again over the last few days.

Ned Stark's moral stance on mercy.

Ok, in the very first episode, a deserter in the north is captured, having fled horrors that had killed off the rest of his party. Ned will hear nothing of the deserter's excuses and explanations. It is off with the deserter's head, in the name of the king.

Move forward to the seventh episode, Ned has discovered that King Robert Baratheon's children really are Jaime Lannister's children. He tells Queen Cersei about his discovery, so that she will have a chance to flee with her children. Of course, she instead arranges Robert's death, and sees to that Joffrey becomes King. You know the rest. When Varys visits Ned in prison, asking what madness made Ned reveal his discovery to the Queen, Ned just replies "The madness of mercy."

I am wondering what Ned's stance on mercy really is. Is it coherent and consistent? It seems that there is no limit to the lengths he is willing to go to show noble families mercy (even one they knew was of the most ruthless sort), or the size of the risks he is willing to take. When King Robert decided to have assassins sent on Daenerys Targaryan, he protested loudly. However, screw commoners when it comes to mercy, really, as the deserter experienced.
I guess it makes sense, in a very medieval way. The nobles probably were considered to be of much higher worth than the commoners, in such a "moral" system. However, the severe double standard and discriminatory practices I see in Ned's stance on mercy doesn't make me see him in a sympathetic light.

One might argue that lords could not afford to spare deserters, or it would lead to lapse of discipline. To that, I will just mention one thing Ned most certainly could not afford to do. Tip off the Queen of his discovery, as in the way he did it. Can anyone seriously argue he could afford that? I doubt it.
Yeah, you can say it is easy to see in hindsight. However, worth what Ned knew of the Lannister ruthlessness, it wasn't hard to figure out that it would be risky in advance, either. Far more risky than giving the deserter a more lenient sentence than decapitation, in any case.

I am not saying this is bad writing. Like I said, I think nobles would be considered to be worth far more than commoners, in such a setting, and that George R R Martin may just be giving such an...uneven (or what you would call it) value system to his characters.
However, I hardly see Ned as particularly even-handed when it comes to mercy. He paid with his life, for this.

Any thoughts?

 

[Brian G Turner]

So far as I understand it, from the books the deserter from the wall was incoherent with fear. So they could offer no justification.

Later in the story it is clear that brothers do leave the walls, not least whoring in Mole Town, which should technically lead to them being punished severely.

However, deserting itself I think is seen as inexcusable anyway, so Gared being incoherent stopped this being a difficult question.

It was also Ned's implicit responsibility to deal with deserters from the wall.

However, he had no authority over the queen of the realm, no matter her perceived (yet unproven) crimes (so far as I understand it).

Also, this is posted in the GRRM writing forum - probably better if I move it into the Game of Thrones TV discussion forum? Simply to avoid spoilers - this section of the site is full of them from readers.

 

[Darth Angelus]

So far as I understand it, from the books the deserter from the wall was incoherent with fear. So they could offer no justification.

Later in the story it is clear that brothers do leave the walls, not least whoring in Mole Town, which should technically lead to them being punished severely.

However, deserting itself I think is seen as inexcusable anyway, so Gared being incoherent stopped this being a difficult question.

It was also Ned's implicit responsibility to deal with deserters from the wall.

However, he had no authority over the queen of the realm, no matter her perceived (yet unproven) crimes (so far as I understand it).

Also, this is posted in the GRRM writing forum - probably better if I move it into the Game of Thrones TV discussion forum? Simply to avoid spoilers - this section of the site is full of them from readers.

Just replying the bolded section.

Yes, I understand that he had no authority over the queen. The point was that his friend Robert the king most certainly did, and Ned believed he would have been merciless to the queen and her children if he had found out, and therefore Ned chose to tip her off, so she could get away in time. That was Ned's mercy.

Even though Ned had no authority to punish the queen himself, he almost definitely had the option of telling his friend Robert first, and Varys implies as much.

That is, Ned's mercy to the queen and her children wasn't that he didn't punish them himself ( whivh he had no authority to do, indeed), but rather that the order in he which revealed his discovery (the queen before the king, instead of the other way around) spared the queen punishment on the king's authority. If that makes any sense.

Of course, I do not know to what extent the TV-show matches the novel.

 

[Culhwch]

I think gender plays a role in this as well. The deserter was a sworn man of the Night's Watch. The queen, no matter her bloodlines or reputation, is a woman. I think that's where Ned's mercy comes into play - he knew Robert would show Cersei none, and there was a fair chance he would show her children none either. Same thing with Daenerys as well - not only a woman but pretty much a child as well, who at that point was really only a percieved threat in Robert's head.

 

[Ursa major]

To be fair to Ned (which is often a very hard thing to do), he was probably taking the fate of the children (who were innocent of Cersei's and Jaime's crime, just as Gendry was innocent of Robert's serial - and probably parallel - adultery) into consideration.

How he might have avoided putting the children into danger - apart from keeping his mouth shut about the matter (probably the best course of action until some real opportunity arose) - I don't know.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Good point about the children - Ned specifically argues against Robert trying to have Danaerys killed explicitly because of that. I'm not sure if it's mercy as such, as much as being sickened by the slaughter of the Targ children when Robert took the throne.

 

[The Imp]

Good point about the children - Ned specifically argues against Robert trying to have Danaerys killed explicitly because of that. I'm not sure if it's mercy as such, as much as being sickened by the slaughter of the Targ children when Robert took the throne.

And just to tie this back to the OP, someone who deserts the Night's Watch (and by deserting we're not talking about a little fling in Molestown) has made a concious choice and knows the penalty. Joffrey, Myrcella and Tommen did nothin at that point to deserve a death sentence.

 

[Darth Angelus]

To be fair to Ned (which is often a very hard thing to do), he was probably taking the fate of the children (who were innocent of Cersei's and Jaime's crime, just as Gendry was innocent of Robert's serial - and probably parallel - adultery) into consideration.

How he might have avoided putting the children into danger - apart from keeping his mouth shut about the matter (probably the best course of action until some real opportunity arose) - I don't know.

He clearly couldn't afford to take that risk, though. His power base without King Robert, compared to that of the queen, was shaky at best, and the Lannister ruthlessness could have arguably forced his hand. What he could do is try to argue with his friend Robert to spare the children and refuse to have part in what Robert would have done with them. If that didn't work...well, it is not his fault that his authority in King's Landing was weak.

When he executes the deserter, he does so in the name of King Robert, anyway. It is just when it comes to noble children that he finds Robert's justice too cruel?

And just to tie this back to the OP, someone who deserts the Night's Watch (and by deserting we're not talking about a little fling in Molestown) has made a concious choice and knows the penalty. Joffrey, Myrcella and Tommen did nothin at that point to deserve a death sentence.

I think it can be argued that the deserter was in a situation of "damned if you do, damned if you don't", though. The reader/viewer may know more than Ned does, but Ned will hear nothing of it.

Joffrey proved, in his treatment of the butcher's boy sparring with Arya, an immensely cruel character streak, and Ned was forced to kill Sansa's wolf, which had NOT bitten Joffrey. It wasn't rocket science to figure out Joffrey was a monster.

The point is about this noble character who is supposed to be merciful. Picture the most just kind of hero, maybe Superman, in Ned's shoes. After all, Ned is portrayed as being of impeccable moral fibre, is he not?
Now, in Ned's position, would Superman have tried to spare the children of Cersei and Jaime? Of course he would. Would he have chopped off the deserter's head? I tend to lean towards "Not a chance in hell."...

 

[Boaz]

Darth Angelus, great observations. I applaud you for noticing Eddard's selective application of justice and mercy. I cannot fault your reasoning. I understand that it seems arbitrary to you or perhaps based upon gender or that it may even seems socio-economic... but the bottom line is that it relates to children as the Big Bear said.

In the book, A Game of Thrones (the first book in the series), Eddard's story is told. His actions in Robert's Rebellion, fifteen years before the start of the story, are told to us through his dreams and memories. His actions in the past determine his actions in the present. I'll give you the pertinent facts...

After the decisive battle of the rebellion, Eddard raced with Robert's vanguard to King's Landing only to find the city being ransacked by Tywin Lannister's troops. Pycelle had convinced the mad king, Aerys II (Rhaegar's, Viserys', and Dany's father) to open the city to Tywin Lannister. The Lannisters had not committed to either side during the rebellion and Pycelle convinced Aerys that Tywin came to defend him from Robert and Eddard. Aerys also thought that Tywin would never make a move against him while Jaime was Aerys' bodyguard. Tywin turned his soldiers loose on the city. Jaime killed the king he swore to protect. Ser Amory Lorch killed Princess Rhaenys (Rhaegar's daughter), a toddler. And the Mountain, Ser Gregor Clegane, raped and killed Princess Elia (Rhaegar's wife) and killed baby Prince Aegon (Rhaegar's son). Tywin wrapped the children in red Lannister cloaks to hide the bloody bodies when he presented them to Robert. Eddard was disgusted, but Robert approved.

In a rage, Eddard rode out with a handful of men. He went to Rhaegar's sanctuary, the Tower of Joy, to find his sister, Lyanna Stark. Lyanna's disappearance/abduction (along with the murders of Eddard's father and older brother in a mock trial and the demand of Aerys that Robert and Eddard also be handed over for trial) is what precipitated the rebellion. Eddard and his six companions killed three of the Kingsguard and found Lyanna dying. She begged Eddard to make her a promise...

These threads in this forum are filled with theories, prognostications, and conjecture regarding that promise. I've tried not to give you any of my opinions... just the facts. But... most of us think the promise involves a child.

Darth Angelus, you'll also remember that Robert and Eddard had a falling out over the assassination of Dany. That was another child that Eddard wanted to spare. And he finally confessed to treason, losing all his honor, in order to spare his daughters from Cersei's wrath.

And then there is the fact that the honorable Lord Eddard Stark, Lord Paramount of the North, Warden of the North, descendent of kings, brought Jon Snow home as his *******. Jon was a source of contention between Eddard and Catelyn. Why did Eddard not just leave Jon with his mother? He could have paid her well and called that honorable instead of inflicting a daily torment upon the woman that he loved.

If you are enjoying the show, then I recommend that you read the books. The show is good, I enjoy it. I'm not a soccer fan, but I think watching a thirty minute highlight show of the last World Cup is not the same as traveling to South Africa and attending two games a day while personally witnessing great plays, fan reactions, vuvuzelas, and managers' strategies from the first day through Spain's victory. There is so much information in the books... it makes the show look like a selected highlight reel.

 

[juleska]

I will add to what Boaz has said by imploring you to tread carefully on this forum until you have read all the books, as you will find so many spoilers lurking, though the community at large does its best to protect new fans of the series from that. One of our admins started threads just for people like yourself, who have not read all the books. If you would like to participate in a spoiler-free discussion of the series based on what you've seen from the first season of the show, I would recommend you check those threads out. You'll find them linked here:

http://www.sffchronicles.co.uk/forum/535280-discussion-threads-for-readers-who-have-not-yet.html

Do stick around but really, do read the books....I promise it's worth it!

 

[Darth Angelus]

Boaz:
Thanks for your long, informative post and for trying (and, from what I can see, succeeding) to see where I am coming from!

Yes, I agree that Ned's feelings about children being caught in the political crossfire and dying because of the scheming if their families almost definitely has something to do with his actions. What you tell about the background only affirms that position. He probably had enough of dead children.

What I do think is that this makes him, I don't know...squeamish, rather than an entirely good, merciful and moral hero, however. Granted, being squamish isn't a major flaw for a hero.

What follows below is mostly for others, as I think you have seen my point:
The deserter broke his oath and the law, for which the (very much known) penalty was death. Yet, it was clear he had panicked, when running away instead of to the Night's Watch to warn them. He probably had pretty good reason to think he would not have been believed, anyway. My point is that the deserter very much had mitigating circumstances.
Ned stark had the duty (towards the king) to uphold the law of the land, which he took very strictly. Executing someone who fled in fear takes a hardened heart, at the very least, however. In that early act Ned ruined any chance of me ever viewing him fully as a noble hero with a kind heart. He may not be as grim as Ser Ilyn Payne, but still, he is no Superman.
I don't think it would be hard to argue that by the same token, it was very much Ned's duty as the hand of the king to put the king's interests and safety above all other concerns. He interpreted that duty very loosely (at best) when he told the queen about his discovery before telling the king.

Again, I am not saying this makes it bad writing, or Ned a bad fictional character, but it makes it harder for me to fully sympathize with him.


As for reading the series, I purchased a package containing the first five novels in pocket form, yesterday. However, I also have other novels to read, so I guess I shall just have to see if and when I come around to reading the series.



juleska:
Thanks for the warning, but I really don't mind spoilers that much, when it comes to this series. I am not sure why, put I think that this particular kind of Fantasy is not quite my cup of tea. It is a good series, just not quite exciting enough that spoiler really can spoil it much for me.

 

[Ursa major]

He clearly couldn't afford to take that risk, though.

But what risk? How many other people had trawled through that enormous book of noble families to get a clue (no more than that) leading to the truth (though Ned had no real proof of it)? One: Jon Arryn, who was not in a position to tell anyone else. Cersei had done nothing in all those years since Joffrey was conceived, even though she, Joffrey and Jaime were at mortal risk all that time.

Why was action, by Ned, so urgent? It wasn't. Robert wasn't dying. In fact, Ned's precipitate action - talking to Cersei - led directly to Robert's death. In effect, Ned gave Cersei no other choice. How was Cersei to organise her escape, with the royal children (including the heir to the throne), without Robert finding out? Didn't he think that Cersei had been examining her options ever since Joffrey had been born, and would have planned to survive in a way that didn't mean banishment (with, probably, a price on her and her children's heads)? What was the only way of avoiding that? Getting Joffrey onto the Iron Throne through the death of her husband.

One could argue that Ned didn't realise how ruthless Cersei might be (which is understandable), and with Jaime absent from court, any immediate danger was absent. Even so, Ned was revealing his hand () for no good reason. If nothing else, he should have got his children safe (really safe, not just planning for their departure) before he said a word.

 

[Darth Angelus]

But what risk? How many other people had trawled through that enormous book of noble families to get a clue (no more than that) leading to the truth (though Ned had no real proof of it)? One: Jon Arryn, who was not in a position to tell anyone else. Cersei had done nothing in all those years since Joffrey was conceived, even though she, Joffrey and Jaime were at mortal risk all that time.

Why was action, by Ned, so urgent? It wasn't. Robert wasn't dying. In fact, Ned's precipitate action - talking to Cersei - led directly to Robert's death. In effect, Ned gave Cersei no other choice. How was Cersei to organise her escape, with the royal children (including the heir to the throne), without Robert finding out? Didn't he think that Cersei had been examining her options ever since Joffrey had been born, and would have planned to survive in a way that didn't mean banishment (with, probably, a price on her and her children's heads)? What was the only way of avoiding that? Getting Joffrey onto the Iron Throne through the death of her husband.

One could argue that Ned didn't realise how ruthless Cersei might be (which is understandable), and with Jaime absent from court, any immediate danger was absent.

For clarification, the risk I was referring to was tipping off Cersei, the way he did. I wasn't talking about keeping quiet about the matter until an opportunity presented itself to reveal the truth while sparing the children, as you suggested. That might have worked, and indeed no one was in immediate danger as long as Ned kept his mouth shut.

It isn't your suggestion that I am criticizing. It is Ned's actual course of action. I realize my post may have come off otherwise, and I am sorry for that.

 

[Ursa major]

For clarification, the risk I was referring to was tipping off Cersei, the way he did. I wasn't talking about keeping quiet about the matter until an opportunity presented itself to reveal the truth while sparing the children, as you suggested. That might have worked, and indeed no one was in immediate danger as long as Ned kept his mouth shut.

It isn't your suggestion that I am criticizing. It is Ned's actual course of action. I realize my post may have come off otherwise, and I am sorry for that.

Sorry I misread your post, DA.


But at least it allowed me to vent.

And I'm glad we agree on this matter.

 

[Darth Angelus]

Sorry I misread your post, DA.


But at least it allowed me to vent.

And I'm glad we agree on this matter.

No worries, UM.

As I was saying in my previous post, that post of mine you replied to may have been easily misread.

 

[Boaz]

DA, have you viewed the second season?

You'll immediately notice in the books that each chapter is written from the third person singular view. GRRM rigidly applies this narrative in each chapter to one specific character. There is never a first person, second person, nor an omniscient narrative. Each chapter is tailored to the exact point of view of a single character for an exact amount of time. By utilizing this method, GRRM opens the story with a plethora of Stark POVs and makes their family the protagonists. They are honorable and moral people who are at odds with the Lannisters. So from the Starks' POVs, the Lannisters are evil personified.

Tyrion is the only Lannister POV in the first two books. It is only through his eyes that we glimpse a Lannister desire to do good... but we also get even closer views of Tywin, Cersei, and Joffrey and we see they are avaricious and ruthless.

This really changes in the third book, A Storm of Swords, when we get a new Lannister POV and a Lannister explanation for one of the most infamous acts in Westerosi history. This POV does not turn the story on it's head, but it does give it balance.

I've injected all that to show how GRRM manipulates our sympathies. Eddard was supposed to be the most sympathetic character in the first book... even if he was not the most sympathetic character that GRRM could have written. Eddard had his flaws. He confessed to Cersei that he'd made many mistakes. He also claimed that mercy, humility, and contentment were not among his mistakes. Yes, he'd had enough of dead children.

As a lord of the First Men and a keeper of the old ways, Eddard Stark did not use an executioner. He explained that to Bran in the first chapter (episode too, I think). He never wanted to become comfortable with death. Personally dealing out capital punishment kept the horror and finality of it fresh in his mind. And ultimately, it was something he was not prepared to do to a child.

In Eddard's defence (some of you have read my posts on Eddard's mistakes in parenting and governing and you must be shocked I'm defending him now), the man of the Night's Watch (Gared in the book, Will in the show) whom he executed was not the first to desert. Eddard had dealt with them his entire life. Most likely he watched his father, and maybe his elder brother, execute deserters. Sure the NW has honorable volunteers like the Old Bear and Jon, but they have more men who were forced to take the black or die... like Sam and Ser Aliser. Yet the majority of men are penal conscripts... they take the black instead of facing maiming or execution. So when these men desert, they know the one avenue of escape (taking the black) is gone and they won't hesitate to steal, kidnap, or murder in their flight. The Starks view NW deserters is analogous to how cops view cop killers. If a man does not hesitate to kill an appointed and armed officer of the law, then how much less value will he place upon ordinary citizens?

Did Eddard give Gared/Will a trial by our standards? No. Did he try to hear Gared/Will's tale? Yes. But since the man was incoherent (in the book), would not respond to Eddard's authority, and the North did not have an army of trained psychiatrists, Eddard made the decsision to apply the law then and there.

Edit:

DA, I've been critical of Eddard in the past because of his parenting skills. You can find my views in Psychoanalysis: The Stark Truth, but I'd wait until after you've viewed the third season (which starts in about four weeks), because the thread contains MAJOR spoilers. By MAJOR, I mean Bran's fall, Lady's last day, and Eddard's death -ish spoilers.

 

[Rufio]

For clarification, the risk I was referring to was tipping off Cersei, the way he did. I wasn't talking about keeping quiet about the matter until an opportunity presented itself to reveal the truth while sparing the children, as you suggested. That might have worked, and indeed no one was in immediate danger as long as Ned kept his mouth shut.

It isn't your suggestion that I am criticizing. It is Ned's actual course of action. I realize my post may have come off otherwise, and I am sorry for that.

Ned knew there was a risk to himself in this course of action, he thought he'd made sure he had enough support to be able to carry it through. But he didn't. That's a political failure on his part rather than an ethical one. Besides which the risk is to himself, whereas letting Watch deserters go is a risk to the whole of the north, since the Watch functions as both protector and prison you have two potential problems if nothing is keeping them on The Wall. Executing deserters is also a very old practice, it's almost not a decision for Ned to take so much as it is a duty for him to perform. The Cersei situation although she's broken the law it's a unique circumstance for Ned.

You could argue that his argument to spare Dany and her unborn child, and his decision to spare Cersei, Joffrey, Myrcella and Tommen are just as threatening to the peace of the realm, and likely to end more lives than they save. That is why it ultimately comes down to Ned not wanting the blood of (individual) children on his hands.

 

[Darth Angelus]

DA, have you viewed the second season?

Nah, sorry. It is supposed to be released on Wednesday next week in my country, though, so it will be soon enough.

You'll immediately notice in the books that each chapter is written from the third person singular view. GRRM rigidly applies this narrative in each chapter to one specific character. There is never a first person, second person, nor an omniscient narrative. Each chapter is tailored to the exact point of view of a single character for an exact amount of time. By utilizing this method, GRRM opens the story with a plethora of Stark POVs and makes their family the protagonists. They are honorable and moral people who are at odds with the Lannisters. So from the Starks' POVs, the Lannisters are evil personified.

Obviously, the Starks are intended as honorable and moral. Compared to the Lannisters, they are saints, in general.
Of course, they aren't shown to be great judges of character. Maybe it is unfair, but I would say their failures by far outweigh their successes in that department, so it is hard to take their POVs as fact. According to Catelyn, Tyrion Lannister was a bad man, and Littlefinger was a good one. Needless to say, that didn't turn out to be a particularly accurate assessment. From what we know, as readers/viewer, Tyrion is significantly more sympathetic than Littlefinger, at least from the first season/book.

Tyrion is the only Lannister POV in the first two books. It is only through his eyes that we glimpse a Lannister desire to do good... but we also get even closer views of Tywin, Cersei, and Joffrey and we see they are avaricious and ruthless.

Tyrion is the only Lannister who is portrayed as somewhat sympathetic in the first season, which makes it sad that he is the one Catelyn arrests

This really changes in the third book, A Storm of Swords, when we get a new Lannister POV and a Lannister explanation for one of the most infamous acts in Westerosi history. This POV does not turn the story on it's head, but it does give it balance.

Interesting.

I've injected all that to show how GRRM manipulates our sympathies. Eddard was supposed to be the most sympathetic character in the first book... even if he was not the most sympathetic character that GRRM could have written.

That is sort of where I was coming from, I think. He was supposed to be sympathetic by the standards of that gritty world, but he fails to be as sympathetic as savior type of hero.

Eddard had his flaws. He confessed to Cersei that he'd made many mistakes. He also claimed that mercy, humility, and contentment were not among his mistakes. Yes, he'd had enough of dead children.

It fits his character that he would say that, I guess.
From what I can see, greatest shortcoming seems to be a certain political shrewdness. He was fit to lead armies on the battlefield, not for the dealings of a hand of the king,

As a lord of the First Men and a keeper of the old ways, Eddard Stark did not use an executioner. He explained that to Bran in the first chapter (episode too, I think). He never wanted to become comfortable with death. Personally dealing out capital punishment kept the horror and finality of it fresh in his mind. And ultimately, it was something he was not prepared to do to a child.

That has a certain point, I think. Keep yourself constantly aware of the nature of execution so that you never take it lightly.

In Eddard's defence (some of you have read my posts on Eddard's mistakes in parenting and governing and you must be shocked I'm defending him now), the man of the Night's Watch (Gared in the book, Will in the show) whom he executed was not the first to desert. Eddard had dealt with them his entire life. Most likely he watched his father, and maybe his elder brother, execute deserters. Sure the NW has honorable volunteers like the Old Bear and Jon, but they have more men who were forced to take the black or die... like Sam and Ser Aliser. Yet the majority of men are penal conscripts... they take the black instead of facing maiming or execution. So when these men desert, they know the one avenue of escape (taking the black) is gone and they won't hesitate to steal, kidnap, or murder in their flight. The Starks view NW deserters is analogous to how cops view cop killers. If a man does not hesitate to kill an appointed and armed officer of the law, then how much less value will he place upon ordinary citizens?

Ah, that sort explains they would such a dim view of NW deserters in the north.

Did Eddard give Gared/Will a trial by our standards? No. Did he try to hear Gared/Will's tale? Yes. But since the man was incoherent (in the book), would not respond to Eddard's authority, and the North did not have an army of trained psychiatrists, Eddard made the decsision to apply the law then and there.

Ah, ok. Maybe the show was slighly different from the book, then. The impression I got from the show was not that he even made any sincere try to hear the tale.

Edit:

DA, I've been critical of Eddard in the past because of his parenting skills. You can find my views in Psychoanalysis: The Stark Truth, but I'd wait until after you've viewed the third season (which starts in about four weeks), because the thread contains MAJOR spoilers. By MAJOR, I mean Bran's fall, Lady's last day, and Eddard's death -ish spoilers.

Thanks for the link! I think I shall wait for a while yet, then, though.

 

[Darth Angelus]

Ned knew there was a risk to himself in this course of action, he thought he'd made sure he had enough support to be able to carry it through. But he didn't. That's a political failure on his part rather than an ethical one.

Well, yes and no.
It was primarily a political failure, obviously, but the two are not really mutually exclusive. An ethical failure can very much coincide with other types of failures, particularly if there was risk involved, which was taken.
You can argue that it is a moral responsibility to avoid major risks. Heck, these moral responsibilities have in many cases become legal ones, as there are a significant number of against various types of risks deemed unacceptable by the lawmakers. Laws against driving at too high speeds, or under influence of alcohol or drugs, are basically laws against heightened risks, no?
Can someone who gets heavily drunk before driving, and as a result gets someone killed on the road, say it was just a driving failure, and not an ethical one? No. It is not a bad as intentional murder of the person, of course, but it is certainly bad enough to be classified as an ethical failure, if you think you can handle your car after a certain amount of alcohol, and that turns out not to be the case.

Besides which the risk is to himself, whereas letting Watch deserters go is a risk to the whole of the north,

The Lannisters are a significant risk to the whole of the north, too.

since the Watch functions as both protector and prison you have two potential problems if nothing is keeping them on The Wall.

True. However, another problem with the NW seems to be the lack of resources it gets to work with. The crown does not seem to take it seriously, probably since the horrors in the north have not been sighted for millennia, if I recall correctly. NW is in a sad state, really, considering the importance if its task.

Executing deserters is also a very old practice, it's almost not a decision for Ned to take so much as it is a duty for him to perform. The Cersei situation although she's broken the law it's a unique circumstance for Ned.

Ned's duty as the hand of the king seems fairly clear-cut to me in the Cersei case, too. That is, looking after the king's safety and interests above all other concerns. If you interpret loyalty to your king strictly, there really isn't much room to keep the secret from the king, to protect others. Nor is there room to tip off the king's potential enemies first. He just chooses to make a much looser interpretation of his duty in that case, than with the deserter

You could argue that his argument to spare Dany and her unborn child, and his decision to spare Cersei, Joffrey, Myrcella and Tommen are just as threatening to the peace of the realm, and likely to end more lives than they save. That is why it ultimately comes down to Ned not wanting the blood of (individual) children on his hands.

Exactly. Or, rather, that is an understatement. His decisions to spare Dany and the Cersei's children aren't as threatening to the peace of the realm as a more lenient sentence to the deserter would have been. It is far more threatening, in my book.
Which boils down to the point. Eddard is selective in his application of mercy. His ethical system seems like an inoherent mess of contradictory beliefs.
It is just that he has no stomach for dead children, but he passes his mercy as a conscious moral stance.

Ultimately, it boils to me not seeing Ned's application of mercy as even-handed.

 

[Boaz]

Nah, sorry. It is supposed to be released on Wednesday next week in my country, though, so it will be soon enough.

I'm very interested to read what you think. I've confessed before that my favorite scene in the show is the first scene of the ninth episode.

According to Catelyn, Tyrion Lannister was a bad man, and Littlefinger was a good one. Needless to say, that didn't turn out to be a particularly accurate assessment.

You're right. I love to hate Catelyn. She is a terrific character. She's rich, intelligent, caring, protective, and well educated. All admirable qualities. Her education and intelligence allow her to make very astute decisions as long as her family is not directly affected. But, her caring and protective nature take over when her family is threatened and she continually makes snap decisions based solely upon emotion... and that is her undoing.

Tyrion is the only Lannister who is portrayed as somewhat sympathetic in the first season, which makes it sad that he is the one Catelyn arrests.

That is why GRRM had Catelyn unjustly arrest him, Lysa unjustly imprison him, and Robin (Robert in the books) unjustly plan to execute him... to make Tyrion a sympathetic Lannister. Really, if that had not happened, could the Lannisters ever be seen as sympathetic? The only Lannisters who later gain sympathy from the readers are those whom Tyrion likes. The formula is "1. Tyrion is sympathetic. 2. We like Tyrion. 3. Ergo, we like whomever shows sympathy to Tyrion."

That is sort of where I was coming from, I think. He was supposed to be sympathetic by the standards of that gritty world, but he fails to be as sympathetic as savior type of hero.

In this GRRM breaks the mold that has rigidly held fantasy since the seventies. Eddard was not quite the hero... close, but not quite. And then he died. Who is the hero? Jon? Maybe, but he's far away and taken a vow to never come back. Dany? Maybe, but she's much farther away and without a power base. Bran? Maybe, but he's crippled... and winter is coming. Arya? She's completely cut off from the family. Sansa? She's a prisoner and not very sympathetic in the first season. Catelyn? She's a mother... who wants to read about a mother as the hero? Robb? Maybe, but he does not have his own POV... we only see him through other people's eyes.

Eddard may be more of a tragic figure than hero. He knows his flaw is mercy. He knows his conscience may someday get the best of him. Most readers believe his unknown promise to his dying sister lies at the heart of Eddard's quandaries. He chose love and mercy over his honor and sworn duty.

His elder brother, Brandon, was groomed to be a lord to make hard decisions. His best friend, Robert, was a man who could care less of the ruins he left in his wake. His mentor, Jon Arryn, could choose policies regarding the lives of thousands as long as the kingdom survived.

Eddard loved his sister... and he compromised his honor for her. Eddard loved his friend... and his men died for it. Eddard loved mercy for innocent children... and he was imprisoned for it. Eddard loved his own daughters... and he was murdered for it.

What about an anti-hero? The Hound? He's too minor of a character. Jaime? Forget regicide, forget incest, forget high treason... I don't know that there is any real redemption after defenestrating a seven year old boy. Cersei? No. Joffrey? Despicable. Shae and Bronn? Minor characters. Varys? No one can actually sympathize with a eunuch... empathize, maybe. Littlefinger? No. Drogo? Dead. Jorah? Not really, since he's working for Varys.

Who is left, at the end of the first season, with whom we may sympathize? Tyrion.

Ah, ok. Maybe the show was slighly different from the book, then. The impression I got from the show was not that he even made any sincere try to hear the tale.

Right, even the book picks up the execution in mid scene. Eddard told Bran later how the man could not even hear him because his mind was half gone. But desertion from armies, in almost every culture, has almost always been viewed as a capital offence. My favorite American, George Washington, executed men for desertion and mutiny. I'd be shocked if Gustav II Adolf, aka The Lion of the North (this moniker conjures up conflicting images from A Game of Thrones), never had to make that decision. He was at war for his entire reign... I think.

Darth Angelus, thank you very much for your views regarding the series. It is refreshing to get someone's first impressions... especially impressions that only stem from the show. It is difficult for me to judge the show solely by it's own merits or failures. I constantly relate it to the books to see what was omitted, what was missed, what was combined, what was subtlely changed, what was improved, and what is new.

Well, those are my thoughts on the subject.