Neds honor was never and will never be an albatross around his neck. And shame on Boaz for suggesting it.
Ned's honor only weighed him down... it never allowed him room to maneuver.
Naivete yes, honor no. Im tired of defending this....honor drove him south, duty forced him to ask the hard questions, loyalty isolated him, naivete killed him. He didnt have the creative malevolence of Cersei or Littlefinger, or even Renly. His shortcomings in the game of thrones were not tied intrinsically to his honor.
Egg, I'm gonna jump in with both feet.
<Boaz opens mouth wide.>
Since it appears my last post on this subject in this thread was almost two years ago, I'll apologize for rehashing the issue.
Egg, First, let me say that I'm not trying to antagonize you with this post. You have my respect for the work you do, the knowledge you bring to the forums, and for the marriage you have.
<Boaz leaps.>
In a perfect world Ned's way is the better way. Perhaps even in the cruel land of Westeros, dying with honor while leaving your family open for persecution, suffering, and death is still the better way... if your family can live and die with the results.
I like your clear separation of honor and naivete. This helps get to the heart of the matter. Lord Eddard's problem, in my opinion, is that he associated too many non-essentials with his honor.
His promise to Lyanna and his acknowledgement of Jon were a chronic, if not acute, source of psychological anguish. What if he'd confided in Catelyn? Perhaps she'd have helped him bear these burdens. Holding his honor only drove a wedge of misunderstanding and mistrust between he and his wife. Granted, Ned was a young man at the time so his lapse in judgement may be blamed on naivete.
Winter Is Coming are the Stark words. Eddard prepared his descendents for a literal winter, but his offspring were unprepared for the devastation that the Lannisters, Greyjoys, Freys, and Boltons brought upon them. I admit that adolescents and children should not have to lead armies, to be masters of intrigue, to defend their persons from physical attack, to save their father, or to save the world. Ned did the common thing by sheltering his children, but in hindsight it was naive.
More importantly, Lord Eddard gave the Queen and opportunity to flee and he never did anything to control Littlefinger, ie. coerce, manipulate, or bribe him into service. He was too honorable to kill a treasonous woman and her innocent children without a warning. He was too honorable to put political and physical pressure on Baelish until he'd proven himself a criminal. Naive.
He kept secrets for dead people, brought his children up the Stark way, offered mercy to a traitor, and allowed a lying and cheating murderer to operate in complete freedom. By allowing these things to happen so that he could keep his honor, Lord Eddard doomed himself. Honor is not an albatross, but the way Ned wore it... I think it was a matter of time before it's demands put him in harm's way.
Ned was a good guy. He was a loving husband. He was a good father. He was a dutiful son. He was a helpful brother. He was a faithful friend. He was a sober servant of the Crown. He was a just lord to the people. He was pious. He's the guy we aspire to be. He's the guy we want our sons to be.
Littlefinger is a cheat. Cersei is a slut. Jaime is a murderer. Tyrion is faithless. Tywin is amoral. They're all liars, backstabbers, thieves, sadists, rebels, and killers.
As much as I don't like Jon, he seems to be learning how to balance honor with reality. Yes, he killed Qhorin. Yes, he slept with Ygritte. Yes, he told Mance he was turning his colors. But he stayed the course by still serving the Night's Watch in his heart. If he had not killed Qhorin, gone over to Mance, and slept with Ygritte, then Mance would have taken the Wall before Stannis' arrival. Jon's naivete seems to have gone for good by the beginning of AFFC.
The Game of Thrones has it's own rules. If you abide by the rules, then you have a better chance of surviving than not abiding by them. Ned's honor set him at odds with the rules.
Then again, this is all an author's work. We don't know all the circumstances nor all the character's motivations.
To your other points...
Danaerys = Stannis in a dress. I'd agree with that, but I must say that until you said so... I always assumed that Stannis in a dress = Renly. Seriously, was Stannis Stannis when he was twelve? Or did Stannis become Stannis over the years? At the beginning of AGOT, Dany was not Stannis... but she's working on it. She allows herself the illusions of mercy and beneficence.
Now the one that's really got me going is the last one where you suggested the "longshot" of Ned killing Ashara to shut her up. He'd have murdered her. Even though he was a high lord serving the rightful king, putting Ashara on trial meant losing the secret... so he could have called it a secret trial and execution (accident, suicide) but that's still murder.
Pro: 1)Ned seems to have been tormented by the possibility of killing another woman, Cersei, just to put someone on a throne he detested. His previous experience with killing a woman left him without stomach for it. 2)Ned's rage over the losses of his sister and his companions (not to mention his father and brother) and the impending lies and stress upon his honor and marriage by bringing back Jon forced Ned over the edge in his dealings with Ashara. 3)There have to have been many servants at the Tower of Joy, yet we heard of no massacre by Ned's men. Servants lies may be discounted, but a daughter of Dayne's word could carry far. She'd have to be the one silenced while Wylla (sp?) could be left alone.
Con: 1)Ned murdered a woman? He did not seem to have nightmares about it. 2)Ned murdered a woman?
The Targaryen physical characteristics seem important because GRRM makes them seem important... which is exactly what makes a Red Herring. Hmmm. Maybe it seems important because the physical traits are the only evidence that Tommen is not the rightful king.
