Are the dead owed satisfaction ? In regard to Ned and Stannis's actions

[OnionAhaiReborn]

There wasn't a full scale war yet, it started only after Robert died. The war could've been averted if LF's plan was followed.

And a full scale war could've been averted if Ned's plan was followed. Tywin was already at war, beyond that if Ned's plan had worked as he intended there would have been no wider war. His plan failed, obviously, but he certainly wasn't planning war.

[Winter's Knight]

If one person disobeying the rules can cause a country to enter a civil war, then maybe both law and the system are broken beyond repair.

Don't hate the playa', hate the game yo. :cool4:

[E-Ro]

If one person disobeying the rules can cause a country to enter a civil war, then maybe both law and the system are broken beyond repair.

Don't hate the playa', hate the game yo. :cool4:

Only, it wasn't one person, it was two. Jaime and cersei.

Also, let's not pretend this was any two people. It was the queen of all westeros that broke the law, hence resulting in the war. It's not as if anyone else could have done this by breaking a law. It's on cersei. The system is based in blood inheritance, go against that, and suffer the consequences when you get busted.

[grand old duke of stark]

And a full scale war could've been averted if Ned's plan was followed. Tywin was already at war, beyond that if Ned's plan had worked as he intended there would have been no wider war. His plan failed, obviously, but he certainly wasn't planning war.

That is the mark not just of a man of honour, but a good Hand. Ned really was working for the good of the realm and of the king.

[Drogo's Arakh]

You have to remember that a large part of Stannis' cause is the fact that he feels that he must prevail or everyone will perish. So no matter how many people die in the War of Five Kings, he'll be saving a lot more if he does win. The current regime has neglected the looming threat of the Others time and time again so it's fair to say that he's justified in thinking that Westeros will be doomed if he doesn't get the throne.

[Winter's Knight]

Only, it wasn't one person, it was two. Jaime and cersei.

Also, let's not pretend this was any two people. It was the queen of all westeros that broke the law, hence resulting in the war. It's not as if anyone else could have done this by breaking a law. It's on cersei. The system is based in blood inheritance, go against that, and suffer the consequences when you get busted.

Bro-bro, that's exactly what I'm saying. When you base your entire system of government on whose loins a kid sprang from, shit happens. Government should not have to depend on a queen's chastity or a king's virility.

[Sansa_Stark]

In the lead up to the WOTFK, Ned and Stannis both have the option of swallowing their pride/honor and accepting Joffrey as king, even if they know he's not a true Baratheon.

If Joffrey had been more like Robb/Tommen, an altogether "good guy", would they have been right or wrong to continue in their paths?

They did fight a costly war to save their lives and put a Baratheon lineage on the throne.

Are the dead owed such a reality?

Or is it the living alone they should've thought about?

For the sake of peace, if you will....

What would you do in their position, were Joffrey not a monster?

I don't think Ned's decision was monstrous.

And hell Bran is still alive.

One of Ned's motivation's for opposing Cersei was because he wanted justice for Jon Arryn(his knowledge of his murder is dicey), Bran's crippling(and second murder attempt, although he doesn't know who was really guilty of it) and Jory.

All in all, saying Ned was wrong for opposing Cersei WITH his knowledge is basically saying Cersei should be allowed with doing whatever she wants, no consequence.

Cersei murders 100 people to hide her secret?

nbd, its less than a war starting so its a scumbag decision to oppose it.

That's what some you arguing against Ned are saying.

Oh, and before people start to pretend like Cersei wasn't involved with Bran's crippling

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/99267-cersei-wanted-bran-dead-in-agot-right/#entry5109524

From a certain point of view, what Ned did was just. You may not agree with his decision, but it went deeper than just taking a kid off a throne because his blood wasn't right.

ie don't blame Ned for doing what he thought was right, blame Cersei and Jaime for being reckless shits

[David Selig]

Does it matter if tommen is nicer then jof? They are still bastards, and not Roberts kids. As such they have no claim at all to the throne and should be removed. It doesnt matter that a war will start, its the law and thats that. Laws are backed with force, and there is absolutely no reason at all to let cersei, jaime and their bastards slide when everyone else is punished for crimes.

Getting hundreds of thousands killed to punish a handful of people is morally wrong, period. Not to mention stupid and incredibly wasteful.

And a full scale war could've been averted if Ned's plan was followed. Tywin was already at war, beyond that if Ned's plan had worked as he intended there would have been no wider war. His plan failed, obviously, but he certainly wasn't planning war.

But Tywin wasn't at war yet, that's my point. He ordered one raid without banners, he hasn't declared a war, the open battles haven't happened yet and wouldn't for weeks IIRC. As far as Ned knew, there were some incidents which had escalated tension, but no war yet - he certainly wouldn't have expected Beric to be able to find, arrest and execute Gregor with only the hundred men or so he had if he thought Tywin was openly waging a war.

How would Ned's plan averted war? As LF said, no way Tywin would just accept his children getting executed and disgraced.

[Sansa_Stark]

Getting hundreds of thousands killed to punish a handful of people is morally wrong, period. Not to mention stupid and incredibly wasteful.

\

So certain people should be allowed to murder as they please as long as there are just significantly fewer victims than what a war would cause?

We should all just look the other way whenever someone has innocents killed or crippled just to keep a secret?

At what point and and what numbers would it have been okay for Ned to oppose Cersei?

5? 10? 20? 100? 1000? 10000?

How many did Cersei need to kill or try to kill for you to think, Ned was okay to do remove Joff.?

I think this is one of the most morally ambiguous acts in the entire series.

[Roose The Weddingcrasher]

Getting hundreds of thousands killed to punish a handful of people is morally wrong, period. Not to mention stupid and incredibly wasteful.

A Westerosi Lord could argue, that getting thousands killed is worth "freeing" hundreds of thousands from unrightful rule. Not that different from the reasoning behind wars in the past hundred years in rl.

[Dragonstoned]

Once you start making exceptions were does it end? If cersei can go behind the kings back and not have his heirs, and everyone knows it, and those kids inherit, the whole system is fucked. Hey, why not let everyone do what they want all the time right? Right? Why have laws at all?

Think this is the key point. Laws are often arbitrary and their enforcement can be brutal but the alternative is potentially worse, creating a long-term culture of people getting away with anything.

Still, surely there must be a set of circumstances where the consequences of enforcing a particular law are so bad that nothing can justify it - which makes me wonder whether, if they knew the repercussions of what they were about to do, Ned or Stannis would have decided it was better to do nothing.

[Sansa_Stark]

I don't know about Stannis, but here's this quote from The Ned:

""You forget," Ned told him. "You forget Jon Arryn. You forget Jory Cassel. And you forget this." He drew the dagger and laid it on the table between them; a length of dragonbone and Valyrian steel"

And

You want me to serve the woman who murdered my king, butchered my men, and crippled my son?"

Ned's motivations were not just hurrr its not bobs blood

[Dragonstoned]

Nor Stannis's motivations either. Clearly his legal right to the throne is the main one but he wants to bring justice to the realm and all the wrongs that the Lannisters have perpetrated are just a part of this.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Getting hundreds of thousands killed to punish a handful of people is morally wrong, period. Not to mention stupid and incredibly wasteful.

But Tywin wasn't at war yet, that's my point. He ordered one raid without banners, he hasn't declared a war, the open battles haven't happened yet and wouldn't for weeks IIRC. As far as Ned knew, there were some incidents which had escalated tension, but no war yet - he certainly wouldn't have expected Beric to be able to find, arrest and execute Gregor with only the hundred men or so he had if he thought Tywin was openly waging a war.

How would Ned's plan averted war? As LF said, no way Tywin would just accept his children getting executed and disgraced.

Tywin absolutely was at war. He had raised his banners, he had sent Gregor to attack the Riverlands. The Riverlands had raised its banners. The war had begun and nothing Ned did was going to rein in Tywin's bellicosity or the Riverlands' desire for justice. Here's why your argument is really obviously wrong- after Ned is arrested Tywin continues to make war against the Riverlands. You can't claim that Ned's plan succeeding would have caused Tywin to go to war when Ned's plan failed and Tywin continued the war he was already at.

I think it's interesting that you engage in the harshest condemnation of what you incorrectly perceive to be Ned's choice- 'monstrous'- but choose to euphemize what Tywin has done to the Riverlands as 'some incidents which had escalated tension':

"I keep . . . I kept . . . I kept an alehouse, m'lord, in Sherrer, by the stone bridge. The finest ale south of the Neck, everyone said so, begging your pardons, m'lord. It's gone now like all the rest, m'lord. They come and drank their fill and spilled the rest before they fired my roof, and they would of spilled my blood too, if they'd caught me. M'lord."

"They burnt us out," a farmer beside him said. "Come riding in the dark, up from the south, and fired the fields and the houses alike, killing them as tried to stop them. They weren't no raiders, though, m'lord. They had no mind to steal our stock, not these, they butchered my milk cow where she stood and left her for the flies and the crows."

"They rode down my 'prentice boy," said a squat man with a smith's muscles and a bandage around his head. He had put on his finest clothes to come to court, but his breeches were patched, his cloak travel-stained and dusty. "Chased him back and forth across the fields on their horses, poking at him with their lances like it was a game, them laughing and the boy stumbling and screaming till the big one pierced him clean through."

The girl on her knees craned her head up at Ned, high above her on the throne. "They killed my mother too, Your Grace. And they . . . they . . . " Her voice trailed off, as if she had forgotten what she was about to say. She began to sob.

Ser Raymun Darry took up the tale. "At Wendish Town, the people sought shelter in their holdfast, but the walls were timbered. The raiders piled straw against the wood and burnt them all alive. When the Wendish folk opened their gates to flee the fire, they shot them down with arrows as they came running out, even women with suckling babes."

Monstrous, indeed.

I will further point out that this attack is done as part of Tywin's strategy for the wider war, he intends to scatter the Riverlands' forces to defend the smallfolk so it will be easier for him to defeat its armies. It was not in Ned's power to single-handedly end this conflict, regardless of whether Joffrey remained on the Throne or Stannis smoothly succeeded to it, as was Ned's plan. Tywin had attacked the Riverlands and brutalized its people, he had done so because his armies were massing on the Riverlands doorstep and he wanted to scatter their armies to make his invasion easier. The Lords of the Riverlands had already called for justice, and the handling of the succession would not have affected their feelings for Tywin one whit.

So, again, Ned's plan to depose Joffrey would have caused no wider war had it succeeded, as Tywin was clearly already at war.

[E-Ro]

Bro-bro, that's exactly what I'm saying. When you base your entire system of government on whose loins a kid sprang from, shit happens. Government should not have to depend on a queen's chastity or a king's virility.

I agree that the system sucks. But that's all they have. Reform is too far off. So I think that the fact the system sucks is irrelevant. Law breakers have to be punished, or at least those with the power or authority to do so have to at least try.

Getting hundreds of thousands killed to punish a handful of people is morally wrong, period. Not to mention stupid and incredibly wasteful.

No. I disagree on all counts. First of all no one knew the war would last so long or be so bloody, so that's not on those that decided to call the lannisters on their bullshit. Second, it isn't about punishing anyone. It's about removing them from power and upholding the law. A war is better then complete and utter anarchy. You don't make exceptions to the rules because they can fight a war and cause a ton of trouble. What kind of bullshit is that? If the lannisters don't have to follow succession why should any other house.