Ned doesn't like killing children, so why would he take Theon ?

[Ramsay B.]

Ned and about 99.99% of the population don't like killing children but I'm sure he would've done the deed if need be. It would've ate away at him for a long time but just like killing deserters of the Night's Watch, he would've swung the sword himself.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

Ned and about 99.99% of the population don't like killing children but I'm sure he would've done the deed if need be. It would've ate away at him for a long time but just like killing deserters of the Night's Watch, he would've swung the sword himself.

Agreed. Though, while Theon was taken as a child, Ned would have only had to kill adult Theon, probably an easier task.

[NOT A TARG I SWEAR]

There is a difference between openly killing a hostage if his father rebels versus a sneak attack on someone on another continent.

Ned, Theon and Balon all know what the consequences of a rebellion will be and Ned wouldn't be sneaky about it. He would just do it.

Killing a pregnant woman on another continent through cloak-and-dagger techniques is not something he can condone. To him, it's not honor but cowardice and at that point Daenerys and baby were not a threat to Westeros or Robert. If they were marshaling their cavalry and a navy, THEN Ned would probably agree to take action. But not until then.

I think it's a bit hypocritical. In both cases you are killing a younger person or threatening to kill to curtail a war. He took Theon when he was like 8 or something, so he was much younger than Dany is now who is considered a woman by Westerosi standards as she can give birth. If Ned knew for a fact the reason for Viserys and Dany being with the Dothraki was to create an army to retake Westeros, I think killing Theon would be worse than killing Dany. At least Dany has some agency and is the one instigating the Dothraki to go to Westeros to retake it. Despite whether it's plausible, I think most people in that society would look at it as some sort of treason/attempted invasion. Theon has no say in what happens and is getting punished for the actions of another. From a moral standpoint and not wanting to kill children/innocent if that's his holdup, i think it's really hypocritical.

In neither instance is somebody being killed in a battle. Both executions or threatened executions would be in the furtherance of preventing a war. Just because one isn't a prisoner at the moment and the other is, why would that make one ok but the other not ok? I think the distinction is bogus. Obviously this all depends on if Ned actually intended to go through with killing Theon in the first place and the degree to which he thought Dany may be planning to invade Westeros eventually.

I only vaguely remember the reasoning to why he was so fervently against Dany but was it merely because she was pregnant? I think in that instance the baby is a better comparison for Theon as it's another person/potential person being punished for the actions of another. Was it he didn't think there was enough evidence?

Agreed. Though, while Theon was taken as a child, Ned would have only had to kill adult Theon, probably an easier task.

While he may find it easier I find it just as bad from a moral perspective. Theon is just as innocent of the crime in either instance. It's such an awful practice.

[Jory Cassel]

Ned has no compunctions against killing people, as long as it's done "honourably". He chops Will's head off without batting an eye.

Taking Theon hostage against his father's rebellion apparently satisfies Ned's code, and thus he has no problem doing so. And I would argue, he'd have no problem killing Theon if it came to that.

Could you elaborate on how it supposedly satisfies his code?

The Gared situation is inherently different, he deserted, meaning; he was judged for his own actions. Executing Theon is to punish an innocent for someone else's actions, something that does not sit right with Ned, something he repeatedly and strongly opposes:

"You are no Tywin Lannister, to slaughter innocents."

“Robert, I ask you, what did we rise against Aerys Targaryen for, if not to put an end to the murder of children?”

“the murder of children… it would be vile… unspeakable…”

OP, Ned probably took Theon while fully aware it might be expected of him to execute him, perhaps even wanting the underlying threat to stop Balon from rebelling, but never intending to kill Theon, his strong reactions to killing children; his defiance of Robert when it comes to the twincest, the risk he took to see the children saved, the efforts he underwent to stop Daenerys' assassination all speak against it.

[Buried Treasure]

Westeros is not an equal opportunity society. boys have to be men before girls have to be women. A 10 year old boy is considered a child, but not the same category of child as younger boys or girls of 12 or 13. It is around the ages of 10-12 that boys start to get taken to war as squires.

If Ned had been required to take Theon's head he would not have thought it honourable, anymore than a grown knight would consider it honourable to cut down a boy during battle, but he would not have considered himself to be crossing a moral line.

[mankytoes]

In that case, why wasn't it Ned's "honorable" duty as Hand of the King to arrest Cersei for treason (since that's what the Queen's adultery is?) Why did he let his mere consideration for "innocent children" stop him in one case, and NOT let it stop him in Theon's case?

That wasn't honourable. Neither was confessing to treason he hadn't committed. Who knows if he actually would have chopped Theon's head off? It seems the butchery of the Targ children was something he never got over.