Barristan Selmy... White Cloak of many Kings.

[Starspear]

Well, that question would derail the thread - and there is thread for that already - and it's not necessarily comparable with Daenerys assassination, as Dany's assassination is a decapitation strike to avoid a war while the RW is killing thousands of soldiers in an ongoing war.

There would need to be a declaration/state of War for your argument. At the moment in the story (and still now), there is no war between Daenerys and the 7 realms.

[Dicer]

Well, that question would derail the thread - and there is thread for that already - and it's not necessarily comparable with Daenerys assassination, as Dany's assassination is a decapitation strike to avoid a war while the RW is killing thousands of soldiers in an ongoing war.

But the red wedding effectively ended a war that would have gone on for years leading to a lot of death and destruction all around them. The RW was not war. It was a dishonorable act, just like an assassination. If I understand right, what you are saying is that a person should be willing to do any despicable act (even murder innocent children) as long as they prevent war?

So, Ned was wrong to not condone Dany's assassination and Jaime was right to try and kill Bran?

Ned thinks that killing a child is morally wrong. That one act is wrong and he is not going to condone it, no matter what. That is a line that he is not going to cross. Because if you do, what's the limit? How far does one go on doing atrocities to prevent a war? Ned does not even consider killing Dany, because that's just morally wrong.

Honor and oaths and things like guest right are important in Westeros because that's how people maintain trust and laws. It's the fabric of Westeros society. When that's gone, it's a free for all.

[juanml82]

Because Ned is a moral absolutist. That is why he is a "good" character, unlike Pycelle, who is a scumbag.

War is part of the natural cycle. It is outside of morality, like weather.

Assassinating children is evil. And that is a moral choice. Ned makes the right one, while all the others are caught up in the Game of Thrones.

I call BS on the bolded part.

As for Ned as a moral absolutist, the exchange might give that impression. But later on, we have this other exchange

“No,” Ned admitted. “I know the secret Jon Arryn was murdered to protect. Robert will leave no trueborn son behind him. Joffrey and Tommen are Jaime Lannister’s bastards, born of his incestuous union with the queen.”

Littlefinger lifted an eyebrow. “Shocking,” he said in a tone that suggested he was not shocked at all. “The girl as well? No doubt. So when the king dies...”

“The throne by rights passes to Lord Stannis, the elder of Robert’s two brothers.”

Lord Petyr stroked his pointed beard as he considered the matter. “So it would seem. Unless...”

“Unless, my lord? There is no seeming to this. Stannis is the heir. Nothing can change that.”

“Stannis cannot take the throne without your help. If you’re wise, you’ll make certain Joffrey succeeds.”

Ned gave him a stony stare. “Have you no shred of honor?”

“Oh, a shred, surely,” Littlefinger replied negligently. “Hear me out. Stannis is no friend of yours, nor of mine. Even his brothers can scarcely stomach him. The man is iron, hard and unyielding. He’ll give us a new Hand and a new council, for a certainty. No doubt he’ll thank you for handing him the crown, but he won’t love you for it. And his ascent will mean war. Stannis cannot rest easy on the throne until Cersei and her bastards are dead. Do you think Lord Tywin will sit idly while his daughter’s head is measured for a spike? Casterly Rock will rise, and not alone. Robert found it in him to pardon men who served King Aerys, so long as they did him fealty. Stannis is less forgiving. He will not have forgotten the siege of Storm’s End, and the Lords Tyrell and Redwyne dare not. Every man who fought beneath the dragon banner or rose with Balon Greyjoy will have good cause to fear. Seat Stannis on the Iron Throne and I promise you, the realm will bleed.

“Now look at the other side of the coin. Joffrey is but twelve, and Robert gave you the regency, my lord. You are the Hand of the King and Protector of the Realm. The power is yours, Lord Stark. All you need do is reach out and take it. Make your peace with the Lannisters. Release the Imp. Wed Joffrey to your Sansa. Wed your younger girl to Prince Tommen, and your heir to Myrcella. It will be four years before Joffrey comes of age. By then he will look to you as a second father, and if not, well... four years is a good long while, my lord. Long enough to dispose of Lord Stannis. Then, should Joffrey prove troublesome, we can reveal his little secret and put Lord Renly on the throne.”

“We?” Ned repeated.

Littlefinger gave a shrug. “You’ll need someone to share your burdens. I assure you, my price would be modest.”

“Your price.” Ned’s voice was ice. “Lord Baelish, what you suggest is treason.”

“Only if we lose.”

“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, as sharp as the difference between right and wrong, between true and false, between life and death. “They sent a man to cut my son’s throat, Lord Baelish.”

Littlefinger sighed. “I fear I did forget, my lord. Pray forgive me. For a moment I did not remember that I was talking to a Stark.” His mouth quirked. “So it will be Stannis, and war?”

“It is not a choice. Stannis is the heir.”

Now, we may discuss the veracity of LF's assertions or even his honesty, but Ned does not. And, as far as he knows, LF is speaking the truth. And it boils down to this:

Crown Stannis: vengeance is obtained, honor is satisfied and thousands die

Crown Joffrey: vengeance isn't obtained, honor is broken and few, if any, die

Ned can not choose Stannis without contemplating the moral conundrum and at the same time be guided a moral code. Thus, Ned isn't ultimately guided by morality.

[juanml82]

There would need to be a declaration/state of War for your argument. At the moment in the story (and still now), there is no war between Daenerys and the 7 realms.

Well, it's rather obvious that Viserys and Daenerys are conspiring to invade the Seven Kingdoms. There is no formal state of war, if such a thing exists in Planetos, but the situation is rather clear.

But the red wedding effectively ended a war that would have gone on for years leading to a lot of death and destruction all around them. The RW was not war. It was a dishonorable act, just like an assassination. If I understand right, what you are saying is that a person should be willing to do any despicable act (even murder innocent children) as long as they prevent war?

So, Ned was wrong to not condone Dany's assassination and Jaime was right to try and kill Bran?

Ned thinks that killing a child is morally wrong. That one act is wrong and he is not going to condone it, no matter what. That is a line that he is not going to cross. Because if you do, what's the limit? How far does one go on doing atrocities to prevent a war? Ned does not even consider killing Dany, because that's just morally wrong.

Honor and oaths and things like guest right are important in Westeros because that's how people maintain trust and laws. It's the fabric of Westeros society. When that's gone, it's a free for all.

Well, I've just argued that Ned thinks that killing a child (is Daenerys one, though? She's underage, but married and pregnant) is dishonorable rather than immoral. Without derailing the thread to the RW, yes, killing a (non innocent) fourteen years old to avoid a war is a lesser evil and moral ruler should prefer the former to the later.

In any event, Ned doesn't consider the moral implication at all. If you think he does, quote whenever Ned poses the issue in unmistakably moral terms - remember, killing Daenerys is dishonorable.

[Dicer]

Well, it's rather obvious that Viserys and Daenerys are conspiring to invade the Seven Kingdoms. There is no formal state of war, if such a thing exists in Planetos, but the situation is rather clear.

Well, I've just argued that Ned thinks that killing a child (is Daenerys one, though? She's underage, but married and pregnant) is dishonorable rather than immoral. Without derailing the thread to the RW, yes, killing a (non innocent) fourteen years old to avoid a war is a lesser evil and moral ruler should prefer the former to the later.

In any event, Ned doesn't consider the moral implication at all. If you think he does, quote whenever Ned poses the issue in unmistakably moral terms - remember, killing Daenerys is dishonorable.

Dany is a child in AGoT. She is 13.

Where does Ned make the distinction between morality and honor? Can you point out where Ned things of them as two distinct and different things?

And bringing up the RW is not a derail. It's showing the parallel between two dishonorable and immoral acts: The breaking of guest rights and the secret assassination of a child. You don't want me to bring up the RW because your point seems to be that any dishonorable act, no matter how despicable, must be seriously considered as an option if it were to prevent war.

So what would be the line that is not crossed? Would murdering a child be a lesser evil to avoid a war? Yes, according to you.

Would raping someone be a lesser evil to avoid a war?

Would torturing someone be a lesser evil to avoid a war?

Obviously Ned has some lines he will not cross, no matter the personal cost or the cost to others. That was what caused him his life and the downfall of his family. You may think it is morally repugnant to prefer war over the murder of a child, but I see where he is coming from. I can see why the assassination was something he would never consider (Especially knowing about his sister and Jon)

[Starspear]

I call BS on the bolded part.

You can express what you wish, but does not make it less true. Evidence: the Cosmos; Nature and by extension man and history. Never has existed a period of time with no war. Conflict is inherent in all of nature.

[Starspear]

Well, it's rather obvious that Viserys and Daenerys are conspiring to invade the Seven Kingdoms. There is no formal state of war, if such a thing exists in Planetos, but the situation is rather clear.

It's not obvious, especially where Daenerys is concerned. Just to be clear, you are talking about preemptive war tactics, involving child murder.

[juanml82]

Dany is a child in AGoT. She is 13.

Here's an SSM on the subject

A boy is Westeros is considered to be a "man grown" at sixteen years. The same is true for girls. Sixteen is the age of legal majority, as twenty-one is for us.

However, for girls, the first flowering is also very significant... and in older traditions, a girl who has flowered is a woman, fit for both wedding and bedding.

A girl who has flowered, but not yet attained her sixteenth name day, is in a somewhat ambigious position: part child, part woman. A "maid," in other words. Fertile but innocent, beloved of the singers.

So she is that that ambiguous position of a maid. Only that's she not a virgin any more, she's married, bedded and pregnant. She's also fourteen by then, not that it makes much of a difference anyway.

Where does Ned make the distinction between morality and honor? Can you point out where Ned things of them as two distinct and different things?

When he's confronted with moral choices that contradict his code of honor and he ignores them completely

And bringing up the RW is not a derail. It's showing the parallel between two dishonorable and immoral acts: The breaking of guest rights and the secret assassination of a child. You don't want me to bring up the RW because your point seems to be that any dishonorable act, no matter how despicable, must be seriously considered as an option if it were to prevent war.

So what would be the line that is not crossed? Would murdering a child be a lesser evil to avoid a war? Yes, according to you.

Would raping someone be a lesser evil to avoid a war?

Would torturing someone be a lesser evil to avoid a war?

If we begin to the discuss the RW the thread jumps from Barristan to Ned to the RW, which is fully offtopic. Ned himself is offtopic, other than to prove the difference between honor and moral even in the eyes of the Westerosi.

Now, my point does "seem to be" that any dishonorable act, no matter how despicable, must be seriously considered as an option if it were to prevent war. That is indeed my point.

You're questions are whether raping or torturing one person is the lesser evil when compared with raping and torturing thousands. Unfortunately the rape question can not be answered in this open minded forum and since it's tied to the torture question, neither can be answered or I'll get banned and insulted by the forum moderators.

Obviously Ned has some lines he will not cross, no matter the personal cost or the cost to others. That was what caused him his life and the downfall of his family. You may think it is morally repugnant to prefer war over the murder of a child, but I see where he is coming from. I can see why the assassination was something he would never consider (Especially knowing about his sister and Jon)

I'm not sure Ned's downfall was because of lines he wouldn't cross. If he had enough men of his own to pull his coup or if he had gone directly to Slynt (or just hired sellswords and hedge knights who might still be in town after the Tournament) his coup would have been successful, despite handicapping himself by speaking with Cersei.

You can express what you wish, but does not make it less true. Evidence: the Cosmos; Nature and by extension man and history. Never has existed a period of time with no war. Conflict is inherent in all of nature.

Do you mean in Planetos or in the real world? Switzerland, Sweden and Chile are countries which haven't fought a war since the 19th Century. In Planetos, Tywin Lannister and Aerys II ruled the Seven Kingdoms through twenty years of peace. Braavos doesn't seem to have been at war since they defeated Pentos about a hundred years before the events of AGOT.

A good ruler doesn't just shrug off the possibility of war. A good ruler seeks to avoid war whenever possible and to wage it when, where and how it best suits his country. A good ruler doesn't hear "Hey, those guys are plotting war against your country" and says "Shit happens"

It's not obvious, especially where Daenerys is concerned. Just to be clear, you are talking about preemptive war tactics, involving child murder.

Well, we as readers know Daenerys was nagging Drogo to invade the Seven Kingdoms. You're right in that the Small Council doesn't know that, but the objective of the marriage is rather clear, at least where Viserys and Drogo are concerned.

[Starspear]

If we begin to the discuss the RW the thread jumps from Barristan to Ned to the RW, which is fully offtopic.

Do you mean in Planetos or in the real world? Switzerland, Sweden and Chile are countries which haven't fought a war since the 19th Century. In Planetos, Tywin Lannister and Aerys II ruled the Seven Kingdoms through twenty years of peace. Braavos doesn't seem to have been at war since they defeated Pentos about a hundred years before the events of AGOT.

Well, we as readers know Daenerys was nagging Drogo to invade the Seven Kingdoms. You're right in that the Small Council doesn't know that, but the objective of the marriage is rather clear, at least where Viserys and Drogo are concerned.

Both. The three countries you mention don't live in a vacuum. War is simply a magnification of conflict, which as I mention, is inherent to life and the cosmos.

Your definition of a good ruler is subjective to your own code and priorities. From the result of the quiz, you are most like Tywin Lannister. ;)

You're right; time to get back on topic.

[TheButcherCrow]

Barry is my favourite character. A complete contradiction, a more honourable man you will not meet but yet as is well documented, he is the Margy Tyrell of bodyguards. Why? I Can't believe that he does it for position, he doesn't seem that kind of man. Barry is the classic old soldier, I think that after Robert won the throne Barry was pissed with Aerys for leading Westeros into this totally stupid war. I think he was pissed at Rheagar for the same and joing Team Bob was a fuck you to the Targs

[Parwan]

1. Robb Stark marries Jeyne to protect her honor (or so he says). In doing so, he puts Jeyne's honor ahead of the needs of his realm. We know the consequences of that. Jon decides that his duty to protect the Realm is more important than his honor and, in the event of a conflict between them, he'd rather dishonor himself.

2. And indeed, both Pycelle and Baelish try to appeal to Ned's sense of morality, and their appeals fall on deaf ears because Ned isn't moved by morality. He didn't care if thousands could die, and more people would end up maimed, raped, sacked and otherwise end up with their lives ruines if Daenerys was left to live. He only cared that assassinations are dishonorable. As for Ned's plan to put Stannis in the throne, to the best of his knowledge,

3. it would cause a needless war (because, as far as Ned knows, Stannis isn't aware of the incest). I don't need to claim it. Littlefinger's arguments are in the novels and Ned doesn't even consider them.

And both Pycelle and Littlefinger's arguments do prove that at least them think morality and honor are different things.

Again, artificial and completely unconvincing.

1. Robb and Jon face tough choices, and they make their decisions. This in no way proves that there is a distinction between honor and the protection of the realm. At best, it might indicate that these two guys may think there is a distinction. In fact, it doesn't even do that. We have no reason, for example, to say that Jon separates protecting the realm from honor. Quite the contrary. He took an oath to protect the realm. Keeping that oath is obviously a matter of honor. You seem to believe that because honor can come into conflict with certain other moral considerations, therefore the two things are entirely separate. This is like trying to say that red and color are different things. After all, red can be contrasted with green.

2. Utter nonsense. Ned isn't moved by morality? He isn't, for example, moved by the love of his family? He doesn't think of this love as a matter of morality? In the debate about killing Dany, Ned starts by pleading with Robert, "You are talking of murdering a child." Lord Stark clearly thinks that this is a moral matter. It is absurd to maintain that he is arguing, "Well murder, you know, is quite moral, but it isn't honorable." Similarly with Barristan. The knight says there is no honor in killing an enemy in his mother's womb. The evidence is overwhelming that these people consider honor part of morality.

Pycelle and Baelish as moral authorities? Is that supposed to be some kind of joke? Let's say these guys maintained that two entities related to ethics are completely separate things. That would constitute good reason to believe that the two entities are at least fairly closely related. But even your argument about their opinions is weak. Pycelle asks if it wouldn't be kinder if Daenerys should die. Notice the comparative adjective? The Grand Maester is clearly indicating that there is a moral dispute involved here. It would be kind (i.e. good, moral--not just honorable) to let the young woman live. Unfortunately, it would seem kinder to kill her. At any rate, the argument does not fall on deaf ears. The king asked for a vote. He did not want the Hand to respond in detail to each of his councillors. Furtnermore, Ned probably felt no need to respond. He had already given what he thought were good reasons to believe there would be no such war. The king didn't accept his reasoning. The king had a majority of the council on his side. There would have been no point in the Hand's disputing Pycelle's argument.

3. You not only need to claim it. You need to prove it, and you have failed to do so. Littlefinger makes arguments. That does not mean that LIttlefinger is appealing to morality. Indeed, Littlefinger appealing to morality is like Littlefinger appealing to chastity. The man does not mention morality at all. It is obvious that he is talking about self interest, particularly Baelish's interest. Ned says that what LF is proposing is treason. LF replies, "Only if we lose." A moral argument? If that's a joke, it's an awfully weak one. LF says a war will break out. The text does not show that Ned believes this. Indeed, it's highly likely that he thinks he can prevent it. He believes he can take Cersei and her children into custody. That should prevent Caterly Rock from rising.

Overall, what we have are moral quandaries, not these artificially separated entities you put forth. Yomi's analysis in post 141 says a number of good things. "Shades of grey" is one of the themes of this story. Ned Stark and Barristan Selmy are both moral men. They do some stupid things. They do some bad things. Nevertheless, they are moral men, and their sense of honor is part of their morality.

[juanml82]

Again, artificial and completely unconvincing.

1. Robb and Jon face tough choices, and they make their decisions. This in no way proves that there is a distinction between honor and the protection of the realm. At best, it might indicate that these two guys may think there is a distinction. In fact, it doesn't even do that. We have no reason, for example, to say that Jon separates protecting the realm from honor. Quite the contrary. He took an oath to protect the realm. Keeping that oath is obviously a matter of honor. You seem to believe that because honor can come into conflict with certain other moral considerations, therefore the two things are entirely separate. This is like trying to say that red and color are different things. After all, red can be contrasted with green.

First, are you claiming that strictly following a code of honor in ASOIAF never gets in conflict with making the proper decisions?

Second, Robb is not presented with a tough choice during the Jeynegate. He chooses to defend Jeyne's honor and in doing so he looses the Frey army. That is a rather clear conflict between honor and the good of the realm.

I don't remember when exactly Jon considers the good of the realm to quote it, but he never thinks his oath to protect the realm comes first if it clashes with another issue of honor. He actually thinks his personal honor can come into conflict with what's best for the defense of the realm. And makes a choice. If you think he believes what you say, then could you please quote it?

Honor and morality are different, as one is a warrior's code and the other is about what's good and wrong. They may often overlap, but that doesn't mean they are the same thing.

2. Utter nonsense. Ned isn't moved by morality? He isn't, for example, moved by the love of his family? He doesn't think of this love as a matter of morality? In the debate about killing Dany, Ned starts by pleading with Robert, "You are talking of murdering a child." Lord Stark clearly thinks that this is a moral matter. It is absurd to maintain that he is arguing, "Well murder, you know, is quite moral, but it isn't honorable." Similarly with Barristan. The knight says there is no honor in killing an enemy in his mother's womb. The evidence is overwhelming that these people consider honor part of morality.

Pycelle and Baelish as moral authorities? Is that supposed to be some kind of joke? Let's say these guys maintained that two entities related to ethics are completely separate things. That would constitute good reason to believe that the two entities are at least fairly closely related. But even your argument about their opinions is weak. Pycelle asks if it wouldn't be kinder if Daenerys should die. Notice the comparative adjective? The Grand Maester is clearly indicating that there is a moral dispute involved here. It would be kind (i.e. good, moral--not just honorable) to let the young woman live. Unfortunately, it would seem kinder to kill her. At any rate, the argument does not fall on deaf ears. The king asked for a vote. He did not want the Hand to respond in detail to each of his councillors. Furtnermore, Ned probably felt no need to respond. He had already given what he thought were good reasons to believe there would be no such war. The king didn't accept his reasoning. The king had a majority of the council on his side. There would have been no point in the Hand's disputing Pycelle's argument.

Here's the issue: assassinations, as Barristan clearly notes, are dishonorable. They may also be immoral, but that's not what Barristan says. And, precisely, Pycelle is indicating there is a moral dispute. Now, Ned might not feel the need to answer each and everyone of the objections. But we have his thoughts. And there is absolutely nothing in Ned's thoughts after hearing Pycelle's moral argument. A man moved by morality would at least think about Pycelle's words. Ned doesn't.

3. You not only need to claim it. You need to prove it, and you have failed to do so. Littlefinger makes arguments. That does not mean that LIttlefinger is appealing to morality. Indeed, Littlefinger appealing to morality is like Littlefinger appealing to chastity. The man does not mention morality at all. It is obvious that he is talking about self interest, particularly Baelish's interest. Ned says that what LF is proposing is treason. LF replies, "Only if we lose." A moral argument? If that's a joke, it's an awfully weak one. LF says a war will break out. The text does not show that Ned believes this. Indeed, it's highly likely that he thinks he can prevent it. He believes he can take Cersei and her children into custody. That should prevent Caterly Rock from rising.

LF doesn't have to be a moral character to appeal to someone else' sense of morality. He just needs to understand there is such a thing as morality, even if he disregards it, and that some people try to follow it.

I'm not going to quote it again, as I understand you've read it already. Littlefinger's arguments against Stannis coronation revolve around the civil war he claims Stannis would trigger. Now, you may think that war is morally neutral, but it's clearly not. LF shows Ned a path leading to peace and another leading to massive rapes, tortures, murders, famines and maybe even disease. How is that "not mentioning morality"?

LF points out that Stannis will execute Cersei and her children. Can you point at any point in the text where Ned thinks he can avoid it? Any point in which Ned considers LF wrong and think he can crown Stannis and keep Cersei his hostage? Can you point at any point were Ned thinks LF is wrong regarding a potential war?

You can't, because there is none. Ned simply doesn't care.

ETA: Regarding honor and morality. Barristan says it's dishonorable to assassinate Daenerys, but it's honorable to fight the enemy in the battlefield. Pycelle argues that assassinating Daenerys is bad but fighting the enemy in the battlefield is worse. With his in mind, there is no way to pretend morality and honor are the same thing.

[TheNorth's1stKnight]

selmy is a boss

[Parwan]

First, are you claiming that strictly following a code of honor in ASOIAF never gets in conflict with making the proper decisions?

Second, Robb is not presented with a tough choice during the Jeynegate. He chooses to defend Jeyne's honor and in doing so he looses the Frey army. That is a rather clear conflict between honor and the good of the realm.

I don't remember when exactly Jon considers the good of the realm to quote it, but he never thinks his oath to protect the realm comes first if it clashes with another issue of honor. He actually thinks his personal honor can come into conflict with what's best for the defense of the realm. And makes a choice. If you think he believes what you say, then could you please quote it?

Honor and morality are different, as one is a warrior's code and the other is about what's good and wrong. They may often overlap, but that doesn't mean they are the same thing.

Here's the issue: assassinations, as Barristan clearly notes, are dishonorable. They may also be immoral, but that's not what Barristan says. And, precisely, Pycelle is indicating there is a moral dispute. Now, Ned might not feel the need to answer each and everyone of the objections. But we have his thoughts. And there is absolutely nothing in Ned's thoughts after hearing Pycelle's moral argument. A man moved by morality would at least think about Pycelle's words. Ned doesn't.

LF doesn't have to be a moral character to appeal to someone else' sense of morality. He just needs to understand there is such a thing as morality, even if he disregards it, and that some people try to follow it.

I'm not going to quote it again, as I understand you've read it already. Littlefinger's arguments against Stannis coronation revolve around the civil war he claims Stannis would trigger. Now, you may think that war is morally neutral, but it's clearly not. LF shows Ned a path leading to peace and another leading to massive rapes, tortures, murders, famines and maybe even disease. How is that "not mentioning morality"?

LF points out that Stannis will execute Cersei and her children. Can you point at any point in the text where Ned thinks he can avoid it? Any point in which Ned considers LF wrong and think he can crown Stannis and keep Cersei his hostage? Can you point at any point were Ned thinks LF is wrong regarding a potential war?

You can't, because there is none. Ned simply doesn't care.

ETA: Regarding honor and morality. Barristan says it's dishonorable to assassinate Daenerys, but it's honorable to fight the enemy in the battlefield. Pycelle argues that assassinating Daenerys is bad but fighting the enemy in the battlefield is worse. With his in mind, there is no way to pretend morality and honor are the same thing.

First, anyone who has read my posts should see that I am claiming no such thing. In my original post on this thread (pg. 7), I said:

The KIngsguard oath sucks.

...

It is like a lot of the vows in the 7K... it is inevitable that situations will arise where the followers will not be able to follow both honor and duty. I don't think that the word "tyrant" is ever used in ASoIaF. If a man has promised to follow a lord or king, no matter what, and the lord or king commands him to do terrible things, then the man is in an impossible position. This is vastly more important than some series of deductions Barristan Selmy did or did not perform properly, according to someone's standards.

Thus, it is not only possible for codes of honor to get in the way of proper decisions. In the Seven Kingdoms, this is inevitable. What you do not appear to see, what many posters don't see, and what few aristocrats in the 7K have much concept of is this: There is rot which has set well into the system itself. In your reply to me, you set up an artificial distinction where a good man couldn't take the oath, whereas an honorable man could. This is not unlike trying to distinguish between an honest man and a moral man. One does not have to "pretend morality and honor are the same thing" in order to see that the distinctions you are putting forth just don't work. I don't say that morality and honor are the same thing, any more than I say that red and color are the same thing.

Second, Rob is presented with a tough choice. His decision causes him a good bit of anguish. The fact that the choice doesn't appear tough to you, doesn't mean it's not tough for Rob.

What I said about Jon:

We have no reason, for example, to say that Jon separates protecting the realm from honor. Quite the contrary. He took an oath to protect the realm. Keeping that oath is obviously a matter of honor.

This in no way implies that Jon, or any other man, could not face situations where one aspect of honor conflicts with another issue of honor. I don't know how many times I have to say this, or how many different ways there are to say it: A large part of ASoIaF is about moral conflict. Good, or reasonably good, or partly good people face difficulties in deciding how to act. Selmy and Stark believe that speaking against the murder of a young woman (really a child in some ways) is a good and proper thing to do. They do not see such speaking out as honorable but not good, or honorable but morally neutral. Barristan Selmy is celebrated throughout the Seven Kingdoms. He is not celebrated as an honorable but not necessarily good man. Lord Eddard Stark is seen as an honest man. He is not seen as an honorable man who flat out rejects a moral path when it somehow conflicts with honor. In general, people regard honor as part of morality.

The fact that LF says that there is "path leading to peace and another leading to massive rapes, tortures, murders, famines and maybe even disease." does not establish the fact that these are the only two paths available. It certainly does not establish the fact that Ned thinks this. LF is a sleazeball and a traitor. It is perfectly possible for a man of morality and honor to believe that there are paths other than the two that a sleazeball traitor puts forth. The burden of proof is no more on me than it is on you. I have no more obligation to find places in the text that show Ned thinks he can avoid the executions than you have to point to places where he agrees that he can't avoid them. If Ned had succeeded with his (admittedly naive) plan, he would have had possession of the city, possession of the former queen and her children, support of his forces and the gold cloaks, and a good many other advantages. Stannis would have had nothing of comparable strength. LF himself says that, practically speaking, the older Baratheon brother couldn't get the throne without the Lord Regent's help. A man in Stark's position could have supported the Lord of Dragonstone and still have protected Cersei and her children.

There is no need for Selmy to specifically state that killing a child in his mother's womb is immoral. If he had said that lying is dishonorable, would you require him to specifically state that it is also immoral? If he failed to say exactly that, what would you claim? Perhaps this: "Ah, see, Ser Barristan believes truth telling is a matter of honor, not a matter of morality; the two may overlap, but they are different."

What Selmy and Stark fail to see, what most residents of the 7K fail to see, is just how flawed the system is. Interestingly, Jaime Lannister has some insight into the problem. His analysis falls well short of the full truth, but he has part of it. Others also have some inkling of the fundamental difficulties. The main point is that the difficulties are fundamental. If you promise to do everything a leader commands without holding said leader to any contractual requirements at all, you have placed yourself in an impossible position. This is the central fact, not some artificial distinction between morality and honor.