The Starks were never Theon's family

[Lost Melnibonean]

Are the Lannisters Hoster Blackwood's family?

Not yet. Hoster's abit older than ten, no? But if Hostercwere to admire the loving home that is House Lannister, and if he were to come to idolize Jaime as a father figure, and develop a fraternal relationship with Tommen...

[King Brandon Ice Eyes]

Ned had to choose between supporting Stannis, the rightful heir and Joffrey, an illegitimate son.

First of all, Ned has a lot of troubles with deceit. Every time he lies keeps thinking the lies you tell for love. Did he once told a lie when it was not for love? Do you really believe he would cover something like this up for the people who tried to murder his son, ... Support the Lannisters! They tried to murder my son but you must support them. Would you be able to do that? Ned could never walk away. How would it look the Hand and the King's best friend did not publicly support the (supposed) son.

Maybe it is a way to get his own revenge for their (sometimes supposed) crimes to support Stannis' claim instead of Joffrey's but it was still according the rules accepted by all parties involved.

Second he tried to support Stannis' claim in a civil way. He was interrupted. He tried to take Cersei and her children into custody. This failed. Did he anywhere started a real war against another army? If he would succeeded in his plan, it would depend on Tywin if a war would start. In my eyes the blame would fall on Tywin on the condition that Cersei would get a fair trial.

If Stannis would start a campaign against Targ loyalists, ... Stannis should get the blame for a possible war.

Ned never wanted a war.

Ned might be in way responsible for his family's misfortune but his decisions were not immoral.

Exactly.

[Eden-Mackenzie]

I don't believe Ned would agree to an arrangement where he might have to kill an innocent child. My hypothesis is that he was so burned out on children being killed after Robert's Rebelliion that when the Greyjoys rebelled, Ned volunteered to take young Theon hostage so he could make sure he didn't get his head cut off because of his name.

Everything we know about Ned's personality hints it to be this way. What a character says or does is not always what s/he actually wants to do or what s/he actually feels.

Ned arranged for Cersei and her children to escape, despite he knew she committed treason and deserved death. Ned, the one who always (almost) does the right thing, risked himself to suffer Robert's fury when he finds out about Cersei's betrayal and how he helped her to escape. He could have simply sent the children away and deliver Cersei to Robert. Yet, he didn't.

There are so many ways out for Ned and Theon's situation that didn't involve killing him. Also, he was more useful as a leverage. Balon either believed Ned would kill him and behaved or he said "fine, don't mind. Kill him" and Ned didn't need to actually do it because Balon was going to attack either way. The fact Ned was kind or cold towards Theon is irrelevant. He only was obligated to feel love for his children. He was obligated to treat Theon as the important hostage he was. That's it.

I also think it is likely Ned suggested/agreed to take Theon as a way to save his life.

And, I cannot believe I'm saying this, to be fair to Balon, look at when he started his second rebellion: Robert was dead, Ned was dead or at least imprisoned, Starks are being led by a boy raised with Theon and have currently taken the field against the boy "Baratheon" king who has the support of the Lannisters, the remaining Baratheon brothers are fighting each other. Theon has already been in several battles and by all accounts has done well. Clearly Theon's life is no longer in danger, so why not give rebellion another go?

Also, this is what I think a lot of people are missing:

Is this really a misconception? Or is this more of a very grey and ambiguous situation that is supposed to foster this very debate?

The term "Family" is a complicated one. The question of what a person "owes" another is equally complicated. Indeed one of the foundational questions of society is what standards of conduct do we owe each other. So I am not entirely comfortable with what is "owed" as being limited to the question of whether a relationship between people constitutes a "family." Its not as simple as "If Family, then owe something," "If not family, owe nothing." Relationships and responsibilities don't work like that.

Staking out the position that Theon "owed" the Starks nothing is as legitimate or illegitimate as taking they position that he "owed" them everything. I suppose readers could find reasons to adhere to one school or the other. A lot depends on the definition of "owe."

But for my money, if a reader is dug in either way, they've really missed the best parts of Theon's arc. His guilt, his nightmares and all his inner turmoil is a wondrous roller coaster ride. Why pigeonhole it either way?

[Lee-Sensei]

I also think it is likely Ned suggested/agreed to take Theon as a way to save his life.

Save his life from what?

[Wmarshal]

Don't caring directly is obvious way worst.. and that was a truly horrible act, but let's not pretend the others care and there is not suffer and pain just because we don't see it right on front of us or because it's not done from direct actions... we just don't relate to those outsiders because they don't tell theirs story. Sucks to be smallfolk and all those Lords don't give a damn when they want "play" the game.

If Catelyn thinks taking Tywin son wouldn't have bloody consequences... than i don't even know what to tell you... And Ned didn't care for Mycah he only puts his toughts on Arya's feelings, but you are indeed right there was not much to Ned do and if he would go extreme, he would really put him and his family in jeopardy. He could resign as Hand because of the situation.. but surely that would be some not so good consequences...

Tywin is the living embodiment of taking things where no one expects it to go, his son is captured and in the hands of the daughters of the man he held hostage in his castle, this is straight up promised Tyrion's death, if Lysa wasn't dumber than a sheep.

[Tijgy]

Where did I call him immoral?

Sorry. I think some else did. Or at least said his actions were immoral.

And he screwed up. Big time. His family and Westeros paid the price. For 15 years he had lied about Jons parents, he should have done the same here or have the balls to tell Robert while he was still alive.

Sorry. But I hope you realize there is huge difference for Ned between lying about Jon's parentage and lying about Joffrey.

He lied about Jon to protect out of his love for his sister. Why would he lie about Joffrey? Like I said before, he believes the Lannisters tried to kill his son, they were involved in the murder of Elia and children, they killed Jon Arryn. Empathy people, empathy.

Ned is very conflicted about lying. One of his own principles is that lying is forbidden. But the time he got older, he realized lying is sometimes necessary to protect the ones you love. Two thing poor Ned keeps telling him self are "Promise me, Ned" and The lies you tell for love. He keeps telling these two thing himself to justify towards himself the lies he told about Jon.

Do you really believe he would be able to justify lies about Joffrey?

Ned isn't a Bloodraven. For him, the ends doesn't justify the means. Is it really wrong to believe that?

Yes, he did refused to lie about Joffrey to protect his honour in the meaning of his personal integrity and his allegiance to his moral principles. He never did it to protect his honour in the meaning of fame and glory.

Men would whisper afterwards that Eddard Stark had betrayed his king's friendship and disinherited his sons; he could only hope that the gods would know better, and that Robert would learn the truth of it in the land beyond the grave.

For Ned, it never was about to be known as honorable in the eyes of everybody else. It was at least never the main reason behind his actions. His actions were lead by respecting his own moral code. And I don't think his moral code was made out of immoral rules.

When you keep saying "his honour demanded it", you keep saying his own personal integrity demanded it. Can you really say that his actions were immoral?

I also believe a war would have started even when Ned would have sworn fealty to Joffrey. Stannis knew about Joffrey's parentage. Would he have not fight for his inheritance either way?

[thelittledragonthatcould]

Sorry. But I hope you realize there is huge difference for Ned between lying about Jon's parentage and lying about Joffrey.

He lied about Jon to protect out of his love for his sister. Why would he lie about Joffrey? Like I said before, he believes the Lannisters tried to kill his son, they were involved in the murder of Elia and children, they killed Jon Arryn. Empathy people, empathy.

Where is Neds empathy for Tommen and Myrcella or the hundreds of thousands of smallfolk who would suffer during a war?

Robert allowed the killing of the Targaryen children; "I see no babes, only dragonspawn." Just like Ned does not see a problem in taking a child hostage and used as insurance against the Ironborn trying to get independence in the future.

And the Lannisters didn't kill Arryn, just like Tyrion didn't try to assassinate Bran. If Ned wasn't so hung up on trying to pin crimes on a House he clearly despises then maybe he would not have been played so easily by Littlefinger.

I also have to wonder how poor he was as a judge in the North as he is clearly not an impartial judge, allowing his personal feelings to sway his opinion. How many innocents did he sentence to death based on his poor judge of character.?

Ned is very conflicted about lying. One of his own principles is that lying is forbidden. But the time he got older, he realized lying is sometimes necessary to protect the ones you love. Two thing poor Ned keeps telling him self are "Promise me, Ned" and The lies you tell for love. He keeps telling these two thing himself to justify towards himself the lies he told about Jon.

Do you really believe he would be able to justify lies about Joffrey?

If it meant no war, then he should have done. He was able to justify committing treason to King Robert on his deathbed by changing the Kings last will and testament to something he wanted.

Ned would lie to spare Robert his feelings not but not lie when it came to the lives of Joffrey, Tommen and Myrcella.

Ned would not lie when told there would be war, but when Sansa's life was threatened he was willing to lie. Thousands of smallfolks daughters was not worth keeping a lie, his own daughter was.

Had Ned considered the fate of his own family he would have lied, as he only thought it was the smallfolk who would suffer he had no problem.

Ned isn't a Bloodraven. For him, the ends doesn't justify the means. Is it really wrong to believe that?

Well in the end Ned abandoned his principles. "The old knight would not abandon Joffrey easily. The need for deceit was a bitter taste in his mouth, but Ned knew he must tread softly here, must keep his counsel and play the game until he was firmly established as regent." He also abandoned his principles when he falsified the Kings will and had Littlefinger bribe the Gold Cloaks to do his bidding, or when he ignored Roberts wishes to have Tyrion freed.

You could say that trying to be like a Bloodraven is what doomed him.

Yes, he did refused to lie about Joffrey to protect his honour in the meaning of his personal integrity and his allegiance to his moral principles. He never did it to protect his honour in the meaning of fame and glory.

Again, you are accusing me of arguments I have never made. When have I mentioned Ned wanting fame and glory?

For Ned, it never was about to be known as honorable in the eyes of everybody else. It was at least never the main reason behind his actions. His actions were lead by respecting his own moral code. And I don't think his moral code was made out of immoral rules.

Once again, I have never called him immoral.

When you keep saying "his honour demanded it", you keep saying his own personal integrity demanded it. Can you really say that his actions were immoral?

You keep on accusing me of calling him immoral. Seems a poor way to try and score points in a discussion.

I also believe a war would have started even when Ned would have sworn fealty to Joffrey. Stannis knew about Joffrey's parentage. Would he have not fight for his inheritance either way?

I believe it as well. The point is Ned didn't, he didn't know Stannis was assembling a pitiful 5k army nor did he know that Renly was about to usurp the crown.

What he did know that was crowning Stannis would mean certain war, certainly more war and bloodshed than there would be if Joffrey was crowned instead. He doesn't care; "So it will be Stannis, and war?"

"It is not a choice. Stannis is the heir."

Now this would possibly be a fair argument but 20 years ago Ned was quite happy to give Viserys & Dany's crown to Robert. Now when Littlefinger suggests keeping the peace and have Ned act as Joffreys regent, making him think of Ned as a second father Ned accuses Littlefinger; "Have you no shred of honor?"

His honour demands war and the lives of thousands, unless his daughters life is threatened and then he backs down toot sweet. Sansa's life is more valuable than thousands of smallfolks lives, something Ned has in common with Cersei and Tywin.

[Miodrag]

And now your twisting things again? Theon wasn't scheming. He wasn't on a mission to knock down old ladies. He ran down stares and sccidentally knocked her over. although, why you're bringing Hodor up is strange. The proper characters to bring up would be the highborn ones. Would you say the Stark boys owed Theon anything?

So, you do know what exaggerating is after all! Of course I was exaggerating about Old Nan, but you're doing that all the time. When you say "Ned stole half of Theon's life", that is nothing but exaggerating. Because, as you said of Theon, Ned wasn't scheming. He wasn't on a mission to take someone else's children. He helped his king to crush the rebellion and then, after rebellion was crushed, he and his king effectively saved Balon's life and lives of his brothers and even Theon's life by deciding to take Theon as a hostage. All this time you're ignoring the very basis of a feudal society, which is the family. When you start a war, it is a rule and not an exception that your entire family is inevitably involved. As Balon's son, Theon couldn't help but be affected by Balon's rebellion. As Balon's only remaining son and heir, Theon inevitably had his life completely changed once the rebellion failed. Boiling it down to "But he was an innocent child" is a shallow simplification.

Yes, as an individual Theon was an innocent child and nobody's denying that. But in a society like Westeros highborns are never individuals, not even when they're children. The moment he was born, Theon became a dutiful Greyjoy, and that was amplified many times once his older brothers were dead. Whatever happens to Balon, Theon is the next leader of the Greyjoys and, by extension, of the Iron Islands. That means that Balon's faith influences Theon more than our modern father-son relationships could ever imply.

That is the tragic duality of Theon's position after rebellion. On one hand, he is an innocent child. On the other hand, he is the son and heir of a defeated traitor. Ignoring one of these two aspects is shallow simplifying, I'm afraid. And, to their credit, looks like Robert and Ned didn't ignore anything. After Balon's defeat, they offered the Greyjoys the most moral deal possible. Not the most effective: that would be annihilating the Greyjoys - but that would be as immoral as it gets, I'm sure we agree. But, of all the effective ways to deal with the defeated Balon, they opted for the one which is by far the most moral. And, considering both aspects of Theon's position, it's even best for Theon. Much more preferable than a death sentence for Balon and brothers, which was the only realistic alternative. In a society which commands everyone to be loyal to own family, Theon's lucky he doesn't have to carry the burden of his father's and his uncles' deaths on his shoulders. Whether he'd actually try to avenge them or not, is really not important for the point I'm trying to make, because he'd be expected to do so by literally everyone. Even if Balon and brothers were only imprisoned and not executed, which is not a very realistic option for numerous reasons (what is imprisoned may be free one day and rise again harder and stronger), at the very least Theon and Asha are sent to some family to be fostered there, and not to mention the power vacuum that'd ensue in the Iron Islands, which, because of the family rules I explained, would paint the targets on both Theon's and Asha's back.

And yes, before you say, I know that there's always a possibility everything works out fine for Theon in some of the alternatives. However, given the culture of Westeros in general, and the culture of Iron Islands in particular, those possibilities aren't likely. The chances that Balon's execution/imprisonment doesn't affect Theon's life are very slim, and definitely not something Robert or Ned or anyone could count on after the rebellion was crushed.

It is not only a simplification but fundamentally wrong when you say Theon's position as a hostage is tantamount to Sansa's position as a prisoner. The very text proves the opposite. Everything we know about Theon's life in Winterfell explicitly shows he had the freedom Sansa can only dream about. For starters, he was not forced to marry anyone. Also, he didn't have to hide to meet anyone, as Sansa absolutely has when she meets Dontos. He even slept with girls of his own choosing, and even with miller's wife. Is Sansa allowed to do anything similar? Of course she isn't. And it's not about Starks or Lannisters. Not even Starks treat their prisoners as they treated Theon. Jaime Lannister can testify to that. And also, Hoster Blackwood is the living proof Lannisters treat their hostages much different than their prisoners. All in all, a hostage isn't and never will be the same as a prisoner. Not even close. That doesn't mean a hostage has absolute freedom. Of course not. A hostage is really not the same as a free man. Theon was not a free man in Winterfell, and nobody's denying that, as far as I can see.

Of course, a boy of ten couldn't even begin to understand everything. It's only natural Theon, when taken to Winterfell, felt he was wronged. Who wouldn't in his shoes? I would, you obviously would, and I guess any child would, too. And it's not a surprise he found himself in a conflicting situation in no time: he loves the Starks, he'd want to be one of them, but he's a Greyjoy, and everyone sees a Greyjoy in him, even the Starks do. Once Balon decided not to side with Robb but to attack him, there was no happy solution for Theon any more. Does it mean he owed Stark anything? Now, that is a tough question, because he obviously owed them something (they treated him as good as they could, and he befriended Robb, and so on), and he basically owes anyone not to attack them out of the blue (although, it was Balon's decision, not Theon's, and Theon could obey or not, but he obviously couldn't change Balon's decision). But, he also owes his father something, regardless of the fact Balon's a bloodthirsty psychopath. Like, Theon's sent to negotiate with Balon precisely because he is the son and heir of Balon Greyjoy. Having all that in mind, I think saying he owed Starks nothing is equally wrong as saying he owed them everything.

Now, if your reply is still "But he was an innocent boy" and "Ned stole half of his life", I'm gonna kill myself. And you'll be responsible.

[Miodrag]

And he screwed up. Big time. His family and Westeros paid the price. For 15 years he had lied about Jons parents, he should have done the same here or have the balls to tell Robert while he was still alive.

You do realize all three things you accuse Ned of are actions of the highest morality?

He lied about Jon's parentage to protect the boy. Smearing your own reputation for good in order to save a child is as moral as it comes.

Keeping quiet about Joff's parentage is effectively helping a criminal conspiracy and illegitimate (and also illegal) coup organized by one Cersei Lannister, a very depraved individual. Ned chose the opposite, as only a moral man would.

Telling Robert the truth would devastate his dying friend, and also lead to the carnage and death of all of Cersei's children. Kids definitely have no right to sit on the throne, but they also don't deserve to die.

[Tijgy]

Once again, I have never called him immoral.

You keep on accusing me of calling him immoral. Seems a poor way to try and score points in a discussion.

Nice when can agree on that Ned isn't an immoral person.

But like I said before: "Sorry. I think some else did. Or at least said his actions were immoral."

But I don't understand then: what you are trying to proof?

I started to use my arguments to proof there was a difference between Balon's decisions and Ned's decisions from a moral point of view.

I might be wrong but I think you are trying to proof Ned made the wrong decisions. So if you doing that based on morality, what criterium are you using? And how can it be relevant to the discussion?

Again, you are accusing me of arguments I have never made. When have I mentioned Ned wanting fame and glory?

You are saying Ned made those decisions out of honour. One of the definitions of honor is getting fame of glory. But in this I maybe made a mistake. English is not my native language. It is dutch And the literal translation of honour is "eer"; and according to me this word had the connotation of gaining a good name, a great reputation, ... It is never really associated with the personal integrity, it is more how other people look at someone else.

And I wanted to say he did these actions not out the want to get glory, fame or a good name, ...

Men would whisper afterwards that Eddard Stark had betrayed his king's friendship and disinherited his sons; he could only hope that the gods would know better, and that Robert would learn the truth of it in the land beyond the grave.

I merely wanted to say the honour in connection Eddard Stark could only associated with his wish to act according his personal integrity and not out the wish to be esteemed by everyone else. And I never said anywhere you were only saying Ned did his actions to get a good name, ...

I only made a distinction between the possible definitions of honour and used both definitions on Ned's actions. You never said what your interpretation of honour was.

[INCBlackbird]

Where is Neds empathy for Tommen and Myrcella or the hundreds of thousands of smallfolk who would suffer during a war?

Robert allowed the killing of the Targaryen children; "I see no babes, only dragonspawn." Just like Ned does not see a problem in taking a child hostage and used as insurance against the Ironborn trying to get independence in the future.

And the Lannisters didn't kill Arryn, just like Tyrion didn't try to assassinate Bran. If Ned wasn't so hung up on trying to pin crimes on a House he clearly despises then maybe he would not have been played so easily by Littlefinger.

I also have to wonder how poor he was as a judge in the North as he is clearly not an impartial judge, allowing his personal feelings to sway his opinion. How many innocents did he sentence to death based on his poor judge of character.?

If it meant no war, then he should have done. He was able to justify committing treason to King Robert on his deathbed by changing the Kings last will and testament to something he wanted.

Ned would lie to spare Robert his feelings not but not lie when it came to the lives of Joffrey, Tommen and Myrcella.

Ned would not lie when told there would be war, but when Sansa's life was threatened he was willing to lie. Thousands of smallfolks daughters was not worth keeping a lie, his own daughter was.

Had Ned considered the fate of his own family he would have lied, as he only thought it was the smallfolk who would suffer he had no problem.

Well in the end Ned abandoned his principles. "The old knight would not abandon Joffrey easily. The need for deceit was a bitter taste in his mouth, but Ned knew he must tread softly here, must keep his counsel and play the game until he was firmly established as regent." He also abandoned his principles when he falsified the Kings will and had Littlefinger bribe the Gold Cloaks to do his bidding, or when he ignored Roberts wishes to have Tyrion freed.

You could say that trying to be like a Bloodraven is what doomed him.

Again, you are accusing me of arguments I have never made. When have I mentioned Ned wanting fame and glory?

Once again, I have never called him immoral.

You keep on accusing me of calling him immoral. Seems a poor way to try and score points in a discussion.

I believe it as well. The point is Ned didn't, he didn't know Stannis was assembling a pitiful 5k army nor did he know that Renly was about to usurp the crown.

What he did know that was crowning Stannis would mean certain war, certainly more war and bloodshed than there would be if Joffrey was crowned instead. He doesn't care; "So it will be Stannis, and war?"

"It is not a choice. Stannis is the heir."

Now this would possibly be a fair argument but 20 years ago Ned was quite happy to give Viserys & Dany's crown to Robert. Now when Littlefinger suggests keeping the peace and have Ned act as Joffreys regent, making him think of Ned as a second father Ned accuses Littlefinger; "Have you no shred of honor?"

His honour demands war and the lives of thousands, unless his daughters life is threatened and then he backs down toot sweet. Sansa's life is more valuable than thousands of smallfolks lives, something Ned has in common with Cersei and Tywin.

THIS!!! jesus christ, I thought I was the only person on this forum who saw that! thank god I'm not. Ned is not a bad guy but he's not nearly as perfect as everyone claims him to be! and you don't need to whitewash his actions to defend him, you can do that just fine with saying "he's still a good person" because he is. BUT he did chose war over a bunch of innocent lives!

[Miodrag]

THIS!!! jesus christ, I thought I was the only person on this forum who saw that! thank god I'm not. Ned is not a bad guy but he's not nearly as perfect as everyone claims him to be! and you don't need to whitewash his actions to defend him, you can do that just fine with saying "he's still a good person" because he is. BUT he did chose war over a bunch of innocent lives!

So, what would a perfect guy do in Ned's shoes? Swear fealty to Joff? Let Cersei rule?

[Eden-Mackenzie]

Save his life from what?

Ebola, obviously. Or from what is mentioned in the two posts I quoted and my response to you from a few days ago. The Worldbook may say Robert laughed when he learned of Balon's first rebellion, but laughter is no guarantee of a lack of anger or a lack of a desire to destroy. Also, the book was written by a Maester during the Baratheon reign as a way to curry favor, and I do believe I have seen discussions in both the books and on this forum regarding the reliability of the written words of the maesters.

[INCBlackbird]

So, what would a perfect guy do in Ned's shoes? Swear fealty to Joff? Let Cersei rule?

well no one is "perfect" but a better person than Ned would have followed littlefingers plan if they believed it would work and save innocent lives. So yes, he would have sworn fealthy to Joffrey, tried to help him be a good king and try to prevent war at all cost.

[King Brandon Ice Eyes]

Where is Neds empathy for Tommen and Myrcella or the hundreds of thousands of smallfolk who would suffer during a war?

His empathy for Tommen and Myrcella shows when he is willing to let Cersei get away with her crimes by running away if it meant keeping the children safe from Robert's wrath. His empathy for the smallfolk is way bigger than most nobles. He took bold measures to ensure Gregor was punished for his crimes.

Robert allowed the killing of the Targaryen children; "I see no babes, only dragonspawn."

...and Ned was pissed and had nothing to do with it.

Just like Ned does not see a problem in taking a child hostage and used as insurance against the Ironborn trying to get independence in the future.

An independence that would cost instability and hundreds of life.

And the Lannisters didn't kill Arryn, just like Tyrion didn't try to assassinate Bran. If Ned wasn't so hung up on trying to pin crimes on a House he clearly despises then maybe he would not have been played so easily by Littlefinger.

And if Ned wasn't suspicious of the Lannisters he could also never find out their treason and they would get away with it. Or he would be caught up in the middle of a war between Stannis and the Lannister backing the wrong side. Cersei didn't kill Jon Arryn but she was planning to kill Robert, her son sent an assassin to murder his son and Jaime did push Bran from a window and Tyrion was covering for him.

I also have to wonder how poor he was as a judge in the North as he is clearly not an impartial judge, allowing his personal feelings to sway his opinion. How many innocents did he sentence to death based on his poor judge of character.?

We can't know that. He executed one guy who was claiming he saw creatures that weren't seen in thousands of years and may have never existed. I don't think that was a common occurrence. He misjudged the extent of Littlefinger's untrustworthiness but he never truly mistook him for a good, stand up guy, only a useful ally. Baelish grew up as practically Catelyn's brother and he trusted her judgement on the subject. I can't blame her either. Ned certainly never thought Littlefinger was the perfect Hand, like Goldenhand the Just did in AFFC, for example. The only people who oversaw Baelish's ambitious were Varys and Tyrion and only to some extent. He was right about everyone else: the Lannister didn't kill Jon Arryn but they were traitors and murderers and it would be in their best interest to have Jon Arryn out of the picture.

If it meant no war, then he should have done. He was able to justify committing treason to King Robert on his deathbed by changing the Kings last will and testament to something he wanted.

He changed the testament to spare Robert's feelings on his deathbed. Do you think Robert would name Joffrey his heir if he knew the truth? It was a very hard decision either way and by taking the matters in his own hands he could also spare the lives of the children something he suspected Robert wouldn't do. If he had told Robert the truth Robert could have ordered Joffrey, Tommen and Myrcella dead and Ned would have to carry on the order.

Ned would lie to spare Robert his feelings not but not lie when it came to the lives of Joffrey, Tommen and Myrcella.

See above.

Ned would not lie when told there would be war, but when Sansa's life was threatened he was willing to lie. Thousands of smallfolks daughters was not worth keeping a lie, his own daughter was.

Yes, he lied after Varys reminded him of that in a threatening way after a long conversation that also involved him reminding him of the lives of smallfok and the suffering of innocents. Before that he hadn't pondered any of that and he was perfectly willing to give his own life for the truth. That is a freaking big commitment. Who's to say he lied only to spare Sansa's life but the rest of Varys' speech had no effect on him? We don't have his POV after that. I bet his daughter's life was more important to him but can you really blame him?

Had Ned considered the fate of his own family he would have lied, as he only thought it was the smallfolk who would suffer he had no problem.

Well in the end Ned abandoned his principles. "The old knight would not abandon Joffrey easily. The need for deceit was a bitter taste in his mouth, but Ned knew he must tread softly here, must keep his counsel and play the game until he was firmly established as regent." He also abandoned his principles when he falsified the Kings will and had Littlefinger bribe the Gold Cloaks to do his bidding, or when he ignored Roberts wishes to have Tyrion freed.

He very begrudgingly abandoned some of his principles to ensure the Lannister didn't get away with treason. Who would have left that situation in a squeaky clean fashion? Either way he would have to compromise. Either way he was the only one trying to make moral decisions in the city. Everyone else was looking for their best interests, laws and lives be damned! Why the shitstorm that followed must rest on his shoulders and not everyone's else?

I believe it as well. The point is Ned didn't, he didn't know Stannis was assembling a pitiful 5k army nor did he know that Renly was about to usurp the crown.

Ned had good reason to believe Stannis knew the truth. Even after he found out about the twincest Stannis leaving KL was one of his first clues that something was wrong and the Lord of Dragonstone had discovered something very important that made him flee the capital

What he did know that was crowning Stannis would mean certain war, certainly more war and bloodshed than there would be if Joffrey was crowned instead. He doesn't care; "So it will be Stannis, and war?"

"It is not a choice. Stannis is the heir."

He didn't know for sure there would be war if Stannis was crowned. That was Baelish's opinion on the matter. If Stannis was crowned, in Ned's mind, he would have a lot of support: Starks, the crown, Storm's End, the Tullys, maybe even the Greyjoys and Arryns, considering Theon was his hostage and Lysa was the one who warned him in the first place (he had no reason to suspect her ulterior motives and her isolationist, take-no-sides policy).

Now this would possibly be a fair argument but 20 years ago Ned was quite happy to give Viserys & Dany's crown to Robert. Now when Littlefinger suggests keeping the peace and have Ned act as Joffreys regent, making him think of Ned as a second father Ned accuses Littlefinger; "Have you no shred of honor?"

He was happy to do that because their efforts and sacrifices put an end in the Targaryen dynasty. Joffrey was put in the throne by treason. It's completely different.

His honour demands war and the lives of thousands, unless his daughters life is threatened and then he backs down toot sweet. Sansa's life is more valuable than thousands of smallfolks lives, something Ned has in common with Cersei and Tywin.

Come on, Cersei and Tywin? They are the biggest assholes in that department. Tywin is the guy who hangs a woman because she owned a tavern where his son was arrested, sends Gregor, Vargo and company to pillage, burn and rape innocent people and gangrapes a peasant teenage girl, etc. Cersei is the one who massacres Stark household in KL, willingly puts the lives of thousands in constant peril by committing treason because she didn't want to have a child with Robert and wanted to rule Westeros through her son, sends innocent girls and a bard to be tortured by Qyburn because they made a puppet show and the bard happened to be in the middle of her plans to frame Margaery, uses an innocent prostitute as hostage and promises to inflict her unimaginable pain, etc. Ned, as a lord, probably thinks the laws and nobility are more important than the lives of the common folk but that he would have in common with Davos, Edmure, Catelyn, you know, the best, most compassionate people who still despite all their qualities, still agree with their class system and uphold the same laws, that determines the rightful heir has to sit on the Iron Throne. Not Tywin and Cersei who display sociopathic indifference to others.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

You do realize all three things you accuse Ned of are actions of the highest morality?

You are the second person to try and create an argument that I have not made. I have not called him immoral, just pointed out his actions.

He lied about Jon's parentage to protect the boy. Smearing your own reputation for good in order to save a child is as moral as it comes.

Cersei did the same for her children. Robert would have had Jon, Joffrey, Tommen and Myrcella all killed if he knew who their fathers really were.

Keeping quiet about Joff's parentage is effectively helping a criminal conspiracy and illegitimate (and also illegal) coup organized by one Cersei Lannister, a very depraved individual. Ned chose the opposite, as only a moral man would.

Is changing the King last will and bribing the Gold cloaks to arrest the royal family not also a criminal conspiracy?

He's perfectly happy to use 'criminal' methods when it is for his agenda, even when that agenda guarantees war.

Telling Robert the truth would devastate his dying friend, and also lead to the carnage and death of all of Cersei's children. Kids definitely have no right to sit on the throne, but they also don't deserve to die.

So war and the thousands who would suffer is OK as long as he doesn't upset his friend. He chickened out, Robert was a volatile man who was as likely to blame Ned as he was Cersei. Lets do a tally count, when Ned wanted Lady saved and Cersei wanted her executed whose side did he take? When Jaime and Ned fought and Ned was injured whose side did he take? and when Ned told Robert that he imprisoned Tyrion for trying to assassinate Bran whose side did he take?

Robert was the only man alive who had the authority to label Joffrey, Myrcella and Tommen as illegitimate, he decided to make that decision himself by falsifying Roberts will and bribing the Gold Cloaks.

And lets leave the weak argument that he only did it to save the children's lives, Stannis would have them killed as well.

[Miodrag]

well no one is "perfect" but a better person than Ned would have followed littlefingers plan if they believed it would work and save innocent lives.

You do realize Littlefinger is scheming for war the entire time, right? In effect, you're saying that a better person would avoid war by listening to the guy who's actually been trying to ignite the war from the beginning. Does that sound logical to you?

And no, Ned doesn't know about Littlefinger's secret plans. But he knows a dishonest and immoral suggestion when he sees one. That's why he refuses Littlefinger's suggestion. Everything we know proves Ned was more than right. I mean, just imagine Joff's rule with Ned and his reputation behind it. Ned who knows Joff's reign is illegal and illegitimate. Just imagine the possibilities that situation offers to a schemer like Littlefinger - to have the control over Ned, on top of everything else.

So yes, he would have sworn fealthy to Joffrey, tried to help him be a good king and try to prevent war at all cost.

And what would Ned do with Baratheon brothers? You know, Joff's "uncles". Renly knows Ned knows Renly wanted Joff arrested. Stannis knows Joff's not the heir. How would Ned deal with them?

All in all, this peace of yours you seem to be advocating doesn't look a bit less bloody than what actually happened. Even if looked from the purely utilitarian side you prefer.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

His empathy for Tommen and Myrcella shows when he is willing to let Cersei get away with her crimes by running away if it meant keeping the children safe from Robert's wrath. His empathy for the smallfolk is way bigger than most nobles. He took bold measures to ensure Gregor was punished for his crimes.

He had no empathy. He was worried about telling Robert, Cersei fleeing proves her guilt. Did he really take bold measures? He sent a few knights and guess what, Gregor was never punished for that crime. He did the bare minimal.

...and Ned was pissed and had nothing to do with it.

No, the king he had just made had allowed it and celebrated it.

An independence that would cost instability and hundreds of life.

Would it? Would Jon and Robert go to war against Ned if he declared independence after the end of the War? I kind of doubt it, neither was in a position after the war to wage a war against the North. Both had fought civil wars in their own regions and were worried about the Loyalists in Dorne and the Reach.

And if Ned wasn't suspicious of the Lannisters he could also never find out their treason and they would get away with it. Or he would be caught up in the middle of a war between Stannis and the Lannister backing the wrong side. Cersei didn't kill Jon Arryn but she was planning to kill Robert, her son sent an assassin to murder his son and Jaime did push Bran from a window and Tyrion was covering for him.

Its lucky that Ned didn't hear Robert telling people that it would be better for Bran to be killed or he would have started suspecting his King.

Ned didn't like the Lannisters before Bran was pushed, he was easily manipulated by Littlefinger as he was eager to hear that they had done bad. They could have been innocent, it would not have mattered as he would have been looking for crimes to pin on them.

We can't know that. He executed one guy who was claiming he saw creatures that weren't seen in thousands of years and may have never existed. I don't think that was a common occurrence. He misjudged the extent of Littlefinger's untrustworthiness but he never truly mistook him for a good, stand up guy, only a useful ally. Baelish grew up as practically Catelyn's brother and he trusted her judgement on the subject. I can't blame her either. Ned certainly never thought Littlefinger was the perfect Hand, like Goldenhand the Just in AFFC, for example. The only people who oversaw Baelish's ambitious were Varys and Tyrion and only to some extent. He was right about everyone else: the Lannister didn't kill Jon Arryn but they were traitors and murderers and it would be in their best interest to have Jon Arryn out of the picture.

They didn't kill Jon Arryn, they didn't even know he was investigating them. Ned allowed himself to be played.

He changed the testament to spare Robert's feelings on his deathbed. Do you think Robert would name Joffrey his heir if he knew the truth? It was a very hard decision either way and by taking the matters in his own hands he could also spare the lives of the children something he suspected Robert wouldn't do. If he had told Robert the truth Robert could have ordered Joffrey, Tommen and Myrcella dead and Ned would have to carry on the order.

So treason is OK if it spares a friends feelings? Come on, why is it so hard to admit that Ned committed treason and bribed the Gold Cloaks?

Those kids are dead whether he tells Robert or Stannis. It wasn't to spare their lives that he chickened out.

See above.

See above

Yes, he lied after Varys reminded him of that in a threatening way after a long conversation that also involved him reminding him of the lives of smallfok and the suffering of innocents. Before that he hadn't pondered any of that and he was perfectly willing to give his own life for the truth. That is a freaking big commitment. Who's to say he lied only to spare Sansa's life but the rest of Varys' speech had no effect on him? We don't have his POV after that. I bet his daughter's life was more important to him but can you really blame him?

Just like other characters. Cersei wants to protect her children, Tywin goes to war when Tyrion is kidnapped. Ned is just like them in that regard.

He very begrudgingly abandoned some of his principles to ensure the Lannister didn't get away with treason. Who would have left that situation in a squeaky clean fashion? Either way he would have to compromise. Either way he was the only one trying to make moral decisions in the city. Everyone else was looking for their best interests, laws and lives be damned! Why the shitstorm that followed must rest on his shoulders and not everyone's else?

He didnt abandon his principles, he committed treason to make sure that the Lannisters didn't get away with treason. He is no better than they are in that regard. At least they didnt know that war would have happened because of their treason, unlike Ned.

Ned had good reason to believe Stannis knew the truth. Even after he found out about the twincest Stannis leaving KL was one of his first clues that something was wrong and the Lord of Dragonstone had discovered something very important that made him flee the capital

So. We know what Ned was thinking. He didn't think war was going to happen anyway. He was told war would happen if he crowned Stannis. It is in the text, his words and thoughts.

He didn't know for sure there would be war if Stannis was crowned. That was Baelish's opinion on the matter. If Stannis was crowned, in Ned's mind, he would have a lot of support: Starks, the crown, Storm's End, the Tullys, maybe even the Greyjoys and Arryns, considering Theon was his hostage and Lysa was the one who warned him in the first place (he had no reason to suspect her ulterior motives and her isolationist, take-no-sides policy).

Then why was he worried about Jaime returning with an army, the need to bribe the gold cloaks and trying to get his family away from the capital as quickly as possible.

Littlefinger tells him there will be war, he does not deny this. He accepts that this will be a consequence. This is in the text.

He was happy to do that because their efforts and sacrifices put an end in the Targaryen dynasty. Joffrey was put in the throne by treason. It's completely different.

Ned tried to remove Joffrey with treason. Why is one treason OK and another not?

Come on, Cersei and Tywin? They are the biggest assholes in that department. Tywin is the guy who hangs a woman because she owned a tavern where his son was arrested, sends Gregor, Vargo and company to pillage, burn and rape innocent people and gangrapes a peasant teenage girl, etc. Cersei is the one who massacres Stark household in KL, willingly put the lived of thousands in constant peril by committing treason because she didn't want to have a child with Robert and wanted to rule Westeros through her son, sends innocent girls and a bard to be tortured by Qyburn because they made a puppet show and the bard happened to be in the middle of her plans to frame Margaery, uses an innocent prostitute as hostage and promises to inflict her unimaginable pain, etc. Ned, as a lord, probably thinks the laws and nobility are more important than the lives of the common folk but that he would have in common with Davos, Edmure, Catelyn, you know, the best, most compassionate people who still despite all their qualities, still agree with their class system and uphold the same laws, that determined the rightful heir has to sit on the Iron Throne. Not Tywin and Cersei who display sociopathic indifference to others.

All I stated is that all put their children first above the lives of thousands of smallfolk. They are similar in that regard.

[Tijgy]

well no one is "perfect" but a better person than Ned would have followed littlefingers plan if they believed it would work and save innocent lives. So yes, he would have sworn fealthy to Joffrey, tried to help him be a good king and try to prevent war at all cost.

This is the main problem.

There have several occasions where the Lannister family hurt innocent lives. Elia, Aegon, Rhaenys, Bran, the people attacked by the Clegane in the Riverlands, the Sacking of King's Landing, ...

Did you really think Ned would ever trust them?

And I think Ned started having his doubts about Joffrey's health (a bit late but yes....) He would really trust he will save innocent lives when he would place a "mad king" on the throne. After what Aerys did to his brother and father.

[INCBlackbird]

This is the main problem.

There have several occasions where the Lannister family hurt innocent lives. Elia, Aegon, Rhaenys, Bran, the people attacked by the Clegane in the Riverlands, the Sacking of King's Landing, ...

Did you really think Ned would ever trust them?

And I think Ned started having his doubts about Joffrey's health (a bit late but yes....) He would really trust he will save innocent lives when he would place a "mad king" on the throne. After what Aerys did to his brother and father.

than why didn't he give that as a reason? he doesn't think about that and we have acces to his thoughts, in fact he doesn't even consider anything else he says "it's not a choice" the problem is that Ned would have done the same thing even if Joffrey we're the kindest sweetest kid. because he didn't say no because of Joffrey, he said no because "it's not a choice, stannis is the heir"