What did Ned tell Robert and Jon Arryn about the ToJ?

[Hajk]

The reason I ask this question is that some of the things that are obvious to the readers ought to be obvious to Robert and Jon as well. They would also be obvious to others in the series. These would include:

1) Ned is an honorable person and it is highly unexpected that he would sire a bastard.

2) The King's Guards at the ToJ should have been doing their best to protect the new king. Why the hell were they hanging out at the ToJ rather than rushing to protect the remaining royal family?

These points seem to be among the most convincing to those who read the books. Why don't they bother anyone in the books?

[corbon]

The reason I ask this question is that some of the things that are obvious to the readers ought to be obvious to Robert and Jon as well. They would also be obvious to others in the series. These would include:

1) Ned is an honorable person and it is highly unexpected that he would sire a bastard.

Nobody is perfect, even the best of us. Robert gives mention to this idea when he says "She must have been a rare wench if she could make Lord Eddard Stark forget his honor, even for an hour."

Note that Robert things Mr Upright Ned Stark slipped up once with a rare (common) wench.

Not even Robert thinks that Mr Upright Ned Stark could slip up with a noblewoman.

Its a basic scenario. Mr Upright says he slipped. If he's upright, he slipped despite himself. If he's not upright, then he's perfectly capable of slipping. Either way its believable.

As too everyone else. Ned is a pretty much unknown, the new Kings friend but barely known south of the Vale before the war nor after it. Why would anyone question that some distant lord might have had a bastard?

2) The King's Guards at the ToJ should have been doing their best to protect the new king. Why the hell were they hanging out at the ToJ rather than rushing to protect the remaining royal family?

These points seem to be among the most convincing to those who read the books. Why don't they bother anyone in the books?

First, it should be a huge red flag to anybody who knows, 3KG at the ToJ. Yet nobody says anything about them being there, and nobody appears to have thought on the consequences of them being there and nobody appears to have asked more questions.

Second, because it would be such a red flag, is is entirely in Ned's interest to not mention it. A secret is not a secret as soon as you tell someone else, and that would go triple for telling Robert. Ned is damn good at secrets.

So, if its best for Ned that he not mention it, and there appears to be none of the expected consequences of him mentioning it, it seems rather likely he simply didn't mention it. We already know from his conversation with Robert about Wylla that Ned is an expert in deceiving without technically lying. Its actually an easy skill (I used it regularly when I was gaming a lot) for someone who is fundamentally honest.

Its real simple.

Ned went south from Storms End. He found Lyanna who, sorry Robert, died in his arms of a fever. End of story.

Also, at some stage in the south, he found Arthur Dayne (not necessarily a connection with Lyanna and deliberately no implication of one by Ned) who did not survive being found. He returned Dawn to the Daynes because it was the honourable thing to do.

Thats the best story Ned can offer from his side. Its all true (just not the whole truth) yet has no great implications. Why would he say more?

Its likely Robert would be satisfied with that, trusting Ned and being focused on Lyanna's death anyway. Why would Jon probe deeper either? And how difficult would it be to deflect deeper questions at such an early stage that they don't have a chance to go anywhere dangerous?

The mysterious disappearances of Hightower and Whent become footnotes in history, simply lost in the confusion of a continent spanning civil war.

[Hajk]

First, it should be a huge red flag to anybody who knows, 3KG at the ToJ. Yet nobody says anything about them being there, and nobody appears to have thought on the consequences of them being there and nobody appears to have asked more questions.

Second, because it would be such a red flag, is is entirely in Ned's interest to not mention it. A secret is not a secret as soon as you tell someone else, and that would go triple for telling Robert. Ned is damn good at secrets.

So, if its best for Ned that he not mention it, and there appears to be none of the expected consequences of him mentioning it, it seems rather likely he simply didn't mention it. We already know from his conversation with Robert about Wylla that Ned is an expert in deceiving without technically lying. Its actually an easy skill (I used it regularly when I was gaming a lot) for someone who is fundamentally honest.

Its real simple.

Ned went south from Storms End. He found Lyanna who, sorry Robert, died in his arms of a fever. End of story.

Also, at some stage in the south, he found Arthur Dayne (not necessarily a connection with Lyanna and deliberately no implication of one by Ned) who did not survive being found. He returned Dawn to the Daynes because it was the honourable thing to do.

Thats the best story Ned can offer from his side. Its all true (just not the whole truth) yet has no great implications. Why would he say more?

Its likely Robert would be satisfied with that, trusting Ned and being focused on Lyanna's death anyway. Why would Jon probe deeper either? And how difficult would it be to deflect deeper questions at such an early stage that they don't have a chance to go anywhere dangerous?

The mysterious disappearances of Hightower and Whent become footnotes in history, simply lost in the confusion of a continent spanning civil war.

So the ToJ story as well as who he actually buried there when he tore it down is generally unknown in Westeros?

because i agree that this ought to be a red flag (one would imagine, unless the readers are attaching more significance to the event that they should). But it doesn't seem to matter to anyone.

[Hajk]

There does seem to be at least some awareness of the fact that Arthur died along with other King's Guards. The World book has "He died nobly with his sworn brothers at the end of Robert's Rebellion, after Lord Eddard Stark was said to have killed him in single combat." I imagine Eddard would not have kept the site of the grave secret either.

[CJ McLannister]

I believe when Jaime was reading through the White Book, there's a reference to Arthur being killed by Ned, but I'm not sure if it's clear. If the story of Lyanna's kidnapping is widely accepted, I don't think it's wholly unreasonable to think that she'd be heavily guarded. If Robert's Rebellion was a game of capture the flag, she was the flag.

The timing might also be a factor. It seems like the Trident to Kings Landing to Storm's End happened rather quickly. It could be believed that by the time the 3 KG's learned of Rhaegar's death, they were too late to get to King's Landing and protect Aerys.

Now, I don't think Ned would be foolish enough to admit she died as a result of child birth. Even if he claimed that the baby died as well, it would bring up too many questions.

[aryagonnakill#2]

I always saw it as a matter of seeing what you expect to see. Ned is known as this honorable guy, so when he tells you he dishonored himself you like "Wow Ned did that?" But why on earth would you expect that same honorable guy lied about it? If you look at it in a more abstract way it seems obvious, but at the end of a war with a new dynasty to start, everyone was probably just "whatever" about it.

[The Mountain That Flies]

Ned could have split the story in half, with finding Lyanna and fighting the Kingsguard occurring separately. There's no one to refute that besides his buddy Howland, and the site of the Tower of Joy (and all those bodies) remains unknown.

[Little and Less]

Actually I'm not sure if it is known that Ned killed Arthur at the TOJ. It may be noted only that Ned killed Arthur Dayne somewhere in the south. I'm not sure how many people actually know about the TOJ - including Robert and Jon Arryn.

I'm not even sure Robert knew about the TOJ, or else he would have gone to save Lyanna.

I agree with Corbon - even the best of us slip up. If you are 17, in a rebellion, could die at any moment, you might take solice in somebody's arms and maybe father a bastard.

[stateofdissipation]

The reason I ask this question is that some of the things that are obvious to the readers ought to be obvious to Robert and Jon as well. They would also be obvious to others in the series. These would include:

1) Ned is an honorable person and it is highly unexpected that he would sire a bastard.

2) The King's Guards at the ToJ should have been doing their best to protect the new king. Why the hell were they hanging out at the ToJ rather than rushing to protect the remaining royal family?

These points seem to be among the most convincing to those who read the books. Why don't they bother anyone in the books?

1) Ned is an honorable person and it is highly unexpected that he would sire a bastard.

An honorable person can make mistakes.

Honorable does not equal without flaw or blemish.

Ned makes mistakes and accepts the responsibility for the consequences of his actions. That is what makes him honorable.

Raising his bastard as his son was accepting the responsibility for consequences of his actions.

--- it was the honorable thing to do--

2) The King's Guards at the ToJ should have been doing their best to protect the new king. Why the hell were they hanging out at the ToJ rather than rushing to protect the remaining royal family?

Shaw: Can you explain why the King's Guard chose to stand and fight Ned at the Tower of the Joy instead of protecting the remaining royal family members?

There is no significant difference between the posted question and Shaw's question.

The question has been answered.

Martin: The King's Guards don't get to make up their own orders. They serve the king, they protect the king and the royal family, but they're also bound to obey their orders, and if Prince Rhaegar gave them a certain order, they would do that. They can't say, "No we don't like that order, we'll do something else."

http://web.archive.org/web/20051103091500/nrctc.edu/fhq/vol1iss3/00103009.htm

What did Ned tell Robert and Jon Arryn about the ToJ?

Ned as you pointed out is an honorable man. He told them the truth; Lyanna died in childbirth.

Robert's assertion that Rhaegar raped Lyanna hundreds of times

and

Petyr's comment: Bed enough women and some will give you presents.

Connect the reality of the world and what Ned told Robert and Jon.

Alternatively Robert believed Rhaegar to be sterile or Lyanna to be taking moon tea.

Ned telling Robert the truth only becomes a problem if Lyanna's child was male and survived.

We can make a better case for Robert knowing the truth than we can for Lyanna having a male that survived.

Circumstantial evidence trumps no evidence.

[The Ned's Little Girl]

Ned as you pointed out is an honorable man. He told them the truth; Lyanna died in childbirth.

I'm pretty sure that Ned told Robert that Lyanna died of a fever, and didn't elaborate.

Because if he said Lyanna died in childbirth while he simultaneously acknowledges a bastard of the same age (which is surprising enough to comment upon)? Even someone not numbers-oriented like Robert can add 2 + 2.

[stateofdissipation]

I'm pretty sure that Ned told Robert that Lyanna died of a fever, and didn't elaborate.

Because if he said Lyanna died in childbirth while he simultaneously acknowledges a bastard of the same age (which is surprising enough to comment upon)? Even someone not numbers-oriented like Robert can add 2 + 2.

the fever had taken her strength.

This does not mean she had a fever when she died. That is an interpretation as the time and duration of the fever that took her strength is not given.

Fever is not given as cause of death. Around the time of her death she had a fever. The room smelled of blood and roses.

Cause of death is an assumption.

Would Ned telling Robert that Lyanna died of a fever be a lie or not?

Robert believes Rhaegar raped Lyanna hundreds of times. To conclude he gathered that from a fever requires a big stretch.

To conclude he gathered it from common knowledge does not.

Petyr's statement: "bed enough women and some will give you presents" is common knowledge. "Bed the same woman enough times and she will give you a present" is also common knowledge.

There are three basic options for Robert's accusation that Rhaegar raped Lyanna hundreds of times:

1, Robert made a baseless assumption.

2. Robert was told it happened.

3, Robert deduced it from what he was told.

There is not an option that is supported by the text.

Because if he said Lyanna died in childbirth while he simultaneously acknowledges a bastard of the same age

We do not have how long it took for Ned to reach the tower of joy after the sack or how long it took to return.

Jon was born 8 or 9 months or thereabouts before Dany-- 8 1/2 months after the sack (Rossarts made Hand at flight served for 2 weeks.)

Jon's birth can be months before Ned arrived at the tower.

Claiming Jon to be the same age as Lyanna's child is a stretch.

Jon was in Winterfell when Cat arrived. We do not know how he got there.

Claiming that Ned acknowledged Jon when he told Robert of Lyanna's death is a stretch.

(which is surprising enough to comment upon)? Even someone not numbers-oriented like Robert can add 2 + 2.

If you insist upon making assumptions that lead to the conclusion that Ned lied, you will eventually have a case against Ned telling the truth.

[The Ned's Little Girl]

Robert believes Rhaegar raped Lyanna hundreds of times. To conclude he gathered that from a fever requires a big stretch.

To conclude he gathered it from common knowledge does not.

Petyr's statement: "bed enough women and some will give you presents" is common knowledge. "Bed the same woman enough times and she will give you a present" is also common knowledge.

There are three basic options for Robert's accusation that Rhaegar raped Lyanna hundreds of times:

1, Robert made a baseless assumption.

2. Robert was told it happened.

3, Robert deduced it from what he was told.

There is not an option that is supported by the text.

The discussion isn't about Robert's accusation of Rhaegar raping Lyanna. It's about what Ned told Robert about Lyanna's cause of death. Ned told Robert it was a fever and he didn't elaborate. I certainly didn't say that Ned's claim about Lyanna's death was a hint to Robert, so you've twisted my words there and made the big stretch yourself.

Robert accusing Rhaegar of rape is speculation on Robert's part. He doesn't know - he assumes - and there's no indication that Ned told him that. Ned was careful to tell Robert as little as possible.

Because if he said Lyanna died in childbirth while he simultaneously acknowledges a bastard of the same age

We do not have how long it took for Ned to reach the tower of joy after the sack or how long it took to return.

Jon was born 8 or 9 months or thereabouts before Dany-- 8 1/2 months after the sack (Rossarts made Hand at flight served for 2 weeks.)

Jon's birth can be months before Ned arrived at the tower.

Claiming Jon to be the same age as Lyanna's child is a stretch.

Jon was in Winterfell when Cat arrived. We do not know how he got there.

Claiming that Ned acknowledged Jon when he told Robert of Lyanna's death is a stretch.

All of that is irrelevant to my point, which was that Ned told Robert that Lyanna died of a fever and that he didn't claim anything about a child of hers.

I actually didn't claim that Ned acknowledged Jon to Robert when he told of Lyanna's death, although I can see how that misinterpretation can occur. Ned did acknowledge Jon as his bastard at some (later) point, but that if he had also previously informed Robert that Lyanna had a child, Robert could easily have figured it out. Because he knows how to count. So that militates against Ned informing Robert about anything but the bare minimum, i.e. Lyanna died of a fever.

which is surprising enough to comment upon)? Even someone not numbers-oriented like Robert can add 2 + 2.

If you insist upon making assumptions that lead to the conclusion that Ned lied, you will eventually have a case against Ned telling the truth.

I believe that Ned did lie: when he said that Jon Snow was his bastard. Yes, it's unconfirmed at this point so technically it's an assumption. I bet I'm on pretty safe ground with that assumption being the truth, though.

But that's also a whole other discussion. I really was only making one point: I'm pretty sure that Ned told Robert that Lyanna died of a fever, and didn't elaborate. The second sentence of my post gave one reason why Ned might have done that. That's all.

[Hajk]

2) The King's Guards at the ToJ should have been doing their best to protect the new king. Why the hell were they hanging out at the ToJ rather than rushing to protect the remaining royal family?

There is no significant difference between the posted question and Shaw's question.

The question has been answered.

But this seems to undercut the entire argument that says that the presence of the King's Guard indicates the presence of a royal child!

On this the guard could simply be present because they were following orders. And if no one in the books would find this explanation as a red flag, why would we?

[Hajk]

1) Ned is an honorable person and it is highly unexpected that he would sire a bastard.

An honorable person can make mistakes.

Honorable does not equal without flaw or blemish.

Ned makes mistakes and accepts the responsibility for the consequences of his actions. That is what makes him honorable.

Raising his bastard as his son was accepting the responsibility for consequences of his actions.

--- it was the honorable thing to do--

Well yes, but just like it does for the R+L=J theory on the boards, this constitutes a piece of the evidence. On its own it may not be too remarkable, but compounded with other suspicious stuff, it can fuel further questions.

[stateofdissipation]

But this seems to undercut the entire argument that says that the presence of the King's Guard indicates the presence of a royal child!

On this the guard could simply be present because they were following orders. And if no one in the books would find this explanation as a red flag, why would we?

It is more of a gutting, cleaning, frying, and eating of the kingsguard guarding royal child argument.

I can't see raising a question that has already been answered by GRRM that has never been brought up by the surviving kingsguard... or anybody else for that matter.

It is like GRRM said--- you will have to wait for future novels to find out more about what happened at the tower of joy,,,, the same SSM that says dreams are not always literal....

[stateofdissipation]

The discussion isn't about Robert's accusation of Rhaegar raping Lyanna. It's about what Ned told Robert about Lyanna's cause of death. Ned told Robert it was a fever and he didn't elaborate. I certainly didn't say that Ned's claim about Lyanna's death was a hint to Robert, so you've twisted my words there and made the big stretch yourself.

Robert accusing Rhaegar of rape is speculation on Robert's part. He doesn't know - he assumes - and there's no indication that Ned told him that. Ned was careful to tell Robert as little as possible.

All of that is irrelevant to my point, which was that Ned told Robert that Lyanna died of a fever and that he didn't claim anything about a child of hers.

I actually didn't claim that Ned acknowledged Jon to Robert when he told of Lyanna's death, although I can see how that misinterpretation can occur. Ned did acknowledge Jon as his bastard at some (later) point, but that if he had also previously informed Robert that Lyanna had a child, Robert could easily have figured it out. Because he knows how to count. So that militates against Ned informing Robert about anything but the bare minimum, i.e. Lyanna died of a fever.

I believe that Ned did lie: when he said that Jon Snow was his bastard. Yes, it's unconfirmed at this point so technically it's an assumption. I bet I'm on pretty safe ground with that assumption being the truth, though.

But that's also a whole other discussion. I really was only making one point: I'm pretty sure that Ned told Robert that Lyanna died of a fever, and didn't elaborate. The second sentence of my post gave one reason why Ned might have done that. That's all.

The discussion isn't about Robert's accusation of Rhaegar raping Lyanna. It's about what Ned told Robert about Lyanna's cause of death.

You think Roberts statements about what happened to Lyanna are not relevant to what Ned told Robert about Lyanna's death.

That leaves two options:

Ned lied.

Ned told the truth.

Ned was an honorable man, so Ned told the truth.

Ned told Robert it was a fever and he didn't elaborate.

If we have Lyanna died of a fever in the text... Ned told Robert Lyanna died of a fever.

I certainly didn't say that Ned's claim about Lyanna's death was a hint to Robert, so you've twisted my words there and made the big stretch yourself.

One wishes to know what A told B about C. Therefore, one wishes to know what B knows. That is the big stretch,

Robert accusing Rhaegar of rape is speculation on Robert's part. He doesn't know - he assumes -

There are three basic options for Robert's accusation that Rhaegar raped Lyanna hundreds of times:

1, Robert made a baseless assumption.

2. Robert was told it happened.

3, Robert deduced it from what he was told.

There is not an option that is supported by the text.

Repeating number 1 three times does not give it support in the text

and there's no indication that Ned told him that.

True, Not even if I repeat "Ned told Robert of the rape" three times,

Ned was careful to tell Robert as little as possible.

Ned said as little as possible about his sister's rape too...

All of that is irrelevant to my point, which was that Ned told Robert that Lyanna died of a fever and that he didn't claim anything about a child of hers.

----Because if he said Lyanna died in childbirth while he simultaneously acknowledges a bastard of the same age---original point...

I did address the original point... that response does not address the new point.

I actually didn't claim that Ned acknowledged Jon to Robert when he told of Lyanna's death, although I can see how that misinterpretation can occur.

----Because if he said Lyanna died in childbirth while he simultaneously acknowledges a bastard of the same age---original point...

It is only a misinterpretation if Ned has a different acknowledged bastard than Jon.

Ned did acknowledge Jon as his bastard at some (later) point, but that if he had also previously informed Robert that Lyanna had a child,

----Because if he said Lyanna died in childbirth while he simultaneously acknowledges a bastard of the same age---original point...

do "later" and "previously" add up to simultaneously?

Robert could easily have figured it out. Because he knows how to count.

----which is surprising enough to comment upon)? Even someone not numbers-oriented like Robert can add 2 + 2.--- original point.

ok

So that militates against Ned informing Robert about anything but the bare minimum, i.e. Lyanna died of a fever.

If Ned was hiding something, this makes sense. You forgot to add what Ned was hiding,

I believe that Ned did lie: when he said that Jon Snow was his bastard. Yes, it's unconfirmed at this point so technically it's an assumption. I bet I'm on pretty safe ground with that assumption being the truth, though.

Ok then..Your conclusions based on your safe assumption are then themselves safe assumptions.

But that's also a whole other discussion. I really was only making one point: I'm pretty sure that Ned told Robert that Lyanna died of a fever, and didn't elaborate.

If you have anything that says Lyanna died of a fever.... this is as you say a safe assumption.

If not...I'm pretty sure that Ned told Robert that Lyanna died and didn't elaborate.

The second sentence of my post gave one reason why Ned might have done that. That's all.

----Because if he said Lyanna died in childbirth while he simultaneously acknowledges a bastard of the same age (which is surprising enough to comment upon)? Even someone not numbers-oriented like Robert can add 2 + 2.

you have "?" I think you left out "Robert would be suspicious that Jon was Lyanna's son"---

That Robert would be suspicious is a safe assumption,

That Jon is Lyanna's son is a safe assumption.

Just one question:

How many safe assumptions can be stacked before they become unsafe?

[corbon]

There does seem to be at least some awareness of the fact that Arthur died along with other King's Guards. The World book has "He died nobly with his sworn brothers at the end of Robert's Rebellion, after Lord Eddard Stark was said to have killed him in single combat." I imagine Eddard would not have kept the site of the grave secret either.

Thats a significant flaw, yes. I think that the writers of the world book have made the same mistake as the writers on the tv series (who had an invented writeup by Barristan on the ToJ in the White Book as an open page during a scene) and forgotten that nobody knows this. Its a tiny little error "with his brothers".

The alternative is that everybody, from Ned to Jon Arryn to Varys to everyone else who thought about the past at all are all incredibly stupid.

Alternatively there's a clever explanation that no one here has thought of yet or we just haven't received enough clues to yet which GRRM will pull out as the series goes on.

I believe when Jaime was reading through the White Book, there's a reference to Arthur being killed by Ned, but I'm not sure if it's clear.

Ned returned Dawn to the Daynes. I think thats a fairly famous act. That heavily implies that he, or his men killed, Arthur or found him dead. No way Ser Arthur Dayne, Sword of the Morning, would have given up Dawn voluntarily.

There is no such reference in the White book, although the TV series may include that. Ned's men at winterfell whisper about Ned having killed Arthur Dayne in single combat, but they can't actually know and its a logical gossip by young troopers hero-worshipping their Lord given he returned Dawn to the Daynes. Ned also says that Arthur would have killed him if not for HR, which could imply combat between them, but not necessarily single combat (the 7vs3 works fine).

If the story of Lyanna's kidnapping is widely accepted, I don't think it's wholly unreasonable to think that she'd be heavily guarded. If Robert's Rebellion was a game of capture the flag, she was the flag.

No, she wasn't. It wasn't Robert's rebellion (at the time), that was the name give to it later because he was crowned King. It wasn't about Lyanna either. It was Jon Arryn's rebellion, and he started it because the Mad King demanded Robert and Ned's heads, his wards who were innocent and uninvolved. For Robert and Ned it was join or deliver up heir heads.

Lyanna's name never even comes up in what we know of the leadup to the rebellion, after her 'abduction'. Brandon commits treason, there are trials and judicial murders relating to that treason, Aerys calls for more heads and Jon Arryn says 'enough' and calls his banners in rebellion.

Robert's claim 15 years later that it was all about Lyanna is far from trustworthy. He didn't really know her at the time (Ned says as much) and his actions back then show no real care for her. While he is supposedly desperate to recover her from Rhaegar raping her 1000 times, he's busy fucking an entire brothel - not the action of a man worried about his own beloved being raped and he pretty much ignores her at the Tourney of Harrenhal, preferring to drink his mates under the table rather than hang out with her.

Instead, think upon the fact that Robert is a man who psychologically flees from any problem he can't solve with his fists and lives in a fantasy world that ignores all the major problems and issues around him (like his children, the kingdom's finances etc). The idea of his 'beloved' Lyanna is part of that fantasy. If only he'd been able to marry her, he wouldn't have been stuck in his miserable marriage with the harpy Cersei and everything would be perfect. Its a false projection, his problems are caused by his own faults and Lyanna might have been worse for him than Cersei was. But it allows him the comfort that its not all his fault.

[Ygrain]

But this seems to undercut the entire argument that says that the presence of the King's Guard indicates the presence of a royal child!

On this the guard could simply be present because they were following orders. And if no one in the books would find this explanation as a red flag, why would we?

We were in Ned's head and know that the KG were up-to-date with the events, even though they were far away and isolated. Remove that piece, and there is no need for them to be elsewhere. Remove them from the location entirely and say that you encountered them on the road, and no-one ever gives it a second thought.

[Hajk]

We were in Ned's head and know that the KG were up-to-date with the events, even though they were far away and isolated. Remove that piece, and there is no need for them to be elsewhere. Remove them from the location entirely and say that you encountered them on the road, and no-one ever gives it a second thought.

The argument often goes that they would only be there to protect a royal child. But Martin's statement (in answer to exactly this question) makes it look like that is not necessary and that following Rhaegar's order is sufficient.

The basic question is: Does rushing to Viserys take priority or does following a standing order from Rhaegar take priority (even if Rhaegar is dead now)?

The overall mission of the Kings Guards is to guard the king and the royal family etc. That is the overall rationale for their existence. Yet the structure of military institutions is often such that in practice direct orders often take priority over questions regarding whether the overall imperative is specifically being met in a particular case.

[Hoppy Hour]

We were in Ned's head and know that the KG were up-to-date with the events, even though they were far away and isolated. Remove that piece, and there is no need for them to be elsewhere. Remove them from the location entirely and say that you encountered them on the road, and no-one ever gives it a second thought.

:agree: