171 replies to this topic

[Northern light]

My favorite character not for his sense of honor but for his compassion. He tried to do the right thing and by the same time having compassion. Compassion for his family, friends and even Cersei and Jaime's children or the butcher's boy Mycah.

In a world as brutal as Westeros such a man must be a rarity, even if Davos comes close.

Edited by Northern light, 23 November 2011 - 05:12 AM.

[Serie]

Lord Eddard is the reason to start reading the books.

[Andal]

Eddard... It's ironic how his honor stands in the way of making adequate (the best way of putting it) decisions and the one time he chooses to dishonor himself by admitting to treason he didn't commit, he gets his head chopped off for it.

Sticking to what you think is right is hardly the best way to survive when you're alone against the world.

Edited by Andal, 23 November 2011 - 06:11 AM.

[LordBloodraven]

AverageCheese, on 22 November 2011 - 11:26 PM, said:

Whatever, its opinion. I thought a pretty big aspect of Ned was that he wasn't a superficially impressive person. He was an average looking guy who was somewhat shy and not particularly charismatic or a notable fighter. He didn't inspire loyalty in the way jaime or robert did (by being famed warriors), but by being just dutiful and decent. A key aspect of him was that catelyn was initially disappointed in him because he was a smaller plainer less socially commanding version of Brandon, but that once she got to know him she found out he had a good heart (in perhaps a way brandon didn't) and appreciated that. Instead in the TV show you have LF say how Ned is even more manly than Brandon. I thought it was a fairly major change, and turned Ned into a swaggering warrior (barristan telling him how many men he killed was lame).

Wow, when did Jaime inspire loyalty?Apart from the W5K, did we ever see Jaime leading men into battle? No, you'll have to tone this done and give Ned some justice. He was plainer than Brandon, a lesser swordsman, more reserved, yes. But he was no less a war commander and a strategist than these other dudes. Rhaegar, Robb and Robert may have been more charismatic but that doesn't mean that they inspired more loyalty than Ned, to their men. From the books, we have never seen Jaime lead his men to victory in challenging times. He was pwned at the Whispering Wood, and during AFFC, his host was ten times the size of the stronghold's garrison he meant to take. And there's no battle.

[Howlin' Howland Reed]

Northern light, on 23 November 2011 - 05:04 AM, said:

My favorite character not for his sense of honor but for his compassion.

Even though he's not my favorite character --- but rather one of many --- I agree. The Ned certainly spends a lot of time thinking about honor, and he definitely defines himself in terms of honor and being honorable. We've also seen other characters define him in the same way, both in a positive and negative light.

However, honor is not an absolute concept, there is no definite rule book of what being honorable and acting honorably means. While Westerosi culture provides some (spoken and unspoken) ground rules, each person has his or her own take. In addition, some are more concerned with how honorable they seem, while others are more concerned with how honorable they are.

Since I generally like Eddard's take on the concept, I also like the fact that he was one of those that tried to be honorable, rather than act like it. And why do I like his take on honor? Well, exactly because it includes being compassionate, and generally "good."

He's in no way a perfect guy, but then again, who is? Many people seem to think he was a "good guy," because, generally speaking, he was.

[Jamie Lannister]

I was fine with how HBO did the Ned vs Jaime fight. This is Game of Thrones, not Dragonball Z: Jaime's not going to power up and vaporize Ned with laser beams because he's just that awesome. IIRC they were fairly even for the, what, 25 seconds they were clashing? I daresay Jaime would've outclassed him anyway, if that mook guard didn't interfere after Jaime threw Ned off.

I like Ned. He's not usually my type of character (guess who is), but I felt almost robbed when Joff took his head off; I was already starting to speculate on how Ned and Jon would work to bring down the Lannisters from the Wall. Alas...

[Golden&Crimson]

Honourable, gentle, a good guy... but quite stupid sometimes.

He didn´t act firmly after he knows the truth about Cersei and Jaime children; losing a great oportunity to gave the throne to the only rightful heir - Stannis.
This foolish act of Eddard (also refusing the help of Renly) its in fact a treason to Robert, because he fails utterly the trust his deceased king had in the Hand.
So his honor little more was than passivity, pride and stupidity, because he puts his honor above the interests of the Seven Kingdoms.

Eddard Stark: an "hollier than you" type of person.

[Northern light]

"He didn´t act firmly after he knows the truth about Cersei and Jaime children; losing a great oportunity to gave the throne to the only rightful heir - Stannis.
This foolish act of Eddard (also refusing the help of Renly) its in fact a treason to Robert, because he fails utterly the trust his deceased king had in the Hand."

Hmm. A more clever player would certainly have acted differently or at least secure the gold cloaks better (than using Littlefinger) . However, telling Cersei about his knowledge about the incest was a act of mercy not of honor.

Refusing Renly's offer I do believe was more a display of his distaste of Renly's ambitions. Maybe not the wisest thing to do at that moment but he thought he had the gold cloaks in his pocket.

"So his honor little more was than passivity, pride and stupidity, because he puts his honor above the interests of the Seven Kingdoms."

Hmm. Sometimes ppl tend to miss the real targets in the "blame game". In the end you can't blame Ned for the problems Westeros has for the moment. Sure, he missed a opportunity to establish peace and order but he was hardly the instigator (see Lannisters, Littlefinger and Varys).

Edited by Northern light, 23 November 2011 - 09:17 AM.

[MarianneSnow]

oba, on 22 November 2011 - 09:36 PM, said:

Yes.  Jaime's a great fighter.  What does this have to do with appreciation or even non-appreciation of Ned Stark?  That would be like going on the Jaime Lannister appreciation thread and talking about how clever Littlefinger is.  LF is clever, but, what would that have to do with Jaime?  Likewise, Jaime's a tremendous swordsman.  What does that have to do with Ned Stark?  Or is Jaime just so darned awesome that the mere fact that show-Ned might possibly detract from Jaime's awesomeness in the eyes of those who saw the show before reading the books diminish one's appreciation of the character of Eddard Stark?

I was reading this thread thinking the same thing...This is not a Jamie Appreciation Thread, It's a Ned one...If you love Jamie so much find the thread and tell it to the world.

Edited by MarianneSnow, 23 November 2011 - 09:27 AM.

[Buckwheat]

Ned is a really tragic character. His honour and his mercy, the most positive traits of his, caused his death. But the memory lives on in his children. To Ned!

[Miryana]

Quote

Sticking to what you think is right is hardly the best way to survive when you're alone against the world.

On the other hand, some people do think there are values worth dying for, and find themselves able to summon the needed moral courage when the moment comes. ASOIAF acknowledges that selfishness and greed are major human motivations, but despite the grittiness of the series, I don't think that GRRM portrays them as something to be embraced and celebrated. When someone like Ned or Davos is willing to risk much to save the life of a child, I do believe GRRM presents it as a moral act. Ned was surrounded by aggressively amoral power grabbers, so it didn't work out for him. Davos dealt with a better man, so he kept his life and saved the innocent. Despite the different consequences of these acts, both characters showed great moral courage. Since I'm not ready to abandon the idea of individual moral acts as hopeless and worthless, I respect Ned and Davos.

Quote

Wow, when did Jaime inspire loyalty?Apart from the W5K, did we ever see Jaime leading men into battle? No, you'll have to tone this done and give Ned some justice. He was plainer than Brandon, a lesser swordsman, more reserved, yes. But he was no less a war commander and a strategist than these other dudes. Rhaegar, Robb and Robert may have been more charismatic but that doesn't mean that they inspired more loyalty than Ned, to their men.

What do we see in ADWD? Men ready to die to save the Ned's little girl. Ned may not have inspired loyalty as a glamorous, heroic warrior, but especially after ADWD, I think it's clear that he inspired a different kind of loyalty: the result of years of just rule and the respect he showed for his people and his duty. It's not a short-term strategy like the Red Wedding or Tywin's campaigns of terror, but something with long-term benefits. It's the legacy he left his children, and I believe it'll lead to one of them ruling the North in the end. So you might say that Ned lost as an individual, but his House will be able to survive a terrible defeat in part because of the way he lived his life.

And I think Ned wanting to spare the Lannister children is the most badass act in the series. Not badass in the sense of "wow, awesome" duels like Oberyn vs the Mountain, Jaime's fighting prowess, Tyrion's clever quips, or a general tough attitude. But badass as something impressively exceptional, especially in the vicious world of ASOIAF, in its display of humanity and compassion, the refusal to surrender to the ease of selfishness and creation of justifications for brutality. The parents of these children tried to murder his own little boy, crippled him for life, in order to hide their treason. Yet Ned ignores the opportunity for personal revenge or even for washing his hands and letting the children meet their fate: instead he actively tries to prevent any harm coming to innocents. What a contrast to how the Lannister adults had treated Ned's children before and would treat them in the future, responding to this act of mercy by delivering Ned's children to murder, betrayal, violent abuse (physical, and sexual as well if some of them had gotten their way), and the usurpation of their inheritance.

Ned's honour wasn't a matter of empty forms; that's Jaime's newfound "honour" when he rules-lawyers his way into feeling pride and self-satisfaction over how he kept the letter of his oath to Cat... when delivering Riverrun to the rule of her murderers and ensuring they got their reward for the violation of guestright. Ned's honour is modern because it does include the element of compassion, the sense of his moral duty towards other people as a lord and as an individual, not simply his rights. In the end, responsibility and compassion govern him far more than the concept of stubborn "rules and appearances only" honour that many of the other characters embrace.

Edited by Miryana, 23 November 2011 - 04:39 PM.

[Howlin' Howland Reed]

Miryana, on 23 November 2011 - 04:38 PM, said:

On the other hand, some people do think there are values worth dying for, and find themselves able to summon the needed moral courage when the moment comes.

[...more great stuff...]

Ned's honour is modern because it does include the element of compassion, the sense of his moral duty towards other people as a lord and as an individual, not simply his rights. In the end, responsibility and compassion govern him far more than the concept of stubborn "rules and appearances only" honour that many of the other characters embrace.

This! (All of it.)

[Arkantos]

AverageCheese, on 22 November 2011 - 09:19 PM, said:

Yes ned is a great fighter even though no one in the books ever mention his combat ability, and the only record of a fight he was in is was one where he and his master-at-arms lost to a single man. Whereas Jaime is repeteadly cited as a great warrior, brienne (herself a great fighter) says no one in the land could stand against him, barristan cites him as a great natural swordsmen ect.

Well, Ned managed to survive long enough against Arthur Dayne, arguably a better swordsman than Jaime, for Howland Reed to come and help him. I don't see how you can complain that he managed to suvive a few seconds against Jaime in the series, it didn't show him to be a great swordsmen at all, did you just expect Jaime to kill him after 3 hits or something? That's a ridiculous notion.

On another note, Ned was awesome and i'd gladly have been one of his soldiers (not on the frontline of course).

[fassreiter]

Miryana, on 23 November 2011 - 04:38 PM, said:

Ned's honour is modern because it does include the element of compassion, the sense of his moral duty towards other people as a lord and as an individual, not simply his rights. In the end, responsibility and compassion govern him far more than the concept of stubborn "rules and appearances only" honour that many of the other characters embrace.

Hell, yes to all of your great post, thank you!
Exactly because of that I think Ned's story is something like the core element of the whole story, being repeated over and over in different settings (how often have we been confronted with the choice of killing one single child for the greater good now?) and he is the reason it is far from 'gritty nihilism', as many people seem to think. It's not a story about rational efficiency. The Tickler is efficient. Gregor Clegane is efficient. Why should I want to read a story about such as the likes of them? It's about individual choices in a gritty world, but that doesn't mean we should just give in to its rules.
Also, Lord Eddard is now 'the Ned'. People whose first names can be used as a title are cool anyway.

[Evamitchelle]

LordBloodraven, on 23 November 2011 - 06:24 AM, said:

Wow, when did Jaime inspire loyalty?Apart from the W5K, did we ever see Jaime leading men into battle? No, you'll have to tone this done and give Ned some justice. He was plainer than Brandon, a lesser swordsman, more reserved, yes. But he was no less a war commander and a strategist than these other dudes. Rhaegar, Robb and Robert may have been more charismatic but that doesn't mean that they inspired more loyalty than Ned, to their men. From the books, we have never seen Jaime lead his men to victory in challenging times. He was pwned at the Whispering Wood, and during AFFC, his host was ten times the size of the stronghold's garrison he meant to take. And there's no battle.

That "he didn't inspire loyalty like Jaime or Robert did" is actually one of Tyrion's comment about himself I think. I think it's in Clash where he thinks that soldiers would gladly follow Jaime or Addam Marbrand  or Roert into battle but wouldn't follow a dwarf like him.

[Knight of Ashes]

I like him more than I care to admit. I mean, I wish my dad had taken me to beheadings when I was 10 years old.

[Andal]

Knight of Ashes, on 23 November 2011 - 07:04 PM, said:

I like him more than I care to admit. I mean, I wish my dad had taken me to beheadings when I was 10 years old.

And he does have the urge to execute everyone and everything himself.

[Greybeard]

Andal, on 23 November 2011 - 07:06 PM, said:

Knight of Ashes, on 23 November 2011 - 07:04 PM, said:

I like him more than I care to admit. I mean, I wish my dad had taken me to beheadings when I was 10 years old.

And he does have the urge to execute everyone and everything himself.

I wouldn't say it's an urge, Ned doesn't come across as actually enjoying shortening anyone by a head. I think his view was if you delegate carrying out capital punishment to a headsman, you can get too casual about sentencing people to death.

Doing it yourself means that you have to be pretty damn sure that the condemned man deserved to die.

[Andal]

Greybeard, on 23 November 2011 - 07:26 PM, said:

I wouldn't say it's an urge, Ned doesn't come across as actually enjoying shortening anyone by a head. I think his view was if you delegate carrying out capital punishment to a headsman, you can get too casual about sentencing people to death.

Doing it yourself means that you have to be pretty damn sure that the condemned man deserved to die.

I understand his motivations, it was meant as a half-joke.

[Greybeard]

Fair enough, though in the absence of smilies, it can sometimes be tricky deciding if someone's being entirely serious.