269 replies to this topic

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

OK, OK. So I think Ned is stupid.  

I also find the concept of honor to be nonsensical, particularly within the confines of a feudal society. The issue is of course that in such a society all authority is derived from the high lords themselves and ultimately the king.  This means that each lord can have their own honor code and be accountable to no one, except the king should said king have sufficient power to subdue them.  In other words, there is no code of conduct except might makes right.  While there's nothing inherently foolish about relying on  a honor code to govern one's actions, to expect others to operate according to one's own code invites disaster.  And limiting your actions by an arbitrary set of prescribed conditions gives undue advantage to your adversaries.  

Now I know people are going say Ned has a fundamental moral code which governs his actions and makes him more noble than many of character we see in the series.  However, lets not forget when we first meet Ned he is beheading a terrified man who has just witnessed the reemergence of 8,000 year old ice demons.  Sure he's warden of the north and cutting off people's heads is part of his duty but no one forced him to be warden of the north. When Myran Trant is beating Sansa in obedience to the king, no one really suggests that duty sufficiently justified those actions.  Once Ned is willing to except killing is acceptable that waging war over family disputes is acceptable where exactly is the honor?  Once Ned immerses himself in the world of high lords playing the game of thrones, how can it possibly be reasonable for him to hold to his honor while unleashing war on the realm.  For example, Ned states that the difference between himself and a Lannister is that he does not murder children.  But is that necessarily noble?  How many children die for the sake Tommen, Joffrey and Marcella? Ned could easily have lost the lives of his own children and ultimately does lose a son, a wife, his own life and his home.  And for what? Righteousness, honor? No, because Stannis happened to be born before Renly.  Could there be anything more arbitrary, more ridiculous to lose everything you hold dear over?

Ned Stark, in a fashion which he appears to be singular to him even among the Starks, repeatedly refuses to learn the lesson that honor is a imaginary concept.  There are only two logical reason for Ned to behave in this manner. 1) For the purposes of the plot or 2) Ned is stupid, meaning he lacks the ability to predict the actions and motivations of his potential allies and adversaries.  Without breaking the fourth wall, there is no other conclusion to draw than Ned Stark is simply, not smart.

"Hauser contrasts the dilemmas faced by hypothetical individuals called Ned and Oscar. Ned is standing by the railway track. Unlike Denise, who could divert the trolley onto a siding, Ned's switch diverts it onto a side loop which joins the main track again just before the five people. Simply switching the points doesn't help: the trolley will plough into the five anyway when the diversion rejoins the main track. However, as it happens, there is an extremely fat man on the diversionary track who is heavy enough to stop the trolley. Should Ned change the points and divert the train? Most people's intuition is that he should not. But what is the difference between Ned's dilemma, and Denise's? Presumably people are intuitively applying Kant's principle. Denise diverts the trolley from ploughing into the five people, and the unfortunate casualty on the siding is 'collateral damage', to use the charmingly Rumsfeldian phrase. He is not being used by Denise to save the others. Ned is actually using the fat man to stop the trolley, and most people (perhaps unthinkingly), along with Kant (thinking it out in great detail), see this as a crucial difference."

Richard Dawkins,The God Delusion

Edited by Lord Littlefinger's Lash, 28 March 2012 - 09:43 AM.

[Ashen Shugar]

Well yes, even in this day and age things like honesty and honour can be used against you very easily by those who feel there own iterests should come before everyone elses and are willing to compromise or forsake entirely their honour. I hope it is never looked down upon as stupid by the majority of society though.. then the terrorists win!

Yes Ned upholding his moral code cost him a lot. Though then you have people like Renly and Petyr who are pretty much the embodiment of what you think Ned should be, and things have not worked out so well for Renly and I think pete's due for a fall soon too.

Also, the main flaw in Neds code of honour is that he is pretty much alone in adhering to it. If everyone stuck to Neds philosophy westeros would be much better off, he is one of the few characters in the story you can say that about. If all nobles were like Petyr, or Tywin, Doran, Varys etc the kingdom would never know peace but if they were all like Ned..

[FuzzyJAM]

It isn't dishonourable to execute a deserter.  That's how military forces work.  You can sympathise with the "terrified man", but executing him is still perfectly justifiable.  
As for waging war against the Mad King. . .well, we have no idea what would happen without Robert's Rebellion - middle knowledge doesn't exist.  We do know, however, that the Mad King did something worthy of deposition.  



If you're willing to compromise your principles then they're not principles.  Having a moral code and refusing to compromise it to your own advantage is something worthy of respect, not ridicule.

[Fire Eater]

Honor isn't stupid, in that society it was what connected people to others. Dan Haggard puts it succinctly:

Quote

When Jon speaks with Lord Mormont – the commander of the Night’s Watch – after his brief desertion, Mormant is reasonably forgiving.  But he sums up nicely the way in which Jon is a product of the ties to his brothers in the Night’s Watch.  He says:  ’Honour made you leave, and Honour made you come back.”  - as if to say that Jon is at the mercy of the tensions implicit in the concept of honour itself.  When Jon replies that it was his friends that made him come back, Mormont’ reply is perfect: “I didn’t say it was your honour that brought you back”.  Sometimes the choice we end up making transcends who we are as an individual and is borne of the connections we have with other people.  This is the essence of honour.

I agree Ned's complete blind adherence to it when dealing with Cersei was politically stupid, and he failed to realize that not everyone has the same moral and honorable rules he has. Honor must go in hand with pragmatism.

Here's a good article on the subject.

Plus, Ned's refusal to kill children isn't noble? I don;'t see a problem there, and that didn't cause any problems for him whatsoever.

Finally, Ned didn't start the war, he tried to avoid it, Tywin Lannister had the riverlands pillaged by Gregor, Catelyn kidnapped Tyrion which ignited the war and it was Petyr who set up the whole war from the beginning.

Edited by Fire Eater, 23 March 2012 - 09:46 PM.

[Apple Martini]

I think it's pretty clear that honor — principled behavior, at least — is the most valuable currency in this society, the only thing that's really worth anything at the end of the day. Without it, what good are you? You might have money, but someone always has more. Your army is big, but someone else's is bigger. But if you're known to be fair, honest and decent, that can go a long way. Look at the Freys. They violated a sacred law, lost their honor and now their name and their word is worth less than dirt. And laws are what hold society together and if you choose to disregard one law, what's to stop you from disregarding another one, and then another, until there's no law left? I think that sometimes there's something to be said for bending the letter of the law to protect the spirit of the law, but broadly, laws are laws for a reason.

The thing is, however honorable you are or aren't, eventually you're going to die. No one gets out alive and you can't take your money or your land or your army with you. If you believe in some sort of post-life judgment, how do your gods view someone without honor in the afterlife? How will your gods deal with someone like Walder Frey or Tywin Lannister? And if you don't believe in post-life judgment, then all that's left after you die is your reputation and that of your family. Tywin and Ned are equally dead. But only Ned is remembered with love and devotion while most people were glad to see Tywin go.

"Honor is stupid" is only true — if it's true, which I'm unsure of — in the short term. In the long term, like I said, everyone ends up dead. And when that happens, some people might wish they'd been a little more honorable in life. People are worried about winning the game of thrones and how Ned's "stupidity" showed how bad a player he was. But the story seems to be saying that the game doesn't really matter, that in the end it's about sacrifice and selflessness and that people who win power are not necessarily those who should be held in high regard.

Edited by Apple Martini, 23 March 2012 - 09:46 PM.

[Winter's Knight]

I think LLL's point is not that Ned was stupid for being honourable but that he was stupid for assuming and acting under the notion that everyone else holds to the same honour code as he does.

[Fragile Bird]

Lord Littlefinger, on 23 March 2012 - 05:18 PM, said:

OK, OK. So I think Ned is stupid.  

I also find the concept of honor to be nonsensical, particularly within the confines of a feudal society.... .  And limiting your actions by an arbitrary set of prescribed conditions gives undue advantage to your adversaries.  

Ned Stark, in a fashion which he appears to be singular to him even among the Starks, repeatedly refuses to learn the lesson that honor is a imaginary concept.  

I think I read the OP differently, Winterbreath.

[Winter's Knight]

Fragile Bird, on 23 March 2012 - 09:49 PM, said:

I think I read the OP differently, Winterbreath.

Then take it as my own opinion on the matter.

In my view, Ned's problem was not his honour but his inability to predict how other people think and act. He was not perceptive, incapable of seeing things through another person's eyes.

Edited by Winterbreath, 23 March 2012 - 10:20 PM.

[Summerqueen]

Give me law abiding, honest men any day. I actually think being selfish and breaking the law is stupid. Stalemate? This is just your opinion, basically. When a system is corrupt, you can either resist it and stay who you are, or you can become someone who caves in to that corruption and become someone you can't stand. Ned makes it pretty clear how hard it is for him to live a lie. He would much rather be a man of principle than a hypocritical, self-loathing, worthless POS. If only everyone felt that way.

[Fragile Bird]

Winterbreath, on 23 March 2012 - 09:57 PM, said:

Then take it as my own opinion on the matter.

In my view, Ned's problem was not his honour but his inability to predict how other people think and at. He was not perceptive, incapable of seeing things through another person's eyes.

Oh please, I'm not arguing with you!   I'm just saying M'lord LF thinks being honourable is stupid!  I agree with you.

[FuzzyJAM]

Winterbreath, on 23 March 2012 - 09:57 PM, said:

Then take it as my own opinion on the matter.

In my view, Ned's problem was not his honour but his inability to predict how other people think and at. He was not perceptive, incapable of seeing things through another person's eyes.

In fairness, the one major thing that hurts him is the murder of Robert thanks to warning Cersei.

However, I view that as a weakness in the plot myself.  Really, Robert should have been protected just fine.  A murder plot relying on your cousin giving the guy enough wine for him to die on a boar hunt is just. . .well, it's not exactly foolproof.  Ned gets screwed over by a freak accident (or bad writing) more than having any sort of blowback from expecting honourable action from dishonourable people.

[voodooqueen126]

Firstly I would say that honour is not personal: people today have an idea that honour is a personal, private thing defined by themselves.
Actually honour is not much different from ethics or law, or it could be said to the noblemen or soldiers version of law.
Ned when he executed that Night's Watch deserter, was following the rule of law. Nor did that soldier have a right to act on his fear, it's perfectly acceptable to be frightened, but the Nightswatchmen, should have crawled back to Mormont and warned the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch, not deserted. He had a duty, and he failed to observe that duty.
Ned, when he deferred to Stannis, due to the law of primogeniture, was again following the rule of law, which is that older brothers/sons before younger brothers/sons. Needless to say societies that fail to observe the law of primogeniture in their monarchial succession, like the Ottomans, end up with horrible civil wars and the princes end up murdering each other, which is precisely what happens to Renly. If Renly had been willing to follow the rule of law (primogeniture), and followed Stannis, would have eventually become king, since Stannis's sole heir was a greyscale infected girl.
Chivalry for instance, was not something defined by each individual knight, but was defined by a set of virtues:
http://en.wikipedia....nightly_virtues

Now, it goes without saying that without law and order and rule of law-ie if your countries leaders are dishonourable/unethical/immoral etc then  the economy suffers (first through corruption, then through the civil war that inevitably follows) and when the economy suffers, it is impossible for people to escape poverty and work their way up the social ladder.

[Winter's Knight]

FuzzyJAM, on 23 March 2012 - 10:17 PM, said:

In fairness, the one major thing that hurts him is the murder of Robert thanks to warning Cersei.

However, I view that as a weakness in the plot myself.  Really, Robert should have been protected just fine.  A murder plot relying on your cousin giving the guy enough wine for him to die on a boar hunt is just. . .well, it's not exactly foolproof.  Ned gets screwed over by a freak accident (or bad writing) more than having any sort of blowback from expecting honourable action from dishonourable people.

I'd argue that Cersei was acting on her knowledge of Robert's character-just as she did when she forbade him in public from fighting in the tourney.

He is known to drink heavily  and to be reckless-it was a plan conceived in an intimate knowledge of Robert.

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

FuzzyJAM, on 23 March 2012 - 09:28 PM, said:

It isn't dishonourable to execute a deserter.  That's how military forces work.

you say it isn't dishonorable.  But you don't explain why it isn't dishonorable. I could agree that if Ned simply opposed killing, in all its forms that he making a moral choice.  Their are such characters, Septon Meribald is one such. But alas, such a moral position is incongruous with being Liege Lord.

Quote

You can sympathise with the "terrified man", but executing him is still perfectly justifiable.  

Again, why?

Quote

As for waging war against the Mad King. . .well, we have no idea what would happen without Robert's Rebellion - middle knowledge doesn't exist.  We do know, however, that the Mad King did something worthy of deposition.  

But surely all the lords are worthy of deposition, they treat the citizens of Westeros as chattel. Rickard Stark was not the first to dance for Aerys' pyromancers.  So it seems burning people alive wasn't sufficient to justify war.  Wouldn't a truly noble and honorable man, turn the other cheek or ascend the pyre himself in order to spare the children of the realm the ravages of war?

Quote

If you're willing to compromise your principles then they're not principles.  Having a moral code and refusing to compromise it to your own advantage is something worthy of respect, not ridicule.

The issue at hand isn't the existence of Ned's principles or even his willingness to compromise them.  The issue is whether said principles are arbitrary to the point of being nonsensical and already conceptualized by Ned in such a way as to be advantageous to the Ned Starks of the world. It is Ned's failure to recognize this and his inability to see that his adversaries will not be bound by his perception of what is and his not honorable.

[Zerrex]

I'll be honest, but I assume this was intentional.. I read "the problem with Dolorous Edd.." and I was about to rush to his defense.

Back to the topic,

FuzzyJAM, on 23 March 2012 - 10:17 PM, said:

However, I view that as a weakness in the plot myself.  Really, Robert should have been protected just fine.  A murder plot relying on your cousin giving the guy enough wine for him to die on a boar hunt is just. . .well, it's not exactly foolproof.  Ned gets screwed over by a freak accident (or bad writing) more than having any sort of blowback from expecting honourable action from dishonourable people.

Sure Ned being honourable was probably hurting him more than helping him, but the timing of Robert's death from a rather.. unreliable death kind of ruined him. You could argue they would just kill the king some other way if it failed. I suppose then Ned's weakness would be that he didn't think his enemies would go so far as to kill the king.

And hey, it's not his fault he rolled Lawful Good when everyone was making character sheets!

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

Ashen Shugar, on 23 March 2012 - 09:13 PM, said:

Well yes, even in this day and age things like honesty and honour can be used against you very easily by those who feel there own iterests should come before everyone elses and are willing to compromise or forsake entirely their honour.  

but of course this was always the case.  

Quote

I hope it is never looked down upon as stupid by the majority of society though.. then the terrorists win!

it is dishonorable for a person to fly a plane into a building. it is honorable to have a flying robot launch missiles into buildings... or else the terrorists win!  

Quote

Yes Ned upholding his moral code cost him a lot. Though then you have people like Renly and Petyr who are pretty much the embodiment of what you think Ned should be, and things have not worked out so well for Renly and I think pete's due for a fall soon too.

But why is it honorable for Ned or Stannis to drive the realm into war or birth order, while Renly is dishonorable simply because he recognizes that the Tyrell's will not follow Stannis.  Why is it not more honorable for Stannis to merely bend the knee?

Quote

Also, the main flaw in Neds code of honour is that he is pretty much alone in adhering to it. If everyone stuck to Neds philosophy westeros would be much better off, he is one of the few characters in the story you can say that about. If all nobles were like Petyr, or Tywin, Doran, Varys etc the kingdom would never know peace but if they were all like Ned..

But Ned cannot control actions or honor code of others.  And of course, if all the nobles were like Petyr then they would all be very afraid to go to war with one another indeed.  Doran, it doesn't seem to me that he has any interest in going to war.  I wouldn't be surprised if desire for blood and fire was merely to placate the hot Dornish blood of kinsmen.  And Doran is a perfect example, he need not ever actually go to war. He could keep his realm in peace and be quite a good prince.  But he does so my recognizing the motivations and predicting the actions of his adversaries.

[voodooqueen126]

Lord Littlefinger, on 23 March 2012 - 10:43 PM, said:

you say it isn't dishonorable.  But you don't explain why it isn't dishonorable. I could agree that if Ned simply opposed killing, in all its forms that he making a moral choice.  Their are such characters, Septon Meribald is one such. But alas, such a moral position is incongruous with being Liege Lord. Again, why?But surely all the lords are worthy of deposition, they treat the citizens of Westeros as chattel. Rickard Stark was not the first to dance for Aerys' pyromancers.  So it seems burning people alive wasn't sufficient to justify war.  Wouldn't a truly noble and honorable man, turn the other cheek or ascend the pyre himself in order to spare the children of the realm the ravages of war?  The issue at hand isn't the existence of Ned's principles or even his willingness to compromise them.  The issue is whether said principles are arbitrary to the point of being nonsensical and already conceptualized by Ned in such a way as to be advantageous to the Ned Starks of the world. It is Ned's failure to recognize this and his inability to see that his adversaries will not be bound by his perception of what is and his not honorable.

They are not arbitary rules though, they are not decided by Ned himself but happen to be the laws that have already been decided by society.
I am sure that people pretend those laws come from the Seven Pointed Star, or the lips of the weirwood, but at the end of the day, Ned's society, long before Ned was born decided that Night's Watch deserters shall be executed.
Which makes sense, since for much of it's recent history the Nights Watch has been a place where one sends criminals. Killing a Nights watch deserter is no different from killing a man who escapes from prison.

There is also value in following seemingly arbitary laws like male primogeniture-it prevents needless violence, and well it probably is better that the sibling with more life experience succeeds the throne,over his younger feckless brother.
Needless to say had Renly been willing to follow the rule of law, he would still be alive, and he would also be heir to the throne (since Shireen is a girl with greyscale).
So following the rule of law is good for one's self, as well as being good for society. It's just Renly was too stupid to realise that.

And no it is not honourable to voluntary ascend the funeral pier at the behest of a lunatic. Lunatics need to be gotten rid of (especially if they, as Aerys did, break feudal contract). Those who resist not evil, end up letting evil triumph.

Edited by voodooqueen126, 23 March 2012 - 11:15 PM.

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

Fire Eater, on 23 March 2012 - 09:38 PM, said:

Honor isn't stupid, in that society it was what connected people to others. Dan Haggard puts it succinctly:



I agree Ned's complete blind adherence to it when dealing with Cersei was politically stupid, and he failed to realize that not everyone has the same moral and honorable rules he has. Honor must go in hand with pragmatism.

Here's a good article on the subject.

Plus, Ned's refusal to kill children isn't noble? I don;'t see a problem there, and that didn't cause any problems for him whatsoever.

Finally, Ned didn't start the war, he tried to avoid it, Tywin Lannister had the riverlands pillaged by Gregor, Catelyn kidnapped Tyrion which ignited the war and it was Petyr who set up the whole war from the beginning.

Well yes. Its true Ned did not start the war.  And, neither did Petyr, though he hoped to set things in motion.  But Petyr is not honorable. Surely, an honorable man must consider the consequences of proclaiming Stannis king earning Tyrell enmity. Surely at some point the amount of casualties of such a war must warrant pause on behalf of an honorable man.

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

voodooqueen126, on 23 March 2012 - 10:24 PM, said:

Firstly I would say that honour is not personal: people today have an idea that honour is a personal, private thing defined by themselves.
Actually honour is not much different from ethics or law, or it could be said to the noblemen or soldiers version of law.
Ned when he executed that Night's Watch deserter, was following the rule of law. Nor did that soldier have a right to act on his fear, it's perfectly acceptable to be frightened, but the Nightswatchmen, should have crawled back to Mormont and warned the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch, not deserted. He had a duty, and he failed to observe that duty.
Ned, when he deferred to Stannis, due to the law of primogeniture, was again following the rule of law, which is that older brothers/sons before younger brothers/sons. Needless to say societies that fail to observe the law of primogeniture in their monarchial succession, like the Ottomans, end up with horrible civil wars and the princes end up murdering each other, which is precisely what happens to Renly. If Renly had been willing to follow the rule of law (primogeniture), and followed Stannis, would have eventually become king, since Stannis's sole heir was a greyscale infected girl.
Chivalry for instance, was not something defined by each individual knight, but was defined by a set of virtues:
http://en.wikipedia....nightly_virtues

Now, it goes without saying that without law and order and rule of law-ie if your countries leaders are dishonourable/unethical/immoral etc then  the economy suffers (first through corruption, then through the civil war that inevitably follows) and when the economy suffers, it is impossible for people to escape poverty and work their way up the social ladder.

But of course.  Myran Trant was following the law when he obeyed Joffrey and beat Sansa. And Allar Deem was following the law when he slayed the prostitute on of behalf of the Queen Regent.  Of course, both men are nothing but honorable.

[FuzzyJAM]

I offered as many reasons for why it's moral as you did for why it's immoral. . .Obviously morality is subjective.  I think executing a deserter is moral because otherwise desertion frequently becomes preferable.  Obviously there are complexities - is it a "good" military? why is the deserter in the army in the first place? etc. - but overall it's fair enough.  If you want to get into the specifics, that man could have warned everybody about the Others long before they actually found out about them.  It could have happened while Robert was at Winterfell.  Imagine how different things could be.  But he deserted, and thus did not warn anyone.  Middle knowledge, I know, but an example of where both the ends and means support the action as moral.  

For the rebellion - it's preferable not to have a mad king who shows zero respect for the law, it wasn't simply vengeange.  Obviously war is terrible - I'm close to a pacifist myself - but the war is justifiable and understandable, even if you don't personally support it.  

As for blaming the War of the Five Kings on Ned - wut?  He was incapacitated before it started.  We don't even know what he would have done had he seen the situation crop up.

Edited by FuzzyJAM, 23 March 2012 - 11:18 PM.