Why on earth did the KG attacked Eddard Stark?

[l2 0 5 5]

I don't think there's too much to this. The KG is sworn to protect the king and the royal family. The KG did just that when Ned came to take a member of the royal family away, regardless of his own relation to Lyanna and Jon. Most of the KG we see in the series have motives, where I believe Aerys's KG took their vows very seriously and followed them exactly.

[devilish]

4 hours ago, Protagoras said:

I think you answer your own question here. First, wherether or not Ned will protect the kid is questionable but possible. Yet with Eddard in control of Jon Targaryen, first of his name - it would be practically impossible for anyone to declare for him (someone does, he dies). The Kingsguard doesn´t care about him as a individual, they think of him as a future king and heir. If that legacy is destroyed then they have no reason to care if Jon lives or not. His value is in his heritage. 

And again, Ned doesn´t really want the Targs back in power and he is not the kind of person who would conspire against his friend Robert. This "Eddard might support Jons claim" is a delusion. Eddard went to war to stop the Targs, not to crown another. If Robert find out, Ned might be able to stop him for killing Jon, but he doesn´t want a war with his best friend - something that was very evident from the first book where Ned failed to see that Robert had changed. 

In addition, you assume that Jon - a child Ned might see as Rhaegars Rape-child should somehow be spared. Indeed, how do they know Ned can be trusted? They might even think Ned want to kill Lyanna herself for the dishonor she gave House Stark for eloping with Rhaegar, voluntarly or not. "Protect" doesn´t mean "gamble that Ned will not only spare Jon , but crown him later". Sure, Ned did spare Jon - but that was without the threat of people declaring for him later on. 

So, unless assuming Sir Arthur has access to information he don´t possess, his best option is to kill Ned and his wraiths and leave when the baby is born and before reimforcements arrive to later foster the child in Essos and return with him later (Like Varys have done with "Aegon"). At best, the offer is "Lyanna is in the tower. She is yours, but the kid comes with us". 

 

I don't think that Ned protecting is questionable for 3 reasons

a- The Starks love family. Brandon threw his life because of Lyanna, Rickard threw his life away because of Brandon. Family > their own life and Jon Targ is Lyanna's only son
b- The Starks see themselves as beacons of honour. At one point Cregan Stark held full power on all Westeros and he gave it away. Ned did the same thing with Robert because the latter had a better claim to the throne. There's no way Ned would ruin that with kinslaying
c-Kinslaying is big in Westeros. Roose Bolton closed an eye to Ramsey despite the latter had probably killed Domeric. Tywin dragged the imp around despite him humiliating him at every turn (he didn't but that's how Tywin saw it) and Tarly preferred to see his name being reduced to shreds at the wall rather then put an arrow in Samwell's head. 

So if you give a member from the most honourable family a choice between defending family or commit kinslaying then he will most probably choose the former especially since he had shown already that he'd rather turn against his king rather then go against his code of honour.

At that point, the KG learnt enough about Robert to know that he hates any dragon's spawn

a- he killed Rhaegar
b- he rewarded the ones who backstabbed Aerys by marrying Cersei

Its true that Eddard was Robert's mate. However its also true that with the information at hand they could easily see the beginning of a conflict of interest here where Robert would want to kill Jon if he knew whom he is and Eddard would do his outmost not to allow it.

 Considering that the 3 KG were in custody of a newborn and were right in the middle of enemy land (Westeros had bent the knee to Robert and the Martells will probably not treat Jon kindly) then its not that difficult to evaluate the situation and come to the conclusion that trusting the boy's uncle is probably safer then dragging him at the other end of the world. Once they entrusted the boy to Eddard they could move to Essos, raise an army and focus in driving a wedge between Robert and Ned

[Protagoras]

 

20 hours ago, devilish said:

 

I don't think that Ned protecting is questionable for 3 reasons

a- The Starks love family. Brandon threw his life because of Lyanna, Rickard threw his life away because of Brandon. Family > their own life and Jon Targ is Lyanna's only son
b- The Starks see themselves as beacons of honour. At one point Cregan Stark held full power on all Westeros and he gave it away. Ned did the same thing with Robert because the latter had a better claim to the throne. There's no way Ned would ruin that with kinslaying
c-Kinslaying is big in Westeros. Roose Bolton closed an eye to Ramsey despite the latter had probably killed Domeric. Tywin dragged the imp around despite him humiliating him at every turn (he didn't but that's how Tywin saw it) and Tarly preferred to see his name being reduced to shreds at the wall rather then put an arrow in Samwell's head. 

So if you give a member from the most honourable family a choice between defending family or commit kinslaying then he will most probably choose the former especially since he had shown already that he'd rather turn against his king rather then go against his code of honour.

At that point, the KG learnt enough about Robert to know that he hates any dragon's spawn

a- he killed Rhaegar
b- he rewarded the ones who backstabbed Aerys by marrying Cersei

Its true that Eddard was Robert's mate. However its also true that with the information at hand they could easily see the beginning of a conflict of interest here where Robert would want to kill Jon if he knew whom he is and Eddard would do his outmost not to allow it.

 Considering that the 3 KG were in custody of a newborn and were right in the middle of enemy land (Westeros had bent the knee to Robert and the Martells will probably not treat Jon kindly) then its not that difficult to evaluate the situation and come to the conclusion that trusting the boy's uncle is probably safer then dragging him at the other end of the world. Once they entrusted the boy to Eddard they could move to Essos, raise an army and focus in driving a wedge between Robert and Ned

Kinslaying is one thing. Going to war over Jon is another.

You are too focused about Stark honor (which sounds like racism to me tbh) to make any sense here and there is no reason why the KG should gamble on the honor on a man why is their enemy. Or do you claim that Ned is known as so honourable that everyone in the entire Westeros would know this and it is not just a reader conclusion? Otherwise - drop the shitty argument. Even if that was the case - the question is not (again) wherether or not Ned kills Jon but what happens next and there is no reason to assume that this might escalate into war. Maybe Robert and Ned can reach a deal over it (say by sending Jon to the Nights watch).

The best option the KG had was to do as they tried, namely kill Ned, get out of there and return with a grown-up Jon later. Trusting Ned not to kill Jon is not the same as trusting him stand up for Jon vs Robert when that time comes. And we have seen Neds actions towards Robert when Lady was killed and how well he stood up for Lady, for the killing of Daenerys and that Ned later accepted to become Hand again, for Roberts will and Ned the dishonourable rewrote it. Not. Impressive. And you want me to convince me that he will go to war over Jon? No way!

You seem to have this fixed idea that the KG did wrong not to trust Ned. Not only do this sound very biased, but why was their choice so bad? Because they lost a close 7 vs 3 fight? Those odds were sure better than give Jon to Ned, hope nothing happens with him, raise an army without him and without no one knows he exist, somehow make his existance know hoping that Ned and Robert would clash, and succesfully invade despite their leader being in captivity or under close watch and might not even support his own movement to restore him. 

[Valens]

On 1.8.2016 at 4:11 PM, Khal BlackfyreO said:

Actually it makes Aerys an even worse criminal and barbarian...

You are just stating the obvious. We are going deeper than that here. It is not obvious to everyone how cruel Robert was. They just wanna see the "badass" hero in him.

[devilish]

On 09/08/2016 at 5:15 PM, Protagoras said:

 

Kinslaying is one thing. Going to war over Jon is another.

You are too focused about Stark honor (which sounds like racism to me tbh) to make any sense here and there is no reason why the KG should gamble on the honor on a man why is their enemy. Or do you claim that Ned is known as so honourable that everyone in the entire Westeros would know this and it is not just a reader conclusion? Otherwise - drop the shitty argument. Even if that was the case - the question is not (again) wherether or not Ned kills Jon but what happens next and there is no reason to assume that this might escalate into war. Maybe Robert and Ned can reach a deal over it (say by sending Jon to the Nights watch).

The best option the KG had was to do as they tried, namely kill Ned, get out of there and return with a grown-up Jon later. Trusting Ned not to kill Jon is not the same as trusting him stand up for Jon vs Robert when that time comes. And we have seen Neds actions towards Robert when Lady was killed and how well he stood up for Lady, for the killing of Daenerys and that Ned later accepted to become Hand again, for Roberts will and Ned the dishonourable rewrote it. Not. Impressive. And you want me to convince me that he will go to war over Jon? No way!

You seem to have this fixed idea that the KG did wrong not to trust Ned. Not only do this sound very biased, but why was their choice so bad? Because they lost a close 7 vs 3 fight? Those odds were sure better than give Jon to Ned, hope nothing happens with him, raise an army without him and without no one knows he exist, somehow make his existance know hoping that Ned and Robert would clash, and succesfully invade despite their leader being in captivity or under close watch and might not even support his own movement to restore him. 

There's hundreds of years of reason to believe that the Starks are honourable. The Starks had been the Targs unwavering and loyal subjects for centuries. Cregan Stark could upset that balance and Ned's father could have called the banners when his daughter was kidnapped and his son got arrested but they both remained loyal to the crown. They only rebelled when Aerys killed Rickard and Brandon and asked for Ned's head. Surely no house could accept that.

Also I never said that Ned would go to war for Jon. I only said that Eddard would keep Jon safe which is exactly what he did. That's more then what 3 KG stuck in enemy land could ever offer to the boy at this point in time. Honour and family are precious in the North. Eddard dared defending the direwolf whom he previously wanted dead. Imagine what he would have done with his own blood especially since Robert's rebellion started for a pretty similar case (ie Aerys wanted to kill two innocent people (Ned and Robert) for a crime they did not commit).

Ultimately its all a matter of acknowledge the limitations the remaining loyalists had. They were just 3 knights, stuck in enemy land and with Rhaegar's bastard newborn, whose mother was dying. Assuming they manage to find a wet nurse in time whose willing to risk her life and that small party is able to actually escape Westeros, the 3 knights would have had to find a safe place in Essos, raise the boy and convince some royalist to disregard Aerys true born children in preference to this bastard. That's nearly impossible to achieve. They would be better off leaving the boy with his honourable uncle who would keep him safe, flee to Essos and return once they got the necessary army to actually invade the darn place. Who knows maybe by that time, Robert would die and the Starks-Tullys would prefer the boy they raised instead of some spoiled kid who thinks that the Northern people are dumb and only good to be trampled upon

[Lurid Jester]

On July 27, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Maester Crypt said:

Interesting thought....

Don't think Rhaegar thought he would die at the Trident. Can't see anything happening after his death as part of his planning.

Exactly. He was completely confident in his success and survival.  Characters can be blinded by prophecy and believe they have plot armor (prophecy armor?) which will protect them. 

Seems that more often than not they are very wrong and end up paste.  

[Lurid Jester]

On August 2, 2016 at 5:49 AM, devilish said:

It made sense if Robert or Gregor arrived at the tower of joy and not Eddard. Lyanna his sister, the baby is his nephew. Kinslaying is a serious crime throughout Westeros and the North are renowned for their honour

It's a brutal and unforgiving world where a person can love and comfort their sister or betrothed and at the same time view a Targ baby as a threat no matter what and dash it's skull against the stones. 

When it comes to the life of a newborn and helpless heir, err on the side of caution and don't assume anyone will protect him.  Ned was, after all, on the same side that allowed the murder and rape of the rest of Rhaegar's family. 

[Khal BlackfyreO]

On 8/15/2016 at 7:08 PM, Valens said:

You are just stating the obvious. We are going deeper than that here. It is not obvious to everyone how cruel Robert was. They just wanna see the "badass" hero in him.

I can't argue that it is obvious, but it still is a valid response, if you are criticizing Robert taking violent action against his own family as the basis for his cruelty, it is important to remember that that violence was first threatened against him by that same family.  Steffon was obviously a loyal and dedicated subject to Aerys, all the more reason to abhor the fact that Aerys demands the head of his second cousin, the son of his cousin and especially loyal subject, who died exercising his duty to the throne. 

[theblackdragonI]

On 15/08/2016 at 6:08 PM, Valens said:

You are just stating the obvious. We are going deeper than that here. It is not obvious to everyone how cruel Robert was. They just wanna see the "badass" hero in him.

Whatever about Robert's nature later on, using him going to war against his very distant cousins as cruelty is ridiculous. Robert was very young when his father died on a mission for the Mad King. He was then spirited off to the Eyrie where there was no great love for Aerys. The king made no effort to bring Robert close to him like his father was before him. On top of this, Aerys demanded his exectution for no reason at all? Ned could be justified as his father and brother had just been exectued, loose ends and that. But Robert? What was the reason for that? And you say its barbaric and cruel for Robert to not lie down meekly and get executed for a king he barely knows, whose son has kidnapped Robert's betrothed and has done nothing to earn his loyalty and respect? Yea Robert's a real dick for fighting back.

[devilish]

14 hours ago, Lurid Jester said:

It's a brutal and unforgiving world where a person can love and comfort their sister or betrothed and at the same time view a Targ baby as a threat no matter what and dash it's skull against the stones. 

When it comes to the life of a newborn and helpless heir, err on the side of caution and don't assume anyone will protect him.  Ned was, after all, on the same side that allowed the murder and rape of the rest of Rhaegar's family. 

Not really. Kinslaying is a step too far even for this brutal and unforgiving world. Even Roose, Tywin, Cersei, Aerys and Tarly had refused to cross that darn bridge. The Starks are way more honourable and family oriented then them. 

Regarding the murder of Elia and her children there was nothing Eddard could do. It occurred long before his arrival to KL. 

[Lurid Jester]

53 minutes ago, devilish said:

Not really. Kinslaying is a step too far even for this brutal and unforgiving world. Even Roose, Tywin, Cersei, Aerys and Tarly had refused to cross that darn bridge. The Starks are way more honourable and family oriented then them. 

Regarding the murder of Elia and her children there was nothing Eddard could do. It occurred long before his arrival to KL. 

But that's assuming that Dayne knew Eddard.  Ned was friends with Robert, so can he be absolutely 100% sure that Ned wouldn't do something to the child?  We can, as readers.  Hell, even Ned thought that Robert wouldn't but his advisors would pressure him to and he would ultimately succumb. 

Think of it from Arthur's point of view.  His friend was killed by Robert.  His friend's other children were killed with at least the tacit approval of Robert.  Robert's best friend, and the man whose father and brother were brutally murdered by King Aerys just arrived at the tower.  Why would he assume Ned was any different than Robert?  Why would he assume that Ned would see the child as anything other than Targ spawn that needed to be purged?  

Besides, we're given reason to believe that he was given orders by his friend the Prince.  I just don't get the logic that he would just say "oh, you're the heir's uncle.   The kid is surely safe with you, with no chance that your best friend the usurper King would have him killed."

i also don't think Arthur would be too keen on the idea that the Heir would be told he's a bastard and never told the truth.  In fact, I'm almost positive he would be against that idea.  

 

[devilish]

22 minutes ago, Lurid Jester said:

But that's assuming that Dayne knew Eddard.  Ned was friends with Robert, so can he be absolutely 100% sure that Ned wouldn't do something to the child?  We can, as readers.  Hell, even Ned thought that Robert wouldn't but his advisors would pressure him to and he would ultimately succumb. 

Think of it from Arthur's point of view.  His friend was killed by Robert.  His friend's other children were killed with at least the tacit approval of Robert.  Robert's best friend, and the man whose father and brother were brutally murdered by King Aerys just arrived at the tower.  Why would he assume Ned was any different than Robert?  Why would he assume that Ned would see the child as anything other than Targ spawn that needed to be purged?  

Besides, we're given reason to believe that he was given orders by his friend the Prince.  I just don't get the logic that he would just say "oh, you're the heir's uncle.   The kid is surely safe with you, with no chance that your best friend the usurper King would have him killed."

i also don't think Arthur would be too keen on the idea that the Heir would be told he's a bastard and never told the truth.  In fact, I'm almost positive he would be against that idea.  

 

I am assuming that Sir Arthur is a learnt man, who know about Westerosi history and how the Starks had operated throughout the centuries following Aegon’s conquest. I am assuming that he was around when the honourable fool barged into KL demanding a fair duel with the crown prince for his sister’s honour instead of conspiring in raising an army and do some serious damage to the crown. He should have been there when Rickard obeyed Aerys call to come to KL instead of calling his banners and started the rebellion and he was also there when Aerys killed them both and ordered another honourable Lord to commit the most hideous of crimes by killing Ned and Robert (both innocent people) forcing a rebellion on himself. I am also assuming that his sister must have told him that Eddard was a good boy and a great gentleman, who struggled to approach her to dance with him and that despite being the son of one of the strongest and most ancient houses in Westeros. This is not the sort of man who would allow his own nephew to be reduced into a pulp for a crime he didn’t commit. Too many Starks had died for Lyanna’s honor. They won’t allow some Baratheon king to kill the only living memory of her.

Having Jon being told he’s a bastard was far from ideal but it’s a much better prospect then having a newborn travelling within enemy lands with the constant fear of Robert killing him.It would have allowed the KG to enter the Golden Company and raise through the ranks and who knows maybe be able to turn the Golden company in Westeros direction. Surely 10k would have been a great addition to Robb’s army and having a cousin whose entitled to the crown would have given Robb a chance to seal the alliances he needed (Jon-Margaery?) and win the war.

[Valens]

20 hours ago, theblackdragonI said:

Whatever about Robert's nature later on, using him going to war against his very distant cousins as cruelty is ridiculous. Robert was very young when his father died on a mission for the Mad King. He was then spirited off to the Eyrie where there was no great love for Aerys. The king made no effort to bring Robert close to him like his father was before him. On top of this, Aerys demanded his exectution for no reason at all? Ned could be justified as his father and brother had just been exectued, loose ends and that. But Robert? What was the reason for that? And you say its barbaric and cruel for Robert to not lie down meekly and get executed for a king he barely knows, whose son has kidnapped Robert's betrothed and has done nothing to earn his loyalty and respect? Yea Robert's a real dick for fighting back.

I didn't do that at all. I was talking about how he treated Rhaegar's children and also the fact that he called Daenerys a whore, an innocent young girl that never did him wrong. THAT is cruelty.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

16 minutes ago, Valens said:

I didn't do that at all. I was talking about how he treated Rhaegar's children and also the fact that he called Daenerys a whore, an innocent young girl that never did him wrong. THAT is cruelty.

Not true. Dany was actively and willingly conspiring to attack him, so she had *did him wrong*.

True. Cruelty is not to punish someone for something that happened before you come to power and call someone who was actively conspiring to attack you and cruelty isn’t order the death of 12 years old or even younger,  mass murdering people who firstly have no idea if they were those who harmed the others and haven’t accused them for something they have done but for who they are,  order the torture and whatever that could mean of two innocent children just because their father might know something. Cruelty isn’t to  take money of the people who voluntarily sell themselves into slavery,  burn alive someone who had only tried to help you when you have already said that she is innocent,  started a genocide not about what someone has does but about who they are, attacked three cities with dragons and monsters like the Dothraki. Cruelty also isn’t to order her armies kill, torture and rape people just in order for her to claim something which by her own word has lost and planning to attack the same people who she calls her people with dragons and monsters like the Dothraki. Sure those aren’t cruelty but insult someone who actively and willingly conspiring to attack you is. Utter 

[Valens]

1 minute ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Not true. Dany was actively and willingly conspiring to attack him, so she had *did him wrong*.

True. Cruelty is not to punish someone for something that happened before you come to power and call someone who was actively conspiring to attack you and cruelty isn’t order the death of 12 years old or even younger,  mass murdering people who firstly have no idea if they were those who harmed the others and haven’t accused them for something they have done but for who they are,  order the torture and whatever that could mean of two innocent children just because their father might know something. Cruelty isn’t to  take money of the people who voluntarily sell themselves into slavery,  burn alive someone who had only tried to help you when you have already said that she is innocent,  started a genocide not about what someone has does but about who they are, attacked three cities with dragons and monsters like the Dothraki. Cruelty also isn’t to order her armies kill, torture and rape people just in order for her to claim something which by her own word has lost and planning to attack the same people who she calls her people with dragons and monsters like the Dothraki. Sure those aren’t cruelty but insult someone who actively and willingly conspiring to attack you is. Utter 

That all just tells me a troubled mind has misread it all.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

16 minutes ago, Valens said:

That all just tells me a troubled mind has misread it all.

Of course, I don't agree with you so I don't know how to read. How typical and also utter  Can you prove me wrong from the text? Of course you can't. 

[theblackdragonI]

On 17/08/2016 at 9:45 PM, Valens said:

I didn't do that at all. I was talking about how he treated Rhaegar's children and also the fact that he called Daenerys a whore, an innocent young girl that never did him wrong. THAT is cruelty.

How was he supposed to treat Rhaegar's children? He had no part in Tywin's evil work, he didn't smile or treat the bodies badly? Sure in a perfect, honourable world Tywin would have been punished for his actions as Ned wanted. But that isn't Westeros. War is an ugly business and the children would have been executed or exiled regardless. I have always been of the opinion that Robert not punishing Tywin was a very wise political decision, that had little to do with his feelings towards the Targs. Surely it would be more cruel for Robert to plunge the realm into another civil war immediately after one, and cost thousands of lives on some notion of honour? You seem t forget not everyone is as honourable as Ned. 

As for Dany, she was a threat to his rule who was actively conspiring against him and at the head of a large army that could potentially invade. Again, Robert made a pragmatic decision to have her assassinated that the rest of his councillors agreed with (bar Ned of course) . Sure he calls her a whore but that is born out of the actions of her father and brother towards him, his friends, beloved and family. IT would be nice to think that we'd all move on and forgive, but the majority of people would still resent the Targs for what they did to Robert, and Dany just happens to be the last Targ. 

[Jon's Queen Consort]

8 minutes ago, theblackdragonI said:

he didn't smile

He did. He smiled and called them dragonspawns something that they were. But they were the children of the man who destroyed his life so his feelings are at least understandable.

[theblackdragonI]

5 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

He did. He smiled and called them dragonspawns something that they were. But they were the children of the man who destroyed his life so his feelings are at least understandable.

Rober did not smile when presented with the corpses of the children, as Barristan Selmy said if he had then nothing would have stopped him killing Robert. Sorry can't find the quote. 

[Jon's Queen Consort]

20 minutes ago, theblackdragonI said:

Rober did not smile when presented with the corpses of the children, as Barristan Selmy said if he had then nothing would have stopped him killing Robert. Sorry can't find the quote. 

Not quite. Barristand would had done it if he was present, but he was wounded and he wasn't there. But you are right Robert only said "I see no babes. Only dragonspawns." Which was basically the truth, they were dragonspawns. But I have maybe he had laughed and I have forget about it.