Why does Eddard Stark have to die?

[whatsupchic]

Why does Eddard Stark have to die?

[Lord Wraith]

48 minutes ago, whatsupchic said:

Why does Eddard Stark have to die?

He made stupid decisions and suffered for them.

[chrisdaw]

He had no character arc. That was his point, he didn't change from when we met him, he'd already done all his growing. And thus he wouldn't have been sustainable and entertaining over a massive spanning book series. GRRM is writing character arcs primarily, ASOIAF is a story of intertwining character arcs.

He served his role, he defined for us the ideals for which Jon must reach. And that will ultimately save Westeros.

[Ashes Of Westeros]

Because all men must die. Obviously

[devilish]

Killing Eddard was stupid. If Joffrey had some brains he would have 'persuaded' the wolf to blame this treachery on the Baratheon brothers, who will also be blamed for assassinating the King in a bid to usurp his throne. Eddard would be offered a pardon IF he instructs young Robb to lead the Northern + Riverlands armies in defending the crown. Their combined forces would send the Reach into panic mode (Tywin attacking from the West and Robb/Edmure attacking from the North) forcing them to surrender.

Once the war is over, Renly and Stannis would be accused of treason and end up executed. Stannis daughter will lose all her titles but would remain in KL as a guest and then married off to some knight. The Florents will lose brightwater's keep (who will go to Kevan Lannister) and their lands will fall within the Westerlands jurisdiction. Harrenhal will be be given to Janos Slynt. 

The Kingslayer would be released from his KGs duty and he will be appointed as Tywin Lannister's heir much to Tywin's delight. Tommen would be appointed Lord Paramount of the Stormlands and Tyrion will be appointed Lord of Dragonstone.

A series of marriage will soon follow sanctioned by the King with a clear understanding that any refusal will be interpreted as a clear sign of disloyalty towards the crown. Joffrey will marry Sansa, the Kingslayer will be promised Arya, A defeated Mace will retain the role of Lord Paramount of the Reach as long as he gives his consent for Willas to marry Cersei and Margaery to marry Tyrion. Robb would marry Myrcella and Tommen would marry Talla Tarly. Edmure would be asked to marry Janei Lannister. 

If Balon decides to act stupid and still rebel. Then he will be annihilated, with Theon being appointed Lord Paramount of the Iron Islands (as long as he marries Cersei). Willas will marry Janei Lannister instead. 

[BanzaiZ]

Because his arrest and death were the catalysts that sparked the major political upheaval and subsequent wars (and deaths) for the series. He had his "fantasy heroes" journey in his youth, with Robert's Rebellion. The entire first book is a subversion of the "after the hero's epic". He, Jon Arryn, Robert Baratheon... even Jaime Lannister are examples of what actually comes after the big adventure is done. Robert is an absentee king and a pitiful shadow of the man he was in his prime. Jon was murdered after clawing the kingdom together by threads as Hand during Robert's reign. Ned is the closest to happily ever after, but we see he's raised his children in a way that's left them completely unprepared for the real world, and his "dearest friend" comes calling and begging for help. Only this time, it's not a battle they can win, it's a political game he's out of his league in and costs him his life. So that generation mostly dies, and a story starts anew.

[Whitering]

For all the tropes Martin is accused of breaking, he follows a fairly standard narrative. Time and time again, especially in fantasy, the elders have to die for the children to rise. Martin plays the cup game with us though, which children will rise, and which will not is a bit of a guessing game. But Ned was always going to die because this story was not about him, it was clear from the first chapter.

[MinotaurWarrior]

12 hours ago, chrisdaw said:

He had no character arc. That was his point, he didn't change from when we met him, he'd already done all his growing. And thus he wouldn't have been sustainable and entertaining over a massive spanning book series. GRRM is writing character arcs primarily, ASOIAF is a story of intertwining character arcs.

He served his role, he defined for us the ideals for which Jon must reach. And that will ultimately save Westeros.

I disagree. Ned has a very compelling arc of moral compromise and decay, as he chafes against the corrupting influence of King's Landing.

But yeah, narratively and in-universe he had to die in order to set the plot in motion. Robb would have gladly marched back north with his dad to go to the wall, and then the Lannister forces could have fought a one-front war.

[Orphalesion]

13 hours ago, whatsupchic said:

Why does Eddard Stark have to die?

 

Three reasons:

1) To give the reader the illusion that any character, no matter how "important" can die.

2) To kick of the War of the Five Kings

3) To set in motion the chain of events that leads to the fall of the Starks

[NorthernXY]

Ned and Co. had to die in order to make room for the next generation's story.

[LiveFirstDieLater]

I would argue because Varys/Illyrio said so... And because he knows too much...

 

"If one Hand can die, why not a second?" replied the man with the accent and the forked yellow beard. "You have danced the dance before, my friend."

~~~

"All men must swallow the sour with the sweet. High lords and eunuchs alike. Your hour has come, my lord."

 

"My daughters . . . "

 

"The younger girl escaped Ser Meryn and fled," Varys told him. "I have not been able to find her. Nor have the Lannisters. A kindness, there. Our new king loves her not. Your older girl is still betrothed to Joffrey. Cersei keeps her close. She came to court a few days ago to plead that you be spared. A pity you couldn't have been there, you would have been touched." He leaned forward intently. "I trust you realize that you are a dead man, Lord Eddard?"

After all what else would a faceless man be doing in the black cells? And why would he recognize Arya?

Jeoff just made a mess by jumping the gun...

 

[Ser Leftwich]

To answer for his crime of not telling Robert about Lyanna's son. He lied to his king, which is treason.

[cgrav]

Ned knew too much about the mysteries driving many of the characters and events. Same reason we haven't seen Howland Reed. There would be little to wonder about if we could just go ask Ned about the 20 years preceding the beginning of Ice and Fire.

[dornishdragon]

Ned Stark had to die to show the readers that no matter how important is a character he is not safe which shows this is a story for grow ups. 

In terms of plot he had to die to give a reason to start the War of the 5 Kings. 

 

 

[Jon Fossoway]

He was the trigger for the big plot of the books. Even the way they execute him, out of the blue, sets in motion a series of events that spans several books. I'd say, it's because of plot.

[Nevets]

The Stark children (along with Tyrion and Dany) are the main characters of the story.  In order for them to have their own independent stories, they have to be cut adrift.  As long as Dad is around, their stories will be connected to, and subordinate, to his.  So, bye-bye, Dad. The Night's watch isn't a possibility because Jon definitely needs his own story, which he doesn't get with Dad around. Story-wise, his death serves to ensure that the War of the 5 Kings happens.  

[chrisdaw]

4 hours ago, MinotaurWarrior said:

I disagree. Ned has a very compelling arc of moral compromise and decay, as he chafes against the corrupting influence of King's Landing.

It's not a character arc, it's nothing he hadn't already done before. It's reaffirmation, he is an unchanged character. Everything falls by the way when the safety of children are placed in his hands, his duty to his king, the good of the realm, his personal safety, his friendship with Robert, the law and even his honour. That priority is what defines him, and it existed before AGOT, only we as readers didn't yet know, but then it is re-established repeatedly for us in the present. Job done, having been defined there's nothing left as he didn't and never was going to change, he wasn't suppose to.

The change, the character arc, is Jon's, his struggle to reach the principle Ned defined, that Ned held paramount, against the logic that will demand he sacrifice the innocent or the realm will be lost. Ned died and Stannis was introduced to carry the bag for that story theme, it ends with Jon holding the bag.

[Orphalesion]

1 hour ago, dornishdragon said:

Ned Stark had to die to make the readers think that no matter how important is a character he is not safe which shows this is a clever marketing strategy, which helps ASoIaF to stand apart from many other fantasy books.

In terms of plot he had to die to give a reason to start the War of the 5 Kings. 

 

 

Fixed.

And Ned's importance only reached so far as to introduce us to the world and to cause one of the main conflicts for the rest of the series. Martin played into the expectation of the reader that Ned would remain important, but if you look at the plot in hindsight it becomes clear that he was nothing but a decoy protagonist.

[cgrav]

yeah, Ned's fate is sealed the moment they find the direwolves at the very start of the story. I'd say his sort-of arc is mostly in the past, and much of it still undeveloped because he kept his role secret. At this point whatever else is written about Ned is probably very relevant to the story and will fill out a more robust story line for him.

Ice and Fire is really a massive epic, and sometimes it's easy to lose sight of the fact that it's telling a traditional multi-generation story (ie Njal's Saga) to express themes of humanity with cyclical history. In any work with such a structure, we should expect to lose important characters and gain new ones. 

[Byfort of Corfe]

As GRRM tells us, thorugh Tyrion and Tywin, had Ned lived the Lannisters/Baratheons could have made peace with the Starks.  They would have confirmed Robb as Warden of the North and sent Ned to the Wall.  It would have been a completely different story.   True there are intriguing possibilities, Ned and Jon uniting for example.  But the whole "War of the Five Kings" would be completely different or may not have happened.  Stannis kills Rely, then a combined Lannister Stark force under Tywin/Jaime and Robb crushes Stannis. 

 

But instead Ned is executed.  But look what that kicks off, until the execution Sansa is still in love with Joffrey.  Arya goes on the run, Robb becomes King of the North, Tyrion becomes important, basically Ned's execution sets off pretty much the whole chain of events that we know today.  So Ned's death really is the event that sets the rest of the story in motion.