In defense of Ned

[David Selig]

What are the "all kinds of blunders."

He told Cercei when Robert was gone so she could flee and protect her incestuous children instead of Robert killing them. Are you now blaming him for Robert's accident? That was planned after he told Cercei?

Of course it was planned after Ned told Cercei, otherwise it would've been an incredible coincidence to kill Robert at exactly this moment. And yes, I am blaming Ned for underestimating Cercei's ruthlessness and ambition and not thinking how vulnerable Robert was out hunting.

Other blunders - Ned didn't make any effort to build a power base in KL. He didn't make an effort to understand who's controlling the key people there like Slynt and what are the relationships between the power figures in the capital - otherwise he would've learned that LF and Slynt won't ever support Stannis claim since this would be the end of their power and probably life too. Compare that with Tyrion, who immediately after he came to KL to take over as a Hand, concentrate on identifying the important people who work for Cercei and replacing him with such that he could trust or made an effort to get some kind of hold over them.

Refusing Renly's offer was a huge blunder. As Maia already pointed out, Renly's offer wasn't even against the laws and he at this point didn't want the throne for himself - he wanted to force Cercei out and ensure Ned remaining as a regent of Joffrey.

Davos is a great example of a honourable man who's also smart and perceptive, unlike Ned. That's why I much prefer him to Ned.

[jlk7e]

It's worth noting that Cersei's plan to kill Robert wasn't very good. She didn't actually poison him. She just got him drunker than he otherwise would have been. There was no guarantee that he would get mortally wounded on the hunt. And if he'd come back and not died, she'd have been completely screwed. She was playing a very dangerous game, and it just as easily might have resulted in Ilyn Payne chopping her head off as in what actually happened.

[King Ned Stark]

Davos has not been bombarded with moral choice after moral choice as Ned was. He steered the clandestine craft that killed the castellan of Storm's End, and still follows Stannis. That's hard to forgive.

As far as Ned goes, there was no way for him to understand how rotten KL was until Robert died. Why plot and build a power base when your best friend is the power? He WARNED Cersei out of kindness while Robert was away, not stupidity. If he didn't refuse Renly, then the kids still die. He knows this. Why is a man persecuted for trying to save the lives of children?

[Raventhal]

Davos has not been bombarded with moral choice after moral choice as Ned was. He steered the clandestine craft that killed the castellan of Storm's End, and still follows Stannis. That's hard to forgive.

As far as Ned goes, there was no way for him to understand how rotten KL was until Robert died. Why plot and build a power base when your best friend is the power? He WARNED Cersei out of kindness while Robert was away, not stupidity. If he didn't refuse Renly, then the kids still die. He knows this. Why is a man persecuted for trying to save the lives of children?

For one thing it wasn't Ned's place warn Cersei. It was kind but it goes against the honor he owed and justice Robert was due. It also was like playing poker and showing your hand. His hand as hand wasn't good enough.

Arresting Cersei and sending away the children both his and her children was the best thing if he was worried about the children. He could have dealt with whatever fall out on his own. His kids should have been gone as soon as he was attacked in the streets. That way he could have avoided an all or nothing confrontation because even if he bent at the knee at the cornation Sansa and Arya were going to be hostages.

[Spring Bass]

Arresting Cersei and sending away the children both his and her children was the best thing if he was worried about the children. He could have dealt with whatever fall out on his own. His kids should have been gone as soon as he was attacked in the streets. That way he could have avoided an all or nothing confrontation because even if he bent at the knee at the cornation Sansa and Arya were going to be hostages.

To be fair to Ned, he did plan on sending his children away soon even before he was attacked. It takes time to prepare a departure, whether by ship or over land (and once he found out that there was war in the Riverlands, the "over land" option was closed).

I think you have a good point about the "arrest" plan. Had he followed Renly's plan, he could have saved the lives of the children, had Cersei arrested, and saved his family and men.

[wolverine]

Refusing Renly's offer was a huge blunder. As Maia already pointed out, Renly's offer wasn't even against the laws and he at this point didn't want the throne for himself - he wanted to force Cercei out and ensure Ned remaining as a regent of Joffrey.

Right he is a retard for not trusting Renly, whom later crowns himself king. How does Ned know he doesn't want the throne himself?

[Xenophon]

Right he is a retard for not trusting Renly, whom later crowns himself king. How does Ned know he doesn't want the throne himself?

If that were Ned's reason then it wouldn't be so bad (although he has no particular reason to suspect Renly at the time, and no better alternative). But it's not. He refuses Renly's offer because 1) Robert might not die, and 2) if Robert is dying it would dishonor his last hours to strike before his death. In other words, it's not the case that Ned doesn't want Renly's help, he just doesn't want it then, when it would have actually been effective.

[Maia]

Right he is a retard for not trusting Renly, whom later crowns himself king. How does Ned know he doesn't want the throne himself?

Like Robb crowning himself means that the Starks wanted to secede all along, right? Renly crowned himself _because_ Ned fell, Stannis was apparently doing nothing (and Tyrells wouldn't have supported him anyway) and Renly correctly thought that Cersei would try to eliminate him next and/or that nobody else was going to bring her to justice for Robert's murder.

There is zero evidence that Renly wanted the crown until it became clear that Cersei would hold the power in KL. Heck, his scheme to replace Cersei with Margaery would have resulted in even more people before him in the line of succession!

And yes, Ned absolutely should have waited until his daughters were safely out of KL and his letter on the way to Stannis, before confronting Cersei. He knew that she had already ordered deaths of children in the past, after all. What were a couple more days after 12 years?

As far as Ned goes, there was no way for him to understand how rotten KL was until Robert died. Why plot and build a power base when your best friend is the power?

Because he has been warned by several ppeople and even saw for himself that Robert's power was somewhat ephemeral, that the king wasn't truly safe? That he didn't have anybody really loyal to him, apart from Ned himself and Barristan (whom Ned also dismissed as a possible ally for being "too rigid", heh).

I mean, Ned already thought he knew that Cersei murdered Jon Arryn and had Ser Hugh murdered as well - what did he think would be the next logical step, eh? Particularly with himself re-treading Arryn's last steps?

And don't tell me that Ned somehow thought that Cersei was honorable and was blinded to her threat by his own honor! He already thought that she was a murderess. He already knew that a lot of people at court might have been in her pay. He just didn't make the logical conclusions re: what her most likely next resort would be, that's all.

[Mr Lynx]

Of course it was planned after Ned told Cercei, otherwise it would've been an incredible coincidence to kill Robert at exactly this moment.

Nah, I always got the opposite impression that the murder was planned before the conversation between Ned and Cersei. If I remember correctly didn't Cersei try to murder Robert at least once before they succeed?

[Mr Lynx]

Because he has been warned by several ppeople and even saw for himself that Robert's power was somewhat ephemeral, that the king wasn't truly safe? That he didn't have anybody really loyal to him, apart from Ned himself and Barristan (whom Ned also dismissed as a possible ally for being "too rigid", heh).

I mean, Ned already thought he knew that Cersei murdered Jon Arryn and had Ser Hugh murdered as well - what did he think would be the next logical step, eh? Particularly with himself re-treading Arryn's last steps?

And don't tell me that Ned somehow thought that Cersei was honorable and was blinded to her threat by his own honor! He already thought that she was a murderess. He already knew that a lot of people at court might have been in her pay. He just didn't make the logical conclusions re: what her most likely next resort would be, that's all.

Hmm. Ned certainly had very low opinions about Cersei. But it wasn't Cersei he wanted to spare it was her children.

[Xenophon]

Nah, I always got the opposite impression that the murder was planned before the conversation between Ned and Cersei. If I remember correctly didn't Cersei try to murder Robert at least once before they succeed?

Not sure about that. But the order of events definitely made me think Cersei sent word to Lancel after Ned confronted her. Are there any definitive statements on this?

[wolverine]

Like Robb crowning himself means that the Starks wanted to secede all along, right? Renly crowned himself _because_ Ned fell, Stannis was apparently doing nothing (and Tyrells wouldn't have supported him anyway) and Renly correctly thought that Cersei would try to eliminate him next and/or that nobody else was going to bring her to justice for Robert's murder.

There is zero evidence that Renly wanted the crown until it became clear that Cersei would hold the power in KL. Heck, his scheme to replace Cersei with Margaery would have resulted in even more people before him in the line of succession!

And yes, Ned absolutely should have waited until his daughters were safely out of KL and his letter on the way to Stannis, before confronting Cersei. He knew that she had already ordered deaths of children in the past, after all. What were a couple more days after 12 years?

Good points and I already stated some of those (don't know if you are reiterating or not).

All I am saying is that most of his stupidity/blunders hinge on him trusting LF to buy the Gold Cloaks for him. He seems to mainly have been convinced of trusting him by LF's actions helping him so far in KL and by his wife's conviction that he could trust him. What does he have to trust Renly? Either way he is potentially putting his fate in someone elses' hands and he does not have a tremendous amount of reason to trust either. From my memory Renly is not shown to love Stannis and is it Renly who tries to convince Ned to take control or LF or someone else?

[iamthedave]

Davos has not been bombarded with moral choice after moral choice as Ned was. He steered the clandestine craft that killed the castellan of Storm's End, and still follows Stannis. That's hard to forgive.

He follows the man who actually is Westeros' rightful King without Dany in the picture, the man who raised him up from a smuggler and made him a lord, and as a result gave his family a chance to be great a few generations down the line.

As Davos makes clear constantly, he owes Stannis everything. He would be lower than the lowest to turn his back on the man, and the fact he doesn't is one of the noblest things in the series, especially when most of the background characters switch sides so fast I'm amazed they aren't suffering from whiplash.

I'd say he faces equally deep choices as Ned. The man is constantly faced with threats and he loses almost everything, but he still sticks by his duty and his king, and tells the truth to him no matter how hard it is to say. And his choices concerning Edric Storm are pretty huge.

[SummerSnow]

Um ... he told Cersei before the hunting trip actually happened.

I don't think so. In the 4-book paperback series, on p. 430 (last page of a Ned chapter) Robert tells Ned he's going hunting the next day. Next time we see Ned, he's sitting on the Iron Throne because Robert is out hunting, his realization of the incest and meeting with Cersei happen after that... THEN Robert comes back from hunting trip gored by boar while drunk, after white hart eludes him.

[smidget25]

Been lurking on these forums for a while, but have come out of hiding to address this topic.

Like many others have said, I don't think Ned is stupid, but he's just not made for the politics of the South. He's far too noble, straight-thinking, and he seems to place great faith in the realm and the people that are supposed to serve it. I love him as a character for being so noble, but my god, it is actually painful to read. During his time at Kinglanding we see him alienate a lot of potential allies, like when Gregor goes on a killing spree and Ned refuses to send Loras - a move than may have endeared him to the Tyrell's. LF even points out that an enemy of the Lannisters would do well to count Tyrells as friends. But Ned seems to do what is best for the realm and not himself. In the end it leads to his downfall, where he refuses the help of Renly, and is forced to turn to LF.

At this point he has no reason not to trust Renly. Renly doesn't note any desire for the throne until later, and he is one of the only people in Kinglanding that has no reason to dislike or want to get rid of Ned. I think Renly was only spurred into action once he believed that a Lannister would claim the throne, with Cersei as regent - who he has no love for. Ned refusing him was his biggest mistake and when it happened, I was so flabbergasted by Ned's naivety/compassion/loyalty to Robert, that I felt like throwing the book out the window. I don't know why the hell he thought LF would be more trustworthy, especially as LF would have nothing to gain and a lot to lose if Stannis claimed the throne, but it remained very true to his character.

In the end his refusal to compromise is what destroys him, along with Cersei's scheming. He's not stupid, just very out of his league in a place where you kill or be killed.

[Xenophon]

Been lurking on these forums for a while, but have come out of hiding to address this topic.

Like many others have said, I don't think Ned is stupid, but he's just not made for the politics of the South. He's far too noble, straight-thinking, and he seems to place great faith in the realm and the people that are supposed to serve it. I love him as a character for being so noble, but my god, it is actually painful to read. During his time at Kinglanding we see him alienate a lot of potential allies, like when Gregor goes on a killing spree and Ned refuses to send Loras - a move than may have endeared him to the Tyrell's. LF even points out that an enemy of the Lannisters would do well to count Tyrells as friends. But Ned seems to do what is best for the realm and not himself.

Welcome to the boards!

Re. Ned, I don't think we can simply say that Ned acts in the interests of the realm either. For example, in the scene you mention, Ned refuses to send Loras because Loras has a personal interest in killing Gregor, so it would not be justice. But Ned's alternative isn't obviously just either.

He condemns Gregor to death on very flimsy evidence (as the grand Maester explicitly points out), without any semblance of a trial, and flat-out refuses to wait for the King to return. This is neither particularly just nor particularly prudent, especially since he suspects Tywin is trying to goad his allies into doing something that would be a pretext for war. Moreover, he then sends out an ad hoc posse under Beric, rather than the King's Justice, because 1) he doesn't like executioners, and 2) Paynes is a Lannister bannerman. In other words, Ned makes it very easy for Tywin to argue that Ned was acting unjustly, and he doesn't have particularly good reasons for doing so.

[SummerSnow]

I don't think that Ned is either stupid or brilliant, just tragically flawed. His major flaw is an extremely common one: expecting others to be more like himself than they actually are, in his case in King's Landing, more honest and honorable than they are. People who manipulate a lot often see manipulation where there is none, some very honest people will trust others until they prove themselves untrustworthy. Ned wasn't always quite that naive in his thoughts, but he sometimes was in his actions.

He doesn't want to accept the position of Hand, and in the first Catelyn chapter of aGoT, he says "The only truths I know are here. The south is a nest of adders I would do better to avoid." He seems to be aware of his own unsuitability to the task, saying that his brother Brandon was raised for this, but Catelyn convinces him that he must try anyway, even though in the next couple of paragraphs they both seem to think that he'll never come back.

While reading, I did lament his ignorant/foolish actions on several occasions even though I like him a lot. One of the things I really *like* about aSoIaF is the way that most of the main characters are complex rather than cardboard heroes or villains.

[iamthedave]

Maia, I would argue that those that have morals ARE intelligent. More intelligent than schemers concerned with their own benefit. Davos is one of my favorites, because I think he emulates Ned, now we are probably splitting hairs here, but I think Ned is a kinder and nicer guy. I don't think Ned could have built up strength in that environment without sending for his own men, which I don't think he could've done.

This is pretty flimsy. You can be moral and thick as a brick at the same time. Moral fortitude has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence.

Saying Davos emulates Ned is showing a rather... obvious bit of character bias. They're both honourable men but the ways they go about it are completely different, and the fact Ned is a lord and Davos isn't makes a huge difference. Ned is loyal to his family first and everything else second (as shown by his death). Davos is loyal to Stannis first and everything else second.

Ned acts based on his own code of honour.

Davos acts in Stannis' best interests.

One is self-motivated, the other serves another in all things.

They're superficially similar, but only that.

[King Ned Stark]

Davos follows a man who is leading him into evil, and yet he follows. Protecting Edric is no more admirable, perhaps less so, then Ned protecting Cersei's brood. Is it noble to steer a craft that is the vessel of an assassin? The difference is that Davos tells his king the brutal truth, but does whatever he commands, whereas Ned refuses to "put his seal on it", and actually resigns. The difference, to me, is clear.

It may be flimsy to say that the moral astute are intelligent, but in the terms in which we are speaking "moral" means loyal and decent, whereas "intelligent" means plotting and self-serving. I know what kind of men I want with me. These characters are not being faced with a calculus exam, these are moral questions. Intelligence has nothing to do with a question of morality. Again, if Ned takes Renly's support, it's nearly a certainty that the Lannister children die. How is this not obvious? A poor tactical decision made in the preservation of life is not dumb, and the reverse is true. We are accepting that the game of thrones is the status quo, or a necessary evil, this is fallacy.

Saying that Ned condemns Gregor unnecessarily, is just wrong. This is the medieval ages, or a close comparison. There is no CSI, this is mostly how justice is done, by word of the king or sit-in. Everyone knew Gregor was responsible, and if not, he is responsible for other murders, call it late justice. I wouldn't have given Loras the lead either.

I understand some of you don't like to think about the world or aSoIaF as black and white, or good and evil, or whatever generic terms you think people use. I guess everyone is a good and decent fellow deep down, if so, I envy the people you people know, as people have shown me the opposite. This may make you an intellectual, as in everything is objective. I think this kind of thinking is a bit naive. It is, in my experience, that the nature of people is corrupt and wrong. It is those who are strong and disciplined who rise above and are decent and honorable, those who should be praised, yet now we find reasons to ridicule them. Is it because we know we could not muster the courage to make the same morally right decision in their stead? He chose different than I would have, therefore he must be wrong. This seems cowardly, you are assuming that Ned didn't know he was putting himself in a bad position, or that he couldn't have "won" at nearly any time. Unfortunately for those who follow a moral code, as in they must be stupid, they can not choose whatever solution is the most beneficial to them.