Troubling thought: Did Martin ultimately show Eddard sacrificing his principles by falsely admitting to treason?

[ShowOverBooks]

I admit Ned only cares about noble children. But he's not alone in that: None of the nobles we see in the books are really concerned with the smallfolk. Being smallfolk in Westeros plain sucks.

That said, you're now at a stage where you're making up flimsily related scenarios to keep your thesis afloat when it has already been shot to pieces. Saving Sansa when the alternative would have killed her without accomplishing anything else was perfectly in Ned's character. End of story.

Or am I missing something and you're arguing anything else now?

You're wrong in claiming that refusing to recant would accomplish nothing. The Lannisters clearly felt that him recanting had lots of value.

"Power lies where people BELIEVE it lies." - Varys. Joffrey has more political power if Lord Stark declares him as legitimate.

[Free Northman]

I admit Ned only cares about noble children. But he's not alone in that: None of the nobles we see in the books are really concerned with the smallfolk. Being smallfolk in Westeros plain sucks.

That said, you're now at a stage where you're making up flimsily related scenarios to keep your thesis afloat when it has already been shot to pieces. Saving Sansa when the alternative would have killed her without accomplishing anything else was perfectly in Ned's character. End of story.

Or am I missing something and you're arguing anything else now?

I acknowledge your opinion.

I'm arguing that he did what he did for love, which came back to Aemon's whole point that love trumps honor in the final analysis.

I agree that it was fully consistent with the true Ned.

I agree that it is laudible, and that I would have acted in the same way.

I disagree that it was fully consistent with the most honorable approach, from a neutral perspective.

I disagree that he would have done the same thing if it was not his own child's life at stake. If it was Dany with a knife to her throat, I think he would not have made the same choice.

Because when saving Dany before, he was opposing a dishonorable action by sticking to the honorable thing. In this case, he is forced to support a dishonorable cause (Joffrey's Kingship) through his lie, which is a different situation entirely than his previous intervention to save Daenerys.

I agree that to Ned the ultimate honor is protecting your family.

I disagree that saving all innocents has the same priority in his code of honor.

[Free Northman]

Well, he DID agree to take the black. This would have cooled things off. That was why Tywin was so pissed off, if his idiot grandson had not cut off Ned's head he would not have been getting his ass kicked around by Robb. I already pointed out that Ned's choice as was laid before him was not die a martyr with your child or die a traitor ensuring war either way, it was die a martyr with your child ensuring war or endorse Joffrey, save your kid and remove the reason for Robb to go to war in the first place. Remember, the Northmen went to war to rescue the Riverlords and Ned, ie rescue their family. It was not until Ned was dead that the Northmen decided to make a play at independence.

There's of course the little matter of Robert's Rebellion that contradicts this point.

[eggs]

I admit Ned only cares about noble children. But he's not alone in that: None of the nobles we see in the books are really concerned with the smallfolk. Being smallfolk in Westeros plain sucks.

That said, you're now at a stage where you're making up flimsily related scenarios to keep your thesis afloat when it has already been shot to pieces. Saving Sansa when the alternative would have killed her without accomplishing anything else was perfectly in Ned's character. End of story.

Or am I missing something and you're arguing anything else now?

eh, even the smallfolk want to go to to war over stupid shit. There are actually mobs in Dorne wanting war over Oberyn's completely lawful death. I dont think Ned trying to avoid war at all costs is that big of a deal. People say that the commoners dont care who sits on the throne as long as theyre left alone but really none of them would tolerate a bastard born of incest on the throne.

[Fearsedge]

I disagree that it was fully consistent with the most honorable approach, from a neutral perspective.

Well there is your problem. There is no neutral perspective to honor. If you are saying that he sacrificed honor, your are talking about HIS idea of honor, right? If it's just about what other people thought of Ned, I don't think we'd be having this discussion. It's about you thinking Ned sacrificed his principles to himself. Well, guess what? He didn't. Ned's idea of honor involved protecting the innocent, i.e. children. He is/was not alone in this view of honor. You can say your idea of honor is different, but that's irrelevant. If your idea was Ned didn't follow what you consider to be the correct application of all things honorable then fine, but your idea is that he sacrificed his own principles in some way that doesn't fit with his own idea of honor. That simply didn't happen. He applied his principles consistently.

[Fearsedge]

There's of course the little matter of Robert's Rebellion that contradicts this point.

What? How?

[eggs]

There's of course the little matter of Robert's Rebellion that contradicts this point.

how does that contradict his post?

[Free Northman]

What? How?

That Ned doesn't pick the lives of thousands of smallfolk children over what he believes is the honorable thing to do. Which is get rid of Aerys for what was done to Rickard, Brandon and Lyanna.

So he picks his family over the lives of thousands of smallfolk, who coudn't care whether Robert or Aerys sits on the Throne.

Hence, it would be fully consistent with Ned's behavior in the Rebellion, to raise a new alliance to depose Joffrey because he is not the true king.

This proves that Ned's notion of honor is tinged heavily with what's best for his family. Not what's best for innocents in general.

[Fearsedge]

That Ned doesn't pick the lives of thousands of smallfolk children over what he believes is the honorable thing to do. Which is get rid of Aerys for what was done to Rickard, Brandon and Lyanna.

Wrong. Dead wrong. Do you not recall what made Jon Arryn call his banners in rebellion, the first to do so? Aerys called for the heads of Robert and Ned. Jon Arryn, whom it seems to me was if not THE model for Ned's code of honor then definitely a very influential one, would not sacrifice 2 innocents, so he called the men who had sworn to serve him, to protect those he loved. For Ned and Robert, it's a matter of self preservation, as well as the matter of a crazy person who has a track record of burning people alive for fun should be anywhere but the throne. Again, this is not easily framed into a right decision/wrong decision situation. Think of what the alternatives were in that situation. Think of how much damage crazy paranoid Aerys would have done otherwise. There are no right answers here, that's what makes it compelling.

[Free Northman]

Wrong. Dead wrong. Do you not recall what made Jon Arryn call his banners in rebellion, the first to do so? Aerys called for the heads of Robert and Ned. Jon Arryn, whom it seems to me was if not THE model for Ned's code of honor then definitely a very influential one, would not sacrifice 2 innocents, so he called the men who had sworn to serve him, to protect those he loved. For Ned and Robert, it's a matter of self preservation, as well as the matter of a crazy person who has a track record of burning people alive for fun should be anywhere but the throne. Again, this is not easily framed into a right decision/wrong decision situation. Think of what the alternatives were in that situation. Think of how much damage crazy paranoid Aerys would have done otherwise. There are no right answers here, that's what makes it compelling.

Really? Would the smallfolk of the Vale, the Riverlands, the North, the Stormlands, the Reach etc. have been worse off if Ned and his small group of noble friends had submitted to Aerys?

Their few lives in exchange for the lives of thousands lost in the war?

You don't really believe that argument.

They did it for self preservation and the preservation of their families. Not for the sake of the smallfolk.

[Free Northman]

The point of the above is not to villify Eddard. The point is to establish a precedent for his potential behavior in the War of the Five Kings, had Sansa not been a hostage.

And it is clear that Ned would have launched a war to depose a false King, if he had sufficient military strength behind him.

Therefore, his choice was NOT based on the fate of the smallfolk, but purely on the fate of Sansa. His daugther.

[salihzzz]

No, but after Ser Rodrik arrives with his 2000 men, Theon brings up Beth Cassel onto the walls and says he will kill her unless Ser Rodrik withdraws. Ser Rodrik is close to crying in anguish, but he nevertheless tells Theon that his honor leaves him no choice but to continue the assault.

So even though he knows that Theon will kill Beth if he continues, he nevertheless chooses his honor over his daughter. He does this due to his duty to Eddard. It is therefore incredibly troubling that Martin depicts Eddard taking the easier way out when his bannerman Ser Rodrik stayed true to the point of sacrificing his own daughter in Eddard's service.

Eddard is therefore depicted as not being willing to make the same sacrifice that his castellan was willing to make in his service.

This is deeply troubling to me.

But Ned and Cassels situations are completely differant.

Ned had nothing to gain, his daughters would've died just so he could feel good about his honour and pat himself on the back.

Cassel had to take the castle back, he couldn't turn around and tell his men lets go he's got a loved one of mine the castle is theirs fuck the Starks.

imo they both did the right thing.

[The guy from the Vale]

Even if Ned did participate in the Rebellion for the reasons you cite (Fearsedge has already laid out why that's not the case, but anyway), are you suggesting Ned should not have developed his character in those fifteen years? Or even during the war itself? I don't think Robert calling Rhaegar's children 'dragonspawn' didn't leave a lasting impression on Ned, for example.

[Fearsedge]

Really? Would the smallfolk of the Vale, the Riverlands, the North, the Stormlands, the Reach etc. have been worse off if Ned and his small group of noble friends had submitted to Aerys?

Their few lives in exchange for the lives of thousands lost in the war?

You don't really believe that argument.

They did it for self preservation and the preservation of their families. Not for the sake of the smallfolk.

You are just going to ignore that your idea for the motivation of Ned in that situation was completely wrong?

And yes, I do believe that. I think that you can only be pushed so far. A monarch calls for the heads of what are basically 2 children who are guilty of nothing except being in the wrong family or being friends with the wrong people? Is that something that people who are supposedly there to protect the people(the entire foundation of the feudal system) can abide? What kind of dangerous precedent does that set? Are you seriously suggesting that the honorable thing to do was to go get your head cut off so we can avoid a war to depose this madman?

What I find so amusing about this, is that these moral conflicts are the very thing that make this story interesting. That is why I love it because good people in the story, like Ned, are faced with choices that hurt people either way. People act with the best of intentions and make the best decisions they can at the time, and still end up hurting people. That's life.

[Fearsedge]

Really? Would the smallfolk of the Vale, the Riverlands, the North, the Stormlands, the Reach etc. have been worse off if Ned and his small group of noble friends had submitted to Aerys?

Their few lives in exchange for the lives of thousands lost in the war?

You don't really believe that argument.

They did it for self preservation and the preservation of their families. Not for the sake of the smallfolk.

I just want to get this straight, are you suggesting that I'm wrong about there being no right answers? The objective moral thing to do in Ned's situation is to go get murdered?

[danm_999]

You are just going to ignore that your idea for the motivation of Ned in that situation was completely wrong?

I think we all know the answer to this question is 'yes'.

[Free Northman]

In a nutshell I'm saying Ned is most certainly not averse to sacrificing lives in general for a cause. He is just averse to sacrificing the life of his daughter.

At least, that's how Martin chose to depict it in the end.

[Col. Forbin]

I have always felt that Eddard is best descriped by his attempt to protect chidren, not so much by his honour. For example, the whole Jon situation is not honourable, but Eddards way to protect a child.

It was Eddard protecting children- Cersei's children- from Robert's wrath that gave Cersei the openning to move against him in the first place.

[Fearsedge]

In a nutshell I'm saying Ned is most certainly not averse to sacrificing lives in general for a cause. He is just averse to sacrificing the life of his daughter.

At least, that's how Martin chose to depict it in the end.

Umm... so what? People sacrifice the general good for their own good, or the good of those they can put faces to. This is getting down to philosophy and the way people think, but let's put it this way. Ned does not sacrifice particular people that can put a face or name to. When he is going to war, he calls upon able bodied men who swore to come when called. They make war, but the cause is an honorable one, primarily in the name of keeping the peace which just about EVERYONE values. Some innocents MAY be hurt, but you cannot say who will be and when and why. They are faceless conceptual people.

Keeping the peace IS saving the innocent. Deposing a mad king or putting down a rebellion of your own are both in the service of the greater good. Not exclusively, of course, but almost nothing in life is done for just one reason. You seem incapable of processing the nuances here. Ned had a position of authority and thus people depend on him to make decisions. I have asked before and I'll ask again, what was the right move for Ned? To simply go get murdered?

[Fearsedge]

In a nutshell I'm saying Ned is most certainly not averse to sacrificing lives in general for a cause. He is just averse to sacrificing the life of his daughter.

At least, that's how Martin chose to depict it in the end.

Let us not forget that this is Ned from like 15 years ago. It would be quite silly to suggest his character was unchanged since then, but you never know. We can only speculate on most of the details of that time.