Mourning Star

One calls on a witness to tell the truth, this is true no matter who calls them or why they were called. A witness can be asked to tell the truth if it is for the sake of the defense, accuser, or just for the sake of truth. Being called on to defend Arya, is being called on to tell the truth for the sake of defending her... which is exactly what happened. Ned and Cersei are clearly the ones acting on behalf of their children here. In a non adversarial system the judge should be part of the investigation, of which there is no evidence here. It may exist in theory but we have not seen it... I wouldn't mind, after the main series is complete, till then it's not exactly my first request. Not taking a side, especially in a situation like this, is still taking a side. Refusing to come to her sisters defense, or even just stating the truth as she knew it (which would be a defense of Arya in this case), was a betrayl imo. It can happen, but it is only necessary in an adversarial system. In an inquisitorial system there is no right to face your accused or right for the defense to call witnesses. Again, I'm not sure this distinction is meaningful here, this was hardly a formal court setting to begin with.

And you are entitled to your opinion no matter how wrong it is. Below is fan fiction, and it's both ridiculous and disingenuous to pretend otherwise. "A butcher's boy who wants to be a knight, is it?" Joffrey swung down from his mount, sword in hand. "Pick up your sword, butcher's boy," he said, his eyes bright with amusement. "Let us see how good you are."

As I keep saying, I don't know why you brought up this distinction at all or why you think it's meaningful. Ned calls on Sansa to defend Arya... That's why he does it, to refute the story put forward by Joffrey. That a witness is asked to tell the truth in any system I've ever heard of doesn't seem relevant to anything here, except that Sansa is clearly not honest. I see this as a betrayal. I was providing you with history in regards to one of the defining characteristic differences between these types of systems since you seem to be interested in the topic. England makes for a good comparison to Westeros, and this history is critical to understanding comparative legal systems. I could have pointed to the Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution, but it seemed less relevant of an example here. We do not have the codified laws of Westeros, but if you are trying to place this event into either an adversarial or non-adversarial bucket, I think it leans toward adversarial. We have an accuser and defendant both making statements to the judge (king) and he then makes a determination (or in this case no real legal judgment). The presence of an accuser, the defense calling a witness, and the lack of any independent investigation by the "court", make me inclined to call this adversarial. But again, the distinction doesn't seem very meaningful here, this was clearly no official trial.

You're supposed to tell the truth no matter what system you are in. I do not see any actual distinction here. Also, again, she is called on by the defense, Ned. Because the ecclesiastical court system in Europe, including England, was an inquisitorial system and this distinction (the need for an accuser) was a big deal. If you are interested in the subject, the history is very interesting, but just to give you a brief synopsis I'll quote Wikipedia: Beginning in 1198, Pope Innocent III issued a series of decretals that reformed the ecclesiastical court system. Under the new processus per inquisitionem (inquisitional procedure), an ecclesiastical magistrate no longer required a formal accusation to summon and try a defendant. Instead, an ecclesiastical court could summon and interrogate witnesses of its own initiative. If the (possibly secret) testimony of those witnesses accused a person of a crime, that person could be summoned and tried. In 1215, the Fourth Council of the Lateran affirmed the use of the inquisitional system. The council forbade clergy from conducting trials by ordeal or combat. As a result, in parts of continental Europe, the ecclesiastical courts operating under the inquisitional procedure became the dominant method by which disputes were adjudicated. In France, the parlements — lay courts — also employed inquisitorial proceedings.[4] In England, however, King Henry II had established separate secular courts during the 1160s. While the ecclesiastical courts of England, like those on the continent, adopted the inquisitional system, the secular common law courts continued to operate under the adversarial system. The adversarial principle that a person could not be tried until formally accused continued to apply for most criminal cases. In 1215 this principle became enshrined as article 38 of the Magna Carta: "No bailiff for the future shall, upon his own unsupported complaint, put anyone to his law, without credible witnesses brought for this purposes."

Ned, in defense of his daughter, calls on Sansa to testify after Cersei's accusations. Prince Joffrey was pale as he began his very different version of events. When his son was done talking, the king rose heavily from his seat, looking like a man who wanted to be anywhere but here. "What in all the seven hells am I supposed to make of this? He says one thing, she says another." "They were not the only ones present," Ned said. "Sansa, come here." Ned had heard her version of the story the night Arya had vanished. He knew the truth. "Tell us what happened." We don't know what "truth" Sansa told Ned, but it sure seems like he believed it would help defend Arya. And, we do know the events from Sansa's perspective. Actually, a crucial difference between adversarial and non-adversarial systems is the need for an accuser in an adversarial system. In a non adversarial, or inquisitorial, system there does not have to be an accuser. For instance, we can see this requirement enshrined in the Magna Carta, article 38. But again, I do not see why the distinction is even relevant here. Sansa knows the truth, she is called on to tell the truth in defense of her sister against accusations that have already seen one person killed, and she does not tell the truth. This is a betrayal in my book, call it whatever you want.

We could get into the distinctions between types of trials but why is this at all meaningful here? The key difference between adversarial and non-adversarial systems is the need for a accuser, which we have, and the role of the government in investigation, which is debatable here. The distinction between common law and civil law is different, and one could find both types of trial in both types of system. This was a king hearing a dispute, and it's not clear what the codified laws of Westeros are. But again, I don't think it really matters what one calls it. Sansa was called on to tell the truth when accusations she and we know to be false are leveled at her sister and a boy who has already been killed. She does not tell the truth. To me this is a betrayal no matter how you categorize the proceedings.

When Mycah is already in a bag I suppose the distinction does not seem meaningful to me. I agree that Sansa is called on to tell the truth, which she does not do. The fact that accusations are being made, and in the end punishment exacted, tells me this was not just an informational session. But, you are entitled to a different viewpoint.

This is still fan fiction no matter how you seem to want to justify it. It's a fine exercise in imagination, especially if it makes sense to you, but I'm not interested in engaging with it. Nobody is gaslighting you, what you describe are hypothetical events that did not happen in the story, that's fan fiction no matter how much you think it makes sense. Seemed pretty adversarial to me. "You and the butcher boy beat him with clubs while you set your wolf on him."

It's a fan fiction account that is not from ASoIaF. You can debate what version of the truth is fair, but I find it hard to see any angle where refusing to speak here can be considered honest or honorable, especially when confronted by an account we know to be false. "You and the butcher boy beat him with clubs while you set your wolf on him." I agree that not speaking was dishonorable in this situation. You can debate fan fiction alternate universes of what Sansa may have said had she spoke up all you want, but it's pretty clearly dishonorable to not speak up in the face of falsehood when called upon to in defense of your own sister. More fan fiction.

The idea that Sansa gave an account at all to Robert is fan fiction. Honorable usually includes telling the truth, yes. Not telling the truth when called upon to do so in defense of a family member is a betrayal.

You aren’t going to hurt my feelings… it’s ok, I’m pretty confident in my reading ability. What was the point of the fan fiction account? Not only is it irrelevant it’s a waste of time.

I don’t know what you are trying to say here… maybe it’s cause I don’t read good lol. What point?

Sansa could have danced a jig and Joffrey could have apologized… but that’s not the story we read or are talking about… this is waste of time. Have good one

Morality is not determined by outcome. This is like kindergarten philosophy 101, and why I quoted Varys pointing this truth out to Ned. Enough, this is a waste of time

Oh my god… That is not what was presented… there was not a technically true but biased story told. "Joff told us what happened," the queen said. "You and the butcher boy beat him with clubs while you set your wolf on him." There were objective lies, and she had the chance to tell the truth. It’s a very simple plot point but this is like pulling teeth…

No! She could have told the truth! Morality matters! Are we reading the same series? Lol

Robb was already dead… Sansa is still the only Stark kid to lose her wolf. Can’t lose something after you’ve died…

What? Sure, Sansa could paint whatever picture she wants to, and doing so would have been just as bad as staying silent, we the readers saw what happened… Robert is absolutely not just thinking it’s about a wolf attack. Joff threatened an unarmed girl and butchers boy with a sword, then lost… which to Robert might be the bigger crime. Obviously, Cersei and Robert’s opinions have no bearing on the morality of the situation. I’m not sure what you are trying to prove by saying the events could be misrepresented… when I’m pointing out that Sansa’s silence damned them anyway? She could be worse? Ya sure…

Robb dies… and it turns out leaving the wolf in a cage was probably a mistake. Jon is briefly separated from Ghost as well, but reunited. My point was that Sansa is the only living Stark child whose wolf was killed off so far. By Ned’s own hand no less. Sansa said. "The Hound is Joffrey's sworn shield. Your butcher's boy attacked the prince." "Liar," Arya said. Be it a Stark trait or a Ned trait, we are talking about his children. Can you think of an example where a Stark acted dishonorably? Robert was raised in the Vale too, but he’s no Ned Stark.

How are you getting this? Like I agree that she is the least “stark” of Ned’s kids… and more like her mother. But what do you see pointing to her becoming more like the other Starks? Lady’s death was not a turning point for Sansa’s behavior. She kept lying about the Trident and still chose to run to Cersei when Ned wanted to send her home. But… we have gotten way of topic here. Haha

What did Sansa tell Ned? What truth? It’s not clear that she defended her sister in the least. As an older sibling her behavior (or lack) shocked me the first time I read it and it has always surprised me that people act like there was nothing she could do. What Arya did was “not without honor”. Nymeria may be “lost” but not dead. Sansa was not honorable, a famously Stark trait. Sansa is the only Stark kid to have her wolf killed because she’s the only dishonorable one who chose to side against the family. (We could speculate about Jon/Ghost using the same reasoning). The lone wolf dies. "Winter is coming," Arya whispered. "The hard cruel times," her father said. "We tastedthem on the Trident, child, and when Bran fell. You were born in the long summer, sweet one, you've never known anything else, but now the winter is truly coming. Remember the sigil of our House, Arya." "The direwolf," she said, thinking of Nymeria. She hugged her knees against her chest, suddenly afraid. "Let me tell you something about wolves, child. When the snows fall and the white winds blow, the lone wolf dies, but the pack survives. Summer is the time for squabbles. In winter, we must protect one another, keep each other warm, share our strengths. So if you must hate, Arya, hate those who would truly do us harm. Septa Mordane is a good woman, and Sansa … Sansa is your sister. You may be as different as the sun and the moon, but the same blood flows through both your hearts. You need her, as she needs you … and I need both of you, gods help me." It seems like you are conflating the symbolism and the plot too. Cersei wanting a wolf pelt out of spite is a plot reason for Lady’s death, but symbolically this death is a repercussion of Sansa’s actions and who her character is.

Her actions or lack reflect her character even if you don’t think they would impact the outcome. "To be sure. You are an honest and honorable man, Lord Eddard. Ofttimes I forget that. I have met so few of them in my life." He glanced around the cell. "When I see what honesty and honor have won you, I understand why." And you are entitled to that view. But, not acting is as much a choice as acting, and very often the idea that one can take no side is an illusion. As in this case, where he refusing to answer led to the death of Lady (the very symbol of House Stark). Petty and reckless betrayals are still betrayals. Sansa didn’t want to go back to Winterfell, she wanted to be Queen, but self interest isn’t a good reason for betrayal. I understand that one can excuse children being children, and people make mistakes, this isn’t a person on trial but a character in a story. I think actions and thoughts define a character, and that isn’t to say she can’t change, as I said I think she is approaching a tipping point, but I’m not optimistic about the outcome given the events so far.

They hunted Micah for days, and Arya too, Sansa’s own sister, while Sansa wasn’t telling the truth… for days! People sometimes act like it was something that happened quickly or in confusion, but there was a lot of time for her to feel bad, tell the truth, or join the search. You can try and downplay it or excuse it, but it’s still there. At the end of the day it’s a character, and I feel like some people take opinions about characters like this a little to personally. I mean… she runs to Cersei to tell her Ned’s plan because she wants to be queen… she’s young and foolish and shortsighted, they help us understand the character, but they amount to excuses. It’s easy to understand why she behaved the way she did, and just as easy to see why it was morally wrong. It seems pretty clear that Lady’s death was symbolically (and kind of literally) due to her betrayal of her family. If she is complicit in the murder of Robert Arryn, either willingly or obliviously, I think she’ll be beyond redemption. But as I said above, part of me hopes she can redeem herself.

I think part of the disagreement here lies in the fact that Sansa is currently at a tipping point for her character. So far she has done some things and acted in ways that did not reflect well on her, both in refusing to tell the truth about the fight on the Trident (resulting in Mycah’s death) and showing no remourse, and she betrayed her father when she ran to Cersei. However, she has had her youth and innocence as potential excuses. The situation with Robert Arryn, her cousin, and if she defends him or participates in the plot to see him die and usurp his seat, appears to be a tipping point for the morality of her character. Part of me hopes to see Sansa redeem herself, but honestly I’m not overly optimistic. Part of me expects her to agree to be a part of seeing Robert Arryn dead, only for the plot to be interrupted, and I would speculate this interruption will be caused by an attack by the Clans led by Timett, Robert’s true heir, who could also identify Sansa. But, at this point it really seems like it could go either way to me.

(AGoT Ch 2 Catelyn I) I’m suggesting that this comment by Cat could be read as telling us that Ned’s Valyrian Steel Ice is not the original sword of house Stark. I’m suggesting that the original sword was actually Dawn.