Controversial opinions on characters

[BadWo1f]

I never said he wasn't to blame for his actions. I never said he wasn't. but his behavior came from somewhere and it came from: his personality, his early childhood with his messed up family and his hostage situation. it all plays a role into who Theon became. and he did suffer a lot because of things that weren't his fault.

Theon wasn't treated with respect though, he was treated like a high born hostage yes, but still a hostage. and he was mistrusted by pretty much everyone but Robb, simply for being called Greyjoy. you'd think that maybe if they hadn't mistrusted him he wouldn't have these issues with divided loyalties. Maybe if they'd given him some love and respect he wouldn't have these confidense issues that cause him to lie to himself all the time...

the point is that Theon was an outsider for half his life (including his formative years).

tell me, which characters had it worse than Theon?

someone who dislikes Theon and refuses to see the situation from his perspective because of their dislike is a Theon hater.

I never said he was a saint and I never said he wasn't at fault. I'm only looking at the situation from another perspective than the Starks'

He wouldn't have a great life no, but there's a difference between having an asshole of a father and not having a father at all but instead a man who's holding you captive under threat of death. not to mention that on the iron islands he'd have alannys, asha, dagmer... in winterfell he only had Robb, who's younger than him. plus, if he had stayed on the iron islands Balon wouldn't have any reason to shun him, he still wouldn't be a great father but with his brothers dead he might have just focussed his hopes on Theon and given him the chance to prove himself and if we can believe Dagmer, he would have. bye bye confidense issues, bye bye defense mechanisms. so sorry, but I think Theon would have been much better off not living as a captive under threat of death...

Idk how to quote only part of your post so forgive me for that. But I'm interested in part where you ask me who had it worse than Theon... Well for example Dany did, Viserys did, Arya did, Sansa did, Bran did (maybe best example how you can still stay away from child murder even when bad things happen ), Rickon did, Varys did and so on...I don't get it, are you defending him for killing those kids? Oh, yes having ass of a father is really good, just ask Sam for example...If you live in Winterfell that many years and you are still an outsider than idk, you are kinda idiot. And many of people were totally fair and correct to him, he had education and everything else highborn should have...Jon also felt like an outsider when Cat was there and he was a bastard so there... You don't go murdering children because you were a hostage, he had bad childhood booohoo, poor Theon, what kind of a man would he become if he was sent to Lannisters? Its just stupid, he had people to look up to and not become guy he became... My point is, Theon had people around hin that educated him, he had Robb as friend, he trained in fighting, he had Ned and others telling him good from bad... As I said above many characters had it worse than Theon but they didn't become child killers... He wanted IB to respect him and that is why he did it...

Edit: And all of that "putt yourself in his situation" bs... Putt yourself in Ramsay's situation, poor guy, you must be a hater... Now whenever someone has a different opinion on something he must be a hater...

[INCBlackbird]

It's a flawed comparison from the very beginning as what these characters care most about is completely divorced from what Theon cares most about. You're introducing extremely subjective criteria from the very start. Not all goals are created equal. Just because I want something (even if I want it really really badly) doesn't give me any right to obtain it through means that harm other people because my desires don't supersede their desires. For example, just there's nothing I want more than that georgeous Porsche doesn't mean that I can murder the owner and take the keys. Or if I'm having an affair with a married man who I adore and what I care about the most is being together doesn't mean I get to murder his wife. In fact, one of the characters you mention, Stannis, wants nothing more than the IT and is in a pretty hopeless position, yet he doesn't burn Edric (at least not immediately and maybe never).

So a better question is whether these characters would kill children rather than lose face in front of their men. Again, we have examples of two characters doing just that - Robb executes Karstark for just that even though it means losing a bunch of his army, and Dany opts not to kill her child hostages even though she realises it makes her look weak. Stannis most definitely would not do something unlawful just because it might lose him respect either. In fact, out of the characters you named it's very hard for me to pick a person that would do as Theon does.

That depends on the severity of the actions and the threat to your wellbeing. You can be a nice person and seriously harm/kill someone if they're threatening your life, say. You can't be a nice person and kill someone to escape a minor discomfort.

The impression I get is that you believe it's impossible for someone to fully understand Theon and still think he's a bad person/pass judgement on him. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Classism (is this a word?) has nothing to do with Theon's actions except for the fact that he himself acts this way towards his social inferiors.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to take from that link? I think it's a combination of having more freedom, not being flayed anymore, beign at Winterfell, and, yes, quite possibly seeing Jeyne that helps him regain his identity. I never denied he wanted to help her. But the escape plan is still Mance's idea and execution up to the last moment when Theon jumps off the wall with her.

But you can't take a very specific scenario that is a culmination of all the events in the book and not expect people to argue using just as specific information pertaining to that scenario in their arguments. That conversation didn't just come out of nowhere and considering it in isolation means completely ignoring the entire context. It's also silly to believe that the character's decisions and opinions in that conversation are not at all informed by their experiences and relationships up to that point. You can't possibly believe that all Ned knew at that point about Joffrey, Cersei, the Lannisters, Tywin, Stannis, Renly and the politics in KL etc never factored into his decision making. And you're taking LF's words at face value as if he was an unbiased observer when we know he's very much biased since he's got everything to win if he succeeds in his ploy and everything to lose if he doesn't.

But sure, let's ignore all that and just pretend we don't know anything about the other players. There's no rule that proclaiming the rightful king automatically means war. If we take the hypothetical scenario in which it does, we don't know what Ned would do since we never saw him in that position and there are plenty of variables that could and would influence his decision is such a case. He's a stickler for the rules but we know he's also perfectly willing to break them when more important things are at stake. So basically your criticism of Ned is based on what you ASSUME he would do in a hypothetical situation and your assumption is based on what he says in a completely different scenario. Give the guy a break.

but in that case any comparison is flawed because any situation is different, every person is different, every person's past is different. so no comparison than. my point is that there's more at stake for Theon than his reputation, it's just that he'll be laughed at it's what he'll lose through being laughed at. and what he'll lose is something every human being wants/needs. would you be able to go through life without having a place to belong? without being loved? I don't think it's hard to understand why Theon was so desparate and why it was such a hard decision to make. and I think that most people who had to lose what Theon had to lose would have done the same thing, there's few truely heroic people out there. Now, do you understand my stance on this? (my stance being that Theon had a lot to lose and it was the wrong decision but it was a really hard decision and most people would chose themselves over others. Yes, even when it comes to the murder of children) you can disagree, it's not my intent to persuade you over to agreeing with me, all i'm asking is to give my stance some thought and to not cut it as simple as "Theon killed two boys because he didn't want to get laughed at" because it's not as that.

I agree with that, it depends on the situation. and in my opinion I can understand why Theon did what he did according to the severity of the action and the threat to his wellbeing. understand, not excuse.

nope, someone can understand him perfectly and still not like him. I could see how someone just doesn't like him because he's a jerk, despite where that behavior comes from. or even because they don't like people who are ruled by their emotions. or because they have harsher principles than mine and they simply can't like anyone who crosses a certain line, like killing children (in this cause I do believe you gotta be consistent about it though. if all that matters is not crossing that line it should go for every character who crossed that line, otherwise we're dealing with a double standard). misunderstanding the character comes when people ignore his past, don't understand the effect his past has on his present self, say things about him that are not supported by the text (like him being sadistic, or only feeling bad about his mistakes after things went wrong). that is misunderstanding the character, and I have seen a lot of that.

that wasn't the argument, the argument was that there's classisism in Westeros. and yes Theon does, he's a major classisist.

the point is that it's not a scenario it's a principle that Ned has. and I do not agree with said principle. I am assuming that Ned would react in other hypothetical situations the same way because he is a man of principles (incidently just like I am a woman of principles, we just have different ones, and since we both feel very strongly about our principles we clash) and the way he expresses this is not him referring to this situation it's him referring to the simple principle that there is no choice because Stannis is the rightful heir. that suggests that whatever situation he was in there wouldn't be a choice for Ned. is that clear?

Now, it's useless to argue against something I didn't say (aka the whole situation thing) so I'd like to ask you to please please please either simply accept that I believe Ned has this principle and I have a problem with it and that is my only point. or if you don't think Ned has this principle, tell me why, you can try and convince me he doesn't but so far I haven't been convinced (than again, lots of useless time has been spent with the both of us just repeating the same points over and over again and we haven't really argued about this particular point)

[INCBlackbird]

Idk how to quote only part of your post so forgive me for that. But I'm interested in part where you ask me who had it worse than Theon... Well for example Dany did, Viserys did, Arya did, Sansa did, Bran did (maybe best example how you can still stay away from child murder even when bad things happen ), Rickon did, Varys did and so on...I don't get it, are you defending him for killing those kids? Oh, yes having ass of a father is really good, just ask Sam for example...If you live in Winterfell that many years and you are still an outsider than idk, you are kinda idiot. And many of people were totally fair and correct to him, he had education and everything else highborn should have...Jon also felt like an outsider when Cat was there and he was a bastard so there... You don't go murdering children because you were a hostage, he had bad childhood booohoo, poor Theon, what kind of a man would he become if he was sent to Lannisters? Its just stupid, he had people to look up to and not become guy he became... My point is, Theon had people around hin that educated him, he had Robb as friend, he trained in fighting, he had Ned and others telling him good from bad... As I said above many characters had it worse than Theon but they didn't become child killers... He wanted IB to respect him and that is why he did it...

Edit: And with all of that "putt yourself in his situation" bs... Putt yourself in Ramsay's situation, poor guy, you must be a hater... Now whenever someone has a different opinion on something he must be a hater...

I think the only character out of those you mentioned who had it worse than Theon was Varys. but either way, I kinda figured it wasn't a good question of me to ask to begin with because every childhood is different, every situation is different, every person is different... the main point is that just like everybody else Theon was shaped by his childhood, and the issues he has are all logical considering what he had to endure. furthermore he got into a really difficult situation when he killed those boys it's not as simple cut as Theon killing children because he had a bad childhood.

considering everything put together I find what he did understandable (therefore not excuseable) and according to my PERSONAL standards of a good person (that you or anyone else are not required to agree with) I find him to be a good person.

[Trevelyan]

Well, another controversial opinion: I believe Theon had it better with the Starks than he would have, if he had stayed at Pyke with his crazy dad. At Winterfell, he had Robb, who was a true friend to him, he was somewhat respected and treated like the noble he was, he was educated, fed and enjoyed all the privileges of a noble. Sure, technically he was a hostage, but I personally believe that the probability of Ned actually having to execute Theon was extremely low, almost non-existent - I mean, of what use is a dead hostage? And I think Theon knew that too, but of course he would later deny all of this, to justify his betrayal to himself.

And I certainly don't think he was "damaged" at all, by his years with the Starks. If anything, I think it actually made him a better person. And the betrayal and child murdering began after he returned to Pyke and was re-introduced to the barbaric ways of the Iron Born, which speaks for itself.

As a hostage, Theon was still kind of an arrogant douche, but he wasn't a despicable murderer, he was civilized and actually kinda well-behaved.

[Anythingatall]

Here's a pretty controversial opinion: Martin is definitely going for so many old tropes. He's playing some of them straight up to the point where many might call him a typical writer. He tweaks enough of them to get some praise for it, but he's not the 100% original twist mastermind many hold him to be. And this is coming from someone who loved Feast and Dance, and his other stories and novels; he is not a master trope breaker. :P

I'll agree with that one and go a little further. Martin is a fantastic writer but with the best will in the world he is writing a plot driven story not a collection of character studies. Every line of dialogue doesn't have deeper meaning. Every piece of description isn't foreshadowing. Sometimes he makes sloppy mistakes. He has created a whole planet with a rich history and of course there are a shit tonne of errors in there, he is just a man.

[Ser Brandon Badwater]

I'll agree with that one and go a little further. Martin is a fantastic writer but with the best will in the world he is writing a plot driven story not a collection of character studies. Every line of dialogue doesn't have deeper meaning. Every piece of description isn't foreshadowing. Sometimes he makes sloppy mistakes. He has created a whole planet with a rich history and of course there are a shit tonne of errors in there, he is just a man.

To add to the controversy, I believe he sometimes goes back to his older books, opens a page, picks a line, and then makes a plot around that one line.

[INCBlackbird]

I agree with lordstonheart and anythingatall about Martin. his writing is not perfect, I also think that sometimes characters do irrational things, not because it makes sense for their character to do them but because he needs them to do it to further the plot. Than again, that's all ok, like anythingatall said he's just a man and it's normal that not everything is perfect, I do not require it to be (and I don't think anyone does) I'm mostly in it for the amazing characters and worldbuilding.

[Maid So Fair]

but in that case any comparison is flawed because any situation is different, every person is different, every person's past is different. so no comparison than. my point is that there's more at stake for Theon than his reputation, it's just that he'll be laughed at it's what he'll lose through being laughed at. and what he'll lose is something every human being wants/needs. would you be able to go through life without having a place to belong? without being loved? I don't think it's hard to understand why Theon was so desparate and why it was such a hard decision to make. and I think that most people who had to lose what Theon had to lose would have done the same thing, there's few truely heroic people out there. Now, do you understand my stance on this? (my stance being that Theon had a lot to lose and it was the wrong decision but it was a really hard decision and most people would chose themselves over others. Yes, even when it comes to the murder of children) you can disagree, it's not my intent to persuade you over to agreeing with me, all i'm asking is to give my stance some thought and to not cut it as simple as "Theon killed two boys because he didn't want to get laughed at" because it's not as that.

That's a slippery slope argument. Sure, not every comparison or analogy is perfect, but some are clearly better than others and this is no reason to dismiss making comparisons altogether. I outlined why I believe your comparison was flawed and suggested, to me, a better one.

Well, what would Theon lose except his reputation? They won't kill him or throw him in jail. He'll still be the Prince. He'll still be a Greyjoy by blood. He still conquered Winterfell, which is more than anybody else managed. He MIGHT lose respect of some of his men, but so what? Everyone makes mistakes, and he's got his entire life to earn it back. Even just this war should present plenty of opportunities for some clever scheme or a daring heist he could pull off to salvage his reputation. I've already suggested burning Winterfell, that would go towards that. A place to belong? He's not going to be able to keep Winterfell no matter what. Is there anyone who already does who wouldn't love him if he didn't kill those boys? Asha and his mother would love him anyway. Is there anyone who would start loving him because of it? Balon never sent him to Winterfell so why should he care? His love, if it exists, would have come with time. And he lost Robb's love the moment he attacked the castle/North. It's all just his delusion. He will not, objectively, lose anything but face.

I agree with that, it depends on the situation. and in my opinion I can understand why Theon did what he did according to the severity of the action and the threat to his wellbeing. understand, not excuse.

See above re what does Theon have to lose.

nope, someone can understand him perfectly and still not like him. I could see how someone just doesn't like him because he's a jerk, despite where that behavior comes from. or even because they don't like people who are ruled by their emotions. or because they have harsher principles than mine and they simply can't like anyone who crosses a certain line, like killing children (in this cause I do believe you gotta be consistent about it though. if all that matters is not crossing that line it should go for every character who crossed that line, otherwise we're dealing with a double standard). misunderstanding the character comes when people ignore his past, don't understand the effect his past has on his present self, say things about him that are not supported by the text (like him being sadistic, or only feeling bad about his mistakes after things went wrong). that is misunderstanding the character, and I have seen a lot of that.

Fair enough, but with the caveat that the highlighted is not a double standard just because someone finds someone's reasons for crossing the line better than Theon's.

Now, it's useless to argue against something I didn't say (aka the whole situation thing) so I'd like to ask you to please please please either simply accept that I believe Ned has this principle and I have a problem with it and that is my only point. or if you don't think Ned has this principle, tell me why, you can try and convince me he doesn't but so far I haven't been convinced (than again, lots of useless time has been spent with the both of us just repeating the same points over and over again and we haven't really argued about this particular point)

I don't think supporting one claimaint over another for legal reasons really falls under a 'principle' as it's more of a decision made within context of available candidates and general circumstances. But here:

Ned has great respect for the law (and there's nothing wrong with that, especially if administering justice is in your job description) but we learn in the very first chapter and in many ways defining we meet Ned that it is not an absolute one. From the horse's mouth:

“The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword. If you would take a man's life, you owe it to him to look into his eyes and hear his final words. And if you cannot bear to do that, then perhaps the man does not deserve to die.”

Here you have Ned, in the very first chapter, telling Bran while teaching him how to rule and administer justice that if your conscience tells you that the criminal does not deserve death you should ignore the law and do the right thing.

It's not just words either - Ned would rather ignore a direct order from his King (which, in this setting, is the law) and resign from his position than participate in an assassination plot against an innocent girl, choosing what is right over duty. Then he gives Cersei and her children a chance to flee KL and get away with treason and despite personal enmity between him and the Lannisters, because he doesn't want to be responsible for Robert murdering them in rage, again choosing what is right over law and duty (and, in this case, even common sense). He is the man who is horrified by the Sack of KL and the murder of the Targ children and has a major row with Robert over it. He clearly doesn't believe that Mycah deserved to die for striking the royal prince even though law said otherwise. And if we believe in R+L=J he harboured a Targaryen heir in secret without telling his King, which is most likely high treason, because he loved his sister.

Does this truly sound like the kind of man who will go to war lightly and without a good reason? Who wouldn't hesitate to back a lawful heir even if the alternative was peace under a good and capable King? Who would choose the letter of the law over doing the right thing? The same Ned who supported Robert over the lawful Targaryen claimants and led an actual rebellion against the lawful King? To do so is to misunderstand his character ( :P). You're confusing Ned with Stannis.

[INCBlackbird]

That's a slippery slope argument. Sure, not every comparison or analogy is perfect, but some are clearly better than others and this is no reason to dismiss making comparisons altogether. I outlined why I believe your comparison was flawed and suggested, to me, a better one.

Well, what would Theon lose except his reputation? They won't kill him or throw him in jail. He'll still be the Prince. He'll still be a Greyjoy by blood. He still conquered Winterfell, which is more than anybody else managed. He MIGHT lose respect of some of his men, but so what? Everyone makes mistakes, and he's got his entire life to earn it back. Even just this war should present plenty of opportunities for some clever scheme or a daring heist he could pull off to salvage his reputation. I've already suggested burning Winterfell, that would go towards that. A place to belong? He's not going to be able to keep Winterfell no matter what. Is there anyone who already does who wouldn't love him if he didn't kill those boys? Asha and his mother would love him anyway. Is there anyone who would start loving him because of it? Balon never sent him to Winterfell so why should he care? His love, if it exists, would have come with time. And he lost Robb's love the moment he attacked the castle/North. It's all just his delusion. He will not, objectively, lose anything but face.

See above re what does Theon have to lose.

Fair enough, but with the caveat that the highlighted is not a double standard just because someone finds someone's reasons for crossing the line better than Theon's.

I don't think supporting one claimaint over another for legal reasons really falls under a 'principle' as it's more of a decision made within context of available candidates and general circumstances. But here:

Ned has great respect for the law (and there's nothing wrong with that, especially if administering justice is in your job description) but we learn in the very first chapter and in many ways defining we meet Ned that it is not an absolute one. From the horse's mouth:

Here you have Ned, in the very first chapter, telling Bran while teaching him how to rule and administer justice that if your conscience tells you that the criminal does not deserve death you should ignore the law and do the right thing.

It's not just words either - Ned would rather ignore a direct order from his King (which, in this setting, is the law) and resign from his position than participate in an assassination plot against an innocent girl, choosing what is right over duty. Then he gives Cersei and her children a chance to flee KL and get away with treason and despite personal enmity between him and the Lannisters, because he doesn't want to be responsible for Robert murdering them in rage, again choosing what is right over law and duty (and, in this case, even common sense). He is the man who is horrified by the Sack of KL and the murder of the Targ children and has a major row with Robert over it. He clearly doesn't believe that Mycah deserved to die for striking the royal prince even though law said otherwise. And if we believe in R+L=J he harboured a Targaryen heir in secret without telling his King, which is most likely high treason, because he loved his sister.

Does this truly sound like the kind of man who will go to war lightly and without a good reason? Who wouldn't hesitate to back a lawful heir even if the alternative was peace under a good and capable King? Who would choose the letter of the law over doing the right thing? The same Ned who supported Robert over the lawful Targaryen claimants and led an actual rebellion against the lawful King? To do so is to misunderstand his character ( :P). You're confusing Ned with Stannis.

and I don't think that your comparison was accurate because I do think Theon had more to lose than you make it sound. if neither agrees with eachother's comparisons they are pointless.

the point is that he won't just lose respect from his men, he'll lose respect from the whole realm, he will be known as "Theon Greyjoy, the guy who let a cripple and a 4 year old escape" he would go down into history that way which is bad enough to be even a laughing stock in the history books but more importantly his family would never accept them anymore. you think he'd still be welcome on the iron islands? I don't think so. what's also important to take into account is that what matters most is Theon's perspective on the matter, we are judging him on what he feels he will be losing with the information he has and the personality he has. from an outsiders perspective it's easy to relativate, you think that maybe Theon would have been able to undo it somehow at some point in the future? I don't think so, stuff like that sticks but even if he could have, do you think that Theon thought he would have been able to undo it somehow? do you think Theon thought differently than me about the situation? do you think all he was worried about was his reputation? I can garantee you he wasn't, there's a reason he's so desparate.

you can believe he could have undone it somehow, I can believe he couldn't have but what do you think Theon believed?

sure, that depends from situation to situation but if you take reasons into account, you gotta give the same courtesy to Theon either and that means looking at it from his perspective and understanding what he had to lose.

I don't think there's anything wrong with respecting the law, except when like in Westeros a lot of the laws have nothing to do with morality (like they do in our world mostly) there's some that do in Westeros, but a lot of the laws are there to protect the rich (even when they're corrupted) to keep them rich and to control people. so I have a huge problem with laws in westeros and with the code of honor (because I think it's all about controlling people not about what is right and what is wrong) and this is actually one of the reasons I like Jaime, because he goes against that.

those are all great examples of Ned defiying the law yes, i'm aware he doesn't always follow the law and I didn't claim he did. what I think however, is that while Ned has some great principles (like I mentioned in one of my first posts I really like the whole "he who passes the sentences should swing the sword) he's definitly a carefull man and he cares about people. But he has principles I consider wrong, like the one I brought up. and you haven't given me any arguments for why he doesn't believe in this particular principle that I refered to. since his argument is not that there would be war anyway, or anything else, his argument is only "there is no choice, Stannis is the heir" that seems to me like he considers it not a choice because Stannis is the heir, which means that Ned is of the principle of rightful heir thrumps war. and I don't think Ned has this principle because he's not compassionate, I think he has it because he is stubborn, because he refuses to consider anything else because he has it in his head that that can be the only option. either way, I don't think we're getting out of this, so agree to disagree on the matter?

[Maid So Fair]

and I don't think that your comparison was accurate because I do think Theon had more to lose than you make it sound. if neither agrees with eachother's comparisons they are pointless.

the point is that he won't just lose respect from his men, he'll lose respect from the whole realm, he will be known as "Theon Greyjoy, the guy who let a cripple and a 4 year old escape" he would go down into history that way which is bad enough to be even a laughing stock in the history books but more importantly his family would never accept them anymore. you think he'd still be welcome on the iron islands? I don't think so. what's also important to take into account is that what matters most is Theon's perspective on the matter, we are judging him on what he feels he will be losing with the information he has and the personality he has. from an outsiders perspective it's easy to relativate, you think that maybe Theon would have been able to undo it somehow at some point in the future? I don't think so, stuff like that sticks but even if he could have, do you think that Theon thought he would have been able to undo it somehow? do you think Theon thought differently than me about the situation? do you think all he was worried about was his reputation? I can garantee you he wasn't, there's a reason he's so desparate.

you can believe he could have undone it somehow, I can believe he couldn't have but what do you think Theon believed?

sure, that depends from situation to situation but if you take reasons into account, you gotta give the same courtesy to Theon either and that means looking at it from his perspective and understanding what he had to lose.

Looking at something from someone's perspective=/=agreeing with their actions though. Considering some justification more valid than others doesn't make it a double standard as long as it's applied reasonably consistently.

You are grossly exaggerating. Go down in history books as the guy who lost some hostages? Sure, if he doesn't do anything more interesting in the next 40 years or so. If he becomes a great warrior or a beloved King no one will remember that when he was 19 some of his hostages escaped. It's silly. And being the guy whose hostages escaped is still surely better than your one claim to fame being child murder, no? Look at Asha's disgusted reaction to that (surprise! she still loves him anyway). Yes, people would still remember it, but it's like that idiotic thing you did as a kid at the family reunion that everybody loves to talk about but no one believes defines your character until the day you die. I mean, there's that floppy fish song about Edmure and Tyrion married a whore but they're certainly not going down in history as just that.

He is certainly not the first person in history whose captives got away. He even has the perfect excuse, being based deep in enemy territory with a minimal crew and hostile castle staff. He can just say he didn't have enough men to keep an eye on everything. And of course he'd still be welcome on the Iron Islands! If they kicked out every idiot who makes a mistake on his first reaving there would be no one left. He'd just have to work harder and smarter next time. Indeed I believe he was worried primarily about his reputation and his tough guy persona. what else was there to be worried about? He's scared that someone might find out that he's not all he pretends to be.

those are all great examples of Ned defiying the law yes, i'm aware he doesn't always follow the law and I didn't claim he did. what I think however, is that while Ned has some great principles (like I mentioned in one of my first posts I really like the whole "he who passes the sentences should swing the sword) he's definitly a carefull man and he cares about people. But he has principles I consider wrong, like the one I brought up. and you haven't given me any arguments for why he doesn't believe in this particular principle that I refered to. since his argument is not that there would be war anyway, or anything else, his argument is only "there is no choice, Stannis is the heir" that seems to me like he considers it not a choice because Stannis is the heir, which means that Ned is of the principle of rightful heir thrumps war. and I don't think Ned has this principle because he's not compassionate, I think he has it because he is stubborn, because he refuses to consider anything else because he has it in his head that that can be the only option. either way, I don't think we're getting out of this, so agree to disagree on the matter?

Again, it's not a principle, it's a decision. The principle part is believing that the legally lawful King, determined by blood alone, should sit on the Iron Throne, and I never denied that Ned believes that. My examples are to show that he also believes in other principles, more important principles. In my examples he consistently favours these more important principles (like not murdering innocents) over his other beliefs/principles. So if it came to a choice between a murder or innocents and proclaiming the legally rightful heir, it is very likely that the first would prevail. Why don't you explain why you believe that he honours that one principle to the exclusion of everything else?

[INCBlackbird]

Looking at something from someone's perspective=/=agreeing with their actions though. Considering some justification more valid than others doesn't make it a double standard as long as it's applied reasonably consistently.

You are grossly exaggerating. Go down in history books as the guy who lost some hostages? Sure, if he doesn't do anything more interesting in the next 40 years or so. If he becomes a great warrior or a beloved King no one will remember that when he was 19 some of his hostages escaped. It's silly. And being the guy whose hostages escaped is still surely better than your one claim to fame being child murder, no? Look at Asha's disgusted reaction to that (surprise! she still loves him anyway). Yes, people would still remember it, but it's like that idiotic thing you did as a kid at the family reunion that everybody loves to talk about but no one believes defines your character until the day you die. I mean, there's that floppy fish song about Edmure and Tyrion married a whore but they're certainly not going down in history as just that.

He is certainly not the first person in history whose captives got away. He even has the perfect excuse, being based deep in enemy territory with a minimal crew and hostile castle staff. He can just say he didn't have enough men to keep an eye on everything. And of course he'd still be welcome on the Iron Islands! If they kicked out every idiot who makes a mistake on his first reaving there would be no one left. He'd just have to work harder and smarter next time. Indeed I believe he was worried primarily about his reputation and his tough guy persona. what else was there to be worried about? He's scared that someone might find out that he's not all he pretends to be.

Again, it's not a principle, it's a decision. The principle part is believing that the legally lawful King, determined by blood alone, should sit on the Iron Throne, and I never denied that Ned believes that. My examples are to show that he also believes in other principles, more important principles. In my examples he consistently favours these more important principles (like not murdering innocents) over his other beliefs/principles. So if it came to a choice between a murder or innocents and proclaiming the legally rightful heir, it is very likely that the first would prevail. Why don't you explain why you believe that he honours that one principle to the exclusion of everything else?

I didn't say they were the same thing, I said that it's a requirement for it not being a double standard to give both characters the same unbiased courtesy of when judging them to look at it from both of their perspective.

I still don't agree, and I have made my point why, I'm not going to repeat myself anymore. also because it's a bit redundant because Theon doesn't act on what you or I believe he acts on what he believes and what he believes is influenced by being in the actual situation (and not an outsider who looks upon it), having issues (mainly confident issues come into play here and the tentency to think in extremes), being a rather emotionally unstable person and probably a whole bunch of other stuff. and this is why he was so desparate and why he felt like he was on the brink of losing everything with no way out until Ramsay offered him one and he felt like it was the only option. now if you disagree with that that's fine, and lets just agree to disagree on the matter because it's not ever going to end, probably also because we are both different people with a different past and we see things differently and through that we are both biased.

yes he believes in other principles, I think everybody does. I have several strong principles of my own that I will not budge on. I just think that that particular one is morally wrong. I believe that he honours that principle to the excuse of others because that's what he say in said example I gave... littlefinger asks him "peace + Joffrey" or "war + Stannis" and Ned says it's not a choice at all. there is no way arround that...

[LordStoneheart]

yes he believes in other principles, I think everybody does. I have several strong principles of my own that I will not budge on. I just think that that particular one is morally wrong. I believe that he honours that principle to the excuse of others because that's what he say in said example I gave... littlefinger asks him "peace + Joffrey" or "war + Stannis" and Ned says it's not a choice at all. there is no way arround that...

Do you really think Littlefinger, the guy who said "I thrive on chaos," truly wanted peace? If so, I have a bridge to sell you.

[INCBlackbird]

Do you really think Littlefinger, the guy who said "I thrive on chaos," truly wanted peace? If so, I have a bridge to sell you.

no I don't think littlefinger wanted peace, he was playing Ned but this discussion isn't about littlefinger it's about Ned. again, don't put words into my mouth argue the argument or don't argue at all, please.

[LordStoneheart]

no I don't think littlefinger wanted peace, he was playing Ned but this discussion isn't about littlefinger it's about Ned.

It is if LF is your example of Ned supposedly rejecting peace by choosing Stannis. If you still think Joffrey/Cersei = Peace, there will be nothing to convince you.

[Boarsbane]

It is if LF is your example of Ned supposedly rejecting peace by choosing Stannis. If you still think Joffrey/Cersei = Peace, there will be nothing to convince you.

He could of gone with Renly's plan to get Joffrey away from Cersei.

[LordStoneheart]

He could of gone with Renly's plan to get Joffrey away from Cersei.

And Stannis would have still gone to war

[Boarsbane]

And Stannis would have still gone to war

And been annihilated. Tywin would be forced to back down so the bloodiest part of the war would of been avoided.

[LordStoneheart]

And been annihilated. Tywin would be forced to back down so the bloodiest part of the war would of been avoided.

Or Ned and Renly would have both been Shadow-Assassinated?

[Alia of the knife]

- I don't think that Tyrion is all that nice of a guy.

- I think Theon loved Robb and was torn between the reality of the Starks and the reality of his father.

- Its too bad that Theons sister is Asha and not Lagertha.

- I think that Alfie Allen will eventually end up in a re-make of "Spinal Tap."

[Ser Greenseer]

War was going to happen whether or not Ned declared Joffrey the king. Renly knew the truth and he rode south to prepare for war. After Renly crowns himself Stannis will get involved, Tywin would fight for Joffrey and the war will still happen. Ned was trying to arrest Joffrey and Cersei in order to force Tywin into submission that would actually make the war a lot less devastating. So in fact Neds actions if successful would have been better for the realm than if he declared for Joffrey.