The Starks were never Theon's family

[ShadowCat Rivers]

Exactly. IIRC, he thinks about them on the boat too. He only puts it off when he finds out Ashas trying to take his place as heir.

Or, because he wants to take her place. Chosing between traditions by the "does it benefit me" criterion does not add to anyone's trustworthiness either.

[Lee-Sensei]

Or, because he wants to take her place. Chosing between traditions by the "does it benefit me" criterion does not add to anyone's trustworthiness either.

Nope. She was trying to take his place. He was the rightful heir. If he wasn't, Ned would have taken her hostage instead of Theon.

[Maid So Fair]

Or, because he wants to take her place. Chosing between traditions by the "does it benefit me" criterion does not add to anyone's trustworthiness either.

I agree with most of everythign else you said, but I can't blame Theon for assuming he would be the heir. It's just the way their society works, and the IB seem stricter about it than most. With other regions, there are examples, however isolated, of women ruling in their own right/exercising power.

The only reason Asha has that position is because she's

• intelligent
• fierce and capable fighter
• good leader
• consciously presenting herself as one of the boys
• of a superior social rank compared to everybody else
• supported by Balon.

Take any of these away and she wouldn't be able to perform the role she plays. She's very much the exception, not the rule. It'd be different had she been an ambitious uncle or a younger brother/cousin.

[Frey Pie]

How is it Roberts fault and not Neds. Come on, Frey Pie. If you were talking about Robb I'd understand, but Ned? :P

Because Robert is the King. Balon kneels to Robert not ned. No matter what Ned or Tywin may have said, or jon Arryn for that matter, the buck ends with Robert. It's Balon's fault for putting Robert in this position but it's Roberts fault for ruling that a kid must be taken hostage. What's Ned's part in this? At worst being the jailor. Who's to blame? The magistrate or the jailor? And Ned was as lenient and good as he could be with theon. So I hold no blame on Ned for Theons situation. Now if he had kept robb away from theon, or skimped on Theons education, beat him etc, then of course part of its on ned but he undeniably treated Theon well. Why then would I blame ned? Best of a bad situation

[Lee-Sensei]

Because Robert is the King. Balon kneels to Robert not ned. No matter what Ned or Tywin may have said, or jon Arryn for that matter, the buck ends with Robert. It's Balon's fault for putting Robert in this position but it's Roberts fault for ruling that a kid must be taken hostage. What's Ned's part in this? At worst being the jailor. Who's to blame? The magistrate or the jailor? And Ned was as lenient and good as he could be with theon. So I hold no blame on Ned for Theons situation. Now if he had kept robb away from theon, or skimped on Theons education, beat him etc, then of course part of its on ned but he undeniably treated Theon well. Why then would I blame ned? Best of a bad situation

1) Are you sure your liking Ned isn't clouding your judgement? If Robert agreed to (more likely didn't care give what we know of his reign) and Ned agreed to it and was perfecty okay to use the hostage, he deserves blame too.

2) Theon being friends with Robb was kind of the point. To turn him into a friend of the North so the IB would be less likely to rebel when he takes over. And to his credit, it almost worked. But taking putting him in that position always had the potential for creating resentment. He took a gamble and it blew up in his face.

[Miodrag]

You started it, Miodrag. You've been hostile almost from the start. If you want to be civil, I can do that. But respect is a two way street.

Oh, I wasn't talking about wording. Yes, we exchanged a few harsh words, but no harm was done, I'd say. I've been involved in a lot exchanges that were way more cruel that this one. I don't think we reached the point of no return in that regard.

However, what I find very disrespectful, is ignoring what the other side just said. That inevitably sabotages any discussion. and this is an internet discussion. Even if you start insulting me, you can't hurt me, not really. Just like I can't hurt you. But by sabotaging a discussion, you're practically rendering the entire conversation meaningless. Which implies I was just wasting my time trying to argue with you. Now, that is the biggest disrespect and damage in an internet discussion like this one. And that is what I had in mind. And that is what you're doing when you ignore the question I asked you, or points I made while replying to you. Sorry to say, but it looks like you're not willing to change that habit of yours.

[Maid So Fair]

1) Are you sure your liking Ned isn't clouding your judgement? If Robert agreed to (more likely didn't care give what we know of his reign) and Ned agreed to it and was perfecty okay to use the hostage, he deserves blame too.

Ok, imagine that Ned, for whatever reason, decided not to get involved and washed his hands off the whole thing. Can you think of a realistic scenario in which Theon ends up better off? Bearing in mind that Robert may be generous to a fault but he's also not a naive fool.

[Lee-Sensei]

Ok, imagine that Ned, for whatever reason, decided not to get involved and washed his hands off the whole thing. Can you think of a realistic scenario in which Theon ends up better off? Bearing in mind that Robert may be generous to a fault but he's also not a naive fool.

I don't know what you mean? That Robert would have taken him hostage?

If Theon was left on the Iron Islands there's a decent chance he'd end up a well adjusted and more confident person. Asha ended up okay. Robb would probably have been better off too.

[Maid So Fair]

I don't know what you mean? That Robert would have taken him hostage?

If Theon was left on the Iron Islands there's a decent chance he'd end up a well adjusted and more confident person. Asha ended up okay. Robb would probably have been better off too.

You tell me. Had Ned not taken Theon, what do you believe would have - realistically - happened to him and his family?

There is no scenario in which Theon gets to stay on the Iron Islands unless his father (and possibly a bunch of other people) dies. But if you truly believe that in such a situation he'd be better off, sure.

[Frey Pie]

1) Are you sure your liking Ned isn't clouding your judgement? If Robert agreed to (more likely didn't care give what we know of his reign) and Ned agreed to it and was perfecty okay to use the hostage, he deserves blame too.

2) Theon being friends with Robb was kind of the point. To turn him into a friend of the North so the IB would be less likely to rebel when he takes over. And to his credit, it almost worked. But taking putting him in that position always had the potential for creating resentment. He took a gamble and it blew up in his face.

I highly doubt Robert was so flippant about the heir of a rival king. And no my respect for Ned as a person does not cloud my judgement. I have no problem debating on some of the mistakes that ned made, but morally when it comes to kids hes pretry good. Ned agrees to take Theon and does right by him. If it wasn't ned it was someone else. And in all likelihood that someone else was going to be Tywin. Hostage taking is part of the culture and Robert puts his seal on it as the power behind the decision. All that's left after that is to do the best by the child. The decision was Robert's, the lions share of the blame was and always will be Balon's

It was no gamble at the time. One kid. Balon's house was in ruins, ironborn power destroyed, Roberts rule secure and pretty much unassailable. The series of unfortunate events which led to Theons actions in the north and winterfell would make lemony snicket blush

[Lee-Sensei]

Oh, I wasn't talking about wording. Yes, we exchanged a few harsh words, but no harm was done, I'd say. I've been involved in a lot exchanges that were way more cruel that this one. I don't think we reached the point of no return in that regard.

However, what I find very disrespectful, is ignoring what the other side just said. That inevitably sabotages any discussion. and this is an internet discussion. Even if you start insulting me, you can't hurt me, not really. Just like I can't hurt you. But by sabotaging a discussion, you're practically rendering the entire conversation meaningless. Which implies I was just wasting my time trying to argue with you. Now, that is the biggest disrespect and damage in an internet discussion like this one. And that is what I had in mind. And that is what you're doing when you ignore the question I asked you, or points I made while replying to you. Sorry to say, but it looks like you're not willing to change that habit of yours.

Well, you were too. When I asked for proof that Ned cared about Theon, you asked for proof that he cared about Rickon (a diversion). I went to the trouble of providing three quotes showing he did, and you just dismissed them. I apologize if you felt I was being rude.

[Lee-Sensei]

You tell me. Had Ned not taken Theon, what do you believe would have - realistically - happened to him and his family?

There is no scenario in which Theon gets to stay on the Iron Islands unless his father (and possibly a bunch of other people) dies. But if you truly believe that in such a situation he'd be better off, sure.

Really? Robert didn't take hostages from the Martells, Tyrells, Fells, Grandisons, Harwoods, Conningtons, Merryweathers etc. He didn't kill any of them either once they bent the knee. The only people he's treats harshly are Targs. And he wasn't big on politcs. The World Book says thst when Balon openly defied him after the Rebellion he laughed.

[Miodrag]

Well, you were too. When I asked for proof that Ned cared about Theon, you asked for proof that he cared about Rickon (a diversion). I went to the trouble of providing three quotes showing he did, and you just dismissed them. I apologize if you felt I was being rude.

That's not the same thing. You know there is no proof Ned cared about Theon. Just like there is no proof he didn't. The text itself isn't explicit in that regard. I think it's heavily implied he did care, you obviously disagree, but, to be honest, it's inconclusive really, and since we're pretty much entrenched there, that's about it. I just tried to show that the absence of something doesn't automatically mean the opposite is the truth. GRRM certainly didn't have the time, or the need, to describe Ned's relationship with each and every member of his household. Does Ned care about Hodor? Most probably, though, as I can remember, he never thinks of him in a way that can reveal his emotions about Hodor. But to prove he did care about him I really can't. The same with Theon.

On the other hand, my question is a very direct one, and I'm asking you of your opinion. Not to find something in the text, but to state some logical conclusion. Once again: What would you do with Balon after Balon's rebellion? The way I see it, there are three possible options: kill Balon, imprison Balon, or leave him be but make sure he doesn't rebel again. First two options are terrible for Theon, a boy of ten at the time, because both put him in great danger, and ruin his childhood for good, and possibly lead to his early death. The third option is by far the best one for everyone involved. Now, speaking of assurance, I don't see anything else, beside taking his heir as a hostage, that would force ever nervous Balon to remain peaceful. And by becoming a hostage, Theon in effect saved the lives of his father and his uncles.

And let's not even go to the fourth possibility - leave Balon, ask no assurance from him, and hope he doesn't rebel again. It's safe to assume that would be an invitation for Balon to repeat the rebellion in no time, which would again claim the lives of thousands. If we include that possibility, unrealistic as it is, then by becoming a hostage Theon saved countless lives of his countrymen.

All in all, taking Theon as a hostage seems like not only the most logical decision, but also the most merciful one for everyone involved, Theon included. In every other scenario Theon is way worse off than he was in WF. So, when you say "Ned stole half of Theon's life", I think you're actually ignoring the life Theon would have and consequences he'd inevitably suffer if not taken to WF. After his father started a war and then lost it, Theon's life was doomed one way or another. Ned's decision to take him hostage in Winterfell was actually the best thing that could happen to Theon, whether he himself, Theon, understandably disagrees with that or not.

[Lost Melnibonean]

This seems to be a major misconception in this fandom.

Theon lived with the Starks for 10 years and of course that means that there is a connection. He loved Robb and Robb loved him, and he probably had some casual "friendships" we haven't heard about because they were casual. But Ned was not a father to Theon, although he wanted him to be. Which is not to say that Ned should have, Theon was his hostage, he had to keep an emotional distance from him to be able to do his duty. Cat was not a mother to him and the stark kids (not counting Robb) were not in anyway his siblings. Not locking him up in a dungeon does not equal being his family. The Starks were pretty good to Theon but he was still their hostage under threat of death and as such he did not owe them anything. (whether or not he owed Robb is debateable in my opinion but ultimately I don't think chosing to fight for Robb was a choice at all for Theon, considering he'd be ruined. which is not to say that Robb didn't have a right to be angry or feel betrayed, of course he did. But we're looking at this from Theon's perspective, something rarely done in this fandom)

I'd also like to add that on the Iron islands there are other imporant people besides Theon's asshole father: Alannys, Asha, Dagmer (who was more of a father to Theon than Balon ever was)...

The way Ned and the rest of Housecstark felt toward Theon is much less relevant to the plot and to Theon's arc than the way Theon felt about them. He wanted to be a Stark. And the fraternal feelings he had for Robb were reciprocated. This culminates in A Ghost in Winterfell. Theon had sworn his allegiance to Robb and thought of Robb as a brother making Robb's brothers his own. He dreamed of wedding Sansa becoming their brother and Ned's son in truth. Of course he betrayed Robb and held out that he had murdered his brothers. (False is all he ever was.) Accordingly his former self named him Turncloak and Kinslayer. Theon who had been chastised by his father for naming Robb a brother meekly denied the kinslaying title not because he didn't actually kill the Stark boys but because he was not actually a Stark. But the ghost of his former self knew better.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

Nope. She was trying to take his place. He was the rightful heir. If he wasn't, Ned would have taken her hostage instead of Theon.

I agree with most of everythign else you said, but I can't blame Theon for assuming he would be the heir. It's just the way their society works, and the IB seem stricter about it than most. With other regions, there are examples, however isolated, of women ruling in their own right/exercising power.

The only reason Asha has that position is because she's

• intelligent
• fierce and capable fighter
• good leader
• consciously presenting herself as one of the boys
• of a superior social rank compared to everybody else
• supported by Balon.

Take any of these away and she wouldn't be able to perform the role she plays. She's very much the exception, not the rule. It'd be different had she been an ambitious uncle or a younger brother/cousin.

To clarify:

Male-preference cognatic primogeniture is a law (by tradition) of the"greenlands", that was kind of forced on the Iron Islands culture. The whole independence and kingship stuff has its ideological justification in the Ironborn tradition and the Old Way. No greenlanders' inheritance laws, no 'rightful heir'. Asha may be the exception, but the point is, she is what she is. She has -at the very least- the same rights to be a contender and likely more chances to actually 'finish the race' before him.

edited for syntax & vocabulary

[Frey Pie]

I don't know what you mean? That Robert would have taken him hostage?

If Theon was left on the Iron Islands there's a decent chance he'd end up a well adjusted and more confident person. Asha ended up okay. Robb would probably have been better off too.

See I'm not so sure Asha was too good either until her father died and she could remove herself from his philosophy. I mean she wasn't all that great when we meet her- funny and entertaining to read sure, but how many sisters grope their brothers? Is that healthy? If I'm not mistaken she also glories in showing theon how out of place she is and makes a fool out of him. And she supports balons goals of the old ways, rape and loot until she has her epiphany (shit this ain't gonna work)

So I can't say I'd agree with you that she's well rounded to begin with

[Sullen]

I think that in this context it does, but I don't think there's any point debating definitions. The fact remains that his ultimate goal and reason for making his political move was light years ahead of Balon's when it comes to being justifiable.

I disagree.

They are both trying to uphold traditions (Laws of Westerosi succession in Eddard's case, the holy right to reave in Balon's) at the expenses of another group (Whoever would die in Ned's war of succession, and the Westerosi prey upon by Ned).

Balon wants to ameliorate his people's condition, a once rich and powerful people now reduced to famine and misery, Ned wants to uphold the Westerosi law and tradition.

I personally wouldn't do either, but both are equally justifiable if you ask me.

Well, that's the point: you don't need to rose-tint Ned's moves. His moves, as they are, are perfectly in accordance with the law and, even more significant, with the justice. The very nature of the monarchy declares Joff's not the one who can sit on the Iron Throne; Ned's aware of that; he acts in order to prevent the criminal coup of the Lannisters. That is what he does. No need to rose-tint any of that. Anyone with the knowledge about Joff's parentage has to admit Ned's the one protecting the law, while Cersei's trying to break it by stealing the throne from the rightful heir.

As for Balon's rebellion, theoretically you could be right. Central powers are known to inflict suffering on their subjects, and their subjects sometimes revolt because of that. However, in this particular case, I see no sign of that. Everything we know about Robert points to a conclusion that he, ineffective a king as he was in some other aspects, really didn't cause any region's suffering. The very fact he spared Balon's life supports such a conclusion. Also, the personality of Balon himself is quite telling, too. And not to mention the fact that, in ASOS, Balon's offering an alliance to Tywin Lannister, a guy who's pretty famous for his cruelty. All of which implies Balon's not motivated by the desire to help anyone but himself. Of course, in the next two books, George can reveal something that could cast a rather different light on Balon's rebellion, but, for now, practically nothing indicates there was some noble desire (or ambition, as you call it) behind it.

All in all, equalizing Ned's AGOT actions and Balon's rebellion seems like a moral relativism to me. Not all political ambitions are the same.

Are Balon's actions not in accordance with what he believes to be law and justice according to his religious creed? Why should the Westerosi aristocratic system (one that Aegon arguably made theocratic after his Landing) be any more sacred than the tenants of his faith? Ned acts in accordance with what he thinks is right, so could Balon. Both only bring further misery on the world.

I don't blame Robert specifically for the misery and poverty on the Isles, I blame Aegon and the institution of the Iron Throne in general. The Iron Islands are shown to be barely able to support themselves, fishing and agriculture being somewhat hard to practice there, and being quasi void of any valuable resources, this turned them into somewhat of a predatory sort. They conquered the Riverlands and a respectable deal of the east coast to gain prestige and wealth, yes, but also to sustain themselves. But then comes Aegon, who unites Westeros (with the exception of Dorne), defeats them, and gives the Riverlands their independence from their Ironborn overlords, leaving the Ironborn with their miserable rocks in the middle of the sea, catapulting them into poverty. As for Balon's offer to Tywin, it implies he keeps what he took in the North, meaning extra power, prestige, and more importantly resources for the Ironborn, Tywin being a hardass would have little to no effect on the condition of the Ironborn, I don't see where that comes in.

Of course that a military defeat limits your options, but that's not the point. Once again, Ned didn't rise against the Iron Throne, but against the criminals that were stealing the Iron Throne from it's rightful heir. We do know Ned's actions were more than justified. As for Balon's, we can only guess, but, for now, everything points to an opposite conclusion.

We've seen from Aeron's PoV that Balon was trying to restore glory to the Ironborn, and that reaving and raiding is rightful in their culture... Revolutionaries rarely see themselves as criminals.

From their own points of view they are both justified. From a biased pacifist point of view, I'd say they were both in the wrong.

I wouldn't expect a child to reach some unbiased and mature conclusions, especially when his own life is about to be completely shaken and his own world completely changed. It wouldn't be realistic. So no, I don't expect Theon to be objective about everything. But, we're not Theon, even if we do empathize with him. We can reach an objective conclusion about events and decisions described in the books. For objective observers, I think it's quite clear Ned didn't do anything wrong in regards to Theon. Once Balon was defeated, there was no realistic scenario for Theon that was better for him than to be a hostage in Winterfell. He could be either a hostage, or a fatherless prince in a power vacuum, or even dead himself. A hostage is preferable to the alternatives, I'd say. Just like Winterfell is preferable to other possible destinations for him to be sent to.

This is where we'd to disagree, I don't think your conclusion is objective. Ned did something perfectly in accord with the customs of his society when he took Theon from his family and friends, but it doesn't make it any less wrong from an objective point of view, and especially not when you put yourself in Theon's shoes.

I also disagree that it was better for him to be hostage at Winterfell then to be left at the Isles. For one, we're not sure if Robert would have executed Balon, he could have easily set different sanctions on the Ironborn and the Greyjoys, have them pay reparations for example. Secondly, you need to consider who actually cared for him back on the Isles. True he says Balon never smiled much to him, but he says the same thing about Ned, and that doesn't mean his father didn't care about him. He also had a loving mother whose grief at the loss of her three sons turned her mad, uncles he remembers dearly and that would have supported him (Euron excepted), a caring father figure in Dagmer, he recalls a bunch of unnamed friends when he first comes back home, and a sister we know to be relatively moral, Asha. In contrast, he felt alienated in Winterfell, but did make a good friend in Robb. Not only that, but I also doubt that Winterfell was the best place to keep him hostage at all, sending him to Highgarden would have likely turned much better for him. The Tyrells are a warmer bunch, their children are closer in age to Theon, and Highgarden is located near a river, where Theon might have learned the rudiments of boating, which would have made him a more acceptable Ironborn. Sure, the Tyrells are not as loyal and close to Robert as Ned was, but we're talking about what's good for Theon here, not Robert.

EDIT: I do concede that sending him to Winterfell might have made him a better person morally though, even if it greatly took away from his quality of life.

As for Sansa, yes, it is logical from the Lannisters' point of view. Just like for, say, a criminal running from the police, it's logical to take your car if he doesn't have his own. It doesn't make it right. Doing something logical but out of immoral reasons is immoral.

Keeping Sansa hostage might help them negotiate an end to the war faster, or save some of their own from Robb's headblock. Is that really immoral?

[Frey Pie]

Balon's actions are not justifiable. Balon and all the men who think like him are what's holding the Iron Islands back. He is not freeing them from oppression he is actually repressing their potential imho. A ironborn like the reader is what the isles need to pull them out of this depressed state. A focus in politics, trade, agriculture and a refocusing of goals under someone like him or the Asha we see from feast on would lead to a far greater isles

Now the mainland isn't much better throughout history but the ironborn history is just death and mayhem

[Slender Aimry Hill]

I've always rather liked the idea of Theon as Renly's hostage. Chilled out party times at Storm's End...

[Tijgy]

I disagree.

They are both trying to uphold traditions (Laws of Westerosi succession in Eddard's case, the holy right to reave in Balon's) at the expenses of another group (Whoever would die in Ned's war of succession, and the Westerosi prey upon by Ned).

Balon wants to ameliorate his people's condition, a once rich and powerful people now reduced to famine and misery, Ned wants to uphold the Westerosi law and tradition.

I personally wouldn't do either, but both are equally justifiable if you ask me.

Are Balon's actions not in accordance with what he believes to be law and justice according to his religious creed? Why should the Westerosi aristocratic system (one that Aegon arguably made theocratic after his Landing) be any more sacred than the tenants of his faith? Ned acts in accordance with what he thinks is right, so could Balon. Both only bring further misery on the world.

(...)

We've seen from Aeron's PoV that Balon was trying to restore glory to the Ironborn, and that reaving and raiding is rightful in their culture... Revolutionaries rarely see themselves as criminals.

From their own points of view they are both justified. From a biased pacifist point of view, I'd say they were both in the wrong.

(...)

This is where we'd to disagree, I don't think your conclusion is objective. Ned did something perfectly in accord with the customs of his society when he took Theon from his family and friends, but it doesn't make it any less wrong from an objective point of view, and especially not when you put yourself in Theon's shoes.

I might be wrong but are you not contradicting yourself?

At one hand you say someone has the right to act according his beliefs or the rules of his society. Even when those beliefs or rules are objectively wrong (even more wrong than taking a child as a hostage). Reaving involves stealing, raping of taking women, ...

And you must not forget that reaving is not a part of the society of the persons who are attacked. Is it not wrong to impose your beliefs on someone?

The difference with Ned's situation is that the "Laws of Westerosi" succession are normally also followed by the Lannister family, ... He doesn't impose his own rules on them. Cersei doesn't follow the rules which she should normally abide according her own society.

To conclude, you cannot compare those two situation. And, even when Ned would have done nothing, would Stannis also not have started a war of succession?

And you cannot first say someone can do anything according the rules of his believe, even those believes can be wrong from an objective point of view (at least in my eyes)

and than blaming Ned from doing (almost at least in my eyes) the same.