The Starks were never Theon's family

[Frey Pie]

One comment on Robert not taking hostages from every house which went against him. There is a huge difference between Balon's rebellion and Roberts own. The houses who fought against Robert in his own rebellion were all royalists. Furthermore there were too many if them. What's he going to do to the Martells, Tyrells, Redwynes, etc etc? The greyjoy rebellion is one isolated incident involving one great house which he can punish lest it lead to more rebellions or people thinking he's a soft touch. It's the same with the Stormlords and reach lords who supported Renly and we're pardoned by Tywin- he has no choice

Was it also Ned's choice to make baelor blacktyde a hostage I'm oldtown?

[Lee-Sensei]

One comment on Robert not taking hostages from every house which went against him. There is a huge difference between Balon's rebellion and Roberts own. The houses who fought against Robert in his own rebellion were all royalists. Furthermore there were too many if them. What's he going to do to the Martells, Tyrells, Redwynes, etc etc? The greyjoy rebellion is one isolated incident involving one great house which he can punish lest it lead to more rebellions or people thinking he's a soft touch. It's the same with the Stormlords and reach lords who supported Renly and we're pardoned by Tywin- he has no choice

Robert definitely could have taken hostages from everyone except the Martells. Definitely from the Houses in the Stormlands where . Yet he never did. When Balon defied him openly, he laughedat his audacity. Taking a hostage doesn't match up with what we know of him and you know it as well as I do.

[Frey Pie]

Robert definitely could have taken hostages from everyone except the Martells. Definitely from the Houses in the Stormlands. Yet he never did. When Balon defied him openly, he laughedat his audacity. Taking a hostage doesn't match up with what we know of him.

So hostages from the loyal Riverlords, Stormlords, Vale men, all the reach and all of Dorne? I doubt they would be too happy. ..not exactly the way to reach good relations with your people as a new king

Also- baelor blacktyde

[Lee-Sensei]

So hostages from the loyal Riverlords, Stormlords, Vale men, all the reach and all of Dorne? I doubt they would be too happy. ..not exactly the way to reach good relations with your people as a new king

Also- baelor blacktyde

And? Robert had 5 Kingdoms united behind him. And I said we're ignoring Dorne. But ignoringthat. what about his own Lords? The Grandisons, the Cafferens, the Fells and the Conningtons. Why no hostages from them? Tarly cuts off the head of one of his friends and sends it to Aerys and got a full pardon.

[Sullen]

I'm not saying "everything has to be black and white", I'm talking about a very particular situation we're all familiar with. What you're saying comes down to this, it seems: Lannisters are immoral, but opposing them is also immoral. Looks like it's all black for you. Am I missing something? What would you do in Ned's shoes? What is the right thing to do in his situation?

Simple, I would have walked away. Letting the Lannisters take power promises to be a lot less bloody and damaging for the Seven Kingdom than declaring war on them and spreading doom all across Westeros. Terrible timing as well, considering that winter was coming and all, and that war would simply eat up the supplies necessary for survival during winter.

You're right about Germany, of course, because such plans simply don't work. If you impose to harsh a conditions on a nation, you're going to destroy them. If you leave them some room to breathe, they're going to rise in arms once again because war simply becomes preferable to them. At the very least, you can trust them never again, and sooner or later it ends like the Rome-Carthage situation. That's why I'm fairly certain your solution isn't a realistic one. But even besides that, what you're proposing essentially means that, in order for Theon to stay with his parents and his sister, let's make the lives of his countrymen somewhat worse. In effect, let them pay for Greyjoys' mistakes.

As I said earlier, I'm not advocating this solution. I'm simply using it as an example of Balon not necessarily having to die for Theon to stay on the Isles.

Also, Germany and Japan's current relations with the Allied world are pretty much as strong as they could be, despite the military sanctions imposed on them after WW2. Sanctions can work.

All in all, it creates perpetual political tensions (with a psychopath like Balon in equation, that can escalate in any given moment, just like you imply with "execute the culprit" possibility), and punishes thousands of people that bare no responsibility for what happened. At any rate, Greyjoys, Theon included, get hated by their own people. It's a whole different mess, and a lot bigger than the one Robert and Ned opted for, I'd say.

Keeping Theon hostage accomplishes the exact same thing though: more political tensions, and thousands of innocent deaths in case the treaty is broken. Only this time, the innocent boy doesn't lose his parents.

That has probably something to do with the fact that neither Doran nor Mace are bloodthirsty psychopaths like Balon. They were opposing him during his rebellion, which was not unexpected - after all, he did rise against the rightful king, to whom they remained loyal through the very end. Robert had all the reasons in the world to rebel against Aerys, of course, but he also had all the reasons in the world to show understanding for the loyalty Martells and Tyrells showed.

I'm not sure calling Balon a "bloodthirsty psychopath" is the best way to describe Balon, hell, even Eddard thinks of Balon as "fighting bravely" one of the few times he remembers him during AGoT. Balon is a product of his culture, one that sadly preys on the Westerosi, not a needlessly cruel psychopath on the level of Ramsay Bolton, Joffrey Baratheon, or Gregor Clegane.

The Ironborn have also rebelled plenty of time in the past, the discontentment and poverty is well-known by the Westerosi, who simply tend to overlook it. Robert certainly doesn't seem to hold a grudge against Balon, neither does Eddard for that matter. I think they understand Balon's reasons for rising up, they just don't care all that much.

But let me ask you this: let's say Doran's eventually pursues his secret plan with Viserys and declares him the king. And, Robert eventually crushes the rebellion. What do you think would happen to Quentyn in that case? And who would be responsible for that?

Depends on a lot of things...

Who rises up with the Martells?

Do any of the Dornish lords support Robert?

How long does the War last?

How old is Quentyn?

It's really not that simple. I doubt Robert would be as lax on Doran as he was with Balon, considering his intense hatred for the Targaryens. Most likely Doran and Oberyn go to the block, Viserys goes to the block for sure, Arianne is likely sent away and disowned, and Quentyn possibly ends up as a ward, or is named Prince under the supervision of a man loyal to Robert.

He could also simply destitute the Martells as princely house, and elevate a house loyal to him instead... it all really depends on how much leverage Robert has.

Have to say, that's a pretty odd stance, considering the way Starks, Lannisters, Greyjoys and all the rest of them are written. Just because they're realistic and therefore "heroes in their own stories", it doesn't mean they're all equally moral. Otherwise I wouldn't see the point in this story, or any story for that matter. And I'd definitely see no point in discussing or debating it. What's the point, if they're all wrong and immoral?!

Oh, they are definitively not equally moral, with that I agree. They are all rotten though, if you ask me, just at varying degrees, or at least, their actions are.

And just because all sides of a conflict are morally wrong doesn't mean a conflict cannot be interesting or open to discussion. Take Warhammer 40K for instance, all sides are undeniably fucking terrible, but the lore is still fairly interesting, and you'll still end up siding with one faction at one point or the other.

[Frey Pie]

And? Robert had 5 Kingdoms united behind him. And I said we're ignoring Dorne. But ignoringthat. what about his own Lords? The Grandisons, the Cafferens, the Fells and the Conningtons. Why no hostages from them? Tarly cuts off the head of one of his friends and sends it to Aerys and gets a full pardon.

Well Ronald Connington actually joined Robert before the end and later lost most of his land so...They got punished. Two of those houses also fought for Robert for the rest of the rebellion. Tarly is the Tyrells military man and pissing him off risks the Tyrells. Robert is in a precarious position, and three of those kingdoms also fought against him. Only the north has been fully supportive from the start

Also- baelor blacktyde?

[Tijgy]

I am not, I clearly state I disagree with what both Eddard and Balon have done, and I find the behaviour of both immoral. I simply think they are as justified as one another.

As for reaving affecting people not part of Ironbon society, you could also say that succession squabbles affect the smallfolk greatly, who while of the same society might just as well be another culture due to the gap in wealth and power.

He imposes the succession crisis and war on the everyday people of Westeros. The Lannisters aren't victims in that.

Irrelevant, Eddard took actions that set the path for the war, he is thus guilty in escalating it. The fact that Stannis would have started it later on does not absolve him of his involvement.

But that's exactly my point, they are both doing what they think is right according to the rules and beliefs of their society, but both are doing a deplorable thing by doing so.

EDIT: Blackbird answered to that first it seems.

Okay, it is more clearly what you want to say. But what did Ned actually what was so immoral at that moment? Yes, he made objectively mistakes during that time. But I don't think the most of them were not mistakes from a moral point of view.

What happened in Kings Landing?

- Ned tried to seek the truth

- He discovered the truth

- First possible mistake: He told Cersei that he found out the truth so that she could escape with her children. He did that to protect the Children.

You maybe say it was immoral of Ned he was going tell to the truth because it could endanger Cersei and her kids, There would also be a change Tywin would go to war as revenge and would lead to the death of the smallfolk. So could this act according to you already been considered as immoral?

- Robert is dying. Ned visits his death bed. Ned doesn't tell Robert the truth because he doesn't want Robert more than he already was hurt.

This was probably not very smart. What is most the immoral act? Not telling the truth of hurting your best friend who is about to die?

En than he changes the wording of Robert's will. Oh no, forgery. Forgery is a crime... Maybe this was immoral.

"This is the will and word of Robert of House Baratheon, the First of his Name, King of the Andals and all the rest - put in the damn titles, you know how it goes. I do hereby command Eddard of House Stark, Lord of Winterfell and Hand of the King, to serve as Lord Regent and Protector of the Realm upon my .. upon my death ... to rule in my ... in my stead, untill my son Joffrey does come of age..."

"Robert..." Joffrey is not your son, he wanted to say, but the words could not come. The agony was written too plainly across Robert's face; he could not hurt him more. So Ned bent his head and wrote, but where the King had said "my son Joffrey", he scrawled "my heir" instead. The deceit made him feel soiled. The lies we tell for love, he thought. May the gods forgive me.

According his own norms, this act was immoral. But he did what he did to protect his friend and he didn't feel really comfortable by this decision.

- He refuses Renly's offer. I might remember incorrectly but didn't someone tell this was a morally wrong decision? What did Renly offer? He offered Ned 100 swords to seize the Lannister children. Renly's argument: "Once we have the children, Cersei will not dare to oppose is. The council will confirm you as Lord Protector and make Joffrey your ward."

You consider it was wrong to take Theon as a hostage after Balon's war. It was part of peace agreement. In Renly's option, children would be used to get power. So, a fortiori, this option is even more immoral?

Ned's answer: "Robert is not dead yet. The gods may spare him. If not, I shall convene the council to hear his final words and consider the matter of the succession, but I will not dishonor his last hours on earth by shedding blood in his halls and dragging frightened children from their beds."

Yes. Here you can indeed see Ned is following the laws and traditions of the succession of Westeros, like you self say. But this is more moral than Renly's option, right?

Renly's counterargument: "Every moment you delay give Cersei another moment to prepare. By the time Robert dies, it may be too late ... for both of us."

- And than comes according to you the real immoral act: deciding to declare for Stannis instead of Joffrey. LF gives Ned nice advice about why it would be wrong to declare for Stannis. Why? Because it would lead to war.

His arguments:

- "Stannis cannot rest easy on the throne untill Cersei and her bastards are dead."

- "Do you think Lord Tywin will sit idly while his daughter's head is measured for a spike?"

- You would be regent and have power. (Quite funny, two pages earlier he was thinking about how he would be able to return to Winterfell. He was very happy about that. LF: You would be able to be Regent for four years. I think Ned had a very short internal panic attack).

And LF ends with: "Long enough to dispose of Lord Stannis. Then, should Joffrey prove troublesome, we can reveal his little secret and put Lord Renly on the throne." Would that also not lead to war and death of the smallfolk.

Ned's counterarguments:

- it is treason

- "You forget" "You forget Jon Arryn. You forget Jory Cassel. And you forget this." He drew the dagger and laid it on the table between them; a length of dragonbone and Valyrian steel, as sharp as the difference between right and wrong, between true and false, between life and death. "They sent a man to cut my son's throat, Lord Baelish." Maybe Ned chose for Stannis out of spite? He really doesn't like the Lannisters. Still, supporting the family who (according his belief) is murdering a lot of people to get power, can be considered immoral.

At the other side, if he would support them, maybe there would be no war?

Very difficult, not? Choosing between the legal heir, the truth and certain(?) war or powerhappy family who tried to kill your son and still possible war.

And then bad Ned asks LF to bribe the City Guard. Very bad...

And then next day, Ned follows the procedure at the Small Councill. O no, he is following the law and at this moment there is no bloodshed. And then the council is summoned by the King. And then the game of thrones begins.

He gives Cersei Robert's will which she shredded apart. She offers Ned the following: "Bend the knee and swear fealty to my son, and we shall allow you to step down as Hand and live out your days in the grey waste you call home." For Ned, this is a better offer than LF's offer. He would be able to get home. Thank you, Cersei.

But stupid Ned. He refuses and says the truth about Joffrey's parentage. Then they are threatening Ned and Ned orders Janos to "take the Queen and her children into custody. Do them no harm, but escort them back to the royal apartments and keep them there, under guard. (...) I want no bloodshed (...)"

Traditionally, there are two kinds of ethics

Deontological ethics or deontology is the normative ethical position that judges the morality of an action based on the action's adherence to a rule or rules.

Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission from acting) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence

If you really look to Ned's action from a deontological ethics point of view, the only actions which were immoral are the lying and the bribing. I think these things can be (except the bribing part but if he would not do it Cersei would).

According to you, from a consequentialisme point of view, Ned is to blame for the war and all that death of the small folk.

What do not know what would have happened if Ned would have accepted Cersei's offer. Would Tywin led the Starks go after Cat dwarfnapped Tyrion?

(Sorry, this was very long)

And then you have Balon who wants to impose independence (Okay, good for the Ironborn; in real life I really am in favor of right of self-determination; so I am not really against that)

but starting a war and wanting to restore the old way which consists in reaving and plundering. Those are crimes.

While Ned's actions are complicated and their morality can be discussed and defended in objective point of view, the restoring of the old way cannot be defended or justified.

An other difference between Ned and Balon (what I tried to say earlier was):

Ned is following the law in Kings Landing. He doesn't impose law only applicable in the North on people in the South. (However you can maybe say there is an unspoken law saying you should not follow the law like Cersei, Renly, LF, ... wants do to. So he does impose his own law of following the law on then). Cersei, ... are subjected to this law.

When Balon wants to restore the ways of old, it has direct consequences on the territory which doesn't belong to them. People in the North, Riverlands, Reach, ... are not his subjects.

There is really a difference.

Balon's actions lead directly to war. He even wanted it. If Ironborn starts to plunder in your country, it is normal you would try to defend yourself. Ned's actions also lead to war. But it was something he never wanted and he even tried to prevent it in his power. And it was only as a result of telling the truth. In my eyes, it is really almost impossible to compare them.

Sansa as a hostage and Theon as a hostage, are also two different thing. Sansa was mistreated and abused and Theon not.

[Frey Pie]

And I'm in no way saying Robert wasn't lenient with those who fought him

[Lord Martin]

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)...

Is this really a misconception? Or is this more of a very grey and ambiguous situation that is supposed to foster this very debate?

The term "Family" is a complicated one. The question of what a person "owes" another is equally complicated. Indeed one of the foundational questions of society is what standards of conduct do we owe each other. So I am not entirely comfortable with what is "owed" as being limited to the question of whether a relationship between people constitutes a "family." Its not as simple as "If Family, then owe something," "If not family, owe nothing." Relationships and responsibilities don't work like that.

Staking out the position that Theon "owed" the Starks nothing is as legitimate or illegitimate as taking they position that he "owed" them everything. I suppose readers could find reasons to adhere to one school or the other. A lot depends on the definition of "owe."

But for my money, if a reader is dug in either way, they've really missed the best parts of Theon's arc. His guilt, his nightmares and all his inner turmoil is a wondrous roller coaster ride. Why pigeonhole it either way?

[Lee-Sensei]

Well Ronald Connington actually joined Robert before the end and later lost most of his land so...They got punished. Two of those houses also fought for Robert for the rest of the rebellion. Tarly is the Tyrells military man and pissing him off risks the Tyrells. Robert is in a precarious position, and three of those kingdoms also fought against him. Only the north has been fully supportive from the start

Also- baelor blacktyde?

Aerys stripped the Conningtons of their lands and wealth. The Merryweathers too. He did it because he blamed them for their failure to contain the Rebellion.

No it doesn't. The Tyrells wouldn't try to stop him from taking aTarly hostage, even if they could stop him.

Baelor Blacktyde wasn't taken by Robert. He was most likely taken hostage during the fighting.

Actually, he'd probably be harsher on Targ loyalists beause he hated the Targs.

[Tijgy]

Simple, I would have walked away. Letting the Lannisters take power promises to be a lot less bloody and damaging for the Seven Kingdom than declaring war on them and spreading doom all across Westeros. Terrible timing as well, considering that winter was coming and all, and that war would simply eat up the supplies necessary for survival during winter.

Would you really advocate this in real life. The Lannisters have committed and are committing treason. Ned also thinks they are a bunch of murderers. Would you really get them away with everything? The murder of Jon Arryn, Robert, Bran? (I know they did not do everything of this, but Ned did!)

Example in real life

Belgium, my country, has relatively the highest number of people fighting in Syria.

Two week ago, 45 people were convicted because they were involved in the recruiting, fighting in Syria, ... As a reaction, people of IS are now threatening Belgium.

After some anti-terror operations of our federal prosecutors our terror level is now on level 3 (there are four levels).

Do you know really think the magistrates involved in these cases are the ones to blame if IS would commit a terrorist attack? Or is IS to blame?

If Ned's plan would have had succes and if he would gave Cersei a fair trail, Tywin would possible reacted and started a war. Would it have Ned's fault of Tywin's?

[Maid So Fair]

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.

Yes, really. Robert was generous, but he wasn't naive or Baelor the Blessed come again. He had as much reason to pardon the people who supported the IT against him as to punish them, especially since none of them (bar Dorne) showed any major inclination to continue opposing him. Balon's rebellion, on the other hand, was entirely his own initiative and a naked act of aggression towards the people of the 7K Robert is meant to protect. They attacked him/the mainland without any provocation, what is to say they won't do so again? He couldn't leave that unpunished and remain King. This is in no way a realistic scenario. He laughed - and asked for unconditional surrender.

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

It's a bit more loose as the tradition supports the possibility of a Kingsmoot, and the nature of their society makes it less hierarchical than the other Kingdoms. But it's been hundreds of years since the last one was called, and the Andal (?) law has applied for a long time. So I don't think that it was unreasonable for Theon, as the sole male descendant, to believe he would be the default heir. What was delusional was believing that he would be respected as one without proving himself first. After all, he saw how that went for Robb, and the Starks have a lot firmer hold on the lordship of the North than Greyjoys do on Iron Islands.

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.

Only if you believe that all traditions are created equal, which is clearly not the case. There is a good reason why having the lawful heir ascend the throne is desirable, the certainty of the rule of law and prevention of future bloody conflict the chief amongst them. There is nothing desirable about free-for-all rape and pillage, except of course the benefit it brings to the thugs that do it.

There's also the fact that regardless of the decision Ned made at that moment, war was on the horizon and in fact already almost in full swing in the Riverlands. Trying to predict which scenario leads to more suffering and casualties is largely futile. And Joffrey and Cersei's personality would lead to even more excess and abuse, on top of whichever war happened. Yes, people die either way, but some things are clearly (more) worth fighting for. Opposing evil is not immoral just because people might die as a result. Since we're doing WW comparisons, it's exactly this type of attitude that worked out so splendidly for Neville Chamberlain.

If Balon wanted to ameliorate his people's condition, he should have started with himself. It's mind-boggling that there is this nation of capable sea-farers in a medieval world, where naval transport is the only viable way of transporting goods over large distances, who remain poor. We see plenty of captains make a living out of sailing and commerce, and one of the most advanced and prosperous societies in their world became one by being a naval power. Balon could have easily followed the example set by his father, but instead he chose a pointless war, plunder, pillage and rape. Nothing about that is justifiable, let alone comparable to Ned's actions.

[UtherSnow]

Stop.... and think. Go read Theon's chapters but, don't take sides. Don't look for where to place any blame. Look at Theon's path through his story.

Theon is the eldest surviving son of a fallen king.

Tradition is that hostages be handed over freely, as an act of submission.

Where hostages are to be sent is at The King's Pleasure (or conqueror in a feudal dispute).

Effectively, Theon is a ward of the state, and in recognition of his status.

The Starks are Robert's most loyal house, can be debated but Ned is Robert's most trusted friend.

Ned treats Theon with respect according to his status, and that's the kind of guy Ned is. (Robert also knows no harm will befall Theon.)

Theon grows up alongside Robb & Jon, and they become friends.

Like all boys, they will step over the line. Ned administers justice evenly and fairly. Theon would be no different to Robb or Jon.

What's different about this? Hostages can be incarcerated, and not treated nearly so well. (Plenty of examples in the books.)

Theon wears no shackles or chains. Theon has freedom to move around. He even gets to slip away for times of pleasure at the local hostelries and sample other pleasures.

Are we seeing cause for resentment from Theon in any of this? Maybe going back to being handed over by his father. Even that isn't on Theon's mind here. He's having a good time and shagging his fair share of wenches too.

What you begin to see in Theon is how he changes through each transition.

His father rejects him. He decides to act defiantly, against Robb's cause, to look good in his father's eyes.... and fails.

Where does failure get him? He can't make his own father proud because he's just taken Winterfell from the family where he has lived the most part of his life. In fact, Winterfell brings about his downfall.

And so Theon continues on this downward spiral.... into despair.... into darkness.... Into Reek.

He is so far removed from Theon at this point, even if Ramsey hadn't called him Reek, he would've become something else and used another name. That would be his final act of defiance against Balon.

But, circumstance takes over. Theon's gone from the fire (anger and resentment at his own father) into the frying pan (at the mercy - ha - of Ramsey). Where can he go now? He is now a prisoner, not a hostage. He's been made something else, to be whatever Ramsey is cooking up. Stripped of everything, including dignity.

His outbursts regarding other people are..... empty words. Words are wind, and they're drifted away on the wind.

Theon is stuck. He can't even decide who he is anymore. Reek won't let him be. Reek tortures Theon. Reek makes Theon do things.

But, then Reek wonders something. Who is this.... Theon?

The guy who does more harm to him does not receive the same hatred he feels to others. Wow! That is some depth Theon's descended to, only.... It's not Theon now. It's Reek and he's..... Who is Theon? We don't need.... whatever his name was.

Of course, things won't get better for Reek. Ramsey is seeing to that. Who's this Theon he wants me to be? Reek must do as his master instructs because it makes his master pleased. My master is never happy. He can only be pleased.

Once away from Ramsey, with Jeyne, things don't improve for Reek, who thinks he's also Theon. Is he ever sure he is or was Theon? You have to remember who you are.

Where does Theon find himself now, when he's held captive by Stannis? He's just escaped Ramsey's frying pan. He's on the edge of the fire, the place where you feel the heat and only see the dancing flames.

Has is transition continued the downward spiral?

Once more, Reek or Theon have no control over their current circumstances. All decisions are in the hands of others.

There is nowhere to run to. He'd be hunted down before..... His position is utterly futile.

The Starks were never Theon's family. That's the truth but, the truth can be seen from different sides.

As a flat out statement - it is true. As a remark of disownment by Theon - it's true, as he sees it.

However, the counter can also be true. The Starks were Theon's family, as they are the family he's lived with. if people didn't know, they would only see three boys being boys. Later, they would see sisters and more brothers.

Theon's story is one of the consequence of detachment, at the hand of others and the hand of self. There never seems to be a remedy that works to heal anything. I think I mentioned it before. Regret plays a part in Theon's story. The balance is swaying - does it bring about his doom or salvation? The way things are - whose hand will tip the balance?

Go read Asha's chapters. It's great to see how that unfolds, and bears some resemblance to Theon's path, albeit from a different angle and perspective. Then it intersects in an ultimate situation. They are each other's only family at this point. Uncles don't concern them. Here and now does.

[Tijgy]

Only if you believe that all traditions are created equal, which is clearly not the case. There is a good reason why having the lawful heir ascend the throne is desirable, the certainty of the rule of law and prevention of future bloody conflict the chief amongst them. There is nothing desirable about free-for-all rape and pillage, except of course the benefit it brings to the thugs that do it.

There's also the fact that regardless of the decision Ned made at that moment, war was on the horizon and in fact already almost in full swing in the Riverlands. Trying to predict which scenario leads to more suffering and casualties is largely futile. And Joffrey and Cersei's personality would lead to even more excess and abuse, on top of whichever war happened. Yes, people die either way, but some things are clearly (more) worth fighting for. Opposing evil is not immoral just because people might die as a result. Since we're doing WW comparisons, it's exactly this type of attitude that worked out so splendidly for Neville Chamberlain.

And that I was trying to say in my very long text

[Lee-Sensei]

Yes, really. Robert was generous, but he wasn't naive or Baelor the Blessed come again. He had as much reason to pardon the people who supported the IT against him as to punish them, especially since none of them (bar Dorne) showed any major inclination to continue opposing him. Balon's rebellion, on the other hand, was entirely his own initiative and a naked act of aggression towards the people of the 7K Robert is meant to protect. They attacked him/the mainland without any provocation, what is to say they won't do so again? He couldn't leave that unpunished and remain King. This is in no way a realistic scenario. He laughed - and asked for unconditional surrender.

He enjoyed the Rebellion and didn't care about politics. He had more reason to punish the Targ loyalists because he hated Targs. Given that he never kept a hostage before, its really likely that he wasn't behind it. But even if he was, Ned agreed to do it so he shares responsibiity.

[Taenqyrhae]

I don't believe Ned would agree to an arrangement where he might have to kill an innocent child. My hypothesis is that he was so burned out on children being killed after Robert's Rebelliion that when the Greyjoys rebelled, Ned volunteered to take young Theon hostage so he could make sure he didn't get his head cut off because of his name.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

I don't believe Ned would agree to an arrangement where he might have to kill an innocent child. My hypothesis is that he was so burned out on children being killed after Robert's Rebelliion that when the Greyjoys rebelled, Ned volunteered to take young Theon hostage so he could make sure he didn't get his head cut off because of his name.

Everything we know about Ned's personality hints it to be this way. What a character says or does is not always what s/he actually wants to do or what s/he actually feels.

Ned arranged for Cersei and her children to escape, despite he knew she committed treason and deserved death. Ned, the one who always (almost) does the right thing, risked himself to suffer Robert's fury when he finds out about Cersei's betrayal and how he helped her to escape. He could have simply sent the children away and deliver Cersei to Robert. Yet, he didn't.

There are so many ways out for Ned and Theon's situation that didn't involve killing him. Also, he was more useful as a leverage. Balon either believed Ned would kill him and behaved or he said "fine, don't mind. Kill him" and Ned didn't need to actually do it because Balon was going to attack either way. The fact Ned was kind or cold towards Theon is irrelevant. He only was obligated to feel love for his children. He was obligated to treat Theon as the important hostage he was. That's it.

[Maid So Fair]

He enjoyed the Rebellion and didn't care about politics. He had more reason to punish the Targ loyalists because he hated Targs. Given that he never kept a hostage before, its really likely that he wasn't behind it. But even if he was, Ned agreed to do it so he shares responsibiity.

He (probably) enjoyed the whole atmosphere of leading a military campaign, being with the lads and away from Cersei. It was something he was good at - but it in no way means he was inclined (or in a position) to encourage open dissent just so he could swing a hammer in his free time. There's a difference between not caring about the tedium of everyday governance and watching the world burn. The Targ loyalists fought dutifully for a King they swore fealty to, and surrendered peacefully when the Targ cause was lost. Guess who's the new King these people swore fealty to? Exactly. Contrast Balon, who fought to the last man, throwing away lives and sense. Who's more likely to cause trouble again?

And had Ned refused, Theon would have likely been sent as a hostage elsewhere and most likely treated worse than at Winterfell. Maybe even with Robert as it's not entirely unknown for people to do things for the first time. So, yeah, Ned absolutely has responsibility for not letting Theon be sent somewhere else. Just not sure why this is a bad thing.

[Frey Pie]

Aerys stripped the Conningtons of their lands and wealth. The Merryweathers too. He did it because he blamed them for their failure to contain the Rebellion.

No it doesn't. The Tyrells wouldn't try to stop him from taking aTarly hostage, even if they could stop him.

Baelor Blacktyde wasn't taken by Robert. He was most likely taken hostage during the fighting.

Actually, he'd probably be harsher on Targ loyalists beause he hated the Targs.

any quote on blacktyde? As far as I know all were told is he was taken hostage during the Rebellion? Pretty sure Robert was in charge then no?

[Lee-Sensei]

He (probably) enjoyed the whole atmosphere of leading a military campaign, being with the lads and away from Cersei. It was something he was good at - but it in no way means he was inclined (or in a position) to encourage open dissent just so he could swing a hammer in his free time. There's a difference between not caring about the tedium of everyday governance and watching the world burn. The Targ loyalists fought dutifully for a King they swore fealty to, and surrendered peacefully when the Targ cause was lost. Guess who's the new King these people swore fealty to? Exactly. Contrast Balon, who fought to the last man, throwing away lives and sense. Who's more likely to cause trouble again?

And had Ned refused, Theon would have likely been sent as a hostage elsewhere and most likely treated worse than at Winterfell. Maybe even with Robert as it's not entirely unknown for people to do things for the first time. So, yeah, Ned absolutely has responsibility for not letting Theon be sent somewhere else. Just not sure why this is a bad thing.

Robert wanted to go on a campaign in the Summer Islands. A campaign that really wouldn't benefit the realm. There were reasons to suspect certain Houses of disloyalty, yet to out knowledge he neer took hostages. The Hightowers and Darrys for starters?

A false dilemma. For all we know it wasn't Roberts idea to take a hostage, and even if it was, Neds guilty. I'm not sure why you can't see why takin children hostage is a bad thing. If someone knew Gregor was coming for the Targaryens and decided to give them quick deaths, would you consider it a good thing?

@Frey Pie He was, but we don't know who took him hostage. He wa being held at Old Town, so its more likely thathe wasbtakenby Paxter Redwyne.