In Defense of Freys

[ForTheNorth]

11 minutes ago, Ser Tristan Flowers said:

There´s barely any true loyalty in Asoiaf. They will submit if they´re left no other choice but to face extinction. If Robb was killed in battle the situation would be much easier, obviously, but he wasn´t.

I dont agree. The Northmen are truly loyal to the Starks. The Westermen seem to be truly loyal to the Lannisters. These houses have survived hundreds of years, and its Neds memory that drives many of the Northmen on. Hell why would the Manderlys want Rickon? Why not just throw in with Stannis regardless?

[thelittledragonthatcould]

3 hours ago, ForTheNorth said:

 The North will never submit now, hell the Manderlys were even defying Tywin up until his death.

But they did. The majority of the Northern Lords, including the Manderlys did submit to the new Warden of the North.

3 hours ago, ForTheNorth said:

Nonsense. Guest Right is one of the major tenets of Westerosi culture. Its a major tenet of our culture and magic doesnt exist in our world and it does in theirs which only magnifies the crime

How does magic magnify the crime?

3 hours ago, ForTheNorth said:

Medieval warfare is governed by honor. They dont have the geneva conventions like we do but to maintain some semblance of order in warfare in their world there are some things you just dont do. As to why in the books it is described aptly.

lol There is no honour. The Northmen wanted to destroy the Twins for being neutral but unfortunately did not have the strength to do so. The Northmen wanted to kill the Freys after Robb betrayed them. There is little honour in Westeros and that includes the North were some of their Lords still practice First Night on the Sly.

3 hours ago, ForTheNorth said:

And please, dont lie, the books even outside of Stark point of view describe the Red Wedding as a crime.

When did I lie? Quote the passage where I lied

3 hours ago, ForTheNorth said:

 

We have multiple enemies in conflict outright stating they will not harm the other because they are under guest protection. It is a well established code of conduct in the world.

Did anyone claim differently?

3 hours ago, ForTheNorth said:

As for your last statement, no its still not comparable. One is war, the other murder. Maybe you identify with the Freys and the way they conduct business but I assure you the Author does not.

Yes they are comparable. Just because one ambush attack was worse does not mean it can not be compared to another ambush attack.

Since when did you speak for the author?

[Tonberry]

I surely hope that some of you are trolling. Seriously? Guest right doesn't matter? Following customs that have been established for centuries doesn't matter? You shouldn't put stock in alliances? Killing your enemies through deceit in the field is equivalent to killing your allies/superiors through deceit at a wedding? Being stupid/foolish/naive is tantamount to deserving injustice?

[watcher of the night]

thelittledragonthatcloud the problem with you is that you do not acknowledge basic moral constructs like friend, enemy or allience. As long as you do so any debate is utterly pointless.

Yes the body count of the two actions might be the same (Oxcross vs. Red wedding) but the moral judgement of these events in any normal society will be different: one is considered as a military feat of arms (Oxcross) and the other is a most despicable treachery (Red wedding).

One main difference between friend and foe is the intentions. The army at Oxcross was armed and trained to kill Starks, they had no intentions to let them up close and they had all intentions to kill them. Robb was just faster, more skilled had more cunning. Speed, cunning and decisiveness in battle are traits of a good commander that is why this event is a military feat of arms.

On the other hand, Starks at the Red wedding had no intention to kill Freys. They came to drink, to dance, to eat, to enjoy the wedding. If you don’t see a difference between the intention to kill and to dance then you are beyond hopeless. Starks had their guards down exactly because they considered Freys as allies. What Walder Frey did required no military cunning or speed, he did not lead his mean through treacherous mountain passes, the Stark soldiers were sitting next to the Freys, drinking from the same wine, eating from the same lamb. What he did was killing his own guests, who had no intention to kill him. It is not a military feat of arms: it is a breaking of a social norm (sacred or not). That is why the moral judgement of this event is the opposite of the other: it is treachery, treason, betrayal, the violation of social norms.

[Neds Secret]

On 2 April 2016 at 2:58 PM, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

The thing is, though, that there was no way to make it up to the Freys, and Robb Stark knew that, even as he betrayed them. It doesn't matter how hard he tried to make it up to them, what Walder Frey wanted was gone.

Imagine this: you buy, say, an apple. The best apple in the world. You've paid for it, and will continue paying for it. But, alas, before it's been given to you, the seller gives it to another. Then, after this, offers you other apples. Lesser apples. You like apples, it's true, but these apples simply do not compare. Not only are these apples sub-par, in comparison, but the seller also demands the same price. He cannot reimburse you for what you've already paid, either, as that money has already been spent. What do you do? Do you just sit there, and continue paying the exorbitant price? No. You don't. You stop giving that man your business, and go elsewhere.

That was Walder Frey's punishment to Robb Stark. Not the wedding, that was just how he dealt with him. The punishment was going over to the Lannisters. A fair punishment, too.

And truly, there isn't much of a difference between the actions of Robb Stark and Walder Frey. Both of them took advantage of the fact that their opponents weren't ready for a battle. When Robb Stark does it, it's praised as ingenuity. When Walder Frey does it, it's an evil act. It is exactly the same.

In some way, Robb Stark had give the Lannister army some sense of protection. They had no idea that he was there. They certainly didn't believe that he would attack and kill them, as they didn't know he was there at all. Sneak attacks are sneak attacks, whether they're at a wedding or not. Walder Frey had joined up with the Lannisters; therefore they were at war.

Catelyn Stark sealed her fate when she killed Aegon Frey.

Sneak attacks are not all "sneak attacks". Guest right is a tradition like raising a white flag, walder Frey lured Robb in to the twins promising safe conduct as if under a white flag or to parlay and then betrayed him and slaughtered his men when they thought they were with allies, if they were with the Lannisters then they hadn't stated it ir declared it, it was without chivalry or honor and people that cannot see this perhaps do not understand the concepts, so perhaps it s impossible to explain it to them.

[Neds Secret]

51 minutes ago, watcher of the night said:

thelittledragonthatcloud the problem with you is that you do not acknowledge basic moral constructs like friend, enemy or allience. As long as you do so any debate is utterly pointless.

Yes the body count of the two actions might be the same (Oxcross vs. Red wedding) but the moral judgement of these events in any normal society will be different: one is considered as a military feat of arms (Oxcross) and the other is a most despicable treachery (Red wedding).

One main difference between friend and foe is the intentions. The army at Oxcross was armed and trained to kill Starks, they had no intentions to let them up close and they had all intentions to kill them. Robb was just faster, more skilled had more cunning. Speed, cunning and decisiveness in battle are traits of a good commander that is why this event is a military feat of arms.

On the other hand, Starks at the Red wedding had no intention to kill Freys. They came to drink, to dance, to eat, to enjoy the wedding. If you don’t see a difference between the intention to kill and to dance then you are beyond hopeless. Starks had their guards down exactly because they considered Freys as allies. What Walder Frey did required no military cunning or speed, he did not lead his mean through treacherous mountain passes, the Stark soldiers were sitting next to the Freys, drinking from the same wine, eating from the same lamb. What he did was killing his own guests, who had no intention to kill him. It is not a military feat of arms: it is a breaking of a social norm (sacred or not). That is why the moral judgement of this event is the opposite of the other: it is treachery, treason, betrayal, the violation of social norms.

I totally totally agree, you really described it excellently, especially with regards to littledragon, who just does not seem to grasp chivalric concepts

[Protagoras]

There is a reason we even today give diplomatic immunity today to ambassadors and in Westeros that immunity is called Guest right.

The purpose is that you need to be safe under someones home, regardless of the relation with the host in order to work out a peace, to discuss trade agreements, hostage releases etc etc without any risk, because if not - no one in their right minds would try these things in order to risk further mistreatment of different kind. War suddenly becomes a more attractive option than before. If you are a poor host - why would I want to visit you? 

The price on morality you pay (that is, Walder Frey have to respect this, no matter how much the Freys thinks Robb is an ass) is worth it simply because of a larger gain for Westeros as a whole. The return here is that the Freys know they will be safe in someone elses home.

This rule no longer exist after Red wedding. That means there is no reason not to slaugther guest in your home, regardless of good or bad reasons (I dont care if you kill someone because he rapes a servant of his in front of you or if you kill someone because you want to hear him scream and compare those screams to the voices in your head) for it. If everyone/someone do it - why not you? For all practical purposes - visiting another home would be a danger and there is no reason why you wouldn´t end up a hostage or worse. We are talking a complete breakdown of a established tradition - and counter responses (Manderley, BWB) follow almost immediately. If we go back to diplomats - what stops a country to enforce an arbitary law directed towards diplomats from another country? Well, that said country do the same to your diplomats of course! If US would execute diplomats from say Russia, regardless of reasons (say they find a pile of murdered bodies from an unauthorized search of the embassy) I would cheer and support Russias execution of american embassy staff, regardless if said individuals are completely innocents in all ways.  

So no, I am not willing to give the Freys any leeway here. They need to be punished - and hard, in order to uphold a vital tradition.

[DasallmaechtigeJ]

I have to admit I just find it hilarious in a morbid fashion to see them die like fleas. I find it just horribly interesting to imagine how many of them will die, how will kill whom, what the worst-case scenario could be, if they will get extint etc. I actually by now have stopped caring about them being guilty, I just like to do my hypothetical body count, even it it involves children =P

[Equilibrium]

There are the rules of war, and only consistent of those are breaking of explicitly given word and perfidity, which refers to using the rules of war  against the enemy. They are forbidden because they undermine the very fabric of society and make it almost impossible to make peace.

Freys broke them big time and any punishment they get is not big enough because when rules of society and war collapse and mutual trust is destroyed, war will became total and endless.

[The Fattest Leech]

I was not able to go through every post here, so my apologies if this was already addressed.

Third tier Freys are innocent and should be spared their lives, however, any killing of the upper levels should be made very public as example of what could happen. You need some of the Freys alive to tell the warning tale for generations to come, otherwise, it gets lost and made into a "romantic" song like the Castamere's.

I find it interesting that for the Red Wedding, Lord Walder gave no less than 3 warnings  directly to Catelyn that he was not truthful and someone was going to be killed. He said the word, "mayhaps."

Bran in Clash plays the game Lord of the Crossing with the two Frey wards and that is exactly what happened at the Twins.

[cyberdirectorfreedom]

5 hours ago, watcher of the night said:

On the other hand, Starks at the Red wedding had no intention to kill Freys. They came to drink, to dance, to eat, to enjoy the wedding. If you don’t see a difference between the intention to kill and to dance then you are beyond hopeless. Starks had their guards down exactly because they considered Freys as allies. What Walder Frey did required no military cunning or speed, he did not lead his mean through treacherous mountain passes, the Stark soldiers were sitting next to the Freys, drinking from the same wine, eating from the same lamb. What he did was killing his own guests, who had no intention to kill him. It is not a military feat of arms: it is a breaking of a social norm (sacred or not). That is why the moral judgement of this event is the opposite of the other: it is treachery, treason, betrayal, the violation of social norms.

Morality is a human made concept; if you don't let your moral bias sway you, they are exactly the same acts, attacks made on an unsuspecting party. They differ in execution, sure, and in a classical moral sense, one of them is worse. But before our morality is attached to the situation, they are identical. I don't think anyone is denying that, in a "moral" way, what Frey did was "worse"; it's shown pretty clearly in the books that the Red Wedding is considered "evil". But I don't truly see why it should be considered as such.

5 hours ago, Neds Secret said:

Sneak attacks are not all "sneak attacks". Guest right is a tradition like raising a white flag, walder Frey lured Robb in to the twins promising safe conduct as if under a white flag or to parlay and then betrayed him and slaughtered his men when they thought they were with allies, if they were with the Lannisters then they hadn't stated it ir declared it, it was without chivalry or honor and people that cannot see this perhaps do not understand the concepts, so perhaps it s impossible to explain it to them.

I understand the concepts of chivalry an honour. I just don't think they have any place in war. Attaching rules to war is foolish, as is expecting people to follow them, just because it would be "right". Why, exactly, is it considered okay to go to war at all? Thousands of people will die in this war of Robb Starks making. That's considered okay, but killing a few people at a wedding, oh no, you cannot do that, it would be wrong.

I understand that it sets an ugly precedence, killing people who have guest right. Nobody will trust the word of Walder Frey anymore. But what kind of precedence does it set to go to war when somebody is executed for treason?

Anyway, I guess it's relatively pointless to debate, what it comes down to is that we have a different sense of morality, and I doubt that any of us will truly be able to change any of our minds about what we believe. That said, I do have an issue with "rules" in war. Moral rules. They're all well and good in theory, but they don't truly exist. For instance, it's "wrong" to attack a town full of "innocents", people who aren't taking part in the war. But, if no army would attack people who aren't going to war, why would anybody bother to defend themselves? Surely, if everybody on the defending side simply stayed out of the war, the attacking people wouldn't be able to do anything, as everyone they're fighting against is "innocent".

If the attacking army showed up to find the people just going about their lives, I hardly think they'd just stand around, twiddling their thumbs, wondering when they'll find some fighting men. They'd do what they came to do. Kill. The first and only rule of war is to kill the other guy.

 

[watcher of the night]

1 hour ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Morality is a human made concept; if you don't let your moral bias sway you, they are exactly the same acts, attacks made on an unsuspecting party. They differ in execution, sure, and in a classical moral sense, one of them is worse. But before our morality is attached to the situation, they are identical. I don't think anyone is denying that, in a "moral" way, what Frey did was "worse"; it's shown pretty clearly in the books that the Red Wedding is considered "evil". But I don't truly see why it should be considered as such.
 

Yes, it is a human made concept, that is whole point as we live in human societies. Moralty is not some arbitrary "bias"; it is the very fabric of society. It tells the difference between good and bad, it gives a compass to people what is acceptable in the society and what is not. No human society exists on earth without social norms and corresponding moral judgement. People attach moralty to this situation becuase they live in human sociates, they have social norms, they have this "moral compass". If you don't have it, it is a big problem.

 

Quote

I understand the concepts of chivalry an honour. I just don't think they have any place in war. Attaching rules to war is foolish, as is expecting people to follow them, just because it would be "right". Why, exactly, is it considered okay to go to war at all? Thousands of people will die in this war of Robb Starks making. That's considered okay, but killing a few people at a wedding, oh no, you cannot do that, it would be wrong.

People attach rules to wars because (i) most of the times warring parties belong to the same society thus they already share a large chunk of social norms; (ii) social norms (assuming followed by both sides) can greatly decrease the vicousness of war. Think of two leaders duking it out in a duel instead of the armies. It works only if both sides respect the outcome.

 

Quote

I understand that it sets an ugly precedence, killing people who have guest right. Nobody will trust the word of Walder Frey anymore. But what kind of precedence does it set to go to war when somebody is executed for treason?

We know that Eddard commited no treason. His only mistake is that he tried to save the life Joffrey, Mircella and Tommen.  Robb knew too that his father commited no treason.

Quote

Anyway, I guess it's relatively pointless to debate, what it comes down to is that we have a different sense of morality, and I doubt that any of us will truly be able to change any of our minds about what we believe.

I would say that you have little or no sense of moralty as you consitently ignore the consequences of moral judgement.

Quote

That said, I do have an issue with "rules" in war. Moral rules. They're all well and good in theory, but they don't truly exist. For instance, it's "wrong" to attack a town full of "innocents", people who aren't taking part in the war. But, if no army would attack people who aren't going to war, why would anybody bother to defend themselves? Surely, if everybody on the defending side simply stayed out of the war, the attacking people wouldn't be able to do anything, as everyone they're fighting against is "innocent".

If the attacking army showed up to find the people just going about their lives, I hardly think they'd just stand around, twiddling their thumbs, wondering when they'll find some fighting men. They'd do what they came to do. Kill. The first and only rule of war is to kill the other guy.

Wars do not happen in vacuum, they happen in human societies with already established norms. That is why wars between societies with little or no shared norms can be very vicious since none of the parties will regard that other side as "human"; then indeed, it is all about killing. In our case the war of the 5 kings happened in society with well established social norms including the "guest right".

[Sullen]

1 hour ago, watcher of the night said:

We know that Eddard commited no treason. His only mistake is that he tried to save the life Joffrey, Mircella and Tommen.  Robb knew too that his father commited no treason.

Trying to save Cersei and the children consists of treason by itself, harboring Rhaegar's child (if true) is capital treason, and doctoring the King's will is treason as well.

Say what you want about Eddard, but saying he never committed treason is plain false.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

9 hours ago, watcher of the night said:

 

One main difference between friend and foe is the intentions. The army at Oxcross was armed and trained to kill Starks,

That army was not trained.  Not according to everything we have heard. That is why Robb hit them so soon, before they got the chance to properly organize

"We have some time yet before we must face them. This lot will be sellswords, freeriders, and green boys from the stews of Lannisport. Ser Stafford must see that they are armed and drilled before he dare risk battle -Blackfish

The Kingslayer is a captive at Riverrun. Only Ser Stafford Lannister and the raw green levies he's been gathering remain to oppose Robb in the west. Ser Stafford will put himself between Robb's army and Lannisport - Theon

"All the while, their cousin Ser Stafford would be training and arming the new host he'd raised" -Tyrion

9 hours ago, watcher of the night said:

 

On the other hand, Starks at the Red wedding had no intention to kill Freys. They came to drink, to dance, to eat, to enjoy the wedding.

No, they really did not. It was an army on its way to Moat Cailin.

Thirty-five hundred they were, thirty-five hundred who had been blooded in the Whispering Wood, who had reddened their swords at the Battle of the Camps, at Oxcross, Ashemark, and the Crag, and all through the gold-rich hills of the Lannister west. Aside from her brother Edmure's modest retinue of friends, the lords of the Trident had remained to hold the riverlands while the king retook the north.

You seem to be going out of your way to try and make out that it was innocents at a party. It was not, these were soldiers who had killed and done their fair share of atrocities in the Westerlands.

[watcher of the night]

25 minutes ago, Sullen said:

Trying to save Cersei and the children consists of treason by itself, harboring Rhaegar's child (if true) is capital treason, and doctoring the King's will is treason as well.

Say what you want about Eddard, but saying he never committed treason is plain false.

Oh you cought me ... let's see why he commited all these "treason":

1, He told Cersei that he knows about the incest to save the life of Joffrey, Mircella, Tommen and Cersei (out of all people!).

2, He was harboring Rhaegar's child to save the life of Jon.

3, He was not doctoring the will, but yes he lied to Robert to save the life of Joffrey.

Do you see a pattern emerging? Do you really hold THIS against Eddard?  Do you really think that Joffrey excecuted Eddard because he saved his life (twice!)? How much do you hate Eddard, honestly?

[thelittledragonthatcould]

9 minutes ago, watcher of the night said:

 

3, He was not doctoring the will, but yes he lied to Robert to save the life of Joffrey.

No he didnt. He did it to get his way.

[watcher of the night]

14 minutes ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

That army was not trained.  Not according to everything we have heard. That is why Robb hit them so soon, before they got the chance to properly organize

"We have some time yet before we must face them. This lot will be sellswords, freeriders, and green boys from the stews of Lannisport. Ser Stafford must see that they are armed and drilled before he dare risk battle -Blackfish

The Kingslayer is a captive at Riverrun. Only Ser Stafford Lannister and the raw green levies he's been gathering remain to oppose Robb in the west. Ser Stafford will put himself between Robb's army and Lannisport - Theon

"All the while, their cousin Ser Stafford would be training and arming the new host he'd raised" -Tyrion

Here you are just confirmed what I wrote. " Ser Stafford would be training and arming the new host " and " he's been gathering remain to oppose Robb " So it was an army trained and armed against Robb. You really don't understand anything or just trolling so hard?

Quote

No, they really did not. It was an army on its way to Moat Cailin.

Thirty-five hundred they were, thirty-five hundred who had been blooded in the Whispering Wood, who had reddened their swords at the Battle of the Camps, at Oxcross, Ashemark, and the Crag, and all through the gold-rich hills of the Lannister west. Aside from her brother Edmure's modest retinue of friends, the lords of the Trident had remained to hold the riverlands while the king retook the north.

 

So what? Did the Freys captured Moat Cailin as well? Or was it the Greyjoys? I am sure you know the difference. Troll harder.

Quote

You seem to be going out of your way to try and make out that it was innocents at a party. It was not, these were soldiers who had killed and done their fair share of atrocities in the Westerlands.

I am not saying that all the Stark soldiers or all their allies are completely innocent. I am not saying that becasue that is not the question.

The question was whether the Red wedding is defendable in any way (the answer is NO); and then you tried to sidetrack the conversation by comparing the Red Wedding to Oxcross, claiming that they are the same, but again the answer is NO. As long as moral judgement concerned they are diametrically opposed.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

1 minute ago, watcher of the night said:

Here you are just confirmed what I wrote. " Ser Stafford would be training and arming the new host " and " he's been gathering remain to oppose Robb " So it was an army trained and armed against Robb. You really don't understand anything or just trolling so hard?

The Blackfish and Theon claim they were not trained. Robb attacked anyway as it would be ridiculous to allow them the time to actually organize.

You brought up a silly point and it was easily shot down. Instead of taking it like an adult you instead complain about being 'trolled.'

Robb, or any commander, is obvioulsy going to try and attack an army before they are prepared. They are not going to give them time to get organized before attacking.

1 minute ago, watcher of the night said:

So what? Did the Freys captured Moat Cailin as well? Or was it the Greyjoys? I am sure you know the difference. Troll harder.

lol stop trying to change the subject. They three thousand five hundred were not wedding guests. They were an armed and bloodied army (outside of the Twins) on their way to war.

1 minute ago, watcher of the night said:

I am not saying that all the Stark soldiers or all their allies are completely innocent. I am not saying that becasue that is not the question.

Sure it is, it became the question when you decided that being chivalrous was somehow the most important thing.

1 minute ago, watcher of the night said:

The question was whether the Red wedding is defendable in any way (the answer is NO);

It quite clearly is. It does not stop it being an awful thing to happen and without honour but it can quite clearly be defended. This thread should be evidence of that.

What you are really saying is that you can't defend it or justify it. Which if perfectly fine, but you don't get to decide what is and is not defensible for everyone else just like I don't.

1 minute ago, watcher of the night said:

 

and then you tried to sidetrack the conversation by comparing the Red Wedding to Oxcross,

It is easily comparable. Robb attacked an untrained sleeping soldiers who thought they were safe in their own lands. Walder attacked a trained, wide awake soldiers who thought they were safe at (well outside for most of them) the Twins.

Obviously Walder's actions are worse but they are comparable.

1 minute ago, watcher of the night said:

 

claiming that they are the same, but again the answer is NO. As long as moral judgement concerned they are diametrically opposed.

lol They clearly are not. And something does not have to be exactly the same to be comparable. So I have no Idea what you keep on claiming that others have called it the same. They have not.

[ForTheNorth]

 

9 hours ago, Protagoras said:

There is a reason we even today give diplomatic immunity today to ambassadors and in Westeros that immunity is called Guest right.

The purpose is that you need to be safe under someones home, regardless of the relation with the host in order to work out a peace, to discuss trade agreements, hostage releases etc etc without any risk, because if not - no one in their right minds would try these things in order to risk further mistreatment of different kind. War suddenly becomes a more attractive option than before. If you are a poor host - why would I want to visit you? 

The price on morality you pay (that is, Walder Frey have to respect this, no matter how much the Freys thinks Robb is an ass) is worth it simply because of a larger gain for Westeros as a whole. The return here is that the Freys know they will be safe in someone elses home.

This rule no longer exist after Red wedding. That means there is no reason not to slaugther guest in your home, regardless of good or bad reasons (I dont care if you kill someone because he rapes a servant of his in front of you or if you kill someone because you want to hear him scream and compare those screams to the voices in your head) for it. If everyone/someone do it - why not you? For all practical purposes - visiting another home would be a danger and there is no reason why you wouldn´t end up a hostage or worse. We are talking a complete breakdown of a established tradition - and counter responses (Manderley, BWB) follow almost immediately. If we go back to diplomats - what stops a country to enforce an arbitary law directed towards diplomats from another country? Well, that said country do the same to your diplomats of course! If US would execute diplomats from say Russia, regardless of reasons (say they find a pile of murdered bodies from an unauthorized search of the embassy) I would cheer and support Russias execution of american embassy staff, regardless if said individuals are completely innocents in all ways.  

So no, I am not willing to give the Freys any leeway here. They need to be punished - and hard, in order to uphold a vital tradition.

Yep. We have laws and precedent for a reason and Martin applies that to Westeros culture 

[Sullen]

2 hours ago, watcher of the night said:

Oh you cought me ... let's see why he commited all these "treason":

1, He told Cersei that he knows about the incest to save the life of Joffrey, Mircella, Tommen and Cersei (out of all people!).

2, He was harboring Rhaegar's child to save the life of Jon.

3, He was not doctoring the will, but yes he lied to Robert to save the life of Joffrey.

Do you see a pattern emerging? Do you really hold THIS against Eddard?  Do you really think that Joffrey excecuted Eddard because he saved his life (twice!)? How much do you hate Eddard, honestly?

He did doctor the will, mate.

He was supposed to write the will verbatim, but chose to write off Joffrey so that he could spare Robert's feelings while still dispossessing Joffrey. It wasn't about saving Joff.