B+A=J almost makes sense

[Frey family reunion]

37 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

Ned has lived a life of lies for fourteen years that includes lying to his wife about the boy he claims as his bastard son, and who he has forced Catelyn to take into her home, to the great distress of his wife and harm to their marriage, and to the vows he made to Catelyn. And he has also lived a life of a traitor to his king and best friend in order to keep his secret promise to his dead sister and keep Jon safe. I really don't think we need to overthink the phrase "in the sight of gods and men" to understand he has not been faithful to his vows to either Catelyn or Robert. It doesn't need to mean he was married twice for Eddard to have forsaken important parts of his oaths to either his wife or his king.

It's not hard to see why we have to look for subtle, ulterior meanings behind Ned's words.  We have an example of it when he and Cat have their argument over Jon and Ashara.  

Ned tells her that Jon is his blood and that's all she needs to know.  My thought is when Ned is being righteously indignant he tries to tell the truth, just not too much of the truth.  

So I think while Ned was being righteously indignant to Robert the same subtle "truth" may have come out.  If so, then Ned had to be referring to a dishonor that was seperate and apart from an affair, because I think it's a good chance that Ned never did have an affair while Cat was pregnant with Robb.  So the only possibility that leaves, is that Ned considered his false claim/affirmation/acknowledgment of Jon as his son a dishonor.  And there is a good chance that this affirmation may have been done as an oath.  Hence "in the eyes of gods and men".  

[corbon]

1 minute ago, Frey family reunion said:

I'm going off the appendix which has Jon listed as the Bastard of Winterfell. 

Fair enough. The appendices aren't part of the searchable text.

Still not a formal title. Just a widely recognised one. As per Ramsey Snow. 

Quote

 "Reek, he's called," Hayhead said when Bran asked who it was. "I never heard his true name. He served the Bastard of Bolton and helped him murder Lady Hornwood, they say."

The Bastard himself was dead, Bran learned that evening over supper. Ser Rodrik's men had caught him on Hornwood land doing something horrible

Quote

"Aye, and strike somewhere else. The Others take all such cowards. They would never dare, no more than the Bastard of Bolton, if our main strength were not a thousand leagues south." Ser Rodrik looked at Bran. "What else did the lad tell you?"

Quote

The flayed man of the Dreadfort. Reek had belonged to the Bastard of Bolton before his capture, Theon recalled. 

There are more, but 3 different sources (one of them Ser Rodrek) is enough to establish that Ramsey Snow is commonly known as the Bastard of Bolton.

Quote

"Lord Bolton has never acknowledged the boy, so far as I know," Ser Rodrik said. "I confess, I do not know him."

"Few do," she replied. "He lived with his mother until two years past, when young Domeric died and left Bolton without an heir. That was when he brought his bastard to the Dreadfort. 

So Ser Rodrik calls Ramsey Snow the Bastard of Bolton (the middle quote above) even though in the same book he notes that Lord Bolton has never formally acknowledged Ramsey despite bringing him to the Dreadfort two years past.

Have a "Bastard of_____" name just means that you are widely recognised as the Lord's bastard. Which is something totally different than a formal acknowledgment which is not indicated by the 'title' (more of a nickname).

1 minute ago, Frey family reunion said:

And the Bastard of Winterfell isn't a term of mockery. 

It was used as such by Chett. Not the Wildlings.

1 minute ago, Frey family reunion said:

Calling him Lord Snow was.  Bastard of "fill in the blank" simply means that you are known as the illigitimate child or grandchild of one of the Lords of the castle.  

Agreed. "Known as", not 'formally acknowledged' as.

1 minute ago, Frey family reunion said:

And i believe it has some legal title.  If all of the known heirs die off, then being the Bastard of _____ might give you an inheritence claim. 

Nope.

Quote

He is set on this. Catelyn knew how stubborn her son could be. "A bastard cannot inherit."

"Not unless he's legitimized by a royal decree," said Robb. 

Being the "Bastard of ____" just means people recognise who your father was. So they are more likely to accept that you have a claim, if legitimised. It doesn't actually give you any rights in itself. Its not a formal title, its a social acceptance of parentage. 

1 minute ago, Frey family reunion said:

And if you are going to try and disregard Cat's unambiguous statement that Ned brought Jon to Winterfell and called him his son for all the North to hear, then I don't know what to tell you.  I suppose we could later argue about the sky being blue and water being wet, but I don't see the point.

Disregard. I do not think it means what you think it means. 

[corbon]

50 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

Dude, that's the entire point, he was claiming, and I agree with him, that there's no reason for Ned not to tell Jon who his parents are if they are Brandon and Ashara. 

 

I think there are some crossed wires somewhere. I agree with this completely.

Quote

Someone believing something you know to be false and you confirming it by not correcting them is a lie of omission.

Obviously there is room for disagreement and different personal standards here. 

I'd invite you to rethink this a little more...
The reason, for me, that I hold to this standard (or try to), is that I believe we all have the moral right to some personal secrets - in other words, not everyone has the moral right to know every detail of everyone else's life. If your standard is that silence is a lie of omission then we can all be either be made 'liars' by anyone trying to probe our personal secrets, or we have to give those secrets up. 
If I want to know your annual salary, for example, all I have to do is propose absurd numbers and work my way down based on your response. You can't honestly stop me finding out, if silence is lying. 
I don't think that is an acceptable situation. I believe you can maintain a status of moral honesty with me, and yet not tell me how much you earn. 

Quote

It's almost impossible to imagine a world in which Ned goes to life avoiding to call Jon his son and everyone still thinking it, how would they get the notion? 

Its extremely easy.
He turns up in Starfall, and/or in Winterfell, with a baby. He clearly cares for the baby in a personal way and he tells people to "treat this baby as my son", or even "this child is my blood, treat him as such". There are any number of variable ways of saying the same thing.
From there, how would they not get the notion?
People are likely to jump to the 'obvious' conclusion. Especially when you throw in the Ashara Dayne suicide story and the old Ashara/Stark Harrenhal rumours.

Remember, Lyanna disappeared well over a year before the baby appeared. Its not like she's this big thing hanging over Ned (to outsiders at least). As far as most people know, Robert's Rebellion was about Aerys murdering high lords for no reason, not some vague northern girl abduction thing that most people didn't even know about.

Quote

That is still lying.

No, technically it isn't. Words matter. What people actually say matters. Your (generic you, not you specifically) flaws and failures, are not my (generic me, not specific me) fault, they are yours. 
My responsibility is what I say, not what you think.

Quote

Jon is acknowledged, even if Ned never called him his son everyone thinks he is, so in everyone's eyes he's acknowledged.

Formal 'acknowledgement' by the father is an important social step up from general 'acceptance' (what you call acknowledgment here and I only change to acceptance to make clear the difference).
Witness:

Quote

"There's proof of a sort at Storm's End. Robert's bastard. The one he fathered on my wedding night, in the very bed they'd made up for me and my bride. Delena was a Florent, and a maiden when he took her, so Robert acknowledged the babe. Edric Storm, they call him. He is said to be the very image of my brother. If men were to see him, and then look again at Joffrey and Tommen, they could not help but wonder, I would think."

social pressures forced Robert to 'acknowledge' Edric and gave him higher status.

Quote

"Lord Bolton has never acknowledged the boy, so far as I know," Ser Rodrik said. "I confess, I do not know him."

Roose took Ramsey into his house and treated him as his bastard for two years, and Ramsey is widely know, even by Ser Rodrik, as 'the Bastard of Bolton', yet still Ser Rodrik believes Ramsey has not been 'acknowledged' formally.

Quote

Alayne wondered what Mya made of Ser Lothor. With his squashed nose, square jaw, and nap of woolly grey hair, Brune could not be called comely, but he was not ugly either. It is a common face but an honest one. Though he had risen to knighthood, Ser Lothor's birth had been very low. One night he had told her that he was kin to the Brunes of Brownhollow, an old knightly family from Crackclaw Point. "I went to them when my father died," he confessed, "but they shat on me, and said I was no blood of theirs." He would not speak of what happened after that, except to say that he had learned all he knew of arms the hard way. Sober, he was a quiet man, but a strong one. And Petyr says he's loyal. He trusts him as much as he trusts anyone. Brune would be a good match for a bastard girl like Mya Stone, she thought. It might be different if her father had acknowledged her, but he never did. And Maddy says that she's no maid either.

Robert not acknowledging Mya means she has lowly status, much lower than Edric, even though its widely known she is Robert's daughter.

[CamiloRP]

7 minutes ago, corbon said:

I think there are some crossed wires somewhere. I agree with this completely.

hahahhahahahahaha

That's the best type of argument.

 

9 minutes ago, corbon said:

No, it isn't. 

Obviously there is room for disagreement and different personal standards here. Mine is enunciated more clearly below. 

Yeah, you are omitting a correction, you are omitting part of the truth, in order to get another to believe a lie.

 

Quote

Its extremely easy.
He turns up in Starfall, and/or in Winterfell, with a baby. He clearly cares for the baby in a personal way and he tells people to "treat this baby as my son", or even "this child is my blood, treat him as such". There are any number of variable ways of saying the same thing.
From there, how would they not get the notion?
People are likely to jump to the 'obvious' conclusion. Especially when you throw in the Ashara Dayne suicide story and the old Ashara/Stark Harrenhal rumours.
Remember, Lyanna disappeared well over a year before the baby appeared. Its not like she's this big thing hanging over Ned, to outsiders. Robert's Rebellion was about Aerys murdering high lords for no reason, not some vague northern girl abduction thing that hardly anyone even knows about.

Those are lies of omission even by your own standards.

Quote

Refusing to talk about something is not a lie of omission. A lie of omission is when you tell a story but only tell part of it.

He's saying 'he's my blood' omitting the part that he's only his blood through his sister (or whatever) and not his actual son, but doing it in order to have everyone believe he is.

 

13 minutes ago, corbon said:

No, technically it isn't. Words matter. What people actually say matters. Your (generic you, not you specifically) flaws and failures, are not my (generic me, not specific me) fault, they are yours. 

It goes back to the lie of omission argument, to they are not only my mistakes if you caused them purposedly.

But even still, to do such a thing seems too tricky for Ned, it seems like something he would both considered equally morally wrong to lying and less respectable than straight up lying.

 

Quote

Formal 'acknowledgement' by the father is an important social step up from general 'acceptance' (what you call acknowledgment here and I only change to acceptance to make clear the difference).
Witness:

social pressures forced Robert to 'acknowledge' Edric and gave him higher status.

Roose took Ramsey into his house and treated him as his bastard for two years, and Ramsey is widely know, even by Ser Rodrik, as 'the Bastard of Bolton', yet still Ser Rodrik believes Ramsey has not been 'acknowledged' formally.

Robert not acknowledging Mya means she has lowly status, much lower than Edric, even though its widely known she is Robert's daughter.

I wasn't considering that distinction, my bad.

[corbon]

52 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

It's not hard to see why we have to look for subtle, ulterior meanings behind Ned's words.  We have an example of it when he and Cat have their argument over Jon and Ashara.  

Ned tells her that Jon is his blood and that's all she needs to know.  My thought is when Ned is being righteously indignant he tries to tell the truth, just not too much of the truth.  

So I think while Ned was being righteously indignant to Robert the same subtle "truth" may have come out.  If so, then Ned had to be referring to a dishonor that was seperate and apart from an affair,

No he doesn't. In fact he has to be at very least 'also' referring to the affair because he's in a conversation with Robert and thats the contextual reference from Robert.

52 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

because I think it's a good chance that Ned never did have an affair while Cat was pregnant with Robb. 

So do I.

52 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

So the only possibility that leaves, is that Ned considered his false claim/affirmation/acknowledgment of Jon as his son a dishonor.  And there is a good chance that this affirmation may have been done as an oath.  Hence "in the eyes of gods and men".  

Thats not the only possibility. 

[corbon]

23 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

hahahhahahahahaha

That's the best type of argument.

Quote

Yeah, you are omitting a correction, you are omitting part of the truth, in order to get another to believe a lie.

I had edited my post for better clarity, and yours posted shortly after my edit, so its certain you hadn't seen that. I invite you to go back to it.

Quote

Those are lies of omission even by your own standards.

No, they aren't. They are factually accurate statements.

Quote

He's saying 'he's my blood' omitting the part that he's only his blood through his sister (or whatever) and not his actual son, but doing it in order to have everyone believe he is.

Thats their issue, not his. Jon is his blood. Its a factually accurate statement. That others misconstrue it is on them, not him. If they treat Jon as his son but don't assume he is his son, then they follow what Ned said in my examples accurately. 

Quote

It goes back to the lie of omission argument, to they are not only my mistakes if you caused them purposedly.

Thats simply not true. See my edited previous post.

Quote

But even still, to do such a thing seems too tricky for Ned, it seems like something he would both considered equally morally wrong to lying and less respectable than straight up lying.

Why? Ned's a straight arrow, right? In his heart, most of all, right? This is dead straight. Absolutely dead straight. It is sometimes the only way a straight arrow like Ned is able to negotiate a dangerous path safely and still be a straight arrow.
I know, I've used it myself often in gameplay negotiation.  Always tell the truth. Negotiation games often almost require a backstab between allies at some stage in order to win (depending on the game) (its a game, after all), but its possible to do that and still stay precisely within the truth. 
It gets you trusted, which enables deal-making, but people who know you take great care over what deals are actually made. 

As to the moral angle - thats probably part of why Ned's heart is saddened and he feels guilt. Even if he never said the lies (and remember, he might have), he's lived them.
For me, in Ned's place, the only guilt I would have is over the hurt I have caused Cat. Necessary hurt, but guilt isn't entirely rational. Robert might be my friend, might be closer to my heart than Cat, but the lies I've lived, needed to live, haven't actually hurt him. Or maybe they have. Maybe there would be guilt there, for Robert's pain over never being able to come to terms with the loss of Lyanna. Its hard to say. I'm not actually Ned.
 

Quote

I wasn't considering that distinction, my bad.

Others were. Specifically claiming status despite the evidence in the books that only shows Edric Storm as an 'acknowledged' bastard in the current timeline. 

[lehutin]

1 hour ago, CamiloRP said:

I agree with him, that there's no reason for Ned not to tell Jon who his parents are if they are Brandon and Ashara. Yes, Ned didn't tell him, but that doesn't prove the point false, it only proves (under that point) that Jons parents aren't Brandon and Ashara.

I think this is the primary reason why B+A=J (bastard) fell out of favor long ago. If Jon is just Brandon's bastard, who cares? He has no claim to Winterfell, and there is no reason for Ned to lie about being Jon's father and thereby causing a rift in his marriage with Catelyn.

 

To be fair, B+A=J (trueborn) recognizes this flaw and "fixes" it by arguing that Brandon and Ashara were married and Jon is the true heir to Winterfell, being the eldest son of the eldest son. It's just that those variants of the theory inevitably descend into full crackpottery and are perfect examples of bad D&D "expectations subverted!" writing.

[corbon]

14 minutes ago, lehutin said:

I think this is the primary reason why B+A=J (bastard) fell out of favor long ago. If Jon is just Brandon's bastard, who cares? He has no claim to Winterfell, and there is no reason for Ned to lie about being Jon's father and thereby causing a rift in his marriage with Catelyn.

 

To be fair, B+A=J (trueborn) recognizes this flaw and "fixes" it by arguing that Brandon and Ashara were married and Jon is the true heir to Winterfell, being the eldest son of the eldest son. It's just that those variants of the theory inevitably descend into full crackpottery and are perfect examples of bad D&D "expectations subverted!" writing.

While I agree its a pretty deadly point for the theory, I think the primary reason it fell out of favour was that the timeline makes it impossible. Brandon died some time before the war, and was riding to his marriage with Cat, then angrily to KL, then in custody in the Black Cells, so can't have fathered Jon after the war started or in fact for some time before that. The war goes several months (3-4 at least) before Ned's marriage to Cat, and yet Jon is plausibly (if not actually) younger than Robb. Its not possible. Not when they were together from a very young age (a few months old - Ned and Cat were apart for a year and Jon was already at Winterfell with Ned when Cat arrived). Babies have too many consistent early milestones at such young ages for people not to have noticed if Jon was 6 months or more older than Robb. Even three months older is stretching things very very thin. 
If they'd (Jon and Robb) been kept apart for the first 3 or 4 years, then it could be plausible as age differences shrink as kids grow older due to individual differences. But we have Bran's vision of Ned praying before the heart-tree

Quote

… but then somehow he was back at Winterfell again, in the godswood looking down upon his father. Lord Eddard seemed much younger this time. His hair was brown, with no hint of grey in it, his head bowed. "… let them grow up close as brothers, with only love between them," he prayed, "and let my lady wife find it in her heart to forgive …"

 

[CamiloRP]

28 minutes ago, corbon said:

I had edited my post for better clarity, and yours posted shortly after my edit, so its certain you hadn't seen that. I invite you to go back to it.

I hadn't, now I did, I still don't agree. It's not the same you trying to guess my salary by that way than what you claim Ned did, he would have purposely mislead people into believe Jon was his son.

 

29 minutes ago, corbon said:

No, they aren't. They are factually accurate statements.

yes, but he omitted something, purposely leading the receptor of those statements to believe something that isn't true.

 

31 minutes ago, corbon said:

Thats their issue, not his. Jon is his blood. Its a factually accurate statement. That others misconstrue it is on them, not him. If they treat Jon as his son but don't assume he is his son, then they follow what Ned said in my examples accurately. 

But he did that so people would believe he was his son.

What would you call 'saying something in order to have people believe a lie'?

 

Quote

Thats simply not true. See my edited previous post.

Another example even.
I am in fact, a bastard, literally. My mother got pregnant at 16. She later married my dad (not my blood father) who formally adopted me at age about 2 or 3 and I carry his name. I grew up with three sets of grandparents, three sets of uncles and aunts and three sets of cousins (bonuses!).
If I don;

I think you got cut off here.

 

Quote

Why? Ned's a straight arrow, right? In his heart, most of all, right? This is dead straight. Absolutely dead straight. It is sometimes the only way a straight arrow like Ned is able to negotiate a dangerous path safely and still be a straight arrow.

Is still dishonest, something Ned wouldn't appreciate, and worst of all, the lie of omission is dishonest to yourself, is lying to yourself about how you aren't lying, that's why I think Ned would find it in many ways the same to lying and in many ways worse.

Think about it, can you imagine Cat confronting Ned about Jon not being his son and Ned going "Well, technically I never said he was my son" I can't see that happening. It's something Ned would expect a person like Littlefinger to pull.

It's a trick, and Ned wouldn't do it precisely because he's a 'straight arrow'. He doesn't like tricks.

 

Quote

I know, I've used it myself often in gameplay negotiation.  Always tell the truth. Negotiation games often almost require a backstab between allies at some stage in order to win (depending on the game) (its a game, after all), but its possible to do that and still stay precisely within the truth. 
It gets you trusted, which enables deal-making, but people who know you take great care over what deals are actually made. 

Do you think Ned would do something like that?

 

Quote

As to the moral angle - thats probably part of why Ned's heart is saddened and he feels guilt. Even if he never said the lies (and remember, he might have), he's lived them.
For me, in Ned's place, the only guilt I would have is over the hurt I have caused Cat. Necessary hurt, but guilt isn't entirely rational. Robert might be my friend, might be closer to my heart than Cat, but the lies I've lived, needed to live, haven't actually hurt him. Or maybe they have. Maybe there would be guilt there, for Robert's pain over never being able to come to terms with the loss of Lyanna. Its hard to say. I'm not actually Ned.

I think he would also feel guilty about tricking people or lying or both. 

 

Quote

Others were. Specifically claiming status despite the evidence in the books that only shows Edric Storm as an 'acknowledged' bastard in the current timeline. 

Yep, I'm agreeing with you.

[CamiloRP]

30 minutes ago, lehutin said:

I think this is the primary reason why B+A=J (bastard) fell out of favor long ago. If Jon is just Brandon's bastard, who cares? He has no claim to Winterfell, and there is no reason for Ned to lie about being Jon's father and thereby causing a rift in his marriage with Catelyn.

 

To be fair, B+A=J (trueborn) recognizes this flaw and "fixes" it by arguing that Brandon and Ashara were married and Jon is the true heir to Winterfell, being the eldest son of the eldest son. It's just that those variants of the theory inevitably descend into full crackpottery and are perfect examples of bad D&D "expectations subverted!" writing.

Yep, and it also makes no sense for Ned's character, why would he rob Jon in such a way?

[corbon]

2 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

I hadn't, now I did, I still don't agree. It's not the same you trying to guess my salary by that way than what you claim Ned did, he would have purposely mislead people into believe Jon was his son.

Lets said aside that you are assigning motive, which is not possible to do accurately. I agree, its likely Ned was happy to mislead those people.

2 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

What would you call 'saying something in order to have people believe a lie'?

That depends what I said. Morally I'm responsible for my own words, not for other people's failings.
Now if I'm trying to give them information, trying to impart a truth on them, then I'm responsible in part for their understanding. Its up to me to make my point clearly enough.
But if I'm not trying to tell them stuff, then I'm not responsible for their side.  

2 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

I think you got cut off here.

Yeah. I deleted that part  when I edited it after seeing the cut-off because it wasn't relevant at the right angle.
I'd like to be able to write clearly enough to not need to edit, sorry, but proofreading never seems to do a good job. I don't know why.

2 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

Is still dishonest,

No its not. Its honest. 
Its deceptive, sure. Why is deceptive a problem? You don't have the right to all my secrets!

2 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

something Ned wouldn't appreciate, and worst of all, the lie of omission is dishonest to yourself, is lying to yourself about how you aren't lying, that's why I think Ned would find it in many ways the same to lying and in many ways worse.

I don't think we have the same read on Ned. 
Ned is quite comfortable with lying, if he needs to. He lies about his betraying Joffrey. He lies (by your standards, have to check more carefully about mine) about Cat having his explicit authorisation to Arrest Tyrion (she had it as a default when he appointed he Governor of the North, but did not have it from him as Hand, or explicitly).

Ned's not afraid of a lie when its important. In some way this is what I'm trying to differentiate. I feel the concept of lies and the concept of honour don't go together. Yet the concept of careful (but misleading) truths and the concept of honour do go together.

Quote

Some lies are not without honour

Ned's about honour, not exact truth all the time. 
I only suggest he maintains his personal sense of honour, while deceiving people he cares about, by telling very careful truths, because thats a behaviour we see from him, and I recognise.

With Cat, even when angry, he calls Jon 'my blood', not 'my son' or 'my bastard'. We see that.
With Robert, he doesn't actually tell Robert anything about Jon. Robert asks what the woman's name is. Robert makes the statements, Ned merely gives an accurate answer to the question Robert asked.

Now if we see that from Ned in each of the difficult occasions where he must respond somehow, why would we not accept that as Ned's template for behaviour?

2 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

Think about it, can you imagine Cat confronting Ned about Jon not being his son and Ned going "Well, technically I never said he was my son" I can't see that happening. It's something Ned would expect a person like Littlefinger to pull.

I would expect Ned to stay silent in that case. The 'trick' wasn't for his own benefit, he's not going to try to absolve himself of blame for the consequences should he get found out. He'll take them on anyway.

2 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

It's a trick, and Ned wouldn't do it precisely because he's a 'straight arrow'. He doesn't like tricks.

Oh we very much disagree there. Ned will take a trick if the circumstances are right. If the payoff is worth it. Honour is important to him, far more than most, but superficial honour is not the most important thing. He'll drop that in an instant for the right result. For real honour. Some lies are not without honour, remember. 
And what is his confession at the Plaza, if not a 'trick' to save Sansa's life. But it has honour, for its a sacrifice on his part for a good purpose for others.

Do you think Ned wouldn't use any trick he could in battle, to save his mens lives? Do you think he would just wade blindly in throwing away men for his 'honour'?  Is that what Robb learned from him?

2 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

Do you think Ned would do something like that?

 

In battle yes. When the stakes were high enough - not for himself, for others. In games, I don't know. The stakes might not be high enough. Me, I have an intellectual acknowledgement that the purpose of a game is to simulate high stakes without suffering them. I'm not sure whether Ned would make that distinction for a game or not.

2 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

I think he would also feel guilty about tricking people or lying or both. 

He does. I don't think that bears on whether he actually said the words or not anyway. He lived the lies, he takes on the price. Thats who he is.
All I'm doing is observing that he doesn't actually say the lies he lives, nor is shown to say them, and carrying that observed and recognised pattern through.

[lehutin]

49 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

Yep, and it also makes no sense for Ned's character, why would he rob Jon in such a way?

I absolutely agree. B+A=J (trueborn) turns Ned Stark from honorable and loving husband and father into scumbag uncle who scammed his nephew out of his rightful inheritance.

 

The tinfoilers who push the theory will protest that that's not fair. Ned Stark didn't scam Jon; he protected Jon out of love, you see. Because if he told the truth about Jon Stark, Lord of Winterfell, then the evil and grasping Hoster Tully would declare war on the Starks, and Jon would never be safe. In fact, "promise me, Ned" is Lyanna encouraging Ned to protect Jon from Hoster Tully.

 

This works perfectly if you just ignore that

• even in his prime, Hoster Tully couldn't get one of his bannerman (Walder Frey) to show up to the Trident on time.
• at the start of the series, Hoster is so far past his prime to where the Freys at the Crossroads don't even bother to get involved.
• Ned Stark does not think like this, and if he did, he wouldn't have been punked by Littlefinger so badly.

[CamiloRP]

2 minutes ago, corbon said:

Lets said aside that you are assigning motive, which is not possible to do accurately. I agree, its likely Ned was happy to mislead those people.

That depends what I said. Morally I'm responsible for my own words, not for other people's failings.
Now if I'm trying to give them information, trying to impart a truth on them, then I'm responsible in part for their understanding. Its up to me to make my point clearly enough.
But if I'm not trying to tell them stuff, then I'm not responsible for their side.  

But if Ned did that he was definitely trying to impart the truth on them, what was he expecting to happen?

And if after they assume that he doesn't correct them he is purposely keeping them believing that.

 

3 minutes ago, corbon said:

Yeah. I deleted that part  when I edited it after seeing the cut-off because it wasn't relevant at the right angle.
I'd like to be able to write clearly enough to not need to edit, sorry, but proofreading never seems to do a good job. I don't know why.

I get that, it happens a lot :/

 

Quote

No its not. Its honest. 
Its deceptive, sure. Why is deceptive a problem? You don't have the right to all my secrets!

Well, for starters there are not the only two options, he could've said 'No, it's not my kid, I don't want to talk about it.' and there.

 

Quote

I don't think we have the same read on Ned. 
Ned is quite comfortable with lying, if he needs to. He lies about his betraying Joffrey. He lies (by your standards, have to check more carefully about mine) about Cat having his explicit authorisation to Arrest Tyrion (she had it as a default when he appointed he Governor of the North, but did not have it from him as Hand, or explicitly).

Ned's not afraid of a lie when its important. In some way this is what I'm trying to differentiate. I feel the concept of lies and the concept of honour don't go together. Yet the concept of careful (but misleading) truths and the concept of honour do go together.

Exactly, he has no problem with lying for the right reason, tricking people tho, that's different, as I explained. Why would he do that if he was shown to lie? 

 

Quote

Ned's about honour, not exact truth all the time. 
I only suggest he maintains his personal sense of honour, while deceiving people he cares about, by telling very careful truths, because thats a behaviour we see from him, and I recognise.

Yes, but tricking people is not something he would do, IMHO.

 

Quote

With Cat, even when angry, he calls Jon 'my blood', not 'my son' or 'my bastard'. We see that.
With Robert, he doesn't actually tell Robert anything about Jon. Robert asks what the woman's name is. Robert makes the statements, Ned merely gives an accurate answer to the question Robert asked.

Now if we see that from Ned in each of the difficult occasions where he must respond somehow, why would we not accept that as Ned's template for behaviour?

He's not tricking them then, he's keeping the lie.

 

Quote

I would expect Ned to stay silent in that case. The 'trick' wasn't for his own benefit, he's not going to try to absolve himself of blame for the consequences should he get found out. He'll take them on anyway.

Then why do it? if it's not for moral justification why?

 

Quote

Oh we very much disagree there. Ned will take a trick if the circumstances are right. If the payoff is worth it. Honour is important to him, far more than most, but superficial honour is not the most important thing. He'll drop that in an instant for the right result. For real honour. Some lies are not without honour, remember. 
And what is his confession at the Plaza, if not a 'trick' to save Sansa's life. But it has honour, for its a sacrifice on his part for a good purpose for others.

Lies and tricks are not the same, he didn't trick anyone in the sept, he just lied.

And if lies and tricks are the same, why not just lying instead of lying by omission?

 

Quote

Do you think Ned wouldn't use any trick he could in battle, to save his mens lives? Do you think he would just wade blindly in throwing away men for his 'honour'?  Is that what Robb learned from him?

Is a different situation, he's not tricking opponents, he's tricking his wife and his family, why? it's better to lie.

 

 

[corbon]

55 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

But if Ned did that he was definitely trying to impart the truth on them, what was he expecting to happen?

He's not trying to impart the truth on them. The truth is very dangerous. He's just trying to get Jon looked after properly. His purpose isn't to inform them of all the facts about Jon's origin, its to make sure Jon gets treated the way he needs to be. 

55 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

And if after they assume that he doesn't correct them he is purposely keeping them believing that.

So? 
Thats their problem, not his. 
His job is not to inform them of dangerous secrets and increase the risk to him and those he loves. Its to keep Jon safe and alive.

55 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

Well, for starters there are not the only two options, he could've said 'No, it's not my kid, I don't want to talk about it.' and there.

Why give that information out though? They don't need to know that and telling them that invites their curiosity to find the hidden truth that he doesn't want found out. Its stupid and counterproductive.
What exactly do you expect him to do? destroy everything he's trying to save for some irrelevant sense of perfect-truthiness? Ned's a normal person, not some weirdo no-secrets-here-no-matter-what-the-cost machine. He has secrets, and he protects them. Very successfully in fact.

All we are discussing is the manner of that protection.

55 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

Exactly, he has no problem with lying for the right reason, tricking people tho, that's different, as I explained. Why would he do that if he was shown to lie? 

He isn't shown to lie, by these tricks. He told the truth. No one suspects him of a lie. No one ever comes out and says or thinks anything like "Ned Stark lied to us all", or "tricked us all".

55 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

Then why do it? if it's not for moral justification why?

 

I'm kinda getting lost on what your argument is here (generally), sorry. 
I know for me, from experience, if I tell a factually inaccurate lie, I can't hold that position*, I usually can't even keep the lie going to the person I told it to. I end up going and admitting the lie nine time out of ten. It just won't sit right with my self-view. If I tell the factual truth, and they are deceived, then thats on them, not me. I may feel sorrow of compassion for any pain inflicted, but not for my behaviour. It sits with me just fine.
I don't know that makes me more moral or less moral than anyone else. Thats just what I can live with as me. And I recognise a lot of similar things in what Ned says and does (but he has huge issues and pains to deal with, mine are relatively inconsequential).

*And this is a secondary reason, that hasn't come up yet in this conversation, for Ned to carefully tell only factual truth.
The moment you start lying, you have to remember all your lies, in order to keep track. People notice inconsistencies much more easily than they put together details..
The safest, best, simplest option for deception, is to tell only truth, but not much of that. People will fill in the rest on their own.. That way you never get into trouble remembering what you told before, you only have to work out how to safely tell the truth each time as it happens. The consistency works itself out naturally instead of having to be carefully remembered each time.

Its actually easier to deceive someone with careful truth than it is with outright lies. Because the deception is created in their head, not yours. So its much harder for them to 'break it' and notice inconsistencies etc. As well as easier for you to remember and maintain your consistency, because you only have to keep the actual truth in your head.

 Trying to explain this makes me sound like some sort of super-liar monster. In fact, my boss sometimes complains that I'm too honest! (I'm a technical consultant in sales. Sometimes my boss would like me to skirt the truth a bit more but I believe in being accurate and honest information, good or bad, so that my clients will trust me and come to me for advice when they need it.) I almost never use my gaming philosophies in real life. 

55 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

Lies and tricks are not the same, he didn't trick anyone in the sept, he just lied.

Whats the difference? He tricked all the commoners who believed he really was a traitor and turned on him for it.

55 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

And if lies and tricks are the same, why not just lying instead of lying by omission?

I don't know for sure. I expect his sense of honour. Its similar, though not the same, exactly, to my own. 

I'm pointing out the observable pattern. The reasoning behind it we can only guess at.

55 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

Is a different situation, he's not tricking opponents, he's tricking his wife and his family, why? it's better to lie.

In what way is it better to lie? 
We know he deceived everyone.
We observe he never actually lied(that we can see) with words while doing so. We observe at least two tense and awkward situations where his not-lies are oddly phrased when a simple lie would have been easier. We see zero situations where he actively employs the simple lie (about Jon's origins).
So he actually got what he wanted. A safe life for Jon, no suspicion about the dangerous truth. 
The cost was personal, but the result was worth it.

If he lied, he could have lessened the personal cost. But lying has inherent risks. He couldn't control all the variables at the other ends of any lies. So lies entailed greater risk that he was caught lying, which invites deeper investigations, as opposed to letting people believe what their own thoughts suggested without explicitly confirming them.  

 

[CamiloRP]

5 minutes ago, corbon said:

He's not trying to impart the truth on them. The truth is very dangerous. He's just trying to get Jon looked after properly. His purpose isn't to inform them of all the facts about Jon's origin, its to make sure Jon gets treated the way he needs to be. 

So? 
Thats their problem, not his. 
His job is not to inform them of dangerous secrets and increase the risk to him and those he loves. Its to keep Jon safe and alive.

And to do that, he need people to believe lies, he purposely lead them to. And if not, keeping them in the lie is still a lie, by not correcting them.

 

Quote

Why give that information out though? They don't need to know that and telling them that invites their curiosity to find the hidden truth that he doesn't want found out. Its stupid and counterproductive.
What exactly do you expect him to do? destroy everything he's trying to save for some irrelevant sense of perfect-truthiness? Ned's a normal person, not some weirdo no-secrets-here-no-matter-what-the-cost machine. He has secrets, and he protects them. Very successfully in fact.

Nope, I agree with what he did, but what he did was a lie. "Sometimes lies can be honorable." 

 

Quote

He isn't shown to lie, by these tricks. He told the truth. No one suspects him of a lie. No one ever comes out and says or thinks anything like "Ned Stark lied to us all", or "tricked us all".

He lied in the sept of Baelor, for example, or with Tyrion's arrest. But based on his characterization I assume tricks are something that disgust him, not only because he doesn't find them honorable, but also because he has no patience for such things. His lack of an ability and his straightforwardness caused his downfall in KL, so I find it improbable that he would trick rather than lie, something he has been shown doing and things can be done honorably, specially since this particular trick would be the less straight forward version of a lie.

 

Quote

I'm kinda getting lost on what your argument is here (generally), sorry. 
I know for me, from experience, if I tell a factually inaccurate lie, I can't hold that position*, I usually can't even keep the lie going to the person I told it to. I end up going and admitting the lie nine time out of ten. It just won't sit right with my self-view. If I tell the factual truth, and they are deceived, then thats on them, not me. I may feel sorrow of compassion for any pain inflicted, but not for my behaviour. It sits with me just fine.
I don't know that makes me more moral or less moral than anyone else. Thats just what I can live with as me. And I recognise a lot of similar things in what Ned says and does (but he has huge issues and pains to deal with, mine are relatively inconsequential).

I guess we're really different about this and that's it, for me, keeping a lie is as easy or as hard as keeping a lie of omission (I know you don't agree that that's what this is, but I don't know how to put it, as it isn't simply keeping a secret)

 

Quote

*And this is a secondary reason, that hasn't come up yet in this conversation, for Ned to carefully tell only factual truth.
The moment you start lying, you have to remember all your lies, in order to keep track. People notice inconsistencies much more easily than they put together details..
The safest, best, simplest option for deception, is to tell only truth, but not much of that. People will fill in the rest on their own.. That way you never get into trouble remembering what you told before, you only have to work out how to safely tell the truth each time as it happens. The consistency works itself out naturally instead of having to be carefully remembered each time.

in this case tho, that doesn't apply. "Jon is my son, that's all you need to know." 

That'd be it, nothing to contradict, if he somehow calls him not his son, then it would seem off regardless if he had actually call him that, as Jon being Ned's son is an accepted truth for everyone who knows about them (except for people who know the truth).

 

Quote

Its actually easier to deceive someone with careful truth than it is with outright lies. Because the deception is created in their head, not yours. So its much harder for them to 'break it' and notice inconsistencies etc. As well as easier for you to remember and maintain your consistency, because you only have to keep the actual truth in your head.

 Trying to explain this makes me sound like some sort of super-liar monster. In fact, my boss sometimes complains that I'm too honest! (I'm a technical consultant in sales. Sometimes my boss would like me to skirt the truth a bit more but I believe in being accurate and honest information, good or bad, so that my clients will trust me and come to me for advice when they need it.) I almost never use my gaming philosophies in real life. 

hahaha don't worry, I'm not assuming anything

 

Quote

Whats the difference? He tricked all the commoners who believed he really was a traitor and turned on him for it.

He didn't, he lied to them. He didn't use them as tools against themselves, he didn't have a scheme or anything, he didn't fool anyone into anything, he has no patience for such games. He just lied.

 

Quote

I don't know for sure. I expect his sense of honour. Its similar, though not the same, exactly, to my own. 

I'm pointing out the observable pattern. The reasoning behind it we can only guess at.

Yeah, I get it, I just don't think it goes with the character to do such a sneaky thing. I think Ned would consider both lie and trick equally dishonorable, with the added things that he has no patience for tricks and as they are less straightforward he dislikes them more.

Furthermore, if him calling Jon his son after 14 is okay because he's his adoptive son, why isn't it when he arrived at WF? He knew he was gonna raise him as his son, so he was already his son, he was already 'adopted'.

 

Quote

In what way is it better to lie? 
We know he deceived everyone.
We observe he never actually lied(that we can see) with words while doing so. We observe at least two tense and awkward situations where his not-lies are oddly phrased when a simple lie would have been easier. We see zero situations where he actively employs the simple lie (about Jon's origins).
So he actually got what he wanted. A safe life for Jon, no suspicion about the dangerous truth. 
The cost was personal, but the result was worth it.

If he lied, he could have lessened the personal cost. But lying has inherent risks. He couldn't control all the variables at the other ends of any lies. So lies entailed greater risk that he was caught lying, which invites deeper investigations, as opposed to letting people believe what their own thoughts suggested without explicitly confirming them.  

Tricks are more sneaky, less straightforward and he has no patience for them.

 

[Frey family reunion]

5 hours ago, corbon said:

So Ser Rodrik calls Ramsey Snow the Bastard of Bolton (the middle quote above) even though in the same book he notes that Lord Bolton has never formally acknowledged Ramsey despite bringing him to the Dreadfort two years past.

What Rodrick said was that Lord Bolton has never acknowledged the bastard, as far as he knew.  When this conversation occurred with Lady Hornwood, Ramsay is not referred to as the Bastard of Bolton.  It’s also pretty apparent that Rodrick knows little if anything about him.  Lady Hornwood supplies most of the information to Rodrick, and it seems that Lady Hornwood’s information comes from a lot of troubling rumors about the boy.

5 hours ago, corbon said:

There are more, but 3 different sources (one of them Ser Rodrek) is enough to establish that Ramsey Snow is commonly known as the Bastard of Bolton.

No, he’s not commonly known as the Bastard of Bolton, not until Rodrick travels to the Dreadfort to try and free Lady Hornwood.  When Rodrick returns to Winterfell is when he first calls him the Bastard of Bolton.  So presumably that’s how the denizens of the Dreadfort referred to him.  Now that could be because Roose acknowledged him before he left for the war, or that Ramsay made everyone call him that, to emphasis his authority while Lord Bolton was away.

[TheLastWolf]

22 hours ago, lehutin said:

A mystery isn't a mystery after it's been solved. When AGOT was released in 1996, I doubt George expected many readers to conclude immediately that "hey, Lyanna Stark is obviously Jon Snow's mother, so who could his father be?"

Believe it or not (not Ripley’s ™ ® © ), the moment I finished Ned’s Fever dream POV chapter I knew Lyanna was Jon’s momma. Too many hints like conflicting accounts of Jon’s parentage by many characters and the timeline just fitted perfectly, unlike with a lot of other things in asoiaf. I hadn’t even heard of the HBO show (i.e.; the abomination which wasn’t one….yet) then. And I was like, 12 or something. “Truly wonderful, the mind of a child is”. Not my words, but those of the wise Master Yoda, May the force be with him. Science has proven our rate of growth of intelligence drastically decreases as we grow older. Wish I could be with Peter Pan in Neverland, forever young and innocent. (Sigh)

[Fun Guy from Yuggoth]

18 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

There's no textual support for it though. Not a hint in sight that Ashara was anywhere near White Harbour, let alone that Eddard married her. Also,  I think it's likely that, at that point, it had already been agreed that Ned would marry Cat in Brandon's place. 

And seriously, why would Ned and Ashara, on the verge of war and having so little time to be together, decide to spend their "honeymoon" in a prison? 

ETA: the lack of textual support, hints, clues is a huge issue IMO. Really not Martin's style. He likes his mysteries, he likes to scatter plenty of red herrings and leave more than one option as being at least "possible" until he is good and ready to make a reveal. But he doesn't do asspulls, he doesn't write stuff just so he can go, "A-HA, gotcha!", like in the abomination. 

In the very first chapter of A Game of Thrones:

"You have five trueborn children," Jon said. "Three sons, two daughters. The direwolf is the sigil of your House. Your children were meant to have these pups, my lord."

Jon explicitly states that the pups represent Ned Stark's trueborn children. and Jon finds a 6th pup.  Through that chapter it was "Jon is a bastard, Jon is a bastard" but then ends with him finding a 6th pup that is a metaphor for Jon being Ned's trueborn child?  Ned must have been married for Jon to be a trueborn child.

And in Cat II, is when she mentions Ashara being Jon's mother, and Ned calling Jon "son"

So the earliest hints about Jon are that he is not really a bastard, and that Ashara is his mother. 

Repeated in Eddard IV:

"What was it that Jon had said when they found the pups in the snow? Your children were meant to have these pups, my lord. . . If the gods had sent these wolves, . . " 

The gods sent the wolves, and the gods alerted Jon to Ghost being lost in the snow.  White wolf, lost in the snow, but a trueborn pup of Ned Stark.

 

Quote

And seriously, why would Ned and Ashara, on the verge of war and having so little time to be together, decide to spend their "honeymoon" in a prison? 

Well, the Wolf's Den used to be a nice place, a spacious lordling's chamber, with several amenities, but even so, donjon means "dungeon" or "castle keep" so it would be fitting for Jon to have been born in a dungeon at the Wolf's Den (built by Jon Stark). 

gaol means "lover, beloved object or person, kindred" in gaelic

The gaol is where his beloved was kept, and where Jon was born in the donjon. 

(gion means "excessive love or desire, appetite" in gaelic)  "Riding through the rainy night, Ned saw Jon Snow's face in front of him, so like a younger version of his own. If the gods frowned so on bastards, he thought dully, why did they fill men with such lusts?

And he smuggled Ashara into the Wolf's Den to hide her--Ashara was incognito--, so she would be safe during the war, that is the point of Davos the smuggler retracing her journey in his chapters in Dance. the boat he takes in the Merry Midwife (baby delivery).  If people had seen her, the cover would have been blown, but Borrell's people saw him.

Quote

"Ned Stark was here?"

"At the dawn of Robert's Rebellion. The Mad King had sent to the Eyrie for Stark's head, but Jon Arryn sent him back defiance. Gulltown stayed loyal to the throne, though. To get home and call his banners, Stark had to cross the mountains to the Fingers and find a fisherman to carry him across the Bite. A storm caught them on the way. The fisherman drowned, but his daughter got Stark to the Sisters before the boat went down. They say he left her with a bag of silver and a bastard in her belly. Jon Snow, she named him, after Arryn.

Ned crossed to White Harbor with some woman, Jon Snow's conception and birth are specified in this area. (This would put Robb and Jon at the same age within a couple weeks.)

In gaelic, iascaire means "fisherman" --which is close to Ashara

[kissdbyfire]

23 minutes ago, By Odin's Beard said:

In the very first chapter of A Game of Thrones:

"You have five trueborn children," Jon said. "Three sons, two daughters. The direwolf is the sigil of your House. Your children were meant to have these pups, my lord."

Jon explicitly states that the pups represent Ned Stark's trueborn children. and Jon finds a 6th pup.  Through that chapter it was "Jon is a bastard, Jon is a bastard" but then ends with him finding a 6th pup that is a metaphor for Jon being Ned's trueborn child?  Ned must have been married for Jon to be a trueborn child.

And in Cat II, is when she mentions Ashara being Jon's mother, and Ned calling Jon "son"

Five trueborn children, five pups. Later Jon finds a sixth. It’s a hint alright, but not pointing to Jon being Ned’s, let alone Ned’s trueborn son. 
And no, Ned absolitely and definitely doesn’t call Jon “son”. Here’s what he says:

That was the only time in all their years that Ned had ever frightened her. "Never ask me about Jon," he said, cold as ice. "He is my blood, and that is all you need to know. And now I will learn where you heard that name, my lady." She had pledged to obey; she told him; and from that day on, the whispering had stopped, and Ashara Dayne's name was never heard in Winterfell again.

“My blood”, not “my son”, and there’s a world of difference.

23 minutes ago, By Odin's Beard said:

So the earliest hints about Jon are that he is not really a bastard, and that Ashara is his mother. 

Repeated in Eddard IV:

"What was it that Jon had said when they found the pups in the snow? Your children were meant to have these pups, my lord. . . If the gods had sent these wolves, . . " 

The gods sent the wolves, and the gods alerted Jon to Ghost being lost in the snow.  White wolf, lost in the snow, but a trueborn pup of Ned Stark.

See above.

 

23 minutes ago, By Odin's Beard said:

Well, the Wolf's Den used to be a nice place, a spacious lordling's chamber, with several amenities, but even so, donjon means "dungeon" or "castle keep" so it would be fitting for Jon to have been born in a dungeon at the Wolf's Den (built by Jon Stark). 
 

The Wolf’s Den is never described as being “a nice place”, as far as I can remember. Regardless, though, it has been a prison for a good while. In all likelihood, the Manderlys built the new castle a very long time ago. After all, they’ve been in the north for over 1,000 years. I maintain what I said. It makes zero sense for Ned and Ashara to spend what little time they had in a prison. 

23 minutes ago, By Odin's Beard said:

gaol means "lover, beloved object or person, kindred" in gaelic

The gaol is where his beloved was kept, and where Jon was born in the donjon. 

(gion means "excessive love or desire, appetite" in gaelic)  "Riding through the rainy night, Ned saw Jon Snow's face in front of him, so like a younger version of his own. If the gods frowned so on bastards, he thought dully, why did they fill men with such lusts?

And he smuggled Ashara into the Wolf's Den to hide her--Ashara was incognito--, so she would be safe during the war, that is the point of Davos the smuggler retracing her journey in his chapters in Dance. the boat he takes in the Merry Midwife (baby delivery).  If people had seen her, the cover would have been blown, but Borrell's people saw him.

Ned crossed to White Harbor with some woman, Jon Snow's conception and birth are specified in this area. (This would put Robb and Jon at the same age within a couple weeks.)

In gaelic, iascaire means "fisherman" --which is close to Ashara

Oh, it’s even worse than I thought then! No only Ned and Ashara spend their “honeymoon” in a prison, but Ashara stays there for the duration of her pregnancy and Jon is born there. Right. And the whole thing about Ned returning Dawn to Ashara at Starfall is... collective delusion? A lie? Or did she run back there at the end of the war? Did she take Jon? Sorry, but none of this makes a lick of sense to me. 

[Fun Guy from Yuggoth]

6 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

And no, Ned absolitely and definitely doesn’t call Jon “son”. Here’s what he says:

"He did more than that. The Starks were not like other men. Ned brought his bastard home with him, and called him "son" for all the north to see. When the wars were over at last, and Catelyn rode to Winterfell, Jon and his wet nurse had already taken up residence."