Was Theon right concerning Beth Cassel?

[CamiloRP]

13 minutes ago, sifth said:

Ned walked away from his job as Hand of the King, when Robert wanted to send assassins to kill Dany. This is a man who lied to his king to save Jon's life. This is a guy who was willing to spare the life of Cercie and Joffrey. I think there's quite a lot of evidence to think he wouldn't kill Theon. Heck Ned was supper pissed after what happened to Rhaegar's kids and only made up with Robert, because of the two of them mutually morning for his sisters death. Let's be real, Ned was a good person and I think there's plenty of evidence to suggest that he wouldn't.

Yes, but being Hand wasn't his duty, nor a let down to anyone but Cat. While not killing Theon could be considered treason, and his vassals would cease supporting him if someone attacked them and he didn't use his leverage. If he wasn't able, he wouldn't have taken the job, Robert could've warded Theon.

In fact, she tells Cat to keep Theon close for they might need his father's ships. Ned wasn't the person to threaten with something he wouldn't do.

Edit: I now would love to see Theon as a Robert ward, bullying the shit out of Joffrey and such.

[Nevets]

No equivalence at all.   Balon rebelled and lost.  Theon was an enforcement mechanism, with his father's consent, to ensure that he kept his agreement not to rebel again.

In Beth Cassell's case there was no such agreement, much less consent.  Theon is the wrongdoer.   He invaded Winterfell and mistreated its residents.  Rodrick is entitled and even obligated to take it back.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

10 minutes ago, Nevets said:

with his father's consent

Yeah... consent. Definitely. It's just that it was either that or die in Balon's case. Clearly that constitutes consent.

11 minutes ago, Nevets said:

Theon is the wrongdoer.   He invaded Winterfell and mistreated its residents.

The case could be made that the Starks invaded the Iron Isles and mistreated it's residents, and yet nobody complains about it.

12 minutes ago, Nevets said:

In Beth Cassell's case there was no such agreement, much less consent.  Theon is the wrongdoer. 

So let me get this straight.

Ned invading Theon and Balon's home, and forcibly kidnapping (yes it was kidnapping, they literally took their homes by force of arms) Theon, an innocent 10 year old boy, as collateral that his father doesn't attack them with the threat of murdering an innocent kid, is okay to you.

But Theon invading Ned's and Rodrick's home and forcibly taking Beth, an innocent 9 year old girl, as collateral that his father doesn't attack them with the threat of murdering an innocent kid, is not okay with you?

[Alyn Oakenfist]

20 minutes ago, frenin said:

In another sense no, he was given a place in the table and he grew up with his captor's children

How the fuck does that matter, when he was forcibly removed from his home and lived under the constant threat of being murdered?

You know, if you kidnap someone, force them to live in a prison and threaten their lives, it doesn't really matter if that prison has comfortable shackles.

[sifth]

30 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

Yes, but being Hand wasn't his duty, nor a let down to anyone but Cat. While not killing Theon could be considered treason, and his vassals would cease supporting him if someone attacked them and he didn't use his leverage. If he wasn't able, he wouldn't have taken the job, Robert could've warded Theon.

In fact, she tells Cat to keep Theon close for they might need his father's ships. Ned wasn't the person to threaten with something he wouldn't do.

Edit: I now would love to see Theon as a Robert ward, bullying the shit out of Joffrey and such.

Right, because Robb’s men suddenly started betraying him once he started a rebellion against the crown. These all were Neds people and most stayed loyal to Robb. 
 

Also pretty sure serving as Hand became Ned’s duty the moment he took the job and saving Jon can be viewed as treason as well from a certain point of view. It was Ned’s duty to help Robert rule and Ned walked away from it when he saw that it meant killing a young soon to be mother, just to put Robert at ease.

 

[frenin]

25 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Yeah... consent. Definitely. It's just that it was either that or die in Balon's case. Clearly that constitutes consent.

True.

 

25 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

The case could be made that the Starks invaded the Iron Isles and mistreated it's residents, and yet nobody complains about it.

No, that case can't be made. The Iron Islands rose in rebellion and oaid the price for it.

 

 

27 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Ned invading Theon and Balon's home, and forcibly kidnapping (yes it was kidnapping, they literally took their homes by force of arms) Theon, an innocent 10 year old boy, as collateral that his father doesn't attack them with the threat of murdering an innocent kid, is okay to you.

But Theon invading Ned's and Rodrick's home and forcibly taking Beth, an innocent 9 year old girl, as collateral that his father doesn't attack them with the threat of murdering an innocent kid, is not okay with you?

The only reason Ned invaded and wreak havoc to Theon'home is because the Ironborn rebelled, no matter how you put it. The Iron Islands are always the aggressors and they always get away with it. 

Theon once again was following his family's ways and invaded his own home, because at this point why deny it.

 

 

26 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

How the fuck does that matter, when he was forcibly removed from his home and lived under the constant threat of being murdered?

No, it does not matter, i'm pointing differences. In both times the northeners had to take extra steps to prevent a senseless ironborn aggression. People would not have to take your children as hostages to make sure you behave if you didn't have a kink for pillaging other's lands, enslaving their people and raping their women.

Ned's decision to actually raise Theon proves that his intention was not killing him. 

Still Theon is completely within his rights to resent Ned.

[SeanF]

54 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Yeah... consent. Definitely. It's just that it was either that or die in Balon's case. Clearly that constitutes consent.

The case could be made that the Starks invaded the Iron Isles and mistreated it's residents, and yet nobody complains about it.

So let me get this straight.

Ned invading Theon and Balon's home, and forcibly kidnapping (yes it was kidnapping, they literally took their homes by force of arms) Theon, an innocent 10 year old boy, as collateral that his father doesn't attack them with the threat of murdering an innocent kid, is okay to you.

But Theon invading Ned's and Rodrick's home and forcibly taking Beth, an innocent 9 year old girl, as collateral that his father doesn't attack them with the threat of murdering an innocent kid, is not okay with you?

The ironborn were rebels against the crown.  The Starks were not rebels against Theon.

[CamiloRP]

1 hour ago, sifth said:

Right, because Robb’s men suddenly started betraying him once he started a rebellion against the crown. These all were Neds people and most stayed loyal to Robb. 

Not the same, if the Iron Born started attacking Ned's vassals and Ned, having a hostage, didn't use him, his vassals would feel let down, they would think him not able to rule.

 

1 hour ago, sifth said:

Also pretty sure serving as Hand became Ned’s duty the moment he took the job and saving Jon can be viewed as treason as well from a certain point of view. It was Ned’s duty to help Robert rule and Ned walked away from it when he saw that it meant killing a young soon to be mother, just to put Robert at ease.

He can quit being Hand, it has been done before, but he can't stop complying with his duties as Lord's of the North and Lord Protector. Also, if Robert ordered Ned to execute Theon, he would have to execute him. It's not the same as it was with Dany, as Ned didn't have to execute her, so his refusal was no impediment.

[sifth]

34 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

Not the same, if the Iron Born started attacking Ned's vassals and Ned, having a hostage, didn't use him, his vassals would feel let down, they would think him not able to rule.

 

He can quit being Hand, it has been done before, but he can't stop complying with his duties as Lord's of the North and Lord Protector. Also, if Robert ordered Ned to execute Theon, he would have to execute him. It's not the same as it was with Dany, as Ned didn't have to execute her, so his refusal was no impediment.

You're right, what Robb did is very different, I'd argue it's even more extreme. They all were willing to commit treason against the Iron Throne and basically the entire realm with Robb. Open treason with the Iron Throne is a much bigger deal. If they were willing to do that, I'm almost certain they'd grin and bear Ned doing whatever he likes with his hostage. You don't see Dany's people rebelling against her, when she refused to kill her hostages in ADWD, do you? You didn't see any Lannister men rebelling when they didn't kill Sansa in the first 3 book, did you?

He quit being Hand on the spot, after only taking the job for a few months. He's also only the Lord of the North and Lord protector, because that too is a job he choose to take. He was free to give it up to any other member of his family, such as Benjin (before joining the watch) if he wanted to. Also again, you're ignoring the fact that Ned went out of his way to save Jon, Cerie and even Joffrey.

I mean, give me an example of Ned killing an innocent person when he was ordered to, because I honestly can't think of one.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

1 hour ago, frenin said:

The only reason Ned invaded and wreak havoc to Theon'home is because the Ironborn rebelled, no matter how you put it.

Then they should have punished Balon. Theon was as blameless as Beth Cassel, and he was used in the exact same way. What does it matter Balon was an aggressive asshole, while Rodrick was a loyal bloke. Their children were used the same and were as equally blameless regardless.

[sifth]

8 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Then they should have punished Balon. Theon was as blameless as Beth Cassel, and he was used in the exact same way. What does it matter Balon was an aggressive asshole, while Rodrick was a loyal bloke. Their children were used the same and were as equally blameless regardless.

I honestly think they should have taken both Asha and Theon from Balon. That is only if keeping Balon as lord of the Iron Islands was a must. If not, I would have stripped him of all power and placed the Reader in charge in his place.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

3 minutes ago, sifth said:

I honestly think they should have taken both Asha and Theon from Balon.

Why? Why punish the innocents? Why not kill Balon, and leave the reader as regent to make sure Theon grows up with an actual brain?

[sifth]

17 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Why? Why punish the innocents? Why not kill Balon, and leave the reader as regent to make sure Theon grows up with an actual brain?

Again, I said only if Balon staying in power was a must. If not the Reader would be getting a promotion and Balon would be losing a head, on that I agree with you.

[Daeron the Daring]

41 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Why? Why punish the innocents? Why not kill Balon, and leave the reader as regent to make sure Theon grows up with an actual brain?

Because this is medieval feudalism, and people do not think the way we do.

You just have to understand that Theon was taken as a hostage to prevent another Ironborn rebellion, another war, and the death of even more innocent people. Theon, however, took Beth Cassel, to be able to hold Winterfell, not to prevent the death of his own people. 

And again, Theon was a hostage during peace, Beth Cassel was a hostage taken during war. He's right until the point that both are/were hostages, but not further. Theon being a hostage served a greater good. The difference simply is that Ser Rodrick was forced to put down the weapon to prevent Beth's death, while Balon was forced not to rebel to prevent Theon's death. You can see which one was harder to do (obviously Rodrick's), and I hope you understand now.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

29 minutes ago, Daeron the Daring said:

to be able to hold Winterfell, not to prevent the death of his own people. 

The two are the same, preventing an attack on Winterfell directly saves his people.

[Daeron the Daring]

10 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

The two are the same, preventing an attack on Winterfell directly saves his people.

Yes it does, but it is not the reason he does that. He's not doing it because he cares about his people's life at any level (or would care about them at all if they wouldn't serve his own ambitions).

[Alyn Oakenfist]

52 minutes ago, Daeron the Daring said:

Yes it does, but it is not the reason he does that. He's not doing it because he cares about his people's life at any level (or would care about them at all if they wouldn't serve his own ambitions).

Robert doesn't care either when he gives Theon to Ned

[CamiloRP]

4 hours ago, sifth said:

You're right, what Robb did is very different, I'd argue it's even more extreme. They all were willing to commit treason against the Iron Throne and basically the entire realm with Robb. Open treason with the Iron Throne is a much bigger deal. If they were willing to do that, I'm almost certain they'd grin and bear Ned doing whatever he likes with his hostage. You don't see Dany's people rebelling against her, when she refused to kill her hostages in ADWD, do you? You didn't see any Lannister men rebelling when they didn't kill Sansa in the first 3 book, did you?

He quit being Hand on the spot, after only taking the job for a few months. He's also only the Lord of the North and Lord protector, because that too is a job he choose to take. He was free to give it up to any other member of his family, such as Benjin (before joining the watch) if he wanted to. Also again, you're ignoring the fact that Ned went out of his way to save Jon, Cerie and even Joffrey.

I mean, give me an example of Ned killing an innocent person when he was ordered to, because I honestly can't think of one.

First off, don't be rude, second off. Ned's vassals wouldn't like the fact that he could protect them and doesn't. that's what I mean. Theon's purpose is to be executed if his father rebels, so if the IB attack Ned's vassals and Ned does nothing, they wouldn't like it. They would see it as Ned prioritizing the life of the son of a rebel, an enemy, before the lives of his own men. 

Quitting being hand is one thing, disobeying the King's orders, another. If Robert ordered Ned to execute Theon, he would have no choice but to do so. 

You are also ignoring the fact that Ned, when confronted with the possibility of war, said to cat:

Quote

And from this day on, I want a careful watch kept over Theon Greyjoy. If there is war, we shall have sore need of his father's fleet."

So, what would he had done if he needed Balon's fleet? Threaten Theon's life of course. And Ned wouldn't make a treat he had no plans to deliver. Same reason why the other thing you are ignoring is so important: Ned kept Theon as hostage, he wouldn't've if he felt unable to kill him. Someone else could've taken him, Robert, Stanis, Renly, Jon Arryn, Tywin, Hoster or, the best choice, the Mallisters.

[SeanF]

There’s an alternative use to hostages to just killing them, namely indoctrinating them, something the Romans and Byzantines did to great effect.  Then, if your enemy rebels, you turn your loyal client against him.

[sifth]

51 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

First off, don't be rude, second off. Ned's vassals wouldn't like the fact that he could protect them and doesn't. that's what I mean. Theon's purpose is to be executed if his father rebels, so if the IB attack Ned's vassals and Ned does nothing, they wouldn't like it. They would see it as Ned prioritizing the life of the son of a rebel, an enemy, before the lives of his own men. 

Quitting being hand is one thing, disobeying the King's orders, another. If Robert ordered Ned to execute Theon, he would have no choice but to do so. 

You are also ignoring the fact that Ned, when confronted with the possibility of war, said to cat:

So, what would he had done if he needed Balon's fleet? Threaten Theon's life of course. And Ned wouldn't make a treat he had no plans to deliver. Same reason why the other thing you are ignoring is so important: Ned kept Theon as hostage, he wouldn't've if he felt unable to kill him. Someone else could've taken him, Robert, Stanis, Renly, Jon Arryn, Tywin, Hoster or, the best choice, the Mallisters.

So for the record, you can't give me an example of Ned killing an innocent person when ordered to? I mean I gave you 3 examples of when he openly refused to take part in the death of an innocent life. All you have to stand on is a vague line of Ned telling Cat to "keep Theon close", which, you interpret as Ned telling her "be prepared to kill Theon if Balon doesn't do what I want". Yea, that totally sounds like Ned Stark to me, lol