Was Ned's honor really his downfall?

[David Selig]

I'd say it was a combination of mercy(mostly his hang-up about hurting children) and plain incompetence, not honor. Not realising that when LF told him that Stannis would have a whole new small council meant that LF would be out of a job which was everything for him and thus he'd have a huge reason to betray Ned is a good example of this incompetence. Not sending his daughters away immediately after she decided to confront Cersei about the twincest was another - he was the Hand and Lord of half the realm, surely he could easily convince a captain to leave the same day or tomorrow, not 3 days later.

[Sand11751]

Kittyhat, the points you 've raised in this thread and the hypcrite one make me think you're working under a premise that Ned's flawed approach, his dishonor as you call it, make him less deserving of being a hero. Am I right in thinking that you assume any time he resorts to underhanded means for the greater good that it tarnishes his heroic image? Part of why heroes are so riveting is the fatal flaw, typically a strength that becomes an Achilles heel. If Ned's own honor would not let him allow the deaths of Cersei and her kids, it would not have been his fatal flaw. Flaws make and break heroes, especially tragic ones like Ned Stark. Heroic people with honor place what is morally right (eg lives of innocent children of the real villain) above their own personal safety and interests. See Ned. People with dishonor have no such compunction and will happily see innocent children die (or better yet use them as pawns). See Littlefinger.

[Maxpey]

As other posters have suggested, the question of honor is a significant theme in the ASOIAF saga.

Is there a difference between honor and duty?

Is it possible to show mercy and at the same time act dishonorably?

Is "honor" itself a trait to be admired above all others?

Look at Jaime's decision to execute Aerys because he knew that the Mad King intended to destroy King's Landing with wildfyre. Jaime's actions saved thousands of lives, but it forever tainted him as "dishonorable."

Another example of this conflict is Ned's decision to raise Jon. Assuming R + L = J is true, Ned arguably committed treason by "hiding" Jon instead of turning him over to Robert, his rightful King. Can we really say that by respecting Lyanna's dying wish and thereby saving the life of her innocent child Ned acted dishonorably?

[StoneBastard]

"When you play the game of thrones you win or you die" (GRRM, aGoT). If Eddard was not ready to lay aside his precious honor, he should not have tried to match wits with the most devious minds in the realm. Honor has no place in the game. Honor is a romantic notion that has taken the lives of many fools. And so the realm remains populated with wise, immoral cutthroats. Gray characters are the only ones that thrive in the series, as in real life. There are no absolutes. One must be fluid, able to adapt, to lie, to survive, to be an opportunist. This is the message the GRRM is trying to relay, IMHO. Ned was not ready to play......

[danm_999]

"When you play the game of thrones you win or you die" (GRRM, aGoT). If Eddard was not ready to lay aside his precious honor, he should not have tried to match wits with the most devious minds in the realm. Honor has no place in the game. Honor is a romantic notion that has taken the lives of many fools. And so the realm remains populated with wise, immoral cutthroats. Gray characters are the only ones that thrive in the series, as in real life. There are no absolutes. One must be fluid, able to adapt, to lie, to survive, to be an opportunist. This is the message the GRRM is trying to relay, IMHO. Ned was not ready to play......

Ned didn't want to play, he was manipulated into playing. He was pulled down from the North and sent into a crash course with the Lannisters. He was a pawn, not a player.

A lot of people like to read as absolute truth Varys comment that Ned's honour got him where he was. It didn't. Varys was simply trying to emotionally manipulate him into confessing so he'd take the Black, thereby hoping to delay the war that seemed to be brewing.

What really got Ned killed was poor luck, a city full of intrigue, and a man who never got over his childhood crush.

[Terilien]

"We're only responsible for our actions, not other peoples" It's not that simple. Sometimes you want to prevent a loved one from making a mistake. Happens all the time. Sometimes the interference makes things better sometimes not. One thing is certain no one can be 100% certain on the outcome.

Sure. But that doesn't generally excuse lying to them,or witholding the truth.

[Aegon Stark I]

Eacc

I totally agree with Miryana. Most people are unable to judge a situation they know more about than the participants. I gets even worse, if they have to judge in hindsight. Fucking his sister Jaime hat a very, very good chance to bring doom on a very big scale. That Robert did not notice was LUCK and some help from people wanting a big war later. The assassination of Robert was a long shot at best. The chances of failing were quite good. The point is, that most people despice Cersei for what she did after Robert died. (And for her killing Lady and maiming Ned's Son) The second thing, Ned did not know about. He probably could have figured it out and probably should have, but did not. Still, it probably would have meant war, on a big scale. Every Lanistar in KL would have been probably put to the sword.

Agreed. Honor is a hard concept to perfectly define but Ned actions were driven by what he thought was the 'right thing to do.' He didn't want to go to King's Landing, he didn't want to be the Hand, he didn't want to enter into conflict with Cersei - but did because those were the 'honourable' things to do. He's far from perfect but was not motivated by power or greed. People are making the comparisons between Ned and Jaime but Cersei is the real anti-Ned.

An interesting parralel to make between Neds demise and that of Ser Kevan. He was trying to bring stability and peace to the realm (with Lannister rulers of course) and that got him killed. Was Varys acting honourably when he killed him? It looks like his goal all along has been to see Dany/Aegon on the throne - the ends justifying the means?

[SerMixalot]

Again, I view this whole discussion going to the heart of why GRRMs work is so powerful. He makes us consider such an essentiail part of ,humanity through a compelling story.

The conflict of honor and love, honor and duty, duty and love.

Aemon's speech to Jon goes to the heart of the matter. At some point duty or honor will conflict with a person's love.

In a very narrow sense even Cersei was acting nobly. She was doing what she did to protect her children.

[The hairy bear]

"When you play the game of thrones you win or you die" (GRRM, aGoT). If Eddard was not ready to lay aside his precious honor, he should not have tried to match wits with the most devious minds in the realm. Honor has no place in the game.

I think this is rather unfair to Ned. He was asked to play a game, but he wasn't told the rules. So he played it as it was played in the North: where honor is very important to a man's reputation. If you had brought Cersei, Littlefinger or Renly to a Northern court, they wouldn't have lasted a month before being sent to the Wall.

People tend to forget that, even with the terrible "luck" of having Robert die in the moment he did, Eddard was really close to "win". The only single thing that prevented him from capturing all the Lannisters and installing Stannis in the Throne was Littlefinger's betrayal. In retrospective we know that was a mistake, but from Ned's perspective, he was a childhood friend of his wife and had been personally appointed by his mentor.

[SerMixalot]

I'm not arguing he didn't believe Robert would try to kill the kids. But it takes a back seat to enforcing the kings justice. I agree there was a conflict, but there is always conflict. But it's not a conflict of honor. If you have two contradicting decisions, one of them is the dishonorable decision, even if only by virtue of being less honorable than the other. If you have to two good options, the honorable decision is to choose the one that will do more good. Two bad options, the one that will do the least harm. When faced with two evils the, correct decision (or in Ned's terms, "honorable") is to choose the lesser of the two. He did not. And as far as he knew, there didn't even need to be two evils. Remember, he is essentially the acting king. By law, the Gold cloaks are his to command. Technically, so are the Lannister men. He should have sent the Gold Cloaks to arrest Cersei. I'm pretty sure the Lannister soldiers would have happily escorted the children to Casterly Rock, where they would be out of the reach of Roberts wrath at least for his initial explosion. Now, that probably wouldn't have worked, because the Gold Cloaks were not loyal to the crown, but that is irrelevant. He didn't know they weren't loyal (after all, he thought they were on his side in the throne room). Going by what we know, he was pretty much in a hopeless situation. But based on what he knew, there were plenty of ways he could have worked around it.

Than I believe you are misunderstanding GRRMs perspective on Honor. ned's view is that there is no gray area, things are either right or wrong. Something is not less or more right or wrong. Therefore, there is no middle decision of this right is better than that right.

Hopefully you will agree that Ned saw things in clear black and white right and wrong.

I believe that GRRM set the story up so that Ned had to face that conflict. That no realistic third option existed.

[SerMixalot]

Ned isn't a Knight. "I think you are giving Robert too much credit for reasonableness or Neds ability to restrain him. Robert proved that when he hates someone and feels threatened by them that he would go to any length to get rid of that threat. Thus the order to kill Dany;s unborn child, despite not having commited any act themselves. Their mere existence was enough to fuel his decision to kill them, a decision not rescinded I believe until Robert was on his deathbed. I believe it clearly stated in the book that Robert would kill the little ones and that certainly was Neds belief. I recently reread GoT, perhaps you could do the same if you have not read those chapters in a while" Uh, no. Robert had mercy on the fleeing Targs, he only tried to kill them again because they were becoming a threat. Sure he may have been quicker to do it to them than he would anyone else, but as a first generation king that won through conquest it was a reasonable decision. Robert's true hate is for people like Rhaegar, and like Ned said, people who betray him in such an emasculating and shameful way the way Cersei and Jaime did.

Ned isn't a Knight. "I think you are giving Robert too much credit for reasonableness or Neds ability to restrain him. Robert proved that when he hates someone and feels threatened by them that he would go to any length to get rid of that threat. Thus the order to kill Dany;s unborn child, despite not having commited any act themselves. Their mere existence was enough to fuel his decision to kill them, a decision not rescinded I believe until Robert was on his deathbed. I believe it clearly stated in the book that Robert would kill the little ones and that certainly was Neds belief. I recently reread GoT, perhaps you could do the same if you have not read those chapters in a while" Uh, no. Robert had mercy on the fleeing Targs, he only tried to kill them again because they were becoming a threat. Sure he may have been quicker to do it to them than he would anyone else, but as a first generation king that won through conquest it was a reasonable decision. Robert's true hate is for people like Rhaegar, and like Ned said, people who betray him in such an emasculating and shameful way the way Cersei and Jaime did.

Umm, I posted a passage from the book that explicitly states that Ned thought them all at risk. Ned feared Robert would kill J, C and the 3 children. The Dany/unborn child incident only goes to show how ruthless Robert could be, that he is willing to kill chilren, even infants and the unborn

[Prince of the North]

I'm in the camp that Ned didn't fail because of his honor or even because of somehow turning away from honor. If Littlefinger and the Gold Cloaks hadn't betrayed him then he would have "won" (I think Ned should have probably taken Renly up on his offer but maybe that's just me :dunno: ). Sure, there still would have been war but Ned would still be alive, etc.

Also, for those who think Ned didn't understand the complexities of oaths, honor, etc. (i.e. that he had a very black-and-white world view), I disagree. I would submit that, if R+L=J (which I think is true), Ned had already confronted such things in a big way. No matter what he chose to do in that situation, it would be considered "dishonorable" from someone else's perspective.

[Bourne]

Than I believe you are misunderstanding GRRMs perspective on Honor. ned's view is that there is no gray area, things are either right or wrong. Something is not less or more right or wrong. Therefore, there is no middle decision of this right is better than that right. Hopefully you will agree that Ned saw things in clear black and white right and wrong. I believe that GRRM set the story up so that Ned had to face that conflict. That no realistic third option existed.

I understand GRRM's perspective on honor. And I agree that Ned sees things in black and white.

But GRRM's perspective on honor isn't really important, he doesn't get to decide what honor is. And my point about Ned was that the world isn't black and white. That's why he doesn't understand the complexities of honor.

[VRD]

Awesome topic and great discussion. I disagree with your arguments completely, but still a great topic!

Since when? Honor incorporates, broadly, concepts such as honesty, adherance to duty, and adherance to a code of conduct. Ned was going behind his King's back to attempt to aid a criminal in escaping justice. I'm not arguing that it's not merciful and compassionate, but that doesn't automatically make it honorable. Ned had a duty, both in general to his King (and friend) and specifically as Hand.

You've attempted to give a definition of honor, which is great because up until this point the thread had been missing it. However, I would argue that you're making the mistake that most people in the books do, and that is mistaking honor with loyalty. It's a huge theme Martin has worked on throughout every book. Loyalty required that Ned be dutiful, do his duty as hand, and tell Robert; honor, however, required that Ned attempt to prevent what would eventually become the murder of three children by what would eventually be his temporarily insane best friend.

This is because honor, at its core, I would argue consists of a consequentialist nature whereby the person seeking it seeks the outcome that leads to not necessarily the most good, but the prevention of the most bad.

"He put his OWN children at risk for the sake of Cersei's children."

... and this was grossly irresponsible. I'm not sold on how it makes him more honorable, however.

Yes, but hindsight is 20/20 (as SerMixalot has already noted). Obviously if he had known Cersie was the person she was he would have reconsidered. It's easy for us to sit here and criticize a decision based on what we know now, but entirely a different thing when you're trying to make a decision without all the facts at your doorstep. Afer all, f***ing your brother is one thing; being willing to put your psychopathic little monster of a son on the throne at the expense of tens of thousands of lives is another.

It wasn't entirely illogical on Ned's part to assume that, as a mother, Cersie would take the chance to remove her children from harms way. Instead she decided she'd rather have herself, and her children, risk death to stay in the positions they were already in.

On that matter, you could argue Cersie was just as irresponsible as Ned was because she took a gambit on all of her children's lives when she decided to stay to try and fight him. Remember, timing was everything. Cersie herself admits in ACOK that if it wasn't for Sansa betraying Ned's plans to remove her and Arya from Kings Landing, everything could have failed. Because she knew when Ned was planning to move both Sansa and Arya, she knew she had up until that point to make her move.

"Honor" is the first victim of such excuses. Honor doesn't mean anything save when it's truly tested. I'm not saying this act was impossible to understand ... but that doesn't change the fact it was dishonorable. Even Ned knew it.

You know, I always find it funny when a character is criticized for one thing, and then is criticized for another when trying to make up for the previous criticism. "Ned was too naive". Okay, yet when he takes steps that are completely pragmatic and realistic (such as bribing the gold cloaks because he knows it would be naive to think he could hold King's Landing with just his own men), he gets criticized for being dishonorable? Seriously? No matter what he did, he was going to be criticized for something.

Attempting to bribe the gold cloaks was one of his smartest moves; trusting Littlefinger to do it for him, however, was not. You could also argue that to an extent that trying to bribe them was also honorable because, like Jamie who was willing to sacrifice his own honor for the good of the realm, Ned was trying to prevent the illegitimate takeover of the crown for a psychopathic little monster. Here, Ned is willing to be dishonorable (like Jamie was when he killed a king he vowed to protect) in order to prevent a great bad from occurring. Why is one act okay and another not?

See, this I disagree with. Jaime's solution led to fifteen years of peace and prosperity under a new king...Ned's decision's started a civil war, which cost thousands of lives.

Wow....just...wow. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but I'm going to argue that is a way too simplistic and unfair an analysis. Joffery having Ned beheaded can be argued as the catalyst that led to "the War of the Five Kings", and even then that's too simplistic because it's like saying Franz Ferdinand's assassination led to World War One. There were so many more factors involved in both. Furthermore, I'm curious as how you can seemingly, and correct me if I'm wrong, blame Ned more than you blame Cersie and the Lannisters for the war. That's like saying because a cop tried to arrest a drug dealer that the cop was responsible for a turf war that ensued after he was killed by the sleazy drug dealer.

Further, Jaime's decision was made to keep Aerys and his pyromancers from burning down Kingslanding. Ned's decision was made to keep his "honor." I fail to see in what way Ned was more honorable.

Yes, but once again you're making this into a black and white issue. There is more than one side to that action. I'll give you that, in this case, he was trying to save his honor but, at the same time, he was also trying to save the lives of three children, something he was unable to do when the original sack of King's Landing occurred and Elia and her children were murdered. It wasn't just that he was concerned with his own perceptions of himself, he was trying to prevent a repeat of what happened 17 years previous, an event he was indirectly responsible for as a leader of Robert's rebellion. Furthermore, he tried to make up for that mistake when he attempted to bribe the goldcloaks.

Lastly, as I said to Kittyhat, hindsight is 20/20. Ned had no way of knowing his daughter would betray him and that Cersie would act as recklessly as she did which would lead to his death and all the events that would occur afterwards.

And I never said anything Ned basing his decision off of knowing the future. Actually, I wanted him to base it off the past.

Well, actually your entire argument that Ned should have done something else based on what came after his decision suggests that you think Ned should have understood every level of causation his decision would have have. True, sometimes the past can inform what will occur in the future, but when in the history of Westros had something like this ever occurred? You comparisons of Jamie and Cersie in relation to Dany aren't the same thing because they exist in relation to concepts of justice, not causation.

[SerMixalot]

I understand GRRM's perspective on honor. And I agree that Ned sees things in black and white. But GRRM's perspective on honor isn't really important, he doesn't get to decide what honor is. And my point about Ned was that the world isn't black and white. That's why he doesn't understand the complexities of honor.

well than to an extent we have been talking past each other. This is a book so the author's perspective is paramount in the understanding of what ned could would or should have done. on the other hand it is equally valid to discuss what you or I would have done in their place, which means discussing the objective truths discussed-honor, duty

I for one dont believe killing or allowing children to be killed is honorable, despite the circumstances. It is a cheat to attempt to create an alternative that would have allowed Ned to seek a third way to satisfy both honorable requirements. That is clearly what GRRM was attempting to disallow. OF COURSE, if Ned had an alternative that would allow him to arrest Cersei and save the children he would have taken it. The point is that GRRM set up a scenario where Ned did not have that choice. His choice was either arrest Cersei and have the children suffer roberts rath or attempt to save the children.

That is the scenario GRRM painted. discussing other options that Ned could have taken, is well cheating.

[SerMixalot]

I'm in the camp that Ned didn't fail because of his honor or even because of somehow turning away from honor. If Littlefinger and the Gold Cloaks hadn't betrayed him then he would have "won" (I think Ned should have probably taken Renly up on his offer but maybe that's just me :dunno: ). Sure, there still would have been war but Ned would still be alive, etc. Also, for those who think Ned didn't understand the complexities of oaths, honor, etc. (i.e. that he had a very black-and-white world view), I disagree. I would submit that, if R+L=J (which I think is true), Ned had already confronted such things in a big way. No matter what he chose to do in that situation, it would be considered "dishonorable" from someone else's perspective.

you raise and interesting point. if you accept R+L=J, than Ned made a decision to honor his vow to the dying Lyanna. I do not doubt nor would ever argue that Ned was not aware of the impossibility of meeting all of one's duties. Clearly he understood that in his reluctance to be Hand and go to KL. I believe we need to look at Ned's perspective that he took into every decision he made, every choice must be viewed in the light of what is right or wrong.

VRD and others raise a very interesting point on what is Honor and what does one base those decisions on. I will have to give that some thought. My initial reaction is that honor would have different requirements than duty which would have different requirements than love, but that relativism seems weak in terms of the black and white nature of Neds perceptions

[VRD]

When faced with two evils the, correct decision (or in Ned's terms, "honorable") is to choose the lesser of the two. He did not.

Once again you're making assumptions about what Ned should have known. There is no way he could have predicited what would occur once he made his decisions.

He should have sent the Gold Cloaks to arrest Cersei. I'm pretty sure the Lannister soldiers would have happily escorted the children to Casterly Rock, where they would be out of the reach of Roberts wrath at least for his initial explosion.

Now, that probably wouldn't have worked, because the Gold Cloaks were not loyal to the crown, but that is irrelevant. He didn't know they weren't loyal (after all, he thought they were on his side in the throne room). Going by what we know, he was pretty much in a hopeless situation. But based on what he knew, there were plenty of ways he could have worked around it.

Of course it's relevant. You can't just say "Oh, well he could have done something else" and expect that to sit as a reasonable answer. As you suggested, he was between a rock and a hard place. Just sending the children to Casterly Rock wouldn't have done anything different because that still would have led to Robert demanding the heads of Cersie, Jamie and their children, which would have in turn led to Tywin pulling all his funding from the crown and declaring war on Robert for threatening his family and possibly claiming he had gone as mad as the previous Mad King.

As SerMixalot noted, the idea of Robert calming down after "an initial explosion" doesn't make very much sense based on his past actions against Dany and her unborn child. They were perceived as a threat to his dynasty, and even more importantly, they were reminders of someone who had humiliated him, and so he acted to remove them. The same thing would go for Cersie's children in Robert's eyes if he knew. Not only would they could be possible contenders for the crown, but they would be constant reminders of an act of treason and humiliation against him and as such they would have to go.

Hence, your idea of him waiting for the actual reaction to occur would make him guilty of exactly what you were criticizing him for originally- not taking past events in consideration when making decisions that effect the realm. Robert had already proved he has a blind spot when it came to dynasty and humiliation and Eddard was trying to make a decision that would prevent bloodshed. If he had just done his duty and told Robert, Cersie, Jamie and the kids could have ended up dead which still most likely would have resulted in Tywin declaring war against the throne.

I understand GRRM's perspective on honor...And my point about Ned was that the world isn't black and white. That's why he doesn't understand the complexities of honor.

I think Prince of the North just gave a perfect response to that so I'll just quote him.

Also, for those who think Ned didn't understand the complexities of oaths, honor, etc. (i.e. that he had a very black-and-white world view), I disagree. I would submit that, if R+L=J (which I think is true), Ned had already confronted such things in a big way. No matter what he chose to do in that situation, it would be considered "dishonorable" from someone else's perspective.

Were there certain things he could have done better? Of course. That doesn't mean he was as simplistic as a lot of people have stereotyped his character to be.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Ned didn't make mistakes or didn't have character flaws or wasn't able to make good arguments for some of the decisions he made. I just think you might be kind of guilty of exactly what you're criticizing Ned's character for- looking at things too simplistically.

People tend to forget that, even with the terrible "luck" of having Robert die in the moment he did, Eddard was really close to "win". The only single thing that prevented him from capturing all the Lannisters and installing Stannis in the Throne was Littlefinger's betrayal. In retrospective we know that was a mistake, but from Ned's perspective, he was a childhood friend of his wife and had been personally appointed by his mentor.

Well, that and Sansa betraying his plans to Cersie played into it.

[SerMixalot]

You've attempted to give a definition of honor, which is great because up until this point the thread had been missing it. However, I would argue that you're making the mistake that most people in the books do, and that is mistaking honor with loyalty. It's a huge theme Martin has worked on throughout every book. Loyalty required that Ned be dutiful, do his duty as hand, and tell Robert; honor, however, required that Ned attempt to prevent what would eventually become the murder of three children by what would eventually be his temporarily insane best friend. This is because honor, at its core, I would argue consists of a consequentialist nature whereby the person seeking it seeks the outcome that leads to not necessarily the most good, but the prevention of the most bad.

As I think about this, and I reserve the right to amend my argument upon further deliberation, is that this is too relativistic an interpretation. 1st I would say that GRRM has given each of his main characters different perspectives on what is noble and what makes something noble.

Neds views of honor are not based on what will prevent the most bad but simply evaluating what is right or wrong in a situation. His reaction to Roberts plan against Dany exemplify this. He is presented with your argument. That killing Dany and her unborn will save countless lives and that does not float with him for the sole reason that Ned believes killing an innocent is wrong unto itself. I cant recall whether he made a religous argument (gods would frown upon that) a deterministic argument (fate and kismet woiuld cause blowback) or a humanistic argument (the right of people to life). I will reread the chapter to see.

[SerMixalot]

rereading the chapter, ned is silent while pycelle makes the argument about killing the one innocent could save countless lives, then Varys and LF support it in their own unique ways, the option of poisoning Drago is raised which Robert calls a cowards weapon.

That is the next time Ned responds, he laughs at him discussing honor in this situation and then proceeds to call it murder. So clearly Ned takes a humanistic perspective on honor.

Honor is not a matter of choosing the least bad option, if Ned believed that surely killing dany and her child would be the least bad option (assuming being able to see the future).

But he argues it is murder and wrong unto itself. the black and white perspective.

[VRD]

As I think about this, and I reserve the right to amend my argument upon further deliberation, is that this is too relativistic an interpretation. 1st I would say that GRRM has given each of his main characters different perspectives on what is noble and what makes something noble. Neds views of honor are not based on what will prevent the most bad but simply evaluating what is right or wrong in a situation. His reaction to Roberts plan against Dany exemplify this. He is presented with your argument. That killing Dany and her unborn will save countless lives and that does not float with him for the sole reason that Ned believes killing an innocent is wrong unto itself. I cant recall whether he made a religous argument (gods would frown upon that) a deterministic argument (fate and kismet woiuld cause blowback) or a humanistic argument (the right of people to life). I will reread the chapter to see.

___________________________________

rereading the chapter, ned is silent while pycelle makes the argument about killing the one innocent could save countless lives, then Varys and LF support it in their own unique ways, the option of poisoning Drago is raised which Robert calls a cowards weapon.

That is the next time Ned responds, he laughs at him discussing honor in this situation and then proceeds to call it murder. So clearly Ned takes a humanistic perspective on honor.

Honor is not a matter of choosing the least bad option, if Ned believed that surely killing dany and her child would be the least bad option (assuming being able to see the future).

But he argues it is murder and wrong unto itself. the black and white perspective.

Lol, I made that definition up in about a minute. My main point was simply to note that there is a very poignant difference between loyalty and honor. You're right to note that, based on that definition, Ned should have been okay with Robert's plan to kill Dany which is why I will completely agree that one definition is not always appropriate for all situations. However, I should note that it wasn't my intention to suggest the definition I gave was Ned's definition of honor, but more so just one that could be referenced in the debate we're having right now since when I wrote it I hadn't seen other definitions at that point.

Likewise, neither was it my intention to suggest that Ned's perspective was right or wrong. As you somewhat noted, and as did Bourne, honor could be argued as a very relativist term and it very much depends on who's perspective you're looking at it from, and especially in what scenario it is being applied to.