Game of Thrones: spoilers discussion.

[Cor Azer]

Stannis is a hardliner who would have beheaded many people had he assumed the throne. Many of these people were those who fought under the dragon's banner during Robert's Rebellion. But Robert chose to spare their lives in exchange for fealty, whereas Stannis would put their heads on spikes right away, including Cersei and her children. Tywin Lannister of course wouldn't stand by, and he'd raise his whole army alongside those who don't wish to see Stannis on the throne.

Littlefinger mentioned all of this to Ned. But did he listen? Noooo. All Ned Stark could see was that one man's claim to the throne was legit, even if it meant war.

Stannis is rigid, but he's not that much of a hardliner - see Davos. Also, he spared all of the Stormlords who came over to him from Renly, and made the same offer to the northern lords and wildlings. Yes, he wants justice and order done, but he's not about disproportionate retribution.

 

[Thunderfoot]

Sorry to kvetch here but I'm trying to understand how you own the RPG (which costs about $30 I would guess) and the DVD's of Band of Brothers (mine cost at least $60) but you can't afford four $7 books?

I got lucky enough to win the RPG books (and get some as swag from ENWorld) and the Band of Brothers was a Christmas gift.
I have incredible luck (and a very large family) when it comes to this kind of stuff, but unfortunately, I've never seen a give away for the GRRM books. Let me know if hear of one. XD

I go to GenCon every year too, and don't pay for room, board or tickets, because I work my butt off volunteering for True Dungeon and the ENnies, just so I can see my friends from around the world that I know will be there. Luckily my Birthday is usually right around that time so instead of getting stuff, I ask for green and it pays for the transportation. I would say I'm thrifty but, I'm actually more than that.

 

[Cor Azer]

Nonsense. Now you are talking like Eddard. Tywin was either in open rebellion against the Crown, or The Mountain acted on his own and was a bandit. There was no "making matters worse". By definition, it couldn't GET worse. What it could get, was BETTER. Better was allowing Loras Tyrell to go off and either kill the Mountain or be killed. Either way, the Throne would win.

It's that simple. Sending Loras was a win-win scenario. Eddard was a fool who thought preventing further open hostitilites was a thing to be avoided, rather than embraced.

Ok, I'll give you that. But I don't get how that has to do with honor. Mayhaps I am sounding like Ned, but I don't see how a desire to prevent further open hostiles is a bad thing.

Also, it is entirely possibly that the Loras thing would not be win-win. Mace is apparently easily manipulated, and the Lannisters are better at that than Ned. Consider this - Tywin figures, ok, I'm screwed otherwise. Cut Gregor loose, and send envoys to both Martell and Tyrells. To the Tyrells - hey, Ned Stark send your son to get his head smashed in to slow your rise to power/revenge for siding against Robert back in the rebellion. To the Martells - by the way, I think we found who raped and murdered Elia and her children; you can have him if we can take him from Ned Stark. Now Ned, by following your advice, has potentially three of the most powerful Great Houses lined up against him.

Now, I can see the possible benefit of sending Loras, but it's not as clear-cut win-win as you make out. The safer option was send a Lord who was loyal to Robert first - Lord Beric. Hindsight being what it is, it turned out to be a poor option, but I don't think you can dismiss it out of hand as a problem with Ned's honor.

Eddard was the Lawful Regent of the Realm and the Lord Protector of the Seven Kingdoms. He didn't have to justify his actions to anybody. As long as he held the "Baratheon children" as his wards and Cersei as his "Honoured guest", Tywin was screwed. If Tywin moved openly against the Crown, he could threaten to put Cersei on trial for incest (and do it if Tywin didn't actually back down).

Legally, perhaps he didn't require justification. But to quell the rumors? To prevent further uprisings? To anyone not intimately familiar with the situation, this is a guy who rebelled against the last King, left King's Landing as soon as Robert took the city (rumormill: was their a falling out?), kicked Mace Tyrell from around Storm's End, retreated back to the North, only to come out to put Balon Greyjoy back in his place, and then returned back North, and then after the last Hand died of mysterious/sudden circumstances, came to King's Landing, and just a short while later, the current King dies leaving the man who would otherwise have no claim to the throne in power. You don't think more than a handful of people might find that suspicious?

Most lords aren't as honorable as Ned. Most lords seem to want to accumulate power. Most would also suspect other lords of wanting the same. In Ned's case, they'd be wrong, but there are likely several who would think wrongly. Maybe here I can see his honor being the problem - Ned wanted everyone to know he had legitimate and just reasons for doing what he was doing so they wouldn't question him (and maybe even support him), rather than let these sorts of rumors fester and potentially undermine the kindgom. But I'm not convinced that his honor was his sole problem in this regard - honor didn't keep him from noticing all the players around him, that's purely a result of him being a completely neophyte at King's Landing politics.

What seizing the Baratheons as Regent provided to Eddard was TIME.

... snip ...

That Ned did not stop to consider these things, let alone evaluate and then discount them as options, was pretty much just his honour getting in the way of Peace, Order and Good Government.

That is quite the pretty picture you lay out, and although I could quibble with parts of it, I don't think any of it would be outside the realm of possibility with the knowledge the players of the game had at the time.

I still, however, can't say that his missing of this possibility is due to his honor; at least not solely. Ned thought he had other options; he thought the Renly option was too risky compared to those. Yes, his honor led him to give Cersei a chance to do the right thing, but he didn't offer it blindly - he thought he had back-up. That key thought there is why I can't say it was his honor that led to his downfall. Not entirely. It was the fact the Ned completely misread every other player in King's Landing, and that was due to him being politically stupid, not his honor.

 

[Remus Lupin]

I tend to agree. Arguably Ned's only major mistake that can be directly attributed to his honor was giving Cersei the chance to escape. The other things Steel Wind points to may have turned out to be less than optimal choices in hindsight, but in the absence of full knowledge, they were reasonable choices on their own.

If in the end he had moved without alerting Cersei, she wouldn't have had the chance to plan her counter move, and the other points may have been moot, always assuming that Littlefinger would have sided with Ned had he thought things might have worked out well for him by going that way. Ned convinced him his advantage lay in betrayal, so being Littlefinger, he engaged in an act of betrayal.

 

[Kzach]

Ned was neither stupid nor selfish. He was simply ignorant. He had ruled in the north where the old ways reigned. Population density was low and the biggest problem he faced was killing deserters from the wall. He had only ever come south for a war that he was dragged into by Robert. It just so happened that he became a major player in that war.

The game of thrones, however, was utterly foreign to him and he had no real training or experience dealing with it. Had he lasted at least a year or so in the position, I have no doubt that he would've learned what he needed to manoeuvre successfully without risking his family or self. But the situation was more pressing than that and he lost everything due to simple naivety.

He was the wrong person for the job, period. It's Robert who did wrong by putting him there in the first place. Ned simply lacked the knowledge to say no.

 

[Steel_Wind]

Man Steelwind, you've clearly thought all of this through very well. If only Ned had had access to the first four volumes of ASoIaF, he might have made exactly the same moves.

True enough. hindsight is 20/20

Then again, it"s just a book- however engaging

 

[Cor Azer]

Ned was neither stupid nor selfish. He was simply ignorant. He had ruled in the north where the old ways reigned. Population density was low and the biggest problem he faced was killing deserters from the wall. He had only ever come south for a war that he was dragged into by Robert. It just so happened that he became a major player in that war.

The game of thrones, however, was utterly foreign to him and he had no real training or experience dealing with it. Had he lasted at least a year or so in the position, I have no doubt that he would've learned what he needed to manoeuvre successfully without risking his family or self. But the situation was more pressing than that and he lost everything due to simple naivety.

He was the wrong person for the job, period. It's Robert who did wrong by putting him there in the first place. Ned simply lacked the knowledge to say no.

I guess yes, I should have been using the term ignorant rather than politically stupid. And I agree, Ned certainly could have learned how the game was played given time, but he didn't have that opportunity because all the learned players had started playing before he was even aware he was involved.

 

[jonesy]

I don't think Ned was ignorant or stupid. It's just that all of his plans had depended on him staying in Winterfell.

Ned's strategy was near-perfect, with a singular devastating flaw. He had created a situation where no-one could have taken the North from him and his family, as long as they remained there to govern it. Since he'd obviously never thought about leaving, it didn't occur to him to consider what might happen in such a situation.

With Ned and his heirs out of Winterfell, everything fell apart.

 

[Kaodi]

It has been a while since I read the books, but I am reminding of something that Leibniz apparently said (approximately): " For anything to have happened differently everything before must also have happened differently. "

If Ned Stark had used his head more (whilst it was still attached to his neck) and his heart less, what would have gone differently before the beginning of the books? Would all of his bannermen rallied to him against the Targaryens? Would they have won the war? Would he have been Robert's trusted friend? Would he have survived the Battle at the Tower of Joy? Any number of things would have been completely different.