Ned Stark: Commander? Politician? Neither? Both?

[C Of K]

Originally Posted by ArstenWhitebeard

But what is being a politician if not knowing about people and the world? Do you think learning to be a politician is like learning a skilled trade? Everything Tyrion did right, he did because he know how to deal with people. That is LITERALLY what being a politician is.

That is an extremely oversimplification of what being a politician is, and in many cases not the definition of being a politician at all. I know about people. I know about the world. I am not a politician, and neither would I make a good politician.

The Lannisters attacked Ned because Ned (his wife) Had taken Tyrion prisoner, something that violated the Kings peace. While Robert wasn't a great King, I am sure we can all agree that a fight between the Lannisters and the Starks was not something Robert would have wanted under these circumstances, not over something like Tyrion. BUT, i really Do believe that Robert would have believed Ned about cersei's infidelity. We know that he hated her, and that he had no love for Joffery. that WOULD be a reason for the starks, and the barratheons, to fight the Lannisters, and a reason that Robert would be only to happy to get behind.

Yes, Cat kidnapped Tyrion, but Jamie attacked Ned and murdered his men. Robert did not side with Ned in that situation, and did nothing about the murders. He offered up a few words that he wanted the whole thing ended and that was it. Not really a king to count on if you ask me.

True Cersei did hate Tyrion, but I don't think she really wanted him dead right from the beginning. She knew that, as much as she hated him, he wouldn't do anything to take down his own families Honour.

I might have agreed with you years ago, before Cersei became a POV character. But now we know exactly why she hated Tyrion, and pretty much for how long she's hated him. Maggie the Frog predicted that Cersei would be queen. She predicted that Cersei would have 3 children. She predicted that the king would have 13 children. And she predicted that Cersei's little brother would kill her. Cersei believes, and has believed, that Tyrion was that little brother all this time. She believes that his very existence has been a blight on the family all this time.

He already knew the secret that Jon and Ned died for, and he didn;t propose to tell anyone. I think he was an annoyance that she thought she could simply ignore. it wasn't untill he started going behind her back, getting rid of Janos and sending Marcella away to Dorne, that she really became angry. That is why she tried to have him killed.

She never intended to kill him for any knowledge that he had. I can hardly believe that she cared anything for Janos Slynt. Sending Myrcella away might be more believable, but it isn't like Tyrion killed Myrcella. None of that compares to the implications of the prophecy that Maggie the Frog foretold about the Valonqar.

But you have to look at the way she did that. She tried to have someone kill him, during the confusion of battle, where people were already trying to kill him. Then, when that was unsuccessful, did she send someone to slit his throat while he was in bed? no, that would have been too high profile. She couldn't just throw him in a cell like she did Ned, or poison him like she did Jon, these would have been too obvious and Tywin would have known or figured it out, and he would NOT be happy.
so while she did still want him dead, he was alot harder to remove from the picture. That is, untill she believed he had killed Joff. And this, more than anything, proves that Ned Stark was not as bad a politician as you think. We both agree that Tyrion was the better, but after all was said and done, he ended up in the exact same spot as Ned. In a cell, waiting to be executed. It was not from the fact that they were bad politicians, they both just had to contend with Cersei's ruthlessness, something that Tyrion did longer (because he was better) but something they both fell prey to.

It doesn't matter how it is done. Dead is dead. Once someone is dead, they are effectively out of her way. Ned didn't just get thrown into a cell. there was a successive line of events that preceded that event. Tyrion didn't just get thrown into a cell either. Tyrion did not end up in the same place as Ned Stark. Ned Stark ended up on the chopping block, and someone helped Tyrion escape. One way or another, Tyrion had made himself of enough political value for Varys to risk his life in saving Tyrion. Varys could have done the same for Ned Stark, but it wasn't worth it to support Ned. Varys did not make these decision based on friendship. He made them based on political ramifications, and how they would effect his plans. Tyrion had support. Ned didn't. That's the difference between them.

[ArstenWhitebeard]

Originally Posted by C Of K

That is an extremely oversimplification of what being a politician is, and in many cases not the definition of being a politician at all. I know about people. I know about the world. I am not a politician, and neither would I make a good politician.

No, Literally, Politics means "Of, For or relating to citizens" (people), so a politician is someone who works for or with or in relation to people. You seem to have an idea that there is just one kind of politician, or that it is required to have some special talent, this, I assure you, is not the case. Simply holding office makes you a politician, whether you know what you are doing or not. And Tyrion knew what he was doing because he knew about people. If you think of all the things Tyrion did as Hand of the king, it all had to do with knowing how people would react to situations and pitting one person against another to gain advantage. Tyrion never wrote legislation, or passed laws, because he was the hand of the king. His word was Law. In many ways, Tyrion's world is much more simple than ours and it is not required that he have the skills of a modern politician, he LITERALLY just had to deal with people.

Originally Posted by C Of K

Yes, Cat kidnapped Tyrion, but Jamie attacked Ned and murdered his men. Robert did not side with Ned in that situation, and did nothing about the murders. He offered up a few words that he wanted the whole thing ended and that was it. Not really a king to count on if you ask me.

In my post I pointed out that Robert did not want a war, not for Tyrion, someone he didn't care about. Robert even stated that he couldn't go to war for this because he owed half a kingdom of gold to the Lannisters. So yes, Robert wanted to whole thing ended becasue Ned couldn't prove Tyrion had tried to kill Bran. But Ned could have proven that Cersei was being unfaithful, and that Joff wasn't Robert's real son.

Originally Posted by C Of K

I might have agreed with you years ago, before Cersei became a POV character. But now we know exactly why she hated Tyrion, and pretty much for how long she's hated him....
She never intended to kill him for any knowledge that he had. I can hardly believe that she cared anything for Janos Slynt. Sending Myrcella away might be more believable, but it isn't like Tyrion killed Myrcella. None of that compares to the implications of the prophecy that Maggie the Frog foretold about the Valonqar.

I never said Cersei didn't Hate him or want him dead, but the fact is, she never really tried untill she had the opportunity to do so when things couldn't be led back to her. I don't claim that cersei had any love for Janos Slynt, just that Tyrion sending him away, and (though I didn't mention it before) locking up Pycell, was interfering with her plans. This made her more desperate.

Originally Posted by C Of K

Ned didn't just get thrown into a cell. there was a successive line of events that preceded that event. Tyrion didn't just get thrown into a cell either. Tyrion did not end up in the same place as Ned Stark. Ned Stark ended up on the chopping block, and someone helped Tyrion escape.

Ned pretty much just got thrown in a Cell. telling Cersei he knew about Joff's real birth probably didn't help, but do you think that if he hadn't and king Robert still died, that she wouldn't have still done what she did? he went before the whole realm and said that Robert made him acting king or whatever untill Joff came of age, and she ripped up the kings letter and threw him in a cell because SHE wanted to be queen regent and rule the realm.
Ned and Tyrion both ended up in a cell, about to be executed for crimes they didn't commit. you have to agree that their situation was pretty similar up to that point. Yes Ned unded up on the choping block and Tyrion didn't, but not for the reason you stated.

Originally Posted by C Of K

One way or another, Tyrion had made himself of enough political value for Varys to risk his life in saving Tyrion. Varys could have done the same for Ned Stark, but it wasn't worth it to support Ned. Varys did not make these decision based on friendship. He made them based on political ramifications, and how they would effect his plans. Tyrion had support. Ned didn't. That's the difference between them

I would argue that it was more of a risk for Varys NOT to save Tyrion, considering the only reason Varys did it was because Jaime had a sword at his throat. I don't believe for a second that Varys did it to keep tyrion alive for the political advantage, because after he helped Tyrion escape, he had to go into hiding and lost his position on the small council. We all know that Varys is crafty enough to still keep his fingers in the game, but I think it was a major blow that he couldnt just come and go in the castle as easily as he did before. Tyrion's only support at that point was Jaime, because Jaime still loved his little brother, someone he has always had a soft spot for.

[mtzGr]

In Ned’s case, it’s more a matter of ethics than ‘political savvy’. Ned was clearly a deontologist, a follower of rule-based ethics. He believed in absolute moral rules, rules that apply to everyone, cannot not be broken, and have no exceptions. So for Ned, the means never justify the end. Most of the characters in Westeros are either consequentialists or ethical egoists; for them morality is only about producing the right consequences, or pursuing his or her own self-interest exclusively. In both these cases, the end does justify the means. So while killing Dany when she was wed to Drogo is unthinkable to Ned because it is never morally right to kill an innocent person, Varys is able to rationalize it because the consequences of her death result in less bloodshed throughout the realm, as opposed to the consequences of allowing her to live, and risking her sons’ revenge.

Ned was simply constricted by his morals, not inept.

[C Of K]

Originally Posted by ArstenWhitebeard

No, Literally, Politics means "Of, For or relating to citizens" (people), so a politician is someone who works for or with or in relation to people. You seem to have an idea that there is just one kind of politician, or that it is required to have some special talent, this, I assure you, is not the case. Simply holding office makes you a politician, whether you know what you are doing or not. And Tyrion knew what he was doing because he knew about people. If you think of all the things Tyrion did as Hand of the king, it all had to do with knowing how people would react to situations and pitting one person against another to gain advantage. Tyrion never wrote legislation, or passed laws, because he was the hand of the king. His word was Law. In many ways, Tyrion's world is much more simple than ours and it is not required that he have the skills of a modern politician, he LITERALLY just had to deal with people.

As I said, that is a prerequisite for being good at almost anything. Rock stars have to know people. If they don't, they won't know what people want to see when they're on stage. Grocery store cashiers have to know people. If they don't, fewer and fewer people will come to their store. Politics is as complicated in Westeros as it is anywhere else. Being in office, remaining in office, and helping your goals come to fruition is not so simple a thing that just anyone who comes into office can do it, whether they know about people or not. That rock star has to know more than just have a familiarity with people. That cashier has to be able to do more than just have a familiarity with people, and a good politician has to do more than just have a familiarity with people. Tyrion knew about people, and the world, and I'm certain Eddard knew just as much about people and the world. The difference is that Tyrion applied his knowledge, and Eddard just expected everyone to fall in line just because he was usually supposed to be holding the biggest stick. Unfortunately, his stick wasn't nearly as big as he thought it was. The last words of the dead king basically gave all authority to Eddard. What does he do with them? He hands his paper authority over to the person who wanted to take it all away from him. Common sense would tell you all she had to do was rip it up. Robert wasn't there to stop her, and no one was going to back up Eddard Stark. Not the honorable Barristan Selmy, or anyone else.

In my post I pointed out that Robert did not want a war, not for Tyrion, someone he didn't care about. Robert even stated that he couldn't go to war for this because he owed half a kingdom of gold to the Lannisters. So yes, Robert wanted to whole thing ended becasue Ned couldn't prove Tyrion had tried to kill Bran. But Ned could have proven that Cersei was being unfaithful, and that Joff wasn't Robert's real son.

I don't remember Ned ever taking possession of undeniable proof that Cersei was unfaithful, or that those children were not Robert's. Ned couldn't prove that Joffrey was Jaimie's son, anymore than he could prove to Robert that Jaimie had tried to kill Bran. Robert had seen at least some of his bastards, and knew that at least some of them had black hair. He'd seen all of Cersei's children and knew that all of them had blonde hair. Being that Ned didn't have a tape recorder handy when Cersei confessed her crimes, Ned really couldn't prove much to Robert that Robert didn't already know. All he could really tell him was that he has two bastards in the city who have black hair. Not much to go on, not after Robert had practically doubted Ned's every move since the beginning of the book. I think some people assume that had Robert come back from hunting in any good shape to do anything, that Cersei and her children would be dead by default, but there is nothing in the books to indicate that accept for Ned hoping and hoping and hoping that Robert was the man the Ned thought he was. But Robert had never been the man that Ned thought he was. Ned thought Robert would be faithful to Lianna if they had married. Maybe Robert would have, but Lianna thought different, and maybe Lianna was right. It's impossible to say, just as it is impossible to say how Robert would have reacted to Ned's claims that Joffrey was not his son.

Ned pretty much just got thrown in a Cell. telling Cersei he knew about Joff's real birth probably didn't help, but do you think that if he hadn't and king Robert still died, that she wouldn't have still done what she did? he went before the whole realm and said that Robert made him acting king or whatever untill Joff came of age, and she ripped up the kings letter and threw him in a cell because SHE wanted to be queen regent and rule the realm.

I wouldn't say Ned just got thrown in a cell, and he didn't say that he was protector of the realm until Joff came of age. He called Joffrey a pretender, offered no proof of that, and then tried to take the crown off his head. Those were the reasons Ned was thrown into a cell, just as there were reasons Tyrion was thrown in a cell. So far as the greater part of the Southern realm was concerned, Ned Stark was a traitor who tried to usurp the crown. That is all the reason needed to lock anyone up. Joffrey had no true claim to the throne, but everyone else who knew that for fact was keeping their collective mouths shut. So far as everyone else in the throne room was concerned, they were crowning their rightful king.

Ned and Tyrion both ended up in a cell, about to be executed for crimes they didn't commit. you have to agree that their situation was pretty similar up to that point. Yes Ned unded up on the choping block and Tyrion didn't, but not for the reason you stated.

I would argue that it was more of a risk for Varys NOT to save Tyrion, considering the only reason Varys did it was because Jaime had a sword at his throat. I don't believe for a second that Varys did it to keep tyrion alive for the political advantage, because after he helped Tyrion escape, he had to go into hiding and lost his position on the small council. We all know that Varys is crafty enough to still keep his fingers in the game, but I think it was a major blow that he couldnt just come and go in the castle as easily as he did before. Tyrion's only support at that point was Jaime, because Jaime still loved his little brother, someone he has always had a soft spot for.

And yet Varys sent Tyrion to a friend, and a supporter. Jaimie had no control over who or where Varys sent Tyrion. Varys could have told his people to throw Tyrion's barrel overboard when they were at sea. No one could do anything about Varys at that point. Tyrion dead, is out of the game. Tyrion alive, is still a player who could easily end up on the opposite side of things so far as Varys is concerned.

Varys didn't do the same for Ned Stark, because Ned Stark undoubtedly would end up on the opposite side of things. Varys lost his position on the small council for saving Tyrion, but never stopped being who he had always been. A dangerous player in the game of thrones.

[C Of K]

Originally Posted by mtzGr

In Ned’s case, it’s more a matter of ethics than ‘political savvy’. Ned was clearly a deontologist, a follower of rule-based ethics. He believed in absolute moral rules, rules that apply to everyone, cannot not be broken, and have no exceptions. So for Ned, the means never justify the end. Most of the characters in Westeros are either consequentialists or ethical egoists; for them morality is only about producing the right consequences, or pursuing his or her own self-interest exclusively. In both these cases, the end does justify the means. So while killing Dany when she was wed to Drogo is unthinkable to Ned because it is never morally right to kill an innocent person, Varys is able to rationalize it because the consequences of her death result in less bloodshed throughout the realm, as opposed to the consequences of allowing her to live, and risking her sons’ revenge.

Ned was simply constricted by his morals, not inept.

And yet, this entire discussion was birthed in an entirely different thread because of the fact that people were under the impression that GRRM could not/did not write female characters as well as he wrote male characters. It's my stance that his male character are often "not entirely right" either. I used Ned Stark as a simple example.

I've met, and known, countless people who constrain their lives to a set of moral codes. But i don't believe any of them stick to those codes of morality 100% of the time in every situation, no matter what. Men are thinking creatures. They have the ability to move right after making four left turns in a row. They are subject to change with time, and yet Eddard Stark seems to be immune to all of this. Is he a great character? I believe he is. Is he a realistic character? To a point, I believe he is. But I don't believe he, as a male character, is any more or less perfect than Cat, Cersei, or many of GRRM's other female characters.

But I also don't believe that Ned's strict adherence to his moral code disqualifies him from the ranks of the inept in this case. He did not belong in King's Landing as Hand of the King. The results of that decision were disastrous, not only for his family, but the realm as a whole. It wasn't his code of ethics that made him decide to keep two adolescent girls in King's Landing where they could be used as political leverage in case war broke out. Ned had time to send them away after Robert died, but he tended to other business. It wasn't his moral code that made him choose to hand the letter signed by King Robert over to Cersei, when he could have used it to gain support of some kind. And no matter what his reasons were for ordering Littlefinger to hire the Gold Cloaks, it showed a lack of common sense.

[ArstenWhitebeard]

Originally Posted by C Of K

As I said, that is a prerequisite for being good at almost anything. Rock stars have to know people. If they don't, they won't know what people want to see when they're on stage.

That's not really true at all. Yes, rockstars who sing songs that people can relate to tend to get more fame, but that is a result of other people relating to their music, not the other way around. I think thats a very flimsy argument, and I would be surprised to learn that all rockstars know how to pit friends against one another and can tell when people are lying.

Originally Posted by C Of K

Grocery store cashiers have to know people. If they don't, fewer and fewer people will come to their store.

This doesn't even make sense. I don't know where you live, but cashiers at grocery stores here don't give a crap about the people they are serving. Nobody talks to them, and nobody goes to a grocery store just because the cashier was nice to them once. and even if they are nice, that doesn't mean they know about people.

My argument was that Tyrion knew how people would react, when people were lying, and how relationships between people, In general and in specific cases, worked. It wasn't just a matter of relating to people, but being able to know how other people relate to each other. Are you telling me all cashiers are secretly studying human nature and psychology?

Originally Posted by C Of K

Politics is as complicated in Westeros as it is anywhere else. Being in office, remaining in office, and helping your goals come to fruition is not so simple a thing that just anyone who comes into office can do it, whether they know about people or not. That rock star has to know more than just have a familiarity with people. That cashier has to be able to do more than just have a familiarity with people, and a good politician has to do more than just have a familiarity with people. Tyrion knew about people, and the world, and I'm certain Eddard knew just as much about people and the world. The difference is that Tyrion applied his knowledge, and Eddard just expected everyone to fall in line just because he was usually supposed to be holding the biggest stick.

I think you are contradicting yourself here. You said Ned knew people just as well as Tyrion, but then you say that he expected people to just fall in line. If he really knew about the relationships of people, as much as tyrion did, he wouldn't have expected them to fall in line. Tyrion was in the same political position as ned (hand of the king), and I literally mean Political Position, I am aware that they were in very different circumstances. So speaking, they both had the same amount of power, technically speaking, in terms of power given strictly from the Rank they held, but Tyrion didn't just expect people to fall in line, becasue he know how people are.

Originally Posted by C Of K

Unfortunately, his stick wasn't nearly as big as he thought it was. The last words of the dead king basically gave all authority to Eddard. What does he do with them? He hands his paper authority over to the person who wanted to take it all away from him. Common sense would tell you all she had to do was rip it up. Robert wasn't there to stop her, and no one was going to back up Eddard Stark. Not the honorable Barristan Selmy, or anyone else.

I think Ned expected a reaction like that from the queen, which is why he "bought" the gold cloaks. He was aware that Cersei wasn't just going to hand the power over to him, He knew he would have to take it, but everything had to happen in the light. He wasn't going to sneak around and do it behind everyone's back, like Renly wanted to do. He needed people to see why he was doing it.

Originally Posted by C Of K

I don't remember Ned ever taking possession of undeniable proof that Cersei was unfaithful, or that those children were not Robert's..... Robert had seen at least some of his bastards, and knew that at least some of them had black hair. He'd seen all of Cersei's children and knew that all of them had blonde hair. Being that Ned didn't have a tape recorder handy when Cersei confessed her crimes, Ned really couldn't prove much to Robert that Robert didn't already know...... But Robert had never been the man that Ned thought he was. Ned thought Robert would be faithful to Lianna if they had married. Maybe Robert would have, but Lianna thought different, and maybe Lianna was right. It's impossible to say, just as it is impossible to say how Robert would have reacted to Ned's claims that Joffrey was not his son.

I wouldn't say Ned would be telling Robert something he knew already. We know Robert was not as careful or attentive as he could have been. I really think that if Ned had pointed it out to him, realization would have dawned. And while Robert never really listened to Ned, there is no indication either that Robert thought Ned was anything but honest. He just didn't care about the truths Ned was telling him. If Ned came to Robert and said he KNEW that Cersei had been sleeping with Jaime, and that Cersei herself had confessed to him after confronting her. Then backed that up with the evidence about hair colour and what was written in the book about all the baratheons having black hair. Then on top of that, told him that Jon Arryn had found out too, and that's why he was poisoned, and that the last thing Jon Arryn had said was "the seed is strong" I have no doubt that Robert would believe him.

Originally Posted by C Of K

And yet Varys sent Tyrion to a friend, and a supporter. Jaimie had no control over who or where Varys sent Tyrion. Varys could have told his people to throw Tyrion's barrel overboard when they were at sea. No one could do anything about Varys at that point. Tyrion dead, is out of the game. Tyrion alive, is still a player who could easily end up on the opposite side of things so far as Varys is concerned.

Varys, reluctantly, did save Tyrion. He knew he would have to hide after this act, and that he would lose his position, so in what way would it serve him to have Tyrion Killed? He had already gone through the trouble of having rescued him, might as well keep him alive, because Tyrion could be of some use. I think he would have done the same for Ned had someone forced Varys to rescue him. It would not serve him to have Ned die after he rescued him, then he wouldn't be able to manipulate them. It Didn't serve him to rescue Tyrion either, but he didn't have a choice, and once the deed was done, he might as well send him to Illyrio, where they could keep making use of Tyrion.

Originally Posted by C Of K

It wasn't his moral code that made him choose to hand the letter signed by King Robert over to Cersei, when he could have used it to gain support of some kind. And no matter what his reasons were for ordering Littlefinger to hire the Gold Cloaks, it showed a lack of common sense.

I would disagree and say that it WAS, absolutely, his moral code that made him hand that letter over to cersei. Ned wasn't the kind of man who would sneak around and gain leverage in dishonourable ways.

I think at this point we are going to have to agree to disagree.

[Darth Angelus]

Ok, before commenting on this argument I must make the reservation that I am not all that familiar with the series, having just watched the first season on television, so take my opinion for what it is. No, I don't care too much about spoilers, as it is not really a favourite series of mine.

I have seen Ned Stark's death, however, and even though I don't know the details of how things happened in the book, I have some idea what led to it.

With that being said, my opinion is leaning somewhat in C Of K's direction. Ned Stark did not seem all that adept at the poilitical game to me, either? Right from the start, despite being of a noble house, he seems to be portrayed as some sort of simple man. He comes from the north, a harsh environment at the edge of civilisation (near that enormous wall) and far away from the court in King's Landing and its political scheming. Merely by the character concept and it tropes, a hardened warrior defending the realm's borders against the dangers of the wilderness, you can almost tell he is not going to be a politician. His leadership would be more like that of a military captain, not like a nobleman. The political stage of court seems to be a different world from his. Sure, Tywin Lannister somehow manages to be both nobleman and military leader, but his character is presented quite differently.
Nothing that I saw indicated that this trope had been broken. The circumstances may have played in favour of his political adversaries. His friend the king was less capable than he should have been. He had few (if any) friends in the south. Still, no one seems to have many friends in that court (it is all about pacts and deals to ensure people come down on your side when it matters, or at least that is what I would believe) and many of the things he did seemed like amateur mistakes, such as warning Cersei he was going to tell Robert about the incest handing over the note that was his life while accusing Joffrey of not being true king with no proof to back it up (we know he is right, but most of those people don't).
I have not seen the part where Tyrion Lannister is king's hand yet, but just from what I have seen of him so far and heard him say, I'd be very surprised if he is not far more adept than Ned in the game of politics.
About his moral code dictating his actions, well, it is not clever at all to act as though everyone else followed your code. He needed to be a bit more flexible, bending things just a little bit, to handle it. I am not talking about huge transgressions like murdering children, but the letter from Robert granting him the position of regent had to be kept safe and used for leverage in the right situations. Doing things honourably is noble. Expecting others to do things honourably is dumb, especially in a world like that. But it was all he knew. Giving orders and expect to be obeyed.

As for politician as a profession, I am sure it has a lot to do with dealing with people, but it goes way beyond that. Understanding the society you rule over and its power structures has to be important, too, as economy would be. The dealings with others in politics is rather different from dealing with people in most social situations, I'd imagine.
So while I agree that people skills have a role in politics that is more central than in many other profession, I do see where C of K is coming from when saying it is way more.

[ArstenWhitebeard]

Originally Posted by Darth Angelus

Doing things honourably is noble. Expecting others to do things honourably is dumb, especially in a world like that. But it was all he knew. Giving orders and expect to be obeyed.

This is actually a good point, and well said. however, I don't think Ned really expected people to be as honourable as him, or even at all. If you remeber from the show, he was totally prepared for Cersei to defy him, and literally had just given the command to have her imprisoned. Unfortunately he wasn't prepared for the gold cloaks, and ultimately Littlefinger, to betray him. Yes he should have considered the possibility, but what choice did he have? as I mentioned earlier, he had a good reason to think Littlefinger would help him, being that his Wife told him to trust her. Him keeping the letter secret and using it to gain leverage wasn't really an option, because who would he go to with that information? His only chance was to unseat joffery and cersei, and that had to be done right away. It's not like he could hang onto it then pop up 2 months later and say "i was supposed to be regent all along".

Originally Posted by Darth Angelus

As for politician as a profession, I am sure it has a lot to do with dealing with people, but it goes way beyond that. Understanding the society you rule over and its power structures has to be important, too, as economy would be. The dealings with others in politics is rather different from dealing with people in most social situations, I'd imagine.
So while I agree that people skills have a role in politics that is more central than in many other profession, I do see where C of K is coming from when saying it is way more.

When I say Politics is dealing with people, I include the masses as people. So "Understanding the society you rule over and its power structures has to be important, too," is really the same thing. The society you rule over means the people you rule over, and the power structures are the people who rule you. As for having to know about the economy, yes that is true. Ned would have had to know about the realms finances (which he did) as well as knowing which areas to allocate those finances (which he did, as evidenced by when he hired more gold cloaks, and offered some of his own men to help offset the cost) he would have to know what is going on in the city and help dispence justice (which he did, as exampled by sending Berric after Gregor). These are all some examples of the everyday, mundane although very important aspects of being The Hand of the King (a politician) But it wasn't a crumbling economy or rioting or financial stress that killed Ned, it was Cersei and Joffrey.

[C Of K]

Originally Posted by ArstenWhitebeard

That's not really true at all. Yes, rockstars who sing songs that people can relate to tend to get more fame, but that is a result of other people relating to their music, not the other way around. I think thats a very flimsy argument, and I would be surprised to learn that all rockstars know how to pit friends against one another and can tell when people are lying.

I think you totally misunderstand my illustration. Rock stars not only have to know what songs people relate to, but they have to know what people want to see on stage. Being a rock star is about being a performer, and being a performer is about more than just making appealing sounds. It's about stage presence, and if you don't have have it, you almost can't be a rock star. There are plenty of musicians out there who don't understand that concept. A rock star has to give people what they want to see and hear, which can change from year to year, and location to location.

This doesn't even make sense. I don't know where you live, but cashiers at grocery stores here don't give a crap about the people they are serving. Nobody talks to them, and nobody goes to a grocery store just because the cashier was nice to them once. and even if they are nice, that doesn't mean they know about people.

Politicians don't always give a crap about the people they're serving, but they can't very well relate that sentiment to the public, not if they expect to remain in politics. Business and politics is as much about appearances, and image as they are about anything else. People will stop going to stores where they are treated badly. A cashier doesn't have to be nice to them once, it could be a million times. The number doesn't matter, only that the cashier realizes that it's better business to be nicer to customers.

My argument was that Tyrion knew how people would react, when people were lying, and how relationships between people, In general and in specific cases, worked. It wasn't just a matter of relating to people, but being able to know how other people relate to each other. Are you telling me all cashiers are secretly studying human nature and psychology?

Tyrion did not need to learn how to tell if people were lying to him by reading a book. He did not need to learn about how relationships work in specific situations by reading a book, neither did Ned Stark, and neither do cashiers. Experience around people is what prepares you for stuff like that, and Ned Stark had plenty experience around honorable men, dishonorable men, and people in between. Likewise, Tyrion had very similar experiences around different types of people. The difference between the two, is that Tyrion applied what he knew in order to keep his head. Yes, they both found themselves in jail cells, but the difference is you can clearly see Tyrion trying to gain support for himself from the very beginning of his reign as Hand of the King, and Eddard never does until it's far too late. So at least Tyrion made the attempt to keep himself safe. it's no wonder Tyrion still lives and Eddard doesn't.

I think you are contradicting yourself here. You said Ned knew people just as well as Tyrion, but then you say that he expected people to just fall in line. If he really knew about the relationships of people, as much as tyrion did, he wouldn't have expected them to fall in line. Tyrion was in the same political position as ned (hand of the king), and I literally mean Political Position, I am aware that they were in very different circumstances. So speaking, they both had the same amount of power, technically speaking, in terms of power given strictly from the Rank they held, but Tyrion didn't just expect people to fall in line, becasue he know how people are.

You miss my whole point. Ned knew people every bit as much as Tyrion. I'm not faulting Ned for being a bad people person. I'm faulting Ned for being a bad politician. Ned seemed oblivious to the fact that the political station of Hand of the King does not give him "all power". In other words, if he says something, it isn't law unless he can back it up with power. Ned never did anything to increase his political power. He had no influence, and there was no reason for anyone to do what he wanted them to do. And so no one did. Tyrion realized that the station of Hand of the King was not enough. So he went about trying to back it all up with influence so that he could get things done.

I think Ned expected a reaction like that from the queen, which is why he "bought" the gold cloaks. He was aware that Cersei wasn't just going to hand the power over to him, He knew he would have to take it, but everything had to happen in the light. He wasn't going to sneak around and do it behind everyone's back, like Renly wanted to do. He needed people to see why he was doing it.

If Ned expected her to rip up his authority, then he's a fool. Robert was dead by that time, and would never sign another parchment like it again. It's a misconception that supporting yourself in the game of thrones is "sneaking around/dishonest/dishonorable" There are plenty of ways to support yourself honorably in politics, even in Westeros. But lets face it, if you don't want to spend any money in politics or in any other business, you're not going to get anything done. One way or another, Tyrion was paying the people who worked for him, and there was nothing wrong with that. Eddard just told people to "do this or do that" and gave them no reason to do it.

I wouldn't say Ned would be telling Robert something he knew already. We know Robert was not as careful or attentive as he could have been. I really think that if Ned had pointed it out to him, realization would have dawned. And while Robert never really listened to Ned, there is no indication either that Robert thought Ned was anything but honest. He just didn't care about the truths Ned was telling him. If Ned came to Robert and said he KNEW that Cersei had been sleeping with Jaime, and that Cersei herself had confessed to him after confronting her. Then backed that up with the evidence about hair colour and what was written in the book about all the baratheons having black hair. Then on top of that, told him that Jon Arryn had found out too, and that's why he was poisoned, and that the last thing Jon Arryn had said was "the seed is strong" I have no doubt that Robert would believe him.

This is all speculation. There can be no proof of any of it one way or another. What you do have is past experience, and Eddard and Robert very rarely agreed on anything in past experience. Eddard had no proof, so his word wasn't worth much. Robert wanted Joffrey to be king after him. If Eddard tells Robert that "Joffrey can't be king because he's not your son," and provides no indisputable proof, it could easily look like Eddard was trying to break Baratheon rule. I can't say how Robert would react, but neither can anyone else.

Varys, reluctantly, did save Tyrion. He knew he would have to hide after this act, and that he would lose his position, so in what way would it serve him to have Tyrion Killed? He had already gone through the trouble of having rescued him, might as well keep him alive, because Tyrion could be of some use. I think he would have done the same for Ned had someone forced Varys to rescue him. It would not serve him to have Ned die after he rescued him, then he wouldn't be able to manipulate them. It Didn't serve him to rescue Tyrion either, but he didn't have a choice, and once the deed was done, he might as well send him to Illyrio, where they could keep making use of Tyrion.

Reluctance? He didn't have to save Tyrion at all. As I said before, alive Tyrion is still in the game, and is a very important but unpredictable piece. Dead, he's out of the way. Varys could have easily had Tyrion killed, just as he killed Kevin Lannister, a man who was in the way. Tyrion stands to inherit Casterly Rock, a very powerful station in the realm. He's another mouth to feed, he's incredibly resourceful, but he's unpredictable. Varys weighed pros against cons, and chose to save Tyrion, no doubt because in his mind, Tyrion's value outweighed his liability.

I also don't think Varys worries about having to hide. Hiding is what he does for a living. Since he came to King's Landing, he's been hiding. No one there knows what he wants, because he hides who he really is. The Master of Whisperers is just a disguise. The real man has yet to reveal himself. So how is his current situation any different? He still goes where he wants to go, when he wants to go there. The fact that he was able to assassinate Kevin Lannister should prove that much.

I would disagree and say that it WAS, absolutely, his moral code that made him hand that letter over to cersei. Ned wasn't the kind of man who would sneak around and gain leverage in dishonourable ways.

I think at this point we are going to have to agree to disagree.

How is it dishonorable not to hand the letter over to Cersei? There is no moral code that demands that of him. There are plenty of ways to prove the contents of the most important parchment in Westeros, than to hand it over to a man who works for the royal family.

[C Of K]

Originally Posted by ArstenWhitebeard

This is actually a good point, and well said. however, I don't think Ned really expected people to be as honourable as him, or even at all. If you remeber from the show, he was totally prepared for Cersei to defy him, and literally had just given the command to have her imprisoned. Unfortunately he wasn't prepared for the gold cloaks, and ultimately Littlefinger, to betray him. Yes he should have considered the possibility, but what choice did he have? as I mentioned earlier, he had a good reason to think Littlefinger would help him, being that his Wife told him to trust her. Him keeping the letter secret and using it to gain leverage wasn't really an option, because who would he go to with that information? His only chance was to unseat joffery and cersei, and that had to be done right away. It's not like he could hang onto it then pop up 2 months later and say "i was supposed to be regent all along".

He also had good reason to believe that Littlefinger would betray him. Read the conversation again where Eddard orders Littlefinger to hire the goldcloaks. Littlefinger is clearly against giving the throne to Stannis. This is no small issue to brush off, just because Littlefinger seems to relent. This is the deciding factor that will determine who will sit on the throne for possibly the next 20 years or more.

Now, as an audience, by this point in the story, you and I haven't met Stannis and know very little about him. So there is no way we can relate to the gravity of this decision. As soon as the audience is given their first look at Stannis, it becomes clear why a man like Littlefinger would never support him. It would be political suicide, if not actual suicide.

When I say Politics is dealing with people, I include the masses as people. So "Understanding the society you rule over and its power structures has to be important, too," is really the same thing. The society you rule over means the people you rule over, and the power structures are the people who rule you. As for having to know about the economy, yes that is true. Ned would have had to know about the realms finances (which he did) as well as knowing which areas to allocate those finances (which he did, as evidenced by when he hired more gold cloaks, and offered some of his own men to help offset the cost) he would have to know what is going on in the city and help dispence justice (which he did, as exampled by sending Berric after Gregor). These are all some examples of the everyday, mundane although very important aspects of being The Hand of the King (a politician) But it wasn't a crumbling economy or rioting or financial stress that killed Ned, it was Cersei and Joffrey.

Did Ned dispense justice when he sent Beric Dandarrion to apprehend and or kill Gregor? Beric was ill-equipped for that task as I recall. I think Ned tried to dispense justice in that case, but he was not adequately informed to make the decisions he made that day. But nearly everyone who leaves their house should be adequately informed about people and the world around them in order to complete their business. Knowing about people, and the world is not all it takes to hold a political office. It's far too broad and oversimplified a definition that can be applied to almost any occupation. There are plenty of barbers who know just as much about people as the president of the united states. There are plenty of lawyers who know just as much about the world as the president of the united states. Just because these people know these things, does not mean they would make good politicians. It doesn't mean that they would know how to gain the support to hold the office of president, or gain the office of president. Eddard Stark had no idea what he was doing in office. He was given official status simply because his child hood friend, who was a total goof off, thought it would be a good idea.

[Darth Angelus]

Originally Posted by ArstenWhitebeard

This is actually a good point, and well said. however, I don't think Ned really expected people to be as honourable as him, or even at all. If you remeber from the show, he was totally prepared for Cersei to defy him, and literally had just given the command to have her imprisoned. Unfortunately he wasn't prepared for the gold cloaks, and ultimately Littlefinger, to betray him. Yes he should have considered the possibility, but what choice did he have? as I mentioned earlier, he had a good reason to think Littlefinger would help him, being that his Wife told him to trust her. Him keeping the letter secret and using it to gain leverage wasn't really an option, because who would he go to with that information? His only chance was to unseat joffery and cersei, and that had to be done right away. It's not like he could hang onto it then pop up 2 months later and say "i was supposed to be regent all along".

Yes, his wife vouching for Littlefinger did gain him great credibility in Ned's eyes, I suppose, and indeed makes Ned look quite a bit less gullible for trusting the man.
Still, I think C Of K has a point in that Ned never gave people a reason to come down on his side. Now, my knowledge of this series is quite limited, as I pointed out in my last post, and consequently my opinions on the story is very humble and I could easily have been mistaken, but I always just assumed Cersei had at some point made Littlefinger a better offer than Ned had. Still, considering it more closely yesterday, I thought of something that hadn't crossed my mind before, which was that I have no idea how far back Littlefinger's collaboration with Cersei went, or just how deeply he was in on her schemes.
Don't get me wrong. Littlefinger was one of the lowest scumbags on the show. It would not really bother me if he met a gruesome, horrible death followed by a very special place in any kind of hell that might exist in that world (if that exists).
Even so, a clever politician may very well get a lowlife like Littlefinger to work for him.
Or maybe not. Maybe even the greatest player was bound to lose with the cards Ned had been dealt to his hand.

It is just that handing over the only copy he had (and could ever get) of that piece of paper and accusing Joffrey of not being a real king without evidence to back it up seemed to be contrary to what any sensible person would do. He was bound to be labeled a traitor, by doing the latter.

When I say Politics is dealing with people, I include the masses as people. So "Understanding the society you rule over and its power structures has to be important, too," is really the same thing. The society you rule over means the people you rule over, and the power structures are the people who rule you.

Fair enough, but I think you are a bit vague on the whole concept of "dealing with people". It is a far too broad definition of activities to be labeled the one and same skill.
A person may possess great social skills for dealing with people in informal situations, such as parties, by being friendly, have a good sense of humour, and knowing exactly how to act and what to do to make them well liked by most of the peers they encounter...all that, without knowing the first thing about the political system of their society, or how to rule it. The inverse may also be the case. A person can be a beaurocrat that is cold, stiff and not at all very likeable to the people they meet but still understand the system in which they govern.
I think the most successful politicians would be the ones who possess both these skills.

As for having to know about the economy, yes that is true. Ned would have had to know about the realms finances (which he did) as well as knowing which areas to allocate those finances (which he did, as evidenced by when he hired more gold cloaks, and offered some of his own men to help offset the cost) he would have to know what is going on in the city and help dispence justice (which he did, as exampled by sending Berric after Gregor). These are all some examples of the everyday, mundane although very important aspects of being The Hand of the King (a politician) But it wasn't a crumbling economy or rioting or financial stress that killed Ned, it was Cersei and Joffrey.

Ok, to be clear, I was vague in my last post, sorry. The part about economy was a general statement, and I was not referring to Ned specifically. I do not really have any specific objections about his way of running the finances, either.

As for what killed Ned, I'd say it was technically Joffrey (or even more technically, physically and literally, Ilyn Payne). He was the one who decided to have Ned executed. Cersei thought it was a bad idea, as it would bring war and create more political problems for the Lannisters than it solved. The best way to describe how Cersei wanted Ned would be something like "crushed but not dead". The same went for all the other Lannisters apart from Joffrey, I think, or at least Tywin and Tyrion, who thought the execution of Ned was an incredibly retarded move. The series leaves no real doubt about that.

Now, Cersei not wanting to execute Ned had nothing to do with ethics. She was (at least almost) wicked to the core. Nor was it fondness for the man. It was all political.

Yes, I realize her scheming brought down Ned and put him in a position to be executed, and you may think I am nitpicking. In that case, I am sorry. Still, there is a difference between the immature, impulsive wickedness of Joffrey, his short-term delight in cruelty, passing judgement to have that bard's tongue removed but leaving the cases he found boring to his mother, and the far more sofisticated, scheming wickedness of other Lannisters like Cersei.
I think George R R Martin made this distinction between different kinds of wickedness well. Joffrey was almost definitely not politically experienced or skilled to be able to defeat even Ned in the game. A greater, more mature political mind was required to accomplish that. However, for the physical death of Ned, Joffrey was the primarily responsible person. Cersei didn't know her son would ignore her recommendation to have Ned exiled. She was basically as surprised as Sansa.
Cersei had Ned killed politically, but his physical death was on Joffrey and almost only Joffrey. Or put another way, the Lannister wickedness brought down Ned, but it was Joffrey's impulsiveness and immaturity that actually killed him.

[C Of K]

Originally Posted by Darth Angelus

Yes, his wife vouching for Littlefinger did gain him great credibility in Ned's eyes, I suppose, and indeed makes Ned look quite a bit less gullible for trusting the man.
Still, I think C Of K has a point in that Ned never gave people a reason to come down on his side. Now, my knowledge of this series is quite limited, as I pointed out in my last post, and consequently my opinions on the story is very humble and I could easily have been mistaken, but I always just assumed Cersei had at some point made Littlefinger a better offer than Ned had. Still, considering it more closely yesterday, I thought of something that hadn't crossed my mind before, which was that I have no idea how far back Littlefinger's collaboration with Cersei went, or just how deeply he was in on her schemes.
Don't get me wrong. Littlefinger was one of the lowest scumbags on the show. It would not really bother me if he met a gruesome, horrible death followed by a very special place in any kind of hell that might exist in that world (if that exists).
Even so, a clever politician may very well get a lowlife like Littlefinger to work for him.
Or maybe not. Maybe even the greatest player was bound to lose with the cards Ned had been dealt to his hand.

The alliance between Cersei and Littlefinger doesn't necessarily go back back very far. (Even I'm unsure how far, really) I'd say all the players in King's Landing wanted Ned Stark gone almost from the moment he galloped into King's Landing, but I don't think Littlefinger and Cersei got together until after King Robert's death. It was basically an alliance of necessity, and it had one purpose -- to get Ned Stark out of King's Landing before he could put Stannis Baratheon on the throne.

I don't know if you've seen any of the second season of the show yet, but Stannis Baratheon isn't like any other character, and he is definitely like no other character on the small council. Stannis is a hard, rigid, and bitter man. He hates dishonest men, and doesn't look favorably on brothels. Being that Littlefinger owns several brothels, and makes a living as a dishonest man, there's little chance that he could survive (politically) under Stannis' rule. What's worse, Stannis once served on the council with Littlefinger, and already knows about his scheming. So, in the sense that Cersei offered her son to Littlefinger as the next king of Westeros, she did indeed offer him a better deal than Ned Stark.

Joffrey was a monster, but so long as Littlefinger could be of use to him, Joffrey would not get rid of him. Stannis would see it as his sovereign duty to get rid of Littlefinger, maybe by just kicking him off the council, or maybe by burning him alive. So the alliance between Cersei and Littlefinger happened by default. Ned almost couldn't have made Littlefinger a worse offer than Stannis.

[Darth Angelus]

Originally Posted by C Of K

The alliance between Cersei and Littlefinger doesn't necessarily go back back very far. (Even I'm unsure how far, really) I'd say all the players in King's Landing wanted Ned Stark gone almost from the moment he galloped into King's Landing, but I don't think Littlefinger and Cersei got together until after King Robert's death. It was basically an alliance of necessity, and it had one purpose -- to get Ned Stark out of King's Landing before he could put Stannis Baratheon on the throne.

I don't know if you've seen any of the second season of the show yet, but Stannis Baratheon isn't like any other character, and he is definitely like no other character on the small council. Stannis is a hard, rigid, and bitter man. He hates dishonest men, and doesn't look favorably on brothels. Being that Littlefinger owns several brothels, and makes a living as a dishonest man, there's little chance that he could survive (politically) under Stannis' rule. What's worse, Stannis once served on the council with Littlefinger, and already knows about his scheming. So, in the sense that Cersei offered her son to Littlefinger as the next king of Westeros, she did indeed offer him a better deal than Ned Stark.

Joffrey was a monster, but so long as Littlefinger could be of use to him, Joffrey would not get rid of him. Stannis would see it as his sovereign duty to get rid of Littlefinger, maybe by just kicking him off the council, or maybe by burning him alive. So the alliance between Cersei and Littlefinger happened by default. Ned almost couldn't have made Littlefinger a worse offer than Stannis.

No, I have not seen any of season 2, so this was most informative. I now understand why Littlefinger acted the way he did a little better. Thank you!

[Stribog]

First to apologize for the late reply, but there are things need to be done in the real world, so the forum must wait.

Originally Posted by C Of K

I don't think Ned has to call Robert anything in order for Robert to be insulted. Robert was a man who showed his feelings, and I think he was very insulted that Ned disagreed with his decisions. The greatest strain on their friendship over the past 15 years was Robert's desire to kill Targaryen children. It nearly broke up their friendship before Lianna Stark's death, and it nearly broke up their friendship again 15 years later before Jamie attacked Ned in King's landing.

Don't think it nearly broke it, just tested it, also never had the impression that Robert got insulted by the things Ned told him. They believed each other, and Robert reacted the way he did because, well, he was Robert. I believe that proof enough is that at his death bed Robert wanted Ned more than anyone else.

Ned was aware of much that awaited him. He had reason to believe that the last Hand of the King was mysteriously murdered. He was in no different a position than Tyrion. Also, Ned did not go to King's Landing for the sole purpose of finding out who killed Jon Arryn. He went there to rule in the name of his king. That was all the reason he needed to set up a support structure. The difference between Ned and Tyrion, is that Tyrion prepares to meet adversity with some kind of back up support. After Cat took him captive, Tyrion began trying to gain support from the sell swords that were helping Cat. Ned didn't necessarily lose because he was honorable, or because he knew nothing of politics. He lost because he tried to rule without support.

He was aware ( I believe I pointed as much before), but not prepared for the shire proportion of corruption in King's Landing. Never said it is the sole reason, but MAIN reason, and he could only speculate that Jon was murdered (based on the pretty vague letter from hysteric women). Also we are talking about world which entire setting is reminiscent of medieval Europe, and that means feudalism. Ned was born is high nobility, and his birth alone gave him plenty of leverage. About difference's between Ned and Tyrion, one of them was that Ned was Lord of the realm, while Tyrion was still just an (unlikely) heir. So comparing Ned and Tywin would be more appropriate.

I think Jaimie said it best in the show. Ned was "Lord of someplace very far away" and Robert had bankrupted the crown while his political rivals had spent years building up influence for themselves. Ned and Robert had next to no influence in King's Landing, which is where they were, not up North, and not in the Storm lands.

Never considered Jaime any authority on politics, and HIM saying that kinda backs up my point. Robert was lousy King, nobody here ever disputed that, nor did GRRM gave any reason to think otherwise, also nobody but Ned ever opposed Robert openly, and that tells tomes about who was who in King's Landing.

It could be said that trusting your wife to trust Littlefinger is just as bad as trusting Littlefinger yourself. Cat convinced Ned that Littlefinger would not betray her, and subsequently would not betray him. Ned had little choice in who to send to hire the Gold Cloaks because, as I have been saying, he didn't set up any system to support himself.

Hmmm.... not trusting anybody? Doesn't sound right to me, why not trust his wife? And what good would support system be for hiring Gold Cloaks? Littlefinger was master of coins, others who could do the job were Tywin (because of Lannister gold) or banker from Iron Banks. First was by that time openly against Ned, second was out of the reach. North's strength was not in the money, so Ned could'n go around throwing gold at every problem like, let's say, Tyrion.

That is my whole point. It illustrates Ned's incompetent actions almost perfectly. It wasn't just unwise, it was stupid. Littlefinger had no reason to support Ned. Ned never offered Littlefinger a reason. If I was trying to rule the country you live in, you're not going to throw your support behind me just because I ask you to.

Well actually, in middle ages, nobody asked anybody do they want to be ruled. Littlefinger chose thing he considered lesser evil at that time, as having Stark's as the enemies at that time was no laughing matter. And if Ned survived, he would never forget who betrayed him. So Littlefinger gambled too, just that dices went to his favor all the way.

Someone who knows what they're doing in any job doesn't just rely on luck to happen. They create their own luck by making things happen. If Ned set up his own support structure, it still wouldn't be a sure victory for him in the game of thrones. But, his rule wouldn't have turned out to be nothing but a chain of follies that could only lead to his defeat.

Hmmm, that is little too arrogant. It's like you are saying Napoleon was incompetent military leader because he lost at Waterloo, and that it was only his fault campaign in Russia was total failure. Luck is needed in everything we do, sometimes small amount, sometimes more. Again, I consider he had all the support structure he needed. He was official appointed by the King, ruler in his own right, brought his soldiers with him, AND was Ned f..ing Stark - war hero and personal friend to the King.

They dismantled Ned. Among his enemies, there were very few mutual friends, and yet, they all were able to work together to achieve one common goal. That was to "Get Ned Stark out of King's Landing." I could hardly call him a "Great Player" when he was so thoroughly crushed, and played such a large role in the chaos that befell Westeros. Everything that he attempted to accomplish in King's Landing ended up having an effect contrary to his desires, accept for one thing... He was able to talk Robert out of participating in the Melee.

They tricked, manipulated, and at the end did completely wrong thing allowing him to get killed. Wasn't under impression that they worked together, until the end, when Littlefinger deliberately (Sansa did also, but was unaware of it) betrayed Ned and supported Cersei, while Renly cowardly fled King's Landing, and Varys couldn't do anything. Also, them being so concentrated on "getting him out of King's Landing", actually proves that they were afraid of him, if he was such a fool, and a lousy player of the game, he could be easily bested by any of them. And might I add, Cersei did wonderful as Queen regent, Littlefinger remained in King's Landing because it is only place to play the game, Pucelle and Renly lived long and meaningful lives, and Varys remained the Spider in service of every next ruler of King's Landing - city of hungry and the sick after the death of Ned Stark.

[I, Brian]

This is a really good thread, and I've just been re-reading random sections of GoT:

Originally Posted by juleska

With respect to fighting an enemy in the more formal structure of a medieval battlefield, I believe Ned's wits were as strong the day he died as they were the day he helped Robert win the throne. I also don't think it's that he's incapable of thinking politically (there are plenty of instances and exchanges throughout the first book showing he has given thought to those things and sometimes acts correctly). I think it's that he so loathes the nature of the politics that he deliberately acts against them, as if to force the players to bend to the more honorable rules of the battlefield.

I noticed Robert Baratheon telling Ned about how keeping a throne is a 1000 times harder than winning one - implying a sense of naivety on the part of Ned.

Also, when Robert is dying, Ned presumes Cersei will fear and flee - both Renly and Littlefinger appear and advise Ned on prudent courses of action - neither of which he will follow up.

In fact, Littlefinger advises that if Ned pushes on Stannis claiming the throne, the seven kingdoms will fall to war as Stannis takes revenge against a whole host of houses, and warns there will be mass bloodshed.

However, Ned keeps steadfastly to "being honourable" to the point of not even being able to ask Littlefinger to buy the gold cloaks.

In this, I think it's suggested that Ned is used to being followed, and that as Lord of Winterfell he is used to dealing only with petty politics - and not grand schemes as in Kings Landing.

Ned uses "honour" to bind people to him, not least because he truly believes in it - but he uses it as a crutch, as I think Catelyn accuses him off in his decision to go to Kings Landing - because when faced with "hard" decisions, he falls back on a sense of "honour", which effectively takes any decision-making away from himself, and therefore the consequences - which become designated as "honourable" vs "dishonourable".

I think Jaime's later scenes show this up well - Ned always claims to follow "honour", and curses the "Kingslayer" as an oath breaker - yet did Ned not also swear an oath to follow and obey King Aerys?

For all his tactical ability in the field, and ability to think strategically, Ned is still very much the warrior, looking to bind people to follow him through common and - normally unchallengeable - ideals, such as honour.

However, in Kings Landing he comes across as something of a well-meaning country-bumpkin, unable to make the real and difficult political decisions that are necessary, and when faced with difficult choices, he abrogates his responsibily to do what is right and necessary by invoking "honour" as a simple moral backstop.

So, a great commander, when people are willing to follow, not least through aspiring to his ideals - but a poor politician when faced with real and hard decisions.

Heck, his decision to even go to Kings Landing he knew was a bad one - he was clearly warned about it, he clearly felt it - but saw refusal to accept the position of Hand as one that dishonoured both Robert and his family. He therefore willingly put them both in harm's way because he was naive enough to think that "right" would win through all.

2c.