Quote:
Originally Posted by viZion  It would have been a better idea to let the circumstances of the world change his actions because he's not the center of the world. To be truly noble he should have been thinking about *everyone* not just a few kids who may or may not have been slaughtered. Cersei's kids are worth a lot more alive than dead anyway. However noble his commitment to his ideals was, it still wasn't the best course of action and he paid the price. This is one case where it should have been obvious to anyone that being realistic was the far better choice than being idealistic. This was *not* a time to be trying to change the world with one compassionate gesture. Oh well. |
Cerseis children would have been killed if Stannis took the throne. They were far more valuable dead than alive. With them alive any lordling could say Stannis lied to achieve the throne and raise his banners in revolt. And with Stannis likely being unloved, that would have happened. Its just the way of things. In Storm of Swords Robb is convinced that Theon should be kept alive just so they could ransom Theons death back to whomever sat the Seastone Chair. Its a foregone conclusion in this world of Westeros that legitimate claimants to the throne need to die. What Stannis likely would have done is kept Cersei alive to hold Tywin in check and killed the children who were legitimate claimants to the throne.
I dont know how hard it is to grasp that Ned wasnt making a choice between being idealistic and being practical. Ned is idealistic and honorable, there was no "Should I plunge this world into war?" kinda debate going on. He made the choice he had based on one simple premise, he didnt wage war on children. So was Robert right in sending assasins after Dany? Thats the same thing as Robert saw it....should Stannis have sacrificed Edric Storm to raise the Stone Dragon?... because people would have surrendered in the face of that awful thing...or do you agree with Lord Tywin that its better for a "few dozen men to die at dinner than thousands to die on the battlefield" and thus are saluting the "Red Wedding". Wheres the line for you? You keep telling me ideaology and nobility has no place in this world of harsh reality so what betrayal and murder do you condone in the name of practicality?
Quote:
Originally Posted by viZion Calm down, champ. I didn't mean to imply that Ned singlehandedly started this war. But you can't deny that he played his part. Maybe, just maybe, he should have been thinking a bit more about the 16 year old boy he left in Winterfell who he knew would lead an army down to avenge him. Did he really think Robb was ready to start commanding armies? I just don't know. |
Obviously Ned didnt think he was going to lose. Thats just silly. Ned had not the luxury of hindsight that we do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by viZion I think the definition of "mistake" is "something done wrong". But I understand what you're trying to say. I'll leave us by saying that, honor or no honor it should have been obvious that going to Cersei was a mistake even before he did it. He should have thought of a different way to handle it that still protected the kids and his honor. I can forgive him for trusting Littlefinger because by that point he had no one else and therefore no choice but to roll the dice there. |
Maybe by definition mistake and wrong are synonmous but I dont think in practice they always are. Witness Garlan Tyrell at the Joff/Margaery wedding. When Joff is being unusually cruel to Tyrion he speaks up and says something like "That was ill-done Your Grace". It was a mistake because Joffrey was just insane enough to be slighted at this point and have him punished, but it was still the right thing to do. Ned and Cersei are the same thing.
At this point, I dont feel like arguing about this anymore....say your peace, Ill give you the last word but Im certain I wont agree with you.