# Game of Thrones: spoilers discussion.



## Kzach (Apr 18, 2011)

I know there are a lot of GoT threads at the moment but I'm so over using spoiler tags and just want to have a thread where people can openly discuss the series without worrying about spoiling it for anyone.

So, caveat lector! If you are not up to date with the latest aired episodes, then don't read this thread!


----------



## Kzach (Apr 18, 2011)

I'm waiting to hear from one of my housemates what he thought of the first episode. He hasn't read the books and isn't really into fantasy but he liked the Rome series. In other words, he's an average viewer rather than a geek or a fan. I'm keen to hear his opinion because I'm finding I can't view the series objectively.

For the most part I was really happy with the first episode. There were a couple of things I felt could've been done better like the fact that half the dothraki were white and the other half black rather than being one race. That and the terrible acting of the dothraki festival fighters. But on the whole it seemed well done.

It definitely has a much faster pace than I thought it would. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing though. As a fan of the books, it's probably a good thing since I automatically fill in the blanks, but I'm wondering just how much of the setting and subtleties will be missed by people who haven't read them.

I also really hated the introduction. The toy-like aspect and the cogs and wheels just made it feel tacky and childish, which seems so completely out of place with what the series will (and should) be like. If I didn't know better and only had that introduction to judge the series by, I'd think it was some renaissance inventors show or some kids animated fantasy series and probably switch channels.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Apr 18, 2011)

My mom watched most of it and thought it was a bit too gory, but her husband might like it.

Note:  My mom is 70 yrs old.


----------



## Krug (Apr 18, 2011)

Well Tyrion was perfectly cast. One thing I didn't like and thought was different from the book was the sex scene between Drogo and Daenerys. If I recall from the book Drogo waited for Daenerys to give him the go-ahead; it wasn't gentle, but it was consensual.


----------



## Blastin (Apr 18, 2011)

I took the whole "toy like" intro as a play on the title: A Game... It looked like the board for a medieval Risk like game. In taking it that way....I liked it.

Overall I loved it. It had more nudity than I expected (not that there's anything wrong with that) but then I never watched an HBO show before.

The only scene that I thought was a bit lacking was with Drogo and Danny on the beach. In the book (from what I remember) he kept saying "no" until she said yes. Not so much in that scene....I guess they are gonna have Danny warm up to Drogo a lot more slowly? It's pretty important for her to fall in love with him for the events to play out like they are supposed to at the end of book one.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Apr 19, 2011)

Obviously, they had to do a few things differently to squeeze it into 10 episodes in 10 hours.

My opinion, they kept the right stuff, re-jiggered the stuff that was peripheral to telling the story but still kept the point across, and left out some stuff that really does nothing to drive the story except maybe expound on a character. Which in some way kinda sucks because this really is a character driven series, not necessarily situation driven or event driven (though events drive the story, it's the people that count).

Either way, I think they did an awesome job with the first episode.  And all the reviews I saw were based upon a 6-episode press package, and all said that it only gets better and episodes 5-6 are the best of the group.

This tells me that their storytelling will consistently get better, and like The Wire, they aren't trying to explain everything to you in the first couple of episodes.


----------



## Fast Learner (Apr 19, 2011)

Krug said:


> One thing I didn't like and thought was different from the book was the sex scene between Drogo and Daenerys. If I recall from the book Drogo waited for Daenerys to give him the go-ahead; it wasn't gentle, but it was consensual.




Yes, agreed, that surprised me, too, in that the book version was very revealing of Drogo's character, especially in contrast to all that had gone before.


----------



## Kzach (Apr 19, 2011)

Definitely agree with the Drogo/Danaerys thing, although I think it might just be a cheap scripting trick to create shock and awe. I'm going to go out on a limb and bet that they come back to that scene and she does say yes. If they don't, then I'll be disappointed because as others have said, it's so integral to Drogo's character and Danaery's embrace of his culture.

By the way, is anyone surprised at the pronunciation of character names? So far, I'm 100% spot on; the way they've pronounced it on screen is how I imagined them as reading them 

Lastly, Arya is perfect. As my favourite character in the books, I was a bit nervous about how she'd be portrayed, given that she's going to be portrayed by a real-life ten year old girl and the character is so atypical and strong that I wasn't sure any young actress would be able to accomplish it. Kudos to the little girl in the role, she not only seems to be an excellent young actress but from preview character study videos, she seems quite intelligent and to have a good understanding of the character.

Rob was unimpressive; he may as well have not been there he made such little impact on screen. The same can be said of Theon. The Jon Snow actor was excellent; I got a real sense of turmoil, frustration and yet quiet honour about him. I still think Mark Addy was a poor choice for the role. They've obviously used camera tricks to make him look bigger and taller and yet he still doesn't look remotely how I pictured Robert to look. The Catelyn actress swayed me with her acting; I don't think she was a perfect choice of actress for the role, but the actress herself I feel is quite good and carries the role well.

Other than that, I think the wolves were a little bit underplayed. I'm hoping they feature more prominently as the series progresses because I really didn't get a sense of their importance in that first episode.


----------



## Starman (Apr 19, 2011)

I was surprised/disappointed with the changes to Cat's character. In the books, she wants Ned to go to King's Landing (at least until Bran falls). It seems small, but I think it really changes her character. In the books, she has a bit of the political schemer in her and now it seems she's just like Ned in not wanting to be a part of that at all.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Apr 19, 2011)

[MENTION=56189]Kzach[/MENTION] and [MENTION=7663]Starman[/MENTION], I believe the little changes are there to help fit this into 10 hours of film.  Obviously, there are subtleties that won't make there way into the script, though I believe that the "story so far" is pretty darn close to spot-on.  

Yes, I wish the Danaerys/Drogo scene was closer to the books, but she shows trepidation, and even though in the books it was Illyrio that convinced her to go to Drogo when she first is to be with him, they combined a conversation with Varys(sp?) and Danaerys with the Illyrio hand-off and did it without taking anything away with what was being said. 

In reviews that had seen the first 6 episodes, they all say that Danaerys becomes more confident and grows to be close to Drogo.  So maybe they know what they are doing and didn't need to do it exactly as the books in an effort to send the same message in less screen time.

Even the scene at the end with Bran on the window sill and seeing Jaime and Cersei together was chopped quite a bit, but the message was still delivered.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Apr 19, 2011)

Starman said:


> I was surprised/disappointed with the changes to Cat's character. In the books, she wants Ned to go to King's Landing (at least until Bran falls). It seems small, but I think it really changes her character. In the books, she has a bit of the political schemer in her and now it seems she's just like Ned in not wanting to be a part of that at all.




This has as much to do with clarity of character, lack of interior dialogs and the relative lack of extra time available in  10 episodes more than it has to deal with D&D wanting to change that part of the tale.

They would have had to have five mins more of dialog to frame the political discussion as the book did. Too much talk and complexity at the outset of a serries where many non-readers are already confused. 

I think they made the right choice given the resorces available.

If there was any scene I missed, it was the Bran v Tommen duel in the courtyard and the interplay between Jon and Arya as they watched. Problem with that scene was that it was never about Bran and Tommen -- it was about. Robb v. Joffrey. Because they aged Robb without aging up Joffrey, that scene no longer made sense.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Apr 19, 2011)

Steel_Wind said:


> They would have had to have five mins more of dialog to frame the political discussion as the book did. Too much talk and complexity at the outset of a serries where many non-readers are already confused.
> 
> I think they made the right choice given the resorces available.



Yup.

("you must spread more experience.....")



Steel_Wind said:


> If there was any scene I missed, it was the Bran v Tommen duel in the courtyard and the interplay between Jon and Arya as they watched. Problem with that scene was that it was never about Bran and Tommen -- it was about. Robb v. Joffrey. Because they aged Robb without aging up Joffrey, that scene no longer made sense.




...and Yup again.


----------



## horacethegrey (Apr 19, 2011)

Ah. Sorry for popping in like this. But just wanted to give my thoughts on this here pilot. 

*Episode One: Winter is Coming*

LIKES:

- The Prologue. I said it before when I watched the preview, the prologue is perfect. It captures the creepy atmosphere of the lands beyond the Wall and the otherworldly horror of the Others (or White Walkers as we know them). Extra points to the guy playing Ser Waymar Royce, he got the smug aristocratic air right.

- Opening Titles. Whoa. That's a great opening! Also a nice aid for audiences in knowing the places of interest in Westeros. And the score is fitting, this is ain't no lyrical fantasy like LOTR. It's a thundering orgy of intrigue and violence.

- The Stark kids.  IMO all of them were perfect. Robb's a good older brother and has a commanding air about him, foreshadowing his kingly role later on. Bran's rambunctious and energetic, shame though what happens to him. Sansa as always is a spoiled tart, and Sophie Turner brought that out quite well. Arya is spunky and rebellious, just as she was in the books. And some praise ought to be given to Kit Harrington, who I thought captured Jon Snow's tortured yet dignified character perfectly. 

- Ned and Robert. Sean Bean was always perfect casting, no surpise his take on Eddard Stark is good. But I'm quite surprised how Mark Addy got Robert Baratheon. The two of them have great chemistry, you really believe they're old buddies just getting reacquainted after being years apart.

- Jaime Lannister. Another surprise, as I'd never seen Nikolai Coster Waldau in anything, but I'm already a fan after his excellent turn as the Kingslayer. He's got the smug arrogance down pat, while still making him likable at the same time. 

- Viserys Targaryen. Being a _Doctor Who _fan, I'd watched Harry Lloyd in the Human Nature two parter, so I know he would do well playing ax crazy inbred prince like Viserys. What surprised me though, was how subtly he played on Viserys' madness, unlike the book where in his first appearance Viserys was already screaming his head off at Dany. Here, he only hints at the menace and hell he would rain upon her if things don't go his way. Excellent performance by Lloyd. 


DISLIKES:

- Tyrion's introduction. Don't get me wrong, I think Peter Dinklage is perfect for the role, but I really wished they'd introduced him via his conversation with Jon, like in the books, rather than frolicking with a bunch of whores. Yeah I know, Tyrion is a lech. But one of the things I liked about Martin's intro to the character was the act of compassion he'd done for Jon just moments after his first appearrance. That helped cement the character in my eyes, in that for all his villanous reputation (largely undeserved), there was a good guy underneath.

- The boobs. Yeah I know, this seems like a useless complaint, but I'm still surprised by the amount of flesh they displayed in this first episode. It's like the producers are going out of their way  to proclaim "this ain't no Lord of the Rings". Really hope they tone it down a bit in the subsequent episodes.

- Joffrey. I just literally wanted reach through the screen and punch his snot nosed face in.... Oh wait. Maybe that's a good thing?


----------



## LightPhoenix (Apr 19, 2011)

horacethegrey said:


> - Opening Titles. Whoa. That's a great opening! Also a nice aid for audiences in knowing the places of interest in Westeros. And the score is fitting, this is ain't no lyrical fantasy like LOTR. It's a thundering orgy of intrigue and violence.




I don't really like the intro overly much, but whoever thought of it is a genius.  That thirty seconds of map explains what would have taken a whole scene and some confusing expository dialogue to explain.  It's a great idea.  Plus, it's relatively short, which is always nice (looking at you True Blood ).


----------



## Thunderfoot (Apr 19, 2011)

I stated this on another thread but I'll give it a stab here.  For me, I've never read the books due to lack of funds, not want to do so.  However, I am a huge fan of the setting (I own the SoIaF RPG).

I have also seen quite a few of these HBO mini series now, so I'll drop my take on everyone's dislikes.  As far as character development I've noticed that HBO tends to give each character a "starring episode".  My comparison is having read the book "Band of Brothers" and then watching the series several times (I own it).  The book is a recollection of stories by interviewing many men, the series dropped each episode as "somewhat" of a mental vignette.  Not a complete analogy but, I wouldn't be surprised if they continue with this trend here.  Same thing with "Diary of a Callgirl" and to some extent "The Tudors".

The boobs, get used to them and the sex, they aren't going away and will most likely get a lot more exposure. (sri, I couldn't think of any other way to put it.)  It's HBO, the reason the channel was invented was to show sex and nudity on U.S. TV, why mess with a formula that has worked for them for over 30 years now?  

As someone who hasn't read the books or had any interest in the setting, my wife was easily able to pick up and follow the storyline.  She's a geek, yes, but has many more "normal" tastes than your average fantasy geek.   


As an aside, we can't wait until the do the Wheel of Time Miniseries; the Bornhold's have to be played by the Sutherland's (Donald and Kiefer) though.


----------



## Jared Rascher (Apr 19, 2011)

Cross posted from Paizo's boards because there isn't much of a point in rephrasing this whole she-bang:


I'm really torn on this one.  I will give them credit, I'm not torn  because they completely changed things left and right, is more a matter  of subtle changes that I think do shift the tone of several scenes from  how they occurred in the book.


  My first thought is that there are a few scenes where they revealed a  bit more information ahead of time than in the book, almost as if they  have to let the audience know something will be important, but it makes  the more subtle building of the background threads less . . . well . . .  subtle. 



*Spoiler:* Mainly  regarding the Others and the deserter.  In the book it was obvious that  that scene was important, but it worked better to almost let people  forget about them while the political intrigue ramped up.  Plus, I think  I would have been happier with the wight being a bit more of a surprise  later on.


  It could just be me, as well, but I almost felt like, in the short  time he was on screen, Theon was kind of hammered home as a jerk.  Maybe  I didn't read the original scene in the book the way it was intended,  but I felt that Theon's more negative traits were a bit more subtly  introduced in the book.
  I also felt like the early scene of Jaime and Cersei was a bit of an issue to me.  It felt as if: 



*Spoiler:* They  intentionally added more fuel to the flames to make it look like the  Lannisters had killed Jon Arryn in case everyone assuming that later in  the story wasn't enough of a red herring.


  Another place that a very slight change made me feel as if the whole  scene had changed was the meeting between Tyrion and Jon Snow.  The  scene seemed to make Catelyn more, well, petty, since she didn't just  not sit Jon with the family, but didn't allow him at the feast.  The  meeting between Tyrion and Jon, already coming off of this negativity,  felt a lot more antagonistic than I read it in the book.  In the book, I  felt like Jon was someone that desperately wanted to prove himself, but  here, he just feels like an angry young man.  I felt it lost a little  depth.

  I am glad that there did seem to be some genuine warmth between Ned  and Cat in the scene where she receives the note from her sister.  I'd  probably be nit picking to say that I kind of missed the almost  desperate hope that Cat had of trying to conceive another child, since  that ship kind of sailed when the ages of some of the characters were  revised, but I actually think that scene and how it softened her was a  nice balance to her more political minded thoughts later in the scene,  in the book.

  Cat is coming off more overall matronly here than the wife of a great house, daughter of a great house, and a mother. 



*Spoiler:* One  of the tragedies of Cat in the books is that she has each of her  "other" aspects stripped from her one by one until there is just revenge  left in her heart.  She looses Ned (wife), her father  (daughter), and  the last of her children that she knows the fate of (mother).  Here, she  is very much motherly over all so far.


  While I can't say that Tyrion's scenes are out of character, again, I  think that the order in which aspects of personality are introduce are  important.  I think Tyrion's wit and inquisitiveness really should have  been established before his more lustful nature was explored.  Maybe I'm  a bit cynical, and I liked the show over all, but I wonder if Tyrion  had to be introduced the way he was in order to get more "adult" scenes  in the opening episode.
  An odd juxtaposition in the Dothraki scene:  Daenerys may have been  portrayed as less willing in this portrayal, but it struck me that the  treatment of the dancers was less brutal than in the books.  The women  seemed to know that the amorous activities of the riders was part of the  entertainment in the show, but in the books, I got the feeling that  they were basically just savaged.  Its probably a finer hair to split  than some of the scenes that haven't quite worked for me.


  Overall, I felt really strange after watching this.  It wasn't bad at  all, and it didn't change the overall story that much, but for some  reason, I felt like I had read the books all wrong and come to some of  the wrong conclusions when I saw some of the subtle shifts in what was  introduced when.  
  I'll be interested to see how this progresses, but some of the  changes in tone, while fairly minor at the start, might actually really  skew the trajectory of some characters later on.  Then again, as  Werthead mentioned above, it seems like some aspects of the story  "revert" to the baseline, so perhaps these odd notes are just me getting  used to a different medium for the story.


----------



## Fast Learner (Apr 19, 2011)

horacethegrey said:


> - The boobs. Yeah I know, this seems like a useless complaint, but I'm still surprised by the amount of flesh they displayed in this first episode. It's like the producers are going out of their way  to proclaim "this ain't no Lord of the Rings". Really hope they tone it down a bit in the subsequent episodes.




It's extremely likely that they'll tone it down a ton. Nearly every HBO series I've watched with nudity had the highest percentage of it in the first couple of episodes, especially the first one, after which it quickly ramped down. It was quite gratuitous here, in my opinion -- strange as it seems, reading that Tyrion is in a brothel didn't bring up images of naked women, while it seemed like the focus here.


----------



## Kzach (Apr 19, 2011)

I'd just like to put my vote forward for more Emilia Clarke boobies, not less.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Apr 19, 2011)

Well, I was quite impressed, many attempts to bring Fantasy to the Tube has always met with some distraction to a degree.

Good or ills, I was greatly impress with the overall presentation (and no, I never read the books, none.). Therefore I go with previous build info on the world and the personas.

I was entertained by the ranges on where some characters can go, the ones who have potential, and the ones who seem weak, but given time...they can probably grown into more meaningful.

As I was warned by a friend who has read the books, his warning is now heeded well.

Don't get attach to any of the personas...I did not listen, and watch a young lad's life came to an end.

I hope that Bastard gets his...GOOD!!!


----------



## jonesy (Apr 19, 2011)

Truth Seeker said:


> I hope that Bastard gets his...GOOD!!!



Give it time, and you might change your mind.


----------



## Fast Learner (Apr 19, 2011)

My favorite parts of all of the books are the opportunities you have to learn the nuanced motivation of characters, often initially classifying them as heroic, evil, weak, selfish, etc. based on their introduction and even their actions spanning several books, only to eventually discover things are more complicated that you ever thought.

Mind you, some of the evil nasty dudes remain that way, at least so far, and the same is true of some of the heroic characters. Martin definitely keeps you guessing.


----------



## mac1504 (Apr 19, 2011)

*Intro*



Blastin said:


> I took the whole "toy like" intro as a play on the title: A Game... It looked like the board for a medieval Risk like game. In taking it that way....I liked it.




I liked the opening as well. This review by a Times writer also notes that the locations shown in the intro will be specific to the episode, lending a little more information to the uninitiated fans.


----------



## mac1504 (Apr 19, 2011)

*Foreshadowing*

I really liked some of the foreshadowing elements that were perhaps unintentional, but seemed like they were omens of things to come.

The two that I caught:

1. Arya doing _needle_point in her first scene of the episode.
2. The dead stag (sigil of House Baratheon) in the woods having an antler stuck in it (and then removed by Ned Stark).

Anyone else catch other hidden "clues" to future happenings?


----------



## Fast Learner (Apr 19, 2011)

mac1504 said:


> I really liked some of the foreshadowing elements that were perhaps unintentional, but seemed like they were omens of things to come.




The stag is certainly intentional foreshadowing, as it was in the book. Arya's needlepoint is sort of anteshadowing, but that connection is intentional in the book, too.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Apr 19, 2011)

You jest, no?


jonesy said:


> Give it time, and you might change your mind.


----------



## jonesy (Apr 19, 2011)

Truth Seeker said:


> You jest, no?



Things change. 

Martin is very good at creating likable characters, and turning unlikable into likable. Or at least, more likable.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Apr 19, 2011)

Truth Seeker said:


> You jest, no?




No, he wasn't jesting. He was serious. And with good reason, too.

Jaime Lannister is a complex character, but he pushed Bran out the window for a very good reason.  It's very hard to discount Jaime's motives for that _defenestration_, to be honest. 

I probably would have made the same choice were I placed in similar circumstances. So might you. So might many here, too -- after all the information is in.


----------



## Kzach (Apr 20, 2011)

Steel_Wind said:


> I probably would have made the same choice were I placed in similar circumstances. So might you. So might many here, too -- after all the information is in.




I'm fairly certain I wouldn't have. In real-life I'm very conscientious and honest, even to my own detriment; I also wouldn't be screwing my sister


----------



## Starman (Apr 20, 2011)

Kzach said:


> I also wouldn't be screwing my sister




But, is she hot? That's the real question.


Wait, what?


----------



## Kzach (Apr 20, 2011)

Starman said:


> But, is she hot? That's the real question.
> 
> 
> Wait, what?




Which one? The 46 year old hippy who eats nothing but eggs and toast and has difficulty adding 1 + 1 and lives in the hills smoking weed or the 49 year old social worker with two kids, a divorce and a bitter demeanour?


----------



## Steel_Wind (Apr 20, 2011)

Kzach said:


> I'm fairly certain I wouldn't have. In real-life I'm very conscientious and honest, even to my own detriment; I also wouldn't be screwing my sister




Yes, well. Seeing as this is a "spoilers" thread:



Spoiler



If you _*were*_ screwing your sister - and she had been the only woman you ever loved or were ever with your entire life, and you had three children by her, and the disclosure of that fact to the King by the ten year old would almost _*certainly*_ result not only in your death, but your sister's death AND the death of _*all three*_ of your children?

Then under THOSE circumstances, it might be seen to be utterly reasonable for you to choose instead to sacrifice the life of a ten year old kid you had never really met over the lives of your immediate family. There is no middle ground here. When_ push came to shove_, is that a reasonable choice? 

Oh yes. Quite, imo.

It's not like Jaime came up behind the kid and whacked him for the helluva it.  The reasons go a wee bit deeper than that.



If yer askin, I'm for the laid-back dope smokin granola sister over the bitter urban drama queen. Just sayin'.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Apr 20, 2011)

Steel_Wind said:


> If yer askin, I'm for the laid-back dope smokin granola sister over the bitter urban drama queen. Just sayin'.




Ha!  Probably me too!


----------



## Starman (Apr 20, 2011)

catsclaw227 said:


> Ha!  Probably me too!




Me three.


----------



## Kzach (Apr 20, 2011)

Steel_Wind said:


> Then under THOSE circumstances, it might be seen to be utterly reasonable for you to choose instead to sacrifice the life of a ten year old kid you had never really met over the lives of your immediate family. There is no middle ground here. When_ push came to shove_, is that a reasonable choice?




But my point was that I wouldn't be in that situation.

Jaime created the problem by being a low-life and continues to be a low-life by murdering a ten-year old boy who was completely innocent of any crime. On top of that, he risked exposure by screwing her there in the first place.

And the fact is, he never redeems himself for any of it. He never even regrets the action. Just because he becomes a little bit more sympathetic by getting chapters in the fourth book, doesn't make him suddenly a morally upstanding citizen. Nothing he ever does throughout any of the books points to a remotely sane conscience. He is, by modern definitions, a complete sociopath. Nothing about that ever changes.


----------



## Celtavian (Apr 20, 2011)

*re*



Kzach said:


> But my point was that I wouldn't be in that situation.
> 
> Jaime created the problem by being a low-life and continues to be a low-life by murdering a ten-year old boy who was completely innocent of any crime. On top of that, he risked exposure by screwing her there in the first place.
> 
> And the fact is, he never redeems himself for any of it. He never even regrets the action. Just because he becomes a little bit more sympathetic by getting chapters in the fourth book, doesn't make him suddenly a morally upstanding citizen. Nothing he ever does throughout any of the books points to a remotely sane conscience. He is, by modern definitions, a complete sociopath. Nothing about that ever changes.





I disagree with the notion Jaime is a sociopath.

Jaime Lannister loves his family. He shows that often with his brother and even his father. 

Jaime is a strange, selfish character that does many amoral acts. He isn't a sociopath. Most of what he does he does because of love for his family and an impulsive nature. His emotions run strong. He makes decisions spur of the moment, but he isn't emotionally cold. He is in fact a highly emotional character, often to his detriment. If he were a sociopath, he probably wouldn't have killed Bran right there. He would have planned it. His killing of Bran was an impulsive action that would have gotten him into more trouble than not. But lucky for him it worked out in his favor.

As far as sociopaths go, Gregor Clegane is a sociopath. He is a remorseless beast. I can't wait to see him in the series.


----------



## Cor Azer (Apr 20, 2011)

Kzach said:


> And the fact is, he never redeems himself for any of it. He never even regrets the action.




I have to disagree with the Jaime as a sociopath as well. And while he never successful redeems himself, you have to consider that he does at least try to redeem what little honor he does have in how he gets/helps Brienne find Sansa. I believe we need to take him at face value for this, even though others don't, because we are getting some of his own perspective, and I don't recall any hint of him thinking "here now, this will throw them off my trail".


----------



## Steel_Wind (Apr 20, 2011)

I’d go one step further: by killing Aerys (and Aerys' Hand), Jaime sacrifices his personal honour to save the people of Kings Landing. Yet, none of them respect him for it and the Right Honourable Eddard Stark, in fact, reviles him for it.  Yet Jaime’s self-sacrifice of his own honour to become the Kingslayer was, in fact, the ethical thing to do and Eddard’s dogmatic approach to honour as an _almost_ unswerving absolute is, in fact, the selfish and immoral choice. 

Moreover, the series demonstrates that Eddard’s so-called honour brings utter ruin upon his family, his realm and his smallfolk. Instead of Eddard making the necessary sacrifices of his own personal honour for the greater good, Eddard makes the whole realm bleed to “save” his own honour. 

  So who is the more selfish? Who is the more virtuous? Jaime or Eddard? I put it to you that answer is not at all clear. The ethical calculus that Eddard subscribes to looks only at the immediate results of right and wrong, true or false, black and white -- all without probing further. It is a philosophy which both Eddard and Robb conveniently and abruptly terminate before any real introspection or contemplation of the true consequences that their selfish "honourable" choices will have upon the realm, their families and their people.

  That’s why Eddard and Robb Stark lose the Game of Thrones. Not because they are moral, _*but because they are not*_. They are very "decent" men, but their approach to statecraft is personal, naive, immature and therefore, ultimately, _*selfish*_.

  Sorry. It’s not as cut and dried as you might prefer it to be. GRRM does not let the reader off that easy. His tale is deliberately gray; a story  where a dishonourable choice may lead to the greater good – and an honourable choice to a far greater evil. 

It is this duality, an examination of both motives and results; and a steadfast refusal to let characters of the hook for the _real consequences_ of their choices which makes _Song of Ice and Fire_ the best work of so-called fantasy ever written.


----------



## Cor Azer (Apr 20, 2011)

Steel_Wind said:


> I’d go one step further: by killing Aerys (and Aerys' Hand), Jaime sacrifices his personal honour to save the people of Kings Landing. Yet, none of them respect him for it and the Right Honourable Eddard Stark, in fact, reviles him for it.  Yet Jaime’s self-sacrifice of his own honour to become the Kingslayer was, in fact, the ethical thing to do and Eddard’s dogmatic approach to honour as an _almost_ unswerving absolute is, in fact, the selfish and immoral choice.
> 
> Moreover, the series demonstrates that Eddard’s so-called honour brings utter ruin upon his family, his realm and his smallfolk. Instead of Eddard making the necessary sacrifices of his own personal honour for the greater good, Eddard makes the whole realm bleed to “save” his own honour.
> 
> ...




A very interesting view, but I don't think you can go quite that far; there is a very wide middle ground that should have been ruminated by the two players: stopping Aerys and Rossart = good; killing them sans trial = ?

I am curious as to what sacrifices of honour you think Eddard should have made that would have saved his family, realm, and smallfolk? He could not let the Lannisters keep the Iron Throne - not when it appeared they were responsible for Robert and Jon's deaths (rightly or not).

Robb, yes, should have swallowed his honor and stayed true to the Freys, but other than being a bad player and not reading other player's motives correctly, I don't see what Ned's honor did wrong.


----------



## Baron Opal (Apr 20, 2011)

Cor Azer said:


> I am curious as to what sacrifices of honour you think Eddard should have made that would have saved his family, realm, and smallfolk? He could not let the Lannisters keep the Iron Throne - not when it appeared they were responsible for Robert and Jon's deaths (rightly or not).



I believe Ned had a chance to wrest power for himself and some allies when the chips were down. One of the known powerful nobles approached him and said something like "We know we can't have the Lannister's running the show, and we can seize power, but only if you are with us. And, it has to be you, because of your honorable reputation. If you are involved, people will know it's just."

But, Ned chooses a legalistic method to remove the Lannisters because rebellion wouldn't be honorable. He discovers that pieces of paper can be poor chains for a determined person with a sword. If he had sided with the coup, things could have been a lot different.


----------



## horacethegrey (Apr 20, 2011)

There's also the fact that flat out told Cersei to her face that he planned to depose her and her son. Yeah, real genius that.

Not to mention that he planned for Stannis Baratheon to sit on the Iron Throne after Robert's death, despite Littlefinger's advice that this was a *bad* idea. Is it any wonder why Littlefinger betrayed him?

I have to agree with Steel Wind. Ned Stark was an idiot and his rigid code of honor brought more harm than good to the Seven Kingdoms.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Apr 20, 2011)

Don’t see what he did wrong?

  Let’s change these three things:

1)     *Send Loras Tyrell instead of Lord Beric after The Mountain (and kept his own household guard in KL):* Had Eddard thought like the ruler of a realm at war, instead of as some policeman, he would have sent Loras Tyrell with a contingent of Tyrell and Goldcloaks after The Mountain. Had Loras defeated the Mountain, so much the better. Had he lost his life to him, The Tyrells would have been the sworn enemies of the Lannisters and the war would have been over before it had begun. His honour weighed him down. Big Mistake #1

2)     *Telling Cersei:* By offering Cersei an “honourable” withdraw to Pentos so save her life and those of her children, Eddard paid with his own life and plunged the realm into civil war. Big Mistake #2. His honour cost him his life as well as that of his son and wife and tens of thousands of citizens of Westeros.

3)     *Refusing Renly:* Eddard should have struck and seized Joffrey, Tommen and Myrcella in the dead of night when  the offer of Renly’s swords was made and Littlefinger’s duplicity had not yet been realized. Had he done so, war would have been averted and he would have held the upper hand with hostages to secure the good behaviour or the Lannisters. He was a fool and refused. Big Mistake #3.

  Reverse those three choices and war would have been averted and the Lannisters crushed. He didn’t make those choices because he was selfish when it came to matters of "personal honour". You win or you die. He lost. He died.


----------



## Cor Azer (Apr 20, 2011)

horacethegrey said:


> There's also the fact that flat out told Cersei to her face that he planned to depose her and her son. Yeah, real genius that.
> 
> Not to mention that he planned for Stannis Baratheon to sit on the Iron Throne after Robert's death, despite Littlefinger's advice that this was a *bad* idea. Is it any wonder why Littlefinger betrayed him?
> 
> I have to agree with Steel Wind. Ned Stark was an idiot and his rigid code of honor brought more harm than good to the Seven Kingdoms.




Certainly, Ned was nowhere near the political player the others were, but I still don't think it was his honor that brought him down. Renly's offer was of 300 swords, and possibly the Tyrells many miles away. The Lannisters had far more swords in King's Landing, and the loyalty of the Gold Cloaks was uncertain.

Stannis may not have been the best choice according to Littlefinger, but really, what other choice was there? The coup to rid the realm of the Lannisters could only succeed if it also revealed the incest of Cersei and Jaime, otherwise there is a rallying point for the Lannisters. And for the kingdom to remain stable, the "face" of the coup/rebellion needed some sort of claim to the throne - Robert had some Targ blood, that's why he got the throne instead of Ned or Jon Arryn originally. The only claimants left were Renly and Stannis, and Stannis' claim was far stronger.

I concede that telling Cersei his plans was stupid, and yes, probably only done so his honor wouldn't be stained with "rebellion", but I don't think not telling Cersei would have helped, not only because of Sansa's snitching, but also because everyone else had better informants than Ned.


----------



## horacethegrey (Apr 20, 2011)

Cor Azer said:


> Stannis may not have been the best choice according to Littlefinger, but really, what other choice was there? The coup to rid the realm of the Lannisters could only succeed if it also revealed the incest of Cersei and Jaime, otherwise there is a rallying point for the Lannisters. And for the kingdom to remain stable, the "face" of the coup/rebellion needed some sort of claim to the throne - Robert had some Targ blood, that's why he got the throne instead of Ned or Jon Arryn originally. The only claimants left were Renly and Stannis, and Stannis' claim was far stronger.



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.


----------



## Remus Lupin (Apr 20, 2011)

I don't think Ned was worried about the dishonor caused by participation in the rebellion (he'd done that once already after all), but rather he was concerned about the inevitable murder of the children. He gave Cersei the option of fleeing with the children, not for her sake, but for theirs, because he remembered the fate of the Targaryan children in Robert's rebellion. His downfall in this sense wasn't honor, but compassion.

That said, I agree with much of the rest of the analysis of Ned's follies.


----------



## Cor Azer (Apr 20, 2011)

Steel_Wind said:


> Don’t see what he did wrong?
> 
> Let’s change these three things:
> 
> ...




I agree that Ned lost and died to political stupidity, but I'm not entirely sure it was due to his honor.

I already addressed the offer to Cersei, but for your other two points:

1. He needed to send swords he could trust after the Mountain, not some hot-headed knight who might make the situation worse. Yes, the situation got worse (much worse), but I don't think Ned's honor was what caused him to bypass Ser Loras for Lord Beric.

2. Under what pretense could the Ned and Renly coup knock out the Lannisters while keeping and controlling Joffrey? In order to say "the Lannisters did wrong", they pretty much need to say Joff and siblings are the result of incest. At that point, they're not much value as hostages. Maybe to Cersei, but Jaime barely thinks of them until book 4, and Tywin would easily dismiss them as nigh worthless to ransom. No leverage means little to stop the Lannister armies which are larger and closer than the North. The Tyrells may or may not join in on either side (a Margaery/Robb pairing could have brought them over, or a Willas or Loras/Sansa, particularly with bastard Joff causing the Lannisters to have no good pairings. The Vale would back Ned or not; depending on how Littlefinger manipulated Lysa, the Martells would stay out of it, the Riverlands are ill-defended, Balon is already anti-Ned on Pyke, which leaves the Stormlands, which would be having their own little Stannis/Renly spat. While your situation is possible, I think it's far from certain that a Renly/Ned coup results in stopping the war before it begins.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Apr 20, 2011)

Cor Azer said:


> 1. He needed to send swords he could trust after the Mountain, not some hot-headed knight who might make the situation worse. Yes, the situation got worse (much worse), but I don't think Ned's honor was what caused him to bypass Ser Loras for Lord Beric.




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.



> 2. Under what pretense could the Ned and Renly coup knock out the Lannisters while keeping and controlling Joffrey?



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).

If Tywin was cowed (and he would have been), it would permit Eddard time to get Stannis' forces in place near KL and call the Banners in the North and the Riverlands while the South mobilized.  

What seizing the Baratheons as Regent provided to Eddard was TIME. As for more Lannister forces being in KL -- yes and no.  As long as Eddard held the Baratheons in Magor's with a couple of hundred men, they could hold out for as long as it took for the Banners of the South to reach KL (Storms End and the Tyrells) and for Stannis to arrive. Stannis by sea is much faster than Tywin on foot. 

And at this time, Eddard *also* belived that Catelyn held Tyrion and that the Eyrie would have been loyal to the Thonre (and in truth, it probably would have been, too). 

That left Jamie, who was an outlaw for his attack on Eddard as the only free Lannister after Tywin. Very good odds. Kill either one of Jaime or Tywin, and by holding Tyrion and Cersei, Eddard had the heirs to Casterly Rock in his control. It was _smooth sailing_. 

Under those circumstances, Tywin would bend the knee as long as he could be allowed a way to save face. The peace would be preserved and the Regency would have ushered in an era of peace and prosperity, just in time for Winter.

All Ned had to do was play a waiting game. The fact that Renly would move against the Laninsters -- along with Loras off killing or better still, *getting killed by* The Mountain -- this assured Eddard victory. The Lannisters would thereby be marginalized and without allies. Eddard had the North, the Riverlands, the Tyrells, and Renly at his side -- and Stannis would eventually come on board and be King. Or if that would prove unpalatable and lead to civil war, then Stannis could have an "accident" in the best interests of the realm. 

Renly would have made an excellent King. And probably would have allowed Eddard to go back home with his family. Marry Sansa to Renly, Robb to Margaery, it's all good. At that point, (assuming Stannis had an accident) he could have even had found a bride for Brandon. It's not as if anyone was queueing up to marry Shireen. Bran and Shireen could have worked too.

And if for some reason Renly didn't want to be King? Well, Eddard had Jon Snow in his pocket.  Options galore.

The only other great houses were the Martells - who would not side with the Lannisers come what may after Ilya, and the Greyjoys. Balon's heir was held by Eddard and the Redwine fleet along with the King's ships on the Blackwater and Stannis' fleet were essentially in Eddard's control. Greyjoy would not *dare* let a ship sail in league with the Lannisters or the Iron Isles would be crushed...AGAIN.

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.


----------



## Remus Lupin (Apr 20, 2011)

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.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Apr 20, 2011)

Ned Stark, Lawful to the end.


----------



## invokethehojo (Apr 20, 2011)

Thunderfoot said:


> For me, I've never read the books due to lack of funds, However, I am a huge fan of the setting (I own the SoIaF RPG).
> 
> My comparison is having read the book "Band of Brothers" and then watching the series several times (I own it).




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?


----------



## Digital M@ (Apr 20, 2011)

Maybe you are clouding the issue and it is more black and white than it appears.  Without the evil and selfish acts of the first party, the sacrafice of the second would not have occured.  But I do agree, that is if you excuse the evil as a normal act then Ned's visions and actions are short sighted.  He just needed to plan more before opening his mouth.  He was too trusting, and did not understand the depths and complexity of the nature of the people he dealt with.

In the end there is no justification of Jaime's deeds.  It is not untill his injury  and the thrill of battle is taken from him that he reconsiders his place in the world.  Martin does an excellent job of crafting compassion for Jaime, and compassion is always good 




Steel_Wind said:


> I’d go one step further: by killing Aerys (and Aerys' Hand), Jaime sacrifices his personal honour to save the people of Kings Landing. Yet, none of them respect him for it and the Right Honourable Eddard Stark, in fact, reviles him for it.  Yet Jaime’s self-sacrifice of his own honour to become the Kingslayer was, in fact, the ethical thing to do and Eddard’s dogmatic approach to honour as an _almost_ unswerving absolute is, in fact, the selfish and immoral choice.
> 
> Moreover, the series demonstrates that Eddard’s so-called honour brings utter ruin upon his family, his realm and his smallfolk. Instead of Eddard making the necessary sacrifices of his own personal honour for the greater good, Eddard makes the whole realm bleed to “save” his own honour.
> 
> ...


----------



## Cor Azer (Apr 21, 2011)

horacethegrey said:


> 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 (Apr 21, 2011)

invokethehojo said:


> 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 (Apr 21, 2011)

Steel_Wind said:


> 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.



Steel_Wind said:


> 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.



Steel_Wind said:


> 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 (Apr 21, 2011)

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 (Apr 21, 2011)

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 (Apr 21, 2011)

Remus Lupin said:


> 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 (Apr 21, 2011)

Kzach said:


> 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 (Apr 21, 2011)

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 (Apr 23, 2011)

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.


----------

