A Song Of Ice And Fire

Bottom line, you either don't do it at all or do it all the way. No half-assing it.

One thing that's always been kinda funny to me is how some readers treat his "Maybe we should actually execute the hostages" thing as something exceptional when taking hostages to keep people in line is pretty much standard in parts of the setting (including Westeros).

Theon for example was a hostage for most of his life. When you remember that, is it any wonder he feels so conflicted? His birth family gave him up as a hostage and his other family were prepared to kill him if the birth family went out of line. He was a jerk, but he really got dealt a bad hand.

Edited by M84 on Mar 24th 2024 at 1:30:38 AM

I think that's actually spelt out at one point in the books - while Theon was like a brother to Robb, there was always that thought in the back of his mind that the moment his father pulled anything, Ned might actually lob his head off.

It actually reminds me of a different book I've once read that's a fictionalised account of a Slavic prince living as a hostage at the court of Henry the Fowler. He becomes close with Henry's son Otto (the future Otto the Great), but when Otto chastises him at one point after he oversteps the boundaries set to him again, he basically points out "I can be your friend or your hostage, but not both at the same time".

At some point you need to make an actual choice.

We've also seen examples of people exploiting the hostage system, like Arnolf Karstark's whole scheme around claiming Karhold for his branch of the family.

Edited by DrunkenNordmann on Mar 23rd 2024 at 6:46:34 PM

One of the most obvious examples of this in RL is the Dracula siblings.

Vlad did NOT bond with his captors.

Radu, on the other hand, certainly did.

The sad thing is that it's doubtful Ned would have had the heart to go through with actually killing Theon — at least when Theon was younger. One of Ned's most distinguishing traits is that he really doesn't want to kill children or see children dead. The deaths of Rhaegar's children traumatized him, and Robert Baratheon's dismissal of them being dead "dragonspawn" almost destroyed their once brotherly bond. And the reason he loses his life in the first book was because he warned Cersei what he was going to do so she could get her children to safety. He outright tells Varys that he did this because he didn't want the children to be killed.

I said a long ways back in this thread that Ned wasn't doomed by honor but rather because he had basic human decency that most of his peers lacked.

Edited by M84 on Mar 26th 2024 at 3:55:59 AM

He did actually do what a lot of hostage takers tried to do...instill a sense of loyalty in the ward.

Which is what Balon was terrified of.

Bonus points since I doubt Ned had actual ulterior motives or even did it on purpose. He just treated Theon with some decency. He probably saw Theon as just another child in a bad situation.

Really, a lot of Ned's actions are informed by how much he does not want to see children be killed. Even his decision to adopt Jon — assuming the backstory matches that in the tv series — was rooted in the fact he knew Robert would kill Jon if he ever found out about him.

Seriously, it must have been painful for Ned to realize that about Robert. The man who was practically a brother to him, would have been his brother if he had married Lyanna, who fought a war with him turned out to be fine with children being brutally slain. Broken Pedestal doesn't begin to describe it. And of course, it only got worse in the book proper since Robert's reaction to finding out Dany was pregnant made it clear he hadn't changed his mind about having kids killed.

Edited by M84 on Mar 25th 2024 at 4:28:15 PM

Ned is also rather ignoring that Daenerys isn't much of a child by Westerosi standards.

But Robert is far more concerned about her than Viserys.

No, I'm talking about Dany's unborn child in that specific case. Robert really didn't like the idea of the Targaryen line continuing.

Edited by M84 on Mar 25th 2024 at 4:41:54 PM

While relevant, I'm noting that I think Ned was thinking of Daenerys as the child being murdered.

Though killing a pregnant woman is especially heinous by most standards, I'm just pointing out he considered Daenerys a child.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Mar 25th 2024 at 1:47:04 AM

To Robert's credit, he did recant this on his deathbed, acknowledging that Ned was right. Too little, too late, but it was something.

Not to try and justify child murder (wow that sounds really bad out of context), but Robert's decision to try and assassinate Daenerys does make some sense. Don't get me wrong, it's morally wrong, Robert's clearly doing it for the wrong reasons and it ends up being the thing that makes Drogo, and eventually Daenerys, actually want to invade Westeros: it's a bad decision. However, it is understandable from the perspective that she is a threat to his throne and has been married to a culture that is known for brutal raids and enslaving those they conquer. One scene from the TV show (which I hope still happened in the books, just off 'screen' because neither are perspective characters), where Cersei and Robert are talking, sums it up well. Robert (after his initial bloodlust after finding out there is a Targaryen alive), explains that, even if the armies of the kingdom could deal with the Dothraki and the nobles could be mostly safe inside castle walls, the smallfolk would be slaughtered and enslaved by the hundreds. As well as protecting his own throne, and his anger over finding out there is another Targaryen is alive, he's doing it to protect his people. Even if he doesn't think this in the books, it's still a reason to go through with the assassination. And given that, regardless of how closely the books follow the show, Daenerys' invasion certainly will be bloody and destructive, it's not entirely wrong reasoning.

I want to make it clear, it's a bad decision both morally and in that it actually makes the situation worse: Ned is right to try and stop it. It's just an understandable decision that could (even if Robert doesn't actually think this), in theory, save hundreds of people.

Edited by king15 on Mar 25th 2024 at 12:13:16 PM

I have no doubt Varys was the one who suggested the assassination and deliberately bungled it to drive Khal Drogo to want to actually invade when he had no intention of doing so.

That or he wanted her dead so there would be one less competitor for his preferred candidate.

If he wanted Viserys on the throne, killing Daenerys would hopefully embolden the Dothraki to invade. If he wanted Aegon, then invading Dothraki, during a Stark-Lannister War Varys knows is going to happen, would create the needed chaos for Aegon to invade.

IIRC Jorah was warned about the assassins by Varys, or at least claims to have been. Not a foolproof method of saving Dany but gave her a chance. Varys is presumably playing a Xanatos Gambit where he can profit a little whatever happens.

I forgot did Varys ever want to marry Aegon and Dany or was that someone else's plan? If Aegon really is A blackfyre that would only boost his claim.

The Golden Company, assuming they know the actual plan-plan (and it seems they do), seem to have assumed that Daenerys was a Spanner in the Works. She was never important to the plan other than a means of getting the Dothraki on their side.

In all likelihood, her being an infamous queen and conqueror means that they're going to marry Aegon to her instead of someone like Margery Tyrell (or whoever) because she suddenly was a competing claim when they'd originally married her off as a way to get rid of her.

Which means that Vary's plan has been off the rails from the very beginning. The Dothraki were never even that important to the plan.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Mar 25th 2024 at 7:32:23 AM

@king15

If you remove morality from the equation, moving on to kill the last of the Targaryen ispragmatically the correct choice, only it should have been taken sooner.

As the Blackfyre taught Westross, even a far cousin to the royal family, descended from a bastard, can cause multiple civil wars.

Viserys and  Daenerys may be too weak now to challenge Robert, but their descendants can very well pose a risk to the Baratheon's dynasty.

....................

Robert didn't do that earlier , because (aside from his laziness when it comes to governing, and Jon Aryn's advice), he, as Tywin said, thinks of himself as The Hero, and heroes don't kill children.

He will prefer not to dirty his hands directly, but he will approve if someone else does it instead.

.........................

Of course this is an academic discussion, since as long as Varys is setting on the council, any attempt at Viserys or Daenyres is doomed to failure.

Edited by jawal on Mar 25th 2024 at 6:40:01 PM

Thinking about it, Varys from the book's philosophy really is 'Chaos is a Ladder'. I mean, he's clearly flip flopping when it comes to Targaryens (as in which to put on the throne) and straight up tells Kevan that he needs to plunge the realm into chaos to 'save it'. He's basically the same as Littlefinger, just with (possibly) better motives.

And that's assuming his motives actually are any better (and not just a smoke screen).

Edited by king15 on Mar 25th 2024 at 7:18:52 PM

Varys might have better motives than Littlefinger, but he gets just as many people killed. And Varys will fail in the end, so it will have been for nothing.

Edited by SilentColossus on Mar 25th 2024 at 3:17:39 PM

I think Varys' motives are genuine, the whole boat on the Rhoyne business proves that. But then, he uses tongueless children and prods borderline-wars-of-annihilation along, well-intentioned extremist is still extremist.

I dunno about Aegon himself. Unlike Stannis, I don't think I have enough information of what he is going to be as a ruler, not even the vague "fire and blood" or "when I am queen, I'll make them love me." And while he doesn't have a Selyse Baratheon or Clayton Suggs in his entourage, I don't like the notion of entourage Randyll Tarly or High Sparrow, either. If I had a vote, he'd be fourth after Stannis, Dany and Sansa.

Edited by SeptimusHeap on Mar 25th 2024 at 9:23:22 AM

It's just that I think that, even if Aegon proves to be a good king^note though I find that unlikely because of his immaturity and hotheadedness, he's simply going to lose.

Varys is a Well-Intentioned Extremist willing to kill tens of thousands for his goals. And he's going to fail, leaving tens of thousands dead and a ruined realm for nothing. From a thematic standpoint, it's a criticism of such a worldview: sure, you can argue that you did terrible things for the sake of building a better world. But what if the better world never comes? What if all you have for your efforts is dead people?

To Varys, the ends justify the means. Then he doesn't get the desired ending.

Edited by SilentColossus on Mar 25th 2024 at 4:30:11 AM

Assuming he'd survive after that (which I doubt), Varys would just look for another ruler after Aegon proves he's not competent enough to save the kingdom. It doesn't matter if another ten thousand have to die, its for the 'greater good'.

I do think Varys is well-intentioned, it's just that his good intentions have probably killed more than even the Mad King would have.

To be fair, Tommen is young enough that he could grow into a good king. He already has a good heart and would clearly care about his people. He'd just need to become more assertive and knowledgeable about statecraft, all things he can learn as he grows. For that to occur, he would just need very good council to teach and advise him and a good person to rule in his stead. The only problem is, that's...not what happens.

Edited by king15 on Mar 25th 2024 at 9:15:32 AM

While Aegon has a moment or two when he loses his temper against Tyrion, those are minor instances, which you will expect from a teenager, not different from Jon forcing Tyrion to apologize to him before ordering Ghost to release him (It seems Tyrion has that effect on Rhaegar's possible sons)

Aegon's virtues outweigh his vices; he is brave, intelligent, well-educated, loyal, and he can be humble and polite.

It is very possible that if he lives and gains the throne, he will grow up from the experience and become a wise and benevolent king, just as Varys hopes.

He is certainly better than anyone the Lannisters can offer, not that this is a high bar.

............................

Also, as I said before, the series is inspired by The War of the Roses, when an unlucky claimant comes through the sea and wins the throne, so Aegon is in a good position.

...........................

The problem with Tommen is that he is a weak willed character compared to children younger than him in the series.

Which is ironic, because Tommen is more realistc as a child than say.... Rickon.

But at the end, a king need to be strong.

Edited by jawal on Mar 25th 2024 at 10:15:51 AM