05:56 I'm glad you said "in the films," here. I was poised for pedantry.

@ExploringFiction

2 ай бұрын

Definitely wanted to make that distinction!

@veronicadavanzo2064

2 ай бұрын

Me, too! The character was modified for the films because they wanted to show his character arc on screen rather than implying that it happened a long time ago, as it was in the books. Good catch.

Eddard could not have taken the Iron Throne. He had no claim. Robert Baratheon had distant Targaryen blood which is why he was able to make his own claim. Eddard would not have been proclaimed king if he just sat in the chair.

Ned could not have taken the throne because Robert had already proclaimed he was going to take it based on his grandmother's Targaryen lineage. If Eddard had taken the throne it would have meant war with Robert.

What happened to the old art bro!! I loved it haha

Ned Stark is very stupid for underestimating his enemies so badly and underestimating how cruel and ruthless they could be.

@thetzarofthemountain8222

2 ай бұрын

His problem was he believed that the law worked as it was written.

While it was true that Ned had no true claim to the throne, once he realised that his infant nephew was the rightful King, he could have seized the throne in Jon's name and ruled as regent until the King came of age. Ned could very well have exercised all the King's powers even if he didn't have the royal title.

@Tyler-yk7dz

2 ай бұрын

No way that works without Ned planning it from the moment he finds out about Jon's existence

@truetory6231

2 ай бұрын

@@Tyler-yk7dz I agree, he would have needed to be quick about it. The longer he waited, the harder it would have been

Ned Stark is a straight up BAD-GUY... He's responsible for more death's and misery than almost every other character in the story. There's a difference between "lawful" and "honorable." Aragorn dedicates his life to saving lives but will still make the tough decision when it comes down to it (like letting Frodo leave and going after Meri and Pippin).

@Tyler-yk7dz

2 ай бұрын

No he isn't

@phatnana2379

2 ай бұрын

@@Tyler-yk7dz of course he is, that's basically the whole idea of the story. There are no good guys. Virtuous is also not the same as good

@Tyler-yk7dz

2 ай бұрын

@@phatnana2379 I'm not saying he's a "good guy" (though striving to do what's right will never make you a "bad guy"), but I am saying he isn't responsible for the deaths and misery of every other character. It's the characters in the story that acted in bad faith that are responsible. What you're saying, would be like if you chose to obey the law and not run a red light, even though you could make it safely, and a drunk driver slams into you killing or severely injuring all the passengers in both cars, and you're being held responsible. Doesn't really make sense does it? You did nothing wrong. In the same way Ned Stark did nothing wrong.

@wyzasukitan

2 ай бұрын

Makes me think of the Nietzsche quote, “Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws” Failure to act is similar to cowardice, and can just as easily be evil

@sebastianmunozochoa1485

2 ай бұрын

​@@phatnana2379he's a good man in a corrupt place. He's loved after his death, while someone like Tywin Lannister has only created a huge list of enemies that will affect the future of his descendants.