Ned Stark’s Decision in Game of Thrones: A Missed Opportunity or Necessary Evil?

Throughout Game of Thrones, Ned Stark is depicted as a noble character with clear moral values. However, his refusal to propose Jon Snow as the true heir of the Iron Throne when Robert Baratheon was close to death has raised many questions. Was Ned’s decision a missed opportunity, or an understandable precautionary measure? This article explores the complexities of Ned’s choice and its implications on both his character and Jon’s fate.

The Context of Ned’s Decision

Ned lacks the support from Targaryen loyalists who might see him as an enemy, and his vassals may not have been entirely reliable, having fought to overthrow Aerys II and Rhaegar. If Ned’s proposal had failed, he and Jon would likely have suffered dire consequences, along with Robb Stark. While Ned’s decision may seem understandable from a strategic standpoint, his treatment of Jon raises serious ethical concerns.

Jon Snow’s Treatment: An Ethical Dilemma

According to the Game of Thrones text, Jon Snow’s treatment by Ned Stark is not exceptional for a bastard. While Jon is treated more favorably than some natural-born children, he is far from being treated as a beloved family member. At best, Jon’s treatment is considered middling.

Jon’s opening chapter reveals that he expects to be destitute soon. Robb Stark will likely end up with Winterfell and other arrangements will be made for Bran, Rickon, Sansa, and Arya. Jon, on the other hand, would have to rely on his own skills, a key factor in his decision to join the Night’s Watch. Without Ned’s support, Jon’s future would have been uncertain, possibly leading to destitution.

Ned’s Economic Capabilities and Ethical Obligations

Ned Stark, as a multi-millionaire, could have easily provided for Jon’s future needs. Providing lands, arranging a marriage, or buying him horses and weapons to become a squire for a prominent lord are all actions that a responsible parent could take in this world. However, Ned did none of these things, which is unethical and poor parenting. His refusal to do so arguably indicates a lack of parental care and foresight.

The Night’s Watch: A Place of Exile, Not Sanctuary

The Night’s Watch is described as a glorified penal colony, where Jon’s survival was far from guaranteed. Ned’s brother, Ser Benjen Stark, is a ranger in the Night’s Watch. It puts Jon at a high risk of a swift and violent death, which is certainly not what a loving parent would wish for their child. Ned’s decision thus raises questions about his true intentions for Jon’s well-being.

The Psychological Impact on Ned

When imprisoned, Ned felt guilty about his treatment of Jon. This guilt is understandable, given the ethical and moral obligations he had as a father. His decision to send Jon to the Night’s Watch was not a straightforward one, but one fraught with moral complexities. Ned’s actions may have been a combination of strategic thinking and a desire to protect his family’s lineage, particularly his grandson.

By sending Jon to the Night’s Watch, Ned ensured that his son Robert would remain the lawful heir to the Iron Throne. This legacy-focused decision could be interpreted as a form of strategic parenting, where the integrity of the family line is preserved at the expense of the individual.

Ultimately, Ned Stark’s decision to maintain the Iron Throne for his grandson, Joffrey, and disinherit Jon can be seen as a tactical maneuver rather than a compassionate one. While Ned might have felt a sense of duty to his family’s legacy, his poor treatment of Jon raises serious ethical concerns.

As viewers reflect on Ned’s decision, they must weigh the strategic advantages against the moral implications. The legacy of Ned Stark in Game of Thrones is complex, and his actions continue to resonate, prompting discussions about parental duty, ethical responsibility, and the consequences of one’s choices.