Game of Thrones fans, who would you follow

[Slargos]

Keep in mind though, that we don't really have a clear picture of the situation that led to the uprising.

We do have the full picture. Aerys went bonkers and wanted Ned's and Robert's heads on a spike, after the complaints by Brandon and Rickard Stark after Lyanna's abduction by Rhaegar that got them both gruseomely executed. Fully justified rebellion.

I guess when you put it that way, it's clear enough. 

Regardless, it's not in Ned's nature to make a power play. He does what he does based on a code of conduct, bedamned the consequences. Note that the moment he hears about the capture of the midget, he doesn't blink but takes full responsibility for the abduction and even claiming it was on his orders.

I would say that Ned acts out of necessity, not out of convenience.

Ned = Balian.

[Martinus]

You know, despite Ned's purported honor, I thought Sunday's episode exposed that he's a tad hypocritical. He did help overthrow the mad king, despite his "blood." So obviously he will overthrow the monarchy when needed. But suddenly it matters whether it's Renly or Stannis?

He is also not above changing someone else's last will to further his ends.

[Slargos]

You know, despite Ned's purported honor, I thought Sunday's episode exposed that he's a tad hypocritical. He did help overthrow the mad king, despite his "blood." So obviously he will overthrow the monarchy when needed. But suddenly it matters whether it's Renly or Stannis?

He is also not above changing someone else's last will to further his ends.

When does he do that?

[Martinus]

You know, despite Ned's purported honor, I thought Sunday's episode exposed that he's a tad hypocritical. He did help overthrow the mad king, despite his "blood." So obviously he will overthrow the monarchy when needed. But suddenly it matters whether it's Renly or Stannis?

He is also not above changing someone else's last will to further his ends.

When does he do that?

Robert dictates his last will to him, naming Joffrey as his heir. Ned does a "write in" trick, replacing "Joffrey" with "my true heir".

[The Larch]

The only remotely smart and/or politicky thing he did while in King's Landing.

[grumbler]

He is also not above changing someone else's last will to further his ends.

When does he do that?

Robert dictates his last will to him, naming Joffrey as his heir. Ned does a "write in" trick, replacing "Joffrey" with "my true heir".

When does he "[change] someone else's last will to further his ends?"  What you describe does not serve Ned's ends at all.  His ends would have been better served by ignoring his suspicions and allowing Joffrey to marry his daughter and ascend the throne.

[Martinus]

He perceives his ends as having the "rightful heir win". I am not saying that his ends are selfish, but that he does something that is, at its basic, dishonorable/unprincipled (altering someone else's last will) in order to further his own "honorable agenda".

[Slargos]

He is also not above changing someone else's last will to further his ends.

When does he do that?

Robert dictates his last will to him, naming Joffrey as his heir. Ned does a "write in" trick, replacing "Joffrey" with "my true heir".

When does he "[change] someone else's last will to further his ends?"  What you describe does not serve Ned's ends at all.  His ends would have been better served by ignoring his suspicions and allowing Joffrey to marry his daughter and ascend the throne.

Well. If one is to get technical, that's not exactly true.

The moment he learns the circumstances surrounding Cersei and Jaime, his ends change. It might be true that he is better off just keeping quiet and seeing his daughter made Queen, but that is no longer his goal. Thus your argument, while fundamentally sound, still misses the mark.

[Martinus]

Not to get into that discussion again, but it is also interesting how in Joffrey's case, the fact that he is not genetically Robert's son is perceived as a flaw/works against him in the mind of a modern reader, whereas for example Jon's bastardy (and Catelyn's animosity towards him) is viewed more in terms of Catelyn's flaw, not Jon's.

For all the little shit Joffrey is, he is pretty much a true son, psychologically, of an abusive, neglecting, shitty father that Robert was (coupled with an overprotective, over-ambitious mother), and his own bad character is probably much more an effect of this, than any "incestuous DNA".

He would be a shitty king, true (but the same does not need to be said about Tommen, for example) but his and his siblings' claim seem to be dismissed outright whereas that of Stannis isn't, even if he only gets to succeed by being a brother of an usurper (while at least the Baratheon-Lannister kids were groomed for royalty).

So in short, why should Joffrey be denied his birthright if he has lived all his life as a son of his father only because of a biological defect he had no influence on? Why would his case be worse than that of a Robert's bastard, as many seem to believe? I understand that "in character" for SOIAF characters this may matter (but, for all that, they are perfectly happy in deposing kings and advancing people with spurious claims) but why does it matter to a reader boggles my mind.

[Faeelin]

And Marty has illustrated why I support the workers and peasants of Westeros. I wonder how hard it would be to get some Soviet advisors over there... 

[Eddie Teach]

So, Joffrey has a "birthright" due to a man who was not his actual father? 

As for the workers and peasants, I'm skeptical that a revolution is feasible without gunpowder. Or at least crossbow factories.

[Tamas]

So, Joffrey has a "birthright" due to a man who was not his actual father? 

As for the workers and peasants, I'm skeptical that a revolution is feasible without gunpowder. Or at least crossbow factories.

There will be one. With zombies.

[Maximus]

So, Joffrey has a "birthright" due to a man who was not his actual father? 

As for the workers and peasants, I'm skeptical that a revolution is feasible without gunpowder. Or at least crossbow factories.

Depends on what you mean by "actual father". I would argue that Robert, bad as he was, was more of a father to Joffrey than Jaime. Certainly Joffrey saw it as such.

[Faeelin]

As for the workers and peasants, I'm skeptical that a revolution is feasible without gunpowder. Or at least crossbow factories.

One of the things that mildly annoys me about Westeros is that even though it's a pastiche of feudal Europe in size, the notion of free city, pikemen, etc. doesn't seem to show up.

It's not a big deal, but it'd be nice to see the smallfolk do something other than be gangraped.

[Martinus]

So, Joffrey has a "birthright" due to a man who was not his actual father? 

As for the workers and peasants, I'm skeptical that a revolution is feasible without gunpowder. Or at least crossbow factories.

Depends on what you mean by "actual father". I would argue that Robert, bad as he was, was more of a father to Joffrey than Jaime. Certainly Joffrey saw it as such.

Exactly my point. I'm a big proponent of the socio-emotional theory of fatherhood than a biological one. We have had this discussion here before. For all purposes, Robert was Joffrey's father, not Jaime. Negating this retroactively because of some action by a third party (Cersei) is not right.