The good and evil of Ice and Fire

[Suchal Riaz]

I don't have a complete theory now and I am waiting for TWoW as we have very little knowledge about WW.

1. George R.R. Martin has said there are no characters which are pure evil or pure good. And he has said that WW are beautiful creatures but also dangerous but he didn't say they are the evil force. That being said, it is completely possible that WW are not pure evil. the history of people of westeros can be wrong and WW might be invading westeros for good. Or maybe that particular leader of WW was evil and has nothing to do with the actual nature of WW.
   
2. It is clear from all books that the R'hllor is indeed a god. But it looks to me that he is not a good god but rather an evil one. the great other might actually be the god who has been overpowered and it trying to return.
   
3. The dragons are not good either. It is clear from Tyroin chapter which said that valayrians reaped what they sowed: "blood and fire".
   
4. Doom of Valayria is a mystery but i think there is something evil about the way the faceless men talk about their ancestors and Wyrms. I think the bravoosi's are not common stupid men but rather people who play not just game of thrones but rather game of the ultimate power. Their ancestors lived inside the caves deep underground where they were forced to work. many of them died in caves. They discovered Wyrms underground. The Wyrms could be very large. Just like dragons maybe they could grow infinitely big provided they have enough space and food. Maybe those people made an alliance with those men to destroy all the valayria and the wyrms are the reason there is still fire burning inside valayria. In braavos their secret place in very very deep underground. The faceless men worship some underground god or maybe wyrms.
   
5. I think what we consider good forces will turn out to be evil forces and white walkers are coming back to save the world from magic, dragons and R'hllor. They will bring peace and the 'unstable' weather in westeros will end. The Valayria will again become the habitable land it once was. Jon Snow having blood of ice and fire will be the ultimate hero who will bring peace between the forces of ice and fire.
   

I am giving an inspration to other people who have read the books more deeply to give the actual behind the scene theory of ice and fire which will relate everything: Doom of Valayria, White Walkers, faceless men, wyrms and dragons, R'hllor and the great other, the very existance of magic, the unpredictable weather and the long night. One theory to rule them all. I have the clues but they can fit together in so many different ways that the possibilities are countless. TWoW will finally reveal the true nature of WW and R'hllor. Any theories guys?

[Glaurung]

I don't have a complete theory now and I am waiting for TWoW as we have very little knowledge about WW.

• George R.R. Martin has said there are no characters which are pure evil or pure good. And he has said that WW are beautiful creatures but also dangerous but he didn't say they are the evil force. That being said, it is completely possible that WW are not pure evil. the history of people of westeros can be wrong and WW might be invading westeros for good. Or maybe that particular leader of WW was evil and has nothing to do with the actual nature of WW.
• It is clear from all books that the R'hllor is indeed a god. But it looks to me that he is not a good god but rather an evil one. the great other might actually be the god who has been overpowered and it trying to return.
• The dragons are not good either. It is clear from Tyroin chapter which said that valayrians reaped what they sowed: "blood and fire".
• Doom of Valayria is a mystery but i think there is something evil about the way the faceless men talk about their ancestors and Wyrms. I think the bravoosi's are not common stupid men but rather people who play not just game of thrones but rather game of the ultimate power. Their ancestors lived inside the caves deep underground where they were forced to work. many of them died in caves. They discovered Wyrms underground. The Wyrms could be very large. Just like dragons maybe they could grow infinitely big provided they have enough space and food. Maybe those people made an alliance with those men to destroy all the valayria and the wyrms are the reason there is still fire burning inside valayria. In braavos their secret place in very very deep underground. The faceless men worship some underground god or maybe wyrms.
• I think what we consider good forces will turn out to be evil forces and white walkers are coming back to save the world from magic, dragons and R'hllor. They will bring peace and the 'unstable' weather in westeros will end. The Valayria will again become the habitable land it once was. Jon Snow having blood of ice and fire will be the ultimate hero who will bring peace between the forces of ice and fire.

I am giving an inspration to other people who have read the books more deeply to give the actual behind the scene theory of ice and fire which will relate everything: Doom of Valayria, White Walkers, faceless men, wyrms and dragons, R'hllor and the great other, the very existance of magic, the unpredictable weather and the long night. One theory to rule them all. I have the clues but they can fit together in so many different ways that the possibilities are countless. TWoW will finally reveal the true nature of WW and R'hllor. Any theories guys?

1) I can't think of anybody who I would say is 100% good, but Cersei and Joffrey both are pretty close to 100% evil. I can't think of a redeeming quality of either except maybe that Cersei has unconditional love for her children, but then again even Hitler probably would have loved his own kids. Both are straight up evil, even though I guess technically there's still time left for Cersei to show a good side...

2) Is he a God? Or is it maybe just a form of magic that people are interpreting as having divine guidance? Also, I don't think the "great other" is good at all. He wouldn't have been trying to wipe out the first men and the children if that were the case.

3) They're probably similar to any animal. They can be both good and bad depending on their mood and how they've been raised by the owner. Chaining them up might very well turn them into monsters.

4) Maybe

5) I really don't think so.... at all. Everything about them seems evil. The children seem to think they are evil and I believe they have been around for a long time and have more knowledge on this matter.

[sologdin]

the principals are monarchists and aristocrats. that's 'evil,' or i don't know what.

[The Marquis de Leech]

1. George R.R. Martin has said there are no characters which are pure evil or pure good.

On a standard reading of the books, the likes of Gregor Clegane and Ramsay Bolton are pure evil, and Joffrey comes very close. Martin is wrong here.

Regarding the Others, the best you can really say is that they are amoral: they're outside such human concepts as good and evil. It's also a little late in the piece to start portraying them as sympathetic: if Martin had wanted to do that, he shouldn't have spent five lengthy books setting them up as the biggest threat Westeros has faced in millennia; as readers are human, they will sympathise with the humans unless there is a clear narrative directive otherwise. No such directive exists in the case of the Others, and shoehorning in one now would be bad writing.

[Gala]

On a standard reading of the books, the likes of Gregor Clegane and Ramsay Bolton are pure evil, and Joffrey comes very close. Martin is wrong here.

Regarding the Others, the best you can really say is that they are amoral: they're outside such human concepts as good and evil. It's also a little late in the piece to start portraying them as sympathetic: if Martin had wanted to do that, he shouldn't have spent five lengthy books setting them up as the biggest threat Westeros has faced in millennia; as readers are human, they will sympathise with the humans unless there is a clear narrative directive otherwise. No such directive exists in the case of the Others, and shoehorning in one now would be bad writing.

I agree with that, but I'd like to add that neither WW nor dragons are good, really.

[lom678]

Gregor is a great guy.

[JonSnowed]

Characters change over time good examples of this being Tyrion and Jamie. There are definitely though characters who are opposite ends of the spectrum see Joffrey/The Mountain/The Boltons versus Jon Snow/Ned Stark.

[pdxbucky]

I agree with that, but I'd like to add that neither WW nor dragons are good, really.

I think it's safe to say that dragons ARE. No more. No less. WW, however, are clearly evil from the perspective of every POV character thus far.

Good and evil are a matter of perspective. Take the mice in my basement as an example. I want to kill every last one of them, and I will smile with pleasure at every dead mouse in a trap. To the mice, I am pure evil. I want to literally exterminate every last one of them. WW appear to want to kill humans and turn them into zombie wights. From the perspective of humans, it is safe to say that they are pure evil. They may be on a different plane of existence, maybe they only accidentally turn us all into zombie wights while actually trying to share their knowledge of the unified theory of physics, but really what is the difference? As far as I'm concerned, anything that wants to (or cant help but) kill me and all of mine gets lumped into Camp Evil.

[Gala]

I think it's safe to say that dragons ARE. No more. No less. WW, however, are clearly evil from the perspective of every POV character thus far.

Good and evil are a matter of perspective. Take the mice in my basement as an example. I want to kill every last one of them, and I will smile with pleasure at every dead mouse in a trap. To the mice, I am pure evil. I want to literally exterminate every last one of them. WW appear to want to kill humans and turn them into zombie wights. From the perspective of humans, it is safe to say that they are pure evil. They may be on a different plane of existence, maybe they only accidentally turn us all into zombie wights while actually trying to share their knowledge of the unified theory of physics, but really what is the difference? As far as I'm concerned, anything that wants to (or cant help but) kill me and all of mine gets lumped into Camp Evil.

Though, I agree with you about the matter of perspective, I'd like to point out that it is not really safe to say that: dragons are incredibly hard to kill, just like WW, they roast everything they can, they eat anything they want, actually whoever they want, they can destroy any city at all. The only difference is that there are only 3 of them, as far as we know, and they are "under control" by relatively good character, while we don't know who are WW and what they want. I think that dragons will help fighting WW in the end, but let's be objective: for people in masses neither WW, nor dragons (I mean the animal itself and even worse if they are in humans' hands) are good.

[Christian Walters]

Speaking of Rhollor and the Great Other, it seems like there is a complication. Melisandre is working for Rhollor while Bran is working for the Great Other. There's a scene in A Dance With Dragons(?) where Melisandre thinks she sees Rhollor but realizes it's the Great Other with a boy who howled at the moon, or something along those lines. I want to cheer for Bran but Melisandre can save Jon if she wants. Which side is evil and which is good?

[mediterraneo]

On a standard reading of the books, the likes of Gregor Clegane and Ramsay Bolton are pure evil, and Joffrey comes very close. Martin is wrong here.

Regarding the Others, the best you can really say is that they are amoral: they're outside such human concepts as good and evil. It's also a little late in the piece to start portraying them as sympathetic: if Martin had wanted to do that, he shouldn't have spent five lengthy books setting them up as the biggest threat Westeros has faced in millennia; as readers are human, they will sympathise with the humans unless there is a clear narrative directive otherwise. No such directive exists in the case of the Others, and shoehorning in one now would be bad writing.

I'm not agreeing on a point that you imply even if you don't state it.

First of all, there are persons reading some hints of an bjective in the White Walker actions, and questioning the "official" tales about Westeros's past (and present). So, at least to the eyes of these persone there are hints of a different, somewhat hidden purpose in action other than "pure evil"

Second: I don't agree that it would be bad writing to describe as unsimpathetic a force that none of the characters know. Having good intentions, having ethically defensible intentions and being sympathetic are not necessarily paired.

You can write a (good) story about people hating out of prejudice something. People you identify with, and people you trust. People that could have been you and me.

I wouldn't judge Martin's work as bad written if the White Walker had a purpose different from exterminating humanity just because.

I would actually rate the series less if the White Walker just had that as their motive.

Would you really only respect the writing of this series if the White Walker are trying to utterly destroy humanity just because?

Or if only the "good guys" in the book loved their children and had positive qualities?

Cheers.

[mediterraneo]

Speaking of Rhollor and the Great Other, it seems like there is a complication. Melisandre is working for Rhollor while Bran is working for the Great Other. There's a scene in A Dance With Dragons(?) where Melisandre thinks she sees Rhollor but realizes it's the Great Other with a boy who howled at the moon, or something along those lines. I want to cheer for Bran but Melisandre can save Jon if she wants. Which side is evil and which is good?

When you factor in that both sides are taking human sacrifices...

Also: Melisandre is the only one who talks of some "Great Other" in the mark of her dualist beliefs.

We don't have actual proofs of R'hollor intervention in the world or even of its existance.

We know that Melisandre promised the death "sooner or later" of some person, and I could have pulled the same feat. People die during wars, and during peaces too.

We know that Melisandre had to have sexual relationships with Stannis to generate shadow beings capable of actually kill two individuals, but the explainations Melisandre gives of how the shadows are connected to the light and not to the dark are quite feeble.

The rest of the feats we saw, like seeing at a distance in the fire, is a feat pulled also by non-r'hollorists.

And on the Shadow Babies, she is fulfilling a ritual to obtain a result.

She didn't just pray for R'hollor's help.

She may even be convinced he is at work there. But there is no actual proof, verifiable, repeatable. It's a magick she worked, twice. Would an omnipotent god have problems in doing things thrice? Or in sending more than one shadow at a time, for more time?

Is he not a god, not omnipotent, not at work there?

Or should I accept that R'hollor ways are infinite and misterious, like the ones of our earthly Divine Providence, and in that inquestionable even from an out-of-world perspective?

(I understand that asking this to Mel would get me burned alive)

[Sansa's Bad Memory]

Speaking of Rhollor and the Great Other, it seems like there is a complication. Melisandre is working for Rhollor while Bran is working for the Great Other. There's a scene in A Dance With Dragons(?) where Melisandre thinks she sees Rhollor but realizes it's the Great Other with a boy who howled at the moon, or something along those lines. I want to cheer for Bran but Melisandre can save Jon if she wants. Which side is evil and which is good?

In that scene, I got the impression that Mel was reading the flames wrong, again. She may have seen someone she believed to be the Great Other, but it was Bloodraven and Bran. She is very unreliable in the flame reading department.

[F The King]

I'm not trying to justify his actions, but one hypothetically could defend Ramsay's actions/personality with the idea that Roose constantly put him down and treated him like shit, and never let him forget that he was just a byproduct of rape. Ramsay's insecurities mixed with psychopathic tendencies (that he probably would've had regardless of upbringing) make for one mean flayer.

Gregor Clegane is 100% evil. There are absolutely zero redeeming qualities/excuses for his actions and personality (at least, none revealed to the reader.) He's just one big, sadistic killing machine.

[JoramunsKazoo]

The First Men, Andals, Valaryian Freehold, Targaryens.

The White Walkers aren't doing much different then their predecessors. Although, one could argue their customs are rather odd from the perspective of a living human. In the end, the winning side will determine who was "good" or "evil."

[Bob the Fiddler]

In that scene, I got the impression that Mel was reading the flames wrong, again. She may have seen someone she believed to be the Great Other, but it was Bloodraven and Bran. She is very unreliable in the flame reading department.

Agreed. She assumes that Bloodraven and Bran are bad because they are associated with the Old Gods (i.e. - tree worship/weirwood power). Her unrelability in the flame reading department is well established.

Also she is mistaken to think that supporting the Old Gods means you support the Great Other, or the Others generally speaking. This is show to us in AGOT when Bloodraven speaks to Bran in his coma dreams. BR shows Bran the awful fate the Others will inflict on the North unless Bran learns how to fly. What does Bran do after he wakes up from his terrible Winter dream? He names his direwolf Summer and learns how to fly in order to stop, not assist, the Others/wights.

[Ser Coffee The Bold]

Ice... Water in its coldness... is only itself in the absence of heat...

Fire isn't heat, but rather energy with something to burn...

This isn't a song of Heat and Biol... It's a song of Ice and a song of fire...

Neither is evil or good... GRRM doesn't write in black and white... Even the Frey family has decent family members...

I'm prepared for shockers... things like the Starks not beings so good in the winter... Lannisters being kind and betrayed...

[The Reckoner]

I'm not saying Ramsay ain't evil...but he is pretty much a symptom of Westerosi society in which people are commodified based on their lineage. In fact, I find his favorite sport to be an expression of self-loathing in that it mirrors the circumstances of his conception: hunting, and a rape. Instead of a birth, a death.

[Ser Coffee The Bold]

I don't have a complete theory now and I am waiting for TWoW as we have very little knowledge about WW.

1. George R.R. Martin has said there are no characters which are pure evil or pure good. And he has said that WW are beautiful creatures but also dangerous but he didn't say they are the evil force. That being said, it is completely possible that WW are not pure evil. the history of people of westeros can be wrong and WW might be invading westeros for good. Or maybe that particular leader of WW was evil and has nothing to do with the actual nature of WW.

It is clear from all books that the R'hllor is indeed a god. But it looks to me that he is not a good god but rather an evil one. the great other might actually be the god who has been overpowered and it trying to return.

The dragons are not good either. It is clear from Tyroin chapter which said that valayrians reaped what they sowed: "blood and fire".

Doom of Valayria is a mystery but i think there is something evil about the way the faceless men talk about their ancestors and Wyrms. I think the bravoosi's are not common stupid men but rather people who play not just game of thrones but rather game of the ultimate power. Their ancestors lived inside the caves deep underground where they were forced to work. many of them died in caves. They discovered Wyrms underground. The Wyrms could be very large. Just like dragons maybe they could grow infinitely big provided they have enough space and food. Maybe those people made an alliance with those men to destroy all the valayria and the wyrms are the reason there is still fire burning inside valayria. In braavos their secret place in very very deep underground. The faceless men worship some underground god or maybe wyrms.

I think what we consider good forces will turn out to be evil forces and white walkers are coming back to save the world from magic, dragons and R'hllor. They will bring peace and the 'unstable' weather in westeros will end. The Valayria will again become the habitable land it once was. Jon Snow having blood of ice and fire will be the ultimate hero who will bring peace between the forces of ice and fire.

I am giving an inspration to other people who have read the books more deeply to give the actual behind the scene theory of ice and fire which will relate everything: Doom of Valayria, White Walkers, faceless men, wyrms and dragons, R'hllor and the great other, the very existance of magic, the unpredictable weather and the long night. One theory to rule them all. I have the clues but they can fit together in so many different ways that the possibilities are countless. TWoW will finally reveal the true nature of WW and R'hllor. Any theories guys?

To actually answer your original question:

My theory isn't that there is good and evil, but balance and counter balance...

GRRM has stated there will be a bittersweet ending right? Ice v Fire... Dragons v White Walkers... Rhyllor v Old gods... does that really seem good or evil... or Extreme v Opposite?

Magic is real on planetos, and all of it seems one sided or elemental in nature. That only adds more chaos to an already chaotic reality that could have been understood by objective science as practiced by the citadel in the absence of magic, but that can't be with magic's presence.

General sayings: "dark wings dark words", said after ravens deliver messages... v "words are wind", often said of those words

I've seen on the forum these alliterations interpreted to mean deeper things... they also allude to the Ice and Fire...

"Dark wings"=dragons? "Dark words"=death, fire, blood?

"Words are wind"= often said to mean that words mean nothing... If turned on its head... it could mean that the Old god's words flow through the wind as in all the scenes in Weirwoods rustling the leaves... controlling the Winds, and The Cold... maybe even the white walkers and whights?

The truth is that true good, and true evil are incomprehensible things without one another... and that both are impossible things to accurately imagine, even in fiction...

Who are we to judge a dragon? What is the purpose of a dragon? If a dragon exists is it up to us to give it a purpose or does it already have one? How can we decide if a dragon is doing what it is supposed to be doing? Are they like dogs? Are they like people? Somewhere in between?

[Suchal Riaz]

All of you are saying are WW can not be an evil force. Read this at your own risk, spoilers ahead:

GRRM said that he hates the fantasies where there is a dark force such as Sauron in LOTR. the interviewer asks that aren't WW a dark force. GRRM starts laughing to that and says "We will see that..."

He is playing with his fans. The present becomes history, history becomes legend, legend become myths and myths are changed to make them more entertaining. That is what happened with WWs. All viewpoint characters are too young to have witnessed the Long Night for themselves. They believe in myths which say that WW are bad frozen guys who want to kill their little babies.

NOTE: I am not saying WW are a force of good. I am saying they have a part to play which is good for some and bad for others but they are not a force of darkness like in other old fantasies.