Is there true evil in ASOIAF?

[AyRion]

Splicing an off-topic branch from the Littlefinger thread, I'd like to continue the discussion here.

Some members of the forum are calling certain personas evil, which I disagree with. I hold the opinion that there is no real "good" and "evil" in ASOIAF just like there isn't in the real world, unlike in what i call "naive" fantasy settings akin to LOTR.

What follows is an overview of my opinion on the matter, formed by years of debater's club evenings and various discussions.

1. Laws of real societies

Let's start with a crude "sledgehammer" notion by discussing rape.

Are there any societies where "evil" acts (like rape) are legal?

Some historical conquests of cities by armies led to a society in which for days, weeks or even months the conquering soldiers could rape the local women with impunity, maintaining a rape-tolerant society.

Another example that has been holding for centuries throughout the present day are societies who mutilate female genitalia in an extremely painful and too often fatal procedure, all the while thinking that what they are doing is morally correct, and thus not evil.

Then we have pre-Renaissance planet Earth, where slavery was considered the norm in the majority of societies.

For fictional examples in ASOIAF see the Dothraki treatment of conquered "sheep" women, implying that the Dothraki are generally evil, which is certainly not how they would assess themselves.

Are there laws against evil?

We as a society agree that "we don't like rape" or equivalently "we function/work better/happier if rape is forbidden". If somebody disagrees and acts upon it, we punish that person.

But if a large enough part (the vast majority, or a portion powerful enough due to holding access to all the weapons, or whatever else reason) of the population were fine with rape, (simplified and unidirectionally put: a man can have forced sex with a woman without ever getting punished by the knowing society for it) we'd be living in a society where rape is commonplace and accepted. But that's (IMO for obvious reasons which I hope we needn't elaborate further) not the case in the current western countries and we make our laws according to the first sentence of this paragraph, without ever posing the question whether it's "good" or "evil".

I'm not aware of any modern law book or constitution where "evil" is relevant or even mentioned.

In that sense, "evil" is a highly subjective judgement (and thus useless for lawmaking), while rape is something we've objectively agreed upon we're better off without.

2. Morality in ASOIAF

The main observation is that we as readers have to accept a huge morality offset between the real world and what happens on Planetos.

Killing is fine

Ned Stark's view of justice is that it's OK to combine the roles of juror and executor, and then kill a man who is obviously too scared to think straight because he has broken rules that were offered to him as an alternative to death (i.e. he was forced to obey them).

Blood revenge is socially acceptable (Oberyn and others), as is trial by combat as means of true justice.

From a reader's point of view, Jaqen killing unnamed "extras" is fine with most people, without wasting a thought about their families or feelings.

Conquest is rightful

It's OK to attack a town or whole region, subjugate the population in battles where innocent people who were just defending their homes get murdered, force them to pay taxes and send men for your wars (somehow the Starks got to vassalise every other faction in the North, right?). As the ruler (king), your word is law and your whims become the rules, so you can stipulate a feudal contract for vassal fealty: "Say these words or get killed", and if you ever act against these words you'll get executed (Robb threatening the Greatjohn). If the region wants independence and self-government again, all those who refuse to bow will get killed and maybe a few assets torched, which seems to be an acceptable modus operandi in this society.

Likewise, Robb sacrificing thousands of men (and thus also causing suffering to their families) during his maneuver is seen as OK, even though most of these "soldiers" were forced to go to war on the penalty of a deserters' death. And all just for Robb's personal reasons (his father got imprisoned), while both Ned or Robb wouldn't dream of going to war for an average member of their population (say a butcher's boy killed by being ridden over).

In feudalism, poisoning is "evil"

In Westeros' political system conquest or dueling for personal gain and killing are often legitimate actions, which we can explain by saying that "they don't know any better".

If we accept this morality offset from a modern ethical perspective, it's hard to claim that (for example Littlefinger's) poisoning of someone (Jon Arryn) within the feudal structure for personal gain is significantly more immoral or "evil".

A consistent application of "they don't know any better" would excuse many crimes which are, on these forums, selectively singled out and analysed by modern-day standards.

Hypocrisy

One reason for the above is that it's not easy to be fair and keep the morality offset in mind all the time.

A bigger reason is the way the story is presented: we don't get dozens of chapters showing us the lives, hopes and dreams of Yunkai's inhabitants. When they get conquered, it happens from the attackers POV and we simply don't care about the crimes and suffering inflicted upon them, while keeping a "good" image of the conquerors. On the other hand, we get tons of Stark POVs, and due to emotional bonding every crime (even when lesser than what the Yunkai people and many others suffered) against them prompts us to view the perpetrators as "evil".

Note that such judgement of good and evil is based on exposition and sympathy, which means purely on the the feelings of "I like this person/thing" and "I don't like this person/thing".

Many people here are not below cheering for child murder: Olenna and Petyr killed a terrible human being in Joffrey, but it's still a morally reprehensible and unacceptable act. They (and admittedly, myself included) refuse to condemn it and even more: they're happy about it. Unless it's a character they happen not to hate.

3. Other fantasy

The classical setting in most fantasy (and many other works of fiction) is spanned between two extreme fixed points: good and evil. LOTR (Valar<->Melkor) was a milestone and tales like Harry Potter (Love<->Voldemort) perpetuate this, as well as many Hollywood movies (good guys<->bad guys).

Also note that some societies had (or still have) an absolute moral authority, usually based on a god who tells them "rape is evil" and declares accordingly "evil must be punished" (and often that perpetuating evil against evil is OK, etc.).

Implications

One very important part are the implications of classifying things as "good" and "evil":

- Is it "good" to destroy "evil"?

- Must the "good" always triumph eventually and the "evil" fail regardless of the hopes and dreams of characters someone else has designated as evil?

- Do different standards apply to those declared as good and those evil (see "Hypocrisy")?

In classical fantasy settings all these are answered unconditionally with "yes". In reallity "yes" is rarely the clear answer because there is no all-knowing authority to tell us who is definitely evil.

That is my point: "good and evil" is a thing of religion, fairy tales, war propaganda and Hollywood. Of things that are not quite reality.

And it's refreshing that ASOIAF takes a more realistic approach by not including this as a story fundamental (unless the Others really turn out to be some incarnation of evil, which would be rather disappointing).

4. Conclusion

With the Implications from section 3 in mind, calling Littlefinger "evil" is just a dishonest way of saying "I personally don't like him". To me, it's completely understandable how he became what he is from a technical point of view. From a modern ethical point of view and the reasons from section 2, he's one more guy with questionable morals, recklessly struggling for personal gain, and that's it.

And Ramsey Bolton is not "evil", he's just an insane sociopath like we have them on Earth.

We know from interviews that GRRM refuses to serve the standard good vs. evil cliché otherwise dominant in fantasy.

IMO this is the greatest thing about ASOIAF: it tries to emulate real world, everybody is simply a faction looking out for themselves, who the "good" and "bad" guys are or what constitutes "evil" is just a question of perspective as described in section 1. This is what sets the series apart, and trying to apply the good<->evil spectrum on it like we've been trained to expect by so much other literature is a waste of time.

Thanks for reading. Discuss if you want :)

[Cas Stark]

No.

Realism does not erase the difference between good and bad. The sticking point I think is "evil"..some people see "evil" and think Sauron/Satan/Charles Manson, others use evil as a proxy for bad/terrible/awful/monstrous.

There are good people in the series. They are better than the bad people.

Ned Stark is a better person that Peter Baelish. Cat Stark is a better person than Cersei Lannister.

The fact that the "good" people are not perfect and flawless does not make them "not good", it only makes them realistic and complex and well created.

[SeanF]

Good and evil do exist within the books.

Westerosi moral standards are not very different to those of modern Western societies. People don't just shrug their shoulders about mass murder, rape, child abuse, enslavement, torture, robbery etc. We can see that people in the books view these things with grief and horror.

But, what you're reading about is a society whose moral values are disintegrating under the stress of civil war and outside invasion.

[AliceRose]

Show Petyr isn't pure evil villain he is a neutral evil character. He become my favorite personage from the beginning, i watched three seasons of the show, then i started to read the books.

No one can understand how sad i was to know what kind of monster book Petyr is.

He is a pimp he has forced a 11 years old girl into prostitution, she was beaten and raped, she still have marks on her back. Is reasonable to think he did it more than once, forcing children into prostitution was his habitual business. The fact that this activity was entirely legal doesn't make Petyr's actions even less depreciable.

Then he condemned that girl(Jeyne Poole) to a life of endless torture and abuse. It was his idea to sold her to Ramsay.

Neutral evil character can do evil things if he gains something from it. (Tywin, Roose and Red Wedding)

Chaotic evil does evil things for the the pleasure of it. Ramsay enjoys torture his pet Reek.

When Petyr has sold Jeyne to Ramsay he had already been lord of Harrenhal, he has gained nothing from the transition. He gains absolutly nothing from the reinforcement of Bolton's power in the North. Petyr doesn't enjoy torture as long as i know.

He did the most evil thing that i could ever think for no reason. He sold jeyne like an object to a monster. I don't know how to call him, he is far more evil than Voldemort and Sauron put toghether, he just doesn't care.

Martin said "A villain is the hero of the other side" Show Petyr Baelish fits this definition, but book's content contradicts martin's words. Does not exist a side where someone who force children into prostitution would be considered a hero.

My answer to the other discussion..

[SeanF]

Almost certainly, what LF did to Jeyne Poole is illegal.

And, he can get away with it. As can so many people in our world.

[Cas Stark]

Almost certainly, what LF did to Jeyne Poole is illegal.

And, he can get away with it. As can so many people in our world.

You think it's illegal by Westerosi standards? I somewhat doubt that. It is cruel and awful by Westerosi standards since she could have been ransomed [not for much, maybe] but I'm sure Manderly wold have bought her, or worst case simply farmed out as a worker somewhere or married off to a hedge knight.

Turning her into a whore, abusing her, then depriving of her identity and giving her to Ramsay Bolton is horrific by the standards of any society.

[Woofless]

In our world, today, there are people who get their kicks from torturing children. Usually until they die.

If you don't think that that is evil, then I guess you're right - there is no evil!

[Gormless Jon]

Purely in response to the topic title... if you don't think "having a thirteen year old girl gang raped by large, violent men purely to hurt my thirteen year old son, who loved her" isn't evil, there's no hope for you.

[Knight Of Winter]

To c/p what I wrote in original thread:

If I understood your posts correctly, you imply that terms such as good or evil are any useable in simplistic fantasy tales they pure white heroes and battling against irredeemably evil villain; while more nuanced works such as ASOIAF have overcame such simplicities.

I really don't know how to respond to this without invoking common sense. Good, noble, human versus bad, evil, ignoble actions and characters exist everywhere, in every work of fiction. They also exist in real life, and appear in everyday situations on a daily basis. It has absolutely nothing to do with complexity or realism of fictional work, it's the very thing of human (and characters') nature.

Just because Tywin is way more complex and interesting character than e.g. Sauron, does not mean he's not evil. He reguraly engages in behaviour and actions which needlesly harm others and cost them their lives and livelihood. We, as readers, find these action dsigusting and think of Tywin as evil, all while acknowledging his complexity as character. Opposite is also true - e.g. Davos's complexity as character does not diminish his goodness - it rather enhances it, in fact.

Also, you compare LF with Robb on a basis they both acted in a way that caused deaths of others. You do it, IMO, in very simplistic manner, completely ignoring their motivations and other circumstances; comparing similar appearances while disregarding different essences.

Robb is a feudal overlord. Now, feudalism isn't exactly just and fair system, but it's the best one Westerosi know. As overlord, he has certain privileges and duties. He has to govern his people well, judge them, deal with their strifes, make important decisions... And in return, he has power over them - a power which, IMO, he is no way abuses (unlike some of other feudal lords). What happened is that his very state was attacked. His father, previous lord and highest possible representative of Northmen, was unjustly imprisoned. This is an act of enmity against his state, his subjects and his whole society (and not just his person), and as a responsible statesman he has to react to it. Failure to do so could result in bad concequences not just for him, but for all of his subjects. His going to war is not simply a matter of vendetta, but acting in the interest of state he governs.

I don't know why you keep bringing Greatjon into discussion. If anything, it shows Robb's wit and mercy that he managed to turn his wannabe murderer (which Greatjon would be if not for Grey Wind) into his most staunch supporter.

So, to sum up - yes, Robb has power of life and death over his subjects, but what good is that power if he never uses it, even when he obviously should. Freeing Ned from jail (which, as I repeat, is not simply a personal vendetta) is one such occasion.

Now, is any of the above applicable to LF? What exactly are his motivations for starting a civil war? Right - greed and personal gain. Did he stand to lose something important if he didn't act? No. Was he or his subjects in any kind of danger? No. Cat's POV chapter show Robb clearly struggling to be just and fair ruler. Meanwhile, all LF is struggling with is how exactly to increase his power at the expense of other people.

And now this:

With the Implications from section 3 in mind, calling Littlefinger "evil" is just a dishonest way of saying "I personally don't like him". To me, it's completely understandable how he became what he is from a technical point of view. From a modern ethical point of view and the reasons from section 2, he's one more guy with questionable morals, recklessly struggling for personal gain, and that's it.

Sorry, but that's strawman argument. There's a world of difference between the two and we (readers) are capable of acknowledging someone we dislike is not a scumbag. Personally I don't like Blackfish much, but he can't be called evil by any stretch of imagination.

And again, what sets LF apart are his singularly disgusting actions. If I were to put Davos, Brienne, Cat, Ned, Jon Snow or others in LF's shoes, I can't imagine wither of them engaging in stuff LF did. Nor manipulating people into war, not torturing Jayne into prostitution, nor betraying their subordinates etc.

[kimim]

In our world, today, there are people who get their kicks from torturing children. Usually until they die.

If you don't think that that is evil, then I guess you're right - there is no evil!

Of course there is evil and good in Ice and Fire, and there is even the possibility of redemption--hence all those redemptive arcs people either love or hate or don't give a fuck about.

The king moved, so his shadow fell upon King's Landing. "If Joffrey should die...what is the life of one bastard boy against a kingdom?"

"Everything," said Davos, softly.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

Short answer: :bs:

Long answer: the fact that the evildoer doesn't consider himself evil doesn't absolve him. If it did, you'd have discard the concept of evil also in the so-called "naive" fantasy, because Sauron, Morgoth, Voldemort, Jadis, Palpatine & friends consider themselves in the right, as well. Also: the fact that there are genuinely grey areas between right and wrong doesn't imply that everything is grey. The existential quantifier is not interchangeable with the universal quantifier. There's nothing really ambiguous about the deeds of Ser Gregor fucking Clegane, and you, sir, are abusing logic.

[Good Guy Garlan]

Short answer: :bs:

Long answer: the fact that the evildoer doesn't consider himself evil doesn't absolve him. If it did, you'd have discard the concept of evil also in the so-called "naive" fantasy, because Sauron, Morgoth, Voldemort, Jadis, Palpatine & friends consider themselves in the right, as well. Also: the fact that there are genuinely grey areas between right and wrong doesn't imply that everything is grey. The existential quantifier is not interchangeable with the universal quantifier. There's nothing really ambiguous about the deeds of Ser Gregor fucking Clegane, and you, sir, are abusing logic.

This. Gregor and Ramsay are truly the unambiguous definition of evil

[cgf]

Sure there is, but it's human evil, Tywin, gregor, the kings of winter, etc.

[AliceRose]

Almost certainly, what LF did to Jeyne Poole is illegal.

And, he can get away with it. As can so many people in our world.

Prostitution was legal.

Child prostitution was legal since even King Bob enjoyed service of child prostitutes.

AGOT 35 EDDARD

The girl had been so young Ned had not dared to ask her age. No doubt she’d been a virgin; the better brothels could always find a virgin, if the purse was fat enough.

Those little girls were obviously forced because a child couldn't accept the abuse willingly.

Force children into prostitution was legal.

Forced marriages were legal.

Selling fArya to Ramsay was an order of the actual Hand of the King. Disobedience to Tywin would be considered illegal.

[Parwan]

Good and evil do exist within the books.

Westerosi moral standards are not very different to those of modern Western societies. People don't just shrug their shoulders about mass murder, rape, child abuse, enslavement, torture, robbery etc. We can see that people in the books view these things with grief and horror.

But, what you're reading about is a society whose moral values are disintegrating under the stress of civil war and outside invasion.

The general issue of governmental and societal breakdown is important. It's possible to have evil without having "truly evil" people. This is a point which is often missed in discussions like the one that is developing here. I say that this is a pretty common tendency in many threads. Someone maintains that characters x, y, and z aren't "truly evil," and then asserts that this indicates that pure evil doesn't exist. Another poster claims that this isn't true because Gregor Clegane is a completely bad person. However, even if Gregor and Ramsay had some redeeming features, that would not establish the "no such thing as pure evil" assertion as fact. I once had an economics professor who said that extreme poverty was evil. Whether you agree with this position or not, you could not legitimately dispose of it by showing that no particular person or group caused extreme poverty.

There is also the matter of transcendent evil. Such a thing can exist without any single purely evil man or woman. In ASoIaF we have more than a hint there are things people should not do, entities or forces that are inhuman and probably anti-human, etc. Some of us discussed this in a recent thread about shadow babies:

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/119903-whats-so-bad-about-shadow-babies/

The matters of relevance to this thread start on page 7, post # 136:

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/119903-whats-so-bad-about-shadow-babies/page-7

Prostitution was legal.

Child prostitution was legal since even King Bob enjoyed service of child prostitutes.

AGOT 35 EDDARD

The girl had been so young Ned had not dared to ask her age. No doubt she’d been a virgin; the better brothels could always find a virgin, if the purse was fat enough.

Those little girls were obviously forced because a child couldn't accept the abuse willingly.

Force children into prostitution was legal.

Forced marriages were legal.

Selling fArya to Ramsay was an order of the actual Hand of the King. Disobedience to Tywin would be considered illegal.

Illegality, of course, is not the same thing as immorality. Beyond that, there are other important matters here.

If what happened in the case of Jeyne Poole were to be considered "legal," then the "law" of the Seven Kingdoms is meaningless. It isn't just a matter of individual rights, of terrible things happening to a young woman. The issue of total social breakdown, mentioned above, arises here. Does this society, especially the powerful individuals within in it, even live up to its (their) own principles? How can Tywin Lannister be "the actual Hand of the King"? Tommen is not the rightful king. He is sitting on the throne only because of massive and repeated acts of treason. Worse, the Boltons could not possibly have taken control of the north without the Red Wedding. Also, marriage to Jeyne Poole can in no way make any man the Lord of Winterfell. Those who arranged the marriage know full well that the bride is not Arya Stark.

(Edited to add the second, and more relevant, thread above)

[Avlonnic]

There is evil. Per King Tommen - Evil's name is beets.

[ummester]

I don't think there is absolute good or evil in the series - it's not that kind of fantasy.

I also don't think Gregor is evil - he just has bad headaches. With the correct medication, Gregor could be a different person - unfortunately, that medication is not available in ASoIaF.

Also, Ramsay is quite spiteful and resentful of all other humans. I still don't think this makes him an absolute, or fantastic depiction of evil like Voldermort or Sauron.

I consider Gregor and Ramsay products of their society.

Oh, the Iron Throne is the closest thing to evil in the whole saga, from my perspective. If the saga is about the conflict in the human heart, the Iron Throne is the element that corrupts hearts and drives most of that conflict.

I think people that believe in absolute concepts like 'good' and 'evil' are a little naïve.

[The Wolves]

Of course there is true evil in ASOIAF example: Tywin Lannister

[ummester]

Tywin just has his own daddy issues and marriage issues (cause the Mad King boned his wife before he did) which he successfully managed to pass onto all of his children (be they biological or not).

[JonCon's Red Beard]

What's the definition of evil? That would be a good start. Some say it's the absence of good. Some others say evil is just what it's morally wrong. But morally wrong for us or morally wrong for the Westerosi?

This is why I say that we can't limit some characters by his actions only and always consider the context. Many of them act in a way that is required of them, but it's the motivation what defines him in a range of good or bad.

For example, Tywin. Tywin NEEDED to prove the Reynes and the Westerlands that the Lannisters aren't meant to be mocked. Yet, completely annihilating them all, even women and children, are more like actions he took after he felt his own pride hurt. This talks of a man trying to overcompensate his own lacks rather than a men acting out of pure evilness.

Yet, he has unleashed monsters like Gregor. Not only Tywin knows what he's capable of, but Gregor himself knows he can do whatever he likes and there will be no consequences. He can rape, kill and torture others, and even enjoy it. And he doesn't really care. I suppose Ramsay is kinda the same. He really seems to enjoy what he does.

Now, LF enjoys what he does? Cares? Dunno. That's one of the biggest mysteries so far. To me, it looks like he wants to get even to those who belittle them, and he doesn't mind about who gets killed in the process of proving everybody else that he's overplaying those who thought him to be a lesser man. If he's acting out of pure revenge, I suppose I could consider him evil.