111 replies to this topic

[LuisDantas]

@Lash: either you recognize the meaning and usefulness of morality as a concept, or you decide that it has no meaning that you can figure.  Or, I guess, you propose a third option if there is any.  

But you can't in good faith misrepresent it and criticize that misrepresentation in lieu of the genuine article.  To claim that it has no meaning does not give you that right,either.

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

Summerqueen, on 07 April 2012 - 06:36 PM, said:

Are you saying that you don't believe other people mean bad / good in practical terms when they use them? Is it not just your misunderstanding that when someone says Roose Bolton is a bad guy that they do not mean Roose Bolton is cruel, callous, and criminal? What do you think they mean when they say "[character x] is bad"? Do you think they mean like "the spawn of satan" or something? They usually don't (unless they are being hyperbolic).

i don't know what they mean. they seem mean to mean evil they actually seems to mean, they would prefer if he hurt people in a more conventional manner the way Robb Stark does.

Edited by Lord Littlefinger's Lash, 07 April 2012 - 08:56 PM.

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

LuisDantas, on 07 April 2012 - 07:19 PM, said:

@Lash: either you recognize the meaning and usefulness of morality as a concept, or you decide that it has no meaning that you can figure.  Or, I guess, you propose a third option if there is any.  

But you can't in good faith misrepresent it and criticize that misrepresentation in lieu of the genuine article.  To claim that it has no meaning does not give you that right,either.

are you referring to the other thread or to this one?  I'm till having trouble following you.  (Can't I recognize its meaning, the same way I recognize the meaning of say.."invisible unicorn" and then point that no such creature exists but if it did it would still be inferior to an invisible dragon?)

[lostinwesteros]

I haven't read all of the pages between the first few and this last one, so I apologize if I'm repeating what someone else has posted.  Lots of 'deep stuff' on morality, you guys, but I'll keep it simple.  With all the different systems of beliefs, opinions, cultural values, personal values, ethics, historical/sociological/psychological factors, and on and on - sheesch!  You guys are of stronger mettle than I.  So, for me:    

"Extreme" Villains:  

Joffrey
Slavers in Essos
Gregor Clegane
Walder Frey
Janos Slynt
Littlefinger
Lysa Arryn
Tywin
(I think my measurement here is what I see as real cruelty as a common factor, in the absense of a tangible sense of compassion)



Relative "Non-villains":

Brienne
Maester Aemon
Jeor Mormont
Ned Stark
Samwell
Gilly
Maester Luwin
Davos
Jon
(I guess what I see here is an overriding sense of altruism, kindness, honor that prevails on a consistent basis - a lack of malevolence)  


Then there's that wide range of 'in between', and the lines aren't nearly so clearcut.  Sansa, for example - I could almost, but not quite, list her as a complete 'non-villain' .  Victarion - I could almost, but not quite, list him as a complete villain.  

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

House of White and White, on 07 April 2012 - 09:04 PM, said:

I haven't read all of the pages between the first few and this last one, so I apologize if I'm repeating what someone else has posted.  Lots of 'deep stuff' on morality, you guys, but I'll keep it simple.  With all the different systems of beliefs, opinions, cultural values, personal values, ethics, historical/sociological/psychological factors, and on and on - sheesch!  You guys are of stronger mettle than I.  So, for me:

"Extreme" Villains:  

Joffrey
Slavers in Essos
Gregor Clegane
Walder Frey
Janos Slynt
Littlefinger
Lysa Arryn
Tywin
(I think my measurement here is what I see as real cruelty as a common factor, in the absense of a tangible sense of compassion)



Relative "Non-villains":

Brienne
Maester Aemon
Jeor Mormont
Ned Stark
Samwell
Gilly
Maester Luwin
Davos
Jon
(I guess what I see here is an overriding sense of altruism, kindness, honor that prevails on a consistent basis - a lack of malevolence)  


Then there's that wide range of 'in between', and the lines aren't nearly so clearcut.  Sansa, for example - I could almost, but not quite, list her as a complete 'non-villain' .  Victarion - I could almost, but not quite, list him as a complete villain.  

i demand a retraction of Petyr Baelish from this list. He's only killed 2 people in the whole series. Fewer than Ned managed in aGoT.  And he hasn't been cruel to a one.

[Fragile Bird]

Lord Littlefinger, on 07 April 2012 - 09:57 PM, said:

i demand a retraction of Petyr Baelish from this list. He's only killed 2 people in the whole series. Fewer than Ned managed in aGoT.  And he hasn't been cruel to a one.

I can't accept this as a basis for removing LF from the "Extreme Villains" list of House of White and White.  Murder is only one manifestation of evil.  How many people did Hitler personally kill?

I am hearing from you this weird backward argument - whereas a soldier says, "I was only following orders" in defence of his evil deeds, you're saying LF can claim "I was only giving orders" to excuse himself from his evil deeds.  As LF tries to claim so many times, he's keeping his hands clean.  He can no more disassociate himself from the deeds he sets in motion than Pontius Pilate can wash off the order he makes with water.

[just an Other]

Lord Littlefinger, on 07 April 2012 - 09:01 PM, said:

are you referring to the other thread or to this one?  I'm till having trouble following you.  (Can't I recognize its meaning, the same way I recognize the meaning of say.."invisible unicorn" and then point that no such creature exists but if it did it would still be inferior to an invisible dragon?)

It is one thing to say morality didn't fall out of the sky, or that it's application isn't timeless and universal and quite another to discount it as an empty concept. Since every society ever constructed has relied on certain codes of conduct, I think it's fair to say that without morality you would be gathering roots right now instead of sitting in front of your computer.

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

just an Other, on 08 April 2012 - 09:32 AM, said:

It is one thing to say morality didn't fall out of the sky, or that it's application isn't timeless and universal and quite another to discount it as an empty concept. Since every society ever constructed has relied on certain codes of conduct, I think it's fair to say that without morality you would be gathering roots right now instead of sitting in front of your computer.

I don't think its fair to say. If it isn't timeless and universal and it didn't fall from the sky, then how do we know what it is that we're talking.  Haven't you just basically said that morality is whatever someone decides it is.  Isn't that the very definition of an empty concept?

[Castel]

House of White and White, on 07 April 2012 - 09:04 PM, said:

I haven't read all of the pages between the first few and this last one, so I apologize if I'm repeating what someone else has posted.  Lots of 'deep stuff' on morality, you guys, but I'll keep it simple.  With all the different systems of beliefs, opinions, cultural values, personal values, ethics, historical/sociological/psychological factors, and on and on - sheesch!  You guys are of stronger mettle than I.  So, for me:

"Extreme" Villains:  

Joffrey
Slavers in Essos
Gregor Clegane
Walder Frey
Janos Slynt
Littlefinger
Lysa Arryn
Tywin
(I think my measurement here is what I see as real cruelty as a common factor, in the absense of a tangible sense of compassion)



Relative "Non-villains":

Brienne
Maester Aemon
Jeor Mormont
Ned Stark
Samwell
Gilly
Maester Luwin
Davos
Jon
(I guess what I see here is an overriding sense of altruism, kindness, honor that prevails on a consistent basis - a lack of malevolence)  


Then there's that wide range of 'in between', and the lines aren't nearly so clearcut.  Sansa, for example - I could almost, but not quite, list her as a complete 'non-villain' .  Victarion - I could almost, but not quite, list him as a complete villain.  

How is Janos Slynt a villain? He was following the orders of what he thought was the rightful king.

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

Fragile Bird, on 08 April 2012 - 07:28 AM, said:

I can't accept this as a basis for removing LF from the "Extreme Villains" list of House of White and White.  Murder is only one manifestation of evil.  How many people did Hitler personally kill?

I am hearing from you this weird backward argument - whereas a soldier says, "I was only following orders" in defence of his evil deeds, you're saying LF can claim "I was only giving orders" to excuse himself from his evil deeds.  As LF tries to claim so many times, he's keeping his hands clean.  He can no more disassociate himself from the deeds he sets in motion than Pontius Pilate can wash off the order he makes with water.

Well first of all I was kidding.  Though I don't think he belongs on any such list. Nor does Tywin.  If not for his failings as a father, I think Tywin is probably the most competent lord in Westeros and Petyr would be happy to be included on any list graced with Tywin's presence.

All Pontius Pilate did was maintain order and enforce the law in his role of Warden of the North Prefect of Judea. I don't actually care whether Petyr is on the list or not, as I said, villainy is a ridiculous concept to begin with. Nor as is evil.  I wouldn't say that Hitler was evil, I would say that killing millions of people was a waste of time and resources.  By organizing such an effort, he drove away potential allies and doomed himself and his nascent empire.  But then what do you expect from someone who thinks he's god's special creature, he was nuts.  That being said, his conquest of Europe and his industrialization/modernization of Germany and infrastructure investment were all ambitions I admired in Napoleon and Ceasar for.

Now returning to Petyr.  Of course, I don't think there's any such thing as an evil deed any more than there are evil people.  When Petyr says his hands are clean, he doesn't actually mean he doesn't hold himself responsible for his actions.  He means that few if any people know of his actions, so they will not seek him out for bloody retribution.  In contrast to Ramsay Bolton, Walder Frey or even Tywin Lannister.  

By the king’s decree you are now a Bolton. Try and act like one. Tales are told of you, Ramsay. I hear them everywhere. People fear you.”

“Good.”

“You are mistaken. It is not good. No tales were ever told of me. Do you think I would be sitting here if it were otherwise? Your amusements are your own, I will not chide you on that count, but you must be more discreet. A peaceful land, a quiet people. That has always been my rule. Make it yours.”

As compared too

"He tilted his chin back and squeezed the blood orange, so the juice ran down into his mouth. “I love the juice but I loathe the sticky fingers,” he complained, wiping his hands. “Clean hands, Sansa. Whatever you do, make certain your hands are clean.”

I do think Tywin is less responsible for the actions of Gregor Clegane than Gregor himself is ultimately.  Though, Tywin at least has authority over Gregor.  Were Petyr in a position to give orders then I might agree with you about his culpability.  But all Petyr can do is try to influence the actions of others from afar, he cannot order them or force them to do much of anything, unlike Hitler or Tywin.  Surely Petyr cannot be more responsible for the war in the Riverlands than Tywin.  Petyr can't be more responsible for war than Cersei, who passed off illegitimate children as the rightful heirs to the realm, virtually guaranteeing war. Petyr can't be more responsible for war than Cersei, who organized the assassination of the King. Petyr can't be more responsible for the war in the Riverlands than Catelyn, he did lie to her but she still knew she was kidnapping the son of the Warden of the West.   Petyr can't be more responsible for the war than Ned Stark who chose to support Stannis, warns the Queen of this fact and refuses to take Cersei or her children into custody. A set of actions that Ned was warned twice, would lead to war.  Petyr can't be more responsible for the war than Stannis, who could have bent the knee to Renly and ended Lannister contentions for the throne.  

So all we can really say is that Petyr changed the timing of some events.  

More importantly than any of those things, though. Just as Tywin is responsible for the Westerlands, Petyr is responsible for the Vale, even though no one else realizes he's running it yet. It is the responsibility of Edmure and Hoster to to defend their lands and their people.  As it was Robb's to protect the North.  As I mentioned in my question to Summerqueen, when we ask to whom "material good" must be bestowed up in order for a leader to be considered "good".  Tywin gave the realm 20 years of peace when he was hand of the King.  When he resigned the position he was solely responsible for the people of the Westerlands, and again his reputation and management bestowed peace and prosperity upon his people. Its Tywin's reputation that prevents Balon from invading the Westerlands.  

"Theon edged backward, away from the sudden fury in his father’s tone. “Take it, then,” he spat, his cheek still tingling. “Call yourself King of the Iron islands, no one will care... until the wars are over, and the victor looks about and spies the old fool perched off his shore with an iron crown on his head.”

Lord Balon laughed. “Well, at the least you are no craven. No more than I’m a fool. Do you think I gather my ships to watch them rock at anchor? I mean to carve out a kingdom with fire and sword... but not from the west, and not at the bidding of King Robb the Boy. Casterly Rock

is too strong, and Lord Tywin too cunning by half. Aye, we might take Lannisport, but we should never keep it. No. I hunger for a different plum... not so juicy sweet, to be sure, yet it hangs there ripe and undefended.”

So too does Petyr protect the Vale of Baelish.

Cat knew that the men off the Brazen Monkey would not care about the name of a courtesan’s mother, though. Instead, she asked them for tidings of the Seven Kingdoms, and the war.

“War?” laughed one of them. “What war? There is no war.”

“Not in Gulltown,” said another. “Not in the Vale. The little lord’s kept us out of it, same as his mother did.”

The elements of war were already in place.  Bastards in the line of successions. Renly plotting with the Tyrells to replace Cersei.  Tywin, the most powerful lord in the realm, unlikely see his daughter set aside. Hoster Tully on his death bed and Edmure too incompetent to defend his lands and too unblooded to discourage incursions by force of personality.  And incompetent a king of the throne, holding together a realm that had only bent the knee to dragons to begin with.  As with the US colonies and their unstable alliance between the revolution and the civil war.  The question is not if but when.  Not why, but how.  The center could not hold.  All Petyr did was change the timing of a few things, that he might be prepared to benefit.  

I call that heroic, not villainy.  A herculean feat of Machiavellian gamesmanship. All without Tywin's gold, Dany's dragons, or Tyrion's high birth.  Jesus, its so fucking beautiful, I love this guy.

Edited by Lord Littlefinger's Lash, 09 April 2012 - 05:58 AM.

[Fragile Bird]

@ Lord Littlefinger's Lash

Finally, probably the most straightforward and well written reply I've ever seen from you, thank-you, lol!  It was a long two days for me and I do actually have to go to work today, so I will post more later, but I appreciate your response, and yes, actually agree with some of your points.

However, I certainly know it wasn't a question of Petyr "just changing the timing a little", but definitely, definitely Machiavellian skullduggery.  Yes Pontius Pilate was not the greatest example in the world, he wasn't a player in the particular game being played, more of a pawn, and he knew it.  But LF is not responding to petitions being made to him to move things along, he's doing this all from his own ticking little brain to move along his personal plot points..  And please don't troll me by saying Hitler wasn't evil, he just wasn't an efficient user of resources.  People like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and others transcend their twisted attempts at "good" by their grotesque acts of evil.

And I can't spell or think this morning, so I'll leave it there for now, ok?

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

Fragile Bird, on 09 April 2012 - 08:52 AM, said:

@ Lord Littlefinger's Lash

Finally, probably the most straightforward and well written reply I've ever seen from you, thank-you, lol!  It was a long two days for me and I do actually have to go to work today, so I will post more later, but I appreciate your response, and yes, actually agree with some of your points.

However, I certainly know it wasn't a question of Petyr "just changing the timing a little", but definitely, definitely Machiavellian skullduggery.  Yes Pontius Pilate was not the greatest example in the world, he wasn't a player in the particular game being played, more of a pawn, and he knew it.  But LF is not responding to petitions being made to him to move things along, he's doing this all from his own ticking little brain to move along his personal plot points..  And please don't troll me by saying Hitler wasn't evil, he just wasn't an efficient user of resources.  People like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and others transcend their twisted attempts at "good" by their grotesque acts of evil.

And I can't spell or think this morning, so I'll leave it there for now, ok?

well, I said I wouldn't call him evil.  I wouldn't call anyone evil.  I don't think evil is a useful term.  I don't think killing 6 million people is a good idea, either.  For me that's a more important statement.  Someone saying something is evil is not likely to discourage me from doing it.  Saying its a poor use of time and resources, now that actually means something.