Your Good and Evil Spectrum

[Olenna]

How do people feel about gray characters like Oberyn Martell, Mance Rayder, Sybell Westerling, Olenna Tyrell and Jorah Mormont?

Oberyn--dangerous, kind of mean and sleeps around, but at least he doesn't cheat and he makes more effort than most to support and educate his bastards, and he really loves his sister. Probably a good guy to party with. Darker than average.

Mance Rayder--has good intentions but is willing to cause a lot of collateral damage in carrying them out. Falsely characterizes his impractical and destructive brand of anarchism as "freedom." Would probably be a terrorist in real life. But very nice one-on-one and a great spouse. Lighter than average.

Olenna Tyrell--a slightly warmer, fuzzier Lord Tywin. Only cares about her family. Average.

Sybell Westerling--a lower-level Olenna who brews potions that interfere with her daughter's bodily functions. Darker than average.

Jorah Mormont--a basically good guy undone by his insane and absurd jealousy. Behaves utterly inappropriately to Dany. Will probably betray her in the future. Average.

[Raff the Sweetling]

All the gray characters are what make the books so good. I think 99.9% of all people are gray anyways, so it adds to the realism.

Favorite Grays-

Jaime

Sandor

Tyrion

Least favorite-

Catelyn Stark

Theon

Cat

Littlefinger - getting less and less grey and more black as his plan is revealed.

Uncat

Stannis

Catlelyn Tully.

[The Mango]

Oberyn--dangerous, kind of mean and sleeps around, but at least he doesn't cheat and he makes more effort than most to support and educate his bastards, and he really loves his sister. Probably a good guy to party with. Darker than average.

He used poison in a trial by combat.

[Olenna]

He used poison in a trial by combat.

Ah, touché. I meant that he doesn't cheat on his paramour--he shares with her!

[Too Good To Be True]

Sybell Spicer Westerling is a BITCH.

I don't know if she's evil so much as conniving, decietful, and thoroughly unscrupulous, all in the name of self-interest (ok, I guess any benefits would help her kids too. But Jeyne wasn't very happy at being widowed was she)

[MTGAP]

I like your list. I'd put Joff at 1st, and LF would be pretty high because he only cares about himself, but unlike some of the other characters, he doesn't take pleasure in others' pain. I'd put Samwell at close to the top, and Arya a bit lower, because even though she usually has good intentions, she has done some bad stuff.

[MTGAP]

Because I'm lazy, I'm just going to rearrange the original spectrum.

EVIL

Joffrey - probably tied with Theon

Cersei - evil, but sometimes compassionate when it suits her

Viserys - was always cruel and hate-filled, but circumstances made him a monster

Tywin - relentlessly driven and duplicitous, but with some semblance or notion of honor.

Theon - the most evil character in the series, IMO.

Jamie - I would actually make two entries for Jamie, but before Harrenhal he belongs squarely on the evil side of things

Littlefinger - His only morals are opportunism.

Stannis - Although the rightful king, he sold out his gods and everything else he held dear to bring the people what they did not want.

Catelyn - too self-serving to be called good, and I'll never really forgive her for how she treats Jon

Renly - seemed like a good guy, although we hardly caught a glimpse of him

Tyrion - Cunning and ruthless, and a Lannister, but it's hard not to root hard for him. Maybe the most engaging character in the series in terms of whether he's good or evil.

Sansa - fairly innocent, but I don't really like her as a character so it's hard for me not to get angered at her lack of wit and moxie.

Dany - the jury is still out on this one, but I like her.

Arya - the hardest child to kill in the seven kingdoms

Jon - I see Jon as fairly neutral, as he is a member of the Night's Watch and sworn to no side. Still, he did try to flee once, had to be dragged back, and has too much of an air of entitlement about him sometimes.

Davos - a good man, driven to follow a bad leader out of loyalty

Samwell - wants to do the right thing, is often incapable of doing it.

Ned - practically infallable as a character, always did the right thing, always dutiful, which obviously was his downfall.

Bran - as moral as Ned, as innocent as a child still

GOOD

I think we need to define evil. I'd call evil:

-self serving

-taking pleasure in the suffering of others

-hurting others and not caring

Yeah, those three are all pretty much the same thing. I wanted my list to be longer.

[Tyrion Stark]

EVIL

Gregor

Roose Bolton

Joffrey

Viserys

Cersei

Varys

Theon

Stannis

Renly

Tyrion

Jaime

Arya

Dany

Jon

Samwell

Catelyn

Sansa

Brienne

Davos

Ned

Bran

Littlefinger

GOOD

the things you guys arn't realizing about Littlefinger is that everythings he's doing is for the greater good....so of course he has to be a great and good guy.

Finally someone who understands LF. Why so much hate for the man? Would you guys even be talking about the books if it wasn't for the plans this man made?

Also I love how all of you call self-serving evil. Why is it evil? Why should LF do anything else? He has wife to live for, no family to protect. Can any of you honestly say that he would have gained any power without this war? If he had acted like Ned who I adore, he would still be living in his keep warming himself with shit fires. The man's ambitious and you can't be ambitious without being willing to step on a few toes. If you get the promotion that means someone else didn't but does that make you evil no. He plays the game so don't hate cause he's just a great player.

[AvengingAryaFan]

Sybell Spicer Westerling is a BITCH.

I don't know if she's evil so much as conniving, decietful, and thoroughly unscrupulous, all in the name of self-interest (ok, I guess any benefits would help her kids too. But Jeyne wasn't very happy at being widowed was she)

I think you're accusing the wrong Spicer. Lowly castellan Rolph was given the Castamere lordship because he knew about and helped with the most heinous social crimes of the millenium, including letting his nephew Raynald go to the Red Wedding unwarned, all for Rolph's personal advancement. Sybell was angry at Jaime that she wasn't warned. She allowed her son Raynald to wholeheartedly squire for Robb, and to go to the Twins, where he got two arrows and a fall to the Green Fork. Further, Sybell had the training in poisons to kill Robb, but didn't. Her task appears to have been to get Robb "sick" (the arrow in his arm) and involved with Jeyne, and to keep him from producing an heir ... nothing all that nefarious, in my view. BTW, the Jeyne that Jaime met may not have been Robb's wife (compare Catelyn description p284 ASOS to Jaime's in AFFC, and observe Ser Forley Prester's odd conversation w/Jaime about her p 663 AFFC). Anyway, Sybell is almost certainly conniving and deceitful, but whether she's unscrupulous or evil is a very open question. Rolph, however, is almost certainly evil.

Other conclusions can be drawn from the ambiguous facts, but after a careful re-read you might agree.

[AvengingAryaFan]

Finally someone who understands LF. Why so much hate for the man? Would you guys even be talking about the books if it wasn't for the plans this man made?

Also I love how all of you call self-serving evil. Why is it evil? Why should LF do anything else? He has wife to live for, no family to protect. Can any of you honestly say that he would have gained any power without this war? If he had acted like Ned who I adore, he would still be living in his keep warming himself with shit fires. The man's ambitious and you can't be ambitious without being willing to step on a few toes. If you get the promotion that means someone else didn't but does that make you evil no. He plays the game so don't hate cause he's just a great player.

Don't bite down while that tongue's in your cheek. Yes, LF's probably the primary source of the monstrously evil events that drive the action and justify the good guys getting tough.

But you raise an issue that hasn't been clarified enough: what is good/evil? In a war or fight that's thrust upon you, or as judge and jury (lord of winterfell), appropriate killing can be honorable or even admirable, so killing per se isn't evil. LF isn't evil just because he's self-serving, or "steps on toes," but because he ruthlessly murders Jon Arryn, Lysa Arryn, Dontos, and most of Stark's household. Nor just for that, but because he (1) does it by treachery, and (2) for no better reason than stirring the pot to improve his situation. And those are just the things we know about - many strongly suspect him of much worse. Evil isn't just doing harm, but some combination of a magnitude of harm and of auxiliary, avoidable suffering; of intent; and of having an unworthy justification, such as minor personal benefit, or, worse yet, whim or sadism.

BTW, a brief defense of Arya for those that list her on "the dark side": Re: the weasel soup, she merely wanted the Northmen freed from the guards, a laudable goal for a Northern lordette POW. Chiswyck made himself an insurmountable obstacle to her escape, as may be seen by a careful reading of his repeated and believed assertion that he would catch her; and the guard was a casualty of war as well, because Roose made it clear that Arya wouldn't be released on polite request. Dareon was morally ambiguous, but if she killed him it was her first killing not shown on screen, and GRRM hinted she may have been lying for reasons unknown. Finally, Arya consistently makes efforts to aid the weak (crying girl, Lommy) and helpless (water to the dying caged prisoners, ax to Jaqen et al.) and is kind to fools (Sam). She generally reserves her lethal hatred for those who abuse their power for cruelty and to prey on the weak and helpless (Gregor, Raff, Polliver, Joffery, Cersei, Sandor until she forgave him). Sure, she's quick to consider killing, but in the context it's a practical and sometimes honorable option; and she doesn't kill every time she thinks of it, or for small advantage (e.g., she chose not to kill the woman who cheated her on the horse, or Sandor). Her father was murdered before her eyes by the government, and her life and freedom were in serious jeopardy in Westeros, so her embrace of appropriate killing is wise self-preservation. Avoid sexism/ageism; if she was a 16 year old guy she'd be a hero.

[Tyrion Stark]

But you raise an issue that hasn't been clarified enough: what is good/evil? In a war or fight that's thrust upon you, or as judge and jury (lord of winterfell), appropriate killing can be honorable or even admirable, so killing per se isn't evil. LF isn't evil just because he's self-serving, or "steps on toes," but because he ruthlessly murders Jon Arryn, Lysa Arryn, Dontos, and most of Stark's household. Nor just for that, but because he (1) does it by treachery, and (2) for no better reason than stirring the pot to improve his situation. And those are just the things we know about - many strongly suspect him of much worse. Evil isn't just doing harm, but some combination of a magnitude of harm and of auxiliary, avoidable suffering; of intent; and of having an unworthy justification, such as minor personal benefit, or, worse yet, whim or sadism.

Ruthlessly murders Jon Arryn last time I remember it was Lysa who started it and Pycelle who ended it. He might have been an accomplice but he didn't murder him. And Lysa Arryn she murdered her husband therfore in a certain light he was performing a execution of a murderer. If this was Arya a lot of you would be applauding. Plus you can't say she wasn't a danger to the realm and those around her. She killed once what's going to stop her from doing it again. Dontos, well I'm sorry but he needed to die, the man had a big mouth especially when he's been in the wine. When protecting a wrongly accused person, secrecy is needed , sometimes things like that need to be done for the betterment of the realm. Last time I checked it was Lannister men and gold cloaks who actually killed Stark men. However, it wasn't Lf's fault the fault lies with Ned, with his dismal attempt to play the game of thrones. You can't blame LF for looking out for himself. Very few people in the book look out for others outside of their families.

Let's examine, the other part. He does it by treachery and stirs the pot for advancement. Dear gods, what an EVIL character he is. Come on, if you can give me another way he could have advanced as far as he did without the actions he took, I'd like to hear them. However until then he did what was needed for the advancement of his house. Btw, being suspected is different than actually doing something. What ever happen to innocent until proven guilty, but I guess since its LF everyone forgot that.

[Olenna]

Further, Sybell had the training in poisons to kill Robb, but didn't. Her task appears to have been to get Robb "sick" (the arrow in his arm) and involved with Jeyne, and to keep him from producing an heir ... nothing all that nefarious, in my view. BTW, the Jeyne that Jaime met may not have been Robb's wife (compare Catelyn description p284 ASOS to Jaime's in AFFC, and observe Ser Forley Prester's odd conversation w/Jaime about her p 663 AFFC). Anyway, Sybell is almost certainly conniving and deceitful, but whether she's unscrupulous or evil is a very open question.

The degree of Sybell's complicity with Tywin has been hotly debated recently in other threads, but I'll just say that no one could have predicted that Robb would get wounded in battle and wind up at the Westerling castle, so the Westerlings were probably acting on their own initiative (not under Tywin's orders) as far as the seduction and marriage were concerned. My hunch is that at the time they thought Robb would win the war, and they wanted to be on the winning side, and they only changed their minds later when things started to go badly for him.

For those of you who think Sybell is perpetrating an imposture (an opinion that I share), what do you think her motive is? Is she actually a Robb loyalist, despite appearances? Or is she simply trying to protect her daughter and unborn grandchild, regardless of her political affiliations? Was she lying about the abortifacient?

[The Mango]

Let's examine, the other part. He does it by treachery and stirs the pot for advancement. Dear gods, what an EVIL character he is. Come on, if you can give me another way he could have advanced as far as he did without the actions he took, I'd like to hear them.

There probably weren't any other ways for him to have advanced as far as he did.

However, it's the fact that he would sacrifice a hundred thousand lives so that he could get a little more power which makes him evil.

[Tyrion Stark]

There probably weren't any other ways for him to have advanced as far as he did.

However, it's the fact that he would sacrifice a hundred thousand lives so that he could get a little more power which makes him evil.

Well i guess we should call the founding fathers evil then too. The sacrifice more than a hundred thousand lives so that they could get a little more power.

[AvengingAryaFan]

The degree of Sybell's complicity with Tywin has been hotly debated recently in other threads, but I'll just say that no one could have predicted that Robb would get wounded in battle and wind up at the Westerling castle, so the Westerlings were probably acting on their own initiative (not under Tywin's orders) as far as the seduction and marriage were concerned. My hunch is that at the time they thought Robb would win the war, and they wanted to be on the winning side, and they only changed their minds later when things started to go badly for him.

For those of you who think Sybell is perpetrating an imposture (an opinion that I share), what do you think her motive is? Is she actually a Robb loyalist, despite appearances? Or is she simply trying to protect her daughter and unborn grandchild, regardless of her political affiliations? Was she lying about the abortifacient?

I'd like to take the first subject up with you, if it weren't so off topic (my fault). But consider the probable sequence: Tywin would not offer a lordship and plural marriages after the fact for yielding a Lannister castle and changing allegiance of some family members (Jeyne and Reynald, minimum) to the opposition. The magnitude of the rewards is strong evidence of pre-planning, i.e., a plot, for a very high-value goal. Why was the castle opened immediately after Robb was arrowed, which should have heartened the defenders? Why did a small wound fester (think Khal Drogo)? There's a lot of suggestive evidence I'd like to discuss, but I acknowledge it's not conclusive.

As to Sybell's motives (presuming she lied about the abortifacient): she knows Tywin's ruthlessness, so if she's double-crossing him she's remarkably bold. A child of a murdered king would usually be like a king in chess, powerless but the target of every single enemy. And she magnifies the usual danger, because treachery would be seen as a Reynes-like contradiction of Lannister authority. Unless she's stupid, then, she sure didn't do it to make her children safe. I suppose she could just be a brave Stark loyalist. However, following the arc of her family from the maegi's (Maggy the Frog, her mother or grandmother) arrival, I'd say more likely she is taking a huge calculated risk for the chance of moving her family to a pinnacle of power.

If she was ignorant of the Red Wedding, as appears, then there's not enough information to conclude where Sybell belongs on the G/E Spectrum. But Rolph was an evil actor who shepherded Robb to the Red Wedding from its conception, as suggested by evidence including the lordship and Grey Wind's sense of his treachery. A note: Some people seem to consider the Red Wedding merely an ordinary, pragmatic act of war, like the Whispering Wood ambush. However, GRRM established "guest right" as a bedrock principle of Westerosi civilization, rendering the Red Wedding more akin to ruthless genocide a la Hitler than to "civilized," or "chivalrous" warfare. If I'm correct, all who assisted with the Red Wedding belong at the dark end of the E/G spectrum: Roose Bolton, most of the Freys, Rolph Spicer, and Tywin.

Tyrion Stark, I apologize - it's clearly not your tongue that I saw in your cheek, because against all odds you seem to believe what you're saying. Well, you're not alone. In a world of over six billion people there are probably thousands who would find murder and treachery perfectly well justified by any resultant advantage to anybody, including to the perpetrator alone. Debating evil with you is like discussing music with somebody who's tone deaf: the difficulty of agreeing on such a subjective matter increases to virtual impossibility when one party's perceptions have slipped to an extreme end of the bell curve distribution.

BTW, "innocent until proven guilty" is a modern rule of law to protect against incorrect convictions, at the recognized cost of letting many guilty parties go free. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact of whether or not a person actually performed a particular act. Whatever LF did, he did, regardless of whether he carelessly left sufficient evidence to "prove" his culpability. The evil acts and intrigues of LF that GRRM has shown us are a fair basis for conjecture about the magnitude and content of the entire LF evil act "iceberg."

The Mango - I wish I could be so succinct!

[Markus]

AvengingAryaFan,

The magnitude of the rewards is strong evidence of pre-planning, i.e., a plot, for a very high-value goal. Why was the castle opened immediately after Robb was arrowed, which should have heartened the defenders? Why did a small wound fester (think Khal Drogo)?

I don't think it's necessarily suspicious that the castle was yielded shortly after Robb was slightly wounded. The castle may simply have been about to fall and Rolph Spicer decided that it was more expedient to mollify the attackers to spare the defenders worse treatment. Nor do I think that it's unusual that an arrow wound may fester and lead to fever. It's normal for the setting.

As to the reward given to Rolph Spicer, it may not be as great as you think. Spicer was made a lord and given title to the castle Castamere, yes, but Castamere is a ruin and there was also no mention of any lands or incomes coming with the title. So Spicer may be as poor as before and lord over nothing but a ruin. The title he carries may therefore have been just as much or more a reminder to other vassals of what happens with those who rebel against Tywin than a reward.

[The Mango]

Well i guess we should call the founding fathers evil then too. The sacrifice more than a hundred thousand lives so that they could get a little more power.

The founding fathers did it for the people, or else they would have established a monarchy in America.

If they had done it all for power then Washington would not have given up his presidency after 2 terms.

Although some of them probably did do it for power. I'm not going to try to say the founding fathers all had the best interests of the people at heart.

[Tyrion Stark]

The founding fathers did it for the people, or else they would have established a monarchy in America.

If they had done it all for power then Washington would not have given up his presidency after 2 terms.

Although some of them probably did do it for power. I'm not going to try to say the founding fathers all had the best interests of the people at heart.

They did it for the people that's why they still kept slaves and why they created a government that would have them in power. If they did it for the people after the war they would have had let the people choose instead of the select few.

[Tyrion Stark]

Tyrion Stark, I apologize - it's clearly not your tongue that I saw in your cheek, because against all odds you seem to believe what you're saying. Well, you're not alone. In a world of over six billion people there are probably thousands who would find murder and treachery perfectly well justified by any resultant advantage to anybody, including to the perpetrator alone. Debating evil with you is like discussing music with somebody who's tone deaf: the difficulty of agreeing on such a subjective matter increases to virtual impossibility when one party's perceptions have slipped to an extreme end of the bell curve distribution.

BTW, "innocent until proven guilty" is a modern rule of law to protect against incorrect convictions, at the recognized cost of letting many guilty parties go free. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact of whether or not a person actually performed a particular act. Whatever LF did, he did, regardless of whether he carelessly left sufficient evidence to "prove" his culpability. The evil acts and intrigues of LF that GRRM has shown us are a fair basis for conjecture about the magnitude and content of the entire LF evil act "iceberg."

Now, now, no need to get hostile. We are just having a friendly discussion. Now murder, they only person I seem to remember who was actually physically killed by LF was Lysa Arryn after she admitted that she in fact killer her husband. Now as Eddard Stark said the man who names the sentence should swing the sword. However, in the Vale they don't use headmans they use the Moon door, therefore LF was doing an execution and by the same logic Eddard stark is a murder as well. Treachery is depends on whose side your on. Take for insance Benedict Arnold, we see him as traitor, they see him as loyalist. Subjective my dear friend.

Well of course what ever he did he did. However, how do you know what he did without evidence. You may speculate, but that's all it is until proof is found. Speculation. Now I eagerly await the unveiling of the rest of LF's deeds, which no doubt are just as cleverly done. Remember from the information people were given back in the day they thought it was a fair basis to suggest the world was flat and we all know the end to that story.

[Olenna]

Tywin would not offer a lordship and plural marriages after the fact for yielding a Lannister castle and changing allegiance of some family members (Jeyne and Reynald, minimum) to the opposition. The magnitude of the rewards is strong evidence of pre-planning, i.e., a plot, for a very high-value goal. Why was the castle opened immediately after Robb was arrowed? Why did a small wound fester (think Khal Drogo)?

As to Sybell's motives (presuming she lied about the abortifacient): she knows Tywin's ruthlessness, so if she's double-crossing him she's remarkably bold. A child of a murdered king would usually be like a king in chess, powerless but the target of every single enemy. And she magnifies the usual danger, because treachery would be seen as a Reynes-like contradiction of Lannister authority. Unless she's stupid, then, she sure didn't do it to make her children safe. I suppose she could just be a brave Stark loyalist. However, following the arc of her family from the maegi's (Maggy the Frog, her mother or grandmother) arrival, I'd say more likely she is taking a huge calculated risk for the chance of moving her family to a pinnacle of power.

Now that the thread has digressed all the way to the founding fathers, it seems acceptable to continue this discussion

One of the main problems I have with a Lannister pre-plot is, why wouldn't Tywin simply order the Westerlings to kill Robb in his bed (with a badly festering wound so that no one would suspect foul play)? Why go through the rigmarole of a marriage? This is why I think the marriage itself can be explained as an opportunistic, independent scheme of the Westerlings themselves, at a time when they believed Robb would win the war. After the marriage, they decided to hedge their bets by mollifying Tywin. Sybell promised him that she would keep Jeyne from conceiving, but in reality she gave her a fertility potion and hoped to quietly produce an heir and thereby fulfill her grandmother's prophecy that a younger, more beautiful queen would cast Cersei down. I think she is, indeed, "taking a huge calculated risk for the chance of moving her family to a pinnacle of power."

I'm convinced that there's more to Sybell than meets the eye, largely because of her name, which alludes to the sibyls (female prophets) of Greek myth. This name suggests to me that she is aware of her grandmother's prophecy.