Everything is not "grey" in aSoIaF

[Kaitscralt]

To me it seems like GRRM is not about black, white, or grey, but more about punishing the extremely honorable and eventually the extremely dishonorable. The middlemen seem to be his favorite characters who profit the most. Secondary characters who had very little suddenly gain a lot. The "everymen," so to speak.

I'm not sure if this reflects on Martin's own view of the world or what. But I get this feeling he is very angry against anyone like this in real life, and in the novels takes it out on characters who are not sellswords, lackeys or rogue knights that can take care of themselves.

There's a reason why characters like Bronn, Littlefinger, Jaime, Sandor, Beric and Jorah are all fan favorites. The writing nearly forces you to like them after all the "good" characters are systematically killed off.

I find the entire series pretty depressing, to be honest. I love it more than any other series out there, but depressing nonetheless. I feel like Martin is punishing his readers and doing it under the pretense of teaching a lesson about how people are, but really he's just anti-honor and pro-dark for whatever reason (see his previous works). I have no faith that characters I like will survive until the end of the series, and I think most of their deaths will be needless as far as the story goes.

/rant

[DurararaFTW]

King Ned Stark:

For Tywin and Jaime at least, the end most certainly did justify the means. However, I point out that while choosing ruthless pragmatism over honor and morality may be useful and effective in Westeros, it doesn't mean the characters that do so will enjoy long-term success and happiness, no more than being honorable and morally upstading will. After seeing many of his lifelong ambitions and goals thwarted (sometimes by his own children), Tywin died at his son's hands. Jaime is widely despised as the Kingslayer, he's lost his sword hand and his father, and he's estranged from the two people he was closest to, Cersei and Tyrion. Sandor was a bitterly unhappy man, and has apparently been lamed from the wounds he took when fighting Polliver and the Tickler.

They may be popular and considered cool and badass by readers, but if you asked them whether they're happy and satisfied with their lives, IMO the most important measure of human existence, I doubt they'd answer yes.

Lord Nietos:

So you view Tywin as being on the same moral level as the likes of Joffrey and Gregor? I disagree. Tywin certainly did a lot of ruthless things that led to a lot of suffering and deaths, but IMO there was always a rational reason behind his actions. Except maybe when it came to Tyrion, Tywin was always cold-bloodedly pragmatic. He wasn't cruel for cruelty's sake like Joffrey, Gregor and Vargo Hoat. We can see the difference between Joffrey and Tywin in ASoS, when Tywin tells Joffrey that once one's enemies have been defeated and gone to their knees, one must help them back up to their feet. Joffrey, meanwhile, just wanted the river lords in question dead. Oh, and he also wanted Robb's head and force Sansa to kiss it as his wedding feast.

I don't see how in Tywin's case the end he was hoping for completely justify the means he used to get them.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but even after Gregor raped and killed Elia, Tywin excused him, and after Gregor's father, mother, sister wifes and everybody else got mysteriously died, Tywin continued to use him, most specifically for attacking and plundering civilian villages. You annot tell me Tywin was always was surprised when his ordering of Gregor to do something ened upinvolving a copious amount of rape and murder.

And his "end", now I dunno how unaware Tywin, Cersei and Jaime were that the person they were handing the fate of the Realm too was a psycho, but by the time they did unerstand what Joffrey was like, they still were completely willing to serve at his leisure.

Just because Tywin was sane and didn't do these things personally doesn't mean he was completely unaware what his orders would result in.

[Millardkillmoore]

Completely accepting "greyness" of the characters within aSoIaF is something I have always had trouble with. It seems that every character (whether major or minor/major, with the only exceptions being Gregor and LF) are given a free pass on this, everyone is "grey", with reasons for what they have done or what they are doing, and no one is truly evil. This, to me, can only be the product of Martin's presumed brilliance as a writer or the complete decline in morality within our society.

It seems to me that Ned's actions are questioned/criticized even more so than many others: Tywin, Jaime, and Sandor. Is it better to answer a question with intelligence rather than morality? Is honor a lost concept in our society? Does the end justify the means?

It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that being cool, a badass, and a "celebrity" factor plays heavily into the popularity of the characters, and not who choses right over wrong. It's quite possible that Martin is choosing to redeem Sandor and Jaime, but I'm not buying it.

Jaime can "wax poetic" all he wants, but he committed treasons against two kings, one by sleeping with his own sister. Had Stark guardsman killed to "chastened" Ned. And he THREW a young boy out of a tower window.

Sandor rode down a child, threatened and nearly raped another child, and was complicit in the massacre of the Stark men, beating down doors with an axe/hammer, and slaying innconent men and women.

Are these good and decent guys, who would risk their own lives for the sake of children they don't know, or just "cool" guys that deserve a pass?

They are only the two most obvious amongst the characters. The outcome is not morally superior to the decision.

I agree. To me, this series isn't nearly as grey as people make it out to be. It really isn't grey and grey morality so much as black and white. There are good characters and bad characters, but very few grey ones. Future good deeds (like saving Brienne) don't erase bad ones (like tossing a child out a window). Let's go over some of the more commonly whitewashed villains.

Tywin Lannister

The guy orders an innocent girl gang-raped and then forces his young son to participate. People can claim that his actions were always rational "ends justify the means" necessary evils, but this has absolutely no justification. If he didn't want his son to marry a commoner, there are quite a few ways to teach him that aren't so monstrous. What he did to Tysha is, in my opinion, one of the most evil things in the entire series. Then we get to things like Tywin ordering his men to murder, rape, and pillage innocent smallfolk. Then came the Red Wedding. I really don't see how anyone can view this guy as anything but a complete monster.

Jaime

He throws an innocent child out of a window. He commits treason by sleeping with his sister. He kills innocent Stark guardsmen who have done him absolutely no wrong just to chastise Ned. He shows no regret for any of these things. I agree that he is an interesting character who is, at times, sympathetic. But he is still evil and absolutely deserves to be brought to justice for his crimes.

Sandor

He murdered an innocent child and laughed about it. I don't care how sympathetic his backstory is or how much he regrets his actions. Murdering children and laughing about it makes him just as bad as Gregor.

Littlefinger

He orchestrated the entire war. He is responsible for nearly every death in the series. He is, in my opinion, the single most evil character in the series.

The worst part isn't that people seem to root for bad guys. After all, I understand that evil is cool. The worst part is how much good men like Ned are derided as foolish. He wasn't stupid. He understood how the game is played. He simply refused to play it. He served his king more loyally and faithfully than anyone else. He spoke out against frivolous expenses like the Hand's Tourney. He refused to send assassin's after an innocent pregnant girl just because she might some day be a threat. He chose not to drag innocent children out of their beds in the dead of night to seize power. He chose to give a mother and her children the chance to flee before he revealed her treason to the kingdom.

Ned Stark isn't someone to be looked down upon. He is someone to look up to. He is a man who had the courage to do what is right, not what will simply benefit himself. As much as people on this board like to claim that LF or Tywin Lannister would make the best ruler, Ned is a better lord and a better man than either of them. To use one of my favorite quotations, "Evil can only triumph if good men stand by and do nothing." Ned saw the corruption and evil in KL and refused to stand by. He stood up to it every chance he had. To me, at least, that is admirable.

That was rather long-winded, so I'll sum it up: This is a series of mostly black and white morality with only a tiny amount of grey.

[Kittyhat]

The worst part isn't that people seem to root for bad guys. After all, I understand that evil is cool. The worst part is how much good men like Ned are derided as foolish. He wasn't stupid. He understood how the game is played. He simply refused to play it. He served his king more loyally and faithfully than anyone else. He spoke out against frivolous expenses like the Hand's Tourney. He refused to send assassin's after an innocent pregnant girl just because she might some day be a threat. He chose not to drag innocent children out of their beds in the dead of night to seize power. He chose to give a mother and her children the chance to flee before he revealed her treason to the kingdom.

You know, I have to say, in looking at it this way, I find myself a bit shamed. I'm one who's been hard on Ned a great deal myself, and while I still find it difficult to let go of that completely, over time I've begun to question some of my motives.

Now I'm thinking that my frustration with Ned is less over mistakes he's made and more over my feeling that, as another poster put it, it seems like Martin's punishing almost every character like him (good and honorable) just for being like him. That and the feeling as well that he's fuel for the crowd that erroneously believes honor = stupid. ... and maybe just ... some disappointment?

I find myself still wrestling with the question of confronting Cersei. Was that an unbelievably stupid act? Or did he just have no other real (moral) choice, given what Robert might do to the children if told about it first?

Then there's refusing Renly's swords. A mistake? Maybe, but ... does he really know what Renly will do? Can he be sure the children won't be killed?

But then, if he's so against using children as hostages, why take Theon back to Winterfell as a so-called "ward"?

You're right, though, at least in that even if he makes some mistakes, Ned truly does at least try to do the right thing. Littlefinger can babble on about honor only slowing you down and making it difficult to move all he likes, and I'm sure telling himself that helps him to sleep better at night, but I'd still rather have one Ned than a thousand Littlefingers.

[Noroldis]

DurararaFTW:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but even after Gregor raped and killed Elia, Tywin excused him, and after Gregor's father, mother, sister wifes and everybody else got mysteriously died, Tywin continued to use him, most specifically for attacking and plundering civilian villages. You annot tell me Tywin was always was surprised when his ordering of Gregor to do something ened upinvolving a copious amount of rape and murder.

Gregor did fulfill his orders of killing Aegon and Rhaenys, and went overboard with Elia because Tywin made the mistake of not specifying what Gregor was to do with her. At the time, Tywin had no idea that Gregor was a murderous psychopath for whom the absence of orders means "kill at will" instead of "spare the valuable noblewoman." In any case, the only ones who truly cared about Elia's death were the Martells, and they were no threat to Tywin, nor did he need them. Certainly Robert was not going to punish Tywin for the death of Rhaegar's wife, so why should Tywin in turn have punished Gregor? As for what happens in Gregor's own household, that's his own business as long as it doesn't inconvenience/bring shame upon his overlord.

And his "end", now I dunno how unaware Tywin, Cersei and Jaime were that the person they were handing the fate of the Realm too was a psycho, but by the time they did unerstand what Joffrey was like, they still were completely willing to serve at his leisure.

When he was directly present in King's Landing, Tywin had no difficulty overruling Joffrey when necessary, and he seemed to believe he could correct Joffrey's impulses by the time he reached his majority. But I'm curious – in your opinion, what should Tywin have done about Joffrey? He couldn't exactly demote Joffrey and put the crown on Tommen's head.

Millardkillmoore:

The guy orders an innocent girl gang-raped and then forces his young son to participate. People can claim that his actions were always rational "ends justify the means" necessary evils, but this has absolutely no justification. If he didn't want his son to marry a commoner, there are quite a few ways to teach him that aren't so monstrous. What he did to Tysha is, in my opinion, one of the most evil things in the entire series.

If you're referring to me, I did take care to mention "Except maybe when it came to Tyrion, Tywin was always cold-bloodedly pragmatic." And Tywin's behavior toward Tyrion is IMO motivated mostly because Tyrion caused the death of his wife, whom Tywin does seem to have loved.

Then we get to things like Tywin ordering his men to murder, rape, and pillage innocent smallfolk. Then came the Red Wedding. I really don't see how anyone can view this guy as anything but a complete monster.

Those, on the other hand, are the ruthless necessities of war in a medieval setting. I refer you to the chevauchée for a real-world example.

[oba]

I agree. To me, this series isn't nearly as grey as people make it out to be. It really isn't grey and grey morality so much as black and white. There are good characters and bad characters, but very few grey ones. Future good deeds (like saving Brienne) don't erase bad ones (like tossing a child out a window). Let's go over some of the more commonly whitewashed villains.

Tywin Lannister

The guy orders an innocent girl gang-raped and then forces his young son to participate. People can claim that his actions were always rational "ends justify the means" necessary evils, but this has absolutely no justification. If he didn't want his son to marry a commoner, there are quite a few ways to teach him that aren't so monstrous. What he did to Tysha is, in my opinion, one of the most evil things in the entire series. Then we get to things like Tywin ordering his men to murder, rape, and pillage innocent smallfolk. Then came the Red Wedding. I really don't see how anyone can view this guy as anything but a complete monster.

Jaime

He throws an innocent child out of a window. He commits treason by sleeping with his sister. He kills innocent Stark guardsmen who have done him absolutely no wrong just to chastise Ned. He shows no regret for any of these things. I agree that he is an interesting character who is, at times, sympathetic. But he is still evil and absolutely deserves to be brought to justice for his crimes.

Sandor

He murdered an innocent child and laughed about it. I don't care how sympathetic his backstory is or how much he regrets his actions. Murdering children and laughing about it makes him just as bad as Gregor.

Littlefinger

He orchestrated the entire war. He is responsible for nearly every death in the series. He is, in my opinion, the single most evil character in the series.

The worst part isn't that people seem to root for bad guys. After all, I understand that evil is cool. The worst part is how much good men like Ned are derided as foolish. He wasn't stupid. He understood how the game is played. He simply refused to play it. He served his king more loyally and faithfully than anyone else. He spoke out against frivolous expenses like the Hand's Tourney. He refused to send assassin's after an innocent pregnant girl just because she might some day be a threat. He chose not to drag innocent children out of their beds in the dead of night to seize power. He chose to give a mother and her children the chance to flee before he revealed her treason to the kingdom.

Ned Stark isn't someone to be looked down upon. He is someone to look up to. He is a man who had the courage to do what is right, not what will simply benefit himself. As much as people on this board like to claim that LF or Tywin Lannister would make the best ruler, Ned is a better lord and a better man than either of them. To use one of my favorite quotations, "Evil can only triumph if good men stand by and do nothing." Ned saw the corruption and evil in KL and refused to stand by. He stood up to it every chance he had. To me, at least, that is admirable.

That was rather long-winded, so I'll sum it up: This is a series of mostly black and white morality with only a tiny amount of grey.

Great post. I agree with pretty much everything you wrote.

[oba]

Those, on the other hand, are the ruthless necessities of war in a medieval setting. I refer you to the chevauchée for a real-world example.

I think it's pointed out that from the perspective of the characters in the series that Tywin's "dogs" (Gregor, Amory Lorch, Vargo Hoat, etc.) go above and beyond what's generally accepted as the ruthless necessities of war. Likewise the Red Wedding.

[Noroldis]

I think it's pointed out that from the perspective of the characters in the series that Tywin's "dogs" (Gregor, Amory Lorch, Vargo Hoat, etc.) go above and beyond what's generally accepted as the ruthless necessities of war.

Going by this, then, that would make Tywin the lord of a great House whose methods of warfare most closely parallel real-world medieval history (and maybe that was Martin's intent). I can't fault Tywin for that. Especially since his methods resulted in his House essentially winning the War of Five Kings.

Likewise the Red Wedding.

The Red Wedding was a dishonorable act, no questions there, but Tywin didn't make it happen for cruelty's sake. And in its aftermath, the river lords who decided to bend the knee were allowed back into the king's peace.

[11th Heaven]

I don't think Tywin is an evil man as such (his treatment of Tyrion notwithstanding), more of an amoral one. Joffrey seems to derive pleasure from the pain and suffering of others, and Sandor laughs at the death of a child, but I think Tywin does what he thinks is necessary without recognition of moral boundaries. I don't think he chuckles to himself at the thought of all the rape and murder that Gregor is performing on his orders, nor do I think he ever feels the slightest twinge of regret.

It's difficult to pin Tywin down in this way though, because I do think he subscribed to some distant notion of fair rule. He does talk about restoring the King's peace and justice in ASOS, and I don't think he would have hurt his subjects or upset them for the sake of his entertainment.

[Kittyhat]

without recognition of moral boundaries

I don't think I could come up with a more perfect succinct definition of "evil" if I tried.

[Chirios]

Everyone has excuses, but that each of these excuses are equal isn't how I read the book. How I read it is: some people are good, some people are bad, but being bad doesn't belie being competent.

[Millardkillmoore]

I don't think Tywin is an evil man as such (his treatment of Tyrion notwithstanding), more of an amoral one.

-He has an innocent girl gang-raped to prove a point to his son.

-He sacks KL at the end of Robert's Rebellion.

-He orders two innocent children murdered.

-He orders his men to loot, rape, murder and pillage the Riverlands.

-He brings the Bloody Mummers into Westeros just to sic them on civilians.

-He orchestrated the Red Wedding.

What does he need to do to qualify as evil to you? Grow a mustache and twirl it? Cackle madly every time he commits some new cruelty? Start every day by eating a few babies?

Tywin is evil. There is nothing remotely grey about him. All that pointless cruelty that Gregor and the Bloody Mummers engage in? His orders. He is as much responsible for their actions as they are. Every girl that is raped is raped because of him. Every child murdered is murdered because of him. Every field burned is burned because of him. Tywin is a monster.

[oba]

Going by this, then, that would make Tywin the lord of a great House whose methods of warfare most closely parallel real-world medieval history (and maybe that was Martin's intent). I can't fault Tywin for that. Especially since his methods resulted in his House essentially winning the War of Five Kings.

I'm not arguing with you on that. I'm saying that, even by perspectives of the other great lords in the series, Tywin's actions are seen as not really being kosher. The Bloody Mummers, Gregor, Amory Lorch, etc. We don't get the same sense regarding the other great lords we see. The reason Tywin is feared is because he seems to go above and beyond what's normally expected and/or accepted in Westeros.

[DurararaFTW]

Gregor did fulfill his orders of killing Aegon and Rhaenys, and went overboard with Elia because Tywin made the mistake of not specifying what Gregor was to do with her. At the time, Tywin had no idea that Gregor was a murderous psychopath for whom the absence of orders means "kill at will" instead of "spare the valuable noblewoman." In any case, the only ones who truly cared about Elia's death were the Martells, and they were no threat to Tywin, nor did he need them. Certainly Robert was not going to punish Tywin for the death of Rhaegar's wife, so why should Tywin in turn have punished Gregor? As for what happens in Gregor's own household, that's his own business as long as it doesn't inconvenience/bring shame upon his overlord.

At the time, he did not know this. But after he did rape and kill Elia, he continues to use him as his togo guy for any mission. After he DID know the man he was employing was a murderous psychopath, the blood of the people that wind up dead because Tywin send Gregor to do something are on Tywins hands as well. And no. murdering your lord father, your mother and wifes and all kinds of people ARE things your overlord should have you pay for.

When he was directly present in King's Landing, Tywin had no difficulty overruling Joffrey when necessary, and he seemed to believe he could correct Joffrey's impulses by the time he reached his majority. But I'm curious – in your opinion, what should Tywin have done about Joffrey? He couldn't exactly demote Joffrey and put the crown on Tommen's head.

You already thought Tywin was justified in having King Robert assassinated because of the utopia he was creating with King Joffrey at the helm, what the hell do you think I meant?

[iamthedave]

I think there's a degree of misunderstanding going on here.

The series is grey.

Just because you choose to apply a black and white morality to it does not mean the series itself embraces that morality or in any way displays it.

Listing the wrong things characters do changes nothing. If the series was black and white, that would be the end of it. Jaime would be the monstrous evil Kingslayer, not the guy who actually saved King's Landing and is reviled for his unsung deed of heroism, who was only made a kingsguard as an act of spite, who is a broken romantic.

These parts to their characters WOULD NOT BE THERE if this were a black and white series.

Gregor Clegane is a black and white character. He is flat out evil, there is no attempt to leaven or soften or explain his deeds. Jaime is not like Gregor. His actions are justified and explained, and so people can make their own opinions.

That is the sign of a grey story. The fact this discussion is even happening is demonstration that ASOIF is a grey story.

It's a very closed-minded argument to say that people defend Jaime because 'evil is cool'. The fact is, Jaime is NOT presented as evil from the moment he becomes a POV character. People defend him ardently not because 'evil is cool' but because they genuinely believe he is worthy of defense and like him.

This would, again, be indication of a grey story, given he tossed Bran from a window, loves his sister in the carnal sense, and so on. Aragorn son of Arathorn he is not.

[DurararaFTW]

I think there's a degree of misunderstanding going on here.

The series is grey.

Just because you choose to apply a black and white morality to it does not mean the series itself embraces that morality or in any way displays it.

Listing the wrong things characters do changes nothing. If the series was black and white, that would be the end of it. Jaime would be the monstrous evil Kingslayer, not the guy who actually saved King's Landing and is reviled for his unsung deed of heroism, who was only made a kingsguard as an act of spite, who is a broken romantic.

These parts to their characters WOULD NOT BE THERE if this were a black and white series.

Gregor Clegane is a black and white character. He is flat out evil, there is no attempt to leaven or soften or explain his deeds. Jaime is not like Gregor. His actions are justified and explained, and so people can make their own opinions.

That is the sign of a grey story. The fact this discussion is even happening is demonstration that ASOIF is a grey story.

It's a very closed-minded argument to say that people defend Jaime because 'evil is cool'. The fact is, Jaime is NOT presented as evil from the moment he becomes a POV character. People defend him ardently not because 'evil is cool' but because they genuinely believe he is worthy of defense and like him.

This would, again, be indication of a grey story, given he tossed Bran from a window, loves his sister in the carnal sense, and so on. Aragorn son of Arathorn he is not.

TC wasn't saying "I disagree with the grey story thing, A Song of Ice and Fire IS in fact a black and white morality story."

[Kittyhat]

It's a very closed-minded argument to say that people defend Jaime because 'evil is cool'. The fact is, Jaime is NOT presented as evil from the moment he becomes a POV character. People defend him ardently not because 'evil is cool' but because they genuinely believe he is worthy of defense and like him.

Really?

I missed the passages wherein Jaime feels any regret whatsoever for attempting to murder a child for accidentally catching him engaging in treason by having sex with his sister, the Queen.

Could you point me to them? Perhaps I've judged him too harshly, and he truly has come to feel remorse for his misdeeds.

I guess you can give him the one line wherein he briefly thinks to himself "ask Edmure how chivalrous I am" about the trebuchet bit. Though it doesn't seem he's given up killing or threatening to kill children ...

Oh yeah. Nothing evil about Jaime. :rolleyes:

[mcb]

-He has an innocent girl gang-raped to prove a point to his son.

-He sacks KL at the end of Robert's Rebellion.

-He orders two innocent children murdered.

(...etc)

Yes, but he profited from all that, so it makes it more or less OK. He didn't murder little children for fun, he did it for profit. Hence, Tywin's not evil, no sir.

[iamthedave]

Tywin Lannister

The guy orders an innocent girl gang-raped and then forces his young son to participate. People can claim that his actions were always rational "ends justify the means" necessary evils, but this has absolutely no justification. If he didn't want his son to marry a commoner, there are quite a few ways to teach him that aren't so monstrous. What he did to Tysha is, in my opinion, one of the most evil things in the entire series. Then we get to things like Tywin ordering his men to murder, rape, and pillage innocent smallfolk. Then came the Red Wedding. I really don't see how anyone can view this guy as anything but a complete monster.

Not going to contest the 'wrongness' of what he did, but let me put this to you. if we're meant to view him PURELY as a monster, then why does Martin show him to be the most competent statesmen in the series to this point?

There's no argue or debate about it, Tywin's time in King's Landing is flush with examples of clever, efficient politics.

If he is JUST evil, why are we shown this? Why is he not shown to be needlessly cruel and inept when in power? Why does he say to Joffrey 'when men kneel to you, you must help them up, else no man will yield'?

Complete monster or no, he knows how to rule. So why are we shown this, if he's so black and white? Why is he shown to be better than all those other morally upstanding characters in this regard?

Jaime

He throws an innocent child out of a window. He commits treason by sleeping with his sister. He kills innocent Stark guardsmen who have done him absolutely no wrong just to chastise Ned. He shows no regret for any of these things. I agree that he is an interesting character who is, at times, sympathetic. But he is still evil and absolutely deserves to be brought to justice for his crimes.

As Cersei herself pointed out; the Targs wed brother to sister, why not her and Jaime? I find it remarkably hypocritical that everyone judges Jaime on this single point when Dany, a fan favourite as well, begins by frankly stating she expected to marry Viserys. She openly states there that she has no problem with incest. Why would she? So why should Jaime?

The treason part's not to be argued of course, but again, why is that line from Cersei even there? Why not just present it as being wrong? In fact Martin presents their incest - when they at least are talking about it - as being almost positive.

That is the very definition of greying morality.

He's evil? Why? What about him is evil? He performs several bad actions, and believed himself justified for doing them. He's also performed multiple good actions, and his society villifies him for his best action. Why is he presented as being hard done by if he's such an obviously evil character?

Sandor

He murdered an innocent child and laughed about it. I don't care how sympathetic his backstory is or how much he regrets his actions. Murdering children and laughing about it makes him just as bad as Gregor.

Ridiculous. Sandor is man consumed by hate, he's basically a classic 'revenge only destroys' story. Gregor rapes and murders for fun. Sandor - as far as we know - has never once raped anybody. He's an angry, violent man, yes. And he murdered an innocent child who at that time was believed to be wanted for treason. Remember Joffrey said that the Butcher Boy beat him?

Not that Sandor actually cared about that. He's a man defeated by life. He's pathetic more than evil. And if we're meant to view him as such a black and white character, why then is Sandor in the position of being Arya's protector for so long? Why do we get several people speaking out to him being a tormented and pitiable soul?

Littlefinger

He orchestrated the entire war. He is responsible for nearly every death in the series. He is, in my opinion, the single most evil character in the series.

He's whitewashed? Where? Every single thread I've seen him referred to refers to him as one of the big evils. I've never once seen someone say he was justified in what he did. They just laud him for his intelligence and ability, which are both quite extreme.

The worst part isn't that people seem to root for bad guys. After all, I understand that evil is cool. The worst part is how much good men like Ned are derided as foolish.

There'd be no need to if Martin didn't present good men like ned as foolish, which he does. Honourable characters are frequently presented as being slow of wit, stubborn, and ill-equipped to deal with those who play dirty. They're often shown to be old and out of touch.

Think about the fight between Bronn and the old knight of the vale. It's a little petri dish where you can see the entire ethos of the series playing out. Bronn, the quick-witted, immoral, young, strong warrior rips apart an old man clinging to honour and unable to see reality as it comes before him. You can see this work politically and publically all over the story. It's even happening to Dany in ADWD by the looks of things.

It's not just 'honour' that's the problem; it's the idea that trying to do good prevents you from doing what needs to be done.

He wasn't stupid. He understood how the game is played. He simply refused to play it. He served his king more loyally and faithfully than anyone else. He spoke out against frivolous expenses like the Hand's Tourney. He refused to send assassin's after an innocent pregnant girl just because she might some day be a threat. He chose not to drag innocent children out of their beds in the dead of night to seize power. He chose to give a mother and her children the chance to flee before he revealed her treason to the kingdom.

I agree absolutely. I've always said that about Ned. He knew the nest of vipers he was stepping into, and he knew he didn't belong there. However, he had no choice. Honour allowed for nothing else.

Ned Stark isn't someone to be looked down upon. He is someone to look up to. He is a man who had the courage to do what is right, not what will simply benefit himself. As much as people on this board like to claim that LF or Tywin Lannister would make the best ruler, Ned is a better lord and a better man than either of them. To use one of my favorite quotations, "Evil can only triumph if good men stand by and do nothing." Ned saw the corruption and evil in KL and refused to stand by. He stood up to it every chance he had. To me, at least, that is admirable.

Unfortunately, you've just taken your own argument out back and put a bullet in its brain.

"Evil can only triumph if good men stand by and do nothing"?

Well good men DID do something. And evil triumphed anyway. Easily. Littlefinger goes unpunished. In fact he's thriving. Tywin died at the hands of his son, who is morally far from the best of men and not in the same league as a man like Ned. Gregor Clegane died in agony at the hands of Prince Oberyn (who in turn died horribly), also a man of questionable mores but undoubted ability.

Tywin Lannister DID make the best ruler. We SAW it. As hand he was effective. Ned was not. There's no dicing or mincing words to be had here.

Here's one of my favourite quotes, from the book itself, and you should remember it every time you think this series is black and white: "Rhaegar fought valiantly. Rhaegar fought honourable. And Rhaegar died."

That was rather long-winded, so I'll sum it up: This is a series of mostly black and white morality with only a tiny amount of grey.

And to sum up my own long-winded thesis, the series is grey as can be. Just you choose to apply a black and white morality to it, ignoring the actual presentation in the book.

That's fine, by no means do I think you should adopt what the book says, or like who it seems to want you to or any of the rest of it. But don't try to claim the book is something it isn't.

Grey morality rules in ASOIF. If it didn't, Brienne of Tarth wouldn't be being hung for the crime of fighting her heart out to save an inn full of innocent people from one of the most brutal murderors in the entire series. if the series is so black and white, why is Brienne - easily the 'whitest' character in it - so brutally destroyed?

I'm one of Brienne's biggest fans, and my ardent hope is that she ends up serving Sansa as her sworn knight in Winterfell. The chances of that actually happening are near zero, though. Most likely at best she'll die killing Jaime, just to plunge another dagger into the hearts of anyone who believes that honour has any worth in this wretched setting.

It's a horrible, horrible place. All the better to set it up so it's in need of a savior(ess).

[Kittyhat]

Yes, but he profited from all that, so it makes it more or less OK. He didn't murder little children for fun, he did it for profit. Hence, Tywin's not evil, no sir.

I really makes you wonder, doesn't it? Or is it just me?

I read some of these posts, and I honestly find myself thinking, "Is that really the entirity of the moral principles that guide you? You really think that's ... okay?"