Is the Hound Really that bad?

[11th Heaven]

Sandor is/was a very cool character, but morally reprehensible. Of course, there are reasons for this, but that doesn't justify at all what he's done. But like others have mentioned, this is what makes him such an interesting character.

I did really like the interactions between him and Arya, and found it interesting how she would kick and bite back where Sansa would huddle in a corner and feel scared.

I hope that we've seen the last of him. I do enjoy his character, but I think the manner of his exit (Arya leaving him under a tree, the gravedigger) is truly poetic and melancholic, and utterly suitable.

[Baramos]

He might not have been that bad if he hadn't murdered Micah. I think that's the only thing he's been shown to have done that was straight up "bad", if I remember correctly.

[zmflavius]

Killing hundreds of men,women and children is what he claims he's done. Honestly most of what he says I take with a grain of salt. He is jaded and not a good person, but a bad guy? No. I revoke my former statement about there being no pure good in Westeros, but for the most part people are shades of grey.

He is hated because he doesn't hide behind courtesy. He says what everyone else is really thinking and doing. He does some things that are pretty bad but does he actually kill anyone that doesn't deserve it other than his outright boasting? I mean the guy actually breaks out into tears at one point and is constantly trying to get himself killed. He is a person trying to find purpose, and he does some bad things, but he isn't a bad person. He's misguided and screwed up.

I dare anyone in this thread to get their head stuffed into a fire as a kid by their own brother, which keep in mind was probably not the only thing Gregor ever did to him, and become a well adjusted human being.

He probably has, if he's spent several years as Joffrey's sworn sword. And yes, people are shades of grey. Like the Hound. I don't think anyone's argued that he's clean white or pitch black.

Yes, he's misguided and screwed up. Bit of a consequence of, as you said, being stuffed into a fire as a kid. It's left him for the worse, and as a result he is, as you say, a bit screwed up.

I never caught that the hound was the gravedigger on the island. Is that a fact or just a theory?

A theory, but it's fairly heavily hinted.

[Miyamoto]

All of these people are people you either know intimately through POV's or that fought on the side of people you know. They all have failings. The only reason that we consider them "good" is because we are familiar with them. Theon Greyjoy could have been on this list if you just read the first book. Littlefinger could have made it as well before the betrayal. GRRM has the knack of developing characters to greater potential then just "good" or "evil" The Hound is an excellent example of this. He does terrible things in the brutality and murders he commits yet he can also be fiercely loyal and protective.

Another point that I would make is if this story was told in the perspective of a peasant from the riverlands who has been protected and prosperous for years under the rule of a united kingdom and then a rebellion breaks out that causes his entire family to be killed and his house burned down, then how "good" would Robb Stark be then?

If you are reading this series with a "good" list and an "evil" list, then I believe that you are missing the greater things that the author is trying to portray. After 35 years of reading fantasy that is quantified exactly in this manner, it was hard for me as well to take a different view of things with these novels.

Kind of pretentious statement telling another reader how to feel about the characters. We all read these books and take different things from it. Your statement seems to be a consensus white bread broad remark about the characters and being "shades of grey" instead of good or evil.

We never saw the Blackfish murder, scheme, or do anything downright "bad" throughout the series. But by your cookie cutter attitude, he is a shade of grey because he abandoned his post as Knight of the Gate to go fight and help out his homelands when they are in a time of peril.

I don't know about you, but that sounds like the actions of a good guy.

Now Vargo Hoat, tell me how dark his shade of grey is and the redeeming qualities that make him not a bad guy. Putting a woman in bear pit, maiming hundreds, and betraying his intitial benefactor seems to be the actions of a bad guy.

Yes there are people in the books that commit sin and do noble things at other times. But the people mentioned by myself and others are basically good guys.

[Alexia]

All of these people are people you either know intimately through POV's or that fought on the side of people you know. They all have failings. The only reason that we consider them "good" is because we are familiar with them. Theon Greyjoy could have been on this list if you just read the first book. Littlefinger could have made it as well before the betrayal.

The very first time we saw Theon, he was kicking the severed head of an executed prisoner. Not long after, he was suggesting that a captive be thrown to wolves as a method of execution. I can't imagine who would put Theon of the first book on a list of "good" characters.

The first time we meet LF, he lies to Catelyn about the dagger for unknown reasons. This is shown when Renly spars with him over how he won a bet with Tyrion (who bet on Jaime). He also freaks Sansa out by staring at her and touching her inappropriately.

Maybe try again with some different characters?

[Howdyphillip]

Kind of pretentious statement telling another reader how to feel about the characters. We all read these books and take different things from it. Your statement seems to be a consensus white bread broad remark about the characters and being "shades of grey" instead of good or evil.

We never saw the Blackfish murder, scheme, or do anything downright "bad" throughout the series. But by your cookie cutter attitude, he is a shade of grey because he abandoned his post as Knight of the Gate to go fight and help out his homelands when they are in a time of peril.

I don't know about you, but that sounds like the actions of a good guy.

Now Vargo Hoat, tell me how dark his shade of grey is and the redeeming qualities that make him not a bad guy. Putting a woman in bear pit, maiming hundreds, and betraying his intitial benefactor seems to be the actions of a bad guy.

Yes there are people in the books that commit sin and do noble things at other times. But the people mentioned by myself and others are basically good guys.

First off, let me apologize if my tone offended. I truly did not mean to come off as arrogant. I reread my post, and I can see how you took it that way.

There are definitely people in this series that have higher morals and standards then others, but I still maintain that no one in these books are standard cookie cutter heroes or villains. They are complex characters with complex actions based on their rich histories and backgrounds. The characters of Vargo Hoat and the Blackfish are two very periphery tales that have not been as fleshed out as some of the others. In almost every character development that we witness, we see choices made by people that go beyond what I would clarify as just the standard "good" and "evil"

Catelyn is a good example of this. I love her dearly as a character. I lament the loss of her family with her, yet her role as a stepmother would usually be reserved for the "evil" side of a normal fantasy. She has her own motivations. Does this make her a villain? certainly not...

I just do not see a black and white in these stories. Especially after the more I read the series. If you were to take a poll of who is "good" and who is "evil" after reading the first book and then another after reading AFFC, then how many characters would have switched places? I just maintain the the line is incredibly blurred here.

[Miyamoto]

First off, let me apologize if my tone offended. I truly did not mean to come off as arrogant. I reread my post, and I can see how you took it that way.

There are definitely people in this series that have higher morals and standards then others, but I still maintain that no one in these books are standard cookie cutter heroes or villains. They are complex characters with complex actions based on their rich histories and backgrounds. The characters of Vargo Hoat and the Blackfish are two very periphery tales that have not been as fleshed out as some of the others. In almost every character development that we witness, we see choices made by people that go beyond what I would clarify as just the standard "good" and "evil"

Catelyn is a good example of this. I love her dearly as a character. I lament the loss of her family with her, yet her role as a stepmother would usually be reserved for the "evil" side of a normal fantasy. She has her own motivations. Does this make her a villain? certainly not...

I just do not see a black and white in these stories. Especially after the more I read the series. If you were to take a poll of who is "good" and who is "evil" after reading the first book and then another after reading AFFC, then how many characters would have switched places? I just maintain the the line is incredibly blurred here.

Agreed. And no apology needed. I would say characters like Jaime and Sandor blur the lines of the good/evil paradigm with actions like throwing Bran from the tower and cutting down the butcher boy; then to save Brienne from the bear pit and save Ayra from the Red Wedding.

Redemption is a strong motiviating factor in the novels, and that's what in my opinion makes them anti-heroes. The Man with No Name, the Death Wish Charles Bronson character, Wolverine are examples of men who do bad things, for the wrong reasons but we still cheer them on.

But there is pure evil in the books. Rorge, Biter, Vargo Hoat, the Mountain that Rides, many others, I don't think that they would want or even think of changing their outlook on life. While Jaime starts to questions himself and his mode of thought, Sandor does the same.

I don't think we individual POV's to tell us that some of these people are straight up murderous cunts, we see their actions through other peoples eyes, and that gives us enough material to make judgements about whether or not they are a goodie or a baddie or if they cross back and forth through lines neutrality.

Stannis, Robert, Tywin, Tyrion, and many others blur that line to perfection with noble actions on top disastrous deeds. Yes I agree with you on that point that they are layered characters that don't merit a traditional label.

But Smalljon (a character we hardly ever see) throws a table over his liege while getting riddled with bolts is action a selflessness, and since this is one of his few major actions in the books, then I would deem a "good guy".

Again, no apology needed, this is a forum for discussion and debate and natural love for the series run thick through our hearts.

[Dolorous J]

Sandor is a bitter angry asshole, but deep down he has/had a good heart. We would see it on rare occasions with the stark girls and even when he saved Loras Tyrell from his lunatic brother.

[dolorouseddwasright]

Barristan Selmy, Brienne, Hodor, Donal Noye, Ser Arthur Dayne, Edmure Tully, Anguy the Archer, Ser Balon Swann, Jory, Meribald, Dunk the Lunk, Egg. I'm pretty sure the list can go on

Can we really count Hodor as a good guy? His mind doesn't work the same as anyone else's so it's not like he's making a personal decision to do good. In his case, he just doesn't have the required mental capacity to choose between good and evil.

Barristan Selmy served Aerys, and didn't question him when he did horrible things. Maybe Ser Barristan isn't totally good, so much as loyal and obedient. Ser Arthur Dayne, same thing. Can you truly be good if you willingly serve a madman and allow him to commit atrocities? Or does that taint you a bit.

Edmure, Anguay, and Ser Balon may seem like good guys. But we have only seen them in a favorable light so far. Ser Balon is actually helping keep his family in Joffrey's camp as part of his father's plan to make sure the family is on the winning side. Doesn't sound too good to me, even if he is a good fighter. Edmure is considered a good guy because he's on the Stark side and against the Lannisters, who are generally considered to be "bad guys". Who can say what sort of lord he will be when the war is over? He seems like a nice (if not overly bright) guy, but does that mean he wouldn't do nasty things if they were required. Anguay is actually an outlaw, and may be supporting Stoneheart in her war of revenge against the Freys right now. Is revenge good?

In GRRM's world, there don't seem to be definite lines of good versus evil. It is more a matter of WHY you are doing something. Good people do evil things for what they think are good reasons. Evil people can do good things as well. He likes the grey.

Just a thought. :)

[Talleyrand]

Can we really count Hodor as a good guy? His mind doesn't work the same as anyone else's so it's not like he's making a personal decision to do good. In his case, he just doesn't have the required mental capacity to choose between good and evil.

Name one bad thing Hodor does. All he does is obey and no one ever bloody thanks him. I'd like to see the potheads Meera and Jojen drag Bran around the place.

[dolorouseddwasright]

Name one bad thing Hodor does. All he does is obey and no one ever bloody thanks him. I'd like to see the potheads Meera and Jojen drag Bran around the place.

But is that good? Sandor obeyed the order to kill Mycah. Gregor obeys Lord Tywin's orders to ravage the riverlands. Obedience is not inherently good. And Hodor does not have the mental capabilities to truly choose between good and evil. He may strangle puppies if Bran tells him to do so. Just because he hasn't done any "evil" acts doesn't mean he is good.

I do like Hodor, by the way.

[Miyamoto]

But is that good? Sandor obeyed the order to kill Mycah. Gregor obeys Lord Tywin's orders to ravage the riverlands. Obedience is not inherently good. And Hodor does not have the mental capabilities to truly choose between good and evil. He may strangle puppies if Bran tells him to do so. Just because he hasn't done any "evil" acts doesn't mean he is good.

I do like Hodor, by the way.

Hodor is a victim of Bran's mind fucking. And he is questing right now with the potheads and Bran, who I would consider more dangerous right now than Hodor has ever been. He's a kid with a chemistry set and not to many scruples.

[Todd Sand bastard of AZ]

All of these people are people you either know intimately through POV's or that fought on the side of people you know. They all have failings. The only reason that we consider them "good" is because we are familiar with them. Theon Greyjoy could have been on this list if you just read the first book. Littlefinger could have made it as well before the betrayal. GRRM has the knack of developing characters to greater potential then just "good" or "evil" The Hound is an excellent example of this. He does terrible things in the brutality and murders he commits yet he can also be fiercely loyal and protective.

You make good points, but what failings does Samwell have, and from what point of view would he be seen as bad? He's a genuinely good hearted guy who tends to act on said heart. He might annoy Jon Snow with his kindness and he might be a coward, but none of those things are evil traits.

[Baramos]

It is also possible that the Hound changes over the course of the novels. Other characters like Jaime have changed, such as through his relationship with Brienne and Cersei.

Sandor is cynical at first to a fault (he believes there are no good people and so doesn't even try to be good), but eventually kind of goes way out of his way to help out Sansa and then Arya (seriously, the ransom he expects to get cannot be worth the trouble he goes through, even if he can't admit it to himself).

If GRRM brings him back via the gravedigger thing then we will see if the character has changed and evolved even more.

[Alexia]

I honestly don't think Sandor changed in terms of how he treated the Stark girls. With regards to Sansa, he despised Joffrey as it was and saw Joffrey as being her Gregor. So he moves to protect her in a way that nobody ever protected him (where the HELL were his parents!!!) and in so doing, develops a bond with her that expresses as sexual interest. He also grows to care for her because she treats him with respect despite her fear, unlike the rest of the cast, asking him why he allowed everyone to call him "dog" and addressing him as "my lord" since she doesn't know what else to call him.

With regards to Arya, he kidnapped her with the intention of ransoming her and gaining a new position in a new House after burning his bridges with the Lannisters. During his time with her, he begins to like her both as a younger version of himself and as Sansa's sister. That, and the fact that he still has some core of humanity left to him, leads him to save Arya when she tries to run into the castle. At that point, he also stops caring if he lives or dies -- this is shown by how he stops tying her up at night.

I feel like Sandor is the same character, from the beginning when he kills Mycah, to the end when Arya leaves him for dead. Its just that he's been thrust into different situations and has to learn to adapt -- and at the end, he finally breaks.

[Miyamoto]

Gregor killed his parents I believe. At least his father.

[Alexia]

Gregor killed his parents I believe. At least his father.

Not before Gregor burned Sandor's face. In fact, his father covered up Gregor's mutilation of Sandor and told everyone that Sandor's blankets caught fire.

Come to think of it, Mommy and Daddy Clegane ought to be listed in the Worst Mother/Father of Westeros threads.

*edited for clarity

[Miyamoto]

Not before burning Sandor's face. In fact, his father covered up Gregor's mutilation of Sandor and told everyone that Sandor's blankets caught fire.

Come to think of it, Mommy and Daddy Clegane ought to be listed in the Worst Mother/Father of Westeros threads.

Well, I think daddy and mommy were shitting their pants with fear, and were not about to try and spank the Mountain.

[Howdyphillip]

You make good points, but what failings does Samwell have, and from what point of view would he be seen as bad? He's a genuinely good hearted guy who tends to act on said heart. He might annoy Jon Snow with his kindness and he might be a coward, but none of those things are evil traits.

Sam is another good example... Of course I love the character, and of course he is one of the most likable chaps in the series. that being said, there are guys for centuries that have lost their heads for breaking their vows to the wall. He is an oathbreaker. by nature of his sexual relationship with Gilly. Does this mean I want to see him dead, certainly not, but it does mean that the character is willing to lie and dishonor himself.

[Todd Sand bastard of AZ]

Sam is another good example... Of course I love the character, and of course he is one of the most likable chaps in the series. that being said, there are guys for centuries that have lost their heads for breaking their vows to the wall. He is an oathbreaker. by nature of his sexual relationship with Gilly. Does this mean I want to see him dead, certainly not, but it does mean that the character is willing to lie and dishonor himself.

I did not ask about his honor, I asked if he was evil in your opinion. We've seen through Eddard(and Jaime) that being honorable and being good are not always the same.