What is evil?

[ARYa_Nym]

Biter eats people ALIVE! This was the most disgusting thing in the entire series for me.

Ramsay plays with his kills first. I think it's evil to give them such a slow death.

Davos is probably the only character who I think is completely good besides Aemon but I think that Davos is boring. I liked poor Aemon though.

[Silmarien]

Biter eats people ALIVE! This was the most disgusting thing in the entire series for me.

Ramsay plays with his kills first. I think it's evil to give them such a slow death.

Davos is probably the only character who I think is completely good besides Aemon but I think that Davos is boring. I liked poor Aemon though.

Sam hasn't done anything evil. And he killed an Other! So I'd probably add him to the list of good characters.

[Fearsome Fred]

To me, evil is almost a de-humanising word, it gives the bad things that humans do an almost sub-human or un-human quality.

This is because you are influenced by modern culture, which in turn is heavily influenced by the philosophy of humanism. Humanism idealizes humanity, and therefore seeks to replace the traditional ideas of "Good vs evil" with the idea of "Human vs Inhuman". Modern culture ends up confusing them.

[ARYa_Nym]

Sam hasn't done anything evil. And he killed an Other! So I'd probably add him to the list of good characters.

Oh, yeah. That's true. He's a good person and cares about others which I think is good because given how his father treated him he could have totally turned out bitter and mean. I find him annoying though but I appreciate that he's a good person.

[Fearsome Fred]

He threatened her life - that would fall under a "self-defense" clause, no?

Uh. No. "You threatened my life," does not fall under the self-defense clause.

In this case, I think the "I did not do it, Drogo did" clause may arguably apply.

[Silmarien]

Uh. No. "You threatened my life," does not fall under the self-defense clause.

In this case, I think the "I did not do it, Drogo did" clause may arguably apply.

Why does it not fall under self-defense? People are saying she's evil for standing there and watching her brother die...after he just threatened her life and the life of her unborn child. Obviously she didn't kill him, but how that makes her evil....I don't understand.

[The Shadowbinder]

A lot of you guys have a very silly notion of what evil is... and by silly I mean extremely judgmental, unforgiving, and heavy handed. Reading some of these answers makes me imagne you guys sitting behind a table at the Spanish Inquisition sentencing people to torture or death for such evil acts as self defense or punishing criminals.

Like Kevan being evil for "orchastrating Cersei's Walk" or Dany for burning Mirri Maz Duur alive... these acts aren't even slightly evil, they are not evil at all. They are justice, in the minds of Kevan and Dany - is it perverted unfair justice? Yeah possibly, but their intent makes all the difference.

Jamie isn't evil because he committed incest - unless you're a fervent follower of the seven (I'm not). Does The Faith say that incest is evil? Yeah I guess, according to you guys. Does that make it evil? No. Was Jamie sleeping with Cersei in the spirit of evil, unnatural, incestous sex? No... he was having what he imagined to be a loving relationship. Most people would disagree, HOWEVER in Jamie's mind he was doing what he did for love - and therefore is not evil.

Tyrion killing Shae... was it murder? Yes, pretty sure. Was it evil? Again no. Tyrion killed Shae in a fit of uncontrollable passion - he didn't even know she was there. Can you be accidentally evil? Maybe in your mind, in my mind being evil is hurting or causing pain to another for the enjoyment of seeing them suffer.

Did someone say Robert was evil for fathering children out of wedlock... what? Hitler was evil, someone who has children out of wedlock is just an asshole (Unless Robert was intentionally having bastards to psychologically torture Cersei - which he wasn't).

In summation I'd like to quote Satan and say: "Without evil there would be no good so it must be good to be evil sometime!"

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X13Kb_DktHg

[Fearsome Fred]

Why does it not fall under self-defense?

Because the Viserys was helpless at the point when he was murdered. There was no imminent threat to anyone.

Yeah, he may have been an imminent threat IN THE PAST, but that does not fall under self defense or defense of others. Such justifications only allow you to act TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY to remove an IMMINENT threat to your life or the life of another.

If you want to try to justify it on other grounds (ie quasi-judicial execution for some crime or other against Dany) that is a different story. But it is not self defense.

[seanbean4lyfe]

Evil is the lack of desire of being responsible for the consequences of one's actions.

In that sense, it is also lack of wisdom, and above all, the lack of desire for wisdom.

Of your list, Jaime was certainly evil, but he has really come around in ASOS and AFFC. He may well no longer be.

Tyrion - no, I don't see him as evil. His killing of Tywin was long overdue, albeit tragic. Tywin was a cancer, almost as bad as Littlefinger. Quite literally a corruptor, and a very unrepenting corruptor while at that. While not to be taken lightly, his death was justified.

Killing Shae was more of a pure revenge thing, of course. But I still don't think it marks him as an evil person. More like one that is not above revenge.

Sandor? Are you kidding me? He is nearly a Paladin. Sandor has one of the most accurate, honest senses of moral values in Westeros entire. He has commited attrocities, for sure, but his defining characteristic is his relentless desire to overcome his own environmental influences in order to become a more dignified person. In that respect he overshadows even Davos.

Theon is fascinating. A textbook example of evil in its purest, most common form - the result of despair, ignorance and lack of proper emotional structure. Evil as an accident not properly prevented or remedied, if you will. There is hope for him still, but he certainly has a whole lot to atone for. Still, I wouldn't so much say that he is evil as that he has commited terrible attrocities in the recent past.

Melisandre is evil to the core. Stannis is actually worse, since he is so hypocritical.

Khal Drogo is more like a moral revolutionary than anything else. He is by no means evil, and in fact takes grievous risks to resist the moral shortcomings of the culture he is inserted in. While being prodded by Daenerys, true, but still.

Perhaps paradoxically, Daenerys herself is somewhat evil now. Losing Rhaego and Drogo really changed her. She is currently somewhat drunk with her power and careless with her recent choices. A wiser, better person would be more careful. Truth be told, the circunstances don't really help her - she is too much in evidence and can't afford to experiment a lot with less serious stakes.

Littlefinger is scum.

Robert... I just don't know about him. We don't have enough information about how exactly his early days with Cersei were. Bastardy, however, doesn't seem to be that terrible a thing in Westeros. It ruins one's social status, but too few people have any to begin with.

Cersei is evil, for similar reasons of those that apply to Theon, although they are more solidly placed in her case. Like most evil people, she just doesn't know how to deal healthily with the pressure she suffered since she was young.

Lysa Arryn, and to an even greater extent Gregor Clegane, climb and perhaps cross that line between being evil and just being plain unbalanced. Both are clearly evil because they cause damage to others as a matter of course, but it is unclear how much of a choice they actually have.

Joffrey was quite evil. Arya and to a lesser extend Tommen are in dangerous paths right now.

Who else? Tywin, of course. Janos Slynt. Pycelle. Apparently Varys, although I'm a bit on the fence about him. Jeyne Westerling's mother. Vargo Hoat and his accomplices, of course. Jorah Mormont, although he has his moments and may be curable still. Chett from the ASOS prologue, for sure. Rickard Karstark, although there are atenuating circunstances. Arguably Hoster Tully, who may well have damned Lysa (although some additional information would be nice).

ETA: and of course, Walder Frey and the Boltons are quite evil. Ramsay even more than Roose, although it is a good dispute.

I like you're explanation! Very well said :cheers:

especially Theon. I never have seen him as evil, even though he has done horrible things...I think he is just an interesting case. He's IMO one of the greyest characters.

I see evil as being horrible and not caring...at all. You don't even realize you did something wrong. You're just horrible because you can be. A lot of these "evil" characters, IMO have an agenda or something they want to achieve and they're selfish and disregard anyone else. People who don't fit this are Joffrey and Ramsay. I see them as the truly evil characters of the series.

I think evil is an extremely strong word that shouldn't be taken lightly. Murder is horrible, but it doesn't make you evil. Murder of children, even worse, but it doesn't make you evil unless you make a habit of it. If you get sick pleasure out of it, then yah, you're evil. Jaime, the Hound, and Theon didn't get anything out of killing those kids, it was just necessary (in their minds) to survive.

[Fearsome Fred]

A lot of you guys have a very silly notion of what evil is... and by silly I mean extremely judgmental, unforgiving, and heavy handed.

You are the one who is being silly, judgmental and heavy handed. You call people unforgiving. But the possibility of forgiveness, or redemption, was never rejected by anyone. Only the original evil was discussed. Without evil conduct, there is nothing to forgive. Without evil persons, there is noone to redeem.

Reading some of these answers makes me imagne you guys sitting behind a table at the Spanish Inquisition sentencing people to torture or death for such evil acts as self defense or punishing criminals.

WHOAH! Talk about HEAVY HANDED! Talk about JUDGMENTAL! Talk about HYPOCRICY.

Try calming down a bit.

Jamie isn't evil because he committed incest

He was selfish. He was endangering lives, including (but not limited to) Cersei's; then Joffrey's; then Myrcella's; then Tommen's. At what point did it become evil? When he pushed a boy out the window to protect his little secret. Or is that also the fault of the Seven?

HOWEVER in Jamie's mind he was doing what he did for love - and therefore is not evil.

Same goes for pushing Bran, I suppose.

Tyrion killing Shae... was it murder? Yes, pretty sure. Was it evil? Again no.

Yes. The act itself was morally forbidden and not justified. The "devil made me do it" excuse is always available, and always unprovable.

Tyrion killed Shae in a fit of uncontrollable passion

Pure speculation on your part. All the text establishes was that he felt like killing her, so he killed her. He killed Symon too, or was that also uncontrollable passion?

He climbed the ladder with a crossbow in his hand. What do you think he meant to do to anyone he met? Let them live and sound the alarm? Or was it uncontrollable passion that made him climb that ladder?

Did someone say Robert was evil for fathering children out of wedlock...

No. I think someone (me) said that the act itself was evil. Which means Robert is evil in the sense that all men and women are evil (ie. all men and women are sinners).

I do not consider Robert to be what is usually called, in fiction, and "Evil Character". He is not a "Villain", per se.

Hitler was evil,

How the hell do you know? Maybe he was being mind-controlled by aliens. Maybe the Devil made him do it. Maybe he was the product of an abusive childhood. Maybe he just couldn't help himself.

Sure, if you judge him by his evil conduct, he was "evil". But you don't seem to want to do that with Tyrion.

someone who has children out of wedlock is just an asshole

It the act itself is not evil, then what is the basis for calling him an "asshole".

In summation I'd like to quote Satan

Sure you would.

[seanbean4lyfe]

How the hell do you know? Maybe he was being mind-controlled by aliens. Maybe the Devil made him do it. Maybe he was the product of an abusive childhood. Maybe he just couldn't help himself.

Sure, if you judge him by his evil conduct, he was "evil". But you don't seem to want to do that with Tyrion.

I once read it was because he had a poop fetish. Seriously. but it was on cracked, so I wouldn't take my word for it. And it had to do with Freudian theory so....

Hitler being evil statements always bother me...especially when it's not relevant to the discussion at hand.

[Silmarien]

Godwin's law, already? Geez...

[Woman of War]

This is because you are influenced by modern culture, which in turn is heavily influenced by the philosophy of humanism. Humanism idealizes humanity, and therefore seeks to replace the traditional ideas of "Good vs evil" with the idea of "Human vs Inhuman". Modern culture ends up confusing them.

Actually I am proud of being influenced by "modern culture", which is able to see a human being as person that may have done an evil crime but goes on to be a member of human society and as such deserves the respect of his or her human rights and justice by a working legal system.

When Tyrion killed Shae he committed murder. I am not familiar with the US-American legal system, but the degree of murder depends on interpretation by a jury: A spontaneous murder out of rage (Shae or Tywin) may not be seen as murder of first degree, whereas a murder to cover up for a crime (killing his father) yet to come or to silence Shae as witness in order to get away would certainly qualify as murder of first degree.

And there comes the interesting question of that much used word "redemption"

Would saving the world via dragon or book knowledge redeem a character from murder?

Would saving one child ( Arya or Sansa) redeem from murdering another (Mycah)?

Would freeing the slaves redeem from crucifying 163 hostages?

What would Theon have to do to be no longer seen as evil?

Or Jaime? Or even Ramsay Bolton as very extreme example?

What is the arithmetics of redemption? Can characters be redeemed at all?

Are we supposed to feel Satisfaction when an "evil " character dies or gets his just punishment? I felt no satisfaction at Cersei's walk. Not that I exactly pitied her but I suffered with her, because I am definitely not willing to accept any Faith's or other religion's morality when it comes to judging female sexual behaviour, see the post # 14 by Silmarien. Values of democracy and human rights definitely come before any ideology (for me, not in Westeros).

Or take the arc of the literary character Tyrion. I insist on mentioning "literary character" because we should always bear in mind that there are not RL persons to be judged but literary inventions who fulfil a function in a storyline.

Are his murders and his abusive behaviour in ADWD set up by Martin to prepare us for Tyrion's way down into evil, to build him up as the great villain antagonist? Or are they meant to break our solidarity with his character, to crack his storyline in order to make his moral return more shiny? To make the readers question their own moral categories? Does GRRM believe in a moral return, i.e. "redemption"?

[All Men Must Rhyme]

The notion of evil is subjective. What is seen as an act of evil to one person, may not be seen as an act of evil to another. Tyrion murdering his father and Shae, to me, is not an act of evil, but an understandable act forged from feelings of betrayal and heartbreak; Tywin, taking from Tyrion the only woman he ever truly loved, and perhaps the only person who truly ever loved him, would surely be enough to justify his death, bearing in mind the society in which they live - renown is often given to the men with the greatest ability to kill.

This act, to the reader and to Tyrion himself, could be seen as an act of justice rather than evil, because we know the motivation behind it. To the other characters in the story, who do not, it is an act of kin slaying, murdering an unarmed man quite literally with his pants down. Hard to say one way or the other.

King Robert being seen as evil for having various affairs and fathering bastards is also unjust. Not only is it widely acceptable in the setting of the novels for men, especially in such a position of power, to have mistresses, but the fact that he acknowledges and provides for several of them shows that he at least shows care for his offspring - those who are actually his at least. It is also unfair to brand him as evil for following up on one of mankinds greatest desires and instincts, especially in a loveless marriage with Cersei where she quite simply won't provide the satisfaction he needs. It is a carnal desire, to be sure, but I can't see how a man is evil for having consensual relations with other women, even while married.

If anything, the act of evil associated with Robert would be putting a price on a thirteen year old girls head - yet, to his councillers, barring Ned, this is not an act of evil, but a necessary act of war, that not only solidifies his place on the throne, but in their argument, would help ensure that one life saved the lives of many. How many times in modern day are similar situations seen? Is it evil to kill a dictator if it saves the lives of his people? How many of you would sacrifice one person to save thousands? An act of ill judgement, perhaps, which he regrets on his deathbed, yet not wholly evil - an act of fear, perhaps, but with reasoning behind it, not mindless slaughter.

Khal Drogo is a savage. The notion of evil comes from having a society based on laws and peace. He is a warrior, who knows no other way. How can he be evil if he doesn't know better? Safer to call him uncivilised than evil.

Cersei is a difficult one to judge. The majority of what she does is in an effort to provide the best for her children. It is perhaps cruel to hide the identity of her children's father from Robert, but she has little other choice: if it was discovered, they would die, simple as that. Not telling him is perhaps the opposite to evil. The fact she has children through an incestuous relationship is disturbing, but not evil: She is wed to a man she despises, feels that as a woman she is wasted in a patriarchal society, and wants to be with the man that she loves; it would be more romantic if this man wasn't her twin, but still, it is understandable.

Sandor Clegane does not seem an evil man to me. As far as I can see, he is a psychologically damaged man, driven by the fear of what his brother did to him, and the hatred he feels towards him for that. It is hard to describe anything he does as evil - he kills men in war, the job of a knight. If we brand one man evil for that, we may as well brand all of the soldiers in the book as such. This point leads me on to Gregor:

Is he evil? Yes, for me the one character who could be described as wholly evil is Gregor: No compassion, just rage and a desire for bloodshed. Shoving his young brother's face into a burning fire for an incredibly minor slight can't really be seen in any other way. Killing unarmed people, and burning them alive is also hard to justify. However, as a knight, sworn to the service of a lord, he is honour bound to obey orders. All he does is in Tywin Lannistor's name. This is where the argument for what is truly evil can be made: should he, even in the midst of war, even bound as he is to follow orders, refuse to do this? In today's society, it seems obvious that his conscience should tell him not to, but society and beliefs change: harder times made harder people, and those acts would perhaps be considered normal acts of war in those times: evil now, but not then.

This also comes back to the readers perspective. Perhaps there is some story behind Gregor's anger that we never discover which caused him to be this way, which could make his nature more understandable. A dog will bite if you kick it - any sort of mental disorder or abuse could turn him this way. Is he evil if it isn't his fault? Perhaps not.

Overall, evil comes from perspective. We view these acts as evil because in today's society they appear barbaric and uncivilized, but to the characters in the novels, they are probably perfectly acceptable. There is no true sense of evil therefore, it is just the world they live in shaping their actions.

I do realise I've just written an essay, so I apologise for that, and I understand if you don't read it :P I just love subjects like this :D

[Milkman34]

Way too many people don't understand that morality is subjective.

[LuisDantas]

Wow. It sure looks like our concepts of "evil" are often very much at odds with each other.

In all honesty, I did not realize that it could happen to such a great extent. More than once I felt like some of you were writing that "xyz is not evil, it is just the complete opposite of good".

May I suggest that we try a more cautious approach? Perhaps taking one example at a time, presenting a concept or definition and doing a quick attempt at finding some consensus and discussion for it, perhaps?

For instance, there is a line from Baelor Targaryen in one of the Dung and Egg tales that I think is relevant to the matter. "One does not have to intend harm in order to cause it", IIRC.

That line reminds me of some of my premises.

1) Evil has more to do with the results and circunstances than with intents and purposes. It is possible to define evil in a metaphysical way, but that severely hinders the usefulness of the concept, because it becomes too subjective and too prone to self-delusion.

2) Generally speaking, something is "evil" because it contributes towards the destruction or weaking of situations and attributes that are understood to be healthy, conductive to harmony, happiness and stability. That can be tricky to define, however, because culturas biases and taboos often trouble the understanding of what is desirable or not. For a quick illustration of how that happens, just think of the kind of discussion that happens often in politics.

3) When applied to people instead of specific situations, "evil" becomes in effect a kind of insanity. Evil people are, by definition, those who don't truly understand the general effects of their goals and their behavior. It is implicit that if they did, they would behave differently. When applied to people, evil is not so much the opposite of good as the opposite of wisdom.

A tricky consequence of this premise is that while people of dubious mental faculties (say, Hodor) might perhaps be capable of evil, that is debatable. They can of course cause harm, but their responsibility is arguable, and therefore so is their very capability of causing evil, and with more reason their capability of being evil. On the flip side, the brighter a person is, the more moral responsibility it has. That is why I tend to be harsher in judgment of obviously intelligent and experient people such as Littlefinger and Stannis than of Theon, who so obviously really wishes he knew better and acts out of sheer panic as often as not. Tommen, as I hoped to have made clear earlier, is obviously not an "evil boy". But, much like I understand Jaime and Cersei were before him, he is being groomed to see evil as a natural and needed part of existence. Quite literally, the Lannisters have become used to corrupting their offspring, ever since Tywin became a widower at least.

[LuisDantas]

Way too many people don't understand that morality is subjective.

Is morality even an useful concept, if we just claim that it is subjective and leave it at that?

It seems to me that while the perception of moral values is certainly heavily subjective, it is possible and very desirable to fight that subjectivity. After all, morality deals with the results of interaction among people, so it can not really afford to be purely subjective.

[Woman of War]

The notion of evil is subjective. What is seen as an act of evil to one person, may not be seen as an act of evil to another. Tyrion murdering his father and Shae, to me, is not an act of evil, but an understandable act forged from feelings of betrayal and heartbreak; Tywin, taking from Tyrion the only woman he ever truly loved, and perhaps the only person who truly ever loved him, would surely be enough to justify his death, bearing in mind the society in which they live - renown is often given to the men with the greatest ability to kill.

This act, to the reader and to Tyrion himself, could be seen as an act of justice rather than evil, because we know the motivation behind it. To the other characters in the story, who do not, it is an act of kin slaying, murdering an unarmed man quite literally with his pants down. Hard to say one way or the other.

Do not get me wrong. I am a fan of the literary character Tyrion. But this means he deserves a careful assessment from my side - and he is a murderer, no less than Sandor who killed that innocent boy, doing it because he was ordered makes things worse imo.

I am looking forward to read about Tyrion's hopefully very interesting story and I will follow with a racing heart no matter if he ends as a character who is perceived as evil by most or if GRRM gives us the feeling that he might be "redeemed".

( of course a girl can dream and I want him to survive through all books and to be at least a little bit happy - my romantic self )

And - are any people, fictional or not, evil or do they commit evil deeds which after a certain, subjective, amount of them have piled up, force us to judge that character as evil? Big difference: are we willing to see the person first or only the perpetrator?

[All Men Must Rhyme]

Do not get me wrong. I am a fan of the literary character Tyrion. But this means he deserves a careful assessment from my side - and he is a murderer, no less than Sandor who killed that innocent boy, doing it because he was ordered makes things worse imo.

I am looking forward to read about Tyrion's hopefully very interesting story and I will follow with a racing heart no matter if he ends as a character who is perceived as evil by most or if GRRM gives us the feeling that he might be "redeemed".

( of course a girl can dream and I want him to survive through all books and to be at least a little bit happy - my romantic self )

The question isn't whether or not he is a murderer, but whether or not that makes him evil. I'd say no, being that it was justified, or at least understandable; he killed the man who took away his love, effectively turning him into the whoring, drinking pessimist that he is, after discovering that he was lied to for most of his life, after suffering mostly neglect and spite from his own Father, and the woman, although he probably realised never meant a word she said to him, stabbed him in the back and proceeded to have sex with his father in what was recently Tyrion's own bed. Effectively the man he murdered took away the one person to truly love him, his role, and now the loyalty and "companionship" of the girl he gave so much too. I'd say Tyrion wouldn't be human if he didn't at least want to murder him for that. I definitely couldn't call it an act of evil.

[Lordi Nietos]

I have yet to read the replies, which I'm sure will include posts I'm echoing here. Jaime & Cersei incest was not evil, nor was Roberts adultery, killing Tywin, crucifying the Meereenese.

I'd say Ramsay is more evil than Gregor, but that doesn't matter. You'll burn in the Sun just as well as in a supernova.