Greyjoys vs GRRM

[Sullen]

As as already been said in this thread, they might be on the darker side, but they're not fully evil.

If anything, they are the most meritocratic and populist of the main factions during the War of the Five Kings (bar the Wildlings).

[Ser Creighton]

You totally were. You're more than welcome to come with me and Taylor to our "Antichrist Baby Shower"

Your kid is going to look like one of those Conan O'Brian if they mated creatures.

[Kharn]

Have the Greyjoys EVER aligned themselves with other houses ?

The Boltons did even if it was temporary.

[JonisHenryTudor]

One thing about Martins good and evil comment, he is just copying life, nobody is pure good or evil in the real world either. You make a bad choice you think a bad thought and you are no longer pure good. That's why he says things like Gregor is not pure evil he likes puppies. He is mostly a really bad person. He is just saying everything is not black and white people make choices some good and some bad, but there are good and bad people out there. Being grey just makes the characters more believable.

Um you might have a difficult time convincing Jews that Hitler wasn't evil, and that he was just a bad guy who had a bad day. Martin, I think, is delusional in those regards. I don't believe the average person is evil or purely good, but don;t try and argue that people like John Wayne Gacy, Charles Manson, the Zodiac Killer, and every other serial killer are just bad people. I think the majority of people are grey. People do stupid things that don't make them evil people, such as drinking and driving. The person likely didn't intend to murder anyone, but they had a bad day and made a really stupid decision. I am fine with that argument. But Martin is delusional if he thinks evil people do not exist. Committing genocide cannot be chalked off as someone making a bad decision. Murdering dozens of people by means of brutal torture is not someone having a bad day and making a bad choice. Especially considering the context. Oliver Cromwell's massacre of the Irish was nasty business; however, considering the deep resentment between Protestants and Catholics, it was normal for the period. If that occurred today, Cromwell would be considered evil for massacring thousands of Catholics (women, children, infants, etc) because we now consider that to be against humanity. Nobody in the mid 20th century would argue that genocide was alright. Hitler decided to make it alright. The same with serial killers. No normal person thinks that is is alright to capture and brutally murder random people for shits and giggles.

A gang member who murders, etc is not evil. They unfortunately are brought up in an environment with little hope, so they made a poor life choice.

[Gustavo]

Just because what they do is in conflict with others doesn't necessarily mean they are evil

[Kharn]

Evil -

Adjective

1. Morally wrong or bad, immoral, wicked.

2. Harmful, injurious.

3. Characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering, unfortunate, disastrous.

[Drogon'sWrath]

Um you might have a difficult time convincing Jews that Hitler wasn't evil, and that he was just a bad guy who had a bad day. Martin, I think, is delusional in those regards. I don't believe the average person is evil or purely good, but don;t try and argue that people like John Wayne Gacy, Charles Manson, the Zodiac Killer, and every other serial killer are just bad people. I think the majority of people are grey. People do stupid things that don't make them evil people, such as drinking and driving. The person likely didn't intend to murder anyone, but they had a bad day and made a really stupid decision. I am fine with that argument. But Martin is delusional if he thinks evil people do not exist. Committing genocide cannot be chalked off as someone making a bad decision. Murdering dozens of people by means of brutal torture is not someone having a bad day and making a bad choice. Especially considering the context. Oliver Cromwell's massacre of the Irish was nasty business; however, considering the deep resentment between Protestants and Catholics, it was normal for the period. If that occurred today, Cromwell would be considered evil for massacring thousands of Catholics (women, children, infants, etc) because we now consider that to be against humanity. Nobody in the mid 20th century would argue that genocide was alright. Hitler decided to make it alright. The same with serial killers. No normal person thinks that is is alright to capture and brutally murder random people for shits and giggles.

A gang member who murders, etc is not evil. They unfortunately are brought up in an environment with little hope, so they made a poor life choice.

I don't think Martin takes it to such an extreme that he would argue that Gacy or Hitler wasn't evil. I think he just means that no one is 100% evil 100% of the time (or good for that matter). This is true even for someone as terrible as Hitler, granted what he did was bad enough to make no real difference. But what do I know? Maybe I'm just projecting my own philosophy onto Martin's similar view, but I do think this is closer to what he means when he says no one is purely good or evil, everyone has some grey.

[Cookiesbane]

Um you might have a difficult time convincing Jews that Hitler wasn't evil, and that he was just a bad guy who had a bad day. Martin, I think, is delusional in those regards. I don't believe the average person is evil or purely good, but don;t try and argue that people like John Wayne Gacy, Charles Manson, the Zodiac Killer, and every other serial killer are just bad people. I think the majority of people are grey. People do stupid things that don't make them evil people, such as drinking and driving. The person likely didn't intend to murder anyone, but they had a bad day and made a really stupid decision. I am fine with that argument. But Martin is delusional if he thinks evil people do not exist. Committing genocide cannot be chalked off as someone making a bad decision. Murdering dozens of people by means of brutal torture is not someone having a bad day and making a bad choice. Especially considering the context. Oliver Cromwell's massacre of the Irish was nasty business; however, considering the deep resentment between Protestants and Catholics, it was normal for the period. If that occurred today, Cromwell would be considered evil for massacring thousands of Catholics (women, children, infants, etc) because we now consider that to be against humanity. Nobody in the mid 20th century would argue that genocide was alright. Hitler decided to make it alright. The same with serial killers. No normal person thinks that is is alright to capture and brutally murder random people for shits and giggles.

A gang member who murders, etc is not evil. They unfortunately are brought up in an environment with little hope, so they made a poor life choice.

I assume what what GRRM said about someone being purely good or evil has to be understood as someone that is good or evil only for the sake of being good or evil without any other reasons. For example, Zed and Rita in Power Rangers are just introduced as evil being and that is the end of their story pretty much. What GRRM wants to write about is fully developed characters who have reasons for doing what they are doing and the feelings and emotions they experience.

Joffrey is piece of shit but you have no reason to assume that he was just born like that (i.e he is evil for the sake of being evil or for plot convenience). He is who he is because he was brought up by people that either inflated his ego (Cersei who is the definition of a shit mother) or by people that were too afraid to treat him as a normal kid due to his status as the heir. Look for example at his cruelty and his cowardice. He is cruel because he was brought up hearing stories such as the Rains of Castamere and his "father" killing the children of the Mad King. Expected to be the heir to both Baratheons and Lannisters he is trying to be better than them by being more cruel than his relatives. He is also a coward because he was never exposed to situations where he was really challenged and he has never seen anyone struggling to overcome a challenge since all the people he knows have already achieved the highest status the could achieve. However, that doesn't mean that he only feels cruelty or cowardice as a person. He also feels fear, joy, and other emotions since he is a developed character.

That's what I believe GRRM means by saying that he tries to create grey character's and not purely evil, i.e. Joffrey and not Rita Repulsa.

BTW, Hitler at the very start of you argument? You are supposed to keep the heavy weapons for the later phases of an argument. I for exampling am planning to bring Stalin up after you 3rd reply and Hitler after the 5th :P

[Jasta11]

I don't think they're pure evil, but they really are only a step above the Boltons (who have a flayed man in their sigil, make sports of flaying and torture, and live in a place called the friggin Dreadfort).

-Balon is not characterized by anything more than ''we do now sow lolz'' and is pretty stupid. Him dissing Theon for being a greenlander while he himself put him in that position by rebelling and losing is a giant dick move too.

-Victarion is also not the sharpest tool in the shed (per GRRM he's basically a blunt instrument in fact). He's not 100% evil, but seemingly very callous with the lives of others. His rampage in Essos is proof enough, and it's barely even begun.

-Euron is pretty much straight up evil. Murdering, abusing, lying, torturing scum.

-Theon is an arrogant dick before Reek.

-Aeron is a religious fanatic. He doesn't seem overly evil, but the Drowned God faith is perhaps second only to the Red one when it comes to demanding gratuitous ultraviolence, and he's happy to oblige.

-Asha is the least bad of the lot.... and she's still a raider, rampaging along the coast to attack anyone they see, kill them, take their valuables and subdue them into slavery.

I mean, of course the culture itself is pretty awful, but apart from the Reader pretty much all Ironborn we meet gleefully indulge in it so long as they get plunder.

[AdmiralKird]

The Iron Islands are the harshest land in all of Westeros. It's cold, wet, the land itself is unfertile, and the labor is hard and grueling. The standard of living is worse than anywhere else. By its very nature, the place begets that the ruling Greyjoys be hard, uncompromising, and rather cruel compared to the other houses. GRRM doesn't like how most fantasy stories are very black and white, and he strives to show the gray everywhere. This is all part of his overall greater goal to create a more believable and realistic fantasy tale.

Making the Greyjoys more relatable and likable would actually undermine these efforts, and would be less realistic to the morality of their environment. Yes, there is good and bad in every person, but when you put people in a bad environment, the darker the gray gets.

[FourmyleOfCeres]

I hate House Greyjoy with a pure, pure hate, I hate everything they stand for, their entire culture and way of life - I think they're evil, evil, evil and awful - but I think the OP is wrong.

You see, Asha Greyjoy is a Greyjoy. And Asha Greyjoy is awesome. She's charming. She's funny. She's moral, more or less. She's great.

But her people and their way of life cannot be allowed to survive the series. As you say, they're pure evil. She's the perfect means of domesticating them, once the dust settles.

[FourmyleOfCeres]

As as already been said in this thread, they might be on the darker side, but they're not fully evil.

Culturally, yes, they are pure evil. There are no redeeming qualities. They take pride in being thieves and raiders and rapists, that's their 'culture'. Their words are a brag about not working or making an honest living. They're terrible.

[FourmyleOfCeres]

Um you might have a difficult time convincing Jews that Hitler wasn't evil, and that he was just a bad guy who had a bad day. Martin, I think, is delusional in those regards. I don't believe the average person is evil or purely good, but don;t try and argue that people like John Wayne Gacy, Charles Manson, the Zodiac Killer, and every other serial killer are just bad people. I think the majority of people are grey. People do stupid things that don't make them evil people, such as drinking and driving. The person likely didn't intend to murder anyone, but they had a bad day and made a really stupid decision. I am fine with that argument. But Martin is delusional if he thinks evil people do not exist. Committing genocide cannot be chalked off as someone making a bad decision. Murdering dozens of people by means of brutal torture is not someone having a bad day and making a bad choice. Especially considering the context. Oliver Cromwell's massacre of the Irish was nasty business; however, considering the deep resentment between Protestants and Catholics, it was normal for the period. If that occurred today, Cromwell would be considered evil for massacring thousands of Catholics (women, children, infants, etc) because we now consider that to be against humanity. Nobody in the mid 20th century would argue that genocide was alright. Hitler decided to make it alright. The same with serial killers. No normal person thinks that is is alright to capture and brutally murder random people for shits and giggles.

A gang member who murders, etc is not evil. They unfortunately are brought up in an environment with little hope, so they made a poor life choice.

These are terrible examples. Hitler and Cromwell are evil. Outside of their own people, who were mindless jingoists, they've been generally considered such for their actions against the Jews and Irish, respectively. Cromwell was considered evil at the time, it's just that his people happened to rule - at the time. They don't rule no more.

And yes, gang members who murder are evil. Upbringing is a sad detail, but no more. Unless we would completely go without personal responsibility, and just throw that out the window altogether, yes, they're responsible for their evil actions.

[JonisHenryTudor]

I assume what what GRRM said about someone being purely good or evil has to be understood as someone that is good or evil only for the sake of being good or evil without any other reasons. For example, Zed and Rita in Power Rangers are just introduced as evil being and that is the end of their story pretty much. What GRRM wants to write about is fully developed characters who have reasons for doing what they are doing and the feelings and emotions they experience.

Joffrey is piece of shit but you have no reason to assume that he was just born like that (i.e he is evil for the sake of being evil or for plot convenience). He is who he is because he was brought up by people that either inflated his ego (Cersei who is the definition of a shit mother) or by people that were too afraid to treat him as a normal kid due to his status as the heir. Look for example at his cruelty and his cowardice. He is cruel because he was brought up hearing stories such as the Rains of Castamere and his "father" killing the children of the Mad King. Expected to be the heir to both Baratheons and Lannisters he is trying to be better than them by being more cruel than his relatives. He is also a coward because he was never exposed to situations where he was really challenged and he has never seen anyone struggling to overcome a challenge since all the people he knows have already achieved the highest status the could achieve. However, that doesn't mean that he only feels cruelty or cowardice as a person. He also feels fear, joy, and other emotions since he is a developed character.

That's what I believe GRRM means by saying that he tries to create grey character's and not purely evil, i.e. Joffrey and not Rita Repulsa.

BTW, Hitler at the very start of you argument? You are supposed to keep the heavy weapons for the later phases of an argument. I for exampling am planning to bring Stalin up after you 3rd reply and Hitler after the 5th :P

Hahaha, my opinion is to destroy your enemies asap, why use pistols when you can end the war quickly, haha jk. No I think you are right with Martin, and I would hope that Martin doesn't believe that it is impossible to be evil. That would just be naive. I agree about Joff, which gives merit to Robert's claim that Ned would have raised him better (not sure if that was book Rob or show rob or both). My only qualms about some of the characters is to claim that Gregor is only bad because he likes puppies. I mean Hitler was at the forefront of the German environmentalist campaign, and I believe he had a dog. But at the same time I think it is difficult to reconcile certain things by always falling back on the grey concept. I mean this is literally borderline to 50 shades of grey. Hear me out. If we say Jon isn't perfect because he went against the NW's origins and allowed the wildlings in, is that really the same as Jaime tossing Bran out of the window? Ok bad example? Theon's betrayal to appease his father (son in dire need of love from his own father) verse Walder Frey's execution of Robb, his mother, and his entire entourage (almost all) because of a broken contract? Are they both the same shade of grey, or is there a variation? My problem with the "grey" concept Martin tries to push is that I don't buy that all characters are the same shade of grey, and if not at which point do we start saying this person is further along on the "bad" scale then another? If we say that, how can we reconcile that without being hypocritical?

For example. Ned lied to his wife about Jon to protect Jon and honor his sister. The obvious reaction from most people is that Ned gave up his honor to protect his family. At the same time, the act of a lie caused unnecessary tension between Cat and Jon, and the fact that it was a lie, regardless of intent, suggests that Ned would in fact lie. Obviously most readers will not condemn Ned for that, but it has to be considered as one point that suggests Ned was not purely good. So Ned has the capacity to do things that are not necessarily good, even if for the common good. Compare that to Ramsey's torture of Theon. One could argue that Ramsay is a product of his environment and is prone to various perverse things but he is not evil. Would anyone really argue that Ned and Ramsey are the same? I think not. I think most people would say that Ramsey is more prone to commit to heinous acts than Ned. So do we say alright Ned sits here and Ramsay here on the "grey" chart? AFter awhile we will realize that the people of Westeros are everywhere on the chart. So the person all the way to the left is less likely to commit atrocious acts compared to the person on the right. Can we honestly say that well perhaps Ramsay does worst things, but he is troubled so he is not evil, but he is not as good as Ned. He is slightly worst? That seems like a very bizarre way to classify people, and almost to the point where one goes out of their way to avoid calling people evil because it isn't PC or are slightly naive?

Now I am not referring to you in this respect. The whole idea is troublesome. I buy without a doubt that most people are not good nor evil, but I do not adhere to the idea that people cannot be evil. I think there are evil characters regardless of Martin's view. He wrote the story so he can call his characters whatever he likes, but I think he would be naive if he tried to make the point that all of his characters were "grey" and none of them were on one side or the other. To me that is a very "hippie" world view that wants to ignore the fact that some people are in fact evil. And in a way, that sort of thinking is why we have repeat (as in 4 or 5 times) sex offenders released to society, because after all they are not evil and their stint in prison has reformed them. Oops they slipped.

[JonisHenryTudor]

These are terrible examples. Hitler and Cromwell are evil. Outside of their own people, who were mindless jingoists, they've been generally considered such for their actions against the Jews and Irish, respectively. Cromwell was considered evil at the time, it's just that his people happened to rule - at the time. They don't rule no more.

And yes, gang members who murder are evil. Upbringing is a sad detail, but no more. Unless we would completely go without personal responsibility, and just throw that out the window altogether, yes, they're responsible for their evil actions.

No they are not terrible examples. The point is that there are people whom are evil. I think you misunderstand my point, perhaps? My point was that Martin seems to argue that there is no evil, only grey which is what one poster said and I quote "nobody is good or evil in the real world either". That is what I was responding to. As Cromwell goes, European Protestants supported him, so it wasn't his own people but all co-religious. I am only using that as a distinction of context. Obviously we find Cromwell's motivations cruel, but inserting value judgments in history is erroneous. In a post-Reformation context, what Cromwell did wasn't necessarily seen as heinous by other Protestants because of the political-religious environment. Catholics did the same thing. As bloody and cruel as it was, that was the name of the game in post-reformation Europe. Which is why I said the same action today would be considered much worst because we live in a much different world. Actively committing such an atrocity in a world where it is not acceptable takes a special person.

My point about gang members is to avoid labeling all people evil, and take Martin's argument into play. I believe in personal responsibility as much as anyone, but if we are to scale people there is a difference from Hitler than some LA gang member. I am not arguing that Joe gang member had a rough life, so let's excuse him.

[JonisHenryTudor]

I don't think Martin takes it to such an extreme that he would argue that Gacy or Hitler wasn't evil. I think he just means that no one is 100% evil 100% of the time (or good for that matter). This is true even for someone as terrible as Hitler, granted what he did was bad enough to make no real difference. But what do I know? Maybe I'm just projecting my own philosophy onto Martin's similar view, but I do think this is closer to what he means when he says no one is purely good or evil, everyone has some grey.

Perhaps, but if one glass is 95% full and the other 50%, are we going to say they are alike because neither is 100% full? Same size glass by the way.

[Fallen Prince]

I'm not convinced he would have let it be done were Ramsay not there. I don't think he would have had the balls to go through with it otherwise. Not that it excuses him standing by and letting it happen.

Theon desperately wanted daddy's approval, and thought taking Winterfell would cement it and thought he would show himself strong by "killing" an escaped Bran and Rickon. He wanted to please his father so much that he was willing to do whatever he thought would grant him his father's favor, not seeing that his father was a prick who had no love or respect for his only living son. IIRC, he reflected on what he had done, thinking his father would be proud of him for killing Ned Stark's whelps. He was misguided. Again, that doesn't excuse child murder, and the deed itself is terrible. I want him to face justice for the act, though what he got from Ramsay is overkill, imo, especially since Ramsay was a big part of the murders himself. My point is that Theon isn't wholly evil. He's pitiful, even before becoming Ramsay's plaything. He's unintelligent. He's desperate for his father's love and approval. He's a bit of a douche. But he's not wholly evil. Still not a good guy, but there's enough good in him to keep me from calling him evil.

Now, none of this is to say I particularly like Theon. He never came across as pleasant even in GOT. But he also never did anything truly evil until he had the kids killed. And given his reasoning behind it, I can't call him evil. I'd agree that he's got more bad than good in him, but still not enough bad to call evil.

Now, if you want evil, look to Qyburn and Ramsay and Joffrey among others.

Agree with everything you said except Theon being unintelligent. His plan to capture Winterfell showed a lot of intelligence, granted his overall strategy didn't.

[FourmyleOfCeres]

The only difference between Hitler and an LA gang member is means and opportunity.

If Martin's position is that no one (or very few people) is truly evil, I disagree with him. I think our world is filled with evil people - I think his is even more filled with evil people. If he meant to present shades of gray, I think in general he's failed. He has several characters and groups who are obviously evil - the Lannisters for the most part (Tywin, Cersei, Joff, Jaime imo, Gregor and his men), the Boltons, the Freys for the most part, the Greyjoys and Iron Islanders for the most part (all the mains but Asha and her mother), Vargo Hoat, Qyburn.

There are a lot of evil people in this world of his, whether he meant there to be or not.

[horizon]

Theon's taking of Winterfel was pretty smart. But his mistake was that he had no backup. If the ironborn attack was to back him up at Winterfel then there was no room for "Reek" (Ramsey) to influence Theon that much and later on march in with a Bolton army.

Damphair seems to me as a tormented person. His childhood seems filled with fear because of Euron. The moment he nearly drowned was a turning point for him and yet he still is scared of Euron.

Euron, as interesting as his story is, he is just evil, yes.

Victarion is a military commander, nothing else. He tries to do his best in every way possible. According Ironborn standards that is.

Overall the ironborn are, well, fearsome. Aggressive. But not evil from an evil point of view. Euron is evil, Ramsey is. Tywin's red wedding plan was evil, etc.

[Fallen Prince]

The only difference between Hitler and an LA gang member is means and opportunity.

If Martin's position is that no one (or very few people) is truly evil, I disagree with him. I think our world is filled with evil people - I think his is even more filled with evil people. If he meant to present shades of gray, I think in general he's failed. He has several characters and groups who are obviously evil - the Lannisters for the most part (Tywin, Cersei, Joff, Jaime imo, Gregor and his men), the Boltons, the Freys for the most part, the Greyjoys and Iron Islanders for the most part (all the mains but Asha and her mother), Vargo Hoat, Qyburn.

There are a lot of evil people in this world of his, whether he meant there to be or not.

I think, and so does GRRM I believe, that true evil is an absolute. To truly be evil you can't have any good in you and a lot of people you named as evil definitely have good qualities. Tywin cares about his family, Cersei truly loves her kids, Jaime does a lot of decent things, etc., etc.

And comparing an average gang member to Hitler? Few gang members go out of their way to harm people because of some warped racial bias. It's usually about getting respect or money, which is deplorable, but more understandable IMO than Hitler's actions.