"No character is wholly good or evil" - I call BS.

[Boarsbane]

Well, if I had to choose the "most evil", recognizing that they have a few good points:

1. Petyr Baelish.

2. Tywin Lannister

3. Ramsay Bolton

Most good:

1. Davos Seaworth

2. Samwell Tarly

4. Catelyn

Cat murdered poor, innocent Jinglebell

[kimim]

Good and evil are relative. What seems good to you, might seem evil to me, depending on circumstances. Ergo I'd concur that nobody could possible be wholly good or wholly evil. Good and evil are characterizations that we as humans utilize; such states cannot be clearly defined as, say, black or white.

How about this: The author defines good and evil in the text. I see zero evidence in the text that we are meant to see Gregor as anything less than entirely evil. There is no complexity there, or redeeming qualities. Gregor isn't a great fighter, nor is he very smart. He's just a big, cruel thing that kills. People like LF, Tywin are more complex, and I wouldn't characterize them as "evil" in Martin's world. They're grey.

[Pecan]

I basically agree with the OP. Ramsay and The Mountain are both pretty much pure evil. Amory Lorch is in there as well. Roose Bolton is pretty far on the evil side of the spectrum though maybe not 100% evil.

[Pecan]

There are monsters in the real world, psychopaths that have not one ounce of humanity in them. It would be unrealistic if characters like that didn't exist in ASOIAF.

[Archmaester Drew]

Gregor Clegane likely has gigantism. This is often caused by a tumor on the pituitary gland that regulates the endocrine system, controlling growth. This is likely why he has terrible headaches and is addicted to milk of the poppy (an opiate, presumably). When onset is in adulthood it is known as acromegaly, but Gregor has been immense since childhood. This doesn't excuse his atrocities, but gives some perspective. :)

Ramsay loved his dogs, yes? ;)

[Lady Blizzardborn]

Sorry, no. And if J.K. Rowling denies "Harry Potter" to be a fantasy series, I'll disregard that, too. Yes, the author might be wrong in the perception of his own creation.

I call :bs: on that. The author is the final authority on everything to do with the story.

And J.K. would not deny that Harry Potter is fantasy. That's a really lame example.

OP, you're just going to get into splitting hairs. Gregor has a medical condition that makes him unlike he would be otherwise. Ramsay loves his dogs, and might have been subject to some trauma we have yet to hear about. Evil is something that's chosen. I would say Ramsay has to be the best candidate for true evil in the series thus far, but until it's over technically anyone could be reformed.

[MandrakeWench]

Is it? OK, let's argue how exactly letting your dog rape your wife is "relative". I honestly do not see moral ambiguity here, do you?

Ah, a most intriguing prospect. But as I have no wife nor dog, pity, I am unable to contemplate this delightful scenario even in the fullness of fantasy. How about if I buggered Richard Nixon with a hot cappuccino steam wand?

The moral ambiguity would then largely be regarding the issue of: do I wash the steam wand before I make a latte for Ferocious?

I haven't seen a good definition of evil on this forum or in the books. The Christian god is said by many in our society to be good, yet he does things that seem evil to me, such as sacrificing his own son on a cross, as well as the many atrocities found in the Old Testament. Yet for some, even something that appears bad, such as torturing a man on a cross, can lead to good - if one can conclude that over the years, Christianity has done any "good".

Is something good or evil? When the dog raped the wife I don't have, that might have been pleasurable for the dog. To be sure, the creature was only acting on instinct; the act might have been distasteful to me but was not evil. Unless evil just means "ew yuck, I personally do not like that."

Plus, if my wife existed, she'd forgive the dog, and be glad it wasn't me knocking her up with an unwanted human child.

[Brandon Umber]

Gregor Clegane likely has gigantism. This is often caused by a tumor on the pituitary gland that regulates the endocrine system, controlling growth. This is likely why he has terrible headaches and is addicted to milk of the poppy (an opiate, presumably). When onset is in adulthood it is known as acromegaly, but Gregor has been immense since childhood. This doesn't excuse his atrocities, but gives some perspective. :)

Ramsay loved his dogs, yes? ;)

Andre the Giant didn't rape wenches then ask their dad for change.

[Archmaester Drew]

Gregor Clegane likely has gigantism. This is often caused by a tumor on the pituitary gland that regulates the endocrine system, controlling growth. This is likely why he has terrible headaches and is addicted to milk of the poppy (an opiate, presumably). When onset is in adulthood it is known as acromegaly, but Gregor has been immense since childhood. This doesn't excuse his atrocities, but gives some perspective. :)

Ramsay loved his dogs, yes? ;)

Andre the Giant didn't rape wenches then ask their dad for change.

What was it about "This does not excuse his atrocities" did you not understand? :dunno:

[Crowford]

Is it? OK, let's argue how exactly letting your dog rape your wife is "relative". I honestly do not see moral ambiguity here, do you?

What. I am getting confused. Of the thousands of reasonable examples, you went with "letting my dog rape my wife"? Is that a ...literal dog you are imagining right now? Because I think a solid 99.25% of ethics philosophers would disagree with you about dogkind being within the scope of morality theories.

Not that I think it matters what exactly you meant. The point, of course, is this: "Good" and "Evil" are completely useless terms without defining the standard of morality you hold them to (and in my view, they are even then a poor choice of words, but that's another topic). This is actually not so much of a problem regarding the "What?" of the matter. That Ramsey's actions are bad/evil/negative, is, while not an inherent value, still something we can reasonably expect a vast majority of people here, but also in general, agreeing with. The real stumbling stone is the "Why?", i.e., how much weigh do you give to questions of "what has led X to do Y?", "what did X expect would happen if they did Y?", "was Y a conscious action on X's part, or the result of some mental deficiency?", and so on. Then, of course, you also need to believe in free will (I do) to form any consistent moral judgement.

Long story short, if you ask me, good and evil are stupid ideas. Much better approach would be to analyze an action along the perimeters of "has this action a positive or a negative influence on this state or thing I care about". And more often than not, the answer is the same anyway. Like with Ramsey, for example.

[Brandon Umber]

What was it about "This does not excuse his atrocities" did you not understand? :dunno:

Really just wanted to drop the Andre the Giant reference. I jumped the gun, my apologies.

[Archmaester Drew]

Really just wanted to drop the Andre the Giant reference. I jumped the gun, my apologies.

Fair enough! ;)

[The Marquis de Leech]

I call :bs: on that. The author is the final authority on everything to do with the story.

No. The author's job is to write the story. The reader's job is to interpret the story. Martin can't come out and say that Gregor Clegane is a nice guy, or that Hot Pie is the greatest swordsman in Westeros. Because that contradicts the text, and text trumps all.

As for arguing that only the truly irredeemable are Evil, it's worth remembering that Tolkien considered none of his characters (up to and including Sauron) irredeemable. So by that reasoning, there is no Evil in Tolkien (which arguably is a valid point, but only in an Evil has no independent existence sort of way, and that it is merely absence of Good).

[The Marquis de Leech]

Anyway, to dust off that tired old chestnut: Adolf Hitler. He (like Ramsay) liked dogs, and wanted to help Germany. Doesn't mean he wasn't Evil.

Same with Gregor Clegane. Headaches or not, Gregor is objectively Evil by any moral definition.

[Qhorin Halfhand and Yoren]

At some point some characters are so evil that it is evil enough. Now purity as a concept of human beings and their endeavors whether it is morality or knowledge might be unattainable but there is a point where you don't need it and something is close enough. Which is the case with people like Ramsay or Gregor. This book series has some of the vilent villains that singular book series tend to have though obviously there are ones with even worse villains.

GRRM is not someone who doesn't have what the reader considers pure evil or characters that are very, very evil, what he does have is in addition to those people is also plenty, plenty of grey characters.

[Minstral]

OP, you're just going to get into splitting hairs. Gregor has a medical condition that makes him unlike he would be otherwise. Ramsay loves his dogs, and might have been subject to some trauma we have yet to hear about. Evil is something that's chosen. I would say Ramsay has to be the best candidate for true evil in the series thus far, but until it's over technically anyone could be reformed.

It is more like Ramsay observes the practice that his father engages in and then goes out of his way to recreate the conditions of his birth. Very revolting, and certainly nothing excuses it. Actually, I'd say it would make it worse in this light.

That aside, Ramsay and Gregor certainly don't think they are doing anything wrong. The extent that Gregor could act was always regulated under the authority of Tywin, and as such the Mountain probably believed he was doing nothing wrong in and of himself. Ramsay.... he was actually born under the circumstances that he recreates on his numerous hunts, and I really don't want to delve any farther into that line of thinking.

[The Wolves]

Tywin is evil.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Tywin is evil.

Agreed. He's also highly competent, but his administrative skills don't make him any less evil.

[SeanF]

Ser Gregor, Ramsay, Vargo Hoat, Rorge, Biter, Urswyck, Septon Utt, Shagwell, Raff, Chyswyck, are almost certainly evil, in the way that someone like Oskar Dirlewanger was evil. For them, war is just an opportunity to carry into practice their most depraved fantasies. My only caveat is that we never get their point of view.

LF, Roose Bolton, Tywin, Euron, and Qyburn, are far more thoughtful and intelligent. But, I think that their callousness and cruelty does place them in the evil category. I haven't made my mind up about either Cersei or Victarion. At any rate, their stories aren't yet over.

[Mithras]

No. The author's job is to write the story. The reader's job is to interpret the story. Martin can't come out and say that Gregor Clegane is a nice guy, or that Hot Pie is the greatest swordsman in Westeros. Because that contradicts the text, and text trumps all.

Exactly.