The Civilian Test

[TimJames]

I believe that all human life is valuable: even the lives of the little guys. With that in mind, this is a test I put characters through to determine whether or not he/she is good or not. It's simple:

1. If I was an innocent civilian minding my own business, would this character's actions have ruined my life? [edit: By this, I mean either intentional malice or criminal negligence. Sacking a town counts, but being a general in a war does not count in and of itself].
2. If the answer to the above is "Yes", does this character feel any remorse over his/her act?
3. If the answer to the above is "Yes", has this character tried to right what he/she did wrong or otherwise make ammends?

If 1 is "Yes" but 2 or 3 is "No", than this character is not a good person. 

Test your favorite character today!

[Dorian Martell]

27 minutes ago, TimJames said:

I believe that all human life is valuable: even the lives of the little guys. With that in mind, this is a test I put characters through to determine whether or not he/she is good or not. It's simple:

1. If I was an innocent civilian minding my own business, would this character's actions have ruined my life?
2. If the answer to the above is "Yes", does this character feel any remorse over his/her act?
3. If the answer to the above is "Yes", has this character tried to right what he/she did wrong or otherwise make ammends?

If 1 is "Yes" but 2 or 3 is "No", than this character is not a good person. 

Test your favorite character today!

Your test does not leave room for decisions that may put the needs of one group against another or any numbers of extraneous factors that go into making a decision. Let's say a diseased ship is approaching a large port city such as Oldtown. The ship is carrying "the bleeding out of all your holes until you die flux." the Harbor master closes the port to everyone to protect the city. Because of the closure, there is a noble woman on a galley who is about to birth a child, but she  cannot get to a maester and both her and the child die in the birth. The Harbor master knows that by closing the port, the second largest and oldest city on the continent will be spared the flux and feels pretty good about the decision, even a week later when he gets word of a number of deaths on boats outside the harbor. Is the Harbor Master "not good?"  

[kimim]

31 minutes ago, TimJames said:

I believe that all human life is valuable: even the lives of the little guys. With that in mind, this is a test I put characters through to determine whether or not he/she is good or not. It's simple:

1. If I was an innocent civilian minding my own business, would this character's actions have ruined my life?
2. If the answer to the above is "Yes", does this character feel any remorse over his/her act?
3. If the answer to the above is "Yes", has this character tried to right what he/she did wrong or otherwise make ammends?

If 1 is "Yes" but 2 or 3 is "No", than this character is not a good person. 

Test your favorite character today!

I'll assume that by "innocent civilian," you mean one of the smallfolk.

Davos:

1. Yes. He sees to it that Stannis survives the siege in Robert's Rebellion. That in turn means that Stannis lives to fight the war of the five kings, which affects commoners. Without him, Renly would probably win KL, defeat the Lannisters, there would be peace without Cersei taking the throne.

2. No. Davos never expresses remorse over saving Stannis.

3. No. Since he feels no remorse, he doesn't try to make amends.

So that would mean Davos is a bad person...which is not right, as Davos is one of the moral centers of the novel.

Not sure if this test works.

[TimJames]

27 minutes ago, kimim said:

1. Yes. He sees to it that Stannis survives the siege in Robert's Rebellion. That in turn means that Stannis lives to fight the war of the five kings, which affects commoners. Without him, Renly would probably win KL, defeat the Lannisters, there would be peace without Cersei taking the throne.

You know that's not what I mean. For 1, I mean things done out of either active malice or criminal negligence. Don't try and using the "saved life of someone who would go on to start an arguably justified war" argument against Davos as a way of justifying Lord Jackass's decision to massacre/sack a town full of innocent civilians as a means of getting back at said town's Lord.