Is it evil when Bran wargs into Hodor's mind?

[Lady Blizzardborn]

39 minutes ago, Kaibaman said:

I think its just easier to warg those who are weak minded and lack much cognitive function in the brain. Its like in Episode II of Star Wars where Anakin points out that Jedi mind tricks only work on those who have weak wills. And though I agree that we don't actually know how much thought actually goes through Hodor, I think its fair to say that even the wolves are smarter than him and are more independently minded.

I think it's fair to say that there's a magical component to the wolves. There's always been something special about them and their connection to the Stark kids, right down to Jon "hearing" Ghost when they were heading home.

I wouldn't say they're necessarily smarter though. Hodor knows his name and follows instructions, same as them. He only has problems with standard functioning when he's frightened and that's potentially true of all of us.

I do agree that Hodor has diminished capacity compared to other characters, and that said diminished capacity would make it easier for anyone to be skinchanged. I just don't like trying to quantify his impairment because we really don't know. This probably bothers me more than it would most people because I've occasionally seen morons on the internet refer to people with autism as retarded, damaged, and worthy of being killed or institutionalized because of their differences. Did I mention I have autistic children? I don't think Hodor has autism though. And I'm very happy to say that to my knowledge no one on these boards has ever said anything remotely awful about autism or Hodor.

[cyberdirectorfreedom]

38 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

If I take your candy bar, that's wrong but it's not evil. If I take your candy bar knowing that you are hypoglycemic and you could slip into a coma and die if you don't eat said candy bar, that would be evil. Evil requires more knowledge than wrong does.

I suppose that depends on your definition of evil. I don't think "evil" truly exists, so I suppose I may have been using the term interchangeably with "wrong".

Still, I think they're equally bad. Regardless of your intentions, I'm still slipping into a coma and dying. I might even make the argument that it's worse if you don't know, because the reason for my death is therefore far more petty. Any reason you'd have to kill someone would have to be less petty than "I just wanted his candy".

I just don't see how your intentions change the situation; what you did was "evil", you just didn't have "evil intentions".

46 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

The age at which children are able to figure out wrong and right on their own varies, and it still comes from a background of the information they've been taught. Example: "Don't hit your sister, that's wrong!"  

Yeah, but he's already reached that age, has been taught how to have empathy, etc. He knows better, and it shows in his thoughts, when he tells says that no one must ever know.

49 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

If he learns that it's evil (either from someone else or from reaching that conclusion himself) and continues to do it, then by all means castigate the little jerk within an inch of his literary life.

Well here's the thing; he has every possibility to come to the conclusion that what he's doing is "evil". A moments thought, and he'd be there. Does his desire to continue living in ignorance, so that he doesn't have to face the fact that he's being a complete monster, somehow make his actions less evil? I'd certainly argue that it makes his actions far, far more reprehensible.

He chooses to not consider his actions evil, and that makes him very dangerous, as it will allow him to perform such actions whenever he feels like it, rather than only when necessary.

52 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

In my view 99% of the characters in the series are somewhere between the evil/black and the good/white.

I can definitely agree with this; just like in real life, nobody is all good, and nobody is all bad. It's just not how it works. I'm certainly not saying that Bran is some evil monster with no measure of goodness within him. His actions certainly aren't governed by a malicious nature; I just don't think that actually counts for anything.

54 minutes ago, Curled Finger said:

I would feed human flesh to you if we were stuck in the Andes after a plane crash if I thought it would sustain and nourish you.  I would starve to death, but I wouldn't let it happen to you.

I don't want to go so far off topic, but this reminds me of a little thought experiment I once came up with: say you're stuck on an island (or similarly trapped) with no way of knowing just how long you'd be there. You and a few others washed ashore on the island, along with weeks worth of non-perishable foods. Along with the survivors, a few not-so-lucky corpses washed up with you. By the time you've eaten through your food supplies, they'll have rotted pretty badly. Also, there is no food source on this island; no animals, no fruits, the fish keep away for some reason, etc. The only food source is the food that washed up with you. So, do you eat the dead first, and save the non-perishable foods until later, or do you eat the supplies you have, and hope you'll be able to survive long enough to get rescued? 

Anyway, wildly unrelated to the topic at hand, but there you go. I'd eat the people, if anyone's curious.

[Lady Blizzardborn]

2 minutes ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

I suppose that depends on your definition of evil. I don't think "evil" truly exists, so I suppose I may have been using the term interchangeably with "wrong".

Still, I think they're equally bad. Regardless of your intentions, I'm still slipping into a coma and dying. I might even make the argument that it's worse if you don't know, because the reason for my death is therefore far more petty. Any reason you'd have to kill someone would have to be less petty than "I just wanted his candy".

I just don't see how your intentions change the situation; what you did was "evil", you just didn't have "evil intentions".

Yeah, but he's already reached that age, has been taught how to have empathy, etc. He knows better, and it shows in his thoughts, when he tells says that no one must ever know.

Well here's the thing; he has every possibility to come to the conclusion that what he's doing is "evil". A moments thought, and he'd be there. Does his desire to continue living in ignorance, so that he doesn't have to face the fact that he's being a complete monster, somehow make his actions less evil? I'd certainly argue that it makes his actions far, far more reprehensible.

He chooses to not consider his actions evil, and that makes him very dangerous, as it will allow him to perform such actions whenever he feels like it, rather than only when necessary.

I can definitely agree with this; just like in real life, nobody is all good, and nobody is all bad. It's just not how it works. I'm certainly not saying that Bran is some evil monster with no measure of goodness within him. His actions certainly aren't governed by a malicious nature; I just don't think that actually counts for anything.

<snip

Yes, and that was wrong. But it wasn't evil. 

You seem to have assumed that you were hypoglycemic in the first instance. You were not. 

That's ridiculous. No one was choosing to kill you at all even in the hypothetical.

Again, you were not hypoglycemic in the first instance.

You say he's reached that age, but not everyone would agree on that. Thinking it's wrong is not the same as understanding it to be evil. Wrong and evil are not interchangeable terms. 

People rarely come to that conclusion on their own. When they do, it takes them more than just "a moment." It's a gradual process of shedding denial. A nine year old is not going to outpace the rest of the species in this regard.

Says you. Again, not everyone would agree.

I agree that it has the potential to be very, very dangerous, and that's why the author is using it. He wants us to worry about what path Bran is taking, and what kinds of awful things might be necessary to save humanity from the Others. He wants us to be upset that this little kid is taking advantage of someone who in a way is like himself in that there are limits to what both of them can do. And he wants to scare us into worrying that Bran will become a villain before he reaches puberty even.

And I think it does count for something. The person who knowingly does evil is far worse than the one who does it accidentally. 

We seem to have now reached the agree to disagree portion of today's events. 

[cyberdirectorfreedom]

13 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

You seem to have assumed that you were hypoglycemic in the first instance. You were not. 

That's ridiculous. No one was choosing to kill you at all even in the hypothetical.

Again, you were not hypoglycemic in the first instance.

I quite clearly am hypoglycemic in the hypothetical, otherwise the entire situation makes no sense (the reason for the hypothetical was to show how ignorance changes the evil nature of someone's actions; specifically, in regards to the Bran situation, in which only knowledge of evil is changed, rather than the situation itself). I'll just quote you again:

1 hour ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

If I take your candy bar, that's wrong but it's not evil. If I take your candy bar knowing that you are hypoglycemic and you could slip into a coma and die if you don't eat said candy bar, that would be evil. Evil requires more knowledge than wrong does.

Regardless of whether or not you know it, that person with the candy is hypoglycemic. That's the only way that this hypothetical lines up with the Bran/Hodor situation. But regardless of whether or not this was your intention, I'm not sure why you decided to simply brush it off; the situation I described would just be a slightly altered version of your hypothetical.

But how is taking my candy, all the while knowing that I need it to live, not trying to kill me? Sounds pretty murderous to me. 

24 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

People rarely come to that conclusion on their own. When they do, it takes them more than just "a moment." It's a gradual process of shedding denial. A nine year old is not going to outpace the rest of the species in this regard.

I have to disagree; people make judgments like this all the time. The difference is that most people make these conclusions before they act, and decide not to do something once they have come to the conclusion that it's "evil". Bran just doesn't bother to think it might be, and so stupidly continues his "evil", albeit in his blissful ignorance.

32 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

The person who knowingly does evil is far worse than the one who does it accidentally. 

Why? A person who does evil because it's absolutely necessary isn't as bad as the person who simply does evil, but I don't see why ignorance should be an excuse. Either way, the hypoglycemic died, either way Hodor is losing control of himself in a horrifying manner, and either way, there are no extenuating circumstances that make the actions, whilst evil, still be necessary. I would truly love to know your reasons why accidental evil is less reprehensible than intentional evil, because I simply can't figure it out.

39 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

We seem to have now reached the agree to disagree portion of today's events. 

I agree.

[Curled Finger]

20 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

No, I don't think either of those things are all that bad, but there is a reason not to do them. Haggon seemed fond of saying things were abominable, but perhaps that's simply how he was taught. Anyway, a wolf eating human flesh isn't a bad thing. A wolf mating with a wolf isn't a bad thing. These are things that would come naturally for a wolf. But for a human? No. Humans don't tend to mate with wolves. Humans don't tend to eat human flesh. Some do, sure, but most don't (which goes for Varamyr and Bran).

Jojen teaches Bran to do things that aren't naturally wolfish when he's in Summer; scratch trees, catch rabbits without eating them, push rocks in a line. Things a wolf wouldn't do on it's own. This is to keep separate from Summer; Bran the boy and Summer the wolf. Perhaps this is what Haggon is trying to teach, just somewhat poorly. Perhaps it's not the actions that are abominable, exactly, but that doing them will turn the Skinchanger into an abomination, more animal than man.

About what Bran is doing with Hodor, however, yes, it's horrible. Whether or not you'd consider it evil is a matter of semantics; the act isn't a nice one. Bran even knows this; he can feel that Hodor hates it when he does it, but he simply doesn't care. There are situations when it was necessary; still horrible, of course, but perfectly understandable. But when he's just walking around the caves in Hodor, that's just disgusting. He's old enough to realise that it's wrong; he even thinks to himself that he has to keep it a secret (which he wouldn't think he'd need to do, if he didn't think it was wrong (or, at least, if he didn't know that Jojen and Meera would think it's wrong)).

He may not be malicious, but that hardly matters, it's still horrible. He likes the way it makes him feel, so he continues to do it, regardless of Hodor's wishes. Bran is, in my opinion, a terrible, terrible person. Hardly the worst of the series, but he's up there.

Borrowing? Seriously? So, say someone steals your car, wears out the tires, spills drinks on the seats, scratches the paint and wastes most of the fuel; does returning your car somehow make it all better? You had to go all day without your car, you couldn't get to work, you spent most of the day worried, on the phone with the police, and when you get it back, it's in worse condition than when you left it, but it's okay, because they only "borrowed" it? I don't think so. You have to ask to borrow something, and Bran doesn't.

Wow I missed all this earlier.   I understand you feel very strongly about this and don't feel any sympathy for Bran.   That's OK.  Bran's not making great use of his abilities or friendship with Hodor in these invasions.   I don't read any indication that Hodor is actually any worse for the Bran wear so your parallel really isn't comparable.   It has occurred to me that Hodor may be little more than Bran's vehicle in story.  I like Hodor.  Could well be that Bran will spot a way out of the cave while running around as Hodor.   Could be Hodor will be the only way Bran will actually leave the cave.  Still I know what happens in Bran's thoughts.  None of this is so terrible that either Bran or Hodor is injured or weakened---YET.  For now he is just a little boy and feeling good in the midst of all he's endured just isn't criminal yet.  There may come a time when Hodor asserts himself or Bran pushes it too far in past time adventures.   I think Bran will eventually really understand what he's doing and either cease all human skin changing or just take someone over.   I like this little boy and I hope he can do the right thing when his time for reckoning comes around.  

To the rules of abomination...I believe Haggon was warning Varamyr not to mate with a wolf while in warg with a wolf.  Or to eat human flesh while skin changed.  You make a fair point about becoming an animal, but is it really abominable?  I think I replied somewhere in this topic that Bran did a lot of his warg business in dreams.  Could a skin changer or warg really be expected to be a lucid dreamer and extract themselves from a dream before said abomination occurs?   Seems to me one would have to be pretty clever to do that.  

When I really want abomination I read Euron or Ramsay or Joffrey.  They are/were really ugly people with undeniable evil intent.  Bran is nowhere near their caliber.  

[kissdbyfire]

7 hours ago, Curled Finger said:

Sorry, I didn't mean to be so chatty tonight, but this has been on my mind all day.  In line with your original statements above I wonder if it is only people like Hodor who can really be skinchanged?  Thistle put up a hell of a fight when Varamyr tried to get under her skin.   Hodor seems to curl up in a little ball and wait for the visits to pass.  

The process of warg with Summer seems to be a natural thing--not unlike Varamyr dying that death and just falling into the Old Wolf.  That was his place.  I never got the sense that Summer was jacked at all or vice versa before Bran learned what was going on.   This warg thing and the skinchanging thing just seems to be a symbiotic development between human and animal.  They both seem to enjoy it.   Bran seems to enjoy being in Summer more than anywhere else.  Or he did before he got tangled up in that vision tree at any rate.   

What if the skinchangee doesn't put up a fight and accepts the skinchanger? 

[cyberdirectorfreedom]

3 hours ago, Curled Finger said:

I don't read any indication that Hodor is actually any worse for the Bran wear so your parallel really isn't comparable.

Like a dog who has had all the fight whipped out of him, Hodor would curl up and hide whenever Bran reached out for him. His hiding place was somewhere deep within him, a pit where not even Bran could touch him. 

I don't think such horrors disappear after Bran let's Hodor go; he still has to live with what he goes through when Bran takes his body. It has to be something that consumes his thoughts; he's not just going to forget. He's frightened, and he doesn't understand what's truly going on, and that's just while it's happening; after he gets back in control, he must know that at any point, Bran could take control and there's nothing he could do about it. If Hodor isn't damaged because of it, I'd be very, very surprised. Though of course, any physical damage he sustains (though I don't think he's sustained any major damage) could just as likely happen without Bran's interference, had Hodor chosen to get into the same situations.

3 hours ago, Curled Finger said:

I think Bran will eventually really understand what he's doing and either cease all human skin changing or just take someone over.

I kinda think that Bran is going to die, but live out a second life in Hodor. Though the repercussions (aside from Hodor's demise) from that, I'm not sure. I know that, for "normal" second lives, in animals, the animal eventually takes over (or, you become more animal than man). Not sure if it'd happen in a human, and Hodor's disability might make him a unique case, anyway.

3 hours ago, Curled Finger said:

To the rules of abomination...I believe Haggon was warning Varamyr not to mate with a wolf while in warg with a wolf.  Or to eat human flesh while skin changed.

Oh, that's definitely what he meant. Reading my comment, I see that I may have implied otherwise; I meant that doing these things (things that are natural to wolves) while warging a wolf will eventually make you less human.

4 hours ago, Curled Finger said:

Could a skin changer or warg really be expected to be a lucid dreamer and extract themselves from a dream before said abomination occurs?   Seems to me one would have to be pretty clever to do that.  

I'm not sure it really counts, in the dream. In the dreams, it's more like Bran's a passenger, seeing what Summer is doing, but not having any effect. When he consciously Wargs Summer, he's in complete control; I'm sure he can let Summer take the reins, but, if he chooses, he could make Summer scratch the trees, or push the rocks, or not feed, etc.

4 hours ago, Curled Finger said:

When I really want abomination I read Euron or Ramsay or Joffrey.  They are/were really ugly people with undeniable evil intent.  Bran is nowhere near their caliber.  

This is certainly true; there are far worse people than Bran.

12 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

What if the skinchangee doesn't put up a fight and accepts the skinchanger? 

That might not even be possible; I'd say it's pretty likely that resistance to someone trying to forcefully invade your mind would be more instinct than choice, a knee jerk reaction of sorts.

[aventador577]

7 hours ago, Curled Finger said:

@aventador577, you've started quite a conversation.   How do you define evil? 

I woud define evil as morally wrong or bad, reprehensible. There is definitely a spectrum of evil.

I don't have any Problem with Bran warging into Summer, because direwolf are animals.

But people are a different thing and Hodor is a human. Just because he is not particularly smart or even disabled doesn't make him less human. If Bran would just do it for fun, like the case in the cave when he did it out of boredom. Then I would put it on the same level as rape.

Most cases, however, were different. Then he did it out of necessity to protect himself and Hodor. I think this can justify the intervention.

[Nocturne]

I find it offensive that i have to read all this mean comments directed at Bran.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Am i doing this right? Am i pc enough?

[Lady Blizzardborn]

13 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

I quite clearly am hypoglycemic in the hypothetical, otherwise the entire situation makes no sense (the reason for the hypothetical was to show how ignorance changes the evil nature of someone's actions; specifically, in regards to the Bran situation, in which only knowledge of evil is changed, rather than the situation itself). I'll just quote you again:

Regardless of whether or not you know it, that person with the candy is hypoglycemic. That's the only way that this hypothetical lines up with the Bran/Hodor situation. But regardless of whether or not this was your intention, I'm not sure why you decided to simply brush it off; the situation I described would just be a slightly altered version of your hypothetical.

But how is taking my candy, all the while knowing that I need it to live, not trying to kill me? Sounds pretty murderous to me. 

I have to disagree; people make judgments like this all the time. The difference is that most people make these conclusions before they act, and decide not to do something once they have come to the conclusion that it's "evil". Bran just doesn't bother to think it might be, and so stupidly continues his "evil", albeit in his blissful ignorance.

Why? A person who does evil because it's absolutely necessary isn't as bad as the person who simply does evil, but I don't see why ignorance should be an excuse. Either way, the hypoglycemic died, either way Hodor is losing control of himself in a horrifying manner, and either way, there are no extenuating circumstances that make the actions, whilst evil, still be necessary. I would truly love to know your reasons why accidental evil is less reprehensible than intentional evil, because I simply can't figure it out.

I agree.

You're quite clearly hypoglycemic in the second hypothetical. The reason for the hypothetical was to show the difference between wrong and evil, though I have to agree I didn't execute that well. I should have had a third option, to fit with the overall argument regarding Bran.

Taking candy bar. Person not hypoglycemic = wrong.

Taking candy bar. Person hypoglycemic, but taker doesn't know it = wrong, going to induce a lot of guilt in the taker if the hypoglycemic person does in fact die.

Taking candy bar. Person is hypoglycemic and taker knows it = evil.

Sorry I thought you said that it would be worse for the person not knowing you needed the candy bar to take it. Apparently I misread something. I completely agree that deliberately taking your candy bar, while knowing you need it would be equivalent to at minimum attempted murder.

By most people I'm guessing you mean most adults. Most adults have a pretty full knowledge base and experience in dealing with such decisions. And still denial and rationalization can be pretty darn strong even for them. Children are a different case, especially in fiction when they've acquired powers no one they know has ever had. Bran is clearly showing the capacity to figure out after the fact that something is wrong with what he's doing. That is consistent with the impulsive behavior of childhood leading to actual thought about things only after the fact. And some adults never outgrow that act-first-and-ask-questions-later stage.

That is not what I said. I didn't say anything about necessity. The point was that knowingly choosing to do evil is always worse than unknowingly choosing. Keeping Hodor quiet at Queenscrown was absolutely necessary. If Bran hadn't done it then they would have been discovered and killed. You yourself said that necessity makes it less bad.

Maybe rephrasing it would help. Choosing to do evil unknowingly is Wrong, but cannot be said to be evil. Choosing to do evil knowingly is Evil. I'm talking about the choice, not the act. 

Okay. It involves another hypothetical, but you get a promotion in this one. You are suddenly, overnight, given all the knowledge in the world of Lugen. You are the sole prophet of Lugen's god, who is called Bob. Bob, is ready to expand his base of believers, because the first set have shown themselves capable of understanding and following his precepts. So Bob sends you to the country next door, where the heathen population has never heard of Bob and doesn't know any of his laws. The most important law, the one you must teach the heathens first, is that the fruit of the basooba tree is sacred, and belongs to Bob only. You discover that the heathens have been eating basooba fruit their entire lives. Do you condemn them all to Bob's hell for doing something they did not know was a great sin? Or do you take into account that they were entirely ignorant of said sin and that gives them a pass, provided they change their ways? 

[Jak Scaletongue]

It's definitely *wrong* but I think there needs to be a certain level of ill-intent for it to be considered "evil." 

He's certainly not doing a "good" thing by essentially mind-raping a man who doesn't have the mental capacity to fight it or fight back, but I'm of the opinion that this particular issue will be a major point in Bran's future story.  I'm also of the opinion that Bran will likely have to do it to someone else as well, and while Hodor may be his "practice dummy" I feel like Bran learning the difference between skinchanging Hodor because he misses walking around and skinchanging Hodor to save their lives (like at Queenscrown) will be a big step in his development.  Because there IS a difference - skinchanging Hodor to ensure no one find ANY of them...iffy, but not evil (and just because his only options are "iffy" or "die" doesn't make the "iffy" decision any less "iffy").  Skinchanging Hodor because he misses walking...that's not right.  It's not evil...yet.  But as Bran does start to understand what he's doing to Hodor, and that it's absolutely not at all fair to Hodor to be used as Bran's avatar....I think it'll all come down to how Bran behaves once he starts to understand the implications.  As of ADWD he seems to be *starting* to understand that maybe what he's doing to Hodor isn't good....if he really "gets" it in TWOW and CONTINUES to do it to Hodor....then we're getting into evil territory. 

And keep in mind....one doesn't have to be the "bad guy" to do evil things.  Even good guys do evil things - the big question is always whether the ends justify the means.  I'm looking forward to seeing which side of that argument Bran comes down on - will he believe that as long as "their side" wins, everything he's done to Hodor will be justified, or will he believe that he needs to work within certain parameters even if it means "their side" might lose because of those choices?  Personally, I'm not a believer of "the ends justify the means" so you can guess which decision I'd prefer to see Bran make!  But I am curious to see how Bran either justifies his continued use of Hodor's body simply because he misses walking, or if he'll actually realize that he needs to get over the whole "can't walk" thing and deal with never walking again.

TL;DR: skinchanging to keep Hodor quiet and the all of them alive - little iffy, but certainly not evil. Skinchanging Hodor because Bran wishes he could still walk - that's not right no matter how you slice it, but I wouldn't quite consider it "evil" yet.  Bran's not quite mature enough to understand, though he is getting there. TWOW will be the true testing ground for Bran's morals where it comes to skinchanging Hodor.  Right now, he's a confused, currently uneducated little boy who's lost way too much in a short time; once he's got some more education under his belt, a more mature mind, and some distance from the tragedies he's faced then I'll be a bit more willing to make a judgement call.

ETA: Basically, I'm willing to give a 7/8 year old the benefit of a doubt. He's not stupid, but he IS only 7 or 8 and quite literally doesn't have the matured brain to MAKE decisions like this.  This is generally why people don't let kid's run things! Kid's his age make bad judgement calls ALL THE TIME, even in non-modernized societies.  They just do not have the full capacity to understand everything that's being thrown at them under normal circumstances - I'm certainly not going to expect Bran to fully understand, at 8, the damage he's doing to Hodor.  Hell, how many 8 year olds understand the pain that yelling "You're a HORRIBLE parent" does to a parent? Especially when the parent knows perfectly well that it IS the best decision for the kid.  Anyway, that's what I think Bran's going to learn in TWOW - the damage and pain he's causing Hodor when Bran skinchanges him.  And HOW Bran deals with it, once he fully understands, will be Bran's defining point in TWOW.  He doesn't fully understand though, and Hodor unfortunately doesn't have the ability to tell Bran himself, so Bran's going to need to figure it out himself (he's getting there but he's not there yet) and decide whether using Hodor's body means more to him than Hodor the person.

[cyberdirectorfreedom]

6 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

By most people I'm guessing you mean most adults. Most adults have a pretty full knowledge base and experience in dealing with such decisions. And still denial and rationalization can be pretty darn strong even for them. Children are a different case, especially in fiction when they've acquired powers no one they know has ever had. Bran is clearly showing the capacity to figure out after the fact that something is wrong with what he's doing.

Well, okay, yes, I was referring to adults, or people older than Bran, at least. And yes, some adults do their very best to deny that the things they do are horrible (though they usually try to believe that the things they're doing, if horrible, are necessary, which simply isn't so for Bran (in the caves)). But as the bolded suggests, Bran is capable of this level of thought; perhaps not beforehand, but after, once he sees the effect (say, after the event at Queenscrown). Perhaps I exaggerated when I said it'd only take a moments thought, but I truly believe that he could, quite easily, come to the conclusion that what he's doing is horrific. He just doesn't want to come to that conclusion, because he likes how it feels to have legs; perfectly understandable, though still perfectly horrible.

6 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

That is not what I said. I didn't say anything about necessity. The point was that knowingly choosing to do evil is always worse than unknowingly choosing. Keeping Hodor quiet at Queenscrown was absolutely necessary. If Bran hadn't done it then they would have been discovered and killed. You yourself said that necessity makes it less bad.

Oh, I know that! You gave two actions, "intentional evil" and "unintentional evil". You said that you don't consider these to be equal, though I did; I added in "necessary evil" to show that I believe that evil can be done without being, well, evil, just that I don't believe doing it accidentally makes it not evil. It was just to show that I don't think that all evil is the same; I know you didn't mention it.

6 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Maybe rephrasing it would help. Choosing to do evil unknowingly is Wrong, but cannot be said to be evil. Choosing to do evil knowingly is Evil. I'm talking about the choice, not the act. 

Hmm, I can see that, but I guess that I see the situation as a whole as evil. Someone unintentionally doing evil obviously isn't making an evil choice, yet the situation, as a whole, is evil, just as if they'd chosen to make an evil choice. On the other hand, if that same evil choice was made, intentionally, but was necessary (and I mean, absolutely necessary, like save the entire world necessary, to go to an extreme), whilst the choice was certainly evil, the situation is not.

I suppose I'm just looking at the repercussions; if the only result of your actions is that something evil happened, you did something evil. If the result of your actions is that something evil happened, but also something else that served the greater good (and the good was actually greater) happened, then it wasn't truly evil.

6 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

You discover that the heathens have been eating basooba fruit their entire lives. Do you condemn them all to Bob's hell for doing something they did not know was a great sin? Or do you take into account that they were entirely ignorant of said sin and that gives them a pass, provided they change their ways? 

Your hypothetical is funny and cute, and I really appreciate that, so I am so sorry that I'm going to take this to such a dark place, but I feel it's necessary. Here's the issue: is eating basooba fruit really evil? Clearly, you can eat it all your life with no negative repercussions. What makes it evil? If we take the "evil" a step further, to things that are obviously evil:

Say Bob's big law isn't about fruit; say it's about murder: murder is bad. A few other laws: no eating the flesh of man. No slavery. No rape. Then you arrive in the country, and find all these things running rampant; slaves are everywhere, considered mere objects; to rape a slave is only considered theft if the slaves owner isn't okay with it. Every night, they feast on the flesh of captives they took from their wars (and these people love making war); if there are no captives to eat, they feast on slaves they breed for food. Slaves are kept in cages on the street, and are identified by the fact that half of the skin on their faces has been flayed away. The first thing you see when you arrive is a slave, after having made some mistake, having his heart carved from his chest and thrown into a pot to eat; and this is treated as a casual occurrence.

Now, most people would consider all of these acts to be truly evil, utterly disgusting. The people of this country, however, do not. There's nothing illegal going on, by their laws. Nothing they're doing is immoral, in their opinion. This is all unintentional evil; they're just behaving how they think they should. Now, what do you do? "Do you condemn them all to Bob's hell for doing something they did not know was a great sin? Or do you take into account that they were entirely ignorant of said sin and that gives them a pass, provided they change their ways?" 

Surely, they can't get a pass for their actions, even if they didn't know they were evil. I know I wouldn't feel comfortable to know that my neighbour is a reformed cannibal/rapist/slaver/murderer/warmonger whose only excuses for their actions were "I didn't know better" and "I liked how it felt".

[Lady Blizzardborn]

37 minutes ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

<snip

Your hypothetical is funny and cute, and I really appreciate that, so I am so sorry that I'm going to take this to such a dark place, but I feel it's necessary. Here's the issue: is eating basooba fruit really evil? Clearly, you can eat it all your life with no negative repercussions. What makes it evil? If we take the "evil" a step further, to things that are obviously evil:

Say Bob's big law isn't about fruit; say it's about murder: murder is bad. A few other laws: no eating the flesh of man. No slavery. No rape. Then you arrive in the country, and find all these things running rampant; slaves are everywhere, considered mere objects; to rape a slave is only considered theft if the slaves owner isn't okay with it. Every night, they feast on the flesh of captives they took from their wars (and these people love making war); if there are no captives to eat, they feast on slaves they breed for food. Slaves are kept in cages on the street, and are identified by the fact that half of the skin on their faces has been flayed away. The first thing you see when you arrive is a slave, after having made some mistake, having his heart carved from his chest and thrown into a pot to eat; and this is treated as a casual occurrence.

Now, most people would consider all of these acts to be truly evil, utterly disgusting. The people of this country, however, do not. There's nothing illegal going on, by their laws. Nothing they're doing is immoral, in their opinion. This is all unintentional evil; they're just behaving how they think they should. Now, what do you do? "Do you condemn them all to Bob's hell for doing something they did not know was a great sin? Or do you take into account that they were entirely ignorant of said sin and that gives them a pass, provided they change their ways?" 

Surely, they can't get a pass for their actions, even if they didn't know they were evil. I know I wouldn't feel comfortable to know that my neighbour is a reformed cannibal/rapist/slaver/murderer/warmonger whose only excuses for their actions were "I didn't know better" and "I liked how it felt".

Well in my hypothetical, eating basooba fruit is evil because Bob says it is and Bob knows these things. He just hasn't told you why it's evil, and it's really up to Bob to choose to do that, and to know whether or not mere mortals are even capable of understanding why eating basooba fruit is evil. You say there are no negative repercussions but you don't know that. You are assuming it. What if the repercussions are not physical but spiritual? This is why Bob is in charge. Bob knows these things. 

 I would definitely ask Bob how these people lost any sense of conscience or of what is good or evil and whether anything could be done about it. Maybe it came from eating the basooba fruit. 

This depends on whether Bob is a merciful god who allows for people to change and offers some means of redemption. I would hope Bob would not send you/me into that situation with no guidance.

Let's say Bob offers the option of repentance and some kind of atonement. Everyone willing to make the atonement and change their ways gets a chance to become a full member of the Bob-following community. If they fall back into their evil ways, there will be consequences, possibly permanent ones. Those who refuse to atone and change would be condemned, no way around it.

If Bob is not merciful then they are all doomed. 

If they truly are reformed there's no danger. But I have good news...you don't have to live next door to any of them.

[Protagoras]

Its basically rape (a violation of the mind rather than the body) so it comes down to if you define rape to be evil.

As with mind rape, you could of course speculate if a rape can be justified, if some higher purpose like survival could motivate such an act, but the forum rules forbid any such speculation I think. 

[ygrekks]

I wouldn;t call it evil but it is certainly bad. And don;t give me that 'he is 8 and he doesn;t know that it;s wrong'. He knows. He knows that this is bad, he knows that Hodor doesn;t like it and he knows that he has to hide with his adventures as Hodor from others. Plus there is possibility of 'Jojen;s paste' 

[Lord Wraith]

Quote

The big stableboy no longer fought him as he had the first time, back in the lake tower during the storm. Like a dog who has had all the fight whipped out of him, Hodor would curl up and hide whenever Bran reached out for him. His hiding place was somewhere deep within him, a pit where not even Bran could touch him. No one wants to hurt you, Hodor, he said silently, to the child-man whose flesh he'd taken. I just want to be strong again for a while. I'll give it back, the way I always do.

Maybe not evil but certainly wrong. Its clearly hurting Hodor but Bran doesn't care he just wants to be strong.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

In the context of a story about slavery, Bran's control of Hodor is the ultimate and most evil form of slavery.

The big stableboy no longer fought him as he had the first time, back in the lake tower during the storm. Like a dog who has had all the fight whipped out of him, Hodor would curl up and hide whenever Bran reached out for him. His hiding place was somewhere deep within him, a pit where not even Bran could touch him. No one wants to hurt you, Hodor, he said silently, to the child-man whose flesh he'd taken. I just want to be strong again for a while. I'll give it back, the way I always do.

That shit is fucked up. Imagine if you suddenly lost control of your own body and someone else was inside your brain. Bran is not evil because he is a child and doesn't understand what he's doing, but the act itself is an abomination. As other people have said, it's basically mind rape. I do not think we are witnessing Bran's early trials with this power as a prelude to him using them for "good" or for the realm or to defeat the Others or whatever. I think GRRM is setting up the story for Bran to potentially use those powers for "evil" things, but we shall see.

 

[JonSnow4President]

I'm confused how anyone could be remotely anything other than "hell yes" to this question?  As others have mentioned, it's some weird hybrid comparable to rape in the intrusiveness and slavery at the same time. 

Bran walks a dangerous path. 

[ravenous reader]

On 3/1/2017 at 0:21 AM, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

A person who does evil because it's absolutely necessary isn't as bad as the person who simply does evil, but I don't see why ignorance should be an excuse. Either way, the hypoglycemic died, either way Hodor is losing control of himself in a horrifying manner, and either way, there are no extenuating circumstances that make the actions, whilst evil, still be necessary.

In order to be found guilty of a crime, one first has to be capable of understanding that what one is doing is a crime -- i.e. one must have an awareness of wrongdoing, or, otherwise stated, the difference between right and wrong.  If one is ignorant, however, there are certain circumstances in which, should that purported ignorance prove 'valid' when adjudicated by ones peers, that one can still be responsible for the outcome, without being found guilty of committing a crime!  

For example, if a toddler plays with a firearm left lying around, unaware of its import, and accidentally ends up shooting one of the family members to death, it's unlikely that the toddler will be found guilty of murder or manslaughter in a court of law!  The question then remains at which age we can reasonably expect a certain person to understand the import of discharging a firearm in the direction of another human being.  Even then, other extenuating factors may come into play, since a person's mental maturity may not be equivalent to their chronological maturity, e.g. in the case of mental disability; or their mental state in general may have overshadowed their capacity for rational thought and require professional assessment before a decision can be reached as to their capacity at the time of the offence. 

Thus, a person's actions will usually be measured against a certain societal standard of the 'normal', average 'reasonable' person -- arguably a hypothetical, yet nevertheless substantiated construct.  If for example a person runs a red light, killing a pedestrian crossing the road as a result, and then later claims ignorance of the law requiring cars to stop when the traffic light is red, this explanation will probably not be met in court with the same understanding as the toddler who mistakenly fired a gun, since we as society may reasonably expect of people driving cars to be in possession of a valid license and knowledge of how one ought to conduct oneself on the road according to the conventions of traffic lights, signage, right-of-way rules, regardless of whether these appear 'arbitrary' to someone of another culture or not etc.  Claiming 'cultural ignorance' or some other version of 'cultural relativity' in that instance is probably not going to be generally convincing.  

I haven't followed your 'hypoglycemia' example in detail, but I suppose the question posed in that case would be debating whether the person who had pilfered the candy bar had any reasonable way of anticipating the harmful outcome of his or her actions.  

Quote

I would truly love to know your reasons why accidental evil is less reprehensible than intentional evil, because I simply can't figure it out.

For the same reason that there is a difference in the severity of the sentencing for a 'manslaughter/culpable homicide' vs. 'murder in the first degree' conviction.  In both cases someone is dead due to the fault of another.  However, causing someone's death through negligence is slightly less reprehensible to the moral sensibility of most people than the premeditated version of events.  

Regarding Bran, although his initial skinchanging of Hodor is accidental, his later skinchanging is intentional, done out of boredom instead of urgent necessity, for pleasure not survival, without a strong sense of remorse (he makes excuses in order to justify his behavior...'the boy liked to tell himself'...), despite a growing awareness of having caused harm to Hodor -- so it's immoral, perhaps even evil, with the mitigating factors of Bran's young age, absence of responsible adult caretakers to guide him, history of trauma, and disability predisposing him to resorting to such behavior:

Quote

A Dance with Dragons - Bran I

Summer brought up the rear of their little band. The direwolf's breath frosted the forest air as he padded after them, still limping on the hind leg that had taken the arrow back at Queenscrown. Bran felt the pain of the old wound whenever he slipped inside the big wolf's skin. Of late Bran wore Summer's body more often than his own; the wolf felt the bite of the cold, despite the thickness of his fur, but he could see farther and hear better and smell more than the boy in the basket, bundled up like a babe in swaddling clothes.

Other times, when he was tired of being a wolf, Bran slipped into Hodor's skin instead. The gentle giant would whimper when he felt him, and thrash his shaggy head from side to side, but not as violently as he had the first time, back at Queenscrown. He knows it's me, the boy liked to tell himself. He's used to me by now. Even so, he never felt comfortable inside Hodor's skin. The big stableboy never understood what was happening, and Bran could taste the fear at the back of his mouth. It was better inside Summer. I am him, and he is me. He feels what I feel.

Sometimes Bran could sense the direwolf sniffing after the elk, wondering if he could bring the great beast down. Summer had grown accustomed to horses at Winterfell, but this was an elk and elk were prey. The direwolf could sense the warm blood coursing beneath the elk's shaggy hide. Just the smell was enough to make the slaver run from between his jaws, and when it did Bran's mouth would water at the thought of rich, dark meat.

 

[JonSnow4President]

3 hours ago, ravenous reader said:

In order to be found guilty of a crime, one first has to be capable of understanding that what one is doing is a crime -- i.e. one must have an awareness of wrongdoing, or, otherwise stated, the difference between right and wrong.  If one is ignorant, however, there are certain circumstances in which, should that purported ignorance prove 'valid' when adjudicated by ones peers, that one can still be responsible for the outcome, without being found guilty of committing a crime!  

 

 

At least in America, that is the exact opposite of how it actually works.  Ignorance may be used for leniency in sentencing, but not as a criminal defense outside of specific circumstances. It sounds like you're spouting the rhetoric behind mortal vs venial sin rather than any modern criminal law (that would be a huge loophole to have to prove in court).  

Now, some things I'm willing to extend ignorance as an excuse to, particularly when they refer to culture wide practices (I don't think any slaver should be persecuted for being a slaver while slavery was legal for example), even though I find slavery in and of itself as abhorrent. A lot of that has developed as a result of changing philosophy over time. Bran lives in a society where slavery is abhorred at the very least, and rape is considered a serious crime outside the course of "war." So, I don't think cultural ignorance applies as an excuse here.

I don't condemn Bran as evil. He doesn't grasp the implication of his actions, at least not yet, and is still only 9 or 10 (memory is slipping). But what he is doing is an evil act.