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

[Jon's Queen Consort]

On 28/2/2017 at 1:48 AM, Adam Yozza said:

Not evil no. Morally it's not right, but he's an eight year old kid who'd family have been murdered, his home destroyed and he's crippled for life.

 I have to add that we know that is *evil* by someone who had been trained at skinchanging. But Bran never had a trainer to tell him the rules.

[cyberdirectorfreedom]

On 3/2/2017 at 2:58 PM, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Well in my hypothetical, eating basooba fruit is evil because Bob says it is and Bob knows these things.

Well, fair enough, it's evil, then. So, yes, eating it not knowing it's evil is as evil as if they knew what they were doing was evil. Does this mean they deserve to be punished for eternity in Bob's Hell? Well, that's up to Bob. But I was never talking about punishment, nor about what is deserved; I was talking about whether or not it was evil. Perhaps, if you knew the repercussions of eating Basooba fruit, doing so intentionally could be well deserving of being damned for eternity; but (and especially considering that there's no way to know it's evil, unless you're Bob) not knowing and eating Basooba fruit might not be worth damning someone to Hell. That doesn't mean that what they did was any less evil, nor any less wrong.

So, equally evil, but maybe not worthy of equal punishment. That really depends who's judging them; if they choose to be sympathetic, then they won't be punished as harshly; if not, the full punishment.

On 3/2/2017 at 2:58 PM, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Let's say Bob offers the option of repentance and some kind of atonement.

Well, you can't repent if you weren't being evil, right? If you're wondering, I don't think the society of cannibal/rapist/slaver/murderer/warmongers should be punished for their actions (they weren't doing anything illegal, and they shouldn't necessarily be governed by anyone else's morals), despite their actions being evil (from our point of view); I simply think that their society and Bob's society are distinctly incompatible.

On 3/2/2017 at 2:58 PM, Lady Blizzardborn said:

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.

Yeah, but how would you know they're truly reformed? I'd always be wary; call it caution or paranoia, but I feel that people will slip back into old habits, and I will not trust in their "goodness" to prevent them from doing so.

But I may have to live next door to them. If they're forgiven and accepted, surely the two societies will start to combine; trade will begin, people will be allowed to settle within the borders of the other society, etc. You never know who's going to be your neighbour. But also, this is a neighbouring country, and I think the discomfort applies here, too. Now I'm not wary about one family living close, but of an entire society to whom we've opened our borders (because they've all reformed for good, right?).

10 hours ago, ravenous reader said:

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!

Hm. Here's the issue; there's few laws that state ignorance excepts you from your crime (manslaughter is the only one I can think of at the moment). It's only when the sympathies of twelve completely untrained people are brought into the issue that there's any problem. If someone steals from a person (let's say it's armed robbery), and there's no doubt in anybody's mind that the crime has indeed been committed, then it's obvious how they should be punished; they should get the penalty for armed robbery. But, when appeals for sympathy (possibly disguised appeals) are made to the jury, things get iffy; "oh, they weren't aware of what they were doing", or "oh, they needed the money for some reason that's good enough". And somehow, this goes to lessen the offense? Seems foolish to me, and compounds the issue with others committing crimes, because there's now precedence of people getting lesser convictions based on having "good reason".

Anyway, I wasn't talking about punishment, just whether or not it's evil. Sympathy always seems to come into whether or not someone should be punished, which I think is completely absurd. I've never understood why twelve random people should be in control of handing down justice. If the twelve people are soft, there'll be a softer sentence; if they're not, there'll be a harsher sentence. Justice is supposed to be blind, no? Doesn't seem blind to me.

I think that something can be equally evil, even if the punishment should be different (though I'm not saying that in any of the cases mentioned, that punishment should be different; just that it could be, and is not the issue I'm speaking of).

7 hours ago, JonSnow4President said:

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. 

Yes, I agree with this; he's not being malicious, he's not evil, but his actions are evil, despite his intentions.

7 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

 I have to add that we know that is *evil* by someone who had been trained at skinchanging. But Bran never had a trainer to tell him the rules.

I don't think Varamyr is the only reason we know that forcefully taking someone's mind for your own pleasure is evil. We can very easily come to that conclusion on our own. Just because you don't know the rules to something, that doesn't mean you should get a free pass. For a stupid example; imagine some kids are playing doctor, and are performing surgery on one of their friends. In comes another kid who wants to play, but who doesn't know the rules of the game. This kid proceeds to cut the "patient's" eye out. Now, he didn't know the rules, but come on, if he used a little common sense, he'd know that this was not how to play; and even if he didn't have such sense, he'd know better in the future. In Bran's case, this isn't even the first eye he's cut out! He had Hodor's feeling and Meera's reaction the first time. Bran may not be an expert at playing doctor, but he knows better than to actually cut the patient.

[myhalfgroat]

he pretty clearly knows it's wrong to do. he knows he terrifies Hodor when he does it and he thinks that nobody must know. so it's not like he's and innocent in this but having said that he's a pretty emotionally damaged 8 year old kid.

[Lady Blizzardborn]

12 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

<snip

Well, you can't repent if you weren't being evil, right? If you're wondering, I don't think the society of cannibal/rapist/slaver/murderer/warmongers should be punished for their actions (they weren't doing anything illegal, and they shouldn't necessarily be governed by anyone else's morals), despite their actions being evil (from our point of view); I simply think that their society and Bob's society are distinctly incompatible.

Yeah, but how would you know they're truly reformed? I'd always be wary; call it caution or paranoia, but I feel that people will slip back into old habits, and I will not trust in their "goodness" to prevent them from doing so.

But I may have to live next door to them. If they're forgiven and accepted, surely the two societies will start to combine; trade will begin, people will be allowed to settle within the borders of the other society, etc. You never know who's going to be your neighbour. But also, this is a neighbouring country, and I think the discomfort applies here, too. Now I'm not wary about one family living close, but of an entire society to whom we've opened our borders (because they've all reformed for good, right?).

<snip

If you find out it was evil and then feel shame for what you've done, then yes you can repent. 

Well, Bob seems to be an optimist. 

It wouldn't be their "goodness" it would be their faith and help from Bob and from other Bob followers who support them in their new life.

No, not all of them would have reformed. And those who chose not to would have to face a punishment severe enough that those who do reform will do all in their power to keep from sliding back into their old ways because they don't want that punishment. And any who do fall back into the old ways will face that punishment, which they know. The combination of reform, hope for Bob's blessings, and fear of the punishment will no doubt help keep backsliding to a minimum.

 

 

[Meera of Tarth]

On 1/3/2017 at 3:50 AM, Maxxine said:

I wouldn't call it evil in Bran's case because he doesn't know it's an abomination. Unlike Varamyr he hasn't been trained to know the "rules" of warging. However, I do think on some level Bran knows it's wrong. He expresses this feeling in Dance when he describes how Hodor reacts when he wargs him. So I would say in Bran's case he's wrong but it's not evil because of Bran's knowledge.

I agree that Bran warging Hodor in the caves is insanely selfish. But there's still a part of me that, I don't know, on some level understands and doesn't blame him. With what this kid has been through I just to bash him for wanting to be strong and wanting to be able to walk and wanting to console Meera. Before he reaches 10, he's thrown from a building and crippled, is helpless to stop his home from being conquered, almost his whole family dead, and he's separated from the few members of his family that are alive, and all the people who grew up around are also dead and some of those people were killed in front of him. Plus there's the possibility that he's going to be stuck in a cave the rest of his life. The kid's life and kinda sucks. So yeah he is being selfish, but with all this stuff, I can't really say I wouldn't do the same thing if I were in his position at 8 or 9 years old if I had the power.