Jump to content

Moral scaling of some ASOIAF characters.


boltons are sick
 Share

Recommended Posts

For those of you who don’t know, there are several wikis for villains. One of them is called Pure Evil wiki (which, in short, is about villains with no redeeming or sympathetic qualities), the second is called Near Pure Evil wiki (Which, in short, is about villains with almost no redeeming or sympathetic qualities but they still can’t qualify for the Pure Evil wiki for some reason. However, there are other cases where a villain can be Near Pure Evil even if they don't have any redeemable qualities like slightly lacking moral agency or slightly failing the heinous standard of the series because they don't go the extra mile in terms of crimes). There is also a third wiki called the Inconsistently Heinous wiki (which, in short, is about characters who have committed awful crimes, but they still have too many redeeming and sympathetic qualities and excuses for their actions to qualify as Pure Evil or Near Pure Evil). The name “Inconsistently Heinous” means that the characters are too inconsistent in their heinousness to be Near Pure Evil and they need to have many redeeming and sympathetic qualities and/or excuses for their actions or something else which disqualifies them from being Near Pure Evil. Often times Inconsistently Heinous characters can even be morally ambiguous heroes in the stories they are depicted, but they also do some bad things along the way. they can also redeem themselves which is something Pure Evil or Near Pure Evil characters can't do. The Villainous Benchmark wiki is for characters who do some bad stuff, but can't be listed on the Near Pure Evil wiki (either because their actions are really, really tame or because they have too many sympathetic qualities, but also don't do quite enough to be listed as Inconsistently Heinous).

Here is how certain characters from the books would be ranked on the wikis based on these criteria without including Villainous Benchmark (keep in mind, there are more characters who could fit into Pure Evil or Near Pure Evil but aren't listed yet):

Pure Evil: Joffrey Baratheon, Gregor Clegane, Ramsay Snow, Craster, Rorge, Euron Greyjoy and Maegor Targaryen

(There is absolutely nothing redeemable or sympathetic about them.)

Near Pure Evil: Tywin Lannister, Aerys Targaryen, Rossart, Roose Bolton, Petyr Baelish, Walder Frey, Varamyr Sixskins, Lo Bu, Janos Slynt and Kraznys mo Nakloz

(Most of them have some redeeming and sympathetic qualities and in the case of Aerys, he also has moral agency issues due to his insanity. However, they are not enough to make them Inconsistently Heinous as they are still pretty irredeemable and are not particularly sympathetic. Some of them don't even have redeeming or sympathetic qualities and they just fail to pass the heinous standard of the series like Rossart who fails the heinous standard because everything he does is under Aerys' orders, Kraznys mo Nakloz who doesn't stand out because the rest of the slavemasters from Astapor do the same thing as him and, thus, he fails to be unique enough, or Varamyr Sixskins whose actions are too off-screen and don't have enough impact on the plot and are not shown in enough detail. Janos Slynt also fails the heinous standard and he also seems to care about his kids but those are considered minor preventions.)

Inconsistently Heinous: Cersei and Tyrion Lannister

(Their actions cross some moral boundaries, but they both have way too many sympathetic and redeeming quaities to be Pure Evil or Near Pure Evil and are too affected by their tragic backstories.)

So, how do you feel about this moral scaling and would you make any changes to it?

Edited by boltons are sick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

Baby murderers are not 'inconsistently heinous'. Cersei is evil.

Darth Vader from Star Wars is a mass child murderer and he supervises a program which aims to kidnap many young children across the galaxy, even babies, so they may be turned to the Dark Side through brutal physical and psychological torture along with many other atrocities in his service to the Galactic Empire which dwarf what Cersei has done, yet he is still Inconsistently Heinous due to his many redeeming qualities, his tragedy which led to his fall to the Dark Side and the fact he redeems himself at the end by killing Palpatine and saving his son. 

So, no, killing children and babies doesn't mean someone can't be Inconsistently Heinous.

Edited by boltons are sick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, sifth said:

I often wonder if Varys deserves to be on villains wiki. I guess what he does to Kevan is pretty horrible though.

Didn't Varys have the tongues of young children cut off and force them to serve him as spies? I would say that qualifies him.

Edited by boltons are sick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know there is a general dislike of these threads, which I get as they are repetitive. But the wall is currently full right now of a bunch of ridiculous theories related to like…very specific clues that probably don’t exist…using language in the books, like GRRM is a riddler instead of an author. I will take a moral scaling conversation over a GRRM riddler conversation where every word in the book is secretly a clue to some other thing (usually something that sounds nothing like anything GRRM would actually write). 

Or my least favoritr topics : Ridiculous theories that make no sense, require you to ignore large swaths of contrary evidence, and in many cases have 0 actual evidence to suppoet them. Examples : Anything with Howland Reed. A lot of the “this person is a puppet of this other person”. People in a another tread said Daario was a puppet of Euron for example (rolls eyes). This person is secretly some other person (in some cases these theories make sense…in other cases they don’t (GRRM has nit set up any mystery whatsoever and people are just imagining it). Or my least favorite : Tyrion is Aerys’s bastard. I really hate that one so much and it was super popular. Depite NO evidence. Unlike R+L=J which there was plenty of allusions to, the same is just NOT true of A+J=T. In fact, most of Tyrion’s arc FOCUSES on hiw much he is Tywin’s son. In direct contradiction of this therory.

Anyways, I am done. Moral scaling by the way : Euron is the worst. Ramsay secomd worse. Tywin is worse than his fan boys will place him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

Euron is the worst. Ramsay secomd worse. Tywin is worse than his fan boys will place him. 

I will attempt to make something more constructive out of this thread.

Do you think Euron, who is going full-blown cosmic evil, should stay on the same list as Ramsay and Cersei, who are very human despite their evil?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, SaffronLady said:

I will attempt to make something more constructive out of this thread.

Do you think Euron, who is going full-blown cosmic evil, should stay on the same list as Ramsay and Cersei, who are very human despite their evil?

I can't decide actually. Euron may actually be quite human. The scenes were we actually see his behavior, he seems ..... like a real person. He is like a cult leader or something, lol. Sadly the entire Ironborn are buying into that cult. Now granted, his lack of care for human life...is on another scale, but I see some of the same classic GRRM ...actually acting like a real person when we see him in person (through Victorian's PoV on the Shield Islands was the main one I am referring too.) I think we see a lot of fans actually playing inot Euron's own glorified image of himself,a nd that actually he will be very human as he is exposed more to the story. I.e. I think Euron will fail. I think we will see he isn't some god-like character pulling tons of strings, and he will mess up, misjudge, and ultimately be very fallible. Doesn't mean he isn't tricking Victorian (he probably is), but the more extreme theories I think will just be wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

The scenes were we actually see his behavior, he seems ..... like a real person. He is like a cult leader or something, lol.

If my understanding of Lovecraft and cosmic horror has not failed me, Euron acting like a real-life cult leader is not mutually exclusive with him wanting to cause the end of the world as we know it. Ramsay is a cruel dog and Cersei is a power-hungry narcissist, but Euron's motives seem to go beyond such petty, human things, which is why I raised the question of putting him on a different list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

King Aerys is pure evil, he wished to raise as a dragon from the ashes of the city, he enjoyed making abuse of his wife after hearing the screams of the people he burned at the stake. 

Aerys is worse than Maegor. 

Euron removed the nose of one of his brothers affected by the grey scale, he died because he couldn't breath, he confessed to Aerion the murder of another brother and the murder of Balon, then he did things in the Shield Island. 

Ramsay murders women and he flays them alive when they don't entertain him, then the abuse Jeyne Poole suffered makes him one of the most depraved character ever invented. 

The worst characters are Ramsay, Euron and Aerys, then Ser Gregor, Vargo Hoat, Rorge and Craster

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, KingAerys_II said:

King Aerys is pure evil, he wished to raise as a dragon from the ashes of the city, he enjoyed making abuse of his wife after hearing the screams of the people he burned at the stake. 

Aerys is worse than Maegor. 

Euron removed the nose of one of his brothers affected by the grey scale, he died because he couldn't breath, he confessed to Aerion the murder of another brother and the murder of Balon, then he did things in the Shield Island. 

Ramsay murders women and he flays them alive when they don't entertain him, then the abuse Jeyne Poole suffered makes him one of the most depraved character ever invented. 

The worst characters are Ramsay, Euron and Aerys, then Ser Gregor, Vargo Hoat, Rorge and Craster

Book Aerys has some things which prevent him from being Pure Evil. I will copy and paste them from his page on the Near Pure Evil wiki:

  • He loves his children except for Prince Rhaegar whom he dislikes. When his wife gave birth to Prince Jaehaerys, Aerys is explicitly mentioned to have been filled with joy and almost restored him to his older self. When Jaehaerys died a year later, Aerys was plunged into despair and mourned his death. After the birth of Prince Viserys, Aerys became worried for his health and took extreme measures to ensure he wouldn't die like making his food taster suckle at the teats of the wet nurse to check that the woman had not smeared poison over her nipples or burning all the gifts for his son because he believes they could have been cursed.
  • While he had his mistress and her kin tortured because he believed they had poisoned his son Jaeherys, after he had discovered that she actually hadn't killed his son, he felt remorse, fasted for a fortnight and made a walk of repentance across the city to the Great Sept.
  • He has a tragedy as he started out as a promising, young ruler with no indication that he was initially cruel, but his madness was fueled by his unhappy marriage to his own sister which was arranged by his father, his sons constantly dying because they are stillborn which causes Aerys to grow more unhinged and also because he was betrayed at Duskendale by Lord Denys Darklyn who killed his escort, imprisoned him for six months and was abused by the people who had imprisoned him. These events would shatter his remaining sanity and would make him paranoid and fearful for his life.
  • He has moral agency issues due to his insanity which are demonstrated by him often abruptly changing his mood between loud laughter, sobbing, sudden rages, melanchony and others without any reason, being convinced that a tree on a mystery knight's shield was laughing at him, being paranoid that everyone around him, including his own son, are conspiring against him without any proof, displaying an unhealthy obsession with dragonfire, not allowing himself to be touched even by his servants which causes his hair to become unwashed and tangled and his nails extremely long and grotesque, barely eating due to believing that his food could be poisoned which caused him to grow skinny, burning Viserys' gifts because he believed they were cursed and often cutting himself on the Iron Throne's blades among other things. His insanity is what makes him believe everyone around him is conspiring against him without any proof which in turn causes his cruelty.

So, basically, Aerys is too insane to qualify as Pure Evil, he has a Freudian Excuse which explains how he grew insane, he loves his sons and mourns them when they are stillborn and die and he feels remorse about torturing a woman and her whole family to death after he discovers that she hadn't actually killed his son and he expresses his remorse about this by fasting and doing a walk of repentance.

Edited by boltons are sick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Maegor is pure evil, he did extremely despicable acts against Rhaena and Viserys, then he had the obsession to have a male heir, before doing things against his nephews he did acts Aegon and Visenya did during the dragon wroth. 

Near pure evil as Tywin, Tywin Lannister is very similar to him

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, boltons are sick said:

his tragedy which led to his fall to the Dark Side

It's not even justification, just an excuse. Frankensteins creature was born in sorrow and fear,  but to pretend that this serial killer is anything less of a monster is to misread the book.

Obviously Ani died a Jedi, and for me that's enough, his actions were unredeemable but the person himself, is always capable of redemption. That's the Jedi way

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/25/2023 at 2:39 PM, boltons are sick said:

For those of you who don’t know, there are several wikis for villains. One of them is called Pure Evil wiki (which, in short, is about villains with no redeeming or sympathetic qualities), the second is called Near Pure Evil wiki (Which, in short, is about villains with almost no redeeming or sympathetic qualities but they still can’t qualify for the Pure Evil wiki for some reason. However, there are other cases where a villain can be Near Pure Evil even if they don't have any redeemable qualities like slightly lacking moral agency or slightly failing the heinous standard of the series because they don't go the extra mile in terms of crimes). There is also a third wiki called the Inconsistently Heinous wiki (which, in short, is about characters who have committed awful crimes, but they still have too many redeeming and sympathetic qualities and excuses for their actions to qualify as Pure Evil or Near Pure Evil). The name “Inconsistently Heinous” means that the characters are too inconsistent in their heinousness to be Near Pure Evil and they need to have many redeeming and sympathetic qualities and/or excuses for their actions or something else which disqualifies them from being Near Pure Evil. Often times Inconsistently Heinous characters can even be morally ambiguous heroes in the stories they are depicted, but they also do some bad things along the way. they can also redeem themselves which is something Pure Evil or Near Pure Evil characters can't do. The Villainous Benchmark wiki is for characters who do some bad stuff, but can't be listed on the Near Pure Evil wiki (either because their actions are really, really tame or because they have too many sympathetic qualities, but also don't do quite enough to be listed as Inconsistently Heinous).

Here is how certain characters from the books would be ranked on the wikis based on these criteria without including Villainous Benchmark (keep in mind, there are more characters who could fit into Pure Evil or Near Pure Evil but aren't listed yet):

Pure Evil: Joffrey Baratheon, Gregor Clegane, Ramsay Snow, Craster, Rorge, Euron Greyjoy and Maegor Targaryen

(There is absolutely nothing redeemable or sympathetic about them.)

Near Pure Evil: Tywin Lannister, Aerys Targaryen, Rossart, Roose Bolton, Petyr Baelish, Walder Frey, Varamyr Sixskins, Lo Bu, Janos Slynt and Kraznys mo Nakloz

(Most of them have some redeeming and sympathetic qualities and in the case of Aerys, he also has moral agency issues due to his insanity. However, they are not enough to make them Inconsistently Heinous as they are still pretty irredeemable and are not particularly sympathetic. Some of them don't even have redeeming or sympathetic qualities and they just fail to pass the heinous standard of the series like Rossart who fails the heinous standard because everything he does is under Aerys' orders, Kraznys mo Nakloz who doesn't stand out because the rest of the slavemasters from Astapor do the same thing as him and, thus, he fails to be unique enough, or Varamyr Sixskins whose actions are too off-screen and don't have enough impact on the plot and are not shown in enough detail. Janos Slynt also fails the heinous standard and he also seems to care about his kids but those are considered minor preventions.)

Inconsistently Heinous: Cersei and Tyrion Lannister

(Their actions cross some moral boundaries, but they both have way too many sympathetic and redeeming quaities to be Pure Evil or Near Pure Evil and are too affected by their tragic backstories.)

So, how do you feel about this moral scaling and would you make any changes to it?

There are some characters that don't belong with the rest.

I wouldn't put Joffrey at the bottom with the likes of Gregor, Ramsay, etc.  He not quite that bad, and at 13 is still a work in progress.  It's possible he may have been salvageable, or could have joined the total evil.  We don't know because his development was cut off by his death.

Tywin Lannister don't belong in near pure evil.  Tywin I think is something of a Machiavellian.  He does what he thinks necessary under the circumstances.  You leave him alone, he'll leave you alone.  His problem is he overdoes things.  Also worth remembering that he was a capable Hand who ran a prosperous and peaceful land for many years.  He's a ruthless SOB, and probably leans towards evil.

Janos Slynt is a venal, corrupt opportunist.  A miserable person and a villain if you're a Stark, but not really evil.  Just an asshole.  

Cersei qualifies as near pure evil for reasons mentioned by many others.  Tyrion is a bit complicated.  I have no real problem with most of what he does in the first three books.  But lately he is going downhill.  He's probably closer to villainous benchmark, whatever that is.

By the way, I'm not interested in checklists or box ticking, so don't bother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Nevets said:

Tywin Lannister don't belong in near pure evil.  Tywin I think is something of a Machiavellian.  He does what he thinks necessary under the circumstances.  You leave him alone, he'll leave you alone.  His problem is he overdoes things.  Also worth remembering that he was a capable Hand who ran a prosperous and peaceful land for many years.  He's a ruthless SOB, and probably leans towards evil.

Hmm leave him alone, eh? For example, make a peace treaty with his dad in exchange for hostages? Wait he then committed a familicide shortly after that. Or how Aerys actually trusted him to come in the city, and then he brutally sacked that city? Or wait, I remember now how the Riverlands did literally anything to him. Wait! They didn’t! He just invaded because his son was held by someone speaking for the North and held in the Eyrie. And Robb Stark was going North, …in fact going to leave him alone, so he signed off on yet another familicide. Or lets take a small example : Masha Heddle literally just existed…and he murdered her for existing. I doubt he even cared that was where Tyrion was captured. Tywin fanboys are delusional, Tywin is one of the most evil characters in the books and its ridiculous that anyone could possibly think otherwise. 

“Tywin’s just logical and machevullian. It makes some sense to murder whole families because they laugh at you. He just carries on a war of terror, he is literally a terrorist, but that is logical. Totally logical to horrifyingly murder people as much as possible!” - Horrifying. Just horrifying. Also, a note, but really - By this logic, you could support any totalitarian state. It’s just logical because you have to enforce order and everyone has to do what you say, am I right bro? Any totalitarian leader is perfectly fine and not evil^^ Right? And if you have no war for 20 years, than, welp, that makes your rule completely justifiable! I believe Kim Jung Un hasn’t had any wars during his reign, so good news everyone! Kim Jung Un is not evil at all! He is totally justified because he brought peace to North Korea!  

(yes this last paragraph was sarcastic as hell)

PS - I remember how Rhaenys, baby Aegon, and Elia of Dorne really attacked Tywin first. Since he leaves anyone alone who doesn't attack him right? 

Edited by Lord of Raventree Hall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...