What is evil?

[All Men Must Rhyme]

Remind me to invite you to be in the jury if I ever end up being judged for a crime. Particularly if it turns out that I am guilty.

He has a goatee. You know who else had a goatee? Satan. Jus' saying :P

[Silmarien]

Woman of War wrote:

This idea was not alien to medieval culture. But whatever. I agree that that this ability is a good thing. However, if that is your goal, then confusing "Evil" with "Inhuman" does not help. That was my point.

At common law (the English Common Law), there was a "heat of passion" defense, which, where applicable, would reduce the crime of murder to the lesser crime of manslaughter. All English speaking jurisdictions contain similar rules, almost always created by statute.

However, the defense simply does not apply here. Tyrion climbed a ladder with loaded crossbow in hand, and broke into another person's dwelling with evil intent. He is 100% to blame for placing himself in the situation to begin with. A judge would not instruct the jury on the heat of passion defense, and the jury would not be asked to consider it.

You are still free (or course) to claim that Tyrion could not help himself. But that argument can always be made by any criminal, and in this case, the law would refuse to consider it.

Yes. Here in New York, that is one of the few things that can earn murderer the death penalty. Another is the retaliatory murder of a witness for having testified against you.

No in all cases. It has nothing to do with arithmetics.

I have an entirely different approach. I am forbidden by my religion to judge the souls of RL persons; and for this reason would hesitate to claim that any RL person was "evil". I have less compunction about this in a literary context.

That's simply not true.

Tyrion did not get the crossbow until AFTER he found Shae in the bed, and AFTER she called him "My Giant of Lannister!". Any good defense attorney could successfully argue that killing her was manslaughter.

Tyrion did not show any intention of killing his father. He needed a weapon in case the guards came, so that Tywin would not yell for them. Tywin simply called Tysha a "whore" twice, which set Tyrion off. For all we know, Tyrion was simply going to confront his father about what actually happened to the woman he loved and was forced to rape.

With the childhood abuse and trauma as a defense (his father forcing Tyrion to rape his wife), if we're speaking in legal terms, there are certainly mitigating factors here that could preclude a Murder 1 conviction, and even possibly end with Tyrion convicted of two counts of manslaughter.

ETA: I'm speaking of the US legal system here. Also, if in the US, Tyrion's wealth would certainly help in getting him the lesser charge!

[James Nicholls]

(1) Jaime. He has repeatedly committed incest with his sister and attempted to murder Bran. That was evil. Yet he's recently turned a new leaf and so we begin to like him more.

I've yet to read a convincing argument that incest is even morally wrong, yet alone evil. But yeah, the Bran thing was something of a dick move.

(2) Tyrion. He murdered Shae, and also his father, who was no saint himself, but this was still evil. He is consumed by revenge and with becoming Lord of Casterly Rock. Yet we like him because he's witty, he was kind to Sansa, Bran, and Jon, and he's not as bad as the rest of his kin.

Imo Shae and Tywin had it coming. Tyrion shows himself to be very snarky when he's the Hand, and he definitely isn't above screwing people over in his own interests, but ultimately he is very kind to those beneath him, and that's the mark of a good man.

(3) The Hound. He's committed murder--maybe not on the scale of his brother--but we like him more than Gregor.

He's a weird one, because despite being very much like the Nazi officer who followed orders (yeah I made a Nazi comparison Godwin, deal with it) he's still highly likeable. Probably because of his protection of the Starks. See above comment on Tyrion.

(4) Theon, for betraying the Starks and ordering the murder of two boys for his own greater glory. Yet we pity and almost like him because of his cruel treatment at the hands of the Boltons.

He's so utterly reduced by the Boltons that it pretty much mitigates any wrongs he previously did. Probably wouldn't stop Jon shoving a dagger in his chest if they ever met up, but I'm actually rooting for Theon at this point.

So who isn't evil? The ones that immediately come to mind are Ned, Davos, Brienne, the Stark children (including Arya), Tommen, Myrcella, Sam, Hodor....it's a much shorter list, but it basically includes those who have shown that they honestly care more about others than care about themselves, or are too young or simple to know any better.

I don't think that GRRM is a moral relativist. I think he has very clear ideas in mind as to what is evil, and may also be very surprised by how much we may like his bad guys, despite having manipulating our feelings towards them.

You've a very black and white definition of evil. I can't speak for Martin, but from the text I'd discern he's exactly what you said he isn't - a moral relativist who appreciates what Grey and Gray morality is all about. He's probably well aware that Jaime, Tyrion, Theon and other characters who have done very bad things are very likeable. It'd be a very tiring book to read if we didn't like anyone.

Evil is a pretty loaded word at this point in time, rife with religious connotations. One can still talk about right and wrong, but I think most serious thinkers have an appreciation for psychological and cultural causes of things we might term as evil. I think the idea that an act is inherently evil or that people are inherently evil is immature and lacks any nuance. To call Khal Drogo evil is to be ignorant of the culture in which he lived. Which isn't saying I approve wholeheartedly of his actions, but applying modern morality to history is going to end in a severe Values Dissonance.

[Silmarien]

I've yet to read a convincing argument that incest is even morally wrong, yet alone evil. But yeah, the Bran thing was something of a dick move.

Imo Shae and Tywin had it coming. Tyrion shows himself to be very snarky when he's the Hand, and he definitely isn't above screwing people over in his own interests, but ultimately he is very kind to those beneath him, and that's the mark of a good man.

He's a weird one, because despite being very much like the Nazi officer who followed orders (yeah I made a Nazi comparison Godwin, deal with it) he's still highly likeable. Probably because of his protection of the Starks. See above comment on Tyrion.

He's so utterly reduced by the Boltons that it pretty much mitigates any wrongs he previously did. Probably wouldn't stop Jon shoving a dagger in his chest if they ever met up, but I'm actually rooting for Theon at this point.

You've a very black and white definition of evil. I can't speak for Martin, but from the text I'd discern he's exactly what you said he isn't - a moral relativist who appreciates what Grey and Gray morality is all about. He's probably well aware that Jaime, Tyrion, Theon and other characters who have done very bad things are very likeable. It'd be a very tiring book to read if we didn't like anyone.

Evil is a pretty loaded word at this point in time, rife with religious connotations. One can still talk about right and wrong, but I think most serious thinkers have an appreciation for psychological and cultural causes of things we might term as evil. I think the idea that an act is inherently evil or that people are inherently evil is immature and lacks any nuance. To call Khal Drogo evil is to be ignorant of the culture in which he lived. Which isn't saying I approve wholeheartedly of his actions, but applying modern morality to history is going to end in a severe Values Dissonance.

I largely agree with this post.

For example, how many people, in real life, that anyone knows in person, would you call "evil"? Sure, we all know total jerks, assholes, selfish people. Most of us aren't acquainted with murderers, but killing a person doesn't automatically make a person "evil".

Sometimes killing another is an accident (such as a car crash in icy conditions). In other circumstances, it's negligence, but not intended (leaving a loaded gun lying around, not realizing that your small children are at home, and can grab it. And one ends up dead - idiotic and that person would go to jail, but it wouldn't be for Murder 1).

Then, others are crimes of passion, aka manslaughter (in the US).

Sociopaths are the types of people that often get labeled "evil" (again, Jeffery Dahmer, Ted Bundy, US serial killers as examples). So, in ASOIAF, Ramsay, Roose, Walder Frey (and participants in RW), Bloody Mummers, Gregor Clegane and friends.

I'd even lump Tywin into the evil category, but that's just because he's committed so many war crimes, and he just rationalizes them away as "necessary" for "honor". He never shows remorse for his actions. And he abuses his children, horribly.

Otherwise...everybody commits "evil" or "bad" acts in their lifetime. It's part of being human. Granted, most people aren't going to shove a kid out of a window to hide the fact they're banging their twin sister, the Queen (geez, I HOPE not at least), or have their husband's infant bastard murdered in front of the mother, etc.

However, it's impossible to judge a person as "evil" based on a single (or even several) evil act, without taking into account any "good" actions they've done. Good does not negate evil, but it's the balance that counts.

I even think it's possible for someone like Theon, who committed terrible acts (evil = murdering innocent Miller, his wife, and two kids; taking Winterfell, putting several of the smallfolk to death for shitty reasons; killing his own Ironborn soldier who witnessed the Miller's boys incident), to redeem himself.

At least, Christian morality deems it possible for anybody to be redeemed. Many other faiths also hold this tenent.

Ramsay and Gregor are/were beyond redemption because they're sociopaths, and don't care that the evil they do is wrong (rape, torture, murder, etc).

Sociopaths lack the self-awareness and empathy necessary to change their behaviors, in essence, they're incapabe of redemption because they would never feel like redeeming themselves.

But that doesn't make them any less culpable for their actions.

I don't think morality is completely subjective. Otherwise, why even try to discuss it? Is everyone's moral compass really so different?

Killing another person (except under certain circumstances: self-defense or defense of another) is wrong. Mitigating factors can change the punishment, but it's still wrong.

Rape is wrong. Spousal abuse is wrong. And so on.

I don't think that's subjective. Is anybody here really going to argue that Ramsay just had a really difficult childhood and thus can't be blamed for torture? Or that perhaps Gregor was beaten as a child, or has some genetic defect that excuses his actions?

[Fearsome Fred]

Tyrion did not get the crossbow until AFTER he found Shae in the bed, and AFTER she called him "My Giant of Lannister!".

I have already acknowledged this error, above.

Any good defense attorney could successfully argue that killing her was manslaughter.

No. I don't think the "heat of passion" defense is made available to burglars, so the jury would not even consider it. They would only consider whether his act was intentional. Which it clearly was.

Tyrion did not show any intention of killing his father. He needed a weapon in case the guards came, so that Tywin would not yell for them. Tywin simply called Tysha a "whore" twice, which set Tyrion off.

Eh? Let me explain something to you. If you love Barrack Obama, and take aim at a his republican opponent during a presidential debate, and accidentally hit Obama instead, killing him, you are a murderer. It does not matter that you did not intend to kill Obama. All that matters is that you intended to kill SOMEONE.

When Tyrion took down that crossbow, and loaded it, it was with intent to kill some innocent guard who was only doing his job. He could have escaped to safety at that point, but no. One corpse was not enough for the evil bastard.

With the childhood abuse and trauma as a defense

Is that his excuse for murdering Symon as well? What does it matter if his intention was formed on the spur of the moment. He murdered because he felt like it, and because he has no morals to stop him.

[Silmarien]

I have already acknowledged this error, above.

My bad, I missed it. Sorry bout that! ;)

No. I don't think the "heat of passion" defense is made available to burglars, so the jury would not even consider it. They would only consider whether his act was intentional. Which it clearly was.

Tyrion wasn't really your typical "burglar". He entered his former residence via secret tunnels, yes, but is this "breaking and entering"? There was no lock!

Also, okay, I've played along with the (US) legal system in modern days thus far, but in Westeros there is not a law saying "any death that occurrs during a felony is automatically murder 1". This is Westeros. Burglary isn't really considered an offense. Theft, sure, but not burglary (and I doubt they distinguish burglars from robbers).

Eh? Let me explain something to you. If you love Barrack Obama, and take aim at a his republican opponent during a presidential debate, and accidentally hit Obama instead, killing him, you are a murderer. It does not matter that you did not intend to kill Obama. All that matters is that you intended to kill SOMEONE.

I'm aware that "intent follows the bullet". I'm not quite sure what it has to do with Tyrion.

Tyrion didn't shoot the crossbow and accidentally kill an innocent. He shot his father who set him off in a fit of passion by calling Tysha a "whore" twice, after Tyrion warned him EXPLICITLY not to call her a whore. Where does "intent follows the bullet" come into this equation?

There is no "intent follows the gun" concept. Carrying a weapon is not considered to automatically mean you intend to use it. Weapons are used for self-defense, to threaten, for force, as well as to use in a violent act.

One cannot derive someone's intent simply from the fact they were carrying a loaded weapon.

When Tyrion took down that crossbow, and loaded it, it was with intent to kill some innocent guard who was only doing his job. He could have escaped to safety at that point, but no. One corpse was not enough for the evil bastard.

You could argue that, or you could also argue it was a self-defense measure, since he was already marked for death, he'd be seized upon sight. So he had a weapon to ensure he would not be taken immediately. Even in his OWN POV we do not get him thinking "MMM can't wait to kill that asshole father of mine!" So you're making a leap in your argument, here.

Weapons can be used to threaten, as well as to kill. That is why cops are armed (in the US and many other countries).

Is that his excuse for murdering Symon as well? What does it matter if his intention was formed on the spur of the moment. He murdered because he felt like it, and because he has no morals to stop him.

Because he "felt like it"? Oh please. He went to meet Symon to try to bribe him out of KL, to protect Shae from being hanged (as per his father's threat). Symon, that wonderful upstanding gentleman, actually blackmailed Tyrion by threatening to reveal his secret with Shae (thus endangering Shae's life) unless Tyrion got him into Joffrey's wedding as one of the singers.

Tyrion then felt he had no choice but to have him killed (by Bronn), because of the risk to Shae's life.

No, it's not a self-defense claim, or an imminent threat to Shae's life, but it was a very real possibility that Symon would blab. I tend to forgive Tyrion for this, as he was trying to protect someone he cared for, who was under a clear threat from an unsavory asshole singer.

[Woman of War]

Eh? Let me explain something to you. If you love Barrack Obama, and take aim at a his republican opponent during a presidential debate, and accidentally hit Obama instead, killing him, you are a murderer. It does not matter that you did not intend to kill Obama. All that matters is that you intended to kill SOMEONE.

When Tyrion took down that crossbow, and loaded it, it was with intent to kill some innocent guard who was only doing his job. He could have escaped to safety at that point, but no. One corpse was not enough for the evil bastard.

Is that his excuse for murdering Symon as well? What does it matter if his intention was formed on the spur of the moment. He murdered because he felt like it, and because he has no morals to stop him.

Ahem, I am no Lawyer, but: if someone has been condemned to death, and will be executed any moment - is trying to escape and on that way killing those who intend to catch you and lead you to your execution murder or self defense? Tyrion would have been killed if caught, which would have been murder in itself ( I am against death penalty anyway) but Tyrion was innocent. So - do you have a right to defend yourself against law enforcement people who definitely intend to kill you? Would the only moral solution be to surrender to your execution? Is self defense never allowed? Don't you have the right to turn the executioner's sword against the executioner who is only doing his job? This is not a rhetorical question, it is a question.

So with the guards you may have chosen a bad example.

But, sorry, Silmarien, Tyrion may have seen no other way to silence the singer, but it was murder in order to get rid of a blackmailer - though he felt he had no choice and and Symon indeed was an asshole, after all he had befriended Shae.

There have been long debates in other threads about Tyrion's and Tysha's abuse by Tywin, so the debate if the killing of Tywin qualifies as murder would be controversial with good reason.

[Silmarien]

Ahem, I am no Lawyer, but: if someone has been condemned to death, and will be executed any moment - is trying to escape and on that way killing those who intend to catch you and lead you to your execution murder or self defense? Tyrion would have been killed if caught, which would have been murder in itself ( I am against death penalty anyway) but Tyrion was innocent. So - do you have a right to defend yourself against law enforcement people who definitely intend to kill you? Would the only moral solution be to surrender to your execution? Is self defense never allowed? Don't you have the right to turn the executioner's sword against the executioner who is only doing his job? This is not a rhetorical question, it is a question.

So with the guards you may have chosen a bad example.

But, sorry, Silmarien, Tyrion may have seen no other way to silence the singer, but it was murder in order to get rid of a blackmailer - though he felt he had no choice and and Symon indeed was an asshole, after all he had befriended Shae.

There have been long debates in other threads about Tyrion's and Tysha's abuse by Tywin, so the debate if the killing of Tywin qualifies as murder would be controversial with good reason.

Oh, I agree, it was murder of the singer (by Tyrion's order). I just am more inclined to forgive it, than see it as "evil", because it was to protect someone else's life whom the singer had threatened.

Interesting scenario. I've heard of cases where innocent people who've escaped prison still get arrested for the escape and must serve prison time for that. I personally think it's not fair, but it depends on the state (in the US).

Morally, I think having a weapon to defend yourself during the escape (if you're innocent) is okay. Killing innocent law enforcement (except maybe THE executioner if he/she is threatening you with a weapon) would be wrong, though. And in any case, Tyrion DID NOT KILL ANY GUARDS.

I think from the moment Tyrion heard from Jaime the truth about Tysha, Tyrion could argue "diminished capacity" or even a "mental disease or defect" (if he fudged and claimed he didn't remember any of the incident, that it was blind rage and past trauma that caused his actions).

I think diminished capacity is definitely correct - he was severely wounded, not only from discovering that the only family member who'd shown him ANY love (Jaime) had lied to him for 12+ (or whatever) years about his former wife, after being in the castle dungeons accused falsely of a crime he didn't commit, after witnessing that farce of a trial, and after being publically humiliated by Shae, someone he deeply had cared for....yeah.

He'd have a pretty good case. He was pretty psychologically unstable at that point, as most would be in his shoes.

[zalim]

I disagree. She betrayed her family in a way which, if Cersei wasn't the person she is, would seem insignificant. She didn't betray her family with evil intentions. If she had gone to Cersei in the hopes that her father would be killed for it, then that would certainly be seen as an act of evil. As it is, I think it was as innocent as a young girl wanting to find prince charming, and thinking all of that was going to be taken away. There was no malice in what she did, the fact that Cersei acted on that in such a way could be considered evil, but I'd say Sansa is innocent of that - it is Cersei's act of evil, but it is because of Sansa that she was able to do it.

lol at "didn't betray her family with evil intentions"

The very act of betraying your own kin is the biggest evil of all no matter what your intentions are.

She didnt have to be so honest with Cersei, she could have told her million other things or nothing at all, look what happend to her and her family in the end? Someone said it very nicely "Betrayal does that -- betrays the betrayer."

It isnt innocent anymore if you already have an experience with your "prince charming" and you knew that he isnt that charming after all.

For god sakes, her lies and betrayal got aryas poor friend killed. It was all her fault, she would have sacrifised anything for her own desires.

[David Selig]

LOL

someone here gave a very philosophical definition of "EVIL".

"Evil is the lack of desire of being responsible for the consequences of one's actions.

In that sense, it is also lack of wisdom, and above all, the lack of desire for wisdom."

Was Sansa being responsible, when she was lying to the KING and betraying her own family?

She had no desire of being responsible, when she betrayed her father to the Queen Cersei.

She always was the bad egg in the Stark family. She betrayed her own blood for for her own

selfish desires. What could be a bigger evil thn that?

Murder, rape, arson, torture, the list is endless... You are completely exaggerating her culpability.

BTW, I would love to hear an explanation how Sansa is the "bad egg" of her family in terms of morality of the family when Arya has killed a bunch of people, is becoming an assassin and the last time she felt any guilt about a murder she committed was in Book 1.

[Fearsome Fred]

Ahem, I am no Lawyer, but: if someone has been condemned to death, and will be executed any moment - is trying to escape and on that way killing those who intend to catch you and lead you to your execution murder or self defense?

Murder.

Tyrion would have been killed if caught, which would have been murder in itself ( I am against death penalty anyway) but Tyrion was innocent. So - do you have a right to defend yourself against law enforcement people who definitely intend to kill you?

No. Those sentenced to death, even wrongfully, don't have any right kill cops and guards in order to avoid execution.

Would the only moral solution be to surrender to your execution?

Yes, if the alternative is killing someone.

Is self defense never allowed?

Not under these circumstances. "Self Defense" is a narrow doctrine. It is not a blank check to treat the lives of others as expendable in pursuit of your selfish desire to live as long as possible at their expense. Nor (for instance) do you have the right to murder a bystander to prevent her from screaming for the police.

Don't you have the right to turn the executioner's sword against the executioner who is only doing his job? This is not a rhetorical question, it is a question.

Again, the answer is "no".

So with the guards you may have chosen a bad example.

Not so. In any event, the "self defense" doctrine is not available to those who provoke a confrontation they could and should have avoided. For instance, a burglar breaks into a house, only meaning to steal; he meets the owner of the house, who reaches for a gun; the burglar is thereby placed in reasonable fear of his life, and therefore pulls a gun and shoots. Under these circumstance the burglar may not claim "self defense". He is a murderer.

Same goes for Tyrion. He anticipated a confrontation with the guards. He knew he would kill if he met them. He could have avoided that confrontation, and STILL preserved his life. He could have fled the premises. He chose not to. This decision may not have resulted in the death of a guard, but it still resulted in the death of his father (which was intentional anyway, even if the intent was formed on the spur of the moment).

[zalim]

Ned had the right of it when he said that Sansa, rightly or wrongly, had to side with Joffrey. That's just how it was, and he didn't hold it against her. Sansa also had to bear the weight of that error, if you remember ...

He was her father, he did what a good father should have done, he didnt betray her in any sense and despite all he was there for her and he knew that Sansa

is lying but because Sansa was his daughter (HIS FAMILY) he did what family should do, stick together and specially when you are in a strange country..

She didn't tell Cersei anything about Ned that Cersei either didn't already know or wouldn't have found out. Ned was the victim of his own honor and Baelish's double-crossing. Sansa didn't have much if anything to do with it. Like Jcooper said, Sansa's intent was hardly evil: She wanted to stay in King's Landing with the boy she thought she loved. It's not like she went to Cersei and said, "Here's what my father's up to, please go arrest him and chop off his head."

That doesnt matter to me at all to be honest, the very act of telling on your own damn father to a bitch queen is a family betrayal. She knew about Lannisters and Stark that they didnt like each other much and she also knew few reasons behind it (all stark children knew about lannister and stark disliking for each other), still she went to

Lannister queen.

She did what she thought was right at the time, before Cersei and Joffrey betrayed her. She made the mistake of trusting them and paid the price for it. I hardly consider that to be "evil."

Trusting someone isnt evil, that is not what i have been saying my friend, the act of betraying your family like that (twice in her case) is evil.

So you think that she deserved worse than being beaten regularly, stripped naked in public, held prisoner, threatened with death, threatened with rape, psychologically tortured, forced to see her father's severed head, goaded over the appalling deaths of her brother and mother and forcibly married, with the implication that she should have been raped on her wedding night?

No a simple death like her father would have been enough and the war might had a bit different outcoome.

Call me crazy, but I think she's suffered enough, and to say that she deserved worse than all of that is, I think, over the line.

why would i call you crazy, you are a fan so i understand you but i dont agree with you.

No. She lacked wisdom.

and you said about evil "it is also lack of wisdom"

i would say "above all, the lack of desire for wisdom." this part suits her the best. She should have learned from the incident that got

aryas friend (sorry i always forget his name) killed.

That is not at all how it looks like to me. She had no skill at choosing the better atittude during a difficult decision. She never saw her choice as a betrayal, in part because she lacked enough information. In fact, lack of enough information is a recurrent difficulty for Sansa.

I will qoute you here " it is also lack of wisdom", she had no wisdom to see it as a betrayal, nonetheless betrayal it was.

It is a big list. Why are you so harsh with Sansa?

I can see a family getting betrayed by others, even first cousins but betraying your own sister and father and that for your own selfish desires and greed? its evil for me.

Leaving the life that she had began to build in King's Landing with hardly any explanation or advance warning at all is quite a pressure a 13-year older who isn't particularly daring. More so when it also involves giving up her high hopes of becoming consort of the heir apparent.

There is no excuse in the world that can change the nature of the evil she commited.

I'm happy that you don't have to give witness to my character then.

I dont need to !

[zalim]

Murder, rape, arson, torture, the list is endless... You are completely exaggerating her culpability.

BTW, I would love to hear an explanation how Sansa is the "bad egg" of her family in terms of morality of the family when Arya has killed a bunch of people, is becoming an assassin and the last time she felt any guilt about a murder she committed was in Book 1.

Well its a point of view ! i see a family member betraying another as a the biggest evil of all. For some people family doesnt really matter much and for some it means alot. Its all about opinion.

Well Arya did questionable things true but can you name me all the innocent people she killed? i need to remember really.

[Fearsome Fred]

Well its a point of view ! i see a family member betraying another as a the biggest evil of all.

Well yes, it does depend on one's moral philosophy. But I am Christian, and therefore do not share your POV (Jesus taught otherwise).

Sansa is, in some ways, an idealist. She is not merely in love with Joffrey. She is in love with the old tales and the ideals they embody. She sees Joffrey through rose-colored lenses, and imagines (wrongly) that he embodies those ideals. Her loyalty to those ideals outweigh her loyalty to family. Not only is this not necessarily evil, there may even be something admirable about it.

Yes, there is also a component of selfishness and class snobbery to Sansa's delusions. I don't want to paint her too white.

[littlespider]

Well its a point of view ! i see a family member betraying another as a the biggest evil of all. For some people family doesnt really matter much and for some it means alot. Its all about opinion.

zalim, my friend, you might enjoy this thread, then:

http://asoiaf.wester...on-in-westeros/

Well yes, it does depend on one's moral philosophy. But I am Christian, and therefore do not share your POV (Jesus taught otherwise).

Though Dante does dump the traitors to kin in Cocytus. But the traitors to lord are lower. So Roose Bolton is screwed.

Sansa is, in some ways, an idealist. She is not merely in love with Joffrey. She is in love with the old tales and the ideals they embody. She sees Joffrey through rose-colored lenses, and imagines (wrongly) that he embodies those ideals. Her loyalty to those ideals outweigh her loyalty to family. Not only is this not necessarily evil, there may even be something admirable about it.

This is absolutely the case. 11 year old Sansa has written herself into a series of stories, and she doesn't recognize (nor should she be reasonably expected to, at 11) that there's a very different narrative going on at King's Landing.

[zalim]

Well yes, it does depend on one's moral philosophy. But I am Christian, and therefore do not share your POV (Jesus taught otherwise).

Sansa is, in some ways, an idealist. She is not merely in love with Joffrey. She is in love with the old tales and the ideals they embody. She sees Joffrey through rose-colored lenses, and imagines (wrongly) that he embodies those ideals. Her loyalty to those ideals outweigh her loyalty to family. Not only is this not necessarily evil, there may even be something admirable about it.

Yes, there is also a component of selfishness and class snobbery to Sansa's delusions. I don't want to paint her too white.

Well if you are Christian my friend, you should know that what church would have done with her, when church was very powerful in Europe (Middle ages).

My POV has nothing to do with any religion at all it is my personal opinion. A family should be something you can always count on and they can always count on you and trust you, i will go as far as to say, trust you BLINDLY. Nothing should matter to you more thn your family and specially not your own selfish desires and Sansa desires made her betray her family and this is the deed i see as an evil deed.

In the universe of ASOIAF, bastards have bad reputation because many consider them EVIL and that is because of their bad history.

Many bastards or the kin of bastard borns betrayed their own blood for power. Sansa is no bastard yet she proved that you dont have to be a bastard to do something evil to your own blood (Cersei is another one).

[zalim]

zalim, my friend, you might enjoy this thread, then:

http://asoiaf.wester...on-in-westeros/

Na, that thread has nothing to do with real facts.

You enjoy it !

[Grail King]

No. She lacked wisdom. That is not at all how it looks like to me. She had no skill at choosing the better atittude during a difficult decision. She never saw her choice as a betrayal, in part because she lacked enough information. In fact, lack of enough information is a recurrent difficulty for Sansa. It is a big list. Why are you so harsh with Sansa? Leaving the life that she had began to build in King's Landing with hardly any explanation or advance warning at all is quite a pressure a 13-year older who isn't particularly daring. More so when it also involves giving up her high hopes of becoming consort of the heir apparent. I'm happy that you don't have to give witness to my character then. Ouch.

I think the poster hates Red Heads.

[littlespider]

Folks, I'm going to throw this out there, since the topic of defining "evil" came up in the current Hound thread. There are, of course, a lot of ways to define evil, so I've offered one below as a topic (though it's certainly not the only one). Beware, it is long and nerdy, and it also has *gasp* footnotes. I've applied it to Sandor below, but it might have some bearing on how we think of and discuss other characters.

A lot of posters on these forums seem to be powerfully attracted to Manichean notions of Good and Evil: both positive* forces in the universe that are striving against each other, under which auspices various people can be characterized. When we constantly have discussions of "which character is black, which character is white, and what shade of morally grey" are they, we're in a Manichean world. (Though doubtless these threads are also influenced by the ginormous shadow of Tolkien's* world as well, in addition to the seriously tempting challenge of slotting all of the ASOIAF characters into D&D alignments!) Melisandre's religion is entirely structured around Manichean concepts of good and evil: the classic example of a Dark Lord/Light Lord striving in apocalyptic battle against one another. In short, kinda exciting, but (to me, at least) philosophically boring.

There's a more interesting and complex definition of evil from philosophical tradition, one that's inherited from Platonic philosophy and gets incorporated into Western Christian traditions, since Western Christianity is strongly Neo-Platonic. St. Augustine writes about evil in this way: evil is not a positive** force, but can be defined as the absence of the good. So evil is a deficiency rather than a present quality. What's obviously dependent on this definition is that we somehow define "The Good"; according to Plato, the ideal "form" of the Good is that object that makes all things intelligible via proper philosophical exploration, and upon which true justice can be modeled. In Christian tradition, of course, the source of the Good is the Trinity.***

I tend to like this Platonic notion of evil best; part of this is because I have a really, really hard time reconciling myself to the notion that there are positive categories of good and evil. For me, that seems like too easy a way to compartmentalize the universe; also, I'm one of those perverse people that firmly believes that any criminal, no matter how bad, can and should be given a chance to rehabilitate him/herself within a restricted environment.**** And, the notion of evil as a deficiency also seems to encompass other definitions of evil as well: the intent to do harm, for instance.

Okay, and how is all this operating in ASOIAF. For one thing, Martin gets the fact that people are messy. I like the fact that he scrupulously refuses to give us a sustained polarization of good and evil that serves as the moral and ethical backbone of the narrative. Sure, he throws us a Ramsay and a Gregor every once in a while: against whom the moral deficiencies of other "villainous" types (Sandor, Theon, Jaime, Roose even) can be defined and further complicated. But the constant presence of those characters whose "grey" areas we are exploring attests to the fact that the dominant tradition driving this story is one that does not reduce characters to simplistic definitions of "good" and "evil." And if Martin ever truly defines what "good" and "evil" consist of in these books, it is with the model of Ned Stark and his family as "the good." And the message Martin sends concerning Ned as a model for the good is this: the good will always be fucked in this world.

So, if we approach a character like Sandor from the Neo-Platonic position of evil (admitting, of course, that applying NP concepts to these books might very well not work, cultural relativism and all that), then Sandor is absolutely a person characterized by a certain amount of evil, in that his actions, thoughts, and intentions (should we continue in the development of NP philosophical approaches to sinful acts) are characterized by a deficiency of the Good.

But so, for that matter, are a great number of the other characters.

But the thing that I quite like about the NP perspective on evil is that it allows for moral dynamism, which we are absolutely seeing in Sandor. If we think about his actions, he progresses from the murder of a child -- Mycah to the active protection of a child -- Arya. And, many of his actions are characterized by his abdication from an active decision to commit to the Good -- his passive avoidance from actively protecting Sansa from the beatings, a lack of action (again, evil = deficiency, lack) that he clearly sees as culpable wrong, since he says so. Lack of commitment to the good is a kind of evil in NP tradition: see the fact that Dante condemns the neutral angels to Hell; they're on the outskirts of Hell, but still, Hell. Since we do not have an internal perspective, we can only speculate on the thoughts and intentions behind the actions. When we hear his dying speech on the Trident, what we are reading is the rambling of a figure in a crisis of thought, who is clearly contemplating his past actions and occupying the "dark night of the soul" in which he has been living for most of his life. And of course he's also trying to get Arya to kill him. Speech can have two equally important agendas.

*Though Tolkien was not Manichean, being a Catholic and a theologian; a careful analysis of Sauron himself demonstrates that despite its apparent black/white morality, the greatest evil threat in the books is actually an absence.

**I am using "positive" in a philosophical context here, meaning that a quality is present, actual, a "thing" (as opposed to the more common meaning -- positive as opposed to negative).

***Please note: the furthest extent of my religiosity is that sometimes I like to light incense and shit and sniff it. Also, I used to believe in the Easter Bunny. Now, I only believe in the Easter Bunny when I am under the influence of ... things. So under no circumstances am I proposing any of these definitions from the perspective of evangelism or anything like that, just as categories for discussion.

****Yes, even very very bad war criminals. I understand completely and utterly why others think differently, and respect those opinions entirely.

[David Selig]

Well its a point of view ! i see a family member betraying another as a the biggest evil of all. For some people family doesnt really matter much and for some it means alot. Its all about opinion.

Well Arya did questionable things true but can you name me all the innocent people she killed? i need to remember really.

There are different types of betrayal. I am not even sure that applies to what Sansa did in those cases you mention. The first time she lied because she was caught between her birth family and the family she was about to be married into. The second she disobeyed her father, but had no idea at all what the real situation was, that Cersei was a mortal enemy of the Starks. Besides, she didn't revealed any crucial information to Cersei - Ned was doomed already at this point of time thanks to his own blunders and LF's betrayal.

I don't see how disobeying your father once and trying to get the help of an outsider is worse than multiple murders. Arya's murders include people like the guard at Harrenhal, who hasn't done anything to her and for all we know might've been a great guy, not to mention at the time the Boltons were on the Starks side from what she knew, yet she killed him and never felt guilty at all. Then there's the insurance guy in Braavos, he was supposedly a crook, but that's hardly a justification for a murder.