Grey Characters

[Frey Pie]

Iv meant to make this thread for a while but forgot about it until i saw a post on another thread. There was a quote from George some time ago which said there was no evil characters in his story and no completely goo ones either. Rather most of them were shades of grey. Iv never believed this. For a character like Tywin i might call him grey. Same with Stannis, Theon and Jaime. Some to a lesser extent and some to a greater.

Yet surely there are a few evil and good characters. Ser Gregor, The Boltons, the Titans Bastard, the Tickler etc etc. These seem irrevocably evil to me.

On the other side of the coin we have characters such as Ned Stark and Barristan Selmy. Both seem good honourabble men who yes have killed people but dont take pleasure in it nor do it easily. Tywin let his men rape and plunder KL but would Barristan or Ned have in his position?

I do think there are many grey characters in the books but not all of them

[Lady Arianne Martell]

I would agree.

This is the beauty of Martin's universe, he has realistic characters in a fantasy setting.

Ned and Barristan have their flaws as well.

The term honor is interesting in this world...it never really sticks, huh.

The only fully decent human being I can think of are probably some of the small-folk and the innocent kids, such as tommen or myrcella.

[Frey Pie]

I would agree.

This is the beauty of Martin's universe, he has realistic characters in a fantasy setting.

Ned and Barristan have their flaws as well.

The term honor is interesting in this world...it never really sticks, huh.

The only fully decent human being I can think of are probably some of the small-folk and the innocent kids, such as tommen or myrcella.

Very true but i see a big difference in someone who has flaws in their character and so is human and someone who filed his teeth so he could eat Briennes face easier as Biter did.

Sansa may get her claws out yet but so far she seems pretty pure. She had a hand in Joffreys death but didnt kill her himself so i dont hold her accountable. Many characters including her have been put through. She has made her mistakes but nothing knowingly bad IMO. Tommen and Myrcella id agree with. Gendry, Mya Stone, Garlan Tyrell all seem pretty dead on

[scurvy]

Ned did unnecessary harm to Catelyn by claiming Jon Snow as his bastard if he is truly not his own son. Yes, that saved Jon's life, but it clearly was something that upset Cat until her undying day.

Selmy regrets having served the Usurper Robert Baratheon. He could have just as easily taken the Black and saved honorably in the Night's Watch, but chose his vanity of remaining in the Kingsguard, even if it was to who he believed to be a false king.

Roose Bolton isn't evil. He's sly and tactical and on the wrong side of the writing because we were introduced to the Starks as protagonists. But, he's got his own desires for the North, no different than all of the Lords who have claims or desires to the Iron Throne.

Ramsay Snow and Ser Gregor, though, they seem more pure as characters- what we define as evil; both seem to be sociopaths Axis II types. Ramsay with covetous antisocial disorder with malevolent, sadistic, and paranoid features and Gregor being far less fleshed out.

[deadphoenix]

I think both Jon Snow and Sam Tarly have been "decent" human beings too...no one is perfect if that is what you are looking for but there are good people in ASOIAF. You just have to judge them by the rules of the land they live in. In a normal world like ours Jon wouldn't be right to execute Janos Slynt, but in Westoros he was.

[DogLover]

As far as pure evil characters, I'd say anyone in the Brave Companions, Gregor and his rats, Ramsay, and Joffrey all deserve a spot on that list. I'm inclined to put LF, Tywin and Roose on that list too, but I think they're just a very dark shade of gray.

[Frey Pie]

Ned did unnecessary harm to Catelyn by claiming Jon Snow as his bastard if he is truly not his own son. Yes, that saved Jon's life, but it clearly was something that upset Cat until her undying day.

Selmy regrets having served the Usurper Robert Baratheon. He could have just as easily taken the Black and saved honorably in the Night's Watch, but chose his vanity of remaining in the Kingsguard, even if it was to who he believed to be a false king.

Roose Bolton isn't evil. He's sly and tactical and on the wrong side of the writing because we were introduced to the Starks as protagonists. But, he's got his own desires for the North, no different than all of the Lords who have claims or desires to the Iron Throne.

Ramsay Snow and Ser Gregor, though, they seem more pure as characters- what we define as evil; both seem to be sociopaths Axis II types. Ramsay with covetous antisocial disorder with malevolent, sadistic, and paranoid features and Gregor being far less fleshed out.

By defintion i would say your first line is faulty. Ned did harm to Catelyn to save a life. A far lesser evil then what otherwise would have happened

Barristan made a mistake in that respect yes, but i would say the KG all did wrong not protecting there Queen from her husband. It could be argued that he is grey

Roose Bolton raped a woman infront of her husbands still swinging corpse. Gregor cut off Hoats legs, arms, and ears IIRC and fed them to him

[Winter's Knight]

Roose Bolton isn't evil. He's sly and tactical and on the wrong side of the writing because we were introduced to the Starks as protagonists. But, he's got his own desires for the North, no different than all of the Lords who have claims or desires to the Iron Throne.

What would you call him clinically raping Ramsay's mother or his cool acceptance of Ramsay's games?

[Frey Pie]

I think both Jon Snow and Sam Tarly have been "decent" human beings too...no one is perfect if that is what you are looking for but there are good people in ASOIAF. You just have to judge them by the rules of the land they live in. In a normal world like ours Jon wouldn't be right to execute Janos Slynt, but in Westoros he was.

I would agree with you. By our standards nearly all characters would be evil as many have killed or invaded foreign lands. But its Westeros and accepted. Sam i definately see as good

[Richard Rivers]

I cannot find it, but there was a good session on playing devil's advocate for some of the more "evil" characters. Ser Gregor for example, can be likened to a bad dog that only follows his master. Ser Gregor is evil, but he is not pure evil in the sense that he cannot be controlled or a roguish demon who rambles across the land. He is given a purpose by Tywin, so any actions Ser Gregor takes can and should be imputed onto Tywin. Ser Gregor is never shown as biting the hand that feeds him.

Now I am not saying there is any pure goodness in Ser Gregor, there is not. But, the traits we admire in Ned, i.e. loyalty, are also present in the Mountain. As one of Lord Tywin's oft quoted lines, "there is a tool for every task, and task for every tool."

[the Scorpion Knight]

I cannot find it, but there was a good session on playing devil's advocate for some of the more "evil" characters. Ser Gregor for example, can be likened to a bad dog that only follows his master. Ser Gregor is evil, but he is not pure evil in the sense that he cannot be controlled or a roguish demon who rambles across the land. He is given a purpose by Tywin, so any actions Ser Gregor takes can and should be imputed onto Tywin. Ser Gregor is never shown as biting the hand that feeds him.

Here's the reason why I think Gregor is worse than ramsay he has a little controll of his urges

[Frey Pie]

I cannot find it, but there was a good session on playing devil's advocate for some of the more "evil" characters. Ser Gregor for example, can be likened to a bad dog that only follows his master. Ser Gregor is evil, but he is not pure evil in the sense that he cannot be controlled or a roguish demon who rambles across the land. He is given a purpose by Tywin, so any actions Ser Gregor takes can and should be imputed onto Tywin. Ser Gregor is never shown as biting the hand that feeds him.

Now I am not saying there is any pure goodness in Ser Gregor, there is not. But, the traits we admire in Ned, i.e. loyalty, are also present in the Mountain. As one of Lord Tywin's oft quoted lines, "there is a tool for every task, and task for every tool."

Yes very true. These kind of distinctions can blind one in the books sometimes. You see i always think of Gregor as evil because he maims and kills without regard for life. Yet Tywin enables him. However i cant imagine Tywin doing what Gregor does and definately not taking pleasure in it. So which ones evil or are they both "grey"?

There are also the things Gregor has done which he hasnt been commanded to do-raping the tavern owners daughter, chopping up Hoat and feeding him roast goat...

[Richard Rivers]

Here's the reason why I think Gregor is worse than ramsay he has a little controll of his urges

I definitely get you, and it makes sense. Ramsay is more of the roguish demon, who may or may not suffer from multiple mental disabilities. While, Gregor knows what he is doing and is methodical about it, and makes active choices in adherence to his own personal aims and that of his leige lord.

[protar]

I don't think that every character is morally grey, there are certainly all evil characters (Ramsay, Gregor.) and maybe a couple of all good ones (Samwell, Tommen.). And of course most characters can be grouped into good or bad despite being morally grey. However I think you'll find that even a lot of the pure characters are a bit grey. Ned and Barristan strictly follow their codes of honour no matter the cost, leading to disaster and suffering. Brienne is very close to a wholey good character but has become more morally flexible under Jaime's influence and has a dark side that comes out when she kills Shagwell. etc. etc.

[Christina Ceriddwynn]

Tywin let his men rape and plunder KL but would Barristan or Ned have in his position?

Barristan did. He stood by when Aerys burned so many. When Aerys raped his wife. Barristan never once stood up to protect anyone.

He then bent the knee to the Usurper.

[Lady Lea]

copy paste from the other thread:

Martin saying that there are no good/evil characters and just people who commit good/bad deeds sounds like his personal opinion to me. How can you say Ramsay isn't evil? Is he only committing bad deeds right now, and tomorrow he could be doing some charity? No, he does bad things because he enjoys them. He likes his dogs but that doesn't prove anything. Even the most evil people can like an animal or love their mom. It just shows they are human and not literally the devil. But it doesn't negate the fact that they can be truly evil.

ASOIAF is full of gray characters but there are black ones too. Saying Ramsay and Gregor are just really really dark gray would be implying there is goodness or potential for goodness in them. I don't see it.

[Richard Rivers]

Yes very true. These kind of distinctions can blind one in the books sometimes. You see i always think of Gregor as evil because he maims and kills without regard for life. Yet Tywin enables him. However i cant imagine Tywin doing what Gregor does and definately not taking pleasure in it. So which ones evil or are they both "grey"?

There are also the things Gregor has done which he hasnt been commanded to do-raping the tavern owners daughter, chopping up Hoat and feeding him roast goat...

I think you bring an excellent point, in the fact that Tywin knows what Gregor is, and instead of simply killing him off, he uses him in the only way possible anyone could use a mean violent beast. Tywin does not fully approve of Gregor's action, but he does accept and love the beast for what he is, almost like one would do a bad dog. And Gregor does exhibit many of the traits that could qualify as roguish pure evil, but the fact that he does exhibit some semblence of loyalty may not in itself be redeeming as we know it, it does show the dimensional aspect of the character.

[Frey Pie]

Barristan did. He stood by when Aerys burned so many. When Aerys raped his wife. Barristan never once stood up to protect anyone.

He then bent the knee to the Usurper.

This is true and i think i acknowledged it up thread. All the KG did wrong by not protecting their Queen. What i meant by that is that i dont think he would allow his men to loot and rape the city if he were in command of them, certainly not the Barristan we know now.

copy paste from the other thread:

Martin saying that there are no good/evil characters and just people who commit good/bad deeds sounds like his personal opinion to me. How can you say Ramsay isn't evil? Is he only committing bad deeds right now, and tomorrow he could be doing some charity? No, he does bad things because he enjoys them. He likes his dogs but that doesn't prove anything. Even the most evil people can like an animal or love their mom. It just shows they are human and not literally the devil. But it doesn't negate the fact that they can be truly evil.

ASOIAF is full of gray characters but there are black ones too. Saying Ramsay and Gregor are just really really dark gray would be implying there is goodness or potential for goodness in them. I don't see it.

Phew theres still some sanity in the world :cheers:

[Lady Lea]

And Gregor does exhibit many of the traits that could qualify as roguish pure evil, but the fact that he does exhibit some semblence of loyalty may not in itself be redeeming as we know it, it does show the dimensional aspect of the character.

I don't think it's quite "loyalty" that he displays, not in the sense we usually think of loyalty. Gregor doesn't change sides because he never has to. Lannisters gave him everything he has, they pay him very well, and let him do anything he likes, no questions asked. It's not really loyalty out of love or respect or fear, nor is it loyalty through good times and bad. It's interest. He never has any reason to think he'd be better off serving someone else.

Even Sandor who likes to think of himself as very loyal changes sides and wants to go over to the Starks when he sees that he'd be better off away from the Lannisters.

[Frey Pie]

I think you bring an excellent point, in the fact that Tywin knows what Gregor is, and instead of simply killing him off, he uses him in the only way possible anyone could use a mean violent beast. Tywin does not fully approve of Gregor's action, but he does accept and love the beast for what he is, almost like one would do a bad dog. And Gregor does exhibit many of the traits that could qualify as roguish pure evil, but the fact that he does exhibit some semblence of loyalty may not in itself be redeeming as we know it, it does show the dimensional aspect of the character.

True but ask yourself why is he loyal? Gold and titles surely means nothing to a man like Gregor. Fear and respect? Hardly. I think Gregor knows that to do what he wants he needs the protection Tywin can give him. Under a normal lord he would be hunted down but Tywin enables him to indulge in his practices. Its not loyalty, more like a symbiotic relationship between two parasites.