This is a mirror of the now defunct eesite ASOIAF webboard.

The discussions for G.R.R. Martin's awesome series "A Song of Ice and Fire" are now being held at: Current ASoIaF Webboard

You cannot post new messages to this board. Go to the Current ASoIaF Webboard for the most current discussions.

A Song of Ice and Fire / A Song of Ice and Fire / Redemption

Next 20 Messages Newest Messages
Jeff
User ID: 8506593 		May 17th 4:01 PM
One of the themes that seems to pop up in a lot of posts involves the concept of redemption. Related to that is the desire to look for motivations for what made a "bad" character bad, as in Sandor's burning, Tywin's loss of a beloved wife, Theon being treated poorly by his family, etc. A lot of us look to these people and incidents for the possibility that the character can be redeemed, that he or she really isn't such a "bad guy".

Personally, I'm more in tune with Stannis' thinking. I could care less about someone's self-pitying excuses for why they do bad things. In my mind, some crimes or bad acts cannot be forgiven, excused, or overlooked, no matter how much of an epiphany the actor has experienced. I'm sort of curious as to how others feel about this.

Markus
User ID: 2547224 		May 17th 6:40 PM
If we assume that Gregor's actions caused a mental illness of Sandor, even his countless murders might be excusable.

If somebody lacks an awareness of wrongdoing, he can't be held responsible for his wrongs. He would be without guilt.

Thus, if Sandor really thinks it's allright to do what he likes, as long as he is able to do it, he might just be ruthless, which would make him simply a murderer and his murders quite unredeemable, or he might be a psychopath, which could annul his personal guilt.

In the later case, he should be able to _find_ redemption, once he realizes the error of his ways, stops and does some good.

In Theon's case, there isn't really _anything_ in his past which could excuse his injustices, even if we are able to _understand_ ambition, ruthlessness and foolishness.

In Tywin's case, it remains to be seen what makes him tick. Currently, I can't see anything which would justify or excuse his cruelties towards Rhaegar's children or Tyrion and Tysha.

The love for his wife certainly wouldn't excuse his actions, which seem as unredeemable as Theon's to me.

In general, past experiences and good acts can lessen the personal guilt and the penalty of a criminal somewhat in my opinion.

Redemption for lesser wrongs is always possible with a suitable punishment. The redemption of crimes through good acts is dependent on the seriousness of the wrong and the personal guilt which is connected to it and the good act which would justify a pardon.

Thus, doesn't Stannis does have a point, when he states:

"A good act does not wash out the bad, nor a bad act the good. Each should have its own reward."

This statement of Stannis seems to reflect his character, he is just, but without mercy.

While I agree that bad acts shouldn't be forgotten because of good acts, I also think it would have been better to simply pardon Davos, instead of punishing and rewarding him in turn.

Thus, in contrast to Stannis, I think that some injustices are pardonable and suitable to be redeemed, if the good acts cancel the bad acts out by far, whereas some are too terrible to justify a pardon or be redeemable, regardless of the good one does short of sacrificing his own life for others.

Theon's murder of the miller's children for instance, can't be forgiven as long as he lives, even if he should do something good in the future.

The only possible redemption would be his death, in order to save the life of others.
KAH
User ID: 9209903 		May 18th 4:16 AM
This is quite the interesting subject.

I do somewhat agree with Stannis' sentiment, but it does provide some problems:

If Theon (hypothetically) saves ten children from death, but has killed two children, how do we reward the good and bad acts both?

'We'll have to cut your head off, but you'll have a really nice burial ceremony'. :)
Markus
User ID: 2547224 		May 18th 5:38 AM
Well, that's the problem with Stannis' philosophy.

Due to the fact that he isn't willing/able to forgive and pardon somebody, he would probably have killed Selmy, and afterward stated that he was a decent guy who only followed his duty.

The same problem arises with every kind of (supposed) treason which would require a death sentence:

If Davos would turn on him for instance, he would probably execute him, even if Davos' motives were altruistic or if he would change his mind again about the matter.

In our society, Stannis' philosophy might be sensible, but in Stannis', where families hold the power to inflict wars over personal matters, an utterly unforgiving man _is_ terrible.

And to pardon somebody _can_ be just either.

As I said earlier, Stannis is just, but his inability to forgive is unwise in the long run, and destabilizing.
Ser Gary
User ID: 8068153 		May 18th 6:30 AM
In the U.S. (and maybe elsewhere, too) this sort of hard-core, unbending attitude is known as "following the letter of the law". It basically means no consideration is given to extenuating circumstances, past deeds, logic, whatever. You committed a crime and you pay in accordance with the established punishment. No exceptions.
Keri Stevenson
User ID: 9872353 		May 18th 7:08 AM
I find this to be an extremely interesting topic.

Stannis's philosophy is part of the reason why I do not like his character (indeed, I was extremely disappointed with the way that he was portrayed; he seemed more cruel than just). There needs to be mercy in actual human actions, if not in the law as written, because the law is an ideal, and humans are... human. "To err is human..." and all that.

At the same time, I can see Stannis's point- in some cases, with some people. Theon in particular seems to have very little justification for the things he did, only his hunger for power. I understand that Jaime and Cersei may have done things out of love for their children. But this logic breaks down past a certain point. Cersei would have abrogated herself the right to throw children out of windows (or to demand it), to execute enemies, to take Joffrey from battles, etc., but she would not grant her enemies the same right (ie., to pursue Joffrey's execution). She is a moral relativist only when it comes to herself.

Sandor... I think there is still a lot more going on with him than meets the eye. If he is a sociopath or psychopath, though, it would really depend on in what sense GRRM was using that. Some of these conditions are the result of birth and _cannot_ be corrected. He would not be guilty of the crimes he had committed in the usual sense, but he could not be forgiven for them, either. He would always be dangerous.

Tywin, as Markus said, is still a mystery. We still don't know if he really did half the things attributed to him, or what those things were.

At the same time, I find it fascinating and amusing that all of the characters mentioned as finding redemption so far are on the "evil" side. We are willing to forgive the characters on the "good" side much more easily for their actions that might be considered criminal. For example:
*ACOK SPOILERS*





Jon's killing of Qhorin Halfhand, Catelyn's interrogation of Jaime, Tyrion's burning or destroying half of Stannis's navy, Stannis's shadow-killings.


*END OF SPOILERS*


I know; in every case, there were extenuating circumstances that meant the question of redemption was never really a question. But if you looked hard enough, I think you could find them for the other characters, too. And don't the extenuating circumstances spring to mind much faster when it's a character you like? :).
Jeff
User ID: 8506593 		May 18th 8:43 AM
I also think that Stannis' theory of justice is too rigid, though I favor that theory more than one that excuses _any_ bad act simply because a later good was committed. I generally agree with Markus that the nature of the underlying act should determine the level of redemption. Davos, as a smuggler, was basically a thief. Not even an especially nasty thief (at least in a moral sense) as smuggling doesn't involve theft from an individual who is less able to afford it. It's theft from the crown, which is a debt he arguably repaid when his smuggling saved Dragonstone.

But I'm far less tolerant of crimes of cruelty or violence. An unhappy childhood might help _explain_ why someone committed a bad act, but it certainly doesn't excuse it, or lessen the level of punishment deserved. Suppose it turned out that Gregor was abused by his father, who in turn was abused by his father. Does that lessen the guilt for the things Gregor has done? At some point, moral responsibility for the consequences of one's acts must be accepted.

As for Markus' point about awareness of the wrongness of the act begin necessary for guilt, I agree to a limited extent. The key point, though, isn't whether the actor believes his conduct to be wrong but rather whether the actor knows that _society_ considers the act to be wrong. A sociopath knows that his or her acts are not acceptable to the rest of society but doesn't personally view them as wrong.

Keri, I think that your point about evil characters being the only ones about whom we discuss redemption is sort of a tautology. I mean, its the fact that they committed acts for which redemption is required that makes them "evil" in the first place, isn't it? Personally, I don't believe that Jon's killing of Quorin Halfhand, Catelyn's interrogation of Jaime, or Tyrion's destruction of Stannis fleet are immoral acts to begin with, so no redemption is even required.

I certainly wouldn't put Stannis in the "good-guy" camp (to the extent such a camp exists). Assuming that he knowingly caused the murders of Renly and particularly Penrose, those are immoral acts for which redemption may or may not be possible. To me, the determining factors in that case would be whether Melisandre had some level of control over Stannis and the admittedly murky "all's fair in love and war" justification.

Markus
User ID: 2547224 		May 18th 9:31 AM
Jeff,

a psychopath and/or sociopath who lacks the awareness of wrongdoing also lacks the _ability_ to recognize that the society views certain acts as injustice.

Even if he would be aware of the wrong he does, he might at least lack the ability to act according to his awareness.

These cases would constitute inability of guilt.

However, if a sociopath commits wrongs, although he knows that they are considered wrong and he is _able_ to act otherwise, then he has an awareness of wrongdoing _and_ could have avoided the wrong with a conscious decision.

In this case, he is capable of guilt.
KAH
User ID: 9209903 		May 18th 11:18 AM
Jeff:

Can one really blame Stannis for the 'shadow-murders' that he committed? (awareness aside for the moment)

Both Penrose and Renly were traitors against Stannis. (I will here conveniently forget my earlier argument about Stannis not being the right heir :)
Thus it would not make much difference if Stannis
killed them that way, or just executed them later.
(that he would not have been able to, is beside the point)


Anyway, Markus touched a point that is interesting. In the medieval society (and in modern international politics, I guess), there's a trade-off between doing what is reasonable, and what is right.
It could very well be said that letting some nobles get away with a crime, since trying to enforce justice would mean war, and a hundred times the pain caused by the crime itself. Desperate criminals are the most dangerous people there is.

On the other hand, one needs to make a stand towards such behavior, or else the crime rate will only increase in number and vileness. Some sword of justice is needed, or else it is just reduced to 'might is right'.

The question is, as always, where to draw the line. Where should Stannis draw the line, for instance?
Jeff
User ID: 8506593 		May 18th 1:35 PM
Kay-Arne, your point about Stannis being entitled to kill those opposing his rightful rule is a good one. That's what I meant by my somewhat cryptic "all's fair in love and war" statement. Was he less justified killing Renly the way he did rather than in battle? I can't say that he was.

Markus, I don't want to get into an insanity defense debate because it would seem too much like work, but a psychopath/sociopath can be simply described as a person who lacks a conscience. But they do know that what they are doing is condemned by society. That's why they take steps to not get caught.

As for a perpetrator's _ability_ to control their actions, many jurisdictions have thrown out that part of an insanity defense because it's impossible to determine. How can you tell the difference between a person who is able to control himself and doesn't from a person who cannot control themselves? In fact, the laws in Washington, D.C. were changed after John Hicnkley tried to kill President Reagan because Hinckley successfully argued that, though he knew his actions were wrong, he was unable to stop himself. Its just a huge loophole.

All that crap being said, I don't think we really have any real insanity present in ASOIAF, at least so far. So, everyone should be held morally accountable for the acts he or she has committed.
Dirjj
User ID: 9990163 		May 18th 2:43 PM
Jeff, you say that the acts of Jon to Quorham, Catelyn to Jaime, and Tyrion to the Fleet - need no redemption. What is Jaime did the same thing to Catelyn? Then he would need redemption. No, I'm afraid Keri - I believe? - is correct in that we cut the good gusy a lot of slack. I mean, until everyone read ACOK, I bet they thought Theon was weird, but not a bad guys, and he did do some wild things in the first book, but beause he took a step into the DARK SIDE, he's now more of a bad guy than the original bad guys. Go figue.

ab
Jeff
User ID: 8506593 		May 18th 3:10 PM
Dirjj, maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not sure I understand the argumetn you're trying to make.

First, I'm not sure what acts of Catelyn's you're talking about. She hasn't done anything bad to Jaime -- yet. But even if she had, I think the background facts support her right to take those actions. After all, he admittedly attempted to murder her son and succeeded in crippling him for life. If Joffrey had been a harmless kid whom Catelyn pitched out a window, I wouldn't condemn Jaime for exacting revenge.

Your point -- and Keri's -- would have more validity in my mind if the "good guys" had committed the same acts as the bad guys. But they haven't, which is the whole reason why we view them as "good guys" in the first place.
Markus
User ID: 2547224 		May 18th 3:35 PM
Jeff,

I guess that I should have termed my argument more careful, at least while arguing legal matters with a lawyer.:)

A psychopath may know that the society views something as wrong, but if he personally lacks an awareness of wrongdoing, he also can't understand _why_ the society views something as injust, which would contitute a case of incability of guilt.

If psychopathy causes such a severe disturbance of consciousness, that the culprit of a crime is _unable_ to recognize the wrong of it, he can't be held responsible for his crimes, at least by german law.

The same _can_ be argued in the case of an inability to avoid crimes, but the problems to prove this are of course difficult to say the least.

However, I guess we really shouldn't get into this debate, because it would be endless.

As for actual cases of disturbances of consciousness, which would cancel or lessen the personal guilt of a criminal, I think Sandor _might_ be such a case.

He certainly doesn't seem completely sane to me.
Jeff
User ID: 8506593 		May 18th 4:05 PM
I guess one of the reasons I raised this whole issue in the first place was that I was disturbed that so many people (not you, Markus :))seemed willing to overlook horrible conduct because of a misplaced romanticism that a character was not really a bad guy despite having committed horrible acts.

Sandor obviously is disturbed in some sense. But I think its equally clear that he knows right from wrong based on his protection of -- and soul baring to -- Sansa. He just has become very cynical and hence despises most concepts of fairness and "right" vs. "wrong". He's quite twisted, unfortunately. He's certainly far preferable to his homicidal brother, though.


Markus
User ID: 2547224 		May 18th 5:15 PM
Well, personally, I also tend to think that Sandor's state of mind, while being disturbed, doesn't really justify the assumption that he isn't able to recognize his wrongdoings. Thus, in a legal sense he is certainly responsible for his actions.

On the other hand, I think there is still a difference between him and Theon for instance, even if only in my subjective moral perception of them.

What Gregor did, doesn't excuse Sandor's current actions, but his reaction is probably not that unusual, everybody would have a hard time not to become cynical and ruthless in his case, and the seriousness of his wrongs comes also along with his position and abilities, whereas Theon commits his crimes mainly out of ambition, which brings him beyond my sympathy.

Of course, Martin is manipulating the readers with his description of Sandor either in my opinion.

Mostly, he just seems like a bitter, cynical and drunken guy, who cares for and protects Sansa, who had to suffer a terrible mistreatment, and is obviously in need of somebody who cares for him, while the other part of him, the ruthless murderer, is rather seldom on stage.

I wonder, what a reader would feel about him, when he would kill somebody we might really care for, or if we would actually witness his killing of children and women, or even a rape.

I guess, the urge to find excuses for his actions or to romanticize him would be considerably lessened in this case.
Keri Stevenson
User ID: 9872353 		May 19th 7:12 AM
Jeff: The "misplaced romanticism that a character was not really a bad guy despite having committed horrible acts" is really at the heart of what I meant by my argument. I don't really think that Sandor should be excused, no. (I think I like him less as a character than a lot of people do). I'm just saying that I think the characters in _A Song of Ice and Fire_ really are more complex than in most books, and just because we are willing to forgive and forget, or invent justification, for some characters doesn't mean that the justification is really always there.

For example, consider Theon. There are some people who like him as a character and are willing to forgive him; there are others (again, I'm guilty of this myself) who really despise him. This, despite the fact that killing children, one of the crimes he committed, was also a crime committed by Sandor, when he killed Mycah, the butcher's boy. And yet, there have been theories that Sandor did not really kill Mycah, that he was unable to stop it from happening, that he did not suffer if Sandor did kill him, etc. I haven't heard anyone suggest that Theon didn't kill the miller's children, no debate about whether he did it with his bare hands or not (I strongly suspect not) and should therefore not be considered guilty. We invent justifications for our favorite characters even when they have done something that threatens to parallel the choice made by an "evil" character.

Tyrion has caused a lot of death and suffering in this war, by burning Stannis's fleet and by his actions as Hand before this, and he'll cause more if and when his wild men get into the Vale. But he's the favorite character of a lot of people (myself included) and so we're willing to excuse him that. This series, and readers' reactions to it, definitely take place on a relavistic moral scale.

I'm not denying that that's a good thing; I would certainly rather live by relative morals than by absolutes. But I think we should recognize that it exists, and is influenced by whom we like and/or don't like. Someone who really hated Jon or liked Qhorin Halfhand would find it difficult to forgive his killing of him, for example.

I think that one of the things that makes this series most fascinating is that we can catch glimpses of justification for what the "evil" characters do, as when Cersei and Jaime act to protect their children and their secret by pitching Bran out the window and accusing Ned of treason. We may not agree, but it makes them seem more human. And one of the most fascinating things about this board is that we can catch glimpses of what other people think about things like this, and hopefully refine our own senses of it :).
Jeff
User ID: 8506593 		May 19th 8:32 AM
Markus, I agree with you about Theon. One thing nice about Martin's writing is that even the "bad guys" are of different shades. I also agree with you about the manipulation of the reader by Martin. Its very well done. Another thing I think was very well done was the character of Ned because he provides the perspective of a truly honorable, good man. I could see Sansa arguing in favor of the Hound (not just yet, though) whereas Ned would never excuse some of the things the Hound has done. And who would be right?

Keri, I also agree with what you've said. I think every person who commits "evil" acts certainly has some form of justification or excuse in their own minds and it makes for a far better story when we know the motivations for that character. My reference to the "misplaced romanticism" was to the implication by persons unnamed that a few tears by the Hound coupled with "love" for Sansa would wash clean the slate. In my mind, it doesn't, and I don't think that Sansa could have that huge an impact on his character so as to completely change what he has become in any event.
labor
User ID: 8479113 		May 19th 9:06 AM

Keri, I don't see why you think that Tyrion's tactics or his tenure as a Hand were something particulary evil. Use of wildfire is pretty much a standard tactics - from Davos POV the sailors were told to expect it, but they didn't imagine the quantity or the manner of it's employment. As a Hand, Tyrion tried to be as just and as benevolent to the smallfolk, as he could.
Some here argued that him supporting his family is evil - this is arguable, but if we claim that his manner of warfare is evil, we should also condemn all other warring parties past and present, including Robb, who is currently pillaging the West.

BTW, almost no one here seems to think that the good guys commited evil acts and need redemption.
IMHO, Catelyn sorely needs one for her treatment of Jon and kidnapping of Tyrion (I am not going there again, but innocent people died in the process and and a war was started over the issue), Arya for her murder(s) or at least for the killing of the guard, Jon for Quorin's death (yea, he was acting out of higher motives, but the way to hell is paved with good intentions), etc.


KAH
User ID: 9209903 		May 19th 10:02 AM
Keri:

I wish to make the picture a little more nuanced, regarding Theon:

While there undoubtedly are some people who likes Theon, and are willing to forgive him, while other despise him; I feel I do not belong in those two categories.

I do not wish to see Theon dead...not yet, in any case. That does not mean I forgive him, or even _like_ him - he certainly falls in my bad guy category.
Yet, his story is _interesting_ for me to read, and since this is a book, and not RL, I do not have big qualms just because I do not wish him dead.
The same goes for Sandor - I'm quite sure Mycah's blood is on his hands, but I do not want him dead either.

I do not think this places me on a relativistic moral scale - after all, the series are an artificial construct, not real life. Killing off Theon will not serve a greater good (preventing other children from being murdered)in the book, _unless GRRM wants it that way_. Considering that, I'd rather keep on reading more of Theon's story for a bit.

As Markus said - GRRM is certainly manipulating the readers. However, we are not mindless, so manipulating just goes so far.
Some might be more easily manipulated than others, though... :p

Markus
User ID: 2547224 		May 19th 10:53 AM
Well, as much as I dislike Theon and wouldn't mind to see him dead, I'm also still interested in reading about his side of the story.

I think it might be interesting to read about a character who does some good, but recognizes the unredeemability of his actions, for some time at least.

On the other hand, if Theon just continues to whine and excuse his deeds, GRRM should kill him off rather soon.
Next 20 Messages Newest Messages