A mirror of the eeesite "A Song of Ice and Fire"

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 / Good v. Evil

Next 20 Messages Newest Messages

Jeff
User ID: 1536664 Mar 30th 3:33 PM
We've discussed this theme as a sub-theme in a ton of different threads. We've all sort of admitted that we lack a definition, yet I don't think we've ever really tried to come up with one.
I had a hearing last week in a local courthouse, and they had a quote from "Dear Abby" on the wall. Okay, I know its just "Dear Abby" but I liked it anyway. It was:

"The worth of a man should be judged by how he treats those who cannot help him."

I think that's a pretty good start for providing a frame of reference.

Ned comes out of this looking very good. His willingness to give up his position as Hand to preserve the lives of two children who might someday pose a threat to him said volumes about his character.

Tyrion. Well, he can be vindictive but also showed compassions towards Bran, Jon, and Sansa.

The Hound. A real contradiction here. His treatment of Mycah and Sansa leads to directly opposite conclusions about his character, which is probably just about right.

Any thoughts?

Trebla
User ID: 0721754 Mar 30th 3:48 PM
I think in the series so far it has been proven that going to the extremes of both can be bad. Being really evil is, of course, bad. But being too good or noble can have it's downfall. You mentioned Ned and he is the poster boy for that. If he had shown a bit less morals, a bit less nobleness, both he and Robert would still be alive.

Jeff
User ID: 1536664 Mar 31st 8:46 AM
Actually, I don't think Ned's "goodness" was the problem -- it was his political naivete. He did plan to seize power. He just miscalculated that the Lannisters would move first and that he could count on support from the Gold Cloaks. For example, he could have accepted Renly's plan, but sent Cersei and her children away immediately (under escort). You can be "good" but not naive.

Emily
User ID: 2192024 Mar 31st 9:00 AM
Hey, I wouldn't say Ned tried to 'seize' power. He was _given_ power by Robert, and he was just trying to hang onto it - with violence as the absolute last resort.

Snake
User ID: 0101764 Apr 1st 0:01 AM
True Emily. However I think it was Ned's trust in Littlefinger that was his downfall. If Petyr would have delivered on his promise then Ned would have been home free. Stannis would have taken the throne and Ned would have gone home or helped Stannis in any wars that would have started.

As for good and evil?

Ned and the Starks in general were(are) good people.

Stannis and Renly were neither but thier lust for power caused them to do whatever they deemed necessary in order to achieve power.

The Lannisters are much the same. They don't care what they have to do to stay in power.

Joff and Gregor are evil. Pure psychos.

The Hound is a man that is not truly evil but I think very malicious. Likes to hurt people becuse of his own hurt.

Dany I think is a truly good person. But again, her wanting the throne may cause her to do things I don't think she would normally do. Viserys was nuts.

Jeff
User ID: 1536664 Apr 1st 11:18 AM
I suppose you're right, Emily. A poor choice of words on my part. I should have said that Ned had decided to denounce Joffrey and hold the throne for Stannis. But in any case, I still think that he could have done that in a more savvy manner and not been less of a "good" guy. Being "good" doesn't mean that you have to be naive.

Razib
User ID: 7524313 Apr 1st 5:03 PM
The thing with Ned Stark is that he seemed to be less willing to let the means justify the ends. He was a procedural nutcase, and that I think in many ways indicates why he was a "good" person. He had values that existed above and apart from his own utilitarian condition...not that he didn't questin them (note Cersei and Ned's conversation in the godswood in GoT, as well as Ned imprisoned and his conversations with Littlefinger and Varys). I think to some extend this trait is found in all the Starks.

But they are able to temper their idealism with a sense of proportion and undestanding of the outcomes their choices may cause. This is the problem Stannis has and makes him unlikeable, his is so wedded to his ideals that he is unable to involve himself rationally with many people. On the other hand, when Stannis does break his facade of morality, he goes all the way, changing his religion and being manipulated (so it seems) by the Red Priestess.

The Lannisters (possibley excluding Tyrion) would seem to be people who generally accept that ends justify means. In terms of body-count, I'm not sure that the Lannisters will cause as much death say as the Starks. Yes, they will kill more nobles and such, but that's only a small portion of the population. As long as there is peace, the smallfolk are usually happy. So Ned Stark, by refusing to accept Joffrey (as Littlefinger suggested) helped precipitate the war (though it was inevitable with Stannis knowning and Renly ambitious).

Anyway, GRRM character's are complex. That's what makes them real. In life, most people lie, cheat, and are mean on occasion. That doesn't make them evil though :)

haaruk Apr 1st 6:53 PM
Dear Abby sucks.

Jeff
User ID: 1536664 Apr 2nd 2:19 PM
I agree, haaruk. I was rather embarrassed saying that's where I got the quote, but, well, full disclosure and all that. Look at it this way -- she probably stole that quote from somebody else anyway. :-)

What do you think of that standard, though?

haaruk Apr 2nd 2:54 PM
It is definitely consequential. I am not sure if it pertains exactly to functions of good or evil.

An Indian mystic sits in a garden and contemplates most of the day on himself and his relationship to God and existence. He lives a pure and virtuous life. Away from the temptations of secular life. Is he less Good than, let's say a member of Doctors Without Borders, a person less pious but gives time, his skills and sometimes his life to help those in need and less fortunate?

LindaElane
User ID: 0276214 Apr 2nd 6:57 PM
I would think it depends on the intentions of the Indian mystic, of which I am not the judge.

Practically every mystic tradition I know of has some belief that by prayer and meditation, the world can be helped. Since there are all kinds of scientific studies, with controlled variables, showing that people recover faster if they are prayed for, I am not going to judge whether or not the mystic helped the world. I am simply saying the intentions of the mystic toward others could have been very good.

On the other hand, the guy may just want to be a recluse from the world and helping others may not be part of why he became a mystic. On the other hand the Doctors Without Borders person may only be doing what they do to assuage their own guilt, and might not lift a finger to help others if their guilt were suddenly lifted . (Ummm...unlikely but possible.)

Then again, the Indian mystic, if Hindu, may believe that people suffer because of Karma (evil done in a previous life) and so may feel no moral obligation to help the suffering. This person is not evil in their refusal to help the suffering, but I personally believe they are deceived about the cause of suffering. I am not trying to generalize, I don't know enough about the Hindu religion to say that this is typical, but I know for sure (I speant a week in Calcutta) it happens.

My example of good for today was Jeff. He had a great deflection in his last post and kept the discussion going instead of getting into an insult trading war.

haaruk Apr 2nd 7:59 PM
If Jeff considers my 'Dear Abby Sucks' comment as insulting then I apologize. It was intended to be humorous. I realize that my coarse and regressive humor(?) is not for those with tender hearing and thus sweetly inclined. As for Jeff being Good I emphatically agree. It has often been a pleasure placing my black pieces against his white.

Peace.

haaruk Apr 2nd 9:06 PM
As a further clarification LindaElane. I actually thought, from Jeff's initial input, that he and I were of like mind on the subject of Dear Sweet Abby. I admit to a propensity for conferring with Jeff in rugged terms. He is a warrior and enjoys battle. If you ever bivouacked or shared a foxhole with a group of testosterone maxed neanderthals whom you would die for, then perhaps you would understand. Again, my apologies.

Relic
User ID: 9308123 Apr 2nd 10:11 PM
Stop being so damned P.C. please, it hurts the eyes. Thanks =)

Jeff
User ID: 8813033 Apr 2nd 10:34 PM
I never assumed any insult was intended. If haaruk does give an insult, it is usually rather artistic and clever. But "Dear Abby sucks" was so refreshingly blunt that I was sure it meant nothing more than what it said.

As for the definition, I thought that it was probably as good a starting point as any. Hindu recluses aside, I think it works fairly well in most cases. But I agree that "good" and "evil" might not be the correct terms to describe the distinction drawn by the quote.

LindaElane
User ID: 0276214 Apr 2nd 11:48 PM
You're right. Seriousness sucks :-)

KAH
User ID: 0541004 Apr 3rd 3:25 AM
Linda;

Those scientific studies you mentioned...those prayed for, were they _aware_ that they were prayed for, or kept in ignorance of that fact?

Just wondering.

haaruk Apr 3rd 9:21 AM
Does Good and Evil even exist? Aren't they both illusions? Theories of convenience?

KAH
User ID: 0541004 Apr 3rd 10:18 AM
Abstracts does not necessarily equal illusions.
Take maths, for instance. Abstract, but gives perfectly correct answers.

Economic theory - also abstract - gives more uncertain answers. Usually, an economist would say that he can give you a roughly correct answer, or a precisely wrong one.

The disturbing element is, of course, humans. Maths are not bothered by such inconstant variables, and so can claim perfect accuracy.

This, however, does not in any way invalidate economic theory. It just tells us to be aware that
our answers are, to some degree, rough estimates.

I suppose one can make the analogy to any matter naturally adhering to human behavior - also the question of right and wrong.

I think it is readily available to make rough estimates of what is right and wrong, and that they are not illusions - even as love isn't.

LindaElane
User ID: 0276214 Apr 3rd 11:28 PM
KAH, they were kept in ignorance of the fact. They were prayed for by name. Their recovery was faster, and their recidivisim rate was lower, than the control group, by a very statistically significant amount. I have seen the experiment replicated a couple of times. I am not saying "God did it"......maybe people sent "good vibes" into the air. I don't know. (My personal opinion is that it had something to do with God, though I don't take the bible literally) I am just saying that there are things in this world that can't be explained by science (though maybe science can show they happen). I think life if more supernatural and mysterious than modern people may commonly hear about.

Next 20 Messages Newest Messages

Jeff User ID: 1536664	Mar 30th 3:33 PM We've discussed this theme as a sub-theme in a ton of different threads. We've all sort of admitted that we lack a definition, yet I don't think we've ever really tried to come up with one. I had a hearing last week in a local courthouse, and they had a quote from "Dear Abby" on the wall. Okay, I know its just "Dear Abby" but I liked it anyway. It was: "The worth of a man should be judged by how he treats those who cannot help him." I think that's a pretty good start for providing a frame of reference. Ned comes out of this looking very good. His willingness to give up his position as Hand to preserve the lives of two children who might someday pose a threat to him said volumes about his character. Tyrion. Well, he can be vindictive but also showed compassions towards Bran, Jon, and Sansa. The Hound. A real contradiction here. His treatment of Mycah and Sansa leads to directly opposite conclusions about his character, which is probably just about right. Any thoughts?
Trebla User ID: 0721754	Mar 30th 3:48 PM I think in the series so far it has been proven that going to the extremes of both can be bad. Being really evil is, of course, bad. But being too good or noble can have it's downfall. You mentioned Ned and he is the poster boy for that. If he had shown a bit less morals, a bit less nobleness, both he and Robert would still be alive.
Jeff User ID: 1536664	Mar 31st 8:46 AM Actually, I don't think Ned's "goodness" was the problem -- it was his political naivete. He did plan to seize power. He just miscalculated that the Lannisters would move first and that he could count on support from the Gold Cloaks. For example, he could have accepted Renly's plan, but sent Cersei and her children away immediately (under escort). You can be "good" but not naive.
Emily User ID: 2192024	Mar 31st 9:00 AM Hey, I wouldn't say Ned tried to 'seize' power. He was _given_ power by Robert, and he was just trying to hang onto it - with violence as the absolute last resort.
Snake User ID: 0101764	Apr 1st 0:01 AM True Emily. However I think it was Ned's trust in Littlefinger that was his downfall. If Petyr would have delivered on his promise then Ned would have been home free. Stannis would have taken the throne and Ned would have gone home or helped Stannis in any wars that would have started. As for good and evil? Ned and the Starks in general were(are) good people. Stannis and Renly were neither but thier lust for power caused them to do whatever they deemed necessary in order to achieve power. The Lannisters are much the same. They don't care what they have to do to stay in power. Joff and Gregor are evil. Pure psychos. The Hound is a man that is not truly evil but I think very malicious. Likes to hurt people becuse of his own hurt. Dany I think is a truly good person. But again, her wanting the throne may cause her to do things I don't think she would normally do. Viserys was nuts.
Jeff User ID: 1536664	Apr 1st 11:18 AM I suppose you're right, Emily. A poor choice of words on my part. I should have said that Ned had decided to denounce Joffrey and hold the throne for Stannis. But in any case, I still think that he could have done that in a more savvy manner and not been less of a "good" guy. Being "good" doesn't mean that you have to be naive.
Razib User ID: 7524313	Apr 1st 5:03 PM The thing with Ned Stark is that he seemed to be less willing to let the means justify the ends. He was a procedural nutcase, and that I think in many ways indicates why he was a "good" person. He had values that existed above and apart from his own utilitarian condition...not that he didn't questin them (note Cersei and Ned's conversation in the godswood in GoT, as well as Ned imprisoned and his conversations with Littlefinger and Varys). I think to some extend this trait is found in all the Starks. But they are able to temper their idealism with a sense of proportion and undestanding of the outcomes their choices may cause. This is the problem Stannis has and makes him unlikeable, his is so wedded to his ideals that he is unable to involve himself rationally with many people. On the other hand, when Stannis does break his facade of morality, he goes all the way, changing his religion and being manipulated (so it seems) by the Red Priestess. The Lannisters (possibley excluding Tyrion) would seem to be people who generally accept that ends justify means. In terms of body-count, I'm not sure that the Lannisters will cause as much death say as the Starks. Yes, they will kill more nobles and such, but that's only a small portion of the population. As long as there is peace, the smallfolk are usually happy. So Ned Stark, by refusing to accept Joffrey (as Littlefinger suggested) helped precipitate the war (though it was inevitable with Stannis knowning and Renly ambitious). Anyway, GRRM character's are complex. That's what makes them real. In life, most people lie, cheat, and are mean on occasion. That doesn't make them evil though :)
haaruk	Apr 1st 6:53 PM Dear Abby sucks.
Jeff User ID: 1536664	Apr 2nd 2:19 PM I agree, haaruk. I was rather embarrassed saying that's where I got the quote, but, well, full disclosure and all that. Look at it this way -- she probably stole that quote from somebody else anyway. :-) What do you think of that standard, though?
haaruk	Apr 2nd 2:54 PM It is definitely consequential. I am not sure if it pertains exactly to functions of good or evil. An Indian mystic sits in a garden and contemplates most of the day on himself and his relationship to God and existence. He lives a pure and virtuous life. Away from the temptations of secular life. Is he less Good than, let's say a member of Doctors Without Borders, a person less pious but gives time, his skills and sometimes his life to help those in need and less fortunate?
LindaElane User ID: 0276214	Apr 2nd 6:57 PM I would think it depends on the intentions of the Indian mystic, of which I am not the judge. Practically every mystic tradition I know of has some belief that by prayer and meditation, the world can be helped. Since there are all kinds of scientific studies, with controlled variables, showing that people recover faster if they are prayed for, I am not going to judge whether or not the mystic helped the world. I am simply saying the intentions of the mystic toward others could have been very good. On the other hand, the guy may just want to be a recluse from the world and helping others may not be part of why he became a mystic. On the other hand the Doctors Without Borders person may only be doing what they do to assuage their own guilt, and might not lift a finger to help others if their guilt were suddenly lifted . (Ummm...unlikely but possible.) Then again, the Indian mystic, if Hindu, may believe that people suffer because of Karma (evil done in a previous life) and so may feel no moral obligation to help the suffering. This person is not evil in their refusal to help the suffering, but I personally believe they are deceived about the cause of suffering. I am not trying to generalize, I don't know enough about the Hindu religion to say that this is typical, but I know for sure (I speant a week in Calcutta) it happens. My example of good for today was Jeff. He had a great deflection in his last post and kept the discussion going instead of getting into an insult trading war.
haaruk	Apr 2nd 7:59 PM If Jeff considers my 'Dear Abby Sucks' comment as insulting then I apologize. It was intended to be humorous. I realize that my coarse and regressive humor(?) is not for those with tender hearing and thus sweetly inclined. As for Jeff being Good I emphatically agree. It has often been a pleasure placing my black pieces against his white. Peace.
haaruk	Apr 2nd 9:06 PM As a further clarification LindaElane. I actually thought, from Jeff's initial input, that he and I were of like mind on the subject of Dear Sweet Abby. I admit to a propensity for conferring with Jeff in rugged terms. He is a warrior and enjoys battle. If you ever bivouacked or shared a foxhole with a group of testosterone maxed neanderthals whom you would die for, then perhaps you would understand. Again, my apologies.
Relic User ID: 9308123	Apr 2nd 10:11 PM Stop being so damned P.C. please, it hurts the eyes. Thanks =)
Jeff User ID: 8813033	Apr 2nd 10:34 PM I never assumed any insult was intended. If haaruk does give an insult, it is usually rather artistic and clever. But "Dear Abby sucks" was so refreshingly blunt that I was sure it meant nothing more than what it said. As for the definition, I thought that it was probably as good a starting point as any. Hindu recluses aside, I think it works fairly well in most cases. But I agree that "good" and "evil" might not be the correct terms to describe the distinction drawn by the quote.
LindaElane User ID: 0276214	Apr 2nd 11:48 PM You're right. Seriousness sucks :-)
KAH User ID: 0541004	Apr 3rd 3:25 AM Linda; Those scientific studies you mentioned...those prayed for, were they _aware_ that they were prayed for, or kept in ignorance of that fact? Just wondering.
haaruk	Apr 3rd 9:21 AM Does Good and Evil even exist? Aren't they both illusions? Theories of convenience?
KAH User ID: 0541004	Apr 3rd 10:18 AM Abstracts does not necessarily equal illusions. Take maths, for instance. Abstract, but gives perfectly correct answers. Economic theory - also abstract - gives more uncertain answers. Usually, an economist would say that he can give you a roughly correct answer, or a precisely wrong one. The disturbing element is, of course, humans. Maths are not bothered by such inconstant variables, and so can claim perfect accuracy. This, however, does not in any way invalidate economic theory. It just tells us to be aware that our answers are, to some degree, rough estimates. I suppose one can make the analogy to any matter naturally adhering to human behavior - also the question of right and wrong. I think it is readily available to make rough estimates of what is right and wrong, and that they are not illusions - even as love isn't.
LindaElane User ID: 0276214	Apr 3rd 11:28 PM KAH, they were kept in ignorance of the fact. They were prayed for by name. Their recovery was faster, and their recidivisim rate was lower, than the control group, by a very statistically significant amount. I have seen the experiment replicated a couple of times. I am not saying "God did it"......maybe people sent "good vibes" into the air. I don't know. (My personal opinion is that it had something to do with God, though I don't take the bible literally) I am just saying that there are things in this world that can't be explained by science (though maybe science can show they happen). I think life if more supernatural and mysterious than modern people may commonly hear about.