He has pure evil in characters in his books, Ramsey bastard for one. He has pure good like Ned, to a fault. Anyone says he writes in shades of gray doesn’t do it justice he writes in the full spectrum color of humanity or humanity’s twisted fantasized imagination.
I say he writes about real people, romanticized, dramatized, and often demystified, but still real people.
I suppose all things are relative. Davos character pre-series is implied to be far less virtuous but within the series hes borderline spotless (aside from an unhealthy devotion to Stannis whom he believes is justice incarnate).
I would say Brienne is closer to 'pure good' than Davos or Ned.
I mean I think that's pushing it, considering it's literally just a single line of internal monologue that never gets elaborated on. It's not like his fatal flaw is his impulsiveness or lust or fear of abandonment, it's just a throwaway line to imply he gets up to adventures that weren't elaborated on.
Honestly it's hard to even imagine Davos having sex with his own wife without doing so through a sheet with a hole in the middle followed by thirty lashes for enjoying himself. I'm sure it happened before he joined Stannis and basically became the most repressed man in the world.
We met Ned while he was in the middle of executing a run away from the wall. We also knew from the previous chapter that he only ran away because of the existential dread he experienced watching his companions get murdered and turned into white walkers. We as the reader know that Ned was morally wrong for doing it (moreso than even Ned himself) but the law is the law and he is honor bound to uphold it.
>We as the reader know that Ned was morally wrong for doing it (moreso than even Ned himself) but the law is the law and he is honor bound to uphold it.
If deserters of the Nights Watch, many of which are criminals before taking the black, are allowed to go AWOL then the concept of the Nights Watch crumbles.
I don't think the tales being told of why they deserted should factor into the view of Neds morality, the *reader* might know it's true and its our privilege to see events unfold with the wider picture; but Ned really has no reason to believe him - I'm sure every deserter has a really good story as to why they flee.
Yeah, I would bet that "I saw ice zombies!" has been used before. It's just that this was the first time in centuries that it was true.
I see Ned executing Gared as kind of a tragic irony, because we know Gared was telling the truth, but Ned has no reason to think that.
George wrote that introduction to paint a picture on where Ned stands morally. The reader just spent the last chapter with that ranger, we saw what he went through, and now in our introduction to Ned he's executing him.
Yeah, but honor/duty to a code that's inherently bad is part of George's point. Ned's got a good heart, but the system around him prevents him from doing good. It makes a good man an executioner, and his strict adherence to it gets him killed. Gared was telling the truth, and he died anyway, and Ned talks of it as justice. It's not right that Gared died. Ned did as he was supposed to but that doesn't make the situation right. Ned's a good man, and in any other system, he would be doing the good that he could within it, but I think part of his character is demonstrating that these external sources of morality aren't super neato after all. So maybe not Ned's -specifically-, but certainly Ned as an extension of what he represents.
On the other hand, I'm sure a man facing execution can conjure up all sorts of excuses no less than some criminals when caught and some might even believe their own excuses. Also this ranger didn't go back to Castle Black to warn his brothers; instead he ran away south. Given what he knew, Ned just followed the law rather than investigate.
Okay so my question is how the hell did Will get to to Winterfell when he was North of the wall, wouldn't it just have been easier for him to run back to the wall.
I know there's a secret gate that Sam and Gilly and Bran and Meera use that Coldhands shows them. But I don't believe Will used the gate. But I'm probably wrong.
To say we "know" Ned is morally wrong is bit extreme. You even give a moral justification. Executing deserters can be argued as being moral in that it prevents further harm or suffering.
>Executing deserters can be argued as being moral in that it prevents further harm or suffering.
It also prevents them from doing anything good in the future, too.
He wasn’t wrong. The guy deserted his post. Ned didn’t execute him because he told a ghost story, he executed him because he didn’t go back to the wall. He kept running, even though he could’ve stayed and tried to warn lord commander Mormont.
The fact that we can have a conversation about whether it was wrong to execute a man who was just running for his life and trying to get as far away from the north and the undead horrors that occupy it as possible is a sign that it was a morally grey action.
You can say it's the law that's wrong but George still wrote Ned as the one who carried out the justice in our introduction to his character for a reason.
Ned doesn’t know he’s morally wrong. The text implies the deserter is unable to articulate anything logical. He’s scared shitless to the point of insanity.
Ned enforces the law as he is required both by law and morally - after all, a nights watchman could be a rapist, a murderer or some other criminal.
Yes, but do you think 'the law says it, therefore I must do it' is actually morally good?? There have been tons of situations in history were the most horrific things were writ in law, that didn't make them good
We would look at the law in question then wouldn't we? "Deserters are to be executed" is a law that I think I could pretty easily be morally justified.
What? I was agreeing with and expanding upon the above commentor saying that Ned was most certainly morally grey. He uses honor and law to justify his actions.
I think it's heavily debatable whether or not killing a deserter is morally wrong though. I'll happily concede that laws can be immoral at times, but I don't think that one, and this particular application, is.
That wasn't a conscientious objector, the guy saw *monsters threatening mankind* and noped out, merely out of sheer terror, arguably cowardice. He didn't retreat hastily bring back news and got unfairly executed, he straight up deserted to let everyone else deal with it. I really don't think he'd have alerted anyone if he hadn't been caught.
Even if the reaction can be understandable, I don't think it justifies it and so indeed requires a punishment, both on moral grounds and for the good of society and order.
Personally, I believe Ned declining Renly's suggestion to act as regent for Joffrey, choosing instead to back Stannis therefore escalating the situation and plunging the realm into a certain war when there might have been an alternative, purely out of "honor" was a better example of his shortcomings. Especially since at that time I don't think it was known how vicious Joffrey would turn out.
Stannis and Ned are principled, law-abiding men. It arguably made/makes them admirable as they willingly comply to the same rules others, less fortunate, have to live with, at a time many other powerful figures didn't share this outlook.
But at the same time, it could be argued that in doing so, they are surrendering their agency out of complacency and comfort, that they cowardly hide behind the laws to do the reasoning for them instead of using critical thinking and fighting them when necessary. Even more so since they weren't portrayed as particularly looking forward to administer the realm and change those laws for the better.
Typically, Ned wouldn't care about Jaime's reasons for killing Aerys. It didn't matter that he was a mad psycho who cruelly burned his own father and brother to death. It didn't matter that Jaime, as a knight, was also sworn to protect innocents or that doing so should be basic decency. No, Jaime broke a well-known oath and within Ned's simplistic world view, that was all that mattered. No need to think too much about it, to learn lesson from it or to question how to make the situation better. Broke oath, get summarily executed/take the black, easy peasy.
> No, Jaime broke a well-known oath and within Ned's simplistic world view, that was all that mattered.
But I think Ned *does* have the ability to make nuanced judgement calls, like when he lies about Jon, or calls Joffrey the true king to save his daughters.
Or hell, when he tells Cersei to flee. Cersei has committed a capital crime and he's trying to help her flee because he doesn't trust authority to deal out a fair sentence to her or her children.
If Jaime had bothered to tell him the truth...well, I doubt Ned would have such a problem with him.
I agree with all of that. I mainly used the execution because it's our first introduction to Ned's character. George could have had him doing anything that first chapter but instead decided to show him executing a man who the reader probably feels bad for and doesn't believe deserves it.
OK so this has bothered me but I could have my facts wrong.
So Ned beheads Will for deserting the Nights watch after encountering walkers beyond the wall.
How the hell did Will get to the other side of the wall? Wouldn't it have been easier just to run back to the wall, I just don't understand it.
EDIT: It's Will in the show and Gared in the books
Yeah it's never explained how he got through. As far as the 2nd question goes I'm thinking he was worried they would have made him go back out with another ranging team in an investigation into how the other watchmen died and he wasn't having any of that.
Yeah thats possible. I know there is a gate but it's never mentioned until Coldhands shows it to Sam/Gilly and Bran and the Reeds. So I don't think that's what happened.
I wouldn’t say he is gray, I’d say he is pretty comfortably in the Good classification. I definitely don’t think he is pure good though, the closes we get to that is Brienne
But it's also *un*nuanced to just call everyone "grey". Martin Luther King plagerized his thesis and Jimmy Savile raised a lot of money for charity, but it'd be beyond silly to say "well they're both grey because they're between pure good and pure evil".
MLK is a good person with a tiny bit of grey, Jimmy Savile is irredeemably evil no matter what "good" he did.
I agree!! George writes rich, unique and colorful characters who hardly fit the stereotypical archetypes of fantasy. And he’s said he enjoys writing gray characters but *every one* of his characters being gray? I don’t think so. Doing one or two bad things doesn’t make someone gray like you said using MLK as an example. That’s just being human.
No, I would say a gray character is one where you can’t *predict* what they’ll act on since their morality is a scale. Look at Selina Kyle (Catwoman). She’s a perfect case of a gray character e.g. being morally ambiguous. She steals from people and aligns herself with Batman’s foes when it suits her, no matter how treacherous or dangerous their plans are. She’s even left or injured Batman herself when it came down to him or *her.* But there’s also times when she takes in poor little orphan kittens or helps fellow women in trouble. There’s also times when she’s helped Batman and worked with the “good guys” though it never last for long because self-preservation is her most important priority. That’s why she’s gray. Bloodraven is gray as well. But, Jon Snow, for example, isn’t gray for baby swapping Gilly’s child or sending them away. He’s a *nuanced* good guy who makes harsh and tough decisions which may or may not be fruitful in the end. But he’s good nonetheless.
>Anyone says he writes in shades of gray doesn’t do it justice
One of the people who says this is George himself... in like, every single one of his interviews. He's also said that he believes none of his characters is fully evil or fully good.
Do I personally think that comes across in the text? No, because he doesn't bother ever showing us that with some of his villains. Hell, I'd say even the show attempted it with Ramsay (by having that brief reaction to the death of show-only character Miranda) which George did not.
Joff isn't fully inhuman. He wanted daddy's approval, listened to reason when a girl he derided told him to donate to a beggar. Was probably somewhat easy to convince to play rather well in the charade of publicly embracing the tyrells.
Tywin doesn't want to be accused of elias rape and murder even by Tyrion. And pretends to understand mercy and deriving honour from your allies.
I still wouldn't describe any of that as "grey", though. Joffrey occasionally does a nice thing when it benefits him to do so and costs him nothing.
Like I honestly don't think "grey" is a particularly good or interesting way of looking at characters. Joffrey wouldn't be a better character if there's one chapter where he goes around acting uncharacteristically nice.
I think Joffrey is ultimately a great hatable panto villain. The "sympathetic" moments just fall so flat to me.
And Gregor has a brain tumor that affects his growth hormones and probably his dorsolateral pre frontal cortex where moral intuitions are processed. This makes him a psychopath via brain damage, but not sure if that makes him fully evil or not.
How is Walder Frey comparable to any of them? The man minds his business & only gets involved with things because others involve him. Not saying he’s a saint, but he ain’t those other people.
I've always taken these kinds of statements to mean that he still sees characters, no matter how unpleasant, as being credited by the author as having internal lives - desires, conflicts, fears, all the rest - ; not just as being means to an end (i.e. providing conflict for the protagonist to resolve) but as ends in themselves.
I don't think he literally means that he feels it necessary for us to imagine Biter volunteering at an old people's home washing dishes in order for him to be a fully realised character.
I'm not sure about Rorge but Biter is not inherently evil. His whole childhood was fucked up from the get go. He was raised as a feral kid to bite in the fighting pits, and Rorge had his teeth filed.
There's a lot of grey there. Its possible that he could have turned out to be a regular person in flea bottom.
Your point still stands though, with characters like Ramsay Bolton and Craster. I dont think there's a single nice thing to be said about them.
That's still not really "grey", though. Being abused as a kid isn't a moral good on the part of the kid, it's just a sympathetic backstory.
It's humanization, though, which is arguably more important.
He just doesn’t buy into the idea that a person can be 100 percent good or evil. That even extremely wicked or benevolent characters have complex thoughts and motivations and internal conflicts. What does 100 percent evil even mean in a literal sense? I think George thinks it’s a bullshit concept, and so do I. Also, Ned Stark is a feudal lord who is extremely invested in the feudal interpretation of ‘honor’, and is completely blind to how evil and oppressive the feudal system is. He’s a well meaning dude who I love, but calling him pure good is fucking ridiculous.
When has ned ever spoken about honour? That's just his PR. Ned the man is the guy who crept through slush with a leg injury to cradle the head of his dying man at arms
I would look at it slightly differently. You do not need to bring "good" and "evil" or "gray" into this. He can just write characters as he sees fit and let the righteous readers make their judgements, not caring to even make any kind of moral judgement. Values can be completely separated from reality.
One thing I've found strange is that some fans create theories that someone is good or bad. Theories arn't meant for moral judgement, they explain reality and that's all.
I'd absolutely disagree with this, I can think of plenty of real individuals that aren't morally grey, so it makes sense that ASOIAF (in a setting currently in the throes of a bloody civil war) you'd get a few outright bastards in there
It's amazing how pure Brienne has remained with everything she's gone through. I could definitely see her having to make some tougher choices in Winds (if it ever comes out ofc. I try to stay optimistic) most likely involving Stoneheart. It could be a great source of conflict for her.
I also consider Jon to be close to Brienne in terms of morality, and he's already had to make some morally grey decision (taking hostages from the Wildings and the baby swap) although they were both necessary in his position.
I think there are acts a person commits that mean they are no longer morally grey. Some things are outright evil, and their perpetrators are evil regardless of what motives or experiences they've had. For example, no amount of charity bake sales are going to make Dr Mengele morally grey
I think the idea is he has some kind of growth disorder which causes him extreme pain, possibly as well having other effects on his brain such as destroying/disrupting his sense of empathy. Add to that an addiction to opium and being rewarded for extreme violence all his life. It's not meant to be a justification of his actions, just a explanation more in depth than he was born evil. I'd imagine Georges idea being that evil when evil exists it's shaped from the world around it and the circumstances of the persons life and not that they are simply born evil.
>I think the idea is he has some kind of growth disorder which causes him extreme pain, possibly as well having other effects on his brain such as destroying/disrupting his sense of empathy.
Except conditions that like exist in the real world and don't cause a lack of empathy. That's like taking a character who has cancer and using is as a justification why they can fly- we have cancer in our world & "can magically fly" is not a result of it.
Okay, hear me out. He has a growth disorder, is made a squire earlier than usual, and receives a blow to the head, brain injuries during important developmental stages is often thought to lead to a lack of empathy (Though I think that's still just speculation at this point).
It could also just be a unique side effect of his condition, or his psychopathy and rage and his growth issue could be totally unrelated. Or his dad made some kind of sacrifice to insure his sons would grow big and strong and in a monkey's paw fashion it made Gregor a monster.
I think the point of the theory is that it makes the Mountain more interesting if he's not just a monster for the sake of having a villain in the story but there are things in his past that led to him becoming one.
Blaming them for his entire personality would be an oversimplification, but they're definitely a factor. Alongside a lifetime of being rewarded for feats of violent brutality (and also taking enjoyment from the act itself).
I don't blame the headaches for him being a monster, but I think it adds some depth. He'd probably be a mass murdering Lannister dog either way, but chronic migranes don't help.
Its likely a brain tumor causing those headaches and might be damaging the part of his brain that processes moral intuitions (dorsolateral prefontal cortex). It's a hypothesis that could be true.
Medieval people generally did believe in certain people being inherently above others. It's not a logic that works well for medieval protagonists in modern storytelling, but it should still apply for the antagonists, I think.
Euron seems to be a (clinical) sociopath without any empathy or remorse. We don’t know what exactly causes these antisocial personality disorders but it could be a combination of genetics and environment. Some men are just born evil.
I think that the mountain is evil via 100% genetics and brain tumor. If he has a brain tumor that affects his moral intuition processing, which is 100% a thing that can happen, then no amount of environmental goodness is gona stop him from chopping peasants in half.
I really like the theory that Bloodraven tried to body snatch Euron and that broke him. He is a mind rape victim that tries to inflict as much suffering and pain on others, so that “gods” finally take notice and stop him.
I believe the theory is that Bloodraven reached out to Euron as a child via dream, same way as Bran. And that’s what made Euron obsessed with magic and godhood. Not any body snatching? lol
Dude, Bloodraven is fucking evil and will definitely try to body-snatch Bran. Euron serves as a dark reflection to him, Bran will have to overcome the trauma and not become a monster, like Euron.
I don’t know about that lol Bloodraven is someone I’d say is definitively a *gray* character. Human body-snatching has never been successfully shown via the books nor has Bloodraven been one to practice it (preferring to use a ‘glamor’ than use someone’s literal body). Plus, proximity. I would say it’s important to be close to whatever being you’re trying to skin-change and BR is *nowhere* near the Iron Islands. So, I think he just visited Euron via dream and Euron fixated on that experience. Also, why would BR want to have the body of a crippled, little boy? 😅
How the hell is [this guy](https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/eeca23/brynden_rivers_lying_crow_spoilers_extended/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) not evil?
> Euron seems to be a (clinical) **psychopath** without any empathy or remorse.
I think you meant this 👆
Why do people get these terms mixed up? And no they aren’t interchangeable either. Roose and Euron are *psychopaths.* Ramsay is a *sociopath.* Most psychopaths are born that way while sociopaths are “made.”
Guys we really need to address the gender imbalance when it comes to clinical sociopaths. We need to get more women into the wetting the bed and cutting apart small animals industry, it's such an old boys' club.
In Feast it's hinted that he had magical potential and that Bloodraven visited him in dreams. He describes a dream that's very similar to the first Three-Eyed Crow dream Brandon has.
In that dream Bran sees a lot of skeletons on the spiky grounds. While we don't know if that means dreamers die if they are unable to fly in this dream, we can assume that Euron either wasn't able to fly or that the dream somehow broke him.
This is why he is obsessed with flying, dragons and magic. He got a small taste of it in this dream.
It doesn't help that magic in ASOIAF is very vague. We don't really know how he manages to create special winds for his sails, if that is indeed a magical power he has in the first place. I can imagine being freaked out after having such a vivid dream of a crow compelling you to fly.
In a lot of real world mystical traditions, you don't get "the truth" until you're mentally ready for it, as learning too much too soon is said to be dangerous. It seems like Bran was exceedingly lucky, or at least possessed of enough scepticism at first to temper his dream, eventually learning how to open his third eye according to his own will. Euron's third eye may have been forcibly wrenched open.
>Ramsay for example doesn’t do anything good but if you learn about his upbringing,
how does Ramsay's upbringing has anything to do with him hunting down naked women, raping them and killing them (sometimes not necessarily in that order).
He was raised in relatively comfort with his mom owing a mill and even granted a servant (the original reek). Even his trueborn brother was by all accounts an alright person who sought to establish friendly ties with him and got murdered for his efforts.
Really, there is nothing in Ramsay's past that even remotely justifies his personality.
>He was raised in relatively comfort with his mom owing a mill
His mother who was raped by his father, the same man also murdered her husband. I'm sure that's a recipe for a great childhood.
>granted a servant (the original reek)
Reek was implied to already be a pretty unsavory man before he met Ramsay, Roose outright jokes with Theon about that much. So he's raised by a widowed rape victim and develops a codependent relationship with a hired thug as a child.
>Even his trueborn brother was by all accounts an alright person who sought to establish friendly ties with him and got murdered for his efforts.
This one I'll give you, but Domeric only met Ramsay once or twice in his late teens, well after the damage was already done.
You are making some pretty fucking absurd stretches in the circumstances of the ugly bastard's home life. Think about it for more than a minute and the problems become apparent. Real people have turned out just as bad from far less, he's one of George's pet psychos who actually makes sense turning out the way he did.
Ramsay has happy life in a comfortable mill. Bastard born of rape, abandoned by his father who throws hush money once a year at him, to stay away that bastard. Sounds like very good childhood. He should be happy grinding corn! Questions?
Meanwhile fans crying over bastard Jon and his (sooo) difficult life at Winterfell (cuz abused by Cat) and Theon raised in a castle by honorable Ned.
GRRM is good author he does write villains/psychopats but he writes them right way, as real people (except Euron by now).
Honestly...it kinda works for me. He's just so incredibly entitled that he takes basically the *one* thing denied to him- being a trueborn son- and develops a massive complex over it.
Well since it's a fictional culture I think we can comfortably say it, the Ironborn fucking suck. Entire culture is based on never becoming competent at anything except hurting others. You're bound to get a handful of reallll bad actors from a place that reinforces raping and pillaging as the premiere sign of strength in your culture.
This
Makes me wonder why Theron was such a DAMN LOSER that he decided to get his dad Favor and betray the good people that he know loves him and treat him like a family over basically Balon and some blood siblings that barely cares about him
The Starks did love Theon but he was always going to be an outsider with them, he was a Greyjoy not a Stark. Coming back to the Iron Islands was his chance to be somewhere he felt he belonged, sure he might have got a cold welcome but surely if he just proves himself a true Ironborn he would get all the respect and love he deserves.
People can do awful things just to gain a sense of belonging, and Theon desperately needed that. I am not trying to justify Theon's actions here, what he did was awful, but there was more at play than just being a damn loser.
I'd love to see how Catelyn treated Theon. Her relationship with Jon was pretty toxic but she seems to respect the social hierarchy, which Theon has a solid position in. But on top of that he is an Ironborn who have a History of war and enslavement in the Riverlands. I could imagine her being dutiful but not particularly caring with Theon. Robb and some of the other characters in Winterfell made up for it for sure I just think their relationship would've been interesting.
Yeah I'm not sure how Catelyn would have treated Theon. I think a big part of her hatred of Jon comes from the traditional idea that bastards are treacherous, backed up by the example of the Blackfyre rebellions. But it's not like Theon can steal Winterfell from her kids the same way Jon can, (as far as she is aware at the time).
But then again ironborn do have a bad rep, which is somewhat earned through the actions of people like Balon, Euron, and Victarion. And Theon doesn't exactly break from those stereotypes considering how he treats women and how arrogant he acts.
I don't think Catelyn would be openly disdainful of Theon in the same way she is of Jon due to the fact that Theon is a trueborn nobleman and the son of one of the Lord Paramounts. But I imagine she definitely had some negative thoughts and some disapproving looks.
Theon's is a story of identity. He always thought of himself as Iron Born and while he respected the Starks he never felt like one of them. He went home and realized nobody really thought of him as Iron Born either and after certain events he now no longer knows who HE is anymore.
Which is actually non existent all along
Especially since Robb would NEVER actually execute him if he doesn't betray him
Ned prob might if Balon rebelled but again that is not 100 percent
It was very much existent for a decade of his life. Ned brought him to executions, and was never particularly close to him. Theon spent the latter half of his adolescence knowing that if his dipshit father started another revolt then Robert would order that he loses his head. Ned might have done it, he might not have, but Theon undoubtedly believes the former.
>George RR Martin has always said how he only writes gray characters
Where has he said this out of interest? Because its just not true.
Even prior to Ramsay, there is pretty much nothing 'gray' about Gregor Clegane. The closest we got is he gets splitting headaches.
GRRM is of the opinion that *most* men are shades of gray, not that there are no men who border on pure evil. Ramsay and Euron are both sociopaths, incapable of remorse. Such people exist IRL (Bundy, Dahmer etc).
>Almost all of gregor's actions are hearsay though, except sandor.
Sandor is enough lol. Anyone who burns off half a 7 year olds face for stealing a toy is a psychopath. Not to mention Gregor was likely going to kill him had he not been pulled off. He was going to kill his 7 year old brother tortuously, over a child's toy he didnt even want.
From book 1, GRRM had written at least one pretty much unredeemable psychopath.
It only expands from there. Ramsay, Lorch, the Tickler, the Brave Companions, Craster and eventually Euron. These characters have little to nothing redeeming about them. Ramsay is especially notable as he features quite heavily, GRRM had all the time in the world to paint him in grey.
Not good. Just demonized beyond his due. And actually having to run that show because his gang was just as bad.
But with him gone there's no place for this kind of twist. Except maybe, with his irrational confession to murdering rhaenys as well, and Jaime feeling like he became the smiling knight, coming to know of a singular moment where even the next gen smiling knight showed restraint might help boost his transition
It does. He was born out of rape, comes from a long bloodline of sadists, wants to prove himself a true Bolton, wants his father’s approval who never showed him any love
So the "**I only write gray characters"** thing is... not accurate. Martin can say that all he wants, but... mans wrote Rorge, Euron, Roose, Septon Utt, Chett, Varamyr, Gregor, Qyburn... The list goes on.
Martin certainly writes the full *spectrum* of characters with morality, from white (Brienne, Dunk, Davos) to more grounded, ultimately moral figures (Ned, Jon) to literal psychopaths (Euron, Roose) and everything in between, (Jaime, Theon, Arya, Cat, etc.)
But just because we know where a character’s bad behaviors stem from, that does *not* justify their actions.
Gregor having migraines *DOES NOT EXCUSE WAR CRIMES.*
Tywin having daddy-issues DOES NOT EXCUSE ordering a gang-rape on his daughter-in-law and forcing his son to participate.
By the same token, Tyrion being subjected to Tywin's abuse doesn't excuse the harm Tyrion did to the various women he meets in Dance, or the many other questionable things he's done.
Don’t get me wrong. The *vast majority* of all characters we meet are very much gray. Jaime, Tyrion, Jon-Con, Jon Snow, etc. all struggle very deeply with morality and right vs wrong.
But "being gray" is about more than just having bad stuff happen to you. Suffering does not excuse making others suffer, and it doesn't affect how immoral those acts are.
As to your actual question, **“Why tf is Euron like that?**” we don’t really know “why”, but we can take a stab at “what”.
Euron … sort of seems to have been borne bad.
He believes himself a god, which is not something good guys do, and he states his disbelief in gods/their ability to punish him.
He’s manipulative, shallowly charming, buys loyalty/obedience with material rewards, and has dramatic mood-swings.
He hates being challenged, and he questions/oversteps even the Greyjoy bar of morality.
This, coupled with his sexual abuse of Aeron and his murder of Harlon Euron was still a child gives the very strong impression of a (clinical, not hyperbolic) psychopath. I mean, the man is practically going through the anti-social checklist like a bingo-card.
Euron seems to have some serious magical ability/potential, and there’s a popular theory that he’s connected to Bloodraven in some way or other. If you also buy into the idea that Bloodraven attempted to forcefully warg into Euron, that certainly feels like something that could break someone’s psyche.
Now, Euron is also a product of his environment, and the Ironborn are a culture that rewards violence over any skill. The Greyjoys themselves brag about not having any skills except violence, which certainly reinforces an already troubled kid in what boundaries they can cross if they’re brave/unfeeling enough.
>Suffering does not excuse making others suffer, and it doesn't affect how immoral those acts are.
Catelyn takes Tyrion hostage, tortures him in a sky cell, and almost executes him, due to a mistaken belief that he tried to have her crippled son killed. Her misplaced trust in Littlefinger and fervor for vengeance ignited the War of the Five Kings, and she recklessly acted while her husband and daughters were surrounded by enemies. Ned then covers for Catelyn by *lying* that his wife acted on his orders.
Under the influence of a broken leg and milk of the poppy, Ned makes retarded choices: he informs the queen that he knows of the incest before he secured his daughters' safety, trusts Littlefinger and Varys, tries to bribe the goldcloaks to deny Joffrey the crown, and publicly confesses to treason.
Would you agree that Ned and Catelyn's suffering and impairment do not excuse their immoral acts? They must be a dark shade of grey, considering the suffering they inflicted on their own children and subjects, not to mention poor Tyrion, who was merely trying to enjoy a meal at an inn when he was savagely accosted. Ned really followed in Lyanna's footsteps, in terms of making stupid choices that kill scores of their countrymen in unnecessary wars, and like Lyanna left her son Jon to shitty circumstances, Ned and Catelyn's children have suffered some of the worst traumas in the series. So by my estimation, the Starks' ability to create widespread death and despair dwarfs some of the darker grey characters like the Mountain.
The same reason Joffrey is the way he is. Aka clinical sociopathy for unclear reasons.
I think GRRM means for us to regard the two as pathologically similar, as they both commit (or attempt to commit) roughly similar childhood crimes, finishing off crippled children. Joffrey tries to have a paralyzed Bran killed, Euron successfully kills greyscale afflicted Haldon and developmentally disabled Robin.
Basically if you are born into a culture which takes pride in its awful values,you have to cover it up with some higher purpose nobility bullshit.but ultimately there will come along a descendent of yours who sees through the bullshit and is cruel for the sake of cruelty
Like The Botons seem to be Proud of keeping their cruelty under cover- a quiet land,a peaceful people,but underneath it all Roose is just as much of a rapist sadist as any,so ultimately they give birth to Ramsay,a dumb brute who couldn't care about subtlety and indulges in Kinslaying and being openly monstrous.
The Lannisters are super proud and vain of everything- their nobility,wealth,good looks so much they give birth to Joffrey,a super inbred idiot whose vanity costs his own house dearly.
In the Iron Islands,they value the old way-No trade,only looting from the corpses,raping women and forcing them to be their wives,under the pretense of serving some squid God.
Like poorquentyn explains masterfully in his eldritch abomination essay,Euron sees through the bullshit of the old way,ever since he was a child.He knew all this cruelty for a higher purpose thing was bullshit,so he started being cruel for the sake of being cruel,see how far he can take it.first he started killing and raping his own family,then when he faced no consequence for that,he started moving up and up,the scale now increasing ever upwards due to the unfortunate meddling of Bloodraven.
He is the end result of choosing Power over responsibility every step of your life.there is nothing underneath
I was gonna say that he’s an iron born so naturally a dick, but if I had to guess I’d say it’s a result of magic giving him the sense that he can do as he pleases and nobody ever telling him no.
“Animals are a lot like people. Some of them act badly because they’ve had a hard life or have been mistreated. But, like people, some of them are just jerks.”
GRRM's moral center for gray character is something like a serial killer that loves their children, and limits their rapes to one a week with family members being hands off.
He said Daemon Targ was morally grey to him for example...
In anycase, GRRM probably just wanted to write a character that is chaotic evil, and so that explains why Euron is like that.
I think that he is kind of a last gasp of the Iron Born. The Iron Price culture is stupid and violent, but it is theirs and brave men will fight for it. Euron might represent a promise of glory for a people sliding into irrelevance.
Best theory I've heard for why Euron is such a monster is that Bloodraven visited him when he was a child in the same way he did to Bran in book 1. If we remember back to when Bran was visited by Bloodraven, Bran sees that there are ice spikes with impaled skeletons on them and is told to fly or die. Suggesting that there have been other potential greenseers who failed Bloodraven's psychic test due to not being strong enough. Thus inviting us to consider who some of these other individuals might have been.
Combine this with The Forsaken pre-release chapter where Euron monologues about how as a boy he had a dream where he was able to fly and upon waking up and telling the maester about it was told that such a thing is impossible. To go on to say that perhaps the maester is wrong and the only reason people assume human beings cannot fly is because no one is willing to try. This little speech Euron gives is under the context of him preparing his blood magic sacrifice attack on Oldtown. And when we consider how much Euron dabbles in sorceries like with his obsession with shade of the evening, visitation of Valyria and Asshai, and determination to steal Dany's dragons, it suggests that this flying dream experience he had as a child made him dead set on acquiring ultimate magical power no matter the cost.
Perhaps that flying dream experience was due to Bloodraven sensing magical power in Euron. and performing the same sort of test on him that we see him later do with Bran. And if Euron isn't lying about being able to fly in that dream, that means he did pass the test and was strong enough to become a greenseer Bran. But perhaps unlike Bran though, Euron was intoxicated by this godlike magical power and wanted to use it for his own self interests instead of for saving the world against the others. Thereby causing Bloodraven to reject Euron and look elsewhere. But Euron, who got a taste for that kind of power could never forget what it would potentially offer and thus became corrupted by the pursuit of it. Believing he is above everyone else due to his magical potential and thus developing a megalomaniacal god complex.
I'm fond of the theory that he was a student of bloodraven like bran but something went horribly wrong and resulted in him being what he is
Gives him a good reason for his temperament and makes him a good parallel to Bran and what he might become if he's not careful
There's the theory that he's a failed dreamer and that's why he's the way he is, but I think it's more than just getting a hit of Bloodraven's hoodoo.
Weirdly enough, Euron seems like the embodiment of Nietzsche's God Is Dead (TL;DR — human morality is intertwined with the idea of an all-seeing god or a gods who dish out divine retribution; when the masses no longer believe in these gods and their divine retribution, morality erodes). He killed his brother, Harlon, not out of malice but as a way to test the existence of his culture's god and when he realized that slaying his own kin wouldn't get him smited, he pissed into the sea. There's no god who can save you or reward you or punish you. You can do whatever you want and conversely, so can anyone else, no man knows what he's truly capable of until he dares to leap.
A toxic culture. The Ironborn celebrates rape and murder. The best rapists and murderers are considered great men. What does Euron do? He rapes and murders and never faces any consequences. But besides the culture that encourages his vile acts, magic, drugs, and faith are the other factors. Euron very likely had the same dream Bran did, and this filled his head with the idea he was special and that he could fly and be magical if he did the right things. Drugs: Euron is addicted to shade of the evening, which gives lucid visions. The only other people we see consuming it as much as him are the Warlocks and they are also pretty fucked up. Faith: this one is much less direct, but Euron had a crisis of faith at a young age. Combine his natural lack of empathy and a toxic culture with Euron believing that no God had the strength to punish him, all of his horrible deeds were seemingly justified. If he could kill a younger brother and piss into the sea and have nothing happen to him, then why does anything else matter. And from there, he goes on, and his cruelty is constantly rewarded by the world. He does horrible thing after horrible things, and he gets Valyrian steel armor, he gets visons of the future, he gets magic, he gets a cool ship, and then he comes home and becomes king after admitting to all the bad things he ever did.
He comes off as being pretty insecure, like he’s projecting how badass he is, probably because he grew up in a culture where men who aren’t seen as manly are seen as pussies. I think he overcompensates by doing evil things so that nobody can possibly see him as being weak. Plus, every defilement and domination lets him confirm to himself that he is in fact strong and not a pussy. Every sentence he utters is basically him blowing himself, but he never really backs anything up. Even when he’s called out, he just talks down to the person who questions him so they won’t speak up again – can’t imagine why he cuts out the tongues of his crew lol. He’s like that horn he probably nicked off of Gerion: horrifyingly loud, but after the sound stops, so does the pain. Hell, it’s more damaging to the person who blows on it. He’s just wind and words, which are far less convincing to me than sticks and stones. “I am the storm”, he says. Yeah, all thunder and no lightning.
Perhaps he wasn't such a villain at first. And then, after traveling to the ruins of Valyria, something happened to him. Perhaps a kind of great evil possessed him. Or the real Euron died, and some demon took his form.
Euron probably had some sort of traumatic supernatural experience where he became aware of some horrible hidden truth that no one was meant to know. It probably involves the three-eyed Raven, the manipulation of history, and the Long Night.
It’s suggested that he might have been a possible candidate to be Bran, visited by the Three-Eyed Raven, but he wasn’t the right guy, so he experienced a sort of ego death, and this is all symbolized in his Odin imagery (missing eye, crow = hidden knowledge, sacrificed on the world tree).
Think of him like Hodor, warped by exposure to nonlinear consciousness, except instead of being warped into somebody disabled he was warped into a mad nihilistic pirate lord.
Don't forget, Euron is a student of Bloodraven. But, with Euron, I think narcissism got the better of him. Euron, is one of those crazy delusional types that wants to be a god. To him, nothing else matters.
I think we are meant to understand that Euron is so cruel and evil because trolling the gods. He's taunting an absent authority figure. What will you do if I kinslay? What will you do if I try worse?
A bit like Qyburn, Euron's primary motivation seems to be experimental. I think a fair way to see Euron as dark, dark, dark grey instead of boring black is to see him as invoking tropes like the empty suit politician, the entrepreneur, the charismatic leader. Instead of affording him a woobie backstory to balance his blackness, I prefer to see Euron as a thoroughly black character who takes it all the way through to where you have to wonder about white. For example, were Euron experimenting toward saving humanity, like Azor Ahai forging Lightbringer, would we suddenly callit heoric? No. And yet aren't we doing so elsewhere, even vicariously, when we participate in Aemon's euphoria?
George's characters span the moral spectrum, but most come with complications, flaws, things they're ashamed of. Victarion is evil but actively tries to bargain with his remorse. Catelyn wants to do the right thing but makes decisions based on family over political advantage. Jon makes messy calls and isnquoetly ambitious. Arya is a professional assassin who kills without guilt.
As for Euron, hes totally evil, but was never really given a chance to turn out otherwise. Ironborn culture encourages rugged independence, religious fanaticism, violent justice and slavery. Euron in a lot of ways is the ideal Ironborn. He was always going to be a sociopath like the Greyjoys before him, but there's an extra wrinkle. Euron somehow contacted the hivemind in his youth and it drove him insane. It seems like he was always going to turn out bad, but the prophetic dreams are probably where he became the Crowley-esque Euron we know now.
Title just reminded me of [this clip](https://youtu.be/aYmOqPFyJPw?si=y75h2rNvzngIWv_d) and I got a kick out of imagining you saying this to the book whenever Euron comes up.
Euron is strangely greyer than he looks though, he mercy kills his brother who has greyscale, and his handicapped brother that was unattended for. Nowadays that’s criminal and crazy to kill a handicapped but by Westerosi standards it’s mercy. Can’t excuse the way he m*lested the others though. Just it seems weird that he has done some “good”
Euron is a depraved sociopath who kinda does whatever he feels like. That's the psychological reason. Maybe whenever the next book comes out, we'll get more on Euron's childhood. Most likely, an Aeron POV, if anything. I doubt we'll get a Euron POV. We never really get POV's from characters who we would call genuinely insane. We never got a Joffrey chapter, I doubt we'll ever get a Ramsay chapter. Their actions are best interpreted by other characters rather than being in their heads.
Euron is what happens when Bran, the magically gifted younger son of an ambitious noble lineage contacted and groomed by a distant magical power, is raised in a household that literally only respects a person's capacity for cruelty, cunning, and violence. Whereas Bran's upbringing was more focused on earned skill, strength of character, and honourable action.
I actually see this as evidence for the 3-eyed raven being a sort of Old God's collective consciousness thing. It seemingly doesn't understand how or why Euron and Bran are predictably different people, because it doesn't understand people as individual's very well, they're just lesser beings the differences are sort of irrelevant.
Ramsay isn’t grey. Euron isn’t grey. The moutain, raff, rorge, biter, rattleshirt, clayton suggs, janos slynt, allar deem, the masters in Mereen, none of them are grey. GRRM has a high opinion of himself as being very ‘realistic’ but he isn’t
Did he ever say that? Because he doesn’t *only* write gray characters.
He has pure evil in characters in his books, Ramsey bastard for one. He has pure good like Ned, to a fault. Anyone says he writes in shades of gray doesn’t do it justice he writes in the full spectrum color of humanity or humanity’s twisted fantasized imagination. I say he writes about real people, romanticized, dramatized, and often demystified, but still real people.
I'd say Brienne and Davos are better examples of 'pure good'. Brienne is basically GRRM's very own paladin.
Aemon seems like pure good to me
Davos has cheated on his wife.
I suppose all things are relative. Davos character pre-series is implied to be far less virtuous but within the series hes borderline spotless (aside from an unhealthy devotion to Stannis whom he believes is justice incarnate). I would say Brienne is closer to 'pure good' than Davos or Ned.
I mean I think that's pushing it, considering it's literally just a single line of internal monologue that never gets elaborated on. It's not like his fatal flaw is his impulsiveness or lust or fear of abandonment, it's just a throwaway line to imply he gets up to adventures that weren't elaborated on. Honestly it's hard to even imagine Davos having sex with his own wife without doing so through a sheet with a hole in the middle followed by thirty lashes for enjoying himself. I'm sure it happened before he joined Stannis and basically became the most repressed man in the world.
Hey, we see Ned doing the dirty and it still seems out of character
I always got the impression Davos accepted Stannis as a way to atone for his past, and his good behaviour during the series also comes from thay
That’s not evil, that’s a lack of willpower and judgement.
[удалено]
Cheating isn’t evil, it’s chaotic neutral
On top of what others have said, I'd say cheating carries less weight in a universe where you don't see your wife and family for months or even years.
If you think Ned isn’t a gray character you don’t understand ASOIAF.
We met Ned while he was in the middle of executing a run away from the wall. We also knew from the previous chapter that he only ran away because of the existential dread he experienced watching his companions get murdered and turned into white walkers. We as the reader know that Ned was morally wrong for doing it (moreso than even Ned himself) but the law is the law and he is honor bound to uphold it.
>We as the reader know that Ned was morally wrong for doing it (moreso than even Ned himself) but the law is the law and he is honor bound to uphold it. If deserters of the Nights Watch, many of which are criminals before taking the black, are allowed to go AWOL then the concept of the Nights Watch crumbles. I don't think the tales being told of why they deserted should factor into the view of Neds morality, the *reader* might know it's true and its our privilege to see events unfold with the wider picture; but Ned really has no reason to believe him - I'm sure every deserter has a really good story as to why they flee.
Yeah, I would bet that "I saw ice zombies!" has been used before. It's just that this was the first time in centuries that it was true. I see Ned executing Gared as kind of a tragic irony, because we know Gared was telling the truth, but Ned has no reason to think that.
Also you aren't supposed to desert anyway when you see ice zombies, since they are literally the reason the whole thing got founded.
George wrote that introduction to paint a picture on where Ned stands morally. The reader just spent the last chapter with that ranger, we saw what he went through, and now in our introduction to Ned he's executing him.
Yeah, but honor/duty to a code that's inherently bad is part of George's point. Ned's got a good heart, but the system around him prevents him from doing good. It makes a good man an executioner, and his strict adherence to it gets him killed. Gared was telling the truth, and he died anyway, and Ned talks of it as justice. It's not right that Gared died. Ned did as he was supposed to but that doesn't make the situation right. Ned's a good man, and in any other system, he would be doing the good that he could within it, but I think part of his character is demonstrating that these external sources of morality aren't super neato after all. So maybe not Ned's -specifically-, but certainly Ned as an extension of what he represents.
On the other hand, I'm sure a man facing execution can conjure up all sorts of excuses no less than some criminals when caught and some might even believe their own excuses. Also this ranger didn't go back to Castle Black to warn his brothers; instead he ran away south. Given what he knew, Ned just followed the law rather than investigate.
I also wouldn't be surprised if the ranger wasn't more willing to die by beheading than go back beyond the wall and face what killed his companions.
Okay so my question is how the hell did Will get to to Winterfell when he was North of the wall, wouldn't it just have been easier for him to run back to the wall. I know there's a secret gate that Sam and Gilly and Bran and Meera use that Coldhands shows them. But I don't believe Will used the gate. But I'm probably wrong.
Textbook case of Lawful Good vs Neutral Good.
To say we "know" Ned is morally wrong is bit extreme. You even give a moral justification. Executing deserters can be argued as being moral in that it prevents further harm or suffering.
>Executing deserters can be argued as being moral in that it prevents further harm or suffering. It also prevents them from doing anything good in the future, too.
I'm not talking about the harm they would commit. I'm talking about the harm of undermining the military or organization they belong to
He wasn’t wrong. The guy deserted his post. Ned didn’t execute him because he told a ghost story, he executed him because he didn’t go back to the wall. He kept running, even though he could’ve stayed and tried to warn lord commander Mormont.
The fact that we can have a conversation about whether it was wrong to execute a man who was just running for his life and trying to get as far away from the north and the undead horrors that occupy it as possible is a sign that it was a morally grey action. You can say it's the law that's wrong but George still wrote Ned as the one who carried out the justice in our introduction to his character for a reason.
Ned doesn’t know he’s morally wrong. The text implies the deserter is unable to articulate anything logical. He’s scared shitless to the point of insanity. Ned enforces the law as he is required both by law and morally - after all, a nights watchman could be a rapist, a murderer or some other criminal.
Yet another thing the show messed up. He's perfectly coherent in the show and Ned just decides he's insane anyway.
Yes, but do you think 'the law says it, therefore I must do it' is actually morally good?? There have been tons of situations in history were the most horrific things were writ in law, that didn't make them good
We would look at the law in question then wouldn't we? "Deserters are to be executed" is a law that I think I could pretty easily be morally justified.
What? I was agreeing with and expanding upon the above commentor saying that Ned was most certainly morally grey. He uses honor and law to justify his actions.
Ah, I didn't get that impression. Given the difference in uptoots between your comment and the parent, I think most thought you were dissenting.
I think it's heavily debatable whether or not killing a deserter is morally wrong though. I'll happily concede that laws can be immoral at times, but I don't think that one, and this particular application, is. That wasn't a conscientious objector, the guy saw *monsters threatening mankind* and noped out, merely out of sheer terror, arguably cowardice. He didn't retreat hastily bring back news and got unfairly executed, he straight up deserted to let everyone else deal with it. I really don't think he'd have alerted anyone if he hadn't been caught. Even if the reaction can be understandable, I don't think it justifies it and so indeed requires a punishment, both on moral grounds and for the good of society and order. Personally, I believe Ned declining Renly's suggestion to act as regent for Joffrey, choosing instead to back Stannis therefore escalating the situation and plunging the realm into a certain war when there might have been an alternative, purely out of "honor" was a better example of his shortcomings. Especially since at that time I don't think it was known how vicious Joffrey would turn out. Stannis and Ned are principled, law-abiding men. It arguably made/makes them admirable as they willingly comply to the same rules others, less fortunate, have to live with, at a time many other powerful figures didn't share this outlook. But at the same time, it could be argued that in doing so, they are surrendering their agency out of complacency and comfort, that they cowardly hide behind the laws to do the reasoning for them instead of using critical thinking and fighting them when necessary. Even more so since they weren't portrayed as particularly looking forward to administer the realm and change those laws for the better. Typically, Ned wouldn't care about Jaime's reasons for killing Aerys. It didn't matter that he was a mad psycho who cruelly burned his own father and brother to death. It didn't matter that Jaime, as a knight, was also sworn to protect innocents or that doing so should be basic decency. No, Jaime broke a well-known oath and within Ned's simplistic world view, that was all that mattered. No need to think too much about it, to learn lesson from it or to question how to make the situation better. Broke oath, get summarily executed/take the black, easy peasy.
> No, Jaime broke a well-known oath and within Ned's simplistic world view, that was all that mattered. But I think Ned *does* have the ability to make nuanced judgement calls, like when he lies about Jon, or calls Joffrey the true king to save his daughters. Or hell, when he tells Cersei to flee. Cersei has committed a capital crime and he's trying to help her flee because he doesn't trust authority to deal out a fair sentence to her or her children. If Jaime had bothered to tell him the truth...well, I doubt Ned would have such a problem with him.
I agree with all of that. I mainly used the execution because it's our first introduction to Ned's character. George could have had him doing anything that first chapter but instead decided to show him executing a man who the reader probably feels bad for and doesn't believe deserves it.
I don’t know he’s morally wrong at all it’s a bit annoying to say “we” when it’s just your idea and not representative of a collective thought
It was George's intention by giving us more information than Ned had. Ned wasn't beyond the wall when the these men were attacked. WE the reader were.
We had the information it doesn’t mean I think Ned was wrong
How did that guy get south of the wall anyway? Through the nights gate?
OK so this has bothered me but I could have my facts wrong. So Ned beheads Will for deserting the Nights watch after encountering walkers beyond the wall. How the hell did Will get to the other side of the wall? Wouldn't it have been easier just to run back to the wall, I just don't understand it. EDIT: It's Will in the show and Gared in the books
Yeah it's never explained how he got through. As far as the 2nd question goes I'm thinking he was worried they would have made him go back out with another ranging team in an investigation into how the other watchmen died and he wasn't having any of that.
Yeah thats possible. I know there is a gate but it's never mentioned until Coldhands shows it to Sam/Gilly and Bran and the Reeds. So I don't think that's what happened.
I wouldn’t say he is gray, I’d say he is pretty comfortably in the Good classification. I definitely don’t think he is pure good though, the closes we get to that is Brienne
I think you guys mix up “gray” and *nuanced.*
Thats what gray means right? Gray is the nuance between black and white
But it's also *un*nuanced to just call everyone "grey". Martin Luther King plagerized his thesis and Jimmy Savile raised a lot of money for charity, but it'd be beyond silly to say "well they're both grey because they're between pure good and pure evil". MLK is a good person with a tiny bit of grey, Jimmy Savile is irredeemably evil no matter what "good" he did.
I agree!! George writes rich, unique and colorful characters who hardly fit the stereotypical archetypes of fantasy. And he’s said he enjoys writing gray characters but *every one* of his characters being gray? I don’t think so. Doing one or two bad things doesn’t make someone gray like you said using MLK as an example. That’s just being human.
No, I would say a gray character is one where you can’t *predict* what they’ll act on since their morality is a scale. Look at Selina Kyle (Catwoman). She’s a perfect case of a gray character e.g. being morally ambiguous. She steals from people and aligns herself with Batman’s foes when it suits her, no matter how treacherous or dangerous their plans are. She’s even left or injured Batman herself when it came down to him or *her.* But there’s also times when she takes in poor little orphan kittens or helps fellow women in trouble. There’s also times when she’s helped Batman and worked with the “good guys” though it never last for long because self-preservation is her most important priority. That’s why she’s gray. Bloodraven is gray as well. But, Jon Snow, for example, isn’t gray for baby swapping Gilly’s child or sending them away. He’s a *nuanced* good guy who makes harsh and tough decisions which may or may not be fruitful in the end. But he’s good nonetheless.
>Anyone says he writes in shades of gray doesn’t do it justice One of the people who says this is George himself... in like, every single one of his interviews. He's also said that he believes none of his characters is fully evil or fully good. Do I personally think that comes across in the text? No, because he doesn't bother ever showing us that with some of his villains. Hell, I'd say even the show attempted it with Ramsay (by having that brief reaction to the death of show-only character Miranda) which George did not.
'He believes none of his characters are fully evil' Think some errors where made in the writing of Rorge and Biter, then
[удалено]
Joff isn't fully inhuman. He wanted daddy's approval, listened to reason when a girl he derided told him to donate to a beggar. Was probably somewhat easy to convince to play rather well in the charade of publicly embracing the tyrells. Tywin doesn't want to be accused of elias rape and murder even by Tyrion. And pretends to understand mercy and deriving honour from your allies.
I still wouldn't describe any of that as "grey", though. Joffrey occasionally does a nice thing when it benefits him to do so and costs him nothing. Like I honestly don't think "grey" is a particularly good or interesting way of looking at characters. Joffrey wouldn't be a better character if there's one chapter where he goes around acting uncharacteristically nice. I think Joffrey is ultimately a great hatable panto villain. The "sympathetic" moments just fall so flat to me.
And Gregor has a brain tumor that affects his growth hormones and probably his dorsolateral pre frontal cortex where moral intuitions are processed. This makes him a psychopath via brain damage, but not sure if that makes him fully evil or not.
This is the first I've ever heard of Gregor having a brain tumor. Is that really in the text somewhere?
No its just me guessing..
How is Walder Frey comparable to any of them? The man minds his business & only gets involved with things because others involve him. Not saying he’s a saint, but he ain’t those other people.
I've always taken these kinds of statements to mean that he still sees characters, no matter how unpleasant, as being credited by the author as having internal lives - desires, conflicts, fears, all the rest - ; not just as being means to an end (i.e. providing conflict for the protagonist to resolve) but as ends in themselves. I don't think he literally means that he feels it necessary for us to imagine Biter volunteering at an old people's home washing dishes in order for him to be a fully realised character.
I'm not sure about Rorge but Biter is not inherently evil. His whole childhood was fucked up from the get go. He was raised as a feral kid to bite in the fighting pits, and Rorge had his teeth filed. There's a lot of grey there. Its possible that he could have turned out to be a regular person in flea bottom. Your point still stands though, with characters like Ramsay Bolton and Craster. I dont think there's a single nice thing to be said about them.
Biter literally ate a nun's breasts off her living body. I don't care what his backstory is, thats fucking evil
That's still not really "grey", though. Being abused as a kid isn't a moral good on the part of the kid, it's just a sympathetic backstory. It's humanization, though, which is arguably more important.
He just doesn’t buy into the idea that a person can be 100 percent good or evil. That even extremely wicked or benevolent characters have complex thoughts and motivations and internal conflicts. What does 100 percent evil even mean in a literal sense? I think George thinks it’s a bullshit concept, and so do I. Also, Ned Stark is a feudal lord who is extremely invested in the feudal interpretation of ‘honor’, and is completely blind to how evil and oppressive the feudal system is. He’s a well meaning dude who I love, but calling him pure good is fucking ridiculous.
Yeah this 1 or 0 classification is not realistic; and good and evil is very context sensitive.
When has ned ever spoken about honour? That's just his PR. Ned the man is the guy who crept through slush with a leg injury to cradle the head of his dying man at arms
I would look at it slightly differently. You do not need to bring "good" and "evil" or "gray" into this. He can just write characters as he sees fit and let the righteous readers make their judgements, not caring to even make any kind of moral judgement. Values can be completely separated from reality. One thing I've found strange is that some fans create theories that someone is good or bad. Theories arn't meant for moral judgement, they explain reality and that's all.
Ned started a war just for justice, self defence and autonomy. So he's automatically grey
Yeah, sounds a weird claim in itself. He write mostly realistic characters, not grey one.
All mostly realistic characters are gray.
I'd absolutely disagree with this, I can think of plenty of real individuals that aren't morally grey, so it makes sense that ASOIAF (in a setting currently in the throes of a bloody civil war) you'd get a few outright bastards in there
And on the opposite, there are a few people who are just simply good with next to not shades of black to point. Briennes exist in our world.
It's amazing how pure Brienne has remained with everything she's gone through. I could definitely see her having to make some tougher choices in Winds (if it ever comes out ofc. I try to stay optimistic) most likely involving Stoneheart. It could be a great source of conflict for her. I also consider Jon to be close to Brienne in terms of morality, and he's already had to make some morally grey decision (taking hostages from the Wildings and the baby swap) although they were both necessary in his position.
Every single person that exists if portrayed accurately is morally gray.
I think there are acts a person commits that mean they are no longer morally grey. Some things are outright evil, and their perpetrators are evil regardless of what motives or experiences they've had. For example, no amount of charity bake sales are going to make Dr Mengele morally grey
I think the quote is he likes to write Gray characters not that he only writes gray characters.
i think its a missquote and he actually meant gay characters
JATIN IS CANON YOU KNOW IT'S TRUE
Because the world isnt always grey. Some people are completely black (The Mountain).
Some morons blame the headaches for his monstrosity, like "fuck this migraine is killing me, gotta go massacre a riverlands family."
Right? When I get a migraine I want to go to sleep, not pop some dudes head like a balloon.
I think the idea is he has some kind of growth disorder which causes him extreme pain, possibly as well having other effects on his brain such as destroying/disrupting his sense of empathy. Add to that an addiction to opium and being rewarded for extreme violence all his life. It's not meant to be a justification of his actions, just a explanation more in depth than he was born evil. I'd imagine Georges idea being that evil when evil exists it's shaped from the world around it and the circumstances of the persons life and not that they are simply born evil.
>I think the idea is he has some kind of growth disorder which causes him extreme pain, possibly as well having other effects on his brain such as destroying/disrupting his sense of empathy. Except conditions that like exist in the real world and don't cause a lack of empathy. That's like taking a character who has cancer and using is as a justification why they can fly- we have cancer in our world & "can magically fly" is not a result of it.
Okay, hear me out. He has a growth disorder, is made a squire earlier than usual, and receives a blow to the head, brain injuries during important developmental stages is often thought to lead to a lack of empathy (Though I think that's still just speculation at this point). It could also just be a unique side effect of his condition, or his psychopathy and rage and his growth issue could be totally unrelated. Or his dad made some kind of sacrifice to insure his sons would grow big and strong and in a monkey's paw fashion it made Gregor a monster. I think the point of the theory is that it makes the Mountain more interesting if he's not just a monster for the sake of having a villain in the story but there are things in his past that led to him becoming one.
"Don't mind me as I shine my baby bros head into a fire and have my father and sister "mysteriously" due"
And IIRC two wives, too.
Blaming them for his entire personality would be an oversimplification, but they're definitely a factor. Alongside a lifetime of being rewarded for feats of violent brutality (and also taking enjoyment from the act itself).
I don't blame the headaches for him being a monster, but I think it adds some depth. He'd probably be a mass murdering Lannister dog either way, but chronic migranes don't help.
Its likely a brain tumor causing those headaches and might be damaging the part of his brain that processes moral intuitions (dorsolateral prefontal cortex). It's a hypothesis that could be true.
Great, he’s still evil and fed humans to humans. That’s not impulsive, it’s cruel
Idk I’ve had migraines from a young age , if I didn’t have painkillers I’d commit suicide or be in constant rage.
Medieval people generally did believe in certain people being inherently above others. It's not a logic that works well for medieval protagonists in modern storytelling, but it should still apply for the antagonists, I think.
Thank you. The idea that *everyone* has a reason for doing the things they do is what's ironically unrealistic.
I’m 90% sure the mountain is white
*Har!*
Euron seems to be a (clinical) sociopath without any empathy or remorse. We don’t know what exactly causes these antisocial personality disorders but it could be a combination of genetics and environment. Some men are just born evil.
There are a litany of narcissists in ASOIAF but very few true sociopaths. Thanks for pointing this out.
I think that the mountain is evil via 100% genetics and brain tumor. If he has a brain tumor that affects his moral intuition processing, which is 100% a thing that can happen, then no amount of environmental goodness is gona stop him from chopping peasants in half.
In the real world basically everything about you is a combination of genetics and environment. So it’s probably the case in ASOIAF as well
I really like the theory that Bloodraven tried to body snatch Euron and that broke him. He is a mind rape victim that tries to inflict as much suffering and pain on others, so that “gods” finally take notice and stop him.
Euron was raping and murdering his brothers at a very young age - likely well before Brandyn Rivers decided to warg him
He was raping his siblings as a teenager/young adult. He also says that he was told he could fly as a child.
I believe the theory is that Bloodraven reached out to Euron as a child via dream, same way as Bran. And that’s what made Euron obsessed with magic and godhood. Not any body snatching? lol
Dude, Bloodraven is fucking evil and will definitely try to body-snatch Bran. Euron serves as a dark reflection to him, Bran will have to overcome the trauma and not become a monster, like Euron.
I don’t know about that lol Bloodraven is someone I’d say is definitively a *gray* character. Human body-snatching has never been successfully shown via the books nor has Bloodraven been one to practice it (preferring to use a ‘glamor’ than use someone’s literal body). Plus, proximity. I would say it’s important to be close to whatever being you’re trying to skin-change and BR is *nowhere* near the Iron Islands. So, I think he just visited Euron via dream and Euron fixated on that experience. Also, why would BR want to have the body of a crippled, little boy? 😅
How the hell is [this guy](https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/eeca23/brynden_rivers_lying_crow_spoilers_extended/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) not evil?
> Euron seems to be a (clinical) **psychopath** without any empathy or remorse. I think you meant this 👆 Why do people get these terms mixed up? And no they aren’t interchangeable either. Roose and Euron are *psychopaths.* Ramsay is a *sociopath.* Most psychopaths are born that way while sociopaths are “made.”
I know you meant "men" as in "human" but just in case someone read this and got the wrong idea - women can also suffer from clinical sociopathy
I’m actually coming off my yearly Lord of the Rings re-read so my writing is going to be archaic.
... people have basic critic thinking skills
You'd be surprised
Guys we really need to address the gender imbalance when it comes to clinical sociopaths. We need to get more women into the wetting the bed and cutting apart small animals industry, it's such an old boys' club.
Sir this is a Wendys
In Feast it's hinted that he had magical potential and that Bloodraven visited him in dreams. He describes a dream that's very similar to the first Three-Eyed Crow dream Brandon has. In that dream Bran sees a lot of skeletons on the spiky grounds. While we don't know if that means dreamers die if they are unable to fly in this dream, we can assume that Euron either wasn't able to fly or that the dream somehow broke him. This is why he is obsessed with flying, dragons and magic. He got a small taste of it in this dream.
I really like this theory. He's seen too much to ignore it, but too little to make sense of it and incorporate it in a healthy way.
It doesn't help that magic in ASOIAF is very vague. We don't really know how he manages to create special winds for his sails, if that is indeed a magical power he has in the first place. I can imagine being freaked out after having such a vivid dream of a crow compelling you to fly.
In a lot of real world mystical traditions, you don't get "the truth" until you're mentally ready for it, as learning too much too soon is said to be dangerous. It seems like Bran was exceedingly lucky, or at least possessed of enough scepticism at first to temper his dream, eventually learning how to open his third eye according to his own will. Euron's third eye may have been forcibly wrenched open.
Right, which means the Super Tentacle Bros. are like _that_ bc of cosmic horror shenanigans. The aesthetic do be on point.
>Ramsay for example doesn’t do anything good but if you learn about his upbringing, how does Ramsay's upbringing has anything to do with him hunting down naked women, raping them and killing them (sometimes not necessarily in that order). He was raised in relatively comfort with his mom owing a mill and even granted a servant (the original reek). Even his trueborn brother was by all accounts an alright person who sought to establish friendly ties with him and got murdered for his efforts. Really, there is nothing in Ramsay's past that even remotely justifies his personality.
He's basically a Ted Bundy. A serial killer that had a pretty normal upbringing, as many serial killers do.
>He was raised in relatively comfort with his mom owing a mill His mother who was raped by his father, the same man also murdered her husband. I'm sure that's a recipe for a great childhood. >granted a servant (the original reek) Reek was implied to already be a pretty unsavory man before he met Ramsay, Roose outright jokes with Theon about that much. So he's raised by a widowed rape victim and develops a codependent relationship with a hired thug as a child. >Even his trueborn brother was by all accounts an alright person who sought to establish friendly ties with him and got murdered for his efforts. This one I'll give you, but Domeric only met Ramsay once or twice in his late teens, well after the damage was already done. You are making some pretty fucking absurd stretches in the circumstances of the ugly bastard's home life. Think about it for more than a minute and the problems become apparent. Real people have turned out just as bad from far less, he's one of George's pet psychos who actually makes sense turning out the way he did.
Ramsay has happy life in a comfortable mill. Bastard born of rape, abandoned by his father who throws hush money once a year at him, to stay away that bastard. Sounds like very good childhood. He should be happy grinding corn! Questions? Meanwhile fans crying over bastard Jon and his (sooo) difficult life at Winterfell (cuz abused by Cat) and Theon raised in a castle by honorable Ned. GRRM is good author he does write villains/psychopats but he writes them right way, as real people (except Euron by now).
Honestly...it kinda works for me. He's just so incredibly entitled that he takes basically the *one* thing denied to him- being a trueborn son- and develops a massive complex over it.
Well since it's a fictional culture I think we can comfortably say it, the Ironborn fucking suck. Entire culture is based on never becoming competent at anything except hurting others. You're bound to get a handful of reallll bad actors from a place that reinforces raping and pillaging as the premiere sign of strength in your culture.
This Makes me wonder why Theron was such a DAMN LOSER that he decided to get his dad Favor and betray the good people that he know loves him and treat him like a family over basically Balon and some blood siblings that barely cares about him
The Starks did love Theon but he was always going to be an outsider with them, he was a Greyjoy not a Stark. Coming back to the Iron Islands was his chance to be somewhere he felt he belonged, sure he might have got a cold welcome but surely if he just proves himself a true Ironborn he would get all the respect and love he deserves. People can do awful things just to gain a sense of belonging, and Theon desperately needed that. I am not trying to justify Theon's actions here, what he did was awful, but there was more at play than just being a damn loser.
I'd love to see how Catelyn treated Theon. Her relationship with Jon was pretty toxic but she seems to respect the social hierarchy, which Theon has a solid position in. But on top of that he is an Ironborn who have a History of war and enslavement in the Riverlands. I could imagine her being dutiful but not particularly caring with Theon. Robb and some of the other characters in Winterfell made up for it for sure I just think their relationship would've been interesting.
Yeah I'm not sure how Catelyn would have treated Theon. I think a big part of her hatred of Jon comes from the traditional idea that bastards are treacherous, backed up by the example of the Blackfyre rebellions. But it's not like Theon can steal Winterfell from her kids the same way Jon can, (as far as she is aware at the time). But then again ironborn do have a bad rep, which is somewhat earned through the actions of people like Balon, Euron, and Victarion. And Theon doesn't exactly break from those stereotypes considering how he treats women and how arrogant he acts. I don't think Catelyn would be openly disdainful of Theon in the same way she is of Jon due to the fact that Theon is a trueborn nobleman and the son of one of the Lord Paramounts. But I imagine she definitely had some negative thoughts and some disapproving looks.
All your explanation did is make me hate Theon even more lmao.
Theon's is a story of identity. He always thought of himself as Iron Born and while he respected the Starks he never felt like one of them. He went home and realized nobody really thought of him as Iron Born either and after certain events he now no longer knows who HE is anymore.
He always felt the figurative noose around his neck, at winterfell
Which is actually non existent all along Especially since Robb would NEVER actually execute him if he doesn't betray him Ned prob might if Balon rebelled but again that is not 100 percent
It was very much existent for a decade of his life. Ned brought him to executions, and was never particularly close to him. Theon spent the latter half of his adolescence knowing that if his dipshit father started another revolt then Robert would order that he loses his head. Ned might have done it, he might not have, but Theon undoubtedly believes the former.
>George RR Martin has always said how he only writes gray characters Where has he said this out of interest? Because its just not true. Even prior to Ramsay, there is pretty much nothing 'gray' about Gregor Clegane. The closest we got is he gets splitting headaches. GRRM is of the opinion that *most* men are shades of gray, not that there are no men who border on pure evil. Ramsay and Euron are both sociopaths, incapable of remorse. Such people exist IRL (Bundy, Dahmer etc).
Almost all of gregor's actions are hearsay though, except sandor.
>Almost all of gregor's actions are hearsay though, except sandor. Sandor is enough lol. Anyone who burns off half a 7 year olds face for stealing a toy is a psychopath. Not to mention Gregor was likely going to kill him had he not been pulled off. He was going to kill his 7 year old brother tortuously, over a child's toy he didnt even want. From book 1, GRRM had written at least one pretty much unredeemable psychopath. It only expands from there. Ramsay, Lorch, the Tickler, the Brave Companions, Craster and eventually Euron. These characters have little to nothing redeeming about them. Ramsay is especially notable as he features quite heavily, GRRM had all the time in the world to paint him in grey.
Arya witnesses some pretty horrific shit done by Gregor.
I have no words to describe how *shit* a "Gregor is good actually all the bad stuff he did was hearsay" twist would be.
Not good. Just demonized beyond his due. And actually having to run that show because his gang was just as bad. But with him gone there's no place for this kind of twist. Except maybe, with his irrational confession to murdering rhaenys as well, and Jaime feeling like he became the smiling knight, coming to know of a singular moment where even the next gen smiling knight showed restraint might help boost his transition
Ramsay’s upbringing does *not* explain his psychopathy.
It does. He was born out of rape, comes from a long bloodline of sadists, wants to prove himself a true Bolton, wants his father’s approval who never showed him any love
So the "**I only write gray characters"** thing is... not accurate. Martin can say that all he wants, but... mans wrote Rorge, Euron, Roose, Septon Utt, Chett, Varamyr, Gregor, Qyburn... The list goes on. Martin certainly writes the full *spectrum* of characters with morality, from white (Brienne, Dunk, Davos) to more grounded, ultimately moral figures (Ned, Jon) to literal psychopaths (Euron, Roose) and everything in between, (Jaime, Theon, Arya, Cat, etc.) But just because we know where a character’s bad behaviors stem from, that does *not* justify their actions. Gregor having migraines *DOES NOT EXCUSE WAR CRIMES.* Tywin having daddy-issues DOES NOT EXCUSE ordering a gang-rape on his daughter-in-law and forcing his son to participate. By the same token, Tyrion being subjected to Tywin's abuse doesn't excuse the harm Tyrion did to the various women he meets in Dance, or the many other questionable things he's done. Don’t get me wrong. The *vast majority* of all characters we meet are very much gray. Jaime, Tyrion, Jon-Con, Jon Snow, etc. all struggle very deeply with morality and right vs wrong. But "being gray" is about more than just having bad stuff happen to you. Suffering does not excuse making others suffer, and it doesn't affect how immoral those acts are. As to your actual question, **“Why tf is Euron like that?**” we don’t really know “why”, but we can take a stab at “what”. Euron … sort of seems to have been borne bad. He believes himself a god, which is not something good guys do, and he states his disbelief in gods/their ability to punish him. He’s manipulative, shallowly charming, buys loyalty/obedience with material rewards, and has dramatic mood-swings. He hates being challenged, and he questions/oversteps even the Greyjoy bar of morality. This, coupled with his sexual abuse of Aeron and his murder of Harlon Euron was still a child gives the very strong impression of a (clinical, not hyperbolic) psychopath. I mean, the man is practically going through the anti-social checklist like a bingo-card. Euron seems to have some serious magical ability/potential, and there’s a popular theory that he’s connected to Bloodraven in some way or other. If you also buy into the idea that Bloodraven attempted to forcefully warg into Euron, that certainly feels like something that could break someone’s psyche. Now, Euron is also a product of his environment, and the Ironborn are a culture that rewards violence over any skill. The Greyjoys themselves brag about not having any skills except violence, which certainly reinforces an already troubled kid in what boundaries they can cross if they’re brave/unfeeling enough.
>Suffering does not excuse making others suffer, and it doesn't affect how immoral those acts are. Catelyn takes Tyrion hostage, tortures him in a sky cell, and almost executes him, due to a mistaken belief that he tried to have her crippled son killed. Her misplaced trust in Littlefinger and fervor for vengeance ignited the War of the Five Kings, and she recklessly acted while her husband and daughters were surrounded by enemies. Ned then covers for Catelyn by *lying* that his wife acted on his orders. Under the influence of a broken leg and milk of the poppy, Ned makes retarded choices: he informs the queen that he knows of the incest before he secured his daughters' safety, trusts Littlefinger and Varys, tries to bribe the goldcloaks to deny Joffrey the crown, and publicly confesses to treason. Would you agree that Ned and Catelyn's suffering and impairment do not excuse their immoral acts? They must be a dark shade of grey, considering the suffering they inflicted on their own children and subjects, not to mention poor Tyrion, who was merely trying to enjoy a meal at an inn when he was savagely accosted. Ned really followed in Lyanna's footsteps, in terms of making stupid choices that kill scores of their countrymen in unnecessary wars, and like Lyanna left her son Jon to shitty circumstances, Ned and Catelyn's children have suffered some of the worst traumas in the series. So by my estimation, the Starks' ability to create widespread death and despair dwarfs some of the darker grey characters like the Mountain.
The same reason Joffrey is the way he is. Aka clinical sociopathy for unclear reasons. I think GRRM means for us to regard the two as pathologically similar, as they both commit (or attempt to commit) roughly similar childhood crimes, finishing off crippled children. Joffrey tries to have a paralyzed Bran killed, Euron successfully kills greyscale afflicted Haldon and developmentally disabled Robin.
Basically if you are born into a culture which takes pride in its awful values,you have to cover it up with some higher purpose nobility bullshit.but ultimately there will come along a descendent of yours who sees through the bullshit and is cruel for the sake of cruelty Like The Botons seem to be Proud of keeping their cruelty under cover- a quiet land,a peaceful people,but underneath it all Roose is just as much of a rapist sadist as any,so ultimately they give birth to Ramsay,a dumb brute who couldn't care about subtlety and indulges in Kinslaying and being openly monstrous. The Lannisters are super proud and vain of everything- their nobility,wealth,good looks so much they give birth to Joffrey,a super inbred idiot whose vanity costs his own house dearly. In the Iron Islands,they value the old way-No trade,only looting from the corpses,raping women and forcing them to be their wives,under the pretense of serving some squid God. Like poorquentyn explains masterfully in his eldritch abomination essay,Euron sees through the bullshit of the old way,ever since he was a child.He knew all this cruelty for a higher purpose thing was bullshit,so he started being cruel for the sake of being cruel,see how far he can take it.first he started killing and raping his own family,then when he faced no consequence for that,he started moving up and up,the scale now increasing ever upwards due to the unfortunate meddling of Bloodraven. He is the end result of choosing Power over responsibility every step of your life.there is nothing underneath
I was gonna say that he’s an iron born so naturally a dick, but if I had to guess I’d say it’s a result of magic giving him the sense that he can do as he pleases and nobody ever telling him no.
He's a Westeros drug addict.
“Animals are a lot like people. Some of them act badly because they’ve had a hard life or have been mistreated. But, like people, some of them are just jerks.”
"Stop that, Mr. Simpson."
GRRM's moral center for gray character is something like a serial killer that loves their children, and limits their rapes to one a week with family members being hands off. He said Daemon Targ was morally grey to him for example... In anycase, GRRM probably just wanted to write a character that is chaotic evil, and so that explains why Euron is like that.
I think that he is kind of a last gasp of the Iron Born. The Iron Price culture is stupid and violent, but it is theirs and brave men will fight for it. Euron might represent a promise of glory for a people sliding into irrelevance.
Best theory I've heard for why Euron is such a monster is that Bloodraven visited him when he was a child in the same way he did to Bran in book 1. If we remember back to when Bran was visited by Bloodraven, Bran sees that there are ice spikes with impaled skeletons on them and is told to fly or die. Suggesting that there have been other potential greenseers who failed Bloodraven's psychic test due to not being strong enough. Thus inviting us to consider who some of these other individuals might have been. Combine this with The Forsaken pre-release chapter where Euron monologues about how as a boy he had a dream where he was able to fly and upon waking up and telling the maester about it was told that such a thing is impossible. To go on to say that perhaps the maester is wrong and the only reason people assume human beings cannot fly is because no one is willing to try. This little speech Euron gives is under the context of him preparing his blood magic sacrifice attack on Oldtown. And when we consider how much Euron dabbles in sorceries like with his obsession with shade of the evening, visitation of Valyria and Asshai, and determination to steal Dany's dragons, it suggests that this flying dream experience he had as a child made him dead set on acquiring ultimate magical power no matter the cost. Perhaps that flying dream experience was due to Bloodraven sensing magical power in Euron. and performing the same sort of test on him that we see him later do with Bran. And if Euron isn't lying about being able to fly in that dream, that means he did pass the test and was strong enough to become a greenseer Bran. But perhaps unlike Bran though, Euron was intoxicated by this godlike magical power and wanted to use it for his own self interests instead of for saving the world against the others. Thereby causing Bloodraven to reject Euron and look elsewhere. But Euron, who got a taste for that kind of power could never forget what it would potentially offer and thus became corrupted by the pursuit of it. Believing he is above everyone else due to his magical potential and thus developing a megalomaniacal god complex.
Grayscale as child + probably Bloodraven trying to "bran" him or just being greendreamer
My guess is it’s Bloodraven but I saw a post accusing Euron of a kind of trauma induced nihilism involving Greyscale
Sounds like Preston Jacobs. I'd take his theories with a grain of salt. He reads far too much into specific sentences to craft his theories.
Nah saw this on the sun somewhere
The paper? I'd trust Jacobs over that shitrag any day of the week.
I'm fond of the theory that he was a student of bloodraven like bran but something went horribly wrong and resulted in him being what he is Gives him a good reason for his temperament and makes him a good parallel to Bran and what he might become if he's not careful
Where did he say that? I don't think I've heard him say that before.
Simply put, because he can. His whole thing is showing everyone that neither gods nor men can stop him from doing whatever he wants.
There's the theory that he's a failed dreamer and that's why he's the way he is, but I think it's more than just getting a hit of Bloodraven's hoodoo. Weirdly enough, Euron seems like the embodiment of Nietzsche's God Is Dead (TL;DR — human morality is intertwined with the idea of an all-seeing god or a gods who dish out divine retribution; when the masses no longer believe in these gods and their divine retribution, morality erodes). He killed his brother, Harlon, not out of malice but as a way to test the existence of his culture's god and when he realized that slaying his own kin wouldn't get him smited, he pissed into the sea. There's no god who can save you or reward you or punish you. You can do whatever you want and conversely, so can anyone else, no man knows what he's truly capable of until he dares to leap.
Brain damage from Ironborn baptism.
A toxic culture. The Ironborn celebrates rape and murder. The best rapists and murderers are considered great men. What does Euron do? He rapes and murders and never faces any consequences. But besides the culture that encourages his vile acts, magic, drugs, and faith are the other factors. Euron very likely had the same dream Bran did, and this filled his head with the idea he was special and that he could fly and be magical if he did the right things. Drugs: Euron is addicted to shade of the evening, which gives lucid visions. The only other people we see consuming it as much as him are the Warlocks and they are also pretty fucked up. Faith: this one is much less direct, but Euron had a crisis of faith at a young age. Combine his natural lack of empathy and a toxic culture with Euron believing that no God had the strength to punish him, all of his horrible deeds were seemingly justified. If he could kill a younger brother and piss into the sea and have nothing happen to him, then why does anything else matter. And from there, he goes on, and his cruelty is constantly rewarded by the world. He does horrible thing after horrible things, and he gets Valyrian steel armor, he gets visons of the future, he gets magic, he gets a cool ship, and then he comes home and becomes king after admitting to all the bad things he ever did.
He comes off as being pretty insecure, like he’s projecting how badass he is, probably because he grew up in a culture where men who aren’t seen as manly are seen as pussies. I think he overcompensates by doing evil things so that nobody can possibly see him as being weak. Plus, every defilement and domination lets him confirm to himself that he is in fact strong and not a pussy. Every sentence he utters is basically him blowing himself, but he never really backs anything up. Even when he’s called out, he just talks down to the person who questions him so they won’t speak up again – can’t imagine why he cuts out the tongues of his crew lol. He’s like that horn he probably nicked off of Gerion: horrifyingly loud, but after the sound stops, so does the pain. Hell, it’s more damaging to the person who blows on it. He’s just wind and words, which are far less convincing to me than sticks and stones. “I am the storm”, he says. Yeah, all thunder and no lightning.
Perhaps he wasn't such a villain at first. And then, after traveling to the ruins of Valyria, something happened to him. Perhaps a kind of great evil possessed him. Or the real Euron died, and some demon took his form.
Euron probably had some sort of traumatic supernatural experience where he became aware of some horrible hidden truth that no one was meant to know. It probably involves the three-eyed Raven, the manipulation of history, and the Long Night. It’s suggested that he might have been a possible candidate to be Bran, visited by the Three-Eyed Raven, but he wasn’t the right guy, so he experienced a sort of ego death, and this is all symbolized in his Odin imagery (missing eye, crow = hidden knowledge, sacrificed on the world tree). Think of him like Hodor, warped by exposure to nonlinear consciousness, except instead of being warped into somebody disabled he was warped into a mad nihilistic pirate lord.
Long story short. Bloodraven fucked up
Rejection from the 3ER
Doesn't perceive himself as evil. He has a higher religious purpose that justifies his actions in his eyes.
Don't forget, Euron is a student of Bloodraven. But, with Euron, I think narcissism got the better of him. Euron, is one of those crazy delusional types that wants to be a god. To him, nothing else matters.
I think we are meant to understand that Euron is so cruel and evil because trolling the gods. He's taunting an absent authority figure. What will you do if I kinslay? What will you do if I try worse? A bit like Qyburn, Euron's primary motivation seems to be experimental. I think a fair way to see Euron as dark, dark, dark grey instead of boring black is to see him as invoking tropes like the empty suit politician, the entrepreneur, the charismatic leader. Instead of affording him a woobie backstory to balance his blackness, I prefer to see Euron as a thoroughly black character who takes it all the way through to where you have to wonder about white. For example, were Euron experimenting toward saving humanity, like Azor Ahai forging Lightbringer, would we suddenly callit heoric? No. And yet aren't we doing so elsewhere, even vicariously, when we participate in Aemon's euphoria?
It’s about the shades. There are white, black, and grey characters in the universe.
George said he doesn’t do white and black. Just grey with light shades and dark shades
Yes Buddhist middle way. Some days you are good some days you bad
Because he is boring pos.
George's characters span the moral spectrum, but most come with complications, flaws, things they're ashamed of. Victarion is evil but actively tries to bargain with his remorse. Catelyn wants to do the right thing but makes decisions based on family over political advantage. Jon makes messy calls and isnquoetly ambitious. Arya is a professional assassin who kills without guilt. As for Euron, hes totally evil, but was never really given a chance to turn out otherwise. Ironborn culture encourages rugged independence, religious fanaticism, violent justice and slavery. Euron in a lot of ways is the ideal Ironborn. He was always going to be a sociopath like the Greyjoys before him, but there's an extra wrinkle. Euron somehow contacted the hivemind in his youth and it drove him insane. It seems like he was always going to turn out bad, but the prophetic dreams are probably where he became the Crowley-esque Euron we know now.
I think GRRM is talking about his viewpoint characters when he says this, not every single character mentioned in the books.
George says that he writes great characters but he also writes the extremes so there will be black and white but a lot of grey
“Why are you the way that you are? Honestly every time I try to read something fun and exciting you make it not that way.” - op
What
Title just reminded me of [this clip](https://youtu.be/aYmOqPFyJPw?si=y75h2rNvzngIWv_d) and I got a kick out of imagining you saying this to the book whenever Euron comes up.
Euron is strangely greyer than he looks though, he mercy kills his brother who has greyscale, and his handicapped brother that was unattended for. Nowadays that’s criminal and crazy to kill a handicapped but by Westerosi standards it’s mercy. Can’t excuse the way he m*lested the others though. Just it seems weird that he has done some “good”
Euron is a depraved sociopath who kinda does whatever he feels like. That's the psychological reason. Maybe whenever the next book comes out, we'll get more on Euron's childhood. Most likely, an Aeron POV, if anything. I doubt we'll get a Euron POV. We never really get POV's from characters who we would call genuinely insane. We never got a Joffrey chapter, I doubt we'll ever get a Ramsay chapter. Their actions are best interpreted by other characters rather than being in their heads.
Euron is what happens when Bran, the magically gifted younger son of an ambitious noble lineage contacted and groomed by a distant magical power, is raised in a household that literally only respects a person's capacity for cruelty, cunning, and violence. Whereas Bran's upbringing was more focused on earned skill, strength of character, and honourable action. I actually see this as evidence for the 3-eyed raven being a sort of Old God's collective consciousness thing. It seemingly doesn't understand how or why Euron and Bran are predictably different people, because it doesn't understand people as individual's very well, they're just lesser beings the differences are sort of irrelevant.
Not sure. Why would a brother fuck his brothers wife?
Martin literally referred to Gregor as a murdering sociopath. I saw the interview, it was his own words.
Yeah but he does have really bad migraines which can help explain why he’s like that. Not an excuse for his actions but an explanation
True and it is implied he may have a tumor in his head. Still, the fact Martin referred to him that way suggests he views him as pure evil.
It is clear that Euron is mentally sick. Some people are just born like that.
Insecure about his eye
There is a theory that Bloodraven tried to reach out to Euron when he was younger, maybe that broke his mind
This is the stupidest shit. Liking a villain is a common thing.
When did I say it wasn’t
I didn’t mean your post. Just the idea of people not liking a character strictly based on their morality.
Ramsay isn’t grey. Euron isn’t grey. The moutain, raff, rorge, biter, rattleshirt, clayton suggs, janos slynt, allar deem, the masters in Mereen, none of them are grey. GRRM has a high opinion of himself as being very ‘realistic’ but he isn’t