Good and Evil, (Begun in the Nature of the Creator and His Intentions thread).

[Mr Ares]

All human conflict stems from differing ideas about what is "good," what is "right," what is "proper," and what is "necessary."

No. "Reality isn't that simple. Even fictional reality." There are actions taken with no conception of morality, only desire. Things done not because they are good, or right, but because someone felt like it.

Yes, people can be thoughtless.  But thoughtless doesn't equate to evil by intent.

I never said it did. But actions can be taken which are not considered good, which are considered evil, or where the person taking the action is uncertain as to how good or evil it was. So it is manifestly not true that "All human conflict stems from differing ideas about what is "good," what is "right," what is "proper," and what is "necessary."".

 

We don't get the comfort of Good versus Evil.

Firstly, Good v Evil is present in this story, whether or not you want it to be. Secondly, it is not a conflict that by its very nature automatically qualifies as comforting.

 

The Forsaken and Darkfriends embody Chaos.

And yet most of them desire order, albeit a new order, one with themselves on top. They seek to replace the status quo with a new one. Spreading chaos is a means to an end. They seek to rule the world. Except Ishamael, who seeks to destroy it.

[Builder]

And yet most of them desire order, albeit a new order, one with themselves on top. They seek to replace the status quo with a new one. Spreading chaos is a means to an end. They seek to rule the world. Except Ishamael, who seeks to destroy it.

 

Yeah they were on the top, but it was on the top of a chaotic society.

[Bob T Dwarf]

 

All human conflict stems from differing ideas about what is "good," what is "right," what is "proper," and what is "necessary."

No. "Reality isn't that simple. Even fictional reality." There are actions taken with no conception of morality, only desire. Things done not because they are good, or right, but because someone felt like it. 

Yes, people can be thoughtless.  But thoughtless doesn't equate to evil by intent.

I never said it did. But actions can be taken which are not considered good, which are considered evil, or where the person taking the action is uncertain as to how good or evil it was. So it is manifestly not true that "All human conflict stems from differing ideas about what is "good," what is "right," what is "proper," and what is "necessary."".

 

We don't get the comfort of Good versus Evil.

Firstly, Good v Evil is present in this story, whether or not you want it to be. Secondly, it is not a conflict that by its very nature automatically qualifies as comforting.

 

The Forsaken and Darkfriends embody Chaos.

And yet most of them desire order, albeit a new order, one with themselves on top. They seek to replace the status quo with a new one. Spreading chaos is a means to an end. They seek to rule the world. Except Ishamael, who seeks to destroy it.

 

Assuming all parties involved are "sane" - If you do something, the morality of which is uncertain to you, and others either praise the action or do not oppose the action, then by the conditions that prevail at that time it was the "right" thing to do.  If even one other person opposes that action, then according to how they judge things, it was the "wrong" thing to do.  They wouldn't oppose you otherwise.

 

So, yes, anytime you have a conflict it's because the parties involved disagree on one or all of: good; right; proper; and/or necessary. 

 

Certainly both good and evil are present, but the conflict is not between those who are "good" and those who are "evil", it's between those who support the status quo, and those who oppose it.  As Jordan delineated in the parts of the letter Kadere posted, everybody on the side of Light is scheming and maneuvering and backstabbing for advantage every bit as much as those on the side of the Dark.  How "good" is that?  None - zero - zip - zilch - nada.  Just like the Forsaken and DF, each of them thinks it's only right and proper that they emerge at the top of the heap once the dust settles.

 

On the Dark side of things, they just want what they want when they want it.  Each Forsaken truly does see him or herself as the center of the Universe.  With that as their mental framework, it is not only good, right, proper, and necessary that said Universe be ordered according to their every whim, it is mandatory.  Any who oppose that - including the Creator, the Wheel, and the Pattern itself - must be eliminated.

 

That just makes them bug-nuts, not evil.

 

So, we don't get a choice between who is good and who is evil, we only get a choice between those who support the status quo and those who oppose it.  No easy, comforting choices.  Whomever we support is a "Bad Guy" at least part of the time.

 

After all, I'm pretty sure that Robert Jordan had a sufficient command of the English language that if he'd wanted us to be thinking in such value laden terms as "good" and "evil" he would have chosen just those labels for each side.  And written a very different series of books as a result.  He chose "Light" and "Dark" probably because "The Somewhat Insane" versus "The Totally Insane" doesn't have much marketing appeal.

 

[Bob T Dwarf]

So, our choice boils down to:

 

A.  Support the Creator.

B.  Support the Dark One.

 

The Creator offers stability.  The Creator's universe has understandable rules.  The future in the Creator's universe is guaranteed.  The Creator is safe.

 

The DO offers instability.  The DO dunt need no steenkin' rules.  There are no guarantees with the DO, not even whether it will honor commitments already made.  The DO is just plain scary.

 

Nothing is more terrifying to any human being than the totally unknown.  No matter how bad things are, the devil you know is always preferable to the one you don't know.

 

But, consider - The Creator's universe endlessly and totally recycles everything.  Even souls.  Even experiences and the set of possible outcomes.  Nothing substantive ever changes because the Pattern never changes and the Wheel is locked into following the Pattern as closely as possible.  It's a closed universe.  Static.  Stagnant.  There is not anything important that is ever really new or different in the Creator's universe.  Mankind is trapped.  Doomed like Sisyphus to push the same boulder up the same mountain only to have it roll right back down and have to do it all over again - "endlessly and unavailingly" - for eternity.  That's not nice.  That's not benevolent. In fact, it's pretty evil.  But, it is "Orderly."

 

Being Sisyphus isn't a fate I'd wish on anyone.  That's what makes it hard to root for the Creator's Team.

 

What we have to choose from is: 

 

A. A known quantity with known evil consequence.

B.  An unknown quantity with unknown, but probably evil, consequence.

 

Impossible to say which fate is worse.  Not much to root for in either case.

[dholm]

There are plenty of characters within the story that are evil. All of the Chosen are, without a doubt. Most of the Friends of the Dark. Oddly enough, the Great Lord of the Dark probably isn't fully evil -- he is the embodiment of chaos, of entropy. He seeks to destroy Creation and remake it in his image. The Friends of the Dark and the Chosen, on the other hand -- with the exception of Ishamael -- want power, and are willing to do anything to get it. There's little doubt the Great Lord is evil, but he favors chaos far more. The Chosen spread chaos because it gives them power, not because they personally have any interest in it.

 

Rand, as the opposition, focuses more on order than on good -- he tries to be good, but he acknowledges that he has to be hard and cruel in order to fulfill his destiny. The rest of the forces of the Light are more concerned with being good, though they still oppose chaos.

[Bob T Dwarf]

There are plenty of characters within the story that are evil. [snip]

 

Rand, as the opposition, focuses more on order than on good -- he tries to be good, but he acknowledges that he has to be hard and cruel in order to fulfill his destiny. The rest of the forces of the Light are more concerned with being good, though they still oppose chaos.

 

In fact ALL of the characters in the story are evil to some extent.  Galad might come closest to being "good," and he just makes everybody else's teeth ache.  Karede makes a decent try at being "good" but he wholeheartedly supports a corrupt and evil system, so he won't work either.

 

See Jordan in the letter posted by Kadere in this thread - the rest of Team Light are just as eager for personal gain as anyone on Team Dark is.  They're just a little less audacious.  That doesn't make them "good," it just makes them wimps.  And, evil wimps at that.

 

That's why trying to break this down as a struggle between GOOD and EVIL won't work.  There just aren't any GOOD GUYS.  There are just ordinary human beings being ordinarily human.

 

Jordan forces us to make a harder decision.  Are we in favor of the kind of Order offered by the Creator? 

[Ashaman Kovan]

So, our choice boils down to:

 

A.  Support the Creator.

B.  Support the Dark One.

 

The Creator offers stability.  The Creator's universe has understandable rules.  The future in the Creator's universe is guaranteed.  The Creator is safe.

 

The DO offers instability.  The DO dunt need no steenkin' rules.  There are no guarantees with the DO, not even whether it will honor commitments already made.  The DO is just plain scary.

 

Nothing is more terrifying to any human being than the totally unknown.  No matter how bad things are, the devil you know is always preferable to the one you don't know.

 

But, consider - The Creator's universe endlessly and totally recycles everything.  Even souls.  Even experiences and the set of possible outcomes.  Nothing substantive ever changes because the Pattern never changes and the Wheel is locked into following the Pattern as closely as possible.  It's a closed universe.  Static.  Stagnant.  There is not anything important that is ever really new or different in the Creator's universe.  Mankind is trapped.  Doomed like Sisyphus to push the same boulder up the same mountain only to have it roll right back down and have to do it all over again - "endlessly and unavailingly" - for eternity.  That's not nice.  That's not benevolent. In fact, it's pretty evil.  But, it is "Orderly."

 

Being Sisyphus isn't a fate I'd wish on anyone.  That's what makes it hard to root for the Creator's Team.

 

What we have to choose from is: 

 

A. A known quantity with known evil consequence.

B.  An unknown quantity with unknown, but probably evil, consequence.

 

Impossible to say which fate is worse.  Not much to root for in either case.

 

Ummm the creator does not offer stability at all.....I guess it depends on what you're referring to as stable. Life certaintly isn't, whether you're good or evil there is always a sense and reality of uncertainty. Not even the Wheel and The Pattern are certainties anymore. There is no guarantee that your life will work out, or even that the lives of the rest of the world will. Whether you are good or evil.

 

Your Sisyphus relation doesn't really work in this sense. You're talking about one specific person. We're talking about the lives of millions and those yet to be born.

 

It's good versus evil no matter how you try and cut it. Or warp it. Or dissemble. See a Thesaurus for more. Order and Chaos are much more simplistic concepts than Good and Evil.

 

Good can be chatoic and disorganized. Evil can be orderly, well thought and well planned out, and vice versa.

[Charlz Fel]

 

On the Dark side of things, they just want what they want when they want it.  Each Forsaken truly does see him or herself as the center of the Universe.  With that as their mental framework, it is not only good, right, proper, and necessary that said Universe be ordered according to their every whim, it is mandatory.  Any who oppose that - including the Creator, the Wheel, and the Pattern itself - must be eliminated.

 

That just makes them bug-nuts, not evil.

 

There is a classic fallacy that is sometimes used to argue that "all motives are selfish."  It goes something like this.  Whatever I do, my motivations are my own, and no one else's.  Therefore, whatever I do, I am acting to fulfill my own motives, i.e., my own desires.  And if all my actions are intended to fulfill my own desires, surely this means that all my actions are selfish.

 

The flaw here is that the argument essentially redefines "selfish motives" to include all motives.  Certainly, by this definition, all motives are--vacuously--selfish, but this definition of "selfish" is not worth using.

 

It seems to me that Bob is on the verge of doing something similar here, but in the opposite direction.  All motives, or at least all remotely understandable motives, are necessarily based on the agent's view of right and wrong.  Consequently, anyone who does something with consequences we consider evil is not really evil; their real motive is to do what is right, and they just have a distorted view of what is right (like, anything that makes me more powerful is necessarily right).  This particular view seems to have an obvious counterexample in the character of Perrin.  Perrin loves his wife, to the extent that he is willing to do absolutely anything to ensure her safety: "The world can burn, if it saves her."  Perrin himself acknowledges that his willingness to sacrifice everything for her is at conflict with his own sense of right and wrong.  (I unfortunately do not have a copy of aCoS with me, or I would supply the quote; it is from one of the first chapters, in Perrin's point of view as he is returning to Carhien with Rand after Dumai's Wells, and does not know if Faile is safe.)  Certainly, his willingness to deal with the Dark One to obtain his wife's safety does not spring from his sense of right and wrong.

 

I do not believe that it is useful to characterize the Forsakens' desires, or Padan Fain's, as anything but evil.  Semirhage seems to consider her actions at least somewhat justified (Was not she worth more to the world than all of them?) and Fain has tendencies that way ("The world will pay for what was done to me"--although this could also be read as a simple desire for some twisted sort of revenge, without consideration as to whether it is really justified).  So far as I can recall, none of the others even consider the issue.  However, even if every one of them believes himself or herself justified, that does not make it so.

 

Jordan wrote that "evil is ordinary."  Even if a character's motives are entirely understandable given their background, even if I believe I would feel the same way in their situation, I can still consider them evil.  Even though Mesaana's children were made evil largely by being raised in the wrong place at the wrong time, they were still evil.

[Bob T Dwarf]

Oh, yes.  There is evil aplenty.  And everywhere.  Affecting everyone.  Intending to do "good" doesn't mitigate an "evil" outcome.  The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.  "Evil is as evil does." as Grandma used to say.

 

The point is that there isn't any real good.

 

Team Dark is definitely evil.  But so is Team Light.  And the thing is - none of them, on either team - "intend" to do anything"evil."  But, all of them do things that are evil anyway.

 

Nothing to choose between them.  At least on the basis of "good" and "evil."  Maybe if you want to split hairs you could choose on the basis of "evil" and "more evil."  That's just an exercise in deciding how long you want to chase your tail.

 

So, we are forced to choose a side to root for on the basis of something other than "good" and "evil."  That distinction doesn't exist here, everybody is evil.  Even the Creator.  Order and Chaos seem to be the only alternatives. 

[Chance]

But, consider - The Creator's universe endlessly and totally recycles everything.  Even souls.  Even experiences and the set of possible outcomes.  Nothing substantive ever changes because the Pattern never changes and the Wheel is locked into following the Pattern as closely as possible.  It's a closed universe.  Static.  Stagnant.  There is not anything important that is ever really new or different in the Creator's universe.  Mankind is trapped.  Doomed like Sisyphus to push the same boulder up the same mountain only to have it roll right back down and have to do it all over again - "endlessly and unavailingly" - for eternity.  That's not nice.  That's not benevolent. In fact, it's pretty evil.  But, it is "Orderly."

 

Being Sisyphus isn't a fate I'd wish on anyone.  That's what makes it hard to root for the Creator's Team.

 

 

This is a particularly good point. Good v. Evil brings conflict. Order v. Chaos also brings conflict. There is nothing benevolent about it. The creator creating a dragon who will fight the DO in perpetuity ensures that conflict will always exist. Conflict is created when thought brings about individualism. The "you", "me", "I", "us", "them", "the bad guys", "the good guys". So what is the story about? It's about the people caught in this struggle. It makes a good story. But there are no winners or losers, the conflict continues through age after age. The DO is not necessarily the opponent to the Creator. And vice versa. The struggle is between right and wrong, within each individual; together with the various incarnations of each. Ending conflict doesn't seem to be part of the story.

[Bob T Dwarf]

 

This is a particularly good point. Good v. Evil brings conflict. Order v. Chaos also brings conflict. There is nothing benevolent about it. The creator creating a dragon who will fight the DO in perpetuity ensures that conflict will always exist.

< snip >

The struggle is between right and wrong, within each individual; together with the various incarnations of each. Ending conflict doesn't seem to be part of the story.

 

Agreed.  But not just conflict, WAR with a very capital WAR.  War extreme enough to submerge continents.  War extreme enough to totally reshape the world.

 

The Creator's credo seems to be: "War without end, amen."  That makes the Creator every bit as evil as the DO.

 

Randland, and the readers, need a third choice.

[Charlz Fel]

I think it's grey versus black.  The grey isn't exactly pure white, but it's reasonably sympathetic and, in its core, consists of people who usually try to do good, at least concerning important things (even when they would rather not--for Mat, rescuing people seems almost a compulsion).  Above all, the core "grey" characters (i.e., the central protagonists) really care about people and causes greater than themselves--even when these cares cause them to take actions they consider reprehensible (as in Perrin's "deal with the Dark One").  The black, in its core, is sufficiently black that the grey looks white by comparison.

 

The following is quoted from RJ's blog, July 14th, 2006:

 

For several people, a LONG way back, regarding my statements about good versus evil. I wasn’t claiming a total monopoly for fantasy. Andrew Vachs certainly writes about a good vs evil environment, for example, yet Burke, his main character, blurs many of the distinctions. For Burke there is one real evil above all others — the abuse, especially the sexual abuse, of a child. And so say all of us. Anyone I’m willing to drink with, anyway. But remember Wesley, Burke’s compadre, that stone killer who finally killed himself, if he actually did die, by blowing himself up along with a school full of children. Burke himself has stepped over any other moral lines often enough that only that one remains for him. Well, I think he would balk at rape, and loyalty to his self-adopted family is paramount to him. But nothing else would faze him in the slightest. That blurring, that acceptance of blurring, is widespread.

 

I certainly did not maintain that my characters always have proceeded, or will always proceed, from the perceived correct action according even to their own beliefs of right and wrong, good and evil. People have a tendency to make excuses for themselves in what they see as special circumstances. It happens.

 

The “realism” that I mock — and I will mock it — is that of writers who, in the final result, say, for example that there is no moral difference between the men who flew their airplanes into the Twin Towers and the men who hunt down terrorists. For those who think there are none such, I direct you to comments concerning the Speilberg movie “Munich.” I have not seen the film myself and cannot comment on it, but both reviewers who seem to love the film and those who seem to hate it speak of the “equivalence” that Speilberg established between the men who carried out the murders of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics and the Israeli agents who later hunted them down and killed them. They are all supposed to be the same. Like hell, they are!

[\quote]

 

I think this makes it fairly clear that RJ saw himself as writing in a good vs. evil environment, albeit one with grey areas.  Not order vs. chaos.

 

 

 

[dholm]

There are plenty of characters within the story that are evil. [snip]

 

Rand, as the opposition, focuses more on order than on good -- he tries to be good, but he acknowledges that he has to be hard and cruel in order to fulfill his destiny. The rest of the forces of the Light are more concerned with being good, though they still oppose chaos.

 

In fact ALL of the characters in the story are evil to some extent.  Galad might come closest to being "good," and he just makes everybody else's teeth ache.  Karede makes a decent try at being "good" but he wholeheartedly supports a corrupt and evil system, so he won't work either.

 

See Jordan in the letter posted by Kadere in this thread - the rest of Team Light are just as eager for personal gain as anyone on Team Dark is.  They're just a little less audacious.  That doesn't make them "good," it just makes them wimps.  And, evil wimps at that.

 

That's why trying to break this down as a struggle between GOOD and EVIL won't work.  There just aren't any GOOD GUYS.  There are just ordinary human beings being ordinarily human.

 

Jordan forces us to make a harder decision.  Are we in favor of the kind of Order offered by the Creator? 

 

That's preposterous. Most of the forces of Light -- the Aiel under Rand, the Aes Sedai, Mat and Perrin and the forces they individually command, the Borderlands -- they fight because they oppose the Shadow. They do not fight for personal gain.

 

The nobles in Cairhien, Tear and Andor play Daes Dae'mar -- but they are nobles. You cannot expect anything different from them. Most of them position and move for power, yeah, but the nobles are relatively few, and the ones that only focus on power are even fewer.

 

Hell, even the Seanchan are not truly evil. They support an evil system, but they believe it is necessary. Some of them are prepared to drop it when they find out it isn't -- look at Egea--eh, Leilwin.

 

Most people in the story are just that, people. On that, I agree. But most of the evil people support the Shadow for the power it brings them. The ones that don't... they are there, but they can be forced into compliance. Whatever the reason they do not support the Shadow forces them. There are no sidelines.

[Bob T Dwarf]

I'll take these in reverse order:

The nobles in Cairhien, Tear and Andor play Daes Dae'mar -- but they are nobles. You cannot expect anything different from them. Most of them position and move for power, yeah, but the nobles are relatively few, and the ones that only focus on power are even fewer.

 

That statement is nothing other than stereotyping.  It's scapegoating based in bigotry.  Just because Jordan doesn't focus on them, doesn't mean that the baker and the cobbler, the seamstress and the blacksmith aren't scheming, lying, and backstabbing to take away a competitor's business.  Trying to figure out ways to cheapen their product while still charging the same price.  Everybody is doing it.  Nobody's hands are clean.

 

I think it's grey versus black.  The grey isn't exactly pure white, but it's reasonably sympathetic and, in its core, consists of people who usually try to do good, at least concerning important things (even when they would rather not--for Mat, rescuing people seems almost a compulsion).  Above all, the core "grey" characters (i.e., the central protagonists) really care about people and causes greater than themselves--even when these cares cause them to take actions they consider reprehensible (as in Perrin's "deal with the Dark One").  The black, in its core, is sufficiently black that the grey looks white by comparison.

 

The following is quoted from RJ's blog, July 14th, 2006:

 

For several people, a LONG way back, regarding my statements about good versus evil. I wasn’t claiming a total monopoly for fantasy. Andrew Vachs certainly writes about a good vs evil environment, for example, yet Burke, his main character, blurs many of the distinctions. For Burke there is one real evil above all others — the abuse, especially the sexual abuse, of a child. And so say all of us. Anyone I’m willing to drink with, anyway. But remember Wesley, Burke’s compadre, that stone killer who finally killed himself, if he actually did die, by blowing himself up along with a school full of children. Burke himself has stepped over any other moral lines often enough that only that one remains for him. Well, I think he would balk at rape, and loyalty to his self-adopted family is paramount to him. But nothing else would faze him in the slightest. That blurring, that acceptance of blurring, is widespread.

 

I certainly did not maintain that my characters always have proceeded, or will always proceed, from the perceived correct action according even to their own beliefs of right and wrong, good and evil. People have a tendency to make excuses for themselves in what they see as special circumstances. It happens.

 

The “realism” that I mock — and I will mock it — is that of writers who, in the final result, say, for example that there is no moral difference between the men who flew their airplanes into the Twin Towers and the men who hunt down terrorists. For those who think there are none such, I direct you to comments concerning the Speilberg movie “Munich.” I have not seen the film myself and cannot comment on it, but both reviewers who seem to love the film and those who seem to hate it speak of the “equivalence” that Speilberg established between the men who carried out the murders of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics and the Israeli agents who later hunted them down and killed them. They are all supposed to be the same. Like hell, they are!

[\quote]

 

I think this makes it fairly clear that RJ saw himself as writing in a good vs. evil environment, albeit one with grey areas.  Not order vs. chaos.

 

 

Perrin and Mat both are doing exactly what they want.  If they weren't, they'd be doing something different.  Perrin may whine about only wanting to be a blacksmith and live quietly, but he really just wants to be a big man in Faile's eyes.  He'll do anything he thinks will impress her.  Thus Lord Perrin.  And, if Lord Perrin is ever one whit too lenient with the peasants for Lady Faile, he will become as hard and grasping and oppressive as it takes to get back in her good graces.  Mat is having the time of his life.  He's traveling, meeting gobs of pretty girls, making money and having adventures.  He may whine about how dangerous it all is and how he really wants to be somewhere else where it's safe and quiet, but it's just Mat being a natural whiner.  If he were someplace safe, living a quiet life, he'd go nuts.

 

I certainly did not maintain that my characters always have proceeded, or will always proceed, from the perceived correct action according even to their own beliefs of right and wrong, good and evil. People have a tendency to make excuses for themselves in what they see as special circumstances. It happens.

 

The situations Jordan describes exactly fit that premise.  Fact is, murder is murder whether it's terrorists murdering athletes or counter-terrorists murdering terrorists.  We just want one to be a crime and the other to be justified.  Morally, they are equivalent acts.

 

Good and evil are not subjective terms.  If something is evil in one case it is evil in all cases.  Intent doesn't matter.  Only the outcome matters.

 

Refer to my post above - The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

 

Nobody sets out to do evil.  Everybody intends to do good as they understand the term.  Few succeed in that, and then not all of the time.

 

We all want there to be exceptions.  Times when evil acts are justified.  We twist logic into pretzels so that we can feel comfortable with some of the things we do, and most of the things we see going on around us.  Whatever we can talk ourselves into believing doesn't matter.  An act is either good or bad on its own merits.

 

That's what rationalizing is.  Telling ourselves that something that is bad really serves a greater good and is therefor OK.  We all do it.  The characters in this series all do it.  Jordan himself did it as testified to by the last paragraph of his statement above.  Murder is murder no matter who commits it and no matter what the circumstances are.  Wanting it to be "justified" doesn't make it so.

 

The Forsaken are more practiced in their rationalizations than any of the other characters.  Those rationalizations have become automatic for them through many long years of use.  But, just because Perrin is less practiced and less comfortable with his rationalizations about becoming what he thinks Faile wants doesn't make the things he has done in the furtherance of that any more "right" or "good."  Those things are what they are, and no rationalization he can make will change that, just as no rationalization Mesaana can make will change what she did to those children 3000 years ago.

 

Evil is as evil does.  WOT isn't black vs white.  It isn't even grey vs black.  It's either black vs black, or grey vs grey.  If Jordan really did see this as a tale about good versus evil, then he was deluding himself, both sides are morally equivalent.  That's why we need a different way to score this thing.

 

 

[Charlz Fel]

IEvil is as evil does.  WOT isn't black vs white.  It isn't even grey vs black.  It's either black vs black, or grey vs grey.  If Jordan really did see this as a tale about good versus evil, then he was deluding himself, both sides are morally equivalent.  That's why we need a different way to score this thing.

 

This is preposterous, as DHolm said.  The Forsaken and Fain kill to avenge slights, or even just for entertainment value.  The protagonists kill in what they see as extenuating circumstances, because failing to kill would result in even more deaths, or would compromise some cause of great importance to them--a cause much greater and less selfish than avenging a slight or their own entertainment.  The protagonists are not squeaky clean, but they are by no means morally equivalent to the Shadow.

[Dunderdan]

...the conflict is not between those who are "good" and those who are "evil", it's between those who support the status quo, and those who oppose it.  ...

 

I disagree. And I think you're simplifying it too much when you suggest theres only one conflict.

 

I dont object to the conflict between order and chaos you describe. Its well written. But Id argue that there also a good vs evil conflict, not necessarily containing exactly the same people in each group.

 

What is it to be Good or Evil? I dont like the theory presented earlier that allows people to be "unintentially good". Imo, the intention is the crucial circumstance you evaluate when deciding if someone is good or evil. You are good if you think youre pressing the "give everyone food" button but accidentally press the "kill everone" button. Stupid but good. (And please get a new keyboard :) )

 

So, when Ive evalutated Good and Evil in the WoT characters, Ive found the Forsaken to be evil because they, for example, enslave people against their will to make them their servants. An act of evil. I havent seen much intentional good being done by them. Ive also found Rand to be good because he seems to have altruistic reasons, i.e. he seems to want to help others without getting any personal gain from it. An act of good. Thus Ive concluded that in one aspect, Rand is leading the Good forces and the DO, who oppose him and who do evil acts, is leading the evil forces. Thats the good vs evil conflict. But not everyone whos carrying a Rand standard is a part of the good forces. It depends on their intentions.

 

I think one of the main themes in the series is the difficulties of doing good in complex situations; the balance of how much evil you can allow, like hurting innocent people, to achieve a more important (good) goal, like world survival. The question to me isnt if Rand is good or not, but if he can fulfil his good intentions without causing too much damage and pain on others. Another theme is, as you described, the order vs chaos conflict. I cant elaborate that better than you.

 

You could argue that we dont know if its actually good to preserve the WoT, a very interesting question, which - to me - depends on wether the WoT constitute all of the universe or if its only a part of it. If its all of the universe, its safe to say keeping the wheel is far better than destroying it, at least since the destruction unavoidably includes the death of millions. Since the DO wants to destroy it, he is evil. And Rand who wants to save it, is good.

 

Mankind is trapped.  Doomed like Sisyphus to push the same boulder up the same mountain only to have it roll right back down and have to do it all over again - "endlessly and unavailingly" - for eternity.  That's not nice.  That's not benevolent. In fact, it's pretty evil.

 

I dont buy the argument that "making people go in a circle" is evil. It would if the cycle was one day, like in Groundhog Day, but not if its thousands of years. (Groundhog Day is a bad example, when I think of it, since he DOES get to experience new things). All humans get to live their lifes in full, from birth to death, without any repetitions. Not even LLT, since he obviously is experiencing something new this age being in the back of Rands head. Not even the DO, unless hes an actor reading the lines of a circular play hes seen many times before. Its a huge difference between the exact things happening again and very similar things happening again.

 

In fact, Id also argue that everying ISNT going in a circle. I doubt I have much support here and I assume even RJ diagrees hehe, but nevertheless Ill try to explain. Its not a cycle, its a spiral. Its a true circle only if Rand is an ancestor to himself. Or perhaps a better example, if say Cadsuane is an ancestor to herself. If the current population of the WoT world are ancestors to themselves. But thats not how Ive percieved the WoT. My impression is that things evolve in a circular pattern, where you see repetitions occur regularily, even though its not exactly the same thing happening again. For example, the dragon reborn embodies in a new person each time. Most importantly, if we accept the idea that there is a possibility that the DO can break the WoT, we must also accept he idea that the WoT has an ending. And if it has, it also has a beginning. And theres no circular object with a beginning and an end. But a spiral has both.

 

Argh, again this thread has too many interesting things to discuss. I havent even got further than page three. Ill have to leave it for another time, lol.

 

Cheers

 

[Dunderdan]

the balance of how much evil you can allow, like hurting innocent people, to achieve a more important (good) goal, like world survival.

 

Id like to clarify that the above balance is placed in the fiction world of RJ, where you have simple evil creatures like Myrdraals and others. Its an easier conflict and cant be transferred as easily to the real world. I saw Bob reffering to terrorists and anti-terrorists. That issue in particular isnt well suited to use in the WoT context. Not in my opinion. Or rather, its the other way around; the WoT conflicts arent good enough to be used to describe the very complicated real life conflict of terrorism.

 

Edit: Just wanted to make clear Im not talking about difficult real life balance problems :) For one thing, I do agree that murder is murder no matter whos killing who.

 

[Charlz Fel]

For one thing, I do agree that murder is murder no matter whos killing who.

 

Is killing always murder?  [Possible counterexamples: killing on a battlefield, killing in self-defense, execution.]

 

In particular: We know that Rand and Lan attacked renegade Darkfriend Asha'man in Far Madding with the intent of killing them--in their sleep, if possible.  Were they wrong to do this?

[Bob T Dwarf]

IEvil is as evil does.  WOT isn't black vs white.  It isn't even grey vs black.  It's either black vs black, or grey vs grey.  If Jordan really did see this as a tale about good versus evil, then he was deluding himself, both sides are morally equivalent.  That's why we need a different way to score this thing.

 

This is preposterous, as DHolm said.  The Forsaken and Fain kill to avenge slights, or even just for entertainment value.  The protagonists kill in what they see as extenuating circumstances, because failing to kill would result in even more deaths, or would compromise some cause of great importance to them--a cause much greater and less selfish than avenging a slight or their own entertainment.  The protagonists are not squeaky clean, but they are by no means morally equivalent to the Shadow.

 

Are you seriously suggesting that there is no one, not one single person on Team Light who has killed or oppressed someone just because they could get away with it?  Are you seriously suggesting that there are no Aiel who are in this fight just because they believe that if they "fail" the Aes Sedai one more time they will be utterly destroyed?

 

Are you seriously suggesting that just because a "cause" may be of great importance to someone it is a just or righteous cause?  That everything done in the name of that "cause" is good?  Or even justifiable?  Freeing one's wife from captivity is probably a "good" thing.  A "just" cause.  Cutting off someone's hand just to get information to further that "cause" is not.  Perrin did that just because he could and and because it was convenient.  Perrin even came to understand how wrong it was almost immediately after he'd done it.

 

Rand has handled the situation in Tear as he has simply because he could.  It seems a great many Tairens objected to that.  It was of great importance to them that Tear have its own king.  So, they waged a civil war.  They reasoned that keeping their army fed was a greater good for Tear than feeding the civilian population.  We get to meet two children who are destined to die of starvation because of that.  All because Rand did what he could get away with.

 

The Forsaken and Fain are bug-nuts.  Perrin and Rand are not.

 

Breaking the Pattern and freeing the DO is a cause that is of great importance to the Forsaken.  Does that make it just or righteous?  Does that make the things they do in furtherance of that "cause" justifiable?

[Bob T Dwarf]

Dunderdan -

 

You make a number of good and interesting points.  One that I very much hope proves to be true is the idea of the spiral versus the circle.  That gives the people of Randlnd a way to eventually get out of the box they've been in for millennia without end ( as far as we know ).

 

The reason I say that intention won't work as a meterstick is because the Forsaken also intend to do "good" as they see it.  Based on their behaviour, their idea of "good" doesn't agree with mine, but nonetheless, their internal intention is to do "good."

 

If we only use intention as our guide, then this becomes a conflict between good and good.  Which doesn't work any better than evil vs evil.   Invalidating the Forsaken as "good" because their intent is formed within an obviously diseased mind won't work either.  Take a poll and 90+% of the respondents here would say that Rand is crazy, too.  Ya can't really say that we're gonna allow the intent of one set of crazies but not the other set of crazies.  The Wheel weaves as the Wheel wills.  Mat knows that as well as he knows anything, yet we see 11 books of him trying his best to avoid his fate.  That's as crazy as anything going on inside Rand's head.

 

There is no clearcut choice here.  Just like real life, we have to try to figure out which is the lesser of two evils.

 

One side just wants to return to a world they understand and one where they have some experience in coping.  The other side just wants change.  Any change.  Anything that ends the tedium of having to push that same rock up that same hill even one more time.  You can't really blame them for that.  I'd want out of the box, too.  Even if it killed me.  At least I'd die free.  At least I'd have done one thing that wasn't dictated by the Wheel.

 

So, everybody starts with pure motives.  If the "intent trumps all" crowd is right, there is nothing to choose between Team Light and Team Dark.

[Bob T Dwarf]

For one thing, I do agree that murder is murder no matter whos killing who.

 

Is killing always murder?  [Possible counterexamples: killing on a battlefield, killing in self-defense, execution.]

 

In particular: We know that Rand and Lan attacked renegade Darkfriend Asha'man in Far Madding with the intent of killing them--in their sleep, if possible.  Were they wrong to do this?

 

That's the $64 question, isn't it?  I don't have any better answer than anyone else who has addressed that question in the long history of mankind has been able to find.

 

The best I can come up with is that that question is up to each individual to answer for himself.  If you believe it is murder, then don't do it.

 

Realize fully that you may be wrong whatever you decide, but do decide.  Also, please respect the decision that anyone else makes, because the issue is not at all clearcut.

[dholm]

You are making assumptions that have absolutely no basis in fact. How can you claim the Chosen intend to "do "good" as they see it"? We have seen absolutely no evidence of this. I would not be out of line if I told you that you were making things up for your own benefit.

 

The Chosen want power. That's it.

 

As for whether there are evil people in the forces of Light... duh, of course there are. Not all evil people automatically believe the Great Lord of the Dark. Not all evil people are willing to go to any lengths to achieve power. I already mentioned some of them earlier -- some of the nobles that play Daes Dae'mar to the exclusion of everything else.

 

As for Perrin and Rand... Urgh. Perrin has been doing what he knew very well was not the "right" thing to do ever since Faile was captured, and he acknowledges it openly.

Rand, though -- you're seriously suggesting that the famine in Tear is his fault?

[Mr Ares]

And yet most of them desire order, albeit a new order, one with themselves on top. They seek to replace the status quo with a new one. Spreading chaos is a means to an end. They seek to rule the world. Except Ishamael, who seeks to destroy it.

Yeah they were on the top, but it was on the top of a chaotic society.

But they didn't seek chaos, they sought stability with themselves on top, as opposed to stability with themselves not on top. Chaos was a means to an end. And Rand has created a fair bit of chaos in his time. They want to rule, to impose their order. That flies in the face of chaos. You don't rule chaos.

 

So' date=' yes, anytime you have a conflict it's because the parties involved disagree on one or all of: good; right; proper; and/or necessary.[/quote']No, it isn't. Because people do things they consider to be wrong. So two people can have the same ideas on right and wrong, but come into conflict because one is still doing what he or she considers wrong. The permutations are far more complex than you are willing to credit. You seek simplicity when it isn't there.

 

Certainly both good and evil are present, but the conflict is not between those who are "good" and those who are "evil", it's between those who support the status quo, and those who oppose it.

No, it isn't. It is between those who are evil and those who are varying degrees of good - some of those are not very good at all, and some are mostly, but not perfectly good. But they are still good. And That is not the central conflict of the series, because Rand does not seek to reaffirm the status quo, he seeks to destroy the Shadow - in effect, creating a new status quo. Shifting the balance. He wants to save the world, the other side (Shai'tan, and Moridin specifically) wants to destroy it.

 

Any who oppose that - including the Creator, the Wheel, and the Pattern itself - must be eliminated.

But they do not seek to do away with the Pattern. When the Pattern threatened to unravel due to use of balefire, they stopped. They want to rule the world, not destroy it. Shai'tan wants to destroy it. In effect, they want order, but an order with themselves on top. So they are not chaotic by nature. Chaos is a means to an end. So the conflict is not order v chaos, because most of the "chaotic" side actually want order. But whatever their motivations, those who work for the Shadow are pretty evil. And those who serve the Light are more or less good. Some more, some less. Aridhol was evil, but still nominally on the side of good. Still good v evil, but not giving us a clean cut picture of good v evil. But messy and complex good v evil with lots of shades of grey is still, at heart, good v evil.

 

Whomever we support is a "Bad Guy" at least part of the time.

Hardly. They might not be untarnished paragons of virtue, but most of the main character are at least more good than evil. Good guys, but not perfectly good.

 

we only get a choice between those who support the status quo and those who oppose it.

Rand being one of those who opposes. He changes the world, turning things on their head. Upsetting the status quo.

 

After all, I'm pretty sure that Robert Jordan had a sufficient command of the English language that if he'd wanted us to be thinking in such value laden terms as "good" and "evil" he would have chosen just those labels for each side. And written a very different series of books as a result. He chose "Light" and "Dark" probably because "The Somewhat Insane" versus "The Totally Insane" doesn't have much marketing appeal.

Contradiction. Light and Dark are very much associated with good and evil in most peoples minds. Essentially, he did choose terms associated with good and evil, not with degrees of sanity. His command of the english language was presumably good enough for him to understand that.

 

Doomed like Sisyphus to push the same boulder up the same mountain only to have it roll right back down and have to do it all over again - "endlessly and unavailingly" - for eternity.

Except you are talking of thousands, maybe even millions of years of a cycle that doesn't repeat exactly each time, only broadly. For millions of souls, only about one hundred of which are woven for a specific purpose. So Sisyphus's boulder is actually thousands of lifetimes of different experiences. How utterly monstrous! The broad patterns remain, but then people are still people. They always repeat the same mistakes anyway, it doesn't take cyclical time for that. Unless you think it better to destry humanity and put us all out of our misery. The Wheel is hardly evil, hardly enslavement. It simply reinforces a broad trend.

 

In fact ALL of the characters in the story are evil to some extent.

And in most cases, that extent is not very far at all. Most of these people are not particularly evil, except to the most misanthropic of minds.

 

There just aren't any GOOD GUYS. There are just ordinary human beings being ordinarily human.

So humans can't be good guys? Yes, I think you're one of those misanthropes. And there is no shortage of good guys. Not perfectly good, but still good.

 

Are we in favor of the kind of Order offered by the Creator?

Absolutely.

 

Team Dark is definitely evil. But so is Team Light.

Not really, not on the whole. There are some bad apples, admittedly, but most of them are not evil.

 

The creator creating a dragon who will fight the DO in perpetuity ensures that conflict will always exist.

Shai'tan desires the destruction of the Wheel. If you think that is worth fighting for, then conflict continues. Some things are worth fighting for.

 

The Creator's credo seems to be: "War without end' date=' amen."[/quote']No, it is war to stave off the end. If they give up fighting, they die. Shai'tan wins. So, is life worth fighting for?

 

And, if Lord Perrin is ever one whit too lenient with the peasants for Lady Faile, he will become as hard and grasping and oppressive as it takes to get back in her good graces.

Quite the cynic. I find cynics tend to have such a jaded view they are incapable of seeing the good in the world. That, and they're wankers.

 

Good and evil are not subjective terms.

That's not what you said earlier. Talking about right and wrong as if they were changeable depending on viewpoint. Now saying they're not as it suits your increasingly irrational viewpoint. You seem awfully keen that they be defined only how you want, to suit the argument of the moment. What one person considers good, another won't. What one person considers right, another won't. They are either objective, in which case any viewpoint is irrelevant, or they are human creations, subjective, in which case viewpoint is all that is relevant. One mans good is another mans evil.

 

Nobody sets out to do evil.

Bullsh*t.

 

WOT isn't grey vs black.

No, that's precisely what it is. Evil bad guys, flawed good guys. Good guys who aren't paving the road to hell, good intentions or no.

 

If Jordan really did see this as a tale about good versus evil, then he was deluding himself, both sides are morally equivalent.

Great, now you know more about the series than RJ. And about morality than anyone else. This is clearly crap. They are not morally equivalent, not unless you want to do away with good and evil altogether. Then you don't have black and white, nor shades of grey (you can't have grey without black and white - any morally grey conflict still involves good v evil), you just have nihilism. You try and put forward an argument as to how they are morally equaivalent. I can practically guarantee it will be utter drivel, like the rest of your argument here.

 

That's why we need a different way to score this thing.

Shame you don't have one.

 

In fact, Id also argue that everying ISNT going in a circle. I doubt I have much support here and I assume even RJ diagrees hehe, but nevertheless Ill try to explain. Its not a cycle, its a spiral.

You'd have my support. I actually think this is what RJ had in mind. Also, Luckers has mentioned this idea before. I believe kalpass is the term.

 

How can you claim the Chosen intend to "do "good" as they see it"?

Indeed, Ishamael is a nihilist, he probably doesn't believe in good and evil.

[Bob T Dwarf]

But they didn't seek chaos, they sought stability with themselves on top, as opposed to stability with themselves not on top. Chaos was a means to an end. And Rand has created a fair bit of chaos in his time. They want to rule, to impose their order. That flies in the face of chaos. You don't rule chaos.

 

We don't really know what they are seeking other than change.  Change that each of them plans to arrive with them in the driver's seat.  Ishy may in fact be seeking complete Chaos.  My guess is Graendal would be satisfied with whatever allowed her to indulge her every whim.  She doesn't really want the bother of taking time away from her indulgences to actually have to do the kind of work that ruling anything requires.  Balthamel and Rahvin probably did want something stable enough for them to "rule."  Semi, kind of like Graendal, just wants minds to rape.  Balthamel and Rahvin being both physical and mental sadists though favoring different methods.  Graendal and Semi being primarily mental sadists, again favoring different methods.

 

As long as what results allows them to do the things they want, they don't really care what form it takes.  No stability or order required.  A Chaotic universe would serve their purposes better than an orderly one would.

 

So' date=' yes, anytime you have a conflict it's because the parties involved disagree on one or all of: good; right; proper; and/or necessary.

No, it isn't. Because people do things they consider to be wrong. So two people can have the same ideas on right and wrong, but come into conflict because one is still doing what he or she considers wrong. The permutations are far more complex than you are willing to credit. You seek simplicity when it isn't there.

 

No I don't.  I seek only to explore very complex issues within the limited space and time that an online forum provides.  That requires trying to boil things down to their essence.  I'm not always successful at that, but that doesn't mean I'm not trying.

 

Maybe you do things you "consider to be wrong," but I've never met anyone who does.  No matter what they do, they all have "reasons" why they were either "right" or "justified."

 

It's a big error to presume that you know they meant to do wrong just because you view what they do/did as wrong. 

 

Certainly both good and evil are present, but the conflict is not between those who are "good" and those who are "evil", it's between those who support the status quo, and those who oppose it.

No, it isn't. It is between those who are evil and those who are varying degrees of good - some of those are not very good at all, and some are mostly, but not perfectly good. But they are still good. And That is not the central conflict of the series, because Rand does not seek to reaffirm the status quo, he seeks to destroy the Shadow - in effect, creating a new status quo. Shifting the balance. He wants to save the world, the other side (Shai'tan, and Moridin specifically) wants to destroy it.

 

Value judgements are easy to make.  Justify yours.  Just because somebody fits your loose definition of "good" doesn't mean they are "good."  It might mean that you have a very loose definition of "good" or that you don't really understand the term at all.

 

 

Any who oppose that - including the Creator, the Wheel, and the Pattern itself - must be eliminated.

But they do not seek to do away with the Pattern.

 

Prove that one.

 

When the Pattern threatened to unravel due to use of balefire, they stopped. They want to rule the world, not destroy it.

That was 3000 years ago.  Before they lived through 3000 years of dream deprivation.  Dream deprivation does unusual things to people.  We really have no idea what they want, today.

Shai'tan wants to destroy it.

  Now who's being cynical and misanthropic?  Another one for you to prove.  For all we know, Shai'tan just wants to be invited in.  To be offered a seat by the fire and a glass of grog.

 

In effect, they want order, but an order with themselves on top. So they are not chaotic by nature. Chaos is a means to an end. So the conflict is not order v chaos, because most of the "chaotic" side actually want order. But whatever their motivations, those who work for the Shadow are pretty evil. And those who serve the Light are more or less good. Some more, some less. Aridhol was evil, but still nominally on the side of good. Still good v evil, but not giving us a clean cut picture of good v evil. But messy and complex good v evil with lots of shades of grey is still, at heart, good v evil.

 

NO.  You think they want order because that's what you'd want if you were any of them.  I presume you're at least marginally sane.  They definitely are not.  We have no way to even begin to guess what they presently "want."

 

Whomever we support is a "Bad Guy" at least part of the time.

Hardly. They might not be untarnished paragons of virtue, but most of the main character are at least more good than evil. Good guys, but not perfectly good.

 

That one I can agree with.  Still doesn't mean that their conception of good is correct

 

we only get a choice between those who support the status quo and those who oppose it.

Rand being one of those who opposes. He changes the world, turning things on their head. Upsetting the status quo.

 

In any conflict there is short-term dislocation.  The end, net effect of Rand's actions is to try to restore the status quo.  To try to remove the destabilizing effect of the DO and allow existence to return to the same tired, worn path it has always followed.

 

After all, I'm pretty sure that Robert Jordan had a sufficient command of the English language that if he'd wanted us to be thinking in such value laden terms as "good" and "evil" he would have chosen just those labels for each side. And written a very different series of books as a result. He chose "Light" and "Dark" probably because "The Somewhat Insane" versus "The Totally Insane" doesn't have much marketing appeal.

Contradiction. Light and Dark are very much associated with good and evil in most peoples minds. Essentially, he did choose terms associated with good and evil, not with degrees of sanity. His command of the english language was presumably good enough for him to understand that.

 

No.  Light and Dark are far less value laden terms than good and evil.

 

Doomed like Sisyphus to push the same boulder up the same mountain only to have it roll right back down and have to do it all over again - "endlessly and unavailingly" - for eternity.

Except you are talking of thousands, maybe even millions of years of a cycle that doesn't repeat exactly each time, only broadly. For millions of souls, only about one hundred of which are woven for a specific purpose. So Sisyphus's boulder is actually thousands of lifetimes of different experiences. How utterly monstrous! The broad patterns remain, but then people are still people. They always repeat the same mistakes anyway, it doesn't take cyclical time for that. Unless you think it better to destry humanity and put us all out of our misery. The Wheel is hardly evil, hardly enslavement. It simply reinforces a broad trend.

 

No matter how broadly or closely the future repeats the past, it's still nothing but a repeat of things that have happened a million times already.  You're the one being misanthropic again.  Your premise doesn't allow for human growth nor advancement.  In effect it says, " Human beings can never change, so it doesn't matter whether Joe gets killed by a team of horses this time or gets eaten by a Trolloc next time.  He's still the same Joe and he's still dead either way."

 

I take the view that if you can create a future where there can never be Trollocs again, then it does make a difference how Joe dies.  And how he lives.  And what he learns.  And how he develops.  Because Joe is going to influence everyone around him, and that will effect how they interact with the world, etc., etc.  The end result is that 1000 years from now such a world might just be far different from the world that the Wheel allows in 1000 years. 

 

In fact ALL of the characters in the story are evil to some extent.

And in most cases, that extent is not very far at all. Most of these people are not particularly evil, except to the most misanthropic of minds.

 

Tell me.  Can your girl friend become a little bit pregnant, too?

 

There just aren't any GOOD GUYS. There are just ordinary human beings being ordinarily human.

So humans can't be good guys? Yes, I think you're one of those misanthropes. And there is no shortage of good guys. Not perfectly good, but still good.

 

There is certainly no shortage of people who are trying to do good.  There are almost as many who are convinced they are doing good.  Those are the ones who do the most evil.

 

Are we in favor of the kind of Order offered by the Creator?

Absolutely.

  I feel sorry for you then.  You will be content to never grow or learn or experience anything new.

 

Team Dark is definitely evil. But so is Team Light.

Not really, not on the whole. There are some bad apples, admittedly, but most of them are not evil.

 

I guess that, then, like your only slightly pregnant girlfriend they're only slightly evil.  I'd be really interested to learn how that all works out for you.

 

The creator creating a dragon who will fight the DO in perpetuity ensures that conflict will always exist.

Shai'tan desires the destruction of the Wheel. If you think that is worth fighting for' date=' then conflict continues. Some things are worth fighting for.[/quote']

 

I think you're right about that.  Question is, do we all always make the right choice about which are and which aren't?

 

The Creator's credo seems to be: "War without end' date=' amen."

No, it is war to stave off the end. If they give up fighting, they die. Shai'tan wins. So, is life worth fighting for?

  A life of freedom from the oppression of the Wheel certainly is.  A life of eternity in a box - not so much.

 

And, if Lord Perrin is ever one whit too lenient with the peasants for Lady Faile, he will become as hard and grasping and oppressive as it takes to get back in her good graces.

Quite the cynic. I find cynics tend to have such a jaded view they are incapable of seeing the good in the world. That, and they're wankers.

 

Ahh, the personal insult card.  Wondered when you were gonna get around to that one again.  Yes, I disagree with the great and powerful Oz... err.. Mr. Ares.  Get used to it.

 

Good and evil are not subjective terms.

That's not what you said earlier. Talking about right and wrong as if they were changeable depending on viewpoint. Now saying they're not as it suits your increasingly irrational viewpoint. You seem awfully keen that they be defined only how you want, to suit the argument of the moment. What one person considers good, another won't. What one person considers right, another won't. They are either objective, in which case any viewpoint is irrelevant, or they are human creations, subjective, in which case viewpoint is all that is relevant. One mans good is another mans evil.

 

Exactly.  As has been my premise all along.  All any of us can do is what we think is good.  None of us is omniscient, so sometimes we're gonna be wrong.  Since the Forsaken are, by Jordan's own admission, only human too, that includes them.  By the way, you just reinforced my assertion the there is only ever conflict when the parties disagree on what is good, or right, or proper, or necessary.  Did you really mean to do that?

 

Nobody sets out to do evil.

Bullsh*t.

  You're being cynical and misanthropic again.  Might wanna watch that.

 

WOT isn't grey vs black.

No, that's precisely what it is. Evil bad guys, flawed good guys. Good guys who aren't paving the road to hell, good intentions or no.

 

You don't consider being trapped in a box, forced to repeat the same series of major events, the same set of human tragedies over and over for eternity Hell?  I sure do.

 

If Jordan really did see this as a tale about good versus evil, then he was deluding himself, both sides are morally equivalent.

Great, now you know more about the series than RJ. And about morality than anyone else. This is clearly crap. They are not morally equivalent, not unless you want to do away with good and evil altogether. Then you don't have black and white, nor shades of grey (you can't have grey without black and white - any morally grey conflict still involves good v evil), you just have nihilism. You try and put forward an argument as to how they are morally equaivalent. I can practically guarantee it will be utter drivel, like the rest of your argument here.

  Are you really so all-wise and all-knowing that you're qualified to distinguish between what's drivel and what isn't?  Couldn't prove it by what you type.

 

That's why we need a different way to score this thing.

Shame you don't have one.

  But I do.  Order versus Chaos.  Or, if you prefer, the status quo versus change.

 

In fact, Id also argue that everying ISNT going in a circle. I doubt I have much support here and I assume even RJ diagrees hehe, but nevertheless Ill try to explain. Its not a cycle, its a spiral.

You'd have my support. I actually think this is what RJ had in mind. Also, Luckers has mentioned this idea before. I believe kalpass is the term.

  Already said I too like this idea.

 

How can you claim the Chosen intend to "do "good" as they see it"?

Indeed, Ishamael is a nihilist, he probably doesn't believe in good and evil.

  You may be right about that one.  That doesn't mean that Ishamael doesn't consider nihilism necessary, though.  Certainly be understandable if he did.

[Charlz Fel]

Breaking the Pattern and freeing the DO is a cause that is of great importance to the Forsaken.  Does that make it just or righteous?  Does that make the things they do in furtherance of that "cause" justifiable?

 

Compare:

We don't really know what they are seeking other than change.  Change that each of them plans to arrive with them in the driver's seat.  Ishy may in fact be seeking complete Chaos.  My guess is Graendal would be satisfied with whatever allowed her to indulge her every whim.  She doesn't really want the bother of taking time away from her indulgences to actually have to do the kind of work that ruling anything requires.  Balthamel and Rahvin probably did want something stable enough for them to "rule."  Semi, kind of like Graendal, just wants minds to rape.  Balthamel and Rahvin being both physical and mental sadists though favoring different methods.  Graendal and Semi being primarily mental sadists, again favoring different methods.

 

The Forsaken don't really care about freeing the DO; it's just a means to an end, and for most of them, that end is not some abstract "freedom from the Wheel"--it's their own power and the fulfillment of their own, sometimes sadistic pleasures.  I don't consider that a "cause."

 

Another thought--if the Dark One really just wanted to stop the Wheel from cycling as it always has been, he could do so quite easily. When the Bore is drilled in the Age of Legends, rather than recruiting followers, creating havoc, enabling the creation of Trollocs with the True Power, etc., and ultimately tainting saidin, he could simply have given indications of his good will to the authorities that be and tried to convince them to free him.  At best, he argues successfully, and they let him loose.  At worst, they seal him up again, and the Wheel is still broken because there isn't any Breaking.  The fact that he does not try this suggests that the Dark One is more than just an entity trapped in a (possibly confining) prison; he has a strong preference for achieving his ends through harmful means. I think the Wheel (which places almost no restrictions on most people's lives that wouldn't be there in any case) is a reasonable price to pay to keep such a powerful and innately destructive entity at bay.