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

[Tel Janin]

Wow.  Awesome thread.

 

I believe the whole point that Bob was trying to get across is that Good and Evil are based on point of view, and that neither 'exist' (for lack of a better term) from a purely objective view.

 

Good and Evil are terms based on belief, and one would have to believe in nothing to really be able to see past our own points of view.

 

My question is, what is the Dark One's true intention?  I think Mr. Ares hits it on the head when describing Ishamael as a nihilist.  In keeping with the series' theme of diametric opposition, I believe the Creator's opposite, the Dark One wants to uncreate.  And of all the entities in the WOT world, I believe the only one who really understands that is Ishamael.

 

My two coppers.

[Charlz Fel]

 

I believe the whole point that Bob was trying to get across is that Good and Evil are based on point of view, and that neither 'exist' (for lack of a better term) from a purely objective view.

 

Good and Evil are terms based on belief, and one would have to believe in nothing to really be able to see past our own points of view.

 

 

Actually, the is a millennia-old philosophical question.  The way I'm reading Bob's premise here is a little bit weaker than what you are saying.  As I understand it, he is claiming that there is a (more or less) objective standard of right and wrong; but when we make decisions, all we have to go on are our more-or-less subjective understandings of right and wrong, which may or may not be correct in any given situation.  At least, this is an interesting premise, and it seems to me to support what Bob has written better than anything else I can think of; I'll let him clarify what he actually intends, assuming he cares to do so.

 

A key point I believe is that, whether or not there is an objectively correct system of ethics, there are systems that are objectively wrong; and any system that considers the Forsaken no less evil than Rand or Egwene is objectively wrong.

 

As for the Dark One's intentions--I'm convinced his intentions are very, very evil; otherwise, I don't think we have much evidence, but destroying or "uncreating" everything seems plausible (something that none of his supporters seem to have realized, except possibly Ishamael).

[Mr Ares]

We don't really know what they are seeking other than change.

Power.

Semi, kind of like Graendal, just wants minds to rape.

Semi's more interested in torturing them.

Balthamel and Rahvin being both physical and mental sadists though favoring different methods.

No. They may be rapists, but there is a difference between rape and sadism.

Graendal and Semi being primarily mental sadists, again favoring different methods.

Again, no. Semi is a sadist, but Graendal is a hedonist. She expresses no great love of causing pain, in fact she destroys the minds of her pretties to the extent that they can't really object to what she does. The pain she causes seems more of a by-product of her desires.

 

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.

No, it wouldn't. Chaos doesn't benefit them at all, once they have achieved power. They demand stability, order. After all, chaos might end up dethroning them. They desire stability, with themselves on top. Thus order.

 

I seek only to explore very complex issues within the limited space and time that an online forum provides.

By cutting out that complexity. You seek clarity - everyone does what they believe is right, all the time. Many people's actions are part of a moral quagmire, with perpetual uncertainty that it is right, that it is good, that it is necessary, many actions go against these things, other actions are devoid of therse concepts - some actions are moral, others are immoral, others are amoral. To say that conflict "only" arises between concepts of good, etc. ignores that conflicts can arise through misunderstandings, mistakes, conflicting definitions of evil or wrong, etc. The issues are a damn sight more complex than you are willing to give them credit for being.

 

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."

Many try to impose after the fact justifications on acts they believe to be wrong. Doing things you consider to be wrong isn't exactly unheard of. And trying to impose a justification usually means that they really don't believe it, that they believe their actions to be wrong. They try to convince themselves.

 

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.

I'm presuming nothing.

 

Justify yours.

How about you justify yours?

Just because somebody fits your loose definition of "good" doesn't mean they are "good."

Just because characters RJ created fit his definition of good doesn't mean they are good...or does it?

 

Prove that one.

They had the chance, they didn't take it. They stopped using balefire.

 

We really have no idea what they want, today.

In other words, you're quite willing to disregard any evidence put forward that doesn't agree with your interpretation? No change there, then.

 

Now who's being cynical and misanthropic?

Still you. Shai'tan isn't human, for one thing, so having a low opinion of Him wouldn't be misanthropy.

Another one for you to prove. For all we know, Shai'tan just wants to be invited in.

All the evidence we have indicates this is not the case.

 

I presume you're at least marginally sane.

Thank you, I think.

They definitely are not.

Evidence? Also, why do you now seek to absolve them of moral responsibility for their crimes? Most of them seem sane to me. Not nice, by any means, but sane.

We have no way to even begin to guess what they presently "want."

Their past actions, their PoVs, the books...

 

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.

But he doesn't seek to restore the status quo. In fact, by removing Shai'tan's malevolent presence he is attempting to abolish the status quo that has been in force for 3,000 years. Unless you don't consider anything less that changing the basis of the universe to be affecting the status quo, a rather narrow and extreme definition. The only way to alter the status quo is to change the laws of physics. As humanity has never done that, homo sapiens occupy the same status quo they have ever since they crawled up out of the mud.

 

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

Not really. They occupy pretty much the same ground. There is a clear link that most people, at least in Western civilisations would be likely to draw. If you asked people on the street to pick the good guys and the bad guys from the Light and the Shadow. Next you'll be claiming Dr Evil is not a name one would automatically associate with a bad guy.

 

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."

But he's not the same Joe. He's a completely different Joe in every life, if he's even a Joe. Maybe next time he's a Bob, or a Tony, or a James, or a Rand, or any other name. Millions of lifetimes. No two alike, some very different. Hardly misanthropic, to give people so many chances. And Shai'tan's victory doesn't grant that, it just destroys. No more time. No more humanity. No will but Shaitan's. No order but His. Humanity can move forwards. As long as they don't destory the universe, they keep going. Some setbacks, but people will be people. They pick themselves up, move on. One cycle looks much like another from a distance, but up close they are nothing alike.

 

Because Joe is going to influence everyone around him, and that will effect how they interact with the world, etc., etc.

The Wheel doesn't stop that.

 

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

No, but that's because I'm between girlfriends at the moment. It makes it quite difficult. However, you refuse to acknowledge moral grey areas there, again trying to oversimplify. An ordinary light switch can be either on or off, but a dimmer switch can be off, or on low or high. There are states between 0W and 100W, or whatever your bulb is. Likewise it is not either day or night - dawn and dusk. Intermediate states. So a person is not either good or evil, they can be very good, or quite good, or extrmely evil, or pretty bad. Shades of grey. And not all fights between good and evil are external, some are internal, people fighting with themselves. Fighting to be better people. Better. A lighter shade of grey. The idea of shades of grey doesn't abolish good and evil, black and white, it just gives it a bit more complexity. You can't have grey without black and white. You can't have goodish people without some good and some bad.

 

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

Why's that? People in the Wheel live many lives, each time starting anew, each time with opportunity to grow and learn and experience lots of new things.

 

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.

Again, you deny shades of grey. You can be more bad than good, or more good than bad, without having some good or bad in you.

 

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

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.

What oppression? What box? The Wheel permits vast possibilities.

 

Exactly. As has been my premise all along.

My point there was that you change. You go from subjective to objective. Which is it?

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.

No, I didn't. You still insist on that small minded and limiting view of human action? People can disagree on what is wrong, or evil, or improper, or unnecessary, or desirable or undesirable or any number of other things.

 

You're being cynical and misanthropic again.

No, I'm not, I'm being realistic. Sometimes people do set out to do things they believe to be evil. People don't always consider themselves the heroes in their own stories.

 

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 don't consider them to be trapped in a box, forced to repeat the same major events and human tragedies over and over again. I consider them to live in a universe that demands only a general trend be maintained, but which still permits billions of human souls to have the chance to live millions of lives. Doesn't sound particularly hellish, especially as they start again from scratch each time.

 

Are you really so all-wise and all-knowing that you're qualified to distinguish between what's drivel and what isn't?

Rule of thumb is that if you say it, it's probably drivel.

 

But I do.

You don't.

Order versus Chaos.

Falls short.

Or, if you prefer, the status quo versus change.

Change v change. Continuation of universe v destruction of universe.

 

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 disagree. Shai'tan has been present for many turnings of the Wheel, and His ultimate goal remains to break it. He has probably tried many different gambits on many different turnings of the Wheel quite possibly including making Himself appear benevolent, as Sauron did in Numenor. None of these have worked, evidently, but that does't mean He hasn't tried, or that it might not work next time. Maybe the people He tried talking to were simply not receptive. I doubt it would be so simple to break the Wheel. Does the Pattern demand the Breaking, or does it demand an end to the AoL in some form? The latter might be achieved by many means, not all of them involving Shai'tan, the Taint, etc. Remember, many hundreds of turnings have taken place.

 

I believe the whole point that Bob was trying to get across is that Good and Evil are based on point of view, and that neither 'exist' (for lack of a better term) from a purely objective view.

"Good and evil are not subjective terms." Bob said that earlier. Although he has contradicted himself on this before, with them either being subjective or objective depending on how he feels.

 

I think Mr Ares hits it on the head when describing Ishamael as a nihilist.

I can't take all the credit for that, as it was widespread before I ever read the series. I can, however, take most of it.

[Dunderdan]

Good and Evil are based on point of view, and that neither 'exist' (for lack of a better term) from a purely objective view.

 

Good and Evil are terms based on belief,

 

True, it depends on the individual belief. But interestingly, to a large extent theres a common belief shared by a vast majority. For example, most believe that Love is Good and Hate is Evil. Benevolent gifts are Good, while malevolent gifts are Evil. Rape, murder, slavery, are all non disputed acts of evil (even though its debated what constitutes such an act). This is all said with Real life conditions in mind. Or, perhaps better phrased, its true in a real life context. If we move the discussion to Randland, things might be somewhat different. Its a bit contradictory to use my real life beliefs to interpret the fictional world of WoT, but then again thats what fiction is all about; to give new perspectives to real life issues.

 

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

 

Yes and no, hehe. It depends on what frame we're putting on the discussion; Randland or Real life. In real life, I believe that planned, intentional killing is always murder. The self defence and similar examples you give, might down grade it to a lesser crime legally, but its still a crime. This is my personal beliefs; I know there are legal systems that legalise killing.

 

Randland however, is fiction, and they dont necessarily have the same legal or moral frames. Im guessing that "murder" in that context means something like "an unacceptable killing". The relevant acceptance coming from the community you happen to care for. RJ has created a world at war, where theres an ever present moral conflict debating where the limit is for acceptable evil.

 

Bob, I think I understand the difference between our beliefs when it comes to Intention and Good/Evil. I will not try to make you change your mind. Ill just clarify my position that I would indeed think the Forsaken were good if their intentions had been good (and if they didnt do all the evil acts of murder, rape, slavery etc). For example, Id consider calling them good if say the WoT were in fact a giant bomb threatening to kill the rest of the universe and their intention were to save the universe by stopping the wheel. But thats just a wild disfiguration of the real WoT story. I feel confident that their intentions are bad and they are all well qualified for the Evil Bunch . I should add that I certainly appreciate scepticism, questioning the currently dominating beliefs. No one should accept for a fact that a person/group is good or evil (or any other label) just because people say so. You need to look at the facts for yourself and make a decision of your own.

 

 

[Bob T Dwarf]

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."

Neither you nor I are one of the Forsaken, so whether we consider it a "cause" or not is irrelevant to whether they do.  Since they are quite evidently working toward change of some kind, that change, whatever form it takes, is obviously a "cause" in their eyes.

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.

 

Whether you or I see the DO's actions as harmful isn't the question, though.  The really essential question here is, is continued existence, at all costs, "good"?

 

So far as the author has given us to understand, there is no light at the end of this tunnel.  The Wheel turns, and Ages come and pass, but there is no beginning and there is no end.  Mankind plods along the same dark tunnel for eternity.  Never really getting anywhere.  Never achieving anything.  At some point, mankind will be right back at this very place again.  And again.  And again.  ad infinitum.

 

Riding a Carousel is fun for a couple of minutes.  Now try to envision riding one for a month.  Never getting off.  Listening to that same song endlessly.  At what point will you do anything, even possibly kill yourself, just to make it end?  A year?  Five years?  Twenty?

 

That's the Creator's universe.  That's the only prospect mankind has - being trapped on a Carousel, listening to the same maddening song forever - so long as the Wheel and the Pattern exist.

 

That's not "good."  I'm not even sure it's the lesser of two evils.  But, it is what Rand and the Forces of Light seek to force upon all of mankind.

 

The Forsaken surely intend to break a lot of eggs.  Question there is, are they making an omelette?  Does it even matter?  If they are successful, mankind will be off that never-to-be-sufficiently-damned Carousel forever.  Mankind, for the first time in it's existence, will get to experience something entirely new.

 

So, which is more evil, the devil you know, or the one you don't?  Or, maybe, just maybe, there's a third alternative that none of us has yet considered... that Rand has been smart enough to figure out.  I sure hope so.

[Bob T Dwarf]

Mr. Ares -

 

First, allow me to compliment you.  This is the first post of yours I've ever seen where you attempt a real dialogue.  And, an interesting one, to boot.

 

We don't really know what they are seeking other than change.

Power.

Semi, kind of like Graendal, just wants minds to rape.

Semi's more interested in torturing them.

Balthamel and Rahvin being both physical and mental sadists though favoring different methods.

No. They may be rapists, but there is a difference between rape and sadism.

Graendal and Semi being primarily mental sadists, again favoring different methods.

Again, no. Semi is a sadist, but Graendal is a hedonist. She expresses no great love of causing pain, in fact she destroys the minds of her pretties to the extent that they can't really object to what she does. The pain she causes seems more of a by-product of her desires.

 

Torture only occurs in the mind.  That's why I call both of them mental rapists.

 

They each seem to seek not merely power, but the power to do whatever they want whenever they want.  Chaos serves that desire, order does not.  Order imposes limits on what those in power may do without destroying the order that makes it possible for them to do some of what they want in the first place.  Chaos has no limits.

 

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.

No, it wouldn't. Chaos doesn't benefit them at all, once they have achieved power. They demand stability, order. After all, chaos might end up dethroning them. They desire stability, with themselves on top. Thus order.

 

Not really.  Look at it this way, suppose you like oak trees, but while you very much like apples, you hate apple trees.  In a chaotic universe, with you in charge of at least part of it, having oak trees that bear apples might be possible.  At a whim.  No long process of evolution.  No tedious hybridizing.  Just wish for it and there it is.  Because in a chaotic universe there is no necessity for ordinary cause and effect.

 

I seek only to explore very complex issues within the limited space and time that an online forum provides.

By cutting out that complexity. You seek clarity - everyone does what they believe is right, all the time. Many people's actions are part of a moral quagmire, with perpetual uncertainty that it is right, that it is good, that it is necessary, many actions go against these things, other actions are devoid of therse concepts - some actions are moral, others are immoral, others are amoral. To say that conflict "only" arises between concepts of good, etc. ignores that conflicts can arise through misunderstandings, mistakes, conflicting definitions of evil or wrong, etc. The issues are a damn sight more complex than you are willing to give them credit for being.

 

No it doesn't.  It just doesn't break everything down to that level of detail.  Misunderstandings and mistakes arise through differing definitions of right and wrong.  Different perspectives on a problem.  If people truly understood each other, there would be no misunderstandings, and then, but only then, could conflict arise based upon some objective definition of "good" and "evil".  Since we don't truly understand each other, conflict arises mostly on the basis of individual belief not objective fact.

 

None of us is in any position to objectively judge the actions of another.  All any of us can say is, "From here, that looks good." or, "From here that looks bad."

 

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."

Many try to impose after the fact justifications on acts they believe to be wrong. Doing things you consider to be wrong isn't exactly unheard of. And trying to impose a justification usually means that they really don't believe it, that they believe their actions to be wrong. They try to convince themselves.

 

Wrong doesn't mean unnecessary to the person committing the act.  He obviously considered it necessary or he wouldn't have done it.  Again, you're imposing some unknowable-to-anyone-alive, objective standard that none of us can accurately perceive.

 

To be perfectly clear, my own belief is that there IS some objective standard of "good" and "evil" it's just that none of us can see far enough into the chain of consequence to tell which is really which.  All any of us can do is impose a subjective view on what is an objective situation.  Calling something evil does not make it objectively evil, it's just evil from our own narrow viewpoint.  Likewise with good.  We're blind men attempting to describe an elephant based only on what we can touch from where we each stand.

 

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.

I'm presuming nothing.

 

Sure you are.  You're imposing your own limited understanding of what really went on to create a situation as it currently exists without any knowledge of where it will ultimately lead.  As you emphatically state above, things are much more complex than they appear.  The ultimate outcome of an act is unknowable because the ripples from that act extend beyond the lifetime of any observer.

 

Just because characters RJ created fit his definition of good doesn't mean they are good...or does it?

 

Don't be so sure you understand what Jordan meant by "good".  All you know is what parts of what he described seem "good" to you.

 

Prove that one.

They had the chance, they didn't take it. They stopped using balefire.

  They did stop using balefire.  Again, all we really know is that they stopped, but not why.  Because you fail to see another possibility for why doesn't mean that there isn't one.

 

We really have no idea what they want, today.

In other words, you're quite willing to disregard any evidence put forward that doesn't agree with your interpretation? No change there, then.

Not at all.  I've simply seen nothing in the books to indicate exactly what it is that they do want.  Presumably they want to free the DO because he, and the promises he's made to them, are the only means to whatever end they do want.  Except that there are multitudes of readily apparent things they could have done differently that would, inevitably, result in the DO breaking free, and them getting what you're so sure they want.  They didn't do those things either.  So, what is it that they want, again?  And, how do they expect to get it if they don't help free the DO?  Insane.  Totally froot-loops.  Real objective unknown and unknowable.

 

Now who's being cynical and misanthropic?

Still you. Shai'tan isn't human, for one thing, so having a low opinion of Him wouldn't be misanthropy.

Another one for you to prove. For all we know, Shai'tan just wants to be invited in.

All the evidence we have indicates this is not the case.

What evidence?  We've had exactly one appearance by the DO.  In that he toyed with Demandred, baiting him with the one thing he knew frightened Demandred utterly.  That really makes him no more "evil" or utterly destructive than any big brother that has ever been.  "Here, have a spider little girl."

 

I presume you're at least marginally sane.

Thank you, I think.

They definitely are not.

Evidence? Also, why do you now seek to absolve them of moral responsibility for their crimes? Most of them seem sane to me. Not nice, by any means, but sane.

We have no way to even begin to guess what they presently "want."

Their past actions, their PoVs, the books...

Seeming sane, doesn't mean they are sane.  According to you, it is self-evident that the DO wants the utter destruction of everything that exists.  They work for the DO.  If it's so self-evident, then if they were sane they would see that, too.  Since it's quite evident that none of them really comprehend that - well maybe Ishy, but we can't be sure of that, either  - they are equally self-evidently not sane.

 

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.

But he doesn't seek to restore the status quo. In fact, by removing Shai'tan's malevolent presence he is attempting to abolish the status quo that has been in force for 3,000 years. Unless you don't consider anything less that changing the basis of the universe to be affecting the status quo, a rather narrow and extreme definition. The only way to alter the status quo is to change the laws of physics. As humanity has never done that, homo sapiens occupy the same status quo they have ever since they crawled up out of the mud.

And, in such a world, homo sapiens is destined to never evolve beyond the niche they now occupy.  That's what I mean by stuck in a box.  It's existence merely for the sake of existence.  Life has no point.  Nothing ever gets resolved.  Nobody ever moves on.

 

To you, 3000 years is forever.  In the context of this story, with a Wheel that spins through seven Ages each aeons long, endlessly, over and over again, 3000 years is an eyeblink.  And the tiny dislocations that Rand's actions have caused to this point even less than that.  If Rand is successful, the world will return to the Wheel spinning endlessly onward just as it has done, forever.  That's the real status quo.

 

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."

But he's not the same Joe. He's a completely different Joe in every life, if he's even a Joe. Maybe next time he's a Bob, or a Tony, or a James, or a Rand, or any other name. Millions of lifetimes. No two alike, some very different. Hardly misanthropic, to give people so many chances. And Shai'tan's victory doesn't grant that, it just destroys. No more time. No more humanity. No will but Shaitan's. No order but His. Humanity can move forwards. As long as they don't destory the universe, they keep going. Some setbacks, but people will be people. They pick themselves up, move on. One cycle looks much like another from a distance, but up close they are nothing alike.

 

More chances at what?  The chance to have another chance?  To do what?  All those chances never go anywhere except to more chances to continue to make the same mistakes again and again.  That reduces life to nothing more than a MMOLRPG, with one important difference.  Everybody is forced to play.  All the time. No choice.  No option.  And no end ever in sight.

 

Life shouldn't be all about you - or me - or Joe.  It should be about all of mankind eventually getting somewhere better.  Eventually becoming more than we are now.  The Creator's universe doesn't allow for that.

 

Because Joe is going to influence everyone around him, and that will effect how they interact with the world, etc., etc.

The Wheel doesn't stop that.

 

Sure it does.  Because there is no lasting change.  Never any progress.  Just more endless trips around the seven spoked wheel.

 

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

No, but that's because I'm between girlfriends at the moment. It makes it quite difficult. However, you refuse to acknowledge moral grey areas there, again trying to oversimplify. An ordinary light switch can be either on or off, but a dimmer switch can be off, or on low or high. There are states between 0W and 100W, or whatever your bulb is. Likewise it is not either day or night - dawn and dusk. Intermediate states. So a person is not either good or evil, they can be very good, or quite good, or extrmely evil, or pretty bad. Shades of grey. And not all fights between good and evil are external, some are internal, people fighting with themselves. Fighting to be better people. Better. A lighter shade of grey. The idea of shades of grey doesn't abolish good and evil, black and white, it just gives it a bit more complexity. You can't have grey without black and white. You can't have goodish people without some good and some bad.

 

Exactly.  So which pot is it that's qualified to call the kettle black?

 

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

Why's that? People in the Wheel live many lives, each time starting anew, each time with opportunity to grow and learn and experience lots of new things.

 

 

That's just back to the MMOLRPG with no more ultimate purpose.  Hamsters running inside a wheel, getting nowhere.

 

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.

Again, you deny shades of grey. You can be more bad than good, or more good than bad, without having some good or bad in you.

 

Who's the judge?  Who's qualified to be the judge?  In our own story, each of us is the hero.  Each of us only does those things that we believe will get us to where we want to go.  And, that where we want to go is the best place possible.  The self-evident only place to go.  It's just more pots and kettles.

 

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

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.

What oppression? What box? The Wheel permits vast possibilities.

 

Never the possibility of evolution or true progress.

 

Exactly. As has been my premise all along.

My point there was that you change. You go from subjective to objective. Which is it?

 

A number of people throughout this thread have purported to "know" what this or that character's intent was.  What I'm trying to establish here is that none of us is qualified to judge.  We can each only perceive things from our own particular viewpoint.  It is never possible to say of anyone, "He intended to do evil."   Because we're not him, we can never "know what he intended."

 

 

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.

No, I didn't. You still insist on that small minded and limiting view of human action? People can disagree on what is wrong, or evil, or improper, or unnecessary, or desirable or undesirable or any number of other things.

 

Yes they can.  Which is what all human conflict is about as I said to begin with.

 

You're being cynical and misanthropic again.

No, I'm not, I'm being realistic. Sometimes people do set out to do things they believe to be evil. People don't always consider themselves the heroes in their own stories.

 

So you assert.  Where's your proof?

 

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 don't consider them to be trapped in a box, forced to repeat the same major events and human tragedies over and over again. I consider them to live in a universe that demands only a general trend be maintained, but which still permits billions of human souls to have the chance to live millions of lives. Doesn't sound particularly hellish, especially as they start again from scratch each time.

 

And, each time, their lives are not permitted to have any real or lasting purpose.

 

But I do.

You don't.

Order versus Chaos.

Falls short.

Or, if you prefer, the status quo versus change.

Change v change. Continuation of universe v destruction of universe.

 

No, just same-old same-old versus something as yet unknown, but different.

 

I believe the whole point that Bob was trying to get across is that Good and Evil are based on point of view, and that neither 'exist' (for lack of a better term) from a purely objective view.

"Good and evil are not subjective terms." Bob said that earlier. Although he has contradicted himself on this before, with them either being subjective or objective depending on how he feels.

 

Tel Janin is correct..  As stated above, I believe there is an objective good and an objective evil.  I also believe that none of us knows what that is.  All we have to go by is our own narrow window on the world.  So, when it comes to judging the actions of the Forsaken, we can't say with any certainty whether those acts are evil or not, because we have not ( and likely never will ) see what would result from the successful completion of those acts.

 

With no way to objectively judge whose acts are ultimately least evil and whose acts are ultimately most evil, trying to categorize the characters and the story on a good/evil basis is futile.  We might, if we try, be able to categorize the characters and the story on an Order/Chaos basis, however.  Which is why I think it's more useful to look at it that way.

 

I hope by now, that I've demonstrated that the Creator's Order does not equal good.  It's just existence for the sake of existence.  No purpose.  No end goal.  And that the DO's Disorder does not, necessarily, equate to evil - just unknown and different.

 

I'm not sure whether looking at things from an Order/Chaos perspective gives any of us more to root for or more to be frustrated about, but it might help keep the wait for all of the remaining books to be interesting, at least.  And, give us something new to argue and bicker about while we continue to wait. :D

 

 

 

[Builder]

Guys, get a life. That's all I gotta say.

[Bob T Dwarf]

We all have lives.

 

Those lives just happen to include a willingness to discuss books and what they might mean.  Sometimes we agree.  Mostly we don't.

 

If your life doesn't include those things, why are you here?

[lordofsoup]

ares i completely agree with everything u said, but i would compare Sauron more to Ishmael that to Shiatan.  The DO is more of a Morgoth figure, to whom Sauron was only one of his greater servants.  In Middle earth, Illuvatar, god, was a noninvoved being, who created the world.  He created the world, and the Eldar to watch over it.  The most powerful of them turned evil and wanted to rule the world himself, and he became Morgoth.  i always thought that illuvatar would be comparable to the Creator. 

 

 

[Ashaman Kovan]

Bob, i'm sorry, but you sir are an idiot. You think we can't interperet the things the forsaken do as evil because we haven't "Seen what would result from the completion of those acts"? You really believe that?

 

Let's say, completely hypothetically, that you irritated me so much that I set out to your house to kill you in your sleep, but just as I got to your front door I was arrested before I had the chance to slit your throat. Now, using your logic, there is no way you or anyone else could say that me intending to slit your throat while you were asleep, keep in mind this being over simple irritation, could be construed as an act of evil because I didn't actually get to slit your throat and we didn't get to see what the "Results" of said throat slitting would be. Other than you being dead. Over simply irritating me. So I shouldn't be punished since no one can possibly know what my intentions were as I was attempting to break in your front door with a very sharp combat knife. Therefore I should be set free so that next time I might try the backdoor. Or maybe a window.

 

I would say, and i'm guessing just about everyone on this site, other than you would say that is a pretty damn evil thing for someone to do.

[Ashaman Kovan]

Guys, get a life. That's all I gotta say.

 

Explain why you're here? Or why what you say should matter? I'm genuinely curious.  ;D

[Thanatos]

There may be a detail that is being overlooked here -

 

Everybody seems to be viewing this as a conflict between Good and Evil.

 

I believe that the closest analog to what the books depict, and the one that was Jordan's stated objective is a conflict between Order and Chaos.  Ragnarokk rather than Armageddon.  The Forsaken want to "Let the Lord of Chaos Rule."  Rand wants to create an orderly and progressive society.

 

In an Order/Chaos scenario, questions about benevolence, or the lack thereof, have no real place.  So, the question of whether the Creator is, or is even behaving, in a benevolent manner has no meaning.  The salient question is: Is the Creator behaving in an Orderly manner?

 

Before we can begin to answer that, we need to define The Rules of Order that are at work here.

 

The primary difference between Order and Chaos that I can think of is:

Rule 1.  For every Effect there is a Cause.  In a Chaotic Universe that would not be true.  In a truly Chaotic Universe, Effect A might have a Cause in one case but not in another.  In an absolutely Chaotic Universe, there would be no predicting the cases either.

I always agreed with this theory.  Good and Evil are points of view.  All the main characters commit Evil acts just as much as any "Evil" Character.  Order and Chaos basically come down to control or lack thereof.  Good theory on this Bob

[Bob T Dwarf]

Thanks, Thanatos.

 

 

Bob, i'm sorry, but you sir are an idiot. You think we can't interperet the things the forsaken do as evil because we haven't "Seen what would result from the completion of those acts"? You really believe that?

 

Let's say, completely hypothetically, that you irritated me so much that I set out to your house to kill you in your sleep, but just as I got to your front door I was arrested before I had the chance to slit your throat. Now, using your logic, there is no way you or anyone else could say that me intending to slit your throat while you were asleep, keep in mind this being over simple irritation, could be construed as an act of evil because I didn't actually get to slit your throat and we didn't get to see what the "Results" of said throat slitting would be. Other than you being dead. Over simply irritating me. So I shouldn't be punished since no one can possibly know what my intentions were as I was attempting to break in your front door with a very sharp combat knife. Therefore I should be set free so that next time I might try the backdoor. Or maybe a window.

 

I would say, and i'm guessing just about everyone on this site, other than you would say that is a pretty damn evil thing for someone to do.

 

Does your premise outline an evil act?  Yes.  Does the intent to commit an evil act make you an evil person?  No.  It just makes you ordinary.

 

If we are to condemn any character in this series on the basis of a single evil act, then we have to so condemn every character in the series as being EVIL, because every character in the series has committed at least one evil act.

 

Likewise, we cannot sanctify any character in the series as GOOD on the basis of a single good act.  Again, every character has done at least one good thing.  Even Shaidar Haran.  Even the Dark One.  Even Padan Fain.

 

So, rather than get bogged down in how many evil acts it takes to make someone EVIL, or how many good acts it takes to make someone GOOD, it seems to me to be more useful to bypass the good/evil paradigm and find something that is easier to accurately define.  Thus my preference for Order versus Chaos.

 

It doesn't change the ( real ) lineup for either team, but it may help identify which team any player is really on.

[Hybrid]

The Forsaken want to "Let the Lord of Chaos Rule."  Rand wants to create an orderly and progressive society.

But you are not distinguishing between intention and reality here.  The point's been made in this thread already. 

 

The Forsaken are ordered to let the Lord of Chaos rule (and one of the theories is that the Lord of Chaos is in fact Rand) - but that may not in fact be their true desire or the result of their actions.  But like others have said before me, the Forsaken also want to create ordered societies that they control.  Not wholly ordered, but not wholly chaotic either. 

 

Then there's Rand.  Let's look at intentions vs. actions.  The Aiel were pretty orderly before he arrived, for example.  The world itself was pretty orderly before Rand arrived.  But now look at the situation.  Almost all the nations are in some sort of civil disorder.  You've got civil wars, massive amounts of refugees, overturning of entire belief structures.

 

So the world is not entirely polarized in terms of order/chaos either.

[Bob T Dwarf]

You're overlooking a few things -

 

The Seanchan had already decided to invade long before Rand ever saw that first Fade.  Semirhage was placed to insure that invasion caused maximum chaos.

 

The Forsaken had awakened and become active before Rand saw that first Fade:

    Bel'al had taken Tear before Rand got there.

    Cairhien was a cesspit with Darkfriends having the upper hand before Rand ever went there.

    Rahvin was in Control in Andor before Rand decided to take him out.

    Sammael was in control of Illian, and the Gang of Four was maneuvering hard to ambush Rand there.

    Graendal is still controlling Arad Domon.

    Asmodean was on his way to control the Aiel through Couladin.

 

With DF and Forsaken in control of nearly all of Randland, the continent was well on its way to utter chaos, barbarism and destruction.  Rand's actions have preserved as much order as possible under the set of circumstances he found.  Things would be in a much worse state by now if he hadn't acted.

 

It's not Rand's actions that lead to disorder, but rather the activities of the Forsaken.

[Ashaman Kovan]

You're overlooking a few things -

 

The Seanchan had already decided to invade long before Rand ever saw that first Fade.  Semirhage was placed to insure that invasion caused maximum chaos.

 

The Forsaken had awakened and become active before Rand saw that first Fade:

    Bel'al had taken Tear before Rand got there.

    Cairhien was a cesspit with Darkfriends having the upper hand before Rand ever went there.

    Rahvin was in Control in Andor before Rand decided to take him out.

    Sammael was in control of Illian, and the Gang of Four was maneuvering hard to ambush Rand there.

    Graendal is still controlling Arad Domon.

    Asmodean was on his way to control the Aiel through Couladin.

 

With DF and Forsaken in control of nearly all of Randland, the continent was well on its way to utter chaos, barbarism and destruction.  Rand's actions have preserved as much order as possible under the set of circumstances he found.  Things would be in a much worse state by now if he hadn't acted.

 

It's not Rand's actions that lead to disorder, but rather the activities of the Forsaken.

 

And you're overlooking the fact that in all those areas the Forsaken controlled they had complete control. Order with them as the rulers. You say if yourself. Bel'al had "Taken" Tear. Rahvin was "In control". Sammael was "In control". Rand himself has less control over the countries he's taken then the Forsaken did. Maybe not now, but for the longest time he was the ruler in mostly just name. You say the gang of four were maneuvering hard to ambush Rand to Illian. In a most "Orderly" fashion as a matter of fact. With Dark Friends and the Forsaken in control of nearly all of Randland the continent was actually well on it's way to being ruled in an "Orderly" fashion by the forces of evil. Get a clue man. You just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper.

[Bob T Dwarf]

No, those places were well on the way to being ruled in a most disorderly manner.

 

There's nothing orderly in the way the Forsaken do things.  They were known to kill whole segments of society on a whim.  Or, over an imagined slight.  They rule by whim and caprice.

 

Fortunately, Rand got to each of those places before they could fully implement the worst of what would have been in store for those people.

[Charlz Fel]

 

So far as the author has given us to understand, there is no light at the end of this tunnel.  The Wheel turns, and Ages come and pass, but there is no beginning and there is no end.  Mankind plods along the same dark tunnel for eternity.  Never really getting anywhere.  Never achieving anything.  At some point, mankind will be right back at this very place again.  And again.  And again.  ad infinitum.

 

Riding a Carousel is fun for a couple of minutes.  Now try to envision riding one for a month.  Never getting off.  Listening to that same song endlessly.  At what point will you do anything, even possibly kill yourself, just to make it end?  A year?  Five years?  Twenty?

 

That's the Creator's universe.  That's the only prospect mankind has - being trapped on a Carousel, listening to the same maddening song forever - so long as the Wheel and the Pattern exist.

 

That's not "good."  I'm not even sure it's the lesser of two evils.  But, it is what Rand and the Forces of Light seek to force upon all of mankind.

 

The Forsaken surely intend to break a lot of eggs.  Question there is, are they making an omelette?  Does it even matter?  If they are successful, mankind will be off that never-to-be-sufficiently-damned Carousel forever.  Mankind, for the first time in it's existence, will get to experience something entirely new.

 

So, which is more evil, the devil you know, or the one you don't?  Or, maybe, just maybe, there's a third alternative that none of us has yet considered... that Rand has been smart enough to figure out.  I sure hope so.

 

I don't think the carousel is an apt metaphor, simply because of the difference in time scales.

 

Let me present a comparison that I think is more illuminating.  Riding a carousel, in which you are repeating the same events every minute or so, is like being confined to a single house.  It is very inhibiting over a long period of time because your range of experiences and choices are both quite restricted.  Riding the Wheel of Time, in which you are repeating the same events every fifty millennia or so, is like being confined to a single planet.  It's not much of a restriction because the range of available experiences is far vaster than one lifetime could possibly encompass.

 

On the other hand, if you have a single entity that lived forever, then the Wheel (or the single planet) might start to feel restrictive eventually.  From what I can tell, Bob T. Dwarf seems to see Mankind as such an entity.  But this does not really work.  First, Mankind is not a conscious being, and consequently has no moral status independent of its constituents.  Secondly, Mankind's memories of an Age are always gone by the time that Age returns, so each Age can be experienced as a new thing every time it rolls around; the drudgery is gone.

 

Now, if the characters worshipped progress as a sacred ideal, as Bob seems to, then putting them in a world that makes their goal impossible would be cruel.  Likewise, if progress were inherently good, then a system that makes progress impossible would be inherently evil, and Bob's complaint might make sense.  But progress is not inherently good, and the characters don't seem to care about it.

[Mr Ares]

So far as the author has given us to understand, there is no light at the end of this tunnel. The Wheel turns, and Ages come and pass, but there is no beginning and there is no end. Mankind plods along the same dark tunnel for eternity. Never really getting anywhere. Never achieving anything. At some point, mankind will be right back at this very place again. And again. And again. ad infinitum.

Because the Wheel of Time contains the Dark One’s prison, and the Ages repeat with each revolution, then isn’t humanity itself also imprisoned, unable to truly evolve?

 

No.

http://www.wotmania.net/faqtopic.asp?ID=58

 

That's the Creator's universe. That's the only prospect mankind has - being trapped on a Carousel, listening to the same maddening song forever - so long as the Wheel and the Pattern exist.

Slight problem: it is not one person riding the carousel forever, people come and go. At worst you can say this is a carousel that always needs someone to ride it, but by the time you are next up to ride it, you have forgotten ever riding it before. Clean slate, each time. Is that really terrible?

 

If they are successful, mankind will be off that never-to-be-sufficiently-damned Carousel forever. Mankind, for the first time in it's existence, will get to experience something entirely new.

Extinction. They win, we die.

 

Torture only occurs in the mind.

I'm sure you'd still be saying that if I wired your testicles up to the mains.

 

They each seem to seek not merely power, but the power to do whatever they want whenever they want.

Which is not itself disorderly. Quite the reverse.

 

Chaos has no limits.

And no power. They want to impose their wills, exert power, but that is itself a form of order. That there is an order to things whereby those things yield to their desires. With chaos, there is no reason why they should be stuck firmly on top - the top would be ever shifting. Precisely what they don't want. They want stability, with themselves in positions of power.

 

Because in a chaotic universe there is no necessity for ordinary cause and effect.

Or any cause and effect. What you describe is a cause - their desire for apple-bearing oak trees, followed by an effect - said trees springing into existence. Their desires are the cause, those desires becoming manifest is the effect. In a chaotic universe, the trees might spring into existence bfore they want them, and turn into vicous monsters ready to eat them before they get an apple. Everything is random. They do not want randomness, it is the antithesis of the power they crave.

 

Wrong doesn't mean unnecessary to the person committing the act. He obviously considered it necessary or he wouldn't have done it.

No, it doesn't mean anything of the sort. People can do things they don't consider necessary, that they consider wrong.

 

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.

I'm presuming nothing.

Sure you are.

No, I just listen to them. I've seen young kids, after their first kill, trying to convince themselves that they are doing the right thing, that they had to, that it was kill or be killed, and when pressed, admit they don't believe a damn word of it. That they don't think they had to, or that it was right, or good. So where in that is the kid doing what he believes is good or right or proper or necessary? Nowhere. There is fear, uncertainty, hatred, confusion, doubt, pain. None of the comfort of believing you had to do it, that it was good or that it was right.

 

Don't be so sure you understand what Jordan meant by "good".  All you know is what parts of what he described seem "good" to you.

And that he said the Chosen were evil, and has himself described the series in terms of good v evil.

Increasingly in books and films, including science fiction but also in everything from mysteries to so-called “main stream literary” novels, the lines between right and wrong have become blurred. Good and evil are more and more portrayed as two sides of the same coin. People by and large want to believe that there is a clear cut right and wrong, though, and that good and evil depend on more than how you look in the mirror or whether you’re squinting when you do. In fantasy, you can talk about good and evil, right and wrong, with a straight face.

 

Does that mean fantasy all has to be goody-goody on the side of right and black-as-the-pit on the side of evil? No. In my own work telling right from wrong is often difficult... Right and wrong are not simply different shades of gray. Good and evil are not simply a matter of how you look at them.

I am not saying that there is no relative evil, no shades of gray. What I am saying, and complaining about, is that allowing shades of gray has led us all too often to believe that there is nothing except shades of gray. Yes, there are gray areas. Yes, there is relative evil. But that is all too often today taken as an excuse to say that it’s all relative. Relativism or no relativism, however many shades of gray you want to call up, evil still exists, and if you won’t expend the effort to figure out where and what it is, then one day it will swallow you whole.

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.

Seems the forces of the Light aren't as evil as the Shadow in RJ's mind. He's even compared the Shadow to the Nazis.

 

They did stop using balefire.  Again, all we really know is that they stopped, but not why.

Because they want something left over to rule.

 

Except that there are multitudes of readily apparent things they could have done differently that would, inevitably, result in the DO breaking free, and them getting what you're so sure they want.

Such as?

 

What evidence? We've had exactly one appearance by the DO. In that he toyed with Demandred, baiting him with the one thing he knew frightened Demandred utterly. That really makes him no more "evil" or utterly destructive than any big brother that has ever been.

I know I wasn't exactly the model of a big brother, but I can't say I ever tried to destroy humanity by jamming the weather into perpetual summer, or caused a utopian society to collapse and degenerate into a decade of warfare, following it up by sentencing every male channeler for the next 3,000 years to go insane and rot, or any of the other things He has done. This is not the ideal way to get invited in. We may not have seen Him in person on those occasions, but we know He did it. Off screen.

 

According to you, it is self-evident that the DO wants the utter destruction of everything that exists.  They work for the DO.  If it's so self-evident, then if they were sane they would see that, too.  Since it's quite evident that none of them really comprehend that - well maybe Ishy, but we can't be sure of that, either  - they are equally self-evidently not sane.

That logic doesn't quite follow. If we, the readers, with access to information the Chosen don't have, believe something, they should to? Also, there is a difference between self-deception and insanity. They want something from Shai'tan, and think He can provide. So they tell themselves they will get it. People deceive themselves all the time. Every one of us you. This is normal, not insanity. Unless you want to claim every human being alive today, or who has ever existed, is insane?

 

More chances at what?

Life. If you consider a lifetime worthless...

 

Because there is no lasting change. Never any progress. Just more endless trips around the seven spoked wheel.

Each one different. How can that be considered anything other than progress? There will be certain broad trends repeating, but we don't need to make the same mistakes again and again.

 

That's just back to the MMOLRPG with no more ultimate purpose.  Hamsters running inside a wheel, getting nowhere.

Only if you consider your own life to fit that mold.

 

In our own story, each of us is the hero.

Not so. People are willing to consider themselves in other roles, as the sidekick, the person willing to make the tough choices the real hero isn't, the anti-hero, even the villain. Some people are willing to see themselves as monsters.

 

Never the possibility of evolution or true progress.

Yes, it does.

 

We can each only perceive things from our own particular viewpoint.

We can also perceive things from the viewpoint of whoever happens to be a PoV character.

 

It is never possible to say of anyone, "He intended to do evil."  Because we're not him, we can never "know what he intended."

Unless he tells us?

 

Which is what all human conflict is about as I said to begin with.

People can have conflict over far more than you give them credit for.

 

So you assert. Where's your proof?

Most of it's dead and buried by now. Where's yours?

 

And, each time, their lives are not permitted to have any real or lasting purpose.

Their lives are not denied any real or lasting purpose.

 

No, just same-old same-old versus something as yet unknown, but different.

Armageddon is certainly a bit different. I wouldn't call it an improvement.

 

We might, if we try, be able to categorize the characters and the story on an Order/Chaos basis, however. Which is why I think it's more useful to look at it that way.

But it tells us nothing. What use is it? Almost all the characters want order, most of the main ones spread chaos, at least in the short term. It is uselss.

 

Guys, get a life. That's all I gotta say.

We do. We are also able to find room to discuss an interesting topic. How about you? All you can do on here is talk crap.

 

ares i completely agree with everything u said, but i would compare Sauron more to Ishmael that to Shiatan. The DO is more of a Morgoth figure, to whom Sauron was only one of his greater servants. In Middle earth, Illuvatar, god, was a noninvoved being, who created the world. He created the world, and the Eldar to watch over it. The most powerful of them turned evil and wanted to rule the world himself, and he became Morgoth. i always thought that illuvatar would be comparable to the Creator.

Tolien's theology is monotheistic, and thus not directly comparable to the dualistic theology of WoT. I was using Sauron as a specific example - he made himself appear good to the rulers of Numenor, and led them to destruction, and I was pointing out that for all we know Shai'tan could have tried that same trick in the past - we know he didn't on this turning, but that's all. Morgoth himself was a creation of Eru Iluvatar, but Shai'tan was not a creation of the Creator.

 

Let's say, completely hypothetically, that you irritated me so much that I set out to your house to kill you in your sleep.

 

I would say, and i'm guessing just about everyone on this site, other than you would say that is a pretty damn evil thing for someone to do.

I'm not convinced killing Bob would be evil. Nor killing Builder, or Nightstrike, if you want to try it. Killing me would be, though.

 

All the main characters commit Evil acts just as much as any "Evil" Character. Order and Chaos basically come down to control or lack thereof.

No, the good characters commit far fewer evil acts, that are far less evil, and far more good ones, that are more good, which is what makes them the good guys, not the bad guys. What good do the Chosen do? Or Shaidar Haran? What evil does Mat do? Or Egwene? And most of the Chosen desire order, the Lord of Chaos is a means to an end, while the good guys also desire order, although chaos sometimes arises as a side-effect of their actions. So order v chaos doesn't tell us anything aside from everyone v Ishy and Shai'tan.

 

it seems to me to be more useful to bypass the good/evil paradigm and find something that is easier to accurately define.

A desire for simplicity, for easy answers, not to reach the truth of the matter.

 

The Seanchan had already decided to invade long before Rand ever saw that first Fade.  Semirhage was placed to insure that invasion caused maximum chaos.

Semi didn't come along until plans were already launched. And the Seanchan have no desire for chaos, but for order.

 

The Forsaken had awakened and become active before Rand saw that first Fade

No, they hadn't. Aside from Ishy, Aginor and Balthamel were the first two out of the Bore, and they went straight to the Eye without even a change of clothes.

 

It's not Rand's actions that lead to disorder, but rather the activities of the Forsaken.

Rand and co. are at least partly to blame. Tear, Cairhien, Andor, the Aiel, Illian, all stable. Part of the reason for Cairhien's descending into chaos was the death of the king - at the hands of Thom. Tear only threw up rebels after Rand took it, before that it was stable. The Seanchan were stable until Semi murdered the Imperial family and precipitated a multi-sided civil war. It was Rand's announcement at Al'cair Dal that threw the Aiel in disorder. We see order, time and again. The Chosen may be willing to use chaos to achieve their ends, but they want order. They want control.

[Bob T Dwarf]

Not gonna quote and respond on a point-by-point basis this time.  It just makes for a post that's too long for anybody to read.

 

Whether mankind evolves somewhat doesn't really mean much.  Point is, mankind never achieves anything lasting, or the First Age wouldn't come around again.

 

Now, if mankind achieves all that it is capable of by the time the Seventh Age ends without achieving anything lasting, then mankind's existence leads nowhere except back to its beginning and is ultimately futile.  All they ever get to do is play around at the margins.  None of the core experiences ever changes.  The best thing to do in that case is to tear it all down and start over.

 

Ishy gets that.  It's why he is a nihilist.

 

From their own thoughts and statements, the two things we can be certain the Forsaken want are Immortality and Power.  Everything else is subsidiary to those two.

 

Immortality + Power = godhood.  If all you can do is play in somebody else's sandbox ( existing universe ) you're not much of a god.  From Lanfear's attempted seduction of Rand via the Choeden Kal, we see that she, at least, isn't satisfied with playing in anybody's sandbox but her own.  It's gotta be her universe, which won't have to embody any permanence whatever, merely her current whim.  I don't think any of the other Forsaken are fundamentally different from her in this.  Wanna be king for a day, wish for a kingdom and have all the "little people" do whatever you want for as long as you want. Then, when that gets boring, wish for something else.  Chaos works for that.  Stability doesn't.  Chaos makes "reality" plastic rather than fixed. ( see Demandred's visit to the Pit of Doom - the passage grows to allow Shaidar Haran ample room to pass, but contracts to force Demandred to hunch. )

 

I'm not sure why most everybody is so convinced that Aginor and Balthamel were the first to awaken.  Given the way the Seals are corroding from the inside out, they would have been the last.  Those trapped "deepest" would have awakened first.

 

Anath was in place about two years before The Eye of the World begins.  ( see Chronology for 998 NE at Seven Spokes )  All we know for sure about the others is that Ishy was active for a number of years prior to the start of the series, and when some of the others settled on a persona and began assuming power within Randland.

 

Being reborn with no memory of a different life doesn't change the futility of your existence.  It's really not much different from being an actor who, over the years, is allowed to play every part in Hamlet, but is never allowed to play any part in King Lear.  Who isn't even allowed to know that King Lear exists, or could exist.  It's still being caged no matter how you try to pretty it up.  I'd like to hope that mankind is destined for more than being exhibits in a zoo.

 

With the benefit of hindsight, all of us more clearly see things we've done as mistaken, wrong, or unnecessary.  That doesn't change the fact that at the time we did those things we thought they were right and very necessary.  Everybody makes mistakes.

 

Feeling of any kind, whether agony or ecstasy is only experienced in the mind.  Sure, you can damage parts of a person's body, but the part feels nothing, only the mind "feels."

 

Good fiction offers enough reality to be believable.  Jordan shows us over and over again how all of the characters here deceive themselves just like real people do.  So, what we see in any POV is nothing more than that character can stand to face about themselves.  Some have stronger stomachs than others.

 

The Shadow does heinous things, no doubt about it.  But, so does every other group.  If we're going to analogize with WWII, Hitler and the Nazi's were BAD GUYS, but Stalin and the Soviets were GOOD GUYS.  In reality, Stalin was as bad or worse than Hitler.  We knew that and used him as a foil for Hitler anyway.  That doesn't say much about our own morality, does it?  If Hitler = DO, then Stalin = Mordeth.  Are you now putting Padan Fain on the Good Guy Team?

 

That's why Good v Evil doesn't work.  There's too much evil everywhere.  Everybody in this story is bathed in it.  The worst are those like all of the Aes Sedai who try to pretend they aren't.

 

As you point out, Jordan believed in the concepts of Good and Evil, and felt it was important for people to recognize evil when they saw it.  Your statement that you would not necessarily find the murder of anyone other than yourself evil shows that you lack that recognition.  Ugly truths often pretend to be humor.

 

... Have you ever tortured an entire city, made thousands of people assist in breaking each other slowly, in breaking their own loved ones?  Semirhage did that, for no more reason than that she could, for the pleasure of it.  Have you murdered children?  Graendal did.  She called it kindness, so they would not suffer after she enslaved their parents and carried them away. ... Have you given people to Trollocs to eat?  All the Forsaken did - prisoners who would not turn always went to the Trollocs, if they weren't murdered out of hand - but Demandred captured two cities just because he thought the people there had slighted him before he went over to the Shadow, and every man, woman and child went into Trolloc bellies.  Mesaana set up schools in the territory she controlled, schools where children and young people were taught the glories of the Dark One, taught to kill their friends who didn't learn well enough or fast enough. ...

 

Nothing orderly about that.  Whim and caprice.  Don't confuse systematic for orderly.

 

[Mr Ares]

Point is, mankind never achieves anything lasting.

Yes, they do. The First Age coming around again doesn't affect that.

 

The best thing to do in that case is to tear it all down and start over.

 

Ishy gets that. It's why he is a nihilist.

Ishy doesn't want to start over, just tear it down.

 

I'm not sure why most everybody is so convinced that Aginor and Balthamel were the first to awaken.

Because they were. If they were the last, then it makes it a bit odd that they would say some of us walk free. And mentioning that they, like Ishamael, are out and about.

 

Anath was in place about two years before The Eye of the World begins.

No, she wasn't.

(see Chronology for 998 NE at Seven Spokes)

So Semi is out and about in the same year EotW takes place, therefore she was out two years before, not doing anything? None of them did a damn thing prior to the series beginning, save only Ishy. An impressive degree of apathy. 998NE was the year of the break out. She became Anath in the year the Chosen broke free, the year the series started. During the timeframe of the series, not two years prior.

 

Being reborn with no memory of a different life doesn't change the futility of your existence. It's really not much different from being an actor who, over the years, is allowed to play every part in Hamlet, but is never allowed to play any part in King Lear. Who isn't even allowed to know that King Lear exists, or could exist. It's still being caged no matter how you try to pretty it up.

Yes, it's exactly like your Hamlet example, with the slight difference being that this is a play with billions of parts, encompassing every possible form of human drama. Something far vaster, far grander than anything Shakespeare produced. Every possible human conflict. If this is a prison, it's so enormous that it really makes no difference - most people will never see the bars, or be aware fo their existence, and no-one could see the entirety of the cage. An imprisonment indistinguishable from freedom.

 

With the benefit of hindsight, all of us more clearly see things we've done as mistaken, wrong, or unnecessary. That doesn't change the fact that at the time we did those things we thought they were right and very necessary.

It's not a fact at all. People don't always do what they think is right, no matter how much you protest that they do.

 

Feeling of any kind, whether agony or ecstasy is only experienced in the mind.

No, the brain.

 

The Shadow does heinous things, no doubt about it. But, so does every other group.

The Shadow does more and worse things than those other groups. How can you fail to recognise their evil?

If we're going to analogize with WWII

Well, if it's good enough for RJ...

Hitler and the Nazi's were BAD GUYS, but Stalin and the Soviets were GOOD GUYS. In reality, Stalin was as bad or worse than Hitler. We knew that and used him as a foil for Hitler anyway. That doesn't say much about our own morality, does it? If Hitler = DO, then Stalin = Mordeth. Are you now putting Padan Fain on the Good Guy Team?

No, Fain is evil. Just a different evil, one opposed to the Shadow. The Soviets were also evil, but they were an evil on our side, one opposed to Germany. My enemy's enemy is my friend.

 

That's why Good v Evil doesn't work. There's too much evil everywhere. Everybody in this story is bathed in it. The worst are those like all of the Aes Sedai who try to pretend they aren't.

That's just not true at all. The worst are the Shadow, they are far worse than the AS. You haven't really shown all the "evil" that the Light's forces are "bathed in". You just dismiss everyone as evil, or try and claim the Shadow has redeeming virtues, as if this was enough to make them not evil.

 

As you point out, Jordan believed in the concepts of Good and Evil, and felt it was important for people to recognize evil when they saw it. Your statement that you would not necessarily find the murder of anyone other than yourself evil shows that you lack that recognition. Ugly truths often pretend to be humor.

I recognise evil when I see it. You don't appear to.

 

Nothing orderly about that.

Seems very orderly to me.

Don't confuse systematic for orderly.

sys⋅tem⋅at⋅ic

  /ˌsɪstəˈmætɪk/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [sis-tuh-mat-ik] Show IPA

–adjective

3. arranged in or comprising an ordered system: systematic theology.

Same thing.

[Ashaman Kovan]

I would never even think of trying to kill you Mr Ares....All you have to do to ensure your safety is one teensy weensy little thing. Just say that Graendal did not kill Asmodean and you and your family are safe.  ;D

[Mr Ares]

You have more to fear from my family than they have to fear from you. No deal.

[Ashaman Kovan]

How so?  ;D

[Mr Ares]

How so?  ;D

I'll let you find that out for yourself. More fun that way.