Grimm Forum

Credits: Thanks izzy and Elkhound. Your posts in the other thread gave the idea for this one.


@izzy wrote in another thread that he would enjoy Nick starting to ponder his lawlessness and sitting down with the captain discussing the matter.

There are many posts arguing that Nick is not as good as he should be since most of the time he doesn’t follow the police procedures. He acts more as a vigilante than as a police officer.

@Elkhound argued in the same thread that Nick constantly face a dilemma: "To Be Lawful or Good", and that Nick sometimes falls on one side or the other, and that lately, he's fallen on the 'good' side rather than the 'lawful' more often than not.

This opened some questions for me:
Does Nick lawlessness mean he is not a good person?
Does he have the right to choose between "To Be Lawful or Good" as he is "a man of the law", as a way to speak?

How does it work inside the show?

(07-16-2015, 02:59 PM)Adriano Neres Rodrigues Wrote: [ -> ]Credits: Thanks izzy and Elkhound. Your posts in the other thread gave the idea for this one.


@izzy wrote in another thread that he would enjoy Nick starting to ponder his lawlessness and sitting down with the captain discussing the matter.

There are many posts arguing that Nick is not as good as he should be since most of the time he doesn’t follow the police procedures. He acts more as a vigilante than as a police officer.

@Elkhound argued in the same thread that Nick constantly face a dilemma: "To Be Lawful or Good", and that Nick sometimes falls on one side or the other, and that lately, he's fallen on the 'good' side rather than the 'lawful' more often than not.

This opened some questions for me:
Does Nick lawlessness mean he is not a good person?
Does he have the right to choose between "To Be Lawful or Good" as he is "a man of the law", as a way to speak?

How does it work inside the show?

I see your point looking at just the last episode alone we can see some of that. By using Adalind to plant the head they had the information to arrest Kenneth and Raspoil both. Nick could have also taken them to house and had a police investigate but he chose revenge.

My 2 cents very few people in Portland know what's going on in Nick's life so I see him being good (as much a possible) over lawful. When you are dealing with royals, key, coins, and maybe reapers how can he be lawful? Again 2 cents Nick has to walk in two worlds I can't see a straight line for him to walk, his only hope is he will stay as close to lawful as he can.

Yes I do think he can remain good but less lawful.

We seen the good when he killed that guy in the bar fight as a zombie it upset him. Renard did ask (and we haven't heard an answer) was he up set because he killed the man or because he killed someone wasn't wesen?

I can see a talk with Renard about his future with the department but I see it at Nick house just between the two of them. If Renard has changed he will be more worried about Nick than Nick the Grimm.


ideas thoughts?

(07-16-2015, 02:59 PM)Adriano Neres Rodrigues Wrote: [ -> ]This opened some questions for me:
Does Nick lawlessness mean he is not a good person?
Does he have the right to choose between "To Be Lawful or Good" as he is "a man of the law", as a way to speak?

Here's a question I would like to add to the above. What makes a good person good?

(07-16-2015, 08:24 PM)irukandji Wrote: [ -> ]Here's a question I would like to add to the above. What makes a good person good?

That is a great question and I would like to know your answer for this.
My generic answer, more to think than to give a final answer, is:
I think a "character in a TV show"*, to be considered good, must be someone that acts trying to bring good results for other characters whenever possible and tries to avoid bad characters to bring bad results to others, thinking always in the majority of the story.
Grimm example:
Adelaind arrived at Juliette and Nick home with Kelly needing help because of the child. A bad character would have killed Adelaind (Should someone blame Juliette and Nick for that?). They though in the child (and in other factors) and helped Adelaind. After that, they helped Kelly to take the child away thinking in the good of child and in the danger if the royals get the child. I don't know if those were the best actions, but the intention according to the context of the show where good.

Another way to see the question is thinking about:
What is to be a good person?
What is not to be a good person?

ideas thoughts?

* Note: "character in a TV show" because I want to keep the talk in the fantasy context, about grimm series. Considering real life this would be answered with a lot of variables to be considered: philosophy, religion, culture, etc.

---

(07-16-2015, 03:35 PM)jsgrimm45 Wrote: [ -> ]When you are dealing with royals, key, coins, and maybe reapers how can he be lawful? Again 2 cents Nick has to walk in two worlds I can't see a straight line for him to walk, his only hope is he will stay as close to lawful as he can.

Good points @ jsgrimm45.
I totally agree with you on that.
Wherever Nick has a situation he has to deal with, he has to choose between act as grimm or as a police officer.
When he his dealing with royals, key, coins, and maybe reapers, I think the choose for him is easy: he goes as grimm (trying to be a good grimm) because those situations just exists because he is a grimm.
But when he is dealing with a normal person just is simply a normal wesen, shouldn’t he be a police officer (a Lawful one)?
I have the impression that in the first season Nick was more Lawful. Now he is being more grimm even in situations where he is not dealing with royals, key, coins, and maybe reapers. The frog girl is an example of that.
This raises a question: Does being grimm necessarily mean to be lawlessness?
If we think about Kelly, Trubel (she I think it is questionable for while) and Nick himself, apparently they don’t have many options on this.

Greetings Grim Fans,

This is an interesting thread. Grimm attracts me because I am entertained and my spirits are lifted when I see “good” triumph over “bad.” We get to determine our own good and bad as we view each episode. Maybe we can defer to Merriam-Webster for a base line. I looked for definitions pertaining to a person’s morals and ethics:

Good: correct or proper

2a (1): virtuous, right, commendable <a good person> <good conduct>
(2): kind, benevolent <good intentions>

Bad: not correct or proper

2a : morally objectionable : evil <bad men>
2b : mischievous, disobedient <a bad dog>

Lawful: allowed by the law; according to the law

1a : being in harmony with the law <a lawful judgment>
1b : constituted, authorized, or established by law : rightful <lawful institutions>
2 : law-abiding <lawful citizens>

Lawless: not obeying the law

2a : not restrained or controlled by law : unruly
2b : illegal

Each decision and action by the Grimm characters can be deemed good or bad, lawful or unlawful. For example, when Nick, Hank and Wu altered the crime scene of Kenneth’s death to cover up the guilt of Renard for murdering the prostitutes
Were they being good or bad? They were clearly not lawful by human statutes and likely in violation of Grimm/Wessen statutes as well.

When Nick and Kenneth faced off in the warehouse, I was thrilled by each blow Nick delivered. When Nick finished him off by cutting his throat I was cheering out loud. Is my delight in Kenneth’s demise bad? This was Grimm at its best! For me this was a triumph of good over evil and spectacular entertainment.

Kindest regards to all Grimm Fans,

New Guy

Thanks, Adriano. I am still pondering the question of what makes a good person good so that's why I haven't added anything in regard to that at this time.

In the meantime, I wanted to explain why I asked the question in the first place. I actually did what New Guy did, I searched for the definition of a good person. I also considered the faith aspect of good, for example, the 10 Commandments as well as aspects of my own faith. I understand there is a caveat to this thread that we not apply religion and I'm not. What I was looking at was the aspects of my faith that could apply to someone who say, is an atheist or agnostic. For instance, theft. It is a violation of my faith, but at the same time it is a violation of the law, and the moral code. Theft affects everyone, regardless of religious outlook.

With that in mind, I think the only way Nick's goodness can be truly defined in order to answer your questions is through consensus.

Take the quality of courage, for example. Hypothetically, you could argue that Nick displays great courage when going after wesen or taking a stand (i.e. the frog girl incident). Hypothetically I could say in the case of Juliette, Nick acted cowardly (i.e., ordering her killed and then having Trubel do the dirty work). As a group, we weigh the incidents of courage (or lack of) against one another. We may not come to a 100% agreement, but we might in the end determine that courage is not one of Nick's strong suits when it comes to deciding the goodness of his character. Or, the one incident with Juliette had extenuating circumstances, and in the end, he is considered a courageous character.

Without some type of a consensus, this becomes just another thread where we voice our opinions and the great questions you asked fall by the wayside. Just my thoughts.

(07-17-2015, 04:43 AM)Adriano Neres Rodrigues Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-16-2015, 08:24 PM)irukandji Wrote: [ -> ]Here's a question I would like to add to the above. What makes a good person good?

That is a great question and I would like to know your answer for this.
My generic answer, more to think than to give a final answer, is:
I think a "character in a TV show"*, to be considered good, must be someone that acts trying to bring good results for other characters whenever possible and tries to avoid bad characters to bring bad results to others, thinking always in the majority of the story.
Grimm example:
Adelaind arrived at Juliette and Nick home with Kelly needing help because of the child. A bad character would have killed Adelaind (Should someone blame Juliette and Nick for that?). They though in the child (and in other factors) and helped Adelaind. After that, they helped Kelly to take the child away thinking in the good of child and in the danger if the royals get the child. I don't know if those were the best actions, but the intention according to the context of the show where good.

Another way to see the question is thinking about:
What is to be a good person?
What is not to be a good person?

ideas thoughts?

* Note: "character in a TV show" because I want to keep the talk in the fantasy context, about grimm series. Considering real life this would be answered with a lot of variables to be considered: philosophy, religion, culture, etc.

---

(07-16-2015, 03:35 PM)jsgrimm45 Wrote: [ -> ]When you are dealing with royals, key, coins, and maybe reapers how can he be lawful? Again 2 cents Nick has to walk in two worlds I can't see a straight line for him to walk, his only hope is he will stay as close to lawful as he can.

Good points @ jsgrimm45.
I totally agree with you on that.
Wherever Nick has a situation he has to deal with, he has to choose between act as grimm or as a police officer.
When he his dealing with royals, key, coins, and maybe reapers, I think the choose for him is easy: he goes as grimm (trying to be a good grimm) because those situations just exists because he is a grimm.
But when he is dealing with a normal person just is simply a normal wesen, shouldn’t he be a police officer (a Lawful one)?
I have the impression that in the first season Nick was more Lawful. Now he is being more grimm even in situations where he is not dealing with royals, key, coins, and maybe reapers. The frog girl is an example of that.
This raises a question: Does being grimm necessarily mean to be lawlessness?
If we think about Kelly, Trubel (she I think it is questionable for while) and Nick himself, apparently they don’t have many options on this.

That is a good point does being a Grimm mean being lawless just paraphrasing.

That does (note New Guy post) bring up angles to the character doesn't it. I would see it this way yes sometimes it does as New Guy noted but the overall question should it be for Nick? That could be the harder question to answer.

Kelly wasn't a police officer so I have to take her as a pure Grimm and we never did get a good background on what she did for 18 years. We did see her take the truck but she didn't kill to do it, even the FBI agent she could have killed but didn't so with that I rate her good.

Trubel was attacked and we don't know just how high her body count is (would bet 2 cents it's higher than Nick's). Looks like she killed when needed the question we don't know was it always needed? I'll have to leave her for now an open question. You know Adriano until now I had not even questioned Trubel's past to look at good or lawless. We can believe the writers will make her a good character with some sharp edges. But you question does cause one to think. How do you see her?

Part of the problem with good Nick and bad Nick is that he lives in two different worlds. The non-Grimm world would not understand why there was a big rabbit foot under the bed and how this was connected to the death of a normal person. Trying to explain that to a normal person is not possible without exposing all of the Wessen, good and bad, to extreme danger. It was good to refer it to the Council for resolution, even thought the Portland police/DA/justice system would be the normal path to good justice. As Marie told Nick, his job is to hunt down the bad Wessen. Try explaining why and how the chef killed his victims without without mentioning Wessens. Would anyone care to try.

(07-17-2015, 08:33 AM)jsgrimm45 Wrote: [ -> ]That is a good point does being a Grimm mean being lawless just paraphrasing.

That does (note New Guy post) bring up angles to the character doesn't it. I would see it this way yes sometimes it does as New Guy noted but the overall question should it be for Nick? That could be the harder question to answer.

Kelly wasn't a police officer so I have to take her as a pure Grimm and we never did get a good background on what she did for 18 years. We did see her take the truck but she didn't kill to do it, even the FBI agent she could have killed but didn't so with that I rate her good.

Trubel was attacked and we don't know just how high her body count is (would bet 2 cents it's higher than Nick's). Looks like she killed when needed the question we don't know was it always needed? I'll have to leave her for now an open question. You know Adriano until now I had not even questioned Trubel's past to look at good or lawless. We can believe the writers will make her a good character with some sharp edges. But you question does cause one to think. How do you see her?

jsgrimm45, you have a point when say that Kelly (I will consider Trubel too) wasn't a police officer, and then she was a pure Grimm. My comments about Kelly and Trubel were to focus in "being a grimm" and how this influence Nick decisions.
Considering Kelly, Trubel, Nick himself, and the descriptions from the book, I have the impression that the grimm do what they believe is the right thing to do.
Just to make a point, I see Trubel as a good character. And you are right about Kelly, we don’t have enough background to analyse her.

(07-17-2015, 08:56 AM)Adriano Neres Rodrigues Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-17-2015, 08:33 AM)jsgrimm45 Wrote: [ -> ]That is a good point does being a Grimm mean being lawless just paraphrasing.

That does (note New Guy post) bring up angles to the character doesn't it. I would see it this way yes sometimes it does as New Guy noted but the overall question should it be for Nick? That could be the harder question to answer.

Kelly wasn't a police officer so I have to take her as a pure Grimm and we never did get a good background on what she did for 18 years. We did see her take the truck but she didn't kill to do it, even the FBI agent she could have killed but didn't so with that I rate her good.

Trubel was attacked and we don't know just how high her body count is (would bet 2 cents it's higher than Nick's). Looks like she killed when needed the question we don't know was it always needed? I'll have to leave her for now an open question. You know Adriano until now I had not even questioned Trubel's past to look at good or lawless. We can believe the writers will make her a good character with some sharp edges. But you question does cause one to think. How do you see her?

jsgrimm45, you have a point when say that Kelly (I will consider Trubel too) wasn't a police officer, and then she was a pure Grimm. My comments about Kelly and Trubel were to focus in "being a grimm" and how this influence Nick decisions.
Considering Kelly, Trubel, Nick himself, and the descriptions from the book, I have the impression that the grimm do what they believe is the right thing to do.
Just to make a point, I see Trubel as a good character. And you are right about Kelly, we don’t have enough background to analyse her.

I had a great flash of insight yes I know it is hard to believe.
We have to look at Hank Nick sometimes as one. Hank is Nick's lawful side and Nick is Hank's Grimm side. I see the two of them as almost one Hank has stopped Nick a few times lawful but in the last episode Hank joined Nick almost like a Grimm.

Should we add that to this thread?