This is not a thread about whether Goodwin is bad or good. there is already a thread on that.

I want to go back and examine one particular act that he did. In TOW, we learned that Goodwin was trying to make a case for AL and that he seemed to believe that he was acting in the best interest of the Tailies and the Others. Goddwin has been portrayed as a conflicted man, unhappy in his marriage, happy with Juliet, under order from Ben. One thing that confuses me is his actions toward Nathan.

We have seen the Others operating on the stance that they are the 'good' ones. They want to provide a better life for children and only offer an oppurtunity to join them to survivors that they feel are worthy of such an honor. Snapping Nathan's neck does not seem to fit with what we have learned about Goodwin.

Anyone out there think they can help me understand how to reconcile Other's Goodwin with the Tailes Goodwin?

I figure he killed Nathan because he knew if AL figured it out she would kill him..

Do we really know this to be the motive of the Others?

i don't know but i would say that all the others seemed to kill people very easily...JUliet killing Pickett was very cold...and before she did Sawyer already told Kate that she was cold and able to kill someone without a problem... i think Goodwin is portrayed the same way Juliet is... and it's also true for Ethan.
Why, i don't know?
For Ethan we had some sort of explanation in the mobisode but for Goodwin and Juliet ???

Self preservation is my guess. If Nathan had a chance to talk he would have convinced AL that he was not the other. I heard Ben refer to Goodwin making a case for Anna Lucia, but is there any other confirmation of that than Ben's word? I don't believe Ben. I think he was just trying to give a reason to not recall Goodwin.

I don't know from what we saw in season 2 Goodwin really seemed seduced by Anna lucia...

Self preservation is my guess. If Nathan had a chance to talk he would have convinced AL that he was not the other. I heard Ben refer to Goodwin making a case for Anna Lucia, but is there any other confirmation of that than Ben's word? I don't believe Ben. I think he was just trying to give a reason to not recall Goodwin.Ben did mention it before, during "Two for the Road."

GALE: He kept saying you were misunderstood.
ANA: What are you talking about?
GALE: Goodwin. Yes, he told us all about you, Ana -- how he thought you were worthy, and that he could change you. But he was wrong. And it cost him his life.
ANA: He was going to kill me.Though they can retcon this scene to be an extension of the new Juliet flashback, at least it's consistent...

I figure he killed Nathan because he knew if AL figured it out she would kill him..

That. Nathan was the guy who had to take the fall for him so his cover wouldn't be blown. Simple as that. He had to kill him swiftly and make sure he'll make no noise and not fight back so the best way was to make Nathan trust him right till the very last second when it would have been too late to scream anyway.

As far as I am concerned, we have never had a reasonable explanation. The explanations in this thread seem more like rationalizations.

Nathan was in the pit, and he presumably wasn't an Other, so no matter how much questioning he got, there would have been no danger to Goodwin. Goodwin could have left him in there, I don't understand the problem. Perhaps he wanted the group to move on rather than hang around, I don't know, but there are other ways to do that besides snap Nathan's neck. He could have just let Nathan go, Nathan would have run as fast as he could to get away from Ana Lucia.

Personally, right now, I feel like the writers wanted the Others to appear to be brutal and mysterious, so they just had him snap Nathan's neck. Now they're having to back-pedal as they are going in the direction that the Others have some kind of rational explanation for their plan, and that they are not just brutal monsters, as they were portrayed to be initially. But I think they've dug themselves in a bit deep, especially with the neck snapping, and snapping all the fingers of Sceve, no need for it, and the way in which they kidnapped Walt etc, it was all done in such a sinister and barbaric way, to now try to make up an explanation for it all, where they won't just look like maniacs, it's a big task which I am not convinced they will succeed at.

Personally, right now, I feel like the writers wanted the Others to appear to be brutal and mysterious, so they just had him snap Nathan's neck. Now they're having to back-pedal as they are going in the direction that the Others have some kind of rational explanation for their plan, and that they are not just brutal monsters, as they were portrayed to be initially. But I think they've dug themselves in a bit deep, especially with the neck snapping, and snapping all the fingers of Sceve, no need for it, and the way in which they kidnapped Walt etc, it was all done in such a sinister and barbaric way, to now try to make up an explanation for it all, where they won't just look like maniacs, it's a big task which I am not convinced they will succeed at.But are they trying to backpedal? All throughout Season 3 we've had people insisting we're going to start seeing the Others in a better light, but throughout that entire season they were still inflicting all sorts of brutality on the Losties: Sawyer getting a beatdown every episode during the mini-arc (and barely avoiding getting shot at least twice). The whole Juliet-is-undercover-so-they-can-kidnap more-women thing. Ben ordering Locke to knife his father (in front of the kidnapped children, no less!). The whole Ben/Dharma genocide thing. Ben shooting Locke and leaving him for dead. Ben brutally manipulating Jack by making him believe he's going to kill Sayid & friends (though it was ostensibly a trick, that's still quite an emotional neck-snapping). Heck, Ben orders Mikhail to shoot some of his own people, just so he doesn't have to explain himself later. And this week we got a Ben as Psycho-in-Love storyline.

If they're trying to backtrack from the brutality, they're doing a pretty lousy job!

Personally, right now, I feel like the writers wanted the Others to appear to be brutal and mysterious, so they just had him snap Nathan's neck. Now they're having to back-pedal as they are going in the direction that the Others have some kind of rational explanation for their plan, and that they are not just brutal monsters, as they were portrayed to be initially.

You can't have a rational explanation for your plan and go around snapping necks? The two aren't mutually exclusive.

In fact both Ben and Locke (in a manner of speaking) killed their fathers as some sort of tribute to the Others, as we saw in Season 3. Then Ben tried to kill Locke.

Doesn't really sound like the writers are backpedaling and trying to say they're all good or anything. Killing has never been a big deal to the Others (with the exception of the beach scene where Tom didn't shoot Sayid, Jin, and Bernard).

It seems like part of the moral code of the others is that everyone is separated into "worthy" and "unworthy", and the unworthy are completely dispensable. That it doesn't matter how one treats them, because they don't count. Goodwin's actions seem consistent with that. When Ana accused him of killing Nathan, his first defense wasn't that he had no choice, it was that "he wasn't a good person."

It seems like part of the moral code of the others is that everyone is separated into "worthy" and "unworthy", and the unworthy are completely dispensable. That it doesn't matter how one treats them, because they don't count. Goodwin's actions seem consistent with that. When Ana accused him of killing Nathan, his first defense wasn't that he had no choice, it was that "he wasn't a good person."

So I guess by that logic we know that Locke is not a good person, hm?

At the time, Ana Lucia was threatening to cut Nathan's finger off and Goodwin was afraid she'd work out he wasn't a mole once that failed to loosen his tongue. Dunno why he didn't just let him go, though. Or maybe he didn't want A-L to tarnish her goodness by committing torture (so he kills Nathan instead; weird logic, but it's Lost...)

I always got the impression Goodwin had completed his mission when he offered to carry the radio to higher ground alone and would simply have disappeared into the jungle never to return if Ana Lucia hadn't insisted on accompanying him.

As far as I am concerned, we have never had a reasonable explanation. The explanations in this thread seem more like rationalizations.

Nathan was in the pit, and he presumably wasn't an Other, so no matter how much questioning he got, there would have been no danger to Goodwin. Goodwin could have left him in there, I don't understand the problem. Perhaps he wanted the group to move on rather than hang around, I don't know, but there are other ways to do that besides snap Nathan's neck. He could have just let Nathan go, Nathan would have run as fast as he could to get away from Ana Lucia.

...and eventually stumble onto Otherville for instance? Or on one of the many outposts the Others have in the jungle?

Ana Lucia was going to cut his finger. That's when Goodwin decided to finish him off because Ana would have been convinced of Nathan's innocence after she saw him wailing in pain and still screaming that he has no clue wtf she's talking about. I think she could have realized her mistake and put two and two together faster the way she eventually did with Goodwin and that's what he was trying to prevent.

So I guess by that logic we know that Locke is not a good person, hm?
Hm, good point. I think Locke is willing to kill someone who he believes is a bad person, and is intending harm. But I think that's a lot different from the "Other" ideology, where someone, just by virtue of not being on the list of the "worthy", can be killed to set an example. (Like Ethan did with scott/steve.)

Anyway, I think the point, where the writers are really making this far more intelligent than your typical tv show or movie, is that there are better and worse ideologies; and a person may subscribe to what can be fairly called an "evil" ideology, and still be likable and sympathetic. And someone can be likable and sympathetic and still subscribe to an evil ideology. Life is complex like that, and it clouds our judgment.

I don't think that my explanation is necessarily true. I just don't think that there has been a viable explanation given in the show, to me it does seem inconsistent behaviour for Goodwin to suddenly snap that innocent guy's neck. A more reasonable explanation might be that Nathan was a bad person, which they discovered once they compiled his file. If Nathan was a killer or something, then I'd understand.

It isn't as simple as "kill anyone who isn't one of us" since they have a lot of opportunities to do that, and they don't do it. So there must be some bigger plan, but the more "mysteries" like this that they add, the more elaborate the explanation and overall plan of the Others needs to be to compensate.

I think that the Others were just so intent on their agenda (protect the island, do Jacob's bidding, obey Ben) without any question, that they did whatever they deemed necessary to get the job done. Look at the way Juliet went after Charlotte and Daniel, ready to shoot them because Ben said it had to be done. And while we're on that subject, look at the way Charlotte and Daniel are determined to carry out their own agenda and will dispatch whoever gets in their way or tries to stop them. Charlotte didn't just hold Juliet back while Daniel finished what he was doing; she was giving her a real beat down.

I may be wrong here, but during the other 48 days I got the impression that there was a little something-something going on between ana-lucia and goodwin, not that I am saying they did anything, but that there was chemistry and they kind of liked each other at first (before she killed him, obviously)... so my first thought when it was revealed that harper was goodwins wife was, what a dog, he certainly likes his ladies, definitely not a trust worthy guy!! I could be wrong, so go easy, first post n all! :biggrin:



Grace

I think that the Others were just so intent on their agenda (protect the island, do Jacob's bidding, obey Ben) without any question, that they did whatever they deemed necessary to get the job done. Look at the way Juliet went after Charlotte and Daniel, ready to shoot them because Ben said it had to be done. And while we're on that subject, look at the way Charlotte and Daniel are determined to carry out their own agenda and will dispatch whoever gets in their way or tries to stop them. Charlotte didn't just hold Juliet back while Daniel finished what he was doing; she was giving her a real beat down.
I agree with that entirely, but what is the motivation behind ordering Goodwin to snap Nathan's neck, what is to be achieved from Ben's / Jacob's / Steve Austin's point of view? That's what I don't understand

But are they trying to backpedal? All throughout Season 3 we've had people insisting we're going to start seeing the Others in a better light, but throughout that entire season they were still inflicting all sorts of brutality on the Losties: Sawyer getting a beatdown every episode during the mini-arc (and barely avoiding getting shot at least twice). The whole Juliet-is-undercover-so-they-can-kidnap more-women thing. Ben ordering Locke to knife his father (in front of the kidnapped children, no less!). The whole Ben/Dharma genocide thing. Ben shooting Locke and leaving him for dead. Ben brutally manipulating Jack by making him believe he's going to kill Sayid & friends (though it was ostensibly a trick, that's still quite an emotional neck-snapping). Heck, Ben orders Mikhail to shoot some of his own people, just so he doesn't have to explain himself later. And this week we got a Ben as Psycho-in-Love storyline.

If they're trying to backtrack from the brutality, they're doing a pretty lousy job!
It's a good point. I still don't think we know the others fully yet.

It's a good point. I still don't think we know the others fully yet.

Well, The Other are one of the gret mysteries, we dont nkow nothing about them

There is also something else about Goodwins dead body that blthers me, right after AL kills him (http://gallery.lost-media.com/displayimage-814-483.html) and where Jin and Eko (http://gallery.lost-media.com/displayimage-757-251.html) see him are 2 different places, now if the 2 episodes had been far apart then I would chalk it up to a simple error, like that is even possible on this show, but the fact that they are episode 205 and 207 makes me think there is something there and then when Ben takes Juliet (http://gallery.lost-media.com/displayimage-1391-575.html) to see him it's the same place as the other 48 days. I'm curious as to what if anything you all think.

As for the original post, I think it was obvious why Goodwin killed Nathan, he told us why he did it, take him for his word.

I realize the Jin and Eko pic isn't so obvious, but there was a "wall' behind them and in "the other 48 days' there is no 'wall' as well as TOW there is also no 'wall' don't say it's the angle of the camera because the 'wall' is rather large, there is no possible way of fimling the scene were Al kills him to completely hide the 'wall'

All I can find in terms of Goodwin's explanation is:

Anna Lucia: "Did you kill him?"
Goodwin: "Nathan was not a good person. That's why he wasn't on the list."

That's not very specific - is there more that he said that I missed?

And while we're on that subject, look at the way Charlotte and Daniel are determined to carry out their own agenda and will dispatch whoever gets in their way or tries to stop them. Charlotte didn't just hold Juliet back while Daniel finished what he was doing; she was giving her a real beat down.Charlotte had a gun. The perfect weapon to "dispatch" either Kate or Juliet, yet she shot neither.

I'm just sayin'...

All I can find in terms of Goodwin's explanation is:

Anna Lucia: "Did you kill him?"
Goodwin: "Nathan was not a good person. That's why he wasn't on the list."

That's not very specific - is there more that he said that I missed?
From The Other 48 Days:

ANA: Nathan -- what did you...

GOODWIN: If you had cut off his finger and he still told you he was on the plane, I think maybe you would have started to believe you had the wrong guy.

From The Other 48 Days:
ANA: Nathan -- what did you... GOODWIN: If you had cut off his finger and he still told you he was on the plane, I think maybe you would have started to believe you had the wrong guy.

That still isn't an explanation of why he snapped his neck.

"I didn't want you to cut his fingers off, so I thought the best thing to do was snap his neck"

I mean, that's just insane if that's his logic

That still isn't an explanation of why he snapped his neck.

"I didn't want you to cut his fingers off, so I thought the best thing to do was snap his neck"

I mean, that's just insane if that's his logicI don't think he cared about Nathan's fingers...

He was worried that once Ana pulled off some fingers and his story didn't change, she would realize she had the wrong guy. (Thus making her more likely to figure out Goodwin was the mole.)

I don't think he cared about Nathan's fingers...

He was worried that once Ana pulled off some fingers and his story didn't change, she would realize she had the wrong guy. (Thus making her more likely to figure out Goodwin was the mole.)

Sure, but there are other solutions besides neck-snappage. Many a time I have been in a situation where I've said to myself "It would be so easy to just creep up, you're on carpet, just creep up, they can't hear you... then wham, snap their stupid neck, and put the body in the trunk, take it to the docks in the early hours of the morning, all your problems will be solved" but to date, I haven't snapped a single neck, because there are other ways to deal with such situations

That still isn't an explanation of why he snapped his neck.

"I didn't want you to cut his fingers off, so I thought the best thing to do was snap his neck"

I mean, that's just insane if that's his logic

I agree and that has been my big problem with the two Goodwins that we have seen. It is extended to the Others as well. Goodwin is acting on a list of good people, right? Clearly, killing Nathan would not affect his status as a "good" person in the eyes of the Others. Then we have Locke's conversation with Kate when he tells her that he made a case for her with the Others, but they cannot believe that she is a good person (paraphrasing). She killed a man to protect her mother from abuse. She is not considered a good person. Goodwin kills a man to protect his identity and is a good person. Huh?

Sure, but there are other solutions besides neck-snappage. Many a time I have been in a situation where I've said to myself "It would be so easy to just creep up, you're on carpet, just creep up, they can't hear you... then wham, snap their stupid neck, and put the body in the trunk, take it to the docks in the early hours of the morning, all your problems will be solved" but to date, I haven't snapped a single neck, because there are other ways to deal with such situations
Clearly, you don't have what it takes to be an Other. Sorry, pal, no people squeamish about killing get on the list!
100%
I just don't think that there has been a viable explanation given in the show, to me it does seem inconsistent behaviour for Goodwin to suddenly snap that innocent guy's neck.

Inconsistent with what? With being a nice guy to Juliette? You think that there were no Nazis who were nice to pretty girls? Killing Nathan was the most convenient way to cover his tracks. If he let him go instead, Nathan could have told someone who it was who let him go, and he would have been compromised. And the Others have no qualms about killing "unworthy" people when it is the most convenient thing to do.

I don't remember that particular chain of events as well as I should, but didn't the tailies start to suspect a mole because of the specificity of the raids? Well, Goodwin was probably trying to work with their logic. They probably thought the raids would stop if they had the mole. Goodwin needed a way to keep the system working without making them suspicious of another mole. He took Nathan out of the equation, probably thinking that the raids could then continue, leaving the tailies to believe that Nathan is still behind them. Also, Nathan may very well have been a bad guy as well.

They knew about the mole because they recovered a list detailing names and descriptions from one of the Others they killed.

I haven't snapped a single neck, because there are other ways to deal with such situationsPfft! Name one.

Then we have Locke's conversation with Kate when he tells her that he made a case for her with the Others, but they cannot believe that she is a good person (paraphrasing). She killed a man to protect her mother from abuse. She is not considered a good person.And even weirder, right after they reject Kate for killing her father, they reject Locke for not killing his! :insane:

I think it just all comes down to the moral code of the Others. We have seen time and time again that their definition of good is very different from the Losties.They have different standards for themselves than for others. Think we are ever going to get a gander at their moral code?

And even weirder, right after they reject Kate for killing her father, they reject Locke for not killing his! :insane:

I think that Ben only insisted that Locke kill his father to prove himself to the Others because he didn't think he could do it. The Others believe that Ben was the only one born on the island and the only one who can converse with Jacob. They think he is special. So they listen to him.

What Ben didn't count on was that Locke would figure out a way to kill his father without getting his hands dirty -- something very Ben-like, actually -- which is why, coupled with Locke being able to hear Jacob, Ben shot Locke. Locke was getting too powerful in the eyes of the Others.