I was lying in bed talking to my mate on the phone last night and I suddenly realised. Perhaps there is not just one set of the others, what if there were two? The 'Good' others and the 'Evil' others.

The two others who got killed by Mr Eko may have come into the camp to try and save everyone from the 'Bad Others' ... but when they got killed the rest of the 'Good Others' decided that the only way they would be able to save the kids and some of the passengers would be to drag them off against their will.

This is unlike the boat 'others' ... now these people I feel are the 'Bad Others'

The whispering in the jungle could be those killed by the 'Bad Others' spirits, warning people off. Because it seems to only happen when danger is near.

This would also explain the whole 'list' thing, which we heard last episode was a list of 'Good people' ... The guy wasnt on the list because he wasnt good.

This could also be why the good others walk around in bare feet, as protection from the bad others hearing them. They are used to having to be quiet and dicreat.

Well ive always thought there were at least 2 sets of others..the others and the other others..

It does seem likely that they each have their own territory and that Goodwins lot reside on one side whilst Ethans lot reside on the other [dark territory region]..

I think they may be in competiton with each other..but what is odd is why Goodwin had a whole army of others at his disposal, whilst Ethan only inflitrated and didnt reveal any of his buddies..

Maybe each set of others adopt different tactics..afterall it does seem like a contest is going on and whilst there are advantages of mass attacks [Goodwins crew]..it could be argued that Ethans solo mission was also effective..to a point.

I dont think ethan was solo, we just havent met the rest of them yet...

This has been playing on my mind as well. Theres the others who where walking throught the jungle with the teddy bear, they seem a bit kinda primative and there is Ethan, Goodwin and the ones on the boat seem organised...or maybe its just me!

I think there's two sets of The Others who are, like you said, 'good' and 'bad'. I just don't know which group would be good or bad..

But there's one line that makes me think about there being two groups of Others. Goodwin said it in '...48 days', just after he realizes that Ana's found out about him. It's: 'Nathan was not a good person. That's why he wasn't on the list.'

I just don't know what to make of it. They could be killing off all the bad ones, which would make them good. But then I think about the kids - why did they take them?!

nathan wasnt on the list because he was a bad person...they only take good people. "children are fine" i think he said...

The possibilities of so many different groups of others are so confusing, so I definately don't think that there are only one group. As to who belongs to which group completely baffles me, but I think that the boaties are not the same as the ones kidnapping the tailies. Does anyone think that the barefoot people were slaves to that group of others [goodwin's]? I do, and I think that Ethan was another of their "leaders" [goodwin being among the others]. As for Ethan not having any gang, I think that they were there at Claire and Charlie's kidnapping, as it's very unlikely that he was strong enough to carry them both off himself. Unless of course he is a superstrong clone! The possibilities are endless!

lostwithoutlost thats kinda what i was trying to get at but seem to have gone a bit further than i have with the idea, Do like the Ethan being in charg idea interesting

They take the children first, because all children are innocent. Your born innocent.

ive got another others theory here:

you are probably going to laugh at me for this but im thinking about the speedyness of the others getting to the survivors (when they first crashed). maybe, the electro-magentic thing does something every 16 years. maybe the others are from 32 years ago, rossaus is 16 years ago and now this. ethan and goodwin could have been children 32 years ago (rightish age). the others could have been driven crazy by the electro-magnet stuff or something like that. anyway, the others worked out the timing and sent people to a certain perimeter to "blend" in with the new survivors. ethan happened to be by the main guys and goodwin was by the tallies. just wondering like.

Im loving this idea, as Ana lucia said he got to the beach ten minutes after the crash... therefor he must have known about it before!

Another quote I've just remembered ... Goodwin said "Maybe they're not... attacking us"

Heres a theory as too why they took the children- tabula rasa. An episode title from S1, and it's a term invented by philosopher John Locke meaning 'blank slate'. You see, Locke believed that people are born with no ideas or impressions, we only learn with experience. So perhaps the Others took the children because they are more impressionable and easier to "convert" (for want of a better word) to being an Other.

i definitely think there's sumthing to the 2 groups of others theory. goodwin's sayin that "maybe they were'nt attacking us," definitely sounds odd.
but i couldv sworn that ethan knows jack from before. in season 1, in the episode where jack's father accidently kills a pregnant woman in OT, the woman's husband looks like ethan, plus that was the episode where ethan kidnapps claire aswell. maybe to get back at jack?

quote:

Originally posted by devane92:
I think there's two sets of The Others who are, like you said, 'good' and 'bad'. I just don't know which group would be good or bad..

But there's one line that makes me think about there being two groups of Others. Goodwin said it in '...48 days', just after he realizes that Ana's found out about him. It's: 'Nathan was not a good person. That's why he wasn't on the list.'

I just don't know what to make of it. They could be killing off all the bad ones, which would make them good. But then I think about the kids - why did they take them?!

Theres definitely two sets of others imo..but im not sure about the whole "bad" thing that Goodwin came out with..because "bad" is very subjective. By "bad" he could have meant not suitable in terms of age, genetics, character etc etc. ALthough on the otherhand as you say he could have meant that he [Nathan] was one of the 'bad others' [if there is such a thing]..

Personally i think that it is natural for a rival to suggest that his opponent is "bad"..therefore i dont think Nathan was neceassrily a "bad other"..i think he was indeed an Other..but not necessarily bad..

I do think that one group of Others are more aggressive and perhaps more ruthless..however i think both sides [if there are indeed 2 sets of others] can claim themselves to be good [and the other to be bad]..its just a matter of whose reasoning you [as in we as individuals] agree with.