I mean, first of all, that’s exactly the kind of thing nobles did. I know the word as an adjective in current usage reflects the image that nobles want people to hold, rather than the reality of assassinations of both reputations and persons for political and personal ends, but I think that the distinction is material to the discussion.

Garak is conflicted about many things. He’s a brilliant and multidimensional character - a torturer with a heart of gold - and it is exactly that Janus-like relation to morality as conceived of by Starfleet that makes him so key in the Dominion War. Like Division 31, his character brought into relief the existential question of the role of intelligence services and dirty deeds in a liberal democracy. The Roddenberryverse Federation was the Galahad (or at least the Lancelot) of the galaxy, and the occasional dark aspects that surfaced invoke the role of organizations like the CIA in a democracy. Garak, as a Cardassian and officer in the Obsidian Order, adheres to a broadly different morality, but ends up aligning with the Federation because of his conscience. His multi-faceted relationship with Bashir is often used to show his “odi et amo” relationship to the Federation.

In any case, I think that I’d have to characterize Garak as “noble.” He was constantly thinking about the big picture and the greater good, even if the deck he was playing had a few more cards than some of the Federation folk were comfortable with. If you define “noble” as being completely exclusive of “evil,” then the character concept of the OP cannot exist. That would be a shame, because it’s an interesting concept to explore.

I guess that depends if a noble character can be an "ends justify the means" character.

Garak orchestrated an assassination and frame job but it was for the purpose of defeating the Dominion. Since the Dominion was an oppreeive regime, defeating them serves the greater good and thus his actions could be argued to be noble.

Whether Garak is noble or not really is a philosophical question.

I think he qualifies as a magnificent bastard, but he's definitely not noble. He doesn't quite match what the poster is asking for.

I agree, perhaps what people see as noble in him is that he is incorruptible when it comes to his own moral code. I always think of noble gases when I hear "noble" xD so something that doesn't mix. And I think that's right for Garak. Noble as in righteous definitely is not fitting.

He is an incredibly likeable character, but just because that's a part of his skillset!

We shouldn't forget that he believes cruelty can be justified, like most Cardassians seem to do. Either a lot of people agree on this take on cruelty, or it's easy to forget because in the show his cruelty is rarely shown. We just hear about it (mostly).

I don't think the books are canon but first off Garak is truly one of my favorite characters and second off Andrew Robinson wrote an amazing book about him that I highly suggest you read if you want to know more about him. He's complicated but is absolutely not a good guy, at least not in the traditional sense.

The book is very good! It's called A Stitch in Time and apparently the audiobook is narrated by Andrew Robinson. I read the book, mostly in his voice, but now that I know the audiobook was narrated by him I need to get it haha!

On the other hand I can’t see how anyone who watched DS9 can call Garek noble.

I can call him noble. He has his moral code, a very strange one, maybe, of a spy, but still, there is a flavor of nobility in him.

Also, I don't see how hes gay coded. He doesn't have a sexuaility.

In the Pale Moonlight is one thing, but in Broken Link Garak is caught by Worf attempting wholesale genocide.

What he did wasn't noble, but it was for the good of the entire Alpha Quadrant. I don't think it's unfair to say that he was almost always on the "right" side of things throughout DS9.