111 replies to this topic

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

OK. That's helpful.  I don't know that I could have been expected to read all of that from your original post.

I don't know if anything besides moral relativists exist.  Intellectually I try to strive for amorality. There are people that say they are moral absolutists.  But in practice, I don't know what it would mean to be a moral absolutist, what actions who be demonstrative of someone who actually abides by a moral absolutist ideology

Summerqueen, on 06 April 2012 - 04:43 PM, said:

It is not my object to discern without hearing a case. Which is why I refer you to the context of the original mention of "material good in the world," which was in direct reply to another post. The comment can be approached in number of ways, none of which should be a priori shut down. Rather, posters should be allowed to make an evidence-based case for any particular leader who took a relativistic stance. I already claimed an unfamiliarity with leaders who may ascribe to a relativistic outlook; my word choice here only attempts to direct valuation of leadership contributions to discernible "good" to the world at large (having no intent beyond the actual denotation of what that means) in direct contrast to the harm mentioned in a previous post. It was not an attempt to stifle the ways in which we can perceive or talk about that good, only a flag against myopic cultural argument (I could go on here to point out that relativists often duck the problems of a lack of general agreement,

I don't understand how this is a problem for relativism.  Lack of general agreement seems to be a problem for moral absolutism

Quote

  how consensus may be reached, how relative value systems may cohabit and cooperate for mutual benefit of all involved or at least of a diverse majority). Shrugging off the argumentative burden of defining terms onto the person who is not making an argument may make the arguer's job easier, but don't be surprised if the person saying "I don't know about that, tell me more" refuses to do the work. It falls to the person making the argument to define and limit the terms.

So here we are quibbling instead of addressing the OP.

Are we? Isn't the issue at hand how do you define a set of universal moral standards. When we discuss "good" which is a term you introduced, I presume we're discussing the good a person does for their own people.  Often times such good comes at the expense of others

Quote

/that line of discussion

If we wanted to put this discussion back on track, we could talk about how literary villains do not have to be painted black to operate as villains  

The terms villain, badie, bad guy are generally not useful.  They don't really mean anything in literature

Quote

(this goes for real world villains  

I didn't know there were real world villains

Quote

, too). A villain is defined by the work he does in the story, not necessarily by any character traits. Likewise, villains in the real world are defined by their actions. They can be the polite, quiet guy next door, sure—but if there are severed heads in the freezer, the guy is a villain. The idea that a villain must be metaphysically evil is a bit limited, as very few proficient or complex authors use antagonists thusly and fewer people still meet up with the devil incarnate in real life.

Do you have any view on villains, literary or otherwise, that you'd like to discuss?

I don't think villain is a useful term, any more than devil incarnate

Quote

I'm sure some people would be interested in your consideration of the topic. However, I will probably not continue with you from here.

ETA: I am having an extremely hard time connecting to the forum right now. It may be some time (again) before I can pick up here.

Edited by Lord Littlefinger's Lash, 06 April 2012 - 07:47 PM.

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

James Arryn, on 06 April 2012 - 06:02 PM, said:

Lincoln...it's so hard to break down where the real man begins and the politician/debater ends. Reading the Lincoln-Douglas debates you notice that he definitely alters his 'beliefs' depending on where he happens to be speaking, and there are many other positions/statements that would seem to agree as well, but there are also undercurrents which supporters trumpet suggesting he definitely believed in a specific higher ideal/goal that transcended his material wants, and just acted pragmatically in order to be able to be active in its regard.

I'd probably lean towards agreeing with you, though.

FDR, to be honest, probably applies. I feel somewhat less versed on him, having only studied him with regards to his connections with WWII, and that setting will tend to frame things in a slightly more sophomoric light, so I'll defer to you on this. Nothing I have read would give me reason to disagree.

Churchill....eeeh...tough one. Depends to what degree you believe he bought into his own flamboyant rhetoric. I've real all the histories he has written, and to the modern ear they seem laden with fairly good vs. evil tones, so I don't know if I'd agree here.

Napoleon happens to be one of the 2 or 3 people about whom I have studied most,so it's actually harder for me to summarize a captioned take on him here. If pushed I'd suggest it depends on whether or not you see the concept of a meritocracy as an idealistic or pragmatic aim.



Lol, no, of course their isn't.

well Napoleon didn't seem to have a problem with making his family members kings of various vassal states.

[IronSuitor]

It is self-evidently ridiculous to label a person wicked for following the social mores of their time and place. It's not their fault that they had misogyny drummed into their head since birth any more than it is your virtue that you had feminism (relatively) drummed into yours. Truly good and evil people exist at the margins, stepping outside of society's standards and crafting their own. A person in Westeros who believes that feudalism is wrong and power should be distributed based on the general will would be an ethical genius. A person who believes the same thing in 2012 New York City is just stating the obvious.

[James Arryn]

Lord Littlefinger, on 06 April 2012 - 06:58 PM, said:

well Napoleon didn't seem to have a problem with making his family members kings of various vassal states.

Right, but how much that was a concession to a broader aim is a matter of debate.

More books have been written about Napoleon than anyone else in history. If for no other reason the sheer volume of documented opinion makes him hard to pin down on anything with any sense of complexity. He was incredibly ambitious, he was brave, he was a military genius, he inspired men, he had a remarkable functional intelligence, he was opportunistic and driven. Those are just about the only things most agree on. Everything else, especially when you get into his beliefs/vision is extremely nuanced and there's a lot of evidence to support many seemingly conflicted positions.

Whether or not the nepotism was a sign that he was increasingly turning away from the ideals of the Revolution, or at least it's most recent manifestation, of whether it was a further sign that he had decided there had to be a skeleton of functionality beneath the robes...more egalite and fraternite than liberte, as the saying goes..is again, hard to have more than an opinion.

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

James Arryn, on 06 April 2012 - 07:35 PM, said:

Right, but how much that was a concession to a broader aim is a matter of debate.

well right but isn't that the definition of relativism.

[butterbumps!]

I think it's clear from a lot of the other threads that many of us, as modern readers, do judge a character's actions as right and wrong.   In all the love/ hate threads, not to mention those devoted to "best rulers" and the like, "right and wrong," and "good and bad" evaluations of a character and their actions is constantly debated.   In fact, all of those threads inevitably devolve into 2 passionate groups, where both sides will even use the same example to argue their respective cases, so it seems like many of us are coming from different idealogical premises when interpreting a character's actions.    For an example of this, some answer "Stannis" to "who is the best king," based on his merits as a character and what he can provide to the realm (which is a relatively modern answer), while others answer "because he's the rightful heir" (which is the Westerosi answer), and still others believe he's an ignoble person for assassinations and being uptight.  Clearly, we don't all subscribe to the same premise when we come on here and argue for the "right and wrongness" of the characters.

I know for my part, I find it difficult to hold the same premise when judging all of the character's actions, and will admit to a certain hypocrisy in forming conclusions about various characters.   I think that the most interesting part of this, to me, is trying to tease out my own prejudices or irrational "likes" to evaluate the characters in a more productive discussion, and disaggregate my opinions across multiple registers (I'm entertained by this character, but find their actions despicable despite being justified in their own framework.)  

To that end, one character I find really compelling is Dany.   Since we are modern readers, I think many of us, myself included, innately believe abolishing slavery is "right."  Yet, because of Martin's excellent craft, I found myself questioning the "rightness" of this otherwise unquestionable imperative as it pertains to Dany's arc, and was aware while reading that my reasons for questioning this varied from sympathy towards a people who "didn't know better and were being overturned" and by the specific methods Dany used.   To further complicate the matter, I found myself wishing she employed more Tywin-like methods in order to stabilize Meereen, but then struggle with her final embrace of "fire and blood" at the end.  

I find it really difficult to keep my evaluations of Dany's character consistent.  To do a morally relativistic reading of Dany would lead to the conclusions that she ought NOT to have freed the slaves, and that her methods of ruling (eye for an eye) are also "right, moral, good."   Yet, we are modern readers of a modern series, and I hazard the guess that there are very few of us who interpret Dany's actions like that.   Instead, many of us, sympathize with the belief that freeing slaves is right in all contexts, and that doing so is a messy business that leads to more short-term suffering than good.  At least for my part, I find myself calling out for more ruthless actions (i.e. possibly immoral to my mind), on the basis that the abolition would be more effective if such measures were taken.     And I think these are dilemmas that Martin is trying to get us to think about.  Not only that, but in many discussions regarding whether Dany ought to rule Westeros (or anything for that matter), both sides of the discussion cite points that would only make sense to modern readers, such that one side tends to argue that she ought to be more consistent in justice and governance, while the other side appeals to her good intentions (which is in and of itself a kind of modern idea).

So anyway, I think the fact that we're modern readers has a huge (and intentional) impact on what Martin is trying to tell us, and is what causes us to see the characters as grey.  Nearly all of us that I've seen do not defend/ condemn characters based solely on relativistic morality (which would probably locate Jaime and Walder Frey as the most villainous of the entire series).  Instead, I think, we engage with the choices these characters make based on a broader sense of morality.     And for my part, I think it's a really challenging thought experiment to keep a consistent rubric for all the characters, and even within a character's arc (whether based on moral relativity or absolutism).

[Castel]

Fragile Bird, on 06 April 2012 - 05:22 PM, said:

I see you edited between the moment I read your post and the moment I hit quote, lol.

But to continue, surely you can find at least one villain in the books that you can talk about with a view to the OP?  Or one hero, by your definition?

I find certain actions disgusting yeah. And certain people are stupid and perhaps even evil . I just don't buy that those characters are somehow on the other side, and that they are there against the "good" characters in some struggle between good/evil.

Regarding the OP I've already addressed it, meaningless actions are the most villainous thing to me, so by that measure Robb Stark and Ramsay Bolton and Gregor and Vargo are more villainous to me that say, Roose or Tywin or Tyrion (before the end of aSoS and in general). If I attached the word hero to these people then it would just get out of hand because they aren't even in the same galaxy as the nearest hero. IMO selfishly indulging some flawed moral code and getting people killed for it is worse than being an out and out terrible person and expanding your own holdings. IDK know why I subscribe to this bizarre belief, I just find that I hate Robb more than Roose or Tywin and his ilk.

EDIT: Yeah, we really do cherry pick which parts of Westerosi culture are acceptable and how much to judge people based on them. As for Dany, I felt that she didn't go far enough. If your enemies are determined and willing to do anything and you freeze up you're dooming yourself. Not to mention everyone else counting on you.

Edited by Castel, 06 April 2012 - 09:31 PM.

[LuisDantas]

Castel: while it is certainly very human to _perceive_ one's opponents or antagonists as "evil",  and most fiction goes out of its way to enhance that perception, it is clear to me that morality isn't and can't ever be completely arbitrary.

There are nuances and subtleties involved in most characters and real persons, but it still stands that, say, Daenerys and her enemy Robert Baratheon are both basicaly good if often destructive people, while the Starks tend to be far more skilled, the Hound is seeking redemption despite a dire lack of support, Jaime is a spoiled brat learning that he can aim to be a real person, Stannis a pretentious buffoon, Melisandre a dangerous self-righteous manipulator.

Complex characters do exist, but  to some extent they are an exception rather than the rule.

[Castel]

Quote

Castel: while it is certainly very human to _perceive_ one's opponents or antagonists as "evil", and most fiction goes out of its way to enhance that perception, it is clear to me that morality isn't and can't ever be completely arbitrary.

Funny, I've always felt the opposite, that morality that tries to justify itself beyond practical concerns always seems to start at an arbitrary point. And any morality that does base itself on practical considerations can and will shift in different situations. It's the cost of doing business. This is nowhere more evident than in modern society, where technology and society have advanced beyond certain ideas of morality yet we keep them anyway, even though they serve no function.

As for the rest I don't get your point. In the ASOIAF series, I just don't feel comfortable using the word villain because it seems to come with the unspoken assumption that the people we read in the POVs are the defacto heroes.

Edited by Castel, 06 April 2012 - 09:59 PM.

[LuisDantas]

Anyone who attempts to stop the butchery and sadism of the likes of Aerys, Ramsay and Roose Bolton is, indeed, acting heroically at that moment.

Moralityis an emptyconcept until and unless it is calibrated by the consequences of actions, particularly when it comes to their effect on the health and well-being of all.

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

Castel, on 06 April 2012 - 09:23 PM, said:

I find certain actions disgusting yeah. And certain people are stupid and perhaps even evil . I just don't buy that those characters are somehow on the other side, and that they are there against the "good" characters in some struggle between good/evil.

Regarding the OP I've already addressed it, meaningless actions are the most villainous thing to me, so by that measure Robb Stark and Ramsay Bolton and Gregor and Vargo are more villainous to me that say, Roose or Tywin or Tyrion (before the end of aSoS and in general). If I attached the word hero to these people then it would just get out of hand because they aren't even in the same galaxy as the nearest hero. IMO selfishly indulging some flawed moral code and getting people killed for it is worse than being an out and out terrible person and expanding your own holdings. IDK know why I subscribe to this bizarre belief, I just find that I hate Robb more than Roose or Tywin and his ilk.

rob isn't so bad. he means well. he doesn't doesn't do anything incredibly stupid. he doesn't do anything smart either.  All of his Robb's victories come from Brynden, Catelyn and Greywind.  I like Stannis but I don't know how anyone can call him "good".  I plunges the realm into war when he should have bent the knee, finished off the lannisters, and then sent in the shadow baby after Renly. But at least Stannis was defending his own shit, what the fuck can be said about Ned Stark who basically guarantees war in order to support one bareon brother over another.

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

LuisDantas, on 06 April 2012 - 09:53 PM, said:

Anyone who attempts to stop the butchery and sadism of the likes of Aerys, Ramsay and Roose Bolton is, indeed, acting heroically at that moment.

Moralityis an emptyconcept until and unless it is calibrated by the consequences of actions, particularly when it comes to their effect on the health and well-being of all.

just stick with that.

[LuisDantas]

Why should one deliberately sabotage such an important concept, Lash?

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

LuisDantas, on 06 April 2012 - 10:13 PM, said:

Why should one deliberately sabotage such an important concept, Lash?

i don't think it is an important concept. generally in the series it boils down to who the reader likes more or who is prettier.  In the real world it is treated similarly.

[Castel]

Lord Littlefinger, on 06 April 2012 - 10:42 PM, said:

i don't think it is an important concept. generally in the series it boils down to who the reader likes more or who is prettier.  In the real world it is treated similarly.

I'm torn on it. On a practical level it's important.People are always gonna have some sort of moral system, even if it is terrible and hypocritical and riddled with holes.

But people tend to put it on another level, like it's some sort of metaphysical set of guidelines that transcend logic and reason or it's something that affects the universe or is directly informed by it . And that's where it becomes empty.

Edited by Castel, 06 April 2012 - 10:52 PM.

[butterbumps!]

"Morality is an empty concept" and

Lord Littlefinger, on 06 April 2012 - 10:42 PM, said:

i don't think it is an important concept. generally in the series it boils down to who the reader likes more or who is prettier.  In the real world it is treated similarly.

yet:

Lord Littlefinger, on 06 April 2012 - 09:57 PM, said:

rob isn't so bad. he means well. he doesn't doesn't do anything incredibly stupid. he doesn't do anything smart either.  All of his Robb's victories come from Brynden, Catelyn and Greywind.  I like Stannis but I don't know how anyone can call him "good".  I plunges the realm into war when he should have bent the knee, finished off the lannisters, and then sent in the shadow baby after Renly. But at least Stannis was defending his own shit, what the fuck can be said about Ned Stark who basically guarantees war in order to support one bareon brother over another.

I understand that you don't subscribe to the notion of morality, and rather instead appreciate a character's actions based on how effectively they succeed in the world they live in.   However, it cannot be denied that the vast majority of readers form judgments and critiques of the characters based on their own sense, instinctual or otherwise, that leads them to hoping for X character to hold the throne, or Y character to receive just desserts.   If this were not the case, about 90% of the threads would not exist on the forum.  Clearly there's some kind of calculus readers engage in that leads them to such opinions.

The fact that debates about "who should be king" overwhelmingly appeal to something akin to "absolute morality" or "modern morality" is interesting to me as it pertains here. There seems to be a very pervasive notion amongst forum goers that good kingship stems from ideas of fairness and justice, providing for/ not harming smallfolk, utilitarian concerns (greatest good for the greatest number), temperance and good intentions, all of which exist outside of the imperatives specifically outlined in Westerosi governance, or at least in the execution of kingship we've seen.   While there are characters who express belief in some or all of those ideals, the practical realities of Westeros make it difficult for those characters to survive/ compete, and we see many of these characters make compromises for the sake of short term efficacy.

I realize I'd earlier mentioned that I believe in a sense of absolute morality, but I thought it would be productive to clarify.  To start, whether absolute morality exists or not isn't something I'm as interested in personally, I'd only mentioned it to frame my own position (and prejudices).   But probably more importantly, though I say "absolute morality" I mean something more akin to a system of evaluating behaviors  in a consistent rubric based on principles of respect for another's personal agency, and that do not interfere with "the common good." I'm not really referring to a metaphysical delimitation of morality, but more thinking of behaviors that sustain peaceful human co-existence and progress.   So I believe that "self-interest" can be compatible with "common good," as well as the belief that success can be gained without destroying someone else's.  So I suppose I approach morality somewhat rationally as a system of behaviors that enable long-term success (quality of life, personal freedoms, etc) for the greatest number of people as possible, founded on a belief in human progress- a system that yields tangible benefit rather than a "virtue for virtue's sake" argument.  

So as it relates to LLL, I don't think our ideas are as incompatible as you make them sound- inherent in my arguments is a notion of productiveness and efficacy, that I weigh not only in terms of immediate personal gains, but in relation multiple groups of people and seen in the long term.

With that said, I think it raises a number of questions for me pertaining to the books, such as Robb's campaign, for example.   I can argue on both sides of the spectrum, that the "right thing" is to challenge an corrupt government for justice and independence, which can yield long-term benefits on an abstract level of "rightness" (changing the system), which ostensibly would lead to greater material benefits for residents of the North.   Yet, his campaign has caused downright devastation in the short-term, both in the Riverlands and the North.  Not only that, but by Robb marching for justice, his absence from Winterfell has led to several disastrous consequences: there is no food storage for the coming Winter, leaving his seat opened the doors for scavengers, leaving his seat means that there is no responsible lord who can offer support for the NW (as is the imperative of the Lord of Winterfell/ King of the North).  I'm in no way blaming Robb for these issues (as it was impossible for him to know that this is how things would play out), but there's a huge disconnect between his "noble" actions and the reality of the consequences.   I could see Robb's actions regarding a war for justice and independence from both the side that on an abstract level this is morally right, as well as from the perspective that he ceded very real responsibilities by doing so, and that his actions were reckless in terms of those he was responsible to protect.  

So if Robb's actions/ intentions are seen as right in the present tense, then it's likely because we interpret his actions from the perspective of modern ideals of justice and accountability of a centralized government to respect its subjects.  If Robb's actions are seen as wrong because he ultimately caused more grief for his own subjects, then that's also a modern interpretation of the accountability of government for its people.  If Robb's actions are wrong because he ought to unconditionally respect his liege, then that's a Westerosi perspective. Personally, I find Robb's campaign compelling because of the moral conflict between challenging a corrupt system of government and the cost that comes to your own subjects for doing so.

Edited by butterbumps!, 07 April 2012 - 09:25 AM.

[LuisDantas]

Lord Littlefinger, on 06 April 2012 - 10:42 PM, said:

i don't think it is an important concept. generally in the series it boils down to who the reader likes more or who is prettier.  In the real world it is treated similarly.

Using the concept while also emptying it of all significance is a travesty, you know.

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

LuisDantas, on 07 April 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

Using the concept while also emptying it of all significance is a travesty, you know.

no i don't know. what the fuck are you talking, about?

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

butterbumps!, on 07 April 2012 - 09:21 AM, said:

"Morality is an empty concept" and



yet:




I understand that you don't subscribe to the notion of morality, and rather instead appreciate a character's actions based on how effectively they succeed in the world they live in.   However, it cannot be denied that the vast majority of readers form judgments and critiques of the characters based on their own sense, instinctual or otherwise, that leads them to hoping for X character to hold the throne, or Y character to receive just desserts.   If this were not the case, about 90% of the threads would not exist on the forum.  Clearly there's some kind of calculus readers engage in that leads them to such opinions.

The fact that debates about "who should be king" overwhelmingly appeal to something akin to "absolute morality" or "modern morality" is interesting to me as it pertains here. There seems to be a very pervasive notion amongst forum goers that good kingship stems from ideas of fairness and justice, providing for/ not harming smallfolk, utilitarian concerns (greatest good for the greatest number), temperance and good intentions, all of which exist outside of the imperatives specifically outlined in Westerosi governance, or at least in the execution of kingship we've seen.   While there are characters who express belief in some or all of those ideals, the practical realities of Westeros make it difficult for those characters to survive/ compete, and we see many of these characters make compromises for the sake of short term efficacy.

I realize I'd earlier mentioned that I believe in a sense of absolute morality, but I thought it would be productive to clarify.  To start, whether absolute morality exists or not isn't something I'm as interested in personally, I'd only mentioned it to frame my own position (and prejudices).   But probably more importantly, though I say "absolute morality" I mean something more akin to a system of evaluating behaviors  in a consistent rubric based on principles of respect for another's personal agency, and that do not interfere with "the common good." I'm not really referring to a metaphysical delimitation of morality, but more thinking of behaviors that sustain peaceful human co-existence and progress.   So I believe that "self-interest" can be compatible with "common good," as well as the belief that success can be gained without destroying someone else's.  So I suppose I approach morality somewhat rationally as a system of behaviors that enable long-term success (quality of life, personal freedoms, etc) for the greatest number of people as possible, founded on a belief in human progress- a system that yields tangible benefit rather than a "virtue for virtue's sake" argument.  

So as it relates to LLL, I don't think our ideas are as incompatible as you make them sound- inherent in my arguments is a notion of productiveness and efficacy, that I weigh not only in terms of immediate personal gains, but in relation multiple groups of people and seen in the long term.

With that said, I think it raises a number of questions for me pertaining to the books, such as Robb's campaign, for example.   I can argue on both sides of the spectrum, that the "right thing" is to challenge an corrupt government for justice and independence, which can yield long-term benefits on an abstract level of "rightness" (changing the system), which ostensibly would lead to greater material benefits for residents of the North.   Yet, his campaign has caused downright devastation in the short-term, both in the Riverlands and the North.  Not only that, but by Robb marching for justice, his absence from Winterfell has led to several disastrous consequences: there is no food storage for the coming Winter, leaving his seat opened the doors for scavengers, leaving his seat means that there is no responsible lord who can offer support for the NW (as is the imperative of the Lord of Winterfell/ King of the North).  I'm in no way blaming Robb for these issues (as it was impossible for him to know that this is how things would play out), but there's a huge disconnect between his "noble" actions and the reality of the consequences.   I could see Robb's actions regarding a war for justice and independence from both the side that on an abstract level this is morally right, as well as from the perspective that he ceded very real responsibilities by doing so, and that his actions were reckless in terms of those he was responsible to protect.  

So if Robb's actions/ intentions are seen as right in the present tense, then it's likely because we interpret his actions from the perspective of modern ideals of justice and accountability of a centralized government to respect its subjects.  If Robb's actions are seen as wrong because he ultimately caused more grief for his own subjects, then that's also a modern interpretation of the accountability of government for its people.  If Robb's actions are wrong because he ought to unconditionally respect his liege, then that's a Westerosi perspective. Personally, I find Robb's campaign compelling because of the moral conflict between challenging a corrupt system of government and the cost that comes to your own subjects for doing so.

yes but by "bad" i mean incompetent, and by "means well" i mean has practical strategic and military objectives.  That being said its certainly his fault the North gets invaded.  It was readily forseeable that enemies would take advantage of a power vacuum.  Between Stannis, the Wildings, the Iron Born and the Tyrells anyone could have landed troops in the North.  A better defense should have been organized.  I've stated before one large force at Winterfell in the winter town and another at Moat Cailin to be resupplied via white harbor. Granted I have the advantage of  hindsight but those two readouts and whiteharbor are the key to the north.

[Summerqueen]

Lord Littlefinger, on 07 April 2012 - 05:35 PM, said:

yes but by "bad" i mean incompetent, and by "means well" i mean has practical strategic and military objectives.  That being said its certainly his fault the North gets invaded.  It was readily forseeable that enemies would take advantage of a power vacuum.  Between Stannis, the Wildings, the Iron Born and the Tyrells anyone could have landed troops in the North.  A better defense should have been organized.  I've stated before one large force at Winterfell in the winter town and another at Moat Cailin to be resupplied via white harbor. Granted I have the advantage of  hindsight but those two readouts and whiteharbor are the key to the north.

Are you saying that you don't believe other people mean bad / good in practical terms when they use them? Is it not just your misunderstanding that when someone says Roose Bolton is a bad guy that they do not mean Roose Bolton is cruel, callous, and criminal? What do you think they mean when they say "[character x] is bad"? Do you think they mean like "the spawn of satan" or something? They usually don't (unless they are being hyperbolic).

Edited by Summerqueen, 07 April 2012 - 06:40 PM.