Choose to forgive one

[devilish]

Walder Frey - his family was humiliated, the King in the North was planning to abandon the Riverlands to the Lannisters fury and Tywin would have gone down on him hard (especially since he expected loyalty from Walder considering that one of his sons was married to a Lannister) 

[cyberdirectorfreedom]

18 hours ago, Julia H. said:

I would nitpick here, too. Roose Bolton was Robb Stark's bannerman. The idea of feudalism is that your owe your land (and consequently all your wealth) to your liege lord's family. You can use it, you can call is your own, your heir can inherit it, but your power originates from your liege lord (or the forefathers of the liege lord), and in exchange for this, you are duty-bound to go to war for him when he calls the banners. This is the price for the privilege that you don't have to work the land, sweat in a workshop, become a servant or sell your sword on a daily basis to anyone who is willing to pay. You can live a lord's life and have other people work for you, but you have to pay for this when your liege lord calls. Yes, it is a risky business, but it's part of the "contract" between you, so to speak. Your liege lord also has obligations, they can't do just what they please to a vassal without breaking the contract (Aerys II is a great example), but expecting the vassal to fight through a war is not a violation of the contract. So, yes, Robb had every right to expect Roose to fight for him and his reason to go to war wasn't unreasonable by local cultural standards, therefore Roose's betrayal was totally immoral.  

Walder Frey had similar obligations towards the Tullys, so he should have supported them without any extra demands. But once the marriage contract was broken, he had a right to feel offended. Killing hundreds of people was somewhat of an overreaction. 

I agree that what Roose did was immoral, classically speaking; but, to be frank, these rules were set down by people thousands of years ago. Roose is in a position where he can choose whether or not to follow such rules, and I don't truly think he's under any obligation to do so simply because that's how it's been done forever.

Regardless, the Boltons (and every other House, Stark and Tully and Frey) were also sworn to the Crown; it seems a lot of people can understand why the Starks would betray the Crown, as the King did something that the Starks found offensive (killing Ned). Robb Stark did something that Roose found offensive, but for some reason he should stay loyal? I feel like there's some kind of double standard here.

18 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Gregor... I don't buy the brain tumor thing. In his youth, he put his little brother's face into the fire for no reason at all. That was decades ago. If he had had a brain tumor at that time, he would have died long before the War of the Five Kings, but he was still strong and fit.  

No, I don't really buy the brain tumor thing either; if it were true, it might account for some of his actions. I don't really believe it, but I thought I'd mention it as it's the only way I could possibly defend most of his actions.

18 hours ago, Julia H. said:

ETA: I think remorse and "feeling uncomfortable" are two different things. I agree that Cersei is uncomfortable about some of the things she does. Remorse, however, entails changing your ways. I don't think it's a sign of strength to continue the evil practice, because it is the easier thing to do for Cersei. True remorse would be a braver emotion. 

I guess we simply have different definitions of remorse. I see it as simply meaning feeling regret about a situation, whereas I suppose you see it as requiring at least an attempt to repent. To actually act upon the guilt, rather than simply feeling it. It's possible I simply used the wrong term.

11 hours ago, Dofs said:

I've mixed up. It was the mother who she sold to slavery and not the kids. She got the kids killed. But apparently you don't believe this story anyway 

Ah, that. Well, I take most things Littlefinger say with a bit of healthy skepticism. Especially when he's literally plotting a war between the person he's talking to, and the person he's talking about. Plus, Ned immediately thinks about the fact that all Lords have such rumours told about them. Not all rumours are true, especially when heard from the mouth of Petyr Baelish.

11 hours ago, Dofs said:

Do you seriously believe that it was even one of her goals, or even something that had popped into her mind?

Well, yeah, but not for strictly benevolent reasons; she didn't care about the innocent dwarfs, probably, but the less innocent dwarfs that are getting killed the more likely it'll be Tyrion's head she receives the next time someone brings her a head. Besides, I was just baffled that you brought it up; they'd earned their deaths, it was hardly a mark upon Cersei to have them killed. 

11 hours ago, Dofs said:

I am sorry but this is where I'll stop arguing with you about Cersei because your defence of her start to become plainly ridiculous. It seems to me that Cersei in your had is a Cersei that you wished existed and not what GRRM actually intended to portray and now you are desperately trying to match these two Cerseis. At this point I am genuinely surprised you do not deny the fact that she had killed Melara which lots of people do.

Wow. Quite frankly, I could say the same thing to you; you have a picture in your head of what kind of a person Cersei is, so of course you're more willing to agree with Jaime's belief that Cersei wanted Arya killed. It's not like I've simply made my ideas up from nowhere; I've read the text just the same as you and we have simply come to different conclusions about her. I don't have any wish to see Cersei this way, it's just how I see her.

It's interesting that you know how GRRM intended for her to be seen, though. These books are full of divisive characters; for instance, some people see Daenerys as a madwoman, some don't. People are different; we're not going to see the same thing and have the same opinion, but that doesn't mean that the opinions that others have are wrong, simply because it doesn't match yours.

[Dofs]

17 minutes ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

ow. Quite frankly, I could say the same thing to you; you have a picture in your head of what kind of a person Cersei is, so of course you're more willing to agree with Jaime's belief that Cersei wanted Arya killed. It's not like I've simply made my ideas up from nowhere; I've read the text just the same as you and we have simply come to different conclusions about her. I don't have any wish to see Cersei this way, it's just how I see her.

It's interesting that you know how GRRM intended for her to be seen, though. These books are full of divisive characters; for instance, some people see Daenerys as a madwoman, some don't. People are different; we're not going to see the same thing and have the same opinion, but that doesn't mean that the opinions that others have are wrong, simply because it doesn't match yours.

GRRM has claimed that Cersei has a sociopathic worldview so I believe his general opinion of Cersei is a pretty negative one. About Cersei, Jaime and Arya, it's not a matter of reading the same text and coming to different conclusions, in this case you were simply wrong. You've claimed that Jaime had decided that Cersei meant killing or maiming Arya after his disillusionment with Cersei but this disillusionment happened in the middle of FfC, and started to happen only in SoS, while Jaime actually went to search for Arya back in GoT with the very intention of killing or maiming her:

"It was only by chance that Stark's own men found the girl before me. If I had come on her first . . ." 

Jaime had thought that this is what Cersei wanted way back in GoT, while he was still idolising her, not after his disillusionment. His speech in FfC to Ilyn Payne was not about his sudden revelation that Cersei didn't want him by "I want" but getting Arya killed, Jaime was venting his disgust at himself that he was ready to do this despicable crime for Cersei. 

Now, of course you can think that when Jaime and Cersei were having sex and Cersei was screaming "I want", Jaime first thought that it was him she meant but then, a few minutes later he went "nah, she probably meant killing or maiming Arya" and then went to do it but I am sorry, you will be lying to yourself.

[The Wolves]

47 minutes ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

I agree that what Roose did was immoral, classically speaking; but, to be frank, these rules were set down by people thousands of years ago. Roose is in a position where he can choose whether or not to follow such rules, and I don't truly think he's under any obligation to do so simply because that's how it's been done forever.

Regardless, the Boltons (and every other House, Stark and Tully and Frey) were also sworn to the Crown; it seems a lot of people can understand why the Starks would betray the Crown, as the King did something that the Starks found offensive (killing Ned). Robb Stark did something that Roose found offensive, but for some reason he should stay loyal? I feel like there's some kind of double standard here.

To the bolded what are you talking about? 

Robb did not do ANYTHING offensive so Roose did not have a valid justification for betraying and murdering Robb and his northernmen. 

Roose did what he did out of greed, power, and cruelty nothing more. Ned was unjustly murdered, Stark men murdered, Sansa held hostage,and Arya on the run, this is why Robb had a justifiable reason to turn against the king. Roose had no reason to turn against his King. Robb did not harm his family, or kill his men or do anything to Roose. 

[cyberdirectorfreedom]

10 minutes ago, The Wolves said:

To the bolded what are you talking about? 

Robb did not do ANYTHING offensive so Roose did not have a valid justification for betraying and murdering Robb and his northernmen. 

Roose did what he did out of greed, power, and cruelty nothing more. Ned was unjustly murdered, Stark men murdered, Sansa held hostage,and Arya on the run, this is why Robb had a justifiable reason to turn against the king. Roose had no reason to turn against his King. Robb did not harm his family, or kill his men or do anything to Roose. 

"Offensive" might not be strictly accurate, but Robb Stark forced Roose into a war, which was being lost when Roose betrayed Robb. Being forced to fight in a losing war is what I'm referring to. I'd say it's something that offended his sensibilities. 'Killing Ned Stark' and 'forcing the Boltons to fight a losing war' are comparable, in that they're things that their respective parties are opposed to. Who's to say where the line is drawn? What is the limit that can be done by one's superiors before you're allowed to stop being loyal? To continue serving Robb Stark would have, beyond doubt, lead to worse things for House Bolton. Houses that remained loyal, for instance, lost family members and soldiers at the Red Wedding. Many such casualties would've been likely in an extended war.

Roose himself could've died, and it's all for a war he has no care about.

[The Wolves]

1 minute ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

"Offensive" might not be strictly accurate, but Robb Stark forced Roose into a war, which was being lost when Roose betrayed Robb. Being forced to fight in a losing war is what I'm referring to. I'd say it's something that offended his sensibilities. 'Killing Ned Stark' and 'forcing the Boltons to fight a losing war' are comparable, in that they're things that their respective parties are opposed to. Who's to say where the line is drawn? What is the limit that can be done by one's superiors before you're allowed to stop being loyal? To continue serving Robb Stark would have, beyond doubt, lead to worse things for House Bolton. Houses that remained loyal, for instance, lost family members and soldiers at the Red Wedding. Many such casualties would've been likely in an extended war.

Roose himself could've died, and it's all for a war he has no care about.

Robb and his men were going home, so was Roose and he could have sat the rest of the war out, I doubt Robb would have forced him to fight if he didn't want to. 

Roose was going home with his men still intact, no Boltons' deaths and he could have just gone home and told Robb that he was done with war. Robb couldn't have made him fight a war he didn't want. 

Roose didn't have to retort to murder to not a fight a war he didn't want, that is ridiculous. Roose killed Robb and his fellow countrymen for power and because he was cruel. 

[cyberdirectorfreedom]

2 minutes ago, The Wolves said:

Robb and his men were going home, so was Roose and he could have sat the rest of the war out, I doubt Robb would have forced him to fight if he didn't want to. 

Roose was going home with his men still intact, no Boltons' deaths and he could have just gone home and told Robb that he was done with war. Robb couldn't have made him fight a war he didn't want. 

Roose didn't have to retort to murder to not a fight a war he didn't want, that is ridiculous. Roose killed Robb and his fellow countrymen for power and because he was cruel. 

I seriously doubt that Robb would be okay with Roose sitting the war out. Roose is one of his most powerful bannermen. A quote:

And when Lord Umber, who was called the Greatjon by his men and stood as tall as Hodor and twice as wide, threatened to take his forces home if he was placed behind the Hornwoods or the Cerwyns in the order of march, Robb told him he was welcome to do so. "And when we are done with the Lannisters," he promised, scratching Grey Wind behind the ear, "we will march back north, root you out of your keep, and hang you for an oathbreaker."

If Robb somehow won his war, he'd turn his ire to the Boltons. Roose preempted that war. Ending a war before it starts is the intelligent move.

I'm not saying that Roose didn't betray Robb in part to better his position; it would've helped make his decision easier, at the very least. But do note that he didn't turn on Robb until he felt that the war was hopeless. He didn't look for an opportunity to betray Robb; at some point, it was just his best move, at least in his mind.

But no, he didn't have to resort to murdering Robb Stark. I never said it was a necessity, but I can certainly understand why he did it.

[devilish]

If Roose turned tail then he would be labelled as an oath breaker and brought to justice. At that point he risked losing his head or end up arrested and used as hostage to keep the Bolton forces in line

[Ashes Of Westeros]

You chose the worst, I can't even

But probably Roose

[Chancho]

Roose is a rapist also... I'm very fond of Walder Frey, he killed his enemies and ended the war, it's Robb's fault he don't know who his enemies are.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Walder. I don't even blame him for killing Robb, I blame him for killing the rest of the people who died. Robb was the reason he was killed and the reason why his men died.

[Dofs]

Roose betraying and killing Robb is half of an issue with him and from a pragmatic point of view you can say that what he did was justifiable. Robb was losing a war, he already had basically lost Riverlands and had to win back the North from the Ironmen. Roose at that point chose a winning side and opportunity to install his House as the rulers of the North. On one hand it's petty, dishonourable and despicable, on the other hand Starks had conquered the Boltons by force in the first place so why should they now serve them forever? 

I would consider Roose as forgivable if his betrayal was the only thing he had done but look at Ramsay's backstory, look at some of his other acts. The guy is a legitimate psychopath and a maniac. How could he be forgiven?

[thelittledragonthatcould]

9 hours ago, devilish said:

If Roose turned tail then he would be labelled as an oath breaker and brought to justice. At that point he risked losing his head or end up arrested and used as hostage to keep the Bolton forces in line

 

9 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

I seriously doubt that Robb would be okay with Roose sitting the war out. Roose is one of his most powerful bannermen. A quote:

And when Lord Umber, who was called the Greatjon by his men and stood as tall as Hodor and twice as wide, threatened to take his forces home if he was placed behind the Hornwoods or the Cerwyns in the order of march, Robb told him he was welcome to do so. "And when we are done with the Lannisters," he promised, scratching Grey Wind behind the ear, "we will march back north, root you out of your keep, and hang you for an oathbreaker."

 

That was when Winterfell still existed and the Karstarks and Boltons supported him. Robb was in less of a  position to threaten anyone.

Roose would not be the only Northern Lord who saw it as a pointless cause now, especially considering that a) it was now pretty much winter, the North might not even have enough supplies and funds for another war and b ) the damage that had been inflicted on the North while Roose was away and c) the ravens from the Watch demanding help.

Even if Roose was loyal, there is a good chance that he and many other Lords would refuse to go South again. It had not been a good experience and was only going to get worse.

[Lockjaw of House Boltagon]

Walder, by far. Freys actually died for Robb's cause and he betrayed and insulted their honor by not keeping it in his pants. 

Of course, Walder's vengeance was...exaggerated, but he had every right to be pissed. 

[devilish]

10 hours ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

 

That was when Winterfell still existed and the Karstarks and Boltons supported him. Robb was in less of a  position to threaten anyone.

Roose would not be the only Northern Lord who saw it as a pointless cause now, especially considering that a) it was now pretty much winter, the North might not even have enough supplies and funds for another war and b ) the damage that had been inflicted on the North while Roose was away and c) the ravens from the Watch demanding help.

Even if Roose was loyal, there is a good chance that he and many other Lords would refuse to go South again. It had not been a good experience and was only going to get worse.

He was in a position to threaten Roose since the Bolton forces were a minority within Robb's camp and could be overwhelmed quite easily. Even if Roose fled 

a- he wouldn't be able to do that with his entire army
b- he had nowhere to run. The South wouldn't protect him and the North would see him as an oath breaker. The North had enough people to organize themselves, siege the DF and have him hanged.
c- he would have no allies. The Freys won't let him go past the twins (if they do, they would raise suspicions that they aren't as loyal to Robb as they portray themselves to be + Walder would have received strict instructions from Tywin on whom he can allow to pass the twins) and even if he manage to do that Moat Cailin was in iron born hands. That would further deplete his army. 

Roose needed Robb killed because those were the conditions the king gave him to get his pardon and the king's blessing as Lord Paramount of the North. 

[thelittledragonthatcould]

1 hour ago, devilish said:

He was in a position to threaten Roose since the Bolton forces were a minority within Robb's camp and could be overwhelmed quite easily. Even if Roose fled 

They were not a minority at that point. Roose had around 2k Bolton men, and thanks to the execution of Rickard Karstark he knew they would more likely support him/refuse to back Robb. He also knew that he would have the Dustin and Ryswell support back in the North.

The Lords not wishing to go South and fight in an unwinnable or war, or willing to leave their homes unprotected would not be the minority this time. He was in no position to threaten anyone on his return home.

1 hour ago, devilish said:

a- he wouldn't be able to do that with his entire army

Why would he flee? Robb and the Northern army were returning North, once North he and his army can just refuse to go South.

Roose can offer a very clear reason not to go, the North became pretty vulnerable when they left.

1 hour ago, devilish said:

b- he had nowhere to run. The South wouldn't protect him and the North would see him as an oath breaker. The North had enough people to organize themselves, siege the DF and have him hanged.

The last time there was a siege of the Dreadfort it lasted two years and a compromise was met. It is winter, Robb's capital has been destroyed its food stores wiped out. Robb simply does not have the reserves to siege the Dreadfort, nor the time. What is the point of fighting the Boltons for two years (after the time it has taken him to get back home and already attack the Ironborn) when he wants to go back South?

And of course, other Lords would not be in favor of returning South. The Karsarks would not, the Dustins and Ryswells would not, the Glovers and Tallharts would not.

Roose would not be alone in not wanting to stay. Is Robb going to attack everyone who says 'no'?

1 hour ago, devilish said:

c- he would have no allies.

Sure he would

1 hour ago, devilish said:

 

The Freys won't let him go past the twins (if they do, they would raise suspicions that they aren't as loyal to Robb as they portray themselves to be + Walder would have received strict instructions from Tywin on whom he can allow to pass the twins) and even if he manage to do that Moat Cailin was in iron born hands. That would further deplete his army.

Sorry, did you actually read my post? Robb was going home. Once home Roose can simply say he is not returning South. He'd have support for this from others.

And of course the Freys are not going to stop Roose for Robb Stark. He is actually married to a Frey.

1 hour ago, devilish said:

Roose needed Robb killed because those were the conditions the king gave him to get his pardon and the king's blessing as Lord Paramount of the North. 

He would have gotten his pardon anyway. Tywin was happy to hand them out.

But yes, he needed Robb dead so he could get power, precisely what I and others have said. His reason for killing Robb was greed.

Unlike many other Northern Lords Roose actually did OK from this war. He suffered few casualties,  his home in the North was not attacked, we hear of no problems with his harvest back home and he made a fortune marrying Fat Walda. All in all he has done well for himself

[devilish]

1 hour ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

They were not a minority at that point. Roose had around 2k Bolton men, and thanks to the execution of Rickard Karstark he knew they would more likely support him/refuse to back Robb. He also knew that he would have the Dustin and Ryswell support back in the North.

The Lords not wishing to go South and fight in an unwinnable or war, or willing to leave their homes unprotected would not be the minority this time. He was in no position to threaten anyone on his return home.

Why would he flee? Robb and the Northern army were returning North, once North he and his army can just refuse to go South.

Roose can offer a very clear reason not to go, the North became pretty vulnerable when they left.

The last time there was a siege of the Dreadfort it lasted two years and a compromise was met. It is winter, Robb's capital has been destroyed its food stores wiped out. Robb simply does not have the reserves to siege the Dreadfort, nor the time. What is the point of fighting the Boltons for two years (after the time it has taken him to get back home and already attack the Ironborn) when he wants to go back South?

And of course, other Lords would not be in favor of returning South. The Karsarks would not, the Dustins and Ryswells would not, the Glovers and Tallharts would not.

Roose would not be alone in not wanting to stay. Is Robb going to attack everyone who says 'no'?

Sure he would

Sorry, did you actually read my post? Robb was going home. Once home Roose can simply say he is not returning South. He'd have support for this from others.

And of course the Freys are not going to stop Roose for Robb Stark. He is actually married to a Frey.

He would have gotten his pardon anyway. Tywin was happy to hand them out.

But yes, he needed Robb dead so he could get power, precisely what I and others have said. His reason for killing Robb was greed.

Unlike many other Northern Lords Roose actually did OK from this war. He suffered few casualties,  his home in the North was not attacked, we hear of no problems with his harvest back home and he made a fortune marrying Fat Walda. All in all he has done well for himself

Ah you're speaking about Roose defying Robb commands AFTER the Northern Army had reached the North. That's different. 

 Assuming that Robb would survive the Red Wedding (which he wouldn't), he would have sufficient forces to go past the twins (Walder was Tywin's man and would hold the ground until the Lannisters forces crushed the young wolf) and then past Moat Cailin before the royalist forces intercepted him then the North was bracing itself to a defensive war whether Robb liked that or not. The Lannister-Tyrell forces were just too strong for the North to face and by the time the young wolf was able to organize his army, get rid of the ironborn and move South the Riverlands would have bent the knee and they would have joined the Tyrell-Lannister forces to attack the North. Ironically Roose Bolton's decision saved the North alot of grief.It reconciled the North with crown and spared the North from a lengthy siege which they couldn't afford to have. The mistake made by Roose was to make it obvious that he was directly involved in the Red Wedding. Ideally, Roose should have made himself look like a victim who escaped the red wedding with his life. There again, that wouldn't have suited the puppet master who wanted Roose to look bad which would, by default, make Tyrion-Sansa good. Unfortunately the one desperate for a deal was Roose not Tywin.

d- No, until the king in the North was alive, no northern bannermen will dare defying him. 

Why Roose killed Robb?
 

a-  No one likes to die
b- Roose was the last of his line. If he dies,the Boltons would die too.
c- the war was lost and the Lannisters have won
d- there was a big chance that the Northern forces wouldnt even reach the North. The Lannisters were breathing at their neck, Walder was Tywin's man and the iron born held Moat Cailin. 
e- Assuming Robb does manage to return North, there's no way in hell that Robb would bend the knee to a Lannister and there's no way in hell the Lannisters would have allowed the North to remain independent. The war was coming to the North and the North wasn't ready for it. 
f- Robb kept committing mistakes. No one likes a general who keeps losing allies especially when that someone comes from a family whose equally powerful and prestigious as the Starks. Would you die because some incompetent boss keep making mistakes?
g- The Lannisters wouldn't pardon Roose unless he doesn't do something extreme for them.

 

[khal drogon]

13 hours ago, Dofs said:

Roose betraying ao killing Robb is half of an issue with him and from a pragmatic point of view you can say that what he did was justifiable. Robb was losing a war, he already had basically lost Riverlands and had to win back the North from the Ironmen. Roose at that point chose a winning side and opportunity to install his House as the rulers of the North. On one hand it's petty, dishonourable and despicable, on the other hand Starks had conquered the Boltons by force in the first place so why should they now serve them forever? 

I would consider Roose as forgivable if his betrayal was the only thing he had done but look at Ramsay's backstory, look at some of his other acts. The guy is a legitimate psychopath and a maniac. How could he be forgiven?

His past acts were how Northern lords once acted. In a way Roose was  following the Northern tradition. And if Roose was a Ramsay level psychopath in the past how their own liege don't know anything about it. 

[Jon's Queen Consort]

13 hours ago, Lyin' Ned said:

Walder, by far. Freys actually died for Robb's cause and he betrayed and insulted their honor by not keeping it in his pants. 

Of course, Walder's vengeance was...exaggerated, but he had every right to be pissed. 

Agree. He owned them more than a nobody.

[devilish]

13 hours ago, Lyin' Ned said:

Walder, by far. Freys actually died for Robb's cause and he betrayed and insulted their honor by not keeping it in his pants. 

Of course, Walder's vengeance was...exaggerated, but he had every right to be pissed. 

I don't think it was vengeance the main reason why Walder acted that way. In my opinion it was fear. I mean think about it

a- Walder's son was married Tywin's sister, which lets confess its a coup for the Freys. Both his son and Genna live comfortably at CR and the Freys are protected by the Lannisters because of it. The Tullys can bitch about the Freys as much as they want but they can do nothing more because one of the Freys is married to a lioness and the lions protect their own. 

b- Tywin invades the Riverlands and the Tully forces melt like snow in summer. For the first time in history the Lannisters need the Freys to be truthful to their end of the bargain by holding the fort and keep the Northern forces out. Instead Walder allows them to pass, The Lannister forces are caught by surprise and Tywin's eldest son is captured. Jamie ultimately returns to KL alive but he ended up losing his sword arm which basically ruins years and years of training, paid by the Lannisters. 

c- Robb is losing. The North is invaded, the Karstarks had abandoned him, Roose had switched sides and Jamie had fled. Robb is planning to return North which will leave the Riverlands defenceless and easy prey to the Loyalist forces.

Now imagine, Tywin marches triumphantly in the Riverlands with his maimed son at his side. Whom do you think he will punish first? Knowing Tywin he will make sure that the twins which has paramount strategic and financial value will fall in the hands of someone whom the Lannisters can trust. Someone who will keep the doors closed to the Starks and will allow the royalists to organize themselves if the young wolf decide to show up again. I bet Tywin would want Genna's husband to take the twins with one/two of his boys living in CR just in case Emmon decides to act silly. Which means.....