Acts of brutality? It's your turn to pass judgment.

[The Commentator]

An act can be brutal but still justified.  I ask that you keep that in mind before passing your verdict.  Brutal acts happen all the time but we are discussing an act committed against many people.  

• The Red Wedding (Tywin, Walder, and Roose)
• Reynes of Castamere (Tywin)
• Destruction of Duskendale (King Aerys II)
• Destruction of the Goodbrook villages (Hoster Tully)
• Executions of the Ironmen at Moat Cailin (Ramsay)
• Mutiny at Craster's Keep (Rogue Brothers of the Watch)

Instructions:

1. Rank the list in order of most brutal to least brutal.
2. Rank the list in order of most justified and to least justified.
3. Please give your reaction/opinion to each event.  Defend your rankings.  

Thanks 

[GyantSpyder]

Fun!

BRUTALITY RANK

(When I think of brutality, I think of the impression of the severity of the violence, combined by the harshness of its method, relative to what would be necessary or proportional to respond to a cause or achieve an effect. That something is "brutal" means it is more severe, and/or done in a harsher method, than would be necessary or proportional for the cause/effect.)

• Reynes of Castamere (Tywin) -- Especially brutal because the core issue at stake was reputation and long-term debt, there was no urgency and no time pressure (the revolt was already basically over), everybody who wasn't even partially involved in the core dispute was killed, and the method of death (drowning people inside of underground mines) was so horrific.
• The Red Wedding (Tywin, Walder, and Roose) -- Somewhat less brutal than the Reynes of Castamere because you are for the most part dealing with soldiers who were still going to fight in the war, and because there was some time pressure to come to an expedient solution rather than negotiate. But still very brutal because the needs for it were more strategic, and the response is very visceral and immediate
• Destruction of Duskendale (King Aerys II) -- This was brutal because it was done as retaliation against a large number of people by a slight caused by a relatively small number of people. But we don't really have a good sense for how much damage it caused, and it wasn't an absolute purge even of the houses at fault - not totally.
• Destruction of the Goodbrook villages (Hoster Tully) -- This we jut don't know a lot about, and it's a retaliation with an army because of something done with an army in a war, so the symmetry of that reduces the brutality of it to me. This was a much more measured and less brutal reaction than Castamere, for example.
• Executions of the Ironmen at Moat Cailin (Ramsay) - This was brutal because of how the men were flayed and it was done under a flag of truce but other than that there's nothing really notable about it, as I don't think it involved a particularly large number of people, and for the most part it didn't involve civilians.
• Mutiny at Craster's Keep (Rogue Brothers of the Watch) -- This isn't much of anything, certainly not on the scopes of other acts, in terms of brutality. All they did was murder a few people, and most of the people involved are armed men, and the whole situation was garbage anyway.

 

JUSTIFICATION RANK

For me in this context "justification" is both about whether the act was itself justified or unjustified by its effects, but also about how justified it was relative to other similar options for achieving essentially the same goals.

• Executions of the Ironmen at Moat Cailin (Ramsay) - The Ironborn invasion of the North is really hard to justify for any moral reason, and of course it's going to incur retaliation. Yeah, some rules were broken, but they were broken in a way that is very characteristic of the social order imposed by the Boltons on their share of the north, and is perhaps more a case of culture clash than rational immorality. Obviously you'd hope people do better than this, but relatively speaking it's kind of par for the course.
• Destruction of the Goodbrook villages (Hoster Tully) - It isn't really all that justified to retaliate against civilians for defiance by nobles during a war, but armies are blunt instruments, it's not clear how intentional this was, or with what reluctance it was carried out, and it's not clear that a lesser retaliation would have sufficiently punished the Goodbrooks. This is a case where I don't believe Hoster Tully was aware of any better or more appropriate options, but I also don't know a lot about it.
• Destruction of Duskendale (King Aerys II) -- This kind of punishment was to be expected, but it is less justified because it's being done by the King, who has a special duty to protect the people and to set an example, and because so much of it appears to have been driven by the King's personal feelings, which is not a good reason to do it. There's little reason to believe Duskendale actually presented the throne with much of a problem after Aerys was rescued, so it's debatable whether this did any good.
• The Red Wedding (Tywin, Walder, and Roose) -- This act did a lot to end the war, and it's justified in the sense that when you're in a war you are justified by your own interests to do what you need to do to win, but from a third-party interest looking on these with a bit more distance, if not objectivity, the Red Wedding hardly seems necessary. It benefitted the Lannisters, the Boltons and the Freys in the near term, but not necessarily in the long term, and it did a lot of damage to the social fabric of Westeros. There's a case to be made that guest right, in itself, was worth preserving and protecting even in war. Also, it's very possible there were other ways to settle this problem that weren't pursued that didn't involve such a huge scale of murder of so many people and the disregard of so many "rules of war" that incurred consequences that remain to be seen. In general I think it's hard to tell whether the story overemphasizes the importance of pitched battle in the field over sieges and negotiated advances and retreats at this level of military and political organization because big battles happen more often than they probably should, or because they stand out more. But there were ways to solve this problem that didn't even involve a big pitched battle between Robb and the Lannisters.
• Reynes of Castamere (Tywin) -- This was just entirely unnecessary. It created the myth that nobody defied Tywin Lannister, but there isn't much evidence that it actually stopped people from actually defying Tywin Lannister - heck, most of the story up until his death is about various people defying Tywin Lannister (Littlefinger was plotting against him right under his nose, so was Varys, and neither of them cared about his killing of all those people). This is a kind of case where the kind of people that this keeps in line would have also been kept in line by an action of much lesser magnitude, and the kind of people who aren't kept in line by lesser acts aren't kept in line by this either.
• Mutiny at Craster's Keep. This was just stupid and served no smart purpose and just got everybody killed. I can't think of much of a reason for anybody to justify this for any reason.

[Lion of the West]

1 hour ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

An act can be brutal but still justified.  I ask that you keep that in mind before passing your verdict.  Brutal acts happen all the time but we are discussing an act committed against many people.  

• The Red Wedding (Tywin, Walder, and Roose)
• Reynes of Castamere (Tywin)
• Destruction of Duskendale (King Aerys II)
• Destruction of the Goodbrook villages (Hoster Tully)
• Executions of the Ironmen at Moat Cailin (Ramsay)
• Mutiny at Craster's Keep (Rogue Brothers of the Watch)

Instructions:

1. Rank the list in order of most brutal to least brutal.
2. Rank the list in order of most justified and to least justified.
3. Please give your reaction/opinion to each event.  Defend your rankings.  

Thanks 

Most brutal

Destruction of Duskendale - The "Lace Serpent" got a great deal worse than she deserved and considering that the Darklyns, unlike the Reyne and Tarbecks, did surrender the wholesale slaughter was really unjustified and needless. Killing off the "Lace Serpent", Lord Darklyn and a few choice people would have been sufficient.

Red Wedding - really over-the-top and broke a sacred tradition. While I can appreciate that it most likely did save lives in the long run, it was needlessly damaging to House Lannister's standing and the results could have been achived with more conventional means.

Executions of the Ironmen - These men had surrendered so killing them in this horrific way was an evil act. No way to go around it.

Reynes of Castamere - Many surely died and I don't think that drowning in a close enviroment is a very nice way to go.

Mutiny at Craster's Keep - Lots of killing and stuff but I didn't find the violence going beyond "normal" Westerosi violence

Destuction of the Goodbrook villages - As far as we know it was "only" a conventional attack and I don't think that it was more brutal than any other set of standard shootings or knifings which makes it a bit less spectacular than the rest of the acts in the list.

Most justified

Reynes of Castamere - They were repeated rebels, see Gormon Peake what should be done with repeated rebels, and they had themselves refused an offer to surrender. Tywin is under no obligation to show clemancy to rebels or to go with silken gloves on people refusing to surrender.

Destruction of the Goodbrook villages - As much or as little justified as any other act in a war.

Red Wedding and Execution of the Ironmen - Needlessly done by what could have bone accomplished by more conventional means, even if both set of rebels did deserve to die for the benefit of the realm. In Robb's case then trapping him by the Twins and smashed by Lord Tywin and Lord Tarly would have served and equal purpose and not done broke an ancient custom. Killing prisoners who have surrendered isn't justified except under very special circumstances. Ramsay was not dealing with any such circumstances.

Destruction of the Darklyns - Aerys really went over-the-top here and so many did most surely not deserve to die.

Mutiny at Craster's Keep - Selfish rebellion against your lord and to break your oaths is very seldom right to do, and in this case there was no justification for any such action at this place and at that time.

[Moiraine Sedai]

Brutality

1. Reynes of Castamere.  Men, women, children, servants all died.
2. Craster's Keep.  He was their host.  Many Innocents were killed for little provocation.  
3. Duskendale.  Innocents died.  Servants died.
4. Destruction of Good Brook.  The Gbs sided with their king.  Burning his villages was not necessary and inflicted too much suffering.
5. Red Wedding.  Very red indeed.  A lot of wrongs on both side.  Almost all who died we're soldiers.  No Innocents except jingle bells.
6. Ironborn at Moat Cailin.  It was war.  They were  all soldiers.

Justified

1. Duskendale.  The Darklyns attacked, imprisoned, and tortured their king.  They violated guest rights.  Justified.
2. Red Wedding.  Robb was a rebel who declared himself king.  He broke his pact with the Freys and killed his Bannerman.  Saved thousands of lives.
3. Moat Cailin.  It was war and the ironborn are soldiers.  The Boltons needed to send a message to the ironborn.
4. Destruction of Good Brook.  It was war and Tully wanted to scare his bannermen to support his rebellion.
5. Reynes of Castamere.  Justified in some ways but Tywin went too far.  Killing the parents and taking their wealth would have sufficed.
6. Craster's.  Unjustified.  Completely wrong.  He was no threat.  He helped the watch and sheltered them.

 

[Protagoras]

Most Brutal (as in, how did they die, innocents? and how many)

1. Reynes of Castamere: Everyone died, slowely but surely by water. Everyone. 100%. All innocents too. And not a pleasant way to die. In fact, a really horryfying one.
2. Duskendale: Not everyone died, but many, including innocents, did. Many were also tortured and died painfully . However, many innocents - especially servants, survived. And Barristan was allowed to save one. Harsh, but their crime was straigth up treason.
3. Moat Caithlin: Few men, no innocents, but all tortured severely and for no cause since they had surrendered. I don´t doubt that the way they died was worse than all other candidates on this list though.
4. Red Wedding: Many died and violently, but with little torture. Many were also soldiers, already commiting themselves to war and their possible death. Innocents were few and you could argue that since the soldiers followed Robb, that they had taken upon themselves to sntand by him, including his oathbreaking.
5. Destruction of Goodbrook villages: Pretty standard for the time era, nor do few seem to call it out. Houses were destroyed, some were killed (but I doubt that many), some raped and a signal was sent. Tit-for-tat plays a huge role why I can´t put this higher up. And I doubt they went full crazy Song My either.
6. Craster´s: One person died. One. And said person died pretty fast as well. The innocent women were raped surely, but I doubt much more happened.

Most Justified

1. Duskendale: Either Aerys was presented bread and salt, which make this a guest right crime by the Darklyns. Or he was ambushed under a flag of truce, a white flag so to speak - which is a war crime. And not only was he imprisoned, but the Lace serpent also have the audacity that a man entering their keep under such circumstances should be killed (and maybe even had him tortured). She more than enough deserved the sexual torture performed upon her (all those that think Aerys did this out of sexist reasons, why was said torture only performed on her?), since she was a driving force behind the treason (And I am quite frankly tired of the idea that you should go softer on women because they are women and that some limits exist in a way it doesn´t do on men. To those that think so, I say - you are a horrible persons with double standards and your opinions are a reason in itself for those limits to be broken) and treason was punished with hung, drawn and quartered in our days. At best you could argue that Aerys should only have demanded the head from those involved in the act itself and that the torture should be lighter since they surrendered, but then again - it was far to late then to just give up and avoid punishment.
2. Destruction of Goodbrook villages: Looks pretty standard to me. Tit-for-tat do exist after all and I am pretty sure this always happen in wars in Westeros. Also, was this even intentional or something that did just "happen?". And isn´t in pretty likely that this would have happened to Lord Hosters villagers if the war has gone the other way. And were the buildings really that destroyed? And while certainly people was killed and raped, was it really a significant difference than what normally happens in war. I think no.
3. Reynes of Castamere: You could argue that Tywin broke word, but so did the Reynes and Tarbecks many, many times before that and they sort of got what they deserved, since they were supposed to be vassals to the Lannisters and had sworn oaths to do so. This "crime" has also been approved by the legal king of Westeros by that time, so it clearly have Westerosi legal support. In addition, the Reynes didn´t want to surrender, but instead offered terms. Could Tywin be more lenient? Yes. Is he forced to? No.
4. Red Wedding: Walder overreacted, but at least he had a reason. He had been snubbed by the Starks and wanted to get back. Problem is that he decided to break guest right, making his crimes one of the worst possible in Westeros. Luckily for Walder, this thread is about justice in comparison to the Starks and not the other things he opened up with this (The end of diplomacy and negotiation for example). In addition, not "playing by the rules" is not really a good thing here. Better to kill fair and square.
5. Craster´s: Well, the Watch were assholes, forcing Craster to give them things that was not theirs to ask for and killed him as well as their commander when they was denied. Granted, Craster is not a good host, but it is still his home, and his rules. Yes, they were hungry, frozen and unhappy - but thats just excuses.
6. Moat Caithlin: Well, if the Craster situation were bad, consider a situation where Craster gives the mutineeers all they ask for and they still decide to torture him anyway. Such is the situation with Ramsay and the Ironborn, a class A warcrime if ever there was one. He tortures a surrendered foe most brutally and breaks his given promise, making me wonder if any peace can ever be achieved with that "man" in charge. That "broken promise part" is so vile that it is hard to describe. All the other cases were a struggle where it was sort of expected that the strong would impose whatever they could on the weak. Next time anyone suggests deals in order for someone to surrender, this event should be in everyones mind. Nor had the Ironborn done anything to the Boltons that motivated such response. War is not a case in itself for brutal torture, even if the target is the fan favorite region.

 

[Lord Wraith]

I might not always agree with Tywin's actions but the Reynes of Castamere were justified.

[DarkBastard]

Brutality

1. Moat Cailin, Executions of the Ironborn:  The act itself was far more brutal than the others, based solely on the suffering and cruelty endured by the Ironborn.
2. Craster's Keep, Mutiny:  Deaths of good men aside, the "liberties" taken with Craster's child-wives was particularly brutal.  Death would be less brutal than the cycle of abuse to follow.
3. Reynes of Castamere:  Closing in of the people, followed by the flooding is harsh but far quicker and less torturous than the others.
4. Red Wedding:  Lower on the brutality scale in that this was a focused attack and although the circumstances were poor, the actual brutality of the act was not beyond the others.  It was war, and they were (mostly) soldiers.
5. Duskendale:  This was an act of war, essentially.  War sucks, particularly if you serve a fool.  Not more brutal in its nature than the others.
6. Goodbrooks:  Less information about the details makes this hard to rate, but I don't believe Hoster was particularly brutal in nature.

Justified

1. Duskendale:  They took the King hostage, a King who was not universally loved, even by his closest advisors.  You cannot let this go unpunished, have to set the example. This is Darwinism on display.
2. Castamere:  Again, you can only push so far, and when you threaten the highest house, the lead of which is transferring to a more ruthless, prideful, and powerful heir...you should act with more forethought.  Another Darwin award here.
3. Red Wedding:  Break an oath, deal with the consequence.  The cowardice and deception of circumstances aside, it was more justified in that the word of the Stark family was broken...who is to say that every other promise would be broken as well?  Ned would not have broke that oath, Robb had too much Tully in him to understand, and it killed them all.  An act that ended the war...additionally justified from that perspective.
4. Goodbrooks:  You follow your liege-lord no matter what.  If your liege-lord loses, you have a better chance making peace with the victor than dealing with the wrath of the betrayed.  
5. Moat Cailin:  Rated as most brutal, but nearly the least justified.  What purpose would this serve?  the Ironborn are not going to change their ways because of the act.  It isn't going to discourage other Ironborn.  They weren't going to regroup and counterattack...it was just done from sick desire for depravity.  The Ironborn are rapers and reavers though, so that allows for some justification.
6. Craster's Keep:  Mutiny is not a valid justification in this instance.  They wanted to eat Craster's food and abuse his ladies.  Killing Mormont was completely unjustified.They broke their oaths and killed the oathkeepers...How can that ever be justified? 

 

 

[Night Train to Kathmandu]

Brutality

1. Ramsay's treatment of the ironborn at MC.  You're supposed to kill your enemies.  But Ramsay went beyond killing your enemy.  The ironborn surrendered.  Okay execute them for war crimes.  But skinning them was too cruel.  Ramsay did it for kicks.  It wasn't an execution it was perversion.
2. Castamere of Tarbecks and Reynes.  Kill the parents.  Kill the men at arms.  Kill the people who make decisions.  But killing the serving maids, the children, and other people who just happened to be employed by the families in a domestic capacity.  That was just cruelty. 
3. Red Wedding.  It was a violation of guest rights but that is a different matter.  It was brutal due to the number of casualties but I get that they were mostly soldiers.
4. Duskendale.  One family was nearly wiped out, except for Dontos.  But they assaulted the royal person of the king, kept him in a cell and who knows what kind of cruel torture they subjected him to.  Aerys would return the favor as most would five times over.  It was brutal because of the torture involved.
5. Goodbrook Village.  They destroyed the family's who lived there.  Peasant families and farmers for what their lord did. 
6. Craster's Keep.  Brutal but limited in damage.

Justified?

1. Duskendale.  It was messed up to do what the Darklyns did to their king.  What else could you expect after you torment your king for months.
2. Red Wedding.  It ended the war.  The casualties of more war would greatly exceed the casualties at the R/W. 
3. Castamere.  Tywin had to set an example to prevent upstarts from making any more trouble. 
4. Goodbrooks.  War is hell.  Hoster Tully wanted to set an example.  (Tully did get his comeuppance when Tywin raided his villages in response to Tyrion's arrest).
5. Moat Cailin.  The ironmen were defeated and no longer a threat.  They surrendered. 
6. Craster's Keep.  No justification to murder your hosts and his family after them taking you in. 

[cpg2016]

15 hours ago, Night Train to Kathmandu said:

 

1. Red Wedding.  It ended the war.  The casualties of more war would greatly exceed the casualties at the R/W. 

Um, this is highly debatable.  Tens of thousands of people die, and FYI - it didn't end the war!  The Tully's are still holding out in Riverrun (or were), the BWOB is still at large, and it caused the North to rally to Stannis.  So, Tywin's masterstroke really did nothing.  And remember, it's only possible to do this because of the losses at Duskendale.  Plus all the men at arms who are killed at the Twins.  Acting like it's just a few people is absurd; it was thousands upon thousands, and it accomplished nothing except the probable eventual extinction of the Freys, Boltons, and likely the Lannisters.

[Lion of the West]

2 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Um, this is highly debatable.  Tens of thousands of people die, and FYI - it didn't end the war!  The Tully's are still holding out in Riverrun (or were), the BWOB is still at large, and it caused the North to rally to Stannis.  So, Tywin's masterstroke really did nothing.  And remember, it's only possible to do this because of the losses at Duskendale.  Plus all the men at arms who are killed at the Twins.  Acting like it's just a few people is absurd; it was thousands upon thousands, and it accomplished nothing except the probable eventual extinction of the Freys, Boltons, and likely the Lannisters.

Not true at all. The surrender of Riverrun was to my knowledge without a loss of life, the rest of the Riverlands folded quickly.

And yes it was thousand upon thousands...of soldiers. The smallfolk got spared when the soldiers got knifed. Soldiers die in war, not just civilians, and its universally considered ok to target enemy soldiers in war.

As for the North rallying to Stannis, don't be so quick to call on that. The Umbers are divided and the Karstarks, Ryswells and Dustins went over to Bolton without much issue. And for my own sake, I'm not convinced that Lord Stannis will dislodge the Boltons from Winterfell. And even so Stannis's army is much less of a threat than Robb's were.

As for the Boltons, Freys and Lannisters. The Boltons would have been done for if Robb returned to the North anyhow while if the Freys or Lannisters falls it will be due to internal squabbles, already established, not some kind of karma for the Red Wedding. The Riverlords are broken and controlled through their hostages while the BwB only operates within the Riverlands. At best the BwB can kill a score of men-at-arms, trim the Freys of their meekest members and at best deny the Riverlands to the crown, and even that they are failing due to all the surrendering Riverlords and the fall of both Raventree Hall and Riverrun.

The Redd Wedding ended Robb's war and replaced a great threat to the crown with two minor which together wouldn't be able to hold a candle to the threat that Robb and his army presented. And even that threat wasn't as large after Highgarden joined with the Rock.

[cpg2016]

Quote

And yes it was thousand upon thousands...of soldiers. The smallfolk got spared when the soldiers got knifed. Soldiers die in war, not just civilians, and its universally considered ok to target enemy soldiers in war.

Soldiers and smallfolk are the same thing.  If you mean to say that civilians didn't die, well... seeing as Tywin was the one primarily responsible for the killing, raping, and mass enslavement of the smallfolk, that isn't a good reason.  The whole reason Tywin is attainted and the war begins is because he begins illegally reaving through the Riverlands (or rather, has Clegane do it).  And it is not "universally okay" to target soldiers in war, as the Red Wedding proves.  They had guestright, same as the nobles (who are also soldiers, moreso than their men-at-arms).

Again, this cannot be stressed enough: most of the primary violence being done in the Riverlands (though not exclusively) was being done on the express orders of Tywin Lannister.  He doesn't get credit for ending that through mass murder when he's the one who started it in the first place.

Quote

As for the North rallying to Stannis, don't be so quick to call on that. The Umbers are divided and the Karstarks, Ryswells and Dustins went over to Bolton without much issue. And for my own sake, I'm not convinced that Lord Stannis will dislodge the Boltons from Winterfell. 

Ahem.  The Umbers are only divided because the Greatjon is a prisoner (this is explicit in the text).  The Karstarks, legally speaking, are on Team Stannis, since Arnolf is only there to usurp Alys' rightful position.  The Dustin's are there because Barbrey hates Ned.  The Ryswells are on both sides of the conflict.  But they all, to a man (or woman) hate the Freys and, even if they won't say it, by extension the Lannisters.  Remember the "the North remembers, Frey" scene?  That's Barbrey Dustin.  They know who is responsible.

Quote

the Freys or Lannisters falls it will be due to internal squabbles, already established, not some kind of karma for the Red Wedding. 

The Frey's are being hunted down explicitly as revenge for their role in the Red Wedding, and it is quite clear that the new BWOB will do the same to any Lannisters or Lannister sympathizers (such as Brienne) that they find.

Quote

At best the BwB can kill a score of men-at-arms, trim the Freys of their meekest members and at best deny the Riverlands to the crown, and even that they are failing due to all the surrendering Riverlords and the fall of both Raventree Hall and Riverrun.

Aha.  Well, we can wait til WoW, but I'd bet everything I have that the BWOB infiltrates the upcoming Lannister/Frey wedding and kills all the attendees they can get their hands on.  And they've killed far more than a score of men.  We're at around 50 mentioned explicitly and a bunch more implied, roughly speaking.  

Quote

The Redd Wedding ended Robb's war and replaced a great threat to the crown with two minor which together wouldn't be able to hold a candle to the threat that Robb and his army presented. And even that threat wasn't as large after Highgarden joined with the Rock.

But that isn't the question.  I mean, long term it is going to blow up in the faces of the Freys, Boltons, and Lannisters, but that is not the point.  Tywin defends his decision explicitly on the basis of "dozens dead at dinner instead of thousands on the battlefield".  Now, even if you ignore that those people are only dying on the battlefield due to a war Tywin started, to prop up a regime that is illegitimate, this is an inaccurate statement.  Both sides incur heavy losses at Duskendale, about a thousand for the North and presumably a slightly lesser number for Tarly.  And then more die when Clegane catches them on the retreat.  So lets call it three thousand, total, on the conservative side.  The Freys slaughter another 3,500 at the Twins.  So already your looking at a massive number of people killed - Tywin says "dozens" because he doesn't consider the smallfolk to be people.  The question isn't "were these actions intelligent ways of mitigating a threat" but "which was the most brutal".  And it's pretty clear that not only were the most people murdered in cold blood, but they were murdered in contravention of the oldest and most sacred law in Westeros.

And again, it has to be pointed out, it did not end the war.  The North is still actively punishing those responsible (see Manderly, Wyman) and even in the Riverlands, several great lords continued to hold out.  So while it certainly lessened the immediate threat Robb posed, it didn't actually accomplish the goal of ending the war, and it also is going to boomerang back onto all three responsible parties in an awful way.  It already has for the Freys, for whom many more have died as a result of the Red Wedding than did during Robb's campaign.

[Kandrax]

On 12.6.2017. at 6:22 PM, Widowmaker 811 said:

An act can be brutal but still justified.  I ask that you keep that in mind before passing your verdict.  Brutal acts happen all the time but we are discussing an act committed against many people.  

• The Red Wedding (Tywin, Walder, and Roose)
• Reynes of Castamere (Tywin)
• Destruction of Duskendale (King Aerys II)
• Destruction of the Goodbrook villages (Hoster Tully)
• Executions of the Ironmen at Moat Cailin (Ramsay)
• Mutiny at Craster's Keep (Rogue Brothers of the Watch)

Instructions:

1. Rank the list in order of most brutal to least brutal.
2. Rank the list in order of most justified and to least justified.
3. Please give your reaction/opinion to each event.  Defend your rankings.  

Thanks 

What about Saltpans and Tumbleton?