Do you think Roose Bolton would be a good king?

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

19 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

He would try to stop Ramsey altogether if was a good manBut, likes what been stated before good men don't always make good rulers and vice-versa

I think your reasoning is a bit confused here. Granted, good men don't always make good rulers, but you seem to be taking that rather basic truism and suggesting that being bad is somehow the sign of a good ruler, or a matter of indifference. 

There is a whole world of difference between someone who is ruthless and someone who is sadistic. Someone who is prepared to do terrible things (even out of self-interest as opposed to the greater good), and someone who wants to do such things. Roose seems to be a functioning sadist, one who has learned to keep it relatively under control, to limit it; while Ramsey lets his sadism govern his actions. That's not really good enough, as far as I'm concerned. 

24 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

An occasional rape of a miler's wife here or there

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume self-satirising irony on this one. 

[Bloodstone Emperor]

Although ppl like Tywin are cruel and merciless, and do terrible things, it is all for the greater good of their realm or the king that he serves. Roose, on the other hand, is the opposite. He does things for his own interests, such as raping the miller’s wife, and shows that he does not do things for the greater good of the realm by keeping Ramsay uncontrolled and allowing him to torture and kill the people he is supposed to protect. He is not loyal to his King, which was shown when he betrayed Robb at the Red Wedding. This would have been redeemable, if it was for the greater good of his realm and people, but it was clearly not because now all the northern men were at the mercy of Ramsay and betraying Robb was in his own interests so that he could gain the north and not deal with consequences for aiding a rebel. Kings like Tywin, on the other hand, are horrible merciless people, but everything they do is for the greater good. For example, te sack at Kingslanding saved hundreds of people who would have died from Aerys’ fires and his threat to destroy Dudkendale showed that he did not suffer traitors.

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Roose isn't exactly reliable is he? He betrayed pretty much everyone else on his side in the WO5K. Even if you thought your interests were aligned with his, you'd have keep an

To a degree. He showed relative effectiveness when working for Robb and doubtless he'd give action for reason to "trust" him(lord knows people are put off on him just by his demeanor,voice and predatory eyes),

 

1 hour ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

ust a little bit of skinning people? Not going crazy with it. That's a relief. 

Eh, guy needs hobbies. Kidding. 

 

1 hour ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

e

1 hour ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Roose first uses that "a peaceful land, a quiet people" line while recounting an anecdote of rape and murder of one of his population. The whole point is that Roose's idea of peace and quiet isn't one that is exactly beneficial to his smallfolk.

Could be wrong sure but I distinctly remember him using this when recounting to Ramsey on why he needs to be far more discrete on his illicit activities. 

1 hour ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

The whole point is that Roose's idea of peace and quiet isn't one that is exactly beneficial to his smallfolk. Not being able to get married for fear of being murdered and raped is not most people's idea of "stability". It's stability for the rulers not the population as a whole. 

Meh, I think if the tale of the miler's wife was more buisness as usual word would have eventually got out. I feel Roose like Ramsey likes to fun but the key difference is Roose doesn't make it so wide spread or make it so public. And as king he'd simply keep his casual cruelties directed to select few of servents if anyone who know would care for. 

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

34 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

To a degree. He showed relative effectiveness when working for Robb and doubtless he'd give action for reason to "trust" him(lord knows people are put off on him just by his demeanor,voice and predatory eyes),

 

Eh, guy needs hobbies. Kidding. 

 

Could be wrong sure but I distinctly remember him using this when recounting to Ramsey on why he needs to be far more discrete on his illicit activities. 

Meh, I think if the tale of the miler's wife was more buisness as usual word would have eventually got out. I feel Roose like Ramsey likes to fun but the key difference is Roose doesn't make it so wide spread or make it so public. And as king he'd simply keep his casual cruelties directed to select few of servents if anyone who know would care for. 

He says he keeps the first night, which suggests it is widespread. Probably most of his people know better than to hide their wives from him, and therefore don't get hanged. Hardly ideal.

[the trees have eyes]

5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

He does wants Ramsey to to tone it down a bit-for its bad PR. He would try to stop Ramsey altogether if was a good manBut, likes what been stated before good men don't always make good rulers and vice-versa Although he engages in sever acts of cruelty he doesn't seem to make it wide spread. An occasional rape of a miler's wife here or there, but if it was really that frequent there'd certainly be tales that would spread to even Lord Rickard. I mean even the tongue thing we have only one account of. For as a sociopath Roose is, he's not so entrailed with giving pain he'd jump to that of a situation said a more "humane" approach is best option

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.  Ramsay has a keenel full of dogs he named after the women he sadistically brutalised and murdered and your response it to acknowledge that Roose does nothing about this except to wish he was more discreet about it (like he was with his own little bit of rape and murder) and only then because it's bad for PR...and this to bolster your argument that Roose would make a good ruler? 

For whom?  Clearly the modern concept that legitimacy of rule is based on the consent of and carried out for the benefit of the governed is not an argument that Roose would care about - it is his right to do as he pleases that he cares about - and not one you can make to argue he would be a good ruler.  So what criteria are you using?  Was Saddam Hussein a good ruler because he had a peaceful land and quiet people?

"An occasional rape of a miller's wife here or there"  Really?  I think your expectations of a ruler's conduct are so low as to be subterranean.  If you think a peaceful land, a quiet people means good things for the people rather than for Roose and his interests then I will beg to differ: the quiet land and peaceful people are achieved by killing everyone who might be independent-minded, inadequately deferential or suitably cowed or even anyone who might somhow someday become a rival or threat.  The Red Wedding shows how Roose goes about securing his quiet land and peaceful people.

Do you mean "he's not so addicted to giving pain he'd jump at it if the situation presented a more humane approach as a better option"?  I would partly agree with that: he is not interested in causing pain for the pleasure of it (that's Ramsay), it is a means to achieve his aims, whether that be seizing power, instilling fear in people, or simply carrying out his desires on the spur of the moment (as with the miller's wife).  There is nothing humane in the thought process there, simply calculation and self-interest.

[Moiraine Sedai]

On 12/27/2017 at 3:53 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Look, I know he's a sadistic fucker, but he seems the sort to keep the kingdom stable, he's shown political savvy, isn't bogged down by any moral scruple that can keep him doing what needs to be done, and has major-self displine. Note I said good king: not good person those are to woefully different things.

He's competent.  He could do fine if he appoints the right people to the small council.  That's really the important part.  Ramsay has to go.  The country will be fine as long as Ramsay doesn't inherit.  

Roose would be an improvement over Robert and Cersei.  

 

 

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

47 minutes ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

He's competent.  He could do fine if he appoints the right people to the small council.  That's really the important part.  Ramsay has to go.  The country will be fine as long as Ramsay doesn't inherit.  

Roose would be an improvement over Robert and Cersei.  

 

 

Competence is only a good thing if used for good ends. Eichmann was competent, Beria was competent, Caesar Borgia was competent, I'm competent. 

[Sourjapes]

18 hours ago, Foot_Of_The_King said:

"A peaceful land, a quiet people." 

I think he would do well. But I'm a guy that thinks Tywin would be the most capable ruler we've seen. Shitty people but good kings. The truth is, most "great men" of history were bad people. 

I generally agree with this, however, despite Roose Bolton being my favorite character, I don't think there is any justification for his toleration of Ramsay. The taking of the Lord's Right was not justified either, but I'll ascribe that to the passion of youth and presume that as an older man he has come to realize how unwise that little indulgence was. I want to say that Roose could be a good king if only because he'd be interested in avoiding wars, but again, his toleration of Ramsay undermines his own motto.

In terms of managing people I think he can do fine. What must be understood about the Manderly/Frey situation is that the Manderly's are taking advantage of the Stannis' invasion. If it weren't for Stannis invading from up north, offering an alternative to the Boltons via' having the additional men to form an army that could topple them, few northern lords would dare act so brazenly against Roose. They CAN take bold moves against him now because if he tried to bring his men down to White Harbor and siege them out he'd be exposed to Stannis.

 

Roose's takeover of the North would have probably gone off without a hitch if it weren't for two things:

 

Stannis invading

&

His bastard son

 

Nobody wants Ramsay for their liege and if Roose dies before raising another child to manhood then Ramsay will almost certainly assume his father's titles. If so then either the North has to suffer his abuse and tyranny or else fight another bloody civil war to oust him.

 

 

So again, I just don't get why Roose tolerates Ramsay so much. I suppose with the marriage to "Arya" he has to keep him, but you'd still think he'd have him under great control. As Lady Dustin says ever scream from "Ned's little girl" plants another seed of rebellion.

[Foot_Of_The_King]

9 minutes ago, Sourjapes said:

I generally agree with this, however, despite Roose Bolton being my favorite character, I don't think there is any justification for his toleration of Ramsay. The taking of the Lord's Right was not justified either, but I'll ascribe that to the passion of youth and presume that as an older man he has come to realize how unwise that little indulgence was. I want to say that Roose could be a good king if only because he'd be interested in avoiding wars, but again, his toleration of Ramsay undermines his own motto.

In terms of managing people I think he can do fine. What must be understood about the Manderly/Frey situation is that the Manderly's are taking advantage of the Stannis' invasion. If it weren't for Stannis invading from up north, offering an alternative to the Boltons via' having the additional men to form an army that could topple them, few northern lords would dare act so brazenly against Roose. They CAN take bold moves against him now because if he tried to bring his men down to White Harbor and siege them out he'd be exposed to Stannis.

 

Roose's takeover of the North would have probably gone off without a hitch if it weren't for two things:

 

Stannis invading

&

His bastard son

 

Nobody wants Ramsay for their liege and if Roose dies before raising another child to manhood then Ramsay will almost certainly assume his father's titles. If so then either the North has to suffer his abuse and tyranny or else fight another bloody civil war to oust him.

 

 

So again, I just don't get why Roose tolerates Ramsay so much. I suppose with the marriage to "Arya" he has to keep him, but you'd still think he'd have him under great control. As Lady Dustin says ever scream from "Ned's little girl" plants another seed of rebellion.

I never understood why he tolerates Ramsey either. And as far as having a child growing to adulthood, forget it. Roose himself says that Ramsey will kill in other child he has, a fact that Roose thinks is "all the better."

[Darth Sidious]

Can Roose be good as a king?  No way.  That's too much power for someone who doesn't respect the king's laws.  The Targaryens outlawed blood sacrifices, flaying, and forced intercourse with newlywed brides.  Many in the North continued to practice the Lord's Right to the First Night even though it was outlawed but you don't want any of those guys to be your king.  They're probably alright in the confined North where they can do little damage but you don't want someone like that ruling over all of the kingdoms.  The culture in the North is different, more savage and brutal.  Roose and his ways will not get much support in the South where the 7 is the dominant religion and chivalry is the culture.  Keep him in the North where he can do a lot of good.  He's their best commander right now and exactly what you need against the Others.  

[Makk]

I don't even think he is that clever. I believe he has a full blown insurrection going on around him, and if he is aware of it, he has no idea of the extent. He rose to his position by making a deal and stabbing his king in the back. Now he is trusting people like Barbrey Dustin who, I believe, is about to do the same to him. So long as Ramsay doesn't do it first that is.

[Varysblackfyre321]

On December 28, 2017 at 10:57 AM, the trees have eyes said:

'm not sure I understand what you are saying.  Ramsay has a keenel full of dogs he named after the women he sadistically brutalised and murdered and your response it to acknowledge that Roose does nothing about this except to wish he was more discreet about it (like he was with his own little bit of rape and murder) and only then because it's bad for PR...and this to bolster your argument that Roose would make a good ruler?

Again, good person/= good ruler. If Roose was a good person he'd have put Ramsey a stop to Ramsey's hobbies but he's not. Not a detraction for being a king or ruler necessarily. Though both Roose and Ramsey are sadistic Roose understands he must commit his cruelties in moderation. 

 

On December 28, 2017 at 10:57 AM, the trees have eyes said:

For whom?  Clearly the modern concept that legitimacy of rule is based on the consent of and carried out for the benefit of the governed is not an argument that Roose would care about - it is his right to do as he pleases that he cares about - and not one you can make to argue he would be a good ruler. 

Well this isn't a modern world he's living in.  Kings get their power because they inherited or taken by force. The only consent which is needed is that of the feudal lords whose rule also rests primarily on their blood. Kings put their house first and foremost but they will(if they're competent), will try to make the place they rule well-off enough and kiss the right ass to decrease the chance of being disposed.

 

On December 28, 2017 at 10:57 AM, the trees have eyes said:

An occasional rape of a miller's wife here or there"  Really?  I think your expectations of a ruler's conduct are so low as to be subterranean

Again we're discussing whether or not he'd make an effective king, not whether his behavior qualifies him being called a paragon of virtue.

 

On December 28, 2017 at 10:57 AM, the trees have eyes said:

Roose and his interests then I will beg to differ: the quiet land and peaceful people are achieved by killing everyone who might be independent-minded, inadequately deferential or suitably cowed or even anyone who might somhow someday become a rival or threat. 

And? This is a feudal society. Not a modern democratic republic where everyone gets to mouth of towards the current monarchy or rule with no consequence. Killing those who can't be put in line is the standard for maintaining order and securing a king's place often times if other(more preferable), routes have failed -not to say violence is what Roose resorts to if the situation calls for a steader hand(see his scolding of Ramsey for not understanding why he can't skin lady Dustin). 

 

On December 28, 2017 at 10:57 AM, the trees have eyes said:

Do you mean "he's not so addicted to giving pain he'd jump at it if the situation presented a more humane approach as a better option"?  I would partly agree with that: he is not interested in causing pain for the pleasure of it (that's Ramsay), it is a means to achieve his aims, whether that be seizing power, instilling fear in people, or simply carrying out his desires on the spur of the moment (as with the miller's wife). 

Oh no that's not true at all. He definitely enjoys inflicting pain on others for fun's sake if it has no consequence for him. It's all about moderation. Roose's chastizement of Ramsey for his dastardly deeds makes me think of a father who occasionally sips a beer telling his son who drinks 3 every morning to slow down

[Varysblackfyre321]

23 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

I think your reasoning is a bit confused here. Granted, good men don't always make good rulers, but you seem to be taking that rather basic truism and suggesting that being bad is somehow the sign of a good ruler, or a matter of indifferenc

It doesn't make a person better. Else Joffery would've been a great one. But, when counting whether or a not a person is a good ruler his personal moral character is of little issue. 

 

[A Ghost of Someone]

Roose would re-introduce Right of the first night.  That is not good for the brides and would not be good or endearing for the bridegrooms. Roose would not have lasted as is the case, People would be chomping at the bits to get rid of him, as they are now. Rule by terror rather than honor is never long lasting. There are no illusions regarding what type of person Roose is, nor his Bastard for that matter. Oh and no child born of a Frey will ever be well received by those expected to show fealty to it in the North or the Riverlands and I am talking to you too Edmure "The Fool" Tully, think about it.

[the trees have eyes]

7 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Again, good person/= good ruler. If Roose was a good person he'd have put Ramsey a stop to Ramsey's hobbies but he's not. Not a detraction for being a king or ruler necessarily. Though both Roose and Ramsey are sadistic Roose understands he must commit his cruelties in moderation. 

 

Well this isn't a modern world he's living in.  Kings get their power because they inherited or taken by force. The only consent which is needed is that of the feudal lords whose rule also rests primarily on their blood. Kings put their house first and foremost but they will(if they're competent), will try to make the place they rule well-off enough and kiss the right ass to decrease the chance of being disposed.

 

Again we're discussing whether or not he'd make an effective king, not whether his behavior qualifies him being called a paragon of virtue.

 

And? This is a feudal society. Not a modern democratic republic where everyone gets to mouth of towards the current monarchy or rule with no consequence. Killing those who can't be put in line is the standard for maintaining order-not to say violence is what Roose resorts to if the situation calls for a steader hand(see his scolding of Ramsey for not understanding why he can't skin lady Dustin).

 

Oh no that's not true at all. He definitely enjoys inflicting pain on others for fun's sake if it has no consequence for him. It's all about moderation. Roose's chastizement of Ramsey for his dastardly deeds makes me think of a father who occasionally sips a beer telling his son who drinks 3 every morning to slow down

What is your definition of a good king if caring for the people of the realm is irrelevant?  The whole legitimacy of the concept of kingship rests on the idea that the king enforces the laws and dispenses justice for the people he reigns over and in return they owe him their allegiance.  You break one half of that compact and the system breaks down.

The North knows Ramsay sacked Winterfell and Roose was a party to the Red Wedding.  The amount of blood on his hands makes him a terrible choice for this reason alone - at the hint of an opportunity the rest of the Northern Houses will unseat him and expunge his line as a matter of blood vengeance and thus civil war is inevitable.

Why anyone would consider him a good ruler is bizarre?  Was Stalin a good ruler?  That was another peaceful land with a quiet people...

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

13 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

What is your definition of a good king if caring for the people of the realm is irrelevant?  The whole legitimacy of the concept of kingship rests on the idea that the king enforces the laws and dispenses justice for the people he reigns over and in return they owe him their allegiance.  You break one half of that compact and the system breaks down.

The North knows Ramsay sacked Winterfell and Roose was a party to the Red Wedding.  The amount of blood on his hands makes him a terrible choice for this reason alone - at the hint of an opportunity the rest of the Northern Houses will unseat him and expunge his line as a matter of blood vengeance and thus civil war is inevitable.

Why anyone would consider him a good ruler is bizarre?  Was Stalin a good ruler?  That was another peaceful land with a quiet people...

 

Of course providing the people of the realm particularly the major houses is important.  There is a real case for why Roose wouldn't be a good king but what you're pointing to isn't really evidence of that but just showing Roose to be despicable human being. 

Of course providing adequate care for the vast majority of subjects is key for a good ruler else he or she will find himself or herself more easily disposed.

The concept of Kingship atleast nominally rests on divine right. But truthfully kings in a feudal society rule at the consent of the major houses who back him. So long as he shows his rule isn't detrimental to them they fall in line and so the king is king. It doesn't matter if Roose mistreats his servants or just one randomn peasant  if the country is stable and secure enough for serfs to safely work the land to which they make their living and to fill their lords pocket;which is the primary objective of the ruling monarch. 

And if examining whether or not Stalin was a good ruler it's probably best to look at how his policies transformed his country, what was he able to do as leader not look at he emotionally tormented his own son and let him be murdered by Nazis. 

[kissdbyfire]

On 27/12/2017 at 9:33 PM, Curled Finger said:

In a cemetery in Transylvania, maybe.  

 Perfect!

/end thread

[Curled Finger]

6 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

 Perfect!

/end thread

It's a good day when @kissdbyfire is amused!  

[kissdbyfire]

21 minutes ago, Curled Finger said:

It's a good day when @kissdbyfire is amused!  

I'm amused often and thoroughly, especially reading some of the stuff people post on here!

 

[Tai Pan]

Depends on what you think is the purpose of justice.  China has more people than the U.S. and their crime is lower.  Order vs. personal rights.  Society vs. the Individual.  The land will be peaceful under King Roose.  There will be order at the expense of personal rights.