Shaera in Aerys´ rule

[Lord Varys]

16 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Actually, it bears out Macchiavelli's view that a new ruler must either conciliate potential enemies, or punish them so harshly that they can never threaten her again.

The mass crucifixion was cruel enough to infuriate the Great Masters, but not cruel enough to break them.

Yeah, Dany's problem in ASoS and ADwD really seems to be very akin to the flaw of Aenys Targaryen. The Mhysa thing triggered the desire to be loved, and when she lashes out against the slavers it is essentially her way to defend those who she counts among her own now - the slaves, both those she has freed and those she wanted to free (the crucified slave children).

But when she has time to think she is more concerned with how she looks and with peace as a concept, never thinking through (or caring) what her enemies/the people she wants to have peace with think or want. That twists her view of the situation and makes her rule less and less effective while her enemies smell that she is weak, sharpen their knives, and prepare to take the dragon queen apart piece by piece.

King Aenys has to deal with the trauma of his mother's death in Dorne, making him reluctant of dragon warfare, Dany has the Hazzea thing to deal with, causing her distance herself not only from her dragons but also from what they represent - the ability and willingness to do what it takes.

Meereen could have been hers easily enough if she had gone down with Daario's Red Wedding idea. The place is just a city, and once the ruling class is gone the ruling class is gone. Nobody is going to rise to avenge slavers that are not exactly all that popular in the world.

16 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Edit:  While Dany does inhabit a very harsh world, and generally comes over as compassionate by the standards of her time and place (if brutal by our standards) , and the leading Great Masters merit very little sympathy, I think it will be harder to be sympathetic to her if she leads the Dothraki on the rampage though Western Essos, and starts burning and nailing up her enemies in Westeros, some of whom will be people that readers have grown to like.

There is little reason to assume that stuff like that is going to happen in this fashion. There is likely going to be a lot of conquest in Essos, but once Dany's movement has reached a critical point there will be little to no need for harsh punishments because the slaver regimes will fall all by themselves, being overthrown by the slaves they are oppressing. That's what's going to happen in Volantis, at least. Norvos and Qohor might be sacked and destroyed by the Dothraki, but we know pretty much no one from those cities, and their cultures are, overall, not all that sympathetic (especially Qohor's). Tyrosh and Lys might form an alliance against Dany (with or without Myr) and then they will be crushed. And Pentos doesn't have the means to defend itself.

In Westeros I see little reason to expect her to be especially cruel. She is a Targaryen with dragons. When she comes, people will join her, never mind what Aegon might be saying. She may still have to fight, but the way to win Westeros is not to butcher its population. The leaders of the opposition might face harsh punishments but if that's the case then the story will explain to us why this is the case. I'm not sure this Second Dance thing has the potential to grow into some all-out war fought with the same kind of ferocity as the First Dance. And even that one wasn't all that cruel. Else Alicent Hightower and Helaena Targaryen would have been disemboweled alive and Aegon the Younger and Lady Baela would have filled Sunfyre's stomach, too.

However, in the end treason is treason and has to be punished. A proper king doesn't reward turncloaks the way Aegon II rewarded Ser Perkin the Flea or Robert Baratheon rewarded the likes of Jaime and Tywin Lannister. If Dany gets around to deal justice we might see in a similar position as Cregan Stark - actually sentencing the men to death who murdered Aegon to get into her good graces, never mind that she, personally, also wanted to kill Aegon.

That's how *real justice* is done in this world. When men make promises and swear vows they are expected to keep them, and if you sit in judgment over them you don't care that you profited from their actions but rather that they betrayed their vows and those they were supposed to serve, protect, and advise.

[Paxter Redwyne]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Does anybody say Dany is a better ruler than Tywin? This series isn't about good rulers vs. bad rulers, it is about what it takes to rule and survive. You can certainly be a milder, more forgiving, less cruel ruler, etc. but you cannot rule in this world without getting your hands bloody.

Nobody in the series complains about the crucified slavers - that was neither extreme nor particularly cruel by the standards of the world they are all living in. No one implies that this ruling is the reason for the Sons of the Harpy killings, etc. 

What makes Dany a bad ruler is that she is more like her ancestor King Aenys in ADwD. She wants to be loved by her new subjects, and doesn't have it in her (yet) to use her dragons or punish the children of the slavers she is using as hostages. That's what causes her power to erode, not so much the fact that she can be pretty harsh at times - this is a harsh world, people who want to be nice are dismissed and attacked as weak and quickly lose their power.

Again, this isn't really relevant. There is no reason why a foreign power conquering another power should treat her enemies the way she would treat people accused of a crime in peace time. There it is necessary, even in Martinworld, to have some trial thing (which is a charade in comparison to modern justice standards) but when you are talking about something you deem to be abominable war crimes then you can, of course, collectively accuse the leaders of the enemy to be complicit in that. We know that the Meereenese didn't have a supreme leader or anything, meaning that the Masters are indeed collectively the ruling body of the city. If there were men opposing the idea to crucify slave children then such men apparently failed to prevent it - and are thus technically still responsible for the atrocities, although to a lesser degree.

But the way the Meereenese are portrayed makes it extremely unlikely that such an opposition did exist. These people do not care about their slaves at all. They don't see them as people.

What Tywin did to the Reynes was a cruel thing, but they brought it on themselves. They defied their liege lord, and rose in treason and rebellion. This was war, and in war the rules do change.

Not to mention that no-name people like commoners and slaves don't really count in this world as legal subjects. Daenerys (and Tywin) is not as harsh as she is because these people killed children, but because they rubbed it in her face, because they made her feel powerless and weak. These people are royalty and nobility in a medieval setting. They care about offenses and insults done to them, personally, and to people they count among their own (family, vassals, subjects, etc.). They only matter insofar as they are part of yourself, not as individual people with rights, etc.

That is why Lady Rohanne Webber rejects Eustace's offer to pay her for the insult committed out of hand. The aggrieved party is not the peasant whose cheek has been cut (who, as Dunk points out, would likely prefer to get some money), it is Lady Rohanne Webber. And she decides what to do about this offense, not the man who has actually been hurt.

That is a fantasy idea. Justice is most definitely not one in Martinworld. The glaring differences between life in peace times and war times are obvious, and even 'justice' in peace times is a travesty compared to our standards in the real world. Just look at the ridiculously stupid execution of Gared in the very first chapter of the series. 

I think you have described it pretty accurately.

About crucifixion of children, it would be nice to know how exactly decisions are made in Meereen. If for example they make decisions by voting, man can hardly blame everyone for killing those slaves unless everyone voted for it.

I think problem with Dany is that she makes decisions based on how she feels in that moment. For example she ordered torture innocent of wineseller and his daughters when she was angry but was too mild in other situations, when she should have acted more harsh. This weird combination of compassion and cruelty is why in my opinion she fails as a ruler.

Edit:

How Aegon II rewarded Perkin the Flea? Wasn't he in prison when Cregan arrived in King's Landing?

Also that whole Hour of the Wolf was honestly a joke in my opinion. From what we know for now he arrested 22 people and only executed Larys Strong and Gyles Belgrave. Rest was sentenced to take black what is rather mild punishment for supposed regicide and Corlys was even freed and avoided trial and in the end Cregan didn't even get Targaryen princess as wife even though Baela and Rhaena were both avalaible(although Baela was maimed from her fight with Aegon II).

[Lord Varys]

20 hours ago, Paxter Redwyne said:

About crucifixion of children, it would be nice to know how exactly decisions are made in Meereen. If for example they make decisions by voting, man can hardly blame everyone for killing those slaves unless everyone voted for it.

It would depend on the standards you use. Is the average free US citizen from the slaver slates in the 19th complicit in the crimes of slavery or not, if he sees a slaver abuse and beat his 'property'? Is the average German complicit in the holocaust or not when he watches how his neighbors are dragged away to the camps to be killed while he and others end up profiting from the entire thing by being able to purchase new property (and get empty jobs) at pretty good conditions?

Dany's view might very well be that all slavers not preventing the crucification of the children are guilty.

20 hours ago, Paxter Redwyne said:

I think problem with Dany is that she makes decisions based on how she feels in that moment. For example she ordered torture innocent of wineseller and his daughters when she was angry but was too mild in other situations, when she should have acted more harsh. This weird combination of compassion and cruelty is why in my opinion she fails as a ruler.

Oh, she is still a 15-year-old girl. Judging her by the standards of a 'ruler' is pretty much insane unless you presuppose that 15-year-olds are pretty often competent absolute rulers ruling in their own right (that doesn't even happen in monarchies where the monarch actually rules).

She is a ruler in the making, like most of those child rulers who tried (and failed) at ruling are. 

The issue with the man she ordered to be tortured isn't necessarily all that bad - torture is an integral part of the justice system in this world (nobody ever says anything against it being used to get confessions/solve crimes), and they actually do not really know that the man doesn't know anything. He was complicit in a crime, perhaps not to that great a degree, but he is the only lead they have.

There is no 'ideal ruler' in this series. And pretty much anyone is motivated by passion and emotion interfering with what might have been the wiser course. Just look at Robb - he is likely the worst ruler ruling in his own right we actually meet in this series. He sucked at everything aside from planning/winning battles.

20 hours ago, Paxter Redwyne said:

How Aegon II rewarded Perkin the Flea? Wasn't he in prison when Cregan arrived in King's Landing?

Nope, he seems to be imprisoned by Cregan. After all, the man is accused of regicide and sentenced to death. He is the one who declares that he wants to take the black, giving himself and the others the opportunity to escape death. Cregan would have to be an utter moron if he thought a guy in a cell was complicit in the murder of Aegon II.

20 hours ago, Paxter Redwyne said:

Also that whole Hour of the Wolf was honestly a joke in my opinion. From what we know for now he arrested 22 people and only executed Larys Strong and Gyles Belgrave. Rest was sentenced to take black what is rather mild punishment for supposed regicide and Corlys was even freed and avoided trial and in the end Cregan didn't even get Targaryen princess as wife even though Baela and Rhaena were both avalaible(although Baela was maimed from her fight with Aegon II).

Well, we don't know the full story there yet. But the gist is pretty clear. Cregan did sentence them all to die, but being a Stark he may not have been willing to ignore the desire of the condemned to take the black when it came up. Another man might have ignored that, insisting that all kingslayers have to die. Strong and Belgrave only died because they wanted to die rather than take the black.

Corlys Velaryon was Corlys Velaryon. He was the most famous man of his generation and effectively a member of the royal family, the grandfather of the king's half-sisters and the father of the first husband of the king's mother.

Cregan took the bride he wanted - Aly Blackwood. If he had wanted one of Aegon's half-sisters he most definitely could have taken either Baela or Rhaena.

And we actually don't know whether Jace offered Cregan himself a Targaryen princess or merely offered him an (unborn) princess as bride for another Stark (his heir Rickon, perhaps, or some uncle, nephew, cousin, etc.). By the time Jace and Luke left Baela and Rhaena were still betrothed to Jace and Luke, respectively. Rhaenyra could have offered Joff, Aegon, and Viserys' hand in marriage, but she had no girls left to offer.

And the idea that Baela was maimed, scarred, or disfigured by the dragon fight is at this point completely unproven. Not all burns leave lasting scars.

[Paxter Redwyne]

19 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Nope, he seems to be imprisoned by Cregan. After all, the man is accused of regicide and sentenced to death. He is the one who declares that he wants to take the black, giving himself and the others the opportunity to escape death. Cregan would have to be an utter moron if he thought a guy in a cell was complicit in the murder of Aegon II.

Can you give me some quote from the books? I really do not remember Perkin the Flea walking around freely until Cregan arrived.

20 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, we don't know the full story there yet. But the gist is pretty clear. Cregan did sentence them all to die, but being a Stark he may not have been willing to ignore the desire of the condemned to take the black when it came up. Another man might have ignored that, insisting that all kingslayers have to die. Strong and Belgrave only died because they wanted to die rather than take the black.

Corlys Velaryon was Corlys Velaryon. He was the most famous man of his generation and effectively a member of the royal family, the grandfather of the king's half-sisters and the father of the first husband of the king's mother.

Cregan took the bride he wanted - Aly Blackwood. If he had wanted one of Aegon's half-sisters he most definitely could have taken either Baela or Rhaena.

And we actually don't know whether Jace offered Cregan himself a Targaryen princess or merely offered him an (unborn) princess as bride for another Stark (his heir Rickon, perhaps, or some uncle, nephew, cousin, etc.). By the time Jace and Luke left Baela and Rhaena were still betrothed to Jace and Luke, respectively. Rhaenyra could have offered Joff, Aegon, and Viserys' hand in marriage, but she had no girls left to offer.

And the idea that Baela was maimed, scarred, or disfigured by the dragon fight is at this point completely unproven. Not all burns leave lasting scars.

From the context we have been given it looked that Corlys was the one who poisoned Aegon II so it looks very weird in my opinion that Cregan pardoned man who seemed to be most guilty while executing two people who seemed to be pretty loyal to Aegon II. At least until we get more info about Aegon II death and Hour of the Wolf.

I would argue about marriage pact with Targaryen princess, but we have too little information about Pact of Ice and Fire so it all would be just a speculation.

If Aegon II shattered his legs from the dragon fight, I would assume that Baela also was maimed or scarred somehow from the fight. Maybe not for the rest of her life, but at that point she might still in process of recovalescension. In The Princess and the Queen it was noted that she was burned and battered from slamming into the ground.

[Lord Varys]

5 minutes ago, Paxter Redwyne said:

Can you give me some quote from the books? I really do not remember Perkin the Flea walking around freely until Cregan arrived.

There is no such quote. But it is implied that the man got off the hook by the fact that stood accused of the murder of Aegon II as well as by the fact that Aegon II had 'King Trystane' executed but allowed the kingmaker Perkin to live. In what context but a scenario where Perkin betrayed Trystane to Aegon II (or at least abandoned the sinking ship) does this make sense?

5 minutes ago, Paxter Redwyne said:

From the context we have been given it looked that Corlys was the one who poisoned Aegon II so it looks very weird in my opinion that Cregan pardoned man who seemed to be most guilty while executing two people who seemed to be pretty loyal to Aegon II. At least until we get more info about Aegon II death and Hour of the Wolf.

Yeah, that's pretty odd. However, we should not assume that Cregan Stark accused and condemned men he thought to be innocent. But until such a time we know details on the death of Aegon II we cannot really say much about this. But even if Corlys was the head behind the plot he cannot have acted alone. The man handing Aegon II the poisoned wine was likely not a Velaryon man...

5 minutes ago, Paxter Redwyne said:

I would argue about marriage pact with Targaryen princess, but we have too little information about Pact of Ice and Fire so it all would be just a speculation.

Well, if we insist on 'princess' and keep in mind that George doesn't count Baela and Rhaena as 'princesses' the idea of an unborn princess (another child of Rhaenyra and Daemon's, say, or a daughter of Prince Jacaerys and Lady Baela or of Prince Lucerys and Lady Rhaena would be a princess.

5 minutes ago, Paxter Redwyne said:

If Aegon II shattered his legs from the dragon fight, I would assume that Baela also was maimed or scarred somehow from the fight. Maybe not for the rest of her life, but at that point she might still in process of recovalescension. In The Princess and the Queen it was noted that she was burned and battered from slamming into the ground.

That isn't a given. Aegon II jumped off his dragon. He fell to the ground. Baela arrived on the ground on dragonback, and if Sunfyre and Moondancer did not land on her her injuries may have been relatively minor. Even her burns may not be that strong considering that they likely came from the big gust of flame that blinded Moondancer, causing the dragons bump into each other. After that, they no longer fight with fire but merely with claws and teeth.

And the fact that she was able to open her chains and crawl away from the fighting dragons shows that she wasn't that seriously hurt.

But then - even if she was disfigured, etc. - a pact is a pact. If Baela was one (or the) Targaryen promised to Cregan honor would have demanded that he take her, no? Rhaena could have technically married Corwyn Corbray during the Dance, but Baela was most likely still unmarried when Aegon II died.

[Jaak]

On 6/20/2018 at 2:27 AM, Lord Varys said:

If Cersei cared about making her son look popular and loved she shouldn't have arranged for him to attaint the Baratheons, Arryns, Tullys, Starks, Tyrells, Martells, etc. long before various pretenders and rebels raised their ugly heads.

Any smart person would have tried to secure the loyalty of some of these people before publicly denouncing them as traitors.

Or a decent pretext.

Because the treatment of Lady Whent undermined the whole message.

The lords were not outright attainted. They were invited to show up at court to swear allegiance...

and then, at the same breath, assign Lady Whent´s Harrenhal to Janos Slynt.

Why? If Lady Whent took the option to show up and bend the knee to Joffrey, what were they going to do with Harrenhal? With Janos?

Listing Lady Whent in summons, and then ignoring the summons and attainting her regardless, made the invitation to surrender an insult, undermining expectation for it to be a serious offer.

[Varysblackfyre321]

On June 18, 2018 at 2:51 PM, John Suburbs said:

Very large people often have pain, quite often headaches. To say that Gregor was brought up in a caring, loving household but he was hard-wired for cruelty and sadism is bunk. The man was clearly heavily abused as a boy. Ramsey would also have been abused as well, not necessarily by his mother but a step-father, step-brother, local bully -- probably heavy sexual abuse. He is probably not going to get into their humanizing back stories, but that doesn't mean they are not there. He is very clear: he doesn't believe in inherently good or evil in any human character. That's what differentiates his fantasy from pretty much everyone else.

I hope you're not saying Ramsey and Gregore were clearly heavily abused by their violent acts and sexual misdeeds; that's a gross generalization of people who suffer from abuse. 

If Gregore did suffer from the hand of his father, likely we would have heard Sandor made some mention of it; at the very least Sandor would have recounted being abused by his father. 

Gregore has been reported to have suffered extreme headaches from time to time.

 

Ramsey need not be abused either, but that I can see; he is an ugly nobleman's bastard born of rape. He very well could have been bullied; or not.

I ultimately see his rather extreme sadistic behavior largely motivated by his want to prove to the world he is a Bolton. His primary sources for his perception of the Bolton clan would come from those rumors, and Reek who'd paint the Boltons in a very dark light. Hell the Boltons sigil is that of a flayed man. For one who grew up with whispers on how being a Bolton is his destiny by the only people who'd truly care about him I could see how Ramsey would try to play up his vileness; not to say he's blameless or he'd have been an angel of course.

Theres much to be gleamed from his interactions with nobility as a peasant and that of a noble.

When he played reek(a lowly peasant), he did so effectively, was perfectly meek with Theon, and able to easily go into a docile role; he was raised a peasant so it's not hard for him to fall back into such a role

As a nobleman, he fails. Largely  I believe because of his peasant background, he's a very limited understanding of how nobility functions and how to thrive.

Hes a nice countenance to Davos; a peansant also lifted to lordship; whereas Davos retreats back into a more docile role when interacting with nobility even when treating with a lord who is supposed to be lower than him on the social ladder, Ramsey asserts himself way too hard in trying to make the point of him being a nobleman and a Bolton that he comes across as somewhat as a poser and this ever more a peasant.

[Lord Varys]

7 minutes ago, Jaak said:

The lords were not outright attainted. They were invited to show up at court to swear allegiance...

While this is technically true, the very fact that you demand that essentially the entire elite of the Realm present themselves to do homage to the new king or be attainted on the spot isn't exactly a sending a sign of peace, conciliation, etc. to all those people.

Cersei had no good reason to antagonize the whole Realm in that manner, making it extremely unlikely she gave crap about her son forcing some knights to fight to the death. 

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It would depend on the standards you use. Is the average free US citizen from the slaver slates in the 19th complicit in the crimes of slavery or not, if he sees a slaver abuse and beat his 'property'? Is the average German complicit in the holocaust or not when he watches how his neighbors are dragged away to the camps to be killed while he and others end up profiting from the entire thing by being able to purchase new property (and get empty jobs) at pretty good conditions?

Dany's view might very well be that all slavers not preventing the crucification of the children are guilty.

Oh, she is still a 15-year-old girl. Judging her by the standards of a 'ruler' is pretty much insane unless you presuppose that 15-year-olds are pretty often competent absolute rulers ruling in their own right (that doesn't even happen in monarchies where the monarch actually rules).

She is a ruler in the making, like most of those child rulers who tried (and failed) at ruling are. 

The issue with the man she ordered to be tortured isn't necessarily all that bad - torture is an integral part of the justice system in this world (nobody ever says anything against it being used to get confessions/solve crimes), and they actually do not really know that the man doesn't know anything. He was complicit in a crime, perhaps not to that great a degree, but he is the only lead they have.

There is no 'ideal ruler' in this series. And pretty much anyone is motivated by passion and emotion interfering with what might have been the wiser course. Just look at Robb - he is likely the worst ruler ruling in his own right we actually meet in this series. He sucked at everything aside from planning/winning battles.

 

If you take it upon yourself to rule, I don't think you get any slack for being a teenager.

Torturing the wineseller's daughters in front of their father was cruel, spiteful, and probably useless, especially given that Shavepate is a man who enjoys cruelty.  I very much doubt if they were ever seen again in Meereen.

[Lord Varys]

4 minutes ago, SeanF said:

If you take it upon yourself to rule, I don't think you get any slack for being a teenager.

It is your choice. You are judging those characters, not some abstract entity. And the author always reinforces the difference between experienced/seasoned men/leaders and green boys, pitting the boldness of youth against the caution of old age, etc.

Pretending this isn't part of the narrative and there is a clear view what constitutes a good or a bad ruler (or rather: what qualities a good ruler should have/lack to not be or become a bad ruler). 

4 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Torturing the wineseller's daughters in front of their father was cruel, spiteful, and probably useless, especially given that Shavepate is a man who enjoys cruelty.  I very much doubt if they were ever seen again in Meereen.

The man isn't soft, but we don't know what happened to them, nor how useless the torturing was. It isn't a plot line the author decided to continue. However, within this world I see little reason as to why people should be derided for teaching people that crimes and treason do have consequences. The man was involved in a plot, so it is good and proper that he learn that this is not tolerated by his rulers. It might not have been the most wise action, but there are actually many other things that reveal that Dany is going down the wrong road in ADwD but this is not one of them.

In fact, this kind of thing shows what's wrong with monarchy and absolute rule in principle, when people are allowed to and capable to give command on a whim nobody can question or challenge. We have the same kind of thing when Robb starts listening only to his own counsel and continually issues proclamations as 'king' rather than actually trying to reach a consensus with the men around him, family, allies, vassals, and enemies alike.

Again, collective punishment isn't something that's not happening in this world. I mean, Jon proclaims he wants to bring down death and destruction on House Lannister, but what have Tommen, Myrcella, Genna, her children, and all the other Lannisters ever done to him that they and their house deserve destruction? 

Children are viable targets in this world, just as torture is a valid and accepted means of getting information.

[John Suburbs]

On ‎7‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 7:44 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I hope you're not saying Ramsey and Gregore were clearly heavily abused by their violent acts and sexual misdeeds; that's a gross generalization of people who suffer from abuse. 

If Gregore did suffer from the hand of his father, likely we would have heard Sandor made some mention of it; at the very least Sandor would have recounted being abused by his father. 

Gregore has been reported to have suffered extreme headaches from time to time.

That would be the most likely cause of their cruelty. This isn't to say that all people who are abused become abusers themselves, but adults who are abused were often (and by that I mean, virtually always) abused as children. And this would be even more the case in cultures that didn't have counselors, child advocates or any checks at all on the way children are to be raised and treated.

The abuse might not have come from the hand of his father. Could have been anybody, even his mother. And it isn't uncommon for the eldest to take the brunt of abuse while the younger remains ignorant. Sandor is, what, five, six years younger than Gregor?

Gregor's headaches could be the result of that abuse, or it could be congenital, along with his size. Either way, Gregor does in fact have a backstory for why he does the things he does. He is not simply "evil" because Martin does not write his characters that way.

On ‎7‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 7:44 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Ramsey need not be abused either, but that I can see; he is an ugly nobleman's bastard born of rape. He very well could have been bullied; or not.

I ultimately see his rather extreme sadistic behavior largely motivated by his want to prove to the world he is a Bolton. His primary sources for his perception of the Bolton clan would come from those rumors, and Reek who'd paint the Boltons in a very dark light. Hell the Boltons sigil is that of a flayed man. For one who grew up with whispers on how being a Bolton is his destiny by the only people who'd truly care about him I could see how Ramsey would try to play up his vileness; not to say he's blameless or he'd have been an angel of course.

Theres much to be gleamed from his interactions with nobility as a peasant and that of a noble.

When he played reek(a lowly peasant), he did so effectively, was perfectly meek with Theon, and able to easily go into a docile role; he was raised a peasant so it's not hard for him to fall back into such a role

As a nobleman, he fails. Largely  I believe because of his peasant background, he's a very limited understanding of how nobility functions and how to thrive.

Hes a nice countenance to Davos; a peansant also lifted to lordship; whereas Davos retreats back into a more docile role when interacting with nobility even when treating with a lord who is supposed to be lower than him on the social ladder, Ramsey asserts himself way too hard in trying to make the point of him being a nobleman and a Bolton that he comes across as somewhat as a poser and this ever more a peasant.

Again, if this is Ramsey's backstory, then this is the reason he does what he does. What I'm arguing against is the idea that Martin just inserts evil characters just so they can do evil things in the story. These characters do in fact do some pretty terrible, unimaginably awful things, but this is due to the circumstances of their births and the environments they find themselves living in. It is too simplistic to simply write them off as "pure evil" just because we don't have a front row seat to their entire life story.

I'll let George describe his approach to characterization himself:

Quote

You don't just have people who wake up in the morning and say, "What evil things can I do today, because I'm Mr. Evil?" People do things for what they think are justified reasons. Everybody is the hero of their own story, and you have to keep that in mind. If you read a lot of history, as I do, even the worst and most monstrous people thought they were the good guys. We're all very tangled knots.

Interview with Stephen King, Aug. 2017

Quote

I love fantasy. I grew up reading fantasy. But, I wanted to put a somewhat different spin on it. The whole trope of absolute good versus absolute evil, which was wonderful in the hands of J.R. Tolkien, became cliche and rote in the hands of the many Tolkien imitators that followed.

Collider Interview, March 2013

Quote

As Faulkner says, all of us have the capacity in us for great good and for great evil, for love but also for hate. I wanted to write those kinds of complex character in a fantasy, and not just have all the good people get together to fight the bad guy.

Same Collider interview

There are plenty more like this. Martin doesn't write in black and white.

[Lord Varys]

@John Suburbs

You seem to be making way too much of those quotes than is intended. They are about giving characters good motives for their actions, to make their actions make sense. But this doesn't mean they cannot have genetic or magical predispositions which have nothing to do with them being abused or having a bad childhood.

George has created monsters which depict a level of cruelty for which there is no good explanation. The best example for that is the guy we have not mentioned yet - Euron Greyjoy. There is no explanation as to why or how he acts like he acts, why he decided to murder two of his brothers at such an early age, and there is no indication that he was mistreated or abused by anyone in his family. And even if he was - even completely bankrupt characters like Balon and Victarion shy away from kinslaying because that's a major taboo even in Ironborn culture. Euron never gave a fig about any of that.

What George is talking about here is that both villains and heroes have to have good motivations for their actions - but not necessarily for their sadistic desires or sexual predispositions. There are characters in this story which are completely incapable of doing some of the cruel things men like Ramsay, Roose, Euron, or Qyburn do (even Cersei is one of those, incapable of actually torturing people with her own hands).