Several years late to this party, but doing a GOT rewatch, and I'm glad I'm not the only one who found Roose Bolton insanely hot. (Not an opinion I feel comfortable sharing with most people IRL.) This time around, I cheered when he popped up for the first time in season 2. He could read a phone book to me with that voice, and I'd be enchanted. 

Not that he isn't a terrible human being, but I always thought he was a fascinating character--a good deal more interesting than Ramsay, who usually bored me, though he had his occasional moments. Last night I watched the scene where Littlefinger and Roose are warily chatting with each other, and I loved how he clearly had Littlefinger rattled by the end of that exchange, without ever raising his voice or saying anything overtly threatening. "I'd like to read the reply."

On 6/3/2014 at 10:23 PM, Maximum Taco said:

 

Not to mention, in season 2 Roose suggests to Robb that they flay their enemies to get information.

 

Roose: The officers may be useful, they may be privy to Tywin Lannister's plans... In my family we say a naked man has few secrets, a flayed man none.

Robb: My father outlawed flaying in the North.

Roose: We're not in the North.

 

I don't think Roose has any issues with Ramsay's tactics, he just wishes he was smarter about it.

 

Flaying enemy commanders to gain enemy plans: Good!

Flaying the only son and heir of a noble house: Bad.

 

Roose disapproved of flaying Theon, who probably was very valuable as a hostage, but in the end it paid off, so who is he to argue with results?

This was my read on it too. I don't think Roose has any problem with the actual details of what Ramsay is doing--he just wishes he was smarter about who he applied it to. I got the same vibe from Roose's scenes with Locke.

I think Roose's Rules of Torture (the Bolton version of Robert's Rules of Order) are basically 1) don't torture valuable captives and 2) don't let company see you acting like a psycho. (And probably 3--run really violent stuff by me first to make sure you're not violating rule 1.) As long as it is behind closed doors and happens to people he doesn't have a Machiavellian use for (or happens to people who just have information, so torturing them is what makes them useful), he's fine with it. But he doesn't want to advertise it and he doesn't want to anger people he needs in his pocket. 

So, he will advocate flaying captive prisoners who might have useful information and are otherwise a drain on the supplies and shrug nonchalantly when his son tells him Theon is with the hounds but act pissy with his subordinate for chopping off the hand of the son of the most powerful man in the kingdoms and dress down his own son for castrating and torturing the son of a man he wanted to do business with, among other overreaches. 

Incidentally, the vibe I got from Locke when Roose was being snippy with him reminded me very much of Aldo Raine in Inglourious Basterds--"Nah, I don't think so. More like chewed out. I've been chewed out before." I don't think that's the first time Roose has publicly chastised him for being out-of-bounds, but I also don't think Locke cares because he knows his boss doesn't have a problem with what he does most of the time. And I think Roose probably sees Locke as a very valuable man to have around, even if he sometimes creates some additional trouble, not least of which is because he provides Roose with an element of plausible deniability.