116 replies to this topic

[lyvyathan]

Rockroi, on 26 April 2012 - 07:06 AM, said:

And that was may point the whole time.  If you want to say Tywin is an asshole for what he did to Tysha (ugh... lame) than I have no problem with that.  At all.  BUt you seem to have a very real problem in acceotuing that during war these men must act in these ways.  And sometimes, in "peace" to.

I hear what you're saying and agree with parts of it. But somehow I can't imagine Ned Stark doing something similar to a peasant girl like what Tywin did to Tysha.

Maybe Tysha was a once off you could say.

[mcb]

Rockroi, on 02 May 2012 - 05:49 PM, said:

Sorry, that's that day and age.  Tyrion was kidnapped under that woman's roof.  Did she raise a ruckus or demand proof of such a crime under her roof?  Did she say something like, "This man is a guest under my roof and therefore he is protected by my hospitality (... hmmm.. that ... that sounds strangely familiar.  But hey- guest rights only matter when they protect the cool characters .... )?"  No.  She said "Everyone get out and just don't kill him here" (paraphrase).  She could have alerted the authorities or call upon this madness to stop,

True. How fucking difficult it is to just pick up the phone and call the cops? They'd certainly get there on time.

Quote

Some lords who shall remain Ned Stark do outrageously dumb things like lead his men directly to the queen - the same queen Ned Stark just told his plan to (resulting in my death);

Interesting argument. Yes, Ned and Robb are responsible for some major blunders that cost a lot of lives. I don't know if the fact that Littlefinger managed to murder Fat Tom and his men is really a stain on Ned's reputation, but true, they are still dead.
OTOH, Tywin, this ridiculous excuse for a lord and father, is at least partially responsible for the entire civil war. If it wasn't for his blindness and ineptitude, Cersei would have never had given birth to Jaime's children and there would be no casus belli in the first place. A model example of "penny smart, but dollar Tywin".

Edited by mcb, 02 May 2012 - 07:59 PM.

[lyvyathan]

Morrigan, on 26 April 2012 - 10:30 AM, said:

You think that if Robb or Ned knew of the torture going on at the Dreadfort, he would have allowed it? Really? Robb is creeped out by Roose when he's around him. He does keep him around because he needs him to lead soldiers, but he doesn't let him get away with atrocities if he has the power to stop them. Both Ned and Robb make active efforts to stop atrocities from happening whenever they can. Tywin, on the other hand, not only encourages them, but he lets Gregor get away with tons of crimes (even before the war, mind you) because Gregor is convenient to him. On the flipside, if Ned learns of atrocities or severe crimes being committed by his bannermen, guess what he does? He goes himself to arrest them. Ser Jorah, anyone? Jorah was lucky enough to escape before Ned made it to Bear Island, but it goes to show that Ned wouldn't let a slaver get away with his crimes. If you think for a second that he'd close his eyes on the atrocities at the Dreadfort if he had known of them, you're deluding yourself. (Not to mention that Ned would have never done something like Tywin did to Tysha to "punish" his son.)

That is true. Robb also executed Karstark because of his involvement in the murder of prisoners of war. Having said that - he should also have done more to his mother for her involvement in the escape (unauhthorized release) of Jamie Lannister.

So Robb - esp Ned - would have tolerated Bolton's tortuous hobby.

[lyvyathan]

Rockroi, on 26 April 2012 - 11:29 AM, said:

I think Ned allowed quite a bit.  For starters, the legends and rumors surrounding Roose and Ramsey are no less horrid than the ones surrounding Gregor.  I think Ned knew or should have known and also knew that the North respected stuff like that.  I mean if your argument is that Ned was, by-in-large, a simpleton who needed stuff drilled into his head before he knew what was going on, you get no argument from me.  My point is that Ned had a good read on the men that served under him and he knew Roose was a bad guy at the Trident at the latest.

Well, we don't know about that. We do know that Ned found out about Jormont's slave trading and went out to catch him for that and would have probably executed him if he had been caught. So I dare say that we have a precedent there.

There may have been wink wink hint hint stuff about men/women being flayed by Bolton and his awful son - but without sufficient evidence it would have been hard for Ned to do anything about it. He very well couldn't execute him on a rumor. And it looks that Bolton and Ramsay would have made very sure that there would be no witnesses to testify against them.

IIRC Winterfell did find out about Ramsay's kidnap of an heiress and sent Roderick out to execute him for that.

Rockroi, on 26 April 2012 - 11:29 AM, said:

Not really.  Robb is pretty silent on atrocities; we know his plan in the West was to raise havoc so I am not sure how that’s not an atrocity (given your lax definition).  And we never see Ned command troops in battle or on campaign.  I think its safe to say that Ned and Robb are good people, but in war that changes and mortifies. I think Robb especially was going to make the West bleed.

Karstark. He executed Karstark for the murder of the POWs when he very well could have given him a pardon like he did his mother.

Rockroi, on 26 April 2012 - 11:29 AM, said:

Again, look at the Boltons and the flaying etc.  That’s despicable.  Horrible.  Its stomach turning.  And Roose and Reek are horrible people for allowing it.

If you allow Ned/Robb off the hook for one, and blame Tywin for the other its really not fair.  Either they are both horrible or both “excusably neglectful.”

I agree with some of the things you said - but on the other hand - Robb had no firm evidence of Roose and (esp, Reek's) atrocities. So he couldn't move against them. He was afterall in a war and he very well couldn't dismiss a capable commander because of heresay.

Having said that - it would have been clear that Robb's armies probably caused a great deal of hardship on the populace. But that's the nature of war, during WW1, Britain blockaded Germany which caused their civilian population to suffer - Germany retailiated by unrestricted warfare which sank civilian ships like the Lusitania.

To quote Patrick O'Brien, sometimes in life you have to take the lesser of two weevils.

Edited by lyvyathan, 02 May 2012 - 08:29 PM.

[lyvyathan]

Fylimar, on 28 April 2012 - 04:30 AM, said:

I agree, that it would have been better, to go to court and bring the case before Robert, but I can somewhat understand, why Tywin wouldn't do that: Most likely, it wouldn'T have been Robert, he would be adressing, but the hand, who is the husband of the lady, who abducted his son. And the best friend of the king - Tywin could very well have ended in a black cell, before he could say 'lion'. But the lack to be willing to sit down and talk about problems is a general problem in Westeros, it seems.

Rockroi: very nice arguments about Tywin - and the Boltons.

As for Charles Dance: He is one of my favorite actors for years now (since that wonderful 'Phantom of the Opera' movie ) and he is the perfect Tywin.  And I'm very pleased, that he is mentioned in the credits at the beginning now, makes me hope for a lot of more scenes.

Tywin didn't need to go himself - he could have sent Cersei or Jamie to ask a big "WTF?" with Robert and Ned.

Everyone knew that Ned was an honorable man and he would have to abide by the law even if it went against him.

Having Tyrion unjustifiably kidnapped ( or arrested under faux orders by Ned Stark) would have also strengthen the hand of Tywin at court. He could have easily pointed out to Robert that the Starks were unfit to be Hands of the King - and even bring out Ned's refusal to order the assasination of "that Targaryen girl" - something that Robert knew Tywin would have passed without thinking twice.

So a cleverer wiser man would have adopted the soft touch to that particular situation. It would have worked much better for the Lannisters - rather than their petulant fit of rage. And goodness we all know how much he hated Tyrion. Lose a pawn capture the King.

I'm actually can understand Tywin's justifcation for marching on the Riverlands as a "Soviet" response to Catelyn's kidnap of Tyrion - he wanted to make a political statement, "Don't mess with us. Fear us. And for good measure hear us roar."

But having said that Tywin would probably admit that he was escalating the issue and tension. And when you escalate you never know what exactly the outcome might lead too - hence I see that his arrogance blinded him to the possibility of things going against him.

Tywin did have a range of options available to him - a wiser man would have sat down, and checked on whether the Riverlands and the North had even mobilized for war - was Catelyn's actions a rogue (and local) decision. Sending Gregor out to rape and pillage Tully's lands was not the proper response - while it may have instilled fear into the other 6 Kingdoms it could also have driven them to consider whether the Lannisters were getting too powerful - and it certainly would have driven the Tully and Stark closer together.

[David Selig]

Robb was a bad and selfish lord too who screwed his subjects to satisfy his own pride. But this doesn't make Tywin a good lord.

Quote

Sorry, that's that day and age. Tyrion was kidnapped under that woman's roof. Did she raise a ruckus or demand proof of such a crime under her roof? Did she say something like, "This man is a guest under my roof and therefore he is protected by my hospitality (... hmmm.. that ... that sounds strangely familiar. But hey- guest rights only matter when they protect the cool characters .... )?" No. She said "Everyone get out and just don't kill him here" (paraphrase). She could have alerted the authorities or call upon this madness to stop, but instead she just let it happen. Under her roof. Sorry, you better have a better excuse than "I'm just a poor innkeep... "

Masha was one woman against dozens of armed men who represent the most powerful lords in the area, she couldn't do anything. What authorities are you talking about - the lords whose men participated in the taking of Tyrion? Lord Hoster, Cat's father? Yeah, that would work...

Tywin, as usual, didn't give a damn about fairness.

Quote

He won for many reasons, but luck had nothing to do with it. Tywin had goals in front of him and made decisions based upon the information he had; he made the most of every opportunity; he committed no grave errors; he unerstood his enemy and pounced when that enemy made a mistake.

If not for the shadowbaby, Tywin was doomed. He couldn't even defeat Robb in the field, if he had to fight Renly's 100 000 in addition, he would've been crushed.

Quote

This is my entire argument: if Tywin is better off then as a subject of his I am better off. If the Lannisters are more powerful, better off etc then I partially reap those benefits..

How? What do you care if Tywin is more powerful if you die in the war he started or starve to death as a result of it? Even if you survive, how does his increased power benefit you?

Quote

Some lords who shall remain Ned Stark do outrageously dumb things like lead his men directly to the queen - the same queen Ned Stark just told his plan to (resulting in my death); some lords say that they will marry THIS daughter and then marry a completely different person (resulting in my death); some lords make elaborate plans that take 15 years and result in their son getting roasted by a dragon; some lords are fucking crazy and get killed by their own Kingsguard.

Yeah, I don't like those guys. They get guys like Fat Tom and Junior Manderly and Littlejon and Jory and Prince Lewyn and Rhaegar killed because they act like idiots when it matters most

Wait...you don't like Ned because 50 of his men died because of his actions, but many thousands of his men died in a war Tywin started and that makes him an awesome lord for you? That's a strange logic...

Quote

Look, take Tywin's blind spot- his children. If I am a lord of Tywin Lannister the fact that he is killed by Tyrion on a privy is not a huge deal to me. Yeah it sucks that such a great man was killed in a useless, empty gesture by his disenfranchised son in a bout of semi-psychotic rage simmering for like 20+ years... but hey- at least I'm still alive! Tywin's actions lead to his death like 20+ years AFTER THE FACT! That's not something that's likely to kill anyone (I know, I know he shat when he died, its hilariously ironic... not really but whatever); but the others? They all died in VERY PREDICTABLE FASHION! And worse- their deaths were in a manner that ultimately lead to the deaths of many of their men - who all died in "service" of their lord. Nobody died in service of Tywin Lannister because of Tyrion.

Tywin started a massive war because of Tyrion, many thousands died in it. And if we talking about deaths caused by Tyrion's murder of Tywin, I can safely predict there would be many of those thanks to Cersei's incompetence as a ruler.

[Rockroi]

Quote

Karstark. He executed Karstark for the murder of the POWs when he very well could have given him a pardon like he did his mother.

While this is true, Robb really had to execute the Karstarks.  The Karstarks blatantly disobeyed Robb's direct order; he could not just let that go unpunished.  While he did "pardon" Cat, he really could not have executed his own mother (fuck... even Tywin wouldn't do that... I .... I think).  I think if a lord of Tywin Lannister disobeyed a direct order from Tywin Lannister, those bannermen would be just as dead.  In tyhis regard I think that Robb and Tywin are much alike and I fault neither one for that kind of action.  Its hard and brutal being a lord.  (and in all my criticism of Robb Stark I maintain that killing the Karstarks was a sign of Robb being a good leader).  

David Selig, on 03 May 2012 - 03:54 AM, said:

Robb was a bad and selfish lord too who screwed his subjects to satisfy his own pride. But this doesn't make Tywin a good lord.

That's not my point.  My point is that Tywin is a good lord irrespective of how decent or humane he is.  And if I were a bannerman of a household I would want to serev one who had his priorities in order.  And "winning" has to be a huge priority.

Quote

Masha was one woman against dozens of armed men who represent the most powerful lords in the area, she couldn't do anything. What authorities are you talking about - the lords whose men participated in the taking of Tyrion? Lord Hoster, Cat's father? Yeah, that would work...

See what I mean?  Masha allows Tyrion Lannister to be kidnapped in her inn.  At the time of the kidnapping (Tyrion and Cat relay this fact later) although SOME men rose... many stayed seated.  Masha just "didn't want any trouble."  She could have said, "M'lady, this is Tyrion Lannister, a soon of the Rock..." Certainly some of the men in the inn would have put two and two together at that point.  Masha could then have said, "This man is a guest in my inn and therefore is protected by hospitality rights (I love that every single person here COMPLETELY IGNORED this fact... a fact that Tywin and Frey are flayed for later on).  She could have alerted somebody.

And who was her lord?  Edmure/Hoster Tully... yeah SEE MY POINT!?  Edmure and Hoster failed mightily in protecting their people!  I cannot have that if I am a bannerman to somebody like Edmure (or a failing Hoster).  I need a lord who will look out for me.  Let me switch this around so you see exactly what I am getting at. Robb beat the tar out of the Crag and other areas of the West.  And what happened to Robb?  Oh, that's right, Tywin made sure that guy was killed.  Edmure et al could not do anything like that for their people.

Quote

Tywin, as usual, didn't give a damn about fairness.

Which so why I would want him as my lord.  This is not hop-scotch or checkers we're playing.  Now, in dealing with his lords and his people Tywin has always ben fair; ruthless and stern maybe but never unfair like Joff or Lysa Arryn.  .

Quote

If not for the shadowbaby, Tywin was doomed. He couldn't even defeat Robb in the field, if he had to fight Renly's 100 000 in addition, he would've been crushed.

You have no idea.  None of us do.  If the Shadowbaby had not come, Renly would probably have defeated Stannis (though Stannis is like a cockroach at this point- he'd survive nuclear winter).  Renly would have still needed to wait for his foot to make it to SE; by the time Renly got that ponderous host moving towards KL Tywin could have taken some actions.  Again, its speculation.  The problem is that you draw these deep conclusions without evidence.  As was said in the show, if numbers decided everything, mathematicians would rule.

Quote

How? What do you care if Tywin is more powerful if you die in the war he started or starve to death as a result of it? Even if you survive, how does his increased power benefit you?

Well, for starters, he didn't start that war, Cat did when she kidnapped Tyrion.  Her source was a man known for trickery whom she had not seen in 15 years.  You restate this point many times, but please do not mistake it- the wife of the Hand (the King's best friend) started the original War.  Of this there can be no doubt.  It was a foolish move made on a whim, without proper foresight or reflection.  Its the textbook definition of why I would NEVER want to be a Stark bannerman (because Starks and their spouses do really crazy things).  Just understand that: by you saying Tywin started the war that does not make it true.

And my point is not that by serving X lord or Y lord I am somehow immune to death or starvation; my point is that my odds of survival rise dramatically if I serve a lord who puts winning above all else; my chances rise if I serev a lord who avoids catastrophe, who is just and calculating; who will not do dumb things when it matters most.  Any bannerman to ANY lord can die either from the war or starvation or disease- there are dead wolves all over the place; that does not make Robb Stark a bad lord, per se.  Its how they died that matters.

Look at the Green Fork.  FUCK that would have sucked to have been a lord serving Robb at that moment- he sacrificed those men.  But that's not Robb being a bad lord; that's simply trying to fight a war. THAT does not make Robb bad (and it should be noted that Bolton and Glover both survived the battle).  Robb is a bad lord because he went back on his word and lead all his men to doom for his foolishness.

Again, I am not discussing absolutes here- I gain no absolute immunity from serving this lord or that prince.  But the odds?  They swing wildly in my favor if I serve somebody like Tywin or Stannis instead of Robb and Edmure.

[David Selig]

Quote

Well, for starters, he didn't start that war, Cat did when she kidnapped Tyrion. Her source was a man known for trickery whom she had not seen in 15 years. You restate this point many times, but please do not mistake it- the wife of the Hand (the King's best friend) started the original War. Of this there can be no doubt. It was a foolish move made on a whim, without proper foresight or reflection. Its the textbook definition of why I would NEVER want to be a Stark bannerman (because Starks and their spouses do really crazy things). Just understand that: by you saying Tywin started the war that does not make it true.

And just because you claim that Tywin didn't start the war, doesn't make it true either. The first military actions of the war were ordered by Tywin and executed by his forces. In my book, this means he started the war. And if we talking about provocations and casus belli, again the Lannisters were those who struck first when Jaime pushed Bran.

Jaime and Cersei endangered their whole House with their twincest for years, shouldn't that mean you would not want to be a Lannister bannerman either? Cersei is the current Lady of the Rock and she's committing blunder after blunder...

Quote

And my point is not that by serving X lord or Y lord I am somehow immune to death or starvation; my point is that my odds of survival rise dramatically if I serve a lord who puts winning above all else; my chances rise if I serev a lord who avoids catastrophe, who is just and calculating; who will not do dumb things when it matters most. Any bannerman to ANY lord can die either from the war or starvation or disease- there are dead wolves all over the place; that does not make Robb Stark a bad lord, per se. Its how they died that matters.

As I said many times, many thousands of Tywin's subjects died in a war he didn't need to fight and which he started. So in my book he failed in his responsibility to protect them and that's why his desire to win at all costs and to be the top dog of Westeros was bad for his subjects IMO. I'd much prefer my lord not to be so obsessed with satisfying his selfish pride, winning at all costs and being the top dog if this means less chance of getting me involved in a vicious war.

Quote

See what I mean? Masha allows Tyrion Lannister to be kidnapped in her inn. At the time of the kidnapping (Tyrion and Cat relay this fact later) although SOME men rose... many stayed seated. Masha just "didn't want any trouble." She could have said, "M'lady, this is Tyrion Lannister, a soon of the Rock..." Certainly some of the men in the inn would have put two and two together at that point. Masha could then have said, "This man is a guest in my inn and therefore is protected by hospitality rights (I love that every single person here COMPLETELY IGNORED this fact... a fact that Tywin and Frey are flayed for later on). She could have alerted somebody.

Masha didn't allow anything, she was completely powerless. What was she supposed to do against a dozen armed men and the daughter of her lord? Everybody in the inn knew this was Tyrion Lannister (both Masha and Maryllion called him "Lord Lannister" before Catelyn captured him), yet nobody interfered. And since Tyrion hasn't yet eaten at the inn, guest right doesn't apply.

Edited by David Selig, 03 May 2012 - 12:30 PM.

[mcb]

David Selig, on 03 May 2012 - 07:00 AM, said:

Masha didn't allow anything, she was completely powerless. What was she supposed to do against a dozen armed men and the daughter of her lord? Everybody in the inn knew this was Tyrion Lannister (both Masha and Maryllion called him "Lord Lannister" before Catelyn captured him). yet didn't interfere. And since Tyrion hasn't yet eaten at the inn, guest right doesn't apply.

Come on. It was her responsibility to introduce Tyrion Lannister as Tyrion Lannister to everyone in the inn, because absolutely no one had a clue about his identity. And it's not like he could say his own name out loud, now could he? And thus no one in the inn knew that the short dude with a lot of gold was Tywin's son.
And when Tyrion ordered his escort to stand down, it was clearly Masha's responsibility to countermand this order and conscript more swords in his defense.

[7V3N]

mcb, on 03 May 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

Come on. It was her responsibility to introduce Tyrion Lannister as Tyrion Lannister to everyone in the inn, because absolutely no one had a clue about his identity. And it's not like he could say his own name out loud, now could he? And thus no one in the inn knew that the short dude with a lot of gold was Tywin's son.
And when Tyrion ordered his escort to stand down, it was clearly Masha's responsibility to countermand this order and conscript more swords in his defense.

Umm.... everyone knew that was Tyrion.

[Nebmai]

Okay, I have to say its funny watching Rockroi jump through hoops to defend his projections of Tywin.

/flameon


Edit :  I agree Tywin is a great picture of a functional practical "realistic" politician / "Leader" that has been seen often throughout time, but I don't have to grovel at his feet for it.  He's not the Mad King or a Bolton, but he's 100T% self serving and willing to get as evil as he needs to; root for him if you want, those kind of guys win enough IRL I won't root for them here.

Edited by Nebmai, 05 May 2012 - 02:38 AM.

[mcb]

The Shadow Fox, on 04 May 2012 - 04:27 PM, said:

Umm.... everyone knew that was Tyrion.

I must cut down on sarcasm, 'cause apparently I'm not doing it right.

[7V3N]

mcb, on 05 May 2012 - 07:38 AM, said:

I must cut down on sarcasm, 'cause apparently I'm not doing it right.

Haha I suspected it, but I wasn't sure. Sorry 'bout that.

[Rockroi]

Nebmai, on 05 May 2012 - 02:32 AM, said:

Okay, I have to say its funny watching Rockroi jump through hoops to defend his projections of Tywin.

/flameon

Edit :  I agree Tywin is a great picture of a functional practical "realistic" politician / "Leader" that has been seen often throughout time, but I don't have to grovel at his feet for it.  He's not the Mad King or a Bolton, but he's 100T% self serving and willing to get as evil as he needs to; root for him if you want, those kind of guys win enough IRL I won't root for them here.

So what you are saying is that you ultimately agree with me but like watching me "jump through hoops" to defend Tywin?

If you understand what I am saying there is no controversy: Tywin knows what he is doing and if your interests align with his interests you are in good hands.  If they don't well then you're in trouble.

[Nebmai]

In a nut shell yes, Tywin is a bit misunderstood and in the messed up GoT / ASoIaF world he's not the worst thing around on two feet; the jump through hoops thing is because reading your posts reminds me of something you'd hear a defense lawyer say, constantly deflecting to get the attention focused on something else; eh idk, it was a bit of a drunk posting incident still I stand by it.

[firebird]

wasn't so much a fan in the book...but on the show I'm becoming a fan of his. The actor is superb.

[cortchuzska]

My favourite characters are usually cold blooded "competent villains". Lord Tywin is my man.
His main flaws are emotional – as a consequence of the same cold-bloodedness who makes him so great he can't understand people who are not cold-blooded as he is (Elia – she was nothing; not to the Martells, who have been plotting to destroy the Lannisters for twenty years; nor his son Tyrion, who refuses the 'cleaner' solution the Wall and opt for trial by combat, and finally earns Tywin a quarrel in his bowels)
Quite interesting to notice how in HBO series they focus on father/son relationship when Tywin is on screen; from his first episode of season one (where Jaime-bad-guy Lannister turns into a little boy within seconds) – and I was won to Tywin forever, to "THEY HAVE MY SON", or "because you are my son", and now with Arya.
I was rereading my favourite chapter from the books – Tyrion's trial by combat – and I came across the best one-liner defining Tywin Lannister (not even an one-liner, actually_
Tyrion pushed forward. "MY LORDS! " he shouted. He had to shout, to have any hope of being heard.
His father raised a hand. Bit by bit, the hall grew silent.
Many times is stated that Lord Tywin 'kept silent' or 'did not speak – and did not speak – and did not speak; his silences weighing heavier than anyone else shouting.
What can i say? Quite a man.

Edited by cortchuzska, 28 May 2012 - 02:52 PM.