Did anybody else like Tywin Lannister?

[FuzzyJAM]

I'm just wondering because I view their actions in the context of their time. It's hard not to hate everyone otherwise.

For sure.

When I'm evaluating characters, I do it in two ways.  One, are they actually decent people?  For most people in the series, the answer is no.  But judging people constantly in this way is exhausting in a series.    A second way of judging them is: how decent are they within what can reasonably be expected for their times?  Many characters in the series come off a lot better in this.  

Of course, the second evaluation is extremely complex - an Iron Born, as a member of a (generally) less moral people, would probably get lower standards of ethical conduct than the rest of Westeros, for instance.  But then one who had the Reader as guidance would maybe have a higher standard set.  And so on and so on.  

[Lion of the West]

I like Tywin, as most people know, even if he actually isn't my favorite Lannister. At the end of it Tywin is a product of his society and a product that is very well adjusted to his society and its workings. He's certainly not a nice person or a "sad soul" or whatever, but there can be in my mind few doubts as to that Tywin was alongside of Renly the best shot for peace and stability in Westeros. With both dead, strife and carnage will ensure. Tywin added his own part to the carnage but as far as I can see, he's the only one shown to be capable of both winning a war and then making sure that victory becomes something else, like a dominance that deters would-be pretenders and rebels from trying.

[Thuckey]

I'm glad that the thread has generated so much response, and am still halfway through reading all of the replies since I last posted but I must say.. ASOIAF is utterly amazing in that its content is viewed so differently by different people and can generate so much debate and discussion. Not even minor differences, but people see things completely different than each other..

 

Once again I applaud GRRM, cause clearly this was his intention and I'd be surprised if he ever gave his own opinion on some of this topics.. best left for fans to analyse.

[Lord Lannister]

There is nothing wrong with saying people shouldn't be simply described as "evil".  I largely agree.  I mean, there comes a point (e.g. Stalin, Mao) where that's pretty difficult to maintain, but I'm not going to get into it.  My issue is with you denying the word entirely.  Actions absolutely can be evil.  The gang rape of a 13 year old to teach your son a lesson is not ambiguous in the slightest.  It's evil.  If you want to say that evil actions do not make a person evil - fine, that's a position I can mostly agree with.  But that's not what you said, you denied the entire concept of evil.  That's not something I can agree with at all.

I wasn't offering a personal insult to be a dick, it's just that morality is an arational concept, and therefore all that can be said about someone who doesn't think they can call gang rapes of girls "evil" is that their worldview is messed up.  If you'd prefer, I'll explain that it's a synonym for "a worldview entirely different from mine, and if most people actually believed what you're saying, it would result in a far worse world than we have - at least by the standards of most people." 

Since you seem keen on putting words into my mouth, I see little point in discussing the issue further with you. Clearly you're right and there's something wrong with anyone who doesn't think so. And if there's any doubt about it, one has but to ask you.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

Love him (the character, not the 'person').

A very unpleasant personality, for sure, but one of the best villains that can grace a story, IMO. I like that his actions, and motives, are logical and explainable: that doesn't make them any less horrible though. I also love the fact that he had flaws, human flaws that ultimately were his undoing, just like he had real talents that -conditionally- could, and did, serve for good as well.

All in all, I am not fond of "mad evil" villains that do bad things because that's what they do, it's heir nature and can't do otherwise. I prefer the Tywin type, who do what they do for reasons most characters could share, the difference being that they choose to cross the lines - and still, I appreciate the effort to make it look not so bad, like Tywin's "rationalization" for the Red Wedding; too cool "I'm evil and I like it" types (see Roose) are quite unconvincing, mostly of entertainment value rather than character study.

[Light a wight tonight]

Which fishing village?

The village where Arya got captured. It was on a lake, so I assume it was a fishing village.

[FuzzyJAM]

Since you seem keen on putting words into my mouth, I see little point in discussing the issue further with you. Clearly you're right and there's something wrong with anyone who doesn't think so. And if there's any doubt about it, one has but to ask you.

I didn't put any words into your mouth.  You said (direct quote): "I personally dislike the terms good or evil."

Which I think is totally reasonable when it comes to people.  If that's all you meant, then fine, we pretty much agree.  But that isn't the only time those terms are used: actions are frequently described as evil.  And if (note I included this "if" in my other posts, I'm not putting words into your mouth - you're free to say "Nope, that wasn't what I wanted to say at all" - but rather interpreting something that is somewhat ambiguous which you're free to clarify to further discussion) you have issues with calling some actions (e.g. gang rape of girls) "evil" then I really do think you have a messed up worldview.  

Of course, the whole point of worldviews is that they're neither right nor wrong.  They are outside of the field of rationality.  Rational thought happens within worldviews.  When worldviews contradict (and of course they often do) there is no authority to appeal to.  If you disagree with someone, you disagree with them.  They can just as easily say your own worldview is stupid or horrible or whatever they like.  We simply see things differently, and the most we can do is express that clash.

If my expression of disagreement with a posited worldview which you may or may not hold to was unnecessarily hurtful, I apologise.  That wasn't my intention.  "Messed up" is about as generous a description I could think of for what I was talking about, but I'm sure I could have phrased it better.  

 

[John Doe]

If you want to say that evil actions do not make a person evil - fine, that's a position I can mostly agree with.

That's also pretty much my position.

[King Brandon Ice Eyes]

Of course they are. They are both potential monsters but were given leadership positions because they were effective at their job.

Yes it is proof. We are told why he went West and what his intentions were.

Paying back in kind means doing to the Westerland smallfolk what happened to the Riverland smallfolk. If any of the things you mentioned happened in the Riverlands then the intent was to do the same to the Westerlands.

That is what we are told. If you have any further information from the books then I will be happy to see it, but we are told that Robb went West to do to them as they did to the Riverlands.

The irony here is that the Northmen were also committing atrocities in the Riverlands. Now the fact that the Northmen were willing to do that to their own allies puts no doubt in my mind that they were doing similar actions in the West.

It is commented on by the Riverland smallfolk.  I provided about 5 quotes of the Riverland smallfolk complaining about the Lions and Wolves to you. Are you just going to ignore evidence?

Unfortunately for the Westland smallfolk we don't have chapters with Arya, Brienne and Jaime talking to them and telling us what they suffered.

Not one chapter has been set in the Westerlands. It is hardly rocket science.

Why do we hear about Saltpans? Because we had a chapter there.  And yeah, ignore the contribution that the Northmen had on the Riverlands.

Pardoned?" The old man laughed. "For what? Sitting on his arse in his bloody castle? He sent men off to Riverrun to fight but never went himself. Lions sacked his town, then wolves, then sellswords, and his lordship just sat safe behind his walls.

 

Nothing suggests otherwise. The one report we have says they went there for just that reason.

Sure, Robb might be incompetent and not realize it is happening, or he might be a moral coward and just look the other way and pretend it is not happening. But it happened, that was the whole reason they went West.

He does it in peace time. Most nobles, probably even Tywin, do the same as rape in occupied territory or peace times is frowned upon. There is a difference between it. Stannis has his fair share of 'monsters':

Suggs was simply cruel. She had seen him at the nightfires, watching, his lips parted and his eyes avid. It is not the god he loves, it is the flames, she concluded. When she asked Ser Justin if Suggs had always been that way, he grimaced. "On Dragonstone he would gamble with the torturers and lend them a hand in the questioning of prisoners, especially if the prisoner were a young woman."

Rape was an unfortunate consequence of medieval (and before) warfare. In fairness, Robb might have been too young and knave to know about just how prevalent it was at the start of the war, but every army would have their fair share of vicious men and these men would often rise quite high. 

We don't know that, we know he went west to do the same as Tywin. Until we are told different I am going to assume the book is right.

Now you are just being melodramatic. He wanted to cause chaos, I don't think there are any orders of sadism.

No we don't. Lothar Frey and Roose Bolton planned it. Robb managed to alienate his own vassals, they wanted it and they planned it. Tywin certainly benefited from it.

The Freys and Boltons wanted Robb disposed off with as few casualties as possible, that is why they planned the Red Wedding.

According to Arya it was worse when Tywin left and Roose took over. An actual Starks words.

Massacre? He ordered chevauchée, and it was carried out. Sadly for the smalllfolk the majority of the nobles of Westeros do not seem to care highly about them (Starks included).

1. The torture-fest in Harrenhal is conducted with Tywin there. Were he oblivious to what was happening?

2. He promised pardon and rewarded the Boltons and Freys for the Red Wedding. Tyrion points out Frey would never act without Tywin backing him up and his father doesn't deny it. He was communicating with them with letters. He is also responsible for the massacre, not just a benefactor. If you deny it, you are the one who is inventing feeble excuses to whitewash your character. It's blatant. Catelyn's actions can be added context. GRRM himself mentioned it was a "grey area" and she never intended to hurt anyone (except Tyrion if he was indeed proved guilty). I may be wrong, but it seems to me you only care about results. I'm not reading a History book, so characters' motivation are much more important to me in a fictional world. And so far Tywin hasn't displayed any redeeming qualities except dedication to his family's name and his love for Joanna. Therefore he is presented as scum and we readers should therefore perceive him as scum. You can like him all the way. But the whitewashing is too much.

3. He ordered Gregor to attack the smallfolk. Gregor is a monster. Tywin has no doubts about his nature and that he is going to commit atrocities a regular soldier wouldn't do. Unless Tywin is a moron. And he isn't.

“Let them,” Lord Tywin said. “Unleash Ser Gregor and send him before us with his reavers. Send forth Vargo Hoat and his freeriders as well, and Ser Amory Lorch. Each is to have three hundred horse. Tell them I want to see the riverlands afire from the Gods Eye to the Red Fork.” Here he sends the worst free-rider company in the world to plunge along with two proven sadists. if he doesn't think they will resort to the worst acts of pointless cruelty he is insane. No, I'm not being melodramatic. Those men's reputations speak for themselves. The report from Joss is a horror show. With Amory Tywin doesn't even have the excuse of sending a competent man. Amory is never shown doing anything particularly smart, just vile stuff. Tywin even remarks later that he is obtuse.

“Your savages might relish a bit of rapine. Tell them they may ride with Vargo Hoat and plunder as they like-goods, stock, women, they may take what they want and burn the rest.” This quote proves he condones rape and sees it as not only collateral damage in a war but something to be stimulated.

Robb is responsible for a lot of shit as well. He chose to prolong the war after all. That alone is worthy of criticism. The Stark are no saints. Still they are closer to the image you try to pass of your regular lords that don't have the well-being of the smallfolk as their priority in a war. Robb is willing to indirectly cause damage to their lives if he believes he has to avenge his father and cut ties to a corrupt government. In peace times they (Ned and his family) are actually quite merciful and in no situations we see them prone to commit any acts of atrocities. With Tywin, however, is always overkill after overkill if he can get away with it and if it gives him shortcuts. Or when he wants "to teach his son a lesson".

There are harsh, very elitist and ruthless lords in the series, men who display little empathy. Stannis is one example. However even he punishes rapists and calls "evil" an attempt to punish Celtigar's disloyalty by slaughtering his people in Claw Isle. “I shall bring justice to Westeros. A thing Ser Axell understands as little as he does war. Claw Isle would gain me naught... and it was evil, just as you said. Celtigar must pay the traitor’s price himself, in his own person. Even he who is known as merciless doesn't sink so low. Meanwhile Tywin thinks: they took my son? Let's butcher peasants that have nothing to do with it. He also rewards rapists and mass murderers in his army greatly if that serves his cause, as he rewarded the Freys and the Boltons and pardoned the Westerlings for helping to perpetrate a heinous act. This proves Tywin doesn't give two shits about guest rights or anything that doesn't favor him directly. But, no. According to you and your bias Masha Heddle is the true criminal in the eyes of the realm for not stopping a thing that was beyond her control. What about Cersei then? She slaughtered Stark's household in the Red Keep. No one mentions guest right because a lot of them adhere (or pretend to adhere) to the official narrative that Ned was a traitor and things escalated. But Masha Heddle should have stopped Catelyn, the daughter of her liege lord who never hurt anyone in her inn? Please, either way, Tywin giving his full approval for the Red Wedding proves he doesn't care if guest right is broken (and in an spectacular fashion), so his murder of Masha is petty, hypocritical and not justified at all.

Your quote about "paying back in kind" is followed by a list of actions committed by the northerners that concerns the tactics they were using. Slaughtering civillians was not mentioned. If "pay back in kind" is word for word what it means then we can't have gold mines being taken, because as far as we know they don't have it in the Riverlands. So it was an invasion, a campaign but it doesn't mean that everything that happened in the Riverlands (orchestrated by Tywin) also happened there (orchestrated by Robb).

You also don't have no proof of vicious men rising up in Robb's army, except Roose Bolton, who was chosen for his cunning.

For the last time: I don't deny many, many northern soldiers have committed heinous acts but we don't have no information of Robb using this kind of people to do his biding for this very reason. I'm not ignoring evidence. Tywin uses Gregor and many others. He knows exactly what they are. Shit, Gregor is rumored to have killed his family, is a known rapist and child killer and Tywin puts him on top.

Oh, and Suggs' cruelty displayed so far is still much, much more subdued than Gregor's and the rest of Tywin's mad dogs. He may be just as bad but he certainly isn't a renowned monster in the Seven Kingdoms.

Saltpans is first mentioned in King's Landing, in Cersei's chapter. It wasn't treated as a mere local occurrence.

 

[King Brandon Ice Eyes]

DP

[thelittledragonthatcould]

1. The torture-fest in Harrenhal is conducted with Tywin there. Were he oblivious to what was happening?

According to Arya it was no better under Northern rule.

2. He promised pardon and rewarded the Boltons and Freys for the Red Wedding.

Right. But guest rights is between the Guest and the Host. Tywin certainly benefited and rewarded both sides who returned to the Crown but Tywin has not broken Guest rights.

Pretty simple.

3. He ordered Gregor to attack the smallfolk. Gregor is a monster. Tywin has no doubts about his nature and that he is going to commit atrocities a regular soldier wouldn't do. Unless Tywin is a moron. And he isn't.

Gregor is also one of his most effective commanders. And yes, he ordered raids against the Riverlands after the unlawfully abducted his son.

The Riverlands initiated an act of War and Tywin responded.

 

 

 But Masha Heddle should have stopped Catelyn, the daughter of her liege lord who never hurt anyone in her inn?

She was the host, Tyrion was her guest. She broke guest rights.

 

Please, either way, Tywin giving his full approval for the Red Wedding proves he doesn't care if guest right is broken (and in an spectacular fashion), so his murder of Masha is petty, hypocritical and not justified at all.

No not at all. Tywin did not break guest rights, other people have that blood on their hands. he certainly benefited from it. Yes, what he did to Heddle was petty. He, like many Nobles does not really care about the smallfolk. When Gared is caught by Ned, a man who has lost many appendages in service to the Wall and has been there since a child Ned follows the law. Executes him. He could have brought him back to the Wall, but he followed the law.

 

Your quote about "paying back in kind" is followed by a list of actions committed by the northerners that concerns the tactics they were using. Slaughtering civillians was not mentioned.

Seems pretty clear that they were doing what the Lannisters did in the Riverlands

so the Young Wolf was paying the Lannisters back in kind for the devastation they'd inflicted on the riverlands.

You can try and desperately twist it in to something nicer but what we are told is that they went back to do as the Lannisters did. Come back with actual evidence of nicer treatment.

At Riverrun they never mention how Northerners were raping and pillaging Riverlanders but we know it happened. How knave are you to believe that the Northerners were capable of such acts in the Riverlands but not in the Westerlands.

 

You also don't have no proof of vicious men rising up in Robb's army, except Roose Bolton, who was chosen for his cunning.

As Gregor was chosen for being one of the greatest knights in the realm.

For the last time: I don't deny many, many northern soldiers have committed heinous acts but we don't have no information of Robb using this kind of people to do his biding for this very reason

But you seem to be. You are under the impression that no women were raped or killed in the Westerlands.

 

is rumored to have killed his family, is a known rapist and child killer and Tywin puts him on top.

Roose is a rapist and killer.

Oh, and Suggs' cruelty displayed so far is still much, much more subdued than Gregor's and the rest of Tywin's mad dogs. He may be just as bad but he certainly isn't a renowned monster in the Seven Kingdoms.

So the difference is that Gregor is better at his job.

Saltpans is first mentioned in King's Landing, in Cersei's chapter. It wasn't treated as a mere local occurrence.

And the North men hit it just as hard the Westerland army, yet you constantly make out that it was only one side.

[khal drogon]

Best Villain. Nope

 

Boring than Roose or Littlfinger or Cersei.

[King Brandon Ice Eyes]

According to Arya it was no better under Northern rule.

Right. But guest rights is between the Guest and the Host. Tywin certainly benefited and rewarded both sides who returned to the Crown but Tywin has not broken Guest rights.

Pretty simple.

Gregor is also one of his most effective commanders. And yes, he ordered raids against the Riverlands after the unlawfully abducted his son.

The Riverlands initiated an act of War and Tywin responded.

She was the host, Tyrion was her guest. She broke guest rights.

No not at all. Tywin did not break guest rights, other people have that blood on their hands. he certainly benefited from it. Yes, what he did to Heddle was petty. He, like many Nobles does not really care about the smallfolk. When Gared is caught by Ned, a man who has lost many appendages in service to the Wall and has been there since a child Ned follows the law. Executes him. He could have brought him back to the Wall, but he followed the law.

 

Seems pretty clear that they were doing what the Lannisters did in the Riverlands

so the Young Wolf was paying the Lannisters back in kind for the devastation they'd inflicted on the riverlands.

You can try and desperately twist it in to something nicer but what we are told is that they went back to do as the Lannisters did. Come back with actual evidence of nicer treatment.

At Riverrun they never mention how Northerners were raping and pillaging Riverlanders but we know it happened. How knave are you to believe that the Northerners were capable of such acts in the Riverlands but not in the Westerlands.

As Gregor was chosen for being one of the greatest knights in the realm.

But you seem to be. You are under the impression that no women were raped or killed in the Westerlands.

Roose is a rapist and killer.

So the difference is that Gregor is better at his job.

And the North men hit it just as hard the Westerland army, yet you constantly make out that it was only one side.

 

It wasn't better, yes. I never said Roose Bolton (who, by the way, already showed clear signs of deflection when he took Harrenhal *) is an upstanding guy. For the last time, my whole point is NOT that the northerners are kinder than the westerners; is that their leader (Tywin) is much more cruel than Robb so he assigns the worst scum to perform the important tasks. Crimes of such magnitude committed by the northerners in the series were never accompanied by Robb's direct tutelage, as far as we know. On the other hand I have lines that prove that Tywin condoned and stimulated the rape of women, as well as directed renowned war criminals to terrorize the land, and was aware of the tortures while in Harrenhal, which count as pointless cruelty, considering the victims knew nothing about the Brotherhood's whereabouts. He also sanctioned the Red Wedding, which was a massacre who decimated most of the northern army.

Robb could be as well "paying them back in kind" in terms of resources, like described later in the text. One of the main reasons to invade the Westerlands was to draw Tywin away from the Riverlands, luring him to the West. Stealing his gold and resources and taking strongholds is reason enough to change his course, it would seem. You can devastate a land by stealing and destroying its riches, burning fields and taking strongholds. A line from a guy doesn't prove that Robb (not some random soldiers and independent units) went to the same lengths to ensure his success and presided acts of sheer barbarity. Pillaging is effective in itself. When the smallfolk can not reap and sow in their lands that weakens their landlords. The knights should plunder the goods, seizing flocks and cattle from the country people. It makes the smallfolk lose faith in their governments and many of them flee for the nearer stronghold, weakening the armies resources as well. Of course this is very predatory and will spread famine (and, no, I don't agree with it). It still not as bad as massacring and torturing people with excruciating refinement. (There is also the fact that the cattle taken from the West was brought to Riverrun, which would help the smallfolk in the region. Tywin had no such intentions when he purposefully terrorized the Riverlands.)

There is no reason to believe Robb would condone needless acts of brutality as long as he could prevent it. It goes against the characterization GRRM gave him and a single line will not simply revert it unless we have direct access to the details of what actually happened there under his command.

That is not to say that Robb is wonderful and saintly. Far from it. I don't care if people despise him. But I can see him much more as a member of the awful system they have and Tywin as exceedingly horrible. Tysha, his father's mistress, Elia and her kids, the Reynes and Tarbecks can attest if examples from the Wot5K don't suffice.

There are degrees of awfulness. And while comparing acts doesn't serve to exonerate the lesser evils (nor it should) it does serve to highlight the lengths of the worst among them.

The point about Saltpans is that it was so savage that it drawn attention from a lot of people outside the region. No atrocity of such degree is said to take place in the Westerlands. You would think Cersei and Jaime would hear from it and pay attention to it, considering it is their homeland. On the other hand we have Joss' account that what happened in his village was very similar to Saltpans in a smaller scale.

Like I said, killing deserters serves a purpose of discouraging such act, and Ned never shit upon the laws of the Night's Watch. Tywin killing Masha Heddle serves no purpose and if he was going by your reasoning, he did shit upon the laws of guest rights when he condoned the Red Wedding. When the government conspires with and rewards those who commit serious crime, the government is complicity.

No, the difference is that Stannis doesn't encourage rape and unnecessary killing, so the likes of Suggs are more restrained than people like Gregor, who can get away with anything because of Tywin.

*And Robb didn't know how cruel he was, nor that he was a rapist, so claiming that Roose is a rapist doesn't counter my argument, that was never that Roose is fine and mellow. The fact is that Tywin had a perfect notion of what a savage Gregor is.

 

[Wall Flower]

None of the high lords involved in the War of the 5 kings have clean hands but Tywin is in a class of his own and has been since the Rains of Castemere. Robb Stark executed his own bannerman for murdering boy hostages while Tywin employs people like Gregor specifically to carry out such dirty work. Tywin uses rape, murder and torture as deliberate tactics of terror and revenge. He likes to see himself as a ruthless pragmatist but a lot of his extreme actions (like the Tysha gang-rape) speak to a man who massively overreacts to slights and grievances.

Personally, I'm 100% sure that the murder of Elia and her children was more that just a pragmatic measure (although that's what Tywin probably tells himself) and I'm suspicious that the Red Wedding not only got rid of Robb Stark but covered the Freys in the stink of broken guest rites. I think Tywin has been waiting to pay back Walder Frey since he was ten years old and Walder put one over on Tytos Lannister. A Lannister always pays his debts isn't Tywin's unofficial motto for nothing.

[A spoon of knife and fork]

Tywin Lannister is an incredible character.  He's got as deep a backstory as pretty much any character, even POV characters, he is frighteningly competent in many ways, yet incompetent in others.  

He's also one of the worst people in westeros.

To those who say "well at least he's not a monster like clegane/ramsey" I'd like to challenge you.  People like ramsey do what they do because of a sick impulse they have.  They are uncontrolled animals, basically, at the mercy of their sick minds. By contrast, Tywin Lannister is 100% cold control - yet the things he orders done are as bad or worse.  Rape of Tysha.  Murder of Reyne babies.  Murder and rape of Elia and her children.  Tywin is a monster - a much more dangerous monster than Clegane, because he can choose where he directs his atrocity.  He Can delay gratification.  He can use his cruelty as a weapon to advance himself.  Roose is similar to Tywin in this, but not nearly as great a political mind or as ambitious as Tywin was.

id also like to say that watching what has happened after Tywin fell it is quite clear he failed utterly if his goal was to solidify Lannister power.  When we compare his legacy to Neds it is obvious who will be remembered longer, who the people will rise up in the name of.  In terms of long term strategy, Tywin's way fails, while Ned's succeeds. Even if during their lifetime it may have seemed that Tywon "won".  So, either Tywin was a failure or his goal was never to advance his house, rather only to advance himself and for personal gratification.  

[OldGimletEye]

 

The Riverlands initiated an act of War and Tywin responded.

So Catelyn Stark was the official head of House Tully and fully empowered to make decisions for that House?

[thelittledragonthatcould]

So Catelyn Stark was the official head of House Tully and fully empowered to make decisions for that House?

Hoster was the official Head, Edmure was next. Cat was just the daughter of the Lord. 

Tyrion had committed no crimes in the Riverlands, well actually he had committed no crimes in the North either but I digress, Cat had no right to abduct someone. This is seen quite clearly in the Kings reaction to the arrest.

"Abductions on the kingsroad and drunken slaughter in my streets," the king said. "I will not have it, Ned."

"Catelyn had good reason for taking the Imp—"77

 

Even GRRM points out that she would be on stronger ground if she made the arrest in the North:

 

Q. Do members of one Great House have a legal right to arrest and judge members of the other? I.e. was Catelyn's abduction of Tyrion, given all the incriminating evidence, legal?

GRRM: It was a bit dicey. A lord administers justice in his own lands. Catelyn would have had a much stronger claim if she had taken Tyrion in the north. Even in our own world, there are always dangers in taking on the rich and powerful, regardless of the legality of your auction or how much evidence you have... and the high lords of Westeros are a deal more prickly about their honor.

It was an abduction of the son of the Warden of the West and was seen as an act of war, Cat screwed up. The only way that move would have made any sense if she took him to the capital and have Robert sit in judgement instead of keep everyone in the dark where she was taking him.

 

[OldGimletEye]

Hoster was the official Head, Edmure was next. Cat was just the daughter of the Lord. 

Tyrion had committed no crimes in the Riverlands, well actually he had committed no crimes in the North either but I digress, Cat had no right to abduct someone. This is seen quite clearly in the Kings reaction to the arrest.

"Abductions on the kingsroad and drunken slaughter in my streets," the king said. "I will not have it, Ned."

"Catelyn had good reason for taking the Imp—"77

 

Even GRRM points out that she would be on stronger ground if she made the arrest in the North:

 

Q. Do members of one Great House have a legal right to arrest and judge members of the other? I.e. was Catelyn's abduction of Tyrion, given all the incriminating evidence, legal?

GRRM: It was a bit dicey. A lord administers justice in his own lands. Catelyn would have had a much stronger claim if she had taken Tyrion in the north. Even in our own world, there are always dangers in taking on the rich and powerful, regardless of the legality of your auction or how much evidence you have... and the high lords of Westeros are a deal more prickly about their honor.

It was an abduction of the son of the Warden of the West and was seen as an act of war, Cat screwed up. The only way that move would have made any sense if she took him to the capital and have Robert sit in judgement instead of keep everyone in the dark where she was taking him.

 

This is all fine and dandy, but isn't really relevant to the question I was asking. So why does Tywin impute guilt upon Hoster for Catelyn's arguably illegal actions? In Tywin's view, the Tullys were automatically responsible for Cat's actions because why?

[thelittledragonthatcould]

This is all fine and dandy, but isn't really relevant to the question I was asking. So why does Tywin impute guilt upon Hoster for Catelyn's arguably illegal actions? In Tywin's view, the Tullys were automatically responsible for Cat's actions because why?

It was carried out in the Riverlands with Cat using men sworn to Riverland Houses. Cat needed vassals of the Whents and Brackens to help her abduct Tyrion.

 

[OldGimletEye]

It was carried out in the Riverlands with Cat using men sworn to Riverland Houses. Cat needed vassals of the Whents and Brackens to help her abduct Tyrion.

 

But, none of that was authorized by Hoster or Edmure. And Tywin had little reason to presume that it was. Nor did he even make the slightest attempt to verify that was the case.