PoV induced prejudice

[Errant Bard]

Okay, what reasons do you think Joffrey has to order his knights to beat up a little and absolutely defenceless girl? I'm listening?

You miss the point, we were talking about him beheading Ned. Surely you realize that using an interpretation of something he did in a specific context and pushing it on everything else he did is dishonest?

It seems I am misunderstood, so to be clear, I am not saying that Joff wasn't a monster, I'm just saying that he's harshly judged on some things the good guys are praised for. The execution of a traitor is the same everywhere.

What you're arguing is that he was bad therefore everything he did was bad, whereas the good guys are good so anything they do is good, even the things bad guys and good guys do exactly the same. As I said, it illustrates that PoV induced bias.

[HP Loveshaft]

This is an excellent thread. Good job Errant Bard.

I think the Daeron example was particularly enlightening, especially with how he's contrasted with Jon. I didn't quite cheer for Arya when she killed Daeron, but I thought it was justified. But really, most of her kills haven't been. With Daeron, she was in no danger at all and didn't really have a reason to kill the guy, she just did it because she could. The guard at Harrenhall was a bit different, but she probably could have figured out a way to knock the guy out instead of slitting his throat. She really is a creepy character.

I'm also glad you brought up all of the creepy things Tyrion has done. Even then, people are justifying his participation in the gang rape of a girl (even if she was a deceptive whore, how does that possibly make it ok?? Yikes). I think one of the better examples of how Tyrion would be viewed without a POV is how the smallfolk of King's Landing all hated him. Without knowing about Pycelle being a leak, his arrest and imprisonment of Pycelle really does seem like a crazed move. By all accounts, Pycelle played the role of nice old man pretty well, even Ned liked him. Pretty scary move from an outside source.

Slynt is a terrible guy, but if all you know is that Slynt refused to betray the king during an attempted coup, then stripping him of all his titles and sending his ass to the Wall is a cold move. It seems like Martin uses this as a device to gain sympathy for Tyrion...it's like he got revenge for the death of Ned by punishing Slynt (even though Tyrion had his own justified reasons for getting rid of Slynt that had nothing to do with Ned). Jaime does something similar in AFFC, when he tells off Lady Westerling. I thought that was especially strange...Jaime Lannister of all people judging someone for a betrayal is kind of pathetic, especially since Lady westerling was on his side. I suspect again this was more a device to make Jaime a "good guy" and give the reader a bit of satisfaction in seeing someone get told off for what they did to Robb.

Anyways, very interesting stuff, keep it up all.

[Rinso]

You miss the point, we were talking about him beheading Ned. Surely you realize that using an interpretation of something he did in a specific context and pushing it on everything else he did is dishonest?

Oh, boy... Anyway, early on I said that I blame only Ned for Ned's beheading so we just wasted our time with Joff, haven't we

What you're arguing is that he was bad therefore everything he did was bad, whereas the good guys are good so anything they do is good, even the things bad guys and good guys do exactly the same. As I said, it illustrates that PoV induced bias.

That is not true at all. I actually don't care that much for good and bad, as for right and wrong. See, sometimes they are not the same. For example, I feel that the Red Wedding was a justified thing. Robb shat on his word to the Freys and disappointed his own bannermen when he lost half the North like a wimp. So why are all hating Frey and Bolton? "Cause they killed one of "our" boys and they broke the guest right!" Yeah, right... Like the guest right is something more than empty words. And anyway, that resolved a huge part of a devastatig conflict.

However, to order a grown and strong man to beat up a little girl is wrong. No matter how you look at it, it's wrong.

[Jon Targaryen]

JT,

I agree that Tyrion didn't give any thought to how the prisoner exchange could possibly proceed after he married Sansa. However what reason did he have to think that there was any possibility that it could anyway? Did Cat send him a raven informing him that the offer was accepted? No. Did Robb lay down arms and make peace with the Lannisters and turn over the elder sons of his bannermen as hostages? No. Nothing even close to it; they even hanged the bodyguards of his peace delegation (which was Tyrion's responsibility, but that is neither here nor there.

What if we look at it this way: Robb's original proposal involved fixing the borders between his new kingdom and the Lannisters. He made an offer to that effect. But then he turned around and proceeded to violate those borders by invading the Westerlands. Should we consider Robb an untrustworthy oathbreaker because he didn't abide by a completely unratified and unaccepted proposal? The Lannisters never sent word saying "ok, we like your borders let's have peace now", any more than Cat said "I'm sending Jaime back, please send Sansa in exchange". Neither actually constituted an agreement.

Before I get started, I want to say that I don't agree with Cat that Tyrion swore in open court. I put that quote in there mainly to show that Cat and Robb think Sansa cannot be "returned" once married to Tyrion. Your Tyrion quotes showed pretty well that Tyrion did not swear anything.

If you want to make the argument that Sansa can still be "returned" after marrying Tyrion, then I guess agree to disagree. I have argued that point pretty extensively with Ran and am still pretty set in the belief that she cannot be "returned." So, accepting that, we get to the point that there is an implicit offer that once Jaime is returned, Sansa and Arya will be returned. You're right that Tyrion is ignorant of any exchanges going on when he decides to marry Sansa. That's the whole point. He has the offer out there. Then he goes ahead and makes the offer untenable by marrying Sansa. He doesn't even think of how he is taking back his offer. I went to law school for only one year before dropping out. But I think you can't retract an offer after a certain amount of time and that time has certainly passed in this case. Maybe I'm wrong on that though.

Your point on Robb is good. I think it applies too. I didn't see how Robb was at fault there. The main reason I saw Tyrion at fault was because I took the prosecution's side in the Tyrion trial here, mainly as an exercise to see if I could prosecute a character I liked. It really opened my mind to how "grey" he really is, something Martin has said in interviews but I didn't really see until the trial.

One could make the argument that there was never an offer of "You return Jaime; I return Sansa and Arya." Nothing explicit like that is given. But I think we can all agree that there is an offer like that on the table. Nothing explicit, but implicit for sure.

[a_homeless_harpy]

I suppose if Sansa divorced Tyrion, she would be able to return to her family, but , unfortunately, there's no family to speak about. Is there any possibility that Tyrion didn't want to consume his marriage to let her decide, in favourable circumstances of course, whether or not she wants to stay with him "for real"?

[Jon Targaryen]

I thought it was mostly that Tyrion didn't want to do what would really be tantamount to rape. He wanted her to want him eventually. He was looking out for her, a mark in his favor. But I don't think he didn't want to be "Lord Protector of Winterfell" someday. He didn't want to have the marriage dissolved. But one could argue that he did, I suppose.

[Gaston de Foix]

Before I get started, I want to say that I don't agree with Cat that Tyrion swore in open court. I put that quote in there mainly to show that Cat and Robb think Sansa cannot be "returned" once married to Tyrion. Your Tyrion quotes showed pretty well that Tyrion did not swear anything.

If you want to make the argument that Sansa can still be "returned" after marrying Tyrion, then I guess agree to disagree. I have argued that point pretty extensively with Ran and am still pretty set in the belief that she cannot be "returned." So, accepting that, we get to the point that there is an implicit offer that once Jaime is returned, Sansa and Arya will be returned. You're right that Tyrion is ignorant of any exchanges going on when he decides to marry Sansa. That's the whole point. He has the offer out there. Then he goes ahead and makes the offer untenable by marrying Sansa. He doesn't even think of how he is taking back his offer. I went to law school for only one year before dropping out. But I think you can't retract an offer after a certain amount of time and that time has certainly passed in this case. Maybe I'm wrong on that though.

Your point on Robb is good. I think it applies too. I didn't see how Robb was at fault there. The main reason I saw Tyrion at fault was because I took the prosecution's side in the Tyrion trial here, mainly as an exercise to see if I could prosecute a character I liked. It really opened my mind to how "grey" he really is, something Martin has said in interviews but I didn't really see until the trial.

One could make the argument that there was never an offer of "You return Jaime; I return Sansa and Arya." Nothing explicit like that is given. But I think we can all agree that there is an offer like that on the table. Nothing explicit, but implicit for sure.

Excellent post. I haven't really considered this issue before and I haven't read your debates with Ran, so I may be repeating stuff here. I guess a lawyer's perspective would go something like this.

Tyrion Lannister was acting Hand of the King, so he had the authority to make a peace offer on the part of the Lannisters. Catelyn Stark nee Tully, assuming she can be considered to have the authority to accept the offer on behalf of the Starks (which I doubt and seems a serious difficulty here) accepted that offer made by Tyrion. She didn't notify him which in ordinary circumstances would render the acceptance void. In these circumstances this sympathetic court will accept the argument that distance, war and the need for secrecy meant the acceptance could not be communicated any quicker than performance. In any event an attempt to revoke the offer was made by Ser Edmure Tully (who had a decent claim at being an valid agent of Robb Starks' since he was commanded to hold Riverrun) and the Lannisters have contended that the offer was revoked anyway. This argument must fail however because of the operation of the postal rule, and because part performance of the contract had already occurred. Assuming Edmure's attempted revocation was improper the offer was implicitly affirmed by Robb Stark on his return to Riverrun so promissory estoppel operates here and Robb Stark could not repudiate Sansa on receipt, even if he so wished.

However the terms of the offer were contingent on the return of Jaime alive and unharmed, a term which arguably had been breached with the maiming of Jaime, by Vargo Hoat, in the employ of the Starks. There was clearly an attempt by the Starks to provide security in delivery and to some extent fault lay, by his own admission, with Ser Jaime Lannister. Nonetheless breach occurred of a term which was clearly a material breach and principal responsibility lay neither with Ser Jaime or Lady Brienne but Vargo Hoat, who was in the employ of a bannerman of the Starks. The Starks have contended that the bannerman eventually switched employers and so his acts were outside his lawful authority. This argument must fail since the date of Bolton's betrayal can be fixed at his meeting with Ser Jaime Lannister in the Hall of the Hundred Hearths, at which point the maiming had already occurred. Although the Starks are right to maintain that Bolton was not instructed to maim Ser Jaime and acted in defiance of the proper law in treating hostages, the traditional rule of attribution of the crimes of an employee in Westeros means that Vargo Hoats crimes are ultimately Robb Starks. Stark was of course entitled, if he wished (and this court might have advised if consulted) to take appropriate disciplinary action against Hoat and Bolton. Nonetheless the Lannisters are entitled to repudiate the contract.

In any event, insofar as Tyrion is concerned as an agent, the battle of Blackwater and the return of Lord Tywin clearly brought his authority to an end. Not only can it be argued that the Blackwater frustrated the original contract, an argument which would stricto sensu fail in this court given the high standards for a contract to be frustrated but the more successful argument can be made that the agent no longer had the authority to perform his part of the contract lawfully, and was indeed commanded (again lawfully) by Tywin Lannister, Lord of Casterly Rock, Hand of the King, Warden of the West and Tyrion's lawful lord, to marry the Lady Sansa Stark. Tywin, acting on behalf of House Lannister, cannot be excused from performing his part of the contract on the grounds of ignorance, since if he was ignorant of Tyrion's offer he was willfully so, and was in fact aware of Jaime's release while being ignorant of Jaime's maiming until his return to King's Landing. Nonetheless he had no obligation to free Sansa before Jaime's safe return to King's Landing, at which point he could repudiate the contract lawfully and is deemed by his acts, to have done so. The Starks' contend that Tywin would never have returned Sansa whatever shape Jaime was in, but cannot cite prior evidence of an intent to breach of terms. Tywin acted within the letter of the law (as he did with the assassination of Robb Stark even though he got away with murder).

Tyrion indeed attempted to persuade his father to return Sansa Stark, but was unsuccessful, a point we consider of vital importance in establishing his good faith. He can be considered to have acted always in good faith. Accordingly the court finds on the point of the personal responsibility of Tyrion Lannister, he is not responsible. On the general question of the responsibility of the Lannisters to return Sansa Stark, not responsible for breach of material term of contract. The Lannisters, vile though they are, have no debt to repay.

This court is willing to cite the relevant statutory authority and case law on any point if necessary :0).

[Adanin]

@Adanin: Fact is, I think Jaime changed in only one sector: he stopped loving Cersei. For the rest he's still ready to sacrifice his word for what he believes is more important, as we see during Riverrun's siege, and he always was a moral guy, as it shows when he cannot stand Rhaella's rape or the Stark's execution, unlike those supposedly other parangon of virtue kingsguards. When Cersei is removed, he is free to be his own man, that's why he apparently changes, but truly I don't see what is so different from before apart from that.

I think there was a massive change in Jaime somewhere starting with his capture by Robb. His friendship with Brienne, losing his hand, ending his relationship with Cersei, and practicing the sword with Ilyn are all elements of his continuing development. He did change after falling out of love with Cersei, but he fell out of love with Cersei because he had already changed.

Tyrion isn't a saint, he is actually as bad as Jaime, but our perception is skewed by what we know. That was my original point.

I understand your point, although its perhaps better to say that our perception is clarified by what we do know and skewed by what we don't. From what we do know, I disagree that Tyrion ever was as bad as Jaime was in truth. However, without a Tyrion or Jaime POV, there is more reason for disdain for Jaime than Tyrion. We see through the eyes of the "good guys", such as Bran when he is dropped from the window and Ned's conversations with Robert, all of Jaime's misdeeds. Other than covering up Jaime's actions, Tyrion's biggest "crime" that we would be aware of is being a smartass. Which leads to the next point...

In regard to Tyrion not being especially friendly to Jon, I wanted to say that he is like that with everyone. He even acts friendly towards Joffrey or Cersei in the same fashion, at first. Sure, Jon thinks he is a friend, but I don't think Tyrion has any unusual affection toward Jon. If I recall, he taught those guys what a threat meant with much the same tone that he pointed to Jon that the Watch was a bunch of criminals and that he was a bastard.

Doesn't Tyrion think of Jon when he's contemplating accepting banishment to the Wall? Don't know if that's true; I'll need to look it up. If not, there's not a ton of evidence to say whether or not his kindness was genuine. I choose to believe it was, partially because he seemed to sense something of a kindred spirit in Jon (remember the whole bastard/dwarf conversation?) but mostly because Tyrion always seems to welcome friends that will look past his physical appearance. I think that his help with the saddle design was done as much for Jon as it was for Bran.

There's a difference in tone when he's talking to Cersei. He enjoys mocking her because she's malevolent and stupid. Even for that, I think he would be kind to her if she was willing to accept him as her brother.

I'm also glad you brought up all of the creepy things Tyrion has done. Even then, people are justifying his participation in the gang rape of a girl (even if she was a deceptive whore, how does that possibly make it ok?? Yikes).

How is it rape if its a whore accepting money? (Tywin made a point of paying her, if you recall) At the least, she must have been threatened into not appearing too miserable. Tyrion genuinely believed she a whore until Jaime admitted otherwise. Even if you still want to blame him for that, I think a plea of temporary insanity isn't unreasonable. Imagine going your whole life believing no one could ever love you because you're ugly and then finally finding someone who does...then you find out it was all a lie. Enough to scar anyone (as it clearly does to him)

[Jon Targaryen]

grinachu,

My debate with Ran was over whether Sansa could be returned after the marriage.

I have one question and one point. Could Tyrion rescind the offer or not? My point is that Tywin and Kevan offered up other candidates to marry Sansa. Tyrion could have refused on the grounds he had made an offer. He chose not to. Hence, if he can't rescind the offer, he is culpable.

ETA: I do not recall Tyrion trying to get Tywin to give Sansa back.

[Errant Bard]

How is it rape if its a whore accepting money? (Tywin made a point of paying her, if you recall) At the least, she must have been threatened into not appearing too miserable. Tyrion genuinely believed she a whore until Jaime admitted otherwise. Even if you still want to blame him for that, I think a plea of temporary insanity isn't unreasonable. Imagine going your whole life believing no one could ever love you because you're ugly and then finally finding someone who does...then you find out it was all a lie. Enough to scar anyone (as it clearly does to him)

Everyone, Tyrion included knows she was forced to do it and given money as an afterthought. It's as much rape as Gregor and his men having their way with that wine seller's daughter, paying and asking for change. Furthermore, I will not believe that anyone would believe that a woman would do that willingly and with pleasure, or that adding yourself to the gang is for her own good.

Tyrion has that nasty habit of taking revenge on his girlfriends when it turns up they are not the ideal girl he thought they were. Rape and murder, that's an interesting trend. If he gets lovey-dovey with yet another and she dumps him, she'll better be prepared for bigtime torture.

[Jon Gunnarsson]

I think many of you are judging the characters too much from a modern point of view.

Incest for example is considered a severe crime against the gods in Westeros, so it is certainly not a trivial thing, even between consenting adults. The Targaryans are clearly an exception here since they basically stand above the law and because of their Valyrian descent. Here's what Catelyn thinks about incest in ACoK while she prays at a sept on the day before the battle between Stannis and Renly is supposed to take place: "incest was a monstrous sin to both old gods and new, and the childrens of such wickedness were named abominations in sept and godswood alike. The dragonkings had wed brother to sister, but they were the blood of old Valyria, where such practices had been common, and like the dragons, the Targaryans answered to neither gods nor men."

Another point is disobedience against superiors. Nowadays, most people believe that one has the right and even the duty to disobey orders if those orders are not reconcilable with one's own conscience, and that people have the right to rebel against an injust ruler. However, in a feudal system this only holds true to a much smaller extent. So in terms of Westerosi ethics and morals, disobeying one's liege is only justifiable in extreme cases.

[Gaston de Foix]

grinachu,

My debate with Ran was over whether Sansa could be returned after the marriage.

I have one question and one point. Could Tyrion rescind the offer or not? My point is that Tywin and Kevan offered up other candidates to marry Sansa. Tyrion could have refused on the grounds he had made an offer. He chose not to. Hence, if he can't rescind the offer, he is culpable.

ETA: I do not recall Tyrion trying to get Tywin to give Sansa back.

As regards your debate with Ran, I think it's a really complicated question. I think with Robb's death there is a good argument the offer ceases. If not, Robb's heir in law is Bran (not Jon incidentally, because Robb named Jon his legal heir in the mistaken belief that Bran was dead and that makes Jon's naming as the next Lord Stark void) and Bran could in law accept Sansa back at a restored Winterfell, as the rightful Lord Stark accepting his sister after a broken engagement contract.

After her marriage to Tyrion though, Sansa is pretty much considered the property of her husband, whom she is sworn to obey. I think she recognizes this herself when she remarks she a duty to stay with her husband to Olenna Tyrell at the end of ASOS when invited to Highgarden.

There are two escape clauses for Sansa. Tyrion might choose to free her in the eyes of gods and men from her marriage vows, testifying to her virginity before the High Septon. Or he might die. In those circumstances Bran might be able to make another marriage for her, as her brother, or she would free to return to Winterfell. If Tyrion frees her, presumably on his return to Westeros with Dany, this gesture would properly be considered restitution or an attempt to make up for failing to keep his original promise though, which would I think lapse for delay. It would have same effect as keeping his promise, but would not be the performance of the promise. So I think I would agree with you that whatever Tyrion did would not be in keeping with his promise.

Could Tyrion rescind the offer? No, he could not. Not once Catelyn Stark freed Jaime. She had already performed part of the contract and taken great risks on the strength of his offer. Those risks couldn't be undone, so the offer couldn't be rescinded. This doesn't mean however that he had the lawful authority to stop his father or uncle for arranging Sansa's marriage, or even to object. Both political power and legal authority was with Tywin. I suppose he could have said 'look I made this offer..' but Tywin would have honored the offer only if he saw the need to do so, and the decision was his to make.

My earlier analysis though is that the terms were to free Jaime alive and unharmed, and Jaime's injury is clearly a significant breach of those terms. I just don't see how the Starks' can escape responsibility in law for that injury. Robb Stark trusted Bolton, and Bolton employed Hoat. The bannerman's fault is the Lords'. That's the clincher for the Lannisters, a legitimate reason for Lord Tywin to refuse to release Sansa. He's well within his rights.

As to Tyrion's personal culpability this is what he says:-

"If your purpose here is to keep her from the Tyrells, why not return her to her mother? Perhaps that would convince Robb Stark to bend the knee."

Lord Tywin's look was scornful. "Send her to Riverrun and her mother will match her with a Blackwood or a Mallister to shore up her son's alliances along the Trident. Send her north, and she will be wed to some Manderly or Umber before the moon turns. Yet she is no less dangerous here at court, as this business with the Tyrells should prove. She must marry a Lannister, and soon."

It's not exactly like Tyrion went out on a limb for her, but he did try and I think he recognized the futility of arguing further on this point. In his further defense he did go out on a limb in refusing to take her virginity.

He pretty much gets an explicit command as well:

"You will marry Sansa Stark, Tyrion. And soon."

[Zoë Sumra]

Grinachu, I never thought I would see someone using the words "promissory estoppel" or invoking the postal rule on a book fandom board. You win, forever and a day.

[Jon Targaryen]

grinachu,

I think Jaime's maiming is irrelevant to the discussion as Tyrion did not know of it when he married Sansa. I was not aware Tyrion suggested returning Sansa and that speaks well of him. However, the fact is that Tyrion married Sansa, thereby preventing her true return to the Starks, when he could have refused. True, Tywin would have married her to some other Lannister but Tyrion could have done his part to honor the offer by not marrying her. Instead he went after being Lord Protector of Winterfell.

[Gaston de Foix]

grinachu,

I think Jaime's maiming is irrelevant to the discussion as Tyrion did not know of it when he married Sansa. I was not aware Tyrion suggested returning Sansa and that speaks well of him. However, the fact is that Tyrion married Sansa, thereby preventing her true return to the Starks, when he could have refused. True, Tywin would have married her to some other Lannister but Tyrion could have done his part to honor the offer by not marrying her. Instead he went after being Lord Protector of Winterfell.

I think that's a fair attitude to have in making a moral judgment about Tyrion's conduct. He was increasingly driven by the vulnerability of his position at court and his desire for lands and lordship. I would point out that Tyrion wasn't aware of Jaime's release. Tywin was through Varys, but he didn't share it Tyrion as far as I remember.

[Gold Storm]

Jaime's POV did cause a lot of people to rethink their opinions about him. POVs give a chance to get into the characters mind and see some of the reasons for their actions. I change my opinion of Jaime after reading his POV he became a deeper character; however, sometimes the POV does not change a opinion. I did not like Theon before I read his POV and after reading it I still could not stand him. POVs give the reader a chance too see why something happened and why the character character that way but does not make them more likable characters.

[Anthem]

For me a better example of PoVs changing my opinion of a character would be Catelyn in AGoT.

I liked Cat in her PoVs; I could sympathise, if not completely understand, her rash decision to arrest Tyrion. But in Tyrion's PoVs Cat came off as a cold, stubborn bitch who has it all wrong, because we know Tyrion is innocent. I applaud Martin's skill of showing how a character we thought we knew can look so different from another character's perspective.

I think many of you are judging the characters too much from a modern point of view.

Incest for example is considered a severe crime against the gods in Westeros, so it is certainly not a trivial thing, even between consenting adults. The Targaryans are clearly an exception here since they basically stand above the law and because of their Valyrian descent.

Yes, but we the readers live in a modern world. We can't help but judge the characters by our standards.

[Grey_Area]

I just noticed an interesting parallel between Robb and Tyrion. Robb is disgusted by Tyrion breaking his solemn vow before the gods to return Sansa (even though it was hardly so solemn as all of that, the messenger was extremely unreliable, in fact it was merely an offer with no expectation nor confirmation of acceptance). Likewise, Tyrion is simply shocked that Robb broke his solemn vow to marry a Frey girl. Now why is it that non-POV Robb doesn't get any hate for his dishonouable conduct? He is criticised for being dumb, and non-pragmatic, but what readers actually fault him for breaking his word to the Freys in itself? I don't recall any. Is that simply because the Freys are so unpleasant, and they got their hideous revenge anyway? That bit of oath-breaking is far less justified than Jaime's kingslaying, imo.

Its because of the way it happened. Robb's broken oath was the way it happened. He said he would marry a Frey, and he would have, but he was injured then nursed back to health by a girl. The girl ended up seducing him. (that's pretty much how I see it!) and he felt bad because he slept with her, so he felt honor bound to marry her. There was no maliciousness in his act. He was just naive, and trying to do the right thing by everyone. It's pretty hard to think someone is a vile oathbreaker cause of something like this. (that and he was kinda COERCED/FORCED into making the marriage vow in the first place, unlike Tyrion. )

[telobsidion]

I want to start by saying this thread is absolutely brilliant.

I'm not a big fan of Jaime Lannister. I agree that his character has made a long way from the darkest hue of grey (after throwing Bran out of the window just because the boy saw what Jaime definitely shouldn't have done) to almost Baleor the Blessed with a golden fist (when he saved Brienne from the bear or when he finally started to think about his oaths more seriously and didn't want to fight actively against the Tullys) but still his lack of spine from the first three books makes me uneasy.

Now, Jaime is far from perfect, but there's more to it than just Bran seeing something Jaime shouldn't be doing. If anybody found out about Jaime's and Cersei's incestuous relationship, they're both dead, along with all three of their children. Think about it yourself. You're doing something you know is considered lawfully wrong but you don't think of as morally wrong, and you're caught completely by surprise. You don't have much time to think, you need to act. If you don't the one you love most and have sacrificed your life for will die. Your three children will die. And you will die. It's a tough spot. At best your life is ruined and you're fleeing, but I believe Joffrey was out on the hunt, and they likely wouldn't get far fleeing. He didn't have too much of a choice, and what little he did have, Jaime does act without thinking too quickly, but surely you can see there are better reasons that what you stated.

[Adanin]

Everyone, Tyrion included knows she was forced to do it and given money as an afterthought. It's as much rape as Gregor and his men having their way with that wine seller's daughter, paying and asking for change.

Ok, now that you mention it, I do recall him acknowledging it was forced. However, the vast majority of it was Tywin's doing and Tyrion was ordered to take part. As I mentioned earlier, Tywin was not a man that most people could disobey. Even as adults, it takes a supreme amount of will for his children to do so. (Consider Jaime's refusal to leave the KG or Cersei's to remarry) Add to that the fact that Tyrion was already angry and hurt. Yes, he wanted revenge, but the means of exacting it was Tywin's...his emotional state simply sapped whatever willingness he might have had to defy his father.

Bottom line, though, he didn't have much of a choice.

Now that we know the full truth, the comparison to Gregor with the wine seller's daughter is apt, but only by placing Tywin in Gregor's position (this is probably where Gregor got the idea). However, we didn't originally know the full truth until very recently and neither did Tyrion. As far as Tyrion was aware, Tysha was a whore. That's what whores do, they have sex for money. Gregor knowingly found a random woman, raped her and then added insult to injury by paying her as if she was a whore.

Furthermore, I will not believe that anyone would believe that a woman would do that willingly and with pleasure, or that adding yourself to the gang is for her own good.

Do a little google research on that statement. I guarantee you'll find photographic and cinematic evidence to the contrary.

Tyrion has that nasty habit of taking revenge on his girlfriends when it turns up they are not the ideal girl he thought they were. Rape and murder, that's an interesting trend. If he gets lovey-dovey with yet another and she dumps him, she'll better be prepared for bigtime torture.

"Not the ideal girl"?? That's what you would call it when your new wife turns out to be a prostitute that was only pretending to love you because she was paid?!? Maybe I'm out there, but that sounds like justifiable homicide. To paraphrase Shae's words, "she was only fucked".

Either way on this one, the whole deal with Tysha is mostly irrelevant to the original topic because I don't believe we'd even be aware of it without Tyrion's POV. Certainly the majority of Westeros doesn't know about it. (I highly doubt Tywin would allow Tysha or her family to speak of it, even if they did I doubt it would leave the vicinity of CR)

Now Shae is a much better example of your point. That was all Tyrion's work. She betrayed him, going above and beyond to condemn him. Legally, that only amounts to perjury...hardly worthy of execution. Killing her was murder, pure and simple. The only thing I will say in his defense is that it wasn't premeditated and it wasn't done in cold blood. Even after finding her in Tywin's room, he didn't kill her until she pushed him a little. Again, not excusing it at all.

However, that still doesn't put him on Jaime's level. Really all we would know of Tyrion is that he is a Lannister and therefore bad. Why are Lannisters bad?...because of the actions of people like Jaime, Tywin, and the men under their command (mostly Gregor and his cronies). In fact, we'd actually have reason to like him because he took out Tywin and possibly Joffrey.