Everything is not "grey" in aSoIaF

[oba]

Oba:

And to you, does this make him just as much a black-on-black villain as the likes of Joffrey, Gregor or Vargo Hoat? I'm not denying that Tywin was a villain, an antagonist, and that he deserved death. What brought me into this discussion was that IMO Tywin isn't as "black" a villain as the three I named. He was as much capable of ordering death and/or destruction as they were, but he did it in pursuit of some goal (winning a battle, weakening an opponent on the strategic level, getting rid of a traitor lord), not because he was a sadist and/or psychopath who enjoyed seeing people suffer like those three.

That's an interesting question. I think Tywin's a more fleshed-out character than those three. (Although, it must be said, that even with Vargo Hoat we get some insight thanks to Roose Bolton that Hoat's brutal actions aren't always done without purpose. Hoat had his reasons for ordering Jaime's hand cut off. It was done in pursuit of a goal and not just because he wanted to see Jaime suffer. Does knowing this make me think Hoat is "less black"? Not really, IMO).

Anyway, I don't think the fact that we get more of Tywin's backstory and see some insight into why he's the man he is necessarily makes him more grey. I loved the conversation between Kevan and Tyrion, but I don't think explanation = exoneration. Yes, Tywin Lannister felt it was his duty to restore his House to its previous heights. Yes he endured slights at the hands of Aerys. No, this doesn't make him less of a villain. Tywin could have accomplished these things without the excessive displays of brutality, callousness, etc. that make him a villain. Again, the reason Tywin is respected and feared is because his actions are excessive. Other lords have unruly bannermen. These other lords don't exterminate those bannermen root and branch. No great lord would have been happy his thirteen year old son married a crofter's daughter. Many great lords would have gotten the marriage annulled. Not many of them would have done what Tywin did.

It's the same thing with Tywin, who's one of my favorite characters. Tywin's primary motivation is securing, protecting, and furthering the interests of House Lannister. As he's the head of House Lannister, I don't think it's unfair to say this is a pretty selfish and self-centered motivation.

In pursuit of this goal, he steps outside of the behavior that is expected and accepted within Westeros society.

Again, what Tywin had Gregor do – pillage, ravage, burn the enemy's land – was done in many instances in historical medieval warfare. A murderous psychopath is ideally suited for that task. In any case, nearly as much blood would have been on Tywin's hands if he'd sent someone else to do his reaving, so it seems odd to me that you would fault Tywin for using Gregor for that task. Would you like Tywin more if he's sent, say, Addam Marbrand, Lyle Crakehall, Devan Lannister and other non-psychopaths to do his reaving?

I always thought that Tywin knowingly continues to use men like Gregor Clegane and Vargo Hoat specifically because they're willing to do things that men like Addam Marbrand and Devan Lannister wouldn't. I think Tywin himself is pretty clear about this.

[Galen M]

Technically (and here I suppose I'm in the same camp as Ayn Rand at least in this), I can agree that people can be "grey" ... ish, but morality itself is not nearly so grey, or even necessarily grey at all. That, in fact, if there weren't blacks and whites, there couldn't even really be a grey. And while Jaime's not so dark as, say, Gregor Clegane, or perhaps even as dark as he was at the start of the series, I still consider him quite dark.

Now we're about to get really off track. I have read all of Ayn Rand's books, and she is about as black as white as possible when it becomes to morality. She may espouse questionable moral positions (i.e., the virtue of selfishness), but her characters are, without fail, in one camp or another. They either follow her moral positions and come off as the good guy, or they eschew that philosophy, and come off as evil. Martin doesn't do that. He gives us reasons to forgive Jaime Lannister, and reasons to hate Catelyn Stark. I never once found myself feeling sympathetic towards James Taggart (who never once laid a hand on anyone, though he did steal), nor have I felt anything other than respect towards Ragnar Danneskjöld (who actually robbed foreign aid ships). I would say that Rand does even go so far as to allow that morality is gray, and it's about doing what you feel is in your best interest, what you need to do for you, rather than some higher authority saying do this for the good of society, or don't do that because it would hurt society.

[Noroldis]

Oba:

Tywin could have accomplished these things without the excessive displays of brutality, callousness, etc. that make him a villain. Again, the reason Tywin is respected and feared is because his actions are excessive. Other lords have unruly bannermen. These other lords don't exterminate those bannermen root and branch.

And look what it got them in some cases. The Freys and Boltons, unruly bannermen under the Tullys and Starks respectively, played a major part in bringing down those two great Houses. The Florents would IMO have happily done the same with the Tyrells after they went over to Stannis.

No great lord would have been happy his thirteen year old son married a crofter's daughter. Many great lords would have gotten the marriage annulled. Not many of them would have done what Tywin did.

True enough, but I've already stated that Tywin's reactions where Tyrion is concerned can be considered an exception to his usual cold-blooded pragmatism.

Tywin's primary motivation is securing, protecting, and furthering the interests of House Lannister. As he's the head of House Lannister, I don't think it's unfair to say this is a pretty selfish and self-centered motivation.

No argument here.

In pursuit of this goal, he steps outside of the behavior that is expected and accepted within Westeros society.

If what Tywin did was so utterly unacceptable in Westerosi society, then why did he essentially get away with it right up until Tyrion gave him a sudden fatal case of bolt-through-bowels? Sure, Tywin may have been feared and/or disliked because of his ruthless deeds, but they certainly doesn't seem to have gone so far beyond Westerosi societal norms that there was a widespread call for his death and the fall of House Lannister. What Aerys did to Rickard, Brandon and the other noblemen in the latter's party, OTOH, was clearly unacceptable by Westerosi standards, and resulted in Robert's Rebellion and the downfall of House Targaryen.

I always thought that Tywin knowingly continues to use men like Gregor Clegane and Vargo Hoat specifically because they're willing to do things that men like Addam Marbrand and Devan Lannister wouldn't. I think Tywin himself is pretty clear about this.

When speaking to Jaime in Feast, Devan mentions that he offered to forage for Tywin, but that the Tywin replied that "some tasks are fit for lions, others are best left to dogs and other beasts," or similar words. Now, I don't know if foraging is the same as reaving, but it does seem to involve pillaging and plundering the enemy's lands. And I'm not so sure as you apparently are that Marbrand and Devan would have been unwilling to go out and reave if Tywin had ordered them to do so. Maybe they wouldn't have been so willing/enthusiastic about it as Gregor, Amory Lorch and Hoat, but flat out refusing your liege lord in the middle of a military campaign?

[Jane Doe]

Again, what Tywin had Gregor do – pillage, ravage, burn the enemy's land – was done in many instances in historical medieval warfare.

That's exactly my thought. The setting of Westeros is mostly like Medieval times. When reading the novel and judging the characters I can't bring myself to judge them using the moral and belief and value system that we have today. The idea of human and civil rights hardly exists and value of lifes of commoner's are basically next to nothing. (I don't know the case of Europe but at least that's the case in China.)

But the case of Ned Stark, it's hard to argue he was a good and moral man in every term, but just he's not cut to play political games and should never have survived Cersei. If he had, I would never have like this book as much.

Also, honorable good men make bad characters. They are boring. Because you can anticipate their next step all the time. There's no fun for me reading them. Check Tony Soprano, Jack Bauer, and more recently, Walter White.

[Theon Greyboy]

Also, honorable good men make bad characters. They are boring. Because you can anticipate their next step all the time. There's no fun for me reading them. Check Tony Soprano, Jack Bauer, and more recently, Walter White.

Don't forget Ned Stark.

And I think TV Tropes summarizes ASOIAF morality pretty well here:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlackAndGrayMorality

Hell, the novels themselves are even listed under the "literature" section. See for yourself. I tend to agree with the points they're making.

[oba]

And look what it got them in some cases. The Freys and Boltons, unruly bannermen under the Tullys and Starks respectively, played a major part in bringing down those two great Houses. The Florents would IMO have happily done the same with the Tyrells after they went over to Stannis.

Yes, Tywin's effective. I've never said otherwise. This doesn't make him not evil, nor does it mean that his methods aren't viewed as excessive even by the other characters within this setting.

If what Tywin did was so utterly unacceptable in Westerosi society, then why did he essentially get away with it right up until Tyrion gave him a sudden fatal case of bolt-through-bowels?

Because he's a very, very powerful man. That doesn't make him less evil nor does it mean that others within the story don't think he's evil.

Sure, Tywin may have been feared and/or disliked because of his ruthless deeds, but they certainly doesn't seem to have gone so far beyond Westerosi societal norms that there was a widespread call for his death and the fall of House Lannister. What Aerys did to Rickard, Brandon and the other noblemen in the latter's party, OTOH, was clearly unacceptable by Westerosi standards, and resulted in Robert's Rebellion and the downfall of House Targaryen.

Yes, but to an extent this is also because Aerys went after targets who were powerful enough to fight back effectively. Big difference between the Starks, Arryns, and Baratheons and the Darklyns and Hollards.

When speaking to Jaime in Feast, Devan mentions that he offered to forage for Tywin, but that the Tywin replied that "some tasks are fit for lions, others are best left to dogs and other beasts," or similar words. Now, I don't know if foraging is the same as reaving, but it does seem to involve pillaging and plundering the enemy's lands. And I'm not so sure as you apparently are that Marbrand and Devan would have been unwilling to go out and reave if Tywin had ordered them to do so. Maybe they wouldn't have been so willing/enthusiastic about it as Gregor, Amory Lorch and Hoat, but flat out refusing your liege lord in the middle of a military campaign?

Again, Clegane, Lorch, and Hoat are infamous for their level of brutality, even in a society that's accustomed to reaving/foraging during times of battle. I think we have plenty of evidence that Tywin's definition of "foraging" might differ from that used by his contemporaries.

Tywin explains to Tyrion why he's loath to serve up Gregor Clegane as "justice" for Doran Martell:

"Not to ... ?" Tyrion was shocked. "I thought we were agreed that the woods were full of beasts."

"Lesser beasts." Lord Tywin's fingers laced together under his chin. "Ser Gregor has served us well. No other knight in the realm inspires such terror in our enemies."

Brynden Tully, who's no stranger to foraging notes the difference when he's talking to Cat about Gregor butchering young Lord Darry.

"Aye, and the last of his line as well. The boy would have brought a fine ransom, but what does gold mean to a frothing dog like Gregor Clegane? That beast's head would make a noble gift for all the people of the realm, I vow."

Jaime, thinking about Gregor, Hoat, and Lorch:

The Bloody Mummers, you mean. Jaime had no more use for these than he did for Gregor Clegane or Amory Lorch. Dogs, his father called them all, and he used them like dogs, to hound his prey and put fear in their hearts.

I don't think we're supposed to excuse Tywin because it's a medieval setting for the simple reason that characters within this setting don't really seem to excuse him for it.

And I don't agree with Pycelle's observation that Tywin is just a man who "did what was needed". There are too many examples that seem to say otherwise, and not just in his treatment of Tyrion.

[King Ned Stark]

Millardkillmore, Kittyhat, and oba, among others. I agree with everything you say.

SerArthurHeath, you're right, I had been drinking heavily when I posted this, the sentence should have been, the outcome does not make the decision morally/intellectually right. Alas, I was on a moral rant.

Being effective does not make you "grey". Those who play by less rules have a greater chance at success.

In the same vein that Ned said "the man who passes the sentence should swing the sword", I also belive that a man who employs a monster is no less a monster than the man he employs.

Everyone has reasons for doing things, even horrible things, that doesn't make them or this series "grey". One can not justify or explain away an evil deed, and the aforementioned characters do evil deeds when it suits their needs, and do good deeds when it suits their needs. The difference is a good person will do a good deed when it suits their needs, but refrains from an evil deed just because it suits their need. Hence not grey, but fairly black and white. True, most people/villains don't sit around "plotting their next evil deed", yet they're always willing to do that evil deed should the need arise. So no, they are not Sauron, but bad/evil guys nonetheless.

And yes, Jaime broke his oath to Catelyn, or was willing to, him justifying to himself that he never "took arms" against Stark or Tully in his own mind is Jaime being Jaime.

MK - "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing" - my favorite quote too, glad you brought it up. Doesn't mean the good men will always win, doesn't really matter, but it does matter that they will try, because no one else will.

[Spring Bass]

MK - "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing" - my favorite quote too, glad you brought it up. Doesn't mean the good men will always win, doesn't really matter, but it does matter that they will try, because no one else will.

Is it a good thing, though?

I like Ned. I understand where he was coming from, and what motivated him.

But the man was ultimately going to be responsible for a civil war in Westeros if Littlefinger hadn't stabbed him in the back, meaning that thousands were going to die because Ned refused to soil his hands and play by the rules of an environment he willingly stepped into. Ned's honor . . . versus thousands of lives. Which is more important?

As for Tywin, I think we may be under-estimating the importance of stability and peace in Westeros. Peace and stability were extremely important in real life (and still are, obviously), but they would be doubly important in Westeros. This is a land where the ravages of war and repeated bad harvests near the end of Summer could very well mean mass starvation in the Winters.

[King Ned Stark]

Wise Bass,

Good points, and I would respectfully ask you this in return: Is it better or right to bend to conformtity, because it's easier, and it "saves lives". Should you be relenting to the bully? Ned could have lived and saved lives, but by doing so he enables those who are wrong and encourages them to keep doing so.

I am reminded of another historical qoute - If I must choose between peace and righeousness, I choose righteousness, Teddy Roosevelt. I tend to agree.

You make really good points, but I must disagree.

[Spring Bass]

Should you be relenting to the bully? Ned could have lived and saved lives, but by doing so he enables those who are wrong and encourages them to keep doing so.

Those committing the wrong were going to do so, whether or not he tried to hold the moral high ground. The only difference is that they would do so over a whole pile of corpses from the conflict Ned would have started.

Even Ned himself sees the need to bend, once his family is in direct danger.

[Kittyhat]

Those committing the wrong were going to do so, whether or not he tried to hold the moral high ground. The only difference is that they would do so over a whole pile of corpses from the conflict Ned would have started.

Even Ned himself sees the need to bend, once his family is in direct danger.

So what's your takeaway from this? That because doing your best to take the high road all of the time can possibly go wrong at some point, you shouldn't even try? That the only way to do anything worthwhile in the world is to be "just a little bit evil"?

Jane Doe goes so far as to say that honorable and good characters are boring. It's kind of funny, really, as to me, the opposite is true. Anymore, we seem to worship at the altar of the anti-hero ... especially if the anti-hero is so bad as to practically be a villain. Bonus points if the protaganist is only regarded as "heroic" at all because he/she is opposing people who are even worse!

There's nothing expressly wrong with those characters, I suppose, but they don't strike me as particularly fresh or new. More, they seem like the characters most commonly represented in fiction of all types today.

If anything, it's unusual to see truly honorable characters represented. And if they are? They'll probably be portrayed as foolish. :rolleyes:

[DurararaFTW]

He says that he doesn't regret loving his sister, only the things he did to hide the love, such as pushing Bran out the window. It's one thing to judge him for betraying his king and his oath as a Kingsguard in loving Cersei, i.e., criticizing his treason. It's another thing to call him evil for sleeping with his sister who is not only willing, but seems to be the initiator in most case.

When the man swears a vow to not take another woman and decicate your life to serving the King, sleeping with the Queen is very much treason and telling your knightly honor where to stick it.

What are you talking about? It's Cersei who had Robert assassinated through Lancel and wine, not Tywin. If you meant Robb instead of Robert, then I just don't understand how it answers the part of my post you quoted. My point was that after Tywin arrived in King's Landing, he was the one in charge and making the decisions, not Joffrey (or anyone else), and so he didn't "serve at Joffrey's leisure" as you stated.

Okay tell me. Tyrion is kidnapped and taken to the Vale, where Lysa Arryn nee Tully rules. Tywin answers to this by burning the Riverlands, I can't fathom why but there you go. He declares war upon as far he knows, The North, the Vale, the Riverlands ad the Hand of the King. Now as utterly evil as I know Tywin is, he's not stupid. He'd be in pretty big trouble if King Robert sat on the throne for a moment longer. He didn't, he was replaced by a Lannister concurrently with these things happening. I have no reason to doubt he knew this was gonna happen. And no. Tywin is still only ever the Hand of the King. He can intimidate Joffrey into this and that, but whenever he leaves for the Rock or any other business he puts the murderous psychopath back in charge of Seven Kingdoms.

[Evamitchelle]

I don't think Tywin knew anything about Cersei's plans to have Robert killed. His answer to Tyrion's kidnapping was to send foraging parties to 3 towns in the Riverlands, but he takes care that they should wear no banners, no colors, in short nothing that can tie them back to Casterly Rock. That way when Ned/the River Lords attack him directly, he can claim that they attacked first, since there is no proof that he had anything to do with the destruction of those villages. He can claim it was just bandits, and since the peasants are all telling different things, it wouldn't be a hard thing to make Robert believe that. So I think his plan there was to get rid of Ned Stark and not Robert.

[DurararaFTW]

I don't think Tywin knew anything about Cersei's plans to have Robert killed. His answer to Tyrion's kidnapping was to send foraging parties to 3 towns in the Riverlands, but he takes care that they should wear no banners, no colors, in short nothing that can tie them back to Casterly Rock. That way when Ned/the River Lords attack him directly, he can claim that they attacked first, since there is no proof that he had anything to do with the destruction of those villages. He can claim it was just bandits, and since the peasants are all telling different things, it wouldn't be a hard thing to make Robert believe that. So I think his plan there was to get rid of Ned Stark and not Robert.

But the riverlords didn't retaliate. Ned Stark sent a party, led by one of the Stormlords under the protection of the King, to take Gregor's head and Gregor's only, that was attacked by Lannisters and killed. And get rid of Ned Stark while keeping Robert as friend? How was that gonna happen?

[Evamitchelle]

Well, I was under the impression that Tywin was expecting Ned to go himself to try and stop the raids on the Riverlands, as Ned wanted to iirc, but Jaime's attack left him crippled and unable to take part in the conflict, which is why he send Lord Beric Dondarrion. If Ned had led an attack on Clegane's party himself, even under the banner of the King's Justice, Tywin could have argued that this was nothing more than a continuation of the Starks "attack" on the House of Lannister. From a Lannister perspective, it goes like this : first, Cat kidnaps Tyrion on the Kingsroad, supposedly on the Hand's orders, and takes him to the Eyrie, then Ned himself leads an attack against Lannister men, though no one can actively confirm that they were responsible in any way for the attacks (especially since the peasants all say different things). This might look suspicious even to Robert if Tywin and the Queen were to support it. After all, he didn't blame Jaime for the deaths of Ned's guards and just told him to "get over it", it's not so outrageous to think he would do it again. Of course, Robert would never go so far as to execute Ned, but he could very well stripe him (again) of his title of Hand of the King, which is basically the only thing the Lannisters wanted at that time.

[iamthedave]

So what's your takeaway from this? That because doing your best to take the high road all of the time can possibly go wrong at some point, you shouldn't even try? That the only way to do anything worthwhile in the world is to be "just a little bit evil"?

Personally I've always felt the story is saying that everyone is indeed 'a little bit evil' which is pretty much the definition of grey morality.

In my own life, though, I've always believed in honour and try to live honourably and honestly. I can't say it's done me much good. I've been accused of things I didn't do, and punished for them, and not once rewarded in a material sense. If there's value in the trying, well, at least I try.

Jane Doe goes so far as to say that honorable and good characters are boring. It's kind of funny, really, as to me, the opposite is true. Anymore, we seem to worship at the altar of the anti-hero ... especially if the anti-hero is so bad as to practically be a villain. Bonus points if the protaganist is only regarded as "heroic" at all because he/she is opposing people who are even worse!

I like honourable characters too. However you're somewhat missing the point on the last line. It's not 'bonus points', that's how the trope of the anti-hero works. The anti-hero is created by juxtaposition, comparing to someone else that is worse than they are or whom the anti-hero is quantifiably better than in some way.

In Jaime's case this is in full swing; he's morally superior to most of the people who judge him, who've been shown to be hypocrites, turncloaks and traitors themselves for the most part, or dead. And while admittedly being dead in no way affects the validity of one's arguments, many people do find it a damning indictment of a lifestyle.

There's nothing expressly wrong with those characters, I suppose, but they don't strike me as particularly fresh or new. More, they seem like the characters most commonly represented in fiction of all types today.

If anything, it's unusual to see truly honorable characters represented. And if they are? They'll probably be portrayed as foolish. :rolleyes:

Well, you're a fan of the series that caused it.

Martin's not called the modern Tolkien for nothing; ASOIF has caused a big shift in the writing of fantasy in general.

People being good for the sake of goodness is just out of style these days, for better or worse.

[Emo Targaryen]

It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that being cool, a badass, and a "celebrity" factor plays heavily into the popularity of the characters, and not who choses right over wrong.

Interesting and fun to read does not equal moral goodness. Brienne might be a thoroughly moral person, but I found her chapters boring and depressing to read (and at the very moment her story became interesting, Martin fabricated a 6-year-cliffhanger). OTOH, Littlefinger is a thoroughly amoral person who wreaks havoc for havoc's sake, but every time he appears in the story, he surprises us with his next clever move. I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels like this, so popularity of a character has nothing to do with their morality. If you want coolness and badassness to coincide with moral goodness, this is definitely the wrong story.

As for the notion of moral "greyness", there are two sorts of amorality in this series: Sadistic amorality and ruthless amorality. While the first kind appears in Joffrey and Gregor (and historically in Aerys) and is more or less universally reviled through the fandom, the second kind appears in most major characters (LF is some of both). Ned as well as Tywin just do what they deem necessary to achieve survival of their house and stability for the realm. They just have very different notions of "appropriate measures": Ned mostly believes in leading by example (but will behead deserters and force slavers into lifelong exile) while Tywin believes in ruling by fear (Want to rebel against him? Remember Castamere?). Surely one can argue that his ends don't justify his means - but that's the whole point of being "grey".

[Noroldis]

Oba:

I have the feeling we're going around in circles. To you, a lot of what Tywin did makes him as evil and reprehensible as the likes of Joffrey, Gregor and Vargo Hoat. Fine. To me, the historical precedent of the chevauchée and the fact that Tywin wasn't a psychopath and/or sadist like those three mean he's not quite as "black" a villain as them. So I think we should just agree to disagree. :)

DurararaFTW:

Okay tell me. Tyrion is kidnapped and taken to the Vale, where Lysa Arryn nee Tully rules. Tywin answers to this by burning the Riverlands, I can't fathom why but there you go. He declares war upon as far he knows, The North, the Vale, the Riverlands ad the Hand of the King. Now as utterly evil as I know Tywin is, he's not stupid. He'd be in pretty big trouble if King Robert sat on the throne for a moment longer. He didn't, he was replaced by a Lannister concurrently with these things happening. I have no reason to doubt he knew this was gonna happen.

If the Stark lands had been located next to the Lannisters', I have no doubt that Tywin would have marched there instead of into the Riverlands. Remember, at the time it was thought by all that Catelyn Stark nee Tully had taken Tyrion north to Winterfell, not to the Vale. But in order to get to the North, the Lannisters needed to pass through the Riverlands. However, because Cat was born a Tully and of that link between Starks and Tullys, it was natural and reasonable for Tywin to assume that the Tullys would fight on the Starks' behalf. Certainly I can't envision the Tullys agreeing to let Tywin and Jaime's armies march through the Riverlands on their way to the North for the ostensible goal of retrieving Tyrion from Catelyn's captivity.

Also, Tywin may have attacked the Riverlands in the hopes of provoking the Starks to bring their army in the south (where Tywin was still near his own lands) instead of him being forced to venture into the faraway North, which is exactly what happened. So while the Starks and Tullys found themselves involved in the fighting right from the start, the Vale had no immediate justification/need to enter the fighting other than maybe Lysa's family ties to the Tullys (which as it turned out meant didly squat to her).

As for Robert, Tywin enacted his ruse with Gregor in an attempt to provoke the Tullys into openly striking at the Westerlands and to lure Ned from King's Landing. Had the ruse fully succeeded, it would have appeared to be the Tullys who first attacked and Ned would have been gone from King's Landing, leaving Cersei free to influence Robert in the Lannisters' favor. She'd already done that when Ned was present (Lady and Tyrion's abduction), imagine what she could have accomplished given a bit of time and with Ned gone. True, Tywn's plan failed, but given all the tensions between Ned and Robert, I don't think it's a given that Robert would ultimately have chosen Ned over the Lannisters.

Also, the Lannisters had Robert by the purse strings practically half of the crown's debt was owed to House Lannister. Robert might have claimed he loathed "counting coppers," but IMO his making Jaime the Warden of the East was a tacit acknowledgement of the huge financial influence the Lannisters had over him. Finally, Cersei herself reflects in Feast that it was Ned searching for answers concerning Robert's bastards that forced her to rid herself of Robert sooner than she'd wanted to no mention of Tywin having urged or ordered her to kill Robert.

All in all, I'm confident that Tywin believed that even if he couldn't make Robert believe it was the Starks and Tullys who had provoked the fighting, he would at least be able to deflect Robert long enough to deal with his foes.

And no. Tywin is still only ever the Hand of the King. He can intimidate Joffrey into this and that, but whenever he leaves for the Rock or any other business he puts the murderous psychopath back in charge of Seven Kingdoms.

Given that Joffrey and Tywin died before this could occur, we'll never know exactly what Tywin intended to do about Joffrey. However, I'll point out that if Joffrey had continued to be unruly, Tywin could have taken him along when he left King's Landing for one reason or another so he could keep him firmly under control.

[iamthedave]

Given that Joffrey and Tywin died before this could occur, we'll never know exactly what Tywin intended to do about Joffrey. However, I'll point out that if Joffrey had continued to be unruly, Tywin could have taken him along when he left King's Landing for one reason or another so he could keep him firmly under control.

Tywin is very good at working with what he's got. When he saw the kind of King Joffrey was, he just steamrollered right over him and got to ruling the realm since he could tell Joff didn't have the goods.

Most likely he was confident in his ability either to domineer him (he's good at that) or that with appropriate guidance Cersei would raise him to be a better king than he was turning out to be.

I seem to recall that he believed Tyrion had been held at Riverrun on the way to Winterfell; but that became a moot point once they captured Jaime, the son he actually loves.

[doz Aemon]

Since when is "grey" an absolute middle-ground between black and white?

Joffrey and Gregor might perhaps be black, but in that case, does that make characters like Tywin, Jaime and the Hound a "lighter shade of black"?

I wouldn't even put those last three in the absolute same position.

Let's use percentage instead! Tywin is an 87% evil feckarse while the Mountain ends up at 99.937% (He didn't rape the baby).