Remind me, why was Tywin a bad guy again?

[Kittyhat]

And some people think Tywin is not a bad guy, but put Stannis on a par with Ramsay Snow. Frankly, there are some fans here I hope I never, ever meet in real life, for they must be a scary bunch.

:agree:

[Grumpy Midget]

And some people think Tywin is not a bad guy, but put Stannis on a par with Ramsay Snow. Frankly, there are some fans here I hope I never, ever meet in real life, for they must be a scary bunch.

Stannis is a fanatic. He had his brother Renly killed because of his warped sense of justice. He would have put Tommen and Mycella's heads on pikes if he got his hands on them... because of his warped sense of justice. So is his fanaticism better or worse than Ramsay's psychopathy? I dunno. Is it just as dangerous? You bet your ass it is. A serial killer along Ramsay's line may kill 100 people over the course of his lifetime. A fanatic like Stannis may kill thousands at a time because he is doing what HE believes to be right.

So you know what scares me? The fans here who insists on seeing the world in terms of pure black and white. I hope for the world's sake none of you ever get in any positions of power.

[Kittyhat]

So you know what scares me? The fans here who insists on seeing the world in terms of pure black and white. I hope for the world's sake none of you ever get in any positions of power.

There's something between "pure black and white" and "everything is gray, so I don't have to think hard anymore."

Remember, gray is only what you get when you mix black and white. You can't have gray unless black and white both do exist first.

Incidentally, I agree that Stannis is a dangerous fanatic. But I also agree that a large number of the posters here have frightening notions of what is acceptable and merely marks "determination."

[Miryana]

So it's ok for Tywin to be blamed for Clegane raping and pillaging, But Robb gets off scotch free for Bolton raping and pillaging? And I see how you conveniently left out the Umbers, 'well see the Greatjon's a "good guy" so all those rumors about hims talking peasant brides to bed on their wedding night must be lies and slander.'

And no, Tywin is not a bad guy, because there are no such things as "good guys" and "bad guys". It all depends on perspective. To his brother Kevan he's a man who was loyal to his family worked tirelessly to restore the family fortune. To Tyrion he was a asshole father who had his one wife gang-raped and fucked his whore. To the people living in Aerys' time he was a Hand who gave them 20 years of peace and stability in spite of a madman on the throne. To the people in King's Landing he was the one responsible for the sack of their city.

Like all of GRRM's characters, Tywin cannot be characterized by "good" or "bad". He, like any other person, has his virtues and his flaws. What angers me is the fact that so many readers are so eager to jump on the moral high horse and pass judgement from on high.

There's no difference between someone who explicitly orders the brutal treatment of masses of civilians as a war strategy and someone who punishes even his lord (Karstark) for murdering helpless members of the family he's at war with?

I am going to be passing judgement from on high on a character who ordered a 14-year-old violently gang-raped by a large group of men and made his 13-year-old son participate. What should my reaction be? Well, Tywin is good to his beloved brother, he gets free licence to abuse his unloved son and, if he should so choose, to personally engage in the Ramsay-style rape, mutilation and murder of those who happen to annoy him? I could imagine GRRM saying something like "everyone thinks he's the hero of his own story" but I can't believe that he'd present characters like Ramsay or events like Tywin's ordering of the gang-rape and not intend for us to see them as something to be condemned. Why is it such a crime to call these characters bad guys? What is the benefit of saying, well, it's all a matter of perspective, we shouldn't judge the serial rapist/torturer/killer because he's good to his dog? I don't see how it improves the literary experience of reading ASOIAF to be so utterly detached from what happens to the world and the characters. People are going to be morally outraged. It's a fact of life and it has political relevance. The causes of outrage differ, but has there ever been a society where there was no concept of good and evil and no wish to reward those who were seen as good and punish those who were seen as evil? Some get away with their deeds. But Tywin died as a direct result of his torture of his son and his son's wife, so it hardly ended up being meaningless to his story. His surviving family is going to be paying for the brutal tactics Tywin chose. To say that "good" and "bad" are a matter of perspective seems to me to obscure the fact that characters in the books have judged Tywin, and for the most part those in power or set to be in power see him as a bad guy and aim to destroy his house (unless it's saved by the son he hated).

Though it's a waste of a question, I'm starting to wish that someone at a book signing would ask GRRM whether he does intend for us to be horrified by Jeyne Poole's forced marriage, brutal rapes and implied possibility of being made to commit bestiality for Ramsay's amusement, and by the rape of Tysha/Tyrion. Because apparently it does need spelling out. (When GRRM makes references to the real world on his blog, he doesn't strike me as someone who'd be indifferent to suffering or have no views about what's good or bad. I would be shocked if he said that it makes him angry to see people pass moral judgement on a child rapist.)

[Grumpy Midget]

So where is the part where those in power or set to be in power see him as a bad guy? The only people aiming to destroy his house are doing it to secure their own power. Tywin, and later Kevan, had to die for the sake of the story because they were on the verge of consolidating power behind the Iron Throne and bringing peace to westeros.

GRRM have stated time and again during interviews that good people does not equal good rulers. Tywin is probably one of the best examples - for all his ruthlessness and personal failings, he was not a bad ruler. In stark contrast to other examples of people with good intentions being bad rulers and causing much, much more pain and suffering for their subjects.

[Tony Soprano]

The characters aren't really black and white. Wouldn't you rather be a " bad guy " like Tywin rather than a " good guy " like Ned or Davos?

The only thing that makes me dislike him a bit, is the killing of Rhaeghar's family. But even that was in the time for war.

And how come you're defending The Reynes? Every single family ( including The reynes ) took money from Lord Tytos and never returned them. He was a weak man. He drove House Lannister to near bankruptcy. And then they rebelled against him. They deserved everything they got. Tywin proved himself as a commander.

The end justifies the means. His family became one of the most power families in The Seven Kingdoms. But Cersei destroyed that... He was surrounded by idiots....

[Grumpy Midget]

The characters aren't really black and white. Wouldn't you rather be a " bad guy " like Tywin rather than a " good guy " like Ned or Davos?

I don't know man, smuggling sounds like fun. I'm not sure I could pass up a chance to flip off those damn tax collectors and toll officials.

[corbon]

So it's ok for Tywin to be blamed for Clegane raping and pillaging, But Robb gets off scotch free for Bolton raping and pillaging? And I see how you conveniently left out the Umbers, 'well see the Greatjon's a "good guy" so all those rumors about hims talking peasant brides to bed on their wedding night must be lies and slander.'

And no, Tywin is not a bad guy, because there are no such things as "good guys" and "bad guys". It all depends on perspective. To his brother Kevan he's a man who was loyal to his family worked tirelessly to restore the family fortune. To Tyrion he was a asshole father who had his one wife gang-raped and fucked his whore. To the people living in Aerys' time he was a Hand who gave them 20 years of peace and stability in spite of a madman on the throne. To the people in King's Landing he was the one responsible for the sack of their city.

Like all of GRRM's characters, Tywin cannot be characterized by "good" or "bad". He, like any other person, has his virtues and his flaws. What angers me is the fact that so many readers are so eager to jump on the moral high horse and pass judgement from on high.

Tywin gets judged because we do know enough 'facts' to judge him.

It is not in dispute that he directly ordered the gang-rape of a young girl, and directly ordered his 13 year old son to participate. That is bad, period. There were numerous ways he could have dealt with the situation but he chose brutality and torture. Chose it over other options.

It is not in dispute that he ordered the illegal ravaging of the Riverlands, before there was any war, in order to draw out Ned Stark. The criminal ravaging is on his head. That is bad.

It is not in dispute that he treated his son Tyrion awfully. Enough to be bad.

It is in dispute whether he turned a blind eye to his children's incest, treason and murder, or just didn't know. Maybe Bad, but we can't tell for sure. Definitely not good. He didn't raise his children to become good people. Instead the children he raised are selfish, arrogant and narcissistic, and borderline insane in one case. He is at least in part responsible for how they turned out.

It isn't certain that he orchestrated the Red Wedding, as opposed to agreeing to it. But he certainly did condone and reward people guilty of breaking the most sacred traditions in his society. That is Bad, no matter if it saved countless lives. No one in westeros can ever rely on guest right again.

His reputation for 20 years of peace under his administration is in fact a lie. There was definitely at least one rebellion during this time, and his conduct in that rebellion led to an escalation of Aerys' madness.

He is also responsible for Vargo Hoat's actions. Hoat came with a reputation, and matched that reputation with his actions. Tywin hired exactly one free company. He chose a tool for a task, and used it. He is to blame for the result of using that tool, especially since the results fitted the reputation. He bought and paid for terror and murder and rape, beyond the usual boundaries of war as a deliberate choice, and is responsible for that choice he made. That is Bad.

Rob gets off scot free for Boltons' actions because Bolton was actively working against Robb and Robb didn't know about them (and Bolton actively concealed some of his actions from the Starks).

Similarly he gets a pass for the Karstark depredations because at that time the Karstarks had left his forces after he disciplined Rickard Karstark in the ultimate matter for murder. They were no longer under his authority.

"Perspective" is not enough. There are actions that are good and bad, sufficient that they are judgeable. Sometimes our judgement changes in the light of new facts - such as Jaime's Kingslaying.

Some of Tywin's actions are questionable, but we cannot definitively judge them due to circumstances. Others are not. We can and do judge them.

The information we have at this time is more than sufficient to judge Tywin a Bad guy.

[FuzzyJAM]

So where is the part where those in power or set to be in power see him as a bad guy? The only people aiming to destroy his house are doing it to secure their own power. Tywin, and later Kevan, had to die for the sake of the story because they were on the verge of consolidating power behind the Iron Throne and bringing peace to westeros.

GRRM have stated time and again during interviews that good people does not equal good rulers. Tywin is probably one of the best examples - for all his ruthlessness and personal failings, he was not a bad ruler. In stark contrast to other examples of people with good intentions being bad rulers and causing much, much more pain and suffering for their subjects.

You realise with this post that you essentially just called Tywin a "bad guy", which is what you're arguing against, right?

Tywin may well be a fairly decent ruler all told when given the opportunity. He's still a terrible person.

[Kittyhat]

The characters aren't really black and white. Wouldn't you rather be a " bad guy " like Tywin rather than a " good guy " like Ned or Davos?

First off?

F*** no. I'd want to kill torture to death destroy everything held dear by, then torture to death someone like Tywin. I certainly wouldn't want to be him, or anyone like him.

I'd like to be more like Ned or Davos or Brienne, but realistically I'm too hotheaded and don't really live up to their standard. But I want to.

And would you please stop parroting the moral relativism "things aren't black and white" crap? I think we've all heard it enough now. People who say that constantly like to think it's the wisest bloody thing in the world to say, but really it just amounts to laziness as you dismiss all discussion of morality by just waving your hands and simplistically declaring, "It's all gray!" Then you don't have to think critically anymore.

[Grumpy Midget]

blah, blah

Get off your moral high horse. The people who died in the war don't give two shits that Robb is the "good guy" and Tywin is the "bad guy".

[Grumpy Midget]

You realise with this post that you essentially just called Tywin a "bad guy", which is what you're arguing against, right?

Exactly what I'm arguing against. Pigeonholing GRRM's complex characters into "good guys" and "bad guys".

[Grumpy Midget]

First off?

F*** no. I'd want to kill torture to death destroy everything held dear by, then torture to death someone like Tywin. I certainly wouldn't want to be him, or anyone like him.

I'd like to be more like Ned or Davos or Brienne, but realistically I'm too hotheaded and don't really live up to their standard. But I want to.

And would you please stop parroting the moral relativism "things aren't black and white" crap? I think we've all heard it enough now. People who say that constantly like to think it's the wisest bloody thing in the world to say, but really it just amounts to laziness as you dismiss all discussion of morality by just waving your hands and simplistically declaring, "It's all gray!" Then you don't have to think critically anymore.

Take it easy, Ramsay Snow.

[The Fallen]

A lot of reasons have been given to make the point that Tywin is a bad guy.

I also wanted to point out that during Robert's Rebellion, Jon Connington was dismissed for not capturing an injured Robert. Connington wanted to avoid as much collateral damage as possible. But, everyone agrees that had Tywin been given that assignment he would've just burned down the whole town in order to force Robert out from hiding. Again, not exactly the actions of a boy scout.

A lot of posters act as if everyone in the Seven Kingdoms is amoral. Even in Westeros, like other societies, there are standards and social mores that most folks follow. For example, the guest rights. Not every lord behaves as barbaric as Lord Tywin. Lord Tully is an example, even after the Mountain committed his atrocities against the people of the riverlands, Hoster Tully commanded his bannermen to go before the Small Council to bring the Mountain to justice instead of trying to get revenge.

There is no justification for some of the behavior that's displayed by certain individuals. And Lord Tywin happens to be one of them, along with the Boltons, Greyjoys and even the Freys for the Red Wedding.

[FuzzyJAM]

Exactly what I'm arguing against. Pigeonholing GRRM's complex characters into "good guys" and "bad guys".

In the real world, people are complex and shades of grey - nobody is debating that. GRRM tries to show that as well.

That doesn't change the fact that, just as in the real world almost any standard leaves Hitler (good ol' Godwin) as a "bad guy", there can be characters in fiction which embraces moral ambiguity who also fit the term.

[Kittyhat]

Take it easy, Ramsay Snow.

Hurr hurr.

I reserve my ire for the monsters, thank you. Just because I can hate a complete monster enough to be capable of vicious vengeance against him or her given the opportunity doesn't mean I'm the same as Ramsay. Of course, I suppose to a moral relativist bent on believing there's no material moral difference between a child-murdering rapist and anyone else, I suppose it might seem that way.

It might put me on the same moral plane as Arya with respect to vengeance; I'll give you that. And I never said I'm half so pure as Brienne or Ned or Davos; in fact I just finished saying I only wish I were.

[Grumpy Midget]

A lot of reasons have been given to make the point that Tywin is a bad guy.

I also wanted to point out that during Robert's Rebellion, Jon Connington was dismissed for not capturing an injured Robert. Connington wanted to avoid as much collateral damage as possible. But, everyone agrees that had Tywin been given that assignment he would've just burned down the whole town in order to force Robert out from hiding. Again, not exactly the actions of a boy scout.

A lot of posters act as if everyone in the Seven Kingdoms is amoral. Even in Westeros, like other societies, there are standards and social mores that most folks follow. For example, the guest rights. Not every lord behaves as barbaric as Lord Tywin. Lord Tully is an example, even after the Mountain committed his atrocities against the people of the riverlands, Hoster Tully commanded his bannermen to go before the Small Council to bring the Mountain to justice instead of trying to get revenge.

There is no justification for some of the behavior that's displayed by certain individuals. And Lord Tywin happens to be one of them, along with the Boltons, Greyjoys and even the Freys for the Red Wedding.

As Ramsay err Kittyhat was nice enough to demonstrate for us above. It is a slippery slope going from passing moral judgement on everything to advocating murder and torture. You know how many times I have read people posting here advocating the killing of every Frey, man, woman, and child?

[Kittyhat]

As Ramsay err Kittyhat was nice enough to demonstrate for us above. It is a slippery slope going from passing moral judgement on everything to advocating murder and torture. You know how many times I have read people posting here advocating the killing of every Frey, man, woman, and child?

There's a reason the "slippery slope" is also commonly identified as a logical fallacy.

"If first you start out by passing moral judgment on child-murdering rapists, before long you'll be killing kittens and eating babies!"

Yeah, no.

[Battlekitten]

My two stars

I feel Tywin had it in him to be great and good (by his society's standards). Remember him standing up for his sister as still a boy

Then his beloved wife died

His brother died, one brother went missing.

It is almost as if part of him, the feeling part died too

Or he killed it

[Grumpy Midget]

Hurr hurr.

I reserve my ire for the monsters, thank you. Just because I can hate a complete monster enough to be capable of vicious vengeance against him or her given the opportunity doesn't mean I'm the same as Ramsay. Of course, I suppose to a moral relativist bent on believing there's no material moral difference between a child-murdering rapist and anyone else, I suppose it might seem that way.

It might put me on the same moral plane as Arya with respect to vengeance; I'll give you that. And I never said I'm half so pure as Brienne or Ned or Davos; in fact I just finished saying I only wish I were.

If a fictional character can get you so worked up as to have thoughts of violence going through your head, you need more help than me or anyone else on this forum could provide.