Is the series really as morally grey as has been made out?

[total1402]

I was thinking about how the series compared to another I had read (Wars of Light and Shadow). That book was blatantly morally and literally biased toward one faction despite having the audacity to state otherwise in the preface. But it then occurred to me that, although the maligned factions do win at times and the heroes suffer major setbacks unlike L&S; it’s still really the same. So they aren’t really grey. By grey I mean that both factions have roughly equal positive and negative points; that the reader can’t really point to one and say they’re the goodies.

For example:

House Stark/Lannister

Ned is executed for trying to do the right thing and his son comes trying to avenge him; before eventually breaking away with the North like his ancestors against the mad King Joffrey. All of which was engineered by selfish Cersei who had murdered the previous King. The Starks are totally in the right doing all of these things and the Lannister position is wrong. It couldn’t be more black and white.

The conflict begins with Gregor Clegane, a sociopath whose crimes are explained at length and who Tywin lets loose. In contrast, the Starks save the Riverlords and the author mutes the violence committed by the Starks for example the invasion of the Westerlands. It’s never addressed sincerely by the Lannister faction (who are often shown abusing Sansa, an innocent maiden). Even Tyrion, a Lannister who has the readers sympathy, is shown as detesting the behaviour of his siblings, knows they’re in the wrong and his own actions are kept neatly separate from those by House Lannister like the RW.

Whilst Robb is the young hero king. Alexander the Great in wolf skin and who acts with honour (however much this causes him harm). Joffrey is, well, Joffrey and Sansa POV demonstrate this is incredibly brutal terms.

Dany/Slavers

Yes, Dany commits “harsh justice” against them. So much so that it puts her off similar behaviour in ADWD to some extent “sick of war...wanted to plant trees”. But, the slavers are unbelievably evil. They repeatedly are shown as being totally inhumane towards people they see as property. Including practices like mutilation, whippings and not once express any mercy or desire for change. Dany takes their slaves away. They start fighting her in Mereen. Dany on the other hand not only shows great compassion in her mission to free the slaves, but also as she crucifies them in Mereen feels a sense of pity and self-doubt the slavers do not show. Her reasons are also far more just. She wants to help people being cruelly treated by an unrepentant society unwilling to change. Thousands of slaves help Dany and cheer her as their mother. Also, although she does use collective punishment. This is not indiscriminate. Martin references classical antiquity with the slaver cities. Freemen exist in comfort by having a large resevoir of slaves and they all profit by this system. Hence all adults are likely slave owners, overseers and certainly violently opposed to the slaves being freed. Its also established that over the age of twelve is considered an adult in both Westeros and Essos; hence liable for punishment. So slavery is a crime committed by a society established in brutal terms to be evil; so all must be punished. Theres also the fact that all the slavers we see in Quentyn, Dany, Vics and Tyrions POVs are all snivelling little gits that are cartoonishly evil. There just isn’t as much of an issue here as people are making. The slavers are bad. Dany is good but her methods questionable. Thats not really grey. Certainly not balanced.

Starks/Frey+Bolton

I assume I don’t need to say anything for this one. ;)

Starks/Ironborn

Theon knows he wasn’t maltreated and admits this later on how he wanted to be a Stark; he was bullied into what he did. But what he did was still horrific and he accepts this later on. Balon was offered the Kingship that he wanted but instead chose to conquer the North and inflict misery on it. Then you have the fact that they’re reavers and have practices established to be barbaric; whilst those of the Starks are muted.

Stannis/Lannister

This is the single, only possible exception that may be seen as grey as you are reading Cok. Stannis hates the treasonous Starks and is being manipulated by apparently evil Melisandre. In hindsight however, Stannis was a cold but just King. Mel wants to fight the evil others and a few burnings of religious shrines don’t really weigh up against the crimes of House Lannister. Renly and the Lord of Storms End were clearly oathbreaking and Renly was about to commit kinslaying by marching on his brother rather than bowing. We learn that such magic is not inherently evil; all magic involves some unpleasant blood magic. Again, the only reason we back the Lannisters is because Tyrion is forced to take the shit as hand and defend the city. Fighting Stannis doesn’t make the Lannisters or Jof/Cersei any better. Stannis isn’t even just the lesser of two evils. Hes just a King that wants what he sees as his due and to carry out true justice the realm isn’t prepared to carry out. A fight between Rob and him may very well have been grey but this does not happen.

Targ/Usurpers

A lot of grey is invoked with the usurper war between the Targs and usurpers; but this has yet to have any bearing on the main plot so is also largely irrelevant. Plus, you could argue that the sting would be taken out if Dany would get told that it was just Lannister that was in the wrong for murdering Ellia and the children. Again, one evil (no reason to do what they did save for Tywin feeling a bit hard done) factions removes the complication from what could have been a deeply grey set of events. The usurpers having good reasons but killing the Targs; instead of Tywin Lannister screwing everything up and forcing Rob to take the throne.

As for the characters...I’ll just take a few obvious ones

The Hound-Hes a thug in the beginning never truly evil, but he has a heart and does way too much to protect Sansa. So whilst I acknowledge that Arya and Sansa have a negative view of him; I never felt the hound was truly a badie and by the end of GoT it was pretty obvious what he was. Unlike the mountain.

Jamie-I remember watching the show. The conversation with Ned and him at the throne leaves you in no doubt that Ned is a bigot and hypocrite. Jamie’s big deal over Aerys being a grey decision is pretty silly considering how what was already uncomplicated “he was mad, he had to go and I had a chance” to “he was gonna blow up Kings Landing and told me to kill my father”. Pretty straightforward. Hes no mountain and hes no Brave Companion.

[Lady Wylla Manderly]

I'm going to answer the human & Houses aspects of your post because I have yet to make up my mind about the Long Night, Ice and Fire, etc... While I have doubts when it comes to the magical aspects (because we've yet to read all the information about them), I'm actually rather strict about most characters, and find myself surprised (even annoyed) when people deem certain characters "complex and grey" which I think are unredeemable arseholes.

House Stark/Lannister

I agree with you about House Stark/House Lannister conflict. Completely. Bless you. It really couldn't be more black and white, hence I find myself annoyed (as I stated above) when some people try to justify certain acts of certain Lannister's.

Dany/Slavers

I agree with this, too. (I think I'm going to end up agreeing with all your examples xD) One might call her methods "grey," but that doesn't make her "purpose" any less than honourable.

Starks/Frey+Bolton

Starks/Ironborn

These were the events (or Houses) I meant when I mentioned the word "unredeemable" above. I'm not going to argue with this point because the last time I made a comment about ironborn and their... ahem, interesting ways, I got a lot of hate and I don't want to repeat that. To those who support them: justify all you want but, slaughtered guests in their home, flays and wears the skins of enemies, proud of reaving and raping. That is all.

Stannis/Lannister

And I'd also like to add to your explanation that while Stannis does see Robb as a usurper and a traitor, he also remarks that "no man can question his courage" and accepts that a northman who fought for Robb "may see him as his rightful King." (When comparing Robb's situation with Renly's.) So he doesn't exactly lack emphaty or blindly hate the Stark's, either.

Targ/Usurpers

Now I'll say that this is a pretty grey one. On one side, "kidnapped" bethroed, slaughtered brother and father, A mad king demanding the heads of the young lords of the North and the Vale. On the other side (after the sack) a destroyed dynasty and slaughtered children and a raped and murdered princess.

The Hound-Hes a thug in the beginning never truly evil, but he has a heart and does way too much to protect Sansa. So whilst I acknowledge that Arya and Sansa have a negative view of him; I never felt the hound was truly a badie and by the end of GoT it was pretty obvious what he was. Unlike the mountain.

Jamie-I remember watching the show. The conversation with Ned and him at the throne leaves you in no doubt that Ned is a bigot and hypocrite. Jamie’s big deal over Aerys being a grey decision is pretty silly considering how what was already uncomplicated “he was mad, he had to go and I had a chance” to “he was gonna blow up Kings Landing and told me to kill my father”. Pretty straightforward. Hes no mountain and hes no Brave Companion.

Sandor: No comment.

Jaime: I too, don't understand the reasoning of anyone (or any character) who judges him for killing Aerys. However, don't forget that he shoved a kid out of a window, and would have killed another (Arya) just to please Cersei. Even during his "redemption arc" or whatever he admits this, and STILL insists that "the boy" was spying on them, and doesn't show any remorse about it. So I don't think Jaime is really grey either. But not in a good way.

I rambled too much, didn't I? xD

On the whole, I agree with you. One of the great things about ASOIAF is how realistic the characters are, and most people are morally grey. But sometimes I think the fandom makes them TOO grey, and tries to find something grey even in their vilest acts. Reading too much into things usually ends up with wrong/incorrect results.

[Lady Sansa Stark]

As I said in another thread, morality is in the eyes of the beholder and is subjective. So while you may/seem to think (you can correct me if I'm wrong) that Starks are inherently good and the Lannisters inherently bad, that is really your moral judgement and not the only moral or even good or bad moral judgement. Immanuel Kant thought that people could derive their morality from 'nature' and that morality was universal, but I think that it is just the result of the time we're living in, the culture you're living in, your education, upbringing etc.

As to how morally grey a Song of Ice and Fire is.. Well, it is definitely morally grey. But not all characters are morally grey. Anyone who calls Ramsay Bolton morally grey has lost it somewhere along the way. But see, this is also a moral judgement of me, but not necessarily the good or bad moral judgement. ;)

[Khal GoGo]

I see your points here, but we do have other conflicts. For example; Lannister-Baratheon (or from our POVs, Tyrion-Davos/Stannis). Also, think about the upcoming battles. Stannis, Daenerys, "Aegon" and even Tommen all want to sit the throne, they can't all do it. I don't think I can choose a right or a wrong side from them 4.

[Lummel]

I think the greyness of the series is underplayed in the OP. It's not a question of one faction or other being white or black it is a question of the entire game of thrones being a grey process, it is the question of entire institutions being grey - inadequate and failing in different degrees, it is the question of the whole of society being grey, fundamentally unjust.

Look at the war between starks and lannisters. Then read Septon Meribalds speech. Think about the war between Robb and Twyin from the perspective of a peasant family in the riverlands or a soldier in one of the armies. I would put it to you that if you still think of Robb as a morally white character that you are missing part of the story that GRRM is telling you. Of course at the same time from the POV of Maerge Mormont then Robb is her king, it would be inconceivable for her to think of him as anything other than a good guy and this is where the greyness of the series comes in because it offers us alternative perspectives. There isn't a single right perspective. Even the morally best characters are conflicted and aware of their own shortcomings and failures.

[jarl the climber]

Lummel makes a good point. Another thing to keep in mind is that the Lannisters lack of morals is what allow them to win, at least in the shaort term. While Ned and Robbs honor causes them to fail both themselves and their people. How many people lost their lives over Neds honor and mercy? Or like Maester Aemon said, "some bad men have been good kings and some good men have been bad ones." So morality can seem selfish when you are a ruler or have responsibility for other people and you can not do what is needed because it would besmirch your honor.

[total1402]

I think the greyness of the series is underplayed in the OP. It's not a question of one faction or other being white or black it is a question of the entire game of thrones being a grey process, it is the question of entire institutions being grey - inadequate and failing in different degrees, it is the question of the whole of society being grey, fundamentally unjust.

Look at the war between starks and lannisters. Then read Septon Meribalds speech. Think about the war between Robb and Twyin from the perspective of a peasant family in the riverlands or a soldier in one of the armies. I would put it to you that if you still think of Robb as a morally white character that you are missing part of the story that GRRM is telling you. Of course at the same time from the POV of Maerge Mormont then Robb is her king, it would be inconceivable for her to think of him as anything other than a good guy and this is where the greyness of the series comes in because it offers us alternative perspectives. There isn't a single right perspective. Even the morally best characters are conflicted and aware of their own shortcomings and failures.

I think that requires too much reading between the lines. How do you seperate Robbs actions from those of the common soldiers? To what extent is he constrained by the period he is in and the way warfare is waged. The fact that hes left with no choice due to the Lannisters behaviour and essentially asking him to come to Kings Landing and be executed like his father. The author makes it much more difficult to blame Robb Stark for this behaviour and even then its displayed as a lot tamer than Gregor Cleganes men.

Plus, I'am not really a fan of that view. Its kinda silly to write about a medieval world and make a big between the lines thing about how horrible and rotton it is by modern standards of democracy, meritocracy, no limitations on power, human rights etc etc etc. People know the medieval period is not a modern democracy.

I don't think a lot of it comes down to relativity. The Lannisters don't even believe they're in the right. Jamie knows hes being a bastard. Cersei is a sociopath. Tyrion just goes along with it because of family. Tywin, arguably, is none the wiser; though he orchestrates the Red Wedding and is a cruel man for what he does to Tyrion. I just don't think you can weight characters and factions so heavily and claim its that grey.The goodies do unsavoury things because they're in a medieval world and not fighting orcs but are rampaging over the countryside. As for the slavers. My University professor once joked that he could make a good case for slavery. The slavery practiced by the Ghiscari is like something out of an abolitionist propaganda poster times by ten and without even making the (empty) excuse that the people they're trading are subhuman. Even when Xaro tries to make his case he only says "its good for us" and makes a nice world for us noble freemen to live in. I mean slavery is one of those grenades that simply doesn't merit any debate and the author almost never portrays them sympathetically. Again, I find it strange that Janny Wurts and George Martin don't bring the factions more into line despite overt claims to greyness. If I can pretty easily decide who is a goody and the other is portrayed as villainish; then its just more like muddying the waters. Really I shouldn't know who to back.

[total1402]

Lummel makes a good point. Another thing to keep in mind is that the Lannisters lack of morals is what allow them to win, at least in the shaort term. While Ned and Robbs honor causes them to fail both themselves and their people. How many people lost their lives over Neds honor and mercy? Or like Maester Aemon said, "some bad men have been good kings and some good men have been bad ones." So morality can seem selfish when you are a ruler or have responsibility for other people and you can not do what is needed because it would besmirch your honor.

I actually think thats an issue. Martin says he doesn't want good vs bad. But he also says that the heros and the goodies can meet bad deaths. Hence he has lots of nieve but outwardly good characters killed by morally reprehensible characters. Those two concepts just don't go together. You can't make the factions grey and have the nieve goodies being outfoxed by the unscrupulous villains.

[Samsaptakas]

Greyness of the series come from characters. There is only Sansa, who has not done any crime. Every other character had done something unacceptable. We, readers can understand their pov. We might not agree with them

[TheWanderer]

As I said in another thread, morality is in the eyes of the beholder and is subjective.

That's not an argument, that's a cop-out. At the very best what you're arguing is that the characters should only be judged by the morals of their own culture. Almost all of the characters are behaving from the same perspective (that of a roughly medieval western civilization). So while exceptions can be made for people who come from a differing perspective (the Dothraki, Iron borne, Wildlings and such), there is no forgiving the behavior of the Lannisters in story. Not a single group in Westeros deigns the sanctity of the guest right, therefore the breaking of it is a moral reprehensible act. Personally, I don't view Guest Right as a moral obligation, or at least my moral perspective frames it another way, but that does not prevent me from recognizing that the Westerosi do, nor does it prevent me from viewing characters who violate it as bad people.

Look at the war between starks and lannisters. Then read Septon Meribalds speech. Think about the war between Robb and Twyin from the perspective of a peasant family in the riverlands or a soldier in one of the armies.

Morality is not the same as reality. War is hell, few people will try to deign that, but that does not mean there are no good reasons for war. Robb's reasoning for war is morally and legally just (indeed I'd call it morally required), Tywin's reasoning is not. Yes, the war is brutal, people die and soldiers on both sides do things they should regret, but that does not make it wrong. A conflict does not become grey just because the good guys don't win cleanly and justly, it just becomes realistic. IMO the 'grey-ness' of a story depends on the morality of those involved, the reasoning behind their decisions, not necessarily the decisions themselves. Compare WWI and WWII for example. WWI is (for me) a grey conflict: there aren't really any truly defining causes and those causes that do exist are pretty morally ambiguous. On the other hand WWII is much more black-and-white. And yet despite that, WWII was still one of the most brutal and barbaric wars in human history. A war fought for good reasons can still be ugly.

I would put it to you that if you still think of Robb as a morally white character that you are missing part of the story that GRRM is telling you.

If it was GRRM's intention to make Robb a morally grey character than he failed. I think that's what the OP was getting at: people claim ASOIAF is grey, they claim characters like Robb are grey but they aren't. Robb is a good person, he makes decisions that he believes are for the common good, and generally are, he has virtues and integrity. To find fault with Robb's morals requires a stretch of reasoning and logic that is not supported by the text.

[Commander Jon Snow]

Well yeah, there are characters that are good relatively speaking like Ned and Davos. There are also monsters like Ramsay. Morally gray to me refers to other main characters, particularly Tyrion and Jaime. Maybe Dany joins that list in the book as well

[FaSome]

I'd say the series as a whole is completely grey. Martin seems to make examples out of the characters that lean too much towards good or bad. I mean Mr. Goodie2shoes loses his head, his son is killed at a dinner table, Mr. turncloak is reduced to reek etc. The list can go on and on, thats what i really love about asoiaf. It seems more realistic than most fantasy worlds where everyone is either Dr. Evil or your friendly neigborhood spiderman and then you might have that one neutral guy who gets no screen time. Everyone in asoiaf has goals and believe in their cause, which makes it hard to classify most as either good or bad. The characters that go the farthest in asoiaf are the ones who can adapt and are willing to do what is needed. I believe thats exactly what characters like Dany and Jon are being slowly forced to accept, that they cant be the hero in every situation.

[Lummel]

I think that requires too much reading between the lines. How do you seperate Robbs actions from those of the common soldiers? To what extent is he constrained by the period he is in and the way warfare is waged. The fact that hes left with no choice due to the Lannisters behaviour and essentially asking him to come to Kings Landing and be executed like his father. The author makes it much more difficult to blame Robb Stark for this behaviour and even then its displayed as a lot tamer than Gregor Cleganes men.

Plus, I'am not really a fan of that view. Its kinda silly to write about a medieval world and make a big between the lines thing about how horrible and rotton it is by modern standards of democracy, meritocracy, no limitations on power, human rights etc etc etc. People know the medieval period is not a modern democracy...

I disagree.

It is not reading between the lines when we have the Arya POV taken through the heart of the war and experiencing it from the bottom up. She is explicitly told that the wolves are no better than the lions. In AFFC we have Brienne travelling through the aftermath of war and confronted with the results of the fighting on places and people - this is what the author is showing us.

Now Robb has unleashed war because his father and by extension his house was disrespected. Is causing so much harm and destruction for that reason good? Of course he has to do it because of the way the power system works in Westeros, he can't afford to look weak. So we have got a deeply flawed political system that is going to produce horrible results in order to protect the positions of a very small number of people. In other words the whole social set up is grey. This really isn't the way the world works in LOTR which is your archetypal good versus evil set up.

Remember is is a work of fiction. Everything that happens does so because it contributes to the story that GRRM is telling us, ie if it is in his world it is because he chose it, deliberately and carefully, to be there.

Robb seems personally to be an ok person, but an ok person in a bad system is going to produce poor results all the same. The north is facing an existential challenge that he knows about, not the Boltons, White Walkers or the Lannisters but winter. People will die because he called the banners and people were taken away from the fields before the harvest - we're told that about both the Umbers and the Karstarks.

I would compare Robb to one of the kingsguard like Oakheart who despite being personally decent still smacks Sansa around because he was only following orders. Likewise Robb is personally decent but follows the dictates of his society with the results that we see in the riverlands. By contrast we have Prince Doran who resists those dictates - but that has it's consequences too.

The whole set up is grey with no easy answers, when Daenerys wipes the slate clean and starts afresh in Meereen it doesn't turn out perfectly either. As a reader you are constantly making moral assumptions, many of which as we can see on the boards here are debatable.

[The Mountain That Flies]

It is not reading between the lines when we have the Arya POV taken through the heart of the war and experiencing it from the bottom up. She is explicitly told that the wolves are no better than the lions. In AFFC we have Brienne travelling through the aftermath of war and confronted with the results of the fighting on places and people - this is what the author is showing us.

Now Robb has unleashed war because his father and by extension his house was disrespected. Is causing so much harm and destruction for that reason good? Of course he has to do it because of the way the power system works in Westeros, he can't afford to look weak. So we have got a deeply flawed political system that is going to produce horrible results in order to protect the positions of a very small number of people. In other words the whole social set up is grey. This really isn't the way the world works in LOTR which is your archetypal good versus evil set up.

These sum up the problem pretty well. While we can't technically say Robb is responsible for the actions of all his men, it's a bit hard to look at the devastation Stark men took part in and label them as purely good guys. But perhaps the point of the series' morality is that when you have power concentrated into the hands of a very few groups, who are constantly competing with each other, a lot of innocent people are going to be caught in the crossfire. Which, as history tells us, is pretty damn accurate for how humanity has functioned over time.

[total1402]

Its not really a question of looking strong for the Starks. With Tywin it began as a desire to inflict punishment and we know it came from the top; beginning a war when Robert was still King rather than wait for the Kings justice. Robb is a medieval ruler with a medieval army. He lacks the ability to impose discipline on his motley force, hence he can't stop things like whores being hanged. If we look at Dany with the Unsullied, she does not have this problem and her Unsullied cow anyone (with time and brutality) who disobeys her order to keep the peace; which is a lot easier to do in a city anyway. I don't think the character would endorse that, hence the lower class perception is wrong with regard to the right and wrong of the factions. Every unit has its own lords, many with personal reasons for hating Lannisters like the Tullys, with many smaller sub-units under knights, many are operating over a wide area with independent command; controlling such a force is difficult much less organising punishment for misbehaviour. Theres also the fact that a medieval army needs to live off the land and this does beget violence. Tywin dd what he did because he was cruel and wanted vengence; aside from being in the wrong anyway. However this may be justly hated by the smallfolk, by the standards of the day, thats what war was; doesn't really have much bearing on the conflict. It just demonstrates the smallfolks misunderstanding and the author conveying the realities of even a "just war" with the impliments of the time; but a "just war" all the same. By the standards of most historical conflicts its still pretty black and white. It jsut means that even righteous decisions can have very negative consequences especially where war is concerned and that the author undermines some of the heroes justifications. Its greyer than Lord of the Rings, but compared to history; no.

[Lady Sansa Stark]

That's not an argument, that's a cop-out. At the very best what you're arguing is that the characters should only be judged by the morals of their own culture. Almost all of the characters are behaving from the same perspective (that of a roughly medieval western civilization). So while exceptions can be made for people who come from a differing perspective (the Dothraki, Iron borne, Wildlings and such), there is no forgiving the behavior of the Lannisters in story. Not a single group in Westeros deigns the sanctity of the guest right, therefore the breaking of it is a moral reprehensible act. Personally, I don't view Guest Right as a moral obligation, or at least my moral perspective frames it another way, but that does not prevent me from recognizing that the Westerosi do, nor does it prevent me from viewing characters who violate it as bad people.

Well, I guess I wasn't arguing at the very best then. What I meant (and I thought I made it quite clear) is that morality isn't something universal, a thing all humans share. I will judge the Lannisters from my own, Westernbased morality. I will also judge them from Westerosi standards. Either way, they're doomed in my eyes and morally quite black. However, there are also quite some Lannisterfans, suggesting they have a different morality than me, and probably also you. So, morality is subjective. I'm not a cultural relativist. Others are. Again, different moralities, again, subjective. But from my point of view still valid.

[Old-Growth]

Now Robb has unleashed war because his father and by extension his house was disrespected. Is causing so much harm and destruction for that reason good? Of course he has to do it because of the way the power system works in Westeros, he can't afford to look weak. So we have got a deeply flawed political system that is going to produce horrible results in order to protect the positions of a very small number of people. In other words the whole social set up is grey. This really isn't the way the world works in LOTR which is your archetypal good versus evil set up.

Robb went to war to defend the Riverlands from Lord Tywin and the Lannisters. (The Lord of Riverrun was his mother's father....) His father was still alive when Robb called the banners and marched South. The population of the riverlands is not a small number of people, and Tywin later showed what he intended to do when he turned Lorch, Gregor Clegane, and the Bloody Mummers loose on the Riverlands.

[Arland]

I think there is a problem of definition there. I think that morally grey doesn't mean that all the characters or factions are equally wrong or equally right. They all are grey, but there are different shades of grey.

Starks and Dany do seem to be more in the right then Lanisters or slavers, but still it is not that clear cut issue.

The whole foundation of Roberts rule was problematic, so when we look into the issue who actually deserves to rule Iron Throne it is one big mess.

Remember: Tywin started his campaign after Tyrion was falsely accused and taken away. Also even the whole Jaime -Cersei issue is not as clear cut as it seems.

Most of the characters in the book face at every turn hard moral choices, with both of choices being morally problematic. There is no "right" choice -- there is only a "little bit more right" choice at best.

If all characters and all factions were as equally right it would be as equally boring as if there was clear cut "white hat - black hat" story. If they were all equally morally right or wrong there would be no point to judge them - we know they are all the same anyway. If they were clearly black and white - we also would not have to judge them - a look at the color of the hat would suffice.

But in ASOIF we have to judge their every step and see if the bad outweigh the good , we have to apply our moral judgment all the time. That what makes this story an interesting one.

PS. BTW I don't agree with assessment of Robb as "ok". I think he was good character and had good moral reasons to to go war, besides some medieval cultural thing. Not that it was clear cut or he didn't have flaws, but still - he was definitely one of the more clear good guys, in the book. His biggest fault in my eyes was his lack of supervision on Roose Bolton , but on the other hand he had lots of other things to deal with at the time.

[Old-Growth]

Well, I guess I wasn't arguing at the very best then. What I meant (and I thought I made it quite clear) is that morality isn't something universal, a thing all humans share. I will judge the Lannisters from my own, Westernbased morality. I will also judge them from Westerosi standards. Either way, they're doomed in my eyes and morally quite black. However, there are also quite some Lannisterfans, suggesting they have a different morality than me, and probably also you. So, morality is subjective. I'm not a cultural relativist. Others are. Again, different moralities, again, subjective. But from my point of view still valid.

On the basics, such as the prohibition on (in-group) murder, moral rules are actually pretty much universal---the rules that is that make it possible for human communities to exist at all. The basics are probably genetically supported. You may find the odd ethical theorist who will defend relativism, I suppose, but such are few and far between. Try reading Chapters 13--15 of Hobbes' Leviathan to see one argument for basic moral rules: that has a kind of pungent flavor to it that later, more tepid treatments do not.

[Old-Growth]

Tywin started his campaign after Tyrion was falsely accused and taken away.

And this is supposed to justify the rape and murder of thousands of Riverlanders and the destruction of their means of life? There is no grey area here: what Tywin ordered was evil without qualification. What one could argue about is whether what Robb did in retaliation in the Westlands was also evil.