:0 I dislike the Starks :0

[John Doe]

Tyrion repeatedly shares the view that KL's smallfolk hasn't forgotten the sack when they bad-mouth the current regime during his tenure as Hand. I don't think all of it is his traumas talking for him.

True, but that's not surprising. The Ironborn didn't forget the taking of Pyke either.

[Fjordgazer]

Btw I am not trying to argue in any way that Tywin was a overall nice guy, or a kind ruler. The sack was horrible, no doubt about that. But there is no proof that he ordered it either, and I doubt he could have prevented it, as I already said.

Look, if that's all your point (which i think it wasn't at the beginning), then we agree in everything except his responsibility for unleashing Gregor and Amory on KL. If we take his words to Tyrion at face value, he didn't know what those two were capable of. But we know for a fact (Shae) that he can be quite the hypocrite toward his children. Probably, he suspected that Robert wouldn't object to any level of violence exerted on the Targaryen family, so he took his chances with Gregor, not knowing for a certainty what he was capable of, but suspecting it at least.

[Frey Pie]

It's funny to say I'm pretty much agree with you.

But you are misunderstanding me.

It wasn't my intention to oversimplify Ned and you sometimes are oversimplifying the other fans, i'm well aware he isn't a "honor"-obsessed monomaniac .

I can see the difference between Stannis and Ned.

Stannis's dilemma is to chose between the right thing to do for a king and the right thing to do for a person. He epitomizes the conflict between the law, the duty and the human emotions.

Ned is different he epitomize the heart in conflict with itself.

My biggest problem with Ned is that i can't empathize with his worries. His arguments are silly, and sometime ridiculous.

He is making a big deal about Tywin's treachery, let's assume for a moment that the Lannisters have taken the city without sacking it, no rapes,no killed children. I bet you Ned would still complaining about the treachery, i actually think to fool Aerys was the right thing to do. Eddard's useless moaning about the injustices of this world and his ostentatious self-righteousness makes him too much annoying to bear.

He can't choose between foolish loyalty to an awful king the friendship with this despicable man and his own convictions.

I admire Eddard's compassion, but in the other things i strongly disagree with him.

Ned may talk of honour but in the end his actions speak louder and he goes for the right thing to do. Honour would dictate that a lot of his choices change throughout the books-

Jon's parentage would not remain a secret

Cersei's incest would have been outed before she got away

He wouldn't have confessed to his crimes to save his daughters

He'd support his king and order the assassination of Dany

Ned does what is right so far as he can, not always what is honourable. And I highly doubt if Tywin offered ned aerys and the kids as well as KL that Ned would talk about treachery...Hell if your going that far then Ned's a hypocrite because he taught his son so much about surprise tactics in battle ie. Treacherous ones...

Ned's problem is not the taking of the city but how it was done- an utter disregard for the privilege that is life

[Frey Pie]

Apart from Dany taking Astapor by force, we really just have the sack of KL. But I'm inclined o believe it was not uncommon, because 1. it was not uncommen in the RL medieval age and 2. Ned (although he surely disagreed with killing children etc.) didn't critizise it in his thoughts, he appearently thought the killing of Elia's children and the treachery were more remarkable and focused on them instead.

Your number 2 us because he's trying to foster a healthy distrust of the Lannisters in Robert. This is the same conversation in which Robert is threatening to give the Lannisters Wardenship over half the realm iirc. Can you blame him for concentrating on Lannister treachery then? That's his whole reason for the conversation

I agree on your fist point but it's not shown to be common in Westeros. What's clear though is that Robb and other commanders storm castles and towns. Tywins all end up being sacked. There is a clear difference in work here

[voodooqueen126]

So people don't believe that there are good and evil people in the world?

And all rich people are bad guys? No decent person is successful? I can't talk for anyone else but I certainly don't believe either of these things

We live in age of amorality and a fear of judgement.

Also think about how popular socialism and communism are... the politics of envy and entitlement indeed.

[Frey Pie]

We live in age of amorality and a fear of judgement.

Also think about how popular socialism and communism are... the politics of envy and entitlement indeed.

Agreed with all that

As an aside I find judgement a great form of motivation, something which often spurs blie to be better

[voodooqueen126]

Agreed with all that

As an aside I find judgement a great form of motivation, something which often spurs blie to be better

Theodore Dalrymple has a great essay about the necessity of judgement.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/7_3_oh_to_be.html

Also noteworthy that in personal ethics, he wasn't that judgemental, or atleast while he disapproved (Ie he wasn't amoral like the peope described in Dalrymple's essay) of Robert's whoring and Cersei's incest, he remained Robert's friend and gave Cersei the oppurtunity to flee, because he looked at her circumstances (beaten by Robert) and felt compassion for her.

His failure to act on his judgements cost him his life.

Had Ned Stark not enforced the rule of law, the North would've collapsed. Indeed, Ned's willingness to enforce the rule of law (ie to make judgements) is what makes him a better Lord than Tywin.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

It is fair to say that there are many of us who have different opinions on different characters. Weather GRRM wanted us all to feel the same thing about Jon Snow and Jaime Lannister the GREAT thing about his work is that we all see his astounding work through our own eyes and identify characters through our own perspective albeit we see them from a romantic, pragmatic or historical perspective.

This series is beautiful, many of us are able to take different things from it.

Why narrow our points of views. I am elated that other people see other things and people value other characters that I don't see on my first, second or fifth read. It is why many of us are obsessed with this series because it is so immense.

Some of us like some characters and others don't. There is nothing wrong with that.... But continue to debate it nonetheless as I have had my opinion changed many times on this forum despite how entrenched I am in my own opinions.

[Lord Lannister]

Eh, I like Tywin Lannister as a character. The book definitely wouldn't be the same without him. But that said, I'm not harboring any delusions that he's not the main villain of the first three novels. There's a huge difference between liking the character's role in the novels, to well... playing apologist for them.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

Eh, I like Tywin Lannister as a character. The book definitely wouldn't be the same without him. But that said, I'm not harboring any delusions that he's not the main villain of the first three novels. There's a huge difference between liking the character's role in the novels, to well... playing apologist for them.

Well, that is your opinion and it more than valid, but some of us don't see Tywin as a villain, but the man who brought peace and prosperity to Westeros for 20 years and the man who was most likely to bring Westeros forward after the War of the Five Kings.

[Nictarion]

Tywin used gang rape to teach a lesson to his son. If that's not a villain I don't know what is.

[A Wolf Among Sheep]

Well, that is your opinion and it more than valid, but some of us don't see Tywin as a villain, but the man who brought peace and prosperity to Westeros for 20 years and the man who was most likely to bring Westeros forward after the War of the Five Kings.

When did that happen?

[JonCon's Red Beard]

We live in age of amorality and a fear of judgement.

We rather live in an age that WANTS to be amoral to escape responsibility. We see someone being mean, bad or simply an asshole and we try to look excuses for them because we might need those excuses eventually. But that's a different topic.

Nevertheless, the world is not that simple. People sometimes DO have motivations to act the way they act and it has nothing to do with good or evil. But in literature, even in ASOIAF, where the line between good and evil is so thin, there are some character we cannot make excuses. Tywin is one of them, because his actions are even considered as cruel and unnecessary by other men of his same time and background. Even himself knows he does wrong. Men like Tarly or Stannis don't make excuses for their actions, while Tywin does.

[Nictarion]

When did that happen?

When he was Aerys' Hand.

[Mikkel]

Well, that is your opinion and it more than valid, but some of us don't see Tywin as a villain, but the man who brought peace and prosperity to Westeros for 20 years and the man who was most likely to bring Westeros forward after the War of the Five Kings.

He can be both, though - an able administrator and a villain. You have your mindlessly cruel villains like Gregor, and you have your ruthlessly efficient* villains like Tywin.

*though his competence is sometimes overplayed, he made plenty of mistakes

[Frey Pie]

Theodore Dalrymple has a great essay about the necessity of judgement.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/7_3_oh_to_be.html

Also noteworthy that in personal ethics, he wasn't that judgemental, or atleast while he disapproved (Ie he wasn't amoral like the peope described in Dalrymple's essay) of Robert's whoring and Cersei's incest, he remained Robert's friend and gave Cersei the oppurtunity to flee, because he looked at her circumstances (beaten by Robert) and felt compassion for her.

His failure to act on his judgements cost him his life.

Had Ned Stark not enforced the rule of law, the North would've collapsed. Indeed, Ned's willingness to enforce the rule of law (ie to make judgements) is what makes him a better Lord than Tywin.

Thanks for the link

Ya what's funny about ned and people giving out about him us as hand he only brought justice. Which is what a leader should do. He looked at the peasants of the riverlands and tried to give them justice regardless of the fact that it was a high noble giving them such a hard time. He chose beric because justice should be for justice not the vengeance that loras would do. He fought for a young girls life against old men who wanted to assassinate her. A child

[John Doe]

Had Ned Stark not enforced the rule of law, the North would've collapsed. Indeed, Ned's willingness to enforce the rule of law (ie to make judgements) is what makes him a better Lord than Tywin.

Tywin probably enforced the rule of law too.

[John Doe]

Your number 2 us because he's trying to foster a healthy distrust of the Lannisters in Robert. This is the same conversation in which Robert is threatening to give the Lannisters Wardenship over half the realm iirc. Can you blame him for concentrating on Lannister treachery then? That's his whole reason for the conversation

I agree on your fist point but it's not shown to be common in Westeros. What's clear though is that Robb and other commanders storm castles and towns. Tywins all end up being sacked. There is a clear difference in work here

1. But he doesn't even mention the sack itself. He mentions the treachery, Jaime sitting for a few seconds on the IT, he even mentions how golden his sword was.

2. As I said, this is a much smaller scale imho. And we don't have accounts on how Robb behaved in the Westerlands. Although the "pay back in kind quote", Mormont stealing cattle, the hanged girls in the riverlands, the account of the BwB (about how the wolf is not better than the lion afaik) and the stark bannermen in stoney sept imply that Robb's men targeted civilians too.

[Frey Pie]

1. But he doesn't even mention the sack itself. He mentions the treachery, Jaime sitting for a few seconds on the IT, he even mentions how golden his sword was.

2. As I said, this is a much smaller scale imho. And we don't have accounts on how Robb behaved in the Westerlands. Although the "pay back in kind quote", Mormont stealing cattle, the hanged girls in the riverlands, the account of the BwB (about how the wolf is not better than the lion afaik) and the stark bannermen in stoney sept imply that Robb's men targeted civilians too.

Because of the situation I understand completely why he didn't mention the sack

Any damage done in the riverlands by Stark men is by men under Bolton as far as I'm concerned. No evidence to the contrary and robb has no need to order anything like that or motive

The quote of paying them back is from a Frey, not robb

[thelittledragonthatcould]

Any damage done in the riverlands by Stark men is by men under Bolton as far as I'm concerned. No evidence to the contrary and robb has no need to order anything like that or motive

They are still under the command of Robb Stark, they still traveled South because Robb Stark ordered them to.

Now you can either say that Robb can't be held accountable for every action his soldiers commit or that he has a personal responsibility for those actions.

I'm happy for you to choose either option, but at least be consistent and hold Tywin to the same standards.