The Lion’s Shadow: Why Kevan Lannister Doesn’t Deserve His Good Rep

[TheCasualObserver]

Kevan Lannister has a choice. He could not follow the immoral orders of Tywin Lannister or he could say "They will burn, my lord." He chose the latter. There is no form of cultural relativity which excuses the murder of innocents. And this "everyone else did it too!" argument is moral equivocation and not convincing. Rape and murder are wrong objectively, regardless of the side committing the acts.

You've convinced me. But he still had cause to want Cersei out of political power and did so in a way which avoided having to physically harm her.

[John Doe]

Kevan Lannister has a choice. He could not follow the immoral orders of Tywin Lannister or he could say "They will burn, my lord." He chose the latter. There is no form of cultural relativity which excuses the murder of innocents. And this "everyone else did it too!" argument is moral equivocation and not convincing. Rape and murder are wrong objectively, regardless of the side committing the acts.

Still, it was common practise in war back then and obeying your older brother was seen as a virtue. So we can't easily say one way was definitely more honorable than the other, really.

If you are competely against moral relativism, well, then we should convict all soldiers who killed people in war for murder and put them in prison since the circumstances are appearently no excuse.

Exactly, not establishing democracy = ordering mass murder, rape, burning and pillaging. Makes sense.

You made a point about moral relativism as a whole, so this comparison does make sense.

[BryndenBFish]

You've convinced me. But he still had cause to want Cersei out of political power and did so in a way which avoided having to physically harm her.

Thanks! Oh, I firmly believe that there's a strong political component to Kevan's actions with Cersei. He sees need to remove her from power, but kinslaying or association with it is beyond him.

Whatever Cersei may have done, she is still a daughter of the Rock, of mine own blood. I will not let her die a traitor's death, but I have made sure to draw her fangs. (ADWD, Epilogue)

[Annara Snow]

Still, it was common practise in war back then and obeying your older brother was seen as a virtue. So we can't easily say one way was definitely more honorable than the other, really.

If you are competely against moral relativism, well, then we should convict all soldiers who killed people in war for murder and put them in prison since the circumstances are appearently no excuse.

You made a point about moral relativism as a whole, so this comparison does make sense.

No, it doesn't. Committing the most heinous crimes like murder and rape (and yes, they DID consider them crimes "back then" and they DO consider them crimes in Westeros!) is in no way comparable to someone instituting this or that political system, not to mention one that was would be highly anachronistic. Are you really unable to see that?

Your comparison wasn't even comparing apples and oranges, it was like comparing apples and flying saucers.

[BryndenBFish]

Still, it was common practise in war back then and obeying your older brother was seen as a virtue. So we can't easily say one way was definitely more honorable than the other, really.

If you are competely against moral relativism, well, then we should convict all soldiers who killed people in war for murder and put them in prison since the circumstances are appearently no excuse.

You made a point about moral relativism as a whole, so this comparison does make sense.

Common practice is not a moral argument. Czarist pogroms & Nazi holocausts were common practice at points in history and in Czarist Russian/Nazi German cultures respectively. And yes, it is more noble not to be party to immoral acts regardless of society's view of it. When Robert ordered the Small Council to consent to the murder of Daenerys, Eddard did the right thing:

"I will not be part of murder, Robert. Do as you will, but do not ask me to fix my seal to it."

For a moment Robert did not seem to understand what Ned was saying. Defiance was not a dish he tasted often. Slowly his face changed as comprehension came. His eyes narrowed and a flush crept up his neck past the velvet collar. He pointed an angry finger at Ned. "You are the King's Hand, Lord Stark. You will do as I command you, or I'll find me a Hand who will."

"I wish him every success." Ned unfastened the heavy clasp that clutched at the folds of his cloak, the ornate silver hand that was his badge of office. He laid it on the table in front of the king, saddened by the memory of the man who had pinned it on him, the friend he had loved. "I thought you a better man than this, Robert. I thought we had made a nobler king." (AGOT, Eddard VIII)

That was the moral recourse that Kevan Lannister should have chosen. Instead, he opted to carry out Tywin's order of mass murder, mass rape.

[Ser Joe the Unknighted]

Why do people make such a big deal of the 'sack of kings landing'? Do they not realize that it would have been sacked anyway?

It was unfortunate that a few hundred died, but had their been a prolonged siege between the Royals and Rebels hundreds would have died as well.

I disagree that it would have been sacked anyway. If Ned would have taken the city it would have gone down differently. The Sack would not have been quite as brutal as the sack led by Ser Gregor and Ser Armory and Ned would have taken Aegon, Rhaenys, and Elia into protective custody. I'm sure someone would have assassinated Aegon eventually, but Ned would not have ordered their outright death. I also don't think their would be rape and violence in the streets.

I love your work BFish, I agree with you on everything but Daenerys and Rhaegar.

[Beautiful Balon]

Tywin probably could have blunted the sack of kingslanding if he wanted to. Armies did not brutally sack every city they came across. In fact that was normally reserved for city's that resisted. Cities that surrendered before a siege were usually treated fine. Since kings landing basically surrendered and tywins objectives seemed to be the assassination of the royal family and the taking of the red keep making it an exceptionally brutal sack was unnecessary. The evidence that it was exceptionally brutal are Jorah and Ned's statements, both battle hardened men who have killed a lot of people and because kingslandingers dislike the Lannisters because of it sixteen years later.

Tywin probably did the sack IMO to signal that he was on the side of the rebels. Dude didn't make his allegiance clear for most of the war and he was let into kinglanding peacefully. What's he gonna say, "I tricked Aerys into thinking I was on his side so he could let me in, but really I'm on your side" That doesn't seem very legit.

[JonSnow4President]

So the soldiers just marched into a city which threw its gates open and attacked and raped innocents on their own volition?

Someone told them to rape and pillage. Tywin could have forbade it at the very least, as Dany did. A few castrated Westermen is better than the sack.

LOL Read Dany's chapters again.

She allowed it during the sacking of Mereen. Once the Sack was over and she entered, raping then became illegal. But not during the sack itself. She even makes a ruling based on this if I'm recalling correctly.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

Tywin probably could have blunted the sack of kingslanding if he wanted to. Armies did not brutally sack every city they came across. In fact that was normally reserved for city's that resisted. Cities that surrendered before a siege were usually treated fine. Since kings landing basically surrendered and tywins objectives seemed to be the assassination of the royal family and the taking of the red keep making it an exceptionally brutal sack was unnecessary.

Kings Landing had allowed Tywin in thinking he was an ally, that is not the same as surrendering. A peaceful situation (in hours) was impossible.

Tywin was certainly treacherous and without honour but the idea that he could have taken the city and King peacefully is crazy. As is the idea that hundreds would not have died had Tywin stayed at home and not got involved.

His objectives were securing the city including its many gates and port, killing the King and other Targs, capturing important members of the Targ government and securing the royal treasury. He had to do all of that before Robert got there.

[Lady Blackmont]

Do as Dany says, not as Dany does.

Pretty sure if Tywin came out in his golden armor and said "Any man caught raping will be emasculated" It would have stopped hundreds of rapes, if not all of them.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

Do as Dany says, not as Dany does.

Pretty sure if Tywin came out in his golden armor and said "Any man caught raping will be emasculated" It would have stopped hundreds of rapes, if not all of them.

Sure. I dont think that was high on his agenda in the limited time he had.

[Red Tiger]

Don't get your knickers in a twist over fictional characters.

Says the guy who takes EVERY opportunity on this board to defend the Lannisters, even when nobody is attacking the Lannisters.

Shit I like the Martells, you don't see me jump on every opportunity to defend the Sand Snakes and Doran.

[Lady Blackmont]

Right, so Tywin, the figure Kevan worshipped, overlooking morality is okay, as long as he was busy.

Check.

[Cladinator]

I'm sorry. I just wasn't going to read the entire thing.

I've never been a huge fan of the Lannisters but I've never had an issue with Kevan. In fact, he's a pretty interesting and fairly likable character.

I know he was a follower but he was a loyal and faithful follower. Not everyone can be a leader.

You have every right to your opinion and you did put in some work for this post. But I think you might have over-analyzed.

[Red Tiger]

I'm sorry. I just wasn't going to read the entire thing.

I've never been a huge fan of the Lannisters but I've never had an issue with Kevan. In fact, he's a pretty interesting and fairly likable character.

I know he was a follower but he was a loyal and faithful follower. Not everyone can be a leader.

You have every right to your opinion and you did put in some work for this post. But I think you might have over-analyzed.

Go to the site, almost every article is over-analyzed. The Alysanne article is a good example.

[Chinoiserie]

This is a very interesting and well made essay. However I feel you do paint a slighly too one-dimensional potrait of Kevan that judges on his by his political actions and his negative human traits and leaves out his positive human ones, or at least those that make us understand his actions in a human level (in a similar way you seem to treat Tywin in the past).

One thing that I belive really defined Kevan's personality was how horrible the sitsuation really was in Westerlands before Tywin dealt with Raynes and Tarbecks. The crown had had to deal with issues many times and Kevan's grandfather was killed my the Raynes. Addinitionally his uncle Jason was killed in the War of Ninepenny Kings leaving Tywin only cabable family member in change. After Tywin managed to fix the issues Kevan probably thought that the ends justify the means. Also since Kevan was the Rayne's ward he might have has affection for his foster family but had to ingnore this. Kevan seems to be a bit of a denial of who Tywin is in my opinion and I feel this hero-worship is nessecary for Kevan so he can justify Tywin's actions. It is not something he seems to do consiously as you seem to think. I do not think Kevan would behave similar way under in someone else's command but he closes his eyes and behaves like a dutiful brother should. In this kind of society second brother obeying te ender as well as family loyaty are seen as virtues. We see this in other instances such as Tyrion supporting his family even if he knows they are in the wrong, Theon choosing his family since he (partially Theon had other motivations as well) felt this was his duty and even Robb going to war over his family even though as far as he knew his father was guilty of treason. In this kind of society the peasans additionally are seen as theri lords property and their concern so there are no taboos about how to treat them. We should not excuse characters based on their society but to fully judge them by our standards is judgemental as well. We should rather condem the society than the people in them that are thought some things are more morality important than others. In this case, family loyaty and obidiance are so valued that Kevan did not really consider the negative moral choices he was making. This does not excuse him, but it makes him more human and it does make him a less guilty since he does not have moments were he really has cause to reflect on his actions either.

But these are mostly my opinions about the character, people can have different inteprations on chacters actions and how to morality judge people living in different kind of societies.

But most important aspect I think you should have explored was how couple of instances really are the root or Kevan's treatment of Cersei. These are Kevan's son's (I can not remember wheather it was Willem or Martyn who died) death, as well as his son Lancel almost dying. These both can be blamed on Cersei by Kevan. It was Cersei and Jaime's actions that lead to the war in the first place so W or M's death as well as other suffering caused by war can be blamed to them. It seem to me that Kevan learned of the incest guessing from the rumours and Lancel's information much later so he was not aware of why the war was really fought after Tyrion's kidnapping (if I recall correctly he was suprised by Renly declaring himself king and did not know of possiblity Stannis declaring either when Tywin informend him and Tyrion). So there is already rather big reason to dislike the twins. But much bigger one was that Kevan learned that Cersei had seduced her 16 year-old cousin, made him kill the king and almost had him killed. After this Jaime makes him a commen that can be intepreted as a threath. Additionally excactly how awfull Cersei's managed of the Kingdom and the implications to both House Lannister and the realm must not be underestimated. She had to be removed as soon as possible and the damage made by her fixed.

Also I must agree with littledragonthatcould (of what his username is) that the sack is made a bigger deal than it is. There were clearly thousands of loyalist in the city as well as goldcloaks. There would not have been absent somewhere while waiting for the King's commands wheather to open the gates or not. They would have been prepared for the possibility when te army advanced form distace that is was a enemy army. And during thus period (of real history) event like this were always called sacks, Stannis was trying to sack the city as well. Tywin would have not been taking preparations to limit the damage or punish the guilty later but there is no reason to assume he gave commands for a "brutal sack". You assume so because you have extrely negative opinion of Tywin so you think Tywi would have gotten a personal satisfactions for doing so but disagree how cruel Tywin is. But until we have some canonical reasons to think that Twin indeed ordered a "brutal sack" I do not think he did. He would not have been compeletely able to stop the soldiers from being cruel either even if he wanted to. And the people who judge the sack are people who criticise the Sack criticise Tywin deceiving to get the gates open mostly or are people who were there.

Lastly I wanted to say that just because people do love characters it does not mean they approve their actions. While I have more positive views on Tywin than you for excample he is clearly a villain. I do love and hate love him both. Kevan gets similar but milder reactions from me. I think he is as much a villain Jaime and Tyrion are but the difference is that I believe they both will be almost fully redeemed before the end and already have been much. They also have more virtues and excuses for their behaviour.

And would like to say again I really enjoyed your thoughts even if I disagreed with some of them and I did not have a change to speak of the things I agreed with since my comment is much too long already (and probably riddled with errors, I do not have time to check this now and I am writing from my phone so I just post this).

[Chaircat Meow]

A nice argument about the subtext wrt kevan and the walk of shame. I don't think we can know who suggested the idea, but Kevan had both practical and personal reasons to want to see Cersei humiliated. In doing so he's assuming his brother's role. Tywin had Tysha dealt with when he thought she'd humiliated his son, and Kevan does to the same to Cersei because of Lancel.

[John Doe]

No, it doesn't. Committing the most heinous crimes like murder and rape (and yes, they DID consider them crimes "back then" and they DO consider them crimes in Westeros!) is in no way comparable to someone instituting this or that political system, not to mention one that was would be highly anachronistic. Are you really unable to see that?

Your comparison wasn't even comparing apples and oranges, it was like comparing apples and flying saucers.

It was common war practice. Of course war is bad, I'm glad you are able see that. It's more like comparing apples and apples.

Common practice is not a moral argument. Czarist pogroms & Nazi holocausts were common practice at points in history and in Czarist Russian/Nazi German cultures respectively. And yes, it is more noble not to be party to immoral acts regardless of society's view of it. When Robert ordered the Small Council to consent to the murder of Daenerys, Eddard did the right thing:

Things like the Holocaust were never "common", and not particulary present in german culture either, just in a comparatively short period of a few decades. Not a good comparison. Also, as we saw in the books, the northern forces didn't behave that much better, plus Robb sent men to die out of pure spite for his fathers death. Does Robb Stark deserve his own death, in your opinion?

The problem with saying "immoral acts, regardless of societys view of it" is that how immoral an act is is determined by your view on it, and this corresponds to societys view of it more often than not. There is no universally valid view on morality.

So my original point still stands.

[John Doe]

Tywin probably could have blunted the sack of kingslanding if he wanted to. Armies did not brutally sack every city they came across. In fact that was normally reserved for city's that resisted. Cities that surrendered before a siege were usually treated fine. Since kings landing basically surrendered and tywins objectives seemed to be the assassination of the royal family and the taking of the red keep making it an exceptionally brutal sack was unnecessary. The evidence that it was exceptionally brutal are Jorah and Ned's statements, both battle hardened men who have killed a lot of people and because kingslandingers dislike the Lannisters because of it sixteen years later.

Tywin probably did the sack IMO to signal that he was on the side of the rebels. Dude didn't make his allegiance clear for most of the war and he was let into kinglanding peacefully. What's he gonna say, "I tricked Aerys into thinking I was on his side so he could let me in, but really I'm on your side" That doesn't seem very legit.

KL resisted.

[BaelorTheBold]

It was common war practice. Of course war is bad, I'm glad you are able see that. It's more like comparing apples and apples.

Things like the Holocaust were never "common", and not particulary present in german culture either, just in a comparatively short period of a few decades. Not a good comparison. Also, as we saw in the books, the northern forces didn't behave that much better, plus Robb sent men to die out of pure spite for his fathers death. Does Robb Stark deserve his own death, in your opinion?

When did Robb send men out to die in spite for his fathers death?