Is Tywin's role in the Red Wedding morally reprehensible?

[Big P]

5 hours ago, Lord Lannister said:

Wars are most likely to be won by the people who don't play by your rule book. Look what morality got Ned and Robb.

I agree in Ned's case.  Robb's was just pure selfishness on his part.  Honor was something Robb lacked.

[Big P]

It was reprehensible but he does not have a monopoly on cruelty.  It is not a rare trait in their time.

[Jay21]

What is 'morally reprehensible' anyway?  Tywin would probably be correct to assume that if Robb won at least one of his direct kin, if not most of them would end up killed.  Whether he thought Rhaegar's children's fate was just or not he must have assumed that a similar fate would be visited upon his own grandchildren were the Lannisters violently cast down.  So, how far is a father and grandfather justified in going to prevent the extinction o(r great humbling) of his family? I think he was perfectly justified and the notion of 'guest rights' and 'hospitality rights' are always going to take a back seat when the very lives of a person's children or grandchildren are at stake.

 

[Angel Eyes]

21 hours ago, Curled Finger said:

I think Tywin is as responsible as any other player in the plotting of the Red Wedding.  In the state I live in a person found guilty of conspiracy is as guilty as those who carry out the plan.  There are not really levels of engagement here.   Would stupid Walder Frey have ever been able to dream up such a grandiose plan?   I think not.   A killer--no--an efficient killer had to have the idea.  I can appreciate the concept of war crime but I cannot give it a pass.  

Very true. Saying that Tywin wasn’t responsible for the Red Wedding is like saying that Michael Corleone isn’t responsible for the Baptism murders.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

3 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:

Very true. Saying that Tywin wasn’t responsible for the Red Wedding is like saying that Michael Corleone isn’t responsible for the Baptism murders.

We're not talking about responsibility here though. More about guest right and vows, which Tywin never had towards Robb.

[Hugorfonics]

6 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

We're not talking about responsibility here though. More about guest right and vows, which Tywin never had towards Robb.

Mike never had vows to Barzini and them either (though they did to him cuz Vito thinks two moves ahead like that), still mass murder and assassinations.

So, yea. Pretty immorally reprehensible

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

I don't think so. Tywin ordered the deaths of his enemies. Now, had he ordered the deaths to be carried out in that particular way - something I find highly unlikely - then maybe I would reconsider. As it stands though, as far as we know, Tywin didn't break any oaths or vows, nor did he force anyone else to. 

[SeanF]

On 6/30/2020 at 10:41 PM, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Now this will undoubtedly draw the ire of the Stark fanboys but think about it. Both Roose's and Walder's parts in the Red Wedding are let's say immoral to put it mildly and they both deserve the worse for breaking every conceivable type of vow or rule imaginable, but how about Tywin? He didn't break any vows, Robb was his enemy, and all those who died were war enemies, leaders or soldiers. So was his part morally reprehensible? Keep in mind that it seems like Walder came to him and not the other way around.

I think not.  Tywin saw a chance to strike at an enemy, and took it.

Roose Bolton, and Walder Frey, OTOH, were guilty of treason and (in the case of the latter) breach of guest-right.  Most of us would regard the execution of traitors in our own ranks as legitimate, but would not condemn an overt enemy that makes use of such traitors.  

[frenin]

23 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

That's not I talking about though. Tywin was in the conspiracy but Tywin didn't break any vows or laws of hospitality. That was Roose's and Walder's thing. Killing your enemies isn't wrong, what's wrong is how you do it. So how morally reprehensible is Tywin. Him or his men didn't break anything like hospitality of fealty just his co conspirators.

No, he just allowed, enabled and rewarded the plotters. 

He is morally reprehensible.

[frenin]

16 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

That was not really outsmarting though. He sacrificed thousands of men just so he could have a chance to fight Jaime. The only reason it worked and Robb won in the end was sheer dumb luck and the fact that Jaime was stupid.

Well it's outsmarting and even Tywin recognizes this and well, you're not going to talk about sheer dumb luck while defending Tywin. I know you wouldn't.

Fact is they both lucky a lot of times but Tywin had an ace on his sleeve in Tyrion and Robb had Theon and later his grieving mother, if you add to that his own idiocy is the perfect recipe for disaster.

[Adam Yozza]

If all he did was tell Roose and Walder to remove the Starks and they then came up with the RW plot on their own, then no. While still not nice, its perfectly reasonable for a commander to make use of defectors to remove his enemies from power.

However, if Tywin was the one who actually came up with the idea of using the wedding as the means to lure Robb and his army to their slaughter, then yes, he is every bit as morally reprehensible as Walder and Roose. And for the record, I think this may be the case.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

3 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

However, if Tywin was the one who actually came up with the idea of using the wedding as the means to lure Robb and his army to their slaughter, then yes, he is every bit as morally reprehensible as Walder and Roose. And for the record, I think this may be the case.

Pretty sure it was Walder who came up with the idea, at least if ASOS is decently chronological.

[Bael's Bastard]

On 6/30/2020 at 5:41 PM, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Now this will undoubtedly draw the ire of the Stark fanboys but think about it. Both Roose's and Walder's parts in the Red Wedding are let's say immoral to put it mildly and they both deserve the worse for breaking every conceivable type of vow or rule imaginable, but how about Tywin? He didn't break any vows, Robb was his enemy, and all those who died were war enemies, leaders or soldiers. So was his part morally reprehensible? Keep in mind that it seems like Walder came to him and not the other way around.

Yes, he signed off on two enemy houses becoming allies by using the cover of guest rights to murder their king, his enemy. Morally, it's indefensible. 

[Adam Yozza]

36 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Pretty sure it was Walder who came up with the idea, at least if ASOS is decently chronological.

There's nothing about the chronology that means Tywin couldn't have come up with the idea of killing them at the wedding. Theres every chance it was Walder Frey's idea but we've got no way of really knowing. Still, the RW seems more like a Tywin plot to me.

[Skahaz mo Kandaq]

Was Tywin's part in the red wedding reprehensible and should be condemn.  It was reprehensible because he was the one who goaded Walder and Roose to use betrayal.  He offered the umbrella to protect them.  But understand, it was war.  His reprehensible act saved the lives of many regular folk and their children.  It saved many farms and crops from getting further destroyed with the war against the Starks.  

We need to look at the fine points of the matter in order to judge these men.  In order of the most reprehensible to the least, this is how I would rank them.  (1) Roose, (2) Tywin, and (3) Walder.  Walder was screwed in the butt by the Starks.  His family was also put in danger by the Starks.  I might even say Walder's guilt is mostly because it happened under his roof and guest rights is just a custom.  Remove or change the custom and Walder is alright.  Robb and the Starks were dicks for what they did to House Frey.  They never would have bothered to offer to make peace if they had no need of Walder's service again.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

6 hours ago, frenin said:

No, he just allowed, enabled and rewarded the plotters. 

He is morally reprehensible.

Is he morally obligated to try to stop the death of his enemy? No matter the how of it? Is he morally obligated to punish the plotters, rather than reward them? I don't think he is. 

[frenin]

6 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Is he morally obligated to try to stop the death of his enemy? No matter the how of it? Is he morally obligated to punish the plotters, rather than reward them? I don't think he is. 

He is no more reprehensible than the Boltons or Freys, i see no motive to treat them differently.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

1 hour ago, Skahaz mo Kandaq said:

Was Tywin's part in the red wedding reprehensible and should be condemn.  It was reprehensible because he was the one who goaded Walder and Roose to use betrayal.  He offered the umbrella to protect them. 

Do we know that though? I could be wrong but I was under the impression we really don't know who's idea it was or who brought it to who right? 

1 hour ago, Skahaz mo Kandaq said:

Walder was screwed in the butt by the Starks.

No not really. He was inconvenienced by the Starks. He had an offer on the table to make him whole again, one he agreed to btw. 

1 hour ago, Skahaz mo Kandaq said:

His family was also put in danger by the Starks.

Nope, Walder agreed to put his army in with Robb's lot. They were all well aware that they wouldn't be out picking daisies. They knew they were going to battle & knew there was a high risk of losing some of them. The Starks didn't put them in danger, Walder had control over his own troops, so Walder put them in danger, if anyone did. 

He then put them in further danger by betraying his liege lord (after betraying the King) he could have been executed by either party for that. 

1 hour ago, Skahaz mo Kandaq said:

I might even say Walder's guilt is mostly because it happened under his roof and guest rights is just a custom.  Remove or change the custom and Walder is alright. 

Walder's men participated in every second of the massacre under Walder's orders. I disagree that he would be off the hook if it was under someone else's roof, although, Walder's blame would be lessened as he wouldn't have broken guest right. 

1 hour ago, Skahaz mo Kandaq said:

Robb and the Starks were dicks for what they did to House Frey. 

Really? This always gets me. Of all the horrible, tragic, brutal things that people do to one another in this story, Robb AND the Starks are dicks for this? What role did the rest of the Starks have to play except following their King's command? Robb broke a promise. He did. He ate crow for it & offered up a marriage that was equal to the one that was offered to begin with. Walder is bitter & spiteful & has too many daughters, granddaughters, probably great grand daughters that need married off because he keeps having more kids. 

He had the chance to get rid of ONE of them through Robb. Have his kin married to a Lord with a castle. He still had the chance to get rid of ONE of them through Edmure, a Lord with a castle. 

1 hour ago, Skahaz mo Kandaq said:

They never would have bothered to offer to make peace if they had no need of Walder's service again.

Robb? Born from the loins of the ever honorable Ned Stark? I highly doubt he wouldn't have bothered to make it right regardless if they had need of them or not but what evidence do you have to make this claim? 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

2 minutes ago, frenin said:

He is no more reprehensible than the Boltons or Freys, i see no motive to treat them differently.

But it is different isn't it? The Bolton's swore a vow to Robb & then broke it & participated in their murder. The Frey's swore a vow to Robb & then broke it & participated in their murder AND broke guest right. 

Tywin did not swear an oath to Robb, he did not break an oath to Robb, he did not break guest right, he didn't participate in the murder other than possibly ordering it. That's a big difference to me. 

[frenin]

Just now, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

But it is different isn't it? The Bolton's swore a vow to Robb & then broke it & participated in their murder. The Frey's swore a vow to Robb & then broke it & participated in their murder AND broke guest right. 

Tywin did not swear an oath to Robb, he did not break an oath to Robb, he did not break guest right, he didn't participate in the murder other than possibly ordering it. That's a big difference to me. 

I don't really see such difference, Tywin enabled, allowed and rewarded the plotters and the killers  because it benefited him. 

As Tyrion says, whether Walder was the mastermind behind the Red Wedding, the RW would have never been carried on without Tywin's seal, pardon and blessing. 

And the Red Wedding is not really a big issue because it's a betrayal, betrayals happen a lot during the war but because of the manner of the betrayal, had they just done a good ol backstabbing to Robb's rear, i wouldn't have bat an eye.