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

[Alyn Oakenfist]

Just now, frenin said:

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

No he did it because he was at war with Robb. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

1 minute ago, frenin said:

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. 

So what? Robb was a rebel as far as Tywin was concerned. He offered pardons to anybody who would kill the rebel, he's not guilty for the method in which it was carried off. He is guilty for his death, but I don't think that was morally reprehensible because you know, war. The method of his killing however is on Walder and Roose's heads not Tywin's.

3 minutes ago, frenin said:

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.

It's betrayal plus broken guest right, with the latter being by far the worst. Though it wasn't Tywin giving him guest right, it was Walder, and Walder who broke it.

[frenin]

1 minute ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

No he did it because he was at war with Robb. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Then... He didn't benefit from Robb's death??

 

2 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

So what? Robb was a rebel as far as Tywin was concerned. He offered pardons to anybody who would kill the rebel, he's not guilty for the method in which it was carried off. He is guilty for his death, but I don't think that was morally reprehensible because you know, war. The method of his killing however is on Walder and Roose's heads not Tywin's.

Tywin knew how Robb was going to die, where he was going to die and who the killers would be. 

I'm not saying that he shouldn't have done it yadda yadda yadda, I'm saying he is as responsible as those who carried his wishes on.

 

 

4 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

It's betrayal plus broken guest right, with the latter being by far the worst. Though it wasn't Tywin giving him guest right, it was Walder, and Walder who broke it.

Enabling, allowing, pardoning and blessing.

 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

7 minutes ago, frenin said:

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.

Just have to agree to disagree maybe. I showed you the differences. Your issues is with the manner of the betrayal, something I think most of us can agree is the worst element of it. Tywin may not have had one thing to do with that part of it. He may have offered an opportunity, he may have gave an idea, he may have ordered it, or he may have not known how it was going to go down at all, just that the Frey's were going to show their allegiance to him. I just don't feel comfortable throwing Tywin in with the rest of them (in this particular instance, he has done plenty of bad) when I don't know how far his participation went. I do know a couple things though, being, he didn't make or break an oath & he didn't physically participate in the massacre or breaking of guest right. 

[Alyn Oakenfist]

1 minute ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I just don't feel comfortable throwing Tywin in with the rest of them (in this particular instance, he has done plenty of bad) when I don't know how far his participation went. I do know a couple things though, being, he didn't make or break an oath & he didn't physically participate in the massacre or breaking of guest right. 

And even if he did know specifics, Walder and Roose were not acting under coercion or something, they had plenty of free will on the matter. As yous aid killing the enemy through betrayal is not functionally morally reprehensible. What's bad is Roose's treachery and Walder's treachery and breaking of guest right. And Tywin wasn't involved in that. He let them do as they please and just said that those who kill his enemies are pardoned. How morally reprehensible...

[EccentricHorse11]

So I have answered a similar question before so I am just gonna copy paste my answer.

 

It is quite clear that the Red Wedding  will have disastrous consequences for the future of the realm. Things like guest right and non-aggression during certain agreed upon times are the things that ensure that people try stuff like negotiation. Imagine the Renly and Stannis parlay in the second book. Now would any of them have agreed to it if they were afraid that they would be attacked and killed? Of course not. But they did not fear such a thing would happen because that is just something that you do not do. Guest Right was another such thing. So the Red Wedding essentially just shatters this concept of basic moral expectation. Now everything is gonna be fair game.

 

This is gonna mean that almost no one will be willing to negotiate or trust their enemies to follow the most basic of humane acts.

There is no telling the ramifications of something like that. Wars would probably go on for much longer and no one is ever gonna surrender because they will be afraid that they will be killed regardless.

 

Overall the realm will bleed for long. That is the refutation of Tywin's quote "Explain to me why it is more noble to kill ten thousand men in battle than a dozen at dinner". It is not just that thousands of people were killed in the Red Wedding. It is also that thousands more WILL be killed in the future because their lords decided that they might be murdered if they attend a Parlay or that they will be killed even if they surrender. All due to the idea of basic humanity being shattered by the Red Wedding.

 

Now of course we cant put all the blame on Tywin because the Freys were the ones who organised it but Tywin had given it his full approval so there is no doubt that he is also partly to blame for it.

[Hugorfonics]

14 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

And even if he did know specifics, Walder and Roose were not acting under coercion or something, they had plenty of free will on the matter. As yous aid killing the enemy through betrayal is not functionally morally reprehensible. What's bad is Roose's treachery and Walder's treachery and breaking of guest right. And Tywin wasn't involved in that. He let them do as they please and just said that those who kill his enemies are pardoned. How morally reprehensible...

He didnt just pardon the killers, he rewarded them. Giving out Riverrun and Winterfell to two of the most infamous men in Westeros' history, therefore reinforcing the idea that Tywins responsible.

Also, what vows to Bolton brake? Roose wasnt at Riverrun when Robb was declared king, none of the Dreadfort men were.

[Darth Sidious]

9 hours ago, SeanF said:

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.  

Hey Sean, here is one other way to look at this situation.  There are some fans on this forum who thinks Aerys lost his right to rule because of his actions.  I wonder if those same fans would be willing to say the same of Robb.  After all, it could be argued that Robb was more damaging to the realm.  Robb Stark not only broke his solemn oath to Walder Frey.  He was also actively working to break the kingdom apart.  Yes, I love the Targaryens and not the Starks.  But you seem to be more in the middle.  So let me bring this question to you.  So using the same logic, Walder no longer had an obligation to Robb Stark because the young wolf had proven that the Stark words are worth no more than the contents of a chamber pot.  The Starks were rebels and trying their best to break up the kingdom.  That is treason of the worst kind.  Aerys never even came close to treason.  What Aerys did was perfectly lawful and correct if Rickard Stark was truly plotting to overthrow him. 

Would you not think Walder Frey had no reason to be loyal to Robb if we are looking to float on this logic?  And from Tywin's eyes, the Starks were the instigators of this conflict.  They kidnapped his son and accuses him of bodily injury to Bran.  The patriarch admits to treason against his grandson.  Robb vowed to kill Joffrey.  This is how it looks to Walder's eyes.  Hoster Tully's daughter drags the Riverlands into conflict with the Lannisters.  Cat's husband tried to take the throne from King Joffrey Baratheon.  Tywin is punishing the Riverlands because Cat kidnaps a Lannister.  Now, the Starks arrive at your doorsteps and forces you to make a choice.  You choose their side and very generously supports their cause.  Your son died for the Starks.  Now, this selfish idiot of a king wannabe decides he will not honor his oaths to you.  I might do as Walder and Tywin did.  

[Alyn Oakenfist]

6 minutes ago, Prince Rhaego's Soul said:

Hey Sean, here is one other way to look at this situation.  There are some fans on this forum who thinks Aerys lost his right to rule because of his actions.  I wonder if those same fans would be willing to say the same of Robb.  After all, it could be argued that Robb was more damaging to the realm.  Robb Stark not only broke his solemn oath to Walder Frey.  He was also actively working to break the kingdom apart.  Yes, I love the Targaryens and not the Starks.  But you seem to be more in the middle.  So let me bring this question to you.  So using the same logic, Walder no longer had an obligation to Robb Stark because the young wolf had proven that the Stark words are worth no more than the contents of a chamber pot.  The Starks were rebels and trying their best to break up the kingdom.  That is treason of the worst kind.  Aerys never even came close to treason.  What Aerys did was perfectly lawful and correct if Rickard Stark was truly plotting to overthrow him.  

Robb literally broke a single vow. That's all. I don't get why everybody considers this the highest of crimes... Was it stupid? Hell yeah. But not criminal, and deffo nowhere near Aerys, Bolton, Stannis, Renly or basically everyone else here levels. Shit Jon did worse things. I'm not a fan of Robb as I think he's campaign was poorly handled and without much consideration for human life, but blaming him so much for not marrying a Frye is preposterous.

[The Young Maester]

33 minutes ago, frenin said:

Tywin knew how Robb was going to die, where he was going to die and who the killers would be. 

I'm not saying that he shouldn't have done it yadda yadda yadda, I'm saying he is as responsible as those who carried his wishes on.

For Tywin to have been as responsible for the red wedding as you say. I believe he most have at least ordered the red wedding. If he did than he is probably far more guilty than those that executed it. But we don’t know if he ordered the slaughter of guests during a wedding. But we can assume that he told them what he wanted out of this deal. 
 

Its even possible that Tywin just told them to cut off Robb from the north and attack his army from the rear and front. And maybe the Freys came up with the red wedding solution. And as long as no Lannister was involved, Tywin probably thought why not. 

[The Young Maester]

17 minutes ago, Prince Rhaego's Soul said:

Hey Sean, here is one other way to look at this situation.  There are some fans on this forum who thinks Aerys lost his right to rule because of his actions.  I wonder if those same fans would be willing to say the same of Robb.  After all, it could be argued that Robb was more damaging to the realm.  Robb Stark not only broke his solemn oath to Walder Frey.  He was also actively working to break the kingdom apart.  Yes, I love the Targaryens and not the Starks.  But you seem to be more in the middle.  So let me bring this question to you.  So using the same logic, Walder no longer had an obligation to Robb Stark because the young wolf had proven that the Stark words are worth no more than the contents of a chamber pot.  The Starks were rebels and trying their best to break up the kingdom.  That is treason of the worst kind.  Aerys never even came close to treason.  What Aerys did was perfectly lawful and correct if Rickard Stark was truly plotting to overthrow him.  

You could start your own thread on this. But be aware that it will bring a lot of heated discussions. Arguments*

[Moiraine Sedai]

2 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

For Tywin to have been as responsible for the red wedding as you say. I believe he most have at least ordered the red wedding. If he did than he is probably far more guilty than those that executed it. But we don’t know if he ordered the slaughter of guests during a wedding. But we can assume that he told them what he wanted out of this deal. 
 

Its even possible that Tywin just told them to cut off Robb from the north and attack his army from the rear and front. And maybe the Freys came up with the red wedding solution. And as long as no Lannister was involved, Tywin probably thought why not. 

Tywin needed to get rid of Robb. Any way he can.  He's not going to be choosy about it. 

Jaime knew something really bad was coming Robb's way.  

[The Young Maester]

1 hour ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

Tywin needed to get rid of Robb. Any way he can.  He's not going to be choosy about it. 

As long as no westerlander soldier dies. He is probably happy as long as he gets results. 

1 hour ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

Jaime knew something really bad was coming Robb's way.  

He realised that robb was going to lose the war. 

[McGuv19]

Tywin was at war and he was killing an enemy leader, the biggest threat to the kingdom, and his commanders. Was it dishonourable? I think so. But being honourable doesn’t win wars, being ruthless and cunning does. Tywin did what needed to be done to halt the secession of the North.

Whether Robb was justified in seceding is another question entirely, but in the eyes of the Lannisters and the Throne Robb was a rebel lord and nothing more, and was dealt with as such.

Roose and the Freys broke their vows to Robb respectively. However, Tywin swore no vows to Robb and owed him nothing. Roose and Freys broke their vows in exchange for the various boons offered by Tywin. The Boltons and Freys had the means, motive, and opportunity, all Tywin did was offer them the opportunity to get away with it and *probably* helped plan it.

“Tywin didn’t start wars, he finished them.”

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

8 hours ago, Prince Rhaego's Soul said:

Hey Sean, here is one other way to look at this situation.  There are some fans on this forum who thinks Aerys lost his right to rule because of his actions.  I wonder if those same fans would be willing to say the same of Robb.  After all, it could be argued that Robb was more damaging to the realm.  Robb Stark not only broke his solemn oath to Walder Frey.  He was also actively working to break the kingdom apart.  Yes, I love the Targaryens and not the Starks.  But you seem to be more in the middle.  So let me bring this question to you.  So using the same logic, Walder no longer had an obligation to Robb Stark because the young wolf had proven that the Stark words are worth no more than the contents of a chamber pot.  The Starks were rebels and trying their best to break up the kingdom.  That is treason of the worst kind.  Aerys never even came close to treason.  What Aerys did was perfectly lawful and correct if Rickard Stark was truly plotting to overthrow him. 

Would you not think Walder Frey had no reason to be loyal to Robb if we are looking to float on this logic?  And from Tywin's eyes, the Starks were the instigators of this conflict.  They kidnapped his son and accuses him of bodily injury to Bran.  The patriarch admits to treason against his grandson.  Robb vowed to kill Joffrey.  This is how it looks to Walder's eyes.  Hoster Tully's daughter drags the Riverlands into conflict with the Lannisters.  Cat's husband tried to take the throne from King Joffrey Baratheon.  Tywin is punishing the Riverlands because Cat kidnaps a Lannister.  Now, the Starks arrive at your doorsteps and forces you to make a choice.  You choose their side and very generously supports their cause.  Your son died for the Starks.  Now, this selfish idiot of a king wannabe decides he will not honor his oaths to you.  I might do as Walder and Tywin did.  

I don't necessarily disagree with your logic but it is also true that a Lannister made an attempt on a Starks life first, before all the rest. And during this the Queen Regent had the The Lord of House Stark arrested knowing full well what he was saying was true & justified, then the King had him beheaded so it can certainly be argued that the Starks had every right & reason to rebel against the crown. 

[SeanF]

18 hours ago, Prince Rhaego's Soul said:

Hey Sean, here is one other way to look at this situation.  There are some fans on this forum who thinks Aerys lost his right to rule because of his actions.  I wonder if those same fans would be willing to say the same of Robb.  After all, it could be argued that Robb was more damaging to the realm.  Robb Stark not only broke his solemn oath to Walder Frey.  He was also actively working to break the kingdom apart.  Yes, I love the Targaryens and not the Starks.  But you seem to be more in the middle.  So let me bring this question to you.  So using the same logic, Walder no longer had an obligation to Robb Stark because the young wolf had proven that the Stark words are worth no more than the contents of a chamber pot.  The Starks were rebels and trying their best to break up the kingdom.  That is treason of the worst kind.  Aerys never even came close to treason.  What Aerys did was perfectly lawful and correct if Rickard Stark was truly plotting to overthrow him. 

Would you not think Walder Frey had no reason to be loyal to Robb if we are looking to float on this logic?  And from Tywin's eyes, the Starks were the instigators of this conflict.  They kidnapped his son and accuses him of bodily injury to Bran.  The patriarch admits to treason against his grandson.  Robb vowed to kill Joffrey.  This is how it looks to Walder's eyes.  Hoster Tully's daughter drags the Riverlands into conflict with the Lannisters.  Cat's husband tried to take the throne from King Joffrey Baratheon.  Tywin is punishing the Riverlands because Cat kidnaps a Lannister.  Now, the Starks arrive at your doorsteps and forces you to make a choice.  You choose their side and very generously supports their cause.  Your son died for the Starks.  Now, this selfish idiot of a king wannabe decides he will not honor his oaths to you.  I might do as Walder and Tywin did.  

I think that Walder Frey was entitled to withdraw from the alliance, once Robb broke his side of the bargain.  What made Frey's behaviour heinous was that he negotiated a fresh bargain, and then murdered Robb and thousands of his men, under his own roof.  Frey had lost the right to withdraw from the alliance by negotiating fresh terms, and breach of guest right is the worst thing you can do, according to the ethical code of this society. 

Aerys had absolutely lost the right to rule, due to his his willingness to murder his vassals.  Robb was entitled to march to rescue his father, and, IMHO, in order to overthrow a tyrannical regime.

I'd agree that his cause became murkier once he sought to carve out his own kingdom.  The better course would have been to ally with Stannis, who would have given him justice, in return for his being recognised as king.  In the same way, I think Robert's cause became murkier, once he went beyond self-defence, and claimed the crown in his own right.  He could have ruled as Regent, for years, in the name of Aegon or Viserys.  And, by claiming the crown, he made it almost inevitable that the royal children would be murdered - even if he was unwilling to admit that fact to himself.

[frenin]

22 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

For Tywin to have been as responsible for the red wedding as you say. I believe he most have at least ordered the red wedding. If he did than he is probably far more guilty than those that executed it. But we don’t know if he ordered the slaughter of guests during a wedding. But we can assume that he told them what he wanted out of this deal. 
 

Its even possible that Tywin just told them to cut off Robb from the north and attack his army from the rear and front. And maybe the Freys came up with the red wedding solution. And as long as no Lannister was involved, Tywin probably thought why not. 

Doubtful, Tywin knew that Robb was going to be killed under Walder's very roof, he didn't know o claims not knowing how gruesome the killing would be but he knew the mechanics of the murder and he signed it, sealed it, pardoned it and rewarded it, which imo makes him as responsible. 

Enabling the Red Wedding could be seen as not as damaging as the doing it but it's as awful in my pov and i don't really care whether the killers were Robb's vassals or not.

[frenin]

18 hours ago, McGuv19 said:

“Tywin didn’t start wars, he finished them.”

He did both, that an apparently having a four leaves clover under his ass.

[Angel Eyes]

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

I'd agree that his cause became murkier once he sought to carve out his own kingdom.  The better course would have been to ally with Stannis, who would have given him justice, in return for his being recognised as king.  In the same way, I think Robert's cause became murkier, once he went beyond self-defence, and claimed the crown in his own right.  He could have ruled as Regent, for years, in the name of Aegon or Viserys.  And, by claiming the crown, he made it almost inevitable that the royal children would be murdered - even if he was unwilling to admit that fact to himself.

You can blame the Greatjon for that. It was his idea "The King in the North!" And everybody ran with it from that point. And Robb forgot that he was supposed to rescue his father and sisters. He forgot his purpose and it cost him; if he’d made more of an effort, maybe Catelyn might not have freed Jaime and Tywin would have been a bit more reluctant to pull off the Red Wedding; everybody in the Lannister camp was on edge after Joffrey had Ned executed because it wasn’t out of the question that Robb would do the same to Jaime as retaliation. Judging by his actions Robb wouldn’t have cared if Joffrey chose to execute Sansa on a whim or if she got beaten to death after one of his victories.

[SeanF]

20 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said:

You can blame the Greatjon for that. It was his idea "The King in the North!" And everybody ran with it from that point. And Robb forgot that he was supposed to rescue his father and sisters. He forgot his purpose and it cost him; if he’d made more of an effort, maybe Catelyn might not have freed Jaime and Tywin would have been a bit more reluctant to pull off the Red Wedding; everybody in the Lannister camp was on edge after Joffrey had Ned executed because it wasn’t out of the question that Robb would do the same to Jaime as retaliation. Judging by his actions Robb wouldn’t have cared if Joffrey chose to execute Sansa on a whim or if she got beaten to death after one of his victories.

Northern independence was a pretty hare-brained idea.  It made an enemy out of every potential ally.

[Loose Bolt]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

Northern independence was a pretty hare-brained idea.  It made an enemy out of every potential ally.

Actually if Robb has taken his whole army back to North b4 Ironborn invasion and totally abandoned Riverlands then that idea might have worked.