>Nooo you can't swiftly defeat the entire rebellion by proxy
>You have to warn your enemy of a critical betrayal against them because... that's the moral thing to do!

Does GRIM expect me to believe this shit? The Lannisters have no guilt for the Red Wedding as it wasn't their betrayal of loyalty, nor their Guest Right being broken. Tywin Lannister merely took advantage of a weakness in his enemy and is therefore innocent.

>>24560496 (OP)
Tywin did nothing wrong because unlike most people in ASOIF he actually understands how power works and that things like Guest Right are the pleasantries afforded by a hegemonic ruler. Not moral obligations on someone fighting a total war.

His failing is that he lets his emotion get in the way of his reasoning in a single case, that of his dwarf son. And essentially perverts his entire philosophy by toying with him for a cheap personal thrill, causing his demise.

>>24560496 (OP)
>>24560537
There is merit to both cases. It's like promising people you'll let them go if they surrender only to promptly massacre them afterwards. No one will ever again believe any offers you make and will fight you to the bitter end instead. It becomes counterproductive.

>>24560555
I agree truce breakers are the enemies of humanity and acting against natural law. But these impositions are immaterial when the Lannisters are fighting a total war. Tywin knows his only way out of this is death or victory. Meaning all is permitted.

A moral man would restore moral order once the war is won. But it must be won first.

>>24560496 (OP)
The issue with Twyin was not his conduct in war but rather his conduct out of it. His entire bit is to create a legacy but he utterly failed at it, Ned when he died still had the entire North wanting to wait on his grave and his family, but with Tywin gone he leaves nothing and his family has to contend with it.

Tywin's whole problem is that he's forced to rely on Cersei, and Cersei is a lethal combination of cruel and stupid. He needs her to pump out kids to solidify his hold on the Iron Throne, but he reasonably can't trust her to do anything but be a broodmare because, again, she's cruel and stupid.

In Westeros you can be cruel or you can be stupid, but you can't be both. If you're cruel you have to be smart, if you're stupid you have to be kind. Those are the winning combos, as we see. Tyrion can be cruel, but he's also smart. Jamie can be cruel, but he can also be kind. Tywin himself is cruel and smart. But Cersei's cruel and stupid and that undermines the entire Lannister effort.

Varys even talks about it at the end of Dance, how he specifically relies on her terrible job of ruling to pave the way for Young Griff.

Tywin's whole flaw was not having a smarter daughter.

>>24560630
People always use this argument that the Northerners are loyal to Stark and no one is loyal to the Lannisters but it simply isn't true.
Many of the Northern houses are, indeed, but we see a decent number that aren't. A quarter, let's say, is a minority, but it's a significant one. I don't know the fractions involved, but the Stark do not have supreme loyalty across the North. That is all there is to it.
Furthermore, elsewhere, in the Westerlands, the loyalty to the Lannisters isn't even mentioned because it is still supreme and unconditional. Even if Lannister of Casterly Rock was ousted, Lannister of Lannisport would take over. Or Lanny. Or Lanster. This is a line of succession, historical right, and realm loyalty the Starks can only wish for.
>>24560645
Even I admit, it was also not relying on Tyrion more. For all his tactical prowess, Tywin couldn't take advantage of his own son's abilities because of personal grudge. That's a genuine issue that people say against Tywin and it's one of the few right ones. Cersei, like all women, should've been told to shut up and sit down. Ned also made this mistake with Catelyn in entrusting political matters to women.

This shit's so lame.