Tyrion Lannister: Impin' Ain't Easy

[Hecate7]

Tyrion probably was just there, as many at court are. Cersei wouldn't have invited him, but Jaime would. And Tommen is fond of him, so that suggests Tyrion's been around while Tommen was growing up.

 

I don't think Tyrion is devoted to the plunger--the opportunity to lay it down and come party at court awhile would probably be welcome to him. He didn't need a post--he's got family money.

[DrSpaceman]

I think Tyrion would be as happier as Kingmaker than as King.  If Tyrion could have Casterly Rock, whores and wine, and no responsibility, he'd be happy as well.  Tywin will never let him have the Rock.  For Tyrion, someone has got to rule and better it be a Lannister or someone pro-Lannister than someone else.  Oh and not those dour, boring Starks.  A Stark King would suck all the fun out of Westeros.

 

I'm sure Tywin would have liked to put Jaime on the throne, but Jaime has no ambition.  Letting Tyrion rule through Tommen until Tommen is of age wouldn't be the worst idea.  Of course, with Cersei screaming for Tyrion's head, that's not going to happen.

 

Tyrion does like the game though.  He's better at it than Jaime, who doesn't give a doggy style fuck about it, and better than Cersei who is an idiot.

The last part is the key. It seems most of the best qualified leaders pass up the job because they know what the job would involve and what they have to do to keep the peace. They don't relish the thought doing it.

Tyrion, on the other hand, loves the game, the strategy AND he would be great at it. It doesn't seem anyone else, or very few at least, vying for the throne are, all at the same time, qualified, have a realistic view of how to rule and what it involves and would ENJOY ruling.

[Lady S.]

Tyrion enjoys playing the game, not sure ruling is the same thing. Most of his time in office involved outwitting Cersei and defending the city from Stannis, peacetime ruling would probably involve more mundane challenges. IA with the Kingmaker sentiment.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Lady S.

[DrSpaceman]

I don't get the impression Westeros and King's Landing ever has much of a prolonged period of dull, peacetime, mundane life. 

[Hecate7]

I don't get the impression Westeros and King's Landing ever has much of a prolonged period of dull, peacetime, mundane life. 

Agreed. Outwitting people like Cersei, Littlefinger, and Pycelle, and coming up with various strategies to stave off whatever is threatening the city, is exactly what ruling is about. And I think Tyrion would be an even better ruler during peacetime, because he although he's a good strategist, he dislikes fighting. He likes doing things like outfoxing the court spies, and various kinds of politicking.

[Lady S.]

I don't get the impression Westeros and King's Landing ever has much of a prolonged period of dull, peacetime, mundane life. 

Certainly not that we've seen (though the 10 years between Balon's first rebellion and the Wo5K is still something, and Tywin is said to have held the Mad King in check and managed the realm for about 20 years), I was thinking hypothetically, since I doubt the series is going to end with King Tyrion in any case. A diligent administrator doesn't really seem to go hand-in-hand with an alcoholic who admits "I'm quite good at spending money, but a lifetime of outrageous wealth hasn't taught me much about managing it.", but then, I'm sure there's a historical king like that at some point, truth being strange and all. But I think a great king would need to be good with more than just court intrigues, especially if he wanted to reform Westeros into not such a hell-hole, which would be part of my conception of a true king, otherwise it'd just be more of the same. Maybe a Tyrion who never developed such a taste for wine and women would be willing to dedicate himself to serving the realm as Varys would want, I could see him as a maester even in a different life, not so much in the life he has, though, (he wouldn't be as apathetic and hedonistic as Robert but that's not a high bar). Which isn't a criticism of him, Tyrion's just got plenty of issues of his own to deal with without taking on the heavy burdens of the 7K, and I don't see him relishing that prospect.

 

Mostly I just don't think he wants the throne much more than Jaime does. And personally I think a ruler must have some desire for his role. The whole best person for the job is someone who doesn't want the power thing makes sense when the job is bearing a ring of power, it's less practical in a position of exercising power. Considering that and the probability of violent turnover, I wouldn't wish the monstrosity of the Iron Throne on any character I care about, which is why I'd be fine with Dany taking it.   Geez, I don't know how my posts always turn into essays, really sorry.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Lady S.

[Holmbo]

I could see Tyrion (show not book) making a good hand of the king if it was to a ruler he respected. I don't see him working as a king though both because his personality and because of that societies prejudice against dwarfs. He'd be better as a behind the scene ruler to a good figurehead king that everyone loved.

If this show where to have a Disney ending I could see Jon and Dany ending up as a ruling couple with Tyrion as their hand, lord of Casterly rock and warden of the west. Either he an Sansa are still married or it's been annulled and Sansa is the ruler of Riverrun.

Ok maybe it's not actually a disney ending because Jon and Dany are related but it's probably a much happier ending than we're actually going to get.

[DrSpaceman]

Certainly not that we've seen (though the 10 years between Balon's first rebellion and the Wo5K is still something, and Tywin is said to have held the Mad King in check and managed the realm for about 20 years), I was thinking hypothetically, since I doubt the series is going to end with King Tyrion in any case. A diligent administrator doesn't really seem to go hand-in-hand with an alcoholic who admits "I'm quite good at spending money, but a lifetime of outrageous wealth hasn't taught me much about managing it.", but then, I'm sure there's a historical king like that at some point, truth being strange and all. But I think a great king would need to be good with more than just court intrigues, especially if he wanted to reform Westeros into not such a hell-hole, which would be part of my conception of a true king, otherwise it'd just be more of the same. Maybe a Tyrion who never developed such a taste for wine and women would be willing to dedicate himself to serving the realm as Varys would want, I could see him as a maester even in a different life, not so much in the life he has, though, (he wouldn't be as apathetic and hedonistic as Robert but that's not a high bar). Which isn't a criticism of him, Tyrion's just got plenty of issues of his own to deal with without taking on the heavy burdens of the 7K, and I don't see him relishing that prospect.

 

Mostly I just don't think he wants the throne much more than Jaime does. And personally I think a ruler must have some desire for his role. The whole best person for the job is someone who doesn't want the power thing makes sense when the job is bearing a ring of power, it's less practical in a position of exercising power. Considering that and the probability of violent turnover, I wouldn't wish the monstrosity of the Iron Throne on any character I care about, which is why I'd be fine with Dany taking it.   Geez, I don't know how my posts always turn into essays, really sorry.

 

 

Actually Tyrion reminds me quite a bit of Bill Clinton.  Clinton was not born into wealth, but outside of that, fits very well. 

 

He is a schmoozer that knows all the right things to say at the right time, knows how to find common ground and get things done with even the deepest of enemies and is a master at working people to his advantage, sometimes without them knowing it. 

 

At the same time he likes to have a good time and loves.......women, in general, I guess you could say. 

 

And I never even voted for CLinton, but put those two together and you have a party and a couple of political masterminds that would be hard to beat

 

Probably a better comparison though is George W Bush's family and money with Bill Clinton's political savvy and personality combined into one

[Constantinople]

A diligent administrator doesn't really seem to go hand-in-hand with an alcoholic who admits "I'm quite good at spending money, but a lifetime of outrageous wealth hasn't taught me much about managing it.", but then, I'm sure there's a historical king like that at some point, truth being strange and all.

But Tyrion does apply himself when given a task. When he was Casterly Rock's plumber, the drains never flowed so well. Of course, Tyrion could be lying about that, but I have no reason not to believe him. When he was Acting Hand, much of the work of preparing for the Battle of Blackwater would be rather boring prep and logistics work (I think the book did a better job of showing that than the show). After he was appointed Master of Coin, one of the first things he did was to go over the books (I can't remember if he did that in the books, but he did do that in the show).

Tyrion wants to be Lord of Casterly Rock, he's observant and intelligent. He must know that more than a little of being Lord of CR wouldn't be exciting court intrigue, or heroic battles, but humdrum day-to-day stuff. Similar to Acting Lord of the North Bran bringing together orphan children with farmers who need more help, or loaning out his masons to help another farmer repair his home.

Of course, Tyrion would still want to have fun, but I think he could be a Work Hard / Party Hard(er) sort.

 

Actually Tyrion reminds me quite a bit of Bill Clinton.  Clinton was not born into wealth, but outside of that, fits very well. 

 

He is a schmoozer that knows all the right things to say at the right time, knows how to find common ground and get things done with even the deepest of enemies and is a master at working people to his advantage, sometimes without them knowing it.

I don't want to drag this thread, or any thread on this forum, into real world politics. Therein lies the road to flame wars that make wildfire look tame by comparison, and the strong possibility of banishment for violating the forum's "Don't be a dick" rule.

But -- didn't someone once remark about the significance of what comes before the But -- Bill Clinton has a popularity and personal magnetism that I don't think Tyrion has.

Obviously, a lot of people hate or hated Clinton (or least, he drove them up the wall). But even more loved or liked him. I'm never met the man in person, but I'm told by those who have that he has incredible personal charisma.

Tyrion is liked well enough by his fellow outsiders Bronn & Shae, and Jaime loves Tyrion in his own way, but I don't think Tyrion has the kind of appeal to his to fall back on that Clinton did. Tyrion is the demon monkey.

[DrSpaceman]

But Tyrion does apply himself when given a task. When he was Casterly Rock's plumber, the drains never flowed so well. Of course, Tyrion could be lying about that, but I have no reason not to believe him. When he was Acting Hand, much of the work of preparing for the Battle of Blackwater would be rather boring prep and logistics work (I think the book did a better job of showing that than the show). After he was appointed Master of Coin, one of the first things he did was to go over the books (I can't remember if he did that in the books, but he did do that in the show).

Tyrion wants to be Lord of Casterly Rock, he's observant and intelligent. He must know that more than a little of being Lord of CR wouldn't be exciting court intrigue, or heroic battles, but humdrum day-to-day stuff. Similar to Acting Lord of the North Bran bringing together orphan children with farmers who need more help, or loaning out his masons to help another farmer repair his home.

Of course, Tyrion would still want to have fun, but I think he could be a Work Hard / Party Hard(er) sort.

 

I don't want to drag this thread, or any thread on this forum, into real world politics. Therein lies the road to flame wars that make wildfire look tame by comparison, and the strong possibility of banishment for violating the forum's "Don't be a dick" rule.

But -- didn't someone once remark about the significance of what comes before the But -- Bill Clinton has a popularity and personal magnetism that I don't think Tyrion has.

Obviously, a lot of people hate or hated Clinton (or least, he drove them up the wall). But even more loved or liked him. I'm never met the man in person, but I'm told by those who have that he has incredible personal charisma.

Tyrion is liked well enough by his fellow outsiders Bronn & Shae, and Jaime loves Tyrion in his own way, but I don't think Tyrion has the kind of appeal to his to fall back on that Clinton did. Tyrion is the demon monkey.

 

 

That is true, Tyrion does not have the personal magnetism that Clinton posssesses.  But then I think he is held back just by being a dwarf, which is unfortuneate, which keeps him at a distance from most people. 

 

I think people that get to know Tyrion are quite taken by him though, if they give him a chance. 

 

My main point though is Tyrion is by far best suited to be a politician and effective ruler out of all the Lannister children. Earlier there was discussion about if he is considered a scholar in Westeros, which I don't know if he is or not.  I am not sure that matters if he is or not.  He has an obvious talent for politics and working with and connecting with people, which is probably a result of being a dwarf.  If he wanted to survive and have friends, he likely had to develop it as a skill.  And its a skill that Tywin never really puts to good use, except for the brief period in season two when it was absolutely necessary. 

[CletusMusashi]

All I know is I can't wait to see him in "The Road to Essos." I figure Tyrion, with his love of booze and cheap women, will be Brian. Varys will be Stewie.

[Bannon]

He went looking for Tywin and I don't think that will get you self defense in the us at least. But probably this is off topic for this thread because the thing Tyrion is concerned about is that he is a kinslayer. I'm glad the show is clearly going to try to move this plot line along but I was really looking forward to the Jorah/Tyrion combo so I'm curious when we will get to that. If they aren't going straight to meereen I'm curious what varys is doing.

 

What I loved about the Hound after Blackwater was that he was one of the few characters (along with perhaps Varys) who was willing to describe the whole steaming pile of hypocritical feces that is Westeros society for what it is. Kinslayer? That's what Tywin and Cersei aspired to be with regard to Tyrion. Now, I think it quite credible that Tyrion feels extreme guilt; unless you are a sociopath, you are going to feel guilty about killing your dad and and your lover. As a matter of rational morality, however, Tywin and Shea were involved in conspiracy to have Tyrion murdered via the tools of the state, and woud have persisted in that quest. People who are involved in a conspiracy to have others murdered by the state are legitimate targets of violence by those who the conspitators are trying to murder.

[Shanna]

I am not mad at Tyrion for killing his father (although I wish they'd kept the book reasoning because I liked it better). But it wasn't self defense by the laws of here or there because he sought Tywin out. He wasn't in danger from him at the moment. What Tywin Cersei and Shae did was all kinds of wrong, although I do think Cersei at least actually believed he was guilty. But they were working through the clearly terrible legal system of westeros.

[nodorothyparker]

I think Cersei wanted to believe he was guilty and so never bothered to consider other suspects or whether the facts really supported it beyond the antagonistic threatening that was happening between nephew and uncle who really didn't like each other.  She hated him, therefore he must be guilty.  Tywin never really seemed to care much either way whether he was guilty or not.  The murder and subsequent conviction solved a number of problems for him:  replacing the clearly unstable Joffrey with a more pliable young king for him to mold, ridding himself of his unwanted younger son who had always been an embarrassment to him, and the bonus of getting Jaime back in line as his son and heir.  Had he not taken a crossbolt or two, it all was working out pretty well for him.

 

All that said, Tyrion was walking free with a clear escape path when he decided to take a detour to kill Shae and then Tywin.  As long as he could manage not to get captured (and Jaime had taken care of the guards most likely to discover him), he wasn't in any immediate danger.  So there's no real argument for self defense.  I know the show had Shae pull a knife on him when confronted as part of its continued whitewashing of the character so viewers could point to it and say "see, he's only defending himself from the lying whore who betrayed him anyway."  But even lying whores have the right to defend themselves when approached in a threatening manner.  It's possible to think that what Tywin, Cersei, and Shae had done to him was truly terrible and still see that he could have walked away.  At that point, though, Tyrion was just completely out of fucks to give and as a convicted and condemned kingslayer really didn't have anything to lose.

Edited April 23, 2015 by nodorothyparker

[nksarmi]

I am not mad at Tyrion for killing his father (although I wish they'd kept the book reasoning because I liked it better). But it wasn't self defense by the laws of here or there because he sought Tywin out. He wasn't in danger from him at the moment. What Tywin Cersei and Shae did was all kinds of wrong, although I do think Cersei at least actually believed he was guilty. But they were working through the clearly terrible legal system of westeros.

First, I don't believe Cersei - when in her right mind - believed Tyrion was guilty.  She simply hated him and wanted him dead.  I say when in her right mind because she seems to have moments of lucidness when she seems a capable player in the GoTs and others where she is just bat shit crazy.  Tyrion loved his younger nephew and niece and never sought to hurt Marcelle - sending her to Dorne was a political move to keep Dorne out of the War of Five Kings but also beneficial because she was kept safe.  Cersei herself nearly poisoned Tommen for goodness sake.

 

Second, while it can't be considered self-defense per say, I think we could call it justifiable.  His father obviously visited all sorts of psychological abuse on Tyrion his whole life and I wouldn't be beyond believing there was a little physical abuse as well if he bothered to even acknowledge Tyrion's existence.  Tyrion might be able to outrun the reach of the rather incompetent Cersei, but it is unlikely he could have survived his father's wrath at his escape.  If Tyrion had any chance at all at not just escaping, but living - his father had to die.  I appreciate that Tyrion feels guilty, but I can't call it cold-blooded murder after that farce of a trial, the betrayal of Shae, and the hypocrisy of his father sleeping with a whore after all he has done to Tyrion for the same thing.  Even though the show left part of the Tysha story out - there was enough left in for the pain to still sting in regards to his father sleeping with Shae.

[Bannon]

I think Cersei wanted to believe he was guilty and so never bothered to consider other suspects or whether the facts really supported it beyond the antagonistic threatening that was happening between nephew and uncle who really didn't like each other.  She hated him, therefore he must be guilty.  Tywin never really seemed to care much either way whether he was guilty or not.  The murder and subsequent conviction solved a number of problems for him:  replacing the clearly unstable Joffrey with a more pliable young king for him to mold, ridding himself of his unwanted younger son who had always been an embarrassment to him, and the bonus of getting Jaime back in line as his son and heir.  Had he not taken a crossbolt or two, it all was working out pretty well for him.

 

All that said, Tyrion was walking free with a clear escape path when he decided to take a detour to kill Shae and then Tywin.  As long as he could manage not to get captured (and Jaime had taken care of the guards most likely to discover him), he wasn't in any immediate danger.  So there's no real argument for self defense.  I know the show had Shae pull a knife on him when confronted as part of its continued whitewashing of the character so viewers could point to it and say "see, he's only defending himself from the lying whore who betrayed him anyway."  But even lying whores have the right to defend themselves when approached in a threatening manner.  It's possible to think that what Tywin, Cersei, and Shae had done to him was truly terrible and still see that he could have walked away.  At that point, though, Tyrion was just completely out of fucks to give and as a convicted and condemned kingslayer really didn't have anything to lose.

Tywin was effectively Head of State, in his minor grandson's place, in a system where there is little check on the will of the Head of State. One of those minor checks is a formal legal system; they do have trials. Joffrey even felt compelled to force Ned into a confession prior to killing him. In this case the Head of State is conspiring, with Cersei and Shea, to corrupt one of thse minor checks on the will of the Head of State, by suborning false testimony in a murder trial. The purpose of this conspiracy is to efffect the murder of Tyrion via the tools of state.

 

A person in Tyrion's situation has the morally legitmate right to target the Head of State, and the Head of State's co-conspirators, with deadly violence. Shea was a morally legitimate target for homicide by Tyrion, even if she hadn't raised a blade. Tyrion has the rational, moral, right to visit deadly violence on Cersei. When the state renounces legitimacy, by renouncing the rules the state itself acknowledges to be legitmate, in this case the rules of a murder trial, and in doing so tries to murder a citizen or subject, there is no constraint the citizen or subject must respect in regard to visiting violence on those people who are attempting to use the tools of state to commit murder. 

Edited April 23, 2015 by Bannon

[DigitalCount]

That's a good point. Tywin's control of the kingdom was so complete, and the power of the system so absolute, that the only time he could really argue that he wasn't attacking Tyrion is in a hypothetical situation where he relinquishes control. Tywin was in the driver's seat of the conspiracy; just because it was on cruise control at that moment, it doesn't mean it wasn't still in motion.

[Shanna]

I think if Cersei had not truly thought Tyrion was guilty she would have made some efforts to locate the guilty party. Her hatred of Tyrion prejudiced her to be sure, but she thinks he did it.

Her prejudice made her believe Tyrion actually meant harm to myrcella too when he clearly didn't.

I personally never considered Shae pulling of a knife that much of a whitewash because I think she pulled it for defense. Tyrion had reasons to be angry at Shae and to hate her. That's not just,IMO, but it's understandable?

[Bannon]

That's a good point. Tywin's control of the kingdom was so complete, and the power of the system so absolute, that the only time he could really argue that he wasn't attacking Tyrion is in a hypothetical situation where he relinquishes control. Tywin was in the driver's seat of the conspiracy; just because it was on cruise control at that moment, it doesn't mean it wasn't still in motion.

Yeah, if you don't examine what it means when the state is trying to commit murder, when so much of the power of the state is vested in one person's will, you really are missing the political aspect of this violence, which is to miss an essential part of judging the morality/immorality of the behavior of the individual human beings. 

I think if Cersei had not truly thought Tyrion was guilty she would have made some efforts to locate the guilty party. Her hatred of Tyrion prejudiced her to be sure, but she thinks he did it.

Her prejudice made her believe Tyrion actually meant harm to myrcella too when he clearly didn't.

I personally never considered Shae pulling of a knife that much of a whitewash because I think she pulled it for defense. Tyrion had reasons to be angry at Shae and to hate her. That's not just,IMO, but it's understandable?

You may be right with regard to Cersei, but I tend to think it more likely that she knew that Shae's testimony at Tyrion's trail was false. There is no doubt about Shae, however. She was plainly engaged in a full throated conspiracy, with the Head of State, to effect the murder of Tyrion, via the tools of state.

[Constantinople]

The Lannister regime is an illegitimate usurpation of lawful authority that resulted in thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people being killed, and in which Tyrion was an eager and willing participant. It's a little late in the day for Tyrion to start arguing moral legitimacy.

Besides, there was a trial by combat held in the Light of the Seven and Tyrion lost. Tyrion doesn't object to the idea of trial by combat, see how eager he was to name Jaime his champion in the Eyrie, or to hope that Jaime might be his champion this time. When Tyrion discovered Jaime wouldn't, Tyrion's thoughts immediately turned to Bronn carving up Meryn Trant. Like every other Lannister, he only objects to something if it doesn't give him the result he wants.

[Shanna]

You may be right with regard to Cersei, but I tend to think it more likely that she knew that Shae's testimony at Tyrion's trail was false. There is no doubt about Shae, however. She was plainly engaged in a full throated conspiracy, with the Head of State, to effect the murder of Tyrion, via the tools of state.

I think she probably knew the testimony was false but believed it justified because the accusation was true. So, fake but accurate basically. I don't think Cersei ever considered anyone else guilty from that first second. She is getting played so bad.

[Bannon]

The Lannister regime is an illegitimate usurpation of lawful authority that resulted in thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people being killed, and in which Tyrion was an eager and willing participant. It's a little late in the day for Tyrion to start arguing moral legitimacy.

Besides, there was a trial by combat held in the Light of the Seven and Tyrion lost. Tyrion doesn't object to the idea of trial by combat, see how eager he was to name Jaime his champion in the Eyrie, or to hope that Jaime might be his champion this time. When Tyrion discovered Jaime wouldn't, Tyrion's thoughts immediately turned to Bronn carving up Meryn Trant. Like every other Lannister, he only objects to something if it doesn't give him the result he wants.

A citizen's or subject's past bad acts cannot legitimate the Head of State trying to commit murder via the tools of state, via the corruption of a murder trial. The Trial by Combat only was demanded when it became obvious that the Head of State was suborning false testimony, in order to obtain an execution. One need not mount any defense of Tyrion's character to accurately note that any person in Tyrion's situation has a rational, moral, right to visit deadly violence on a Head of State that engages in the acts that Tywin does, when the Head of State has such little impediment to the execution of his will.

I think she probably knew the testimony was false but believed it justified because the accusation was true. So, fake but accurate basically. I don't think Cersei ever considered anyone else guilty from that first second. She is getting played so bad.

Yeah, I tend to agree with this. Cersei is essentialy a hugely egocentric dope with severe anger issues.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Bannon

[Constantinople]

Morality that lacks anything resembling consistency doesn't provide any basis for determining what is moral or immoral.

Tyrion never objected to the principle of a trial, of whatever form, so he continues to recognize a mafia family as legitimate authority.

Tywin promised to send Tyrion to the Wall.

The trial and danger to Tyrion was over when he decided to murder Shae and Tywin.

[Shanna]

Tyrion never objected to the principle of a trial, of whatever form, so he continues to recognize a mafia family as legitimate authority.

Tywin promised to send Tyrion to the Wall.

The trial and danger to Tyrion was over when he decided to murder Shae and Tywin.

He never objected to the principle of a trial or to being on trial himself? Because he objected to this particular trial as bullshit from the first minute, IMO. He knew he didn't kill Joffrey. He just had no choice.

He did have a choice about going to the wall (in theory) but the injustice of the whole thing got to him and his temper.

The danger to Tyrion is not over though. Cersei is still hunting him.

[Bannon]

Morality that lacks anything resembling consistency doesn't provide any basis for determining what is moral or immoral.

Tyrion never objected to the principle of a trial, of whatever form, so he continues to recognize a mafia family as legitimate authority.

Tywin promised to send Tyrion to the Wall.

The trial and danger to Tyrion was over when he decided to murder Shae and Tywin.

You seem to be implying that I am making the claim that Tyrion is a moral human being. I am not. I am saying there is no rational moral obstacle to a person in Tyrion's situation engaging in homicide with regard to Tywin and Shea. The two statements are not synonymous. The promise of a person who suborns false testimony in a murder trial has no value, and the state, as embodied in the will of Tywin, with the aid of Sahe's false testimony, would have continued to see to Tyriion's death. The state has declared war on Tyrion, in contravention of the norms the state acknowledges to be legitimate. When the state does that, a subject or citizen subject to the declaration of war has every rational moral reason to wage war on the state.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Bannon

[DigitalCount]

So, short form: Tyrion's killing of his father was justified because:

1) Tywin was unlawfully engaged in trying to kill him;

2) the weapon he used is the kingdom itself;

3) Tywin was by definition always "armed."

And I suppose these reasons extend to Shae as an agent of the kingdom, though even if that's not enough, she pulled a knife on him, making that question moot.

Edited April 23, 2015 by DigitalCount

[Constantinople]

You seem to be implying that I am making the claim that Tyrion is a moral human being. I am not.

Thank you for the clarification.

 

I am saying there is no rational moral obstacle to a person in Tyrion's situation engaging in homicide with regard to Tywin and Shea. The two statements are not synonymous. The promise of a person who suborns false testimony in a murder trial has no value, and the state, as embodied in the will of Tywin, with the aid of Sahe's false testimony, would have continued to see to Tyriion's death. The state has declared war on Tyrion, in contravention of the norms the state acknowledges to be legitimate. When the state does that, a subject or citizen subject to the declaration of war has every rational moral reason to wage war on the state.

Shae isn't the state. Most likely, her only alternative to testifying, was a slow painful death (Hello Qyburn!). Tyrion had no moral right to murder her.

Tyrion was a key component of a "state" that he knew acknowledged no norms. Tyrion's objection to Ned Stark's execution and the Red Wedding weren't moral, they were political. I disagree that Tyrion's participation in this regime are morally irrelevant. Tyrion believed and acted on the principle that the Lannister state can do whatever it wants and by any means necessary. In any case, Tyrion made no arguments about the duties and rights of citizens and rulers. Tyrion only shot Tywin after Tywin uttered the word whore.

[Holmbo]

So, short form: Tyrion's killing of his father was justified because:

1) Tywin was unlawfully engaged in trying to kill him;

2) the weapon he used is the kingdom itself;

3) Tywin was by definition always "armed."

I don't know if I agree but I enjoy that sum up and this whole discussion.

My thought I guess is that no justification matter unless it was the motivation for Tyrion. He didn't decide to kill his dad to make his own life safe. He did it because of personal reasons.

[Bannon]

Thank you for the clarification.

 

Shae isn't the state. Most likely, her only alternative to testifying, was a slow painful death (Hello Qyburn!). Tyrion had no moral right to murder her.

Tyrion was a key component of a "state" that he knew acknowledged no norms. Tyrion's objection to Ned Stark's execution and the Red Wedding weren't moral, they were political. I disagree that Tyrion's participation in this regime are morally irrelevant. Tyrion believed and acted on the principle that the Lannister state can do whatever it wants and by any means necessary. In any case, Tyrion made no arguments about the duties and rights of citizens and rulers. Tyrion only shot Tywin after Tywin uttered the word whore.

Subject A has entered into a conspiracy with the state, to murder subject B. Subject B thus legitimately has no moral obstacle to visiting deadly violence on subject A. Now, you raise the possibility that A has been coerced into that conspiracy, and that certainly would change things, but the show hasn't revealed that to us, and subject A did pull a knife on subject B, when B, to his surprise, encountered A..

 

Neither you or I can determine with precision what caused Tyrion to climb the stairs to the Hand's chambers. What can be determined with 100% accuracy is that the state, as embodied in Tywin's largely unchecked will, was engaged in an attempt to have Tyrion murdered. Regardless of Tyrion's moral stature, or lack thereof, a Head of State of Tywin's mostly unchecked power, who pursues a path of murder, is stripped of any and all moral protection from deadly violence, from those the Head of State is attempting to murder.

 

(edit) I want to add that it isn't accurate to say that the state headed by Tywin, or before him, Joffrey, acknowledged no norms. The reason they have trials, instead of simply executing whomeever they wish, when they wish, is that they acknowledge the norm of establishing guilt by some process other than the Head of State's opinion. That's why it is so sgnificant that the Head of State has corrupted that process by suborning false testimony, in pursuit of a guilty verdict.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Bannon

[nksarmi]

The Lannister regime is an illegitimate usurpation of lawful authority that resulted in thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people being killed, and in which Tyrion was an eager and willing participant. It's a little late in the day for Tyrion to start arguing moral legitimacy.

Besides, there was a trial by combat held in the Light of the Seven and Tyrion lost. Tyrion doesn't object to the idea of trial by combat, see how eager he was to name Jaime his champion in the Eyrie, or to hope that Jaime might be his champion this time. When Tyrion discovered Jaime wouldn't, Tyrion's thoughts immediately turned to Bronn carving up Meryn Trant. Like every other Lannister, he only objects to something if it doesn't give him the result he wants.

I don't know if this is a fair claim against Tyrion.  Robert Barathyen and Ned Stark led a rebellion against the crown and could be considered usurpers for that reason, but Tyrion was in no position to stop this and neither were many others in realm.  The Lannister usurp of the crown lays in the fact that Jamie is the father of Cersei's children rather than Robert.  In this case, at first, only Jamie and Cersei can be held responsible for that crime.  At some point, Tyrion suspects its true, but he can do little more about it than Ned which was essentially lose his head.  When Tyrion does act, it is to protect others in realm.

 

Now frankly, when it comes to the trial by combat, I would call it a freaking tie since we know the Mountain died as well.  I still don't know why  Tyrion couldn't ask for a do-over.  But that aside, I believe both Cersei and daddy dearest were in fact knowingly trying to murder and innocent man.  I do not believe Cersei believed her own lie.  If she had any logic at all, she would have suspected any number of other people - from Obyren himself to Margeary - the new queen.  And no one who knew anything about Tyrion would believe he would poisen the king in such a public manner.  She KNOWS better - she just HATES him enough to make herself believe her own lie.

Edited April 23, 2015 by nksarmi

[nksarmi]

I don't know if I agree but I enjoy that sum up and this whole discussion.

My thought I guess is that no justification matter unless it was the motivation for Tyrion. He didn't decide to kill his dad to make his own life safe. He did it because of personal reasons.

And even if that was the case - vengeance for a moral wrong has never been portrayed as bad on this show/in these books.  Ayra is not perceived as an evil character by most but she is motivated entirely by vengeance at this point.  So in this world, I have no issue with Tyrion taking vengeance on a man who spent his whole life doing him wrong and was actively trying to kill him (I don't believe Tyrion could outrun his father as easily as Cersei) - I just happen to also believe it was justifiable.

 

I do have issue with this whole "no man is as accursed as a kinslayer" crap GRRM has established for his world.  Really?  A dad beats the crap out of his kid or continuously rapes his daughter and if one of them kills him for it - they are cursed?  That's interesting morality for a show/book where family members are really shitty to each other.

[Hecate7]

I think if Cersei had not truly thought Tyrion was guilty she would have made some efforts to locate the guilty party. Her hatred of Tyrion prejudiced her to be sure, but she thinks he did it.

Her prejudice made her believe Tyrion actually meant harm to myrcella too when he clearly didn't.

I personally never considered Shae pulling of a knife that much of a whitewash because I think she pulled it for defense. Tyrion had reasons to be angry at Shae and to hate her. That's not just,IMO, but it's understandable?

 

 

I don't think he advanced on her in a threatening manner until after she pulled the knife. Even then, I don't think he decided to attack her. I think he did come to confront and probably kill Tywin, but even after he saw Shae there, I don't think he had murdering her in mind.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Hecate7

[Constantinople]

Subject A has entered into a conspiracy with the state, to murder subject B. Subject B thus legitimately has no moral obstacle to visiting deadly violence on subject A.

Why? Shae had already testified and the trial was already over. Killing Shae at this point didn't prevent her from testifying, and thus didn't put Tyrion at any less risk of death.

 

Now, you raise the possibility that A has been coerced into that conspiracy, and that certainly would change things, but the show hasn't revealed that to us

Tyrion tried to hustle her Shae to Pentos because he thought his father or his sister would kill Shae. Given that, and given that it was Tyrion who killed Shae, in my opinion, the burden is on Tyrion to show she willingly participated since he already knows that she's under threat of death.

 

, and subject A did pull a knife on subject B, when B, to his surprise, encountered A..

This wasn't some random encounter in the street. Tyrion broke into the Hand's apartment, where he had no right to be. Shae grabbed a knife to arm herself and drew back, while never leaving the bed. It was Tyrion who leaped onto the bed and killed Shae.

As a general principle, you don't get to break into someone's house, hurl yourself at them and then claim self defense.

 

Neither you or I can determine with precision what caused Tyrion to climb the stairs to the Hand's chambers. What can be determined with 100% accuracy is that the state, as embodied in Tywin's largely unchecked will, was engaged in an attempt to have Tyrion murdered. Regardless of Tyrion's moral stature, or lack thereof, a Head of State of Tywin's mostly unchecked power, who pursues a path of murder, is stripped of any and all moral protection from deadly violence, from those the Head of State is attempting to murder.

Tyrion has never once said or suggested that his actions were in any way motivated by anything other than personal reasons.

If you're arguing it's just one murderer killing another murderer, I agree, but Tyrion had no moral right to voluntarily break into Tywin's room for personal reasons and then murder that Tywin for personal reasons.

 

(edit) I want to add that it isn't accurate to say that the state headed by Tywin, or before him, Joffrey, acknowledged no norms. The reason they have trials, instead of simply executing whomeever they wish, when they wish, is that they acknowledge the norm of establishing guilt by some process other than the Head of State's opinion. That's why it is so sgnificant that the Head of State has corrupted that process by suborning false testimony, in pursuit of a guilty verdict.

Micah never had a trial.

Jory Cassel never received a trial, nor did his Ned's other men.

Ned Stark was forced to falsely confess to treason or face whatever the Lannisters might choose to do to Sansa or Arya.

Septa Mordane never received a trial.

Had Sansa and the Hound not convinced Joffrey that it was bad luck to kill someone on your name, Ser Dontos would have been forced to drink himself to death without a trial.

Neither Ros nor Daisy received trials.

Alton Lannister didn't receive a trial.

The men that Tywin Lannister had killed at Harrenhal never received trials.

Robb Stark didn't get a trial.

Neither did Catelyn Stark.

So I disagree that the Lannisters acknowledge the norm of establishing guilt by trial before killing someone.

[Hecate7]

As a general principle, you don't get to break into someone's house, hurl yourself at them and then claim self defense.

 

 

Actually, as Tywin's son Tyrion had more right to be there than Shae. He was surprised by her as much as she was by him, and she is the one who equipped herself with deadly force, changing an encounter that might simply have involved Tyrion moaning why and crying a lot, into a violent one. It was self defense on Tyrion's part. He didn't come there to kill her.

 

Tyrion has never once said or suggested that his actions were in any way motivated by anything other than personal reasons.

    If you're arguing it's just one murderer killing another murderer, I agree, but Tyrion had no moral right to voluntarily break into Tywin's room for personal reasons and then murder that Tywin for personal reasons.   

Micah, Roz, Daisy, and Septa Mordane were commoners. They were not entitled to a trial once Joffrey, the Crown Prince, condemned them as criminals. He was entitled to execute them. Ditto Dontos.

 

Ned and his men were officially at war with Jaime when he attacked them, and had been from the moment Catelyn took Tyrion prisoner. The rules of war are different than peacetime, which is why you don't want to go to war with Tywin Lannister. You don't put the enemy army on trial, you attack them. Jaime's actions were legal, hence Robert's reaction.

 

    Ned Stark was forced to falsely confess to treason or face whatever the Lannisters might choose to do to Sansa or Arya.

 

But he did have a trial. It was all nice and legal.

 

    Alton Lannister didn't receive a trial

 

Valid. But it was a POW situation, and Jaime killed Alton so Alton wouldn't face a worse fate, and because Alton would only slow him down.

 

    The men that Tywin Lannister had killed at Harrenhal never received trials.

 

Traitors and prisoners of war. Nobody tries them--they're put to use or put to death.

 

    Robb Stark didn't get a trial.

 

Casualty of war. Robb was the leader of the rebellion.   

 

Neither did Catelyn Stark.

 

Catelyn was also a casualty of war. No trial needed here. She was guilty.    

 

So I disagree that the Lannisters acknowledge the norm of establishing guilt by trial before killing someone.

 

Not one of the people you mentioned was in a normal situation where a trial was necessary, except Ned, and technically he did have a trial.

[Shanna]

I don't agree that it was self defense on tyrions part. I think Shae armed herself because show Shae is a street kind of girl who believes in arming herself for protection. I didn't mind because it fit her show character but I think it triggered tyrions rage in the same way her calling him her lion or whatever did in the books. That he was already hurt and betrayed by her both at the trial and seeing her in his fathers bed made that pretty easy as well.

But he didn't have to approach her in either case, he could have turned around and left.

I'm not sure what the utility is of talking of trials. Joffrey was murdered at his wedding in front of the most important people at kings landing. That's not something you sweep under the rug or make secret deals with Freys and boltons about. They had to at least pretend to have a trial.

[Bannon]

Why? Shae had already testified and the trial was already over. Killing Shae at this point didn't prevent her from testifying, and thus didn't put Tyrion at any less risk of death.

 

Tyrion tried to hustle her Shae to Pentos because he thought his father or his sister would kill Shae. Given that, and given that it was Tyrion who killed Shae, in my opinion, the burden is on Tyrion to show she willingly participated since he already knows that she's under threat of death.

 

This wasn't some random encounter in the street. Tyrion broke into the Hand's apartment, where he had no right to be. Shae grabbed a knife to arm herself and drew back, while never leaving the bed. It was Tyrion who leaped onto the bed and killed Shae.

As a general principle, you don't get to break into someone's house, hurl yourself at them and then claim self defense.

 

Tyrion has never once said or suggested that his actions were in any way motivated by anything other than personal reasons.

If you're arguing it's just one murderer killing another murderer, I agree, but Tyrion had no moral right to voluntarily break into Tywin's room for personal reasons and then murder that Tywin for personal reasons.

 

Micah never had a trial.

Jory Cassel never received a trial, nor did his Ned's other men.

Ned Stark was forced to falsely confess to treason or face whatever the Lannisters might choose to do to Sansa or Arya.

Septa Mordane never received a trial.

Had Sansa and the Hound not convinced Joffrey that it was bad luck to kill someone on your name, Ser Dontos would have been forced to drink himself to death without a trial.

Neither Ros nor Daisy received trials.

Alton Lannister didn't receive a trial.

The men that Tywin Lannister had killed at Harrenhal never received trials.

Robb Stark didn't get a trial.

Neither did Catelyn Stark.

So I disagree that the Lannisters acknowledge the norm of establishing guilt by trial before killing someone.

As a general principal, when someone is head of state, is engaged in a conspiracy to have you murdered, yes, you did get to break into their house and kill them instead. You get to stop the Head of State from accomplishing his task of murdering you, by killing him instead, and if you are mad at the murderous Head of State as you kill him, so be it. If a murderous conspirator pulls a knife amd gets killed as well, well, one of the occuptional hazards of being engaged in a conspiracy to commit murder, and then puling a knife on the person who is the target of the conspiracy, is that the target may wrap a chain around your neck and choke your life out.

 

I fail to grasp the logic involved in saying that the Lannisters bothered to compel a confession from Ned Stark, prior to beheading him, but don't acknowledge the norm of establishing guilt. Were they just trying to kill some time prior to killing Ned? 

[Holmbo]

And even if that was the case - vengeance for a moral wrong has never been portrayed as bad on this show/in these books. Ayra is not perceived as an evil character by most but she is motivated entirely by vengeance at this point. So in this world, I have no issue with Tyrion taking vengeance on a man who spent his whole life doing him wrong and was actively trying to kill him (I don't believe Tyrion could outrun his father as easily as Cersei) - I just happen to also believe it was justifiable.

I do have issue with this whole "no man is as accursed as a kinslayer" crap GRRM has established for his world. Really? A dad beats the crap out of his kid or continuously rapes his daughter and if one of them kills him for it - they are cursed? That's interesting morality for a show/book where family members are really shitty to each other.

I thought we were talking about a sort of absolute justice rather than our personal moral.

As for the second paragraph, no one has argued that their whole society is not a crappy one but to me the kinslaying shunning makes perfect sense. Loyalty to the family is one of the few social contracts they have. And because of the hereditary system there would be a lot of incentive for people to kill their father or their older brother. So they need to have it be totally unacceptable to do so regardless of the circumstances.

It will be interesting to see if the kinslaying will come back to bite Tyrion or if there's a power switch and the new ruler doesn't care that he killed a Lannister.

[DigitalCount]

As a general principal, when someone is head of state, is engaged in a conspiracy to have you murdered, yes, you did get to break into their house and kill them instead. You get to stop the Head of State from accomplishing his task of murdering you, by killing him instead, and if you are mad at the murderous Head of State as you kill him, so be it. If a murderous conspirator pulls a knife amd gets killed as well, well, one of the occuptional hazards of being engaged in a conspiracy to commit murder, and then puling a knife on the person who is the target of the conspiracy, is that the target may wrap a chain around your neck and choke your life out.

And the fact is, this isn't just any head of state. This is a man who has proven time and again that he answers to absolutely no authority other than his own. Tyrion has dealt with all sorts of abuse from his father: physical, emotional, even sexual. This isn't just a man who hates him so much despite siring him that he would have killed him the instant he could figure out a way to do so without blowback. He has grown up hearing men sing songs about how this man is the type of guy who, when wronged, will kill the person who wronged him, that guy's family, and that guy's friends, then bury them all, plant trees over their graves, burn the trees down, then salt the earth so nothing will ever grow there again. And in case someone thinks he mellowed out in his old age, Tyrion has just witnessed this man do the exact same thing like a week or so prior.

 

But that's not even the best part.

 

In reprising his role as Death, Destroyer of Worlds, this particular Head of State has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that in his mind, even the religious and moral standards of the day don't apply to him. He willingly broke the rules every which way in order to win and said so. Once he demonstrated that the guest right didn't matter, it's only a hop, skip and a jump over to no longer caring about the kinslaying taboo. And just in time to prove those suspicions right, Tywin tries his best to have Tyrion killed via the trial.

 

By placing himself in the biased position of arbiter, rigging the deck with false testimonies, and generally holding the biggest sham trial he could put together, Tywin showed he didn't care about the laws of men. By breaking guest right to execute the diabolical Red Wedding and nonchalantly discussing it openly later as if he had done something praiseworthy, Tywin showed he didn't care about the laws of the gods. There was literally no higher authority to appeal to. Tyrion had to take him off the board, end of story.

[Jaded Sapphire]

I feel horrible saying this but purely from a visual standpoint, I could never truly buy that the killing of Shae was in self-defense because Tyrion is too...well...short. *ducks arrows*

 

Unless Shae was moving in slow motion there's no way that Tyrion could've gotten on top of her before she got up unless he launched himself at her before he saw the knife.

 

FTR I do think the intention was for it to look as if she pulled the knife first but, because it would take him several steps to close the distance between them, he had to have already been running at her in order to catch her hand so quickly.

[Shanna]

I don't think Tywin plotting with the Freys is the same thing as breaking guest rights. I don think the boltons broke guest rights either. I think the only one who broke them in truth were the Freys, because it was their home and they offered the bread and salt.

[Bannon]

I don't think Tywin plotting with the Freys is the same thing as breaking guest rights. I don think the boltons broke guest rights either. I think the only one who broke them in truth were the Freys, because it was their home and they offered the bread and salt.

Tywin sure stated he had some reponsibility fror breaking guest rights, in his conversation with Tyrion following The Red Wedding.

[Shanna]

I mean from a cosmic morality sense I think the only ones actually breaking the customs were the Freys. Tywin asked them to, but he didn't so it. And if set Ilyn Payne had killed Tyrion, even if it was tywins fault or Cerseis, they still would not be kinslayers. Jaime is the kingslayer, Tyrion is a kinslayer and the Freys broke guest rights. I think the person actually committing the acts is the only thing that matters here.

Doesn't mean Tywin is not a dick.

[Bannon]

I mean from a cosmic morality sense I think the only ones actually breaking the customs were the Freys. Tywin asked them to, but he didn't so it. And if set Ilyn Payne had killed Tyrion, even if it was tywins fault or Cerseis, they still would not be kinslayers. Jaime is the kingslayer, Tyrion is a kinslayer and the Freys broke guest rights. I think the person actually committing the acts is the only thing that matters here.

Doesn't mean Tywin is not a dick.

I am at a loss to understand how, when entity A enters into a conspiracy to have wrongful act X committed, by providing valuable reward Y to entity B, for committing wrongful act X, that entity A is not among those responsible for wrongful act X..

[nksarmi]

You know speaking of The Red Wedding while I do not believe that Tyrion was shown suspecting his father had Joeffrey murdered - really, why did it never occur to him that might be the case?

 

Sure, we know who was responsible and that the framing of Tyrion was more or less an accident - largely it was Cersei's hate that blame Tyrion because logically speaking there should have been at least a few other suspects.

 

But given what we know of Tywin and Joeffrey - I don't think Tywin himself should have escaped being a suspect.  I mean, under normal circumstances, you would conclude that the person trying to frame/kill you is also the person who did the deed.  I kind of wish the show had gone there even though the books didn't.

[Shanna]

I am at a loss to understand how, when entity A enters into a conspiracy to have wrongful act X committed, by providing valuable reward Y to entity B, for committing wrongful act X, that entity A is not among those responsible for wrongful act X..

Tywin conspired, but he never acted. It's a bit like how the nights watch took the vows so if they break them they are responsible. Tywin never offered Robb sanctuary, hospitality or bread and salt. Waller Frey did. I think of it like a mystical contract Frey signed and Tywin did not.

But given what we know of Tywin and Joeffrey - I don't think Tywin himself should have escaped being a suspect. I mean, under normal circumstances, you would conclude that the person trying to frame/kill you is also the person who did the deed. I kind of wish the show had gone there even though the books didn't.

I think Tyrion was too distracted, Cersei was convinced he was guilty, but it is interesting that Tywin never seems to consider who might really have done it. I think all the answers would be bad for the family, and this gets Tywin everything he wants so he doesn't bother questioning? Edited April 24, 2015 by Shanna

[Bannon]

Tywin conspired, but he never acted. It's a bit like how the nights watch took the vows so if they break them they are responsible. Tywin never offered Robb sanctuary, hospitality or bread and salt. Waller Frey did.

I am at a loss to understand how, when entity A offers entity B something valuable, in return for engaging in wrongful act X, entity A is not acting.

[Holmbo]

Tywin conspired, but he never acted. It's a bit like how the nights watch took the vows so if they break them they are responsible. Tywin never offered Robb sanctuary, hospitality or bread and salt. Waller Frey did. I think of it like a mystical contract Frey signed and Tywin did not.

?

I think you're right. By offering guest right Frey made a wow not to kill Robb and then broke it. Tywin's role is similar as if he for example would tell Jaime Kill the king. And Jaime did so. Tywin would not be an oat breaker but he would ally with people who was and be considered lower for it.

[Maximum Taco]

I am at a loss to understand how, when entity A offers entity B something valuable, in return for engaging in wrongful act X, entity A is not acting.

 

Guest right is not a law, it is a religious custom. Someone who breaks it isn't subject to the judicial punishment of man, they are subject to the cosmic punishment and damnation of the gods.

 

The gods aren't really that concerned with the higher reasoning. They operate on simple matters of "You promised to do/not do X. So do/don't do that." Telling or coercing someone to do X does not mean you did it.

 

Walder Frey, by offering Robb and co. salt and bread promised the gods that he would not harm Robb and would protect him under his roof. By taking the salt Robb similarly promised the gods not to harm anyone under Walder's roof.

 

Tywin never offered or took or promised the gods anything, so by their standards he's free and clear.

 

Also this means that if Roose Bolton and his soldiers refused guest right by not eating/drinking at the wedding, they are free to kill and slaughter whoever they want under Walder's roof, and the gods have no problem with that.

Edited April 24, 2015 by Maximum Taco

[Constantinople]

Actually, as Tywin's son Tyrion had more right to be there than Shae.

I think it's fair to infer that Tyrion wasn't permitted in Tywin's room given that Tywin left Tyrion chained in a dungeon room. Therefore, Tyrion had no right to be there.

I also think it's fair to infer that Shae was permitted to be in Tywin's room given that she was in his bed.

 

He was surprised by her as much as she was by him, and she is the one who equipped herself with deadly force, changing an encounter that might simply have involved Tyrion moaning why and crying a lot, into a violent one. It was self defense on Tyrion's part. He didn't come there to kill her.

I disagree, but I feel I've said my piece on the matter, so I'll try to refrain from commenting about it for a while.

I also disagree with your interpretation of the various murders committed by the Lannisters, but I feel any further response should be in some sort of "If you want justice, you've come to the wrong place" thread rather than a thread dedicated to Tyrion.

 

As a general principal, when someone is head of state, is engaged in a conspiracy to have you murdered, yes, you did get to break into their house and kill them instead...

I disagree, but I don't think we'll convince each other. so I'm also going to try to lay off this as well lest I continue to bore everyone. 

 

Guest right is not a law, it is a religious custom. Someone who breaks it isn't subject to the judicial punishment of man, they are subject to the cosmic punishment and damnation of the gods.

Do we know if it's a law or a custom? Would anyone object if the King saw fit to punish those who violated guest right?

In any case, I think the Red Wedding is one example among many, albeit perhaps the most egregious, of how the Lannisters don't feel constrained by any sense of law or morality.

 

Walder Frey, by offering Robb and co. salt and bread promised the gods that he would not harm Robb and would protect him under his roof. By taking the salt Robb similarly promised the gods not to harm anyone under Walder's roof.

 

Tywin never offered or took or promised the gods anything, so by their standards he's free and clear.

And yet the gods saw fit to see Tywin shot to shit.

[Maximum Taco]

And yet the gods saw fit to see Tywin shot to shit.

 

Which in the end is getting off pretty easy. Death is not that bad a punishment.

 

Remember the Rat Cook? He was forced to live out his days (which may or may not be unending) as a gigantic rat forced to eat only his own young.

 

That is a divine punishment. Any jackass can be killed.