he was likely brain damaged when Robert hit him hard enough to make Stannis think that young Joff was dead.
Tywin, on the other hand, doesn't strictly fit the villain mold. Winning the War of Five Kings in a penstroke and saving the people of the Riverlands from further depredation by wolves, lions, and losing home/crop/livestock to the war effort would let those people view Tywin as a hero. On the other hand, the Starks would rightly see Tywin as a villain.
A character can be multifaceted and nuanced and still remain a villain. You don't have to morally defend a character just because you like him. I like The Joker, but I'm not going to engage in some attempt at vindicating his actions by throwing around terms like 'from his point of view' and 'there's shades of grey.' Game of Thrones is absolutely a show of shades of grey, but it also possesses black, and Tywin fits that mold.
He spends a good deal of the show trying to kill his own son, being unable to even see that he is in fact the only one of his children to possess true leadership qualities. He organises the gangrape of Tysha, a farcical trial of his own innocent son, manipulates his own children and makes them fight one another, is such a bad father that he cannot even see that two of them are engaged in an incestuous relationship with one another.
You also seem to amusingly forget that the man who set the Riverlands on fire was Tywin himself - The Mountain rapes and massacres his way through there clearly under Tywin's command, his soldiers are destroying and raping and torturing everything and everyone in sight. Even Arya, who brings out the better qualities in a moment with him, he immediately places under the command of The Mountain once he leaves, knowing and even joking that he is a monster who has mistreated, tortured, and killed previous servants.
He also, in winning the War of Five Kings, leaves the Riverlands under the controls of the Freys, which we have already seen means that peasants and commonfolk are being picked off by bandits and soldiers, and the Boltons are no better in the North, flaying alive all who oppose them. Tywin also deliberately never lifted a finger to stop the Wilding invasion, hoping in fact that they would rampage across the North, killing thousands, and taking the Stark forces from behind.
There is no argument that can even begin supporting the notion that Tywin was not a villain. Charles Dance was great in the role, but let's not think for a moment that Tywin wasn't a godawful human being who left a black stain upon his country, destroyed his own legacy, detonated the kingdoms, and set Westeros on fire just to further his own ambitions and desire to leave a great legacy for his house.
It's political brinkmanship and is often employed during times of tension and war. Look at the years leading into World War I, from the dissolution of the Three emperors League to the July Crisis. The major world powers were engaging in brinkmanship for years making what would have been likely empty threats.
You do realise that political brinkmanship holds a long dark legacy of being of the most dangerous, grubby, and imperialistic tactics in history right? If 'oh it's alright though because it's a legitimate strategy' is a moral defence for anything, then I'll eat my own hat and call myself Nancy. No one is denying that Tywin was clever (though he was less smart than people here assert, he did destroy his own legacy and his own family and armies were only spared thanks to numerous coincidences), what we are denying is that cleverness and engaging in politicking somehow miraculously makes you a good guy.
Tywin wasn't making a threat, he was stating his intent to the Small Council. Robb had no idea that he was on the verge of disaster and thus wouldn't have been able to back down. He flat out said that he was going let the Wildlings have their way, which would have killed thousands of Westerosi. He did not care for the people of the realm, he just wanted an absolute rule over them.
Thank you. Some sanity here at least. Is this the Westerosi equivalent of Godwin or something? Tywin was right? Urgh.
EDIT: I came back because I'm still so aghast. Are people seriously arguing that because characters have reasons for what they do they are absolved of moral condemnation? Really? As in we can only call an action evil if there was no reason for doing it? I cannot fathom the moral emptiness or sheltered existence one would have to have experienced in order to make such a farcical statement.
t:
