Westeros is a vile and unforgiving world. The book and TV series are the viewer/reader's lesson for abandoning the fairytale notion of a moral, fair, and commiserating sovereign whose unturbulent reign following the end of the story is implied. The first book, or as a Machiavellian might call it alternatively, “The Many Blunders of Ned Stark”, harshly slams our often pandered- to beliefs that the goodies and idealists are always safe. It is our first encounter with the thesis that in order to prevail in the game of thrones, and even with the aim of protecting the innocent and bringing about prosperity to the realm, one will need to get their hands dirty. Not only that, but it also suggests that blind idealism is not only undesirable in this royal and deadly contest, but that the imprudent idealist choices of a powerful individual may cost him his life and bring his ancestral legacy to the brink of extinction. We soon become used to the idea that Ned-like idealists will meet a quick demise in Westeros. Robb’s tale tells the second part of this cruel lesson – while he learns from the naïve conduct of his father, he remains blinded and hindered by notions of family honor and justice in warfare ; he gives in to the reality of dirty hands, but he does not go far enough. Finally, the very end of the last season tells that even the stern rule governance of Stannis might not go far enough in the dirty hands reality, but also that there are very imprudent ways of getting your hands dirty. Our paper explores the paradox of dirty hands in the context of prospective Westeros sovereigns – how can an action be both moral and immoral at the same time? Do acts of getting your hands dirty represent permissible deviations from morality, or is the image of morality incomplete without the apparent realist necessity of getting your hands dirty? There are two sides of this paradox. One is the violation of moral constraints in order to satisfy the general considerations of consequentalist morality. The other is acting within moral rules, but amounting to immorality due to insensitivity towards consequences. We also consider whether a prudent and moral ruler gets his hands dirty perpetually, or commits dirty hands violations only when necessary. Finally, we assess Dany’s performance in ruling, and whether she might be the best candidate for a moral sovereign within the dirty- hands view of politics.