Jump to content

Littlefinger - Why he is not Evil


Equilibrium

Recommended Posts

One man's villain is another man's hero. LF is anti-hero really, antagonist form the perspective of the say Starks, but he is not a villain, he is just really capable, he understands human condition and embraces it as well as he embraces inherently unjust and flawed social system. He maybe is ruthless but so is Stannis, he will maybe dispose of the Robert Arryn but Olenna disposed of Joffrey and Stannis was willing to sacrifice his own nephew, he kills people that are in his way, but Tyrion, Daenerys, Arya even Jon do that, and I think them justifed, if you take strictest most rigid moral standards, everyone is a villain and positively evil.



Maybe his actions played part in the great suffering but so did Eddard's, Catelyn's, Robb's, Robert's and of every other major nobleman and when you look closely actions of every individual character who partake in the wars and politics. Everybody makes his own choice from Eddard to Mountain and nameless soldier from the North in the cage.



Everybody likes to portray LF as a Hannibal type of the character, but Hannibal is vicious psychopath who lives for the sinister mind games and fucking eats people, while LF is capable man looking to attain position higher of that he was born to, imagine the gall of him playing entitled Eddard, Catelyn, Lysa, Cersei and other pricks born to the station thinking themselves his superiors. I honestly can't remember LF directly inflicting pain to somebody undeserving, it's not his fault Joffrey was a prick and that some soldiers like to rape.



No man is history making deus ex machina, no one can destroy a world or save it, everything is joint effort and complex process and conjecture far above influence of single man, but powerful enough to influence man even if they are despotic absolutists with unlimited decision power.



I would never want to be LF or to my children became like him because he is not a very nice or good man, he is very competent and in the end not hypocritical about himself, he knows why he is doing what he does not because he is complete psychopath devoid of emotions and empathy but because he made conscious rational choice to do so because benefits are much bigger than guilty conscience and possible drawbacks. He even can have his own boundaries, but of course he won't broadcast them to the general public to show his weakness again because rational choice, he would rather be seen as amoral dishonest everything goes type of man than to explain his moral dilemmas and convictions and be seen as somewhat of a OK guy but vulnerable.



It is a cruel world, and biased at that and most of the people transfer character's biases as their own, and pushing standard fantasy morality in the world where it doesn't belong. He is seen inferior just because of his birth and the fact he is not alpha macho sword-wielding kind of guy. Eddard choose to live and die with honor because he saw it right and that is his right, LF never made that choice, world is the same, LF doesn't make it worse, he just does what he sees as right, it's all relative and matter of perspective. You can argue that rape or some other horrible deed are universally bad, any amount of moral relativity notwithstanding, but LF never does that type of thing, you can say the Jeyne thing but options where of her to die or brothel, I think she would choose the same simply because she haven't killed herself in the brothel Tyrion said it nicely, and again LF is not at fault for what Ramsey does, he probably doesn't even know. If you take killing as bad then every character in ASOIAF is bad, I don't and don't get me started on lying.



He is far from being good or positive character, but he is not some evil psycho, he is as gray as the world that he lives in, and while there are better people than he is, there are worse too. And vilifying of LF in place of the other character just because he is not hypocritical about his intentions is very very bad and unjustified action.




Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, and Roose Bolton isn't a villain either. He's just a super capable guy living in an unjust world, doing what he believes is right, it's all a matter of perspective, and so forth. I nominate Craster to round off this triad of the holy.

Yeah because that is the great attitude to start any discussion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, and Roose Bolton isn't a villain either. He's just a super capable guy living in an unjust world, doing what he believes is right, it's all a matter of perspective, and so forth. I nominate Craster to round off this triad of the holy.

I'd buy that for a dollar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah because that is the great attitude to start any discussion

Before you get dragged into it, the hatred of LF primarily revolves around Jeyne Poole and him sending her to one of his brothels to get "trained." Which even as his number one fan, I found rather disreputable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*snip*

You can argue that rape or some other horrible deed are universally bad, any amount of moral relativity notwithstanding, but LF never does that type of thing, you can say the Jeyne thing but options where of her to die or brothel, I think she would choose the same simply because she haven't killed herself in the brothel Tyrion said it nicely, and again LF is not at fault for what Ramsey does, he probably doesn't even know. If you take killing as bad then every character in ASOIAF is bad, I don't and don't get me started on lying.

Are you for real?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah because that is the great attitude to start any discussion

But your OP sets up a logic that basically affords any character to be considered not immoral based on highly flawed premises.

As in, these aren't the arguments you really want to make in defense of LF. He's not a "good guy." And he doesn't have to be. That's not his thing. There's absolutely no point in trying to pass him off as moral, because he's not a moral character.

If you like LF, just own how bad he is. He's right about some things, like the problems with the aristocratic system. But what makes him interesting is that, like Cersei and the patriarchy, he wants to become the system rather than merely oppose it. He ruthlessly uses people and genuinely gets off on how well he manipulates them (Kant would not be pleased, but the Joker would probably become his BFF).

Please don't make these moral arguments. He's immoral, and so what? Isn't his completely immoral/ amoral stance why you like him in the first place, setting him apart from the sea of attempted-do gooders?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But your OP sets up a logic that basically affords any character to be considered not immoral based on highly flawed premises.

As in, these aren't the arguments you really want to make in defense of LF. He's not a "good guy." And he doesn't have to be. That's not his thing. There's absolutely no point in trying to pass him off as moral, because he's not a moral character.

If you like LF, just own how bad he is. He's right about some things, like the problems with the aristocratic system. But what makes him interesting is that, like Cersei and the patriarchy, he wants to become the system rather than merely oppose it. He ruthlessly uses people and genuinely gets off on how well he manipulates them (Kant would not be pleased, but the Joker would probably become his BFF).

Please don't make these moral arguments. He's immoral, and so what? Isn't his completely immoral/ amoral stance why you like him in the first place, setting him apart from the sea of attempted-do gooders?

Did you read OP, nowhere I said he is good or moral, I even said he is not good or moral. But that doesn't matter, no one is moral by today's standard of morality, OK not today's, mine, people still have diametrically different moral systems, and that is the point.

I don't like him because he is immoral, I like him because he is competent, and he is not competent just because he may be immoral in the mind of great Eddard Stark or you or myself, he really is competent and smart and wise and if he was as moral as Eddard of Baelor the Blessed he would still manage to be more competent than them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But your OP sets up a logic that basically affords any character to be considered not immoral based on highly flawed premises.

As in, these aren't the arguments you really want to make in defense of LF. He's not a "good guy." And he doesn't have to be. That's not his thing. There's absolutely no point in trying to pass him off as moral, because he's not a moral character.

If you like LF, just own how bad he is. He's right about some things, like the problems with the aristocratic system. But what makes him interesting is that, like Cersei and the patriarchy, he wants to become the system rather than merely oppose it. He ruthlessly uses people and genuinely gets off on how well he manipulates them (Kant would not be pleased, but the Joker would probably become his BFF).

Please don't make these moral arguments. He's immoral, and so what? Isn't his completely immoral/ amoral stance why you like him in the first place, setting him apart from the sea of attempted-do gooders?

I've seen quite many similarities between Heath Ledger's Joker and Littlefinger. Quite many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you read OP, nowhere I said he is good or moral, I even said he is not good or moral. But that doesn't matter, no one is moral by today's standard of morality, OK not today's, mine, people still have diametrically different moral systems, and that is the point.

I don't like him because he is immoral, I like him because he is competent, and he is not competent just because he may be immoral in the mind of great Eddard Stark or you or myself, he really is competent and smart and wise and if he was as moral as Eddard of Baelor the Blessed he would still manage to be more competent than them.

You're admitting that his morality is not what you like about him, yet you title this thread and frame your OP around defending him from a moral framework!

If it's about competence for you, then don't say shit like this (and most certainly do not say the bolded):

One man's villain is another man's hero. LF is anti-hero really, antagonist form the perspective of the say Starks, but he is not a villain, he is just really capable, he understands human condition and embraces it as well as he embraces inherently unjust and flawed social system. He maybe is ruthless but so is Stannis, he will maybe dispose of the Robert Arryn but Olenna disposed of Joffrey and Stannis was willing to sacrifice his own nephew, he kills people that are in his way, but Tyrion, Daenerys, Arya even Jon do that, and I think them justifed, if you take strictest most rigid moral standards, everyone is a villain and positively evil.

Maybe his actions played part in the great suffering but so did Eddard's, Catelyn's, Robb's, Robert's and of every other major nobleman and when you look closely actions of every individual character who partake in the wars and politics. Everybody makes his own choice from Eddard to Mountain and nameless soldier from the North in the cage.

Everybody likes to portray LF as a Hannibal type of the character, but Hannibal is vicious psychopath who lives for the sinister mind games and fucking eats people, while LF is capable man looking to attain position higher of that he was born to, imagine the gall of him playing entitled Eddard, Catelyn, Lysa, Cersei and other pricks born to the station thinking themselves his superiors. I honestly can't remember LF directly inflicting pain to somebody undeserving, it's not his fault Joffrey was a prick and that some soldiers like to rape.

No man is history making deus ex machina, no one can destroy a world or save it, everything is joint effort and complex process and conjecture far above influence of single man, but powerful enough to influence man even if they are despotic absolutists with unlimited decision power.

I would never want to be LF or to my children became like him because he is not a very nice or good man, he is very competent and in the end not hypocritical about himself, he knows why he is doing what he does not because he is complete psychopath devoid of emotions and empathy but because he made conscious rational choice to do so because benefits are much bigger than guilty conscience and possible drawbacks. He even can have his own boundaries, but of course he won't broadcast them to the general public to show his weakness again because rational choice, he would rather be seen as amoral dishonest everything goes type of man than to explain his moral dilemmas and convictions and be seen as somewhat of a OK guy but vulnerable.

It is a cruel world, and biased at that and most of the people transfer character's biases as their own, and pushing standard fantasy morality in the world where it doesn't belong. He is seen inferior just because of his birth and the fact he is not alpha macho sword-wielding kind of guy. Eddard choose to live and die with honor because he saw it right and that is his right, LF never made that choice, world is the same, LF doesn't make it worse, he just does what he sees as right, it's all relative and matter of perspective. You can argue that rape or some other horrible deed are universally bad, any amount of moral relativity notwithstanding, but LF never does that type of thing, you can say the Jeyne thing but options where of her to die or brothel, I think she would choose the same simply because she haven't killed herself in the brothel Tyrion said it nicely, and again LF is not at fault for what Ramsey does, he probably doesn't even know. If you take killing as bad then every character in ASOIAF is bad, I don't and don't get me started on lying.

He is far from being good or positive character, but he is not some evil psycho, he is as gray as the world that he lives in, and while there are better people than he is, there are worse too. And vilifying of LF in place of the other character just because he is not hypocritical about his intentions is very very bad and unjustified action.

In other words, if LF's morality isn't what you find compelling, don't write a thread that attempts to exonerate his obviously immoral actions, since morality is besides the point of why you like him and are advocating for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're admitting that his morality is not what you like about him, yet you title this thread and frame your OP around defending him from a moral framework!

If it's about competence for you, then don't say shit like this (and most certainly do not say the bolded):

In other words, if LF's morality isn't what you find compelling, don't write a thread that attempts to exonerate his morality.

Thank you for rebutting this horse shit post. You're doing a public service. You ought to get paid or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This opening post seems to be mostly differentiating between a psychopath and a sociopath.

There is a difference? It's basically synonym

Psychopathy (/saɪˈkɒpəθi/) (or sociopathy /ˈsoʊsiəˌpæθi/) is traditionally defined as a personality disorder characterized by enduring antisocial behavior, diminished empathy and remorse, and disinhibited or bold behavior. It may also be defined as a continuous aspect of personality, representing scores on different personality dimensions found throughout the population in varying combinations. The definition of psychopathy has varied significantly throughout the history of the concept; different definitions continue to be used that are only partly overlapping and sometimes appear contradictory.

Wikipedia, but I know what I'm talking about and I could find other sources so this is more than fine.

It's all nice little story put together by criminal psychologists to enforce strict societal norms, it's outdated and misunderstood, and subject of some very heated arguments in academic circles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're admitting that his morality is not what you like about him, yet you title this thread and frame your OP around defending him from a moral framework!

If it's about competence for you, then don't say shit like this (and most certainly do not say the bolded):

In other words, if LF's morality isn't what you find compelling, don't write a thread that attempts to exonerate his obviously immoral actions, since morality is besides the point of why you like him and are advocating for.

And inflicting pain on someone deserving is moral?

He still is not major culprit in Jeyne's suffering, that doesn't mean he is a good guy just that he is not major culprit in Jeyne's suffering.

Just because I don't like him for his morals, doesn't mean it's OK to vilify him beyond measure while letting others who do same things off the hook.

If I have arguments to exonerate him why should I not, people try to exonerate Daenerys and Stannis and Arya and who no on the same basis, why be hypocritical about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for rebutting this horse shit post. You're doing a public service. You ought to get paid or something.

Thanks to you too for making the topic better place and disapproving everything people say about people on internet forums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a difference? It's basically synonym

Wikipedia, but I know what I'm talking about and I could find other sources so this is more than fine.

It's all nice little story put together by criminal psychologists to enforce strict societal norms, it's outdated and misunderstood, and subject of some very heated arguments in academic circles.

It's certainly all a spectrum, but my understanding was this:

here's a lot of debate about the presentation of a psychopath versus a sociopath. Some people say that a psychopath is extremely well-organized, secretive, and manipulative, while a sociopath is disorganized, unable to pass for "normal," and messier in his or her crimes. Others say the exact opposite. People may try to differentiate between a psychopath and a sociopath based on his or her ability to feel compassion, saying that a psychopath feels no compassion for anyone at all, while a sociopath might feel compassion for his or her family members or friends. There is no consensus on these distinctions, however, and since individual psychopaths and sociopaths have distinct personalities, the behavior of one person diagnosed as one or the other might differ entirely from someone else with a similar diagnosis.

My sister (a PhD student in clinical psychology) explained it to me as the sociopath being the organized type and the psychopath being the other, but you're right that it's hotly debated.

My point in general though was that LF clearly lacks a moral compass, as does Joff and Ramsay. However, because he is able to highly function in the social world and plot, you like him. That's a fine reason to be drawn to a character. But it's not a reason to argue against his vilification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's certainly all a spectrum, but my understanding was this:

My sister (a PhD student in clinical psychology) explained it to me as the sociopath being the organized type and the psychopath being the other, but you're right that it's hotly debated.

My point in general though was that LF clearly lacks a moral compass, as does Joff and Ramsay. However, because he is able to highly function in the social world and plot, you like him. That's a fine reason to be drawn to a character. But it's not a reason to argue against his vilification.

Would you add Varys to this list? He seems to always get a free pass because the totally not a liar said that he "serves the realm." That and he seems to "help" popular characters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...