Why we should root for Littlefinger to win

[The hairy bear]

There are actually quite a few things in the books that shows that he at least want's to change the system. Some of which have already been mentioned in this thread, like:

1) Employing non-nobles and letting them rise in ranks based on merit rather than birth (unlike almost everyone else in Westeros).

That's false. There are plenty of examples of people who have rised high regardless of their birth. In westeros, the Citadel, the Night's Watch, the King's Guard and the Faith have a lot of examples of this. Outside those organizations, we can see Janos Slynt geting Harrenhal, Rolph Spicer geting Castamere, or Philip Foote geting Nightsong. Bastard Walder has a higher standing in the Twins than some of Lord Walder's trueborn sons. And of course, Davos is named Hand of the King and no one argues that Stannis wants to destroy the Westerosi social system.

2) Brokering merchant-lord marriages, thus mixing the "classes" a bit.

The Westerlings, the minor banches of House Arryn and many other families had been marrying merchants long before. It's not that out of the ordinary.

3) The main reason he could not get Cat (from his POV) is the feudal system of Westeros. He now hates it, so he uses it for his own gains BUT we do not know if his endgame is to exploit it as fully as possible, or try to change/destroy it.

This is a terribly skewed interpretation, and again, the Littlefinger of the books nevers suggests that this is what he thinks. As BB says upthread, he is in fact a minor noble. Thanks to the social structure at Westeros he could be fostered at Riverrun and get to know Cat. In that sense, he was better placed than 99% of the men in the 7K to marry her.

All his efforts have been devoted to rise higher. Not to destroy the system. That should be obvious by now, I would think. Littlefinger's had been to promote chaos or destroy the feudal systems, there are many things that he could have done. Robb menaced the unity of the seven Kingdoms, Stannis the religious stability, and Renly the inheritance rules. Instead, Littlefinger helped the Lannisters: the faction who fought for the status quo.

The way I see it, the show does a great job crystallizing the characters agenda and motives. Now Varys tells Tyrion he wants restoration and Littlefinger says he wants to create chaos. The big themes are the same, only on TV they're more explicit.

I couldn't disagree more.

In the books, there's a particular moment where Littlefinger tries to provoke a war hoping that he'll be able to rise in position amidst the chaos. At the same time, Varys tries to prevent war because at this point Viserys Targaryen is not ready for the invasion. But this is only a momentary situation in AGOT, and the show's charicaturization of Littlefinger and Varys making them agents of chaos and order misses the point. Because at the end, Varys' cause was a traumatic dynastic change, while Littlefinger only wanted to generate some turmoil where he could gain some power within the current system.

[EternET]

Hm, I guess everything has been said : practicing and promoting a "rise of the lower classes" are quite different. Also LF does so for others in order to increase his own power, he has ony his own person in mind at the end of his manipulations.

Also, those ideals wielded by a character with an obvious despotic demeaner would more likely that not, bring communism totalitarism, is it really what you wish for Westeros ?

[WildBlood]

Let me give you a secret... You missed the fact that show and books LF is quite the different guys.

When you make such a mistake, entire thing falls like a house of cards.

Not to mention the fact that LF would consider it a victory to be in charge of a pile of ashes.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

There are actually quite a few things in the books that shows that he at least want's to change the system. Some of which have already been mentioned in this thread, like:

2) Brokering merchant-lord marriages, thus mixing the "classes" a bit.

So, Littlefinger is seen as a champion of the little man, because he... helps the rich? I'm not sure, but there could be a flaw somewhere in this logic.

[Light a wight tonight]

Littlefinger is changing the social and power structure by marrying merchants into the noble class. He has used his scheming to get himself from a minor house with no chances to climb up the ladder to the de-facto ruler of the Vale, with an eye on the North. That's pretty huge. He also probably bankrupted a lot of the major houses as well as the crown.

In order for someone like him to become "a highborn himself" he needs to destroy the system that dictates your destiny according to the station of your birth. He does it for himself, but he does it anyway.

Wow, you're reading your own social ideas into Lord Petyr's motivations. It's the Westerosi social structure that gives him his position. He doesn't hate it; he wants to control it from behind the throne. He's a social climber (the real ladder, heh), not a social reformer.

Marrying one merchant's daughter into a noble house won't make one iota of difference to the social structure. In fact the merchant's money is propping up that destitute noble house, not bringing it down. Said merchant is joining the nobility by proxy and his grandkids will be nobles.

[the Scorpion Knight]

LF does things to appease his vanity, greed, lust and power-hunger. He cares little about the common people.

But he doesn´t like the nobles, and sympathizes with the merchant class.

"The Gulltown Arryns had the good sense to marry into a merchant family" f.x.

He brokers marriages between the lower nobility and merchants, but probably because he has connections to Braavos and connections with banks and dealers after being master of coin. He understands and values capitalism. But that doesn´t mean he is out to destroy feudalism. He is mostly in it to win it I think.

there's only one person LF cares about :himself

[BloodWood]

I'm not sure we can for sure say what Littlefinger's motives and intentions really are...he is a character still shrouded in a lot of mystery. He seems to be obviously interested in his own social climb, but what his (book LF) ultimate goal is I can't say. Hell, even Varys can't figure him out.

In defense of GoT Academy, he never says LF actually intends to 'make the world a better place', just that his actions could be a catalyst that could lead to social change sometime in the future.

[Primalsplit]

Go littlefinger wooohoo! Climb that laddah!

[ckongo]

Littlefinger isn't interested in breaking the fedualist system's rules for the many's sake. He is, however, content in bending the rules for personal profit; body count be damned.

BTW, it's an insult to compare that poorly written show's version of Petyr to the book's.

[GoT_Academy]

Yes, because people who rise from humble beginnings to the top of the food chain through pure ruthlessness, intrigue, betrayal and cruelty are known to always support the poor and dispossed...

If Littlefinger seizes power he will keep exploiting the system and doing everything he must do in order to keep his position. And I don't think helping the dispossed will be high in his list of priorities.

It will be no means be high on his list of priorities, but the climb up the ladder itself could open the door for others who do not come from the super privilged families.

[GoT_Academy]

First, I disagree that LF is the social liberator that you think he is. As far as I can tell, his motives are entirely self serving. If you made him the King of the Seven Kingdoms tomorrow, he's not going to call for re-distribution of wealth or political power. He's a social climber, pure and simple.

Second, I'm not sure what system of ethics you are trying to apply to your decision to say that LF is doing good. Even a utilitarian would have a hard time defending LF. His actions have not in fact made Westeros better for peasants. The war he has partially instigated and shows no sign of ending is not really great for the peasantry and isn't toppling the social order. Wars and murder and death don't degrade feudalism, they strengthen it.

You can either fall into the idea that the ends always justify the means, or that motive plays a part in deciding the morality of an action.

I didn't say that those are his motives, but it could result that way nonetheless.

His actions have not made the peasants safer, but if we look at ASOIAF as a historical novel we could, with the benefit of hindsight theorize that Westeros could be on the verge of a major political, economic and cultural change, similar to the one in Britain at the start of the early modern period.

[GoT_Academy]

Climbers like LittleFinger are the folk who climb the ladder and kick it down after them. Margaret Thatcher was a prime example, went from grocer's daughter to PM and once she had made it did everything she could to stop others following her. Her's was the last UK cabinet that had only one woman in it.

That's a fair point.

[kimim]

I support him the way I supported Tywin: He's a great, entertaining villain. May GRRM take his time killing him off, amen.

Having said that, world under LF would be terrible. It wasn't bad under Tywin, as, once in control, he kept things stable, leading to nearly twenty years of peace and plenty in Westeros. Peace, plenty are good things, and I think Westeros got that because Tywin cared about something other than himself, about the reputation and fortune of his family. Reputation, fortune, depend on how people think of you, remember you.

I think LF would be far worse: He'd be untrustworthy and ruthless. Unlike Tywin, LF doesn't give a damn about reputation, his house, etc. LF is out for himself. All he wants is power and money. If he could be assured of having power and money with a dead Westeros, then Westeros dies.

So no, I wouldn't want to live in a world run by LF.

[GoT_Academy]

So no, I wouldn't want to live in a world run by LF.

I agree that he should not rule. But his pursuit of that goal could break the caste system in Westeros. His win would mean defeat for the noble class.

[Hugorfonics]

I agree that he should not rule. But his pursuit of that goal could break the caste system in Westeros. His win would mean defeat for the noble class.

I'm not sure he is breaking the system. Adding merchants is just getting the nobles richer, and even though Petyr drove the crown into debt, he also increased its revenue by a lot. He's destroying old names like Stark and Arryn, but replacing them with feudal people also. Ramsay kills nobles and has risen from nothing to everything but hasn't changed the class structure of Westeros.

If anything the High Sparrow has changed it the most, by adding another class. I wouldn't say it's an improvement though.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Well as far as I remember he wasn't trying to change the society in order to help the others, he was trying to create havoc in order to help himself.

[GoT_Academy]

I'm not sure he is breaking the system. Adding merchants is just getting the nobles richer, and even though Petyr drove the crown into debt, he also increased its revenue by a lot. He's destroying old names like Stark and Arryn, but replacing them with feudal people also. Ramsay kills nobles and has risen from nothing to everything but hasn't changed the class structure of Westeros.

If anything the High Sparrow has changed it the most, by adding another class. I wouldn't say it's an improvement though.

Since he is adding merchants to the noble class as he is bankrupting the crown and destroying old houses, he is not "replacing them with feudal people also". He is not MLK for sure, but he's causing great great damage to the noble families. Starks are gone, soon Lannisters will be gone too.

I agree the High Sparrow is also an agent for change.

[GoT_Academy]

Well as far as I remember he wasn't trying to change the society in order to help the others, he was trying to create havoc in order to help himself.

Exactly. But change is change nonetheless.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Exactly. But change is change nonetheless.

No. Someone who has done a bad change isn't automatically a worthy leader. Should people follow Hitler because he changed things?

[LordStoneheart]

LF is completely fine with the feudal system. His only issue when he was younger was that he wasn't high enough in the hierarchy. Nothing in the book suggests he wants to dismantle it, and he is smart enough to know it's pretty much impossible anyway, Westeros is not ready for that.

Quoted for Truth.

If I went to this academy, I think I'd want my tuition back.

No. Someone who has done a bad change isn't automatically a worthy leader. Should people follow Hitler because he changed things?

:lol: I'm not usually in favor of using Hitler as an example, but valid point. Change itself is not the end-all answer.