Littlefinger - Why he is not Evil

[butterbumps!]

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.

You try to say that LF never inflicts pain on anyone undeserving, yet then go on to provide the blisteringly obvious example of Jeyne yourself, who'd be a person LF's inflicted suffering on that did not deserve it.

For the record, LF essentially turned her into a sex slave, where she was tortured pre-Ramsay. We know she was tortured pre-Ramsay (i.e. under LF's guidance) because Theon points out the scars of lashes on her back in the wedding chapter. And to even try to defend this enormity as "not responsible for her majority of suffering" is a particularly obtuse form of moral defense, which you apparently claim you're not even concerned with anyway.

And, um, you don't think he's brought suffering to the Starks undeservingly in how they're not moral shitheels? As in, they're not bad people who deserved to be inflicted with LF's little games? And Lysa, being as how she's mentally unwell, deserved to be played like this? Jon Arryn deserved to be poisoned? SR deserves to die?

Much like Cersei, Roose and Craster, yes, LF stands out as a villain. Embrace it.

[Chebyshov]

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.

As of now, I don't believe Varys lacks a moral compass. I'm not a fan of "the ends justify the means" attitude, but he does seem legitimately concerned with the plight of the poor. TWOW/ADOS could definitely prove me wrong; we shall see.

[Mithras]

What butterbumps! said.

The same arguments in the OP can be made to propose that Roose or Craster are not villains too, which they certainly are.

[MyLittleFinger]

As of now, I don't believe Varys lacks a moral compass. I'm not a fan of "the ends justify the means" attitude, but he does seem legitimately concerned with the plight of the poor. TWOW/ADOS could definitely prove me wrong; we shall see.

It seems heavily implied that he has the tongues ripped out of his "little birds." That's pretty far up there with some of the super villainy that others do.

[Chebyshov]

It seems heavily implied that he has the tongues ripped out of his "little birds." That's pretty far up there with some of the super villainy that others do.

That wasn't my reading of it, but like I said, we'll see. Varys is still a relatively opaque character, so I'm thinking we'll learn a bit more of his nature in TWOW/ADOS. I'm not exactly about to champion him as a moral paragon though, lol.

[BastardlyRock]

I like LF, don't get me wrong, but trying to cast (many of) his actions in a positive light is just... no.

bumps! has the right of it here. (what else is new? :rolleyes: ;) )

[Equilibrium]

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.

I like Clarke's rational choice theory better. I like to think about humans as somewhat rational with a degree of independent action, no just meatbags dancing to physiological impulses and in accord with our brain cell connection structure.

I think it all the matter of scale, people can talk whatever they want but given the option to consequence free steal 10$ I would pass because of the guilt that would follow, but given 1 million $ I would take it because althought I will feel guilty and sorry for the previous owner, I would be set for life and guilt will pass or can be tempered with charity and such, throw in 50% chance of 10 years prison, no chance I would take it, it is all rational choice, you don't have to be psychopath to be criminal.

We don't know does he lack empathy, maybe that is just an image of himself he is projecting willingly of butthurt characters after being bested saying "He does that because he is psychopath and amoral, if I wanted to be amoral I would play as good as he does"

[Chebyshov]

We don't know does he lack empathy, maybe that is just an image of himself he is projecting willingly of butthurt characters after being bested saying "He does that because he is psychopath and amoral, if I wanted to be amoral I would play as good as he does"

I think he does lack empathy. His treatment of Lysa alone is enough for me there.

Anyway, I have a crazy busy schedule today, but mayhaps later we can discuss the finer points of choice theory :cheers:

[Lord of Nutella]

I totally disagree with you OP.

Your argument is that LF might be immoral but that by modern standards everybody, even the "good ones" like Ned, Dany or Jon are.

This is simply not true, at least not by the standards i would describe as Common agreement.

I mean srsly, how can you compare LF, who plotted with Lysa Arryn to murder her husband, played tricks at Cat and Ned to start a war between the wolves and the lions, plotted against Ned, the rightful regent, murdered Lysa Arryn and so on and so on in order to bring himself in a better position ib the game, to, lets say, Ned?

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

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.

You're talking about the man who took special care to ensure that Lysa, his hitherto tool, suffered great psychological pain when he was murdering her - apparently "just" killing her was not good enough for him, he had to twist the knife as well. The man who enslaves a perfectly innocent girl in one of his brothels. Whose current project is to slowly kill a little boy under his care. You know what? I don't actually believe you are serious. I think this topic is an exercise of sophistry, and I'm not playing. (I'm actually surprised anyone's willing to play your game, but to each his own.)

[Equilibrium]

I think he does lack empathy. His treatment of Lysa alone is enough for me there.

Anyway, I have a crazy busy schedule today, but mayhaps later we can discuss the finer points of choice theory :cheers:

Really looking forward :cheers:

[Jasta11]

butterbumps! is completely right. Morally, Littlefinger is indefensible. From the big things like directly manipulating events to create a self-serving, continent wide civil war, to the more small-scale atrocities like Jeyne Poole (who is almost certainly not the only girl in her situation) or Sweetrobin, he's completely amoral and trying to argue otherwise is like arguing that Ramsay is actually trying to sefllessly help his victims. It has no basis in the text and only serves to, yes, whitewash characters.

I don't have a problem with people liking LF as he is, even if I personally loath the guy. You think an amoral social climber who makes a fool out of most nobles and gets away with it is cool? More power to you. But don't try to paint him as any sort of moral character, because he really is not by any definition. Just like, say, butterbumps! herself really likes Roose Bolton. Difference is, she acknowledges that he's a villain but still likes him for it, which is fine.

[Equilibrium]

I totally disagree with you OP.

Your argument is that LF might be immoral but that by modern standards everybody, even the "good ones" like Ned, Dany or Jon are.

This is simply not true, at least not by the standards i would describe as Common agreement.

I mean srsly, how can you compare LF, who plotted with Lysa Arryn to murder her husband, played tricks at Cat and Ned to start a war between the wolves and the lions, plotted against Ned, the rightful regent, murdered Lysa Arryn and so on and so on in order to bring himself in a better position ib the game, to, lets say, Ned?

I can compare them easily, Eddard is a better, more moral man, but that doesn't mean LF is absolute inhumane evil, he is Machiavellian and a damn good one.

[RedShirt47]

Littlefinger has killed for his own personal gain. That is down right evil.
He didn't kill in self defense or for any just cause. He commited these crimes with malice and fore-thought.
The "It's a brutal dog-eat-dog world" is not justification for his actions. The fact that he would not have reached his lofty heights without these actions is no justification either. His simple greed and ambition are the only things behind his actions and this is evil, pure and simple.
I doubt we've seen the majority of his crimes during the time of the books. I imagine he charmed, swindled, bribed, extorted, seduced and killed his way up the ladder. I doubt Jon Arryn was the first killing he was responsible for.

[MyLittleFinger]

Littlefinger has killed for his own personal gain. That is down right evil.

He didn't kill in self defense or for any just cause. He commited these crimes with malice and fore-thought.

The "It's a brutal dog-eat-dog world" is not justification for his actions. The fact that he would not have reached his lofty heights without these actions is no justification either. His simple greed and ambition are the only things behind his actions and this is evil, pure and simple.

I doubt we've seen the majority of his crimes during the time of the books. I imagine he charmed, swindled, bribed, extorted, seduced and killed his way up the ladder. I doubt Jon Arryn was the first killing he was responsible for.

Yes, saving Sansa from a date with the moondoor was indefensible.

[Le Cygne]

Bad thread kept getting worse...

[ummester]

I don't see much difference between Little Finger and a Wall St player, or big investment bank executive - and they must be socially accepted, because they get bailed out.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

I don't see much difference between Little Finger and a Wall St player, or big investment bank executive - and they must be socially accepted, because they get bailed out.

It might be an outsider's naive misconception, but I think only few wolves from Wall Street are actually murderers.

[butterbumps!]

I don't see much difference between Little Finger and a Wall St player, or big investment bank executive - and they must be socially accepted, because they get bailed out.

Yea, so, last I checked, Wall St I bankers don't tend to arrange for the murders of the heads of Standard and Poor's, instigate wars between the US and Canada, or routinely kidnap orphans and make sex slaves out of them in their brothel side business.

[MyLittleFinger]

Yea, so, last I checked, Wall St I bankers don't tend to arrange for the murders of the heads of Standard and Poor's, instigate wars between the US and Canada, or routinely kidnap orphans and make sex slaves out of them in their brothel side business.

It would certainly make things more exciting