Why we should root for Littlefinger to win

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

The premise that "regardless of his motivation, he's bringing Change, and Change will be Good" seems flawed. The Black Death brought several economical and sociological changes, among other things contributing to the decline of feudalism in Europe. Does it mean we should be rooting for the bacteria? I certainly am not.

[Winter's Knight]

The premise that "regardless of his motivation, he's bringing Change, and Change will be Good" seems flawed. The Black Death brought several economical and sociological changes, among other things contributing to the decline of feudalism in Europe. Does it mean we should be rooting for the bacteria? I certainly am not.

It also depends on who and where you were in Europe during the Black Death -Jews were regularly blamed for it and murdered, with whlwhole communities being wiped out.

Furthermore an increase in social mobility was confined to the UK and Western Europe-Eastern Europe saw an increase in the rigidity of social structure.

Also somebody explain to me how LF's treatment of Jeyne Poole ties into his meritocratic ambitions?

[Ser Lepus]

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.

Don't be so sure.

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.

Other exampleS closer to LF:

-Toyotomi Hideyoshi rose from beign a servant to being dictator of Japan. He didn't eliminate the caste system. He strenghened it instead, banning commoners from owning or wielding weapons, and forcing everybody to stay in the same class than their parents belonged to. He even forbade peasants to move out of their villages.

-Liu Bang AKA Emperor Gaozu, the founder of the Han dinasty was a lowborn police officer who managed to become Emperor or China. The people who supported him had hopes that he would bring social change and equality, but he kept the traditional social order as rigid as ever.

-Saladin was son and nephew of kurdish mercenaries. When he became the ruler of Middle East he didn't made society more egalitarian.

-Almanzor, who started as a scribe and eventually became ruler of Al-Andalus didn't change society a bit.

Historically speaking, social climbers rarely bring change.

[GoT_Academy]

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

You are right again. I'm not talking about a worthy leader, but more about an agent of change for the better. Even if his motives are not altruistic.

[GoT_Academy]

The premise that "regardless of his motivation, he's bringing Change, and Change will be Good" seems flawed. The Black Death brought several economical and sociological changes, among other things contributing to the decline of feudalism in Europe. Does it mean we should be rooting for the bacteria? I certainly am not.

That's actually a very good example to illustrate my point.

[GoT_Academy]

Don't be so sure.

Historically speaking, social climbers rarely bring change.

First of all, nobody is sure of anything, except of valar morghulis.

The anecdotal examples out of history are interesting but are not relevant. This is a work of fiction, and the way I read it is that Littlefinger is indeed this agent of change that will destroy an old world, die in the process, and help usher in a new era. Also, you are talking about social climbers who got to the very top. I am talking about the climb itself, not what he'll do once he's on top (and I don't think he'll get to the top).

[Eddard Scissorhands]

Never

[LordStoneheart]

You are right again. I'm not talking about a worthy leader, but more about an agent of change for the better. Even if his motives are not altruistic.

But that's where your problem lies; he is not an agent of change for the better. He's not improving upward mobility for the common people. He's screwing everyone over to advance himself. Nothign about his actions are "for the people" even in an unintended consequences kind of way. The only one who is doing something close to that is the High Sparrow.

[SayGen]

One day people on this website will realize there are no 'good' or 'bad' characters. Everyone is flawed, makes mistakes, and has their own objectives.

I'd also remind you of a great quote from Dark Knight. You either die the hero, or live long enough to become to villain.

Look at the perception of Robert B. He was a usurper who freed the 7ks (well 6) from the mad king, that makes him a good guy right?

Oh wait... time goes on and now he is a neglectful father, horrible ruler, horrible husband, etc, etc.

Litterfinger isn't good, he isn't bad.

Some of the things he does are 'good' and 'bad'.

I choose to like/dislike characters based on how they perform their role (whether 'good' or 'bad').

See my signature and you can see a strong consistency there. I happen to like LF, but not because he is on some side of morality.

GoT/ASoFaI is intended to be morally ambiguous. If you say a character is good/evil, you've missed the entire point.

Go back and watch interviews with GoT esp when he is talking about his childhood and he explains that story's with 'white knights' vs 'black orcs' are boring and 2d.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

One day people on this website will realize there are no 'good' or 'bad' characters. Everyone is flawed, makes mistakes, and has their own objectives.

I'd also remind you of a great quote from Dark Knight. You either die the hero, or live long enough to become to villain.

Look at the perception of Robert B. He was a usurper who freed the 7ks (well 6) from the mad king, that makes him a good guy right?

Oh wait... time goes on and now he is a neglectful father, horrible ruler, horrible husband, etc, etc.

Litterfinger isn't good, he isn't bad.

Some of the things he does are 'good' and 'bad'.

I choose to like/dislike characters based on how they perform their role (whether 'good' or 'bad').

See my signature and you can see a strong consistency there. I happen to like LF, but not because he is on some side of morality.

GoT/ASoFaI is intended to be morally ambiguous. If you say a character is good/evil, you've missed the entire point.

Go back and watch interviews with GoT esp when he is talking about his childhood and he explains that story's with 'white knights' vs 'black orcs' are boring and 2d.

You're confusing "ambiguous" with "nihilistic". If the series gives you a nihilist vibe, then you're the one missing the point in an epic manner.

[Winter's Knight]

One day people on this website will realize there are no 'good' or 'bad' characters. Everyone is flawed, makes mistakes, and has their own objectives.

I'd also remind you of a great quote from Dark Knight. You either die the hero, or live long enough to become to villain.

Look at the perception of Robert B. He was a usurper who freed the 7ks (well 6) from the mad king, that makes him a good guy right?

Oh wait... time goes on and now he is a neglectful father, horrible ruler, horrible husband, etc, etc.

Litterfinger isn't good, he isn't bad.

Some of the things he does are 'good' and 'bad'.

I choose to like/dislike characters based on how they perform their role (whether 'good' or 'bad').

See my signature and you can see a strong consistency there. I happen to like LF, but not because he is on some side of morality.

GoT/ASoFaI is intended to be morally ambiguous. If you say a character is good/evil, you've missed the entire point.

Go back and watch interviews with GoT esp when he is talking about his childhood and he explains that story's with 'white knights' vs 'black orcs' are boring and 2d.

This is absurd :there are quite clearly good characters (Sansa, Brienne, Ned, Cat) and bad characters (Euron, Vic, LF).

And I'd call someone who sells an eleven year old girl into sexual slavery "unambiguously bad" but I'm old fashioned that way.

[Bronn Urgandy]

Littlefingers head would look good on a spike, that is the nicest thing I can say about him

[GoT_Academy]

But that's where your problem lies; he is not an agent of change for the better. He's not improving upward mobility for the common people. He's screwing everyone over to advance himself. Nothign about his actions are "for the people" even in an unintended consequences kind of way. The only one who is doing something close to that is the High Sparrow.

If you read ASOIAF as a historical novel then you know than a change for the better will come and Westeros will make its way out of the Middle Ages. A lot of blood was shed for that to happen in the real world, but that was a change for the better in the long run (hence the "bitter sweet ending GRRM promised).

[GoT_Academy]

Littlefingers head would look good on a spike, that is the nicest thing I can say about him

Haha, you probably got it right

[Hugorfonics]

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.

Destroying Starks Lannisters and Arryns is lovely, but it won't bring about any revolution if he replaces them with Royces and Essosi merchants.

The Lords, since Aegon iii, have all the power. They're all richer then the crown and are all stronger then the crown. Petyr has not changed the class struggle of Westeros. The Lord's remain the most powerful, the smallfolks are not talked about.

The warriors sons are not really changing the class structure either, they just justify Westeros' condition with the will of the seven. They, like the lords, threaten the crown at all times under the masquerade of being a smallfolk.

The Ironborn smallfolk do pretty well, but Euron has changed that when he legalized slavery

[Beautiful Balon]

The premise that "regardless of his motivation, he's bringing Change, and Change will be Good" seems flawed. The Black Death brought several economical and sociological changes, among other things contributing to the decline of feudalism in Europe. Does it mean we should be rooting for the bacteria? I certainly am not.

the closest equivalent to the black death are the others. So go team other, for social change we can beleive in.

#LongNight

[Arya Rules!]

I agree with the O.P. Littlefinger would introduce a free market economy and massively increase trade and ideas. If you think Littlefinger is any different than our modern day leaders you are naïve. He is a capitalist and doesn't enjoy killing unlike most of the other contenders. Feudal monarchy and dragon based terror enforcers seem worse than a Boss Hogg with a hyper active achievement gland.

[Starkfaithful85]

Even before clicking on this article I knew what argument the OP was gonna make. The idea of destroying the feudal social structure of westeros would be good for the people IF AND only IF you had someone doing it without the goal of amassing power. LF is not the type of person to do what needs to be done to give the people a voice in the governing of the 7K

[RoamingRonin]

GoT_Academy,

The "chaos is a ladder" speech comes from the show. The Littlefinger from the books would never say that and has different motivations. Nowhere among his goals is to destroy the social structure of Westeros.

The Littlefinger from the show is written badly and inconsistently, so I wouldn't waste much time pondering about him. And anyway, that's a matter for a different subforum.

Except:

"It is quite vexing. I had hoped to have four or five quiet years to plant some seeds and allow some fruits to ripen, but... it is a good thing that I thrive on chaos."

[SayGen]

You're confusing "ambiguous" with "nihilistic". If the series gives you a nihilist vibe, then you're the one missing the point in an epic manner.

Nope. ambiguous was the correct adj choice.

What is right and wrong is not concrete. Who is good and bad isn't concrete. See again my Robert B example. That was one of almost hundreds of examples. I could have easily cited J lanister, or several other main cast characters.

Instead of saying someone else is missing the point, check the supporting evidence.

This is absurd :there are quite clearly good characters (Sansa, Brienne, Ned, Cat) and bad characters (Euron, Vic, LF).

And I'd call someone who sells an eleven year old girl into sexual slavery "unambiguously bad" but I'm old fashioned that way.

Your statement works against you.

"I'm old fashioned that way" A statement that reeks of moral tradition based on history and consistency of acceptance.

You calling selling an 11 year old girl unambiguously bad, and yet a mere 1000 years ago that EXACT scenario was considered acceptable.

What is good? What is bad? Your Abrahamic based morally is the world 'norm' but GRRM's fantasy world doesn't know anything about Abrahamic morality.

George has created a new sense of world morality that is unique to his world, yet shares similarities to allow a reader to still feel connected and to be able to make comparisons.

GRRM said the faith militant has Catholic roots, he is also a non practicing Catholic.