Little Finger, I can't believe there are people who don't like little finger

[Ser Hippie]

One of the other problems with this topic is how "I like/dislike LF as a character to read" is being conflated with "I like/dislike LF's actions as a "person"".

I really enjoy reading LF's plotting because, yeah, he's an interesting guy and his actions move the plot forward substantially. I don't really see how you can view him as something other than a villain though - whether the war might or might not have happened eventually, he is responsible for setting it into motion in the timeframe of the books for his own personal (possibly sociopathic) reasons and displays no qualms about all sorts of bad deeds - Jeyne Poole and the brothel, Jeyne Poole being sent to Ramsay, his treatment of Sansa, murdering Lysa and blaming Marillion, plotting Sweetrobin's death, etc. I don't think even Littlefinger would claim to be someone meant to be liked as a person, nor do I think he really wants to be (liked, that is).

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

Actually, the reasons for the "threadjack" are due wholly to the O.P.'s ridiculous claims. Most people were focusing on LF. For some people, he's going to be interesting/ awesome, for others, his very amorality that makes his fans adore him may seem, by its very purity, somewhat boring. Not the most interesting, complex, or compelling character, imo. Furthermore, though this is fiction and its fine to love LF despite his actions with Sansa and others, it seems laughable to defend these deeds as morally right. Saying, "I love the guys, he's brilliant" is totally fine; saying, "i love the guy, and he never did anything wrong. He actually did the girl he sold into sexual slavery a failure" is fucking ridiculous.

And that's what people objected to. It was the O.P. himself who made the argument that LF, in selling Jeyne into sexual slavery, did the girl a favor. He did not argue that he loved LF in spite of this fact; he did not even say that here (as elsewhere) LF was evil but deliciously amoral/ clever. No, he said that LF's actions were a-okay in the context of Westeros. And when people objected to that he (not just once, but again and again and again) argued that they were wrong, misguided, and that LF's selling an 11 year old girl was fine in context. If his primary aim was to discuss LF, and he really (for his own reasons) felt as though LF's actions were okay/ understandable due to the context of Westeros, he would have dropped it, discerning that those here simply did not agree with his argument, and had sound, coherent arguments for not doing so. He would have then proceeded to turn the topic back to other aspects of LF's characterization taht he enjoyed. Instead, he repeatedly turned the subject back to the LF/ Jeyne thing, aserting again and again and again that what LF did was totally okay.

I guess I could understand this continual returning to the argument that LF did not do anything wrong in regards to Jeyne or Sansa if the O.P. had fresh, original arguments to support his ridiculous claims. However, he didn't. He basically argued the same fatuous, ill supported thing each and every time-- hey, it was all understandable/ okay/ not so bad in the context of Westeros.

Rather than O.P. being the victim of rabid Sansa fans, I'd say that he was a guy who, after opening a rather compelllign post that could have made a fantastic debate, proceeded to make some ridiculous claims that he refused to drop or even argue for coherently. After claiming that LF was aokay in regards to his treatment of Jeyne, the O.P. proceeded to go back to this over and over and over again. Rather than being the victim of a threadjack, I'd argue that O.P. was (based on many of his arguments following his interesting first post on this thread) a rather unpleasant phenomenon we're all used to meeting on these message boards. I won't call out any names, but I'll just have to say that what I'd dub this poster rhymes with "coal."

Anyway, rather than being a full fledged LF love fest, this thread turned into a rather ridiculous argument about the morality of selling over 11 year old girls to brothels, something that should be so obvious (morally speaking) it is not even worthy of discussion. This little side tracking has indeed been silly and futile. However, reading over the thread, I'd place the blame for it at the O.P.'s door, rather than those asserting that what LF did to Jeyne was not okay. (And I'd like to note, once again, that no one ever said it was not perfectly fine for OP to love LF despite what he did to characters like Sansa and jeyne. They merely scoffed at his sophmoric efforts to justify Jeyne's behavior towards Jeyne.

Really, until you came along, I have not noticed a single person on these boards who hasn't greeted the O.P.'s ridiculous claims with scorn and derision.

But I don't consider what he did selling her into sexual slavery. I don't consider it any different than the orphans who end at the Inn at the Crossroads or The Peach. And its not that I'm amazed that anyone would find those actions deplorable, just that people who are still reading this series fall into that category.

Since this was basically my first post here. And I don't frequent message boards, it didn't really occur to me that I had the option of changing the topic of discussion. I responded to what people posted. I assumed that people who were raising the objection of Jeyne simply didn't read my earlier posts and rather than just ignoring them I felt obliged to respond. I thought at some point we might arrive at some basis for a moral continuum that could be applied broadly to every character rather than simply focusing on individual acts of depravity.

[Baitac]

OP wasn't ridiculous or over the top. Again, there should be open discussions about his good and bad qualities, as there are about Sandor and others. I'm not surprised you do not agree with me.

[jarl the climber]

IMO LF is a misunderstood character, he is an ambitious person in a cutthroat environment, he didn't make things this way, he might have been a good concilour in a different court. I don't subscribe to the theory that LF started the war somehow, part of the reason he killed Jon Arryn was to prevent him from going to Robert with evidence of Cerseis infedility, which would have started a war. He didn't have anything to do with Bran being pushed off the tower, nor did he play a role in the second attempt on his life. When Cat show up in Kings Landing with his old dagger Varys comes to him because he knows Cat from his childhood. He lies about the knife because he can't say it was Roberts, he points the blame towards Tyrion because Tyrion isn't there, says it would be better to drop the matter, remember Varys is there so he has to be careful with what he says, and he didn't have any reason to know Tyrions travel itenerary, for all he knew Tyrion was going back to Casterly Rock. He deliberately bets with Renly when Ned is around in the hopes that it raises his suspicions. Remember Renly was trying to marry Marge to Robert at this time. He wanted Ned to ask Renly about the dagger, as Roberts brother he could ask around a little more safely than LF or even Ned. LF didn't bring this up more directly because he is trying to keep his head. He had good reasons for thinking Ned was an idiot, he would have gladly allied with Ned. LF would not support Ned on Stannis because it wasn't realistic, Janos Slynt would never have helped to put Stannis on the throne. My evidence is the conversation Slynt and Stannis have at the end of ASOS. He speaks of the war with contempt in my opinion when talking with Sansa about it.

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

One of the other problems with this topic is how "I like/dislike LF as a character to read" is being conflated with "I like/dislike LF's actions as a "person"".

I really enjoy reading LF's plotting because, yeah, he's an interesting guy and his actions move the plot forward substantially. I don't really see how you can view him as something other than a villain though - whether the war might or might not have happened eventually, he is responsible for setting it into motion in the timeframe of the books for his own personal (possibly sociopathic) reasons and displays no qualms about all sorts of bad deeds - Jeyne Poole and the brothel, Jeyne Poole being sent to Ramsay, his treatment of Sansa, murdering Lysa and blaming Marillion, plotting Sweetrobin's death, etc. I don't think even Littlefinger would claim to be someone meant to be liked as a person, nor do I think he really wants to be (liked, that is).

Well I suppose I approach the books from the perspective of a moral relativist, which I think it reality everyone is. Its not enough to say that a specific action is wrong. I don't approach the world thinking of people as villains or heroes. I think of them as clever or stupid, successful at achieving their goals, whether or not they make mistakes I feel I would make or not, whether I can related to them or not. I was just surprised there are people reading this series who don't feel they can relate to littlefinger. But then I've never knowingly met someone who reads the series and I only started reading it myself in october. I expect people reading the series to relate to littlefinger, like I expect people watching the Sopranos to relate to Tony. People who think the mafia beyond redemption, I imagine, don't watch the sopranos.

[Skeksi]

This is really quite interesting, and it’s something that has occurred to me a few times as well. Namely—is LF so bad that it’s actually boring? The character who is so good that he actually comes off as rather one dimensional, unbelievable, and frankly, not all that credible (Davos Seaworth, Ned Stark, etc.) is a pretty common trope in fantasy literature. However, LF honestly strikes me as too selfish, too amoral, too frankly bad to be truly compelling as a character. He is as inexplicably, unfailingly malevolent and amoral as Ned Stark is inexplicably, unfailingly decent. Annoyingly, the motivations of so many Good Characters that populate fantasy novels can be summed up in one sentence. Why do they do what they do? Answer: for the greater good and to protect those they love (with a pure, whole hearted, unselfish love, by the by.) Similarly, why does LF do what he does? The answer is pretty much: to serve LF and advance LF’s agenda at whatever cost. And to fuck with people. And to get into the pants of the girl who is the daughter of his old crush. After a while, this becomes somewhat less than fascinating and compelling. Ultimately, LF has become almost boring for me because he’s so bloody one note. There’s no need to look at what he does from different perspectives, to question his motives, to wonder whether he will chose good or bad (or to act from selfish or unselfish motives.) The answers to all of these questions are pretty much assured, as they are for the blandly good characters that I find so annoying. So, while I know I may be alone on this one, here it goes: Littlefinger actually sort of bores me at this point. I don’t love him, I don’t hate him, I am simply rather tired of such a one note villain in a series that claims to be devoted to moral ambiguity and human complexity.

Interesting points :)

My question would be: Is the selfish choice always the "most evil"? I don't doubt that LF will always make the choice that benefits himself the most, but it doesn't necessarily follow that what is best for him will always be the morally worst decision. Theoretically, were it to his benefit to do "good", he could be very effective at it. Of course, this is made confusing by the fact that most of us like characters on several different "sides", and leaving aside characters like Joffrey, Ramsay and Gregor, who seem to mostly take delight in hurting others for the sake of causing pain, it's very hard to define, in the Game of Thrones, what is the side of good, and what is the side of bad.

Obviously, LF selfishness doesn't make him a good person, and it wouldn't regardless of whether the outcome of his actions were good or bad- he would be, and is, acting in a way that best serves his own interests, rather than because of the morality of it all. For example, if Harry the Heir turns out to be a nice guy that Sansa is really happy with, it won't make LF a better person, necessarily, because he's setting them up to benefit himself, but it will be something good to have come directly from his actions.

Whilst I agree that I would like to see something that throws off Petyr's "Always do what is best for me" decision making, I don't think that the current lack makes him a totally predictable and one note character. As entertaining as he could be to read, I always saw Joffrey as more of that character, given that he was pretty much "For the Evulz"- regardless of any benefit or cost to himself, Joffrey would always make the choice to be a dick- from picking on his uncle, to having Sansa beaten, to bitching at Tywin Lannister himself.

Slightly off topic, but on the subject of Jaime, I personally think he's headed for a big mental breakdown, given how much the "Lancel and Osmund and even Moonboy for all I know" line is preying on his mind, and this new fixation with being seen as "Goldenhand the Just", which I can't help but think isn't going to happen. Wonder if you shared my opinion, but perhaps this isn't the right topic for it?

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

Interesting points :)

My question would be: Is the selfish choice always the "most evil"? I don't doubt that LF will always make the choice that benefits himself the most, but it doesn't necessarily follow that what is best for him will always be the morally worst decision. Theoretically, were it to his benefit to do "good", he could be very effective at it. Of course, this is made confusing by the fact that most of us like characters on several different "sides", and leaving aside characters like Joffrey, Ramsay and Gregor, who seem to mostly take delight in hurting others for the sake of causing pain, it's very hard to define, in the Game of Thrones, what is the side of good, and what is the side of bad.

Obviously, LF selfishness doesn't make him a good person, and it wouldn't regardless of whether the outcome of his actions were good or bad- he would be, and is, acting in a way that best serves his own interests, rather than because of the morality of it all. For example, if Harry the Heir turns out to be a nice guy that Sansa is really happy with, it won't make LF a better person, necessarily, because he's setting them up to benefit himself, but it will be something good to have come directly from his actions.

Whilst I agree that I would like to see something that throws off Petyr's "Always do what is best for me" decision making, I don't think that the current lack makes him a totally predictable and one note character. As entertaining as he could be to read, I always saw Joffrey as more of that character, given that he was pretty much "For the Evulz"- regardless of any benefit or cost to himself, Joffrey would always make the choice to be a dick- from picking on his uncle, to having Sansa beaten, to bitching at Tywin Lannister himself.

Slightly off topic, but on the subject of Jaime, I personally think he's headed for a big mental breakdown, given how much the "Lancel and Osmund and even Moonboy for all I know" line is preying on his mind, and this new fixation with being seen as "Goldenhand the Just", which I can't help but think isn't going to happen. Wonder if you shared my opinion, but perhaps this isn't the right topic for it?

See I think Ned is selfish, as Varys points out. He does what he considers best for his personal honor not the least harmful. As does King Rob. I don't know how they can be considered, given the death and destruction they visit upon their own people. I think Martin replays this morality play in Slavers Bays

[Candor]

I don't understand what you mean when you say I'm not comparing.

I rather think you're just being difficult here.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

I thought at some point we might arrive at some basis for a moral continuum that could be applied broadly to every character rather than simply focusing on individual acts of depravity.

Because I am interested in this subject, I've been discussing the topic with you in earnest. I have to admit, however, that I'm a little worried that you are just doing this to frustrate other people. In my last post in this thread I made the distinction between passive wrongdoing and proactive wrongdoing. At the time, I guess, you weren't interested in arriving at a basis for a moral continuum, because you never responded to that post. Maybe you missed it, maybe you ignored it, maybe you're just screwing with people for fun.

[Candor]

But I don't consider what he did selling her into sexual slavery. I don't consider it any different than the orphans who end at the Inn at the Crossroads or The Peach. And its not that I'm amazed that anyone would find those actions deplorable, just that people who are still reading this series fall into that category.

This is a LARGE part of the problem other people are having with you. :bang:

I can't even deal anymore, too angry. Bye.

[estella]

Little finger is clever and cunning. The true master of the Game of Thrones. The whole point is that he's able to stab enemies in the back who don't see him coming. The fact that he's managed to amass huge amounts of powers without anyone considering him a serious threat, it what makes him so impressive.

This is precisely why I dislike Littlefinger. He's entertaining, but I simply can't find it in me to feel anything good towards the man.

[littlespider]

Well I suppose I approach the books from the perspective of a moral relativist,

Ah. This explains quite a lot.

which I think it reality everyone is.

They most certainly are not.

See I think Ned is selfish, as Varys points out. He does what he considers best for his personal honor not the least harmful.

Ned goes to Cersei in GoT because he does not want the children or her harmed, and he wants to give them a chance to escape Robert's wrath. He is under the mistaken impression that he is dealing with someone who is like him.

Ned confesses falsely just before his death because he does not want his children harmed.

How are either of these decisions selfish?

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

I rather think you're just being difficult here.

no i really have no idea what you're trying to say.

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

No, because we can be intelligent and distinguish between proactive wrongdoing and passive wrongdoing. Yes, more or less every character in ASoIaF is guilty of taking part in morally reprehensible systems. But their participation is passive. For the generally good characters, outside of their failure to challenge the morally bankrupt system they live in, they try to do the kind or just thing. Ned Stark is kind to his smallfolk, although he fails to see that it's wrong to have a society with such rigid class distinction. Littlefinger does proactive wrong. Not only does he accept the morally reprehensible system he lives in but he piles additional evil acts on top of it. He is willing to commit any act of cruelty for his personal benefit. He exploits the flaws in the system he lives in to do whatever it takes to benefit himself. He sells children in to slavery, commits murder in cold blood, and starts wars.

I thought I addressed this in another post. Although I think its easy for Ned Stark, a high lords son, to accept the system as is and abstain from the parts he considers particularly dishonorable. Its another thing to want to participate in the power structure as an outsider and exclude from your use many of the tools the powerful use to maintain their rule. That being said I think littlefinger's wrong doing is passive. He doesn't hire sellswords to invade the riverlands flying lannister banners. he doesn't have joffrey send a man to kill bran. He doesn't take Tyrion captive. He doesn't tell Cersei that Ned Stark intends to reveal her incest. And he doesn't rape Jeyne Poole either.

Except that Jeyne is a child while Osha is an adult. And Osha is a prisoner because she actively tried to kill Robb/Bran. Jeyne was just there. Osha was also free in the castle in exchange for her work in the kitchens, Jeyne's "work" only earned her whip marks and a sadistic husband. It was also made rather clearly that Osha wasn't opposed to sleeping with Gage so it's not at all like an 11-year-old Jeyne being raped.

If Osha was opposed to it would it have made any difference? Are you suggesting Jeyne wasn't free to walk around the brothel? Its very difficult for me to ascertain who is and who is not a child in this series. As far as I'm concerned King Rob is a child. So I really don't pay attention to the ages much. I'm accepting that Jeyne is 11 but don't actually know, I just know she's older than Arya. She seems to be of an age with other people we see in brothels in westeros and there doesn't seem to be any massive out cry about it so I find it very difficult to condemn littlefinger on those grounds and even if I did I'd find it hard say that its worse than killing someone.

"Maidens may be wedded and bedded... however, even there, many husbands will wait until the bride is fifteen or sixteen before sleeping with them. Very young mothers tend to have significantly higher rates of death in childbirth, which the maesters will have noted", SSM October 99

This doesn't say anything about morality, only child baring.

Poachers actively break the law, Jeyne didn't actively do anything wrong. And most of the people at the Wall seem to be 15-16, aka adults in Westeros. Jeyne, at 11, is still a child.

Poachers break a law saying they can't feed themselves, is feeding yourself really wrong, or just illegal? If the queen regent orders Jeyne to be place in a brothel does that make it legal? is something illegal because its wrong? or wrong because its illegal?

"There's a difference in intent for one. LF sends Jeyne to a brothel purely for personal profit, the NW is trying to keep the 7 Kingdoms to be invaded by the Others/Wildlings and needs Craster's help. I also don't see why you're bringing Jon into this since he was only at the Keep once and was on his way further beyond the Wall, so I don't see what you expect he could have done."

I don't think littlefinger sent Jeyne to a brothel for the extra cash. I think littlefinger just happens to own brothels. If he owned bakeries he would have sent her to a bakery. He doesn't have sex with Jeyne he just leaves her in a place where other men can do it if they want. Littlefinger is trying to use the Lannisters to advance his social status and ultimately destroy them he needs their help so can't afford to help Jeyne escape. I bring up Jon because Sam sent Gilly to him for help and he turned her away. He could have chosen to help her but he didn't like the consequences, so he didn't.

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

Ah. This explains quite a lot.

They most certainly are not.

Ned goes to Cersei in GoT because he does not want the children or her harmed, and he wants to give them a chance to escape Robert's wrath. He is under the mistaken impression that he is dealing with someone who is like him.

Ned confesses falsely just before his death because he does not want his children harmed.

How are either of these decisions selfish?

He cares more about protecting his honor and Cersei's children than he does about the safety of his own.

So he's willing to lie to save his own life and his children's life but not to sacrifice his honor to prevent war from breaking out between Starks and Lannisters which will kill countless thousands?

[littlespider]

He cares more about protecting his honor and Cersei's children than he does about the safety of his own.

So he's willing to lie to save his own life and his children's life but not to sacrifice his honor to prevent war from breaking out between Starks and Lannisters which will kill countless thousands?

If by "his honor" you mean "not having the death of three kids on his conscience" then, yes. I don't think this is a selfish motive. Foolish? Perhaps. Naive, especially given the shakedown at Castle Darry? Yes. But not selfish. He's not thinking about his own interests here; he's not thinking about what people will think of the great Ned Stark after all this is said and done. He's thinking about the lives of Cersei and her kids.

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

This is a LARGE part of the problem other people are having with you. :bang:

I can't even deal anymore, too angry. Bye.

Well maybe I should put it like this, I don't think that is what he did. But even if it were what he did, if he sent her to Essos to have tear drops tattooed and live all the rest of her days in a brothel with no hope of escape it wouldn't be a significant factor in my decision making. I still wouldn't think it was worse than killing her. And, I don't think what littlefinger did was nearly so bad.

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

If by "his honor" you mean "not having the death of three kids on his conscience" then, yes. I don't think this is a selfish motive. Foolish? Perhaps. Naive, especially given the shakedown at Castle Darry? Yes. But not selfish. He's not thinking about his own interests here; he's not thinking about what people will think of the great Ned Stark after all this is said and done. He's thinking about the lives of Cersei and her kids.

No he's thinking about how he'll feel about the death of three children.

If he was thinking about saving children's lives he wouldn't pit Stannis against Cersei in a potential civil war.

[Evamitchelle]

I thought I addressed this in another post. Although I think its easy for Ned Stark, a high lords son, to accept the system as is and abstain from the parts he considers particularly dishonorable. Its another thing to want to participate in the power structure as an outsider and exclude from your use many of the tools the powerful use to maintain their rule. That being said I think littlefinger's wrong doing is passive. He doesn't hire sellswords to invade the riverlands flying lannister banners. he doesn't have joffrey send a man to kill bran. He doesn't take Tyrion captive. He doesn't tell Cersei that Ned Stark intends to reveal her incest. And he doesn't rape Jeyne Poole either.

As someone else said before, Davos has managed to rise from Flea Bottom scum to Hand of the King without forcing any child into prostitution or murdering his wife.

[littlespider]

No he's thinking about how he'll feel about the death of three children.

Can you provide a quotation from GoT that supports this reading, then?