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

[headtrip_honey]

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.

The ability to feel empathy is not the mark of a selfish person.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

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.

Up until claiming that Littlefinger's wrongdoing is passive, I'm with you. I think it is definitely part of what makes Littlefinger interesting as a character that he resents the limitations imposed on him by his social status. And you're right that if Ned, as Littlefinger does, desired power, he would have an easier time of gaining power due to his high birth without doing immoral things (in fact he rises to the second most powerful position in the Kingdom this way). But that does not mean Littlefinger had to resort to evil and cruelty in order to rise- see Davos Seaworth. Regardless, I think Littlefinger's low status at birth is part of what makes him an interesting character.

But on the subject of Littlefinger's wrongdoing you're conflating passive wrongdoing with indirect but still intentional and proactive wrongdoing. No, Littlefinger often does not do the specific evil deeds himself. But he gets other people to do cruel or evil things, intentionally, so that he will benefit. This is the case when he has Lysa murder Jon Arryn, leads Ned and Catelyn to believe that Tyrion is responsible for the attempt on Bran's life, informs Cersei of Ned's plan to buy the Gold Cloaks, and sends Jeyne to a brothel to be raped and abused. He does all of these things with the intention of benefiting from them, with full awareness of the harm it will inflict on others. This is not passively accepting an unjust system, this is contributing to the injustice of the system while heaping further injustices on top of it. And just because Littlefinger manipulates other people into doing evil for him, does not make him passive. It makes him an intentional and active participant in acts of cruelty and wrongdoing.

[The Swaggering Bravo]

Up until claiming that Littlefinger's wrongdoing is passive, I'm with you. I think it is definitely part of what makes Littlefinger interesting as a character that he resents the limitations imposed on him by his social status. And you're right that if Ned, as Littlefinger does, desired power, he would have an easier time of gaining power due to his high birth without doing immoral things (in fact he rises to the second most powerful position in the Kingdom this way). But that does not mean he had to resort to evil and cruelty in order to rise- see Davos Seaworth. Regardless, I think Littlefinger's low status at birth is part of what makes him an interesting character.

But on the subject of Littlefinger's wrongdoing you're conflating passive wrongdoing with indirect but still intentional and proactive wrongdoing. No, Littlefinger often does not do the specific evil deeds himself. But he gets other people to do cruel or evil things, intentionally, so that he will benefit. This is the case when he has Lysa murder Jon Arryn, leads Ned and Catelyn to believe that Tyrion is responsible for the attempt on Bran's life, informs Cersei of Ned's plan to buy the Gold Cloaks, and sends Jeyne to a brothel to be raped and abused. He does all of these things with the intention of benefiting from them, with full awareness of the harm it will inflict on others. This is not passively accepting an unjust system, this is contributing to the injustice of the system while heaping further injustices on top of it. And just because Littlefinger manipulates other people into doing evil for him, does not make him passive. It makes an intentional and active participant in acts of cruelty and wrongdoing.

This is why I hate to love that character. Littlefinger knows how to suit his own wants, a rare quality.

[Horik of House Carl]

Just discussing the book. for its understanding other people's thought process.

Very interesting. You've now revealed enough of your own thought process...

No offense, but it seems strikingly similar to Littlefinger's thought process. Could it be possible that your love for Littlefinger is a manifestation of narcissism? It just sounds so similar to Bernie Madoff's defense of his own actions after he was caught.

Look, I have absolutely no problem with Littlefinger. He is what he is, that's the way he was born. Some people are just naturally-born chess players and other people are just chess pieces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Maurice_de_Talleyrand-P%C3%A9rigord

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Madoff

[Candor]

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.

No, it doesn't help because you said the same fucking thing. The same idea that I understand is what you are saying, but that I disagree with!

Sure, letting her suffer, that's not so bad.

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

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.

That's true and I think Davos is a better man than littefinger, but he was still a career criminal. I wouldn't call pushing Lysa out the door murder. Still Davos is a better man that serves a worse one, Stannis. What does that say of honor?

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

Very interesting. You've now revealed enough of your own thought process...

No offense, but it seems strikingly similar to Littlefinger's thought process. Could it be possible that your love for Littlefinger is a manifestation of narcissism? It just sounds so similar to Bernie Madoff's defense of his own actions after he was caught.

Look, I have absolutely no problem with Littlefinger. He is what he is, that's the way he was born. Some people are just naturally-born chess players and other people are just chess pieces.

http://en.wikipedia....d-P%C3%A9rigord

http://en.wikipedia..../Bernard_Madoff

yes, i think that has something to do with it. but i assumed that was obvious from the first post. Alas, I see more of myself in Theon than littlefinger, I've always been too clever by half.

[littlespider]

I wouldn't call pushing Lysa out the door murder.

Whoa, this thread has turned into a total mindfuck for me.

Alas, I see more of myself in Theon than littlefinger, I've always been too clever by half.

I'd call shenanigans, but this one has accumulated 163 posts. Usually they don't hang out that long.

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

Up until claiming that Littlefinger's wrongdoing is passive, I'm with you. I think it is definitely part of what makes Littlefinger interesting as a character that he resents the limitations imposed on him by his social status. And you're right that if Ned, as Littlefinger does, desired power, he would have an easier time of gaining power due to his high birth without doing immoral things (in fact he rises to the second most powerful position in the Kingdom this way). But that does not mean Littlefinger had to resort to evil and cruelty in order to rise- see Davos Seaworth. Regardless, I think Littlefinger's low status at birth is part of what makes him an interesting character.

But on the subject of Littlefinger's wrongdoing you're conflating passive wrongdoing with indirect but still intentional and proactive wrongdoing. No, Littlefinger often does not do the specific evil deeds himself. But he gets other people to do cruel or evil things, intentionally, so that he will benefit. This is the case when he has Lysa murder Jon Arryn, leads Ned and Catelyn to believe that Tyrion is responsible for the attempt on Bran's life, informs Cersei of Ned's plan to buy the Gold Cloaks, and sends Jeyne to a brothel to be raped and abused. He does all of these things with the intention of benefiting from them, with full awareness of the harm it will inflict on others. This is not passively accepting an unjust system, this is contributing to the injustice of the system while heaping further injustices on top of it. And just because Littlefinger manipulates other people into doing evil for him, does not make him passive. It makes him an intentional and active participant in acts of cruelty and wrongdoing.

Sure I just think once you get to these third order causes and effects it would be very difficult for a person seeking advancement not make such a determination. Is littlefinger trying to start a war, worse than Tywin Lannister actually sending the troops or Edmure Tully not being prepared to defend his people from his like? If I were he I'd look around at what the other high lords are doing take note on how they achieved their position and execute an emulation to the best of my ability. I need not be as bad as the worst of them, but nor could I be better than the best of them. I would do what I thought was necessary rise and to govern my realm.

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

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

"Stannis Baratheon is Robert's true heir," Ned said. "The throne is his by rights. I would welcome his ascent."

Varys tsked. "Cersei will not want to hear that, I promise you. Stannis may win the throne, but only your rotting head will remain to cheer unless you guard that tongue of yours. Sansa begged so sweetly, it would be a shame if you threw it all away. You are being given your life back, if you'll take it. Cersei is no fool. She knows a tame wolf is of more use than a dead one."You want me to serve the woman who murdered my king, butchered my men, and crippled my son?" Ned's voice was thick with disbelief.

"I want you to serve the realm," Varys said....

So what is your answer, Lord Eddard? Give me your word that you’ll tell the queen what she wants to hear when she comes calling.”

“If I did, my word would be as hollow as an empty suit of armor. My life is not so precious to me as that.”

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

Whoa, this thread has turned into a total mindfuck for me.

I'd call shenanigans, but this one has accumulated 163 posts. Usually they don't hang out that long.

Why is it so odd to see myself in Theon? Clever, Ambitious, Callow, self aware and insecure. often my own worst enemy. I would think many people fall into that category.

[brashcandy]

That's true and I think Davos is a better man than littefinger, but he was still a career criminal. I wouldn't call pushing Lysa out the door murder. Still Davos is a better man that serves a worse one, Stannis. What does that say of honor?

What would you call it then?

[littlespider]

"Stannis Baratheon is Robert's true heir," Ned said. "The throne is his by rights. I would welcome his ascent."

Varys tsked. "Cersei will not want to hear that, I promise you. Stannis may win the throne, but only your rotting head will remain to cheer unless you guard that tongue of yours. Sansa begged so sweetly, it would be a shame if you threw it all away. You are being given your life back, if you'll take it. Cersei is no fool. She knows a tame wolf is of more use than a dead one."You want me to serve the woman who murdered my king, butchered my men, and crippled my son?" Ned's voice was thick with disbelief.

"I want you to serve the realm," Varys said....

So what is your answer, Lord Eddard? Give me your word that you’ll tell the queen what she wants to hear when she comes calling.”

“If I did, my word would be as hollow as an empty suit of armor. My life is not so precious to me as that.”

No, I asked you to provide a quotation that supports your assertion that Ned's reason for going to Cersei and telling her his plans (prior to his arrest) were because of this:

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

rather than his own ethical refusal to allow Cersei's children, and Cersei herself, become potential casulaties of Robert's wrath.

My reading is that Ned goes to Cersei because he does not want to see violence done to the children, because this would be wrong. You have split hairs and argued that Ned goes to Cersei because he wants to avoid feeling guilty should violence come to Cersei's children. I asked you to provide textual support for the latter argument. You have failed to do so.

This is one of the reasons why people on this thread are not taking your points seriously: because you are not providing logical analysis of the text. In addition to the whole "moral relativism" thing, which usually translates to "I'm going to find any excuse possible to justify the actions of my favorite character."

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

No, I asked you to provide a quotation that supports your assertion that Ned's reason for going to Cersei and telling her his plans (prior to his arrest) were because of this:

rather than his own ethical refusal to allow Cersei's children, and Cersei herself, become potential casulaties of Robert's wrath.

My reading is that Ned goes to Cersei because he does not want to see violence done to the children, because this would be wrong. You have split hairs and argued that Ned goes to Cersei because he wants to avoid feeling guilty should violence come to Cersei's children. I asked you to provide textual support for the latter argument. You have failed to do so.

This is one of the reasons why people on this thread are not taking your points seriously: because you are not providing logical analysis of the text. In addition to the whole "moral relativism" thing, which usually translates to "I'm going to find any excuse possible to justify the actions of my favorite character."

That's fair although my omission was an honest mistake. I don't think he says that explicitly, that's how I interpret everyone's morality not just Ned Stark's. That being said...

my full response was:

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?

Varys ask's Ned to serve the realm and prevent war. If he was concerned about the fate of children and not simply his honor why does Ned respond in this manner?

"You want me to serve the woman who murdered my king, butchered my men, and crippled my son?"

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Sure I just think once you get to these third order causes and effects it would be very difficult for a person seeking advancement not make such a determination. Is littlefinger trying to start a war, worse than Tywin Lannister actually sending the troops or Edmure Tully not being prepared to defend his people from his like? If I were he I'd look around at what the other high lords are doing take note on how they achieved their position and execute an emulation to the best of my ability. I need not be as bad as the worst of them, but nor could I be better than the best of them. I would do what I thought was necessary rise and to govern my realm.

No, Littlefinger is not worse than Tywin. Tywin is a terrible person. But of course both are worse than Edmure, who does his best to defend his people but fails. The difference here is abundantly clear. Littlefinger and Tywin are intentionally causing harm, while Edmure attempts to prevent harm and fails to do so. The position you appear to have taken in past posts is that unless someone does harm for the purpose of directly gaining pleasure from the harm done, with no intermediate steps, we can't call it evil or bad. Basically, unless it's sadistic cruelty, it's not evil. If you want to hold to that position, I guess nothing I say will dissuade you.

[SeanF]

"

Jon Snow and Lord Mormont don't do anything monstorous? They let Craster go about his business with his daughters. That's my question, how do you decide its ok for Jon Snow and Lord Mormont to let Craster go on, but for littlefinger to send jeyne to a brothel makes him a monster. I don't really see a difference, and certainly not a large enough difference to make one man an upstanding citizen and the other a monster.

Craster was not under the command of either Mormont or Jon Snow. Had he been, and had they let him rape his daughters, and sacrifice his sons to the Others, then of course they'd deserve immense criticism.

Likewise, had they both sent him girls to rape, and boys to sacrifice to the Others. then we could indeed view them both as monsters. Sending girls for Craster to rape would be the moral equivalent of compelling Jeyne to work in a brothel. The only difference is hat one person would have been doing the raping, rather than many.

For Mormont and Jon, the priority is defending the Wall.

[Buckwheat]

That's true and I think Davos is a better man than littefinger, but he was still a career criminal. I wouldn't call pushing Lysa out the door murder. Still Davos is a better man that serves a worse one, Stannis. What does that say of honor?

Um ... what?

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

Craster was not under the command of either Mormont or Jon Snow. Had he been, and had they let him rape his daughters, and sacrifice his sons to the Others, then of course they'd deserve immense criticism.

Likewise, had they both sent him girls to rape, and boys to sacrifice to the Others. then we could indeed view them both as monsters. Sending girls for Craster to rape would be the moral equivalent of compelling Jeyne to work in a brothel. The only difference is hat one person would have been doing the raping, rather than many.

For Mormont and Jon, the priority is defending the Wall.

But craster is under their command, there are 200 of them and only 1 of him.

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

No, Littlefinger is not worse than Tywin. Tywin is a terrible person. But of course both are worse than Edmure, who does his best to defend his people but fails. The difference here is abundantly clear. Littlefinger and Tywin are intentionally causing harm, while Edmure attempts to prevent harm and fails to do so. The position you appear to have taken in past posts is that unless someone does harm for the purpose of directly gaining pleasure from the harm done, with no intermediate steps, we can't call it evil or bad. Basically, unless it's sadistic cruelty, it's not evil. If you want to hold to that position, I guess nothing I say will dissuade you.

I generally agree. But I also think if you're a "smallfolk" you'd rather have littlefinger as your lord than edmure. i think a certain amount of cruelty or pragmatism is necessary to protect your own people. i think there is a point at which an incompetent well meaning ruler is worse than a ruthless one.

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

Um ... what?

oh i dunno, Karma, she was trying to throw Sansa out the moon door after all.