31

Spoilers from Season 07 Episode 07, "The Dragon and the Wolf".

We saw that Littlefinger is sentenced to death by the Starks (especially by the law of Lady Sansa Stark) for his crimes.

Wouldn't it be more profitable if the three (Sansa, Arya, Bran) considered this character guilty on their own (in private), and order Arya to execute him and at the same time take his face?

If they did it, they could rule the Vale and have other links to influence people.

TheLethalCarrot
  • 143,332
  • 64
  • 808
  • 878
Kamil Jędryczek
  • 511
  • 4
  • 6
  • 2
    I don't understand the question. What you describe is exactly what happened but you seem to be asking why it didn't happen. – Darren Sep 01 '17 at 14:50
  • 8
    Are you asking why they didn't do it in secret and have Arya pretend to be Littlefinger? – TheLethalCarrot Sep 01 '17 at 14:52
  • 1
    @TheLethalCoder - I think that is correct. – amflare Sep 01 '17 at 14:55
  • 3
    How do you know that she didn't take his face? Probably a good way to get close to Cersei. – TGnat Sep 01 '17 at 15:00
  • 4
    @TGnat After he betrayed her to support the Starks? I doubt it. – TheLethalCarrot Sep 01 '17 at 15:08
  • 1
    @TheLethalCoder He's a weaselly little git whose loyalty is given to anyone who will benefit him. Pretty sure he could find some way get get back on team Lannister. – TGnat Sep 01 '17 at 15:21
  • 1
    @TGnat Cersei is smarter than most people he has crossed. He disposed of her northern hold for his own reasons. Before that he conspired to kill her son and stole Sansa from her. Cersei doesn't forgive and no one trusts Littlefinger. It wouldn't end well for him. – TheLethalCarrot Sep 01 '17 at 15:23
  • 1
    All Littlefinger had left was his control over Robin Arryn, which Yohn Royce clearly disapproved of. If they do want to use his face, they only need Royce and his knights to keep quiet about the execution. – DKu Sep 01 '17 at 15:33
  • 5
    Wasn't much of a trial though... more of a public humiliation followed by execution – komodosp Sep 01 '17 at 17:39
  • 1
    Because the Starks are honorable, not the kind of people who plot in the shadows like Littlefinger does. – RichS Apr 20 '18 at 01:38
  • “Wouldn't it be more profitable” — ah, the Starks. Famous chasers of profit at all costs. – Paul D. Waite Oct 19 '18 at 14:22

3 Answers3

81

The official script for the episode has been released and shares some interesting insight into the trial. The main thing being that everyone in the room apparently already knew the trial was for Littlefinger, not Arya.

SANSA: How do you answer these charges, Lord Baelish?

Littlefinger stiffens, as everyone in the room looks at him.

Everyone else is in on it. For once, Littlefinger is the man on the outside.

As if caught in a bad dream, he cannot speak for a moment

Game of Thrones, Season 7 Episode 7, "The Dragon and the Wolf"

By doing it in trial they expose Littlefinger for who he was to everyone, not just those who already knew it. Though to be fair most people already knew and those that didn't were told before the trial as per the official script.

What can they gain from doing it in secret?

  • Vale? They already have its support with or without Littlefinger due to being cousins. Lord Royce seems to support the Starks and with Littlefinger gone he will most likely become Lord protector until Robin comes of age.
  • Littlefinger's contacts? How will they know now? After someone dies you don't magically learn everything about them.
  • Influence? They are already the ruling family in the North and essentially the Vale, what other influence do they need?

What can they lose from doing it in secret? Trust, power, support, etc.

Another good point raised by @Odin1806 is:

In addition they also show that the Starks are a unified front once again. While some may have believed (and rightly so) that the house Stark was in shambles holding a trial and making everything public shows that the Starks are all home, they are back on top, and they are not to be trifled with.

As to why Arya didn't take Lord Baelish's face, well we don't know if she did or not. For all we know her and Sansa are having a lot of fun with it.

Arya pretends to be Littlefinger

Community
  • 1
TheLethalCarrot
  • 143,332
  • 64
  • 808
  • 878
  • 8
    In addition they also show that the Starks are a unified front once again. While some may have believed (and rightly so) that the house Stark was in shambles holding a trial and making everything public shows that the Starks are all home, they are back on top, and they are not to be trifled with. – Odin1806 Sep 01 '17 at 15:58
  • 8
    Upvoted for a good answer, and that hilarious pic at the end! – Irishpanda Sep 01 '17 at 17:05
  • 3
    @Davor Sansa is the ruler of the north, she can simply sentence him to death. She's the accuser and the judge, there's no other judges he can lie to or try to deny his way out. – madmada Sep 02 '17 at 22:32
  • 2
    @madmada - Exactly. Sansa has seen him do enough, and heard enough from Bran and Arya, to want him dead. His only chance would be to try to convince her to spare him (maybe what he was trying to do). – Adamant Sep 03 '17 at 06:38
  • @madmada - except that's not how it went with anyone else, including Ned Stark or Tyrion. Bad writing. – Davor Sep 03 '17 at 07:23
  • 2
    @Davor That's exactly what always happened. Joffrey made the decision to execute Ned alone. Ned to execute The Mountain alone and in the spot. Jon, Ser Alliser and the one he refused to carry his order. Rob, Karstark. Daenerys, Dickon&Randall & the former masters. In both Tyrion trials, the ruler didn't know the truth (Neither lord of Vale nor Tommen who didn't want to execute him, he just wanted a just judgement/the truth) – madmada Sep 03 '17 at 10:32
  • 3
    And despite all what happened with Ned, it all came down to a decision by Joffrey. Lysa, as I remember was worried from the Lannister and didn't have any evidence (hence, they wanted him to confess). Trial by combat is a way to decide if someone is guilty or not in the absence of evidence, if the ruler sees there's enough evidence, it won't happen. – madmada Sep 03 '17 at 17:45
  • @madmada Whether Ned died or not came down to Joffrey. He was going to be sent to the Wall instead for the other plans - which in the GoT universe is not particularly different. Either way, Joffrey basically had nothing to do with determining guilt. Davor does have a point - Littlefinger barely even bothers denying any crimes (except somehow Ned Stark?) – DariM Sep 04 '17 at 00:22
  • 3
    @DariM Can't you see some similarities between both incidents? Ned despite being not guilty, was faced by a ruler already decided his guilt and wants to punish him. Little finger despite the lack of evidence, was also faced by a ruler wants to punish him. If Ned insisted that he's innocent it wouldn't have help (at least with confession there's a chance), the same with LF, if he denied or called Sansa or Bran a liar it wouldn't have help, all he could do is try to beg or ask for mercy (at least there's a chance she'll falter and reconsider the sentence, if he called her a lair, no way) – madmada Sep 04 '17 at 01:29
  • @madmada Ned Stark plotted to dethrone a King, failed, and was then charged with treason, and then publicly confessed his treason. The evidence of Ned Stark's treason was there for all to see in that throne room, and he didn't even actually mention the truth of Joffrey's parentage at the time. It's very different for Littlefinger. He's outright asked whether he denies the charge levelled against him, in public, when he has information that could publicly discredit his accuser. And fails to do so. – DariM Sep 04 '17 at 03:02
  • 2
    " discredit his accuser"? She's not the accuser, she's the ruler of the north (and in front of a king you ask for mercy, you don't call him a liar, it'll never go well). "in public" Those are her subjects, none of them has a say in anything. What's there to argue about? She rules the north and executed it him because she can (Power is power), and any one there will take the starks word as an absolute truth and if not will just shut up cuz it's not his place to question. – madmada Sep 04 '17 at 03:53
  • 1
    @madmada - Precisely. Having a trial just helps ensure that subjects, commoner or noble, won't see one as unjust and revolt or anything. I don't believe there's really "rule of law" in Westeros. You get a judge, sure, but they can be hopelessly prejudiced - and if they like the evidence, you die. If they don't, you live. Quality of evidence has naught to do with it. – Adamant Sep 04 '17 at 08:06
  • @TheLethalCarrot Littlefinger's contacts? How will they know now? After someone dies you don't magically learn everything about them. Bran Stark has such magic. Just saying. – RichS Apr 20 '18 at 01:40
  • @RichS Yes but killing Littlefinger didn't give him the magic. My point is killing him won't help you learn more about him. – TheLethalCarrot Apr 20 '18 at 07:54
13

  1. The Stark's are known for their honour, I doubt any of them would have even considered this an option.

  2. There are 2 people that Robin Arryn (current Lord of the Vale) trusts left on Westeros. Yohn Royce, and Sansa Stark. And as everyone has shown, Robin is very easy to manipulate, so in essence, they already control the Vale. (Yohn was present at the execution of Littlefinger.)

  3. By declaring for House Stark during the Battle of the Bastards, Littlefinger burned many of his bridges and revealed himself to the world as a deceitful schemer. His name wouldn't carry the same weight after that.

TheLethalCarrot
  • 143,332
  • 64
  • 808
  • 878
Amaethon
  • 137
  • 2
  • 2
    I don't see why this answer has been downvoted, it seems pretty accurate to me. – TheLethalCarrot Sep 01 '17 at 15:03
  • 1
    Probably for the same reason that the only up-voted comment mentions that Baelish's face would be useful to get to Cersei... Just how false this is shouldn't need to be explained too much... – Amaethon Sep 01 '17 at 15:09
  • 1
    @Amaethon This is exactly the reason that answers - even small answers - should not be posted in comments. Comments are "to ask for more information and suggest improvements" and should not contain answers as comments can be upvoted but not downvoted so false but correct-sounding comments quickly gather upvotes. Downvoting without explaining why is, unfortunately, common amongst lazy people, but is mostly unrelated to false comment-answers being upvoted. – wizzwizz4 Sep 01 '17 at 20:42
  • 1
    " I doubt any of them would have even considered this an option." You obviously have not been following Arya's development. She'd do it in a heartbeat, but public disclosure helps secure Sansa's position in a way which rumors of private, personal killing would not. – WhatRoughBeast Sep 02 '17 at 16:49
2

The Starks didn't kill Lord Baelish by trial. They did essentially "just let Arya do it" – they just staged a fancy execution.

A trial, even by Westerosi jurisprudential standards, would require not being tried by either the accusers or the witnesses; bringing serious evidence – which the Starks do not provide (*) –, and a reasonable possibility for the defendant to refute the charges. Now, "reasonable" is up for debate, but one minute from accusation to execution doesn't really count.

Finally, Baelish was not offered trial by combat.

(*) - Bran is a crippled kid who has never been to King's Landing nor the Vale, has strange visions and denies he's actually Brandon Stark. So we can throw that witness away. Arya - ignoring her being a psychotic mass-murderer, she wasn't witness to anything relevant. The letter addressed to Catelyn Stark - can't actually be at hand. Catelyn got it and certainly did not send it to Winterfell for archiving (I think she destroyed it?). Finally, Sansa has already given the opposite testimony to her accusation - i.e. that Baelish did not kill Lysa. Even arguing the opposite makes her an entirely untrustworthy witness.

dessert
  • 103
  • 5
einpoklum
  • 10,061
  • 7
  • 44
  • 103
  • 2
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but the ruler (Sansa) pass the sentence he/she see right, with or without trail no matter the evidence or lack of it. Rob (Jaime & KarStark), Jon (Slynt & Alliser&co) Ned (The mountain). – madmada Sep 02 '17 at 22:48
  • 3
    You're ignoring a pretty huge piece of evidence - Baelish's admissions of guilt! – JBentley Sep 03 '17 at 03:20
  • @JBentley: I'm being merciful towards the writers and pretending they weren't as dumb as to make Littlefinger admit guilt... – einpoklum Sep 03 '17 at 16:56
  • @madmada: (1.) You are wrong. I'm sure the books say more about these things, but as far as the show - have a look at Tyrion's two trials (for the Bran business and for the murder of Joffery). First, the accuser is not the one who passes the sentence (at least, not himself). Second, there are definitely procedural rights, at least if you're a noble (which Lord Baelish is). Night Watch justice is a different system altogether (different rights and duties, semi-democratic etc.) As for Eddard - perhaps that's a good point, I need to re-watch. – einpoklum Sep 03 '17 at 17:02
  • @madmada: (2.) If what you said were right, that's still not a trial, so my answer to OP is valid I believe. – einpoklum Sep 03 '17 at 17:03
  • 1
    There's no need for a trail in a traditional sense. The trail is to determine the guilt and he was already guilty in Sansa's eyes. The ruler word has always been the law, Like Daenerys with the former masters and Randall and Dickon. Like Joffrey with (the jester?) B4 Sansa persuades him. I think the more similar example is when Rob executed Karstark for killing the 2 lannister children, there was no need for a trail because Rob knew he's guilty and was just deciding what to do with him. – madmada Sep 03 '17 at 17:57
  • ..Sansa (for a traditional trial standards) didn't have enough evidence, but it was more than enough to her. Little finger knew she can execute him for any reason if she wanted (remember his past encounter with Cersie, "Power is power") so he couldn't deny or lie (no use), all he could do is to beg. – madmada Sep 03 '17 at 18:02
  • @madmada: It doesn't matter if it's enough for her or not. Effectively, Winterfell is ruled by the Vale forces - so it needs to be convincing to them. Now, you could say Yohn Royce has a grudge for Baelish, and you'd be right - but either it's not just his call, or again this is a writing gaffe. Baelish would never put himself in the position of being at the mercy of an unstable, non-loyal teenager like Sansa Stark. Of course, the whole Baelish+Sansa plot starting in Season 5 is not reasonable and out-of-character for Baelish, but that's my general point anyway. – einpoklum Sep 03 '17 at 19:13
  • @madmada: Also, again, you're seconding my answer: There was no trial, i.e. the Starks didn't kill him by trial. – einpoklum Sep 03 '17 at 19:14
  • 1
    "Baelish+Sansa plot starting in Season 5 is not reasonable" I agree with that, and I have no problem calling it a trial or not (She seemed reached a decision/sentence and just making it public). But it's what the rulers have been doing from the very beginning, and no one batted an eye b4 this time. She is (the acting) queen of the north and all those are her subjects. Imagine lord Eddard doing the same, can any one dare to question his ruling or his word as a witness. – madmada Sep 03 '17 at 20:07
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – einpoklum Sep 03 '17 at 21:33