The show blatantly indulges in fan service and Littlefinger’s death is for me one of its worst offences. We had Arya killing the Freys out of the blue by superpower last year, now we had a “villain” punished for being a villain by his victims by magical intervention. The master schemer was taken down by magic, not by another schemer, not by a scheming mistake he made, not by a difficult choice on someone's part. It is the absolute dumbing down of the story. Is Bran ex machina going to be the solution to everything from now on? Shall we see Arya kill Cersei wearing Jaime's face next season like bad fan fiction says? This is the level I thought GoT would never stoop to. 

By modern standards, the "trial" was a travesty. No evidence, scarcely any opportunity for the accused to defend himself, Sansa (a 21-year-old girl with no legal experience, remember) was judge and jury. But then, this is Westeros after 7 years of civil war, and it never had a decent legal system to begin with. The show actually BEGAN with a miscarriage of justice, when Ned Stark beheaded a "deserter" who had valuable information to tell.

It wasn't a trial. They pretended it was a trial. Sansa had no doubt told Littlefinger it was going to be a trial of Arya. But it wasn't a trial.

It was the Stark family taking revenge on someone who had seriously wronged them. It's that simple.

That's how things have been repeatedly shown to work on GOT. Sure, in a few places like King's Landing they'll go through the showy pretense of a "legal" trial, but it's nothing more than a sham. We've seen that. It's been amply demonstrated. Which is why I'm perplexed that after seven years of seeing how "justice" works in this world, anyone should take issue with how Littlefinger was dealt with, either by the writers or within the show.

"It wasn't a trial. They pretended it was a trial. Sansa had no doubt told Littlefinger it was going to be a trial of Arya. But it wasn't a trial."

Right. Sansa had to arrange a situation where (A) Littlefinger was present but not on his guard (B) There were witnesses, to put an end to all the whispering and to hear crude justification of the Stark's position , (C) There wouldn't be weapons, except for the knife which could be designated as "evidence" . Hence the fake trial (or a trial where proper procedure was blatantly ignored)

In the real midieval world, they had a legacy of Roman law to tell them how to conduct trials, though even then they often ignored it and did things like "trial by combat". In Westeros the counterpart to ancient Rome is "Valeria". I haven't read the books so I don't know if there was a legacy of "Valerian Law", or whether the Westerosi had to come up with legal ideas on their own ( and did it badly). Did the books go into this?

@Hypnocratic Goat said:

That's how things have been repeatedly shown to work on GOT. Sure, in a few places like King's Landing they'll go through the showy pretense of a "legal" trial, but it's nothing more than a sham. We've seen that. It's been amply demonstrated. Which is why I'm perplexed that after seven years of seeing how "justice" works in this world, anyone should take issue with how Littlefinger was dealt with, either by the writers or within the show.

I take issue with two things:

1) that vengeance was given as a magic present, so it felt cheap. If Littlefinger, or any other important character, had to fall, I'd want it to be rooted in more than Bran bringing the evidence of an old deed. I would have liked Sansa to sell him out in exchange for an alliance with Cersei, for instance.

2) the Starks are still presented and perceived as the good heroes in spite of doing these dirty things and the audience is cheering at it.

1) If you think that Sansa would ever in a million years make an alliance with Cersei then you have zero understanding of these characters.

2) "Dirty things"? As compared to what? Ramsay Bolton? King Joffrey? Cersei blowing up the Sept killing hundreds of people? The White Walkers, who want to wipe out all of humanity?

The audience "cheered" because Littlefinger finally got what he deserved, not because of how the Starks did it.

@Hypnocratic Goat said:

1) If you think that Sansa would ever in a million years make an alliance with Cersei then you have zero understanding of these characters.

2) "Dirty things"? As compared to what? Ramsay Bolton? King Joffrey? Cersei blowing up the Sept killing hundreds of people? The White Walkers, who want to wipe out all of humanity?

The audience "cheered" because Littlefinger finally got what he deserved, not because of how the Starks did it.

I know they made Sansa into a good dog, as the rest of her stupid family. I still regret it , though. I see you're another of those turds who blame Cersei for an act of self-defense. Flush yourself down.

" 2) the Starks are still presented and perceived as the good heroes in spite of doing these dirty things and the audience is cheering at it."

The Starks are presented as COMPARATIVELY better than most of the nobility. They still do rotten things. Look at their very first scene, where Ned beheaded a "deserter" without listening to his account of why he deserted. If N HAD listened, they would have learned about the wights a lot earlier. And Catelyn's hostility to Jon for something beyond his control ( being illegitimate) is as unjusti as Cersei's hostility to Tyrion for causing his moether's death in childbirth. The show never implies that everything the Starks do is right..

"that vengeance was given as a magic present, so it felt cheap. If Littlefinger, or any other important character, had to fall, I'd want it to be rooted in more than Bran bringing the evidence of an old deed."

It was more. One of Sansa's big charges was that he had murdered Aunt Lysa. This had nothing to do with Bran; Sansa had been there (though she had perjured herself at that inquiry). Samsa also turned Littlefinger's cynical advice ( imagine the worse of the accused and then act on it) against him with no input from Bran.

@Hypnocratic Goat said:

2) the Starks are still presented and perceived as the good heroes in spite of doing these dirty things and the audience is cheering at it.

I disagree. The Starks (most of them) are as bad as the other houses. Examples:

1) Catelyn kindnapped Tyrion based on someone's word. She did not bother to make any inquiries, a simple question to Jaime would have refuted Littlefinger's lie (indeed it has, but it was too late). She didn't bother herself with the consequences, namely that the Lannisters would be pissed off and retaliate, and innocent people would be harmed, like Masha Heddle (who was the first to be killed as a payback, in the books). She didn't even give a **** about the six people who escorted her to the Eyrie and got killed:

"Sometimes she felt as though her heart had turned to stone; six brave men had died to bring her this far, and she could not even find it in her to weep for them." [some foreshadowing, isn't it?]

2) The "honorable" Ned Stark had three chances to fix the mess that Catelyn started. Did he? No, on the contrary: he poured oil on the flames by announcing arrogantly that Catelyn acted at his orders. Would Ned Stark bend himself and admit Catelyn was wrong? No Way! So what if Jory, Wyl, Heward and many people of the Riverlands were killed. The important thing is that Ned Stark didn't bend himself.

3) Robb was the worst (I mean the book character): when he received news about the ironborn's invasion, he didn't give a **** (in the show he intended to go back but was persuaded by Roose not to). He didn't care that his subjects were ravaged by the ironborn - his personal vendetta was more important to him. When he FINALLY decided to return home, it was too late.

4) Arya has become an inhumane cold-blooded murderer (I mean the book character, not the "sugarcoated" show character). Next to her, the Terminator is humanitarian. Her solution to any problem is death. She intended to murder Gendry just because he found she was a girl, and a woman in Saltpans for cheating her - and it was not her conscience that stopped her in both occasions. What wrong did Dareon do to her? Who authorized her to kill him? And the insurance seller - he never did any ill to Arya, her friends and family. Arya had no idea whether he did anything that deserved death. Eventually she killed him (in the books), and why? Because he outlived her father!!! What a terrible crime!

IMO Catelyn, Ned and Robb deserved death.

@CharlesTheBold said:

"that vengeance was given as a magic present, so it felt cheap. If Littlefinger, or any other important character, had to fall, I'd want it to be rooted in more than Bran bringing the evidence of an old deed."

It was more. One of Sansa's big charges was that he had murdered Aunt Lysa. This had nothing to do with Bran; Sansa had been there (though she had perjured herself at that inquiry). Samsa also turned Littlefinger's cynical advice ( imagine the worse of the accused and then act on it) against him with no input from Bran.

Lysa's murder was used as a tool to justify the verdict but would Sansa have turned on Littlefinger at all if she hadn't learned anything from Bran?

@Strawberry Shortcake said:

@Hypnocratic Goat said:

2) the Starks are still presented and perceived as the good heroes in spite of doing these dirty things and the audience is cheering at it.

I disagree. The Starks (most of them) are as bad as the other houses. Examples:

I wish I could follow you here but you belong to that flock who has not, and will not realise that book and show are different and to be considered separately. I do not take the books in consideration when discussing the show.

@CharlesTheBold said:

" 2) the Starks are still presented and perceived as the good heroes in spite of doing these dirty things and the audience is cheering at it."

The Starks are presented as COMPARATIVELY better than most of the nobility. They still do rotten things. Look at their very first scene, where Ned beheaded a "deserter" without listening to his account of why he deserted. If N HAD listened, they would have learned about the wights a lot earlier. And Catelyn's hostility to Jon for something beyond his control ( being illegitimate) is as unjusti as Cersei's hostility to Tyrion for causing his moether's death in childbirth. The show never implies that everything the Starks do is right..

True, I have always considered the popularity of the Starks a disgrace based on the above and a few other things. Ned called the deserter a mad man without even questioning him, still idiots worldwide love him. He also chose war instead of trying to control Joffrey. Still, the show makes them the victims to be pitied and imperfect heroes of the story, those they want the audience to love and forgive in spite of their grey shades while the only good Lannisters appear to be those who turn their back on their family.

@Leo of Red Keep said:

@Strawberry Shortcake said:

@Hypnocratic Goat said:

2) the Starks are still presented and perceived as the good heroes in spite of doing these dirty things and the audience is cheering at it.

I disagree. The Starks (most of them) are as bad as the other houses. Examples:

I wish I could follow you here but you belong to that flock who has not, and will not realise that book and show are different and to be considered separately. I do not take the books in consideration when discussing the show.

What I said about Ned is correct about the show too.

"would Sansa have turned on Littlefinger at all if she hadn't learned anything from Bran?"

Yes. We didn't even see her talk to Bran before the "Trial". The big revelation for Sansa was that, after Arya surrendered her dagger to prove she wassn't intending to kill Sansa, Littlefinger came in with his "worst-case scenario" trick to discuss Arya as a potential assassin (with no evidence).