Kelsier gets a bad rap

[KnightsOfHonor]

***disclamer*** I am basing this off what we see of him in the books.

Kelsier to me seemed like someone who “would rather trust and be betrayed then never trust and never have friends at all”. He loves and cares for his team and has to be talked out of pushing himself too far to try and save people on several occasions. For example, when (forget his name) takes the army they were building and attacks, Kelsier was going to try and save them but gets told “you can’t save everyone kel” and he really takes that hard. He has no love for evil people and does not hesitate to eliminate them one way or another, but who thinks evil should not be eliminated? He is very ruthless in his methods at times, but he is living in a ruthless world. I think that is more of a commentary on just how bad things are on Scadrial and less on how bad Kelsier is. I guess I don’t really understand where all this “Kelsier is evil” or “Kelsier is a bad guy” comes from. The reputation he seems to have on this site is vastly different than what seems to be presented in the books. To me he seems like a man in a hard, rough world making hard, rough decisions. But despite all the hard things he has had to do, all the terrible things he has seen and had happen to him, he still choses to smile, to trust, and to love.
 

[StormingTexan]

Which books have you read? 

[Returned]

I agree that Kelsier has some very admirable traits, but he also has some pretty despicable ones (even in the books, he enjoys killing nobles just because of their lineage, for example, even if it's not really necessary to further a goal). A skaa child being murdered? Awful, and demanding unbounded retribution. A noble child being murdered? Awesome. The fact that he doesn't hate absolutely everyone is good, but maybe not enough to brand him a great person no matter what.

One of the problems with a forum filled with Sanderson nerds is that there's a lot of information in play outside of a specific few books (I assume you're referring to the first three Mistborn novels when you say "the books"). There's a lot more information about Kelsier than just what's written in the first three Mistborn books, and those details may or may not alter your views of him. They certainly play a large role in peoples' views of him here. I like him, but I acknowledge that he's not the greatest person. I think he's earned the more negative view people have of him.

Edited September 15, 2022 by Returned

[offer]

2 hours ago, KnightsOfHonor said:

***disclamer*** I am basing this off what we see of him in the books.

Kelsier to me seemed like someone who “would rather trust and be betrayed then never trust and never have friends at all”. He loves and cares for his team and has to be talked out of pushing himself too far to try and save people on several occasions. For example, when (forget his name) takes the army they were building and attacks, Kelsier was going to try and save them but gets told “you can’t save everyone kel” and he really takes that hard. He has no love for evil people and does not hesitate to eliminate them one way or another, but who thinks evil should not be eliminated? He is very ruthless in his methods at times, but he is living in a ruthless world. I think that is more of a commentary on just how bad things are on Scadrial and less on how bad Kelsier is. I guess I don’t really understand where all this “Kelsier is evil” or “Kelsier is a bad guy” comes from. The reputation he seems to have on this site is vastly different than what seems to be presented in the books. To me he seems like a man in a hard, rough world making hard, rough decisions. But despite all the hard things he has had to do, all the terrible things he has seen and had happen to him, he still choses to smile, to trust, and to love.
 

The best example that shows that Kelsier is a "bad guy" who doesn`t care about the Skaa is at the begining of the first book (maybe it is even the prologue?) where he send a whole Skaa plantation to almost certain death just to kill a few noblemen. 

[KnightsOfHonor]

53 minutes ago, StormingTexan said:

Which books have you read? 

All of them. 

33 minutes ago, Returned said:

I agree that Kelsier has some very admirable traits, but he also has some pretty despicable ones (even in the books, he enjoys killing nobles just because of their lineage, for example, 

What? I know he does not lose any sleep over killing people he sees as responsible for the horrible life of an entire group of people, but what makes you think he enjoys it?

37 minutes ago, Returned said:

I assume you're referring to the first three Mistborn novels when you say "the books"

I am referring to any and all books Kelsier appears as a POV character. That's what is so great about books as a medium. We get to see inside the minds of people. I can see someone making the argument that Kalsier and Taravangian are similar in there approach to problems. But i think we can see from there inner most thoughts and motives that they are not that much alike at all.

I think Brandon made the comparison that a Kelsier like character COULD make a villain in different circumstances and used Miles Hundredlives as an example of that. But to say that because someone with those character traits could make a villain does not mean that if you have those traits you are automatically a villain. For example, is lying a “bad” thing? Well it depends. Are you lying to your mom to get out of punishment or are you lying to not blow your cover as an undercover agent trying to bring down a corrupt organization? Action “A” does not automatically equal judgment “B”. Lying is not automatically a bad thing even though it is generally thought of as such. Kelsies actions would be bad IF he did them under different circumstances. But he didn’t. He did them in the time and under the circumstances he did. We cannot remove his actions from the circumstances that gave rise to them in the first place. And who knows, maybe it will be revealed that he has been off killing innocent nobles for sport this whole time even though the circumstances have changed proving that he really is evil. But somehow, I doubt it. For some reason I feel like he has been off doing what he seams to be always doing, trying to help people survive. Especially the underdog. 

[KnightsOfHonor]

26 minutes ago, offer said:

The best example that shows that Kelsier is a "bad guy" who doesn`t care about the Skaa is at the begining of the first book (maybe it is even the prologue?) where he send a whole Skaa plantation to almost certain death just to kill a few noblemen. 

Is that why he did it? Or did he do it to help break the Skaa free of the "safety" of their plantation. Because they were too scared to leave the safety of the plantation even if that meant enduring rape, murder, and forced labor. He was saving them from a life worse than death. And I am pretty sure they did not die, they just thought they would. Hence the need for Kelsiers actions. The skaa had been brainwashed into thinking the mists would kill them or something else would get them and they would die without the "protection" and "services" from the nobles. 

Edited September 15, 2022 by KnightsOfHonor
spelling

[offer]

1 minute ago, KnightsOfHonor said:

Is that why he did it? Or did he do it to help break the Skaa free of the "safety" of their plantation. Because they were too scared to leave the safety of the plantation even if that meant enduring rape, murder, and forced labor. He was saving them from a life worse than death. And am pretty sure they did not die, they just thought they would. Hence the need for Kelsiers actions. The skaa had been brainwashed into thinking the mists would kill them or something else would get them and they would die without the "protection" and "services" from the nobles. 

They did survive, but it was because they were lucky and managed to escape the empire`s forces who came looking for them. In the book they survive but that was the unlikely outcome. 

 

The Skaa did not think the nobles gave them any protection or services, they just knew that if they tried to escape the nobles would come and kill them (They were afraid of the mists but this is not the reason the did not escape).

[StormingTexan]

1 hour ago, Returned said:

One of the problems with a forum filled with Sanderson nerds is that there's a lot of information in play outside of a specific few books (I assume you're referring to the first three Mistborn novels when you say "the books"). There's a lot more information about Kelsier than just what's written in the first three Mistborn books, and those details may or may not alter your views of him. They certainly play a large role in peoples' views of him here. I like him, but I acknowledge that he's not the greatest person. I think he's earned the more negative view people have of him.

This is my thoughts exactly. He is a sticky character spoiler wise and kind of hard to say too much (why I asked what books have been read). You also have to decide how you feel about guilt by association with him. 

[KnightsOfHonor]

5 minutes ago, offer said:

They did survive, but it was because they were lucky and managed to escape the empire`s forces who came looking for them. In the book they survive but that was the unlikely outcome. 

 

The Skaa did not think the nobles gave them any protection or services, they just knew that if they tried to escape the nobles would come and kill them (They were afraid of the mists but this is not the reason the did not escape).

I guess I am confused on this point. Kelsier shows up, frees an entire plantation of slaves, and you use this as an example of him being a bad guy because they "might have died"? Well yeah, overthrowing your oppressors brings with it a lot of risks, but that does not make you a villain. Especially because it worked! The man is a hero. He channeled his potentially villainess personality traits to liberate and save instead of oppress and control. 

[KnightsOfHonor]

42 minutes ago, StormingTexan said:

This is my thoughts exactly. He is a sticky character spoiler wise and kind of hard to say too much (why I asked what books have been read). You also have to decide how you feel about guilt by association with him. 

"Sticky" is a good word for it. I guess that’s why I really like him. He is not your typical comic book hero who is virtuous in all his acts, thoughts, and methods. He is willing to get his hand dirty without going to far. He manages to stay good despite it all. He loves attention and praise, is not afraid to break the rules, and thinks he can do the impossible. That is a recipe for disaster! But he manages to use all of that for good when most anyone else would end up the villain in the story. And that is what I think Brandon is referring to when he says things about Kel. That he could, or would, be a bad guy. Or that when asked which of his characters would make for a villain, said Kelsier because he could easily see it with a personality and mindset like that (as could I). I just hope that he does not turn down that path. I hope he keeps being a hero despite it all. 

 

Edit: While I have not read every WoB I am fairly knowledgeable about things that have been said by Brandon about Kel (and other names he might go by). I don't really think there is much about him that I do not know (unless there is a big WoB I missed). But anything outside of the books (including WoB) is not canon and (stormlight Spoilers) 

Spoiler

 lots of the evil "Thaidakar" has done has happened off screen and by people who were not him. In fact I'm guessing we will find out that he would not be happy with how certain people tied to him are acting. If we stick to what we know about him and looking through the context of his POV he is much MUCH less of a villain than Dalinar. And I definitely do not think of Dalinar as a bad guy.

So that's why I wanted to use the books as reference in this topic. And who knows, maybe he will turn out to be a monster after all (I certainly hope not). I just think as of right now, what we have seen from him, he does not deserve such a negative reputation. 

Edited September 15, 2022 by KnightsOfHonor
To avoid double posting

[+Kolten]

I think that the shardcast, and then the rest of the community, spent a lot of time discussing a villainous interpretation of Kelsier's character to the point that it has colored peoples memory of how he was portrayed in the books. I recently reread the original trilogy and was surprised at how unambiguously heroic he is portrayed vs what my mental image of him was from spending time here. The way he is discussed you would think he was a grimdark antihero.

Kelsier's personality is the kind that could easily go too far and become a villian, but I agree with KnightsOfHonor that it hasn't happened yet, and is not inevitable either. 

[CognitiveShadow]

The real question is - is it really Kelsier that gets the bad rap?

Spoiler

As a cognitive shadow that is influenced heavily by the perception that others have of him, how much is still Kelsier in there? He dies in the first book and the rest of the time he is worshipped by who knows how many people that view him as a god of Survival. The thing about surviving is it makes you do stuff you wouldn’t normally do if you didn’t feel like you had to. So maybe some of the things we believe Thaidakar has done make more sense from that angle too. All of that leaves out the philosophical question of whether he is actually the same person or just a copy- left behind investiture that gained sapience…. Who knows!

 

[+Oltux72]

14 hours ago, KnightsOfHonor said:

***disclamer*** I am basing this off what we see of him in the books.

Kelsier to me seemed like someone who “would rather trust and be betrayed then never trust and never have friends at all”. He loves and cares for his team and has to be talked out of pushing himself too far to try and save people on several occasions.

I think the most fundamental words in your observation are "for his team"

14 hours ago, KnightsOfHonor said:

To me he seems like a man in a hard, rough world making hard, rough decisions. But despite all the hard things he has had to do, all the terrible things he has seen and had happen to him, he still choses to smile, to trust, and to love.

Well, how shall I put this ...
To many people, including many in the fandom, a good man is also a fair man. And that he is not. Kelsier is for the best friend you can have. He is not the best man to have to negotiate from a slightly adversarial position with.
Were the crew of the Enola Gay heroes? I suspect the answers to the these questions have a significant correlation.

[offer]

12 hours ago, KnightsOfHonor said:

I guess I am confused on this point. Kelsier shows up, frees an entire plantation of slaves, and you use this as an example of him being a bad guy because they "might have died"? Well yeah, overthrowing your oppressors brings with it a lot of risks, but that does not make you a villain. Especially because it worked! The man is a hero. He channeled his potentially villainess personality traits to liberate and save instead of oppress and control. 

I don`t count that as "freeing" them. They were not free after Kelsier, they were basically escaped slaves and (assumed) merderers. If Kelsier did care ffor them he could have led them to the safety of the Skaa rebellion hidweouts or something like that, but Kelsier did not care if they lived or not so he left them to flee from the e,pire`s forces by themself.

I use this as an example to show that he is someone who does not care about how his actions affect others, and is willing to do stuff that will harm innocent people.

 

I does not give Kelsier credit for the fact that they did survived because he had no way of knowing that it would happen. Honestly, I did not like the part in the book when we found out that they did survive - it felt fvery unbelievable and like Brandon was not willing to write a bad ending for some caraters even when the plot demanded it.

[StormingTexan]

2 hours ago, offer said:

I use this as an example to show that he is someone who does not care about how his actions affect others, and is willing to do stuff that will harm innocent people.

Well Brandon himself has called him a psychopath and that perfectly fits with how I view him. I have worked for one before and the problem is they can completely appear sincere in caring for people and I am sure they actually do to an extent but with the inability to have empathy not sure you can say they really "care" for people in general.

 

Quote

 

i_are_pant

1. Which of your protagonist characters do you dislike the most as a person? Taking into account that you know all of their inner secrets and motivations.2. On the flip side. Which of your antagonists do you connect with the most? The Lord Ruler seems an obvious choice as he was misunderstood by everybody for so long. But still, I'm curious.

Brandon Sanderson

• This is a tough one, as while I'm writing, I HAVE to like everyone. However, the most disturbing of them is probably Kelsier. He's a psychopath--meaning the actual, technical term. Lack of empathy, egotism, lack of fear. If his life had gone differently, he could have been a very, very evil dude.

• Elend. I see myself as an idealist like him.

/r/fantasy AMA 2013 (April 17, 2013)

 

Now does that mean he is bad? Not sure you can really say that either and I do not think Brandon wanted to portray him as evil or bad. He does love to develop "grey" characters though. Many threads have been posted about is this character "bad" and it can be a mixed bag for sure on peoples views. I guess "bad" or "good" is really dependent on which side you are on just like in a war most of the time each side thinks they are right and justified.

I wouldn't really consider someone described as a psychopath as "good" but depending on their motivations they can do good things. This can get philosophical pretty quick in a "the ends justify the means" kind of way. 

One of the things I love about the original Mistborn trilogy is the path we are taken with how we view TLR. In the beginning he is obviously the villain but as we learn more we find out things he did to protect people. Very similar to Kelsier in a way they are the same thing albeit different motivations. Brandon does a great job of creating morale confusing characters. 

[Returned]

18 hours ago, KnightsOfHonor said:

What? I know he does not lose any sleep over killing people he sees as responsible for the horrible life of an entire group of people, but what makes you think he enjoys it?

I was being a bit too poetic with that phrasing, and it was unclear. I'll be more direct and concrete, in that Kelsier hates nobles, collectively and individually. Up until just before his death he has no compunction about killing any of them at any time by any mechanism, just because of their ethnic/social group (the lines between those are interestingly blurred in the first three books).

There are some pretty obvious reasons that Kel might become calloused, since the Lord Ruler's entire system of oppression was tied up in the nobility's status and role in society, and the specific targets he chooses are generally emphasized as pretty bad people. But he'd have killed Elend as casually and carelessly as Charrs Entrone if he'd thought it convenient or useful. He wanted to kill Bilg, a skaa soldier, for a similar reason even though he himself had Rioted Bilg into the position where Kelsier nearly killed him (though he did relent, which is to his credit). Implying that Kelsier's ruthlessness is bad, but justifying it by pointing out that the world he's in is ruthless (and presumably bad) may make Kelsier's ruthlessness "good" in your eyes, and obviously your opinion is your own and that's fine. But others might well see the bad, and decline to call it a virtue just because others around him are also bad, even if they're worse and he's opposed to them.

I like the parallel that @StormingTexan brings up with the Lord Ruler. He's also pretty hate-filled, ruthless, and fine with murder, and also working for what we might call a greater good. But I, personally, had a hard time with Vin and Elend warming up to him in Hero of Ages. He seems to have done some pretty bad stuff because of his hatred pretty early on, well before Ruin had all that much time to work on him, and even if he improved (which is perhaps questionable, but seems defensible) I'm not inclined to just ignore the badness when evaluating him. Though to be clear, Kelsier was a way better person than Rashek.

As I stated above, I like Kelsier and agree that he has very noble traits and works very hard to help people. This is stated to be a contrast to his pre-Pits of Hathsin days, when he was a worse person. But we see him sacrificing a lot for a people that he truly cares about and doing many good things for good reasons. My negative feelings about him are mostly the hatred he struggles to rein in, and his time as Thaidakar. We may learn more about the latter that will change my view, especially since we know so little about him in this role for now, but being head of the Ghostbloods doesn't seem like a merit. Others may disagree, and that's fine.

[KnightsOfHonor]

4 hours ago, offer said:

I don`t count that as "freeing" them. They were not free after Kelsier, they were basically escaped slaves and (assumed) merderers. If Kelsier did care ffor them he could have led them to the safety of the Skaa rebellion hidweouts or something like that

Good points but if I were a slave, waiting for the day I would be raped, or be killed because I displeased my masters or be killed because I was to weak or old to work, or (best case) "just" forced to work all day. I would be thankful someone showed up, killed my slavers and released all of us into the wild to fend for ourselves (aka freedom). I guess it comes down to what you think it means to be free vs a slave. So we will have to agree to disagree on that point.

 

1 hour ago, StormingTexan said:

Well Brandon himself has called him a psychopath and that perfectly fits with how I view him. I have worked for one before and the problem is they can completely appear sincere in caring for people and I am sure they actually do to an extent but with the inability to have empathy not sure you can say they really "care" for people in general.

This and the quote you posted and things like it are exactly why Kelseir gets a bad rap. I think people have put too much into what has been said about him and have forgotten what he actually does. Unlike your boss, we can get inside kelsiers head and see what he is truly thinking. And from that we see he is not a bad guy. He does not enjoy suffering; he does not kick people who are already down or things of that sort. The only people he harms are people in positions they are abusing or, at best, in positions where they could help people but choose not to for selfish reasons. Kelsier could have had a very comfortable easy life but he gave that all up. Why? Well we don't have to guess. We know why. We see his thoughts and motivations in the books. It’s like @Kolten said, I think peoples opinion and perception of him are being shaped more by what people are saying about him and less about what he himself is actually doing and thinking. Although if @CognitiveShadow theory is true, maybe the two are not entirely separate.

 

tldr; people are basically judging someone they know more off of what others have said about him and less off of first hand experience.

[KnightsOfHonor]

What was Kelsier supposed to do with the nobles he killed? Put them in jail? Hold them captive until the day that the law was less corrupt and then hold a trial? Try and brainwash them into taking orders from a Skaa? Killing them was really his only way to deal with them. What actions could he have taken to bring about the fall of the Final Empire that would not be considered “bad” from any point of view?   And remember, the people he is killing are rapists, murderers, and slavers. If anyone deserves death it would be them. And I know not all of them are as bad as others but Kel doesn’t seem to be killing each and every noble he sees. He kills the ones that are the worst or the ones that are most strategic in bringing about his end goal (ending slavery). Its like in war, not every soldier is a bad person but unfortunately if they are fighting on the side that is supporting slavery….  

@Returned Lots of good points here. And I agree that Kel has a lot of traits that villains do. That he COULD have been like the Lord Ruler, or he COULD have done this or that. But let’s look at what DID happen. He freed an entire population of people, toppled a horrible empire, and brought about improving the lives of almost everyone on a planet. I guess I don’t see how that makes him a bad guy. I get why he COULD be one, but I don’t see how what DID happen makes him one. 

I know a lot of what I am saying is just opinion (and a less that common one at that). But that’s what makes this so interesting. To see other people’s opinions and their points and counterpoints as we each try and give our thoughts.

 

[StormingTexan]

@KnightsOfHonor No I pretty much got that impression of him from the books. I just posted the quote because it was relevant to what @offer said. Would you not agree that Kelsier is a morally grey character? I mean putting aside all the killing he was literally a thief as well.  Obviously with a "grey" character some people are gong lean both ways as far as their opinions. He is one of my favorite Cosmere characters btw. 

[Returned]

1 hour ago, KnightsOfHonor said:

@Returned Lots of good points here. And I agree that Kel has a lot of traits that villains do. That he COULD have been like the Lord Ruler, or he COULD have done this or that. But let’s look at what DID happen. He freed an entire population of people, toppled a horrible empire, and brought about improving the lives of almost everyone on a planet. I guess I don’t see how that makes him a bad guy. I get why he COULD be one, but I don’t see how what DID happen makes him one. 

I know a lot of what I am saying is just opinion (and a less that common one at that). But that’s what makes this so interesting. To see other people’s opinions and their points and counterpoints as we each try and give our thoughts.

For sure! I've enjoyed the discussion also. As I mentioned, it's Thaidakar that really colors my opinion of Kelsier because with what little we know so far it's hard to see him as a great guy and easy to see him as villainous. Since they're the same person the tension between those has to be resolved somehow, and I'm not generally receptive to the idea that "good" actions provide cover for "bad" ones.

Within the books themselves I feel Kelsier is much more a noble character than an evil one: he has good goals, for good reasons, in opposition to substantial and evil adversaries, and works hard to accomplish those goals at incredible personal cost. A lot of what he does is motivated by hatred and revenge, which I feel is bad, but he labors to bend it towards a good purpose and is successful. But at the same time his plans worked out only because of factors he couldn't foresee. Had Vin not managed to defeat the Lord Ruler, all of Kelsier's work would have just led to incredible violence as the skaa massacred nobles in Luthadel and then the Lord Ruler massacred the skaa.

Plenty of people believe that ends justify means (Kelsier almost certainly does), but I'm not one of them. I feel that it's possible for a bad person doing bad things to produce good outcomes, and it's possible (essentially guaranteed, in fact) for people to be more complex than "good" or "bad". That's largely why I don't find "things worked out well" to be a strong argument for flatly defining Kelsier as "good". He kills a lot of people, and causes a lot of broadly innocent people to be killed, on purpose (such as Jastes' infant sister, for example, in violence prompted by instigating the house war-- the internecine violence was the whole point of that part of the plan), and others through mistakes he certainly didn't intend (like getting Yeden fired up through deceptive, vague mysticism, who then led the army to certain defeat to no purpose, plus a subsequent skaa mass execution).

I can't get on board with a good outcome being a credible argument that a person working towards that outcome must be good and all their actions good. I suspect that had the Lord Ruler prevailed your opinion of Kelsier would be the same as it is now-- that his failure wouldn't retroactively make his attempt to free the skaa "bad". The success of a person's designs just isn't how I define their moral character. By that token the Lord Ruler would be a good person, because he did thwart Ruin and save all life on Scadrial, and a thousand years of incredible violence and oppression were just some eggs he broke to make the omelet.

[KnightsOfHonor]

47 minutes ago, StormingTexan said:

Would you not agree that Kelsier is a morally grey character? I mean putting aside all the killing he was literally a thief as well.  Obviously with a "grey" character some people are gong lean both ways as far as their opinions. He is one of my favorite Cosmere characters btw. 

If you told me someone was a thief and a murderer with no context, yeah that sounds bad. But if who they are stealing from was an oppressive government regime and who they were killing were people who would have had the death sentence in most any other setting…. Not so much. It would have been better if the government was not corrupt and it was not left up to vigilantes to dish out justice. If kelsier had the option to turn in the bad people so they could have a trial and all of that but instead chose to kill them anyway. Then yeah, even though they probably still deserved to die, other realistic options were available that he could and should have taken. And I feel like his reputation would be correct in that theoretical situation. But in the situation he was in, the only way to stop the bad people from doing bad things was to remove them from the picture. He was killing people who deserved to die (harsh reality) and he was stealing from people who had stolen (through the fruits of forced labor) that money to begin with. And he could have just lived his life as a thief in relative comfort (that’s when he was a bad person) but he chose to give that up for something more

 

@Returned

I agree with you on most every point. I think "ends justify the means" is a way for bad people to sleep at night. the stormlight character who believes that I think is definitely not a good person even though he is trying for a good outcome (in his own mind at least). The thing with kelsier is he is correct in thinking something needed to change. Just like a bad person doing good things does not make them a good person, neither does a good person doing bad things make them a bad person. Sometimes you do have to do not very nice things. Sometimes war is needed because the bad guys wont listen to reason. It would be better to not need that but the situation on scadrial was not that. At what point do bad things for a good reason make you a bad person…. Well there is a line somewhere, but I think Kel is still on the “good person” end of that spectrum. What he has been up to recently is… potentially problematic, but right now its just hear-say and rumors. 

And you are correct. I would still think he was a good person if his attempts did not work. Who is the better person, those who submit themselves and others to slavery willingly or those who fight even when the fight is hopeless? I can’t stand Lirin because of his answer to that question. Somethings are worth fighting for or against regardless of the price because there are things worse than death and murder. What was going on on Scadrial was one of those things. I guess I am just more horrified by what the nobles were doing then a lot of people. I think it was good that they got killed. And I think those good people who died as a result were eventually going to die anyway (of old age if nothing else) but the Final Empire was not. One generation suffered so the rest could be free.

Where the line between “journey before destination” and “the ends justify the means” is, I don’t know. But Kelsier is on the correct side of that line. Others you can compare him to are not, but as of right now, he is.  
 

[Returned]

26 minutes ago, KnightsOfHonor said:

I agree with you on most every point. I think "ends justify the means" is a way for bad people to sleep at night. the stormlight character who believes that I think is definitely not a good person even though he is trying for a good outcome (in his own mind at least). The thing with kelsier is he is correct in thinking something needed to change. Just like a bad person doing good things does not make them a good person, neither does a good person doing bad things make them a bad person. Sometimes you do have to do not very nice things. Sometimes war is needed because the bad guys wont listen to reason. It would be better to not need that but the situation on scadrial was not that. At what point do bad things for a good reason make you a bad person…. Well there is a line somewhere, but I think Kel is still on the “good person” end of that spectrum. What he has been up to recently is… potentially problematic, but right now its just hear-say and rumors.

The same reasoning could just as easily apply to the Lord Ruler too-- things worked out the way they did because of how he himself did things, and some of the elements of his plans (I'm thinking mostly of the deceptions around atium) might not have worked out without his iron grip.

I'm not trying to convince you to change your view on Kelsier, just to expand a bit on why I think many feel differently. You and I draw a line between Kelsier and the Lord Ruler, and others draw a line that leaves Kelsier and the Lord Ruler on the same side. Though I definitely think that @Kolten is correct that Sanderson's description of Kelsier as a scary psychopath is a dominating factor, especially when combined with what we've seen of the Ghostbloods. For my part, I think that Kelsier is creeping towards the Lord Ruler's side of the line now. Not yet there, but my opinion is changing as we get more information (even though it's obviously not incredibly specific or reliable so far).

[KnightsOfHonor]

5 minutes ago, Returned said:

The same reasoning could just as easily apply to the Lord Ruler too-- things worked out the way they did because of how he himself did things, and some of the elements of his plans (I'm thinking mostly of the deceptions around atium) might not have worked out without his iron grip.

 I guess that is part of my point as well. All these characters who have similarities to Kelsier like the Lord Ruler or Taravangian end up as villains. Yet here is someone who has all the same attributes who does not. Making him even more of a hero because he beat the odds. 

Killing can be used for good and it can definitely be used for bad. The difference there is a nuanced one. Just because someone kills does not mean that they are bad. And it’s not a "well the killing was bad but it was for a good cause, so I guess the end justifies the means" kind of thing. It’s a "killing that person is a good thing because they deserved to die." The "good" that came from it was their death. Leaving the real world completely out of this and just looking at the Cosmere, there are a lot of people who should be killed. Who is deciding that and how they decide is the difference between a villain and a hero. They both might believe in what they are doing and think it is the right thing to do. The difference is the hero is right and the villain was wrong. For the villain, who they thought needed to die and why was warped or wrong in some way, thus they were the villain. Then along comes someone else who does basically the same thing and they are a hero. The difference is the hero got it right. Again, compare Miles Hundredlives to Kelsier. They are basically the same person, only Kelsier was right and miles was wrong (and Miles was involved in much more horrible things (like a breeding program for humans!) than what Kel ever was). 

We as somewhat of an omnipotent observer get to see more than we would if we were characters in the books. We can see that kelsier did good and others in similar situations did bad. We don’t have to guess or have a list of things that are always good and always bad because making exceptions is a very slippery slope and can lead to disaster. So, we set hard judgments on what is bad and what is good so villains do not arise. And anyone going against that therefore must be villous in nature. But we as informed readers can see the beginning from the end we can fast forward and rewind, we can get inside the heads of the characters and see their motivations and reasonings and see how things turned out. And doing all that, I see that kelsier was a hero. No asterisk needed. Now if I were to try and apply him to the real world, my conclusion would be much different. But within the context of the books and having extra knowledge that I would not have if he were a real person, I can see that he is a good guy. 

 

41 minutes ago, Returned said:

I'm not trying to convince you to change your view on Kelsier, just to expand a bit on why I think many feel differently. You and I draw a line between Kelsier and the Lord Ruler, and others draw a line that leaves Kelsier and the Lord Ruler on the same side. Though I definitely think that @Kolten is correct that Sanderson's description of Kelsier as a scary psychopath is a dominating factor, especially when combined with what we've seen of the Ghostbloods. For my part, I think that Kelsier is creeping towards the Lord Ruler's side of the line now. Not yet there, but my opinion is changing as we get more information (even though it's obviously not incredibly specific or reliable so far).

I don’t feel like you are trying to convince me. I think you are just bringing up good points to support the conclusion you have come to on Kelsier and having a very engaging conversation about it. But the thing is, everyone on the internet is explaining why Kelsier is a bad guy and because of that I think the pendulum has swung to far the other way and I am trying to counter that. I think people need to realize that the reputation kelsier is getting has swung further towards villain than what he actually is. He is not, and was not, a villain. Despite being a psychopath, he was a good guy.

Now whether he remains as such is to be seen. Like you mention, some troubling things are developing that could indicate Kelsier has taken a turn (I don't believe it just yet), but going off of what we KNOW. He is still firmly a hero.

[Mr. Misting]

I have a many thoughts to add to this.

Most of "good" Kelsier is seen through the eyes of a young easily influenced girl who is hero worshipping him. Kelsier definitely has some good attributes that when combined with his dangerous potential can end up with a positive outcome such as overthrowing the lord ruler or stealing from the Ire. But that doesn't change the motive that Kelsier has when he is doing those things. He is very egotistical and and tries to put on a show for everyone. Even his positive attitude is a form of revenge against the Lord ruler, making him stand out more from everyone else. 

Lets look at Kelsier's journey. He went from being a thief who stole with such bravado and greed that he had to take a massive risk that ended up killing his wife, even though he probably could have lived the rest of his days happily and started a family with Mare. He went to the mine and Snapped, having all of his murderous inclinations fueled by newfound power and a seething hatred for the Lord Ruler. He goes back to "free the people from oppression" but I think we all know that he just wants to prove that no one is as great as he is, and to get vengeance on the Lord Ruler. Sure he does care about the skaa marginally and doesn't like how the Lord Ruler has oppressed the people, but he is mostly doing it to prove a point and repay a debt. After becoming a Cognitive Shadow I do think he grows as a person and such but even Vin notes that he should keep his ego in check.

I like Kelsier, I think most of what he does is justified. Knights of Honor, I like the way you put it. He is a man in a hard, rough world making hard, rough decisions. The problem I think is the motive for those decisions. Kelsier is a great man, but I don't necessarily think he is a good one.

[HSuperLee]

If we're going to judge Kelsier based on his intents rather than his actions, which I personally think is only half the picture as you have to judge people on both, then we have to acknowledge that Kelsier isn't even fully aware of his motivations. In the end of Secret History, when Vin's cognitive shadow directly asks him about his motivations, Kel can't tell her whether he did everything he did to overthrow the Lord Ruler and the nobility for his crew and the skaa, or if he did it all in revenge for Mare. I know many people will quickly jump onto the idea that he did it for both, but the point is, we don't know because he doesn't know. This is one of my favorite aspects of the original Mistborn trilogy, in that you have three leaders each having to shift in their morality. Rashek was a selfish and rotten man, but he had to move towards order and preservation (generic word, not the shard) so that he'd have an empire to rule. Elend was a selfless and noble man, but he had to become a tyrant to protect people incapable of ruling themselves. And then you have Kelsier, a man whose motivation we don't know who did both noble and terrible things. You can say that what Kelsier did is justified, and I would agree with you, but justified is not the same as right. Morality is more than the binary good and bad (though its certainly not less than that), in that sometimes good can be divided into good, better, and best. Perhaps Kelsier's actions were good, but I would not call them better, and certainly not best. All that to say, I don't think I'm willing to call Kelisier a good or an bad man. Though I believe he has great potential to become either one.