Jump to content

Evil In The Stormlight Archive


Stormrunner1730

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, kiapet said:

If you define an evil person as someone who does evil for evil's sake, as you seem to be defining it, there has never been a person who fit that definition, so the question is pointless.

Who does evil for evils sake, or purely because of power, enjoyment, and such. If someone fits into one of those cathegories I might call that someone evil. But I generally believe that evil is a simplification, and that there are very few, if any, purely evil people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Toaster Retribution said:

Who does evil for evils sake, or purely because of power, enjoyment, and such. If someone fits into one of those cathegories I might call that someone evil. But I generally believe that evil is a simplification, and that there are very few, if any, purely evil people.

 Truth be told there are very few who might ever strictly speaking fit that mold. It is my personal belief that "Evil" is something that is so difficult to apply to people that it is almost better not to even try. Actions can be evil, but the person doing them doing them is a much greater deal. To me if you define a person as evil then there can be no room for anything else they must be in their very essence "Evil". People are so much more  experiences shape a person, background shapes a person the list is extensive to say that a person who does something wrong is evil is a very high bar indeed.  As many have pointed out here things are rarely cut and dry especially here in SA. Taravangian is doing what he thinks will save all of humanity. Are his actions horrific. 100% yes, but is he himself evil not at all an easy thing to say. Sadeas does truly awful things which can only be described as "Evil" yet what of the man who once felt a deep friendship with both Dalinar and Gavilar. How can his essence be Evil and still leave room for that. Not to mention that strictly speaking he is an average alethi no worse no better. The list of characters, but the facts remains that to define  a person as "Evil" is a difficult task indeed in my estimation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion "good" and "evil" are pretty easy to describe.

For an action to be either good or evil, the action must be done consciously. Also, it needs to have the intention to cause either benefit or harm to others. Actions done purely for self-interest are neither good nor evil - they are rational.
Actions, that cause harm are obviously evil. If an evil action is benefiting the actor, it is ruthless. If an evil action also harms the one who does it, it is...i don't have a good word for it.
Actions that bring benefits to others are good. Rationally good, if they also benefit the actor (I suppose most people do it this way). If the action is good while also harming the one who does it, it is heroic.

The topic grows muddier when actions bring harm to one group but benefits to another group. This is the topic the Stormlight Archive discusses.
Kaladin kills to protect. Dalinar fights a war against an enemy who - apparently - wanted this war. Shallan killed twice in self-defense, once to protect another. Sadeas sacrifices bridgemen to protect his soldiers to kill Parshendi more efficiently. Taravangian sacrifices one part of mankind to help the remaining to survive, apparently without any self-interest. Szeth kills people to uphold the honor of the stone shamans - reluctantly, but he does it. Amaram killed men for personal gain, in the opinion he would need the shardplate to protect others.

Is anybody of them completely good or completely evil? No. Can one say that some of them are obviously better than others? Yes. The main distinction is probably, if they are willing to kill innocents, but there are others.

Honor is one of the concepts how to evaluate the goodness/evillness of one action: it follows Kant's (among others) line of thought, that said that the goal does not justify the means. The contrary view is the Utilitarism, that (basically) says that only the aggregatet result is important.
Is one of the views right, or at least more correct than the other?
Difficult to say.

Maybe the struggle to find out this is one of the things that make humanity human.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alfa said:

In my opinion "good" and "evil" are pretty easy to describe.

For an action to be either good or evil, the action must be done consciously. Also, it needs to have the intention to cause either benefit or harm to others. Actions done purely for self-interest are neither good nor evil - they are rational.
Actions, that cause harm are obviously evil. If an evil action is benefiting the actor, it is ruthless. If an evil action also harms the one who does it, it is...i don't have a good word for it.
Actions that bring benefits to others are good. Rationally good, if they also benefit the actor (I suppose most people do it this way). If the action is good while also harming the one who does it, it is heroic.

The topic grows muddier when actions bring harm to one group but benefits to another group. This is the topic the Stormlight Archive discusses.
Kaladin kills to protect. Dalinar fights a war against an enemy who - apparently - wanted this war. Shallan killed twice in self-defense, once to protect another. Sadeas sacrifices bridgemen to protect his soldiers to kill Parshendi more efficiently. Taravangian sacrifices one part of mankind to help the remaining to survive, apparently without any self-interest. Szeth kills people to uphold the honor of the stone shamans - reluctantly, but he does it. Amaram killed men for personal gain, in the opinion he would need the shardplate to protect others.

Is anybody of them completely good or completely evil? No. Can one say that some of them are obviously better than others? Yes. The main distinction is probably, if they are willing to kill innocents, but there are others.

Honor is one of the concepts how to evaluate the goodness/evillness of one action: it follows Kant's (among others) line of thought, that said that the goal does not justify the means. The contrary view is the Utilitarism, that (basically) says that only the aggregatet result is important.
Is one of the views right, or at least more correct than the other?
Difficult to say.

Maybe the struggle to find out this is one of the things that make humanity human.

I'll just mention the whole discussion in Fablehaven the Shadow Plague. A bear who kills a family might not be EVIL, but it would still be within the dads right to go kill the bear. Also, while dark creatures might not be evil, they are still dark and need to be taken down. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/1/2017 at 4:17 AM, Drake Marshall said:

I still hold that shards are basically amoral.

Odium is the perversion of something that isn't inherently evil. Presumably, in the context of the other 15 shardic intents, divine wrath is not intrinsically evil. The reason why Odium is problematic is simply that unadulterated wrath is a lot more dangerous than unadulterated honor, for example.

That said, shard vessels aren't amoral. They are real people, and had moralities. If Hoid's opinions are to be trusted, we could conclude that Ati was generally a good person (obviously nobody is 100% good, but some are certainly more good than others). Ruin's intent ultimately forced him to do evil things, but Ati restrained Ruin as best he could. Rayse on the other hand was a distasteful person to begin with, according to Hoid.

 

Also I would contend that selfishness is more or less the definition of evil intentions. And by that standard, Sadeas is quite evil.

 

I agree that Szeth and Taravangian are not necessarily evil. Both of them at least believe that they are acting for the good of others.

But I'm not sure I could call them moral either. In the case of Taravangian, there are really only 3 options:

1. Taravangian's beliefs are correct, and his actions really are a necessary evil to save the world. In this case, his actions are vindicated.

2. Taravangian's beliefs are incorrect, and somebody has tricked him. Nonetheless, he can't really be blamed for his actions. He was decieved, and really did believe he was doing the right thing.

3. Taravangian's beliefs are incorrect, and he has tricked himself into believing them. In this case, he is culpable for his actions.

I kind of figure that what's actually going on here is some kind of mix of all three of these. So I would hesitate to label Taravangian as either notably evil or notably good. He's somewhere in the middle (when we learn the source of the diagram perhaps a more conclusive assessment could be made).

I agree with your first statement about the shards themselves being amoral.  I should have specified that I was referring to Odium and Rayse as a combined entity.  Short of some major revelation in which all of the other Shardholders severely wronged Rayse in the past, I can't think of a justification for his actions that would not be considered evil.  Also, to your point, Hoid has stated that Rayse is not a particularly great person.  Obviously, Hoid is prone to deception, etc, but stopping Odium/Rayse seems to be a genuine goal of his.  So, I would believe his word in the letter/assessment in this case. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/1/2017 at 0:33 AM, Harry the Heir said:

I don't buy that he was _that_ opposed. All he had to do was toss the Oathstone in the garbage and walk away. The only thing that's stopping him is that he really really doesn't want to. One might be sympathetic to the reasons why Szeth really really doesn't want to. But ultimately that's not a good reason to murder even a single person, much less many people.

What, does the number of people holding to a particular position mean that said position is more likely to be true? Should we conclude that the Almighty is alive?

You say that they're psychological constructs but then you introduce this idea of a moral spectrum that implicitly assumes the existence of good and evil, which I find contradictory.

I can see how calling a character "evil" comes across as reductive, as if I have little interest in, or understanding of his characterization. But that's not my position. I think Szeth's psychology is fascinating, and I find the character compelling to read about. I don't have a lot of sympathy for the character (although I have sympathized with characters that I thought were evil) but I don't need a character to be sympathetic for me to find them interesting.

I dunno, man. I could come up with an elaborate hypothetical scenario when the way to save the most lives is to drop-kick an adorable moppet (who talks with a lisp and and walks with a limp and has the biggest blue eyes you've ever seen) through a plate-glass window into a vat of acid and then dance the Macarena in your underwear, and then I might ask you what you would do in that scenario, but I don't think that answer would be as revealing as my need to construct said scenario. In real life, and I suspect for Taravangian, the need to see existence in such terms is very frequently a symptom rather than a cause of the desire to do evil.

In short, I don't think that the Stormlight Archive is going to turn into a ten-book argument for the murder of invalids.

I apologize for not speaking to all of your points.  Specifically on the last point though.  Obviously the Stormlight Archive will not be an argument for the murder of invalids/actions like that.  However, what Brandon seems to be saying is that even the most extreme events (i.e. the end of the world) do not have a morally black and white solution.  In order for something to be entirely morally good, every single person on Earth would have to have the exact same viewpoint on that issue.  If there is even one person who doesn't agree, then the issue is no longer black and white.  There can obviously be a consensus (i.e. the Holocaust was one of the most morally bad things to ever happen in history).  But even then, people in Nazi Germany were convinced to enact Hitler's agenda.  Most people would consider those who view the Holocaust as a positive event to be pretty awful people.  But it doesn't change the fact that they have a differing viewpoint (even if it is warped and deluded).    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/1/2017 at 7:48 AM, Toaster Retribution said:

@Harry the Heir If actions define peoples goodness, then the following characters from Mistborn should be evil:

  Hide contents

Kelsier - Murdering innocent guards.

Vin - Being willing to murder innocent servants.

Elend - Being willing to slaughter civillians.

Yet we don't see those people as evil. When protagonists do evil things, we can easily separate actions from the person itself. But when antagonists are bad, we make stuff much more simple than it actually is.

Well, hold up a second. Two of the people you just described as simply "willing" to do specific things. (The other one is a more complicated case than either Szeth or Taravangian, in that you're looking at a number of actions that caused harm and a number of other actions that liberated people.)

On 10/1/2017 at 0:57 AM, Calderis said:

And thinking of the Diagram in those terms is exactly the problem. He didn't invent a scenario to enact a desire to do wrong.

First off, he literally did devise the Diagram himself. He may have been given the "capacity"--which is a slippery term--but he wrote the thing himself.

Secondly, correct me if I'm wrong, but the blood-letting in his hospital isn't specifically directed by the Diagram. It's designed to supplement the Diagram, which means that that whole murderous enterprise depends on being able to trust Moelach and his dark eldritch powers. And on what basis are we to do that? Does Moelach have an honest face?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Harry the Heir said:

Well, hold up a second. Two of the people you just described as simply "willing" to do specific things. (The other one is a more complicated case than either Szeth or Taravangian, in that you're looking at a number of actions that caused harm and a number of other actions that liberated people.)

Mistborn spoilers:

Spoiler

Vin also initiated a surprise attack on currently peaceful forces, leading to the deaths of 300+ innocent soldiers.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Stormrunner1730 said:

I agree with your first statement about the shards themselves being amoral.  I should have specified that I was referring to Odium and Rayse as a combined entity.  Short of some major revelation in which all of the other Shardholders severely wronged Rayse in the past, I can't think of a justification for his actions that would not be considered evil.  Also, to your point, Hoid has stated that Rayse is not a particularly great person.  Obviously, Hoid is prone to deception, etc, but stopping Odium/Rayse seems to be a genuine goal of his.  So, I would believe his word in the letter/assessment in this case. 

Alright the I think we agree.

Shardic intents are amoral, but shardic vessels can be good or evil.

We have reason to believe that Ati and Leras were both mostly good people. We also have reason to believe that Rayse was not a very good person even before he took the shard of Odium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not just a matter of the Shard being good or evil. It's also about the interpretation of the force by the mind of the vessel. 

For instance Ruin. According to the Letter between Hoid and Frost, Ati was a kind and gentle man, and Ruin became something ruthless and cruel. I don't think these things are unrelated. 

Mistborn spoilers

Spoiler

 

I think that Ati viewed Ruin as a monstrous force that needed to be contained. In his attempt at a noble act, to contain a destructive force, he created the very monster he feared. 

In contrast Harmony (who's name I won't use as we're in the wrong forum) views Ruin and Preservation both as necessary and natural for existence. His zen-like view if these forces means that should be incapable of the atrocities it was under Ati. 

 

In short, there's more to the interactions between the Vessel and Shard, in my opinion, than just "this is a good person." what they believe the intent to be is just as, if not more, important than what the Vessel intends to do with it. 

Edited by Calderis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Harry the Heir I won't bring Mistborn up more, but the point I wanted to make with it is that a characters role in the story determines how we see them. Had Taravangian or Amaram been protagonists, with as much page-time as Kaladin, Vin, Vivenna or other major Sandercharacters, we would have felt sympathy for them, and thought of them as good, or at least, not evil. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Toaster Retribution said:

@Harry the Heir I won't bring Mistborn up more, but the point I wanted to make with it is that a characters role in the story determines how we see them. Had Taravangian or Amaram been protagonists, with as much page-time as Kaladin, Vin, Vivenna or other major Sandercharacters, we would have felt sympathy for them, and thought of them as good, or at least, not evil. 

I believe a reader is capable of assessing the morality of somebody independent of page time.

I for one do not directly view Taravangian as evil. He is trying too hard to be good to be considered straight up evil. Even if he is misguided (which in all fairness we aren't even sure about), he really can't be said to be flat out evil.

Ameram on the other hand? Yes I can understand him. Yes, he isn't a "complete monster." But. I think he could get lots of page time, and I would probably still judge him as a distasteful person, provided the general characterization he has been recieving is unchanged in the additional exposition.

Everybody is the hero of their own story. I agree with this. But aren't we as readers capable of distinguishing our views with the narrator's or the writer's?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 4.10.2017 at 6:47 AM, Drake Marshall said:

I believe a reader is capable of assessing the morality of somebody independent of page time.

I for one do not directly view Taravangian as evil. He is trying too hard to be good to be considered straight up evil. Even if he is misguided (which in all fairness we aren't even sure about), he really can't be said to be flat out evil.

Ameram on the other hand? Yes I can understand him. Yes, he isn't a "complete monster." But. I think he could get lots of page time, and I would probably still judge him as a distasteful person, provided the general characterization he has been recieving is unchanged in the additional exposition.

Everybody is the hero of their own story. I agree with this. But aren't we as readers capable of distinguishing our views with the narrator's or the writer's?

Note that there are some books where the protagonists are somewhere between "not a good person" and "complete cremhole" and still (somewhat) sympathetic. You see their reasons (and even agree to some degree), but you still think that they are definitely not good.

For example Glenn Cook's "Black Company" has those people in wagonloads, where being pragmatic is the "best" alignment anyone has, to a lesser degree there are also quite a lot of these in Brent Weeks' "Lightbringer Series", where there is not one character who is not manipulating several others and, crowning example, "A Song of Ice and Fire", where a good part of the cast is morally undecided at best and are still liked (in general). 

Edited by Alfa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Alfa said:

Note that there are some books where the protagonists are somewhere between "not a good person" and "complete cremhole" and still (somewhat) sympathetic. You see their reasons (and even agree to some degree), but you still think that they are definitely not good.

For example Glenn Cook's "Black Company" has those people in wagonloads, where being pragmatic is the "best" alignment anyone has, to a lesser degree there are also quite a lot of these in Brent Weeks' "Lightbringer Series", where there is not one character who is not manipulating several others and, crowning example, "A Song of Ice and Fire", where a good part of the cast is morally undecided at best and are still liked (in general). 

Yes, readers can certainly be sympathetic to immoral characters. I will liken this to how Kaladin said Tvlakv was, basically, a cremhole... But still a likable one.

Mind you, Tvlakv was written in with more redeeming characteristics than, say, Sadeas or Ameram. Unless Sadeas or Ameram were characterized differently, I don't think more page time would be enough in of itself to make people sympathetic towards them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Drake Marshall said:

Yes, readers can certainly be sympathetic to immoral characters. I will liken this to how Kaladin said Tvlakv was, basically, a cremhole... But still a likable one.

Mind you, Tvlakv was written in with more redeeming characteristics than, say, Sadeas or Ameram. Unless Sadeas or Ameram were characterized differently, I don't think more page time would be enough in of itself to make people sympathetic towards them.

I feel like Amaram is pretty sympathetic though. He actively tries to be good to others, and unlike Sadeas, it isn't a facade in order to fool others. Yes, he isn't as honorable as he appears, but the fact that he feels guilt and conflict over his actions tells us that he wishes he could avoid it. I believe that Amaram geniunely wants to be good towards people, and he has monents when he shows kindness to those far beneath him in the social hierarchy. He is genuinely sorry for what he does towards Kaladin too. I read Amaram as a fascinating, conflicted and ultimately well-meaning character, which is one of the reasons for why I like him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Toaster Retribution said:

He is genuinely sorry for what he does towards Kaladin too.

Amaram's sorry he sold Kaladin into slavery because it came back to bite him, he wishes that mercy hadn't stayed his hand and that he'd killed Kaladin instead. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Unhinged said:

Amaram's sorry he sold Kaladin into slavery because it came back to bite him, he wishes that mercy hadn't stayed his hand and that he'd killed Kaladin instead. 

Yup, he is. He is also sorry about feeling the need to kill Kaladins squad, and sell him as a slave. He discussed with Restares for hours because he found the decision so hard. So while he regrets letting Kaladin live, he also wishes that he didn't have to kill his men or sell him in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest, I don't like Mr T, Amaram, Saedas, or Sazeth, though out of all of them I like Sezth the best, so full disclosure before I start. This whole discussion is about whether or not there are characters in the Stormlight Archive are truly evil. My answer to that is no. But I am also of the belief that the ends do not justify the means. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. And words don't prove sincerity, actions do. I've heard enough empty words in my lifetime to watch people's actions and not their intents or words. 

 Mr. T believing that the diagram is real and will stop the end of the world does not justify the bloodletting in his hospitals or him ordering the death of the world's leaders. Believing that you have to kill everyone who knows that you rightfully didn't earn a shardblade, despite the fact that they gave it to you willingly, and feeling sorry about it after the fact does not justify your actions. Leaving 8000 men out on a field of battle and removing all ways of escaping is unjustifiable in my books and out of all of them I would considered Saedas the most evil, loving your wife shouldn't make you redeemable. Hitler loved dogs, Stalin had children and a wife, doesn't make them any less horrible people. Sazeth uses religion as a means to protect himself, maybe being a bit religious myself I find that the least condemnable, but at the same time I think who use religion as a shield to discriminate against other people. 

In the end, maybe your intent will stop people from seeing you as an evil person, but that doesn't stop your actions from being morally reprehensible. I guess its as Obi-wan once said "What I told you was the truth, from a certain point of view." I view these characters (maybe minus Sazeth depending on what happens in Oathbringer) as evil not because of their intentions, but because of their actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Rogueshar and I believe that that definition of good and evil is an over simplification.

The exact same action can been done for good and bad reasons. There's no difference between killing someone as in murder, and self defense, other than intent. 

One is considered evil, the other is considered justified. 

Words don't determine intentions. And good intentions can lead to reprehensible actions. No qualms with that. But actions are in no way absolute either. 

Edited by Calderis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say the difference is whom you sacrifice. Kaladin runs out front to draw arrows, spends his own wages on supplies, and leads by example. Sadeas leaves Dalinar at the tower, cashes in on Elokhar's name, and uses Gavilar's memory to stay at war.

 

Sure, people's goals could be the same, but it's all about the means. Doing a good thing a bad way is a bad thing. Journey before Destination, and all that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/27/2017 at 8:56 AM, Stormrunner1730 said:

Are there any characters in the Stormlight Archive that you would consider to be evil?  I'm bringing this over as a thread from the "Dichotomy of Villains" thread since a discussion there started to become a discussion of morality rather than the original post.  

On 9/27/2017 at 2:10 PM, MRex said:

Really though, all this depends on what your definition of Evil is.

On 9/27/2017 at 0:21 PM, bo.montier said:

I read a definition of evil, somewhere, as the pursuit of one's interest with no boundaries. Sadeas acts in his self interest and he literally doesn't care who he hurts, so he qualifies by this definition. Taravangian probably falls under this category as well, for me. He seems to have no bounds on the behavior he will condone and engage in to pursue his goals, however noble sounding they are, so he is evil. Amaram will lie, cheat, steal, and murder to achieve his goals.

I categorically reject, both in the series and in life, the idea that noble ends justify evil means. I believe Dalinar said something to the effect of "No good end can be achieved by evil means" though I could be wrong on the source of that. Regardless I agree with the sentiment.

10 hours ago, Islington said:

I would say the difference is whom you sacrifice. Kaladin runs out front to draw arrows, spends his own wages on supplies, and leads by example. Sadeas leaves Dalinar at the tower, cashes in on Elokhar's name, and uses Gavilar's memory to stay at war.

 

Sure, people's goals could be the same, but it's all about the means. Doing a good thing a bad way is a bad thing. Journey before Destination, and all that. 

 

Lots of people have spent a lot of time debating this subject in this thread, but I figured I'd add my 2 cents as well.

First, there are definitely characters that I feel are evil.  Of course, that's based on my own definition of 'evil', which may differ from others.  We don't really know Odium as a character, but more as a force of nature, and so I really don't have an opinion or judgment of him other than 'bad'.  In much the same way that hurricanes are 'bad.'  People, on the other hand--I have no problem freely judging them (and I judge myself in a negative light for how readily I judge people).

Szeth: assuming that there is not some sort of extraordinary compulsion attached to the Oathstones, Szeth has done a LOT of stuff that HE believes to be evil.  At a certain point, you are indistinguishable from the actions you have taken.  The Szeth that we see in WoK and WoR is evil.  (Perhaps sympathetically evil.  But he's still a mass-murderer that knowingly assassinates leaders in a way designed to cause the maximum amount of chaos in the world KNOWING that that will be the end-result.  If he's being literally controlled, he gets an exception from me, but that's the only way.)

Sadeas: decides to see to the death and destruction of several thousand people who he has willingly allied himself with just so that he can feel like he did when he was younger.  Perhaps he should have taken up drugs instead, and destroyed only himself?  Such a limitless, selfish nature is evil.  We even see that he relishes the idea of self-indulgence in the speech he gives Adolin shortly before his death.

Amaram: he is a man who wants to be a good person, but is unwilling to make the sacrifices necessary for that to be possible.  At every turn, we see him sacrificing others in order to benefit his own position and desires--including murder.  He may regret his actions, but not enough to do the things that he thinks are right.

Mr T: @Rogueshar does a great job of explaining how Mr T is evil if only for the hospital blood-letting.  I've said in other posts that if he were to use only volunteers, then perhaps it wouldn't be evil.  Instead, he specifically kills those that will not be missed by anyone, just to get a potential glimmer of the future.  I do not care what your goal and intent is--at the point when you are murdering hundreds, thousands of people for your own purpose, then you are evil.

Remorse and shame for actions do not mean that a person is good, just that they are not a monster.  If you commit one evil act, that does not make you evil; just a person who did an evil thing.  When there is a clear pattern of choosing the evil path, though, that is when I would call a person evil.  All of the primary antagonists so far show this inclination.

I really, really like @bo.montier's definition of what makes a person evil, too, since it fits really closely with my own, but is much more elegant.

As I have said before, though, I think it is important to note that it is possible for an act to be both evil and necessary.  Mr T's plan is certainly evil, and I believe that he is evil for following through with it--but if it succeeds in saving humanity on Roshar, then it would be seen as necessary.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, kaellok said:

Amaram: he is a man who wants to be a good person, but is unwilling to make the sacrifices necessary for that to be possible.  At every turn, we see him sacrificing others in order to benefit his own position and desires--including murder.  He may regret his actions, but not enough to do the things that he thinks are right.

I don't really find this to be a good description of Amaram. Amaram tries to bring back the power of the Almighty, and the church. He does this because he is a religious fanatic, who thinks that humanity would be better off ruled by the Vorin Church. Amarams every action, even taking Kaladins shards, are in order to fulfill this purpose. I doubt it is about power for Amaram. He has made personal sacrifices, such as losing a close and dear friend (Dalinar). He thinks that his actions will help others, that a stronger belief in the Almighty will help others. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Toaster Retribution said:

I don't really find this to be a good description of Amaram. Amaram tries to bring back the power of the Almighty, and the church. He does this because he is a religious fanatic, who thinks that humanity would be better off ruled by the Vorin Church. Amarams every action, even taking Kaladins shards, are in order to fulfill this purpose. I doubt it is about power for Amaram. He has made personal sacrifices, such as losing a close and dear friend (Dalinar). He thinks that his actions will help others, that a stronger belief in the Almighty will help others. 

But this attitude borders on the logic of religious fanatics, and even those sometimes have the excuse of being brainwashed. Amaram doesn't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Alfa said:

But this attitude borders on the logic of religious fanatics, and even those sometimes have the excuse of being brainwashed. Amaram doesn't. 

You are correct. However, I don't think that Amarams logic is good, or should be practiced/followed by anyone. My point is mostly that the things Amaram does isn't for himself, but for others. His intentions are to, in the end, help others. But yes, his way of doing this is extremely stupid, and yes, he is wrong. But I can't call him evil, when he is attempting to do something he thinks is good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...