Who is the best leader

[Zephrun’s Imperium]

5 minutes ago, Toaster Retribution said:

I see your points. Tricking isn’t leading, but Kelsier can trick the enemy. And he would have dealt with the armies by simply assassinating the leaders and create infighting between the generals. The one thing he couldn’t feasibly have done in that situation is take out the koloss, but that was never about leadership. 

Alright, I think I'm seeing what you mean. However, I'm still not so sure how good he would be at actually leading a people. I think he'd find himself in trouble by being too headstrong. Things go his way or not at all. And I'm skeptical of his ability to deal with little skirmishes and problems that he deems unimportant. He'd get frustrated and I don't think he'd be very happy with his position. Kelsier wasn't made to hold the kind of responsibility that affects everyone's lives. He was made to defy all the rules. He can't live without a thrill. Maybe Kelsier would be an okay leader, but he wouldn't be happy as one. 

[Pathfinder]

15 minutes ago, Toaster Retribution said:

I see your points. Tricking isn’t leading, but Kelsier can trick the enemy. And he would have dealt with the armies by simply assassinating the leaders and create infighting between the generals. The one thing he couldn’t feasibly have done in that situation is take out the koloss, but that was never about leadership. 

I kinda disagree here. Jasnah is good at getting people to do stuff, but that isn’t leading. You need social abilities to lead, and Jasnah isn’t really inspiring or socially skilled in that way. I think we will see flaws in her leadership in SA4. 

You of course are entitled to your opinion, I just vehemently disagree. Having a group of individuals who would never work together normally under any other circumstances and getting them to accomplish goals I think is a huge sign of a leader. Having whole nations respect her and defer to her expertise is another huge sign of a leader. Shes been trained for it her entire life, and Brandon is quite excited to write her (he has commented on that and how he sees her as himself just atheist instead of a theist). So I am quite excited to read what he has to write about her in book 4. 

edit: relevant WoB

Questioner [PENDING REVIEW]
Which character in The Stormlight Archive do you most relate to?

Brandon Sanderson [PENDING REVIEW]
...This is a good question, but it's a hard question. Because all of my characters are partially me, and partially not me. Every character... So, in some ways, Jasnah is the most "me" you're gonna get in one of these books, because you've got the very analytical, somewhat ambitious, gregarious person who ignores what everyone tells them is the smart thing to do and does their own thing, and then proves everyone wrong. On the other hand, a fundamental pillar of Jasnah is her atheism, where I am a theist. And so it's like, every character, I can probably go on like that about. Every character's got a chunk of me and a chunk that's deliberately not me.

Questioner [PENDING REVIEW]
At the end of the book, Jasnah was chosen to be the next queen?

Brandon Sanderson [PENDING REVIEW]
She will choose to be called a queen and make them do that. So she is queen and it's going to be very fun to write Jasnah the queen.

Edited January 22, 2019 by Pathfinder

[goody153]

@Jace21 Manipulation and tricking is not necessarily the same as leading as well. Admittedly Kelsier is good at achieving a goal but long-term stability of a region/kingdom is a completely different thing. I highly doubt he'd have the same capacity as Elend or the crazy Rashek.

 Actually ruling well requires good levels of empathy, economic understanding among many things (i mean Rashek understood all these things despite being really cruel but still stabilized the final empire enough that uprisings barely existed and Elend infact was looking after ). So just management pretty sure alot of leaders even Dalinar would do alot better than Kelsier would ever. You know cause you have not be a sociopath(read Sanderson's personal descriptions of Kelsier as you will realize he is incapable of this stuff) in order to actually run something like you have to care.

Kelsier isn't also the only special being who can accomplish things. Infact if you think about it Kelsier has aloooot of failures despite his success while Rashek even had the foresight to plan when his death may come(you think Rashek can't bring down the final empire with the insane amount of planning he did that actually managed to work .. Kelsier isn't even on that level). Kelsier only planned to bring down the final empire not what happens after lol

Kelsier is no doubt good when it comes to achieving some goal but he is not the only intelligent and capable person in Cosmere(Denth, Vasher, Dalinar, Mr. T etc etc) who is also capable of executing a plan to achieve something. Kelsier isn't special. 

Edited January 23, 2019 by goody153

[Toaster Retribution]

12 hours ago, Shard of Thought said:

Alright, I think I'm seeing what you mean. However, I'm still not so sure how good he would be at actually leading a people. I think he'd find himself in trouble by being too headstrong. Things go his way or not at all. And I'm skeptical of his ability to deal with little skirmishes and problems that he deems unimportant. He'd get frustrated and I don't think he'd be very happy with his position. Kelsier wasn't made to hold the kind of responsibility that affects everyone's lives. He was made to defy all the rules. He can't live without a thrill. Maybe Kelsier would be an okay leader, but he wouldn't be happy as one. 

I do think that one of Kelsiers strenghts as a leader is a willingness to trust people, and find the right people. Those people deal with the problems he isn’t interested in. Dockson for example, did tons of work that didn’t interest Kelsier, and he did that very well, and Kelsier trusted him with it. Compare this to Dalinar for example, who has a hard time giving responsibility to people, or Kaladin, who would worry that he can’t be there for all his followers. Kelsiers ability to trust others and distribute work covers his own shortcomings rather well.

 

[Zephrun’s Imperium]

4 hours ago, Toaster Retribution said:

I do think that one of Kelsiers strenghts as a leader is a willingness to trust people, and find the right people. Those people deal with the problems he isn’t interested in. Dockson for example, did tons of work that didn’t interest Kelsier, and he did that very well, and Kelsier trusted him with it. Compare this to Dalinar for example, who has a hard time giving responsibility to people, or Kaladin, who would worry that he can’t be there for all his followers. Kelsiers ability to trust others and distribute work covers his own shortcomings rather well.

 

That doesn't change that Kelsier would hate it. Maybe he'd be a fantastic leader, but I don't think we'll ever really find out because he would be extremely unfulfilled doing it. Perhaps it'd be fun for a little while, but at the end of the day, he's just not fit for a position like that. Leave the leading to other characters. Kelsier would much rather break the rules than make them. He's a crewleader; ambitious and not a little bit crazy. A serial killer. Would you really want someone like that in charge of everything? I know I wouldn't. Brandon has said that Kelsier would be the bad guy if things were just a little bit different. He's the attacker, not the defender and he'd rather manipulate the strings than set them up himself, if you get what I mean. Why write the play when it's so much more fun to mess with the actors and turn an opera into something so much more entertaining?

[Pathfinder]

51 minutes ago, Shard of Thought said:

That doesn't change that Kelsier would hate it. Maybe he'd be a fantastic leader, but I don't think we'll ever really find out because he would be extremely unfulfilled doing it. Perhaps it'd be fun for a little while, but at the end of the day, he's just not fit for a position like that. Leave the leading to other characters. Kelsier would much rather break the rules than make them. He's a crewleader; ambitious and not a little bit crazy. A serial killer. Would you really want someone like that in charge of everything? I know I wouldn't. Brandon has said that Kelsier would be the bad guy if things were just a little bit different. He's the attacker, not the defender and he'd rather manipulate the strings than set them up himself, if you get what I mean. Why write the play when it's so much more fun to mess with the actors and turn an opera into something so much more entertaining?

I respect your opinion, but personally it is a lot easier to tear something down, than to build it up. Kelsier's solution for the government is to tear it down, (without realizing bloody revolutions fall apart and devolve like the conclusion Elend came to, which without him Kelsier's revolution would have burned out and fell apart), and then just pass on the responsibility to his crew, of which realistically none of them had the experience for. The only person was Dockson, and he was primarily a book-keeper. Individually they could make up a cabinet (secretary of defense, secretary of treasury, etc) but you still need someone to lead them and by Kelsier's own admittance, he would be horrible at the job. Just because he is charismatic does not mean there is substance behind it. Con men can certainly get into positions of power, but that doesn't say to me they would do a good job maintaining it. But to each their own. 

edit: for some reason it won't let me correct the quote to change it to toasterretribution, when i quoted shard of thought by error. 

Edited January 23, 2019 by Pathfinder

[Jace21]

Kelsier as we knew him sure. While we know very little about the Sovreign, it can be assumed Kel got to the point where he was able to successfuly build a resociety and government, not just tear one down.

I need to repeat that the OP asked who was the best leader, not best ruler.

In that respect Kel is no more limited than Dalinar or Kaladin, they are just limited in different ways.

[Pathfinder]

22 minutes ago, Jace21 said:

Kelsier as we knew him sure. While we know very little about the Sovreign, it can be assumed Kel got to the point where he was able to successfuly build a resociety and government, not just tear one down.

I need to repeat that the OP asked who was the best leader, not best ruler.

In that respect Kel is no more limited than Dalinar or Kaladin, they are just limited in different ways.

Eh thats the thing, we don't know what he did as the Sovereign. We know the society already existed prior to him showing up. The only difference is they were dying because of the cold. The southerner that Marasi spoke to feared metalborn because he believed they would lash out and kill you at the drop of a hat if you didn't show them proper worship with every single sentence you say. That doesn't sound very leadery to me. For all we know Kelsier could have just shown up, showed them how to make the excisors, got them to worship him as a god, and then left. Again not building anything, just either tearing down or manipulating what is currently there for his own purposes. Personally I think that is semantics. In order to be a good leader, you have to maintain the people you lead. Guiding a line of lemmings over a cliff does not a leader make to me. 

[Zephrun’s Imperium]

5 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

Eh thats the thing, we don't know what he did as the Sovereign. We know the society already existed prior to him showing up. The only difference is they were dying because of the cold. The southerner that Marasi spoke to feared metalborn because he believed they would lash out and kill you at the drop of a hat if you didn't show them proper worship with every single sentence you say. That doesn't sound very leadery to me. For all we know Kelsier could have just shown up, showed them how to make the excisors, got them to worship him as a god, and then left. Again not building anything, just either tearing down or manipulating what is currently there for his own purposes. Personally I think that is semantics. In order to be a good leader, you have to maintain the people you lead. Guiding a line of lemmings over a cliff does not a leader make to me. 

Pathfinder makes a good point. Personally, I'm not certain Kelsier did any real ruling. I mean, he left, didn't he? The only thing we know he did is show them their medallion things. The fact is we don't really have all that much to go on. 

[Gasper]

14 hours ago, goody153 said:

Actually ruling well requires good levels of empathy, economic understanding among many things (i mean Rashek understood all these things despite being really cruel but still stabilized the final empire enough that uprisings barely existed and Elend infact was looking after ). So just management pretty sure alot of leaders even Dalinar would do alot better than Kelsier would ever. You know cause you have not be a sociopath(read Sanderson's personal descriptions of Kelsier as you will realize he is incapable of this stuff) in order to actually run something like you have to care.

Rashek's government and economy was not designed to be good to people. It was designed to prepare humanity for the return of Ruin and to prevent Ruin from destroying the planet. The whole reason the economy is based on Atium is because it would prevent Ruin from finding his body and gaining back all of his power. Rashek has a goal in mind and did not care how he got there, which ended up saving the world in the end. And this economy was enforced by the various Cantons, which is why it did not collapse with in 100 years.

[Kon-Tiki]

Rashek's government also had the rather unfair advantage of never having to deal with a succession crisis or change in approach

[Pathfinder]

I would also add he had the advantage of being so powerful he could kill whoever disobeyed or disagreed with him lol. 

[Kon-Tiki]

Well, except Vin

[Illian Tear]

52 minutes ago, Kon-Tiki said:

Well, except Vin

Ooof

[Toaster Retribution]

@Pathfinder @Shard of Thought There is a difference between leading and ruling. Kelsier is so great at leading because he can inspire people to be better, and do things they never would. He makes them feel safe, he makes them trust each other, he basically makes them better people. That is leading. Governing is something else, and there Kelsier wouldn’t be very good, I agree. But if you are going to be leading a group of people, I would argue that Kelsier is the best one there is, simply for his ability to trust, to make good calls, to protect his followers, see their strenghts and make them trust eachother. 

[Pathfinder]

3 hours ago, Toaster Retribution said:

@Pathfinder @Shard of Thought There is a difference between leading and ruling. Kelsier is so great at leading because he can inspire people to be better, and do things they never would. He makes them feel safe, he makes them trust each other, he basically makes them better people. That is leading. Governing is something else, and there Kelsier wouldn’t be very good, I agree. But if you are going to be leading a group of people, I would argue that Kelsier is the best one there is, simply for his ability to trust, to make good calls, to protect his followers, see their strenghts and make them trust eachother. 

As per their definition, there really isn't. They are synonyms. At the end of the day we each look for different things in a leader because it is extremely subjective. So if that is your ideal, I respect that. I am just saying why Kelsier is not a fit for me. I personally would not feel safe with Kelsier as a leader because to me he is a con man. He frequently makes bad calls, where his immediate friends admonish him for, and have to fix for him (Vin nearly dying for one example). "Bringing the best out of people" is a rather big gamble when it comes to him. You either get to be one of his close confidants that he still lies to (his immediate crew), manipulated into thinking you matter when you don't (Yeden), or held up as a sacrificial lamb when it suits him (instigating the malcontent with rioting, then trying to force Demoux to kill him or the group of innocent skaa in the beginning that he paints as insurrectionists, and then abandons them knowing they will be hunted and killed. He is downright surprised to see them later alive). He does not actually believe in anything he says to get people to follow him. He doesn't actually believe he is lord of the mists. He does not actually believe malatium will conclusively stop the lord ruler, and he doesn't actually believe he "will be there for his followers". Marsh (as per WoB) holds to this more than Kelsier. Cons never last. They always fall apart. The trick is knowing when to get out before you are discovered. He is like the story of that preacher that sold people tickets to heaven. He then ran for the hills. Did they feel better about themselves? Sure. Maybe they even treated others better, but that doesn't change you cannot pay your way to heaven and he manipulated them based on a false belief (to clarify not saying religion is the false belief. the false belief in this case is by giving him money, you get a ticket that gets you into heaven). This is explained between Dockson and Kelsier at the beginning. Every instance Kelsier has "led" someone, involves him vanishing before it falls apart. Even his beloved crew died cursing his name (Dockson). So for myself, I would not want to follow a person that in the best case scenario I will be lied to, and in the worst case scenario I will be used and sacrificed when it suits him and I will never know which one I fall into until it is too late. 

 

WoB Kelsier and Marsh for reference

Questioner
At the end of “Alloy of Law” Marsh tells Marasi he is giving the diary to Wax because “.. he does my brother's work”. At this time it was a reminder of Kelsier, but with Secret History and the third book out why does Marsh think we need someone to do his brother's work? Isn't Kelsier doing that himself?

Brandon Sanderson
Well. (laughs) Marsh is of multiple minds on what's happening with Kelsier at this time. When he's referencing his brother's work, he's specifically tells Marasi speaking to the lore of the Survivor. Like he's specifically talking to somebody, and he does believe this. He may not think that Kelsier is doing Kelsier's work anymore. But that depends on... You will see interaction between Marsh and Kelsier in the future.

Edited January 24, 2019 by Pathfinder

[Embrisk]

I voted Raoden. Even though Kelsier can accomplish whatever he sets his heart on, and nobody leads men to victory better than Dalinar, Raoden is the most motivational leader ever.

Edited January 24, 2019 by Sharshiblarb

[Zephrun’s Imperium]

1 hour ago, Pathfinder said:

As per their definition, there really isn't. They are synonyms. At the end of the day we each look for different things in a leader because it is extremely subjective. So if that is your ideal, I respect that. I am just saying why Kelsier is not a fit for me. I personally would not feel safe with Kelsier as a leader because to me he is a con man. He frequently makes bad calls, where his immediate friends admonish him for, and have to fix for him (Vin nearly dying for one example). "Bringing the best out of people" is a rather big gamble when it comes to him. You either get to be one of his close confidants that he still lies to (his immediate crew), manipulated into thinking you matter when you don't (Yeden), or held up as a sacrificial lamb when it suits him (instigating the malcontent with rioting, then trying to force Demoux to kill him or the group of innocent skaa in the beginning that he paints as insurrectionists, and then abandons them knowing they will be hunted and killed. He is downright surprised to see them later alive). He does not actually believe in anything he says to get people to follow him. He doesn't actually believe he is lord of the mists. He does not actually believe malatium will conclusively stop the lord ruler, and he doesn't actually believe he "will be there for his followers". Marsh (as per WoB) holds to this more than Kelsier. Cons never last. They always fall apart. The trick is knowing when to get out before you are discovered. He is like the story of that preacher that sold people tickets to heaven. He then ran for the hills. Did they feel better about themselves? Sure. Maybe they even treated others better, but that doesn't change you cannot pay your way to heaven and he manipulated them based on a false belief (to clarify not saying religion is the false belief. the false belief in this case is by giving him money, you get a ticket that gets you into heaven). This is explained between Dockson and Kelsier at the beginning. Every instance Kelsier has "led" someone, involves him vanishing before it falls apart. Even his beloved crew died cursing his name (Dockson). So for myself, I would not want to follow a person that in the best case scenario I will be lied to, and in the worst case scenario I will be used and sacrificed when it suits him and I will never know which one I fall into until it is too late. 

 

WoB Kelsier and Marsh for reference

Questioner
At the end of “Alloy of Law” Marsh tells Marasi he is giving the diary to Wax because “.. he does my brother's work”. At this time it was a reminder of Kelsier, but with Secret History and the third book out why does Marsh think we need someone to do his brother's work? Isn't Kelsier doing that himself?

Brandon Sanderson
Well. (laughs) Marsh is of multiple minds on what's happening with Kelsier at this time. When he's referencing his brother's work, he's specifically tells Marasi speaking to the lore of the Survivor. Like he's specifically talking to somebody, and he does believe this. He may not think that Kelsier is doing Kelsier's work anymore. But that depends on... You will see interaction between Marsh and Kelsier in the future.

 

22 minutes ago, Sharshiblarb said:

I voted Raoden. Even though Kelsier can accomplish whatever his heart on, and nobody leads men to victory better than Dalinar, Raoden is the most motivational leader ever.

Seconded and seconded.