Jump to content

Kelsier, Good Guy/Bad Guy


SwordNimiForPresident

Recommended Posts

I'm making this thread so I can stop derailing the Era 3 thread.

Here's a link if you want to catch up (or post about what you want to see in Era 3).

Era 3 Thread

Ok, to the subject at hand. Is Kelsier a good guy or a bad guy? I come out on the good guy side. According to WoBs, Kelsier is a psychopath, but if that is true, then he is a badly written character, in my opinion. I can't think of any specific instance of him doing something that would make me think he lacked empathy or remorse. Nothing in the books ever gave me the feeling that he was anything other than a revolutionary that was trying to make the world a better place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not about "good guy" or "bad guy." It's complicated. That's what makes him such a phenomenal character. 

Kelsier is a Sociopath and in the final empire, that was channeled for a good cause. There's plenty of example of that in real life (there is a far higher rate of sociopaths than average among surgeons for example). 

He does have a tendency to just write off anyone who he wants to as "the enemy" and kill them without hesitation or concern though. This is directly shown in the books, and is contrasted intentionally with Vin. The guard Goradel that Vin gave the choice to walk away from Kredik Shaw at the end of TFE is a perfect example. Kel would have dropped him before he was even aware of Kelsier's presence, simply for working a job that allowed him to feed himself and his family. He never would have become the loyal soldier of Vin and Elend that he did if Kel were the one attacking. He never would have trekked through the Ash to deliver the message that was what allowed Marsh to know that he needed to remove Vin's earring. 

Kelsier not only didn't feel guilt, but to some extent he reveled in the power of his abilities. He would never have been left crying in fear of the monster he was, like Vin did after her attack on Cett's forces. 

He's a phenomenal character and was definitely a "good guy" in Era 1 because of context. I've just been saying that his tendencies are not ones to make his role as a hero likely, and as such I'm wary of what he will do in the future. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Calderis Killing enemy combatants is a pretty broad line to use for sociopathy. By that logic any soldier that ever felt justified in killing the enemy is a sociopath.

In my opinion, slaves have an innate right to murder their overlords in an attempt at freedom. Likewise, anyone who chooses to murder said overlord in an attempt to free those slave is also doing the right thing. Anyone that chooses to serve that overlord has forfeited their right to live. Basically, if you engage in slavery, or facilitate slavery, you deserve to die and anyone that kills you should feel not just justified, but satisfied that they made the world a better place.

As far as the "just trying to feed my family" argument. If you stop to ask every enemy combatant if they would like the chance to surrender, you are going to lose. The best you can do is to ask yourself if your cause is worthy. If it is, then you kill your enemies until they surrender or are all dead.

I can think of no example where Kelsier killed an innocent or noncombatant.

Vin choosing not to kill Goradel was a great part of the story. If she had chosen to kill him I would have been completely on board. He was, after all, helping TLR enslave millions of people. He was also totally replaceable. Literally anyone could have been killed by Marsh to deliver that message.

Edit: I guess my point in all this is: If Brandon intended Kelsier to be a psychopath, he should have made him much darker. There's a ton in there about the things he cares about, but not a lot of twisted sinister murdery stuff. The only people he every had those feeling towards always felt completely justified.

Edited by SwordNimiForPresident
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Bigmikey357 said:

Then there's the whole founding Religion and getting people to worship him thing. He's founded one in each Era so far. I mean isn't it strange that that's his go-to? He does good things but the darkness isn't very far down. 

In the religion he is an absent martyr with no hand in church doctrine (the whole point of the religion was to give the skaa something to fight for). In the south he was their head of government, but left of his own choice (I suspect either because he didn't like how similar to Rashek he was, or because he had decided that they were now able to take care of themselves). It's not like he's some godking ruling over all of Scadrial.

As a side note, I like to imagine Era 3 Kelsier wearing graphic t-shirts with stupid Survivor themed stuff printed on them.

Edited by SwordNimiForPresident
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that he's establishing religions that worship him is the problematic thing. It would be worse if he actually began wielding that power but nothing says he could not do so later. It's like Survivorism and the beliefs of SoScad are like metalminds. He's storing Faith. At any time he could come back and tap that Faith if he so chose, wrecking a great many things. 

As far as the killing of nobles, he's kinda anti-hero in that. Frank Castle with superpowers. 

Look, I love Kelsier but I understand he could flip the switch at any time. If he went evil or insane the catastrophic destruction he could invoke is frightening to contemplate. And his ruthlessness and megalomaniac tendencies make that flip quite plausible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, SwordNimiForPresident said:

@Calderis Killing enemy combatants is a pretty broad line to use for sociopathy. By that logic any soldier that ever felt justified in killing the enemy is a sociopath.

If that were the line, sure. Kelsier doesn't limit it to combatants. And there's a very big difference between feeling justified in killing specific combatants and taking carte blanche justification for the entire force. 

War is nuts and has massive psychological impacts because killing people is hard to do. Extensive psychological conditioning happens in military training and people still have difficulty with it. 

Brandon does not write in a manner that disregards these psychological effects. We see peoples turmoil at the need to kill, or the ages of those killed, or the honor of the enemy in numerous places. There is no conflict in Kelsier. When he kills, they are gone and that's it. They deserved it, or they were in his way, or whatever else, and they are forgotten. That is very much at odds with Vin. 

37 minutes ago, SwordNimiForPresident said:

In my opinion, slaves have an innate right to murder their overlords in an attempt at freedom. Likewise, anyone who chooses to murder said overlord in an attempt to free those slave is also doing the right thing. Anyone that chooses to serve that overlord has forfeited their right to live. Basically, if you engage in slavery, or facilitate slavery, you deserve to die and anyone that kills you should feel not just justified, but satisfied that they made the world a better place.

That's all well and good, except in the final empire, unless you were working i. The underground, you were working for nobles or the government. The number of people who had businesses like Clubs where they could work for themselves was minimal. 

Kelsier had literal carte Blanche to write off anyone with a job under that logic because everyone supported the Final Empire. That was the point of the societies structure in the first place. 

37 minutes ago, SwordNimiForPresident said:

Edit: I guess my point in all this is: If Brandon intended Kelsier to be a psychopath, he should have made him much darker. There's a ton in there about the things he cares about, but not a lot of twisted sinister murdery stuff. The only people he every had those feeling towards always felt completely justified.

And I'm saying two separate things. 

One, the image of a psychopath that most people have is flawed and far too heavily colored by stories in the media that portray them as caricatures of reality. 

Two, there are signs that are there and subtle that people overlook. Like the fact that Breeze was in truth a full blooded noble and was fearful that that would come to light. 

I guess my biggest deal is that in Fantasy in general, where the enemies are fodder to be killed and forgotten, what Kelsier does is treated as normal and not a sign of something darker. But in reality soldiers and police and anyone involved in combat, even after extensive training, has to grapple with intense psychological issues from harming others. More so at actual killing, and often those issues are lifelong. 

Brandon treats psychology better than that. To see a character that both writes off those he's killed in moments, and revels in the ability to do so... That's not normal.

Quote

In the religion he is an absent martyr with no hand in church doctrine (the whole point of the religion was to give the skaa something to fight for). In the south he was their head of government, but left of his own choice (I suspect either because he didn't like how similar to Rashek he was, or because he had decided that they were now able to take care of themselves). It's not like he's some godking ruling over all of Scadrial.

We know far to little about the way the south funcrions/functioned to assert any of that. He seemed perfectly willing to set them on a path to intentionally clash with the north in seeking out an object of power and to hide that behind a seeming multitude of death traps. 

Sounds very very benevolent. 

Edited by Calderis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

9 minutes ago, Bigmikey357 said:

The fact that he's establishing religions that worship him is the problematic thing. It would be worse if he actually began wielding that power but nothing says he could not do so later. It's like Survivorism and the beliefs of SoScad are like metalminds. He's storing Faith. At any time he could come back and tap that Faith if he so chose, wrecking a great many things.

I don't see how trying to give people hope is problematic. His last thought was "Stand tall. Give them something to remember". He decided to die to help other people which is, as far as I know, the most selfless thing you can do. Saying that he could do bad things with the people that follow him is a bit hollow. You could say that of any character that is revered by others.

10 minutes ago, Bigmikey357 said:

As far as the killing of nobles, he's kinda anti-hero in that. Frank Castle with superpowers.

Frank is a great parallel to Kelsier. He's brutal, but under all the scar tissue and gristle is a heart of gold. BTW for anyone reading this, The Punisher on Netflix is glorious. So many feels.

16 minutes ago, Bigmikey357 said:

Look, I love Kelsier but I understand he could flip the switch at any time. If he went evil or insane the catastrophic destruction he could invoke is frightening to contemplate. And his ruthlessness and megalomaniac tendencies make that flip quite plausible. 

This is a bit like saying "if that character decides to be evil they're sure gonna be evil". It's meaningless without being able to actually point at something that he has done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, examples at lack of repercussions. Very beginning of the story, the first thing we see Kelsier do is take out Lord Tresting. Yeah, horrible dude. Totally deserved it... 

So what about all of the skaa that lived on Trestings holdings? The people now forced to run and flee from what will invariably be investigated by the Canton of Inquisition? The people forced to hide and quite possibly starve because Kelsier was more interested in enacting his brand of justice than he was in caring about what it meant for the people he was helping? 

In killing Tresting, he saved one girl from a horrible fate sure. He also doomed the entire plantation to a life of little food and running for their lives and did nothing to try to help them survive the situation he placed them in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love Kelsier for the grey area he inhabits. His personality is such that he could be cast as protagonist or antagonist based on the circumstances. Even if he were to become on the "villain" side of the story later on, I'd still love him as a character. It would not strike me as odd to have him on either side in a story. His character is pretty much built to walk on the thin divide between "good" and "evil." He's very well written in that he encompasses both sets of traits needed for both heroes and villains. He is ruthless, dark, self-focused, arrogant, and is quick to violence. He is also loyal, caring, smart, and willing to stand up to injustice. Whatever plot or setting Kelsier ends up in during future Eras, as long as he maintains his core personality I don't mind which side he ends up on. I do think that people purposely overlook his epic dark streak in an effort to keep him in their "good guy" pile, though. Kelsier is pretty scary unless you're in his circle of people to care about (which can be pretty large). I am somewhat like this as well - without the murdering - so I can relate to this tendency. I think part of what makes Kelsier so interesting is that while he inhabits our grey area, he doesn't actually have much of his own grey area for people. You are either friend, or enemy, and the dividing line basically states whether or not he'll be totally comfortable killing you with a big smile on his face. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ZincAboutIt said:

I love Kelsier for the grey area he inhabits. His personality is such that he could be cast as protagonist or antagonist based on the circumstances. Even if he were to become on the "villain" side of the story later on, I'd still love him as a character. It would not strike me as odd to have him on either side in a story. His character is pretty much built to walk on the thin divide between "good" and "evil." He's very well written in that he encompasses both sets of traits needed for both heroes and villains. He is ruthless, dark, self-focused, arrogant, and is quick to violence. He is also loyal, caring, smart, and willing to stand up to injustice. Whatever plot or setting Kelsier ends up in during future Eras, as long as he maintains his core personality I don't mind which side he ends up on. I do think that people purposely overlook his epic dark streak in an effort to keep him in their "good guy" pile, though. Kelsier is pretty scary unless you're in his circle of people to care about (which can be pretty large). I am somewhat like this as well - without the murdering - so I can relate to this tendency. I think part of what makes Kelsier so interesting is that while he inhabits our grey area, he doesn't actually have much of his own grey area for people. You are either friend, or enemy, and the dividing line basically states whether or not he'll be totally comfortable killing you with a big smile on his face. 

Well said. And exactly the point. Thank you. 

Edited by Calderis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Calderis said:

If that were the line, sure. Kelsier doesn't limit it to combatants. And there's a very big difference between feeling justified in killing specific combatants and taking carte blanche justification for the entire force. 

War is nuts and has massive psychological impacts because killing people is hard to do. Extensive psychological conditioning happens in military training and people still have difficulty with it. 

Brandon does not write in a manner that disregards these psychological effects. We see peoples turmoil at the need to kill, or the ages of those killed, or the honor of the enemy in numerous places. There is no conflict in Kelsier. When he kills, they are gone and that's it. They deserved it, or they were in his way, or whatever else, and they are forgotten. That is very much at odds with Vin.

Do you have any specific example of him killing someone other than a nobleman or a soldier? I can't bring any to mind. Also, I would never suggest that Vin and Kelsier are similar people. She is oddly selective about who she thinks she should feel bad about killing. IMO, Cett's soldiers were an invading force holding the city hostage. They threatened the lives of everyone there. Vin shouldn't have felt bad at all.

12 minutes ago, Calderis said:

And I'm saying two separate things. 

One, the image of a psychopath that most people have is flawed and far too heavily colored by stories in the media that portray them as caricatures of reality. 

Two, there are signs that are there and subtle that people overlook. Like the fact that Breeze was in truth a full blooded noble and was fearful that that would come to light. 

I guess my biggest deal is that in Fantasy in general, where the enemies are fodder to be killed and forgotten, what Kelsier does is treated as normal and not a sign of something darker. But in reality soldiers and police and anyone involved in combat, even after extensive training, has to grapple with intense psychological issues from harming others. More so at actual killing, and often those issues are lifelong. 

Brandon treats psychology better than that. To see a character that both writes off those he's killed in moments, and revels in the ability to do so... That's not normal.

I'm not talking about some cartoon villain, or a cannibal from some serial killer movie. We never see Kelsier kill anyone that he shouldn't. All of the people he killed, he had a pretty good reason to do it (overthrowing the final empire). We never see him just wander into a nobleman's kitchen an slaughter the staff.

16 minutes ago, Calderis said:

We know far to little about the way the south funcrions/functioned to assert any of that. He seemed perfectly willing to set them on a path to intentionally clash with the north in seeking out an object of power and to hide that behind a seeming multitude of death traps. 

Sounds very very benevolent. 

That comes down to RAFO I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Calderis said:

In killing Tresting, he saved one girl from a horrible fate sure. He also doomed the entire plantation to a life of little food and running for their lives and did nothing to try to help them survive the situation he placed them in. 

He also saved the lives of every other girl that Tresting was going to rape. Can you honestly say that you could stand by and listen to a young girl get raped and murdered if you had the power to stop it? I would venture to guess that that would make someone more of a psychopath than stopping him would. It does suck that the plantation skaa had to run and hide, but from where I'm standing there is no middle ground on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Cett's soldiers were an invading force holding the city hostage. They threatened the lives of everyone there. Vin shouldn't have felt bad at all.

Just because you're part of an invading army doesn't mean A: That you want to fight in this battle or B: That the enemy won't feel bad killing you. War is painful and killing enemy soldiers still hurts even if they're the enemy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Inky said:

Just because you're part of an invading army doesn't mean A: That you want to fight in this battle or B: That the enemy won't feel bad killing you. War is painful and killing enemy soldiers still hurts even if they're the enemy

Yes exactly. If someone broke into my house and tried to kill me or my husband, you bet I'd kill them if I had to. But there is a huge difference between "this person needed to die" and "I'm glad I killed this person."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Inky said:

Just because you're part of an invading army doesn't mean A: That you want to fight in this battle or B: That the enemy won't feel bad killing you. War is painful and killing enemy soldiers still hurts even if they're the enemy

Yep. The idea that you can kill people in any setting and feel nothing is not the way the normal human brain functions. 

Killing people is hard and has lasting psychological repercussions. It's something that people do reluctantly and intentionally try to avoid. 

With Kelsier, in many cases, killing is his first and immediate reaction, and he thinks it's fun and exciting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Inky said:

Just because you're part of an invading army doesn't mean A: That you want to fight in this battle or B: That the enemy won't feel bad killing you. War is painful and killing enemy soldiers still hurts even if they're the enemy

A: very few soldiers actually want to fight a battle. They either feel that it needs to be done, or they are there because they are obligated either through contract or conscription.

B: this is mostly true, especially in the early parts of a conflict before either side has seen many casualties. Many people feel that way all till the end. Many others, after watching their friends die, tend to dehumanize the enemy.

2 minutes ago, ZincAboutIt said:

Yes exactly. If someone broke into my house and tried to kill me or my husband, you bet I'd kill them if I had to. But there is a huge difference between "this person needed to die" and "I'm glad I killed this person."

Well now I'm wondering if I'm crazy. I would be unhappy about the situation, but the fact that I killed a would be murderer would not make me lose a second of sleep. It would probably make me sleep more soundly in fact, knowing that there was one less person out there that might try to murder me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SwordNimiForPresident said:

 Many others, after watching their friends die, tend to dehumanize the enemy.

That is by nature a byproduct of trauma, and as such shouldn't be treated as the human standard 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Inky said:

That is by nature a byproduct of trauma, and as such shouldn't be treated as the human standard 

But it is the standard, or rather one of them, for people in combat situations. Which in this case is very relevant to the topic. Kelsier watched, not just a fellow soldier but his wife, get brutally beaten to death. I would say that counts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Inky said:

I was talking about Vin in this situation

Ah. Well Vin seems to me like the other kind of person. The one that does not dehumanize the enemy, and suffers for each death they cause. She does seem to bounce back and forth a bit though. I think she's ok with it when it's a "fair" fight. We never see her lamenting over killing Cett's allomancers or over killing Rashek (except as it relates to the end of the world). The flip side is obviously the previously mentioned murder house with Zane event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SwordNimiForPresident said:

But it is the standard, or rather one of them, for people in combat situations. Which in this case is very relevant to the topic. Kelsier watched, not just a fellow soldier but his wife, get brutally beaten to death. I would say that counts.

That's perfectly valid for the people who work for House Venture who ran the pits. Even for extending that to the government. 

Kelsier extended that to all of the nobility and anyone who works for them, which in itself is abnormal as the nobility is where he grew up. It is not standard to dehumanize people who you have lived and befriended and known. 

Dehumanizing an enemy that you don't know is one thing. Writing off the humanity of people who you have interacted with is another. Kelsier still has no issue with this and states regularly that "all nobles are the same" despite the fact that he both should know better from experience, and if it were true, every person he knows is corrupted by being part noble to begin with. 

The standard reaction and Kelsier's are not the same. 

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...