Kelsier, Good Guy/Bad Guy

[Bigmikey357]

I think @Oltux72 and others are looking at results. The results of Kelsier's actions are objectively good. Even murdering nobles, while objectionable in the abstract, is serving to destabilize the ruling class thus making house wars more likely. Everything he did worked towards the destruction of TLR and the Final Empire.

@Calderis is not arguing results but motivation. Methods. Could Kelsier have saved that plantation girl without murdering the entire household? Could he have destablized the Noble Houses without murdering them wholesale? Could he have given the Skaa hope without making himself a God in their eyes? It can be argued that he could have accomplished his part in the plan without all the destruction he left in his wake. But that wouldn't have served his ego, his thirst for revenge, his need for spectacle and showmanship. If Marsh was the Mistborn he would have certainly gone about things differently.

I'm on board as saying that Kelsier is a good guy who used all the tactics bad guys use to accomplish his aims. So it's a good thing something made him responsible else he could have been so much worse than TLR, who went about his cruelty and oppession as if it were a 9 to 5 job only everyday is a Monday.

I think people are kinda talking past each other at this point. If we're looking at results the of course Kelsier is a good guy. If we're looking at methods then maybe Kelsier isn't really good, just that the alternative is so much worse. But it probably shouldn't be a surprise that he turns villainous action to heroic goals. Before Mare died he wasn't at all interested in overthrowing the Final Empire, just getting rich and making fools of the Nobles that abused and spurned him and his big bro.

[Calderis]

@Bigmikey357 absolutely.

You can have a hero who is incompetent and does everything for the right reasons, but everything the touch turns rotten. 

You can also have a monster who does everything for horrible reasons and inadvertently makes things better. 

The result is not in question. What Kelsier achieved is good. His reasons for doing it are not as altruistic and pure as people like to present.

Hell, look at Vin. He saved a Mistborn girl who was horribly mistreated. Why? There were plenty of other skaa girls in as bad a situation or worse, like the girls sold to brothels (which Camon threatened Vin with) who would be used and killed in The Final Empires culture... But we don't see Kelsier raiding and burning those places down. We don't see him picking out random skaa and lifting them up to make their lives better. 

We see him save a young girl because she is Mistborn. A powerful tool to be used. Sure, he came to care for her deeply. It doesn't change how it started. 

That's the man Kel is. What he wants, and what he can use come first. He gets results, and in the Final Empire, what he wanted was a good thing for everyone. 

I just think that assuming that a person of Kelsier's disposition, even if his goals remain admirable, is always going to be working along paths that we as the reader agree with, or even believe are necessary, is naive. 

[Inquisitor #5]

On 2019-03-16 at 11:18 PM, SwordNimiForPresident said:

They were all slavers, that cannot be contested. The Lord Ruler owned the skaa. The nobility oversaw them. That makes them slavers. You are correct that it is a generalization to say that all of them were rapists and murderers. If I were facing a group that was made up of half murdering, raping slavers and half slavers. I would call them murdering, raping slavers. Even their children, who are not yet old enough to actually be slavers, are living the lives they do on the backs of slaves.

OK, let's unpack this one, shall we?

Even disregarding the stuff about the children being equally guilty, no.

TLR conquered the entirity of (what became) the Final Empire and instituted his own system of government, with himself as the absolute authority, etc, etc. He rewarded those who sided with him in a way that fits his character (making them superior) and punished those who resisted by making them litteral property with seemingly no rights. My issue here is that you blame the people having grown up wholly within TLR's system of codified, institutionalised racism and oppression for being shaped by the circumstances they have lived under their whole lives, circumstances that include an eternal (as far as they know), god-king who can easily get rid of any troublemaker who catches his eye, if it ever even gets to that because some other noble might just pounce on the "weakling."

As far as the people of the Final Empire knew, the system was just and moral, their god instituted it and probably deserved ultimate authority anyway, on account of saving the world.

Also, what could the nobles have done if they wanted things to change? TLR would always say no to freeing the skaa/making conditions less horrible. Organise their skaa and rise up? Great way of getting killed. Freeing the skaa? Great, the other nobles would see them as up for grabs and TLR has a case against you since the skaa are his property.

Are the original nobles to blame for the situation? Yes.

The current nobility are only perpetuating a system that's "always" been in place and to blame them for creating it is like trying the great grandson of a murderer for the same crime.

Point is, the nobles are also stuck in the system.

 

¤_¤

[SwordNimiForPresident]

@Inquisitor #5 The nobility being a product of their environment doesn't make them any less responsible for their actions, no matter what their situation was. Better to die fighting the evil god, than to live as a slaving, raping, murdering piece of filth. There is no excuse.

[Inquisitor #5]

@SwordNimiForPresident Yes, I will agree that they are still responsible for their actions, each rape, each murder, is usually willful. (Though I guess you consider Elend an immoral character then, for not refusing, to the point of death, to sleep with a skaa prostitute on Straff's orders when he was twelve...)

And did the nobles have any realistic choice when it came to being slavers? They didn't have ultimate authority over "their" skaa. Need I remind you that the Final Empire is also a big fan of punishing anyone connected to known rebels, or just random people, to make a point? Would you risk your family, your friends, your countrymen, for a chance to take the moral high ground, even if they were in no way complicit in what you were doing?

What would be the point in dying heroically? You have the moral high ground and are dead.

 

I'm sorry if this comes off as overly harsh/confrontational or a personal attack. I do however fundamentally disagree with what I'm interpreting your moral stance as, if nothing else how you seem to favour a view of moral absolutes.

 

¤_¤

Edited April 5, 2019 by Inquisitor #5

[Calderis]

Black and white morality works on paper but not in practice. 

Reality is shades of gray. 

[SwordNimiForPresident]

@Inquisitor #5 I don't take it personally. Elend is a tough call. He was ignorant of the results of his actions, but that doesn't excuse them either. He does express genuine contrition when he is confronted about it, so I'll give him credit there. I should note that if I lived in the times, I would be completely on board with Kelsier and Dockson. Whole sale genocide against the nobility wouldn't even start to repay the evil that they visited on the skaa for 1000 years, but it sure would be satisfying.

1 hour ago, Calderis said:

Black and white morality works on paper but not in practice. 

Reality is shades of gray. 

I can accept that up to a point. There comes a time though, when you have to come to terms with the fact that you're evil. When you're standing on top of a pile of the corpses of all the women and children that you've raped and murdered, it's probably time say "Yea, I'm pretty evil".

[Calderis]

1 hour ago, SwordNimiForPresident said:

I can accept that up to a point. There comes a time though, when you have to come to terms with the fact that you're evil. When you're standing on top of a pile of the corpses of all the women and children that you've raped and murdered, it's probably time say "Yea, I'm pretty evil".

Obviously. A person is still responsible for their own actions. And repeatedly taking part in atrocities means they're alright with their actions. 

My issue is much the same as Inquisitor's. Your stance would condemn those like Elend who took no joy in the treatment of the skaa. 

The issue I see with a blanket statement like Kelsier's though, is that it lays the blame for all of the atrocities at the feet of anyone with noble blood, or those merely working to feed their families. 

Say that the events of Era one did not happen and Elend succeeded Straff in the running of House venture. There are two possibilities that could happen.

First, and unfortunately more likely, Elend succumbs to social pressure, and while not taking part in the more atrocious parts of the Empires noble practices, he does nothing to alleviate the skaa hardship. 

Second, he does attempt to make reforms, and the Lord ruler puts his foot down and forces change. This could go as far as killing Elend, which would have the effect of other houses, and his successor, then being more harsh in an effort to distance themselves from what Elend did. 

Either way the system prevails and the skaa suffer. The only gain is that Elend dies without being a monster. 

This is the system as it stood, and the brunt of the burden of guilt lays at Rashek's feet. Individuals are culpable for what they themselves do, and that's never been in question, but blaming those who have done nothing but live within the system is ridiculous. 

[+Oltux72]

8 hours ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

Are the original nobles to blame for the situation? Yes.

The current nobility are only perpetuating a system that's "always" been in place and to blame them for creating it is like trying the great grandson of a murderer for the same crime.

Point is, the nobles are also stuck in the system.

Kelsier did not care about guilt. Nor should he have.

Nobles and skaa were enemies. That could not change while The Lord Ruler was alive. Kelsier was a partisan. Like any soldier he did not ask whether his enemies were guilty. The point was moot as long as they were enemies. As he was also a reasonably intelligent man, he knew that some were reprehensable yet others were outstanding people and yet another part yielded to the temptation they were put into. Like a pilot cannot ask whether the people in the city below him are guilty (clearly some are not) he fought for his people.

[Calderis]

1 hour ago, Oltux72 said:

Kelsier did not care about guilt. Nor should he have.

Nobles and skaa were enemies. That could not change while The Lord Ruler was alive. Kelsier was a partisan. Like any soldier he did not ask whether his enemies were guilty. The point was moot as long as they were enemies. As he was also a reasonably intelligent man, he knew that some were reprehensable yet others were outstanding people and yet another part yielded to the temptation they were put into. Like a pilot cannot ask whether the people in the city below him are guilty (clearly some are not) he fought for his people.

This is just not the way it works. 

Soldiers question orders. Many who don't are haunted by the things they do. A "simple soldier" still has to deal with the moral and psychological ramifications of what they've done. 

Stormlight spoilers 

Spoiler

This is exactly Kaladin's issues in SA, and we see some of it in Adolin when he's unsettled at fighting human guards. 

Military training to distance yourself from the emotions involved in killing a person is literally trying to turn someone into a functional sociopath so that they don't question, and don't deal with the aftermath. 

Which is exactly the way Kelsier functions. It's been my point the entire time. 

Edit: normal human psychology does not allow someone to simply shut of their empathy. That has to either be something you are born with. Or something that is conditioned into you. Regardless of which method achieved this is how Kel works. Add in the ego, the manipulation (even towards those who he does manage to feel empathy for) the complete lack of guilt in any situation, replaced by shame in some situations... 

He is a Sociopath. He is a very well done depiction of a realistic sociopath. Which is so storming rare in media, and callous disregard for human life so often depicted as "heroic," I'm not surprised it's so adamantly rejected by so many. 

Edited April 4, 2019 by Calderis

[Bigmikey357]

This entire argument becomes difficult because up to a certain point we are judging a society based on modern values instead of the society at the time. Context matters. Remember that TLR made the skaa and nobles 2 distinct yet interbreeding species for one thing. The differences were mostly bred out in 1000 years but the fact that they started fundamentally different is worth consideration. For another, most people do what society conditions them to do. Social programming is at least partially to blame for the everyday cruelties experienced by the skaa. Many an excess took place and tended to be licenced by society, as well as by God. Third, the civilization was soaked in Ruin despite being made largely with Preservation's power. Even their good guy was so infused with Ruin that Kelsier initially couldn't even hold Preservation, that even when he held it the fit wasn't ideal.

People are people. Most of us don't make the hard choice, at least not consistently, we'd rather go with the flow because we just want to live as normal a life as possible. It's just easier to follow societal norms that dictate our moral code. Just like the Nobles at the top of the food chain, there were some skaa that believed that the society had no real need to change either. There were soldiers that enforced the status quo. Are they evil for propping up the Nobles and their evil ways as well? 

 

[Karger]

On 3/23/2019 at 6:24 PM, Calderis said:

Your relating an entirely unknown and unforeseeable problem, to the obvious and known outcome of an Allomancer misting killing a noble? 

In point of fact if Kel had wanted to he could have put on his mistborn clock killed him and left with the girl and their would have been no repercussions for anyone.  So yes Kel did not have to force the Skaa to leave their homes.

I personally have the odd view that being a sociopath is not necessarily bad.  It does take all kinds after all and if Kel had not been a sociopath he would have died long before he could have accomplished his goals. 

Edited April 5, 2019 by Karger

[Kingsdaughter613]

2 hours ago, Karger said:

In point of fact if Kel had wanted to he could have put on his mistborn clock killed him and left with the girl and their would have been no repercussions for anyone.  So yes Kel did not have to force the Skaa to leave their homes.

I personally have the odd view that being a sociopath is not necessarily bad.  It does take all kinds after all and if Kel had not been a sociopath he would have died long before he could have accomplished his goals. 

Psychopaths/sociopaths are born that way. Many may actually live perfectly normal lives. It’s only the criminal ones we hear about.

To put this in perspective for everyone arguing about this:

I’m a grandchild of Holocaust survivors. If I thought like Kell, the appropriate response to dealing with the Nazis would be to wipe Germany off the face of the Earth. Somehow I think most people would agree that wiping out all Germans, not just the ones actually responsible for the Holocaust, is not the best method?

Kell wanted to wipe the nobles from the face of Scadrial. Understandable, yes, but that wasn’t right. Just because someone else does something horrible doesn’t mean you should respond in kind. 

And the people living in Nazi Germany didn’t have 1000 years of society telling them that this is normal. Nor did they have an immortal ruler that they thought was a god. Scadrial’s nobles had far better excuses than Germans under Hitler. 

Why do I get the feeling that those who feel that ‘all the nobles were equally guilty and deserved to die and Kell was not wrong for killing them’ would have a rather different opinion of ‘all Germans above 18 are equally guilty (unless actively or passively resisting) and deserve to die and it is not wrong for their victims (or families thereof) to kill them?’ [The last is intended ironically. I am not advocating killing everyone who was 18+ during Nazi Germany.]

Just to end: in Poland, the Nazis would kill the entire family if anyone was harboring a Jew and anyone they though might know about it. Everywhere else it was just the individual(s) who did so. Despite this, the largest number Righteous Gentiles was in Poland. Conversely, they also had the highest rates of reporting. The Nazis also killed 500 Poles for every German killed. Poland had a rebellion going on from the day it was attacked despite this.

If there is a real world analogy to the Final Empire, Poland under the Nazis is probably it. How people reacted in both countries (Germany and Poland) in that situation is a fairly strong hint as to how the various groups in the Final Empire thought.

[Calderis]

@Kingsdaughter613 for me, this is kind of a personal issue. Struggles with empathy, and realizing (at an age that I really should have known better) that other people functioned differently than I do has been a major issue in my life.

There are times that I feel like Kel has more empathy than I do, and others that I feel like he's very very much further along the spectrum...

Considering all of the things I've had to deal with and learn in order to not be a complete waste of flesh to other people, it's very alarming to me to see Kel glorified for the parts of him that are the worst aspects of his personality.

Sociopaths can be very very useful for their ability to detach, jas I said early in the thread, just look at the higher than average number of them that are surgeons. 

Those traits though, especially the ones Kel indulges wantonly, the manipulative behavior and the service of his own ego, are things that lead to very dark places very very easily. 

Thank you for the real life comparison. It puts things into a perspective that I haven't been able to get across. 

[Vissy]

In any world but a perfect one, Kelsier *is* a hero. I break a little from Sanderson's line of thinking here, but here's my reasoning for it. Kelsier *hates* nobility, and there is no world in which a "nobility" - an overclass that has access to a majority of the resources while others don't - is something that should not be abolished. While his methods are villainous, I think that Kelsier would ultimately always be a force for good because he always aligns himself against the overclass. 

Edited April 5, 2019 by Vissy

[Kingsdaughter613]

@Calderis You’re welcome!

Personally, I feel we are defined by the choices we make, not the way we are born. Recognizing our flaws and seeking to mitigate them; channeling our strengths into constructive ends; and understanding the great truth that our greatest strengths, all too often, are our greatest weaknesses, these are all the things that that determine what kind of person we are. 

I think the biggest issue with psychopathy is first, that it is only recently that psychopathy has been understood to occur in non-criminal individuals; second, that most studies are done on criminal psychopaths; third, that the misunderstanding of the term means that few non-criminal psychopaths would be willing to involve themselves in such an experiment- or even to acknowledge the possibility that they might be one! I really wish there was more recognition and more studies of non-criminal psychopaths...

Kell isn’t, technically, a psychopath but he has many traits and comes fairly close (2/3 point off of the European one; further away on the US one.) I’m pretty sure Batman comes nearly as close, if not closer (B has never been in a long term, steady, monogamous relationship.)

I actually find the Batman comics to be a very clear example of ‘writers don’t understand what a psychopath is.’ B, as stated above, probably is one but, despite Bruce himself alluding to it, this has never been stated. Jason and Damian are often called such, but neither is. (Damian probably has HFA; he’s almost definitely on the spectrum. Jason is a traumatized mess, who probably has a mix of mild to moderate BPD, RAD, and atypical MDD with psychotic features. He’s also splitting, which is whole ‘nother issue.) The Joker depends on which one we are talking about since there are three now; GA Joker is a psychopath - which pairs really well with B being afraid he’ll become what he fights. Classic Joker is psychotic (disordered schizophrenia), probably comorbid with Bipolar disorder. (I don’t think he’s schizoaffective, though he’d probably be diagnosed as such.) KJ Joker is also psychotic - straight up severed himself from reality. The last is not a psychopath, and we don’t know enough about Classic to say if he is or isn’t.

So we have three people who are not psychopaths being referred to as such, a fourth that gets the title despite knowing too little to say (though if White Knight is the Classic Joker, then he isn’t), a person who is (probably) - but no one will ever call him that! and one criminal psychopath (whom we will finally get to see again after vanishing for decades...) who actually is one! If this isn’t a perfect example of how badly misunderstood the term is, and how most people use it inaccurately, I don’t know what is.

Especially the part where other mental health issues are confused for psychopathy. And the one who doesn’t kill is presumed not to be one - even though he almost certainly is. (He has to control everything, trusts almost no one, manipulates and lies to even his closest family and friends, has trouble admitting to personal guilt - and even when acknowledging fault transfers it to another (ie. if Jason had been better trained/less reckless he wouldn’t have died instead of ‘if I hadn’t trained a twelve year old to fight crime he wouldn’t have been murdered at fifteen.’), feels little to no remorse for any of the above, hurts people as a form of emotional release, enjoys hurting said people, and thinks he’s above the law. He’s practically a textbook case...)

(Do I spend WAY too much time psychoanalyzing the BatFamily? Yes. Yes, I do.)

[Wander89]

The only answer we have right now to "Is Kelsier a good guy or a bad guy?"  is yes.

[Pathfinder]

9 hours ago, Vissy said:

In any world but a perfect one, Kelsier *is* a hero. I break a little from Sanderson's line of thinking here, but here's my reasoning for it. Kelsier *hates* nobility, and there is no world in which a "nobility" - an overclass that has access to a majority of the resources while others don't - is something that should not be abolished. While his methods are villainous, I think that Kelsier would ultimately always be a force for good because he always aligns himself against the overclass. 

I am not sure we can determine that Kelsier would always choose to oppose the "overclass". Him doing what he did with the southerners is very much like what the lord ruler did. Allik was scared that Wax would randomly kill him because those with the metallic arts were to be worshiped and feared. That even a chance offense could result in your death. Kelsier installed the metalborn as the overclass in a culture where they were very rare if non-existent till Kelsier showed up. In that case he was the overclass. There is still much we do not know about the southerners, but I think those tidbits paint a picture of Kelsier not always being the champion of "the little guy". Add to it that there is a WoB where Brandon says Marsh is holding to what Kelsier represented to the Scadrial masses even if Kelsier himself isn't anymore. WoB below in spoiler

Spoiler

 

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.

 

 

[Karger]

14 hours ago, Kingsdaughter613 said:

I’m a grandchild of Holocaust survivors. If I thought like Kell, the appropriate response to dealing with the Nazis would be to wipe Germany off the face of the Earth. Somehow I think most people would agree that wiping out all Germans, not just the ones actually responsible for the Holocaust, is not the best method?

Kelseir was trying to overthrow of regime not necessarily commit genocide.  He considered all members of the regime to be enemy combatants (something I disagree with and most likely is morally reprehensible) but I do not know of any other way the final empire could have been overthrown.

[Pathfinder]

1 minute ago, Karger said:

Kelseir was trying to overthrow of regime not necessarily commit genocide.  He considered all members of the regime to be enemy combatants (something I disagree with and most likely is morally reprehensible) but I do not know of any other way the final empire could have been overthrown.

On Scadrial the lord ruler altered the skaa and nobility on a genetic level so they were very much two different ethnic groups. Over time there was intermingling but the definition of genocide is the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially of those of a particular ethnic group. Kelsier wanted all nobles dead regardless of their affiliation. He only changed his mind about Elend because of Vin. That sounds like a genocide to me. 

[Karger]

3 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

Kelsier wanted all nobles dead regardless of their affiliation.

Kelsier was himself half noble as were most of his people.  Breeze was a full noble and I am fairly sure Kel knew.  Kelsier also had no trouble killing Skaa who supported the regime.  His motives were more political then ideological so I don't think he would have approved of killing all noblemen or at the vary least this was not his primary goal.

[Pathfinder]

30 minutes ago, Karger said:

Kelsier was himself half noble as were most of his people.  Breeze was a full noble and I am fairly sure Kel knew.  Kelsier also had no trouble killing Skaa who supported the regime.  His motives were more political then ideological so I don't think he would have approved of killing all noblemen or at the vary least this was not his primary goal.

Hmmm. Could have sworn that Kelsier said he wanted all nobles dead. He just also lumped anyone working for them in with them for supporting them. Kind of like how Norwegians viewed quislings during World War 2. 

I would have to check, but I am not sure if Kelsier did know about Breeze being a noble. I could have sworn Breeze muses to himself how they all assume he is a half breed pretending to be a full breed. Wasn't he concerned how Kelsier would react if he knew the truth? I would have to check to be sure but I do not have the time to right now unfortunately. 

[Calderis]

Kel did not know about Breeze. The text implies, from breeze himself, that breeze is uncomfortable with his past and wanted no one to know. 

Quote

Brandon Sanderson

Chapter Seventeen - Part Two

Sazed calls Breeze by his real name–Ladrian–for the first time in this chapter, I believe. Breeze doesn't like going by this name. You'll see later that he tries to get people (or, rather, Sazed, who is the only one who uses Breeze's real name) to avoid calling him Ladrian.

The reason is simple. Ladrian is the name that Breeze went by when he was growing up. He's actually the only one on the crew who is a full-blooded nobleman. (More on this in book two.) None of the others know this, of course. He's come to the underground from the opposite direction of everyone else–down from the top. He has let some few people know that his real name is Ladrian (mostly on accident, when he was younger) and the name has stuck.

It's a common enough name in the Final Empire, but someone COULD theoretically connect him to one Lord Ladrian who disappeared from noble society some number of years back. He doesn't, of course, want anyone in the underground to know he's actually a full-blooded nobleman, otherwise he would loose credibility–and maybe even gain the anger of people like Kelsier, who hate the nobility unilaterally.

So, he pretends that he finds the name unsuitable for other reasons, and asks people to just call him Breeze. None of this, of course, gets to come out in the book. Otherwise, I wouldn't have just told it to you. I just don't have the chance to develop Breeze as I would like here. So, those of you reading this can feel vindicated in the fact that you've gotten some true insider information! Breeze will, for those of you who are his fans, get some viewpoints in the next book, which will expand his character somewhat.

Mistborn: The Final Empire Annotations (Jan. 5, 2007)

Kelsier, as stated in this annotation, hates the nobility as a whole, so much so that Breeze has reason to fear his history coming out. 

Half skaa or not, Kelsier advocated genocide. 

Edited April 5, 2019 by Calderis

[Karger]

52 minutes ago, Calderis said:

Half skaa or not, Kelsier advocated genocide. 

Genocide is intentional action to destroy a people (usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group) in whole or in part.  Kelsier wanted to overthrow the nobility as a political institution not on a racial bases otherwise why is he cool with killing skaa guards?

[Pathfinder]

23 minutes ago, Karger said:

Genocide is intentional action to destroy a people (usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group) in whole or in part.  Kelsier wanted to overthrow the nobility as a political institution not on a racial bases otherwise why is he cool with killing skaa guards?

Nobles were an ethnic group. Already replied about skaa guards. He viewed them as quislings. Do a google search on the term. It has a very interesting history. 

Btw thanks @Calderis for pulling up the info. Yay I remembered correctly! lol

Edited April 5, 2019 by Pathfinder