Moral Miscalculations of Mr. Sanderson in Oathbringer

[+Q10fanatic]

I just want to point out that there are, so far as we know, only two people alive who are descended from one of the victims at the Rift: Adolin and Renarin. It is entirely possible that Brandon will explore this question of forgiveness in the next book. I hope that he does since this should shatter his sons' perceptions about him. They will have to see come to terms with what he did and they will do so as their mother's children.

[agrabes]

7 minutes ago, Q10fanatic said:

I just want to point out that there are, so far as we know, only two people alive who are descended from one of the victims at the Rift: Adolin and Renarin. It is entirely possible that Brandon will explore this question of forgiveness in the next book. I hope that he does since this should shatter his sons' perceptions about him. They will have to see come to terms with what he did and they will do so as their mother's children.

I really don't think it would make sense if it did shatter Adolin or Renarin's perceptions.  Someone else maliciously captured their mother who became collateral damage in their father's war crime.  Adolin and Renarin always knew their father committed a war crime in the Rift, they just thought it was because the people of the Rift had killed their mother.  To learn that  their mother's death was an accidental, unwitting and tragic byproduct of that war crime instead of its cause does not seem like something that should shatter them.  

It's not like Dalinar ordered the destruction of the city knowing or having any reason to believe that Evi was inside.  People die in war and she was at the front by her own choice.  She put herself at risk of something like this happening to her.  I don't think that her accidental death makes it any worse than what they already know.  How does the conversation go?  "Ok, so you caused the death of thousands of innocent people and I've known this all my life and I'm OK with it.  But, now you're saying mom had snuck in among those people and died with them and you didn't know until afterward?  I HATE YOU FOREVER!!"  It just doesn't seem to make sense.

[Ripheus23]

My two broams: Odium represents damnation ("no longer forgivable") and punishment (actively antiforgiving). I.e. Hell. I mean his realm is the one known as a Hell, after all. This is part of why he is destructive of worlds but still something else entirely, so to say, per a WoB, than Ruin.

This question is also an IRL question, of the priority of retributive over or under restorative justice. It's a theme examined elsewhere, too... Anyway, it has a fundamental importance to the overall idea of good and right and virtue, and sin and wrong and evil, and anything else between those, i.e "what is good to do about evil" is an axiomatic question in the domain of ethics concepts.

[Ahriman]

Personally, I have no problem with Dalinar's narrative. That's because I categorically reject the idea of anyone being irredeemable. However, I suspect his kids would have a problem with it, despite Alethi culture supporting his actions and the truth only being a little different than what they were told. Nobody likes being deceived, least of all important people who are regularly privy to state secrets. And when people's mothers' deaths are involved, they wont think objectively, because of course they love their mothers. Given that Adolin has had a fairly unhealthy obsession with making his father proud of him, I can see that really shattering his respect for a while. Not forever, but maybe for a book. Come to think of it, finding out about all Shallan's secrets too could give the guy some serious trust issues.

[Bigmikey357]

For my two Broams, it's not so much about the war crime at the Rift. I find Dalinar's actions more forgivable both in the moment and afterwards. My thing is betrayal. Despite all the evil Dalinar has done in his life, never once has he been dishonest or participated in subterfuge. Even at his worse he has never betrayed an ally. And when he is wrong he seeks to recompense. Amaram, Sadeas and Moash, the evil axis of SA, all betrayed someone who only wished good things for them, even after most people would have considered them past the point of no return.

[Ammanas]

It’s easy to sit in my recliner and criticize others in my air conditioned house. I have never been in war and hope I never will. I cannot imagine how much it changes and destroys individuals and societies. We all hope to rise above the horrors of war and “do the right thing”; who can say what we will do until we have to walk the path?

Just my two cents. Lots of good points and comments. Especially Calderis who is insightful as usual.

[Karger]

The sad thing is I can honestly believe that if we modernize Dalinar's Rift actions plenty of people would be OK with them.  In the Alethi culture it must be even worse.  The fact that Dalinar can see beyond that is impressive in the extreme.  As to deciding if an action makes one irredeemable.  Redemption exists internally like forgiveness.  Calling an action unforgivable is at the very least problematic.

[Winds Alight]

That is a question I asked myself when I finished OB.

And what actually is the question?

"Is Dalinar redeemable?"

Let's break this down:
- is Dalinar redeemable in the eyes of the reader, the people of Alethkar, his sons/family, the victims, Rosharan moral standards? For some of them the answer is no, for some it might be yes
- what is redemption?
- what are the consequences if everyone can 100% unanimously decide he is completely irredeemable?
- how many people are too much? Where exactly do you draw the line between "killed someone in a drunken barfight" and "mass murder"? A hundred people? A thousand? Ten? Is it a matter of coldheartedness? I grew up knowing German jurisdiction: if you kill someone in a moment of blind anger without actually intending to your punishment will be much easier than if you plan a murder beforehand. If you are mentally ill and don't know what you're doing, you won't get punished at all because you're "schuldunfähig" ("incapable of being guilty"). You'll still be locked up, but mental hospitals are something very different than a prison.

Also, I once read that no fictional character ever "deserves" a redemption arc. They either have one, or they don't.
Dalinar is well on his way in this reard. His redemption arc started years ago, when he decided he wanted to be a better person. That's the first step! To realize what you've done, to feel regret, to try and do better.
Whether or not he es redeemable within the world he lives in is yet to be decided: Right now, most of the world doesn't even know what exactly it is that he did. They will elarn of that as soon as his book comes out.

And what is the alternative to redemption? Killing Dalinar? Locking him up in a dark cellar for the rest of his days? Sure you could do that. Would that make the world a better place? The people of Rathalas would still be dead. Evi would still be dead. Dalinar would not feel differently than he already does: he feels pretty horrible about the Rift. He's not trying to apologize for it. He just does his best and honestly? The world needs him. Locking him up because he is "irredeemable" would take away one of the most important players in the fight against Odium.
Also, what is punishment? What's it for? Revenge? Retribution? "Punishing" Dalinar will accomplish nothing!

The big difference between Dalinar and Sadeas, Amaram and Moash is that the latter didn't want redemption. Sadeas and Amaram felt exactly right in what they did. Would they have tried to become better people had they stayed alive? We will never know.
Moash might have a chance. I know most of the fandom (including myself) wish him a painful death but if he honestly were to sit down, reflect on his actions, realize he stormed up and tried to become a better person than I'd give him a chance.

And no, I do not believe what's happening in this fictional world can be transferred to the real world. I am not talking about redeeming Hitler. Or the invaders who killed Natives of America. Or Trump.

[Ahriman]

 

7 hours ago, Winds Alight said:

Also, I once read that no fictional character ever "deserves" a redemption arc. They either have one, or they don't.

This is very true,  speaking from my own experience as a writer as well as my own religious beliefs. You give them a redemption arc if it will make the story better, and this one certainly has. More accurately, if Dalinar didn't have this redemption arc we wouldn't have much of a story at all.

Now, one of the most important parts of a good redemption arc, in my opinion at least, is dealing with and accepting the consequences of your actions. If you have a repentant serial killer, for instance, he will still go to jail without resisting. Dalinar faces no legal consequences like that, however, because he committed no crimes. It was a war, and it was an Alethi war, sanctioned by the state under Alethi laws. It wasn't a war crime, because those don't exist in that world. It's a fairly new concept in our own world, not without its own brutality, and even here it's pretty subjective who gets charged.

As for the religious part of my statement, which I think is fairly close to the beliefs Sanderson's religion has on the matter, no character inherently deserves redemption because no person ever deserves redemption. But the fact that nobody deserves redemption doesn't stop it from being given out to those who seek it, which is what we see an example of. If my family had been at the Rift I might not be able to forgive Dalinar personally, but that wouldn't affect his own redemption from that point of view. It would be my personal struggle. I think what makes this one of the best redemption arcs I've seen in fiction is that it generates discussions like this. We definitely wouldn't have as many people on his side if we had started with his violent, drunken, explosive temper. Maybe another question we could ask ourselves is if Sanderson fooled us by showing us the new noble Dalinar, seeking after honour and truth, or if he did us a favour by letting us look at the man without regard to his actions earlier in life.

[Torchwood17]

It seems like the main question of this discussion is, what amount of "badness" makes Dalinar irredeemable? 

I don't really have more to add on the discussion of Dalinar as my personal beliefs say the direction a person's life is at the present is infinitely more important than what they did in the past which to me says Dalinar is well on his way to becoming that better man he's wanted to be.

Not to de-rail the thread, but it seems natural if we are asking if Dalinar's actions at the Rift are irredeemable, what about Szeths's as the Assassin in White? He killed countless of world leaders, caused a civil war that devastated Jah Keved, and become the living embodiement of terrorism on Roshar. Plus I'm sure there's more that I've just neglected to mention

 

So is what Szeth done made him irredeemable? 

PS: This is the type of discussion here on the 17thshard that's the reason I'm here so way to start it 

Edited September 27, 2019 by Torchwood17

[Zapata]

41 minutes ago, Torchwood17 said:

Not to de-rail the thread, but it seems natural if we are asking if Dalinar's actions at the Rift are irredeemable, what about Szeths's as the Assassin in White? He killed countless of world leaders, caused a civil war that devastated Jah Keved, and become the living embodiement of terrorism on Roshar. Plus I'm sure there's more that I've just neglected to mention

 

So is what Szeth done made him irredeemable? 

Well, Szeth didn't choose to commit any of his Assassin in White acts. He thought he had to do them because of the Oathstone. Shin people seem to have a very strong adherence to oaths. Szeth thought that he was doing what he had to do. And he regretted every murder he committed. His greatest wish was for someone to kill him. And once he met Kaladin and realized that he was right and the Stone Shamans were wrong, he regretted the murders more because it turned out he was responsible.

[Ripheus23]

If there are unforgivable or irredeemable wrongs, then are there... What's a good word... Irrevocable goods? Like, things that once you did them, would count you as good no matter what else.

Now I doubt it, but I also think that if there was still irrevocable evil instead, there would be an abstract imbalance between the very concepts of right and wrong. Namely, good has a definition in itself, but evil has to be defined afterward as "whatever is opposite of good." A system where there are eternal sins but not eternal honors seems to run afoul of this dependence.

[Ahriman]

30 minutes ago, Bearer of Agonies said:

Well, Szeth didn't choose to commit any of his Assassin in White acts. He thought he had to do them because of the Oathstone. Shin people seem to have a very strong adherence to oaths. Szeth thought that he was doing what he had to do. And he regretted every murder he committed. His greatest wish was for someone to kill him. And once he met Kaladin and realized that he was right and the Stone Shamans were wrong, he regretted the murders more because it turned out he was responsible.

Szeth did choose to do that. At any point, he could have just decided to walk away. It would have been hard for him, and it would have flown in the face of his culture, but he was still choosing to do horrible things that also flew in the face of his cultural values. I don't think he's any less redeemable than anyone else, but he is responsible for his own actions and I'm sure he'll deal with the consequences in some way.

4 minutes ago, Ripheus23 said:

If there are unforgivable or irredeemable wrongs, then are there... What's a good word... Irrevocable goods? Like, things that once you did them, would count you as good no matter what else.

Now I doubt it, but I also think that if there was still irrevocable evil instead, there would be an abstract imbalance between the very concepts of right and wrong. Namely, good has a definition in itself, but evil has to be defined afterward as "whatever is opposite of good." A system where there are eternal sins but not eternal honors seems to run afoul of this dependence.

That's a very good point, and I'm not sure why I haven't heard it before. I find it interesting that even though I don't believe anything makes you completely irredeemable, I find the idea of such an absolute good action to be even more ridiculous. It might just be that good is a difficult concept to define, while we have an instinctive response to abhorrent actions, but the argument is definitely logical. I'm going to use that from now on.

[Quantus]

1 hour ago, Ripheus23 said:

If there are unforgivable or irredeemable wrongs, then are there... What's a good word... Irrevocable goods? Like, things that once you did them, would count you as good no matter what else.

Now I doubt it, but I also think that if there was still irrevocable evil instead, there would be an abstract imbalance between the very concepts of right and wrong. Namely, good has a definition in itself, but evil has to be defined afterward as "whatever is opposite of good." A system where there are eternal sins but not eternal honors seems to run afoul of this dependence.

Ive never heard it put quite that way, but in practice  I think the answer is, surprisingly, "Yes".  The catch is that those "Irrevocable Good" acts usually have to be your Last Act to be able to wash away anything.  Human cultures seem to have a strong tendency to put a lot of weigh on Martyrdom and Self-Sacrifice (now Im curious how universal that actually is). 

But that's all still firmly in the context of Forgiveness for Past Actions.  I dont believe there is anything a person could do that would give them a permanent Get-Out-Of-Hell-Free card for anything they did After their Good Act.  But then I dont really believe in 100% irredeemably either, though I do believe in people that are as individuals incapable of the steps needed for to achieve Redemption.

[IllNsickly]

Discussions like this always come back to the same question in my head.

Can We (21st Century, reasonably educated Earthlings) really project our sense of morality on a Medieval or Feudal society? Especially in The Cosmere and on Roshar specifically. 

Alethkar has been a Warmongering society for thousands of years, They fight endless wars amongst themselves with little or no provocation. To them, burning an entire city and all of its inhabitants is a distasteful thing to do, but it is War.

From our moral perspective, it should be completely reprehensible... But, their sense of morality doesn’t necessarily align with ours. I don’t think the question should be asked with regard to Our moral perspective but from the perspective of Alethi society. Other societies on Roshar consider the things that Dalinar has done to to be beyond redemption, but I still try to look at the context of the Alethi culture and gauge his actions against that context.

Storms, even across the earth, Morality can vary wildly from place to place and culture to culture. Trying to apply one cultures sense of morality like a blanket to another culture has been the cause of many, many wars and countless deaths throughout history.
 

Edited September 27, 2019 by IllNsickly
Wordsy thingy

[Quantus]

15 minutes ago, IllNsickly said:

Discussions like this always come back to the same question in my head.

Can We (21st Century, reasonably educated Earthlings) really project our sense of morality on a Medieval or Feudal society? Especially in The Cosmere and on Roshar specifically. 

Alethkar has been a Warmongering society for thousands of years, They fight endless wars amongst themselves with little or no provocation. To them, burning an entire city and all of its inhabitants is a distasteful thing to do, but it is War.

From our moral perspective, it should be completely reprehensible... But, their sense of morality doesn’t necessarily align with ours. I don’t think the question should be asked with regard to Our moral perspective but from the perspective of Alethi society. Other societies on Roshar consider the things that Dalinar has done to to be beyond redemption, but I still try to look at the context of the Alethi culture and gauge his actions against that context.

Storms, even across the earth, Morality can vary wildly from place to place and culture to culture. Trying to apply one cultures sense of morality like a blanket to another culture has been the cause of many, many wars and countless deaths throughout history.
 

In this case I think the best we can is to look to the other in-world POV's we get, to see what cultural context they place on it.  I got the impression that the actions of the Rift were considered will over the line even by Alethi standards (which are the most warlike of the rosharan cultures we've seen).  They arent particularly bothered by war or death (especially before Galivar's 'unification' efforts) but they do seem to hold to some rule of engagement and 100% slaughter by Fire of a major city was more than the Alethi Culture would accept (judging by Amaram's opinion of it).  They'd roll in, kill the men, then rape&pillage the place, and sell the rest as slaves, but it sounded like they still wouldnt wall them in and burn them alive.  

[Pathfinder]

31 minutes ago, Quantus said:

In this case I think the best we can is to look to the other in-world POV's we get, to see what cultural context they place on it.  I got the impression that the actions of the Rift were considered will over the line even by Alethi standards (which are the most warlike of the rosharan cultures we've seen).  They arent particularly bothered by war or death (especially before Galivar's 'unification' efforts) but they do seem to hold to some rule of engagement and 100% slaughter by Fire of a major city was more than the Alethi Culture would accept (judging by Amaram's opinion of it).  They'd roll in, kill the men, then rape&pillage the place, and sell the rest as slaves, but it sounded like they still wouldnt wall them in and burn them alive.  

The vibe I got more was "they stepped out of line and that is what they got. if you do so, the same will happen to you"

[Stormlightning]

Journey before Destination.

If you choose to say people can become irredeemable prior to their death, that's your choice, but I will never agree with it. In my mind, the concept of a "point of no return" is so subjective and psychological that the only sensible conclusion is that it doesn't exist at all. As Brandon nails in the book, "If we accept the person we are when we fall, the journey ends." I'm sorry for anyone who believes that others are eternally stuck where they fall. Not because it limits other people (although it certainly can, and that's a terrible crime), but because it will undoubtedly limit their ability to forgive themselves someday.

Despite his crimes, Dalinar chose to become a better person, and I don't think that is impossible or unrealistic at all. But it requires he not define himself by his past, which is something that takes a LOT of courage to accept. Tbh...most of us don't have that kind of courage. Unfortunately, many people don't even believe it IS courage.

And to be clear, I don't think it's an easy, one-time choice. I'm sure Dalinar will continue to struggle with bouts of guilt, inability to forgive himself, and his inability to undo his past. But he's on the right track to get to a place of lasting peace, that'll just take time. I wouldn't hold it against him if he was able to find peace and happiness. He's responsible for horrible crimes against humanity and destroying so many other people's peace, so it might seem unfair that he should get it.

But I just don't think people's pasts should be held over their head when they aren't that person anymore.

[Toaster Retribution]

I am in the moral wierd zone where I see very few people, if anyone, as evil. Sadeas is the worst person in SA so far, in my opinion, but is he evil? No. He is selfless in certain things (how he protected Gavilar during Szeths attack is one of the bravest actions in the series in my opinion). But he does a chull ton of evil actions.

Human beings are complex, so you cant narrow them down to evil. There is always a good side to all persons, and that cant be disregarded. Actions cant be valued like that. If you kill one guy but save another, are you good or bad? I’d say neither.

So by that standard, no one is irredeemable, because there is always some fraction of good in everyone. And people change. People grow. I have done things I deeply regret, but I have learned from those, and wont do them again. Dalinar is the same. He has faced his crimes, and atones for his sins. This is why OB is such a powerful book, and why Dalinars arc is so fantastic: because it beautifully deals with redemption, and showcases that the most important step a man can take is the next one. 

[Karger]

I just did the thing I should have done at the beginning of this discussion.  I looked up a definition of redemption.

Redemption: The action of saving or being saved from sin, error, or evil.

 

From this perspective I am going to say that both good and bad actions carry their own rewards and punishments.  As Nohadon said "Life is fair."  Weather or not Dalinar deserves redemption is academic.  I don't think I have ever met or heard of a human with the capacity to truly decide who deserved anything or nothing.  Dalinar is choosing to redeem himself and this will carry consequences and rewards just as choosing not to will.

[ginger_reckoning]

I can't really add much more than has already been said, but I do want to point out that Brandon is very famous for putting in his own beliefs into his books. He always officially denies it and says that you can interpret it any way you want, but for me this is a very blatant example of showing that nobody is so bad that they cannot choose to change.

I see it as a hopeful message to the reader that whatever they feel bad about, they, like Dalinar, can change and become better. And for those who are familiar with Brandon's faith, Dalinar's redemption is VERY similar to a religious figure known as Alma, and it is my personal belief that he was supposed to emulate the same arc. 

Basically, what makes Dalinar a better person than Sadeas or Amaram is the personal responsibility that he puts on himself. Instead of blaming external forces or "giving his pain" to Odium, he takes the responsibility for his own actions. And he chooses to take whatever consequences that might bring for him. 

Of course, as Brandon says, you can interpret the book in any way you choose, but that is my thought on the subject. 

[Karger]

2 minutes ago, ginger_reckoning said:

He always officially denies it

When does he say that?

2 minutes ago, ginger_reckoning said:

and says that you can interpret it any way you want

The two are not mutually exclusive.  Of course Brandon is going to put what he understands into his work.  You can't make something out of nothing even in literature.  However just because the author understands their work one way does not make it wrong to understand it another way.

[Guest Parallax]

On 9/26/2019 at 2:33 AM, Ixthos said:

@Parallax I would like to ask you a question. You said Dalinar's actions at the Rift were irredeemable - what do you consider the cutoff for something being irredeemable? If someone kills one person, can they be redeemed, or how many before they can't be? Or if not the number, then if someone burns someone to death, are they also irredeemable, or is it the number?

Line-drawing questions are difficult and in some cases any answer will be arbitrary (e.g. how many grains of sand do you need for a heap?). Anyway this is relevant if you consider Dalinar's actions at Rathalas a borderline case which I don't.

 

On 9/26/2019 at 3:37 AM, wallyrocket said:

I think this is the crux of the whole argument.  In the Cosmere, who has the divine authority to determine right and wrong?  Who gets to say this is the line that you have to cross before you are irredeemable?  In the Cosmere, what does redemption even mean?  Is there a Heaven and Hell construct where the good and bad a divided into after death?  Or are you just referring to redemption and forgiveness relating to the laws of the land?  Or even redemption and forgiveness in the eyes of someone else?  All of these scenarios have different answers.

This is about the relationship between the author and the readers, not the internal rules of the Cosmere.

Early on in Oathbringer flashbacks we are left to wonder whether or not Dalinar has killed the 6-year old Tanalan, later we are relieved when we find out he didn't kill the boy. In Rathalas Dalinar literally murders hundreds of children and you don't think the readers will expect something beside drinking and self-loathing before they can root for the character? 

 

I did not expect this many responses to my original post, thanks everyone for engaging in the discussion. I don't think I will be able to respond to each post individually, so I will try to make a few general points:

1. Some of the problems here stems from the fact that we don't have any PoV characters from Rathalas which makes Dalinar's crimes a lot less "real" to the readers. If we had a PoV character who died at Rathalas or lost his family in the fire, I think a lot of readers would feel differently about Dalinar.

2. Here is a thought experiment: imagine Dalinar returns from the attempt on his life near Rathalas, gets into an argument with Evi, beats her to death and then burns down Rathalas. Everything else stays the same. How would you feel about Dalinar's arc in the book?

3. Some of the posts bring up similarities to real-world events which I found interesting but the comparison has two problems: (a) I don't have to root for historical figures, but as readers of Stormlight Archive we are supposed to root for Dalinar; and (b) within the story Dalinar is forgiven then he can summon Honor's perpendicularity a short 11 years after burning down an entire city full of civilians. I don't know of that many real world equivalents to that. 

4. Anyone who enjoys discussions about ethics and war should check out Errol Morris' The Fog of War. Here is the trailer:

 

[Chiberty]

Try to avoid posting multiple times in a row. Use the edit button if you want to add something.

On 9/25/2019 at 10:54 PM, Calderis said:

The difference between him and the others isnt their actions. It's that they don't want to change. Sadeas threatened to continue doing the same things he had been doing right before he died. Dalinar offered Amaram the choice to change and stand with him, and Amaram said no and ate the gem. Moash literally killed a helpless stranger because they asked him to, and then gave up his name for power. 

The actions committed aren't the point. It's not about punishment, or justice, or who was worse. It's about choosing to be better.

“Sometimes a hypocrite is nothing more than a man in the process of changing.”

Edited September 30, 2019 by ChickenLiberty

[ginger_reckoning]

5 hours ago, Karger said:

 

The two are not mutually exclusive.  Of course Brandon is going to put what he understands into his work.  You can't make something out of nothing even in literature.  However just because the author understands their work one way does not make it wrong to understand it another way.

I'm not belittling the choice; quite the opposite. I actually like that about the philosophy he implements, and that he takes inspiration from his faith. I also like the interpretations I've heard that I wouldn't have thought on my own.