Jump to content

Is Kelsier a Monster?


Elsecaller_17.5

Is Kelsier a Monster?  

78 members have voted

  1. 1. What alignment would you give Kelsier?

    • Lawful Good
      0
    • Neutral Good
    • Chaotic Good
    • Lawful Neutral
      0
    • Neutral
    • Chaotic Neutral
    • Lawful Evil
    • Neutral Evil
    • Chaotic Evil


Recommended Posts

How about Chaotic Awesome? As evidence:

Quote

Dustin Warf

If Kelsier had visited Roshar, what spren would have been attracted to his character?

Brandon Sanderson

Gloryspren because he pretty much always feels like he's done something awesome. :)

#SandersonChat Twitter Q&A with Audible.com (Feb. 4, 2016)

For bonus points, the word is morality-neutral since 'Awesome' in its original meaning described something that inspires wonder or terror. Either can work for Kelsier depending on what he's doing and who's describing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did chaotic good, as that's what he becomes by the end of Era 1 and pre-Era 2. But usually I'd say he's chaotic neutral. Kelsier doesn't really care about rules, regulations, or morality. He makes people better, but that doesn't mean he himself is good. He's not evil per-se, but I don't think he'd have a problem siding with evil for the short term (so long as he can con said evil later on and make them pay). 

I guess he's more like BBC's Sherlock in the first few seasons. He's "on the side of angels" but never mistake him for being one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chaotic neutral, but ultimately, usually, ends up siding with good. (Though he, himself, is not good.) 

What really gets me about Kell, is that he KNOWS he’s not good. But, on some level, he wants to be. That’s unusually honest for such a character. That also means that he’s unwilling to do certain things, and will usually end up doing something beneficial, ie. Good.

It should be noted that he is capable of selflessness; when he gave up Preservation he had every expectation of dying permanently. He is also capable of feeling guilt, so he’s actually much lower on the sliding scale of psychopathy than most people realize. He actually misses the PCLR cut off, though he’s very close to the European one.

As a neurological psychopath, it is very hard for him to recognize other people as people, especially those he has little connection with. That doesn’t mean he has no empathy for others. Compounding connection could actually help with that... hmm, interesting thought.

So Kell isn’t good, though he’d like to be. That desire, to be good and do good, prevents him from being evil in the long run. Which leaves him neutral... and I doubt anyone will argue that he’s Chaos incarnate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Kingsdaughter613 said:

What really gets me about Kell, is that he KNOWS he’s not good. But, on some level, he wants to be. That’s unusually honest for such a character. That also means that he’s unwilling to do certain things, and will usually end up doing something beneficial, ie. Good.

What is he unwilling to do? Kill literally every single nobleman? I don't see his backing off of his original genocidal goal as much evidence of compromise or moral restraint. there is a big difference between deciding not to do something and being unwilling to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would argue that Kelsier is True Neutral when we meet him. 

I would honestly say what we hear of his past that before he went to the Pits and Snapped, he was NE. He was a selfish thieving Con man, out for only himself and those few he cared about. I'm in the camp that Evil can actually love, so that might be coloring my view here. 

Once he snapped he went to NN and started thinking of others. 

I don't really think he's chaotic because he is all about having the crew set up a new government and such after they pull off their job. Just because he wants to overthrow the current regime doesn't mean he is anti-law. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I selected Chaotic Neutral. Brandon has stated that Kelsier has evil tendencies within him. It is the circumstances that determine whether it comes out or not. That for him the real question is what Kelsier would do in those circumstances, and for myself what lengths would kelsier go to stop someone who is doing good from stopping him? For instance, not saying this were to occur, but if Kelsier and Wax were to end up at cross purposes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Tiberius Gracchus said:

What is he unwilling to do?

Betray a crew member or a patron. When he offered Vin the money and told her that she is free to go, he meant it.

Hence I reluctantly voted for chaotic good. Chaotic freedom fighter with a broad streak of vengeful ruthlessness would be much closer. Not everything can be pressed into good vs. evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tiberius Gracchus said:

What is he unwilling to do? Kill literally every single nobleman? I don't see his backing off of his original genocidal goal as much evidence of compromise or moral restraint. there is a big difference between deciding not to do something and being unwilling to do it.

Betray his friends. Give up on those he cares for. Sacrifice those he cares for. Let his world die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would argue that Kelsier's actions are archetypal of a heroic Chaotic Evil personality.  He is murderous, has irrational hate for many, only cares for his aims, and is willing to exploit others, plot their deaths, and glorify himself unnecessarily.  

Yet, we sympathize with him, because he truly is a hero.  His methods are undeniably selfish and evil in most contexts, until, perhaps, his end.  Even after his death he is less neutral than evil.

However, the tone of Kelsier's character does shift, between CE, CN, and CG, but I am willing to argue that it is CE for the majority of time, despite his obvious heroism.

Really, though, Kelsier is too complex a character to be reduced to an alignment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Feruchemist said:

I would argue that Kelsier's actions are archetypal of a heroic Chaotic Evil personality.  He is murderous, has irrational hate for many, only cares for his aims, and is willing to exploit others, plot their deaths, and glorify himself unnecessarily. 

Irrational hate? What is irrational about it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

Irrational hate? What is irrational about it?

Yeah... got to say that as member of a group that suffered nearly 2000 years of persecution... Kell’s anger and hatred against everyone involved in the subjugation is perfectly normal.

My family still won’t buy German products.

Admittedly, I’m not going to go around killing people because their ancestors murdered mine - repeatedly. But if I had Kell’s power during any of the aforementioned massacres (including, but not limited to, the Holocaust) I doubt I’d care very much whether someone was Wermacht or SS or just a civilian playing their role in the war effort; intentionally or not, you are helping in the subjugation of my people.  And that makes you my enemy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Kingsdaughter613 said:

Yeah... got to say that as member of a group that suffered nearly 2000 years of persecution... Kell’s anger and hatred against everyone involved in the subjugation is perfectly normal.

My family still won’t buy German products.

Admittedly, I’m not going to go around killing people because their ancestors murdered mine - repeatedly. But if I had Kell’s power during any of the aforementioned massacres (including, but not limited to, the Holocaust) I doubt I’d care very much whether someone was Wermacht or SS or just a civilian playing their role in the war effort; intentionally or not, you are helping in the subjugation of my people.  And that makes you my enemy.

In my opinion, that's a rather concerning character flaw.  A willingness to kill civilians and those unrelated to any cause which has harmed you or your family, merely because they're playing a role in the war effort. 

It is always my prerogative that people be considered on an individual basis.  Can we punch Nazis?  Of course, Nazis and Nazi ideology should burn forever in the lowest pits of Hell.  But, can we kill German civilians for no reason other than the ideology of the national leader?  I would argue no, we cannot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Feruchemist said:

Not his hate for nobles, in particular, but his nigh-murderous hate for anyone who wrongs him.  Kelsier himself is a noble of sorts, lest we forget, so his hatred is less justified.

Kelsier is also a crime lord and a wanted man. Letting people think him weak or letting untrustworthy people live is not a wise course of action. Judging him by Western middle-class standards makes no sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Oltux72 said:

Kelsier is also a crime lord and a wanted man. Letting people think him weak or letting untrustworthy people live is not a wise course of action. Judging him by Western middle-class standards makes no sense.

Western middle-class standards?  Where in Hoid's underwear did you get that deduction from?

In any case, I agree, but only if we take a moral stance relative to time and the era in which Kelsier lives.

TL;DR: You're right.  I wrote that particular post without care as to what the intended information to be conveyed would actually be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

Kelsier is also a crime lord and a wanted man. Letting people think him weak or letting untrustworthy people live is not a wise course of action. Judging him by Western middle-class standards makes no sense.

Genuine question I hope you can clarify. If Kelsier is good because he allows Vin to leave despite knowing what he is planning, which would leave him vulnerable, and her potentially revealing his plans, as well as he holds this practice with others, not just Vin (I believe that point was mentioned in a post some where above), then why is Kelsier killing because it is unwise for him to appear weak or letting untrustworthy people live (the people he let go despite telling them his plans)?

Ok I think I wrote that poorly

If we cannot judge Kelsier via Western middle-class standards in regards to who he does kill, because he is a crime lord and wanted man, so if he lets them live then it makes him appear weak and letting untrustworthy people live is not a wise course of action. Then should Kelsier have not also killed Vin and the others? 

Further if by the metric that Kelsier not killing Vin and the others despite it making him weak, and letting untrustworthy people live is not a wise course of action shows Kelsier is good. Then wouldn't those he kills for those reasons show he is evil?

Edited by Pathfinder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Pathfinder said:

Genuine question I hope you can clarify. If Kelsier is good because he allows Vin to leave despite knowing what he is planning, which would leave him vulnerable, and her potentially revealing his plans, as well as he holds this practice with others, not just Vin (I believe that point was mentioned in a post some where above), then why is Kelsier because it is unwise for him to appear weak or letting untrustworthy people live (the people he let go despite telling them his plans)?

Kelsier has his good side in loyalty to his friends, exactly because it would be wise to kill them. Kelsier stands to his friends even if it means danger to himself. I don't see a contradiction.
Yet it really makes no sense to villify a man bad just because he kills enemies of every kind under the conditions of the Final Empire. That is just common sense. Now you may find a flaw in his character in the satisfaction he takes from those killings, but if you judge him by his actions, that is a moot point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Feruchemist said:

In my opinion, that's a rather concerning character flaw.  A willingness to kill civilians and those unrelated to any cause which has harmed you or your family, merely because they're playing a role in the war effort. 

It is always my prerogative that people be considered on an individual basis.  Can we punch Nazis?  Of course, Nazis and Nazi ideology should burn forever in the lowest pits of Hell.  But, can we kill German civilians for no reason other than the ideology of the national leader?  I would argue no, we cannot.

Yes... except that most of them did actually believe in said leaders ideology. Go look at the statistics regarding anti-Semitism in modern Germany. It was even worse before and during the Holocaust. 

 And when you are trying to survive, you don’t have the time to figure out which ones are just going along. If you are helping a war effort and your country is committing genocide, then you are partly responsible for those atrocities. At the very least, you are the enemy, even if you aren’t completely willing in your participation. When it comes to war, it becomes irrelevant.

Wars are not nice, or clean. And when you are fighting a culture, it’s even harder. Every noble, intentional or not, played a role in subjugating the Skaa. They had a vested interest in keeping the status quo. And that did make them enemies of those who sought to overturn it. 

So I can understand Kell’s anger and hatred. I can understand why he did what he did. That doesn’t mean I necessarily agree; just that I can understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kingsdaughter613 said:

Yes... except that most of them did actually believe in said leaders ideology. Go look at the statistics regarding anti-Semitism in modern Germany. It was even worse before and during the Holocaust. 

 And when you are trying to survive, you don’t have the time to figure out which ones are just going along. If you are helping a war effort and your country is committing genocide, then you are partly responsible for those atrocities. At the very least, you are the enemy, even if you aren’t completely willing in your participation. When it comes to war, it becomes irrelevant.

Wars are not nice, or clean. And when you are fighting a culture, it’s even harder. Every noble, intentional or not, played a role in subjugating the Skaa. They had a vested interest in keeping the status quo. And that did make them enemies of those who sought to overturn it. 

So I can understand Kell’s anger and hatred. I can understand why he did what he did. That doesn’t mean I necessarily agree; just that I can understand.

Yes, I do, in fact, know this.  And, I have done much research on the Holocaust myself.

My point was that it is best to not characterize groups by group identity when you are literally talking about killing them.

Does saying that all Germans, civilians or otherwise, should have been slaughtered in WWII, or that you would have done so, not turn you into your worst enemy?

Is it not dangerous in war to characterize civilians as nothing more than "the enemy"?  After all, hate begets hate.  Would you be equally as likely to suggest that it's alright to discriminate against others for the sins of their forbears or their representatives?  I am not trying to be confrontational, or, not overly so, but I am trying to fathom how it is rational to hate an entire nation for the sins of some quarters of the populace, majority or not.

I must ask for a clarification, however.  Did you mean that all civilians involved in the war effort should be eliminated, or that you would have done so, or all civilians who were the enemy?

That being said, I do understand Kelsier's motives, which is why he's such an interesting character to me, as all of Sanderson's characters are, really.

Edited by Feruchemist
Edited for clarification.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Feruchemist said:

Yes, I do, in fact, know this.  And, I have done much research on the Holocaust myself.

My point was that it is best to not characterize groups by group identity when you are literally talking about killing them.

Does saying that all Germans, civilians or otherwise, should have been slaughtered in WWII, or that you would have done so, not turn you into your worst enemy?

Is it not dangerous in war to characterize civilians as nothing more than "the enemy"?  After all, hate begets hate.  Would you be equally as likely to suggest that it's alright to discriminate against others for the sins of their forbears or their representatives?  I am not trying to be confrontational, or, not overly so, but I am trying to fathom how it is rational to hate an entire nation for the sins of some quarters of the populace, majority or not.

I must ask for a clarification, however.  Did you mean that all civilians involved in the war effort should be eliminated, or that you would have done so, or all civilians who were the enemy?

That being said, I do understand Kelsier's motives, which is why he's such an interesting character to me, as all of Sanderson's characters are, really.

No, I’m saying that in war the other side is your enemy. Someone helping the war effort is no longer a civilian; they are a collaborator and, thus, an enemy. That doesn’t mean that they all need to be killed; generally the idea is to force a surrender. 

I said that I understand Kell’s anger. I also said that when you are fighting for survival you don’t have time to figure out if THIS person was sympathetic to your cause. To put it another way: if someone had Kell’s powers during WW2, the obvious thing to do would be to kill the enemy leaders and generals. Funny thing - several of them were trying to kill Hitler. And Rommel, apparently, missed the memo entirely, if his suggestion in 1942! to reinstate the Jewish soldiers is any indication. Did they all deserve to die? Most of them did, but some individuals didn’t. But that isn’t something you can know, or even consider, when fighting a war.

Kell is fighting a war. The Nobles are ALL subjugating the Skaa. None of them, except the youngest, are truly innocent. Many are sympathetic. Many more are products of their environment. Most don’t deserve to die. But war isn't about deserving. War is about surviving and defeating your enemies.

Kell wasn’t planning to kill all the Nobles. He didn’t CARE if all the people subjugating him ended up dead (so long as TLR did, and the Nobles were overthrown), and he felt that collaborators were enemies and should be killed - which I don’t entirely disagree with, though I don’t think they all deserved to die. But that doesn’t make them less of an enemy. 

The Nobles and Skaa were at war. It’s just that most of them didn’t notice. And from the perspective of the Skaa, there were no good Nobles. Better ones, but not good ones. And the Nobles, for the most part, considered the Skaa as little better than animals.

So yes, I understand Kell’s anger. That doesn’t mean I would be okay with him killing Nobles out of hand once the war is over. Once the war is over, you try the criminals. 

While the war is going on, it is perfectly reasonable to kill your enemies. It’s not like he was murdering children, who had no say in anything; the people Kell killed were all adults, passively following their society’s orders and beliefs. And that, in the context of the Skaa uprising, made them enemies, actively aiding and abetting the Skaa oppression. 

Edited by Kingsdaughter613
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Kingsdaughter613 said:

No, I’m saying that in war the other side is your enemy. Someone helping the war effort is no longer a civilian; they are a collaborator and, thus, an enemy. That doesn’t mean that they all need to be killed; generally the idea is to force a surrender. 

I said that I understand Kell’s anger. I also said that when you are fighting for survival you don’t have time to figure out if THIS person was sympathetic to your cause. To put it another way: if someone had Kell’s powers during WW2, the obvious thing to do would be to kill the enemy leaders and generals. Funny thing - several of them were trying to kill Hitler. And Rommel, apparently, missed the memo entirely, if his suggestion in 1942! to reinstate the Jewish soldiers is any indication. Did they all deserve to die? Most of them did, but some individuals didn’t. But that isn’t something you can know, or even consider, when fighting a war.

Kell is fighting a war. The Nobles are ALL subjugating the Skaa. None of them, except the youngest, are truly innocent. Many are sympathetic. Many more are products of their environment. Most don’t deserve to die. But war isn't about deserving. War is about surviving and defeating your enemies.

Kell wasn’t planning to kill all the Nobles. He didn’t CARE if all the people subjugating him ended up dead (so long as TLR did, and the Nobles were overthrown), and he felt that collaborators were enemies and should be killed - which I don’t entirely disagree with, though I don’t think they all deserved to die. But that doesn’t make them less of an enemy. 

The Nobles and Skaa were at war. It’s just that most of them didn’t notice. And from the perspective of the Skaa, there were no good Nobles. Better ones, but not good ones. And the Nobles, for the most part, considered the Skaa as little better than animals.

So yes, I understand Kell’s anger. That doesn’t mean I would be okay with him killing Nobles out of hand once the war is over. Once the war is over, you try the criminals. 

While the war is going on, it is perfectly reasonable to kill your enemies. It’s not like he was murdering children, who had no say in anything; the people Kell killed were all adults, passively following their society’s orders and beliefs. And that, in the context of the Skaa uprising, made them enemies, actively aiding and abetting the Skaa oppression. 

Fair enough.  I actually understand your perspective, but I was interested to see what your exact reasoning was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Oltux72 said:

Kelsier has his good side in loyalty to his friends, exactly because it would be wise to kill them. Kelsier stands to his friends even if it means danger to himself. I don't see a contradiction.
Yet it really makes no sense to villify a man bad just because he kills enemies of every kind under the conditions of the Final Empire. That is just common sense. Now you may find a flaw in his character in the satisfaction he takes from those killings, but if you judge him by his actions, that is a moot point.

But at that point in the story Vin was not a friend. She was a stranger. Kelsier had no attachment to her at that point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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