Is Kelsier a Monster?

[Pathfinder]

23 minutes ago, Karger said:

That makes more sense, thank you.

No prob. 

Quote

You have watched too many movies.  I highly doubt a well trained security force would leave a door unguarded where their employer sleeps even to investigate something suspicious.  Someone as paranoid as Straff would have several guards and likely at least a few alomancers around.

Personally I do not see how any of that information is any different when Kelsier actively kills the guards and makes enough noise to call the hazekillers right to him. When avoiding killing the guard would have resulted in less of a disturbance and further guards coming. Kelsier burns copper, so bronze seekers wouldn't change anything. Coin shots, lurchers, pewter thugs wouldn't help if they do not know he is there to begin with. Tin eye would, but Kelsier has dealt with tin eyes before. 

Maybe if I put it this way. All the issues you have presented, to me, are issues Kelsier's plan already deals with. The only difference is I believe he could deal with them without killing un-necessarily. 

edit: or to put it another way. Keep things exactly as they are with Kelsier. He has to worry about guards, allomancers, people leaking information, people betraying him, and so on. That doesn't change in either scenario. Just for me, in one Kelsier is killing people he doesn't need to, while in another, he isn't

Quote

Alright you now have an ambitious fool in charge of his house.  What is your next move?

Do the same thing as he did with the Kandra Oreseur. Use the house as a cover, and fund various political/legal, and political/illegal ventures

Quote

My first point was that Kelsier's total actions lead to Vin become who she was and were a net positive for her personally and the people globally. 

I understand that, and my point was I think it is a false equivalency to draw a line from the guards death to Vin being happy. For myself Kelsier could have helped Vin without killing the guard, and I do not believe that guard living or dying ultimately changes Vin's status in any way. So the guard dying accomplishes nothing (to me) other than a random person was killed because Kelsier chose to. 

Quote

My other point was that without Kel Vin would never become Vin so she would not have been able to lead the rebellion.

Why would Kelsier been removed? My comments were on his actions. That he could have chosen different ones and still accomplished the same goals. I do not think that would result in his absence. My point is that he took actions that led to the death of many individuals, that he did not have to. Those deaths ultimately (to me) did not cause the rebellion to succeed. If those individuals had lived, the rebellion (to me) would not have failed. So those deaths were (to me ) ancillary. Kelsier did it because he could, and he did not care about the consequences. That speaks to his character to me. 

Quote

The fact that she feels horrible afterward is a textbook case of PTSD.  If you are going to give Vin credit for the feelings caused by that then it stands to reason that you should excuse the feelings Kel does not have because he is a psychopath.

Not sure I follow what you mean? Could you explain?

Edited January 24, 2020 by Pathfinder

[Karger]

22 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

Maybe if I put it this way. All the issues you have presented, to me, are issues Kelsier's plan already deals with. The only difference is I believe he could deal with them without killing un-necessarily. 

I on the other hand think that all of the killing has some solid reasoning behind it.

23 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

Do the same thing as he did with the Kandra Oreseur. Use the house as a cover, and fund various political/legal, and political/illegal ventures

OK but then what?  To coordinate a lasting change you need to have most of the nobility on your side and that is a monumental task.  What happens when your pet idiot screws up majorly and offends an important group.  You can't monitor him every day.

25 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

I understand that, and my point was I think it is a false equivalency to draw a line from the guards death to Vin being happy. For myself Kelsier could have helped Vin without killing the guard,

But Kel being Kel is what made Vin happy.  The lack of Kel both good and bad would have failed to do so.  Kel would not be Kel if he had not killed those guards and he did make Vin happy.  I think you are looking for some kind of paragon that did not exist in TFE.

28 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

Not sure I follow what you mean? Could you explain?

One of the major causes of PTSD is not getting hurt it is hurting people.  Kel is for lack of a better word immune to it because he is a psychopath.  He can get up every day and still laugh off ever bad thing that ever happened to him.  Vin is not so when she does the same thing she gets scared and angry. 

[Pathfinder]

Just now, Karger said:

I on the other hand think that all of the killing has some solid reasoning behind it.

But I guess to turn the questioning back to you, is the reasoning enough that without it the rebellion would have failed?

Just now, Karger said:

OK but then what?  To coordinate a lasting change you need to have most of the nobility on your side and that is a monumental task.  What happens when your pet idiot screws up majorly and offends an important group.  You can't monitor him every day.

Same thing happened with Yeden. Yet the rebellion still worked out in the end. I guess at this point the question is, why is Kelsier killing random guards so important to the success of the rebellion for you?

Just now, Karger said:

But Kel being Kel is what made Vin happy.  The lack of Kel both good and bad would have failed to do so.  Kel would not be Kel if he had not killed those guards and he did make Vin happy.  I think you are looking for some kind of paragon that did not exist in TFE.

So to make sure I understand things correctly. You are saying Kelsier is defined as a person based on his willingness to kill people he does not have to? That Kel would not be the man that helped Vin had he not killed that guard?

Just now, Karger said:

One of the major causes of PTSD is not getting hurt it is hurting people.  Kel is for lack of a better word immune to it because he is a psychopath.  He can get up every day and still laugh off ever bad thing that ever happened to him.  Vin is not so when she does the same thing she gets scared and angry. 

For myself Vin getting scared or angry over it, but still trying to be better does say a lot more for her, than Kelsier who does it, and just doesn't care at all. 

 

Maybe if I break things down this way:

-Kelsier kills people he does not have to kill (to me) because he can

-In the world of the final empire, since he points this in the general direction of the oppression, he is seen as a hero to the populace

-To me this does not change the nature of the individual, especially when to me, it could have been accomplished without as much general death (and in fact Elend pointed out that would make things worse. Kelsier wanted a bloody revolution where all the nobility was killed. Elend, in an analogue to the french revolution, realized it would lead to far more damage than help)

-For me if you can take Kelsier out of the final empire scenario, and he be a villian, then to me the environment is the only thing that changed. Not the person. And that the environment did not require Kelsier to be that way. Just Kelsier being that way happen to lead to the same results

-So for instance lets say whoever deflates the balloon is lauded as a hero because the balloon is great and evil. One way, someone throws a bomb that destroys that balloon and any around them, people cheer because the balloon is deflated. Another way, a person makes an incision at the base of the balloon and it deflates, keeping the other balloons intact. Everyone cheers because the balloon is deflated. So for myself, using the grenade to deflate the balloon is not what makes Kelsier the hero. Deflating the balloon is. And if you could deflate the balloon without a bomb, I think the fact that a bomb was used speaks about the user. And finally, if you were then to take Kelsier and put him in a china shop, and tell him the deflate the balloon, and he used a bomb, he would be seen very differently. 

-So I choose to view and comment on the person, and not the environment in this case. 

 

Hopefully that helped. But at this point, are we really discussing Kelsier the monster anymore? Because it sounds like you think he is a monster as well, just (correct me if I am wrong), you think that is ok because of the environment. 

[Karger]

1 hour ago, Pathfinder said:

But I guess to turn the questioning back to you, is the reasoning enough that without it the rebellion would have failed?

Kelseir believed that without it the rebellion would have failed.  He may have been wrong or blinded by hatred but I do not think either of those things make him an actual monster.

1 hour ago, Pathfinder said:

Same thing happened with Yeden. Yet the rebellion still worked out in the end. I guess at this point the question is, why is Kelsier killing random guards so important to the success of the rebellion for you?

Barely.  Once in politics once you have made yourself untouchable you tend to stay that way. 

1 hour ago, Pathfinder said:

So to make sure I understand things correctly. You are saying Kelsier is defined as a person based on his willingness to kill people he does not have to? That Kel would not be the man that helped Vin had he not killed that guard?

I am not pointing to causality.  I am simply stating that the net total of Kelsier's actions made Vin happier then the alternative.

1 hour ago, Pathfinder said:

For myself Vin getting scared or angry over it, but still trying to be better does say a lot more for her, than Kelsier who does it, and just doesn't care at all. 

On the other hand if you put Vin in charge of the rebellion Yeden's foolishness breaks the whole thing apart.  She can't go on after that and does not bounce back the way Kelsier does.

Edited January 24, 2020 by Karger

[Pathfinder]

1 hour ago, Karger said:

Kelseir believed that without it the rebellion would have failed.  He may have been wrong or blinded by hatred but I do not think either of those things make him an actual monster.

Can you give me an example as to why you believe that Kelsier believed that letting that guard live would have caused the rebellion to fail? Just want to understand your perspective better. 

Quote

Barely.  Alsoin politics once you have made yourself untouchable you tend to stay that way. 

Sorry I do not recognize that word. Could you explain again?

Quote

I am not pointing to causality.  I am simply stating that the net total of Kelsier's actions made Vin happier then the alternative.

So if that guard was left to live, then the total net would result in Vin being unhappy?

Quote

On the other hand if you put Vin in charge of the rebellion Yeden's foolishness breaks the whole thing apart.  She can't go on after that and does not bounce back the way Kelsier does.

I guess this goes back to why was that guard's death so crucial to Kelsier's identity that he would have been a different person unable to keep the rebellion going had he let that guard live?

 

edit: how about this. what I think you are saying (please correct me if I am wrong) is this

 

-The type of person Kelsier is would kill that guard

-If Kelsier did not kill that guard, Kelsier would not be the type of person he is

-If Kelsier were not the type of person he is, the rebellion would have failed

-Thereby in order for the rebellion to succeed, Kelsier has to kill that guard

 

I get that right?

Edited January 24, 2020 by Pathfinder

[Karger]

41 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

Sorry I do not recognize that word. Could you explain again?

Typo.

42 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

Can you give me an example as to why you believe that Kelsier believed that letting that guard live would have caused the rebellion to fail? Just want to understand your perspective better. 

He wanted to send a message to the nobility that he was mistborn and that he was willing to kill people.  That being said from a simple tactical standpoint he had to make sure that there was no subtle trap involved by killing one guard gave himself time to appraise the situation and made sure no alarm was called.  For this guard Kel seems not to actually have known he was there. 

Quote

A startled guard stood not three paces away. Kelsier was upon the man in a second, jumping into the air, Pulling slightly on the guard’s steel breastplate and throwing the man off balance. Kelsier whipped out one of his glass daggers, allowing the strength of his Ironpull to bring him toward the guard. He landed with both feet against the man’s chest, then crouched and sliced with a pewter-enhanced swing.

He killed him for time.

He then surveys the general area and concludes that this is not a trap and that he has control of the situation.  He wants to engage the hazekillers as a mistborn so he kills two guards by throwing them off the wall.  This raises the alarm early and prevents anyone from knowing his exact position.  It also proves that he is likely an alomancer and so they should get the hazekillers as apposed to more ordinary guards for him to kill.  This move might actually save a few lives at risk to himself if you are feeling generous to him.  The next two guards ID him as mistborn to everyone in the area and he actually has to kill them or they might stop him from leaving. 

He also has to kills the hazekillers self defense he really has no other option he is in a pitched battle. He then leaves without killing anyone else.

1 hour ago, Pathfinder said:

So if that guard was left to live, then the total net would result in Vin being unhappy?

My point is that Kelseir is more then his worst action.  When declaring someone a monster you are stating that they are something that must be destroyed and can be destroyed without remorse or ethical complications.

[Pathfinder]

5 minutes ago, Karger said:

Typo.

Ok, but what was it supposed to be?

5 minutes ago, Karger said:

He wanted to send a message to the nobility that he was mistborn and that he was willing to kill people.  That being said from a simple tactical standpoint he had to make sure that there was no subtle trap involved by killing one guard gave himself time to appraise the situation and made sure no alarm was called.  For this guard Kel seems not to actually have known he was there. 

I thought he was sending a message that another house attacked that house to get them fighting each other to cause a house war? That was the impression I got from the book. I don't recall being willing to kill people being part of it. Not trying to be snarky. Just genuinely answering I don't recall that in my reading. 

Regarding the guard, I was given the impression that kelsier did know he was there. the Guard was wearing metal, and Kelsier was burning steel and iron. Steel to push off the coin to lift him up towards the wall, and iron to pull on a metal part of a window to lift him the rest of the way. He then pulled on the guard's breast plate to leap towards him and slit his throat. 

5 minutes ago, Karger said:

He killed him for time.

I guess. Just personally I disagree. He could have tracked where the guard was based on the breast plate, and gotten past without him noticing, which would mean he would not have to kill anyone for time. 

5 minutes ago, Karger said:

He then surveys the general area and concludes that this is not a trap and that he has control of the situation.

He mentions a trap?

5 minutes ago, Karger said:

 He wants to engage the hazekillers as a mistborn so he kills two guards by throwing them off the wall. 

He was warned by Dockson about the hazekillers, and reasoned he would run into them, but I do not recall him saying he actively wanted to run into them. 

5 minutes ago, Karger said:

This raises the alarm early and prevents anyone from knowing his exact position.

But raising the alarm would bring all the soldiers on alert, which was the exact issue you mentioned before about killing just the noble and excluding the guard. That there would be all these allomancers. So wouldn't raising the alarm cause more problems not less?

5 minutes ago, Karger said:

  It also proves that he is likely an alomancer and so they should get the hazekillers as apposed to more ordinary guards for him to kill.

Still don't remember or understand why he would trigger the hazekillers on purpose. Deal with them if they show? Sure. But I don't recall Kelsier saying he specifically wanted the hazekillers to show up. 

5 minutes ago, Karger said:

  This move might actually save a few lives at risk to himself if you are feeling generous to him.  The next two guards ID him as mistborn to everyone in the area and he actually has to kill them or they might stop him from leaving. 

The way he ends the scene says to me he was doing it just because he enjoyed killing noblemen and anyone associated with them. Not that he was doing that for any particular goal associated with the rebellion. He went for the atium

 

Mistborn (would provide the page but again, I have a combined kindle version of the first three so it won't sink up to your version)

No, this night was not a waste. Even if he hadn't found the atium, any night that ended with a group of dead noblemen was a successful one, in Kelsier's opinion

 

 

5 minutes ago, Karger said:

He also has to kills the hazekillers self defense he really has no other option he is in a pitched battle. He then leaves without killing anyone else.

He would not have been in that situation had he not created it (from my perspective)

5 minutes ago, Karger said:

My point is that Kelseir is more then his worst action.  When declaring someone a monster you are stating that they are something that must be destroyed and can be destroyed without remorse or ethical complications.

But Kelsier isn't one action. Earlier in the thread I listed multiple. For me this is a pattern. This is a trait of his. I also do not recall ever saying he was a thing to be destroyed without remorse or ethical complications. Just I would not want to be near and or follow such a man. For myself I would never know when the environment would bring out his worse, and result in me being on his wrong side at worse, or potentially a useful tool at best. Could he see me as a friend? Maybe? But how would I know? He is an excellent manipulator and liar, and from what I have seen has no compunctions between abandoning people to death (the villagers) and forgetting they exist, or setting someone up to die (the malcontent he tries to force Demoux to kill). Storms I could be the most well intentioned person, and if he reads what my life is as some way supporting someone he does not like, my life to me is forfeit. But I do not think at any point that I called for Kelsier's summary execution. Just keep him far far far away from me lol. 

[Karger]

On 1/24/2020 at 5:51 PM, Pathfinder said:

I thought he was sending a message that another house attacked that house to get them fighting each other to cause a house war? That was the impression I got from the book. I don't recall being willing to kill people being part of it. Not trying to be snarky. Just genuinely answering I don't recall that in my reading. 

If one house attacks another house and makes sure not to kill anyone it is not really an attack.  Smart diplomacy would calm things down especially if no one claimed credit.  

On 1/24/2020 at 5:51 PM, Pathfinder said:

I thought he was sending a message that another house attacked that house to get them fighting each other to cause a house war? That was the impression I got from the book. I don't recall being willing to kill people being part of it. Not trying to be snarky. Just genuinely answering I don't recall that in my reading. 

Regarding the guard, I was given the impression that kelsier did know he was there. the Guard was wearing metal, and Kelsier was burning steel and iron. Steel to push off the coin to lift him up towards the wall, and iron to pull on a metal part of a window to lift him the rest of the way. He then pulled on the guard's breast plate to leap towards him and slit his throat. 

Reread the scene.  Kelseir just jumped on to the wall and it is only after the guard notices him that he reacts.  If he was specifically trying to kill the gaurd he would have acted faster and landed on the guard to kill him in the same moment. 

On 1/24/2020 at 5:51 PM, Pathfinder said:

I guess. Just personally I disagree. He could have tracked where the guard was based on the breast plate, and gotten past without him noticing, which would mean he would not have to kill anyone for time. 

He has to maintain the imitative.  Sun Tzu — 'Thus the expert in battle moves the enemy, and is not moved by him.  Kelseir wants to keep these people reacting.  Bypassing them means that they have time for a countermove or to move in a way that he does not expect and can't anticipate. 

On 1/24/2020 at 5:51 PM, Pathfinder said:

He was warned by Dockson about the hazekillers, and reasoned he would run into them, but I do not recall him saying he actively wanted to run into them. 

He would not say to Dockson who constantly worries about Kel being reckless that he wants to fight the hazekillers but fighting them and winning before retreating firmly establishes him as a mistborn and classifies this attack as a mistborn attack rather then one by an exceptionally powerful coinshot.

On 1/24/2020 at 5:51 PM, Pathfinder said:

No, this night was not a waste. Even if he hadn't found the atium, any night that ended with a group of dead noblemen was a successful one, in Kelsier's opinion

Kelseir has issues.  This is his way of looking on the bright side. 

On 1/24/2020 at 5:51 PM, Pathfinder said:

He is an excellent manipulator and liar, and from what I have seen has no compunctions between abandoning people to death (the villagers) and forgetting they exist

He gave them the tools that they needed to survive.  Also he had no way of saving the girl and making his rendezvous with Yeden without doing exactly what they did.

[Elsecaller_17.5]

I didn't expect this topic to lead to such . . . vigorous discussion. I should have, but I didn't. 

[Karger]

3 minutes ago, Elsecaller_17.5 said:

I didn't expect this topic to lead to such . . . vigorous discussion. I should have, but I didn't. 

@Pathfinder and I are kind of like this on a lot of subjects.  I would go so far as to say we are semi famous for it.

Edited January 27, 2020 by Karger

[Pathfinder]

On 1/25/2020 at 6:15 PM, Karger said:

If one house attacks another house and makes sure not to kill anyone it is not really an attack.  Smart diplomacy would calm things down especially if no one claimed credit.

Just to clarify, I mentioned in a prior post that Kelsier could still kill the nobles and accomplish the same goal. The deaths I was saying that could be avoided, were the guards that he could have avoided. Basically I am saying Kelsier could have accomplished as much if not more from targeted assassinations on specific individuals, instead of wanton killings on his way to his goal. 

Quote

Reread the scene.  Kelseir just jumped on to the wall and it is only after the guard notices him that he reacts.  If he was specifically trying to kill the gaurd he would have acted faster and landed on the guard to kill him in the same moment. 

Right, and the guard would not have reacted had Kelsier snuck past instead of landing right next to him. In my opinion. That to me, could have been avoided and was not necessary. I personally do not feel it aided or harmed the rebellion. I feel it was a choice on Kelsier's part to conduct his mission in the way he did. 

Quote

He has to maintain the imitative.  Sun Tzu — 'Thus the expert in battle moves the enemy, and is not moved by him.  Kelseir wants to keep these people reacting.  Bypassing them means that they have time for a countermove or to move in a way that he does not expect and can't anticipate. 

Sun Tzu also said

"Conceal your dispositions, and your condition will remain secret, which leads to victory; show your dispositions, and your condition will become patent, which leads to defeat."

Quote

He would not say to Dockson who constantly worries about Kel being reckless that he wants to fight the hazekillers but fighting them and winning before retreating firmly establishes him as a mistborn and classifies this attack as a mistborn attack rather then one by an exceptionally powerful coinshot.

A coinshot by him or herself would be detected by a bronze seeker. Only a mistborn could enter. Use their powers, and go undetected. 

Quote

Kelseir has issues.  This is his way of looking on the bright side. 

I guess, and as I said totally get you see things the way you do. Personally I see it as Kelsier feeling satisfied with a job well done. More nobles killed. When confronted that not all of them were nobles, he responds well they associated with them, so they were traitors and deserved to die like the rest.

Quote

He gave them the tools that they needed to survive.  Also he had no way of saving the girl and making his rendezvous with Yeden without doing exactly what they did.

He did? Could you show me what he did? Honestly not trying to be obtuse. Genuinely asking. Because from what I recalled, he killed the noble. Told the villagers the noble is dead, and basically said good luck and left. The old man realized what that meant. He knew when the steel inquisition came, it would not matter what the villagers did. Had they confessed who did it, and remained good little skaa, the inquisition would still blame them and kill them all. So Kelsier set them up in an unwinnable situation. Either stay and certainly die, or run, and maybe, somehow, survive. When he next ran into the old man, Kelsier was surprised the villagers were still alive. He literally says as much. Now I get it, that's Kelsier's thing right? Radical independence. Push you into a situation and sink or swim. That's why I was confused when you said I wanted Kelsier executed like a dog. I never said that, nor called him that. What I do however think is that when the time and environment determines whether you live or die regarding Kelsier, concerns me. 

 

1. Ham was a soldier employed by the lord ruler for a time. He also worked for the occasional noble as a thug to send money to his family. He eventually joined the underground, and hid his family. Remember, Ham's contact in the army tried to convince him to join up again, and said how he was missed. 

2. Clubs was a higher up soldier employed by the lord ruler for a time. He got too old and retired and used the money he made to start up a shop to help skaa

3. Breeze was born a full blooded noble. Through various dealings and such he fell from grace and joined the thieving crews using his old contacts, pretending that his origin was actually a cover.

4. Dockson was a plantation skaa. 

 

For me, had Kelsier met any of them earlier, things would have ended very differently

1. Ham would be killed by Kelsier as a traitor to the skaa because he was either among the troops when Kelsier wanted to accomplish something, or because he happened to be on the manor when Kelsier went to get something, and killed Ham along the way

2. Clubs would be killed by Kelsier as a traitor to the skaa because he was among the troops, and relatively high up. 

3. Breeze would have been killed because Breeze was a noble. 

4. Dockson would have been abandoned with the rest after Kelsier killed the lord and left. Dockson would have had a 50/50 shot at getting away and hooking up with the rebellion. 

 

We see the guards as bad because they are part of the establishment. We love the crew because they are intrepid rebels trying to stop an evil overlord. But the guards and villagers could have just as easily been the crew, and once upon a time they were. So for all we know Kelsier killed multiple Hams, and Clubs, and Breezes. Kelsier gambled with the lives of multiple Docksons. Just we didn't get to know them yet. And we know this is true because Marsh confirms it. He has a list of names and says they have families, and they are just trying to make the best of a really crummy situation. Kelsier shrugs, and throws the paper away. 

 

Since the other comments you made I feel mis-represent what I was saying, I will try and break it down, and then I guess agree to disagree. I already stated I do not feel you can convince me, and my intention was not to convince you, but to explain how I feel about the subject. 

 

Kelsier to me has evil tendencies. Place him in an environment where he happens to point it in the general direction of the enemy and he is seen as a hero. Place him in an environment where he has to be more discerning, or understand the enemy, and he will be seen as a villain. To me this is not the equivalency of Dexter or Sherlock. Both are high functioning sociopaths that chose certain means in order to satisfy an issue, while being a productive member of society. Dexter only killed serial killers. So you can place Dexter in a myriad of situations, and he would still go through the same process. Research, locate, understand, execute. Sherlock has an ego that he is smarter than everyone else, and reduces the people around him to practically primates. Moriarty (at least on the BBC show) satisfies this by creating crimes, Sherlock satisfies this by solving them. He gets to prove he is better than everyone else, and still be a productive member of society. If you take Sherlock out and put him in a different situation, so long as he has a crime to solve, he is ok. That is one of the big dilemmas of the series. What happens to Sherlock when there aren't any crimes anymore to challenge him. Does he end up like Moriarty? Kelsier I feel is different. In that situation he is able to take actions that still result in the same goal, and it is seen as ok. But if you place him in another situation, and he still acts the same way, then he is the villain. That is the big thing for me. That is the fulcrum. Kelsier as he acts, to me, is not ok. He just happened to be in a scenario where people thought it was. Personally I think it could have been done another way, and that those deaths was a conscious decision on Kelsier's part. 

 

I understand how you feel. You have explained your view extensively and I really did read, and I really do understand. I just personally still disagree. Which is ok. I can understand what you are saying, and still disagree. To each their own. 

[Karger]

47 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

Just to clarify, I mentioned in a prior post that Kelsier could still kill the nobles and accomplish the same goal. The deaths I was saying that could be avoided, were the guards that he could have avoided. Basically I am saying Kelsier could have accomplished as much if not more from targeted assassinations on specific individuals, instead of wanton killings on his way to his goal. 

The guards are not exactly civilians.  They except their job comes with a degree of risk.  Would you prefer that he kills noble children or women (something he does not do instead largely limiting his killings to the worst of the noblitity)?  The guards themselves are likely minor nobles.  I also explained why every death has immediate tactical importance. 

51 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

Right, and the guard would not have reacted had Kelsier snuck past instead of landing right next to him. In my opinion. That to me, could have been avoided and was not necessary. I personally do not feel it aided or harmed the rebellion. I feel it was a choice on Kelsier's part to conduct his mission in the way he did. 

The attack could have been better planed to kill less people but that would have taken time and quite possibly have increased risk to Kelsier personally.  Even in modern intelligence networks and the military I do not think either of those would have been primary concerns.  Of course this does not make Kelsier's actions less bloody but bloodless revolutions are nearly always accomplished with the help of the political elite.  A third of which in this case believes it acceptable and normal behavior to rape and then kill members of the lower classes.

55 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

Sun Tzu also said

"Conceal your dispositions, and your condition will remain secret, which leads to victory; show your dispositions, and your condition will become patent, which leads to defeat."

Great point.  If Kel had not killed anyone people would wonder what was going on and investigate.  They might think hm.  There is a strange half Skaa who is rumored to have mystical powers and claims to be able to get away with anything and does not like to kill.  Kelsier's actions were successful because they were disguised as things nobles would do to each other.  If he took action nobles would not during his mistborn rounds people would pay attention.

58 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

I guess, and as I said totally get you see things the way you do. Personally I see it as Kelsier feeling satisfied with a job well done. More nobles killed. When confronted that not all of them were nobles, he responds well they associated with them, so they were traitors and deserved to die like the rest.

This is unfortunately a quite common practice when attempting to forge a ethnic or national identity in the real world.  Kelsier had to justify the deaths he believed necessary to achieve his goals.  I have already noted that he did at several points make attempts to stop needless casualties.  For example...

Quote

Breeze's team will do this march on the Garrison first, so that you can take the gates in peace

I seriously doubt many revolutionaries would do such a thing.

1 hour ago, Pathfinder said:

What I do however think is that when the time and environment determines whether you live or die regarding Kelsier, concerns me. 

It probably should.  However this is the attitude of many revolutionaries plenty of whom you might acknowledge as heroes.  Calling them monstrous is at best a dangerous oversimplification.

1 hour ago, Pathfinder said:

1. Ham would be killed by Kelsier as a traitor to the skaa because he was either among the troops when Kelsier wanted to accomplish something, or because he happened to be on the manor when Kelsier went to get something, and killed Ham along the way

Or maybe he would have been spared because Kelseir's plan was to avoid needless military conflicts and instead target the financial structure.

1 hour ago, Pathfinder said:

2. Clubs was a higher up soldier employed by the lord ruler for a time. He got too old and retired and used the money he made to start up a shop to help skaa

Clubs served on the border along with most of the military.  He also would likely have been spared.

1 hour ago, Pathfinder said:

3. Breeze was born a full blooded noble. Through various dealings and such he fell from grace and joined the thieving crews using his old contacts, pretending that his origin was actually a cover.

Breeze would have been fine if his family abandoned the city prior to the house war the way most of the nobility were expected to and did.

[Pathfinder]

1 hour ago, Karger said:

The guards are not exactly civilians.  They except their job comes with a degree of risk.  Would you prefer that he kills noble children or women (something he does not do instead largely limiting his killings to the worst of the noblitity)?  The guards themselves are likely minor nobles.  I also explained why every death has immediate tactical importance. 

Well in the guards case we do know for a fact that some were skaa with families just trying to make ends meet. Marsh had a list of the names and gave it to Kelsier. The rest I am confused? As I said, I personally do not see how that guard had to die in order for the immediate mission to be accomplished, and for the rebellion to be successful. You do, and I totally respect that. Just I do not. 

1 hour ago, Karger said:

The attack could have been better planed to kill less people but that would have taken time and quite possibly have increased risk to Kelsier personally.  Even in modern intelligence networks and the military I do not think either of those would have been primary concerns.  Of course this does not make Kelsier's actions less bloody but bloodless revolutions are nearly always accomplished with the help of the political elite.  A third of which in this case believes it acceptable and normal behavior to rape and then kill members of the lower classes.

I feel like now we are just repeating ourselves at this point. I feel like we had this discussion a few posts ago. You argued it would be more intensive and risky. I argued causing an alarm to go off and alerting the entire facility is more intensive and risky. For myself Kelsier would potentially not have even run into the hazekillers. He could have gotten in, got the atium, killed specifically targeted nobles, and got out. The only difference for me is the individuals that I feel did not have to die, would not have died. That help?

1 hour ago, Karger said:

Great point.  If Kel had not killed anyone people would wonder what was going on and investigate.  They might think hm.  There is a strange half Skaa who is rumored to have mystical powers and claims to be able to get away with anything and does not like to kill.  Kelsier's actions were successful because they were disguised as things nobles would do to each other.  If he took action nobles would not during his mistborn rounds people would pay attention.

I guess we are talking past each other, because I thought I mentioned in the last post that I never said not kill anyone. I was saying the guards didn't have to be killed. That Kelsier could have targeted specific nobles, and got the atium, and still been successful in his goals. That Kelsier chose the bloody route. The bloody route to me was not his only option. For myself it changes it from a passive action, to an active one. 

1 hour ago, Karger said:

This is unfortunately a quite common practice when attempting to forge a ethnic or national identity in the real world.  Kelsier had to justify the deaths he believed necessary to achieve his goals.  I have already noted that he did at several points make attempts to stop needless casualties.  For example...

Yeah the example you gave I believe had a specific purpose that I will go into below. So that does not read to me as Kelsier justifying deaths to achieve his goals. The quote I provided felt pretty clear to me that in Kelsier's mind killing nobles is good, and if anyone gets caught in the crossfire, ah well their problem. Marsh gets upset at him for being so cavalier. 

1 hour ago, Karger said:

I seriously doubt many revolutionaries would do such a thing.

The reason, from what I recall, was because they were concerned they would lose a lot of lives trying to take the garrison with the small amount of skaa soldiers they could organize. That by luring the Garrison out, they could take the city without a shot fired as it were. They could then man the walls and hold off the garrison soldiers because they would be in a better position. They would be defending a fortified structure rather than assaulting one. To me that only had to do with not needlessly wasting your own men on a meat grinder. 

1 hour ago, Karger said:

It probably should.  However this is the attitude of many revolutionaries plenty of whom you might acknowledge as heroes.  Calling them monstrous is at best a dangerous oversimplification.

Again, just my own reading, but I thought that was the point of Elend? Kelsier's revolution was to be an analogue to the french revolution where every rose up and killed any of the aristocracy. That led to a haphazard government, with even more people starving and dying. Elend speaks about all of this. Elend is the one that sought a peaceful transition. This is further carried out later in one of the outlying cities. I forget the name. But one of the skaa takes over, extolling the survivors virtues and killed any of the nobility and everyone associated with the nobility in the city. Ruin plays on this and pushes the leader further. It becomes the french "Reign of Terror", but on Scadrial. 

Can I ask when I stated these people were monstrous? By all means please quote me, because I genuinely cannot recall stating as much. 

1 hour ago, Karger said:

Or maybe he would have been spared because Kelseir's plan was to avoid needless military conflicts and instead target the financial structure.

Ham did work protection jobs as a thug because they are in high demand. So Ham would have been (to me) definitely killable for Kelsier.

1 hour ago, Karger said:

Clubs served on the border along with most of the military.  He also would likely have been spared.

Clubs rose relatively high in the military structure. Had Vin not stopped Kelsier, he would have run down and taken on the army. The army which had it been another time, Clubs would have been leading part of. Again (to me) definitely killable to Kelsier. 

1 hour ago, Karger said:

Breeze would have been fine if his family abandoned the city prior to the house war the way most of the nobility were expected to and did.

Kelsier killed indiscriminately prior to the house war getting in full swing. So Breeze very well could have died at Kelsier's hands. Had Elend chose to stay to try and help minimize deaths (which he did do). Had Elend not met and got involved with Vin, despite Elend helping, I do not think it is a stretch at all to think that Kelsier would have killed Elend without pause. 

[Karger]

Just now, Pathfinder said:

Just I do not. 

While things are never binary in terms of weather or not Kelsier has an option on killing them.  Killing those guards is the most immediate solution that makes logical sense.  Sure given time and a degree of luck he could potentially find an equally valid solution but that would very likely increase risk and take longer which also increases risk.

3 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

The only difference for me is the individuals that I feel did not have to die, would not have died. That help?

I think your expectations are unrealistic.  For myself I would for example kill conscripted soldiers if I had no other practical options and was either enslaved or being invaded.  I think most nations and governments would do so as well.

6 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

That by luring the Garrison out, they could take the city without a shot fired as it were. They could then man the walls and hold off the garrison soldiers because they would be in a better position. They would be defending a fortified structure rather than assaulting one. To me that only had to do with not needlessly wasting your own men on a meat grinder. 

It would also allow them to delay armed conflict while they stole the atium and used it to bribe the Garrison thus avoiding armed conflict all together.

8 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

Ruin plays on this and pushes the leader further. It becomes the french "Reign of Terror", but on Scadrial. 

Can I ask when I stated these people were monstrous? By all means please quote me, because I genuinely cannot recall stating as much. 

I am referencing the title of this thread.

8 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

Ham did work protection jobs as a thug because they are in high demand. So Ham would have been (to me) definitely killable for Kelsier.

Potentially but he also might have been spared.  Even the citizen would not have done that.

9 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

Had Vin not stopped Kelsier, he would have run down and taken on the army. The army which had it been another time, Clubs would have been leading part of. Again (to me) definitely killable to Kelsier. 

Kelseir's motivation at the time was to free his own prisoners.  Killing garrison members on his own is not something he would have done.

10 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

Had Elend chose to stay to try and help minimize deaths (which he did do).

Elend surrendering could(and I think probably would) have worked on Kelseir just as it worked on Dox who held the same views Kelseir did.

[Pathfinder]

10 minutes ago, Karger said:

While things are never binary in terms of weather or not Kelsier has an option on killing them.  Killing those guards is the most immediate solution that makes logical sense.  Sure given time and a degree of luck he could potentially find an equally valid solution but that would very likely increase risk and take longer which also increases risk.

This is why as I said I think we are talking pass each other. Totally respect that you believe Kelsier is better off killing those guys. Personally I do not. And I think I adequately related why I believe such, so I don't really see the point of repeating myself here. 

10 minutes ago, Karger said:

I think your expectations are unrealistic.  For myself I would for example kill conscripted soldiers if I had no other practical options and was either enslaved or being invaded.  I think most nations and governments would do so as well.

Except they were not conscripted. And I stated before I do not believe killing or not killing would change anything. The only difference is potentially a skaa with a family, just trying to get by, could still be alive. I also think I presented pretty well why I think Kelsier was perfectly capable of accomplishing his goals realistically without killing those guards. But I have already said it at length, and I do not see what repeating myself again would accomplish. 

10 minutes ago, Karger said:

It would also allow them to delay armed conflict while they stole the atium and used it to bribe the Garrison thus avoiding armed conflict all together.

Because if they did come into conflict, the skaa troops who were barely trained and outnumbered would be slaughtered. So they aimed to deflect the garrison till they could secure a situation where they would not have to fight them at all, thus avoiding being wiped out. Yeden, getting full of the survivor spirit, thought they could take them head on, and they got wiped out. That (to me) had nothing to do with Kelsier attempting to preserve life of the garrison soldiers who were potentially skaa. 

10 minutes ago, Karger said:

I am referencing the title of this thread.

And in this thread I stated that I believed Kelsier had monstrous tendencies that were determinate on the situation he was in. And that if he could be considered a villain in other circumstances, then that offers commentary on his character. 

10 minutes ago, Karger said:

Potentially but he also might have been spared.  Even the citizen would not have done that.

But Kelsier did do that. Multiple times. The only difference is we don't know them. I gave the example that if Kelsier did his thing years ago (so assuming he could be the same age, same powers, etc) everything the same for Kelsier but it was earlier in the time line, then those people Kelsier killed would include Ham, Clubs, and Breeze. The people he risked would have included Dockson. He would not have known them then. Ham would be working the protection gig for nobles. Protecting either individuals or supplies. Clubs would have been leading troops. Breeze would have been at nobles parties. Dockson would have been working the plantation. The only difference to me is they met Kelsier after they had a chance to change what they had been doing. They had a chance for Kelsier to get to know them as a thieving crew. Theoretically any of those skaa guards could have ended up the same. Kelsier will never know. But because they were there, they deserved to die. 

10 minutes ago, Karger said:

Kelseir's motivation at the time was to free his own prisoners.  Killing garrison members on his own is not something he would have done.

?

I think you misunderstood what scene I was speaking about. I meant the one where Yeden sent them at the army too early and they got wiped out. Kelsier wanted to jump in and kill them indiscriminately. Vin stopped him. 

10 minutes ago, Karger said:

Elend surrendering could(and I think probably would) have worked on Kelseir just as it worked on Dox who held the same views Kelseir did.

And based on my reading of Kelsier I disagree. The only reason Kelsier saved Elend (to me) was because of Vin. After he died and found out Elend is now the ruler, he says he saved Elend "against my better judgement". That says to me Kelsier felt killing all nobles is the right idea. That he went against this right idea for Vin, and then he follows with saying he regretted it. Kelsier has never struck me as the time that would hold back from finishing someone when they go "please don't kill me!". 

 

But again, that is just my reading. As I said I really feel we are just talking past each other at this point. You have stated very clearly how you feel and why. I just disagree, which is ok. I can disagree with you. I can not be convinced by you, and it be ok. 

[Karger]

6 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

Except they were not conscripted

They volunteered instead.  I am not sure how that changes anything.

8 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

. That (to me) had nothing to do with Kelsier attempting to preserve life of the garrison soldiers who were potentially skaa. 

Kelseir directly dictated that he wanted the garrison spared in his last letter.  This clearly shows that he did not thinking killing people simply because they supported the regime was a useful direction of his energies.

11 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

Kelsier wanted to jump in and kill them indiscriminately. Vin stopped him. 

For once I feel somewhat confident saying you a dead wrong.  He clearly wanted to save his surrounded and outnumbered army. 

Quote

"Kelsier!"  Vin said grabbing his arm "Kelseir what are you doing?"

He turned back to her "There are still men down there.  My men."

 

26 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

After he died and found out Elend is now the ruler, he says he saved Elend "against my better judgement". That says to me Kelsier felt killing all nobles is the right idea

We have been over this.  We have no indication that Dox and Kelseir had different views yet Dox was able to make if work with Elend when he needed to.

[Pathfinder]

41 minutes ago, Karger said:

They volunteered instead.  I am not sure how that changes anything.

Because it is people just trying to make the best of a bad situation. They weren't representing the establishment. They weren't running around with signs going "go lord ruler". Some of them just did it to make a buck, either for themselves, or their families. 

Quote

Kelseir directly dictated that he wanted the garrison spared in his last letter.  This clearly shows that he did not thinking killing people simply because they supported the regime was a useful direction of his energies.

Respectfully I disagree. The idea was not face the garrison directly. By the time they got back, since they were mercenaries, they would either have the money to bribe them, thereby owning the army and allowing them to hold luthadel better, or from a position of power defending fortifications. I really genuinely don't recall Kelsier ever saying he wanted the garrison to be spared so as to reduce the loss of lives on the garrison's side. His own side? Sure! Of course he wouldn't want his own troops to get massacred. But I don't recall reading anything altruistic in that. But thats just me. 

Quote

For once I feel somewhat confident saying you a dead wrong.  He clearly wanted to save his surrounded and outnumbered army. 

Right. I never said otherwise. I said he jumped in to kill indiscriminately the enemy. If that happened years ago, Clubs and potentially Ham (unless he was on a guard job), would have been among the soldiers attacking the skaa. Had Kelsier ran down there, he would have killed them. Go back however many years, and Clubs and Ham would have been among the Lord Ruler's troops in that instance. Kelsier would have tried to kill them. 

Quote

We have been over this.  We have no indication that Dox and Kelseir had different views yet Dox was able to make if work with Elend when he needed to.

Kelsier said he expected Breeze and even Ham to be lead along wherever the wind may blow, but he was surprised about Dockson. That Dockson would be ruled by such a person. Dockson hated Elend and did all he could to avoid him. If you give me a little bit I can bring up the quotes. 

 

"Elend, nobody expects you to be Kelsier"

"Oh?" he said "That's why Dockson doesn't like me. He hates noblemen; it's obvious in the way that he talks, the way he acts. I don't know if I really blame him, considering the life he's known. Regardless, he doesn't think I should be king. he thinks that a skaa should be in my place - or, even better, Kelsier. They all think that"

"That's nonsense, Elend"

"Really? And if Kelsier still lived, would I be king?

Vin paused

 

 

The quote above is pretty big to me, But this is the big one I was thinking of:

 

Dockson looked away "I know that. But.....well, everytime I talk to him, i see Kelsier standing over his shoulder, shaking his head at me. Do you know how long Kell and I dreamed of toppling the Lord Ruler? The other crewmembers, they thought Kelsier's plan was a new found passion - something that came to him in the Pits. But it was older than that, Vin. Far older. We always hated the nobility, Kell and I. When we were youths, planning our first jobs, we wanted to be rich - but we also wanted to hurt them. Hurt them for taking from us things they had no right to. My love...Kelsier's mother.... every coin we stole, every nobleman we left dead in an alleyway - this was our way of waging war. Our way of punishing them"

Vin sat quietly. It was these kinds of stories, these memories of a haunted past, that had always made her just a little uncomfortable with Kelsier - and with the person he had been training her to become. It was this sentiment that gave her pause, even when her instincts whispered that she should go and exact retribution on Straff and Cett with knives in the knight

Dockson held some of that same hardness. Kell and Dox weren't evil men, but there was an edge of vengefullness to them. Oppression had changed them in wasy that no amount of peace, reformation, or recompense could redeem. 

Dockson shook his head "And we put one of them on the throne. I can't help but think that Kell would be angry with me for letting Elend rule, no matter how good a man he is"

"kelsier changed at the end" Vin said quietly "You said it yourself, Dox. Did you know that he saved Elend's life?

Dockson turned, frowning "When?"

"On the last day" Vin said "During the fight with the Inquisitor. Kell protected Elend, who came looking for me"

"Must have thought he was one of the prisoners"

Vin shook her head "He knew who Elend was, and knew that I loved him. In the end, Kelsier was willing to admit that a good man was worth protecting, no matter who his parents were"

"i find that hard to accept, Vin"

"Why?"

Dockson met her eyes "Because if I accept that Elend bears no guilty for what his people did to mine, then I must admit to being a monster for the things that I did to them"

Vin shivered. In those eyes, she saw the truth behind Dockson's transformation. She sazw the death of his laughter. She saw the guilt. The murders

"I can find little joy in this government Vin" Dockson said quietly "Because I know what we did to create it. The thing is, I'd do it all again. I tell myself it's because I believe in skaa freedom. i still lie awake at nights, however, quietly satisfied for what we've done to our former rulers. Their society undermined, their god dead. Now they know"

Edited January 27, 2020 by Pathfinder

[Karger]

51 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

1 hour ago, Karger said:

 

Because it is people just trying to make the best of a bad situation. They weren't representing the establishment. They weren't running around with signs going "go lord ruler". Some of them just did it to make a buck, either for themselves, or their families. 

As apposed to being conscripted and having literally no choice?

52 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

Right. I never said otherwise. I said he jumped in to kill indiscriminately the enemy. If that happened years ago, Clubs and potentially Ham (unless he was on a guard job), would have been among the soldiers attacking the skaa. Had Kelsier ran down there, he would have killed them. Go back however many years, and Clubs and Ham would have been among the Lord Ruler's troops in that instance. Kelsier would have tried to kill them. 

They same could be said of SA spoilers

Spoiler

Kaladin with the listeners

 

[Pathfinder]

36 minutes ago, Karger said:

As apposed to being conscripted and having literally no choice?

Because to me, it would be even worse Kelsier killing people who were conscripted without any say, and Kelsier not caring about it. Killing them anyway. So I thought to clarify it was their choice. Their reasoning could be "pure" but they chose. I was helping you in a way.

Quote

They same could be said of SA spoilers

  Reveal hidden contents

Kaladin with the listeners

 

Yep, and how did he feel once he got to know them? Once he was confronted with their nature? 

Edited January 27, 2020 by Pathfinder

[Karger]

7 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

Yep, and how did he feel once he got to know them? Once he was confronted with their nature? 

I am not sure that Kelsier being a psychopath makes him an inherently worse person.

[Pathfinder]

18 hours ago, Karger said:

I am not sure that Kelsier being a psychopath makes him an inherently worse person.

It was not my intention to say that. My point was those troops could have just as easily contained people like Ham and Clubs, and that the only reason they weren't is the time period. The situation. Had the environment been different, Kelsier could have been killing Ham and Clubs. It is because of the circumstance that Kelsier got to meet Ham and Clubs when they had left their past occupations, and get to know them. It is because of that, that they did not end up on Marsh's list. A list that Kelsier barely gave a glance and then threw away. 

Edited January 28, 2020 by Pathfinder

[Karger]

1 hour ago, Pathfinder said:

It was not my intention to say that. My point was those troops could have just as easily contained people like Ham and Clubs, and that the only reason they weren't is the time period. The situation. Had the environment been different, Kelsier could have been killing Ham and Clubs. It is because of the circumstance that Kelsier got to meet Ham and Clubs when they had left their past occupations, and get to know them. It is because of that, that they did not end up on Marsh's list. A list that Kelsier barely gave a glance and then threw away. 

If the revolution had been lead by someone like the citizen the entire cast would be dead except for Dox.  I find this a much more likely occurrence given my knowledge of human history so I am going to thank heaven for what you might see as small favors and be glad Kelseir was in charge.

[Pathfinder]

20 minutes ago, Karger said:

If the revolution had been lead by someone like the citizen the entire cast would be dead except for Dox.  I find this a much more likely occurrence given my knowledge of human history so I am going to thank heaven for what you might see as small favors and be glad Kelseir was in charge.

Totally respect your thoughts. I agree the citizen lacks the necessary skills and charisma to organize an effective rebellion. I just disagree that Kelsier has to kill the guards because of who he is, and that the guards death were necessary for the rebellion to be successful. I see them as separate things. But I have already stated as much ad nauseam, so no point going into it again. I respect how you feel about Kelsier. To each their own. 

[Karger]

1 minute ago, Pathfinder said:

ad nauseam

Is that a real term?  Genuinely asking.

Edited January 28, 2020 by Karger

[Pathfinder]

10 minutes ago, Karger said:

Is that a real term?  Genuinely asking.

No problem. yes it is. 

ad nauseam - referring to something that has been done or repeated so often that it has become annoying or tiresome

(to clarify not meaning me repeating it was due to me being annoyed with you. I mean me writing it once again is going to annoy everyone else because of how many times I have written it)