Concerning Amaram's honor...

[king of nowhere]

thats kinda the exact definition of being dishonorable.

well, it's a problem of semantics here. maybe i should call him dishonorable but kindhearted. the fact that he prefers to treat people well when given the chance do not qualify him for being honorable if he also is willing to betray people when it is fit, but it should still count for something in differentiating him from a cold-blooded sociopath who only cares about himself. I think it is clear that amaram definitely prefers to do the right thing if he feels he can, he's not just faking for public relations. there's definitely something good inside him and I can't think of a really appropriate definition.

He is, of course, still an assassin.

 

As for a good example of how someone can be a leader in a realistic world and still be honorable while not getting people killed for his naiveness, I think Elend in the hero of ages was doing it pretty well.

[Pathfinder]

well, it's a problem of semantics here. maybe i should call him dishonorable but kindhearted. the fact that he prefers to treat people well when given the chance do not qualify him for being honorable if he also is willing to betray people when it is fit, but it should still count for something in differentiating him from a cold-blooded sociopath who only cares about himself. I think it is clear that amaram definitely prefers to do the right thing if he feels he can, he's not just faking for public relations. there's definitely something good inside him and I can't think of a really appropriate definition.

He is, of course, still an assassin.

 

As for a good example of how someone can be a leader in a realistic world and still be honorable while not getting people killed for his naiveness, I think Elend in the hero of ages was doing it pretty well.

This inquiry completely honest and genuine, can you reference when he is a good person? It has been a little while since I have read the book and my memory is just recalling Sadeus's comments about what kind of man Amaram really is, how he treated Kaladin, how he reacted when Adolin was in danger and etc. I am not saying what you stated is not true, or asking you to prove anything. Just I realize my memory is a little hazy on the subject, and it is focusing on the biggest, or more frequently discussed moments. So this will help me get a better picture of the man. 

[Moogle]

As for a good example of how someone can be a leader in a realistic world and still be honorable while not getting people killed for his naiveness, I think Elend in the hero of ages was doing it pretty well.

 

I don't think Elend was ever really in a position where his 'honor' would have been tested. I suppose there was that bit where the city ousted him, and by abiding by their wishes it shows he can follow the rules... but a short time later he took the throne back by force and basically became a dictator, which sort of spoils the effect.

 

Elend was never in a situation where, for example, he had to choose between giving a lerasium bead to a dying child to save their life with vs giving the lerasium bead to a Feruchemist under his control and getting a second Lord Ruler to defeat Ruin's Inquisitor's with.

 

He was a 'good person', but I don't think he was really ever in many hard situations I can point to and say 'he took the honorable path of action'. Dalinar, for example, had the part where he gave up his Shardblade (though I could quibble on just how little he was losing by noting he gained thousands of men and a Surgebinder in exchange to shore up his half-dead army, the basic point stands).

 

Maybe I'm forgetting something, though?

Edited October 3, 2014 by Moogle

[Pathfinder]

I don't think Elend was ever really in a position where his 'honor' would have been tested. I suppose there was that bit where the city ousted him, and by abiding by their wishes it shows he can follow the rules... but a short time later he took the throne back by force and basically became a dictator, which sort of spoils the effect.

 

Elend was never in a situation where, for example, he had to choose between giving a lerasium bead to a dying child to save their life with vs giving the lerasium bead to a Feruchemist under his control and getting a second Lord Ruler to defeat Ruin's Inquisitor's with.

 

He was a 'good person', but I don't think he was really ever in many hard situations I can point to and say 'he took the honorable path of action'. Dalinar, for example, had the part where he gave up his Shardblade (though I could quibble on just how little he was losing by noting he gained thousands of men and a Surgebinder in exchange to shore up his half-dead army, the basic point stands).

 

Maybe I'm forgetting something, though?

Well I feel with Elend, we are very spoiled. We know all his history, we see in his head to know the reasoning for all his actions, and we see the internal struggle with every hard choice he has to make. Finally he also has the luxury of knowing for a fact he is working against an evil that intends to destroy the world and all he loves. Amaram could POTENTIALLY be the same, but we do not have any of this information. We know he works with a secret organization, but we do not know the full goals of the organization, what they truly want to accomplish, and if there are any real facts they draw upon to back any of that up. We have plenty of conjecture, but we do not know enough. From an outside perspective, with very little information, Elend could be seen as identical to Amaram. Just based on the information we have so far, in my opinion, it is very doubtful to be revealed that he is in the same stead as Elend. 

 

edit: to further clarify, for instance we know they want to bring the heralds back by bringing about a desolation. as far we know perhaps they have factual information that by bringing about it earlier, it prevents or forces Odiums hand which ultimately leads to defeating Odium. extremely far fetched, and I do not think will happen, but just to illustrate my point

Edited October 3, 2014 by Pathfinder

[Moogle]

I'll agree there - Amaram is a religious fanatic seeking to bring a Desolation to the world. It's hard to find a more villainous person in Stormlight. Even Sadeas wasn't as irritatingly evil as Amaram there.

 

I also find it irritating that he's used as an example of a person with an 'ends justify the means' philosophy. The problem isn't his philosophy, the problem is his goals and the fact that he values human life so little (losing 90% of humanity for the off-chance of the Heralds returning is worth it to him - that's not a problem with utilitarianism, that's a problem with his utility function being messed up).

Edited October 3, 2014 by Moogle

[Colby Jack he/him]

Amaram struck me as a self-righteous man with delusions of grandeur who envisions himself as the hero and everybody else as an obstacle in his way to save the world from the apocolypse.

Just as Kaladin blames himself for every splinter or sprained ankle, Amaram accepts no blame for his actions. As far as he's concern, all of his actions are just, even when they are clearly not, and likes to pretend that all the people he's harmed and killed in his quest for power are merely sacrifices for the greater good. In his eyes, he must think Dalinar and Kaladin both as stubborn and inflexible fools to have denounced him when they did.

In many ways, Amaram is the perfect foil to Kaladin. Oh, he may fancy himself as noble and kind and brave, but he's simply too weak of character to be the man he wants to be. Instead, he let outside forces dictate his actions and lead him down a terrible path. He is every bit as ruthless and as disillusional as the highlords he pretends to be superior to. Whatever grand destiny is looming over his future, I hope it ends with a brutal and drawn-out execution.

 

Just kill this bastard before he somehow make things even worse.

[king of nowhere]

This inquiry completely honest and genuine, can you reference when he is a good person? It has been a little while since I have read the book and my memory is just recalling Sadeus's comments about what kind of man Amaram really is, how he treated Kaladin, how he reacted when Adolin was in danger and etc. I am not saying what you stated is not true, or asking you to prove anything. Just I realize my memory is a little hazy on the subject, and it is focusing on the biggest, or more frequently discussed moments. So this will help me get a better picture of the man. 

I don't remember those parts so well also, but the fact that he spared kaladin when it would have been easier to kill him, and the way he remarks that losing dalinar's friendship has been a hard price, make me think he is genuine on that. I wouldn't argue he is a tragic misguided villain, like taravangian is, but i do get the impression he cares for being good when he can.

 

I don't think Elend was ever really in a position where his 'honor' would have been tested. I suppose there was that bit where the city ousted him, and by abiding by their wishes it shows he can follow the rules... but a short time later he took the throne back by force and basically became a dictator, which sort of spoils the effect.

Elend was never in a situation where, for example, he had to choose between giving a lerasium bead to a dying child to save their life with vs giving the lerasium bead to a Feruchemist under his control and getting a second Lord Ruler to defeat Ruin's Inquisitor's with.

That's pretty much the point of being a realistic leader realistically honorable in a realistic context; you have to compromise somewhere. You can't afford to not make any sacrifice or you'd doom your people. BUt you can't afford to treat people as pawns*. you have to find a middle ground between being good and being efficient, and that's what i think elend did right. anyway I specified i was referring to hero of ages. the events of the siege of luthadel were in well of ascension, and I believe he did a terrible job of it there by erring way too much on naiveness. what he should have done there would have been to set vin to kill straff, after telling his generals that yes, straff left orders that if he was killed they should attack, but that equaled to suicide, while if they instead joined the city they would be treated as mercenary troops and keep their ranks. If they nevertheless attack the city faithfully with the late straff orders, then just kill them and make the same proposal to their underlings. and to their underlings too, until you find someone reasonable who will call back the attack. And then, after the enemy armies are routed or loyal to you, then accept the decission fo the council and step back from kinghood. That I would have called a reasonable compromise between being good and being practical.

And if he had ever considered for a moment to give up a bead of lerasium to save the life of a single person and the book had let him get away with it I would have thrown the book out of a window.

 

*well, you probably can and should treat people like pawns, but not in the stereotyped let's-sacrifice-this-for-we-have-reserves way, but the way a chessmaster actually do, by considering every pawn as important (games at  high level are won and lost for advantages smaller than a pawn) and not sacrificing it unless it's for a really, really good reason.

[AerionBFII he/him]

In WOK i was conflicted, I was furious as Kal is my favorite character but i partially agreed with him i saw his actions as more pragmatic than evil but during WOR i saw when he and Shallan met the way he summoned his shardblade and it seemed he was just greedy for power.

 

 

Amaram's methods are all about the ends justifying the means he believes only he can help the world but he is to arrogant to see that he is it's greatest threat. In trying to return the Voidbringers simply to satisfy his hard on for religion and to reinstate the church. Where as the Ideals he claims to strive for are all about the means justifying the end. "Journey before destination."

 

He has had plenty of chances to better himself yet he chooses to cling to his vanity and pride. The best thing to come out of this book is now everybody knows what a liar and a thief he is.

[kaellok he/him]

This inquiry completely honest and genuine, can you reference when he is a good person? It has been a little while since I have read the book and my memory is just recalling Sadeus's comments about what kind of man Amaram really is, how he treated Kaladin, how he reacted when Adolin was in danger and etc. I am not saying what you stated is not true, or asking you to prove anything. Just I realize my memory is a little hazy on the subject, and it is focusing on the biggest, or more frequently discussed moments. So this will help me get a better picture of the man. 

We don't necessarily see any of this in screen ourselves, but we do see Dalinar talking about how he is a good, just, honorable person.  We see Kaladin as a child practically worshipping him for being good, just, and honorable.  You can't spread a lie that far around the land and have it work that effectively without there being a decent amount of truth to it.  And, just because we don't ever see him doing good things doesn't mean he doesn't do them--it just means we're supposed to not like the guy.  I mean, really, he's a pretty terrible person, as well as a hypocrite.

[Pathfinder]

I don't remember those parts so well also, but the fact that he spared kaladin when it would have been easier to kill him, and the way he remarks that losing dalinar's friendship has been a hard price, make me think he is genuine on that. I wouldn't argue he is a tragic misguided villain, like taravangian is, but i do get the impression he cares for being good when he can.

I just re-read the scene and the only reason Amaram spared Kaladin was because Kal literally had just saved his life. I feel Amaram puts up an act, one that he may even try to convince himself of, of being honorable, but as Kal pointed out in that scene, Amaram does it for himself

 

 

We don't necessarily see any of this in screen ourselves, but we do see Dalinar talking about how he is a good, just, honorable person.  We see Kaladin as a child practically worshipping him for being good, just, and honorable.  You can't spread a lie that far around the land and have it work that effectively without there being a decent amount of truth to it.  And, just because we don't ever see him doing good things doesn't mean he doesn't do them--it just means we're supposed to not like the guy.  I mean, really, he's a pretty terrible person, as well as a hypocrite.

But there is a scene where Sadeus comments how he knows the REAL Amaram, and any good actions and such are just for show. Good actions by themselves does not make a good person. A multi-millionaire can SEEM good by donating money to an orphanage, when the reason is just good publicity, while the reality is his company is what made those children lose their families to begin with. All that shows is Amaram is a REALLY good PR man for himself. 

[Moogle]

But there is a scene where Sadeus comments how he knows the REAL Amaram, and any good actions and such are just for show.

 

Sadeas is not a particularly good judge of character (he thought Dalinar was going insane, and his final speech to Adolin was just urgh). Amaram fooled everyone else, why couldn't he have fooled Sadeas too?

 

Good actions may not make a good person... but if he's doing good actions, then do I really care? Depends what else he's doing. In this case, Amaram is a religious zealot trying to bring an apocalypse (despite any good intentions he may have about bringing back the Heralds), so I hope he goes out like Sadeas.

Edited October 6, 2014 by Moogle

[Pathfinder]

Good actions may not make a good person... but if he's doing good actions, then do I really care? Depends what else he's doing. In this case, Amaram is a religious zealot trying to bring an apocalypse (despite any good intentions he may have about bringing back the Heralds), so I hope he goes out like Sadeas.

Lol you might if the good actions are a cover for murdering your family and friends for instance, but otherwise I agree lol. Sadeus not being the most reliable of character witnesses, and the wanting the apocalypse to happen kinda trumping any good deeds we are on the same page on lol. 

[king of nowhere]

I just re-read the scene and the only reason Amaram spared Kaladin was because Kal literally had just saved his life. I feel Amaram puts up an act, one that he may even try to convince himself of, of being honorable, but as Kal pointed out in that scene, Amaram does it for himself

Yes, totally true.

But if amaram is trying to convince himself of being honorable, then it is part of him. Some people argue that we are what remains once we're stripped of our self-illusions, but I believe instead that what we think we are, and especially what we want to be and what we strive to be, are an important part of that.

So, amaram is honorable, and amaram is a treacherous sob at the same time. It's not a real ccontradiction. people have many facets, and they can be at odd with each other.

 

By the way, I hate to sound like I'm playing the contrarian. the fact it, sometimes in a discussion there are two opposite positions and both held truth, and in that case I feel both need to be represented, and so I tend to argue for the side that seem in numerical inferiority. If more people had came in this thread to claim amaram is a poor misunderstood sould thrust into a difficult position, I'd be arguing on the opposing side, just because I feel the need to balance the two position. I totally agree with everything you say, I simply think that there is also another side of the issue. I write this because I tought that maybe you are like me, and we are arguing around in circles when we actually both think the same thing.

[Pathfinder]

Yes, totally true.

But if amaram is trying to convince himself of being honorable, then it is part of him. Some people argue that we are what remains once we're stripped of our self-illusions, but I believe instead that what we think we are, and especially what we want to be and what we strive to be, are an important part of that.

So, amaram is honorable, and amaram is a treacherous sob at the same time. It's not a real ccontradiction. people have many facets, and they can be at odd with each other.

 

By the way, I hate to sound like I'm playing the contrarian. the fact it, sometimes in a discussion there are two opposite positions and both held truth, and in that case I feel both need to be represented, and so I tend to argue for the side that seem in numerical inferiority. If more people had came in this thread to claim amaram is a poor misunderstood sould thrust into a difficult position, I'd be arguing on the opposing side, just because I feel the need to balance the two position. I totally agree with everything you say, I simply think that there is also another side of the issue. I write this because I tought that maybe you are like me, and we are arguing around in circles when we actually both think the same thing.

Lol I am glad you elaborated on that, because honestly I tend to do the same, and I was just about to reply, but given this new understanding, i shake your hand and tip my hat to you sir 

[jons]

Wow this discussion has certainly taken on a life of its own.

 

We simply do not know enough about Amaram's past to say one way or the other regarding his true character.  Is it all an act?  Is there some other reason why he acts so honorable when all evidence points to the fact that is in fact not honorable?  Almost all of our information is heresay, second hand information about Amaram's reputation.   

 

I think we can all agree that Amaram has a widely believed reputation as being honorable.  

At some point in his past, he was perhaps a more diabolical and/or ruthless person than he is presented in tWoK and WoR.  We don't have a POV perspective to know anything specific.

 

Knowing how Sanderson textures and foreshadows larger plot and character developments in his books, this rich background that he's given Amaram has to lead somewhere.  Hopefully we'll get more information about Amaram and his past and more information about the group is he involved in. 

[Pathfinder]

I do feel it would be an interesting twist, if we find out Amaram IS actually like Elend, just while in the mistborn trilogy, we got to know him from his perspective, in the stormlight archives we learn of Amaram from EVERYONE ELSE'S perspective. I do not think this is true, and still believe Amaram is dishonorable, but I think it could be a cool twist. 

[Shardcellist]

First off, as King of Nowhere so accurately described, I am not a supporter of Amaram; consider this the Assuredness Movement of Amaram's character. I do, however, see him as less evil than we are prone to depict him (not surprisingly, as the way the Stormlight Archive has been written is designed to make us see him as a terrible person).

 

That being said, I will now take the position of the Devil's Advocate.

 

I don't think Amaram is any worse than Taravangian or any of the other secret societies that seem to proliferate across Roshar. He is only more misguided. All of these, I believe, are intended to portray a Destination before Journey mindset to contrast with our protagonists. One of my biggest peeves with how these characters are considered is that most don't consider Taravangian to be an inherently bad man, just one doing whatever is necessary to save the world. Taravangian must also be misguided also, otherwise Hoid would be helping him, not influencing the setup of a rival group of Radiants to divide Roshar before the Desolation even arrives. Amaram is misguided even more, but he acts in accordance with the truth from his perspective to do what is best for the world.

 

The Sons of Honor, while being Vorin extremists trying to return the Hierarchical levels of Vorin dominance to eastern Roshar, are also acting according to Gavilar's visions. They know that the Everstorm is coming; there is nothing they can do to stop it. They have just swapped the cause and effect and are trying to bring the Desolation in order to return the Heralds, whom they likely view as being able to save the world from both the Desolation and its current problems and "heresies." (They view the Almighty as being dead only in the hearts of men.) While we know that Honor is Splintered and Vorinism is a sham, while Odium is the real threat, they see only the Voidbringers, whom the Heralds will destroy.

 

Amaram acts reprehensibly at times, but as a destination-before-journey character, he is concerned primarily for the end goal. In Kaladin's case, it was a choice between giving a young, untrained spearman a set of Shards versus giving them to a trained lighteyed general that was informed that the Desolation was coming. While it was a terrible deed, it is understandable (to an extent) under this light. 

 

Summary: Amaram's biggest issues are his Destination-before-Journey mindset and his misguided information. While he is a reprehensible character, he seems to honestly do what he feels is best for Roshar; our problem is that we need to understand the information that he has been given before we judge his actions.

 

(I'd put more, but I have homework to do. Now, if only my vocabulary was based off of the Sunmaker's campaign or the Silver Kingdoms instead of eighteenth century imperialism...)

[Seonid he/him]

Amaram acts reprehensibly at times, but as a destination-before-journey character, he is concerned primarily for the end goal. In Kaladin's case, it was a choice between giving a young, untrained spearman a set of Shards versus giving them to a trained lighteyed general that was informed that the Desolation was coming. While it was a terrible deed, it is understandable (to an extent) under this light.

 

His reasoning doesn't even go that far. He is willing to let Kaladin keep the Shards. What he's worried about is that nobody will believe the story of Kaladin giving them up, and will believe that Amaram stole them, instead. He's acting to preserve his reputation.

 

Now, it is possible that his reputation is all-important for his overall plan, that for his purposes (the salvation of Roshar through the return of the Heralds) being seen to be honorable is even more important than actually being honorable. We don't know his overall plan, so we don't have enough information to make a final judgement. It is possible that his decision will turn out to be the right one according to his perspective, and that he just was missing all-important information that would have let him know it was wrong.

 

On the other hand, it is also possible that he was just being selfish, and all of his justifications are groundless.

 

Without knowing all of the information he was working under, we can't know.

 

What we do know enough to tell, however, is that he was completely wrong to do what he did, because we have relevant information that he did not. (Specifically, that his perception of the relationship between Desolations and Heralds is wrong, and therefore his secret society is not able to deliver a greater good that otherwise might have been able to justify his actions.)

[king of nowhere]

His reasoning doesn't even go that far. He is willing to let Kaladin keep the Shards. What he's worried about is that nobody will believe the story of Kaladin giving them up, and will believe that Amaram stole them, instead. He's acting to preserve his reputation.

Do we have proof of that?

because i was under the impression that he never wanted to leave him the shards anyway. it's not like he was risking to pass for a  thief: if kaladin gave the shards to one of his friends, no one would accuse amaram of stealing the shards from a darkeye soldier to give them to another darkeye soldier. it make no sense.

although, it is possible he may have changed his actions if kaladin would have given him answers that touched the right spots, that stoked enough his conscience to pull him away from the plan he conceived in cold blood.

 

maybe he was hoping to hear that kaladin charged the shardbearer for glory and to win shards, so he'd have felt less guilty.

maybe he hoped to hear that kaladin charged the shardbearer to protect his commander, because he was a good commander, in which case he wouldn't have been able to bring himself to kill him and wouldn't have to feel the guilt. maybe he was impressed by kaladin's fighting skill and wanted to probe if he could have been rectruited in case he managed to get the shards. who knows? maybe we'll get the answer in the future, but i don't think amaram is important enough to delve so deeply into his story.

[Pathfinder]

Do we have proof of that?

because i was under the impression that he never wanted to leave him the shards anyway. it's not like he was risking to pass for a  thief: if kaladin gave the shards to one of his friends, no one would accuse amaram of stealing the shards from a darkeye soldier to give them to another darkeye soldier. it make no sense.

although, it is possible he may have changed his actions if kaladin would have given him answers that touched the right spots, that stoked enough his conscience to pull him away from the plan he conceived in cold blood.

 

maybe he was hoping to hear that kaladin charged the shardbearer for glory and to win shards, so he'd have felt less guilty.

maybe he hoped to hear that kaladin charged the shardbearer to protect his commander, because he was a good commander, in which case he wouldn't have been able to bring himself to kill him and wouldn't have to feel the guilt. maybe he was impressed by kaladin's fighting skill and wanted to probe if he could have been rectruited in case he managed to get the shards. who knows? maybe we'll get the answer in the future, but i don't think amaram is important enough to delve so deeply into his story.

Kaladin :"You could haved asked me for them! Storm you!"

 

Amaram: "And when news got around camp? Tha you'd killed the Shardbearer but I had the Shards? Nobody would believe that you'd given them up of your own free choice. Besides, son. You wouldn't have let me keep them. You'd have changed your mind. in a day or two, you'd have wanted the wealth and prestige - others would convince you of it. You'd have demanded that I return them to you. it took hours to decide, but Restares is right - this is what must be done. For the good of Alethkar."

 

So in my opinion that is the proof he was referring to. Also while I type that, I realized in a way it shows all the more his dishonor, because is it not said we see most in others what we see in ourselves? What does it say about Amaram that he so readily expects that Kaladin would be deceitful and power hungry? Because he thinks that way himself. I admit conjecture, but I think that is a pretty good sign

[Moogle]

I don't think Amaram is any worse than Taravangian or any of the other secret societies that seem to proliferate across Roshar. He is only more misguided. All of these, I believe, are intended to portray a Destination before Journey mindset to contrast with our protagonists. One of my biggest peeves with how these characters are considered is that most don't consider Taravangian to be an inherently bad man, just one doing whatever is necessary to save the world. Taravangian must also be misguided also, otherwise Hoid would be helping him, not influencing the setup of a rival group of Radiants to divide Roshar before the Desolation even arrives. Amaram is misguided even more, but he acts in accordance with the truth from his perspective to do what is best for the world.

 

A few comments here:

• Hoid told Dalinar he'd let Roshar burn to get what he wanted. I wouldn't use who Hoid is helping as an indicator of "goodness", as he is also an "ends justify the means" person.
• You're equivocating Taravangian and Amaram's positions, here. They're both "doing what they think is best for the world", but the huge difference is that Taravangian wants to save lives (and likely has the ability to do so because of super-intelligence), and Amaram wants to bring back the Vorin church (and is completely wrong about what his actions will do because he's not smart enough to know how the Heralds work and is a religious fanatic).  One of these two positions is obviously preferable to the other, and that should influence our perceptions of the characters.

 

The Sons of Honor, while being Vorin extremists trying to return the Hierarchical levels of Vorin dominance to eastern Roshar, are also acting according to Gavilar's visions. They know that the Everstorm is coming; there is nothing they can do to stop it. They have just swapped the cause and effect and are trying to bring the Desolation in order to return the Heralds, whom they likely view as being able to save the world from both the Desolation and its current problems and "heresies." (They view the Almighty as being dead only in the hearts of men.) While we know that Honor is Splintered and Vorinism is a sham, while Odium is the real threat, they see only the Voidbringers, whom the Heralds will destroy.

 

We have no evidence I can recall that the Sons of Honor knew the Everstorm was inevitable. Amaram believes they caused it, not that they sped up its arrival.

 

Restares, a prominent Son of Honor, was likely trying to get Gavilar assassinated (or so Gavilar believed). I wouldn't be so sure they're operating based on Gavilar's visions. All signs point to Gavilar becoming more honorable towards the end, which does not fit in with how the Sons of Honor operate. They'd probably want to remove him.

 

Amaram acts reprehensibly at times, but as a destination-before-journey character, he is concerned primarily for the end goal. In Kaladin's case, it was a choice between giving a young, untrained spearman a set of Shards versus giving them to a trained lighteyed general that was informed that the Desolation was coming. While it was a terrible deed, it is understandable (to an extent) under this light.

 

Where do I begin on this one...

• Stealing Kaladin's Shards has a risk of Amaram being outed as a horrible person (tons of people even witnessed him doing it). The expected value of damage to Amaram's reputation is above zero.
• This "untrained spearman" literally soloed a Shardbearer with amazing skill, so there's a good chance he'd be better with the Blade after training than Amaram.
• The Desolation was years away, during which time the spearman could have trained (so being untrained is pretty irrelevant).
• As Amaram is more important than a regular old soldier from his organization's perspective (he has secret information/plans to be brought about), putting him in battle rather than the soldier is stupid. You'd want the soldier to be stuck in battle using the Shards, while Amaram does safer things. Generals don't fight battles, they direct them.

Amaram taking the Shards from Kaladin seems pretty stupid from our (admittedly limited) known information. The gains are minimal at best, and the potential losses are huge.

 

Also, minor quibble: journey before destination doesn't mean that you're primarily focused on the end goal. The things you do on the "journey" are also part of the "end goal". If your goal is to save lives, and you kill 10 people to save 1, then you're not really doing things sanely.

 

Summary: Amaram's biggest issues are his Destination-before-Journey mindset and his misguided information. While he is a reprehensible character, he seems to honestly do what he feels is best for Roshar; our problem is that we need to understand the information that he has been given before we judge his actions.

 

Amaram's biggest problem isn't his Destination-before-Journey mindset: it's that he sucks at properly being Destination-before-Journey, and his "destination" is something most of us should disagree with being a good thing.

 

Amaram is not clear-thinking:

Amaram had, somewhat foolishly, expected that all of the Heralds would look Alethi.

 

The Herald’s dark eyes were, of course, some kind of disguise.

 

He is blinded by his biases and preconceptions (darkeyes = disguise, really?). If he is not able to think clearly, obviously he's going to mess up and be a horrible person. (If you're following an ends-justify-the-means philosophy and can't do proper cost-benefit calculations, the results are... bad.)

 

Because he's not clear-thinking, he's unable to get proper information, which leads to the problem where he's pointlessly starting a Desolation. (Where is his proof that starting a Desolation brings the Heralds? Most all of history has been lost, and trusting the Vorin church to have a clear view of history just shows how he's unable to think clearly.)

 

Amaram can't even follow his own philosophy: he let Kaladin live, when he should not have. If he was willing to be competent and ruthless, I might have some sort of grudging respect for him, but he comes across as an idiot and wishy-washy. If Stormlight is trying to make some sort of statement on journey-before-destination and using Amaram as a counterexample (based on Kaladin's PoV, I think it is), then all I can say is that Amaram is a strawman. Amaram is a disappointment in many ways.

Edited October 9, 2014 by Moogle

[kaellok he/him]

 

Summary: Amaram's biggest issues are his Destination-before-Journey mindset and his misguided information. While he is a reprehensible character, he seems to honestly do what he feels is best for Roshar; our problem is that we need to understand the information that he has been given before we judge his actions.

 

Snipped most, bolded what is relevant.  Why do we need to understand more before we judge him?  We know that he has murdered innocent people in order to further his own goals and plans.  We don't really need to know what those goals or plans are to judge him.  From what I recall, he even put a lot of care and thought into the action before doing so, so it's not like he thought it was something as simple as eating breakfast or getting dressed for the day. 

 

If you mean that we need to know more before we judge him in the way that Moogle is, well, that I can agree with--but we've had all we needed to know just in WoK about how he's foolish, wrong-headed, and evil.  Sometimes evil actions are required, but Mr. T at least makes a case for it and doesn't shy away from the reality of their repugnance (or necessity as he sees it); Amaram seems to almost think that the actions are not evil if they are necessary (for his plans).  That, more than anything, is the difference between the two, and why one is an interesting villain and the other is rather boring and flat.  

[king of nowhere]

• Stealing Kaladin's Shards has a risk of Amaram being outed as a horrible person (tons of people even witnessed him doing it). The expected value of damage to Amaram's reputation is above zero.
• This "untrained spearman" literally soloed a Shardbearer with amazing skill, so there's a good chance he'd be better with the Blade after training than Amaram.
• The Desolation was years away, during which time the spearman could have trained (so being untrained is pretty irrelevant).
• As Amaram is more important than a regular old soldier from his organization's perspective (he has secret information/plans to be brought about), putting him in battle rather than the soldier is stupid. You'd want the soldier to be stuck in battle using the Shards, while Amaram does safer things. Generals don't fight battles, they direct them.

Amaram taking the Shards from Kaladin seems pretty stupid from our (admittedly limited) known information. The gains are minimal at best, and the potential losses are huge.

 

With our mentality, it is a stupid decision. However, with amaram's one, it makes sense.

We believe that if kaladin managed to solo a shardbearer he can train and become as good as anyone. Because we come from a society puting a lot of emphasis on the idea that all men are born equal and can do amazing stuff if they apply.

Amaram comes from a strictly stratified society where everyone has a place and darkeyes are considered inferior. that idea is deeply ingrained at all levels of society. men do not write. women do not do man's stuff. darkeyes do not wield sowrds. can we really be surprised if he don't consider the idea that kaladin may become at least his equal within some years?

We think a general's place is away from the front, because in our world it is like that. we also believe the best place for a superweapon like the shards would be in the hand of some trusted soldier.

amaram comes from a world where, thanks to the shards, generals are supposed to fight at the front. all the stuff about the glory of the fight and the thrill expect generals to lead on the field. and the quest for power and personal glory is the main goal of that society, so the idea that a shardbearer soldier can be devout to his leader instead of just trotting off with the shards or trying to take charge is difficult to accept (yes, a few highprinces give their shards to their most trusted bodyguards, but there is a difference between a bodyguard who's been with you since you were born and a soldier in your army; and also those highprinces are the owners of the shards, while in amaram's case kaladin would be the rightful owner and would actually outrank amaram himself).

 

So, yes, amaram's reasoning is flawed, but it makes perfect sense given the context in which he lives. just like vin's reasoning for thinking kelsier wanted to use her for something was flawed, but it makes perfect sense in the context she comes from.

Edited October 10, 2014 by king of nowhere

[Moogle]

I agree. Amaram's reasoning is understandably flawed due to the culture he lives in. My point is that to properly follow an "ends justify the means" philosophy, you need to be able to do proper cost-benefit calculations.

Amaram can't, so naturally his actions are horrible. People in this thread have argued that it is because of his philosophy, but my point is that he's horrible at his own philosophy and his values are radically different (heavy emphasis on religion). It's not his philosophy.

[Pathfinder]

I think I have come to the conclusion that, although we can understand the motivations of an individual (excellent discourse everyone), and in many ways sympathize and rationalize how this individual came to make his decisions, in the end, in my opinion, that still does not make him nor his actions honorable. We may know that a pebble started an avalanche, but the avalanche is still the cause of the devastation.