Concerning Amaram's honor...

[Twenty@20 he/him]

But anyway - I believe that his refusal of Shards was somehow caused by his forming bond to Syl. He instinctively knew that he shouldn't take them. And I 'm convinced that he believes he did the right thing refusing them since it happens again - he refuses the Shards that Adolin offers him.

That time his decision was heavily influenced by Syl and also the fact that he knew he was becoming a Radiant. And also I think he was checking how honorable the Kholins were by refusing the shards. But what about before Syl became sentient?

Even I don't remember Kaladin reviewing his decision. Time to skim WoK again.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Twenty@20

[Kyats Rani she/her]

That time his decision was heavily influenced by Syl and also the fact that he knew he was becoming a Radiant. And also I think he was checking how honorable the Kholins were by refusing the shards. But what about before Syl became sentient?

Even I don't remember Kaladin reviewing his decision. Time to skim WoK again.

True. But Kaladin felt that the wind guided him in fighting even before Syl became sentient. So even while the bond was beggining to form, he somehow instinctively felt it. He tried to pick up the Blade back then but felt nauseaous at the very thought of it. Just like Dalinar started to feel revolted by killing Parshendi in WoK. I guess that Kal felt it wasn't right for him to take the Blade. And later it was explained thanks to Syl.

 

And he hates lighteyes (less so now than in WoK). He doesn't want to be one of them. Maybe that's why he didn't review his choice? Or at least a small part of the reason...

 

As for skimming WoK... I'm currently reading Warbreaker so I trust you to find this evidence if you are going to try

[Pathfinder]

As I have stated in another thread, I have no idea how to search the forums for keywords and such, but there is WoB that Kal and his bond with Syl started long before even going to battle for Tien to keep him safe. If I didn't suck at searching I would post them for you lol 

Edited November 14, 2014 by Pathfinder

[king of nowhere]

Well, kaladin had no reason to question his decision to give up the shards, because, as far as he knows, amaram would have taken them anyway. which would probably have happened. at the time he still trusted amaram, i'm sure he would have find a way to lure kaladin into a trap and get the shards from him.

That is all well and good, but it is rather difficult to discuss the theoretical situation as not having to do with amaram when you use him in ur argument and cite what he does in it. So all one can do is reply with things amaram did in turn, and what we think is the reasoning behind those actions. not attacking you or anything dude, just pointing out why it might be difficult for him or her to reply to you without implying you are referring to amaram. 

yeah, i know, my bad. sometimes i go out on tangents.

[JVSimp]

Well, if amaram had acted solely because he assumed kaladin was crazy and giving him power over armies would be dangerous (mind you, I do not believe that is the case, I'm just being hypotetical) then he would regard the murder of kaladin and his four men as akin to murdering hitler and some of his cronies the moment they are gaining too much influence. which i'm pretty sure the vast majority of people would find perfectly acceptable, even if at the time they hadn't really done anything wrong yet.

 

Fair enough, but keep in mind the vast majority would also not be getting Honor Spren Hypothetically anyway.  Everyone has 20/20 hindsight, but we just don't have that kind of foresight to predict the outcome of peoples lives.  Just because a bunch of people think it is ok to kill someone because of actions they may or may not do does not make it right. 

 

 

Yeah, you missed my point. I'm arguing that it could have been honorable if amaram had acted to keep the sword from a madman,  not if he had acted to take the sword for himself. And the part about admitting the error would not be about pleading guilty of murder, neither about a reduced sentence. it is about recognizing that you made a wrong judgment, and being willing to take responsibility for it. in this purely hypotetical scenario, amaram had never acted out of greed for the shards but only out of concern for the men who would end up ruled by a madman, he would claim guilty upon realizing that kaladin was in fact sane, and would never argue to get a reduced sentence.

 

I did miss your point.  It does make sense it just seems very cold hearted I guess, and it is something I personally would find as a bad thing.

 

 

BUt hey, you can compare it to warbreaker. would you say vasher is a honorless monster deserving only reproach? I don't think so. And yet he did something wworse than amaram did. he started a war, and a big one. mostly accidentally, but he certainly did something bad in it. and then he killed shashara only because she wanted to spread knowledge. You want to argue that shashara would have caused worse mayhem had she lived? well, and how's that different from killing a suspected madman who may misuse armies if allowed to keep shards? only because in one cause the killer turned out to be right and in the other he turned out to be wrong? how could they know, at the time they did the deed? So, why isn't vasher a bad guy? because, after that, he's spent his life trying to fix his mistakes.

 

Just started Warbreaker so I know almost nothing of Vasher.  I don't really believe the ends justify the means, so it both cases I would say yes they were bad people regardless of reasons.  Murder is bad, killing is not necessarily bad but can be.  I know a little of it and I know why he killed her, it still doesn't make it right to me.  Vasher as you attest spends the rest of the time making up for his mistakes, Amaram does not from what I can see.

 

I do believe that, when one makes a mistake, the honorable (or responsible, or good, or civic-minded) action is to try and fix them.

But sometimes some error cannot be fixed. killing people is a case.

 

I agree.

 

In this case, I do believe that one who is willing to live his life in an attempt to fix his mistake can still retain his honor (or responsibility, or goodness), as long as he is carrying on. you can't empty the sea with a bucket, but as long as you are carrying bucketfuls over and over, you are doing what you can, and that's enough for me.

 

Unless you were the one killed, than that perspective might be different.  But I understand the premise of making up for the things you do.

 

If you believe otherwise, then you should agree that vasher is a horrible individual; that elend, upon finding out that vin assaulted cett, should have her executed; that elend himself is a loathsome murder, for he killed an enemy king during a parlay; and that perrin (that one from wheel of time) should have been hanged.

 

 

Not sure on Vasher yet.  Vin, I agree what she did was wrong and I actually thought at the time elend should at least stop seeing her.  She did at least grow from the experience but she was not attacking an ally but an enemy.  She also regretted it and used it for a basis to not do such things again.  I disagree with her methods and I would have been against it.  The enemy king was that Jastesse or something like that, the man who let lose a kohloss army on multiple cities?  No I was fine with that action, he had killed many people for personal gain and Elend did not kill him before he did that but after, unless I am missing the correct person.  Perin also stood and defended what he did and even was willing to accept execution for it, so again I would view that as trying to do the right thing and willing to pay for his actions if it came to that.  Amaram I would still be sketchy on. 

 

Amaram killed 4 innocents soldiers of his to cover up the insane guy making a crazy choice, that alone stops me.  Elend did not hide what he did, and it was against a King who let loss kohloss and let them raise cities.  Perin killed in the heat of an event he didn't understand and was effecting his feelings and acted in emotional pain against a group that had and would persecute him for what he was going through.  Vin believed Cett had a mistborn or was a mistborn and was plotting against elend and made a bad choice to deal with him, a general who had an army outside the city and was willing to kill them for the city.  None of the others killed their own allies or soldiers.  They were all bad scenarios but I think if Amaram had of enslaved/imprisoned Kaladin and not killed the other soldiers I would be more inclined to agree that had he admitted it later on when proven wrong it would have been something to let go.  The killing of his own soldiers pushes it to far for me, he may admit he made an error but he executed his own soldiers to hide something if that wasn't in play, than I could see it.

 

For the billionth time, to avoid misunderstnading: this does not refer to amaram. it is a theoretical situation.

Sorry for the original misunderstanding.  I see where you are getting at, but like I said I am not an ends justifies the means kind of person. I did use Amaram as you described not as from the book. 

 

I bet you play a neutral character in Games like KoToR?  I always push for the good side, but I like finding out how other people view things. 

[Twenty@20 he/him]

Well, kaladin had no reason to question his decision to give up the shards, because, as far as he knows, amaram would have taken them anyway.

Sure enough the simplest explanation is the surest one. Don't know how this simple idea eluded me. Probably this "looking from Amaram's point of view" business muddled my thinking. However it makes Kaladin refusing shards kind of moot. He wouldn't have got it anyway!

Edited November 15, 2014 by Twenty@20