So, There's No Hope. (Unhinged And Unwarranted Speculation)

[Returned he/him]

Quote

I'm, honestly, a little bit tired of being told to be reasonable and evenhanded when those things seem to map to "accept that you're wrong for reasons that don't make sense to you" and "agree with everybody else's unspoken notions of morality".

A perspective I imagine is shared by many in this thread.

[therunner he/him]

On 12/22/2025 at 3:10 AM, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

Forget it.  If you all get to root for the children of Ashyn no matter what heinous deeds they commit, then I get to root for the Scadrians no matter what heinous deeds they commit.  If you all get to regard Kaladin and Shallan as good people despite what they've done, then I get to do the same for Kelsier.  Maybe this is going to the dark side, but in that case I'm going to do a kickflip off of the concept of fairness while flipping double birds at the concept of maturity.

I don't mind that you come to such a conclusion (even if I don't understand it at all), but the obvious double standard is problematic for me.

I would say that if you are going to judge 'children of Ashyn' for something, you should judge Scadrians for the very same things, anything else is hypocrisy. I.e. if you treat one side as monolith, but make allowances to the other side, that is not very fair comparison.

Sticking just to stuff in SA1-5, and Mistborns Era 1-2, you judge 'children of Ashyn' for:

• Slavery
  • Done by Scadrians as well, arguably in even worse conditions
• Desecrating the dead
  • Done by Scadrians as well, including by protagonists (Hemalurgy)
• Experimenting on living people
  • Done by Scadrians as well (Hemalurgy, breeding programs)
• Treating living beings as objects
  • Done by Scadrians as well (Ghostbloods specifically, Kelsier included), up to selling a child for experiments
• Expansionism and genocide
  • Done by Scadrians as well (TLR, Malwish)
  • Not done by protagonists on either side, with two exceptions
    • Dalinar in his youth, who is explicitly shown as having changed for better
    • Kelsier, who wanted to kill all the nobles (technically a genocide) but got killed before he could do it
• Harming natives of other planets
  • Done by Scadrians as well (Ghostbloods and their interventions, including assisting with freeing Fused, starting the Last Desolation, and later cooperation with Fused for their own benefit)
  • I'll also note that if Ghostbloods plan to kidnap Kalak worked as intended, then Ghostbloods would be partially responsible for spren genocide
• Supplanting local culture
  • Done by Scadrians as well (TLR; Kelsier with Southern Scadrians, as they now worship him)

 

If based on above you treat all 'children of Ashyn' as horrible people who will conquer and enslave everyone they meet, then please, do so for Scadrians as well.

 

Edited December 23, 2025 by therunner

[Qianweilian He/him]

@therunner, I mostly agree with you, with some caveats.

9 hours ago, therunner said:

Treating living beings as objects

• Done by Scadrians as well (Ghostbloods specifically, Kelsier included), up to selling a child for experiments

This is really hard to define and unclear, maybe human trafficking would be a better description?

9 hours ago, therunner said:

Kelsier, who wanted to kill all the nobles (technically a genocide)

I don't believe Kelsier's actions against the nobles were genocide per se. According to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the group targeted must be one of the following to be genocide.

• national
• ethnical
• racial
• religious

They are part of the same state, so I don't think national is possible. I don't think the nobles have that much of a cultural difference to be considered a different ethnicity. There is an argument that Kel was trying to eliminate a racial group, and we do know that nobles and skaa previously had different biological traits, but by the time of TFE, they have intermixed and these differences are mostly gone. You could also argue he's targeting a religious group, but Kel never really goes after obligators or skaa who believe in TLR the same way. I think Kelsier is primarily targeting the nobles, who are class and political group. Neither of these are protected categories, making Kelsier's attack on the nobles not genocide.

9 hours ago, therunner said:

but got killed before he could do it

If you do consider Kelsier's classicide and politicide to be genocide, this doesn't actually matter. He does actually kill nobles with the intent to destroy the nobility. If the nobility are to be considered one of the protected groups, then it doesn't matter if he successfully wiped them out or not. It would still be genocide, but (as you see above) I don't think it is.

[Immortal Platypus]

3 minutes ago, Qianweilian said:

@therunner, I mostly agree with you, with some caveats.

This is really hard to define and unclear, maybe human trafficking would be a better description?

I don't believe Kelsier's actions against the nobles were genocide per se. According to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the group targeted must be one of the following to be genocide.

• national
• ethnical
• racial
• religious

They are part of the same state, so I don't think national is possible. I don't think the nobles have that much of a cultural difference to be considered a different ethnicity. There is an argument that Kel was trying to eliminate a racial group, and we do know that nobles and skaa previously had different biological traits, but by the time of TFE, they have intermixed and these differences are mostly gone. You could also argue he's targeting a religious group, but Kel never really goes after obligators or skaa who believe in TLR the same way. I think Kelsier is primarily targeting the nobles, who are class and political group. Neither of these are protected categories, making Kelsier's attack on the nobles not genocide.

If you do consider Kelsier's classicide and politicide to be genocide, this doesn't actually matter. He does actually kill nobles with the intent to destroy the nobility. If the nobility are to be considered one of the protected groups, then it doesn't matter if he successfully wiped them out or not. It would still be genocide, but (as you see above) I don't think it is.

personally, I think they still fit as either an ethnical or racial distinction. different races tend to have very few biological differences, so even if there aren't many, I think it still fits. I also think they have a very big culture difference from the skaa, but a major part of that is wealth, so idk if that counts.

[Qianweilian He/him]

20 minutes ago, Immortal Platypus said:

personally, I think they still fit as either an ethnical or racial distinction.

Meh, it's arguable. Whatever it's called, he did attempt to kill all the nobles, which is probably deserving of being on @therunner's list of Scadrian atrocities.

[Aliroz-The-Confused]

19 hours ago, therunner said:

 

• Supplanting local culture
  • Done by Scadrians as well (TLR; Kelsier with Southern Scadrians, as they now worship him)

 

We know very little about what went on there.  What we do know is this:  The Southern Scadrians were dying, and he taught them to survive.  The counterfactual here is the loss of local culture to extinction. 

In Secret History: Kelsier, after dying (which he could have avoided if he was willing to abandon helpless captives) takes up the shard of Preservation and preserves that shard from being taken by the Ire or destroyed by Ruin.  He comforts Leras, who had comforted every Scadrian after their deaths, in His last days.  He tries to stop Hoid from getting to the Well of Ascension and stealing the last material remnant of Leras.  And all throughout, Kelsier is condemned by everyone for the wrongs he has done and for not being a good person; even Vin tells him that he doesn't understand love and essentially asks "How much of it was about us, and how much was about you?".  The story teaches him that he has served Ruin more than Preservation, and that the hearts of men are not his toys.

I don't think I'm entirely insane to think that Kelsier was doing Preservation's work in preventing the depopulation of a continent.

Kaladin is now (or will soon be) worshipped as a Herald, replacing Jezerezeh.  Nobody calls this manipulation or supplanting of a local culture.  The story credits him with doing Honor's work.

Why should the Southern Scadrian regard of Kelsier and the Skaa's regard of Kelsier be regarded as delusion and the regard that the humans on Roshar have for Kaladin be regarded as recognition?  Kelsier was, for a time, Preservation, and though the Skaa worshipped him before that, perhaps on some level they saw a god in him because the man would become a god.

Kelsier died fighting for helpless captives, helped save the world and possibly the Cosmere from Ruin, preserved Preservation itself, gave comfort back to He who comforted, gave hope to the hopeless and freedom to slaves, and prevented the depopulation of a continent, and he gets counted as a bad person.

On 12/16/2025 at 6:25 PM, Frustration said:

Brandon goes through a lot of effort to show not only that Odium could do just that (force the humans to break the contract), but that he would.

It talks a lot about him torturing humans whose relatives are in the coalition nations and letting them know that. Abusing, breaking and other horrible type things to them until their relatives unable to bare it fought back trying to free them. That would put them in violation of the contract, and give Odium power over the coalition nations.

I'd like to bring this up, because it's absolutely horrifying (doing horrors to the helpless until the ones who love them break, leading them to their own destruction trying to save what remains, exploiting the limits of what the heart and spirit can live with) and also exactly what Kaladin did to the Listeners with the desecration of the dead (what is more helpless than a corpse?), and for the same reasons (seeking freedom from captivity, seeking survival no matter the cost (the other Shards are a threat to Odium), and most of all the protection of a few specific people that he loves (Bridge Four, Kharbranth)).  The scale might be different, but the shape is the same, and the scale is the maximum possible in Odium and Kaladin's situations.

The point mister Sanderson wants to make, as far as I can tell, is that the difference between Kaladin-at-that-point and Taravangian-at-any-point-during-his-evils is that Kaladin looked at the prideful road that lead to safety and freedom and saving everyone at the cost of morality, started leading his men down it, and then stopped and said "We have to go back.  Storm it, we have to go back"; while Taravangian kept on going.

My consternation with this is that I don't feel as though Kaladin has redeemed himself.  I don't think an apology and a friendship multiple books later makes it okay.  In my view, he didn't change how he values Bridge Four vs the Listeners so much as he added Rlain to Bridge Four.  It's incomplete in my view, but I think the story is presenting it as complete.  It's a change of mind, not a change of heart.  This is also how I see Navani, Jasnah, Shallan, and Dalinar.

Nothing Kelsier does is ever enough for the narrative to count him as good.  The very last thing Vin ever tells Kelsier is, more or less, "you're not good enough".  Nothing Kaladin does is ever enough for the narrative to count him as bad.

Kaladin almost killed Sylphrena.  If I had a daughter, and her friend almost killed her through questionable choices, choices that I kept telling him not to make because they would kill her and then barely managed to avoid the worst outcome and stopped doing that stuff, I would not let my daughter be friends with that guy.  No amount of "I can help him become a better person" or "he didn't mean it" or "he cares for me" or "he won't do it again" would work.

<joking>I have come to the conclusion that Kelsier ought to give himself more credit and Kaladin ought to be harder on himself.  Truly, I have reached the pinnacle of reading comprehension and deserve all the money, and everyone else is wrong.</notjokinganymore>

19 hours ago, therunner said:

I don't mind that you come to such a conclusion (even if I don't understand it at all), but the obvious double standard is problematic for me.

 

I think this whole thread is this sentence said in ten million different ways, and I think this sentence is the sentiment that I have been trying to express with regards to mister Sanderson and the Stormlight Archive.

19 hours ago, therunner said:

If based on above you treat all 'children of Ashyn' as horrible people who will conquer and enslave everyone they meet, then please, do so for Scadrians as well.

It seems there are five outcomes:

Approve both (Scadrial has spiffy mists, Roshar has spiffy canyons, forget these characters and just vibe with the worldbuilding and the setting and the magic system.  This is what I want to do, but mister Sanderson's excessive focus on characters makes this difficult if not impossible.) and keep reading the books as they come out.

Approve the former and disapprove of the latter (as mister Sanderson does, I find this a double standard) and keep reading the books as they come out.

Disapprove of the former and approve the latter (listen to my own conscience, you find this a double standard) and keep reading the books as they come out.

Disapprove of both (give up on one of the few fictions I actually like, and some of the few characters I actually ever related to) and keep reading the books as they come out.

Have a morally nuanced position (realize that mister Sanderson's work was never meant for me and anything that resonated with me was accidental on his part) and keep reading the books as they come out.

Edited December 24, 2025 by Aliroz-The-Confused

[Frustration]

25 minutes ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

I'd like to bring this up, because it's absolutely horrifying (doing horrors to the helpless until the ones who love them break, leading them to their own destruction trying to save what remains, exploiting the limits of what the heart and spirit can live with) and also exactly what Kaladin did to the Listeners with the desecration of the dead (what is more helpless than a corpse?), and for the same reasons (seeking freedom from captivity, seeking survival no matter the cost (the other Shards are a threat to Odium), and most of all the protection of a few specific people that he loves (Bridge Four, Kharbranth)).  The scale might be different, but the shape is the same, and the scale is the maximum possible in Odium and Kaladin's situations.

Well  that brings us to an interesting question: do corpses have rights? Can you abuse them?

 

I won't pretend that there's no room for argument, but I believe the answer to be a firm: no. Once the soul leaves, all you have is a piece of meat with no more rights than the steak in my fridge.

[therunner he/him]

14 hours ago, Qianweilian said:

I don't believe Kelsier's actions against the nobles were genocide per se. According to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the group targeted must be one of the following to be genocide.

I classified it as such, because Kelsier himself saw them as 'other', so more colloquial use of the term, than formal definition per law.

And I do think nobles are culturally sufficiently different.

7 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

We know very little about what went on there.  What we do know is this:  The Southern Scadrians were dying, and he taught them to survive.  The counterfactual here is the loss of local culture to extinction. 

In Secret History: Kelsier, after dying (which he could have avoided if he was willing to abandon helpless captives) takes up the shard of Preservation and preserves that shard from being taken by the Ire or destroyed by Ruin.  He comforts Leras, who had comforted every Scadrian after their deaths, in His last days.  He tries to stop Hoid from getting to the Well of Ascension and stealing the last material remnant of Leras.  And all throughout, Kelsier is condemned by everyone for the wrongs he has done and for not being a good person; even Vin tells him that he doesn't understand love and essentially asks "How much of it was about us, and how much was about you?".  The story teaches him that he has served Ruin more than Preservation, and that the hearts of men are not his toys.

I don't think I'm entirely insane to think that Kelsier was doing Preservation's work in preventing the depopulation of a continent.

No, I pretty much agree with you.

But he still did large damage to a culture, and likely taught them how to utilize Hemalurgy (if the word Excisor is as descriptive as it sounds).

You stated several times that you don't think nuance has place in fantasy, and yet, here you are looking at Kelsier's actions with nuance. Why don't you extend the same grace to Rosharans?
 

Quote

Kaladin is now (or will soon be) worshipped as a Herald, replacing Jezerezeh.  Nobody calls this manipulation or supplanting of a local culture.  The story credits him with doing Honor's work.

Why should the Southern Scadrian regard of Kelsier and the Skaa's regard of Kelsier be regarded as delusion and the regard that the humans on Roshar have for Kaladin be regarded as recognition?  Kelsier was, for a time, Preservation, and though the Skaa worshipped him before that, perhaps on some level they saw a god in him because the man would become a god.

Everyone thinks Kaladin is dead, no one is worshiping him, and knowing Kaladin he will certainly not encourage it. 

Kelsier created two religions with himself as object of worship. That is a massive difference in personal attitude.

Now, I know the first one was accident, Kelsier didn't know he would survive. But the second one is a different thing.

Quote

Kelsier died fighting for helpless captives, helped save the world and possibly the Cosmere from Ruin, preserved Preservation itself, gave comfort back to He who comforted, gave hope to the hopeless and freedom to slaves, and prevented the depopulation of a continent, and he gets counted as a bad person.

No, Kelsier gets considered as 'psychopath' by some, because he e.g. sees no problem in killing every single noble there is. Men, woman, children, all would be fair game to him.  He literally slaughters entire manors of nobles and leaves none alive.
He also sees soldiers he recruited as things to be used, he nearly killed one just to make a point (and only didn't because Demoux resisted his Pushes/Pulls.

I personally am not as harsh in my judgement of him, but the above shows you why he is closer to Ruin than Preservation.

As you note, his also does many noble actions, and that is why he is beloved by readers.

But, remember that his motivation, why he does everything we see him do while he is alive, is vengeance. Nothing else, he just wants to tear down Final Empire because his love died. Understandable motivation, but you can contrast that with e.g Kaladin or Dalinar, whose motivations are protecting those near him or uniting people in face of apocalypse.

Vin notably has similar motivation to Kaladin, and is portrayed in similarly positive light as he is.

7 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

My consternation with this is that I don't feel as though Kaladin has redeemed himself.  I don't think an apology and a friendship multiple books later makes it okay.  In my view, he didn't change how he values Bridge Four vs the Listeners so much as he added Rlain to Bridge Four.  It's incomplete in my view, but I think the story is presenting it as complete.  It's a change of mind, not a change of heart.  This is also how I see Navani, Jasnah, Shallan, and Dalinar.

Did you not read Oathbringer and Rhythm of War? 

Kaladin's entire arc across those books is about how he struggles with the fact that Singers are people just like anyone else. This culminates in his breakdown in Alethkar, where he freezes in a fight and just desperately shouts both to Bridge Four and to Singers to just stop killing each other.

When we see him in RoW, this mental stress has basically lead to him burning out, and Dalinar places him on leave, where Kaladin rediscovers himself, as someone who wants to help and protect others. 

And finally, he acknowledges he cannot save everyone, something he has known logically even back in Oathbringer, but simply couldn't bring himself to internalize.

Quote

Nothing Kelsier does is ever enough for the narrative to count him as good.  The very last thing Vin ever tells Kelsier is, more or less, "you're not good enough".  Nothing Kaladin does is ever enough for the narrative to count him as bad.

The reason for that difference is that Kelsier never doubts himself. He never questions morality of his actions (Kaladin does), he never apologizes for his more dubious actions (Kaladin does), and he never tries to grow beyond that (Kaladin does). 

Vin tells that to Kelsier, because Kelsier needs that push , if he is to start growing. 

Quote

Kaladin almost killed Sylphrena.  If I had a daughter, and her friend almost killed her through questionable choices, choices that I kept telling him not to make because they would kill her and then barely managed to avoid the worst outcome and stopped doing that stuff, I would not let my daughter be friends with that guy.  No amount of "I can help him become a better person" or "he didn't mean it" or "he cares for me" or "he won't do it again" would work.

Well, you cannot control what other adults do. 

Stormfather certainly does not like Kaladin much, which is understandable. But Sylphrena is adult, she can choose who she associates with. And her bet on Kaladin paid off, as he literally helped save every single spren in existence. 

If that is not redeeming himself for his earlier actions, what else can he do?

Quote

Approve the former and disapprove of the latter (as mister Sanderson does, I find this a double standard) and keep reading the books as they come out.

I don't really agree that Sanderson does this. 

He shows there are good and bad people on both worlds, even among protagonists (e.g. books judge Jasnah quite hard for her stances, as he judges Kelsier), other characters are raised up as the better models of behavior (Vin and Kaladin).

Narratively speaking, similar characters are also treated similarly:

• Vin and Kaladin both want to protect those close to them, and both are treated as moral core
• Kelsier, Jasnah and Taravangian all act through 'ends justifies the means' scope, and all are judged for it by the narrative

 

Edited December 24, 2025 by therunner

[Aliroz-The-Confused]

13 hours ago, therunner said:

If that is not redeeming himself for his earlier actions, what else can he do?

Honestly?

You really want to know?

He can actually live by ideals instead of just saying them.

Second ideal:  I will protect those who cannot protect themselves.

The so-called "lesser" spren (a term which only the children of Ashyn seem to use) cannot defend themselves from their enslavement.  Cannot advocate for themselves (they display seeming consent/contentment behaviors after being trained to do so), and have had their one advocate mind-controlled into compliance.

But none of our protagonists actually give a tinker's cuss about this because they don't actually care.  The use of fabrials proves that it's all hollow.

Kaladin doesn't actually have any convictions.  His conversation to Sigzil about prostitution proves it.  Sigzil tells Kaladin he has moral issues with what others in Bridge Four are doing, basically says "that voice inside me which says 'well done' when I do good and which screams when I do bad is screaming at me that this is wrong." and Kaladin more or less tells Sigzil, "stop listening to that voice, ignore it until it fades.  Don't tell other people what to do, morality is relative and cultural, don't be judgmental, be reasonable.".

Kaladin does this because he doesn't care to, as the captain and leader, establish a coherent and consistent understanding of morality and behavior among the men under his command.

I compare this to Joan of Arc, who established exactly that among her men (to the point that when she told them to give up profanity, they did so), who died rather than go against her convictions, and I find it wanting.

Joan of Arc lived in a world where honor was dead and odium reigned, where the honor-structures that had held up her society had collapsed and the new modernity had not yet been stabilized into something that limited atrocity and tyranny, in a time of horrors, and she was an illiterate peasant teenager, and she managed to instill a consistent and coherent understanding of right and wrong among her men.

Don't tell me that it's unrealistic when every contemporary account of her agrees that it's not, don't tell me it's impossible to believe when the cynics and the wise and the sober and thoughtful of her time, people no strangers to the messiness of reality, believed; when her enemies who killed her wept at what they had just done and cried "O God, O God, we have killed a saint!".  Don't tell me it's unrealistic when Kaladin is fictional and can fly.  This is the exact archetype of the sacred knight that Kaladin is drawing his appeal and power and cultural resonance from.

Kaladin talks the talk, but he does not walk the walk.

[Frustration]

16 minutes ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

Honestly?

You really want to know?

He can actually live by ideals instead of just saying them.

Second ideal:  I will protect those who cannot protect themselves.

The so-called "lesser" spren (a term which only the children of Ashyn seem to use) cannot defend themselves from their enslavement.  Cannot advocate for themselves (they display seeming consent/contentment behaviors after being trained to do so), and have had their one advocate mind-controlled into compliance.

But none of our protagonists actually give a tinker's cuss about this because they don't actually care.  The use of fabrials proves that it's all hollow.

Is Kaladin even aware of this? Navani didn't tell Kaladin during RoW, and there were only a couple of hours separating the books.

41 minutes ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

Kaladin doesn't actually have any convictions.  His conversation to Sigzil about prostitution proves it.  Sigzil tells Kaladin he has moral issues with what others in Bridge Four are doing, basically says "that voice inside me which says 'well done' when I do good and which screams when I do bad is screaming at me that this is wrong." and Kaladin more or less tells Sigzil, "stop listening to that voice, ignore it until it fades.  Don't tell other people what to do, morality is relative and cultural, don't be judgmental, be reasonable.".

Kaladin does this because he doesn't care to, as the captain and leader, establish a coherent and consistent understanding of morality and behavior among the men under his command.

That's actually a rather fair point(though I think the actual comment was for Sigzil to not judge the Iraili).

It's something that is touched on only a few times in the books about how the Radiants need to be great moral examples. It's mostly Dalinar though, so I think it would have been really good if the other characters got shown that side of radiance and we got to see them react to it. Show them how others will follow both their good and bad examples. Definitely a missed opportunity.

[therunner he/him]

10 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

He can actually live by ideals instead of just saying them.

Second ideal:  I will protect those who cannot protect themselves.

 

You mean exactly what he did? 

Kaladin saved those spren from being wiped from existence, something no one else could.
Sure seems like he lived that Ideal.

Quote

The so-called "lesser" spren (a term which only the children of Ashyn seem to use) cannot defend themselves from their enslavement. 

Should Kaladin also try to save all animals from human and singers?
Or also spren from other spren? Radiant Spren are after all using other spren for labour in Shadesmar.

Lesser spren are not enslaved, no more than cows and pigs are enslaved on Scadrial.

Quote

Cannot advocate for themselves (they display seeming consent/contentment behaviors after being trained to do so),

Don't twist what the book is saying.  The new method of creating fabrials does not force them to enter, the spren choose to do so.

Since there does not appear to be any punishment if they don't enter, then they enter because they want to, because they get some benefit from doing so.

Quote

and have had their one advocate mind-controlled into compliance.

Again, don't twist what the books is saying.

The Sibling was not mind-controlled by anyone.

If you disagree with Sibling and his changed stance, that is fine, but kindly don't take away their ability to choose.

Quote

He can actually live by ideals instead of just saying them.

Second ideal:  I will protect those who cannot protect themselves.

And on this topic, you might have noticed that the books are quite clear that Second Ideal, if interpreted absolutely, is impossible to uphold. That is why there are other higher Ideals that temper these ones, and 2nd Ideal is just a part of the journey, not its endpoint.

No one can protect all who cannot protect themselves, again Kaladin's entire arc in Oathbringer is about that. 
Everyone has to choose who/what they protect, and that choice is ultimately arbitrary to some extent.

Should Kaladin protect prey species from predation? If so, who protect the predators from hunger?

If he protects Singers, who protects innocent humans, who have nothing to do with crimes of their ancestors? Remember that most humans didn't enslave parshmen, and yet they would fall victim to Singers and Fused nonetheless.

Or should he protect Singers from Fused? They do overtake bodies forcibly.
Or maybe protect Fused from Odium? They live in fear of him taking away their Investiture and killing them.

Should he protect spren from Radiant Spren using them in Shadesmar?
Should he protect chull from being used as beasts of burden?

2nd Ideal, taken alone and absolutely, is terrible standard to hold anyone to, because no one can live up to it. Adonalsium didn't live up to it.

And finally, even if we accept that spren need the protection, how is Kaladin supposed to do anything meaningful about it? He cannot stop research across the entire Roshar, he might protect some specific spren, but ultimately would not achieve systemic change. (and likely all spren would be destroyed had he tried to focus on spren liberation, rather ironically).

Quote

But none of our protagonists actually give a tinker's cuss about this because they don't actually care.  The use of fabrials proves that it's all hollow.

Kindly apply the same standard to Scadrians, they also use animals for labour.

Sazed claims to be Harmony, and yet he did nothing about horses being used in carriages, or cows being raised just to be killed for meat. Sure seems like he talks the talk but does not walk the walk.

Also, you don't seem to care what the spren want, as the new fabrial method requires the spren to choose to enter.
If they didn't want to, they wouldn't enter.

Do cows on Scadrial get that choice?

10 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

Kaladin doesn't actually have any convictions.  His conversation to Sigzil about prostitution proves it.  Sigzil tells Kaladin he has moral issues with what others in Bridge Four are doing, basically says "that voice inside me which says 'well done' when I do good and which screams when I do bad is screaming at me that this is wrong." and Kaladin more or less tells Sigzil, "stop listening to that voice, ignore it until it fades.  Don't tell other people what to do, morality is relative and cultural, don't be judgmental, be reasonable.".

Kaladin does this because he doesn't care to, as the captain and leader, establish a coherent and consistent understanding of morality and behavior among the men under his command.

What? That is what you took away from that scene? 

Kaladin tells someone to not judge others, and you took away that he does not care? 

So you would prefer if he imposed his views on men under his command? 
Aren't you complaining for 6 pages about 'children of Ashyn' imposing their views and standards on others? 

And now its problem when Kaladin doesn't do it, and asks (not orders, asks) someone else to also not do it?

Man, Kaladin sure is a bad person, asking people to be tolerant.

Quote

Kaladin talks the talk, but he does not walk the walk.

Kindly tell me, who does walk the walk in your standard?

It cannot be Kelsier who trades people, or Vin who slaughtered Skaa who were only trying to feed their families by serving nobles, or Sazed who manipulated Wax into becoming his weapon, and does not care to stop suffering of animals?

<Above I am purposefully being uncharitable in reading their situations>

Quote

Don't tell me that it's unrealistic when every contemporary account of her agrees that it's not, don't tell me it's impossible to believe when the cynics and the wise and the sober and thoughtful of her time, people no strangers to the messiness of reality, believed; when her enemies who killed her wept at what they had just done and cried "O God, O God, we have killed a saint!".  Don't tell me it's unrealistic when Kaladin is fictional and can fly.  This is the exact archetype of the sacred knight that Kaladin is drawing his appeal and power and cultural resonance from.

I don't know all about Joan of Arc, though I know enough that people who executed most assuredly didn't cry "O God, O God, we have killed a saint!". They did do a re-trial 25 years later, and overturned her verdict, though it was a bit late for that. That is where that quote comes from.
We will see what people say about Kaladin in 25 years in-world. 

Also, why wasn't Joan of Arc fighting for animal rights? If she was so saintly? 
Or for rights of English peasant who didn't choose to come to France?

Seems like she surely also didn't walk the walk.

EDIT:

@Frustration

Quote

It's something that is touched on only a few times in the books about how the Radiants need to be great moral examples. It's mostly Dalinar though, so I think it would have been really good if the other characters got shown that side of radiance and we got to see them react to it. Show them how others will follow both their good and bad examples. Definitely a missed opportunity.

I am not sure if I agree with this. Radiant can be good moral examples, but that is not necessary component of Radiance.

See e.g. Nale's Skybreakers, or current Dustbringers, or Melshi and past Radiants at the time of sealing of BAM.

I do think that if you take a random person, and random Radiant, random Radiant is likely better moral example, and higher Oaths increase that likelihood. But there is never a guarantee of that, because they are still people, and so ultimately fallible.

Notably, no character in Stormlight is portrayed as infallible, if anything the main theme is that we all fall, it is what we do after that matters. Do we still do the same? Or do we choose to grow and change (hopefully for better).

E.g. Dalinar makes horrible mistakes, and with help from others, he manages to grow past those things. Not perfectly, but he is better.
Taravangian, also falls and fails, but learns all the wrong lesson from it.
Tanavast also failed, and he didn't seem to learn much at all.

Edited December 25, 2025 by therunner

[Nitpicking]

I don't think anyone, including Kaladin, has claimed that Kaladin is perfect. He only claims to be improving.

Journey Before Destination. Dalinar's Third Ideal is actually a restatement of (part of) the First.

[Aeshdan he/him]

On 11/13/2025 at 7:50 PM, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

The whole dang appeal of Stormlight to me is the ideals and the moral absolutism, the sense that right and wrong are things that truly matter, that a conviction can lift you above the common clay and grant you the skies, that there are Rules that don't have exceptions no matter how clever or powerful or silver-tongued you are, that the ideal and the material are not separate, that people must be honorable even when it's not reasonable, that every thing

and mood and aspect of creation has its own strange little spirit so there is nothing that is truly not worth loving, the idea that even grown-ups must take seriously that burning itchy painful sense of right and wrong which children are taught to suppress.  Having exceptions and nuance and context-dependent-rather-than-inherent morality dilutes it in my opinion to just another "People are inherently flawed and cannot actually achieve the ideal and you're an idiot for imagining otherwise" story which one can find anywhere.

On 11/13/2025 at 7:50 PM, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

I guess you're right about them being shallow and not dealing with right vs. wrong, but I always felt like they had depth and dealt with right and wrong quite often, so maybe I'm seeing what I want to see.  Most of the books are very enjoyable for me.  It's just that Stormlight promised a moral absolutism that was wonderful and fascinating and then goes "surprise!  The Honorspren were right about Humanity!  Humanity is flawed garbage that can't stop being flawed garbage!  They're doing their best, this is the best they can do, and that'll have to be good enough for you.  Jokes on you!  You've been rooting for soulless pragmatists, war criminals, unrepentant hypocrites, and imperfect mortals the entire time!  Oaths and ideals are stupid actually and the cool kids abandon their oaths to save their spren, because sacred vows mean JACK SQUAT when Smart Grownups figure out something smarter to do than care about the rules they swore to live by!  Also they're starting to show up on your favorite setting because SCREW YOU.  You're never getting moral absolutism, this was all a freaking prank.  Also Moash isn't dead yet."

I agree, this really sums up one of my problems with Wind and Truth (and Rhythm of War) to a lesser extent. One of the things that I particularly loved about the first three Stormlight books was that they were books where morality played an important role, where characters drew power from acting with Honor and we got to see moral principles played out in a practical fashion. And then in Wind and Truth it feels like Sanderson tried to shift focus from morality to therapy, abandoned the emphasis on Honor and virtue that drew me to these books in the first place.

[Aliroz-The-Confused]

2 hours ago, Aeshdan said:

I agree, this really sums up one of my problems with Wind and Truth (and Rhythm of War) to a lesser extent. One of the things that I particularly loved about the first three Stormlight books was that they were books where morality played an important role, where characters drew power from acting with Honor and we got to see moral principles played out in a practical fashion. And then in Wind and Truth it feels like Sanderson tried to shift focus from morality to therapy, abandoned the emphasis on Honor and virtue that drew me to these books in the first place.

After thinking about this quite a lot, I don't think it's mister Sanderson's fault.  Wind and Truth was released in 2024, and Rhythm of War was released in 2020.  Oathbringer was released in November 2017.  Nobody who lived through 2018 or the years since can write in the same way as was possible before, and it's not fair to expect non-nuanced long-form fiction in a world that simply cannot produce it anymore.  It's not fair to expect ambitious long-form book series to have completely 100% happy endings (as opposed to bittersweet endings) anymore, because that species of story is extinct (for all that we think of Tolkien and Lewis as classic idealists, their main works have bittersweet endings).

Perhaps the crucial distinction between Kelsier and Kaladin is that Kelsier is a character from the 2000s while Kaladin is a character from the 2010s, and stuff that would have made you an anti-hero or worse in the 2000s is just background noise in the 2010s.  Now we're in the 2020s, and literature has become so aggressively colonized by nuance that the bold and subversive anti-cynic position is "maybe there is some worth to absolute ideals".

As much as we think of authors as insulated and isolated from their readers and from other authors and from the world they live in, they are not.  Mister Sanderson's storytelling is not recitation, but conversation, and conversation influences both ways.

I think the comparison I would make is soil depletion or soil acidification or some other process of change, and I suppose mister Sanderson is grafting his story/characters onto this new focus, in an attempt to salvage the fruit of a withering tree by grafting it onto a thriving trunk.

Though, I think cross-pollination might also be an appropriate metaphor.  I'd place the main part of this process to those years he spent writing those Wheel of Time books.  I don't think he ever truly recovered.

Things that are subversive become normative, the shocking becomes routine, and the unexpected changes the expectations.

Spoilers for The Hobbit and The Lord Of The Rings.  Apparently I worry about ruining them for the one person living under a rock who hasn't read them already, lol.

Spoiler

I'd like to note that this shift is nothing new; The Lord Of The Rings is much bleaker, more nuanced, and more despairing than The Hobbit (Bilbo gets to go home to the party-tree, by the time Frodo, Pippin, Merry, and Sam return, that tree has been cut down.  At the end of The Lord Of The Rings, the elves leave for the west, and Frodo goes with them to heal, because the time of the elves is past, and middle-earth can no longer sustain Frodo's wounded spirit... The Lord Of The Rings deconstructs and reconstructs a lot of The Hobbit).

Bilbo Baggins, in his time, was a subversive take on the fantasy-hero archetype (though a lot of people think the generation of Tolkien and Lewis invented the fantasy genre, I'd place its birth a generation earlier with George MacDonald-a position Tolkien and Lewis themselves had-), being a burglar with no rightful claim to the treasure of which he claims a significant part (sure, it's payment for services, but a 'proper' fantasy hero would do it without payment because of the rightness of the quest (as we see in Frodo offering to carry the ring at immense personal cost because it must be done)... the tension between Bilbo's humble, down-to-earth, horse-sense Bilboishness and the slightly-arrogant, destiny-driven, striving-for-something-that-might-not-be-possible vibes of his compatriots is a lot of the fun), and, crucially, betraying his friend's secrets (the whole thing with the Arkenstone) rather than let his friend's stubbornness lead to conflict and suffering (moral dilemma).  I think Tolkien once described The Hobbit as (I'm paraphrasing) "Beowulf, from the point of view of the thief".

We're a few generations of the "this stuff I grew up with is neat, but what if I added moral complexity to the heroes I grew up with and made you cry" game from there.

I haven't read those Song of Fire and Ice books (outside of a couple chapters of the first one, which I dropped because it was 2edgy4me) or seen any adaptations, so I'm going off of cultural osmosis, but I'm pretty sure Lord Stark (with his illegitimate son and tendency to associate with obviously evil scumbags) was seen as a subversive take on the fantasy hero back when his first book came out, and I've gotten the impression that these days he's regarded as an uncomplicated or "vanilla" good guy.

I guess what I'm trying to say with this is "I agree with you, but I think this shift is part of a bigger pattern which isn't mister Sanderson's fault, and I think our disappointment is that we let ourselves believe that he could/would/wanted-to oppose the tide."

[Qianweilian He/him]

1 hour ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

Nobody who lived through 2018 or the years since can write in the same way as was possible before, and it's not fair to expect non-nuanced long-form fiction in a world that simply cannot produce it anymore. 

I have noticed that good endings feel decreased of late, but what makes you pick 2018 as the turnover point? I'm just curious.

[Aliroz-The-Confused]

  

15 hours ago, Qianweilian said:

I have noticed that good endings feel decreased of late, but what makes you pick 2018 as the turnover point? I'm just curious.

You know how you can't describe the taste of salt or ginger to one who has never tasted it?  And if you tried to explain it you'd sound absurd and people would laugh, except for those who have tasted it, who already know exactly what it is?

The self-evident often cannot be described.

Imagine if there was no more salt or ginger at all in the universe.  There'd be no way to intelligibly communicate the essence of what the world no longer had.

Or imagine if a color was deleted, existing only in memories, with no evidence it had ever been, no word, no name, no historical references, nothing.  Those who never saw it could only laugh at the absurdity of how dramatic and overblown the others are reacting, the nonsensical and clearly-incorrect grief at something that was obviously always red.

(In other words: you'd all laugh and people would tell me I'm wrong, and I can't say it in a way that makes any sense to anyone, so I'm not going to say it at all.)

Edited December 28, 2025 by Aliroz-The-Confused

[Aeshdan he/him]

On 11/29/2025 at 10:52 PM, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

You're thinking like a modern materialist person; try thinking like a pre-modern person who hasn't internalized the idea that sacredness is a human construct and material things are only things.  A sacred relic is sacred in and of itself regardless of whether anyone knows about it.  It's literally (part of) the body of a god.

As a Christian, I am under orders from my God to eat his flesh and drink his blood every week. Even sacred relics are not dishonored by being used for the purpose for which they were given, and creating Allomancers is the purpose for which Lerasium is created. I'll agree that Hoid might not have had the right to claim such a divine blessing, though. Of course, that begs the question of who has the right to make those sorts of decisions with Preservation dead (as he was at the time Hoid took the Lerasium).

On 11/11/2025 at 9:03 PM, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

I'll grant that if you'll grant that a genuine argument can be made that Navani is a slaver who is inventing new ways to enslave spiritual beings that Adonalsium intended to be free.

I can understand where you are coming from on this one, though I am not sure I agree. I firmly believe that sapient races have the right to subordinate and even kill non-sapient species for our own benefit (though I also believe that this right comes with moral duties to steward the resources we have and to avoid unnecessary cruelty and destruction), so I guess the question comes down to whether there is a qualitative difference between subspen and physical-realm animals on this front. You seem to believe that there is, I believe that there isn't.

[Qianweilian He/him]

9 minutes ago, Aeshdan said:

creating Allomancers is the purpose for which Lerasium is created.

It actually might not be. Allomancy isn't Lerasium's primary effect.

Quote

18th_Shard

So you have said that making someone Mistborn is not lerasium's primary function, that a Mistborn burning it would have another effect. Is this also true of its alloys?

Brandon Sanderson

RAFO.

https://wob.coppermind.net/events/100/#e3616

 

 

Quote

Questioner

Have you revealed what the primary effect is of burning lerasium is?

Brandon Sanderson

I have not.

Questioner

Can you in the book?

Brandon Sanderson

No. I can write a RAFO though.

https://wob.coppermind.net/events/69/#e6133

 

 

 

 

 

11 minutes ago, Aeshdan said:

I firmly believe that sapient races have the right to subordinate and even kill non-sapient species for our own benefit (though I also believe that this right comes with moral duties to steward the resources we have and to avoid unnecessary cruelty and destruction)

I agree with you here and I don't think the use of spren in fabrials is a big moral issue.

[Aeshdan he/him]

On 12/27/2025 at 7:24 PM, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

After thinking about this quite a lot, I don't think it's mister Sanderson's fault.  Wind and Truth was released in 2024, and Rhythm of War was released in 2020.  Oathbringer was released in November 2017.  Nobody who lived through 2018 or the years since can write in the same way as was possible before, and it's not fair to expect non-nuanced long-form fiction in a world that simply cannot produce it anymore.  It's not fair to expect ambitious long-form book series to have completely 100% happy endings (as opposed to bittersweet endings) anymore, because that species of story is extinct (for all that we think of Tolkien and Lewis as classic idealists, their main works have bittersweet endings).

I think there's another thing that plays into this cycle, and that is that Sanderson's fundamental position as a writer has shifted. When he started writing the series, he was a newbie writer, with limited fame and under financial strains. He had to write stories that would engage his audience and attract readers. But now he's on top of the fantasy world, with massive sales and fame. He already has enough money to last him the rest of his natural life with a little care, he has a massive fanbase who will be willing to give whatever he writes a try, and with the Stormlight books specifically he has a large readerbase who are going to be extremely reluctant to break the story off in the middle.

As a result, he has much more freedom to write the books he wants to write instead of the books people want to read. And it would appear that there are a lot of people like you and me, people who wanted stories with moral absolutes and unbroken Honor. Sanderson started writing the Stormlight books for people like that, but I think he has reached the point where he doesn't think he has to worry as much about what we want anymore.

And then on the flipside, one of the downsides of Sanderson's current status is that he is now publishing books as fast as he can write them. I think that was one of the problems he ran into with Wind And Truth (and possibly RoW to a lesser degree), he knew where he wanted the first half of the series to end, but he'd drifted off-course a bit over the first few books. He couldn't go back and change those, so he had to push the plot pretty hard in some specific directions in order to end Book 5 where he wanted to.

[Aliroz-The-Confused]

1 hour ago, Aeshdan said:

I think there's another thing that plays into this cycle, and that is that Sanderson's fundamental position as a writer has shifted. When he started writing the series, he was a newbie writer, with limited fame and under financial strains. He had to write stories that would engage his audience and attract readers. But now he's on top of the fantasy world, with massive sales and fame. He already has enough money to last him the rest of his natural life with a little care, he has a massive fanbase who will be willing to give whatever he writes a try, and with the Stormlight books specifically he has a large readerbase who are going to be extremely reluctant to break the story off in the middle.

As a result, he has much more freedom to write the books he wants to write instead of the books people want to read. And it would appear that there are a lot of people like you and me, people who wanted stories with moral absolutes and unbroken Honor. Sanderson started writing the Stormlight books for people like that, but I think he has reached the point where he doesn't think he has to worry as much about what we want anymore.

Interestingly, I see it the opposite way.  I described what he is doing as "not recitation, but conversation", and I'd argue that having a massive fanbase changes the dynamic of that conversation such that the author has less power to steer its tone.  I'd say that his earlier works, which had fewer beta readers, are less shaped by the pressure to engage the audience.  I think mister Sanderson feels a great deal of obligation towards the readers who have invested so much effort and attention into his work.

This is not a bad thing.  I don't mean "obligation" in the sense of burden or imposed constraint but in the sense of gratitude, the sense of acknowledging someone else's effort, and the sense of trying to do right by people.

I don't know whether the earlier books or the later books are closer to what their author wanted to write, but I would argue against your idea that the mainstream success which removed economic pressure from the situation did so without adding other pressures.

I don't want to get into real-life religion here, but in the same way that you can't understand Tolkien's legendarium without engaging with his Catholicism, and the same way that The Chronicles Of Narnia are not separate from C.S. Lewis's Anglicanism, the Cosmere exists and is received in the context of mister Sanderson being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

For a work from a member of our faith to get the goodwill it did from the people it did is something truly remarkable and exceptional.  It's grace across cultural/religious divisions and mutual participation in a conversation that I don't think anybody predicted would happen.  Mister Sanderson is, I believe, doing his best to return that grace, to engage with his main body of readers.

And that sometimes means disappointing readers like me.

The earlier Cosmere books asked the readers to sympathize with people like Hrathen.  The later Cosmere books ask the readers to sympathize with people like Jasnah.  When the sequel to Elantris is published, its characters and tone will more likely be in keeping with Wind and Truth than with Elantris.

[ParaTulip fae/faer (declines as she/her)]

9 hours ago, Aeshdan said:

I firmly believe that sapient races have the right to subordinate and even kill non-sapient species for our own benefit (though I also believe that this right comes with moral duties to steward the resources we have and to avoid unnecessary cruelty and destruction), so I guess the question comes down to whether there is a qualitative difference between subspen and physical-realm animals on this front.

Animal liberation is a niche idea, but it is worth going over in a book series that has so many themes of intentionally considered ethics and religious debate.

[Aliroz-The-Confused]

On 12/23/2025 at 11:28 PM, therunner said:

You stated several times that you don't think nuance has place in fantasy, and yet, here you are looking at Kelsier's actions with nuance. Why don't you extend the same grace to Rosharans?

My view was not, and is not, nuanced.  I see Kelsier as an uncomplicated hero just as much, if not more than, Vin and Wax.

On 12/23/2025 at 11:28 PM, therunner said:

He shows there are good and bad people on both worlds, even among protagonists (e.g. books judge Jasnah quite hard for her stances, as he judges Kelsier), other characters are raised up as the better models of behavior (Vin and Kaladin).

Narratively speaking, similar characters are also treated similarly:

• Vin and Kaladin both want to protect those close to them, and both are treated as moral core
• Kelsier, Jasnah and Taravangian all act through 'ends justifies the means' scope, and all are judged for it by the narrative

 

On 12/23/2025 at 11:28 PM, therunner said:

But, remember that his motivation, why he does everything we see him do while he is alive, is vengeance. Nothing else, he just wants to tear down Final Empire because his love died. Understandable motivation, but you can contrast that with e.g Kaladin or Dalinar, whose motivations are protecting those near him or uniting people in face of apocalypse.
 

The reason for that difference is that Kelsier never doubts himself. He never questions morality of his actions (Kaladin does), he never apologizes for his more dubious actions (Kaladin does), and he never tries to grow beyond that (Kaladin does).

Quoted From Mistborn: The Final Empire, page 130 and 131, chapter 7

Quote

 

Marsh sighed, turning away.  "This isn't about a 'cause', Kelsier.  It's about revenge.  It's about you, just like everything always is.  I'll believe that you aren't after the money--I'll even believe that you intend to deliver Yeden this army he's apparently paying you for.  But I won't believe that you care."

"That's where you're wrong, Marsh." Kelsier said quietly.  "That's where you've always been wrong about me."

 

Later on page 131,

Quote

 

"It's not that easy anymore, Kell." Marsh said with a shake of his head.  "Some people are different now.  Others are... gone."

Kelsier let the room grow quiet.  Even the hearth's fire was starting to die out. "I miss her, too."

"I'm sure that you do--but I have to be honest with you, Kell.  Despite what she did... sometimes, I wish you hadn't been the one to survive the pits."

"I wish the same thing every day."

Marsh turned, studying Kelsier with his cold, discerning eyes.  The eyes of a Seeker.  Whatever he saw reflected inside of Kelsier must have finally met with his approval.

 

 

 

You say that Kelsier doesn't apologize.  I say that everything we see him do while he is alive is an apology for surviving.  He doesn't say it in words or think it in words, but it's the air he breathes, the sunlight by which he sees everything else, the drive behind his choices.  Marsh sees this in this excerpt.

I also would point out that he apologizes a bunch of times in Mistborn: The Final Empire, and that he calls Vin out on stuff as much as Vin calls him out on stuff, and it usually ends with them both apologizing, with their last conversation in that book being the exception. 

Quoted from Mistborn: The Final Empire, chapter 33, page 555

Quote

 

"Kell!" Vin said, grabbing his arm.  "Kelsier, you can't save them.  They're too well guarded, and it's daylight in the middle of the city.  You'll just get yourself killed!"

He paused, halting in the street, turning in Vin's grasp.  He looked into her eyes, disappointed.  "You don't understand what this is all about, do you, Vin?"  You never did.  I let you stop me once before, on the hillside by the battlefield.  Not this time.  This time I can do something."

"But..."

He shook his arm free.  "You still have some things to learn about friendship, Vin.  I hope someday you realize what they are."

Then he took off, charging in the direction of the carts.

 

Recall that, at this point, Spook, OreSeur, and the retinue of House Renoux are about to be executed, and Vin, who was willing to risk herself against two Mistborn to save Elend (which also risked the entire crew and everything they were working for, and which Vin did even though Elend had just broken her heart), tells Kelsier not to risk himself for Spook.  I don't think the narrative treats Vin as morally superior to Kelsier, and I don't think describing Kelsier as "ends justify means" and Vin as "want to protect those who are close to [her]" holds up when both of them say "Yo, don't risk yourself, you dummy, I'd miss you" and then proceed to launch themselves bodily at the nearest threat to what they love.

Also, as far as "ends justify the means" vs "protect loved ones", Taravangian's motivation is to protect his loved ones in Kharbranth.  I don't think they're mutually exclusive.

You say his motivation is vengeance and nothing else.  I say that his motivation is love.  Vengeance is the cover story.  What actually drives Kelsier is love.

Quoted From Mistborn, The Final Empire, page 285, chapter 17:

Quote

"Yes, I keep the flower," Kelsier said.  "I'm not really sure why.  But... do you stop loving someone just because they betray you?  I don't think so.  That's what makes the betrayal hurt so much--pain, frustration, anger... and I still loved her.  I still do."

"How?" Vin asked.  "How can you?  And, how can you possibly trust people?  Didn't you learn from what she did to you?"

Kelsier shrugged.  "I think... I think given the choice between loving Mare--betrayal included--and never knowing her, I'd choose love.  I risked, and I lost, but the risk was still worth it.  It's the same with my friends.  Suspicion is healthy in our profession--but only to an extent.  I'd rather trust my men than worry about what will happen if they turn on me."

"That sounds foolish" Vin said.

"Is happiness foolish?" Kelsier asked, turning toward her.  "Where have you been happier, Vin?  On my crew, or back with Camon?"

Vin paused.

Quoted From Mistborn: The Final Empire, page 286, chapter 17:

Quote

 

He nodded as if to himself. "For me, " he said, "it was that night.  Alone in the pits, my arms bleeding from the day's work.  Mare was dead, and I feared that I was responsible--that my lack of faith took away her strength and will.  She died knowing that I questioned her loyalty.  Maybe, if I'd really loved her, I wouldn't have ever questioned.  I don't know."

"But, you didn't die," Vin said.

Kelsier shook his head, "I decided that I'd see her dream fulfilled.  I'd make a world where flowers returned, a world with green plants, a world where no soot fell from the sky...." He trailed off, then sighed.  "I know.  I'm insane."

"Actually", Vin said quietly, "it kind of makes sense.  Finally." 

 

Kelsier, in his moment of greatest extremity, did not swear vengeance.  He swore in his heart to fulfill Mare's dream.  His deepest desire was not to break the Final Empire or give it the destruction it deserves, his deepest desire was to heal the world and make it the kind of world Mare deserved.

Kelsier spares Elend and actively saves the guy from an inquisitor because Vin loves him.  Kelsier hates Elend, but his love for Vin is stronger than that hate.  Oh snap, isn't I will protect even those I hate, so long as it is right the third ideal?

Kelsier dies because he refuses not to protect those who cannot protect themselves.  Second ideal.

John 15: 13: Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

<unwarrantedsarcasm>Nothing motivating this guy but vengeance, folks.  Nothing at all.</unwarrantedsarcasm>

Edited January 4 by Aliroz-The-Confused

[therunner he/him]

7 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

My view was not, and is not, nuanced.  I see Kelsier as an uncomplicated hero just as much, if not more than, Vin and Wax.

Your uncomplicated hero who:

• Wanted to kidnap/trade people
  • Kalak
• Had not problem killing every man,woman, child in noble households (as seen in prologue, the literal first time we see him)
  • He did start that act by protecting Skaa from rape (good act), but slaughtering every single noble in a household is no longer acting in defense of anyone
• Treated soldiers in his rebellion as tools, willing to kill them publicly just to make a point
• Speculative (Along with Spook researched hemalurgy, which requires killing and torture of living subjects)

Also didn't you say this about trading and kidnapping people?

Quote

I would dispute that being betrayed makes it acceptable to demand someone as payment.  Being intentionally distant is not the same thing as seeing someone as an object that can be traded.  None of that changes the fact that Shallan operates under the understanding that (1) she can treat beings as bargaining chips and (2) the consent of said beings is irrelevant because she only needs to negotiate with their "masters".  No amount of legitimate beef with someone is going to make that okay in my eyes.

So, how is he uncomplicated again? 
At the very least, by your own words, you should judge him quite harshly for his willingness to trade people.

Quote

I also would point out that he apologizes a bunch of times in Mistborn: The Final Empire, and that he calls Vin out on stuff as much as Vin calls him out on stuff, and it usually ends with them both apologizing, with their last conversation in that book being the exception. 

Can you quote those apologies? 

Quote

Quoted from Mistborn: The Final Empire, chapter 33, page 555

Spoiler

"Kell!" Vin said, grabbing his arm.  "Kelsier, you can't save them.  They're too well guarded, and it's daylight in the middle of the city.  You'll just get yourself killed!"

He paused, halting in the street, turning in Vin's grasp.  He looked into her eyes, disappointed.  "You don't understand what this is all about, do you, Vin?"  You never did.  I let you stop me once before, on the hillside by the battlefield.  Not this time.  This time I can do something."

"But..."

He shook his arm free.  "You still have some things to learn about friendship, Vin.  I hope someday you realize what they are."

Then he took off, charging in the direction of the carts.

Recall that, at this point, Spook, OreSeur, and the retinue of House Renoux are about to be executed, and Vin, who was willing to risk herself against two Mistborn to save Elend (which also risked the entire crew and everything they were working for, and which Vin did even though Elend had just broken her heart), tells Kelsier not to risk himself for Spook. 

Recall that Kelsier's backup plan, if he failed to kill TLR was to incite all the skaa in Luthadel in rebellion by getting publicly killed and then 'rising' from dead. 

This is just Kelsier about to go to plan B, and hopefully save some friends.

Quote

Kelsier spares Elend and actively saves the guy from an inquisitor because Vin loves him.  Kelsier hates Elend, but his love for Vin is stronger than that hate.  Oh snap, isn't I will protect even those I hate, so long as it is right the third ideal?

Also him being willing to save Elend there is notable, because it is such a departure for Kelsier. He literally intended to kill Elend before, even when he knew Vin loves him, just because he is born noble.

So yay, Kelsier learned that killing people just because of who their parents are is bad, if someone close to him likes them. It was not an example of him shifting his stances as a whole.
 

Quote

I don't think the narrative treats Vin as morally superior to Kelsier, and I don't think describing Kelsier as "ends justify means" and Vin as "want to protect those who are close to [her]" holds up when both of them say "Yo, don't risk yourself, you dummy, I'd miss you" and then proceed to launch themselves bodily at the nearest threat to what they love.

In The FInal Empire alone no, but in Era 1 as whole? Vin is definitely treated as Kelsier's moral superior.

Quote

You say his motivation is vengeance and nothing else.  I say that his motivation is love.  Vengeance is the cover story.  What actually drives Kelsier is love.

Kelsier, in his moment of greatest extremity, did not swear vengeance.  He swore in his heart to fulfill Mare's dream.  His deepest desire was not to break the Final Empire or give it the destruction it deserves, his deepest desire was to heal the world and make it the kind of world Mare deserved.

You are missing that fulfilling Mare's dream if functionally impossible. Kelsier does not know about Shards or Well of Ascension, he has no way of fulfilling Mare's dream.

He did love Mare, I don't dispute that. But that love was used to fuel his need for vengeance. Killing TLR and overthrowing his regime won't fulfill Mare's dream, but it will fill Kelsiers need for vengeance.

Kelsier is very good at lying to others (and himself) to project himself as more 'noble' than he is.

Quote

Kelsier dies because he refuses not to protect those who cannot protect themselves.  Second ideal.

No, he dies because he chooses to face TLR and get killed, as part of his plan B to incite skaa in Luthadel to rebellion, with no regard for their safety, or if the plan can actually succeed, because Kelsier doesn't care about people unless he has personal connection to them.

This is Kelsier about to put people in danger, not protect them.

I love the character, but Kelsier absolutely is self-serving bastard, who has no problem manipulating and using his friends to achieve his goals, nor he has problem getting people killed (ones not involved in his schemes) if it helps achieve his goals. 


EDIT: This is Kelsier's own thoughts on manipulation

Quote

This. He’d missed this. The con. The excitement of playing people like flutes, twisting them about themselves, tying their minds in knots.

 

Edited January 4 by therunner

[ParaTulip fae/faer (declines as she/her)]

On 1/1/2026 at 5:41 PM, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

The earlier Cosmere books asked the readers to sympathize with people like Hrathen.  The later Cosmere books ask the readers to sympathize with people like Jasnah.  When the sequel to Elantris is published, its characters and tone will more likely be in keeping with Wind and Truth than with Elantris.

Sorry to be a bother, but it has been about 11 years since I read Elantris. What do you mean by this comparison? My hazy recollection has Jasnah being a lot easier to relate to and see as trying to do the right thing than Hrathen.

[Aliroz-The-Confused]

21 hours ago, therunner said:

Can you quote those apologies? 

APOLOGY ONE

Spoiler

Quoted from Mistborn: The Final Empire, pages 267 and 268, chapter 18

Quote

 

Vin nodded, sipping her drink.  There was something different about Kelsier.  It was subtle--a slight alteration in his air and attitude.  Things had changed during her sickness.

"Vin," Kelsier said hesitantly, "I owe you an apology.  I nearly got you killed."

Vin snorted quietly.  "It's not your fault.  I made you take me."

"You shouldn't have been able to make me," Kelsier said.  "My original decision to send you away was the right one.  Please accept the apology."

 

APOLOGY TWO

Spoiler

Quoted from Mistborn: The Final Empire, page 519, chapter 31

Quote

 

"I loved him, Kelsier," she whispered.

"Elend?  I know."

"No, not Elend,"  Vin said, "Reen.  He beat me over, and over, and over.  He swore at me, he yelled at me, he told me he'd betray me.  Every day, I thought about how much I hated him."

"And I loved him.  I still do.  It hurts so much to think that he's gone, even though he always told me he would leave.

"Oh, child," Kelsier said, pulling her close.  "I'm sorry."

 

In context, this is clearly Kelsier apologizing in advance for what happens later.

APOLOGY THREE

Spoiler

 

Quote

 

Quoted from Mistborn: The Final Empire, page 586, chapter 35.

Vin unwrapped the paper.

Vin, it read, Your original duty tonight was going to be to assassinate the high noblemen remaining in the city.  But, well, you convinced me that maybe they should live.

I could never figure out how this blasted metal was supposed to work.  It's safe to burn-- it won't kill you-- but it doesn't appear to do anything useful.  If you're reading this, then I failed to figure out how to use it when I faced The Lord Ruler.  I don't think it matters.  The people needed something to believe in, and this was the only way to give it to them.

Please don't be angry at me for abandoning you.  I was given an extension on life.  I should have died in Mare's place, years ago.  I was ready for this.

The others will need you.  You're their Mistborn now--you'll have to protect them in the months to come.  The nobility will send assassins against our fledgling kingdom's rulers.

Farewell.  I'll tell Mare about you.  She always wanted a daughter.

 

 

If this isn't an apology, then I don't know what is.

APOLOGY FOUR

Spoiler

Quoted from Mistborn: The Final Empire, page 419-421 chapter 25.  Kelsier's behavior noticeably changes after this point; it's a key moment of character change.

Quote

 

Kelsier shook his head.  So many dead.  They'd gathered nearly seven thousand troops before this fiasco, but now most of them lay dead.  Yeden had apparently decided to "test" the army by striking at night against the Holstep Garrison.  What had lead him to such a foolish decision?

Me, Kelsier thought.  This is my fault.  He'd promised them supernatural aid.  He'd set himself up, had made Yeden a part of the crew, and had talked so casually about doing the impossible.  Was it any wonder that Yeden had thought that he could attack the Final Empire head on, considering the confidence Kelsier had given him?  Was it any wonder the soldiers would go with the man, considering the promises Kelsier had made?

Now men were dead, and Kelsier was responsible.

 

 

Quote

 

A figure appeared from the mists, hobbling in Kelsier's direction.  The man was old, older than any that Kelsier had recruited.  He must have been part of the revolution from earlier--one of the Skaa who had been living in the caves before Kelsier hijacked them.

The man chose a large stone beside Kelsier's stump, sitting with a sigh.  It was amazing that one so old had even been able to keep up.  Kelsier had moved the group at such a fast pace, seeking to distance them as much as possible from the cave complex.

"The men will sleep fitfully," the old man said.  "They aren't accustomed to being out in the mists."

"They don't have much choice," Kelsier said.

The old man shook his head.  "I suppose they don't."  He sat for a moment, aged eyes unreadable.  "You don't recognize me, do you?"

Kelsier paused, then shook his head.  "I'm sorry.  Did I recruit you?" 

 

Given the context, this is clearly an apology for more than not recognizing Mennis (who Kelsier does, in fact, recognize a paragraph later).  Mennis recognizes it as such, and, rather than accepting or rejecting it, proceeds to be (as he always is), the realest hombre in the Cosmere.

Quote

 

Kelsier leaned forward.  "What happened, Mennis?  Why did Yeden do this?"

Mennis just shook his head.  "Though most expect young men to be fools, I've noticed that just a little bit of age can make a man far more foolish than he was as a child.  Yeden... well, he was the type who was too easily impressed--both by you and by the reputation you left for him.  Some of his generals thought it might be a good idea to give the men some practical battle experience, and they figured a night raid on the Holstep Garrison would be a clever move.  Apparently, it was more difficult than they assumed."

Kelsier shook his head.  "Even if they'd been successful, exposing the army would have made it useless to us."

"They believed in you." Mennis said quietly.  "They thought they couldn't fail."

Kelsier sighed, resting his head back, staring up into the shifting mists.  He slowly let his breath exhale, its air mingling with the currents overhead.

"So, what becomes of us?" Mennis asked.

"We'll split you up," Kelsier said, "get you back into Luthadel in small groups, lose you among the general population."

 

Note how Kelsier has a plan for the safety of Mennis and the other skaa with him, and also note that this plan seems (given that its failure would have almost certainly have been mentioned--if these guys had gotten got it would have at the very least meant Hammond's involvement would have been discovered) to succeed (with no indication that this extraction served any purpose outside of preserving lives--I would compare this to Wax and Wayne granting Maraga witness protection), and also note that this must have either been A) Kelsier and company nigh-spontaneously making and executing a remarkably audacious plan for the safety of the people you claim that Kelsier does not make plans for the safety of or b) Kelsier and company enacting a pre-existing contingency plan for the safety of these people you claim that Kelsier does not make plans for the safety of.

 

Quoted from Mistborn: The Final Empire, pages 421-422 chapter 25

Quote

 

"Do you remember our conversation back at Tresting's plantation?" Mennis asked.
"A bit," Kelsier said.  "You tried to dissuade me from making trouble."

"But it didn't stop you."

"Troublemaking is just about the only thing I'm good at, Mennis.  Do you resent what I did there, what I forced you to become?"

Mennis paused, then nodded.  "But, in a way, I'm thankful for the resentment.  I believed that my life was over--I awoke each day expecting that I wouldn't have the strength to rise. But... well, I found purpose again in the caves.  For that, I'm grateful."

"Even after what I did to the army?"

Mennis snorted.  "Don't think quite so highly of yourself, young man.  Those soldiers got themselves killed.  You might have been their motivation, but you didn't make the choice for them.

"Regardless, this isn't the first skaa rebellion to get slaughtered.  Not by far.  In a way, you've accomplished a lot--you gathered an army of considerable size, and then you armed and trained it beyond what anyone had a right to expect.  Things went a little more quickly than you anticipated, but you should be proud of yourself."

"Proud?" Kelsier asked, standing to work off some of his agitation.  "This army was supposed to help overthrow the Final Empire, not get itself killed fighting a meaningless battle in a valley weeks outside of Luthadel."

"Overthrow the..." Mennis looked up, frowning.  "You really expected us to do something like that?"

"Of course." Kelsier said.  "Why else would I gather an army like this?"

"To resist."  Mennis said.  "To fight.  That's why those lads came to the caves.  It wasn't a matter of winning or losing, it was a matter of doing something--anything-- to struggle against the Lord Ruler.

Kelsier turned, frowning.  "You expected the army to lose from the beginning?"

"What other end was there?"  Mennis asked.  He stood, shaking his head.  "Some may have begun to dream otherwise, lad, but the Lord Ruler can't be defeated.  Once, I gave you some advice--I told you to be careful which battles you choose to fight.  Well, I've realized that this battle was worth fighting.

"Now, let me give you another piece of advice, Kelsier, survivor of Hathsin.  Know when to quit.  You've done well, better than any would have expected.  Those skaa of yours killed an entire garrison's worth of soldiers before they were caught and destroyed.  This is the greatest victory the skaa have known in decades, perhaps centuries.  Now it's time to walk away."

 

I quote this at length, because it is one of the only times mister Sanderson gives a significant voice to the plantation skaa (Vin does not have this background, and is remarkably naïve as to the reality of what they suffer--her big conversation with Dockson is about this) other than Dockson (who gives us the view from inside the crew, much as Mennis gives us the view from outside).

In my view, it's kind of like Mayalaran's "WE CHOSE!" moment.  We are expected to accept "WE CHOSE" as absolving the children of Ashyn for what they did to their spren, we are supposed to accept Mayalaran's declaration of agency as the defining perspective on how the moral responsibility is divided.

The narrative of Mistborn: The Final Empire does not allow this moment to absolve Kelsier.  Kelsier reflects on the hopelessness of the situation and whispers to Mennis "That wasn't a victory, Mennis.  I'll show you a victory."  I interpret this as apology, and this is where Part Three of Mistborn: The Final Empire ends.  I could argue from Kelsier's last few lines of dialogue to Vin that Kelsier, who you say is immune to regret and self-doubt, who you say never tries to grow from his actions, is defined by those very things, defined by doing whatever it takes to make right that which he feels he has made wrong.

The narrative places the weight of condemnation for the loss of Yeden's army on Kelsier, even though Yeden went not only without orders but in defiance of the plan which needed the army to remain secret.  Even if Yeden and his army had WON, it would have been only a tactical victory at the cost of strategic objectives.  Even Harry S "The Buck Stops Here" Truman would place that on Yeden (compare to MacArthur) and say that "The Buck Stops Here" means you have to fix the messes your subordinates create whether or not you're responsible for them.

The narrative at first seems to place responsibility for Yeden's unexamined and disastrous confidence in the infallibility of his choices on Kelsier, in a way that it does not place such responsibility for Moash on Kaladin, in a way it does not place such responsibility for the deadeyes on the radiants.  Moash is treated as his own person, a moral actor, and so are the spren, but Yeden isn't, or at least, isn't to the same extent, at least at the start of that chapter.

By including Mennis's perspective, mister Sanderson clarifies his intent as to responsibility.  Kelsier is responsible for giving people hope when hope is in defiance of all reason, for causing people to believe the impossible (the end of the Final Empire).  The way he makes this right is by bringing about (or mentoring Vin to heroism such that she could bring about) the impossible (the end of the Final Empire), by justifying that hope which defies all reason.

That's idealistic as beans, yo.  That's absolutist to the core.  It's inspiring in a way that The Stormlight Archive just isn't any more.

 

Kelsier doesn't so much apologize with words as with actions, and with changes in behavior, but that just makes them more sincere as apologies, not less, and it makes it all the more meaningful when he says the words.

 

Edited January 5 by Aliroz-The-Confused
Fixing a typographical error: changed "naive" to "naïve."