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

[therunner he/him]

3 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

APOLOGY ONE

  Reveal hidden contents

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

 

Good apology for the singular act, but not one for his overall behavior or leading to any change in his behavior.

3 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

APOLOGY TWO

  Reveal hidden contents

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

 

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

I don't think this is an apology, just Kelsier showing sympathy in the moment. 
Though I do see how it can be read as one.

Quote

 APOLOGY THREE

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

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

More of a suicide note than an apology.

3 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

APOLOGY FOUR

  Reveal hidden contents

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

A good apology.

Quote

  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.

If it takes nearly 7000 dead for a character to start doubting their course of action, then they are not defined by doubt or regret, they are a megalomaniac who was confronted with consequences.

And I say he does not grow, because he doesn't. His final plan (the one he comes up with after this fiasco) is to once again incite Skaa to rebellion (by again faking a supernatural power, this time a faked resurrection), only this time right in the capital. The rebellion would once again lose, and all of them would be slaughtered, If it were not for things completly beyond Kelsier's control and knowledge:

• How Atium feruchemy works, that TLR even uses Atium feruchemy
• That Vin is chosen by Mists, and Inquisitor Kar wants to use her as political pawn (otherwise they would kill her immediately as TLR wanted)
• Mists entering a building (literal divine intervention)

He didn't learn a single thing, when his next plan was basically the same thing all over again, and only things completely beyond his control prevented all Skaa in Luthadel from being slaughtered.

Quote

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 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.

I also disagree with this. I do think narrative absolves him partially.

It correctly places some blame on Kelsier (through his own voice), because he did intentionally lie to his soldiers to make them believe there are supernatural powers helping them (the whole scene with Demoux) to improve their morale, and this act was partially a consequence of Yeden and soldiers believing this lie.

This is unlike deadeye spren and recreance, because there both the knights and the spren acted on the same information. Neither party lied to the other, and the decision was mutual, hence placing blame solely on the knights is wrong.

So Yeden and soldiers acting on information that was false and knowingly planted by Kelsier means some of the blame should rest on Kelsier. 

But, through Mannis, the narrative also pops the bubble of Kelsier's self-importance, as ultimately the soldiers did choose rebellion, and did choose to attack that garrison, even if using false information.
 

Quote

Yeden

With regards to Yeden, he is not talked about much when it comes to responsibility, because he is dead. At most, he is considered just a general part of the dead soldiers. 

Living instead focus on other living, to see who is to blame. Like modern Rosharans are blamed for actions of their long dead ancestors, by e.g. spren and some readers.

Quote

Kaladin and Moash

Narrative doesn't place responsibility for Moash on Kaladin, because he is in no way responsible for his actions. 

Kaladin never lied to, or mislead Moash (except keeping his Radiancy secret in TWoK).
And it was Moash who incited Kaladin to join the assassination, not the other way around. In fact, Kaladin tried multiple times to talk Moash out of it, which Moash repeatedly chose to ignore. 

At his lowest he does relent temporarily, but based on previous interactions, it is clear that Moash would choose this course of action regardless, even if it took a different specific form.



Also, ending your analysis at the end of TFE conventiently side steps the issue of the fact that rebellion would have failed. In WoA they only hold on to Luthadel, and only because of Elend being a figurehead (and nobles in the Assembly, working behind the scenes on surrender), otherwise other arriving armies would quickly form an alliance to crush the rebellion.

I would also like to hear your thought on how Kelsier is uncomplicated, considering he:

• 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)

Especially the part about him being willing to ignore consent of others by kidnapping them, trading them in deals.

Edited January 5 by therunner

[Qianweilian He/him]

8 hours ago, therunner said:

And I say he does not grow, because he doesn't.

I would argue he does grow some. Not much, but some. He does eventually accept Elend and the fact that all the nobles aren't evil tyrants. He still manipulates people the same however, he does have psychopathic tendencies and doesn't care for life nearly as much as he would have you believe.

Quote

i_are_pant

1. Which of your protagonist characters do you dislike the most as a person? Taking into account that you know all of their inner secrets and motivations.2. On the flip side. Which of your antagonists do you connect with the most? The Lord Ruler seems an obvious choice as he was misunderstood by everybody for so long. But still, I'm curious.

Brandon Sanderson

• This is a tough one, as while I'm writing, I HAVE to like everyone. However, the most disturbing of them is probably Kelsier. He's a psychopath--meaning the actual, technical term. Lack of empathy, egotism, lack of fear. If his life had gone differently, he could have been a very, very evil dude.

• Elend. I see myself as an idealist like him.

/r/fantasy AMA 2013 (April 17, 2013)

Questioner

I think Kelsier is one of the best-crafted fantasy characters I've seen in the world. He resonates with me on new levels. What exactly were your influences in the character when you were constructing him?

Brandon Sanderson

Two big influences for Kelsier. The first is, I wanted to do kind of the classic rogue archetype guy, but someone who had had something so fundamentally life-shaking in his life that he had to look deep within and become somebody else. But it's mixed with the other big inspiration, which is, there's kind of some psychopathic tendencies to him, and he would be a villain in many other books. But in this one, he's what the world needed. And those two combinations created for me a really nice tension inside a character.

Oathbringer London signing (Nov. 28, 2017)

 

[therunner he/him]

1 hour ago, Qianweilian said:

I would argue he does grow some. Not much, but some. He does eventually accept Elend and the fact that all the nobles aren't evil tyrants. He still manipulates people the same however, he does have psychopathic tendencies and doesn't care for life nearly as much as he would have you believe.

 

Oh, I meant specifically in regards to e.g. making realistic plans, and giving serious consideration to lives of people that will be entangled with those plans.  I seriously didn't realize until now how similar the modus operandi of his plan to incite Skaa is to his incitement of the army (fake supernatural power -> more fanatical followers).

Regarding his stance on nobles he does budge a little bit, and that is among his better moments as a person. But in this discussion it is easy to start slipping towards absolutes.

I still like him, but I would not want to be anywhere near any of his plans.

Edited January 5 by therunner

[Aliroz-The-Confused]

 

On 1/4/2026 at 12:00 AM, therunner said:

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. 

On 1/4/2026 at 12:00 AM, therunner said:

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. 

18 hours ago, therunner said:

If it takes nearly 7000 dead for a character to start doubting their course of action, then they are not defined by doubt or regret, they are a megalomaniac who was confronted with consequences.

And I say he does not grow, because he doesn't. His final plan (the one he comes up with after this fiasco) is to once again incite Skaa to rebellion (by again faking a supernatural power, this time a faked resurrection), only this time right in the capital. The rebellion would once again lose, and all of them would be slaughtered, If it were not for things completly beyond Kelsier's control and knowledge:

8 hours ago, therunner said:

Oh, I meant specifically in regards to e.g. making realistic plans, and giving serious consideration to lives of people that will be entangled with those plans.  I seriously didn't realize until now how similar the modus operandi of his plan to incite Skaa is to his incitement of the army (fake supernatural power -> more fanatical followers).

You repeatedly accuse Kelsier of "inciting" the skaa as if he introduced motivation that did not previously exist.  You cannot incite free-willed slaves to rebel, they already want to.  What Kelsier and the crew provided (directly or indirectly) was (among other things) weapons, training, opportunity, organization, and secrecy all of which the Final Empire went to massive effort to deprive the skaa of.

Slavery, as it existed in the final empire, is a condition of war masquerading as a condition of peace, in which the enslaved reap the fruit of war and the slaving reap the fruit of peace.  Kelsier does not introduce violence to a condition of peace, he does not escalate the violence that exists in the Final Empire (if the balance inclines, the number of people Kelsier killed at Lord Tresting's plantation is much less than the number of people who would have been killed in a single year had the enslaved remained enslaved), and he does not perpetuate a condition of violence (Kelsier and the crew didn't start a war that lasted two years, they ended a war that had lasted over five hundred years).

You say that he is putting the people in danger, as if they weren't already in danger.

18 hours ago, therunner said:

The rebellion would once again lose, and all of them would be slaughtered, If it were not for things completly beyond Kelsier's control and knowledge:

• How Atium feruchemy works, that TLR even uses Atium feruchemy
• That Vin is chosen by Mists, and Inquisitor Kar wants to use her as political pawn (otherwise they would kill her immediately as TLR wanted)
• Mists entering a building (literal divine intervention)

 

Two things.

First off, yeah, they would have all been slaughtered, if it were not for things completely beyond Kelsier's control and knowledge.  That's the whole point.  It's called a leap of faith, and it does not disqualify you from being an unambiguous, uncomplicated hero.

Luke Skywalker turns off his targeting computer during the attack on the Death Star, despite that being absolutely insane and the rebels, his friends, and all of Yavin IV, heck, the future of the galaxy, being on the line.  All of them would have died if it were not for something completely beyond Luke's control and knowledge (the Millennium Falcon coming in clutch because Chewbacca and Han Solo took their own leap of faith and decided to throw their lot in with the suicidal last stand of a doomed rebellion).

Gandalf's entire plan in The Lord Of The Rings is a fool's gambit, a folly that all the wise and the ancient of Middle-Earth call out as being utterly bonkers and in defiance of all reason.  It works because of a bunch of things completely beyond Gandalf's control and knowledge, and also implied divine intervention.

Bridge Four going back for Dalinar and his men instead of escaping was also batcrap nuts, and Kaladin had no reason at all to think it would end well, and it only did because of things completely beyond Kaladin's control and knowledge.

Yeah, it's absurd, and yeah, it's a risk, and there's no way to know ahead of time that it will even work, and sometimes it backfires (as it did for Yeden, and as it did for Kelsier when he had faith in the eleventh metal against The Lord Ruler, and as it did for Vin at the Well of Ascension... and yet, in the end, it all went as Preservation had planned), but it's the apparent absurdity of faith and courage, and its rightness is something outside of the reliable rightness of reason.

Second off, Kelsier did prepare the crew to take care of the fledgling kingdom after his death.  He chose the basis of a religion because it was the religions that lasted longest against The Lord Ruler; it was, historically speaking, the most solid foundation for resistance to the Final Empire.  Sazed, with his copperminds and connection to the Keepers, represents the best knowledge-base advantage possible.  The rest of the crew were similarly the best possibilities for their roles.  You say that Kelsier acted without regard for the safety of those he would leave behind.  I say that he not only made real efforts towards such safety, not only made preparations and plans for such, but made the only possible arrangements that could have resulted in safety because those people were not safe to begin with.  I argue that the alternative, submitting to the Final Empire, was worse than what happened during the siege of Luthadel.

18 hours ago, therunner said:

Also, ending your analysis at the end of TFE conventiently side steps the issue of the fact that rebellion would have failed. In WoA they only hold on to Luthadel, and only because of Elend being a figurehead (and nobles in the Assembly, working behind the scenes on surrender), otherwise other arriving armies would quickly form an alliance to crush the rebellion.

I'd argue that what happens in The Well Of Ascension is itself the result of divine intervention on Ruin's part, and the result of a lot of effort on the part of the nobility, and the result of Elend's inexperience (note that he, a failure point of what happened, was not someone Kelsier had prepared, and note that OreSeur, another failure point, was killed and replaced by a Kandra that nobody knew house Venture had.). If divine intervention makes the success not count as a credit to Kelsier to you, then divine intervention should make the failure not count as a mark against Kelsier to you.  And, also, Luthadel doesn't completely fall.  If succeeding because of things that couldn't have been predicted invalidates the success in your view, then failing because of things that couldn't have been predicted invalidates the failure in your view, since, between the two of us, you're the reasonable one.

I ended my analysis at the end of Mistborn: The Final Empire, because I was arguing on behalf of Kelsier's character during his life.  If we are to include The Well Of Ascension and The Hero Of Ages, we ought to include Mistborn: Secret History, wherein Kelsier saves the world multiple times, comforts a dying god, preserves preservation itself, relinquishes infinite power because it's the right thing to do, and learns humility to the extent of reverently calling Leras "My lord", while receiving absolutely no credit from anyone.

18 hours ago, therunner said:

I would also like to hear your thought on how Kelsier is uncomplicated, considering he:

• 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)

Especially the part about him being willing to ignore consent of others by kidnapping them, trading them in deals.

I explained why I do not condemn Kelsier's violence against the nobility.

As for treating soldiers in his rebellion as tools, yeah, that's messed up, and the point is for him to later learn that the hearts of men are not his toys.  But, even with that, I'd argue that he's the only protagonist of the original Mistborn trilogy other than Spook and to a lesser extent Sazed to actually have significant conversations with skaa outside the crew in which said skaa do most of the talking, I'd argue that Kelsier, in spending those hours each day of the later stages of his plan with the skaa, engages with them far more than Vin, Elend, or Sazed ever attempts to do, and the readers tend to see this as manipulative and creepy because we never see these interactions except through Vin's point-of-view and she thinks it's manipulative and creepy because at that point she still tends to assume that things she doesn't understand which aren't named Elend Venture is manipulative and creepy.

As for the hemalurgy, that's speculative.

As for the kidnapping:  because storm you, that's why.  I'm unfair and biased, as are all who care about the books they read (in our culture, we are raised to distrust emotion and to trust reason, so as readers we construct reasoned justifications for the conclusions we arrive at emotionally).  In the end, a reader's assessment of a character has a lot more to do with pathos than with logic, and thank goodness for that, because otherwise it would be impossible to sympathize with any flawed character.  Yeah, I ain't got a reason here, but I got a hope, a stupid idealistic irrational stubborn hope, that, even when it looks like the Survivor of Hathsin's gone to the evil and betrayed the trust the readers put in him, that trust is worth it and maybe there are things going on I don't understand.  I know that doesn't hold up as an argument, and concede that you win.  You're almost certainly correct and I'm almost certainly wrong.  Your points are more convincing.  

Edited January 6 by Aliroz-The-Confused

[therunner he/him]

5 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

You repeatedly accuse Kelsier of "inciting" the skaa as if he introduced motivation that did not previously exist.  You cannot incite free-willed slaves to rebel, they already want to.  What Kelsier and the crew provided (directly or indirectly) was (among other things) weapons, training, opportunity, organization, and secrecy all of which the Final Empire went to massive effort to deprive the skaa of.

You can certainly incite people to action, even if the actions is something they find desirable. 

If Kelsier didn't incite Skaa to rebellion, they would have already rebelled. But they needed certain push, inciting incident, if you will.

Quote

Slavery, as it existed in the final empire, is a condition of war masquerading as a condition of peace, in which the enslaved reap the fruit of war and the slaving reap the fruit of peace.  Kelsier does not introduce violence to a condition of peace, he does not escalate the violence that exists in the Final Empire (if the balance inclines, the number of people Kelsier killed at Lord Tresting's plantation is much less than the number of people who would have been killed in a single year had the enslaved remained enslaved), and he does not perpetuate a condition of violence (Kelsier and the crew didn't start a war that lasted two years, they ended a war that had lasted over five hundred years).

You say that he is putting the people in danger, as if they weren't already in danger.

I am not saying Kelsier introduces violence to this situation, I am saying that Kelsier repeatedly creates situations where he gives Skaa false hope (by faking powers that are supernatural even in Scadrial context), and Skaa acting on that hope will get them killed.

Sure, maybe some Skaa find getting killed in failed rebellion preferable, but if so, why didn't those people already try to rebel?

Quote

First off, yeah, they would have all been slaughtered, if it were not for things completely beyond Kelsier's control and knowledge.  That's the whole point.  It's called a leap of faith, and it does not disqualify you from being an unambiguous, uncomplicated hero.

No, but him manipulating people to take leap of faith based on false information, Kelsier knows is false, is something that uncomplicated hero most certainly would not do.

And the other situations you put forward are quite different

Quote

Luke Skywalker turns off his targeting computer during the attack on the Death Star, despite that being absolutely insane and the rebels, his friends, and all of Yavin IV, heck, the future of the galaxy, being on the line.  All of them would have died if it were not for something completely beyond Luke's control and knowledge (the Millennium Falcon coming in clutch because Chewbacca and Han Solo took their own leap of faith and decided to throw their lot in with the suicidal last stand of a doomed rebellion).

Luke Skywalker turns off targeting computer because: 

• Previous attack run showed that targeting computers are not sufficient (pilot used, and the missiles still missed the vent)
• He knows he has supernatural power that lets him anticipate events and react faster than otherwise possible
• If he doesn't hit they are all dead

Was it a leap of faith? Yes, but based on correct information he had, not false information like the one Kelsier gave Skaa (twice).

It also doesn't create the situation of mortal danger for the participant, they are already in do or die situation. Skaa, while their conditions are horrible, are not in do or die situation (though you can certainly make argument that death is preferable to slavery). 

Finally, there are not other viable alternatives available, so this leap of faith is all that is left to the hero. Skaa certainly have alternatives, i.e. rebel anywhere but the capital city that contains immortal super-Mistborn (TLR), his semi-immortal super-mistborn servants (Inquisitors) and a lot of Atium they control.

Quote

Gandalf's entire plan in The Lord Of The Rings is a fool's gambit, a folly that all the wise and the ancient of Middle-Earth call out as being utterly bonkers and in defiance of all reason.  It works because of a bunch of things completely beyond Gandalf's control and knowledge, and also implied divine intervention.

Gandalf plan is certainly desperate gambit, but once again, all better options have failed.

• From 5 Istari only Gandalf and Saruman remain active, and they are unable to act directly to stop the rising darkness
• Men have proven corruptible (cannot trust them with the Ring) and their kingdoms are in disrepair and ceding ground to very weakened Mordor
• Elves are on their way out, and no less corruptible than men
• Dwarf are more corruptible than men
• Previous attempt to destroy Sauron with direct military action failed

So based on the above, Gandalf cannot make a plan that relies on men, elves or dwarves to handle the ring, and cannot hope to make direct assault on Mordor. Additionally, without destroying the Ring, Sauron will continue to be a power. 

I.e. Gandalf has to make a plan to destroy the Ring, but it cannot be direct military action, nor can it rely on men, elves and dwarves. 

In the light of those constraints, plan to send a sneaky team with Hobbit bearing the Ring seems like a reasonable conclusion. 

Was it an incredibly risky plan? Yes. Was it among the better (if not the best) options left available? Also yes.

Again, contrast with Kelsier final plan: 

• Luthadel contains several super-Mistborn, and they control large horde of Atium. Atium lets them kill literal hundreds, even if just relatively small beads. 
  • Conclusion: Skaa revolt in Luthadel is doomed to be slaughtered, unless you can take either Atium out or somehow kill all the super-Mistborn (all of whom are thought to be immortal).
• Luthadel is heart of the empire, i.e. important symbol, any rebellion there would invite huge disproportionate response.
  • Conclusion: Skaa revolt in Luthadel is much more risky than in other cities.

Based on the above, revolt in Luthadel is horrible plan and there are better alternatives. Of course that is only if you plan to win, if you just want to create a figure head of new religion, and a spit in the face of TLR.

Quote

Bridge Four going back for Dalinar and his men instead of escaping was also batcrap nuts, and Kaladin had no reason at all to think it would end well, and it only did because of things completely beyond Kaladin's control and knowledge.

It was very risky situation, but again Kaladin acted on correct information that he has supernatural powers that make him faster, stronger and heal better, and that he is among the best warriors on the planet (he did kill a Shardbearer even before he got powers, at least he thinks).

So trying to hold on to small beachhead to give an army an option to retreat is not impossible. Dangerous, but doable. 

Again, contrast flaws in Kelsier plan to incite rebellion in Luthadel, which would fail unless someone killed TLR and Inquisitors, neither of which Kelsier knew how to kill when making this plan.

Quote

Second off, Kelsier did prepare the crew to take care of the fledgling kingdom after his death.  He chose the basis of a religion because it was the religions that lasted longest against The Lord Ruler; it was, historically speaking, the most solid foundation for resistance to the Final Empire.  Sazed, with his copperminds and connection to the Keepers, represents the best knowledge-base advantage possible.  The rest of the crew were similarly the best possibilities for their roles.  You say that Kelsier acted without regard for the safety of those he would leave behind. 

I don't say he didn't make any preparations, I am saying his preparations were insufficient and doomed to fail. 

• The plan itself couldn't succeed, due to presence of Steel Inquisitors and TLR, who control Atium horde, none of whom Kelsier knew how to remove from board.
  • This alone shows he simply didn't plan with regard to safety of people he leaves behind. His note to Vin is basically "Didn't figure out how to kill TLR in those years I had, good luck figuring it out in few hours/days before he kills you all!", which is ... not great (yes it is not written like that, but ultimately it comes down to that)
• Even if somehow they succeeded, they are now besieged in a city with no way out, against nobles in The Final Empire, who have very strong reason to crush this rebellion, and resources to do so.
   

So to sum up, I say Kelsier does not have regard for safety for those he works for, because his final plan is utterly doomed to failure due to:

• Presence of TLR and Steel Inquisitors + Atium horde -> Everyone rebelling gets horribly slaughtered
  • TLR is removed by literal divine intervention
  • Steel Inquisitors are removed by Marsh, who everyone thinks is dead
    • If Marsh didn't kill Steel Inquisitors, they would have in turn killed Vin before she could kill TLR
  • Atium horde turns out not to be there, something they simply couldn't have known
• Somehow they overcome problem 1, and take the city. Nobles all across TFE have strong reason to suppress the rebellion, and then fight over the remains.
  • Elend holding the city gives it air of legitimacy in eyes of nobility, giving them time to make plan for defense

Quote

I say that he not only made real efforts towards such safety, not only made preparations and plans for such, but made the only possible arrangements that could have resulted in safety because those people were not safe to begin with.  I argue that the alternative, submitting to the Final Empire, was worse than what happened during the siege of Luthadel.

This is false dichotomy, it wasn't do submitting vs rebellion in Luthadel.

They could have rebelled elsewhere, giving them more time to prepare before inevitable attack back. 
They could have simply tried to lead Skaa in exodus to other parts of world.

Or they could have tried to assassinate TLR and his inquisitors before starting rebellion, because unless those are solved, any rebellion in Luthadel will fail.

5 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

I'd argue that what happens in The Well Of Ascension is itself the result of divine intervention on Ruin's part, . If divine intervention makes the success not count as a credit to Kelsier to you, then divine intervention should make the failure not count as a mark against Kelsier to you. 

The siege isn't part of Ruin's intervention, so that happens regardless.

Hell, if not for Ruin influence, Vin would likely get killed by Zane, as the voice actively told him not to kill her, which started his interest in her. So the intervention was again beneficial to rebellion.

And the plan would have failed not because of divine intervention, but because of quite mundane events, nobles doing their best to hold on to power.

Quote

and the result of a lot of effort on the part of the nobility,

...of course? They would fight back against rebellion, that is something any rebellion leader has to take into account. 

If your plan is in danger because your opponent acts entirely in their own interest, it is a bad plan.

Quote

and the result of Elend's inexperience (note that he, a failure point of what happened, was not someone Kelsier had prepared,

Elend is also the reason they even held the city as long as they did, as otherwise Cett and Straff would have no reason not to ally to crush rebellion.

Quote

and note that OreSeur, another failure point, was killed and replaced by a Kandra that nobody knew house Venture had.)

Sure, that one he couldn't plan for.

Quote

And, also, Luthadel doesn't completely fall.  If succeeding because of things that couldn't have been predicted invalidates the success in your view, then failing because of things that couldn't have been predicted invalidates the failure in your view, since, between the two of us, you're the reasonable one.

Except the plan would have failed because of things that could be predicted namely:

1. Presence of TLR + Steel Inquisitors + atium in city
   • Taken care of by divine intervention + Marsh (who everyone thinks is dead)
2. Nobles acting in their self-interest to put down Skaa rebellion
   • Taken care of by Elend being in power, giving legitimacy to Luthadel government in eyes of other nobles
      

Quote

I ended my analysis at the end of Mistborn: The Final Empire, because I was arguing on behalf of Kelsier's character during his life.  If we are to include The Well Of Ascension and The Hero Of Ages, we ought to include Mistborn: Secret History, wherein Kelsier saves the world multiple times, comforts a dying god, preserves preservation itself, relinquishes infinite power because it's the right thing to do, and learns humility to the extent of reverently calling Leras "My lord", while receiving absolutely no credit from anyone.

Yeah, Kelsier in Secret History is in my opinion Kelsier at his best. 

Notably it is also only time when he isn't around people he can manipulate, and just has to do things himself. 
I think that tells us something about him.

Quote

As for treating soldiers in his rebellion as tools, yeah, that's messed up, and the point is for him to later learn that the hearts of men are not his toys.  But, even with that, I'd argue that he's the only protagonist of the original Mistborn trilogy other than Spook and to a lesser extent Sazed to actually have significant conversations with skaa outside the crew in which said skaa do most of the talking, I'd argue that Kelsier, in spending those hours each day of the later stages of his plan with the skaa, engages with them far more than Vin, Elend, or Sazed ever attempts to do, and the readers tend to see this as manipulative and creepy because we never see these interactions except through Vin's point-of-view and she thinks it's manipulative and creepy because at that point she still tends to assume that things she doesn't understand which aren't named Elend Venture is manipulative and creepy.

From the crew we also spent the most time with Kelsier (outside of Vin), since he is the figurehead and leader, so of course we see him interact with Skaa more. Plus, he off loads a lot of organizational work on Dockson, leaving him time for the meet and greets.

Vin cannot interact with Skaa much, because she is playing a role of Noblewoman first, and then is acting primarily as bodyguard/assassin. She is also quite introverted, unlike Kelsier.

Sazed is again acting as Terris servant of noble, role which requires him to not interact with skaa much. He then is out of city for a while, and when back acts as advisor primarily.

Elend wants to interact with Skaa more, but because of his father cannot. Once he can, he is established as king and doesn't really have time.

Quote

As for the hemalurgy, that's speculative.

While speculative, reasonably well supported:

• By Era 2 he is back in physical body thanks to hemalurgy, and one that goes beyond the applications known in Era 1.
• He talked to Spook about finding a way to his body.
  • Conclusion: Kelsier and Spook researched hemalurgy.

Edited January 6 by therunner

[Aliroz-The-Confused]

On 1/5/2026 at 11:33 PM, therunner said:

Luke Skywalker turns off targeting computer because: 

• Previous attack run showed that targeting computers are not sufficient (pilot used, and the missiles still missed the vent)
• He knows he has supernatural power that lets him anticipate events and react faster than otherwise possible
• If he doesn't hit they are all dead

Was it a leap of faith? Yes, but based on correct information he had, not false information like the one Kelsier gave Skaa (twice).

We see jedi pilot their starfighters in the prequels, and they use targeting computers.  Darth Vader uses a targeting computer.  We see Luke do other feats of piloting later, including during the battle of Hoth, and always he uses the tech available.  What Luke does in the attack run is without precedent and is never repeated.  This is not A Thing That Jedi Do, this is something utterly unique and singular.

Also, at this point, I'd argue that Luke does not know that he can anticipate events and react father than otherwise possible.  When The Empire Strikes Back came out, one of the huge audience-reaction moments was when Luke pulls his lightsaber from the ice to himself with the Force because back in 1980 nobody knew that you could move things with the Force, and another was when Luke jumps out of the carbonite freezing chamber (each stunt Luke does in Empire Strikes Back teaches the audience that the Force gives preternatural strength, agility, and reaction, but this was a surprise in 1980).  The only tangible uses of the force we see in the original Star Wars previous to the leap of faith are Obi-wan mentally influencing the stormtroopers, Darth Vader revoking Colonel Motti's breathing privileges, Luke hearing voices, and Luke saying that he felt something and could almost see through the blast shield.

Also, it was expected that it might take multiple attempts to hit the target, X-wings and Y-Wings have the vibes of WWI-WWII fighter planes and bombers, and those very much do NOT operate on "previous guy missed, that means the implements are unreliable, better play this by ear and turn off my implements".  Misses are expected.

R2-D2, who darn well knows how jedi function and what they can do, does a questioning "what the heck, huh??!" bleep-bloop after Luke turns off the computer.  The rebel base guys ask Luke what's wrong.

On 1/5/2026 at 11:33 PM, therunner said:

It also doesn't create the situation of mortal danger for the participant, they are already in do or die situation. Skaa, while their conditions are horrible, are not in do or die situation (though you can certainly make argument that death is preferable to slavery). 

Slavery, especially as practiced in the Final Empire, is a condition of mortal danger for the enslaved.

On 1/5/2026 at 11:33 PM, therunner said:

Finally, there are not other viable alternatives available, so this leap of faith is all that is left to the hero. Skaa certainly have alternatives, i.e. rebel anywhere but the capital city that contains immortal super-Mistborn (TLR), his semi-immortal super-mistborn servants (Inquisitors) and a lot of Atium they control.

A rebellion would be in no less danger anywhere else.  The nations and empires of Europe put immense effort into attempting to destroy Haiti's independence and reinstate slavery.  The Final Empire ruled the entire world.

Also, you discount the human element, the part that is morale, aesthetics, and perception.  Having the capital, the center of administration for the world, the Lord Ruler's own home, has massive implications for the continuity of governance.  If they rebelled from anywhere else, whichever noble house ended up controlling Luthadel could claim continuity of governance from the Lord Ruler, but with all of them having only their own domains, such dominion over the other noble houses must be proven.

Also, I'm not sure that Kelsier and the Crew can feasibly arrange an exodus of skaa, or that they'd be in a better position after going wherever the heck they would go. The resources, contacts, people, and secret places that Kelsier and the crew have to work with are in and around Luthadel.  Cities in pre-modern settings are not placed arbitrarily, they're placed wherever the advantages are, and capital cities are placed wherever the best advantages are.

On 1/5/2026 at 11:33 PM, therunner said:

...of course? They would fight back against rebellion, that is something any rebellion leader has to take into account. 

If your plan is in danger because your opponent acts entirely in their own interest, it is a bad plan.

Then all the plans made by protagonists of Cosmere novels are bad plans.  Rayse acts entirely in his own interest.  Taravangian acts entirely in his own interest.  The Set act entirely in their own interest.  Autonomy acts entirely in her own interest, as do Bluefingers and Wyrn Wulfden.  But only for the nobles of Scadrial do you seem to count this as natural and as something to be understood and accepted.

 

On 1/5/2026 at 11:33 PM, therunner said:

Gandalf plan is certainly desperate gambit, but once again, all better options have failed.

• From 5 Istari only Gandalf and Saruman remain active, and they are unable to act directly to stop the rising darkness
• Men have proven corruptible (cannot trust them with the Ring) and their kingdoms are in disrepair and ceding ground to very weakened Mordor
• Elves are on their way out, and no less corruptible than men
• Dwarf are more corruptible than men
• Previous attempt to destroy Sauron with direct military action failed

So based on the above, Gandalf cannot make a plan that relies on men, elves or dwarves to handle the ring, and cannot hope to make direct assault on Mordor. Additionally, without destroying the Ring, Sauron will continue to be a power. 

I.e. Gandalf has to make a plan to destroy the Ring, but it cannot be direct military action, nor can it rely on men, elves and dwarves. 

In the light of those constraints, plan to send a sneaky team with Hobbit bearing the Ring seems like a reasonable conclusion. 

Was it an incredibly risky plan? Yes. Was it among the better (if not the best) options left available? Also yes.

Hobbits have proven corruptible (Bilbo), especially if you count Hobbit-kind as including whatever Sméagol is.  The Ring corrupts all who bear it (except Tom Bombadil), no one can willingly destroy it. 

Quote

 

'Thus we return to the destroying of the Ring,' said Erestor, 'and yet we come no nearer.  What strength have we for the finding of the fire in which it was made?  That is the path of despair.  Of folly I would say, if the long wisdom of Elrond did not forbid me.'

'Despair, or folly?' said Gandalf. 'It is not despair, for despair is only for those who see the end beyond all doubt.  We do not.  It is wisdom to accept necessity, when all other courses have been weighed, though as folly it may appear to those who cling to false hope.  Well, let folly be our cloak, a veil before the eyes of the Enemy!  For he is very wise, and weighs all things to a nicety in the scales of his malice.  But the only measure he knows is desire, desire for power; and so he judges all hearts.  Into his heart the thought shall not enter that any will refuse it, that having the Ring we may seek to destroy it.  If we seek this, we shall put him out of reckoning.'

'At least for a while,' said Elrond.  'The road must be trod, but it will be very hard.  And neither strength nor wisdom will carry us very far upon it.  This quest may be attempted by the weak with as much hope as the strong.  Yet such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere.'

 

I'd say that Gandalf and Kelsier both made absurd-but-surprisingly-solid plans that were never going to work because there were no better options, and then those plans worked anyway because 1) a boatload of unexpected things which could not have been predicted happened and 2) divine intervention made up the gap between what mortal beings could do and what was required.

Both die, both come back, and both are called reckless and manipulative meddlers out for their own power by their discerning, wise, and fundamentally good-hearted but weary and cynical associates (Vin and Denethor (book-Denethor, not movie-Denethor)) who have to bear great burdens because of the way the bold plans give them horrible situations.

They're both seen as the irresponsible child of the bunch by their older peers (while the Hobbits look up to Gandalf, the old elves, who remember a time before he came to Middle-Earth, talk to him with the kind of fond exasperation that the bigger members of the Fellowship talk to Sam, Merry, and Pippin with... which, interestingly, seems to be the same kind of fond exasperation that everyone who remembers before the Shattering talks to Hoid with).

They both care deeply about so-called "lesser" peoples (whom they are accused of manipulating, and with whom they spend a lot of time) while putting those peoples in danger--except that the danger was always there and the counterfactual to what happened was far more dangerous and worse.

The difference is that in The Lord Of The Rings, the viewpoint characters (most often the Hobbits) know less of what's going on than Gandalf, but even so are still the viewpoint so we're primed to favor their perception of Gandalf over anyone else's and take Gandalf at his word over anyone who disagrees with him; while in the Cosmere the point of view characters with whom Kelsier interacts know as much of what's going on as he does and trust their own judgments as much as or more than his, so we're primed to favor their perception of Kelsier over anyone else's and doubt him when other characters doubt him.

Hoid also fits this (including dying and coming back), except that, like Gandalf, we see Hoid mostly through the point of view of those who trust and look up to him (the humans on Roshar), so we're primed to trust those mortals who have known him the least over those immortals who have known him the longest (the original shard-holders, and whoever the "old reptile" is who wrote the letter refusing to intervene... unless that one's also a shard-holder, in which case I'm a doofus).

The key difference for me is that Hoid does not take leaps of faith, he does not trust in a power greater than himself, he holds power that is stolen from divinity rather than granted by divinity (he stole the Lerasium, where Gandalf is more or less an angel sent by the gods and Preservation made Kelsier a mistborn), and is cynical rather than idealistic, so he's setting off all sorts of alarms in my head; the same way the protagonists of The Stormlight Archive do.

On 1/5/2026 at 11:33 PM, therunner said:

It was very risky situation, but again Kaladin acted on correct information that he has supernatural powers that make him faster, stronger and heal better, and that he is among the best warriors on the planet (he did kill a Shardbearer even before he got powers, at least he thinks).

So trying to hold on to small beachhead to give an army an option to retreat is not impossible. Dangerous, but doable. 

Not that part, after that, the part where Sadeas demands that they all be executed and Dalinar gives up an infinitely valuable shardblade to purchase their freedom and there was absolutely no reason for Kaladin to guess that that would happen.  The part where there was no conceivable good outcome for going back to people who keep you as a slave instead of vamoosing to freedom, and if we the readers didn't already know Dalinar everybody would complain that it was unbelievable and came out of nowhere. 

Edited January 8 by Aliroz-The-Confused

[Qianweilian He/him]

1 hour ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

those very much do NOT operate on "previous guy missed, that means the implements are unreliable, better play this by ear and turn off my implements".

That wasn't why Luke turned off his computer. He heard Obi-Wan's voice telling him to trust the force, and Luke very much considers Obi-Wan as a reliable source. He was acting on information he believed credible, which I think is rational.

1 hour ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

We see jedi pilot their starfighters in the prequels, and they use targeting computers.

The Jedi Order in the prequels was destroyed very soon after the Jedi enter the war and he know that their capability to use the force had diminished, so it makes sense that they were less able to perform a task like this.

1 hour ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

I'd say that Gandalf and Kelsier both made absurd-but-surprisingly-solid plans that were never going to work because there were no better options, and then those plans worked anyway because 1) a boatload of unexpected things which could not have been predicted happened and 2) divine intervention made up the gap between what mortal beings could do and what was required.

Most of the unexpected things in LOTR were pretty negative and harmed the plan or were unrelated. The original plan with the fellowship was sound and even though:

1 hour ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

the old elves, who remember a time before he came to Middle-Earth, talk to him with the kind of fond exasperation that the bigger members of the Fellowship talk to Sam, Merry, and Pippin with... which, interestingly, seems to be the same kind of fond exasperation that everyone who remembers before the Shattering talks to Hoid with

Elrond still accepted the plan. The sole significantly positive unexpected thing that directly happened was probably the use of Gollum as a guide.

1 hour ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

Darth Vader, a.k.a. Anakin Skywalker

Bro, I can't believe you just spoiled a 46 year old movie. The 0.1% of the population who don't know 

Spoiler

Darth Vader is Luke's father

will be very upset.

 

I don't actually know what we're arguing about anymore. How reckless Kelsier's plan (which is was extremely so) doesn't really have that much to do with a hypothetical invasion and enslavement of the entire Scadrian population, and considering the same for the Fellowship of the Ring and Luke's targeting computer shananigans even less.

[Aliroz-The-Confused]

47 minutes ago, Qianweilian said:

Bro, I can't believe you just spoiled a 46 year old movie. The 0.1% of the population who don't know 

  Hide contents

Darth Vader is Luke's father

will be very upset.

Oh, dang, you're right!  I'll fix that.

47 minutes ago, Qianweilian said:

I don't actually know what we're arguing about anymore. How reckless Kelsier's plan (which is was extremely so) doesn't really have that much to do with a hypothetical invasion and enslavement of the entire Scadrian population, and considering the same for the Fellowship of the Ring and Luke's targeting computer shananigans even less.

The crux of the argument is that I maintain that Mistborn works if engaged with as an idealistic, absolutist, and morally uncomplicated work and The Stormlight Archive doesn't because the protagonists of The Stormlight Archive are only the good guys if you take a nuanced and reasonable perspective, and that the presence of the children of Ashyn on Scadrial is symbolic of nuance colonizing fantasy, foreshadowing not only a fate for Scadrial that mirrors that of the native populations of Roshar, but a fundamental narrative shift away from the idealism that could be found in earlier Cosmere novels.

The Runner is arguing that Mistborn does not fit this framing and was always a sophisticated and nuanced work, so, therefore, there has been no shift because the Cosmere was never absolutist or idealistic in the first place, and thus, no such foreshadowing exists.

The discussion of Kelsier and his predecessors in morally-uncomplicated heroic irresponsibility is me arguing that the protagonists of Mistborn are in the idealistic tradition and that the apparent nuance is a façade hung over what is, at its core, a celebration of the ideal over the rational.  The Runner argues that Mistborn is, rather, a condemnation of the irrational, and that the apparent irresponsibility I cite is only irresponsible in Kelsier's case and is actually highly reasoned in the other cases.

Basically, we're arguing over whether or not I was wrong to engage with the Cosmere as an absolutist, idealistic work in the first place.

[Frustration]

On 1/5/2026 at 11:33 PM, therunner said:

Dwarf are more corruptible than men

Well that actually depends on your definition of corruption.

Greedy: yes.

Mind controllable: no, Awule specifically made them to resist such things

[therunner he/him]

6 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

Also, at this point, I'd argue that Luke does not know that he can anticipate events and react father than otherwise possible.   The only tangible uses of the force we see in the original Star Wars previous to the leap of faith are Obi-wan mentally influencing the stormtroopers, Darth Vader revoking Colonel Motti's breathing privileges, Luke hearing voices, and Luke saying that he felt something and could almost see through the blast shield.

No, he very much knows he can anticipate events, as you yourself state, he managed to block 3 blaster bolts while blindfolded.
 

Quote

A rebellion would be in no less danger anywhere else.  The nations and empires of Europe put immense effort into attempting to destroy Haiti's independence and reinstate slavery.  The Final Empire ruled the entire world.

Still safer to rebel far away from center of power than inside it.
Again, no TLR and far fewer Steel inquisitors far from Luthadel.

Quote

Then all the plans made by protagonists of Cosmere novels are bad plans.  Rayse acts entirely in his own interest.  Taravangian acts entirely in his own interest.  The Set act entirely in their own interest.  Autonomy acts entirely in her own interest, as do Bluefingers and Wyrn Wulfden.  But only for the nobles of Scadrial do you seem to count this as natural and as something to be understood and accepted.

Just because they act in their own interest does not make their plans bad, just selfish. 
And Taravangian does cooperate and mislead people to betray them at key time to advance himself, something e.g. Venture could certainly do.

Quote

Hobbits have proven corruptible (Bilbo), especially if you count Hobbit-kind as including whatever Sméagol is.  The Ring corrupts all who bear it (except Tom Bombadil), no one can willingly destroy it. 

Hobbit was corrupted after holding on to the ring for literal decades. 
Compare and contrast with Isildur.

Quote

Both die, both come back, and both are called reckless and manipulative meddlers out for their own power by their discerning, wise, and fundamentally good-hearted but weary and cynical associates (Vin and Denethor (book-Denethor, not movie-Denethor)) who have to bear great burdens because of the way the bold plans give them horrible situations.

...seriously did you compare Vin to Denethor??? 

Vin is the cynical one from her vs Kelsier?

4 hours ago, Qianweilian said:

I don't actually know what we're arguing about anymore. How reckless Kelsier's plan (which is was extremely so) doesn't really have that much to do with a hypothetical invasion and enslavement of the entire Scadrian population, and considering the same for the Fellowship of the Ring and Luke's targeting computer shananigans even less.

I saw Rosharan character (and somehow their people as whole) judged quite harshly for actions that characters in Mistborn do as well.

So I pointed out the double standard, and here we are.

Since you know, saying Rosharan will enslave Scadrial and there is no hope for them, when Scadrians do a perfectly good job enslaving themselves, experimenting on themselves, selling themselves etc., is perfectly consistent position.

The last round starting with me pointing out that Kelsier literally does the same (and worse) crimes some Rosharan protagonists do, like trading people, treating his subordinates as tools (up to and including trying to kill them just to make a point) or indiscriminate slaughter.

And that the final plan is one where he gives people false hope to get them to act, and then puts them into dangerous situations with no reasonable expectation that it will work out (as he had no plan to deal with TLR and Steel Inquisitors).

And now Kelsier is being compared to

• Luke Skywalker - in-universe moral pillar who redeems what is thought to be unredeemable, and wins by explicitly not giving into his anger and hate
  • Contrast with Kelsier who gleefuly gives in to his hate
• Gandalf - literal angel-analogue sent to middle-earth to help against darkness
  • Contrast with Kelsier who didn't care about plight of Skaa until he was personally affected (unlike his own brother Marsh)

so...yeah.

3 hours ago, Frustration said:

Well that actually depends on your definition of corruption.

Greedy: yes.

Mind controllable: no, Awule specifically made them to resist such things

The Ring seems to capable of also manipulating its bearers with using their desires against them, see how it tries to sway Sam with promises of turning Mordor into huge gardens. 

So it is possible it would try and sway dwarf by appealing to their greed (look at all these orcs that will mine for you!), and that is why i put them as more corruptible.

 

Edited January 8 by therunner

[Qianweilian He/him]

8 hours ago, therunner said:

Hobbit was corrupted after holding on to the ring for literal decades. 
Compare and contrast with Isildur.

We know that the tempation to not throw the ring into Mt. Doom is unbearable. Frodo couldn't throw the ring in despite only having it for about a year. Also, the ring was fairly dormant when Bilbo had it.

8 hours ago, therunner said:

...seriously did you compare Vin to Denethor??? 

Vin is the cynical one from her vs Kelsier?

The comparison makes sense, at least for book-Denethor. Vin is very suspicious of Kelsier, his plan, and his crew from the beginning. 

8 hours ago, therunner said:

Still safer to rebel far away from center of power than inside it.
Again, no TLR and far fewer Steel inquisitors far from Luthadel.

Kelsier's plan essentially revolved around destroying the unsuspecting Great Houses with espionage and distracting the Garrison. Without immediately taking the center of power (Luthadel), they would have been crushed by the Garrison and TLR's koloss armies.

14 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

discerning, wise, and fundamentally good-hearted but weary and cynical associates (Vin and Denethor (book-Denethor, not movie-Denethor)) who have to bear great burdens because of the way the bold plans give them horrible situations.

Vin only had a significantly dangerous/intensive role because of how the plan went wrong. The only job the plan gave her is attending balls. The plan to destroy the ring never affected Denethor at all. If they hadn't decided to destroy the ring, much of it would have played out the same. (for Denethor)

[therunner he/him]

I'll do errata of my answer to this, since i misunderstood the question (my fault for answering early in the morning )

16 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

Then all the plans made by protagonists of Cosmere novels are bad plans.  Rayse acts entirely in his own interest.  Taravangian acts entirely in his own interest.  The Set act entirely in their own interest.  Autonomy acts entirely in her own interest, as do Bluefingers and Wyrn Wulfden.  But only for the nobles of Scadrial do you seem to count this as natural and as something to be understood and accepted.

10 hours ago, therunner said:

Just because they act in their own interest does not make their plans bad, just selfish. 
And Taravangian does cooperate and mislead people to betray them at key time to advance himself, something e.g. Venture could certainly do.

So this line of argumentation doesn't really make sense, because protagonists blast don't rely on the antagonists just doing nothing.

• Rayse
  • How are protagonist plans disrupted by Rayse acting in his own interest? His plans are 1) Conquer lands 2) get free, and protagonist continuously try to hinder those goals.
• Taravangian
  • Protagonists plans are disrupted by him yes, however in both cases it is a surprising development, they couldn't have anticipated
    • The mildly demented king being traitorous mastermind
    • That same person killing a Vessel and Ascending to Shard
• The Set
  • Wax doesn't really make any plans that would ignore the Set in the room

It is true that in all of these the protagonists are more reactionary, than pro-active like the crew in TFE.
 

2 hours ago, Qianweilian said:

We know that the tempation to not throw the ring into Mt. Doom is unbearable. Frodo couldn't throw the ring in despite only having it for about a year. Also, the ring was fairly dormant when Bilbo had it.

True, however Frodo already carried the ring from the Shire to Rivendell (something that was not planned if I recall correctly) and resisted the Ring. His uncle also had the ring for decades and didn't succumb. 

So based on that evidence, it is reasonable to choose him as ringbearer, because there are really no other better options. 

So the plan does take into account the main danger, the Ring itself, and tries to mitigate it. 
Kelsier plan doesn't really have any way of dealing with the main danger, that being TLR and his Inquisitors.

Quote

The comparison makes sense, at least for book-Denethor. Vin is very suspicious of Kelsier, his plan, and his crew from the beginning. 

I still wouldn't say the comparison is very fair, due to very different roles of those characters in the story.
But I haven't read the books in a while, so I won't argue this point further, as I very well might be wrong.

Quote

Kelsier's plan essentially revolved around destroying the unsuspecting Great Houses with espionage and distracting the Garrison. Without immediately taking the center of power (Luthadel), they would have been crushed by the Garrison and TLR's koloss armies.

The problem is that the plan ignores the elephant in the room, that being TLR and his Inquisitors + Atium.

• They think there is massive Atium cache in the city.
• They know that TLR and Steel Inquisitors are Mistborn, plus have some additional powers that make them nigh-unkillable.
• They know Mistborn + Atium = unkillable one-man army

The reasonable conclusion is that TLR and Steel Inquisitors have access to such amounts of Atium, they basically cannot be stopped.

So any plan to take Luthadel by necessity has to have some way of getting them out of  the way, if it wants to succeed.
And Kelsier's plan simply doesn't have that. He didn't figure out how to use Eleventh metal, and the plan basically comes down to "throw bodies at them until they run out of metals and die" which is terrible plan.

How many Skaa would die before they simply give up trying to attack them, when they cannot even touch them, due to Atium? While being soothed or rioted by TLR/Inquisitors as well to demoralize them? And Kelsier knows how dangerous Atium makes you, even when you have just few months of experience being Mistborn, and TLR and Inquisitors have literal centuries.

Kelsier simply made a bad plan that dooms anyone involved to death, barring literal miracle. All that final plan might accomplish (if TLR didn't simply kill every Skaa in Luthadel, which he very well might) is that Skaa would now have religion worshiping Kelsier, which might incite them to further actions in the future. Which to me simply doesn't seem worth it.

(EDIT: The plan being bad is due to Kelsier underestimating power of TLR and Inquisitors, and thinking stories about them are basically just cons (like he planned to do with himself).)

But from perspective of megalomaniac wanting to get back at TLR? Then it is valid, if sub-optimal way to achieve that.


Taking a city that is not the center of power at least gives them time to fortify, unlike Luthadel where the enemies are both inside and out.

Edited January 8 by therunner

[Frustration]

10 hours ago, therunner said:

The Ring seems to capable of also manipulating its bearers with using their desires against them, see how it tries to sway Sam with promises of turning Mordor into huge gardens. 

So it is possible it would try and sway dwarf by appealing to their greed (look at all these orcs that will mine for you!), and that is why i put them as more corruptible.
 

The dwarf lords held their rings while Sauron was using the One Ring to try and control them.

While the Elves immediately removed their rings the moment that the one ring was forged, which saved them, the dwarves and men where still bearing theirs.

Compare the reactions of the dwarves to that of the Nazgul. The men became puppets to Sauron's will, and the elves would have suffered the same fate. The dwarves? They didn't care.

2 hours ago, Qianweilian said:

We know that the tempation to not throw the ring into Mt. Doom is unbearable. Frodo couldn't throw the ring in despite only having it for about a year. Also, the ring was fairly dormant when Bilbo had it.

Between the birthday party where Frodo gets the ring and when he leaves the Shire 22 years pass. He's 33 at the birthday party and 55 when he leaves.

[therunner he/him]

1 hour ago, Frustration said:

The dwarf lords held their rings while Sauron was using the One Ring to try and control them.

While the Elves immediately removed their rings the moment that the one ring was forged, which saved them, the dwarves and men where still bearing theirs.

Compare the reactions of the dwarves to that of the Nazgul. The men became puppets to Sauron's will, and the elves would have suffered the same fate. The dwarves? They didn't care.

While dwarves proved resistant to direct control, they rings still fueled their greed and amplified it, driving them to ruin nonetheless. So the dwarves were susceptible to influence of the Rings, just not to direct control. 

The One Ring, being even more powerful, could do that and use that greed to manipulate the dwarf.
Again, it tried to lure Sam with dreams of gardening, not trying to control Sam directly. Dwarves are provably susceptible to lure of riches, see what Arkenstone did to dwarves, and that was just jewel.



As such, Hobbits still remain the people with the best track record of resisting the influence of the One Ring, at the time of meeting in Rivendell.

Edited January 8 by therunner

[Frustration]

2 minutes ago, therunner said:

While dwarves proved resistant to direct control, they rings still fueled their greed and amplified it, driving them to ruin nonetheless. The One Ring, being even more powerful, could do that and use that greed to manipulate the dwarf.

The greed of dwarves was rarely their undoing directly, they could control it enough to not cause problems among themselves. Their wealth just attracted the wrong kind of attention from dragons and such.

5 minutes ago, therunner said:

See what Arkenstone did to dwarves, and that was just jewel.

That was Thorin's personal failing, the other dwarves thought he was being extreme there too.

[therunner he/him]

7 minutes ago, Frustration said:

The greed of dwarves was rarely their undoing directly, they could control it enough to not cause problems among themselves. Their wealth just attracted the wrong kind of attention from dragons and such.

If your greed leads to your people accumulating so much wealth getting attacked and eaten by dragon is regular occurrence, you might have a problem with greed. 

Notably 4 of the 7 dwarven rings were lost because they got eaten by dragons.

7 minutes ago, Frustration said:

That was Thorin's personal failing, the other dwarves thought he was being extreme there too.

Arkenstone specifically yes, that was Thorin's personal failing. But it is emblematic of greed that is overall dwarven failing.

And that makes them unsuitable as being Ringbearer for One Ring, as it would augment their greed and they would not want to part with it.

Edited January 8 by therunner

[Aliroz-The-Confused]

I think, at last, I've figured out how to put into words what standard it is that I see the protagonists of Mistborn as meeting and the protagonists of The Stormlight Archive as failing.

The protagonists of Mistborn do things that fit with the concepts of ruin and preservation, and, in the end, they act in accordance with Preservation's plan (their earlier failures are acting in accordance with Ruin's plan).  The protagonists of The Stormlight Archive don't do things that fit with the concepts of honor, cultivation, or odium, and, in the end, they act in accordance only with their own plans.

The difference is that, at the moment of truth, the protagonists of Mistborn say "Thy will, O Lord, be done", where the protagonists of The Stormlight Archive, at the moment of truth, say "now, listen to me, God, I've got a better idea..."

It's almost certainly my religious beliefs (the same faith as mister Sanderson) that make me so averse to the latter.

Edited January 8 by Aliroz-The-Confused

[Qianweilian He/him]

1 hour ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

The difference is that, at the moment of truth, the protagonists of Mistborn say "Thy will, O Lord, be done"

They don't actually really do this in TFE. In fact, they overthrow and kill the only god that they (except Sazed) knew of. Even though it was in accordance with Leras's plan, they had no knowledge of it.

1 hour ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

the protagonists of The Stormlight Archive, at the moment of truth, say "now, listen to me, God, I've got a better idea..."

This mostly happens in WaT, but these decisions come from a different place than TFE. 

Quote

Dalinar nodded, thoughtful. The god who had made this world, perhaps the very God Beyond that Dalinar had begun to follow … they had left caretakers in the spren.

As can be seen in WaT, Dalinar worships neither Odium, Cultivation, nor Honor. He doesn't consider any of them to be "God," even though he does consider them to be "gods."

[RedBlue]

1 hour ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

The difference is that, at the moment of truth, the protagonists of Mistborn say "Thy will, O Lord, be done", where the protagonists of The Stormlight Archive, at the moment of truth, say "now, listen to me, God, I've got a better idea..."

This strikes me as a very odd way of looking at it, because to me, the most religious and reverent of the main cast in either of these series are Dalinar and Navani.

Dalinar is a liberal theist who develops his own beliefs about a ‘God Beyond’ when the religion he grew up with was challenged by current events. Dalinar introspects about his own morality, and chooses to place his faith in something that exists outside of the mess that is Shards and Vorin culture. In Dalinar’s mind, rejecting corrupt, broken old traditions to find new and better ways is justified, perhaps even a moral imperative, according to his faith.

Navani is an orthodox theist who still worships the Almighty, despite the mounting evidence that such a being never existed in the form her faith teaches. She participates in traditional religious rituals such as burning glyphwards. The only thing she does that might be considered a defiance of her faith is marrying Dalinar, but even that is more defiance of the ardentia than of Navani’s god as she understands him.

Meanwhile in Mistborn Era 1, we have Vin, Kelsier and Elend, whose most notable religious activity consists of rejection of their culture’s dominant religion (worship of the Lord Ruler, aka Sliverism). Vin literally kills the man her people worship as a god. Kelsier makes a point of not using language that glorifies TLR, plus the entire god-killing scheme and setting up a religion that deifies himself. Elend spends his youth reading books that are banned by religious authority. It’s the polar opposite of ‘thy will be done.’

When Preservation comes on the scene, Vin and Elend treat him more like a powerful-but-difficult ally than a deity to be worshipped. Over in Secret History, Kelsier has his one moment of humility when he calls Leras ‘my Lord’ (after being incredibly disrespectful toward him for most of the book) before going right back to his usual tricks. Overall, not very reverent.

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

2 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

The difference is that, at the moment of truth, the protagonists of Mistborn say "Thy will, O Lord, be done", where the protagonists of The Stormlight Archive, at the moment of truth, say "now, listen to me, God, I've got a better idea..."

Well, all of the 'gods' we have met in the Cosmere books are false gods. They are mortals who have slain what might have been as much God as the fictional creator of Middle Earth, Eru Iluvatar, and stolen that being's power for themselves. The Shard Vessels should not be getting the reverence that God would deserve; they should be treated like people who lived a long time, have lots of magical power, and maybe even had the chance to learn some interesting things thanks to their perspective.

And on the personal note, while I don't care for any God that gives commands, I always liked stories where God has some kind of preference for beings who have freedom and use it. Every rule has circumstances which call for its exception.

[Aliroz-The-Confused]

That's why I said "at the moment of truth".

Vin, as Preservation, understanding and fulfilling Leras's plan, at the cost of herself and Ati (quoted from The Hero Of Ages, page 711, chapter 81)

Quote

 

Preservation could never destroy you! she thought, almost screaming it against the agony.  He could only protect.  That's why he needed to create humankind.  All along, Ruin, this was part of his plan!

He didn't give up part of himself, making himself weaker, simply so that he could create intelligent life!  He knew he needed something of both Preservation and of Ruin.  Something that could protect and destroy.  Something that could destroy to protect.

He gave up his power at the Well, and into the mists, giving it to us so that we could take it.  He always intended this to happen.  You think this was your plan?  It was his.  His all along.

 

 

2 hours ago, RedBlue said:

Over in Secret History, Kelsier has his one moment of humility when he calls Leras ‘my Lord’ (after being incredibly disrespectful toward him for most of the book) before going right back to his usual tricks. Overall, not very reverent.

I'd say it's more than one moment of humilty.  Kelsier offers the mysterious orb to Preservation multiple times, he calls Preservation his crewleader, he promises to do all he can to fulfil Preservation's plan and then does so, and his last moment with Leras is, to me, the defining moment of Kelsier's character, the moment of truth.  What you see as "his usual tricks", I see as him doing his best to preserve Scadrial and Scadrians. 

Sazed's moment of truth is when he realizes that the prophecies were about him, that the plan was for him to take up both Ruin and Preservation, and he doesn't think himself worthy or at all desire to do so, but he does so because it is his purpose.

These three defining moments of truth are moments of breathtaking humility, faith, and submission to greater purpose.

On the other hand, Navani's defining act is subsuming The Sibling.  Dalinar's defining act is rejecting Tanavast's plan, and Kaladin's defining moment I'm not sure about, but for me it's probably "Honor is dead; I'll see what I can do"; which is a different kind of thing entirely, and which in practice, I think, has turned out for the Radiants to be "Honor is dead; let's see what we can get away with.", though mostly that's because of everyone else rather than Kaladin himself.

Edited January 9 by Aliroz-The-Confused
Rescinding unfair criticism of Kaladin

[Aliroz-The-Confused]

11 minutes ago, Cosmer said:

Not going be to be a helpful post but this thread is insane now. Madness. 

Madness?

(Sorry, sorry, I know it's an old meme, but I had to, you guys, I had to)

[QuantumAce]

On 12/23/2025 at 4:45 PM, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

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.

 

Did you miss the scene in Oathbringer where Kaladin cared about the singers and their cause enough that he froze and couldn't force himself to keep fighting against the people invading his capitol and killing his friends? Kaladin makes several comments that indicate a growing empathy and respect for the singers, but that sure seems like a pretty definite demonstration of his change of heart. 

[Aliroz-The-Confused]

4 hours ago, QuantumAce said:

 

Did you miss the scene in Oathbringer where Kaladin cared about the singers and their cause enough that he froze and couldn't force himself to keep fighting against the people invading his capitol and killing his friends? Kaladin makes several comments that indicate a growing empathy and respect for the singers, but that sure seems like a pretty definite demonstration of his change of heart. 

Yeah, it does.  That's a change of heart.  Good point.  I've been too harsh, I think, on Kaladin, in some ways.

I'd add that there's a genuine argument to be made that the humans on Roshar are invaders (even if one doesn't count the invasion of the rest of Roshar, the war for the Shattered plains is an invasion, and that the battle of Narak was an invasion of their capitol) and that those singers whom Kaladin spent time with could be said to be his friends, so Kaladin was caught between invaders killing his friends on one side and invaders killing his friends on the other side.

I wonder, if the battle had gone the other way, if Kaladin would have remained with the singers he had come to know, and, if so, what things might have gone differently if he or any of them had interacted extensively with Venli.  Would he have turned to Odium and become like Moash?  Or would we get something like what happened with Jaxlim and company in Wind and Truth, but earlier?  Or would he once again find himself outliving people he loved and was trying to protect?

My problem is that I don't really see Kaladin as following through on this change of heart in Rhythm of War and Wind and Truth.

Edited January 9 by Aliroz-The-Confused

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

Not sure how we got to the topic of how the Human characters ought to be treating the Singers, but since it is being discussed:

I feel like the Vengeance Pact is the exact sort of things that should be brought up as an example of an oath that needs to be broken and discarded. I think everyone has forgotten about it, but it was Elhokar's worst crime against the world and he died before coming to terms with it.

I assume Rlain and Renarin are going to sit down and talk about it during some kind of dramatic moment after Renarin meets Adolin again and the idea of how oaths can be good or bad needs to be worked through.