[Discuss] Jasnah: An analysis of a monster

[Mage of Lirigon he/him]

23 hours ago, Frustration said:

I feel like lethal force is exactly proportional to lethal force. I also don't feel like a criminal can start a deadly confrontation with me on a whim and then retreat back into safety the moment things start going poorly for you. That seems designed to aid the criminal.

 

It's not designed to aid the criminal. It's designed to reduce loss of life in general. A world where you can legally kill anyone that gets into a fight with you is world with a lot of murder

 

Quote

I'm not sure where you're getting the supposed to here, you're only supposed to use the bare minimum amount of force according to whom?

I'm talking from a legal perspective.

 

Quote

She felt comfortable playing judge jury and executioner for Aesudan, who socially outranked her. Or Renarin, who might have outranked her, though exactly where he fell in succession compared to her is unclear. Or Fen who was her equal. Social class wasn't really a consideration for her.

She used an intermediary in the case of Aesudan and she spared Renarin and Fen. On the other hand she felt completely free to discuss and complete her plans of premediated murder right in front of Shallan with no fear of censure. Why? Shallan knowing about her murder plot or the killing the footpads would result in anything happening to her at all, because of the class divide.

 

Quote

The thing is that she's the only one to really act like that. Even her own brother doesn't act like he's better than everyone else just because he is.

Lmao what? Of course Elhokar acts like he's better than everyone. There's multiple chapters of Oathbringer where Kaladin bemoans exactly this.

Quote

 

Dalinar might be called typically Alethi, but only by foreigners like the Azish. The entirety of WoK is Sadeas accusing him of not acting Alethi, and WoR is Dalinar fighting the Alethi culture. I think that it's more done to show the biases of the people speaking not to use Dalinar as a stand-in for the Alethi.

Jasnah as far as I can tell is never called typically Alethi in the books. Her comparison to Dalinar is with her disposition, picking a stool as her preferred chair and what-not.

 

Sadeas accuses Dalinar of being a hypocrite for trying to be honourable, because Alethi culture values the appearance of honor more than actually being honourable. That's a riff on Sadeas more than Dalinar. Alethi male culture revolves around fighting as a virtue, so yes, Dalinar Kholin, commonly held to be the greatest living soldier in Alethkar is a good example of Alethi masculinity.

The same goes for Jasnah, where Alethi society holds that women be beautiful, intelligent and cultured as their core virtues, Jasnah is a perfect examplar. Shallan brings this up more than once in Way of Kings. her only "flaw" is being an atheist.

[Frustration]

2 hours ago, Mage of Lirigon said:

It's not designed to aid the criminal. It's designed to reduce loss of life in general. A world where you can legally kill anyone that gets into a fight with you is world with a lot of murder

It objectively doesn't as murder is a legal definition. I would argue it also results in less death as well, but this is getting too close to politics again.

2 hours ago, Mage of Lirigon said:

I'm talking from a legal perspective.

There are more self-defense laws in various locations than I can count. What might be required by law for you might not be required for me and vis versa. And legal doesn't necessarily mean moral. Without access to Kharbranthian legal codes I can't say if what Jasnah did was legal or not. I can say however that I see no moral grounds to condemn Jasnah for what she did.

2 hours ago, Mage of Lirigon said:

She used an intermediary in the case of Aesudan and she spared Renarin and Fen. On the other hand she felt completely free to discuss and complete her plans of premediated murder right in front of Shallan with no fear of censure. Why? Shallan knowing about her murder plot or the killing the footpads would result in anything happening to her at all, because of the class divide.

That's not her being classist, that's her victims having different levels of power.

2 hours ago, Mage of Lirigon said:

Lmao what? Of course Elhokar acts like he's better than everyone. There's multiple chapters of Oathbringer where Kaladin bemoans exactly this.

Sorry I didn't explain that well.

Jasnah is willing to kill anyone to get what she wants because she assumes that she's already thought of everything and there's nothing more for her to learn. Elhokar is driven by his insecurities, Jasnah by her perceptions of her own infallibility.

2 hours ago, Mage of Lirigon said:

Sadeas accuses Dalinar of being a hypocrite for trying to be honourable, because Alethi culture values the appearance of honor more than actually being honourable. That's a riff on Sadeas more than Dalinar. Alethi male culture revolves around fighting as a virtue, so yes, Dalinar Kholin, commonly held to be the greatest living soldier in Alethkar is a good example of Alethi masculinity.

No, Sadeas accusing Dalinar of losing his stomach to fight. That was the whole plot of Dalinar in WoK. Everyone was saying that the Blackthorn had gone soft, his visions had driven him mad. Sadeas asks him in WoR if he can still feel the Thrill, Adolin's friends no longer believe that Dalinar is the great soldier he's made out to be etc etc.

Edited March 17 by Frustration

[Immortal Platypus]

On 3/13/2026 at 5:43 AM, Ripheus23 said:

I thought you were saying, "Cool motive, still murder," though 

tbf, he didn't say that about something that could be reasonably construed as self defense.

On 3/13/2026 at 7:28 AM, MrHobbes343 said:

I find your expectations of moral purity even in extreme circumstances and your refusal to acknowledge that sometimes harsh methods are required for survival as extremely willfully naive and I hope that you may at some point in the future may better come to understand nuance and necessity.  

If it is a choice between Virtue and Survival, Survival must always win.

One of the prerequisites of Virtue is being alive to proclaim and perform said Virtue.

I find that Virtue far far far outranks survival, though that is a personal stance of mine and I do not insist that others take it. I also don't think that virtue requires survival

Quote

I find it quite distasteful that you would judge someone who from our perspective is more historical figure then living person, by the standards of a time and social context that they don't know of and will never reasonably know of. This is more a 15 minute hate, then a reasoned discussion and is why I despise the pop history trope of judging people from radically different times and places by modern standards.

so was slavery wrong? I think so, but in your framework, it was perfectly fine because... why? because it was socially accepted? I think there has to be some nuance with individuals, but of course slavery was and is wrong. 

On 3/13/2026 at 8:15 AM, ParaTulip said:

Adolin murdered a Sadeas by strangling him to death. He literally personally assassinated a man because he saw the victim as a political and military problem that had to be dealt with. Is the line between a monster and a moral person that the latter kills at a remove?

Adolin's killing was an isolated incident after an attempted betrayal at the Tower and I believe at least one assassination attempt by Sadeas (could be wrong about that). And Renarin didn't do anything similar at all. Jasnah, on the other hand, set up plans, not because of something that they did, but because of something that they could do. She also did so systematically, not a singular time.

On 3/13/2026 at 1:55 PM, Frustration said:

 

Walking public streets, and choosing to wear expensive clothing does not justify violence against you. I also believe that you have a right to defend yourself against threats.

They have by their own actions voided their own rights and protections.

 

*ahem*

based

On 3/14/2026 at 11:01 AM, Mage of Lirigon said:

You're being pedantic. They weren't soldiers repositioning to continue attacking, they're thieves running away because their friend got turned to smoke in front of them. 

that's not certain in the heat of the moment. even if it was, I subscribe to the FAFO school of thought. if you don't want to find out, don't frick around

Quote

No one said she forced them to attack her or that walking around in a set of particular clothes in a particular location is wrong. 

not directly, but the implication is that she shouldn't have done it because it would draw them to her. Why else would people be opposed to it.

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

4 hours ago, Immortal Platypus said:

Adolin's killing was an isolated incident after an attempted betrayal at the Tower and I believe at least one assassination attempt by Sadeas (could be wrong about that). And Renarin didn't do anything similar at all. Jasnah, on the other hand, set up plans, not because of something that they did, but because of something that they could do. She also did so systematically, not a singular time.

Jasnah had cause to, falsely, believe that Renarin also betrayed her family and was liable to kill them all for the "forbidden" powers he had gained. She realizes she is wrong in this belief and then does not kill him, but from her perspective she was about to see another attempted betrayal.

Also, Adolin killed a lot of Listerners on the Shattered Plains. I hold that the Alethi war there was entirely unjust. I consider everyone who partook to have been party to a genocide, something far more monstrous than plotting an assassination in my view.

I start to get the feeling Jasnah's violence is only unacceptable because she does it while a woman and in a way not conducive to a male power fantasy of being a superhero knight. When she kills people by turning them into smoke, that is somehow okay, but when she kills people with money or does it to named characters who don't fight back with their own magic powers, it is the acts of a monster. Adolin can murder Sadeas because he is a man killing someone with his own hands. Jasnah cannot order assassins against a member of the royal family because that is evil outside the realm of humanity.

Is there another meaning of the concept of monster at play here? Some way I can fail to see a monster in the agents of a genocide but can see it in the woman who made peace with the victims of that genocide and tried to end slavery among her own people?

[Ripheus23]

6 hours ago, Immortal Platypus said:

tbf, he didn't say that about something that could be reasonably construed as self defense.

Isn't there some info out there about how Adonalsium didn't fight back when being ripped apart? And Cultivation doesn't say, "Ado was threatening to kill us specifically," or, "Ado was threatening to kill everyone," but, "We didn't want to be strict monotheists," or something along that line.

So, cool motive, still murder.

[Mage of Lirigon he/him]

17 hours ago, Frustration said:

It objectively doesn't as murder is a legal definition.

You're being pedantic again. Whatever you want to call it, creating a legal loophole to kill people will result in more people being killed.

 

Quote

I would argue it also results in less death as well, but this is getting too close to politics again.

How on Earth would it result in less people being killed?

 

Quote

There are more self-defense laws in various locations than I can count. What might be required by law for you might not be required for me and vis versa. And legal doesn't necessarily mean moral. Without access to Kharbranthian legal codes I can't say if what Jasnah did was legal or not.

There is no self defense law IRL that allows for unlimited use of force in any altercation. If someone punches you in the stomach and runs away you can't shoot them in the back and claim self defence.

Even Stand your Ground laws only allow lethal force when proportion to an imminent threat. 

Of course we don't know Kharbranth's legal codes but considering they have a policing system, I'd be willing to err on them having something similar.

 

Quote

I can say however that I see no moral grounds to condemn Jasnah for what she did.

From a moral perspective we'd have to consider her intent which makes what she did even worse.

 

Quote

That's not her being classist, that's her victims having different levels of power.

What exactly do you think classism is?

 

Quote

No, Sadeas accusing Dalinar of losing his stomach to fight. 

He accused him of both.

[Frustration]

9 hours ago, Immortal Platypus said:

so was slavery wrong? I think so, but in your framework, it was perfectly fine because... why? because it was socially accepted? I think there has to be some nuance with individuals, but of course slavery was and is wrong. 

that's not certain in the heat of the moment. even if it was, I subscribe to the FAFO school of thought. if you don't want to find out, don't frick around

How are you better at saying my own thoughts than I am.

3 hours ago, Ripheus23 said:

Isn't there some info out there about how Adonalsium didn't fight back when being ripped apart? And Cultivation doesn't say, "Ado was threatening to kill us specifically," or, "Ado was threatening to kill everyone," but, "We didn't want to be strict monotheists," or something along that line.

So, cool motive, still murder.

That's what Taravangian accused her of, Cultivation just said that Adonalsium was causing problems without elaborating. Probably still murder.

4 hours ago, ParaTulip said:

Jasnah had cause to, falsely, believe that Renarin also betrayed her family and was liable to kill them all for the "forbidden" powers he had gained. She realizes she is wrong in this belief and then does not kill him, but from her perspective she was about to see another attempted betrayal.

He was on the ground crying. That doesn't speak to betrayal, but she still wanted to kill him.

4 hours ago, ParaTulip said:

Also, Adolin killed a lot of Listerners on the Shattered Plains. I hold that the Alethi war there was entirely unjust. I consider everyone who partook to have been party to a genocide, something far more monstrous than plotting an assassination in my view.

I can't think of a more just reason to go to war than someone violating a treaty for peace on the day it's signed and assassinating your king, admitting to it, refusing to elaborate and then leaving. You can consider it a genocide if you want, but it really wasn't.

4 hours ago, ParaTulip said:

I start to get the feeling Jasnah's violence is only unacceptable because she does it while a woman and in a way not conducive to a male power fantasy of being a superhero knight. When she kills people by turning them into smoke, that is somehow okay, but when she kills people with money or does it to named characters who don't fight back with their own magic powers, it is the acts of a monster. Adolin can murder Sadeas because he is a man killing someone with his own hands. Jasnah cannot order assassins against a member of the royal family because that is evil outside the realm of humanity.

This is just ad hominin. This doesn't once address an argument but focuses entirely on an attack against the character of anyone who disagrees. On top of that it's completely untrue. Nobody on this form has any problem with Vin, but there are a lot who will tell you that Kelsier is a dangerous psychopath. Now that's a mistborn discussion not suited for the Stormlight forum, but I thought I'd bring it up.

1 hour ago, Mage of Lirigon said:

You're being pedantic again. Whatever you want to call it, creating a legal loophole to kill people will result in more people being killed.

How on Earth would it result in less people being killed?

Well if attempting violence against people regularly and reliably results in your death, the idiots who would do it anyway die off, and the sensible people who can run a cost benefit analysis decide to not assault others. In the long run overall death declines dramatically.

1 hour ago, Mage of Lirigon said:

There is no self defense law IRL that allows for unlimited use of force in any altercation. If someone punches you in the stomach and runs away you can't shoot them in the back and claim self defence.

They were trying to rape and murder her. This wasn't some mistake from someone who had too much to drink.

1 hour ago, Mage of Lirigon said:

From a moral perspective we'd have to consider her intent which makes what she did even worse.

How so?

1 hour ago, Mage of Lirigon said:

What exactly do you think classism is?

Believing people are superior/inferior based upon whatever particular distinction creates said classes.

That has nothing to do with having the basic risk management needed to say that someone with more power can cause you a whole lot more problems if you aren't careful.

[Immortal Platypus]

4 hours ago, ParaTulip said:

Jasnah had cause to, falsely, believe that Renarin also betrayed her family and was liable to kill them all for the "forbidden" powers he had gained. She realizes she is wrong in this belief and then does not kill him, but from her perspective she was about to see another attempted betrayal.

her cause to believe was that he had bonded a spren. All she knew of those kinds of spren bonds was that the spren had been touched by an ex-agent of Odium. this knowledge also came from information that was incredibly outdated. I don't hold that as reasonable proof. then, instead of seeking to learn more, she comes to a decision that she must kill her own cousin (this would be terrible if it was just some unnamed noble, but the fact that she was so close to the person adds onto the moral depravity), and comes very, very close to going through with it.

Compare this to Adolin's scenario. Sadeas had been a thorn in their side for years, antagonizing him, his father, and his entire house. Not grounds to kill him, so he didn't. Then Sadeas attempted to betray them. Not looked like he attempted to betray them, he actually did the thing. then (if I recall the order of events correctly), he tried to assassinate Dalinar (maybe multiple times?). then, and only then, after a pattern of being an antagonist with antagonistic action only increasing, he killed him. Something I'm still not entirely in favor of, but I find it very different than Jasnah's situation. And again, this was an one time occurrence rather than a pattern of behavior.

Quote

Also, Adolin killed a lot of Listerners on the Shattered Plains. I hold that the Alethi war there was entirely unjust. I consider everyone who partook to have been party to a genocide, something far more monstrous than plotting an assassination in my view.

I'm simply going to have to disagree with that. I don't find the Alethi war to be entirely unjust. I could be convinced that towards the end, it was, but at the beginning it was entirely justified. I also don't hold to the belief that it was a genocide, and so we simply have different perspectives on that.

Quote

I start to get the feeling Jasnah's violence is only unacceptable because she does it while a woman and in a way not conducive to a male power fantasy of being a superhero knight. When she kills people by turning them into smoke, that is somehow okay, but when she kills people with money or does it to named characters who don't fight back with their own magic powers, it is the acts of a monster. Adolin can murder Sadeas because he is a man killing someone with his own hands. Jasnah cannot order assassins against a member of the royal family because that is evil outside the realm of humanity.

1st off, ad hominem. Calling people sexist because they don't agree with you is not a good faith argument. It also doesn't address any of the points we've talked about.

2nd, "When she kills people by turning them to smoke, that is somehow okay" is a heck of a way to phrase what we've been arguing. What we've been saying is that there is enough room in what she did to call it self-defense. I think that's true. Even if it wasn't for her, it was for Shallan. And, for the record, if it was to fulfill a male power fantasy, I think it would've been her killing them with her shardblade. As for the idea that when she does it to people with money or power that's not ok, they're in very different circumstances. Take the "duel" with Ruthar, for example. She and Wit bait him into fighting her (something of which I don't approve, but it's still his choice, so the fault lies with him), then as he stands there, not fighting her (I think because she's a woman) she stabs him through the throat (IIRC). Technically, it's legal, but I don't approve of it, as he wasn't actually intending to cause her harm. I don't think it's morally justified, not because I like Ruthar or because he's powerful, but because I don't find that it was actual self-defense. that said, I find it more justified than her plans to assassinate Aesudan, Fen, or Renarin. As for why Adolin killing Sadeas is semi-permitable, see above.

Quote

Is there another meaning of the concept of monster at play here? Some way I can fail to see a monster in the agents of a genocide but can see it in the woman who made peace with the victims of that genocide and tried to end slavery among her own people?

well, for those of us who don't believe it was a genocide, it's much easier, but even if you don't, you can still see Jasnah as a monster. 

3 hours ago, Ripheus23 said:

Isn't there some info out there about how Adonalsium didn't fight back when being ripped apart? And Cultivation doesn't say, "Ado was threatening to kill us specifically," or, "Ado was threatening to kill everyone," but, "We didn't want to be strict monotheists," or something along that line.

So, cool motive, still murder.

Maybe, but I gave that as an example. There are other possible reasons that justify killing, just like self defense. and if he didn't fight back, I believe that was purely in the time when the others killed him, he could have been oppressing them for years (decades, centuries, or millennia) beforehand, etc. 

all in all, I'm on the side that the killing of ado was probably unjustified, but I'm withholding judgement until we get all the details. I expect my view is quiet similar to the one @Frustration holds.

8 minutes ago, Frustration said:

How are you better at saying my own thoughts than I am.

We tend to have very similar ideas when it comes to morality and I've been discussing them a lot recently. It's made me better at putting them into words.

[Ripheus23]

@Immortal Platypus I would say that, given what we know of the Wind, there should be an expectation that Adonalsium was good-hearted and that if Jasnah counts as monstrous for the stated reasons, then Tanner counts as monstrous too (for not just helping murder a probably good-hearted being but for betraying BAM, etc.).

But then I guess I've lost track (if I ever was on it) of the point of arguing that we can reasonably apply the description "monstrous" to Jasnah. Are we trying to convince people who like the character that they should dislike her? But some people like a character on the metanarrative level while disliking them on the narrative level. And as even a lapsed Christian, I don't have the heart to hate on Jasnah for her monstrosities when I view even Kaladin as monstrous betimes.

For me, the saying I lean on is from Miyazaki's graphic novels: If you divide the whole world into friends and enemies, you end up destroying everything. Hoping that Jasnah is punished if she doesn't otherwise make amends (if she hasn't already!) would be playing into Retribution's mindset, something I'm not willing to do even on the metanarrative level (I think the will to punishment is second only to the will to destruction as a wicked motive).

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

41 minutes ago, Immortal Platypus said:

1st off, ad hominem. Calling people sexist because they don't agree with you is not a good faith argument. It also doesn't address any of the points we've talked about.

2nd, "When she kills people by turning them to smoke, that is somehow okay" is a heck of a way to phrase what we've been arguing. What we've been saying is that there is enough room in what she did to call it self-defense. I think that's true. Even if it wasn't for her, it was for Shallan. And, for the record, if it was to fulfill a male power fantasy, I think it would've been her killing them with her shardblade. As for the idea that when she does it to people with money or power that's not ok, they're in very different circumstances. Take the "duel" with Ruthar, for example. She and Wit bait him into fighting her (something of which I don't approve, but it's still his choice, so the fault lies with him), then as he stands there, not fighting her (I think because she's a woman) she stabs him through the throat (IIRC). Technically, it's legal, but I don't approve of it, as he wasn't actually intending to cause her harm. I don't think it's morally justified, not because I like Ruthar or because he's powerful, but because I don't find that it was actual self-defense. that said, I find it more justified than her plans to assassinate Aesudan, Fen, or Renarin. As for why Adolin killing Sadeas is semi-permitable, see above.

First, I did not call you, mr. Immortal Platypus with "fight like Charlie" in a their profile, sexist. I actually do think the ways in which violence is valorized and monstercized, which is the core concept being discussed in this thread, is subject to the long history of sexism that various societies have demonstrated. But also, you are probably are sexist. Most people are when raised in the modern English speaking world. I am probably too in ways that I would feel bad about if they were pointed out to me.

But also, Ruthar 100% deserved it. This is a terrible idea of justice. You seem to be flustered to find some other line of thought that shows a nuanced mechanism to sanctify violence without merely saying that you want it to be done in a manly fashion.

I actually think the true heroic male fantasy thing there is to pull out the shardplate that she maybe had and then calmly ask Shallan what she thinks should be done while the thieves wail on the magical armor to no effect. I have done something like this to someone before and it is an amazing feeling. But whipping out something long and pointy that will penetrate other people while making mere objects of them does have some interesting subtexts.

Edited March 18 by ParaTulip

[Frustration]

I think we've crossed a line here.

I move to table the discussion before this gets more heated

[Nitpicking]

1 hour ago, Frustration said:

This is just ad hominin.

This is irrelevant to the actual discussion. Not to nitpick your Latin, but I'm going to nitpick your Latin. I'm the nitpicking biology guy.

The logical fallacy is ad hominem, against the person.

Ad hominin would be "against the lineage of Great Apes which branched off from the bonobo/chimp lineage, and which includes Homo sapiens."

Important? No. It just struck me funny,

[Immortal Platypus]

37 minutes ago, Ripheus23 said:

@Immortal Platypus I would say that, given what we know of the Wind, there should be an expectation that Adonalsium was good-hearted and that if Jasnah counts as monstrous for the stated reasons, then Tanner counts as monstrous too (for not just helping murder a probably good-hearted being but for betraying BAM, etc.).

But then I guess I've lost track (if I ever was on it) of the point of arguing that we can reasonably apply the description "monstrous" to Jasnah. Are we trying to convince people who like the character that they should dislike her? But some people like a character on the metanarrative level while disliking them on the narrative level. And as even a lapsed Christian, I don't have the heart to hate on Jasnah for her monstrosities when I view even Kaladin as monstrous betimes.

For me, the saying I lean on is from Miyazaki's graphic novels: If you divide the whole world into friends and enemies, you end up destroying everything. Hoping that Jasnah is punished if she doesn't otherwise make amends (if she hasn't already!) would be playing into Retribution's mindset, something I'm not willing to do even on the metanarrative level (I think the will to punishment is second only to the will to destruction as a wicked motive).

I do expect that Ado was good(ish) but I'm not willing to cast judgement off of an assumption, so I won't say for sure that it was murder. It probably was though. But yeah, I don't like Tanavast's betrayal of BAM, or his feud with Rayse that led to basically proxy warfare that ended up destroying a planet, or for a variety of reasons.

I'm not trying to convince anyone they should dislike Jasnah, but I am trying to show why I find her to be a monstrous individual. 

18 minutes ago, ParaTulip said:

First, I did not call you, mr. Immortal Platypus with "fight like Charlie" in a their profile, sexist. I actually do think the ways in which violence is valorized and monstercized, which is the core concept being discussed in this thread, is subject to the long history of sexism that various societies have demonstrated. But also, you are probably are sexist. Most people are when raised in the modern English speaking world. I am probably too in ways that I would feel bad about if they were pointed out to me.

But also, Ruthar 100% deserved it. This is a terrible idea of justice. You seem to be flustered to find some other line of thought that shows a nuanced mechanism to sanctify violence without merely saying that you want it to be done in a manly fashion.

I actually think the true heroic male fantasy thing there is to pull out the shardplate that she maybe had and then calmly ask Shallan what she thinks should be done while the thieves wail on the magical armor to no effect. I have done something like this to someone before and it is an amazing feeling. But whipping out something long and pointy that will penetrate other people while making mere objects of them does have some interesting subtexts.

well, there's no point in having a discussion with someone who will dismiss my points as "you're sexist". I hope you have a good day, but I'm done here.

15 minutes ago, Frustration said:

I think we've crossed a line here.

I move to table the discussion before this gets more heated

[Frustration]

10 minutes ago, Nitpicking said:

This is irrelevant to the actual discussion. Not to nitpick your Latin, but I'm going to nitpick your Latin. I'm the nitpicking biology guy.

The logical fallacy is ad hominem, against the person.

Ad hominin would be "against the lineage of Great Apes which branched off from the bonobo/chimp lineage, and which includes Homo sapiens."

Important? No. It just struck me funny,

Heh, yeah. I really should know not to trust my autocorrect by now.

Edited March 18 by Frustration

[Knuti]

Very interresting discussion, but am I the only one who thinks that the discussed scenes are examples of paranoia severe enough to be interpreted as mental illness?

That would make her a monster in other settings. Here it means she is a worthy member of our cast.

[Immortal Platypus]

12 minutes ago, Knuti said:

Very interresting discussion, but am I the only one who thinks that the discussed scenes are examples of paranoia severe enough to be interpreted as mental illness?

That would make her a monster in other settings. Here it means she is a worthy member of our cast.

actually, I hadn't thought of that, and I kind of like that idea. that's really interesting to me.

[Duxredux he/him]

Is it soap box time? Can I get mine out for a minute?

We've had some pretty heated debates on morality in the Cosmere over the years. I'm reminded of the Hogman Question (don't necro it), posts on Shallan hate (don't necro them) and a boatload on Moash (really don't necro them).

My personal feeling on the matter is that the actual morality of Jasnah's position as a fictional character is far less important than the participants in the thread. Forum discussions are a strange beast and it is so very easy to be totally off on the core reason for why the other person wrote a post - even with the seemingly ample information in the novellas/essays. I made a poll and thread asking why we debate Moash and discuss what was and was not reprehensible, the morality, and proposed punishments and the responses I got were eye-opening. Others made much better points and insights than me on why we discuss characters like this. If you are the kind of person to read to the end of thread like this one and post on it, I recommend reading it within the context of this thread.

Edit: Whoa. Missed the last two or three hours of posts. Sorry about that, but maybe this is more pertinent.

Edited March 18 by Duxredux

[Mage of Lirigon he/him]

3 hours ago, Frustration said:

Well if attempting violence against people regularly and reliably results in your death, the idiots who would do it anyway die off, and the sensible people who can run a cost benefit analysis decide to not assault others. In the long run overall death declines dramatically.

...That's really not how that works.

 

Quote

They were trying to rape and murder her. This wasn't some mistake from someone who had too much to drink.

No one said it was. That doesn't change the point I'm making. No legal system will allow unlimited use of force in an altercation. Jasnah was in absolutely no danger from the footpads. You could argue that killing the ones who attacked was fine, mostly because Shallan was also in danger but there's no way killing the runners was OK.

 

Quote

How so?

Because premeditated murder.

 

Quote

 

Believing people are superior/inferior based upon whatever particular distinction creates said classes.

That has nothing to do with having the basic risk management needed to say that someone with more power can cause you a whole lot more problems if you aren't careful.

 

And you think the differing ways Jasnah handles people has nothing to do with classism?

[Nitpicking]

Is it worth reminding people that Jasnah is canonically someone who was confined because of a mental illness of some sort when she was young?

[Knuti]

It is definitely worth mentioning. But as always in Stormlight this information cannot be trustetb that it means what it seems to tell.

Was she confined for the beginning mental illness, or was she confined for quite harmless reasons and her mental difficultities set in because of that absolute breach of trust by her parents?

Gavilar would have imprisoned her just for disobeying and Navani has a bad conscience to the day around her.

[alder24]

23 hours ago, Nitpicking said:

Is it worth reminding people that Jasnah is canonically someone who was confined because of a mental illness of some sort when she was young?

Yes and I believe that her past trauma is the very reason why she behaves like she does and why she has trouble trusting people including her family. Those deep-seated trust issues are what made Jasnah hire an assassin to spy on Aesudan, to try to kill Renarin without talking to him first, or to prepare assasination plans against Fen and other members of the coalition. Jasnah was scarred so deeply and has learned that people she loves can hurt her the most and now she is afraid to go through this again. What's worse, she's afraid to lose her sanity like she did in her childhood. She is a broken person like other main characters, but unlike them she hasn't started her redemption arc yet. Only at the end on WaT did she realize that she is a hypocrite and she was in the wrong all along.

OB ch 47:

Quote

Jasnah settled back, listening to the three spanreeds scratching paper, writing out notes that—she feared—would mostly be irrelevant. Something stirred deep within her. Glimmers of memory from a dark room, screaming her voice ragged. A childhood illness nobody else seemed to remember, for all it had done to her.
It had taught her that people she loved could still hurt her.
“Have you ever wondered how it would feel to lose your sanity, Ivory?”
Ivory nodded. “I have wondered this. How could I not? Considering what the ancient fathers are.”
“You call me logical,” Jasnah whispered. “It’s untrue, as I let my passions rule me as much as many. In my times of peace, however, my mind has always been the one thing I could rely upon.”
Except once.

I don't see Jasnah as a monster, only as a flawed person with a twisted sense of morality, deeply traumatized by her past. I have no problems with her actions against Aesudan as she was already known to be an unpleasant, detached and a power hungry individual who might become a threat to her family, thus observing her and potentially removing her was a right choice to make - and as books later proved it, sparing her was a mistake Jasnah made. 

The cold-blooded murder of thugs in WoK was the worst thing Jasnah has done so far. Her self-defence might be justified, but it was an excessive use of force and the whole situation borders on entrapment so much that it's hard for me to defend her. She went out of her way to get robbed just to teach Shallan a lesson and treated those people like educational tools, killing them even when they were running away. This is just morally wrong, even if those thugs were dangerous criminals. 

Jasnah chose not to kill Renarin even though for all she knew, Renarin was either a willing agent of Odium, or was his puppet, either way he was a direct threat to all humans on Roshar. She has more than enough reasons to distrust Renarin and talking to him could have been a deadly mistake if he was on Odium's side. I think her trust issues originated from her trauma are especially at fault here. Jasnah was not an emotionless monster, it hurt her to even consider killing him and she chose not to because she was driven by her emotions, not logic. Killing him would have been a disastrous mistake and a crime she would have to be punished for. 

The whole situation with Ruthar in RoW is not even worth considering, I find it neither brilliant nor wrong. But her assassinations plans against Fen and other members of the coalition are morally wrong and even politically wrong. Although personally I didn't consider it to be such a big deal I can see why others could think otherwise. But this again is probably a situation highly influenced by her trauma. In the end Fen took the deal with Taravangian not because she learned that Jasnah had plans to assassinate her (which just saddened her), but because it was uncovered that Jasnah was a hypocrite who was talking about greater good, while she was always considering her and her family's well being in the first place. In fact, she loved Renarin and Aesudan (or Elhokar) too much to kill them, proving her hypocrisy and proving that she's not a monster. She was deceiving herself into believing that she would do everything that's necessary for the greater good, while in reality she couldn't withstand the pain of doing so when it comes to her close ones. Her family is in fact irreplaceable, unlike Frustration has claimed. This whole debate showed us Jasnah was only a pretend monster, whose plans against Aesudan and Renerain born out of her trauma were just a lie to maintain the illusion she crafted for herself, while deep inside she knew how wrong it was and that they mean too much for her to kill them. WaT ch 116:

Quote

“I’ll take the deal, Taravangian,” Fen said. “Assuming we can reach points I agree with.”
Jasnah barely heard it. He’s right about me, she thought, horrified—seeing the near assassination of Aesudan … the lesson in Kharbranth … the way she’d stood with a sword to Renarin’s neck—all those moments in a new light.
I didn’t swing, she thought. I didn’t kill him, or Aesudan. But that proved Taravangian correct. She’d loved them too much to kill them, which meant her moral philosophy was an utter sham. Jasnah Kholin loved her family, her people, her kingdom.
And that, in this instant, condemned her.
It suddenly seemed that she’d always been two women. One who pretended to be cold, calculating, and willing to do anything in the name of her philosophical morality. Another who knew that there had always been something wrong with the morals she claimed to follow.

Out of all actions Frustration has listed in his first post, only the one he dismissed was truly wrong, while the rest is the evidence of her having a morality, having a compassionate and caring heart for her close ones. She didn't even kill Fen when she betrayed the coalition, so even in this moment her plans were just a lie and in the end Fen was too close to her family to kill her. She's flawed, deeply traumatized person, she's a hypocrite who just realized she needs to change. She may not be the best or most moral character in the books, but she's not the monster.

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

18 hours ago, alder24 said:

But her assassinations plans against Fen and other members of the coalition are morally wrong and even politically wrong.

But what if one of them had joined Odium's side like Taravangian plotted to? Not the way Fen does, where she simply is choosing which sphere to be in after the contest, but committing to join the enemy and sabotage her allies? I do not get how this is unacceptable. Sure, we now know how Fen and the other rules would act up until the last minute, but not knowing what is in other people's hearts is something even Shards are said to want for.

Suppose she had enacted an assassination plot on Taravangian between when he pledged the Diagram to serve Odium and when Taravangian would have become Odium by betraying that pledging. Would this have been bad politics or morals?

Edited March 21 by ParaTulip

[alder24]

4 hours ago, ParaTulip said:

But what if one of them had joined Odium's side like Taravangian plotted to? Not the way Fen does, where she simply is choosing which sphere to be in after the contest, but committing to join the enemy and sabotage her allies? I do not get how this is unacceptable. Sure, we now know how Fen and the other rules would act up until the last minute, but not knowing what is in other people's hearts is something even Shards are said to want for.

Suppose she had enacted an assassination plot on Taravangian between when he pledged the Diagram to serve Odium and when Taravangian would have become Odium by betraying that pledging. Would this have been bad politics or morals?

You don't plan to kill your allies just because of what ifs without any reasonable evidence of their betrayal. Just by having those plans it means you don't trust them, so how can they trust you when they learn about those plans? It will cause a massive rift in the alliance that can eventually lead to them leaving your side, not because they wanted to betray you in the first place, but because they think you betrayed them first with your assassins acting as a blackmail. Assassins in the shadows are not a foundation upon which you can build a strong alliance, trust is and having those kinds of plans shatters this trust into pieces. That's why this is politically wrong and I hope I don’t have to explain why assassination plans are morally wrong. 

Compare that to the way Dalinar handled Taravangian and Jah Keved before they switched sides. Dalinar had valid reasons after OB to suspect that they had already betrayed them and they would betray them again. Yet instead of assassinating Taravangian and risking the coalition breaking apart, he prepared himself for his eventual betrayal so it wouldn't hurt that much. His troops in Jah Keved were positioned in such a way that they couldn't be backstabbed and could retreat safely, Taravangian's troops in Emul were always surrounded and watched carefully so they wouldn't be able to surprise them and Taravangian was also always in Dalinar's grasp, ready to be captured. Sure, Taravangian planned for this and was ready to be taken and Urithiru fell anyway, but even without Taravangian Urithiru could have been captured in the very same way - Odium just needed Vyre to fly there and open Oathgate to Kholinar.

Dalinar's plans were a direct result of Sadeas' betrayal in WoK, after which he promised himself never to be caught exposed like this again. This doesn't mean you have to plan to assassinate everyone around you and risk breaking the very foundation of the coalition Dalinar just formed, just being careful and watching your back is enough to minimize any risk without making your allies distrust you. And what message would it send to other members of the coalition if Dalinar were to assassinate Taravangian? That they are expandable? That they have to obey Dalinar's will otherwise they will be replaced? That Dalinar is a tyrant forcing everyone into obedience with the threat of assassins? It would be the end of the coalition because nobody would be able to trust Dalinar and believe that he won't send his assassins against them if he wants them gone. That's a very bad way to do politics when everyone is walking on eggshells around bloodthirsty Alethi, thinking they might want to dominate other members of the coalition or even conquer them, as that's what Blackthorn and Alethi do the best.

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

1 hour ago, alder24 said:

You don't plan to kill your allies just because of what ifs without any reasonable evidence of their betrayal. Just by having those plans it means you don't trust them, so how can they trust you when they learn about those plans? It will cause a massive rift in the alliance that can eventually lead to them leaving your side, not because they wanted to betray you in the first place, but because they think you betrayed them first with your assassins acting as a blackmail. Assassins in the shadows are not a foundation upon which you can build a strong alliance, trust is and having those kinds of plans shatters this trust into pieces. That's why this is politically wrong and I hope I don’t have to explain why assassination plans are morally wrong. 

I do not know how to explain to people this very simple fact: Yes, in war, you do plan to deal with enemies who are turned against you. What if they surrender due to some unforeseen attack on their vital personal interests? If Vichy France got control of the French Navy and was then going to use it to attack the British, would not the British command want for plans to defeat their former ally? Planning for such things is prudence. Of course it is a problem if such plans are suddenly introduced during a debate about personal character, but the truth in that scene is that Jasnah had mere schemes while Taravangian had assassins in the wings to ensure he could not lose.

Furthermore, Dalinar was not ready enough for betrayal. His council failed to notice or undo the defection of the Azish kings. Adolin managed to salvage this because he managed to gain a platoon of shardbearers at the last minute, but that was necessary because of the reinforcements failing to arrive due to a lack of suspicion of possible treason.

I know it does not feel good to be mired in doubt and suspicion, but when a ruler shies from such things out of bad feelings they gain meager comfort at the expenditure of the lives of their subjects.

[Frustration]

On 3/20/2026 at 9:23 AM, alder24 said:

I don't see Jasnah as a monster, only as a flawed person with a twisted sense of morality, deeply traumatized by her past. I have no problems with her actions against Aesudan as she was already known to be an unpleasant, detached and a power hungry individual who might become a threat to her family, thus observing her and potentially removing her was a right choice to make - and as books later proved it, sparing her was a mistake Jasnah made. 

I had decided to not continue here, but for you my friend I will make an exception.

I don't consider killing someone because they MIGHT be destabalizing to be either logical nor moral. Now if Jasnah had known about Aesudan's secret societies and that she would use Yelig-nar I could see your point, but she had no idea about that.

On 3/20/2026 at 9:23 AM, alder24 said:

The cold-blooded murder of thugs in WoK was the worst thing Jasnah has done so far. Her self-defence might be justified, but it was an excessive use of force and the whole situation borders on entrapment so much that it's hard for me to defend her. She went out of her way to get robbed just to teach Shallan a lesson and treated those people like educational tools, killing them even when they were running away. This is just morally wrong, even if those thugs were dangerous criminals. 

Cold blooded implies some level of innocence to them.

Entrapment as discussed in the other thread on the footpads does not apply as Jasnah would need to encourage them to do something they otherwise weren't intending to do. Their repeated assaults in that alleyway proves that it was something they had already been doing. To call what Jasnah did as entrapment would eliminate all sting operations as entrapment as well.

And treating them like educational tools was exactly what public executions were.

On 3/20/2026 at 9:23 AM, alder24 said:

In fact, she loved Renarin and Aesudan (or Elhokar) too much to kill them, proving her hypocrisy and proving that she's not a monster. She was deceiving herself into believing that she would do everything that's necessary for the greater good, while in reality she couldn't withstand the pain of doing so when it comes to her close ones. Her family is in fact irreplaceable, unlike Frustration has claimed. This whole debate showed us Jasnah was only a pretend monster, whose plans against Aesudan and Renerain born out of her trauma were just a lie to maintain the illusion she crafted for herself, while deep inside she knew how wrong it was and that they mean too much for her to kill them. WaT ch 116:

I'd disagree, if Ivory hadn't bonded Jasnah and dropped her into the CR she would have killed Aesudan, her stated reason for not doing so was that she was too confused to try upending things at that moment. Afterwards she had other things to deal with. Renarin managed to save himself, but as his vision showed Jasnah was more than willing to kill him.

1 hour ago, ParaTulip said:

I do not know how to explain to people this very simple fact: Yes, in war, you do plan to deal with enemies who are turned against you. What if they surrender due to some unforeseen attack on their vital personal interests? If Vichy France got control of the French Navy and was then going to use it to attack the British, would not the British command want for plans to defeat their former ally? Planning for such things is prudence. Of course it is a problem if such plans are suddenly introduced during a debate about personal character, but the truth in that scene is that Jasnah had mere schemes while Taravangian had assassins in the wings to ensure he could not lose.

Furthermore, Dalinar was not ready enough for betrayal. His council failed to notice or undo the defection of the Azish kings. Adolin managed to salvage this because he managed to gain a platoon of shardbearers at the last minute, but that was necessary because of the reinforcements failing to arrive due to a lack of suspicion of possible treason.

I know it does not feel good to be mired in doubt and suspicion, but when a ruler shies from such things out of bad feelings they gain meager comfort at the expenditure of the lives of their subjects.

That's like saying I should have a plan to assassinate my employer if I think they plan on firing me. Fen was every bit as much of a threat to Jasnah as my employer is to me, and I have every bit as much reason to suspect my employer to turn on me as Jasnah did Fen.

It would still be wrong.