ArchonTremaine Posted October 10, 2015 Posted October 10, 2015 (edited) There are much more things I disagree with here than I feel like adressing in one reply, so I will only leave this answer: The Lord Ruler created a system in wich maintening the opression was one of its pillars in order to keep himself in power. Sazed interfers subtly with the system in order to make sure it eventualy reaches a point in wich his intervention becomes unnecessary. I don't buy his explanation (or impled explanation) his actions do not match it, he doesn't give his agents a real choice for a start. Again he does not live up to his claims about free will, that being true everything else is suspect, his motives are suspect, so look at his actions and see: a stagnant society with an oppresive class system that destroys people who try to change things, and a divine figure who uses coercion and enslavement to maintain that system. HE could prove me wrong, proof comes out of a gun barrel at mach 1 and hits his temple on it's way in. He enslaved multiple people, he deserves nothing but death. But I am the type of guy who stopped buying anything by Jim Butcher after Changes, so that may shed some ligh on things. Edited October 10, 2015 by ArchonTremaine
DreamEternal Posted October 10, 2015 Posted October 10, 2015 I don't buy his explanation (or impled explanation) his actions do not match it, he doesn't give his agents a real choice for a start. Again he does not live up to his claims about free will, that being true everything else is suspect, his motives are suspect, so look at his actions and see: a stagnant society with an oppresive class system that destroys people who try to change things, and a divine figure who uses coercion and enslavement to maintain that system. HE could prove me wrong, proof comes out of a gun barrel at mach 1 and hits his temple on it's way in. He enslaved multiple people, he deserves nothing but death. But I am the type of guy who stopped buying anything by Jim Butcher after Changes, so that may shed some ligh on things. If you had to choose between taking away one man's freedom or letting a dictator rise or a society colapse into chaos, taking away the freedoms of thousands, would you really choose the later? Sazed is the god of Scadrial, he can't play favorites. And have you read my two previous posts? Elendel is slowly changing for the better, in part because of Harmony. Tearing society down would help no-one except those with enough martial power to set up themselves as the new leaders, like generals aiming for a dictatorship, criminals like the Set and koloss warlords. 1
ArchonTremaine Posted October 10, 2015 Posted October 10, 2015 If you had to choose between taking away one man's freedom or letting a dictator rise or a society colapse into chaos, taking away the freedoms of thousands, would you really choose the later? Sazed is the god of Scadrial, he can't play favorites. And have you read my two previous posts? Elendel is slowly changing for the better, in part because of Harmony. Tearing society down would help no-one except those with enough martial power to set up themselves as the new leaders, like generals aiming for a dictatorship, criminals like the Set and koloss warlords. Tell an agent (or set of agents) what needs doing, and let them chose. Simple. So to your question: yes, two evil acts do not make a good act.
Seonid he/him Posted October 10, 2015 Posted October 10, 2015 I don't buy his explanation (or impled explanation) his actions do not match it, he doesn't give his agents a real choice for a start. Again he does not live up to his claims about free will, that being true everything else is suspect, his motives are suspect, so look at his actions and see: a stagnant society with an oppresive class system that destroys people who try to change things, and a divine figure who uses coercion and enslavement to maintain that system. HE could prove me wrong, proof comes out of a gun barrel at mach 1 and hits his temple on it's way in. He enslaved multiple people, he deserves nothing but death. But I am the type of guy who stopped buying anything by Jim Butcher after Changes, so that may shed some ligh on things. Hmm...what evidence do you have that he didn't give his own agents freedom? Just Paalm. And even there, I'm impressed with how much he let her get away with before he intervened. Really, I think your assessment of harmony is off-base, your charges are sweeping and not supported by the available evidence, the assumptions you make do not match up with the world as it is presented, and the moral system you propose is flawed. Having said that, I have a responsibility to demonstrate it. Unfortunately, I am leaving for my mother's birthday party right now, and will not be able to respond in such depth as this discussion deserves. I will, however, engage the last point I make; my assessment is this: a moral system that asserts that a man is irredeemably evil because he prioritizes the lives and well-being of millions over the freedom to act of one individual? That moral system is wrong. I do not have a problem with you criticizing harmony's actions. They deserve exploration and discussion, and are written to be deliberately ambiguous. I do have a problem with your assertion that because harmony's moral code does not match up with your own, that he is therefore irredeemably evil. That is highly inflexible and, I think, totally wrong. 5
+Slowswift Posted October 10, 2015 Posted October 10, 2015 There is a part in the Book of Mormon where Nephi is commanded by God to slay Laban because "it is better for one man to die than for an entire nation to perish in unbelief." (paraphrased) Does this mean that God is then irredeemably evil?
DreamEternal Posted October 10, 2015 Posted October 10, 2015 So to your question: yes, two evil acts do not make a good act. Two evil acts... What the rust are you talking about now?
ArchonTremaine Posted October 10, 2015 Posted October 10, 2015 There is a part in the Book of Mormon where Nephi is commanded by God to slay Laban because "it is better for one man to die than for an entire nation to perish in unbelief." (paraphrased) Does this mean that God is then irredeemably evil? I assume this board has a no real world dicsussion rule, so I will not answer that. 1
ArchonTremaine Posted October 10, 2015 Posted October 10, 2015 Two evil acts... What the rust are you talking about now? You present a mortons fork, do evil or let another do evil, that is the two evils I meant.
DreamEternal Posted October 10, 2015 Posted October 10, 2015 You present a mortons fork, do evil or let another do evil, that is the two evils I meant. Oh. I though you meant that denying the free will of an agent in order to preserve the free will of many was two evil acts somehow. I stand corrected, although I still deeply disagree with your personal morality.
ArchonTremaine Posted October 10, 2015 Posted October 10, 2015 Oh. I though you meant that denying the free will of an agent in order to preserve the free will of many was two evil acts somehow. I stand corrected, although I still deeply disagree with your personal morality. Fair enough.
+Slowswift Posted October 10, 2015 Posted October 10, 2015 I assume this board has a no real world dicsussion rule, so I will not answer that. As far as I am aware, providing real-world examples as part of the conversation is not against the rules in any part of the forum.
ArchonTremaine Posted October 10, 2015 Posted October 10, 2015 As far as I am aware, providing real-world examples as part of the conversation is not against the rules in any part of the forum. I am still going to avoid the possiblity of starting a religous discussion, they become very heated very fast.
+Slowswift Posted October 10, 2015 Posted October 10, 2015 I am still going to avoid the possiblity of starting a religous discussion, they become very heated very fast. Fair enough, I suppose.
Guest Posted October 10, 2015 Posted October 10, 2015 Hm, I guess I have a question then. What part of Harmony's actions do you see as wrong? The act of "enslaving" a pawn? The assumption that he can do whatever he wants as God? Killing people? Killing people to save others? Or something else?
ArchonTremaine Posted October 10, 2015 Posted October 10, 2015 Hm, I guess I have a question then. What part of Harmony's actions do you see as wrong? The act of "enslaving" a pawn? The assumption that he can do whatever he wants as God? Killing people? Killing people to save others? Or something else? the enslavement. Killing is better than that. 1
Guest Posted October 10, 2015 Posted October 10, 2015 Do you think Harmony has any duties or compulsions in any way? Note: I'm not trying to attack you, but ratyer understand your position a bit better. It's hard to follow the discussion when multiple people have the same icon...
ArchonTremaine Posted October 10, 2015 Posted October 10, 2015 Do you think Harmony has any duties or compulsions in any way? Note: I'm not trying to attack you, but ratyer understand your position a bit better. It's hard to follow the discussion when multiple people have the same icon... He has taken on the roel of Harmony, and claims to stand for free will, but he takes it away at will. But that actually doesn't matter, enslavement in and of itself is and unforgivable act. So no matter the reason or rationale find another way.
Angsos Posted October 10, 2015 Posted October 10, 2015 Harmony is Ruin and Preservation so he is good and evil. Enslavement is wrong but Paalm wasn't preaching the ills of Harmony, she was trying to bring down the government. Also, we don't know whether Sazed took direct control of her or just made suggestions. Don't forget, another shard is now at the party, so who knows how much of what she said was real and how much manipulation by the other shard. 1
Argent he/him Posted October 10, 2015 Posted October 10, 2015 Harmony is Ruin and Preservation so he is good and evil. Technically neither Ruin nor Preservation are good or evil. Ruin is progress and Preservation is stagnation as much as they are destruction and protection. 2
Aggrax Posted October 11, 2015 Posted October 11, 2015 I find your reading of Sazed as Harmony to be a bit off base. The only point in the book where he ever uses his powers to "enslave" anyone is at the end when he restrains Paalm and even then she is clearly in full control of her mind. She is able to be commit suicide while he is doing this, so clearly it's the lightest touch possible, which is saying something because Hemalurgy control tends to be fairly brute force. It is outright stated that Sazed never controlled Paalm, just that he was very insistent about what he wanted her to do. Ultimately, I don't think he had a hand in the events of Lessie's "death" the way you think he does. Paalm herself basically admits to this with the way she talks about what happened. She says several times that Sazed could have saved her, implying that he let the tragedy happen, but also that he wasn't the one that told bloody Tan to kill her. Tan says in the Prologue that he's seen God. He doesn't say Harmony. He describes Marsh and invoked the Survivor, but never says Harmony. It's possible that Tan was being moved by this unknown other Shard as a way to break Wax and Paalm. Lastly, lets not forget that Paalm is not an unbiased source. She is a rogue Kandra with one spike of a completely unknown metal. Kandra explicitly have 2 spikes because they provide a balance to the souls grafted to them, allowing the Kandra to form a stable personality, rather than being completely unhinged like the Koloss. Paalm posses one spike of a completely unknown metal that is stated to effect Kandra differently than all previous spikes. A spike made of a metal from another shard, who is likely on Scadrial for the express purpose of taking out the only known holder of more than one shard. After their first conversation, Wax never speaks directly to Sazed. We never get his interpretation of things, never hear straight from the source what he did. To sum up, I think your reading of Sazed is completely incongruous with both his personality during Era 1 and with the being known as Harmony that he has become in Era 2. I won't deny that he is manipulating pieces, but he is allowing people choices in what they do. 3
natc Posted October 11, 2015 Posted October 11, 2015 So basically this Tell an agent (or set of agents) what needs doing, and let them chose. Is exactly what Harmony has been doing. With the repetitiveness of a desperate door to door salesman, but still. 1
IAmTheBeard Posted October 11, 2015 Posted October 11, 2015 Technically neither Ruin nor Preservation are good or evil. Ruin is progress and Preservation is stagnation as much as they are destruction and protection. I have to say that I do agree with you, but I found it interesting that MeLaan described Harmony as "good and evil" during her (lovely) hermaphrodite speech. From a moral standpoint that sees killing as bad (or even death as bad), and even moreso from a standpoint that sees enslavement as bad, I can accept someone saying that Harmony is both good and evil. While I think that Harmony would be quick to point out the technicality, I think that "the personality you are speaking to" would even agree, on some level.
ArchonTremaine Posted October 11, 2015 Posted October 11, 2015 I find your reading of Sazed as Harmony to be a bit off base. The only point in the book where he ever uses his powers to "enslave" anyone is at the end when he restrains Paalm and even then she is clearly in full control of her mind. She is able to be commit suicide while he is doing this, so clearly it's the lightest touch possible, which is saying something because Hemalurgy control tends to be fairly brute force. It is outright stated that Sazed never controlled Paalm, just that he was very insistent about what he wanted her to do. Ultimately, I don't think he had a hand in the events of Lessie's "death" the way you think he does. Paalm herself basically admits to this with the way she talks about what happened. She says several times that Sazed could have saved her, implying that he let the tragedy happen, but also that he wasn't the one that told bloody Tan to kill her. Tan says in the Prologue that he's seen God. He doesn't say Harmony. He describes Marsh and invoked the Survivor, but never says Harmony. It's possible that Tan was being moved by this unknown other Shard as a way to break Wax and Paalm. Lastly, lets not forget that Paalm is not an unbiased source. She is a rogue Kandra with one spike of a completely unknown metal. Kandra explicitly have 2 spikes because they provide a balance to the souls grafted to them, allowing the Kandra to form a stable personality, rather than being completely unhinged like the Koloss. Paalm posses one spike of a completely unknown metal that is stated to effect Kandra differently than all previous spikes. A spike made of a metal from another shard, who is likely on Scadrial for the express purpose of taking out the only known holder of more than one shard. After their first conversation, Wax never speaks directly to Sazed. We never get his interpretation of things, never hear straight from the source what he did. To sum up, I think your reading of Sazed is completely incongruous with both his personality during Era 1 and with the being known as Harmony that he has become in Era 2. I won't deny that he is manipulating pieces, but he is allowing people choices in what they do. Possibly, it is certainly out of character for his era 1 personality, but we have different takes on how callous his Harmony incarnation has become.
Elbereth she/her Posted October 11, 2015 Posted October 11, 2015 I'd like to return for a moment to the original topic. I think Kelsier is not still around to influence people, because Sazed says something along the lines of "after Kel, I don't have many people be snarky with me" (I don't have my book with me). This could be referring to Kelsier's death, but it seems much more likely to be saying that Kelsier isn't around anymore. 2
DreamEternal Posted October 11, 2015 Posted October 11, 2015 I'd like to return for a moment to the original topic. I think Kelsier is not still around to influence people, because Sazed says something along the lines of "after Kel, I don't have many people be snarky with me" (I don't have my book with me). This could be referring to Kelsier's death, but it seems much more likely to be saying that Kelsier isn't around anymore. Or that he has gone rogue. Autonomy would probably find him an optimal target.
Recommended Posts