Everybodies Favorite Triangle

[DreamEternal]

Also, while Jasnah seems to be ruthless and not to have a bit of mercy in her, she seems never to gain real personal interest in her deeds. That makes her creepy, but everything but the evil piece of crem Amaram is.

Amaram also feels guilty for what he does, and for me it seemed that he was being pushed into it by Restares. I think he is much more pathetic and somewhat less evil than people generally think.

[Pathfinder]

Amaram also feels guilty for what he does, and for me it seemed that he was being pushed into it by Restares. I think he is much more pathetic and somewhat less evil than people generally think.

Yeeeeeaaaah there is a whole thread that goes on for pages and pages regarding how people feel about him. Personally there is a saying that you see or expect most in others what you see in yourself. Even when Kaladin told him he would have given him the plate, Amaram is convinced Kaladin would change his mind or be deceitful. I think that says a lot about Amaram's character. 

[Alfa]

Amaram also feels guilty for what he does, and for me it seemed that he was being pushed into it by Restares. I think he is much more pathetic and somewhat less evil than people generally think.

 

 

For me that makes it even worse - i hate people who do evil deeds, but I even more hate people who don't take the responsibility for it. Amaram, at least, admitted, that he did something bad.

[maxal]

I think Amaram and Jasnah are not so dissimilar as we may have initially thought.

 

Jasnah purposefully hunted those thugs with the firm intend to kill them: they may deserve the death penalty based on their country's laws, but it wasn't up to Jasnah to be the executioner. She did not have the legal right to kill those men, even more so she disguised it as self-defense. She proved how cunning she was as thugs or no, you can't go and kill people, but you just can't prove it truly wasn't self-defense... I would also point out Jasnah didn't act out of pure altruism and generosity: she had a game plan.

 

Amaram purposefully killed a squad of men such as to hide the truth being his acquisition of Shards. His actions are nebulous because we are unsure what he would have done had Kaladin kept the Shards or had he freely given them to him. He is pictured as a character who had a goal other then his personal advancement which is not unlike Jasnah.

 

Both characters are willing to go the extra length to fulfill their goals, let's not forget Jasnah has assassins to her sold... Simply because she is a Radiant doesn't make her actions more "right". How far would she be willing to go? Would she kill innocent in the same manner as Taravangian is she thinks it is for a greater good? We do not know yet.... and I am unsure of the reason.

 

I thus think those characters do have something in common.... even if it is controversial to state it.

[sheep]

Amaram is convinced Kaladin would change his mind or be deceitful. I think that says a lot about Amaram's character. 

 

I think it shows something about Alethi and lighteyes culture in general.  A Shardbearer is one in 30 in all of Alethkar, and instantly promotes you to fourth dahn, important frontline officer, and personal bodyguard to your Highprince overlord; not to mention that Shards are pretty much priceless.  The fact that Amaram feels bad at all says something about his character.  Imagine Sadeas in that situation (remember, he's salty because he's 50 years old and only has Plate), or heck, even Lamaril, and they would have done much worse.  If they killed a Shardbearer, they wouldn't give up the Shards - why would anyone ever do that?  Kaladin wouldn't have ended up a slave, that's for sure.

 

And if you consider why Amaram supports the Sons of Honor, it wouldn't be very hard to imagine that they are the same sort of brainwashing crazy cult that Teft's family were in.  Religious devotion in Vorin kingdoms seems to start young and be pressed onto you from your family.  See Shallan's father pushing her into the Devotary of Purity, which she didn't pick.

[Pathfinder]

I think Amaram and Jasnah are not so dissimilar as we may have initially thought.

 

Jasnah purposefully hunted those thugs with the firm intend to kill them: they may deserve the death penalty based on their country's laws, but it wasn't up to Jasnah to be the executioner. She did not have the legal right to kill those men, even more so she disguised it as self-defense. She proved how cunning she was as thugs or no, you can't go and kill people, but you just can't prove it truly wasn't self-defense... I would also point out Jasnah didn't act out of pure altruism and generosity: she had a game plan.

 

Amaram purposefully killed a squad of men such as to hide the truth being his acquisition of Shards. His actions are nebulous because we are unsure what he would have done had Kaladin kept the Shards or had he freely given them to him. He is pictured as a character who had a goal other then his personal advancement which is not unlike Jasnah.

 

Both characters are willing to go the extra length to fulfill their goals, let's not forget Jasnah has assassins to her sold... Simply because she is a Radiant doesn't make her actions more "right". How far would she be willing to go? Would she kill innocent in the same manner as Taravangian is she thinks it is for a greater good? We do not know yet.... and I am unsure of the reason.

 

I thus think those characters do have something in common.... even if it is controversial to state it.

I do not think it is controversial to state it, however I still disagree. Yes we could argue the ethics of vigilantism, but that still does not change the target of these deaths. On Jasnah's part they were notorious murderers who will continue to murder, on Amaram's they were innocent people in the wrong place at the wrong time. I was going to say you are right that we cannot prove that Jasnah would not murder an innocent to further a goal, but then i remembered your point that just because she is a radiant does not make her good. Ironically that does actually answer you. The first ideal is journey before destination. The death of one should never be excused in the face of the preservation of the many. That is literally stated in the book. If Jasnah would like to continue her radiancy, she could not kill an innocent just to further her own or larger goals. That would be placing the destination before the journey. True both killed individuals based on what they could potentially do (the murderers potentially killing again, the soldiers potentially starting rumors that Amaram stole the armor), but in my opinion that is the difference between killing a snake that is hissing at a child with bared fangs ready to strike, and killing a puppy pitt bull because it could potentially grow up and be trained to kill

[Pathfinder]

I think it shows something about Alethi and lighteyes culture in general.  A Shardbearer is one in 30 in all of Alethkar, and instantly promotes you to fourth dahn, important frontline officer, and personal bodyguard to your Highprince overlord; not to mention that Shards are pretty much priceless.  The fact that Amaram feels bad at all says something about his character.  Imagine Sadeas in that situation (remember, he's salty because he's 50 years old and only has Plate), or heck, even Lamaril, and they would have done much worse.  If they killed a Shardbearer, they wouldn't give up the Shards - why would anyone ever do that?  Kaladin wouldn't have ended up a slave, that's for sure.

 

And if you consider why Amaram supports the Sons of Honor, it wouldn't be very hard to imagine that they are the same sort of brainwashing crazy cult that Teft's family were in.  Religious devotion in Vorin kingdoms seems to start young and be pressed onto you from your family.  See Shallan's father pushing her into the Devotary of Purity, which she didn't pick.

Just because there is someone worse out there, does not reduce the severity of ones action. 

[sheep]

Just because there is someone worse out there, does not reduce the severity of ones action. 

No, but we must view someone's actions in the context of the situation and society.  Our judgements are filtered through the lens of Earth society, ingrained with moral codes distilled from thousands of years of Judeo-Christian and Greek philosophy.   That doesn't necessarily apply to Alethkar, so I find it kind of jarring when someone uses the word "evil", when we've seen that Roshar is fifty shades of grey. 

 

We find it shocking that Amaram sentenced his own men to death, which is something that would never happen in an Earth military.  But Alethi armies use tactics like letting little boys be bait, and Sadeas sends men who enlisted to his banner to run bridges if they displease him, and most people don't bat an eye.  They just prefer that whoever it happens to isn't them.  Or someone they know.

 

 

The first ideal is journey before destination. The death of one should never be excused in the face of the preservation of the many. That is literally stated in the book. If Jasnah would like to continue her radiancy, she could not kill an innocent just to further her own or larger goals.

 

I think the ideals, even the First Ideal, are up to interpretation by you and your bonded spren.  If it was Syl and Kaladin, she would have shut off his Stormlight after the first guy, but Ivory did nothing.   Looks like Elsecallers are morally okay with the protection of the many.  And if Jasnah was a Skybreaker, and the punishment in Kharbranth for attacking or threatening a noblewoman of her rank was death, they'd have been fine with her killing them too.

[DreamEternal]

Just because there is someone worse out there, does not reduce the severity of ones action.

It is not about there being someone worse. It about trying to understand how much can be traced to history and circunstances. If a big part of the alethi elite would kill innocent darkeyes for Shards with no remorse, then it can be said that their culture incentivates psychopatic backstabbing.

And joining such supposition with the fact he at least feels guilty about it, it becomes easier to not see him as a complete monster, but only a weak man moved by forces outside of himself. But then, I may see him and most other villains this way because of my personal philosophy, which forbids all forms of hatred against others and the desire for retribution as a goal on itself, and my belief that most people are moved more by their circunstances than their natures.

Edited February 22, 2016 by DreamEternal

[maxal]

I do not think it is controversial to state it, however I still disagree. Yes we could argue the ethics of vigilantism, but that still does not change the target of these deaths. On Jasnah's part they were notorious murderers who will continue to murder, on Amaram's they were innocent people in the wrong place at the wrong time. I was going to say you are right that we cannot prove that Jasnah would not murder an innocent to further a goal, but then i remembered your point that just because she is a radiant does not make her good. Ironically that does actually answer you. The first ideal is journey before destination. The death of one should never be excused in the face of the preservation of the many. That is literally stated in the book. If Jasnah would like to continue her radiancy, she could not kill an innocent just to further her own or larger goals. That would be placing the destination before the journey. True both killed individuals based on what they could potentially do (the murderers potentially killing again, the soldiers potentially starting rumors that Amaram stole the armor), but in my opinion that is the difference between killing a snake that is hissing at a child with bared fangs ready to strike, and killing a puppy pitt bull because it could potentially grow up and be trained to kill

 

I am not disagreeing with you as I said they have "something" in common, not everything. As you pointed out, Amaram killed innocents while Jasnah didn't, but the distinction between both actions is thin. The thugs may have deserved punishment, doubly so since they did attack her, but she did set out to purposefully kill them. In our world, you aren't allowed to kill anyone if not for self-defense. It does not matter if the person you killed was a rapist, if the court proves you purposefully arranged yourself to be raped such as to justify yourself murdering the person, then you are in trouble.... This being said, Alethkar isn't our world, so modern day morality don't truly apply, but the fact remains Jasnah's actions are nebulous, at best. 

 

Amaram's actions also are nebulous and worst because he targeted innocents who weren't threat to him, just to his reputation. It is quite terrible, but I think we would agree the line in between the "journey" and the "destination" is not as clear as we may think.

 

Amaram did wrong. Jasnah did wrong but turned it into right and you are right in stating shall she killed innocent, she'd likely violate the first oath. Then again, we do not know all of the ramifications of those oaths, it could be loop-hole where it is possible, I honestly do not know even if I think it improbable.

 

I am simply stating both characters could have gotten along, in another life with other circumstances.

[Pathfinder]

No, but we must view someone's actions in the context of the situation and society.  Our judgements are filtered through the lens of Earth society, ingrained with moral codes distilled from thousands of years of Judeo-Christian and Greek philosophy.   That doesn't necessarily apply to Alethkar, so I find it kind of jarring when someone uses the word "evil", when we've seen that Roshar is fifty shades of grey. 

 

We find it shocking that Amaram sentenced his own men to death, which is something that would never happen in an Earth military.  But Alethi armies use tactics like letting little boys be bait, and Sadeas sends men who enlisted to his banner to run bridges if they displease him, and most people don't bat an eye.  They just prefer that whoever it happens to isn't them.  Or someone they know.

 

 

 

I think the ideals, even the First Ideal, are up to interpretation by you and your bonded spren.  If it was Syl and Kaladin, she would have shut off his Stormlight after the first guy, but Ivory did nothing.   Looks like Elsecallers are morally okay with the protection of the many.  And if Jasnah was a Skybreaker, and the punishment in Kharbranth for attacking or threatening a noblewoman of her rank was death, they'd have been fine with her killing them too.

Cultural relativism does not always work. We can say we cannot judge a society because we are not apart of it, and yet we do and take action in regards to the untouchables in india, the treatment of women in the middle east, the genocides in africa and so on. We are not the only ones that find it shocking. Kaladin finds it shocking. Dalinar finds it shocking. Kaladin's own men find it shocking considering it resulted in their deaths that they did not expect. If it was such a cultural norm, then why did Amaram hide it? Just because Sadeas or Restares would have done it, does not make them a representative of their culture on whole. I am falling into Godwin's law here, but the nuremberg trials are a prime example. Just because your society may imply it is ok, does not make it ok. Amaram still killed innocent people, and probably helped kill thousands more in trying to bring about the desolations due to his own religious fervor. We have words for people like that in modern day society. They are called religious extremists and are condemned for the lives they take. 

 

Syl and Kaladin are faulty examples because it is pointed out in the book the fine line a windrunner must walk because their big ideal is to protect, yet they kill the other side that is trying to protect. So why is it ok to kill others to protect your own, but they should die when they are trying to protect their own. My belief is it is because it is war, and they are enemy combatants. In Amaram's case, yes they were soldiers, but they were not in conflict. They did not seek that conflict. They were literally in the wrong place at the wrong time. The murderers have killed in the past, intended to kill Jasnah and Shallan, and had they not been stopped, would continue to kill in the future. They are not the innocents specifically named when the first oath was explained. So the oath in my opinion is not as loose and easy as you feel it is.  

 

It is not about there being someone worse. It about trying to understand how much can be traced to history and circunstances. If a big part of the alethi elite would kill innocent darkeyes for Shards with no remorse, then it can be said that their culture incentivates psychopatic backstabbing.

And joining such supposition with the fact he at least feels guilty about it, it becomes easier to not see him as a complete monster, but only a weak man moved by forces outside of himself. But then, I may see him and most other villains this way because of my personal philosophy, which forbids all forms of hatred against others and the desire for retribution as a goal on itself, and my belief that most people are moved more by their circunstances than their natures.

Please refer to my responses to sheep. There are shown plenty of lighteyes and highprinces that would not have made the same choice as Amaram. Just because because they can get away with it, does not make it a cultural phenomena that is immune from our judgement via cultural relativism. The fact that he feels guilty would matter if at any point he attempted to change or make up for what he has done, but even when Kaladin reveals him to Dalinar, Amaram continues his subterfuge. Dalinar even gives him prime opportunity to come forward as the honorable man he claims to be. But not only does he not do so, but he attempts to kill Dalinar for revealing it. Yes he is soooo guilty about the first time that he was about to do it a second time. If Dalinar hadn't been quicker on the draw, he would be dead.

 

I am not disagreeing with you as I said they have "something" in common, not everything. As you pointed out, Amaram killed innocents while Jasnah didn't, but the distinction between both actions is thin. The thugs may have deserved punishment, doubly so since they did attack her, but she did set out to purposefully kill them. In our world, you aren't allowed to kill anyone if not for self-defense. It does not matter if the person you killed was a rapist, if the court proves you purposefully arranged yourself to be raped such as to justify yourself murdering the person, then you are in trouble.... This being said, Alethkar isn't our world, so modern day morality don't truly apply, but the fact remains Jasnah's actions are nebulous, at best. 

 

Amaram's actions also are nebulous and worst because he targeted innocents who weren't threat to him, just to his reputation. It is quite terrible, but I think we would agree the line in between the "journey" and the "destination" is not as clear as we may think.

 

Amaram did wrong. Jasnah did wrong but turned it into right and you are right in stating shall she killed innocent, she'd likely violate the first oath. Then again, we do not know all of the ramifications of those oaths, it could be loop-hole where it is possible, I honestly do not know even if I think it improbable.

 

I am simply stating both characters could have gotten along, in another life with other circumstances.

I understand what you are saying Maxal but again I still disagree. I feel the fact of those that were killed is what makes the gap between Jasnah and Amaram in my opinion so large. And for my above explanation I do not feel the first oath is as nebulous. Yes legally in our world you are correct that her actions were illegal. In my opinion however she would get off even in our world, but it would take some clever use of the law as written (which I have argued and stated in the other thread that went on and on for this). But that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing whether we feel Amaram and Jasnah are almost equal regarding their actions and morality. 

 

This has derailed this thread. I am not sure if the other thread is still active/in existence, but perhaps we should attempt to continue this there?

Edited February 23, 2016 by Pathfinder

[AerionBFII]

Jasnah killed those Rapers/Thieves and was perfectly honest about why and gave a good argument for it. She also assassinated members of the Ghostbloods who are what? A group of people with goals they are willing to kill to achieve and is also willing to take severely lethal actions to protect her family. Personally i see logic behind everything she has done according to the information we have been given and im personally not really bothered by her actions.

 

Amaram killed Kals crew because he wanted the Shards. He gave reasons for why he did what he did but realistically he just wanted the shards. He broke a promise regarding tien's safety and he wants to bring about the return of demons to hopefully reinstall the Church to supremacy. I see more of a deluded fanatic than a calculated killer but i think he is simply a liar and his logic is faulty.

 

I also found myself nodding along to Jasnah's logic but maybe im bias since i love both Kaladin and Jasnah   

I actually had some sympathy toward Amaram in the first book, what he did wasn't good or just but pragmatic but during the events of book two i realized it was just a facade and he literally only wanted the shards and he is a coward, a traitor and a liar.

[natc]

Yeah, bringing about the Apocalypse just to prove that your religion was right sounds like a really crazy, fanatic plan. That you don't need shards for, at that.

Jasnah has blood on her hands but at least she's mostly doing it to people that appear to be even more questionable than her. Hell, she's better than Nalan on the morality scale.

Edited February 27, 2016 by natc

[IndigoAjah]

Yeah, bringing about the Apocalypse just to prove that your religion was right sounds like a really crazy, fanatic plan. That you don't need shards for, at that.

Jasnah has blood on her hands but at least she's mostly doing it to people that appear to be even more questionable than her. Hell, she's better than Nalan on the morality scale.

Damning with the faintest of praise

[DreamEternal]

You know, Jasnalan sounds like a ship that could work much better than Amarasnah, even if it is just as impossible.

If Nalan is hunting surgebinders for a logical reason, not simply insanity, and for some reason decides to change plans, I could see him and Jasnah agreeing more often than both would like.