Radiant turned evil

[kaellok he/him]

1 minute ago, FiveLate said:

I really admire the way you stated this...antagonist rather than "Evil".

Evil is only defined by the perceptions and morals of the viewer.   Many people would say the Lord Ruler was "evil" for creating the society he did, but he did it to save the world....   A large part of every book Brandon writes is about perception.  We have a history of over 60 years of the USSR, were many of the people thought all religion was "evil", same with capitalism.  

By your logic, every Vessel except Saze is "evil".  They killed Adonalsium. 

It is a reoccurring theme in the cosmere, which is why the command phrase "Destroy Evil" for Nightbringer caused so much problems.  Evil truly is in the eye of the beholder.

I agree with you almost completely.  The only disagreement is that my word choice was deliberate.  From my perception and according to my morals, killing a person is not always evil, but it is always wrong.  And I would absolutely say that TLR is evil for perpetuating the society he created in the way that he did, even if it was necessary to save the world. 

I draw hard and bright lines about what is wrong or what is evil, but it is very possible for every action possible to be wrong.  However, not everything is equally wrong; killing person A is not necessarily as bad as killing person B or better than killing person C thru L.  Context tells us which is the least wrong option, but the least wrong option does not make the action itself 'good' or the person committing it 'good' just because they did so 'for the right reasons.'  An evil or wrong act is an evil or wrong act, no matter the reasoning.  Similarly, a good or right act is a good or right act, no matter the reasoning.

Towards Adonalsium, we do not know many of the details surrounding the Shattering of Them.  If the 16 acted in concert to Shatter Adonalsium in order to obtain Their power, then all 16 of them were wrong to do so.  If it was only one of them, then that one would be.  If Adonalsium had asked them for their help in effectively committing suicide, that might make it less wrong--but would not make the act itself good, even if a great deal of good came about from it.

All of this is a tangent to the thread, though, and I apologize for being a large part of the drift in conversation.  Antagonists are those that oppose the protagonists.  I do not think that Radiants will be antagonistic towards each other due to the arrival of Desolation.  Books 6-10 may see this happen, as it seems from the epigraphs in WoR that the Orders were not in true alignment with each other.  In the current series, Szeth would be the most likely Surgebinder to continue to be an antagonist, if only because his honor will have him working towards goals that may be counter to what the others wish (ie, a focus on revenge on the Stone Shamanate while the others would welcome their aid).  Whether Szeth becomes a Radiant at all is questionable, imo, but still probable.

[StormblessDave]

3 hours ago, FiveLate said:

I really admire the way you stated this...antagonist rather than "Evil".

Thanks, there is a big difference. Honestly, I can't see some of the present protagonists turning 'evil', but becoming a hindrance to the other protagonists is very possible, I'd like to see an internal radiant war tbh lol

[Toaster Retribution he/him]

19 hours ago, maxal said:

My problem with Taravangian is he never tried to look for another option but mass slaughter. He merely devised what he believes to be a false-proof plan to save humanity: I however absolutely do not believe it was the only plan. It just was the one having the highest chance of success, hence with his rational mind he went with it. Other plans probably still have decent chances of success but he won't risk it.

 

We don´t know wether there were other plans available to Taravangian, or what chance of success they had. Since Taravangian seems to dislike having to murder people, I think he would have taken another plan if he felt it was viable. And even if there were other plans, I guess that super-smart Taravangian calculated risk=reward and decided that the plan that ended up being the Diagram was the best way to go. I can see why Taravangian wouldn´t risk it with other plans too. Partly because his smart self lacks compassion, but also because he is very intent on saving the world. None of those make him evil.

20 hours ago, maxal said:

 

No. He is just trying to keep Alethkar strong and inline with his innate culture which is warring. Yeah. It is a bad innate culture, but Alethkar has been built upon the idea it needs to war. Princedoms need to war one against the others. Soldiers are the highest Calling, the highest ranked individuals are military leaders, for the most part: none of it can happen if... there are no more war. Hence when Dalinar thinks to reform the whole country, to stop warring: he goes against their entire culture.

So yeah, Sadeas is despicable, plain unlikable, hateful, pity, selfish and countless of other pejorative terms, but at the very least he is honest about his intentions. He wants to over-throw Dalinar because he feels his former friend has lost it. He then wants to over-throw Elhokar because he is too weak-willed to be king (and he is right about that one). He wants to crown himself because he does believe he is the best candidate, after all, he was Gavilar's right handed man.

And yeah, Sadeas will not care about the collateral damage he does to achieve his goal, he will not care who he kills or how many soldiers have to die for him to have a chance at seeing Dalinar die in a way which would not be punishable by Alethi laws. He won't bat an eye if innocent brightladies fell to their death when he dropped the bridge.

 

Sadeas reason for doing the things he does is defenitely worse than Taravangians, and they might be worse than Amarams too (depending on wether he thinks that a powerful Vorin church is the best for everyone, which I assume). When it comes to judging people, I try to look at reasons more than actions. What is the reason behind Taravangians actions? Saving the world. What is the reasons behind Amarams actions? Well, we don´t know for sure, but one guess could certainly be saving the world in a spiritual sense. What is the reason behind Sadeas actions. Keeping his country strong. Maybe save it from what he thinks will destroy it. And even that can be doubted, considering that he chooses to keep on working against Dalinar, despite the fact that he knows the Voidbringers and the Everstorm has come. The reasons behind Sadeas actions are worse, than the reasons behind Taravangians and Amarams actions. 

Also, I wouldnt say that Sadeas is honest about his intentions. He spends WoK lying to Dalinar, in order to move him into a position when he can be killed. Afterwards he is more open, yes, but that is because lying or keeping things secret doesn´t benefit him anymore. Lying and keeping things secret benefits Taravangian and Amaram though, so they do it. Both also admits to themselves that they are doing bad things, just like Sadeas does. The difference is that Taravangian and Amaram are regretting their need to do bad things. Sadeas doesn´t. I think that says a lot about who is the better person. I thi

19 hours ago, kaellok said:

We'll have to agree to disagree here.  I do not separate the specific actions of murder, mass-murder, assassination, etc. from the person who is responsible for them.  Feeling bad after causing such actions to occur will never, in my mind, result in a person being 'good.'   After all, Mr T's plan in a nutshell is to murder people until he is king of everything, so that he can then lead the chosen survivors to survival.

He might be interesting, or sympathetic.  Hells, he might even be necessary for the survival of the species.  That doesn't make him a good person.  For comparison, and since I think we come at things from drastically different viewpoints, Kelsier from Mistborn: TFE also wasn't a good person during what we see of his life.  I feel that The Lord Ruler was equal parts necessary and monstrous--would you consider him to be a good person as well?  (An honest question, as to me, TLR is the end-state of Mr T's Diagram.)

I think that if you do bad things for a good cause, and regret having to do them, you can be a good person, as you are essentially trying to help others. But there are different ways to view this, and I´ll agree to disagree.

Regarding TLR, I wouldn´t consider him a good person. However, I doubt Taravangian would be okay with enslaving 90% of the population and freely allow the rape and murder of women for the enjoyment of rich men. So I don´t agree about TLR being the end state of the Diagram in the first place. 

And since he is my favorite Brandon-character, I will comment upon Kelsier too, real quick: he had some very good traits, and some very bad ones. That makes him neither good or bad, but something in between. In the end, I do think there is more good in him though. 

[WhiteLeeopard she/her]

29 minutes ago, Toaster Retribution said:

Regarding TLR, I wouldn´t consider him a good person. However, I doubt Taravangian would be okay with enslaving 90% of the population and freely allow the rape and murder of women for the enjoyment of rich men. So I don´t agree about TLR being the end state of the Diagram in the first place. 

And since he is my favorite Brandon-character, I will comment upon Kelsier too, real quick: he had some very good traits, and some very bad ones. That makes him neither good or bad, but something in between. In the end, I do think there is more good in him though. 

In a nutshell, the way I see it Mr T is doing the wrong things for the right reasons. Makes him a villain for me, if a reluctant one.

TLR did the wrong things for the semi-right reasons. Makes him a full blown villain for me. I never ever wavered on seing him in a better light after reading HoA, although that seems to be a rare opinion, with many having softened towards him after learning what he did to keep Ruin in check. Not me, why? Because he could have kept Ruin in check without turning his empire into a pit of slavery, horror and poverty. 

Kelsier did the right things for the wrong reasons. Makes him a hero for me. Overall, actions are what matter in my opinion, the reasons just add dimension and depth, but the final judgement is based on actions. 

P.s. Kelsier is my favorite character too, I think Brandon did something deeply right with such a mixed and spectacular character. Whether love or hate, Kelsier is a character that seems to have deeply impacted most of his fandom. 

Edited August 15, 2017 by WhiteLeeopard

[Calderis he/him]

59 minutes ago, WhiteLeeopard said:

Kelsier did the right things for the wrong reasons. Makes him a hero for me. Overall, actions are what matter in my opinion, the reasons just add dimension and depth, but the final judgement is based on actions. 

I disagree. I believe that what a person intended is more important than the actions themselves. 

If a person tries to save a group of people and accidentally kills them... That sucks. They aren't a bad person, but they're still responsible for the deaths. 

If a villain attempts to set up a slave state and in so doing inadvertently creates a utopia, they aren't a hero, even though their actions resulted in good. 

Good people can do bad things and vice versa. What they wanted to have happen is more telling of who they are then the results of their actions. 

I agree that Rashek was a villain for these reasons, he didn't fight Ruin to save the people of Scadrial, he did it to save himself. He can rationalize that as "protecting the world" but the society he built, with himself as God and a majority of serfs speaks differently. 

 

Edited August 15, 2017 by Calderis

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Toaster Retribution said:

Sadeas reason for doing the things he does is defenitely worse than Taravangians, and they might be worse than Amarams too (depending on wether he thinks that a powerful Vorin church is the best for everyone, which I assume). When it comes to judging people, I try to look at reasons more than actions. What is the reason behind Taravangians actions? Saving the world. What is the reasons behind Amarams actions? Well, we don´t know for sure, but one guess could certainly be saving the world in a spiritual sense. What is the reason behind Sadeas actions. Keeping his country strong. Maybe save it from what he thinks will destroy it. And even that can be doubted, considering that he chooses to keep on working against Dalinar, despite the fact that he knows the Voidbringers and the Everstorm has come. The reasons behind Sadeas actions are worse, than the reasons behind Taravangians and Amarams actions. 

Also, I wouldnt say that Sadeas is honest about his intentions. He spends WoK lying to Dalinar, in order to move him into a position when he can be killed. Afterwards he is more open, yes, but that is because lying or keeping things secret doesn´t benefit him anymore. Lying and keeping things secret benefits Taravangian and Amaram though, so they do it. Both also admits to themselves that they are doing bad things, just like Sadeas does. The difference is that Taravangian and Amaram are regretting their need to do bad things. Sadeas doesn´t. I think that says a lot about who is the better person. I thi

I think that if you do bad things for a good cause, and regret having to do them, you can be a good person, as you are essentially trying to help others. But there are different ways to view this, and I´ll agree to disagree.

It all depends on how we rate evil actions upon a scale from one to ten. Do not get me wrong, I consider all Taravangian, Amaram and Sadeas to be bad persons because they each lack the capacity to weight in their actions when it comes to the common good. They lack the empathy required to prevent human beings from turning in blood splattering monsters. 

It is thus is does not matter to me, if a given individual wished to saved a remnant of the humanity by purposefully slaughtering 3/4 of it just so it could be united under him as a ruler, the fact he deludes himself into thinking he is doing for the greater good matters not. Taravangian is destroying countries, ravaging land sides, eliminating all opposition and the scope of his ambitions so much surpasses those of Sadeas, whom merely wants to over-throw one family not entire kingdoms filled with many more families, they cannot even be compared. Sadeas is a school yard bully whereas Taravangian is Genghis Kahn. Of course, both are bad people, but are harming people, but only one is endangering the entire humanity.

Taravangian's intentions matter not. Human beings will rationalize the best intentions to justify their actions (think how Kaladin rationalized he would protecting humanity by killing Elhokar): they will find the angle which makes them alright, but the difference in between a "good person" and a "bad person" is the "good person" is able to put a cost onto mass elimination strategies and would never purposefully go for it, not until ALL other options have vanished completely.

Mind, each deserve about the same treatment, but another reason I despise Taravangian more than Sadeas is Tarvangian is having the pretense he is doing it for altruistic reasons. He has the pretense to claim the poor people he killed was for the greater good. Sadeas, at the very least, despite all his flaws, is not deluding himself: he knows what he is doing, he knows it isn't very nice, but he doesn't care because it will help him achieve his goal. So yes, I would Sadeas is honest, not to the world, he spent entire books lying to Dalinar, but to himself. Sadeas is not lying to himself as to why he is doing what he is doing, he isn't deforming reality: he just does it. That's the difference to me: Sadeas doesn't care if there is a better plan, he chooses the one he thinks he can pull off while Taravangian has the audacity to claim there aren't any better plans. It is this hypocrisy which makes me rate Taravangian above Sadeas in turns of "evilness": he pretends to be a "good guy". Sadeas never had those pretensions, he is not trying to be sympathetic or pitiful, he is not trying to harvest my empathy towards his person in order to disguise all the wrongs he has done.

Taravangian however is. So is Amaram though less so. Oh poor oh me, look at all the terrible things I have to do. At least with Sadeas, I know he isn't getting the easy way out: he was punished for his crimes. Chances are Taravangian will never be.

25 minutes ago, Calderis said:

I disagree. I believe that what a person intended is more important than the actions themselves. 

Ultimately actions are what you are going to be judged upon, not intends. Taravangian actions are so vile the fact he pretends his intend is pure matters not, not to me at least.

[Calderis he/him]

5 minutes ago, maxal said:

Taravangian's intentions matter not. Human beings will rationalize the best intentions to justify their actions (think how Kaladin rationalized he would protecting humanity by killing Elhokar): they will find the angle which makes them alright, but the difference in between a "good person" and a "bad person" is the "good person" is able to put a cost onto mass elimination strategies and would never purposefully go for it, not until ALL other options have vanished completely.

Killing Elhokar wasn't what caused his  oath to break. It was breaking his word. If he truly believed killing Elhokar would protect people, and he hadn't sworn to protect Elhokar, I don't think anything would have stopped it. 

[Toaster Retribution he/him]

3 minutes ago, maxal said:

It all depends on how we rate evil actions upon a scale from one to ten. Do not get me wrong, I consider all Taravangian, Amaram and Sadeas to be bad persons because they each lack the capacity to weight in their actions when it comes to the common good. They lack the empathy required to prevent human beings from turning in blood splattering monsters. 

It is thus is does not matter to me, if a given individual wished to saved a remnant of the humanity by purposefully slaughtering 3/4 of it just so it could be united under him as a ruler, the fact he deludes himself into thinking he is doing for the greater good matters not. Taravangian is destroying countries, ravaging land sides, eliminating all opposition and the scope of his ambitions so much surpasses those of Sadeas, whom merely wants to over-throw one family not entire kingdoms filled with many more families, they cannot even be compared. Sadeas is a school yard bully whereas Taravangian is Genghis Kahn. Of course, both are bad people, but are harming people, but only one is endangering the entire humanity.

Taravangian's intentions matter not. Human beings will rationalize the best intentions to justify their actions (think how Kaladin rationalized he would protecting humanity by killing Elhokar): they will find the angle which makes them alright, but the difference in between a "good person" and a "bad person" is the "good person" is able to put a cost onto mass elimination strategies and would never purposefully go for it, not until ALL other options have vanished completely.

Mind, each deserve about the same treatment, but another reason I despise Taravangian more than Sadeas is Tarvangian is having the pretense he is doing it for altruistic reasons. He has the pretense to claim the poor people he killed was for the greater good. Sadeas, at the very least, despite all his flaws, is not deluding himself: he knows what he is doing, he knows it isn't very nice, but he doesn't care because it will help him achieve his goal. So yes, I would Sadeas is honest, not to the world, he spent entire books lying to Dalinar, but to himself. Sadeas is not lying to himself as to why he is doing what he is doing, he isn't deforming reality: he just does it. That's the difference to me: Sadeas doesn't care if there is a better plan, he chooses the one he thinks he can pull off while Taravangian has the audacity to claim there aren't any better plans. It is this hypocrisy which makes me rate Taravangian above Sadeas in turns of "evilness": he pretends to be a "good guy". Sadeas never had those pretensions, he is not trying to be sympathetic or pitiful, he is not trying to harvest my empathy towards his person in order to disguise all the wrongs he has done.

Taravangian however is. So is Amaram though less so. Oh poor oh me, look at all the terrible things I have to do. At least with Sadeas, I know he isn't getting the easy way out: he was punished for his crimes. Chances are Taravangian will never be.

I doubt we will ever convince each other. It is impossible to find a "truth" when it comes to morality. I just want to point a few things out:

*You said that Taravangian is endangering humanity, and Sadeas does not. But at the end of WoR, we see that Sadeas is purposefully going to keep on fighting against Dalinar, which would endanger humanity as well. Just for his petty grudge and a wish for power.

*The poor people Taravangian killed was for the greater good. That is why he killed them. We don´t know wether it will help or not. Mr. T thinks it will, you and I have our doubts, since we know that he is the antagonist in Brandon Sanderson story, and is most likely being duped in some way. Taravangian can´t know that. So he is not fooling himself or lying when he says that he killed them for the greater good. He is speaking the truth, as he sees it. What other reason would he have for killing them? He isn´t doing it because he wants personal power, he does it because he wants to save the world.

*We know that Taravangian is ruthless when he is intelligent. We also know that this most likely isn´t his fault (he couldn´t have known what the Nightwatcher would do). When he was super-smart, and super-ruthless, he thus opted to go for the plan with the best success, and wrote that one down. Normal Taravangian doesn´t remember the other plans. You could even argue that he didn´t throw the other plans away, because that was his ruthless self, not his normal self. And since he doesn´t remember his smart-day well, he cant pick a new plan. He has to go with the one he already has, or do nothing. 

 

[WhiteLeeopard she/her]

52 minutes ago, Calderis said:

I disagree. I believe that what a person intended is more important than the actions themselves. 

If a person tries to save a group of people and accidentally kills them... That sucks. They aren't a bad person, but they're still responsible for the deaths. 

If a villain attempts to set up a slave state and in so doing inadvertently creates a utopia, they aren't a hero, even though their actions resulted in good. 

Good people can do bad things and vice versa. What they wanted to have happen is more telling of who they are then the results of their actions. 

I agree that Rashek was a villain for these reasons, he didn't fight Ruin to save the people of Scadrial, he did it to save himself. He can rationalize that as "protecting the world" but the society he built, with himself as God and a majority of serfs speaks differently. 

 

Fair points. Dipping into mistborn spoilers.

Spoiler

Its possible saying Kelsier did the right things for the wrong reasons is too strong, more like he did the right things for the half-right, half-wrong reasons. Yes, he wanted vengueance and to win, but he also cared for the people and wanted to destroy a tyrant for the betterment of all skaa, even when he was a thief out for himself he took risks to take revenge/justice on noblemen that were killing skaa over pettiness.

That still makes Mr T a villain for me, as even with the best reasons he is going for the path of destruction, when he does not even know himself the endgame of the diagram. More precisely been, the wrong things, for the right reasons, for an unknown destination. Basically:

T: "I am going to save humanity!"

Interviewer: "Thats wonderful, how are you going to do it?"

T: "By following the instructions of the Diagram which I made on a day of super intelligence and zero empathy"

Interviewer: "And what is the final state which humanity will be in after you save them?"

T: "I have no idea"

How the Diagram finds so many devotees, without finding issues with points two and three is beyond me. Which is why I will not believe T can become a Bondsmith (or any radiant) till I see it.

Edit: Partly ninja'd, maxal and I think far too similarly, although her posts are much longer and better .

Edited August 15, 2017 by WhiteLeeopard
Ninja

[Calderis he/him]

@WhiteLeeopard I also am surprised by the number of adherents. Not because I think the Diagram is wrong (at least not by the information it was based on), but because enacting it requires a level of mental compartmentalization and/or dissociative traits allowing the separation emotion from current actions that I think just aren't that common. 

The actual goal though? If you accept the Diagram's conclusions, the unclear outcome doesn't matter. Survival in uncertain numbers and conditions is preferable to complete annihilation. 

[WhiteLeeopard she/her]

1 minute ago, Calderis said:

The actual goal though? If you accept the Diagram's conclusions, the unclear outcome doesn't matter. Survival in uncertain numbers and conditions is preferable to complete annihilation. 

I'd like to think most people have more empathy than that. What if your actions end up killing all of your family? Would they be able to go through with it? Then again, people have shown many times a willingness to go along with a plan when it is other people suffering, and then balk when it comes to personal sacrifices. It is entirely possible the Diagram followers will try to jump off the wagon as they lead to more personal issues and deaths.

[Calderis he/him]

1 minute ago, WhiteLeeopard said:

I'd like to think most people have more empathy than that. What if your actions end up killing all of your family? Would they be able to go through with it? Then again, people have shown many times a willingness to go along with a plan when it is other people suffering, and then balk when it comes to personal sacrifices. It is entirely possible the Diagram followers will try to jump off the wagon as they lead to more personal issues and deaths.

It's probable, and would address the portion of my post you didn't quote.