[OB] Hoid, Taravangian, and Amaram

[kmosiman]

Quote

“I stand by what I was forced to do, Brightlord,” Amaram said, stepping forward. “The arrival of the Voidbringers only proves I was in the right. We need practiced Shardbearers. The stories of darkeyes gaining Blades are charming, but do you really think we have time for nursery tales now, instead of practical reality?”

“You murdered defenseless men,” Dalinar said through gritted teeth. “Men who had saved your life.”

Amaram stooped, lifting Oathbringer. “And what of the hundreds, even thousands, your wars killed?”

Quote

“Yes… I do too. But it’s not a matter of morality, is it? It’s a matter of thresholds. How many guilty may be punished before you’d accept one innocent casualty? A thousand? Ten thousand? A hundred? When you consider, all calculations are meaningless except one. Has more good been done than evil? If so, then the law has done its job. And so… I must hang all four men.” He paused. “And I would weep, every night, for having done it.”

Damnation. Again, Dalinar reassessed his impression of Taravangian. The king was soft-spoken, but not slow. He was simply a man who liked to consider a great long time before committing.

 

Quote

And while I am your friend, please understand that our goals do not completely align. You must not trust yourself with me. If I have to watch this world crumble and burn to get what I need, I will do so. With tears, yes, but I would let it happen.

Interesting parallels between the 3 men speaking to Dalinar. One seeks to restore his religion, one seeks to save humanity, and one seeks to save creation itself*.

Wit seemed to take particular offense at Amaram; yet he is willing to watch a planet be destroyed to accomplish his goals.

I wounder how he would treat Taravangian?

*Wild guess on my part since Hoid's true goals are unknown.

 

[Fifth of Daybreak he/him]

5 minutes ago, kmosiman said:

*Wild guess on my part since Hoid's true goals are unknown.

Quote

You have accused me of perpetuating my grudge against Rayse and Bavadin.

Way of Kings Chapter 23 Many Uses, Epigraph

He obviously wants to pull a Kaladin/Roshone and sucker punch Rayse in the face.

[ParadoxicalZen he/him]

Getting revenge for his buddies, Aona and Skai. I fear Hoid would do far worse than just punching Rayse in the face

[Necessary Eagle she/her]

On 11/1/2017 at 2:39 PM, Fifth of Daybreak said:

He obviously wants to pull a Kaladin/Roshone and sucker punch Rayse in the face.

Better parallel (M:SH)

Spoiler

Kelsier punching Ati in the face.

 

[Shadowmancer he/him]

Interesting comparison. Have an upvote! I think the attitude of Amaram is very, very different. I think Amaram seeks to excuse himself in that instance with Dalinar. Dalinar has made mistakes but he recognizes them as mistakes. He seeks a better way, and does not settle for "the ends justify the means." Amaram also tries actively to proclaim himself a better man than he knows is, and he knows what he is doing is wrong, which is why he hides both. He knows it is wrong, but tries to convince himself he is justified.

Vargo is ... well, he's an interesting study. He knows what he does is wrong, but claims he does it for a greater purpose. However, this has led him to commit horrifying atrocities. The slaughter he has perpetuated and continues to enforce means that he does not have any misgivings about the ultimate morality of his actions. Because of the Diagram, which he worships as holy, he feels compelled to play these actions out to their end to prevent the destruction of the world. He does not justify his actions. Taravangian fully believes that if there is an afterlife, his reward will be damnation, but he chooses his current path in spite of that.

Hoid, I think, sees things on a different playing-field than these two men. He recognizes the things that are at stake, and he is willing to sacrifice for what he "needs." I think ultimately Hoid's intentions are good, but I also want to point out that he does not have the capacity to directly harm anyone [very citation, much source, wow]. I think he sees Amaram as a coward, Taravangian as a fool, and Dalinar as a broken man striving to become better. Perhaps he honors that because he himself lacks the capacity to grow [speculation, no source available].

Edited November 5, 2017 by Shadowmancer

[Naerin]

What I think is really awesome about Dalinar's discussion with Taravangian is how it neatly sets up the crux of Kaladin's upcoming moral dilemma. We know the Listeners are not inherently evil, and the escaped parshmen he is travelling with seem very sympathetic. They are going out of their way not to hurt people, despite their understandable rage at humans. Now obviously we don't know where they're going yet, or what they're planning. But let's assume that not every Listener is going to be okay with the idea of being possessed again. Eshonai and her folk were basically tricked into it, so presumably others might resist the idea as well. This leaves Dalinar and friends (but Kaladin in the short term) with a moral quandry. Any freed parshmen they meet COULD become a voidbringer. If they are taken in as refugees and then decide to accept an evil spren and transform in the middle of a human force, that could be very dangerous. 

So it's like the parable. You have a group of people, with no way of telling who might be dangerous in the future, but knowing that any of them COULD be murderers. So do you kill all the Parshendi/Listeners? Do you take in those who are fleeing like Kaladin has met, and risk that wannabe voidbringers are lurking among them? I could be wrong but it seems like this scene has brilliantly set up what I expect will be a major moral issue within this book, when so many assumptions about the Voidbringers are being challenged and complicated. 

Edited November 5, 2017 by Naerin

[Kered he/him]

I think is disdain towards Amaram is just like his disdain for Sadeas. Hoid being Hoid, always knows more than he lets on. I think he new what Amaram did to Kaladin's unit or at least had an inkling. Same with Sadeas. What bugs me about SA, one of my only issues, is how when Hoid says important things to characters like Kaladin and Dalinar, and neither ask any follow ups or else act like Hoid hadn't said anything. 

I feel that if someone told me they would watch my world burn with tears, I would question them a little further. That might just be me though and I'm being irrational lol. 

[Siaun Sanche she/her]

33 minutes ago, Naerin said:

So it's like the parable. You have a group of people, with no way of telling who might be dangerous in the future, but knowing that any of them COULD be murderers. So do you kill all the Parshendi/Listeners? Do you take in those who are fleeing like Kaladin has met, and risk that wannabe voidbringers are lurking among them? I could be wrong but it seems like this scene has brilliantly set up what I expect will be a major moral issue within this book, when so many assumptions about the Voidbringers are being challenged and complicated. 

It's not _that_ much like the parable. There's no reason to believe that anybody with Kaladin has committed murder, IIRC. There's a chance that they may become murderers later. But there's a chance that anybody may become a murderer later, and indeed a number of people have been let into Urithiru who became murderers later. (Some of them, like Amaram, were known to be dangerous murderers already, in fact.) So maybe I'm reading too much into your use of the word 'dilemma', but I don't see it as a dilemma because to me there's one obvious right answer.

On 11/1/2017 at 2:32 PM, kmosiman said:

Wit seemed to take particular offense at Amaram; yet he is willing to watch a planet be destroyed to accomplish his goals.

Failure to act is not normally seen in the same light as deliberately acting in a harmful fashion.

[kari-no-sugata]

I'd say that the main difference is that Hoid is trying to solve problems that others started while Taravangian and Amaram are deliberately taking a bad situation and making things worse for an end goal that is dubious and selfish in Amaram's case and not clear in Taravangian's case (yes he wants to save the world but what does success look like to him?).

We've seen in the case of Szeth and Darkness/Nan that they were doing things that were bad and they were pretty much insane. They've now realised that what they did was wrong so they have a chance of some kind of redemption or restitution. But, I'm not sure that could happen with Amaram unless he loses his faith (seems unlikely). It seems similar for Taravangian - I think he can only be persuaded that he's wrong if the Diagram shows a major flaw. He might well refuse to believe such a thing though.

[Naerin]

5 hours ago, Harry the Heir said:

It's not _that_ much like the parable. There's no reason to believe that anybody with Kaladin has committed murder, IIRC. There's a chance that they may become murderers later. But there's a chance that anybody may become a murderer later, and indeed a number of people have been let into Urithiru who became murderers later. (Some of them, like Amaram, were known to be dangerous murderers already, in fact.) So maybe I'm reading too much into your use of the word 'dilemma', but I don't see it as a dilemma because to me there's one obvious right answer.

Failure to act is not normally seen in the same light as deliberately acting in a harmful fashion.

I meant that it is like the parable in a thematic sense. The core aspect of the parable is this: There are four people. Three of them are dangerous, potential threats to others and the community itself. But you have no way of determining which ones. So what do you do? Do you let all go free, or do you execute or imprison them all, because even if one is innocent it is worth it to eliminate the threat. 

Now imagine how people are going to react when/if Kaladin tries to help the escaped parshmen. They are going to say that it is too dangerous, because even if they seem innocent, any one of them could potentially transform into a monster. So to be safe other humans will argue that they should all be imprisoned, executed, or at the very least not trusted. Not precisely the same as the parable. But then it would be pretty silly if it perfectly fit the exact situation another character was in right at that moment. The point is that the underlying themes are quite similar. 

For the record I also think there is a clear "right" answer. But I can see it being something the characters struggle with or disagree over. I can also see Kaladin raising your exact point. That humans can be monsters too, just in a less dramatic or physically literal sense. And that therefore the parshmen should be given the same basic level of trust, rather than being hated out of fear of what they might become. 

[kmosiman]

17 hours ago, Harry the Heir said:

Failure to act is not normally seen in the same light as deliberately acting in a harmful fashion.

Ordinarily I would agree, but with Hoid I see more of a "great power, great responsibility" situation. I suppose he could view his actions as never being outright harmful, which for the most part has been true (except for the scene in Secret History and the deleted scene in The Emperor's Soul). But in terms of power levels, he's so far beyond the people he's around that there is no real comparison. 

My guess is that he would have some sympathy for Taravangian since they may share similar goals, but have different ability levels to achieve their goals. Hoid evidently has all eternity and greater foresight*, while Taravangian has limited time and notes made from one day. This allows Hoid to be more subtle and keep his hands cleaner; while Taravangian must employ more drastic measures. 

*My assumption/theory is that Hoid has some ability to predict the future in his deck of cards. This power may be similar to WoB that explains how he knows where to be using a form of Feruchemy. Taravangian has variable intellegence which he does not control unlike a feruchemist, who can chose when to store and when to use an ability. Under this assumption, Hoid spends much of his time aimless and lost, so that he can then use the stored potential to know where he needs to be and what he needs to do.    

[Siaun Sanche she/her]

2 minutes ago, kmosiman said:

My guess is that he would have some sympathy for Taravangian since they may share similar goals, but have different ability levels to achieve their goals. Hoid evidently has all eternity and greater foresight*, while Taravangian has limited time and notes made from one day. This allows Hoid to be more subtle and keep his hands cleaner; while Taravangian must employ more drastic measures.

Must is a strong word. We don't know that the Death Rattles and the Diagram are ultimately reliable, and that they provide the best way to stop the Desolation.

But re: Hoid, I'm not sure that we know enough about him (his abilities, his agenda, his actions) to establish whether or not his actions are moral. I'm just saying that his statement doesn't in and of itself put him on the same level as Taravangian.

[The One Who Connects he/him]

29 minutes ago, kmosiman said:

This power may be similar to WoB that explains how he knows where to be using a form of Feruchemy.

For the second time in a half hour, we don't know if he has Feruchemy.

Quote

Question

You've mentioned before that Hoid ends up where he needs to be.

Brandon Sanderson

Yes, and usually without knowing why.

Question

Is Chromium involved in that?

Brandon Sanderson

Yes. Well, he's not necessarily using Chromium, but the underlying mechanic, yes.

---

20 minutes ago, Harry the Heir said:

We don't know that the Death Rattles and the Diagram are ultimately reliable, and that they provide the best way to stop the Desolation.

Taravangian thinks they do, so to him, "must" is correct. From our perspective, we are less certain, which seems to be what you were saying

[Yata he/him]

I always assumed the Diagram kept some Information about the Death Rattles...enough to make Mr.T willing to implement them as a secondary guides.

[Siaun Sanche she/her]

10 minutes ago, The One Who Connects said:

For the second time in a half hour, we don't know if he has Feruchemy.

---

Taravangian thinks they do, so to him, "must" is correct. From our perspective, we are less certain, which seems to be what you were saying

That is what I'm saying. I think Taravangian's certainty on this matter is a species of hubris.

[Naerin]

Something else to consider is that Taravangian is working off of the premise that he has been granted the "capacity" to preserve humankind. From his perspective, this means intellect and logic unfettered by emotions. He still has regrets but his actions are not determined by them, they are a consequence of his moral choices, but irrelevant to the actual decision-making process (which is why he chides Dalinar for suggesting that the decision should be made to avoid those regrets). 

But from WoR we know that in him, intelligence seems to be inversely proportional to compassion, in a way that isn't necessarily true in other people. On his most "brilliant" days he makes ludicrous "logical" choices that could never actually work. But he doesn't seem to question whether this means that other coldly logical decisions (like the horrific Death Rattle factory, and his decision relating to the parable) might also be flawed. 

I wonder if he has misinterpreted "capacity." Because that wording could mean either "intellectual capacity" OR "capacity for empathy and compassion." Maybe he has the whole thing backwards, and is "stupid" days are the ones where he actually has a greater capacity to choose the right path and make moral decisions, which is ultimately what the world needs to survive. 

[Toaster Retribution he/him]

The fact that people take Hoids threat/warning to Dalinar lightly compared to King T or Amaram strenghtens an idea of mine. I think that people forgive much easier if they like the person they need to forgive. Most of us love Hoid, so we are willing to overlook and make excuses for him, despite the fact that we don't even know his goal yet. Our picture of Amaram, meanwhile, has been coloured by Kaladin, and he has had more of an antagonistic role. And King T is doing so much horrendous stuff that most people react against him. 

Characters in stories can get away with quite a lot, if they are charming and easy to like. Bronn in ASoIaF or Loki in the MCU are great examples. Kelsier is another good one. All of them do bad stuff, but they are beloved and forgiven nontheless. Sometimes, when I see Bronn confirming that he would murder a baby for money, or when Loki threatens Black Widow with a horrifying death, I wonder how I can like characters like them. Well, it is because they are charming, funny and likeable, most of the time. Hoid has that element to him, but neither King T or Amaram really do.

King Ts goal is to save humanity. Lets say that Hoids goal is to save the universe, to get something similar. Well, they both have noble goals. And they both kill an awful lot of people with their proposed methods. Both dislikes the sacrifice, but they are both willing to do it for the greater good. 

Amaram tries to bring about the apocalypse. Hoid is prepared to burn a planet. Both dislikes the sacrifice, but they are both willing to do it, again for what they percieve as the greater good. 

Where is the difference? If we go purely by body count, Hoid would probably be the worst of the three (you could argue that he ties with Amaram, if Amaram fails to stop the Desolation he causes). The point is that they are all willing to commit terrible crimes, yes. They all have the destination in sight, not the journey. They all want that destination to be good, for all (presumably, in Hoids case).

The difference between them lies in what kind of view of them we have gotten. From T and Amaram, we have mostly lies and murder, and not really anything fun or likeable. From Hoid, we have jokes, we have stories and we have instant noodles. He has been seen in a positive light. The same cannot be said for T or Amaram. 

Tl;dr: Its all about perspective.

[The One Who Connects he/him]

19 minutes ago, Toaster Retribution said:

Characters in stories can get away with quite a lot, if they are charming and easy to like. All of them do bad stuff, but they are beloved and forgiven nonetheless. Sometimes, when I see Bronn confirming that he would murder a baby for money, or when Loki threatens Black Widow with a horrifying death, I wonder how I can like characters like them.

As a fan of Cersei Lannister, I can agree that this is a rather accurate way to put it. Is some of the stuff she is doing reprehensible and cruel, absolutely. Do I think those actions are justified, not always. Do I still like her character anyway, yes.

That's how literary villains get real-world fanbases. Loki, TLR, Darth Vader, Raidriar, etc.. not exactly the best of dudes, but if we can find things to like about them, we're willing to overlook some of the bad things.

[Fifth of Daybreak he/him]

On 11/4/2017 at 8:50 PM, Necessary Eagle said:

Better parallel (M:SH)

  Hide contents

Kelsier punching Ati in the face.

 

I disagree. With Moash it's personal,

Spoiler

with Kelsier, he's just being himself and trying to survive by being unpredictable, not perpetuating a grudge.

2 hours ago, Toaster Retribution said:

Well, it is because they are charming, funny and likeable, most of the time. Hoid has that element to him, but neither King T or Amaram really do.

I think I have to disagree with your entire post here. We haven't seen  Hoid do anything other than express strength of convictions verbally. I'm not going to say someone is a monster if they tell me that they'd shoot a baby in the head if it meant the difference between their family dying or not. I'd have to stop and think about it if I saw that situation unfold. There's a clear difference between stating your intentions to do something and being shown the lengths that someone has already gone.

 

So Hoid has told Dalinar that he would see the world burn (don't have the exact quote) whereas we've actually witnessed King T and Amaram performing the awful acts. 

 

I see a whole lot of space between them. Until we see proof of reprehensible action on Hoid's part, we can't rule out use of a rhetorical devices like hyperbole in that instance. We can definitely rule that out for the other two.

Edited November 6, 2017 by Fifth of Daybreak

[Toaster Retribution he/him]

37 minutes ago, Fifth of Daybreak said:

I disagree. With Moash it's personal, with Kelsier, he's just being himself and trying to survive by being unpredictable, not perpetuating a grudge.

 

I think I have to disagree with your entire post here. We haven't seen  Hoid do anything other than express strength of convictions verbally. I'm not going to say someone is a monster if they tell me that they'd shoot a baby in the head if it meant the difference between their family dying or not. I'd have to stop and think about it if I saw that situation unfold. There's a clear difference between stating your intentions to do something and being shown the lengths that someone has already gone.

 

So Hoid has told Dalinar that he would see the world burn (don't have the exact quote) whereas we've actually witnessed King T and Amaram performing the awful acts. 

 

I see a whole lot of space between them. Until we see proof of reprehensible action on Hoid's part, we can't rule out use of a rhetorical devices like hyperbole in that instance. We can definitely rule that out for the other two.

Personally, I doubt Hoid used hyporbole or something else. I think he was dead serious. But then, my post contains assumptions. One of them is that Hoid meant what he said. Another is that Hoids goal is something good. 

My point still remains the same. A big part of the hatred for King T and Amaram comes from the fact that we have mostly seen them do bad stuff, and rarely seen them being extremely likeable.

@The One Who Connects I remember seeing you talk of Cersei before. What about her makes you a fan? Asking as a fellow supporter of a generally disliked character (Amaram).

[Fifth of Daybreak he/him]

32 minutes ago, Toaster Retribution said:

Personally, I doubt Hoid used hyporbole or something else. I think he was dead serious. But then, my post contains assumptions. One of them is that Hoid meant what he said. Another is that Hoids goal is something good. 

I don't personally think he was either, but intimating your intention to do something bad to stop something [assumed] worse, or achieve an [assumed] greater goal, should that situation arise, isn't worth our judgement. If they follow through, we should evaluate that situation and judge then.

I still see a large difference between letting something happen and actively killing people to achieve your goals, something we know Hoid can't do:

Quote

Lunu'anaki," Rock said, "is god of travel and mischief. Very powerful god. He came from depths of peak ocean, from realm of gods."
"What did he look like?" Lopen asked, eyes wide.
"Like person," Rock said. "Maybe Alethi, though skin was lighter. Very angular face. Handsome, perhaps. With white hair."
Sigzil looked up sharply. "White hair?"
"Yes," Rock said. "Not grey, like old man, but white-yet he is young man. He spoke with me on shore. Ha! Made mockery of my beard. Asked
what year it was, by Horneater calendar. Thought my name was funny. Very powerful god."
"Were you scared?" Lopen asked.
"No, of course not. Lunu'anaki cannot hurt man. Is forbidden by other gods."

(Pulled from another thread so no citation, sorry.)

 

 

 

Quote

Shallan stepped backward. “No need for that,” the man said, settling onto a rock. “You needn’t fear me. I’m terribly ineffective at hurting people. I blame my upbringing.”

WoR 45 Middlefest

Quote

QUESTION

Finally, and most importantly, if all your protagonists had an epic all out brawl, who would win?

BRANDON SANDERSON

Some of them are immortal, but that would kind of be cheating. If you let people who are immortal participate, it's going to very much favor someone like Hoid, who is really, really, really hard to kill. Of course, he would not be very good at offing anyone either, because of certain things in his past. It would be really futile when it got down to the last two. But if we take that out...

Secret History spoilers

Spoiler

Finally Drifter hauled him up, limp. The man’s eyes were glowing. “That was unpleasant,” Drifter said, “yet somehow still satisfying. Apparently you already being dead means I can hurt you.” As Kelsier tried to grab his arm, Drifter slammed Kelsier down again, then pulled him back up, stunned.

Part 2 Well, Chapter 1

It's hard to say we give him a pass when we know it's not possible for him to commit the same type of reprehensible actions as the others. If/when we see Hoid do something terrible to achieve his goals I'll reassess, but one line by him is not nearly worth the weight of evidence we have for the other two.

Edited November 6, 2017 by Fifth of Daybreak

[Necessary Eagle she/her]

1 hour ago, Fifth of Daybreak said:

I disagree. With Roshone it's personal, with Kelsier, he's just being himself and trying to survive by being unpredictable, not perpetuating a grudge.

I disagree with your disagreement.

Spoiler

When Kelsier manages to actually hit Ati, Ati is already dead and de-sharded.

 

Edited November 6, 2017 by Necessary Eagle

[Fifth of Daybreak he/him]

@Necessary Eagle Apparently I need to work on my reading comprehension. 

Spoiler

Somehow I completely skipped over the 'Ati' and just comprehended that as Leras. My bad.

 

[Necessary Eagle she/her]

To be fair, there's a lot of god-punching that goes on, I see why you'd get confused.

[Fifth of Daybreak he/him]

3 minutes ago, Necessary Eagle said:

To be fair, there's a lot of god-punching that goes on, I see why you'd get confused.

Can we all just take a moment and thank Brandon for creating the opportunity for this phrase to exist?  Well spoken!

Edited November 7, 2017 by Fifth of Daybreak