JVSimp

DreamEternal, Based on the excerpt and what happens to me it makes more sense that she was laying there getting stabbed and pretending to be dead. I assume after the killers left she went to Shadesmar. At least that was how I viewed it.

Well, if amaram had acted solely because he assumed kaladin was crazy and giving him power over armies would be dangerous (mind you, I do not believe that is the case, I'm just being hypotetical) then he would regard the murder of kaladin and his four men as akin to murdering hitler and some of his cronies the moment they are gaining too much influence. which i'm pretty sure the vast majority of people would find perfectly acceptable, even if at the time they hadn't really done anything wrong yet.

Fair enough, but keep in mind the vast majority would also not be getting Honor Spren Hypothetically anyway.  Everyone has 20/20 hindsight, but we just don't have that kind of foresight to predict the outcome of peoples lives.  Just because a bunch of people think it is ok to kill someone because of actions they may or may not do does not make it right. 

Yeah, you missed my point. I'm arguing that it could have been honorable if amaram had acted to keep the sword from a madman,  not if he had acted to take the sword for himself. And the part about admitting the error would not be about pleading guilty of murder, neither about a reduced sentence. it is about recognizing that you made a wrong judgment, and being willing to take responsibility for it. in this purely hypotetical scenario, amaram had never acted out of greed for the shards but only out of concern for the men who would end up ruled by a madman, he would claim guilty upon realizing that kaladin was in fact sane, and would never argue to get a reduced sentence.

I did miss your point.  It does make sense it just seems very cold hearted I guess, and it is something I personally would find as a bad thing.

 

BUt hey, you can compare it to warbreaker. would you say vasher is a honorless monster deserving only reproach? I don't think so. And yet he did something wworse than amaram did. he started a war, and a big one. mostly accidentally, but he certainly did something bad in it. and then he killed shashara only because she wanted to spread knowledge. You want to argue that shashara would have caused worse mayhem had she lived? well, and how's that different from killing a suspected madman who may misuse armies if allowed to keep shards? only because in one cause the killer turned out to be right and in the other he turned out to be wrong? how could they know, at the time they did the deed? So, why isn't vasher a bad guy? because, after that, he's spent his life trying to fix his mistakes.

Just started Warbreaker so I know almost nothing of Vasher.  I don't really believe the ends justify the means, so it both cases I would say yes they were bad people regardless of reasons.  Murder is bad, killing is not necessarily bad but can be.  I know a little of it and I know why he killed her, it still doesn't make it right to me.  Vasher as you attest spends the rest of the time making up for his mistakes, Amaram does not from what I can see.

I do believe that, when one makes a mistake, the honorable (or responsible, or good, or civic-minded) action is to try and fix them.

But sometimes some error cannot be fixed. killing people is a case.

I agree.

In this case, I do believe that one who is willing to live his life in an attempt to fix his mistake can still retain his honor (or responsibility, or goodness), as long as he is carrying on. you can't empty the sea with a bucket, but as long as you are carrying bucketfuls over and over, you are doing what you can, and that's enough for me.

Unless you were the one killed, than that perspective might be different.  But I understand the premise of making up for the things you do.

If you believe otherwise, then you should agree that vasher is a horrible individual; that elend, upon finding out that vin assaulted cett, should have her executed; that elend himself is a loathsome murder, for he killed an enemy king during a parlay; and that perrin (that one from wheel of time) should have been hanged.

 

Not sure on Vasher yet.  Vin, I agree what she did was wrong and I actually thought at the time elend should at least stop seeing her.  She did at least grow from the experience but she was not attacking an ally but an enemy.  She also regretted it and used it for a basis to not do such things again.  I disagree with her methods and I would have been against it.  The enemy king was that Jastesse or something like that, the man who let lose a kohloss army on multiple cities?  No I was fine with that action, he had killed many people for personal gain and Elend did not kill him before he did that but after, unless I am missing the correct person.  Perin also stood and defended what he did and even was willing to accept execution for it, so again I would view that as trying to do the right thing and willing to pay for his actions if it came to that.  Amaram I would still be sketchy on. 

Amaram killed 4 innocents soldiers of his to cover up the insane guy making a crazy choice, that alone stops me.  Elend did not hide what he did, and it was against a King who let loss kohloss and let them raise cities.  Perin killed in the heat of an event he didn't understand and was effecting his feelings and acted in emotional pain against a group that had and would persecute him for what he was going through.  Vin believed Cett had a mistborn or was a mistborn and was plotting against elend and made a bad choice to deal with him, a general who had an army outside the city and was willing to kill them for the city.  None of the others killed their own allies or soldiers.  They were all bad scenarios but I think if Amaram had of enslaved/imprisoned Kaladin and not killed the other soldiers I would be more inclined to agree that had he admitted it later on when proven wrong it would have been something to let go.  The killing of his own soldiers pushes it to far for me, he may admit he made an error but he executed his own soldiers to hide something if that wasn't in play, than I could see it.

For the billionth time, to avoid misunderstnading: this does not refer to amaram. it is a theoretical situation.

Sorry for the original misunderstanding.  I see where you are getting at, but like I said I am not an ends justifies the means kind of person. I did use Amaram as you described not as from the book. 

I bet you play a neutral character in Games like KoToR?  I always push for the good side, but I like finding out how other people view things. 

I have to say, the part about amaram taking kaladin for crazy makes a lot of sense. I mean, all he said to any of the questions asked was "i don't know". and then he turned off a set of shards, giving them to another soldier. I understand amaram much more with that. considering that with the shards comes nobility and the power to command armies, you certainly don't want a madman to get them.

Yes, that is true. That could be viewed as crazy and that could have been his viewpoint, but we don't know yet.

 

Although, if that had been amaram's motivation, the honorable thing to do, when challenged by kaladin in the arena, would have been - after seeing that, far from being a madman, he's a highly skilled individual who managed to get back to the top and save dalinar's army, command the king's guards with little resources, and defeat in duel several shardbearers armed with a pointy stick - to recognize the mistake, admit guilt, explain that he did it because he assumed kaladin was crazy, give up the shards, and submit to judgment.

You seem to be suggesting that a man willing to kill 4 innocent man based on thinking a 5th man was crazy somehow has honor?  I don't really understand what that means.  He seems to only have "honor" when it helps him, not when it is the right thing to do.  No one wants to die, and if you are willing to have "Honor" enough to kill 5 people for a sword and armour you should have enough "Honor" to not hide it this time around?  He could have regained some of his pride, but his honor was already dead at this point.  Question: a man abuses 15 children and admits his guilt in court is that actually showing honor or guilt?

If amaram had done that, I'd be willing to completely clean his record.

 

Would you be in favor of said child molester getting a reduced or "time served" sentence since he did the honorable thing and admitted his error?  Maybe he was a relgious man and thought they had demons in them and that was the only way to save hundreds of other children?

Just curious, I think many of us seem to have a different interpretation of honor than the others who are posting.