Jump to content

Feruchemist

Members
  • Posts

    138
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Feruchemist

  1. 6 hours ago, Kingsdaughter613 said:

    No, I’m saying that in war the other side is your enemy. Someone helping the war effort is no longer a civilian; they are a collaborator and, thus, an enemy. That doesn’t mean that they all need to be killed; generally the idea is to force a surrender. 

    I said that I understand Kell’s anger. I also said that when you are fighting for survival you don’t have time to figure out if THIS person was sympathetic to your cause. To put it another way: if someone had Kell’s powers during WW2, the obvious thing to do would be to kill the enemy leaders and generals. Funny thing - several of them were trying to kill Hitler. And Rommel, apparently, missed the memo entirely, if his suggestion in 1942! to reinstate the Jewish soldiers is any indication. Did they all deserve to die? Most of them did, but some individuals didn’t. But that isn’t something you can know, or even consider, when fighting a war.

    Kell is fighting a war. The Nobles are ALL subjugating the Skaa. None of them, except the youngest, are truly innocent. Many are sympathetic. Many more are products of their environment. Most don’t deserve to die. But war isn't about deserving. War is about surviving and defeating your enemies.

    Kell wasn’t planning to kill all the Nobles. He didn’t CARE if all the people subjugating him ended up dead (so long as TLR did, and the Nobles were overthrown), and he felt that collaborators were enemies and should be killed - which I don’t entirely disagree with, though I don’t think they all deserved to die. But that doesn’t make them less of an enemy. 

    The Nobles and Skaa were at war. It’s just that most of them didn’t notice. And from the perspective of the Skaa, there were no good Nobles. Better ones, but not good ones. And the Nobles, for the most part, considered the Skaa as little better than animals.

    So yes, I understand Kell’s anger. That doesn’t mean I would be okay with him killing Nobles out of hand once the war is over. Once the war is over, you try the criminals. 

    While the war is going on, it is perfectly reasonable to kill your enemies. It’s not like he was murdering children, who had no say in anything; the people Kell killed were all adults, passively following their society’s orders and beliefs. And that, in the context of the Skaa uprising, made them enemies, actively aiding and abetting the Skaa oppression. 

    Fair enough.  I actually understand your perspective, but I was interested to see what your exact reasoning was.

  2. 1 hour ago, Kingsdaughter613 said:

    Yes... except that most of them did actually believe in said leaders ideology. Go look at the statistics regarding anti-Semitism in modern Germany. It was even worse before and during the Holocaust. 

     And when you are trying to survive, you don’t have the time to figure out which ones are just going along. If you are helping a war effort and your country is committing genocide, then you are partly responsible for those atrocities. At the very least, you are the enemy, even if you aren’t completely willing in your participation. When it comes to war, it becomes irrelevant.

    Wars are not nice, or clean. And when you are fighting a culture, it’s even harder. Every noble, intentional or not, played a role in subjugating the Skaa. They had a vested interest in keeping the status quo. And that did make them enemies of those who sought to overturn it. 

    So I can understand Kell’s anger and hatred. I can understand why he did what he did. That doesn’t mean I necessarily agree; just that I can understand.

    Yes, I do, in fact, know this.  And, I have done much research on the Holocaust myself.

    My point was that it is best to not characterize groups by group identity when you are literally talking about killing them.

    Does saying that all Germans, civilians or otherwise, should have been slaughtered in WWII, or that you would have done so, not turn you into your worst enemy?

    Is it not dangerous in war to characterize civilians as nothing more than "the enemy"?  After all, hate begets hate.  Would you be equally as likely to suggest that it's alright to discriminate against others for the sins of their forbears or their representatives?  I am not trying to be confrontational, or, not overly so, but I am trying to fathom how it is rational to hate an entire nation for the sins of some quarters of the populace, majority or not.

    I must ask for a clarification, however.  Did you mean that all civilians involved in the war effort should be eliminated, or that you would have done so, or all civilians who were the enemy?

    That being said, I do understand Kelsier's motives, which is why he's such an interesting character to me, as all of Sanderson's characters are, really.

  3. Just now, Oltux72 said:

    Kelsier is also a crime lord and a wanted man. Letting people think him weak or letting untrustworthy people live is not a wise course of action. Judging him by Western middle-class standards makes no sense.

    Western middle-class standards?  Where in Hoid's underwear did you get that deduction from?

    In any case, I agree, but only if we take a moral stance relative to time and the era in which Kelsier lives.

    TL;DR: You're right.  I wrote that particular post without care as to what the intended information to be conveyed would actually be.

  4. 15 hours ago, Oltux72 said:

    Irrational hate? What is irrational about it?

    Not his hate for nobles, in particular, but his nigh-murderous hate for anyone who wrongs him.  Kelsier himself is a noble of sorts, lest we forget, so his hatred is less justified.

  5. 14 hours ago, Kingsdaughter613 said:

    Yeah... got to say that as member of a group that suffered nearly 2000 years of persecution... Kell’s anger and hatred against everyone involved in the subjugation is perfectly normal.

    My family still won’t buy German products.

    Admittedly, I’m not going to go around killing people because their ancestors murdered mine - repeatedly. But if I had Kell’s power during any of the aforementioned massacres (including, but not limited to, the Holocaust) I doubt I’d care very much whether someone was Wermacht or SS or just a civilian playing their role in the war effort; intentionally or not, you are helping in the subjugation of my people.  And that makes you my enemy.

    In my opinion, that's a rather concerning character flaw.  A willingness to kill civilians and those unrelated to any cause which has harmed you or your family, merely because they're playing a role in the war effort. 

    It is always my prerogative that people be considered on an individual basis.  Can we punch Nazis?  Of course, Nazis and Nazi ideology should burn forever in the lowest pits of Hell.  But, can we kill German civilians for no reason other than the ideology of the national leader?  I would argue no, we cannot.

  6. I would argue that Kelsier's actions are archetypal of a heroic Chaotic Evil personality.  He is murderous, has irrational hate for many, only cares for his aims, and is willing to exploit others, plot their deaths, and glorify himself unnecessarily.  

    Yet, we sympathize with him, because he truly is a hero.  His methods are undeniably selfish and evil in most contexts, until, perhaps, his end.  Even after his death he is less neutral than evil.

    However, the tone of Kelsier's character does shift, between CE, CN, and CG, but I am willing to argue that it is CE for the majority of time, despite his obvious heroism.

    Really, though, Kelsier is too complex a character to be reduced to an alignment.

×
×
  • Create New...