Concerning Amaram's honor...

[kaellok he/him]

I think I have come to the conclusion that, although we can understand the motivations of an individual (excellent discourse everyone), and in many ways sympathize and rationalize how this individual came to make his decisions, in the end, in my opinion, that still does not make him nor his actions honorable. We may know that a pebble started an avalanche, but the avalanche is still the cause of the devastation.  

Completely agree with this.

[Mckeedee123 he/him]

It's hard to say, though. I'm biased against Amaram, since I thought he'd be an interesting morally grey villain... turns out nope, he's literally trying to bring an apocalypse to Roshar because he's a religious fanatic. I felt really betrayed by WoR when we got some PoVs from Amaram, given that I had previously tried to (sort of) defend him and say "hey, maybe he has really good reasons for what he's doing". He's been relegated to the pile of boring villains I just want to never be mentioned again, the only other member of the pile being Sadeas. (Fortunately, Sadeas got knocked off without much ceremony. I wish it had happened earlier.)

 

Actually, I don't think that the Sons of Honor are as dismissable as you say. Sure, the first time I read WoR, I immediately wrote them off as foolish zealots too, but their goals do make sense, in a way. They think that by bringing the Heralds back, they can restore the power of the church, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Many religious figures in the book (eg. Kabsal, Pai, Kadash) have shown frustration at their own impotence. The way the devotary system works, ardents can never really offend their owners by chastising them for their wrongdoings. Many Vorin rulers are lauded by their ardents for their wisdom and virtue when the truth is the exact opposite (Exhibit A: Aesudan). The Sons of honor, like most modern ardents, probably don't want to return to the days of the hierochracy, it's likely they just want to reunite the church, end the requirement that ardents be slaves, etc.

Edited November 9, 2014 by mckeedee123

[Moogle]

Actually, I don't think that the Sons of Honor are as dismissable as you say. Sure, the first time I read WoR, I immediately wrote them off as foolish zealots too, but their goals do make sense, in a way. They think that by bringing the Heralds back, they can restore the power of the church, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Many religious figures in the book (eg. Kabsal, Pai, Kadash) have shown frustration at their own impotence. The way the devotary system works, ardents can never really offend their owners by chastising them for their wrongdoings. Many Vorin rulers are lauded by their ardents for their wisdom and virtue when the truth is the exact opposite (Exhibit A: Aesudan). The Sons of honor, like most modern ardents, probably don't want to return to the days of the hierochracy, it's likely they just want to reunite the church, end the requirement that ardents be slaves, etc.

 

Your post is reasonable and well-made. I'm likely over-reacting to how Amaram was presented due to either overwhelming apathy or extreme irritation, depending on the time of day.

 

However, the Sons of Honor just don't appear to be intelligent or... anything. The points I've raised stand:

• They think bringing the Desolation will return the Heralds. How do they know this when all the knowledge about that sort of thing has long since been destroyed? Weeeeeeeeelllllllll... they don't, obviously. They don't fully understand what they're doing, and they're bringing an apocalypse anyways. I'm not opposed on principle to doing something like this, but when the costs of an apocalypse are so high, you need to be damnation certain you know that bringing the apocalypse will accomplish your goals (in this case, returning the Heralds). I sincerely doubt they had enough information to be 90%+ certain that bringing the Desolation would return the Heralds, and I also doubt they know they're in a book, so there is probably no way they have enough information to be 90%+ certain that the next Desolation can be survived anyhow.
• They're supposed to be presented as "ends justify the means" people (or so I'd say, based on Kaladin's PoV when Amaram apologizes and says his actions were 'necessary'), in contrast to the "journey before destination" Radiants. They seem to be awful at their own philosophy, however, and strike me as strawmen. (For an example of someone who doesn't seem like a strawman, I would say Taravangian, though the Diagramists don't appear to be all there given Graves' insane laughter.)
• They are literally bringing an apocalypse because men are evil (or improperly religious, whatever) and they want to fix that, which reminds me strongly of one story in the Bible. This sets my religious zealot warning detectors off.

I mean, their goals are kind of okay if you look at them sideways ("give more power to the Vorin religion", "make men better"), but when I look at everything they're doing to accomplish it, question marks spontaneously from from my head. They seem over the top due to poor reasoning ability. Maybe they'll be better justified in future books... but for some reason I doubt it. I'm keeping them in the pile of villains I'm not interested in.

[Unhinged he/him]

 

• They think bringing the Desolation will return the Heralds. 

 

 

One thing that I have to wonder about is what is Amaram going to do when the Heralds don't return. will he repent and beg Kaladin's forgiveness or (mad idea starts here) will he seek other gods to replace them.

[maxal she/her]

• They are literally bringing an apocalypse because men are evil (or improperly religious, whatever) and they want to fix that, which reminds me strongly of one story in the Bible. This sets my religious zealot warning detectors off.

 

What do we make of Galivar? He was conspiring with Amaram at some points so there are clues he was potentially involved with the Sons of Honor. However, we have other clues stating he was involved with Taravangian who claimed Galivar received visions.... I have read some theories stating the Stormfather initially chosen Galivar, but was forced to revise his plans upon him ending up dead.

 

The Sons of Honors want to bring a Desolation so the Heralds could come back and thus reinstate the church's supremacy. Religious zealots, I do agree. The question that remains for me at least, is what did Galivar want?

[king of nowhere]

Your post is reasonable and well-made. I'm likely over-reacting to how Amaram was presented due to either overwhelming apathy or extreme irritation, depending on the time of day.

 

However, the Sons of Honor just don't appear to be intelligent or... anything. The points I've raised stand:

• They think bringing the Desolation will return the Heralds. How do they know this when all the knowledge about that sort of thing has long since been destroyed? Weeeeeeeeelllllllll... they don't, obviously. They don't fully understand what they're doing, and they're bringing an apocalypse anyways. I'm not opposed on principle to doing something like this, but when the costs of an apocalypse are so high, you need to be damnation certain you know that bringing the apocalypse will accomplish your goals (in this case, returning the Heralds). I sincerely doubt they had enough information to be 90%+ certain that bringing the Desolation would return the Heralds, and I also doubt they know they're in a book, so there is probably no way they have enough information to be 90%+ certain that the next Desolation can be survived anyhow.
• They're supposed to be presented as "ends justify the means" people (or so I'd say, based on Kaladin's PoV when Amaram apologizes and says his actions were 'necessary'), in contrast to the "journey before destination" Radiants. They seem to be awful at their own philosophy, however, and strike me as strawmen. (For an example of someone who doesn't seem like a strawman, I would say Taravangian, though the Diagramists don't appear to be all there given Graves' insane laughter.)
• They are literally bringing an apocalypse because men are evil (or improperly religious, whatever) and they want to fix that, which reminds me strongly of one story in the Bible. This sets my religious zealot warning detectors off.

I mean, their goals are kind of okay if you look at them sideways ("give more power to the Vorin religion", "make men better"), but when I look at everything they're doing to accomplish it, question marks spontaneously from from my head. They seem over the top due to poor reasoning ability. Maybe they'll be better justified in future books... but for some reason I doubt it. I'm keeping them in the pile of villains I'm not interested in.

not sure if i already raised the point somewhere before, but i do believe you are misreading them because of a single sentence (amaram saying his actions were necessary) into representing "ends before means" people. they are not. they are just that, religious zealots, not representing any particular life philosophy. they are supposed to be villain, but have enough of a motivation to make them realistic.

in fact, you should give sanderson better credit for representing people with different views: he is strongly religious but jasnah is a very well made figure; people  with real life depression problems wrote to compliment on how well he wrote depressed kaladin; after jasnah soulcast the four brigands, and she and shallan discuss the morality of the action, no clear conclusion is presented to the reader, and in fact all points of view are fairly expressed; jewel in warbreaker defending her religion very well. Many other examples. So, sanderson is never going to express other philosophies with strawman. if some people are portrayed as strawmen, then they are not supposed to represent that phylosophy.

You should read the sword of truth to see what real strawman arguments are. the antagonists are a poor parody of communists, and the protagonists keep ranting about the moral superiority of liberism and the futility of trying to help the poor. No, you actually should read a few books of it. I apprecciated sanderson much more afterwards.

[maxal she/her]

You should read the sword of truth to see what real strawman arguments are. the antagonists are a poor parody of communists, and the protagonists keep ranting about the moral superiority of liberism and the futility of trying to help the poor. No, you actually should read a few books of it. I apprecciated sanderson much more afterwards.

 

Truth to be told, reading the Sword of Truth makes you appreciate pretty much any other author..... :ph34r:

[Kyats Rani she/her]

Truth to be told, reading the Sword of Truth makes you appreciate pretty much any other author..... :ph34r:

I actually liked Sword of Truth very much :ph34r:   But maybe because I liked Cara and the other Mord-sith... And propably also because while I'm not a big fan of romance for some reason I really liked the relationship between Richard and Kahlan :ph34r:

 

But truth be told - the antagonists are mostly strawmen. Nicci was cool but she turned to be a protagonist in the end.

[king of nowhere]

sword of truth wasn't that bad. the first book is actually good. and then, most of the characters are likable, the writing style is good (ok, I'm sure I used the wrong word there. but the concept is that the guy can write in a way that keeps you intersted. when he don't screw up plotwise, at least). there are plenty of good stuff there.

And that's why I like to use it so much for comparisons. Because it shows what a potentially good series can become if executed poorly. the sword of truth goes against everything that brandon is teaching. he absolutely don't follow the first law of sanderson: the reader knows next to nothing on what the characters can do with magic, but magic usually solves the plot. it goes against the second law of sanderson; it is absolutely unclear what limitation richard's magic has. it probably has none, just his knowledge on its use - which is unconsistent itself. his magic is driven by need, which basically means that every time the plot demands it, he'll pull out some new flashy power that conveniently solves it, conveniently forgetting it the next time he needs it. notice how the situation is quite similar to the wheel of time on many aspectes, because also the wot had a relatively soft magic system; however, in that case it was well executed, because the reader had a good idea of what the characters could accomplish.

it goes heavily against the third law of sanderson; that one said to go deep before going wide. instead, in the sword of truth, there are many elements that are introduced in a book, then forgotten. virtually nothing is shown on the interaction between magic and society. even in cities with lots of magic users, people live as if magic didn't exist.

then there is the part about politics. sanderson mentioned somewhere that different points of view should be treated fairly in a book, because it's irritating to see someone thinking like you depicted as a moron. cue the sword of truth. people trying to help the poor are either giving them money for free, or they are hiring them for jobs for which they are not qualified. no one ever mentions the possibility that it can be done in better ways. personally, i find it highly irritating even when i happen to agree with the author - which is not the case here.

 

So, in the sword of truth you get to see why sanderson's laws are correct, and how good are sanderson's teachings, and how a potentially good book can be ruined by going against them. there are many lessons that can be learned about writing from the sword of truth.

 

Oh, and to not go completely offtopic about amaram's honor: if sa was the sword of truth, amaram would be totally justified and no one would question his honor, except some dumb strawman pacifists. the fact that he never raped women puts him strongly in good guy territory. And the plot would go out of its way to present him with a contrived situation where he has to kick a puppy - which he wil do, and then deliver a moral lesson on how it was good and right. kaladin would be an idealist (and therefore dumb) and die a karmic death for it. dalinar would probably be assassinated in cold blood by one of the protagonists when on a diplomatic mission to try to change the protagonist's mind, and no one will say anything about it.

[maxal she/her]

I actually liked Sword of Truth very much :ph34r:   But maybe because I liked Cara and the other Mord-sith... And propably also because while I'm not a big fan of romance for some reason I really liked the relationship between Richard and Kahlan :ph34r:

 

But truth be told - the antagonists are mostly strawmen. Nicci was cool but she turned to be a protagonist in the end.

 

The Sword of Truth series was built on a weak plot device wanting Richard to be a "war wizard". Since he was a "war wizard", he could not learn anything worthwhile, but at the same time, he always ended up coming up with the right spell to undo whatever madness his enemies have come up with.

 

He also spent a whole book trying to undo Darken Rahl only to ultimately take his place as an Emperor... How is it so terrible to have Darken Rahl conquer the world, but it is acceptable when Richard does it? Because Richard is kinder? He is still a conqueror...

 

Richard was an OK character at first, but he went bad when the author decided to give an unbeatable, unpredictable tool that ensured him victory.

 

 

sword of truth wasn't that bad. the first book is actually good. and then, most of the characters are likable, the writing style is good (ok, I'm sure I used the wrong word there. but the concept is that the guy can write in a way that keeps you intersted. when he don't screw up plotwise, at least). there are plenty of good stuff there.

 

The first book is OK, except Richard does end up being tortured and raped by the Mord-Sith which was kind of painful to read, but yeah he escapes unscathed as he managed to split his mind since, oh surprise, he is a war wizard........................ Sight.

 

The initial idea of Richard and Kahlan are not bad, but they are poorly executed.

 

 

 

And that's why I like to use it so much for comparisons. Because it shows what a potentially good series can become if executed poorly. the sword of truth goes against everything that brandon is teaching. he absolutely don't follow the first law of sanderson: the reader knows next to nothing on what the characters can do with magic, but magic usually solves the plot. it goes against the second law of sanderson; it is absolutely unclear what limitation richard's magic has. it probably has none, just his knowledge on its use - which is unconsistent itself. his magic is driven by need, which basically means that every time the plot demands it, he'll pull out some new flashy power that conveniently solves it, conveniently forgetting it the next time he needs it. notice how the situation is quite similar to the wheel of time on many aspectes, because also the wot had a relatively soft magic system; however, in that case it was well executed, because the reader had a good idea of what the characters could accomplish.

 

Exactly. Richard always came up with a solution simply because he was a war wizard. Truth to be told, that's almost better then WoT as the protagonists simply came up with the solution for being the protagonists. No one else in millennia ever thought of doing the very same thing until a 16 years girl came up. However, it was much less annoying in WoT as the story was much better written. Characters also progressed with their magic as opposed to Richard who never seemed to be able to do more as the story advanced.

[Kyats Rani she/her]

...

 

...

 

I see your point(s) - the idea was good but it was done poorly. Yet still I liked it Especially because of Cara - her powers/abilities for one were exactly defined in what they can or cannot do and she never managed to get anything more out of them even if that meant she would fail. Actually, even her character was done quite well (especially compared to some others). And I agree that Richard had it all too easy - that's why I liked that one book in which a country simply decided that they won't follow him.

 

 

As to Amaram's honor... In my opinion he's a well made character, even if one I dislike. That's actually what makes him a well made character - I can admit he is one while still wanting him to die a horrible death He has his motives in which he believes and would defend them, proving how he is right and others are wrong. I guess when we learn more about the Sons of Honor in general we may even see that some of their motives are not inheretely evil, merely strongly misguided... while still them being the antagonists.

 

And yet Amaram is not an honorable man in my eyes, while he surely is in his own. An honorable person doesn't lie and hide things nearly so much as Amaram does to pretend he's so pure and innocent (surprising he didn't try to belch rainbows yet ). And he did refuse to help Adolin during his duel. It's not a matter or whether or no he would actually be of any use on the field (but he would be to some extent). It's about that he didn't have the courage to look Dalinar in the eyes and say "I won't help him, because..." and the lousy argument he used later on (about not taking any sides - were he truly honorable he would take the side of the one who needed help).

 

Besides there's also the matter of the Shards Kaladin won. What Amaram did then was truly awful. The argument "It's better for the Shards to be in possesion of somebody who is more capable of using them" is a valid one. But as a justification for killing innocent men, who faithfully fought for him? I don't think so. If he were an honorable man he would ask Kaladin to give him the Shards and not fear so much for his public opinion (he wouldn't have anything to hide or to be ashamed of).

 

And the way he tried to deny everything before Dalinar and convince him that he's the good one near the end of WoR? It would be much better had he just honorably accept that the truth had been uncovered without looking for justifications.

 

In the end I have only one coment on the matter of Amaram's honor. I hope nobody would mind the reference, but the only thing I can think of is Tyrion Lannister's quote from the TV series: "I'm not questioning your honor. I'm denying it's existance".

[Twenty@20 he/him]

Time to play Devil's advocate. I tried to imagine the Shard usurping scene from Amaram's point of view. Don't know if this has been done before.

Winning shards as we all know is beyond the wildest dreams of every soldier on Roshar. Guys who won them in battle (as opposed to inheriting them) have become legends. So no one, let alone Amaram, would have ever thought it possible that someone could give them away and that too permanently(as opposed to asking them back a few days later when common sense kicks in). Imagine the ridicule on Roshar that Amaram would face if Kaladin came back a week later and took back his shards.

Now how did Amaram view Kaladin on that fateful day. He may or may not remember him as the emotional fool who joined his army to protect his brother. After Kaladin refused the shards and actually decided to give them away, Amaram must have thought of him as a crackpot, someone who couldn't be trusted with shards. So perhaps he decided to have them for himself and remove the evidence for good measure.

Now I am not trying to defend Amaram because what he did was cowardly. I just tried to understand Amaram's thought process which led him to do it.

[Kyats Rani she/her]

Time to play Devil's advocate. I tried to imagine the Shard usurping scene from Amaram's point of view. Don't know if this has been done before.

Winning shards as we all know is beyond the wildest dreams of every soldier on Roshar. Guys who won them in battle (as opposed to inheriting them) have become legends. So no one, let alone Amaram, would have ever thought it possible that someone could give them away and that too permanently(as opposed to asking them back a few days later when common sense kicks in). Imagine the ridicule on Roshar that Amaram would face if Kaladin came back a week later and took back his shards.

Now how did Amaram view Kaladin on that fateful day. He may or may not remember him as the emotional fool who joined his army to protect his brother. After Kaladin refused the shards and actually decided to give them away, Amaram must have thought of him as a crackpot, someone who couldn't be trusted with shards. So perhaps he decided to have them for himself and remove the evidence for good measure.

Now I am not trying to defend Amaram because what he did was cowardly. I just tried to understand Amaram's thought process which led him to do it.

 

I guess it is important to see things from the other perspectives...

 

 

Ok, I'm a very important and respected Highlord commanding and army and working with a secret organiation that may have nothing to do with the matter at hand. I ride into battle to show my troops how brave I am so they admire me even more and think me a great leader who's not afraid to fight himself. Well, that's who I am to them and it's important to keep it up, troops must respect and admire their general. Everything goes well, until the Shardbearer apperas. What is he doing here in the first place? Och, storms, he's coming right at me... Where are my guards? O, they have ran away by now. Mind note - if I survive I should propably get new guards... What to do now? Fight I guess.

 

So I was saved. By a few darkeyed spearmen. One of them to be exact, who managed to kill the Shardbearer. How on Roshar did he even manage to pull it off?! Is that even possible? Alright, focus. There's no way he's anything more than just a very lucky soldier. That's the one everyone call lucky, right? How was it... Stormblessed? Yeah, something like that. Nevermind, lad got lucky but he's a fool. Did he really say he doesn't want the Shards?! That was propably result of a battle shock. He may not yet believe he won them... Let's get my wounds tended to and talk to him. Almighty, I could really use those Shards...

 

Alright. The lad truly is a fool. He still doesn't want the Shards. Well, that's his loss. I will do better with them than he could ever imagine to anyway. But how foolish must he be to try to give the Shards to an untrained spearman? I'd understand if he kept them, he won them after all. But that other one, whatever is his name, has no right and no capacity needed to wield Shards. If I had them I could do so much good (especially in for the Sons of Honor - our goal is of the highest importance). Now, how do I convince the kid to give Shards to me? No, that wouldn't do. They would talk. Besides, if he had gotten himself a position of a squadleader at such young age he must be smarter. He's propably still in shock. When he comes to his senses he will want the Shards back. Nobody in his right mind gives up on Shards, especially not a lowly darkeye. That's their only way to become someone in this world! No, the Shards must be mine. There's no other option. For the good of Alethkar I need them. But what can I do? They won't keep quiet, they're soldiers, they always talk, especially when drunk. But I need those Shards... I have no other option. What I'm doing is more important than the lives of few darkeyes.

 

What about the one who saved me? I should propably kill him too. But no, I can't. Killing him wouldn't be honorable... Nobody will believe him anyway, especially if I say he tried to desert... Yes, that will do.

 

And why is he thrashing so much? He should understand - it's for the greater good! They don't understand the greatness and importance of my goal. It is the best way for everyone. One day he will see that too... When Sons of Honor achive the ultimate goal.

 

 

Hm... How did I do? I have a feeling that Twenty did a way better job at it :ph34r:

 

Sorry, I can't put myself in Amaram's shoes (or his skin for that matter). I can't get his mindset

[Pathfinder]

I know this is off topic, but I agree with everything Maxal said about The Sword of Truth series, and one more complaint I need to get off my chest. I stopped reading after I think the fifth book, even though it had long gotten painful at around the second, but I noticed every single problem Richard solves in one book, causes or results in the problem in the next book. "Yay I saved the day! but wait, by doing such and such to save the day, I actually released this super evil thing that I have to stop! Yay I saved the day! But wait, by killing that super evil thing, I have allowed the thing it kept in check to go wild and out of control, so I must stop it! Yay I saved the day! But wait....."

[Twenty@20 he/him]

.

.

Hm... How did I do? I have a feeling that Twenty did a way better job at it :ph34r:

 

Sorry, I can't put myself in Amaram's shoes (or his skin for that matter). I can't get his mindset

Don't be modest. You channelled Amaram wonderfully. Sarcasm is the best way to bring down stuck-ups like Amaram.

By the way, ever thought of doing stand-up comedy. I think you will be great at it.

[Twenty@20 he/him]

The other day when I was looking up Amaram I noticed he called Roshone his cousin. And then in WoR Dalinar said this

“It was complicated, soldier. Roshone was one of Highprince Sadeas’s sworn liegemen, cousin to important men whose support we needed.

Is Amaram one of these important men whose support Dalinar and co. needed? Did Amaram offer his support to Dalinar only in exchange of pardon for Roshone? In that case we can trace Amaram's role in Kaladin's misfortunes to even earlier than the shard grabing episode.

[Kyats Rani she/her]

Don't be modest. You channelled Amaram wonderfully. Sarcasm is the best way to bring down stuck-ups like Amaram.

By the way, ever thought of doing stand-up comedy. I think you will be great at it.

Wow, thanks for the comliment And no, I didn't consider it yet, but that may be some kind of a back-up plan so I don't end up frying burgers in McDonalds (I don't say it to insult people who works this kind of jobs - it's just a running gag among my friends since we are studying engineering)

 

 

The other day when I was looking up Amaram I noticed he called Roshone his cousin. And then in WoR Dalinar said this

Is Amaram one of these important men whose support Dalinar and co. needed? Did Amaram offer his support to Dalinar only in exchange of pardon for Roshone? In that case we can trace Amaram's role in Kaladin's misfortunes to even earlier than the shard grabing episode.

Well, I'm pretty sure it was about Amaram. But I don't think that Amaram offered his support only in exchange for Roshone. Dalinar often mentions how long was he trusting Amaram, calling him old friend and so on. I'd say that they had been allies since long before, but Dalinar may have been afraid (or Amaram suggested it) that he won't support them anymore if they don't pardon Roshone. I think that Amaram was helping Kholins as far back as when Gavilar tried to take the crown (come on, he must've had a great deal of favor in the king's eyes to seriously think of marrying Jasnah - and from her prologue we know that he did) and that was long before the whole deal with Roshone.

 

But that still upholds your point of Amaram being somehow responsible for all the evil that befell Kaladin and his family.

[king of nowhere]

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. 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.

 

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

 

Small offtopic:

Wow, thanks for the comliment And no, I didn't consider it yet, but that may be some kind of a back-up plan so I don't end up frying burgers in McDonalds (I don't say it to insult people who works this kind of jobs - it's just a running gag among my friends since we are studying engineering)

 

Me and my fellows researchers in chemistry also joke that our next job will likely be flipping burgers, and we come from all across europe. So, the idea of people getting prestigious degrees and then going to flip burgers (or ometimes become waiters) is widely spread internationally as a metaphor for how the crysis messed up the job marked.

[Zea mays she/her]

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. 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.

 

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

I have to disagree with you there, because Amaram didn't just take the shards from Kal and enslaved him, he also had 4 men murdered. Those men were not just innocent of any wrong doing, they have just showed more courage and loyalty than his so-called 'honor' guard, and helped  save his life.

 

Killing Coreb and the others wasn't just morally reprehensible, it was also stupid and wasteful. Why not take them (and Kaladin) into his inner circle, and have them work for him? If he really believed that his motives for keeping the Shards were so noble and honorable, why not try first to convince them of this? [he can always reserve the option of killing them later] It can't be more difficult  than covering up 4 murders and a frame-up.

 

I will need to know more before I make up my mind about the man. When he first arrives on the Shattered Plains, Amaram is considered a hero by Dalinar's soldiers. Is any part of his reputation truly earned? Is he a formerly great man that has lost his way? How many crimes like the one inflicted on Kaladin and his squad has he committed?

[Mckeedee123 he/him]

From the book, it seems that it took some prodding from Restares to get him to do it, too. Don't forget that Amaram isn't working independently. He's taking orders from some sort of creepy super-ardent who Gavilar apparently believed would be willing to assassinate him.

[JVSimp]

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.

[king of nowhere]

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.

So, yes, I am arguing that an honorable man can kill 5 innocents, if he believes it necessary, if he has good reason to believe that disaster would struck otherwise. and believing a totally crazy guy was going to get shards can qualify (again, that's not amaram's motivation).

 

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 [emphasis mine] 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?

 

 

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

 

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

[Pathfinder]

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.

So, yes, I am arguing that an honorable man can kill 5 innocents, if he believes it necessary, if he has good reason to believe that disaster would struck otherwise. and believing a totally crazy guy was going to get shards can qualify (again, that's not amaram's motivation).

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

 

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

That is all well and good, but it is rather difficult to discuss the theoretical situation as not having to do with amaram when you use him in ur argument and cite what he does in it. So all one can do is reply with things amaram did in turn, and what we think is the reasoning behind those actions. not attacking you or anything dude, just pointing out why it might be difficult for him or her to reply to you without implying you are referring to amaram. 

[Twenty@20 he/him]

Reading all these posts, a thought came into my mind. This may be diverting from the topic as I am speculating now about Kaladin's response to Amaram taking away his shards.

On thinking about it, I realised that we never saw Kaladin's feelings about refusing the shards after being made a slave. We only know that when he was immediately offered the shards he refused them on emotional grounds. But after he was sold to slavery we never see him questioning the decision. After the initial chain of events, did he never for once think that perhaps he may have been well off accepting the shards? I mean if he had accepted the shards would it have been a dishonourable thing to do? His friends died in a battle field. If he abhorred shards because they killed his friends, then he should shun all other weapons too because they also kill. There is no fundamental difference between shards and normal weapons - both kill.

One thing I remember is that when he first came to Shattered plains, he eagerly wanted to become a soldier to escape slavery. Perhaps in the same frame of mind, he might have wished that he had accepted the shards. We never see him thinking about it in early WoK perhaps to maintain the suspense.

Shardblade are of tragic origin but does holding them make a person dishonourable even though Kaladin would have used them for good purposes?

I know Brandon changed his decision as major plot point but what makes Kaladin hate them so much other then emotional feelings. Syl began influencing his opinion about shards later but what about before her?

PS. I think I rambled quite a bit.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Twenty@20

[Kyats Rani she/her]

...

 

I'm not exactly sure, but I think he once considered if it had been better if he took the Shards but in the end he still supported his decision... But I can't remember even when it was, so maybe I only think it was somewhere

 

But anyway - I believe that his refusal of Shards was somehow caused by his forming bond to Syl. He instinctively knew that he shouldn't take them. And I 'm convinced that he believes he did the right thing refusing them since it happens again - he refuses the Shards that Adolin offers him.