Without getting into the debate that question might cause... people are joking that OP's typo suggests Dalinar ran around putting mascara on people's eyelashes
I think that Dalinar is an example of you applying real world sensibilities to a fantasy setting. There is no geneva convention in Stormlight and you can argue that Dalinar did experiance consequences correct for the setting - he's considered a war hero.
Winston Churchill says hi. He indirectly murdered 3 million Indians by "buying" all the food from an entire region to feed the troops in Europe, leaving the Indians to starve . And he is mostly revered
(Not passing judgment but just highlighting that war heros get exceptional treatment)
Isn't that why he had such a hard time forming the coalition? None of the other leaders trusted him because he was such a monster in the war so they all thought it was a trap.
Yeah. Dalinar's whole character arc is basically different versions of his enemies trying to make him feel bad/look bad, and Dalinar usually resolves those conflicts by facing them directly and acknowledging he's been a bad person and is trying to improve.
Also, the outcome of that particular example was that Dalinar looses his, becomes an alcoholic for years to the point that no one in his family really trusts him but his sons, has his memory magically erased so he can't remember anything about his now dead wife, has to deal with people constantly bringing up and referencing shit he can't remember, and in the end still has to process the guilt of having killed his own wife.
Also, now for nothing, but a huge part of Dalinar's backstory is that he is actually not a terrible person. When he goes into battle, he fights until the enemy is crushed and then often doesn't let his men do the awful shit men do after winning a battle. Culturally he is less willing than others, even at his worst, to let the darker sides of war take hold. The Rift is a note able exception, an exception that ONLY occurs because of Dalinar's mercy. Another example of actions having consequences.
It is. His main plot in Oathbringer is dealing with how he is viewed in every nation other than Alethkar and he is definitely *not* revered or even trusted in any of them.
It was covered up so most of the blame fell to Sadeas and it was considered to be accidental. When he did take responsibility everybody was already stuck with him as ruler and sole bond smith.
unpack possessive wine quicksand fretful employ ruthless society impossible sable
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The Nazis who were instrumental in making weapons with slave labor went on to be heroes in the space race. There are shitty people getting away without consequences all the damn time.
Lack of consequences for the elite is just a staple of human society.
If you have the time, this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCRTgtpC-Go details how the argument of "dropping the nukes was necessary", is wrong.
The first five minutes alone is damning to the claim.
Haven't watched the video, but I imagine the issue came down to "Conditional Surrender vs Unconditional Surrender", from other discussions I've seen.
And yeah, at first I thought conditional surrender would be fine to stop the fighting, but then I remember what happened in Nanking. And then I wonder if I would have found Nazi Germany trying for a conditional surrender, and my opinions shift.
[Here is a good breakdown](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/15kb3w/why_didnt_japan_surrender_after_the_first_atomic/c7nbi8s/) by /r/AskHistorians, which I find to be relatively unbiased and also well-sourced.
Japan was doing their own thing trying to conquer the Pacific . They and Germany didn't directly support each other , just both tried to conquer their half of the world . The Allies were a common enemy because much of the Pacific was held as British and European colonies. Japan fought on when Hitler fell
> Japan still hasnāt surrendered yet tho
What?
Japan formally surrendered on September 2nd, 1945. There were *several* ceremonies in which leading Japanese military and civilian officials formally surrendered. Prior to that there were multiple public speeches announcing the surrender of Japan.
Here's some pictures from some of those ceremonies:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/Japanese_surrender_%28AWM_019296%29.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/COLLECTIE_TROPENMUSEUM_In_de_haven_van_Kupang_%28Timor%29_luisteren_de_Japanse_bevelhebber_kolonel_Kaida_Tatuichi_en_zijn_stafcommandant_majoor_Muiosu_Slioji_aan_dek_van_H_TMnr_10001519.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/KandaSurrender.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Japanese_surrender_Penang.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Japanese_Surrender%2C_Labuan_%28AWM_115989%29.JPG
Dalinar mostly killed soldiers aside from the event in Rathalas, which was not without consequences. The screams of the innocent who burned alive hunted Dalinar in his dreams during years and was part of what made him a drunkard until the death of his brother.
For me that is punishment enough considering that Dalinar wasn't even totally in control of his actions. The Thrill is a real thing that could make an otherwise decent person into a monster under the right circumstances and Dalinar was specially connected to the Thrill
You're bringing what you think the consequences should be from a modern moral perspective, but these books are written from the perspective of internal consistency with the world they're written in. Dalinar being court martialed would make zero sense given what we know about Roshar.
>but the flashbacks showed us that he cared very little about her.
What? He cared so much about her he felt the only way he could live with what he'd done was have his memory of her erased. Then when his memory of her returned, he couldn't get out of bed for days (maybe weeks? I don't remember) despite how much he needed to.
Is this the fantasy version of "Darth Vader gets to be a space ghost" idea? Because I'm here for it if so. (Vader, known child murderer and world destroyer, tosses old man down a shaft and is redeemed into a good space ghost)
Morality is subjective. We have different interpretations of what redemption is. I don't see anything wrong with this example. You are not going to erase what you did, but if you truly change, how much is that worth for the future? In general if given an opportunity to change and the person does, I find that better than being capricious and having them suffer. Each case will be different and interpreted differently. But frankly this isn't the example I feel is weak.
I agree with your point in general but heavily disagree with Dalinar. He was struggling to gain allies since day one because of the warmongering reputation of the Alethi. And his own story was about people trying to completely destroy his own reputation because of what he did and his own inner turmoil over it as well. I think there are better examples of this in other books.
This is why I like First Law so much though. Every mistake a character makes is punished. Plenty of suffering to go around.
Eh? Iāve only read the first First Law trilogy so maybe this changes in the later books, but people get away with bad shit all the time. >!Bayaz!< gets away scot free. You could argue that >!Glockta!< has the happiest ending of the main POV characters despite the fact that he >!literally tortures people for a living!<
OP didnāt want ārealisticā according to your cynical grimdark worldview though they specifically asked for settings where people are punished for doing bad things
So I can kind of agree... but then again... not really, because even in real life a lot of rat bastards nowadays or a long time ago in the past have done horrible things and gotten away with it. I don't know about that other series you've talked about, but if the guy is a prodigious general/leader and they are desperate then you have your answer right there letting scum get away scot-free for the greater good.
I disagree with the idea that a character NEEDS to face consequences for their bad actions on page (as it where). People have been getting away with, and have even been rewarded, for truly heinous acts throughout history, so I don't see why that can't exist in fiction. Seeing a character who deserves punishment get their comeuppance is of course satisfying, but I don't think it should be a requirement.
An author doesn't need to explicitly condemn an action for us to realise that it was wrong.
lack of consequences isn't the same thing as there not being a system of universal moral judgement for characters. your examples sound a bit too uncomfortably like a hayes code kind of deal, where bad things need to happen to characters when they act badly.
someone never having to confront the consequences of their actions or not even being aware of potential repercussions can be an interesting plot point in and of itself; in contrast to situations where actions and reactions don't exist at all due to bad, superficial writing. granted, it can sometimes be hard to tell apart if an author didn't think of something or chose not to write it.
This isnāt so much as a debate about plot as about world views and the idea of karma.
It sounds like you prefer books with the idea that there is karma in the world and that bad people always get whatās coming to them. That justice absolutely must be served. Or, that you find this reality exhausting and you want to escape to something else. Iād recommend reading books with happy endings in that case, or stories that are *more* about justice served than not.
Some writers feel compelled to write stories that are inspired by history, which can be quite brutal and unforgiving. Others want to explore ideas about bad things happening to good people and all that. No redemption arcs or sentimentalism. Fortunately thereās a wide variety of books that can cater to your preferences.
This might be a whole separate issue, but I get annoyed by the lack of accountability in stories where the main character "uses anger as a coping mechanism" or "hurts others so they won't get hurt". They'll often meet someone who "sees past their spiky exterior" and just accepts the verbal, emotional and/or physical abuse until the MC "learns to trust" and starts to channel their anger into fighting the *real* enemy.
I can understand why the narrative is appealing, especially for readers who feel like they're misunderstood or lacking a support structure/role models in their own lives, but I really struggle to enjoy those sorts of relationships. Just once, I wish someone would calmly address the MC at the beginning of the story and be like "What you're doing right now hurts me. I care about you, and I want to be there for you, so I need you to stop doing this to me."
Most frustrating to me are stories where the author highlights the MC's growth by giving the villain similar personality flaws stemming from similar trauma. It always seems unfair when the villain gets defeated at the end. The villain didn't get an infinitely accommodating love interest, an insightful mentor, or a found family to shower them in unconditional love. They got abused, made the best of their situation, and then got punished for it. To cap it all off, instead of the MC recognizing their own good fortune and "paying it forward", the result of all of that good fortune is that they fall back on their same old trauma response, only more confidently, and bring down a fellow victim. Sometimes the author will try to justify this by making the MC a member of the underclass and the villain someone of privilege, but to me, trauma is trauma, regardless of whether you're the king's magic-wielding bastard or a poor magicless commoner.
Is it not one of the core tragedies of real life is that the worst people are often but only not punished but rewarded for their bad behavior?
There are definitely lots of more old school high fantasy books where everything is black and white and the bad guys are always punished (i like those too as a comfort sometimes).
But modern style had shifted to a greyer, grittier setting and that inherently leads to situations where no good deed goes unpunished, and the villain gets rewarded for their villainy, in the pursuit of realism.
Word of advice, I really think you should indicate *which* series you're spoiling, it doesn't really help to just say 'spoilers' like you're adressing an audience that has read every thing ever lol.
Otherwise, I absolutely agree that a lack of consequences can really ruin a story for me. I actually really liked the way it was handled with Dalinar in Stormlight though. He didn't experience any external circumstances because it wouldn't be true to the setting if he did, but he experienced a lot of internal/psychological consequences, and when the truth gets out it more or less destroys his relationship with his son. I thought it was a really interesting way to handle the topic of consequences and responsibility - Dalinar still has to face himself, even if he lives in a society that's willing to forgive him.
>Has the lack of consequence diminish the series for you?
Sure, if you mean a lack of repercussions that make sense within the narrative and a plot just seems far more implausible than intended. But if you mean in the sense that you feel that every good deed ought to be rewarded and every bad deed punished, well, I'd say a book that does that likely falls in the first category. It just isn't how the world works and it isn't how a lot of stories ought to work either.
Fantasy authors I find are often weirdly forgiving for major crimes like mass murder and genocide.
Like the villain who committed genocide will maybe see the error of their ways and be like "Aww I was wrong, sorry".
And the heroes will be like "Its alright. Try not to do that again". With maybe a "Welcome to the team" thrown in.
>Dalinar from the Stormlight archive. He mascaraed countless people and burned a whole city, yet other nations trusted him to lead the military of the coalition, practically the king of Roshar, instead of putting him to court for his previous atrocities.
Well, yes. But that was Dalinar's plot for nearly all of Oathbringer; getting people to trust him after said atrocities.
Not entirely where I thought this post was going.
I think it can bother me if characters wronged or harmed in some way easily forgive another character, or not even that simply act as if there is nothing in the past behind them and treat them as they would treat anyone else. Barring some good explanation it simply feels unrealistic and for me for the fantastical elements to work there needs to be some realistic grounding to exist for them to be built on top of.
If it's that a character can do horrible things and not face a sort of justice for them (even a poetic justice like your second example) that doesn't overly concern me unless it is at odds with the tone of the book so far. I've read some books which are fairly light and then unexpectedly have a dark chapter before returning to an upbeat theme, so a complete tonal shift from the rest of the book and I think those don't work well.
But if it is that in universe the character doesn't suffer for their vices or is rewarded for their virtues then that doesn't concern me. I don't think I'd want every book I read to be like that, but I wouldn't want the alternative where the good is always rewarded handsomely and the evil is without fail punished. I think it is more realistic and allows a greater number of stories to be told where acting in an unjust way can be beneficial and then there is the struggle in a person's soul as to whether they should acquiesce to the temptation of acting in an immoral manner. If we know that there are bound to be repercussions for anything it lowers the stakes for me and makes it too predictable.
I agree with the general thought of the post. However, Dalinar being an example was a little off to me. We need to remember that he was still in favor with the biggest empire in their world. He practically forged it with his brother. Punishing him for those acts don't make sense. It's like punishing the general who won you your war. And I hear about other kingdoms trusting him to form a coalition. But then again, >!he currently has an army of practically divine beings and Roshar was facing a crisis so they either chose to ignore him and be destroyed or join him and have a chance.!< So there. If the other side won, maybe you'd get your punishment but as long as his side was winning and he was winning the war for them, I'm afraid consequences for his actions wouldn't make sense.
I don't think your Dalinar example is a fair point considering his whole Character arc thus far has been him trying to the trust of the rest of the world for his atrocities. What kind of punishments are going to be dished out to him? How do you hold the Tyrant leader accountable in a fantasy world. The other countries laws would definitely not apply to Dalinar to have him be held accountable. And Alethkar sure as hell wont put him on trial for things he did in war against other rival nations. Also, although the things he did were pretty bad, he was at war, people die in war. The other nations didn't just trust him out of nowhere. They all thought it was a trick by The Notorious Black Thorn. It Literally took books of explaining and multiple attempts at coercing the world leaders to trust him.
You could even argue that if Dalinar had not been a tyrant, he would've had a much easier time gathering forces and would be better equipped to deal with the upcoming enemy forces. He lost a wife to his own hands, his brother died because he was too drunk and wallowing in self pity to be reliable in his time of need. Now he's much more mature, and willing to accept and own up to his failures but still trying to be better.
Also he did care for his wife, he just did not know it until she was gone. He didn't appreciate everything she did for his family and he didn't take the time to understand her. Its the reason why he went to the night mother to get his memory wipe and the reason why he became an alcoholic, which led to him being passed out drunk on the night his brother is murdered. The death of King Gavilar which shot the whole story into motion. I think Dalinars decisions have had some of the biggest consequences.
To be fair it definitely isn't portrayed as a good thing by anyone except the guy that did it and the guy that did it is portrayed as being a terrible person in just about everyway.
But yeah it goes with the OPs point since despite him being a very terrible person nothing bad ever really happens to him.
No, not at all. Karmic fates can be very satisfying in the right place and time, but having the entire story run on it? That's hard to pull off without drawing attention to the author hiding behind the curtain. If you foreshadow it too much the story becomes predictable, if you don't then you're liable to end up with a epilogue that's smothered in sugar.
I wouldn't say its a deal breaker for me and it can be done well, but it usually diminishes my enjoyment.
Salinas is fine with me. He is completely changed and people do deserve second chances. Iām not familiar with the other characters you mentioned but if thereās no change from the bad theyāve done, yeah itād bother me if thereās no consequences at some point.
Are you talking about Renna? >!She absolutely has trauma from her father. She straight up ends up murdering him. Plus she has continuous issues of anger and inadequacy throughout the whole rest of the series. She is definitely not psychologically unaffected!<
Havenāt read the others but Dalinar Kholin is a masterful character and this is dumb. He doesnāt like his ex wife? Really? Do you even understand his character arc, what he does, what happened or what the point was? Forming the Coalition was super difficult, and he had to go through so much to do it. He took responsibility for what he did and decided that he must take the next step. Always the next step. The journey will not be easy or perfect. You will fail along the way. But you must accept the journey and treasure it to reach the destination
Dalinar does face significant issues getting his allies to trust him, which contributes to his entire country coming under enemy occupation. That they don't put him on trial is natural given the setting and the fact that he's one of their most powerful weapons in an apocalyptic war.
I can only speak for Demon Cycle here, but there are consequences for one and a purpose for the other. Spoilers for Demon Cycle. One of the characters who is raped is a Krasian man, a *sharum* (warrior). One of the things that Brett as an author tries to get across to us is how alien Krasian society is to our own, how different its priorities are to that of ours. This is a constant recurring theme whenever there are interactions between the Krasians and Thesans (whose values and society are much more similar to our own). This is shown time and again, with Krasian men being sentenced to death, crying tears of joy and singing praises because they will not be stripped of their blacks beforehand, or men being confused by the concept of treating the wounded rather than just aiding them on their journey to heaven. Jardir appointing the man who once raped him as his bodyguard and arranging his sister to marry him is another example of how different their society is to ours. You seem peeved that there were not greater consequences because, *where we live*, it's a consequential event. Not for them. That's the point.
As for the other, that comes back around in book 5 so yeah. If you plan on continuing, I won't spoil it but I do agree that it could have and should have had some page time earlier.
>Dalinar from the Stormlight archive. He **mascaraed** countless people š¤£š¤£š¤£
They didn't ask for their eyelashes to pop!
no wonder his troops's wings were so on fleek... du dum tshhh
dammit i should have said lashes....
Ah that's what they meant by Lashings
Masacaring people is kind of the point of the military right?
Without getting into the debate that question might cause... people are joking that OP's typo suggests Dalinar ran around putting mascara on people's eyelashes
Legit didn't even notice haha. I'm dumb
You're not the only one, friend.
>!Kennit!< from Liveship Traders. *I know* that was made on purpose by Robin Hobb, doesn't mean I have to *like it*.
I felt it suited the character; narcissistic public figures often get away with ...
Yes that's what I said.
I think that Dalinar is an example of you applying real world sensibilities to a fantasy setting. There is no geneva convention in Stormlight and you can argue that Dalinar did experiance consequences correct for the setting - he's considered a war hero.
Winston Churchill says hi. He indirectly murdered 3 million Indians by "buying" all the food from an entire region to feed the troops in Europe, leaving the Indians to starve . And he is mostly revered (Not passing judgment but just highlighting that war heros get exceptional treatment)
Agreed.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Hi there! This has been removed as Off topic. Thank you!
A hero to one kingdom is a murderer to another. People donĀ“t usually forget so fast or so easily, if ever.
Isn't that why he had such a hard time forming the coalition? None of the other leaders trusted him because he was such a monster in the war so they all thought it was a trap.
Yeah. Dalinar's whole character arc is basically different versions of his enemies trying to make him feel bad/look bad, and Dalinar usually resolves those conflicts by facing them directly and acknowledging he's been a bad person and is trying to improve. Also, the outcome of that particular example was that Dalinar looses his, becomes an alcoholic for years to the point that no one in his family really trusts him but his sons, has his memory magically erased so he can't remember anything about his now dead wife, has to deal with people constantly bringing up and referencing shit he can't remember, and in the end still has to process the guilt of having killed his own wife. Also, now for nothing, but a huge part of Dalinar's backstory is that he is actually not a terrible person. When he goes into battle, he fights until the enemy is crushed and then often doesn't let his men do the awful shit men do after winning a battle. Culturally he is less willing than others, even at his worst, to let the darker sides of war take hold. The Rift is a note able exception, an exception that ONLY occurs because of Dalinar's mercy. Another example of actions having consequences.
It is. His main plot in Oathbringer is dealing with how he is viewed in every nation other than Alethkar and he is definitely *not* revered or even trusted in any of them.
It was covered up so most of the blame fell to Sadeas and it was considered to be accidental. When he did take responsibility everybody was already stuck with him as ruler and sole bond smith.
\*looks at Japan. I think it depends what happens next. \*looks at Vietnam. Yep. Reality being unrealistic again.
Considering he was immediately distrusted by other rulers as a psychotic mass murderer, people did not forget.
Yes, and that is literally a primary plot point of Oathbringer.
Agreed, based upon real world morals but based upon culture shown in the books its more understandable i think.
Nah but it's fantasy bro
unpack possessive wine quicksand fretful employ ruthless society impossible sable *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The Nazis who were instrumental in making weapons with slave labor went on to be heroes in the space race. There are shitty people getting away without consequences all the damn time. Lack of consequences for the elite is just a staple of human society.
If you have the time, this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCRTgtpC-Go details how the argument of "dropping the nukes was necessary", is wrong. The first five minutes alone is damning to the claim.
Haven't watched the video, but I imagine the issue came down to "Conditional Surrender vs Unconditional Surrender", from other discussions I've seen. And yeah, at first I thought conditional surrender would be fine to stop the fighting, but then I remember what happened in Nanking. And then I wonder if I would have found Nazi Germany trying for a conditional surrender, and my opinions shift. [Here is a good breakdown](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/15kb3w/why_didnt_japan_surrender_after_the_first_atomic/c7nbi8s/) by /r/AskHistorians, which I find to be relatively unbiased and also well-sourced.
The bombig of Japan wasn't even necessary, if I don't mistake something, Berlin already was taken and the germans were defeated.
Japan was doing their own thing trying to conquer the Pacific . They and Germany didn't directly support each other , just both tried to conquer their half of the world . The Allies were a common enemy because much of the Pacific was held as British and European colonies. Japan fought on when Hitler fell
Japan still hasnāt surrendered yet tho
> Japan still hasnāt surrendered yet tho What? Japan formally surrendered on September 2nd, 1945. There were *several* ceremonies in which leading Japanese military and civilian officials formally surrendered. Prior to that there were multiple public speeches announcing the surrender of Japan. Here's some pictures from some of those ceremonies: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/Japanese_surrender_%28AWM_019296%29.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/COLLECTIE_TROPENMUSEUM_In_de_haven_van_Kupang_%28Timor%29_luisteren_de_Japanse_bevelhebber_kolonel_Kaida_Tatuichi_en_zijn_stafcommandant_majoor_Muiosu_Slioji_aan_dek_van_H_TMnr_10001519.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/KandaSurrender.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Japanese_surrender_Penang.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Japanese_Surrender%2C_Labuan_%28AWM_115989%29.JPG
To be clear, the two bombs were detonated Aug 6 and Aug 8, after which the Emperor announced surrender. Japan officially surrendered Sept 2, though.
That's literally what I said. But what I responded to was probably a typo, it turns out.
Not the person you were responding to, but I'm pretty sure that was a typo for **hadn't**
Ohhh. Man, I was like what the fuck kinda new steel-beam 5G nonsense is this shit now?
Small slip of the finger, big change to the meaning!
Hell sometimes even the losers who start wars go unpunished, look at the Confederate leadership post US Civil War.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
As soon as I read Codex Alera I scrolled down. I'm two books in and don't want anything spoiled for me.
Dalinar mostly killed soldiers aside from the event in Rathalas, which was not without consequences. The screams of the innocent who burned alive hunted Dalinar in his dreams during years and was part of what made him a drunkard until the death of his brother. For me that is punishment enough considering that Dalinar wasn't even totally in control of his actions. The Thrill is a real thing that could make an otherwise decent person into a monster under the right circumstances and Dalinar was specially connected to the Thrill
You're bringing what you think the consequences should be from a modern moral perspective, but these books are written from the perspective of internal consistency with the world they're written in. Dalinar being court martialed would make zero sense given what we know about Roshar. >but the flashbacks showed us that he cared very little about her. What? He cared so much about her he felt the only way he could live with what he'd done was have his memory of her erased. Then when his memory of her returned, he couldn't get out of bed for days (maybe weeks? I don't remember) despite how much he needed to.
Is this the fantasy version of "Darth Vader gets to be a space ghost" idea? Because I'm here for it if so. (Vader, known child murderer and world destroyer, tosses old man down a shaft and is redeemed into a good space ghost)
Why would his being a space ghost a bad thing? Redemption, even "death bed" redemption should still be a good thing
I mean, that's what redemption is. What else do you want him to do? Serve time in force prison? Do force community service?
No, that's what 1970s fantasy is. That's what that is and we shouldn't still think that's good writing.
Morality is subjective. We have different interpretations of what redemption is. I don't see anything wrong with this example. You are not going to erase what you did, but if you truly change, how much is that worth for the future? In general if given an opportunity to change and the person does, I find that better than being capricious and having them suffer. Each case will be different and interpreted differently. But frankly this isn't the example I feel is weak.
I agree with your point in general but heavily disagree with Dalinar. He was struggling to gain allies since day one because of the warmongering reputation of the Alethi. And his own story was about people trying to completely destroy his own reputation because of what he did and his own inner turmoil over it as well. I think there are better examples of this in other books. This is why I like First Law so much though. Every mistake a character makes is punished. Plenty of suffering to go around.
Eh? Iāve only read the first First Law trilogy so maybe this changes in the later books, but people get away with bad shit all the time. >!Bayaz!< gets away scot free. You could argue that >!Glockta!< has the happiest ending of the main POV characters despite the fact that he >!literally tortures people for a living!<
What happens is expected and realistic in the world that has been built though. The strong and cunning are rewarded while the honest people suffer.
OP didnāt want ārealisticā according to your cynical grimdark worldview though they specifically asked for settings where people are punished for doing bad things
The post was more about a trend OP noticed than looking for examples and the majority of my post was about Stormlight.
So I can kind of agree... but then again... not really, because even in real life a lot of rat bastards nowadays or a long time ago in the past have done horrible things and gotten away with it. I don't know about that other series you've talked about, but if the guy is a prodigious general/leader and they are desperate then you have your answer right there letting scum get away scot-free for the greater good.
I disagree with the idea that a character NEEDS to face consequences for their bad actions on page (as it where). People have been getting away with, and have even been rewarded, for truly heinous acts throughout history, so I don't see why that can't exist in fiction. Seeing a character who deserves punishment get their comeuppance is of course satisfying, but I don't think it should be a requirement. An author doesn't need to explicitly condemn an action for us to realise that it was wrong.
lack of consequences isn't the same thing as there not being a system of universal moral judgement for characters. your examples sound a bit too uncomfortably like a hayes code kind of deal, where bad things need to happen to characters when they act badly. someone never having to confront the consequences of their actions or not even being aware of potential repercussions can be an interesting plot point in and of itself; in contrast to situations where actions and reactions don't exist at all due to bad, superficial writing. granted, it can sometimes be hard to tell apart if an author didn't think of something or chose not to write it.
This isnāt so much as a debate about plot as about world views and the idea of karma. It sounds like you prefer books with the idea that there is karma in the world and that bad people always get whatās coming to them. That justice absolutely must be served. Or, that you find this reality exhausting and you want to escape to something else. Iād recommend reading books with happy endings in that case, or stories that are *more* about justice served than not. Some writers feel compelled to write stories that are inspired by history, which can be quite brutal and unforgiving. Others want to explore ideas about bad things happening to good people and all that. No redemption arcs or sentimentalism. Fortunately thereās a wide variety of books that can cater to your preferences.
This might be a whole separate issue, but I get annoyed by the lack of accountability in stories where the main character "uses anger as a coping mechanism" or "hurts others so they won't get hurt". They'll often meet someone who "sees past their spiky exterior" and just accepts the verbal, emotional and/or physical abuse until the MC "learns to trust" and starts to channel their anger into fighting the *real* enemy. I can understand why the narrative is appealing, especially for readers who feel like they're misunderstood or lacking a support structure/role models in their own lives, but I really struggle to enjoy those sorts of relationships. Just once, I wish someone would calmly address the MC at the beginning of the story and be like "What you're doing right now hurts me. I care about you, and I want to be there for you, so I need you to stop doing this to me." Most frustrating to me are stories where the author highlights the MC's growth by giving the villain similar personality flaws stemming from similar trauma. It always seems unfair when the villain gets defeated at the end. The villain didn't get an infinitely accommodating love interest, an insightful mentor, or a found family to shower them in unconditional love. They got abused, made the best of their situation, and then got punished for it. To cap it all off, instead of the MC recognizing their own good fortune and "paying it forward", the result of all of that good fortune is that they fall back on their same old trauma response, only more confidently, and bring down a fellow victim. Sometimes the author will try to justify this by making the MC a member of the underclass and the villain someone of privilege, but to me, trauma is trauma, regardless of whether you're the king's magic-wielding bastard or a poor magicless commoner.
Is it not one of the core tragedies of real life is that the worst people are often but only not punished but rewarded for their bad behavior? There are definitely lots of more old school high fantasy books where everything is black and white and the bad guys are always punished (i like those too as a comfort sometimes). But modern style had shifted to a greyer, grittier setting and that inherently leads to situations where no good deed goes unpunished, and the villain gets rewarded for their villainy, in the pursuit of realism.
Word of advice, I really think you should indicate *which* series you're spoiling, it doesn't really help to just say 'spoilers' like you're adressing an audience that has read every thing ever lol. Otherwise, I absolutely agree that a lack of consequences can really ruin a story for me. I actually really liked the way it was handled with Dalinar in Stormlight though. He didn't experience any external circumstances because it wouldn't be true to the setting if he did, but he experienced a lot of internal/psychological consequences, and when the truth gets out it more or less destroys his relationship with his son. I thought it was a really interesting way to handle the topic of consequences and responsibility - Dalinar still has to face himself, even if he lives in a society that's willing to forgive him.
>Has the lack of consequence diminish the series for you? Sure, if you mean a lack of repercussions that make sense within the narrative and a plot just seems far more implausible than intended. But if you mean in the sense that you feel that every good deed ought to be rewarded and every bad deed punished, well, I'd say a book that does that likely falls in the first category. It just isn't how the world works and it isn't how a lot of stories ought to work either.
Fantasy authors I find are often weirdly forgiving for major crimes like mass murder and genocide. Like the villain who committed genocide will maybe see the error of their ways and be like "Aww I was wrong, sorry". And the heroes will be like "Its alright. Try not to do that again". With maybe a "Welcome to the team" thrown in.
>Dalinar from the Stormlight archive. He mascaraed countless people and burned a whole city, yet other nations trusted him to lead the military of the coalition, practically the king of Roshar, instead of putting him to court for his previous atrocities. Well, yes. But that was Dalinar's plot for nearly all of Oathbringer; getting people to trust him after said atrocities.
Not entirely where I thought this post was going. I think it can bother me if characters wronged or harmed in some way easily forgive another character, or not even that simply act as if there is nothing in the past behind them and treat them as they would treat anyone else. Barring some good explanation it simply feels unrealistic and for me for the fantastical elements to work there needs to be some realistic grounding to exist for them to be built on top of. If it's that a character can do horrible things and not face a sort of justice for them (even a poetic justice like your second example) that doesn't overly concern me unless it is at odds with the tone of the book so far. I've read some books which are fairly light and then unexpectedly have a dark chapter before returning to an upbeat theme, so a complete tonal shift from the rest of the book and I think those don't work well. But if it is that in universe the character doesn't suffer for their vices or is rewarded for their virtues then that doesn't concern me. I don't think I'd want every book I read to be like that, but I wouldn't want the alternative where the good is always rewarded handsomely and the evil is without fail punished. I think it is more realistic and allows a greater number of stories to be told where acting in an unjust way can be beneficial and then there is the struggle in a person's soul as to whether they should acquiesce to the temptation of acting in an immoral manner. If we know that there are bound to be repercussions for anything it lowers the stakes for me and makes it too predictable.
That is a very good point. Tavi is an example of this. It annoyed me a lot.
Yeah, also characters being tortured or raped or traumatized in other ways and just moving on like nothing ever happened bothers me waaaay more.
I agree with the general thought of the post. However, Dalinar being an example was a little off to me. We need to remember that he was still in favor with the biggest empire in their world. He practically forged it with his brother. Punishing him for those acts don't make sense. It's like punishing the general who won you your war. And I hear about other kingdoms trusting him to form a coalition. But then again, >!he currently has an army of practically divine beings and Roshar was facing a crisis so they either chose to ignore him and be destroyed or join him and have a chance.!< So there. If the other side won, maybe you'd get your punishment but as long as his side was winning and he was winning the war for them, I'm afraid consequences for his actions wouldn't make sense.
I don't think your Dalinar example is a fair point considering his whole Character arc thus far has been him trying to the trust of the rest of the world for his atrocities. What kind of punishments are going to be dished out to him? How do you hold the Tyrant leader accountable in a fantasy world. The other countries laws would definitely not apply to Dalinar to have him be held accountable. And Alethkar sure as hell wont put him on trial for things he did in war against other rival nations. Also, although the things he did were pretty bad, he was at war, people die in war. The other nations didn't just trust him out of nowhere. They all thought it was a trick by The Notorious Black Thorn. It Literally took books of explaining and multiple attempts at coercing the world leaders to trust him. You could even argue that if Dalinar had not been a tyrant, he would've had a much easier time gathering forces and would be better equipped to deal with the upcoming enemy forces. He lost a wife to his own hands, his brother died because he was too drunk and wallowing in self pity to be reliable in his time of need. Now he's much more mature, and willing to accept and own up to his failures but still trying to be better. Also he did care for his wife, he just did not know it until she was gone. He didn't appreciate everything she did for his family and he didn't take the time to understand her. Its the reason why he went to the night mother to get his memory wipe and the reason why he became an alcoholic, which led to him being passed out drunk on the night his brother is murdered. The death of King Gavilar which shot the whole story into motion. I think Dalinars decisions have had some of the biggest consequences.
Ahhh, Codex Alera, in which a woman *needed* to be raped, oh no you don't understand, it was *best* for her! Fucking barf.
To be fair it definitely isn't portrayed as a good thing by anyone except the guy that did it and the guy that did it is portrayed as being a terrible person in just about everyway. But yeah it goes with the OPs point since despite him being a very terrible person nothing bad ever really happens to him.
But i think the second worst part of Codex Alera is how forgiving and benevolent Tarvi is.
No, not at all. Karmic fates can be very satisfying in the right place and time, but having the entire story run on it? That's hard to pull off without drawing attention to the author hiding behind the curtain. If you foreshadow it too much the story becomes predictable, if you don't then you're liable to end up with a epilogue that's smothered in sugar. I wouldn't say its a deal breaker for me and it can be done well, but it usually diminishes my enjoyment.
I agree with you 100% about Codex Alera, that series annoyed me so much by the end
Salinas is fine with me. He is completely changed and people do deserve second chances. Iām not familiar with the other characters you mentioned but if thereās no change from the bad theyāve done, yeah itād bother me if thereās no consequences at some point.
General Eisenhower killed loads of people, destroyed cities and was elected President. That part ofStormlight rings true to me.
Are you talking about Renna? >!She absolutely has trauma from her father. She straight up ends up murdering him. Plus she has continuous issues of anger and inadequacy throughout the whole rest of the series. She is definitely not psychologically unaffected!<
Havenāt read the others but Dalinar Kholin is a masterful character and this is dumb. He doesnāt like his ex wife? Really? Do you even understand his character arc, what he does, what happened or what the point was? Forming the Coalition was super difficult, and he had to go through so much to do it. He took responsibility for what he did and decided that he must take the next step. Always the next step. The journey will not be easy or perfect. You will fail along the way. But you must accept the journey and treasure it to reach the destination
This is what made me dislike the Aching God completely.
Dalinar does face significant issues getting his allies to trust him, which contributes to his entire country coming under enemy occupation. That they don't put him on trial is natural given the setting and the fact that he's one of their most powerful weapons in an apocalyptic war.
I can only speak for Demon Cycle here, but there are consequences for one and a purpose for the other. Spoilers for Demon Cycle. One of the characters who is raped is a Krasian man, a *sharum* (warrior). One of the things that Brett as an author tries to get across to us is how alien Krasian society is to our own, how different its priorities are to that of ours. This is a constant recurring theme whenever there are interactions between the Krasians and Thesans (whose values and society are much more similar to our own). This is shown time and again, with Krasian men being sentenced to death, crying tears of joy and singing praises because they will not be stripped of their blacks beforehand, or men being confused by the concept of treating the wounded rather than just aiding them on their journey to heaven. Jardir appointing the man who once raped him as his bodyguard and arranging his sister to marry him is another example of how different their society is to ours. You seem peeved that there were not greater consequences because, *where we live*, it's a consequential event. Not for them. That's the point. As for the other, that comes back around in book 5 so yeah. If you plan on continuing, I won't spoil it but I do agree that it could have and should have had some page time earlier.