Search the Community

In the Hallendren court of Gods, the Returned seem to be able to get away with a lot of things without punishment, because it would be rather difficult for the priests to justify disciplining them, I would imagine. But what if they did something truly horrible? Killing a normal human being would be bad enough, but with their station, they could likely still get away with it. But killing one of their fellow Returned? What would the priests do in such a situation?

During the Nuremberg Trials, Nazi officials attempted to justify the actions they had performed during the Third Reich's reign by arguing that they were "just following orders"--claiming, essentially, that the law of their country absolved them of any moral responsibility for their actions. The Allied court did not recognize these objections, and declared that there is such thing as a "higher law" that all earthly governments must conform to. For more information about the concept of higher law, Wikipedia has an article on the subject. The subjective nature of law is a matter that could be discussed at length for days on end. Which is more important--following the laws of nations or the laws of ethics? Fortunately for those of us with limited time, this is not the question I seek to investigate in this thread. Rather, I'd like to explore what is perceived as a major point of distinction between two Orders of the Knights Radiant, the Windrunners and the Skybreakers. Syl, a spren associated with the Windrunners, differentiates herself from highspren by stating her belief that "laws don't matter. What's right is what matters." It seems that the majority of 17th Sharders have taken her viewpoint on the matter, citing the actions of the Skybreaker Herald Nale as an argument against Skybreaker ideology. I would argue that Nale is not a fitting representative of what the Skybreakers truly believe in. In Words of Radiance, Nale is observed tracking and killing Surgebinders whom he's found guilty of crimes. He deems this necessary, and tells off one of his minions when the man claims to be above the law. As any who have read Lift's interlude can attest to, Nale believes killing Surgebinders to be necessary for saving the world from horrible Desolations. But even believing that what he does is for the greater good, he still refuses to break the law by killing Lift after she is pardoned. Many readers, myself included, find Nale to be a difficult figure to relate to. He believes what he does is morally right, and yet he will cease his activities once the law opposes him? At best this is a highly extremist form of legalism. At worst, this is insanity. With this said, I believe that Nale, despite being the Order's patron Herald, is a poor representative of the Skybreakers and their specific belief system. If this is the case, then we must examine the only other representative currently available to us--Szeth-son-son-Vallano, Truthless of Shinovar. Nale's example leads us to believe that to the Skybreakers, the precise letter of the law is the most important consideration in any ethical conflict. Nale makes no secret of his belief that one should always obey the laws of a nation if one is within its borders. But when we observe Szeth, we find an entirely different principle at work--Szeth follows only the law that he recognizes. It is obvious that many of Szeth's activities, in particular his actions as the Assassin in White, are not legal within the borders of the countries he acts in. Alethi and Jah Keved law certainly prohibit the murder of kings and highprinces, but Szeth nonetheless executes his orders with extreme prejudice. Szeth is quite probably Roshar's Most Wanted, yet he is wholly devoted to the laws of his people, the Shin. Clearly the Skybreaker oath, "I will hold the law above all else", does not refer to all laws. Instead, it appears that the Second Ideal of the Skybreakers may refer to a specific set of laws--those laws that the individual Skybreaker chooses to uphold. So if this is the case, allow me to return to my original point. The Allied officials at Nuremberg believed in a higher set of laws than the laws of nations. They professed the belief in an ethical law that superceded all other statutes. Could a man who harbors these beliefs become a Skybreaker? Could a man, while swearing to hold the law above all else, break laws that he finds unjust, professing to follow a higher set of laws? Could a Skybreaker topple governments he finds reprehensible, freeing prisoners he believes were convicted wrongly? The core question, the question that must shape our judgement of the Skybreakers: do the Skybreakers swear to uphold all laws, or only those that are Just? I find this to be an interesting, perhaps even important, consideration. If Skybreakers are permitted to follow any set of laws they choose, then one could see the apparent contradiction of anarchist Skybreakers--Skybreakers who refuse to follow laws set down by men, considering ethical laws to reign supreme in all matters. At that point, who could tell the difference between a Windrunner and a Skybreaker? I suspect that the Third and Fourth Ideals will be key towards identifying the Skybreaker's philosophical stance, one way or another. If the Third Ideal is "I will follow even laws I find unjust, so long as they are lawful", for instance, then the idea of anarchist Skybreakers is entirely thrown out the window. But until we are given more definitive information, I would love to see some discussion on how Skybreakers and their spren interpret the law.