Anarchist Skybreakers

[Kobold King]

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.

[Shaggai]

I admit it, I thought this was about the Revv toparchy epigraph.

[Observer]

I agree with you that Nalan is a terrible example of a Skybreaker. He seems to use the law as almost nothing more than a justification for his killings, almost as if holding on to it as the last remnant of who he used to be, but ignoring all else. It's mentioned in the Words of Radiance chapters in the epigraphs that the Skybreakers backed a rebellion in a nation, which is pretty much 100% against that place's laws by definition. This supports your theory, though it could mean other things. I also feel like pointing out that Szeth wasn't really following Skybreaker ideals when killing the Alethi, he was sticking to his own laws. Doing so may have earned Nalan's admiration, but it doesn't mean he was upholding any Skybreaker ideals.

Still, nice work. Nice work indeed.

[Kobold King]

I agree with you that Nalan is a terrible example of a Skybreaker. He seems to use the law as almost nothing more than a justification for his killings, almost as if holding on to it as the last remnant of who he used to be, but ignoring all else. It's mentioned in the Words of Radiance chapters in the epigraphs that the Skybreakers backed a rebellion in a nation, which is pretty much 100% against that place's laws by definition. This supports your theory, though it could mean other things. I also feel like pointing out that Szeth wasn't really following Skybreaker ideals when killing the Alethi, he was sticking to his own laws. Doing so may have earned Nalan's admiration, but it doesn't mean he was upholding any Skybreaker ideals.

Still, nice work. Nice work indeed.

 

Thanks. I wasn't aware of the reference to a Skybreaker rebellion--are you referring to the following epigraph?

 

 

And thus were the disturbances in the Revv toparchy quieted, when, upon their ceasing to prosecute their civil dissensions, Nalan’Elin betook himself to finally accept the Skybreakers who had named him their master, when initially he had spurned their advances and, in his own interests, refused to countenance that which he deemed a pursuit of vanity and annoyance; this was the last of the Heralds to admit to such a patronage. 

 

I hadn't linked this or any other passage to a rebellion, but I see how this at least could be interpreted as such. If so, it's quite a cool find.

 

I guess what I'm really trying to find out is how flexible the Skybreaker oath is. Can you have a Skybreaker whose one law is the Golden Rule, and exacts retribution towards those who fail to follow it?

[Moogle]

It's mentioned in the Words of Radiance chapters in the epigraphs that the Skybreakers backed a rebellion in a nation, which is pretty much 100% against that place's laws by definition. This supports your theory, though it could mean other things.

 

As an alternate explanation: it's not the Skybreakers breaking that country's laws, more it's the people who started the civil war won said war and/or more than 50% of the population became involved with the new administration, so the Skybreakers had to recognize those laws as genuine and could no longer prosecute those who initially rebelled. (Consider: what Gavilar did was essentially illegal by the other nine highprinces of the time. At what point would his rule become legitimate and his laws become enforced by the Skybreakers?)

 

Honestly, I think the quote could easily support a more 'sinister' interpretation: the Revv toparchy was originally ruled by a kind and caring king (or queen), and a rebellion was started as a power play by a member of the nobility. They eventually won the civil war, so the Skybreakers gave up on what they felt was 'right' (the old king/queen being in power) and accepted it, despite this being against their morals. Nalan, recognizing the 'purity'/lack of compassion/strength of will present in what they did, finally accepted the Skybreakers as worthy and became their patron.

 

Also: for anyone who, like me, was curious about what a 'toparchy' was, a definition is "a small state, consisting of a few cities or towns; a petty country governed by a toparch; as, Judea was formerly divided into ten toparchies".

Edited April 17, 2014 by Moogle

[don_karma_II]

I don't think we have seen anyone bonded to a highspren yet!! A surgebinder Bonded to a highspren might be morally bounded after a specific number of oaths. Kaladin's third oath is more towards morality and what's right! But he is bound to a spren which demands him to do what's right! Maybe a highspren will demand the surgebinder to be just! Something along the lines of ' I will uphold the law as long as justice is served!' Maybe Jasnah will know more about highspren. Didn't she mention them during the epilogue with wit?

[Kasimir]

My worry about a Skybreaker who gets to pick a set of 'greater' moral laws and enforces those above anything else is that this seems to collapse the distinction between the Skybreakers and the Windrunners.

Consider: "I will protect even those I hate so long as it is right." under this interpretation becomes something a Skybreaker could possibly end up doing. I will grant their order has no focus on protection, but enforcement (WoB says they're rather like the MPs of the KRs) but if the 'law' gets defined in terms of 'rightness', and that Skybreakers ends up upholding 'rightness', that seems to make him/her slide an awful lot too close to what the Windrunners are actually doing, with the same stipulation of setting aside personal feelings/emotion in the face of what is right/demanded by the moral law.

Edited April 17, 2014 by Kasimir

[Scriptorian]

My worry about a Skybreaker who gets to pick a set of 'greater' moral laws and enforces those above anything else is that this seems to collapse the distinction between the Skybreakers and the Windrunners.

Consider: "I will protect even those I hate so long as it is right." under this interpretation becomes something a Skybreaker could possibly end up doing. I will grant their order has no focus on protection, but enforcement (WoB says they're rather like the MPs of the KRs) but if the 'law' gets defined in terms of 'rightness', and that Skybreakers ends up upholding 'rightness', that seems to make him/her slide an awful lot too close to what the Windrunners are actually doing, with the same stipulation of setting aside personal feelings/emotion in the face of what is right/demanded by the moral law.

I see what your saying. Although, they are adjacent Orders, so I think they'll actually be more similar than not. 

 

I think what's going to determine which laws Skybreakers have to uphold is going to be some combination between which legal systems longstanding enough to have their own cognitive aspects, and what laws are actually "just". For example, say in Shinovar it has been illegal for a millennium to make fun of someone's shoes. If this law had been culturally and mentally ingrained in the society, then, at least while he/she is there, a Skybreaker would be required to follow this law because the law itself would exist Cognitively. Conversely, a law that requires you to immediately kill someone because they tripped, would probably go against the greater ideal of Justice, not requiring the Skybreaker to follow it. Or maybe if a government makes a law outside its statutory authority (like Congress making a law to censor free speech), since this new law is technically illegal, the Skybreakers don't have to follow it. The divine attribute is Justice, and not Legality, after all. I'm betting their third ideal will do something to clear this up some.

[Moogle]

The divine attribute is Justice, and not Legality, after all. I'm betting their third ideal will do something to clear this up some.

 

Shallan's Divine Attributes are Creativity/Honesty. All she does is lie, and she has a liespren. I wouldn't take the Divine Attributes at face value.

[Scriptorian]

Maybe Lightweavers just enjoy messing with people that way . You're totally right though, I thought I had written a disclaimer to that effect. It still supports my perspective, if not very well.

[Kasimir]

I'll definitely agree with you, Serendipity, that the Skybreaker is probably not going to end up a mindless automaton in following the laws, but I think they might end up having to let laws guide their action a lot more than you seem to allow for. My worry is that 'Justice' is basically a vague concept, and it's often defined with regard to jurisprudence. I can understand why you'd point out that some laws would not embody the ideal of Justice. Even in Roshar, there are clearly some laws which are probably bad laws--unjust laws--and I agree it seems weird that the Skybreaker would end up having to enforce those.

My problem is, precisely because Justice is such a vague concept, it seems to be one of those things that many individual Skybreakers would disagree on. That is not by itself a bad thing, except that they seem to be far more structured than the Windrunners, and so I'm not sure how far the order can defer to the judgement of individual Skybreakers wrt what is a good law. (Basically: we need a conception of Justice and the law inflexible enough to consider what Adolin did to be wrong [i don't necessarily want to say morally wrong] by their oaths.)

Here's how I think we can save the concept of Justice as the guiding force: I'll agree that I'm probably overhasty in suggesting they would collapse into the Windrunners, particularly if their highspren is binding them to a code that roughly sketches out what Justice is supposed to look like. This would remove the element of subjective 'this is what I feel is right/just' that would probably turn this into a case of Skybreakers and Windrunners being both Lawful Good, with the Windrunners focusing on the 'Good' aspect and the Skybreakers focusing on the 'Lawful' aspect.

However, I want to suggest an alternative/add to this picture. So far, we've been reading the Skybreakers as, "I should do what promotes the law/enforce the law." And that doesn't seem to be what they're really doing. Nalan doesn't go around arresting people for walking on stone, and presumably never did. I'm suggesting that at least for the Skybreakers, maybe it's more appropriate for us to read their Second Ideal as a restraining precept for action. So, "I will put the law above all else" suggests that for a Skybreaker, no matter how infuriating and dangerous Sadeas is, even if he was killing bridgemen before their eyes, their job isn't to summon their Shardblade and cut him down on the spot. They have flexibility here, they can decide : 1) by Alethi law, this is legal, and walk away, or 2) they can use Alethi law as a weapon to bring him down. [Probably not very successfully.] I only note this because I think it adds the nuance to the picture of the Skybreakers we want, even if not completely. They can't break laws openly (perhaps; I'm open to being convinced w.r.t. the discussion of Justice as an overriding law) and they can still use the law as a prescriptive guide as to what to do about morally problematic actions.

Note: I'm not entirely sure how the debate between the Skybreakers and the Windrunners over dividing the innocent from the guilty would fit in here.

Edited April 17, 2014 by Kasimir

[Ren]

I think that Nale's conversation with Szeth hold keys to understanding what true Skybreakers should be, so I'm going to post a few quotes from the book. I hope i'll help someone. I'll post my own lazy excuse of a theory below.
 

 

“You spend this long obeying the precepts of your people and religion..." 

 

 

“You, Szeth,” the man said, “worship order, do you not? You follow the laws of your society to perfection. This attracted me, though I worry that emotion has clouded your ability to discern. Your ability to . . . judge.”

 

 “You? Not worthy? I watched you destroy yourself in the name of order, watched you obey your personal code when others would have fled or crumbled. Szeth-son-Neturo, I watched you keep your word with perfection. This is a thing lost to most people—it is the only genuine beauty in the world. I doubt I have ever found a man more worthy of the Skybreakers than you."

I'm not saying that Nale can be trusted, but Nale is the only person we have that knows something about the Skybreakers, besides Brandon and Peter. And currently, the last two torture us by sealing their lips on the topic. ^^

Now, I find it very interesting what words Nale used. I hope I helped you a bit with your theorycrafting here.

My own theory remains unchanged so far, I believe the Skybreakers with Nahel bond do follow the law, but a higher law, hence the name highspren. Yes, the name matters - Honorspren, Cryptics (also known as liespren, but they don't like being called that.)

Each of the 10 KR spren are different and complex. We know that from Syl, Pattern and Wyndle, even from Ivory. Highspren are no different. They uphold law and order above all else. But it doesn't have to be human laws. We know that Nale followed Azish laws by the book, but he doesn't have a Nahel bond. We have no right to use him as an example in this exact argument.

Edit: Few edits, because laptops are annoying as hell. I hope I helped with the quotes.

 

Edited April 17, 2014 by Ren

[Observer]

Knowing the emphasis on Justice, I can't help but wonder if the point of Skybreakers is to create the laws in the first place. It's completely stupid sounding now that I've actually typed it, but it almost feels like the Skybreaker's job is to punish those who need to be punished, exactly as much as is necessary, and not anything more or less. Like Nalan was originally in charge of giving people a set of rules to follow, and the Skybreakers got on board with upholding and interpreting the law between desolations, so they'd have something to work with when the returned.

[Shaggai]

Knowing the emphasis on Justice, I can't help but wonder if the point of Skybreakers is to create the laws in the first place. It's completely stupid sounding now that I've actually typed it, but it almost feels like the Skybreaker's job is to punish those who need to be punished, exactly as much as is necessary, and not anything more or less. Like Nalan was originally in charge of giving people a set of rules to follow, and the Skybreakers got on board with upholding and interpreting the law between desolations, so they'd have something to work with when the returned.

I agree that the entire point of the Skybreakers is to keep order, so making laws would be a good use of their time.

[Confused]

"Justice" IS a vague concept, but it's not necessarily one's personal view. The political philosopher John Rawls, in his book A Theory of Justice, posited that justice is fairness: the set of rules that two people would agree on to govern their conduct if neither knew the other's or their own status in society.

 

I'm not sure Ren's quotes support his theory of a "higher" law. Those quotes suggest that Nale's conception of legal compliance seems very nation-centric. This is also supported by the Lift interlude. As long as one adheres to the laws of the locality, Nale will be satisfied, even delighted. Since WoB states that the Skybreakers are like the MPs of the KR, I wonder what "laws" govern KR conduct. Is there anything beside Ishar's? This is probably what started the internal KR disputes.

[Kasimir]

There have also been many philosophers who have argued that justice and fairness come apart and that a Rawlsian view of justice is not the correct one. My point being that people in this thread speak of justice as an obejctive motivating force, and it is clear it can't fulfill that role on Roshar because even in the 'real world', there is substantial philosophical disagreement on justice.
 
I like Ren's quote though:

watched you destroy yourself in the name of order, watched you obey your personal code when others would have fled or crumbled. Szeth-son-Neturo, I watched you keep your word with perfection.

This does seem to me to indicate that the Skybreakers might be fine with adhering to a personal code, though I'm also worried about that given that we haven't seemed to see substantial disagreement in the Skybreakers so far. (But given the highspren could be a norm-regulating force, I guess it's not too much of stretch.) I don't think adhering to the laws of the locality is sufficient for Nale--that's exactly what Szeth hasn't been doing. He's killed kings, and served criminals as Truthless, unless he is not (legally) responsible for these actions since he is Truthless, under which I suppose that would work for Nale.