[OB] Fourth Windrunner Ideal

[+Oltux72]

7 hours ago, Llstml said:

I think that the 4th and 5th ideals will be something like: "I will accept my failures, and will not let them destroy me" and: "I will kill only when it is a choice between protecting innocents, or letting evil triumph"

But that is not the issue. In fact it is the very opposite of the issue. Kaladin had a problem fighting against his Singer group. In desolations you always fight innocents. The Singers are fighting to get their home back. Yet they are fighting on Odium's side. They do so because that is the side that fights for their cause. Honor's side is not the good side. It is one side in a conflict that can be partially mapped to ethics. The other part is a conflict about ownership of real estate.

A Windrunner unwilling to fight innocents can just drop his weapons and go home. In fact, they did so. The humans and thereby the vast majority and leadership of the Knights Radiant are the invaders. If you go by pure untempered justice, Nale is right. Kaladin is not on the good side. He thought so, but he was mistaken. The Windrunners in general have the same issue. They are a military force. A soldier fights against other soldiers because they shoot back and they have their orders. Good enough for a private. Not good enough for an officer.
Now I could quote Clausewitz at length, but basically you kill your enemies in war because they do not submit to your will.
Hence the ideal is likely to be something  like "Enemy combatants are not to be protected"

[Quantus]

2 hours ago, Oltux72 said:

But that is not the issue. In fact it is the very opposite of the issue. Kaladin had a problem fighting against his Singer group. In desolations you always fight innocents. The Singers are fighting to get their home back. Yet they are fighting on Odium's side. They do so because that is the side that fights for their cause. Honor's side is not the good side. It is one side in a conflict that can be partially mapped to ethics. The other part is a conflict about ownership of real estate.

A Windrunner unwilling to fight innocents can just drop his weapons and go home. In fact, they did so. The humans and thereby the vast majority and leadership of the Knights Radiant are the invaders. If you go by pure untempered justice, Nale is right. Kaladin is not on the good side. He thought so, but he was mistaken. The Windrunners in general have the same issue. They are a military force. A soldier fights against other soldiers because they shoot back and they have their orders. Good enough for a private. Not good enough for an officer.
Now I could quote Clausewitz at length, but basically you kill your enemies in war because they do not submit to your will.
Hence the ideal is likely to be something  like "Enemy combatants are not to be protected"

That sounds a lot like skybreaker logic, and by that alone I dont really expect it to match the Windrunners Ideals.  Those two orders were far more directly opposed, by all indications in the Gem Records.

[+Oltux72]

1 hour ago, Quantus said:

That sounds a lot like skybreaker logic, and by that alone I dont really expect it to match the Windrunners Ideals.  Those two orders were far more directly opposed, by all indications in the Gem Records.

At the risk of stating the obvious, to be directly opposed you need to ask the same question. Look at the Lightweavers. They seek honesty, not justification. "I fight the Parshendi because they are destroying the social order I hold dear", "Odium must be stopped at all cost." or even "Roshar is for humans and they ain't" are all good and sufficient answers for a Lightweaver, provided they are deeply down true to the individual giving them.

And indeed the answer these two orders give are different. The Skybreakers' answer boils down to "I have my orders". Yet the thought process behind it is anything but simplistic. They acknowledge that there is no universal justice. Hence they pick a law to follow. Every choice is equally good. Windrunners answer this based on loyalty presumably. They do not leave people behind even if ordered to do so and they do not let anybody be killed even if common sense says that they deserve death and almost everybody would be better off if that person were killed.
The question of the ethics of war are indeed ancient. Hence if you choose to care at all, you will think about similar issues, namely that the enemy is not guilty, yet you are supposed to do him harm. Something beyond justice needs to be found, lest you want to be a pacifist.

[Quantus]

3 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

At the risk of stating the obvious, to be directly opposed you need to ask the same question. Look at the Lightweavers. They seek honesty, not justification. "I fight the Parshendi because they are destroying the social order I hold dear", "Odium must be stopped at all cost." or even "Roshar is for humans and they ain't" are all good and sufficient answers for a Lightweaver, provided they are deeply down true to the individual giving them.

And indeed the answer these two orders give are different. The Skybreakers' answer boils down to "I have my orders". Yet the thought process behind it is anything but simplistic. They acknowledge that there is no universal justice. Hence they pick a law to follow. Every choice is equally good. Windrunners answer this based on loyalty presumably. They do not leave people behind even if ordered to do so and they do not let anybody be killed even if common sense says that they deserve death and almost everybody would be better off if that person were killed.
The question of the ethics of war are indeed ancient. Hence if you choose to care at all, you will think about similar issues, namely that the enemy is not guilty, yet you are supposed to do him harm. Something beyond justice needs to be found, lest you want to be a pacifist.

Sure, but my point was you were trying to speculate on the Windrunner's 4th based on a lens of "Pure Justice", which is very much not the perspective of the Windrunners, though it is  the perspective of the Skybreakers, which I think is why your conclusion came down to a statement of Acceptable Losses and what kaladin would likely view as a rationalization of who it's OK to kill, which I do not see as jiving with what we've seen of the Windrunner path.  So yes, they are both (arguably they are all) asking the same questions, but I dont think we are going to guess what the Windrunners are going to do based on Skybreaker philosophy.  Syl even warns Kaladin about getting too obsessed with "finding [his] own Justice".

[+Oltux72]

5 minutes ago, Quantus said:

Sure, but my point was you were trying to speculate on the Windrunner's 4th based on a lens of "Pure Justice",

Partially. The Skybreakers are for one thing the order whose oaths we know most about. Yet there  is the recording "Am I not supposed to want to protect everybody?" 'Want', not 'try'. Pure protection has the same problem the Skybreakers face? Whom? Interests conflict. Do you protect the lions or the zebras? You cannot do both, not just because your powers are limited, but because the implied goals are contradictory.

Now, you might think the question can be answered by whether you are a lion or a zebra. Or by considering which species is closer to extinction. Yet the aspect of justice comes from Kaladin

Quote

He'd always been able to trick himself into seeing a battle as us against them. Protect those you love. Kill everybody else. But ... but they didn't deserve death.

They do not 'deserve' it. Sounds like justice to me. How he saw his attitude not in conflict with the third oath is also unclear to me, but that's a separate issue.
 

Quote

 

5 minutes ago, Quantus said:

why your conclusion came down to a statement of Acceptable Losses

No. Emphatically not. That is exactly what I protested against. The death of an enemy is not acceptable. It is desirable. You should not want to protect them.

5 minutes ago, Quantus said:

and what kaladin would likely view as a rationalization of who it's OK to kill, which I do not see as jiving with what we've seen of the Windrunner path.

To protect means to kill. And the Windrunners are fighters, not combat medics. That's the Edgedancers.

5 minutes ago, Quantus said:

  So yes, they are both (arguably they are all) asking the same questions, but I dont think we are going to guess what the Windrunners are going to do based on Skybreaker philosophy.  Syl even warns Kaladin about getting too obsessed with "finding [his] own Justice".

Yes, but Kaladin is failing with the 4th oath. So his failure is to overcome justice. And the eventual answer will be different. But it will be about picking sides.

[Quantus]

2 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

Partially. The Skybreakers are for one thing the order whose oaths we know most about. Yet there  is the recording "Am I not supposed to want to protect everybody?" 'Want', not 'try'. Pure protection has the same problem the Skybreakers face? Whom? Interests conflict. Do you protect the lions or the zebras? You cannot do both, not just because your powers are limited, but because the implied goals are contradictory.

Now, you might think the question can be answered by whether you are a lion or a zebra. Or by considering which species is closer to extinction. Yet the aspect of justice comes from Kaladin

They do not 'deserve' it. Sounds like justice to me. How he saw his attitude not in conflict with the third oath is also unclear to me, but that's a separate issue.
 

No. Emphatically not. That is exactly what I protested against. The death of an enemy is not acceptable. It is desirable. You should not want to protect them.

So it's Desirable but not Acceptable?  Im confused because it sounds like your Emphatically no is a lot  like an Emphatic Yes.  

2 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

To protect means to kill. And the Windrunners are fighters, not combat medics. That's the Edgedancers.

Yes, but Kaladin is failing with the 4th oath. So his failure is to overcome justice. And the eventual answer will be different. But it will be about picking sides.

We shall see, I suppose.  I disagree on just about every point, but that's just my own personal perspective.  At the end of the day these are precisely the sort of philosophic differences that the Orders and their divergent idea and Ideals of honor are supposed to examine.  

[LopentheHerdazian]

It was heavily implied in the moments when he was trying to swear the ideal that it was to do with not saving people. 

I don't think it's do with letting others save him as he was able to do that.

I think that it's to do with letting people die or not protecting some but it will have to include something of protecting those he can.

[agrabes]

3 hours ago, Oltux72 said:

Partially. The Skybreakers are for one thing the order whose oaths we know most about. Yet there  is the recording "Am I not supposed to want to protect everybody?" 'Want', not 'try'. Pure protection has the same problem the Skybreakers face? Whom? Interests conflict. Do you protect the lions or the zebras? You cannot do both, not just because your powers are limited, but because the implied goals are contradictory.

Now, you might think the question can be answered by whether you are a lion or a zebra. Or by considering which species is closer to extinction. Yet the aspect of justice comes from Kaladin

They do not 'deserve' it. Sounds like justice to me. How he saw his attitude not in conflict with the third oath is also unclear to me, but that's a separate issue.
 

No. Emphatically not. That is exactly what I protested against. The death of an enemy is not acceptable. It is desirable. You should not want to protect them.

To protect means to kill. And the Windrunners are fighters, not combat medics. That's the Edgedancers.

Yes, but Kaladin is failing with the 4th oath. So his failure is to overcome justice. And the eventual answer will be different. But it will be about picking sides.

The entire lens you are looking at this through seems to be wrong though.  You are looking at it from the perspective of a military commander, even quoting Clausewitz the famous military historian and Prussian general.  From your perspective "acceptable losses" seems to mean what can you give up while still achieving your military objective.  That's not the Windrunner perspective, which Kaladin has shown many times.  To a Windrunner, the death of an "enemy" is not desirable.  It would be most desirable if the "enemy" chose to no longer be an enemy.  The Windrunner perspective does not look at their battles in terms of achieving military objectives, they look at it in terms of protecting people in some way.  They seem to define enemies based on who wants to harm someone and allies based on who wants to protect people.

I just don't think it makes any sense for their next ideal to be something saying it's ok to kill "enemy combatants" because their 3rd ideal is that they must protect even those they hate.  We've seen the progress of the Windrunner ideals from protecting people who can't protect themselves, to the understanding that you have to protect people even if you don't like them.  The whole point Kaladin makes about "us vs. them" is that he is realizing now that he's understood the third ideal that he disagrees with his prior reasoning.  He now understand that protecting "us" and hurting "them" doesn't align with a Windrunner's values.  The next ideal should be a further refinement of who to protect, not a "repeal" of one of the previous ideals.  To protect does not always mean to kill, though it does sometimes.

We all agree that it has to be something about choosing who to protect when you are conflicted.  It's got to be something like "I will force myself to choose who to protect, even if it means hurting my friends."  The Windrunners are fighters, but not rank and file soldiers or police.  They have to feel they have a personal moral justification for why they fight.  Skybreakers make good soldiers because they delegate that authority to others by following laws and military orders given to them by others.  

[Solant]

I think it ties into the other part of that chapter where adolin is trying to sacrifice his self to save the others, and Kaladin was conflicted over it. 

On a separate note, I want to point out in WoK where Lirin is trying to tell Kaladin you can't protect people by killing others, since it relates to what you guys are discussing.

[+Oltux72]

1 hour ago, agrabes said:

The entire lens you are looking at this through seems to be wrong though.  You are looking at it from the perspective of a military commander, even quoting Clausewitz the famous military historian and Prussian general.  From your perspective "acceptable losses" seems to mean what can you give up while still achieving your military objective.

Yes, but it is a far more basic problem Kaladin is facing. The ideal amount of own losses is always zero.Fighting to protect implies that you will risk your life. Your men have made the same oath. But you need to be willing to kill the enemy. That is your objective.

1 hour ago, agrabes said:

That's not the Windrunner perspective, which Kaladin has shown many times.  To a Windrunner, the death of an "enemy" is not desirable.  It would be most desirable if the "enemy" chose to no longer be an enemy.  The Windrunner perspective does not look at their battles in terms of achieving military objectives, they look at it in terms of protecting people in some way.

That is a military objective

1 hour ago, agrabes said:

  They seem to define enemies based on who wants to harm someone and allies based on who wants to protect people.

That is a delusion. Both sides wish to protect their own people. And that is the point Kaladin understood during the battle of Kholinar.

1 hour ago, agrabes said:

I just don't think it makes any sense for their next ideal to be something saying it's ok to kill "enemy combatants" because their 3rd ideal is that they must protect even those they hate.  We've seen the progress of the Windrunner ideals from protecting people who can't protect themselves, to the understanding that you have to protect people even if you don't like them.  The whole point Kaladin makes about "us vs. them" is that he is realizing now that he's understood the third ideal that he disagrees with his prior reasoning.  He now understand that protecting "us" and hurting "them" doesn't align with a Windrunner's values.

That is exactly the discussion Lirin had with Kaladin. And Lirin was right. You cannot protect all people because people have conflicting interests. But you can protect some people. But that means taking sides.

1 hour ago, agrabes said:

  The next ideal should be a further refinement of who to protect, not a "repeal" of one of the previous ideals.  To protect does not always mean to kill, though it does sometimes.

"Am I not supposed to want to protect everybody". The Windrunner ideal is not simple protection and benevolence.
“I will protect those who cannot protect themselves.” - not everybody

1 hour ago, agrabes said:

We all agree that it has to be something about choosing who to protect when you are conflicted.  It's got to be something like "I will force myself to choose who to protect, even if it means hurting my friends."  The Windrunners are fighters, but not rank and file soldiers or police.  They have to feel they have a personal moral justification for why they fight.

Yes, their own side.

1 hour ago, agrabes said:

  Skybreakers make good soldiers because they delegate that authority to others by following laws and military orders given to them by others.  

Good soldiers? A force that splits in the middle and is happy to fight each other on a battlefield? A force whose leader defects to the enemy? A force that will blindly adhere to the law even when practicality demands something else? A force willing to eliminate on pretenses their developing brother knights? Blind obedience rarely gets good results. The Skybreakers are the greatest failure of the Knights Radiant.

[agrabes]

16 hours ago, Oltux72 said:

Yes, but it is a far more basic problem Kaladin is facing. The ideal amount of own losses is always zero.Fighting to protect implies that you will risk your life. Your men have made the same oath. But you need to be willing to kill the enemy. That is your objective.

That is a military objective

That is a delusion. Both sides wish to protect their own people. And that is the point Kaladin understood during the battle of Kholinar.

That is exactly the discussion Lirin had with Kaladin. And Lirin was right. You cannot protect all people because people have conflicting interests. But you can protect some people. But that means taking sides.

"Am I not supposed to want to protect everybody". The Windrunner ideal is not simple protection and benevolence.
“I will protect those who cannot protect themselves.” - not everybody

Yes, their own side.

Good soldiers? A force that splits in the middle and is happy to fight each other on a battlefield? A force whose leader defects to the enemy? A force that will blindly adhere to the law even when practicality demands something else? A force willing to eliminate on pretenses their developing brother knights? Blind obedience rarely gets good results. The Skybreakers are the greatest failure of the Knights Radiant.

Willingness to kill your enemy as an objective is again, the kind of thing soldiers are taught in military training but is not aligned with the goals of the Windrunner order.  You could argue that protecting people is a military objective, and it can be.  But not in the way the Windrunner's have shown to value it.  A military objective is something like "Escort the VIP from point A to point B."  Or, "Protect civilians in the area of operation."  That is not the type of objective that Windrunners have.  Their objective is to protect anyone who needs to be protected (i.e. anyone who cannot protect themself is a person who needs to be protected), regardless of their faction as the 3rd Ideal showed.  

In terms of protecting vs. not protecting, you again seem to be missing the point that Kaladin learned.  Yes, you are absolutely correct that in many or even most cases both sides wish to protect their own people.  However, that is not always the case.  For example, a war of aggression or conquest cannot be considered protection.  The war being prosecuted by the Fused and Odium can't be considered a war of protection today, though it could have been when it first began thousands of years ago.  The individual soldiers may be caught up in things they have no belief in (such as the parsh/singers in the Battle of Kholinar), but the war aims are not about protection.  

Again, on the "us" vs. "them" topic it feels like you are missing the point.  You are correct that Kaladin learned that to protect people he sometimes has to harm others.  However, his position has changed over time.  Initially he interpreted that as "protect your allies and brothers in arms and kill everyone else" during his days in Amaram's army.  Then, in Bridge 4 he learned that he needed to protect people who couldn't protect themselves, not just his own brothers in arms.  Then, he learned at the Elhokar assassination attempt that he needs to protect even those he hates.  During his time with the parsh/singers early in OB, he realized that most of the parsh/singers are not his enemies and that his best goal is to avoid battle with them.  At the Battle of Kholinar, he realized that he can't protect everybody and sometimes people who normally wouldn't be fighting are forced to fight each other.  He hasn't figured out what to do about that yet.  I don't think it's going to be "well, there are people who you have spent a lot of time learning are not really your enemies.  but, it's more convenient for your side if you just kill them, so go ahead and do it."

In terms of the Skybreakers, yes they are good soldiers.  They followed orders, they followed the rules, and they followed their leader.  That's a good rank and file soldier - as long as it's not illegal then you need to do what your leadership tells you.  That's what their entire order is set up to be.  It wasn't the rank and file Skybreakers who failed, it was Nale.  They are terrible leaders, but good soldiers.  Or, maybe if it feels better for you to say it this way they make good Privates rather than good soldiers.

As best I understand it, your point is that Kaladin and the Windrunners need to learn that they should compromise or change their moral values and simply fight and kill people because it's going to lead to them being successful in war.  For a normal person, I would agree with your advice.  I would tell them the military life is not for them if they can't come to terms with the fact that they are going to have to kill good people whose only crime is that they are from another country.  But that's not the world of Stormlight Archive and it's not consistent with the Knights Radiant.  The entire point of the Knights Radiant is that each order has to maintain certain oaths and moral codes or they lose their power.  These moral codes are often not practical and conflict with each other between orders, which is also kind of the point.  The Windrunners' moral values do not seem to be compatible with the idea of killing people just because they are the enemy.  In the heat of battle when it's kill or be killed, yes within limits.  When they have any other option, no.

[+Oltux72]

20 hours ago, agrabes said:

Willingness to kill your enemy as an objective is again, the kind of thing soldiers are taught in military training but is not aligned with the goals of the Windrunner order.  You could argue that protecting people is a military objective, and it can be.  But not in the way the Windrunner's have shown to value it.  A military objective is something like "Escort the VIP from point A to point B."  Or, "Protect civilians in the area of operation."  That is not the type of objective that Windrunners have.  Their objective is to protect anyone who needs to be protected (i.e. anyone who cannot protect themself is a person who needs to be protected), regardless of their faction as the 3rd Ideal showed.

Well, Moash's grandparents didn't need protection anymore. The other victims of a bad king still would need it. As would the new bridgeman in the Sadeas armies. And the Windrunners were fighting Singers in all the desolations. They helped execute the plan that lobotomized and enslaved them. You cannot just protect. People have conflicting interests. The idea of pre protection is a delusion.

20 hours ago, agrabes said:

In terms of protecting vs. not protecting, you again seem to be missing the point that Kaladin learned.  Yes, you are absolutely correct that in many or even most cases both sides wish to protect their own people.  However, that is not always the case.  For example, a war of aggression or conquest cannot be considered protection.

So the humans should now enjoy the fruits of their ancestors' betrayal and aggression? The discussion between Kaladin and the Singers is enlightening. People will not willingly share the land with the Parshendi.

20 hours ago, agrabes said:

 Again, on the "us" vs. "them" topic it feels like you are missing the point.  You are correct that Kaladin learned that to protect people he sometimes has to harm others.  However, his position has changed over time.  Initially he interpreted that as "protect your allies and brothers in arms and kill everyone else" during his days in Amaram's army.  Then, in Bridge 4 he learned that he needed to protect people who couldn't protect themselves, not just his own brothers in arms.  Then, he learned at the Elhokar assassination attempt that he needs to protect even those he hates.  During his time with the parsh/singers early in OB, he realized that most of the parsh/singers are not his enemies and that his best goal is to avoid battle with them.

They are his enemies. They are fighting in the armies that occupy his homeland. They are taking humans as slaves.
They are also good people fighting for their freedom. That all nice people will always be friends is fantasy. People have conflicting and incompatible interests.

20 hours ago, agrabes said:

  At the Battle of Kholinar, he realized that he can't protect everybody and sometimes people who normally wouldn't be fighting are forced to fight each other.  He hasn't figured out what to do about that yet.  I don't think it's going to be "well, there are people who you have spent a lot of time learning are not really your enemies.  but, it's more convenient for your side if you just kill them, so go ahead and do it."

The only other order whose full ideals we know does exactly that. They dedicate themselves to 'the law', only to find out that law is not a uniform thing and you have to pick whose law to follow. As their ideals require an object, they find out that applying it universally is impossible. The same logic quandry Windrunners find themselves in.

 

And we have the recording: 'not want to protect everybody' ... want, not try or seek.

20 hours ago, agrabes said:

In terms of the Skybreakers, yes they are good soldiers.  They followed orders, they followed the rules, and they followed their leader.  That's a good rank and file soldier - as long as it's not illegal then you need to do what your leadership tells you.  That's what their entire order is set up to be.  It wasn't the rank and file Skybreakers who failed, it was Nale.  They are terrible leaders, but good soldiers.  Or, maybe if it feels better for you to say it this way they make good Privates rather than good soldiers.

No, they make good policemen. The first virtue of a soldier, before obidience, is loyalty.

20 hours ago, agrabes said:

As best I understand it, your point is that Kaladin and the Windrunners need to learn that they should compromise or change their moral values and simply fight and kill people because it's going to lead to them being successful in war.  For a normal person, I would agree with your advice.  I would tell them the military life is not for them if they can't come to terms with the fact that they are going to have to kill good people whose only crime is that they are from another country.

Again, Windrunners do not care about crimes. Kaladin had to protect Elhokar, who was a murderer. Justice is for Skybreakers.
Granted somebody like Jasnah is not fit for them. But nevertheless they are soldier. Sylphrena picked a soldier. The other spren pick soldiers, not clerks or Rock. Fighting soldiers.

20 hours ago, agrabes said:

  But that's not the world of Stormlight Archive and it's not consistent with the Knights Radiant.  The entire point of the Knights Radiant is that each order has to maintain certain oaths and moral codes or they lose their power.  These moral codes are often not practical and conflict with each other between orders, which is also kind of the point.  The Windrunners' moral values do not seem to be compatible with the idea of killing people just because they are the enemy.  In the heat of battle when it's kill or be killed, yes within limits.  When they have any other option, no.

Well, which battle? This is a logical trap. The world does not neatkly divide into attackers and defenders.

[agrabes]

On 10/5/2019 at 6:33 AM, Oltux72 said:

Well, Moash's grandparents didn't need protection anymore. The other victims of a bad king still would need it. As would the new bridgeman in the Sadeas armies. And the Windrunners were fighting Singers in all the desolations. They helped execute the plan that lobotomized and enslaved them. You cannot just protect. People have conflicting interests. The idea of pre protection is a delusion.

So the humans should now enjoy the fruits of their ancestors' betrayal and aggression? The discussion between Kaladin and the Singers is enlightening. People will not willingly share the land with the Parshendi.

They are his enemies. They are fighting in the armies that occupy his homeland. They are taking humans as slaves.
They are also good people fighting for their freedom. That all nice people will always be friends is fantasy. People have conflicting and incompatible interests.

The only other order whose full ideals we know does exactly that. They dedicate themselves to 'the law', only to find out that law is not a uniform thing and you have to pick whose law to follow. As their ideals require an object, they find out that applying it universally is impossible. The same logic quandry Windrunners find themselves in.

 

And we have the recording: 'not want to protect everybody' ... want, not try or seek.

No, they make good policemen. The first virtue of a soldier, before obidience, is loyalty.

Again, Windrunners do not care about crimes. Kaladin had to protect Elhokar, who was a murderer. Justice is for Skybreakers.
Granted somebody like Jasnah is not fit for them. But nevertheless they are soldier. Sylphrena picked a soldier. The other spren pick soldiers, not clerks or Rock. Fighting soldiers.

Well, which battle? This is a logical trap. The world does not neatkly divide into attackers and defenders.

To be fair, you don't don't know that the Windrunners agreed with the "lobotomy" plan and you also don't know that they actively participated or that they knew what its results would be if they did participate.  I think there are hints in the text that the opposite is true - the Windrunners and some Stonewards were the first to renounce their oaths in protest of what the other Radiants did.  I agree that fighting wars of "preprotection" is bad.  And the point of the Windrunners is not that they sit in a room thinking about all the people who might possibly need protected now or in the future.  The point I was trying to make is that the WIndrunners aren't assigned specific objectives of who they need to protect and for some specific limited time or place.  They simply protect people who they see are in danger, or they try to save people they hear about being in danger that they think they have the ability to save.  It's not organized or centrally planned, it happens organically.

The comment of "not want to protect everybody" doesn't mean that the 4th Ideal literally says that Windrunners should not want to protect everybody.  That's just the words of one frustrated Windrunner.  I think the most likely 4th Ideal is something about prioritizing who you protect or accepting that you can't protect everybody even if you want to.  In my view, that is significantly different from a cold decision to protect military allies only.  It's a fair point that the Windrunners we have seen except Lopen (imo) are all fighting soldiers.  Lopen is not a fighter or at least wasn't until he became a Radiant, though I think it's right to call him a soldier.  That said, I don't think it is exclusive to soldiers.  It's just that the most likely place to find someone who fits their description of a Windrunner is as a soldier.  The values of a Windrunner candidate seem to be a person who is willing to fight to protect someone regardless of the cost to themselves.  I agree that Windrunners don't care about crimes.  When I used the word crime I was not describing a literal criminal act.  The point I was making is that Kaladin realized that he didn't want to fight the parsh because they were just average people who had no desire to fight but were being pushed into it by Odium and the Fused.  He had been taught to believe that the parsh were evil monsters who wanted nothing more than to kill humans.  He thought that fighting them was different than a war with other humans and therefore always morally right.  When he learned that he was wrong about that, he had to re-evaluate his moral views.

What the Windrunners feel is justified is going to come down to their own personal knowledge at the time.  During active combat against any foe, a Windrunner is likely going to feel justified in protecting his or her allies and killing the enemy in most circumstances.  For example, they come across a friend or ally who is fighting someone.  They will feel justified in protecting that friend or ally first and asking questions later.  On the other hand, if they see their friend intentionally provoke a fight with no good reason, they will probably not feel justified in protecting that friend.  If they are just a soldier in a battle and told to go to war without any other knowledge or options beforehand, they will go and fight.  If they are told to go on a mission knowing that its only purpose is to kill as many of the enemy as possible, which is a valid though distasteful military strategy, they would likely refuse.  I think the 4th and 5th ideal of the Windrunners are about knowing when it is OK to kill those average soldiers on the other side and when it is not.  In some cases, they will be able to justify killing those average soldiers who are just doing their job because they believe it would minimize overall suffering.  The impression I'm getting from you is that you believe it's almost always right to kill the soldiers on the other side, while I believe the Windrunners will feel it's almost never right.  Another point is that I think you are viewing this through the lens of military values of the last few hundred years on Earth - the officers should do the thinking and the soldiers should leave it to them to decide if it's right to spend the lives on both sides that it will take to engage in a given battle.  That's not necessarily wrong, but the Knights Radiant in general and especially the Windrunners in particular don't seem to prescribe to that theory.  They are more like Knights Errant who each decide for themselves if it's right or wrong to engage in a battle rather than listening to the decisions of some officer.

Again, I think that what you're saying makes sense if these are just average people with no magical powers fighting a normal war.  I would even agree with your positions for the most part if that was the case.  In the world of Roshar I don't think a lot of your assumptions hold up.  There is a true evil here and you can draw a clear line between those who are truly evil and those who are just caught up in following orders under duress, unlike real life wars.  The Windrunners are a magical order of knights who are required by magic to uphold a certain set of moral values which are not based on promoting the greatest military success.  You have to think of this totally differently.

 

[+Oltux72]

On 07/10/2019 at 5:01 PM, agrabes said:

To be fair, you don't don't know that the Windrunners agreed with the "lobotomy" plan and you also don't know that they actively participated or that they knew what its results would be if they did participate.

True. Yet at that point, the Singers were the underdogs. And the Windrunners kept fighting.

On 07/10/2019 at 5:01 PM, agrabes said:

  I think there are hints in the text that the opposite is true - the Windrunners and some Stonewards were the first to renounce their oaths in protest of what the other Radiants did.  I agree that fighting wars of "preprotection" is bad.  And the point of the Windrunners is not that they sit in a room thinking about all the people who might possibly need protected now or in the future.  The point I was trying to make is that the WIndrunners aren't assigned specific objectives of who they need to protect and for some specific limited time or place.

The visions showed that they are sent on missions. It is unclear who picks them, but they do go on missions.

On 07/10/2019 at 5:01 PM, agrabes said:

They simply protect people who they see are in danger, or they try to save people they hear about being in danger that they think they have the ability to save.  It's not organized or centrally planned, it happens organically.

The Knights Radiant had a central organization. A headquarter, leaders (the Bondsmiths), a centralized transport network, archives, training centers ...

On 07/10/2019 at 5:01 PM, agrabes said:

The comment of "not want to protect everybody" doesn't mean that the 4th Ideal literally says that Windrunners should not want to protect everybody.  That's just the words of one frustrated Windrunner.  I think the most likely 4th Ideal is something about prioritizing who you protect or accepting that you can't protect everybody even if you want to.  In my view, that is significantly different from a cold decision to protect military allies only.

That was not an objection made on a whim. Whoever recorded that had to go to a deicated facility for recording and he chose to preserve these specific words for the records. That very much indicates a choice with care.

On 07/10/2019 at 5:01 PM, agrabes said:

  It's a fair point that the Windrunners we have seen except Lopen (imo) are all fighting soldiers.  Lopen is not a fighter or at least wasn't until he became a Radiant, though I think it's right to call him a soldier.  That said, I don't think it is exclusive to soldiers.  It's just that the most likely place to find someone who fits their description of a Windrunner is as a soldier.

• the visions showed a Knight dedicated to fighting and finding fighters
• an association with ancient Alethela ( The "Windrunner River")
• a herald of leadership as a patronontrary,
• an abundance of squires subordinate to a knight

I am sorry, but on the contrary, the Windrunners are closest to what we would call field-grade officers among the Knights Radiant.

On 07/10/2019 at 5:01 PM, agrabes said:

  The values of a Windrunner candidate seem to be a person who is willing to fight to protect someone regardless of the cost to themselves.  I agree that Windrunners don't care about crimes.  When I used the word crime I was not describing a literal criminal act.  The point I was making is that Kaladin realized that he didn't want to fight the parsh because they were just average people who had no desire to fight but were being pushed into it by Odium and the Fused.  He had been taught to believe that the parsh were evil monsters who wanted nothing more than to kill humans.  He thought that fighting them was different than a war with other humans and therefore always morally right.  When he learned that he was wrong about that, he had to re-evaluate his moral views.

No. He had no problem fighting people even before he became Radiant. Sure, he prefered to fight the oathbreakers. Not the Parshendi as a species, but those who had killed his king by treachery. When Kaladin exercised moral judgement, he felt that Elhokar deserved death. The point can be reasonably made, even if it is contested. Kaladin was honest in his belief that Elhokar deserved death. Point is that Kaladin did not do this out of personal antipathy.
A Windrunner will protect even the guilty if that is his mission. Promising to protect Elhokar, he had made it his mission.

On 07/10/2019 at 5:01 PM, agrabes said:

What the Windrunners feel is justified is going to come down to their own personal knowledge at the time.  During active combat against any foe, a Windrunner is likely going to feel justified in protecting his or her allies and killing the enemy in most circumstances.  For example, they come across a friend or ally who is fighting someone.  They will feel justified in protecting that friend or ally first and asking questions later.  On the other hand, if they see their friend intentionally provoke a fight with no good reason, they will probably not feel justified in protecting that friend.

Elhokar had murdered his best friend's grandparents, yet he protected him.

On 07/10/2019 at 5:01 PM, agrabes said:

  If they are just a soldier in a battle and told to go to war without any other knowledge or options beforehand, they will go and fight.  If they are told to go on a mission knowing that its only purpose is to kill as many of the enemy as possible, which is a valid though distasteful military strategy, they would likely refuse.

Yes, they protect. But nevertheless by protecting you pick a side. Not as obviously as a Skybreaker or a Dustbringer would, but you do. Hence it comes up only in the later oaths.

On 07/10/2019 at 5:01 PM, agrabes said:

  I think the 4th and 5th ideal of the Windrunners are about knowing when it is OK to kill those average soldiers on the other side and when it is not.  In some cases, they will be able to justify killing those average soldiers who are just doing their job because they believe it would minimize overall suffering.

This is precisely what they do not do. Look at his reaction to Jasnah's plans. And, again, Elhokar. Killing the bad king is taboo, even if that would reduce overall suffering.

On 07/10/2019 at 5:01 PM, agrabes said:

  The impression I'm getting from you is that you believe it's almost always right to kill the soldiers on the other side, while I believe the Windrunners will feel it's almost never right.

The Windrunners will offer an option to surrender. They will not drop incendiaries on a city just because it harbors enemy soldiers alongside civilians, but, yes, enemy combatants are to be killed.

On 07/10/2019 at 5:01 PM, agrabes said:

  Another point is that I think you are viewing this through the lens of military values of the last few hundred years on Earth - the officers should do the thinking and the soldiers should leave it to them to decide if it's right to spend the lives on both sides that it will take to engage in a given battle.  That's not necessarily wrong, but the Knights Radiant in general and especially the Windrunners in particular don't seem to prescribe to that theory.  They are more like Knights Errant who each decide for themselves if it's right or wrong to engage in a battle rather than listening to the decisions of some officer.

No. The Windrunners are the order with the most squires and emulate the herald of leadership.Nor is a dedication to mission not the same as a dedication to orders. The Windrunners kill enemy combatants because they are enemy combatants, as opposed because their orders tell them to do so. That would be Skybreakers. Besides, a Windrunner, if we are talking about a full Knight Radiant, is an officer: an abundance of squires and missions out of communication with HQ. A naval officer in the age of sail would be the best analogy. Clearly not somebody who just follows orders.

On 07/10/2019 at 5:01 PM, agrabes said:

Again, I think that what you're saying makes sense if these are just average people with no magical powers fighting a normal war.  I would even agree with your positions for the most part if that was the case.  In the world of Roshar I don't think a lot of your assumptions hold up.  There is a true evil here and you can draw a clear line between those who are truly evil and those who are just caught up in following orders under duress, unlike real life wars.

Are the Fused evil? They are fighting to get their planet back. And if you wish we can discuss the ethics of Honor who was ready to throw a whole world into a cycle of eternal genocidal wars without asking its people. We would talk till 2020.

On 07/10/2019 at 5:01 PM, agrabes said:

  The Windrunners are a magical order of knights who are required by magic to uphold a certain set of moral values which are not based on promoting the greatest military success.  You have to think of this totally differently.

It isn't the greatest. For that you would follow Jasnah's line of thought. But they still have to take a side and understand that you kill the enemy because he is the enemy. No further justification needed.

[Quantus]

4 hours ago, Oltux72 said:

they still have to take a side and understand that you kill the enemy because he is the enemy. No further justification needed.

And this, right here, is the fundamental difference of philosophy that's being argued here, and I dont think we're going to change anybody's stance on it with this conversation.  

[retrorocket1]

so was just reading and saw this

Quote

Kaladin, Syl said. You don’t need another reason to berate yourself. She was right. Storms, he could be down on himself sometimes. Was that the flaw that had prevented him from speaking the Words of the Fourth Ideal? For some reason, Syl sighed. Oh, Kaladin.

I see a few things in this. First, how is being down on himself preventing him from saying the ideal. From this it makes sense that the ideal has to be about himself and more importantly about his own importance. (This is interesting because he knows the words just couldn't say them)

I suspect that the 4th ideal is something along the lines of "I must protect myself before I seek to protect another"

2nd getting back to the quote "was this the flaw that had prevented him from speaking the words...". This sounds like he literally magically was prevented from saying them. It also sounds like he doesn't know exactly why he couldn't say them.

3rd syl sighed. This sounds like he is wrong in his assessment. I honestly don't know what this means but it could be that its not that he is down on himself but that he hasn't accepted his position. He isn't the sacrificial lamb so to speak but the legionary who stands with his squires as a wall against the enemy advance and until he accepts that he isn't going to advance.

[Frustration]

On 11/15/2017 at 10:12 PM, RShara said:

Maybe, "I will forgive myself if I fail" ?

I had already thought something like this my exact wording was "I cannot protect everyone I accept this, and will forgive myself when I fail."

Kaladin would probably add "but that won't stop me from trying."

I also think the surgeons oath will come in at some point you know help the people in most danger first then the younger and to move on when one is beyond help.

[Karger]

On 10/9/2019 at 4:47 AM, Oltux72 said:

True. Yet at that point, the Singers were the underdogs. And the Windrunners kept fighting.

We don't actually know that.  Also in this kind of totally racially motivated war I do not think classifying either side as "underdog" is accurate.

On 10/9/2019 at 4:47 AM, Oltux72 said:

The visions showed that they are sent on missions. It is unclear who picks them, but they do go on missions.

They may pick their own mission and on this particular mission they were not fighting something I would consider a person.  The fact that they take action is not surprising.  Also just because they agree to go on missions does not indicate that they are morally obligated to go on any mission your hypothetical authority wants them to.

On 10/9/2019 at 4:47 AM, Oltux72 said:

The Knights Radiant had a central organization. A headquarter, leaders (the Bondsmiths), a centralized transport network, archives, training centers ...

And..?  This all makes sense for the purposes of training and administration but it does not tell us that they always agreed with or went along with HQ.

On 10/9/2019 at 4:47 AM, Oltux72 said:

That was not an objection made on a whim. Whoever recorded that had to go to a deicated facility for recording and he chose to preserve these specific words for the records. That very much indicates a choice with care.

The Windrunner in question is recording their thoughts at the time.  This Windrunner could easily be wrong about what is being asked of them or at least have an emotional take on it that is not consistent with the spirit of the oath.

On 10/9/2019 at 4:47 AM, Oltux72 said:

• the visions showed a Knight dedicated to fighting and finding fighters
• an association with ancient Alethela ( The "Windrunner River")
• a herald of leadership as a patronontrary,
• an abundance of squires subordinate to a knight

I am sorry, but on the contrary, the Windrunners are closest to what we would call field-grade officers among the Knights Radiant.

Radiants can be of any profession regardless of order.  Not all of them are as archetypal as Kaladin.

On 10/9/2019 at 4:47 AM, Oltux72 said:

No. He had no problem fighting people even before he became Radiant

How do you hurt people...

On 10/9/2019 at 4:47 AM, Oltux72 said:

Sure, he prefered to fight the oathbreakers. Not the Parshendi as a species, but those who had killed his king by treachery

Because he could imagine that they were not people.

On 10/9/2019 at 4:47 AM, Oltux72 said:

Kaladin exercised moral judgement, he felt that Elhokar deserved death. The point can be reasonably made, even if it is contested. Kaladin was honest in his belief that Elhokar deserved death. Point is that Kaladin did not do this out of personal antipathy.

He kind of did.

On 10/9/2019 at 4:47 AM, Oltux72 said:

A Windrunner will protect even the guilty if that is his mission. Promising to protect Elhokar, he had made it his mission.

Actually he just saw it as wrong to try and kill someone who was incompetent but doing his best.  This is largely why he equates Elhokar with Tein.

On 10/9/2019 at 4:47 AM, Oltux72 said:

Elhokar had murdered his best friend's grandparents, yet he protected him.

Because he understood that Elhokar was innocent(ish) and that he did not deserve assassination.

On 10/9/2019 at 4:47 AM, Oltux72 said:

Yes, they protect. But nevertheless by protecting you pick a side. Not as obviously as a Skybreaker or a Dustbringer would, but you do. Hence it comes up only in the later oaths.

I personally hope that someone entrusted with the power of a Windrunner would learn to see past the illusion of separation.  Sides exist only in the minds of humans.  They have no inherent real existence.  A Windrunner must protect even those they feel personal or political antipathy against.

On 10/9/2019 at 4:47 AM, Oltux72 said:

This is precisely what they do not do. Look at his reaction to Jasnah's plans. And, again, Elhokar. Killing the bad king is taboo, even if that would reduce overall suffering.

I think that level 4 or 5 Windrunners should trust that the enemy believes in their cause enough to die for it and as such killing them is not wrong.  They should be introspective about conscripted soldiers and give the option to surrender but when fighting against an enemy who has deliberately chosen to fight against you military force is acceptable.

On 10/9/2019 at 4:47 AM, Oltux72 said:

The Windrunners will offer an option to surrender. They will not drop incendiaries on a city just because it harbors enemy soldiers alongside civilians, but, yes, enemy combatants are to be killed.

Pretty much.

On 10/9/2019 at 4:47 AM, Oltux72 said:

No. The Windrunners are the order with the most squires and emulate the herald of leadership.Nor is a dedication to mission not the same as a dedication to orders. The Windrunners kill enemy combatants because they are enemy combatants, as opposed because their orders tell them to do so. That would be Skybreakers. Besides, a Windrunner, if we are talking about a full Knight Radiant, is an officer: an abundance of squires and missions out of communication with HQ. A naval officer in the age of sail would be the best analogy. Clearly not somebody who just follows orders.

Mostly agree.

On 10/9/2019 at 4:47 AM, Oltux72 said:

Are the Fused evil? They are fighting to get their planet back. And if you wish we can discuss the ethics of Honor who was ready to throw a whole world into a cycle of eternal genocidal wars without asking its people. We would talk till 2020.

I am willing to say they are evil or at least destructive enough that they cannot be trusted around civilians and as such should be killed.

On 10/9/2019 at 4:47 AM, Oltux72 said:

It isn't the greatest. For that you would follow Jasnah's line of thought. But they still have to take a side and understand that you kill the enemy because he is the enemy. No further justification needed.

What is with you and sides?

[+Oltux72]

7 hours ago, Karger said:

We don't actually know that.  Also in this kind of totally racially motivated war I do not think classifying either side as "underdog" is accurate.

By that time Roshar was essentially human. Though admittedly we know very little.

7 hours ago, Karger said:

They may pick their own mission and on this particular mission they were not fighting something I would consider a person.  The fact that they take action is not surprising.  Also just because they agree to go on missions does not indicate that they are morally obligated to go on any mission your hypothetical authority wants them to.

And..?  This all makes sense for the purposes of training and administration but it does not tell us that they always agreed with or went along with HQ.

Well, their effectiveness as an organization goes down with the individual latitude they have in such matters.

7 hours ago, Karger said:

The Windrunner in question is recording their thoughts at the time.  This Windrunner could easily be wrong about what is being asked of them or at least have an emotional take on it that is not consistent with the spirit of the oath.

This is exceedingly unlikely. They openly discussed their oaths and each others progression. The ancient Knights were not stupid. They must have analyzed their oaths. It is extremely likely that they knew exactly what they were going into.

7 hours ago, Karger said:

Radiants can be of any profession regardless of order.  Not all of them are as archetypal as Kaladin.

Yes, but they have an organizational role, from which the oaths are derived.

7 hours ago, Karger said:

How do you hurt people...

?

7 hours ago, Karger said:

Because he could imagine that they were not people.

He kind of did.

He hated Elhokar. But then he hated every aristocrat.

7 hours ago, Karger said:

Actually he just saw it as wrong to try and kill someone who was incompetent but doing his best.  This is largely why he equates Elhokar with Tein.

Because he understood that Elhokar was innocent(ish) and that he did not deserve assassination.

Elhokar wasn't innocent.

7 hours ago, Karger said:

I personally hope that someone entrusted with the power of a Windrunner would learn to see past the illusion of separation.  Sides exist only in the minds of humans.  They have no inherent real existence.  A Windrunner must protect even those they feel personal or political antipathy against.

No. Sides do exist. It is true that the membership in them is arbitrary. You like in a pride of lions. Nevertheless people have conflicts and the way to win involves organizing in groups and working together within them. In other words, taking sides.
A windrunner protects independent of personal antipathy. Political empathy is another question. The conflict is between Honor & Cultivation vs. Odium. It is not a human conflict inherently. Humans even switched sides. The KR are an emulation of the Heralds who served Honor in the achievement of his political goals, which coincided with theirs.

7 hours ago, Karger said:

I think that level 4 or 5 Windrunners should trust that the enemy believes in their cause enough to die for it and as such killing them is not wrong.  They should be introspective about conscripted soldiers and give the option to surrender but when fighting against an enemy who has deliberately chosen to fight against you military force is acceptable.

That does not change that they need to realize that their cause is a political goal.

7 hours ago, Karger said:

Pretty much.

Mostly agree.

I am willing to say they are evil or at least destructive enough that they cannot be trusted around civilians and as such should be killed.

What is with you and sides?

In general or in literature? We are seeing an infanilization which wants to press any and every conflict into a fight between good and evil. Literature, especially fantasy, is just emerging from that, yet people want to shove it back into an era of incredibly good heroes and villains who kill just to decorate their lair with skulls. That desire is foolish. Conflict, which is necessary in a story, arises from clashing interests, which leads to people taking sides.

[Karger]

6 hours ago, Oltux72 said:

By that time Roshar was essentially human. Though admittedly we know very little.

We know little but you are for some reason sure that Roshar is primarily human despite not having any such evidence?  Anyway my statement still stands.  In total war between two large groups neither side is the underdog.

6 hours ago, Oltux72 said:

Well, their effectiveness as an organization goes down with the individual latitude they have in such matters.

Does it?  Individual latitude is sometimes required and can be quite beneficial to an organization.  Some military thinkers theorize that this is in fact optimal.  We also have a limited understanding of how the Knights worked as an organization.  Perhaps they were actually rather dysfunctional in certain areas.

6 hours ago, Oltux72 said:

This is exceedingly unlikely. They openly discussed their oaths and each others progression. The ancient Knights were not stupid. They must have analyzed their oaths. It is extremely likely that they knew exactly what they were going into.

People are stupid and intelligence is not required to be a KR.  Also Kaladin went through the same phase during the third oath.  He did not fully understand what was being asked of him and so he made some rather stupid mistakes.

6 hours ago, Oltux72 said:

Yes, but they have an organizational role, from which the oaths are derived.

No.  The oaths are not part of their organization they are ideals for each knight.  Plenty of elsecallers were military despite being an overtly scholastic order.  Not all Windrunners were military.  Some were undoubtedly academics, or diplomats.

6 hours ago, Oltux72 said:

?

Quote by Kaladin from Oathbringer.  Kaladin had a huge problem fighting before he became a Radiant.

6 hours ago, Oltux72 said:

He hated Elhokar. But then he hated every aristocrat.

He did not hate Dalinar.  He hated Elhokar for stopping him from killing Armaram

6 hours ago, Oltux72 said:

Elhokar wasn't innocent.

Reread WoR.  Kaladin tells Moash that Elhokar is innocent(at least in his eyes).

6 hours ago, Oltux72 said:

No. Sides do exist. It is true that the membership in them is arbitrary. You like in a pride of lions. Nevertheless people have conflicts and the way to win involves organizing in groups and working together within them. In other words, taking sides.

I am glad you are not a Windrunner.  In warfare victory is impossible in some sense because you can't win without the use of or threat of force.  Defeating somone by killing them more effectively then they kill you largely just leads to more problems which is why wining the peace is far more important.  The Radiants won over and over again yet Roshar got steadily worse. 

6 hours ago, Oltux72 said:

empathy is another question. The conflict is between Honor & Cultivation vs. Odium. It is not a human conflict inherently. Humans even switched sides. The KR are an emulation of the Heralds who served Honor in the achievement of his political goals, which coincided with theirs.

You don't know what Honor's goals were.  Same for Cultivation.  They both want Odium defeated but I think their current methodology is ridiculous.  Also the Heralds went to Honor for help.  He did not necessarily chose them nor does he agree with everything they did.

6 hours ago, Oltux72 said:

That does not change that they need to realize that their cause is a political goal.

Their cause should be an ideal.  Not a political goal.

6 hours ago, Oltux72 said:

Conflict, which is necessary in a story, arises from clashing interests, which leads to people taking sides.

But heroism is seeing past the "sides" to the individuals involved in the conflict.  This is what makes Kaladin so special and it is a lesson we really should learn.

[BlueNinja]

On 11/15/2017 at 9:00 PM, IntentAwesome said:

So far, the Windrunner oaths have seemed the most rigid of all of them to me. We've always known that some oaths are up to interpretation, though they cover the same basic idea. I don't think the Third Windrunner Oath is really individualized; it's still the same idea. It's just the who Teft hates is himself, while Kaladin hates others.

 

 

From what we've been given so far, I think the Fourth Ideal will need to meet these three criteria:

1. It will need to be an understanding that will help Kaladin resolve the dilemma he faced in the fight in the palace.

2. It will be something so difficult for Kaladin to live by that he couldn't even do it to save Syl, Pattern, Shallan, Adolin, and Dalinar. That's a lot of important people. And we know that Kaladin has a "saving people thing" as Hermione Granger once put it.

3. As the chapter epigraph for 86 implies, it is something that actually goes against a Windrunner's natural desire to help and protect others.

I think Kaladin actually did a fair job already in Oathbringer accepting his weaknesses; in the battle against Amaram, he acknowledge his need to be saved, so I don't think that was difficult enough. Same with protecting just the ones he can; Kaladin expressed the same idea to Elhokar when Kal told him to save just his son and leave the queen. And Kaladin does already get back up every time he fails, though he can't stop beating himself up over it. So I don't think any of those are difficult enough for Kaladin to not be able to swear it.

It would be interesting, I think, to see Kaladin reject the next oath and instead find something else, maybe finding a way for humans and parshendi to work together. But I also want to see Kaladin get his plate.

Going along with #3, I believe the fourth Ideal may be more along the lines of: "I recognize that I must kill to protect" OR "I will protect the masses by stopping the few".  In essence my idea is that Kaladin and all Windrunners will have to recognize that conflict will occur and that the average person (Singer or Human) can be caught in the struggle for power between greater forces than themselves.  Therefore, to protect as many as they can Windrunners will have to kill or disable the greater forces of evil, and as a result their underlings.

One of Kaladin's greatest struggles has always been with his father's mentality that, 'you cannot protect by fighting' [paraphrased].  It is along this line that Kaladin will finally have to face his lifelong moral struggle.  Kaladin wants to badly to protect people and overtime his view on this matter has had a wave shape.  He swings from one side to the other - never lingering or choosing a side.  Now he must choose.  While the exact wording may vary, this is the struggle that the 4th Ideal tackles.

[Blind Radiant]

I think the fourth ideal will be something like, “I will let go of those I cannot save, even if those are the ones I cannot lose.”

It fits so perfectly, both with the situation in which Kaladin fails to say the words, and with the things that happened leading up to that moment. It also fits with Kaladin’s backstory and the ideas that truly matter to him. His past and persistent inability to let go of perceived failures would make it nearly impossible for him to say and mean these words. And so, he failed to say them, and will have to grow and begin healing from his past failures if he is ever to successfully speak the ideal with intent and meaning.

[Master Silver]

What about this (it is along similar lines of what everyone else is saying but I like the specific wording because it reminds me of the chapter, "The Spear that would not Break." Fourth Idea: "I will not be broken by losing those I protect, but will save the ones I can." I think this idea would finally complete Kaladin's character arc, which seems to be where you end up at the fourth idea. Not perfect, but the nale bond has fulfilled its purpose. Swearing the fifth idea, makes you something more. 

[+Oltux72]

On 02/05/2020 at 5:46 AM, Blind Radiant said:

I think the fourth ideal will be something like, “I will let go of those I cannot save, even if those are the ones I cannot lose.”

It fits so perfectly, both with the situation in which Kaladin fails to say the words,

Well, no, it does not. Kaladin was not asked to accept that he will fail protecting. That actually would be a gigantic hubris. He is not omnipotent and he knows it.

His problem was that his job was to attack people who deserved to be protected.

 

[Blind Radiant]

7 hours ago, Oltux72 said:

Well, no, it does not. Kaladin was not asked to accept that he will fail protecting. That actually would be a gigantic hubris. He is not omnipotent and he knows it.

His problem was that his job was to attack people who deserved to be protected.

 

I agree with you to a point. It’s true that Kaladin knows that he can’t protect everyone, but that doesn’t keep him from doing his damnedest to try. If you don’t believe me, just look at the multiple occasions where he pushed himself to the edge of death to protect people. Two examples I can think of without trying are his involvement in the battle of the tower and him keeping Elhokar from being assassinated. He nearly died both times, but he still gave into his urge to protect. He logically knows that it’s impossible to protect everyone, but I don’t think he has accepted that fully yet. If he had, it would be easier for him to know when to accept the inevitable and move on. I think it would also be easier for him to let go of those under his protection who he had lost in the past.
It’s also true that he struggles to reconcile the conflict between knowing when and who to fight or protect. He wants things to be black and white, us against them, but he lost the ability to view things that way in the palace in Alethkar. Coming to terms with this and working through that conflict may very well play a part in his fourth ideal, but I think there’s more to it than just that. At the moment he failed to swear the ideal, he was thinking of all the people he lost, not who to fight or protect. I think accepting his losses will be very important to his continued development, and it might also be a part of one of his two remaining oaths.

Part of the reason I think it’s involved in the fourth ideal is because of something he says in Shadesmar when he can’t say the words: “I can’t lose him, but… oh, Almighty… I can’t save him.” I think in this moment, Kaladin is finally starting to accept something he’s known subconsciously for a while, maybe even since he was young. That thing is that there is only so much he can do to save people, and when all he can do isn’t enough, he must let go. His inability to so far embrace that idea is one of the main things holding him back, I think. That is why I believe that some form of letting go will be a part of his fourth ideal.