Jump to content

“I will protect even those I hate, so long as it is right.”


Mikanium

Recommended Posts

Does anyone else find the third oath a little disturbing?

 

It's so...   Wishy Washy.

 

 

It took Kalidin putting together that Alohkar was Dalinar's "Talin" for him to snap out of all the uncharacteristic virtues that he had from the first book and utter the oath.   

 

Good Ideal:

“Life before death, strength before weakness, journey before destination.”

 

Good Ideal:

“I will protect those who cannot protect themselves.”

 

Does not fit for me:

“I will protect even those I hate, so long as it is right."

 

Seems another way of saying:

"I will defend people I think are incompetent and the world would be a better place without, as long as it doesn't kill my Spren"

 

OK, I'm being a little sarcastic here.  It just does not fit in my eyes.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are an audio book fan, aren't you? :P

 

But I agree, this one felt off to me too. Though I was attributing that to how... specific it got, not "wishy washy." I was concerned that by the time Kaladin is done with his Ideals, they'll get waaay to specific, but in the end of the day I trust Brandon enough to suspend that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought that the ideal was to show a difference between Skybreakers and Windrunners.  Skybreakers believe that laws are right, so they consider their own ideas of morals less.  Windrunners, however, leave someone's guilt up to their own code of honor, rather than just the laws of whatever country they are in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the issue in Elhokar's particular case is that Kaladin is aware he wants to be a good king and hasn't been able to do it so far.  As is pointed out Elhokar is sincere in his efforts he just fails much of the time anyway.  Huh...Kind of reminds me of Kaladin's early days as a slave when I say it like that.

 

Lets contrast that to Roshone.  A man who just doesn't care about Hearthstone and in fact malevolently makes an effort to oppress and crush the will of the people in the town and Kaladin's family in particular.  Would a windrunner be compelled to protect a man like Roshone?  I would suspect not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 You don't save people because they're a good person. You save people because you're a good person. 

 

I find that debatable.  Kaladin doesn't do it because he's a good person.  He does it because Alokahr is important to Dalinar, and he was killing Syl.  I would say he does it because he changed his mind and decided it was right thing to do, after ignoring his conscious and Syl for so long   His motivations seem more related to the guilt of the people around him dying then being a good person.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  Would a windrunner be compelled to protect a man like Roshone?  I would suspect not.

 

 

Wouldn't that depend on the if Roshone could defend himself or not?    Because if he didn't protect Roshone if he could not protect himself then he's not following the ideals.  That's my point.  There is contradiction.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find that debatable.  Kaladin doesn't do it because he's a good person.  He does it because Alokahr is important to Dalinar, and he was killing Syl.  I would say he does it because he changed his mind and decided it was right thing to do, after ignoring his conscious and Syl for so long   His motivations seem more related to the guilt of the people around him dying then being a good person.

He already thought Syl was dead though. He didn't like Elhokar, thought he was a bad king, but believed at the very least that he was trying to be better. That was what he told Moash, that Elhokar tried. In that moment, he knew that protecting Elhokar was the right thing to do. It wasn't about getting his spren back, because she was long gone as far as he knew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find that debatable.  Kaladin doesn't do it because he's a good person.  He does it because Alokahr is important to Dalinar, and he was killing Syl.  I would say he does it because he changed his mind and decided it was right thing to do, after ignoring his conscious and Syl for so long   His motivations seem more related to the guilt of the people around him dying then being a good person.   

So he saves him because his conscience tells him to, after overcoming his personal feelings for the person, and basing it on the emotional attachments of those around him to Elokhar and the consequences to others should he indulge in his own desires/emotions.......but he didn't do it because he's a good person? 

Edited by Islington
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, remember that it isn't the words in an oath that matter.  They just have to mean a certain intent.  Other words that expressed the same thing would have worked.  It could just be the wording that is giving you a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't that depend on the if Roshone could defend himself or not?    Because if he didn't protect Roshone if he could not protect himself then he's not following the ideals.  That's my point.  There is contradiction.   

 

 

I kind of wonder if there is an order of priority to the ideals.  In any case since the topic was the second ideal I was looking at the question in that context.  Roshone is a man who, unlike Elhokar, willfully oppresses the town he has authority over.  Deliberately making the town his own little pocket of damnation.  Until I hear a word of Brandon or an in story example otherwise I'm going with the second ideal would not require a windrunner from protecting such a man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I myself find the Ideal a bit ridiculous, it's well in line with the whole honorspren thing. The thing I have the most issue with is the whole "so long as it is right" part of the Ideal. What's that supposed to mean? You have to defend people until you decide you're uncomfortable with doing so? I'm interested in seeing what Kaladin has to do regarding Roshone, now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great point Arondell. I think there would have to be a hierarchy to them.  Kaladin has already pointed out conflicts to Syl regarding his fight with the Parshendi at the end of WoK.  I think her responses and actions imply that the way to prioritize them exists and she just doesn't remember it yet.  Though it probably also isn't the most pleasant topic for her to begin with.  Anyway, so far, my bet would be that the Oaths are said in order of priority.  Either that or the first one trumps the rest and they're in some other order.  I have a tough time imagining any of the others taking precedence over the first because in a sense, the first seems to implicitly encompass them.

 

As to the Roshone question, I suspect that it depends on the context. My guess, if the danger Roshone was in was being driven by evil or even neutral intent, Kaladin would step in to save his bacon.  On the other hand, if someone was righteously (note, as someone mentioned above, the distinction between legally and righteously) smiting Roshone, Kaladin would be free to sit there and watch with a bowl of popcorn.  Or whatever the Roshar equivalent of popcorn is.  Not sure that Brandon's addressed this.  Seems important...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great point Arondell. I think there would have to be a hierarchy to them.  Kaladin has already pointed out conflicts to Syl regarding his fight with the Parshendi at the end of WoK.  I think her responses and actions imply that the way to prioritize them exists and she just doesn't remember it yet.  Though it probably also isn't the most pleasant topic for her to begin with.  Anyway, so far, my bet would be that the Oaths are said in order of priority.  Either that or the first one trumps the rest and they're in some other order.  I have a tough time imagining any of the others taking precedence over the first because in a sense, the first seems to implicitly encompass them.

 

Like Syl says, it's not the same. He didn't attack Parshendi. He protected the abandoned men, and Dalinar, even though he hated them as Lighteyes. He did that because it was right to do so. Those men were about to die, betrayed by allies. It was absolutely right to protect the ones he hated, and he did so because it was right.  This ideal is more of an exploration of what had done in WoK.

 

He had already figured out the first ideal, about protecting those who can't protect themselves, that's easy, and only mildly applied to the soldiers. His experience with the first ideal was through protecting the untrained youth in Amaram's army, and then Amaram himself, who was trapped under a horse and could not protect himself. Then he protected the bridgeman. His experience led up to the first ideal. Initiating his advance towards the second ideal was what triggered his final, assured knowledge of the first. 

 

 

He raised a trembling hand to his head, feeling the brand there, wet with his sweat. "I owe you nothing, Kholin."

And his father's voice seemed to whisper a reply. Somebody has to start son. Somebody has to step forward and do what is right, because it is right. If nobody starts, then others cannot follow.

-WoK 67 Words

 

It is right to protect a drunken man from an assassination attempt you know is coming. The "what is right" clause is the actual ideal. Kaladin had to add the other portion as a personal reminder and testament to what he did. He didn't figure out the ideal before, and so he had to correct himself on what he was lacking. I imagine for most of the order would be something akin to "I will fight to protect, when it is right to do so." 

 

Edit:Sourced quote

Edited by EMTrevor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He already thought Syl was dead though. He didn't like Elhokar, thought he was a bad king, but believed at the very least that he was trying to be better. That was what he told Moash, that Elhokar tried. In that moment, he knew that protecting Elhokar was the right thing to do. It wasn't about getting his spren back, because she was long gone as far as he knew.

 

This exactly. Kaladin went to protect Elhokar knowing that he would most likely die. He had no thoughts of rewards of any sort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like Syl says, it's not the same. He didn't attack Parshendi. He protected the abandoned men, and Dalinar, even though he hated them as Lighteyes. He did that because it was right to do so. Those men were about to die, betrayed by allies. It was absolutely right to protect the ones he hated, and he did so because it was right.  This ideal is more of an exploration of what had done in WoK.

 

EMT, I sort of disagree on this part.  Yes, his intent was to save the abandoned men.  And I agree, that intent is probably what matters most to Syl and the bond, at least right now.  However, he did, quite literally attack the Parshendi.  At the end of WoK, we see Kaladin consider the Parshendi as people to a degree that no one else (that we've seen) had.  And the implications of that combined with his slaughter of them to protect the Kholin army weighs on him.  I think it's all a matter of his moral compass.  So sure, he acted to protect, which is good, but I doubt it would be safe for him to disregard the costs of his actions just because of good intent.  Note also, that this has been a repeating theme for him with as he often goes back to Lirin's statement that you can't kill to protect.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brandon has said that the actual words you say don't matter, just the feeling you've got. Basically, it's how you say it and what you mean when you say it that counts. Kaladin is saying that he will defend anybody, not just selfishly defending people he likes. It's determination to do the right thing, no matter what his own personal feelings about the situation are. I like the oath, personally, or at the very least its meaning.

 

 

EDIT: This is the time when I suddenly become "that guy" once again, to the irritation of every single reader. You seriously put a massive WoR spoiler where it can be seen from the front page. Can you *please* go to full edit and change the post title? There's still a lot of people who haven't read WoR but still feel safe from spoilers outside of the subforum.

Edited by Observer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

EMT, I sort of disagree on this part.  Yes, his intent was to save the abandoned men.  And I agree, that intent is probably what matters most to Syl and the bond, at least right now.  However, he did, quite literally attack the Parshendi.  At the end of WoK, we see Kaladin consider the Parshendi as people to a degree that no one else (that we've seen) had.  And the implications of that combined with his slaughter of them to protect the Kholin army weighs on him.  I think it's all a matter of his moral compass.  So sure, he acted to protect, which is good, but I doubt it would be safe for him to disregard the costs of his actions just because of good intent.  Note also, that this has been a repeating theme for him with as he often goes back to Lirin's statement that you can't kill to protect.  

 

That's what's so fascinating about the spren, the Nahel bond, the ideals, and investiture on Roshar in general! Brandon states many times that perception has a lot to do with how the magic works. It's all about how you are perceiving the event. How you define it. You say he literally attacked the Parshendi, and I don't disagree, however, it was an extension of protecting the men, and the archers engaged them first. Men who at this point were charging towards them, quite helpless. The Parshendi engaged them first, he only attacked Eshonai to protect Dalinar, and you can tell how broken up he is about the entire experience through his feelings about it. Your point and my point are epitomizing the debate that Syl and Kaladin have. Syl is born of an ideal, Kaladin is a human with a more broadly encompassing moral understanding. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very minor quibble in that, if I remember correctly, when Kaladin leaps the chasm in his Epic Leap of Epic Awesomeness  they weren't being shot at by archers (though there had been some earlier).  The Parshendi were there without bows just waiting for them to set the bridge.  Regardless, agree wholeheartedly with the rest.  Hear hear. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You say he literally attacked the Parshendi, and I don't disagree, however, it was an extension of protecting the men, and the archers engaged them first. Men who at this point were charging towards them, quite helpless.

 

The Parshendi didn't engage them until they set the bridge and he ran over it with a spear.

 

Also: Dalinar started the battle by attacking the Parshendi in the first place with Sadeas, and Gavilar started the entire Vengeance Pact by threatening to bring back the Parshendi gods and have them all enslaved to Odium. At what point does the chain of events stop mattering in reference to 'protecting' someone? Is Kaladin forced by the bond to protect a murderer who has just been disarmed (as is he is now helpless)?

 

Your point and my point are epitomizing the debate that Syl and Kaladin have. Syl is born of an ideal, Kaladin is a human with a more broadly encompassing moral understanding.

 

Syl and Kaladin never even have a debate, that's the frustrating part. Syl just completely evades any and all hypothetical questions and refuses to have any sort of fair discussion on the matter. Like, look at this:

 

“Is it wrong for Moash to try to kill the king?”

“Of course.”

“Why?”

“Because killing is wrong.”

“And the Parshendi I killed?”

“We’ve talked about this. It had to be done.”

“And what if one of them was a Surgebinder,” Kaladin said. “With his own honorspren?”

“Parshendi can’t become Surgebin—”

“Just pretend ,” Kaladin said, grunting as he tried another thrust. He wasn’t getting it right. “I’d guess all the Parshendi want to do at this point is survive. Storms, the ones involved in Gavilar’s death, they might not even still be alive. Their leaders were executed back in Alethkar, after all. So you tell me, if a common Parshendi who is protecting his people comes up against me, what would his honorspren say? That he’s doing the right thing?”

“I . . .” Syl hunched down. She hated questions like this. “It doesn’t matter. You said you won’t kill the Parshendi anymore.”

“And Amaram? Can I kill him?”

“Is that justice?” Syl asked.

“One form.”

“There’s a difference.”

“What?” Kaladin demanded, thrusting. Storm it! Why couldn’t he make the stupid weapon go where it should?

“Because of what it does to you,” Syl said softly. “Thinking about him changes you. Twists you. You’re supposed to protect, Kaladin. Not kill.”

 

It's incredibly annoying. I get the impression Syl doesn't care about killing, all that matters is whether Kaladin perceives himself as protecting. Which works, I suppose, but it implies Kaladin should be acting to protect someone whenever he makes a decision. I guess Kaladin could kill Roshone if he thought he was protecting his family, but not if he was doing it for revenge.

Edited by Moogle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Syl isn't a full being. She's the personification of an ideal; the cognitive shadow of a set of standards and actions that only has agency in the Cognitive realm unless bound to a true physical entity. Her thoughts on the matter are built from two things: the ideals that make up her existence, and what Kaladin brings to the table. When Kal argues with Syl, he's arguing with himself + honor. Syl can't have a clear answer for complicated moral questions that Kaladin doesn't already have himself.

And Syl is selfish. She only wants honorable actions in line with her existence. She requires it. So, no: the arguments between Kal and Syl will never be fulfilling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Parshendi didn't engage them until they set the bridge and he ran over it with a spear.

 

Also: Dalinar started the battle by attacking the Parshendi in the first place with Sadeas, and Gavilar started the entire Vengeance Pact by threatening to bring back the Parshendi gods and have them all enslaved to Odium. At what point does the chain of events stop mattering in reference to 'protecting' someone? Is Kaladin forced by the bond to protect a murderer who has just been disarmed (as is he is now helpless)?

 

 

Syl and Kaladin never even have a debate, that's the frustrating part. Syl just completely evades any and all hypothetical questions and refuses to have any sort of fair discussion on the matter. Like, look at this:

 

It's incredibly annoying. I get the impression Syl doesn't care about killing, all that matters is whether Kaladin perceives himself as protecting. Which works, I suppose, but it implies Kaladin should be acting to protect someone whenever he makes a decision. I guess Kaladin could kill Roshone if he thought he was protecting his family, but not if he was doing it for revenge.

 

Hee hee. I love your points. I love this debate. How can we define morality and honor in the same sense with a reasonable semblance of logic in some way. Have you ever heard of "The Trolley Problem?"

http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/fatman/

 

I think it's important to note in the front of there, that it specifically states there are no right answers. I'm pretty sure that this would kill Syl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...