Loophole in the contract

Frustration · February 8, 2023

2 minutes ago, The_Milkgod said:

As others have said. The spirit of the agreement is that one champion comes out alive. Not which dies first.

The Contest is a game, when one champion dies the clock stops, if at that time the other champion is alive, they win.

Anything otherwise is like saying if a boxer passes out a day later that their most recent fight was a draw, despite them knocking out their opponent at that time.

alder24 · February 8, 2023

Quote

He took a deep breath. “Final terms are these: A contest of champions to the death. On the tenth day of the month Palah, tenth hour. We each send a willing champion, allowed to meet at the top of Urithiru, otherwise unharmed by either side’s forces. If I win that contest, you will remain bound to the system—but you will return Alethkar and Herdaz to me, with all of their occupants intact. You will vow to cease hostilities and maintain the peace, not working against my allies or our kingdoms in any way.”

“Agreed,” Odium said. “But if I win, I keep everything I’ve won—including your homeland. I still remain bound to this system, and will still cease hostilities as you said above. But I will have your soul. To serve me, immortal. Will you do this? Because I agree to these terms.”

“And I,” Dalinar whispered. “I agree to these terms.”

“It is done.”

Definitions for you:

Noun. fight to the death (plural fights to the death): A fight in which there is only one winner, the survivor.

Noun. survivor (plural survivors): One who survives, especially one who survives a traumatic experience.

Verb. survive (third-person singular simple present survives, present participle surviving, simple past and past participle survived):

(intransitive) Of a person, to continue to live; to remain alive.
(intransitive) Of an object or concept, to continue to exist.

KaladinWorldsinger · February 8, 2023

19 minutes ago, alder24 said:

Definitions for you:

Noun. fight to the death (plural fights to the death): A fight in which there is only one winner, the survivor.

Noun. survivor (plural survivors): One who survives, especially one who survives a traumatic experience.

Verb. survive (third-person singular simple present survives, present participle surviving, simple past and past participle survived):

(intransitive) Of a person, to continue to live; to remain alive.

(intransitive) Of an object or concept, to continue to exist.

Putting myself into this discussion, so if odiums champion poisoned Dalinar so that he will definitely die 3 days later, is that a tie(the champion is dead)? Did dalinar still lose, and taravangian gets what he wanted.

(Also, this was an asoiaf reference)

Edited February 8, 2023 by KaladinWorldsinger

Returned · February 8, 2023

I think that this entire discussion is has gotten off-center. Following the spirit of an agreement is also following the letter of it. What the "spirit of the agreement" phrase indicates is that there is no wiggling into a technicality (or loophole) which is technically within what the wording of the contract lays out but which is obviously contrary to what the agreement is intended to be. The very concept of a loophole which can be exploited to get out of what the contract has established is the exact opposite keeping the agreement in letter and spirit, and if a loophole is a viable option then the whole "spirit of the contract" element is totally irrelevant. To look for a loophole is to explicitly and specifically discard what we've been told about the deal.

The alternatives people have posited (so far, and that I've seen) fall into a couple of categories. The final two are my own ideas that I don't recall having seen before (though I'd be happy to give credit if I've forgotten where I saw them):

The spirit of the contract is functionally irrelevant, so we can lawyer away at the text of the agreement. This is a necessary assumption when looking for a loophole.
The contract will be adhered to but one side (usually assumed to be Odium) will do so in a way that makes victory far more likely for them. The specifics vary based on the particular theories of what that way is, but this is equivalent to a strategy for winning the contest, not a way of weaseling out of the deal. It's not a loophole.
The contract is not relevant to the new Odium's goals, so it's an irritation for him but not as consequential as it was for the old Odium. The ideas of winning or losing the contest have a totally different context and meaning for Odium now compared to when the deal was struck, so keeping it or breaking it are now different considerations and we don't know how to evaluate the implications. Finding a loophole is probably not an issue in this case (though we don't know enough to say this very confidently).
The consequences of breaking the contract are not what we've assumed. Being "in someone's power" is not a clearly defined state, though there are obvious assumptions that we've been making so far about what that means here. Another issue, separately or relatedly, is that the presumption that Odium can't break his word has been over-interpreted. He can't break his word without risking consequences from other Shards-- it would leave him vulnerable in some poorly defined way. A strategy to deal with that risk, generally or in this specific case, would change what we've been assuming are inviolable rules.

The spirit of the contract is to end the current war between Odium and the humans (and their friends) on Roshar via a fight to the death between champions selected by Dalinar and Odium, respectively. I think that what people are really looking for in discussions like this is a plot twist that might subvert our expectations.

There may not be one. It's not exactly uncommon for an epic fantasy story to have a conclusion driven by a hero fighting against a villain in a climactic event. The way that such an event plays out will still have implications for future Cosmere works even if it occurs exactly as the contract suggests. A twist could be interesting but is not the only interesting outcome that is possible.

People can, and should, theorize to their hearts' content about how the first SA arc will end. But when the possibilities we're entertaining are unlimited, like the range between the contract being perfectly followed and the contract being irrelevant, arguing specifics gets overly precise pretty quickly. For example, if you think that the conclusion will involve both champions quitting the contest, then what does it matter if the contract is kept in the process or not given that that's already how you think it will end? Why not talk about the consequences that might follow from the posited conclusion rather than debate minutia in an undefined space?

Edited February 8, 2023 by Returned

Frustration · February 8, 2023

33 minutes ago, alder24 said:

Definitions for you:

Noun. fight to the death (plural fights to the death): A fight in which there is only one winner, the survivor.

Noun. survivor (plural survivors): One who survives, especially one who survives a traumatic experience.

Verb. survive (third-person singular simple present survives, present participle surviving, simple past and past participle survived):

(intransitive) Of a person, to continue to live; to remain alive.

(intransitive) Of an object or concept, to continue to exist.

Contest ends as soon as one champion dies.

Anything after that is no longer part of the deal, and thus cannot impact it in any way.

Edited February 8, 2023 by Frustration

The_Milkgod · February 8, 2023

2 minutes ago, Frustration said:

Contest ends as soon as one champion dies.

Anything after that is no longer part of the deal, and thus cannot impact it in any way.

Contest ends when one champion walks out alive.

Frustration · February 8, 2023

Just now, The_Milkgod said:

Contest ends when one champion walks out alive.

It ends when one of them dies, as they are both alive to start with.

The_Milkgod · February 8, 2023

16 minutes ago, Returned said:

I think that this entire discussion is has gotten off-center. Following the spirit of an agreement is also following the letter of it. What the "spirit of the agreement" phrase indicates is that there is no wiggling into a technicality (or loophole) which is technically within what the wording of the contract lays out but which is obviously contrary to what the agreement is intended to be. The very concept of a loophole which can be exploited to get out of what the contract has established is the exact opposite keeping the agreement in letter and spirit, and if a loophole is a viable option then the whole "spirit of the contract" element is totally irrelevant. To look for a loophole is to explicitly and specifically discard what we've been told about the deal.

The alternatives people have posited (so far, and that I've seen) fall into a couple of categories. The final two are my own ideas that I don't recall having seen before (though I'd be happy to give credit if I've forgotten where I saw them):

The spirit of the contract is functionally irrelevant, so we can lawyer away at the text of the agreement. This is a necessary assumption when looking for a loophole.

The contract will be adhered to but one side (usually assumed to be Odium) will do so in a way that makes victory far more likely for them. The specifics vary based on the particular theories of what that way is, but this is equivalent to a strategy for winning the contest, not a way of weaseling out of the deal. It's not a loophole.

The contract is not relevant to the new Odium's goals, so it's an irritation for him but not as consequential as it was for the old Odium. The ideas of winning or losing the contest have a totally different context and meaning for Odium now compared to when the deal was struck, so keeping it or breaking it are now different considerations and we don't know how to evaluate the implications. Finding a loophole is probably not an issue in this case (though we don't know enough to say this very confidently).

The consequences of breaking the contract are not what we've assumed. Being "in someone's power" is not a clearly defined state, though there are obvious assumptions that we've been making so far about what that means here. Another issue, separately or relatedly, is that the presumption that Odium can't break his word has been over-interpreted. He can't break his word without risking consequences from other Shards-- it would leave him vulnerable in some poorly defined way. A strategy to deal with that risk, generally or in this specific case, would change what we've been assuming are inviolable rules.

The spirit of the contract is to end the current war between Odium and the humans (and their friends) on Roshar via a fight to the death between champions selected by Dalinar and Odium, respectively. I think that what people are really looking for in discussions like this is a plot twist that might subvert our expectations.

There may not be one. It's not exactly uncommon for an epic fantasy story to have a conclusion driven by a hero fighting against a villain in a climactic event. The way that such an event plays out will still have implications for future Cosmere works even if it occurs exactly as the contract suggests. A twist could be interesting but is not the only interesting outcome that is possible.

People can, and should, theorize to their hearts' content about how the first SA arc will end. But when the possibilities we're entertaining are unlimited, like the range between the contract being perfectly followed and the contract being irrelevant, arguing specifics gets overly precise pretty quickly. For example, if you think that the conclusion will involve both champions quitting the contest, then what does it matter if the contract is kept in the process or not given that that's already how you think it will end? Why not talk about the consequences that might follow from the posited conclusion rather than debate minutia in an undefined space?

I agree, however it is fun to try and see if there would be any way the contract could be twisted. The current argument is definitely not really doing that unfortunately.

alder24 · February 8, 2023

Our current discussion:

Spoiler

Edited February 8, 2023 by alder24

The_Milkgod · February 8, 2023

Just now, alder24 said:

Our current discussion:

Hide contents

Lmaooo true. This has devolved horribly.

Returned · February 8, 2023

53 minutes ago, The_Milkgod said:

I agree, however it is fun to try and see if there would be any way the contract could be twisted. The current argument is definitely not really doing that unfortunately.

That's my point, though. As described in the book, it can't be twisted. That's what "letter and spirit" means-- the only thing it means. A contract including both letter and spirit can either be kept or broken. The deal is to end the war (or at least Odium's participation in it) through the contest. A loophole would involve not doing the contest as outlined and/or not ending the conflict, and so would be breaking the contract because it seeks to violate the spirit of the deal on a technicality in the text.

Such an outcome may well happen, but since it's functionally the same as breaking the agreement we might as well talk about what that would entail and how a specific method of breaking the contract might be relevant to events. So if we're talking about the contest not ending the war because both combatants die at the exact same instant, for example, then the letter and spirit of the contract are not upheld even though it's nobody's fault (and the contract doesn't specify what would happen in such an edge case).

I just don't see how it would matter, in itself, if the contract were technically adhered to or not (even though I think it clearly would not be, because no twisting is permitted). That outcome would still be really important: nobody gets what they'd hoped for if they won, the war continues as it has been, there is no mechanism for dealing with Odium any more, and the terms of the deal can't even potentially help anyone any more. It would largely be as if the contract had never existed.

So then whether or not the contract itself was upheld or violated seems irrelevant at that point. Like, if we were to game out that specific outcome, what difference would the contract being upheld, blamelessly broken, or voided make?

I'm not intending to discourage anyone from theorycrafting about possible plot developments, but "I think [X] could happen" doesn't strike me as fundamentally different from "I think [X] could happen and uphold the contract somehow" or "I think [X] could happen but only by breaking the contract". I think that there are interesting discussions to be had around what consequences might follow from a specific conclusion to the contest, but only in the context of those consequences. Arguing about whether or not that conclusion satisfies an arbitrary interpretation of an arbitrary standard, in a vacuum, seems to be both upsetting to people and also blocks off those discussions. It seems obviously possible that the contract be unable to perform through any number of mechanisms (say, the champions are both delayed by traffic and can't make it to the arena on the appointed day no matter what they do, but the contract fixes the fight for a specific day, so what now?). But what of it?

But that's just my perspective on the issue. If it is an appealing one to anybody in the thread, I'll ask this: what do you think would the impact on the plot would be if the contest failed to end the war as it was intended to, despite not being broken by either party?

Edited February 8, 2023 by Returned

The_Milkgod · February 8, 2023

19 minutes ago, Returned said:

That's my point, though. As described in the book, it can't be twisted. That's what "letter and spirit" means-- the only thing it means. A contract including both letter and spirit can either be kept or broken. The deal is to end the war (or at least Odium's participation in it) through the contest. A loophole would involve not doing the contest as outlined and/or not ending the conflict, and so would be breaking the contract because it seeks to violate the spirit of the deal on a technicality in the text.

Such an outcome may well happen, but since it's functionally the same as breaking the agreement we might as well talk about what that would entail and how a specific method of breaking the contract might be relevant to events. So if we're talking about the contest not ending the war because both combatants die at the exact same instant, for example, then the letter and spirit of the contract are not upheld even though it's nobody's fault (and the contract doesn't specify what would happen in such an edge case).

I just don't see how it would matter, in itself, if the contract were technically adhered to or not (even though I think it clearly would not be, because no twisting is permitted). That outcome would still be really important: nobody gets what they'd hoped for if they won, the war continues as it has been, there is no mechanism for dealing with Odium any more, and the terms of the deal can't even potentially help anyone any more. It would largely be as if the contract had never existed.

So then whether or not the contract itself was upheld or violated seems irrelevant at that point. Like, if we were to game out that specific outcome, what difference would the contract being upheld, blamelessly broken, or voided make?

I'm not intending to discourage anyone from theorycrafting about possible plot developments, but "I think [X] could happen" doesn't strike me as fundamentally different from "I think [X] could happen and uphold the contract somehow" or "I think [X] could happen but only by breaking the contract". I think that there are interesting discussions to be had around what consequences might follow from a specific conclusion to the contest, but only in the context of those consequences. Arguing about whether or not that conclusion satisfies an arbitrary interpretation of an arbitrary standard, in a vacuum, seems to be both upsetting to people and also blocks off those discussions. It seems obviously possible that the contract be unable to perform through any number of mechanisms (say, the champions are both delayed by traffic and can't make it to the arena on the appointed day no matter what they do, but the contract fixes the fight for a specific day, so what now?). But what of it?

But that's just my perspective on the issue. If it is an appealing one to anybody in the thread, I'll ask this: what do you think would the impact on the plot would be if the contest failed to end the war as it was intended to, despite not being broken by either party?

It’d likely make Odium a much greater threat to the wider Cosmere. The struggle on Roshar itself could continue as is or perhaps if Odium is no longer chained then he could go and gather more forces. Or alternatively he could just leave and take his forces with him, though Roshar seems too valuable to just leave.

Letryx13 · February 8, 2023

3 hours ago, KaladinWorldsinger said:

Putting myself into this discussion, so if odiums champion poisoned Dalinar so that he will definitely die 3 days later, is that a tie(the champion is dead)? Did dalinar still lose, and taravangian gets what he wanted.

(Also, this was an asoiaf reference)

Technically, no. Dalinar said he intended to be his own champion. But since the contest hasn't started yet, officially no champion has been selected. Odium originally intended Dalinar to be his champion, saying he knew who his champion was, but since he never actually said "You are my champion, Dalinar" or something to that effect, then Odium isn't forced to call Dalinar as his champion. Sanderson specifically left wiggle room in both of their wordings when the champions were discussed.

I'm not sure what would happen to the contract if Dalinar were to be assisinated before hand, although since Odium's champion didn't win the contest, he wouldn't have a claim on Dalinar's soul yet, so Taravangian wouldn't be able to claim him before he passed on completely. I mean, Honor's death didn't invalidate his restrictions on Odium, so the contest could still be in play. On the other hand, since Dalinar would be gone, Odium couldn't return Alethkar and Herdaz to him, which could complicate things.

Oh boy, as much as I don't want it to happen, Dalinar being killed before the contest could be an amazing plot twist. Maybe with Kaladin stepping in to take his place.

3 hours ago, Returned said:

I think that this entire discussion is has gotten off-center. Following the spirit of an agreement is also following the letter of it. What the "spirit of the agreement" phrase indicates is that there is no wiggling into a technicality (or loophole) which is technically within what the wording of the contract lays out but which is obviously contrary to what the agreement is intended to be. The very concept of a loophole which can be exploited to get out of what the contract has established is the exact opposite keeping the agreement in letter and spirit, and if a loophole is a viable option then the whole "spirit of the contract" element is totally irrelevant. To look for a loophole is to explicitly and specifically discard what we've been told about the deal.

The problem with using the "spirit of the agreement" is that Rayse was the one that said he honored agreements that way. Taravangian actually wanted to write a contract with Rayse when he made his deal with the Shard. We don't know how Taravangian will treat the situation. But as I've said before, judging by how he got around the deal Rayse had with Hoid to destroy the breaths Hoid was holding, it seems like he follows things in a very technical way. I'm tapping into my inner Cryptic here, but perspective can change everything. Two people bound by identical contracts to a third party might disagree on whether or not something violates it, with one valuing the contract in spirit and the other being more technical.

Edited February 8, 2023 by Letryx13
Incomplete

Returned · February 8, 2023

59 minutes ago, Letryx13 said:

The problem with using the "spirit of the agreement" is that Rayse was the one that said he honored agreements that way. Taravangian actually wanted to write a contract with Rayse when he made his deal with the Shard. We don't know how Taravangian will treat the situation. But as I've said before, judging by how he got around the deal Rayse had with Hoid to destroy the breaths Hoid was holding, it seems like he follows things in a very technical way. I'm tapping into my inner Cryptic here, but perspective can change everything. Two people bound by identical contracts to a third party might disagree on whether or not something violates it, with one valuing the contract in spirit and the other being more technical.

Meh. I don't find that line of reasoning persuasive. Taravangian is explicitly stated to be bound to the agreement that Rayse struck, and if it's not only possible but convenient and casual to change elements of that agreement in the way you're describing then such a constraint would be meaningless. And then why mention it, or care about it? If Rayse was bound by the spirit of the agreement, and Taravangian has inherited the agreement as it stood, then trying to wriggle through a technicality should have the same consequences for the latter as it would have had for the former. And if the contract just doesn't apply to Taravangian, and what was plainly stated in the book is just wrong, then all bets are off and the contract is meaningless to future events.

As for Hoid's Breaths, is Odium's inability to harm Hoid due to a deal Rayse made with him? I never had that impression, as it seems Shards are (largely) prohibited from just directly harming people in general. But I'm inferring that from events in the Cosmere books and not an authoritative statement, so maybe my impression is mistaken. Hoid certainly has concerns about what would happen to him if Odium caught him on Roshar earlier in SA, and he would know, so we're definitely not working with complete information.

I'm not ruling anything out, and obviously we'll see what happens. But the hyper-legal, hair-splitting approach to the deal has a major issue in that there isn't anyone to appeal to. If Rayse could not violate the spirit of the agreement, that would not be because you could call his manager to complain about it and see him punished. The issues seem more fundamental to the Cosmere and the nature of Shards. A Shard being bound by a promise doesn't mean anything if they can just change their minds or whip up a sophistry to do whatever they want. The Stormfather directly states that if Odium were to break a promise, he would be vulnerable to attack and permanent harm from other Shards (presumably Cultivation).That doesn't sound like a situation where you can make an argument and plead your case, it sounds like a mechanical outcome. We've no reason to think that Taravangian can just elide the whole ordeal. Though as I said above we don't know a whole lot of specifics about what the consequences of breaking the agreement would be for him, and that might be something he's willing to do-- for example, if he persuaded Cultivation not to attack him after breaking the promise, maybe there's no danger at all. But that would, again, mean that it doesn't matter what the contract states or implies.

All that said, Odium is the only Shard we know of that seems to be held to account this way. Preservation straight up violated his deal with Ruin by choosing to do so, and Honor was described as only caring about the letter of an agreement. There is more to unravel here, for sure, but I think that the answers will not be found in discussion of this contract (nor, frankly, do I think we have access to enough information to make informed guesses about any of it).

Edited February 8, 2023 by Returned

Chandlerhimself · February 9, 2023

2 possiblities exist for voiding the contract that I don't think are mentioned here.

If neither champion is willing to fight I imagine it would void the contract. I'm sure you need to pick someone willing to fight before hand, but it seems they could change their mind while fighting. Imagine if Dalinar is beating someone and when they are down and Dalinar is about to strike the finishing blow the person pleads for his life. Dalinar decides not to kill him and the other person doesn't want to fight. Now there are 2 unwilling champions.

Also in the contract it says people from your side can't interfere with the champions. It doesn't say anything about outside forces. The ghostbloods, aimeans and the Shin(I believe) aren't on either side, so if they interfered it would void the contract. Of course neither side could tell them too interfere, but for whatever reason they might do it. I think even cultivation could do it since she doesn't seem to be on human's side.

Now that I think of it cultivation might want to control Roshar herself now. Rayse wanted to control Roshar, but TOdium may not have the same plans. Making the contract void and releasing TOdium would give her Roshar all to herself.

Letryx13 · February 9, 2023

4 hours ago, Returned said:

As for Hoid's Breaths, is Odium's inability to harm Hoid due to a deal Rayse made with him? I never had that impression, as it seems Shards are (largely) prohibited from just directly harming people in general. But I'm inferring that from events in the Cosmere books and not an authoritative statement, so maybe my impression is mistaken. Hoid certainly has concerns about what would happen to him if Odium caught him on Roshar earlier in SA, and he would know, so we're definitely not working with complete information.

I believe Hood mentions he has an agreement with Odium in the chapter where he tells the story of the dog and the dragon to Kaladin. Of course, Hoid is violating that agreement, but as long as Odium doesn't figure that out, he can't touch Hoid. And Odium specifically states in the chapter where he sets terms with Dalinar that his agreement with Honor is what prevents him from harming most people on Roshar.

4 hours ago, Returned said:

Meh. I don't find that line of reasoning persuasive. Taravangian is explicitly stated to be bound to the agreement that Rayse struck, and if it's not only possible but convenient and casual to change elements of that agreement in the way you're describing then such a constraint would be meaningless. And then why mention it, or care about it? If Rayse was bound by the spirit of the agreement, and Taravangian has inherited the agreement as it stood, then trying to wriggle through a technicality should have the same consequences for the latter as it would have had for the former. And if the contract just doesn't apply to Taravangian, and what was plainly stated in the book is just wrong, then all bets are off and the contract is meaningless to future events.

They may be bound by the same agreement, but they may disagree on whether or not something violates it. The agreement itself hasn't changed, but how Taravangian views it could be very different from how Rayse would. For example, imagine a shard was bound by a promise to always speak the truth. One person in that situation may consider omitting essential facts from a statement to be a lie of omission, while a different person doesn't consider it a lie, since nothing untrue was said. One would be capable of it and the other wouldn't be. Also, the key to almost all forms of investiture is intent, and personal perspective is a part of that. Kaladin and Syl have multiple discussions about how killing the parshendi to save Dalinar didn't damage their bond, while him standing back and allowing Elhokar to be assassinated nearly broke their bond. Kaladin eventually concludes that the oaths, which are similar to the rules that bind the Shards, are about perception as much as anything.

4 hours ago, Returned said:

I'm not ruling anything out, and obviously we'll see what happens. But the hyper-legal, hair-splitting approach to the deal has a major issue in that there isn't anyone to appeal to. If Rayse could not violate the spirit of the agreement, that would not be because you could call his manager to complain about it and see him punished. The issues seem more fundamental to the Cosmere and the nature of Shards. A Shard being bound by a promise doesn't mean anything if they can just change their minds or whip up a sophistry to do whatever they want. The Stormfather directly states that if Odium were to break a promise, he would be vulnerable to attack and permanent harm from other Shards (presumably Cultivation).That doesn't sound like a situation where you can make an argument and plead your case, it sounds like a mechanical outcome. We've no reason to think that Taravangian can just elide the whole ordeal. Though as I said above we don't know a whole lot of specifics about what the consequences of breaking the agreement would be for him, and that might be something he's willing to do-- for example, if he persuaded Cultivation not to attack him after breaking the promise, maybe there's no danger at all. But that would, again, mean that it doesn't matter what the contract states or implies.

I think the way the shards are bound by promises this way are that they can't lie to themselves about it. If they truly believe that they are doing something that breaks their word, the power damages them. The nature of the power they hold restricts them that way. Similar to how if a radiant goes against their ideals, as Kaladin did, the bond weakens. No matter how much he told himself that he was justified, he knew all along it was wrong. However, as Kaldin also points out, perspectives among people can be different. Two people can look at the same situation and while being completely honest, can see the situation differently. For example, if a shard were bound to punish someone responsible for some tragedy, if it was debatable who was ultimately responsible for said tragedy, different people in the shard's situation might punish different people.

5 hours ago, Returned said:

All that said, Odium is the only Shard we know of that seems to be held to account this way. Preservation straight up violated his deal with Ruin by choosing to do so, and Honor was described as only caring about the letter of an agreement. There is more to unravel here, for sure, but I think that the answers will not be found in discussion of this contract (nor, frankly, do I think we have access to enough information to make informed guesses about any of it).

Preservation exploited a loophole, which Preservation admits to in secret history. Preservation agreed that Ruin would eventually be allowed to destroy what they had created, but the key word in that statement is eventually. All he really agreed to was not to permanently take away Ruin's ability to destroy what they created. Meaning he couldn't kill Ruin, which he couldn't do anyway, or otherwise permanently render him impotent. He could slow Ruin down indefinitely, but not stop him permanently. Which I part of the reason why I think that it is possible for shards to look at these deals in that kind of way.

As for Honor only caring about the letter of an agreement, the only time I remember anyone describing Honor that way was Odium to Dalinar. Which the source of the information is already unreliable. And if I remember it correctly, he says that all Honor cares about is oaths, not specifically the letter of an agreement. Although I may be misremembering that particular section.

Elder · February 9, 2023

48 minutes ago, Letryx13 said:

I believe Hood mentions he has an agreement with Odium in the chapter where he tells the story of the dog and the dragon to Kaladin. Of course, Hoid is violating that agreement, but as long as Odium doesn't figure that out, he can't touch Hoid. And Odium specifically states in the chapter where he sets terms with Dalinar that his agreement with Honor is what prevents him from harming most people on Roshar.

They may be bound by the same agreement, but they may disagree on whether or not something violates it. The agreement itself hasn't changed, but how Taravangian views it could be very different from how Rayse would. For example, imagine a shard was bound by a promise to always speak the truth. One person in that situation may consider omitting essential facts from a statement to be a lie of omission, while a different person doesn't consider it a lie, since nothing untrue was said. One would be capable of it and the other wouldn't be. Also, the key to almost all forms of investiture is intent, and personal perspective is a part of that. Kaladin and Syl have multiple discussions about how killing the parshendi to save Dalinar didn't damage their bond, while him standing back and allowing Elhokar to be assassinated nearly broke their bond. Kaladin eventually concludes that the oaths, which are similar to the rules that bind the Shards, are about perception as much as anything.

I think the way the shards are bound by promises this way are that they can't lie to themselves about it. If they truly believe that they are doing something that breaks their word, the power damages them. The nature of the power they hold restricts them that way. Similar to how if a radiant goes against their ideals, as Kaladin did, the bond weakens. No matter how much he told himself that he was justified, he knew all along it was wrong. However, as Kaldin also points out, perspectives among people can be different. Two people can look at the same situation and while being completely honest, can see the situation differently. For example, if a shard were bound to punish someone responsible for some tragedy, if it was debatable who was ultimately responsible for said tragedy, different people in the shard's situation might punish different people.

Preservation exploited a loophole, which Preservation admits to in secret history. Preservation agreed that Ruin would eventually be allowed to destroy what they had created, but the key word in that statement is eventually. All he really agreed to was not to permanently take away Ruin's ability to destroy what they created. Meaning he couldn't kill Ruin, which he couldn't do anyway, or otherwise permanently render him impotent. He could slow Ruin down indefinitely, but not stop him permanently. Which I part of the reason why I think that it is possible for shards to look at these deals in that kind of way.

As for Honor only caring about the letter of an agreement, the only time I remember anyone describing Honor that way was Odium to Dalinar. Which the source of the information is already unreliable. And if I remember it correctly, he says that all Honor cares about is oaths, not specifically the letter of an agreement. Although I may be misremembering that particular section.

Stormfather does refute Odium’s claim there.

Returned · February 9, 2023

15 hours ago, Letryx13 said:

I believe Hood mentions he has an agreement with Odium in the chapter where he tells the story of the dog and the dragon to Kaladin. Of course, Hoid is violating that agreement, but as long as Odium doesn't figure that out, he can't touch Hoid. And Odium specifically states in the chapter where he sets terms with Dalinar that his agreement with Honor is what prevents him from harming most people on Roshar.

I'll have to re-read that section regarding a possible agreement with Hoid. But regardless, do we have any examples of a Shard directly striking someone down, even when it would be very convenient or practical for them to do so? I can think of only one, and it's kind of marginal. Food for thought, though it could also be primarily a narrative choice (not much story if a deity blasts the opposition out of existence in an instant).

15 hours ago, Letryx13 said:

For example, imagine a shard was bound by a promise to always speak the truth. One person in that situation may consider omitting essential facts from a statement to be a lie of omission, while a different person doesn't consider it a lie, since nothing untrue was said. One would be capable of it and the other wouldn't be. Also, the key to almost all forms of investiture is intent, and personal perspective is a part of that. Kaladin and Syl have multiple discussions about how killing the parshendi to save Dalinar didn't damage their bond, while him standing back and allowing Elhokar to be assassinated nearly broke their bond. Kaladin eventually concludes that the oaths, which are similar to the rules that bind the Shards, are about perception as much as anything.

It's not impossible, but the "spirit of the contract" is less subjective than you're suggesting here (else it's meaningless, which is also possible). I don't find the "speak the truth" example to be very applicable, though I don't deny that there may exist another example which might be; I understand your argument even without an example. We'll see, eventually, what Taravangian does, but what you're describing is still firmly in the "the contract doesn't matter" territory. Endless loopholes and endless options to exploit them would undermine literally everything about the agreement. If the point of the agreement is that it be upheld as the parties intended to effect a specific outcome, and Odium set specific conditions guaranteeing that which are binding because of Odium itself, it's a massive assumption that the agreement just is fundamentally irrelevant now. Again, not impossible, but indistinguishable from there not being an agreement at all.

I disagree about any similarity between Radiant oaths and Shardic nature being applicable in this way (the Oaths are specifically something Honor's power backs, not a thing about Shards generally). Metalborn, Returned/Awakeners, and Autonomy followers (Automotons?) seem to be able to lie all they want, including to themselves, with no consequences. For the contract specifically, if Intent matters in this way, surely it would be relevant at the creation of the agreement and not when a subsequent party to the agreement feels like not to following it.

15 hours ago, Letryx13 said:

I think the way the shards are bound by promises this way are that they can't lie to themselves about it. If they truly believe that they are doing something that breaks their word, the power damages them. The nature of the power they hold restricts them that way. Similar to how if a radiant goes against their ideals, as Kaladin did, the bond weakens.

An interesting idea, and certainly possibly true. I'd be interested to see how it would play out with the degradation of a Vessel's mind over millennia. But it's also raw speculation without much backing (which is what we're stuck with in discussing these issues for now, I think, no matter what). I'm not sure what we've seen of Autonomy tracks with this, but there's not much clarity there either. The best evidence we have of anything on this topic is still probably what the Stormfather says about the consequences of Odium breaking his word: it would leave him vulnerable to attack. This is somewhat different from the idea that you've posited, though there isn't any reason both couldn't be true.

As above, I don't think that reasoning backwards from Radiants' situations to Shards is sound.

15 hours ago, Letryx13 said:

Preservation exploited a loophole, which Preservation admits to in secret history. [...] He could slow Ruin down indefinitely, but not stop him permanently. Which I part of the reason why I think that it is possible for shards to look at these deals in that kind of way.

I don't think getting into the minutia of this is on-target for the thread, but it's a good example (I'll have to look up that section of Secret History again), though I'll note that Preservation acted in ways that did permanently prevent Ruin from destroying Scadrial. We've largely presumed that that plan was based on peering into the future, and our broad view of those events may be mistaken, but if Preservation did directly act as he did with an eye towards Ruin's permanent failure that would undermine the argument pretty severely. Regardless, if Preservation made use of a loophole that is the opposite of the "spirit of the deal", and so is still an interesting contrast to Odium's situation.

15 hours ago, Letryx13 said:

As for Honor only caring about the letter of an agreement, the only time I remember anyone describing Honor that way was Odium to Dalinar. Which the source of the information is already unreliable. And if I remember it correctly, he says that all Honor cares about is oaths, not specifically the letter of an agreement. Although I may be misremembering that particular section.

When Odium said that all Honor cared about was oaths and not the intent behind them, he was drawing a contrast between Honor and himself to illustrate exactly what I've described here: fulfilling the letter of the oath sworn as different from the spirit of a promise made. If there is a distinction between only caring about the oath and exactly following the letter of an agreement I don't see it; if you feel there is one, perhaps you could explain?

Finally, if we presume that Odium is simply not telling the truth here then we've no reason to rely on anything he's ever said about keeping agreements as true. Which is just another route to saying that the agreement is meaningless to events. Like I said upthread, specific positions boil down to some flavor of the agreement being binding here or not. Loopholes are necessarily the latter, as is the contract not applying to Taravangian.

I'm open to either path (the contract mattering or not). This is obviously not an argument, but I would be extremely disappointed if the outcome of the contract is just "new guy, so no deal". Very dull and unimaginative, particularly for a writer of Sanderson's caliber. Although by the same token maybe he could make such an outcome interesting.

Edited February 9, 2023 by Returned

Letryx13 · February 9, 2023

1 hour ago, Returned said:

I'll have to re-read that section regarding a possible agreement with Hoid. But regardless, do we have any examples of a Shard directly striking someone down, even when it would be very convenient or practical for them to do so? I can think of only one, and it's kind of marginal. Food for thought, though it could also be primarily a narrative choice (not much story if a deity blasts the opposition out of existence in an instant).

We've yet to see a Shard that was both free to harm people and malicious in nature. Both Ruin and Odium were bound by other shards, so that's not helpful. But Hoid said that his soul would be ripped into nothingness if Odium found him breaking their agreement. So it's probably safe to say that Odium would strike someone down if he was able and thought they were a threat to him.

1 hour ago, Returned said:

It's not impossible, but the "spirit of the contract" is less subjective than you're suggesting here (else it's meaningless, which is also possible). I don't find the "speak the truth" example to be very applicable, though I don't deny that there may exist another example which might be; I understand your argument even without an example. We'll see, eventually, what Taravangian does, but what you're describing is still firmly in the "the contract doesn't matter" territory. Endless loopholes and endless options to exploit them would undermine literally everything about the agreement. If the point of the agreement is that it be upheld as the parties intended to effect a specific outcome, and Odium set specific conditions guaranteeing that which are binding because of Odium itself, it's a massive assumption that the agreement just is fundamentally irrelevant now. Again, not impossible, but indistinguishable from there not being an agreement at all. token maybe he could make such an outcome interesting.

I think I'm not explaining my point very well. One of the things that Odium is forbidden to do is harm people. And yet, Taravangian was able to destroy the Breaths Hoid was holding. Taravangian obviously doesn't consider that harming him. But would someone who does view destroying the breaths as causing Hoid harm be able to do the same thing? Rayse likely did. Whether or not he actually breaks the contract doesn't matter as much as whether or not he perceives it as breaking the contract, at least, that's how I see it.

1 hour ago, Returned said:

I disagree about any similarity between Radiant oaths and Shardic nature being applicable in this way (the Oaths are specifically something Honor's power backs, not a thing about Shards generally). Metalborn, Returned/Awakeners, and Autonomy followers (Automotons?) seem to be able to lie all they want, including to themselves, with no consequences. For the contract specifically, if Intent matters in this way, surely it would be relevant at the creation of the agreement and not when a subsequent party to the agreement feels like not to following it.

I don't meant to suggest that the radiant oaths follow the same rules as the shards, although I do find some parallels between them. In fact, I think in a lot of ways that radiants are watered down version of the shards and their vessels. But I just mean that in both cases, the perception of the person holding the power is what defines how it behaves. Kaladin killing someone is acceptable, as long as he perceives it as right, but standing back and allowing someone else be killed is not acceptable, if Kaladin doesn't perceive it as right. I think it's the same with a Shard adhering to a contract. An action doesn't hurt the Shard, unless that shard perceives their action as violating a contract or agreement. Although, I do have to admit, I find it weird that Taravangian is bound by an agreement Rayse made.

1 hour ago, Returned said:

An interesting idea, and certainly possibly true. I'd be interested to see how it would play out with the degradation of a Vessel's mind over millennia. But it's also raw speculation without much backing (which is what we're stuck with in discussing these issues for now, I think, no matter what). I'm not sure what we've seen of Autonomy tracks with this, but there's not much clarity there either. The best evidence we have of anything on this topic is still probably what the Stormfather says about the consequences of Odium breaking his word: it would leave him vulnerable to attack. This is somewhat different from the idea that you've posited, though there isn't any reason both couldn't be true.

If I recall correctly, the StormFather said that the reason Odium didn't want to fight directly was because it risked coaxing out forces that could hurt him. Odium himself was the one that stated harming people would leave him vulnerable to Cultivation to kill him. As for Autonomy, I don't know of any actual contracts or agreements she's made, so we'll have to wait and see on that one. And again, I only use the radiant oaths as an example of the role perception plays. I think the two are similar, in regards to that role.

1 hour ago, Returned said:

I don't think getting into the minutia of this is on-target for the thread, but it's a good example (I'll have to look up that section of Secret History again), though I'll note that Preservation acted in ways that did permanently prevent Ruin from destroying Scadrial. We've largely presumed that that plan was based on peering into the future, and our broad view of those events may be mistaken, but if Preservation did directly act as he did with an eye towards Ruin's permanent failure that would undermine the argument pretty severely. Regardless, if Preservation made use of a loophole that is the opposite of the "spirit of the deal", and so is still an interesting contrast to Odium's situation.

It's about a loophole in one of the few contracts between shards that we've seen, so I'd say it's pretty on point. Preservation may have set things in motion, but Leras himself didn't do anything to kill Ruin. He acted in a way that Vin would be able to do so, but Leras himself never planned to finish Ruin off. Which I suppose is another kind of loophole. If that sort of nuance weren't allowed, then Odium probably wouldn't have been allowed to influence people to fight for him.

2 hours ago, Returned said:

When Odium said that all Honor cared about was oaths and not the intent behind them, he was drawing a contrast between Honor and himself to illustrate exactly what I've described here: fulfilling the letter of the oath sworn as different from the spirit of a promise made. If there is a distinction between only caring about the oath and exactly following the letter of an agreement I don't see it; if you feel there is one, perhaps you could explain?

Again, Odium isn't exactly what I'd call a reliable source of information in regards to Honor. The StormFather confirmed he lied about caring only about oaths. And the difference is about perception. If two people perceive an oath or agreement differently, with one person seeing it more as a matter of a matter of the general intent and the other seeing it as strict rules to follow, then they might act differently, while both still believing themselves to be in adherence to that role.

2 hours ago, Returned said:

Finally, if we presume that Odium is simply not telling the truth here then we've no reason to rely on anything he's ever said about keeping agreements as true. Which is just another route to saying that the agreement is meaningless to events. Like I said upthread, specific positions boil down to some flavor of the agreement being binding here or not. Loopholes are necessarily the latter, as is the contract not applying to Taravangian.

I get the feeling that Odium has been honest about the consequences of breaking oaths, especially the part about ripping a hole in his soul that would allow Cultivation to kill him. The way the shards seem to have trouble going against the nature of the power they hold seems similar to how the StormFather describes taking any action that goes against his nature causing him pain. However, I'm hoping that he was telling the truth completely, so that if Dalinar or his side can force Odium to break his word somehow (as I suggested in previous comments) then Dalinar can make Odium return to Braize and never influence, empower, or interact with anyone ever again.

2 hours ago, Returned said:

I'm open to either path (the contract mattering or not). This is obviously not an argument, but I would be extremely disappointed if the outcome of the contract is just "new guy, so no deal". Very dull and unimaginative, particularly for a writer of Sanderson's caliber. Although by the same token maybe he could make such an outcome interesting.

Agreed. Vin was able to get around Preservation's deal with Ruin because she'd only held the power for a few hours, but if she'd somehow survived and held the power longer, it might have injured her for killing Ruin. Taravangian will have held the power for nearly ten days by the time of the contest, so that should be enough time for the power to have a grip on him. I think it's impossible for the contract not to matter completely. And if anything, Taravangian's more technical way of looking at things may be his undoing.

cometaryorbit · February 9, 2023

I'm not sure if Preservation's example proves anything either way. Odium isn't literally physically incapable of breaking his word, but doing so would make him vulnerable to being killed by Cultivation. Preservation *did* die as a result of what he did - mostly at the time of imprisoning Ruin, and finally 100% dead once Ruin escaped. So Preservation might have been just as bound as Odium is ... simply willing to sacrifice himself, unlike Odium.

I do think what is "keeping an oath" is Intent based. Yes, Radiant oaths are essentially Honor based, but Intent and Command are broader cosmere mechanics. I think the reason breaking an oath would make a "hole" in Odium is because his power would now be committed to two opposite Intents (or maybe an Intent - to break the oath - opposing a Command - the oath itself).

So if Taravangian sees the world differently from Rayse (and I'm sure he does) he might interpret the oath differently. IMO that's not exactly the same thing as looking for loopholes per se.

I think the reason T is bound by Rayse's deal is because they're both Odium. The deal is tied to the power of the Shard itself, not the Vessel.

The Stormfather in OB says something to the effect of "Odium is a force like gravity or the movement of time. These things cannot break their own rules. Neither can he." It's Odium itself that is bound to the oath, and its power will compel T. He could break it, sure - even Rayse could, and T could surely do so more easily as he's a new Vessel - but the power would still be affected and make him vulnerable.

Edited February 9, 2023 by cometaryorbit

alder24 · February 9, 2023

20 minutes ago, Letryx13 said:

It's about a loophole in one of the few contracts between shards that we've seen, so I'd say it's pretty on point. Preservation may have set things in motion, but Leras himself didn't do anything to kill Ruin. He acted in a way that Vin would be able to do so, but Leras himself never planned to finish Ruin off. Which I suppose is another kind of loophole.

I don't think Preservation used any loophole, he just straight up broke the agreement.

Spoiler

Kyrroti

Shards can't break oaths, and new Vessels have to follow previous Shards' deals. Ruin and Preservation made a deal. Does Harmony have to follow that deal?

Brandon Sanderson

The Ruin and Preservation deal is considered fulfilled. There's a lot of things going on in here. The way that oaths work, perception is still important. And Shards can break deals, it gives others a way to get at them. Odium could break his deal, but if he did, that's very dangerous to those who would seek to have advantage against him. I think fulfilled is the wrong term, the deal between Ruin and Preservation is broken, and no longer in force because it was broken. This does leave Ruin with more advantage in this situation, but they're the same individual, so I'm sure that's just fine! No problems at all! Everybody's doing just great.

Dragonsteel Mini-Con 2021 (Nov. 22, 2021)

24 minutes ago, Letryx13 said:

One of the things that Odium is forbidden to do is harm people.

Can you provide the source for that? I remember Odium saying only that he can't break the contract he was making with Dalinar because that would leave him exposed. And Hoid is violating agreements he makes, Odium doesn't like him, so that might be the reason why Odium would destroy him.

Spoiler

Questioner

Memory is tied to some level or portion of Spiritual Identity, or else Feruchemists would not be able to store it. So, Hoid lost memories at the end of Rhythm of War in his exchange with Odium. Would that mean part of his soul was stolen and then absorbed into Odium, and if so, what is stopping Odium from doing that with all of his enemies?

Brandon Sanderson

Basically, what Odium split off is stuff that Hoid is storing in excess Investiture. (Basically, it was Breaths, in Hoid’s case.) And this sort of thing, where this extra memory… One of the reasons that Hoid is able to function better than, perhaps, some other very long-lived individuals is: he has found out how to keep some of this Identity in, shall we say, SD cards made of Investiture. Imagine that sort of thing. So what Odium was stealing from Hoid was straight out of an SD card. Which means that it’s not nearly as deeply ripping into someone’s soul, and it is also not nearly as noticeable.

But the other thing is: Hoid is directly in violation of certain agreements that have been made, which therefore exposes him to… He is lacking protections. As you’ll notice in the end of Book Three, where he’s like, “I need to be careful, because I am in violation.”

And so, there’s a couple things going on here. Number one, much more easy to access those memories. Number two, Hoid’s in direct violation and under no protections of any sorts of agreements and things like this.

Dragonsteel 2022 (Nov. 14, 2022)

And I think interpretation of oaths by Shard does matter:

Spoiler

Paladin Brewer

Out of all the Shards, why does Odium go for Devotion and Dominion?

Brandon Sanderson

He targets people with two kinds of ideas. Number one, he can argue they're breaking the rules they set out. And two, people he thinks are a good match for him, or a challenge, or a danger.

Oathbringer Houston signing (Nov. 18, 2017)

Returned · February 9, 2023

@alder24 Great finds on those quotes, thanks for bringing them in!

1 hour ago, Letryx13 said:

I think I'm not explaining my point very well. One of the things that Odium is forbidden to do is harm people. And yet, Taravangian was able to destroy the Breaths Hoid was holding. Taravangian obviously doesn't consider that harming him. But would someone who does view destroying the breaths as causing Hoid harm be able to do the same thing? Rayse likely did. Whether or not he actually breaks the contract doesn't matter as much as whether or not he perceives it as breaking the contract, at least, that's how I see it.

I think that I understand your position. And assuming that I'm correct in that, I understand where you're coming from, and it's not impossible-- this is a valid possibility. But this is a zero-evidence claim, which boils down to assuming your conclusion is true and then using that presumed truth to interpret events so that they support the assumed conclusion. This was a very specific situation in which Taravangian had a very specific goal (to avoid revealing information about his Ascension to Hoid while still interacting with him), and fiddled with the Breaths in which the relevant memories were stored to accomplish it. I don't see any reason to believe that Rayse had any interest in doing something similar at any point in the books, ever, never mind having an opportunity to do so through this mechanism but declining or being prohibited from doing it. Maybe it's the case, but beyond your claim that it is there isn't any support for it (yet, and that I've seen).

Reiterating that you believe it was as you describe because you believe it was as you describe isn't going to be convincing to me, though I would be interested in seeing other instances of Shards' behavior which might independently suggest that this interpretation 1. is indeed a factor which binds Shards, and 2. can be warped in this way. Please do bring it up again in discussion with me for any review of existing Cosmere material or any new material which is released in future years-- I really am interested in the idea, even though I don't think it has legs yet.

1 hour ago, Letryx13 said:

I don't meant to suggest that the radiant oaths follow the same rules as the shards, although I do find some parallels between them. In fact, I think in a lot of ways that radiants are watered down version of the shards and their vessels. But I just mean that in both cases, the perception of the person holding the power is what defines how it behaves. [...] An action doesn't hurt the Shard, unless that shard perceives their action as violating a contract or agreement. Although, I do have to admit, I find it weird that Taravangian is bound by an agreement Rayse made.

Yup, I get it. It's fine as a metaphor to explain the ideas you're putting out (which I think it does well), but I don't think it extends beyond that at all. So I understand the comparison, but the one is not an example that supports the other.

1 hour ago, Letryx13 said:

It's about a loophole in one of the few contracts between shards that we've seen, so I'd say it's pretty on point.

Only if we assume that loopholes are workable in this way. I'd say that the WoB posted by @alder24, above, discredits it completely in this case.

1 hour ago, Letryx13 said:

Again, Odium isn't exactly what I'd call a reliable source of information in regards to Honor. The StormFather confirmed he lied about caring only about oaths. And the difference is about perception. If two people perceive an oath or agreement differently, with one person seeing it more as a matter of a matter of the general intent and the other seeing it as strict rules to follow, then they might act differently, while both still believing themselves to be in adherence to that role.

If we don't trust Odium's word at all, then we've no reason to think that anything he's said is true. That's fine, but then everything is suspect (including the contract) in every possible way. The Stormfather stated that Odium lied in saying that Honor didn't care about people or their feelings, not that Honor was flexible in interpreting oaths. We also know that, towards the end of his existence, Honor changed and became more obsessed with oaths ("ranting" or "raving" about them, I forget the exact word). Maybe there was a shift from one view to the other? As for perception of the agreement, again, what you are saying 100% eliminates any value to statements about the "spirit" of the agreement. Unless we assume your position about Shards' inability to lie to themselves, which I've addressed above. We either have some basis for interpreting the contract, or we have none.

1 hour ago, Letryx13 said:

I get the feeling that Odium has been honest about the consequences of breaking oaths [...]

Meaningless if we're simultaneously using his unreliability to discount other things he's said, unless we bring in evidence from outside to support specific items. We don't have a whole lot of external evidence, so his statements can either be viewed as reliable or unreliable and we can hedge our thoughts accordingly. It's not a buffet, where we must take some things he says as fact but then totally ignore others based on preference. I'm not suggesting that anyone should abandon their impressions or opinions on the matter, or on what they think will happen in future books. But one reader's feelings aren't really evidence, so they aren't likely to convince me of anything.

1 hour ago, Letryx13 said:

I think it's impossible for the contract not to matter completely. And if anything, Taravangian's more technical way of looking at things may be his undoing.

My guess (and that's all it is!) is that Taravangian will manipulate events such that the outcome of the contest is meaningless to Dalinar's goals, reflecting Taravangian's different goals (compared to Rayse), mindset, mental capacities, and lesser degradation due to holding Odium. No loopholes, but a change in the game. We'll see!

1 hour ago, cometaryorbit said:

I think the reason T is bound by Rayse's deal is because they're both Odium. The deal is tied to the power of the Shard itself, not the Vessel.

The Stormfather in OB says something to the effect of "Odium is a force like gravity or the movement of time. These things cannot break their own rules. Neither can he." It's Odium itself that is bound to the oath, and its power will compel T. He could break it, sure - even Rayse could, and T could surely do so more easily as he's a new Vessel - but the power would still be affected and make him vulnerable.

That's my impression as well. I just don't think that there is flexibility built into this-- being bound by the deal is being bound by the deal. Reinterpreting it, even passively, would be installing a different deal, one which Odium did not make.

Maybe I've been too forceful on this, though. I guess that my essential position is that the contest issue isn't going to be resolved by the deal being technically upheld but still different than we think due to some fussy, technical maneuvering or similar cheat. Intentionally treating the deal differently than he knows Dalinar expected it would be when he agreed to it seems to me that it should bring down on Taravangian all of the possible consequences of Odium simply violating it. Other possibilities exist, but for now I've not found suggestions that any of them are more likely to be what happens to be persuasive.

I also want to make explicitly clear that I really appreciate people engaging with me in the discussion. I like hearing the other ideas and thinking about how they might be woven into the broader Cosmere, even when I'm not persuaded. And the most likely possibility might be that we're all wrong anyways

Edited February 9, 2023 by Returned

cometaryorbit · February 9, 2023

37 minutes ago, Returned said:

That's my impression as well. I just don't think that there is flexibility built into this-- being bound by the deal is being bound by the deal. Reinterpreting it, even passively, would be installing a different deal, one which Odium did not make.

Maybe I've been too forceful on this, though. I guess that my essential position is that the contest issue isn't going to be resolved by the deal being technically upheld but still different than we think due to some fussy, technical maneuvering or similar cheat. Intentionally treating the deal differently than he knows Dalinar expected it would be when he agreed to it seems to me that it should bring down on Taravangian all of the possible consequences of Odium simply violating it.

Hmm, I disagree there. I don't think Odium is bound to *what Dalinar expected*, I think he's bound to what he actually agreed to.

I think T-Odium is still bound by Rayse-Odium's Intent *as expressed in the words of the deal* (that is, I don't think he can necessarily play wording games as such). But I do think he can do things that don't directly contradict the deal (in words or the Intent expressed in its words) but do subvert it in some way (including possibly the broader lower-case intent of settling the war with this contest). Taravangian is smarter than Rayse, and less transformed by the Shard. He can think of things Rayse couldn't. If Rayse explicitly Intended to exclude a tactic (even if it wasn't spelled out in words) then I think Taravangian doing that would break the deal. But if Rayse never considered and rejected a possibility, and it's not excluded by the words, then T might not be bound.

I also think reinterpreting it passively is very different from intentionally treating it differently, unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "passively". If Taravangian's different mindset and background sees the bargain as meaning something slightly different than Rayse did, I don't think that's *intentionally* changing it.

And there *are* terms in the deal that can be ambiguous- "unharmed by either side" especially. That sounds like it means that a champion being harmed by their own side's forces would void it, but is that really what's meant? If so, voiding it would be super easy. Also, what counts as harm? Does only physical harm count, or would emotional trauma qualify? Would physical pain with no lasting physical effects (eg Navani's pain-knife) count? I think, say, Kaladin would consider trauma to count but most other Alethi wouldn't. I don't know where T would fall. But if Rayse saw it one way and T saw it the other, that's not intentionally changing the deal, that's just honestly differing interpretations of the same words.

Also, does Taravangian know Rayse's exact Intent, or only what was said? If Rayse didn't intend to allow harming your own champion to void the contest, but worded it that way because he was dumb or sloppy, would T necessarily know that?

EDIT: One reason I expect the deal to be voided in some way or broken is the 10-day time span. I can't really see all of the book taking place in just 10 days, given everything outside the contest it seems set up to cover (Szeth's crusade against the Stone Shamans, Kaladin chasing Ishar, Adolin and Shallan chasing BAM and healing Maya).

Edited February 9, 2023 by cometaryorbit

Returned · February 9, 2023

1 hour ago, cometaryorbit said:

Hmm, I disagree there. I don't think Odium is bound to *what Dalinar expected*, I think he's bound to what he actually agreed to.

I'm really not interested in re-typing the same thing any further-- if you don't think that the statement that Odium made that he will keep the deal in spirit has any relevance, then there's nothing more to discuss on that score. The terms of the contract then become functionally irrelevant, both because you can get crazy with loopholes (oh, I meant days as measured on this other planet where each one lasts 10,000 Rosharan years) and because ambiguous clauses become impossible to resolve in any way.

The idea that Taravangian can't play word games just doesn't match the interpretation you're advancing. Why not? We may as well not talk about the contract at all with this interpretation, because there isn't any reason to think of it as a guide to what anyone has to do. If Taravangian can have any interpretation at all of the terms of the deal, then we're in the same place; indeed, the very idea of a variable interpretation of a contract like this butts against the "spirit of the deal" concept. How can there be a contract if both sides have totally different ideas about what it is? What if Taravangian has a "different interpretation" of one of Dalinar's obligations? Does Dalinar just immediately lose, or is he suddenly a contract-breaker? I'll say it again, as clearly as I can. If you think that loopholes or variable interpretations are viable, then there is no contract in any meaningful sense, so why bother talking about anything that was agreed to?

I'll leave you with this as well: Hoid helped draft this contract and prepare Dalinar for the negotiation, and his influence was so obvious that Odium knew it immediately. It's not a complicated agreement. Suggesting that loopholes are a viable method of getting out of the obligations it imposes is as simple as "oh, I thought you meant [whatever], so I guess you're screwed" doesn't mesh with this very well. Hoid is no fool, though he plays one, and he seems to know as much about Shards as the Shards themselves do. It's not impossible that changing Vessels could frustrate everything, but every argument that loopholes might be effective would apply to Rayse just as well as Taravangian. If the contract exists (as discussed in the paragraph above) and was good enough to handle Rayse, it should be good enough to handle Taravangian. Maybe it isn't! I think that would be a brutal anticlimax, but that doesn't mean it can't or won't happen.

1 hour ago, cometaryorbit said:

If Rayse explicitly Intended to exclude a tactic (even if it wasn't spelled out in words) then I think Taravangian doing that would break the deal. But if Rayse never considered and rejected a possibility, and it's not excluded by the words, then T might not be bound.

I don't see a reason that only negative obligations would be binding in the way we're discussing. Given this argument, if Rayse intended to follow the contract as a natural reading of it would suggest, then Odium should be bound to approach the contract in that manner. "I will do X in manner Y" doesn't give more wiggle room than "I will not do X".

1 hour ago, cometaryorbit said:

Also, does Taravangian know Rayse's exact Intent, or only what was said? If Rayse didn't intend to allow harming your own champion to void the contest, but worded it that way because he was dumb or sloppy, would T necessarily know that?

If the obligation is enforced by the Shard itself retaining it, and the Vessel is bound by the Shard's retention of that obligation, it shouldn't matter. I suspect that Taravangian fully understands the constraints he's under if the Shard's power is what's enforcing them, much like Sazed knew everything that his Shards' powers had done. If Taravangian is somehow unclear on this then he should be extra cautious about taking the risks of violating it and avoid getting too cute playing with the terms.

1 hour ago, cometaryorbit said:

EDIT: One reason I expect the deal to be voided in some way or broken is the 10-day time span. I can't really see all of the book taking place in just 10 days, given everything outside the contest it seems set up to cover (Szeth's crusade against the Stone Shamans, Kaladin chasing Ishar, Adolin and Shallan chasing BAM and healing Maya).

You can fit a lot of action into ten days. How many pages did the battle outside of Thaylen City take up, and how much time did they cover? We also know that the Stormfather and Bondsmiths can fiddle with the rate of time passing, so we might get more than ten days' worth of activity out of ten calendar days.

This also assumes that the contest is the climax of the whole book. It's not an unreasonable assumption, but I don't think it's necessarily so any more than Vin's first foray into Kredik Shaw had to be the climax of Final Empire. There is no guarantee that our favorite plot threads will be resolved in the next book (a possibility that I am more aware of than ever after Lost Metal).

Like you, I don't think that the contest will unfold totally as expected and also wrap up the story as the agreement suggests. But there has been a lot of setup over it just to have a rug pull over something as small and fussy as a loophole, cancellation, or postponement.

Edited February 9, 2023 by Returned

Letryx13 · February 10, 2023

18 hours ago, alder24 said:

I don't think Preservation used any loophole, he just straight up broke the agreement.

Leras says himself that he exploited a loophole, but I admit, it comes extremely close to breaking his agreement with Ruin. The deal could probably be considered to have been broken by Vin, but since the shard wasn't fully integrated into her soul and she didn't survive anyway, that doesn't really matter.

18 hours ago, alder24 said:

Can you provide the source for that? I remember Odium saying only that he can't break the contract he was making with Dalinar because that would leave him exposed. And Hoid is violating agreements he makes, Odium doesn't like him, so that might be the reason why Odium would destroy him.

The important point is that Odium doesn't know that Hoid is violating the agreements. He probably suspects it, but unless he can know for certain, he can't take direct action against Hoid without causing harm to himself. That's why Hoid couldn't keep the bubble going during the chapter The Dog and the Dragon. Hoid says Odium will notice if he keeps it going too long, and admits to violating their agreement which exposes him to Odium's direct action. In the chapter Terms, Odium says Honor's restriction prevent him from using his powers on most individuals. And in one of the interludes, Jah-Anat tells Taravangian that he is no longer exempt from Odium's actions, I assume because he made a deal to work for Odium.

18 hours ago, Returned said:

I think that I understand your position. And assuming that I'm correct in that, I understand where you're coming from, and it's not impossible-- this is a valid possibility. But this is a zero-evidence claim, which boils down to assuming your conclusion is true and then using that presumed truth to interpret events so that they support the assumed conclusion. This was a very specific situation in which Taravangian had a very specific goal (to avoid revealing information about his Ascension to Hoid while still interacting with him), and fiddled with the Breaths in which the relevant memories were stored to accomplish it. I don't see any reason to believe that Rayse had any interest in doing something similar at any point in the books, ever, never mind having an opportunity to do so through this mechanism but declining or being prohibited from doing it. Maybe it's the case, but beyond your claim that it is there isn't any support for it (yet, and that I've seen).

Considering that Rayse knew full well that Hoid was acting against him (he had proof in the contract Dalinar tried to get Odium to agree to, if nothing else) there's no reason to think that Odium wouldn't hurt Hoid if he could without hurting himself. And yet Rayse never did. He knew Hoid was an enemy and was working with Dalinar, so why wouldn't Rayse want to something, anything, that could hinder the people he was fighting against. I admit this is largely speculation and it could be because Rayse never found Hoid before the RoW epilogue, but if that's the case, then why would Hoid risk exposing himself? It doesn't make sense. Besides, Rayse seems to have had a specific hatred for Hoid, beyond what he feels for most people. It's hard to imagine he wouldn't do anything he could do to Hoid, just out of spite. And on the other hand, the only thing we really have to support shard honoring agreements in spirit is the one time Rayse told Taravangian that. I think he meant it, but I also think that's how Rayse chooses to interpret agreements.

18 hours ago, Returned said:

Reiterating that you believe it was as you describe because you believe it was as you describe isn't going to be convincing to me, though I would be interested in seeing other instances of Shards' behavior which might independently suggest that this interpretation 1. is indeed a factor which binds Shards, and 2. can be warped in this way. Please do bring it up again in discussion with me for any review of existing Cosmere material or any new material which is released in future years-- I really am interested in the idea, even though I don't think it has legs yet.

Well, there is one other example that came to me. Although I suppose it's more about the way the shards perceptions their own nature influence their actions. Ruin was able to create things, Sazed specifically points this out, if it meant he could use it to destroy more than he created. On the other hand, the original Preservation was unable to harm Elend on his own, even to try and stop Ruin, and save more than he destroyed. That's about the shard's nature itself, not an agreement, but the two overlap. Granted, these are two different shards, but their acceptance of actions that go against their individual natures differ.

18 hours ago, Returned said:

Yup, I get it. It's fine as a metaphor to explain the ideas you're putting out (which I think it does well), but I don't think it extends beyond that at all. So I understand the comparison, but the one is not an example that supports the other.

Well, I suppose that depends on how similar the Nahel bond is to what the Shards are. I admit this is my interpretation, but the way spren choose their knights, and guide them toward ideals seems very similar to how the power of Preservation chose Vin and how Leras wasn't able to deliberately harm someone.

19 hours ago, Returned said:

Only if we assume that loopholes are workable in this way. I'd say that the WoB posted by @alder24, above, discredits it completely in this case.

In the WoB, he says the contract was broken. But when exactly was it broken, and by whom? I do consider Vin to have broken the deal, but Leras specifically states that he exploited a loophole.

19 hours ago, Returned said:

If we don't trust Odium's word at all, then we've no reason to think that anything he's said is true. That's fine, but then everything is suspect (including the contract) in every possible way. The Stormfather stated that Odium lied in saying that Honor didn't care about people or their feelings, not that Honor was flexible in interpreting oaths. We also know that, towards the end of his existence, Honor changed and became more obsessed with oaths ("ranting" or "raving" about them, I forget the exact word). Maybe there was a shift from one view to the other? As for perception of the agreement, again, what you are saying 100% eliminates any value to statements about the "spirit" of the agreement. Unless we assume your position about Shards' inability to lie to themselves, which I've addressed above. We either have some basis for interpreting the contract, or we have none.

I don't remember exactly, but I don't think Odium actually said Honor was letter of the law when it came to oaths. I thought he just said oaths were all Honor cared about, not about how someone adhered to them. And again, I'm not saying the spirit of an agreement is irrelevant, I'm saying how a shard perceives an oath determines whether or not they follow an oath in spirit or more technically.

19 hours ago, Returned said:

Meaningless if we're simultaneously using his unreliability to discount other things he's said, unless we bring in evidence from outside to support specific items. We don't have a whole lot of external evidence, so his statements can either be viewed as reliable or unreliable and we can hedge our thoughts accordingly. It's not a buffet, where we must take some things he says as fact but then totally ignore others based on preference. I'm not suggesting that anyone should abandon their impressions or opinions on the matter, or on what they think will happen in future books. But one reader's feelings aren't really evidence, so they aren't likely to convince me of anything.

My guess (and that's all it is!) is that Taravangian will manipulate events such that the outcome of the contest is meaningless to Dalinar's goals, reflecting Taravangian's different goals (compared to Rayse), mindset, mental capacities, and lesser degradation due to holding Odium. No loopholes, but a change in the game. We'll see!

The way he described it, with the contest only working if both he and Dalinar entered into the agreement in good faith, suggests he was being honest about that part. His description of Honor is a completely separate matter. In the conversation with Dalinar where he was describing Honor, Odium was trying to win Dalinar over, and convince him that Honor hadn't been so wonderful, and that he, Odium, wasn't so bad. It makes sense that he would be less than honest in that situation, or at least very biased. But if he could lie about the contest and what was at stake, then he didn't need to say anything about being in Dalinar's power if he broke his word or about Dalinar being in his power if Dalinar broke his word. He'd already implied to Dalinar that Cultivation could kill him if he killed the StormFather. Approaching a contest or agreement in good faith requires candid honesty, so it's unlikely he was lying or holding anything back in the conversation where he and Dalinar set term.

My original theory, that Dalinar or his champion will win and but Odium will somehow be unable to fulfill his end of the deal, which results in Odium being in Dalinar's power. These two factors tie together in terms of Odium's honesty and how literally the contract is interpreted. Odium is required to return Alethkar and Herdaz to Dalinar if Dalinar wins. But if he doesn't have them to return anymore (maybe the radiants recover Herdaz somehow or a third party claims Alethkar) is Odium violating the agreement between the two? If someone looked at the spirit of the agreement, then Odium abandoning the two countries could be seen as still fullfilling the contract. But a more literal interpretation could call that violating the agreement, since Odium didn't return the countries and their people to Dalinar. Which is why I think someone with a more literal interpretation of contracts, such as someone like Taravangian who wanted to write out a contract with Rayse, could change how the contract is viewed.

19 hours ago, cometaryorbit said:

I also think reinterpreting it passively is very different from intentionally treating it differently, unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "passively". If Taravangian's different mindset and background sees the bargain as meaning something slightly different than Rayse did, I don't think that's *intentionally* changing it.

And there *are* terms in the deal that can be ambiguous- "unharmed by either side" especially. That sounds like it means that a champion being harmed by their own side's forces would void it, but is that really what's meant? If so, voiding it would be super easy. Also, what counts as harm? Does only physical harm count, or would emotional trauma qualify? Would physical pain with no lasting physical effects (eg Navani's pain-knife) count? I think, say, Kaladin would consider trauma to count but most other Alethi wouldn't. I don't know where T would fall. But if Rayse saw it one way and T saw it the other, that's not intentionally changing the deal, that's just honestly differing interpretations of the same words.

This is exactly what I mean. Mindset and perception can change what someone will do and consider acceptable even if bound by the same set of rules.

And I agree there are plenty of nuances in agreements with things are debatable, such as what constitutes harm.

Loophole in the contract

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

slavagh

alder24

alder24

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Kyrroti

Brandon Sanderson

Questioner

Brandon Sanderson

Paladin Brewer

Brandon Sanderson

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Recently Browsing 0 members