The Tragedy of the Three Shards

[kari-no-sugata]

The way I see it, Kaladin's anger is perhaps his biggest strength (in that he uses it to motivate himself even in the worst situations) and his biggest weakness (when it blinds him to reality). Or you could view his anger as being tied into his desire to protect - his failures make him angry both at himself and those he feels are making things worse (ie the lighteyes). In WoR he doesn't really have a way to release his anger in a constructive manner and directs it against the lighteyes - he ends up in a downward spiral until the chasm scenes with Shallan where he starts to recover after becoming able to see lighteyes in general as fellow humans.

 

Here's an interesting quote from tWoK chapter 4 after Tvlakv mentions Amaram:

 

How had he known? How had he heard about Amaram? I'll find him, Kaladin thought. I'll gut him with my own hands. I'll twist his head right off his neck, I'll-

 

Yep, chapter 4. Anger like that isn't just going to vanish.

 

 

Also, consider this quote from WoR chapter 46 (Patriots):

 

Someone needs to put Sadeas down, Kaladin thought, sipping his drink, swishing the cool liquid in his mouth. He's as bad as Amaram - tried to get me and mine killed repeatedly. Don't I have reason, even right, to return the favor?

 

Kaladin was learning how to do what the assassin did - how to run up walls, maybe reach windows that were thought inaccessible. He could visit Sadeas's camp in the night. Glowing, violent...

 

Kaladin could bring justice to this world.

 

His gut told him that there was something wrong with that reasoning, but he had trouble producing it logically.

 

Kaladin's problems are internal and not because of Syl - she's externalising his problem, not causing it.

[Shaggai]

The way I see it, Kaladin's anger is perhaps his biggest strength (in that he uses it to motivate himself even in the worst situations) and his biggest weakness (when it blinds him to reality). Or you could view his anger as being tied into his desire to protect - his failures make him angry both at himself and those he feels are making things worse (ie the lighteyes). In WoR he doesn't really have a way to release his anger in a constructive manner and directs it against the lighteyes - he ends up in a downward spiral until the chasm scenes with Shallan where he starts to recover after becoming able to see lighteyes in general as fellow humans.

 

Here's an interesting quote from tWoK chapter 4 after Tvlakv mentions Amaram:

 

 

Yep, chapter 4. Anger like that isn't just going to vanish.

 

 

Also, consider this quote from WoR chapter 46 (Patriots):

 

 

Kaladin's problems are internal and not because of Syl - she's externalising his problem, not causing it.

Those problems are either because of him, or because of the influence of Odium. Syl is in no way causing his hatred.

 

I feel like with Kaladin's situation, the reason Syl died was not because he subscribed to a faulty idea of honor and chose to broke that. Syl represents his choice to protect and lead people. She formed the bond with him because of his instincts to protect and lead, not because she just randomly showed up and ordered Kaladin to lead and protect. Kaladin killed Syl because he was going against his own personal moral code: he was doing something that his instincts thought was wrong, even though he didn't consciously realize it at the time. It's similar to getting into a heated argument with a friend and saying something terribly rude to them without thinking. You know it is wrong as an abstract concept. However, you still do it anyway because you're caught up in emotion. I feel this is how Kaladin broke the bond. He did something he knew was wrong -- choosing to assassinate the king -- because he was caught up in emotion. 

 

You may argue that Kaladin is being forced to be good. However, I see it more as him betraying himself, sinking to a lower position in order to get petty vengeance for himself. Syl is a physical representation of his ideals to protect and lead. When he stops protecting and leading, she dies. Honor didn't kill her. Kaladin killed her himself, out of a very selfish and hateful need to get revenge. I think you're taking Kaladin's responsibility of killing Syl away from him and giving it to Honor.  Yes, the effects were devastating and he lost his Radiant powers, but that was his fault. He regains Syl and the powers when he is once again true to himself and stops degenerating. 

Sure, and in that situation it makes sense. I personally still find it morally repugnant that, by its very nature, it kills someone, but in that situation it's not such a big deal because all he has to do is do what he actually thinks is right. The real problem here isn't situations like that. The problem is that he's still bound to the oaths, even if he legitimately thinks they're wrong. What if he meets Taravangian and decides that the Diagram is the best hope for Roshar? His oaths preclude him from accepting some of the tenets of the Diagram, no matter what he thinks about it morally. That seems horrifying to me. (Unless the Third Oath's addendum "as long as it is right" means that he gets an exception if he really believes it. But that kind of defeats the purpose of the oath.)

[Arondell]

Those problems are either because of him, or because of the influence of Odium. Syl is in no way causing his hatred.

 

Sure, and in that situation it makes sense. I personally still find it morally repugnant that, by its very nature, it kills someone, but in that situation it's not such a big deal because all he has to do is do what he actually thinks is right. The real problem here isn't situations like that. The problem is that he's still bound to the oaths, even if he legitimately thinks they're wrong. What if he meets Taravangian and decides that the Diagram is the best hope for Roshar? His oaths preclude him from accepting some of the tenets of the Diagram, no matter what he thinks about it morally. That seems horrifying to me. (Unless the Third Oath's addendum "as long as it is right" means that he gets an exception if he really believes it. But that kind of defeats the purpose of the oath.)

 

 

Does simply renouncing the oaths necessarily kill your spren?  I had the impression up until the bridge collapse that the bond was simply dissolving.  I thought it wasn't Kaladin renouncing his oaths but Syl forcing stormlight through the almost broken bond that caused her to nearly die.  The brief fight between Kaladin and Adolin on the training grounds shows that Kaladin can't force Syl to give the stormlight when she thinks he shouldn't have any.

[Shaggai]

Does simply renouncing the oaths necessarily kill your spren?  I had the impression up until the bridge collapse that the bond was simply dissolving.  I thought it wasn't Kaladin renouncing his oaths but Syl forcing stormlight through the almost broken bond that caused her to nearly die.  The brief fight between Kaladin and Adolin on the training grounds shows that Kaladin can't force Syl to give the stormlight when she thinks he shouldn't have any.

You might be right on that. Syl did seem to just be reverting to her past state, as opposed to dying. So yes, that instance wasn't particularly bad. However, the implications of the bond on Kaladin's future are not good. At this point, the bond is strong enough that Syl can manifest as a Blade. As far as I can tell, it's too strong to simply be dissolved at this point. If he breaks his oaths, she dies.

[Moogle]

Does simply renouncing the oaths necessarily kill your spren?  I had the impression up until the bridge collapse that the bond was simply dissolving.  I thought it wasn't Kaladin renouncing his oaths but Syl forcing stormlight through the almost broken bond that caused her to nearly die.  The brief fight between Kaladin and Adolin on the training grounds shows that Kaladin can't force Syl to give the stormlight when she thinks he shouldn't have any.

 

Before, it sounds like it wouldn't have killed Syl, but we have a WoB that Syl would now be stuck as a Shardblade.

 

Q:  If after speaking the Third Ideal, Kaladin were to betray his oaths, would Syl turn into a Shardblade?

A:  Yes.

(source)

Edited July 10, 2014 by Moogle

[Arondell]

Before, it sounds like it wouldn't have killed Syl, but we have a WoB that Syl would now be stuck as a Shardblade.

 

I suspect before the recreance these kind of situations were handled far better.  At least with older knights around to mentor the new recruits they could give them a better idea of the pitfalls and exactly what it is they are agreeing too when they speak the oaths.  From the spren point of view I find it interesting that Pattern expects to eventually die from broken oaths.  To him it seems inevitable but worth the cost.

Edited July 10, 2014 by Arondell

[Chrono]

 

Sure, and in that situation it makes sense. I personally still find it morally repugnant that, by its very nature, it kills someone, but in that situation it's not such a big deal because all he has to do is do what he actually thinks is right. The real problem here isn't situations like that. The problem is that he's still bound to the oaths, even if he legitimately thinks they're wrong. What if he meets Taravangian and decides that the Diagram is the best hope for Roshar? His oaths preclude him from accepting some of the tenets of the Diagram, no matter what he thinks about it morally. That seems horrifying to me. (Unless the Third Oath's addendum "as long as it is right" means that he gets an exception if he really believes it. But that kind of defeats the purpose of the oath.)

 

I see what you mean. However, the Third Oath's addendum is a very important part of it. Kaladin protects Elhokar at the end of the book because Elhokar is his king and deserves his protection. He was, after all, being led by Roshone with the whole silver smith fiasco. If Kaladin was limited to protecting only, his oaths would be useless, because he wouldn't be able to kill in order to protect. Syl doesn't die when Kaladin fights Szeth because Szeth doesn't warrant/deserve/need his protection. He's the enemy. It's that addendum that can be the most powerful part of the oath. Really, who Kaladin hates and who he thinks is right to protect is his prerogative. There is room for flexibility there.

 

I agree with Arondell's idea. It seems to me that Knights Radiant were carefully instructed and trained before progressing in their oaths. One of the main challenges the Knights Radiant are going to have is learning all over again how this whole thing works. Presumably the amount of oaths required to give you a Shardblade was common knowledge among the Orders. Now, people have no idea when, where or why things happen, and the myths surrounding the Knights Radiant certainly don't help. It's going to be very rough.