Wind and Truth was just too darn sad.

[Aliroz-The-Confused]

9 hours ago, CognitiveShadow said:

I actually think Brandon wasn't even trying to say that ideals are dumb or anything - I think he was just opening a dialogue by showing that there is a benefit to questioning things that we think are absolute, to keeping an open mind and being willing to trailblaze instead of following the same path that everyone expects us to. 

In one breath you say that he's not trying to say that ideals are worthless and in the next you say he is opening a dialogue.  There is an inherent contradiction there, I think.

If you ask me, there is no dialogue to be had which does not end with 'rationality' overcoming 'sincerity'.  If you use reason's methods to measure the worth of honor you are playing a game with rules that will never ever let there be any other ending than nuance... it will always come up short when weighted on that scale.

There is no argument that can be made for ideals, because ideals don't work like that.  The most important statements of human rights never say why, they never try to justify, they simply state.  Notions like "self-evident" and "inherent" are necessary if one is to even try to comprehend.

Furthermore, to my mind, to trailblaze is to set things on fire and destroy them so they can't grow back, for the purposes of carving a path to make further change, development, and progress easier.  It is to change and destroy and to pave.

9 hours ago, CognitiveShadow said:

My point is that making our decisions from an internal, rational, open place is much better than making our decisions based on external pressures. When we make decisions purely because we made an oath, we aren't giving any thought to the consequences or the reasons - it's just robotic step by step.

I do not think that Mr. Sanderson will ever portray Reason (or, most likely, Invention) as flawed or show it to be unequal to morality in the way that he has for Preservation and Honor, or, for that matter, Autonomy.

9 hours ago, CognitiveShadow said:

What do you have against people thinking for themselves, analyzing the situation, and making the choice that they feel is best?

I hate that it's always, invariably, and in every case proven to be the right thing to do, and that any character who thinks like me either ends up learning such thought-patterns or ends up destroyed by the narrative.  It feels like "think for yourself" always refers to the same thought process.

9 hours ago, CognitiveShadow said:

Do you take issue with Sigzil renouncing his oaths to save his spren?

I take issue with the fact that fate coerced him into doing so... because Navani flipping Kholin, suck-empress of garbage, eternal failure at Operational Security, she who writes her notes in plaintext,  second-least-tolerable character in the Cosmere, created a way to kill spren.

 

9 hours ago, CognitiveShadow said:

I used to be in a high demand religion (grew up in it all my life) and that was how I lived. You make covenants, you do x, then y, then z. When I finally allowed myself to think freely and consider the truth claims I'd been taught from an objective place, my motivations changed drastically. I think it also made me a much better person as a side affect. I care more about people because I have real intentions behind each of my actions. I don't just blindly follow the motions laid out in front of me. Maybe that makes me nuanced or soulless or modern - whatever it makes me, I'm glad I am what I am, because I'm free 

I am equally glad to be me, and to live my faith.  Maybe that makes me mystic or fanatic or primitive, but I am no less free than you.

 

TLDR; I guess, in the end, I wanted something like Personal Recollections Of Joan Of Arc, and what Mr. Sanderson had intended all along was essentially A Connecticut Yankee In King Arthur's Court, and that's fine.  I just wish the intent had been made clear at the start.

Edited February 14, 2025 by Aliroz-The-Confused

[The Stick]

I do tend to agree with Aliroz on this perspective of the book. My real issue with it was not necessarily any of the Szeth stuff discussed at length, although I would still tend to side with Aliroz. Rather, my issue is with this book's definitions of oaths and Honor. To be clear, I liked the book, but I did not like the portrayal of oaths. Throughout the entire series, oaths are built up as honorable and noble. The entire point of the radiant orders is to live by oaths. They are of monolithic importance to the series. Yet, this book, it feels like there was a 180 and suddenly oaths were being undercut totally. I think we most clearly see this with Adolin and his promise worldview, which I dislike. The whole point of an oath is that you keep it to your dying breath. It is not easy, it will hurt, you may regret it, but you keep it regardless, holding yourself to a code of iron. Oaths are not meant to be easy. Who better exemplifies this than Taln. Yet, Adolin's whole promise thing is too weak, too loose. What binds you to a promise. What keeps you following it unto death of dishonor. Breaking a promise when it gets hard is a pointless promise.

Sigzil: I think, ultimately in the circumstances, this one has the best chance at a pass. Sigzil did not reject the oaths themselves, but rejected them only to save his spren. I think that this can be understood as mostly acceptable.

Fen: I very much have two minds on Fen. I do believe that from a strategic perspective, surrender to Odium was her best choice. It helped her people a most. Yet, she betrayed her allies. She was a traitor, a backstabber, she ruined their trust, she did break. There is no Honor in what she did, no nobility. There is a reason Dante puts traitors in the 9th circle. 

The negative portrayal of skybreakers: 

I echo the question above, of why can the skybreakers never be right, and wind runners never wrong. Besides Nale manipulating the law by bullying rulers into making new laws to let him have his way, the current Skybreaker oaths are fine. They abide to an exacting code of honor and oaths, and do not bend. They do not tolerate failure, they obey oaths perfectly. The issue with Windrunners if that they are too flexible. Many of the worst people in history could have been wind runners if they interpreted their evil deeds as protecting people. Heck, even Taravangian could be a Windrunner in theory. Skybreakers cannot bend so easily. 

FYI: I am a Skybreaker on the radiant quiz.

The whole mess with Honor being portrayed semi-negatively: This book seems to really put nuance on Honor, and portray him semi-negatively. I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I fully support Tanavast having Mishram captured to fulfill his oath to Odium. Mishram never could have feasibly ended the war anyway unless she usurped Odium, which I kind of doubt would have happened. I think Tanavast made the best choice. Then, there is the whole thing with Dalinar, being the pinnacle of Honor and oaths the whole series, walking away from it at the end, and not liking oaths anymore, which I feel kind of betrays his arc. Plus, Honor being portrayed kind of badly, then Dalinar's hope of it becoming more like Adolin's perception seems like it would lose what Honor truly is, which is holding to a code of steel simply because of the oath itself. 

If anyone has any good counter-arguments to my points, I would enjoy engaging with them.

[MagicMaggot]

12 hours ago, The Stick said:

Rather, my issue is with this book's definitions of oaths and Honor. To be clear, I liked the book, but I did not like the portrayal of oaths. Throughout the entire series, oaths are built up as honorable and noble. The entire point of the radiant orders is to live by oaths. They are of monolithic importance to the series. Yet, this book, it feels like there was a 180 and suddenly oaths were being undercut totally.

You were of the impression that all the radiants were supposed to clearly be "honorable and noble" good guys before TaW, just because they stuck to oaths that gave them actual power? With pov radiants like Shallan and Jasnah sticking around, and Skybreakers and Dustbringers just straight-up fighting for Odium? With the knowledge that the ancient radiants together with their spren decided to reject their oaths for moral reasons, as RoW already revealed? I find it hard to understand how the idea that oaths aren't the whole of morality on Roshar, so that there are other considerations of moral relevance as well, came out of nowhere for some. 

Even in principle it seems quite strange to me. We have 10 orders with 10+ different sets of oaths that can contradict one another, but it's all fine and moral, as long as they each stick to their oaths? What kind of real moral system or religion is cool with that? It always suggested that the content of the oaths wasn't the important part. I mean... the Stormfather basically said as much before, when he proclaimed that there were no stupid oaths. I don't really think we were ever supposed to agree with him on that. 

It gets even more muddled by the fact that swearing the oaths actually grants magic power. That's quite the extrinsic reward for keeping to the oath. Swearing the oath is usually hard, sure. But they sure are making the keeping of the oath as easy as possible here. A break with the oath is throwing away power and status, as well as hurting your spren friend, so all your incentives go towards keeping it. Heck, progressing the oaths seems to be part of your own psychotherapy, and coming close to accidentally breaking an oath was basically always connected to a character breaking under unrelated psychological pressure. The only one we saw breaking an oath that way was Shallan. A child who had no clue what she was even rejecting, after killing her own mom. 

Which is why the WaT oathbreakings (as well as the Recreance) are quite different. They are deliberate rejections the formal bindings that are the sources of their power, while trying to uphold the moral values behind the oaths the characters swore. Sigzil doesn't reject his oaths to protect people because his moral stance changed, he follows his oath to protect people (his spren, in this case) by rejecting his formal oath. Szeth doesn't decide that he actually doesn't want to be a law onto himself, he decides that being a law onto himself includes rejecting 12124 and looking for another spren. Dalinar decides that what can unite the cosmere against the division that is Odium is giving up his powers, by renouncing the oaths. And the ancient Radiants decided that Honor showing them how they would/could destroy the world don't really fit the whole life before death concept and rejected the powers that could make them do that. 

I find it hard to see a rejection of oaths as a moral factor in any of that. The moral part just isn't supposed to be the magic, nor the formal rules, but upholding what was promised in the first place. Roshar's system of magic oaths to regulate and cultivate exceptional people certainly has elements that have moral implications, but that doesn't mean we were meant to confuse a magic system with a moral philosophy.

 

[CognitiveShadow he/him]

On 2/14/2025 at 6:45 PM, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

In one breath you say that he's not trying to say that ideals are worthless and in the next you say he is opening a dialogue.  There is an inherent contradiction there, I think.

If you ask me, there is no dialogue to be had which does not end with 'rationality' overcoming 'sincerity'.  If you use reason's methods to measure the worth of honor you are playing a game with rules that will never ever let there be any other ending than nuance... it will always come up short when weighted on that scale.

There is no argument that can be made for ideals, because ideals don't work like that.  The most important statements of human rights never say why, they never try to justify, they simply state.  Notions like "self-evident" and "inherent" are necessary if one is to even try to comprehend.

Furthermore, to my mind, to trailblaze is to set things on fire and destroy them so they can't grow back, for the purposes of carving a path to make further change, development, and progress easier.  It is to change and destroy and to pave.

I do not think that Mr. Sanderson will ever portray Reason (or, most likely, Invention) as flawed or show it to be unequal to morality in the way that he has for Preservation and Honor, or, for that matter, Autonomy.

I hate that it's always, invariably, and in every case proven to be the right thing to do, and that any character who thinks like me either ends up learning such thought-patterns or ends up destroyed by the narrative.  It feels like "think for yourself" always refers to the same thought process.

I take issue with the fact that fate coerced him into doing so... because Navani flipping Kholin, suck-empress of garbage, eternal failure at Operational Security, she who writes her notes in plaintext,  second-least-tolerable character in the Cosmere, created a way to kill spren.

 

I am equally glad to be me, and to live my faith.  Maybe that makes me mystic or fanatic or primitive, but I am no less free than you.

 

TLDR; I guess, in the end, I wanted something like Personal Recollections Of Joan Of Arc, and what Mr. Sanderson had intended all along was essentially A Connecticut Yankee In King Arthur's Court, and that's fine.  I just wish the intent had been made clear at the start.

In general it just seems like you have zero appetite or appreciation for the very real nuances that surround us every second of every day. Brandon including the nuance and showing that there is more than just right and wrong is embracing the nuance and allows for people to be individuals who find their own way. That’s healthy.

Ignoring the nuance just because you dislike it doesn’t make it any less real.

[Knuti]

Sorry, I have to disagree

15 hours ago, The Stick said:

Throughout the entire series, oaths are built up as honorable and noble. The entire point of the radiant orders is to live by oaths. They are of monolithic importance to the series.

Is that so? It begins with the prologue: Heralds abandoning the Oathpact. Their punishment is being revered by the Vorin Church as saints as we learn soon afterwards. Then we encounter 3 radiants in the first two books, Shallan and Kaladin. While Kaladin indeed has to live by a rigid honorbound interpretation of his oaths, does the same apply to Shallan too? And let us remind ourselves, honor is a concept totally alien to her. In OB we encounter Malata who certainly lives by her oaths, but by a very different interpretation to that of Kaladin and Sylphrena.

Well considering promises I think it may be the right approach for Adolin and the book tries to show that. Does that mean, it applies for everyone?

Quote

“When Odium arrives,” Wit said, “his presence coalescing here will let me do something odd.” He held up a device made of several gears and what appeared to be glowing light—not trapped in a gemstone, but in an hourglass. “I’m sorry for how that will feel, but the Dawnshard should keep you alive. Get off this planet as soon as you can. Keep it away from him, Sig. Our only advantage is that he doesn’t know it’s here. Unfortunately, if he kills me while I hold it, he’ll discover the truth. You he’ll ignore. Hopefully.” He hesitated. “I’ll find you. I promise.”

Sanderson, Brandon. Wind and Truth: The brand new epic Stormlight Archive novel from the international bestseller (English Edition) (S.1300). Orion. Kindle-Version.

Well we all know what became of that promise.

Let us discuss Fen. I think it can be equally said, that Jasnah betrayed Fen by admitting she would stab her under certain circumstances. But that is not the point. Fen is a politician, Taravangian is a politician and Jasnah is a scholar playing at politics. And made the error to concede that the rules of politics aka the best for Your country apply to this discussion.

16 hours ago, The Stick said:

I echo the question above, of why can the skybreakers never be right, and wind runners never wrong.

Well, a magic order of that kind should have to do something with justice. Hunting and murdering budding radiants has nothing to do with that. If the oaths do not prevent that, there is something seriously wrong with them regardless of manipulated laws. By the way many Nazi perpetrators after the war defended themselves stating, they were just following the law.

Either the skybreakers or our current cast of radiants is right.

16 hours ago, The Stick said:

The whole mess with Honor being portrayed semi-negatively: This book seems to really put nuance on Honor, and portray him semi-negatively.

No, the book outrights states that honor not tempered by other traits is evil and leads to vileness:

Quote

 

Of what he had worried, he now saw the fulfillment: Honor, in the power’s eyes, was about oaths. But there was a darker side to it.

How many men had stabbed someone they loved because of “honor”? How many wars had been started because of an insult to “honor”? How much anger in the world had been caused by a belief in “honor”?

 

Sanderson, Brandon. Wind and Truth: The brand new epic Stormlight Archive novel from the international bestseller (English Edition) (S.1268-1269). Orion. Kindle-Version.

Well, Your mileage certainly varies, but why?

16 hours ago, The Stick said:

I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I fully support Tanavast having Mishram captured to fulfill his oath to Odium.

But that is not the point. He did it in the most dishonorable way possible by betraying a promise of safe conduct. After that the shard of Honor booted him.

Anyway You have certainly a different opinion and I do not contest Your right to it. What I contest is the opinion, that the things, You do not like were suddenly introduced with WaT. They were there from the beginnings. They were only less visible, cracks in a honorable façade, possible to overlook, if You did not want to see them

 

[QuantumAce]

On 2/14/2025 at 5:45 PM, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

In one breath you say that he's not trying to say that ideals are worthless and in the next you say he is opening a dialogue.  There is an inherent contradiction there, I think.

If you ask me, there is no dialogue to be had which does not end with 'rationality' overcoming 'sincerity'.  If you use reason's methods to measure the worth of honor you are playing a game with rules that will never ever let there be any other ending than nuance... it will always come up short when weighted on that scale.

"Opening a dialogue" is not a commitment to weighing something on a specific set of scales, or measuring it against a pre-defined set of criteria. A discussion can involve looking at something from different perspectives, examining how it relates to other ideas and concepts. A discussion can help you learn more about something, without trying to measure its worth. 

On 2/14/2025 at 5:45 PM, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

Furthermore, to my mind, to trailblaze is to set things on fire and destroy them so they can't grow back, for the purposes of carving a path to make further change, development, and progress easier.  It is to change and destroy and to pave.

This is a very narrow definition of trailblazing. I believe the only change guaranteed by trailblazing is the creation of a path that did not exist before. It may also involve destruction of previous paths, but it doesn't have to. 

17 hours ago, The Stick said:

to be clear, I liked the book, but I did not like the portrayal of oaths. Throughout the entire series, oaths are built up as honorable and noble. The entire point of the radiant orders is to live by oaths. They are of monolithic importance to the series. Yet, this book, it feels like there was a 180 and suddenly oaths were being undercut totally.

I did not see it as a 180. I feel like it was foreshadowed throughout the series. We saw Kaladin almost lose his bond with Syl because of conflicting oaths. We learned radiant oaths were necessary because surgebinding without Honors restriction was dangerous. Oaths are extremely important and can be used for good things, but are not inherently positive. 

[The Stick]

I must agree with some of the excellent points proposed above. The radiant oaths of all the orders are very different. They do sometimes contradict. They all have different interpretations of what is right. The issue is, there is no absolute moral standard in the Cosmere. This does mean the whole point of Honor, the whole point of oaths is to live by a set of codes that best approximate what is right, what is moral. I suppose the reason I like the Skybreaker interpretation is that would require several people at least to agree on a moral or immoral thing, rather than sole radiants being able to go totally rogue inside their orders. 

I do want it to be understood I notice the nuance in the books and I do like a lot of it. I do know the series shows the issues with the nature of some of the oaths. I think this opens some fascinating philosophical debates or the nature of morality and Honor itself. And yes, I certainly agree that oaths do not intrinsically make an action moral, as pointed out by the citation from Knuti. My point is that the characters in the books do not seem to have an absolute moral order. Thus, if you swear good, noble oaths, it guides you towards the most righteous choice. I concede many oaths can be evil. I simply would claim though that keeping oaths is innately honorable and binds you to higher moral ideals. An oath should be made for the right reason, or never made at all. 

Edited February 17, 2025 by The Stick

[Treamayne]

Just for the record, to add points to consider for discussion, the Radiant Oaths have never been about Morality. They are about Values
-  Morality has always been about what the Spren and Radiant decide together for themselves (as shown in the entire Moash/Elhokar WoR subplot) - not what their Radiant Order decides is capital-R right.

More importantly, the Radiant Oaths were about limiting power and allowing progression as a Radiant comes to better understand themselves, their Spren and the power the bond allows them to access.

[Nitpicking]

Is it worth mentioning that "oath" and "promise" are synonyms? Merriam-Webster lists promise as the first synonym of oath.

[The Stick]

2 hours ago, Nitpicking said:

Is it worth mentioning that "oath" and "promise" are synonyms? Merriam-Webster lists promise as the first synonym of oath.

In response to this, in the real world, sure. But it seems very clear from the way Sanderson parallels them in book five, they are supposed to be two very unique things when regarded in the Stormlight sense.

[Knuti]

I would say there is a slight difference. In my understanding promises are private, oaths are a formal promise delivered to the public or an institution. Even if the public consists only of a spren and the representive of a shard.

[RedBlue]

22 hours ago, Nitpicking said:

Is it worth mentioning that "oath" and "promise" are synonyms? Merriam-Webster lists promise as the first synonym of oath.

Words can be synonyms and still have different connotations. And I find that dictionary definitions are often inadequate for capturing the nuances of how certain words are used in practice.

[bmcclure7]

On 2/13/2025 at 8:38 AM, CognitiveShadow said:

Maybe it's more about how even the good guys have been the bad guys at times. Maybe it's less to do with holding fast to one side no matter what, and more to do with realizing that when we each choose for ourselves instead of letting others choose for us we can create our own side. The Oathgate spren choosing to be independent and to make their own decisions about when to let people pass through, other spren also choosing to allow Sja-Anat to enlighten them and be 'reborn' in a way, the Sibling finding a compromise with Navanni that improves the existence of lesser spren while still giving the humans a way to create amazing tools in a more 'humane' way...

Each of the examples you listed represent (to me at least) breaking free from the control of larger/higher powers and forging our own paths. Refusing to play the game as we've been instructed to, and finding the value in a middle ground. Exploring solutions for the betterment of everyone instead of exploring solutions for the betterment of ONE SIDE.

That's what Roshar has been for millenia - 2 sides fighting against each other, refusing to find any common ground or compromise, determined to destroy one another. Now we have Leshwi and others with her who have rebelled against Odium and joined the Listeners, Adolin and his Unoathed crew who have created their own special circumstances and an Oasis for people to come and find safety. A new oathpact with heralds who had given up and even been corrupted, yet who have made the decision and commitment to take a new path instead of falling into the same old patterns as before. Even Taravangian broke when it came time to prove his commitment to his 'values/philosophy' - he could not destroy everything that he loved, and instead keeps it safe and holds to his secret tightly for fear of showing his weakness. He also has the attention of all the other shards (not to mention a couple hidden from his view that he has to be very paranoid about, particularly Valor). He can't act with impunity and has his hands tied in many ways that limits his ability to do damage.

I see an amazing situation where the patterns have all been broken and the game is reset anew. Instead of the powers of Honor and Odium fighting against each other, they are tentatively working together. Cultivation has fled, but left behind a few key players in the game with spectacular abilities of their own.

In short, I don't see an end - I see a brand new beginning and a whole lot of hope for the future.

I think you hit on the problem the old book Balance the themes of returning to old patterns (Kal deciding to keep trying to protect, Dalinar reforming the KR, ) with forming new patterns (Kal rejecting depression, shal rejecting her lies) in this there was only the forming of new patterns 

 

[bmcclure7]

On 2/13/2025 at 4:55 AM, MagicMaggot said:

And any of those are less constant within/after WaT than they were before? It's not like the characters rigidly adhered to any of that before. I don't think anyone but Dalinar even tried. I'm not sure who of the main cast has even (had) read 1 and 2, they certainly weren't the influence on them that they were on Dalinar.

 Maybe the radiant oaths were a bit of an exception here, but it's not like they were ever kept just because they were oaths. They were kept for a bunch of moral and personal reasons that were different from radiant to radiant. 

I'm talking about what changed in WaT, because the thread is explicitly about WaT. Changes between The first 4 books are different discussions.

1. Something you can be constant without you succeeded in appearing into it. It’s constant because you always strive for it. It’s a goal you’re always reaching for. Something that is clearly recognizes as the ideal as good.

2. Why they were kept doesn’t make a difference they were recognized as true as real as constant, an unchanging, good.

3. It is true that the sprint have been changing since Obringer, but it was really on display in this book with the proud honest direct and hard, Storm father replaced a cowardly sniffling liar who lived in fear of people’s opinion of him. 

[MagicMaggot]

4 hours ago, bmcclure7 said:

1. Something you can be constant without you succeeded in appearing into it. It’s constant because you always strive for it. It’s a goal you’re always reaching for. Something that is clearly recognizes as the ideal as good.

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are trying to say here, especially when we are talking about in-world writings. No,the protagonists didn't all hold the codes of war or the Way of Kings as a moral guide, neither literally nor in abstract. That was very specifically a Dalinar thing, not something that would be of any interest to someone like Shallan, and way besides the point for Kaladin. Nothing ever hinted at them being constants that SA was build around.

For ideals in general I agree that striving for them was central to the story. As it still is. Nothing changed on that front. 

4 hours ago, bmcclure7 said:

2. Why they were kept doesn’t make a difference they were recognized as true as real as constant, an unchanging, good.

,,,,by whom? The Stormfather? Not exacly an infallible guide here. If you want to claim that the books were saying that the oaths would always be good in any circumstance, you need to elaborate. I personally think that there were always hints at problems with the radiant oaths, at least as a source of power. For example, I don't think we were ever supposed to assume that the Recreance happened because the old knights were just selfishly evil, so we had reason to believe that there would have been good reasons to reject the oaths from very early on.

Edited February 25, 2025 by MagicMaggot

[bmcclure7]

5 hours ago, MagicMaggot said:

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are trying to say here, especially when we are talking about in-world writings. No, the protagonists didn't all hold the codes of war or the Way of Kings as a moral guide, neither literally nor in abstract. That was very specifically a Dalinar thing, not something that would be of any interest to someone like Shallan, and way besides the point for Kaladin. Nothing ever hinted at them being constants that SA was build around.

For ideals in general I agree that striving for them was central to the story. As it still is. Nothing changed on that front. 

,,,,by whom? The Stormfather? Not exacly an infallible guide here. If you want to claim that the books were saying that the oaths would always be good in any circumstance, you need to elaborate. I personally think that there were always hints at problems with the radiant oaths, at least as a source of power. For example, I don't think we were ever supposed to assume that the Recreance happened because the old knights were just selfishly evil, so we had reason to believe that there would have been good reasons to reject the oaths from very early on.

1. Your delusional the Protagonist do consider the codes of war and the way of kings to moral guided or at least Dalinar dose. 
 

2. I said a constant not thee constant 

3. By Stormfather by the character and above all by the Reader 

[MagicMaggot]

So... I invite you to elaborate and... I'm delusional because you're right, and "the character" and "the Reader" told you?

Got it. Have a nice day. 

[OoklaApologist She/her]

55 minutes ago, bmcclure7 said:

By Stormfather by the character and above all by the Reader 

Were we meant to recognize the oaths as good? I certainly didn't. Many times, in fact. When, in WoR, we heard about what Elhokar did to Moash's parents, I admit, I didn't like him. I thought he deserved to be at least deposed for someone better. When Kaladin suffered consequences for that, I was angry. I thought the oaths were unfair, and that the book would end with some sort of demonstration of their flexibility. Additionally, when Kal struggled with being unable to protect people, I definitely thought the oaths weren't perfect. They forced him to fight a losing battle, time and time again. If you had different insight though, I would love to hear it. 

[CognitiveShadow he/him]

30 minutes ago, KelsierApologist said:

Were we meant to recognize the oaths as good? I certainly didn't. Many times, in fact. When, in WoR, we heard about what Elhokar did to Moash's parents, I admit, I didn't like him. I thought he deserved to be at least deposed for someone better. When Kaladin suffered consequences for that, I was angry. I thought the oaths were unfair, and that the book would end with some sort of demonstration of their flexibility. Additionally, when Kal struggled with being unable to protect people, I definitely thought the oaths weren't perfect. They forced him to fight a losing battle, time and time again. If you had different insight though, I would love to hear it. 

This was my interpretation as well - pretty much that the characters tried their best to follow all of their oaths but we see time after time where those oaths get in the way of higher morals. The mere fact that you can have conflicting oaths and the reason your spren dies or almost dies is because you are forced to break one of the oaths and not because one or more of the oaths was a bad thing to swear to shows how unreliable the system is. Brandon is exploring the pros and cons of keeping Oaths. Then in WaT he sets us up to start exploring the pros and cons of breaking oaths.

I wouldn't be surprised to see us eventually come to a place by the end of the series where we are exploring a mix of both and have characters finding the balance of when to hold and when to fold. Maybe Hoid will even sing a song about it

"you gotta know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em"

[CognitiveShadow he/him]

On 2/14/2025 at 6:45 PM, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

In one breath you say that he's not trying to say that ideals are worthless and in the next you say he is opening a dialogue.  There is an inherent contradiction there, I think.

If you ask me, there is no dialogue to be had which does not end with 'rationality' overcoming 'sincerity'.  If you use reason's methods to measure the worth of honor you are playing a game with rules that will never ever let there be any other ending than nuance... it will always come up short when weighted on that scale.

There is no argument that can be made for ideals, because ideals don't work like that.  The most important statements of human rights never say why, they never try to justify, they simply state.  Notions like "self-evident" and "inherent" are necessary if one is to even try to comprehend.

I got to thinking about this topic again today and came back to re-read this comment and try to understand it better. I honestly have a hard time understanding where you are coming from. Are you of the opinion that ideals are concrete/final and 'good' no matter what the situation or circumstances? Does it matter what the ideal is, or does it only matter that one has sworn to the ideal?

In my mind, this creates a situation where a person outsources their own moral compass or ability to make decisions by simply determining that no matter what happens they will hold to the Ideal. It removes the burden of responsibility from the shoulders of the person and lets them pass that on to whoever or whatever motivated them to make the commitment to the ideal. Perhaps if you could frame some ideals that do cover every single possible circumstance and remove all need for critical thinking or analysis then you'd have something I could support here, but the ideals in Stormlight specifically are often contradictory, motivated for different purposes and individual growth in different areas, or potentially dangerous and harmful if taken to extremes.

I used to be super Mormon. One of my ideals was that I would never speak poorly of the leaders of that church, because I believed they were given direction in just about everything they did by God. I outsourced my morals to be essentially whatever they said they should be. I was, for all intents and purposes, a skybreaker who had sworn to an organization as my ideal. In hindsight, I've learned that this was a very bad idea. Leaders of any organization need critiques and feedback in order to hold them accountable and make sure they are doing the best/right things. I've since moved away from that path and taken back my moral accountability / responsibility, and have new ideals that are centered more on doing no harm to others and the continuous search of verifiable truth. But another key part of my new ideals includes a willingness and readiness to change my behavior or even beliefs when confronted with new and compelling information indicating I have been misinformed or incorrect on any given topic/issue. I try not to be too certain that any ideal I hold to is eternally 'good' or correct, instead recognizing that they are usually good and coming from a good intent - but the onus is on me to make sure that it is actually good in each situation. (I also recognize the irony in using this example as Brandon is an active LDS member, but I'll just point out that he has made comments that contradict policies from church leaders so I assume he has some level of nuanced thinking in these areas as well)

Does that all mean I think ideals are worthless? No - quite the contrary. I am definitely opening a dialogue about their purpose and the best way to use them, but I still find immense value in them. I think ideals that guide our behaviors and morals are a great, wonderful thing to have. But I believe it is ok, even proper, for those ideals to change over time as we grow and develop. And that we should never - ever - prioritize holding to an ideal for the sake of keeping our commitment if we can see that the circumstances call for us to act differently.

To me, this is the dialogue that Brandon is opening. I see a beauty in the nuance of always seeking to do what is right in any given situation, even if it might be against our standard ideals that guide most of our decisions. The willingness to bend when we recognize that circumstances demand it: Sigzil rejecting his oaths and harming his spren temporarily but protecting her from complete destruction... even Dalinar's rejection of his oaths I see as an attempt to teach the power the lesson I've laid out above (which was a painful and difficult lesson for me to learn given my prior binary way of thinking)... Fen choosing to serve her people and prevent violence, choosing the best possible outcome and recognizing defeat instead of choosing to fight a hopeless battle for friends who would have ultimately made the same choice she did...

But anyway, I just had these thoughts today and wanted to put them down here - hope they aren't too rambly or difficult to understand. My intent is not to say that my way of thinking is the only right way, just an attempt to help paint the picture of why I found these themes incredibly deep and powerful and important. If there is anything more you can say regarding 'rationality' overcoming 'sincerity' I'd love to hear it cause that line is especially difficult for me to grasp - I see both of those things as critical. Being irrational but sincere is - to me - kind of useless and represents being lost and detached from reality. And being rational but insincere is cold and sad, representing to me the idea of a detachment from emotion and empathy. Ideally we can find a balance of both, but I admit that I do find rationality to be more important to me than sincerity - if ever so slightly.

While lacking sincerity removes a lot of the value behind our actions and intents, no matter how badly we want something to be a certain way our sincerity cannot overcome the objective truth of what it is. I think we have to ground ourselves in rationality, but I don't see how that requires us to lose sincerity. Ideally, rationality woudl guide our sincerity in the right directions, whereas sincerity without rationality can point us in a very wrong direction with a whole lot of passion.

 

[LeondeBowa]

Rereading w&t, an early discussion between Wit and Kaladin is about the passions, and the inbuilt belief that your wishing for something will make it true. Wit derides this as a delusion and fantasy, I can't help but see the people in this threads clinging to oaths and what they MEAN in the story as very similar to people clinging to the Passion's.

I think Sanderson has been very clever in his writing here and the reaction from some of the fans shows this.

[Ashbringer he/him]

On the subject of the Codes:

Dalinar clung to the Codes of War in the earlier Stormlight books largely for one reason - because Gavilar told him to follow the Codes the night he was killed, Dalinar didn't, and Dalinar feels the guilt of that failure.

WaT revealed Gavilar told him to follow the Codes specifically to manipulate him into getting drunk so he wouldn't be a bother.

The power of the Codes was a lie, and always was. 

[RedBlue]

The Codes are general advice for officers during wartime.

Wear a uniform. Don’t get drunk. Don’t duel. These are good, common-sense standards for behaviour. They were never magical, they were never going to give any mystical power to the faithful, and they were never presented that way other than by Dalinar at the very start of WoK when he didn’t know anything.

Gavilar cynically followed the letter of the Codes in an attempt to impress the Stormfather, which was never going to work because the Stormfather has no specific attachment to the Codes. (Ironically, Gavilar’s ploy might have worked better if he’d made a big deal out of formally swearing to live by the Codes, rather than trying to be subtle about it. That would have at least fit the Stormfather’s view of what honourable behaviour looks like.)

Dalinar stuck to the Codes because he believed (wrongly) that Gavilar had found some big mystical secret, and the cryptic comment he made to Dalinar before he died seemed like a clue. Adolin followed Dalinar’s lead to support his father and commanding officer.

Following the Codes didn’t magically help Dalinar or Adolin because the Codes were never special. They were never an inherent moral good. They were always just general advice that somebody wrote down a long time ago.

[Nitpicking]

On 2/23/2025 at 9:35 PM, The Stick said:

In response to this, in the real world, sure. But it seems very clear from the way Sanderson parallels them in book five, they are supposed to be two very unique things when regarded in the Stormlight sense.

[referring to the difference or similarity between promise and oath.]

I agree that this was Brandon's intent. I don't think he did a great job with that.

[Ashbringer he/him]

I may have to recheck, but I think I gathered the differences as Adolin had them.

For one, I think Adolin came to the same conclusion that Dalinar to some degree did - that the spirit of an oath is more important than the letter, while Honor really only cares for the letter.

But the other one - a Rosharan Oath is something that is sworn on something. Oaths to spren for Radiance are judged by the spren, and to some degree the Stormfather. Oaths of power are judged by Honor. Adolin doesn't want his promises to be oaths, where they are enforced by some outside power or threat if he breaks them. He just wants to keep his promise solely because it's his promise.

How much it worked, not entirely sure. The distinction seemed contained to Adolin (and to some degree the other Unoathed, like Notum) while other characters use them interchangeably, which makes sense but is confusing.