Why does everyone think that having killed Sadeas will destroy Adolin so much?

[Lord Tavash Shar]

I'm Going to note that several Epigraphs do not paint the KR as a force of what we will define as strictly "Lawful Good" Characters. 

 

Spoiler 

Case's In Point

"There came also sixteen of the order of Windrunners, and with them a considerable number of squires, and finding in that place the Skybreakers dividing the innocent from the guilty, there ensued a great debate."

"When Simol was informed of the arrival of the Edgedancers, a concealed consternation and terror, as is common in such cases, fell upon him; although they were not the most demanding of orders, their graceful, limber movements hid a deadliness that was, by this time, quite renowned; also, they were the most articulate and refined of the Radiants."

"And when they were spoken of by the common folk, the Releasers claimed to be misjudged because of the dreadful nature of their power; and when they dealt with others, always were they firm in their claim that other epithets, notably “Dustbringers,” often heard in the common speech, were unacceptable substitutions, in particular for their similarity to the word “Voidbringers.” They did also exercise anger in great prejudice regarding it, though to many who speak, there was little difference between these two assemblies."
 

 

 

I wish we had more text to give greater context to these but even without it we can see that there is a Fear of and some internal strife within the KR.

 

The first is the most important to me at least considering the behavior of the "Skybreakers" we did see in WoR.

[Arondell]

I hope once the Knights are reestablished in full force, then they will have enough authority, capability and willingness to eschew unlawful killings and strengthen the rule of law.

 

One of the points Jasnah makes is that what she did wasn't murder in the legal sense.  The impression I had was that under the laws of Kharbranth and most likely almost any other nation on Roshar is that it legally amounted to self defense and was therefor lawful.  As I recall Shallan in disapproving of Jasnah's actions eventually had to fall back on her personal feelings of right and wrong and not legal definitions after days of study on the issue.  It takes a far more socially advanced society to define self-defense as murder.

[Blaze1616]

It takes a far more socially advanced society to define self-defense as murder.

 

Earth societies tend to not define self defense as murder either. Murder and manslaughter are different. I would argue a socially unadvanced society would think as you say.

[Lord Tavash Shar]

Earth societies tend to not define self defense as murder either. Murder and manslaughter are different. I would argue a socially unadvanced society would think as you say.

 

And that argument is actually why murder trials are such a big deal in real life.

Was it intentional or not? Was it Murder or self defence? These are big issues and the crux of real world Trials.

 

its not a black and white subject.

[Pathfinder]

By radiant ideals, I think what Jasnah and Adolin did is fine. I would need to look up the quote, but if I recall correctly, there was a scene where the life before death was elaborated to mean you do not sacrifice the life of a single innocent, if it means preserving the lives of a group. So the needs of the many do not necessarily supersede the needs of the few. In both cases, Sadeus and the street toughs were not innocent. Also if I recall correctly, Jasnah demonstrated that she fully researched the area and what occurred there. Given how meticulous Jasnah is, I do not feel it is far fetched to believe she could identify the assailants by description, so I do not think the argument of "how could she know she didn't kill the wrong people" is applicable. 

 

By legal ideals, what Jasnah did was self defense. What I am to now provide is how I see a defense attorney would argue that case. It is notorious and well known she goes EVERYWHERE with her soulcaster (or in real world lets say gun). Given her stature, it would make sense that she would know the situation of another empire. Also given her stature, it makes sense that she would stay informed about the local criminal elements that affect the security of where she resides. That is why her research alighted upon a group of criminals that bribed guards. She did not seek out the criminals where they reside. She traveled a public avenue that individuals of her stature have been known to travel. The criminals approached her with weapons, violent intent was clear, that she did not instigate. She acted within the means of the law to stop the imminent threat to her life.

 

Now, by philosophical ideals, and how we would like to think society should be, then they both were wrong. Ending life should not be an option. But it is. Especially for a group of individuals with whom their organization was formed in order to fight and kill an enemy they are at a never ending war with. I can abhor killing, but it doesn't change that the radiant ideals and the legal system allows for both in the book. Now if we want to start a debate on whether or not killing in any situation is wrong period, without judging the book, that I feel is a different matter. 

[maxal]

The concern people have with this destroying him is probably because they see this as a character-changing moment without the reassurance that it was a positive change.  We are left with this as a cliff-hanger and have no idea if Brandon will use this to make him more likable or not.  And that's totally subjective too, so likely Maxal will still like Adolin no matter what =), and the rest of us will like him more or less based on how much he changes his personality to fit how we want him to be.  Or we might all love him because, after all, this is Brandon writing.

 

I do not know what you are talking about

 

Adolin has finally taken a step to dissociated himself from his father. He needed to do that to grow up, but he may have chosen the hardest way to do so. Coming to see his father as a human being as opposed to his childhood hero will be hard for him, but he has to do it to finish maturing into a man. I think he'll keep on being very likeable as he'll struggle to prove himself and to do "the right thing", which are the two most compulsive things about his character. The change is not necessarily positive as I do believe it will lead him to his breaking point, but it will also be, ultimately, a huge growth moment.

[KevinTheHerdazian]

Technically speaking Jasnah did not do self defence. They hadn't assaulted her yet and she killed them. Adolin committed ,I believe though I could be wrong, aggravated assault which then led to manslaughter. He had no plans to kill sadeas until they were already fighting so it would be defined as manslaughter or homicide, not murder. Murder: the crime of deliberately killing a person. Manslaughter: the unlawful killing of a human being without express or implied malice. Homicide: the act of killing another person. Aggravated assault: an assault that is more serious than a common assault: as

a : any of various assaults so defined by statute. If anyone argues with the definitions you can take it up and argue with Merriam-Webster

Edited November 7, 2014 by KevinTheHerdazian

[KevinTheHerdazian]

Sorry if I sound offensive. That's just how I talk. I text like I talk.

[Pathfinder]

S 35.05 Justification; generally.
Unless otherwise limited by the ensuing provisions of this article
defining justifiable use of physical force, conduct which would
otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal when:

 

1. Such conduct is required or authorized by law or by a judicial
decree, or is performed by a public servant in the reasonable exercise
of his official powers, duties or functions; or

 

2. Such conduct is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an
imminent public or private injury which is about to occur by reason of a
situation occasioned or developed through no fault of the actor, and
which is of such gravity that, according to ordinary standards of
intelligence and morality, the desirability and urgency of avoiding such
injury clearly outweigh the desirability of avoiding the injury sought
to be prevented by the statute defining the offense in issue. The
necessity and justifiability of such conduct may not rest upon
considerations pertaining only to the morality and advisability of the
statute, either in its general application or with respect to its
application to a particular class of cases arising thereunder. Whenever
evidence relating to the defense of justification under this subdivision
is offered by the defendant, the court shall rule as a matter of law
whether the claimed facts and circumstances would, if established,
constitute a defense.

 

Emphasis mine. She did not have to be struck to constitute that her life was in danger. I will put the disclaimer that this statute is pertaining to NY law, and may be different in other states or countries. 

 

edit: to further clarify, typically the function is in regard to a deadly threat. if someone approaches me with a knife or a gun, waiting to be shot or stabbed and hoping it is not a fatal blow to retaliate to would certainly reduce the chance of self defense. 

Edited November 7, 2014 by Pathfinder

[KevinTheHerdazian]

So if someone is approaching me with a pocket knife I can in turn blow him up with a bazooka? Cuz that's the comparison.

Edited November 7, 2014 by KevinTheHerdazian

[Pathfinder]

So if someone is approaching me with a pocket knife I can I turn blow him up with a bazooka? Cuz that's the comparison.

No, because at that range you would not be able to aim and fire at the target in time before they close in and attack you. Even if you got a shot off, you would more than likely result in killing you both. You would have more luck in self defense with your bare hands than a bazooka in that scenario but feel free to see if it works 

[KevinTheHerdazian]

If I'm at the back of an alley and shoot at the ground in front of them while they are coming at me I will die? I don't think that's the case... Not sure how much a bazooka weights but I wouldn't aim through a scope. I would point and shoot.

[Twenty@20]

I get the gist of your arguments. Jasnah lacking authority in foreign country, corruption among lighteyes, moribund legal sytem and reluctance to expose her Radiant powers. I hope once the Knights are reestablished in full force, then they will have enough authority, capability and willingness to eschew unlawful killings and strengthen the rule of law.

Ya perhaps "unlawful" wasn't the right word to use here. Certainly a good case of self-defence can be made according to our world laws. But let's not ignore the fact that when Jasnah talked about philosophy in action to Shallan she had premeditated on killing. If Shallan were to give evidence in court that would blow holes in Jasnah's defence.

So I hope the Knights will follow the civilian laws not only in letter but also in spirit. While on battle field against the voidbringers they must bear their full strength, in civilian society they must act with restraint because they will be held accountable to a greater degree than civilians.

[KevinTheHerdazian]

And if jasnah already had the soul caster on her wrist ( even though she doesn't use the soulcaster, only the gems) then I would assume I also had a bazooka in my hands.

[Pathfinder]

If I'm at the back of an alley and shoot at the ground in front of them while they are coming at me I will die? I don't think that's the case... Not sure how much a bazooka weights but I wouldn't aim through a scope. I would point and shoot.

I thought we were still acting on the example of Jasnah? If you are at the other end of the alley, the assailant that far away, you have the ability to flee. Self defense requires there be a sense of imminent harm that cannot be avoided. For instance there was a case in sweden i believe where a man killed another man with a shotgun. He claimed self defense. This was disproven because after firing the initial blast, the guy followed the attacker all the way out onto the street to "finish the job". So it could be argued that the first one or two she killed was self defense, but the subsequent were not because they were starting to flee. But citing an ludicrous scenario to try and prove your point does not make intelligent discourse.

 

also to be clear, i abhor gun violence. My post was based on the book and the law as it stands (in NY). We could debate the philosophy if you like, but that is separate from the book and the current law. In fact if you look at the very definition you cited, it stated with malice. So the definition you provided says the same exact thing

Edited November 7, 2014 by Pathfinder

[Pathfinder]

Ya perhaps "unlawful" wasn't the right word to use here. Certainly a good case of self-defence can be made according to our world laws. But let's not ignore the fact that when Jasnah talked about philosophy in action to Shallan she had premeditated on killing. If Shallan were to give evidence in court that would blow holes in Jasnah's defence.

So I hope the Knights will follow the civilian laws not only in letter but also in spirit. While on battle field against the voidbringers they must bear their full strength, in civilian society they must act with restraint because they will be held accountable to a greater degree than civilians.

It is a good point Shallan could testify, but Jasnah presented it as a mental exercise after. I would need to find the quote but didn't Shallan threaten to do exactly that and Jasnah pointed out all she stated is different ways what she did could be interpreted in a hypothetical manner?

[KevinTheHerdazian]

I was talking about adolin for The definitions. And i dont have my Wok with me but Im pretty sure they were in an alley and cornered. And ludicrous? Are you saying that daggers are not pitiful compared to a soulcaster? I was making a comparison. And it also depends on the projectile that the bazooka is launching.

Edited November 7, 2014 by KevinTheHerdazian

[Pathfinder]

I was talking about adolin for The definitions. And i dont have my Wok with me but Im pretty sure they were in an alley and cornered.

I pulled up the section and will post some quotes below. That was my point, in order to use a bazooka without blowing yourself up, you would need a lot more space than Jasnah and Shallan had. If they had that space they would have been able to flee thus negating the need and legal recourse of self defense. So here are a few quotes that I think help this discussion:

 

"No," Jasnah said. "It is most certainly not. Particularly not here. You see, this street has gained a particular reputation lately. On three seperate occasions during the last two months, theatergoers who chose this route to the main road were accosted by footpads. In each case the people were murdered."

 

"The city watch," Jasnah said, "has done nothing. Taravangian has sent them several pointed reprimands, but the captain of the watch is cousin to a very infuential lighteyes in the city, and Taravangian is not a terribly powerful ing. Some suspect that there is more going on, that the footpads might be bribing the watch. The politics of it are irrelevant at the moment for, as you can see, no members of the watch are guarding the place, despite its reputation."

 

"These men meant murder. You didn't rob women like Shallan and Jasnah, women with powerful connections, then leave them alive as witnesses. Men like these were not the gentlemen bandits in romantic stories. They lived each day knowing that if they were caught, they would be hanged"

 

"The men grunted at the glare, but shoved their way forward. A thick chested man with a dark beard came up to Jasnah, weapon raised. She calmly reached her hand out-fingers splayed- and pressed it against his chest as he swung his knife. Shallan's breath caught in her throat"

 

"The other three men began to curse, scrambling away, tripping over one another in their panic. One fell. Jasnah turned casually, brushing his shoulder with her fingers as he struggled to his knees. He became crystal, a figure of pure, flawless quartz."

 

"The other two men fled in opposite directions"

 

I will post the quotes regarding Shallan and Jasnah's fight after the fact in a moment, but as you can see the intent to harm was very clear, they were right up in front of them, and the other men did try to flee. So the initial kill was self defense, the following three were not

 

edit: looked for the spot where i thought shallan threatened to turn in Jasnah. Turns out didn't happen, they totally focused on the legality and morality of the situation. Shallan ended up deciding it was legal, but not moral. That: "you can be moral without following the law, and you can be immoral while following the law."

Edited November 7, 2014 by Pathfinder

[KevinTheHerdazian]

I stand corrected on that but still... a thug verses a radiant? Do you not see where I'm coming from? I will come up with a different comparison. A fox fighting a tiger. A man with a shotgun verses a railgun (railguns are actually real, you can see one on youtube. It looks like a tank/cannon thing). Me verses a grizzly. The muggers were so overmatched it's crazy. I still think what she did is worse than adolin. Adolin is a man, sadeas is also a man but old. That seems a lot more fair of a fight.

[Pathfinder]

I stand corrected on that but still... a thug verses a radiant? Do you not see where I'm coming from? I will come up with a different comparison. A fox fighting a tiger. A man with a shotgun verses a railgun (railguns are actually real, you can see one on youtube. It looks like a tank/cannon thing). Me verses a grizzly. The muggers were so overmatched it's crazy. I still think what she did is worse than adolin. Adolin is a man, sadeas is also a man but old. That seems a lot more fair of a fight.

The individual and what they are carrying on them matters depending on the situation. For instance, if the assailants were unarmed, and I had a gun. If i pull out the gun, typically a reasonable person would flee, so me shooting the assailant would not be self defense. If the assailant is nuts lets say, and still charges me with intent to assault me, and keeping with the books example, the assailant is a large muscled man, and I am a middle aged thin woman then it is reasonable to come to the conclusion that being trapped, I would be unable to stop the assault with just my arms, so firing the gun then would be self defense. Jasnah reveals what she has on her hand. One could argue that soulcasters are prevalent that the men should have known what it was, and fled but they continued the assault. On the other hand it could be argued that soucasters aren't typically used in that fashion, so they wouldn't know it was a weapon. Still that was the only means she had of defending herself given the circumstances to prevent her death so yes it is still self defense. Are you saying the victim need bring a myriad of weapons with them, and make a point to match whatever weapon the assailant is using to attack them for it to be considered self defense?

 

edit: also at this stage we do not know what level of radiant jasnah is (do we? if we do, i stand corrected), nor do we know if elsecallers have the level of combat prowess that winddancers and skybreakers do. so radiant or not, using the soulcasting ability could have been the only means of fighting them off

Edited November 7, 2014 by Pathfinder

[maxal]

 Adolin is a man, sadeas is also a man but old. That seems a lot more fair of a fight.

 

To make it even more fair, Adolin is a man with a broken wrist and a bruised body. Sadeas is an old man, but also a very experienced soldier. The only thing unfair about that fight was Adolin jumping on unprepared Sadeas.

[KevinTheHerdazian]

She could have used the transportation surge even though she hadn't mastered this ability yet. But she did the whole thing on purpose to dispose of the murderers. I wouldn't call it vigilante like some people considering that she is a radiant and that's her job. She also has her shard blade and since she can do both surges then I speculate that she is level 2 radiant

Edited November 7, 2014 by KevinTheHerdazian

[Twenty@20]

edit: looked for the spot where i thought shallan threatened to turn in Jasnah. Turns out didn't happen, they totally focused on the legality and morality of the situation. Shallan ended up deciding it was legal, but not moral. That: "you can be moral without following the law, and you can be immoral while following the law."

This is exactly what I meant when I said the law should be followed in both letter and spirit. Jasnah followed the law to the letter by creating a situation of self-defense but she violated the spirit of law.

It is telling that Shallan later finds that Jasnah's action was deemed most ethical according to the Philosophy of Aspiration which is another way of saying Destination before Journey. The Philosophy of Starkness is just rephrasing of might is right. The philosophy of Ideals and Purpose are theoretically sound but they don't give licence to stop murders by killing even more.

The only moral defence Jasnah has is that the authorities failed to do their job so she had to intervene. Once Radiants become the political authority things will improve and she can round up criminals and hand then over to the justice system.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Twenty@20

[Kyats Rani]

He had no plans to kill sadeas until they were already fighting so it would be defined as manslaughter or homicide, not murder. Murder: the crime of deliberately killing a person. Manslaughter: the unlawful killing of a human being without express or implied malice. Homicide: the act of killing another person. Aggravated assault: an assault that is more serious than a common assault.

Correct me if I interpet your words ina  wrong way, but going by the definition of manslaughter that you provided, what Adolin did cannot be called manslaughter. Sadeas not only implied but openly expressed malice towards Adolin and Dalinar.

[Pathfinder]

This is exactly what I meant when I said the law should be followed in both letter and spirit. Jasnah followed the law to the letter by creating a situation of self-defense but she violated the spirit of law.

It is telling that Shallan later finds that Jasnah's action was deemed most ethical according to the Philosophy of Aspiration which is another way of saying Destination before Journey. The Philosophy of Starkness is just rephrasing of might is right. The philosophy of Ideals and Purpose are theoretically sound but they don't give licence to stop murders by killing even more.

The only moral defence Jasnah has is that the authorities failed to do their job so she had to intervene. Once Radiants become the political authority things will improve and she can round up criminals and hand then over to the justice system.

I am glad you posted that because when I went to sleep last night, what popped into my head is Jasnah being a radiant could come up in three ways at court. First would be how it is in book, which is she is not a radiant, only a heretic of one religion using a soulcaster which the analogue would be someone walking in a dark alley, getting jumped, and fending off the assailant with a cross, a star of david, etc. second, she is a unique individual with abilities that she used to defend herself, or third radiants are an acknowledged body and reformed, which leads us to ask what was their original organized body considered and should they, given how they originally failed, replicate the same structure. Were the radiants a policing force? a military force? Could their actions trump the local laws and government? If the local laws as in this case was death, are they breaking the laws by bringing the individuals in alive? Did the radiants have the authority to act as judge jury and executioner? If a skybreaker, a windrunner, and a dustbringer all came across the crime at the same time, whose interpretation of the law and honor stands? Does the skybreaker stop the dusbringer from killing the assailants in order to bring them to justice? Does the windrunner stop the skybreaker from apprehending the criminals in order to focus on protecting the innocents? I am asking these questions not to disprove or question your morality, but as a mental exercise to better understand how the radiants might have been pre fall and maybe what caused their fall, as well as how they might be reformed 

 

Correct me if I interpet your words ina  wrong way, but going by the definition of manslaughter that you provided, what Adolin did cannot be called manslaughter. Sadeas not only implied but openly expressed malice towards Adolin and Dalinar.

I misread that definition myself initially as well. Manslaughter is in reference to personal negligence that leads to another's death that could have been prevented if you acted within the law and responsible as a person should. The example cited is a person drunk driving that hits and kills a pedestrian walking on the sidewalk. Had the person not been drunk driving illegally, the death would not have happened, regardless that the person who killed the pedestrian did not mean to kill them (intent) nor held malice (wanted that person dead in particular). 

 

that definition is commenly attributed to involuntary manslaughter. voluntary manslaughter is referred to as "heat of the passion" crime which would be applicable to Adolin. I have quoted below the definition and example to further elaborate:

 

For “heat of passion” to exist, the person must not have had sufficient time to “cool off” from the provocation. That the killing isn’t considered first or second degree murder is a concession to human weakness. Killers who act in the heat of passion may kill intentionally, but the emotional context is a mitigating factor that reduces their moral blameworthiness.

The classic example of voluntary manslaughter involves a husband who comes home unexpectedly to find his wife committing adultery. If the sight of the affair provokes the husband into such a heat of passion that he kills the paramour right then and there, a judge or jury might very well consider the killing to be voluntary manslaughter.

 

edit2: had another thought on the way to work. I could totally see the Vorin religion doing everything they can to prevent this from going to trial even if Shallan attempted to testify. Basically it would mean they would have to reveal the inner workings of soulcasters and that they could be used as a weapon, which means the church now basically has armed assassins near every noble in almost every city. Something tells me they don't want people thinking that

Edited November 7, 2014 by Pathfinder