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

[Kyats Rani she/her]

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.

 

Oh, thanks! Now it makes sense

 

But still in my opinion "manslaughter" sounds way worse than "murder". Even if I know what it really means, the term manslaughter makes me think of a serial killer slaughtering everyone around him

 

Though according to the definition and not my personal feelings, what Adolin did was manslaughter.

[Pathfinder]

Oh, thanks! Now it makes sense

 

But still in my opinion "manslaughter" sounds way worse than "murder". Even if I know what it really means, the term manslaughter makes me think of a serial killer slaughtering everyone around him

 

Though according to the definition and not my personal feelings, what Adolin did was manslaughter.

LOL i never thought of it that way, man-slaughter, slaughter of man lolol that is awesome. Upvote!

[Twenty@20 he/him]

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

 

I believe the Radiants were a military force and police force rolled into one system. They were called Knights so I think they must have fulfilled that role in both war and peace, and in both military and civilian spheres. They were called Radiants(the villager in Dalinars vision called the female knight as Lady Radiant) so they clearly played a constructive role in society.

I personally believe that the in world book "Words of Radiance" had a revisionist approach towards the Orders. It seems to insinuate that several Orders were unworthy. Just go through the epigraph and see how many negative adjectives were used to describe the KR while doling out little information.

We have a much better source of KR information. The Almighty in Dalinar's vision. The fact that he asks Dalinar to refound them, tells us that he thinks they are good enough.

 

“Who are you?” Dalinar asked.

“They were one, once,” Taffa—or whatever it was—said. “The orders. Men. Not without problems or strife, of course. But focused.”

WoK, ch 19

 

 

“The Knights Radiant,” the Almighty said, standing up beside Dalinar, watching the knight attack the nightmare beast. “They were a solution, a way to offset the destruction of the Desolations. Ten orders of knights, founded with the purpose of helping men fight, then rebuild.”

WoR, CH 4

 

So the KR were meant to fight then then help with rebuilding the society including its policing and justice system. So I think they were a major political force in their own right.

 

“And you fight for Natanatan’s king?” he asked.

She laughed. “The Knights Radiant fight for no king and for all of them.”

WoK , CH 17

I agree there were one or two bad apples among them from time to time, and but any major deviation from oaths automatically leads to stripping of powers. I can't imagine a system better than the KR with built in failsafe mechanisms. I daresay return of the KR orders will not only unite Roshar but also improve the morality of Roshar's society by doing away with many of its prejudices like lighteye- darkeye, male-female.

Finally regarding the variation among the Orders' interpretation of law and Honor,  I think the Order's had pretty much defined jurisdiction of work. We don't know the oaths of all the orders can make informed guesses.

In your hypothetical situation, I believe the Windrunner will go to protect the victim first, then he should also protect the assailants if they don't get a fair trial(2nd Windrunner oath). Skybreakers will be all about the law. He will capture the assailants and ensure he gets proper trial and punishment according to law. The Dustbringer, I have no idea about their oaths, but expect them to come into action if the assailants go scot free on a mere technicality of law or when the law is followed only in letter but not in spirit. But I am clear that doing what is right does not include killing anyone unfairly.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Twenty@20

[Pathfinder]

I believe the Radiants were a military force and police force rolled into one system. They were called Knights so I think they must have fulfilled that role in both war and peace, and in both military and civilian spheres. They were called Radiants(the villager in Dalinars vision called the female knight as Lady Radiant) so they clearly played a constructive role in society.

I personally believe that the in world book "Words of Radiance" had a revisionist approach towards the Orders. It seems to insinuate that several Orders were unworthy. Just go through the epigraph and see how many negative adjectives were used while doling out little information.

We have a much better source of KR information. The Almighty in Dalinar's vision. The fact that he asks Dalinar to refound them, tells us that he thinks they are good enough.

 

 

 

 

So the KR were meant to fight then then help with rebuilding the society including its policing and justice system. So I think they were a major political force in their own right.

 

I agree there were one or two bad apples among them from time to time, and but any major deviation from oaths automatically leads to stripping of powers. I can't imagine a system better than the KR with built in failsafe mechanisms. I daresay return of the KR orders will not only unite Roshar but also improve the morality of Roshar's society by doing away with many of its prejudices like lighteye- darkeye, male-female.

Finally regarding the variation among the Orders' interpretation of law and Honor. I think the Order's had pretty much defined jurisdiction of work. We don't know the oaths of all the orders can make informed guesses.

In your hypothetical situation, I believe the Windrunner will go to protect the victim first, then he should also protect the assailants if they don't get a fair trial(2nd Windrunner oath). Skybreakers will be all about the law. He will capture the assailants and ensure he gets proper trial and punishment according to law. The Dustbringer, I have no idea about their oaths, but expect them to come into action if the assailants go scot free on a mere technicality of law. But I am clear doing what is right does not include killing anyone unfairly.

The problem is ideally a policing force has to hold to certain laws. So when you bring up jurisdiction, do you mean windrunners only operate in one kingdom, skybreakers in another, and so on? That the orders operate only in the kingdoms whose laws match their ideals? Otherwise what happens when a law comes into conflict with their ideal? Are they allowed to carte blanche ignore the laws of the people they are protecting and enact their own justice based on the ideals of their order? A military force is typically exactly that, used in times of war. There is martial law, but that is the military enforcing their laws on the native population to maintain "peace" during a difficult time. True ideally I would like to think that a group with powers would hold to ideals, and these ideals would be held up as an example to others. Prime example being superman, but in his case a common story point is where does superman interfere and where doesn't he? At what level is his interference ok? At what level does his interference create policy? If there is a war between two nations, and one uses a weapon that kills many people to gain the upper hand, does he stop them to save lives but prolong the war? Does he pick sides and become a weapon himself (see Watchmen), or does he not pick sides and stand by while innocents die?

 

You make a good point about fight and rebuild. I always took it as they fight off the voidbringers, and then pass on the technological knowledge to help mankind start over to prepare for the next wave of desolations. 

 

Well thats the thing in these two situations, what is killing someone unfairly? Jasnah is a radiant, kills the four men, and didn't lose her powers so for elsecallers that is clearly killing someone fairly. Brandon has quoted that some radiant orders would have no problem with what Adolin did, so some radiant orders would clearly see what he did as killing someone fairly. So if orders can disagree on what constitutes killing someone fairly then even if the radiants were able to set law and policy across the globe, it would be difficult to prevent infighting. The prime example given in the book is the windrunners and skybreakers being diametrically opposed on how to apply the law. Skybreakers take a literal stance, Windrunners a more liberal one. 

Edited November 7, 2014 by Pathfinder

[Twenty@20 he/him]

By jurisdiction I meant that the Orders would have separate rules of engagement. For example, the windrunners would be solely concerned with protecting, rescuing and such. they would trust the skybreakers with practical application of law. Yes, there will be disagreement even among honorable people but I believe they can easily find common ground as they wont have any ulterior motives beyond their oaths. I think we are giving to much credibility to the in-world book. It was clearly written 200 years after recreance and was probably trying to pad up the internal arguments among the Order's to discredit them. To my mind the approval of the Almighty is enough sign of the effectiveness of the KR system.

 

edit: I have already said about giving Jasnah the benefit of doubt earlier. To think of it, even the sprens capable of rational thought. Perhaps Ivory too decided to give her the benefit of doubt. that doesnt mean he will let Jasnah kill again similarly. And i can foresee that that spren of various orders will also co-operate among themselves to ensure that any disagreements between their knights doesnt distract them from the greater common goal.

 

Also isn't it apparent that Roshar is a broken society. values such as honour, integrity have been twisted by corrupt selfish individuals. this moral degeneration is also a part of the comming desolation. When you worry that KR will "ignore the laws of the people they are protecting and enact their own justice based on the ideals of their order" you are assuming that present laws and justice system is better than whatever laws KR will enforce by common consensus. I think the reverse is true. If the KR ensure that the first oath is followed in letter and spirit that will ensure betterment of entire Roshar. The KRs are symbol of hope.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Twenty@20

[Pathfinder]

By jurisdiction I meant that the Orders would have separate rules of engagement. For example, the windrunners would be solely concerned with protecting, rescuing and such. they would trust the skybreakers with practical application of law. Yes, there will be disagreement even among honorable people but I believe they can easily find common ground as they wont have any ulterior motives beyond their oaths. I think we are giving to much credibility to the in-world book. It was clearly written 200 years after recreance and was probably trying to pad up the internal arguments among the Order's to discredit them. To my mind the approval of the Almighty is enough sign of the effectiveness of the KR system.

I see and respect your view. What I am about to state is in no way shape or form to criticize or belittle so hopefully I can write it in such a way that that intention carries over in the written word. I see what you are saying and admire it, but I think considering what we know, that is overly idealistic. Also, of my own opinion, I do not feel that the Almighty supporting the knight radiants system intrinsically means he is right. Just in case I will put this in a spoiler as it is regarding the cosmere and i do not know the proper etiquette when discussing it in certain boards:

 

The almighty is just a shardholder. The way I see that to mean is it is just a person holding a whole lot of power that can make mistakes. Mistakes including the fact that he admits he cannot see the future as well as other shardholders. So just because he thinks the knights radiants is a good idea, doesn't mean it has to be. The Almighty might be viewed as god in the classical sense to those on roshar, but in reality he is not all knowing and not all powerful, considering he did not prevent his own splintering, and another shardholder was able to splinter him. 

 

but that is my own understanding/interpretation on the cosmere, and I can understand others feeling/interpreting it differently. 

[Twenty@20 he/him]

@ pathfinder. I edited my post a bit. By the way, rest assure, I dont mind any contrarian view if it is argued well. I think we can agree to disagree. I see your point. hopefully you have understood mine.

 

I would point out that Tanavast even though a shardholder had a very long life and must have observed the Radiants for a long time. So I tend to defer to his judgement regarding the Radiants.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Twenty@20

[Thethirdstone]

A point which I haven't seen anyone make yet is the nature of soulcasting that we have seen so far - through Shallans eyes.  It involves arguing with a sentient aspect of the object and convincing it to transform.  While I wouldn't argue that this is the only way - the soulcasters used by ardents don't appear to be this complicated, I think it is something to consider.  If Jasnah soulcasted these men, the possibility exists that she was able to "touch" their minds and thus know without a doubt that they were guilty of the earlier murders.  I'm not going to make a big argument about it and that being a case for it as a moral action.  I see her actions as justified personally.

 

But I also think that her spren must have a very loose set of morals/honor/whatever you want to call it governing the bond/powers granted to Jasnah.  On the night her powers manifested she was returning from, or on the way to, a meeting with an assasin who, it is reasonable to believe she has used for actual killing. She also said she maintained relationships with all the prominent assasins in order to protect her family, by having people killed - most likely.  Mraize says she has had several members of his order (the ghostbloods) assasinated.  I am solidly in the camp that though Kaladin's spren/oaths/bond requires him to be extremely honorable (his spren is an honor spren) the other orders will all function very differently.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Thethirdstone

[Twenty@20 he/him]

A point which I haven't seen anyone make yet is the nature of soulcasting that we have seen so far - through Shallans eyes.  It involves arguing with a sentient aspect of the object and convincing it to transform.  While I wouldn't argue that this is the only way - the soulcasters used by ardents don't appear to be this complicated, I think it is something to consider.  If Jasnah soulcasted these men, the possibility exists that she was able to "touch" their minds and thus know without a doubt that they were guilty of the earlier murders.  I'm not going to make a big argument about it and that being a case for it as a moral action.  I see her actions as justified personally.

 

But I also think that her spren must have a very loose set of morals/honor/whatever you want to call it governing the bond/powers granted to Jasnah.  On the night her powers manifested she was returning from, or on the way to, a meeting with an assasin who, it is reasonable to believe she has used for actual killing. She also said she maintained relationships with all the prominent assasins in order to protect her family, by having people killed - most likely.  Mraize says she has had several members of his order (the ghostbloods) assasinated.  I am solidly in the camp that though Kaladin's spren/oaths/bond requires him to be extremely honorable (his spren is an honor spren) the other orders will all function very differently.

Thats an interesting point you are making. I would love to see Jasnah soulcasting those men from a Shadesmar perspective and whether or not she could have read their mind. A question to ask Brandon I believe. I would not trust every word Mraize says. until we know the Elsecaller's oaths or see Jasnah- Ivory interaction, a judgement about them would be premature.

[KevinTheHerdazian he/him]

I would like to make a spoiler tag for a reply. How do I do this? It has to do with the jasnah reading that spoils what happened in the ship.

[sun tzaro]

"you are assuming that present laws and justice system is better than whatever laws KR will enforce by common consensus.

 

I would be very surprised if the KRs end up creating and enforcing their own laws across Roshar. 

 

Everyone likes autonomy, and after the disaster of the Hierocracy, I can't imagine any nation is ready to bow down without a fight, regardless of whether or not their opponents have magical powers.

 

Nale's own stringent respect for local laws also suggests that the Skybreakers would not be okay with the KRs deciding the supreme law of the land, unless all of the legislatures on Roshar assented to their rule. 

 

 

I would like to make a spoiler tag for a reply. How do I do this? It has to do with the jasnah reading that spoils what happened in the ship.

 

[spoiler] [/spoiler]

Edited November 8, 2014 by sun tzaro

[Twenty@20 he/him]

I think the only people who will have problems with KR are the kings and high princes of Roshar who will try to protect their serfdoms from KR influence. They won't be able to protect their subjects from the voidbringers but would oppose the KR for selfish motives and to maintain their "autonomy". The common people of Roshar will definitely welcome the KR and want to emulate their principles, specially the first oath which is a good standard of morality.

Isn't it commonly accepted that the Heralds have lost their minds after staying on Roshar for thousands of years and are now a twisted version of their original selves? In that case, I wouldn't take present Nale's action as a model for what high-spren bound Skybreakers and KRs, in general ought to do.

Edit: @ Kevin.

Go to this site for HTML tags to know about spoiler tags

http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/misc.php?do=bbcode

Edited November 8, 2014 by Twenty@20

[KevinTheHerdazian he/him]

Thats an interesting point you are making. I would love to see Jasnah soulcasting those men from a Shadesmar perspective and whether or not she could have read their mind. A question to ask Brandon I believe. I would not trust every word Mraize says. until we know the Elsecaller's oaths or see Jasnah- Ivory interaction, a judgement about them would be premature.

in jasnah's reading from Storms unhallowed, she states that when she tries to touch a persons lightbulb( them in shadesmar) there's a force pushing her hand back like when you try to put 2 magnets with the same polarity to attach.

[Pathfinder]

I think the point we are trying to make is for laws that are not so clearly "right or wrong". For instance I live in America and am very staunchly against gun violence, and am against personal possession of guns. There are other people who feel personal ownership of guns is their right and stand firmly behind the 2nd amendment. I feel gun ownership makes the world more dangerous, while others feel it makes it safer. I am not bringing up this example to argue whether or not gun ownership is right or not. However if the local kingdom held one view, while the knights radiant held another view, how would that play out? The local kingdom is just supposed to say "hey the knights radiant thinks this way and all radiants are supposed to be super stand up guys, even though they abandoned us way back when. Let us throw away our own beliefs and do what they think is right because they say so!". Would the local kingdom be allowed to vote, and the knights radiants have to abide by their ruling if the law they vote into being disagrees with theirs? I am not saying the kingdom's law is right, nor the knights radiant. All I am saying is they could disagree, so how does that get resolved? Are the knights radiant subject to that kingdom's law when they are within its borders? What if through obeying the local law, they would break their oath? Sorry I do not mean to beat a dead horse. We do agree to disagree, just further posts popped up with more info, so I felt the need to ring in. 

[Twenty@20 he/him]

@ Pathfinder. I get your point. All I am saying is that the Radiants are sworn to follow the first oath. Personally I believe that the first oath is an excellent standard of morality. The Radiants will also fight against violations of the first oath. So if any person or group of persons blatantly violate the first law, they will definitely try to stop them. Taravangian has been violating the first oath blatantly and this resulted in mass casualties. So they would definitely act against him and the Diagramist. So if the 2nd amendment/ gun ownership turns out to be in violation of the first oath, they will have to try to change it. By the way, I feel that owning a gun isn't harmful in itself. How the person uses it is important. So if a particular instance of gun usage doesn't violate the first oath( eg. firing in the air, non- lethal shots or even lethal shots to protect life, that is genuine self-defence cases) they might be acceptable. Really it is difficult to generalise. The KR will work by consensus but not at the cost of their oaths. The main role of KR will be to create social conditions where the violations of their oaths will be minimised. So if public and private safety is ensured, people will be more likely not to carry guns or tend to use them non- lethally because they know help is near. Also I expect that the wrong doers will be in fear of the Radiants and that also will act as a deterrent. Hope this helps.

Edited November 8, 2014 by Twenty@20

[Mckeedee123 he/him]

I never really understood why Shallan was so convinced that Jasnah's actions were wrong. Cold-blooded murderers, especially thieves, just don't deserve pity. Unjustified murder as part of a crime is the worst form of arrogance, as it implies that the aggressor's desires are more important than the life of the victim. Despite some arguments I've heard, The Broken Window Theory does not mean that criminals are just products of their society. All human beings are free agents, and we have the ability to choose what we do. These 4 men consciously chose to commit murder. They killed innocent people who were on their way to that theater, and in doing so, they rebelled from morality. There is simply no way to justify murder-robbery, and for as long as these criminals remained unrepentant they didn't even deserve a discussion as to whether their deaths were right or wrong.

Edited November 9, 2014 by mckeedee123

[Twenty@20 he/him]

Two wrongs don't make a right. A kills B. In turn C kills A. Both the killings are wrong. You can't commit one crime to prevent or avenge another crime.

Barbaric societies publicly lynch killers, thieves and adulterers. Are the public in those societies any better than the people whom they just killed?

The law and justice system is meant to protect the conscience of the society. By punishing criminals according to laws, we save our society from turning into those barbaric places.

Regarding the concept of free will, philosophers have argued through ages if we really have free will or only an illusion of it.I am no expert on this issue but I just read the Wikipedia page on Free Will.http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will anyone interested can check it out

[Moogle]

Do you disagree with laws that declare the punishment for breaking them to be execution, Twenty?

[Twenty@20 he/him]

On principle, I think the capital punishment is unnecessary. If someone is convicted of a heinous crime, a life sentence is as good as execution for the purpose of removing the person from society. Additionally, it gives the convict a chance to repent for his crimes.

Having said that its not like I have a hard line position against execution. If a court can make a really good case for why a certain person should be executed, I might go with it.

Another thing. I checked on the internet that over the last 40 years 1390 persons have been executed by American courts. That's a miniscule number compared to convicts undergoing jail term through all these years. Perhaps additional 1400 life prisoners would not have been a very big burden.

I think some people may find my ideas unconventional or even plain wrong. Hope you will at least give it a fair consideration.

[Guest]

On principle, I think the capital punishment is unnecessary. If someone is convicted of a heinous crime, a life sentence is as good as execution for the purpose of removing the person from society. Additionally, it gives the convict a chance to repent for his crimes.

Having said that its not like I have a hard line position against execution. If a court can make a really good case for why a certain person should be executed, I might go with it.

Another thing. I checked on the internet that over the last 40 years 1390 persons have been executed by American courts. That's a miniscule number compared to convicts undergoing jail term through all these years. Perhaps additional 1400 life prisoners would not have been a very big burden.

I think some people may find my ideas unconventional or even plain wrong. Hope you will at least give it a fair consideration.

 

Twenty, in my country, we do not have the death penalty: it was abolished decades ago. We strongly believe into rehabilitation, even for the most heinous of crimes, given a reasonable period of time spend in prison. Until two years ago, the longest sentence one could obtain was 25 years of prison. Now some law made it so you can accumulate 25 years sentences.... Some kid just got sent into prison for 75 years.... The media pick-up the story. Over here, we think this is abusive and socially unacceptable.

 

United-States tend to be particularly harsh with its criminals. Not all countries have similar laws.

[lol_king he/him]

Why is killing inherently wrong? I think because it takes away another's right to live. So the way i see it, if you take someone's right to live away, then you don't deserve it either.

Subject to circumstances and exceptions, of course.

So jasnah is justified in her killing, as she had good intentions, she's within the law, and we know it wasn't a misguided decision and it would ultimately help people.

[KevinTheHerdazian he/him]

Well sorry everyone but we are very off track with the title. I don't think it will destroy adolin at all. If it was me I'll be sad I had to resort to that but it was the right thing to do to stop sadeas. That's my opinion

[Guest]

Why is killing inherently wrong? I think because it takes away another's right to live. So the way i see it, if you take someone's right to live away, then you don't deserve it either.

Subject to circumstances and exceptions, of course.

So jasnah is justified in her killing, as she had good intentions, she's within the law, and we know it wasn't a misguided decision and it would ultimately help people.

 

I asked my husband how he viewed the matter. My husband did not read SA, so I merely explained to him Sadeas's betrayal, how it caused the death of 6000 men and how he still kept on purposefully sending men through their death by using bridgemen. I also explained to him Adolin last encounter with him. I told him Sadeas declared he would never stop, nothing could ever changed his mind and he'll keep at it up until he wins.

 

I told him Alethkar's laws did not leave them with the opportunity to fairly trial Sadeas as, since he was not the one directly holding the knife, they had nothing against him. I told him their country's laws saw open betrayal as acceptable. He said that if this was the case, then the man could not be trialed fairly, but the fact remains he is a criminal. I then told him Adolin jumped on him and killed him, brutally, by knifing him into the eye. I also told him murdering a highprince was crime punishable by death.

 

My husband seemed to think it a no matter. He said the men I described, Sadeas, sounded like a terrorist, someone akin to Ben Laden or Hitler. He said such men are rarely seen as the one doing directly the deed, but are mostly sitting at the top of the pyramid issuing orders resulting in many deaths. He said he thought such men were beyond redemption and that if legal means did not allow for us to process them fairly, then killing them was acceptable. He asked me if some men ending up killing Ben Laden would be put to trial by his country (providing he was from an enemy country that is). The answer is probably no even if that man did killed someone. The circumstances however, makes it acceptable.

 

He seemed to think Adolin fit within those criteria. Conclusion was Sadeas crimes are so great, it makes his murder acceptable even if it goes against the law. How he ended up killing Sadeas did not matter much to him: murder was murder. A knife in the eye of in the chest, he could not see why it mattered.

 

I thought it was interesting to have an outsider's perspective, someone who is not emotionally attached to any of those characters. It is worth what is it worth.

 

 

Well sorry everyone but we are very off track with the title. I don't think it will destroy adolin at all. If it was me I'll be sad I had to resort to that but it was the right thing to do to stop sadeas. That's my opinion

 

I think it will. Had it been someone else doing the deed, then yeah, perhaps this individual would have escape with a lesser moral dilemma, but not Adolin. Adolin is a nice person, a kind person. He is not a murderer, nor is he a criminal, but he just crossed the line. The gesture he poses violently contradicts everything he was ever been taught and everything he has ever embodied. He has always been all about fair fighting and honorable duels to the point he despised hunting as it went against this ideal of his.

 

Now he broke everything, for the love of a father, but the same father is the one who consistently insisted he grows up into a good man. Similarly to Szeth, he was placed into an impossible situation: he had to either dismissed the open thread Sadeas represented and thus risk failing at protecting the father he loves above all or he had to betray the same father by breaking every rule he ever tried to ingrain into him not to mention the law as well.

 

It is impossible Adolin will pass through this unscathed. Had he choosed to let Sadeas walk away, he would have betrayed his inner feeling telling him to do something. By choosing to kill Sadeas, he choose to betray the very same man he tried so hard to protect. Failing his father will be the worst of trials for Adolin who has been hero-worshiping his father since childhood.

 

It will eat him alive. Not to mention this crime adds itself to a myriad of other elements that will no doubt help bringing him down: he is the only non Radiant of the family, his fiance now ranks higher then him, he lost his Rhysadium and he injured himself in a way that will prevent him from doing what he does best: fighting.

 

My guess is Adolin has set foot into a downward spiral that will bring him down to real low.

[Twenty@20 he/him]

He said the men I described, Sadeas, sounded like a terrorist, someone akin to Ben Laden or Hitler. He said such men are rarely seen as the one doing directly the deed, but are mostly sitting at the top of the pyramid issuing orders resulting in many deaths.

I would like to add another perspective here. I say why limit ourselves to comparing Sadeas with Hitler and Bin Laden (these two are figures so deeply associated with the concept of evil in our collective consciousness that no rational discussion is possible)

I always thought Sadeas to haven more in common with the current crop of our political leaders. Sadeas is an extremely savvy politician who maintains the public perception of a strongman, can manipulate allies and is strictly end justifies the means type of guy. I can think of atleast one or two current heads of state who would fit that description and have also given orders that led to death of many people. So is it justified to go and kill these leaders because they won't certainly be tried in their countries?

[Guest]

I would like to add another perspective here. I say why limit ourselves to comparing Sadeas with Hitler and Bin Laden (these two are figures so deeply associated with the concept of evil in our collective consciousness that no rational discussion is possible)

I always thought Sadeas to haven more in common with the current crop of our political leaders. Sadeas is an extremely savvy politician who maintains the public perception of a strongman, can manipulate allies and is strictly end justifies the means type of guy. I can think of atleast one or two current heads of state who would fit that description and have also given orders that led to death of many people. So is it justified to go and kill these leaders because they won't certainly be tried in their countries?

 

Do we have concrete examples of high placed political individuals that committed betrayal towards allies of the same scope as Sadeas did? I believe sending orders that results in deaths is different then purposefully trapping allies on a Plateau and watching them meet a sure death.

 

I do think such situations may be ones where the notion of "crime against the humanity" may be used. If an individual is found guilty of crimes of sufficient magnitude, then yes, its death become an acceptable solution and one's killer may find leniency. I think Adolin fits within this category. Sadeas was guilty of massacre and human extermination as well as guilty of leading a hidden war against a political rival. He claimed his own self there was not redemption possible for him as he would never stop nor repent for his sins. Adolin impulsively took him out to protect those he loved. He is guilty of murder, but I believe the circumstances surrounding the murder and the individual targeted call for a lighter sentence.

 

Death or exile do not seem justify in his case. Lost of rank and/or shards in retribution appear a much more appropriate punishment for his deed.