Radiants: Good and Evil

[WindrunnerRadiant]

There is a very understandable assumption that I believe is none-the-less wrong and I have finally reached a breaking point. That is, the idea that all of the Knights Radiant are 'good.' 

 

Yes, they have to prescribe to a rather strict set of rules or lose their powers, but that doesn't mean they are all good guys with great judgement and honorable intentions. I don't know if you have forgotten, but Nohadon complains that not all spren capable of forming the Nahel bond are 'as discerning' as the honorspren (like Syl). This implies that some spren grant powers to people who do, in fact, use them in a way that we would consider 'wrong,' but that their spren don't. 

 

To further this argument, I would like to cite Cryptics. Yes, Pattern is wonderful and I would consider Shallan a good person. However, the only real requirement to keep your bond as a Lightweaver is to not lie to yourself, which is actually more difficult for Shallan because she is a good person and doesn't want to admit to the things she's done in her past which were wrong.

 

Heck, even using Kaladin as an example, if he really had thought it was right to murder Elhokar, I'm not entirely sure he would have lost his powers, and might even have been able to do it himself without losing his bond. But he knew it wasn't right, or just, or honorable, or whatever word you want to use for semantics sake. And that is why it was breaking his oaths to stand aside and let it happen.

 

As for the argument about Adolin and whether or not what he did would be acceptable for an Order of the Radiants, there is a WoB that says there are Orders that would be perfectly happy with what he had done. I also don't see how it is any worse or any more murder than what Jasnah did in the alley. She purposely drew those men out so she could slaughter them. And she clearly already was bonded and Ivory didn't seem to have a problem with it. Remember that each of the Orders holds vastly different views on what is 'right.' 

 

In conclusion, the only order that really seems to need to prescribe to what is 'right' all of the time seems to be the Windrunners, and even then, perception means a lot. Things are not so black and white.

[maxal]

There is a very understandable assumption that I believe is none-the-less wrong and I have finally reached a breaking point. That is, the idea that all of the Knights Radiant are 'good.' 

 

Yes, they have to prescribe to a rather strict set of rules or lose their powers, but that doesn't mean they are all good guys with great judgement and honorable intentions. I don't know if you have forgotten, but Nohadon complains that not all spren capable of forming the Nahel bond are 'as discerning' as the honorspren (like Syl). This implies that some spren grant powers to people who do, in fact, use them in a way that we would consider 'wrong,' but that their spren don't. 

 

I have a different take on Nohadon words.. True, not all sprens are as discerning as honorsprens and luckily they aren't. If all the Radiants were as honorable as Kaladin and Dalinar, nothing would ever get done. Evil guys would roam across Roshar without the Radians having any means to prosecute them because: 1) they have not explicitly broken the law, 2) they are clever enough not to be caught with their hands dirty and thus they are allowed to keep on causing deaths around them.

 

WoR made it obvious Kaladin's hands were tied when it came to parallel threats such as Amaram or Sadeas. He may understand the need to remove them, he may wish to do so, but he can't. It is just not his way. Imagine now all the Radiants had to follow the same precinct?

 

Their capacity to deal with evil and the Desolation would be seriously degraded. I thus say, luckily not all sprens are Syl, if they were, then the world would be doomed.

 

 

 

To further this argument, I would like to cite Cryptics. Yes, Pattern is wonderful and I would consider Shallan a good person. However, the only real requirement to keep your bond as a Lightweaver is to not lie to yourself, which is actually more difficult for Shallan because she is a good person and doesn't want to admit to the things she's done in her past which were wrong.

 

And yet the honorspren would never have chosen Shallan because she committed murder.... Can we thus say Pattern was not as discerning as Syl? Shallan is a good person, but she won't shy from getting her hands dirty if she needs to. Despite this, she is a good person, we can trust she would not abuse. I guess the question should be: "If Shallan turns evil and starts to kill people selfishly, would it break her bond to Pattern?"  I'd say probably, because she would be lying and living a lie...

 

 

 

Heck, even using Kaladin as an example, if he really had thought it was right to murder Elhokar, I'm not entirely sure he would have lost his powers, and might even have been able to do it himself without losing his bond. But he knew it wasn't right, or just, or honorable, or whatever word you want to use for semantics sake. And that is why it was breaking his oaths to stand aside and let it happen.

 

WoR made it quite clear Kaladin could not murder Elhokar. He lost his bond to Syl while he was entertaining the thought of killing him. He can't. He just can't. Elhokar does not befit the criteria of "people Kaladin is allowed to kill, which are not many people". I do not think Syl's reaction was because Kaladin, deep down, knew it was wrong, it was just wrong. Kaladin cannot kill to protect. His entire story arc was accepting this.

 

 

 

As for the argument about Adolin and whether or not what he did would be acceptable for an Order of the Radiants, there is a WoB that says there are Orders that would be perfectly happy with what he had done. I also don't see how it is any worse or any more murder than what Jasnah did in the alley. She purposely drew those men out so she could slaughter them. And she clearly already was bonded and Ivory didn't seem to have a problem with it. Remember that each of the Orders holds vastly different views on what is 'right.' 

 

In conclusion, the only order that really seems to need to prescribe to what is 'right' all of the time seems to be the Windrunners, and even then, perception means a lot. Things are not so black and white.

 

Adolin removed a known thread who had just professed how it would keep on trying to undermine his family. He killed out of love for his family: in fact we can say pretty much everything he does in both WoK and WoR are because he loves his family so much he sees as his role to look out for them. He puts his strength in front of his loved ones, trying to shelter them and not caring if he ends up being the collateral damage. Adolin had also tried to deal with the Sadeas issues in legal ways: he was out of options.

 

Jasnah purposely uprooted a few random thugs with the intend to kill them. We can argue endlessly as to whether they needed killing or not, but the fact remains Jasnah went for killing first and chose victims that were not direct threats to herself or her closed ones. Worst, she did not do it to remove evil from Roshar, but to teach a lesson to her ward... It is a much, much darker action than Adolin and Brandon has indeed confirmed Jasnah's actions were worst on a moral standpoint. 

 

I guess it all ends up to what is right and what is not? Windrunner and Bondsmith has established themselves on the higher moral ground, but if the world would to solely rely on them, it would be doomed. Why? Because higher moral ground is not always right. Sometimes, it is right to do something wrong for the right reasons, aka Adolin murdering Sadeas.

[Blackhoof]

All good points. Although I think what Jasnah did was not murder at all- what would those men have done to them? I doubt they would have simply asked for their money and left them in peace. She killed three thugs who would have kept murdering and robbing and raping until someone else killed them in turn. It is true that she sought out a fight, but so did the thugs.

it isn't much different from someone who willingly goes into war, to fight other people who willingly go to war, and kills far more than 3 bad people.

[DreamEternal]

She could have soucast their weapons, if there was any risk to her life. Wich there wasn't, since they could stab her all day and she would be fine. And it ceased to be self defence ehen they started running away. Plus, she could just tell them that she would turn them all into dust if they didn't surrender themselves to the nearest legal authority.

[Guest]

It's not that Kaladin CAN'T kill, it's that he can't kill as a 1st resort. If he really wanted to remove Elhokar as king, there was nothing stopping him from breaking into the King's Chambers, grabbing Elhokar, having him tarred and feathered, and then parading him through the camps feathered and in women's dress.

But he's not an Assassin. He can't break into the King's Chambers intending to kill Elhokar out of a need for revenge.

Life before death.

This can mean a lot of things, but first and foremost I think it means you can only kill to protect living life, not to avenge it, which at the least should keep all of the Orders on the gentler side of evil. (None of the Orders can become Hitler, for example, or do what Szeth did when he wiped out Rulers indiscriminately. Depending on what Gavilar was up to, it's possible even Kaladin could have killed Gavilar so long as Gavilar was given opportunity to yield)

[DreamEternal]

I am not sure if the Skybreakers would have anything against Hitler moralily speaking. Maybe they would reprimend his endless conquering as dangerous for the long term stability of the third reich, or support his enemies because they believe their sistems of rule are better for stability. The skybreakers are more about Order than Goodness.

Edited May 23, 2015 by CognitivePulsePattern

[Guest]

I am not sure if the Skybreakers would have anything against Hitler moralily speaking. Maybe they would reprimend his endless conquering as dangerous for the long term stability of the third reich, or support his enemies because they believe their sistems of rule are better for stability. The skybreakers are more about Order than Goodness.

I'm not saying all (or even any) of the Orders would stop him, just that they themselves couldn't BE him or his flunkies because of that oath.

Advanced Windrunners would definitely have a hard time standing aside, given what their 3rd(?) Ideal is.

[Guest]

I was wrong. I meant 2nd Ideal

[Arondell]

I felt both the Nohadon vision and the in-world Words of Radiance hinted that the Knights hadn't always been restricted by the Oaths.  I have the impression that before the oaths were put into effect they probably were not even an organized group but just surgebinders whos only restrictions were the very general intents of their spren.  Now at least even Cryptics have to follow the still very broad direction of the first oath.

[Odium's_Shard]

I believe that the spren are attracted to someone based on the merit of their character rather than in specifics their past actions (though these tend to shape who they are, i.e. Kaladin was always protecting his brother, his nature is to protect and serve).

 

Sure, in the past Shallan committed murder, but it was more the fact that she filed the memory and bricked it away, she lied and she lied again and again, and she became almost an illusion unto herself. I believe that was the criteria that attracted Pattern to her, and the Cryptics only have the rule that you mustn't lie to yourself so that you can tell the difference between the reality and the illusion you're creating.

 

Lightweavers and Elsecallers both seem to be rather vague morally, but I agree with Maxal that they can tread on this moral ground because they do what 'needs to be done'. All of the Knights seem to work towards a 'greater good', even if they don't see it. Their ideals lean towards their own survival in some cases, implying that if they see themselves moving forwards as towards the 'greater good' they may be able to forgo protection of others (life before death, but whose). 

 

And in the case of the Skybreakers, "I will put the law before all else", that's about as moral as a stone. This Order seems to be able to perform any objective action, as long as it is on whatever law they define.

 

So , I would conclude that a Knights Radiant is no more evil than the law, and no more 'good'. I would define them as being 'honourable', of course, but each in their own way. Some see honour as protecting the weak, some see it as always enacting the law, and others see it as leading, avenging, and being truthful to oneself. These are all honourable paths, and can surely lead each Order to a very different course of action. It is very difficult to conclude that Jasnah was out of the 'right' to murder the three thugs, seeing as those with the Transportation Surge (Elsecallers and Willshapers) were seen as unreliable and erratic by members of the more 'order' Orders.

 

Anyway, that's long enough for now I think.

Edited May 23, 2015 by Odium's_Shard

[Emerald101]

I am not sure if the Skybreakers would have anything against Hitler moralily speaking. Maybe they would reprimend his endless conquering as dangerous for the long term stability of the third reich, or support his enemies because they believe their sistems of rule are better for stability. The skybreakers are more about Order than Goodness.

 

As I understood it, the skybreakers were about the law,  and what Hitler did in assuming power was strictly contrary to the terms of the treaty of Versailles. Therefore he didn't have authority to condemn millions of Jews to death, whether or not they had broken the law, which most of them presumably hadn't.

[sprint]

It's not that Kaladin CAN'T kill, it's that he can't kill as a 1st resort. If he really wanted to remove Elhokar as king, there was nothing stopping him from breaking into the King's Chambers, grabbing Elhokar, having him tarred and feathered, and then parading him through the camps feathered and in women's dress.

But he's not an Assassin. He can't break into the King's Chambers intending to kill Elhokar out of a need for revenge.

Kaladin can kill as a first resort. The oath makes it clear "I will protect those who cannot protect themselves".  Kaladin can butcher a thousand soldiers / armed aggressor (e.g. parshendi) in order to save one person unable to defend themselves (e.g. Dalinar's troops on the spire in WoK).

 

I always assumed that the reason his bond with Syl starts to deteriorate is because he is not thinking about protecting anyone and is consumed with gaining revenge on Elhokar - he is unable to convince himself (or Syl) that his actions are protection. As the OP states he was breaking his oath by opting to stand aside by not protecting Elhokar from the planned assassination.

 

Arguably the majority of Roshar doesn't have much protection from Kaladin anymore (since oath 3) and probably require protection from him but thats where the snake eats its own tail   

 

As for the topic in the original post - good or bad is a matter of perspective and each order has its own moral compass as codified by the different oaths their radiants swear.  It is questionable whether pattern is in any way concerned with whether Shallan's actions are morally "right" or "wrong". As stated Skybreaker only care that the law is observed. Bondsmiths unite. I don't think we know enough about the other orders to understand their motivations yet.  

 

Stupid auto-correct doesn't recognise a number of names from the books - prior to edit this post referred to aladdin and dallier.

Edited May 24, 2015 by sprint

[DreamEternal]

As I understood it, the skybreakers were about the law, and what Hitler did in assuming power was strictly contrary to the terms of the treaty of Versailles. Therefore he didn't have authority to condemn millions of Jews to death, whether or not they had broken the law, which most of them presumably hadn't.

Yes, that makes sense. Sorry for my unfortunate, stupid, argument Skybreakers.

Thankfully being wrong is not a crime here in Brasil. Or there in the US or wherever the rest of you live.

[WindrunnerRadiant]

These are all good points. I think I should clarify that I don't think that it is a bad thing. The different values of the Orders are what makes the Knights Radiant as a whole work. Rather, I am simply trying to convey that being able to conform to a set of rules to use your power doesn't make you any more 'good.' And the unfortunate truth is that in some situations, someone who is not moral or necessarily good can be necessary.

[Guest]

Kaladin can kill as a first resort. The oath makes it clear "I will protect those who cannot protect themselves".  Kaladin can butcher a thousand soldiers / armed aggressor (e.g. parshendi) in order to save one person unable to defend themselves (e.g. Dalinar's troops on the spire in WoK).

 

I always assumed that the reason his bond with Syl starts to deteriorate is because he is not thinking about protecting anyone and is consumed with gaining revenge on Elhokar - he is unable to convince himself (or Syl) that his actions are protection. As the OP states he was breaking his oath by opting to stand aside by not protecting Elhokar from the planned assassination.

 

Maybe I'm using "first resort" incorrectly. If Kaladin shows up and people are being butchered, his first ACTION can be killing. What he can't do is fly (fall) towards the battle for the purpose of slaughtering Parshendi. His purpose has to be to protect, not to kill.

[Emerald101]

@WindrunnerRadiant:

 

I can kinda see where you're coming from here, but I think you underestimate the significance of the  first Ideal. No Knight Radiant can undertake an Endeavor where "the end justifies the means", all Radiants have to protect life, all Radiant's have to use their strength to serve. 

 

@sprint:

 

Kaladin can kill as a first resort. The oath makes it clear "I will protect those who cannot protect themselves".  Kaladin can butcher a thousand soldiers / armed aggressor (e.g. parshendi) in order to save one person unable to defend themselves (e.g. Dalinar's troops on the spire in WoK).

 

I don't quite agree with this, mostly because of this quote:

 

"Life before death," Teft said, wagging a finger at Kaladin. "The Radiant seeks to defend life, always. He never kills unnecessarily, and never risks his own life for frivolous reasons. Living is harder than dying. The Radiant's duty is to live." (WoK, hardback edition Pg. 831)

Emphasis mine.

 

To me that means he can kill, but if there is another way, the first Ideal requires him to take that path

[Guest]

These are all good points. I think I should clarify that I don't think that it is a bad thing. The different values of the Orders are what makes the Knights Radiant as a whole work. Rather, I am simply trying to convey that being able to conform to a set of rules to use your power doesn't make you any more 'good.' And the unfortunate truth is that in some situations, someone who is not moral or necessarily good can be necessary.

Those different values could be exactly what caused the Recreance. This just came to me, so it may not all add up, but what if all the different oaths put together and followed for a long time are like the 3 Laws of Robotics? You end up in a loop that eventually requires you to do exactly what the rules were designed to prevent!

Skybreakers and Windrunners are the most obvious example. Skybreakers follow the rules, Windrunners protect the vulnerable.

A war criminal, legally and fairly found guilty at trial, stripped of his weapons and armour, kneeling on the chopping block, might DESERVE death... but a Windrunner is sworn to protect him by the 2nd and 3rd Ideal. So the Windrunner saves him... now the Skybreaker is sworn to apprehend the Windrunner for setting a criminal free, meanwhile the war criminal has gotten loose and is about to kill someone, so the Windrunner kills the war criminal in defense of that someone... follow that path for 500 years and the best option might well seem to be "just walk away"

[11thorderknight]

So far this entire discussion has been about the Orders' interpretation of what is good/right. A very interesting discussion, and one that's been had and will continue to be had on this forum. But the more interesting question that (I think?) OP was trying to ask is this: does a surgebinder even have to be any kind of good in the first place? For example, people will argue about whether Jasnah's killing of the robbers was justified, but there's no doubt that overall she's a "good" person. But what if she wasn't? Her spren's attraction seems to be to her logic/rationality rather to any innate goodness or altruism. What if a similar spren bonded to a very rational criminal mastermind? What if a Cryptic bonded to an artist that was completely amoral and cared only about fame? What if a Skybreaker-spren bonded to a cruel, psychopathic dictator, who could simply declare whatever he wanted legal or illegal?

 

My take on it is that, prior to the founding of the Knights as an organization, the spren did exactly this. So, you could count on the proto-windrunners and the proto-edgedancers to be "good guys" but everyone else was the same mixed bag as the rest of humanity.

Edited May 25, 2015 by 11thorderknight

[natc]

Sure, in the past Shallan committed murder, but it was more the fact that she filed the memory and bricked it away, she lied and she lied again and again, and she became almost an illusion unto herself. I believe that was the criteria that attracted Pattern to her, and the Cryptics only have the rule that you mustn't lie to yourself so that you can tell the difference between the reality and the illusion you're creating.

 

 

I'd like to point out that she committed the first of the aforementioned murders using Pattern as a weapon.

 

That is absolutely not what attracted Pattern.

[Emerald101]

So far this entire discussion has been about the Orders' interpretation of what is good/right. A very interesting discussion, and one that's been had and will continue to be had on this forum. But the more interesting question that (I think?) OP was trying to ask is this: does a surgebinder even have to be any kind of good in the first place? For example, people will argue about whether Jasnah's killing of the robbers was justified, but there's no doubt that overall she's a "good" person. But what if she wasn't? Her spren's attraction seems to be to her logic/rationality rather to any innate goodness or altruism. What if a similar spren bonded to a very rational criminal mastermind? What if a Cryptic bonded to an artist that was completely amoral and cared only about fame? What if a Skybreaker-spren bonded to a cruel, psychopathic dictator, who could simply declare whatever he wanted legal or illegal?

 

My take on it is that, prior to the founding of the Knights as an organization, the spren did exactly this. So, you could count on the proto-windrunners and the proto-edgedancers to be "good guys" but everyone else was the same mixed bag as the rest of humanity.

 

Life before death, Strength before weakness, Journey before destination.

 

again, we seem to be underestimating the significance of the first oath, though granted the knights radiant could've been a mixing pot before "organization was thrust upon them."

[Moogle]

again, we seem to be underestimating the significance of the first oath, though granted the knights radiant could've been a mixing pot before "organization was thrust upon them."

 

I don't think the First Ideal is particularly significant. Kaladin blatantly breaks it by going for suicide in the chasms, but it didn't affect his bond with Syl. When he starts to plan to kill Elhokar, she goes stupid, signifying his bond was fraying. Kaladin hadn't even spoken the Third Ideal of the Windrunners, and breaking it was hurting his bond!

 

I've written up my thoughts in full here.

[Guest]

I don't think the First Ideal is particularly significant. Kaladin blatantly breaks it by going for suicide in the chasms, but it didn't affect his bond with Syl. When he starts to plan to kill Elhokar, she goes stupid, signifying his bond was fraying. Kaladin hadn't even spoken the Third Ideal of the Windrunners, and breaking it was hurting his bond!

 

I've written up my thoughts in full here.

 

His suicide attempt was before he spoke the 1st Ideal, but I can't actually find specifically when Kaladin spoke it. I know it was Teft who told him what it was, which HAS to place it after the suicide attempt.

 

Syl has said that every time Kaladin kills, it hurts her, meaning that the First Ideal does have relevance. (Can't copy/paste it, but WoK, Ch73. p983 in the ebook. This is before she can become a Shardblade.)

 

I suspect that rather than the First Ideal not being relevant, it's rather the least restrictive. The higher the Ideal the more strictly you have to adhere to it, and if you have to break a lower Ideal to uphold a higher one the bond remains intact.

[Moogle]

His suicide attempt was before he spoke the 1st Ideal, but I can't actually find specifically when Kaladin spoke it. I know it was Teft who told him what it was, which HAS to place it after the suicide attempt.

 

Kaladin had yet to speak the Third Ideal, and going for Elhokar was still hurting the bond. By the same logic, suicide should have hurt the bond as well.

 

Syl has said that every time Kaladin kills, it hurts her, meaning that the First Ideal does have relevance. (Can't copy/paste it, but WoK, Ch73. p983 in the ebook. This is before she can become a Shardblade.)

 

I don't see what that has to do with the First Ideal. The Windrunners are about protection. Any killing whatsoever is counter to that idea. I could just as easily say Syl being hurt by killing shows the Second+Third Ideals have relevance. Even if it did have something to do with the First Ideal, Syl was not "hurt" by Kaladin planning to kill Elhokar - she painlessly became stupid. Syl being hurt does not signify a weakened bond/broken oath.

 

I suspect that rather than the First Ideal not being relevant, it's rather the least restrictive. The higher the Ideal the more strictly you have to adhere to it, and if you have to break a lower Ideal to uphold a higher one the bond remains intact.

 

Perhaps. Given we have yet to see a single example of someone's bond being hurt by not following the First Ideal, however, I am loathe to claim it is restrictive at all and much more than a mission statement of the Radiants. It certainly isn't an oath, if higher Ideals supercede it - it's more of a guideline.

 

Take Shallan: she's actively helping the Ghostbloods, an organization that hurts innocents. Life before death? Broken, perhaps, though maybe justifiable. Strength before weakness? Questionable - she certainly cowers before Mraize, rather than killing him. Journey before destination? Teft explains this as meaning a Radiant wouldn't hurt an innocent in the pursuit of their goals. Well, Shallan fails there, because her help benefits the Ghostbloods, even if she's going to eventually destroy the organization.

 

Pattern doesn't care. Her bond is as fine as ever. Perhaps it's because this is all indirect murdering of innocents, but Kaladin was getting into hot water for relatively minor infractions that don't break any oaths.

Edited May 25, 2015 by Moogle
Removed extraneous paragraphs, focused more on a few points rather than ballooning the discussion, and removed repeated information

[DreamEternal]

You must remember that while the ghostbloods are a bunch of amoral cutthroaths who employ assassins, we don't know them well enought to say they should just be killed. The only people we have seem they hunt are Jasnah, who was not above using assassins herself, and Amatam, who is, well, Amaram. Discovering more about them before fighting them would fit into life before death, and strenght before weakness doesn't forbid you from feeling justified fear. The only part if the first oath that could be against Shallan is Journey before Destination, wich is vague as hell.

Plus, she was very careful to avoid giving them too much information, only giving then some maps and opening the path to Urithiru to save an army

Edited May 25, 2015 by CognitivePulsePattern

[Moogle]

...

 

The Ghostbloods killed Shallan's carriage driver casually, apparently as a test for Shallan. They're not just enemies of Amaram and Jasnah. It's apparent they've been doing it to other people, too. Helping them is not exactly a display of sterling moral character.

 

Not to say I disagree with it, simply that it seems to conflict with journey before destination, which Teft claims means "... There are always several ways to achieve a goal. Failure is preferable to winning through unjust means. Protecting ten innocents is not worth killing one."

Assisting an organization like the Ghostbloods in order to do... well, anything, seems to conflict massively with that. I'm open to other interpretations, but I'm not seeing them at this point in time. (And if you really can justify most things with the First Ideal, then my point about it basically being irrelevant stands.)

Edited May 26, 2015 by Moogle