Radiants: Good and Evil

[MoS03]

How is agreeing to allow the death of someone you've sworn to protect not breaking an oath to protect?

I also think that Syl is vastly more Honor than Cultivation, and making promises or committing to actions that contradict previously made promises hurts her cognitive function as well.

[DreamEternal]

Yes, you are right about the carriage driver, but you must remember Shallan never really helped them. She just dhowed them some maps Amaram had, with the writing removed, and said Dalinar was interested in a madman. In the time she believed the information they had could be vital to stop the desolation from starting. Simply killing them when NOT killing them could save more lifes could very well be AGAINST the first oath, wich disincourages killing as a first resort.

[Emerald101]

Yes, you are right about the carriage driver, but you must remember Shallan never really helped them. She just dhowed them some maps Amaram had, with the writing removed, and said Dalinar was interested in a madman. In the time she believed the information they had could be vital to stop the desolation from starting. Simply killing them when NOT killing them could save more lifes could very well be AGAINST the first oath, wich disincourages killing as a first resort.

 

I'm not saying I agree with moogle here (I don't), but this is kinda against the whole "ends don't justify means" thing.

[DreamEternal]

Them I see it diferently. I belief that killing first, them dealing with what happens is a greater infraction than letting a criminal go to avoid risking greater damage. "Life before death" is part of "Journey before destination" and essential to understanding it to me, while you see both as separeted ideas, where the latter takes precedence.

To make things clearer, killing people to collect their death rattles is against the first oath, but NOT killing the ghostbloods because they have information is not.

Edited May 26, 2015 by CognitivePulsePattern

[WindrunnerRadiant]

I think if Kaladin believes that killing someone is necessary in order to protect another, the second ideal takes precedence. Something to keep in mind is that he never had to speak the first ideal in order to progress in his Nahel bond. He did have to speak the second, albeit any sentence with the right idea behind it works.

 

So yes, the first ideal is important, and yes, breaking it hurts Syl (she said it hurther whenever Kaladin killed someone), but just intending to break the third before it was even spoken almost killed Syl, So the other ideals obviously hold more sway.

[Emerald101]

Them I see it diferently. I belief that killing first, them dealing with what happens is a greater infraction than letting a criminal go to avoid risking greater damage. "Life before death" is part of "Journey before destination" and essential to understanding it to me, while you see both as separeted ideas, where the latter takes precedence.

To make things clearer, killing people to collect their death rattles is against the first oath, but NOT killing the ghostbloods because they have information is not.

 

See, I think that depends. If killing them is right, then not doing so because of the "end" (i.e. them having information that would help save people) would be justifying means using an end.

 

the question then, is whether or not killing somebody can ever be "right".

[WindrunnerRadiant]

'Right' and 'wrong' are extremely subjective and entirely centered around your worldview and ethics. In the type of society that is dominant in the story thus far in the SA, killing is acceptable if there is enough reason. That is why glory through battle is an idea there. Of course, there are other perspectives, such as Dalinar's, who no longer believes there is honor in war. But really, it is all perception. Like the fact that Jasnah believed she wasn't doing anything wrong walking down the alley to draw out those men so she could kill them, but Shallan thought it was wrong. Different perspectives see different things.

[DreamEternal]

In general I believe the following rule may make the first oath easier to understand: Killing may be right, if it follows the idea of "Journey before destination" and is the only alternative, or if highter level oaths demand it. Not killing never breaks the first oath, but may break the others depending on their nature.

Edited May 28, 2015 by CognitivePulsePattern

[Emerald101]

'Right' and 'wrong' are extremely subjective and entirely centered around your worldview and ethics. In the type of society that is dominant in the story thus far in the SA, killing is acceptable if there is enough reason. That is why glory through battle is an idea there. Of course, there are other perspectives, such as Dalinar's, who no longer believes there is honor in war. But really, it is all perception. Like the fact that Jasnah believed she wasn't doing anything wrong walking down the alley to draw out those men so she could kill them, but Shallan thought it was wrong. Different perspectives see different things.

 

I think this, in some form, is what broke the Radiants, and why pattern and the stormfather think forming a nahel bond is a death sentence. Spren, being primarily of the cognitive realm, view things in terms of absolutes, whereas humans think in terms of application. This disparity leads to situations like what we saw with kaladin in WoR.

[Odium's_Shard]

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.

 

Just going to throw myself back in to admit myself truly undermined. 

 

Relevant to the discussion then, if Shallan committed murders using Pattern, then presumably even the concept of the First Ideal didn't hold her back terribly much, and Pattern knew the Ideal even if she didn't (as was mentioned, going against the Third Ideal affected Kaladin's bond even if he didn't know it).

 

So presumably, whatever defines the moral bounds of her order is quite outside what someone else might arbitrarily consider good and evil... So is what is important what the Radiant considers to be good and evil? Shallan obviously felt justified in the moment with her actions, and even afterwards. However, what was holding Kaladin back from killing Elokhar is that he knew in his own mind that it was wrong, that it went against what he considered to be good/evil.

 

So whilst we're talking about objectivity, isn't all of Shallan's arts of truth and perception all to do with subjectivity? Hence could the criteria that decide when a Radiant is going against the 'right' path be their Cognitive truth that they're going against what they consider to be 'morally right'? The spren can feel this (being like a Cognitive extension) and hence the bond is upset.

 

EDIT: Found a WoB that contradicts my original point about the First Ideal not holding her back: the bond was disrupted by the murders.

 

 

 

Q:  How did Pattern actually become a Shardblade even though he hadn't been fully pulled into the Physical Realm?

A:  He was pulled into the Physical Realm before, when Shallan was younger.  And she almost broke her bond

Q:  He didn't go mad though.

A:  She didn't completely break the bond.  She didn't reject him completely.  But it was dangerous for a while.

Source Towards the bottom of the post

 

However I believe my points about the right/wrong and how the bond is disrupted is for the most part subjective except that the First Ideal tends to loom large (i.e. killing unnecessarily is bad). Kaladin's own dilemma with the interpretation of his Third Ideal is still in force, and it seems his Order is specifically held back from that kind of killing or lack of protecting (but its a Windrunner only Ideal, so).

Edited May 28, 2015 by Odium's_Shard

[Moogle]

EDIT: Found a WoB that contradicts my original point about the First Ideal not holding her back: the bond was disrupted by the murders.

 

I disagree with your interpretation of that WoB. I don't think it was the murders did it, what harmed the bond between Shallan and Pattern was Shallan lying to herself and trying to supress her memory of what happened. The Lightweavers are about honing self-awareness to a razor-sharp edge, and Shallan purposefully went against that, which naturally caused her bond to suffer.

 

I'd also like to clarify a little on my point about the Third Ideal for Kaladin: going against it and plotting to harm Elhokar caused his bond to suffer, but I don't know if it was the Third Ideal, exactly. The Windrunners were about protection. Anything Kaladin does to use his powers in a way that doesn't have protection as a motive is likely similarly going to cause his bond to suffer. If he went against Roshone (before the Everstorm, so Roshone would be someone he should have no real need to protect, even under the Third Ideal) out of vengeance, trying to kill him and not even considering the townspeople being harmed by him, then I believe his bond would similarly be harmed.

 

I think what harmed Shallan's bond harmed Kaladin's bond: going against the core of their orders. I find this fits much more naturally than any sort of violation of the First Ideal.

 

Of course, what constitutes the 'core' of their orders allows them different ranges of actions. Shallan can do anything she wants and Pattern will not care (Pattern is a-okay with her treating with the Ghostbloods, as far as I can tell - Syl would not be), so long as Shallan is self-aware. Kaladin can't do anything that violates the Windrunner's code of being protective, which severely restricts what he can do in any situation - leading to honorspren being noted as 'discerning'.

[Odium's_Shard]

I disagree with your interpretation of that WoB. I don't think it was the murders did it, what harmed the bond between Shallan and Pattern was Shallan lying to herself and trying to supress her memory of what happened. The Lightweavers are about honing self-awareness to a razor-sharp edge, and Shallan purposefully went against that, which naturally caused her bond to suffer.

 

I'd also like to clarify a little on my point about the Third Ideal for Kaladin: going against it and plotting to harm Elhokar caused his bond to suffer, but I don't know if it was the Third Ideal, exactly. The Windrunners were about protection. Anything Kaladin does to use his powers in a way that doesn't have protection as a motive is likely similarly going to cause his bond to suffer. If he went against Roshone (before the Everstorm, so Roshone would be someone he should have no real need to protect, even under the Third Ideal) out of vengeance, trying to kill him and not even considering the townspeople being harmed by him, then I believe his bond would similarly be harmed.

 

I think what harmed Shallan's bond harmed Kaladin's bond: going against the core of their orders. I find this fits much more naturally than any sort of violation of the First Ideal.

 

Of course, what constitutes the 'core' of their orders allows them different ranges of actions. Shallan can do anything she wants and Pattern will not care (Pattern is a-okay with her treating with the Ghostbloods, as far as I can tell - Syl would not be), so long as Shallan is self-aware. Kaladin can't do anything that violates the Windrunner's code of being protective, which severely restricts what he can do in any situation - leading to honorspren being noted as 'discerning'.

 

Yep I pretty much agree with both your reinterpretation (it was vague on Brandon's part, like an added comment at the end, an aside) and also with your comments.

 

I like this idea that it is down to the Radiant as to what is going against the tenets of their Order which in one respect kind of constitutes going against themselves (since they're drawn to that Order for a reason). I don't think there's an objective 'line' however, as in, if it doesn't protect everyone don't do it, but if its going against 'protection' and 'leading' then it will probably strain the bond, but by varying degrees (i.e. going completely against it can ruin the bond).

 

I think this probably comes down as tenets to the attributes of the Orders, I can't remember the exact names for them, but I think they include 'Leading' and similar adjectives.

[hoser]

I disagree with your interpretation of that WoB. I don't think it was the murders did it, what harmed the bond between Shallan and Pattern was Shallan lying to herself and trying to supress her memory of what happened. The Lightweavers are about honing self-awareness to a razor-sharp edge, and Shallan purposefully went against that, which naturally caused her bond to suffer.

 

I'd also like to clarify a little on my point about the Third Ideal for Kaladin: going against it and plotting to harm Elhokar caused his bond to suffer, but I don't know if it was the Third Ideal, exactly. The Windrunners were about protection. Anything Kaladin does to use his powers in a way that doesn't have protection as a motive is likely similarly going to cause his bond to suffer. If he went against Roshone (before the Everstorm, so Roshone would be someone he should have no real need to protect, even under the Third Ideal) out of vengeance, trying to kill him and not even considering the townspeople being harmed by him, then I believe his bond would similarly be harmed.

 

I think what harmed Shallan's bond harmed Kaladin's bond: going against the core of their orders. I find this fits much more naturally than any sort of violation of the First Ideal.

 

Of course, what constitutes the 'core' of their orders allows them different ranges of actions. Shallan can do anything she wants and Pattern will not care (Pattern is a-okay with her treating with the Ghostbloods, as far as I can tell - Syl would not be), so long as Shallan is self-aware. Kaladin can't do anything that violates the Windrunner's code of being protective, which severely restricts what he can do in any situation - leading to honorspren being noted as 'discerning'.

I agree that the lying to herself must have hurt the bond rather than the murders, but I think that refusing to acknowledge Pattern's existence could have easily played a part in weakening the bond. 

 

While I agree that the violation of being protective weakened Kaladin's bond, I believe that the conflicting promises also played a part.  We saw when on the training grounds that Kaladin's powers deserted him when he acted beyond protection, but the bond seemed unaffected.  Syl describes herself as quoted below.  They also have a conversation wherein she more or less confirms that the conflicting promises weakens their bond.  This effect seems to be independent of the oaths we've seen so far, although there could be a later oath that touches on promises. 

 

I think there are multiple ways to affect the bonds that also vary by order, but I don't think we have enough information to conclude that the first ideal has no effect.  This is an overdetermined system, so multiple causes can combine in amplifying or interfering ways. 

 

It would seem that it would take a violation of the first ideal to cause the Recreance, as the orders have different ideals and nine orders quit simultaneously.  But one order (Skybreakers?) did not quit.  Was the Skybreakers' commitment to their other ideals able to allow them to overcome their commitment to the first ideal?  Or was the cause of the Recreance something that violated each order in distinct ways?  It seems that the Skybreakers didn't quit, but at some point they likely stopped forming bonds and all the people with bonds died off otherwise Nin's actions don't make any sense.

 

“I bind things, Kaladin,” she said, turning and meeting his eyes. “I am honorspren. Spirit of oaths. Of promises. And of nobility.”

Sanderson, Brandon (2010-08-31). The Way of Kings (The Stormlight Archive) (p. 913). Tom Doherty Associates. Kindle Edition.

[Moogle]

I agree that the lying to herself must have hurt the bond rather than the murders, but I think that refusing to acknowledge Pattern's existence could have easily played a part in weakening the bond.

 

I agree. There's definitely a ton of factors at work.

 

While I agree that the violation of being protective weakened Kaladin's bond, I believe that the conflicting promises also played a part.  We saw when on the training grounds that Kaladin's powers deserted him when he acted beyond protection, but the bond seemed unaffected.  Syl describes herself as quoted below.  They also have a conversation wherein she more or less confirms that the conflicting promises weakens their bond.  This effect seems to be independent of the oaths we've seen so far, although there could be a later oath that touches on promises.

 

This is also a very good point. I may be too quick to refer to the Windrunners as being about protecting - there's certainly more to it. I do think it's fair to say that acting in a way counter to what attracts your spren is going to harm the bond. Syl is an honorspren. She's attracted to shows of honor, not just protection. Conflicting oaths run counter to that.

 

It would seem that it would take a violation of the first ideal to cause the Recreance, as the orders have different ideals and nine orders quit simultaneously.  But one order (Skybreakers?) did not quit.  Was the Skybreakers' commitment to their other ideals able to allow them to overcome their commitment to the first ideal?  Or was the cause of the Recreance something that violated each order in distinct ways?  It seems that the Skybreakers didn't quit, but at some point they likely stopped forming bonds and all the people with bonds died off otherwise Nin's actions don't make any sense.

 

I don't know that interpreting the Recreance in terms of the Ideals is going to lead to the answer. I agree with the general train of your thought that there must be something shared by 9/10 of the orders that would lead them to break their oaths together, but I'm hesitant to take the First Ideal as being involved.

 

I am reasonably confident that any Radiant could break their sprenbond if they so willed it, they don't need to break their oaths. (We see this behavior in Shardblades, and presumably Honorblades. Syl also says she could end it if Kaladin wished.) I would go so far as to say that would have to be what happened - the bonds of the Windrunners in Dalinar's vision were all broken simultaneously. They didn't synchronously perform some action counter to the Ideals as far as I can tell.

[hoser]

I agree. There's definitely a ton of factors at work.

 

...

 

I am reasonably confident that any Radiant could break their sprenbond if they so willed it, they don't need to break their oaths. (We see this behavior in Shardblades, and presumably Honorblades. Syl also says she could end it if Kaladin wished.) I would go so far as to say that would have to be what happened - the bonds of the Windrunners in Dalinar's vision were all broken simultaneously. They didn't synchronously perform some action counter to the Ideals as far as I can tell.

That's a really good point.  I've been assuming that abandoning of the Shards was a violation of the first oath and caused the bonds to break.  But the blades could presumably just adopt spren form in response and, voila, no violation.  A conscious decision to abandon the bond could do it. 

[Odium's_Shard]

It's my opinion from the varying snippets we get about the old times and the time of the Recreance (specifically, I can't remember which epigraph, but there was one about somebody mentioning that they were going to use the specific abilities of the Bondsmiths to end the battle with the Voidbringers, or something [need someone to help with this reference]) that there was some reason lost in history that at the time the Radiants considered to be a good reason, or for the better, or whatnot.

 

I don't really buy into the Vorin reinterpretation that the Radiants were evil, or abandoned them, rather I think that there was probably some agreement amongst them (and that back then they didn't know it would 'kill' their spren) to lay down their weapons and their duties or something, as they were no longer needed, or they were becoming a negative force, or similar... and as such there came a day where they all did so simultaneously, releasing themselves from their vows and hence their bonds.

 

There's probably some words you can say to remove yourself from the bond, perhaps... and this is what was done at the Recreance?

[Shard of Adonalsium]

See here, Winrunners, who have bonded to Honorspren, are supposed to follow a moralistic life, with little or no regard to the law. The law is considered irrelevant to goodness.

 

Whereas Skybreakers, who are bonded to Highspren, are supposed to follow a life devoted entirely to law, with little or no regard for morality. Quote Darkness: "Goodness is irrelevant". 

 

Lightweavers, who are bonded to Cryptics, are sort of strange. They respect the law, but don't follow it as fanatically as the Skybreakers do. On occasion, they will break it if it serves their needs. They aren't exactly the most moral, but they have a sense of morality, at least, and in regard of morality/lawfulness, they're sort of a cross between Skybreaker and Windunner temperaments.

[DreamEternal]

Elsecallers seem to be willing to kill to prove a point, so they probaly believe ideas>people and probaly served as guardians of knowledge during desolations

Stonewards valued determination above actually being right.

Bondsmiths seek to mantain unity, even when it mean letting someone like Sadeas or Amaram get away with their crimes.

Honestly, I am surprised they managed to coexist during a single desolation.

Edited June 1, 2015 by CognitivePulsePattern

[natc]

And Windrunners will probably let the world end on them even if all it took was sacrificing one innocent.

It's a dysfunctional group, even considering only the "better" ones.

Though I wouldn't say Skybreakers disregard morality. I think they would simply believe that all men have their own values and morals, and law is the closest thing to universally true morality. It's impossible to do away with the subject of morality, but individual morality can be regarded as worthless.

[Guest]

And Windrunners will probably let the world end on them even if all it took was sacrificing one innocent.

 

I actually suspect they would sacrifice the one, at the urging of their Spren, breaking the Bond and killing the Spren in the process.

[Moogle]

I actually suspect they would sacrifice the one, at the urging of their Spren, breaking the Bond and killing the Spren in the process.

 

Syl was 100% against Kaladin killing Amaram, despite Kaladin noting what a terrible person he was, purely because Kaladin was going for vengeance and only using protection as a rationalization. Kaladin's abilities leave him when he fights Adolin because, as Syl puts it, "who were you protecting?"

 

Syl is not human. She's an ideal of honor/protection given life. She really likes the First Ideal, which Teft says means (in part) that a Radiant would not sacrifice one to save ten. I think there's next to no chance Syl would ever support killing an innocent as a sacrifice to save others, unless Kaladin was giving his own life.

[Shard of Adonalsium]

And Windrunners will probably let the world end on them even if all it took was sacrificing one innocent.

It's a dysfunctional group, even considering only the "better" ones.

Though I wouldn't say Skybreakers disregard morality. I think they would simply believe that all men have their own values and morals, and law is the closest thing to universally true morality. It's impossible to do away with the subject of morality, but individual morality can be regarded as worthless.

Their definition of "morality", preexisting, written "morality", e.g the law, is far, far more different than the Windrunner's version or definition of morality, simply because of the way that their spren view it. Highspren are, as I have stated before, less focused on morality of what is morally correct and incorrect and more on the morality of law, which focuses on what is stated as right and what is stated as wrong; therefore the Skybreakers are a little more emotionless. Haven't you noticed how Darkness/Nale displays little to no emotion whatsoever? He does it in the name of law. The law is not moral unto itself; rather, it is a reinforcement of what other men perceive as morality. Their morality is almost literally etched in stone. 

 

Honorspren, however, focus entirely on pure, simplistic morality. The various Philosophies that Shallan researched after the encounter with the thugs in Kharbranth with Jasnah may reflect on that. They centered about whether or not what Jasnah did (legally defined as murder but morally defined as self-defense) is morally correct or not, and whether or not it is legal under the circumstances of self-defense and protection of other innocents that could potentially die because of it. 

 

I'll elaborate more later.

[natc]

In the end this whole thing makes me feel bad for the three bondsmiths that have to get these guys to work together in each epoch. At least the Alethi highprinces mostly have the same line of thinking when it comes to being honorable (as in they don't really care).

[Shadowspren]

What we see from MIstborn is that over time a shardholder's conscience will kinda mold with that of the shard's intent which is why Preservation couldn't ever kill Ruin. While on the other hand, someone who just gained the shard can use it pretty much as they please. If spren are splinters of Shards, (we'll take Syl for an example here) since she is a splinter of honor wouldn't it just be the same thing as taking a shard, only on a smaller scale. When Kaladin first bonds with Syl his and her intents are still not in Sync, but over time they will begin to Sync up and Kaladin will begin to act more in line with the oaths... 

 

About all his right and wrong stuff... in WoK there is a part where Geranid writes down the size of the flamespren and it stops changing size; this is presumably because of the cognitive aspect of things, because it was noted as being that big, it stayed that big...On the same note, wouldn't the standards vary slightly per radiant as they each have a different view of what is right and wrong... It is also hard to talk about a general right and wrong between orders because they all have different spren... and if i'm right about the mind melding over time, then they will all become inseparable from the the intent of their spren and oaths (unless they broke them of course) 

 

Because all the orders have different intents, the first oath is kinda just a vague driving factor that keeps them all separate from Odium... because Odium is basically just out to kill whereas the radiants are ultimately to keep order on Roshar. Skybreakers follow the law, distributing it as necessary, but when possible they are required to value life over death... if there was an alternative to a death sentence they would be supposed to take that 

[11thorderknight]

Honestly, I am surprised they managed to coexist during a single desolation.

 

I think that's the point - there's Honor, capital H, that fuels the magic, but there are multiple interpretations of what's honorable, some of them directly conflicting.