DreamEternal Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 I swear the fact that Kal had two conflicting oaths bothered Syl more than the fact Kal was considering treason and murder. I swear she was much more bothered that he wanted to kill someone without doing it to protect people, but for justice/vengeance. Killing hurts Syl, but she accepts it if it is done for protection, and is hurt more by refusal to protect. 1
natc Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 She makes mention of skybreakers in reference to him bringing up justice, but I find it ironic that a skybreaker would likely lose his powers in this setup as well, since assassination of a king is clearly illegal.
Guest Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 She makes mention of skybreakers in reference to him bringing up justice, but I find it ironic that a skybreaker would likely lose his powers in this setup as well, since assassination of a king is clearly illegal. Unless Skybreakers are empowered as judges, and the King was found guilty in some way.
natc Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 (edited) That would demand a proper trial and execution though, unless it's that much of an emergency and the guy tries to make a run for it. Or in Nalan's case in Azir, enough paperwork. Here they just want to replace the guards then run him through with a shardblade while he's drunk. Edited June 29, 2015 by natc
Oudeis he/him Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 Hrm, interesting. In America, our Declaration of Independence claims that when a ruler is a tyrant, it is more than the right but the duty of the population to rise up and rebel. Given Alethkar's history, I would be VERY surprised if this were in their charter, but it's not axiomatically true that a Skybreaker couldn't assassinate a king. Mistborn. In the Final Empire, assassination was perfectly legal, as long as you filled out the proper forms with the Ministry. Still, at the time their only King was the Lord Ruler and I'm gonna guess you would NEVER have the authority to kill him. Also wow, it would be awful to be a Skybreaker trapped in the Final Empire. Still, in keeping with the idea of living your life less by a set of rules and more by Ideals, I suspect that typical Skybreakers are uncomfortable with such vague laws open to so much interpretation. I suspect the typical Skybreaker wouldn't see it as "yay, freedom to use my power however I wish!" so much as "Oh god, this is chaos and anarchy." 4
Guest Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 Partialy, but in truth I was underlining that it is possible to break one's oaths and think it was the right choice: what if a member of one order has to do something against his oaths to save the world? Geberaly the orders complement one another, but imagine if that wasn't possible, if the fates of many rested in the shoulders of one Radiant. Then it would be a truly hard choice, don't you think? Yes, I agree this is a possibility, though I am kind of reluctant to place the fate of the world on one individual, but I could see it happening.
Numuhuku he/him Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Funny that you make this comparision given that the dear "patriot" Graves that hatched the whole assassination plot was a follower of the Diagram, even though from what he said he was acting on his own time and not there on order of Taravagian. I could see how he believed it would help out with Taravagian's larger plans, even though it wasn't specifically mandated by him. Offing Dalinar was meant to help instigate civil war among the Alethi, so I'm guessing he figured knocking House Kholin out completely would help fast track that. I could certainly see how he might not consider being a diagram supporter being at odds with being an Alethi patriot. After all. He is being honest about getting a "better" king in charge...just not the one he suggested.
1empyrean Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Hrm, interesting. In America, our Declaration of Independence claims that when a ruler is a tyrant, it is more than the right but the duty of the population to rise up and rebel. Given Alethkar's history, I would be VERY surprised if this were in their charter, but it's not axiomatically true that a Skybreaker couldn't assassinate a king. The Declaration of Independence isn't a legal document and is in no way a part of what a skybreaker would be bound by. Anyway, I feel that kaladin's choices aren't so much limited as syl bonded someone who already acted as a wind runner should and the only thing driving him towards actions that could break or weaken his bond is hatred. When he spoke the third ideal, he basically stated that what is right is more important than whether or not he likes or hates a person. I don't think Kaladin is going to have this sort of trouble in the future, but that doesn't mean that he won't be conflicted about this sort of thing in the future (first test for this is Roshone, if he still lives.)
Raysen_ht Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 I have always felt that the oath that Kaladin broke was the first one... "Journey before destination" Killing the king because it might be better violates that directly... For a Radiant, the ends never justifies the means! Doing something wrong to MAYBE achieve something good is against the radiant´s motto And i think that is valid for all orders, seeing as the 1st ideal is the same for all.
The Sovereign Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 (edited) I have always felt that the oath that Kaladin broke was the first one... "Journey before destination" Killing the king because it might be better violates that directly... For a Radiant, the ends never justifies the means! Doing something wrong to MAYBE achieve something good is against the radiant´s motto And i think that is valid for all orders, seeing as the 1st ideal is the same for all. This is an interesting notion, I suspect you may be right (at least partially). There is certainly an argument that Kaladin was breaking multiple oaths for example you could make the case that in his drunken state Elhokar would qualify as "unable to protect himself". Also there is the possibility that his actions were against an oath he has not yet spoken (certainly Oath #3 and who knows about 4&5) which probably isn't expressly forbidden but is most likely frowned upon. I particularly like your idea when applied to say the Skybreakers; It falls in nicely with the the idea of the "means justifying the end" (i.e. journey before destination) rather than the cliché "end justifies the means". In their case, following the law to the "T" is the means (journey) and whatever results is the end (destination). Edited June 30, 2015 by Iron Eyes
Oudeis he/him Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 The Declaration of Independence isn't a legal document and is in no way a part of what a skybreaker would be bound by. I disagree. What is the basis for your argument? The Declaration was written and ratified by the Constitutional Congress, provided justification for war against the ruling body of the colonies, cited natural and legal rights all people have which had been violated and established the country of America. For all these reasons, I propose that it absolutely is a legal document. All that said, I am neither a lawyer nor a constitutional scholar. I am, however, asking several of them what their views on the matter are. 1
kaellok he/him Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 I disagree. What is the basis for your argument? The Declaration was written and ratified by the Constitutional Congress, provided justification for war against the ruling body of the colonies, cited natural and legal rights all people have which had been violated and established the country of America. For all these reasons, I propose that it absolutely is a legal document. All that said, I am neither a lawyer nor a constitutional scholar. I am, however, asking several of them what their views on the matter are. The Declaration also says that all men are created equal, and the Constitution says that a black person is only 3/5 of a white person. The Declaration is a philosophical and ideological argument, and one that laws have been based around. It is not, at all, a document that created any laws. (It's been some time, but as i recall the Constitutional Congress did not exist at that time, and it certainly was not ratified into law later.) Pretty much everything else you've said in this thread has been inspired, tho. I'm still digesting it, as i alter my own views which were somewhat similar, but less
Oudeis he/him Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Things don't get "ratified into law" (in America, at least) but things which are not laws get ratified. The Constitutional Congress absolutely did exist and was the body that wrote and ratified the Declaration of Independence. It's possible you're confusing the word ratified with something else. I said that the Declaration was a legal document, and you have rebutted that it's neither a law nor has it made any laws. I don't actually concede this point, but I suggest it's irrelevant. I don't think something has to be a law itself to be a legal document. Congressional censure is a legal document, but isn't a law. Executive Orders are legal documents that aren't laws. Treaties are legal documents (which get ratified, much liked the Declaration was) which aren't laws. Even without a treaty being a law, I doubt a Skybreaker could break a treaty he'd otherwise be bound by. This is largely a debate on philosophy, as clearly nowhere in Roshar will end up having anything like our Declaration for a Skybreaker to obey or not. The Supreme Court has said, ""it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence." It was largely the basis of several of President Lincoln's more landmark moments in office. He argued that the Declaration is a statement of principles through which the United States Constitution should be interpreted. While it's not a "It is illegal to tie your giraffe to this lamppost after dark" law, I suspect that Skybreakers obey the entire system of laws, not just the part of it that are literally a list of "do's and don't's" laws. But that is just my two cents, and I think I see where the confusion between us mostly came from. 1
hoser he/him Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Hey wait! People are being pedantic without me. I feel left out. Per Wikipedia, the Declaration of Independence was written by the Continental Congress, not the Constitutional Congress. The United States was governed under the Articles of Confederacy and Perpetual Union (which basically failed) until 1789. The current constitution was then adopted. The Declaration and both constitutions were ratified. As discussed above, the meaning of "legal document" is vague. In theory, you could argue that I could initial a cocktail napkin with the words IOU $5 and it would be a "legal document", but the Constitution is a more direct and precise legal authority than the Declaration. Apparently, certain rights were established by the Heralds, including the right of travel. These "rights" could be analogous to the Declaration. I would hate to be a Skybreaker. Using human language to communicate and all the varying authorities that establish laws would be very difficult to interpret unambiguously. 2
ParadoxicalZen he/him Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 (edited) I would hate to be a Skybreaker. Using human language to communicate and all the varying authorities that establish laws would be very difficult to interpret unambiguously. Chach's Beard, that sounds like Damnation itself. Although i could think of something worse, namely being caught in a dispute between Windrunners and Skybreakers like in that epigraph, only with Elsecaller scholars debating the philosophy of the situation added in the mix I'd rather face Odium full on Edited June 30, 2015 by ParadoxSpren
Oudeis he/him Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 you could argue that I could initial a cocktail napkin with the words IOU $5 and it would be a "legal document", If it were witnessed and counter-signed, MAYBE... (jk) But yeah. Of all the Orders, I'm having the most trouble getting my mind around Skybreakers. Windrunners try to protect, no matter what. Edgedancers care about the people lost in the shuffle. Lightweavers study the subjective nature of truth, and Elsecallers appear to prioritize scholarship. And, largely in my headcanon, Willshapers are constantly pushing back the boundaries of the known. But Skybreakers? What's the underlying philosophy behind law? Is it a fundamental belief that people, as a whole, are smarter than individual people, and that people deserve whatever system of government they tolerate? Is it an almost submissive subjugation of will to a broader authority, an acknowledgement that my own needs and wants are selfish and small-minded and should be secondary to the proscriptions of a society? I feel like what little we know about Skybreakers doesn't really answer several fundamental questions about them. What about things like Catch 22s, or fundamentally unjust or contradictory laws? Or just unclear laws open to interpretation? 2
DreamEternal Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 I suspect the Radiants are partialy moral relativists, and the oaths aren't to be seem as universal morality codes, but as work ethics for each order. It is not up to a Windrunner to judge, that is why the Skybreakers exist. A Skybreaker shouldn't question the law, but uphold it and let other people try to change it. The Knights Radiant should be seem as more than the sum of their orders. Idealy at least, since it is know that there would be often conflict based on the mutualy exclusive moralities of each order. 1
Oudeis he/him Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 Well, apparently I've been using the phrase "legal document" poorly. The lawyers I've spoken with agree, as a whole, that something is only a "legal document" if it's an actual law. I had been under the impression that things like peace treaties, contracts, and permits were all "legal documents" but it must be another category. My apologies for my mistake. 1
Mr Horrible Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 It seems people are forgetting that Syl does seem to have an increasingly strong moral code outside of simply prioritising oaths. She has never liked it when Kaladin thought of all lighteyes negatively (or when he was too moody in general). 1
VindicationKnight he/him Posted July 3, 2015 Posted July 3, 2015 My personal understanding, was that the Radiant's personal interpretation of their Oath's did matter, but that Kaladin knew that what he was doing was wrong regardless of how he tried to reframe the issue. You can do the wrong thing if you honestly belive it is in keeping with your oaths but you can't lie to the Nahel Bond or yourself, no rules lawyering here. Supporting evidence from Dalinar's visions, when it was shown that conflict between Radiant's could occur despite the best intentions, and from Kaladins conversations with Syl when she questioned whether he truly wanted to kill A because it was the right thing to do or out of vengeance.
Recommended Posts