bartbug Posted December 23, 2013 Report Share Posted December 23, 2013 Also, if the Terrismen really didn't like it, they could just... um, you know... do it over again. Same with Spook's tin savanthood. It was a part of his personal identity just as well. Now, they have the opportunity to know what it's like to have it. None of his changes were irreversible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ete'ni Posted December 23, 2013 Report Share Posted December 23, 2013 (edited) . Edited June 10, 2014 by Ete'ni 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartbug Posted December 23, 2013 Report Share Posted December 23, 2013 Sazed isn't actually God, as in a being who actually has the right to do it because he defines what is right. The circumstances behind his actions, and the way that effects the morals of his actions, are the same for him as they are for anyone else. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swimmingly Posted December 28, 2013 Report Share Posted December 28, 2013 Sazed isn't actually God, as in a being who actually has the right to do it because he defines what is right. The circumstances behind his actions, and the way that effects the morals of his actions, are the same for him as they are for anyone else.An omnipowerful God would be less morally justified, as being present in everything implies that you are responsible for everything - and if humans indeed have free will, then the God is not omnipowerful, as things happen outside of specific direction. Sazed is as powerful as a God, because he can't/won't affect free will. If God defines morals because of his power, then Sazed has the authority to do so as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claincy Posted December 28, 2013 Report Share Posted December 28, 2013 (edited) We are getting a bit off-topic here, but I have a slight problem with this: An omnipowerful God would be less morally justified, as being present in everything implies that you are responsible for everything - and if humans indeed have free will, then the God is not omnipowerful, as things happen outside of specific direction. Allowing people to do what they choose does not stop a god from being all-powerful so long as they have the capability such that it is their choice to let people have free will. Things happening outside of their specific direction doesn't necessarily imply that they are incapable of complete control, simply that they do not choose to exercise it if they are capable of it. Edited December 28, 2013 by lord Claincy Ffnord 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swimmingly Posted December 28, 2013 Report Share Posted December 28, 2013 We are getting a bit off-topic here, but I have a slight problem with this: Allowing people to do what they choose does not stop a god from being all-powerful so long as they have the capability such that it is their choice to let people have free will. Things happening outside of their specific direction doesn't necessarily imply that they are incapable of complete control, simply that they do not choose to exercise it if they are capable of it. What is the point of a god that doesn't do anything, then? Sazed could have easily turned everyone into slaves with the same sort of Cognitive block the mistwraiths have, controlling them as he wished - he could have done anything. If having chosen not to use effective omnipower makes one a God, then Sazed is more one than any force that ever existed on Earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claincy Posted December 28, 2013 Report Share Posted December 28, 2013 (edited) What is the point of a god that doesn't do anything, then? Sazed could have easily turned everyone into slaves with the same sort of Cognitive block the mistwraiths have, controlling them as he wished - he could have done anything. If having chosen not to use effective omnipower makes one a God, then Sazed is more one than any force that ever existed on Earth. Sorry but I am really not seeing how your logic makes sense here. You are talking in absolutes: control everything or don't use the power at all. Where did I give the impression that I was talking about not doing anything? There is a massive difference between allowing freewill and doing nothing. Edit: Perhaps it would my understanding of what you are trying to say if you said how exactly you define "a God". Edited December 28, 2013 by lord Claincy Ffnord 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurkistan Posted December 28, 2013 Report Share Posted December 28, 2013 To settle the "god" discussion in regards to Sazed: Brandon sees the Shards as less than properly "godly": Source: BRANDON SANDERSON Well, here's the thing. What Sazed is right now is something of a god in the classic Greek sense—a superpowered human being, elevated to a new stage of existence. Not GOD of all time and space. In a like manner, there are things that Sazed does not have power over. For instance, he couldn't bring Vin and Elend back. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swimmingly Posted December 29, 2013 Report Share Posted December 29, 2013 So he's a god, not God - but is he powerful enough to define morals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claincy Posted December 30, 2013 Report Share Posted December 30, 2013 So he's a god, not God - but is he powerful enough to define morals? Not everyone might agree but I would say definitely not. He is powerful sure, but that doesn't give him the right to define morals for those less powerful than himself. On a similar note, if our morals were based off the Greek "gods" the world would be a nastier place. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oudeis Posted December 30, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 30, 2013 One theory that seems popular on this forum is, there's no such thing as a defined standard of objective morality. Everyone will always just do whatever they want, and you can't judge them, because they are obeying whatever personal moral code they hold themselves to. By that reasoning, Sazed didn't require any sort of authority to do what he did. He was powerful enough to do so, so he did it. Anyone strong enough to oppose him is welcome to, but since morality doesn't exist, nothing he did was wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurkistan Posted December 30, 2013 Report Share Posted December 30, 2013 (edited) There's no need to open up that discussion again, Darnam. In fact, I don't really see any of this morality discussion as going anywhere useful, to be honest. Edited December 30, 2013 by Kurkistan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oudeis Posted December 30, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 30, 2013 To settle the "god" discussion in regards to Sazed: Brandon sees the Shards as less than properly "godly": Source: I'm going to sit here giggling quietly and pondering the phrase, "Properly godly". Has anyone seen a show called Mystery Science Theater 3000? "Well I'm not that omnipotent!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts