Force-Bonding Spren as a way to make villains act like decent human beings.

[Lord_Pariah]

So, I've had this concept floating around in my head for a while now.  It involves an Honorspren, a Hemalurgic Spike, and a villain.

 

It essentially is a way for a villain to have a moral compass forced into them, since by my estimations Honorspren are basically perfect moral compasses.  Or at least, close enough.

SO.

Imagine if you stole/somehow stuffed an Honorspren into a hemalurgic spike and drove it through the heart of say, Sadeas.  Or maybe someone like Amaram.

The spike, from my estimations, would only function as a hemalurgic spike so long as it is invested.  How convenient that breaking the bond with a spren would also cause it to become uninvested.

See where this is going?

So.  Sadeas/Amaram is spiked and told that if he doesn't act according to the Spren(AKA a decent person), and doesn't behave himself, he'll die - that spike in his chest instantly popping his heart or causing all sorts of issues.

Would you guys be entertained by that scenario?  How long would each person last?

Can you think of any good candidates for this procedure?

Edited January 25, 2016 by Lord_Pariah

[Eagle of the Forest Path]

Interesting that your way of introducing a moral compass in a person is inherently amoral.

 

I mean, hemalurgically stealing a bonded spren most likely results in the original bondholder dying, so you killed an honorable person (as evidenced by that person being able to attract an honorspren) to force an evil person to act in a way you deem suitable, on pain of death.

 

Mechanically as well, I'm not sure it would work that way. As far as I am aware it is not known what exactly can be hemalurgically stolen from a bonded radiant pair: the bond itself, either surge or both surges.

In the case of it being the bond itself, being spiked away from its chosen human might trap the spren in the spike, removing its ability to sever the bond. In which case you've not only failed in giving Sadeas a conscience, you've also given him access to two of the surges and all of the benefits of breathing stormlight.

[Kynedath]

Interesting that your way of introducing a moral compass in a person is inherently amoral.

 

I mean, hemalurgically stealing a bonded spren most likely results in the original bondholder dying, so you killed an honorable person (as evidenced by that person being able to attract an honorspren) to force an evil person to act in a way you deem suitable, on pain of death.

Have you ever played a game of Dungeons and Dragons? It's called a chaotic good alignment.

[Eagle of the Forest Path]

Have you ever played a game of Dungeons and Dragons? It's called a chaotic good alignment.

 

Really? The good person gets spiked, robbed of his spren, and probably his life, while all the evil person gets is a moral compass of doubtful efficacy (with the possibility of later death). Even if it works as advertised it's still cruel and unusual punishment.

How is that good, even chaotic good?

 

Can you see some CG cleric walking up to some paladin and say: "Hey, I want to force some total barstud who's ruined countless lives to better his ways by using supernatural intimidation tactics. Thing is, to do that I first need to drive this huge piece of metal through your heart, OK?"

Personally, I can't, but that's just me.

[Zathoth]

I don't think it would work, you see how close Kaladin was to breaking his bond, Amaran or Sadeas would break it instantly. It wouldn't force them into anything, it would just break.

 

So no, I don't think it would work.

[Yata]

I don't think it would work, you see how close Kaladin was to breaking his bond, Amaran or Sadeas would break it instantly. It wouldn't force them into anything, it would just break.

 

So no, I don't think it would work.

I am with Morzathoth, an uncompatible people with a forceful Nahel Bond will break the Bond very fast and killing the Spren.

[DreamEternal]

I am with Morzathoth, an uncompatible people with a forceful Nahel Bond will break the Bond very fast and killing the Spren.

That is, if the spren can't choose to just dissolve the bond and be freed. Or if trying to steal the bond with hemalurgy doens't kill the spren by spiritweb damage.

All in all, it is a cruel, impratical and twisted idea.

[Yata]

That is, if the spren can't choose to just dissolve the bond and be freed. Or if trying to steal the bond with hemalurgy doens't kill the spren by spiritweb damage.

All in all, it is a cruel, impratical and twisted idea.

And if the Nahel Bond was in a advanced states, you may "gift" a Dead-Shardblade to the Evil guy.

[king of nowhere]

I don't think it would work, you see how close Kaladin was to breaking his bond, Amaran or Sadeas would break it instantly. It wouldn't force them into anything, it would just break.

 

So no, I don't think it would work.

yeah, but that gives me an alternate plan that still involves metal spikes. You plant one that has no hemalurgic charge through sadeas heart. you can bet he won't be doing any evil deed afterwards.

[DreamEternal]

yeah, but that gives me an alternate plan that still involves metal spikes. You plant one that has no hemalurgic charge through sadeas heart. you can bet he won't be doing any evil deed afterwards.

Well, that plan is not very original you know...

[Yata]

yeah, but that gives me an alternate plan that still involves metal spikes. You plant one that has no hemalurgic charge through sadeas heart. you can bet he won't be doing any evil deed afterwards.

Adolin approves 

[Pechvarry]

Very twisted. I like it.

This is, btw, the complete opposite of chaotic good: it's lawful evil. You don't actually care about the person's salvation or ability to reform; you're enforcing their ability to function in society without consideration for the means required. This would be perfectly in line with what a lawful evil society would do to keep the peace, and only makes sense if there's also a reason to kill one honorable man and to preserve a worse one.

Example: we can't go around executing our light eyes, so go spike that magical bridgeman.

Edited January 25, 2016 by Pechvarry

[Ari]

Very twisted. I like it.

This is, btw, the complete opposite of chaotic good: it's lawful evil. You don't actually care about the person's salvation or ability to reform; you're enforcing their ability to function in society without consideration for the means required. This would be perfectly in line with what a lawful evil society would do to keep the peace, and only makes sense if there's also a reason to kill one honorable man and to preserve a worse one.

Example: we can't go around executing our light eyes, so go spike that magical bridgeman.

 

Not really... unless there are any vin-era spikes still around, you're still killing or mentally/spiritually damaging them (or collaborating with someone else who did this) in order to produce a spike. That's hardly lawful evil.

Besides, I doubt spiking someone with a Spren bond would transfer the oaths or the commitment to them necessarily. The person spiked would still have to commit themselves (granted, with the assistance of a very Honourable addition to their spirit web thanks to the spike) to those values. I'd say it might make someone slightly more honourable, but if they were terrible already the difference is likely to not be large enough for them to retain the bond. Most likely the Spren would leave them.

[DrakeMarshall]

Huh that would be a kind of funny situation to be in.

It still is an awful thing to do by the way.

But it would make for an interesting story.

Sounds like something a skybreaker would do to somebody that they can't afford to kill.

[DreamEternal]

Not really... unless there are any vin-era spikes still around, you're still killing or mentally/spiritually damaging them (or collaborating with someone else who did this) in order to produce a spike. That's hardly lawful evil.

Well, lawful evil people could be willing to kill someone they considered uninportant to keep order.

Besides, I doubt spiking someone with a Spren bond would transfer the oaths or the commitment to them necessarily. The person spiked would still have to commit themselves (granted, with the assistance of a very Honourable addition to their spirit web thanks to the spike) to those values. I'd say it might make someone slightly more honourable, but if they were terrible already the difference is likely to not be large enough for them to retain the bond. Most likely the Spren would leave them.

The point of the original post was that by breaking the bond, the spike would become normal metal and the oathbreaker would die from having the heart impaled.

EDIT: Above poster: I doubt a Skybreaker would do so, since a Radiant on the Death Row would be needed, and the Skybreaker would need to be legaly allowed to drive giant spikes throught people's hearts.

Edited January 25, 2016 by DreamEternal

[DrakeMarshall]

EDIT: Above poster: I doubt a Skybreaker would do so, since a Radiant on the Death Row would be needed, and the Skybreaker would need to be legaly allowed to drive giant spikes throught people's hearts.

 

I mean there are situations in which a skybreaker might think the law would allow them to drive a metal spike through a radiant's heart.

After all, wasn't the herald of justice trying to kill surgebinders? He came after lift.

It isn't likely (this is kind of a far-fetched thing to do for anyone given the conflicting morals involved) but that is the best premise I can think of.

[Arrae]

I think as long as the law doesn't prevent the Skybreakers from doing what they want, it'll be legal enough for them.

[natc]

Really? The good person gets spiked, robbed of his spren, and probably his life, while all the evil person gets is a moral compass of doubtful efficacy (with the possibility of later death). Even if it works as advertised it's still cruel and unusual punishment.

How is that good, even chaotic good?

Can you see some CG cleric walking up to some paladin and say: "Hey, I want to force some total barstud who's ruined countless lives to better his ways by using supernatural intimidation tactics. Thing is, to do that I first need to drive this huge piece of metal through your heart, OK?"

Personally, I can't, but that's just me.

By the statistics if you lose one good person to convert one evil person to good, then evil decreases while amount of good in the world is stable unless a good man goes bad. It's a logically sound method of lessening evildoers, so by definition it ought to be good right?

Of course, extinction of mankind achieves similar results. That one is actually more effective really, but no sane man would go with that one. Just because you are correct doesn't mean that you are right, or so the oxymoronic anime proverbs go.

[Eagle of the Forest Path]

By the statistics if you lose one good person to convert one evil person to good, then evil decreases while amount of good in the world is stable unless a good man goes bad. It's a logically sound method of lessening evildoers, so by definition it ought to be good right?

Of course, extinction of mankind achieves similar results. That one is actually more effective really, but no sane man would go with that one. Just because you are correct doesn't mean that you are right, or so the oxymoronic anime proverbs go.

 

Journey before destination. Need I say more?

[natc]

And I would personally agree with you on that count, as I tried to imply in the last paragraph.

That does not change the fact that there are people whose goal is to accomplish good in the world who would resort to distasteful methods if they consider it necessary. Methods that require direct sacrifice of life, but may save many more in the process.

Is it worth it from the moral perspective? Is not laying your hands on an innocent life more important than the innocent lives of others that can be saved with bloodshed? They never really did agree on an answer for that one dilemma involving running people over with a minecart did they? This seems very much a Stormlight Archive-ish issue to me.

[DrakeMarshall]

By the statistics if you lose one good person to convert one evil person to good, then evil decreases while amount of good in the world is stable unless a good man goes bad. It's a logically sound method of lessening evildoers, so by definition it ought to be good right?

Of course, extinction of mankind achieves similar results. That one is actually more effective really, but no sane man would go with that one. Just because you are correct doesn't mean that you are right, or so the oxymoronic anime proverbs go.

 

Ah, but you forget that in undertaking this process you would create the case of "good man goes bad"

So from that perspective, this process is actually "break-even".

Just kill the evil person and call it a day, if you want to make more good people than bad people in the world.

This is certainly an interesting situation, but I couldn't call it remotely moral.

[DreamEternal]

Just kill the evil person and call it a day, if you want to make more good people than bad people in the world.

Which is not that good a goal anyway. I mean, it is barely a step above "Hello, do you want to destroy some evil today?" in terms of moral maturity in my opinion.

[DrakeMarshall]

Which is not that good a goal anyway. I mean, it is barely a step above "Hello, do you want to destroy some evil today?" in terms of moral maturity in my opinion.

 

Well your not wrong. Hence the windrunners:

 

 

Life before death, strength before weakness, journey before destination.

I will protect those who cannot protect themselves.

I will protect even those I hate, so long as it is right.

[natc]

Kelsier was all about destroying evil himself though . . . mostly because he figured all nobles were evil, but still.

I'm not sure why people worship him for that, hell I'm generally the type to think the concept of taking lives en masse to be pretty stupid, but it seems to apparently make sense as "good" to some people out there. That word has a flimsy definition, seriously . . .

And yeah, that solution really doesn't stop until everyone is dead. We're pretty terrible huh?

[DreamEternal]

Kelsier was all about destroying evil himself though . . . mostly because he figured all nobles were evil, but still.

Nah, he was just about destroying. It is just that he liked more being a hero than a monster.

And reason he is worshiped, the one unambinguously good thing he did, is not his killing of nobles, but his dedication to give hope to others.

Edited January 27, 2016 by DreamEternal