The Recreance: Why did it happen?

[Seloun]

Just now, Calderis said:

Yes, and Syl carries a blackbane leaf. Both of which happen after they've already crossed over to the physical realm and bonded to a Radiant. 

This does not support your hypothesis that they could do so prior to bonding to create a bond. 

Having the spren able to manipulate the Material before having a bond isn't really fundamental to the theory, regardless. It's not necessary for the spren to have personally physically  caused the KR to break, e.g. they could have convinced a group like Sons of Honor.

That said, given that unbonded (possibly non-Nahel) spren can definitely affect the Material world, and that spren presumably can communicate with each other in the Cognitive, it seems likely that any spren can potentially convince a more manifested spren to affect the Material world. Even if this is somehow the case, it's not really an issue for the theory as long as there is some way for the spren to have been ultimately responsible for generating more broken individuals for their purposes (e.g. through intermediaries, leaving messages, misrepresenting when communicating with people visiting the Cognitive, etc.). Doing something in the Cognitive that e.g. extended the duration of Desolations likely would have qualified, or possibly convincing the Heralds to break their Oaths in the first place, neither of which requires any direct manipulation of the Material.

[Calderis he/him]

And again, I'll agree to disagree. I just don't buy it. 

[kaellok he/him]

On 8/29/2017 at 9:37 PM, Seloun said:

Which is why I reiterate: given that they specifically killed the spren in a way to make it essentially impossible for them to revive, the spren must somehow have been responsible for whatever caused their actions (or were otherwise indirectly associated with whatever caused their action, e.g. Heralds betrayed us -> somehow spren power the Heralds -> kill spren to punish Heralds (please note this is an example of a chain of reasoning that would validate against this specific point; I don't subscribe to this particular theory).

Hence bondfarming. There doesn't really seem to be a lot of direct reasons to punish the spren otherwise given what's currently known.

Emphasis added.  

First, I want to say that I agree with the basic premise of your bond-farming theory, specifically that ANY theory of the cause of the Recreance must explain why the Knights Radiant killed their spren, especially in the way that they did.

However, this foundation does not intuitively suggest that revenge/punishment for spren transgressions (whether real or imagined) naturally follows.  The basic foundation is that "The Knights Radiant thought that their bonded spren needed to die in a manner almost guaranteed to be permanent," and there are many ways that we can get there, including the spren themselves being party to the act and demanding the sacrifice be made.

I find your theory more likely than many, but if I were you I would not consider it axiomatic that the Recreance was an act of punishment towards the spren.  Personally, I find myself in the same predicament as @galendo, wherein I don't think that any reality is capable of making perfect sense and logic to me.  My current head-canon is that a Mistborn (or several) used a Duralumin-Soothe to cause the KR to just give up.  The way the Knights are described in Dalinar's vision is similar to how Straff Venture describes the Duralumin-Soothe Vin uses on him in HoA, so I like to think the idea isn't quite as ridiculous as it initially sounds  

 

[FiveLate]

On 8/28/2017 at 9:25 PM, Calderis said:

@Seloun yes. They can observe, and they can plan. That's It.

They can't interact in the physical realm without a bond which means they can't enact any of those plans until they're sapient enough to do so. Which means they need a bond. 

Literally true, but not totally true.  They can act through proxies...Jansah talks about the knowledge she gained from the highspren.  Providing specific information, whether it is true or false, to someone ore something that can interact with the physical realm can force a result they want via proxy.

[Seloun]

19 hours ago, kaellok said:

I find your theory more likely than many, but if I were you I would not consider it axiomatic that the Recreance was an act of punishment towards the spren.  Personally, I find myself in the same predicament as @galendo, wherein I don't think that any reality is capable of making perfect sense and logic to me.  My current head-canon is that a Mistborn (or several) used a Duralumin-Soothe to cause the KR to just give up.  The way the Knights are described in Dalinar's vision is similar to how Straff Venture describes the Duralumin-Soothe Vin uses on him in HoA, so I like to think the idea isn't quite as ridiculous as it initially sounds

Oh, I completely agree that bondfarming or blaming the spren for something is not a necessary conclusion to the premise that the Radiants intentionally killed their spren. It's just a hypothesis that seems to explain that premise well, or at least better than any others I'm aware of presently. I think a strong emotional investment into the act explains the Radiant's behavior best, but it's not impossible that they had no other choice but to act in that fashion to do whatever they needed to do, or their emotions could have been directed somewhere besides the spren.

[Stonerwarden]

I don't think it's been discussed in this thread but may have missed it but would the discovery of the Heralds abandoning the Oathpact have caused the recreance?

As far as I'm aware everyone thinks that they won and the Heralds returned to continue the fight for the Tranquil halls so what if they found out about the Heralds all giving up on the Oathpact and found it to be the ultimate betrayal enough for them to abandon their oaths as well?

[DustBringer94 he/him]

On 8/23/2017 at 11:25 PM, Calderis said:

The main thing that I still think needs to be considered is that the Nahel bond is consensual. 

The Radiants all broke their oaths together at a preset time. They planned the Recreance. This means that up to that point, whatever they had planned and acted on, the Spren agreed with. 

The main reason that I believe that the Radiants believed that Nale is correct, that the Radiants contribute to the cycle of desolations, us that the actions taken up to that point didn't inherently break the bond. So the Radiants believed that this choice was for the best and the Spren agreed. 

The Recreance wasn't a betrayal, no matter what the Spren that remained in the Cognitive Realm believe. The Spren were complicit and believed their deaths were necessary. Nothing else explains the ability to coordinate the Recreance. 

this makes so much sense its crazy! the bond is an agreement. and with the spren always being present with the KR there is no way that the Recreance could have been planned "behind their backs" so to speak

[RazeU]

On this topic... I'm listening to WoK for the fifth time right now and just past the part when Dalinar saw the vision of the Recreance. While listening, I realized how great I thought it would be to see the scene from the viewpoint of one of the Radiants laying down their shards. Just a thought. 

[The One Who Connects he/him]

On 8/24/2017 at 9:22 PM, galendo said:

6) Theory: The KR discover the Heralds' deception, so they give up.  Why it fails:

On 8/29/2017 at 9:54 AM, Bort said:

The Heralds lied to them, telling them that the Desolation in the prologue of WoK was the last one, and that humanity had won.

On 9/6/2017 at 10:56 AM, Stonerwarden said:

I don't think it's been discussed in this thread but may have missed it but would the discovery of the Heralds abandoning the Oathpact have caused the Recreance?

Not that you need additional justification Galendo, but this one fails because Brandon has directly said that's not what happened.

Quote

Brandon Sanderson

The Radiants did NOT abandon their post as a response to the Heralds. The Radiants abandoned it for some other reason which will become evident eventually.

I swear this one needs to be pinned and bookmarked everywhere. I(and many others) have had to post this one so many times...

On 8/24/2017 at 11:04 PM, Seloun said:

One of the big things about the first Oath is that the ends can't justify the means

Machiavelli disagrees.

Quote

AndrewHB

Is Niccolo Machiavelli's political theory, the ends justify the means, incompatible with the Knights Radiants' First Oath?

Brandon Sanderson

No. Although many of the Orders would find Machiavelli's theory that the ends justify the means incompatible with additional Oaths and/or values of that Order, there are some Orders who could accept a Machiavellian. Brandon said that the Skybreakers where a Machiavellian could find a home.

---

On 8/27/2017 at 5:45 PM, Frostlander said:

Then, when Dalinar asks if this is the Day of Recreance, the voice gives a non-answer.

I interpreted that to be implying that Honor died quite soon after the Recreance. His lackluster skill at future-sight limits him to looking a short while ahead. If he died far enough before the term Recreance was applied, then he can't answer yes/no at all.

[Seloun]

6 hours ago, The One Who Connects said:

Machiavelli disagrees.

Hmm - I hadn't seen that one. I'm curious how that reconciles with 'journey before destination', though, which is almost literally that the means are more important than the ends.

I don't think that substantially changes the argument, though, since the WoB also does say that many of the Orders would in fact interpret it as meaning that the ends can't justify the means, It's probably not necessary to have an explanation (or a single explanation) for every KR disbanding, especially since it appears that not every Order did disband, something the original argument considered in any case.

[Calderis he/him]

15 minutes ago, Seloun said:

Hmm - I hadn't seen that one. I'm curious how that reconciles with 'journey before destination', though, which is almost literally that the means are more important than the ends.

I don't think that substantially changes the argument, though, since the WoB also does say that many of the Orders would in fact interpret it as meaning that the ends can't justify the means, It's probably not necessary to have an explanation (or a single explanation) for every KR disbanding, especially since it appears that not every Order did disband, something the original argument considered in any case.

I made a thread specifically about this topic a while ago. 

The Orders are not as Teft's presentation of the first oath makes them appear. 

The fact that not only the Orders can disagree on the first oath, but two members of the same order can disagree on what an oath means, says there's a lot more to them than what first seems obvious. 

[Seloun]

Just now, Calderis said:

I made a thread specifically about this topic a while ago. 

The Orders are not as Teft's presentation of the first oath makes them appear. 

The fact that not only the Orders can disagree on the first oath, but two members of the same order can disagree on what an oath means, says there's a lot more to them than what first seems obvious. 

That doesn't really resolve the wording of the First Ideal, however. The wording is presumably the same, so there must be some kind of interpretation of it that allows e.g. Skybreakers to be able to justify at least to themselves that they're following it.

For the sake of the theory, in any case, it's not really impactful since most of the Radiants apparently did hold to the interpretation that the ends did not justify the means, and therefore if something was dishonorable about their founding/creation/sustenance it would have potentially have been cause to disband their Orders.

[Calderis he/him]

Just now, Seloun said:

That doesn't really resolve the wording of the First Ideal, however. The wording is presumably the same, so there must be some kind of interpretation of it that allows e.g. Skybreakers to be able to justify at least to themselves that they're following it.

For the sake of the theory, in any case, it's not really impactful since most of the Radiants apparently did hold to the interpretation that the ends did not justify the means, and therefore if something was dishonorable about their founding/creation/sustenance it would have potentially have been cause to disband their Orders.

I proposed a hypothetical interpretation of the first oath that in no way contradicts the words themselves and would allow Taravangian to be a Bondsmith.

Life before death: I must ensure the that some will live no matter the cost. 

Strength before Weakness: I must be strong enough to act, regardless of what is required. The alternative is failure. 

Journey before destination: We must not balk at a step on the path. The Goal can only be reached by pressing on. 

That does not contradict the words in any way. While I don't presume that this is an accurate interpretation that will appear in the books, it just shows that the first ideal is not as restrictive as many try to make it. 

[The One Who Connects he/him]

15 hours ago, Seloun said:

I don't think that substantially changes the argument, though, since the WoB also does say that many of the Orders would in fact interpret it as meaning that the ends can't justify the means, It's probably not necessary to have an explanation (or a single explanation) for every KR disbanding, especially since it appears that not every Order did disband, something the original argument considered in any case.

---

For the sake of the theory, in any case, it's not really impactful since most of the Radiants apparently did hold to the interpretation that the ends did not justify the means, and therefore if something was dishonorable about their founding/creation/sustenance it would have potentially have been cause to disband their Orders.

Given that Taravangian referred to it as "The Secret," I believe it to be only one thing. It is nigh impossible to use "secret(plural)" correctly in a sentence. It is vastly easier to just say "secrets" and continue writing.

If "the secret" was something that went against the oaths, then it cannot be something along the lines of "ends don't justify the means." We know that only 1 Order kept their oaths, and we know that at least 2 Orders have no issue with justifying the means with the ends.

15 hours ago, Seloun said:

Hadn't seen that one. I'm curious how that reconciles with 'journey before destination', though, which is almost literally that the means are more important than the ends.

---

That doesn't really resolve the wording of the First Ideal, however. The wording is presumably the same, so there must be some kind of interpretation of it that allows e.g. Skybreakers to be able to justify at least to themselves that they're following it.

We know that both Skybreakers and Elsecallers would accept a Machiavellian. The two orders are direct opposites on the Surgebinding Chart(adjacent to Windrunner/Lightweavers, and we know how "opposite" those are). An explanation for how one would interpret it may not suffice for the other order. However, we have a starting point for each of them: Jasnah and Nalan.

Jasnah: The Alley scene. Justifying her use of force against the muggers has been an argument on here for quite a while. What's your take on it?

Nalan: The Law

• Consider just how much of society can be justified with the phrases "it's the law," "it's illegal," or "they broke the law."
• Consider how creative the wording of laws/contracts need to be in order to avoid loopholes or wriggling out of it.

---

The First Oath is too simple and open to interpretation to define an overall limit. The Interpretation from Teft is how Kaladin sees the Oaths, and as such are how Kaladin is bound by them... Oh.. That just makes the whole issue worse. Gonna want your opinion on this too @Calderis.

You were trying to justify a Bondsmith, but I realized that your interpretation is compatible with a Windrunner too(Unless Oath(s) 4/5 shake things up)

Quote

Oath 2: I will protect those who cannot protect themselves.

Oath 3: I will protect even those I hate, so long as it is right.

Calderis's sample interpretation of the First Oath:

Quote

Life before death: I must ensure the that some will live no matter the cost.

Strength before Weakness: I must be strong enough to act, regardless of what is required. The alternative is failure.

Journey before destination: We must not balk at a step on the path. The Goal can only be reached by pressing on.

Line 1: Ensuring that people survive is the very emphasis of protecting. It's the entire job purpose of a bodyguard here on Earth(Kaladin and the King's Guard). The military fights to protect those who can't protect themselves(the civilians back home), protecting them to ensure that someone will live, no matter the cost to themselves.

Line 2: Even if it is somebody you've never met, even if it is somebody you hate, you have to be strong enough to protect them, to ensure that somebody survives. And "regardless of what is required" meshes quite well with "so long as it is right." It doesn't matter who or what you are required to protect, so long as it is the right thing to do.

Line 3 is just a combination of the First 2.

• "We must not balk at a step on the path(3)"   &   "No matter the cost(1)"
• "The Goal can only be reached by pressing on(3)"   &   "Act, the alternative is failure(2)"
• Need I say more?

Calderis presented an interpretation of the First Oath that is not limited by "end doesn't justify the means," and I've meshed that interpretation with the Windrunner Oaths. I'm starting to see what Brandon might've meant with "two Windrunners can disagree if an oath has been fulfilled."

I'm also realizing that if my interpretation is valid, then it is almost impossible for the Oaths to be the cause of the Recreance. I don't even think knowing for sure what Order didn't disband will help when you can have this level of differing interpretations in each Order.

[Calderis he/him]

14 minutes ago, The One Who Connects said:

I'm also realizing that if my interpretation is valid, then it is almost impossible for the Oaths to be the cause of the Recreance. I don't even think knowing for sure what Order didn't disband will help when you can have this level of differing interpretations in each Order.

I'm right there with you. At this point, I believe the secret has to be something fundamental to the existence of the Knights themselves. 

It's why the "Radiants are drawn into the Oathpact and make the desolations worse" idea is so appealing. It has to be something that make their very existing more threatening than the good they can do. It also has to be a clear enough danger that all of the Knights, regardless of their interpretation of the First Oath, could agree is worse than continuing on. 

That's not an easy thing to achieve. 

[The One Who Connects he/him]

14 minutes ago, Calderis said:

At this point, I believe the secret has to be something fundamental to the existence of the Knights themselves.

I agree. No idea which Fundamental Truth has the power to undermine their entire existence, but it pretty much has to be one.

16 minutes ago, Calderis said:

It has to be something that make their very existing more threatening than the good they can do.
It also has to be a clear enough danger that all of the Knights, regardless of their interpretation of the First Oath, could agree is worse than continuing on. 

There are two other important things that this secret has to be. It must be discoverable, and in addition to that, it has to be provable.

1. The Early KR learned this terrible truth without cheating(Taravangian). Failing this point is everything that prevents me from backing most of the theories.
2. Claim "end of the world" here on Earth and see who cares. If Mr. T can't prove it, then his secret means nothing. He certainly believes that he can, and I don't see how he would be able to prove 7/8th of the Oathpact/Braize/etc.. theories we have on here.

[Seloun]

2 hours ago, The One Who Connects said:

If "the secret" was something that went against the oaths, then it cannot be something along the lines of "ends don't justify the means." We know that only 1 Order kept their oaths, and we know that at least 2 Orders have no issue with justifying the means with the ends.

I don't think it's accurate to say that the 'secret' must have been something that caused all nine (possibly ten, with caveats) Orders to have disbanded as a direct result. A secret that e.g. caused the KR to fight among themselves could have also have been sufficient. It's not really as straightforward as requiring that whatever the secret was, it must have affected 9 or 10 Orders equivalently.

2 hours ago, The One Who Connects said:

We know that both Skybreakers and Elsecallers would accept a Machiavellian. The two orders are direct opposites on the Surgebinding Chart(adjacent to Windrunner/Lightweavers, and we know how "opposite" those are). An explanation for how one would interpret it may not suffice for the other order. However, we have a starting point for each of them: Jasnah and Nalan.

I'm not actually sure Nalan is a good example of a typical Skybreaker any more than any of the other Heralds. They likely share similarities to a pathological case of their respective Orders (I can sort of see e.g. Kaladin's depression and Jezrien's apparent current behavior, if the commonly held assumption about who it is correct) but probably aren't a good sample of a typical KR at the time of the Recreance.

2 hours ago, The One Who Connects said:

Jasnah: The Alley scene. Justifying her use of force against the muggers has been an argument on here for quite a while. What's your take on it?

I don't really see this as an example of 'ends justifying the means', or at least I can see Kaladin doing something similar. The thugs were a pretty clear danger to the citizens of the city, and hunting them down isn't much different from what e.g. Kaladin is doing in the Oathbringer previews. About the only questionable part is not letting them run, but her reasoning regarding future threat seems pretty sound. Also, a bit more below.

2 hours ago, The One Who Connects said:

Nalan: The Law

• Consider just how much of society can be justified with the phrases "it's the law," "it's illegal," or "they broke the law."
• Consider how creative the wording of laws/contracts need to be in order to avoid loopholes or wriggling out of it.

---

The First Oath is too simple and open to interpretation to define an overall limit. The Interpretation from Teft is how Kaladin sees the Oaths, and as such are how Kaladin is bound by them... Oh.. That just makes the whole issue worse. Gonna want your opinion on this too @Calderis.

...

Calderis presented an interpretation of the First Oath that is not limited by "end doesn't justify the means," and I've meshed that interpretation with the Windrunner Oaths. I'm starting to see what Brandon might've meant with "two Windrunners can disagree if an oath has been fulfilled."

I'm also realizing that if my interpretation is valid, then it is almost impossible for the Oaths to be the cause of the Recreance. I don't even think knowing for sure what Order didn't disband will help when you can have this level of differing interpretations in each Order.

I don't disagree that interpretation is a big part of the KR Ideals/Oaths. However:

1) 'Being Machivellian' is not a binary thing. Likely the different Orders had different tolerances (in general) for 'ends before means'. Simply because the Elsecallers are willing to accept certain amount of 'greater good' reasoning doesn't mean they'd accept any form of it.

2) It's not really necessary for the reason for the Recreance to be something that has to apply universally to every possible interpretation of the Ideals even if it's related to the Ideals. While Windrunners can disagree, there's still probably a fairly broad set of general values that held within the organization for most of its members, even if not universally. Each KR order likely attracted similarly minded individuals if for no other reason that they attracted similar kinds of spren. I also don't think it's unreasonable to think that there was a common set of general values that held among a majority of the KR organization as a whole during the Recreance (or any period). It's not really a matter of 'could someone have disagreed?' but 'is it likely a significant majority would have agreed?' Just having a potential counterexample (or even many counterexamples) isn't really relevant since the point of the argument is not 'what could have caused this to occur under any context?'

Ultimately though, this digression is really not directly relevant to my theory. The bondfarming theory exists because I applied a basic test to the proto-Radiants we have known so far in the books: would knowing X cause him/her to kill his/her spren?

1) If Kaladin thought Tien's death was directly attributable to Syl's machinations, would he be willing to kill her and leave her dead?

2) If Shallan thought her mother's death/family's tragedy was directly attributable to Pattern's machinations, would she be willing to kill him and leave him dead?

3) If Dalinar thought his brother's death (possibly other events; don't know yet), etc....

4) If Szeth thought his being an assassin was due to some spren's actions... etc.

5) We don't really know about Jasnah's/Lift's traumas yet, but similar argument applies.

I think in each case the answer is yes, and in Shallan's case, practically outright stated.

The next part of the link is asking why the spren might be involved in those events to start with. We know the spren enjoy being bonded and feel they gain something significant from doing so, and we know that the KR candidates (people Invested in general) have to be 'broken' via trauma of some sort). Many of the spren are clearly organized (Cryptics vs. Honorspren, Windle's comments about 'preparing') so it hardly seems impossible that the thought of ensuring an availability of hosts has never occurred to any spren. If nothing else, surely they have been able to correlate an increase in candidates during Desolations. What the spren did might not have been directly breaking the candidates, but e.g. acted to keep the Desolations happening, or happen more frequently.

Essentially, my argument is that if something is probably sufficient to make Kaladin kill Syl, it's probably a good enough reason for the average Windrunner to do the same. It's fundamentally an emotional argument because I think the scene of the Recreance Dalinar experiences is too emotionally invested for it to be just a rationally concluded decision. The Oaths and Ideals are a means of justifying the decision, but at its heart I believe it was likely a personally motivated one. It's not really necessary for the Oaths/Ideals to force the Recreance, just allow it.

[Calderis he/him]

5 minutes ago, Seloun said:

1) 'Being Machivellian' is not a binary thing. Likely the different Orders had different tolerances (in general) for 'ends before means'. Simply because the Elsecallers are willing to accept certain amount of 'greater good' reasoning doesn't mean they'd accept any form of it.

The Elsecallers don't decide who joins them anymore than any other order. The Spren do. Inkspren are attracted to people who value logic over emotion. While I agree it's not Binary, Elsecallers are the order most likely to accept a full on machiavellian. Detachment from all emotion and functioning on a completely logical basis would result in a purely machiavellian outlook. Morality is based in emotional reactions and empathy. 

Until we know what the Spren of each order is attracted to, stating this 

12 minutes ago, Seloun said:

I also don't think it's unreasonable to think that there was a common set of general values that held among a majority of the KR organization as a whole during the Recreance (or any period).

Is impossible to agree or disagree with. 

The Bondsmiths existed to maintain order between the Radiants for a reason. I personally think that the groupings of people all broken in similar fashions means a reinforcement if their flaws that would lead to rampant conflicts. 

As to your other points... I've stated my opinion on your bond farming idea more than sufficiently already. 

[The One Who Connects he/him]

10 hours ago, Seloun said:

I don't think it's accurate to say that the 'secret' must have been something that caused all nine (possibly ten, with caveats) Orders to have disbanded as a direct result.

While you may be right, we know that the secret did lead to 9 of the Orders disbanding. I just feel that whatever it was can't be related to the Oaths themselves, as there is enough variance in interpretation that anything would only affect about half of the Radiant population. Regardless of it was a direct result or not, 50% just isn't good enough. Members of the same Order can disagree on how an Oath is interpreted. A 50/50 split could easily be settled with a little theological debate(or just left to exist in the background, like the Windrunner/Skybreaker schism of eras past).

Speaking of the schism, that's a perfect example: The difference between "Doing what is Just" and "Doing what is Right" is a huge disagreement that continues to this day in some parts of the Earth. If something like that didn't break them, then you'd need an even bigger theological debate stemming from the Oaths in order to do it, and I'm not sure anything can do that.

10 hours ago, Seloun said:

It's not really as straightforward as requiring that whatever the secret was, it must have affected 9 or 10 Orders equivalently.

It doesn't have to affect them equivalently, but it has to affect them. That's why "end justify the means" fell apart, because 2 of the Orders might come out of it unaffected, with some members of the other Orders not bothered by it either. Most of these ideas fall apart because the number of people who could potentially come out unaffected is too high, not because it doesn't fit the "9/10th" number perfectly.

11 hours ago, Seloun said:

I'm not actually sure Nalan is a good example of a typical Skybreaker any more than any of the other Heralds. They likely share similarities to a pathological case of their respective Orders.

I'd have used Szeth, if not for his.. uncertain status. Actually... Nalan stated that Szeth exemplified what it was to be a Skybreaker. Despite his insanity, I am inclined to believe him on this one. Szeth is about as far from the Machiavellian Ideal of "end justifies the means" as it gets. All that mattered was that he kept to the rules that bound him. The means and the end were both irrelevant. The end was whatever end his current master was aiming for, and the means were just as flexible(Szeth was ordered to emulate what he did in Alethkar, rather than using stealthy means or somesuch other. I think he was even ordered to intimidate without killing at one point). This just goes to show that even among the Skybreakers(the Order most focused on rule of law) there could be dissenting opinions on things.

11 hours ago, Seloun said:

The thugs were a pretty clear danger to the citizens of the city, and hunting them down isn't much different from what e.g. Kaladin is doing in the Oathbringer previews. About the only questionable part is not letting them run, but her reasoning regarding future threat seems pretty sound.

Eh. I still feel that Jasnah tempting them into it makes the case less clear-cut. It hurts a case for malignant intent on the part of the thugs when Jasnah set out that night with the intent of cleaning the streets of their filth. Killing the first one was still self-defense though: he was mid-knife swing when she turned him into fire. She turned the second one into quartz because he tripped and she caught up with him. That one is up in the air because he hadn't really "ran away" yet, but turning the other two into smoke from a distance isn't. They hadn't actually done anything yet and were running away, but she killed them without a second thought anyway.

As for her reasoning for the future, literally anyone else in the city could have gotten the inkling to steal/kill at some point in the past/future. They could have (forcibly) kept others who were thinking of following suit off the streets, they could have incited others to follow suit. With them dead, somebody worse could end up taking their place. Jasnah wants to believe that she saved more lives than she took, but she can't prove it.

12 hours ago, Seloun said:

1) 'Being Machiavellian' is not a binary thing. Likely the different Orders had different tolerances (in general) for 'ends before means'. Simply because the Elsecallers are willing to accept certain amount of 'greater good' reasoning doesn't mean they'd accept any form of it.

Calderis summed this up well enough already. It's the decision of the Spren, and we know that they can disagree on things too.

12 hours ago, Seloun said:

1) While Windrunners can disagree, there's still probably a fairly broad set of general values that held within the organization for most of its members, even if not universally.
2) Each KR order likely attracted similarly minded individuals if for no other reason that they attracted similar kinds of Spren.
3) I also don't think it's unreasonable to think that there was a common set of general values that held among a majority of the KR organization as a whole during the Recreance (or any period).

1) They have a massively broad set of general values for the organization. It's called the First Ideal. They didn't get the choice in it being forced onto all of them, and it's something can(and probably was) disagreed upon at times. Specific Orders have specialized rules that further define their actions.
2) You are making an assumption without enough evidence. We have examples of individuals who could have joined two different orders, we have an example of two different mindsets on the path for joining the same order.
3) I(with help from several others on here) could probably make any interpretation of the First Ideal valid for all 10 Orders, but that's because they are broad enough to not contradict the other Ideals. However, that broad interpretation is a detriment, as it ultimately doesn't limit one all that much. I don't think it's that easy to make rules that don't contradict any of the other Ideals, but are still specific enough to not be up for debate.

12 hours ago, Seloun said:

Ultimately though, this digression is really not directly relevant to my theory. The bondfarming theory exists because I applied a basic test to the proto-Radiants we have known so far in the books: would knowing X cause him/her to kill his/her spren?

Ok. Have a digression that is relevant to your theory: "In fact, I shall deny the very basis. Your assumption has been wrong since the beginning."  -Gundam Tanaka

On 8/23/2017 at 11:56 PM, Seloun said:

What if Kaladin was convinced that Syl caused Tien's death somehow? And that she benefited from Tien's death.

We know that Radiants need to be 'broken' to bond with Spren. We know that Spren gain sentience from the bond, and that the Spren like the benefits of being bonded. What if the Spren (perhaps only a subset of them) intentionally caused trauma to make more hosts available for bonding?

It doesn't necessarily have to just be the Spren. Maybe somebody thought it might be really helpful to a bunch more Radiants around and made it seem like the Spren were complicit (or perhaps just not opposed). Ultimately, something that seemed to indicate their Spren were somehow benefiting or profiting from their breaking, and doing so intentionally.

That's my 'bond farming' theory of the Recreance: The Spren intentionally (or perhaps unintentionally, but inevitably, e.g. natural reaction as 'dumb' Spren) created potential Radiants by 'breaking' them, or were framed as doing so.

It's 3-0 against the Spren doing something like that by accident/being framed for it.

1. As Calderis said, the Spren were complicit in planning the Recreance. It's just not possible for the entire organization to keep that a secret while also explaining the plan to everybody. As such, if the Recreance occurred because of something the Spren did, then it has to be something that they can feel genuinely responsible for and feel that they deserve death for. That's a very harsh sentence for an accident, and something that I think both Skybreakers and Windrunners could agree would be too far. If the two of them can agree that something is wrong, then it's wrong. No if, and, or buts about it.
2. Following on the heels of Point 1 is the very simple rebuttal of the framing argument: Proof. If you lack the evidence to prove guilt, then the defense walks. A Skybreaker ought to understand that. If they were framed, then the "evidence" is forged. Falsified evidence doesn't hold up under scrutiny, and if the Skybreaker do a pre-trial investigation, then the evidence not only has to be faked but also planted. The logistics of planting falsified evidence in a multi-Realm environment with the purpose of convicting the Spren is... difficult. If someone came forward with the evidence, then they would be under scrutiny too, with the burden of proof on them. When it comes to the law, neither Skybreakers nor Windrunners take kindly to falsehoods.
3. I don't care whether you think the Spren did it or someone else framed them. The important question is how did they do it in the first place? Ruin, a full Shard, was very limited in what he could do and influence without controlling an Inquisitor. A certain character only got spiked because Ruin got a very lucky break with the situation. You expect me to believe that simple Spren could accidentally influence how events played out to a greater degree than Ruin could, and dozens, maybe hundreds of times at that? I don't buy it. Even if it was done on purpose, i still don't buy it.

13 hours ago, Seloun said:

1) If Kaladin thought Tien's death was directly attributable to Syl's machinations, would he be willing to kill her and leave her dead?

2) If Shallan thought her mother's death/family's tragedy was directly attributable to Pattern's machinations, would she be willing to kill him and leave him dead?

1) Doubtful. Kaladin has a long list of people who could be somewhat responsible for that one. Eventually he has to let go of the past. It's in his Third Oath: "even those I hate." He nearly killed both Syl and himself with the last vendetta. I think he's smart enough to not embark on another one.
2) Pattern thinks that she will, so I want to say no purely because her stubborn streak would be determined to prove Pattern wrong. Actually, this one is a Definite No.

• Pattern was responsible for the family tragedy. Her mother attacked her because of the bond, calling her "one of them." If she's willing to forgive/forget that, then I'd say she moved past it.
• Her family tragedy isn't what broke her. The tragedy started with the death of her mother and friend, who only died because she tried to kill Shallan after she bonded Pattern. She was already broken, making this discussion moot.

3) Dalinar blamed himself for Gavilar's death, since he was in a drunken stupor when it happened. He also blames Szeth, since he carried it out. I believe that he took the blame off himself when he realized his presence wouldn't have helped against Szeth. Szeth had no Spren, so blaming Szeth doesn't lead to a Spren, and even if it did, that path will never lead to the Stormfather. If his brokenness is caused by something else, then we'll have to wait for Oathbringer Flashbacks.
4) Szeth is the only case that holds any water, since it seems like he saw a KR Spren/Voidspren and claimed they had returned. This is also where the boat sinks, as his banishment is entirely the fault of the small-minded fools that make up the Stone Shamanate. His subsequent he||ish life is the fault of his own honor.(Also a good spot for something to break him.. hrmm..)
5) Jasnah and Lift...
   5a) Jasnah thinks from a cold and logic-oriented point of view, as showcased by the aftermath of the alley scene. She is probably the best chance for your theory, as she would be the one to weigh the options without regard to the emotional impact.
   5b) Yea, this isn't happening. Wyndle was meant to bond with Ym, remember? If he engineered the events in order to bond, then he would have ended up with Ym(or the Iriali Matron he mentioned). He's not particularly pleased with his current arrangement, which doesn't mesh well with him planning it. Besides, from your own quote, the choice wasn't his. The Ring(via the Nightwatcher/Cultivation's Blessing) chose for him. He isn't directly responsible, and I highly doubt that Lift of all people would be willing to kill him even if he was. Especially by the time of the back 5, where she would have been bonded with him for upwards of 20 years.

14 hours ago, Seloun said:

What the Spren did [...] e.g. acted to keep the Desolations happening, or happen more frequently.

"The Heralds." I don't think this statement warrants any more than that.

14 hours ago, Seloun said:

Essentially, my argument is that if something is probably sufficient to make Kaladin kill Syl, it's probably a good enough reason for the average Windrunner to do the same.

I would agree with that sentiment. However, I do not think anything presented thus far is sufficient.

---

Now for arguments against the validity of your theory in the modern (Everstorm) Era. This Secret has to be enough for the KR to think abandoning their Oaths is the best(maybe even the only) choice. Taravangian certainly thinks it is. Your theory just isn't.

From the Diagram, Taravangian knew the Desolation would come(Ancient of Stones passage) and he knew the secret to destroy the Radiants. He thinks that this secret is a big enough deal that they would sooner kill their Spren and let the Desolation continue unchecked than fight back against the forces of Odium. The secret has to be a very big deal, and your theory lacks the intensity to actually make this happen.

Also, people come to like having power. You can do things as a Radiant that you only dreamed of. Honorable figures realize they can do so much more good for the world because they have power. You'd be surprised how many people would overlook a past transgression like the ones you describe to keep that power, to live out their dreams, to continue being a force for good, to keep their Spren companion alive. And with a full-blown Desolation right around the corner, even more people will want to keep their powers to protect.

Hold a grudge about a death that's happened years ago and willingly let the rest of the world die, or forgive that death and protect everyone else? It's a pretty easy choice.

[Calderis he/him]

3 hours ago, The One Who Connects said:

I don't care whether you think the Spren did it or someone else framed them. The important question is how did they do it in the first place? Ruin, a full Shard, was very limited in what he could do and influence without controlling an Inquisitor. A certain character only got spiked because Ruin got a very lucky break with the situation. You expect me to believe that simple Spren could accidentally influence how events played out to a greater degree than Ruin could, and dozens, maybe hundreds of times at that? I don't buy it. Even if it was done on purpose, i still don't buy it.

This. So much this. Thank you. 

And yeah. I agree with all you're counterpoints. 

[powerfulmoss]

On 9/13/2017 at 10:52 PM, Calderis said:

I'm right there with you. At this point, I believe the secret has to be something fundamental to the existence of the Knights themselves. 

It's why the "Radiants are drawn into the Oathpact and make the desolations worse" idea is so appealing. It has to be something that make their very existing more threatening than the good they can do. It also has to be a clear enough danger that all of the Knights, regardless of their interpretation of the First Oath, could agree is worse than continuing on. 

That's not an easy thing to achieve. 

I actually think this theory is the best I've read so far but thinking about it from a Windrunner's perspective (and likely other orders), sacrificing your spren, reputation and power while endangering your life in order to save the population from a desolation is exactly what their oaths would want them to do. How then did they break the bond between themselves and the spren? How were the knights able to leave their shards on a field and break their oaths all at the same time.

The only theory I can come up with is that they did not break their oaths. They somehow deliberately broke the bond to the spren, who were complicit in the event, to stop the desolations.

[Seloun]

On 9/14/2017 at 4:43 PM, The One Who Connects said:

Speaking of the schism, that's a perfect example: The difference between "Doing what is Just" and "Doing what is Right" is a huge disagreement that continues to this day in some parts of the Earth. If something like that didn't break them, then you'd need an even bigger theological debate stemming from the Oaths in order to do it, and I'm not sure anything can do that.

I'm inclined to agree, which is why I think the cause of the Recreance probably had some kind of personal, emotional component to it that affected the Radiants. I don't think it's merely a policy issue.

On 9/14/2017 at 4:43 PM, The One Who Connects said:

Eh. I still feel that Jasnah tempting them into it makes the case less clear-cut. It hurts a case for malignant intent on the part of the thugs when Jasnah set out that night with the intent of cleaning the streets of their filth. Killing the first one was still self-defense though: he was mid-knife swing when she turned him into fire. She turned the second one into quartz because he tripped and she caught up with him. That one is up in the air because he hadn't really "ran away" yet, but turning the other two into smoke from a distance isn't. They hadn't actually done anything yet and were running away, but she killed them without a second thought anyway.

As for her reasoning for the future, literally anyone else in the city could have gotten the inkling to steal/kill at some point in the past/future. They could have (forcibly) kept others who were thinking of following suit off the streets, they could have incited others to follow suit. With them dead, somebody worse could end up taking their place. Jasnah wants to believe that she saved more lives than she took, but she can't prove it.

It's not really possible to 'prove' the latter point for any situation. I would find the situation more grey if Jasnah was actively acting as an agent provocateur. It's fairly clear that this wasn't the first time the men involved had committed such a crime. Given that they'd been practiced at it, and were in the process of robbing them, it's a reasonable assumption that they'd continue with the behavior if not deterred in some way. One could argue that her use of force was excessive, but I think even that's debatable.

The whole 'ends vs. means' thing is not really relevant in any case, Dividing ends vs. means is rather arbitrary; ultimately what matters are the consequences, with means and ends only serving to attempt to determine intent, and indirectly predict future behavior.

On 9/14/2017 at 4:43 PM, The One Who Connects said:

1) They have a massively broad set of general values for the organization. It's called the First Ideal. They didn't get the choice in it being forced onto all of them, and it's something can(and probably was) disagreed upon at times. Specific Orders have specialized rules that further define their actions.

2) You are making an assumption without enough evidence. We have examples of individuals who could have joined two different orders, we have an example of two different mindsets on the path for joining the same order.
3) I(with help from several others on here) could probably make any interpretation of the First Ideal valid for all 10 Orders, but that's because they are broad enough to not contradict the other Ideals. However, that broad interpretation is a detriment, as it ultimately doesn't limit one all that much. I don't think it's that easy to make rules that don't contradict any of the other Ideals, but are still specific enough to not be up for debate.

1) I'm referring to the specific interpretations of the First Ideal. In particular, I don't think it's reasonable to assume that every possible interpretation of the First Ideal must have been represented in the KR. It's not necessary for an event or action to be 'wrong' for every interpretation of the First Ideal for it to be 'wrong' for all or majority of the interpretations held by the KR during the time of the Recreance. While the fact that Tarvangian seems to believe the knowledge would be applicable to modern KR suggests a certain amount of generality to the cause, it's still not necessary for it to be universally assuming modern society and values aren't that different from that of during the Recreance - or point (2) (KR tend to be similar)

2) There being overlap between the Orders or that people could qualify for multiple Orders doesn't really negate this point. The values held by the Orders don't seem to be in general mutually contradictory so much as degrees of emphasis. The fact that someone who e.g. values honor highly might qualify for both Stonewards and Windrunners isn't exclusive to most Windrunners valuing honor. I don't really think it's that controversial to suggest that people within a given Order tend to be similarly-minded, given that Nale implies and and the in-world book Word of Radiance also seems to suggest a pretty general pattern to the members of given Orders.

3) This really just goes back to the point of (1). The reason for the Recreance doesn't have to work for every possible potential KR of any societal mores. It just has to work on a common subset of Rosharians likely to become KR. There are many ways to literally interpret the First Ideal and it's quite possible there were a minority that wordsmithed it to death to fit their personal moralities. However, I don't think it's necessary for a given reason for the Recreance to work for every single one of those case; the reason doesn't have to be logically inevitable for it to work. In particular, as mentioned before, I think the reason for the Recreance likely had to have had a significant personal, emotional component for the KR; it doesn't have to be completely reliable any more than punching someone in the face is guaranteed to cause retaliation, just highly probable for most normal people.

On 9/14/2017 at 4:43 PM, The One Who Connects said:

Ok. Have a digression that is relevant to your theory: "In fact, I shall deny the very basis. Your assumption has been wrong since the beginning."  -Gundam Tanaka

It's 3-0 against the Spren doing something like that by accident/being framed for it.

1. As Calderis said, the Spren were complicit in planning the Recreance. It's just not possible for the entire organization to keep that a secret while also explaining the plan to everybody. As such, if the Recreance occurred because of something the Spren did, then it has to be something that they can feel genuinely responsible for and feel that they deserve death for. That's a very harsh sentence for an accident, and something that I think both Skybreakers and Windrunners could agree would be too far. If the two of them can agree that something is wrong, then it's wrong. No if, and, or buts about it.
2. Following on the heels of Point 1 is the very simple rebuttal of the framing argument: Proof. If you lack the evidence to prove guilt, then the defense walks. A Skybreaker ought to understand that. If they were framed, then the "evidence" is forged. Falsified evidence doesn't hold up under scrutiny, and if the Skybreaker do a pre-trial investigation, then the evidence not only has to be faked but also planted. The logistics of planting falsified evidence in a multi-Realm environment with the purpose of convicting the Spren is... difficult. If someone came forward with the evidence, then they would be under scrutiny too, with the burden of proof on them. When it comes to the law, neither Skybreakers nor Windrunners take kindly to falsehoods.
3. I don't care whether you think the Spren did it or someone else framed them. The important question is how did they do it in the first place? Ruin, a full Shard, was very limited in what he could do and influence without controlling an Inquisitor. A certain character only got spiked because Ruin got a very lucky break with the situation. You expect me to believe that simple Spren could accidentally influence how events played out to a greater degree than Ruin could, and dozens, maybe hundreds of times at that? I don't buy it. Even if it was done on purpose, i still don't buy it.

1) I'm not sure why it's clear that the spren were complicit in planning the Recreance. I don't suggest that it was a surprise to them, but I'm not sure why they have to be willing participants. The feeling of 'immense tragedy, of pain and betrayal' that Dalinar gets during the vision of the Recreance certainly seems to suggest someone didn't want this to occur. While this might just be overflow from Tanavast, the fact that Dalinar appears to be hearing the spren screaming suggests that it's related to the spren themselves.

2) I don't mean 'frame' in the sense that some other party was responsible/spren were completely innocent. Rather, it's quite possible that not all spren were responsible or equally complicit; some may have known but done nothing, others might not have known at all, etc. but that the entire group was held responsible due to it being something fairly fundamental to the bonding itself. The main point here is that it isn't necessary for every spren to have been involved in a giant conspiracy - just that enough spren demonstrated that they were capable of such a thing, and for reasons that might be fundamental to their existence (e.g. this is how they reproduce).

3) The Stormfather creates highstorms. The Nightwatcher grants wishes. Simple windspren (or potentially non-sentient Honorspren) are capable of bonding items together. The capability of spren (at least some spren) to affect the world doesn't really seem to be in question. Not to mention spren can apparently bond with Rosharian life and influence them that way. Spren are definitely involved in the lifecycle of Rosharian life, and we see spren apparently spontaneously generate from e.g. corpses of gemhearts after their deaths.

I don't think the Ruin comparison really makes much sense, given Ruin's agency was severely limited by Preservation's actions and the whole history there regarding their agreement about the world. Consider Odium and Honor on Roshar; they certainly left their mark on the place.

On 9/14/2017 at 4:43 PM, The One Who Connects said:

1) Doubtful. Kaladin has a long list of people who could be somewhat responsible for that one. Eventually he has to let go of the past. It's in his Third Oath: "even those I hate." He nearly killed both Syl and himself with the last vendetta. I think he's smart enough to not embark on another one.

The whole point of the Recreance is that it caused the KR to break their oaths. Something that would cause Kaladin to regress is pretty much the definition of a candidate for the cause of the Recreance. Whether Kaladin would break his oaths for vengeance against Tien's killer is an open question; however, the incident you mention shows that Kaladin came extremely close to breaking (or actually did break) his oaths for what is arguably a lesser issue for him. Even if it doesn't cause Kaladin to break, one has to consider if Kaladin or a Kaladin-proxy likely would have broken if circumstances were somewhat different.

On 9/14/2017 at 4:43 PM, The One Who Connects said:

2) Pattern thinks that she will, so I want to say no purely because her stubborn streak would be determined to prove Pattern wrong. Actually, this one is a Definite No.

• Pattern was responsible for the family tragedy. Her mother attacked her because of the bond, calling her "one of them." If she's willing to forgive/forget that, then I'd say she moved past it.
• Her family tragedy isn't what broke her. The tragedy started with the death of her mother and friend, who only died because she tried to kill Shallan after she bonded Pattern. She was already broken, making this discussion moot.

This doesn't actually have to be the issue that broken Shallan, just whether a similar action against her would cause her to abandon her oaths/kill Pattern. The point here is that Pattern seems to think that something like this would be enough to have Shallan kill him. Whether this is what actually broke Shallan or not isn't the point. (FWIW I think it is; IIRC it's not necessary to be 'fully broken' to have a basic bond, and this is almost certainly the first time Shallan summoned her Blade)

On 9/14/2017 at 4:43 PM, The One Who Connects said:

3) Dalinar blamed himself for Gavilar's death, since he was in a drunken stupor when it happened. He also blames Szeth, since he carried it out. I believe that he took the blame off himself when he realized his presence wouldn't have helped against Szeth. Szeth had no Spren, so blaming Szeth doesn't lead to a Spren, and even if it did, that path will never lead to the Stormfather. If his brokenness is caused by something else, then we'll have to wait for Oathbringer Flashbacks.

I don't disagree that this is probably close to what Dalinar feels about it right now. That's not actually the point. My question was whether hypothetically learning that a spren or a group of spren were responsible for his brother's death somehow (e.g. influenced the Parshendi to send Szeth to kill Gavilar) would cause him to consider abandoning his oaths.

On 9/14/2017 at 4:43 PM, The One Who Connects said:

   5b) Yea, this isn't happening. Wyndle was meant to bond with Ym, remember? If he engineered the events in order to bond, then he would have ended up with Ym(or the Iriali Matron he mentioned). He's not particularly pleased with his current arrangement, which doesn't mesh well with him planning it. Besides, from your own quote, the choice wasn't his. The Ring(via the Nightwatcher/Cultivation's Blessing) chose for him. He isn't directly responsible, and I highly doubt that Lift of all people would be willing to kill him even if he was. Especially by the time of the back 5, where she would have been bonded with him for upwards of 20 years.

I'm not really sure why you think this is a counterargument. This suggests that the spren as a group can somehow influence who they bond (otherwise it's not a choice). The fact that it's not Wyndle's choice, but (presumably) some council of spren seems to reinforce the likelihood of the theory, actually.

Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that each individual spren individually broke their bondmate. I'm saying that the spren as a group (or more likely a subset of the spren) did something to create more broken and therefore bondable people - probably for their survival (I presume the bond is necessary for spren reproduction somehow). A society of spren dictating bonds is perfectly in line with that.

I don't think it's that crazy for Lift to consider killing Wyndle if e.g. she though Wyndle was the reason why her mother died. We'll need more information, but almost by definition one of the broken KR candidates will have something in their past that they would not act rationally towards.

On 9/14/2017 at 4:43 PM, The One Who Connects said:

"The Heralds." I don't think this statement warrants any more than that.

(This is in context of spren doing something to extend the Desolations)

This was actually what I was alluding to. Suppose the spren negotiated with the Heralds to covertly extend the Desolations; this gives the spren more broken humans to bond and it gives the Heralds a further reprieve. This also (further) addresses how the spren might have affected the physical world: they talked other agents into helping them.

On 9/14/2017 at 4:43 PM, The One Who Connects said:

I would agree with that sentiment. However, I do not think anything presented thus far is sufficient.

---

Now for arguments against the validity of your theory in the modern (Everstorm) Era. This Secret has to be enough for the KR to think abandoning their Oaths is the best(maybe even the only) choice. Taravangian certainly thinks it is. Your theory just isn't.

(em mine)

I don't think this is true. Again, I believe there's a pretty personal emotional component to what caused the Recreance. The point is that it's something that would cause the KR not to think in strictly rational terms.

As noted above, practically by definition each KR has something in their past that caused them great personal trauma that can't be fully healed (I don't know if there's a WoB or equivalent offhand, but I presume if the person somehow becomes 'unbroken' they are again unable to allow Investure into themselves). It's a universal weakness they all share.

On 9/14/2017 at 4:43 PM, The One Who Connects said:

From the Diagram, Taravangian knew the Desolation would come(Ancient of Stones passage) and he knew the secret to destroy the Radiants. He thinks that this secret is a big enough deal that they would sooner kill their Spren and let the Desolation continue unchecked than fight back against the forces of Odium. The secret has to be a very big deal, and your theory lacks the intensity to actually make this happen.

There's nothing that says that they'd stop working against the Desolation; the only specific thing about the secret is that he could use to to destroy the Orders If e.g. the KR thought the bond would make the Desolation worse, that would probably be a good reason to break it. Or if they thought what the bond caused/how the bond was created was worse than the Desolation.

On 9/14/2017 at 4:43 PM, The One Who Connects said:

Also, people come to like having power. You can do things as a Radiant that you only dreamed of. Honorable figures realize they can do so much more good for the world because they have power. You'd be surprised how many people would overlook a past transgression like the ones you describe to keep that power, to live out their dreams, to continue being a force for good, to keep their Spren companion alive. And with a full-blown Desolation right around the corner, even more people will want to keep their powers to protect.

Hold a grudge about a death that's happened years ago and willingly let the rest of the world die, or forgive that death and protect everyone else? It's a pretty easy choice.

I don't disagree with these sentiments. The modern era with the Desolation occurring right now is rather different from when the Recreance occurred, which was probably a lot less apocalyptic given that they thought the Desolations were over.

However, the impact of the secret doesn't have to be uniform between the two eras (again, the cause of the Recreance does not have to be universally applicable). It's something that will give Taravangian enough of an edge to destroy the new Orders. It doesn't have to be a magic self-destruct button; if it e.g. prevents anyone else from joining the existing KR, or makes new recruits think twice about joining the KR, that's probably more than enough.

[The One Who Connects he/him]

12 hours ago, Seloun said:

In particular, I don't think it's reasonable to assume that every possible interpretation of the First Ideal must have been represented in the KR. It's not necessary for an event or action to be 'wrong' for every interpretation of the First Ideal for it to be 'wrong' for all or majority of the interpretations held by the KR during the time of the Recreance.

I don't think every interpretation was represented in the KR at any given point. I don't believe there are that many things that would be wrong by a majority of the interpretations either.

12 hours ago, Seloun said:

However, the reason doesn't have to be logically inevitable for it to work. In particular, I think the reason for the Recreance likely had to have had a significant personal, emotional component for the KR;

Sorry to be Spock, but I don't think something largely driven by emotion will cut it. Kaladin's Third Oath involves moving past his hate. I'd imagine some Oaths from other Orders will also involved moving past emotions(Dustbringers and the Brave Attribute, the Stoneward(probably) oath of "I will stand when others fall", etc..). As will be covered in the "complicity" point further down, they did not abandon all that progress in a spur of the moment emotional slip, so it has to still hold an impact once cooler heads can think about it.

The "Day" of Recreance was more than likely pre-planned so it could be carried out in concert, and emotions fade and shift. The cause of the Recreance has to have a logical component to it, or else people would change their mind once they calmed down/the more logical types will calm the others down and reconcile issues less drastically. Maybe I'm overestimating the human capacity to cope, but they coped long enough to think about it, and decided to go forwards with it anyway.

12 hours ago, Seloun said:

1) I'm not sure why it's clear that the spren were complicit in planning the Recreance.

Per Calderis: 

Quote

Quote

When Kaladin's bond was wavering, his ability to Surgebind was sporadic. This is why I say the Spren were complicit. The fact that a good number of the Windrunners flew to Feverstone Keep shouldn't have been possible if their surges were failing.

And less recently:

On 9/20/2017 at 10:38 AM, Calderis said:

The Recreance vision showed the Windrunners Surgebinding, and all of the blades glowing right up until dropped. 

There is absolutely no way an event like this could have been coordinated without the Spren being aware, and not viewing the actions taken up to that point as a breaking the Oaths. 

The only conclusion that makes any logical sense, is that the Spren were complicit in the act. Whatever caused the Recreance, the Spren agreed with their Knights. 

The complicity of the Spren is largely his argument, so I'm not the one to argue it.

12 hours ago, Seloun said:

2) Rather, it's quite possible that not all spren were responsible or equally complicit; some may have known but done nothing, others might not have known at all, etc. but that the entire group was held responsible due to it being something fairly fundamental to the bonding itself. The main point here is that it isn't necessary for every spren to have been involved in a giant conspiracy - just that enough spren demonstrated that they were capable of such a thing, and for reasons that might be fundamental to their existence (e.g. this is how they reproduce).

And they had to die for it? I'm no Skybreaker, but I believe punishing the many for the actions of the few is... frowned upon legally. Windrunners might just frown upon that in general. You're a fan of majority opinions. Where do you think the majority of the KR would fall here?

13 hours ago, Seloun said:

3) The Stormfather creates highstorms. The Nightwatcher grants wishes. Simple windspren (or potentially non-sentient Honorspren) are capable of bonding items together. The capability of spren (at least some spren) to affect the world doesn't really seem to be in question.

Key Words: I used "affect the situation," while you used "affect the world." The two do not equate.

The Stormfather and Windspren are not helping your case. They affect the world by creating/moving things, which Ruin and Preservation could do quite easily when not fighting each other. What they could not do, is affect what people did. Ruin could do very little in the way of manipulating situations when not acting through an Inquisitor, even when Preservation was not at liberty to limit his actions. Manipulating situations so that people would break and become suitable candidates for Spren Bonding is just not something the Spren could reliably do. And I'll respond to this bit now:

13 hours ago, Seloun said:

This also (further) addresses how the spren might have affected the physical world: they talked other agents into helping them.

Recall how Kaladin felt when Syl was talking to him the first time in the slave wagon? How he thought the others would think he was crazy? He's not alone in thinking that. And if the Spren started telling you what to do in life, would you listen to them? And if they ask you to kill or steal? The crazy people might go along with the more.. out there requests, but crazies usually have things they can't do/places they can't go(like polite society). Additionally, using more intermediaries to get something done increases the chance of failure.

Murphy's law: What can go wrong, will go wrong. The more people involved, the more chances for something to go wrong. This gets even worse when you include hiring the unstable. I don't see this method working consistently enough to account for the numbers the Recreance Era KR had. I don't see this method as consistent enough to warrant more than a cursory test and giving up on it. I don't see it becoming mainstream.

13 hours ago, Seloun said:

and we see spren apparently spontaneously generate from e.g. corpses of gemhearts after their deaths.

"spontaneously generate"? Logically, those are the Spren contained in their Gemheart like Fabrials.

Quote

Q: Symbiosis is a two way relationship. The Chasmfiends get a huge benefit, the ability to not immediately die. So what do the Spren get out of it?

A: Yes, the symbiosis is a two-way relationship. You'll find out more in future books, but suffice it to say, the Spren DO get something out of the deal. (At least, when it happens naturally.)

Q: Are you saying that a Chasmfiend and whatever Spren it binds with can be forced to bond?

A: Not in relation to Chasmfiends. Go read up on Fabrials.

The Greatshell dies and the bond is broken. The Spren then leaves.

13 hours ago, Seloun said:

Something that would cause Kaladin to regress is pretty much the definition of a candidate for the cause of the Recreance. Whether Kaladin would break his oaths for vengeance against Tien's killer is an open question; however, the incident you mention shows that Kaladin came extremely close to breaking (or actually did break) his oaths for what is arguably a lesser issue for him.

The incident I mentioned is a case of him having sworn two oaths and not believing that his actions fulfilling one oath would not be in line with fulfilling the other oath. If he truly believed that killing Elhokar(his second oath) would be in line with overall protection(his first oath), then his vendetta would not have broken his bond. If Kaladin can truly see a way for his vendetta to avenge Tien's death to be in line with overall protection of humanity, then his bond wouldn't break at all. If he can't, then his bond goes sporadic the moment he moves forwards with seeking revenge.

13 hours ago, Seloun said:

Whether this is what actually broke Shallan or not isn't the point. (FWIW I think it is; IIRC it's not necessary to be 'fully broken' to have a basic bond, and this is almost certainly the first time Shallan summoned her Blade)

Per the Sleepless, Shallan was "broken by cruelty." Also, what's this about being "fully broken"? Never heard this phrase used before.

13 hours ago, Seloun said:

My question was whether hypothetically learning that a spren or a group of spren were responsible for his brother's death somehow (e.g. influenced the Parshendi to send Szeth to kill Gavilar) would cause him to consider abandoning his oaths.

Sadeas and the Battle of the Tower. He handled that rather well, wouldn't you say? As important as Gavilar may have been to him, he is just one man. Dalinar lost several thousand soldiers, and nearly lost the rest along with his son and his own life because Sadeas betrayed him. I think the answer to your question is no.

14 hours ago, Seloun said:

I don't think it's that crazy for Lift to consider killing Wyndle if e.g. she though Wyndle was the reason why her mother died. We'll need more information, but almost by definition one of the broken KR candidates will have something in their past that they would not act rationally towards.

I do think it's that crazy. Even disregarding the special relationship they'll have from her growing up with Wyndle, consider the Edgedancer Oaths. Remembering the forgotten, listening to the ignored, etc.. I don't think people with a mindset like that would be the type to pull the vengeance card.

14 hours ago, Seloun said:

This was actually what I was alluding to. Suppose the spren negotiated with the Heralds to covertly extend the Desolations; this gives the spren more broken humans to bond and it gives the Heralds a further reprieve.

I require further explanation. Quite a bit more actually, as I've no clue what you are trying to do here. The WoBs I linked don't really mesh with what you're trying to say.

Quote

(As noted above, practically by definition each KR has something in their past that caused them great personal trauma that can't be fully healed. I don't know if there's a WoB or equivalent offhand, but I presume if the person somehow becomes 'unbroken' they are again unable to allow Investiture into themselves)

It's a reasonable assumption. And the final bit implies that you would be right.

Quote

Question

If a Shard were to heal the cracks in someone’s Spiritweb, like Saze did with Spook, and that person who was getting healed has a Nahel bond, would that break the bond?

Brandon Sanderson

No, because the Nahel bond is already filling in those cracks, so you would have to rip it off to put something else in there.

Question

So the Shard wouldn’t be able to heal… The way I was sort of thinking, was, could Odium say, “Oh, I’m just going to fix this” and then [...]?

Brandon Sanderson

Right, right, yeah. If he - if there was - that is possible, but it would be hard to do without the consent of the person, but that is possible. You can fix somebody in a way that they didn’t want to be fixed, and it would ruin things.

(Note: I hate people's wordings. They don't use Harmony, they don't use Sazed, they used 'Saze' ...)

14 hours ago, Seloun said:

There's nothing that says that they'd stop working against the Desolation; the only specific thing about the secret is that he could use to to destroy the Orders If e.g. the KR thought the bond would make the Desolation worse, that would probably be a good reason to break it. Or if they thought what the bond caused/how the bond was created was worse than the Desolation.

Your hypothetical generic reasons are valid. However, I do not think your current theory about "bondfarming" fits the bill for either scenario. It's in no way worse than the Desolation, and i don't particularly see how it would make the Desolation worse.

[Calderis he/him]

1 hour ago, The One Who Connects said:

The complicity of the Spren is largely his argument, so I'm not the one to argue it.

It's pretty simple really. The Spren are tied to their Radiants quite literally. Syl speaks of this when she recovers the Blackbane before Kal's near suicide at the honor chasm. Leaving means she could lose herself. 

Yes, the Spren have some ability to be out of earshot of their Radiants, but when your speaking of collusion on an act that will kill virtually all of the Spren to hundreds if not thousands of Radiants? It's absolutely not possible for it to have been secret. They knew, and they agreed. The alternative is the bond breaking prior to the coordinated event, or at the least, the surges failing those en route. 

And on the note of keeping secrets, it has to be something that the Spren could never speak of. They, at least those tied to Honor are nearly incapable of lying. 

Quote

Blightsong

Can honorspren, or any other type of Knight Radiant spren, be evil despite their relationship to Tanavast or Cultivation?

Brandon Sanderson

Yes, because I don't call the Shards good and evil. There are no good and evil Shards in my opinion, like and so, what's evil and what's not evil- you can totally have spren that are of Honor that you would consider evil. They have free will; they are muchmore strictly limited in that free will than we are, because of their nature as spren. It's very hard for most spren to every break an oath or to lie. That's just like- as manifestations of laws of nature makes it very hard for that to happen, but they can be cruel.

So the idea of some secret deal between the Spren and the Heralds is off the table as well.

And to the idea of it being a highly emotional thing... Very very unlikely for the reasons that The One Who Connects already said. Take into account the Elsecallers. The focus of inkspren is on placing logical thought above emotion. 

Quote

Ironeyes

What kind of qualities attract an inkspren?

Brandon Sanderson

Inkspren do not like how variable humans are. It’s a thing out of honor, and they like people who are logical and willing to think about their lives and not react as much by instinct.

They are looking more - the scholar is the perfect example, but a soldier who is very thoughtful and is not just rushing into battle could be chosen as well.

So no. I disagree completely. 

[Humpty he/him]

I Think one of the reasons the knights broke their oaths is because one of the Heralds is a traitor and somehow tricked them into it.

Another reason for the for the supposed betrayal is that maybe the knights and the spren came to an agreement and decided that maybe mankind wasn't worth protecting anymore

its more likely that mankind betrayed the Radiants than the other way around.