[OB] Anyone think Mr. T might be right?

[Calderis]

32 minutes ago, grinachu said:

I'm not seeing your first post with the WOB.  Can you please share a link? Thank you. 

I'm not really sure how you missed it, but here's the main WoB I was referring to. 

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 of KRs 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.

QUESTION

As Brandon was signing my books, I asked if the Elsecallers would also accept a Machiavellian.

BRANDON SANDERSON

Yes.

 

[Hischier]

15 hours ago, grinachu said:

Yes, I was being deliberately provocative.  I will say this. My reading of the vision at Feverstone Keep is that the Knights who abandoned their oaths were actually acting honorably. Something compelled them to abandon their nahel bond and so abandon their blade and plate.  

As for the Heralds abandoning the Oathpact, is there any doubt that they undermined the shard's intent by doing so? Honor invested its power in creating the Oathpact. Breaking promises hurts Honor.  

They weren't acting honorably. Maybe they had a good reason for why they did what they did, or at least one that we'll be able to empathize with once we know what caused the Recreance, but breaking their bonds and leaving the weapons out for everyone to grab and start killing each other with is in no way honorable.

And we don't know the Knight's side of the story but we have the perspective of the Stormfather who no longer trusts humans and feels betrayed by them to the point where he refuses the honorspren to form bonds, and we have Syl's admittedly vague memory when Kaladin asks her what changed (presumably referring to the Recreance) and she replies 'the knights did' or something close to that. 

[grinachu]

2 minutes ago, Hischier said:

They weren't acting honorably. Maybe they had a good reason for why they did what they did, or at least one that we'll be able to empathize with once we know what caused the Recreance, but breaking their bonds and leaving the weapons out for everyone to grab and start killing each other with is in no way honorable.

And we don't know the Knight's side of the story but we have the perspective of the Stormfather who no longer trusts humans and feels betrayed by them to the point where he refuses the honorspren to form bonds, and we have Syl's admittedly vague memory when Kaladin asks her what changed (presumably referring to the Recreance) and she replies 'the knights did' or something close to that. 

So we know that they were "fighting the devils on the front lines".  We know that there seems to have been some sort of siege, and that they obtained some kind of knowledge that led them to break their Nahel bonds and abandoning the spren.  The whole mystery about the Recreance has been set up for the reveal that those "Knights were the first, and they were also the last" of the Radiants who acted honorably. 

We know the Windrunners and the Stonewards were the primary Radiants who did this, and the Skybreakers apparently never did.  It's because they found out something that placed them, like Kaladin, in a situation of conflict between two oaths.  Maybe it was the knowledge that their Spren bond was causing the "Desolations".  The more humanity united, the more Odium would be free to attack the innocent. 

[Michael Portz]

10 minutes ago, Hischier said:

but breaking their bonds and leaving the weapons out for everyone to grab and start killing each other with is in no way honorable.

Of course there might be incompatible actions needed to be honorable all the way through. I am absolutely sure that stepping back from Radiancy was a very very very difficult decision, but it might well have been honorable. Of course I am thinking of the Trolley Problem. You might just kill people, despite acting honorable.

Just honor might not be enough.

[Shardbearer]

27 minutes ago, Hischier said:

And we don't know the Knight's side of the story but we have the perspective of the Stormfather who no longer trusts humans and feels betrayed by them to the point where he refuses the honorspren to form bonds, and we have Syl's admittedly vague memory when Kaladin asks her what changed (presumably referring to the Recreance) and she replies 'the knights did' or something close to that. 

But of course the Stormfather and other spren would feel betrayed by an act that caused the death of hundreds or even thousands of their kind...

Even if the KR thought they were doing the right thing by doing it. And that is the vibe I get from the Feverstone Keep vision.

[KidWayne]

8 hours ago, Michael Portz said:

In the end it might turn out, that honor left unchecked leads to as much evil as hatred.

I don't think so. I think that an oath is only as good as it is wise. So, honoring a foolish oath will lead to foolishness, folly, and ultimately evil. Let's go to our real-life religions for an example:

Jephthah is a character from the Bible; his account is recorded in Judges 11:1—12:7. He's a pretty interesting character who is best known for slaying his daughter in order to honor a foolish oath he made to God. Jephthah was asked by the elders of Israel to lead the defense of the country against the invading Ammonites. When he agreed, he made a vow to God, saying, “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.” Jephthah then defeated the Ammonites and returned home. When Jephthah arrived at home, his daughter, an only child, was the first to come out of his house. Jephthah evidently expected an animal to exit, but...

Quote

³⁵ When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, “Oh no, my daughter! You have brought me down and I am devastated. I have made a vow to the Lord that I cannot break.”

³⁶ “My father,” she replied, “you have given your word to the Lord. Do to me just as you promised, now that the Lord has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites. ³⁷ But grant me this one request,” she said. “Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry.”

³⁸ “You may go,” he said. And he let her go for two months. She and her friends went into the hills and wept because she would never marry. ³⁹ After the two months, she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed.  

Judges 11:35-39 (emphasis added)

The moral of the story is that people are not to make rash commitments or promises (e.g. foolish oaths) to God.

Also interesting is what Jesus had to say about oaths in his Sermon on the Mount:

Quote

³³ “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ ³⁴ But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; ³⁵ or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. ³⁶ And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. ³⁷ All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.^"   Matthew 5:33-37

So, the Judeo-Christian god certainly expects people to honor their oaths. Jesus more or less says that it is better not to swear any oaths at all because God takes them so seriously. In light of that, I wouldn't say that honor unchecked leads to evil so much as the content of one's oath can bind someone to a course of action that is obviously wrong and against the intent of the person making the oath. Simply put, most oaths are foolish because we don't know what the future holds. As a result, oaths bind the future conduct of honorable people to a restrictive code of conduct that may result in acts that are obviously wrong (or prohibit them from doing what is right).

TL;DR → A foolish oath can lead an honorable person to commit acts of evil, not the person's sense of honor. Dishonorable people might be willing to forsake a poorly thought-out oath in service to what is right, but a they will also ignore their own convictions about what is right when it's convenient for them.

[Calderis]

There is much debate over the cause of the Recreance, but I'll repeat the one, main, point that I've said in other places about it. 

The Windrunners we saw in the Recreance vision were surgebinding right up to the moment the Oaths were broken. This means that the Spren were aware of what they were doing, because coordination on something that massive could not have been hidden from them, and agreed it was necessary and did not break the oath to protect. 

The Spren were complicit in the Recreance. That by definition means that although breaking their oaths obviously wasn't honorable, whatever lead them to that point was. 

[Alderant]

Hey all!

I think a major problem with our thought process is that the protagonists that we follow are on the "good" side of the spectrum. It's been asked elsewhere, but the main question is "what defines good/evil"? We are sitting here saying that Honor = Good because we are following the "honorable" protagonists who are "good", but in reality that's just not the case. In reverse, we perceive Odium as "evil" because he is running counter to our protagonists and Honor (which is "good"). He's not "evil", necessarily, but he is running counter to the protagonists and heroes that we love and believe in.

That said, there are multiple examples in the books already that Radiants do not have to be "good" to bind their spren. Jasnah murders four men in cold blood in WoK, and she's clearly on the radiant path. Shallan murders her mother and father, and Pattern doesn't really seem to care. Dalinar was a rampaging warlord who took revelry in slaughter, and effectively usurped a kingdom from his nephew, but still bonds the Stormfather without problem. Szeth killed...how many people? Not to mention the Heralds, like Nale, or Shallash. These are not "good" actions, not when you take them on their own. Syl tells Kaladin that the law is not as important as what is right. Also, Lyft prides herself on theft, but Wyndle seems to have a startling lack of care for the impact of Lyft's actions beyond how they impact him. 

It's an important thing to consider, especially since we have other examples of diametrically opposed Shards not lining up with "Hero's Shard = good, Villain's Shard = bad." Don't forget that Preservation liked and took pride in the Lord Ruler, while Ruin was particularly fond of Kelsier.

I think part of what caused the Recreance was the inevitable conflict between the Orders. They were founded to fight the Desolations and save humanity, but may have ultimately fell to infighting. Perhaps the reason the Windrunners and Stonewards did what they did at Feverstone Keep was because they felt they had been betrayed by those they were trying to fight for, or with. We just don't know what happened yet.

[Hischier]

45 minutes ago, Calderis said:

There is much debate over the cause of the Recreance, but I'll repeat the one, main, point that I've said in other places about it. 

The Windrunners we saw in the Recreance vision were surgebinding right up to the moment the Oaths were broken. This means that the Spren were aware of what they were doing, because coordination on something that massive could not have been hidden from them, and agreed it was necessary and did not break the oath to protect. 

The Spren were complicit in the Recreance. That by definition means that although breaking their oaths obviously wasn't honorable, whatever lead them to that point was. 

I've seen this mentioned a number of times now and I have a question about it. Do the spren have a choice in the matter? There's a WoB saying that if Kaladin breaks his oath again, Syl would become a shard blade. So she can't just peace out, right? And if nothing the Knights did was against their oaths up until they willingly broke the bond, then they'd have had their powers until that moment. Even choosing to purposefully break their bonds might not've been against their oaths.  

I don't know that we have enough info to know for a fact that the spren were complicit in it, even though they obviously had to know what was going to happen.  This is a quote from the Feverstone Keep chapter right after the Knights abandoned their spren:

Quote

“A terrible feeling struck him. A sense of immense tragedy, of pain and betrayal. Stopping where he stood, he gasped, hand to his chest. What was happening? What was that dreadful feeling, that screaming he swore he could almost hear?”

 

[Hischier]

@KidWayne Ok, point taken. What they did could have been the right thing for them to do. I don't think I buy that that's the case here though.  But anyway back to Mr. T.  

[Michael Portz]

3 hours ago, KidWayne said:

I don't think so. I think that an oath is only as good as it is wise. So, honoring a foolish oath will lead to foolishness, folly, and ultimately evil. Let's go to our real-life religions for an example:

Jephthah is a character from the Bible; his account is recorded in Judges 11:1—12:7. He's a pretty interesting character who is best known for slaying his daughter in order to honor a foolish oath he made to God. Jephthah was asked by the elders of Israel to lead the defense of the country against the invading Ammonites. When he agreed, he made a vow to God, saying, “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.” Jephthah then defeated the Ammonites and returned home. When Jephthah arrived at home, his daughter, an only child, was the first to come out of his house. Jephthah evidently expected an animal to exit, but...

The moral of the story is that people are not to make rash commitments or promises (e.g. foolish oaths) to God.

Also interesting is what Jesus had to say about oaths in his Sermon on the Mount:

So, the Judeo-Christian god certainly expects people to honor their oaths. Jesus more or less says that it is better not to swear any oaths at all because God takes them so seriously. In light of that, I wouldn't say that honor unchecked leads to evil so much as the content of one's oath can bind someone to a course of action that is obviously wrong and against the intent of the person making the oath. Simply put, most oaths are foolish because we don't know what the future holds. As a result, oaths bind the future conduct of honorable people to a restrictive code of conduct that may result in acts that are obviously wrong (or prohibit them from doing what is right).

TL;DR → A foolish oath can lead an honorable person to commit acts of evil, not the person's sense of honor. Dishonorable people might be willing to forsake a poorly thought-out oath in service to what is right, but a they will also ignore their own convictions about what is right when it's convenient for them.

But nobody is foolish-oath-proof; taking a foolish oath might lead to indescribable horror, and the person who took the oath could avoid the horror by "just" abandoning the oath. Convenience does not come into account here in my view. 

Besides: One might view the succession of oaths as the main check, the Radiants do put on honor. Earlier given oaths might be viewed as more important as later ones, they keep the next oaths in check somehow :-)

EDT: Typofix

Edited September 28, 2017 by Michael Portz

[Calderis]

38 minutes ago, Hischier said:

I've seen this mentioned a number of times now and I have a question about it. Do the spren have a choice in the matter? There's a WoB saying that if Kaladin breaks his oath again, Syl would become a shard blade. So she can't just peace out, right? And if nothing the Knights did was against their oaths up until they willingly broke the bond, then they'd have had their powers until that moment. Even choosing to purposefully break their bonds might not've been against their oaths.  

Yes they do. An oath is kept when the Spren and Knight agree its being kept.

Quote

Q: The question kind of rooted because, Wyndle in the short story is always saying that he’s a cultivationspren, he doesn’t like [...]. I kind of got the idea that each order had a different Shard.
A: That is a good thing to think, but that is not how it is. Some of them self-identify more in certain ways. Syl is an honorspren, that’s what they call a honorspren, they self-identify as the closest to Honor. Is that true? Well, I don’t know. For instance, you might talk to different spren, who are like, no, highspren are like “We’re the ones most like Honor. We are the ones that keep oaths the best. Those honorspren will let their people break their oaths if they think it’s for a good cause. That’s not Honor-like.” There would be disagreement.
Q: Are you saying that the spren’s view of themself influences how they work?
A: Oh yeah, and humans’ view of them because spren are pieces of Investiture who have gained sapience, or sentience for the smaller spren, through human perception of those forces. For instance, whether or not Kaladin is keeping an oath is up to what Syl and Kaladin think is keeping that oath. It is not related to capital-T Truth, what is actually keeping the oath. Two windrunners can disagree on whether an oath has been kept or not

 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. 

[The One Who Connects]

16 hours ago, WhiteLeeopard said:

Then, there are definitely foolish oaths. What if you swear to never let an enemy know peace in a moment of rage? Or to rape and plunder an entire kingdom in a moment of grief? Or without looking too far the Vengeance Pact?

The meaning of "there are no foolish oaths" is the concept that "if you aren't able/willing to fulfill it, you should not have sworn it in the first place." It means that the blame is on you for making the oath, and that honor(personal) demands that you fulfill it.

"There are no foolish oaths, merely oaths sworn by fools."  -Myself, Sep. 2017  

7 hours ago, KidWayne said:

Quote

In the end it might turn out, that honor left unchecked leads to as much evil as hatred.

I don't think so. I think that an oath is only as good as it is wise. So, honoring a foolish oath will lead to foolishness, folly, and ultimately evil. I wouldn't say that honor unchecked leads to evil so much as the content of one's oath can bind someone to a course of action that is obviously wrong and against the intent of the person making the oath.

It's of note that you begin your statement with "I don't think so," and end your statement by agreeing with him. Honor is specifically keeping your oaths, and following your personal code. I wouldn't consider Szeth's dedication to his oaths as foolish, despite how much devastation it wrought on the world around him.

Most likely, you're subconsciously connecting Honor with Morality, which is a major no-no when it comes to the Shards. Honor unchecked by morality has the potential to lead to anything good or evil. (His statement should be "honor unchecked has the potential to lead to as much evil as unchecked hatred.")

If the oath would lead to an action that you would define as "evil," then honoring that oath leads to evil. The dishonorable action would be to break that oath, even though doing so is the morally right choice.

8 hours ago, KidWayne said:

The moral of the story is that people are not to make rash commitments or promises (e.g. foolish oaths) to God.

This fits quite well with what I said to WhiteLeeopard about "no foolish oaths." So thank you for that.

6 hours ago, Hischier said:

There's a WoB saying that if Kaladin breaks his oath again, Syl would become a shard blade.

Provide the WoB if you would. The exact wording could make a very big deal pertaining to the events of the Recreance.

[KidWayne]

10 hours ago, The One Who Connects said:

It's of note that you begin your statement with "I don't think so," and end your statement by agreeing with him. Honor is specifically keeping your oaths, and following your personal code. I wouldn't consider Szeth's dedication to his oaths as foolish, despite how much devastation it wrought on the world around him.

Most likely, you're subconsciously connecting Honor with Morality, which is a major no-no when it comes to the Shards. Honor unchecked by morality has the potential to lead to anything good or evil. (His statement should be "honor unchecked has the potential to lead to as much evil as unchecked hatred.")

If the oath would lead to an action that you would define as "evil," then honoring that oath leads to evil. The dishonorable action would be to break that oath, even though doing so is the morally right choice.

Well, I think we both agree that being honorable is distinct from being moral. However, I think that being honorable has some overlap with morality. I don't think one can be fully moral without also being honorable.

As you said, honor requires one to keep an oath so long as you are able. This is not the same thing as carefully avoiding oaths that have the potential to compromise your morality (i.e. what is right). So, I would agree with your revision: "honor unchecked has the potential to lead to as much evil as unchecked hatred."

Now, being honorable is a requirement of being moral. Aside from a utilitarian ethic (that can excuse just about anything) lying is generally considered to be wrong because deceit would not exist in a perfectly moral world. It is at odds with the ideal of morality. It is only useful in the service of morality when used to manipulate a person stuck in pride and/or error (i.e. a fool). So, doing what one says that he or she will do is always honorable and usually moral.

However, I still don't agree that evil is a direct result of honor unchecked. I maintain that foolishness, pride, and selfishness lead to evil. To the extent those things are present in one's motivations in swearing an oath, I think the seeds of evil are planted. The catch is that without the ability to know what the future holds, almost any oath can come into conflict what might be an otherwise morally right choice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Easy example:

• Honoring one's marriage vows = honorable

• Honoring one's marriage vows when their spouse demonstrates a persistent pattern of abusive behavior = enabling abuse (honorable in one sense, but foolish and immoral in another sense) 

In the example above, it is not the desire to honor one's vows that leads to enabling an abuser. It's the violation of the abuser's vows (i.e. "to have and to hold, to love and to cherish") that makes holding to the vows problematic for the victim. Showing honor to that which is dishonorable is dishonorable in and of itself, which is exactly that we see Szeth & Nale struggle with.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think it's also something that all those NFL players who refuse to stand for the national anthem are struggling with. They see certain elements of our country's history as dishonorable & immoral, so they are withholding the honor and respect typically given to the symbol (the flag) & celebration (the anthem) of our country. Whether that is right or wrong is a moral question that I have mixed feelings about, but it is interesting to see this issue play out in the real world.

Edited September 29, 2017 by KidWayne
html code for line breaks didn't work correctly

[Steeldancer]

28 minutes ago, KidWayne said:

Well, I think we both agree that being honorable is distinct from being moral. However, I think that being honorable has some overlap with morality. I don't think one can be fully moral without also being honorable.

As you said, honor requires one to keep an oath so long as you are able. This is not the same thing as carefully avoiding oaths that have the potential to compromise your morality (i.e. what is right). So, I would agree with your revision: "honor unchecked has the potential to lead to as much evil as unchecked hatred."

Now, being honorable is a requirement of being moral. Aside from a utilitarian ethic (that can excuse just about anything) lying is generally considered to be wrong because deceit would not exist in a perfectly moral world. It is at odds with the ideal of morality. It is only useful in the service of morality when used to manipulate a person stuck in pride and/or error (i.e. a fool). So, doing what one says that he or she will do is always honorable and usually moral.

However, I still don't agree that evil is a direct result of honor unchecked. I maintain that foolishness, pride, and selfishness lead to evil. To the extent those things are present in one's motivations in swearing an oath, I think the seeds of evil are planted. The catch is that without the ability to know what the future holds, almost any oath can come into conflict what might be an otherwise morally right choice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Easy example:

• Honoring one's marriage vows = honorable

• Honoring one's marriage vows when their spouse demonstrates a persistent pattern of abusive behavior = enabling abuse (honorable in one sense, but foolish and immoral in another sense) 

In the example above, it is not the desire to honor one's vows that leads to enabling an abuser. It's the violation of the abuser's vows (i.e. "to have and to hold, to love and to cherish") that makes holding to the vows problematic for the victim. Showing honor to that which is dishonorable is dishonorable in and of itself, which is exactly that we see Szeth & Nale struggle with.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think it's also something that all those NFL players who refuse to stand for the national anthem are struggling with. They see certain elements of our country's history as dishonorable & immoral, so they are withholding the honor and respect typically given to the symbol (the flag) & celebration (the anthem) of our country. Whether that is right or wrong is a moral question that I have mixed feelings about, but it is interesting to see this issue play out in the real world.

No politics, but I'm going to put forward my opinion. 

The flag stands for an ideal. An honorable, true, and valuable ideal. America does stand for something worthwhile, and anybody who wants to argue with that... well whatever. The REALITY is that we do not match up to that ideal. 

I believe in that ideal of America. I don't believe in the reality of America. 

Honor is an ideal, something to aspire to. The ideal is great. The reality isn't always. 

[KidWayne]

2 minutes ago, Steeldancer said:

The flag stands for an ideal. An honorable, true, and valuable ideal. America does stand for something worthwhile, and anybody who wants to argue with that... well whatever. The REALITY is that we do not match up to that ideal. 

I believe in that ideal of America. I don't believe in the reality of America. 

Honor is an ideal, something to aspire to. The ideal is great. The reality isn't always. 

That's actually a really good way to put it. We hold up the ideal but acknowledge that - while we aspire to the ideals represented - we sometimes fail to realize / act on them.

Like I said, I was trying to avoid discussion of whether refusing to stand for the anthem is right or wrong. I understand both sides, and I hate that the political arena is so dysfunctional & adversarial that our leaders can't / won't acknowledge the other side has a point.

I just thought it was interesting how various moral philosophies and understandings of honor play out in the real world. I also think it's great that literature inspires us to have these kinds of discussions.

[Calderis]

Politics aside, in the Cosmere, Honor as it relates to the Shard has literally no overlap with morality. It can't. None of the Shards are good or evil. 

Honor without morality is literally just adherence to a code. This is precisely why both The One Who Connects and myself have referred to Szeth as "The most honorable person in the Stormlight Archive" in various threads. He adheres to his code regardless of his own feelings or the repercussions he knows they will cause, and he hates himself for it. 

Honor and morality are linked almost inseparably in our culture, so this is a difficult concept to grasp. But in the example of the abusive marriage... To Honor, or the Stormfather, you took an oath. The other parties actions don't matter. This is not a contract to be invalidated by someone else not keeping their end of the deal, it's a promise that you made as to how you will conduct yourself. So to keep your oath and appease Honor you have to stay. It's not right. The morality is debatable. But it is honorable. 

Honor is not good or evil. It is adherence to your spoken oaths and maintaining codes, regardless of the costs or outcome. That has the potential to encompass all moral possibilities. And it should, because the Shards are morally neutral. 

[jamskinner]

54 minutes ago, Calderis said:

Politics aside, in the Cosmere, Honor as it relates to the Shard has literally no overlap with morality. It can't. None of the Shards are good or evil. 

Honor without morality is literally just adherence to a code. This is precisely why both The One Who Connects and myself have referred to Szeth as "The most honorable person in the Stormlight Archive" in various threads. He adheres to his code regardless of his own feelings or the repercussions he knows they will cause, and he hates himself for it. 

Honor and morality are linked almost inseparably in our culture, so this is a difficult concept to grasp. But in the example of the abusive marriage... To Honor, or the Stormfather, you took an oath. The other parties actions don't matter. This is not a contract to be invalidated by someone else not keeping their end of the deal, it's a promise that you made as to how you will conduct yourself. So to keep your oath and appease Honor you have to stay. It's not right. The morality is debatable. But it is honorable. 

Honor is not good or evil. It is adherence to your spoken oaths and maintaining codes, regardless of the costs or outcome. That has the potential to encompass all moral possibilities. And it should, because the Shards are morally neutral. 

Would you agree some shards are more likely to lead to evil?  Would ruin lead to more evil then preservation?  I would say from what we have seen the answer is yes. I believe the same with odium and honor. 

It also seems even good people ( the vessels) can be corrupted by the shards intent as well. 

Edited September 29, 2017 by jamskinner

[Calderis]

14 minutes ago, jamskinner said:

Would you agree some shards are more likely to lead to evil?  Would ruin lead to more evil then preservation?  I would say from what we have seen the answer is yes. I believe the same with odium and honor. 

It also seems even good people ( the vessels) can be corrupted by the shards intent as well. 

I think that depends entirely on the Vessels interpretation of the intent. Even the ability to be overwhelmed or not comes down to the what the Vessel thinks the Shard is. 

So no. I don't agree. 

Edited September 29, 2017 by Calderis

[Rasha]

If Preservation could, he would stop time, to have the world crystalized into something that never change. Is freezing the whole world better than simply destroying it ? I would say that at this level of extremes, the distincion is moot. All the virtues of Adonalsium, taken separately as Shards are neither good or evil. But we know that the intent of the Shards corrupt the weilder, and pushes him/her to extremism to fulfil the Shard's intent.

It is why Preservation and Ruin created Scadrial: in their opposition, the original weilders searched balance, so they would not stray into fanaticism. Of course, over time their intent took over, and Preservation had to cage Ruin so he wouldn't destroy the world. And Ruin had no choice but to follow its intent.

[KidWayne]

3 hours ago, Calderis said:

Politics aside, in the Cosmere, Honor as it relates to the Shard has literally no overlap with morality. It can't. None of the Shards are good or evil. 

Well, that's not my understanding (not really anyway). WoBs have confirmed that Adonalsium has had some sort of opposition (pre- and/or post- shattering).

Warning: Cosmere spoilers (including some tidbits about Yolen obtained from non-published sources)

Spoiler

We don't know exactly why the 16 decided that it was in their best interests to kill "God" but I've always gotten the impression that it was done by the Yolish as a desperate tactic for survival from the Fen (or whatever was killing their world). Presumably they petitioned Adonalsium for salvation from the threat, but he declined to intervene. So, they allied with Adonalsium's opposition to splinter "God's" power and take it up themselves. After the initial crisis was averted (or they failed and Yolen was lost anyway), the Shards each went their own way instead of surrendering their new god-like powers (some just didn't want to and others may have been prevented from doing so by the influence of their shard's intent - or both in Rayse/Odium's & Bavadin/Autonomy's case). 

So, operating from the point of view / assumption that Adonalsium was the "good" god and his opposition is the "evil" god. The shards of Adonalsium (when unified as a whole) ought to be good by default. So, shards are only as evil as their intent is lacking some other shard's intent to be a force for good. Honor and Odium + Devotion to what is good and right would yield an entity who is committed to behave morally and who hates immorality. Throw Endowment in there, and you get an entity that would aim to bless/reward those who behave morally.

However, we don't have a single entity with all those harmonized intents; we have separate entities that are hyper-focused on their one (out-of-context) intent. So, they are no longer "good" by nature. They are now individual components embodying the separate aspects of a "good" deity. It turns out that Odium & Autonomy taken alone can lead to some ostensibly bad results (e.g. the Desolations on Roshar, the subterfuge and political strife on Scadrial, and the shattering of at least 3 shards).

Now we know that Brandon is quick to qualify Hoid's involvement in the cosmere as dependent on whether you agree with Hoid's point of view, which suggests that his motivations might not be as pure as they appear on the surface (i.e. many - including myself - suspect that Hoid is either attempting to reunify Adonalsium or facilitate the shattering Odium & Autonomy to protect the other shards with whom he is friendly). Regardless, at this point in the story of the Cosmere, Hoid certainly appears to be a force for good (although his 'ends justify the means' philosophy might make him more gray than white).

Main point: Honor made his home on Roshar with Cultivation for a reason and he used his power to constrain Odium (a reckless force of violence and destruction); he also valued unity and the honorspren (who named themselves after Honor) have adopted "doing what is right" as their governing philosophy. I would say that Honor/Tanavast must have possessed moral rectitude as a quality. Teaming up with Cultivation could also be read as an attempt to cultivate honor in the sentient species of Roshar, which is a noble and laudable endeavor. It is by those actions that I measure Honor's goodness. Honor may not have defined or exemplified morality, but he's more white than gray in my mind.

Edited September 29, 2017 by KidWayne
fixed clumsy wording in last paragraph

[Calderis]

@KidWayne the force that opposed Adonalsium was the Vessels themselves.

Quote

QUESTION

Was the shattering of Adonalsium done, for the forces to attack the Anti-Adonalsium?

BRANDON SANDERSON

You’re focusing too much on the idea of the anti-adonalsium. What was really asked is “is there a force that opposes Adonalsium” and it left me a lot of wiggle room. In other words, the people who killed it was a force, or any person who opposed Adonalsium you could say is a force. What they were trying to get was a “devil” but that assumes Adonalsium is a more Christian-style God, and I have not confirmed any of that.

Edit: and here's one where Brandon says none of the Shards are evil. Spoilered for length and Mistborn stuff. 

Spoiler

AUTARCHK (MARCH 2013)

If I can ask a question, I just read the Mistborn trilogy and, were Preservation and Ruin two different shards or a single one with their power split somehow? If they were two shards, does that mean a single person can hold more than one, since Harmony apparently holds both now?

BRANDON SANDERSON

They were two shards.

Yes, one entity can hold more than one. Remember that holding a shard changes you, over time. Rayse knows this, and prefers to leave behind destroyed rivals as opposed to taking their power and potentially being overwhelmed by it.

NEPENE

I have a question, if you are willing. Would Ruin be more compatible with Rayse, would he pick up that shard had he visited Scadrial and shattered him? All the shards we have seen that he has shattered seem rather different in intent than him—Honor, Cultivation, Love, Dominion. But Ruin seems more in line with Odium. Rayse has ruined the days of quite a few people.

BRANDON SANDERSON

Technically, Ruin would be most compatible with Cultivation. Ruin's 'theme' so to speak is that all things must age and pass. An embodiment of entropy. That power, separated from the whole and being held by a person who did not have the willpower to resist its transformation of him, led to something very dangerous. But it was not evil. None of the sixteen technically are, though you may have read that Hoid has specific beef with Rayse. Whether you think of Odium as evil depends upon how much you agree with Hoid's particular view.

That said, Ruin would have been one of the 'safer' of the sixteen for Rayse to take, if he'd been about that. Odium is by its nature selfish, however, and the combination of it and Rayse makes for an entity that fears an additional power would destroy it and make it into something else.

 

Edited September 29, 2017 by Calderis

[jamskinner]

5 hours ago, Rasha said:

If Preservation could, he would stop time, to have the world crystalized into something that never change. Is freezing the whole world better than simply destroying it ? I would say that at this level of extremes, the distincion is moot. All the virtues of Adonalsium, taken separately as Shards are neither good or evil. But we know that the intent of the Shards corrupt the weilder, and pushes him/her to extremism to fulfil the Shard's intent.

It is why Preservation and Ruin created Scadrial: in their opposition, the original weilders searched balance, so they would not stray into fanaticism. Of course, over time their intent took over, and Preservation had to cage Ruin so he wouldn't destroy the world. And Ruin had no choice but to follow its intent.

The world seemed pretty okay while ruin was imprisoned compared to after.

[Calderis]

39 minutes ago, jamskinner said:

The world seemed pretty okay while ruin was imprisoned compared to after.

We're in the wrong forum for this discussion outside of spoilers. 

Mistborn spoilers. 

Spoiler

That's because all of Preservation's power was tied up in the prison. The prison work by literally countering anything that Ruin did. An action on Ruin's part was instantly countered by Preservation. Because of that continual power expenditure, Preservation was just as hampered as Ruin. 

The world was "okay" because neither shard was free to enact their will. 

 

[jamskinner]

1 hour ago, Calderis said:

We're in the wrong forum for this discussion outside of spoilers. 

Mistborn spoilers. 

  Hide contents

That's because all of Preservation's power was tied up in the prison. The prison work by literally countering anything that Ruin did. An action on Ruin's part was instantly countered by Preservation. Because of that continual power expenditure, Preservation was just as hampered as Ruin. 

The world was "okay" because neither shard was free to enact their will. 

 

I don't know how to mark spoilers so I tried to be a bit vague. 

What if the holder of odium held the mistborn shards. Do you think we would see the same destruction?