[OB] What could the Fourth Windrunner Ideal be?

[TheDoomsday]

Ideas?

The other Windrunner attribute is Leading, isn't it? So it might be something to do with leadership rather than protecting.

I will protect those who are leaderless? No, that's terrible. I'm rubbish at this. Anybody else have a better idea?

[+mje89]

I think syl kind of mentions it to Kal at the end of part one. She says he "can't save everyone" when he is trying to save people from the storm.

And at the end of part four he seems close to being able to let people go when they are beyond his help.

So something like "I will accept when I can do no more" or "I will accept the are times I can not help" just better written. Kal arc was about accepting help and letting go be he has a bit to go.

[Bort]

"I will forgive myself my failures, in order to better protect the living."

This is what I reckon the 4th Windrunner ideal is. Kaladin's 4th ideal, at least. Teft's will be similar, but different.

[killersquirrel59]

Well, look at the gemstone library archive about the fourth ideal. This was a sapphire which is traditionally associated with Windrunners and the quote is

"My spren claims that this recording will be good for me, so here I go. Everyone says I will swear the Fourth Ideal soon, and in so doing, earn my armor. I simply don’t think that I can. Am I not supposed to want to help people?"

I think the key is "not supposed to want to help people". Given this hint and the moral progression of Kaladin with his massive guilt complex, I can only conclude that the Fourth Ideal for the Windrunners is something along the lines of "I will accept that I cannot save everyone". 

[dvoraen]

Or it's far more tragic:

I will remember the fallen.

[Bort]

3 minutes ago, dvoraen said:

Or it's far more tragic:

I will remember the fallen.

Nah, that's more like one of the Edgedancer oaths, which have been about remembering the forgotten.

[Guest]

I really like this theory.

Basically this: No one can be strong all the time. I will accept the protection of my allies when I cannot protect myself.

[Leyrann]

I think it is either "I will let go of those I failed to help" or "I will let go of those who cannot be helped". Something about dealing with failing.

[TheDoomsday]

These are all good theories. I especially like

9 hours ago, killersquirrel59 said:

Well, look at the gemstone library archive about the fourth ideal. This was a sapphire which is traditionally associated with Windrunners and the quote is

"My spren claims that this recording will be good for me, so here I go. Everyone says I will swear the Fourth Ideal soon, and in so doing, earn my armor. I simply don’t think that I can. Am I not supposed to want to help people?"

I think the key is "not supposed to want to help people". Given this hint and the moral progression of Kaladin with his massive guilt complex, I can only conclude that the Fourth Ideal for the Windrunners is something along the lines of "I will accept that I cannot save everyone". 

As the fourth ideal.

[dvoraen]

23 hours ago, Bort said:

Nah, that's more like one of the Edgedancer oaths, which have been about remembering the forgotten.

That's not the same though.  Those who fall in battle (because they couldn't be saved, perhaps?) versus those who have been ignored and cast aside by their peers is the distinction I'm making.

[Inquisitor #5]

I will accept that there are people I cannot protect or I will let those who can protect themselves, maybe?

[Kaleid]

I'm convinced that either the 4th or the 5th ideal is going to be about accepting protection from others.

 

I'm currently leaning towards this being the 4th ideal due to the Windrunner gem in Urithuru bemoaning of the fourth ideal: "I thought I was meant to want to protect people" (ostensibly, as opposed to accepting protection).

Edited January 3, 2018 by Kaleid
Clarity

[thejopen27]

I cannot protect everyone, I will allow others to make their own decisions and accept that I am not responsible for every death.

but more poetic 

Edited January 3, 2018 by thejopen27

[ZacC]

I think everyone is correct that the 4th Ideal is something along the lines "I will protect those that I can, and accept that I can't save everyone."

The only additional insight I have to add support to this is that Kaladin repeatedly remembers his father wanted him to grow emotional calluses, for this very reason, and he was never able to do so. It's been mentioned and referenced far too many times to not be significant. Also, when trying to leave Shadesmar, Sly wanted him to say The Words. However, at this point, he was still too freshly conflicted that he was unable to stop his Parshmen friends and Wall Guard friends from killing each other.

I'm a bit more uncertain about the 5th Ideal but I believe it's going to be something like "I will not heedlessly endanger my life to protect others." I only have a few details to support this and they all involve the differences between the orders. The first is Syl commenting she's not a Cryptic and second is telling Kaladin he's no Skybreaker. The final, and maybe most significant, is the prelude the tWoK. Kelek mentions that Talenel has a habit of basically choosing suicide missions in his defensive positions. That might be another difference between orders. The Stonewards might "encourage" acts of self-sacrifice while the Windrunners don't. While dying in battle often inevitable, to rush in headless of the obvious consequences would be against the ideal.

[Wyndrunner]

I will forgive myself for those I could not protect...

Perhaps?

[thejopen27]

2 hours ago, ZacC said:

I'm a bit more uncertain about the 5th Ideal but I believe it's going to be something like "I will not heedlessly endanger my life to protect others." I only have a few details to support this and they all involve the differences between the orders. The first is Syl commenting she's not a Cryptic and second is telling Kaladin he's no Skybreaker. The final, and maybe most significant, is the prelude the tWoK. Kelek mentions that Talenel has a habit of basically choosing suicide missions in his defensive positions. That might be another difference between orders. The Stonewards might "encourage" acts of self-sacrifice while the Windrunners don't. While dying in battle often inevitable, to rush in headless of the obvious consequences would be against the ideal.

The only example of a fifth ideal we have is very identity focused. The Skybreaker becomes the law unto themselves. I would guess the Windrunner would admit that he is a leader.

[Leuthie]

The hardest thing to deal with in leadership, especially in life or death situations, is sussing out where your best success lies.  You cant win every fight.

A war leader has to actually send people to die.  The D-day invasion was suicide for every single troop that stormed that beach.  Only the lucky lived.  A leader made the decision to send those people to their deaths for the greater cause.

Look to that I as the 4th Windbreaker ideal.  Not only letting people go who you can't protect, but being willing to sacrifice people for the greater good.

Maybe he'll quote Spock: "The good of the many out way the good of the few...or the one."

[Wyndrunner]

Quote

The hardest thing to deal with in leadership, especially in life or death situations, is sussing out where your best success lies.  You cant win every fight.

A war leader has to actually send people to die.  The D-day invasion was suicide for every single troop that stormed that beach.  Only the lucky lived.  A leader made the decision to send those people to their deaths for the greater cause.

I would actually argue against this. This quality, although ascribed to leaders, is not the same principle of leadership that we see exhibited in the Windrunners. This quality you bring up is what we would give to a general, a military commander, someone whose job it is to manage and win the war.

Kaladin is not one of these leaders. In its most basic form, a leader is someone who takes care of their followers. If we were to look to our earliest ancestors we would see that the leaders often end up being the strongest individuals in the group. Why? Because when a predator comes and threatens your people they are the ones who rush out first to deal with the threat. Kaladin is a leader because he has made himself into a great warrior and he uses his skills to act as a shield for his men. To make sure that he bears the brunt of all attacks against his people because he is strong enough to overcome them.

This is just the base form of leadership and it works very well when you deal with a small, isolated group (like Bridge Four). But as soon as your scope of the world increases things start to get messier. Kaladin's Second Ideal now begs him to protect not only the Bridgemen but Dalinar, a lighteyed man. His Third Ideal begs him to protect a man whom he hates. Then with the events of Oathbringer, Kaladin almost gets destroyed because his scope has grown faster than his understanding of the ideals. He is currently unable to protect men and women from both sides of the conflict, something that almost drives him over the edge.

How Kaladin decides to overcome this predicament, to learn how to be a true leader and to speak the final two Ideals is something I am very interested to see.

[TheWarriorPoet]

Hi,

"Kal" reminds me of another protagonist "Kel", both kelsier and kaladin were broken, then they gained the powers of respective shards, both hate Nobility/Lighteyes but behave like they themselves are one, both carry grudges against those who oppressed them, both grew up to be inspirational leaders. So keeping these in mind, i don't think Kal can let go because Kel never did, he is not letting go even after dying.

So i think the fourth ideal for Kaladin would be something like 

"I will remember those who fell/died and protect the ones who live"

I am sorry, i am not too good in these either lol

[Leuthie]

The big sticking point is the gem that questions the ideal because "We should help people".  If it's simply letting go, that quote wouldn't work.

[Sebarial]

It will be simple. “I will fail.”  It a culmination of Several theories here really but boiled down to the nitty gritty. Kaladin will fail. People will die. It is the true acceptance that you will repeatedly fail at the 2nd and 3rd ideals. 

Edited December 17, 2018 by Sebarial

[Lidolas]

I wonder if it is something along the lines of what he fights with his dad over.  "To protect some, I have to harm/hurt others"

[Aeshdan]

 

On ‎1‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 7:05 AM, SLNC said:

I really like this theory.

Basically this: No one can be strong all the time. I will accept the protection of my allies when I cannot protect myself.

I like this one for the Fourth Ideal.

As for the Fifth Ideal, my guess would be:  I will not protect others from the trials they need to grow strong. It seems to me that that one really encapsulates the culmination of what it means to protect, that you must know not only when others need to be protected, but when, in the long run, helping them would only hurt them worse.

[Ripheus23]

2nd, "I will protect those who cannot protect themselves."

3rd, "I will protect even those I hate, so long as it is right."

So, the 3rd could include the 2nd, though it wouldn't tend to, I suppose. You could hate someone who could not protect themselves.

Now we're talking ideals so, "You can't save everyone," doesn't seem like it would fit as a direct motivator idea for an ideal. I would think more, "I will protect even those who I cannot save," though. Journey before destination: trying before accomplishing, if you will. ("Am I not supposed to want to help people?" is ambivalent: it's, "I currently want to help people but seemingly have to give up wanting to, to swear the next Ideal," so it could be that the interlocutor is just mistaken about what seems to be so, here.)

Let's say the 5 Ideals tend to follow this pattern: universally identical 1st, then the next 3 correspond to three parts of the 1st. So, "Life before death," goes with, "I will protect those who cannot protect themselves"; "Strength before weakness," goes with, "I will protect even those I hate"; "I will protect even those who I cannot save," goes with, "Journey before destination." Now the 5th Ideal, hmm...

[Calderis]

22 minutes ago, Ripheus23 said:

So, the 3rd could include the 2nd, though it wouldn't tend to, I suppose. You could hate someone who could not protect themselves.

I don't think hate is really the focus here. 

I think in it's purest form it would be something along the lines of "as long as it is right, I will protect anyone regardless of my feelings." It is about right and wrong being valued over your own motivations. 

As to the fourth, I don't think it's as simple as putting in the effort. "journey before destination." If that were the extent of it, Kaladin should have no issue saying the fourth oath. He attempts to protect everyone regardless of the plausibility. 

Whatever the issue, it has to be something that deal with the aftermath of those failures. That's the part Kal can't accept.