Knight Radiant Ideals

[Erandeni he/him]

18 hours ago, Walin said:

Windrunner 4th ideal: I will lead the directionless.

                   5th ideal: I will lead those who are stupid-- so long as it is right.

 

I like to think the 5th ideal may be a mixture of the two attributes, something like "I will lead to protect those under my command."

For the Truthwatchers I like something like "I will learn everything I could, every knowledge is valuable."

And for the Dustbringers something like "I will face my fears, not running away from them."

 

[Radiant_Jaeger he/him]

For the Edgedancers it is now obvious that these involve the disenfranchised and unremembered people of the world. It's all about the little guys for Edge dancers so I think that we will see something like this... "I will rescue those who are lost."

For the Elsecallers all we know is that it involves transforming and teleportation and that Jasnah has an "unnatural sense of direction." so i think it will be this...

"I will find what others have lost, no matter how hard I have to search" This could breinforcee why she is looking so hard for the secrets of the voidbringers.

For the Stonewardens I don't have anything to back this up but I feel it will be "I will relieve the burdens of others, no mattter how heavy they may be." It really fits for Taln and what we know of him so far.

[retrorocket1]

From the Coppermind "So Melishi retired to his tent, and resolved to destroy the Voidbringers upon the next day, but that night did present a different stratagem, related to the unique abilities of the Bondsmiths"

leads to a possibility of a military based oath.

3rd Ideal of the Bondsmiths:- "I will unite my peoples against my enemies"

another possibility related to him finding out about Sadaes - "I will unite even with my enemies"

[Radiant_Jaeger he/him]

5 hours ago, retrorocket1 said:

From the Coppermind "So Melishi retired to his tent, and resolved to destroy the Voidbringers upon the next day, but that night did present a different stratagem, related to the unique abilities of the Bondsmiths"

leads to a possibility of a military based oath.

3rd Ideal of the Bondsmiths:- "I will unite my peoples against my enemies"

another possibility related to him finding out about Sadaes - "I will unite even with my enemies"

I will unite even those who hate one another, for hatred cannot thrive in unity.

[retrorocket1]

^plus from me I really like that oath.

[The One Who Connects he/him]

8 hours ago, Radiant_Jaeger said:

I will unite even those who hate one another, for hatred cannot thrive in unity.

I like this idea a fair bit, but I will point out that Hatred(and the mindset it spawns) can just as easily break the Unity before the Unity can stifle the Hatred.
It's one of the reasons that double and triple-cross (and quadruple-cross cough Hakann cough) exists. People will always resent being forced to work with "that person/nation/etc.." and sometimes people snap.

It'd be a Bondsmith's true power to breed understanding and/or have something that people would not dare defy to enforce unity.

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Radiant_Jaeger said:

I will unite even those who hate one another, for hatred cannot thrive in unity.

Actually I do not like it... Uniting even those who hate each other is precisely what led Dalinar to trust Sadeas and ultimately caused more dissension not to forget 6000 causalities. I honestly cannot see how you can unite people who refuses to unite themselves with you: if you can't convince them, then... well... you have to accept they will oppose you or you have to oppose them. You can't force others not to hate you, you can offer an alternative to hate, but if others chose to stay hateful. then you have to accept it and deal with it in the appropriate manner. Say Sadeas, nothing would have made him work with Dalinar. Just plain nothing. Attempting to unite him was a failure from the start.

My thoughts are the next oath should be more along the line of: In order to unite, I will forgive those who have failed or something along the lines wanting unity requires a bit of lax in the sense you can't hold it against everyone every single of their wrong doings if they are willing to work with you. In shorts, Dalinar needs to learn to forgive others for not looking up to his honor code as closely as him. He has to learn when to be firm and when to be forgiving. He will have to decide whom to remove because they are threatening the unity and whom he should work with even if they anger him.

Something along those lines.

 

[iamstick]

Are the ideals canonically identical for all members of an order? Could an Edgedancer go with "I will reach out to those who have been abandoned" so long as each successive ideal progresses along the idea of connecting to those with little voice and power?

[The One Who Connects he/him]

17 minutes ago, iamstick said:

Are the ideals canonically identical for all members of an order?

What we Canonically know is the Currently spoken Oaths. 3rd Windrunner, (not-yet canon Skybreaker 2nd), Edgedancer 3rd, Lightweavers are just truths, (not-yet canon Stoneward 2nd), and Bondsmith 2nd.

The only other thing we know is that there is an upper limit, and that everyone in-world believes it to be 5.

Edit (didn't provide a point).. For the wording, I doubt they are identical in format, since the oaths convey a general message and if you convey that message with different words, it should still be accepted

Edited May 15, 2017 by The One Who Connects

[Radiant_Jaeger he/him]

1 hour ago, maxal said:

Actually I do not like it... Uniting even those who hate each other is precisely what led Dalinar to trust Sadeas and ultimately caused more dissension not to forget 6000 causalities. I honestly cannot see how you can unite people who refuses to unite themselves with you: if you can't convince them, then... well... you have to accept they will oppose you or you have to oppose them. You can't force others not to hate you, you can offer an alternative to hate, but if others chose to stay hateful. then you have to accept it and deal with it in the appropriate manner. Say Sadeas, nothing would have made him work with Dalinar. Just plain nothing. Attempting to unite him was a failure from the start.

My thoughts are the next oath should be more along the line of: In order to unite, I will forgive those who have failed or something along the lines wanting unity requires a bit of lax in the sense you can't hold it against everyone every single of their wrong doings if they are willing to work with you. In shorts, Dalinar needs to learn to forgive others for not looking up to his honor code as closely as him. He has to learn when to be firm and when to be forgiving. He will have to decide whom to remove because they are threatening the unity and whom he should work with even if they anger him.

Something along those lines.

 

I believe that it gives the impression that by being united the hatred will go away, because hatred can't survive true unity. Though of course there is the danger of betrayal, but Sadeas and Dalinar were never really united at all because of that hatred... that makes sense right?

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, Radiant_Jaeger said:

I believe that it gives the impression that by being united the hatred will go away, because hatred can't survive true unity. Though of course there is the danger of betrayal, but Sadeas and Dalinar were never really united at all because of that hatred... that makes sense right?

And yet they were part of a "united Alethkar". My thoughts are Gavilar's conquest of Alethkar was essentially wrong. The Kholins won because they were the biggest, the baddest and the meanest of them all, but by uniting through brute force, all they have achieved is opening the door wide for someone bigger, badder and meaner to wrestle it out of their hands. In shorts, through the War of Unification, all the Kholins have achieved is to validate the idea one should crush and fight obtain what he wants up until someone stronger comes to challenge you. Hence, Sadeas.

Gavilar once wondered why kingdoms failed and thought the reason was because they lacked a common foe to fight. He thought unity could only be achieved through warfare and he was willing to have thousand of people dying just to secure his. Gavilar was no better than Taranvangian and I sincerely hope there is a safe-proof built-in within future Bondsmiths oaths to prevent this from happening. Something such as: "I will not sacrifice the many over the possibility of saving the few" or "Some prices are too high to pay, you can't unite through warfare".

To go back to your hatred idea, I think the right dichotomy would be : " You can't unite through hatred" or "You have to let go of your hatred if you are to unite". Thus it isn't Dalinar has to force those who hates him to unite with him, but he has to let go of his own hatred in order to listen to the other party and be willing to make the required compromises, providing they are reasonable, for unity to happen. You can't force hateful people who wants you dead to unite with you. Dalinar won't be able to unite "everyone", but he can try to unite "as many as possible". There will always be those to oppose them and, well, he can't force them just as he tried to force Sadeas. Some people are just enemies and will remain so.

Edited May 15, 2017 by maxal

[Calderis he/him]

1 hour ago, iamstick said:

Are the ideals canonically identical for all members of an order? Could an Edgedancer go with "I will reach out to those who have been abandoned" so long as each successive ideal progresses along the idea of connecting to those with little voice and power?

I'm trying to find it, but there's a WoB that says we'll see another Windrunner and it will show how the words can differ but will convey the same meaning. 

So they won't be verbatim, but the fundamental message will be the same. 

[The One Who Connects he/him]

9 minutes ago, maxal said:

Something such as: "I will not sacrifice over the possibility of saving the few" or "Some prices are too high to pay, you can't unite through warfare".

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" ?

---

Given the existence of the Voidbringer threat, I could see uniting mankind against a common foe being allowed, but the problem with uniting through warfare is that there is always an enemy. You can unify mankind during a Desolation and keep them united while you rebuild society, but how do you keep them unified after the work is done and they go back to their own separate homes?

2 minutes ago, Calderis said:

but there's a WoB that says we'll see another Windrunner and it will show how the words can differ but will convey the same meaning. 

Since I was there the last time this was argued, I'll mention that we never found it, but there was one that said "different words, same meaning" without a specific Order attached to it. (Depending on when it was, we might have only known Windrunner Oaths at the time (since Lightweaver doesn't count))

[Calderis he/him]

Just now, The One Who Connects said:

Since I was there the last time this was argued, I'll mention that we never found it, but there was one that said "different words, same meaning" without a specific Order attached to it. (Depending on when it was, we might have only known Windrunner Oaths at the time (since Lightweaver doesn't count))

Well that's probably why I can't find anything. Thank you for making me feel less crazy. 

[+Extesian he/him]

45 minutes ago, Calderis said:

I'm trying to find it, but there's a WoB that says we'll see another Windrunner and it will show how the words can differ but will convey the same meaning. 

So they won't be verbatim, but the fundamental message will be the same. 

Here's a couple

Quote

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.

Quote

BLIGHTSONG

Were the oaths of the Knights radiant consciously chosen, or did they happen naturally.

BRANDON SANDERSON

*apprehension*. This is one of those vague ones in that yes and no. They are a natural outgrowth of the spren, but the spren are a natural outgrowth of human's perception of natural forces, but the spren are sentient, so I would say it's a little more by instinct than not. For example to Knights Radiant in the same order might speak the words differently, but the concept is the same. You will see this happen in a future book, where a Windrunner will speak the oaths. It's a slightly different take on the same concept. Some are moreso, like Shallan's oaths are very individualized truths, so

 

[Calderis he/him]

23 minutes ago, Extesian said:

Here's a couple

 

I knew I'd read that. Thank you! 

[kari-no-sugata]

Here's some ideas I've posted before:

On 9/5/2014 at 4:06 PM, kari-no-sugata said:

I've had a few ideas knocking around my head recently. One is that the more action orientated Radiant Orders might have a series of Oaths like this (or maybe I should say the more Honor orientated Radiants):

1. Prime Directive (for all Orders)
2. Core directive (for the specific Order)
3. Qualifier: equality / impartiality (don't pick and chose, don't play favourites)
4. Qualifier: proportionality / reasonableness (don't go overboard)
5. Qualifier: honour / integrity (don't cheat)

side note: the words used in the list above are more to convey general concepts. The exact words used do not matter so much as the general concepts.

The "prime directive" (sorry, couldn't resist) is obviously "Life before death, strength before weakness, journey before destination".

For each Order their "core directive" is what they "do". So for Windrunners it's "protection" and for Skybreakers it's "justice" (or "law enforcement"). Stonewards might be "defence" (or "tanks" to use a role-playing term), Bondsmiths might be about "unity". Not sure about the other Orders but I suspect the Lightweavers are about "hope", not that they actually get Oaths.

For the remaining 3 Oaths I suspect they're all "qualifiers" (or "constraints") for the "core directive" to help them keep to it in a good way. So Kaladin's "I will protect even those I hate so long as it is right" fits because it forces him to treat Lighteyed and Darkeyed (and everyone else) as equally deserving protection. I suspect Skybreakers would have something along the lines of "All are equal before the law" and Bondsmiths would be about "equal rights".

Getting more speculative here I suspect the 4th Oath is about concepts like proportionality, reasonableness etc. I suspect Skybreakers would have something like "let the punishment fit the crime" while Windrunners would be more like "minimise need to inflict casualties / injuries" and Bondsmiths be about "freedom from oppression".

For the final Oath I'm thinking it would be to protect against subverting or perverting their other Oaths - eg you can't make someone do something you couldn't do.

While this is a neat little theory I have no idea if it's in any way accurate since we have so few example Oaths. It's certainly not complete since I don't see how orders like the Edgedancers would fit in - even excluding the Lightweavers I don't expect all the orders to follow the exact same pattern. For example, maybe the Edgedancers would be about "standing up for the little guy" (sort of thing) and each of their unique oaths would be about a particular type of "little guy" to stand up for.

 

[Guest]

On 5/15/2017 at 7:50 PM, The One Who Connects said:

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" ?

---

Given the existence of the Voidbringer threat, I could see uniting mankind against a common foe being allowed, but the problem with uniting through warfare is that there is always an enemy. You can unify mankind during a Desolation and keep them united while you rebuild society, but how do you keep them unified after the work is done and they go back to their own separate homes?

I do agree. If Dalinar resorts to becoming a tyrant once again, he may win the Desolation, but he won't be building anything lasting.  Something else also came to mind today, wouldn't dividing your family (by being too harsh with Adolin) in order to create an uneasy unity be against the Bondsmith's second oath? I will unite and not divide, it seems to imply dividing to unite would be equally prohibited. Or maybe this is the third oath: "I will not create division just to unite factions". 

Great post @kari-no-sugata, but how to you adjust your theory with the knowledge of the Edgedancer's third oath? I have a hard time seeing how it can fit within your suggestive qualifier.

[Radiant_Jaeger he/him]

23 minutes ago, maxal said:

I do agree. If Dalinar resorts to becoming a tyrant once again, he may win the Desolation, but he won't be building anything lasting.  Something else also came to mind today, wouldn't dividing your family (by being too harsh with Adolin) in order to create an uneasy unity be against the Bondsmith's second oath? I will unite and not divide, it seems to imply dividing to unite would be equally prohibited. Or maybe this is the third oath: "I will not create division just to unite factions". 

Great post @kari-no-sugata, but how to you adjust your theory with the knowledge of the Edgedancer's third oath? I have a hard time seeing how it can fit within your suggestive qualifier.

Maybe it's because it was used towards Nale a man she had every reason to despise but instead she listens to him. That shows moral courage and impartiality

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, Radiant_Jaeger said:

Maybe it's because it was used towards Nale a man she had every reason to despise but instead she listens to him. That shows moral courage and impartiality

But it isn't him she listened to, but the street urchins or so I recall... Did I get it wrong?

[Calderis he/him]

31 minutes ago, Radiant_Jaeger said:

Maybe it's because it was used towards Nale a man she had every reason to despise but instead she listens to him. That shows moral courage and impartiality

She may have said the ideal in his presence, but I don't see how that makes it directed towards him. It's an ideal. It's something that should effect her behavior in all situations, not just where she currently is.

A situation may force someone to face one of the ideals, like Kaladin with Elhokar, but that ideal should transcend circumstances.

I think that all of the events of edgedancer brought that oath out. Not just the end. 

[kari-no-sugata]

6 hours ago, maxal said:

Great post @kari-no-sugata, but how to you adjust your theory with the knowledge of the Edgedancer's third oath? I have a hard time seeing how it can fit within your suggestive qualifier.

At the end of all that theory I wrote this:

Quote

While this is a neat little theory I have no idea if it's in any way accurate since we have so few example Oaths. It's certainly not complete since I don't see how orders like the Edgedancers would fit in - even excluding the Lightweavers I don't expect all the orders to follow the exact same pattern. For example, maybe the Edgedancers would be about "standing up for the little guy" (sort of thing) and each of their unique oaths would be about a particular type of "little guy" to stand up for.

 

I don't think I was that far off

[Radiant_Jaeger he/him]

1 hour ago, kari-no-sugata said:

At the end of all that theory I wrote this:

I don't think I was that far off

I agree have an upvote, (And a cookie.) Also do you think we will see wilshapers dustbringers and stonewards in the next book?

[kari-no-sugata]

7 hours ago, Radiant_Jaeger said:

I agree have an upvote, (And a cookie.) Also do you think we will see wilshapers dustbringers and stonewards in the next book?

I think it's reasonable to expect the rate of spren bonding humans and proto Radiants swearing Oaths etc to increase significantly. The Everstorm should be a huge "call to action" and the Stormfather (likely) changing his mind should remove a blocker. On a smaller scale, our friend "Darkness" might stop nipping them in the bud so much.

Rsyn becoming a Radiant in the next  book or two is a distinct possibility I think. The others I dunno. Stonewards seems possible but apparently the Dustbringers are rather "special" in some way.

Going back to that old theory of mine I posted... it was interesting to think of how the Orders could be grouped by the old D&D alignment system, particularly on the "lawful/chaotic" axis, which is really about the relative importance of the society compared to the individual. Or putting it another way, whether you take a "top down" approach or "bottom up" approach to such things. I would put Skybreakers, Bondsmiths and Windrunners in the "lawful" (society first, top down) category. Stonewards seem like a good candidate for this too but we might be assuming too much. Lift's Oaths put her in the "chaotic" (individual first, bottom up) category and her personality fits that as well. We don't know any of Jasnah's Oaths but her personality/attitude is more "top down" (I would say) but some of her actions are less so - maybe she's "neutral" overall (ie neither strongly society first or individual first)? Lightweavers don't have any Oaths except the common first one of course, but if Shallan is reasonably typical for them then they're likely "chaotic" (individual first, bottom up).

So maybe the "lawful" types will follow my suggested pattern but the more "chaotic" types won't have any obvious patterns or commonalities?