agrabes Posted July 8, 2020 Posted July 8, 2020 2 hours ago, Asrael said: I really like the concept of the Skybreakers, and I really dislike/don't see how Machiavellian ends-justify-the-means thinking gets linked with the order. I know that's what the Skybreakers are currently doing, but we've been expressly told that the order as it currently exists is corrupted. I don't know that we've been told the order is corrupted. It's leaned in a certain direction, but that direction is never explicitly defined as being corrupt. Nale is a Skybreaker of the 5th Ideal and is in compliance with his oaths. That says that his actions cannot be out of line with the values of the Skybreaker order. If Nale was violating the principles of what it means to be a Skybreaker, he would be violating his oaths and therefore have no powers. The same applies for all the Skybreakers who serve under Nale. Also, Brandon Sanderson has explicitly said that Machiavelli and the Skybreakers are compatible. It seems that the Skybreakers are an order than can have a lot of variety. Sanderson has also said that it would be valid for a Skybreaker to swear to uphold something like the Pirate Code - something most people would consider the opposite of the law. It is all relative to the individual Skybreaker - what is the "law" or moral code to them and do they uphold it? If so, then they are a valid Skybreaker even if that moral code is something that many people would consider evil. Quote AndrewHB (paraphrased) Is Niccolò Machiavelli's political theory--the ends justify the means--incompatible with the Knights Radiant's First Oath? Brandon Sanderson (paraphrased) No. Although many of the Orders of Knights Radiant 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 are where a Machiavellian could find a home.) Footnote: A follow up question was asked in the signing line. Arcanum Unbounded Hoboken signing (Dec. 3, 2016) Quote lupicorn I had a question about what it means to swear the Ideal of Law. Several fans have told me it means to define the law, in the Nixon, "when the president does it, that means it is not illegal," sort of way. I interpret it as becoming the embodiment of the law such that they can't willingly violate any law without breaking their oaths. Do either of these interpretations hit the mark? Nale seems to follow the law more so than most and that doesn't just seem like a personal preference. Brandon Sanderson I would say that both of these interpretations could work for a given Skybreaker, which is why there is disagreement among the order itself. Perception is a big part of the oaths. I wouldn't want to squish this discussion by offering too much on one side or the other, as this is exactly where I want the conversation to be going right now. General Reddit 2018 (Sept. 24, 2018)
Recommended Posts