Elsecaller Oaths(based on Jasnah's actions, Maximin Strategy, and Political Theory)

[Karger]

Alright Everyone.  Per the request of @Honorless and @Truthwatcher_17.5 I am doing the next in my series of Radiant ideals on Elsecallers. 

For those of you who don't know I believe that Radiant Oaths (with the exception of Lightweavers) follow a pattern.  The first ideal is constant, the second is about service, the third is about fairness, the fourth is about trust and the fifth is about the ultimate goal.  This belief fuels all of my oath theories. 

Keep in mind while we have seen Jasnah since book one the Elsecallers are still an order little about compared to some of the others.  As such I am much less comfortable speculating then normal.

The first ideal for Elsecallers is of course the same "Life before death, strength before weakness, journey before destination."  This is always the first ideal.  After this however we have to speculate. 

The second ideal pretty consistently deals with service.  The main services that Elsecallers provide are good advice and careful preparation.  Jasnah for example is always a source of good advice even for people such as Dalinar.   She is also always ready for nearly anything,   "I will give good advice" is not an ideal(sorry bearded old men).  Everyone tries to give advice pretty much all the time.  Let us instead look at the other actions Jasnah takes.  Jasnah is famous and using for being willing to kill.  People who are threatening her family yes but also nearly a member of her family.  So what is the common link?  I think the answer can be found in maximin strategy.  Under maximin strategy the goal is to be in the best possible situation when in the worst possible position.  In the position Jasnah was in Renarin had not yet been established as a danger.  However Jasnah and Ivory both thought killing him was the best option.  I believe the reason was quite simple.  Renarin could be a danger and eliminating him would have been one less possible danger to worry about(yes she decided not to but we will get to that latter).  As such I think the second ideal of Elsecallers is "I search for all dangers and take appropriate actions to counter them."

The third ideal according to my pattern will deal with fairness or at least judgement.  Contrary to their reputation's Elsecallers are as capable or empathy, fear, anger, or mistake as anyone else.  Despite being cautious even the wisest and most careful people make mistakes.  In order to take action and not either be paralyzed by paranoia or lash out in fear an Elsecaller must have some way to decide if eliminating danger is worthwhile.  Of the many many different ways of deciding this in political economy I think that Public choice, or public choice theory would appeal most to people as realpolitik as the Elsecallers.  To state this theory in ideal form this would say.  "I will look at the realistic potential outcome of any important action before making it."

The fourth ideal should deal with fairness.  In this I am actually aided by an in book example.  Jasnah according to her first three oaths should probably kill her cousin.  It would remove a potential danger and the amount of damage he could do greatly out ways the positive impact he could have on the battlefield.  However Jasnah chooses otherwise.  This may be the start of her oath four journey or perhaps she swears it here but regardless she chooses differently to everyone's shock including her own.  Unlike many I dislike the belief that a reliance on logic in decision making is dangerous or unemotional.  Sometimes "because they love each other" is not a good reason.  Still Elsecaller's do have to deal with others.

In their efforts to destroy dangers an Elsecaller may forget that the people or problems being destroyed are still people.  Us vs Them mentality is a plague on the careful planners of the all places.  This WoB

Quote

Arcanum Unbounded Hoboken signing (Dec. 3, 2016)
#1 Share Copy

 

Play/PauseAndrewHB

I wondered if I could follow up to that Machiavelli question. Would Elsecallers be a-- one of those other, uh-- one of those...

Brandon Sanderson

So, yeah. Elsecallers are fairly compatible. Like, Elsecallers feel like the journey is... the journey is the entire species, right? And that the journey is the destination. *inaudible*

indicates that an Elsecaller thinks of the species not simply a group.  Their goal is to enhance their own agenda not to hamper other people.  As such I think an Elsecaller's fourth ideal is "I will not stop looking for the best solution for everyone."

The final oath seems to be about the destination.  The destination of Elsecallers seems to be eliminating problems.  However problems that plague a system do not go away until a better system is found.  However changing systems is dangerous.  As such I think that the Elsecaller's final ideal is "I will take action so that we can have progress."

You can find my pattern of radiant oaths theory here.

Spoiler

 

Edited February 11, 2020 by Karger

[Honorless]

Good work as always, looking forward to the next one! 

[Karger]

4 minutes ago, Honorless said:

Good work as always, looking forward to the next one! 

I actually thought that this one was a bit sub par but thanks anyway.  Next one will be Truthwatcher.

[Feruchemical Skybreaker]

I liked that 

I never realised the pattern in the oaths. thanks for pointing that out

[Elsecaller_17.5]

Wow, I might have to change my name after Truthwatchers comes out. 

I am curious though, could you go more into your reasoning behind the 4th ideal? Particularly how the WoB ties in?

Edit: wait, wait, wait I think I got it. Does if have something to do with good solutions vs the best solution?

Edited January 9, 2020 by Truthwatcher_17.5

[Karger]

1 hour ago, Truthwatcher_17.5 said:

Wow, I might have to change my name after Truthwatchers comes out. 

Why?

1 hour ago, Truthwatcher_17.5 said:

I am curious though, could you go more into your reasoning behind the 4th ideal? Particularly how the WoB ties in?

 

1 hour ago, Truthwatcher_17.5 said:

Edit: wait, wait, wait I think I got it. Does if have something to do with good solutions vs the best solution?

Kind of.  More like best solution for everyone vs good solution us.

[Elsecaller_17.5]

10 hours ago, Ookla the Prolific said:

Why?

Elsecallers have always been a close second for me and your take on their ideals is a solid point for them. I do want to see what you have for truthwatchers though.

[Karger]

37 minutes ago, Truthwatcher_17.5 said:

Elsecallers have always been a close second for me and your take on their ideals is a solid point for them. I do want to see what you have for truthwatchers though.

Ohh.  That makes sense thanks.

[+Bliev]

I love these threads, thank you. 

I wonder, too, if there is a broader element of the "cold" utilitarianism in their oaths, particularly the service one--something to the effect of, "I will do what needs to be done, even if it means some may be harmed" so long as the intent is to serve the greater good. So I think about her utilizing a network of assassins for instance, and how she rather logically--some say coldly--analyzes the threats around her and her family. Where as the third may be, with judgement, something about accepting additional information, even if it means you were wrong before? Maybe as she had to accept certain components of the Recreance, for instance...and judge that you must follow where logic leads. 

I do think that she might have sworn the 4th oath during that Renarin scene, or soon thereafter as they left for Thaylan fields. It fits really perfectly with what you have described: that sometimes benevolence may seem illogical, but it is still the right thing to do.

Edited to add: their logic and machiavellianism explains their Recreance participation, btw--if they deemed it likely that surge binders would destroy the world, then it is logical to remove that threat. 

Edited January 9, 2020 by Bliev

[Pathfinder]

So as I said on the other thread, I like the rationale/headspace that is bringing this about. Now having said that, in this case, just for myself I do not feel it fits. I feel that if Jasnah was of the third oath when she was working with assassins regarding Aesudean, and that the third oath is the why she would kill Aesudean, then Jasnah not killing Aesudean would be breaking that 3rd oath. Perhaps she was further along in oaths at that point then? 

[Ciridae]

@Pathfinder Just curious what makes you think that she was at the third oath in that prelude? IIRC she had her encounter with Ivory where she was partially drawn into the CR just before her meeting with Liss. To me it felt like Jasnah was very unfamiliar with what was going on with her and her powers, she seemed really freaked out about it all. Or are you referring to a different time where she was considering having Aesudan assassinated that I’m not remembering?

[Karger]

11 hours ago, Pathfinder said:

So as I said on the other thread, I like the rationale/headspace that is bringing this about. Now having said that, in this case, just for myself I do not feel it fits. I feel that if Jasnah was of the third oath when she was working with assassins regarding Aesudean, and that the third oath is the why she would kill Aesudean, then Jasnah not killing Aesudean would be breaking that 3rd oath. Perhaps she was further along in oaths at that point then? 

She was not really bonded then.  I also think Jasnah decided not to kill her yet because she had not finished weighing all of the problems that could be caused.

[Pathfinder]

14 hours ago, Ciridae said:

@Pathfinder Just curious what makes you think that she was at the third oath in that prelude? IIRC she had her encounter with Ivory where she was partially drawn into the CR just before her meeting with Liss. To me it felt like Jasnah was very unfamiliar with what was going on with her and her powers, she seemed really freaked out about it all. Or are you referring to a different time where she was considering having Aesudan assassinated that I’m not remembering?

 

10 hours ago, Ookla the Prolific said:

She was not really bonded then.  I also think Jasnah decided not to kill her yet because she had not finished weighing all of the problems that could be caused.

Sorry to clarify. I got the impression that the third oath was being presented as a continual thing. Jasnah elected to pay the assassin to observe Aesudean. So that (my impression) was a continual thing. So the progression to me based on those oaths and how they were presented, would be that when Jasnah attained the third oath, she would have had the assassin kill Aesudean. The assassin was still watching Aesudean, and Aesudean was still a threat. Otherwise she would have been breaking the third oath. 

Also to clarify, not writing this to be critical of the theory, or say it is wrong. Also not saying what I am saying is negating the theory. Just it was something I was pondering so thought to bring up. 

Edited January 10, 2020 by Pathfinder

[Elsecaller_17.5]

Wow just wow. I read through it again and wish I could give you another reputation. Bravo!

[Karger]

56 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

So the progression to me based on those oaths and how they were presented, would be that when Jasnah attained the third oath, she would have had the assassin kill Aesudean. The assassin was still watching Aesudean, and Aesudean was still a threat. Otherwise she would have been breaking the third oath. 

She could only kill Aesudean after objectively stating that doing so was better then any alternative.

11 minutes ago, Truthwatcher_17.5 said:

Wow just wow. I read through it again and wish I could give you another reputation. Bravo!

Thanks.  A bit much but thanks.

 

[Pathfinder]

12 minutes ago, Ookla the Prolific said:

She could only kill Aesudean after objectively stating that doing so was better then any alternative.

If I am misunderstanding, I readily acknowledge. I just thought reading what you wrote above, that the difference between the third and fourth oath in regards to Renarin is that had Jasnah been at the third oath, then based on the evidence she had, she should have killed him. But Jasnah having progressed to the fourth oath and dealing with fairness when she approached Renarin did not. Jasnah had evidence that Aesudean should die. In WoB Jasnah felt Aesudean was a threat to her family. So I thought the third oath would mean she would have had to kill Aesudean. That if she attained the fourth oath, she wouldn't. 

To clarify, I am not trying to be obtuse. I am not trying to disprove your theory on the oaths. I am not saying your theory is wrong. I am just asking questions from what I read of your theory. 

[+Oltux72]

On 09/01/2020 at 2:27 AM, Ookla the Prolific said:

The second ideal pretty consistently deals with service.

Well, that may be selection bias. We have seen one set of three orders namely Windrunners, Edgedancers and Bondsmiths swear second oaths aimed at service. These orders are dealing with people. The order which does not do that to this extent, the Skybreakers, does not do that. They uphold an abstract principle. Hence if we are looking at another order rather oriented towards abstract concepts, in case of the Elsecallers, namely reason, truth and other related concepts, we should expect some closer to a Skybreaker oath.

Something like: I will put facts and logic above feelings and desires.

[Karger]

1 hour ago, Pathfinder said:

In WoB Jasnah felt Aesudean was a threat to her family. So I thought the third oath would mean she would have had to kill Aesudean.

That is a theoretically valid interpretation but I personally think that she would have to wait until she new there was no better alternative.  Yes Aesudean was a threat but sometimes dealing with a threat is to costly or dangerous to be worthwhile. 

1 hour ago, Pathfinder said:

with fairness when she approached Renarin did not

In Renarin's situation he was a threat.  Killing him would have been the safer move.  She decided not to a la the fourth oath.

57 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

order which does not do that to this extent, the Skybreakers, does not do that. They uphold an abstract principle

The "service" in this case is upholding justice.  I personally don't see much point in an order who does not benefit other people.

59 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

Something like: I will put facts and logic above feelings and desires.

This is quite possible.  Excellent reasoning.

[+Oltux72]

43 minutes ago, Ookla the Prolific said:

The "service" in this case is upholding justice.

The Skybreakers, if a law told them that they have to tolerate injustice, would do so.

43 minutes ago, Ookla the Prolific said:

I personally don't see much point in an order who does not benefit other people.

Cultivation might agree. In case of Honor I doubt that.

The rest of the Radiants sacrifice themselves and their spren, ultimately in perceived service to Roshar. What did the Skybreakers do?

[Pathfinder]

1 hour ago, Ookla the Prolific said:

That is a theoretically valid interpretation but I personally think that she would have to wait until she new there was no better alternative.  Yes Aesudean was a threat but sometimes dealing with a threat is to costly or dangerous to be worthwhile. 

In Renarin's situation he was a threat.  Killing him would have been the safer move.  She decided not to a la the fourth oath.

I guess my question is what made Renarin a clear and present threat, while Aesudean was not?

[Karger]

1 hour ago, Oltux72 said:

The Skybreakers, if a law told them that they have to tolerate injustice, would do so.

Perhaps "public order" would be a better wording.

1 hour ago, Oltux72 said:

Cultivation might agree. In case of Honor I doubt that.

We don't know how the oaths originated but they seem to have been developed by sapient beings with the concept of ethics.  I really don't see many people going around arguing for a school of ethics that advocates truly selfish behavior.

54 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

I guess my question is what made Renarin a clear and present threat, while Aesudean was not?

The urgency and desperation of the situation.  In a battle situation that is going badly you can't take chances.  If you do the same in politics it becomes problematic.  Look at Sadeas's death.  The consequences were both good and bad for many different people.  In the calculus of a battle the only calculation that really matters is does this increase my odds of surviving. 

[+Oltux72]

29 minutes ago, Ookla the Prolific said:

We don't know how the oaths originated but they seem to have been developed by sapient beings with the concept of ethics.  I really don't see many people going around arguing for a school of ethics that advocates truly selfish behavior.

No. You are just reversing on the same axis. It is the choice of the axis that is not universal. You are basically presupposing utilitaranism. Ancient Persia, for example, considered telling the truth a virtue. Not because it adds to the common good, but by itself. An honorable man does not lie. Full stop. No further reason needed or given.

Something similar you can see in Jasnah. The ends justify the means to her, but she stays honest. She does not just hire a group of contract killers to send the Heralds back to Braize. She told it like she was seeing it. And of course a woman like Jasnah could have predicted how Kaladin would have reacted.

[Karger]

On 1/10/2020 at 4:33 PM, Oltux72 said:

No. You are just reversing on the same axis. It is the choice of the axis that is not universal. You are basically presupposing utilitaranism. Ancient Persia, for example, considered telling the truth a virtue. Not because it adds to the common good, but by itself. An honorable man does not lie. Full stop. No further reason needed or given.

Something similar you can see in Jasnah. The ends justify the means to her, but she stays honest. She does not just hire a group of contract killers to send the Heralds back to Braize. She told it like she was seeing it. And of course a woman like Jasnah could have predicted how Kaladin would have reacted.

You make good points but at least for the second ideal I am fairly confident because of the consistency we have seen across four different orders that are not known to have much in common.  Additionally even if telling the truth is a virtue to use your example.  Swearing to tell the truth is in service of the ideal and could still be considered service or selflessness.

Edited January 11, 2020 by Ookla the Prolific

[Honorless]

I think everyone was a bit surprised by the Elsecaller Ideals

...but also not surprised because they kinda fit

[IcaroRibeiro]

After reading Sanderson masterpost, seems like Elsecallers oaths are about progression. They improve themselves and discover the best version of themselves. It was also said they were one of the most diverse orders, with individuals of different backgrounds

Notice how Dustbringers oaths are also about self-mastery, self-control, precision and responsibility which are forms of progression. In strict sense, ALL Radians are looking to progress in their own path, so what make Elsecallers different? A Sanderson pointed, their focus are on INDIVIDUALS just as much as Lightweavers

So maybe, just like Lightweaevers, Elsecallers don't have a fixed set of morals follow, their oaths are instead about their personal actions and decisions. In essence the path of each Elsecaller is find its on way to progress, not rely in a shared code of values to make that progress

So when Jasnah decide to not be heartless and not take Renarin's life she was making a progression, if we could translate this into a oath it would be something like: "I won't let my fears and concerns overlaps my humanity". Which Avery, even before understand why, agree to be the right thing to do.

Edited June 10, 2020 by IcaroRibeiro