Skybreakers... meh.

[PiedPiper she/her]

13 hours ago, Karger said:

In many ways we owe our current prosperity to a system of laws and law enforcement agencies that enforce rules of behavior for individuals, corporations, and even government branches.  I may have as much irritation at ticket officers as anyone else but they do decrease the probability that I will be killed in a driving accident.

I don't have a problem with them enforcing the law, it's just that I think they're training their operatives to blindly follow authority, even if -- like with modern Skybreakers -- the authority is corrupt. Szeth is the first of their order in thousands of years to realize they're doing something wrong, and isn't that telling?

[Chiberty]

1 minute ago, PiedPeterPiper said:

I don't have a problem with them enforcing the law, it's just that I think they're training their operatives to blindly follow authority, even if -- like with modern Skybreakers -- the authority is corrupt. Szeth is the first of their order in thousands of years to realize they're doing something wrong, and isn't that telling?

I thought you were talking about the old Skybreakers, not the ones being led by Nale. We all know the modern ones have issues. Nale even seems to handpick them.

[PiedPiper she/her]

Just now, ChickenLiberty said:

I thought you were talking about the old Skybreakers, not the ones being led by Nale. We all know the modern ones have issues. Nale even seems to handpick them.

I'm talking about both old and new, but what I meant to say is that Nale took power over the Skybreakers thousands of years ago and all his knights just accepted it without question. Shouldn't they have paid more attention to what code they're following?

By the way, I think this goes without saying, but I realized I never did say it and I want to make my opinion more clear: I'm not saying that Skybreakers as individuals are mindless drones, I'm just saying that there are serious problems with their institution -- even the old one.

[Chiberty]

2 minutes ago, PiedPeterPiper said:

I'm talking about both old and new, but what I meant to say is that Nale took power over the Skybreakers thousands of years ago and all his knights just accepted it without question. Shouldn't they have paid more attention to what code they're following?

By the way, I think this goes without saying, but I realized I never did say it and I want to make my opinion more clear: I'm not saying that Skybreakers as individuals are mindless drones, I'm just saying that there are serious problems with their institution -- even the old one.

All we really know about the old institution is their oaths, and the new info from the quiz. We don't know how the acceptance of Nale's leadership went. The Skybreakers at the time of the Recreance might not have, but then after those ones died, and all of the new Skybreakers were ones Nale chose himself, it makes sense that their view would align with Nale's. 

[PiedPiper she/her]

28 minutes ago, ChickenLiberty said:

All we really know about the old institution is their oaths, and the new info from the quiz. We don't know how the acceptance of Nale's leadership went. The Skybreakers at the time of the Recreance might not have, but then after those ones died, and all of the new Skybreakers were ones Nale chose himself, it makes sense that their view would align with Nale's. 

You have a point -- we're lacking in information. Very well; I will hold off further judgement until more is revealed about the old Skybreakers.

[jamesbondsmith He/him]

The Skybreakers fall into the same issue as any law enforcement group: using the law as the 'be all and end all' needs the laws to be just and fair, otherwise they just become a tool of oppression. It's like the central argument of the MCU's Civil War (mild spoilers). The pro-Sokovia Accords side believes that the Avengers need oversight as they are overly destructive, while the anti-Accords side believes that oversight will prevent them from helping those in need in time (or even helping them at all). It all depends on which people/laws you put your faith in.

Szeth's oaths are to uphold 'justice', while the general version is about 'the law' (taken from the coppermind). You could, or example, argue that the divides between dark/lighteyes are perfectly within the law, but to us would violate the 'fair and reasonable' definition of justice.

The whole point of putting their faith in something external is because they know their own morality can be fallible, and Nale has somehow managed to convince almost every Skybreaker that his own admittedly fallible morality is simultaneously infallible enough to dedicate themselves to. I'd be interested to see if changing the external code that they swear themselves to will count as going back on their oaths. Szeth has a caveat of 'until I find a more perfect ideal', which may just mean that he's accepting the possibility of progression towards the other Ideals or could mean that he is leaving himself open to the fact that he may swear himself to something he shouldn't have (which he has all too much experience with). I'd also like to know whether that caveat is something unique to Szeth, or whether changing allegiances is something implied in the oaths and he's the only one explicitly acknowledging it. I'd suggest that it's the latter, considering every other Skybreaker happily jumps ship to support the Singers (or at least, Nale jumps ship and all the others are too blindy loyal to not follow him).

[Nellac]

On 6/26/2020 at 11:44 AM, PiedPeterPiper said:

I don't have a problem with them enforcing the law, it's just that I think they're training their operatives to blindly follow authority, even if -- like with modern Skybreakers -- the authority is corrupt. Szeth is the first of their order in thousands of years to realize they're doing something wrong, and isn't that telling?

I think this comes down to the Skybreaker choosing the right external authority. As I've mentioned previously, I feel under Skybreaker on the test and agree that it was correct. That being said, I would never swear to something like following the laws of whatever country I'm in, or even following a specific countries laws. These change too often and these changes usually have more to do with politics then actual morality. I think the better option is something like a religious code or moral ideology. Something that either changes very slowly, or doesn't change at all.

[+Oltux72 he/him]

On 25/06/2020 at 8:43 PM, PiedPeterPiper said:

It seems to me that all of Skybreaker training is about learning to not think for yourself. This is what Wandersail was all about: not taking responsibility for your actions and blindly believing what you've been told. Wandersail is a cautionary tale that no one is listening to.

But you have to think to pick a code. But once you have decided, that is final.

And that is the basic function of an oath. You are not supposed to change your mind.

 

[Karger he/him]

On 6/26/2020 at 1:44 PM, PiedPeterPiper said:

I don't have a problem with them enforcing the law, it's just that I think they're training their operatives to blindly follow authority, even if -- like with modern Skybreakers -- the authority is corrupt. Szeth is the first of their order in thousands of years to realize they're doing something wrong, and isn't that telling?

They are under the thumb of some really troubling leadership yes and their belief in proper authority makes them easier to lead astray then most Edgedancers but that does not mean that revering authority and trying to do your best within a system is necessarily a bad thing. 

[Pathfinder]

Typing on my phone so forgive me in advance for formatting or spelling errors. 

 

So i think the basis of the skybreakers is the real life legal system. I believe the oaths can be broken down into levels of that system. General on the beat cops, detectives, commissioners, judges, law makers. I will break this down in a moment but just to follow up on the oaths not changing, i see the overall oaths as laws as well. First you get general and as you progress you get more defined,  specific. So first you protect those who cannot protect themselves. But that is still pretty general. What if the person is a bad person? Should you still protect them? Well i will protect those i hate so long as it is right. Well that answers that. But now the latest question seems to come to terms with when to versus when not to protect. We all have our theories but can we all agree it in some way shape or form might have a degree of this? So again being more specific. That is how (ideally) the law works. You cant start with "it is illegal to steal shirts on Thursday ". Then you get people who steal pants, or steal shirts on monday and when you try to prosecute them they say "wait, i didnt break the law. Its only against the law for shirts on Thursday ". So the law is it is illegal to steal. Pretty open catch all right? But what if the new person that has the item bought it legally from someone that stole it? They have the stolen item, so should they be thrown in jail? Well that is when we either change the law, add to the law, or have what is called case law. This still tries to keep as broad as possible while stoll recognizing the unique nature of the case and the individuals involved. I went into this because it then carries over to how i feel the skybreakers are broken up (originally, not the corrupted version).

 

The squires are the academy recruits. They are under the tutelage of the higher ranks.

 

The first oath knights are the beat cops. They enforce the law of the land. Their job is not to interpret nor alter the law. Their job (again this is ideally, so ideally good laws in place with ideally good trained people to carry them out. This is not meant to be a commentary on the real situation in the real world. Which is why again i say ideally because that was the original intent) to arrest. 

 

The second oath are the detectives. They still enforce the law, but their focus is more specialized. They have to investigate and delve deeper into the workings of a crime to find the right individuals to apprehend and bring to justice.

 

The third oath are the commisioners. They have to uphold the law of the location they are in. They decide the resources put towards it. They maintain the policies in place to not abuse it (ideally). 

 

The fourth oath are the judges. They are meant to interpret the law. They are the ones that can say the law says stealing is wrong, but in this case since the individual in good faith did not know the goods they purchased were stolen,  then the goods should be returned, the original person who stole it punished, and the individual who bought it be reimbursed in some manner to return them as close as possible to the state they were in prior to the purchase. Case law then sets precedent. Which means it can be used to reference in other situations and thereby becomes in a manner an enforceable law as well. 

 

Finally we reach the fifth oath. Where you become the law. Now you are the law makers. The individuals who have to (ideally) look at the world, its people, society, and culture to come up with rules that protect the most while doing the least harm.

 

Now this still sounds overly rigid. What if a beat cop goes to arrest someone and thinks that person didnt actually break the law? Well (ideally) the rest of the process should exonerate the individual. If not, then the cop has to ask themselves three things.

 

1. Am i misunderstanding the law? If so, then by going to a higher authority in the ranks, the cop can be educated and return to enforcing the law. If the cop was wrong to enforce the law in the way they did, then the commisioner would punish the cop for their actions depending on the severity and circumstance (ideally)

 

2. If i am not misunderstanding the law, can the law be changed or adapted? Here could be an oath advancement moment. This is where the knight could advance in oaths to be a detective who seeks more info to get to the true cause of the crime. And advance further to the oath of the commisioner to make sure others enforce the spirit of the law so it does not harm people. Or advance further to the judge oath where they interpret the law in a more specific way, setting precedent that those further down the line will follow. Or advance further to the fifth oath, and make new laws that take into account this new information providing reform and advancement 

 

3. Or deem the current system unjust. That by following it, the individual is going against their ideals and chose another system or code to follow.

 

The law is trying to codify the human experience. Ideally it realizes this and its short comings. Humans are messy, complicated, and unique. There will never be a perfect law that is timeless. People changes. Culture changes. Society changes. And so too does the law meant to protect it. The law must continually evolve and grow over time or it will become useless and archaic.

[Nellac]

5 hours ago, Pathfinder said:

 

 

So i think the basis of the skybreakers is the real life legal system. I believe the oaths can be broken down into levels of that system. General on the beat cops, detectives, commissioners, judges, law makers. I will break this down in a moment but just to follow up on the oaths not changing, i see the overall oaths as laws as well. First you get general and as you progress you get more defined,  specific. So first you protect those who cannot protect themselves. But that is still pretty general. What if the person is a bad person? Should you still protect them? Well i will protect those i hate so long as it is right. Well that answers that. But now the latest question seems to come to terms with when to versus when not to protect. We all have our theories but can we all agree it in some way shape or form might have a degree of this? So again being more specific. That is how (ideally) the law works. You cant start with "it is illegal to steal shirts on Thursday ". Then you get people who steal pants, or steal shirts on monday and when you try to prosecute them they say "wait, i didnt break the law. Its only against the law for shirts on Thursday ". So the law is it is illegal to steal. Pretty open catch all right? But what if the new person that has the item bought it legally from someone that stole it? They have the stolen item, so should they be thrown in jail? Well that is when we either change the law, add to the law, or have what is called case law. This still tries to keep as broad as possible while stoll recognizing the unique nature of the case and the individuals involved. I went into this because it then carries over to how i feel the skybreakers are broken up (originally, not the corrupted version).

 

I agree with you that there would be a breakdown of responsibility, but I disagree with you on the last two. I think the fourth oath would be lawmaker and fifth oath would be judge. 

My thoughts on the fourth oath come from what we know if Szeth's fourth oath. I can't remember if it's outright stated, or just hinted at, but we basically know Szeth's crusade will be against the leaders of the shin. This seems to be his way of trying to change laws he sees as corrupt, even if they aren't his code. We have also had hints that the 4th oath had to do with flaws in the orders. What bigger flaw could a Skybreaker recognize than an unjust law that must be changed?

On the fifth ideal, I think judges are more pure embodiments of the law than lawmakers. While lawmakers have power, judges can declare their laws unjust and get them removed. Judges also can set legal precedence which can act as laws in some cases. In the US many supreme court cases are better known and more strongly enforced then some laws.

As a side note, I'm in the US so I'm basing this knowledge off of that. Things probably work differently in other countries and I'm open to hearing about those. I just don't understand other legal systems well enough to use them as examples

[Pathfinder]

3 hours ago, Nellac said:

I agree with you that there would be a breakdown of responsibility, but I disagree with you on the last two. I think the fourth oath would be lawmaker and fifth oath would be judge. 

My thoughts on the fourth oath come from what we know if Szeth's fourth oath. I can't remember if it's outright stated, or just hinted at, but we basically know Szeth's crusade will be against the leaders of the shin. This seems to be his way of trying to change laws he sees as corrupt, even if they aren't his code. We have also had hints that the 4th oath had to do with flaws in the orders. What bigger flaw could a Skybreaker recognize than an unjust law that must be changed?

On the fifth ideal, I think judges are more pure embodiments of the law than lawmakers. While lawmakers have power, judges can declare their laws unjust and get them removed. Judges also can set legal precedence which can act as laws in some cases. In the US many supreme court cases are better known and more strongly enforced then some laws.

As a side note, I'm in the US so I'm basing this knowledge off of that. Things probably work differently in other countries and I'm open to hearing about those. I just don't understand other legal systems well enough to use them as examples

So this response is going to be a two parter insofar as to explain my intent.

 

First. Totally respect your interpretation of the oaths. You can totally believe that the oaths would manifest in the way you said. Not arguing that, because you are totally entitled to your opinion

 

Second. Regarding the US Legal system. The judge does not make the law. The legislative branch does. The purpose of the judicial branch is the interpretation of the law. They can interpret that a law that was passed is unjust, and thereby act as a check/balance to the legislative branch that passed the law, but the judicial branch does not create nor negate laws. The law would return to the legislative branch, where they would then review and alter the new law, which would if anyone had an issue with it, would then be reviewed by the judicial branch. Case law does count on the books and can be referenced, but it is in regards to interpreting existing laws only. Not creating new ones.

Here are two examples

1. There was a case where an individual stole from a store a large amount of jewelry. The law as written states the amount the merchandise equals monetarily will determine the severity of the crime. Over a certain amount it is a felony, under a certain amount it is a misdemeanor. The store provided an amount, and the individual would have faced felony charges and had a long jail sentence. There happened to be a video of the crime. A sales associate had forgotten to take the sale sign down the prior night despite the sale having ended. The individual's attorney argued that since the for sale sign would result in the price amount being lower than than the thresh-hold of the felony, that the individual should be charged with a misdemeanor. The judge ruled by interpreting the law and applying it to that circumstance, that a reasonable individual seeing the for sale sign still up, would conclude that the jewelry was still on sale, thereby the monetary amount including the sale discount would be the value of the merchandise stolen. So the penalty shall be a misdemeanor, not a felony. The judge did not make a new law. He or she interpreted the existing law, and applied it to a unique situation. That situation can then be applied to other similar situations. 

2. There was a case where there were two affluent individuals that were on each their second marriages, with children from prior marriages. Just in case the way I wrote that convoluted, you had Person A, with their own children from a prior marriage. You had Person B, with their own children from a prior marriage. Person A and Person B get married. They state in their will that whoever dies first, the surviving spouse gets everything, and then it is passed on to their children only. So if Person A dies, Person B gets everything, and when Person B dies, their children get everything. Well life happened and both Person A and B were on the same plane, when the plane went down and everyone on the plane died. So now both parents are dead seemingly at the same time. Who gets the money? Normally the law as it stands states that if there is no will specifying otherwise, and both individuals die at the same time, it is split evenly between both surviving families. Apparently one of the families did an autopsy on both parents, and found while one parent died of burns, the other parent died of smoke inhalation, which indicated that one parent lived for like 1 minute longer than the other. Thereby the children of that parent got all the money. Because of the griminess of all that, the judge ruled that when the time of death is so close that it is difficult to tell from a general autopsy, then the funds are split equally among both party's families. Again, the judge did not create a new law. The judge interpreted how the law applied in a unique circumstance that was not considered at the time. It can be referenced in similar circumstances to cause a judge to rule one way or the other, but it does not change the original law, nor does it create a new law. 

 

That is why I interpreted "I become the law", as the law maker is because then you would be creating laws with every action. That is a far greater responsibility (to me), because then you have to do your best to account for every circumstance and individual involved when making a decision. Versus a judge that takes the information of the case, takes their knowledge of the existing law, and interprets how the law applies. But as I said, the intention of the post was more to discuss the responsibility of the judge versus the lawmakers rather than disagree on your interpretation of the oaths. Feel free to interpret them in which ever order you reason, and I wish you luck!

 

edit: sorry I think I got carried away and waxed on, so for a TLDR version:

Szeth is going for the Shamanate because he believes they carried out the law incorrectly. That they had full knowledge that what Szeth said was true, yet ruled that it was not. So Szeth is not changing the law, he is challenging their interpretation/ruling of it. Which is why I conclude that is the oath of the judge. He is not changing the law, he is making a ruling based on the existing law.

Edited June 28, 2020 by Pathfinder

[Honorless he/him]

It's... fair

We've seen a group of murderous Skybreakers, their murderous Herald, and Szeth, who's also pretty murderous

They're extreme examples of following this Order's precept. But looking at their Ideals, they have the potential to be good people like anyone else. I rather like their system of Ideals actually, which I was not expecting.

Edited June 29, 2020 by R J
use of '&' was looked confusing in this context

[Karger he/him]

4 hours ago, Pathfinder said:

 

That is why I interpreted "I become the law", as the law maker is because then you would be creating laws with every action.

It could also be a group of people more like the US Supreme Court.  The court does not legislate but it can define the meaning of a given law or strike down a law that is unconstitutional.  This is basically a narrow kind of legislation but it is not exactly lawmaking.

[Pathfinder]

9 hours ago, Karger said:

It could also be a group of people more like the US Supreme Court.  The court does not legislate but it can define the meaning of a given law or strike down a law that is unconstitutional.  This is basically a narrow kind of legislation but it is not exactly lawmaking.

Totally respect thats the way you see it and i wish you luck with it. For myself, interpreting the law means a law has to already exist and be external/separate from you. By "being the law", taking an action defines the law. It is the difference to me between:

 

1. Saying someone should be arrested for murder and defining what murder is

Versus

2. Saying someone who committed murder should be held to different consequences because of specific circumstances 

 

One defines the law and determines how it will apply broadly, while the other interprets and determines how it applies narrowly. Case law does create precedent that can be referenced in other cases, but the judges of other cases are under no compulsion or requirement to apply the case law to their situation. They are however required to apply the laws that exist and interpret that application. So a person killed another person on a tuesday while wearing red. The judge can rule based on what it means to kill and the severity based on the law as it is and the circumstances of the crime. What they cannot do however is determine that red makes me people more violent, leading to the crime occuring, and thereby outlaw wearing red. It is a subtle difference but an important one in the legal system. 

I just want to stress again not saying you cannot interpret the oaths the way you do. My commentary is mainly regarding the way the legal system works.

 

Edit: had another thought that may help. So lets take the case regarding the woman stealing jewerly. The judge ruled the signs were enough to lower the price to result in a decreased sentence. Then a similar crime occurs. Again a for sale sign was left up. The lawyer in that case brings up the prior case, citing that due to that ruling, the same concept should apply. The judge in the new case disagrees. The judge rules that either because in small lettering the sign says when the sale ends or there was an advertisement out the previous day announcing the sale ended when it did (which would be considered open and notorious), that the full price of the jewerly stands and the new person gets a felony charge. So the lawyer of the new defendant appeals the decision and goes to a higher court. That higher court then gets to interpret the law and decide which court it thinks interprets the law correctly. That ruling then applies to that case. That then sets a precedent that lends more weight if another case comes forward that is similar, but it still does not require the judge to have to interpret it that way. And again if the defendant doesnt like the result, they appeal to a higher court. Which then decides if it is worth their time at all, and if its worth their time, whether they agree the precedent they made applies in the new new case or not.

But what the judge does not get to do, is say the person who stole the jewerly was wearing a hat on a Thursday.  That wearing a hat on a thursday is now illegal and the individual who did that will have to spend 5 to 10 years in jail.

 

Further the supreme courts ability to rule a law unjust is not final. Its meant to act as a check, not law creation. If the law returns to the legislative branch and gets enough support, it can over-ride that check. In addition if the executive branch gets involved it could either help get the law passed or stop it from happening altogether (power of veto that can happen in certain situations and even that can be over turned). So the other branches certainly have a say and a limited ability to affect a law (hence the checks and balances) but they still at the end of the day are not the law makers. That is the legislative branch

 

Edit 2:

Ok one more example in real life though i must stress i am not advocating either direction. I am only using the situation to illustrate the function, not the belief behind it. Roe v wade ruled that the government could not excessively restrict a women's choice to get an abortion. That is a supreme court ruling that struck down many state and federal laws. So it could be said that decision made law right? Yet another later case partially over ruled it, and now there are laws in place at a state level that limit a womans choice to get an abortion. The judges interpreted the law in a way that resulted it in being used as an example in other cases. When other cases came up, it was ruled to not apply or apply in other ways. Further later laws were created to get around that ruling. Regardless whether you agree with the ruling or not, a new law was not created. It was interpreted. And the subsequent results of that interpretation was further interpreted or new laws were created by the state governments that accomplished the earlier goals but was not seen as in conflict with the ruling.

Edited June 29, 2020 by Pathfinder