Pathfinder

I think there has been some confusion. Personally I believe Jasnah was right to kill those men. Further in a prior post I explained why I believed legally both in book world as well as real world, she would have gotten off. My subsequent posts later was taking a concept presented, which was that killing should be the last option, and she should have instead apprehended them, and for general discourse posited a change of perspective. Maybe if I explain what caused me to think like this. I was reading a book regarding how perception works in regards to psychology and cultures. So for instance most cultures view the future as the progression forward, in front, that we move towards. The book I read mentioned a culture that sees the future as behind, and the past as ahead. The reasoning being that we can remember or "see" the past, but the future has not been yet, so since we cannot remember or "see" it our back is to it, and it flows from behind us to in front of us. So going on that idea of a change of perspective I opted to inquire if the same view was then applied from a different perspective and if people believed it was a valid way of understanding the world. That is why I took the idea that killing is the last possible action and all other options must be exhausted and then applied it to the criminals. There they did not exhaust all other possibilities before killing. So how would that concept apply to them? Then taking the idea that Jasnah should have apprehended the men and not killed them, I extrapolated on the circumstances that would flow from that. If Jasnah was not to take an action to result in those men's deaths, then would their subsequent crimes have any connection to her. And thereby would her not killing them be considered unethical as she had the power to prevent the crimes, but took an action she knew ultimately would not prevent them. Now my response in so far as thinking the situation as presented out in regards to your objections, I replied before that unless an honor guard was required to be around her at all times, a group of thugs attacking and or killing Jasnah would not result in war. If a benefactor was proven, it would still have to be shown that she was the target. Otherwise it could be argued that she herself did not take proper precautions in a foreign land. Now the Alethi could still go and claim that as a reason to declare war, because frankly with the way the Alethi were, they could say the fluffy clouds formed a middle finger while in kharbranth, so they are offended and will take over. But at the time of the book, they were focused on the shattered plains, and were fragmented. It would be difficult to join them all together to attack. Sadeas would probably quip about Jasnah being a foolish girl unable to take care of herself. In all likelihood, I would imagine that the benefactor would be suitably horrified about the misunderstanding, and swear off all such activity. That they were taken advantage and are simply aghast. Then simply continue the enterprise in such a way to avoid detection for awhile. So although there is the fact that this has happened multiple times before, and in every instance it resulted in the murder of the individuals dead and although there is the fact that they trapped the women, and held weapons one could still say as you did that either they may have changed their mind, or been the wrong people. It could be if not for one crucial thing. One of the men approached Jasnah and went to stab her. It is as he moved to stab her, she then reached out, touched him, and changed him to fire. The novel was very clear on that order. The man attacked with lethal intent with a lethal weapon. Up until that point Jasnah had done nothing. So forgetting all other information. Forget the prior crimes. Forget the fact the men surrounded them. Forget that they are armed. We are showed clearly in the book the man struck first with a weapon. He did not threaten. Did not state "give me your money or else" and then Jasnah resisted. There was no dialogue. There was no quid pro quo. He approached, he stabbed. Which is why I stated in my initial post that the first guy was pure self defense. If it was in a normal court of law, it would be difficult to prove the other three were not, as the lack of two bodies (smoke) and the crystal one could be explained away. However if the court could examine the same factual retelling word for word as we have, the subsequent three men would not be self defense, as they attempted to flee the scene. Hopefully all that clarified my earlier posts. As a follow up, do you see a possibility where one could consider in this situation that not killing the men be unethical?

Basically seinfield and crew were traveling someplace and had to stop off in a town. While walking around the town, an overweight individual gets robbed right in front of them (they watched from across the street). They watched it happen, made jokes about the weight and robbery and munched on popcorn, then continued on their way. It is revealed in the episode that the town had just passed something to the effect of "negligent bystander ". They are then arrested and it becomes a trial of character where all their past interactions are shown to establish the type of people they are. They are ruled to be horribly inconsiderate and selfish and are jailed. The episode ends with them sitting in jail talking.

LOL so yeah i made the edit but took too long to post it. Correct it should be: "That sounds to me it would be unethical to do nothing, but not punishable " Also a little joke to lighten the mood, i would imagine you would disagree strongly with Seinfeld's finale lol.

Ok, thank you for the follow up answer. Then, and I am not trying to put words in your mouth, so if I misrepresent, I apologize in advance and it was not my intention. But when you say he is at fault for doing nothing, that sounds to me that it would be unethical to do nothing, but not punishable. Hence the difference between fault versus responsible. Did I understand correctly? (I started to write this addition but figure I will add it here instead. Just to be clear, not trying to trick or entrap you. Genuinely wanting to understand. You could have just answered yes, and I would consider the question asked and answered) (added "not" in front of punishable. taking the time to write this because it is a subtle change, but bears much much meaning and could lead to large misunderstandings lol)

Totally respect that, and that was the point of bringing it up at all, was curiosity at how people would handle the question. I do have a follow up question. So they are never responsible, even if they have the power to prevent it, and through their inaction it is able to occur?

There wasn't any proof of who the benefactor is. Even if there was proof, Jasnah would have to prove the men specifically targeted her. She went out at night without any personal protection nor informed the local authorities she would be leaving, so it is not an issue on the party of Kharbranth failing to protect her. She could certainly have demanded their heads for having been accosted, but then we get back to the issue presented of her going right to the killing. That they should have been captured so they could be jailed. Basically given a continual statement across this thread is that killing should be the absolute last option, then by extension this means there cannot be a resolution preventing further deaths sourced at killing the men nor their benefactor. That only after every other avenue was tried first, says to me that if at any point in the scenario Jasnah called for these individuals deaths, unless they actively targeted her directly (and even then given her powers she should still incapacitate them), then her killing of them should not be considered. Hmm, I had trouble writing that sentence in a coherent way. Let me try this: 1. Killing is always the last possible action 2. There is always a way to incapacitate and detain those men 3. If those men are not killed, they will get out and do the crime again If killing must always be the last possible action, and there is always a way for her to incapacitate and detain them (which there is given her powers), then there will be no ending of the crime. If the men are apprehended, and the benefactor is revealed. Then they must be jailed. But the system is corrupt, so they will be released to continue. As she cannot kill them, she must catch them again, and detain them again. As the system is corrupt, and she has no way to reform it, they will get out again. That is what I meant. So out of curiosity, given the situation, can there be another perspective where it is unethical for her to go through a process where she knows ultimately more people will die? When she has the power to prevent it.

I was positing on the premise that she could have incapacitated them and followed the letter of the local law. So soulcasted manacles on them as a citizens arrest. Notified the police. The police collected them, and she went on her way. If she then had the benefactor assassinated, the same issue would have been brought up. How she should have exposed the benefactor and had him or her arrested instead of jumping to killing the benefactor. Which still would not have worked as the benefactor is clearly very well connected while Jasnah is an outsider and further Jasnah ends up having to leave. After which things would go right back to the way they were. But to be clear my last post was not meant to use that example as a means of saying what she did was ok. I was just curious to think on it from another angle. Basically we were discussing whether it was ethical or not for her to kill those men, but I was wondering if it would be ethical for her not to kill them? And by proxy potentially be responsible for any subsequent deaths due to her inaction?

So I was going to add this to my prior post because I just thought of it, and I don't want this to seem like I am replying to Inquisitor#5 as they have excused themselves from the conversation. This post was thought of completely prior to reading Inquisitor#5's post, and is not meant to be a response to his or her points. It has been stated that Jasnah should not have killed the criminals but rather apprehended them. I think it is safe to say we all acknowledge and agree the local legal system would not have done anything to the individuals, and had they been apprehended, they probably would have ended right back up on the street. So this harkens me to the whole Batman and Joker problem. Batman always has the means of outthinking the Joker and capturing him. But also Batman always has a means of killing the Joker. Everytime Batman incapacitates the Joker, the Joker is sent to jail. A jail he shortly escapes from, and then kills people. Batman finds and apprehends the Joker. The Joker goes to jail, escapes, and kills again. It has been posited that after a certain point, Batman begins to have a moral responsibility to those lives lost each time he chooses to capture the Joker and each time the Joker escapes and then kills. Batman knows the Joker if not captured will kill. Batman also knows the Joker has proven his capability to escape time and time again. So at what point does placing Joker in the same situation, knowing he will most certainly escape and end more lives, result in criminal negligence on the part of Batman? Those subsequent lives did not have to be lost. It is a proven formula across the comics over and over again. Place the Joker in jail, the Joker will get out. If the Joker is out, people die. Rinse and repeat. So if Jasnah knows these individuals will get off, and go right back to doing it again (as per the police being informed, and they bribed the cops and continued to do as they have), then does Jasnah, an individual with the power to end the cycle, not have an ethical duty to the lives lost if she does nothing or an action she knows will amount to nothing? That by using soulcasting to apprehend those men, knowing that they will just get back out and kill again, does she not bear some responsibility for those deaths by extension?

So this statement is not to change your mind, nor as a proof that Jasnah's actions were ok. I find these things interesting, so I posit a change of perspective for you to think on. You present the numerical options on the part of Jasnah. She had multiple options to incapacitate the men without killing them so by killing them, she jumped to the last option. Let us change perspective for a moment. The men were known to kill theater goers that passed through the alley. It was enough of an occurrence that the subject was even noticed by the ruler (Taravangian). It was enough of an occurrence that it was brought before the local police force who were told to pay special attention to it. These men had multiple chances to change their ways. They on multiple occasions went to the extreme and last option of killing their targets. They were notorious enough that they knew the police and higher authorities were aware of their actions. Despite all of this, they did not: 1. Say to themselves "oh my, I feel killing people is wrong. Maybe I should think about stopping". How do we know? Because they kept doing it a whole bunch more times and did it again to Jasnah. 2. Say to themselves "oh crap, I might get in trouble for this. Maybe I should stop". How do we know? Because they bribed the cops, and had a benefactor that protected them So from this other perspective. On multiple occasions, when there were multiple options for them to steal without killing, or stop altogether, they jumped right to murder.

By stating what Jasnah did was entrapment, is. Entrapment is a defense to prevent the defendant from being prosecuted for the crime they committed. It is stating the individuals would not have committed the crime otherwise. Which is not the case. Here would be another example It is the equivalency of a known drug dealer that is known to deal on a specific corner to teenagers from a local school. Cops stage a stake out, and have a kid wired walk by the drug dealer. The drug dealer calls out to the kid "hey i got some real primo stuff to deal. Its just twenty bucks. You interested?" The kid is the target group. The cops had the kid walk by the drug dealer in the location the drug dealer is known to deal drugs. By the logic presented, the kid was bait, and the drug dealer should not be prosecuted because it was entrapment. Which is not the case at all. The drug dealer was not lured to another location. The drug dealer was known to deal drugs in that location. The kid did not approach the drug dealer first. The drug dealer initiated the exchange. The drug dealer was under no outside compunction to commit the crime. It does not matter that the kid walked by the drug dealer with the intent for the drug dealer to be caught. The kid did not make the drug dealer attempt to sell drugs. The cops did not make the drug dealer attempt to sell drugs. It is still not entrapment. My statements were in response to presenting Jasnah's actions as entrapment, which it was not. For the purposes of entrapment in that case, her intentions were immaterial. For the purposes of self defense charges, it could play a part, but again, she did not take any direct action to initiate the crime. To use another example, though unsavory, so I apologize in advance. If a group marches with racist signs in a neighborhood that is predominantly the race the signs refers to, the group is still not ruled as baiting. So long as they themselves do not take any overt aggressive or violent act, and they have a permit to protest, they can do so. If anyone attacks the group because of the signs or things the group states, then the attacker is then arrested. Jasnah did not change anything about herself. She literally threw some clothes on after a bath and walked down that alley. If a serial killer tends to kill blondes, and a blonde goes out at night, does that mean she baited him? The woman could take measures to protect herself, realizing she would be a target but still go about her business and that would not be baiting. The only way it would be baiting is if the killer in question is off doing their own thing. Whether at home, or hanging out with friends. An individual then tracks down the killer, and actively pulls the killer away from their normal actions, and presents a situation where the killer then would act where they normally would not. That is baiting. Nothing Jasnah did from her bathroom, to the killers deaths involved her actively pulling them away from their usual routine. They did not know it was her in particular. There was nothing special about her for her to be selected. Any other person walking down that alley would have, and has experienced the exact same situation.

Nope. It even goes so far as stating one of the possible criteria for it to be entrapment is that the location be a place where it does not make sense for the crime to take place. The idea is if a normal person with no connection whatsoever to crime could be tricked into doing it, then it is entrapment. There was no duplicity on Jasnah's part. She did not coerce, cajole, or in any way turn these criminals from their usual path. Does. Not. Matter. There is not any law that states walking anywhere means getting accosted is now "legal" and permitted. Still not entrapment. Otherwise police would never be able to conduct stake outs. She really didn't. Legally and otherwise. She did not go to various taverns proclaiming loudly "hey im rich, and defenseless and in exactly 10 minutes I am going to be alllll alone over in this place". The criminals did not vacate a place to then go there in pursuit of her. Shalln confirmed as much from her perspective. The criminals had staked out the location. The criminals trapped the women. The first criminal swung the blade at Jasnah first. In that regard her intentions mean nothing. She did not take any active action to affect anything in their actions. The only thing she did was walk down that alley. And that is not enough to be constituted baiting, and most definitely is not entrapment There really isn't. Because there is never a situation or a law that says attacking or killing someone is suddenly legal because "well they should have known better than to walk there". Because what if the person really didn't know better? What if that invisible line shifts over time? What if more territory becomes a bad neighborhood? Are people now allowed and legal to be attacked because they happen to have to live in a bad neighborhood? Or what if someone normally travels through that area perfectly fine, but because of occurrences, end up traveling home late and has no choice but to go down that route? Is the violence suddenly permissible then? You are certainly entitled to think the person was foolish to walk down an alley alone flashing millons of dollars, but that does not make it legal, nor does it justify the assailants actions.

So I dropped by to comment on a few things. First, what Jasnah did is not entrapment. The definition is when you induce a person to commit a crime that the person "would have otherwise been unlikely or unwilling to commit". The individuals were known to attack people on that route (established propensity for the crime). The individuals had the means to commit the crime on them (had weapons). The individuals pursued the women, and struck first (the assailant stabbed at Jasnah before anything occurred). Jasnah at no point artificially placed them in that location. She did not place weapons in their hands. She did not taunt, theaten, or take any action to cause them to attack. Being an individual with expensive clothing, walking anywhere is never a legal recourse to commit a crime. Second, based on the law of the land, in world, at the time, nothing would happen to Jasnah. She did not have the authority to adjudicate as she was not a member of the government. What she did have however, is justification in world to kill those men. She was a lighteyes being assaulted. Lighteyes men can draw a blade on a person who says something they consider offensive, and kill the person. All legal, all fine. And before it is said that because she had the soulcaster, it is different, it is mentioned in the book, and in our world back then as well, that there were people who were exceptional with a sword who would deliberately take offense or look for excuses to get into a fight, because they knew they could easily kill the person. And it was still considered fine and legal. The only concern, especially in the world of the novels, is that you were a person of power that felt you were offended. Third, based on the law of the land, in our world, assuming the US law, with investigation. Jasnah would still get off. The prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jasnah went there with the intention of finding those individuals and killing them. Shallan would be a crucial witness, but it would be difficult to make it stick. All other aspects of the story would be unable to be proven. It is an alley known to be the shortest distance to the theater. It is an alley that was known for being used by the affluent. The danger the alley posed was knowledgeable to locals. Jasnah is not a local. Soulcasters are not seen by the local populace as a weapon, but a tool to create fortifications, and food. The first individual was turned to fire, so no body. The second was turned into crystal, and appears to have fallen backwards. The remaining two that fled were turned into smoke, so again no body. (this is how it would have been presented in court as there is no way other than Shallan to prove otherwise and Shallan can be discredited as a witness) It would be reasonable to conclude if presented as such, that Jasnah was in fact out for a walk. She had no prior knowledge of the danger the alleyway presented (unless she wrote down her research on the alley or she did prior scouting, her prior knowledge would be difficult to prove). She did not enter the alleyway with a weapon. She was able to turn the soulcaster to her defense. The only body recovered shows she had shoved the assailant away as she transformed it into crystal (the first body is fire, so no way to prove intent. the third and fourth body are smoke, so no way to show they were fleeing). Upon investigation, it is revealed that the alley is a known hotspot and that MO has been committed on multiple occasions in the past. Thereby ruled self defense. The above was going based on how the occurrence would have been investigated. We are supremely fortunate to be able to read the entire experience as it happens and be able to refer back to it with absolute clarity. A court does not have that privilege. A court has to do its best to recreate what occurred based on the evidence provided, and paint a picture. Then rule based on that picture. The only real physical evidence that could be employed would be the positioning of the crystal body, and Shallan's testimony. There are numerous avenues to discredit Shallan's testimony and call into question its veracity. Having stated that, if however, the court was able to review a line by line factual and verifiable account of what occurred in that moment, then self defense would be out the window. Turning the first individual to fire is self defense. He came at her with a knife in close quarters. She did the best a reasonable individual would have done in a high pressure situation when their life is in danger. Do anything with whatever is available to you to end the threat. In that moment, the "level" of the means taken to end the threat is immaterial. Her life was in immediate danger. A normal reasonable person does not have the state of mind to calmly consider the weapon that is being used to end her life, and thereby then have the time to calmly consider and call up the appropriate level of response. So as I said, individual one would be self defense. Individual two, three and four however immediately began to flee the scene. Now in some cases it has been argued successfully that it would be still self defense if it could be proven the fleeing individual was leaving to get a higher level of response. So for instance running away to get a weapon, or call for reinforcements. Thereby it would be shown the threat did not end, and if left to its own devices, would increase. But in this case it is ruled that a reasonable individual would do whatever they could to get away from a threat. If they could not get away, then they would do whatever they could to minimize or end the threat, and then attempt to get away. As the three individuals were fleeing from her, she would have had ample time to then flee with Shallan. An example to illustrate (this is a real case). Two individuals in a house were having an argument. Individual B flees out of the house, grabs a shotgun from the car, comes back, and shoots individual A. Individual B pled self defense. That he felt like his life was in danger. This was disproven by individual B's actions. Individual B got out of the house. Individual A did not pursue. Thereby individual B could have fled and got help. Instead individual B returned. Thereby individual B's shooting of individual A was not self defense. As to my thoughts on whether or not Jasnah did the right thing? Given the scenario (continual killings, with no way for the individuals to be prosecuted and held accountable by law, coupled with the fact that they did initiate the attack at no prompting for Jasnah), I think she did the right thing.

Alloy of Law page 137 "He's building an army. he picks the people he does because he suspects that they're secretly Allomancers. The fact that they aren't open about it makes it harder to recognize what he's doing" Then as I said before, at the end of the book, it is revealed the focus was the insurance fraud. I understand the point you are trying to make, but what is plausible for a freelance investigator (who specializes in genology, correction, an uncle who specialized in genology) versus what is plausible for the general population (and police force mind you) are two entirely different matters. The police assumed it was for ransom. They made no attempt to consider the idea that the nobility could have any connection to allomancy. So it can be true simultaneously. also WoB supporting what frustration said: Yoonseo Chang Looking at Allomancy, you've mentioned that over time the power dilutes and each ability becomes less powerful. (for example a Tineye in Era 2 will generally be less powerful than one in Era 1) Does the same effect happen in Feruchemy as well? How would Feruchemy become less pure or diluted (other than Ferrings appearing)? Brandon Sanderson I have not gone as far with Feruchemy in that regard. I would say that if you're going to get a weakening of Feruchemy, which you're asking about, is the amount of stored attribute you get for lost attribute. There is decay there, you don't get a 1:1. Feruchemy generally I would say is not much weaker than it was before, a little bit but not much. This was done partially for narrative reasons. I wanted Allomancy... I wanted to back off a little on Allomancy and tell stories with it a little bit weaker. Again, mostly narrative reasons at this point. At this point on Scadrial, it's weakened about as much as it's going to because by this point people are having children that are more powerful because of the certain mixing. I'm not saying it's going up, I'm saying they have hit an equilibrium on Scadrial for the most part, at least in the Basin. YouTube Livestream 32 (June 3, 2021) Questioner In Mistborn, as the Eras are going on, the powers get diluted because of people passing down the bloodlines. Once we reach the Third and Fourth Era, the powers are going to be--won't they be a lot weaker, and not very useful? Brandon Sanderson They will become weaker, but there's a maximum level of dilution... There's a maximum level that you can reach pretty quickly, if you're only counting the northern continent. Because of the limited number of progenitors. So, Era 3 we're not going to have a problem. And they're also trying to figure out ways around this. Legion Release Party (Sept. 19, 2018)

The reason for the targets as mentioned in the books as well as in WoB (ill provide the quotes later) is because if they targeted allomancers of other classes, then it would be obvious they were going after allomancers. They needed it to be covert so they targeted affluent women making it look like they were going for money, and they did that knowing they could get it wrong and grab people without allomantic ability anyway.

They are not the major religions. The court of gods was the major religion of nalthis. The two major religions of sel speak nothing of the shards. The steel inquisition was a major religion for ages but no mention of preservation and ruin. But it does come with societal regulations. It didnt make sense. Wax said as much. And its confirmed not to be the reason at the end of the book "Waxillium closed his eyes, feeling a dread. I’ve been chasing chickens this entire time, he realized. While someone stole the horses. It wasn’t about robberies, or even kidnappings. It was insurance fraud. “We needed only the temporary disappearance of goods,” Edwarn said. “And everything has worked out perfectly. Thank you.” And what about the individuals i mentioned? Nope. They were in a farming town in the middle of no where.

As of Era 2 it is. As I said, as per WoB and the book everyone is related. The genes have diluted as much as they are going to. Its been confirmed. See you keep saying that, but as I mentioned before, what about Lift? Ym? Vathah? and so on? Associates of radiants. Doesn't matter whether they are rich or not. Kaladin was a bridgeman, amongst the lowest of the low. The rest of the bridgecrew's association led to them bonding spren. Dalinar said Kaladin and his men were free to go. Kaladin could have walked away. No power over him. Also if you recall Kaladin specified that he swore to Dalinar, not the kingdom. There was a rather in depth convo on the subject. Again, it seems like you are focused on Vorinism, not the knights radiant. If you take issue with that religion, then totally to each their own. But regarding the knights radiant of old, that is not how things worked. You are totally entitled to feel however you wish about his arc. For me, that still doesn't change the nature of the knights radiant.

Except in the books as I showed with Wax and Wayne, the powers are so diluted, and everyone is related, so the aristocracy is associated with houses close to the saviors of the world. Not individuals with allomancy or feruchemy. Anyone with the know how can conduct hemalurgy. It has no connection to your status monetarily wise. Kaladin was a doctor's son from a backwater village. Lift was a thief. Ym was a shoemaker. Stump ran an orphanage. Vathah was a deserter. Radiants continue to pop up across the globe, from other walks of life. The WoB showed it had nothing to do with royalty or nobility. It had to do with location, and association. People that tend to exemplify windrunner ideals tend to hang out with each other. Same thing with lightweavers, and elsecallers, and willshapers and edgedancers, and etc. The first radiant to truly "pop up" was Kaladin. You can certainly interpret the sprens actions in whatever light you wish. Personally I disagree. And I am not touching Dalinar and Rathalas with a 10 foot pole Kaladin and Syl stated in the book why the oath was nearly broken. It is because he gave an oath to Dalinar to protect Elhokar. Then he made an oath to Moash to let Elhokar die. Hence the conflict. Had nothing to do with the fact that Elhokar was a king, and Dalinar was royalty. People on both sides of a war will want to protect. People on both sides of a war will feel their cause is just. People on both sides of a war will feel like their own people are vulnerable. What is seen as evil by one side, is understandable and worthy of defending by the other. It was Kaladin's entire arc. It rewards those who hold similar values. Those values are not themselves intrinsically authoritarian. They can be interpreted by some individuals and represented as such, but that is not indicative of the structure.

So the reason I listed the magic systems I did was in response to the belief that the shard they are associated with as a national religion would employ these abilities as a means of control on society. I was presenting that the means of attaining as well as the maintenance of these abilities prevents that. Now having said that, let us take the examples of hereditary magic, such as mistborn/feruchemists/ferrings/mistings. After the end of the world, there was a significantly smaller population left over to re-populate the world. Wax even comments to Wayne how it is because of all the intermarrying with such a small population, everyone in modern day is in one manner or another related. That Wax, a noble, bears some relation to Wayne, working class. Further we have WoB stating that the mistborn and feruchemical traits have diluted as much as they are going to. It has reached a form of homeostasis. Edward Ladrian had no powers to speak of. Other noble families mentioned at the parties lacked any abilities. There hasn't been a mistborn in hundreds of years. So although the society applies preference to employing the metalurgically abled as it were, the nobility is not purely based on having abilities. If anything the nobility was built around the houses of individuals that were close to Vin and Elend. That is no different than a war hero in european countries being awarded land and a title, that the issue of that estate could ride on for some time. So my point is the nobility is more by association than magical ability. As to the murder portion, the point is anyone theoretically could do it. Noble, or pauper. All you need to know is the proper bind points. For SA, I disagree. the magic system penalizes Kaladin for acting against his own personal interpretation of his oaths. He felt he made an oath to Dalinar to protect Elhokar. He then agreed with Moash to kill Elhokar. Hence the problem. To take an extreme example and fall to Godwin's law, windrunners could have been just as easily been on the nazi side as on the allied side. All based on the perspective of the knight. I would go into detail into the rationale but I do not want to digress. Suffice it to say, being a windrunner does not require you to obey or maintain royalty. And that is not even counting all the other orders of knights that are under no compunction to do so either. I think the issue is Honor is being lumped in with Vorinism. The belief structure and functioning of the knights radiant in ancient times is really quite different than the Vorinism we see in modern times. Classical knights radiant did not care whether you were male or female. If you wanted to fight, you could fight. Classical knights radiant saw fighting as a burden one voluntarily undertakes. A burden that must be trained to help handle. Not something to pursue for the sake of "being the best". In books as well as in WoB, many knights radiant did not fight. It didn't even matter if the order you belonged to had an especially destructive ability. It was not automatically expected that you would be martially inclined, nor were you forced to do so. At Tanavast's end, he was more focused on keeping to the express letter of an oath, than anything to do with the actual content. That can thereby be applied to anything. You could make an oath to never obey anyone. You could make an oath that all governments are bad. So long as you keep to it, honor gives you a thumbs up. edit: Ah yes and one more thing. It has been covered in WoB as to why the Kholins are mostly radiants and it has nothing to do with them being royalty. Alethkar had a higher concentration of radiant spren because of its historical location being where most radiants set up shop other than Urithiru. Secondly, spren tend towards individuals involved in "big" things, insofar as can take action to effect change. A peasant from a farm community in the middle of no where became the first windrunner in ages. Finally spren tend to bond into families already with a radiant, not because the family is now royalty, but because if your father is a radiant, you can assume the parent is going to impart at least some of his beliefs onto his child. Which would then cause the child to lend towards the behavior most likely to attract that kind of spren. But it is not always so. A father windrunner, could have a kid that bonds an elsecaller spren. Or no spren at all. (adding the WoB as I pull them up) Questioner Why are there so many Kholins that are Radiants? Is there a story reason or... Brandon Sanderson There is a story reason, kind of. So the Kholin family is in Alethkar, which was the hereditary-- one of the homes of the Knights Radiant. It's still kind of in the forefront of the-- how shall we say-- the collective unconscious and things like this. Plus there's-- Questioner And then they are on the forefront of that. Brandon Sanderson Yes. I mean-- Yeah. And so the spren, some of them are naturally looking for where a lot of Radiants used to be. So it's just a higher concentration of spren around the area, if that makes sense? Shadows of Self London UK signing (Oct. 19, 2015) Argent (paraphrased) Did all orders of Knights Radiants use Shardplate? Brandon Sanderson (paraphrased) It was available to all of them, and they could (all) use it. Many Knights (not Orders) chose not to. There were Knights who were not soldiers and had not interest in wearing Shardplate. Steelheart Chicago signing (Oct. 1, 2013) Soni Is there a reason for why so many early Radiants were family? Including theorized ones, we have Tien and Kaladin, Jasnah and Elhokar, Dalinar and Renarin, Shallan and Helaran... Brandon Sanderson Yes, so I can give you the "how the sausage is made," I call this the narrative reason vs the in-world reason. I can give you both. In-world reasoning is that, when these bonds are forming, these human beings have bonds to other people, and that naturally leads the spren along those bonds. When Kaladin is forming a bond with a windspren [honorspren], and windspren [honorspren] start looking, or even other sapient spren start looking for people, they're going to notice. Remember, they're coming into the Physical Realm, it's very hard for them. They're doing this partially from the Cognitive Realm, searching and trying to get pulled through by the attention and the bond that is forming. They're naturally led to other people who are related. You could even say that, because of Tien, Syl found Kaladin. I built this in for a narrative reason, and the narrative reason is: we generally are going to want to have a larger than average number of people among the core characters, who are involved in the magic system, and involved in the narrative. Because the magic system is so important in my books, I knew that I was gonna have a lot of friends and family of main characters end up with spren bonds. But I don't think this is unusual. In fact, I think this is more true to life. It's not one of those coincidences we make up for a book; it's one of those coincidences that happens in life that seems unusual. It seems unusual if you look at it and say, "There are five people who became full-time in the publishing industry during the year Brandon was a senior at BYU. And they are all friends; in fact, they were all friends before they got published." This seems unusual; like, why didn't anyone else? There is nobody else that I know that broke in into the industry from that year. Maybe it happened, but nobody I knew who wasn't in our immediate friend group. Well, this is not that surprising if you actually look at it, because when one person breaks in, it becomes so much easier for everyone else that knew that person. Not just for networking reasons. (Networking reasons: obvious). The other obvious one is: the people are gonna know each other because they're all gonna be moving in the same circles, looking for each other without knowing it. They're gonna be looking for other good writers, and they're gonna be making connections with them. They're gonna notice when people ask questions in a class that are the right kinds of questions to be asking about getting published. But even beyond those two things, once I broke in, Dan Wells has said before he realized, "Brandon did this; this is real. He actually did this. I can do this." And indeed, he went and broke in. Once this thing that seems impossible, whether it's becoming a full time novelist, or forming a spren bond and becoming a Knight Radiant; once you've seen somebody do it, it becomes way easier for you to conceive of yourself doing it. This is why C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien were in the same writing group. This is why you see this sort of thing happening all around the world and in all sorts of professions, that people who were friends together... Every time that people are like, "Wow, these three major Hollywood stars knew each other in high school." Well, yes, that is actually more likely to happen than not, because of all these reasons I've talked about. YouTube Livestream 23 (Dec. 17, 2020)

Thank you for clarifying! I understand better now. I still completely disagree and will say why below, but don't want you to think I am trying to change your mind or say you are wrong. Just explaining why that doesn't work for myself. Vorinism breaks the callings by masculine and feminine arts. So if you were male (cough Elhokar cough) and are artistic, Vorinism would stunt your progression. If you were female (cough Lyn cough) and were combat inclined, Vorinism would stunt your progression. Vorinism was built into Alethi culture. Don't contribute in the religion, the ardents will do it for you. Going back to the viking mentality of fighting and killing for your god. Compete and win. Prove you are better than everyone else, does not sound very life before death, strength before weakness, journey before destination to me. Dalinar was treated as weak and a nutzo because of that. It was shown as completely antithetical to Alethi and by extension Vorin ideals. It also isn't about picking what you are good at. First as I mentioned with the division of masculine and feminine arts, but further poor versus rich. Dark eyes versus lighteyes. A darkeyes farmer can't choose an officer's calling for instance. There is also availability. Depending on your location and standing, you may not even have access to an ardent that could help you with your calling. And finally as I said, the callings don't all line up with the oaths of the radiant orders. So you could focus on a calling your entire life and come no closer to attracting a spren. I understand you are not saying it is a guarantee. That it is more like a guidance to helps put you in the right direction, but from what I have seen, being a squire to a knight fills that role. Personally I do not see anything about Vorinism that lends its adherents to acting in such a way that results in an increased chance of becoming a radiant. edit: Further after re-reading your post, my point is none of the religions make you more likely to have a certain magic system. Some of them even fly completely in the face of the power system. Sand mastery being chief among them. The main religion hates and reviles them. Same thing with forgery and blood sealing.

I have to check for sure, but here are examples of magic users that have nothing to do with their shard's intent (as in, have to act a certain way in order to use the power) 1. mistborn 2. feruchemist 3. misting 4. ferring 5. hemalurgy 6. forgery 7. bloodsealing (potentially. it seemed to have been presented like forgery. It can be trained and depends on living in an area) 8. dakhor (like hemalurgy, you just have to do the ritual to get powers. nothing requires you to be dominiony to have the power) 9. All the knights radiant for two reasons: a. spren do not only bond the higher class. they have bonded peasants, thieves, bridgemen, deserters, and etc. b. following the oaths is determinate on how the individual interprets them. The fact that knights of multiple orders can be on either side of the current conflict and still hold to their oaths proves this as well as WoB supporting it. 10. awakening 11. sand mastery So personally I do not see anything about the magic systems that require those that use it to be authoritarian and have to prescribe to the shard's way of seeing things. The only one I can really think of are elantrians and that is only because we don't fully know how they are chosen. I feel I remember a WoB as well as a mention in the book that being extra devoted doesn't mean you become an elantrian. Just where you live. So i posted the same time you commented, but I feel a point I made in the above post fields this. Personal perspective and interpretation affects how the oaths are carried out. There is nothing inherently religious connected to Vorinism that I believe applies to windrunner's oaths. The callings mirror some of the ideals, but taken out of context. For instance lightweavers tend to be artistically inclined, but you will not advance in your oaths simply by following the art calling (forgot what it was called, beauty? creativity?). The main creed of Vorinism is like vikings and vahallah. Fight, and kill in the name of your god. Show yourself to be a great warrior, and you get to fight next to your deity in the afterlife. Don't really see how that helps advance the oaths of those orders. Maybe stonewards? Because they don't give up? Basically I don't see anything about those religions that would encourage, or result in more radiants. Could you clarify/specify?

Again you are treating these individuals with power as pure adherents to the source of that power. For example, if I am born a mistborn, then I have to follow the survivorists. When that is not in fact required. Or if I am born a feruchemist, I have to be a Pathian. Jasnah is an elsecaller, yet she is an atheist. Edgedancers are renown for their communication skills. Who is to say edgedancers don't pop up in the country independent of Urithiru? That individuals in the country that were "normal" found that an injustice, bonded an edgedancer spren, and protested it? Or conducted an underground railroad? That is that country's issue, unconnected to Dalinar. He didn't make those individuals surgebinders. But lets say the edgedancers in Urithiru want to do something about it? Send a delegation. Edgedancers acting on a diplomatic mission. (can't remember how to combine posts, so sorry for the double post)

You are treating the "organization" and "surgebinders" as one in the same. Kaladin was surgebinding before Dalinar told Amaram to re-found the Knights Radiant. Stump didn't care who Dalinar even was at that point. The "organization" of Knights Radiant led by Dalinar does not have the authority to decide who can or cannot become a surgebinder. Kaladin ordered the honorspren to consider Rlain, but that was because honorspren like structure, and he could have just as easily refused. The rest of the honorspren did in fact refuse. Now could Dalinar theoretically use his bondsmith powers to start forcing bonds? Maybe? But as things stand now, the spren still get to choose. The "organization" still has to request that "surgebinders" join up. Any other country can just as easily have the fastest form of international travel (elsecaller/willshaper), the most effective form of medicine (edgedancer/truthwatcher), an airforce (winderunner/skybreaker), intelligence gatherer (truthwatcher/lightweaver), assassin (lightweaver/truthwatcher), and a shardblade. So the "organization" does not hold a monopoly. They are not even majority shareholders. They just hold the highest concentration in one spot at this time.

Exactly. Which is why using a metric of power to determine whether or not something is divine is problematic. There will always be a chance that something stronger comes along, or someone else (lesser being) figures out a way to pull the power away, and assert their own authority. Have you ever read the book "All of an Instant"? It illustrates this pretty well. It also goes along side what is occurring in the MCU now.

See the issue with this is it argues based on a measurement of scope. Because X individuals have a Y level of power, they are then considered divinity. But those values are dependent on reference. On perspective. These things are sliding scales. To a baby, mommy and daddy are god. They are able to do incredible and magical things. They are incredibly strong, able to lift the baby effortlessly. They are supremely intelligence, doing incredibly advance computations. Yet when the child reaches adolescence and their teenager years, the mystique diminishes. "Because I said so", no longer satisfies. Questions come. Then when the child is themselves an adult, they realize something very powerful. Their parents were just people like anyone else. Fallible. The parents at the time of the baby had more information, and resources, so seemed divine. Yet they were not in fact. So a person with a match can seem like a god to a neanderthal. A person with a gun can seem like a god to the person with the match. A person with a laser and shield can seem a god to a person with a gun. And you can go on and on and on and on. If power level determined what "divinity" is, then the only thing that gods are, is might makes right. I am divine because I can make you call me that. And to me, that is faulty on many many levels. edit: For example, lets say I do like Taravangian. I use Nightblood to kill Rayse, and take up the shard of Odium. I then out think every other shard, kill their holder and shatter their shards. I then state "I am the most powerful, and I say there are no gods, there is no divine. I am at the top of the food chain and say it is so". So since I am the most powerful, what I say goes, so gods don't exist. No one can say otherwise. I am the grand poobah.

And just to reiterate, totally respect your opinion and your perspective. Just going to offer what is the response to this for those that do not believe in an afterlife: The lack of an afterlife makes everything we do matter even more. Because the earth is all we have. This life, and what we do with it is precious for the time we have and the relationships we build. Because it is finite. You say 10,000 years later what does it mean. What did it mean when the wheel was invented? What did it mean when aqueducts were created? What did it mean when Socrates philosophized ages ago? What did it mean when a parent worked hard to give their child a better life? There doesn't have to be some grand eternal reward to give value to these experiences. The value is there independent of it. It is the betterment of the here and now. If a meteor suddenly flew out of space and blew up the planet, wiping humans out and all evidence of our civilization, there would still be the value the people had through each other. And that is enough. A person can see the value in helping another, loving another, or working towards a goal, all without a sense of eternal reward. Appreciate and work towards making the world better in the here and now, instead of leaving it for "someplace else". But again, I totally understand and respect if in your perspective, you feel personally for yourself that is not enough. You for your own reasons feel an afterlife is crucial for existence to have a point. Just there is a perfectly valid, and understandable perspective that disagrees with you.