Vay

4 minutes ago, AquaRegia said:

I think we can safely assume she reached at least 3 Truths with Testament, given that she used Testament as a Blade to do The Deed.  Yes, that Bond was damaged, but not "broken"; I, and many others, think it likely that the Blade she summons during WoR is in fact Testament.

Later, with Pattern, more Truths were spoken.

It's especially challenging to draw general conclusions about Radiants from Shallan, as she's such an unreliable narrator.

The one she uses on the Oathgate was Pattern though, as dead Blades aren't supposed to work? The Truth came later. I would have to get my poor old copy of WoR to confirm but I also think she changed the Blade's size in the chasms, while cutting out the shelter. 

I got a new idea about that end-of-RoW Truth, not sure if it's been brought up or maybe obvious to some, but could that Truth have been to Testament, not Pattern? It was mentioned Testament looked better afterwards, but at the time I wasn't sure why. 

I certainly agree about drawing conclusions about Lightweavers from Shallan, not only is she unreliable but there's also the double bond situation now messing up things.

Basically what the title says. RoW spoilers.

Unless I'm missing something, Shallan's 3rd Ideal was acknowledging that she killed her father - then she used Pattern as a Blade in WoR. Her 4th comes at the end of WoR, the death of her mother, and Radiant (who seems Shallan's way of bypassing the 4th Truth) has Plate in the battle of Thaylen Field. Then the truth about Testament would be her 5th.

But there are still things for her to overcome. Even if Radiant is a mask to hide from the 4th Truth (and only merging her back would give Shallan full access to the Plate), there is the question of her family's relation with the Ghostbloods and how she bonded Testament in the first place. It seems big enough to be a Truth too. It's been hinted at that Shallan believes she can find out the truth herself, without Mraize revealing it, if only she can face her past.

So, do you think it's possible that Lightweavers say as many Truths as it takes? Is there maybe some WoB on it? 

On 22/11/2020 at 0:20 AM, Djerf said:

Following the skybreakers progression, in spoiler. 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

2. Also called the Ideal of Justice, this is a specific oath to seek and administer justice

3. Also called the Ideal of Dedication, this is a specific oath to dedicate oneself to a greater truth, either a code or, sometimes, a person

4. This Ideal is also called the Ideal of Crusade, and requires that a Skybreaker undertake a personal quest and complete it to the satisfaction of their highsprhighspren. 

5. Called the Ideal of Law, this Ideal requires the Skybreaker to swear an oath that they will become a personification of law and truth.

 

2 the foundation of justice is the law.

3 there is justice outside the law.

4 not all law is just (in Szeth's case at least, killing of the ruling class has to be illegal locally)  or there is injustices that the law cannot reach.

5 I am the law.

There is a great deal of personal touch to the interpretation of the ideals, according the the coppermind a skybreaker at lvl 5 could either ignore the law as written or have to follow every law that had been written and arguably they could be the ones to decide which law is just.

The initial reaction is that the oaths progress by reinforcing the primary and secondary attributes Just/Confident and that ones perception is the deciding factor in determining which. 

 

The way I see it there's three important points to the fifth oath for Kaladin, his path to where he is now and the duality of perception of his attributes, and the general trend of the oaths thus far. Offhand the longest running problem for Kaladin has been to kill or not to kill. 

Kaladins progression of oaths has thus far been. "I will protect. I will protect when even when I don't want to. Sometimes I can't protect when I want to. " The most natural to follow that would be "sometimes i shouldn't protect" 

So the fifth oath should satisfy the question if it is right to kill in order to protect, the " i will not protect" symmetry as well as the duality of protecting/ leading. 

The only thing I can think of is " I will protect/respect/enable the choice of others" or " I will protect those who (desirable trait/action/allegiance)" 

The specific wording should be about just as much protecting as leading but is past midnight here so I will leave that for another day.

I really like this idea and I think it makes sense if we assume the next big plot point for Kaladin is Moash/Vyre. At this point Kaladin could probably kill Moash in a heated battle, but anything like an execution, even as mercy, is imo out of the question.

"Sometimes I should not protect" would also match what "I am Law" does for a Skybreaker, ie. it lifts the moral limitation while trusting the KR to follow the spirit of the order anyway? We see Nale following the letter of all local laws despite the 5th Ideal, but being the law himself, he *could* probably override them. Same way "Sometimes I should not protect" would leave it to Kaladin and Syl to decide when not to protect.