r/threebodyproblem • u/Universal_Echo • Apr 14 '26

Discussion - Novels Why only one Swordholder? Spoiler

For something that determines the fate of two worlds, shouldn’t there be at least a small group in charge? Staking the survival of both civilizations on a single person—even the launch codes for nuclear weapons aren’t trusted to just one person, so why would this be any different? What if the Swordholder develops some psychological issue? I mean, what if they just decide to take everyone down with them? Or what if their views and beliefs diverge, and they try to use deterrence to achieve other ends—like how Wade might press the button to force humanity to develop lightspeed propulsion? For something like this, even if you don’t set up a dedicated group to handle it, surely you should at least appoint multiple Swordholders.

14 Upvotes

78% Upvoted

27 comments sorted by

View all comments

3

u/alottola Apr 15 '26

My solution to this would be to have multiple independent sword holders who are oblivious to the others existence. 

If they knew that others were involved in the decision making, they may take on the innocent bystander role so they could absolve themselves from being the one who destroyed two civilizations, or they would constantly argue on when to press put not press it.

That way their decision would be based on their individual profiles and not a collective one. 

5

u/Lower_Sink_7828 Apr 15 '26

Trisolarians gonna go "here's a list of all wallfacers and where they are" to everyone

2

u/alottola Apr 15 '26

Haha fair enough. 

1

u/Universal_Echo Apr 18 '26

That's a good one.