• Announcements

    • Chaos

      Oathbringer Spoiler Policy   11/13/2017

      Oathbringer is out! Let's make our policy on spoilers clear! 1. You must preface topics with Oathbringer spoilers with the prefix [OB] in the front 2. You are only allowed to post spoilers and spoiler topics in the Oathbringer Spoiler Board, Cosmere Theories, and some select work-related forums. 3. For posts in the Oathbringer Spoiler Board you do not need to use spoiler tags inside a topic marked [OB]. For Cosmere Theories, you also do not need to put spoiler tags inside your topic if the topic has [OB] in the title. However, for Cosmere Theories, if you are adding Oathbringer stuff to an old theory without the [OB] tag, those must go in spoiler tags and you must make it obvious outside the spoiler tag that the spoiler is regarding Oathbringer content. 4. For select things that do require talking about OB spoilers, in Events, Coppermind, and Arcanum forums, those are allowed but keep OB spoilers in spoiler tags 5. Avoid and minimize spoilers in topic titles--even though those two boards will not appear in the Recent Topics ticker, topic titles still appear in Recent Activity and the forum home.  6. You aren't allowed to post Oathbringer spoilers in places other than listed, even with spoiler tags.  It will be nine months and then the Oathbringer board will be re-merged with the Stormlight board and you will not need to tag these spoilers. If you'd like to move something in the Stormlight Archive board to the Oathbringer board, to update it with new Oathbringer information, Report the post and we will happily move it to the Oathbringer spoiler board. Part-by-part Reactions Though the Oathbringer Spoiler Board will be very spoilery, very fast (maybe don't come there until you've read the book, as people do have copies that bookstores sold early), you'll have these five topics for reactions if you want to nerd out: Part 1 Reactions
      Part 2 Reactions
      Part 3 Reactions
      Part 4 Reactions
      Full Book Reactions For parts 1-4, they will not include the interludes immediately following it. On Discord All Oathbringer spoilers on Discord will be exclusively in the #oathbringer_spoilers channel for the nine month spoiler period and nowhere else.

Ookla the Obtuse

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Ookla the Obtuse

  1. Gotcha, that makes sense.
  2. I don't think an issue of censuring, I think it's an issue of lack of ability to communicate. If I'm understanding the WoB and the letter correctly, Patji itself is the aspect that Hoid communicated with when making his plea. This seems to describe the insignificance of First of the Sun, and the "waves of the sea" metaphor is the perfect flavor for an island to use. Patji is constantly personified as the father in Sixth of the Dusk, and yet, while imagined as male, it seems like he's never imagined to have a human form. I think this had an effect on the Avatar forming there. It has a consciousness and a will, but not an ability to speak. So, having been brought a communication it doesn't have the ability to respond to, Patji does what it can with the resources it has. Viewing it through this lens, I'm not even that worried about the idea of a hive mind or the weird pronoun usage. Bavadin is talking on behalf of Patji. 'We,' and 'our' by this interpretation can be understood as "Patji and I," as Patji is the mask through which Hoid chose to communicate. He could have had better luck approaching someone who could communicate on their own and who wasn't of the same temperament as Patji, which 'perhaps...would have found favorable audience.' As it stands, he asked the island that likes to hill its children and stand alone in the sea proud of its domain. Bavadin then at the end speaks over Patji to make threats at Hoid. This is how I see it. It's not a matter of censure, it's a matter of literal restriction.
  3. I appreciate that. To clarify, I don't hold you, or anyone in the thread, responsible for my own feelings in regards to the conversation. I just wanted to verbalize the general tone I had felt. I don't want my statement to be interpreted as accusatory, only as observational.
  4. I'm sorry this bothers you. That seems to be a running theme for the thread, distaste for that theory, which is fine and there's nothing wrong that intrinsically. At the same time, it feels as though I'm taking the brunt of that displeasure for defending the dissenting opinion. @Ookla the Indefatigable, you've done a great job putting together the theory and I want to stress that my arguments aren't a proclamation of faulty logic, just that I'm unconvinced by the arguments. I hope you guys have a wonderful day.
  5. This is something I addressed earlier. The letter's tone mimics the same incredulity you're showing here. 'You must know better...' 'Did you expect anything else...' specifically calling his request a 'plea,' the implication the Hoid doesn't have their respect. There's nothing in 'presumption of past relationship' that implies a positive relationship, and everything in the letter implies a negative one. For all we know, the communication could start out "I know you hate me, and I won't pretend I don't hate you either, but there are larger problems in the Cosmere and the enemy of my enemy is my, well, not friend, but powerful shardy chap who can help me stop the destruction Odium has caused. I haven't even properly insulted you in the letter so you know I'm serious." You can presume upon a past relationship without it being cordial or friendly. He could also presume upon a relationship from before the grudge. "Remember all the good times we used to have before we started to hate each other?" This is far easier to explain for me than presuming upon a past relationship for someone who didn't exist when said relationship should have happened.
  6. I had forgotten in the ensuing conversation. That's my fault entirely I apologize.
  7. @Ookla the Indefatigable I think I have come to a point where I'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think there's a clear connection between that statement and the pact. I don't see any evidence from the text of the second letter that that Shard refuses to interfere with anyone if that link doesn't exist. Given that the Stormfather was an intentional Splinter of Honor before it became his cognitive Shadow, and that was Bonding with an existing being that already existed before hand in the Stormfather, and he's still pretty lacking in the memories department, I find the idea of Uli Da surviving in some way very tenuous. For Hoid to presume that a Shard that became sentient on it's own would retain the personality and relationship from Uli Da is also a reach for me. I had just finished typing this up and trying to find a WoB about Shards and intent after the holder dies when I stumbled on this one, which I'd say is pretty conclusive on the topic.
  8. I'd like to say I support this and add what sense I've made of the situation in my own head. Autonomy chooses planets where there are significant landmarks of some kind, the sun on Taldain, and Patji on First of the Sun. In some cases, it results in an Avatar, such as the Sand Lord, but from the letter, we know that Patji can't communicate, and can assume that it has no Avatar. As Steeldancer says in the OP, this is a way of circumventing the limitations of Vessel's mind by splitting into smaller autonomous personas that each run their world. They also have very much restricted investiture which is manifest in how the investiture works on those planets. Taldain requires very little investiture outright, but lots of finesse for Sand Mastery. Investiture is very limited to only Patji on First of the Sun, and it's very constrained. Compare this to Rosharan investiture, you've got a thimble next to a waterfall. By selectively splitting off new personas to take on new avatars invested into objects or pantheons that are then worshipped, Autonomy then had created an empire where other shards have created a kingdom. Each autonomous personas has enough investiture and awareness split off from Bavadin theirself to hold dominion over their own territory. Wherever Bavadin theirself resides may be able to connect with all of them through the spiritual realm, and be the center of the hive, able to appear as any and all of them, having created them all for their purposes. The Shard* exists in each of the planets in a limited capacity. The Shard is housed somewhere, probably finding new planets to continue to assimilate into the autonomous collective. Edit: found a nice WoB
  9. I'm still not sure how this satisfies Hoid choosing to approach them by relying on presumption of past relationship. To me, that seems to say that Hoid has a past relationship with this being for him to presume upon when he spoke to them. If this is a new being, even with reading Connection, why would Hoid have a past relationship to presume upon? There are a lot of contextual clues that support a previous personal relationship between them, the formal greeting by use of Cephandrius and title. The subtle insult in the use of "you must know better" and "did you expect anything else." The precautionary instillation of a dislike of him in their new Avatar on Obradai especially would fit someone whom we know Hoid has a grudge on.
  10. In context, by how I understand, this more directly refers to Hoid's interference contacting them than Rayse, as it precedes any mention of Rayse and follows an explanation of how they want to go on alone, presumably without forming an alliance. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I understand his suffering if interference refers to Hoid's meddling with the Shards. That quote you cited about the pact is from a separate letter, not the one in question, so There's nothing Linking the two statements. Which fits exactly with what Khriss notes in the Arcanum Unbounded section on Taldain. Autonomy wants to meddle while being left alone. I'm a little confused because you don't seem to address the point I'm making here. Is there a way I can clarify my point better to help bridge our communication problem in this respect? I've read the thread and I've read all the WoB on Autonomy and Bavadin both. I was asking if there is more information beyond what I stated in my earlier post that confirms your interpretation. Does such information exist? If it does not, would you mind walking me through the logic that says that that WoB goes against the mind split thing? I have given my own explanation in my earlier post for how this works with the information we have, is there something from that you don't find plausible or satisfying? If the splinters are forming a hive mind, how can it be a cognitive Shadow of Ambition? That seems self contradictory. If Bavadin, who we know has multiple personas already, cannot be theirself because it seems to speak with a hive mind, surely that exception extends to a cognitive Shadow viewing itself as having a past relationship with Hoid despite being Splintered into a Hive mind that sees itself a separately distinct avatars in a hive mind. "If it's good for the goose it's good for the gander."
  11. Everything that happened on Scadrial could have been avoided if Leras had a pet Larkin. Well of Ascension? Drained. Deepness? Defeated. Now we just have to import some Alethi to defeat this greatshell that's grown to the size of a mountain.
  12. This contradiction is actually noted by Khriss on-screen, and also seems to be a huge cornerstone of your theory. We have evidence that Autonomy does want to be alone from the isolationist policies set up in Taldain. For me, Odium would have to be picking up Shards to satisfy Ambitions intent enough to admire him. Granted this is far more about persona interpretation than contradiction by evidence, but to splinter power instead of taking it up for yourself seems to go against the very nature of ambition, and would, Imo, would draw disdain from an Ambition based being. Is this bolded selection confirmed somewhere? Searching through WoB I don't see anything that really implies either way. I don't necessarily agree with this without understanding who or what Bavadin was before Ascension. It's quite possible that was how Bavadin acted pre-ascension as well due to be a non-human race that we haven't met yet. (Not likely, but possible.) I'm hesitant to say that Bavadin is gone without ever having seen Bavadin before. Consider this WoB So Bavadin is able to look and appear however they want. Bear with me and make an assumption that Bavadin's personas as a part of their personality were around pre-ascension. With the nature of Shard magic, that the bull of their power resides in the spiritual realm, and is therefore never disconnected from the rest of the Shard, to me, it actually makes perfect sense that Bavadin might be interested in creating actual autonomous avatars for those personas who existed prior to Ascension. At that point, I'd argue it's inappropriate to say they aren't Bavadin because it's a hive mind, the hive mind is Bavadin by design, composition and intention. Moving on to a separate note, I also think this makes the most sense with Padtji and what we've seen of Autonomy's influence on Taldain. My guess for how this works is that Bavadin finds a planet that has some prominent feature that could be worshipped, like the sun on Taldain or the island of Padtji, then invests enough of theirself into it to make a splinter/Avatar in the hive mind that's fully connected to Autonomy through the spiritual realm but is allowed its own measure of independent thought and will due to a combination of Bavadin's personality from pre-ascension and that Shard's intent. Obrodai would have a relatively young Avatar. Finally, I think there's a part of the letter that kills the theory flat out: If Ambition is writing the letter after having reformed sentience from the Splinters after Odium's attack, then there should be no past relationship between the newly sentient shard of Ambition and Hoid. The Shard should not be addressing Hoid as Cephandrius or reference the First Gem, as those events would pre-date awakening into sentience. It just doesn't seem to work.
  13. That's kind of where I'm at right now. I feel like the only reason I'm not full-blown Singer fanboy is because Odium has hitched his wagon to that cart. And that feels very unfair to me. I want to be on their side, angry shards can storm off.
  14. I agree with all of this in terms of viewing through a modern lens and especially, especially, in terms of personal opinion. I don't think that is mutually exclusive from the point I'm making about the importance of perceptions though.
  15. I like the route you went with this, but the salute came after Elhokar's death. Someone in another Moash thread said something similar about Moash using the parshmen Kaladin had spent time with for that purpose though.
  16. Never look a gift Nightblood in the mouth.
  17. Nope, I'm sorry, he hasn't. He refuses to address my points, and tells me to leave when I ask why they aren't sufficient evidence. Then he comes and intentionally (notice how the ph is bolded) misspells fallacy as phallacy as an insult before leaving while having the gall to accuse us of using logical fallacies. This is clearly a violation of the site's policies btw, and I have been more than reasonable in my attempts to have a discussion with him.
  18. Hit the report button at the top of the post and request them to take it down. There's no record of the report, it just flags it for mod attention. Pro tip, you aren't going to gain future good will by insulting people by misspelling 'fallacies' to resemble 'phallic' as you leave without backing up your assertion that our points are based in logical fallacies. I'm challenging you to name one logical fallacy I've used here and now.
  19. So we now know that red signifies one shard corrupting or co-opting another shard's magic. The Thrill is Red, and yet, it seems to be the only Unmade that is Red. This seems to indicate that the Thrill was corrupted from another Shard, but the other Unmade were not, or at least not as completely. Re-Shephir: "The center was dominated by a heaving black mass that undulated and pulsed, stretching from floor to ceiling some twenty feet above." Ashertmarn: "As Shallan had warned, it was overgrown with a dark mass that pulsed and throbbed, like a pitch-black heart. Dark veins spread from it like roots, pulsating in time with the heart." Sja-Anat: "The reflection didn’t mimic her motions, but pressed forward, raising hands against the glass. The reflected room faded and the figure distorted, and became a jet-black shadow with white holes for eyes." Yelig-Nar: The dark spirit followed, the one of swirling mists, the last who had yet to inhabit a body. Does anyone have any ideas of the significance of this?
  20. I hadn't considered the animal angle and I have to say I like it a lot. I have to wonder, if your theory on the Rhyshadium being connected to the origin of the Thrill is connected, if it has anything to do with the Legendary Shin invasion. Either way, I'm pretty enamored with this animal connection you've presented. But as I mentioned in the other thread, I definitely agree about the significance of it's coloring. It seems as though the Thrill is a corrupted piece of another Shard's magic while the other Unmade are not.
  21. I'm not dogpiling in you for having a dissenting opinion. I'm frustrated because so far in this thread you've told me that using established in-universe Philosophies on morality to view Adolin's actions as being based on in universe morality is actually just my personal opinion on his morality. I've been told that I have to define a strict sense of morality and defend it using quotes from the book from your attacks on whether or not you perceive that sense of morality as accurate based in those quotes, but that I cannot attack your logic on the same basis for your assigned morality for Adolin. I've been told that if that's not good enough I should just leave. The points I have made where he's acted in a way separately from the alleged morality you've given him have been completely ignored. I don't care if someone's opinion is different from mine. What gets me on edge is when my contributions to a conversation are in turn dismissed as irrelevant despite being on topic, then behavior you yourself use to make your point is not allowed to be used against your thesis, and finally the cogent points I do make that you say you're looking for are completely ignored. Quite frankly, I just don't know what you want from me.
  22. And you're asking me to do that without allowing evidence that attacks the thesis that his moral code is based in aggregating power for his family. Essentially, you're asking me to come up with a differential diagnosis but telling me I'm not allowed to use pertinent negatives to rule out different illnesses. Can you give me a good reason why actions Adolin takes that are inconsistent with a moral philosophy of aggregating power for his family shouldn't be considered evidence in this case? So now he's admitting in private to protect their reputation but there's no reputation to lose in the first place? This directly takes power away from his branch of the family, a contradiction of your view of his morality. Admitting you won't be a good king hurts your family's reputation. Instilling the first female monarch against tradition hurts your family's reputation. Jasnah as Queen was not even Adolin's idea, so you can't even credit that to him, it was Shallan's idea. Just because it's the only example you accept, Doesn't mean it's the only given. What about his Affability with the darkeyes I mentioned? His willingness to put himself in danger on plateua assaults by doing a shardbearer charge? That especially puts his house in grave danger with little to no benefit to their power or reputation, and Adolin does it anyway because 'they are his men too.'
  23. That's the thing though, in that case, they should all be red.
  24. And I'm saying you've failed to prove that his moral code has anything to do with his family's power status whatsoever and that the evidence seems to point that his moral code is actually entirely removed from whether or not his family gains power. 1: He never argues against doing a shardbearer lead attack for their strategy despite the fact that it puts the two most prominent members of the Kholin house, and their priceless weapons in danger, and does so to protect the lives of those his house serves, exactly the opposite of Sadease, who's moral code is to increase his house's power. It'd be easy to throw away lives to secure his safety and the power of his house. He doesn't see a problem with doing things the other way. 2: He puts his dueling career, which could win his family shards, prestige, and influence, on hold, for his father. If his morality was strictly based on bringing power to his family, he would rebel against actions his father takes that goes against that and duel to gain power. He doesn't. 3: Affability with darkeyes. There's no reason for a lighteyed man obsessed with privilege and power to connect as Adolin does with the lowborn. Compare how Adolin connects to the darkeyes with how Amaram does. Adolin jokes and goes drinking with them. Amaram addresses them as 'darkborn.' Amaram's morality is that of power, Adolin's is not. 4: Fashion is a game of status in the Shattered Plains. Adolin is good at the game, but withholds from playing, despite the fact that it brings embarrassment to his house, because of his father. If he was only concerned with power for his family, he'd rebel at this as well. Finally, you can't just demand that we prove he has a morality other than one you've not adequately proven he has. If you want us to establish that he has a moral code outside of power for his family, part of that debate is establishing that your argument for that moral code is flawed.