• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

566 Lord Prelan

About Alfa

  • Rank
    Only known Sharder in north-eastern Germany
  • Birthday 01/18/1995

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Berlin, Germany

Recent Profile Visitors

1,871 profile views
  1. But this attitude borders on the logic of religious fanatics, and even those sometimes have the excuse of being brainwashed. Amaram doesn't.
  2. But in this case there is a notable gender difference between dullform and slaveform
  3. Was there any confirmation that dullform is able to have children? Because it appears to me that only slaveform and mateform (of those which are known) are capable of reproduction.
  4. Note that there are some books where the protagonists are somewhere between "not a good person" and "complete cremhole" and still (somewhat) sympathetic. You see their reasons (and even agree to some degree), but you still think that they are definitely not good. For example Glenn Cook's "Black Company" has those people in wagonloads, where being pragmatic is the "best" alignment anyone has, to a lesser degree there are also quite a lot of these in Brent Weeks' "Lightbringer Series", where there is not one character who is not manipulating several others and, crowning example, "A Song of Ice and Fire", where a good part of the cast is morally undecided at best and are still liked (in general).
  5. Maybe that is symbolic for the "jump over the blade" method? On the other side one fighter is catching the other's blade, another rarely used skill (however, this one is depicted somewhat more realistic). Maybe the woman who wrote it was significantly worse in drawing than Shallan. Or the style at the time was less developed. The book does not look new, late Sunmaker era, probably. I mean, look at the average medieval battle scene as depicted in medieval miniature. You'll see some very weird moves. Alternatively its symbolical for "stay calm and nobody can hurt you". Or, whoever painted this (in-cosmere or out-cosmere) had some odd sense of humor.
  6. In my opinion "good" and "evil" are pretty easy to describe. For an action to be either good or evil, the action must be done consciously. Also, it needs to have the intention to cause either benefit or harm to others. Actions done purely for self-interest are neither good nor evil - they are rational. Actions, that cause harm are obviously evil. If an evil action is benefiting the actor, it is ruthless. If an evil action also harms the one who does it, it is...i don't have a good word for it. Actions that bring benefits to others are good. Rationally good, if they also benefit the actor (I suppose most people do it this way). If the action is good while also harming the one who does it, it is heroic. The topic grows muddier when actions bring harm to one group but benefits to another group. This is the topic the Stormlight Archive discusses. Kaladin kills to protect. Dalinar fights a war against an enemy who - apparently - wanted this war. Shallan killed twice in self-defense, once to protect another. Sadeas sacrifices bridgemen to protect his soldiers to kill Parshendi more efficiently. Taravangian sacrifices one part of mankind to help the remaining to survive, apparently without any self-interest. Szeth kills people to uphold the honor of the stone shamans - reluctantly, but he does it. Amaram killed men for personal gain, in the opinion he would need the shardplate to protect others. Is anybody of them completely good or completely evil? No. Can one say that some of them are obviously better than others? Yes. The main distinction is probably, if they are willing to kill innocents, but there are others. Honor is one of the concepts how to evaluate the goodness/evillness of one action: it follows Kant's (among others) line of thought, that said that the goal does not justify the means. The contrary view is the Utilitarism, that (basically) says that only the aggregatet result is important. Is one of the views right, or at least more correct than the other? Difficult to say. Maybe the struggle to find out this is one of the things that make humanity human.
  7. Today I saw a Falafel restaraunt called "Leras". I stared at it for 15 seconds at least, and then my girlfriend had to listen to a long monologue regarding Adonalsium and the Shards.
  8. That's me, a picture where I look less goofy than usual.
  9. By the way, why not just coat conventional cyanide (or another poison) in a bit of steel? Less flashy, but cheaper and effective enough, don't you think?
  10. I'd like to point out, that in earth years that would be approximately 4950 years.
  11. But wasn't Vax supposed to have an initiation not unlike Elantris? I mean, Aether bonds are created in a fundamentally different way than Elantrians, aren't they?
  12. OK, so as of today, AG first draft is on full 9% (again proving that Sanderson is very fast). I had not checked in the last days, but it seems Brandon started less than a week ago. Judging by that I expect books about the length the Reckoners or slightly shorter.
  13. You know, brandon seemingly stole your idea about this very thread...
  14. Why am I feeling reminded of the Epilogue to the Way of Kings, where Wit muses about coming up with the right Idea at the right Time?
  15. Well, they are and just as much they are not. Like in most cases a spell is a very, very specific aplication ("Saruman, your staff is broken!"; "Avada Kedavra!"), in the above mentioned it is not necessary the case. Such things are very specific, "uncreative" programms with simple input and output limited in scope. To make it clear - that are not necessarily bad programms, because they work fast and don't need much understanding. On the other hand, it would be difficult to raise a castle (brick by brick) with one spell ("Apparturum Castellum!")- actually, I saw that a castle was raised from nothing (or something similar) several times in fantasy, and never, ever was it done by "spell" - most times the caster was mysteriously silent, in other cases the process was done step by step. A reason for that might that it seems to strange that there is a specific spell for the creation of one specific castle. So to say, a sufficiently flexible programm does not give you one "spell", but millions. What you do depends more on your creativity than on the programm. There might be no specific application for a specific task (like killing people) in a programm (eg a programm to make water levitate) - but it still can be used for it (just put it around their heads). Most tasks can be accomplished not by one, but by dozens of different programms, differently used Last, and also important, I think that you are generally right; I thought about the term "spells" before, but threw it away because it had a far too specific connotation. Thanks for the link. Some things are relatively similat to what I thought, though I see a lot of differences.