ckennedy

Members
  • Content count

    1
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Skaa

About ckennedy

Recent Profile Visitors

17 profile views
  1. I had a thought on the origins of Parshmen reading through some of the epigraphs from Oathbringer, chs 77-82: "Something must be done about the remnants of Odium's forces. The parsh, as they are now called, continue their war with zeal, even without their masters from Damnation." "A coalition has been formed among scholar Radiants. Our goal is to deny the enemy their supply of Voidlight; this will prevent their continuing transformations, and give us an edge in combat." "Our revelation is fueled by the theory that the Unmade can perhaps be captured like ordinary spren. It would require a special prison. And Melishi." "Ba-Ado-Mishram has somehow Connected with the parsh people, as Odium once did. She provides Voidlight and facilitates forms of power. Our strike team is going to imprison her." "We are uncertain the effects this will have on the parsh. At the very least, it should deny them forms of power. Melishi is confident, but Naze-daughter-Kuzodo warns of unintended side effects." [emphasis added] "Surely this will bring - at long last - the end to war that the Heralds promised us." I think that when they were successful, trapped Ba-Ado-Mishram, and took away the voidlight, The "Unintended consequences" were the permanent transformation of parch/parchendi from their power forms into dullform. Which is why with their new supply of voidlight their descendants are finally able to transform out of dullform. It will raise in interesting question for our heros. Once they work this out, if they want to remove voidlight to end the war, they will be condemning parshendi back to dullform. I'm guessing for those like Kaladin who have gotten to know some of the transformed Parchmen this will create quite an ethical dilemma. It reminds me a bit of the decision Truman had to make around using the A-bomb - can the ends justify the means. But with a twist, since to follow the analogy it would be "Would using the a-bomb have been justified if the US had started the war..."