• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

300 Bloodsealer


About therunner

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Czech Republic
  • Interests
    Books - sci-fi (Dune, Oryx & Crake, anything by Asimov, Blindsight & Echopraxia, and a lot of others), fantasy (Anything from B.S., LoTR, Wheel of Time), and web-novels by Wildbow (Worm, Ward, Pact, Twig, Pale, with Twig/Pact being favourites)
    Movies - too many to count, but Star Wars is always good, and from more recent ones 'I'm thinking of ending things' was excellent
    occasionaly pencil drawing, but I suck at it :)
    Some sports with friends - billiard, volleyball, football

Recent Profile Visitors

295 profile views
  1. Ah, I think I misunderstood you then, you meant using F-nicrosil to store ability from a spike the feruchemist would have in themselves? On that we have only RAFO ( I would personally think they still could not, as the while the spike 'staples on' different soul, it is still different soul and without the spike it would not hold. In medallions the F-nicrosil works discretely (, which would be an argument against it storing the strength from pewter (or more specifically the kinetic investiture gained from pewter burning), but medallions are in some sense limited ( so a true Soulbearer might be able to do that.
  2. I would not think so, as the Investiture in spikes is not keyed to them ( and is most likely not in form they could use. You could burn them allomantically though for some weird effects (
  3. Leechers would have trouble destroying Shardblades and they would die before they could do anything to Nightblood (as they/it is much more invested than even Shardblades). Generally the speed at which leecher leeches is dependent on burn rate, and they are simply much slower at this than Nightblood. Also chromium burns relatively fast On the nicrosil, that is a good question. I think Nicroburst would not really do anything to Nightblood, as Nicroburst affect only kinetic investiture, whereas Nightblood's effect seems to be inherent to it, i.e. it is a passive one.
  4. No, you said that lashing in opposite direction acts like reverse thrust, which it does not, because gravitational acceleration does not cause g-forces, because it is uniform through the entire body. ( for reference) Except with regular hammer it takes around a dozen warform parshendi (so at least 2 as strong as Rosharan) multiple minutes. Shardblade does it in 3 hits. If you are seriously suggesting that a regular blade can break Shardplate as easily as Shardblade, you are not even wrong. Do you think no one would have noticed in the last 2000 years if that was the case? There is nothing hard to understand, only that in order for the bullet to push the armor away, the armor needs to dent first. Observe bullet hitting various materials at ultra slow mo (, see how the material deforms? That is exactly what Shardplate does not do, per every single source we have. Yes, but the force is what is important, the swing gives you much more. You will not be able to stab through armor with a dagger, period, because you physically cannot put that much force into it. EDIT: Even regular armor can stop modern small arms fire from a short distance ( ), and Shardplate is better than a regular plate (and 4-8 times as thick). If he is delivering the force through tip of the boot, than it could act close enough to piercing, only thing that matters is pressure (and potentially how much room there is between fibers potentially). Dozen of Singers Beating on it for minutes. It clearly has very different material properties from non-magical materials, but you are seriously underplaying how durable it is. No, for very simple reason, Shardblades are at least as thin as edges of regular blade potentially thinner (depending on how to interpret the comment that cutting stone with them is not useful as you cannot really pull it away), so they are still quite good at resisting shard edges. Spears are very poor against armor. And if those spears are in any way useful, why did no one use them to break Kaladin's plate, or at least easily crack a section?
  5. I don't want to get too into this again, but Moash joined Alethi military and was put into bridge crews. See the quote on previous page, nowhere is it stated that it was punishment, it was simply what he (and others) were assigned to do. So clearly at least volunteers can be put into bridge crews. (which has no bearing on their treatment) For reference
  6. Neither dahns nor nahns seem to necessarily play a role in military, or to be more precise, military ranks overrules socials rank in military context. See Kaladin and Tien's (both of second or third nahn) positions in Amaram's army, or Kaladin's position as captain of Dalinar's personal guard (as there were some lighteyes of lower ranks there). So this does not seem to be special to bridge crews but general way Alethi military functions. We have no evidence that they could have been sold outside of bridge crew context. In fairness we also don't really have evidence that they could not have been (outside of them not all being legally slaves). Fair enough. To me calling them 'slaves' without any qualifier is precisely de-contextualization, as you are applying a word which in their context carries different meaning (i.e. 'bridge crew member' =/= 'slave' to a Rosharan, as they understand the word slave differently, and despite there being some overlap there are also differences). I think calling them bridge crews (or Sadeas' bridge crew) should be sufficient, because we all know exactly what they went through and how were they treated, so there is a little possibility of misunderstanding. As we seem to be approaching this from different viewpoints, we will most likely never agree on this so agreeing to disagree is I think the best way forward. Agreed, I never even expected this to become a discussion in the first place as I never intended for it to be a part of my argument, merely a sidenote.
  7. @Honorless Because to characters themselves it would not be slavery, nor would they call it that I think. They perception of the situation is different, and the word slavery carries a different meaning for them. Calling their situation 'slave-like' or saying 'they were treated like slaves', would be okay to me as it defines the relationship by similarity to what we understand as slavery but does not add factually wrong statement. I apologize if it seems pedantic, but to me it feels wrong to call them literally slaves when in their context they were not, as that would imply things like depressed wages for the same job, tenth dahn, being able to buy and sell them even outside of context of bridge crews etc.
  8. I do think that we should view those actions through at least two lenses, our contemporary one and the one characters themselves would have (or as close as possible). That is because our contemporary lens is biased as well, albeit differently then theirs is. For example the slavery debate, our modern perspective on what constitutes slavery is very different from that of people in history, or from that on people on Roshar. We might call what happened to Bridge crews slavery, but to them it was not, as to them slavery is a social institution that carries greater implications than what happened to them. (I am not trying to restart that discussion again, only use it to illustrate my point). As someone who does not think morality is something inherent to humans (outside of some basic preference for behaviors helping an in-group) I don't think our moral standards are necessarily superior to those of other cultures, present or past (or fictional). Some behaviors are obviously acceptable by culture despite being harmful to in-group (i.e. human sacrifice, various more risky rites etc.), but some which are individually harmful can be beneficial to group as a whole (i.e. conscription and war). You can think of society/civilization as a super-organism comprising all the people (and potentially also animals) in it, and just as an organism can take actions that benefit them as a whole at a cost of some parts (i.e. hurt a limb to save themselves) so can society take actions that hurt some members to save the entire society (and more people). Ideally if such actions can be avoided, they should be, but sometimes they cannot. Above I was only outlining my views on this in general, obviously the entire war on Shattered Plains is unnecessary posturing, hence any actions taken up until the start of Last Desolation cannot be justified through this lens. Now, personally I do find conscription to be immoral, but not to the same extent as slavery. To me conscription is generally speaking still several steps better (of course that also depends on precise details of the conscription process and terms). And morality of conscription also depends on context. Conscript for war of conquest? Not good. Conscript for defensive war? Much more justifiable.
  9. I have not moved goalposts, only pointed out what are potential consequence of the definition you provided (by my reading). I was mostly trying to argue from position in-world characters could have taken, i.e. the alethi one, and not include our own modern positions on the topic. I was not trying to get you to use language I am comfortable with, only to use the term as the in-world characters would have used it (per my understanding of the Alethi society and the position of the characters). I agree that we should stop arguing this point as it leads nowhere.
  10. By this definition most armies in history with the sole exception of voluntary armies were slave armies, as they consisted mostly of conscripted peasants and such. I am not sure if such a broad definition is useful outside of modern day context (which Roshar most certainly is not).
  11. Yes, but that has no bearing on them being slaves or not. I don't see a point on arguing about labor time or breeding. Their lot being difficult also does not make them slaves. WW1 soldiers in trenches were in comparably horrifying situation I would say, and they were also not slaves.
  12. I read it as threatening them with actually making him a slave, i.e. tenth dahn, worse wages and everything. (EDIT: However, it has been a while since I read it fully, so I am not fully sure (and I am not sure if that is even addressed in book).) Just because a lot of crew members were low on the social ladder, does not make them slaves. Assigning risky duty to deserters and criminals is not outlandish (even though it is immoral). And if I remember correctly they had to survive certain number of bridge runs to leave bridge crews, not necessarily to be free, i.e. If they were a member of military beforehand, they would get assigned to a different post (or maybe could ask to formally leave military), if they were slaves they would still be slaves, just not in bridge crew. That is a good comparison, and close to something I was trying to go for. The company analogy was meant to highligtht that I can be technically 'bought' despite not being a slave. Dalinar bought bridge crews (people, material, everything) but from this it does not follow every crew member is a slave (i.e. they could not be bought outside of this context). I agree that the position crew members were in effectively erased a lot of differences, but that was a function of the situation not their social standing (or status as slave). While in bridge crews it matters little if you are a slave or a free man, everyone needs to deal with the same 'bad' situation (non-slaves would get paid more though), however the moment such situation would end (i.e. end of war) the differences would again become very important. To summarize my point, their bad situation had little to do with some of them being slaves, and much more to do with nature of bridge crews under Sadeas. I have trouble understanding these, what did you mean by it?
  13. I mark my edits (outside of spelling ones) so you can see exactly what was added. I mostly try to argue from in-world perspective, what would work there, so that is my base approach. I feel like if you say that author could have written different scenarios, we are no longer talking about the same situations and characters, so I don't think you can argue Bridge Four abandoned Moash when in-world they don't really have a chance to do anything to find him, they did not choose to leave him they simply had no option to do so. For example you say they all fly, except they don't. Up until near end of Oathbringer, only Kaladin is Radiant and others have their powers only when nearby (although nearby is still something like 30 miles) so this limits how big an area they can search and they don't have improved eyesight so would need to fly relatively low making it even more difficult. (and squires most likely have poor efficiency with Stormlight limiting them further) Moash was in enemy territory so randomly running into him makes little sense to me, especially when they are trying to be inconspicuous. To see the fight with Lady Leswhi they would first need to find him, and at that point they are weeks away from warcamps and seem to simply be traveling trades (having stolen carts like that). Ultimately if the situations were wildly different than what is in the books, then yes I would be curious about such a meeting. But I don't think you can use lack of meeting between Bridge Four and Moash as evidence of them abandoning him. A question, why would Skar be a good character to reach out to Moash? The only thing I see they have in common is being good fighters, but little else, so he does not seem like an obvious choice. Not being privileged is not the same as being poor. Compared to someone like a farmer in Hearthstone, he was privileged, compared to someone of even seventh dahn he was not. Generally he should be a second nahn (as children inherit the highest nahn, with some exceptions) and his grandparents were second nahn. He was also powerless to stop what happened because he was not even there when it happened. Maybe he could have done something (appeal on their behalf), maybe not but we cannot know. No, they are not slaves. Lopen has a slave mark, Rock, Teft and others don't. Moash literally says he was threatened with being made slaves if he tried running away again, which makes no sense if he was already a slave. Again, I am not saying none of them were slaves, or that their situation was not horrible, but it is simply not true that all bridge crews are all slaves. Sadeas does treat them as if they were slaves, which does complicate matters, but Dalinar trading his Shardblade can also be understood as a compensation for lost men. Sadeas transfers men from his command to Dalinar's, and receives Shardblade as a compensation for lost strength. EDIT: To clarify further, if someone buys the company I work for, the new ownership can promote me and influence my standing. That does not mean I am a property of the company (even if for whatever reason I could not break my contract with them). EDIT 2: It was not supposed to contribute my argument, merely correct factually wrong statement. Calling all bridge crew members a 'former group of slaves' is factually not true. They did go through deeply traumatizing events from which they had little way of escaping, but no one exercised such control over their day-to-day lives they would if they were slaves. They were members of military assigned utterly horrible dehumanizing duty, yes.
  14. Feel free to not reply to me further, but please don't assume I am arguing in bad faith. You have started multiple of your replies in this way (not to me necessarily), and just because someone disagrees with you, or has a different read of situation than you does not mean they argue in bad faith or are a bad person. It would not be just hard, but completely unrealistic. You are suggesting they just 'find' a single person in relatively mountainous area, with a lot of ways to hide, who is also trying to not be found. How exactly could they have reached out to him, without it seeming like a stretch? At best they can try to explore the area on their freetime, but they are currently in the middle of war, so they most likely don't really have a lot of it. At this point also on Kaladin has a spren, so aerial search would require Kaladin to go with them which limits the area they can search. (I noticed that latter on in the reply you say that you agree that it is hard the way it is written to justify it, and you would wish it were written differently. I was replying piece by piece, and want to leave this section.) Moash would be imprisoned, that is a fact yes. That does not change the fact he could have tried to return. Actions have consequences, and it is up to people how they deal with them. Don't get me wrong, I get it why he did not go back, but to expect Bridge Four to somehow reach out to him is odd, considering they have no clue where he went, no way to contact him and little in opportunities to search for him. Kaladin not protecting Elhokar would have gone against everything Kaladin is trying to stand for. I can equally say, that Moash...could have just...not tried to kill Elhokar, and it makes just as little sense. A soldier in war cannot just leave his post, that is punishable crime, does that mean that a soldier is a slave? Bridge crews were members of the army, and so could not just get up and leave. Moash in fact mentions trying to run away multiple times and being punished for it, and that he was told that if he tried it again he would be enslaved. If being a bridge crew member was equivalent to being a slave, threatening them with it would have little effect. If in the middle of WoK the war in Shattered Plains suddenly ended, the members of the bridge crews who are not slaves would be assigned to a different post or could leave military (I have no clue how exactly is the military organized in Alethkar, but I would expect there to be a formal way to do so). Slaves would either be also reassigned, or they could simply sell them, depending on what would be more profitable. But they could not sell bridge members who are not slaves. No one owns Teft, Moash, Sigzil or Rock and many others, hence they are not slaves. I am not trying to say that the conditions in the bridge crews were not utterly appalling, but they were not slaves. Horrible conditions don't equal slavery, even if the situations are similar. And while you said you wanted more diversity in how they behave (which I agree would have been nice), you called them all slaves, which I disagree with. I thought the window of Teft was a nice reminder, but I understand wanting more. But I disagree that they gave up on Moash, Moash through his actions made it clear he does not want to be with them, and they are not obliged to try and pull him back against his will. And I don't think if he had a talk with someone else it would really change anything. Moash seems to me like quite a bull-headed person, and if Kaladin (the one person he was closest to in Bridge Four) did not manage to sway him, I don't think others could. It could be a nice way to expose more of him, before his Odium days. I think that is actually what was happening with the stew. They talked, they shared, they tried to offer support. We did not see a lot of it on-screen, but I always thought that it exactly what was happening. And we did have a bridge member who tried to commit suicide, it was Kaladin. I think that due to his depression, Kaladin is actually one of the crew members who was most impacted by his time in bridge crews (from those we have seen at least). But a lot of Bridge Four members were also going through traumatic time, and if you are dealing with something it is not that easy to reach out to others. And even if you reach out, the person has to respond, if they don't or actively avoid you there is little you can do. Also we don't know that no one tried to reach out to Moash, you just assume it. The only reason we know about Graves is because Moash chose to associate with him, and we do know that others are still in contact with Moash and trust him (Lopen told him about Kaladin loosing surgebinding) as late as hours before assassination attempt. From what we see of Moash he did not even seem to be doing badly, he was fine only he wanted to kill the king in revenge and was convinced it was right. That is not something support of your friends is going to help you with. Also Kaladin tried to talk to Moash about it before hand (at least from what I remember), he was clearly uncomfortable with the idea of killing the king, wanted nothing to do with it and tried to dissuade Moash, but Moash kept pressuring him until Kaladin relented (after being imprisoned after Adolin debacle). I can just as easily say that Moash exploited his depressed and traumatized friend for his gain (to be clear I don't actually think that). I also think that WoR sets up what would become of Kaladin had he joined Moash quite well, he would become the kind of person that kills people based on his own feelings and his judgement. You know, like Taravangian or Amaram or Moash. EDIT: Also I don't think poorly of Moash due to his poor background (which he did not have, his grandparents were silversmiths, making him solidly middle class), but due to his goals (only revenge in my reading, no matter what he tells himself). And the only reason I think better of Taravangian is his goal, he wants to save people. Of course to him the sentence is, he will save people on his terms, which is what makes him a villain.
  15. How should they have contacted him? He left warcamps with Graves after the attempted assassination, and it is not like they can call him or have means to find him (especially if they would be trying to not be found). The onus was on him to come to them, he knew where they are and he could try and come back. They would probably be harsh on him, because he nearly killed Kaladin (the one person that save all of them) and only good timing of his 3rd Oath saved his life. Also bridge crews are not only slaves, some are but not all. Teft was not slave, nor was Moash. Skar was enslaved for stealing equipment of Highprince's bodyguards, Sigzil was pressed into bridge crews for nearly killing someone. Rock was sent to bridge crews for putting chull dung into Sadeas' food, but was not enslaved. All Bridge Four knew after WoR was that Moash lied to them for months when planning assassination, nearly killed Kaladin and then ran. That is betrayal, so calling him traitor makes sense. And remember that Moash was not particularly friendly person, he rebuffed Kal's attempts at first, and was not really trying to make friends with others in the group only with Kaladin. And things like support meeting and mental health care explicitly don't exist on Roshar (at least in Vorin kingdoms), so they could not have been involved in Bridge 4's start.I mean first part of Kaladin's arc in RoW is about improving and setting standard for mental health care (at least for some types of patients).