So, There's No Hope. (Unhinged And Unwarranted Speculation)

[RedBlue]

Setting aside the fact that Scadrian society looks to be doing just fine in Sunlit Man, a small community of refugees doesn’t pose a threat to Scadrial.

I would be more worried about the conflict between the Scadrian continents. And the conflict between Harmony’s Intents. Even Kelsier is more likely to blow them all up by accident than the Rosharan refugees are to somehow conquer the Basin.

[Aliroz-The-Confused]

I communicated my thoughts poorly (as is characteristic).  It wasn't the small Herdazian populations that worried me, it was the implication that their presence means that travel of populations between Roshar and Scadrial is possible, and, more than that, possible on a scale I had not anticipated.  And I wasn't predicting that any of the things I worried about would happen in the near future (that is to say, the lifetimes of the mortal humans we meet in the Wax and Wayne books), but over a long period of time after that.

I was imagining that, over time, the entire surviving not-retribution-aligned population of Roshar would end up on Scadrial.

Edited June 13, 2025 by Aliroz-The-Confused

[Qianweilian He/him]

14 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

I was imagining that, over time, the entire surviving not-retribution-aligned population of Roshar would end up on Scadrial.

I would agree, except that moving is hard. Right now I am on a road trip to the house I plan to live in for years into the future, but I can't imagine moving internationally, intercontinentally, or even interplanetary. Even today, in Ukraine, Palestine, Somalia, even just poor places, there are not nearly as many refugees. Most of the population of the absolute monarchies of Europe stayed. A lot of incredibly oppressed people couldn't or didn't want to leave. You argue it would take far longer than a lifetime, but the entire population of Roshar can't move to Scadrial. Most of the Rosharans is not even realmatically aware, let alone know where either Scadrial or Retribution's perpendicularity is. 

[Aliroz-The-Confused]

 

5 hours ago, Qianweilian said:

I would agree, except that moving is hard. Right now I am on a road trip to the house I plan to live in for years into the future, but I can't imagine moving internationally, intercontinentally, or even interplanetary. Even today, in Ukraine, Palestine, Somalia, even just poor places, there are not nearly as many refugees. Most of the population of the absolute monarchies of Europe stayed. A lot of incredibly oppressed people couldn't or didn't want to leave. You argue it would take far longer than a lifetime, but the entire population of Roshar can't move to Scadrial. Most of the Rosharans is not even realmatically aware, let alone know where either Scadrial or Retribution's perpendicularity is. 

I'd assumed Midius/Hoid/Cephandrius would be helping with that last part.

[Isilel]

On 6/14/2025 at 12:11 PM, Qianweilian said:

I would agree, except that moving is hard.

 

Indeed, and being adapted to 30% less gravity, higher oxygen ratio in the air, almost complete lack of infectious disease due to stormlight and IIRC lesser concentration of heavy metals than on Scadrial should have made it far harder than any migration on Earth. I can only assume that Iriali have some supernatural ability helping them to thrive on new worlds, but it doesn't look rosy for the other non-invested  Rosharans, who chose to join their caravans in WaT.

[Returned he/him]

I don't really agree that the Scadrians are as meek and welcoming as you suggest. There are pretty intense tensions between the groups in the Elendel Basin, and the Malwish have some pretty aggressive and self-interested tendencies, for example. Technology on Scadrial seems far more robust, accessible, manufacturable, and direct, including their magical technologies. The cognitive realm surrounding Scadrial has one of the most ruthless and effective agents and organizers in all of the Cosmere residing there while immortal. Along with a team he's hand-built over centuries which has some implications for keeping Rosharan supply lines stable. Rosharans looking to subjugate Scadrial are in for quite a lot of work.

One thing that I'm curious about (which may have been discussed in Sunlit Man, which is still on my list to read) is how accessible spren are away from the Rosharan system. If it's difficult to replace a spren in a spren-driven fabrial while away from Roshar, for example, that's a pretty serious problem.

[Aliroz-The-Confused]

On 6/12/2025 at 1:10 AM, SpartanBrigade said:

the main reason I don’t think this will happen is Brandon Sanderson himself. At the end of the day the Cosmere is a hopeful tale. There’s plenty of trauma and dark points along the way but it’s not a grimdark world. At the end of the day, the heroes are victorious, society progresses away from its more negative aspects, characters grow, develop, and redeem themselves, and good triumphs in the end. The Cosmere is about progress, redemption, and nuance and I believe we’re headed for a better, multicultural Scadrial, not an enslaved one.

You underestimate how sadistic and cruel authors are, and how cruel Mister Sanderson already has been.  Reread Kaladin's chapters as a slave and a bridgeman.  Or consider the implications of Reen threatening to sell Vin to a brothel (the implications of brothels that you can SELL people to, and the fact that Vin was a child at the time).  Or consider the actions of the Set.

If Scadrial was to have its happy ending, it would have been after the first trilogy.  The very premise of the later books proves that the intent is not for Scadrial to have a happy ending.

Edited February 20 by Aliroz-The-Confused

[SpartanBrigade He/Him]

14 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

You underestimate how sadistic and cruel authors are, and how cruel Mister Sanderson already has been.  Reread Kaladin's chapters as a slave and a bridgeman.  Or consider the implications of Reen threatening to sell Vin to a brothel.  Or consider the actions of the Set.

If Scadrial was to have its happy ending, it would have been after the first trilogy.  The very premise of the later books proves that the intent is not for Scadrial to have a happy ending.

Consider Kaladin's path forward as a captain, Radiant, hero, healer, and Herald.
Consider Vin's fate as a warrior, savior, and legend at peace with Elend
Consider the Set's defeat thanks to heroes like Wax, Wayne, and Marasi.

Sanderson is a hopeful man and a realistic one. He portrays horrors and triumphs. His world is not sunshine and rainbows but neither is it as desolate and grimdark as several people interpret. Scadrial will face hardship and may have evil factions and characters, but I believe in the end there will be a good ending. Bittersweet yes, but satisfying and hopeful. Sanderson has repeatedly shown his skill and intentions in his work, and I continue to trust him as an author.

Edited August 29, 2025 by SpartanBrigade

[Nitpicking]

12 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

You underestimate how sadistic and cruel authors are, and how cruel Mister Sanderson already has been.  Reread Kaladin's chapters as a slave and a bridgeman.  Or consider the implications of Reen threatening to sell Vin to a brothel (the implications of brothels that you can SELL people to, and the fact that Vin was a child at the time).

For the record: you do understand that our real world has had plenty of slave brothels, right? In Pompeii, you can find buildings that were used for that purpose still standing.

[Qianweilian He/him]

I just don't understand how Rosharan migrants would get the power and population to do this. It becomes even harder when you realize they probably won't unite and the maximum support would likely be a small group. Also, because of how hard it is to transport between the two planets (and we still don't know how they would even know to get to Scadrial), the sheer time involved would likely have many migrants assimilate.

Isles of the Emberdark spoilers

(If I'm not allowed to hide behind a spoiler marker and just shouldn't put it here, please tell me)

Spoiler

We know some likely authoritarian government, described as fascist, rises in the Malwish. Perhaps enough migrants do arrive and the backlash gives the Malwish fascists influence to gain power, but it pretty much confirms that Rosharans do not take over Scadrial

 

[hephaestus]

On 6/12/2025 at 1:10 AM, SpartanBrigade said:

This is quite a bleak take from fantasy tacos lol

Please, Chouta is clearly Fantasy Burritos. Or possibly Fantasy Shawarma.

[Qianweilian He/him]

12 hours ago, hephaestus said:

Chouta is clearly Fantasy Burritos. Or possibly Fantasy Shawarma.

Whatever it is, we know it tastes good.

[Xanpheon]

While I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that Rosharans in the past have demonstrated a willingness to conquer if they need to, particularly the Alethi, this is an incredibly negative take and generalisation on a collection of peoples who are just as culturally diverse between themselves - if not more so - than what we see on Scadrial.

First of all (TSM/IotED):

Spoiler

Not only are the Scadrians that are commonly known in the greater Cosmere primarily the Malwish, indicating that either the Malwish have already crushed/integrated the Elendel basin culture or are so far ahead of the rest of other Scadrian societies that there isn't much relevance in them anymore, but consider what we know of the Malwish influence in the rest of the Cosmere. They are so prevalent and powerful a force that Scadrian is a commonly spoken language in much the same way that English is in the current world. Their government is described as "Fascist" and controlling. They attempt to force technological advancement by "gifting" advanced technology to the inhabitants of First of the Sun in order to bypass inter-planetary restrictions on manipulating and abusing lesser-advanced societies, all so they can steal Aviar from the planet for profit.

They are not as innocent as you make them out to be. 

Secondly, you're implying that all the changes - socially, politically, culturally - we see in Roshar during the Stormlight Archive are purely there to benefit those in power. Renarin gave up power by making the tower controlled by a council. Dalinar, for all his faults (and boy did he have many of those) was pushing for positive changes. Jasnah was doing what Elend did in Luthadel when she took over, forcing through political changes to improve people's lives - tempered by having a bit more pragmatic experience, but still moving to help people.

And that's just the Alethi, the most warlike by far of any culture on Roshar barring what Odium made of the Singers. The Thaylens - siding with Odium as they have - have always been a people more focused on trade and knowledge than on warfare and stealing resources. Even the deal she made with Taravangian keeps her largely out of his wars, free to just continue to trade and continue their economic power. The Azish - what's left of their empire, anyway - are master bureaucrats. Their society is arguably stagnant, but even there with the assistance of the Unoathed and Adolin's sheer boyish charm has started to change.

Asserting that Scadrians are going to be conquered, enslaved, and used purely as breeding stock is... A very extreme take.

[Aliroz-The-Confused]

On 10/16/2025 at 4:29 AM, Xanpheon said:

While I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that Rosharans in the past have demonstrated a willingness to conquer if they need to, particularly the Alethi, this is an incredibly negative take and generalisation on a collection of peoples who are just as culturally diverse between themselves - if not more so - than what we see on Scadrial.

I'll grant that if you'll grant that I'm not totally bonkers to consider Shallan taking off Iyatil's mask to be essentially taking the clothes off of a corpse to stare at what's beneath and that I'm not insane to think that that's (1) heinous (2) disgusting and (3) unforgivable.

 

On 10/16/2025 at 4:29 AM, Xanpheon said:

Secondly, you're implying that all the changes - socially, politically, culturally - we see in Roshar during the Stormlight Archive are purely there to benefit those in power. Renarin gave up power by making the tower controlled by a council. Dalinar, for all his faults (and boy did he have many of those) was pushing for positive changes. Jasnah was doing what Elend did in Luthadel when she took over, forcing through political changes to improve people's lives - tempered by having a bit more pragmatic experience, but still moving to help people.

I'll grant that if you'll grant that a legitimate argument can be made that Jasnah bears primary responsibility for Queen Fen having to switch sides.

The protagonists of the Stormlight books casually do heinous things which the narrative never condemns them for.  I don't think I'm entirely stupid to assume that they're being set up for conflict with everyone else (just mostly stupid).

Edited February 20 by Aliroz-The-Confused

[Xanpheon]

7 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

I'll grant that if you'll grant that I'm not totally bonkers to consider Shallan taking off Iyatil's mask to be essentially taking the clothes off of a corpse to stare at what's beneath and that I'm not insane to think that that's (1) heinous (2) disgusting and (3) unforgivable.

 

I'll grant that if you'll grant that a genuine argument can be made that Navani is a slaver who is inventing new ways to enslave spiritual beings that Adonalsium intended to be free.

 

I'll grant that if you'll grant that a legitimate argument can be made that Jasnah bears primary responsibility for Queen Fen having to switch sides.

The protagonists of the Stormlight books casually do heinous things which the narrative never condemns them for.  I don't think I'm entirely stupid to assume that they're being set up for conflict with everyone else (just mostly stupid).
 

  Hide contents

Based on what you and others have said, I seem to have predicted an incorrect end to such conflict, though.

 

If Shallan was aware of the cultural meaning of the mask - sure, I'd agree with you. But while I don't think she should have done that, she was investigating the leader of an organization that had repeatedly tried to kill her and had risked harming everyone around them. If you don't know that the mask is such a core part of the culture, it's not equivalent to stripping someone naked after you killed them. 

Navani was doing that, sure. But now, with the help of the Sibling, she is working out ways to make their technology work that doesn't involve abusing the spren. During Wind and Truth we literally see almost domestic Spren, given names, ways out of the gem, and that almost seem excited to enter. They certainly enjoy and grow from the attention they receive. Had she not attempted to do that - I would agree. But nature spren are not really sentient in the same way that highspren are, and the way Fabrial tech is progressing indicates attempts to move back towards the fabrials of old like Soulcasters or Oathgates - with consenting spren driving their mechanism. That isn't slavery. Domestication? Perhaps, and if you think that's on the same scale then that's fair enough, but they are at least pushing to move back towards fully consensual fabrial technology.

Partly responsible? Yes. She missed the obvious path of hammering home that Taravangian has betrayed them time and time again, and is arguing from a position of obvious coercion. And were her actions in the past reprehensible? Sure. No arguments there. Jasnah is easily the Stormlight character who has had the most deconstruction of the first five books, because where she was at the start doesn't really have a sensible character arc to improve from. She needed to be brought down so she could improve again.

The narrative absolutely condemns them for their actions. The Sibling nearly dies rather than grant Navani a bond because of her actions, and it drives her to improve. Consequences. Dalinar's past drives the Coalition apart and leaves him a broken man who tries - and fails - to defeat the evil that would redeem him, instead unleashing that evil on the rest of the Cosmere. Shallan is left a person splintered and tortured by her decisions before learning how to properly cope with her actions and how to atone. Jasnah is left broken, alone, and distraught at the end of WaT - and most importantly, they lost.

For all their actions, all the advantages that the Alethi conquest in the past had granted, they lost - and it was near entirely because of their past mistakes, the past mistakes of nearly everyone in a position of power. Azir? Collapsed because their constituent states were sick of the Empire, and had to fight an incredibly hard battle with no backup and reinforcements, drafting civilians to defend their home, because the constituent states would rather join an enemy who they had enslaved for hundreds of years in a subservient position rather than risk continuing. The Coalition attempts? Splintered, both because the "ravaging humans" were the outsiders the whole time, and Dalinar's past actions, and the Alethi predisposition to declare themselves king of all. The entire reason that the Singers summoned the Everstorm? The Alethi hunger for battle and "sport", stoked by Nergaoul and the Thrill, using the assassination of their king as an excuse.
 
The narrative absolutely condemns them for their past actions and makes them face the consequences.

Edited November 12, 2025 by Xanpheon

[ThroughTheLivingIlliterate He/Him]

6 hours ago, Xanpheon said:

If you don't know that the mask is such a core part of the culture, it's not equivalent to stripping someone naked after you killed them. 

Speaking of stripping people naked after killing them, I believe we forgot to include Bridge Four's ruthless treatment of Parshendi's bodies in the trenches. In fact, they did it in front of another Parshendi, I mean that's brutal. Also guess what race is represented in Bridge Four, the Herdazians. In fact, not just any Herdazian, but THE LOPEN. Honestly, these people have got to be stopped.

[Aliroz-The-Confused]

3 hours ago, IlliterateDragon said:

Speaking of stripping people naked after killing them, I believe we forgot to include Bridge Four's ruthless treatment of Parshendi's bodies in the trenches. In fact, they did it in front of another Parshendi, I mean that's brutal. Also guess what race is represented in Bridge Four, the Herdazians. In fact, not just any Herdazian, but THE LOPEN. Honestly, these people have got to be stopped.

Since you seem to be agreeing with me, I must assume you're being sarcastic.

But, genuinely, the treatment of the Parshendi's bodies by Bridge Four was truly horrific and beyond the pale.

If the series ends with all of Bridge Four executed (possibly with Nightblood because it is fitting for those who do not respect the dead to miss out on an afterlife) for crimes against Listenerdom, I will retract my statement that "The protagonists of the Stormlight books casually do heinous things which the narrative never condemns them for.". 

 

Otherwise, I will persist in my assertion that the people who are most supposed to embody honor continually go around lying, breaking promises, negotiating in bad faith, putting their own desires above duty and law, and in general engaging in pragmatic and results-oriented behavior, and that "the Shards here are very strict" does not seem to apply to POV characters as much as it applies to everyone else.

Edited November 12, 2025 by Aliroz-The-Confused

[Qianweilian He/him]

4 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

But, genuinely, the treatment of the Parshendi's bodies by Bridge Four was truly horrific and beyond the pale.

If the series ends with all of Bridge Four executed (possibly with Nightblood because it is fitting for those who do not respect the dead to miss out on an afterlife) for crimes against Listenerdom

Why would they be executed? They were slaves, forced into a profession with guaranteed fatality, and intentionally doing what they had to survive. If anything, Sadeas should be executed for forcing them into that position (oh wait). Even if none of that was true, desecration of the dead, despite being a disgusting disrespect for humanity (or listenerdom), it's not an offense we execute people for! In addition, Kaladin later apologizes to Rlain. This in no way excuses it, but shows they've grown significantly.

4 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

The protagonists of the Stormlight books casually do heinous things which the narrative never condemns them for.". 

Every time an action like this occurs, the protagonists' actions are repeatedly condemned by side characters, other protagonists, the antagonists, their spren, and eventually themselves. 

4 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

the people who are most supposed to embody honor continually go around lying, breaking promises, negotiating in bad faith, putting their own desires above duty and law, and in general engaging in pragmatic and results-oriented behavior

Lying usually only occurs on infiltration missions with Shallan or the protagonists lying to themselves. It's still fairly rare that it actually happens though. Breaking promises only occurs for Kaladin and Dalinar really... I have no idea what you're thinking about putting desires above duty, other than Kaladin's decision to take leave (which I would disagree), and the only extremely pragmatic/results oriented character (don't understand how this is "dishonorable") is Jasnah, and maybe a little bit of Navani.

[NameIess]

21 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

Since you seem to be agreeing with me, I must assume you're being sarcastic.

But, genuinely, the treatment of the Parshendi's bodies by Bridge Four was truly horrific and beyond the pale.

If the series ends with all of Bridge Four executed (possibly with Nightblood because it is fitting for those who do not respect the dead to miss out on an afterlife) for crimes against Listenerdom, I will retract my statement that "The protagonists of the Stormlight books casually do heinous things which the narrative never condemns them for.". 

In the case of Bridge four, they did what they had to do in order to survive. Yes, they desecrated listener corpses, yes they did it in front of a listener, but you're missing that that specific listener, while he did not forgive them per se, did remain friends with them, because he understood that they were doing what they had to do to survive.

Edited November 13, 2025 by NameIess

[QuantumAce]

17 hours ago, Qianweilian said:

Every time an action like this occurs, the protagonists' actions are repeatedly condemned by side characters, other protagonists, the antagonists, their spren, and eventually themselves. 

Slow down buddy. Understanding this would require a reader to adjust assumptions as they are presented with new information, complete entire books before coming to conclusions, and even evaluate events while considering both the specific situation and the broader context of a multi volume series. In the context of this thread, I'm not sure that is a reasonable expectation. 

[Immortal Platypus]

On 11/12/2025 at 9:28 AM, IlliterateDragon said:

Speaking of stripping people naked after killing them, I believe we forgot to include Bridge Four's ruthless treatment of Parshendi's bodies in the trenches. In fact, they did it in front of another Parshendi, I mean that's brutal. Also guess what race is represented in Bridge Four, the Herdazians. In fact, not just any Herdazian, but THE LOPEN. Honestly, these people have got to be stopped.

to be fair, they didn't know that Rlain was a Parshendi at the time. They thought of parshmen about the same thing that we think of cows. If I skinned a pig in front of a cow, I wouldn't feel bad about it. 

On 11/12/2025 at 12:44 PM, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

But, genuinely, the treatment of the Parshendi's bodies by Bridge Four was truly horrific and beyond the pale.

If the series ends with all of Bridge Four executed (possibly with Nightblood because it is fitting for those who do not respect the dead to miss out on an afterlife) for crimes against Listenerdom, I will retract my statement that "The protagonists of the Stormlight books casually do heinous things which the narrative never condemns them for.". 

 

Otherwise, I will persist in my assertion that the people who are most supposed to embody honor continually go around lying, breaking promises, negotiating in bad faith, putting their own desires above duty and law, and in general engaging in pragmatic and results-oriented behavior, and that "the Shards here are very strict" does not seem to apply to POV characters as much as it applies to everyone else.

surely this has to be ragebait, at least to some extent. calling for the execution of people upon the sole basis of desecrating the dead is terrible. The punishment must fit the crime, and this doesn't. 

Besides, they're not supposed to be perfect. They're trying. If a character is perfect, it defeats the point of the character being there. 

[Aliroz-The-Confused]

4 hours ago, NameIess said:

In the case of Bridge four, they did what they had to do in order to survive. Yes, they desecrated listener corpses, yes they did it in front of a listener, but you're missing that that specific listener, while he did not forgive them per se, did remain friends with them, because he understood that they were doing what they had to do to survive.

"We must work in the world.  The world is thus."  Is not the creed of Honor.

They did what they had to survive, yes, but that does not make it honorable.  An act can be both heinous and necessary without either of those things meaning the other doesn't count.  A person can be victim and perpetrator without either of those things meaning the other doesn't count.

The point is that they chose survival over what was right.  The point is that they chose the action based on its results rather than on the action itself, exploiting the specific pain and anguish they caused, and that's the opposite of honor.  "The Ends Justify The Means" is not the creed of Honor.

Meanwhile, the Parshendi who attacked Bridge Four were willing to die for their convictions, willing to die to avenge the wrongs done to their fallen who could not avenge themselves (what is more helpless and vulnerable than a corpse?).  That is honor.

My issue isn't with whether or not the actions were reasonable.  My issue is that they are reasonable, and they should NOT be reasonable.  Honor and Reason are often opposed (it's such a resonant conflict that Honor Before Reason is a trope), and when they are, the characters have chosen reason as often as they've chosen honor.  Honor should be strict, unyielding, and without exception.  It should be reliable.  It should be infuriating and frustrating and cause as many problems as it solves but in the end it gives an ability to be trusted and negotiated with and engaged with which nothing else can give, and I feel that the protagonists of Stormlight want to be treated like they're Lawful Good after doing as many Chaotic Good things as Lawful Good things, and the Shard representing the philosophical notion of "keeping to the rules even when it's hard" should be the most strict in its demands.

Also, I'm not sure Rlain entirely counts as representative, though he certainly is at least partially so.  He's something of an outcast (not that that makes him a bad person at all!  A person being estranged from their society of origin is often just as much about that society as it is about that person... Sazed was a renegade from his people, too.  But it does mean that it might not be fair to let that person speak for the group).  In some ways, he is a not-evil parallel/foil to Moash (one could argue that Rlain betrayed the increasingly corrupted Listeners to join the flawed-but-genuinely-trying-to-improve-every-day Bridge Four where Moash did the opposite) and it wouldn't be quite right for Moash to represent Bridge Four (though that is his backstory, and nothing can make it NOT be his background).

 

20 hours ago, Qianweilian said:

Every time an action like this occurs, the protagonists' actions are repeatedly condemned by side characters, other protagonists, the antagonists, their spren, and eventually themselves. 

I wouldn't say every time, and I'd argue that some of what you are calling condemnation is actually the "side characters, other protagonists, antagonists, spren, and themselves" wrestling with those actions and eventually giving grace/a pardon/forgiveness/absolution/slack-because-of-extenuating-circumstances, and that's not the same thing as condemnation.  The narrative, through Rlain, more or less seems to tentatively-and-with-caveats absolve Bridge Four rather than condemn them, and often does the same for other characters who make dishonorable decisions. 

(And the fact that Honor favored Bridge Four after that is significant... evidently you can do Odium-type things to the Parshendi and the remains of their old god will STILL favor you, but doing the same thing to POV characters disqualifies you.  I guess it still works, though, if one grants that the gods must work through imperfect beings, and most of their acceptance by Honor was AFTER "we have to go back.  Storm it, we have to go back", which, yeah, "person guilty of heinous things to survive risks life to do what's right with no expectation of surviving" is a change of heart and a redemption story.  The Listeners still have entirely legitimate grievances against Bridge Four, though, valid grounds for execution, and part of redemption is accepting that you can't make everything right with everybody and part of redemption is accepting that those you wrong deserve recompense.)

 

On 11/12/2025 at 2:45 AM, Xanpheon said:

The narrative absolutely condemns them for their actions. The Sibling nearly dies rather than grant Navani a bond because of her actions, and it drives her to improve. Consequences. Dalinar's past drives the Coalition apart and leaves him a broken man who tries - and fails - to defeat the evil that would redeem him, instead unleashing that evil on the rest of the Cosmere. Shallan is left a person splintered and tortured by her decisions before learning how to properly cope with her actions and how to atone. Jasnah is left broken, alone, and distraught at the end of WaT - and most importantly, they lost.

For all their actions, all the advantages that the Alethi conquest in the past had granted, they lost - and it was near entirely because of their past mistakes, the past mistakes of nearly everyone in a position of power. Azir? Collapsed because their constituent states were sick of the Empire, and had to fight an incredibly hard battle with no backup and reinforcements, drafting civilians to defend their home, because the constituent states would rather join an enemy who they had enslaved for hundreds of years in a subservient position rather than risk continuing. The Coalition attempts? Splintered, both because the "ravaging humans" were the outsiders the whole time, and Dalinar's past actions, and the Alethi predisposition to declare themselves king of all. The entire reason that the Singers summoned the Everstorm? The Alethi hunger for battle and "sport", stoked by Nergaoul and the Thrill, using the assassination of their king as an excuse.
 
The narrative absolutely condemns them for their past actions and makes them face the consequences.

You're very much right that I've underestimated the extent to which characters have been held accountable, and the extent to which their actions have, in truth, come back to bite them, and I have to eat crow for that, you got me there.

I'd disagree on your point about The Sibling, though.  It nearly dies rather than grant Navani a bond.  In other words, Navani gets the bond she wanted, and The Sibling relents.  I do not believe that Navani truly improves on a moral level (though she improves at accomplishing the thing she wants to accomplish, which is getting The Sibling to retract its stated refusal to consent), I'd argue that she changes her mind but never has a real change of heart.  She just stopped doing something that wasn't working when it didn't get her what she wanted, tried something else, and eventually Solved The Problem of The Sibling's resistance to her influence (we see The Sibling repeatedly express that it is losing itself, that it's losing certainty, that its will and thoughts are being subsumed by Navani).  That's not at all Honor-coded, that's Reason-coded.  Navani never stops trying to learn and understand, she never stops considering reality to be her personal puzzle to solve and figure out, never truly accepts that there is authority greater than hers that she ought to obey, and she outright thinks in Wind And Truth that she won in her interactions with Raboniel.

I'd also disagree that Jasnah has had any true change of heart, as even in her last POV parts she still seems to think in terms of results and outcomes.  

I'll concede everything else in this quote, though. 

 

1 hour ago, Immortal Platypus said:

surely this has to be ragebait, at least to some extent. calling for the execution of people upon the sole basis of desecrating the dead is terrible. The punishment must fit the crime, and this doesn't. 

No, it's not ragebait, I just genuinely have unreasonable opinions because I value certain things more than I value reason.  My opinions are strange, but they are mine and I stand by them.
 

Why should the Listeners, to whom this is clearly a spiritual matter with all the weight of life and death, matter less than the more relatable protagonists?

1 hour ago, Immortal Platypus said:

Besides, they're not supposed to be perfect. They're trying. If a character is perfect, it defeats the point of the character being there. 

Nope.  Characters are allowed to be perfect.  Characters are allowed to be imperfect.  Characters are allowed to be aspirational, to embody ideals more than "relatable foibles of the human condition", to be moral absolutes.  Characters are allowed to go through the story without changing or learning anything (many of the most memorable characters do so!  "Managing not to change in a situation that wants you to change" is an ENTIRELY valid story, just as valid as "Learning to change in a situation that requires you to change").  Ideal Hero Saves The Day is just as much a part of storytelling as Flawed Hero Sticks The Landing and Flawed Hero Gets Wrecked For That Thing He Did.  It's not pointless, it's just making a different point; or, in other words, it's not missing, it's aiming at a different target.

 

3 hours ago, QuantumAce said:

Slow down buddy. Understanding this would require a reader to adjust assumptions as they are presented with new information, complete entire books before coming to conclusions, and even evaluate events while considering both the specific situation and the broader context of a multi volume series. In the context of this thread, I'm not sure that is a reasonable expectation. 

On the one hand, ouch, yeah, I am unreasonable and I deserved that.

On the other hand, thank you for taking my point of view into consideration and recognizing that I don't understand things the way most people do.

Edited November 13, 2025 by Aliroz-The-Confused
Fixing a typographical error.

[NameIess]

30 minutes ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

"We must work in the world.  The world is thus."  Is not the creed of Honor.

They did what they had to survive, yes, but that does not make it honorable.  An act can be both heinous and necessary without either of those things meaning the other doesn't count.  A person can be victim and perpetrator without either of those things meaning the other doesn't count.

The point is that they chose survival over what was right.  The point is that they chose the action based on its results rather than on the action itself, exploiting the specific pain and anguish they caused, and that's the opposite of honor.  "The Ends Justify The Means" is not the creed of Honor.

You're correct that "The Ends Justify The Means" is not Honor's creed. However, Honor's creed, as we're shown very explicitly in KotW, is not "The Means must match the goal" either. Honor's creed is closer to "The Oath justifies the means". Bridge 4 had sworn no oath to respect the Parshendi dead, and so, in the eyes of Honor the shard, they did nothing wrong.

34 minutes ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

Meanwhile, the Parshendi who attacked Bridge Four were willing to die for their convictions, willing to die to avenge the wrongs done to their fallen who could not avenge themselves (what is more helpless and vulnerable than a corpse?).  That is honor.

My issue isn't with whether or not the actions were reasonable.  My issue is that they are reasonable, and they should NOT be reasonable.  Honor and Reason are often opposed (it's such a resonant conflict that Honor Before Reason is a trope), and when they are, the characters have chosen reason as often as they've chosen honor.  Honor should be strict, unyielding, and without exception.  It should be reliable.  It should be infuriating and frustrating and cause as many problems as it solves but in the end it gives an ability to be trusted and negotiated with and engaged with which nothing else can give, and I feel that the protagonists of Stormlight want to be treated like they're Lawful Good after doing as many Chaotic Good things as Lawful Good things, and the Shard representing the philosophical notion of "keeping to the rules even when it's hard" should be the most strict in its demands.

Also, I'm not sure Rlain entirely counts as representative, though he certainly is at least partially so.  He's something of an outcast (not that that makes him a bad person at all!  A person being estranged from their society of origin is often just as much about that society as it is about that person... Sazed was a renegade from his people, too.  But it does mean that it might not be fair to let that person speak for the group).  In some ways, he is a not-evil parallel/foil to Moash (one could argue that Rlain betrayed the increasingly corrupted Listeners to join the flawed-but-genuinely-trying-to-improve-every-day Bridge Four where Moash did the opposite) and it wouldn't be quite right for Moash to represent Bridge Four (though that is his backstory, and nothing can make it NOT be his background).

The Parshendi who attacked bridge 4 could very well have been honorable by the Shard's definition, if they'd sworn oaths to avenge the desecration of their dead. But again, by the Shard's definition, oaths are all that matters. If a serial killer swore an oath to kill a hundred people in ten years, then did it, Honor would see that as good. Most spren wouldn't, most people wouldn't, and that's where we get a major theme of the series. Being honorable is not just about oaths, as Dalinar realized at the end of KotW, as Adolin realized as well. Which is why a lot of Radiants don't seem to be that honorable. They've sworn oaths, but for example Shallan's oaths really do not restrict her actions at all.

[Aliroz-The-Confused]

2 hours ago, Returned said:

One of the biggest issues with hard subjectivity is that it makes it impossible to resolve conflicting claims. It's fair, and good, to ask why the bridgemen's predicament should matter more (or less) than the Listener's tradition. It seems less sound to suggest that one's own immediate, emotional judgements It's  should matter more than either group's thoughts, feelings, and circumstances. Especially when you decline to consider your judgement beyond observing it. That's tyranny: things should be as I want them to be only because that's what I want, and others' feelings, thoughts, and arguments are beyond irrelevant.

---

I reject the idea of objectivity and subjectivity.  I reject the idea that morality and emotion are inherently "subjective" and thus "lesser" than the "objectivity" of reason.  The whole appeal of fantasy is that it allows us an escape from modernity, from the last three and a half centuries of results-obsessed thinking, from the cage of having to apply critical thought to everything rather than feeling and believing and experiencing things like children do before they're taught to behave.

The whole dang appeal of Stormlight to me is the ideals and the moral absolutism, the sense that right and wrong are things that truly matter, that a conviction can lift you above the common clay and grant you the skies, that there are Rules that don't have exceptions no matter how clever or powerful or silver-tongued you are, that the ideal and the material are not separate, that people must be honorable even when it's not reasonable, that every thing and mood and aspect of creation has its own strange little spirit so there is nothing that is truly not worth loving, the idea that even grown-ups must take seriously that burning itchy painful sense of right and wrong which children are taught to suppress.  Having exceptions and nuance and context-dependent-rather-than-inherent morality dilutes it in my opinion to just another "People are inherently flawed and cannot actually achieve the ideal and you're an idiot for imagining otherwise" story which one can find anywhere.

You're right that observing judgement without ever considering it is tyranny, and that rejecting everyone else's thoughts is unfair and unwise (those are tendencies I need to work on).

 

2 hours ago, Returned said:

Obviously you feel how you feel and think what you think about this portion of story, and I'm not intending to push you into changing your position or perspective nor to feel you need to defend or explain yourself. But I am curious. Overall, do you like the Cosmere books? Does Bridge 4's desperate violation bother you more than, say Vin and Kelsier's murders, Sazed's balance of action and inaction, Adolin killing Torol Sadeas, etc.?

Mistborn is an entirely different thing than Stormlight, with an entirely different appeal.  Vin and Kelsier steal and murder because they're thieves and murderers, it's what they do.  We're never asked by the narrative to think they're not criminals breaking the law.  There's no pretense of playing fair.  Scadrial's gods in that trilogy are Preservation and Ruin, and even though they are not aware of said deities, Kelsier's crew strive to wreck an empire while preserving the memory of the world that was, it checks out remarkably well for a story that only lets us learn of Preservation and Ruin in the third book!  The ruin-type things they do lead to ruin, the preservation-type things they do lead to preservation (in Secret History Leras himself tells Kelsier that he (Kelsier) has served ruin more often than preservation, an absolutely gutting line that hits incredibly hard for a character who died before ever knowing of such gods (but who nonetheless is responsible for the horrible disaster)). 

In contrast, we get Honor and Odium from the first Stormlight book.  The characters have much more active guidance from Dalinar's visions and from the Spren, which makes their failures to live up to the ideals they strive for feel like Knowingly Making Apocalyptic Choices rather than Unknowingly Making Apocalyptic Choices.  The humans are usurpers who stole the entire world, a clear contrast to the Skaa whose world got taken over by a tyrant.

In other words, Mistborn is about Chaotic Good Rogues who violently hate slavery (and cause the apocalypse) and who surprise you by NOT choosing the pragmatic option, Stormlight is about Lawful Good Paladins who begrudgingly put up with slavery (because the apocalypse demands their full effort) and surprise you by choosing the pragmatic option.  One of those feels a lot more dissonant than the other, I think, because Stormlight is much more ambitious, and gives itself much less slack.  The closer a thing is to being perfect, the more noticeable the flaws become, the more irritating.  Because Honor is incredibly difficult to live up to.

Harmony comes off as inscrutable and so I never felt like I truly knew enough of what was going on to be disappointed.  Then again, this is probably me playing favorites and giving him slack while being salty about Stormlight's characters being given slack, so I may need to rethink a lot of stuff.  Dang, good point.  Thank/curse you.

Adolin kililng Torol Sadeas bothered me because it was a secret murder and that's not at all honorable.  It felt like a betrayal of the whole way of doing things that so many characters had sacrificed so much to keep to, like cheating on a test.  
I guess what bothers me is the sense of disappointment I feel in how the characters who most should live by ideals and honor choose to live by pragmatism and reason and then the narrative doesn't always seem to hold them to the standard it sets.  It makes the POV characters in Stormlight come off as hypocritical, like they don't really care about what's right and true, and it makes them seem rotten and hollow inside sometimes.  It's like the frustration of watching someone try so hard and do so well for so long at something just about impossible, and get so close and then toss it out the window and grab the prize anyway, or of being let down by someone who you've always been able to rely on.

So, yes, I do like the Cosmere books.  I like them very much.  That's what makes them so frustrating.

2 hours ago, NameIess said:

You're correct that "The Ends Justify The Means" is not Honor's creed. However, Honor's creed, as we're shown very explicitly in KotW, is not "The Means must match the goal" either. Honor's creed is closer to "The Oath justifies the means". Bridge 4 had sworn no oath to respect the Parshendi dead, and so, in the eyes of Honor the shard, they did nothing wrong.

The Parshendi who attacked bridge 4 could very well have been honorable by the Shard's definition, if they'd sworn oaths to avenge the desecration of their dead. But again, by the Shard's definition, oaths are all that matters. If a serial killer swore an oath to kill a hundred people in ten years, then did it, Honor would see that as good. Most spren wouldn't, most people wouldn't, and that's where we get a major theme of the series. Being honorable is not just about oaths, as Dalinar realized at the end of KotW, as Adolin realized as well. Which is why a lot of Radiants don't seem to be that honorable. They've sworn oaths, but for example Shallan's oaths really do not restrict her actions at all.

This is exactly what I'm talking about! If it doesn't restrict their actions, then they're just playing at having ideals and caring about promises and right and wrong.  They're all Amaram.

2 hours ago, Returned said:

Overall I haven't found the Cosmere books to have a lot to say about ethics or philosophy (they're often shallow at best, typically avoid conclusions, and hardly if ever deal with right vs. wrong) but if this particular sequence affects you so strongly (as do other Cosmere events outlined in the first post of this thread) then I wonder how much of the books are enjoyable for you. If you do like them, which ones the most, and how do these sorts of issues not apply or are satisfactorily resolved for you? Please feel free to not respond, I'm genuinely asking and not looking to stir anything up or upset anyone.

I guess you're right about them being shallow and not dealing with right vs. wrong, but I always felt like they had depth and dealt with right and wrong quite often, so maybe I'm seeing what I want to see.  Most of the books are very enjoyable for me.  It's just that Stormlight promised a moral absolutism that was wonderful and fascinating and then goes "surprise!  The Honorspren were right about Humanity!  Humanity is flawed garbage that can't stop being flawed garbage!  They're doing their best, this is the best they can do, and that'll have to be good enough for you.  Jokes on you!  You've been rooting for soulless pragmatists, war criminals, unrepentant hypocrites, and imperfect mortals the entire time!  Oaths and ideals are stupid actually and the cool kids abandon their oaths to save their spren, because sacred vows mean JACK SQUAT when Smart Grownups figure out something smarter to do than care about the rules they swore to live by!  Also they're starting to show up on your favorite setting because SCREW YOU.  You're never getting moral absolutism, this was all a freaking prank.  Also Moash isn't dead yet."

Edited November 14, 2025 by Aliroz-The-Confused

[NameIess]

13 minutes ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

This is exactly what I'm talking about! If it doesn't restrict their actions, then they're just playing at having ideals and caring about promises and right and wrong.  They're all Amaram.

Their oaths do restrict them. Kaladin almost kills Syl because of his involvement in the Elhokar assassination plot. The majority of the Skybreakers join Odium because of their oaths. My point is not about the oaths though. It is about the nature of Honor. You were complaining that Honor could support people that did horrible things? Well, the reason for that is that Honor is not our human idea of Honor. It is Oaths. The Shard Honor does not care about being Honorable, only about oaths.

Now, does that make every Radiant Amaram? No. Kaladin follows his oaths, they guide his actions. So does Szeth. Not every order's oaths are as restrictive or 'honorable' as Windrunners or Skybreakers, but they are not all secretly utilitarians pretending to follow Oaths. The climax of KoWT is Dalinar acknowledging that oaths and honor are different. He chooses to make a choice in line with his personal code of honor, instead of acting in a utilitarian way by killing Gavinor, or an 'Honorable' way by fighting Taravangian and destroying Roshar. He makes serious sacrifices not just for himself, but for all of Roshar. His choice to hold to his ideals by refusing to kill one innocent leads directly to the cold-war situation we see with Scadrial and Roshar in books like Sunlit man and IotE.