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

[Immortal Platypus]

5 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

should be the most strict in its demands

Honor couldn't really do anything, he was storming DEAD! In addition, as Nameless has pointed out, in the Era that Stormlight takes place in, Honor doesn't care about being honorable. He cares about keeping the oaths you make, whether they be good or bad.

5 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

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?

Because not all cultures are equal. The Soviet Union's communism was and is worse than American capitalism, freedom is better than slavery, etc. I believe that the protagonists' culture (which is different from Alethi culture, I want to clarify that I don't particularly like that), wrong as it is in some spots, is better than the Listeners' culture, especially if their culture requires the execution of people who so much as touch their corpses. 

Quote

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.

I vehemently disagree. For one thing, characters not changing is different from them being perfect. Characters being aspirational is not the same as them being perfect. Characters cannot be moral absolutes. They can be absolute in their morals, but that is a different things, and some morals are worse than others, meaning that if they are absolute in bad morals, they are still bad people. If a character goes through their story without changing, they have no arc. What is the point of a main character without an arc? (This does differ slightly with side characters and background characters.) I agree that not changing (in certain ways) is a valid story, but a perfect character has no reason to change, there is no situation that can properly demand it from them. Most importantly, ideal heroes ARE NOT PERFECT. Please, name me three perfect characters (I ask for three, partially because one can be a fluke, partially in case I haven't heard of the character). The different points of the archetypes you name are valuable, but they are not accomplished by making your character perfect, they are accomplished by making your character great. 

2 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

•  

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.

I disagree with your appeal of fantasy, but that's fine. Different people have the same thing appeal to them for different reasons. It's just important to point that out, as it shows we're coming at this from entirely different frameworks. 

Quote

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.

Right and wrong things matter in every story, but to have true moral absolutism, you must have a Law-Giver that gives perfect laws. This doesn't exist in stormlight. The closest they have is Honor, who is, as previously discussed, intrinsically flawed. The problem is, Honor and honor are not a one to one correlation. Most people in stormlight are Honorable, but many are not honorable. I also think that even absolute morality includes nuance and is context dependent. For example, was it morally right for the US to nuke Japan in WWII? There are arguments to be made for both sides, but it is clearly a nuanced question. 

Quote

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.

You seem to be forgetting about Cultivation, a Shard (god) about growth. The guidance from Dalinar's visions comes from Honor, but the spren guide from both Honor and Cultivation. If the characters were already perfect, there would be no need for Cultivation. Failure to live up to ideals isn't "Making Apocalyptic Choices", it's reality. It's them growing, being cultivated. 

Quote

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. 

Personally, I don't think that stormlight feels more dissonant at all, but that might just be a me thing. 

Quote

Because Honor is incredibly difficult to live up to.

no, honor is incredibly difficult to live up to. In this case, Honor is not that hard to live up to. All that needs to be done is make an oath and keep it, and you live up to Honor. Living up to honor is much harder. It requires morals, a sense of right/wrong, and the ability and willingness to do what is right. Honor and honor are different.

Quote

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.

To quote Stormlight itself, "Sometimes a hypocrite is nothing more than a man in the process of changing." The POV characters are not supposed to be perfect, they're supposed to change and grow. They do care about what's right and true, they just don't always know what that is. 

Quote

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 don't restrict their actions because they are of Honor, not of honor. Their beliefs are what restrict them, because those are actually of honor. 

Quote

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."

• Previous Page

I disagree that Stormlight promised moral absolutism. As I said earlier, you cannot have moral absolutism without a perfect Law-giver, which I thought it was pretty clear Roshar never had. I think calling the main characters soulless is a very large stretch, technically I don't think they've broken any Wartime Laws, so they wouldn't be war criminals, I think they have been repentant, I don't think they're truly hypocrites, and they are imperfect mortals, which is the most they can be. They cannot be perfect or they would simply solve the conflict and there would be no plot. 

So do you think abandoning oaths to save a spren is a bad thing? I would've thought you would like that, it seems truly honorable to me. Just because you renounce the oaths doesn't mean that you don't live by them anymore (in this specific case, I think he still lives by them, he only said they renounced them to save their spren, but that they still intend on living by them). 

I don't really know how to respond to the last part, because it feels to me more like a personal rant than a critique of the books, so I guess I'll just say that Rosharans being on Scadrial is not a personal attack, and neither is Moash being alive.

[Aliroz-The-Confused]

42 minutes ago, Immortal Platypus said:

and neither is Moash being alive.

Oh swears to you, Moash being alive is a personal attack on everyone who has feelings and everyone who doesn't, and everyone who doesn't fit either of those categories, and everyone else.

42 minutes ago, Immortal Platypus said:

So do you think abandoning oaths to save a spren is a bad thing? I would've thought you would like that, it seems truly honorable to me. Just because you renounce the oaths doesn't mean that you don't live by them anymore (in this specific case, I think he still lives by them, he only said they renounced them to save their spren, but that they still intend on living by them). 

No, an oath means nothing if you renounce it.  It's not some negotiable context-dependent thing you can just abandon for *results*.  Sigzil's spren will never, can never, and should never forgive him, because he has violated that of which her spirit is made, a fundamentally Anti-Oath doing that is antithetical to her very being.

And the narrative treats it as a clever loophole to prove that Oaths are stupid nonsense actually and you should abandon them rather than live and die for them.

It's not redemptive, it's the opposite of that, and retroactively makes every Radiant a million times less trustworthy and respectable because they CANNOT BE TRUSTED even on the ONE THING that they should be expected to be trusted on.

Most of all, it's a forcible injection of nuance, which has very little business being in a fantasy (which should speak to the heart more than the mind, and have the patterns of dreams, not of logic) because it's too strong a flavor and will overpower everything else if overused.

42 minutes ago, Immortal Platypus said:

I vehemently disagree. For one thing, characters not changing is different from them being perfect. Characters being aspirational is not the same as them being perfect. Characters cannot be moral absolutes. They can be absolute in their morals, but that is a different things, and some morals are worse than others, meaning that if they are absolute in bad morals, they are still bad people. If a character goes through their story without changing, they have no arc. What is the point of a main character without an arc? (This does differ slightly with side characters and background characters.) I agree that not changing (in certain ways) is a valid story, but a perfect character has no reason to change, there is no situation that can properly demand it from them. Most importantly, ideal heroes ARE NOT PERFECT. Please, name me three perfect characters (I ask for three, partially because one can be a fluke, partially in case I haven't heard of the character). The different points of the archetypes you name are valuable, but they are not accomplished by making your character perfect, they are accomplished by making your character great. 

1: Jesus Christ, if one regards scripture as fiction.

2: Joan of Arc, Personal Recollections of Joan Of Arc by Samuel L. Clemens, better known as Mark Twain.

3: Charlotte Aranea Cavatica, Charlotte's Web by E.B. White.

Bam, right off the top of my head.

42 minutes ago, Immortal Platypus said:

Because not all cultures are equal. The Soviet Union's communism was and is worse than American capitalism, freedom is better than slavery, etc. I believe that the protagonists' culture (which is different from Alethi culture, I want to clarify that I don't particularly like that), wrong as it is in some spots, is better than the Listeners' culture, especially if their culture requires the execution of people who so much as touch their corpses. 

Nothing the Parshendi have done, even under Odium's dominion, has made them at all worthy of being compared to freaking communists.

As for your disagreement that Stormlight promised moral absolutism, I disagree.  Everything about Stormlight promised moral absolutism, for thousands and thousands of pages and countless words.

I also disagree that Honor and honor are different.

Edited November 14, 2025 by Aliroz-The-Confused

[Myst He/Him]

8 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

"The Ends Justify The Means" is not the creed of Honor.

Uhm, I don’t really want to be involved in this, but I’d say that it kinda is.

Egdedancer/WaT spoilers 

Spoiler

So, Nale hunts the budding radiants because doing so prevents the possibility of another desolation. He only changes when it’s revealed that the results weren’t there. That the results hadn’t been achieved. Only after that does he sort of change.

Yes, he may have been acting on false information from ishar(we don’t know, I think, but it seems likely to me since they were both kinda suffering from trauma/mental illness and we can’t expect them to be completely reliable.

As for whether Honor agrees with this. Tanavast doesn’t, but Honor does. Right before Honor dies, he thinks that he knows other goods, other than the keeping of oaths, which is all we see Honor(the shard/power) care about(there is a slight change after Dalinars death so this may change, but for now it applies) Honor, the power cares about the keeping of oaths. Not what the oaths are, or what you do to keep them. 
We see this plenty of times in Tanavast’s flashback/story. While that is just from Tanavast’s perspective, everytime honor and Tanavas disagreed(and this mostly applies to Dalinar and the stormfather as well) was because Tanavast’s broke an oath and Honor didn’t like it. We don’t see Honor ever give any credence to the why until later, which makes sense as it’s growing as a… person?(is that the right word?)
While we don’t know whether or not Nale swore an oath to kill budding radiants, it’s still almost the same. The result: keeping the oath or keeping the voidbringers imprisoned(which he pretty much swore an oath to do when becoming a herald) is what matters, not the means.

The ends justify the means is a creed of honor, just the not the idealized notion we have. We have to remember that just like the divine rage(odium) was separate from divine love(devotion), Honor is also separate from Valor, preservation, devotion, reason and endowment.(This list contains what I think would help towards our conception of honor)

Idk what side of this, this puts me on, I don’t really care either. Whatever happens happens, and our theorizing doesn’t really have any impact on what actually happens(unless one of us gets involved in Dragonsteel or something) 

It depends on who the characters are. 

[Immortal Platypus]

14 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

Oh swears to you, Moash being alive is a personal attack on everyone who has feelings and everyone who doesn't, and everyone who doesn't fit either of those categories, and everyone else.

I disagree. Brandon didn't write it as a personal attack, so it's not one. You can feel attacked by it, but that is a different thing.

Quote

No, an oath means nothing if you renounce it.  It's not some negotiable context-dependent thing you can just abandon for *results*.  Sigzil's spren will never, can never, and should never forgive him, because he has violated that of which her spirit is made, a fundamentally Anti-Oath doing that is antithetical to her very being.

If an oath means nothing if you renounce it, than renouncing it means nothing. There must be some meaning to it, but what that is is open to debate. However, the ideas which produced the oaths are still there, and you can still live by them. He has violated part of what her spirit is made of, and has fulfilled the other part. Only part of her is Honor, the other part is Cultivation which you repeatedly ignore. And again, anti-Oath is anti-Honor, not anti-honor.

Quote

And the narrative treats it as a clever loophole to prove that Oaths are stupid nonsense actually and you should abandon them rather than live and die for them.

I want you to answer, would you prefer if Vienta had died, rather than him renounce his Oaths? In my view, him renouncing his Oaths, renouncing his personal power to save his spren is the ultimate fulfillment of his Oaths to protect others. You're also creating a false dichotomy. You can believe that oaths are important, while not thinking that you should have to die for them. Or you can take my position, which I would say is even more nuanced, and say that Sigzil was willing to die to protect Vienta, which was the highest possible fulfillment of his oath to protect those that cannot protect themselves, therefore, his only course of action to preserve his values (which are represented by his Oaths) was to renounce his Oaths.

Vienta could not protect herself, and so if he didn't protect her, that would be a violation of his Oath. There was no other way for him to protect her, so by renouncing his Oaths he followed them.

Quote

It's not redemptive, it's the opposite of that, and retroactively makes every Radiant a million times less trustworthy and respectable because they CANNOT BE TRUSTED even on the ONE THING that they should be expected to be trusted on.

My prior argument attests to this as well. IMO, he did the only thing that followed his Oaths. He never swore an oath to not renounce his Oaths, so doing that broke no oath. 

Quote

Most of all, it's a forcible injection of nuance, which has very little business being in a fantasy (which should speak to the heart more than the mind, and have the patterns of dreams, not of logic) because it's too strong a flavor and will overpower everything else if overused.

Did you just say that nuance has little business being in fantasy, or am I misinterpreting what you're saying? If that is what you're saying, we approach this from such different frameworks that I do not think there can be any resolution. Fantasy can speak to the mind just as much as the heart, and patterns can be whatever they want. If you restrict what a genre is to what it should speak to, you restrict great stories from being told or understood. I'm sure we would agree that Tolkien's works are fantasy, and they have plenty of nuance. 

Quote

1: Jesus Christ, if one regards scripture as fiction.

I do not regard scripture as fiction, Christ is the Risen Lord and perfect because he is God. I don't accept this as an answer.

Quote

2: Joan of Arc, Personal Recollections of Joan Of Arc by Samuel L. Clemens, better known as Mark Twain.

I haven't read it, but from the admittedly small amount of research I've done, it seems like she has a volatile temper, which would make her not perfect. 

Quote

3: Charlotte Aranea Cavatica, Charlotte's Web by E.B. White.

Remarkably, this is another I have not read, but I do know that she is not the main character. I don't believe I specified that I wanted main characters, but if you look back at the context, that was my original intent. I did talk about side/background characters being different, and I include mentor figures in that category. I promise I am not using this as an attempt to move the goalpost, I was simply not specific enough in the first place. 

I would also say that it doesn't seem like she is good at setting boundaries (again, I haven't read it, so take what I say with a grain of salt. or 20), being so self-sacrificial that she dies as a result, which I would consider a flaw. In addition, as a spider, she is carnivorous, so if the flies and other bugs are sapient like the barnyard animals (I don't know if they are or not), that poses major ethical problems.

Quote

Nothing the Parshendi have done, even under Odium's dominion, has made them at all worthy of being compared to freaking communists.

I was not making a direct comparison of them to communists, I was giving an example to prove my point of some cultures being better than others, a point that you didn't respond to. Do you agree or disagree with that idea? 

Quote

Everything about Stormlight promised moral absolutism, for thousands and thousands of pages and countless words.

Let's avoid making sweeping generalizations like "everything" because a) it's a bad faith argument, it makes it extremely difficult to debunk anything you say and b) it isn't accurate in nearly 100% of cases. If you can provide specific examples of Stormlight promising moral absolutism, I would be happy to talk about it. 

As for examples of stormlight not promising moral absolutism, can there be moral absolutism without a perfect Law-giver? I need an answer to that question before proceeding too far. 

One example I can give is Kaladin's struggle of if Killing to Protect is a real thing or not. We still don't have an absolute answer to that. I would say that it is, which is what he decided, but Lirin is still on the boat of it not being a thing. 

Quote

I also disagree that Honor and honor are different.

Then can you define honor for me? Or you could define Honor, as you believe they are the same.

[Aliroz-The-Confused]

2 hours ago, Immortal Platypus said:

I would also say that it doesn't seem like she is good at setting boundaries (again, I haven't read it, so take what I say with a grain of salt. or 20), being so self-sacrificial that she dies as a result, which I would consider a flaw. In addition, as a spider, she is carnivorous, so if the flies and other bugs are sapient like the barnyard animals (I don't know if they are or not), that poses major ethical problems.

She dies because her species of spider has a lifespan of between eight months and a year (she lives a full year, so one cannot argue that her death is even hastened by her choices).  The flies and other bugs are explicitly non-sapient.  When Wilbur asks her why she has woven her webs for him, she says,

Quote

"You have been my friend," replied Charlotte. "That in itself is a tremendous thing. I wove my webs for you because I liked you. After all, what's a life, anyway? We're born, we live a little while, we die. A spider's life can't help being something of a mess, with all this trapping and eating flies. By helping you, perhaps I was trying to lift up my life a trifle. Heaven knows anyone's life can stand a little of that."

As for setting boundaries, there are a surprising number of conversations in the book which end with her saying, more or less, "I'm tired.  Let's continue this conversation some other time." and retiring to her web.

2 hours ago, Immortal Platypus said:

I do not regard scripture as fiction, Christ is the Risen Lord and perfect because he is God. I don't accept this as an answer.

I also do not regard scripture as fiction.  I think we agree that that first example does not count.  The Chronicles of Narnia would have been a better choice on my part,

but that gets into strange places with Aslan being a fictional representation of Christ (who you and I agree is nonfictional and perfect because He is God).

2 hours ago, Immortal Platypus said:

If an oath means nothing if you renounce it, than renouncing it means nothing. There must be some meaning to it, but what that is is open to debate. However, the ideas which produced the oaths are still there, and you can still live by them. He has violated part of what her spirit is made of, and has fulfilled the other part. Only part of her is Honor, the other part is Cultivation which you repeatedly ignore. And again, anti-Oath is anti-Honor, not anti-honor.

I want you to answer, would you prefer if Vienta had died, rather than him renounce his Oaths? In my view, him renouncing his Oaths, renouncing his personal power to save his spren is the ultimate fulfillment of his Oaths to protect others. You're also creating a false dichotomy. You can believe that oaths are important, while not thinking that you should have to die for them. Or you can take my position, which I would say is even more nuanced, and say that Sigzil was willing to die to protect Vienta, which was the highest possible fulfillment of his oath to protect those that cannot protect themselves, therefore, his only course of action to preserve his values (which are represented by his Oaths) was to renounce his Oaths.

Vienta could not protect herself, and so if he didn't protect her, that would be a violation of his Oath. There was no other way for him to protect her, so by renouncing his Oaths he followed them.

My prior argument attests to this as well. IMO, he did the only thing that followed his Oaths. He never swore an oath to not renounce his Oaths, so doing that broke no oath. 

Yes, I would prefer if she had died.  As is, it's a cop-out and a cheat.  Heck, I'd prefer it if Sylphrena had died in such a situation, so that the readers could fully appreciate how thoroughly Navani messed stuff up with her innovations in understanding the Cosmere.  As-is, the readers don't have to lose any character they love in that moment, which denies a payoff to that buildup, making it seem artificial and weightless, and it really only serves to make oaths feel meaningless and to absolve Navani.

As far as Cultivation is concerned, I say nothing because I think that I have basically nothing to go on.  As far as I can tell, we know almost nothing of Cultivation.

2 hours ago, Immortal Platypus said:

Let's avoid making sweeping generalizations like "everything" because a) it's a bad faith argument, it makes it extremely difficult to debunk anything you say and b) it isn't accurate in nearly 100% of cases. If you can provide specific examples of Stormlight promising moral absolutism, I would be happy to talk about it. 

I did not mean it in bad faith, I meant it sincerely.  As for specific examples, "We have to go back.  Storm it, we have to go back", which is the moral center of the first book, is a promise of moral absolutism.  The story is structured around that point, The rest of the book, at least in my analysis, is (in the moral sense) either lead-up or aftermath to it.

While my sweeping generalizations make it extremely difficult for you to debunk anything I say, your insistence on granularity, specificity, and rational debate make it extremely difficult for me to defend anything I say and extremely difficult for me to debunk anything you say.  If we restrict it to the specific, to excerpts and page-numbers and this chapter or that chapter, how am I supposed to speak of the whole?  How am I supposed to speak of the overall tone, of feelings and mood and the big picture when you require elements small enough to be cited?  

I don't know if I agree that some cultures are better than others, I don't have a coherent answer to that question.  What I do know is that between this and Navani's treatment of the Sibling and the spren, and Shallan taking Iyatil's mask off, and my inability to find any reason to believe that Rosharan humans are capable of interacting with non-humans or non-Rosharans in good faith in the long term, I stand by my previous assertion about mister Sanderson's intentional characterization of Rosharan humans.  I will retract that assertion if you can provide a specific counterexample in which one or more Rosharan humans act in the benefit of another world with no ulterior motives or expectation of gain or reward.

  

2 hours ago, Immortal Platypus said:

Remarkably, this is another I have not read, but I do know that she is not the main character. I don't believe I specified that I wanted main characters, but if you look back at the context, that was my original intent. I did talk about side/background characters being different, and I include mentor figures in that category. I promise I am not using this as an attempt to move the goalpost, I was simply not specific enough in the first place. 

 

You said "If a character is perfect, it defeats the point of the character being there."  Then you said "Characters cannot be moral absolutes. They can be absolute in their morals, but that is a different things, and some morals are worse than others, meaning that if they are absolute in bad morals, they are still bad people. If a character goes through their story without changing, they have no arc. What is the point of a main character without an arc?".  I guess I didn't see your parenthetical (which is incredibly likely because I often miss parentheticals) or you added it later (likely, given that we both edit our posts.).

I think "not being specific enough in the first place" can sometimes be moving the goalpost, and I feel like that's what happened here accidentally.

Additionally, I'd argue that Charlotte A. Cavatica is a main character, considering how much of the story is dedicated to her, how much of the dialogue is hers, and that she is the eponymous character of the work (though the third-person-omniscient point of view means the story is not told from her perspective).  I'd also argue that Joan of Arc is indisputably the main character in Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc, though she is not the point-of-view.

It doesn't seem quite right to regard Charlotte and Joan as side/background characters here.

2 hours ago, Immortal Platypus said:

As for examples of stormlight not promising moral absolutism, can there be moral absolutism without a perfect Law-giver? I need an answer to that question before proceeding too far. 

Then can you define honor for me? Or you could define Honor, as you believe they are the same.

No, there cannot, but the Cosmere being created by a perfect law-giver counts as there being or having been a perfect law-giver.

I cannot coherently define honor/Honor (some concepts cannot be reduced to simpler concepts), but I would say that it smells a little like a blend of sincerity, integrity, reliability, acting in good faith, keeping to customs and tradition, being true to your word, not compromising, playing on hard mode, and not giving a tinker's cuss about context or consequences or convenience or any fancy grown-up very smart wisdom.

 

2 hours ago, Immortal Platypus said:

Did you just say that nuance has little business being in fantasy, or am I misinterpreting what you're saying? If that is what you're saying, we approach this from such different frameworks that I do not think there can be any resolution. Fantasy can speak to the mind just as much as the heart, and patterns can be whatever they want. If you restrict what a genre is to what it should speak to, you restrict great stories from being told or understood. I'm sure we would agree that Tolkien's works are fantasy, and they have plenty of nuance. 

You did not misinterpret, that is what I said. 

(For the record, you are also restricting what the genre is, saying what characters are allowed to be, requiring that main characters have flaws to have a purpose.  If patterns can be whatever they want, then why is moral relativism and nuance required in Stormlight?  I feel as though the expectation of nuance and moral sophistication restricts the great story that Stormlight could be from being told.)

Yes, Tolkien's works have nuance, which is a lot of why I said nuance has little business being in a fantasy and takes over if overused rather than saying that nuance has no business in fantasy and takes over if used.

I guess the problem I have with it is, if an author starts bringing that kind of thing in, if an author starts requiring critical thought as a moral prerequisite for engaging with the material, then I tend to end up thinking critically about it, which means my inner critic gets awakened, and my inner critic almost never approves of anything, and sees any sort of enjoyment and appreciation of anything as wrong.  I know that's a "me" problem, but I genuinely cannot enjoy most fiction, and treasure the few that I can, and resent when I feel like I lose one of them.

I agree that we are approaching this from such different frameworks that there can be no resolution.

Edited November 14, 2025 by Aliroz-The-Confused

[Immortal Platypus]

2 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

She dies because her species of spider has a lifespan of between eight months and a year (she lives a full year, so one cannot argue that her death is even hastened by her choices).  The flies and other bugs are explicitly non-sapient.  When Wilbur asks her why she has woven her webs for him, she says,

Does it mention anything about her exerting a lot of effort into making the web and that taxing her too much. I thought I had read at one point in the past (though it was long ago) that that had something to do with it, but I could be wrong.

Quote

As for setting boundaries, there are a surprising number of conversations in the book which end with her saying, more or less, "I'm tired.  Let's continue this conversation some other time." and retiring to her web.

While that is a good example of setting boundaries, I mostly meant in terms of her hastening her death, but if that's not accurate, than my criticism can be ignored. It would probably take one more versed in Charlotte's Web than I (at least having read it) to truly make an argument for her not being perfect, so if you are willing, I'd like to set that example aside.

Quote

I also do not regard scripture as fiction.  I think we agree that that first example does not count.  The Chronicles of Narnia would have been a better choice on my part, but that gets into strange places with Aslan being a fictional representation of Christ (who you and I agree is nonfictional and perfect because He is God).

Yes, I would probably not count Aslan as he is both the side/mentor character and is supposed to be the Savior, so it's kind of a grey area.

Quote

Yes, I would prefer if she had died.  As is, it's a cop-out and a cheat.  Heck, I'd prefer it if Sylphrena had died in such a situation, so that the readers could fully appreciate how thoroughly Navani messed stuff up with her innovations in understanding the Cosmere.  As-is, the readers don't have to lose any character they love in that moment, which denies a payoff to that buildup, making it seem artificial and weightless, and it really only serves to make oaths feel meaningless and to absolve Navani.

I also don't think that it was the best way to write it, I would have preferred someone die, but I do like the renouncing of oaths. I don't see what you mean by it being to absolve Navani though, as we already saw a beloved spren die. I think the readers feel the aftereffects of her experiments, but I don't necessarily think they were a bad thing. For example, planes were developed in a sort of similar way, and have been used for great destruction, but I'm still grateful to have them. 

Quote

As far as Cultivation is concerned, I say nothing because I think that I have basically nothing to go on.  As far as I can tell, we know almost nothing of Cultivation.

How into WOBs are you? We still don't know too much, but we do know more than is revealed in the book. I think the most important thing is that she is about change which you can tell from her name alone, but also from her in-book actions, which I personally think reduces the extent that Stormlight can be construed as morally absolute.

Quote

I did not mean it in bad faith, I meant it sincerely.  As for specific examples, "We have to go back.  Storm it, we have to go back", which is the moral center of the first book, is a promise of moral absolutism.  The story is structured around that point, The rest of the book, at least in my analysis, is (in the moral sense) either lead-up or aftermath to it.

I believe that you don't mean it in bad faith, but the fact of the matter is that it is, at least to an extent, a bad faith argument. I think I can agree with that being a moral center, but I think there are others like "Sometimes the prize is not worth the costs. The means by which we achieve victory are as important as the victory itself," that I think are also worth calling a moral center. Even so, I don't interpret any of these to be promises of moral absolutism. Part of that is that we just interpret things differently, but part is that I still don't think that there is a perfect Law-giver present to make moral absolutism possible. 

Quote

While my sweeping generalizations make it extremely difficult for you to debunk anything I say, your insistence on granularity, specificity, and rational debate make it extremely difficult for me to defend anything I say and extremely difficult for me to debunk anything you say.  If we restrict it to the specific, to excerpts and page-numbers and this chapter or that chapter, how am I supposed to speak of the whole?  How am I supposed to speak of the overall tone, of feelings and mood and the big picture when you require elements small enough to be cited?  

For the record, if we didn't have rational debate, then this whole conversation would be useless, hence my insistence on it. I wouldn't necessarily say I insist on granularity, but I do insist on having specific examples. I'm happy for you to talk about the overall tone, feelings, etc., as long as you provide specific examples backing up each claim you make. And for the record, I think that if having to have examples makes to back up your opinions makes it extremely difficult to defend what you say, perhaps you should rethink those opinions. The same idea is true of me providing examples to back up my points; I provide examples so that you can debunk what I'm saying, not to make it harder.

Quote

I don't know if I agree that some cultures are better than others, I don't have a coherent answer to that question.  What I do know is that between this and Navani's treatment of the Sibling and the spren, and Shallan taking Iyatil's mask off, and my inability to find any reason to believe that Rosharan humans are capable of interacting with non-humans or non-Rosharans in good faith in the long term, I stand by my previous assertion about mister Sanderson's intentional characterization of Rosharan humans.  I will retract that assertion if you can provide a specific counterexample in which one or more Rosharan humans act in the benefit of another world with no ulterior motives or expectation of gain or reward.

I don't think that that is a fair request to make, as most characters (across the Cosmere, but also on Roshar specifically) are not cosmere-aware (aware of other sapient peoples). If I can provide examples of them being kind to specific Singers or Listeners under the same conditions, is that good enough for you? Also, I think it's important for me to ask you for specific examples of other worlders doing the same thing you ask me to provide examples of Rosharans doing. Kelsier is obviously Scadrial-focused, the number one purpose of the Ghostbloods is to help/defend Scadrial. It is natural to feel a sense of allegiance to your home planet, just how we (or at least I) feel allegiance to our home country. 

Quote

You said "If a character is perfect, it defeats the point of the character being there."  Then you said "Characters cannot be moral absolutes. They can be absolute in their morals, but that is a different things, and some morals are worse than others, meaning that if they are absolute in bad morals, they are still bad people. If a character goes through their story without changing, they have no arc. What is the point of a main character without an arc?".  I guess I didn't see your parenthetical (which is incredibly likely because I often miss parentheticals) or you added it later (likely, given that we both edit our posts.).

Actually, you can see if a post has been edited (at the bottom above the quote box, I'll attach a picture at the bottom of my response) and you can see that my posts have not been edited. I find it an unfair tactic to edit a post after you've already criticized something about that post to fix the object of your criticism. If I do edit something, it will usually be for spelling/grammar.

Quote

I think "not being specific enough in the first place" can sometimes be moving the goalpost, and I feel like that's what happened here accidentally.

You're right, it can be moving the goalpost, I was saying that it was not my intention to do that. I don't necessarily think that that is exactly what happened here, but I can absolutely see how you would come to that conclusion.

Quote

Additionally, I'd argue that Charlotte A. Cavatica is a main character, considering how much of the story is dedicated to her, how much of the dialogue is hers, and that she is the eponymous character of the work (though the third-person-omniscient point of view means the story is not told from her perspective).  I'd also argue that Joan of Arc is indisputably the main character in Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc, though she is not the point-of-view.

It doesn't seem quite right to regard Charlotte and Joan as side/background characters here.

I couldn't definitively say Charlotte is a side character, but that is what I believed at the time I wrote that. I would caution that just having a lot of dialogue doesn't make you a main character, nor does being the eponymous character, but it's very possible she's the main character. I never tried to say that Jon of Arc is a side character, my points against her were different. 

Quote

No, there cannot, but the Cosmere being created by a perfect law-giver counts as there being or having been a perfect law-giver.

a) we don't know if adonalsium was a perfect Law-giver, I personally would argue that he wasn't because he wasn't perfect (as evidenced by him being killed), and b) I don't think that counts like you say it does. The other thing is that if it does count, it means that moral absolutism should hold everywhere in the Cosmere, including places like Scadrial which you said is entirely different. 

Quote

I cannot coherently define honor/Honor (some concepts cannot be reduced to simpler concepts), but I would say that it smells a little like a blend of sincerity, integrity, reliability, acting in good faith, keeping to customs and tradition, being true to your word, not compromising, playing on hard mode, and not giving a tinker's cuss about context or consequences or convenience or any fancy grown-up very smart wisdom.

I think your definition is close enough to use for honor (I would use Merriam-Websters definition of "high moral standards of behavior." It also links integrity "firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values") , but I think it's very clear that Honor doesn't care about morals, sincerity, or integrity. To use the example Nameless used, if you made an oath to kill 100 people and kept it, Honor would think that was good. I don't think that matches the integrity standard you include. I also don't think it meets acting in good faith or keeping to customs and tradition, but those are more debatable. Can you see why I think honor and Honor are different? I think that's why Brandon wrote it the way he did, it's a major point of Adolin's arc. Promises and oaths being different is a symbolism for honor and Honor being different, in my interpretation.

Quote

You did not misinterpret, that is what I said. 

(For the record, you are also restricting what the genre is, saying what characters are allowed to be, requiring that main characters have flaws to have a purpose.  If patterns can be whatever they want, then why is moral relativism and nuance required in Stormlight?  I feel as though the expectation of nuance and moral sophistication restricts the great story that Stormlight could be from being told.)

You are somewhat right about me restricting the genre, though I do hold the idea that main characters shouldn't be perfect and should have flaws for all genres. I don't think moral relativism and nuance are required in Stormlight, I think it could be written with moral absolutism, but I don't think that's how it's written, and I don't think that it was promised that way either. It is my personal opinion that nuance should be in pretty much everything, with very few (if any) exceptions. You are welcome to feel that way, but that doesn't mean that moral sophistication and nuance don't belong in Stormlight. I think there could be a very compelling story told with moral absolutism, but I don't think it's the story Brandon wanted to tell, or signaled that he wanted to tell.

Quote

Yes, Tolkien's works have nuance, which is a lot of why I said nuance has little business being in a fantasy and takes over if overused rather than saying that nuance has no business in fantasy and takes over if used.

(lowkey almost accidentally sent the emoji flipping you off on accident cause I couldn't tell if it was a thumbs up or not)

Quote

I guess the problem I have with it is, if an author starts bringing that kind of thing in, if an author starts requiring critical thought as a moral prerequisite for engaging with the material, then I tend to end up thinking critically about it, which means my inner critic gets awakened, and my inner critic almost never approves of anything, and sees any sort of enjoyment and appreciation of anything as wrong.  I know that's a "me" problem, but I genuinely cannot enjoy most fiction, and treasure the few that I can, and resent when I feel like I lose one of them.

I think that critical thought is a moral prerequisite before you can make moral judgments, but I also think that you don't necessarily need it to engage with the material. However, I can't help you with this, so there's really not much for me to comment on.

Quote

I agree that we are approaching this from such different frameworks that there can be no resolution.

I think we may have to settle for clarity but disagreement. 

[NameIess]

On 11/13/2025 at 11:09 PM, Immortal Platypus said:

Because not all cultures are equal. The Soviet Union's communism was and is worse than American capitalism, freedom is better than slavery, etc. I believe that the protagonists' culture (which is different from Alethi culture, I want to clarify that I don't particularly like that), wrong as it is in some spots, is better than the Listeners' culture, especially if their culture requires the execution of people who so much as touch their corpses. 

I think you’re going a little far here. First of all, the protagonists don’t have a ‘culture’ in the same sense that a civilization does. You could make an argument that Bridge 4 has a culture, but that’s still not really comparable to a civilization’s culture, since in a civilization you’ll have a large amount of people with a wider variety of ideas and viewpoints than in a small group like bridge 4. And from what we see of Listener society, they don’t do anything near to killing anyone who touches a corpse. In fact, considering that their aversion to touching corpses likely comes from times when humans would mutilate singer corpses to get the gem hearts out, I would say that it makes total sense that they are more sensitive about respecting the dead. Regardless, from what we see of Listener culture, no groups were oppressed. They didn’t have slaves, or a darkeyes/lighteyes skism, or any of the other injustices of Rosharan society. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the Five are even elected positions! They were less advanced technologically, but overall the Listeners seem like a great people to live with, if anything, their culture was, and perhaps is, the best on Roshar. Not that comparing cultures with blanket labels is a good thing, generally. Yes, there are standouts, like dictatorships being bad generally compared to democracies, but when comparing cultures that aren’t so obviously ‘better’, particularly of oppressed peoples like the Parshendi, it is easy to come off in a ‘colonialism was good, actually’ kind of way. Not that I think that’s what you meant, but just be careful when making comparisons like this, especially in a topic that’s gotten a little heated.

Edited November 15, 2025 by NameIess

[Immortal Platypus]

10 hours ago, NameIess said:

I think you’re going a little far here. First of all, the protagonists don’t have a ‘culture’ in the same sense that a civilization does. You could make an argument that Bridge 4 has a culture, but that’s still not really comparable to a civilization’s culture, since in a civilization you’ll have a large amount of people with a wider variety of ideas and viewpoints than in a small group like bridge 4. And from what we see of Listener society, they don’t do anything near to killing anyone who touches a corpse. In fact, considering that their aversion to touching corpses likely comes from times when humans would mutilate singer corpses to get the gem hearts out, I would say that it makes total sense that they are more sensitive about respecting the dead. Regardless, from what we see of Listener culture, no groups were oppressed. They didn’t have slaves, or a darkeyes/lighteyes skism, or any of the other injustices of Rosharan society. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the Five are even elected positions! They were less advanced technologically, but overall the Listeners seem like a great people to live with, if anything, their culture was, and perhaps is, the best on Roshar. Not that comparing cultures with blanket labels is a good thing, generally. Yes, there are standouts, like dictatorships being bad generally compared to democracies, but when comparing cultures that aren’t so obviously ‘better’, particularly of oppressed peoples like the Parshendi, it is easy to come off in a ‘colonialism was good, actually’ kind of way. Not that I think that’s what you meant, but just be careful when making comparisons like this, especially in a topic that’s gotten a little heated.

I guess calling the protagonist's behavior the protagonist's culture was not the right word, and I should have been more clear about who I meant. I did mean specifically Kaladin and the other members of Bridge 4 because that's who we were talking about at the time. Shallan and Dalinar's beliefs are quite different from theirs. In addition, I do think that any culture is comparable to others, the comparison just has to be on a scale that makes sense. In this case, I think you're right and that I did overreach. 

From what we've seen of their society I would agree. However, what I was talking about was in contrast to Aliroz's idea that Bridge 4 should be executed for taking the carapace, which the Listeners did try to kill them for. My example was hyperbolic, but I believe the principle remains true.

As for them being elected positions, I don't think we know how they're chosen. What we do know (I'm pretty confident about this, but not 100%) is that they can choose someone to succeed them when they go out on missions in case they don't return, so it doesn't seem to me like they are elected (which is admittedly, a relatively weak reason to think that).

I wouldn't necessarily say their culture was best, that might belong to the Horneaters (we haven't seen a lot of their culture) or the Herdazians (I don't remember how much we've seen of theirs, but from what I can recall, it seems pretty good), but it was overall good. 

Overall, you're right, I should've been and will be more careful. Thanks Nameless

Edited November 15, 2025 by Immortal Platypus
added in parenthetical qualifier in paragraph 3

[Aliroz-The-Confused]

On 11/14/2025 at 5:24 PM, Immortal Platypus said:

You are somewhat right about me restricting the genre, though I do hold the idea that main characters shouldn't be perfect and should have flaws for all genres. I don't think moral relativism and nuance are required in Stormlight, I think it could be written with moral absolutism, but I don't think that's how it's written, and I don't think that it was promised that way either. It is my personal opinion that nuance should be in pretty much everything, with very few (if any) exceptions. You are welcome to feel that way, but that doesn't mean that moral sophistication and nuance don't belong in Stormlight. I think there could be a very compelling story told with moral absolutism, but I don't think it's the story Brandon wanted to tell, or signaled that he wanted to tell.

Nuance can be found anywhere, in any fiction, though.  There's no end to "humans are flawed garbage and this is the best they can do" stories.  That sort of thing, and nuance, means that the story isn't really for me, but for people who don't think like I do.

I think that he promised moral absolutism, promised a story different and unique and wonderful, something almost impossible to write and breathtakingly daring in its imagination.  The potential version with moral absolutism and without moral sophistication would be unlike anything that's been written in generations, maybe ever.

The series isn't finished, maybe he'll actually do it.  But probably not.

 

On 11/14/2025 at 5:24 PM, Immortal Platypus said:

For the record, if we didn't have rational debate, then this whole conversation would be useless, hence my insistence on it.

Oh.  I'll try to be more useful, then.

Can't there be some use in what I say outside of rational debate?

On 11/14/2025 at 5:24 PM, Immortal Platypus said:

And for the record, I think that if having to have examples makes to back up your opinions makes it extremely difficult to defend what you say, perhaps you should rethink those opinions.

Oh.

On 11/14/2025 at 5:24 PM, Immortal Platypus said:

The same idea is true of me providing examples to back up my points; I provide examples so that you can debunk what I'm saying, not to make it harder.

What?  No.  That makes absolutely no sense.  That's like providing fire to make something colder.  I can't debunk examples.

On 11/14/2025 at 5:24 PM, Immortal Platypus said:

How into WOBs are you? We still don't know too much, but we do know more than is revealed in the book. I think the most important thing is that she is about change which you can tell from her name alone, but also from her in-book actions, which I personally think reduces the extent that Stormlight can be construed as morally absolute.

I know very few of them.  Personally, I feel as though a reader of the books cannot be expected to know random errata scattered across the internet, and ought not be expected to know or be familiar with or regard-as-equivalently-canon-to-published-material material that has not been edited or published or even made available in print.  Mister Sanderson could change his mind at any point before publication, but when the book exists in print, it is settled.  If ever a book of WOBs is published, I will read it.

 

On 11/14/2025 at 5:24 PM, Immortal Platypus said:

I think we may have to settle for clarity but disagreement. 

Fine.  You win.  You're right and I'm wrong.

[Qianweilian He/him]

16 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

Fine.  You win.  You're right and I'm wrong.

No one "wins" an argument except by walking away with a greater understanding. Reading your viewpoint has made me rethink my feelings toward Stormlight, and although they are still different then yours, I thank you for giving me this opportunity. If you just surrender and cease discussion, everyone loses. I made disagree with your point of view, but I still want it to be expressed and discussed.

[Immortal Platypus]

19 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

Nuance can be found anywhere, in any fiction, though.  There's no end to "humans are flawed garbage and this is the best they can do" stories.  That sort of thing, and nuance, means that the story isn't really for me, but for people who don't think like I do.

That's kind of my point. Personally, I disagree with your characterization of those stories, but that's a matter of personal view.

Quote

I think that he promised moral absolutism, promised a story different and unique and wonderful, something almost impossible to write and breathtakingly daring in its imagination.  The potential version with moral absolutism and without moral sophistication would be unlike anything that's been written in generations, maybe ever.

The series isn't finished, maybe he'll actually do it.  But probably not.

And you're welcome to think that, I just think it's a different promise, but that's ok. That's pretty much the source of most of our disagreement, so I think the best course of action is to acknowledge that we have different worldviews and different ideas of what was promised which shape our ideas of the story in different ways.

Quote

Oh.  I'll try to be more useful, then.

Can't there be some use in what I say outside of rational debate?

I'm not saying you're not useful. What I'm saying is that the purpose of this conversation specifically, from my point of view, could not be accomplished without rational debate. That's why I said what I said.

Quote

What?  No.  That makes absolutely no sense.  That's like providing fire to make something colder.  I can't debunk examples.

You can't debunk examples, but you can offer an alternative interpretation of those examples, or you can offer counter-examples that prove your point. Without evidence, I don't think many arguments hold water.

Quote

I know very few of them.  Personally, I feel as though a reader of the books cannot be expected to know random errata scattered across the internet, and ought not be expected to know or be familiar with or regard-as-equivalently-canon-to-published-material material that has not been edited or published or even made available in print.  Mister Sanderson could change his mind at any point before publication, but when the book exists in print, it is settled.  If ever a book of WOBs is published, I will read it.

I agree that you shouldn't be expected to know them, that's why I didn't start citing them. I do think that if you're going to theorize about what will happen, you should heed evidence given from any reliable source. And not to be nitpicky, but Brandon has retconned things before, like Kaladin killing Szeth. 

Quote

Fine. You win. You're right and I'm wrong.

what? that's not at all what I'm saying. and I agree with @Qianweilian, you don't win arguments, or at least, you don't win in a productive way. However, it seems to me, that you don't enjoy this conversation, and I'm enjoying it less and less, so unless there's something that I think demands a reply, I won't be making any of these longer replies anymore.

[Aliroz-The-Confused]

5 hours ago, Qianweilian said:

No one "wins" an argument except by walking away with a greater understanding.

I think that arguments are won when one person concedes to being wrong.  Immortal Platypus said that there could be no resolution to our disagreement and said that we would have to settle for clarity but disagreement, which I interpreted as meaning that he or she was offering me an opportunity to surrender without being disagreed with any further (essentially, he or she said he or she was never going to see things my way). I did so. 

To tell you the truth, I would rather you accepted winning with grace, rather than lecturing me about how I am wrong even in admitting to being wrong.

5 hours ago, Qianweilian said:

Reading your viewpoint has made me rethink my feelings toward Stormlight

Two thoughts on this:

1) Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but this is sarcasm, right?  Because I honestly can't see any way in which this is true, and, if I'm interpreting this sentence correctly, I think you directly contradict this in the next thing you say.

2) I'm sincerely sorry if I changed your thoughts or feelings, that was never my intent.

5 hours ago, Qianweilian said:

 and although they are still different then yours

You still disagree with me, just as before, so I'm not seeing how I could have made you rethink your feelings on Stormlight.

5 hours ago, Qianweilian said:

I thank you for giving me this opportunity.

I'm not sure if you meant it this way or not, but if you didn't, then I don't think you realize how mocking this sounds, how much like gloating it feels.  

5 hours ago, Qianweilian said:

If you just surrender and cease discussion, everyone loses.

I lose either way.  I think, perhaps, you might want to ask yourself if you feel that you are missing out on a point of view or if you are missing out on the opportunity to politely and gently correct an incorrect point of view.  Both are valid, but the experience of being on the other side of those two situations is different.  

5 hours ago, Qianweilian said:

I made disagree with your point of view, but I still want it to be expressed and discussed.

2 hours ago, Immortal Platypus said:

I'm not saying you're not useful. What I'm saying is that the purpose of this conversation specifically, from my point of view, could not be accomplished without rational debate. That's why I said what I said.

See, that's the thing.  I didn't post my point of view to express myself, or to discuss it, but to see if there was anyone who agreed with it, who could agree with it, or if mine was an isolate perspective (which it turned out to be).

Not everybody wants to express himself or herself, though everybody, of course, deserves to be allowed to do so.  Some people would rather be silent and read books in the school library than write poetry or play an instrument.  Some people are censors at heart, like myself, and every once in a while must cough in a library to see if there is someone else there who is doing the same thing, who might cough back and then say nothing, and not stop reading, and add the pleasant knowledge that someone else is enjoying a book to the pleasantness of enjoying a book.

All of which is to say, I wanted to see if anyone agreed with me, and found the answer.

2 hours ago, Immortal Platypus said:

And you're welcome to think that, I just think it's a different promise, but that's ok. That's pretty much the source of most of our disagreement, so I think the best course of action is to acknowledge that we have different worldviews and different ideas of what was promised which shape our ideas of the story in different ways.

I already conceded that your view is right, what did I do wrong?  I thought that was what you were going for when you said we would have to settle for clarity but disagreement.

2 hours ago, Immortal Platypus said:

what? that's not at all what I'm saying. and I agree with @Qianweilian, you don't win arguments, or at least, you don't win in a productive way. However, it seems to me, that you don't enjoy this conversation, and I'm enjoying it less and less, so unless there's something that I think demands a reply, I won't be making any of these longer replies anymore.

I was enjoying it, and was surprised when you offered to end the conversation. I'm sorry that you're enjoying it less and less (I was hoping you'd enjoy winning the argument), and you are not obligated to respond if you don't enjoy it.

 

As for Joan of Arc's volatile temper in Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc, in context the instances that are cited as her being short-tempered and brusque are her immediately shutting her soldiers down whenever they start talking about wanting to do things like "we could spend our pay on prostitutes instead of food and then steal food from the peasantry", "We could change course and join a nearly-done siege so as to capture some noblemen and hold them for ransom, that would get us more money and be safer than intercepting that band of traitorous war criminals that the angels said you should have us go intercept", "We could kill all these prisoners and nobody would know".  The other times she demonstrates a fierce temper is against certain french nobles who have repeatedly betrayed the king and who historically would later betray him again, or a godly wrath when she comes across the aftermath of atrocities.

Edited November 17, 2025 by Aliroz-The-Confused

[Immortal Platypus]

1 hour ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

I already conceded that your view is right, what did I do wrong?  I thought that was what you were going for when you said we would have to settle for clarity but disagreement.

I don't think you did anything wrong, I was just trying to say that neither of our views are necessarily right. I was trying to say that we are clear on what each other believe, though we disagree about it. I didn't see it as a win/loss, and it seemed to me that when you said that I was right that you were mad about it. I just wanted you to know I didn't see it as I had to win so you had to lose.

Quote

I was enjoying it, and was surprised when you offered to end the conversation. I'm sorry that you're enjoying it less and less (I was hoping you'd enjoy winning the argument), and you are not obligated to respond if you don't enjoy it.

I do enjoy it somewhat, but it was also beginning to feel a little bit like a chore, through no fault of your own, you've been wonderful. As for enjoying winning the argument, if that's how you genuinely feel, that's great. I thought it felt tainted because I thought you were simply giving up because you were tired of being on the side everyone disagreed with, but if that's not how you feel, that's great. 

 

I'll largely leave @Qianweilian to respond to what you said to him, but I do want to say that it is possible to rethink your beliefs while still disagreeing with someone who you initially disagreed with. I've certainly thought about certain things from a different perspective, and while you ultimately didn't change my mind, I did rethink certain things.

 

That's all I had to say, I hope you have a wonderful day/night/evening/whatever. I mean this whole-heartedly, and thank you for such an interesting discussion. What you talk about about Joan of Arc is especially interesting, I'll have to add that book to my to read list.

[Qianweilian He/him]

17 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

I think that arguments are won when one person concedes to being wrong.

17 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

To tell you the truth, I would rather you accepted winning with grace, rather than lecturing me about how I am wrong even in admitting to being wrong.

This is where our viewpoints differ. I'm sorry that I was lecturing and telling you how to feel, that was not my intention, but I don't hold the same view of what "winning" an argument is. I believe that the only way to "win" an argument is to walk away from it more knowledgeable and thoughtful, regardless of what your initial viewpoint was.

17 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

Two thoughts on this:

1) Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but this is sarcasm, right?  Because I honestly can't see any way in which this is true, and, if I'm interpreting this sentence correctly, I think you directly contradict this in the next thing you say.

2) I'm sincerely sorry if I changed your thoughts or feelings, that was never my intent.

1) This is not sarcasm. I'm sorry if it seemed like it. My viewpoints about the themes of Stormlight is mostly unchanged, but you made me rethink it and justify it, which I appreciate.

2) Please don't be sorry on my behalf. I enjoyed this conversation and I enjoy, in general, stretching my brain and thinking through things.

17 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

I'm not sure if you meant it this way or not, but if you didn't, then I don't think you realize how mocking this sounds, how much like gloating it feels.  

I sincerely apologize if this seems to mock you or gloat. I have no intention of doing so, instead I am genuinely thanking you for starting this discussion and going through your viewpoint.

17 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

I think, perhaps, you might want to ask yourself if you feel that you are missing out on a point of view or if you are missing out on the opportunity to politely and gently correct an incorrect point of view.

Perhaps you have a point there. I do tend to get an ego as the "smart" and "enlightened" person in arguments. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. (Yes, this is sincere) I was trying to see another point of view, but there are many moments where I was trying to correct you instead of thoughtfully discuss, especially near the beginning of this thread.

 

I agree with @Immortal Platypus in that I'll have to add the book you mentioned to my reading list. It sounds pretty interesting. I'm probably not going to continue responding to this thread, as I feel the conversation has wound down and is no longer productive, instead we're picking up the pieces of our feelings and debating the victor of said argument.

Edited November 17, 2025 by Qianweilian

[Aliroz-The-Confused]

I honestly would appreciate it if one of you could say what ways I actually changed your thinking on Stormlight, as in, specifics.  What things did you rethink?

Because all I see is me being wrong all over the place and nobody agreeing, so being told what parts actually came off as valid or somewhat-valid would help a lot.

On 8/28/2025 at 5:16 PM, Ookla The Fairy said:

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.

I strongly disagree with this.  I think mister Sanderson has made it abundantly clear that Scadrial is not intended to have any sort of happy ending.  If he was going to do that, he wouldn't have written the Wax and Wayne novels, he would have ended it after The Hero Of Ages.

Sazed became a renegade and a criminal mastermind because he couldn't bear to be complicit in what the Terris were doing to themselves (see: Tindwyl).  His deepest motivation, that flame-of-the-soul that compelled him to become a hero, the underlying purpose of everything he did in the novels, was to make a world where no one would endure what Tindwyl endured.  The original Mistborn trilogy ends with him becoming Harmony and the implication that he will, as a god, be able to fulfil this.  The premise of the Wax and Wayne novels is him failing at this and being unable to do anything about it.  It does not bode well for the Scadrians, long term, that their god cannot protect them, that their god has been forced into such suffering and helplessness.

Wax, Wayne, and Marasi entirely fail, in my opinion, because the women were gone for seven years, and some of them are implied to still be gone, and there are implications that infants were conceived and were taken to unknown places for unknown reasons.  Autonomy's withdrawal comes off as "I got what I needed", not as any kind of defeat.  The closest thing we get to a defeat for Autonomy is Scadrians beginning to do things on First Of The Sun, but that's hardly the kind of crusade that one would expect to happen between the worshippers of gods who are at war.

Heck, Isles Of The Emberdark is presumably set on Taldain, which is Bavadin's homeworld, and that implies that we're supposed to sympathize with Autonomy-aligned characters.  We're never asked to sympathize with the philosophies of Ruin or Odium, so this, along with Sixth Of The Dusk, implies that we're not supposed to see Autonomy as evil in the same way as Ruin or Odium, which implies that the Scadrians' grievance with Bavadin/Trell is less legitimate than the children of Ashyn's grievances with Retribution.

Furthermore, Hoid stole and ate the last piece of Preservation's body.  That was a sacred relic, irreplaceable. Like the Ark of the Covenant or a piece of the True Cross or something like that.  Hoid stole and destroyed a sacred relic after figuring out its location from the Terris (the first people to worship Preservation, who had had that religion taken from them) during their apocalypse, and never faced any consequences for this act of desecration.  I'm not sure we're even meant to disapprove of it, nobody in the fandom seems to be bothered by it like I am, so either I'm insane or the books treat wrongs done to Scadrial and Scadrians with less gravity than it does others.

Hoid is also metaphorically and physically in bed with Jasnah Kholin.  He clearly has a favorite world and an opposite-of-favorite world, and I'm inclined to think that mister Sanderson has the same favorite and the same opposite-of-favorite.

Edited November 30, 2025 by Aliroz-The-Confused

[SpartanBrigade He/Him]

14 minutes ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

I honestly would appreciate it if one of you could say what ways I actually changed your thinking on Stormlight, as in, specifics.

Because all I see is me being wrong all over the place and nobody agreeing, so being told what parts actually came off as valid or somewhat-valid would help a lot.

I strongly disagree with this.  I think mister Sanderson has made it abundantly clear that Scadrial is not intended to have any sort of happy ending.  If he was going to do that, he wouldn't have written the Wax and Wayne novels, he would have ended it after The Hero Of Ages.

Sazed became a renegade and a criminal mastermind because he couldn't bear to be complicit in what the Terris were doing to themselves (see: Tindwyl).  His deepest motivation, that flame-of-the-soul that compelled him to become a hero, the underlying purpose of everything he did in the novels, was to make a world where no one would endure what Tindwyl endured.  The original Mistborn trilogy ends with him becoming Harmony and the implication that he will, as a god, be able to fulfil this.  The premise of the Wax and Wayne novels is him failing at this and being unable to do anything about it.  It does not bode well for the Scadrians, long term, that their god cannot protect them, that their god has been forced into such suffering and helplessness.

Wax, Wayne, and Marasi entirely fail, in my opinion, because the women were gone for seven years, and some of them are implied to still be gone, and there are implications that infants were conceived and were taken to unknown places for unknown reasons.  Autonomy's withdrawal comes off as "I got what I needed", not as any kind of defeat.  The closest thing we get to a defeat for Autonomy is Scadrians beginning to do things on First Of The Sun, but that's hardly the kind of crusade that one would expect to happen between the worshippers of gods who are at war.

Heck, Isles Of The Emberdark is presumably set on Taldain, which is Bavadin's homeworld, and that implies that we're supposed to sympathize with Autonomy-aligned characters.  We're never asked to sympathize with the philosophies of Ruin or Odium, so this, along with Sixth Of The Dusk, implies that we're not supposed to see Autonomy as evil in the same way as Ruin or Odium, which implies that the Scadrians' grievance with Bavadin/Trell is less legitimate than the children of Ashyn's grievances with Retribution.

Furthermore, Hoid stole and ate the last piece of Preservation's body.  That was a sacred relic, irreplaceable. Like the Ark of the Covenant or a piece of the True Cross or something like that.  Hoid stole and destroyed a sacred relic after figuring out its location from the Terris (the first people to worship Preservation, who had had that religion taken from them) during their apocalypse, and never faced any consequences for this act of desecration.  I'm not sure we're even meant to disapprove of it, nobody in the fandom seems to be bothered by it like I am, so either I'm insane or the books treat wrongs done to Scadrial and Scadrians with less gravity than it does others.

Hoid is also metaphorically and physically in bed with Jasnah Kholin.  He clearly has a favorite world and an opposite-of-favorite world, and I'm inclined to think that mister Sanderson has the same favorite and the same opposite-of-favorite.

The Cosmere just isn’t that simplistic

Reality doesn’t end after the final page is turned; all evil doesn’t depart Scadrial following the Catacendre. The Shards are all extremely fallible as we’ve seen with Honor and Cultivation. Sazed isn’t an exception. Wax, Wayne, and Marasi succeeded, the women were saved though yes there are still loose threads. Autonomy was very much defeated albeit temporarily but it earned Scadrial the respite it needs to regroup and prepare for the real war. 

IOTED is also set on a planet called Drominad, not Taldain but yes it is also shaped by Autonomy. That Shard is different from Ruin and Odium. Odium represents unbridled hatred while Ruin is unbridled destruction. Autonomy on the other hand is not necessarily a destructive force. As pointed out by Moonlight, Bavadin is a hypocrite in the way she interprets the Shard’s Intent. Drominad is home to an avatar who seems to interpret Autonomy in a different way than Bavadin does. While it’s still brutal it does help to nurture the people of that world. No Shard is entirely or traditionally evil as mentioned in many WOBs. 
 

On Lerasium, it really is just a bar of metal. It wasn’t a sacred relic to the Terris people nor anyone on Scadrial. As of Era 2 it is also somewhat easily replaced as Harmony is capable of creating more. But again, the main thing is it’s NOT a sacred relic to anyone in-universe.

Hoid does have a soft spot for Roshar. But no that doesn’t mean Sanderson plays favorites or downplays Scadrial in favor of Roshar.

I’d like to ask you something but before I do I’d like to clarify this isn’t a personal attack; I’m genuinely curious because you have a very unique perspective. Why is it you so strongly dislike nuance? That seems to be the main way your view differs from the rest of the fandom.

[Aliroz-The-Confused]

1 hour ago, Ookla The Fairy said:

On Lerasium, it really is just a bar of metal. It wasn’t a sacred relic to the Terris people nor anyone on Scadrial. As of Era 2 it is also somewhat easily replaced as Harmony is capable of creating more. But again, the main thing is it’s NOT a sacred relic to anyone in-universe.

You're thinking like a modern materialist person; try thinking like a pre-modern person who hasn't internalized the idea that sacredness is a human construct and material things are only things.  A sacred relic is sacred in and of itself regardless of whether anyone knows about it.  It's literally (part of) the body of a god. The reason why it's not thought of as sacred by any of the Scadrians is because they do not know about it, and they can never venerate it because it was stolen and eaten!

In, say, LOTR, would an equivalent act against a world's (co-)creator be anything but heinous blasphemy?  Compare the two trees in The Silmarillion, or the Silmarils.  The readers would naturally get the message that whoever has done this is either (1) adversarial to the world and its people or (2) incredibly prideful and arrogant and in rebellion against the divine.

1 hour ago, Ookla The Fairy said:

The Shards are all extremely fallible as we’ve seen with Honor and Cultivation.

The characters who say that are mortals, and do not know the things that the Shards know.  I do not think this take is an intended message.

1 hour ago, Ookla The Fairy said:

No Shard is entirely or traditionally evil as mentioned in many WOBs. 

People keep saying this, and I'm sure mister Sanderson has said this, but it's directly contradicted by published material.  In my opinion, there is no way to naturally come to this conclusion from what has been actually published, hence the WOB.  I believe that the purpose of such statements from mister Sanderson is to give himself leeway to write imperfectly.

 

1 hour ago, Ookla The Fairy said:

OTED is also set on a planet called Drominad, not Taldain but yes it is also shaped by Autonomy. That Shard is different from Ruin and Odium. Odium represents unbridled hatred while Ruin is unbridled destruction. Autonomy on the other hand is not necessarily a destructive force. As pointed out by Moonlight, Bavadin is a hypocrite in the way she interprets the Shard’s Intent. Drominad is home to an avatar who seems to interpret Autonomy in a different way than Bavadin does. While it’s still brutal it does help to nurture the people of that world. No Shard is entirely or traditionally evil as mentioned in many WOBs.

Pretty sure we're supposed to see all of Autonomy's avatars are more or less aspects of the same multifaceted thing, different masks over the same face.  In any case, Patji's letter to Hoid all but states that Autonomy functions as a gestalt entity.  The foot and the hand and the eye are all different, but they are of the same body.

1 hour ago, Ookla The Fairy said:

Autonomy was very much defeated albeit temporarily but it earned Scadrial the respite it needs to regroup and prepare for the real war. 

Defeat, for Autonomy, is, as far as I can tell, defined as the end of Taldain's safety and isolation (which seems to be the main motivator for Bavadin).  Taldain is unscathed as of The Lost Metal.  Not acquiring new territory is not the same thing as a loss.

1 hour ago, Ookla The Fairy said:

I’d like to ask you something but before I do I’d like to clarify this isn’t a personal attack; I’m genuinely curious because you have a very unique perspective. Why is it you so strongly dislike nuance? That seems to be the main way your view differs from the rest of the fandom.

Nuance means that the work is made by a mind running reason.exe, which is a program I either don't have or have a broken version of, which means that that which is nuanced isn't intended for me, and I cannot relate to it because it was not intended for such.  I can't appreciate the subtleties and deeper layers, so nuance for me pretty much always feels like a sense of utter cynicism about humanity which can be summed up as "humanity is flawed garbage, but you ought to love it anyway.  We are doing our best, and this is the best we humans can do.", or, in other words "characters being flawed where 'flawed' means doing only the wrongs that the author finds redeemable, and it's my own fault if I have any different sense of morality because I can't argue with nuance because I'm not smart/insightful/wise/empathetic enough to understand the complexities.".

And I'm fine with that!  It makes for a lot of fascinating and interesting stuff, even if I can't appreciate it as well as other people can.  I just... I just don't like it when it takes over a genre or form that is supposed to be accessible to worldviews like mine.  

I guess the Cosmere metaphor would be:  "Nuance is that which is made by the shard Reason, and I kinda hate that because it inevitably and invariably subsumes all other philosophies and worldviews, and I want to be allowed to have a Preservation or Honor point of view but that's illegal because conversations about literature are for Reason-people."

Or, to sum up in six words why I dislike the omnipresence of moral nuance:  it makes me feel left behind.

Edited November 30, 2025 by Aliroz-The-Confused

[Returned he/him]

1 hour ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

Nuance means that the work is made by a mind running reason.exe, which is a program I either don't have or have a broken version of, which means that that which is nuanced isn't intended for me, and I cannot relate to it because it was not intended for such.  I can't appreciate the subtleties and deeper layers, so nuance for me pretty much always feels like a sense of utter cynicism about humanity which can be summed up as "humanity is flawed garbage, but you ought to love it anyway.  We are doing our best, and this is the best we humans can do.", or, in other words "characters being flawed where 'flawed' means doing only the wrongs that the author finds redeemable, and it's my own fault if I have any different sense of morality because I can't argue with nuance because I'm not smart/insightful/wise/empathetic enough to understand the complexities.".

And I'm fine with that!  It makes for a lot of fascinating and interesting stuff, even if I can't appreciate it as well as other people can.  I just... I just don't like it when it takes over a genre or form that is supposed to be accessible to worldviews like mine.  

I guess the Cosmere metaphor would be:  "Nuance is that which is made by the shard Reason, and I kinda hate that because it inevitably and invariably subsumes all other philosophies and worldviews, and I want to be allowed to have a Preservation or Honor point of view but that's illegal because conversations about literature are for Reason-people."

Or, to sum up in six words why I dislike the omnipresence of moral nuance:  it makes me feel left behind.

May I make an observation? You can say no (or simply ignore this post)-- I appreciate that this thread is mostly a conversation between people other than myself (I didn't like how my one post read and so I hid it, though you had already seen it and graciously replied).

Edited November 30, 2025 by Returned

[Aliroz-The-Confused]

16 minutes ago, Returned said:

May I make an observation? You can say no (or simply ignore this post)-- I appreciate that this thread is mostly a conversation between people other than myself (I didn't like how my one post read and so I hid it, though you had already seen it and graciously replied).

Certainly.

[therunner he/him]

10 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

10 hours ago, Ookla The Fairy said:

The Shards are all extremely fallible as we’ve seen with Honor and Cultivation. 

The characters who say that are mortals, and do not know the things that the Shards know.  I do not think this take is an intended message.

Even outside of what mortal characters say, Shards are certainly fallible.

Ruin failed, Autonomy failed, Honor failed, and we could go on. In every larger story arc (Era 1, Era 2, Stormlight) there is a Shard that fails at what they wanted to do. 

By definition, that makes them fallible, irrespective of in-world mortal character opinion. 

They are not omnipotent, nor omnipresent, nor omniscient. They are vastly expanded compared to mortal, but they are still limited. Even Adonalsium was.

10 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

People keep saying this, and I'm sure mister Sanderson has said this, but it's directly contradicted by published material.  In my opinion, there is no way to naturally come to this conclusion from what has been actually published, hence the WOB.  I believe that the purpose of such statements from mister Sanderson is to give himself leeway to write imperfectly.

I don't agree, or, not fully at least.

I mean, take Ruin in Era 1. From perspective of basically anyone on Scadrial, he is without question evil. 
And yet, the principle he represents, the driving force and compulsion in him, that things end and decay, is necessary for life to continue. 

Without decay, leaves won't decompose in fall. Without forest fires, certain species of trees won't reproduce. So world without Ruin wouldn't be a better one. 

I wonder if Ruin's attempted destruction of Scadrial was as quick and as violent if Preservation did not break their deal, and blocked the destruction for millenia.

[SpartanBrigade He/Him]

15 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

You're thinking like a modern materialist person; try thinking like a pre-modern person who hasn't internalized the idea that sacredness is a human construct and material things are only things.  A sacred relic is sacred in and of itself regardless of whether anyone knows about it.  It's literally (part of) the body of a god. The reason why it's not thought of as sacred by any of the Scadrians is because they do not know about it, and they can never venerate it because it was stolen and eaten!

In, say, LOTR, would an equivalent act against a world's (co-)creator be anything but heinous blasphemy?  Compare the two trees in The Silmarillion, or the Silmarils.  The readers would naturally get the message that whoever has done this is either (1) adversarial to the world and its people or (2) incredibly prideful and arrogant and in rebellion against the divine.

Shards are not gods. Shards are not divine. They are mortals wielding a fraction of the power the true God Adonalsium held. Lerasium is a small part of the Shard but not even Leras was particularly concerned by its theft and consumption. Compare that to LOTR where the Trees and Silmarils were created by true divinity.

 

15 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

The characters who say that are mortals, and do not know the things that the Shards know.  I do not think this take is an intended message.

The Shards are mortals too. I think that’s one of the biggest recurring themes across the Cosmere. Adonalsium was the one true God and his attributes split into Shards. But those powers are incomplete and they were taken by regular fallible people.

Preservation allowed a system of horrible cruelty to span centuries because it was stable. Leras lied and betrayed Ati to protect Scadrial sacrificing his life in doing so, something I think is noble but not something a true god would do or have to do. Ruin was tricked by Leras and killed by Vin. Autonomy was outmaneuvered and forced to temporarily retreat from Scadrial. Even Sazed is still a man who struggles with the powers he’s been given.

Over on Roshar, Honor’s been the biggest case of a fallible Shard, getting so caught up in oaths he forgot his humanity, betraying Ba-Ado-Mishram, and compromising the Shard’s Intent so many times the power rejected him. Even Cultivation’s master plan for Dalinar to claim Honor failed (at least as she had planned it) and she had to flee the planet.

In Endowment’s letter to Hoid we see that she’s not above selfishness and pettiness, again the traits of a mortal not a true God. And there’s also the fact that both Shard and Vessel can die. Ambition, Devotion, Dominion, and Virtuosity are all dead. Devotion and Dominion were manipulated into fighting and weakening each other before being destroyed by Odium, something possible with mortals and not gods.

15 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

People keep saying this, and I'm sure mister Sanderson has said this, but it's directly contradicted by published material.  In my opinion, there is no way to naturally come to this conclusion from what has been actually published, hence the WOB.  I believe that the purpose of such statements from mister Sanderson is to give himself leeway to write imperfectly.

 

There’s an important distinction to be made. Vessels can certainly be evil as humans can be, but the power itself cannot. It’s limited and that causes harm, but not evil. All 16 attributes worked together when a part of Adonalsium as they were balanced. Just as we are, Adonalsium was capable of having multiple attributes work together at once. He could Cultivate because he could also Ruin. He could Invent and feel Devoted to his creations. Think about how you feel when you’re angry about something because it goes against your morals. You feel a mix of Odium (the anger) along with Honor (because it goes against what you find honorable). So to with Adonalsium.

When he was killed and the Shards created, that whole was lost. Shards became only capable of one singleminded Intent. Ruin was now a force of unrestricted destruction without the tempering of Honor or Cultivation or Preservation. Devotion became a force of pure unhealthy… devotion instead of a tempered love as we see with the Seons who are happily willing to live as slaves to the Selish. Odium became unfiltered hatred without a cause, simply burning and consuming and raging. Etc, etc

These half-powers were taken by mortals, creating fallible beings as incomplete powers were claimed by fallible mortals who tried to approximate gods. Vessels can be evil, Rayse certainly was, but the power itself isn’t. It’s a force of nature and they can’t be evil in the same way a tornado can’t be evil. What they are is limited. I think that’s part of the reason Hoid declined taking a Shard despite being involved in the Shattering. Humans actually seem to be freer than Shards in a lot of ways.

There seem to be some new developments in that the Shard of Honor can relearn some of that old whole as a result of being bonded to humans who do have that range of attributes and emotions like Adonalsium did.

15 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

Pretty sure we're supposed to see all of Autonomy's avatars are more or less aspects of the same multifaceted thing, different masks over the same face.  In any case, Patji's letter to Hoid all but states that Autonomy functions as a gestalt entity.  The foot and the hand and the eye are all different, but they are of the same body.

Fair enough, the whole avatar thing is still a bit dodgy. It does seem like Bavadin’s avatars have some level of autonomy though since I doubt Bavadin would have been willing to speak to Hoid at all while Patji responded and stated “Perhaps if you had approached the correct one of us with your plea, it would have found favorable audience."

 

15 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

Defeat, for Autonomy, is, as far as I can tell, defined as the end of Taldain's safety and isolation (which seems to be the main motivator for Bavadin).  Taldain is unscathed as of The Lost Metal.  Not acquiring new territory is not the same thing as a loss.

That might be the condition for the total defeat of Autonomy. As of TLM she lost the battle for Scadrial. She didn’t lose the war and she’ll be back later but it was a definite defeat for her and a victory for Scadrial. In wars the successful repelling of an invasion is a victory even if the war isn’t ended (Battle of Midway, Battle of Britain, Battle of Stalingrad to name some famous ones).

15 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

Nuance means that the work is made by a mind running reason.exe, which is a program I either don't have or have a broken version of, which means that that which is nuanced isn't intended for me, and I cannot relate to it because it was not intended for such.  I can't appreciate the subtleties and deeper layers, so nuance for me pretty much always feels like a sense of utter cynicism about humanity which can be summed up as "humanity is flawed garbage, but you ought to love it anyway.  We are doing our best, and this is the best we humans can do.", or, in other words "characters being flawed where 'flawed' means doing only the wrongs that the author finds redeemable, and it's my own fault if I have any different sense of morality because I can't argue with nuance because I'm not smart/insightful/wise/empathetic enough to understand the complexities.".

And I'm fine with that!  It makes for a lot of fascinating and interesting stuff, even if I can't appreciate it as well as other people can.  I just... I just don't like it when it takes over a genre or form that is supposed to be accessible to worldviews like mine.  

I guess the Cosmere metaphor would be:  "Nuance is that which is made by the shard Reason, and I kinda hate that because it inevitably and invariably subsumes all other philosophies and worldviews, and I want to be allowed to have a Preservation or Honor point of view but that's illegal because conversations about literature are for Reason-people."

Or, to sum up in six words why I dislike the omnipresence of moral nuance:  it makes me feel left behind.

I see

[Nitpicking]

Both Roshar and Scadrial, as of "now", are modern worlds with modern societies, @Aliroz-The-Confused. They have science, they have industry (especially Scadrial), they have widespread literacy (yes, even the Vorin), they have nation-states. Living in a fantasy universe doesn't change that.

[Aliroz-The-Confused]

8 hours ago, Ookla The Fairy said:

That might be the condition for the total defeat of Autonomy. As of TLM she lost the battle for Scadrial. She didn’t lose the war and she’ll be back later but it was a definite defeat for her and a victory for Scadrial. In wars the successful repelling of an invasion is a victory even if the war isn’t ended (Battle of Midway, Battle of Britain, Battle of Stalingrad to name some famous ones).

Those are considered strategic victories because they represented an irreplaceable loss to one side (obvious for Midway and Stalingrad, less obvious for the Battle of Britain until you realize that Germany lost more or less all of its trained pilots while Britain had MORE trained pilots afterwards than it had had before), after which a second attempt was impossible, while the other side did not lose its ability to make a second defense.

Autonomy lost some Scadrian minions, but those were expendable and Autonomy's ability to make a second attempt is not impeded (the equivalent to Midway would be if she lost the Men of Red And Gold).  She is unscathed where Harmony is wounded and blinded.

Also, Retribution is coming for Scadrial.  I think Autonomy was besieging Scadrial to weaken it for Odium or Retribution to attack, and wounding Harmony and then withdrawing to let Odium/Retribution get the kill (or, perhaps, to lure Odium/Retribution into a fight that He might lose).

I think she did something like this on Sel, considering how Devotion seems to be opposite to Autonomy in the same way that Preservation and Ruin are opposites. 

Perhaps she also helped with Ambition, I wouldn't be surprised.

In any case, if I'm not mistaken, a lot of the missing women are still missing, and at least some of the babies conceived in secret places are nowhere to be found, so I'd call it a partial rescue.

I wouldn't call what the heroes in The Lost Metal accomplished a win, unless survival counts as something to be celebrated, unless enduring and resisting change counts as worthy in itself, unless preventing something from happening counts as accomplishing something, and that's more preservation-sympathetic than I think mister Sanderson intends for us to be.

Also, the Wax and Wayne books included first contact between continents, which I predict will have terrible consequences, and which Harmony and Kelsier seem to have intended to not happen given that they could have told the peoples about one another.  That's an irreversible thing.

So, in summary, I don't think Autonomy lost anything irreplaceable, I think her leaving Scadrial for the time is a setup for Retribution and Harmony to fight to the death, I think this is part of a pattern for Bavadin that she did on Sel, and I don't think that Scadrial/its inhabitants can successfully defend itself/themselves against Retribution.

Edited December 1, 2025 by Aliroz-The-Confused

[ParaTulip fae/faer (declines as she/her)]

On 11/30/2025 at 2:35 PM, Ookla The Fairy said:

Shards are not gods. Shards are not divine. They are mortals wielding a fraction of the power the true God Adonalsium held. Lerasium is a small part of the Shard but not even Leras was particularly concerned by its theft and consumption. Compare that to LOTR where the Trees and Silmarils were created by true divinity.

Just to note something here: Most religions don't have the kind of "impossibly more than a person" being that is the God of Abrahamic religion. The hellenic 12 divinities were all kinds of petty and crappy to each other and mortals, but they were considered so supremely powerful that it was absurd to oppose them. Ishtar famously got super mad that Gilgamesh wouldn't sleep with her, so she unleashed the bull of heaven. The gods of the Aztecs spent so much of themselves in making and maintaining the world that they needed humans to sacrifice of themselves or make offerings of others to continue to make the sun rise and the world function. The notion of an all-wise, all-loving, God of all things who cannot be meaningfully harmed by the affairs of the mortal world is not the only way to conceive of the divine.

On 11/30/2025 at 6:17 PM, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

I wouldn't call what the heroes in The Lost Metal accomplished a win, unless survival counts as something to be celebrated, unless enduring and resisting change counts as worthy in itself, unless preventing something from happening counts as accomplishing something, and that's more preservation-sympathetic than I think mister Sanderson intends for us to be.

Also, the Wax and Wayne books included first contact between continents, which I predict will have terrible consequences, and which Harmony and Kelsier seem to have intended to not happen given that they could have told the peoples about one another.  That's an irreversible thing.

I think we can't really judge the state of Scadrial and how important it not being destroyed due to the events in the Elendel basin region is without knowing how the southern continent is coming along. Maybe they are actually doing a lot of good progress besides retreading the early 1900s of Earth but without any of the radical social potentials. 

[Aliroz-The-Confused]

So, I have thought about it, and this is my attempted translation into reasonable-ness for what I'm trying to say.

 

Consider the question: "Do/can/will the children of Ashyn act in accordance with honor?".  We've established that the answer is no, they act pragmatically and reasonably instead, choosing a more sophisticated sense of morality.

Consider the question: "Do/can/will the children of Ashyn act in accordance with Honor?"  The answer is also no.  They renounce oaths to get desired results when keeping them would have bad outcomes.  Jasnah leaves Queen Fen with no alternatives to joining Taravangian because Jasnah cannot be negotiated with in good faith any more than a pirate or a bandit.  Everything involving deadeyes proves that to rely on the humans inhabiting Roshar is to be disappointed.  

Consider the question: "Do/can/will the children of Ashyn coexist on a world with others without eventually taking everything from them and breaking the world?"  The answer, as far as Wind and Truth is concerned, is no.  Not in the long run.  Given how sharing a world with them has ended up for the Spren and the Singers, the evidence is clear.

Consider the question: "Do/can/will the children of Ashyn maintain Odium's imprisonment, preventing the threat from spreading to other worlds?"  Wind and Truth answers this with a no.  Dalinar renounces all responsibility for Honor and abandons the shard to be claimed by Taravangian so that Taravangian will become everybody's problem.  He chose to do this.  It turns out that when the children of Ashyn say "Honor is dead; I'll see what I can do", what they choose to do is this.

In my opinion, these are genuine grounds for everyone else in the Cosmere to distrust, fear, and want to avoid interaction with the human inhabitants of Roshar as soon as they learn what they have done.  The fact that most of the Cosmere doesn't know the things we readers know is of IMMENSE benefit to to perception of people like Shallan in negotiations with people like Kelsier.  The fact that we readers have sympathetic points-of-view, a pipeline into the intentions of people like Shallan or Jasnah, is also of immense benefit to the perception of these same people by us, the readers.  If you, like me, do not find their flaws endearing or compelling or narratively necessary or excusable, then the overall message of Wind and Truth in my opinion comes across as "there is no hope.  These people are flawed, this is the best they can do, and it's not good enough, everything is worse because of what they have done.  Honor is dead, and this is the best they can do.  It's not enough, and everybody and everything is going to suffer for it.  But that's how it is, and it is better to care and be destroyed by that caring than to not care.  It is better to love and lose than not to love.  It is better to trust and be betrayed than to not truth. It is better to lose a planet than to lose one's soul.  These people are flawed.  Please forgive them."


Unrelated:  I think this will be my last post for a few years, or at least one of them, considering that when Returned compared me to Moash nobody contested that assessment.  This forum deserves better than people like Moash, that irredeemable traitor with no good qualities who is the worst thing his creator ever made and who is despised by everyone who knows him, including said creator.  As always, I'll respond to private messages.

Edited December 11, 2025 by Aliroz-The-Confused