kaellok

OP has an interesting idea that is certainly possible (btw, welcome to the forums, Aegolius! Have a cookie, I baked them fresh this morning. I'm not sure which batch had the poison and which didn't, but I'm pretty sure this one is safe. Mostly. Probably.) I think that you are more likely to be closer to correct, though, shawnhargreaves, if only because the Plate doesn't disappear when it runs out of Stormlight--it just stops working. Plate seems to work very similarly to hydraulic lifts and systems, able to move with incredible swiftness and speed (despite weighing massive amounts) so long as it has enough pressure; if that pressure depletes, then it's useless or worse. Stormlight seems to be working analogously to hydraulic fluid in this example. Certainly not enough evidence to disprove your theory though, and as I said, it's an interesting one worth exploring.

I will never complain about things that annoy or upset me, especially if they are small things that are well within a person's power to control. I will find life something that must be endured, rather than enjoyed. I will be humble. I will not refer to myself as the Lord God Master of the Entire Freakin' Universe tm.

Ketek started the cool thread of "Radiant Oaths you would swear." Today, sitting at 3am after working for 16 hours, and needing to wake up in another 6, I find myself here, glued to the interwebs, and unable to sleep. And a joke-thread was spawned! Oaths I would *never* swear, no matter how godlike the powers I would gain: I will go to bed at a reasonable hour I will always drive the speed limit I will only use the poll option for good I will only say nice things about the Star Wars prequel trilogies I believe that George Lucas, and not his beard, is responsible for the Star Wars prequels All of my oaths will be in absolutes, like putting the law above all else

I know this is a bit late, but what about Jeff, god of biscuits? ...what? There's a reason why the Romans stole the Greek gods.

Don't mind me. I am a stick.

I am a stick. And this. Is. My. BOOMSTICK!

We both tend to talk a lot, so a lot of snipping of comment is fine 1. Really, the only reason I was making this point is because MadMartigan's insistence that Kaladin could provide Shallan some way of seeing herself honestly and reconcile her inner truths. I disagree, because it's not like he's the most introspective and honest guy himself--but while that lack hinders her, it doesn't hinder him. 3. I'm finally home from work, and school, and other work, and so I feel your pain. I've only just now had an opportunity to check my book for specific references. In the duel scene, hardcover book, p. 666, chapter title "To Kill the Wind." Just before the chasm scene, Shallan is sketching bridge mechanisms, so my theory of her being mostly interested in living things seems weaker, but the extreme exuberance she has for living things remains. Maybe she just sketches everything. Some witty banter between Adolin and Kaladin, just before Shallan enters at the end: Actually, that entire pre-chasm scene is filled with Shallan and Adolin moments, with admittedly a few potential Shallan and Kaladin foreshadowing bits. In the chasm: Conflicting evidence here a bit later: Regarding Shallan cheering up Kaladin like Tien: Regarding my earlier comment about chasmfiends! And a final quote of wisdom by Shallan:

1. I'm not the author that compared, in-text, the ability of two different characters to make Kaladin smile. Sanderson is. Tien did so, and Shallan did. Both managed to make Kaladin smile in spite of his depression and/or SAD and despite circumstances. And both managed to do so in approximately no time, or, as a popular expression goes, "at the drop of a hat." Who else has managed to do so? No one that we know of, in-text. So what? My argument is plain and simple: the near-effortless way that Shallan cheered Kaladin up reminded him strongly of Tien. Your refusal to accept this is not my problem, as the argument is quite simple. You can dispute the conclusions I draw based off of it, but to dismiss the premise itself without any logic or reason other than an attack on myself is silly. Further, I said that that direct, textual comparison draws a direct line from Kaladin to his relationship with Tien; this draws the readers mind directly to the relationship Kaladin had with Tien, which is that of siblings. This means that it makes me, following this line clearly laid out, to think that Kaladin and Shallan would be able to have a very strong, close, platonic relationship--like that of brother/sister. If it goes the other way, I didn't say it would be creepy; I said it would be weird. And that's because that very purposeful textual connection that Sanderson has drawn seems off if that's his intended story route. 2. You based your entire original post around textual evidence, sure. But your rebuttals and responses have been little more than ad hominem or personal attacks, or simply restating your original point again and again without much in the way of response or development. 3. You're certainly arrogant enough to pass judgment on those who disagree with you, instead of engaging in actual debate. And I'm definitely arrogant enough to engage in such a reaction, defend myself, and continue to attempt to re-explain in a way that maybe, just maybe you'll actually read and understand this time. 4. I disagree with the conclusions you have drawn. Amazingly enough, responding to this disagreement and counter-explanations with insults hasn't managed to change my mind. Assuming you stick around, I'll see you in other threads.

No, my argument is actually very specific. The fact that Kaladin compares Shallan's instant ability to cheer him up to Tien's ability to instantly cheer him up signals to me that there is chance for a greater platonic relationship than a romantic one. That's it. No add five, divide by two, multiply the result by 12 needed. It just ends at what I said. By your statement, if you are looking for a woman as generous and caring as your mother, and when you find one your instant, immediate reaction is "You're as generous and caring as my mother was!" even (especially?) during the early days of knowing her, then yes--creepy. Kaladin being doom and gloom is boring and terrible. Kaladin being doom and gloom any time Shallan or Tien isn't around is also boring and terrible. Shallan 'fixing' Kaladin's boring doom and gloom is also terrible. Someone (whether Shallan or someone else) helping Kaladin actually get better isn't, so that's what I'd like to see. Not someone whose presence acts like a drug that wears off the second she's gone, or whose hug and kiss suddenly lifts the depression he suffers from. Shallan, by the way, is absolutely not required to be the person who helps Kaladin. Hell, Adolin is even helping in that regard--painfully slowly, yes, but still there. What Kaladin seems to need to alleviate some of tha are friends, and their gender is largely irrelevant. No idea where you're going with the rest of your comments, specifically regarding the ones after the immediate end of what I've addressed. I don't necessarily disagree, but they seem unconnected with any of the other argumentation occurring, so I'll ignore them.

Only problem with this: He already killed Syl once, when she warned him repeatedly against how he was acting re: the assassination plot. There is literally nothing stopping him from doing so again except the hope that he actually learned his lesson.

Speaking specifically to the sibling-type relationship: Both lost brother that played an integral role in their early lives. For Kaladin, Tien was always able to cheer him up, no matter what. Shallan, too, seems able to cheer him up, without even trying, even in pretty desperate and horrible circumstances. For Shallan, Heleran was the brother willing to attract the ire of demons so that others may live and prosper. Kaladin certainly fits this role (and the way that he goes about protecting her is different than what Adolin seemed to be implying at the time; Adolin's was an implied denial of agency, while Kaladin's way is to be so tempting a target that the bad guys can't help but attack him--even when he's not running with a bridge.) Each of them fits what the other lost when their brother was killed. Personally, I would find it particularly...weird...how Kaladin remarks on how Shallan is able to make him smile, compare it to how Tien could do the same thing, and then decide he's attracted to her. There's something off about that, to me, even if it's not big. Certainly, though, it would strengthen any pseudo-sibling bond they form instead of just being...weird.

Good to see you, too, Mr. Parachute! (btw, have I mentioned how terrifying I find your name? I will never deploy a parachute, as I will never be jumping out of an airplane. I don't care if it's a perfectly good one, or one that's crashing into the ground, or needed to sneak behind enemy lines. Jumping out of a helicopter or off a cliff is the limit that I'm prepared to handle, and even then only if I have a nice harness and stout rope I can hold onto.) Continuing to only respond to your responses to my post 1. So, yes, Kaladin mostly has trust issues as a more correct way of saying things. However, his trust issues bleed over into dishonesty. Deliberately allowing someone to believe a falsehood is dishonest, even if it's not a lie. It doesn't matter whether it's a good time for it or not. Of course, you should avoid bad ideas in times of stress, to keep from making things worse; that's not the argument I'm making. I'm simply arguing that whether something is honest (not to be confused with the truth) is objective, and Kaladin frequently isn't. Regarding the blame scenario, a lot of that is bleedover from WoK where he thinks he's cursed, or he blames Roshone or the nameless squadleader for Tien's death, etc. In WoR, he's blaming Elhokar for literally every bad thing that has ever happened in his life, and for the mess it's made of the lives of so many others. And, at the very same time (as you point out), Kaladin also assumes responsibility for things that he shouldn't. Regarding honor, Kaladin is mostly honorable, especially by the end of WoR, but it took him an awfully long time to figure out the consistent rules he was going to abide by. I mean, sure, extenuating circumstances and all make it reasonable, but even with Syl trying to get him to realize that cold-blooded murder is wrong Kaladin wasn't listening. 2. Shallan and Adolin's relationship absolutely could blow up, but that physical attraction has, at least for now, spurred passion--which is the number one trait to ensure long-lasting relationships. Granted, there's a lot else that is also required, but how many survive without passion? Or, god forbid, start without any? They have a shallow start, yes, but there is plenty of evidence of that deepening by the end of WoR. 3. I think that 'ruggedly handsome' and 'sculpted statue' are basically the same in terms of "generic statement of physical features." Saying Kaladin is like a "rock formation" is definitely different, though, so there's a possible point there. On the other hand, I am still at work and don't have my book, so I can't tell how many times she actually refers to either one of them in such flowery terms. Speaking of flowers, and wildlife, since those are what she shows the most interest in--wouldn't the argument be so much stronger if she said, I don't know, "Kaladin was ruggedly handsome, and intense, like a chasmfiend"? The only times that she seems excited by rocks at all is the crem buildup on the Shattered Plains; everything else is always alive. So, I still think this is, at best, incredibly minor evidence that we can, if Shallan and Kaladin become a thing (god forbid), look back and see it as foreshadowing. It just doesn't seem like enough to see it as evidence on its own; only, maybe, after the fact.

I don't have the book with me, so I can't easily give you a point-by-point rebuttal, but that likely wouldn't matter anyway--you don't like the Shallan/Adolin pairing, and that's fine; everyone's entitled to their own opinion. However, there are a few areas that still deserve specific mention. First, Kaladin is seen to be struggling with honor throughout all of WoR. That's his entire character arc for the book, is struggling to find out what is honorable, and how to be honorable. If he is seriously having that much trouble with "murdering someone in cold blood is bad, period" then he's hardly "steeped in honor." Further, while Syl demands honesty and truth, Kaladin doesn't. He tends to avoid it as much as possible whenever it would be a hindrance to himself; also not the most honorable of actions. I mean, look at his history of dishonesty--blaming others for his own failures, blaming himself for the failures of others, deliberately hiding his radiantness from a man he says he respects who is looking for Radiants, and deliberately hiding the fact that he killed Shallan's brother when he recounts his story to her in the chasm. Oh wait, but he basically lies about that whole scenario to her, too; definitely a bloke steeped in honesty. Towards Shallan and Adolin--so what if she's interested in Adolin mostly for his looks? She's, what, 18? And you think looks aren't going to be important? And who cares about the original motivation being entirely self-serving? She was up-front and blunt about the motivations at first, so it's hardly as if their relationship is based on a lie (if, for instance, she had hid her real motivations, then that would probably doom the marriage, but she didn't...and Adolin was okay with that). And, while we may not see the extreme vim and vigor that you seem to want her to display regarding Adolin, what we do see is a very traditional highborn lighteyes willing to contravene tradition in order to show Adolin that she cares about him, that she wants him, and that she's not going to let him go without a fight. We see Kaladin mentioning how well Adolin and Shallan fit together. So, maybe the writing of the scenes don't live up to what you want--but you can't just dismiss the in-text attitudes and thoughts of people just because you disagree. Sanderson is, in my opinion, very much at his weakest when writing romances and relationships. You finding the scenes between Adolin and Shallan so dreadfully boring and of little to no worth could very easily be an indication that it's real. I definitely don't agree with your opinion on their quality, but again, agree to disagree. Shallan makes Kaladin laugh and smile easily, like Tien did. So, in a Kaladin/Shallan pairing, that's obviously what Kaladin would be getting out of it--he'd be happier, probably. But Shallan is, what, physically attracted to him? Just more intensely than to Adolin? That's your argument, right? But, of course, you already said that's not a good foundation for a relationship. What, exactly, does Kaladin offer her? A target for her to spar with? She already has enough pairs of boots, I think.

Here's how I see it: We both agree that on the day he made the Diagram, he was likely capable of coming up with a plan that could save the world. There is zero evidence that it is the only plan to save the world. Based on his egocentrism, I believe that he felt everyone else was fallible or otherwise incapable, and so that's why he designed plans to counter them. You seem to believe that because he designed plans to counter them, they would be incapable of saving the world. Nowhere, nowhere, that I could find does it say it is the best, or only, chance of humanity's survival--only that humanity's survival is the goal, and no cost is too great. We're not in disagreement over Diagram-intelligence level Mr T being capable of saving the world, only that he is the only one who can. His arrogance is that he felt that everyone else was inferior, and so his plan includes that error. Even though he can predict how people will react at a macro level, it is much less accurate on the micro. (He, for instance, couldn't tell if Dalinar would be a great ally or not, and seems to only be interested in the bloodthirsty warlord as an ally rather than Dalinar as a leader and unifier of factions. He didn't predict Kaladin so much as assumed that the superhuman feats performed by the bridgemen indicated a proto-KR which was predicted; he used intuition and deduction to narrow it down further. ie, Diagram predicted the appearance and return of KR, and current-Mr T combined this with other reports to identify likely suspects.) So, Mr T makes contingencies and plans for his inability to predict the micro. Which is fine and good. But please, tell me, where does it say the Diagram is the only way to save the world? It isn't--it's simply the way that an arrogant and supremely intelligent man chose, and convinced his less intelligent self to follow.

His egocentrism seems to be directly tied to his intelligence; the more intelligent, the greater the ego. We have seen this in-text, but we have seen nothing in-text (that I am aware of) to indicate that at a certain intelligence level his egocentrism just flips off. His ability to predict, at the macro level, how people will act and react is clearly seen and portrayed, so the ego for that day was justified. If he had remained at that level of intelligence, then he likely would have been able to use the Diagram to save humanity. But he didn't. And he refuses to see that there are any other viable alternatives. He is continuing on with a plan of action that is already off-course, with no reasonable way to make corrections. Diagram-creating Mr T didn't even look for other alternative solutions, because he felt he was best suited (because, again, ego/hubris). Sure, he created plans to deal with the others--but that is not the same thing, even a little bit, as "considering working with them, but deciding that they can't succeed" as you are suggesting.

The reason is, in my mind, one of hubris. The more intelligent he is, the more egotistical he is as well. See the point where he thought about passing a law where those of below average intelligence must commit suicide; he knew there would be resistance, but assumed that he would be capable of being brilliant enough to see the benefits of it, and accepting it anyway. The Diagram is a plan that puts him in charge of saving the world, because he doesn't believe that anyone else can. Not that no one else will try. He deliberately uses methods that offer only a potential of aid that will also directly cause these other forces to oppose him. He plunges nations into violent, brutal civil wars to achieve his plan. Why? All so that he is the one they turn to, because obviously no one else can save the world. No one else is as smart, intelligent, or genius as he is. The fact that so many people follow him, and his Diagram, so slavishly are a proof of how intelligent he was--that day. Maybe, if we had that Mr T every day, then he actually would be able to save the world. At hideous cost, sure, but much less than losing. We don't have him, though. All we have is a less-intelligent, but still egotistical, version. On an unrelated, minor quibbling point: It doesn't matter what you ask of the Nightwatcher, she gives you what she feels like giving you. Based on the quote from the Diagram itself, I believe that Mr T is using his gift to work towards saving humanity, so that probably doesn't matter--but we shouldn't just assume that he actually could save humanity with the Diagram just because the Nightwatcher made him really smart for a day.

Sorry, I was agreeing with you there And then I went on to disagree with other people who think the Recreance was caused by, say, fear of a KR going rogue and killing everyone. It..wasn't the most clear statements I've ever made.

One thing that I have thought of after reading this thread, that I have not seen mentioned before in various threads is that his hubris, or at least faith in his own brilliance, seems to increase along with his intelligence. He was able to predict the resistance to the suicide law, but had faith and confidence enough in his own abilities that it would not be a problem. His advisors were able to slap that idea down. Imagine for a moment what happens when a man is capable of genius that can literally change the world, but has a fair number of people that help prune his crazier and more insane ideas. Then imagine what that man can create when everyone bows to his whim and gives him an almost slavish devotion, with no one questioning anything he writes or says, due to the perceived genius of it. Imagine, in other words, Mr T on his 'perfect intellect' day, or George Lucas when he created the prequel trilogy. They are the same person.

Right. If it were something related to the very nature of Surgebinding, then I would buy that as plausible. But just because some KR are capable of being terrible people? No. Just no. I could see some KR abandoning their oaths and giving up, but not a majority, let alone the vast majority--especially not the Windrunners, at all. How Kaladin killed Syl was due to a betrayal of his oaths, but not with the deliberate, en masse execution that occurred during the Recreance.

Let's take a look at three KR that we know at least a little bit about: Dalinar, Kaladin, and Shallan. Let's further assume that Szeth has come back as a Surgebinder, and nuked Alethkar (or Surgebindery equivalent.) Is there reaction really going to be to kill their spren and walk away? Seriously? Windrunners, in particular, are built to protect, not to run away in fear. He would have gone after whoever was responsible, and then ended them. The same with Dalinar, now that's he getting himself all situated; he'd go with half a nation at his side to end a threat that terrible, regardless of the potential consequences. Shallan would convince people that they wanted to be doing that all along anyway. KR aren't the type of people to sacrifice the living in return for the future; that's Mr T. I refuse to accept that the Recreance occurred for any mortal reasons. So what if a faction of KR fought another faction of KR and that resulted in the destruction of a nation? The proper response is to, you know, make sure that people with that kind of power know better than to abuse it in that way. It's almost like, if they could have a system built-in that would help to self-correct for those kinds of things. You know, how Kaladin realized that he was being a Class A hypocrite with Elhokar before he could advance as a KR. The personality types and thought processes of those chosen as KR are going to be fundamentally opposed to the "sacrifice a few for the greater good." They realize that murder is murder and always wrong, even if that murder gives you information needed for the survival of the human race. Something else happened, something that is not of mortal mischief (although almost definitely involved mortals, and KR) that brought about the Recreance. Find out what 'wicked thing of eminence' was found, and you can begin to explain the Recreance (other epigraphs from the same chapter of in-world WoR go on to talk about the Recreance itself).

I'm confused. Wait, no, I'm not, I'm kaellok. Confused is someone else entirely. Anyway, on point, you are attempting to compare the hero-ness of two people, and then at the end say that the better hero should be the leader. If you are going to argue about who is the better hero (similar, but absolutely not the same thing as who is more heroic, or who shows more heroism) then you need to identify what traits make a hero, and which ones are the most important. For instance, Kaladin has been through and survived a lot. That is heroic, period. Any of the bridgemen that survive, even if they have done nothing else and will never do anything else, are heroic. This doesn't mean they are heroes. Superman is basically invulnerable. Is he incapable of being a hero or showing heroism simply because it's really hard to kill him? What about the Hulk, who is even harder to kill? Is vulnerability, and overcoming this, required of a hero? Does there need to be an element of danger before someone can be a hero? You also make a large deal about the mistakes (and their scale) versus how they went about fixing them. Does making a mistake, even a large one, discount one from being a hero? Does it make them less of a hero? If so, how large does it need to be? What kind of mistakes? Presumably forgetting to get milk on the way home from market doesn't count, and accidentally ending all life on the planet would, but beyond those extremes what counts versus what doesn't? Finally, what does being 'the better hero' have to do with leading? Is a primary attribute of heroes to lead people? Or is it to give them a symbol? Look at The Avengers movie. Iron Man is a hero, but a terrible leader. Putting him in charge would be a terrible idea. Maybe Captain America is a better hero, but they're pretty close to the same caliber of "we are really, really good at saving innocent lives." tl;dr: How are you defining and evaluating what makes a hero? Why should the better hero be in charge? Spoiler tagging specific issues I have with the arguments made in OP

Just so it's clear, I think that at the time the Diagram was created, it was accurate--it's just that its vulnerability lies in the inability to 'tweak' it to account for new data and variables. That means that even though it starts off as a valid choice and alternative, it becomes less and less so as time goes by. I don't have the book on-hand, but I specifically remember there being inaccuracies of results obtained vs. the prediction for Jah Keved, especially relating to the number of highprinces involved and dying. The plague in the Purelake, I'm assuming, was deliberately started by Diagramists so that Mr Ts healers can go and 'save' them in "Stage Two of Unifying the World by Killing People."

In particular it says 'nine of the ten'. Though I'm not sure anyone seriously considered otherwise. So Stonewards are highly unlikely to be the remaining Order given the Feverstone keep quote. Skybreakers are probably the most likely candidates at this point for the ones that did not abandon their arms, though this is mainly due to the existence of Nale's organization. We can rule out with pretty high certainty many of the other orders - Windrunners, Edgedancers, Lightweavers, Elsecallers, Bondsmiths and Stonewards are probably safe to rule out, leaving Dustbringers, Truthwatchers, Skybreakers and Willshapers. I agree that the quote from the WoR epigraph is referring to 1 in 10 of the orders did not disband. The semicolons indicate that each is a separate, yet closely related thought. If it is referring to killing off 90% of the membership of KR, rather than 9 of the 10 orders, then it's using really clunky language to do so. Shinovar seems a likely place for this Order to be found. I also think that looking at the behavior described, as well as the behavior of the orders of the KR, can help to rule out who remained and who did not. There's also other clues to be looked at. 1. It cannot be Stonewards, because we see them abandoning their oaths on screen. 2. It cannot be Windrunners, for the same reason. 3. It cannot be Lightweavers, because Pattern said that all of they Cryptic-spren who were bonded are now dead. 4a. It could be the Skybreakers. They will hold to their oaths even to their own detriment. 4b. The Skybreakers could easily have been reformed when Nalan decided to take an active hand in the world again, and he does not seem happy with the Shin at all. 5a. It could have been the Bondsmiths. This would explain why the Stormfather still exists / is alive. 5b. That one multi-faced huge spren we see in the Axies Interlude might be what happens when a god spren has its Nahel bond broken, and the other Bondsmiths managed to simply die I don't remember any other specific clues right now, alas. Anyone care to add to the list, based on textual evidence?

Yeah, how did that civil war in Jah Keved work out for them? Oh, right... Well, I'm sure it at least went 100% according to what the Diagram predicted, right? Oh, right, it didn't... Well, at least the giant plague released in the Purelake is bound to have the predicted results, right? Right?

Emphasis mine. The myth that Hollywood and pop culture are so insistent on perpetuating of "Humans only use 10% of their brain" has been explained, debunked, etc. multiple times. If you meant to say "being as smart as it is possible for a human to be," then please disregard my comment as a misunderstanding I do, by the way, agree with both you and Kurk in part--Mr T was predicting and modeling human behavior and reactions on the macro level with a high degree of success, but a much lower level of success on the individual level. Diagramist's interpretations of the Diagram also led to various inaccuracies and failures, especially at the individual level. Because Mr T was actually modeling actions/reactions/etc based on known and observable data, combined with likely events based on previous Desolations and Gavilar's visions rather than actually seeing the future, I think it likely that this model will continue to degrade as time goes by. We are already seeing this degradation in WoR, and each time a different results than was predicted, the chances increase for the next result to be off as well. However, because it's impossible to tweak and modify the Diagram based on real-world outcomes, my own prediction is that by Book 5, the Diagram is useless--or worse, actively harmful. Mistborn spoilers.