Fifth of Daybreak

I'm going to go do that now, to avoid future mind blowing about my favorite narrators.

She's an omnomnomnomnomnivore.

Woah, was it the Chicago signing by any chance? I'm trying to find it but I'm completely Reddit illiterate. Never been on the site before other than linked by other people.

*Sighs, takes off boots, and hands them over* Thanks guys. Edit: @What's a Seawolf? What was your cosplay?

Ah, I just checked my settings, I had never noticed that before. That's unfortunate that you were charged two credits for it. I mean, I'd definitely have paid it given no other options, but still, ouch. Absolute, every bit of this.`

Is this a regional thing? You also mentioned earlier OB being downloaded in parts, but this isn't the case for me in either KKC or OB.

For what it's worth a single paramedic approved as well.

@aemetha Next I see Brandon I'll try to convince him to canonize the existence of investulin.

Let's not say that I didn't like his version. It's just there's a lot of stellar Audiobook narrators in my life better KR and MK, Simon Vance, James Marsters, and Roy Dotrice (RIP). I've also listened to so much Kate Reading and Michael Kramer since they did WoT and Kate Reading did Jim Butcher's Calderon series. I enjoyed Warbreaker, and I'll probably listen to his again even though I got the humble bundle with the Graphic Audios. I can say with certainty, however, the same can't be said for Jack Garrett's Elantris. He just sounds so smarmy the whole time.

To be fair, this isn't a high threshold to cross. I'm being overly hyperbolic with my complaints on Spren voices. I love Kate and Michael. This was another stellar performance, I just wanted to hear Kate make those Pattern jokes to Adolin. Mind blown.

Definitely, Unmade are a splinter of Odium, and his eyes were glowing red.

I totally understand, it just wasn't something I expected having read through the scenes already and heard my favorite pattern lines in Kate Reading's voice. And Reading's Syl was equally terrible when compared to Kramer's. I didn't get the impression that Kramer had tried to imitate Reading though. I had always been under the impression that they didn't communicate much on their interpretations (admittedly mostly because of the Sadeas thing you mentioned earlier.) I also have been completely thrown for a loop by the sudden change of the Thaylens to sound like the Seanchan now in OB.

Dalinar hears them as well, we get direct answers as to why from Nalan.

Pretty much, except that Lift's food related investiture is strictly because of her interaction with the Nightwatcher, and therefore a special case as I understand. I also found another one for you

This is relevant to you. Radiant spren are of both Cultivation and Honor.

A search for the phrase didn't bring anything up in OB. I think it's a great term as well. Thanks @Wandering Investor

This is the part where we differ, this doesn't break what Teft said at all unless you're framing it in a specific way, which has not been done when presenting Brandon with that question. Saying that someone who will justify the means by the ends tells us absolutely nothing about that person, as we don't know their motives, goals, or anything else. As long as a Machiavellian has the requisite characteristics to attract a spren and they don't break their oaths, it's honestly extraneous information. Jasnah's means, killing thugs in pre-meditated murder, is justified by her end of using her "strength for others." Her power does not give her right to enforce her worldview on Shallan, but it does make her capable of service to both Shallan's education and the protection of the weak. She also chose the method that would directly entice them to attack without seeking them out first for retribution. There were several methods to achieve the goal, she chose that one. Her means we're justified by the end of Strength before Weakness as described by Teft. Because my argument is less about the wiggle room allowed by the Oath, which is supposed to be based off of the Way of Kings which does not have an ambiguous morality based on the passages we've been shown, and more on the perception of the Radiant and the spren viewing the situation. We don't know how involved in the Diagram Malata is before bonding, and we don't know how much she knows now, such as harvesting death rattles. The one time they are mentioned is immediately before Malata is brought in to report on spying, saying they are going to harvest them at the Horneater Peaks, so it's fair to say they haven't had their killing operation set up for a while. King T is already weary about asking her to spy because of the effect it might have on the bond. The things she's said makes it seem to me that she, and other Dustbringers, are considering themselves allied with Odium, as Nalan seems to expect the Highspren will. As long as they perceive their side as the ones who are innocent, there's no breaking of the first oath as described by Teft. She's using her life to dangerously infiltrate the enemy stronghold in the hopes of great gain. She's using her strength to spy on enemy combatants and to open the Oathgate to allow allies to attack those who killed the friends of her spren, not Innocents. She's convinced that getting her power is not fulfilled by the destination of joining Urithuru, but the journey helping her spren get vengeance against those who killed hundreds of his friends. It's less about interpretation, more about perception of the situation and implementation of the plan of attack. I just haven't seen anyone do anything that I would consider having directly contradicted the first ideal based on their perceptions of reality and Teft's description to date.

I'd disagree with the 'for all we know' portion then. There's a lot of foreshadowing that hints at different people, and without foreshadowing for the Sibling, I wouldn't consider it in the running with all that we know.

What specifically makes you say that?

I don't see anything that would specifically condemn Adolin from Teft's speech, and j want to stress again that the WoB, would a Machiavellian be allowed into the KR, really wouldn't tell us much. They'd be a perfect temperament for the Skybreakers where they aren't concerned with morality but for following the law. Just being a Machiavellian doesn't tell us anything besides you're willing to justify some sort of means by the end. That's basically the entire point of Jasnah's philosophy lesson with Shallan. I think we have enough information on screen about Malata to show that her perception isn't that what she's doing breaks the first oath. She doesn't see the value in Urithuru and an Organized KR, and she doesn't trust the Alethi. We know that the Dustbringers were the most likely to support the Diagram and that Adrotagia has been grooming her all book.we rarely see them separate. I'm looking at that through a similar lens as the mentats in Dune. If you want to control them, control their information received. If you want to control Radiants, control their perceptions of your enemies. But most importantly, I've interpreted this scene as proof that Malata and her Spren don't view the KR as devoted to Honor as innocent. They are the organization responsible for killing hundreds of spren. That perception alone could be enough to insulate her from believing she broke the first ideal. The interpretations on the first ideal I do agree will vary, but only from person to person in the same way Brandon has indicated they would disagree on interpreting other oaths, and I think it mostly comes down to how they perceive the situation before them, and the Dustbringers, or at least the spren, seem to view humans as enemies, not innocents.

We have WoB that there are only three shards on Roshar, and Odium repeats that. This doesn't directly contradict the idea, but I find it highly unlikely in that context.

Ash appears to already be bonded to a Spren. Bolding mine. Best explanation is she's talking to her spren and not to Mem.

I'm not convinced by the arguments made surrounding that particular thesis, and I'm especially hesitant to throw cannon on screen information out the window for the sake of a single WoB that a Machiavellian could be accepted into the order. While I understand your personal reluctance to use Teft's speech as the basis for the first ideal, in my opinion it is inappropriate to ask someone not to quote source material directly relevant to the concepts being discussed because you subscribe to a popular theory on the forums. After having a long discussion on that subject, it's my opinion that too much stress was put onto the whole Machiavellian question to begin with. It doesn't tell us much, and it doesn't actually contradict anything Teft says. From how I view it, the first ideal is the ends and the other ideals are the means the orders are willing to justify in order to achieve those ends. There's no reason that Teft's interpretation and the WoB about Machiavellian's have to be mutually exclusive. Can you elaborate on Malata? Also, Lopen did not swear the first ideal in that scene, he swore the second. His statement that the first ideal "was the easy one" along with the sudden reaction when he swears the second is more then enough contextual clues to show he had sworn the first already prior to this point, and his pancakes statement was just a normal flippant Lopenism and not his spren allowing him to circumvent the only ideal that we know to be consistent across all the orders.

This is probably relevant as well: