Pathfinder

Elsecaller all day everyday. I have a similar line of thinking with the order, so I think I would be able to bond an inkspren, coupled with transportation (I am of the camp that says it also provides teleportation between locations in the physical realm considering Oathgates) and transformation (Jasnah showing how utterly bad chull that surge can be in the right hands) is epicness to me. Of course don't forget the default amazing stormlight healing, and power armor. yes please

I think it would depend on how much stormlight is required to soulcast a person. Jasnah has soulcasted words into a page, as well as soulcasted air into pieces of rock, as well as the smoke soulcaster was able to soulcast part of the giant spikes in the water, so I do not see a reason why you would not be able to soulcast part of a person.

Not sure about surges, but I have a theory that the blades that look water themed (oathbringer for instance) are willshaper shardblades. The reachers are theorized to be willshaper spren. A good chunk of them are sailors (though I do concede other spren do sail as well), and it is said willshapers do enjoy adventure and exploring. A willshaper was going to explore the unsea caverns of aimia. Finally land is water in the cognitive realm, and cohesion lets you shape things as if it was clay or treat it like a liquid. So all of that, although is very very very loose, hints to me those are their blades.

I have always felt that Lift is an edgedancer "in progress". If she was everything an edgedancer is to be, then where is the progression? Why take any more oaths? So she will reach that point as she swears more oaths. Now having said that, I think Adolin is decently along as an edgedancer to revive Maya on the condition of an outside force (bondsmith or what have you), being the extra to restore her. I am of the opinion that the bond itself cannot heal what was already literally ripped out of her skull. So I chose other as I feel he will revive her, but will need help

That said, wouldn't it suck if you are just about to finish your quest, but something happens where a certain sudden burst of power would help you accomplish your goal (a la Kaladin with the bridgemen at the tower), but since you cannot get said burst of power without accomplishing your goal, you are just shy of it and then fail.

I took it as he realized all the decisions he has made have been questionable in the past. He truly believed his decision making skills were faulty. So he would go to Kholinar to try and do better. If he made mistakes, Kaladin would be there to fix them, but most importantly give Elhokar the opportunity to learn from those mistakes, so he would not make them going forward. Elhokar said it himself, when he would decide for himself, he would make bad decisions. When he would listen to others he would pick the wrong people to listen to and make bad decisions. So he found someone he knew would make the right decisions, so he finally had a metric in which to learn from. The tragedy was this possibility was cut short

Personally I think the biggest thing holding flying cars back is surviving car accidents. Yes current car accidents can end lives, and airbags and car frames mitigate that, but now add to the factor that both parties are 100s of feet in the air, and if the crash results in the propellant keeping them aloft failing, then you have what could have been a fender bender turn into a fatality. Also add in to the property damage from the plummeting car, or additional fatality of random bystander walking along. Now this is also dependent on what means is used to keep the car aloft, but any system has the capacity to fail. Yes we have planes and they have all these same issues, but given the proliferation of cars across the globe, the risk rises exponentially.

It doesn't specify. It merely states at its root is Renarin. So what rippled could have been Renarin being born, could have been the corruption of glys, could have been jasnah not killing Renarin. Could have been a number of possibilities. page 1215 A section of words that had faded from golden to black. What was that? AS he drew near, Taravangian saw that the words were blacked out into eternity starting from this point on his wall. As if something had happened here. A ripple in what odium could see....At its root, a name. Renarin Kholin.

No problemo. Nice sharing of thoughts

No problem. Didn't realize your post was in jest. Personally my theory about Moash is all his decisions are made in the filter of his self hatred. In that I believe his actions are understandable, with the preface that that understanding does not excuse the actions. In my opinion he will only grow when he accepts responsibility for his actions, and at their core is himself. Till then, he justifies all his actions by deflecting to those outside himself.

I respect your opinion, and personally disagree. In my opinion the complexity was the concept Dalinar was asking for. As Brandon said, the nightwatcher is still learning. That doesn't mean she will never be able to know enough to know how to deal with someone in Dalinar's case, simply she did not understand at that time. I do not feel the pruning was done so he could ascend. I feel the pruning was a nudge for growth in a certain direction. Everything else is on Dalinar. So the clarify further, the pruning did not need shardic power behind it to prune. the nightwatcher could have pruned if the nightwatcher had enough understanding of the concept of forgiveness to come to the same conclusion that cultivation did. Hopefully that was clear.

I am sorry, you misunderstood what I was saying. In my post, I said yes they are separate entities, and yes they have separate abilities, but their goals and their concept aligns, so I do not feel it matters who specifically took the action. It doesn't change the effect. Cultivation is gambling on the nightwatcher. Giving her a nudge to learn, and seeing how the nightwatchers actions then effect others, that nudge them to effect others, and so on. Just because it is not actively specifically cultivation taking the action, does not mean she isn't part of the end result. So saying cultivation did it, or nightwatcher did it to me in the end is immaterial. Hopefully that clarified things.

1. Moah has no desire to stop injustice. If he was in charge, he would switch the dark eyes with the light eyes, and just perpetuate the same injustice 2. He is now specist. He thinks all humans no matter what are horrible, and that is why the parshendi should win the war. That his actions are not his fault, its because he is human 3. He works to distract himself from his self hatred. He then also uses the light eyes and then all of humanity to do so. 4. He stood up for the parshmen in an effort to validate the world view that all of humanity is bad, so any negative actions he has taken is not his fault, he is just being human. Now I say this all not to say hate Moash, he should die, etc etc. I am however saying till he comes to terms with his self hate that predated Elhokar, he will never have redemption. As Odium has taken his hate, I am not sure redemption is functionally possible.

I think the problem is saying "it is cultivation, no it is the night watcher, no it is cultivation" is mincing words. WoB below Questioner When Lift says to Dalinar that he smells like her, does she mean Cultivation or Nightwatcher? Brandon [She] meant Nightwatcher, but Nightwatcher is kind of Cultivation, so, yeah. Yes they are separate entities, yes they have different capabilities, but their goals align and even actions Cultivation would disagree with, she supports. As per this WoB Questioner [PENDING REVIEW] So, in Oathbringer, when Dalinar goes to the Nightwatcher, we see Cultivation intervene directly. How closely does she supervise other Nightwatcher <visits>? Could the Nightwatcher give a boon that Cultivation wouldn't want her to? Brandon Sanderson [PENDING REVIEW] Well... yes. "Wouldn't want her to" is a strong phrase. Like, Cultivation is always aware of what's going on. Cultivation rarely intervenes, even if she thinks it would be a bad boon, because she wants the Nightwatcher to learn. And she also is very interested in seeing what happens. So, rarely intervenes, but is aware. Questioner [PENDING REVIEW] Would she intervene if she thought the boon would help Odium? Brandon Sanderson [PENDING REVIEW] Not necessarily. My take is Cultivation's shard should be called the Gambler. I feel she has her fingers in multiple pies, rolling the dice. Whether directly or through the Nightwatcher I feel her touch is felt with Dalinar, Taravangian, Renarin and (crack pot theory) Adolin. It is my opinion that had Cultivation not interfered with Dalinar, he could have still become the man he did "today", just there is a whole lotta stuff trying to urge him towards Odium. That Cultivations gamble would not have paid off if the Dalinar we know and love wasn't there all along. By Cultivation's own words, she could be making a weapon for Odium. Dalinar could have just as easily become Odium's champion with or without Cultivation's meddling. Odium commented himself that he knew Cultivation meddled and even know what she did. He said to the effect of "I see what she did. I would have done it differently, but ah well, no matter". With Taravangian she put the Diagram into play as another means to get everyone where they need to be. I am of the belief of the prevailing theory that Taravangian is a Plant. She is taking a gamble that Taravangian will react to the Diagram in such a way that will set off the chain of events that we see. I am of the opinion that Cultivation allowed Glys to be heightened, as yet another gamble. Throwing in yet another new unknown to shake up Odium's plans, and causing further ripples. Finally, I have a crack pot theory with next to no concrete evidence to back it up, so take it with a grain of salt, that Cultivation took a gamble on the chance that Adolin would awaken his blade, so convinced the circle to hold spren back from bonding him to give him a chance to awaken Maya. Once the function of restoring spren is figured out, then not only would the dead shardblades could be potentially turned into new radiants through bonding existing people, but also it would do a lot towards goodwill with the older spren that hate humans for killing their friends (chiefly among the releasers). So I say all this to say, in my opinion, she has her sticky fingers in a whole lot of things, giving it all a slight nudge gambling on the chance that these people and situations will grow in the direction she wants. They may all seem to be at cross purposes as first, but she is counting on the actions the characters will take in response to the nudge, leading to growth in directions that people in the immediate moment cannot possibly predict. Odium has not seen this, or countered this, because he assumes Cultivation has given up, and these possibilities by themselves are very far fetched, but all added together over time lead to a big punch (like Dalinar refusing being the Champion)

Ehhh, I still kind of disagree, but what I disagree with has no bearing on your conclusion so it is rather pointless for me to quibble over it. I respect your opinion. Don't really have much more of substance to say in response. Nice discussion all the same.

2 hours ago, Pathfinder said: I also highlighted your comment about how she has no compunctions about murdering four men (which I explained in my opinion that it was not only a moral lesson). Let us also notice how had Jasnah actually assassinated Aesudean, instead of holding back out of love for her brother, Kholinar would not have been in the state it had been. Yes, we're not disagreeing that Taravengian was served by the murders as well. But the primary focus of the act was that it was a moral lesson--she intentionally took Shallan to demonstrate a point, rather than simply take care of a problem covertly, and all to demonstrate the moral ambiguity of such an action. Also, I could be wrong on this point, but wasn't Jasnah targeting Aesudan in the WoR prologue? If so, that was also the night Gavilar was murdered and any thoughts of assassination may have simply flown out the window in light of that event and of finding out the cause of her father's murder. Please provide textual evidence to support your argument that she held back out of love for her brother, I'm genuinely curious. Words of Radiance page 23 “Jasnah set two fingers on it, considering. No. This was too brash. She didn’t know if her father reawlized what she was doing, but even if he hadn’t, too much was happening in this palace. She did not want to commit to an assassination until she was more certain” “Pardon, Brightness. But one does not commonly hire an assassin to watch. Only” “You have instructions in the envelope. Along with initial payment. I chose you because you are expert at extended observations. It is what I want. For now.” “Spying on the wife of the heir to the throne? It will be more expensive this way. You sure you don’t simply want her dead?” “Too much is happening, she thought. I need to be very careful. Very subtle.” “From there, you watch and report. I will tell you if your other services are needed. You move only if I say. Understood? Words of Radiance page 24 “There’s that, ain’t going to deny it, but you’re also different from other lighteyes. When others hire me, they turn up their noses at the entire process. They’re all to eager to use my services, but sneer and wring their hands, as if they hate being forced to do something utterly distasteful” “Assassination is distasteful, Liss. So is cleaning out chamber pots. I can respect the one employed for such jobs without admiring the job itself.” “Their first agreement was that if anyone should come to Liss and offer a contract on a member of Jasnah’s family, Liss would let Jasnah match the offer in exchange for the name of the one who made it. Questioner My question is about Jasnah, and why she tried to assassinate Elhokar’s wife? Brandon Well, you’re going to need to get to know Elhokar’s wife a little better before you get an answer for that. But understand that Jasnah is very deliberate in her choices, and protecting her family is one of her most important personal mandates. 2 hours ago, Pathfinder said: to show she would not have killed Renarin. It for me was not a change in character. Her scene with Renarin was a more obvious portrayal of her character, but it was a character that was present through out all three novels. You and I read this differently. That's okay. I agree, to each their own. Which is the reason for my original post. I will elaborate further below 2 hours ago, Pathfinder said: I disagree that she is quick to temper. Kaladin repeatedly attacked her verbally during the war meeting, and it took till roughly the third or fourth time for her to respond in kind. Amaram was going to summon his blade to attack her, and then she responded. She is reserved because she is thoughtful, not impulsive. She has to be pushed to a point in order to act. That is why she chides Shallan about using her wit haphazardly. Kaladin attacks her only after she steam-rolls him several times. In WoR, she exhibits a marked response to Amaram prior to any real conversation, and their eventual confrontation in OB only confirms that reaction. She is thoughtful, but she is impulsive--such as when she spoke with Navani and began the process of setting up a causal before ever even speaking to Shallan. Motive is irrelevant here--the fact that she acted first, asked later is impulsive. They do not have to be mutually exclusive. So first, it says in the book by Amaram himself that she avoided him. This is after he can continually tried to confront her, and she has repeatedly said NO. He then physically confront her, and when again she tells him to leave, he persists. She then, and only then responds in kind, and when he doesn’t like it, he pulls his shardblade on her. Seeing him summoning his blade, she shows her glowing hand, and says to feel free to try and attack her. She had to be pushed to that point. You are recalling incorrectly. When Jasnah speaks to Shallan about the casual, she states that she merely mentioned it as a possibility. It was Navani that took to the idea with a gusto, and put everything into place. Jasnah apologizes on her behalf, and says she could end it if Shallan wants her to. To which Shallan, to her surprise, is excited over it. So it was Navani, who as you said is impulsive, not Jasnah. Now remember when I said I feel in my opinion that scene is mis-interpreted so many times I should just keep a word doc of all of my responses to it to say me having to re-type it everytime? Here is that word doc (I have added Kaladin’s comments to it as you said he was steam rolled by Jasnah) Oathbringer page 412 “So” Kaladin said “According to the Stormfather, not only is the Almight dead, but he condembed ten people to an eternity of torture. We call them heralds, and they’re not only traitors to their oaths, they’re probably also mad. We had one of them in our custody – likely the maddest of the lot – but we lost him in the turmoil of getting everyone to Urithiru. In short, everyone who might have been able to help us is crazy, dead, a traitor, or some combination of the three” “So what do we do with this knowledge?” Renarin said “We must curb the voidbringer assault” Jasnah said “we can’t let them secure too great a foothold” (Tactically sound and no mention of genocide) “The parhmen aren’t our enemies” Kaladin said softly (Great, any ideas then what to do about the fused?) Oathbringer page 412 “Of course they’re our enemies” Jasnah said “they’re in the process of conquering the world. Even if your reports indicates they aren’t immediately destructive as we feared, they are still an enormous threat” (Stating the obvious, and asking to be realisitic. The parshmen as a threat must be discussed) “They just want to live better lives” Kaladin said (Ok……so remember the fused? ) Oathbringer page 412 “I can believe” Jasnah said “that the common parshmen have such a simple motive. But their leaders? They will pursue our extinction” (Again, stating the issues as they are. The powers ruling the parshmen want the humans dead. This needs to be discussed. Still no advocacy for genocide that I can see. Navani agrees here but not typing it out to at least try to be somewhat concise) “The parshmen are the key” Jasnah said shuffling through some pages of notes. “Looking over what you discovered, it seems that all parshmen can bond with ordinary spren as part of their natural life cycle. What we’ve been calling voidbringers are in fact a combination of a parshman with some kind of hostile spren or spirit” (Explaining the function of their enemy based on the information provided by Kaladin which needs to be discussed. Still no advocacy of genocide) “Great” Kaladin said “Fine. Let’s fight them, then. Why do the common folk have to get crush in the process?” (so um, did he just not hear what she just said? The fused is a combination of a hostile spren and the parshmen. You literally cannot fight one without fighting the other unless you find a way to prevent them from merging) “Perhaps” Jasnah said “you should visit my uncle’s vision and see for yourself the consequences of a soft heart. Firsthand witness of a desolation might change your perspective” (hey! Remember end of the world? We need to talk about hard issues. This isn’t just going to go away. Kaladin then says he has seen war. Dalinar asks him does he really think there is a way for accommodation. Kaladin replies) “I…I don’t know sir. Even the common parshmen are furious at what was done to them” (so Kaladin’s solution. His well reasoned response to try and preserve the parshmen and only fight the fused is, I don’t know. This digresses into a debate between Kaladin and Dalinar about the necessities of war. Dalinar then says if there is a chance, then he will try to negotiate) Oathbringer page 412 “Negotiate?” Jasnah said “Uncle, these creatures are craft, ancient and angry. They spent millennia torturing the heralds just to return and seek our destruction” (Reminding everyone the dire nature of their situation. The parshmen can be as nice as can be, it still doesn’t change the issue that exists with the fused. Dalinar says they will see ) “We need more information” Jasnah said “Captain Kaladin, how many people can you take with you to Alethkar?” (pretty self explanatory. They need more info. They then discuss going to Kholinar) Oathbringer page 414 “Not ambitious enough” Jasnah said more firmly “by the Stormfather’s explanation, the fused are immortal. Nothing stops their rebirth now that the heralds have failed. This is our real problem. Our enemy has a new endless supply of parshmen bodies to inhabit, and judging by what the good captain has confirmed through experience, these fused can access some kind of surgebinding. How do we fight against that?” ( Again, the fused are a huge issue that will not go away, regardless if you negotiate or not. This needs to be confronted. Dalinar says well first Khonlinar.) Oathbringer 414 “Pardon Uncle” Jasnah said “While I don’t disagree with that first step, now is not the time to think only of the immediate future. If we are to avoid a Desolation that breaks society, then we’ll need to use the past as our guide and make a plan” (Jasnah isn’t disagreeing with going to Kholinar. She feels more needs to be worked on at the same time. End of the World people, we need to be proactive. We cannot just react when the very existence of humanity hangs in the balance. Renarin agrees with her. Still no mention of genocide. Dalinar asks what does she propose) Oathbringer page 414 Jasnah “Yes. The answer is obvious. We need to find the Heralds. Then we need to kill them.” “What?” Kaladin demanded “Woman, are you insane?” (And there goes Kaladin’s first insult. He doesn’t offer any help, or any options, and then calls her insane. Despite this, she does not rise to the bait, even though considering when she was younger she was thrown in a dark room and labeled insane, so they would be a barb that would dig very deeply. No, she continues professionally) The Stormfather laid it out “Jasnah said unperturbed “The Heralds made a pact. When they died, their souls traveled to Damnation and trapped the spirits of the Voidbringers, preventing them from returning. The Stormfather said their pact was weakened, but did not say it was destroyed” Jasnah said “I suggest we at least see if one of them is willing to return to Damnation. Perhaps they can still prevent the spirits of the enemy from being reborn. It’s either that, or we completely exterminate the parshmen so that the enemy has no hosts” she met Kaladin’s eyes “In the face of such an atrocity, I would consider the sacrifice of one or more Heralds to be a small price” “Storms” Kaladin said “have you no sympathy?” (again insults her and attacks her. Had he actually took the time to actually listen to what she said, he would understand that one, the heralds are immortal. If killed they go to braize which buys the humans some time. If the heralds gives up immediately, they return to roshar same as before. Nothing lost, nothing gained. However, if the herald holds out at least a little bit, that gives them time. Time to do something. Anything without the threat of the fused possessing the parshmen and attacking them. There goes your chance for diplomacy. There is your chance to talk. She literally says the sacrifice of one herald is worth avoiding the atrocity that is genocide. Dalianr then tells Kaladin enough, and just glances at Jasnah. Dalinar then actually provides a well reasoned reason for not killing the heralds. He then suggests that her idea does still have merit, and she should continue to attempt to locate them.) 2 hours ago, Pathfinder said: In my opinion, she does not hate abstract authority. She believes in well-reasoned process of research. Hate implies that it does not matter the information regarding this abstract authority, she irrationally is against it. Yet her conversation with Dalinar, Taravangian, and in response to Amaram show this is not the case. When she spoke to Dalinar, she explained that she takes no joy in his pain or doubt over a deity. It is that he questions, and pursues the answer for himself that she identifies and bonds with him. About how people will take a few interactions and attempt to define you by such interactions to make themselves feel better. When she spoke with Taravangian, she had no problem with his religion, and his desire to worship such. She only replied when he put forward arguments to try to change her mind. Her responses explained that she already considered those issues, and these are the reasons that brought about the conclusions she had. When Amaram confronted her, he accused her of corrupting Dalinar and trying to turn him into a heretic, which as we see in the interaction with Dalinar she did nothing of the sort. Amaram did the exact thing to Jasnah what she warned Dalinar people would try to do to him. Perhaps hate is too strong a word as you say, yet again, you are using my specific word choice to infer an opinion I don't express. She does express discontent with religion, and in a higher being dictating the laws of morality. She makes a comment to Shallan in surprise that Shallan doesn't dislike the idea of "being beholden to a man". These imply that Jasnah doesn't like being arbitrarily told what to do--she likes to take her own actions, to act according to her own conscience. The fact that she's actually respectful of those who do believe doesn't mean that she is apathetic to it either. Again I disagree. When she speaks with Taravangian she states she does not feel the need to rely on a deity for morality. She trusts her own. That does not mean she has anything against anyone else who does so. Her issue with religion, as per her very words regarding the dissertation she wrote was how the Vorin religion limits the worshippers their choice. A man should be able to read if he wishes. A woman should be able to fight. A woman should also be able to like dresses and dancing if she wishes. Jasnah’s issue is the religion telling men they can only war, and women can only write. She has said herself she has no problem with anyone else worshipping whoever and however they wish. The only time she lists why she doesn’t believe, is when people try to convert her. Dalinar believes in a god, and lets that guide him. Not once did she treat him derisively based on his belief, or criticize his decisions based on them. She doesn’t have to have a problem with religion in order to disagree with its tenants, and her respecting others beliefs does not mean she is apathetic. 2 hours ago, Pathfinder said: This is out of context without the interactions leading up to this moment. Jasnah is arguing that based on the fall out from the past desolations, and that their foes can continually return, that merely stating “can we just not fight them” is not a sufficient enough response to the threat. And before it is stated that I am attacking Kaladin, or criticizing him, he states that exact line twice. Jasnah, exasperated at this point as Kaladin has not provided any constructive ideas during a war meeting while proceeding to repeatedly insult her, has figured out a way to silence his protestations, while still accomplishing something she feels is crucial given the current climate. Don't paint Jasnah as innocent here. She belittles him and he gives it back. They mutually attack each other. That said, it's not out of context, considering in the previous chapter we were told through Dalinar's eyes that Jasnah only smiles under very specific circumstances. Again, this was not a dissertation on Jasnah alone, it was a discussion of the both of them, and the context of my argument within that scope was not "out of context." I responded to this already above edit: didn't want to make a new post in this thread to beat a dead horse, so i will just add it here. Regarding Jasnah only smiling under very specific circumstances. Oathbringer page 526 "If I weren't a woman, I suspect we wouldn't be having this conversation. Unless I were a pig. Then you'd be doubly interested" He thrust his hand to the side, stepping back, preparing to summon his Blade JASNAH SMILED, holding her freehand toward him, letting Stormlight curl and rise from it. "Oh please do, Meridas. Give me an excuse. I dare you." So there is an instance where she had a heated back and forth (that she had to be pushed into), where she was then threatened, to which she SMILED, and raised her hand implying if he tried to swing on her, she would turn him to smoke in self defense. So she can smile rarely, and it not have to mean anything romantic. 2 hours ago, Pathfinder said: This is reducing the opposing arguments, to portray your own in a more positive light. Those three are not the only reasons against this pairing, and it is also not a fair representation of those arguments. If you want to mention opposing arguments, you should give them the full and proper explanation they are entitled to, and not just a one sentence mention each. I do not believe these reasons myself against the pairing (I have plenty of my own), but I will respond to each below You're right to a degree. Where you are wrong, is that I'm intentionally reducing to paint mine in a favorable light. I'm not. I'm acknowledging that these three are the most prevalent arguments I've seen, and I'm reacting to them now rather than having a series of them following or a bunch of small meaningless reactive comments. Perhaps there is a better way to go about doing this. If you think of one, let me know. When you mention an opposing opinion of your own, you do your best to adequately present it, and list the arguments in its favor. That way, the reader can enter your counter arguments in an informed manner, and decide for themselves whether they think you adequately refuted the opposing opinion. If you lack the time, or the space, you provide references and links, so the reader can then, if they so choose, to read these opinions at their leisure and derive their own conclusions. 2 hours ago, Pathfinder said: That is disrespectful to the individuals who happen to hold this opinion which they have the complete right to have, and have valid reasons as to why. Can relationships work with an age gap in either direction? Sure! But it is a biological fact that women mature physically faster than men. A man and a woman of the same age, are not necessarily going to be at the same place mentally at life, so that is why there tends to be some age difference in relationships. However, certain amounts of age differences do still lead to differences where people are mentally and emotionally in life. So if a woman tends to be at a place “further down the road” than a man of her same age, then a man of a younger age, would be “further back”. That is not to say a man younger than the woman is purely immature. It is to say they are at different places in their lives, with different priorities, responsibilities and experiences. A man in his 40s is going to have a different outlook, day to day thoughts, and responsibilities than a girl of 18. That does not preclude it from working out, and not all individuals fit (there are immature older individuals and mature younger individuals), but it is still a valid concern when entering into a relationship. It is not asinine at all. Your paragraph here is accurate. In fact, I've made the same points myself. What I was commenting on was the often pronounced sexism that has been present with arguments like this one. Again, these three points are preemptive reactions, rather than explanations of someone else's viewpoint that I don't share. I even said as much, but perhaps again I could have said this in a better way. And that is fine. Next time, please do not use language such as asinine which denotes something is extremely stupid or foolish. Again I feel this would be solved had you presented the arguments and then responded to them, as I presented, or linked to the comments these people have made. If these arguments truly are stupid or foolish (as per the definition of asinine), then the individual reading them, will reach the same conclusion 2 hours ago, Pathfinder said: Lack of interest does not inherently mean there is a different preference, but nor is interest the default state to assume unless evidence is provided. In other words this is not an innocent until proven guilty scenario. Jasnah is not assumed interested, until unequivocally proven to be uninterested. We have seen the comment of Shallan on how Jasnah responded to the men in the alley. We have seen how Jasnah reacted to Amaram on multiple occasions. We have also seen Jasnah’s reaction regarding arranged marriage. Does this mean she has to be asexual/lesbian? Of course not, but that does not mean such a belief is impossible? Does Jasnah have to reject every single man she ever meets for this to be valid? Because the response can just be, as you say yourself, “she just hasn’t met the right one yet”. So when can Jasnah be considered asexual/lesbian? What is required of Jasnah for someone to read her as asexual? We do not require men to grab women’s breasts to know conclusively they are straight. We do not require women to grab men between the legs to know conclusively they are straight. So we should not require an overt action from Jasnah to conclude on an individual basis (as in different people have different opinions on the topic) whether or not she is asexual/lesbian. Eloquently put. Those are the same points I was making, but from the opposite side. Not sure what your point is here--my point was that the text is not explicit in either direction, and you agree, from the sounds of it. As you said, it was because you were trying to be pre-emptive as if expecting attack when you did not need to. Present the arguments that the opposing view has, then present your own, and allow the reader to decide. 2 hours ago, Pathfinder said: Some people do not feel Kaladin needs someone to get past his issues. He has Syl to help him and he seems to have come pretty damnation far so far on his own. Why is it a terrible argument to think he can continue to do so? The spren help guide the radiants and help them be in touch with themselves and their feelings deep down. Brandon has commented on how incredibly intimate the bonding between spren and individual is. If there is anyone best suited to help a Radiant grow, it would be that individual’s spren. In your response, you were upset because of the tone you interpreted from my words, yet all across this post you insult and deride any who hold a contrary opinion to your own. I think taking a step back and taking a breath as you said is very advisable. Please take another. I will respond further to this later in my post. One point--what does Syl think Kaladin needs to do? What does Syl push Kaladin toward throughout Oathbringer? Yeah, not getting into the whole Kaladin and Shallan thing. I respect your thoughts on it, and you have made plenty of excellent points regarding it on other threads. Not trying to dodge around, but in this thread I am focused on Jasnah, not Shallan. Regardless whether Syl pushing Kaladin towards Shallan means or does not mean anything, Syl does not push him towards Jasnah. 2 hours ago, Pathfinder said: This is rather hackneyed. The reader is astute by sharing your point of view Again, you misread my statement. My point of view has nothing to do with this--this was point B when I brought up the original three arguments (points 2 & 3 were eclipsed under point C). 2 hours ago, Pathfinder said: Neither are in a situation where they are “left unchecked”. They are bonded to spren. They both have numerous people in their lives that they trust and speak to. Jasnah has been “in power” her entire life. Elhokar is an admitted incompetent king. Jasnah could have easily seized power from him but she did not because she cares and understands him. Both are supported by WoB. Brandon has gone on record saying only reason a highprince is considered a highprince is because they have enough people backing them. The only reason Gavilar was accepted as king is because he had enough people agreeing that that is so. So there is nothing stopping Jasnah from replacing Elhokar. Brandon has also gone on record saying that Jasnah realizing Elhokar is having to live up to Gavilar’s shadow, she took it into consideration when she left to pursue stopping the desolations. If she would have to stay to do so, she would have as she felt the end of the world was more important than Elhokar’s pride, but she felt he could do with living in one less shadow, so she left. That says to me, there is a person who could have had that power anytime she wanted, but she did not. That says to me she has had plenty of power already, and it has not corrupted her. As to Kaladin, he has already “run himself into the ground”. It was through Syl’s help, and the help of his friends in bridge 4 that he came as far as he did. The scene when he returns to Hearthstone shows that growth. The battles he is thrown in in Kholinar is the opposition. Once again, it is Syl that is helping him come to terms with it. This is a great paragraph. I wish you'd had this in your first response. That said, in listing only Syl and Bridge 4 you negate the powerful revelations in the chasm with Shallan that led him to that acceptance in WoR. Without that chasm sequence, Kaladin might have truly lost Syl, for he would never have seen a lighteyes who was like him, and would never have found it in himself to see the good in Elhokar. Context is important, as you said earlier. The reason I did not say a lot of this in my first post, is as I said at the very beginning of it is you can feel a relationship is possible. Great on you. Do you. A whole bunch of people in this thread agree with you, for their reasons. I disagree with all those reasons, but hey, they have theirs and they are valid to them. I saw no reason to rehash it. However as I said, I disagreed with your reading of Jasnah. This reading of Jasnah was a large part of your conclusion that a relationship would benefit Jasnah. That is where I disagreed, so that is where I commented. Now I have a huge even longer post responding to all the other reasons people think Jasnah and Kaladin should get together, that I disagree with, but I feel they have every right to feel the way they do. They aren’t wrong, and I am not right. Just like they aren’t right, and I am not wrong. I just do not see the relationship as necessary from a political, nor an emotional stance. If my reading of Jasnah changes how some people see her as a character, but they still feel the relationship could work, good on them. I just personally do not see the point of the relationship serving the narrative, the character, nor the reader. But that’s just me. 2 hours ago, Pathfinder said: You state yet again Jasnah is callous. This is in regards to moving forward beyond Oathbringer, so my response to you saying Jasnah is callous is warranted. Here you specifically say teach, yet you are upset at me for saying you said Kaladin needs to teach her? Yes it is in regards to Kaladin teaching Jasnah, but you are speaking of the benefits they would have towards each other. Just because you do not specifically use the phrase in reverse, does not mean that was not your intention. It wasn't. Don't put words in my mouth. And "callous" doesn't mean "cold-hearted" as I said. In one definition, I see where you're coming from, but if you want to know my intention, it was to state that Jasnah is a bit more hardened and tough with regards to human life than, say, Kaladin or Shallan. You said callous and cold hearted. I commented on your use of callous and cold hearted. You said you only referred to her as callous and cold hearted prior to Oathbringer, I pointed out where you referred to her as callous after oathbringer. I do not see where I misunderstood what you wrote. If there was an intention beyond that, please clarify. 2 hours ago, Pathfinder said: Kaladin has a strong moral compass. He is perfect to rein her in. That phrase literally means to keep someone or something under control. You imply that without Kaladin, Jasnah will go through with her plan to commit genocide. I responded already why I feel this is a gross oversimplification and misunderstanding of that scene and of Jasnah. There doesn’t have to be someone there to smack Jasnah’s hand and tell her “bad Jasnah, bad. No killing people!”. It implies she is an impulsive animal that when shown kicked and then shown an arm, she will instinctually bite. I think that is insulting to the character and said as much. That's not what I meant in the slightest. I'm sorry you read it that way, but again, this might be more you having a problem with my tone and word choice, and several other people I know didn't read it the way you did either, I asked. Maybe you know people who read it the same way you did. I think your point is generally more subjective than objective--and if you want to disagree on this, that's fine. I was not trying to be insulting to the character and I replied so. But that unfortunately to me is what I feel is the crux of the argument. That there is something “wrong” with Jasnah, that a relationship with Kaladin would “fix”. And that fixing would be “growth”. Jasnah is not perfect. She is human. She makes mistakes. But being human does not mean such extreme actions. You word these arguments this way, yet say I am misunderstanding but I cannot seem to read anything else from your statements. If Kaladin is not in Jasnah’s life, she will take actions that will be harmful on a global scale because she is Queen. That removes any depth, any emotion, any intelligence on Jasnah’s part. It is taking one fight between the two, misunderstanding the fight (in my opinion) and remarking that that is how she operates at all times. That without some outside force keeping her in line and showing her how a person should act, then all hell will break loose. Personally it is a very extreme way to view the character, when in my opinion, we have a whole host of tidbits that show otherwise. 2 hours ago, Pathfinder said: Yes they will end up around each other more often if Kaladin remains guarding the ruler, and not using the Windrunners to scout out the enemy like he said they would. Yes I think they will learn to work together. But I do not think either of those circumstances mean love will blossom. You think through working together, there will be a growth of mutual respect and bonding between the two of them that could lead to a deeper relationship. It could. I do not think it will, but to each their own. Will? No. Can? Yes. It's a possible outcome, one I was simply addressing is how I think it could go. Again, we could agree to disagree on this point. Nothing I need to add here. 2 hours ago, Pathfinder said: Again, based on what we see in the books, Jasnah does not need someone to be a “tempering voice”. As Queen she will have advisors. She has shown repeatedly through the book the willingness to admit when she makes mistakes, correct said mistake, and listen to informed and well reasoned advice. She does not need to be in a relationship with someone to accomplish that. Again, here we have a difference in approach. By pointing out advisors and her willingness to admit when she makes mistakes and listen to advice, you are enforcing the idea I stated that a tempering voice is a good thing. I'm not stating that Jasnah will by a tyrant on her own--as I've said multiple times, I was explaining a situation in which their characters could work together. Everything you say about these characters individually is accurate! But when taking the possibility of characters being together, I am discussing ways that they could grow together. I'm not saying these things won't happen without the other--just that these are the way things could happen. I am saying Jasnah already has a tempering voice. It is her own. I used your example with Kelsier as to why I feel her growth with a companion is not needed. She is the role of the mentor at this time. All her growth was in her past, which we get hints of. When the character will truly “grow” in my opinion, is the back five books when she comes more into prominence and her flash back book will come up. Then I believe whatever happened to her in her past that caused her to grow into the person she is, will come up in the present, and cause more growth. That is why from a narrative perspective I do not see Kaladin being the one, assuming there is a one at all. The Jasnah we know today dealt with a lot of opposition and conflict to become the person we know today. The Jasnah of the future will then build on that foundation. I do not see her having the issues that you feel Kaladin will help her with. So if she does not have those issues, then she does not need to be in a relationship with them to have them fixed. See what I mean? It is like saying person A has social anxiety but is very organized. Person B is very confident and easy in social settings but very haphazard. Person B could help Person A become more at ease in public, while Person A could help Person B become more organized. For me this falls apart if we then see hints where Person A is actually fine in public situations despite their anxiety. They just go out rarely because they prefer to talk to people one on one rather than at parties. Therefore, Person B getting into a relationship with Person A would not really benefit Person A in that manner and if that is the suggested reason for the pairing, then I do not see the reason for them to be paired at all. 2 hours ago, Pathfinder said: Where has there ever been an instance shown in any of the three books that Jasnah holds back from doing something because it is “demeaning or belittling?”. I am genuinely curious, please provide the book name, and the page number. Again, you misconstrue my statement entirely. People in power often balk at the actions a bodyguard must necessarily take to save their life. Sometimes the bodyguard is overprotective, sometimes they're paranoid. If you want a great example, look at Adolin's initial distrust of Kaladin throughout Words of Radiance, and how he was upset that Kaladin was so involved. This was not a comment as specifically about Jasnah herself, as it was of the nature with a ruler/bodyguard relationship. Although I cannot definitively for myself prove one way or the other in this instance as how the ruler/bodyguard relationship functions as it is purely opinion based on some arbitrary data point (not belittling your thought. Just stating one random instance does not a data point make), I can however point back waaaaaaaaaaaay above to my first point where Jasnah said she can dislike a profession but still respect the person who does their profession well. So I think it is valid to say that Jasnah could be annoyed at having a bodyguard (though she has been a princess her entire life, so one would assume she has had numerous body guards before) yet still respect Kaladin for doing his job well without seeing it as demeaning or belittling. That said, I cannot point to any other place in the book where I can say “she wouldn’t do that because of this!”. So to each their own. 2 hours ago, Pathfinder said: The reason Gavinor comes up, is some people feel the assumption as to why Jasnah and Kaladin need to marry is so there is a male heir to carry on the Kholin rulership. People then reply that since Gavinor is a think, Jasnah would rule in his stead, and he would be the heir apparent, eliminating any need for Jasnah to “breed”. Considering the love and respect Jasnah has for her family, and her desire to not see it fall apart and have everyone kill each other, I do not see Jasnah fighting Gavinor on his right to be heir to the crown. This point was never in my post. I never said anything about breeding or children. I just don't think Gavinor's important in this arc. That's it. I think his importance (and Kaladin's brother's) is overstated and over-hyped. I'd much rather see how Jasnah does in power with Gavinor as heir-apparent, and as I said, I don't think Gavinor factors very much into the Jasnah and Kaladin potential. Jasnah and Kaladin don't need to be married--Jasnah can be Queen, all on her own. A grab for power by Jasnah was never in my thoughts, and I think on this matter you and I agree. You mentioned Gavinor, and said how you do not get why that is even a thing. I explained why some people see it as a thing (in favor of Jasnah and Kaladin getting together), and why some do not see it as a thing (against Jasnah and Kaladin getting together). You are entitled to think too much is made of it, but at least explain why others do think it is an issue before you say you do not think it is an issue. 2 hours ago, Pathfinder said: So in summation I disagree with your character reading of Jasnah. Since you based your conclusion regarding the relationship on such reading, then I disagree with your conclusion and I stated why. What I did not do however was state that your opinion was asinine, belittle your opinion, nor congratulate those that agree with me. I posted my thoughts based on my reading of the character. Take from that what you will. I didn't state opinions were asinine. I stated that an argument was asinine. That's a whole different ballpark. You can attack an argument without attacking a person. This was the very premise of that segment. If I belittled or insulted, such was not my intention. I don't congratulate those that agree with me, though I may be excited when someone does. I'm not so full of myself to do that. I think here you are splitting hairs. You mentioned an opinion. You said that opinion was asinine. You then misrepresented said opinion. Then you said your own opinion. I think that does a disservice to the person who holds that opinion and yourself. Let your argument stand on its own, and let those who read decide. I used no such verbiage, yet you felt I was attacking you. I will reply more, just below And in your paragraph here, you imply I did those very things. That is what I mean by insulting. Your original post did not attack the arguments as your latter did. It was insulting and reactive. Perhaps you and I simply have different forum etiquette, perhaps you and I are just used to different modes of speech. You read way more into my statements than I put in. I think we can safely say on this topic that we will agree to disagree, though. I commented on the portion I chose to comment on, which was your reading of Jasnah and why I disagree with it. Your reading of the character is your argument. I commented on that argument. I do not see how it was insulting or reactive. Have a nice day. Have a nice day to you as well P.S. That formatting worked well, thanks. It was very easy to look at your statements and react accordingly. I'm genuinely sorry if I caused you offense--such was not the intention, as I said. I appreciate discussion and debate, and when someone agrees with me that is genuinely exciting. I can see how you could interpret it another way, so if you have suggestions as to how I can avoid a situation like this in the future, I'm willing to listen. Thanks. You did not personally offend me. I pointed out how the way you framed your argument could be seen as offensive to those that held those opinions. As I said in my other posts, the arguments I said you were being offensive to, were not my own. So you did not offend me. I have throughout my post provided suggestions to avoid this in the future. Again have a nice day. Actually one more thing. Since I had to copy paste a good chunk on the genocide debate, this might make formatting screwy. Hopefully this works out. I know double posting is frowned upon but because my post to Alderant is so long, for sanity sake I need to separate my response to you from my response to alderant. I am sorry but I am going to have to disagree with you again. Jasnah is not a robot, or like that guy that hangs out with Taravangian. She cannot just say "hey logic says I should not care, so I am not going to care". Her struggle before she even sees Renarin crying shows this. She was fighting with herself to try and make herself do it, even though every fiber of her being says not to. That doesn't say to me that she can just turn that stuff off, otherwise she really would have killed him. Now as to how you feel regarding Jasnah and Kaladin as a relationship is totally up to you.

I will reply to the shorter of the two for expediancy sake, so Alderant give me some more time so I can respond to you at length. I very much disagree that Jasnah would have killed Renarin had he not turned around. Yes she was operating on incomplete information. Yes based on that information it can be construed that Renarin is the traitor. You said it yourself, she had to "steel herself" to do it. She was having to force herself. Everything in her being was telling her not to. Listing all those reasons in her head was her trying to convince herself to do it. She was telling herself it was the right thing to do. Her seeing his crying face is what brought her back. The very next line was "He was a trembling child, weeping on her shoulder for a father who didn't seem to be able to feel love". Him nodding in my opinion didn't do it. It was remembering that scared little boy, so lost and alone who would come to her in tears, wondering what was wrong with him that Dalinar didn't love him. It was the reminder of Jasnah showing him her love and acceptance for who he is, regardless what society or the culture tells her to do. "Little Renarin, always so solemn. Always misunderstood, laughed at and condemned by people who said similar things about Jasnah behind her back." She then says exactly that "Hush, we'll find a way through it Renarin. Whatever it is, we'll fix it. We'll survive this, somehow." That says to me she doesn't care about anything concerning Glys. All she cares about is Renarin. That scared little boy left alone, and promising him she will make everything ok. He could have cried and pled, and that would still have elicited the same memory. So I very much believe it is love and compassion, not suddenly brought out from the depth, but that has always been there. Just we always see it from the outside. The times we see it from the inside is rare. Aesudean is a prime example where Jasnah will not kill without all the facts (I will go more into this in my response to Alderant when I reach that part of his post). At the end of the day, Brandon is trying to portray a human. People do not just go chomping at the bit if there are not people there to "keep them honest". I personally do not believe in the ring of gyges. Give a person a magical ring of invisibility, providing no means of punishment for their actions, does not inherently mean the person will do evil. Just because Jasnah is logic driven, does not mean she is devoid of emotion, morality, and restraint. She has shown us time and again this emotion, this morality, and this restraint. It is just a shame that what she says is true. People will pick and chose instances to define you. The heralds are immortal beings that come back. Kinda takes the punch out of the idea of killing them don't you think? More on that again with the response to Alderant's post (yeah that is going to take awhile lol). The point of Taravangian's discussion with Dalinar is the problem is inherent in every legal system known to man. You can never know with 100 percent certainty if a person is guilty or not. You can do your best to get as close as possible, but it is never certain. Over a long enough time, with a large enough population, it is guaranteed that you will put a large portion of innocent people to jail. So the question is, what is the thresh-hold? What is the price worthy of security? It is a fact of life that the innocent will be punished. So what is your vector in determining a law, when you know for a fact it will negatively effect some people? You as a ruler have to answer that. You have to deal with that. To respond to your summation 1)Jasnah is not callous. She is reserved 2)the dynastic story was used as an example of a man that couldn't learn to trust in the ones he loved and it spelled the end of him. Jasnah chose to trust in her love of Renarin 3)I do not feel either character needs the other to progress and grow further. I will elaborate further when I type up my response to Alderant

My inquiry was in regards to this thread specifically. If no one had stated they wanted Adolin to die in this thread specifically, I did not see why the individuals in this thread need to be accused of such, nor do I feel it would be conducive to the continuation of the conversation contained in this thread. If you take issue with an individual saying Adolin should die, then perhaps state that to that individual in that thread.

So hopefully the formatting works. I copied pasted your points, and wrote my own in bold and blue below Jasnah is a powerhouse of a woman. One of the premiere scholars of her day, she is the figure all eyes are drawn to upon entering the room, capable of facing off against every adversary with her quick wit and vast knowledge and experience. She is smart, capable, confident, but she's also callous and indifferent. She has no compunctions about murdering four men for a moral lesson, assassinating her brother's wife for the sake of her brother's rule, or manipulating those around her if it will better her family. Her own mother said that Jasnah was born an adult in a child's body. However, we also know from first-hand experience through Shallan, that Jasnah does have a caring side, and has her mother's impulsivity. Jasnah, however, is not presented as a fully actualized character--we know very little about her, and that implies we are going to see her grow over time. Prior to OB, we knew very little about Jasnah beyond what I just said. OB gave us some small new insights into her: and her sparing of Renarin at the end of OB was a significant change of character given what we know, since I, at least, fully expected her to kill Renarin despite her love for the boy. I'm glad she didn't. It gives us a better glimpse into the woman beneath the scholar. I also highlighted your comment about how she has no compunctions about murdering four men (which I explained in my opinion that it was not only a moral lesson). Let us also notice how had Jasnah actually assassinated Aesudean, instead of holding back out of love for her brother, Kholinar would not have been in the state it had been. The scenes that are shown regarding who Jasnah cares in Way of Kings and Words of Radiance spoke a lot more to me about Jasnah’s character to show she would not have killed Renarin. It for me was not a change in character. Her scene with Renarin was a more obvious portrayal of her character, but it was a character that was present through out all three novels. We know from the given text that Jasnah is reserved. A quick curve of the lips--not really a smile, more an acknowledgement of approval--is a huge revelation. Jasnah is quick to temper, especially with those she considers foolish or arrogant, and has very little tolerance for either. We also know that Jasnah appreciates quick wit and banter, but only when tempered and utilized properly. This is a common theme between her and Shallan--Shallan, who often uses her verbal wit to flay and scathe, is repeatedly reprimanded by Jasnah as shortsighted. Jasnah's wit is surgical, subtle, and precise--attacking only those points that she deems vital to the conversation, rather than the person entirely as Wit does, or demeaning her opponent, as Shallan does. I disagree that she is quick to temper. Kaladin repeatedly attacked her verbally during the war meeting, and it took till roughly the third or fourth time for her to respond in kind. Amaram was going to summon his blade to attack her, and then she responded. She is reserved because she is thoughtful, not impulsive. She has to be pushed to a point in order to act. That is why she chides Shallan about using her wit haphazardly. And finally, another crucial point regarding Jasnah is how she is treated. Jasnah is universally placed on a pedestal. The text is heavy with implication that not only does Jasnah hate the idea of being under an abstract authority (such as religion), but that Jasnah is often treated differently from anyone else around her, both because of her position and because of her personality. Dalinar, Navani, Adolin--all of Jasnah's relatives acknowledge that Jasnah gets what Jasnah wants, you don't oppose Jasnah. Even Teravangian seems in Way of Kings to defer to Jasnah. And when Jasnah isn't being placed on a pedestal for worship or reverence, she's being shunned and reviled. You either admire Jasnah as a goddess, or you revile her as a demon. There seems to be no in between with regards to how she is perceived by others. Until this scene: In my opinion, she does not hate abstract authority. She believes in well-reasoned process of research. Hate implies that it does not matter the information regarding this abstract authority, she irrationally is against it. Yet her conversation with Dalinar, Taravangian, and in response to Amaram show this is not the case. When she spoke to Dalinar, she explained that she takes no joy in his pain or doubt over a deity. It is that he questions, and pursues the answer for himself that she identifies and bonds with him. About how people will take a few interactions and attempt to define you by such interactions to make themselves feel better. When she spoke with Taravangian, she had no problem with his religion, and his desire to worship such. She only replied when he put forward arguments to try to change her mind. Her responses explained that she already considered those issues, and these are the reasons that brought about the conclusions she had. When Amaram confronted her, he accused her of corrupting Dalinar and trying to turn him into a heretic, which as we see in the interaction with Dalinar she did nothing of the sort. Amaram did the exact thing to Jasnah what she warned Dalinar people would try to do to him. Quote "Our only hope is to defeat their armies so soundly that even if their leaders are constantly reborn, they lack the manpower to overwhelm us." "Protecting Alethkar," Kaladin said, "doesn't have to mean completely crushing the parshmen and--" "If you wish, Captain," Jasnah snapped, "I can get you some mink kits to cuddle while the adults plan. None of us want to talk about this, but that does not make it any less inevitable." (Note here, Jasnah is attacking Kaladin's "childish" viewpoint of trying to consider the welfare of the enemy. This will be important in the later discussion.) "I'd love that," Kaladin responded. "In turn, I'll get you some eels to cuddle. You'll feel right at home." N3 Jasnah, curiously, smiled. "Let me ask this, Captain. Do you think ignoring the movement of Voidbringer troops would be wise?" N4 "Probably not," he admitted. "And do you think, perhaps, that you could train your squire Windrunners to fly up high and scout for us? If spanreeds are proving unreliable these days, we'll need another method of watching the enemy. I'd happily cuddle skyeels, as you offer, if your team would be willing to spend time imitating them." N5; additionally, see paragraph below. Kaladin looked to Dalinar, who nodded appreciatively. "Excellent," Jasnah said. What is significant about this scene, is that Jasnah has someone confront her on a social level. And rather than getting upset, Jasnah appears to shift and even appreciate the opposition. Almost like she was being intentionally extreme in order to draw the opposition out, and her bluff was called. And with respect to the discussion to follow, what is interesting is that Jasnah and her opponent are coming from opposite extremes in this scene. This is out of context without the interactions leading up to this moment. Jasnah is arguing that based on the fall out from the past desolations, and that their foes can continually return, that merely stating “can we just not fight them” is not a sufficient enough response to the threat. And before it is stated that I am attacking Kaladin, or criticizing him, he states that exact line twice. Jasnah, exasperated at this point as Kaladin has not provided any constructive ideas during a war meeting while proceeding to repeatedly insult her, has figured out a way to silence his protestations, while still accomplishing something she feels is crucial given the current climate. Kaladin & Jasnah: Hide contents So what makes these two such an excellent pairing? Well, it's a wonderful authorial tool I call growth potential. There is a phrase that says "Opposites attract." But what seems to be more common to me, is that opposites only attract when there is an avenue for those opposites to attract. More often than not, without an avenue those opposites will repel, and repel, and repel. So the big question here is whether or not there actually is an avenue for that attraction to occur, and for this, I really want to rely on textual evidence, more than speculation. Most of the arguments against Jasnahdin seem to stem from one of three arguments: That there's too much of an age gap, that they're too morally opposite, and that either A) Jasnah's lack of interest in men means that she is either asexual or lesbian, or B ) that Kaladin shouldn't be paired with anyone in the main cast. I'd like to address each of these points. This is reducing the opposing arguments, to portray your own in a more positive light. Those three are not the only reasons against this pairing, and it is also not a fair representation of those arguments. If you want to mention opposing arguments, you should give them the full and proper explanation they are entitled to, and not just a one sentence mention each. I do not believe these reasons myself against the pairing (I have plenty of my own), but I will respond to each below 1) There's too much of an age gap. Frankly, this argument is asinine. There are older/younger relationships in the real world all the time, from old men marrying young women, to old women hooking up with young men due to sexual drives, to a couple I met when I was nineteen where the wife had a son her husband's age (there was a 21 year gap between). Looking at the pair in question, not only is Jasnah unnaturally beautiful (Shallan has a point of envy about it in chapter 5 of Way of Kings), but Kaladin is unusually mature for his age. To say it's okay for an older man to be with a younger woman (in discrepancies of sometimes 30 years) but that a younger man with an older woman (in a discrepancy of likely less than 15 years), while at the same time saying that Kaladin and Lift should be paired (a discrepancy of 7-9 years), is absurdly misogynistic and sexist. Stop making this argument. That is disrespectful to the individuals who happen to hold this opinion which they have the complete right to have, and have valid reasons as to why. Can relationships work with an age gap in either direction? Sure! But it is a biological fact that women mature physically faster than men. A man and a woman of the same age, are not necessarily going to be at the same place mentally at life, so that is why there tends to be some age difference in relationships. However, certain amounts of age differences do still lead to differences where people are mentally and emotionally in life. So if a woman tends to be at a place “further down the road” than a man of her same age, then a man of a younger age, would be “further back”. That is not to say a man younger than the woman is purely immature. It is to say they are at different places in their lives, with different priorities, responsibilities and experiences. A man in his 40s is going to have a different outlook, day to day thoughts, and responsibilities than a girl of 18. That does not preclude it from working out, and not all individuals fit (there are immature older individuals and mature younger individuals), but it is still a valid concern when entering into a relationship. It is not asinine at all. 2) Jasnah's lack of interest in men means that she is either asexual or lesbian I don't understand this point. Lack of interest does not inherently mean that there is a different preference. It just means that Jasnah hasn't had a reason to be interested. And considering how deeply she throws herself into her work, and how she's often socially isolated from those around her, it's not absurd to believe that she's simply never found a man she could consider to be an equal. Of important note here, is that Jasnah is inherently a feminist--she doesn't believe that a woman should be "beholden" to a man. According to Mirriam-Webster, the word beholden means: " being under obligation for a favor or gift". Naturally, Jasnah wouldn't want to be obligated to obeying a man simply because he deigned to favor her with affection. Such an idea runs counter to the very core of her being. Of additional note is her interactions with Amaram--which demonstrate that very point. Further, I'd wager (and this is speculation) that Jasnah, with her love of authority and control, wouldn't want a man (or woman) who would try to demean her or place themselves above her. She would want someone who not only did she view as an equal, but most importantly would treat her that way as well. My point is, there isn't any textual evidence Jasnah is asexual or lesbian. The textual evidence, is that she hasn't had a reason to express any interest. Jasnah can still be a strong, independent woman and potentially love a man--one does not have to detract from the other, but I agree wholeheartedly that a man who did that would be an extreme disservice to the character. Lack of interest does not inherently mean there is a different preference, but nor is interest the default state to assume unless evidence is provided. In other words this is not an innocent until proven guilty scenario. Jasnah is not assumed interested, until unequivocally proven to be uninterested. We have seen the comment of Shallan on how Jasnah responded to the men in the alley. We have seen how Jasnah reacted to Amaram on multiple occasions. We have also seen Jasnah’s reaction regarding arranged marriage. Does this mean she has to be asexual/lesbian? Of course not, but that does not mean such a belief is impossible? Does Jasnah have to reject every single man she ever meets for this to be valid? Because the response can just be, as you say yourself, “she just hasn’t met the right one yet”. So when can Jasnah be considered asexual/lesbian? What is required of Jasnah for someone to read her as asexual? We do not require men to grab women’s breasts to know conclusively they are straight. We do not require women to grab men between the legs to know conclusively they are straight. So we should not require an overt action from Jasnah to conclude on an individual basis (as in different people have different opinions on the topic) whether or not she is asexual/lesbian. 3) Kaladin shouldn't be paired with anyone in the main cast I've seen this one over and over, and it makes no sense. Why? Because he has depression? Because he's broody? Because he's the MC? Because the MC having a love interest that's also an MC is tropy and overdone? These are all terrible arguments. Kaladin is a main character--and he's honestly the character of the lot who really needs someone the most, someone who is dynamic and can help him progress in ways only a main character can. But honestly, this oppositional point is largely subjective, so I'm not going to cover it very deeply. Some people do not feel Kaladin needs someone to get past his issues. He has Syl to help him and he seems to have come pretty damnation far so far on his own. Why is it a terrible argument to think he can continue to do so? The spren help guide the radiants and help them be in touch with themselves and their feelings deep down. Brandon has commented on how incredibly intimate the bonding between spren and individual is. If there is anyone best suited to help a Radiant grow, it would be that individual’s spren. In your response, you were upset because of the tone you interpreted from my words, yet all across this post you insult and deride any who hold a contrary opinion to your own. I think taking a step back and taking a breath as you said is very advisable. Please take another. I will respond further to this later in my post. Now that those points are out of the way, I want to get into the point that the astute reader will notice I skipped: that Kaladin and Jasnah are moral opposites. This is rather hackneyed. The reader is astute by sharing your point of view Why moral opposition is a breeding ground for development (pun intended) Kaladin is stuck in a rut. Jasnah is a somewhat amoral figure in a position of power. Left unchecked, these two have the potential to run themselves into the ground. There is a saying I would warn any fans of Jasnah to consider: "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." There is also a quote I'd warn Kaladin fans to consider: "I deserve what I've been given. My unhappiness is my fault." Neither are in a situation where they are “left unchecked”. They are bonded to spren. They both have numerous people in their lives that they trust and speak to. Jasnah has been “in power” her entire life. Elhokar is an admitted incompetent king. Jasnah could have easily seized power from him but she did not because she cares and understands him. Both are supported by WoB. Brandon has gone on record saying only reason a highprince is considered a highprince is because they have enough people backing them. The only reason Gavilar was accepted as king is because he had enough people agreeing that that is so. So there is nothing stopping Jasnah from replacing Elhokar. Brandon has also gone on record saying that Jasnah realizing Elhokar is having to live up to Gavilar’s shadow, she took it into consideration when she left to pursue stopping the desolations. If she would have to stay to do so, she would have as she felt the end of the world was more important than Elhokar’s pride, but she felt he could do with living in one less shadow, so she left. That says to me, there is a person who could have had that power anytime she wanted, but she did not. That says to me she has had plenty of power already, and it has not corrupted her. As to Kaladin, he has already “run himself into the ground”. It was through Syl’s help, and the help of his friends in bridge 4 that he came as far as he did. The scene when he returns to Hearthstone shows that growth. The battles he is thrown in in Kholinar is the opposition. Once again, it is Syl that is helping him come to terms with it. The benefits of these two in a relationship begin here. Kaladin and Jasnah's moral opposition means that they each pull against the other's morality. Jasnah's callousness gives her the perfect grounds for teaching Kaladin a lesson he's needed to learn since childhood--that losses happen, and that sometimes you have to hurt in order to do what needs to be done. Sometimes you need to set the bone, cauterize the wound, so that healing can occur. Jasnah, with her knowledge of philosophy and abstract morality, could teach Kaladin that not everything is his fault. You state yet again Jasnah is callous. This is in regards to moving forward beyond Oathbringer, so my response to you saying Jasnah is callous is warranted. Here you specifically say teach, yet you are upset at me for saying you said Kaladin needs to teach her? Yes it is in regards to Kaladin teaching Jasnah, but you are speaking of the benefits they would have towards each other. Just because you do not specifically use the phrase in reverse, does not mean that was not your intention. Kaladin, on the other hand, with his strong moral compass, is the perfect person to rein Jasnah in. Jasnah, left unchecked, could commit genocide in the pursuit of what is good for her and hers. Kaladin would be the voice of reason, the voice that says, "let's find another way. We don't have to do this." Kaladin has a strong moral compass. He is perfect to rein her in. That phrase literally means to keep someone or something under control. You imply that without Kaladin, Jasnah will go through with her plan to commit genocide. I responded already why I feel this is a gross oversimplification and misunderstanding of that scene and of Jasnah. There doesn’t have to be someone there to smack Jasnah’s hand and tell her “bad Jasnah, bad. No killing people!”. It implies she is an impulsive animal that when shown kicked and then shown an arm, she will instinctually bite. I think that is insulting to the character and said as much. Social implications Kaladin is no longer really considered a darkeyes by the public. Jasnah is a queen in a society where leadership is a male thing. All consideration that these two can't work together because of social politics completely ignores the societal revolution that occurred at the end of OB. Jasnah is in a unique position to make an Alethkar that isn't subject to Vorinism's gender laws, to bring to light the very causes she's been championing her entire life. Kaladin, on the other hand, is duty-bound to "Protect the King of Alethkar," which according to the WoB, is what the Alethi consider Jasnah: the "King" of Alethkar. This is an easy one to see. Kaladin will likely be avoiding Adolin and Shallan for some time--his absence at their wedding is of unique note. What does Kaladin do when he wants to avoid something? He throws himself into his duties. Despite their opposition in the planning council, we know Kaladin takes his job very seriously, and he's not going to make the same mistake with Jasnah he made with Elhokar. He's going to make sure she's guarded. That means they'll probably spend a lot of time together, and though they do oppose each other, I imagine they're both capable of seeing the good in each other as well. Yes they will end up around each other more often if Kaladin remains guarding the ruler, and not using the Windrunners to scout out the enemy like he said they would. Yes I think they will learn to work together. But I do not think either of those circumstances mean love will blossom. You think through working together, there will be a growth of mutual respect and bonding between the two of them that could lead to a deeper relationship. It could. I do not think it will, but to each their own. Further, I think the previous analysis on Jasnah's leadership and Kaladin becoming "High King" is misguided. If they end up together, make no mistake--Jasnah will be the ruler. At best, Kaladin will be her equal. More likely, Kaladin will be her general, overseeing the machinations of the kingdom's armies and her safety, rather than ruling in her stead. Kaladin will not be "High King", Jasnah will be "High Queen." And Kaladin, I think, won't have an issue with this. Kaladin takes people on their merits, not on their gender or preference. He will be the tempering voice, the voice of caution and reason, while she will be the determining factor. Again, based on what we see in the books, Jasnah does not need someone to be a “tempering voice”. As Queen she will have advisors. She has shown repeatedly through the book the willingness to admit when she makes mistakes, correct said mistake, and listen to informed and well reasoned advice. She does not need to be in a relationship with someone to accomplish that. But...but the conflicts! Yes. There will be conflict between them. Jasnah will make calls Kaladin doesn't agree with, and Kaladin will do things for her safety that Jasnah finds demeaning or belittling. A good bodyguard cares about their charge's protection first, reputation and opinion second. Conversely, a good ruler does what must be done, even if it means sending friends to their deaths in battle. But the important thing to note here is that those things do not have to be mutually exclusive. They aren't disproving points, but areas where growth can occur. Kaladin and Jasnah stand only to gain from their conflicts. Where has there ever been an instance shown in any of the three books that Jasnah holds back from doing something because it is “demeaning or belittling?”. I am genuinely curious, please provide the book name, and the page number. But what about Gavinor? What about him, really? He's a child. At best, they'll bond over mutual care about him, at worst, he'll be relegated to the background until the back five if he comes to the fore at all. Gavinor was Kaladin's way of making amends to the Kholins for letting Elhokar die. It's a mark in favor, but I really don't think Gavinor is really an important part of the discussion beyond the social implications. Jasnah won't be adopting him, of that I'm fairly certain. The reason Gavinor comes up, is some people feel the assumption as to why Jasnah and Kaladin need to marry is so there is a male heir to carry on the Kholin rulership. People then reply that since Gavinor is a think, Jasnah would rule in his stead, and he would be the heir apparent, eliminating any need for Jasnah to “breed”. Considering the love and respect Jasnah has for her family, and her desire to not see it fall apart and have everyone kill each other, I do not see Jasnah fighting Gavinor on his right to be heir to the crown. So in summation I disagree with your character reading of Jasnah. Since you based your conclusion regarding the relationship on such reading, then I disagree with your conclusion and I stated why. What I did not do however was state that your opinion was asinine, belittle your opinion, nor congratulate those that agree with me. I posted my thoughts based on my reading of the character. Take from that what you will.

I checked the entire page, and did a search for die, and for hate concerning Adolin. Die came up only once, from "Use the Falchion" and that individual was just throwing out random ideas of what can happen. Quoted below: "Kaladin gets with someone else? Adolin is actually a good influence on Shallan and she becomes a better character? Adolin dies and Kaladin takes up Maya and helps revive her, becoming an Edgedancer AND a Windrunner, and then marries Shallan anyways? I have no idea." Just prior to that, someone mentioned the possibility of Kaladin dying, yet that was not linked to hating the character. Please provide reference in this thread as to where people hated Adolin so much that they specifically called for his death. Otherwise this is an exaggeration. Thank you.

So I come into this feeling a relationship between Kaladin and Jasnah is not necessary on numerous levels (political, emotional, and intellectual). You feel it would, I feel differently. We can totally respect each others views on that. However, further than that, I greatly disagree with your reading on Jasnah’s character on whole which is ultimately used to support your opinion that they would benefit from a relationship. This is the biggest point I disagree with "She is smart, capable, confident, but she's also callous and indifferent. She has no compunctions about murdering four men for a moral lesson, assassinating her brother's wife for the sake of her brother's rule, or manipulating those around her if it will better her family." As we see in numerous occasions across Way of Kings, Words of Radiance, and Oathbringer, Jasnah is not callous and indifferent. She was not callous and indifferent the night her father died. She was not callous and indifferent when she read Way of Kings to Dalinar. She was not callous and indifferent when speaking with Dalinar via spanreed (in fact she was fondly protective of her beloved Uncle). She was not callous and indifferent when she killed the four men (more on that later). She was not callous and indifferent when Shallan nearly died in her arms from Kabsal’s poison. She was not callous and indifferent when she was stressed to the point of breaking on the ship sailing to the shattered plains trying to stop the desolation from happening. She was not callous and indifferent when she was reunited with Navani (though we see that off screen, Dalinar comments on how loving it was). She was not callous and indifferent regarding Shallan, her education, and how best to handle their relationship going forward. And finally she was most certainly not callous and indifferent when concerning Renarin. Now I said I would go more into how Jasnah was not callous and indifferent regarding the four men she killed in the alley. I argue it was not solely to prove a moral lesson, but in deference and respect to Taravangian. She commented on how that location has been a repeated problem. She also mentions on how Taravangian has repeatedly tried to get the guards to patrol it, and investigate the crimes. It is also shown that the guards are being bribed to look the other way so the problem has not been resolved. This problem effects the city she is residing in, at the pleasure of a man (Taravangian) she respects, who loves the city he rules over. She states it herself, she feels she has taken his generosity for granted and it is time she repay it. Feel free to disagree with the logic, but again that is most certainly not callous and not indifferent. The thing to keep in mind (at least in my opinion) is 90 percent of the impressions you are basing your character reading on, is how other characters in the narrative view her. The few times we get to “peak behind the curtain”, we see the reality is very very different. Jasnah cares. She deeply loves her family, by her own words when she has memories of the dark room with screams. I have heard so many people, in my opinion, mis-interpret the scene between Jasnah and Kaladin that I am tempted to keep a word doc, just so I can copy paste my response to every point, so I do not have to type it out all over again. Jasnah did not call for genocide. She said that in the face of such a horrible option (considering the fused can possess the parshendi and parshmen, so it does not matter how well you get along with them, they can turn into a investiture powered enemy at any time), that talking to the heralds, and even killing them (fully knowing they are immortal, and can return to life at anytime) on the chance it could buy them some time to find a real solution, is worth it. If the building is on fire, and we are on the 10th floor, and I say we have to push through the stairs to escape. You turn around and say I am insane, we will die of smoke inhalation, and I retort “well unless you want to jump out the window, we need to go through the stairs” does not mean I am saying committing suicide by jumping out the window is the only option. It does not mean I am advocating it. And finally it does not mean I consider it a valid option. It means I am using a term called juxtaposition. It means I am showing two things side by side to show contrasting effect. I also personally do not feel from what we have seen of Jasnah, that that means she is amoral and needs Kaladin to “teach” her how to be moral. Jasnah is plenty moral. She is as moral as all the other characters. She just derives her morality in a different way from Kaladin. That does not make her amoral. Dalinar in the above scene agreed with Jasnah, and pointed out to Kaladin about the grim realities of war. Does that make Dalinar amoral? Every point Jasnah made during a war counsel made sense and needed to be considered. Placing a persons head in the sand and pretending the problem doesn’t exist doesn’t help. So all of this leads to how I see Jasnah’s character developing. I see her as she is, is how you described Kelsier. Most of her development has happened off screen, in her past. Her issues with Amaram. The ardent she thinks of fondly regarding the book of endless pages (yet another example where she is not callous and indifferent). The dark room where she screamed herself hoarse at the hands of those she loved. There are tons of character development there. Development we will she during her flashback chapters that have been confirmed will occur in the back half of the stormlight archive. For me, Jasnah’s current role is to be present in the narrative, in the background, keeping things stable, till we get to really dig into her story. Much like Renarin, she is a pandora’s box. Once you open her up, you have to dedicate a whole lot of page time, that Brandon is not ready to do so yet. He moved her back when he edited Way of Kings because there were so many characters that required so much page time. So he had to split them up. As we meet Jasnah’s past and how it effects her present, then her narrative will develop and grow. Autonomously from Kaladin. So in summation, what you posit she needs to learn to develop as a character, I disagree with. I do not think she needs to learn morality, and I do not think she needs to learn it from Kaladin of all people. I think her growth will come in the back five books, with her learning through her interaction with Ivory about her emotions, her vulnerability, and her strength, just like kaladin is with syl, shallan is with pattern, dalinar is with the stormfather, and lift is with wyndle.

As I said just before you posted, they were heading to war. Here is the scene: Dalinar dismissed the Balde. "Go" he said walking back toward his horse, where Highprince Roion - looking stunned - was watching Amaram stalk away, his personal guard of fifty joining him. Yes, that was Aladar's banner, joining Dalinar's. Sadeas could make it out through the spyglass. He lowered it, and sat quietly for a long, long time. So as you can see, they were leaving for the Shatteredplains. Dalinar has never gone to combat on the shatteredplains without his shardplate.

Amaram had plate as it was mentioned by Kaladin. They both dismounted from their horses as the army was preparing to head out to the shattered plains. After the confrontation, Dalinar gets back up on his horse to lead the army to head out to the shattered plains. Dalinar has never gone to battle with his army out of shardplate. So although it is not explicitly stated, it in my opinion can be assumed.

Hurt Taravangian; heal Bleeder 9. Bleeder- 36 15. Taravangian- 64

The Implication is Dalinar has shardplate on him. If anyone could catch up with, and slow down a shardbearer, it would be someone with plate. If Dalinar didn't have the armor, Amaram could have just run, and no one could have caught up with him. Dalinar could, and considering how we have seen him fighting, it is possible that Dalinar could even win. So Amaram needs to get a quick and decisive strike taking Dalinar out, so he can flee. Since Dalinar doesn't have a shardblade, that would allow Amaram to get the drop on him, take him out, and run.