Pathfinder

Not sure if this applies to the quote you are referencing, but I do recall in another thread where a poster pointed out that they are lighter than a regular sword OF THAT TYPE. So if I tend to liken it to size categories in DnD. A one handed sword to a human is a two handed to a halfing and so on. So perhaps Oathbringer is so huge, that were it a normal sword, it would be impossible to wield, but since it is a shardblade, it is slightly lighter so it needs an armor assist to do so. Other blades might be smaller or a different form that they do not need such a huge assist.

I think the point we are trying to make is for laws that are not so clearly "right or wrong". For instance I live in America and am very staunchly against gun violence, and am against personal possession of guns. There are other people who feel personal ownership of guns is their right and stand firmly behind the 2nd amendment. I feel gun ownership makes the world more dangerous, while others feel it makes it safer. I am not bringing up this example to argue whether or not gun ownership is right or not. However if the local kingdom held one view, while the knights radiant held another view, how would that play out? The local kingdom is just supposed to say "hey the knights radiant thinks this way and all radiants are supposed to be super stand up guys, even though they abandoned us way back when. Let us throw away our own beliefs and do what they think is right because they say so!". Would the local kingdom be allowed to vote, and the knights radiants have to abide by their ruling if the law they vote into being disagrees with theirs? I am not saying the kingdom's law is right, nor the knights radiant. All I am saying is they could disagree, so how does that get resolved? Are the knights radiant subject to that kingdom's law when they are within its borders? What if through obeying the local law, they would break their oath? Sorry I do not mean to beat a dead horse. We do agree to disagree, just further posts popped up with more info, so I felt the need to ring in.

A koloss is raging across town, destroying everything it sees. Everyone flees far away in fear. Except for one lone man. This seemingly lunatic approaches the great beast. The distant town folk watch in rapt fascination as the fool hearty hero holds up what seems to be a box at a distance. Suddenly the koloss stops, mesmerized by this David before the brutish Goliath. Dropping its great sword, the koloss calmly walks past the fearful towns people and off into the distance. When the befuddled pedestrians approach their savior in awe, they ask but one question "how?". This paragon of bravery shoulders his simple stereo onto his shoulder, and smoothly slides on sunglasses as he states "I played some jazz for him. it soothed him....."

Ah ok. I agree with you, just WoB tend to pop up randomly around here, and I have in the past disagreed on something that turns out on another thread someone mentioned a WoB that resolves the whole discussion lol. So I have started to get in the habit of when a new piece of info is stated with seeming veracity, I like to check first

So I am a bit in the middle. On one hand I agree with killersquirrel for the simple reason that on Roshar, the culture that reads very asian to me, the Shin, actually looks and in practice is more European, while the culture that reads more European to me, actually has the epicanthic folds and clothing associated with Asian culture, so I do not think it a stretch that Brandon could have a jungle culture be white, and a nordic culture dark skinned. Now having stated that I whole heartily agree that cinema is dominated by caucasian and feel the warbreaker movie would benefit separating itself from that common vein (like the last airbender SHOULD have done ). So I would love to see a multi racial or dominantly dark skinned cast to cast off typical tropes (how many actors/actresses listed are type casted?) and really start Brandon's movie debut fresh.

awaken umbrella with command "cover from rain". Then I would never have to hold the umbrella in place

Why isn't Sixth of Dusk invited to family occasions anymore? Because Six ate Nine. So bad I know

Granted, but all the collections of gifs are in reference to things that occured for an alien race we have not met yet, so no one understands to context I wish to have my own private pet aviar, but in cat form since I like cats more

Is there WoB on that? Not that I have a problem with that being so or not, just want to know if that is established for my own knowledge

The only question I think I can answer is can they materialize as a shardblade inside another object. If I remember the scene correctly, yes. Shallan killed the woman training her in the caravan (forgot her name). The description seems to imply the sword materialized in shallan's hand, already run through the woman, but I could be missing a part where the woman ran into it, or that is just how Shallan recalled the scene due to the trauma associated with it.

I see and respect your view. What I am about to state is in no way shape or form to criticize or belittle so hopefully I can write it in such a way that that intention carries over in the written word. I see what you are saying and admire it, but I think considering what we know, that is overly idealistic. Also, of my own opinion, I do not feel that the Almighty supporting the knight radiants system intrinsically means he is right. Just in case I will put this in a spoiler as it is regarding the cosmere and i do not know the proper etiquette when discussing it in certain boards: but that is my own understanding/interpretation on the cosmere, and I can understand others feeling/interpreting it differently.

So here is another thought, in rare situations where animals are born with two heads and even rarer people are, then they would have separate sDNA right? So theoretically if a person like that were snapped, they could be two mistings in one body?

Graaah, i keep coming up with all these fun curses, but no wishes so not sure if I can participate Basically I was going to say granted, but your most hated enemy suffering the two curses, results in the child of your most hated enemy making it their life goal to get revenge and now you both have an EVEN WORSE most hated enemy with no curses to hamper them. hmmmm what wish could I say.......I wish......to live on my own island with the people i love, that is stocked with all i could ever want and need. that work?

The problem is ideally a policing force has to hold to certain laws. So when you bring up jurisdiction, do you mean windrunners only operate in one kingdom, skybreakers in another, and so on? That the orders operate only in the kingdoms whose laws match their ideals? Otherwise what happens when a law comes into conflict with their ideal? Are they allowed to carte blanche ignore the laws of the people they are protecting and enact their own justice based on the ideals of their order? A military force is typically exactly that, used in times of war. There is martial law, but that is the military enforcing their laws on the native population to maintain "peace" during a difficult time. True ideally I would like to think that a group with powers would hold to ideals, and these ideals would be held up as an example to others. Prime example being superman, but in his case a common story point is where does superman interfere and where doesn't he? At what level is his interference ok? At what level does his interference create policy? If there is a war between two nations, and one uses a weapon that kills many people to gain the upper hand, does he stop them to save lives but prolong the war? Does he pick sides and become a weapon himself (see Watchmen), or does he not pick sides and stand by while innocents die? You make a good point about fight and rebuild. I always took it as they fight off the voidbringers, and then pass on the technological knowledge to help mankind start over to prepare for the next wave of desolations. Well thats the thing in these two situations, what is killing someone unfairly? Jasnah is a radiant, kills the four men, and didn't lose her powers so for elsecallers that is clearly killing someone fairly. Brandon has quoted that some radiant orders would have no problem with what Adolin did, so some radiant orders would clearly see what he did as killing someone fairly. So if orders can disagree on what constitutes killing someone fairly then even if the radiants were able to set law and policy across the globe, it would be difficult to prevent infighting. The prime example given in the book is the windrunners and skybreakers being diametrically opposed on how to apply the law. Skybreakers take a literal stance, Windrunners a more liberal one.

LOL i never thought of it that way, man-slaughter, slaughter of man lolol that is awesome. Upvote!

I am glad you posted that because when I went to sleep last night, what popped into my head is Jasnah being a radiant could come up in three ways at court. First would be how it is in book, which is she is not a radiant, only a heretic of one religion using a soulcaster which the analogue would be someone walking in a dark alley, getting jumped, and fending off the assailant with a cross, a star of david, etc. second, she is a unique individual with abilities that she used to defend herself, or third radiants are an acknowledged body and reformed, which leads us to ask what was their original organized body considered and should they, given how they originally failed, replicate the same structure. Were the radiants a policing force? a military force? Could their actions trump the local laws and government? If the local laws as in this case was death, are they breaking the laws by bringing the individuals in alive? Did the radiants have the authority to act as judge jury and executioner? If a skybreaker, a windrunner, and a dustbringer all came across the crime at the same time, whose interpretation of the law and honor stands? Does the skybreaker stop the dusbringer from killing the assailants in order to bring them to justice? Does the windrunner stop the skybreaker from apprehending the criminals in order to focus on protecting the innocents? I am asking these questions not to disprove or question your morality, but as a mental exercise to better understand how the radiants might have been pre fall and maybe what caused their fall, as well as how they might be reformed I misread that definition myself initially as well. Manslaughter is in reference to personal negligence that leads to another's death that could have been prevented if you acted within the law and responsible as a person should. The example cited is a person drunk driving that hits and kills a pedestrian walking on the sidewalk. Had the person not been drunk driving illegally, the death would not have happened, regardless that the person who killed the pedestrian did not mean to kill them (intent) nor held malice (wanted that person dead in particular). that definition is commenly attributed to involuntary manslaughter. voluntary manslaughter is referred to as "heat of the passion" crime which would be applicable to Adolin. I have quoted below the definition and example to further elaborate: For “heat of passion” to exist, the person must not have had sufficient time to “cool off” from the provocation. That the killing isn’t considered first or second degree murder is a concession to human weakness. Killers who act in the heat of passion may kill intentionally, but the emotional context is a mitigating factor that reduces their moral blameworthiness. The classic example of voluntary manslaughter involves a husband who comes home unexpectedly to find his wife committing adultery. If the sight of the affair provokes the husband into such a heat of passion that he kills the paramour right then and there, a judge or jury might very well consider the killing to be voluntary manslaughter. edit2: had another thought on the way to work. I could totally see the Vorin religion doing everything they can to prevent this from going to trial even if Shallan attempted to testify. Basically it would mean they would have to reveal the inner workings of soulcasters and that they could be used as a weapon, which means the church now basically has armed assassins near every noble in almost every city. Something tells me they don't want people thinking that

The individual and what they are carrying on them matters depending on the situation. For instance, if the assailants were unarmed, and I had a gun. If i pull out the gun, typically a reasonable person would flee, so me shooting the assailant would not be self defense. If the assailant is nuts lets say, and still charges me with intent to assault me, and keeping with the books example, the assailant is a large muscled man, and I am a middle aged thin woman then it is reasonable to come to the conclusion that being trapped, I would be unable to stop the assault with just my arms, so firing the gun then would be self defense. Jasnah reveals what she has on her hand. One could argue that soulcasters are prevalent that the men should have known what it was, and fled but they continued the assault. On the other hand it could be argued that soucasters aren't typically used in that fashion, so they wouldn't know it was a weapon. Still that was the only means she had of defending herself given the circumstances to prevent her death so yes it is still self defense. Are you saying the victim need bring a myriad of weapons with them, and make a point to match whatever weapon the assailant is using to attack them for it to be considered self defense? edit: also at this stage we do not know what level of radiant jasnah is (do we? if we do, i stand corrected), nor do we know if elsecallers have the level of combat prowess that winddancers and skybreakers do. so radiant or not, using the soulcasting ability could have been the only means of fighting them off

I pulled up the section and will post some quotes below. That was my point, in order to use a bazooka without blowing yourself up, you would need a lot more space than Jasnah and Shallan had. If they had that space they would have been able to flee thus negating the need and legal recourse of self defense. So here are a few quotes that I think help this discussion: "No," Jasnah said. "It is most certainly not. Particularly not here. You see, this street has gained a particular reputation lately. On three seperate occasions during the last two months, theatergoers who chose this route to the main road were accosted by footpads. In each case the people were murdered." "The city watch," Jasnah said, "has done nothing. Taravangian has sent them several pointed reprimands, but the captain of the watch is cousin to a very infuential lighteyes in the city, and Taravangian is not a terribly powerful ing. Some suspect that there is more going on, that the footpads might be bribing the watch. The politics of it are irrelevant at the moment for, as you can see, no members of the watch are guarding the place, despite its reputation." "These men meant murder. You didn't rob women like Shallan and Jasnah, women with powerful connections, then leave them alive as witnesses. Men like these were not the gentlemen bandits in romantic stories. They lived each day knowing that if they were caught, they would be hanged" "The men grunted at the glare, but shoved their way forward. A thick chested man with a dark beard came up to Jasnah, weapon raised. She calmly reached her hand out-fingers splayed- and pressed it against his chest as he swung his knife. Shallan's breath caught in her throat" "The other three men began to curse, scrambling away, tripping over one another in their panic. One fell. Jasnah turned casually, brushing his shoulder with her fingers as he struggled to his knees. He became crystal, a figure of pure, flawless quartz." "The other two men fled in opposite directions" I will post the quotes regarding Shallan and Jasnah's fight after the fact in a moment, but as you can see the intent to harm was very clear, they were right up in front of them, and the other men did try to flee. So the initial kill was self defense, the following three were not edit: looked for the spot where i thought shallan threatened to turn in Jasnah. Turns out didn't happen, they totally focused on the legality and morality of the situation. Shallan ended up deciding it was legal, but not moral. That: "you can be moral without following the law, and you can be immoral while following the law."

It is a good point Shallan could testify, but Jasnah presented it as a mental exercise after. I would need to find the quote but didn't Shallan threaten to do exactly that and Jasnah pointed out all she stated is different ways what she did could be interpreted in a hypothetical manner?

I thought we were still acting on the example of Jasnah? If you are at the other end of the alley, the assailant that far away, you have the ability to flee. Self defense requires there be a sense of imminent harm that cannot be avoided. For instance there was a case in sweden i believe where a man killed another man with a shotgun. He claimed self defense. This was disproven because after firing the initial blast, the guy followed the attacker all the way out onto the street to "finish the job". So it could be argued that the first one or two she killed was self defense, but the subsequent were not because they were starting to flee. But citing an ludicrous scenario to try and prove your point does not make intelligent discourse. also to be clear, i abhor gun violence. My post was based on the book and the law as it stands (in NY). We could debate the philosophy if you like, but that is separate from the book and the current law. In fact if you look at the very definition you cited, it stated with malice. So the definition you provided says the same exact thing

No, because at that range you would not be able to aim and fire at the target in time before they close in and attack you. Even if you got a shot off, you would more than likely result in killing you both. You would have more luck in self defense with your bare hands than a bazooka in that scenario but feel free to see if it works

Granted, you get a sneak peak of the "about the author" i got what i wanted, but to keep the game going, iiiiiiii wish that the next poster gets two curses for one boon

S 35.05 Justification; generally. Unless otherwise limited by the ensuing provisions of this article defining justifiable use of physical force, conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal when: 1. Such conduct is required or authorized by law or by a judicial decree, or is performed by a public servant in the reasonable exercise of his official powers, duties or functions; or 2. Such conduct is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an imminent public or private injury which is about to occur by reason of a situation occasioned or developed through no fault of the actor, and which is of such gravity that, according to ordinary standards of intelligence and morality, the desirability and urgency of avoiding such injury clearly outweigh the desirability of avoiding the injury sought to be prevented by the statute defining the offense in issue. The necessity and justifiability of such conduct may not rest upon considerations pertaining only to the morality and advisability of the statute, either in its general application or with respect to its application to a particular class of cases arising thereunder. Whenever evidence relating to the defense of justification under this subdivision is offered by the defendant, the court shall rule as a matter of law whether the claimed facts and circumstances would, if established, constitute a defense. Emphasis mine. She did not have to be struck to constitute that her life was in danger. I will put the disclaimer that this statute is pertaining to NY law, and may be different in other states or countries. edit: to further clarify, typically the function is in regard to a deadly threat. if someone approaches me with a knife or a gun, waiting to be shot or stabbed and hoping it is not a fatal blow to retaliate to would certainly reduce the chance of self defense.

By radiant ideals, I think what Jasnah and Adolin did is fine. I would need to look up the quote, but if I recall correctly, there was a scene where the life before death was elaborated to mean you do not sacrifice the life of a single innocent, if it means preserving the lives of a group. So the needs of the many do not necessarily supersede the needs of the few. In both cases, Sadeus and the street toughs were not innocent. Also if I recall correctly, Jasnah demonstrated that she fully researched the area and what occurred there. Given how meticulous Jasnah is, I do not feel it is far fetched to believe she could identify the assailants by description, so I do not think the argument of "how could she know she didn't kill the wrong people" is applicable. By legal ideals, what Jasnah did was self defense. What I am to now provide is how I see a defense attorney would argue that case. It is notorious and well known she goes EVERYWHERE with her soulcaster (or in real world lets say gun). Given her stature, it would make sense that she would know the situation of another empire. Also given her stature, it makes sense that she would stay informed about the local criminal elements that affect the security of where she resides. That is why her research alighted upon a group of criminals that bribed guards. She did not seek out the criminals where they reside. She traveled a public avenue that individuals of her stature have been known to travel. The criminals approached her with weapons, violent intent was clear, that she did not instigate. She acted within the means of the law to stop the imminent threat to her life. Now, by philosophical ideals, and how we would like to think society should be, then they both were wrong. Ending life should not be an option. But it is. Especially for a group of individuals with whom their organization was formed in order to fight and kill an enemy they are at a never ending war with. I can abhor killing, but it doesn't change that the radiant ideals and the legal system allows for both in the book. Now if we want to start a debate on whether or not killing in any situation is wrong period, without judging the book, that I feel is a different matter.

Granted, but then honor is no longer splintered, held by someone smarter than you, and defeats you i wish i have two beads of lesarium that functions exactly like lesarium, one of which that i eat immediately and I have complete working knowledge of metallurgy so i can produce allomantically viable metals to burn. yep i know thats two, so hit me