Pathfinder

Although we do not have explicit confirmation via the book nor WoB, I think the quotes below are pretty conclusive. They show that: (in list form because I like being OCD and organized like that): 1. Patten confirms the giant spren are souls of the oathgate 2. Shallan assumes and the giant spren themselves confirm that they operate the oathgate 3. Descriptions of Ivory, other ink spren, and one of the oathgate spren all match identically 4. We have an in book artwork of Shallan's depicting the oathgate spren, which matches the description of Ivory and the other Ink spren 5. The giant spren themselves apologize and say how they wish they could transfer them 6. we know inkspren provide the surges of transformation and transportation. We also know oathgates employ abilities like transportation (as per WoB) All this speaks to me that the black giant spren is an inkspren. And that if that giant black spren is an inkspren, it isn't upset about being bonded to the oathgate that he causes to function. If anything he seems to miss doing it. Below are the quotes: Oathbringer page 476 She leaned back in her seat and Ivory - full sized, like a human - stepped over to the table. Hands clasped behind his back, he wore his usual stiff formal suit. The spren's coloring was jet black, both clothing and features, though something prismatic swirled on his skin. It was as if pure black marble had been coated in oil that glistened with hidden color. Oathbringer page 828 Hovering in the air were two enormous spren - they looked like stretched-out versions of people, and stood some thirty feet tall, like sentinels. One was pitch-black in coloring. Oathbringer page 856 Pattern noted "Those spren above us are the souls of the Oathgate" Oathbringer page 950 Equally common were spren with inky black skin that shone with a variety of colors when light hit them right. Their clothing seemed part of them, like that of the Cryptics and honorspren. Oathbringer page 1093 image of the spren matches the description of Ivory and the other ink spren Oathbringer page 1098 One mother of pearl, the other black with a variegated oily shimmer. Did they guard the Oathgate, or did they - somehow - facilitate its workings?" Oathbringer page 1103 We are apologetic. We would enjoy granting passage to men again

I don't think it is as grim as that. Remember our radiants have interacted with higher spren bound to a fabrial already. The oath gate spren. They spoke of how they would have loved to function for shallan if not for the promise they made to remain closed. Although spren thinking is relatively alien to human thought, i saw no indication that those spren had any issue with being the oathgate.

I scanned the scene and I don't see it being mentioned as a killing blow. All three (Dalinar, Adolin, and Elhokar) got hit with a claw and or tail from the chasmfiend. All survived. So in that case I believe it was the nature of the shardplate. I think the purpose of that scene was to highlight Dalinar as his plate glowed, and it was specified that he shouldn't have been able to hold the chasmfiend's claw like that. That I would agree was a hint of Dalinar's coming radiancy. But other than that, I think its just the plate. Unless you are saying the same exact thing was happening to all three at the same time? Because neither Dalinar's nor Adolin's plate's gemstones were broken. Their gemstones were fine.

Very true. It is open whether it is or is not. For myself I feel it is not, but I wish you luck with your theory! (side note, re-reading your post, what instance were you referring to with Elhokar? Or do you mean when Dalinar catches the chasmfiend's claw?)

Broken ribs hurt like braize, but you can still move and if needed push yourself to run. He didn't fall the full distance as you said, he used the sword to arrest some of the impact, and then dropped the remaining. The leg injury is a sprain. Again, storming hurts, but a person can still move. Blacked out from the pain, which is normal. Just want to make clear I am in no way shape or form diminishing Adolin's accomplishments. It was very brave and strong of him to do what he did. But a broken rib is different from a broken leg. A broken rib hurts a lot when breathing or exertion, but problems tend to be over the long term (pneumonia, etc). Not as much in the short term. Same thing with a sprained leg. It hurts immensely and you don't want to put weight on it, but in urgent situations you can limp with it. A broken leg, or arm on the other hand any continual use will not only result in massive amounts of pain, but also worsening of the condition (for instance trying to put weight on a broken leg would turn it from a fracture, to a fully exposed split). So I do not believe any of those actions were supernatural.

Point of clarity, you have the incorrect order. Actual order is: 1. Kaladin finds bridgemen with gavinor 2. Dalinar tells adolin to become king with gavinor as heir (gavinor is specifically mentioned. Will add quote below) 3. Adolin refuses 4. Jasnah named queen. So they did know gavinor was still alive when she was named queen. It is not a regency. Jasnah is fully queen, ruling with gavinor as her heir. She isn't just holding the position for when he comes of age. She is legitimately queen Oathbringer page 1220 The Blackthorn shook his head, then looked to Shallan and Adolin. “Either way, Alethkar needs a king. More so now than ever.” “The heir—” Adolin began. “Too young. This isn’t the time for a regency. Gavinor can be named your heir, Adolin, but we must see you two married and the monarchy secured. For the good of Alethkar, but also the world.” Edit: before its mentioned that that means jasnah needs to then be married, that is not the case. The reason it was mentioned regarding adolin and shallan is it would call into question adolin if he maintained a causal for too long. People would start asking questions. What problems are there? Whats holding them back? Etc. Since jasnah is not with anyone to begin with and is already notorious for being single, it wouldnt be a embarrassment or controversy if she remained single Edit 2: posted from phone so apologies in advance due potential formatting issues or perceived terseness Edit 3: including definition of the difference between queen and queen regent as i feel it is pertinent and is an important distinction A queen regnant (plural: queens regnant) is a female monarch, equivalent in rank to a king, who reigns in her own right, as opposed to a queen consort, who is the wife of a reigning king, or a queen regent, who is the guardian of a child monarch and reigns temporarily in the child's stead.

For the reasons mentioned as well as a few more we have confirmation on: 1. Jasnah is very protective of her family. Gavinor is included in that. We saw how hard it was for her to even consider renarin and in the end despite all the research, time, and evidence pointing to renarin being the cause of the betrayal, jasnah still couldnt do it 2. Jasnah is not power hungry. We have a WoB that part of the reason she left kholinar/stayed away from the shattered plains was to give elhokar space to rule. So he wouldn't feel overshadowed by her. That he had enough problems ruling in his father's shadow, he didnt need to live under hers as well. Though if her research in saving the world requires her to return, she would have. 3. Jasnah's thoughts on assassinating aesudean (which she did not carry out as she focused on attaining more information first), was due to her believing aesudan was going to harm her family. There is a WoB on that too. I can add them later if you like. Also consider that jasnah was in fact right about aesudan and had jasnah actually had her killed when she originally considered, kholinar might not have become the way it did. So many guards would not have been corrupted and or killed, and the common people of kholinar would probably have been better off. 4. Gavinor is already heir apparent and jasnah is already queen is full. Not just a regent. So there would be no need to mess with any of that. Gavinors existence does not negate jasnahs queenhood, nor does her queenhood prevent his ultimate kinghood As a follow up, have you considered reading and commenting on my jasnah thread? I got all the quotes regarding her across all three books, so if you wanted to provide commentary on your views on jasnah, i thought that would be a great place to do it. Allowing for easy references.

No problemo. If it helps any, the WoB seems to be specific in regards to soulcasting at range, so theoretically the time jasnah soulcasted one person and then it spread to three others almost like a contagion could still be open season regarding the transportation/transformation combo. Still a whole lot we don't know.

Just a point of clarity because many people still think this (i did too once upon a time) but there is a WoB showing its not the case. Elsecallers are just really good at soulcasting so can soulcast at a distance. A lightweaver can learn the same thing with enough practice. On phone so cant add WoB. If you search jasnah, soulcasting and lightweaver on the arcanum it should come up

Haven't tried it out yet, but the booklet does say you can play solo

Just to throw out another possiblity: When we see jasnah transfer to the physical realm we see a glowing image of her resolve, then she notices wit, and then draws her blade on him. For all we know just after teleportation, you are vulnerable and need to get your bearings. I re-read the scene and it starts with kalak rounding a stone ridge. Theoretically kalak could have teleported to the area and then advanced on foot as a recent battle took place there. So as to not teleport potentially in the middle of battle and get run through he teleported to a place nearby and advanced cautiously. As to why he arrived last, potentially he was busy with something all the way till then. Further we don't know if teleports could be traced. If so, by teleporting directly to the meeting place, he could be compromising the location. Just some thoughts

No problem. Happy to help

Personally i think you are misunderstanding the first WoB you posted to a slight degree. I took it to mean there are two ways to access the cognitive realm: 1. Transformation 2. Transportation For transformation (soulcasting), you create an "investiture bubble" of "you" that manifests in the cognitive realm as a sort of astral projection. Your physical body still very much exists in the physical realm and is very much vulnerable to attack. For transportation, you transfer completely. Physical body and all. You leave the physical realm. No investiture simulacrum of you required. You are fully there.

Its on the latest update showing the cover. I forget the number but it is in reply to a backer's inquiry. Pull up the page, crtl + f, and put Michael's name in and it should pop right up. I edit: i would confirm which post number it was but im on my phone so it doesnt auto login to my kickstarter and have to be logged in to see the update's comments

@Karger not sure if this was mentioned elsewhere, but on the kickstarter page it was just posted 3 hours ago. I think this is pertinent to all your oath theories: "The quotes on the coins are the canon of the second ideal of each order. Remember that the wording used may differ (for example, the Lightweavers actually speak a truth, rather than saying "I will speak my truth"), but the quote listed here is the primary idea behind the second ideal, and in many ways the theme behind the order's ideals as a whole." That is from Michael Bateman. According to the kickstarter and the livestreams, he is on Dragonsteel's staff. I don't know his title or association. Just saw his name pop up in that regard, so I believe what he says is legit. So the tag lines of each order is the basic idea of their second order Trutchwathcer: I will seek truth Elsecaller: I will reach my potential dustbringer: i will seek self mastery and etc

Aesduedan ate the stone off screen. We see her mention that she had found a way to make her own radiants and master the stone unlike gavilar. Both of these are implied to have happened some time ago (weeks or months). But even admitting that portion is conjecture, Aesudean has an extended conversation with Elhokar long before she starts showing any signs. Amaram on the other hand the moment he swallows it, he shows signs (my theory is old so its been awhile since I read the scenes. please give me a little bit to refresh myself on them). Which is what caused me to beleive Yelig-nar functions like nightblood. I linked my theory below: edit: re-read the scenes briefly. The guards were disappearing before Kaladin and Co showed up in the city, which is what I believe Aesudean was referring to by "making" her own radiants. She speaks of having learned how to bond the Unmade, and that Yelig-nar serves her. Only after the extended conversation with Elhokar does her eyes begin to glow red. Then the smoke begins to surround her. Conversely Amaram swallows the gemstone, Kaladin drops down next to him. Amaram's eyes begin to glow red, and after summoning his second shardblade, the transformation has begin in full (the vambrace of his armor pulsed on his forearm, as if something was pushing from underneath it) So I reasoned that the possible difference between the speed of these two was actively using the powers. Since Yelig-nar "consumes", I reasoned that without fuel (voidlight or stormlight), he consumes the person. That the reason voidbringers could use Yelig-nar in the past, was because they could use voidlight to fuel them, and mastering his hunger by controlling their power usage.

The spren associated with the oathgate spoke of a bond and promise regarding the oathgate, and they did not seem in pain nor express any regret having watched the oathgate for centuries alone without any other interaction. Syl also speaks of thousands of years as a short time/new. So spren see time and such service differently than us. I do not think it is as traumatic as that. Though it is illegal to "fish" for lesser spren in the cognitive realm. But my theory is that is because the lesser spren don't have a choice in the matter.

Checked everyone quote in both books for "ideal" and "ideals". Then checked for "lives up to". Nothing so far. Any idea who said it? Might help narrow it down.

So readily admit it is in no way confirmation, but I feel Syl and Dalinar's conversation is another feather in the cap of my theory that Dalinar will have a hand in Adolin reviving Maya. His powers can literally affect the bonds between radiant and spren. I think this is foreshadowing of him restoring what was lost to those spren that were killed. Fingers crossed I am right!

Know which book? I can do a quick search on my kindle on all three, but if i knew which one to narrow my search it would help expedite the process.

Some how i feel it is saying: "Adolin is such a fashionista" Lol

Many people (including me for a time) thought soulcasting at range was due to a combination of transportation and transformation. Turns out elsecallers are just really good at soulcasting, and a lightweaver could learn to do the same thing with enough training. Questioner Is Jasnah being able to Soulcast at a distance the resonance of her two Surges or is that just a Radiant thing that's not with the fabrials. Brandon Sanderson Jasnah's Order is better at that than others. It is not impossible that you could imagine a Lightweaver being able to do it. Starsight Release Party (Nov. 26, 2019)

There's a WoB for that! lol Lurcher In the battle of the Tower, Eshonai is fighting Dalinar, Dalinar removes his helm, and she recognizes him. She acts like she wants to speak with him. Possibly to negotiate. If Kaladin hadn't shown up and saved him, what would have happened? Brandon Sanderson There's a chance they would have worked it out. Not a really good one, but there's a chance. Salt Lake City ComicCon 2017 (Sept. 22, 2017)

Totally respect thats the way you see it and i wish you luck with it. For myself, interpreting the law means a law has to already exist and be external/separate from you. By "being the law", taking an action defines the law. It is the difference to me between: 1. Saying someone should be arrested for murder and defining what murder is Versus 2. Saying someone who committed murder should be held to different consequences because of specific circumstances One defines the law and determines how it will apply broadly, while the other interprets and determines how it applies narrowly. Case law does create precedent that can be referenced in other cases, but the judges of other cases are under no compulsion or requirement to apply the case law to their situation. They are however required to apply the laws that exist and interpret that application. So a person killed another person on a tuesday while wearing red. The judge can rule based on what it means to kill and the severity based on the law as it is and the circumstances of the crime. What they cannot do however is determine that red makes me people more violent, leading to the crime occuring, and thereby outlaw wearing red. It is a subtle difference but an important one in the legal system. I just want to stress again not saying you cannot interpret the oaths the way you do. My commentary is mainly regarding the way the legal system works. Edit: had another thought that may help. So lets take the case regarding the woman stealing jewerly. The judge ruled the signs were enough to lower the price to result in a decreased sentence. Then a similar crime occurs. Again a for sale sign was left up. The lawyer in that case brings up the prior case, citing that due to that ruling, the same concept should apply. The judge in the new case disagrees. The judge rules that either because in small lettering the sign says when the sale ends or there was an advertisement out the previous day announcing the sale ended when it did (which would be considered open and notorious), that the full price of the jewerly stands and the new person gets a felony charge. So the lawyer of the new defendant appeals the decision and goes to a higher court. That higher court then gets to interpret the law and decide which court it thinks interprets the law correctly. That ruling then applies to that case. That then sets a precedent that lends more weight if another case comes forward that is similar, but it still does not require the judge to have to interpret it that way. And again if the defendant doesnt like the result, they appeal to a higher court. Which then decides if it is worth their time at all, and if its worth their time, whether they agree the precedent they made applies in the new new case or not. But what the judge does not get to do, is say the person who stole the jewerly was wearing a hat on a Thursday. That wearing a hat on a thursday is now illegal and the individual who did that will have to spend 5 to 10 years in jail. Further the supreme courts ability to rule a law unjust is not final. Its meant to act as a check, not law creation. If the law returns to the legislative branch and gets enough support, it can over-ride that check. In addition if the executive branch gets involved it could either help get the law passed or stop it from happening altogether (power of veto that can happen in certain situations and even that can be over turned). So the other branches certainly have a say and a limited ability to affect a law (hence the checks and balances) but they still at the end of the day are not the law makers. That is the legislative branch Edit 2: Ok one more example in real life though i must stress i am not advocating either direction. I am only using the situation to illustrate the function, not the belief behind it. Roe v wade ruled that the government could not excessively restrict a women's choice to get an abortion. That is a supreme court ruling that struck down many state and federal laws. So it could be said that decision made law right? Yet another later case partially over ruled it, and now there are laws in place at a state level that limit a womans choice to get an abortion. The judges interpreted the law in a way that resulted it in being used as an example in other cases. When other cases came up, it was ruled to not apply or apply in other ways. Further later laws were created to get around that ruling. Regardless whether you agree with the ruling or not, a new law was not created. It was interpreted. And the subsequent results of that interpretation was further interpreted or new laws were created by the state governments that accomplished the earlier goals but was not seen as in conflict with the ruling.

So this response is going to be a two parter insofar as to explain my intent. First. Totally respect your interpretation of the oaths. You can totally believe that the oaths would manifest in the way you said. Not arguing that, because you are totally entitled to your opinion Second. Regarding the US Legal system. The judge does not make the law. The legislative branch does. The purpose of the judicial branch is the interpretation of the law. They can interpret that a law that was passed is unjust, and thereby act as a check/balance to the legislative branch that passed the law, but the judicial branch does not create nor negate laws. The law would return to the legislative branch, where they would then review and alter the new law, which would if anyone had an issue with it, would then be reviewed by the judicial branch. Case law does count on the books and can be referenced, but it is in regards to interpreting existing laws only. Not creating new ones. Here are two examples 1. There was a case where an individual stole from a store a large amount of jewelry. The law as written states the amount the merchandise equals monetarily will determine the severity of the crime. Over a certain amount it is a felony, under a certain amount it is a misdemeanor. The store provided an amount, and the individual would have faced felony charges and had a long jail sentence. There happened to be a video of the crime. A sales associate had forgotten to take the sale sign down the prior night despite the sale having ended. The individual's attorney argued that since the for sale sign would result in the price amount being lower than than the thresh-hold of the felony, that the individual should be charged with a misdemeanor. The judge ruled by interpreting the law and applying it to that circumstance, that a reasonable individual seeing the for sale sign still up, would conclude that the jewelry was still on sale, thereby the monetary amount including the sale discount would be the value of the merchandise stolen. So the penalty shall be a misdemeanor, not a felony. The judge did not make a new law. He or she interpreted the existing law, and applied it to a unique situation. That situation can then be applied to other similar situations. 2. There was a case where there were two affluent individuals that were on each their second marriages, with children from prior marriages. Just in case the way I wrote that convoluted, you had Person A, with their own children from a prior marriage. You had Person B, with their own children from a prior marriage. Person A and Person B get married. They state in their will that whoever dies first, the surviving spouse gets everything, and then it is passed on to their children only. So if Person A dies, Person B gets everything, and when Person B dies, their children get everything. Well life happened and both Person A and B were on the same plane, when the plane went down and everyone on the plane died. So now both parents are dead seemingly at the same time. Who gets the money? Normally the law as it stands states that if there is no will specifying otherwise, and both individuals die at the same time, it is split evenly between both surviving families. Apparently one of the families did an autopsy on both parents, and found while one parent died of burns, the other parent died of smoke inhalation, which indicated that one parent lived for like 1 minute longer than the other. Thereby the children of that parent got all the money. Because of the griminess of all that, the judge ruled that when the time of death is so close that it is difficult to tell from a general autopsy, then the funds are split equally among both party's families. Again, the judge did not create a new law. The judge interpreted how the law applied in a unique circumstance that was not considered at the time. It can be referenced in similar circumstances to cause a judge to rule one way or the other, but it does not change the original law, nor does it create a new law. That is why I interpreted "I become the law", as the law maker is because then you would be creating laws with every action. That is a far greater responsibility (to me), because then you have to do your best to account for every circumstance and individual involved when making a decision. Versus a judge that takes the information of the case, takes their knowledge of the existing law, and interprets how the law applies. But as I said, the intention of the post was more to discuss the responsibility of the judge versus the lawmakers rather than disagree on your interpretation of the oaths. Feel free to interpret them in which ever order you reason, and I wish you luck! edit: sorry I think I got carried away and waxed on, so for a TLDR version: Szeth is going for the Shamanate because he believes they carried out the law incorrectly. That they had full knowledge that what Szeth said was true, yet ruled that it was not. So Szeth is not changing the law, he is challenging their interpretation/ruling of it. Which is why I conclude that is the oath of the judge. He is not changing the law, he is making a ruling based on the existing law.