Pathfinder

Personally I believe that to be emotional resilience. It does not require logic to over rule emotion. If you wish me to elaborate I will at request.

No worries. I did not take any offense. I just didn't want my posts to come across with any ill intent. I was genuinely perplexed.

I never said that either. I never stated anything negative regarding any religious group posting anything. I never said anything was uncomfortable for anyone. I never said anyone had a problem reading anything. I really and genuinely do not see how what i wrote said any of that. None of those words were even contained in my posts. How about this. Could you point out to me and explain where i wrote that posting about jasnah is a bad thing? Point out where i wrote that posting about jasnah means they are uncomfortable about their beliefs? Or even where i wrote that other people feel they cannot post about it? Because I really don't see where i wrote any of that, which is why i really don't see why what i wrote is being presented in that way.

Yet again, not what i said.

I feel you are putting words in my mouth. I never said that.

I am not blaming anything on anything. I was saying I believe it to be a contributing factor considering there are three recent threads regarding her atheism, and there are far more that are older. As I said, I am not reducing anyone's argument to "because you are religious you are against Jasnah". What I am saying is considering she is an atheist, and a large portion of the reader base is religious, then that subject matter would come up more often. Amaram came up a whole lot while he was still alive, and he was a proponent of religion. Further just to clarify, I am not saying religion is why she is divisive. Adolin, Shallan, Kaladin, and Dalinar are also divisive. Just about every character in the stormlight is divisive. Actually every character across every sanderson book is divisive. Hmm maybe this would work. Jasnah is going to come up more often in the books, which means she will have more prevalence. Jasnah is an atheist and it is a large part of her character. Thereby religion is bound to be a main topic or concern regarding discussions with her. Given a large concentration of readership holds religion to be an important factor in their lives (which they are totally entitled to and I respect), I would imagine that would be a prevalent topic of discussion. I am not blaming anyone of anything. I don't think there is anything to be blamed

They won't and honestly it will probably get worse(worse as in number, not saying it is bad for people to create such topics). The primary reason for more is because Jasnah is going to be a focus/main character in the back five. So we are going to see A LOT more of her. The secondary reason is a large population of Brandon's readership is of the Church of Latter Day Saints, or hold to some religious affiliation. Jasnah is an atheist, so they are going to disagree on topics lol. That is not to say I am reducing anyone's arguments to that dichotomy. Just I think it is a big reason it comes up so often. I am going to post two WoB at the end that support the issue with hemalurgy on donor and recipient. They are two of many, some outright saying hemalurgy is evil (on two occasions). I do not have the time to pull them all up. One of the WoB clarifies that hemalurgy and fabrials though are analogous, they are different, and hemalurgy is definitely bad. Those koloss were the recipients, and had freshly been killed. We do not see on screen individuals who are currently koloss, nor do we see how the process of donating and receiving looks from the cognitive realm. We do however have numerous WoB that say it is very damaging, and very very bad So the post you put forward really asks two separate questions. 1. is it ethical to use hemalurgy? yes or no 2. depending on the answer to number 1, would Jasnah use it? Which would result in numerous possible outcomes. Some saying it was ethical, and Jasnah would do it. Some saying it is unethical and Jasnah would do it. Some saying It is ethical and Jasnah wouldn't do it. Some saying it is unethical and Jasnah wouldn't do it. Personally I see Jasnah as a human being. She does the best she can with what she got. It is why I did the thread "Jasnah more than meets the eye". She continually questions herself and second guesses herself. Even when all the evidence points to a solution, she still holds back, or doesn't go through with it. People can feel however they wish about Jasnah. Some characters just rub people the wrong way. Some people disagree with characters. And that is ok. My personal concern is I feel utilitarianism is being misrepresented as a purely numbers game, which is not the case. And that is certainly not how Jasnah employs it. If utilitarianism was purely by the numbers, then the trolly problem would be pointless. The utilitarian would always choose to save the larger number of individuals over the single one. But that is not how it plays out. That is why there are so many permutations (criminal, pregnant woman, child, elderly, stranger, lover, etc). It is to demonstrate that morality is not clear cut, and requires nuance. Here are just five examples of where if Jasnah worked by pure numbers, she would have taken a different actions 1. Aesudean - Jasnah did not assassinate her. She had all the evidence in the world that said she should, and in the end proven she should had, but she didn't 2. Amaram - Same deal. If anything she scolded herself by reacting the way she did to him 3. Heralds - if she was so gun ho to kill them, then why didn't she? (I am sure some would argue Kaladin or Dalinar talked her out of it, but again, if she was so gun ho to do it, it would have happened) 4. Shallan - by all rights Jasnah should have executed Shallan twice. Once when it was revealed she stole the soulcaster, and again when Shallan revealed she knew Jasnah's secret. instead she took her on as an apprentice and is genuinely worried for her well being 5. Renarin - all evidence pointed to killing him being the right thing to do. Again she didn't So five actions just off the top of my head that if she was ruled purely by numerical logic, she should have killed the above listed people. But she didn't. Because for myself at least, there is more nuance there. I readily acknowledge others disagree. Totally respect that. I am not writing this to change your mind. Feel however you wish about Jasnah all you want. No sweat off my back. Storms there is a thread specifically written for people who dislike the character to vent! I have known at least 10 people on this site who cannot stand Jasnah, and I am incredibly surprised that they have not taken that opportunity to post on it. So back to the point of this thread and my post. I just stated I believe it is unethical to commit hemalurgy because it causes irreparable harm. I believe that is harm that Jasnah could research and prove, and thereby would not employ it only unless under extreme duress. Hence my choice. I have included the two WoB I mentioned below Questioner How does rewriting the Spiritual aspect work? Brandon Sanderson ...So, it has ramifications through the other two Realms. It can happen. You've seen it happen. Questioner That's what happens with kandra, right? Brandon Sanderson Yes, to an extent, yes. Questioner With the koloss? Brandon Sanderson Yeah, both of them. Hemalurgy is, like, sticking a piece of someone's spirit to another person's spirit and creating a Frankenstein's monster of spirits. Oathbringer release party (Nov. 13, 2017) Questioner Are Hemalurgic spikes fabrials? Is a body that has been spiked a fabrial? Are koloss and kandra also something similar? Brandon Sanderson No, actually. Fabrial means specifically a bit of Investiture that has been trapped by a gemstone and then modified to do something else. Hemalurgy is its own thing--though there is a slight similarity. In most Hemalurgy, Investiture keyed to the Identity of someone (a bit of a soul) is ripped off, and then magically grafted onto someone else's soul. Not the same, though I can see the confusion. Koloss and kandra are similar, though in this case, the soul is mostly just being distorted by using an Invested spike. In the cosmere, the body will attempt to match the soul, and so a twisted soul (Spiritual aspect of a person) can have profound effects on both mind and body. FAQFriday 2017 (March 10, 2017) Tehdren For instance, a person's spiritual component knows how old they are. Wow. Has this been talked about before? This kind of seems like a big tidbit. Now we have some idea of how Hoid changes his age? Brandon Sanderson I haven't said if this is a method Hoid uses or not, but it's part of the reason the Lord Ruler turned to dust when he lost his metalminds. (His body tried to match the age his spirit said he was.) Phantine If they somehow killed the Lord Ruler in a conventional manner, would he still have turned to dust? Brandon Sanderson Yes. The metalminds would have stopped being tapped, and the spirit of the matter would probably still have had this strange effect. Not it didn't happen to the bodies of the shard vessels who died. Phantine Would koloss spikes turn off when they die too, so dead ones shrivel up like raisins? Brandon Sanderson Hemalurgy changes the spirit. So not necessarily. Stormlight Three Update #5 (Nov. 21, 2016) Another WoB, this one saying hemalurgy always hurts. Also pointing that spren would be against it. So theoretically if Jasnah did it, Ivory would disagree and want to end the bond with her. Which I couldn't see her doing. It would also prevent the recipients from getting a spren bond which would defeat the purpose of an army of super surgebinders. The spren would reject it. Djarskublar (paraphrased) So I could be wrong, but a Hemalurgic spike, when you use it and become a savant it does damage to your Spiritweb, right? Brandon Sanderson (paraphrased) Yes Hemalurgy always hurts you. Djarskublar (paraphrased) So say you go to Roshar and you give somebody a Hemalurgic spike for some Allomantic power, don't care what, and you use it to become a savant. Does that qualify them as 'broken' enough to become a Radiant? As long as they are also following the Ideals to attract a spren. Brandon Sanderson (paraphrased) So becoming a Radiant is a spectrum of terminologies. It... probably, but you would have to find a Radiant who would, or a spren who would be willing to touch that, okay? It's going to drive them back. Djarskublar (paraphrased) So would it also affect your probability of becoming an Elantrian? Brandon Sanderson (paraphrased) Yeah it would affect your ability to become anything else, yes. Djarskublar (paraphrased) Okay, so would it be a positive effect, negative effect...? Because I was like, it gives you cracks in your Spiritweb. Brandon Sanderson (paraphrased) It does give you cracks in your Spiritweb. Djarskublar (paraphrased) So it's easier for Investiture to get in. Does it make it easier for other Investitures to get in? Brandon Sanderson (paraphrased) It would make it... yes. It's going to drive spren away. So what it's really going to make easier for, there, is spren and Investiture that doesn't care. Djarskublar (paraphrased) Okay, so Investiture doesn't care but spren do. Brandon Sanderson (paraphrased) Investiture might care depending on if it's part of a Shard-- if it has intent and things like this. Djarskublar (paraphrased) So it might let Stormlight in easier than a Breath, type thing. Brandon Sanderson (paraphrased) I'm saying it might let Odium in easier than Syl. Because Syl would care, and Odium would not care. Djarskublar (paraphrased) Okay cool. Brandon Sanderson (paraphrased) Alright, so it could be a really bad thing, is what I'm trying to say to you. Djarskublar (paraphrased) Yeah that's cool. I just want to know more about gold too. Gold Allomancy too. Because Miles was doing some funky stuff. Brandon Sanderson (paraphrased) Miles was doing some funky stuff. Dark Talent release party (Sept. 6, 2016)

So first before responding to cometaryorbit, I just wanted to clarify something. I respect your opinion, and I was just stating my own. i am not trying to change your mind, or make you see things my way. I am just responding to the points you made on my own opinion. So all things are made of investiture right? And the entity that is transformed is not destroyed because it still is of investiture, just takes a different form. The entity can also maintain its sense of self in a different form, and still have memories. We have seen this in the Kaza interlude. The giant pillars of rock that was once air, remember they were once air, and enjoy being rock. The rock is then convinced to turn to smoke because the rock remembers the freedom of air, and willingly changes to smoke. That is all for an inanimate object. We do not know what happens to a sapient being. I would imagine the spiritual aspect returns to the spiritual realm like what normally happens at death. But got nothing to prove one way or the other. So what does this mean for soulcasting versus hemalurgy? Hemalurgy is the tearing of the spirit web off one one being, and stapling it to another. There are numerous WoB that this is very very bad for both parties. So whereas one leaves the spiritual aspect whole and theoretically allows it to continue on with its natural cycle, the other horribly distorts and disfigures it, causing pain. That is why I believe it would be termed cruel and unusual punishment. if the heralds are sent back to braize, and it accomplishes nothing. They can give in, and are returned to roshar. Something they have done countless times before. Team Honor then continues brain storming. If returning the heralds to braize works even for a week, then that is a week worth giving Team Honor a leg up against Team Odium. Again a function that the heralds have done countless times before. And voluntarily to boot. Hemalurgy in most cases that we have seen, baring a shardic intervention, is permanent and damaging beyond physical death. So since we are asking how Jasnah would see the issue, then the Beyond is immaterial as she does not believe it exists. That is why I was breaking it down as purely a function. If (and the WoB has gotten murky on this), using a gold compounder would allow someone to spike out the ability, and then heal it back, then I could concede Jasnah might see that as viable. However there is still the issue that as per Brandon, stapling onto someone does damage too. And being able to peer into the cognitive, visit it in person, and even speak with spren to better understand the effects, would result in Jasnah saying no. For the reason I brought up before, the spiking of terminally ill would still be problematic. because it would still be doing harm to the person before they passed. A harm that could not be negated with anesthesia. And given that Jasnah could observe the cognitive, she would be aware of that fact. I said there is would need to be an extremely compelling reason to do so. Like for instance team Honor is losing, and that is the only avenue for salvation. I know many people feel Jasnah is the type to jump right to the kill option, and their opinion/view is perfectly valid for them, and I respect that. But i completely disagree with it. Every single situation, and I mean every single one that we have seen with Jasnah, involves her take great amounts of time deliberating and looking for a number of solutions. And even when all facts point towards a particular solution, still she will struggle with it. So I personally do not believe she would cavalierly employ the practice of hemalurgy on people. Lock away the fused temporarily till a better accord could be reached? Maybe. Arguably it is already being employed by team Odium (jezerien). But I think a very compeling reason would be required to conduct hemalurgy in the way some people are positing.

That is why I qualified my statement with the first part "causes irreparable harm". I have had this discussion before on threads discussing hemalurgy. Basically if we approach this as there is no "afterlife" or soul (which Jasnah as an atheist would), then we can look at the process as pure function. There is numerous WoB that state it irreparably harms both the donor and the recipient. That harm is largely unable to be seen by those on Scadrial because they cannot see into the cognitive normally. On Roshar however, Jasnah has an ability that makes studying the cognitive practically effortless. So she would be able to see the damage done. Which is why I state she would need a very convincing reason to consider employing such a practice. An example is even when we execute criminals, we do our best to prevent cruel and unusual punishment. Which is why so much effort is made to ensure the death of the criminal is as painless as possible. If that could not be prevented with hemalurgy, and all signs and WoB point to it cant' be, then unless there is an extremely compelling reason to do so, I do not think Jasnah would.

So in prior discussions this has come up, and my response, which you will probably not like, is we have not seen the full capabilities that team Odium can bring to bear. For a long time people complained about radiant's abilities to heal. that they could never be killed, because with enough stormlight, you could heal from any injury. Then all of a sudden the fused are showing weapons that can actively drain stormlight from the radiant. Now radiants have to worry about being struck by these weapons, and running out of their abilities. Doubly worrisome for aerial radiants because being sapped of all your stormlight while in midair means potentially a very long and lethal drop. Then there is the fabrial that negates the abilities period. Suddenly radiants are neutered. The fabrial is difficult to manuever and requires planning, as well as there is Dalinar now able to recharge them, but my point is there are two functional counters that the fused have access to, and have had access to in the past, that we had no idea of in prior books. There is a WoB where someone confronts Brandon on this, and he says he is well aware of the power creep and has that balance well in mind. So although I readily admit this is a form of a cop out, I posit that we have yet to see the full abilities and powers that team Odium can bring to bear. For all we know we have not even seen thunderclasts at full power yet. So I do not think just because we have not seen something that could be deemed a threat yet, means no such thing exists. There is another WoB that an honorblade is likened to a So it could be said it is not so much stormlight as pure investiture There are WoB about that scene that I will have to dig up and spoiler because of their content, but essentially there is a definable moment where what you refer to happens. What I am referring to precedes that. Ah might as well spoil it so I don't have to be so vague yeah, I totally acknowledge for some it is a bridge too far, or they disagree. Was not bringing it up to reargue the points and digress the thread. Just explaining where the info came up, why I had the info, and the standard responses to that info. I also mentioned another point earlier in this post in response to comet.

If it can be shown that hemalurgy causes irreparable harm, and it is not necessary to prevent significant loss of life, then I do not believe Jasnah would employ hemalurgy. Utilitarianism is not being a robot. It is doing the most good and the least amount of harm. Based on my reading of the character, she continually examines ALL possibilities, but always pursues the avenue that does the most good with the least amount of harm. I have a thread with an extensive list of quotes taken as it is written that I believe supports that

So I just bring this up for full disclosure, not that I myself disagree with you. The reason why I knew of these WoB, was because of past discussions on why were the heralds seen as powerful when they seem weaker than radiants, and also the typical fullborn versus thread. I posit that since there are WoB that say a fabrial soulcaster could soulcast a full metal mind, then a radiant elsecaller could soulcast the Lord Ruler's metalminds from the cognitive realm when they are not being tapped, and that Battar when using an honorblade as it was originally intended, could do so even if the lord ruler was tapping them. This lead to a rather large debate on the honorblades, with many people disagreeing, which is why I said I believe it to have functioned that way. Some of the arguments I have heard as to why they believe it no longer works that way is: 1. Nale glowed when he confronted Lift which implies stormlight 2. Why didn't Nale use the greater powers of his honorblade to apprehend Lift if he could still tap into honor's power (again, not saying I believe these things, just bringing them up in full disclosure as they were stated to me as reasons for disagreeing) It could also be said that Ishar just knew how to hide the glow, like how Shallan learns how to with her lightweaver powers. (again not saying I personally believe that, but I see that being a reason to be brought up) For myself I definitely feel like the heralds could tap into levels of power like Vin did when the honorblades were working as they should have. Whether or not they still do, I don't know. Awhile back I had a theory that as Szeth used stormlight with the honorblade more and more, he became more efficient in its use, like his body was adjusting to it. I went through some of Way of Kings (which I believe was the only book out at that time, or maybe Words of Radiance was out too), and it did seem like he was healing faster as the book progressed. But I did not have a chance to go through the whole book with a fine tooth comb, was I was unable to prove it.

There are multiple threads, so you are not alone. I disagree with you, but everyone is entitled to their opinion, and maybe seeing the numerous other threads in the same vein will help. Some threads involve other topics, but some individuals state their distaste of her. (threads listed below, spoilered for length and organization) threads that have a problem with Jasnah threads that look at her capabilities threads that look at her beliefs I don't think you are missing something, she just doesn't work for you, which is ok. I have noticed an unfortunate trend that since her scenes are so rare, people tend to remember those scenes in an altered and extreme light. Which is why awhile back I wrote a thread to see things from Jasnah's perspective, and included full quotes from the book for reference. If you are so inclined, please check it out, but if not to each their own. As to her having an "un-radiant moral code", we have multiple WoB stating multiple orders would be completely fine with Jasnah, not only elsecallers. Further Jasnah is a confirmed Radiant of the 4th oath, so her code must be analogous with the order she is a part of otherwise she would be unable to progress.

So just hopping in to clarify about honorblades. There are three WoB that either outright state or (in my opinion) heavily imply that when Honor was alive, honorblades were fueled directly by Honor and gave the heralds access to levels of stormlight no radiant could hope to reach. WoB I am referring to are all copied below: (just in case a little addition, was not tagging Inquisitor to correct or anything. just to add info) WindRunner88 (paraphrased) So far during The Stormlight Archive we've seen that the spren bond appears to have some distinct advantages (i.e. armor, more efficient Stormlight consumption, access to a variety of weapons) over what Tanavast via the Oathpact provided the Heralds. With the exception of Nale, and the fact that the Heralds had no need for Stormlight, can you please tell me one way in which a Herald had a distinct advantage over a level 5 Radiant of their corresponding order? Brandon Sanderson (paraphrased) Rebirth. *pause* The Heralds had access to raw levels of power that no Radiant could obtain. BookCon 2018 (June 1, 2018) 18th_Shard Does a Herald using an Honorblade consume the same "dangerous" amounts of Stormlight? Brandon Sanderson Honorblades are less efficient; this doesn't change when a Herald uses them. (But they have other advantages.) uchoo786 Are Honorblades closer in power to Nightblood than they are to Shardblades made from Spren? Brandon Sanderson Hard to say. They're all similar, but at the same time, very different. And in a way, Nightblood is what you might call a "Third Generation" blade. uchoo786 Ah gotcha. And in this analogy, Honorblades would be 1st gen and Sprenblades would be 2nd gen? Brandon Sanderson Yes. /r/books AMA 2015 (Aug. 4, 2015) Steeldancer The Heralds, back before Honor died, were they directly powered by Honor? Brandon Sanderson Yes. You’ll find out more about that, but the Shardblades [pretty sure he means Honorblades here] were pieces of Honor’s soul that he gave them and direct access to his essence. Steeldancer Like Vin and Elend? Brandon Sanderson Yeah, a little like that. That’s why Honorblades don’t work like Shardblades do, like Radiants do. Steeldancer The second part of the question is, what would happen if they were directly powered by Honor and they were holding Nightblood? Brandon Sanderson RAFO Boskone 54 (Feb. 17, 2017)

So although Jasnah's flash back book may be the second to last or last of the entire Archive, I have a hard time believing she will be killed before then considering Brandon has confirmed she is a main character across the entire back five, if not THE main character of the back five (his words). So I don't think she is liable to die, at least not till the very end.

Totally get and respect that. Which is why in my initial post on this thread i said i imagine this thread is more for venting grievances, so i wont include my own arguments unless it was requested. Which i thought was requested based on your and lessersprens response. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

So I responded to this in a reverse order on purpose. I believe Sanderson presented it the way he did because if he would have truly presented both sides fully, it would have taken up an entire chapter on its own. To illustrate my above point (not to get into a religious debate) only show how it can extend for some time. I will use T for Taravangian since he was the one arguing the side of religion, and J for Jasnah since she was arguing the side of an athiest. I will start with your response: T. "You say that one plus one equals two even if their is no God, however without God there would be no one, or even a zero, there would be no matter to add, nor any mind to comprehend zero, there would truely be nothing, so no, without God one plus one cannot equal two as netiher one nor two can exist" J. "If God is all powerful/omnipotent because it is the reason for all things, and all things thereby flow from it, then can God create a Euclidean triangle that does not add up to 180 degrees? This could also be presented as can God create a sandwich it cannot eat? Can God create a rock so heavy even it cannot lift it? The purpose to show the inherent problems with the idea of "all powerful". I used the first example because of its association with math. If God could create a sandwich it could not eat, then it is not omnipotent because it could not eat a sandwich, thereby something beyond its own power. If it could not create a sandwich it could not eat, because God can do anything, then again God is not omnipotent because there is something beyond its capability to create. If either are true, then it still demonstrates a limitation on the omnipotence of God. If God is there limited in its omnipotence, then the assumption that all things flow and are from said creator is called into question T. "God can do anything according to its nature. God cannot create logical absurdities. Thereby God would not create something it could not itself accomplish. By extension God cannot create something greater than itself as by the very definition of its nature, it is the greatest possible being. J. "That means that God then obeys laws of nature in accordance to its own nature. But where are the laws of nature then derived from? If they were derived outside of God, then we return to the math example. If they were derived by God, then we return to the omnipotence issue. Further if all things flow from God, then what does God flow from? Why is God supremely unique to be the only being to flow from nothing? If everything has to have an inciting incident, then why is God the exception to this? And further, if God's form of omnipotence is the type that obeys the laws of nature, then how can God as an exception exist to that law of nature? Now I am sure there are numerous responses to what I wrote, and I am sure quite a few people probably took issue to what I wrote that Taravangian said. Again, not meant to be a religious debate. My point is that was but a taste of the potential back and forth that would flow from such a discussion. I feel like Brandon had to present it briefly and succinctly so as to not show favor to one side or the other, as well as move on with the rest of the story. Honestly I feel no matter how Brandon approached it, it would have resulted in one side or the other disliking how it was resolved, because someone will always have something to add and dislike not having the last say.

So although I agree she is meant to make us question, the disputing portion was the getting under the skin. Basically it is in my opinion a rather harsh way to present the character. I completely acknowledge and respect that you can see her in that light, but it could be debated in another way. I do not want to digress your thread by going into at length, so I will reference a thread I wrote awhile back on her. The main purpose of it, was it included full quotes from the scenes. People tend to recall things with associated emotions. Just like how each time someone recalls storage from a coppermind, the memory is altered by that recollection. I was hoping to foster a discussion uncolored by that alteration, hence the quotes. I then explained how those scenes could be interpreted from her perspective. It is rather old now so has been locked, but I hope you will give it a look. I have linked it below: Right, he is in category 2. Just like Dalinar and Sazed. Raoden, Elend, Silence and I am sure others (just working off the top of my head) fall into catagory 1. Clubs, King Eventeo, Galladon and I am sure others fall into category 3. Three various experiences of faith validated/confirmed for the individual. I was just wondering why there couldn't be a 4th category where an individual through reason and deliberate thought found their belief was counter to faith, and held to that. Lol, if you check the posts, I did contribute and I feel make a decent explanation of my view. After which in my opinion the same topics were brought up all over again, so I didn't see a point on responding again. So I left things where I left them. Sorry, little confused. So are you frustrated because of the response given to what Jasnah said by Taravangian? In other words that Taravangian should have said what you would have stated? Or frustrated by the way it was constructed? Where Taravangian was in your opinion summarily dismissed over it? Because you crossed out the subsequent portion of your post.

That can be debated on many levels And there are logical counters to this. As I am sure there are religious counters to those logical counters and so on round and round they go (saying logical not to indicate being religious is illogical but in regards to the function on which to derive the conclusions countering the ones stated). Having stated both these things, I would imagine this thread is intended for readers that disagree with Jasnah to vent. So I will not actually post the responses unless specifically requested. I will put forth however, we have numerous examples of characters across Brandon's novels including stormlight that either: 1. have faith, hold to that faith, and that faith is rewarded 2. have faith, have the original faith disputed, question themselves, and find their faith renewed and strengthened 3. have no faith, are either inspired by another character with faith, or have something happen to them to inspire faith, and are now one of the faithful So personally I do not know why there cannot be a number 4 where: 4. lives in a society surrounded by faith, comes to question that faith, confirms those questions on that faith, and decides to be atheist and remains so. As to what I assume is the primary pet peeve about that scene with Taravangian being he was not able to adequately defend that perspective: 1. Taravangian initiated. 2. It is not Jasnah's responsibility to assist Taravangian in defending his own convictions 3. Shallan pointed out the concern on Taravangian's capabilities. Jasnah responded asking Shallan how she would have asserted those religious convictions, and Jasnah responded thoughtfully and respectfully to each of Shallan's counters. So again, as I am assuming this thread is meant for venting, I will leave things there. I wish you all luck with your beliefs and feelings, and hope you all have a wonderful day!

Ah, that's the kind of verbiage I could get behind. She sought a situation that could potentially lead to her needing to defend herself, and you feel that is morally and ethically wrong. Cool, totally respect your view. I personally disagree, but again respect it. Thanks!

See this is still the point I am getting stuck on. Now in Jasnah's case as I said, she opened it briefly to check her surroundings. No one noticed. But even if they had, how is it any different than a woman walking down that alley with earrings and a necklace? We know the types of people that walked down that alley before. So again, did Batman's parents by leaving a theater with earrings and a necklace, and a watch cause the mugger to act more irrationally and attack? Further she did not take any particular care in arranging expensive items around her. She literally got out of a bath, dried off, put on a dress and her soulcaster and left. A soulcaster covered for 99 percent of the trip. Basically why is the fact she wore wealth to be considered in regards to the men attacking? When it is not considered for the prior attacks? Sorry, to clarify, I am not trying to change your opinion. Totally respect you feel she was wrong. I am just lost on the verbiage. The individual (checked back and saw it was you that I quoted lol) I quoted said her actions were her trying to make them attack. But I do not see how any action she took was making them attack. edit: I will try wording it this way, and then stop bringing it up so as not to beat a dead horse "What action did Jasnah take differently than any other individual that was accosted by those men, to be considered as Jasnah trying to make, entice, bait, encourage, convince, etc those men to attack?"

What about walking down an alley causes the men to act? She only had the soulcaster, which she revealed briefly once to check her surroundings. After which it was covered. What about her thought process behind it made the men attack? So going back, what specific action did she take to "try to make them attack"? If it was going down that alley, then did all the prior victims try to make them attack? if it was having wealth, then did any of the prior victims going home after seeing what amounts to a broadway play (theater district) try to make them attack? Lol to put a humorous slant on it, did Batman's parents make the assailant attack them? They left a theater. They were well dressed and rich. They traveled through an alley. Basically it is seeming to me that the point being made is because Jasnah wanted the men to die, she tricked them, baited them, or made them attack (whichever word you prefer to use). But what I don't understand is, there isn't a single action Jasnah took out of the ordinary different than any other person that walked down that street. She did not take any active action to elicit the attack any different than what every other person did that walked down that street. So how is what she was thinking, which they cannot read her mind, result in them being baited? edit: side note just to clarify why I am saying what I am saying. I understand and agree if a person knows certain individuals where be at a location, take an action, and intends to kill those individuals if they commit that action, then self defense is difficult to prove because of the premeditation. Where I am getting confused is the sense that because she thought that, she was baiting, making, enticing, or whatever word you chose to use those men. I have in the past gone over the scene quite extensively and I really cannot find anything that she actively did that could be construed as providing them with any outside impetus to cause them to attack her. The mechanism seems pretty clearly already in place. If any other individual had done like every other individual had done, like Jasnah had done, they would have been attacked and killed, just like what was attempted on Jasnah.

I disagree with the analogy. True, yelling fire in a crowded room is not allowed for the reason I will explain below, but it is not germaine to the situation being discussed. The person yelling fire did not yell fire because they were under threat. Which Jasnah was. She was attacked first. To get the example to equate, person A would have to have wanted person B in the theater to be trampled to death because person B tended to set fires to theaters. Person A went to the theater, saw that Person B set fire to the theater. Person A then yelled fire, and person B was trampled. Because it is a false reporting if there is no fire, and people could be injured as result. Same reason for falsely reporting a crime to the police. The idea is you have taken the police away from potentially helping someone in genuine need. Follow up question. Can I ask what specifically did Jasnah do that makes it considered her "trying to get attacked"?

No problemo. I just posited the scenario because multiple individuals on this thread stated as much, so I was curious the response to the potential perspective shift. So we can certainly go back and forth over what ifs, and I am totally on board with doing so, but the intention of bringing up the scenario was inquiring if killing is only the last possible recourse, then based on the perspective shift, would it be possible to consider killing them an ethical imperative. You replied that it would not be, because the execution had to be at the hands of the governmental body, and foregoing that then execution in some other manner. But only if the governmental body option was impossible. Which I appreciate your answer. That was the point of positing the circumstance. So only replying to this to say my intention was in agreement insofar as we both acknowledge morality could be seen in either way, which is why I didn't comment on that except to say I respect that you see it the way you do. So I didn't mean it to be taken as any way other than essentially "cool, i got you" Still just gotta throw that personal caveat of assuming they could prove she was guilty. If the situation was investigated normally, I don't think they could get it to stick because there isn't enough concrete evidence to prove they were fleeing and she killed them after the fact. Three bodies no longer exist, so forensics cannot examine the positioning of the bodies, and the one that still does, could be plausibly explained as her shoving him away during the attack. The only hitch would be Shallan's testimony, which could be discredited. But taken purely on what we read and assuming full knowledge of everything that occurred, then the remaining three I agree was not self defense. Personally I believe if the legal authority is corrupt, and it takes the threat of war involving two world powers, and the potential of numerous individuals dying in said battle that would not need to die (assuming as you presented), then it would be better for her to kill them herself. But as I said the purpose was to find out how you would approach the situation given the perspective shift. Thank you for answering! Thank you! So I personally do not believe that is viable given the information we have from the book, but I respect your views!

The benefactor could as you said kill them as appeasement, but as I said earlier it would come with the same problem that the issue was resolved with the death of the men. Though to add the benefactor could state he was killing the men, and hang or kill men that looked a lot like them, while they went into hiding. Then continue as they had after. No problemo Assuming she did apprehend them, and present them stating they attacked her and she calls for their execution, it still returns to her rushing to killing which in the premise offered, should be the last option. I will respond to each below in turn If in regards to the in world law, I disagree. If an individual could hear someone sneeze, take offense, and kill the individual with it all being legal so long as it is a light eyes to a light eyes or a light eyes to a dark eyes, then in that regard she did nothing wrong. The accosted her. As per that legal system they lost all right to live. Storms I think it was pretty clearly stated (though this is on recollection and could be wrong), that Jasnah could have Shallan executed for stealing her soulcast if she could prove it. But again, it runs into the issue of solving the problem with killing which the premise I presented was to try and solve the issue without death. Totally subjective to the individual so for myself she was fine, but I totally acknowledge and respect that as per your moral compass you see it as morally ambiguous. I respect and encourage your opinion, though I personally disagree. In world, she was fine killing them all. In our world it would be difficult to prove the other three men were not self defense. If however they had a factual and verifiable blow by blow of the situation, I agree, the remaining three would be deemed as not self defense. So, breaking your statement down (and this is not intended to be reductionist) but essentially her main transgression regarding morality in your case is not so much the execution of the individuals, as the fact that she did it instead of a government body? Regardless they were to die, but it should not have been her? Assuming that statement is correct, if it could be proven they would not be executed and would be released back on the street to continue, would she then have an ethical obligation to kill them?