Kasimir

Use the Transformation Surge to convince a stick that it is a stick.

The Wheel of Discussion turns, and threads come and pass, leaving memories that become legend. Legends fade to myth, and even myth is long forgotten when the thread that gave it birth comes again. In one thread, called the Thread by some, a Thread yet to come, a Thread long past, something dark, clever and silly rose in the Cosmere. It was not the beginning. There are neither beginnings or endings to the turning of the Wheel of Discussion. But it was a beginning.

Given that definition, fair enough. I was initially thinking you were referring to chance as indeterminacy which is why I didn't understand why you drew the distinction. Thanks, I get it now!

Mailliw73: Thank you for clarifying the rules I get it now. Just two more clarifications: 1. You mentioned in the rules that we can give an item to another player in the day but it has to be public. As that takes the place of a vote, does it have to be coloured as well? 2. Do actions stack? I was thinking of this: A uses Shardblade to try to kill B. C has a Soulcaster and uses it to target A's action and transfer that to D. Meanwhile, E has an emotion bracelet and uses it to check A. Would E be told that A tried to kill D, or would E be told that A tried to kill B? And whoa, everyone else sure is taking this organisation thing seriously Edit: I'm going to try to stop stacking edits, sorry. The questions just keep coming...and my newness shows!

Lifeless customer service: you command, we obey.

Why did no one want to go to the pub with the Steel Inquisitor? Because they were afraid he might spike their drinks!

Sell. I like the lesser spren theory. The person who calls himself Taln is not Taln. Taln handed him the job of warning everyone else and went off to see to his fellow traitor Heralds.

Alas, thank you for the recommendation, but we don't get netflix in my geographical location. I'll see what I can do, but I wouldn't mind dealing with the manga in any case.Incidentally, for anime: I also watched Ghosthunt, but some of it freaked me out enough that I decided I was going to stop before I damaged my ability to get sleep irreparably.

Partly as well because I associate fantasy movies with more action. I'll grant that Kingkiller C has its share of action scenes, particularly in WMF, but what really makes it work (for me) is the way it follows and develops characters (but of course, especially Kvothe.)To be honest, my immediate knee-jerk reaction was that I wouldn't like this to be made a movie, because I think the strength of Kingkiller C is the way Rothfuss has with his words. (It strikes me as being more poetic/lyrical than Sanderson's usual, although he's no Guy Gavriel Kay.) But I think GreyPilgrim has made a good point--it would work as a TV show.

I'd agree about Blue Exorcist, but I haven't read anything more than the first three chapters, so I'm going to take that as a sign that I should keep on keeping on

Endowment is very caring and sharing. You can always give with a knife to your throat. Edited to add the smiley.

Why are you drawing a distinction between chance and luck? :S

I loved Traitor and I think Matthew Stover is brilliant. I've read both of those and love them--very dogeared copy of Shatterpoint. But in any case--maybe let's not derail this thread further? This is Sanderson appreciation, not Stover appreciation Incidentally, you know you're a Sanderson fan when you give away your old copy of Elantris to the university book sale fundraiser, because you want someone else to come across it and discover Sanderson like you did.

I used to like Vergere a lot. Then I took a philosophy degree to the knee. (Now, I still like her, just not as much--but I'm going to partly blame the direction LotF took with Vergere for that.) But who knows, maybe I'm just Lightweaving this

Rust and ruin, I just learned I've been pronouncing it your way and therefore wrong. How does eh-GWAIN make sense? :'(

Panda, you got my immediate upvote just for Kurohitsuji and D Gray Man and Fullmetal Alchemist But do you still like/follow Bleach?

I see what you did there, Vergere. Liespren.

Put it this way: I'm not very good at history but I'm interested in it, so we're approaching this thread from completely different positions. I'm not saying there's something big about this tradition, some hidden truth. I'm simply interested in how it came into being because I'm curious about what that says about the conditions required for it to come about, which are basically going to be socio-historical. I did speculate a bit about a KR link, which is also something I've been wondering about. But that's historical once again--obviously, there's no reason for the new KR to follow the old. In that sense, yes, I'm being boring.I am partly interested in why it's maintained, and you're right about it, although I think a story about where Shardblades fit into power structures is going to be interesting and a lot less simple than "well, it's up to the individual". But such an interest might turn out to be very well sociological (or at least quasi-sociological), and therefore, understandably, still boring. EMTrevor: That's probably true, and I do think it's the most likely explanation--I just think it can't be the whole story if one wants to explain why Shardbearers don't normally lend out their Shardblades.

This would make TAs the spren and the professor the Almighty

Unfortunately, it decided it would not allow me to summon a Shardblade. Let's just leave it at that.

Ah, alright, no sorry, just asking because I spent the past semester studying paradoxes (*makes face*) so I was curious. Thanks!

I'd like to clarify some of the rules too, if it's ok. Some might be a bit obvious, I'm afraid. 1. Shardblade: if it can block a Pain Knife but leaves the holder injured, can it be used to defend someone else besides the holder? (And to use the Shardblade to defend, must the holder have not used it to kill in the same night?) 2. Same question for Shardplate. Does that defend the holder or can you use your Shardplate to block an attack on someone else? Unlike being a Thug, it doesn't protect you from a lynching death, does it? What about the half-shard? (I asked because I notice you emphasise someone else on the painrial, but I don't want to make assumptions about how these are deployable.)

May I clarify--how is it a paradox?

The Words, Panda! You must speak the Words!

While this came up in the Syl thread, this was a bit of a digression and I've been wondering for some time if a separate thread should be created for this. Having just re-read His Dark Materials: in which people have bonded animal companions called daemons and to touch another person's daemon is very, very strongly taboo--I wondered if there was a similar taboo against touching (in this context, wielding) another KR's spren(blade). Mostly idle curiosity until EMTrevor pointed this out: --WoR, Chapter 72. In addition, we have this: --WoR, Chapter 16 The second quote seems to suggest that some element of 'the king lends his Shards to any lighteyes to practice' is a tradition exclusive to Alethkar. It also suggests this has to do with pragmatism: Alethkar, at the very least, wants to always have lighteyes capable of mobilising Shards the moment they are taken. This mentality is reflected in Amaram, who tells Dalinar that they needed "practiced, accomplished Shardbearers" and so he took the Shards for himself. Furthermore, we know there is at least one Highprince who allows a trusted lieutenant to wield his Shards for him. (I seem to remember this but I cannot source the quote. I'd be grateful if anyone could.) Relevant to this, I can only find: --WoK, Chapter 58. I'm not convinced the 'battle pragmatics' is the full story. If it were, it seems that all Shardbearers should be made to share their Shards when not training with them, in order to have a wide pool of men trained with them. Here's some things I've considered in trying to figure how Shardblade traditions came about. 1. There's an element of class and power linked to this tradition. We have a WoB that the tradition of the safehand arose, at least in part, from an essay "that defined masculine arts as being ones with two hands and feminine needing only one", and which "was in order to let men secure power over Shardblades." In that sense, there is a strong connection between possession of a Shardblade and power. (And of course, we know this since Shardblades are highly coveted and possession of a Shardblade can elevate a darkeyes to a lighteyes.) Given this context, it is not unlikely that the traditions by which only the king and highprinces can lend out Shardblades is just another tradition which demonstrates power and another way in which Shardblades are bound up in the class system. 2. There's a very Nohadon (in the in-world Way of Kings) aspect to the tradition of highprinces and the king lending out their Shardblades. This whole 'leader serves the people/shares his power' thing, as opposed to sole concentration of unopposed power. Furthermore, it seems strange that this doesn't apply to normal Shardbearers. If we take what Kaladin says at face value, he might even be suggesting that there is a tradition against lending out your Shards if you're not a highprince/the king. That, I think, might hint at some tentative link to the KR. 3. It's worth wondering if the impulse to not share your Blade had an earlier root: from the practices of the KR, who might have very well felt it taboo to use someone else's spren, almost as if it were a dead sprenblade. Anyway, the more I think about it, the less clarity I find in my distinctions. Thoughts?