*crossing my fingers I don't kill another thread by posting in it* (Is it my lurg slime?!) In The Way of Kings, the codes that Dalinar adheres to, much to the disdain of others in his community, are mostly about chivalry. Often these codes are seen as nuisance and unimportant to those who do wish to follow them. Over time, the value of the practice must be proven (usually because something goes wrong since they Didn't follow them) in order for the current generation to conform to the customary behaviors. Dalinar, himself, was a convert after tragedy occurred while he was drunk on the job. Adolin doesn't enjoy living by the code, especially when it comes to fashion, but he has a semi-chivalrous nature. He rescued the prostitute from violence. But he also, cluelessly, flirts with women in front of the woman he is courting. That is anything but polite. Adolin Is fond of dueling for "honor." /And now my mind goes into a tangent about honor vs ego./ <- disregard When we look at the larger definition of chivalry, the qualities of courage, honor, courtesy, justice, and a readiness to help the weak, we see that most cultures in Sanderson's books fall short of equal treatment/justice for all. There is a huge "chasm" (forgive the term) in equality. The treatment that is unacceptable for one group is completely over-looked in another group. Parshendi? Bridgemen? Slaves? Who cared what happened to them? Overall I think Sanderson presents people as they are: we want to pick and choose which codes to follow, when we want to follow them and extend courtesy and grace only to those whom we select are worthy of receiving it. And most of the time, we do it without any thought whatsoever. Some authors may glorify chivalry to the extent that it's not realistic. Others may take the opposite position. Sanderson hits it square in the middle. He shows the reality of fallible human beings trying to live up to ideals. We don't get often get it right, but the heroes sure do try. I hope that helps you in some way. Good luck with the essay!