Twenty@20

Granted, but you will never get to know the Windreader ideals. I wish for 30 hours a day. (My exams are coming )

A few things about Vorinism I want to highlight. It is essentially localised to Alethkar, Jah kaved and perhaps Thaylen. The Horneaters, Herdazians, Purelakers, Azir etc don't follow Vorinism. IIRC, didn't Vorinism say that the last desolation was the final one? Didn't it say that the Voidbringers were destroyed? Now that Vorinism has been proved wrong on two major counts will it inspire the same devotion as before? Perhaps Truthwatchers seeing the future will only prove another Vorin principle wrong. Ya there will be conflict between Vorinism and Radiants in general, but I feel Vorinism is a concept whose time is coming to an end as this desolation brings more and more devastation. Maxal, upvotes for you!

Ya when I talked about Kaladin having witnesses for Szeth's fight, I meant that the fight started among witnesses and with the intention that only one of them was going to survive it. Ya, you are perhaps right. Under no circumstances, Adolin killing Sadeas outside of a duel would have been justified. But Feather, doesn't it messes up your earlier point that the particular way the scene was written - deserted corridors, Adolin's loss of control, gory description of the death and Adolin destroying evidence - gave the readers the foreboding that Adolin is in trouble? Because rather than the setting of the scene, it was Adolin's departure from Dalinar's ideals (which meant killing Sadeas only in a official duel was justified) that hinted at future troubles for him. I mean there was no way to write the scene and put markers to tell readers that what Adolin's doing is right and honourable. PS. There is a good chance I misunderstood your initial post. So feel free to correct me.

Sure enough the simplest explanation is the surest one. Don't know how this simple idea eluded me. Probably this "looking from Amaram's point of view" business muddled my thinking. However it makes Kaladin refusing shards kind of moot. He wouldn't have got it anyway!

The comparison of Kaladin killing Szeth versus Adolin killing Sadeas is interesting. I think the crucial difference between the two scenes is the absence of witnesses in the Adolin's case. If Adolin and Sadeas had the same interaction in presence of witnesses Adolin would have come out a hero for defending his father's Honor from Sadeas' insinuations. Conversely, if Kaladin and Szeth had fought away from the armies then Kaladin's victory wouldn't have appeared so sweet. Killing someone in a lonely corridor, even when that someone has gravely provoked you seems just wrong. We readers are a sort of witness to Adolin's actions and like any other in-scene witness would, we naturally think him right to have done so while lack of in-scene witness tells us that Adolin's action will not be justified in the story. Hopefully I made some sense.

White Sand and Aether of the Night are available if you email Brandon from his website. I believe these books plus other unpublished books are not canon, so they are not discussed in these forums.

Brandon's website has a small preview of WoK prime. To read the rest I think you have to buy the Altered Perceptions anthology. Link to preview on Brandon's website http://brandonsanderson.com/want-to-join-bridge-four-the-altered-perceptions-anthology-final-week-drive/

That time his decision was heavily influenced by Syl and also the fact that he knew he was becoming a Radiant. And also I think he was checking how honorable the Kholins were by refusing the shards. But what about before Syl became sentient? Even I don't remember Kaladin reviewing his decision. Time to skim WoK again.

Reading all these posts, a thought came into my mind. This may be diverting from the topic as I am speculating now about Kaladin's response to Amaram taking away his shards. On thinking about it, I realised that we never saw Kaladin's feelings about refusing the shards after being made a slave. We only know that when he was immediately offered the shards he refused them on emotional grounds. But after he was sold to slavery we never see him questioning the decision. After the initial chain of events, did he never for once think that perhaps he may have been well off accepting the shards? I mean if he had accepted the shards would it have been a dishonourable thing to do? His friends died in a battle field. If he abhorred shards because they killed his friends, then he should shun all other weapons too because they also kill. There is no fundamental difference between shards and normal weapons - both kill. One thing I remember is that when he first came to Shattered plains, he eagerly wanted to become a soldier to escape slavery. Perhaps in the same frame of mind, he might have wished that he had accepted the shards. We never see him thinking about it in early WoK perhaps to maintain the suspense. Shardblade are of tragic origin but does holding them make a person dishonourable even though Kaladin would have used them for good purposes? I know Brandon changed his decision as major plot point but what makes Kaladin hate them so much other then emotional feelings. Syl began influencing his opinion about shards later but what about before her? PS. I think I rambled quite a bit.

You have made a very emotional and convincing point, I believe. Radiants killing their spren for whatever reason is as dark a spot as Shallan's mother trying to kill her. Personally, I would not be quick to judge any of them

@Sun tzaro. I agree with your view. I essentially said the same thing in one of my earlier posts also that Nalan is only using his official post of Azir constable to manipulate local laws and forward his own interests. It is open to debate whether they can be legally justified. Aleksiel has mentioned a good point earlier that Nalan and his minions can be legally justified as a specialised unit investigating Surgebinder crimes. One more thing. You quoted a single line from my post and then proceeded to explain the same point which I had written in the very next line of the same post. The line quoted was only an assumption to prove the subsequent point. PS. It feels awkward to be so pedantic..

Pattern and a Seon went into a bar. Seon:You are going live in three, two, one. Pattern: (facing the Seon)This is Pattern of the Daily Cosmere reporting live from the Luthadel Bar..

Granted, however you will start missing this game. I wish that this game continues.

That's a slam dunk Shaggai. Good one.

Granted. Its 9. However you can never confirm it. I wish for a delicious apple pie for breakfast

Sadeas is definitely dead. His blade reappeared at the end, remember. What remains to be seen is that if he stays dead. Something tells me there will be no resurrection for him. Welcome to the forums!

Lol! Steel,it looks like you will be giving clarifications about your prank till the chickens come home. Are you keeping count?

Cognitive instantiations. Hmm.. Looks like my poor understanding of Realmatic theory is showing. This only means you guys will be getting noob questions from me.. Oh Outis,thanks for correcting me.

Abstractspren is a good nomenclature. Glory spren will also come under it. These spren seem to be cognitive manifestations of human abstract concepts like honor, justice, truth/lies, appreciation etc.

Truth be told, even I was surprised how the Azir could allow a thief and a trespasser be executed without any hearing at a court of law. But personal feelings aside, clearly Nalan obtained the leave of execution on those charges. If we assume that Azir can't be so casual about killing, then that means Nalan got the leave by unlawful means. But he was very particular about his legal right to kill Lift, so much so that even the vizier couldn't stop him. Since Lift and Gawx were accomplices, it is logical to assume that the same order could be obtained for him also. Perhaps Nalan used some obscure provision of law to secure the order, so the vizier was surprised.

Ya, the third book(wistfully looking at the calender on mobile phone).. I have a noob question. Is it incorrect to assume (on available evidence) that present Nalan is no longer the same guy he was before breaking the Oathpact? That the intervening millennia have created a twisted version of the Herald? Food for thought. What was Nalan's opinion on breaking the Oathpact? Did he see the Oathpact as a law or only a personal commitment? Sorry for diverting the topic. Edit: @Outis. The minion will of course face punishment but it will be equivalent of paying a fine/penalty for not getting a pass before entering the swimming pool. The context in which a crime is committed is perhaps the most important. It the diffence between self defence and murder, as you pointed out. To expand on your example, swimming in your pool without your permission is illegal but swimming in the community pool is not illegal. Only a pass is needed. Similarly murdering a person is illegal but killing a thief is not illegal in Azir. Only a leave of execution is needed. The context of both situations is same only the crimes are different.

I don't want to nitpit but I personally think that "I will put the law above all else" is just an elegant way of saying "I will uphold and enforce the law to the best of my abilities." Only personally following the law and not enforcing it on others kind of makes it meaningless. But, anyway, that's my personal opinion only.Edit: I again have to concur with kaellok regarding following the laws in both letter and spirit. I had made the same point in another thread. Upvote for you!

Your argument looks convincing. So Nalan's targeting of Lift probably falls within legal parameters.Personally however I find myself agreeing with kaellok's line of reasoning. To quote Zahel, it allows me to sleep at night (OK, I am exaggerating). @ Moogle. I wasn't talking about the Skybreakers. I was only trying to analyse the action of a Azir constable. Lets assume, for example, a squad of constables find a group of thief stealing. Then I would reasonably expect that they atleast try to catch all of them instead of focusing on only one of the thieves and by default letting the rest excape. Not doing that would be neglect of duty I think. Anyway in this specific case, Nalan may have been legally right but only on technical grounds.

I have to disagree on this point. Surgebinding is not unlawful in Azir. So why should Nalan as a constable of Azir investigate Surgebinders. Legally he can't even arrest Lift on a charge of surgebinding. Under the provisions of Azir law, he was there only to arrest thieves. So he should have atleast made an attempt to catch the others. Nalan and his minions were completely fixated on catching Lift and ensuring she doesn't escape. Gawx was infact apprehended by palace guards. Under the law, Gawx and the adult thieves were equally guilty as Lift. So I think Nalan's bias against Lift was unlawful since he was acting as a representative of Azir law. Rather his willful neglect of other criminals was unlawful. If Nalan was acting in his personal capacity of a Herald, then the situation would have been different. He was free to kill Lift if he thought it necessary. Of course then he would have to submit himself to Azir law for unlawful murder.

I thought Nalan actually displayed a bias against Lift because of his personal motivation to kill surgebinders. Lift was not alone guilty of trespassing and thieving at the place. Yet Nalan exclusively got a leave of execution for Lift while ignoring Gawx and the other adult thieves.(They even escaped under his nose)This brings me back to my other point regarding selective implementation of laws. If Nalan is choosing which law to apply where and which criminal to apprehend, then isn't he subverting the laws for his own interests and convenience?