Balor

Well, shardblades killing spren is also a good idea, I admit. I still don't really have any idea why it should avoid cutting flesh before it is dead unless, like I said, the effect is intentional, but as for the spren - there is a hint on that based on the deciphered fabreal notes, and the fact that the fabreal Shallan tried to swap was destroyed by a shardblade. On the other hand, even if they do kill spren - I still wonder if it is intended effect. I still think that shardblade were 'safe weapons' at first, but then corrupted by Odium. The only trouble with having it be a nonlethal tool, is that its a six foot sword. Not exactly the saftest thing in the book. So. What. It would only be a danger to your sense of propriety, because one can undress you completely with one swing - but it CANNOT harm living flesh, therefore it is completely safe. Ok, you can club someone to death with it, but you might as well be using a piece of rock, and be better off with it.

Sorry guys, but that is way beyond even 'Epileptic trees' . Parshendi being upgraded to thunderclasts? No in MY Brandon Sanderson book, that belongs to pulp fantasy. Bonus points if it is intentional trolling, though, I've fell for it. On the other hand, there is one question that begs to be asked - the chasmfiends are related to thunderclasts. We witness multiple acts of them 'pupating'. But does anyone actually witness, or is even remotely interested in what chasmfiend pupate INTO? It might be possible that into thunderclasts... but why we never witnessed one, after all - they've been pupating for a long time, some must evade the attention of parshmen (by the way, why they keep killing them? This is defintely something more to this, mush more) and pupate into... something. Defintely not parshendi tho, or they would try and protect the pupae, not destroy it .

Hi all! Personally, I have a theory regarding the origin of the shardblades/plates, that is hinted by the chapter where Dalinar uses them as a work tool. So, what if they WERE work tools someday? Or, at least, purely nonlethal weapons. Perhaps not shardblades themselves, the the principle behind it, save a few late tweaks (see below). I mean, look: an omnicutting weapon that does NOT cut living flesh. Once the flesh is dead, however, it cuts it easily. It can only be INTENTIONAL effect - otherwise, in the language of TV tropes, it is "Awesome, but impractical" - simply cutting flesh as it cuts anything else will produce comparable or even better effect - it is noted several times battling with a shardblade that does not sever as it kills can sometimes be detrimental. Otherwise it is just 'for coolness sake', and I truly hope that Sanderson is above that. Perhaps, given the large doze of divine interference in the story, they were originally created as either 100% safe work tools, or weapon with zero lethality but to nonliving (inorganic/inhuman) opponents. But then they were somehow corrupted or tweaked that they began to 'cut souls'. It would explain why Syl is so disgusted with shardblades - they are not 'mere powerful weapons', they are perversions of something that once was benigh and perhaps holy.