Marethyu316

I feel weird diving deep into a discussion of Christian morality in a fantasy book, but you brought it up and I find this topic compelling. No action (or lack of action) we take in the real world is devoid of negative, harmful consequences, even with the best of intentions, because we can't know the all the ramifications of our choices, even when we have the best of intentions. To me, sometimes you must take the best action that you can, given what you know, and accept the consequences of those actions. St. Augustine takes this up in his book the City of God. That book deals with dilemmas early Christians faced in trying to live out their faith in real world, or what he called the City of Man. He asks whether it wouldn't be better for Christians to withdraw from the world to keep themselves pure, because by interacting with the City of Man, they couldn't escape participating in the evil that happens there. For example, even the best of judges doesn't always know whether the person before them is innocent or guilty. This means that sometimes (too often no doubt) an innocent person is punished (or in his analogy tortured), but a judge still has a responsibility to maintain justice and order in society. He argues that the world is better off that good people are judges, even though the job sometimes forces them to harm innocent people. Augustine argues that it is important both to recognize that sometimes such things are necessary and moral, and yet "none the less condemn human life as miserable." His point being that we should try to avoid such injustices, but accept that they are an inevitable and yet necessary part of being a moral person in the real world. Finally, he argues that it would be worse to shrink form that responsibility, because you don't want to get your hands dirty, and allow people of lesser character take your place. Rather, "cry to God, 'Deliver me from my necessities!'" In other words, accept that sometimes you will do things that are wrong, maybe even appallingly so, because to not do so would be worse.

You say that the victim is the judge of the morality of an act. However, failing to act can also have consequences, so which victims are we going to ask? If as a leader you decide not to act, and then your people are victimized, haven't you failed as their leader? The Allies in WW2 fire bombed cities in Europe and Japan and the US dropped two atomic bombs on two of the remaining cities that hadn't been bombed. They believed that they were fighting for something that justified mass killing and targeting of civilian infrastructure at the very least (they did drop leaflets telling people to leave at least some of the time.) In the end, those leaders had to look out for the interests of their people, and felt they couldn't allow their consciences (many acknowledged how awful they felt about it) to trump their responsibilities to their own citizens and soldiers. History may judge them harshly, and God may as well, but what good is a leader who isn't willing to shoulder some of the burden to protect their people? It's much easier for us to say don't target civilians when we have smart GPS guided weapons, and yet no system is perfect and yet most would agree it is sometimes necessary to take the risk of hurting the innocent in the name of the greater good. It doesn't mean that morality has no place, but I think I agree with Nohadon that every situation is unique and needs to be approached on a case by case basis. Easy answers let us absolve ourselves of the guilt of living in the real world, where there are both evil people and where hurting innocents is sometimes unavoidable. What I appreciate about Taravangian is that, I think, he honestly does feel bad about it, and doesn't seem to make excuses or justifications. He just believes he is doing what is necessary and is willing to suffer the consequences. There is something heroic about being willing to shoulder the burden that is needed to protect others. Of course, that is only justified if you are actually protecting others. I question whether he is actually right, though. I don't necessarily believe that the Diagram is the totality of what Nightwatcher gave him as a boon and his trust in it might be misplaced.

Emperor's Soul spoiler

I realize you are reacting against the notion it is only cultural, but I think saying not cultural might be a bit of an overstatement. There is a connection between culture, as in what people believe about reality, and the cognitive realm, especially on Roshar. I agree that there seems to be a pretty consistent repetition of the number 10, but that doesn't exclude the importance of the cultural beliefs or that those beliefs had a least a partial impact on establishing those 10s.

@Wreith I think @Gilgamesh meant humans when he said "they", not the Listeners. (Granted I already deleted part of my response where I misunderstood something else you were saying, so I could very well be wrong...)

Also, my guess is that they would have broken after the 9 trips to Damnation, not necessarily the Desolations themselves, though I'm sure those were no picnic.

I don't have Warbreaker in front of me, so I could be wrong, but did Siri and Vivenna believe that they would lose their own Royal Locks when their sibling took the throne? I thought it meant that their children wouldn't inherit, not that they would lose the ability themselves once they were no longer in the running. That would mean that Denth (in this scenario) only needed to be in the running when he was born. He would retain the ability, but his children wouldn't. I think this is important, especially because she wasn't first in line to the throne. There's some ambiguity, because there was an intention to unify the lines, but I think her brother would still be considered the rightful heir.

If the books are really old they might be written in the Dawnchant (the writing on the Oathgate was) and they just started unraveling that thanks to Dalinar's visions. That would mean that it would take a lot more work to decipher the meaning of the books, even if Renarin or possibly Shallan can restore them relatively instantaneously.

Dalinar deleted chapter

Of course, the Annotations for Elantris state that they were originally intended (by Sanderson) as just a way to allow Elantrians to pass on. I am pretty sure that he didn't work out the real significance of the shardpools until he started writing Mistborn. In the end, it doesn't change the fact that the characters assumed incorrectly that it was only for that reason. I'm guessing that's part of why he added the Hoid postscript to make it more clear that it is functioning that way, even if it is dangerous on Sel. On a separate topic, did Dalinar use a handkerchief to pick up Oathbringer, because he was afraid of the screams? If so, it's weird that he then wonders about the screams being quieter. If it wasn't for that reason, do they have fingerprint technology on Roshar? That would be bad news for Adolin.

I think it would require some sort of priority shift for Taravangian. I think he is overestimating the usefulness of the Diagram, so I think that will eventually lead to him needing to come to some sort of moment of reckoning. However, part of me thinks that there is at least some honor (perhaps too strong) in the fact that he accepts the responsibility for what he is doing, and doesn't try to claim that he is some righteous person doing "God's will" or something, the way that Amaram seems to do. A lot would need to happen, but I think it's possible, but not probable, that he could come around and end up being a bondsmith/supporting Dalinar.

I was thinking that Gaz and the other guards might end up being squires. The conversation with Veil about how Shallan changed their lives and the encouragement by Adolin to not ignore them makes me think that there is more going on there.