aemetha

Well, we have a WoB that he has alliances and help killing other Shards. He may have had help again, hence "we". https://wob.coppermind.net/events/137-general-signed-books-2015/#e2263 https://wob.coppermind.net/events/30-lisbon-signing/#e2614 There's also a WoB that Odium and Honor go well together (as opposed to Odium and Cultivation). That suggests to me that if Rayse and Tanavast are out of the equation Brandon does lean toward a pairing of those shards. https://wob.coppermind.net/events/4-calamity-seattle-signing/#e5163

Do you really see it going that way? The cosmere, to me, has always been the story of mortals, in some cases overcoming shards because they have free will that shards do not. I don't know how I'd feel about a story where mortals aren't able to meaningfully affect the outcome. Can I ask where you see the logical end point of such a scenario? Are shards all shattered? Is Adonalsium reforged? Are the shards all bound by their intent the way harmony is? Do we just not resolve it and accept the cosmere as an ongoing concern indefinitely?

Yeah, I guess at this point I don't see the point of that. Sazed basically doesn't have any power. I think of that scenario like this - take two equal volumes of water and put one in a lake and the other in a Tsunami. In both cases it's water, but nobody ever describes a lake as powerful, but a Tsunami it's basically the first adjective that comes to mind. So, yeah, while I agree completely about the far less limiting intent thing, I just don't see the necessity of it. Why does Sazed need to be opposed if he can't actually prevent the big bad from doing anything anyway?

Yes, that's what I mean. I should have been clearer, intent isn't instantaneous, it's just that I don't see taking up a shard as a good outcome for a hero of our story. It's, to me, the opposite of a happy ending - knowing they are basically being condemned to slow oblivion. It's analogous to being rewarded for heroism with Alzheimer's.

I keep seeing this idea pop up. Not without justification obviously, the book did seem to be hinting at that possibility. It's just, the idea frankly makes me throw up in my mouth a little. I think it's a truly horrible idea. Let me explain why. Reason 1: Honor isn't the good guy in this story. We think of Honor as the good guy because he opposes Odium who appears to be the bad guy. That isn't the case though, it's bad guy opposing bad guy. One might be worse than the other, but that certainly doesn't make the other good. Lets examine the things Honor has done: Condemned the Heralds to millennia of torture. Cares more about the letter of an oath than the spirit of an oath. Apparently encouraged a war against the people who first followed him - and yes, they do appear to have switched sides, but a good deity doesn't encourage extermination for that, a good deity tries to win them back with compassion and love. Reason 2: Honor is broken. He is a shard. They are all broken. None of them is functional in any way shape or form, and all of them have some serious negative impact on the people of their worlds. If someone takes up Honors shard, they will be broken too. And when I say broken, I mean far, far more broken than what is required to gain investiture. I mean the complete subordination of free will to an ideal and the pursuit of that ideal to the point where even the noblest of ideals causes a great deal of harm. Reason 3: I already read this! I don't want to spend time reading the ten books of the Stormlight Archive to get the same story as the three books of Mistborn era 1. I don't think Brandon wants me to either. I don't know where he is going with this, but in all the books he's written he has never suffered from a lack of imagination. I would seriously be astonished if the end game of the Stormlight Archive is the same as that of Mistborn. Anyway, feel free to tell me why I'm wrong now. I will of course ignore that and insist that I am right, because in fact I am the holder of the shard "Correct", and my intent refuses to allow me to acknowledge the possibility of my error .

I'm unwilling to commit to the idea of cultivation being a master puppeteer behind the scenes. We have seen that Shards can do this kind of thing in the past, but I think the mistake that is continually made with regard to shards is that we focus on their strengths without considering their weaknesses. While Cultivation may have foreseen an opportunity to use Taravangian as a pawn, the possibility exists that she foresaw no desirable outcomes but had to accede to his request regardless because her intent requires her to help him grow as she herself says in the flashback with Dalinar. So yeah, I'm not sold on it. I really don't see any shard as being "capable" in general, they don't have free will.

That isn't as a rule true in most feudal societies. Very few peasant wars resulted in the peasants winning changes to the law. Most ended in massacres and far worse conditions for the survivors. In feudal societies military power trumps social power.

I assumed that because you never explained what you were talking about. Your post was quite honestly impossible to understand properly because you neglected to write the rest of it. You're right, I am not trying because it's impossible to understand an argument you have not made. Honestly, you're just being childish now Right, the argument of the unintelligible. Honestly, I can think of nothing so vulgar as someone attempting to suggest some kind of impairment in their audience because they can't communicate clearly. Put up or shut up, you just make yourself look stupid by insulting others who are genuinely trying to engage you in debate.

No, it wouldn't be a different topic. You're saying the law originates from a foundation that you won't describe. That's just silly. Your argument is that "the law derives from, just because". Either explain your argument or cease your argument. It isn't debate or discussion without explanation, it's just you saying you don't like something because, which is complaining, not discussing. Pretty much everyone else is saying that the law derives from power. You're saying it derives from something else, so explain what that something else is.

Then could you perhaps elucidate what you think the foundation for social power is? You seem to be referring to some amorphous ideal that is not actually reflected in any legal system, real or cosmeric.

Maybe this is where the conflict is arising. In some (and especially in feudalism) systems the vast majority of social power rests with the leader. This seems compatible with your view that the law derives from social power. The renaissance led to a redistribution of power from leaders to the people.

@BaconAre they? I think Odium's side controls more lands than those opposing him, and with that control they have the right to set the laws. This is an international conflict. Previously the Parshendi controlled no lands, and had no right to set the law, now they control huge swathes and much of the remainder is held by humans allied to their cause.

War and conquest is a legal form of ownership change. When humans came to rule those lands the right to set the laws of those lands changed to them.

Right, it is a flaw. This is the enduring theme of the cosmere though, if you take any attribute that in combination with others is considered to be "good" then you end up with something corrupted. Honor didn't care about mercy. He didn't even care about the spirit of the oaths at the end according to the Stormfather. The Skybreakers are a facsimile of that same excessive devotion to a single shattered aspect.

The law is precisely derived from power and social influence. The law isn't morality, it reflects the standards of the person or people who implemented it. Homosexuals are beaten or killed in some legal systems, there is nothing fundamental about that. It doesn't protect society from a threat. It doesn't corrupt society. It is a reflection of a prejudice held by those who made the law.

Can I just say that saying "That's nonsensical..." is clearly an aggressive statement about an argument being made, while saying "You're nonsensical..." is an aggressive statement about a person. Changing "That's nonsensical..." to "I disagree, that doesn't make sense to me" is not less aggressive, the language is synonymous and the second option takes longer to type. Debate is by its nature adversarial, the line is crossed to insult when the debate moves from attacking argument to attacking people. Regarding the Skybreakers, I think they are a perfect example of everything that is wrong about Shards. They uphold the laws to the extreme. They execute people arbitrarily for minor infractions. A procedural justice system makes allowances for the court to apply mercy, but the Skybreakers don't seem to adhere to that - penalty is always the maximum allowable for an offence. Honor is largely the personification of inflexibility and intolerance despite what positive attributes are assigned to him, the orders of radiants reflect that inflexibility, and with the Skybreakers that is applied to their role with the law. Every lawman cherry picks the crimes they are going to see punished, because they cannot be everywhere to prevent every crime. They choose to focus on the most serious. In Nale's case the most serious is being a radiant. That's not a crime in all locations though. It's like taking a lawkeeper from their jurisdiction, and chasing a criminal to another jurisdiction. When he enters that new jurisdiction he is obligated to follow the laws of that jurisdiction. He is still pursuing the ideal of justice for both jurisdictions, and when it comes to prioritising who he pursues.

Well, an interesting distinction here is that your decision is a reasoned one. I would (and have) argue the issue with Adolin, and specifically with regard to him being broken is that he doesn't seem capable of making a reasoned decision about this, or indeed many other decisions. He just does it and has to deal with the consequences later. A major pattern of behaviour is Adolin making impetuous statements or attempting actions and Dalinar having to restrain him. He comes across as heroic, because he does seem to have a good moral compass, but moral compass aside, he is certainly limited if he is not able to restrain himself from taking action long enough to reason if it is the best course of action. He killed Sadeas out of impulse, which is largely because he hated him. He didn't think about all the terrible things Sadeas had done, or how the world is better off without Sadeas. He acted out of hate and anger, and because he seems to not have the capability of restraining himself in certain circumstances. Going back and assigning justifications to that act in the moment it took place is revisionism. I won't argue that Sadeas didn't deserve to die, I will argue that Adolin did not have the right morally or legally to kill him though for the reason he did. It was murder, not an execution.

Does anyone else find the turn of phrase he used a little odd? In particular the word "capacity". Capacity doesn't just mean the ability to produce or contain a thing, it can also refer to a particular role. "In his capacity as king" for example. What if the diagram has nothing to do with the mechanics of saving them whatsoever, and it's simply a case that a person acting in their capacity as king of the world is best positioned to save them? I mean, there's a rule about the asking of magic wishes isn't there? Be careful what you wish for Mr T.

It looks like normal shardplate, except little with a couple of exceptions. There are no sabatons and the helm is designed to be open faced at all times to facilitate eating. Adolin to my mind has demonstrated being broken because he has literally no impulse control. He jumps into every decision and only lasted as long without killing Sadeas because the half a dozen times he tried to publicly murder him in front of the assembled nobility of Alethkar is there were people there to restrain him. He's pretty close to one for one when he's encountered him alone - no impulse control. The reason we don't see him having a lengthy internal monologue over this is because he has almost no POV scenes comparatively to our other radiants. He isn't main cast, he is supporting cast no matter how much he may be liked by the community. And the "he has only killed one person" argument really doesn't hold up. That's exactly the same as saying "He is only a murderer, it's not like he's a mass murderer". Just because murder is a less serious crime than mass murder doesn't make it an insignificant act. If you're a mass murderer you get executed for it in a medieval world. If you're a murderer you get executed in a medieval world. If you're a noble you might get away with exile for life in either case. Still the most serious punishment that can be meted, and consistent with the level of seriousness "only one murder" is viewed. A lot of people deserve to die in our world where murder is viewed with a similar level of seriousness. I think if the world were allowed to vote on it for example, Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un might find themselves overwhelmingly beneath a headsmans axe. The fact remains that it is not acceptable to murder them. Murder is not okay. Not having the impulse control to not murder someone no matter how reprehensible they might be is a clear indication that psychologically something is very wrong with that person.

That's fair enough, we don't have to agree, as I said the topic in general is contentious amongst experts in the fields. With regard to the second part here, my example of western approaches being detrimental to Maori in large part is because Maori were treated against their will. It gets murky, because defining someone as mentally disordered has historically been used as a justification to treat a person against their will. I agree, in most cases where a person has personally sought out treatment then there will be some kind of distress or impairment. I certainly agree that Brandon has obviously done a lot of research into the subject. I think much of his research in this case is intended as a starting point though, not to mirror exactly what occurs in real life. Magic is tied into this which really throws a spanner in the works when trying to find direct comparisons.

To be disordered is to demonstrate a pattern of thoughts and behaviours that is inconsistent with established norms, and which causes suffering or impairment to an individual to the extent that they need treatment to restore said patterns to the established order. Because norms vary by culture, a pattern of thoughts and behaviours considered disordered in one may not be considered so in another. Yes, that's exactly what I was getting at. If there is no impairment or distress, and society is accepting of the cluster of thoughts and behaviours, it's not really a disorder, because it is consistent with the expectations of the culture. That doesn't change the fact that physiologically there is a deviation from the norm. Neurologically the person is certainly disordered, but psychologically they are not suffering or impaired. The neurologist goes "This is structurally incorrect and should be corrected through treatment". The psychologist goes "This person isn't suffering, they aren't functionally impaired in their day to day lives. There is little to be gained by me treating this person, and they may in fact be harmed." And as @Argent correctly points out, we need to move this back to the topic at hand, so I'll try and explain why I think this is relevant: We are drawing parallels between what we know of mental disorder in our world, and what we know of investiture requiring a person to be broken in the cosmere. Whether characters meet the criteria for specific mental disorders in the real world or not, is not really a qualifier for that. Actually meeting the qualification for a real world disorder isn't a particularly good guide because it's contextual. What is considered in Roshar to be disordered behaviour is likely very different to what is in our world, and had they a system of classification like ours, Jasnah would likely fall into one because acceptance of behaviour noted as cold, distant, overly logical and heretical is far from universal in Roshar. In fact, it's noted on several occasions that Jasnah only gets away with her behaviour because of her high station. She isn't mad by our standards, but by the standards of the average Alethi she's absolutely bonkers. Past trauma broke her and altered her thoughts and behaviours to a pattern outside the established order of her world, like with every character broken in the cosmere. Sorry, I know I'm not explaining this very well at all. It should also be noted that these issues remain contentious. Much of the medical community still embraces Cartesian dualism, while much of the psychological community embraces holistic explanations. A great many psychologists reject the concept of mental disorders entirely, and certain conditions such as schizophrenia are considered by them to be neurological rather than mental disorders. Those psychologists prefer to focus on "behaviour" rather than "symptoms".

I should have said appearances . Medals for both of us. The silver medal for vagueness for me, and the bronze medal for pedantry for you :p. Have an upvote ;).

Lift has been my favourite in all the books. I can't begin to describe how much I enjoyed the Stormfather having a virtual apoplexy about her ignoring "the rules" of life, the cosmere and everything. She's the absolute antithesis of the skybreakers. She always does the right thing and doesn't even acknowledge that there are rules, let alone follow them.

Should probably add RIP or something next to Jezrien. Windrunners no longer have a herald.

In that case, I'm pretty sure the edgedancers resonance is shard cutlery No, in all seriousness, I think that likely is the skydancers resonance, I was just curious if I'd missed some example of it in use. I'm a little in two minds with the mistspren. I had initially thought they could be the lesser spren for willshapers because they worked so closely with the lightspren and didn't really come across to me as on the same level as the other higher spren.