agrabes

Definitely an interesting topic. Here are my thoughts as to why Desolations end. I think it changed over time as both sides learned more strategy and tactics. Early Desolations: In the early years, things were probably mostly fought straight up. The Heralds were still sane and idealistic. The Fused were also still fully sane and likely thought there was a chance they could win in a straight up battle. Most likely, the Heralds did eliminate all or most of the fused and then voluntarily returned to Braize. So, early on it probably was fought like the default assumption - the Desolation was ended voluntarily by the Heralds after they had killed all known Fused. The "time limit" existed at this time, but never came into play as a war ender. I think this probably lasted for the first 2-3 desolations. Middle Desolations: In the middle years, the Heralds were losing their idealism and sanity. For them, it was becoming a more desperate struggle to balance saving their people, upholding their oaths, and saving themselves from torture. This is when they started dreading ending the desolations. For the side of the Fused, I think this is when they started realizing they could not win a straight up fight with the Heralds and Radiants. They started the "total war" tactics described by the OP. The Fused started losing their sanity as well. My suggestion of how the desolations ended at this time and how the time limit came into play is that the time limit starts when the Fused stop attacking humans. So - some Fused who are insane or lost to bloodlust would charge in and fight the Heralds in pitched battle. Once these were defeated, the Heralds returned to Braize. Other Fused, who stayed sane and were more strategic would stay behind and cause havoc after the Heralds leave. However, this strategy is only partly effective - by this time the Knights Radiant are the main fighting force of Team Honor. The Radiants still defeat these "left behind" Fused who are less effective since not all of them are around. Late Desolations: In the late years, the Heralds are all insane except Taln and have basically become psychological casualties of war. They keep fighting out of obligation and habit, but in general are no longer fighting in a strategic way. They are just worried about self preservation, except Taln. The Fused are mostly insane as well at this point, consumed by bloodlust and rage. They've learned that their "stay behind" tactics are not effective. If all of them were sane, they could try a "mass stay behind" tactic where they all stop attacking to trigger the time limit on the Heralds, but too many are insane to make that tactic work. As time goes on, the Fused are more and more likely to just throw themselves into battle blindly at the first opportunity because they can't think strategically anymore. The ones who do think strategically have less and less ability to keep the others in check. The Fused continue their total war/genocidal war strategy. If you are Odium you are thinking things are going well. It's a war of attrition - the side of Honor is losing. The Radiants are holding strong, but the humans in general have been knocked back into the Stone Age and the Heralds are going insane. Your own Fused are also going insane and most are no longer capable of good military tactics, but this still works for you. If they just go out in massive wave attacks, they'll kill more and more humans. They die, go back to Braize, torture the Heralds for a few years, then come back and kill more humans a few years later. By the time of the last desolation, they've almost succeeded. We know from Taln, the humans were basically cavemen during the last Desolation. The insane, bloodlust filled Fused likely try to go for the throat and try a massive pitched battle where they think they will win it all. They know that even if they lose, they'll get another shot in a few years when the Heralds break again. Due to the luck of battle, only Taln dies. This results in the long pause between desolations, wrecking Odium's strategy and resetting everything. So, TL;DR - Desolation ending timer starts when the Fused stop attacking Humans. Most Fused are too insane and filled with bloodlust by the time they realize this to make effective use of the strategy and the Knights Radiant are strong enough to defeat the ones that do with the help of the Heralds. Odium's plan is to win a war of attrition by grinding humans down and he almost succeeds. The plan only fails due to none of the weak Heralds being sent back to Braize the last time. If other Heralds had gone back, one of them would have broken within a few years and kept the cycle going until the humans were destroyed. Even the Knights Radiant would have been ground to dust if they had no support from the general population.

I think you answered your question yourself in your post. He was a bad king. Like you said, it's possible that if Gavilar had lived longer he may have been able to establish a strong government and bureaucracy that would have been able to compensate for his son's weaknesses. But, that doesn't mean he would have been a good king if those things had happened. It just means others would have covered for his failures. It's sort of like what might have happened if Augustus Caesar had died young - Rome would have been a much different place. It may have torn itself apart.

When Sanderson set up that chart for OB, he specifically tracked the appearances of 7 characters. Those are the 7 characters he felt were important enough to track individually. He also had POVs from several characters that were not tracked individually. I don't think it's logically valid to assume that "Novelette 1" should be treated equally with "Tertiary Character 1." If it were, we would also have to treat the entry "Book 1" to be equivalent. Sanderson often talks about how he plots the SA novels as a series of three books, plus additional novelettes and short stories woven within. In his outline, it seems clear to me that he was seeking to demonstrate how that structure lined up with how he wrote OB. But, I think at this point I'm not going to convince you, you're not going to convince me, and I think we can both agree it doesn't really matter that much. I think we can agree there are at least some characters that will have POVs in the books that are not specifically mentioned. I'm not saying you need to add this to your chart or anything like that. I'm just saying, it's reasonable to expect his outline and list of 9/10 characters for RoW is not precise. I personally think that Adolin is plotted differently than other major characters. In general, Adolin has never had a major plot of his own - he doesn't try to make things happen based on his own goals or ambitions. He helps the other characters in their work. This doesn't mean anything negative about him as a character, it's just how things are. Because of that, I think he's plotted differently than the others. His POVs are inserted where they can help Sanderson tell the story better. The characters listed individually in his outlines are listed there because they have plots of their own that he needs to track and interweave. Adolin may not be tracked, because he is a supporting character without his own plot. This makes sense if you look at the OB chart, imo. But, I can appreciate where you're coming from and I don't want to derail the thread any further with my own pet theories.

Sure - I didn't notice the second part of the line about Szeth and Eshonai, so I'll give you that one. He did say they would be counted as Tertiary Characters for the purpose of his chart. I don't want to get into too much more discussion of the OB outline. The point I'm making is that he lists 5 named Tertiary characters, plus he says there is more than one character he won't name due to spoilers in terms of how he filled out the chart. Only 4 tertiary characters appear in the chart. This means that he has not directly said in the WoB exactly who the 4 "Tertiary Characters" were, he's said it's 4 out of these 5+ possible characters. Outside the top 3 and flashback, the following characters had at least 5k words written from their perspective in order from most to least: Adolin, Venli, Szeth, Moash, Navani, Rock, Jasnah, Taravangian. So let's just assume for a minute that word count by character is what qualifies to be listed in Sanderson's chart and plot things out: Oathbringer: Primary Main: Dalinar (~140k with flashbacks) Secondary Main: Shallan (~105k) Secondary Main: Kaladin (~75k) TC1: Adolin (~21k) TC2: Venli (~14k) TC3: Szeth (~13k) TC4: Moash (~12k) Not listed: Navani (~9k), Rock (~8k), Jasnah (~7k), Taravangian (~6k) Future Flashback Characters Not Listed, but Had Smaller POVs: Renarin (3k), Shalash (1k) This means that 4 characters with significant screen time, some of which are confirmed "tertiary characters", did not appear in Sanderson's outline for Oathbringer. Two additional characters who would also likely fall into the "Tertiary" category because they are future flashback characters also appeared in the book, but not the outline. If you want to say we should only put the named "Tertiary" characters in the Tertiary slots, then you have two characters (or 3 if you don't count Venli) that don't appear on the outline as individual line items with significantly more screen time than two who do. This is solid proof that his outline from Oathbringer did not identify the number of characters that would get significant POV time in the book. Apply this to Rhythm of War: Group 1 is listed at 5 characters and groups 2 and 3 are listed as 2 each. I'm saying that it's likely that a character from the "Tertiary" list will appear in the book with a significant page count, but will not be one of the official 9 characters from Sanderson's Rhythm of War outline. Based on the Oathbringer outline, I feel like it makes sense to say that Adolin, while playing a very significant role in the book, was not one of the characters listed individually on the outline. But even if I'm wrong about Adolin in Oathbringer, the point in general stands - there will be more than 9 characters with significant POVs in the book.

Yeah, I saw it and read it before you posted it as well. There are inconsistencies within that quote. It doesn't really dispute my arguments. It actually reinforces what I'm saying - he doesn't always mean the exact same thing when he says "tertiary character". When he says it generally, it seems to be referring to the entire Stormlight Archive series. When it appears in an outline chart, it is relative to the specific story being told in that book. He lists at least 5 characters (3 named characters, plus "a few" he says he can't name) as the "actual tertiary characters", while there are only 4 Tertiary Character slots in his chart. This means that his statement you have quoted was not a 1 to 1 exact representation of how he created his chart. My guess is that he views several characters as "tertiary characters" for the series overall, but he felt that only 4 characters were important enough to the story of Oathbringer to have their own line item in his outline for that particular book. He creates a category of "important characters" for Szeth and Eshonai but no characters with that designation appear in his outline for Oathbringer. Szeth is clearly one of the "Tertiary Characters" from the outline based on his appearances in OB, but is intentionally excluded from his "Actual Tertiary Characters" list. Finally, Adolin, who is named as an "Actual Tertiary Character", does not have his appearances line up closely at all with the outline for any "Tertiary Character". And to relate this back to the RoW outline which was my purpose to begin with - it's clear that even though he listed 7 characters in the OB outline there were 15 who had more than one POV and 12 with at least 5 POVs, 11 with at least 5k words written from their POV. He's listed 9 characters in the RoW outline, but there could be 3-4 more characters with a significant number of POVs even though they don't appear on his list for RoW. We know that there were "tertiary characters" who appeared and had multiple POVs in OB but did not get dedicated slots on the chart. This means Adolin, or others could appear with multiple POVs but not be counted in the 9 characters of the three groups. *edit* Also saw you were referencing the anonymous WoB. I don't feel overly skeptical toward it, it seems likely to be true. But, I don't think it disputes what I'm saying - that Adolin could have multiple POVs without being accounted for in the 3 groups.

I don't think you're reading the charts correctly, or maybe you're referencing a different one. In the Reddit Update #5, the most up to date one is the one with the hyperlinked text "more like this". I cross referenced that with the OB analysis and don't agree that Adolin or Jasnah fit any of the Tertiary Character slots. Tertiary Character 1: Appears in Parts 4 and 5 Tertiary Character 2: Appears in Part 2 Only Tertiary Character 3: Appears in Parts 4 and 5 Tertiary Character 4: Appears in Parts 4 and 5 Adolin: Appears in all Parts, not close to aligning with any Tertiary Character and is not Primary or Secondary Jasnah: Appears in Parts 2 and 5, not aligning with any Tertiary Character. You could possibly consider her "Tertiary Character 2", but it makes no sense since she has so few POVs in Part 2 relative to Moash. Most of her POVs are in Part 5, while TC2 should have most of its POVs in Part 2 with possible small appearances in other Parts. Moash: Appears in Part 2 with 2 short POVs in Part 5 and has the most POVs of any character in Part 2 other than Dalinar/Kaladin/Shallan by a significant margin. Logically, should be the Tertiary Character in Part 2. Navani and Szeth we agree on, both appear in Parts 4 and 5 only. Venli: Appears in Parts 4 and 5 Only plus interludes, mostly aligning with a Tertiary Character slot. Short Stories and Novelettes - Those are not tied to specific character POVs. They are just the writing structure he used. Just like I don't consider "Book One" a character grouping, it's still listed with a bar. The short stories are mostly completely side stories only tangentially related to the main plot. The novelettes I could see 1 being Venli's story and the other being either Bridge 4 or Moash's story. But, being part of a novelette doesn't preclude a character from being a "Tertiary Character" at least as I see it. I could see a possible argument for Adolin over Venli, since his most significant parts of the story are in Parts 4 and 5 and most of Venli's POVs are in interludes, but I don't see any case for Jasnah as one of the "Tertiary Characters" from the outline. Either way, it seems like Adolin's appearances are an oddity. He gets a lot of unscheduled appearances in OB, regardless of whether you think he's Tertiary Character 1/3/4 who should appear only in part 4 with a small part in part 5 or you think he's totally outside the structure like I do. So I think we should assume that his appearances, like they did in OB, will not align with Sanderson's outline.

Something has been in the back of my mind for a while on Adolin's involvement and I think I've finally been able to put it on a little more solid ground. If you look back at the equivalent outline for OB and cross reference it to who appears in what sections in the final book, Adolin doesn't seem to have been counted on the list of primary, secondary, or tertiary characters (Primary - Dalinar, Secondary - Kaladin, Shallan, Tertiary - Moash, Navani, Venli, Szeth). https://wob.coppermind.net/events/182-stormlight-three-update-5/. Obviously, Sanderson's mind can change about who counts as a character worthy of "counting" in the list of POVs. But in OB, he lists 7 POV characters in his outline when the total actual characters with more than one POV was 15. In every book, Adolin has had 4th place in POVs but is also not counted at least for OB as being even a tertiary character. It seems like Sanderson has his own system of who is considered an important POV not necessary based on number of POV sections in a book or word count from each character's view. So, I think it's possible and probably even likely that Adolin is not being counted in Sanderson's chart for RoW. I think it's also likely that he has more POVs than several of the characters who are counted in the chart.

Well, I can respect what you're saying for sure. I just think your terminology is a little bit inconsistent with what you're saying. I get your point - that a person can be "good" without being 100% good. I mean, in casual terms that's how I think of things too. Generally I think of someone who wants to do what's right and makes an effort as a good person. But in terms of discussions about morality and moral systems, I try to be more precise with wording and meaning (not that I always succeed). If we talk about a black and white morality system, it means that any action or any person can only be good or evil. There is no scale. Hold the door for an elderly lady at the grocery store - 1.0 score, sacrifice your life to save your friend, 1.0 score. Tell a lie to get yourself off work, 0.0 score, commit a mass shooting, 0.0 score. You're a 1 or a 0, good or evil. You can't be more good or less good because there is only good and evil, pure black and pure white. That is a black and white morality system. I agree with you that people should generally be held more or less responsible or be considered more or less good or evil based on their knowledge and capabilities. But that is a moral relativist belief. For example, a young child or a mentally handicapped person might not understand what it means for a person to own something. So, I would consider that person "less" evil if they were to steal from someone, because they didn't understand what they were doing. But if there is a more and a less evil, then there are shades of grey. I think where our views differ is that you believe there are shades of grey with a dividing line in between, that says to the left of this line is white and to the right is black. In my view, the better way to look at it is to say "This is a light gray" or "This is a dark gray" or "This is pure black." Anyway, just my two cents here.

I don't define murder as the shedding of innocent blood. I go by the legal definition, since murder is a legal term at least in my view. Basically, killing someone by choice when you do not have the legal right to do so for reasons like self defense, as an executioner, or as a legal combatant during war. I understand what you're saying regarding a person being good or bad. But I'm also pointing out that what is good and what is bad is difficult to determine at a certain point. Certain things and certain people we can say are good or evil with a pretty high level of confidence. But others are not so clear. For example, I have a family member on my wife's side who was known by his community and church as a great man. He was always kind to even the lowest people in society and donated his time and money to help those in need, so much so that he lived a life of near poverty himself. I went to his funeral a few years ago and was shocked that my wife's family had mixed feelings about him and some even refused to attend his funeral. That's when I learned that he also treated his wife badly. He wasn't physically abusive, but he was mean and borderline emotionally abusive. He gave away their money without talking to his wife such that they could barely make ends meet and invited dangerous people who were known criminals into their home who took advantage of them. Was he good or evil? I say neither. He did too much good to be called evil, but he did too much evil to be called good. I feel like if you call a person a "good person" at least in this context of absolute morality, then they have to be fully good. I'm not saying slavery was justified or right. What I am saying is that there were people who did sincerely believe that it was justified and right. There are a lot of things that were considered good and right historically that are considered gruesome crimes today. Morality changes over time. For thousands of years of human existence, slavery was considered to be justified. Only in the last few years have we decided it is wrong. Even though it seems absolutely wrong today, can we be sure than in another few hundred years slavery will become acceptable again? Aside from slavery, what about war? As recently as the early 1900's most people around the world believed that war did more good than harm overall. It was a common belief that war brought out all the best human qualities and that only by facing mortal danger could you truly become a full adult. Yet today, we view war as a necessary evil that is more often than not a waste of the lives of some of our best and brightest young people. Anyone today who wanted to go to war to conquer some territory and give our young soldiers a chance at fame and glory would be condemned. I get your point about there possibly being an absolute moral code that exists that may be beyond current human understanding. It's possible, but humans have been studying this for hundreds and even thousands of years and haven't come up with it yet. That doesn't mean it's not out there, but it makes me doubt it. I think Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative is the theory that comes closest, but even Kant himself did not feel he'd got it right. Unfortunately, doing objective good is not as simple as doing what a person feels is right. That is entirely subjective, based on societal and cultural expectations along with a person's own DNA and unique personality. I've known too many decent people who had views that were too different to believe otherwise. Think about today's hot topics that all hinge on moral values: COVID-19 Response, Capitalism/Communism/Socialism, Worker's Rights, Civil Rights of Various Types, etc. If there were an absolute moral code, the answer to these questions would be easy. But there isn't one, or at least like you said there isn't one people know.

And yet - if Moash were the ultimate pure evil you seem to be suggesting here why would he spare the life of Elhokar's son? It would have been easier to just run them both through, but he intentionally spared the child. Moash is a grey character - he's done bad things, but for understandable and even sometimes noble reasons. Murder has a specific meaning, not tied to moral context. You can equally murder an innocent child and an evil dictator. I personally would not define myself as "good" or "evil." I wouldn't call myself evil - I've got a clean criminal record, generally try to be a nice person, etc. It'd be a pretty big stretch to call myself evil. But if my only other option is "good" - that doesn't seem right either. It feels like presenting this choice where you are either Ghandi or Hitler. I don't think I'm morally close to either of those two. I've done things that are both good and bad in my life, like pretty much everyone else. I personally think that to call a person "good" or "evil" is not the right way to look at things in most cases. The individual actions are good or evil but the person as a whole contains both good and evil. Only a few people could be truly called good, and only a few could be truly called evil. The answer to this question is fairly simple - perception is reality. Most people from most value systems believe Hitler was evil, therefore he is. The same is true for stealing - most people believe stealing is wrong, therefore it is. If most people believed stealing wasn't wrong (and there are historical real world societies where this was true), then it wouldn't be wrong. The issue with an absolute moral system is that it requires a set of absolute moral values. For example - doing A, B, C is always good while doing X, Y, Z is always evil. No one has ever been able to develop an absolute moral system that can be objectively proven to be correct. You and I would say that cannibalism is morally wrong, but a hundred years ago certain Polynesian tribes would have argued that it was not only necessary but actively morally good. That eating parts of an enemy's body was honoring and respecting them and that it's morally wrong to refuse to eat these body parts. Which is right? That's not even getting into differing religious views and the associated conflicting moral systems, or other deeply rooted moral values held by different societies and cultures. I think that morality is something that is personal to everyone. We can all agree on certain things like murder is bad, stealing is bad, etc but certain things will be decided by each person's own moral code whether that is self developed or based in religion.

I really like Karger's idea as a cool possible plot, but I think as we know it's not guaranteed to happen. A lot of the conversation in this thread has been about the idea of a mission to try to convince spren to bond with humans again. While that definitely could happen, there's no guarantee it will. I do agree with Pathfinder that just because Adolin and Shallan are shown in Shadesmar doesn't mean their plot for the book is centered on the idea of going to Shadesmar. In other books the cover has been a cool, iconic scene that isn't too spoilery. If anything, I think this cover may indicate that the major plot for Adolin and Shallan is not a mission to Shadesmar just like WoK's cover was not an indication that Dalinar's major plot was to stare at people across chasms, etc. My suggestion is a little different: Shallan is trying to complete her mission from the Ghostbloods to recruit Sja-anat alongside her mission from the Radiants which will likely be to try to get Urithiru up and running again. This mission will take her to Shadesmar for a short time - maybe she thinks she can find or talk to Sja-anat or other spren there. Or maybe she thinks she can find clues there. She brings Adolin along because he'll be useful and he's her husband so she just wants him around. What she finds will be critical to the plot - but it's not shown on the cover. I think it's possible Adolin could be a POV character, or he might not. The other POV character could be Jasnah or someone else. I also think that it's not a huge stretch to assume that another Elsecaller has come to Urithiru and is with Shallan to help her go back and forth to Shadesmar - or Navani has invented a fabrial to let her do it by studying Jasnah. Or - crazy idea here - what if the other POV character with Shallan is actually Venli?? Seems super unlikely in some ways (which is why I'm calling it a crazy thought) but we know Venli will become a Willshaper and have the capability of the Transportation surge. What if Venli is assigned to get Sja-anat to come back fully to the side of Odium and she runs into Shallan during that mission early in the book? We've all assumed that it would be Kaladin who helps bring the Parsh over to the side of the Radiants because of his ties with them, but he has no ties specifically to Venli. Shallan with Venli would make total sense in a lot of ways - Shallan struggles with multiple identities and Venli also struggles with that in certain ways - she wants to be true to herself and her people, but doesn't agree with her people's choice to submit to Odium and the Fused. This would also explain why Venli's flashbacks wouldn't start until Part 3. Maybe she doesn't meet Shallan until then, or doesn't start cooperating until then.

Yeah, agreed. It's pretty likely that they are together and Group 2 would make sense. I would say it's not 100% certain but pretty likely. The other possibility being that Shallan is part of one of the other groups (or in Group 2 with someone else) and Adolin gets no POVs. I could see it being possible that Adolin's just sort of brought along by Shallan when she needs muscle, etc. The book cover doesn't necessarily reflect the major narrative of the story - for example WoR cover shows Szeth and Kaladin who have only one or two scenes together and Szeth's POVs are only in the interludes. But still the cover art always shows a key iconic scene from the book. So something cool is going to happen in Shadesmar with Shallan and Adolin. And all the finalist covers are awesome!

I still think you are misinterpreting the gem archive. If you read the excerpts that appear in the OB epigraphs, the gem archive seems to be a diary or journal of various radiants. It does not seem like it's a history book or rule book, etc. It almost looks like an (old style) blog - a diary written that is meant to be read by others or maybe like letters written for a time capsule that they know will be opened at some unknown day in the future. You interpret that quote to mean that the 4th Windrunner Oath literally means that the Windrunner should not want to protect everyone. This just does not make sense in context. https://coppermind.net/wiki/Oathbringer/Epigraphs#Urithiru_Gem_Archive Look at the other phrases recorded in the gems - they're all just personal thoughts and memories. That section about not wanting to protecting people seems a lot like the words a frustrated Windrunner would write down in his diary when he is experiencing the kinds of dilemmas that Kaladin is facing. In the quote, it even says he is told by his spren to record on the gem to help him come to terms with the 4th Oath. It's an emotional phrase - not a literal matter of fact statement.

I think that makes sense as a possible process for immortality but I'm not sure it makes sense in this case. I can't see Ash becoming a Herald at age 10. It seems like the way a person becomes a herald is by embodying some certain characteristic or trait. Also, the key aspects of the job of Herald are to fight in battle and teach people about things like medicine and blacksmithing. It's not really a job fit for a 10 year old. I think she has to be at least an older teen to become a herald. We also know that Taln loved her and only became a Herald because of that love, another reason to believe she wasn't 10 at the time. I think it would be more likely if somehow Jezrien became a Herald or some kind of proto-Herald and Ash only joined later than if she joined as a child. Personally, I think RJ has the most likely answer - the WoB is being taken too literally. Jezrien could have been in his 40s but looked like he was 30 at the time he became a Herald. So he looks the same way he looked when he was age 45, he now looks at age 4045 or whatever his age is. I could get behind her being an adopted daughter too.

Yeah, I think that's fair. I guess the thing I'm trying to point out here is there is a lot more gray to Moash than people like to talk about these days. The fact that we're even having this conversation says there's not a clear cut answer. He went over to the side of evil, but I think he still has some good in him. It may not come out except at the very end of his life like a Darth Vader, but I think it's there. You could argue Jezrien's maybe already had his punishment - thousands of years of insanity and guilt for what he did. @Raphaborn It's fair to say that as a whole Adolin has not done as many bad things as Moash. But, it's also fair to say that Adolin has not been in a position where he was forced to do bad things to survive the way Moash was. Part of the reason I judge Adolin more harshly is because he had better choices. Adolin had the option to trust his father and fight Sadeas honestly, but chose to murder Sadeas. Moash tried to use legal recourse against the king and it failed. He had the option to sit idly by while Elhokar's continued negligence and incompetence caused major harm to society or try to do something about it. He also chose murder which was still wrong, but he didn't really have a good choice available. We started this whole argument because someone said Moash is evil because he killed someone. If killing someone makes you evil, then Adolin is just as evil. You can't justify Adolin's unilateral decision to murder Sadeas. It was wrong. I think both Adolin and Moash are redeemable, but I also think people are WAY too harsh on Moash for what he's done relative to other characters who've committed major crimes for understandable reasons like Adolin and Venli. I'm not going to rehash the Moash/Kaladin fight scene. I think from the text it's clear that Moash did not want to kill Kaladin and tried everything he could think of to stop it from happening. Importantly, he never swung his shard blade at Kaladin. Also, in OB after killing Elhokar he could have easily killed Kaladin while Kaladin was having his mental breakdown, but he chose not to. I think this shows that twisted as it is, Moash still feels love and respect for Kaladin.

That's not totally accurate. In Chapter 87 Moash thinks to himself that he had tried to Kaladin while he is wallowing in his guilt over what he did, but his actions do not show that he attempted to kill Kaladin. I copied the relevant passage (Ch. 84 WoR). Moash punched Kaladin in the chest with the intent of disabling him so that he could spare Kaladin. He even says he did not intend to hit that hard - he's inexperienced with the plate so this is likely sincere. He repeatedly tries to spare Kaladin, but Kaladin keeps getting back up and trying to fight him. Graves tells him he has to do it, but he still hesitates. He draws his shardblade, but never makes an attack. Then, once Kaladin swears his third oath he runs. He doesn't want to kill Kaladin and never (intentionally) tries to strike a killing blow. I'll also point out that Kaladin attacks him first. If Kaladin hadn't sworn his third oath, we don't know if Moash would have been willing or able to actually kill him or not. I personally think not - he was extremely upset over what he'd done and clearly did not want to kill him.

I'm not totally sure what you're trying to say here. I think you're saying Adolin was justified to murder Sadeas because Sadeas was a bad person? I don't personally subscribe to your Ends Justify the Means morality here. Sadeas deserved death, but Adolin still murdered him in a dishonorable way. Elhokar and Jezrien also deserved death or severe punishment. Elhokar had allowed many people to die or be falsely imprisoned through negligence. Jezrien abandoned his oaths, leaving Taln to four thousand years of torture. He essentially committed treason against the entire human race. But, Moash doesn't get to use the excuse that they are guilty - he still killed them. You second part isn't very clear though. Is "the person" you're referencing Moash? Moash wasn't willing to kill his friend. He has not once tried to kill Kaladin. He's wanted to kill people that Kaladin wanted to protect, and he fought Kaladin in the failed assassination attempt but he's never tried to kill Kaladin himself. He intentionally spared Kaladin in that failed assassination attempt and didn't fight him in the battle where he does kill Elhokar. He's also not been motivated by his own position or status, he's been willing to throw that away the entire time. In fact, he did throw away his status by attempting to murder the king. I did forget this, but looking it up in my opinion it only reinforces my argument. Dalinar knew that Sadeas would even try assassination and was willing to take the risk. He would have challenged Sadeas through proper channels. Adolin already knew all this and already knew it was wrong to murder Sadeas. He chose to do it anyway.

That's not true. You're implying that this was a new or different threat from how Sadeas had already acted since WoK. Sadeas was always working to either kill Dalinar or remove him from political power and both Dalinar and Adolin knew this for a long time by the end of WoR. Sadeas did this more than once in the first two books - he worked to undermine him politically and put him in bad positions on the field of battle where he might die. That is fair game in the way the Alethi play power politics. The only thing that changed at the end of WoR was that Sadeas made the mistake of saying this directly to taunt Adolin when they were alone in Urithiru. Sadeas believed that Adolin was too honorable to murder him in cold blood, but he was wrong. Dalinar fully understood this and accepted the risk. Even after being betrayed more than once, Dalinar still hoped he could bring Sadeas around and was willing to match him strength for strength and defeat him fair and square. He also knew that Sadeas respected the Alethi customs enough to not have him assassinated. It was Adolin who decided, on his own, that Dalinar shouldn't take that risk anymore and made the choice to murder Sadeas.

I think being asked by a superior is equivalent to being ordered. Still, you're right that killing Jezrien would be (at best) a war crime. Moash isn't squeaky clean, but in terms of the two people he killed I personally see those killings as less morally wrong than Adolin's murder of Sadeas. Adolin killed a man who said he would remain a bitter political rival of his father. He had plenty of other options to deal with the threat. Sadeas was not going to murder Dalinar, he was going to work to cause him to lose political power, put him in risky battles, etc. Dalinar knew this and was prepared to deal with it. Adolin chose to murder Sadeas because he felt that was the easiest way to deal the the problem. Moash tried to do what he thought was the patriotic duty of removing his nation's incompetent leader. That attempted assassination was probably the most dishonorable thing he did. When that failed, he defected from his nation. He didn't sneak around about it, he didn't play a double agent. He simply changed sides after being continually let down and betrayed by the people who were supposed to be protecting him. A lesser crime than Adolin's murder, in my view. Moash is basically a tragic character and a foil for Kaladin. If he'd been stronger and better, he could have ended up like Kaladin. And conversely, if Kaladin had given in to despair he could have ended up like Moash. Part of why I see Adolin's actions as worse than Moash's actions is because Adolin had the power and resources to solve his problem with Sadeas another way. Moash never had the power or resources to choose his own path. He could choose to live with the injustice done against him and his family in a legal system that failed him or take an action. He was left with two bad choices and the tragic thing is that he chose the wrong one.

But neither Moash nor Adolin were authorized by law to carry out punishment. This was not justice, so it doesn't matter if Elhokar or Sadeas were guilty of a crime. In a court of law, you can't get your crime reduced from murder to manslaughter by proving that your victim was guilty of an unrelated crime. If anything, Adolin's killing of Sadeas was more murder than Moash's killing of Elhokar. Moash acted more honorably than Adolin, despite not even being on the side of Honor. Adolin killed Sadeas in cold blood and without giving him a chance to defend himself or even letting Sadeas know he was going to try anything violent. He also did it on his own - he was not ordered to do it and in fact Dalinar did not approve of his actions. That's murder in my opinion, even if Sadeas was deserving of death it is still murder to kill him in cold blood and outside the legal system. In Moash's case there were significant differences. First, when he killed Elhokar he faced him head on and did it openly. Elhokar at least had a chance to fight or run away and he had Kaladin around to defend him. They were also on opposite sides in a war. This makes his killing of Elhokar more like a battle than a murder. Also, he was ordered to kill both Elhokar and Jezrien making it less his own personal decision. What Moash did was a lot more like manslaughter or maybe some type of war crime.

The Parshendi spies thing wouldn't require any extra knowledge. When humans first saw the Parshendi, they named them "Parshendi" because they looked like the Parshmen. Navani as a Herald is an interesting theory and if it's fun for you keep it for sure. But there's very low chance of it being true, especially with a preview passages released from the RoW Prologue which is in Navani's POV. I don't think Navani is hiding anything. It's just that because she's a secondary character we as readers don't know as much about her past as the characters do and it doesn't come up because it's not relevant to the story. Spoiler below for the summary of the RoW preview reading.

Yeah, this section is from Kaladin's POV. It's pretty much certain that this is Kaladin commenting on the King's vanity - that he had instructed the artists to make his nose look smaller in his portraits. I don't think it evokes Pinocchio at all - it's just referencing that having a large nose is considered less beautiful than having a small or "normal" nose. Kaladin hates the lighteyes and the king most of all as puffed up idiots who use their power to make themselves look good and noble but are actually rotten on the inside.

Interesting thought I had based on the idea that Ishar does not have an associated Unmade: Do we know for sure that the Unmade were created by Odium? Could it be that the Unmade were actually created by Ishar, explaining why he alone of all the Heralds does not have an associated Unmade? This is all total speculation of course. Imagine that prior to becoming Heralds, the 10 chosen candidates were told that they were impure and had bad aspects to their personalities that prevented them from becoming Heralds. Ishar, being the spiritual leader of the Heralds, determines that he can develop a way to remove the impurities. He separates the "bad" parts of the personalities from the other 9 heralds and they become their own spiritual entities. He can only remove so much from himself, maybe slicing away small pieces and adding them in to the others. He is also probably considered the most pure, as the spiritual leader. This works, but has serious side effects and results in all the Heralds having holes in their psyches, making them susceptible to the kind of madness they later get, but the 9 all think that Ishar is the most sane of them due to having less damage to his psyche. The Unmade started as independent spiritual beings with the impure or unworthy traits of the Heralds and were eventually found and brought under Odium's control. This theory wouldn't necessarily explain the power of the Unmade. I'm sure the Heralds, before becoming Heralds, were powerful in their own right but probably not on the scale of the Unmade. Anyway, just an interesting thought that came to mind based around Ishar not having an associated Unmade.

True the Old Magic is significantly different from the High Storms, but that's kind of the point, right? Each is powerful in its own way. You can't do what the highstorms do with the Old Magic, but you also can't do what the Old Magic does with the magic system based around the investiture provided by the High Storms. I understand that the Stormfather is not the direct source of surgebinding - he didn't create it. Instead, he's in charge of supplying the power used for it. So maybe I should have said he is the power source for surgebinding rather than the source. I'm open to your ideas as to why the Sibling can't be what I think it is. No guarantees I'll agree though, haha. Appreciate the work you've put in on this stuff even if it's all a little too tentative for me. I don't think there has to be an intentional conspiracy to hide information for the in world charts of the Radiants to be inaccurate. During the time of the books, it had been approximately 2000 years since the Recreance. The quote below is referencing the in world book "Words of Radiance", which specifically says that no one even within 200 years of the Recreance had actual solid information of the orders and their properties. How could people in the time of the books have any real knowledge? Even that order that (Sigzil??)'s parents belonged to which considered themselves descendants of the Radiants didn't really know much. It's all extrapolation from their knowledge of soulcasting and basically anthropology and archaeological research. That's Sanderson's point - not that there is hidden knowledge to be revealed over time, it's just been a long time in world and there's a gap in historical record. It seems like the Radiants kept their own records in the gem library of Urithiru. Once the Radiants were gone, no one could read their history so it was lost. So the in world information is all educated guesses. Some of it might be right, some might be actually wrong (i.e. theoretically ), some might just be red herrings (i.e. some of those lines of connection might be theories by in world scholars when it turns out there is no actual connection that exists).

I think you're reading a bit too much into Jasnah. While I haven't listened to the livestream you're referencing, nothing you've said would preclude Jasnah from being in Group 2. Saying there are a "couple of Jasnah viewpoints" is a very vague statement. Group 2 being very involved is also very vague. To me, it implies the Group 2 people are doing something very complex and self contained, not that both characters have large numbers of POV chapters. If Group 2 is Jasnah and Shallan, then it could be that Shallan has 80% of the POVs and Jasnah, while still in most Shallan POVs, has only 20% of the Group 2 POVs. That would be similar to how those two have been written up to this point. The WoB [27] does says to expect a moderate amount of Szeth, Eshonai, Adolin, Jasnah, and Navani. That said, up to this point Jasnah and Navani have had very few POVs relative to the other "moderate" characters (if you count Venli/Eshonai together). Other characters who are not on the list at all have had more POVs. That could mean they will play catch up in RoW and/or SA5 (which seems to make sense for Navani at least). Or, it could mean that the "amounts" Sanderson is talking about is more like on screen time and story importance rather than just POVs. The more I think about all this, the more I just think there is only so much we can actually gather from the hints and clues that have been given. Everything's just so vague and could be interpreted so many different ways. I feel like we can lock in one or two characters, but the rest I think are too hard to really call meaningfully. Here's my suggestion that could possibly make your first post more easily digested - In your list of possible characters for each group, use your WOB reference numbers that you reference to come to each decision. It's really tough to understand certain items that are there without diving pretty deep into the discussion. For example you have only Kaladin, Shallan, and Adolin as possible candidates for Group 2 which seems a little restrictive.