agrabes

I think it's a real stretch to apply the term "racist" to the clash between Lighteyes and Darkeyes. Classist fits much better. Just like real world nobility was hereditary, so is being a lighteyes. Because nobility was hereditary and in most western European societies was passed from father to son for hundreds of years with marriages mostly only between nobility, there were probably enough genetic differences between the nobility and the regular people that you could probably even say that the nobility was a different race, or a different subset of a race. But no one does, because the relevant distinction is the power and wealth held by the nobles. The interaction between lighteyes and darkeyes is more like an interaction between the nobility and the commoners than between two racial groups. It's explicitly set up as a caste system, which could be (depending on your views) two 10-rank caste systems, or one 20-rank caste system. In my opinion, Kaladin is classist, but not racist. He is prejudiced against people based on their power and wealth, but not based on their race. If he had a prejudice against (for example) the Shin, that would make him a racist. Another point that we need to remember when considering the world of a fantasy novel - the Parshmen of tWoK are not a different race, they are a different species. Unlike the differences in various races of humans, between different species there are actual significant and measurable scientific differences in biological capability. Especially in terms of the "Parshmen" who were caused by magic to be mentally disabled for more than a thousand years. The Alethi of "modern" times did not know or understand that this was because of human magic. Based on real, unbiased scientific observation they held a reasonable conclusion at the time that the Parshmen were not an intelligent species. Every "Parshman" had the intelligence of a well trained animal and they were treated as such. They did not have the capability of becoming a fully sentient/sapient being from training or education. There is no equivalent situation to this in the real world. It wouldn't be accurate to call a bias against the Parshmen or Parshendi as "racism" because the Parsh/Singers/Listeners are not a race of humans. The best word for that kind of bias is xenophobia as I understand it.

I think what you're saying right now makes sense. I may have been misinterpreting you earlier. What I was questioning wasn't that Kaladin could become a leader of leaders, I'm questioning that Kaladin's properties as a Windrunner are any reason to suspect he would become a High King. I don't believe that being a Windrunner is a sign that you are going to be a good political leader. That said you do have a point that Jezrien was the herald of the Windrunner order and also called the "Herald of Kings" so it may be right to say he would become a king. I was also questioning the nature of the divine attributes, but I think that was the part that was a misunderstanding. What I was getting at earlier, and I think what Karger was getting at, is that I don't believe the Divine Attributes are firm/inflexible criteria. I believe that people who only marginally meet the criteria, or meet them in an unusual way can become radiants. I also believe that just by possessing those attributes does not automatically mean you will become a radiant of that order. I also do think that different Rosharan cultures will disagree on what it means to possess those qualities, so someone an Alethi would consider a good candidate for a Windrunner might be different than what an Azish would consider a good candidate. I think that while the spren do search for qualities, it's also relative to the culture and even the individual. I.e. if a person sincerely feels they are doing an honorable action, then even if most other people would consider it dishonorable, the spren would consider it honorable. This has been shown several times in the series - Szeth's unlawful assassinations still accepted by High Spren (but hated by most of the Skybreakers) because he felt he was duty bound to do them, Syl told Kaladin that him killing Elhokar would be wrong because he thought it was wrong, etc. That's what I meant by saying they aren't "magical" - probably a bad choice or words when describing something that is literally magic. Anyway, we don't need to drag this out, thanks for the good discussion!

Kaladin Opens Wal-Mart In the style of Steven King and several other authors, Brandon Sanderson finally runs out of ideas and has his characters cross over into the real world to meet a fictional version of himself. The character "Brandon Sanderson" meets Kaladin and they decide to open up a new Wal-Mart in an unreached corner of rural Utah. This results in the 10 year gap as Brandon and Kaladin are busy minding their store and working their way up the corporate ladder of the Wal-Mart corporation.

I'm with you on Kaladin's flashbacks. Love the character, bored by the flashbacks after the initial read. For whatever reason, I like Shallan's better. I expect I'll skip most of Dalinar's flashbacks when I reread OB this summer. I know a lot of people loved those, but they never had that emotional punch for me. If you know real world stories of war, what Dalinar did is pretty tame. I mean, the Mongols were famous for systematically killing every living person by hand in the cities they conquered. Each soldier would be assigned a certain number of people to kill and had to prove they'd done it. Then, they would leave a small party behind for a few days to kill anyone who escaped and then came back when they thought it was safe, just to make sure they thoroughly destroyed the city. Dalinar's crimes are nothing compared to that. So summary for me: Main Timeline: Read all Flashbacks: Skim/Skip Kaladin and Dalinar, Read Shallan Interludes: Selectively skim/skip if too unrelated to main story or not interesting. Depends how I'm feeling at the time if I read them or not.

I think where we get apart is that you seem to be implying two things that I don't think are correct: 1) A radiant must be a perfect (or very high quality) embodiment of the divine attributes in order to stay a radiant and be able to use surge binding, and 2) The divine attribute of a radiant must be that character's greatest strength or primary character trait in order for them to be a radiant of that order. Both implications have the same response. The radiant must have that trait to some extent, but it's not been shown that they must be very strong in that trait. The spren do search for people with the qualities described in the divine attributes. For example, Honor spren search for people who have the trait of Leadership capability. However, I don't believe that it is a requirement that that trait be the defining characteristic of the radiant, or even their greatest strength. The easy example is Lopen. He does have some leadership capability or he couldn't have been selected as a Windrunner, but I don't think that anyone would say that leadership is Lopen's greatest strength. That seems to be cheering people up, caring for people, supporting people emotionally based lessons learned in his own life experiences, etc. Lopen, imo, would be a more natural fit as an Edgedancer. So it seems silly to say that just because he was selected as a Windrunner he is a high quality example of leadership. I don't believe that you can only be selected as a Windrunner if you are an amazing leader (or protector). I guess this is all a point to say that just because Kaladin is a Windrunner and has the divine attribute of "Leadership" does not mean that he is suited to be "High King" over humans and Parsh. He might be the one that could be trusted by both sides (possibly) but I still don't think he would be the best candidate. I don't know that there would be a High King selected over Humans and Parsh together, but if there is one I think it will be either a Bondsmith (not necessarily Dalinar) or a non-Radiant and non-Alethi.

Well, only for the Skybreakers and even them not definitively. I'm just building from what Szeth learns in OB about 5th Order Skybreakers. The impression I got was that it's very rare for Skybreakers at least to attain the 5th Order. There has to be some reason for that. It could be this is only a problem with the modern day Skybreakers. But I'm going to assume that since it's the only data we have right now that it is true for all orders in all times. Logically if it's very rare for radiants to reach the 5th Order, then there's probably a reason why. The most likely reason might be that it's just hard to do and takes more dedication than most people want to give. But, since we're just guessing on this for the most part anyway, I think a cool idea would be that the gate to become a 5th Ideal radiant is to be someone with an exceptional understanding and contribution to the moral/philosophical thought behind each order. That would give you the qualification to say something like "I am the Law" and like in real life in most times there are only one or two great thinkers in a given topic per generation. I can't imagine there being a dozen people running around who all say things like "I am the Law". Then again, it's all speculation so who knows.

Right, in terms of Syl's death. But it wasn't like Syl went from 100% normal to 100% dead when Kaladin made that choice. She slowly lost connection with Kaladin over time as he continued to make bad choices, with noticeable dips when he did specific things that were against his oaths. But, really there's probably no "official" answer on this. That's just the way I saw it when I read it. I think "perfect understanding" is an imperfect term. What I meant by it is not "perfect" in the strict sense of the word - knowing and understanding all possible information that ever existed or ever will exist in the future. I meant knowing everything there is to know at the current time and possessing the ability to adapt and change based on new information. But I do see your point. Another formation of the idea would be something more like becoming a thought leader in the topic, maybe even introducing an important new idea or something. For example, if you became the Immanuel Kant of Windrunner Ideals, then you can reach the 5th Ideal. Kant wasn't infallible and didn't have perfect knowledge, but he was the head of his branch of moral philosophy. If you were to challenge his ideas of how to derive morality, even if you brought a new question to him that he had never heard before, he is still the foremost expert on the topic. This would explain why there can only be one or two 5th Ideal radiants per order in a generation.

For the moments of weakness thing - I don't think we have enough information to really say for sure (and I'm also not sure if it's important even if we did) but I generally disagree with what you're saying. Look at how Kaladin caused Syl's "death" in WoR. Each time he had a moment of weakness in not living up to his 2nd Ideal, she was affected until eventually the bond totally broke. One moment of weakness, by itself, causes an impact to the bond but it is recoverable. I think if he was violating his 3rd Oath in OB, we would have seen a temporary impact on Syl. I don't think there's an accompanying principle to the 5th Ideal - in the sense that you don't have to adopt a certain moral rule or value to be able to attain the 5th Ideal. I think it's a level of understanding and "enlightenment" that allows you to reach the 5th Ideal. I believe the core concept behind reaching all the ideals is increasing your understanding of morality and philosophy about how you should live your life. 1st Ideal - Understand that the ends don't justify the means and that even if life has you down you should try your best to enjoy the good with the bad. 2nd Ideal - Learn that there is a certain kind of moral activity that motivates you personally. (Windrunners - protection, Bondsmiths - political unification, Skybreakers - rule of law, etc) 3rd Ideal - Further refine your understanding of what your motivating moral theory is and commit to following it even when it's hard for you personally. 4th Ideal - Learn how to apply your moral values when they conflict themselves, greatly increasing your understanding of how to implement your moral values. 5th Ideal - Acknowledge that you now have a perfect understanding of your personal moral theory and that you no longer need external rules to tell you how to live morally. I think the reason you don't just immediately swear the 4th and 5th back to back is because it really does require a complete knowledge and understanding. I think there are hints in the books that you can swear Ideals that you aren't really ready for and that it can have serious negative consequences. I think Shallan's latest Truth in WoR followed by her downward spiral in OB is an example of this. The old Radiants would have known this. There are also definite hints in the books that the old Radiants generally knew what all the ideals were and even Kaladin seems to imply he knows what his 4th Oath should be, but they know that they can't actually live up to those oaths yet. It's not just a matter of academic knowledge of the oaths, it's a willingness and ability to fully incorporate them into your way of life. I think with the 5th Oath, for most Radiants they also get a little bit of "impostor syndrome" - that even though they may have a very strong understanding of their order and their moral system they don't feel they deserve to be a 5th Ideal Radiant. They may also not feel they're up to the task of representing a perfect example of a knight of their order. I don't think there can be a moral principal behind a statement like "I am the Law" in the context that we know it can be interpreted in vastly different ways. It would be one thing if we knew that "I am the Law" always meant nearly the same thing - then you could say that it must be based on some kind of objective moral theory. But it's really (imo) a situation where art imitates life. Sanderson is drawing from real philosophy and real world attitudes to come up with these ideals. I think his attitude to all this is that he doesn't want to say that one type of real world philosophical thought is right and another is wrong. He's not going to incorporate something into his books, for example, that indicates that Thomas Hobbes' theory of Natural Law is the correct way of establishing law. There are a lot of sincerely held beliefs about the best systems of justice or any kind of morality that are vastly different and I think we'll see this reflected in the books.

Ha, no copyrights claimed here. I'm sure anything I've said on this board has already been said by someone else at some point! Maybe we're thinking of different scenes on the Moash/Elhokar scene. I'm talking about the scene where Moash kills Elhokar. Kaladin thinks he should save Elhokar, but to save him he would have to kill his friends in Moash and the parsh, people he has also sworn to protect. So, as a 3rd Ideal Windrunner he can't decide who to protect because he equally feels he must protect both. And my point in the previous post was that this conflicted situation was expected and not a violation of his oaths up to that point. I do agree that my concept of the 5th Ideal is dangerous. But, I think it's already been shown the 5th Ideal is dangerous. There is a WoB out there that a 5th Ideal Skybreaker would be equally fulfilling his Oath of "I am the Law" to take the "I am the pure embodiment of Justice" good cop route and the "Judge Dred, what I say goes!" bad cop route. The evidence is there with Nale and what he's been doing, though you could argue he's somewhere in between those two extremes. He's still a 5th Order Skybreaker. I have to imagine that the other Orders would have a similar possibility.

I think you are onto something with the 3rd and 4th ideals, if they really are all following the same form. The 3rd Ideal seems to be about a recognition that wrong and right don't necessarily follow popular opinion or "common sense." The Windrunners 3rd oath seems to be about protecting people even if everyone else thinks they shouldn't be protected. The Edgedancers 3rd Oath is about listening to people that everyone thinks should be ignored. The Bondsmith is about having faith in yourself and sticking to your convictions even if society says you are wrong or leading people down the wrong path. The Skybreaker oath is about recognizing that there are many different sets of societal expectations about justice and the law and that you can't please everyone so you have to pick one set of laws to follow. Ideals 1-3 are about learning and adopting basic moral truths that are widely accepted. For the fourth ideal, I think it's about learning to interpret and apply existing moral codes for yourself. So, for the Skybreakers - they choose to undertake a "Crusade" to act out the moral or legal code they chose in the 3rd Ideal. For the Windrunners, it's about understanding how and when to protect and what makes it "right" to protect one person over another. We know that Kaladin was not in violation of his 3rd Oath when he couldn't choose between saving Moash or Elhokar, because there was no harm done to his bond with Syl. He did what was expected of someone who's only reached the 3rd Ideal in that situation. But we also have to assume the 4th Ideal would show him how to resolve the situation. For the Edgedancers, it's probably something like knowing which set of downtrodden people to help when helping one means hurting the other. For the Bondsmiths I think it has to be something like "I will learn that I cannot accept everyone as part of the union." The idea being that the first 3 Ideals teach them to unite and lead others and the 4th teaches them that they have to know that sometimes people will oppose unity no matter what and how to recognize that those people cannot be part of your organization. The 5th Ideal, I think personally is about gaining a moral understanding/enlightenment so great that you no longer have to follow "rules." The Skybreakers "I am the Law" if you interpret it in the positive way means that the 5th Ideal Skybreaker has such a firm grasp on the law and justice that they know all their actions are lawful. They no longer have to interpret and rationalize their actions using existing moral rules. To make a decision, a 4th Ideal Skybreaker might think "In Country A, X is legal but in Country B it's illegal. In Country C it's legal in Y situations but not in Z situations, so if I apply the logic of Country C's laws in countries A and B I can decide what I should do to respond to someone who does X in those countries." The 5th Ideal Skybreaker would think "I think that X should be legal in Y situations and illegal in Z situations and I'll act accordingly." The Windrunner equivalent would be something like "I am a Protector." No longer do you have to think in terms of a moral code about what is right and wrong and who to protect when, you just instinctively know. Who knows though, this stuff is just fun to think about.

I think it's tied to something to due with Dynastic succession. Navani is probably the last descendant of the main branch of a dynasty of one of the High Princedoms. Maybe she is the last of the Sunmaker's main line - the first sons of first sons line. Gavilar probably married her for the boost of legitimacy of his rule which he got mainly by conquest. This is sort of like the Bourbon Dynasty of France in its final days. Louis XVI and his son Louis XVII were killed during the French Revolution. Afterwards the revolution and the brief period of the Empire under Napoleon, Louis XVI's brother Charles was returned to the throne as Charles X. Eventually, Charles X was forced out of power and the main line of the Bourbons was ended. Louis-Philippe, who was head of the Orleans cadet branch of the Bourbon dynasty, became King. He was the great great grandson of Louis XIV's daughter. So, in this case Navani would be like Charles X's daughter. She has royal blood from a long running dynasty that is dying and out of power. Gavilar would be someone like Napoleon, trying to marry her to bring legitimacy in the eyes of the old royalists (this did not happen in real French history, just an example). The new High Prince of her Princedom would be like Louis Philippe.

You are right that cultural ideas do manifest as radiant spren. That doesn't mean that the "Divine Attributes" are magical or 100% binding on the radiants or that they manifest in the exact same way every time. I think your description is the right way to think about it though - the radiant spren look for people they feel qualify for their associated divine attributes. That doesn't mean that the radiant candidate is a perfect example of those qualities and it doesn't mean they can't change over time. For example, I would have a hard time describing Lopen as someone with a strong "Leading" attribute or a candidate that is anywhere near suitable to be a king. There are arguments to be made for why he does have some good leadership qualities, sure. But those qualities don't fall under what we would normally want for a king or a military officer. Anyway, regarding your OP - I don't have a problem with Kaladin becoming king, but I don't think there's any indication that it's likely. Yes, he is a good leader but he's a good low to mid-level leader. He is someone that is good at accomplishing tasks and doing what is put in front of him, inspiring his men and keeping them safe through battle. It's the Bondsmith order that is set up to be the high level leaders with their "guiding" attribute. They come up with the grand strategy, the ideas of how the "kingdom" should be run and how the war should be fought. This is shown by example - Dalinar is the only bondsmith and the only (protagonist) who is shown to be an effective top level leader. If there is a "high king" established I think it will be a Bondsmith.

@Pathfinder This will be my last post on this topic. I am not approaching this argument from the perspective of a theist, I'm approaching it as someone familiar with the proper way to make arguments about whether or not a god exists. In your argument to disprove the existence of a god, you are starting with the assumption that god does not exist. This is a completely invalid way to look at this topic. Equally invalid is for a theist to start their argument in favor of the existence of god with the assumption that god does exist. In the vegan example you keep going back to, we are not asking a veganwhat kind of meat they might be tempted to eat. We are asking the vegan the question "What do you consider to be meat and why did you decide not to eat it?" If you want to have a debate, you have to start with the assumption that it is equally possible for both positions to be true and the burden is on you to prove that your position is correct and the other position is incorrect. You generally do not do this - you tend to start your argument with the assumption that your position is correct and then use that assumption to prove the other position is incorrect. For example, look at item 3 from your list - it's completely flawed because it starts with the assumption that god does not exist and uses that assumption to prove that Honor is not god. In particular, look at the first and last sentence. You are saying "God does not exist because God does not exist." That is circular logic. To use the idea that god does not exist as a basis for argument, you have to prove that it is correct which you have not. We know that Jasnah believes that god does not exist. In the same way, we know that Dalinar believes god does exist. It's not the topic of this thread, but it's equally valid to ask him why he believes god does exist. If you are trying to discuss the point of whether or not god exists, no one gets to start from the position that their belief is already right. Jasnah is a smart person who makes decisions based on logic. She evaluated many, many religions and philosophies and made the conscious choice to be an atheist. She has almost certainly used logic to decide whether or not she believes god exists. We are trying to understand the logic she used to make that decision and how she applies it to the godlike beings she encounters. I believe that Jasnah's logic is something like this: 1) If there is a god, it must have X properties. 2a) I have logically considered whether a being with X properties can logically exist and have concluded it is not possible. 2b) I have also done extensive research into this topic and have not found evidence of a being that has X properties. 3) Therefore, god does not exist. We want to know what "X" is for Jasnah. You aren't willing to go there and I don't want to push you to go somewhere you don't want to go, this is a topic that can be pretty personal. For me personally, I took a few philosophy classes in college so it is interesting to me to examine these issues and my own beliefs. To truly talk about these issues, you have to question things you believe as fundamentally true (the existence of god, most people fundamentally believe god exists or doesn't as a fundamental truth). But it's not for everyone.

I think you're missing the point I'm trying to make here - we should be looking at this as a Mistborn fighting the way we have seen them fight in the books vs. a Radiant as we have seen them fight in the books. We shouldn't bring in WoBs that discuss theoretical possibilities, because those are just Sanderson humoring the fans with explanations of how the powers work. They aren't "cannon" in the same way as what's written in the books. We shouldn't be looking up the allomantic table of elements and speculating about what alloy combinations might be possible and what they might do because we just have no idea what those might be and how they might be used even if there's a one sentence official explanation of how they work. We can come up with ideas, but until they're written down in the books we don't know how they actually work. I'm saying the setup should be something like this for a fight of Kaladin vs. Vin: Kaladin gets to talk to an experienced mistborn contemporary with Vin for a week to learn all the capabilities of a mistborn as the mistborn themselves know them at that time. Vin gets to talk to Teft or Lopin to learn the abilities of a Windrunner as they know them at that time. They learn the standard tactics used in world to face a mistborn or radiant when you don't have the same powers they do. No one gets to know cosmere secrets - Vin doesn't know what "God metals" are. Nor does she know about any of the special alloys, etc. She only knows what she knows about her own powers. Same for Kaladin. We're not talking about a theoretical maximum power level here, because that's just total speculation on our parts. I don't think you can really speculate on the abilities of the 5th level radiants either and only can extrapolate the living plate from Dalinar's dream sequence and what we know about dead plate. I don't think atium is a good offensive weapon against someone who knows what it is. It can only show you the future, it can't help you close the gap or get in range for an attack. If a wide area attack comes in that you can't dodge in time, it also does you no good. For example, the knife to the eye doesn't prevent the radiant from pulling it out. The knife is in one place and is not controlled by the mistborn. The radiant can grab the knife itself and pull it out so long as they are conscious. There's also no guarantee you could close the gap. An atium misting could almost certainly not get in stabbing range of a Windrunner who knows the power of atium. All the Windrunner has to do is use the power of their plate to outrun the misting. Or simply put their arm in front of their visor for 30-60 seconds until the atium runs out. If no opening exists, you can't exploit it even if you know the future. Atium is a really good weapon against someone who wants to fight you in close combat, or feels they have to fight you in close combat because you'll kill them with ranged attacks if you don't. That power dynamic doesn't exist when fighting other mistborn, and it wouldn't work when fighting a radiant either. The radiant would just stay back and out of range. They would have a lot of trouble hitting the mistborn until the atium runs out. So it would come down to who runs out of atium/stormlight first. If the atium lasts longer than the stormlight, the mistborn wins. If not, they lose. Anyway, sorry dont' mean to be a fun killer or anything like that. To me, bringing in speculation of how things would work based on random WoBs or brief descriptions in tables, etc is not fun. It sort of becomes a "my dad is stronger than your dad" kind of argument. For others, imagining what certain powers might be like is a ton of fun so I should probably just let this thread be and let you all have your fun.

@Pathfinder You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning of theism and atheism, or knowing the accepted definition, you have intentionally chosen a definition that does not align with the accepted one. The definition of atheism is very simple. And no one here is attacking people who personally hold the philosophy of atheism, nor are they attacking Jasnah, nor are they attempting to find a way to disprove her beliefs. We are simply trying to understand her beliefs, with the assumption that her philosophy of atheism is the standard philosophy - i.e. that she believes divine beings do not exist. You are introducing additional elements into the equation. Your personal definition of atheism seems to be that the only being that would count as a god is one that acts according to a morality system that you approve of. If a being that would be otherwise considered divine exists, but does align with your moral beliefs, then that being cannot be a god in your personal view. Respectfully, this belief, while totally valid to hold as a personal philosophy, is not the accepted definition of atheism in modern society. If Ares, God of War, were to appear in Times Square tomorrow and prove that he is real and his history is exactly as described in Greek Mythology, then atheism would be proven false. Your personal philosophy that it is not good to worship Ares would remain intact. They are two separate elements and we are only looking at one of them here. Another element you are introducing is that you are confusing the question of "What would it take to prove that a deity exists?" with the question of "How could a religious person convince someone to convert to their religion?" Those questions are very different, but you are treating them as if they are the same. It is not necessary to follow a religion to believe that its god exists and is a god. Setting aside your personal beliefs and your personal interpretation of Jasnah's character, we would like to look at Jasnah's beliefs relative to the accepted standard definition of atheism. As Debarra helpfully wrote above while citing many authoritative sources, atheism is defined as a belief that theism (the belief that divine beings exist) is false. It is not tied to any form of religion or religious worship or even the idea of religion at all. It is simply a belief that divine beings do not exist. The question we are facing in the cosmere is that there are numerous beings that appear to be divine and Jasnah has direct evidence of some of these beings. Jasnah is an atheist and we must assume she and/or Brandon Sanderson mean this in the standard definition. Therefore, by definition her core belief is that divine beings do not exist. She responded in the book to Shallan's question about this apparent contradiction by saying that she believes these powerful beings are merely powerful, but not divine. That is a fair argument. However, by necessity if Jasnah has identified beings like the Stormfather as not divine, then she must have a definition of what a divine being is. This is the only thing we are asking. What is Jasnah's definition of a divine being? She must have one, or she could not say if something is or is not divine. Her acceptance of any religion is irrelevant to this question. We have also already agreed that it will never be definitively answered whether Jasnah's atheism is "right" or "wrong", so we don't think that there will ever be a moment when a being meeting Jasnah's definition of divine will appear in the cosmere. This is not a "gotcha" moment. The answer may be the one you seem to be putting forward: a divine being according to Jasnah is only one that has a religious faith and morality system built up around it that Jasnah personally agrees with and finds to be good. If that is what you think, then just say that directly. If you don't think that, say what you do think she would define as a divine being. If you don't know or don't think we have enough information to say at this point, that's also fine. But the answer can't be "it's impossible for there to be a divine being, so the question is moot" because that answer is not logically valid. To truly debate this topic, you MUST have a definition of what a god is. Atheists do this often. An example is the argument from evil: 1) If God exists, he must be all powerful, all knowing, and all good. 2) A God that is all powerful, all knowing, and all good would not allow evil to exist. 3) Evil exists. 4) Therefore, God does not exist. This is a stock argument used by atheists when debating the existence of God and it does not work without stating the nature of God. Theists argue against this by challenging the nature of God, or the nature of what is good, or the nature of good relative to evil. I am sure that Jasnah has some similar arguments that she uses herself and I am certain she has a definition of what, to her, would constitute a god. Hate to double post, but I just saw this response. It was a good and meaningful response so I wanted to answer back and keep it separate. I'll answer in two parts: 1) You're right that we've probably wasted more time on this argument than it's worth! And to Jasnah, the existence of god is irrelevant in the sense that she doesn't have a desire to follow any of the religions of Roshar even if they did turn out to be correct. 2) The reason why we discuss it and want to know is because it's an interesting question. Jasnah is an atheist in a world where beings that the vast majority of people would call gods provably exist. If Angels and Demons were provably walking around the Earth today, or if the Greek Pantheon were out partying on a mountaintop that you could climb up to if you wanted to hang with them, the position of an atheist becomes a lot different. Sanderson thought it was interesting enough to at least have a few lines of dialog to address it in tWoK. I think enough has changed in the world now with beings that are much more godlike (the Shards) appearing on screen that it would be interesting to hear Jasnah's opinion on it again. Does she just feel the same way about the shards as she does the spren or the Stormfather? Or does it give her a little bit of pause, like learning of the death of "The Almighty" did for Dalinar? If it's ok for theists to doubt their beliefs and try to re-evaluate in light of new information as has happened in the books, then it's also OK for atheists to do it. It makes even more sense for someone like Jasnah to do so, because she is a person who forms her opinions based on facts and logic. And maybe she learned the shards were real long ago and has already struggled with that issue and formed her conclusion. Maybe she's just a stubborn person like the Vorin orthodox people and isn't willing to examine her own beliefs. If so, then fine. My goal isn't that Jasnah convert to a religious faith during the series, it's that we learn and understand better how she maintains her atheism in the face of direct exposure to beings most people would call gods and how their appearance affected her on a personal level. I honestly think we will see some of this in the "back 5" of Stormlight Archive.

And I think it's perfectly reasonable for Jasnah or anyone else to believe that. I think there are definitely solid and logical arguments you can use to support your position. But you should also recognize that it's a minority view (in the sense that only a small portion of Rosharans would agree with Jasnah that the shards are not gods) and that you are arguing a technicality. To go back to my Greek mythology reference, you could make an argument that Demeter or really the vast majority of that pantheon, should not be considered a god. You could make technical arguments - they aren't that powerful, there are too many of them, they aren't "holy" or sacred because they spend time among the people and act like petulant children, etc. And you might be right, if there was an ultimate arbiter of the facts. But that doesn't change the fact that 90% of the world defines them as gods. It's like a person who insists that a tomato is a fruit. They are technically correct, but practically wrong. No one will put a tomato in a fruit salad. I do understand your point - Jasnah considers the shards to be very powerful beings, but not "Gods". My point is that this is a semantics argument which, for the shards, she is on the losing side. The shards are gods. Insert beings equivalent to the shards into any similar fantasy work and they would be called gods. Insert the shards into any pantheon from any real world (polytheistic) religion and they would blend right in. It's perfectly valid for Jasnah to argue by logic that the shards shouldn't be considered gods, just like it's perfectly valid to say that scientifically a tomato is part of the fruit family by genetics. The only problem is that most people aren't talking about genetics when they say a tomato is a vegetable, they're talking about its properties as a food. I understand your point about anyone picking up a shard. However, it's not right to say that anyone can pick up a shard. At most, 16 people in the cosmere can pick up a shard. Now it's less than that with Harmony's creation and Odium's actions. It's not like you can walk down to the store and pick one up. Opportunities come less than once in a thousand years. And it's not like picking up a shard is the same thing as going to the gym and working out - it's not just a strength increase. Taking a shard fundamentally alters who and what you are. Jasnah did study the organized religions of Roshar and did not believe any of them. At that time, it made perfect sense for her to be an atheist just like any atheist in our real world today. Now, beings that nearly everyone would consider gods have appeared. This is a test of her "faith" (or logic if you prefer) similar to Dalinar's test when he was presented with the fact that "The Almighty" was dead. Just as equally as the fact that Jasnah's lack of religious faith will never be disproved, so too will Dalinar's possession of religious faith never be disproved. Both are undergoing a crisis of faith. Jasnah's response is to assert that though godlike, the shards are not gods. Dalinar's response seems to be that while "The Almighty" and vorinism were not the true faith, that one still exists if he can find it. This is a long winded way to say that atheism vs. theism is a hard discussion to have in regards to a fantasy novel where godlike beings provably exist. I consider the comments from Sanderson regarding this topic to tie back to concepts like "The God Beyond" and the afterlife, which is the context he's made them in. This is bad logic. In order to say that God doesn't exist, there must be a definition of what God is. Otherwise, you could not say that it doesn't exist. For example, I don't believe that ghosts exist. I have a clear definition of what a ghost is. If I did not, it would be meaningless for me to say that I don't believe in ghosts. If a ghost were to appear in front of me, with credible evidence, I would change my beliefs. As has been stated numerous times, Sanderson will not provide a definitive answer on the question of theism vs. atheism in the cosmere so no one expects that to happen in the book series.

For your first part, I do agree with what you're saying there. Yes, there has to be something that (to Jasnah) means X is a god, but Y is not. I don't think we are saying she must go looking for something, but to make that decision she must have some criteria. I do understand and agree that we will never have a situation where Jasnah's beliefs will be either fully validated or invalidated. As for the second part, I will answer that yes you would be a god if you picked up a shard. A "small g" god, a member of a pantheon. No, I would not worship you, but that would not change your status as a god. Cultivation is not all that dissimilar from Persephone or Demeter in the Greek Mythology. No one would dispute that either of those two figures is a god. I don't think it makes sense to say that Demeter is a god, but Cultivation is not. Essentially, what happened is that Sanderson had to create a loophole. In his fictional world, gods exist. He wants to fairly represent the opinion of an atheist in his work. The way he did it was to create two layers of "gods." He has the shards, which would be considered "gods" by most standards, that make physical appearances and have clear evidence of their existence. He also has the "God Beyond" which will never be confirmed or denied. And Jasnah, who is partially right and partially wrong in keeping with Sanderson's goals.

I don't think "looking for something" is meant literally. The entire point of the discussion is that there are beings that exist on Roshar which would be described as a "god" in many real life religions. Jasnah knows of, and even acknowledges the existence of many of these beings. It would be like saying "Zeus is real and I met him yesterday, but I'm still an atheist." If a being exists that is called a god by many people and there is no deception going (i.e. it doesn't turn out that Zeus is just an alien that said he was a god, he is the literal son of Kronos and Rhea and the grandson of the earth and the sky exactly as described by Greek mythology), then it seems difficult for a person to be an atheist. I think the problem comes in the sense that our concept of atheism doesn't really work in the world of a fantasy novel, or with the type of god that exists in religions like Greek Mythology. Today, we would say that an atheist is a person who believes that theism is false, i.e. that deities/gods do not exist. In today's world it means that if you are an atheist you believe equally that the Christian God, Zeus and his pantheon, and the various spirits of Shinto do not exist. If Zeus and the Greek pantheon exist and are considered gods by the majority of the population, but one person says that while Zeus exists and is exactly as described in Greek Mythology he is not a god, I don't know that I would call that person an atheist. That person is a contrarian, disagreeing with the consensus definition of what it means to be a god. In my view, the Shards do qualify as gods within the context of a pantheon religion. In this type of a pantheon setting, to be a god I believe you have to be the personification of a fundamental concept, force, or element. For example - Zeus is the god of thunder. He is thunder in the form of a person and has power over all thunder and lightning. Honor is the god of, well, honor. He is the personification of all things related to oaths and obligations. If you were to get your hands on a Shard, then yes you would become a god in the cosmere by most common definitions. Worthy of worship is a separate item. In a pantheon religion, you generally choose which god or gods you worship. If you believed the Greek Mythology was true, but chose not to worship any god in the pantheon that does not make you an atheist. Jasnah is an atheist in the sense that she believes that the "Almighty" of the Vorin religion is not real, nor are any of the other known religions of Roshar. That was a lot more meaningful before it becomes public knowledge that Vorinism is provably false. I don't believe that she qualifies as an atheist in the literal meaning of the word - a person who does not believe that deities exist. She is a person who feels that the gods who do exist are too human to qualify as gods in her opinion.

I think that's a bit of a stretch to say she has no resentment. There have been threads about this kind of stuff before, but if you look you can kind of see behind the curtain with Shallan and her interactions with Kaladin. She has two feelings about him that she wants to repress, and you see her change after each one is introduced: 1) She realizes that she does have a least a minor attraction to him in early OB but she believes this is wrong because she's engaged to Adolin, 2) She realizes he killed her brother and hates him for it, but also realizes it's not really fair to hate him for it. After she realizes she has at least some minor attraction to Kaladin, she splits off those feelings into Veil. This is when you notice that it's suddenly Veil who has this weird kind of attraction to Kaladin, but not "Shallan" or "Radiant." In WoR, Veil had no attraction to Kaladin. In the main "Shallan" persona, she is still fond of Kaladin and generally friendly to him, but no longer has any romantic attraction to him. After she realizes that Kaladin killed her brother, she initially gets really upset. Then we don't see her for a while and after that she starts in on Kaladin with a lot more mean-spirited "jokes". She's buried those feelings from her conscious mind because she doesn't want to deal with them, but they leak out in a change in her behavior toward him. The whole point of her character is that she refuses to admit many things, even to herself. That makes her interesting to me personally. You can read between the lines of her actions and there's also the expectation that at some point this is all going to come to a head. She released maybe 30% of the steam at the end of OB with her "Shallan Council Meeting" to discuss whether she should marry Adolin, but there's a lot of pressure still there. I think the reason she's struggling so much is because she said her most recent truth without really truly embracing it. My personal theory is that she either has to work through this all and express her emotions in a healthy way or she's going to totally lose herself and get out of control. I think either way would be a fun arc to read - it would be super satisfying for her to actually sit down and have an open, meaningful conversation with Kaladin again like she did in WoR. It would be great for her to talk to Jasnah about how she feels about the power dynamic between them and really express herself. It would be fun for her to just be 100% real and open with Adolin, which she's never done up to this point. If she goes dark, it would also be satisfying to read the scenes where the other characters realize she's lost control and how they have to deal with her now. That they all still love her, but realize she lies to everyone and herself most of all and try to figure out how to help her.

This is the kind of speculation I'm talking about. You can argue that the Mistborn could theoretically have access to all the metals shown in the Mistborn novels, though we've never seen a Mistborn with access to all of them at once. There appear to be in world reasons why you just couldn't have access to all the metals at the same time, so I think it makes more sense to go off a Mistborn using powers the way they have actually been used in the books. I don't necessarily like giving them all metals because it's never been shown that a Mistborn would have access to all metals at once (Vin, Kelsier, and Elend never did), but I would accept that a Mistborn could have a small amount of any metal shown in the books, using it in a way shown in the books or at least described in officially published material. What I won't buy is that a Mistborn could burn a shardblade. It may be that there's even a WoB out there saying that a Mistborn could theoretically burn a shardblade, but let's be realistic. That would require the Mistborn to know that they could burn the shardblade and they wouldn't. It would require them to grind it up into a small piece that could be digested/enter their bloodstream. We've never seen (that I remember) an allomancer burning a metal without swallowing it. All this has to happen on the battlefield, while actively fighting a powerful enemy who knows that they have the ability to burn metals and has the ability to make that metal disappear. So, if the Mistborn starts to prepare the shardblade/shardmetal to be burned, the Radiant would just dismiss it. If we're going in that kind of direction, you had might as well assume the Radiant could draw in all the investure in the allomantic metals like they could with Stormlight, leaving the Mistborn powerless or at least without any reserves beyond what was in their stomach. But we shouldn't go in that direction. It's a fight straight up between two opponents that have prepared for battle with the resources they would normally have on hand and fighting using abilities and methods that have been demonstrated in the books.

As an Italian though, you're probably more familiar than us new worlders with ancient/medieval buildings created with stone masonry. I don't think that it seems reasonable for a "large stone" from the wall of a building to weigh only 6 kg. That's a small stone. Today's typical clay masonry brick weighs about 2 kg (5 lbs) and that is something like 2"x4"x8". So assuming these stones have similar density, you're looking at a stone about of about 192 cubic inches volume or a stone cube that is about 6" (~15 cm) on each side if it weighs 6 kg. I guess we don't know for sure how this wall is made, but that just seems small for one of the largest stones in a wall. I would guess in metric terms a large stone block used for wall construction in a castle is probably something like 50cmx75cmx100cm (~18"x24"x36"), more than 100 times greater in volume and therefore weight. The stone used might be less dense than clay masonry bricks though. Still, 6 kg is a small stone in terms of wall construction. I think even 50 kg is on the small side for a "large" stone, I would guess it's at least 100 kg. I also think a key difference between what happened in those two scenes is the mass, velocity, and number of strikes. In the Szeth assassination case, he is throwing one stone of extremely high mass and with extremely high velocity at one piece of shardplate. In Dalinar's battle, he is being hit with many stones that all likely weigh less than 1 kg. Notice too that his armor is cracked but not destroyed. In the books, it seems to be explained that each section of shardplate can take a number of hard hits before shattering. A thrown rock is a hard enough hit to go to this count. So it's not that one hit from a small rock moving relatively slowly can crack the plate, it's that a lot of hits can eventually crack it. If you look at your math, say you have an arm of 10 kg mass going at 42 m/s, you get 420 kg-m/s. Maybe they put their weight into it and you get something like 40-50 kg involved. That's still much less speed and mass than a large stone. If you look at a 100 kg stone block going at 140 m/s, you get 14,000 kg-m/s. Even assuming a small stone of 6 kg gets you to 840 kg-m/s, double the momentum of the punch at triple maximum human velocity. Remember, the entire mass of the person is not going into the punch unless the Mistborn goes flying in the air, fist first. The only mass that gets involved is the mass that's moving. So at best half the body mass. I guess my point is, it doesn't seem reasonable that a Mistborn could punch through shardplate in one hit. They could probably crack a plate section in one hit and go through it on the second one. I don't think we can do any math to prove this objectively, just what seems to make sense. Yeah, that is a good point. We do know some things about things like the power of living plate from Dalinar's visions, but we do have to speculate a bit. I guess my point is we need to keep speculation to the minimum, or it's just a matter of who can come up with a better story. It was getting pretty out there. I just think people need to remember that the books show us that while powerful, Mistborn have serious limitations. Their powers can only do certain specific things. And the most powerful abilities they have are severely limited due to short supply (atium) or the nature of the ability (duraluminum flares).

Also keep in mind that the value of this exercise gets less and less each time you start adding unusual scenarios. The question isn't "Could a Mistborn defeat anyone given the complete element of surprise?" it's "Who could defeat a Mistborn?" You've got to be comparing this on even footing, otherwise it's worthless. Sure, the Mistborn could get the drop on an unsuspecting Knight Radiant. So could an 80 year old arthritic grandmother. You should compare them on even footing - the Radiant knows as much about a Mistborn as the average knowledgeable person on Scadrial and the Mistborn knows as much about the powers of the Knights Radiant as the average knowledgeable person on Roshar. Neither side has access to special abilities or abilities not yet shown in the books. Theoretical WoB's don't count - those are just Sanderson answering questions fans pose. It doesn't mean that any character will ever do any of the things that he says are theoretically possible, so you shouldn't assume that (for example) a Lightweaver would use a laser in battle. Sanderson has said that it's possible, but it hasn't happened on screen. We don't know if it will become a normal power used by all Lightweavers, or just a secret that one person figures out, or maybe an advanced technique that everyone knows but only a few can successfully use. Until then, we should assume it's just not a tool that can be used. It's sort of like asking "could a US soldier from World War II defeat a German Soldier from World War II?" and then saying "Well, due to their alliance with Imperial Japan you have to assume that the German knows karate and that would provide an advantage." So, Mistborn with reasonable stock of metals and weapons vs. Radiant with shardblade and plate and reasonable stock of stormlight in their body and gems, each knowing each other's abilities agree to fight to the death in an arena. Using Transportation to move to another realm is forbidden. Limited atium is allowed, similar to the amounts Vin had in most fights since atium is commonly used in the first trilogy. I think most orders of Radiants would beat the Mistborn in this situation. The radiant would keep their distance, spreading out hits from coins or other metal across many plates of the armor making it unlikely for the armor to break. The Radiant's initial attacks are all dodged by the Mistborn due to atium, but eventually it runs out. The Radiant's defensive and evasive powers are too great. Think of a Windrunner - all they have to do is make the Mistborn too heavy to take off using steel pushes. There are just too many powers that the Radiants have that are too useful. The Mistborn has duraluminum, but (in line with the books) can only use it once or twice per battle because it burns all their metal at once. So, maybe they use it to push or pull the Radiant's armor or blade, forcing them to dismiss it. After doing that a few times, their duraluminum is expended and the Radiant can resume a normal fight. I think a very good Mistborn could defeat a Radiant if they are able to do things like save their atium or duraluminum for just the right moment and catch the Radiant off guard. But that takes an above average Mistborn and a below average Radiant to work, imo.

I think it's a numbers and will to fight kind of thing. Also, remember that just because people say that humans almost took over the galaxy doesn't mean it's literally true. It could just mean that the humans caused a lot of damage, but were not really a threat to win the war. Who knows if this is right or not, but with their being three "Human Wars" it makes me think of the three "Punic Wars" of ancient history between Rome and Carthage. I think it makes a lot of sense for the wars to be somewhat similar to how those wars played out. 1st Punic War: The Ancient Roman Republic is still just a regional power that doesn't even fully control Italy. Carthage is a republic based in north central Africa, a huge empire that dominates the Mediterranean. Rome gets drawn into a war with Carthage due to various circumstances with Carthage attacking a Roman ally and Rome being bound to respond. The war goes on a long time, but Rome and Carthage eventually decide that there's no point to continue and they settle without too much land changing hands. Carthage's military felt like they should have won the war, particularly Hamilcar Barca, the father of the famous Hannibal. 2nd Punic War: About 20 years later tensions rise between Rome and Carthage over Carthage's holdings in modern day Spain. Hannibal makes his famous crossing of the Alps and runs rampant in mainland Italy for several years, defeating every Roman army that comes to face him. Rome realizes that they can't fight him and take the strategy that they will avoid him in Italy while fighting the rest of Carthage in Africa. Eventually the Romans are successful, defeating Carthage and forcing them to surrender on bad terms. Carthage is no longer allowed to perform any military actions without permission from Rome and have a huge indemnity to pay. 3rd Punic War: About 50 years later, Carthage had paid off their war indemnity early due to their entire work force being focused on the economy. Rome was uncomfortable about this due to the fact that Carthage was not under their thumb the way they wanted. Also, they were jealous/covetous of the rich lands of Carthage. A Roman senator famously ends every speech in the Senate regardless of topic with "And Carthage must be destroyed!" Eventually, Carthage's neighbors to the south start attacking them (suspected to be on orders from Rome). They ask Rome for permission to go to war, but it is denied. They go to Rome asking what can be done for there to be peace, and Rome makes increasingly harsh demands hoping to force Carthage into war. After giving in to several impossible demands, they finally can't accept the last Roman demand which is to destroy the city of Carthage and rebuild it miles inland from the coast of the sea. Carthage is completely and totally destroyed after a long siege and all the people are killed or enslaved by the Romans. Later, Roman historians say that Rome "besmirched her honor" by acting the way they did. How do you go from one power being stronger than the other to being totally destroyed? It just takes time and strategy. Rome defeated Carthage in the 2nd Punic War by enduring the extreme damage Hannibal inflicted on them and then striking back. In the other two wars, it was never a real fight. My guess is that something similar happened in the Skyward universe.

I'll agree with the others and say that you would probably be best served by a break from the Cosmere/Sanderson and come back refreshed. I do think that Oathbringer, while still being a great book, is the weakest of the SA so far. There have been threads here about it over the past few years. Some people loved OB, others didn't. I also shared your dislike of (what I assume are) the Dalinar flashback chapters. They felt too separate from the main story to my taste and I found myself getting impatient reading them. If you look at the flashbacks, I think it makes sense: Kaladin's flashbacks were in the first book, so it was really just our way to meet him. I personally skip most of them on rereads because they bore me. Shallan's flashbacks tied in a lot of overall mysteries of Roshar alongside Shallan's personal backstory/history. I always try to reread the books ahead of the next release and so far I've enjoyed reading all of hers even on rereads. Dalinar's flashbacks are primarily just his backstory. You have only read the first ~20% of the book so I won't provide any spoilers, but especially his early flashbacks dragged for me. They tell an important story for sure, but even though I like Dalinar I didn't really like reading it. I know there are people who loved it though. And be prepared to be frustrated with Shallan in this book. You could almost consider this book to be like her equivalent to Kaladin's time on Bridge 4. It's a huge test for her. It's not as obvious because she's not a slave forced to run into certain death once or twice a week, but it's just as hard for her.

It could also mean that he is more the "figurative" child of Tanavast - that maybe Kaladin is someone who is a lot like Tanavast and holds the same values as he did but is not actually his direct child or descendant. Like in the "child of the 60's" sense of the phrase.