agrabes

I just never felt much chemistry between Shallan and Adolin - they always felt like friends more than anything. The scenes you talk about where she defends Adolin to Kaladin are more like defending herself and her fellow Lighteyes to Kaladin and trying to get Kaladin to realize he's got this huge chip on his shoulder toward the lighteyes that blinds him to people who are actually good. Shallan thinks Adolin isn't smart enough to keep up with her intellectually - this is shown in multiple scenes and she has this "don't pick on the poor dumb kid" attitude about it where she defends him but also insults/belittles him at the same time. The point I'm getting at is that I think Sanderson intended to show love growing between Shallan and Adolin, but there are a lot of people who just never felt it. Their relationship felt very rote and by the book. The only thing that felt like either of them had strong feelings for each other was Adolin's reaction at the end of OB. I'm not saying their relationship is unrealistic exactly, actually it's probably the most like your average real life romance, but it's not shown in depth and it doesn't make you feel the emotions of either character for each other. I don't disagree that I didn't really want a love triangle in SA, but once it happened I wanted it to be done well. At that point Adolin/Shallan was standard mediocre but passable Sanderson romance, so I was willing to see it shaken up if done well. Kaladin's arc really made you feel his emotions toward Shallan. Throughout WoR he starts to notice her, he gets jealous of her and Adolin when he's assigned to be their guard for the day (though he tell himself it's grumpiness and classism), he has the Chasm scene where he realizes she's a real person who's faced just as much hardship as he has, then he realizes at the end of WoR that he is interested in her but has no opportunity to ever have a relationship with her. Then in OB, Syl convinces him he needs to acknowledge his feelings and take his shot, which fails before he even does it. It's interesting and done really well with subtle writing. The unrequited love story is always the one that speaks to me the most personally though. Then, Sanderson comes in and retcons the whole thing with the "it was just Lightweaver Magic" thing. That wasn't "no unnecessary anguish" that was "no necessary anguish." The guy has spent months thinking about this girl and he just walks away, no hard feelings? If Sanderson wanted to go the "no harm no foul" type route, he should have been walking it back all the way through OB instead of ratcheting up Kaladin's emotions toward Shallan throughout the book, then cutting them all off cold. It really was resolved. Here is the quote from OB: "He squinted down at Shallan and Adolin, and found that he couldn't be bitter. He didn't feel resignation either. Instead he felt ... agreement?" This is Brandon Sanderson speaking through Kaladin and saying it's done and over. Kaladin has thought in his own mind that he isn't upset and bitter about Shallan and Adolin getting together, he isn't even resigned to the fact that he was the losing ship, he in his own mind feels that those two should have been together and has no sadness or negative feelings about it. The next few paragraphs then go into the Lightweaver magic retcon (Kaladin never really had feelings for her, he was just confused by her lightweaver magic). It's very doubtful that a Kaladin/Shallan romance plot ever returns. If it does, it would have to be Shallan to Kaladin rather than Kaladin to Shallan, which seems super unlikely since Shallan never expressed any serious interest. I don't even think I would want it to return, other than Kaladin having a realistic and short "getting over it" phase which I've already mentioned won't happen because he's already over it. Interesting, didn't know that. Exactly my feelings on Skyward. Yeah, sorry for the mixup on the book title not sure where that came from!

I understand your point about Spensa and agree that aspect is also something that requires a careful approach. Obviously, this is something that can be a problem in real life. I don't have any hints of that kind of situation going on here. I also agree, you're not the only one who feels the way you do regarding romance in general. I'm not trying to make this a shipping thread, but I'll just say this about the Adolin/Shallan relationship. Everything he does with her and everything you list, he could also have done as a completely platonic friend. Their relationship starts out by default as "romantic" in the sense that they have an arranged marriage. Had it not started with the requirement of a marriage, there is a good chance it would have gone down a totally different path. As it is, what was shown on screen was that they were good to each other and probably good for each other, but not that either of them showed any romantic feelings for the other. And there's nothing wrong with that - my own marriage is more on the supportive and loving side than passionate romantic side. But in terms of a romance plot in a work of fiction, the Adolin/Shallan romance left a bit to be desired. The only good part of that arc that felt real and fitting of a romance plot was Adolin's reaction after he feels Shallan would rather be with Kaladin. That was well done, which is why I say Adolin's character was written reasonably well. He also gets more slack because he's a secondary character with less screen time. The point is - the only reason that you would know Adolin and Shallan's relationship is supposed to be romantic outside of the small cluster of scenes when she confirms to him that she wants to be with him rather than Kaladin is that they are betrothed. Adolin never thinks about Shallan when she's not on screen in a romantic way, though again I give the writing of his character slack for this based on his limited screen time. Shallan never thinks of Adolin in a romantic way when he is not around either. She thinks in terms of meeting expectations of both Adolin and his family, raising her own family's circumstances, etc. Again - I'm not saying this in a shipping wars context. I'm using it as a demonstration that I believe Sanderson failed to convey what he wanted in the Adolin/Shallan romance arc. Though, again, staying out of shipping wars territory, if you did dip your toe into that area there could be alternate explanations. Contrast Adolin/Shallan (imo, poorly written) with Wax/Steris (imo, well written). Both are arranged political marriages between people who didn't know each other. I've already talked far too long about Adolin/Shallan, but the difference with Wax/Steris is you really get the sense that the two of them grow a true relationship over the course of the book. Each of them learns to appreciate the other and even makes slight changes to themselves to accommodate their relationship. Steris is thought to be so inflexible and rigid that she will just ruin everything, but she forces herself into the mix of things and proves everyone wrong - especially Wax. She even opens up to Wax about how her feelings and personality restrict her and make it hard for her to interact with everyone else, but that she still has feelings and cares. You just don't get that same sense of shared growth with Shallan and Adolin. With their romance plot, it was mostly a don't show, don't tell. I agree that having a therapist isn't a bad thing, nor does it -necessarily- mean that being happier around someone means you are attracted to them. But, it's one more piece of the puzzle to force Kaladin to admit his feelings. Here is the section I was talking about earlier (Oathbringer Ch. 99): Kaladin doesn't directly admit anything to himself, but he goes to see Shallan right after this. Though he doesn't think it or say it out loud, by going to talk to Shallan he is admitting that Syl is right and he needs more than just his brothers in arms. He then says he feels good and warm inside while being around her, different from other women he's been with in the past. All this is high quality romance plot. In a normal romance (or real life) this would mean that he has feelings for her, different and more profound than he's had for any other woman. That said, rereading some of these sections makes me feel like there's more of a chance than I thought that you are right about Sanderson's intent for the Kaladin/Shallan arc. If so, it just proves again how terrible his romance writing skills are. The best romance arc he's ever written isn't actually a romance arc and he probably never thought of it that way, which is probably why he was able to write it well. But it makes the reader feel cheated. Taking it all at face value (to avoid shipping wars that come with alternate theories), we are supposed to believe that Kaladin never loved Shallan and it was all a trick of the mind from her Lightweaver magic which he realizes in the end and feels better. This is a complete cop out. A love triangle story requires a satisfying conclusion and the fans who hoped for the Kaladin/Shallan pairing should get their chance to feel sad along with Kaladin that it didn't work out. Look at all the popular love triangle stories in Hollywood like Pearl Harbor, Love Actually, or pretty much any rom-com, look at a movie like Castaway, even anime (Macross F ftw) - the "losing" ship always goes out in some kind of satisfying way, never backing down from their feelings. It's usually kind of an uplifting story - they overcome their own shyness or other failures to finally express their true feelings to the one they love and feel better by getting that true, final rejection. It feels super unsatisfying for one ship to just sort of turn around and go back into drydock. I know Sanderson has talked about how he would like to do a love triangle a different way. Maybe this is it - if so, he did not improve on the formula based on the story so far. The original Dalinar/Gavilar/Navani love triangle would have been a decent story, but it was never really told. And that's OK. That was the "real" Dalinar/Navani romance and it felt super unsatisfying and awkward to jump in on that 20+ years in progress. Particularly in WoK when we don't even really know these characters yet and they are having an awkward romance scene while talking about events of the past we don't yet know about or care about. That's why I say it would have been best to make their romance super minimal - Adolin or someone else explains it in passing and gives us a few updates, then we see them together and it's good to go. Anyway, just want to say I definitely respect your opinion on this and leave you the right to it. Heck, in a lot of ways my views are the weird ones. My tastes in romance are probably more "traditional" and I do enjoy romance in movies and tv, but I don't like straight up romance novels even if they are set in an SFF world. For whatever reason, I love it as a secondary plot to traditional SFF. I know a lot of people would rather there is no romance at all in SFF novels so I'm definitely the outlier there. *shrug* I just like it if when it was included it was up to par with other media.

I'm not going to argue with all this because I think a lot of comes down to the fact that your personality and mine are very different if I can get any sense of it through your posts on this board. For example Spensa/Jerkface - Sure commander/subordinate makes things difficult, but it's very common in fiction and real life for romantic relationships to develop in that situation. It makes for a more interesting romance plot too. Your opinion seems to be "that's against the rules so it should never happen!" That's a totally valid opinion to have, but kind of a sad one to have too. I don't disagree that it's totally fine for them -not- to have a romantic relationship and would not be upset or disappointed at all if they don't. But, the seeds are there if that's the way it goes. What I'm saying is that Sanderson has written a really good foundation for a romance to develop, even if it ultimately doesn't. The thought that romance isn't the most important thing on anyone's mind at any given time is a complete personality thing. If you were to pick any random moment out of a person's 80+ years of life, sure the odds aren't great that it would be devoted to romance. But, if you were talking about the key days and months of a lasting relationship being formed then you can bet that a huge percent of that person's mental focus is going to be dedicated to it. At least, for me personally it would be. Based on the romance shown in any popular fiction, I think I'm not alone in that sentiment. In terms of Adolin/Shallan - they absolutely do start spending time together out of obligation. They were socially obligated to spend time together as betrothed. They didn't know each other at all and only started spending time together because they wanted to know the person they were going to marry and hoped to develop a real relationship. It was never an unpleasant obligation, but it was still an obligation. And the feel of their scenes together never changed - it was always sort of "hey, we are hanging out together and this is kinda fun" but never "I'm in love with you and you being with you makes my life better." That was a sudden declaration, which came from Shallan with little build up in terms of her actual expressed emotions on the page. Adolin never expressed any romantic emotions toward Shallan on screen. I personally believe this was due to Sanderson's poor romance writing ability and it was his intent to show a gradually building love between them. In terms of Kaladin/Shallan - I agree that Shallan never had feelings for Kaladin beyond a slight crush. That's why I felt the way she started acting toward him/thinking about him was really jarring, but I can accept that at least some of it was due to her split personality issues. I disagree that Kaladin didn't have feelings for her. His feelings for Shallan are probably the most convincing romantic writing that Sanderson has ever done. The whole point is that Kaladin is too stubborn and duty bound to admit it to himself. He doesn't think he is allowed to have feelings for 1) another man's fiance, 2) someone he views as too far above his station for it to ever work, and 3) later on a good friend's fiance in particular. But he eventually realizes with help from Syl that he does have feelings for her, makes the attempt despite the fact that he feels it's wrong to do so (an even stronger sign that he has deep feelings for her), and fails. He shouldn't just blow this off. He needs to let himself be sad about it for a while. The difference between being sad and being angsty is not too hard. Sad = thinks about her longingly or commiserates his general failures in romance a few more times on screen and then some event makes him realize he needs to move on. Angsty = thinks about how life is just sooo unfair that he couldn't get the girl, pouts for the rest of the series. That's not how it was written though - he just magically cut off all feelings and has either gone into complete denial or is just being written in Deus ex Machina to firmly close off the triangle plot from future books. You are right that there are several Syl/Kaladin scenes about romance, but I don't agree with your interpretation on 3&4. You are saying 3) is "Bossy Syl forces Kaladin to say he likes Shallan when he really doesn't" but I definitely read it is "Wise Syl forces Kaladin to confront his true feelings and stop denying himself". You are saying 4) is "Syl tells Kaladin to use Shallan as his therapist" but I read it as "Syl points out that Kaladin feels happier when he is around Shallan to provide proof to Kaladin that he has feelings for her." In the end, your interpretation might be right, but if it is I'll be disappointed. There is definitely a quote in one of those scenes directly talking about his brothers in arms, I'll see if I can find it later on. What it seems to come down to is this - I believe the best romance is shown, not told. To make a convincing romance, you have to show it in the little things. How the two characters interact with each other, what they do and think about their love interest when they are not around, what they clearly feel but don't say or even directly think about each other, etc. That is what makes it interesting and fun to read. It's what makes the character's emotions feel real and draws you in to where you feel those emotions yourself. The style you seem to like is if the exact feelings each person is having are directly written on the page. "Person A loved Person B." If that's what you like, then that's what you like. That's Dalinar and Navani's romance - it was written that they love each other and so they did. If you like that style, then that's fine. I just don't.

The Starsight romance was a sort of read between the lines thing. You can tell that Spensa and Jerkface are interested in each other, but she isn't willing to admit it to herself yet. There's kind of a tsundere type thing going on there. It's being set up well for the eventual Book 2 or 3 romance, imo. I was pretty happy with what was there. It's interesting, that you like the Dalinar/Navani romance. I'm not opposed to the pairing, but I felt it was terribly written as a romance. We basically see them walk on screen and she's like "I clearly love you a lot Dalinar, but I have no reasons or emotional exposition showing you that I do, I just do." And Dalinar responds, "I love you too Navani, but I have no emotions or reasoning to back it up either. I've just said that I feel that way about you and therefore I do." Navani responds, "We are a perfect match!" Later in the Dalinar flashbacks you get a tiny bit more substance to the relationship and context to why they are the way they are with each other, but it's just not enough. Like I said in my last post, Sanderson went for the middle ground of romance that made it terrible. If he had just kept it minimal and that they had loved each other but couldn't be together and kept it almost all off screen, we could have just accepted it as that and it could have worked. Like if we saw them get together and got Adolin's feelings about it. That would have worked. Instead, we got extremely awkward dialogue that was totally unearned between them. In the S/A/K triangle I think Adolin is written the best in terms of being consistent and making decisions that line up with his character. The issue with Shallan is that early in OB she suddenly just starts saying she has these passions for Kaladin in an awkwardly written way that doesn't line up with her character or personality up to that point. She never has any romantic thoughts toward Kaladin in WoR, but suddenly she has these passions? Everything she does romantically from that point is totally erratic, though to be fair that is probably an intentional choice given Shallan's other issues at the time. Her choice later on to "choose" Adolin also feels wrong. It makes sense - she's betrothed to him and wants to be married to him for political reasons and also believes he genuinely cares for her and understands her, but it still feels wrong because there's no real build up to it. One minute it's her being all messed up with the multiple personalities, the next she decides she needs to be with Adolin. For it to feel right, we needed it to go one way or the other. Accepting a friendly but non-romantic political marriage that might later become a more full romance would have been totally fine. The other option was for her to actually think about Adolin in a romantic way at any time prior to the "decision" scene. She seems to think of spending time with him as something more like a pleasant obligation than anything else up until that point. It was presented as a romantic decision - she had finally found the man she truly loved - but the scenes of her feeling any kind of romantic love other than just physical attraction didn't exist. The issue with Kaladin is that the resolution of the triangle is way too abrupt and unnatural and inconsistent with how a normal person would react and how Kaladin himself has been shown to act. It's a Deus ex Machina from Sanderson because he wants to firmly close out the triangle to have Kaladin suddenly think that he has absolutely no feelings toward Shallan and never did. It would be one thing if he said that to someone else, then it could be putting a brave face on while still being sad about it. He internally thinks to himself that what he thought were romantic feelings were something else all along. That just feels wrong. A better written and still firmly closed arc would have shown Kaladin accepting that Shallan and Adolin should be together but still being a little sad about it in a non-angsty way. Writing it the way he did makes it feel like all Kaladin's earlier romantic feelings, imo the best romantic arc Sanderson has ever written, were a lie or misunderstanding. I can't remember chapter and page, but there is a scene in OB where Kaladin and Syl talk about his romantic prospects and she forces him to admit that he likes Shallan and that he can't just sit idly by and do nothing about it. He tries to say it's better for him to dedicate himself to his fellow soldiers. She makes him admit that he needs more than his brothers in arms. That is when he decides he will actively pursue a relationship with Shallan.

He's hit or miss on romance, mostly miss. Though as I write this out, I'm thinking maybe he's just been spectacularly bad a few times which has made it seem worse. In my view: Good Romance: Wax/Steris, Kaladin/Shallan WoR Arc (Only referencing in terms of quality, not shipping interest) In these two romantic plots he got the feelings across of both parties very well, made it feel natural, and it felt natural for the characters to interact the way they did. The Wax/Steris relationship was good because you could really see the two characters come to understand each other and love each other. OK Romance: Vin/Elend, Starsight, Reckoners: I remember Vin/Elend one as seeming OK but not heavily developed which seemed appropriate for the story. Starsight's romance seems like it could be another good one, but in Book One it wasn't developed much so I'll leave it at just OK. Reckoners was ok trending toward bad. Bad Romance: Dalinar/Navani, All OB Romance Arcs except Kaladin's early feelings. Dalinar/Navani feels just overly forced and like there are no real feelings there. Every Dalinar/Navani romance scene has felt totally wooden, especially the ones in WoK. In OB, there was some context added which took it from absolute garbage to just pretty bad. The other OB romance arcs also felt forced, especially on the part of Kaladin and Shallan. Adolin was pretty consistent throughout, but Kaladin and Shallan both came to huge decisions that were not really supported by anything. Don't Remember Well Enough to Comment: Elantris, Warbreaker, Rithmatist. Never read: Alcatraz. Overall I think Sanderson's biggest issue with romance is that he sometimes tries to go into a middle ground that just can't exist in romance. He is an author who really wants to push plot along and we all love him for that in the non-romance aspects. That approach can work with romance and be acceptable, like just keep it to a bare minimum "A likes B, B likes A, we don't get much detail and then they get together." There are plenty of books that get along fine like that. The other option is that you have to really develop it. The character's romantic feelings have to significantly impact their decisions and they have to build up over time. They have to make attempts and sometimes succeed and sometimes fail. This has to happen on screen. The problem is that sometimes he tries to go for a middle ground where you see some of it but not all of it. When that happens, either one of two things happens: 1) The romance feels fake and it seems like people are getting together just because of the plot (Dalinar/Navani) or 2) The characters jump to conclusions or are written to explicitly have feelings that don't make sense to us based on what we've seen on screen (K/A/S love triangle resolution). That said, if Kaladin does get together with someone in the front 5, I'd like to see it be Laral or Tarrah. Both of them are people he's had a hint of romance with, but screwed it up due to his youth and immaturity/romantic inexperience. I'd like to see him get a second chance now that he's grown up a bit and admitted to Syl that he can't just be happy with only his brothers in arms for companionship. To me, Laral seems the most interesting because she's become a strong woman in her own right in a way that Kaladin can't comprehend. I predict Roshone will die and Kaladin and Laral will end up working together professionally at first to evacuate the people to Urithiru and then develop a renewed bond.

To be fair, you don't don't know that the Windrunners agreed with the "lobotomy" plan and you also don't know that they actively participated or that they knew what its results would be if they did participate. I think there are hints in the text that the opposite is true - the Windrunners and some Stonewards were the first to renounce their oaths in protest of what the other Radiants did. I agree that fighting wars of "preprotection" is bad. And the point of the Windrunners is not that they sit in a room thinking about all the people who might possibly need protected now or in the future. The point I was trying to make is that the WIndrunners aren't assigned specific objectives of who they need to protect and for some specific limited time or place. They simply protect people who they see are in danger, or they try to save people they hear about being in danger that they think they have the ability to save. It's not organized or centrally planned, it happens organically. The comment of "not want to protect everybody" doesn't mean that the 4th Ideal literally says that Windrunners should not want to protect everybody. That's just the words of one frustrated Windrunner. I think the most likely 4th Ideal is something about prioritizing who you protect or accepting that you can't protect everybody even if you want to. In my view, that is significantly different from a cold decision to protect military allies only. It's a fair point that the Windrunners we have seen except Lopen (imo) are all fighting soldiers. Lopen is not a fighter or at least wasn't until he became a Radiant, though I think it's right to call him a soldier. That said, I don't think it is exclusive to soldiers. It's just that the most likely place to find someone who fits their description of a Windrunner is as a soldier. The values of a Windrunner candidate seem to be a person who is willing to fight to protect someone regardless of the cost to themselves. I agree that Windrunners don't care about crimes. When I used the word crime I was not describing a literal criminal act. The point I was making is that Kaladin realized that he didn't want to fight the parsh because they were just average people who had no desire to fight but were being pushed into it by Odium and the Fused. He had been taught to believe that the parsh were evil monsters who wanted nothing more than to kill humans. He thought that fighting them was different than a war with other humans and therefore always morally right. When he learned that he was wrong about that, he had to re-evaluate his moral views. What the Windrunners feel is justified is going to come down to their own personal knowledge at the time. During active combat against any foe, a Windrunner is likely going to feel justified in protecting his or her allies and killing the enemy in most circumstances. For example, they come across a friend or ally who is fighting someone. They will feel justified in protecting that friend or ally first and asking questions later. On the other hand, if they see their friend intentionally provoke a fight with no good reason, they will probably not feel justified in protecting that friend. If they are just a soldier in a battle and told to go to war without any other knowledge or options beforehand, they will go and fight. If they are told to go on a mission knowing that its only purpose is to kill as many of the enemy as possible, which is a valid though distasteful military strategy, they would likely refuse. I think the 4th and 5th ideal of the Windrunners are about knowing when it is OK to kill those average soldiers on the other side and when it is not. In some cases, they will be able to justify killing those average soldiers who are just doing their job because they believe it would minimize overall suffering. The impression I'm getting from you is that you believe it's almost always right to kill the soldiers on the other side, while I believe the Windrunners will feel it's almost never right. Another point is that I think you are viewing this through the lens of military values of the last few hundred years on Earth - the officers should do the thinking and the soldiers should leave it to them to decide if it's right to spend the lives on both sides that it will take to engage in a given battle. That's not necessarily wrong, but the Knights Radiant in general and especially the Windrunners in particular don't seem to prescribe to that theory. They are more like Knights Errant who each decide for themselves if it's right or wrong to engage in a battle rather than listening to the decisions of some officer. Again, I think that what you're saying makes sense if these are just average people with no magical powers fighting a normal war. I would even agree with your positions for the most part if that was the case. In the world of Roshar I don't think a lot of your assumptions hold up. There is a true evil here and you can draw a clear line between those who are truly evil and those who are just caught up in following orders under duress, unlike real life wars. The Windrunners are a magical order of knights who are required by magic to uphold a certain set of moral values which are not based on promoting the greatest military success. You have to think of this totally differently.

I do agree with you that the reason we don't feel as horrified by Dalinar's actions is because we don't get a perspective from someone with ties to Rathalas. However, I am also arguing that this reaction is (right or wrong) normal and common throughout history. Unless the crime is extremely reprehensible (i.e. concentration camps, torture, etc), people forgive or just simply don't process and mentally engage with war crimes unless they are personally impacted. I think, as others have pointed out, most people do know the extent of Dalinar's crimes. The only thing they don't know is that Evi was caught up in Dalinar's fires rather than being killed by the people of Rathalas beforehand. There was a polite veneer put over what he did for the official records, but anyone who knew anything understood that he really just burned down the city in a fury. That's why people react to him the way they do, especially the foreigners. In terms of the last point, what I'm trying to say is in your previous post you seemed to be implying that Dalinar should not be able to summon Honor's perpendicularity because he is too dishonorable and/or his moral character is not in alignment with Honor or the morals of the Bondsmith order. I disagree. It sounds like I may have misunderstood and you are now saying he shouldn't be able to summon the perpendicularity because he hasn't satisfactorily completed a redemption arc? I don't think that follows - whether or not he's completed redemption is unrelated to his ability to summon the perpendicularity. That is only related to whether or not he has said the correct number of ideals and aligned himself with the Bondsmith order and the Honor shard. I would also say that maybe rather than a redemption arc, I would call it a reformation arc. He has reformed himself to be a better person who would not burn down a city again. His redemption will start only now - now that he has become a better person he will seek to right the wrongs of the past, etc.

Willingness to kill your enemy as an objective is again, the kind of thing soldiers are taught in military training but is not aligned with the goals of the Windrunner order. You could argue that protecting people is a military objective, and it can be. But not in the way the Windrunner's have shown to value it. A military objective is something like "Escort the VIP from point A to point B." Or, "Protect civilians in the area of operation." That is not the type of objective that Windrunners have. Their objective is to protect anyone who needs to be protected (i.e. anyone who cannot protect themself is a person who needs to be protected), regardless of their faction as the 3rd Ideal showed. In terms of protecting vs. not protecting, you again seem to be missing the point that Kaladin learned. Yes, you are absolutely correct that in many or even most cases both sides wish to protect their own people. However, that is not always the case. For example, a war of aggression or conquest cannot be considered protection. The war being prosecuted by the Fused and Odium can't be considered a war of protection today, though it could have been when it first began thousands of years ago. The individual soldiers may be caught up in things they have no belief in (such as the parsh/singers in the Battle of Kholinar), but the war aims are not about protection. Again, on the "us" vs. "them" topic it feels like you are missing the point. You are correct that Kaladin learned that to protect people he sometimes has to harm others. However, his position has changed over time. Initially he interpreted that as "protect your allies and brothers in arms and kill everyone else" during his days in Amaram's army. Then, in Bridge 4 he learned that he needed to protect people who couldn't protect themselves, not just his own brothers in arms. Then, he learned at the Elhokar assassination attempt that he needs to protect even those he hates. During his time with the parsh/singers early in OB, he realized that most of the parsh/singers are not his enemies and that his best goal is to avoid battle with them. At the Battle of Kholinar, he realized that he can't protect everybody and sometimes people who normally wouldn't be fighting are forced to fight each other. He hasn't figured out what to do about that yet. I don't think it's going to be "well, there are people who you have spent a lot of time learning are not really your enemies. but, it's more convenient for your side if you just kill them, so go ahead and do it." In terms of the Skybreakers, yes they are good soldiers. They followed orders, they followed the rules, and they followed their leader. That's a good rank and file soldier - as long as it's not illegal then you need to do what your leadership tells you. That's what their entire order is set up to be. It wasn't the rank and file Skybreakers who failed, it was Nale. They are terrible leaders, but good soldiers. Or, maybe if it feels better for you to say it this way they make good Privates rather than good soldiers. As best I understand it, your point is that Kaladin and the Windrunners need to learn that they should compromise or change their moral values and simply fight and kill people because it's going to lead to them being successful in war. For a normal person, I would agree with your advice. I would tell them the military life is not for them if they can't come to terms with the fact that they are going to have to kill good people whose only crime is that they are from another country. But that's not the world of Stormlight Archive and it's not consistent with the Knights Radiant. The entire point of the Knights Radiant is that each order has to maintain certain oaths and moral codes or they lose their power. These moral codes are often not practical and conflict with each other between orders, which is also kind of the point. The Windrunners' moral values do not seem to be compatible with the idea of killing people just because they are the enemy. In the heat of battle when it's kill or be killed, yes within limits. When they have any other option, no.

The entire lens you are looking at this through seems to be wrong though. You are looking at it from the perspective of a military commander, even quoting Clausewitz the famous military historian and Prussian general. From your perspective "acceptable losses" seems to mean what can you give up while still achieving your military objective. That's not the Windrunner perspective, which Kaladin has shown many times. To a Windrunner, the death of an "enemy" is not desirable. It would be most desirable if the "enemy" chose to no longer be an enemy. The Windrunner perspective does not look at their battles in terms of achieving military objectives, they look at it in terms of protecting people in some way. They seem to define enemies based on who wants to harm someone and allies based on who wants to protect people. I just don't think it makes any sense for their next ideal to be something saying it's ok to kill "enemy combatants" because their 3rd ideal is that they must protect even those they hate. We've seen the progress of the Windrunner ideals from protecting people who can't protect themselves, to the understanding that you have to protect people even if you don't like them. The whole point Kaladin makes about "us vs. them" is that he is realizing now that he's understood the third ideal that he disagrees with his prior reasoning. He now understand that protecting "us" and hurting "them" doesn't align with a Windrunner's values. The next ideal should be a further refinement of who to protect, not a "repeal" of one of the previous ideals. To protect does not always mean to kill, though it does sometimes. We all agree that it has to be something about choosing who to protect when you are conflicted. It's got to be something like "I will force myself to choose who to protect, even if it means hurting my friends." The Windrunners are fighters, but not rank and file soldiers or police. They have to feel they have a personal moral justification for why they fight. Skybreakers make good soldiers because they delegate that authority to others by following laws and military orders given to them by others.

The outlining bar always makes me a little nervous. He said before he started writing that he needed to finish the outline for books 4 and 5 prior to writing 4 so that he would know what events go in each book and preventing plots from changing and moving around similar to pulling Dalinar's book up from 5th to 3rd. That made a huge amount of sense to me especially in context of some of the things in the middle and later parts of OB that felt a little less cohesive than WoK, WoR, and the first part of OB. I don't know how to put this into words, but it's just a feeling I got when reading OB. I think a lot of people have taken notice of this based on discussions on this board, including Sanderson himself based on his outlining plan. The fact that he didn't finish the outline before writing SA4 has always made me wonder why he changed his mind. If he doesn't feel he's completed the outline does that mean there's a chance he'll decide he painted himself into a corner for SA4 or SA5 and need to make a late change? In reality, it's probably that there are just a few of the smaller plot points that he hasn't fully fleshed out or something like that. Obviously, he knows what he's doing and he's a better author than I will ever be, but it still makes me wonder.

You could also argue that it may have been an intentional act from the humans at some point. They may have felt that it was wrong to desecrate the bodies of sentient beings and so they took the opportunity after the last previous desolation when there would be few parsh bodies to try to make people forget and change their behavior. That would make sense in context of them doing things like intentionally trying to end the Knights Radiant, etc.

It was a good post, made people think. 1) I do agree that if there was a POV character from Rathalas it would make the crimes feel more real. Rathalas only exists in the books as a place for Dalinar to burn down. 2) I don't necessarily feel different about his overall character arc if Dalinar knowingly and intentionally kills Evi, but I do feel differently about how the in world characters should feel about him. I think if he had actually done that, his arc would have to be different though. The point of his arc was that his lust for battle had gotten out of control and that Rathalas was the point where the negative consequences got so extreme that he realized he had to radically change his life. Killing his wife isn't really related to that. 3) You don't exactly "have" to root for historical figures in the same way that you don't "have" to root for Dalinar. It's just that people hold up certain historical figures as great people - Julius Caesar, Napoleon Bonaparte, many leaders on the side of the Allies in WW2, the list goes on. But, you could argue that all of these people have committed crimes equal to or even greater than Dalinar's. The point I'm making is (right or wrong) people are generally willing to forgive some types war crimes if there were extreme circumstances and they don't have a close relationship to the victims of those war crimes. In terms of Honor's perpendicularity I think we should also remember that Honor does not really represent "Honor" in the way we think of Honor. It actually represents the concept of following orders, following the law and other rules, doing what you think is right, meeting societal expectations and things like that. You can commit atrocities while still doing all of those things. The Skybreakers show us that directly in world. So in terms of Dalinar's actions aligning with the Honor shard's intent, they were probably not as far off from that as you might think.

I agree that the "cost" of soulcasting vs. the cost of traditional production is a factor in economic choices. However, the entire point we are arguing here is that the value of the money gems (spheres) is not directly tied to the value of goods that they can produce. It is not a "gold standard" type system where the value of the money is directly tied to a certain physical good. In terms of the values of the gems relative to each other, the Coppermind has a chart showing all the values of every kind of sphere relative to each other. The chart is based on an email note from Sanderson's staff. For length, I won't quote it here but here is the link to it https://wob.coppermind.net/events/354-miscellaneous-2018/#e10402. There's no explanation given as to why the exchange values are what they are, but the way these are fairly round numbers like 5:1, 2.5:1, 10:1, etc between the different types of gems makes it seem like they are artificially set by government. If it was an organic exchange rate set by the exact intrinsic value of the spheres then it would probably be something like 68:29 that is not a nice round number. That's how real world currency works too (i.e. USD:Euro is not a nice even fraction or ratio). So, as per the coppermind the value of the highest and lowest valued gems is set somewhat based on what they can soulcast, but the relative values of the other stones are just set arbitrarily by rule. None of the gems' values are based exactly on the soulcasting value because too many other things fluctuate in the market. I highly doubt that there is an institution that keeps prices fixed. What most likely happens is that the market fluctuates freely and then once it gets too far out of line with the soulcasting cost, people start soulcasting a lot more (or less) and there is a correction and the price comes either up or down to come back more in line with the soulcasting cost/value. In the ancient societies, gold can also be used up in the sense that it is taken out of circulation as money. If you make a statue, or a gilded suit of armor, etc you are losing gold to being money. It's not a huge percentage of the gold supply, but I would also argue that gems destroyed in soulcasting is also a small percent of the money gem supply.

I don't think this comparison is valid. The Rosharan money system has not been shown to be a system where the currency gems are pegged to the exact value of what they can soulcast like the US Dollar was pegged at one time to a specific amount of gold. Under the gold standard, the reason that 1 US Dollar = 1 ounce of gold is because the government said so. It doesn't matter if gold itself becomes more or less valuable over time because the government who controls the paper money says that $1 always equals 1 ounce. For example, let's say some new invention comes along that takes 1 ounce of gold plus $5 worth of other materials and labor, and makes something that will sell for $10. You could argue that gold should really now be worth $5 instead of $1, but the price of gold can't rise because it's pegged to the dollar even though it "should." Compare that to the Rosharan Money system. For simplicity's sake we'll say it takes 1 topaz brohm can make 1 ton of marble in a soulcaster before it breaks. You could then argue that 1 ton of marble should be worth 1 topaz brohm. But what about all the other things you might buy with that topaz brohm? Or, since the money system is based on more than one type of gem, what about the value of what you could make with an emerald? The Coppermind says that 1 emerald brohm is worth 10 topaz brohms. So let's say 1 emerald brohm can make 1 ton of grain. Does that mean that 1 ton of marble is always equal in price to 10 tons of grain? I don't think that is likely the case. I think you have this off in your mind. In your analogy, the gems are the paper dollars of the currency, pegged to the stuff they can make which is the "gold" - an item of theoretically fixed value. I think in the Rosharan money system there can't be a gold standard reference. It's more like if there was a gold standard, a silver standard, a copper standard, a platinum standard, and a titanium standard each backing a different type of currency that has an exchange rate with each other and each one of these metals can fluctuate in value relative to the others (i.e. 1 oz of gold may be worth 1.5 oz of silver today, but it might be worth 2 oz of silver tomorrow). It's even more complicated than that because there are more than just 5 gemstones and therefore there are more than 5 goods that can be made from those gems to peg the value of gems to, but there are only 5 tiers of value in the Rosharan currency. You can't say I have 1 ton of marble and I want to trade it in for 10 tons of grain because the price of grain is not set based on the price of marble. It's set based on the market for grain and relative to the value of the gems. Instead, the relative values of the gems are pegged to each other. You can always say that you have one emerald brohm and you want 10 topaz brohms. Another point is that the reason the gold has value (in theory) is because it's a specific metal that has a fixed and limited supply. Aside from minor fluctuations like mining, the supply of gold isn't going to change much year to year which means its value is going to stay pretty stable. If you consider grain as the "gold", the same principle does not work. The value of grain changes a lot throughout the year, from year to year, and even from place to place based on scarcity, etc. Grain is too volatile to be the backing of a money system. I think the Rosharan money system is more like the ancient/medieval style money systems where actual gold and silver coins were used as the currency and the value of the money was derived from the actual precious metal content of the coin itself. The gems themselves are the value, they are not pegged to anything else.

I really don't think it would make sense if it did shatter Adolin or Renarin's perceptions. Someone else maliciously captured their mother who became collateral damage in their father's war crime. Adolin and Renarin always knew their father committed a war crime in the Rift, they just thought it was because the people of the Rift had killed their mother. To learn that their mother's death was an accidental, unwitting and tragic byproduct of that war crime instead of its cause does not seem like something that should shatter them. It's not like Dalinar ordered the destruction of the city knowing or having any reason to believe that Evi was inside. People die in war and she was at the front by her own choice. She put herself at risk of something like this happening to her. I don't think that her accidental death makes it any worse than what they already know. How does the conversation go? "Ok, so you caused the death of thousands of innocent people and I've known this all my life and I'm OK with it. But, now you're saying mom had snuck in among those people and died with them and you didn't know until afterward? I HATE YOU FOREVER!!" It just doesn't seem to make sense.

I think what you are discounting is the end results. Kaladin could have chosen to make a huge fuss, he could have chosen to go into rebellion over this. And you could argue that he would be more true to his own values and beliefs by doing it. But that analysis doesn't consider what the end result of doing any of those things would be and what action would have had the best end result. Let's look at what the results might be, positive and negative of taking a hardline stance. Pros: Kaladin remains firm in his principles. Amaram may have been punished. Nobles/Lighteyes may have been held accountable for crimes more often. Cons: Kaladin alienates Dalinar and Adolin, his only powerful allies Kaladin likely further destabilizes an already unsteady Alethi government by creating a division among nobles over Amaram and his possible punishment Amaram may not have been punished - he still has a lot of allies and the upper class will probably stick together to protect him even if they don't like him Nobles/Lighteyes may not be held accountable for crimes more often - if Kaladin's brash actions are viewed negatively the Lighteyes may double down and go into reactionary crackdown mode. This seems pretty likely, considering how all the people in power reacted to any other societal changes that Dalinar tried to implement through proper channels. Dalinar was only able to find success by continually and consistently pointing out the economic and moral benefits of his reforms and implementing the changes he could himself to lead by example. If Dalinar as a High Prince can't get people to consider reform in a reasonable amount of time when going through proper channels, I don't think Kaladin is likely to be successful trying to force it through as a person with much lower status. The point is, I think if you consider the entire situation and context Kaladin would have made things worse for his cause by trying to force it. If he really wants to force a change, then he should keep his head down, get out to the countryside and try to raise up a rebellion. At that point, he might have at least some small chance of success. Otherwise, he should try to support Dalinar's efforts to create reform from within.

To be fair, this actually exists in the real world. It's a market concept called "Arbitrage". There was a famous article about people doing this with college textbooks a few years ago. At that time, you could buy the textbooks off Amazon at the end of semesters when everyone wanted to sell them, then resell them for a profit on Amazon when a new semester was starting and everyone wanted to buy. I think Amazon has closed this loophole now, but there were a few years where you could make a good amount of money. The general concept of arbitrage though is that it may work on the short term, until the market figures it out and all the pricing comes in line. That sounds a lot like what Linn Davar was doing - even if he was just playing 100% straight up with no money laundering, it was only going to work for so long before the market caught up. I've just always felt that what was going on was basically a criminal scheme where the Ghostbloods were using his desperation to get him to do something that a normal person would never do and that probably was going to be really bad for him long term.

I have another controversial opinion. Maybe it's because I was reading/listening to too much Roman history and other histories of war, but what Dalinar did does not strike me as particularly heinous in context of all the wars in the real world. The ancient Romans destroyed Carthage and killed every man, woman, and child inside the city at the end of the 3rd Punic War and they don't take a lot of flack for that. No one holds up Scipio Africanus the Younger as one of the great war criminals of history. For a more modern example, look at World War 2. Even throwing out what the Germans, Japanese, and Russians did, the Western Allies and the US dropped firebombing raids on civilians knowing that tens and hundreds of thousands of people would be killed, most burned alive. What Dalinar did was not exceptionally bad or out of context when compared to actual war in the real world. It shouldn't have been done and it was morally wrong, but it was not some unheard of atrocity. He tried to do the honorable thing and negotiate peacefully, but he was betrayed and responded in rage only afterwards. Had he ordered (or allowed) large numbers of people to be pulled from their homes and individually tortured and slaughtered (as has been done in war crimes that have been committed in the real world), then I would feel what he did was especially egregious. I just think as someone who knows a bit about world history, in context Dalinar's response was sadly normal for someone in his situation. That doesn't excuse his crimes, but to me it makes them forgivable because they are not exceptionally bad in context and similar crimes have been committed in living memory by military leaders most of us in the western world generally consider good and moral.

In terms of savantism the one example we have seen is the woman who turned to smoke after using a smoke soulcaster for years. I agree the effect is cumulative, it doesn't matter how often you use it it makes how many times. So a person who used it once per year for 10 years is just as bad off as the person who used it 10 times in one day. You could still account for that by putting a lifetime cap on a person's use of soulcasters. I think of it similar to the Chernobyl cleanup effort. They had people go up onto an extremely radioactive rooftop for a very short period of time, essentially receiving their lifetime safe dosage of radiation in 90 seconds. Other workers were exposed for longer times to lower level doses, but still go up toward a maximum safe dosage eventually. At least, on paper that's how it was supposed to work though I know there is plenty of controversy over what really happened in practice. We've never seen a person turn into a part smoke, part grain, part rock chimera. So, you may be correct that that is what would happen if you switched soulcaster types, but I don't think we know that. Also, since "spirit web" is not a term that's been introduced in SA (has it even been introduced in any of the actual novels, or only WoB?) I don't really put a lot of stock in concepts about it until its explained in universe, if it ever is. At least for me personally, I definitely was considering the difference of radiant soulcasting vs. fabrial soulcasting. I think the piece I was missing was how limited each soulcaster fabrial was. I assumed that they were limited in that they could only make one type of thing - a stone one could make any type of stone, a metal one could make any type of metal, etc. I didn't realize they were so limited they could only make one exact thing (the stone one can only make one exact kind of stone barracks, or that one soulcaster that may only be able to make bronze). This may still be a limit in training or knowledge on the part of the ardents, but that's getting into more speculation.

I am not forgetting that soulcasting has its risks, I directly addressed that in my post. If it really is limitless and essentially free, it would be so good that the entire economy would be built around it. You could have 100 or even 1000 people operating a soulcaster. You could set up rules saying that no one person can use it more than X times in their life. Maybe you rotate through several different ones over your lifetime so that you don't let your training go to waste and you won't turn to smoke because you aren't just making smoke only. It's only a death sentence if you continually use it many times over a long period of time. I had never really taken notice of your quoted section of tWoK before though. I think that is an important point and you have provided a few good quotes on the topic. This and your other quote feel like they could be Sanderson's way of saying, "I don't know exactly how this works, I don't want soulcasters to be too good, so I'm putting some limits on them. Don't think about it too much, just know that they are limited and that's why the entire economy is not just based on them." From his Writing Excuses podcasts, we know that he does put a lot of thought into how the magic would effect the economy of his worlds. It could also be that Shallan is just wrong about this, or the ardents are either lying or lack knowledge about the true capabilities of the soulcasters. She is an unreliable narrator for sure. That said though, I'm coming more toward your view that we probably just don't know enough. If you've found two quotes on this in a short period of time, I've got to imagine there are a dozen more limitations on soulcasters that are mentioned periodically throughout the series that we are not thinking about right now. Thinking about the Rosharan economy is just interesting to me, so that's why I'm even discussing the topic.

I think we can look at the overall context of the books and the economy of Roshar to say that it must be more expensive to operate a soulcaster than to obtain the object you want through normal means. If soulcaster use is essentially free (only costs stormlight that is refilled for free at each highstorm and gems essentially never break), then it would make sense for them to be used continuously. Excluding the possible cost of replacing broken gems, it's much easier and cheaper to soulcast things than make them - there is no cost. Yes, they are controlled by the government and there are a limited number, but there are enough out there to do significantly more than what is actually being done in the civilian economy. During wartime, it makes sense that the government would take all or most soulcasters for the war effort. During peacetime, they should be making absolutely everything with soulcasters and training up dozens or hundreds of operators to reduce the risk to each individual. It seems like based on what we see of the economy in the books, there are two options: 1) Soulcasters cost more to operate than the cost of making their products under normal circumstances due to their cost in shattered gems. Only wartime and other special situations make them practical to use. 2) Soulcasters are infinite and the government is keeping this a secret so that they can artificially control the economy and prop up certain industries that would be completely out competed by soulcasters. The secret third option is that Sanderson didn't really nitpick this like we did or there is some other aspect in play that we don't know about (actually a good chance this is the true answer).

I agree that the availability of soulcasters is probably the biggest factor in the price of soulcasting. I think separate to that, even if soulcasters were plentiful the soulcasting value of a gemstone would not control its monetary value. The value of 1 broam is greater as money than what it could produce if it were used for soulcasting. I also agree that the value of the money/gems is not tied to the value of what they can create by soulcasting, but I don't think your idea makes sense economically. Think about it - if one gem could produce many times its value in some type of good then you would see the intelligent people of the world immediately taking any money they get and having someone soulcast it, then sell whatever they soulcast for a profit. You could argue that the people who control the soulcasters know this and intentionally control their use to keep the price of all goods high, but it feels like we would have at least some hint that this was going on after 3 books. If it's really that bad, I think this would be a significant plot point at some point in the books. This isn't just making a little money by keeping supply of one good artificially low like the diamond market in the real world, this is denying people the Star Trek replicator that can make them anything they want for free. People could have had whatever they want for essentially free if people used the soulcasters to their potential, but nobles/clergy/corporate fat cats kept people starving and deprived so they could make more money.

I don't think it makes sense to say that the value of gemstones used for money directly correlate to what they can produce in a soulcaster. That doesn't seem to line up with the way the Rosharan economy is shown to be working. If the value of gemstones is the value of their soulcasting (i.e. 1 emerald brohm can produce a total amount of food by soulcasting that costs 1 emerald brohm to buy on the market), then it would not make sense to ever make anything that can be soulcast by any means other than soulcasting. It's much easier to soulcast a piece of marble than it is to mine it out of the ground and people are not going to do extra work they don't need to do. You might see the wealthy paying for the exotic "natural" goods, while the poor would live on the cheap and lower quality soulcast goods. People would work in soulcasting factories rather than mines and farms. Instead, you see the opposite. The rich pay extra for exotic soulcasting, while the poor use the baseline natural goods. I believe the way the economy works is that only certain large gemstones are very effective at soulcasting and can produce a lot more before breaking than what their value would be if it was just based on them being the next biggest size gem with a proportional price increase. The price of these special gemstones is set specifically based on their soulcasting ability. The rest of the gemstones produce significantly less than their value before breaking, their price is set based on the economy. The real world analogue to this is that the price of gold and silver are much higher than their actual utilitarian value in things like electric wiring which is why we use copper for most wiring rather than gold even though gold is more effective. People probably do use the smaller gems in soulcasting because of the convenience factor, like you said. It's more cost effective and/or worth the extra price to have a soulcaster and burn up the smaller gems than to bring a huge supply train on a military campaign. The idea that soulcasting usually costs more than "natural" production lines up with how it's shown in the economy of the books - a luxury reserved for the rich or only used in a time of need like during war. Another alternative that would explain the scarcity of soulcasting in the Roshar economy is that the price of having something soulcasted is mostly in the usage charge for the soulcaster itself. Maybe soulcasters are so scarce that even though they can produce 1 for 1 value or better for any gemstone, the people using them can charge huge convenience fees. Another possibility is that the pool of people who have the ability or desire to use soulcasters is so low that their labor price makes up the majority of the cost. You do get the sense that the regular people of the world and even minor nobles don't have access to soulcasters very often. It seems like there are a very limited number of them that are used for the highest ranking people in society and their needs such as supplying their armies. Now, as far as the actual scheme Linn Davar was doing, I think it was the Rosharan version of money laundering. I still think you are right that what he is doing does not make economic sense in a normal, above board market. Mined marble would probably have value and exist in the market because it is probably more cost efficient or just simply available to more people to use mined marble for very large projects like marble floors of palaces, columns, etc. Mined marble is almost certainly priced lower than soulcast marble, so he is probably taking a loss on every sale. That's where the money laundering comes in. Linn Davar is essentially converting gems from the Ghostbloods that were probably obtained through illegal means into many gems that have a "legitimate" source. You can take a loss in money laundering and consider it the price of business. Or, alternatively if the value is in the soulcaster itself he's using a stolen soulcaster at below market rates for soulcasting but still turning a profit because there was so much margin there in the above board market.

Yeah, no need to go into a full on discussion and jack the thread. Just thought it was interesting. Threatening to destroy (or severely punish) his followers if they disobey is also par for the course of the "divine hatred" aspect of a god of just about any religion we have in the real world though.

I think the WOB you just quoted is very interesting. But doesn't it sort of contradict one of your pet peeves regarding Odium? This WOB directly states that Odium has a valid argument to say that he does represent all emotion (Passion) rather than simply hatred. It says that the names of many of the shards aren't really precise. For example - Sanderson says that Honor actually represents a sense of being bound by rules. This includes things that many people would consider dishonorable such as following rules or laws that are immoral (see the Skybreakers). So, you could really say that Honor the shard does not truly represent "honor" the concept. If he did, then he would not include things that a reasonable person could consider dishonorable. You could definitely argue that Honor is more "honorable" than "dishonorable," but it's still too simplistic to just call him Honor if you want to accurately describe what his shard represents. It seems likely based on this WOB that it's also too simplistic to just call Odium hate. The implication was that the name of his shard was given by all the other shards based on what they perceived him to be. They disliked the true and objective intent of his shard and therefore named him in a way that has a negative connotation (odium -> odious) the way they did with Ruin. Most likely, Odium is not exactly "hate" in the same way that Honor is not exactly "honor." It's just that his actual, objectively described intent does tend to lead to hate more often than not. So, maybe it's not a meaningful distinction. I'm wondering, based on the descriptions of various gods in real world religious history, if his "God's own divine hatred" description means that like many gods in many religions throughout history (particularly ancient religions) he loves his followers and hates all others.