Ixthos

What are the odds that, despite Scadrial being cleansed at the end of Era 1, that future Eras will involve the sky once more covered in ash, this time manufactured by humans? Despite Harmony trying to Preserve, the humans can still choose to Ruin, and those who were given clear skies made them dark.

Mistborn spoilers

Fixing it required a single line, yes, but that doesn't mean the chasm came first. Consider, if the magic was damaged that would immediately cause damage to the land due to the link (I am not saying the magic WAS damaged first, only consider, what would happen if one Dor-entity representing one land attacked another Dor-entity representing another land), and that then caused a wound to the land, reflecting the wound to the magic. At that point then one still has to incorporate the damage from the land into the new Aon. That is good take on it, the deadeye relationship. I think a view of Sel's cognitive realm would reveal a lot about other relations.

It depends - the links between language, location, and magic on Sel are weird, so it could be that, if someone is linked to the land, they both affect one another. The Fisher king's wound was the cause of harm to the land in the legend. On Sel it could be that one is the cause of the other, or - as was noted - cause and effect on Sel can be strange and inverted. For all we know the chasm wasn't the cause of the damage to AonDor, but the result - a fisher king or fisher kingdom connection could be likewise.

It can be referred to as a framing device or as a framing story: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FramingDevice A few good examples are: The 1001 Nights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Thousand_and_One_Nights The Princess Bride (film): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Princess_Bride_(film) And, as @Eri said, as a story within a story.

Yes. I am a Christian and I believe in One God who is Three, who is the God of the Bible, the LORD, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel.

And they are appreciated :-)

@Kingsdaughter613 Before we go further with this, and I would really like to though that will have to wait until tomorrow at least, could you please tell me which parts of Jewish theology I am contradicting? Remember, I am saying the Angel of the LORD (not "an", "the") is in fact the LORD - that Angel of the LORD means the manifestation of the LORD, not a mere angel but actually God Himself appearing and used to distinguish between God on His Throne and God when He appears. Called Angel because no other term could describe His appearance. (Also, I am not trying to make you angry, and I apologise if I am, as I genuinely don't know what I am saying wrong here. I will try to respond more fully tomorrow - also, could you site some sources about Yeshua like that? I would like to see how they compare to the sources I know of which vindicate the Gospel accounts.) (Also @Aspiring Writer I'd like to get back to you on that, but that will have to be tomorrow at the earliest. Good discussion so far though!)

Link to other topics in this series: Making a setting 01 - getting started - [POLL CLOSED] Making a setting 02 - Choice of Worlds - The Triarku system summary and plot Making a setting 03 - Choice of Worlds - Aliens and humans in the Triarku system - [POLL CLOSED] Making a setting 04 - Choice of Worlds - Magic in the Triarku system - [POLL CLOSED] Making a setting 05 - Choice of Worlds - Planets in the Triarku system - [POLL CLOSED] [POLL CLOSED] RESULTS: Initial planets in the solar system are at least one hot planet close to the stars at the centre of the system, an inner asteroid belt, Chrysmal and its moon, at least one gas giant orbited by several moons, and an outer asteroid belt. Note that all the planets described here are the inhabited ones, so where human civilisations can occur, though some of the aliens will make use of other planets, moons, further out. So the lowest number of planets and human habitable moons in the system are five (one hot planet, Chrysmal, and three gas giant moons), while the highest number is eight (an additional hot planet and two more moons). This does not cover outposts such as those in Moro, Chrysmal's moon, the portal moon construct, and so forth. Some things to bare in mind: If there is more than one hot planet, and / or more than one gas giant, the centre hot planet will become a major hub due to it being the closest planet on average to every other one, otherwise it will be a mostly independent city state If multiple gas giants are chosen then the habitable moons will be spread across the closer two, while if the third is included it will mainly be settled by some of the aliens Moro, the moon around Chrysmal, is mainly an outpost used by the nations of the other planets, and so isn't a permanent settlement or civilisation. Chrysmal is a planet which is very similar to Earth, and is at the crossing stage from steampunk to dieselpunk, though they haven't yet invented rockets. It is divided, but less so than the other planets in the Triarku system. The other planets that are the hot planet and the gas giant moons are advanced in many ways technologically, but have started to stagnate in some areas. Each planet has multiple nations, so no single planet has a single government, and indeed on each planet there is often at least one war occurring between different nations at any one time. If Chrysmal were to become aware of the others and start a war, it might find it has some allies, and would not face a unified front.

@Kingsdaughter613 Wikipedia has a list of examples where the Angel appears and yet the characters refer to having seen or interacted with the LORD. I am not using it as a source, but rather for the complete list. For example in Numbers it says an Angel was the one who led Israel out of Egypt, yet it also says the LORD did so. If you have made your mind up on this my goal isn't to convince you but rather to show the exist often conflates the two, thus the LORD remains on His Throne, yet when He appears on Earth the manifestation is called the Angel of the LORD. Thus the Angel of the LORD is the LORD, while the LORD remains eternally seated on His Throne. (Also, I like argument and debate too :-P and I hope you are accepting my comments in the spirit of constructive debate, rather than attempted bullying) I know it doesn't. Adonai, however, is used when reading those passages, and Adonai means LORD, which is why I capitolise it, to signify it as HaShem and so to preserve the Holiness of the Name. [Edit] Another example: Genesis 22:11 has the Angel of the LORD call to Abraham and speaks as though it were the LORD.

Fair enough - its just this topic already is about religion, and the last thing we want to do is add politics! "Religion. and. politics. often. make. some. people. lose. all. perspective. ..." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ur6d-D4zXE I'm worried that Brandon is going to use Renarin's name as a reference to the Name of God, so if Renarin takes up a shard - or takes up a shard with multiple other people - that it would then be said by another character "I see now, your name means you are completely self sufficient and eternal now - now that you are a shard you have become like one who was born unto himself." which would be VERY upsetting to me. The LORD's Name is sacred, and if you can grok the idea of sacred it should be clearer, but it is difficult to explain otherwise.

Indeed it is helpful :-) If God doesn't exist, if religion is entirely man made and devoid of truth, if all we have been told is fairytale and myth, then the only problem with how Brandon approaches his writing is how it would make those of us who are religious feel. If God does exist then Brandon is potentially putting himself at risk if he does certain things in his writing, which he so far hasn't seemed to have done from my perspective. Some of what Brandon has written has made me nervous and uncomfortable, but that isn't the same thing, as that is mainly because it seems to hint at other things that might happen, which I hope doesn't happen. I have no problem with him exploring religions and religious ideas in his writing, indeed I find it interesting and well done. And I understand a lot of what Brandon has done and why he has done certain things, including the capitalised G for some characters, even though I don't like it. The issue is if he continues further down that. (Again, consider Michael Crichton. He was free to up whatever characters he wanted in his story. So was their any problems with him writing a character as a brief cameo who happened to be a vile human being, and shared a name and profession with a critic who disliked his books? I am not saying Brandon is going to do this, only that the possibility of something similar bothers me, and his own actions might be a danger to Brandon himself, again like a man walking a tight rope, as he will have to give an account to God about it.) There are religions which have mortal divinities, and gods split into pieces. Some even where gods accidentally make the world, get tricked, and elevate mortals to be gods also. I don't have a problem with Brandon writing that, and find it interesting. The issue becomes if a very specific name for a very specific God is used or implied, as that is sacred. If God doesn't exist, then it only is a problem in as much as it upsets myself and others who see that name as Holy. If God does exist then Brandon is walking on a tight rope. It doesn't matter how an author is exploring an idea if it also happens to be the equivalent of playing Russian Roulette and putting five bullets in the chamber. Again, if God doesn't exist then the only problem is how it makes some Christians feel - as was noted earlier this is like representation of minorities and marginalised groups, as sometimes a bad portrayal can be more damaging than no portrayal, you don't want to offend anyone even if all that happens is you make some people upset. But if God does exist then Brandon would have to give an account of this, if done, to the LORD. Brandon is free to explore the idea of divinity and deity, and what worship is and makes people do. He is free to put anything he wants in his stories. It likely is he won't do this, but I can't say with certainty he won't, and it does bother me. Nevertheless Brandon can do what he wants with the books Also, I'm fairly certain Stormlight is going to end with the shards changing hands, so there isn't much way around similarities to Sazed - after all, Taravangian has also taken up a shard already. Let's not bring politics into this please :-P I am not saying Brandon can't use capitol G God in his stories, or that it doesn't make sense, only that when he does so it makes me nervous about possible future things he might do, as Renarin's name immediately made me worry. Capitol G God has a very specific connotation in Western culture, which is why people who believe in multiple gods often use lower case g to distinguish between the supreme God and other gods. Again, I understand why Brandon uses it, and god is a broadly used term, I do agree. It is just an example of another thing added on top of a list of things that make me nervous. The term is often used as a title, but in a certain context it gains another meaning - like in your Emperor example if there was someone commonly known to the population as "The Emperor", and usually when talking about emperors they used a lowercase e, and someone then refers to "The Emperor", it brings to mind that specific person, while "emperor" wouldn't. I'm not saying Brandon has done anything wrong, I am saying it is another thing which makes me worry he might go a little further (i.e. most Christians I know wouldn't refer to a fictional Character as "God" in the narration itself, though they might have characters talk to one another and call a character that. It doesn't mean Brandon will go further, only that I'm hoping he doesn't.

It definitely seems more effort is required to make it a weapon. Though it does raise interesting questions.

That is an interesting take - though are you saying the angel was in the bush the whole time doing nothing? The text seems to be clear that the angel was in the bush, and yet the LORD has in the bush speaking to Moshe - that is, only one person went into the bush, and that same person then spoke from the bush. Another question then is what was the pillar of fire by night and cloud by day that lead the Israelites out of Egypt? Was it the LORD or an angel? (Actually, here is a list of examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_of_the_Lord) Either way you do agree it could be interpreted as saying the Angel of the LORD was the one who entered and who spoke, as it doesn't say the LORD entered the bush yet it does say the LORD spoke from the bush. i.e. what was the Angel doing there? Depends - do you think there is a problem with authors inserting references to real people in their stories? I did elaborate later, but it is something that bothers me, much like how an author talking about real people can potentially be offensive.

I am learning Hebrew, albeit modern Hebrew. However, if you have the Torah infront of you, please read to me Exodus 3:2, and tell me what it says? Ahhh! Yes, I do know that name, albeit the anglicised Jethro. That is interesting the staff was used in the temple, though in what capacity? Was it put in the Ark like Aaron's staff was? There are so many things from the past lost. Still, we must remember that, however special items were, the LORD lives and they were mere reflections of His power and promises, and that power and those promises remain.

Ahhh, key point is the Angel of the LORD ISN'T an angel. Its a bit complicated, but the Angel of the LORD is multiple times in the text identified with the LORD - i.e. the Angel of the LORD is when the LORD appears on Earth. I haven't heard of Yisro before, or at least I don't think I have heard of him. That is an interesting idea though - is anything said of what happened to it afterwards?

Oooh! That would be cool! I like multiple factions and the complexities of politics during times of war (I'm hoping it also involves multiple planets each with multiple factions, so not just Scadrial vs Roshar, but some of Scadrial vs some of Scadrial vs some of Sel vs some of Sel vs Some of Sel vs some of Roshar vs ....)

Hmmm ... the thing is that isn't mentioned in the Torah that I am aware of, nor by the Prophets or Writings. Is that from the Talmud, or another source? Also, it feels like that story takes away from one of the central themes of Moshe's encounter with the Angel of the LORD - that Moshe has been appointed to this and given power by the LORD not because of anything special about him, but because this is what the LORD has chosen him for - the power of the staff was power given to Moshe by the LORD, and later Aaron does the same with his staff at Moshe's command. Not that I am saying the staff wasn't sapphire, only that I haven't encountered that story before.

That makes a lot of sense. I suppose Windrunners and Skybreakers probably would have ways around that, though it also could be there is - before the conflict or even during it - trade with Scadrians to make use of weight affecting medallions.

Thank you for responding - I guess those are deep questions and would be tricky to answer. Let me think on the answers for a bit and I'll see if I can hopefully ask some more clarifying questions later (there seems to be a link between idea 1 and idea 2 with the cycles). Until then I hope you have a great day! Great :-) let's wait to see if @Trutharchivist agrees and we can go from there. I will admit, I'd never heard that the staff was sapphire - I was under the impression that it was the same one he had when he encountered the burning bush, and was a simple shepherd's staff. (Also, didn't Aaron's staff bloom with almond blossoms? Was his staff made from a different material?)

Interesting idea :-) though what would the rules be if, for example, a Nalthian at the third heightening gives their Breath to a Rosharan? Would the Rosharan then count as a Nalthis human and a Rosharan?

Thanks :-) does the tree have an ultimate root - i.e. do you believe there was an original God who wasn't once a man? how did the universe begin, did a god make it? does the family tree have those further along the tree interacting with those later down? That is, is the previous god still in contact with the god who made the god who made them, and what relation would they have to the men who haven't yet become gods, etc.? @Kingsdaughter613 an understandable view, though obviously one I disagree with. What I do find very interesting is that many of the Messianic Jews (Jews who became Christian) I know tend to be among the most devout Christians. I'm actually engaging in a theological discussion with @Trutharchivist in PM that touches on the differences and similarities between Christian and Jewish theology. If he is up for it, would you like to join?

That sounds like a cool idea :-) I'll look it up, though part of this would still require Brandon to give a little more info on the setting, including the types of Aethers. If he does though I think a community based game using that system would be cool :-) I like it :-) I wonder if it would be possible to also, while keeping it balanced, make unique rules for levelling up each system, such as the economic element of Breaths and the Oath progression of Knights Radiant? Or could levelling also apply to skill use of an ability, not just more power but more skill with a power, like Steelpush skill? You said it before I did :-P Good points - Brandon needs to give a table for prices and conversion rates!

@AquaRegia no problem :-) this is a forum for anyone to join in, and I like discussing and debating, so feel free! The reason I chose to mention species is because it is very strongly linked to the idea of sex: i.e. the common understanding of sex is that sex requires a male/hermaphrodite and a female/hermaphrodite of the same species in order to produce more, and for species it is that those members could produce another organism via meiosis and couldn't do so with members of another species - that is you can produce offspring if you are the appropriate sex and species, but you can't produce offspring if you are the wrong sexes and species. There is a blurriness between certain boundaries of species, but a dog and a cat can't produce viable offspring to the best of my knowledge. I do - and did in the above posts - agree that these are constructs, but stated they are useful constructs because they describe a useful and manifested pattern, and one that is so ubiquitous that even different types of life have adopted it using different mechanisms of manifesting it (such as ants using diploid genetics for females and haploids for males, birds using different chromosomes than mammals to determine sex, reptiles based on temperature as an egg, etc.) so they are constructs but just because they are constructs doesn't mean they aren't viable and useful descriptors that can be changed arbitrarily. It is Loki's wager - there certainly is fuzziness between categories, but that doesn't mean the category can just be discarded. Your head and your neck don't have a clear divide, but that doesn't mean head and neck are useless terms, or you can define your shoulderblades to be your head. As a chemist you know the difference between electrons and protons - are those meaningful terms? You know two different atoms can have the same number of particles in the nucleus, but are still different elements; is the difference between carbon-14 and nitrogen-14? Are they not constructs also? Planets are indeed more complex to categorise than they had at first appeared, and even some moons are larger than some planets! And for stars there are stars that blur the line between gas giant and star. But do you agree the Earth and the Sun are different things, and they occupy two peaks in two piles that are themselves very fuzzy. As Stephen Fry put it (though he might have been quoting someone else) "Just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean science knows nothing." We are always learning, but that doesn't mean a category should be discarded without reason, especially if it is still useful. I'm happy to continue this line, but maybe lets also, in addition to the above, talk about the idea of investiture adding information to someone's DNA, or taking information away as the case may be?

Ahhh, thanks :-) that does make sense, though that is problematic for me from a theological perspective, but I think I understand that statement more fully now. Thank you :-) (This has generated new questions for me about certain other aspects of LDS (should I use that term instead?) theology relating to the family tree of God theology - do you mind if I ask you some more questions later on the same vein? Thank you again though!) You are welcome, and thank you also :-) sacred does seem to be difficult to relate to other non-religious concepts, but I think you got to the heart of it with comparisons to the idea of minorities of all types and representation / portrayal. Dealing with sacred does cover a little more, in that it isn't just how it feels to me and to others but also like watching someone doing something dangerous to themselves, like someone walking along a tightrope and then doing cartwheels, only you aren't actually seeing them do it but hearing the sounds from the other room so you can't tell if they are or aren't, but as a general rule I think your take on it is an effective summary. I think you and I are in complete agreement then on that last point :-) ultimately Brandon has to do what he feels is best for the story, and so far he has been doing an amazing job of balancing ideas and portraying various difficult topics.