MagicMaggot

If Sanderson wanted to heal the leg, he would heal the leg. There are enough options available, with the easiest being Lift, who probably isn't affected by the lack of Stormlight at all. I don't expect it to happen any time soon, though. The loss of the leg allows for the impression that at least some stakes apart from death remain. And, probably more importantly, I just think that Sanderson would like to explore the consequences of this disability and how it works in his magic world further. He certainly seemed into it in WaT itself, and broadening the spectrum of representation in his novels has been of interest to him. Considering he was also thinking about some cyberpunk content in Mistborn, the topic of powerful prostetics might have been on his mind as well, and with the Shardplate he can go and experiment a bit. Then there is that Adolin is likely transitioning into a new role. A leader instead of a dueling champion, as the book suggested. The change here can be quite symbolic this way. Oh, and there could be something interesting in Shallan's reaction when they are together again, though I personally don't much expect that to be a factor. Brandon very deliberately maneuvered Adolin into a position, where the rules of the extremely powerful rosharran magic could still plausibly allow for the permanent loss of the leg for one of the highest-ranking people around. That was no coincidence.

That's still saying a lot though, isn't it? If you bring virtue into it, a lot of the classical positions on virtue ethics insisted that you actually cannot (fully) master one virtue without mastering the other virtues that give it context, so this might actually be a good comparison here. Obviously the shards aren't exactly the aristotelian or stoic virtues, but I would agree that at least some of the shards are meant to reflect properties that a moral person should master. But the person won't be fully good, if they don't master the other good things that are reflected by other shards as well. And reading them as virtues, it makes a lot of sense that honor without reason or mercy isn't very close to complete as a moral guide. And if your moral guidance is incomplete, and you don't already know what is lacking, you can never be certain it is correct in a specific case. That's how I understood the shard-problem at least. And well... I agree that this isn't exactly morally satisfying. How could it be? It's a problem, not an answer. But I don't honestly expect fantasy novels to give me moral clarity, nor am I likely to accept their moral framework any more, if it is complete, than if it isn't. I am quite happy watching Sanderson and his characters explore the topic, while making my own conclusions, and I don't feel pressured to agree with the characters, just because they are treated as right. Indeed, actually morally complete gods that gave answers to moral questions that would be as objective as it presumably gets would be likely to ruin it for me. I don't trust any author to give me the moral truth as the enlightened and basically omniscient gods see it. The closer we get to the ending of the cosmere, the more likely we are to see Sanderson try to give us answers instead of the explorations we are getting here. And this will very likely be distasteful for readers that disagree with his view. Reforming Adonalsium to get a perfectly balanced moral God again to watch over humanity could be seen as a heavy-handed religious message, while mortals splintering all the shards and using their magic energy to bring on an utopian post-scarcity cosmere would be just as heavy-handed in the materialist direction. And well, everything in between he might do probably won't make people happy, either, because they don't like fence-sitters on important topics, or something like that. But I honestly don't think we are ín far enough yet to divine what the cosmere's (or even SA's) message will actually be in the end.

So... I invite you to elaborate and... I'm delusional because you're right, and "the character" and "the Reader" told you? Got it. Have a nice day.

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are trying to say here, especially when we are talking about in-world writings. No,the protagonists didn't all hold the codes of war or the Way of Kings as a moral guide, neither literally nor in abstract. That was very specifically a Dalinar thing, not something that would be of any interest to someone like Shallan, and way besides the point for Kaladin. Nothing ever hinted at them being constants that SA was build around. For ideals in general I agree that striving for them was central to the story. As it still is. Nothing changed on that front. ,,,,by whom? The Stormfather? Not exacly an infallible guide here. If you want to claim that the books were saying that the oaths would always be good in any circumstance, you need to elaborate. I personally think that there were always hints at problems with the radiant oaths, at least as a source of power. For example, I don't think we were ever supposed to assume that the Recreance happened because the old knights were just selfishly evil, so we had reason to believe that there would have been good reasons to reject the oaths from very early on.

You were of the impression that all the radiants were supposed to clearly be "honorable and noble" good guys before TaW, just because they stuck to oaths that gave them actual power? With pov radiants like Shallan and Jasnah sticking around, and Skybreakers and Dustbringers just straight-up fighting for Odium? With the knowledge that the ancient radiants together with their spren decided to reject their oaths for moral reasons, as RoW already revealed? I find it hard to understand how the idea that oaths aren't the whole of morality on Roshar, so that there are other considerations of moral relevance as well, came out of nowhere for some. Even in principle it seems quite strange to me. We have 10 orders with 10+ different sets of oaths that can contradict one another, but it's all fine and moral, as long as they each stick to their oaths? What kind of real moral system or religion is cool with that? It always suggested that the content of the oaths wasn't the important part. I mean... the Stormfather basically said as much before, when he proclaimed that there were no stupid oaths. I don't really think we were ever supposed to agree with him on that. It gets even more muddled by the fact that swearing the oaths actually grants magic power. That's quite the extrinsic reward for keeping to the oath. Swearing the oath is usually hard, sure. But they sure are making the keeping of the oath as easy as possible here. A break with the oath is throwing away power and status, as well as hurting your spren friend, so all your incentives go towards keeping it. Heck, progressing the oaths seems to be part of your own psychotherapy, and coming close to accidentally breaking an oath was basically always connected to a character breaking under unrelated psychological pressure. The only one we saw breaking an oath that way was Shallan. A child who had no clue what she was even rejecting, after killing her own mom. Which is why the WaT oathbreakings (as well as the Recreance) are quite different. They are deliberate rejections the formal bindings that are the sources of their power, while trying to uphold the moral values behind the oaths the characters swore. Sigzil doesn't reject his oaths to protect people because his moral stance changed, he follows his oath to protect people (his spren, in this case) by rejecting his formal oath. Szeth doesn't decide that he actually doesn't want to be a law onto himself, he decides that being a law onto himself includes rejecting 12124 and looking for another spren. Dalinar decides that what can unite the cosmere against the division that is Odium is giving up his powers, by renouncing the oaths. And the ancient Radiants decided that Honor showing them how they would/could destroy the world don't really fit the whole life before death concept and rejected the powers that could make them do that. I find it hard to see a rejection of oaths as a moral factor in any of that. The moral part just isn't supposed to be the magic, nor the formal rules, but upholding what was promised in the first place. Roshar's system of magic oaths to regulate and cultivate exceptional people certainly has elements that have moral implications, but that doesn't mean we were meant to confuse a magic system with a moral philosophy.

And any of those are less constant within/after WaT than they were before? It's not like the characters rigidly adhered to any of that before. I don't think anyone but Dalinar even tried. I'm not sure who of the main cast has even (had) read 1 and 2, they certainly weren't the influence on them that they were on Dalinar. Maybe the radiant oaths were a bit of an exception here, but it's not like they were ever kept just because they were oaths. They were kept for a bunch of moral and personal reasons that were different from radiant to radiant. I'm talking about what changed in WaT, because the thread is explicitly about WaT. Changes between The first 4 books are different discussions.

Could you explain what kinds of things you think "held true" before TaW, for contrast? Because I don't really get what is new about pretty much anything you're saying here. Characters stumbling around and questioning their morals and identity was pretty much a main feature from the start, not a bug that crept in now. Oaths weren't as much proudly kept as barely clung to, often as a way to maintain sanity, when near a breaking point. Traditions and presuppositions were thrown out left and right, because they were false, or just not fit for purpose anymore. Spren were bullied, corrupted, in constant fear for their lives, and even experimented on. And the heralds were broken from the start. Things changed all the time, and nothing was really ever save from it. It's one hell of a journey. I understand the criticisms of how much TaW was on the nose, how the pacing was off, or how the prose failed, as well as the expectations some people had that it failed to meet. How the lack of stability is supposed to be a difference to the preceding books escapes me, though.

I agree. If I didn't do a recent re-read I tend to forget the details of Elhokar's weaknesses and vile actions. But I always remember how he died, moving in the right direction. I think any character arc would have a hard time redeeming my image of him as much as his death did. What he might have gotten is kind of what we're doing with Venli anyways, isn't it?

I agree. But that's why I don't think this specific speculation can get very interesting. Saying that Mishram actually came from the Night, which we might get to know in the second half, isn't much more informative than saying that maybe she was once a guy called Carl, which we might get to know in the second half. It's certainly more likely that it's the Night than Carl, but whatever is interesting about it has yet to be said.

...I thought when we were talking about the space age we were talking about rockets travelling space. Like in Tess, and other stories far along the timeline. Or like Kelsier seemed to allude to in TLM, since he specifically rejected CR travel as a viable long-term plan. So I think we might have been talking about different things here. Yeah, and I just don't believe that the title of the series will come down to "technically kind of applicable".

Probably. I'm not sure how that relates to what I said about Retribution in the Stormlight(!) Archive, though? Independent from that, I'm also not sure how close Mistborn era 3 will actually get us towards space age. It's a long way from 80's tech to interplanetary travel, as long as Sanderson wants to make it. Which is why a cyberpunk era 4 (which would move space age to era 5) is still in the cards. More than enough for Roshar to play catch-up to.

I find it unlikely that a series called "Stormlight Archive" won't have Stormlight in the back half, and I doubt we're only talking about splitting combination lights here. That alone suggests something changing with Retribution.

More or less. I meant that I want a justification for Moash's presence in the plot even more than I don't want to see him again. And let's just say the explanations you offer don't justify it for me.

Yeah no, I'm hoping for something better than that, because as far as I'm conderned that just reads like what you implied before: The author had plans for him, and thus made it happen. Taravangian thinks he can manipulate anyone, Moash isn't special in that. And Moash didn't need an Honorblade for anything he did to Kaladin or Teft in RoW. You might be right that that's all there was to it, but even if that was the original plan, I hope Sanderson can find something more satisfying in the 6++ years until it will be relevant. I'd take any "the futures I saw showed me that Moash was the one who needed to do xyz" or "shard X actually did something to make Moash seem more interesting, because it played in their long-term plans" over your version, cheap as those would be. I'm not buying what I've seen so far, so I want justification that wasn't in the text yet.

That might be Sanderson's plan, but how would that make sense for Rayse or Taravangian? They both singled him out for investment. I doubt they did it to be undermined by him later on.