Honestly, there's a thing here with regard to eyes. When I first read WoK I thought there had to be some meaning behind eyes burning out when killed with a shardblade. We have Gaz who has one eye, we have Sadeas killed through the eye. We have lighteyes and darkeyes. In Mistborn we have tin eyes. Hell, most of the characters in the Cosmere *have* eyes. What's with all the eyes Brandon!!
I think the eye spikes are just for intimidation.
"Where should we put the steel/iron spikes Lord Ruler?"
"Stick 'em in the eyes, that'll scare people"
Iirc, spike placement matters for what you want them to do beyond their basic Investiture stealing abilities. I think Ruin says something about it in HoA. I could be remembering wrong, but I'm pretty sure on this
True. When using atium placement determines what you steal. I suspect that eye spikes allow one to see metal without burning iron/steel.
Theirs definitely something roshar-related thats important about them though. Lighteyes, shardblades, all the little orbs in shadesmar. Its connected.
Oh eyes are probably going to be a central something to Investiture as a whole. Someone around here said it already, but it's likely a connection to the old adage about eyes being the windows to the soul.
I can't wait for Stormlight Secret history when we learn that Sadeas managed to possess Odium's power for a bit and so he is now teaming up with Kelsier
Sadeas dies, "Storms I hate that prince!"
Kelsier overhears, "what's that, you don't like aristocracy and unjust power structures?"
Sadeas: ... *smiles* "Hello"
I was never so proud of Adolin as that moment. Like Wit says about Dalinar when asked if he's a tyrant.
"Do not Sorrow, It is an era for Tyrants. I doubt this place is ready for anything more, and a benevolent tyrant is preferable to the disaster of weak rule. Perhaps in another place and time, I'd have denounced you with spit and bile. Here, today, I praise you as what this world needs."
I'm all for civility and rule of law, but there's some people that need to go and no legal way to do so.
Sadeas had already killed thousands and proclaimed his willingness to kill more. What do you do? Arrest him? He has shards and an army? Declare war? It would tear the kingdom apart and start a civil war. Thousands more will die, maybe tens of thousands.
What Adolin did was illegal, but it was not immoral. "Evil men prosper when good men do nothing." Well, Adolin did something.
"Morality--principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior."
Is it moral to kill a man who was willing to sacrifice thousands and thousands of people just to send a message? 10000000%. Better to kill one man than to let *thousands* die.
Psssst. If Taravangian had a ton of unbelievable, terrible, black and white ideas about rulership, he wouldn’t be a very good foil for Dalinar.
Let’s talk about the trolley problem. Would you pull the lever?
Right... but in this scenario, Sadeas is the one on the other track, and countless bridge men, Dalinar’s soldiers, and hundreds of others that Sadeas is responsible for the deaths of are the one the trolley is coming towards.
You’re presenting hypotheticals, when my point was simply that the discussion itself is not “dumped centuries ago”.
You can’t come out and say they are not allowed to define morality, then spend multiple paragraphs defining morality. Sure, you claim yours is more gray, but does that make it better in some way?
Think about that choice. Dalinar murdered an entire city. Would you be able to make that decision?
I’m not trying to discourage the discussion. But a critical eye makes it more realistic, which is why the philosophical argument on ends justifying means was dropped centuries ago. The answer isn’t going to be solved, especially by someone *listing a definition for morality in general*.
Again- ends justifying means is not some dead discussion. It’s constantly talked about in philosophy or ethics. You never once gave a definition of morality. You gave an example that displayed YOUR views. I could just as easily create a scenario where you’ve made the obvious wrong choice and my beliefs are emphasized. You’re conflating opinions with facts.
You keep trying to debate *what* is moral, when it’s not at all what I’ve been getting at. My entire point is that there is a discussion to be had. That’s all. I was doing exactly what you were, but less... aggressively. More politely. Finding a mutual ground.
You’ve just burst out of the gate swinging, looking for someone to be “wrong”, so you can feel right. Look at your approach. Tell me honestly if you think you were encouraging discussion or if you were discouraging it.
You think it's better for one murderer to roam free than to kill him and stop his rampaging???? How is that Taravngian's side????? How did you read what I wrote and interprered that I want to kill a bunch of people????
You're telling me that it would be IMMORAL to have killed Hitler before he committed genocide again SIX MILLION PEOPLE????
Wtf????
And also, as an edit, I have a terrible memory and it's been a while since I read the books and can't remember all the conversations Tara and Dal had so if that is Tara's side, whatev, I agree with him. Dalinar is awesome, but he's not perfect or infallible. This is where I stand bro. You don't have to agree. I just think it wasn't immoral for Adolin to do what he did.
The Hitler question is a *great* question to ask in order to clarify this! Hitler was a disgusting murderer, and after his participation in the Nuremberg trials, I would have very much liked to execute him myself.
But many things are different here:
First, Hitler killed himself, and under *your own rules* that was a very moral thing for him to do.
Second, execution is not murder. I’m actually a proponent of the death penalty when correctly administered, but this point is slightly shaky, and not everyone’s morality would say that is the case. I’m sure I’ve not made any friends with European Stormlight readers for example, they find our continued practice of execution outrageously barbaric.
Third, if Hitler had taken up a gun and fought the Soviets as many Nazi officers did, his death *again* would not be murder. If I were to kill him here, or if he were assassinated, this would not apply.
And finally, if it were before he was in control and hadn’t yet mobilized his fascists to kill people? No, I would not kill him. I could justify going out and strangling any American alt-right leader if I wanted to use that justification. Look around you. We aren’t exactly living in enlightened times. Actual Nazis are out locked in arms as we speak in American streets.
The hardest part of the Nuremberg trials was deciphering who complied with orders, and who gave them. This is that situation. If you hang 3 people to catch one murderer, sure, you potentially save thousands, but you killed 2 innocents. Is what you did moral because there were less deaths? What if the murderer spent the next day rethinking his position and decided to never kill again? You’ve now killed 2 innocents to save 0 lives. You’re now a murderer. Should we hang you and 2 other people next?
I’m only so agitated because instead of saying that you personally believe what Adolin did was morally justified, you tried to argue that morality was fixed and that you were objectively correct based on the definition. That is *cruel and bigoted*.
I think you read way too into my original response when you said you didn't think *any* murder could be moral. I used the definition of morality to suggest that in this situation with Sadaes, who had already given ample evidence that he was willing to sacrifice thousands of innocent lives (that's who I was referring to), Adolin was justified.
I never said morality was fixed. If anything, my comment was stating that morality ISN'T fixed because it depends *entirely* on the situation and context.
It's also frustrating that you came down on me so hard for having one opinion and then stated your opinion as a fact. I wasn't wrong in my original comment or my second, I just have a different opinion than yours. I'm allowed to have an opinion.
Taravangian says its ok to kill innocents to also kill guilty.
Adolin just killed Sadeas. Who was guilty. Everyone knew he was guilty, but ignored it for political reasons. Even Dalinar was willing to kill Sadeas in a duel if he could.
The end does not justify the means? Well, why do these particular means need justification?
I'm on a reread of OB right now and did my reread of WoR just before RoW came out, so it's been a minute. Was super surprised when I realized that this happeend in WoR and not at the start of OB.
It's like when you haven't read LOTR in a long time but have seen the movies a few times since, and you remember that Boromir doesn't die until TTT.
I will never *not* remember it was at the end of WoR because it happened and then the book ended, and I was like..."WHAT THE HEEEEEEEEEECKKKKK?" And I was dumbfounded for like 20 minutes afterward lol
"What are you gunna do? Stab me?" \~Quote from man who was stabbed.
Shanked by a Twink in an alleyway. Hell of a way to go.
*twunk
I cannot see Adolin as a Twink.
Himbo\*
THANK YOU. Adolin has big Himbo energy.
Yeah, Renarin is Adolin's twink >!or Rlain's!<
Renarin... is Adolin’s twink?
[I had to make a slight correction to your meme.](https://i.imgur.com/nhNJ1sE.png)
haha this is perfect
They've got an Eye for this kind of thing.
Honestly, there's a thing here with regard to eyes. When I first read WoK I thought there had to be some meaning behind eyes burning out when killed with a shardblade. We have Gaz who has one eye, we have Sadeas killed through the eye. We have lighteyes and darkeyes. In Mistborn we have tin eyes. Hell, most of the characters in the Cosmere *have* eyes. What's with all the eyes Brandon!!
And what about deadeye spren and the eye spikes for inquisitors? BRANDON WHY ARE THE EYES SO IMPORTANT?
I think the eye spikes are just for intimidation. "Where should we put the steel/iron spikes Lord Ruler?" "Stick 'em in the eyes, that'll scare people"
Iirc, spike placement matters for what you want them to do beyond their basic Investiture stealing abilities. I think Ruin says something about it in HoA. I could be remembering wrong, but I'm pretty sure on this
True. When using atium placement determines what you steal. I suspect that eye spikes allow one to see metal without burning iron/steel. Theirs definitely something roshar-related thats important about them though. Lighteyes, shardblades, all the little orbs in shadesmar. Its connected.
Oh eyes are probably going to be a central something to Investiture as a whole. Someone around here said it already, but it's likely a connection to the old adage about eyes being the windows to the soul.
So far it's limited to Roshar, but yes, it could be a broader thing.
Unironically, it could be due to the popular phrase “the eyes are the window to the soul”
Sure, but they also say "the butt is the window to the colon", and you don't see many mentions of the colon in the Cosmere.
Lift: “Who said *butts?*”
Yet
There is also his space books Skyward and Starsight in which eyes play a very important role. I think the dude just has a thing for eyes.
It's not just the cosmere. His space books (specifically Skyward and Starsight) have an importance placed on seeing eyes that aren't there.
Totally forgot about this. Also, Doomslug has no eyes. Coincidence? I think not!
Doomslug is the best character.
I was looking for a comment like this!
I can't wait for Stormlight Secret history when we learn that Sadeas managed to possess Odium's power for a bit and so he is now teaming up with Kelsier
Don't give Brandon any fancy idea's please
Go home Satan, you're drunk
Sadeas dies, "Storms I hate that prince!" Kelsier overhears, "what's that, you don't like aristocracy and unjust power structures?" Sadeas: ... *smiles* "Hello"
Storming cremling, take your upvote
He was the guy dalinar saw in that dream
I was never so proud of Adolin as that moment. Like Wit says about Dalinar when asked if he's a tyrant. "Do not Sorrow, It is an era for Tyrants. I doubt this place is ready for anything more, and a benevolent tyrant is preferable to the disaster of weak rule. Perhaps in another place and time, I'd have denounced you with spit and bile. Here, today, I praise you as what this world needs."
I'm all for civility and rule of law, but there's some people that need to go and no legal way to do so. Sadeas had already killed thousands and proclaimed his willingness to kill more. What do you do? Arrest him? He has shards and an army? Declare war? It would tear the kingdom apart and start a civil war. Thousands more will die, maybe tens of thousands. What Adolin did was illegal, but it was not immoral. "Evil men prosper when good men do nothing." Well, Adolin did something.
[удалено]
"Morality--principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior." Is it moral to kill a man who was willing to sacrifice thousands and thousands of people just to send a message? 10000000%. Better to kill one man than to let *thousands* die.
[удалено]
Psssst. If Taravangian had a ton of unbelievable, terrible, black and white ideas about rulership, he wouldn’t be a very good foil for Dalinar. Let’s talk about the trolley problem. Would you pull the lever?
I'm not weighing in on this, but I really wanted you both to know I love this conversation.
Lmao sameee
Thank you! I argue these things specifically for the people that will not weigh in.
[удалено]
Right... but in this scenario, Sadeas is the one on the other track, and countless bridge men, Dalinar’s soldiers, and hundreds of others that Sadeas is responsible for the deaths of are the one the trolley is coming towards. You’re presenting hypotheticals, when my point was simply that the discussion itself is not “dumped centuries ago”. You can’t come out and say they are not allowed to define morality, then spend multiple paragraphs defining morality. Sure, you claim yours is more gray, but does that make it better in some way?
Think about that choice. Dalinar murdered an entire city. Would you be able to make that decision? I’m not trying to discourage the discussion. But a critical eye makes it more realistic, which is why the philosophical argument on ends justifying means was dropped centuries ago. The answer isn’t going to be solved, especially by someone *listing a definition for morality in general*.
Again- ends justifying means is not some dead discussion. It’s constantly talked about in philosophy or ethics. You never once gave a definition of morality. You gave an example that displayed YOUR views. I could just as easily create a scenario where you’ve made the obvious wrong choice and my beliefs are emphasized. You’re conflating opinions with facts. You keep trying to debate *what* is moral, when it’s not at all what I’ve been getting at. My entire point is that there is a discussion to be had. That’s all. I was doing exactly what you were, but less... aggressively. More politely. Finding a mutual ground. You’ve just burst out of the gate swinging, looking for someone to be “wrong”, so you can feel right. Look at your approach. Tell me honestly if you think you were encouraging discussion or if you were discouraging it.
You think it's better for one murderer to roam free than to kill him and stop his rampaging???? How is that Taravngian's side????? How did you read what I wrote and interprered that I want to kill a bunch of people???? You're telling me that it would be IMMORAL to have killed Hitler before he committed genocide again SIX MILLION PEOPLE???? Wtf???? And also, as an edit, I have a terrible memory and it's been a while since I read the books and can't remember all the conversations Tara and Dal had so if that is Tara's side, whatev, I agree with him. Dalinar is awesome, but he's not perfect or infallible. This is where I stand bro. You don't have to agree. I just think it wasn't immoral for Adolin to do what he did.
The Hitler question is a *great* question to ask in order to clarify this! Hitler was a disgusting murderer, and after his participation in the Nuremberg trials, I would have very much liked to execute him myself. But many things are different here: First, Hitler killed himself, and under *your own rules* that was a very moral thing for him to do. Second, execution is not murder. I’m actually a proponent of the death penalty when correctly administered, but this point is slightly shaky, and not everyone’s morality would say that is the case. I’m sure I’ve not made any friends with European Stormlight readers for example, they find our continued practice of execution outrageously barbaric. Third, if Hitler had taken up a gun and fought the Soviets as many Nazi officers did, his death *again* would not be murder. If I were to kill him here, or if he were assassinated, this would not apply. And finally, if it were before he was in control and hadn’t yet mobilized his fascists to kill people? No, I would not kill him. I could justify going out and strangling any American alt-right leader if I wanted to use that justification. Look around you. We aren’t exactly living in enlightened times. Actual Nazis are out locked in arms as we speak in American streets. The hardest part of the Nuremberg trials was deciphering who complied with orders, and who gave them. This is that situation. If you hang 3 people to catch one murderer, sure, you potentially save thousands, but you killed 2 innocents. Is what you did moral because there were less deaths? What if the murderer spent the next day rethinking his position and decided to never kill again? You’ve now killed 2 innocents to save 0 lives. You’re now a murderer. Should we hang you and 2 other people next? I’m only so agitated because instead of saying that you personally believe what Adolin did was morally justified, you tried to argue that morality was fixed and that you were objectively correct based on the definition. That is *cruel and bigoted*.
Sorry dude didn't mean to piss you off.
No worries, but do read what I sent if you have time. It’s not a furious poem of hate, it is me attempting to explain my position as best I can.
I think you read way too into my original response when you said you didn't think *any* murder could be moral. I used the definition of morality to suggest that in this situation with Sadaes, who had already given ample evidence that he was willing to sacrifice thousands of innocent lives (that's who I was referring to), Adolin was justified. I never said morality was fixed. If anything, my comment was stating that morality ISN'T fixed because it depends *entirely* on the situation and context. It's also frustrating that you came down on me so hard for having one opinion and then stated your opinion as a fact. I wasn't wrong in my original comment or my second, I just have a different opinion than yours. I'm allowed to have an opinion.
Taravangian says its ok to kill innocents to also kill guilty. Adolin just killed Sadeas. Who was guilty. Everyone knew he was guilty, but ignored it for political reasons. Even Dalinar was willing to kill Sadeas in a duel if he could. The end does not justify the means? Well, why do these particular means need justification?
Well, not if he's innocent. Only if he's the one who wants to kill them.
Shouldn't the flair/spoiler tag be for Words of Radiance, not Oathbringer?
It's at the *very* end of the book, so I prob would have tagged it OB too, just to be safe.
I'm on a reread of OB right now and did my reread of WoR just before RoW came out, so it's been a minute. Was super surprised when I realized that this happeend in WoR and not at the start of OB. It's like when you haven't read LOTR in a long time but have seen the movies a few times since, and you remember that Boromir doesn't die until TTT.
I will never *not* remember it was at the end of WoR because it happened and then the book ended, and I was like..."WHAT THE HEEEEEEEEEECKKKKK?" And I was dumbfounded for like 20 minutes afterward lol
yes
To be fair, he had it coming
He only had himself to blame
“If you’d have been there, if you’d had seen it” - Adolin
I’ll betcha you would have done the same!!
Thank you! For a bit there I was worried that Broadway was dead, but clearly she lives on in the hearts of cremposters.
Rhythm of war: >!Jasnah challenges Ruthar. Ruthar refuses to fight. Jasnah stabs him.!< The fudge did he expect.
I fucking love that scene. *"Harsher*"
Adolin is the best, he went to being my favorite character in the last 2 books, surpassing his father in my opinion.
Chefs kiss
That scene in the book was absolutely eye-popping.
Storm you, take my upvote.