• Announcements

    • Chaos

      Oathbringer Spoiler Policy   11/13/2017

      Oathbringer is out! Let's make our policy on spoilers clear! 1. You must preface topics with Oathbringer spoilers with the prefix [OB] in the front 2. You are only allowed to post spoilers and spoiler topics in the Oathbringer Spoiler Board, Cosmere Theories, and some select work-related forums. 3. For posts in the Oathbringer Spoiler Board you do not need to use spoiler tags inside a topic marked [OB]. For Cosmere Theories, you also do not need to put spoiler tags inside your topic if the topic has [OB] in the title. However, for Cosmere Theories, if you are adding Oathbringer stuff to an old theory without the [OB] tag, those must go in spoiler tags and you must make it obvious outside the spoiler tag that the spoiler is regarding Oathbringer content. 4. For select things that do require talking about OB spoilers, in Events, Coppermind, and Arcanum forums, those are allowed but keep OB spoilers in spoiler tags 5. Avoid and minimize spoilers in topic titles--even though those two boards will not appear in the Recent Topics ticker, topic titles still appear in Recent Activity and the forum home.  6. You aren't allowed to post Oathbringer spoilers in places other than listed, even with spoiler tags.  It will be nine months and then the Oathbringer board will be re-merged with the Stormlight board and you will not need to tag these spoilers. If you'd like to move something in the Stormlight Archive board to the Oathbringer board, to update it with new Oathbringer information, Report the post and we will happily move it to the Oathbringer spoiler board. Part-by-part Reactions Though the Oathbringer Spoiler Board will be very spoilery, very fast (maybe don't come there until you've read the book, as people do have copies that bookstores sold early), you'll have these five topics for reactions if you want to nerd out: Part 1 Reactions
      Part 2 Reactions
      Part 3 Reactions
      Part 4 Reactions
      Full Book Reactions For parts 1-4, they will not include the interludes immediately following it. On Discord All Oathbringer spoilers on Discord will be exclusively in the #oathbringer_spoilers channel for the nine month spoiler period and nowhere else.
Seonid

Bavadin's Intent

122 posts in this topic

Foreshadowing that White Sand may soon appear from the tall grass and attac-...err i mean be on the horizon?

Isn't it supposed to release next year?

 

And yeah, I totally agree Chaos, this is why you have to push those RAFO questions sometimes- otherwise you miss the great ones that don't get RAFOed. ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still amazed you got it out of them.

Glad to be of service. I'm still a little shocked too. It'll be fun to see if Weiry or whoever transcribes the signing records that part.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might try and see if we can score a double and try find out the Survival shard's Intent and holder name

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I need to re-read a certain very long Word document...

 

 

 

 

 

This is why I converted my file to pdf and put it on my Kindle. :) Found it a lot easier. I read it a couple months ago but this info makes me want to go back and re-read or at least skim and see what I can find. 

Edited by azninvasion99
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Multiple WoBs. I am low on time (and high on caffeine), but it went pretty much like this:

  • Is the author of the (The Way of Kings) letter Hoid? Yes.
  • Is the recipient of the (The Way of Kings) letter a dragon? Yes.
  • Who is the oldest character we know? Frost.
  • ???
  • Frost is the recipient of the Letter

Also, I am indeed confusing Frost and Khriss. Nazh works for Khriss. Frost is just a dragon Hoid knows.

 

"Oh, never mind him. He's just a dragon, no big deal."

 

Anyway. Always interesting to learn more about the enigmatic Bavadin, so thanks Seonid!

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think "keeping out of people's business" is necessarily something Autonomy would do. You can make a pretty strong case for him interfering with other worlds, pushing them towards independence. Making sure every Shardworld produces Braveheart...

 

Going back to this...

 

Autonomy would want to interfere as little as possible to ensure people are free. Once you've achieved freedom for somebody, interfering with them without their consent is definitely violating their autonomy. So far his Shard's intent is the closest to the doctrine we've heard that Frost and the 17th Shard are, to our knowledge, following, that worldhoppers should be observers and police to keep other people from interfering on too large a scale.

 

So he might, for instance, argue that you could divert an asteroid to save a planet that's not capable of diverting celestial bodies, as doing such a thing would preserve their freedom, and they have no ability to choose to divert it themselves. But he certainly wouldn't approve of modifying their behaviour without their knowledge to prevent the spread of a deadly disease. That would be violating their autonomy. It seems to me that a lot of what Hoid wants to do falls a lot closer to the second example I gave than the first- he nudges political events, participates in wars, and appears to be collecting very powerful Invested objects.

 

Interesting, does this info come from unpublished works or wob?

 

I'm informed she's from White Sand, which is coming out soon as a multi-part graphic novel.

Edited by Ari
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I just got out of the midnight release event, and I asked Brandon what the intent of Bavadin's shard is. After converting with Isaac, he was willing to release it.

Bavadin's Intent is Autonomy

Major props dude.

 

So are we assuming Autonomy= Survival? Mainly because the strict definition of autonomy is "the capacity of a rational individual to make an informed, un-coerced decision."(I really love Wikipedia)

 

Autonomous magic would probably be about "freeing" things, if I guess correctly. Braveheart is probably the way to go, but it seems like their'd be more to it. Maybe something to do with bringing things to life? Similar to Awakening, but more permanent. Or perhaps the ability to sustain yourself? Lame, but possible. My favorite idea is that it gives the practitioners a random set of abilities, and they gain power by not relying on said power. Can't wait to see where this thread goes!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd read Autonomy more as independence, doing things for yourself and eschewing the will of others (so, an opposite to Dominion). Perhaps you could take it a step further and say Autonomy is somewhat related somewhat to anarchy.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to add that while the magic will certainly be about or relate to autonomy/independence/freedom, this does not prevent Autonomy himself from controlling people in order to bring it about. No more than Ruin has self-destructive tendencies (he doesn't).

He'd have to stop at some point to make the system truly stand by itself, but he's likely not above chessmaster-ing everyone until then.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd read Autonomy more as independence, doing things for yourself and eschewing the will of others (so, an opposite to Dominion). Perhaps you could take it a step further and say Autonomy is somewhat related somewhat to anarchy.

I agree with the Autonomy ----> Indipendence and we make some Speculation about its Manifestation of Investiture.

 

PS: There is any place in the forum to talk about White Sand ?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to add that while the magic will certainly be about or relate to autonomy/independence/freedom, this does not prevent Autonomy himself from controlling people in order to bring it about. No more than Ruin has self-destructive tendencies (he doesn't).

That does not make much sense. Ruin does not want to destroy itself because the intents do not apply to the shards themselves. Autonomy would be about making others autonomous, even if the shard itself had to become dependent on something else.

Of course, it could still play the great godly game for the freedom of the many, just like Ruin could create to destroy. But like Ruin only created destructive things, Autonomy probably can only manipulate people by putting them against perceived opressors.

Edited by CognitivePulsePattern
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the Autonomy ----> Indipendence and we make some Speculation about its Manifestation of Investiture.

 

PS: There is any place in the forum to talk about White Sand ?

 

I've added you to the PM group.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That does not make much sense. Ruin does not want to destroy itself because the intents do not apply to the shards themselves. Authonomy would be about making others autonomous, even if the shard itself had yo become dependent on something else.

Of course, it could still play the great godly game for the freedom of the many, just like Ruin could create to destroy. But like Ruin only created destructive things, Authonomy probably can only manipulate people by putting them against perceived opressors.

You just . . . agreed with my point, basically.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Moogle - can you please add me as well ?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've added you to the PM group.

Please add me as well.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You just . . . agreed with my point, basically.

Maybe with your final point, but not with the exemple used. Ruin not being self-destructive had no bearing on that point.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe with your final point, but not with the exemple used. Ruin not being self-destructive had no bearing on that point.

I think that we know to little about how Bavadin himself sees his shard to be thinking about this. He could see autonomy as wanting everyone to be autonomous, or he could perceive his shards intent as wanting to bring about autonomy in other by any means necessary. We just don't know yet. I however, think that he sees his shard as the latter, based on the hints provided in SoS.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That does not make much sense. Ruin does not want to destroy itself because the intents do not apply to the shards themselves. Autonomy would be about making others autonomous, even if the shard itself had to become dependent on something else.

Of course, it could still play the great godly game for the freedom of the many, just like Ruin could create to destroy. But like Ruin only created destructive things, Autonomy probably can only manipulate people by putting them against perceived opressors.

 

The intents apply to the shards at least a little- see Odium wanting to be hated, for instance. Ruin was an Avatar of Ruin- and probably wanted people to see him that way, which is as far as his intent applying to him went.

 

Likewise, Autonomy would want to be seen to be ending paternalism, interference, slavery, and unjust rule over others. (He is probably okay with power structures that are sufficiently opt-in, as that would be an autonomous choice. But things like kingdoms would not sit well with his Intent) That could very easily bring him into conflict with any Shard who is guiding their world a little too actively, not just Dominion.

Edited by Ari
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The intents apply to the shards at least a little- see Odium wanting to be hated, for instance. Ruin was an Avatar of Ruin- and probably wanted people to see him that way, which is as far as his intent applying to him went.

The thing is, that is not the intents applying to the shards themselves. That is the shards acting on their intents. Odium hates everyone else and wants people to hate one another. Ruin wants to... well, ruin. Autonomy could want to be autonomous itself, but it also wants to bring autonomy to others.

And again I agree with someones cinclusions but not their exemples.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe with your final point, but not with the exemple used. Ruin not being self-destructive had no bearing on that point.

But . . . shards not directing intents towards themselves was my whole point . . .

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But . . . shards not directing intents towards themselves was my whole point . . .

No. Your point was that shards can act in ways unaligned to their intents to bring them about.

Harmony, did I just tell someone they were wrong about what was their point?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least that was what I remember me wanting the point to be. Posting at 2 past midnight probably wasn't the smartest move :ph34r:

Yeah, Ruin was a poor example. Honor works better. Autonomy is closer to an ideology than a phenomenon in some ways. Getting 10 people to honorably doom themselves to eternal torture is something you'd think would be going against every honorable principles out there.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least that was what I remember me wanting the point to be. Posting at 2 past midnight probably wasn't the smartest move :ph34r:

Yeah, Ruin was a poor example. Honor works better. Autonomy is closer to an ideology than a phenomenon in some ways. Getting 10 people to honorably doom themselves to eternal torture is something you'd think would be going against every honorable principles out there.

 

A lot of the shards are closer to ideologies than end-goals. Arguably Preservation, Ruin and Odium are all pragmatic. But Intents like Dominion, Autonomy, Honour... those are definitely the "journey before destination" types who might care more about how things are done than what you're doing. It's like Adonalsium is holding one very unorganised election, and there are sixteen active political parties. ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.