Trell in white sands

[Blightsong]

Baon is quoted in stating what he saw Scythe do in person. Now true Baon is a spy and could be lying on Scythe's behalf, but also if there is ever a person who would have been taken into Scythe's confidence enough to see his magic in person, it would be Baon. Baon stated specifically that Scythe can control people with his skycolors, that he was the same age when Baon was young, and then when Baon saw him when Baon was much older. Finally Baon stated his skycolors were purple, the color of nobility. So we have eye witness testimony of abilities granted by Autonomy being used to enslave and conquer. Also consider despite his capacity as a spy, Baon has never once lied. He has chosen to omit information or just not answer, but every single statement he has made in the entire book was frank and honest. 

 

We know according to WoB that autonomy is Bavadin and there is only one shard on Taldain. But we do not know conclusively nor with WoB what was controlling/driving Paalm. That is your theory, not a fact. Also we have seen previews from the graphic novel, and it clearly follows the book regarding the Kershtians, and the sand masters. The very existence of the warrior priests show that. 

 

My point is this. You are stating that your interpretation of autonomy is concrete, yet we have numerous instances that oppose this interpretation. Now something else can be going on, but until that something is shown to exist or not, your intepretation of autonomy is not concrete. Yes you cite a definition. Congrats. That still does not mean that is necesarily how Brandon chose to manifest it. That still does not mean that defines what shard opposes what. And that also does not mean that because certain shards intents may oppose each other, that the shard holders themselves have to. Sazed is a prime example of that. That is my point. Just because we have a definition of autonomy, all these theories that stem from that definition do not automatically become fact.

Agreed.

[Lurky McLurkerson]

To throw a monkey wrench into the lovely argument, can we discuss the assumption that Bavadin is "granting" these powers in an over/selective manner and thus the powered individuals are acting under the aegis of Autonomy? From the evidence present in most of the Shard Worlds, the argument could be made that it isn't that simple. We have powered individuals emerging on planets without the presence of an intact shard to guide the process on Sel and Roshar, Scadrial had powered individuals defying the will of the Shards all over the place. We just don't know enough about the mechanism for SkyColors and SandMastery yet.

[Blightsong]

To throw a monkey wrench into the lovely argument, can we discuss the assumption that Bavadin is "granting" these powers in an over/selective manner and thus the powered individuals are acting under the aegis of Autonomy? From the evidence present in most of the Shard Worlds, the argument could be made that it isn't that simple. We have powered individuals emerging on planets without the presence of an intact shard to guide the process on Sel and Roshar, Scadrial had powered individuals defying the will of the Shards all over the place. We just don't know enough about the mechanism for SkyColors and SandMastery yet.

In the tenth anniversary Elantis Ars Arcanum it even implies that Initiation on Sel is not a specific Shard's decision, like on Nalthis

[Zmann966]

My statements of fact are straight out of WoB. My theories were speculated based on the information provided both in the novels and by the man himself.
My above rebuttal you quoted was that you attempted to find holes in my theories by shooting down the factual evidence as supported by WoB, not the speculative connections I made from them.

So yes, some of what I stated was fact as you so like to embolden. But all arguments against my theories have been non-existent. You cannot dispute the literal definitions of Autonomy or of the information laid out by Brandon himself. But you also have not provided any emphasis against the connections I have pulled together in support of my speculation. 


I can't see any way Brandon could write "Autonomy" as an intent that bucks so strongly against its literal definition. There are, of course going to be some twists and turns to it, but the point I was attempting to make before being distracted was simple: There is so much conflicting and clashing, it can't be just Autonomy at work here.

The only argument I see is that we have WoB stating he is the only Shard on Taldain... Of course, he could be the only shard currently on Taldain...


Also, apologies. I thought the Paalm/Set/Autonomy connection was already confirmed due to the information provided in SoS and BoM. Apparently it IS still just a strongly-supported theory.

Edited May 16, 2016 by Zmann966

[Blightsong]

My statements of fact are straight out of WoB. My theories were speculated based on the information provided both in the novels and by the man himself.

My above rebuttal you quoted was that you attempted to find holes in my theories by shooting down the factual evidence as supported by WoB, not the speculative connections I made from them.

So yes, some of what I stated was fact as you so like to embolden. But all arguments against my theories have been non-existent. You cannot dispute the literal definitions of Autonomy or of the information laid out by Brandon himself. But you also have not provided any emphasis against the connections I have pulled together in support of my speculation. 

I can't see any way Brandon could write "Autonomy" as an intent that bucks so strongly against its literal definition. There are, of course going to be some twists and turns to it, but the point I was attempting to make before being distracted was simple: There is so much conflicting and clashing, it can't be just Autonomy at work here.

The only argument I see is that we have WoB stating he is the only Shard on Taldain... Of course, he could be the only shard currently on Taldain...

Paalm being affected by Autonomy is not a WoB supported fact, as you implied in your post.

The dictionary definition of any of the Shards us only of minimal importance. The most important thing when it come to a shards intent is how it is filtered by the Vessel. Yes, the description in the dictionary is literal and factual, the filtered shards intent is not. We will have to see how Bavadin does this before we can begin to draw facts from his actions.

[Zmann966]

Yeah, I edited that in to my post after double-checking it, must have been while you were still writing yours.

[Pathfinder]

Autonomy:

• 
  the state of existing or acting separately from others
• 
  the power or right of a country, group, etc., to govern itself
• 
  a self-governing community[/size]

A [/size]self-[/size]governing colony is a colony with an elected [/size]government in which elected rulers are able to make most decisions without referring to the colonial power with nominal control of the colony. Most [/size]self-[/size]governing colonies have responsible [/size]government.[/size]

• (philosophy) The capacity to make an informed, uncoerced decision.
• (mechanics) The capacity of a system to make a decision about its actions without the involvement of another system or operator.
• (Christianity) The status of a church whose highest-ranking bishop is appointed by the patriarch of the mother church, but which is self-governing in all other respects. Compare autocephaly.

Forgive the formating, but those are multiple examples of multiple definitions of autonomy, ranging from the person or individual level, to the societal level, to the political level. The definition of dominion is below:

• 
  
  1.
  
  
  sovereignty; control.
  "man's attempt to establish dominion over nature"
  synonyms: supremacy, ascendancy, dominance, domination, superiority, predominance,preeminence, hegemony, authority, mastery, control, command, power, sway, rule,government, jurisdiction, sovereignty, suzerainty
  
  
  "at the time the Spartans had dominion over Athens"
  
  
  
  
  
   
• 
  
  2.
  
  
  the territory of a sovereign or government.
  "the Angevin dominions"
  
  
   

So a colony of England for instance can have an autonomous government but still be within England's dominion.  An individual can be within the dominion of a centralized government, but still have the autonomy from an ethical perspective to make personal decisions such as choosing to be within the dominion of said centralized government. A person can be devoted to a loved one, but still have the autonomous capacity to decide for themselves how that devotion manifests. In some cases without the devoted's choice (i.e stalking). Storms if you really want to play loose and easy, I can be utterly autonomous from all influence by living alone on a deserted island, but still be dominated by the ocean that surrounds me in all directions and subject to the weather. So a definition can be all well and good but it still can be interpreted. 
 
as lurky said, there is far too much credence being placed on the names of these shards to affect countless things we can't even account for.

Edited May 16, 2016 by WeiryWriter

[KidWayne]

Upon learning that Bavidin/Autonomy was the shard on Taldian, I went looking for him in the story. What I teased out was that the heroes of the story were the heroes because of their autonomous actions.

Kenton defied the will of his father. His father was apparently blackmailing at least one of the other professions, and when made interim Lord Mastrell, Kenton undid that as well in an effort to save the Sand Masters. The former Lord Mastrell manipulated and dominated others whereas Kenton defied him through self-determination (achieving freedom and power in the process).

I think the Sand Lord's alleged problem with the sand masters had to do with their abuse of their power; specifically, the way they used their power to manipulate and/or control others through intimidation.

Khriss comes into her own once she lets go of the things holding her down: her obligations to the court and her fiancé. She gets even stronger as she comes to see the lies that keep people on darkside immobile and under the thumb of Scythe.

Eric's story is a tragedy because he goes against his will (i.e. he surrenders his autonomy) because of his devotion to his friend. The bad guy in the epilogue is cast as a bad guy because he uses force to invalidate an election.

So, in the context of the story, Bavadin is a good and benevolent god who supports the autonomy of his people. He uses his influence to maximize autonomy on his world and chooses to act through a handful of chosen people. This is entirely consistent with how we see Sazed behaving on Scadrial. It also works well with the 'Autonomy is Trell' theory as a way to explain Paalm's actions in SoS.

The question it doesn't answer is what Bavadin and Rayse have in common. The only thing that makes sense is that all the 'good' shards are more or less aligned with Hoid who appears to have an agenda to reunite the shards. Autonomy would obviously oppose this, so perhaps Bavadin and Rayse have common ground in their desire to remain separate. This would also explain why they find Sazed to be a threat; he is the first to hold multiple shards since the Shattering.

However, there's also Adonalsium's shadowy opposite out there somewhere (according to WoB). Autonomy is certainly a quality associated with atheism, and submission is often a quality associated with the faithful. I have no idea what Adonalsium's opposite would be like, because we don't know that much about Adonalsium. For all we know, Adonalsium was the bad guy. However, I suppose it is possible that Bavadin and Rayse may have allied with Adonalsium's opposite, which would obviously make them enemies of Hoid (assuming I'm correct in my theory about hoid's agenda to reunite the shards).

Edited May 17, 2016 by KidWayne

[Blightsong]

Upon learning that Bavidin/Autonomy was the shard on Taldian, I went looking for him in the story. What I teased out was that the heroes of the story were the heroes because of their autonomous actions.

Kenton defied the will of his father. His father was apparently blackmailing at least one of the other professions, and when made interim Lord Mastrell, Kenton undid that as well in an effort to save the Sand Masters. The former Lord Mastrell manipulated and dominated others whereas Kenton defied him through self-determination (achieving freedom and power in the process).

I think the Sand Lord's alleged problem with the sand masters had to do with their abuse of their power; specifically, the way they used their power to manipulate and/or control others through intimidation.

Khriss comes into her own once she lets go of the things holding her down: her obligations to the court and her fiancé. She gets even stronger as she comes to see the lies that keep people on darkside immobile and under the thumb of Scythe.

Eric's story is a tragedy because he goes against his will (i.e. he surrenders his autonomy) because of his devotion to his friend. The bad guy in the epilogue is cast as a bad guy because he uses force to invalidate an election.

So, in the context of the story, Bavadin is a good and benevolent god who supports the autonomy of his people. He uses his influence to maximize autonomy on his world and chooses to act through a handful of chosen people. This is entirely consistent with how we see Sazed behaving on Scadrial. It also works well with the 'Autonomy is Trell' theory as a way to explain Paalm's actions in SoS.

The question it doesn't answer is what Bavadin and Rayse have in common. The only thing that makes sense is that all the 'good' shards are more or less aligned with Hoid who appears to have an agenda to reunite the shards. Autonomy would obviously oppose this, so perhaps Bavadin and Rayse have common ground in their desire to remain separate. This would also explain why they find Sazed to be a threat; he is the first to hold multiple shards since the Shattering.

However, there's also Adonalsium's shadowy opposite out there somewhere (according to WoB). Autonomy is certainly a quality associated with atheism, and submission is often a quality associated with the faithful. I have no idea what Adonalsium's opposite would be like, because we don't know that much about Adonalsium. For all we know, Adonalsium was the bad guy. However, I suppose it is possible that Bavadin and Rayse may have allied with Adonalsium's opposite, which would obviously make them enemies of Hoid (assuming I'm correct in my theory about hoid's agenda to reunite the shards).

I don't think 'Adonalsium's' opposite is quite what you think it is, relevant WoB below.

INTERVIEW: Feb 22nd, 2016

Calamity-Chicago

QUESTION

Was the shattering of Adonalsium done, for the forces to attack the Anti-Adonalsium?

BRANDON SANDERSON

You’re focusing too much on the idea of the anti-adonalsium. What was really asked is “is there a force that opposes Adonalsium” and it left me a lot of wiggle room. In other words, the people who killed it was a force, or any person who opposed Adonalsium you could say is a force. What they were trying to get was a “devil” but that assumes Adonalsium is a more Christian-style God, and I have not confirmed any of that.

TAGS

Adonalsium, shattering,

Edited May 17, 2016 by Blightsong

[KidWayne]

@ Blightsong

Hmm, cool. Thanks for the update. I really didn't like the idea of there being a "devil" to antagonize Adonalsium, so this is good news in my opinion.

I'm going to go back edit the last paragraph of my post now.

[Pathfinder]

@ Blightsong

Hmm, cool. Thanks for the update. I really didn't like the idea of there being a "devil" to antagonize Adonalsium, so this is good news in my opinion.

I'm going to go back edit the last paragraph of my post now.

So I have a few comments on your earlier post. I am going to bold mine and place them below each paragraph to differentiate them. 

 

Upon learning that Bavidin/Autonomy was the shard on Taldian, I went looking for him in the story. What I teased out was that the heroes of the story were the heroes because of their autonomous actions.

Kenton defied the will of his father. His father was apparently blackmailing at least one of the other professions, and when made interim Lord Mastrell, Kenton undid that as well in an effort to save the Sand Masters. The former Lord Mastrell manipulated and dominated others whereas Kenton defied him through self-determination (achieving freedom and power in the process).

 

Except the main lesson Kenton is taught is that responsibility to others and rules is actually important, and his father despite how he acted, was in many ways right. That just tearing down the whole mastrell institution was wrong, and a lot of the rules did have their merits. It just needed some reform

I think the Sand Lord's alleged problem with the sand masters had to do with their abuse of their power; specifically, the way they used their power to manipulate and/or control others through intimidation.

 

Yet the main tenets of his religion deal with only him being the one able to judge. That one is to surrender their control to the sand lord in all things. And his main religion states that unless you are born kershtian, you cannot be in their version of "heaven", women must obey their husbands and be meek, and the religious structure is very much like an oligarchy. 

Khriss comes into her own once she lets go of the things holding her down: her obligations to the court and her fiancé. She gets even stronger as she comes to see the lies that keep people on darkside immobile and under the thumb of Scythe.

 

Actually it can be seen as the reverse. originally she didn't have a political bone in her body, and ignored the court in favor of her books. She was tolerated because she was of absolutely no use in any power struggle. No one cared. It was only when her fiance disappeared and she went to darkside did she truly step into her role as a duchess, and political creature with the wit and intelligence to manipulate and accomplish goals on dayside with the end game of harnessing sandmasters. 

Eric's story is a tragedy because he goes against his will (i.e. he surrenders his autonomy) because of his devotion to his friend. The bad guy in the epilogue is cast as a bad guy because he uses force to invalidate an election.

 

But the "bad guy" is still the religious head of the only and most widely spread religion of the sand lord, who is potentially aka autonomy. 

So, in the context of the story, Bavadin is a good and benevolent god who supports the autonomy of his people. He uses his influence to maximize autonomy on his world and chooses to act through a handful of chosen people. This is entirely consistent with how we see Sazed behaving on Scadrial. It also works well with the 'Autonomy is Trell' theory as a way to explain Paalm's actions in SoS.

 

Ais ends up returning home to his people because he cannot resolve his decision to preserve the sand masters with his belief in the Sand Lord. Kenton has re-established the sand masters as originally an autonomous entity within the government, to one that works with and in many ways is beholden to said government. Khriss heads back to her land, beholden to her responsibilities. Eric becomes the lord general, and the religious head succeeds in ruling the kershtrian city. Finally every reference regarding the sand lord does not come off as a good and benevolent god. It comes off as a diety that says do what i tell you, or you will suffer in this life, and i will certainly punish you in the next. Also if your not kershtian, you will be punished regardless. I think like was said before, we are pushing these names too hard. We have no idea what the state of Bavadin is, who he is, what his motivations are, and if the sand lord is even Bavadin. And if the sand lord isn't Bavadin, then how did this religion get started and come to such prominence?

The question it doesn't answer is what Bavadin and Rayse have in common. The only thing that makes sense is that all the 'good' shards are more or less aligned with Hoid who appears to have an agenda to reunite the shards. Autonomy would obviously oppose this, so perhaps Bavadin and Rayse have common ground in their desire to remain separate. This would also explain why they find Sazed to be a threat; he is the first to hold multiple shards since the Shattering.

However, there's also Adonalsium's shadowy opposite out there somewhere (according to WoB). Autonomy is certainly a quality associated with atheism, and submission is often a quality associated with the faithful. I have no idea what Adonalsium's opposite would be like, because we don't know that much about Adonalsium. For all we know, Adonalsium was the bad guy. However, I suppose it is possible that Bavadin and Rayse may have allied with Adonalsium's opposite, which would obviously make them enemies of Hoid (assuming I'm correct in my theory about hoid's agenda to reunite the shards).

[Windrunner Savant]

Do we have a WoB to place how long after the shattering this book took place?

Remember that Shardic Intent only slowly starts to take control of the the Shard, and that your own will and intent is strong enough to oppose it for a while. We saw this with Ruin on Scadrial.

Also, even if Bavadin's intent has completely become Autonomy, he could have set in place numerous plans and loopholes to allow his true intent to have an effect similar to Preservation's plan also on Scadrial.

[Pathfinder]

Do we have a WoB to place how long after the shattering this book took place?

Remember that Shardic Intent only slowly starts to take control of the the Shard, and that your own will and intent is strong enough to oppose it for a while. We saw this with Ruin on Scadrial.

Also, even if Bavadin's intent has completely become Autonomy, he could have set in place numerous plans and loopholes to allow his true intent to have an effect similar to Preservation's plan also on Scadrial.

Do we even have a "date" or time zero for the shattering itself? Although we have absolutely no evidence to support your theory (not saying that to detract or deride, just stating what is), I do like the sound of it. It would be quite the misdirection and would allow us to as it is explained to learn more about how shards affect their vessels. I kinda hope that is how it turns out. upvote 

[1stBondsmith]

Another thought on Autonomy...

Since the shards are all 16 Intents of a god-like power, a God's automony is that no other power is needed to make it exist or live. A shardic autonomy would require not being ruled over, but also not needing other sources of power to keep it going. It does not fight organization, but Honor required an agreed upon bond to someone or a belief, where autonomy would resist any. This is probably what Brandon meant when he said that Autonomy and Honor were probably the least alike.