Narrowing Down the Last Shards [AU]

[Weltall]

1 hour ago, Khyrindor said:

@ZenBossanova@Pagerunner IIRC, the Shard from Silence Divine was called Decay, which Mr. Sanderson changed to Ruin and moved to Scadrial.

Decay appeared in Aether of Night, not The Silence Divine (which isn't a completed work at this point) but was indeed reworked into Ruin when Brandon was cannibalizing his unpublished works to make the original Mistborn trilogy. Ashyn has never had a Shard of its own; i don't recall if Brandon has confirmed it directly but we know that ambient magic in the Cosmere is something that humans interact with through nature rather than something they possess themselves (the obvious example being the Aviar in Sixth of the Dusk) and the disease-based magic in Silence fits well with that concept so the magic there might have nothing to do with a Shard.

[Windrunner]

We actually don't know whether or not Ashyn has ever had a Shard. As of the "modern" cosmere it does not, but I asked Brandon once and he RAFO'd me, saying that he cannot reveal too much of the history of the Rosharan system without spoiling things for the Stormlight Archive. So unless he has said elsewhere that there was never a Shard on Ashyn (which is entirely possible, I often miss things), right now all we know is that there currently isn't a Shard there.

[Khyrindor]

I've updated the OP with a few new additions, just in case y'all haven't seen that yet. I'm thinking of doing my own version of @Extesian's handy chart as well, as I really like that train of thought and think it might be more likely that there's groupings rather than pairs (especially after those conflicting WoBs). I'm rather doubtful on the grouping names, but if I get around to doing that I'll ponder that a bit.

Here's the new list:

 

Preservation                 Ruin

Dominion                Autonomy

Odium                       Devotion

Endowment               Ambition

Honor                   Absolution?

Cultivation               Tribulation

Enlightenment             Enigma

Purity                     Synthesis?

 

What do you guys think? I'm still not too sure about most of the green ones. Absolution looks like a good one, I just have a hard time imagining what such a Shard would do normally. We also have to consider which Shard is the one that isn't on a planet. Personally, I'd pick Purity, if I'd have to bet on it, however, there is a planet named Purity which led to picking it as a Shard in the first place. I just added Synthesis as an opposite. It's a good synonym of Amalgamation, and I find it a bit more likely. 

Edited March 2, 2017 by Khyrindor
typo

[+Extesian]

Thanks @Khyrindor I'm not remotely attached to my groupings just figured it's a way to structure thinking, as i instinctively feel it's groupings rather than pairs. I thought of other themes or patterns like emotion/action/philosophy/goal, instinct vs thought, action vs inaction, self vs others, means vs ends etc but there are a lot of combinations. If the approach leads to better refinement (as I'm thinking about this at work and my categories and particularly my names are very ad hoc) then I'm very happy.

[Andy92]

I think it's also worth asking, are we 100% sure Presevstion and Ruin are two of the sixteen Shards, or is it possible Harmony was one of the sixteen, and something happened before the creation of Scadrial to split the Shard into two? I'm sure this conversation has come up before, but I'm not sure what the actual answer is. 

[Weltall]

3 minutes ago, Andy92 said:

I think it's also worth asking, are we 100% sure Presevstion and Ruin are two of the sixteen Shards, or is it possible Harmony was one of the sixteen, and something happened before the creation of Scadrial to split the Shard into two? I'm sure this conversation has come up before, but I'm not sure what the actual answer is. 

Yes, we're sure

[Pagerunner]

Oh boy, I see we've all been very busy while I was away!

3 hours ago, Khyrindor said:

Sorry, I'm not quite sure where you're going with the last bit of that...Please clarify.

Okay, someone's devoted to someone. Either the Shard is devoted to their people, or the people are devoted to their Shard. My interpretation of Odium, he wants to be the only Shard left in the cosmere, the only god that can be worshipped. He is the embodiment of the latter, of people being devoted to a Shard. So, I interpret Aona the other way around, as a Shard being devoted to her people

2 hours ago, Thanatos said:

Why has nobody picked Fortune? I thought that one was 99% certain.

Or has Fortune been debunked?

I don't think it's been officially debunked, but I think we've presented an alternate interpretation for the line that doesn't make it a Shard. The Ire said something along the lines of 'not every piece of good luck is someone drawing upon Fortune,' and the immediate instinct of many was to see that capital letter and say 'Aha! Fortune is a Shard!' However, some people (myself included) think it's referring to a Spiritual Realm property, so all four Feruchemical Spiritual metals interact with fundamental aspects of the SR (Identity, Investiture, Connection, and Fortune). Just like other magic systems can mess with Identity or Connection, there are other ways to affect your Fortune.

2 hours ago, The One Who Connects said:

The closest thing I could find is this.

This is only relevant because of the "Frost is not a Worldhopper" WoB people keep bringing up that I could never manage to find...

Here's the WoB in question. Either Frost or Sazed is the most cosmere-aware non-worldhopping character. So, Shards can be understood as non-worldhoppers.

 

[The One Who Connects]

2 minutes ago, Pagerunner said:

Here's the WoB in question. Either Frost or Sazed is the most cosmere-aware non-worldhopping character. So, Shards can be understood as non-worldhoppers.

Fair enough. Navigating reddit just seems illogical sometimes. Have an upvote for proving me wrong

[Mati]

What about the shard trying to survive?

 

15 hours ago, Khyrindor said:

as I really like that train of thought and think it might be more likely that there's groupings rather than pairs

When looking like that i think Preservation, Ruin and Cultivation aren't like relating to people but are more general, while Honor, Ambition, Odium could be treated like peoples traits. Maybe it's like in allomancy table having them make both pairs and groups ( maybe Preservation based allomancy on that or wanted to preserve that knowledge about shards, just an idea)

[Rasarr]

That's an interesting discussion. I'd look at it from another angle, though.

There's a theory going around - I don't believe it's been confirmed - that the 16 Shards we got were influenced by the motivations of the shattering party (supporting this there's a WoB that says Adonalsium could've been split differently). So, let's first think of possible motivations for the Shards we do know.

• Dominion - wanted to use Adonalsium's power to dominate or conquer
• Devotion - split Adonalsium for some sort of cause, or for the sake of someone she loved
• Odium - hated god for one reason or another
• Autonomy - wanted to break free from the "tyranny of gods" or something
• Endowment - split the god and give his power to the people
• Ambition - slaying the god was the last achievement worth pursuing
• Honor - felt that killing Adonalsium was an honorable thing to do, or was honor-bound to do it
• Cultivation - use the power of god to cultivate safe habitation zones on Yolen, or something along those lines
• Preservation - preserve people of Yolen from the fain
• Ruin - destroy the fain

So, going by this pattern, what other motivations could there be? 

• Synthesis/Amalgamation, Tribulation and Enigma - I don't see much possibility here, to be quite honest, as neither seems like a motivation you'd go to kill the god for, or any motivation at all.
• Justice - seems plausible to me; someone going to kill the god to get justice for something or other. Might overlap with Vengeance, though.
• Enlightenment - gain divine power to unlock secrets of the universe? Seems like something a hardcore scientist/philosopher could do.
• Absolution - "kill the god to gain absolution" seems rather backwards to me, but I guess it might not have been god's absolution that this person could be seeking.
• Purity - purify the world of god? I guess it's possible.
• Fortune - kill the god to gain luck? Got fed up with the way he runs things, decided they'd make a better manager? You could make something of it, but it seems like a stretch to me.
• Variability - killed the god because they felt like it that day. Maybe, every cast ensemble needs That One Crazy Character.
• Belief - killed the god for the cause. Seems kinda close to Devotion to me, but there could be another interpretation.
• Glory - I'm surprised nobody suggested Glory yet. Divine Glory is a thing that exists, so it fits the "pieces of god" theme. Gaining glory is also an excellent motivation to kill the god, so it fits this theory as well. Then again, it could be too close to Ambition (though I'd argue they're different things, much like Preservation and Cultivation are different).

[Calderis]

Just rough guesses to go with the quadrant grouping. 

Temporal quadrant 

1. Ruin (decay over time, entropy) 

2. Cultivation (increase over time, growth) 

3. Preservation (stasis)

4. Chaos/Anarchy (random change, flux) 

Human (emotional?) quadrant. 

1. Honor (honesty, respect, reliability) 

2. Devotion (love, loyalty, trust) 

3. Odium (hate, passion, contempt) 

4. Subtlety (manipulation, betrayal, distrust 

? Quadrant

1. Dominion (power/control over others) 

2. Autonomy (power/control independent of others) 

3. Endowment (empowerment of others) 

4. Ambition (Empowerment of self) 

? Quadrant

(no idea for a basis to speculate from for these four) 

 

Again just rough ideas, but I could see this working. I also see a final grouping of which I am unaware of the nature of the Shards involved. 

[Andy92]

2 hours ago, Rasarr said:

There's a theory going around - I don't believe it's been confirmed - that the 16 Shards we got were influenced by the motivations of the shattering party (supporting this there's a WoB that says Adonalsium could've been split differently).

That's the general theme of what happens in Zelda games with the Triforce. The ones who hold the pieces of the Triforce influence how the power behaves depending on the will of their hearts. 

[Mati]

1 hour ago, Calderis said:

Just rough guesses to go with the quadrant grouping. 

Nice grouping in my opinion. Starting to think that theory with Preservation making allomancy that way to keep information about shard might have some sense, after all it would be perfectly preserved knowledge. Also when looking at these groups you could mostly easily apply push-pull logic there like ruin pushing things forward while preservation pulling (holding) them, similiary Devotion pulling together people while Odium push away, and so on.

 

7 minutes ago, Andy92 said:

2 hours ago, Rasarr said:

There's a theory going around - I don't believe it's been confirmed - that the 16 Shards we got were influenced by the motivations of the shattering party (supporting this there's a WoB that says Adonalsium could've been split differently).

That's the general theme of what happens in Zelda games with the Triforce. The ones who hold the pieces of the Triforce influence how the power behaves depending on the will of their hearts. 

I think I saw this somewhere on forum, don't remember if it was theory or confirmed but it was like saying that if someone else took Ruin it could be for example Destruction or Entropy, the specific intent would be different depending on person but general intent would stay.

[+Extesian]

Yeah I like some of these further thoughts. @Rasarr I noticed that WoB this morning as well and wondered about how much the Shatterers determined the division of intents.

Quote

QUESTION

If Adonalsium shattered with intent, will he always shatter to the same shards?

BRANDON SANDERSON

It is plausible that he could shattered in a different way.

QUESTION

So it could've been different Shards?

BRANDON SANDERSON

Yes, that's plausible.

I don't think it's enough to rule out certain intents but it may be enough to explain why it's not an 'even' breaking into opposing pairs. And I feel it's less about the reason they killed Adonalsium and more about what aspect of Him they thought was important, either as a group or as individuals.

@Mati the WoB you're thinking of is this one I think.

Quote

NECARION

Do Vessels have any flexibility in expressing the intent of a Shard, particularly if the Intent is open to many interpretations?

BRANDON SANDERSON

Yes they do. So, the Vessel’s mind and how they perceive is going to have a large influence on how things are expressed and I think all of them have some wiggle room. But there are some deterministic things that are also going to push them. You know, holding Ruin, Harmony may not go down the same path that happened to Ati.

So yeah the names or exact intents could depend on the nature of the Vessel.

[Khyrindor]

@Mati, @Extesian. I like the thought of Vessels being flexible with their Shard's Intent, and I think it has merit, but I think it's more accurately the Shard being fixed, but the Vessel's interpretation that changes. For evidence, I'd look at all the Shards and see if they're all acting according to what we'd see as their Intent. Immediately, Bavadin jumps out at me. Closing off her planet, as well as things like the Dynasty seem very anti-Autonomy to me. I'm under the impression that Bavadin is a very strong-willed person and is resisting her Shard of Autonomy, instead of bowing to its Intent. This of course means that the Intent doesn't change just because the Vessel wants it to, but that there is some wiggle room with how the Vessel interprets and acts on the Intent. The WoBs you quoted would go along with either of our ideas, but I feel like mine is what Brandon may have been hinting at. It would be another good question to ask though, and I'm not sure if anyone has asked this.

[+Extesian]

8 minutes ago, Khyrindor said:

@Mati, @Extesian. I like the thought of Vessels being flexible with their Shard's Intent, and I think it has merit, but I think it's more accurately the Shard being fixed, but the Vessel's interpretation that changes. For evidence, I'd look at all the Shards and see if they're all acting according to what we'd see as their Intent. Immediately, Bavadin jumps out at me. Closing off her planet, as well as things like the Dynasty seem very anti-Autonomy to me. I'm under the impression that Bavadin is a very strong-willed person and is resisting her Shard of Autonomy, instead of bowing to its Intent. This of course means that the Intent doesn't change just because the Vessel wants it to, but that there is some wiggle room with how the Vessel interprets and acts on the Intent. The WoBs you quoted would go along with either of our ideas, but I feel like mine is what Brandon may have been hinting at. It would be another good question to ask though, and I'm not sure if anyone has asked this.

I agree with this entirely (see below WoBs). My only point about the Vessel is that could influence the 'name' the Shard takes on and yeah just a little bit the way the Vessel enacts that intent. But it's more about naming (eg Ruin could have been decay or entropy or division or something else, Preservation could be stasis or inertia, the shard who just wants to survive could be fear or survival, autonomy could be free will, or non-interference - all depending a little on the vessel).

Quote

BRANDON SANDERSON (PARAPHRASED)

Shards and Shard intents: Holding a Shard is a contest of willpower against the Shard that, over time, is very hard to resist.

Shards affect you over time, but your mind will not leave a permanent effect on the Shard. A holder's personality, however, does get to filter the Shard's intent, so to speak. However, if that holder no longer held that Shard, the Shard will not continue to be filtered by that person.

Quote

BRANDON SANDERSON

Technically, Ruin would be most compatible with Cultivation. Ruin's 'theme' so to speak is that all things must age and pass. An embodiment of entropy. That power, separated from the whole and being held by a person who did not have the willpower to resist its transformation of him, led to something very dangerous. But it was not evil. None of the sixteen technically are, though you may have read that Hoid has specific beef with Rayse. Whether you think of Odium as evil depends upon how much you agree with Hoid's particular view.

That said, Ruin would have been one of the 'safer' of the sixteen for Rayse to take, if he'd been about that. Odium is by its nature selfish, however, and the combination of it and Rayse makes for an entity that fears an additional power would destroy it and make it into something else.

 

[Khyrindor]

1 minute ago, Extesian said:

I agree with this entirely (see below WoBs). My only point about the Vessel is that could influence the 'name' the Shard takes on and yeah just a little bit the way the Vessel enacts that intent. But it's more about naming (eg Ruin could have been decay or entropy or division or something else, Preservation could be stasis or inertia, the shard who just wants to survive could be fear or survival, autonomy could be free will, or non-interference - all depending a little on the vessel).

I see what you're saying, and I suppose it's plausible. I just don't think (given what we've seen of Autonomy not changing Intents, despite the Vessel seeming to act contrary), that that is what's happening. It could be that it happens a little bit when one Ascends, but then after a little bit it stops.

[Weltall]

We know that the Vessel becomes more and more 'locked in' to the Intent the longer they hold the Shard so there's certainly merit to that.

That said, we don't know how much direct influence Autonomy has had on Taldain's sociopolitics so we can't necessarily use the existence of the Dynasty as evidence of anything. Other things we know (or can assume with a reasonable degree of certainty) Bavadin has done can easily be rationalized as acting within the idea of autonomy:

• Sealing off Taldain: Keeping worldhoppers from meddling with the natural development of the world. Unlike Roshar for example, which seems to be the crossroads of the Cosmere right now.
• Creating pantheons on Taldain/other worlds: The means by which she can free the people of those worlds from what she sees as the tyranny of other Shards. This may be hypocritical but it's not betraying the Intent per se.
• Influencing Paalm: See above, 'freeing' Scadrial from Harmony.

[ZenBossanova]

How much can we correlate this with Allomancy and Feruchemy? Internal vs External? Pushing vs Pulling? Just how good was Preservation’s clue about 16?

 

I don't think I have this organized just right, but I wanted to apply the External/Internal and the Pushing/Pulling distinctions in both Allomancy & Feruchemy.

 

And while the Shards correlate with attributes of Deity, they also IMHO correlate with attributes necessary for Civilization.

 

I am going to use some of Extesian’s wording and organization here.

 

Cognitive

External Pushing : Honor – the obligation to do what you say you will do, to be consistent

External Pulling : Transcendence/Paradox – to be inconsistent, to change from moment to moment (Ashyn big maybe, WoB that might suggest it)

Internal Pushing : Word or Language or Communication – to seek knowledge and understanding

Internal Pulling : Knowledge or Truth – to have knowledge



Spiritual/emotional

External Pushing : Odium – to hate

 

External Pulling : Devotion – to give up yourself for others or for a cause

Internal Pushing : Transformation

 

Internal Pulling : Sight or Insight



Physical

Internal Pulling : Endowment – to give something to others

External Pulling : Hunger/Consuming – to take something from others (this is inspired by Sixth of the Sun, and a comment Hoid made to Jasnah, that may or may not be relevant)

Internal Pushing : Autonomy – to have control of yourself

External Pushing : Dominion – to have control of others



Temporal

Internal Pushing : Cultivation – to work on something other than yourself

Internal Pulling : Ambition – to work on yourself

External Pushing : Preservation – to never change, inertia

External Pulling : Ruin – to break things down, entropy

 

[Rasarr]

14 hours ago, Extesian said:

I don't think it's enough to rule out certain intents but it may be enough to explain why it's not an 'even' breaking into opposing pairs. And I feel it's less about the reason they killed Adonalsium and more about what aspect of Him they thought was important, either as a group or as individuals.

That's a good possibility, and it would permit intents like Enigma, Tribulation, etc. This being said, the truth is probably somewhere in-between - that the Shards are aspects of Adonalsium which the Vessels found the most important, and which correlate to their motivations behind slaying the god. 

6 hours ago, ZenBossanova said:

Internal Pushing : Word or Language or Communication – to seek knowledge and understanding

Internal Pulling : Knowledge or Truth – to have knowledge

To me, those feel too close to one another to be separate Shards; I'd fold those together into something like Enlightment or Knowledge.

I've been thinking about Synthesis/Amalgamation/etc., and I feel like I don't quite understand what people mean by this. Are we talking about thing monism, AKA "everything is one thing"? Because that seems like less of a Shardic intent and more like something that you'd get if you've stitched Adonalsium back together (though "Monism" does sound a bit like a shard name, in the vein of Odium). 

[Khyrindor]

@Rasarr We were thinking of Amalgamation or Synthesis as a possible opposite of Purity. Purity would involve being one and only, whereas Synthesis would be about bringing things together. I agree that their tenuous, I'm less sure about these than I am about any others.

[Rhaegar'Elin]

There are some really interesting thoughts in this thread XD

My post won't add much to the discussion in this sense but I wanted to say that I really like the idea of a Retribution Shard, one who embodies the Divine Punishment, the righteous Fury or Wrath of God: of course it could be a similar Intent to Justice or Vengeance (but I like Retribution more).

[Weltall]

1 hour ago, Rhaegar'Elin said:

My post won't add much to the discussion in this sense but I wanted to say that I really like the idea of a Retribution Shard, one who embodies the Divine Punishment, the righteous Fury or Wrath of God: of course it could be a similar Intent to Justice or Vengeance (but I like Retribution more).

That's not a bad idea for a Shard but I wonder if the combination of Odium and other Shards (like Honor, Devotion and maybe even Dominion) already would have filled that role when Adonalsium was intact. Frost calls Odium (from memory) 'God's divine hatred shorn of the virtues that gave it context' so the combination of Adonalsium's hatred and one or more 'virtues' probably encompasses the idea of Retribution.

[Darkness Ascendant]

Just noticed in the OP, Survival isn't listed.

It was revealed in a WoB which I am paraphrasing

Somone: Can we have a possible name for a new shard?

Brandon: There is one which just wants to survive.

[Khyrindor]

1 minute ago, Darkness Ascendant said:

Just noticed in the OP, Survival isn't listed.

It was revealed in a WoB which I am paraphrasing

Somone: Can we have a possible name for a new shard?

Brandon: There is one which just wants to survive.

I remember a follow up to that question, and Brandon said that survival isn't that Shard's intent (capital I), but that it's what it's trying to do. I think something like Purity wanting to hide would be likely, or maybe the Enlightenment or Wisdom Shard realizing that hiding is the best course of action are two possibilities I see.