Regalia's Weakness

[phattemer]

Here is a quote from the pretty recent AMA on reddit.

 

"Boy, I do get this one a lot. I'm wary of saying anything until Calamity is out, not because Regalia's weakness is specifically relevant, but because I've found that even the most innocent of things I say can sometimes lead to spoilers. The nature of the weaknesses is a big part of the three book arc of the Reckoners, so I don't want to hurt anything.

That said, as I mentioned, Regalia's weakness is not actually relevant. I've just been avoiding the question for reasons stated above.

Regalia's weakness was being proven wrong. If you could figure out something she'd done incorrectly, and prove it to her so she couldn't avoid the truth, she'd briefly lose local control of her powers. But I didn't want that book to be about figuring out/using her weakness, in order to distinguish it from books one and three, which use that as the major plot. So I avoided bringing up the idea, or really even using it in the story at all."

 

Pretty interesting, eh? My theory is that Regalia(Edit: who was a judge) would not want to sentence an innocent or pardon a guilty person, and thus she was extremely scared of being wrong.

But I think that isn't all. Sourcefield wasn't just scared or Kool-Aid, they almost died because of it. Perhaps Regalia helped free a serial killer?

Edited June 6, 2015 by phattemer

[Sarcasm]

If I recall correctly, Regalia was formerly an attorney, then late a judge, then starring her own reality show and as a side thing, doing divisive preaching. I suppose that could lead to a fear of being proven wrong, as a judge making a wrong decision could lead to some pretty serious consequences. To be honest, if I ever became an Epic, my weakness would also be being proven wrong. ... Oh bother. Now you know my weakness. I'll have to kill you when I go on Rending, you know.     

[phattemer]

Thanks for reminding me, Sarcasm. I have edited the OP to reflect that.

Here's mine: um... yeah... I have no idea?

[Tyson]

Maybe she mistakingly sentenced an innocent to a harsh sentence (life or death penalty) and turned to God after realising her mistake. Looking for someway to repent or something. That could also be the reason why she teamed up with Doc and co. early after Calamity, to try and help people.

 

She has worked hard at being a good person, even though she is an Epic.

 

I need to give it a re-read to be honest. I feel like I missed some stuff.   

[Blackhoof]

 

Here is a quote from the pretty recent AMA on reddit.

 

"Boy, I do get this one a lot. I'm wary of saying anything until Calamity is out, not because Regalia's weakness is specifically relevant, but because I've found that even the most innocent of things I say can sometimes lead to spoilers. The nature of the weaknesses is a big part of the three book arc of the Reckoners, so I don't want to hurt anything.

That said, as I mentioned, Regalia's weakness is not actually relevant. I've just been avoiding the question for reasons stated above.

Regalia's weakness was being proven wrong. If you could figure out something she'd done incorrectly, and prove it to her so she couldn't avoid the truth, she'd briefly lose local control of her powers. But I didn't want that book to be about figuring out/using her weakness, in order to distinguish it from books one and three, which use that as the major plot. So I avoided bringing up the idea, or really even using it in the story at all."

 

Pretty interesting, eh? My theory is that Regalia(Edit: who was a judge) would not want to sentence an innocent or pardon a guilty person, and thus she was extremely scared of being wrong.

But I think that isn't all. Sourcefield wasn't just scared or Kool-Aid, they almost died because of it. Perhaps Regalia helped free a serial killer?

 

 

In the Reckoners RP we've been working under the theory that all weaknesses were caused by a single traumatic event. This revelation about Regalia, however, widens that- since Brandon didn't even imply that there was a single event that caused this fear, I think we can theorise that Regalia simply obsessed over being right to such a degree that it became a major character flaw, and then her weakness.

[Edgedancer]

In the Reckoners RP we've been working under the theory that all weaknesses were caused by a single traumatic event. This revelation about Regalia, however, widens that- since Brandon didn't even imply that there was a single event that caused this fear, I think we can theorise that Regalia simply obsessed over being right to such a degree that it became a major character flaw, and then her weakness.

We were? Because I totally wasn't. Didn't Mitosis already show us that as long as the condition is traumatic enough the trigger doesn't have to be tied to a specific event? And much more we aren't getting from her either given that Brandon implied absolutely nothing about why it is her weakness.

Edited June 6, 2015 by Edgedancer

[Voidus]

We were? Because I totally wasn't. Didn't Mitosis already show us that as long as the condition is traumatic enough the trigger doesn't have to be tied to a specific event? And much more we aren't getting from her either given that Brandon implied absolutely nothing about why it is her weakness.

I think Twi's the main subscriber to the theory but I wouldn't say that we all subscribe to it. Personally I'm inclined to believe it's not necessarily tied to a specific event either.

[TwiLyghtSansSparkles]

I think Twi's the main subscriber to the theory but I wouldn't say that we all subscribe to it. Personally I'm inclined to believe it's not necessarily tied to a specific event either.

 

I don't think it has to be triggered by a specific event, either. It can be, but that certainly isn't the case with Mitosis, and it may or may not hold true with Newton. It could've been triggered by an event—like when she killed someone—or the trauma could've taken root long before that, with all the little ways her parents let her know she was a disappointment. 

[Blackhoof]

Perhaps "single" was being too specific, but trauma in general.