Jump to content

[OB] A framework for Shardic natures and their expression


Jofwu

Recommended Posts

I'm really happy this thread got made, since I fell that every since Oathbringer dropped there have been a lot of talks about this topic, but never really tackled head on like @Jofwu has done. 

First, imho, everyone who thinks that Odium is 100% honest when he is explaining his Intent to Dalinar as Passion is being a little bit naive.  Odium had every reason to twist, mangle and butcher the truth, if not lie entirley to get Dalinar down with Yelig-nar.  Hoid called him "loathsome and crafty", even before he took up the shard.  It is quite possible that after holding the shard of Odium, Rayse got desensitized to his anger and shifted how he interprets the shard over to Passion,  but the other way around? No way.

Dalinar's "I am Unity" I think is getting a little out of hand.  If Unity is the Intent of a shard of some kind, what about when Kelsier said "I am Hope"? Same capitalization and everything.

With that out of the way, here's my two cents (or dollars) on @Jofwu's paradigm:

The Fundamental Nature and the Intent are the same thing.  The word used to describe the intent (Honor, Odium, Ruin, e.t.c.) is just the single word that Brandon thought described the Intent best.  I think that splitting these up is a little overeager. This is different from the Vessel's Expression, which is still a legitimate thing per WoB, but I personal don't think has as much wiggle room as some others do. Call this Case 5.  The black and blue boxes are the same, with a red box within that's slightly smaller. 

For Harmony, the evidence from the WoB's and epigraphs about Discord are too great to ignore.  For posterity, here are they:

Spoiler

"He shall defend their ways, yet shall violate them. He will be their savior, yet they shall call him heretic. His name shall be Discord, yet they shall love him for it."

The epigraph on chapter 8 of The Final Empire.

 

chasmfriend's friend (Paraphrased)

My friend asked for Brandon to write something about Harmony in her Alloy of Law.

Brandon Sanderson

There's another name Harmony could go by if he weren't able to control the conflict between his halves… to Zas Have you guys figured that one out yet? Oh, I'm not going to say anything. You have it on recording… I was pretty sneaky with that one so I don't know if you have it or not.

WoB Link

So Discord, as an alternate version Harmony most definitely exists.  I don't think it's because of Sazed choosing how to interpret Ruin + Preservation like @Jofwusays though.  How the Intent gets interpreted seems to be a somewhat of a choice, but in the WoB Brandon says it's a matter of Sazed being able to control himself.  Here's my take: Ruin and Preservation haven't really "melded" like they did when they were both in Adonalsium.  Sazed's thoughts, abilities and actions are being filtered through both Intents simultaneously. This is why he is under so much strain, and if it ever gets to him then he'll go Discord.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Raykoda said:

The Fundamental Nature and the Intent are the same thing.  The word used to describe the intent (Honor, Odium, Ruin, e.t.c.) is just the single word that Brandon thought described the Intent best.  I think that splitting these up is a little overeager.

That's been my opinion in the past, though I am at least left in a place where I'm curious if it's not the case. Either way, I think it's valuable to divide them for the sake of conversation. Your argument would simply be that these two are always aligned. That cases 3 and 4 do not (cannot) exist.

Concerning the examples, I do think you write off the "Unity" comment a bit too easily. I felt the same way after first reading. But to address your argument by comparing it to Kelsier, Dalinar is very different in two significant ways: (1) his comment was made amidst handling a significant amount of Honor's power and (2) Odium confirmed that he Ascended. So these are two very different cases. Doesn't mean there's necessarily something deeper to "Unity", but I think it's at least got to make us wonder. Or at least it demands solid evidence against it.

36 minutes ago, Raykoda said:

Call this Case 5.  The black and blue boxes are the same, with a red box within that's slightly smaller. 

You're describing case 2. I guess I should have been more clear about this though. :) I don't mean to get hung up about the relative sizes of the boxes. The distinction is simply one of whether there is space in between (case 2) or not (case 1). Sounds like you think that's where all of them sit.

That said, we can certainly have more specific conversations about the extent to which this or that vessel has wiggle room (i.e. how the red box fits inside the others).

Edit: Oh, and I'd also say that I think I'm saying the same thing about Sazed. I don't mean to imply that the shifting is always a matter of "choice". I'd say that Sazed being able to control himself or not is all wrapped up in this idea.

Edited by Jofwu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So this thread got me thinking really hard about psychology.....If we throw in Freud:

The Id, primal and demanding, wholly focused and single minded in intent and purpose.  This is the shard itself.  It has no other biological needs, it is mindless intent.

The Ego, seeking the best way to express the Id (or at worst trying to false rationalize irrational behavior, my guess for Odium) would be the actions and motivations of the Vessel.

 

Alternative idea Jung:  The Vessel has the shard as a complex.  For example, Tanavast has an honor complex.  Ati has an entropy complex.

(Here's a handy link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_(psychology) I'd check out the section "Jung's theory of complexes with key citations".

 

With Unity, well......everything's on the same page mentally:  Id says unify!  Ego says unify!  Super-ego says unify!  Oh baby! We're so unified we're melting reality.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From how I read things the Shards that Sazed picked up would arguably be called Balance on their own, but because Sazed sees the opposites and sees how they could work together, hence Harmony, whereas someone who would see opposites and say that they can't work together would end up with Discord

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good analysis. I have long believed its case 2 but that the vessel cannot permanently shape or alter that intent or 'nature' but that with strong will they can filter it for a long time. I believe bavadin does that. I like the distinction between intent and nature, it may not be quite right but for discussion purposes ots a useful way to say intent can be filtered withoutbeing changed. 

Some WoBs

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 [Vessel's] personality, however, does get to filter the Shard's intent, so to speak. However, if that holder [Vessel] no longer held that Shard, the Shard will not continue to be filtered by that person.

Source

Quote

Questioner

I was just wondering if a Shard's Intent can change over time without changing holders?

Brandon Sanderson

Without changing holders? The holder can have a slight effect on how the-- a big effect on how the Intent is interpreted, but what the Intent is stays the same. So it's gonna be filtered. The way it manifests can change, and you'll see that happening, but it is the same Intent. When it was broken off, it took a certain thing with it.

Source

Quote

 

 
 
   
  zotsandcrambles

You've mentioned that a person's personality eventually erodes and is replaced by the will of the shard they hold. Besides Harmony, are there any Shards holders that are still actively and significantly defying the intent of their shard?

Brandon Sanderson

Yes.

Kellsier

Is Harmony ([Sazed], for instance) actively trying to fight against it's shard intent?

Brandon Sanderson

Its intent(s) match Sazed very well, actually, and he has the philosophy that these natural powers are best minded and not dominated. So while he pushes back against the inaction holding both of them has caused, he appreciates and understands the need for both. I'd say he has less "push back" than some others.


Source

 

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.

Necarion

So Sadeas would express Honor differently than Tanavast?

Brandon Sanderson

Yes he would.

Source

 

Edited by Extesian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is clear from WoBs that Brandon has nuclear reactions in mind in regards to Shards. Hard to split, hard to merge and the resulting Intent is more than the sum of its parts. My guess is that the Divine Attributes are examples of the parts that make up a Shard's Intent when combined, in this case for Honor and Cultivation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Jofwu You're right about the cases + boxes, I now understand what you are getting at.

As for Dalinar Ascending, I still think that Unity as a shard Intent is a little out there, but I get what you are saying.  Here's the quote in particular:

'"Dalinar Was not supposed to Ascend," Odium said, stepping up behind Taravangian.' p.g 1216

So it's in past tense.  Which means that whatever ascending that Dalinar did, is already done.  He obviously didn't become a shard (or did he???????????) so it's a moot point.  "Ascending" probably means something else.  

@ZellyiaThe problem with your Freudian analysis is that some shards Intents (such as Cultivation and Preservation) are very un-Id like.  Also there's not a great parallel for the super-ego in that analogy.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Raykoda said:

 

@ZellyiaThe problem with your Freudian analysis is that some shards Intents (such as Cultivation and Preservation) are very un-Id like.  Also there's not a great parallel for the super-ego in that analogy.

 

Yeah when you've achieved demi-godhood, super-ego's kinda nonessential.   But I'd argue that Preservation is a very strong Id.  Just like Ruin is compelled to see everything ruined, Preservation has an equally strong compulsion to preserve.  "Like a fly in amber" I think it's described as in Secret History.  It's not good or evil, it's just an overwhelming need of how things should be (and they have the power to make it so).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Raykoda said:

So it's in past tense.  Which means that whatever ascending that Dalinar did, is already done.  He obviously didn't become a shard (or did he???????????) so it's a moot point.  "Ascending" probably means something else.  

Oh yeah, maybe should have been more clear there. I still absolutely don't think we have a Unity Shard now. It's more the theory that Dalinar WILL put together a Unity Shard down the road that interests me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like this explanation, although I'm gonna have to reread a few times to understand it all. For instance, which scenario would it be if Odium/Hatred/conflict is the nature of the shard, and Rayse is in agreement with the shard and maintains his personality? Would that be a case three?

One suggestion I would have is a change of terms, as your terms confuse me (this might be just me though, so...). I would use Intent, what the shard actually is. The View, the interpretation of the Vessel on what the Intent should be/do. The Expression, the combination of the Intent and View, which determines how the shard actually works. An example would be Ati viewing Ruin(the intent) as terrible destruction(the view) which in turn meant Ruin tried to destroy everything(the expression). Sazed views Ruin(the intent) as the final chapter of a story, not to be rushed, but not to be denied(the view), which leads to Harmony not saving people from murder, greeting people at their deaths, comforting them but not saving them(the expression). The terms describe the same things, just using words that I've observed as being more common descriptions/ make sense(to me anyways, but I'm insane so it might not for other people ^^).  

The view in this case may need to be expanded, as its not only a view of the intent, but of everything. The intent presses against the view, slowly changing it over time(depending on the strength of the vessel). And it may be necessary to create another term for the integrity of the vessels personality. How much is still the vessel, and how much is the shard? Harmony saved Wax, how much was preserving a powerful tool of Harmony, and how much was Sazed wanting Wax to live. This integrity would essentially describe how well a Vessel could conceive of/pursue interest that are not aligned with, potentially against, the intent of their shard. Having a personality vs being a force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some random thoughts after discussions on Discord...

  • I think I like @WireSegal's use of the phrase "vessel's will" rather than the "vessel's expression". I'd also like to point out that I think the vessel can exert their will in such a way that is outside the bounds of the intent or the nature of the Shard... But only in small and/or temporary ways. And the ability to do this decreases over time. This is how we have situations like Vin being able to do very un-Preservation-like things immediately after seizing the power. This is also, perhaps, what early WoBs on the matter were about. Brandon wasn't (maybe?) saying that vessels have no ability to express the Shard different ways. He was simply saying a vessel's "will" can't push outside of the intent/nature for long or in big ways (at least in the long run). That fits perfectly with what we understand.
     
  • I don't particularly like the term "intent" for the middle box, but it's the best I can think of still. I think I really like @Calderis's idea that the intent is shaped by the vessel's... subconscious (?) understanding of the Shard. This is a good explanation in my opinion of why that boundary exists. We can suppose that Tanavast picked up the "Shard of Order" and deep down understood it to mean "Honor". His interpretation is incomplete, but that's his perception of it. (and then the level below that is his own personal will, which in some cases may or may not perfectly perfectly align with that concept--it could push against the bounds of that perception or it could be a subset of it. Probably some of both.) This intent is of course constrained by the bounds of the Shard's nature. That's just going to be a natural result of the fact that the intent is defined after the vessel picks up the Shard and has some sense of what it truly is.
     
  • Per WoBs by @Extesian, Brandon seems to often use the word "filter" a lot, but I think maybe the usage here is a little vague. It's unclear how much of the filter is the intent and how much of it is the will. (using the terms in this thread)
     
  • Based on WoB, I think it's likely that OVER TIME the vessel's will is molded to match with the intent. I'm less convinced however that the intent grows to fill out the full nature of the Shard. Thus I personally tend to think that we ultimately end up with case 3. That's just my opinion though.
     
  • Extesian also made a good point which is that you are also welcome to toss some of these boxes out entirely. That would create additional cases perhaps that I haven't shown. Or maybe some of my definitions simply need tweaking. This stems from the idea that Shards perhaps don't have a clear and unchangeable nature. That is to say, the vessel can't interpret the intent to mean ANYTHING at all, but they could (under this concept) interpret it quite freely. I don't agree, but it's a different take on all of this to be considered.
7 minutes ago, Wandering Investor said:

which scenario would it be if Odium/Hatred/conflict is the nature of the shard, and Rayse is in agreement with the shard and maintains his personality?

That would be case 1, if I understand you right. 

9 minutes ago, Wandering Investor said:

I would use Intent, what the shard actually is.

Yeah, I don't love my words either. Maybe some of the comments above help. Anyways, I'm hesitant to use "intent" this way because all along we've used "intent" when referring to things like "Odium" or "Honor". And part of what I think this framework tries to do is give a vocabulary for saying, "What if the true nature of the Shard is something BIGGER and different "intents" can be drawn from that nature?" So perhaps the 'Shard of Order' can be assigned the intent of Honor, but perhaps it could also be assigned the intent of Unity. Just an example. Don't want to get bogged down with the theorizing here. That's the reason I've preferred to use "nature" to define the ultimate sense of the Shard's true meaning. And then I've used "intent" to (more or less) mean what you call the "View".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that pretty much how I feel. I guess buy these models it would be case three. 

There is an overarching, broad, "core intent" or nature as you put it. And when a Vessel takes up a Shard their deeply internalized interpretation of that nature is what is expressed. 

With Honor I think that core is Order as you put in your mention, and that Unity is an interpretation of the same shard. 

What spawned me sharing this, for others to be included was my personal take on Ati. I believe that the "kind and gentle" Ati took up the Shard of Ruin with the desire of containing what he viewed as a monster. He truly believed it was a destructive and terrible force. Over time his interpretation, due to his desire to contain the Shard rather than guide it completely overcame him, but because it was still being filtered through his mind it was still subject to his interpretation, and he became the very monster he was attempting to contain. 

Edited by Calderis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jofwu said:

That would be case 1, if I understand you right. 

You described case one as Rayse being dominated by Odium.

 

5 minutes ago, Jofwu said:

Yeah, I don't love my words either. Maybe some of the comments above help. Anyways, I'm hesitant to use "intent" this way because all along we've used "intent" when referring to things like "Odium" or "Honor". And part of what I think this framework tries to do is give a vocabulary for saying, "What if the true nature of the Shard is something BIGGER and different "intents" can be drawn from that nature?" So perhaps the 'Shard of Order' can be assigned the intent of Honor, but perhaps it could also be assigned the intent of Unity. Just an example. Don't want to get bogged down with the theorizing here. That's the reason I've preferred to use "nature" to define the ultimate sense of the Shard's true meaning. And then I've used "intent" to (more or less) mean what you call the "View".

If I understood correctly, you definition of "intent" would match my "expression". My "View" is more in line Calderis' statement of the vessels subconsious determining what the Intent is. Aka, if the Intent is Honor, what does that actually mean? It means "this", and that would be the Vessel's "view", or definition, of what the intent is. But I also see what you mean about expressing a scenario when the Vessel only expresses part of the Shard's full nature. I think this is impossible, as each Shard has been shown to have one Intent, with the exception being Odium, who claims to be passion. I think this is just Odium attempting to explain himself in a way that sounds better, but that's a tangent.

But I'm quickly seeing that introducing more/different words is only making this much much more confusing xD.

 

4 minutes ago, Calderis said:

With Honor I think that core is Order as you put in your mention, and that Unity is an interpretation of the same shard. 

I would argue that Honor is the Intent, and Order/Unity are views of what Honor actually means. But this leads back to defining the nature of the shard vs what is being expressed.

 

5 minutes ago, Calderis said:

What spawned me sharing this, for others to be included was my personal take on Ati. I believe that the "kind and gentle" Ati took up the Shard of Ruin in with the desire of containing what he viewed as a monster. He truly believed it was a destructive and terrible force. Over time his interpretation, due to his desire to contain the Shard rather than guide it completely overcame him, but because it was still being filtered through his mind it was still subject to his intent, and he became the very monster he was attempting to contain. 

I think this is a good example. The filter in this scenario is Ati's "View" of Ruin. And his ability to resist, or lack thereof, is his integrity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Wandering Investor the reason that I lean towards order as the core intent... Or "nature" of the Shard, is this new WoB.

Quote

Questioner [PENDING REVIEW]

Shards. We started with fairly obvious ones, magic wise. Trying to keep this spoiler free, so: Ruin, Preservation, this kind of thing. Then we get the weird ones. Why do we have Shards that can only exist in the mind of a sentient creature? Like the concept of Honor can only be done when it's carried out, essentially, by a sentient creature.

Brandon Sanderson [PENDING REVIEW]

So when I split Adonalsium I said, "I'm going to take aspects of Adonalsium's nature." And this involves personality to me. So the Shattering of Adonalsium was primal forces attached to certain aspects of personality. And so I view every one of them this way. And when I wrote Mistborn we had Ruin and Preservation. They are the primal forces of entropy and whatever you call the opposite, staying-the-same-ism-y. Like, you've got these two contrasts, between things changing and things not changing. And then humans do have a part, there's a personality. Ruin is a charged term for something that actually is the way that life exists. And Preservation is a charged term for stasis, for staying the same. And those are the personality aspects, and the way they are viewed by people and by the entity that was Adonalsium.

So I view this for all of them. Like, Honor is the sense of being bound by rules, even when those rules, you wouldn't have to be bound by. And there's this sense that that is noble, that's the honor aspect to it, but there's also something not honorable about Honor if taken from the other direction. So a lot of them do kind of have this both... cultural component, I would say, that trying to represent something that is also natural. And not all of them are gonna have a 100% balance between those two things, I would say, because there's only so many fundamental laws of the universe that I can ascribe personalities to in that way. 

So I find Honor very interesting, but I find Autonomy a very interesting one for the exact same reason. What does autonomy mean? We attach a lot to it, but what is the actual, if you get rid of the charged terms, what does it mean? And this is where you end up with things like Odium claiming "I am all emotion." But then there's a charged term for it that is associated with this Shard. I'm not going to tell you whether he's right or not, but he has an argument. 

source

I feel like the underlying intent there, the rules that must be followed, is Order, and that Honor was Tanavast's subconscious interpretation through which order was expressed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Calderis This requires further consideration. Is that new? Haven't seen it and that is a good one.

First, I feel this is confirmation of @Jofwu's Fundamental Nature. Each shard has an unbiased definition of what it is, even if we don't know what that thing is. I would argue that the Fundamental Nature cannot be much larger in scope than the Intent though (basically that the shard can't ignore part of its mandate). This would still prevent Odium from being Passion, since he seems incapable of compassion and such, beyond using them as tools anyways. When Dalinar viewed him in the spiritual realm and seemed to encompass several things, but mainly anger. Perhaps Conflict would be a better name for the shard, but the fact remains that the Fundamental Nature can potentially be different from the observed Intent.

Second, that's a good argument for order. But I would still argue that Honor is a better name. This shard is specifically focused on rules to oneself, or perhaps accepting rules by Intent and following them. The concept of order would expand to a lot of other things, such as sequences and protocols for the natural world. And Roshar isn't a very orderly place, a hurricane here, a hurricane there. While Honor is of Order, Order is not limited to Honor. We see focus on the KR to bind themselves to Ideals by Intent and keeping to them. Essentially, making and keeping a promise. Or another explanation would be making a promise and then always breaking it. As long as the same protocol is followed, order is served, but Honor is not. Or perhaps the Lighweavers, who acknowledge the truth about themselves/things, a potentially honorable act, but each one takes a unique path, not very orderly. Or perhaps Honor requires Intent, while Order does not, and the Shard Honor seems very focused on Intent. Not a very good explanation, but I can't come up with another one. I see Honor and Order as two distinct concepts, but am having trouble defining the difference as they go together hand in hand. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 For those not in Discord I'll summarise (well, paste) my views. I'm not a very good forumer any more.

I think the shard is unchangeable. Its intent limits actions. But the right interpretation within the nature of the shard can remove or alter those limitations to an extent. Certainly must be 'reasonable ' though. Strongest will in the world won't let preservation be used to destroy the cosmere.

I don't believe there's a pure objective intent per se. I think there is a natural personality, to use that word, and that the scope for interpreting and filtering that is wider than people think. So you can't make it be an antonym. But you have flexibility within the intent

Generally I don't think the nature box is necessary. But because people have firm views on what the word intent actually means i like that you have a word to make it broader. I think its a good guide for discussion but yeah i think nature is just intent. But that intent is broader and more flexible than commonly believed. But what i like about nature is it separates the pure natural intent (nature) from the intent manifested by a vessel. A theory i do would not separate nature and intent. But for discussing it in the confines of charged ideas about intent, your framing is useful.

I think the vessel has to believe their interpretation is within the intent, and it has to truly be so,but they can change that interpretation. For example i think bavadin has adapted her interpretation of autonomy to fit what she wants it to do. I don't think her interpretation at the time of the shattering fixed that intent. She can will it to change as long as she believes its compatible and its factually compatible. 

So basically I think that the intent of the Shard is really quite broad but that a vessel with strong will can use it in a relatively flexible way as long as they have supremely strong will and their interpretation, which they can consciously manipulate, is within the confines of that pure intent. That can be done for potentially thousands of years, as I believe bavadin is doing. But once the Vessel's will fails the pure broad natural intent of the Shard takes over, as happened with Ati.

Oh and I don't think Honor is Order. I have long thought its voluntary limitation as I do now with that WoB. Its basically the Skybreakers final oath. You choose to limit yourself according to rules you yourself set. Following rules you agree to set yourself is honorable but its wider than honor. Its self limitation according to principles and rules you set yourself. Fundamentally, its Discipline. 

Edited by Extesian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a very interesting quote I was not aware of!  Thank you Calderis for the new info.  So, considering the WoB and the prior discussion about Freudian psychology, what if Odiums core intent is not ALL emotions but all carnal or instinctual emotion, the ones commonly associated with the Id?  When Dalinar is overwhelmed by Odiums intent during the vision, he lists off feeling emotions like “the scream of a thousand warriors,” “the moment of most sensual touch and ecstasy,” “ the sorrow of loss,” and “the joy of victory.”  And of course hatred.  These emotions all seem primal in some way, associated with instinctual drives like seeking pleasure and triumph or avoiding pain and loss.  If this were true, Odium would be only partially correct in claiming to be passion.  And then of course there would be the possibility that another Shard is associated with emotions formed by the Superego, filtered through and influenced by society and cultural environment as opposed to carnal and primitive emotions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For Unity vs Honor I think you have it backwards.  The word "Honor" is the best word that Brandon chose to represent the fundamental nature of the shard, which is the spirit of obligations, oaths and laws.  Like MtG's White (I have a whole write up brewing about ascribing colours to Shards. Watch out.).  If someone else took up Honor, then that person would still be Honor, and we would call him Honor, (and his name), but he could re-interpret what that means to him.

Basically, @Extesian you're right, and I should probably hang out in the Discord more. 

@ILuvHats Maybe I just don't know my Freud, but the Id seems a bit too unemotional for it to be Odium, with or without it actually being Passion.  The Id, at least to me, seems all about instict and reactions.  A small squirrel running away from a predator is very Id driven, but not very odious or passionate, right? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Raykoda said:

For Unity vs Honor I think you have it backwards.  The word "Honor" is the best word that Brandon chose to represent the fundamental nature of the shard, which is the spirit of obligations, oaths and laws.  Like MtG's White (I have a whole write up brewing about ascribing colours to Shards. Watch out.).  If someone else took up Honor, then that person would still be Honor, and we would call him Honor, (and his name), but he could re-interpret what that means to him.

It's backwards from your opinion. :) He's arguing that Honor is an imperfect word which doesn't represent the fundamental nature of the Shard. That if someone else picked it up, we might actually use a different name to describe them because Honor no longer fits very well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Jofwu said:

It's backwards from your opinion. :) He's arguing that Honor is an imperfect word which doesn't represent the fundamental nature of the Shard. That if someone else picked it up, we might actually use a different name to describe them because Honor no longer fits very well.

So would an example of this be:  If a honorable Shardperson strongly believed that honor demanded strict vicious punishment for every minor mistake and subjugates thousands of people to this belief over time, is it still Honor or.... Cruelty? Discipline? ________?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...