Jump to content

Who's attacking Scadrial?


NiceBleach

Recommended Posts

Search for just about any topic having to do with Trell, and you'll find this discussion. 

The top choices by popularity are either Autonomy or Odium (Era 2 takes place sometime in or after the time gap between SA 5 and 6).

I think the more popular of the two options is Autonomy, and I agree. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Wandering Investor said:

I don't think it is Odium, as an appearance of Odium on Scadrial would be spoilers for the conflict on Roshar. I agree that the most likely is Autonomy, or perhaps an avatar of Autonomy, whatever that is.

Yeah I agree. It's not Odium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MountainKing said:

It's probably Autonomy, but it could be another shard we don't know of.

Given that Brandon has confirmed that the mystery godmetal is from a Shard that we know and that the Shard is associated directly with the metal (ie, no convoluted theories about one Shard stealing another's godmetal) we know that in fact, whoever is going after Scadrial is one of the Shards we've already seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, MountainKing said:

Autonomy/Trell is associated with the metal because it is it's investiture, but that don't mean another shard stole that investiture. Perservation took a piece of Ruin, Atium is still associated with Ruin, but Ruin can't use it.

That is not what the second WoB he linked says. 

Quote

Questioner [PENDING REVIEW]

Is the metal that Bleeder was associated with and had, is the Shard associated with that metal the same entity that's calling itself Trell?

Brandon Sanderson [PENDING REVIEW]

Yes.

source

It says the Shard associated with that metal is the same entity calling itself Trell. 

The metal belongs to the Shard that is attacking. 

Edit: thank you by the way @Weltall, I hadn't seen that one before. 

Edited by Calderis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never gotten that engaged on the trell/autonomy discussion before, so there may be an easy answer to this.. Why?

Why?
Why would Autonomy attack Scadrial? Autonomy attacking Harmony could* make sense, but attacking Scadrial and wreaking havoc there isn't threatening/withholding/checking Harmony. Harmony can still spread while Autonomy attacks Scadrial - the only thing he accomplishes by attacking Scadrial is senselessly infringing upon the rights and autonomy of a whole bunch of innocent people.

Sure, he could be weakening Harmony's grasp on the people. Except he does this through reckless(and ineffective) means, where he violates his own Intent. He could be violating his Intent in the same way that Ruin did - build one thing to knock two more down. However, in modern times, we have a decently well-fleshed body of philosophy centred on Autonomous ethics - one in which performative contradictions of that type are central to unethical politics. Additionally, Harmony is a lighthanded God anyways. Nowhere is this more evident than in his religion - Pathism. It has a very few simple tenets and no real organized structure. He wouldn't be building one thing to knock two more down - he'd be building two things of his own to knock down one thing of his enemy. Almost the same as if Ruin created the Parshendi and Spren as sophont life of his own to kill all of Scadrial's Preservation-Humans so he would own the world. Additionally, one of the Trellkandra told Wax's uncle Trell decided that the world had become too dangerous, and decided to destroy it instead of ruling it. Neither rule of the world nor destruction of it sound fitting, and neither of them particularly harm the spread of Harmony..

It doesn't seem fitting for Autonomous Intent to attack Scadrial - either Trell is not Autonomy, or something has altered the Intent controlling the Shard. It could be a fresh Vessel. Alternatively, it could be from a new Merging of Shards. The godmetal is associated with a Shard we know - just like Atium used by Marsh to stay alive is associated with a Shard we knew before the Catacendre, despite the fact that Ruin as a Shard has been Ruined and absorbed into Harmony.. The metal from an unmerged Shard - perhaps Autonomy - could be used by the Melded because it has desired functions.


*doesn't really make much sense to me, and wouldn't be fitting with the quality of work Sanderson tries to make. Autonomy attacking Harmony to counteract the spread of Harmonization and thus reduction in independence despite sounding mildly sensible is itself a violation of autonomy - as he is initiating the act of aggression - and thus is a performative contradiction of the type absolutely central to unethical conduct/politics as per libertarian - perhaps the best philosophical standard for Autonomous - ethics, not to mention how a performative contradiction of this nature should be utterly impossible for long-entrenched Shards, as we see in the case of Ati who was once a kind man who took the Shard of Ruin to reduce its destructive impact. Sure, 'you could say' Autonomy 'helped in any way' against Dominion and Devotion.. Two Shards with very active intents contrary to Autonomy, actually acting on those Intents, as opposed to Harmony who is content to allow his people to live freely.. Additionally, D&D are both directly reducing of Autonomy by their very nature - Harmony could be construed as this, except Harmony is powers working together, which is inherently voluntary, and thus requires autonomous parts to exist, whereas Ds happen regardless of the will of the subjects. And the 'Yes' to Autonomy helping Odium against D&D was very tenuous and faint. It could mean Autonomy sewed discord and independent thoughts among the peoples of Sel, making Odium's assault easier. It could be Odium compelled Autonomy by threatening to attack them - something much more likely to work against an independently oriented Shard than against, say, devotion. It could be that he was in a position to save D&D, but didn't, because that is not an autonomous interest. It could be that Autonomy Splintered the Shards after Odium killed the Vessels, preventing anyone else from taking the Shards against Autonomy. It could be that he caused them to merge together into the Dor. It could be any number of things besides 'Autonomy collaborated with Odium to destroy D&D.' This was also many thousands of years ago. Autonomous intent could've not set in entirely by this point. And even if Autonomy was fully Autonomy at that point, and he did intentionally, fully of his own volition, join in the assault against Odium.. That's a demonstration of Autonomy taking part in a Harmonic action, and thus proves that Harmony and Autonomy are compatible. Autonomy attacking Harmony would only make sense if Autonomy got a new Vessel who understood the purpose of Autonomy and tried Its best to fulfill it, but was still too new to be morphed by the Shard -- or if it were some author who cared less about his work and didn't take the time to think things through fully, or really at all, which is not what I've come to expect from Sanderson. Of course, it would be possible for the Shard's Intent to be something aside from Autonomy - in which case just about everything we know about them can be overruled.

Edited by recneps
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're assuming that Autonomy means what you think it does. 

(cut to avoid OB spoilers, click the source at your own risk.)

Quote

Like, what counts as being Autonomous? Is absorbing everything and becoming one again Autonomous or not? That's kind of your question that you get into. And the way Autonomy looks at it right now, is no. Autonomy wants to remain Autonomy. Autonomy does not want to be corrupted by anything else. And Autonomy would think the Shards are better on their own. But is this a natural affect, or part of the...? Does that make sense?

Source.

Autonomy thinks the Shards are better on their own... And Harmony is two Shards. 

Add in that Miles and Bleeder speak about breaking free of the oppression of the Elendel government and Harmony respectively, and everything in their motivations speak to the intent that Autonomy has show. 

Remember also, that the intent of a Shard is not self applied. Because of this it makes sense that Autonomy could view the influence of other shards as oppressive and not see the hypocrisy of that action. 

Quote

Chaos

It's a little odd that Preservation would inherently give up its power to fuel Allomancy, because you'd think he would preserve himself, you know? Does that make sense?

Brandon Sanderson

Preservation, as a Shard, is about preserving life, people, and the like. Not about self. No more than Ruin is about destroying self, or Cultivation is about growing herself.

source

 

Edited by Calderis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Calderis said:

You're assuming that Autonomy means what you think it does. 
Aye. This is all quite invalid if the title Autonomy is inaccurate.

(cut to avoid OB spoilers, click the source at your own risk.)

Autonomy thinks the Shards are better on their own... And Harmony is two Shards. 
Yes. Except that doesn't explain why Autonomy would attack Scadrial - it explains why she might attack Harmony, which she isn't doing. I put my rant in the footnote as it's an entirely separate issue. Even if Autonomy had entirely, absolutely valid reason to attack Harmony, the same justification doesn't exist for attacking Scadrial.

Add in that Miles and Bleeder speak about breaking free of the oppression of the Elendel government and Harmony respectively, and everything in their motivations speak to the intent that Autonomy has show.

They do publicly speak about breaking free of oppression. Except the most direct agent of Trell we have seen - the Faceless Immortal of the Set - told Edward Ladrian that the world has become too dangerous, and instead of using the Set to rule it, he would instead destroy it. Why would they decide to rule it? And if they themself can't rule it, why would they decide to destroy it? Additionally, even if some Trell-agents act in apparently Autonomous interests, the usage of agents like this, and not the selfgrown Avatars that Autonomy likes to use, isn't very Autonomous.. This could well be a false flag effort - make the agents seem like they're of Autonomy, and the true culprit will evade suspicion. Or it might even spark an intershard fight between Autonomy and Harmony, benefitting that other Shard. Or it could be that Bleeder and Miles had predispositions towards those things, and so that's what they claimed to act in the interest of as they spread chaos. They could be unwitting pawns - they have existing grievances, and so those gaps are used to get them to turn.
Even discounting that, this is ignoring a greater problem - the original problem - Motivation. Why would Autonomy do this? Autonomy is Autonomy. Look at the Letter she wrote to Hoid. She's content to sit in her realms, ignoring the greater issues. She also has never taken any apparent action against oppression in the past. She didn't help overthrow the Final Empire. She doesn't take action to stop Shu Dereth's conquest. Where is the motive? Why is she interfering here? Why here, and nowhere else? The words of pawns don't tell you the true intent of the player.

Remember also, that the intent of a Shard is not self applied. Because of this it makes sense that Autonomy could view the influence of other shards as oppressive and not see the hypocrisy of that action.
Of course - Preservation seeks to preserve life, people, and the like, as per your quote.. Not itself. Ruin is about destroying others, not itself. Meaning Autonomy would be about maintaining the autonomy of other beings - not its own autonomy. The quote isn't saying that their actions aren't self applied. It's saying they're not self directed. Preservation doesn't go around destroying but stopping everything else from destroying - otherwise Leras wouldn't have needed the whole elaborate pawn to get a fresh Human to Ascend and be able to take Ruinous action and destroy both themself and Ati. That's the kind of hypocrisy you're saying Autonomy would do - and we know it can't happen for Preservation. Why could it happen for Autonomy? Like Preservation can't take action counter to Preservation, Autonomy won't be taking action that is counter to Autonomy.

 

Replies Bolded inside the quoteblock to better address individual points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, recneps said:

Aye. This is all quite invalid if the title Autonomy is inaccurate.

Or if you're personal interpretation of Autonomy doesn't mesh with Bavadin's. 

6 minutes ago, recneps said:

Why would they decide to rule it? And if they themself can't rule it, why would they decide to destroy it?

Why was Taldain blockaded for centuries, preventing anyone from coming or going, curtailing the Autonomy of her subjects? Why is Autonomy setting up Avatars on multiple worlds, increasing her influence and creating the equivalent of a Shardic empire? Why is the dark side of Taldain ruled by a said to be immortal God king style Emporer who obviously has access to some means of investiture to subjugate its people when the only available means of doing so must be provided by Autonomy? 

10 minutes ago, recneps said:

This could well be a false flag effort - make the agents seem like they're of Autonomy, and the true culprit will evade suspicion. Or it might even spark an intershard fight between Autonomy and Harmony, benefitting that other Shard.

From who? It is a shard we know. Ambition is dead. D&D are dead. Endowment is happily ignoring everything outside of Nalthis. Honor is dead. Cultivation has her hands full. It's obviously not Ruin or Preservation. 

That leaves Odium, who considering the timeline would be a massive spoiler. Or Autonomy, who is known to have multiple personas in multiple religions throughout the Cosmere, whose motivations have been the least clear of any of the Shards, and who has full page dedicated in the GN to a man named Trell on the world we've had most associated with her. 

Out of the two valid options we have, this seems much more like the work of one of Autonomy's Avatars working through a religion to undermine another shard for reasons we don't understand, than it does Odium's efforts to Splinter the Shards. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Calderis said:

Or if you're personal interpretation of Autonomy doesn't mesh with Bavadin's. 
The name isn't the Intent. The name is applied de facto to match the Intent - Bavadin isn't interpreting the term Autonomy to determine her actions, the Intent is influencing her in directions which others describe as Autonomy.

Why was Taldain blockaded for centuries, preventing anyone from coming or going, curtailing the Autonomy of her subjects? Why is Autonomy setting up Avatars on multiple worlds, increasing her influence and creating the equivalent of a Shardic empire? Why is the dark side of Taldain ruled by a said to be immortal God king style Emporer who obviously has access to some means of investiture to subjugate its people when the only available means of doing so must be provided by Autonomy? 
Taldain is 'inaccessible.' This doesn't necessarily mean that Autonomy is blockading it intentionally. It could be that the Perpendicularity doesn't currently exist. Or this could be the answer to your last question - the Autonomous Perpendicularity is in the hands of a Godking, he could be using it to maintain his rule, while also suppressing travel. After all, it's not normally a good thing when strangers show up right in the middle of your source of power. And even if she is - this could be her enforcing Autonomy. If she does indeed view autonomy as this isolation, why would she turn around and start spreading random havoc in Scadrial, yet not do anything to suppress the contact forming between the South and the North? Do we know that the Avatars are ruling like gods? Avatars could simply be her own Agents. Essentially, she doesn't use others as agents - aside from those who are her in a much more real way - Avatars, custommade and grown for the sake of being a Bavadinite. Not like Miles or Bleeder. Why must he have Autonomous investiture? If he is truly immortal, he could've Worldhopped long ago. I also find it odd how the dark side has higher tech, such as gunpowder. The main Investiture-based Godking we've seen suppressed that to keep his rule secure, and the other had no need to. Even if these questions were unanswerable, none of them answer my original question. Why is Autonomy attacking Scadrial? "But we stand in the sea, pleased with our domains. Leave us alone."

From who? It is a shard we know. Ambition is dead. D&D are dead. Endowment is happily ignoring everything outside of Nalthis. Honor is dead. Cultivation has her hands full. It's obviously not Ruin or Preservation. 
That leaves Odium, who considering the timeline would be a massive spoiler. Or Autonomy, who is known to have multiple personas in multiple religions throughout the Cosmere, whose motivations have been the least clear of any of the Shards, and who has full page dedicated in the GN to a man named Trell on the world we've had most associated with her.

Out of the two valid options we have, this seems much more like the work of one of Autonomy's Avatars working through a religion to undermine another shard for reasons we don't understand, than it does Odium's efforts to Splinter the Shards. 
We have three options in terms of Shards we know - a WoB outrules Endowment. Cultivation I agree is unlikely.. We know the metal is from a Shard we know, and that the metal is now associated with the Shard calling itself Trell. So, leaving Odium and Autonomy.. Or another option. A Merging, like Harmony is of Preservation and Ruin. Atium is from a Shard we knew as of Hero of Ages. Yet Atium is now associated with Harmony, a shard we didn't know as of Hero of Ages. The Shard calling itself Trell doesn't have to be simply a Shard we know now. I don't purport to say who it is - other than that there is a Word of Brandon saying there is a connection between Odium and Trell.
All I am saying is that there is a giant flaw in the Trell/Autonomy theory. We have a clear method, and an obvious opportunity.. But there is no motive. This is my original question, which I've still seen no convincing answer for. Why?

Once again, replies in Bold.

Edited by recneps
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, recneps said:

The name isn't the Intent. The name is applied de facto to match the Intent - Bavadin isn't interpreting the term Autonomy to determine her actions, the Intent is influencing her in directions which others describe as Autonomy.

An assumption. The name and the intent are not synonymous. (again cut to avoid OB spoilers. Same WoB actually) 

Quote

WinespringBrother [PENDING REVIEW]

Given that Shards, and perhaps, Ascended beings, have intents similar to their names.

Brandon Sanderson [PENDING REVIEW]

More that they have names similar to their intents.

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
24 minutes ago, recneps said:

 

 

 

25 minutes ago, recneps said:

Taldain is 'inaccessible.' This doesn't necessarily mean that Autonomy is blockading it intentionally.

Quote

yafeshan

I am space nerd with a love of fantasy, so; Why is Scadrial prime example planet to invent space travel. Is its allomancy/ferruchemy/hemalurgy combination more suitable for that kind of technology or do they have other incentives to invent space travel other than regular technology development? Is it related to the intervention of unknown metal/shard/beings we saw?

Brandon Sanderson

There are a bunch of reasons.

The most technologically advanced of the planets (Taldain) is extremely isolationist because of its Shard, while Harmony is very interested in the progress of his people.

Scadrial has an advanced understanding of metallurgy, and for many years was quietly open to visitors from across the cosmere. In the modern era, that has enhanced. It's a much safer place to visit than, say, Sel, Threnody, or First of the Sun.

There are other reasons, too, which we'll get into as the world progresses. Having some prominent cosmere-aware people pulling strings behind the scenes is a big help. If you know other worlds are out there, and are populated, then you're more likely to push toward space travel.

source

Bolded the relevant portion.

31 minutes ago, recneps said:

"But we stand in the sea, pleased with our domains. Leave us alone."

Why do you assume that this is a universal sentiment among the Avatars? I can quote another portion that implies that is untrue. 

Quote

Perhaps if you had approached the correct one of us with your plea, it would have found favorable audience.

You assume a unified opinion. I don't know the motivation, and I'm not claiming to. But I disagree that we know enough to say that there isn't one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Calderis said:

From who? It is a shard we know. Ambition is dead. D&D are dead. Endowment is happily ignoring everything outside of Nalthis. Honor is dead. Cultivation has her hands full. It's obviously not Ruin or Preservation. 

This sums it up, and also the Endowment description made me smile. The only options are autonomy and Odium. 

@recneps A merging of shards would be an unlikely event was various reasons. Ambition and D&D are shattered, and their revival would interfere with the SA archives as one of the big questions is can Honor be revived. Similarly, Odium merging with another shard isn't likely during the SA, and Brandon has described Ambition Autonomy as one of his favorite characters, so it is unlikely the shard will change any time soon. Per the WoB about it being a shard we know, the only option is Autonomy or Odium, and Odium being there would spoil SA, not to mention the presence of the metal would indicate Odium investing in the planet, which would be against his mode of operations. Not knowing any of Autonomy's motivations doesn't rule her out. She could consider Harmony a threat, or maybe she dislikes multi world shards, or perhaps Harmony is violating some of the rules the original shards set out. We don't have to know why to recognize Autonomy as the best candidate. 

Quote

Haradion Drogon

The Letter implies Odium is allied or at least cross purposes with Bavadin. Is Odium actively allied to any *other* cosmere Power(s)?

Brandon Sanderson

YES.

source

Quote

Questioner

Could-- would Odium ever work with another Shard? Maybe not pick up another one--

Brandon Sanderson

If he were in charge. Yes, this is within the realm of possibility of what Odium would do. In fact, that may have happened at various points *sly smile*.

source

The connection between Odium and Trell could be explained by Autonomy being an ally of Odium. There's another WoB that established a vague connection between Autonomy and the deaths of D&D, but I can't find it at the moment. She could have been watching, or she could have been helping Odium in taking down D&D. Autonomy' motivations being unknown doesn't exclude her from being the best option.

 

Edited by Wandering Investor
Fixed Error
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the discussion about Autonomy and her intent - I think its possible that she is just a huge hypocrite. For her actions on scadrial to make sense to me, I think her primary purpose in interfering is to ensure that no other planet (or shard) can interfere with the autonomy (and her autonomous control) of her own people. She clearly maintains fairly tight control over her domains, even blocking travel to and from Taldain.

This desire for control - for her own autonomy - is why her 'faceless immortal' decides that the planet will be destroyed. Scadrial is advancing too quickly and may pose a threat to her domain, so it must be removed. Harmony is powerful, being two shards, and may pose a threat. His ability to do so must be curtailed. In what is presumed to be her letter to Hoid (see Stormlight Archives), she flat out says that she admires Odium's initiative.

Basically, I think she cares about her own autonomy and not that of others, and is willing to aggressively pursue actions that will preserve her autonomy at the expense of the autonomy of others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Calderis said:

An assumption. The name and the intent are not synonymous. (again cut to avoid OB spoilers. Same WoB actually) 

Aye - that's what I originally meant. Name and intent aren't synonymous. If the term Autonomy doesn't accurately describe the Intent, everything is violated.

Bolded the relevant portion.
Travel to/from Cognitive Realm typically requires a Perpendicularity. If Autonomy withheld the Perpendicularity, it would be her inaction making the world isolationist. This is well within the Intent of Autonomy - don't take action to help people lose their independence. If Autonomy were truly being proactive in enforcing isolation, and if she is the one attacking Scadrial, why has she allowed contact with the Southern Scadrians?

Why do you assume that this is a universal sentiment among the Avatars? I can quote another portion that implies that is untrue. 
I assumed that 'the correct one of us' means that she thinks Hoid approached the wrong Shard - not the wrong Avatar. And even if the Avatars do have disparate wills.. An assault by Autonomy on Scadrial with a Shard speaking to Hemalurgic creations would require the actual Shard to attack, not just an Avatar. Additionally, if Avatars are so distinct.. Why was a letter sent to an Avatar, and not to the Shard itself? Sazed received the communique from him and replied himself - it's not Marsh or TenSoon who received and replied.

You assume a unified opinion. I don't know the motivation, and I'm not claiming to. But I disagree that we know enough to say that there isn't one. 
Alright - so the theory of it being Autonomy rests without any motive for her to violate her Intent and infringe upon people's autonomy?

Once again.. None of this answers my base question. Why? Why attack Scadrial?

@Wandering Investor That's motivation for attacking Sazed - not motivation for attacking Scadrial.
The connection between Odium and Trell could be explained like that. Or if Odium were part of a Meldshard that is Trell.. Such as OdiumxHonour bringing retribution for Sazed 'violating some of the rules the original shards set out.' Or if Odium were Trell. Or if Trell were the Other Cosmere power Odium is allied with.
I've read the quote about Autonomy helping against D&D. It was very tenuous - the answer was literally 'you could say she helped splinter D&D in any way.' I've addressed my faults with this above, but that's still motivation for attacking Harmony. I admit that exists, except motivation for attacking Harmony is still not motivation for attacking Scadrial. Harmony isn't being harmed by this. The only way Harmony would be is if the Shard attacked Harmony, or used their pawns on Scadrial to entice Harmony to attack another Shard -- such as baiting Harmony into attacking Autonomy. against
Ambition wasn't described as one of Sanderson's favorite characters that I remember. Bavadin - Autonomy's Vessel - was. Ambition is long since dead.

@Calyx Refer to the quote Calderis brought in: "Preservation, as a Shard, is about preserving life, people, and the like. Not about self. No more than Ruin is about destroying self, or Cultivation is about growing herself." Caring about her own autonomy at the cost of others' is like Ruin being suicidal, but otherwise a really benevolent guy, or if Preservation was a revolutionary with a very strong survival instinct. Additionally, there's the issue of her admiring Odium's initiative. Odium - passion and hatred - is the greatest threat to any Shard, including to Autonomy. Why would Autonomy feel threatened by Scadrial and so act to destroy it - and by doing so reduce Autonomy - yet admire Odium?

I would argue that to condemn Autonomy, we would have to know a motive. We shouldn't simply say "Autonomy is the one we don't understand, so Autonomy is the one attacking." We have a motive for attacking Harmony. Yet how is attacking Scadrial in this manner fighting Harmony? How does this benefit Autonomy, while being Autonomous action? Additionally, how come Autonomy is relying on her pawns to attack? The actions don't make sense for a Shard which is simply Autonomy. If it were a merge of Shards - or a Shard such as Odium with a known motive - it could make sense.. The actions could also make sense if there were a feasible plan, presented by the theory, where attacking Scadrial will lead to harming Harmony at no cost to Autonomy.

Edited by recneps
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, recneps said:

Once again.. None of this answers my base question. Why? Why attack Scadrial?

Coming late to the party, so I want to propose my pre-existing idea on that before I go back and read all the discussion.  One of the relatively few things we know about the shards on a social interaction level is that at the beginning of things they all apparently agreed to go their separate ways and not live with or interact with each other, a Vow that I have to think Autonomy was a fan of, if not the driving force behind the pact entirely. We also know that at least three pairs of shards violated that Rule incidentally those are three worlds that have have been attacked.  So the "Why" of Why Attack Scadrial is that Harmony is by far the most extreme violator of that Rule, having directly Combined a pair of shards (directly posing whatever danger drove them to the pact in the first place).  And since Harmony is especially invested in Scadrial both through the Shards having personally created it and also Sazed as Host being a native, the best way to Attack Harmony is to seed Discord on his homeworld.  There's not any actual compelling (for a shard) reason to /spare/ Scadrial in their attempts to attack, subvert, or otherwise antagonize Harmony, and it's basically the only lever they have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@recneps Thanks for catching the ambition/autonomy error, I fixed it.

The Autonomy D&D quote is vague, but does establish a possibility for motive. And we're still not basing the theory of Autonomy attacking on her motivation, but on WoBs and the status of known shards. The metal has to be from one shard we known. A merged Odium isn't possible without spoiling/conflicting with Stormlight Archive, unless you think the Set will not move in The Lost Metal and just wait for Era 3. Even introducing another Shard to Mistborn will push Brandon's policy of keeping the cosmere somewhat contained, introducing Odium will tear down the walls separating the different series and force readers to read multiple series to understand what is going on. It will happen eventually, but I do not think this soon. 

As for why attack Scadrial instead of Harmony.. I'll admit you have a good point there. Autonomy seems to be building an empire, perhaps wiping out life on the sphere(Scadrial) would be followed by reseeding efforts. Or, Autonomy views the people of Scadrial as tools of Harmony, similar to how Ruin saw everyone as one of his tools. A shard's point of view might not allow for separating people from the vessel, they're all part of Harmony. Or attacking the people of Scadrial might distract Harmony from the true contest. Or the personality in charge of attacking Scadrial really hates other religions it can't co-opt, so burn the place down. It makes more sense from our PoV to just attack Harmony, but there could be reasons for attacking the planet as a whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Determining a motive is a wonderful investigation tool. It is not necessary when there is evidence that an event has occurred. 

I don't claim to understand Autonomy's motive. The evidence that we do have all points to Autonomy though. I'll take evidence of an event as a more solid basis for it having occurred, than I will engage in hypothetical and implausible explanations because we lack a reason for the actions to fit into a framework of intent that we don't, and have never, fully understood. 

Believe whatever you wish. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Quantus Those are still reasons to attack Scadrial. How does attacking Scadrial harm Harmony?

@Wandering Investor Aye.. There is motive for attacking Harmony. The actions make sense for building an empire, yet I don't see why building an empire would be part of an Autonomous agenda. What we've seen so far is him preserving autonomy via isolation in the lands he's laid claim to, not any actual empirebuilding. I do admit there's issue with it being Odium - except the same issue exists in terms of motive for Autonomy. It could be possible that it's Cultivation, as all the actions of Trell are leading to Change. If it were Autonomy, I surely think that she would prevent the South Scadrian First Contact - after all, that is the type of thing she does within her "empire." If she's seeking to expand that 'empire,' why would she not also continue the isolationism here?

@Calderis The issue is that we don't have evidence that Autonomy is Trell. We know that the metal used for Bleeder is from a Shard we know - but it is also red which we know means corruption. We know the metal is associated with the Shard that calls itself Trell. We know the metal is not from Endowment. This leaves the metal as being Bavadinium, Raysium, or Cultivation's Godmetal. This means potential Shards-called-Trell are: Odium, Autonomy, Cultivation, and the permutations: OdiumxHonour, CultivationxAutonomy, et cetera. We have supposition to incriminate Autonomy.

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...