Jump to content

Who's attacking Scadrial?


NiceBleach

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Fanghur Rahl said:

The problem with suggesting that it’s Autonomy in my opinion is that nothing about her Shard’s nature would seem to suggest that she would be one of the evil Shards; if anything it would seem to suggest that she would be the equivalent of a freedom fighter or something like that (or at worst, the Ayn Rand of the Shards). I don’t really see how a Shard whose nature is to value and embody freedom and individuality could justify attacking planets; it just doesn’t seem consistent with its nature at all.

 
Personally, I suspect that Sanderson is probably setting Autonomy up as a red herring and the true threat is from some other as-yet unknown Shard, perhaps Envy or Chaos. But that’s just my personal opinion.

As a fundamental trait of the Shards, NONE of them are "evil".  Some are misunderstood, some have been polarized by the Intent of the Shard, but none of the Intents themselves are actally Evil (in the same way that Fire or Death are not themselves Evil even though they are often cast in that light). 

 

As to Why Autonomy would object to Harmony: one of the very few things we know about the Hexadieties as a group is that in the beginning they made a pact of non-interaction with with each other, a pact that many of them immediately violated.  At the Intent level at least I would assume that the Autonomy Shard (or the host that attracted said shard) would have been behind or at least supported that Pact, and so would have been less than pleased when at least three pairs of Shards immediately violated the pact ans settled together.  Also worth noting that all the attacked Shards (save Ambition as far as we know) where examples of pairs that were violating that pact.  Harmony would be by far the worst violation because instead of just cohabitation those two shards have been actively Combined.  In other words it seems the most drastic step toward the Return of Adonalsium that's happened so far, and I have to think that some or most of those originals would still oppose Adonalsium and/or his return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Quantus said:

As a fundamental trait of the Shards, NONE of them are "evil".  Some are misunderstood, some have been polarized by the Intent of the Shard, but none of the Intents themselves are actally Evil (in the same way that Fire or Death are not themselves Evil even though they are often cast in that light). 

 

As to Why Autonomy would object to Harmony: one of the very few things we know about the Hexadieties as a group is that in the beginning they made a pact of non-interaction with with each other, a pact that many of them immediately violated.  At the Intent level at least I would assume that the Autonomy Shard (or the host that attracted said shard) would have been behind or at least supported that Pact, and so would have been less than pleased when at least three pairs of Shards immediately violated the pact ans settled together.  Also worth noting that all the attacked Shards (save Ambition as far as we know) where examples of pairs that were violating that pact.  Harmony would be by far the worst violation because instead of just cohabitation those two shards have been actively Combined.  In other words it seems the most drastic step toward the Return of Adonalsium that's happened so far, and I have to think that some or most of those originals would still oppose Adonalsium and/or his return.

We know Autonomy likes to meddle on other words Kriss being from Taldain and the writer of the Ars Arcanum would be an expert and said so in the Arcanum Unbounded essay.  Plus we know they have an Avatar on Obredai and First of the Sun.  So all evidence points to Autonomy in addition to the above

1 hour ago, Fanghur Rahl said:

The problem with suggesting that it’s Autonomy in my opinion is that nothing about her Shard’s nature would seem to suggest that she would be one of the evil Shards; if anything it would seem to suggest that she would be the equivalent of a freedom fighter or something like that (or at worst, the Ayn Rand of the Shards). I don’t really see how a Shard whose nature is to value and embody freedom and individuality could justify attacking planets; it just doesn’t seem consistent with its nature at all.

 
Personally, I suspect that Sanderson is probably setting Autonomy up as a red herring and the true threat is from some other as-yet unknown Shard, perhaps Envy or Chaos. But that’s just my personal opinion.

I don't think there's a Shard whose intent is chaos, at least not yet.  That would actually be Harmony, if he lost control.  If I may quote the Final Empire chapter 8 epigraph:

 

Quote

"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."

Discord being a synonym for chaos and all...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fanghur Rahl said:

The problem with suggesting that it’s Autonomy in my opinion is that nothing about her Shard’s nature would seem to suggest that she would be one of the evil Shards; if anything it would seem to suggest that she would be the equivalent of a freedom fighter or something like that (or at worst, the Ayn Rand of the Shards). I don’t really see how a Shard whose nature is to value and embody freedom and individuality could justify attacking planets; it just doesn’t seem consistent with its nature at all.

 
Personally, I suspect that Sanderson is probably setting Autonomy up as a red herring and the true threat is from some other as-yet unknown Shard, perhaps Envy or Chaos. But that’s just my personal opinion.

I think the main thing to realize here is that you have an opinion of what Autonomy means to you; that does not mean that is the way Autonomy can be expressed. Anyone could have a different definition of Autonomy than you; each person who would take up the Shard of Autonomy would express it differently, based on how they view the intent. Brandon himself has talked about this a lot (I'm not quoting the WoB though because it contains OB spoilers). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fanghur Rahl said:

if anything it would seem to suggest that she would be the equivalent of a freedom fighter or something like that

You ever notice how Paalm make a lot of refers to freeing the people from Harmony's tyranny and control?

Also, the meaning of Autonomy is flexible from person to person, so it could be used in a way that is different to what you're thinking. But there are other post covering this topic.

Also keep in mind that the shards can do things outside the scope of their Intent. Endowment for instance wants the shards to go their own ways. That doesn't have anything to do with Endowment, it doesn't run with or counter to her intent. Autonomy could consider Harmony a threat, not to her intent but to other designs she has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nesh said:

We know Autonomy likes to meddle on other words Kriss being from Taldain and the writer of the Ars Arcanum would be an expert and said so in the Arcanum Unbounded essay.  Plus we know they have an Avatar on Obredai and First of the Sun.  So all evidence points to Autonomy in addition to the above

True, but to my knowledge we've never seen evidence that Autonomy has meddled with any world that actually had a Shard present, other than potentially where there were two who'd already violated the non-interaction rule; they're allowed to meddle with worlds, just not with each other. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a factor that might help contextualize why someone with the Intent of Autonomy would be attacking another world at all....is the matter of scale. Specifically the scale in which the Shards operate, view the cosmere and plot their actions accordingly.

Thing is, it simply does not work to try and speak in terms of absolute definitions when discussing the sentient embodiment of abstract, subjective concepts. There are dictionary definitions for Honor, Autonomy, Preservation, etc, yes. And some definitions are more agreed upon or used more colloquially than others, yes. But there will always be room for 'hypocrisy' in the actions of Shards because every Intent we know of correlates to a concept that is inherently meaningless outside of specific contexts.

Honor exists as a concept outside of specific, individual scenarios, true. But it doesn't really MEAN anything UNTIL it's applied to specific situations. For instance, going off the definition, one could easily say 'It is honorable to obey the laws of society.' And that is absolutely, one hundred percent true according to the definition of Honor, given the information contained in that sentence. But now give that sentence an actual context. Make it a specific situation. Say you're talking about a fictional cosmere society where an autocrat along the lines of the Lord Ruler has created a society where the law mandates that anyone who speaks ill of him is to be reported, arrested and put to death, purely because of this autocrat's ego. Would it still be Honorable to obey that law? Would following it be in accordance with Honor's Intent?

On Scadrial, Preservation's Investiture is accessed by snapping, a person with the right genetics becoming an allomancer in a time of physical need, in preservation of their own life. However, the powers granted by Preservation's Investiture are not purely defensive. They can be (and have been) used to kill other human beings. Is this hypocritical in regards to Preservation's Intent? No, because none of these Intents exist in a vacuum. They all must coexist in a universe populated by sentient beings with their own interpretations of these universal concepts, and more importantly...their own free will.

Which is why I spoke of scale. Because sometimes, it comes down to prioritization.

Preservation's Intent, absent of context would mandate that both an allomancer and a person committed to killing them should be preserved. But the problem is, Preservation does not have the power to make that happen. Because the Shards are not gods. They are god-like figures of enormous power, to such a degree that a distinction seems almost unnecessary, but it is necessary to make the distinction that for all their ability to influence cosmere events and figures through their power, knowledge and longevity....they can not control what sentient beings will actually DO, outside of specific contexts such as Ruin's ability to manipulate those who are spiked hemalurgically.

Back to the example of the allomancer and the person committed to killing them for whatever reason, at all costs...ideally, Preservation would probably want both lives preserved. But if that can't happen in the long run because the one person is absolutely obsessed of their own free will with killing the allomancer for some personal reason, no matter how many times the allomancer is preserved or finds a means to survive their opponent's attempts on their life, ultimately that conflict will only ever end when one of the two is dead.

So if Preservation can't preserve both lives, not because of his Intent but because his Intent simply can not supersede the free will of this person and make them choose not to want to kill the allomancer because that's not what he is and that's not how free will works....if only one life can be preserved and a choice has to be made....would it make Preservation a hypocrite if he aided or enabled the allomancer in killing their pursuer, preserving their life at the cost of another?

Or could it be argued, that in the context of scale and the extremely long view the Shards take of things due to their own expanded awareness and longevity....that in Preservation's eyes, this isn't remotely a conflict of Interest, because his concern is the long view, the MOST life being preserved in the long run, given that total preservation of all life everywhere is impossible. After all, if two people are locked in a life and death struggle from which only one can survive...who is less likely to contribute to the overall preservation of life after that struggle is won...the allomancer who only killed in self-defense, or the person who initiated that struggle by trying to kill the allomancer?

And this of course is essentially exactly what did happen on Scadrial. The events Preservation himself deliberately set in motion to ultimately defeat Ruin and preserve as much life on Scadrial as he could in the long run, these events were extremely far-reaching in their ripple effects. People absolutely died over the course of Scadrial's history as a result of situations Preservation manipulated to enact his longterm plan to stop Ruin...he may not have killed them himself, but he set things in motion, his hand created situations that led to deaths that would almost certainly not have happened if his hand hadn't been present.

And Preservation could do all that, despite his Intent, despite the fact that he shouldn't be able to act in a way that gets people killed given that this is the exact opposite of his Intent....because his Intent doesn't exist in any meaningful way without context. And with context, a life can be ended in order to preserve someone else's. Many lives can be lost in the preservation of many more. The Shards are not gods, no, but they are god-like enough that they view things on a macro scale that means individual lives in the here and now must always be weighed against the bigger picture, which for some Shards like Preservation, include a knowledge of the future.

Which brings me back to Autonomy. Does it make sense according to the dictionary definition of the word that a Shard with the Intent of Autonomy would attack innocent humans on another planet who have done nothing to her or her people directly? No, not really. But in the context of a nearly immortal Shard with an awareness of an entire galaxy and countless millennia of history, a Shard which has an Intent that shapes her actions but also has the ability to prioritize how and where she applies that Intent and whose Autonomy is most critical in her opinion, just as Preservation was able to prioritize what lives he focused on preserving most in the long run....

Then there's endless possibilities for why Autonomy might be attacking Scadrial. Maybe she has future sight and is staving off a future threat to her people. Maybe she considers Taldain so much 'hers' that she views the Shardworlds of all other Shards as similarly entwined and thus doesn't distinguish between Harmony and 'his' people, so if she views Harmony as a threat, by extension his people are a threat as well. Maybe she considers her actions in the present a necessary evil to 'free' Scadrial of Harmony's influence in the long run. Maybe she's the least influenced of all the Shards by her Intent because she interprets it as everyone being able to do as they wish of their own agency, and thus she sees no reason she can't act however she pleases because she knows like all the other Shards, no matter how much influence she wields she isn't actually impinging on anyone's Autonomy to make their own choices based on whatever information or resources they have.

There's no way to know yet, but there's no way that simply having the Intent Autonomy could make it impossible for Trell to be one of her Avatars. Because we can't make the case that Bavadin should be incapable of impinging on someone else's Autonomy without acknowledging that human beings impinge on each other's Autonomy all the time....and if it's simply a fundamentally applied absolute that Autonomy can't act to restrict someone else's Autonomy without being a hypocrite, then how could she ever act at all?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another issue here is that the intent is not defined by the word it is framed in. The intent of the Shard is the driving force and the name is a word chosen to try and fit that. 

"Autonomy" is not the intent. It's an attempt to describe that intent that may or may not align well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Quantus said:

As a fundamental trait of the Shards, NONE of them are "evil".  Some are misunderstood, some have been polarized by the Intent of the Shard, but none of the Intents themselves are actally Evil (in the same way that Fire or Death are not themselves Evil even though they are often cast in that light). 

I have to disagree with you here. By any meaningful definition of the term, Odium is certainly evil insofar as what people generally mean by that term, as was Ruin, and if its magic system is anything to judge by, probably Dominion as well. The fact that they can't help but be the way they are is not relevant, because ultimately the same holds true for literally every person alive; no one chooses to have been born with the brain of a psychopath for example. So we can certainly meaningfully attach the 'evil' label to Shards like Odium and Ruin who routinely and thoughtlessly inflict vast suffering without sufficient justification by the standards of those they oppress. Or if they aren't 'evil', then no one is either as the term is effectively rendered meaningless.

 

7 hours ago, Quantus said:

As to Why Autonomy would object to Harmony: one of the very few things we know about the Hexadieties as a group is that in the beginning they made a pact of non-interaction with with each other, a pact that many of them immediately violated.  At the Intent level at least I would assume that the Autonomy Shard (or the host that attracted said shard) would have been behind or at least supported that Pact, and so would have been less than pleased when at least three pairs of Shards immediately violated the pact ans settled together.  Also worth noting that all the attacked Shards (save Ambition as far as we know) where examples of pairs that were violating that pact.  Harmony would be by far the worst violation because instead of just cohabitation those two shards have been actively Combined.  In other words it seems the most drastic step toward the Return of Adonalsium that's happened so far, and I have to think that some or most of those originals would still oppose Adonalsium and/or his return.

Fair enough, I actually hadn't considered that part. Though I still think it would be a bit extreme for the Autonomy shard to deal with the breach in the manner typically ascribed to her. But again, that's just my personal opinion. I could very well be mistaken.

6 hours ago, Nesh said:

We know Autonomy likes to meddle on other words Kriss being from Taldain and the writer of the Ars Arcanum would be an expert and said so in the Arcanum Unbounded essay.  Plus we know they have an Avatar on Obredai and First of the Sun.  So all evidence points to Autonomy in addition to the above

I don't think there's a Shard whose intent is chaos, at least not yet.  That would actually be Harmony, if he lost control.  If I may quote the Final Empire chapter 8 epigraph:

 

Discord being a synonym for chaos and all...

Maybe, although by that definition Odium and Ruin could also probably be thought of as 'Chaos' as well. Odium certainly causes enough of that.

6 hours ago, StrikerEZ said:

I think the main thing to realize here is that you have an opinion of what Autonomy means to you; that does not mean that is the way Autonomy can be expressed. Anyone could have a different definition of Autonomy than you; each person who would take up the Shard of Autonomy would express it differently, based on how they view the intent. Brandon himself has talked about this a lot (I'm not quoting the WoB though because it contains OB spoilers). 

This is actually something I think is either false, or if it is true then in my opinion it qualifies as a pretty significant internal inconsistency on Sanderson's part because of the way that Ruin turned out. If it really is true that the holder of a Shard interprets the expression of the Shard according to their own ideals, and assuming that Hoid was correct that before the Ascension Ati was a kind, generous and moral man, then I can't see any realistic way that he would have interpreted what is by his own words the Shard of 'endings' the way he did. When I think of how someone like Ati would have interpreted that Shard, I ultimately arrive at something similar to Death from Supernatural. Ruin from the Mistborn trilogy is what I would have expected someone like Rayse to have become if he acquired Ruin. So it seems to me that either the 'Ruin' Shard is actually more like 'Wanton Destruction', or else the ability of a Shardholder to interpret the expression of their Shard is extremely limited at best.

5 hours ago, ROSHtaFARian2.0 said:

I think a factor that might help contextualize why someone with the Intent of Autonomy would be attacking another world at all....is the matter of scale. Specifically the scale in which the Shards operate, view the cosmere and plot their actions accordingly.

Thing is, it simply does not work to try and speak in terms of absolute definitions when discussing the sentient embodiment of abstract, subjective concepts. There are dictionary definitions for Honor, Autonomy, Preservation, etc, yes. And some definitions are more agreed upon or used more colloquially than others, yes. But there will always be room for 'hypocrisy' in the actions of Shards because every Intent we know of correlates to a concept that is inherently meaningless outside of specific contexts.

Honor exists as a concept outside of specific, individual scenarios, true. But it doesn't really MEAN anything UNTIL it's applied to specific situations. For instance, going off the definition, one could easily say 'It is honorable to obey the laws of society.' And that is absolutely, one hundred percent true according to the definition of Honor, given the information contained in that sentence. But now give that sentence an actual context. Make it a specific situation. Say you're talking about a fictional cosmere society where an autocrat along the lines of the Lord Ruler has created a society where the law mandates that anyone who speaks ill of him is to be reported, arrested and put to death, purely because of this autocrat's ego. Would it still be Honorable to obey that law? Would following it be in accordance with Honor's Intent?

On Scadrial, Preservation's Investiture is accessed by snapping, a person with the right genetics becoming an allomancer in a time of physical need, in preservation of their own life. However, the powers granted by Preservation's Investiture are not purely defensive. They can be (and have been) used to kill other human beings. Is this hypocritical in regards to Preservation's Intent? No, because none of these Intents exist in a vacuum. They all must coexist in a universe populated by sentient beings with their own interpretations of these universal concepts, and more importantly...their own free will.

Which is why I spoke of scale. Because sometimes, it comes down to prioritization.

Preservation's Intent, absent of context would mandate that both an allomancer and a person committed to killing them should be preserved. But the problem is, Preservation does not have the power to make that happen. Because the Shards are not gods. They are god-like figures of enormous power, to such a degree that a distinction seems almost unnecessary, but it is necessary to make the distinction that for all their ability to influence cosmere events and figures through their power, knowledge and longevity....they can not control what sentient beings will actually DO, outside of specific contexts such as Ruin's ability to manipulate those who are spiked hemalurgically.

Back to the example of the allomancer and the person committed to killing them for whatever reason, at all costs...ideally, Preservation would probably want both lives preserved. But if that can't happen in the long run because the one person is absolutely obsessed of their own free will with killing the allomancer for some personal reason, no matter how many times the allomancer is preserved or finds a means to survive their opponent's attempts on their life, ultimately that conflict will only ever end when one of the two is dead.

So if Preservation can't preserve both lives, not because of his Intent but because his Intent simply can not supersede the free will of this person and make them choose not to want to kill the allomancer because that's not what he is and that's not how free will works....if only one life can be preserved and a choice has to be made....would it make Preservation a hypocrite if he aided or enabled the allomancer in killing their pursuer, preserving their life at the cost of another?

Or could it be argued, that in the context of scale and the extremely long view the Shards take of things due to their own expanded awareness and longevity....that in Preservation's eyes, this isn't remotely a conflict of Interest, because his concern is the long view, the MOST life being preserved in the long run, given that total preservation of all life everywhere is impossible. After all, if two people are locked in a life and death struggle from which only one can survive...who is less likely to contribute to the overall preservation of life after that struggle is won...the allomancer who only killed in self-defense, or the person who initiated that struggle by trying to kill the allomancer?

And this of course is essentially exactly what did happen on Scadrial. The events Preservation himself deliberately set in motion to ultimately defeat Ruin and preserve as much life on Scadrial as he could in the long run, these events were extremely far-reaching in their ripple effects. People absolutely died over the course of Scadrial's history as a result of situations Preservation manipulated to enact his longterm plan to stop Ruin...he may not have killed them himself, but he set things in motion, his hand created situations that led to deaths that would almost certainly not have happened if his hand hadn't been present.

And Preservation could do all that, despite his Intent, despite the fact that he shouldn't be able to act in a way that gets people killed given that this is the exact opposite of his Intent....because his Intent doesn't exist in any meaningful way without context. And with context, a life can be ended in order to preserve someone else's. Many lives can be lost in the preservation of many more. The Shards are not gods, no, but they are god-like enough that they view things on a macro scale that means individual lives in the here and now must always be weighed against the bigger picture, which for some Shards like Preservation, include a knowledge of the future.

Which brings me back to Autonomy. Does it make sense according to the dictionary definition of the word that a Shard with the Intent of Autonomy would attack innocent humans on another planet who have done nothing to her or her people directly? No, not really. But in the context of a nearly immortal Shard with an awareness of an entire galaxy and countless millennia of history, a Shard which has an Intent that shapes her actions but also has the ability to prioritize how and where she applies that Intent and whose Autonomy is most critical in her opinion, just as Preservation was able to prioritize what lives he focused on preserving most in the long run....

Then there's endless possibilities for why Autonomy might be attacking Scadrial. Maybe she has future sight and is staving off a future threat to her people. Maybe she considers Taldain so much 'hers' that she views the Shardworlds of all other Shards as similarly entwined and thus doesn't distinguish between Harmony and 'his' people, so if she views Harmony as a threat, by extension his people are a threat as well. Maybe she considers her actions in the present a necessary evil to 'free' Scadrial of Harmony's influence in the long run. Maybe she's the least influenced of all the Shards by her Intent because she interprets it as everyone being able to do as they wish of their own agency, and thus she sees no reason she can't act however she pleases because she knows like all the other Shards, no matter how much influence she wields she isn't actually impinging on anyone's Autonomy to make their own choices based on whatever information or resources they have.

There's no way to know yet, but there's no way that simply having the Intent Autonomy could make it impossible for Trell to be one of her Avatars. Because we can't make the case that Bavadin should be incapable of impinging on someone else's Autonomy without acknowledging that human beings impinge on each other's Autonomy all the time....and if it's simply a fundamentally applied absolute that Autonomy can't act to restrict someone else's Autonomy without being a hypocrite, then how could she ever act at all?

 

I agree with most of what you said here, though I think if the concept of the Shards as being effectively nigh-omnipotent embodiments of certain abstract concepts is to have any actual applicability at all, there has to be at least SOME limitations on the degree in which the Shards can 'stray' from their attributes. You may be right that Autonomy is sufficiently nebulous to allow for such meddling, but you have to admit that if nothing else it is certainly an interesting topic of debate. Other Shards like Honour are much less nebulous.

Edited by Fanghur Rahl
Typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Fanghur Rahl said:

I have to disagree with you here. By any meaningful definition of the term, Odium is certainly evil insofar as what people generally mean by that term

Considering that good and evil vary by belief and society and are fairly arbitrary, I don't really disagree with your point here, but the Shards themselves are not evil. A Vessel, or the way that their mind (and in at is case, it still required his mind, no matter how "gone" Ati was) interpret what that intent means, can be evil. 

6 minutes ago, Fanghur Rahl said:

and if its magic system is anything to judge by, probably Dominion as well.

You're making an assumption here that is incorrect. Dahkor is not "Dominion's magic system." There is only one magic system on Sel, broken into regional subsystems. They are all a mixture of Dominion and Devotion.

9 minutes ago, Fanghur Rahl said:

This is actually something I think is either false, or if it is true then in my opinion it qualifies as a pretty significant internal inconsistency on Sanderson's part because of the way that Ruin turned out. If it really is true that the holder of a Shard interprets the expression of the Shard according to their own ideals, and assuming that Hoid was correct that before the Ascension Ati was a kind, generous and moral man, then I can't see any realistic way that he would have interpreted what is by his own words the Shard of 'endings' the way he did. When I think of how someone like Ati would have interpreted that Shard, I ultimately arrive at something similar to Death from Supernatural. Ruin from the Mistborn trilogy is what I would have expected someone like Rayse to have become if he acquired Ruin. So it seems to me that either the 'Ruin' Shard is actually more like 'Wanton Destruction', or else the ability of a Shardholder to interpret the expression of their Shard is extremely limited at best.

Here is where I speak about Ati and why I think interpretation is both important, and does not mean that the vessel chooses the way that the Shard manifests. At least not consciously. 

In my opinion, Ati bring a kind and gentle man was precisely why he took up Ruin. He saw it as a monster to be contained. In so doing his interpretation of what Ruin meant created the very monster he became. If Harmony held only Ruin I think he would turn out very very differently. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Calderis said:

You're making an assumption here that is incorrect. Dahkor is not "Dominion's magic system." There is only one magic system on Sel, broken into regional subsystems. They are all a mixture of Dominion and Devotion.

Ah, in that case thank you for correcting me. I had been under the impression that AonDor was of Devotion while Dahkor was of Dominion (who became known as Jaddeth). In my defence, it is a pretty easy mistake to make considering that AonDor certainly seems more about devotion while Dahkor seems more about dominion. Maybe while both systems contain a mixture of both, AonDor is predominantly or skewed toward Devotion while Dahkor is predominantly or skewed toward Dominion?

13 minutes ago, Calderis said:

In my opinion, Ati bring a kind and gentle man was precisely why he took up Ruin. He saw it as a monster to be contained. In so doing his interpretation of what Ruin meant created the very monster he became. If Harmony held only Ruin I think he would turn out very very differently. 

True, but I still say that Ruin could have plausibly been an order of magnitude less 'malevolent' than it actually turned out to be whilst still remaining true to the intent of its Shard. Admittedly, it wouldn't have made much of a villain then, but still.

Edited by Fanghur Rahl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a couple WOBs that are relevant here:

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

Quote

Questioner [PENDING REVIEW]

We know Ati chose how Ruin was interpreted, in that he was a card-cackling maniac. Could someone so differently interpret a Shard as to change its name to be something different? Could someone pick up the Shard of Ruin and think I'm the Shard of Change? Or could someone pick up the Shard of Honor and think--

Brandon Sanderson [PENDING REVIEW]

*hesitantly* Yes. To an extent. The interpretation, what you call a thing-- I think it would be arguable either way in-world, regardless of what they call themselves. There are those who would say the core intent is still there and you can't shift it that far, and others would argue you can shift it far enough to change the definition to a synonym. You see evidence of someone claiming this in the books. I'm not gonna confirm or deny for you whether that is actually a thing or not.

 

 

So in short Shardic intent is... complicated.  You can fight it, but eventually it will will.  The holder's interpretation is like a filter that decides how it manifests.  What we do know is that Bavadin is a hypocrite.  She doesn't want people interfering on her world(s), but interferes in other wolds.  Paalm's entire philosophy was about freeing Wax, and Elendel from Harmony's "control", making them more autonomous in other words.  Harmony does guide the people of Scadrial, (At least the ones up north) as shown by the Words of Founding and an all his actions in Era 2 with Wax.  So the attack on Scadrial could fit Autonomy's intent from a certain interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Nesh and it gets even more complicated as Brandon uses the term synonym rather loosely. For instance "Devotion" is being used as a synonym of "love."

Quote

Puck (paraphrased)

Does Aona equal Love or Compassion?

Brandon Sanderson (paraphrased)

You have it, it's just a synonym there. You basically have it

Puck (paraphrased)

Does Skai equal Devotion or Order?

Brandon Sanderson (paraphrased)

You're not on there. But you are on on the first one [Aona].

source
Quote

Chaos

So Aona is a synonym for love, hmm? Is Charity the correct Shard name?

Brandon Sanderson

Not quite. I’m trying to remember what the guesses were for the other Shard on Sel. I may have dismissed them too quickly.

Chaos

How about Mercy for Aona, then? The guesses for Skai’s Shard include Devotion, Obedience, and Order

Brandon Sanderson

Okay, I was right, then. Ha There’s something very ironic in all of this.

source

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fanghur Rahl said:

True, but I still say that Ruin could have plausibly been an order of magnitude less 'malevolent' than it actually turned out to be whilst still remaining true to the intent of its Shard. Admittedly, it wouldn't have made much of a villain then, but still.

Yeah, you're completely right. Ati as Ruin was a pretty bad villain. @Calderis already gave a pretty good explanation of how this (probably) happened, so I won't repeat too much of what he said, but if someone like Sazed, who views Ruin as a natural part of the world, took up Ruin they would manifest the intent very differently. LI think I have a pretty good metaphor for how Shardic intents affect the Vessels:

The Vessel is the banks of a river. They determine where and how the water, the Shard, flows, though overtime the water will erode the land as they pass through, eventually taking control and being unstoppable. 

It's not a perfect metaphor, but I think it works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, StrikerEZ said:

Yeah, you're completely right. Ati as Ruin was a pretty bad villain.

I can't quite tell if you're being sarcastic here or not, but just to clarify, what I said was that if Ati had interpreted Ruin the way he probably should have given his supposedly kind nature (which as I said earlier probably would have resulted, along with Sazed, in  basically a carbon copy of Death from Supernatural), then the resulting Ruin would have made for a pretty lousy villain, since he wouldn't be a villain at all. I don't think Ruin was a bad villain. I just think his backstory was very badly thought out by the author; if Ati was stipulated to have been a terrible person like Rayse, then the sadistic, omnicidal maniac Ruin would have made sense. But unfortunately, Sanderson had to choose between having a villainous Ruin with a completely unrealistic backstory and not having a villainous Ruin at all, since there really isn't any way to have both, at least not without changing the intent of the Shard to something like 'Wanton Destruction' or the like, but that would pretty much make it an evil Shard by definition. 

Edited by Fanghur Rahl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Fanghur Rahl said:

I can't quite tell if you're being sarcastic here or not, but just to clarify, what I said was that if Ati had interpreted Ruin the way he probably should have given his supposedly kind nature (which as I said earlier probably would have resulted, along with Sazed, in  basically a carbon copy of Death from Supernatural), then the resulting Ruin would have made for a pretty lousy villain, since he wouldn't be a villain at all. I don't think Ruin was a bad villain. I just think his backstory was very badly thought out by the author; if Ati was stipulated to have been a terrible person like Rayse, then the sadistic, omnicidal maniac Ruin would have made sense. But unfortunately, Sanderson had to choose between having a villainous Ruin with a completely unrealistic backstory and not having a villainous Ruin at all, since there really isn't any way to have both, at least not without changing the intent of the Shard to something like 'Wanton Destruction' or the like, but that would pretty much make it an evil Shard by definition. 

Ati could have started out like that, but remember he held Ruin for likely thousands of years, by the time we see him in Era 1 his mind would have been far more Shard than Ati.  By that point the Shard wouldn't really have been moderated by Ati's influence and likely would have reset to default: destroy things.  At least that's how I read that part of The Letter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean we know that Shards a Vessels have a contest of wills and that the Shards wikk eventually alys win out.  The es=ffects beig rather less drastic if you're well-suited to the Shard, like say Rayse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe, although the Preservation implies that Ruin had been the way he was pretty much from day one. Otherwise, Fuzz wouldn’t have even needed his elaborate plan to keep Ruin locked up for a couple millennia. Or at least, he’d have had a few billion years to work out a more permanent solution to the ‘problem’ before the star went nova and Ruin came out to destroy. That’s the only real problem I have with the “Ati started good but was corrupted into Ruin” scenario; it doesn’t seem consistent with what we know about the Scadrial System’s history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Fanghur Rahl said:

Maybe, although the Preservation implies that Ruin had been the way he was pretty much from day one. Otherwise, Fuzz wouldn’t have even needed his elaborate plan to keep Ruin locked up for a couple millennia. Or at least, he’d have had a few billion years to work out a more permanent solution to the ‘problem’ before the star went nova and Ruin came out to destroy. That’s the only real problem I have with the “Ati started good but was corrupted into Ruin” scenario; it doesn’t seem consistent with what we know about the Scadrial System’s history.

Ah, but Preservation has great future sight.  Ati didn't need to be evil at the start.  Remember they made a deal to create life, a deal that Leras reneged on, both of them gave up significant portions themselves to create life and even the planet.  Everything is destroyed eventually, even this planet we are on will be.  Ati only wanted his end of the bargain to be held up.  A return on his Investment as it were, instead he got locked up for at least 2,000 years while Leras concocted a plan to murder and as he is God's destructive force personified and he was only doing what his Intent demanded.

 

Form a certain perspective you could say Preservation's the bad guy.  He's the oe who broke the deal (Understandable given his intent but still.  Locked Ati up for Adonalsium knows how long, with the intent of finding a way to kill him.  I think it's perfectly understandable that Rui went a bit nits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi.  I'm new here, but reading this, I had a few thoughts.

First, is it possible that Autonomy, due to its Intent,... allows more autonomy to the vessel of the Shard?  It may be that whoever holds the Autonomy Shard can use its power more freely than others, because of it being Autonomy?  If this holds true, then Autonomy would be unique in that holding the Shard for a longer period of time would grant more autonomy to its vessel, not less.  Perhaps.

Another possible option is that the vessel of Autonomy is deliberately changing vessels every so often to counteract the effects of holding the Shard for a longer period of time?  Or, perhaps, the creation of multiple champions is Autonomy's way of expressing the Intent of Autonomy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Ulthwithian said:

First, is it possible that Autonomy, due to its Intent,... allows more autonomy to the vessel of the Shard?

The Intents describe what the Shards want to do to others. Preservation wants to preserve others, which is why he can sacrifice himself. Ruin wants to ruin other things, which is why he had no plans to destroy himself. So Autonomy should want to make other things autonomous. The kicker is that the definition of autonomy can be interpreted differently by different people, so we don't actually know what Autonomy's goals are.

56 minutes ago, Ulthwithian said:

Another possible option is that the vessel of Autonomy is deliberately changing vessels every so often to counteract the effects of holding the Shard for a longer period of time?

No, Preservation was the first shard to be held by someone not of the original 16 vessels.

57 minutes ago, Ulthwithian said:

Or, perhaps, the creation of multiple champions is Autonomy's way of expressing the Intent of Autonomy?

This is a valid theory. Some have guessed that creating autonomous avatars is Autonomy's way of expressing her intent.

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...