Jump to content

Recommended Posts

So, just recently I realized that most cosmere systems of magic have to do with shardic intent. I know that people have probably already thought of this, but it came to me while I was reading Warbreaker. On Endowment's shardworld, magic allows people to endow items with gifts, namely, the gift of life and breath. Awakeners give items life, of course, but even common people can give their breath to the Returned. And the Returned give their breath to heal.

On Scadrial, Ruin's system of magic requires the destruction of metal for power. Preservation's preserves power to be saved for later. Hemalurgy sort of preserves power by transferring it, but requires the ruin of a living being. So it's kind of a combination of the two.

On Sel, stuff is different, due to both shards being shattered. I won't bother.

I'm still trying to work out White Sand. I haven't read them yet.

On Roshar, a Knight Radiant's power is directly linked to being honorable by following the ideals of their order. Cultivation cultivates people with her magic. She nurtures with a gift, but prunes with a curse, in an attempt to foster healthy growth. Odium is... Odium. It seems like the Fused are fuled by passion, which is Odium's thing. We really don't have much concrete information on them though, except that they're basically uncool and Unhinged versions of the Knights Radiant.

That's... All I've read of the cosmere so far. Feel free to add, or correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted something very similar in the thread mentioned above, so I agree. Just one correction, as on Scadrial Allomancy is of Preservation and Hemalurgy of Ruin (Feruchemy is of both). So Ruin's system requires you to 'ruin' part of your soul (spiritweb) to make place for Investiture. With Preservation it is more complicated but I believe Brandon said that Leras established the system before he was limited by the Shard's Intent. (I'll edit if I find it). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nnatel said:

I posted something very similar in the thread mentioned above, so I agree. Just one correction, as on Scadrial Allomancy is of Preservation and Hemalurgy of Ruin (Feruchemy is of both). So Ruin's system requires you to 'ruin' part of your soul (spiritweb) to make place for Investiture. With Preservation it is more complicated but I believe Brandon said that Leras established the system before he was limited by the Shard's Intent. (I'll edit if I find it). 

For Allomancy, I believe the thing with snapping is that you have to come near to death but then choose to preserve yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chromium Compounder said:

For Allomancy, I believe the thing with snapping is that you have to come near to death but then choose to preserve yourself.

Wow, I never thought of it and it works pretty well. Thanks for giving me the idea how to get Preservation work in this theory, as I couldn't find any way it would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Nnatel said:

Wow, I never thought of it and it works pretty well. Thanks for giving me the idea how to get Preservation work in this theory, as I couldn't find any way it would.

Mmmmm actually, I'm pretty sure it's because you need the trauma to get enough cracks in your spiritweb to let the investiture flow through. Vin Snapped during her birth trauma, for instance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, RShara said:

Mmmmm actually, I'm pretty sure it's because you need the trauma to get enough cracks in your spiritweb to let the investiture flow through. Vin Snapped during her birth trauma, for instance.

True, but cracks in the spiritweb aren’t enough.  Similar to how a proto-radiant has to already be trying to live by the ideals of their order, a proto-misting has to demonstrate preservation. I get that it’s hard for a baby to do that, but at the very least they can want to live rather than just giving up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Nnatel said:

I posted something very similar in the thread mentioned above, so I agree. Just one correction, as on Scadrial Allomancy is of Preservation and Hemalurgy of Ruin (Feruchemy is of both). So Ruin's system requires you to 'ruin' part of your soul (spiritweb) to make place for Investiture. With Preservation it is more complicated but I believe Brandon said that Leras established the system before he was limited by the Shard's Intent. (I'll edit if I find it). 

Huh, that's really interesting. I just assumed it would be the other way around, but that makes sense too. 

Anyone have an idea of what sand mastery has to do with Autonomy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ThreeTimesAllOnPurpose said:

Anyone have an idea of what sand mastery has to do with Autonomy?

We don't know much about the relmatics of sand mastery the same way we do about the metallic arts or surgebinding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Autonomy's "intent" has always been a bit weird to pin down. What is Autonomy? Isolated from the books, it seems to refer to one's ability to thrive without needing any outside help. The Shard having multiple avatars complicates this, though, because it seems at a glance to be a contradiction. I've come to the conclusion, though I may be wrong, that Autonomy is trying to create multiple communities of independent people/species/ecosystems that are self-sustaining, and wants to watch those communities progress without any outside interference, hence the Taldaini travel ban mentioned by Khriss in the Taldain essay. 

The Sand Masters are a good example of one of those communities - isolated, strong, independent. At least, they thought they were. Additionally, the manifestation of Sand Mastery being many ribbons bonded to one master follows this "autonomous communities" idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, EddyJ said:

Autonomy's "intent" has always been a bit weird to pin down. What is Autonomy? Isolated from the books, it seems to refer to one's ability to thrive without needing any outside help. The Shard having multiple avatars complicates this, though, because it seems at a glance to be a contradiction. I've come to the conclusion, though I may be wrong, that Autonomy is trying to create multiple communities of independent people/species/ecosystems that are self-sustaining, and wants to watch those communities progress without any outside interference, hence the Taldaini travel ban mentioned by Khriss in the Taldain essay. 

The Sand Masters are a good example of one of those communities - isolated, strong, independent. At least, they thought they were. Additionally, the manifestation of Sand Mastery being many ribbons bonded to one master follows this "autonomous communities" idea.

Sanderson has mentioned that it is OK to think of Autonomy's intent as being the opposite of Honor's.  So if Honor brings things together via bonds Autonomy wants to splint things apart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, RShara said:

Mmmmm actually, I'm pretty sure it's because you need the trauma to get enough cracks in your spiritweb to let the investiture flow through. Vin Snapped during her birth trauma, for instance.

From what @Chromium Compounder said I got that yes, Snapping is important, as similar thing is needed, for other systems as well, to let Investiture in. But directly from Preservation is the fact that you choose to stay alive, to 'preserve' yourself. 

And unfortunately I can't add anything to Autonomy part as I still haven't read White Sand. Although just a random thought on this. 

39 minutes ago, Karger said:

Sanderson has mentioned that it is OK to think of Autonomy's intent as being the opposite of Honor's.  So if Honor brings things together via bonds Autonomy wants to splint things apart.

But is Honor more of bringing together or rather having bonds? Because if the second is true, than in opposition to being bonded is being alone. (And it seems more likely to me as I don't see Autonomy destroying anything - but I might be completely wrong as I said I haven't read White Sand yet.) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Nnatel said:

But is Honor more of bringing together or rather having bonds? Because if the second is true, than in opposition to being bonded is being alone. (And it seems more likely to me as I don't see Autonomy destroying anything - but I might be completely wrong as I said I haven't read White Sand yet.) 

Spoiler

Autonomy is not directly in white sand at all.  One of her avatars is a religious figure but nothing direct happens.

White Sand Spoiler above

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Allomancy, Preservation provides the power, so the power of the user is preserved. In Feruchemy power gain is neutral, the user must use their own strength, but they get out exactly how much they put in. And in Hemalurgy, power is lost(ruined) between the transfer, the longer the spike is out in the air, the worse it is, that's why it is best to smash the spikes directly from one person to another, and even then your ability will be slightly weaker than that of the original user.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the Autonomy debate, it's important to note that a Shard is always defined by what its vessel wants to see, not necessarily what it wants for itself. Preservation didn't want to survive, he wanted other things to survive and even sacrificed his own survival for the survival of others.

So Autonomy wants other beings to be autonomous, so able to make their own decisions. We know that her avatars all have their own minds and opinions. She doesn't rule over them, but "manifests" them (how the heck she does that, who knows) and lets them make their own decisions. Of course there's this question why she interferes with other cultures so much, but that seems to be a case of utilitarism. After all, Preservation definitely allowed a lot of destruction to happen. He could never destroy things himself, but he is capable of planning or indirectly causing destruction for the sake of other's survival. That's how Ati was killed. So there's some wiggle room there. If Autonomy wants things to stay autonomous, she is capable of manipulating things so they stay that way. I'm pretty sure she has some limitations in doing that, though.

I imagine a Shard's Intent as a kind of aesthetic taste. Like Preservation being just delighted by the Lord Ruler's capability to survive. Honor's "aesthetic taste" in that regard is the opposite of Autonomy's in the sense that Honor wants to see people act according to oaths/established rules, which would definitely lead to them not being autonomous at all. The heralds made their own decision when they left Taln. Bavadin would have loved seeing that happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Elegy said:

I imagine a Shard's Intent as a kind of aesthetic taste. Like Preservation being just delighted by the Lord Ruler's capability to survive. Honor's "aesthetic taste" in that regard is the opposite of Autonomy's in the sense that Honor wants to see people act according to oaths/established rules, which would definitely lead to them not being autonomous at all. The heralds made their own decision when they left Taln. Bavadin would have loved seeing that happen.

Its more then that.  Preservation as you say cannot destroy and although he was delighted with TLR's survival abilities he hated him for the destruction he caused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Karger said:

Its more then that.  Preservation as you say cannot destroy and although he was delighted with TLR's survival abilities he hated him for the destruction he caused.

He didn't approve of his actions, logically. However, I fail to see how that matters to the point I was making.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Elegy said:

He didn't approve of his actions, logically. However, I fail to see how that matters to the point I was making.

Shardic intent is more then just aesthetic.  The shard wants things to move in the direction of the intent both physically and sociologically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Karger said:

The shard wants things to move in the direction of the intent both physically and sociologically.

That doesn't contradict what I was trying to say so yeah, I agree. It's (like I said) kind of like an aesthetic taste. They like seeing things move in that direction (physically, sociogically, etc.), so it's comparable to a personal taste.

I don't mean it in a literal way, but it's a way of thinking about it that made it easier to wrap my head around what Intents mean. It's like a very, very strong form of preference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Autonomy, Shameless Plug (kind of - most everything I have to say on it, I've said there).

As for Autonomy on Taldain, there is a slight hint of that intent in Sand Mastery. This is that each sand ribbon is completely Autonomous, and the strength of a sand master is judged on how many separate, Independent, autonomous ribbons they can make. Pardon my language, but doesn't this invoke a similar image to some would be godling in the cosmere sitting behind a metric Storms-ton of autonomous Avatars?

Edited by TheFoxQR
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume everyone here and on @TheFoxQR's thread knows “intent” is a non-canonical term. Its meaning seems to depend on who uses it. It also conflicts with the term “Intent (capital “I”), which is a canonical term that refers to the deliberate use of magic.

Jofwu advocates for the terms “nature” and “expression” to describe Shard behavior. “Nature” refers to the Vessel-independent behaviors, and “expression” refers to Vessel-dependent behaviors. I’m okay with that classification, but I prefer Brandon’s words: “primal force/fundamental law” and “personality.” If “intent” has magical meaning, I believe it’s found in the Shard’s primal force, not the Vessel’s personality. “Primal force” IMO determines how a magic user accesses a Shard’s Investiture. The Vessel’s personality determines how it uses the Investiture it accesses.

I’m sure everyone is sick of hearing from me about this stuff, and I don’t think I’ve persuaded a single one of you – yet. (Disappointing, but life moves on.) Here I just want to publicize the fact that “intent” has no commonly held meaning. Other terms may better describe what Shard “intent” theorists mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Confused said:

I assume everyone here and on @TheFoxQR's thread knows “intent” is a non-canonical term. Its meaning seems to depend on who uses it. It also conflicts with the term “Intent (capital “I”), which is a canonical term that refers to the deliberate use of magic.

Jofwu advocates for the terms “nature” and “expression” to describe Shard behavior. “Nature” refers to the Vessel-independent behaviors, and “expression” refers to Vessel-dependent behaviors. I’m okay with that classification, but I prefer Brandon’s words: “primal force/fundamental law” and “personality.” If “intent” has magical meaning, I believe it’s found in the Shard’s primal force, not the Vessel’s personality. “Primal force” IMO determines how a magic user accesses a Shard’s Investiture. The Vessel’s personality determines how it uses the Investiture it accesses.

I’m sure everyone is sick of hearing from me about this stuff, and I don’t think I’ve persuaded a single one of you – yet. (Disappointing, but life moves on.) Here I just want to publicize the fact that “intent” has no commonly held meaning. Other terms may better describe what Shard “intent” theorists mean.

@Confused huh. I was not aware of that classification.

I do like the idea of differing terms for those two things, although I'm not 100% a fan of the terminology proposed. I have my reasons for that, let me see if I can put them to words properly. I think that first generation vessels and their "Interpretation" of their own Shardic "Natures" as elements of personality were more influenced by their perception of Adonalsium and Yolish culture/philosophy, and that second gen vessels' "Interpretations" are not so attached to personality. For example, God's own urge to Preserve and Ruin vs Harmony. The former are more interpreted as elements of Adonalsium's personality, the latter a comment on the nature of said investiture, independent of personality. Similarly, God's Honor to Unity may be a shift too, where the former was interpreted knowing things about Adonalsium and what the Shards are, vs the latter being a more general comment on the nature of investiture associated with said Shard.

This could be a subtle play by Brandon, as a more general shift in the Cosmere from high/epic fantasy to sci-fi, showing a certain maturity in the understanding of Realmatic theory across the Cosmere, similar to how we've grown out of using terms like... miasma for example. If what I suspect is true, we might eventually move out of describing shards with personality, as the study of realmatic theory becomes more and more... academic. Might I propose splitting it into "nature" or "behaviour" vs "interpretation" or "vessel's cognitive filter"? Nature of the investiture being something akin to the affinity to binding for Honor's investiture, whereas Honor is the interpretation that Tanavast had.

I wanted to write all this down, but I wanted to first do a metaphorical testing of the waters, which is why I only tried to separate those two out in my other post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I should clarify then. By "Shardic Intent," I did mean the natural force and direction of the shard's power, which, I believe, is confirmed to heavily influence the actions and personality of the shard's holder. Does anyone know where I could find the WoB on that? 

For the most part, it doesn't look like shard holders can act in the opposite direction of their shard's nature. So Preservation doesn't destroy things for the fun of it, and Honor doesn't break oaths. However, there are clear workarounds for this, as Ruin was able to help Preservation start life on Scadrial, with the intent of destroying it later, because it would be more fun that way. So it seems that shards can contradict their nature, if only to further a greater plan that goes along with their nature.

In the same way, I think it stands to reason that a magic system shouldn't be able to counter a shard's nature. This is why Kaladin loses his ability to hold Stormlight when he contradicts his oath. By contradicting his oath, he contradicts the nature of Honor. Although Honor is dead, apparently magic still works the same way. Perhaps that's due to the Stormfather? I'm not sure it's been explained yet. 

We can see an example of a system sort of countering Shardic nature in Allomancy, since it destroys metal to work. However, since it preserves people in the bigger picture (by protecting allomancers when they Snap in great danger.)

Thoughts? Does this explanation seem to make sense?

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...