Frustration

The Table Model of Dawnshards

73 posts in this topic

1 minute ago, Frustration said:

I'd say that Autonomy is the natural state of choice, being free of all restrictions, but I think I'll make it so they can both apply.

That works quite nicely! I didn't think of Autonomy that way, I guess they both do fit in both sections!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/18/2022 at 2:46 PM, Frustration said:

I would still see that as supporting change, as Preservation can't exist without change.

However let's assume you are correct and Preservation is not Change. What Dawnshard would it be in, or at least what would the other three shards be?

You both make good points, I'd say that Autonomy is the natural state of choice, being free of all restrictions, but I think I'll make it so they can both apply.

Like this

 

I like the diagram! I think a lot of it works well when analyzed.

Three things

1 Which is the Dawnshard that Hoid held, which now prevents him from eating meat?

2 a. If you put Preservation in as a lack of change, I think you need to put Autonomy as a lack of unity. Autonomy is not necessarily a choice, but it is a lack of unity, I think.

b. Devotion seems like more of a gift or a choice to me. I am inclined to think that it should be a gift. The idea of devoting one's life to something or someone comes to mind.

3 I think "Free" might be a better heading for the Ruin, Odium, Mercy, Valor row (I am thinking of Freeing), but I don't know. I think I understand what that column means. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

6 hours ago, Kandrafish said:

I like the diagram! I think a lot of it works well when analyzed.

Thank you.

6 hours ago, Kandrafish said:

1 Which is the Dawnshard that Hoid held, which now prevents him from eating meat?

I'd say probably give, as he would have been tempted by Endowment, and acts very similar to Virtuosity.

6 hours ago, Kandrafish said:

2 a. If you put Preservation in as a lack of change, I think you need to put Autonomy as a lack of unity. Autonomy is not necessarily a choice, but it is a lack of unity, I think.

I have considered that more times than I can count, however I don't think it works. Countries can be autonomous bodies that are internally united.

6 hours ago, Kandrafish said:

b. Devotion seems like more of a gift or a choice to me. I am inclined to think that it should be a gift. The idea of devoting one's life to something or someone comes to mind.

The main purpose behind the religion that is mainly inspired by Devotion is to unite the world through love.

6 hours ago, Kandrafish said:

3 I think "Free" might be a better heading for the Ruin, Odium, Mercy, Valor row (I am thinking of Freeing), but I don't know. I think I understand what that column means. 

Ruin and Odium both speak with Passion with great importance

Spoiler

Questioner

Was it relevant that Ruin mentioned Passion to Vin?

Brandon Sanderson

Yes.

Oathbringer release party (Nov. 13, 2017)

Valhalla

Ruin and Odium, they both talked about their passion, and it was italicized both times. Would any other Shards talk about passion in that same italicized way?

Brandon Sanderson

Yes they would.

Valhalla

Would any of them not talk about it that way?

Brandon Sanderson

Yes. Excellent, good questions.

Idaho Falls signing (July 21, 2018)

 

Edited by Frustration
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure about "Natural" for the top row. Cultivation isn't just natural change, it is intentional control/shaping of natural change. A garden, not a wilderness. Honor isn't just bonds, it's oaths and *choosing* to be bound. I'm not sure I see Endowment as terribly natural either.

Cultivation might actually be Control/Change.

I still feel like there ought to be at least a rough correspondence to Physical/Mental or Cognitive/Temporal/Spiritual or Enhancement quadrants though.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2022 at 9:21 AM, Frustration said:

I'd say probably give, as he would have been tempted by Endowment, and acts very similar to Virtuosity.

So... Why does give prevent him from eating meat and killing people?

On 3/20/2022 at 9:21 AM, Frustration said:

I have considered that more times than I can count, however I don't think it works. Countries can be autonomous bodies that are internally united.

Hmm... I will think more on this.

My first thought is that you could say that Preservation preserved an empire that was full of ruin. People were dying and being oppressed, but overall it persisted so it was ok.

White Sand Prose Speculation 

Spoiler

There is an empire in white sand prose. It is on the dark side.  I am still trying to fit this into my view, but the way I see it now... Is that people are uniting to be autonomous.

Autonomy, to me, means self dependence and reliance on nobody. In that way, I think, Autonomy is a dampener to Unity, or a lack of Unity. I am going to ponder this a little longer though and maybe read a few WoBs, but, for now, I still stand by the point I made on Autonomy being a lack of Unity.

On 3/20/2022 at 9:21 AM, Frustration said:

The main purpose behind the religion that is mainly inspired by Devotion is to unite the world through love.

Ok, I was basing mine off of the magic system of Devotion. Where people who get the Shaod seem to have all devoted themselves to something in life. Raoden to his people and politics, Taan was devoted to his craft (sculptures and art), Galladon truly loved and devoted himself to farming. (This is a little speculative, admittedly)

My interpretation has always been that the "unity" component was a mistaken piece that was taken over from the Shu Dereth religion and, perhaps, a necessity of religion itself. 

Shu Keseg also exists which makes things more muddied.

The true intent of Devotion, in my opinion is about giving oneself to what you love.

I still envision Devotion in Mercy's place on the chart.

 

On 3/20/2022 at 9:21 AM, Frustration said:

Ruin and Odium both speak with Passion with great importance

  Hide contents

Questioner

Was it relevant that Ruin mentioned Passion to Vin?

Brandon Sanderson

Yes.

Oathbringer release party (Nov. 13, 2017)

Valhalla

Ruin and Odium, they both talked about their passion, and it was italicized both times. Would any other Shards talk about passion in that same italicized way?

Brandon Sanderson

Yes they would.

Valhalla

Would any of them not talk about it that way?

Brandon Sanderson

Yes. Excellent, good questions.

Idaho Falls signing (July 21, 2018)

 

Ok, this is fairly definitive evidence. I revoke my suggestion. I am convinced.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Kandrafish said:

So... Why does give prevent him from eating meat and killing people?

Because that requires taking a life. If he thinks the meat is soulcast he could eat it.

23 minutes ago, Kandrafish said:

Hmm... I will think more on this.

My first thought is that you could say that Preservation preserved an empire that was full of ruin. People were dying and being oppressed, but overall it persisted so it was ok.

White Sand Prose Speculation 

  Reveal hidden contents

There is an empire in white sand prose. It is on the dark side.  I am still trying to fit this into my view, but the way I see it now... Is that people are uniting to be autonomous.

Autonomy, to me, means self dependence and reliance on nobody. In that way, I think, Autonomy is a dampener to Unity, or a lack of Unity. I am going to ponder this a little longer though and maybe read a few WoBs, but, for now, I still stand by the point I made on Autonomy being a lack of Unity.

Here is the only WoB of relevance

Spoiler

WinespringBrother

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

Brandon Sanderson

More that they have names similar to their intents.

WinespringBrother

So, would Unity be a natural enemy of Autonomy?

Brandon Sanderson

Um... Possibly. You say "natural," and so I--

WinespringBrother

Well, would one eliminate the other one? But more towards Autonomy trying to break up--

Brandon Sanderson

To break up Unity. It's so hard to say, because Autonomy is a bit of a strange duck. 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 effect, or part of the-- Does that make sense?

WinespringBrother

Well, but it's also along the lines of, Odium wants to break up the other ones, so they don't--

Brandon Sanderson

Odium just wants to be top dog. And your two ways to be top dog are to climb higher, or to lower everyone else. And he's like, we're gonna lower everyone else. Because I know, if I combine, it stops being me, is what his opinion is. I would no longer be the person I am. I would change into someone else. And then that person gets to rule, and I don't want that person to rule. I want to.

JordanCon 2018 (April 20, 2018)

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Frustration said:

Because that requires taking a life. If he thinks the meat is soulcast he could eat it.

I know that. I was more so asking why an intent to give prevents him from killing. 

3 hours ago, Frustration said:

Here is the only WoB of relevance

  Hide contents

WinespringBrother

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

Brandon Sanderson

More that they have names similar to their intents.

WinespringBrother

So, would Unity be a natural enemy of Autonomy?

Brandon Sanderson

Um... Possibly. You say "natural," and so I--

WinespringBrother

Well, would one eliminate the other one? But more towards Autonomy trying to break up--

Brandon Sanderson

To break up Unity. It's so hard to say, because Autonomy is a bit of a strange duck. 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 effect, or part of the-- Does that make sense?

WinespringBrother

Well, but it's also along the lines of, Odium wants to break up the other ones, so they don't--

Brandon Sanderson

Odium just wants to be top dog. And your two ways to be top dog are to climb higher, or to lower everyone else. And he's like, we're gonna lower everyone else. Because I know, if I combine, it stops being me, is what his opinion is. I would no longer be the person I am. I would change into someone else. And then that person gets to rule, and I don't want that person to rule. I want to.

JordanCon 2018 (April 20, 2018)

 

Thanks! I appreciate the insight into your word choice.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Kandrafish said:

I know that. I was more so asking why an intent to give prevents him from killing.

Because when you kill you take a life.

In order to have meat Hoid needs to think it didn't come from a natural source, meaning no life was taken.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I think basing the rows on words like Natural, Passion, Control and Beauty are a bit odd, as one could very easily see the virtues in each of these simultaneously (Nature's passion is life, or weather extremes, Natural control is autonomy, Beauty in Nature, etc...). I think that it is better to use pure opposites when making these sorts of rows. I.e. a Push or a Pull or like Internal vs External.

But I think table-theory for the Shards is always going to come up as poor. I think they can be grouped by fours, but you have to understand that if Dawnshards are Commands, they themselves can't be expanded into Intents. Intents give context for Commands, you feel? I think the rows could actually be natural laws, like push and pull, or passion and logic. Or even maybe a group of prepositions, like "For, With, Against, By." 

Really, it feels like you can figure out a Dawnshard by reverse-engineering a Shard to the primary Command they'd give to things. But that's impossible, every Shard is an Intent, and you need to go through several actions to fulfill an Intent. Shards are virtues, emotions, traits, thoughts. Those things can't be chalked down to a Command. What in Adonalsium's name is the Command for Whimsy? Whimsify? Feel? Free? There is a large variety you could put here. Honor would want people to Feel the Honor, or be Free from hatred and mistrust from each other. 

You see what I mean? It's always going to come out as imperfect. Sorry I rambled on here. But you could probably group them unsatisfactorily, always. 

 

 

In any case, to be more relevant to the conversation, Autonomy is negative liberty (protection from restraint of one's personal rights). Theoretical "Unity" wouldn't be the opposite of that. The opposite of Autonomy would probably be something like Endowment, that is, giving others the goods they need in order to have free will and survive. 

Edited by Propagandist
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Propagandist said:

I think basing the rows on words like Natural, Passion, Control and Beauty are a bit odd, as one could very easily see the virtues in each of these simultaneously (Nature's passion is life, or weather extremes, Natural control is autonomy, Beauty in Nature, etc...). I think that it is better to use pure opposites when making these sorts of rows. I.e. a Push or a Pull or like Internal vs External.

But I think table-theory for the Shards is always going to come up as poor. I think they can be grouped by fours, but you have to understand that if Dawnshards are Commands, they themselves can't be expanded into Intents. Intents give context for Commands, you feel? I think the rows could actually be natural laws, like push and pull, or passion and logic. Or even maybe a group of prepositions, like "For, With, Against, By." 

Really, it feels like you can figure out a Dawnshard by reverse-engineering a Shard to the primary Command they'd give to things. But that's impossible, every Shard is an Intent, and you need to go through several actions to fulfill an Intent. Shards are virtues, emotions, traits, thoughts. Those things can't be chalked down to a Command. What in Adonalsium's name is the Command for Whimsy? Whimsify? Feel? Free? There is a large variety you could put here. Honor would want people to Feel the Honor, or be Free from hatred and mistrust from each other. 

You see what I mean? It's always going to come out as imperfect. Sorry I rambled on here. But you could probably group them unsatisfactorily, always. 

I find most attempts to fit Shards into the Allomantic table don't quite work, though if you have one that does I'm happy to see it.

59 minutes ago, Propagandist said:

In any case, to be more relevant to the conversation, Autonomy is negative liberty (protection from restraint of one's personal rights). Theoretical "Unity" wouldn't be the opposite of that. The opposite of Autonomy would probably be something like Endowment, that is, giving others the goods they need in order to have free will and survive. 

Not all shards have opposites

Spoiler

Shardbound

Do all Shards have a direct paired opposite intent...

Brandon Sanderson

No, I would say no, they do not all have a directly paired opposite intent.

Oathbringer London signing (Nov. 28, 2017)

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Frustration said:

I find most attempts to fit Shards into the Allomantic table don't quite work, though if you have one that does I'm happy to see it.

I doubt a really satisfactory version can be done yet, since even some of the canon Intents aren't understood well enough yet.

Is the Intent of Whimsy "change for the sake of change", parallel to Shards like Ruin (destructive/entropic decay/change) or Cultivation (controlled/directed growth/change)?

Or is it "creativity without restraint, not directed towards an use" parallel to Invention (practical creativity???), and I guess Virtuosity?

Or is it more "wild mental energy" closer to the 'emotional' Shards like Odium and Devotion?

Harmony's comment that "Mercy worries me" might mean that Intent doesn't have its most obvious interpretation, as one would at first glance expect Mercy to be about the nicest/most benign Shard possible.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Frustration said:

Not all shards have opposites

I know, I was just referring back to the conversation that people were having about Autonomy's Intent vs Ambition or whatever, sorry. It was just me trying to stay relevant. I don't think every shard needs an opposite either, especially if you want all of the Intents to be good overall. I was just throwing my hat in the ring on a better version of opposites. It's not a shard, but the true opposite to Autonomy would be Dependency or Subservience. 

 

3 hours ago, Frustration said:

I find most attempts to fit Shards into the Allomantic table don't quite work, though if you have one that does I'm happy to see it.

I do not have one either, again, I think table models for Shards tend to fall apart due to a variety of reasons I outlined above, I was just referring to more concrete opposites or exclusive themes that could help guide how the tables could be constructed. 

 

3 hours ago, cometaryorbit said:

I doubt a really satisfactory version can be done yet, since even some of the canon Intents aren't understood well enough yet.

I think we can at least say that Hoid's explanation that these shards are virtues/ideals taken from context that made them good. So like, yeah, on their own, these shards are all pretty much Shard-name for the sake of Shard-name. But it's the Vessel that gives them more direction and guiding power until something like Ruin overtakes the Vessel (or Odium, to a lesser degree). Like, on its own, Virtuosity would probably just spontaneously start creating weird stuff in the cosmere to seek perfect artistic ability. Whimsy would do absolutely whatever. Something like Honor would demand every single entity within its space to swear oaths and adhere to them, and probably kill whoever didn't. 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Propagandist said:

I think we can at least say that Hoid's explanation that these shards are virtues/ideals taken from context that made them good. So like, yeah, on their own, these shards are all pretty much Shard-name for the sake of Shard-name. But it's the Vessel that gives them more direction and guiding power

 

Sure. I just mean that some of them are not totally obvious from the name alone. Honor has several different meanings, and if we just had the name and not the Stormlight series I don't think we could be certain that it is the "keeping your word/oath you yourself have sworn" version vs the "acting so that one is 'honored' by others" or "following a broader socially imposed code" version.

Something like Preservation is more straightforward -- things stay the same/are protected from change.

And I think Whimsy is at least as open to interpretation as Honor. In general, I think the more emotional/personal shards like Honor and Devotion have more room for that than the more natural-principle shards like Ruin and Preservation.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 3/23/2022 at 8:09 AM, Frustration said:

Because when you kill you take a life.

In order to have meat Hoid needs to think it didn't come from a natural source, meaning no life was taken.

So... Are you implying that taking is the opposite of giving and therefore Hoid needs to not take things (lives... He seemed to be ok with taken Lerasium beads, but maybe that still works because Leras is mostly kind of dead?)

 

Also, I agree with Cometaryorbit about how it is really hard to know how to interpret the shards without having books about them.

And about Propagandist's suppositions, I think we all agree that a table is an imperfect model. However, I continue to argue that trying to put the shards in a table will yield knowledge. There are lots of imperfect models that yield accurate results. This is the basis of chemistry and in fact all science. Ignore some imperfections to design some model that can increase knowledge.

Finally, I agree that a really irritating thing is that a shard name can change based on the holder's interpretation. This makes all of the tables really difficult to use.

Edited by Kandrafish
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kandrafish said:

So... Are you implying that taking is the opposite of giving and therefore Hoid needs to not take things (lives... He seemed to be ok with taken Lerasium beads, but maybe that still works because Leras is mostly kind of dead?)

I'm not sold on it but that's what I'm going with right now.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Preservation being Change:

Quote

"It's as if the power of Preservation understands that it's tendency to reinforce stability is not enough. If nothing changed, nothing would ever come to exist." -Harmony HoA chapter 79 Epigraph.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Frustration said:

On Preservation being Change:

 

I take that as more a comment about the Shard being incomplete individually, especially without a Vessel.

Especially since Leras always intended the Shards to combine - the Terris Prophecies said so, the Hero of Ages needed both the power to save and to destroy the world, and "that which has been sundered must begin to find its whole" - and realized that Preservation alone was insufficient, that he needed someone able to destroy in order to protect. And he somehow programmed the power of Preservation to follow his plan (snapping Mistings in the right ratio at the right time, choosing Vin) before sacrificing his mind. So the power did understand it needed more -- because it was following Leras' plan toward combining.

But the Intent of Preservation meant Leras couldn't do that himself - he couldn't kill Ruin, he couldn't even stab Elend to save the world although the means to prevent Elend from actually dying was right there.

So Preservation as an Intent, separated from Leras and his plan, is still stasis, non-change.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, cometaryorbit said:

I take that as more a comment about the Shard being incomplete individually, especially without a Vessel.

Especially since Leras always intended the Shards to combine - the Terris Prophecies said so, the Hero of Ages needed both the power to save and to destroy the world, and "that which has been sundered must begin to find its whole" - and realized that Preservation alone was insufficient, that he needed someone able to destroy in order to protect. And he somehow programmed the power of Preservation to follow his plan (snapping Mistings in the right ratio at the right time, choosing Vin) before sacrificing his mind. So the power did understand it needed more -- because it was following Leras' plan toward combining.

But the Intent of Preservation meant Leras couldn't do that himself - he couldn't kill Ruin, he couldn't even stab Elend to save the world although the means to prevent Elend from actually dying was right there.

So Preservation as an Intent, separated from Leras and his plan, is still stasis, non-change.

He programed the power of Preservation, to seek change, something that is anti-thetical to its nature?

No Preservation itself allows change. Lerasium litterally overwrites the spiritweb of the individual who injests it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Not exactly programmed it to seek change, but to follow his plan, in ways that are more or less compatible with Preservation.

I mean Snapping is change, so kind of, but it's also part of Preservation's magic system.

I think the actual epigraph at issue is more about "the Shard of Preservation is totally incomplete by itself". Which is true; it's probably true of all Shards to some degree but less obvious for something like Ruin.

--

As for godmetal effects: I'd argue that the connection to the Shard is via magic system rather than Intent. Burning Lerasium makes you a Mistborn (the ultimate form of Preservation's magic system) and Atium is the ultimate Hemalurgic spike in Ruin's magic system.

It's not that direct a link: Atium Compounding made TLR and Marsh ageless, which is totally opposed to Ruin (basically entropy).

--

There are several WoB's that Preservation is essentially stasis/lack of change.

Anyway, by this logic nearly every Shard can be connected to change- Honor and Devotion (?) make bonds, Dominion conquers (?), Endowment gives gifts, Invention invents, Virtuosity is creativity, Ambition presumably seeks power (?), Valor sounds linked to conflict, those are all changes from the previous state.

I think the Change Shards are those which are fundamentally about transformation "for its own sake" as opposed to a side effect of another concept like Honor or Devotion or Dominion or Invention. (Ruin is decay, breaking things down to fundamentals. Cultivation is directed growth.)

Edited by cometaryorbit
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, cometaryorbit said:

Not exactly programmed it to seek change, but to follow his plan, in ways that are more or less compatible with Preservation.

I mean Snapping is change, so kind of, but it's also part of Preservation's magic system.

I think the actual epigraph at issue is more about "the Shard of Preservation is totally incomplete by itself". Which is true; it's probably true of all Shards to some degree but less obvious for something like Ruin.

The comment was about the power itself, so it's something that Preservation itself wants.

4 hours ago, cometaryorbit said:

As for godmetal effects: I'd argue that the connection to the Shard is via magic system rather than Intent. Burning Lerasium makes you a Mistborn (the ultimate form of Preservation's magic system) and Atium is the ultimate Hemalurgic spike in Ruin's magic system.

It's not that direct a link: Atium Compounding made TLR and Marsh ageless, which is totally opposed to Ruin (basically entropy).

Lerasium doesn't just form a Connetion it rewrites your spiritual DNA. It changes who you are on the most basic level.

Spoiler

Brandon Sanderson (paraphrased)

Lerasium overwrites Spiritual DNA. It can do some interesting things, and can overwrite your Spiritual DNA in different ways if you do it right. If a Surgebinder ate lerasium, he would become an Allomancer, but Brandon implied other things could be done.

Alloy of Law 17th Shard Q&A (Nov. 5, 2011)  

 

4 hours ago, cometaryorbit said:

There are several WoB's that Preservation is essentially stasis/lack of change.

Anyway, by this logic nearly every Shard can be connected to change- Honor and Devotion (?) make bonds, Dominion conquers (?), Endowment gives gifts, Invention invents, Virtuosity is creativity, Ambition presumably seeks power (?), Valor sounds linked to conflict, those are all changes from the previous state.

I think the Change Shards are those which are fundamentally about transformation "for its own sake" as opposed to a side effect of another concept like Honor or Devotion or Dominion or Invention. (Ruin is decay, breaking things down to fundamentals. Cultivation is directed growth.)

Preservation at it's core is resistance to change, however it also acknowledges that change must happen, things must be created for it to preserve.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

21 hours ago, Frustration said:

The comment was about the power itself, so it's something that Preservation itself wants.

Sure, but I still think that's more "recognizes that it's incomplete" vs "actually wants change".

I agree lerasium rewrites spiritual DNA but I think its connection to Preservation is through "makes you an Allomancer, Preservation's magic system". Using it to change Spiritual DNA other ways is likely as much of a "hack" as using atium for immortality- exactly opposite to Ruin's Intent.

I don't think there's anything very Odium-ish about conducting Investiture either. If it just absorbed without conducting that could fit the Void, but it doesn't.

Edited by cometaryorbit
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, cometaryorbit said:

Sure, but I still think that's more "recognizes that it's incomplete" vs "actually wants change".

Meaning it cannot be purely stasis, and is closer to regulating change, rather than entirely against it.

9 minutes ago, cometaryorbit said:

I agree lerasium rewrites spiritual DNA but I think kts connection to Preservation is through "makes you an Allomancer, Preservation's magic system". Using it to change Spiritual DNA other ways is likely as much of a "hack" as using atium for immortality- exactly opposite to Ruin's Intent.

Forming a Connection doesn't change Spiritual DNA. It isn't just working you into the magic system it adds something to your soul that you can pass on to your children.

12 minutes ago, cometaryorbit said:

I don't think there's anything very Odium-ish about conducting Investiture either. If it just absorbed without conducting that could fit the Void, but it doesn't.

Ah, but Roshar focus's more on lights than metals, and Voidlights emotional effects are very closely tied to Odium.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Frustration said:

Meaning it cannot be purely stasis, and is closer to regulating change, rather than entirely against it.

Hnm maybe but that's not how I read that. I think it more means that Preservation (at the time Sazed is speaking of) recognizes its incompleteness.

This disagreement may not be resolvable without further books or WoBs, but let me spell out where I'm coming from and you can see which points you disagree with.

1. I think several WoBs establish that Preservation's Intent is fundamentally stasis / "things not changing" and Ruin's Intent is essentially entropy (but perhaps in a broader sense than just thermodynamics, social breakdown too might be included).

2. I don't think "power of Preservation" in that HoA epigraph means exactly the same thing as "the Shard itself considered as uninfluenced by any Vessel".. I think it's basically a synonym for the Mists*- the power of Preservation dispersed in the world - and the epigraph refers to what Vin realized right before she sacrificed herself: Leras' plan to sacrifice himself, making his power (the Mists) available to a future wielder (Vin) who could destroy in order to protect (then, ultimately, to Sazed).

*(Given that the Well and lerasium, the liquid and solid manifestations of Preservation, were both used up at the time of HoA. But the Well was an "attuning force" as part of this plan, so could also be included.)

3. In the case of Preservation in Era 1, I don't think we can clearly distinguish the goals of the Vessel from the Intent of the Shard the way we can with Harmony in Era 2 or Odium in Stormlight -- this is a Shard whose Vessel is mostly mindless but whose "shadow" still shapes the power, which is still acting according to a plan set up by that Vessel (Snapping people, choosing Vin).

3 hours ago, Frustration said:

Forming a Connection doesn't change Spiritual DNA.

I didn't mean Connection in the realmatic sense, just "the way that lerasium's effect is 'of' Preservation".

3 hours ago, Frustration said:

Ah, but Roshar focus's more on lights than metals, and Voidlights emotional effects are very closely tied to Odium.

Yeah but Stormlight drives people to motion/action not to make or keep oaths... I don't think these things are all that direct.

(Though admittedly one could argue that the Stormfather's Intent is involved with Stormlight.)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.