The Reod: A Superpower?

[Oudeis he/him]

Suffering the Reod was obviously a bad thing. A weak body that tired easily and wouldn't heal, lessened access to local Investiture, and oh god that hair.

 

Yet... I wonder if there might not be a silver lining...

 

We know that an Elantrian, trying to heal a woman, once accidentally inflicted the Reod on her. We also saw Raoden fix it all. We know it's at least possible for someone to go into Reod and be taken out; all that's left is for the proper Aons and modifiers to be discovered and used.

 

But why, you ask? I'm glad you did, rhetorical-question-man. Consider the Reod. While in it, it seems difficult if not impossible to die. Horribly painful beyond imagining to be sure, and hardly what I'd call a plausible method of stasis, but it's worth noting. They also don't need food, or even air. They might be ideally suited for situations of extremes in the environment, like space travel.

 

But that's not their primary power. When Galladon was in the Reod, and Raoden tried to heal him, it was as though Galladon didn't exist. Raoden drew the Aon Ien, designated Galladon as the target, and it was as though he'd told the Aon to heal his invisible friend. There was nothing to grab on to.

 

Imagine such a power. Imagine being immune to being Soulcast into flame, immune to being Lashed. Invisible to lifesense, an entity that won't trip the sensors of one of those warning fabrials. A man spren cannot see.

 

I am, of course, speculating here. One example isn't enough to make someone "immune to magic." After all, even though Raoden's illusions were cast on his clothing, not on himself, he still managed to tie the illusion to his own muscles, so magic can be made to work on him in an at least ancillary way. Still, I think it's fun to think about.

 

Please feel free to poke holes in this conjecture, or perhaps even find something to support it.

[WeiryWriter he/him]

First off a minor nitpick, but I'm pretty sure you are using the term "Reod" wrong.  It is the name of the cataclysmic event that caused the creation of the Chasm and the breaking of AonDor.  It does not refer to the zombie-like state of Elantrians.

 

Now onto your theory.  I'm inclined to think that the inability to target zombie-Elantrians with Aons is more a quirk of AonDor than it is an immunity to Investiture as you suggest.  Brandon has often compared Selish Investiture to programming, and while I'm not exactly well versed in programming I'm pretty sure basic computer programs are fairly linear (as in it can't do two things at once).  The second has to wait until the first is finished.

 

If you translate this to AonDor, Raoden draws the Aon Ien to heal Galladon and it tries to go heal him and it is like "Wait there is already an Aon acting on this target, I have to wait until it is finished" and so it gets added to the "queue" (which means nothing happens because the Aon acting on him is incomplete so it *can't* finish).

[Oudeis he/him]

First off a minor nitpick, but I'm pretty sure you are using the term "Reod" wrong.  It is the name of the cataclysmic event that caused the creation of the Chasm and the breaking of AonDor.  It does not refer to the zombie-like state of Elantrians.

First, I'm gonna nitpick your nitpick. What, then, would you call the state Elantrians are trapped in mid-Shaod? Many words have two, sometimes related meanings. There's no reason the word cannot mean both the initial event, and the state that is a result of that event. Moreover, you knew exactly what I was talking about in context, as I feel anyone who's read the book is likely to. If I use a word, and it's obvious from the word what the meaning is, how is that not an accurate word?

 

Now onto your theory.  I'm inclined to think that the inability to target zombie-Elantrians with Aons is more a quirk of AonDor than it is an immunity to Investiture as you suggest.

I will respectfully disagree. With one point of data, it is difficult for either of us to get traction. Nevertheless, your example doesn't make sense to me. We know that all Investiture everywhere runs on similar principles. The "forms" of AonDor may be like that of computer programming, but surely that's an inspiration rather than a rigid rule. Whereas we have WoB that there are fundamental underlying principles of Investiture that remain consistent, so I suspect that if Aon Ien cannot target Galladon, then a Soother couldn't reach his emotions, either.

Also, Aons work on Elantrians, yes? Otherwise they couldn't Tia all over the place. Yet Elantrians are receiving a constant influx of Dor, which heals them and grants them a variety of other powers. The actual physical transformation never finished, but a "program" is obviously still running.

I do not know a lot of computer programming, but I think I know enough to dispute your idea. You say two programs cannot be running at once, yet my computer can run many, many programs at once.

Finally, when Raoden tries to heal Galladon, it simply fails. It doesn't enter a queue or return an error message or anything. Neither of us knows enough about "failure to initialize Aons" to be able to say if this is normal, but surely it's suspicious that there's no interaction or resistance or backsurge or anything, the Aon simply fades, as though you'd asked it to target a chicken when there was no chicken present.

[Swimmingly he/him]

First, I'm gonna nitpick your nitpick. What, then, would you call the state Elantrians are trapped in mid-Shaod? Many words have two, sometimes related meanings. There's no reason the word cannot mean both the initial event, and the state that is a result of that event. Moreover, you knew exactly what I was talking about in context, as I feel anyone who's read the book is likely to. If I use a word, and it's obvious from the word what the meaning is, how is that not an accurate word?

I will respectfully disagree. With one point of data, it is difficult for either of us to get traction. Nevertheless, your example doesn't make sense to me. We know that all Investiture everywhere runs on similar principles. The "forms" of AonDor may be like that of computer programming, but surely that's an inspiration rather than a rigid rule. Whereas we have WoB that there are fundamental underlying principles of Investiture that remain consistent, so I suspect that if Aon Ien cannot target Galladon, then a Soother couldn't reach his emotions, either.

Also, Aons work on Elantrians, yes? Otherwise they couldn't Tia all over the place. Yet Elantrians are receiving a constant influx of Dor, which heals them and grants them a variety of other powers. The actual physical transformation never finished, but a "program" is obviously still running.

I do not know a lot of computer programming, but I think I know enough to dispute your idea. You say two programs cannot be running at once, yet my computer can run many, many programs at once.

Finally, when Raoden tries to heal Galladon, it simply fails. It doesn't enter a queue or return an error message or anything. Neither of us knows enough about "failure to initialize Aons" to be able to say if this is normal, but surely it's suspicious that there's no interaction or resistance or backsurge or anything, the Aon simply fades, as though you'd asked it to target a chicken when there was no chicken present.

Just a note: a computer is a machine, capable of running many different programs at once. I think the comparison was with a single program acting on something in a basic language, where two operations within a single program cannot be acting simultaneously.

[WeiryWriter he/him]

First, I'm gonna nitpick your nitpick. What, then, would you call the state Elantrians are trapped in mid-Shaod? Many words have two, sometimes related meanings. There's no reason the word cannot mean both the initial event, and the state that is a result of that event. Moreover, you knew exactly what I was talking about in context, as I feel anyone who's read the book is likely to. If I use a word, and it's obvious from the word what the meaning is, how is that not an accurate word?

Just because people know what you mean does not mean the word is correct, people are pretty good at figuring things out from context (if someone says "The Specific Ocean is the largest ocean in the world" we know they actually meant "Pacific"). And you are right, there wouldn't be any problem with it being used for both, if the people in-world actually did that, which they don't.  None of the characters *ever* refer to the zombie-like state of the Elantrians as the "Reod" (that I can find) and there are numerous instances of them referring to it as in event in the past, such as here:

 

Raoden knew that an invasion was all too possible. Wyrn was too opportunistic to let a gem like post-Reod Arelon go unmolested forever. Fjorden would attack eventually. And, if Arelon fell before Wyrn’s holy war, then Elantris would be destroyed. The Derethi priests would see to that.

 

There *isn't* a word for "is targeted by an incomplete Aon", it is a lexical gap.  Here I'm going to go with the usage of "Reod" as it exists in-world.

 

I will respectfully disagree. With one point of data, it is difficult for either of us to get traction. Nevertheless, your example doesn't make sense to me. We know that all Investiture everywhere runs on similar principles. The "forms" of AonDor may be like that of computer programming, but surely that's an inspiration rather than a rigid rule. Whereas we have WoB that there are fundamental underlying principles of Investiture that remain consistent, so I suspect that if Aon Ien cannot target Galladon, then a Soother couldn't reach his emotions, either.

We are operating under a limited amount of information, and in all likelihood won't be able to convince the other. Brandon has said that Selish investitures are "programming-based", which I think means more than just "inspiration".  I'd definitely be interested in Brandon's answer to the question "Could someone Soothe the emotions of a post-Reod Elantrian?"

 

Also, Aons work on Elantrians, yes? Otherwise they couldn't Tia all over the place. Yet Elantrians are receiving a constant influx of Dor, which heals them and grants them a variety of other powers. The actual physical transformation never finished, but a "program" is obviously still running.

I do not know a lot of computer programming, but I think I know enough to dispute your idea. You say two programs cannot be running at once, yet my computer can run many, many programs at once.

I expect you are using a fairly modern computer, yes?  In which case not really what I was talking about.  I did limit the metaphor to "basic" computer programs not computers (which can do more than one thing at once because they have a ton of micro-processors running different programs in concert but each micro-processor can still only run one at a time).

 

And I would say there is a difference between the Shaod and the zombie-like state of the  Elantrians.  It had to exist before Elantris was built (as there had to be proto-"Elantrians" to build it and they would have needed to go through the Shaod before they could do so).  So it isn't an Aon equation that causes the Shaod, and so it itself is unaffected by the Reod and the breaking of AonDor.

 

The thing that is making them zombies is the giant power-modifying Aon Rao formed by the Elantrian Metropolitan District, this is what is Raoden adds the the chasm-line to.  The way I understand it is that the power-modifying Aon was stuck in the "booting-up" phase, but after it could finish the program became passive, no more changes had to be made.  It was no longer actively doing anything to the Elantrians, and so "active" Aons can target them. 

 

Finally, when Raoden tries to heal Galladon, it simply fails. It doesn't enter a queue or return an error message or anything. Neither of us knows enough about "failure to initialize Aons" to be able to say if this is normal, but surely it's suspicious that there's no interaction or resistance or backsurge or anything, the Aon simply fades, as though you'd asked it to target a chicken when there was no chicken present.

 

Well it is entirely possible that the postponed effects of that "queued" Aon Ien were lost in the greater effects of "no longer being targeted by an incomplete Aon".  But you are right, we don't know enough about AonDor to definitively say either way.

[Oudeis he/him]

You're still making a large number of assumptions and stating them as fact. Chiefly, here, your assumption that we know how AonDor worked prior to the construction of Elantris, and therefore everything you derive from that premise. Additionally, I will admit that my use of the word "inspired" implied a dismissiveness I didn't intend to convey, but I still feel you are coming across as hard-line on your stance that AonDor must be assumed to be directly analogous to computer programs.

Even if all of these assumptions are right, you're still only positing one possible explanation for why Ien couldn't target Galladon. While you're right that it could be for that reason, you seem to imply that your hypothesis is correct and mine is wrong, when all either of us have proved is that both are equally possible.

But you're right. Until we have more information, neither of us can convince the other one way or another. I respect your right to have a personal belief that my theory is incorrect, and I assume you respect my right to maintain my hypothesis until hard data disproves it.

Finally, I'm gonna keep calling them Reod Elantrians. I refuse to refer to them as Zombies, and "post-Reod" is as inaccurate as anything else; the end of the novel didn't reverse time, so it's still after the "event" of the Reod, so all the shiny new Elantrians are still "post-Reod". A Reod Elantrian, then, in my lexicon, is one suffering the ill effects brought about by the event called the Reod, until those effects are alleviated. In real life, we use the term "war orphans" to describe kids who were made orphans due to an act of war, even though the war itself is not currently happening to the children, and may by this point even be over. And your evidence that "no one in the book ever calls this state of Elantrians 'Reod Elantrians'" only holds water if you can show me a time in the book that they refer to the current state of Elantrians, at all, as anything that isn't "Reod Elantrians". Otherwise, all you've proven is that we have no idea what people in-world refer to the state as, in which case "Reod Elantrians" is as valid as any other, and I think a logical semantic step.

[Oudeis he/him]

Update:

Weiry, I've read what you wrote in "Cause of the Shaod", where you include the source for some of the things you wrote here.

In the face of WoB, I have to concede that some of your arguments are now much better founded. I still say that, at best, you posit a second, equally-likely interpretation of events, and you do not prove that my interpretation is any less valid.

In closing, I find it incredibly odd that in his own annotations, Mr. Sanderson himself refers to something as "most likely." You would think that he, as the omniscient author, would simply know the answer; what could he possibly mean by saying it's "most likely"? Is he, perhaps, talking from the perspective of what the Arelish believe, based upon their own extremely limited information? I'm just saying, it's a very odd phrasing.

[WeiryWriter he/him]

You're still making a large number of assumptions and stating them as fact. Chiefly, here, your assumption that we know how AonDor worked prior to the construction of Elantris, and therefore everything you derive from that premise. Additionally, I will admit that my use of the word "inspired" implied a dismissiveness I didn't intend to convey, but I still feel you are coming across as hard-line on your stance that AonDor must be assumed to be directly analogous to computer programs.

Elantrians existing before Elantris is direct WoB. Granted my other "assumptions" are logical extrapolations from that (which I've talked about at length in the Cause of the Shaod thread) and if you don't agree with my logic, okay, nothing I can do about that.

 

And you are right I did interpret your comment as dismissive, but I think we all have said something that has not come across as we intended, I certainly have, and in this thread too.  I do not intend to come across as "hard-line", I was trying to use my rudimentary understanding of computer programs as a metaphor to help explain my thoughts on AonDor.  Perhaps I was a bit "hard line" in my response to your "disputation" of the metaphor, in which case I apologize.

 

Even if all of these assumptions are right, you're still only positing one possible explanation for why Ien couldn't target Galladon. While you're right that it could be for that reason, you seem to imply that your hypothesis is correct and mine is wrong, when all either of us have proved is that both are equally possible.

You are correct, I am only positing one possible explanation. I can definitely have trouble with the Assuredness movement. Do I think my idea is the correct one? Yes, I do. If I thought it was wrong I wouldn't have spent as much time writing posts about it. I don't think there is anything wrong with me thinking I am right? Is your idea entirely plausible? Braize yes, I could see it working. However I do not think it is the most likely explanation (which again might be due to my issues with the Assuredness Movement)

 

But you're right. Until we have more information, neither of us can convince the other one way or another. I respect your right to have a personal belief that my theory is incorrect, and I assume you respect my right to maintain my hypothesis until hard data disproves it.

Fair enough

 

Finally, I'm gonna keep calling them Reod Elantrians. I refuse to refer to them as Zombies, and "post-Reod" is as inaccurate as anything else; the end of the novel didn't reverse time, so it's still after the "event" of the Reod, so all the shiny new Elantrians are still "post-Reod". A Reod Elantrian, then, in my lexicon, is one suffering the ill effects brought about by the event called the Reod, until those effects are alleviated. In real life, we use the term "war orphans" to describe kids who were made orphans due to an act of war, even though the war itself is not currently happening to the children, and may by this point even be over. And your evidence that "no one in the book ever calls this state of Elantrians 'Reod Elantrians'" only holds water if you can show me a time in the book that they refer to the current state of Elantrians, at all, as anything that isn't "Reod Elantrians". Otherwise, all you've proven is that we have no idea what people in-world refer to the state as, in which case "Reod Elantrians" is as valid as any other, and I think a logical semantic step.

Well I would say there is a distinct linguistic difference between referring to "zombie-Elantrians" as "Reod Elantrians" (as you propose in this post) and referring to their zombie-like state as the Reod (as you did in your original post). "Reod Elantrians" is a legitimate extrapolation, as you point out with the "war orphans". Is it the ideal? No, I personally will be using a distinctly non-canon name until we find out the canon one (if we ever get one) so that I do not give the impression to newer users that "Reod Elantrians" is a canon term. But that is my personal choice.  Oh and the people in world probably don't have a term for it, they just refer to them as Elantrians (which is incredibly unhelpful for this discussion, so inconsiderate of them, don't you think?)

Also what I actually said is that no one in the book refers to the zombie-like state as the Reod (which is different from referring to them as Reod Elantrians).  The terms "Reod" and "Reod Elantrian" are very different.  But this is getting into semantics, which I could totally argue over all day, but it probably won't get us anywhere, kolo?

 

(and because I took entirely too long writing this response, but hey there was a transcription to do, you posted another thing

 

 

Update:

Weiry, I've read what you wrote in "Cause of the Shaod", where you include the source for some of the things you wrote here.

In the face of WoB, I have to concede that some of your arguments are now much better founded. I still say that, at best, you posit a second, equally-likely interpretation of events, and you do not prove that my interpretation is any less valid.

In closing, I find it incredibly odd that in his own annotations, Mr. Sanderson himself refers to something as "most likely." You would think that he, as the omniscient author, would simply know the answer; what could he possibly mean by saying it's "most likely"? Is he, perhaps, talking from the perspective of what the Arelish believe, based upon their own extremely limited information? I'm just saying, it's a very odd phrasing.

 

Okay, I guess you can ignore me telling you to go read that up above...

 

I think this gets into our difference in opinion over the use of Occam's Razor in theorycrafting (at least I think it was you I had this discussion with?).  I personally think the Aon Ien "fails" because "AonDor which is only kind of half-fixed at this point is causing shenanigans" is a simpler explanation than "they are immune to all investiture". (oh and I never touched on this, but why would that make them invisible to spren as you state in your OP?)

 

It does sound strange doesn't it?  My best guess is that the Aonic script was developed over a period of years, and that Brandon just hadn't gotten around to finalizing where that period of years takes place in relation to the building of Elantrians when he wrote that annotation.  Which is kind of understandable, it's not really an important piece of worldbuilding since it takes place way back in the pre-history.  He had more important stuff he had to get resolved.

[Oudeis he/him]

I think this gets into our difference in opinion over the use of Occam's Razor in theorycrafting (at least I think it was you I had this discussion with?).  I personally think the Aon Ien "fails" because "AonDor which is only kind of half-fixed at this point is causing shenanigans" is a simpler explanation than "they are immune to all investiture". (oh and I never touched on this, but why would that make them invisible to spren as you state in your OP?)

 

First, my arguments against the razor still stand; this isn't real life, this is a novel. In a novel, the simplest answer might be simply boring, and therefore cannot be assumed. Not to mention, even in real life, occam's razor is a terrible system for determining what's true and what isn't. The only good time to use occam's razor is when you're presented with limited data, have no way to gain more, and are forced into making a decision anyway; it is by its very nature a gamble. In the classic example, "If you hear hooves, think horses, not zebras," if Occam's Razor were universally true, there would be no such thing as a zebra. When you rely on the Razor, you're essentially saying, "This is likely to be true, therefore it is true," which... isn't true.

 

And finally, I disagree with your assertion that your way is more "simple," anyway. Your explanation required a much longer sentence filled with vague terms like "kinda half-fixed" and "shennanigans," whereas my idea can be summed up in four simple, concrete words. "Investiture can't target them." Again, let me re-state that I'm not using its simplicity as grounds for why I think it's just as plausible as yours; the Razor is a fallacy. I'm just saying, if you believe in the Razor, you should be supporting my idea.

[WeiryWriter he/him]

First, my arguments against the razor still stand; this isn't real life, this is a novel. In a novel, the simplest answer might be simply boring, and therefore cannot be assumed. Not to mention, even in real life, occam's razor is a terrible system for determining what's true and what isn't. The only good time to use occam's razor is when you're presented with limited data, have no way to gain more, and are forced into making a decision anyway; it is by its very nature a gamble. In the classic example, "If you hear hooves, think horses, not zebras," if Occam's Razor were universally true, there would be no such thing as a zebra. When you rely on the Razor, you're essentially saying, "This is likely to be true, therefore it is true," which... isn't true.

Okay, we have very different views on Occam's Razor. I see it as "Not everything has a complex/convoluted explanation, the simpler explanation most likely the correct one". Note the "most likely" there, Occam's Razor is not meant to be an absolute, it is a probability thing.  If I'm in most places in the world, you know what I am going to think the sound of hooves is because of horses, because that is the simple explanation for that situation.  However if I someplace in say Africa, I'm going to think zebra because that is the simplest explanation for *that* situation.  To be frank I don't really understand your statement that "if Occam's Razor were universally true, there would be no such thing as a zebra" because the example you are using doesn't imply anything of the sort.  All it is saying that if you hear hooves it is *probably* not a zebra.  Zebras obviously exist, it doesn't try to dispute that.

 

When *I* rely on the razor I'm essentially saying "This is most likely to be true, so it is probably true" I don't treat as an absolute "This is true" as you seem to imply that I do.

 

And finally, I disagree with your assertion that your way is more "simple," anyway. Your explanation required a much longer sentence filled with vague terms like "kinda half-fixed" and "shennanigans," whereas my idea can be summed up in four simple, concrete words. "Investiture can't target them." Again, let me re-state that I'm not using its simplicity as grounds for why I think it's just as plausible as yours; the Razor is a fallacy. I'm just saying, if you believe in the Razor, you should be supporting my idea.

 

Just because you can explain it in fewer words does not make it a simpler in-world concept. 

 

My idea is thus:

 

       AonDor is still partially broken, the Aon Ien failing is a further malfunction of an already partially broken system

 

My interpretation of your idea is thus (and please correct me if I'm wrong):

 

       Due to the fact that the Elantrians are targeted by an incomplete Aon, they are immune to any and all Investitures

 

The first keeps everything internal to a single magic system, the other has far reaching Realmatic implications.  In my mind the first is the simpler one, so I feel I should not be supporting yours.

Edited August 5, 2014 by WeiryWriter
toning down rude phrasings

[Oudeis he/him]

It still strikes me that you're trying to make the case that my theory is objectively unsound, based purely on personal speculation and feelings. If you want to state that your gut tells you that you're right and I'm wrong, that's perfectly fine. I just keep getting the impression that you're not satisfied saying that this is a viable idea that you don't happen to share; you're trying to make it sound like it's not even worth conjecture, based on the fact that it doesn't "feel" right to you.

 

If you don't want to join the discussion, okay. You've made your point that it's an idea you don't, out of personal preference, agree with. Continuing to tear me down serves no further purpose, and I worry that there might've been people who wanted to join me in speculation who didn't get the chance to, because they feel that you'll react to them as you've reacted to me.

[WeiryWriter he/him]

Before I start I would like to say that after due consideration this will be my last post in this thread.  I really don't want this to devolve any further.  You may respond if you so wish and I will read it, but any reply I make will be in private.

 

It still strikes me that you're trying to make the case that my theory is objectively unsound, based purely on personal speculation and feelings. If you want to state that your gut tells you that you're right and I'm wrong, that's perfectly fine. I just keep getting the impression that you're not satisfied saying that this is a viable idea that you don't happen to share; you're trying to make it sound like it's not even worth conjecture, based on the fact that it doesn't "feel" right to you.

To quote myself from post 8 in this thread, "Is your idea entirely plausible? Braize yes, I could see it working. However I do not think it is the most likely explanation..." I thought this made it clear that I do like your theory, I just don't personally think it is what is going on.

 

If you don't want to join the discussion, okay. You've made your point that it's an idea you don't, out of personal preference, agree with. Continuing to tear me down serves no further purpose, and I worry that there might've been people who wanted to join me in speculation who didn't get the chance to, because they feel that you'll react to them as you've reacted to me.

I honestly thought that what I was doing was participating in the discussion and to be frank *I* felt attacked after you ignored most of post 8 to insult my use of Occam's Razor, which I had already said we had different opinions on. I don't think it's use warrants as much discussion as we placed on it. I use it, you don't, nothing wrong with that.

If I have offended you, then I apologize, it was not my intent. Can you tell me exactly what I did wrong (i.e. what I did to "Tear you down") so that I may modulate my behavior in the future?

I truly hope that this is not the final word in this discussion, if what you say is right and that I've scared people away from posting I implore them to come forward and discuss the theory with you. Perhaps they will be able to convince me. However this is my final word on the matter.

[OdiYum]

You both get up votes because these were both well thought out and articulated arguments, while keeping it civil.  This is why I like reading on these forums.

[killersquirrel59 he/him]

Back onto the original subject of this topic before it got sidetracked on the nature of why Aons couldn't target Reod Elantrians (I personally like that term, even if it is non-canon. I never could get behind calling them zombies. Before coming on this thread I just called them magic lepers.) There are a few other notable advantages to the state.

 

From the fact that even those who are very familiar with Elantrians (like Galladon) make note of the fact that there is no need to breathe and no heartbeat, I would assume (though this is by no means proven canon) that regular Elantrians still have heartbeats and need to breathe, though they may be able to circumvent this with clever use of AonDor. Similarly, by the very fact that they produced food with AonDor we can assume they ate as well for all the reasons that Raoden outlined on society being entirely based around food. Also, the true Elantrian state likely aged as well. There is talk of long life, but I think that if they were actually immortal it would have been mentioned. 

All of these taken together imply several notable benefits of being a Reod Elantrian. First and most obvious is the effective immortality. With the body stuck in effective suspended animation, you could exist for centuries as long as you were relatively sedentary to avoid injury. Furthermore, you could remain in this state most of the time then if you get injured, revert back to a true Elantrian state, use Aon Ien to heal, then return to being a magic leper free of injury.

 

Second obvious conclusion would be for use in surgery. While it would hurt like hell, without a heartbeat, there is no circulation and thus far less risk of bleeding out during a difficult procedure. 

 

The state could be used in situations for underwater construction as well, taking advantage of the lack of need for breath.

[Moogle]

Also, the true Elantrian state likely aged as well. There is talk of long life, but I think that if they were actually immortal it would have been mentioned. 

 

It is mentioned as a possibility in the prologue:

Yet, as magnificent as Elantris was, its inhabitants were more so. Their hair a brilliant white, their skin an almost metallic silver, the Elantrians seemed to shine like the city itself. Legends claim that they were immortal, or at least nearly so.

 

But this still is legends, and the Elantrians really didn't live that long. Galladon mentions his father letting himself die via heart defect (I think?), so it seems like they're not quite at Returned levels of Investiture (or maybe the Returned's Cognitive morphing shifts themselves so they have perfect organs and hence can't suffer that sort of thing).

 

If their aging is slowed down at all (which it is), it seems like the Dor acts somewhat like Breath, which can completely stop aging. The only question is whether the Elantrians have enough of the Dor in them to bring them to that point - if they're not, I suspect they could become immortal if they wanted to by finding some way to increase the Dor's presence in themselves. (An Aon Rao tattoo would be my first attempt, burning duralumin 24/7 my second.)

 

I wonder if the Reod Elantrians are actually unaging... they weren't around long enough to find out.

[killersquirrel59 he/him]

I wonder if the Reod Elantrians are actually unaging... they weren't around long enough to find out.

Well, the process of aging is a physiological one. It's a factor of cells being replaced within the body and the redundant tails of information on each cell shortening with each division. If all of the body's natural processes are halted, then there is nothing left to cause aging.

EDIT: As for being an Elantrian actually stopping aging, this seems not to fit with the text. Even AonDor stopping aging doesn't really fit. Galladon notes when talking about his father's death...

"They lived much longer than regular people, but they could still die, especially if they wanted to. My father knew the signs of heart death. He could have gone in to be healed but he chose to stay in his study and disappear..."

The key point here is the reference that he could have gone in to be healed. It isn't that it was a conscious choice to die. It was a conscious choice to not get healed and let the natural process of death happen. It seems like their extended lives and superiour health may simply have been due to easy access to Aon Ien at the first sign of any infirmity.

Edited September 23, 2014 by killersquirrel59

[Oudeis he/him]

I concur with KillerSquirrel. It's shown that Elantrians do heal faster on their own than most people do, but not instantaneously. Living longer than most people wouldn't be terribly difficult when your organs tend to be healthier, you recover from injury, and presumably resist disease better, let alone constant access to plentiful food and near-perfect medical care.

 

Moogle, I see you trying to sneak in your personal supposition that all Investiture slows the aging process. I've read your theory and while technically plausible, it's almost entirely unsupported and is basically a stab in the dark. If you've gotten new WoB or evidence from the text since last time we've discussed this, please link me to the latest discussion and I will concede the point.

[Pechvarry]

Dear Lord.  I always feel so out of my depth on this forum unless I have 3 hours to investigate before speaking up.  Even so...

 

Investiture blocks Investiture.  See Nightblood vs Steelpush, Lashing Plate, etc.  Has this simple fact been pointed out yet?  If so, carry on.  If not, the Dor is basically a dead god or 2's worth of Investiture, right?  How much is being poured into those bodies unformed?  Probably not a terrible amount, in the shardic scope.  But enough to block some local-level prestidigitation?  Seems likely.  And if so, I'd put my money on it blocking some Rioting too.

[killersquirrel59 he/him]

Investiture vs. Investiture is not that simple though. Otherwise every Invested individual would be immune to being affected by the power of any other Invested individual. It's not a simple question of strength either, otherwise Kaladin would never have been able to Lash Szeth who wielded an Honourblade. It also wouldn't stop itself at resisting harmful effects either, Investiture is not in itself intelligent enough for that. By this logic Lightsong would never have been able to heal The God King simply because Susabron held so much more Investiture than him. 

 

And the most obvious problem with this idea...it wouldn't let Elantrians affect each other with AonDor normally either while in their normal state since all are roughly equivalent in level of Investiture.

 

Your assertion is absurd and provably false in many ways. While it might have some merit in terms of ITEMS, it is most certainly not the case in terms of people.

[Oudeis he/him]

@Pechvarry:

 

My apologies for our colleague's rudeness. Your idea is not absurb, nor is it proven wrong just because one person has decided to disagree with it. It's an interesting conjecture, and your point that the Dor is holding Reod Elantrians in stasis is a fair point to explain why it would be different than other, simply-Invested people. I'm not sure I personally believe it, and I would like to see some more evidence on both sides, but for now it's a reasonable hypothesis.

[killersquirrel59 he/him]

@Outis:

 

Please don't apologize for me in future. I don't mean to insult anyone personally but my points stand quite well. He made an assertion (in a rather rude and assumptive way himself) and I responded in kind. He presented an assertion and I disproved it. That's how a discussion works and doesn't mean that one of us is trying to insult the other.

 

@Pechvarry: I do apologize if you took my post as a personal attack. It was not meant as such. I intended to spiritedly refute your points, not insult you and am sorry for any offence caused.

[Pechvarry]

Your assertion is absurd and provably false in many ways. While it might have some merit in terms of ITEMS, it is most certainly not the case in terms of people.

Why can't Lurchers yank metal out of people's stomach? We know this is truth. We've discussed to death the concept of needing to overcome a human being's innate Investiture. I don't know the truth about Elantrians. You make an astute point: why would an Elantrian even be capable of teleporting itself if it's already under the effect of Investiture? I could propose some conjecture about Investiture waveforms and the concept of 2 radio stations broadcasting on the same frequency or something.

But I'm instead going to keep with a simple point: we have discussed (with much less hostility) the concept of Investiture inherently getting in the way of other Investitures. We clearly do not have the full story, but it should be mentioned in any debate about Investiture mysteriously not working on a creature afflicted with another form of Investiture. You have made a sweeping generalization of my conjecture (note this word) and, when it didn't fit every scenario, you threw the baby out with the bathwater and screamed "preposterous!"

(in a rather rude and assumptive way himself)

Has this simple fact been pointed out yet? If so, carry on.

I started my post out by acknowledging I was out of my depth. I'm not going to be offended, and I'll treat you with the utmost respect if I encounter you in another thread. But understand: we aren't arguing economics. The outcome of this thread will not change the course of history. More importantly, I have a full-time job. I'm here on my meager breaks, trying to contribute. Fact is, Outis' threads almost always pique my interest, and he has already accepted that I will randomly barge in with a half-cocked notion and not back it up* because I don't have those 3 hours of investigation I wish I had. My apologies if this isn't sufficient. I won't mind if you just skip my posts.

*Tell me if there have been any improvements to searching for WoBs and annotations in the past few months. I'd love to improve my game.

Edited October 3, 2014 by Pechvarry