Anti-Light

[Brgst13]

It was interesting to me that the Dakwara was Anti-Investiture from Ambition.  We saw this in another case involving Odium fighting with a Shard.

Spoiler

I SCREAMED. AND IN MY RAGE, I LOST CONTROL AND THREW MYSELF AT HIM.

HE LAUGHED, AND THREW HIS POWER AGAINST MINE. WHAT FOLLOWED WAS A THUNDERCLAP, AND SILENCE, AS ALL WAS PUSHED AWAY FROM US. IN THAT SPACE OF NOTHING—EVERY AXON FORCED AWAY—OUR SOULS MELDED IN THE MOST UNNERVING OF WAYS, TOO INTIMATE, TOO REMINISCENT OF CREATION FOR A CREATURE SUCH AS HIM. IN THAT MOMENT, TINY PIECES OF SOMETHING DISCORDANT WERE BORN.

SOMETHING DANGEROUS, EVEN TO A GOD. THE COUNTER TO MY ESSENCE. ANTI-LIGHT, IT COULD BE CALLED.

Interestingly, Ambition was shattered early on, while Honor was assumedly the last shard Odium fought with.  This is not an innate response to mixing Investiture, since Towerlight does not cause an anti-Light reaction.  Nor did we see this with the formation of Harmony.  Is this something specific to Odium?  Doubtful since other anti-Lights were made by a Bondsmith drawing on Honor and Cultivation.  Is this Odium's way of Shattering other shards?  What does this mean for the Dor?  Is the Dor equivalent to the power of Dominion and Devotion?  Or is there some lessening of power due to Light/Anti-light reactions?  Why were the Splinters of Ambition left all Anti-Light?

On another note, it was also interesting that the Evil on Threnody was the result of mixing hatred and ambition.

[lacrossedeamon]

On 7/4/2025 at 9:25 AM, Brgst13 said:

On another note, it was also interesting that the Evil on Threnody was the result of mixing hatred and ambition.

Oh this is interesting as if it is a pseudo hybrid shard.

[The Stick]

Maybe Mercy's involvement in the clash had something to do with the anti-light splinters? 

[+Oltux72 he/him]

Honour crated them and they were aimed at Honour, not Odium. This seems to be what happens if a Shard attacks another Shard without knowing what they are doing.

[Jult]

On 7/4/2025 at 9:25 AM, Brgst13 said:

This is not an innate response to mixing Investiture, since Towerlight does not cause an anti-Light reaction.  Nor did we see this with the formation of Harmony.  Is this something specific to Odium?

I think the answer is Intent. Odium and Honor were trying to destroy one another. When Navani was trying to create the opposite of Voidlight in Rhythm of War, she got temporarily stumped by the fact that a tone and its opposite were identical until she tried humming with the Intent of creating an opposite tone. That was the key to creating anti-Voidlight and anti-Stormlight.

In the cases of Towerlight and the formation of Harmony, the Intent was constructive rather than destructive.

The fact that Honor and Odium's clashing resulted in only Anti-Honor Investiture may imply that Odium knew about this, and kept his Intent defense in this moment. Effectively baiting Honor into bringing about his own destruction.

On 7/4/2025 at 9:25 AM, Brgst13 said:

Why were the Splinters of Ambition left all Anti-Light?

Ambition's situation seems to track with my speculations above. Odium may have just clashed repeatedly with Ambition until 'Anti-Ambition Investiture' outnumbered the 'normal Ambition Investiture'. And then he left her to be annihilated by her own mistakes. We've seen what happens when oppositely charged Investiture touches.

On 7/4/2025 at 9:25 AM, Brgst13 said:

What does this mean for the Dor?

This is the question that's bugging me. If Honor and Ambition accidentally created Anti-Investiture when fighting Odium, it would make sense for Devotion and Dominion to make the same mistake. Why, then, is the Dor not Anti-Investiture? Did Aona and/or Skai have some different Intent? Were they not trying to destroy each other or Odium?

[bmcclure7]

2 hours ago, Jult said:

I think the answer is Intent. Odium and Honor were trying to destroy one another. When Navani was trying to create the opposite of Voidlight in Rhythm of War, she got temporarily stumped by the fact that a tone and its opposite were identical until she tried humming with the Intent of creating an opposite tone. That was the key to creating anti-Voidlight and anti-Stormlight.

In the cases of Towerlight and the formation of Harmony, the Intent was constructive rather than destructive.

The fact that Honor and Odium's clashing resulted in only Anti-Honor Investiture may imply that Odium knew about this, and kept his Intent defense in this moment. Effectively baiting Honor into bringing about his own destruction.

Ambition's situation seems to track with my speculations above. Odium may have just clashed repeatedly with Ambition until 'Anti-Ambition Investiture' outnumbered the 'normal Ambition Investiture'. And then he left her to be annihilated by her own mistakes. We've seen what happens when oppositely charged Investiture touches.

This is the question that's bugging me. If Honor and Ambition accidentally created Anti-Investiture when fighting Odium, it would make sense for Devotion and Dominion to make the same mistake. Why, then, is the Dor not Anti-Investiture? Did Aona and/or Skai have some different Intent? Were they not trying to destroy each other or Odium?

I suspect because Devotion Wanted to preserve her people 

[Through the Living Shadow he/him]

I think Anti-Light has long been the mechanic behind splintering, or any  diminishing of power in a shard.

If a Shard goes against their intent, it might create a small mote of Anti-Light, barely (if at all) noticeable.

But if they are under direct attack, violated in a way that forces them to counter their Intent, Anti-Light is formed, and it hurts them deeply.

Like - Ambition immediately being attacked by Odium might have violated the Intent, and Odium used that against Ambition. This is a stretch, but I’ve been thinking that Odium’s immediate attack would have made him a better candidate in the eyes of the power than the actual Vessel.

Then when Honour and Odium clashed, Odium was always quick to goad him into direct confrontation, even though he had promised not to.

 

I know I’m stretching - but this theory really comes from Newton’s first law. Put simply, the important part is, “an object in motion stays in motion.”

To stop something, to stop its movement, you need to present force and energy directly counter to its movement. I think it’s similar here - to uninvest something, no matter the means, it’s presenting investiture directly counter to the original. This, I think, is reinforced by how easily the scientists switched their machine from investiture to anti-investiture (calling it Negative Investiture - and I made sure to check that it was in fact Anti investiture, I think they mention that like… a few time? Dunno), suggesting a fluidity that would support this.