Is Taravangian Right?

[ParaTulip fae/faer (declines as she/her)]

48 minutes ago, Schizoposting said:

So, we have direct confirmation that it's best for a vessel to be opposed to the intent of their shard.

I don't know if that's really what is being said there. The quote is "She [, Jasnah,] would make a good candidate [to hold Odium]." but why isn't something Sanderson is commenting on. It could be that her compatibility with Odium is due to other factors, like perhaps the compatibilty is because she's willing to use violence even on her family members in the name of a higher purpose while Taravangian could not bring himself to actually kill his.

 

[Schizoposting]

3 minutes ago, ParaTulip said:

I don't know if that's really what is being said there. The quote is "She [, Jasnah,] would make a good candidate [to hold Odium]." but why isn't something Sanderson is commenting on. It could be that her compatibility with Odium is due to other factors, like perhaps the compatibilty is because she's willing to use violence even on her family members in the name of a higher purpose while Taravangian could not bring himself to actually kill his.

 

Odium is all about giving in to your emotions, while Jasnah is very rational, and suppresses her emotions when they get in the way. Taravangains willingness to save his family, even when it didn't make sense, actually makes him more aligned with Odium. 

[Qianweilian He/him]

56 minutes ago, Schizoposting said:

So, we have direct confirmation that it's best for a vessel to be opposed to the intent of their shard.

Agree with @ParaTulip, I don't think that's what Brandon is saying here. I think experience handling strong emotions could be applicable to any shardic intent. It also goes contrary to WaT where Tanavast gets booted due to being too opposed to honor (from the power's perspective).

59 minutes ago, Schizoposting said:

That's wrong on two counts: Ati was philosophically aligned with Ruin before his ascension (as I already showed), and he volunteered to take up Ruin:

Sorry, I don't really see your argument here? What makes you think Ati was aligned w/ Ruin before? Sorry if I missed something, this is a fairly large thread. Also, just because he volunteered to take up Ruin doesn't mean that he was aligned with Ruin. I saw it as he took up Ruin in a purely benevolent manner, wanting to limit it's intent (and mostly failing, but not completely) and stop it from going to someone like Rayse.

1 hour ago, Schizoposting said:

I think those issues can be resolved by a smart enough vessel who knows how to manipulate their power. E.g. in the case of Odium, once they've finished intervening on one planet, they can start intervening on other planets; if they run out of planets to intervene on, they can just make more planets.

This feels unsustainable from an investiture and intent perspective. Iirc, shards frequently get tied to planets and using lots of investiture (which would probably be necessary) could trap them there. If they try to get free, they would be weakened and risk shattering. Although I do somewhat agree with your approach to initially set up a society and then let them work by themselves, it don't think it would work with every intent. Also, you don't tell how you would deal with a shard that dislikes direct intervention (e.g. Cultivation or Autonomy).

1 hour ago, Schizoposting said:

What makes you think that if the non-interventionist shards were to intervene, they'd turn into lunatics? If they were already predisposed to lunacy, then they'd would've already intervened. Also, much of that is due to vessels, not the shard (particularly in Autonomy's case).

What makes you think their shard would be okay with such an intervention. You also argue that much of the interventionist shards' lunacy is due to the vessels — I don't think this is the case. Ati and Leras both seemed quite capable (at least at the beginning). 

1 hour ago, Schizoposting said:

you're right that what I am proposing is a particular form of the utopian ideal of an all-powerful benevolent philosopher king. In the real world this is impossible for a myriad of reasons, but the in the Cosmere, the vast power of shards actually makes this feasible. It's true that there's a real danger of shardic intervention by a shard like Ruin, but these shards will intervene regardless of what anyone else may think.

There is a large issue though, shards are neither all-powerful, all-knowing, nor all-good. Any approach to build up your philosopher empire will create a flawed structure. Creating a worldwide dictatorship lead by a shard could have major issues if another shard decides to move in, especially if a large population isn't realmatically aware. Building this sort of society will also take time, it only seems to work if another shard doesn't decide to move in by the time you go mostly hands-off. A more decentralized structure would be less vulnerable to external forces.

 

 

There's another issue with making a utopian world government: it will be completely incapable in matters of war and diplomacy. If you build a structure where no one fights each other, this hypothetical planet will not progress in military technology or strategy. Even if you, the shard, assists them with this, there is no feasible way to go hands off — military tech/strats constantly evolve, this world would just be stuck in time at the point you stop holding their hand. They also won't even be used to the idea of different states, peoples, or even potentially different languages (this depends on how you do it). Admittedly, while this would be resolved without serious consequence eventually after planets begin regularly interacting with each other, there is a significant risk of diplomatic and economic isolation. This would leave our hypothetical planet without allies and potentially behind on technological development for decades.

[therunner he/him]

9 hours ago, Schizoposting said:

@therunner according to WOB:
 

Spoiler

Questioner

Would Jasnah be able to handle Odium's power with her experience handling strong emotions?

Brandon Sanderson

She would be a good candidate.

Questioner

Will she become Odium?

Brandon Sanderson

Oh come on, now you're just fishing for RAFO cards!

Dragonsteel Mini-Con 2021 (Nov. 22, 2021)

So, we have direct confirmation that it's best for a vessel to be opposed to the intent of their shard.

The WoB doesn't say that Jasnah is opposed to Odium Intent, so it does not support that at all.
It does say that having experience of handling emotions would make her good candidate. 
You know who else had a lot of experience handling strong emotions? Taravangian. 

Additionally, Jasnah is aligned e.g. with the conflict drive of Odium, she enjoys debate and conflict it brings about, just like the Shard of Odium does (seen in RoW, where the power wanted Sja-Anat and Rayse to argue and debate). And her entire downfall in WAT is caused by the fact she is emotionally driven, despite her rationalizations. Heck, her sparing Renarin in Oathbringer despite all evidence was again purely emotionally driven act.

So Jasnah is very much not opposed to Odium in Intent.

Quote

That's wrong on two counts: Ati was philosophically aligned with Ruin before his ascension (as I already showed), and he volunteered to take up Ruin:

From WAT chapter 115.

Accepting that all things end and there is nothing that can be done about that does not make Ati aligned with Ruin, at worst it makes him neutral with respect to the Intent. Someone aligned with Ruin would be someone who wants to actively bring about the end of things.

Also, all the vessels volunteered so that is not saying anything. He is considered by other Vessels as kind and heroic, not like Rayse who was despised by others even prior to Ascension. 

So by all accounts, he was a man who would seem to be among the better candidates to take up insatiable power focused only on destroying things.

We even have WoB that Ati fought against the Intent for many years, and channeled it towards entropy and decay, so Ruin as we have seen it was among the less destructive interpretations of it.

Quote

Alvaro Lopez

Why Odium is stronger and worst evil than Ruin?

Brandon Sanderson

One reason is that Ruin had a person in control of it who, for many years, fought against the impulse to destroy--and in the end, channeled it toward entropy and decay, necessary elements of the universe. Odium represents something else entirely.

General Twitter 2018 (June 6, 2018)

 

Quote

She literally tried to stop the war by threatening Taravangian's family.

One direct action in how many millennia?
Not exactly very hands-on.

Quote

I think that it's strongly implied that the effect of holding a shard is "logarithmic", i.e., the vessel will rapidly change at first, but this will taper off as time goes on. So those extra 2000 years probably had minimal impact on Ati (he wanted to destroy the Scadrial long before then anyway).

I don't think that is the case, if it was Sazed would be unable to do the large changes he did shortly after Ascending, since most of the warping would already have happened.

And 2000 years is still 25% of the time Tanavast held Honor, which even on logarithmic scales would not be negligible.

Quote

Also, as I said previously, what's needed is someone who can resist the shard, but is at the same time smart enough placate so it doesn't leave them. Taravangian is an example of the latter.

Taravangian is very much not example of the latter, he held the Shard for 10 days only. That is far too short an amount of time to see if his approach is sustainable.

Quote

Well, now this gets into the ethics of how one should rule. Answering this isn't easy; philosophers have debated ethics for millennia. But let's presume that the goal of shardic intervention is ensuring human happiness. In this case, I think that the best way to achieve this is by focusing on the goals that I outlined.

No, it gets into a question of what would Shard do. 

Because presuming that a Shard would automatically have goal of ensuring human happiness is not given by any stretch. 
Again, Ruin, Preservation, Odium, Cultivation, Honor, Whimsy, Dominion, none of these have anything to do with ensuring human happiness, so why would we assume they would have it as goal?  Some are actively antithetical to that goal, like Odium.

Again, Sazed who did show inclination to ensuring human happiness is unable to do anything just 3 centuries in, due to his Intent. And even when he did act, it backfired.

So projecting on the Shard goals you find agreeable, does not mean that Shards could act in that manner, and in fact their Intent would likely drive them to act in ways that are not about human happiness at all.

Quote

I think those issues can be resolved by a smart enough vessel who knows how to manipulate their power. E.g. in the case of Odium, once they've finished intervening on one planet, they can start intervening on other planets; if they run out of planets to intervene on, they can just make more planets.

So basically paper-clip maximizer, except for dictatorship?

Also, what would the power do, once it found out on some planets it left behind the people no longer behave like it wanted to?

And that does not even get to simple fact that Odium as shard would want to stoke conflict, not calm it down, so you would get society which has conflict and passion as inherent components of their make up, not something that would help ensure happiness.

Additionally, most Shards cannot do what Ruin and Preservation did on their own:

Quote

Questioner

Ruin ruins, and Preservation preserves. If they're creating life, well, that takes a little of everything, right? Is that an influence, like Ruin being in proximity to Preservation and vice versa? Would their co-mingling happen... and how would that influence other dual or triple Shards?

Brandon Sanderson

I get what you're saying. Each of the Shards has certain strengths and weaknesses, and they're capable of certain things and not other things. Some of them can do what was done by Ruin and Preservation on their own. Most cannot. Most combinations of two could; some would need three. So, it really kind of depends on the situation and the Shard. Each pairing and grouping of Shards will have different sort of augmentations to what they can accomplish, and things like this, because the Shards aren't all-powerful, they're just part of something that once was, if that makes sense. (That's not how math works in infinity, but it is how infinity works in the cosmere.)

FanX 2024 (Sept. 26, 2024)

So it is entirely likely that Odium couldn't even create planets in the first place, or if he could he would have to transport beings there anyway.

Quote

What makes you think that if the non-interventionist shards were to intervene, they'd turn into lunatics? If they were already predisposed to lunacy, then they'd would've already intervened. Also, much of that is due to vessels, not the shard (particularly in Autonomy's case).

What makes you think non-interventionist Shards would intervene or even could?

So again, in my opinion, most Shards are wholly unsuitable to such role, due to their inherent Intent, which would inevitably drive them to act against interest of the populace, or to not interfere overtly at all.

The sole exception might be Devotion, but even there is a risk that over time it would come to see all life as equal in love, to disastrous consequences for humankind.

On short time-scales, after taking up the Shard, the Shards might be able to act in manner that is aligned with human happiness (assuming somehow that the Vessel is unbiased arbiter of what that means), but even that does not guarantee that its interventions would end up beneficial in the long run (see Sazed and his actions). And most importantly, over time the Vessel would get subsumed by the Intent of the Shard, and so would no longer be capable of acting in interest of the populace. The Intent would be filtered to some extent through the Vessel, but that is only relatively small wiggle room, the core of it is still the same (i.e. Odium is primarily hatred, no matter how much Rayse tried to present himself as Passion). Ultimately the Intent of the Shard changes the person more than the person re-interprets the Intent.

EDIT:
See e.g. these WoBs on Intent and how it molds the Vessel

Spoiler

Brandon Sanderson (paraphrased)

Shards and Shard intents: Holding a Shard is a contest of willpower against the Shard that, over time, is very hard to resist.

Shards affect you over time, but your mind will not leave a permanent effect on the Shard. A holder's [Vessel's] personality, however, does get to filter the Shard's intent, so to speak. However, if that holder [Vessel] no longer held that Shard, the Shard will not continue to be filtered by that person.

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

Spoiler

Questioner

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

Brandon Sanderson

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

Oathbringer London signing (Nov. 28, 2017)

Spoiler

Brandon Sanderson

Vin Asks Ruin about Preservation

After this scene, perhaps you can see why I wanted so badly to spend some time with Vin and Ruin talking while she was imprisoned. I felt this was important enough that I was willing to stretch plausibility a tad to make it possible. (The spoiler in the chapter 54 annotation explains what I mean by that.)

The discussion of morality here is an important one, as I wanted Ruin and Preservation to represent forces, not moral poles. This is vital for various reasons in the underlying cosmology. If they represented poles, then that implied there could only be two like them. But, as they represent opposites, that leaves more room.

Preservation did betray Ruin. This brings us onto the shaky ground of the morality of lying to achieve a greater good. If as much were at stake as is here—the end of an entire world—then perhaps you'd betray someone too. (I love fantasy. Where else can you talk about the end of the world as a consequence of a betrayal and have it be literal?)

Ruin's consciousness—separate from his power—isn't a particularly nice being. But you can't much blame him, as there's very little that is left of the mind that once was. The force of Ruin has pretty well molded the mind to fit with the force's intent.

The Hero of Ages Annotations (Jan. 26, 2010)

Spoiler

zotsandcrambles

You've mentioned that a person's personality eventually erodes and is replaced by the will of the shard they hold. Besides Harmony, are there any Shards holders that are still actively and significantly defying the intent of their shard?

Brandon Sanderson

Yes.

Kellsier

Is Harmony ([Sazed], for instance) actively trying to fight against it's shard intent?

Brandon Sanderson

Its intent(s) match Sazed very well, actually, and he has the philosophy that these natural powers are best minded and not dominated. So while he pushes back against the inaction holding both of them has caused, he appreciates and understands the need for both. I'd say he has less "push back" than some others.

/r/books AMA 2015 (July 17, 2015)

Intent influencing powers

Spoiler

Questioner

Ruin ruins, and Preservation preserves. If they're creating life, well, that takes a little of everything, right? Is that an influence, like Ruin being in proximity to Preservation and vice versa? Would their co-mingling happen... and how would that influence other dual or triple Shards?

Brandon Sanderson

I get what you're saying. Each of the Shards has certain strengths and weaknesses, and they're capable of certain things and not other things. Some of them can do what was done by Ruin and Preservation on their own. Most cannot. Most combinations of two could; some would need three. So, it really kind of depends on the situation and the Shard. Each pairing and grouping of Shards will have different sort of augmentations to what they can accomplish, and things like this, because the Shards aren't all-powerful, they're just part of something that once was, if that makes sense. (That's not how math works in infinity, but it is how infinity works in the cosmere.)

FanX 2024 (Sept. 26, 2024)

Honor has relatively bad futuresight due to his Intent

Spoiler

Jeremy (paraphrased)

When Honor speaks of his inability to see the future, he likens it to a shattering window. Is this related to the fact that in the not-too-distant future, he himself will be splintered? Or is it more a matter of Intent; e.g., Cultivation (and Preservation?) is geared toward future development, whereas Honor is geared toward current behavior.

Brandon Sanderson (paraphrased)

This is not related to his impending Splintering, it is a matter of differing Intents.

When Worlds Collide 2014 (Aug. 9, 2014)

Some powers are unique to individual Shards
 

Spoiler

Questioner

Do all the Shards have the same powers just limited by their intents? 

Brandon Sanderson

No. There are a uniqueness to them, but. There is some uniqueness to each of them. There's a lot of overlap.

Oathbringer San Francisco signing (Nov. 15, 2017)

 

Edited December 29, 2025 by therunner

[Returned he/him]

20 hours ago, Schizoposting said:

Also, I disagree with your assertion that the books don't engage with philosophy

My position, maybe overstated, is that the philosophy in the books is shallow. Opinions can certainly vary on that, and if someone finds more of that in the books than I do I respect it.

20 hours ago, Schizoposting said:

I am not discussing whether or not we should live in a world dominated by shards; I am working on the presumption that the world is already dominated by shards.

The issue is that we're talking about the moral state accomplished by a Shard's direct control (still underdefined, but we can probably continue to do passably well without nailing it down). The OP's assertion that we are evaluating is whether or not a morally excellent, benevolent Shard's direct control will result in better ethical states than any other possible arrangement. Upthread you suggested that Cultivation is not doing this as much as she ought to, with the assumptions made in the OP, which makes this comment confusing to me-- if less interventionist Shards still count as equally dominating as a micromanaging, constantly intervening Shard then I start to lose track of what we're talking about. It seems like a shift from earlier discussion, maybe I'm not thinking of it from the right angle.

20 hours ago, Schizoposting said:

The trolley problem was originally created to mock utilitarianism, so defending it as a legitimate thought experiment is rather strange; regardless, the problem with these sorts of thought experiments is precisely in their abstraction. It's much easier to think abstractly than concretely, which is why so many people here have parroted the cliche that "absolute power corrupts absolutely". In the real world, ethical decisions cannot be trivially reduced to calculating how many utils each decision provides, or whether or not it fits some abstract moral schema.

Its origins don't matter much to its use as a moral dilemma. It's not a thought experiment, it's a vehicle for thinking about what defines goodness in a framework of action, inaction, and constrained outcomes. The emergency room triage example I provided should abolish any doubt about the legitimacy of the dilemma or its ability to be related to concrete situations. I absolutely agree that ethical decisions are not tidily reducible. But if we aren't able to compare ethical states to one another then how can the question in the OP be evaluated or approached?

20 hours ago, Schizoposting said:

That reading would be dishonest, because the specific criteria I mentioned were not the ends in themselves, but rather the means for human happiness and flourishing, which was implicit in my original post. Also, I will obviously reject your implication that shardic intervention is inherently immoral, since you have given me no reason to believe otherwise. If your position is that "it's better to be poor and free, than rich and enslaved" then I can respect that, but saying "I will not share my disagreements, because you will disagree with them" is just a cop-out.

The rub in this is that the end states described in the OP (the direct results of the Shard's direct intervention) are asserted to lead to more-than-alternatives-can-produce happiness and human flourishing, else they wouldn't be the things the Shard pursues. To my initial (maybe incorrect) reading the things the Shard enforces are presented as inseparable from the "true" ends. If the connection between those is weakened (to account for variation in human behaviors, uneven participation in the conditions the Shard enacts, or other things) then would we not have to question the value of the Shard's direct, constant intervention? If human happiness and flourishing is the end we value, why is it unacceptable to consider whether or not maximal Shardic control (or the methods which achieve it) cuts against those things?

I didn't say that Shardic intervention is inherently immoral, I stated that there are ways of thinking about these topics which suggest that domination may itself be undesirable, have unethical qualities along with anything else they produce, be unable to produce specific outcomes or states, or otherwise introduce complications which detract from the goal in the OP. I gave a specific example of this when asked, the bedridden world case, which accomplishes every state described as "good" in the OP while maximizing the use of unique abilities of a Shard as well as direct Shardic intervention. That is, I described a situation in which a Shard could intervene as much as possible, in ways no non-Shard could, to achieve the things the OP lays out as desirable, but is not necessarily better than the states achievable by other agents. As the question is whether or not it is certainly better to live under Shardic domination this seems to me to be exactly relevant: it is not, as scenarios like this one are possible and valid under the assumptions but are not better.

I think I've been pretty forward in sharing my thoughts and disagreements, and the reasons for them, with the assertion presented in the OP and have spent considerable time and effort to express those in good faith and engage honestly in discussion. I'm not copping out on anything, and my reticence to get into specifics is because I have suspected you will dismiss them out of hand or decline to evaluate them in the context in which they were given, which was the case here ("obviously I don't mean that"). This is one of the reasons I perceive so much circularity in the original question and the considerations you've presented around it: specific examples which are problematic to the premise are discounted by appealing to abstraction, and in the process define out anything besides the premise itself. That may not be an accurate description (maybe things are being lost in translation or I am otherwise just not getting it), but it is sincere.

In any case I'm not sure there's much to be gained from continuing in this thread (me, that is, there are robust discussions with others still underway). I do not see that constant, direct intervention by a morally excellent and benevolent Shardic tyrant is necessarily better at achieving ethically desirable states (or the underdefined "human flourishing") than any other possible arrangement-- Taravnagian is not right. After a good deal of back and forth I am more convinced of this than before, and find the arguments for the assertion in the OP to be weaker and less convincing than at the outset. It's fine for anyone to disagree with that conclusion.

Edited December 29, 2025 by Returned

[Qianweilian He/him]

38 minutes ago, Returned said:

 

19 hours ago, Schizoposting said:

Also, I disagree with your assertion that the books don't engage with philosophy

My position, maybe overstated, is that the philosophy in the books is shallow. Opinions can certainly vary on that, and if someone finds more of that in the books than I do I respect it.

19 hours ago, Schizoposting said:

I am not discussing whether or not we should live in a world dominated by shards; I am working on the presumption that the world is already dominated by shards.

The issue is that we're talking about the moral state accomplished by a Shard's direct control (still underdefined, but we can probably continue to do passably well without nailing it down). The OP's assertion that we are evaluating is whether or not a morally excellent, benevolent Shard's direct control will result in better ethical states than any other possible arrangement. Upthread you suggested that Cultivation is not doing this as much as she ought to, with the assumptions made in the OP, which makes this comment confusing to me-- if less interventionist Shards still count as equally dominating as a micromanaging, constantly intervening Shard then I start to lose track of what we're talking about. It seems like a shift from earlier discussion, maybe I'm not thinking of it from the right angle.

19 hours ago, Schizoposting said:

The trolley problem was originally created to mock utilitarianism, so defending it as a legitimate thought experiment is rather strange; regardless, the problem with these sorts of thought experiments is precisely in their abstraction. It's much easier to think abstractly than concretely, which is why so many people here have parroted the cliche that "absolute power corrupts absolutely". In the real world, ethical decisions cannot be trivially reduced to calculating how many utils each decision provides, or whether or not it fits some abstract moral schema.

Expand  

Its origins don't matter much to its use as a moral dilemma. It's not a thought experiment, it's a vehicle for thinking about what defines goodness in a framework of action, inaction, and constrained outcomes. The emergency room triage example I provided should abolish any doubt about the legitimacy of the dilemma or its ability to be related to concrete situations. I absolutely agree that ethical decisions are not tidily reducible. But if we aren't able to compare ethical states to one another then how can the question in the OP be evaluated or approached?

19 hours ago, Schizoposting said:

That reading would be dishonest, because the specific criteria I mentioned were not the ends in themselves, but rather the means for human happiness and flourishing, which was implicit in my original post. Also, I will obviously reject your implication that shardic intervention is inherently immoral, since you have given me no reason to believe otherwise. If your position is that "it's better to be poor and free, than rich and enslaved" then I can respect that, but saying "I will not share my disagreements, because you will disagree with them" is just a cop-out.

Expand  

The rub in this is that the end states described in the OP (the direct results of the Shard's direct intervention) are asserted to lead to more-than-alternatives-can-produce happiness and human flourishing, else they wouldn't be the things the Shard pursues. To my initial (maybe incorrect) reading the things the Shard enforces are presented as inseparable from the "true" ends. If the connection between those is weakened (to account for variation in human behaviors, uneven participation in the conditions the Shard enacts, or other things) then would we not have to question the value of the Shard's direct, constant intervention? If human happiness and flourishing is the end we value, why is it unacceptable to consider whether or not maximal Shardic control (or the methods which achieve it) cuts against those things?

I didn't say that Shardic intervention is inherently immoral, I stated that there are ways of thinking about these topics which suggest that domination may itself be undesirable, have unethical qualities along with anything else they produce, be unable to produce specific outcomes or states, or otherwise introduce complications which detract from the goal in the OP. I gave a specific example of this when asked, the bedridden world case, which accomplishes every state described as "good" in the OP while maximizing the use of unique abilities of a Shard as well as direct Shardic intervention. That is, I described a situation in which a Shard could intervene as much as possible, in ways no non-Shard could, to achieve the things the OP lays out as desirable, but is not necessarily better than the states achievable by other agents. As the question is whether or not it is certainly better to live under Shardic domination this seems to me to be exactly relevant: it is not, as scenarios like this one are possible and valid under the assumptions but are not better.

I think I've been pretty forward in sharing my thoughts and disagreements, and the reasons for them, with the assertion presented in the OP and have spent considerable time and effort to express those in good faith and engage honestly in discussion. I'm not copping out on anything, and my reticence to get into specifics is because I have suspected you will dismiss them out of hand or decline to evaluate them in the context in which they were given, which was the case here ("obviously I don't mean that"). This is one of the reasons I perceive so much circularity in the original question and the considerations you've presented around it: specific examples which are problematic to the premise are discounted by appealing to abstraction, and in the process define out anything besides the premise itself. That may not be an accurate description (maybe things are being lost in translation or I am otherwise just not getting it), but it is sincere.

In any case I'm not sure there's much to be gained from continuing in this thread (me, that is, there are robust discussions with others still underway). I do not see that constant, direct intervention by a morally excellent and benevolent Shardic tyrant is necessarily better at achieving ethically desirable states (or the underdefined "human flourishing") than any other possible arrangement-- Taravnagian is not right. After a good deal of back and forth I am more convinced of this than before, and find the arguments for the assertion in the OP to be weaker and less convincing than at the outset. It's fine for anyone to disagree with that conclusion.

Hey, I think you duplicated this.

Edit: I have no idea why the text bunches up in the middle.

Edited December 29, 2025 by Qianweilian

[Returned he/him]

@Qianweilian Thanks! I thought it looked longer than it should but didn't look through it in enough detail after posting. I think it came from pulling quotes from page two while the post itself wound up on page three-- the page didn't respond in the normal way of closing the editing box, and I clicked post twice in confusion.

Edited December 29, 2025 by Returned

[Qianweilian He/him]

You're welcome.

[ScadrianTank he/him]

Personally, I'm the sort of person who finds the idea of G-d more disturbing/uncomfortable the more I think about it. Abrahamic-like divinity has a problem of "if you're all-powerful, why is there suffering and death and such? seems like bad design." Divinity that actively shapes destiny messes with my perception of free will, which I instinctively reject. That's part of why I find the whole premise of the Shattering one of the more interesting parts of the cosmere — because I am the sort of person who would absolutely get behind the idea of killing god. I would say that the original seventeen didn't go far enough. They should've splintered all of Ado Devotion/Dominion-style and spread it evenly through the cosmere. 

If G-d is bigger than Wind/Stone — kill it. 

All of that is why I consider Saze and Endowment the more preferable of the Shards we've seen so far. If Saze wasn't Intent locked, his philosophy of letting people make their own choices is better than what Taravangian came up with. And I personally believe Sazed to be one of the most moral and wise people in the books so far, so there might be a little bias here.

Endowment came up with the best system for interfering with mortals while still allowing people to express their free will. She presents people with problems down the line and offers them to be the ones to solve them; a helping hand, not a guiding one. 
 

[ParaTulip fae/faer (declines as she/her)]

7 hours ago, ScadrianTank said:

If G-d is bigger than Wind/Stone — kill it. 

I feel like this results in blowing up stars for some reason.

Endowment is hard to judge since we essentially see Nalthis' richest city come out of an era of mismanaging a huge store of investiture due to the corruptions of the priesthood. But how the Returned impact the course of history more generally is hard to assess. Koravellium Avast and Edgli might subscribe to the same basic ideas on what a good but very much lower case god should do, and Edgli just avoided becoming the third wheel in a several thousand year long hate-screw-war affair between Tanavast and Rayse.

[Qianweilian He/him]

7 hours ago, ScadrianTank said:

They should've splintered all of Ado Devotion/Dominion-style and spread it evenly through the cosmere. 

They might not have known how; we know Odium got more experienced at shattering shards as he went on, stuff like Devotion/Dominion and Ambition were messy.

7 hours ago, ScadrianTank said:

Abrahamic-like divinity has a problem of "if you're all-powerful, why is there suffering and death and such? seems like bad design."

7 hours ago, ScadrianTank said:

She presents people with problems down the line and offers them to be the ones to solve them; a helping hand, not a guiding one. 

How do you see the approach of being solely a helping hand and letting people deal with problems as significantly different from that of the Abrahamic God? I see a lot of the challenges in the world today as things that can help us learn and grow so we can all be saved.

[ScadrianTank he/him]

3 hours ago, Qianweilian said:

How do you see the approach of being solely a helping hand and letting people deal with problems as significantly different from that of the Abrahamic God? I see a lot of the challenges in the world today as things that can help us learn and grow so we can all be saved.

I don't. But out of all the options available to the Shards, this one seems to be one of the more humane ones. Autonomy's model also appears to be a good one, at least in principle. (now that I remember she exists)

[ParaTulip fae/faer (declines as she/her)]

13 hours ago, Qianweilian said:

How do you see the approach of being solely a helping hand and letting people deal with problems as significantly different from that of the Abrahamic God? I see a lot of the challenges in the world today as things that can help us learn and grow so we can all be saved.

The Abrahamic God tends to deal in "next life" or "next world" promises. There is either Heaven or some kind of world to come wherein all people are immortal.

I have immense disdain for such things. I rather enjoy being this finite thing that exists only in finite dimensions. To put things to a sharp point: Salvation often sounds like a threat. I prefer to understand myself as being certain to eventually die and for that to be the end of me.

I am not looking to go to Hell or something. I think creating such a place, or letting it continue to function, is a kind of moral failing. I also think we should strive to abolish all prisons, so maybe I am just morally weird.

 

[ScadrianTank he/him]

2 hours ago, ParaTulip said:

I am not looking to go to Hell or something. I think creating such a place, or letting it continue to function, is a kind of moral failing. I also think we should strive to abolish all prisons, so maybe I am just morally weird.

Slightly off-topic, but I find it strange that none of the Shards created an artificial afterlife for their followers in the Spiritual realm. Something like what Taravangian did to Kharbranth, but styled up similarly to Vorin belief in the Tranquiline halls. "You serve as my operator and devotee, and I will give you a functional heaven in SR after death until I need to call on you and my other champions when the need arises."

That is, unless the theory about Threnody originally being Mercy's world, forests of Hell being forests of Heaven, and Shades being benevolent ghosts of the ancestors is correct.  

[ParaTulip fae/faer (declines as she/her)]

5 hours ago, ScadrianTank said:

Something like what Taravangian did to Kharbranth, but styled up similarly to Vorin belief in the Tranquiline halls. "You serve as my operator and devotee, and I will give you a functional heaven in SR after death until I need to call on you and my other champions when the need arises."

So, the Kaladin Therapy plan, but on a massive scale, or at least more than 9 patients?

I am not terribly enthusiastic about Therapy Heaven. It's a form of Heaven, which I disdain, and I have skepticism towards most things called therapy these days e

I do think it is highly plausible for someone with a bent towards medical structure design; Taravangian seems to be such a someone.

But he's not really trustworthy on his own. Honor as some weird spren child is there to judge him and stuff. It's so hard for me not to imagine that Mass Effect 3 hologram child when thinking of that one.

 

[Duxredux he/him]

I didn't read all three pages too deeply, but I'll toss in some two cents. First, I'll note that Cultivation telling the Shard of Hatred to contain rather than interfere and propagate their Intent perhaps may not be a universally applicable MO for all Shards even if it was presented as such for the new kid on the block. Just sayin'.

Second, is that the concepts of minimal interference and direct intervention perhaps should not be all or nothing polarized. I think most could agree that at the very least, it would seem appropriate for a Vessel to at least be looking for how things could be improved even if they don't always act directly on it. Sazed does a pretty decent job of asking Wax for his opinion and getting his buy in, correctly assuming Wax didn't want Telsin Ascending to an Avatar of Autonomy and nuking Elendel. He laid out the Shardic scale as best he could and let people he trusted see the scope and he tried to allow himself to be mutable to Wax's opinions and wishes.

If we're talking governing populations, then we might as well throw current leadership ideology into the mix. Most supervisors I've had weren't elected and I didn't exactly get to choose them but I worked with them anyway. We've referenced hands-off and micromanagement. We've got a lot more options than that. Again, Sazed in TLM is a pretty good example that a Shard doesn't have to let his or her vote weigh more than anyone else on the planet. Assuming otherwise is that, an assumption.

Bringing the OP down to an even more local relatable level is the extent a person in a position of power or authority should interfere with someone else's life. I'm not a Shard, but I am a parent and have been a supervisor. I technically have the authority and power to say "my way or the highway" and to structure the environment as I see fit, not unlike a small-scale Shard but without the oddities of a specific Intent. Basically, the rules change based on the circumstance. I'm probably stating the obvious but a parent intervening for a 4 year-old is a much different prospect than for a 14 or 40 year old. Again, probably stating the obvious but I need to remember this, since just because I'm smarter, have more experience, or have the leader hat does not mean I'm necessarily right or that my vote or voice has greater weight than another - even if it feels like I'm debating with a four year-old, literal or otherwise.

To the broader topic, the degree the people governed by a Shard are consulted doesn't seem to have been brought up much (if it was, I apologize). I did see a lot of debate on the difficult in defining "good", "progress", or "best" which I think is for Roshar or the theoretical world to decide locally - until we want to get into Shardic international policy which I don't really want to at the moment. 

[ScadrianTank he/him]

15 hours ago, Duxredux said:

until we want to get into Shardic international policy which I don't really want to at the moment. 

Even if we wanted to, there's not really a good way to impose the same rules/guidelines on Shards because of their different Intents. Anything more detailed and specific than "Shards should(n't) interfere in mortal affairs a lot" is inapplicable. Best we could do is come up with a list of things no Shard should be allowed to do, I think. Prohibitions on the level of no smiting mortals or killing planets.

[Trusk'our he/him]

4 hours ago, ScadrianTank said:

Best we could do is come up with a list of things no Shard should be allowed to do, I think. Prohibitions on the level of no smiting mortals or killing planets.

Even then, good luck convincing a Shard like Ruin (assuming it's not subsumed into the whole of a bigger Shard, like Harmony- and even then. . .)