Cause of the Recreance

[askthepaperclip he/him]

I think Meg was referring to the statement that Szeth is not a surge binder. This is news to me as well. He does not have a nahel bond, and is certainly not a windrunner, but I don't think we have confirmation that what he is doing is not surge binding. (Apologies to the "szeth is a void binder" crowd) I think the argument still holds that darkness is not interested in szeth because something is different about his surgebinding, just not that it is because he is not surgebinding.

[The Count he/him]

I believe this comes from WoB when he said Szeth does not have a spren but is getting his powers from another source.

 

Of course Brandon did NOT say Szeth was not Surgebinding.

Edited November 12, 2013 by MadRand

[Meg]

I think Meg was referring to the statement that Szeth is not a surge binder. This is news to me as well. He does not have a nahel bond, and is certainly not a windrunner, but I don't think we have confirmation that what he is doing is not surge binding. (Apologies to the "szeth is a void binder" crowd) I think the argument still holds that darkness is not interested in szeth because something is different about his surgebinding, just not that it is because he is not surgebinding.

 

 

Exactly, thanks! 

 

Yes, we know that Szeth doesn't have a spren. But he uses Stormlight for his lashings (he inhales it from infused gems as does Kaladin). I don't know whether he could be called a "surgebinder" but the things he does are similar to those of Windrunners. And he refers to himself as somebody with the abilities of the Windrunners of old (totally paraphrased, I don't have TWoK at hand now). He must have knowledge about the Windrunners. So why should he refer to them, if there is no connection? Do you believe he was taught lies?

 

 

Edit: here's the quote from TWoK I-6  I referred to (emphasizes mine):

 

What would these men say if they knew that the man who emptied their chamber pot was a Shardbearer and a Surgebinder? A Windrunner, like the Radiants of old? The moment he summoned his Blade, his eyes would turn from dark green to pale—almost glowing—sapphire, a unique effect of his particular weapon.

 

 

(I added this for completeness.)

 

Edited November 12, 2013 by Meg

[Scott]

Szeth is using the surges of Gravity and Pressure, so I figure he should still be referred to as a Surgebinder.  

[Gloom he/him]

I don't know, I suppose that by definition he would be binding surges, but is that what a Surgebinder is? Just someone who can bind surges? If that's the definition you want to go with, then sure, Szeth binds surges.

 

I don't necessarily agree with that definition though because Szeth is the exception to the rule. Everyone else (except maybe the Heralds) needs to be bound to a spren to be a Surgebinder as far as we can tell. If the Heralds are the exception to the rule, and Szeth uses bindings the same way and from the same source as the Heralds, would it be fine then to call Szeth a Herald?

[hoser he/him]

I don't know, I suppose that by definition he would be binding surges, but is that what a Surgebinder is? Just someone who can bind surges? If that's the definition you want to go with, then sure, Szeth binds surges.

 

I don't necessarily agree with that definition though because Szeth is the exception to the rule. Everyone else (except maybe the Heralds) needs to be bound to a spren to be a Surgebinder as far as we can tell. If the Heralds are the exception to the rule, and Szeth uses bindings the same way and from the same source as the Heralds, would it be fine then to call Szeth a Herald?

We all get to choose our own definitions.  Ultimately, whatever Brandon says will prevail on this site.  For me, it's common sense that if lashings are an example of binding a surge, then Szeth is a surgebinder.  It's an ability, so how he gets it doesn't matter. 

 

Then we have different kinds of surgebinders: Nahel-bond surgebinders, Szeth-type surgebinders.  Darkness can infuse, but can he surgebind? If so, then we have Darkness-type surgebinders.  Some believe that Heralds will end up being surgebinders also.  If they do, it could be innate, from the Honorblades or some other means that we are ignorant of so far.  Some believe that storm-form Parshendi will turn out to be surgebinders.  With Heralds and Parshendi, that gives us five different types of surgebinder.  If the Honorblades provide surgebinding and both Szeth and Darkness have Honorblades, then we have only three kinds of surgebinder.  Does this make sense?

 

But if being a Herald provides surgebinding, that does not mean that surgebinding provides heraldry.  If Szeth has an Honorblade and the specialness of a Herald is entirely bound up in the sword, there might be an argument for Szeth being a Herald (although he still lacks the history and knowledge).  I think the Heralds are innately different.  So far, I can only point to the Heralds being immortal (assuming that Szeth isn't immortal) and Honor talking about forming the Heralds (Purelake vision) as differences, but I believe more differences will become known and I am not convinced that the Heralds aren't innately surgebinders. 

 

But this all fantasy until March and, as you well know, I know nothing. 

Edited November 12, 2013 by hoser

[Meg]

I don't know, I suppose that by definition he would be binding surges, but is that what a Surgebinder is? Just someone who can bind surges? If that's the definition you want to go with, then sure, Szeth binds surges.

.

There are some terms that didn't get definitions yet by Mr. Sanderson.

I for one will stay with "Someone who binds surges is a Surgebinder." as long as we are told otherwise by Mr. Sanderson.

.

We all get to choose our own definitions.  Ultimately, whatever Brandon says will prevail on this site.  For me, it's common sense that if lashings are an example of binding a surge, then Szeth is a surgebinder.  It's an ability, so how he gets it doesn't matter.

.

As I said, I agree.

.

 

Then we have different kinds of surgebinders: Nahel-bond surgebinders, Szeth-type surgebinders.  Darkness can infuse, but can he surgebind? If so, then we have Darkness-type surgebinders.  Some believe that Heralds will end up being surgebinders also.  If they do, it could be innate, from the Honorblades or some other means that we are ignorant of so far.  Some believe that storm-form Parshendi will turn out to be surgebinders.  With Heralds and Parshendi, that gives us five different types of surgebinder.  If the Honorblades provide surgebinding and both Szeth and Darkness have Honorblades, then we have only three kinds of surgebinder.  Does this make sense?

.

Yes

.

But if being a Herald provides surgebinding, that does not mean that surgebinding provides heraldry.

.

Again, I agree.

.

If Szeth has an Honorblade and the specialness of a Herald is entirely bound up in the sword, there might be an argument for Szeth being a Herald (although he still lacks the history and knowledge).  I think the Heralds are innately different.  So far, I can only point to the Heralds being immortal (assuming that Szeth isn't immortal)

.

I don't think he's immortal. But aside from that, the Heralds, too, aren't immortal in the meaning of being deathless, invulnerable. They can die. When they die they would be sent to Damnation. Oh wait, that's not sure. Kalak said in the Prelude:

.

When he died, he was sent back, no choice.

.

But does this happen now, after leaving their Honorblades, after leaving the Oathpact? I think: yes. But that's only my assumption.

.

edit: typo

Edited November 12, 2013 by Meg

[Gloom he/him]

Well, I'll agree that anyone who can bind surges is a surgebinder, but I won't agree that they are a Surgebinder. I believe the word is capitalized because it is referring to someone who holds a Nahel Bond. It is a title, not a set of abilities. You may note that when I type Surgebinder, I'm using the word as it appears most often in the text, capitalized. Just as anyone who announces their lord is a herald, but isn't a Herald. If Heralds use surges, which is almost a certainty, but they aren't getting those surges through a Nahel Bond, then they are surgebinding, but they still aren't Surgebinders. I believe that Szeth may consider himself a Surgebinder, but we have Word of Brandon that he lacks a Nahel Bond, so as far as I'm concerned he isn't one. I'm also fairly certain that Darkness is aware that Szeth doesn't meet his definition of a Surgebinder as well.

 

What the Parshendi do is not Surgebinding, and I have serious doubts that it is even surgebinding. They take forms, they bond with spren, but they have their own way of doing this that is foreign to what humans do.

[Meg]

Ahh, thanks for clarification! I admit that I didn't really pay much attention on the capitalization in your posts. Sorry for that. I will read your posts more carefully now.

[hoser he/him]

Well, I'll agree that anyone who can bind surges is a surgebinder, but I won't agree that they are a Surgebinder. I believe the word is capitalized because it is referring to someone who holds a Nahel Bond. It is a title, not a set of abilities. You may note that when I type Surgebinder, I'm using the word as it appears most often in the text, capitalized. Just as anyone who announces their lord is a herald, but isn't a Herald. If Heralds use surges, which is almost a certainty, but they aren't getting those surges through a Nahel Bond, then they are surgebinding, but they still aren't Surgebinders. I believe that Szeth may consider himself a Surgebinder, but we have Word of Brandon that he lacks a Nahel Bond, so as far as I'm concerned he isn't one. I'm also fairly certain that Darkness is aware that Szeth doesn't meet his definition of a Surgebinder as well.

 

What the Parshendi do is not Surgebinding, and I have serious doubts that it is even surgebinding. They take forms, they bond with spren, but they have their own way of doing this that is foreign to what humans do.

That is a clever way to distinguish the two.  In the text it is always capitalized, even when Szeth is thinking to himself and describing himself as a Surgebinder.  I infer that Brandon is not using the term as you are, but hey, it's a free forum.  You can use surgebinder to mean what Brandon apparently calls Surgebinder and mean something else by Surgebinder.  As always, I know nothing. 

 

WRT the Parshendi, I was just referring to those using storm-form in the theorized possibility that they are Surgebinders ("Surgebinder" Brandon-style, not Gloom-style). 

Edited November 12, 2013 by hoser

[Gloom he/him]

That is a clever way to distinguish the two.  In the text it is always capitalized, even when Szeth is thinking to himself and describing himself as a Surgebinder.  I infer that Brandon is not using the term as you are, but hey, it's a free forum.  You can use surgebinder to mean what Brandon apparently calls Surgebinder and mean something else by Surgebinder.  As always, I know nothing. 

 

This is true, but is this because Brandon considers Szeth to be a Surgebinder, or because Szeth considers himself to be a Surgebinder? I'm basing my assumption off of how Nohadon refers to Surgebinders, and what he would consider a Surgebinder since he lived in an era Pre-Knights Radiant. Szeth has never met a Surgebinder, and I don't think he figures he ever will. In his mind, since he lacks experience with Surgebinders, he identifies himself as one because he has access to surges and can accomplish what he believes to be the same effects.

[hoser he/him]

This is true, but is this because Brandon considers Szeth to be a Surgebinder, or because Szeth considers himself to be a Surgebinder? I'm basing my assumption off of how Nohadon refers to Surgebinders, and what he would consider a Surgebinder since he lived in an era Pre-Knights Radiant. Szeth has never met a Surgebinder, and I don't think he figures he ever will. In his mind, since he lacks experience with Surgebinders, he identifies himself as one because he has access to surges and can accomplish what he believes to be the same effects.

Well, I look at it two ways:  Brandon's usage and the underlying model. 

 

Regarding Brandon's usage, he capitalizes it everywhere and Szeth is one of our major sources of information.  So if Szeth uses it one way and there is no other evidence, it seems (please insert an inoffensive word hinting at "willful" or "arbitrary" here) to define it more narrowly than Brandon's in-world usage.  It could be that Brandon uses it as you do and Szeth is wrong. Assuming that without evidence when we can easily qualify some as Nahel Surgebinders seems like it could be confusing if Brandon uses the term as I surmise. 

 

As for Nohadon, he talks about Surgebinders needing to be better and how not all spren are as discerning as honorspren.  I infer that he thinks the honorspren-bound surgebinders are good enough.  If you agree with this, doesn't that imply that he is referring to only some of the Surgebinders when he says they need to be better?  How do you know that he wouldn't refer to Szeth as a Surgebinder?  If Heralds are also Surgebinders without spren, he apparently approves of them and isn't talking about them needing to be better.  All we know is that he has a problem with some non-honorspren Nahel Surgebinders.  What did I miss here?

 

As for the underlying model, I have certain assumptions.  I assume that Heralds can infuse and Surgebind using the same pattern as the corresponding Radiants (I think they have aditional powers, but that isn't relevant) without using spren.  I assume that the Heralds came to Roshar from the Tranquilline Halls, where there are no spren.  I infer then, that Surgebinding is an Honor or Honor-Cultivation magic system that they brought with them from the Tranquilline halls.  I guess that the Surges would be the same wherever they went, and on Roshar, the system expresses itself through spren in addition to however the Heralds do it.  So for me, it makes sense to refer to Surgebinding independantly from the local implementation (spren). 

 

TLDR: tomayto, tomahto, I don't agree for reasons that make sense to me, but I don't want to be offensive about it.

[askthepaperclip he/him]

To be fair, Nohadon also distinguishes between individuals being "Surgebinders" and being "Soulcasters." Does this mean Shallan/Jasnah is not a Surgebinder?

At first, I was going to use this as a point against what Gloom is saying. But now that I think about it, he might have something. If I recall, Brandon also distinguished between Surgebinding and Soulcasting in the promotional stuff during the lead up to the release of TWoK. Now, this could be referring to Soulcasting via fabrial, but since we have confirmation that all surgebinding effects can be replicated by fabrials, it seems unlikely to call out Soulcaster fabrial users distinctly from others. Is it possible that there is an entire magic system that has been in front of our noses this entire time that we have ignored?!

[Shardlet he/him]

I think the common distinction between soulcasting and surgbinding is that most everyobody has no idea about surgebinding, but most everybody likely has heard about soulcasting.  Likely, many of the people who know about surgebinding would not think soulcasting to be part of surgebinding because of the presence of the fabrials.  Think about it, you read about mystical abilities with no present analog and no apparent tie to anything phyisical and then you have this mystical ability which, by all appearances is tied directly to a device.  They would likely have seen things that were soulcast, perhaps even own something that was soulcast.  In such a case, making the connection between the two abilities would not be immediately likely.  Even accounts which tied soulcasting to surgebinding would likely be at least initially discounted because, after all, 'you know you need a soulcasting fabrial to soulcast and that means that the account is likely flawed and didn't account for the device's presence'.

[askthepaperclip he/him]

I get that modern people might be merely confused, but what about Nohadon?

 

 

"They have leaders," Nohadon said. "There are princes, kings, Soulcasters, Surgebinders. We never lack men and women who wish to lead"

 

Why would Nohadon make this distinction? I also recall several early quotes from Brandon talking about how the world of the SA had, among others, a "fundamental forces" magic system and a "transformation" magic system. Up to now we have assumed that Soulcasting is either fabrial based or surgebinding based. I wouldn't describe either of these as a "transformation based" magic system.

 

I see a few possibilities for what is going on:

 

1) There is an as-of-yet unrevealed magic system that is "transformation" based. I suppose it is possible that either Jasnah or Shallan is actually using this system, and not surgebinding. Maybe the cryptics are involved in this system in some way? They certainly don't act like any other spren we have seen. Maybe this is the unknown system that is eluded to in the Ars Arcanum?

 

2)  As Shardlet suggested, this is all a big misunderstanding and can be explained by ignorance/confusion/impreciseness on the part of our sources.

 

3) We just uncovered a massive world-building edit that Brandon tried to slip by us. I think this is actually the most likely. My guess is he indeed started out with Soulcasting as its own magic system, then later decided that it was redundant or too complicated and just incorporated it into Surgebinding and Fabrial Science. 

 

I think a good question for Brandon at the next signing would be "Why did Nohadon make a distinction between Surgebinders and Soulcasters?" If he says RAFO, then we know number 1 is probably true. He will probably straight up say it is number 2 is true. If he laughs and blushes, we know number 3 is true. 

[Daishi5]

Remember the ardents who were studying spren?  They talked about whether or not people had tried eating in Shadesmar.  I think that at least some of the soulcasters amongst the ardents are doing so through Shadesmar. 

 

If surgebinding and soulcasting are the same, are the ardents hiding surgebinders amongst their ranks?

[Argent he/him]

It's possible, but it's not necessarily the best explanation. I find it much more likely that Soulcasting fabrials really exist, and the ardentia really has most of them. Jasnah is, in my opinion, a fluke - the only one, or one of the few, who pretends to be using a real Soulcaster.

[Daishi5]

It's possible, but it's not necessarily the best explanation. I find it much more likely that Soulcasting fabrials really exist, and the ardentia really has most of them. Jasnah is, in my opinion, a fluke - the only one, or one of the few, who pretends to be using a real Soulcaster.

 

I think the fabrials exist, but I bet there are no real fabrials that can soulcast into anything.  

 

I know I am making an assumption, but I just think that since they seem to be taking trips to the cognitive realm, that they probably also know how it connects to the magic system that they are supposedly in control of.  

[Gloom he/him]

 

Q: Fabrials replicate Soulcasting abilities. Is it possible for fabrials to replicate all such Surgebinding abilities?

A: Yes, good question! Fabrials can replicate all of the Surgebinding abilities.

source

 

So, it seems to me that it would be possible to create a greater soulcasting fabrial. It may have required a greater level of skill to create though and they may not have been widely used outside of the Orders for that reason. I would speculate taht most of the really good fabrials used by the Radiants were held back like most of the Shards. Some of them, I would speculate further, were entrusted to people outside of the Orders, or kept by fallen Radiants after the Recreance which is how they eventually ended up in the hands of the Ardentia.

[marianmi]

When the Windrunners severed their bonds in the day of recreance, (some of) their spren probably started to float on the winds...

Now, what if (some of) the Lightweavers and Elsecallers spren were trapped in some of the soulcasting fabrials, at the day of recreance?

I would guess that if they can soulcast everything or just one thing would depend on the type and cut of gem they are trapped in, and the metal frame...

[Gloom he/him]

Soulcasters have their gemstones replaced all the time.

[marianmi]

Soulcasters have their gemstones replaced all the time.

 

I don't think you can do magic with just gemstone + stormlight...

[Gloom he/him]

I think you misunderstand me. A fabrial clock for instance, has a spren trapped in a gemstone. It uses a fixed amount of power and apparently lasts a very long time. But when the gem breaks, if that even happens, the spren should be able to escape the broken gemstone, requiring an artifabrian to repair the clock by trapping another spren in the appropriate type and size gem and placing it back into the fabrial.

 

A fabrial Soulcaster has its gemstones replaced regularly. So it is unlikely that their are spren trapped within the gemstones on a Soulcaster. We don't have any direct examples of anyone replacing gemstones on a real soulcasting fabrial, but it was inferred that it didn't require a great deal of preparation or spren trapping procedures. It is even inferred that the gemstone doesn't need to be attached to the fabrial for it to work (how do you mount a head sized emerald to something you wear on your hand?). In these cases I would suspect that the fabrial user would need to keep the fabrial in contact with the gemstone while soulcasting. Never once when anyone is talking about soulcasting fabrials is it inferred that spren need to be trapped inside the gemstone for it to function. It could even be argued that the opposite is inferred when Navani says that modern fabrial science works nothing like fabrials created pre-Recreance.

[marianmi]

I understood you perfectly. But I believe magic works in a similar way. It does not matter if it's "old type" or "new type", there should be similar rules, and similar ingredients.

 

I have a theory for example that in "old" fabrials, the KR's spren were "voluntarily" a part of. E.g. an elsecaller might not go into a fight, but his spren might go into a soulcaster, and a windrunner could take that soulcaster and use it. Or the plate is like a fabrial, with the KR's spren "inhabiting" it while fighting, and the etched glyphs on it act like the wireframe in soulcasters. The idea here is that even old fabrials made use of a spren.

 

On the other hand, I totally get your argument about gemstones being replaced regularly. I have a feeling soulcasters are now very similar to plates... and maybe something similar that prevent plates from glowing is what causes soulcasters not to soulcast everything?

Edited November 17, 2013 by marianmi

[The Count he/him]

Bear in mind we have not seen any definite examples of someone using a soulcaster in the TWoK.

 

There are three characters we see soulcasting:

 

Jasnah - does not even have a soulcaster.

Shallan - Does not use a soulcaster

Random interlude guy - soulcasts a wall to smoke (seems to have a single use soulcaster)

 

We only have word of mouth from Jasnah & Shallan and Kabsal regarding the action of soulcasting with Fabrials.

 

I suspect that we have to differenciate modern Fabrials (which include single function soulcasters) from ancient artifacts (Plate, Blade, universal soulcasters).

 

We know that Plate and Blade do not operate in the same way as modern fabrials. I feel that the inevitable logic is that 'ancient' soulcasters have more in common with plate/blade than they do with fabrials. 

Edited November 18, 2013 by MadRand