Vin at the WoA

[name_here]

I could kinda see it working on some of the Shards, not by mutual destruction but by tossing a highly destructive Intent into the mix and causing it to fragment, assuming that the Intent comes along for the ride instead of the power reverting to raw power of creation and then getting aspected to the receiving Shard. However, I don't see that working on the already relatively hostile Shards. It would be extraordinarily useless against Ruin, I would think.

 

Ruin and Preservation were particularly antithetical to each other, so I don't think the other Shards would necessarily cause mutual destruction on contact.

[Vortaan]

It could be that Odium had to enter a pact with Honor because they are antithetical to each other. I think that name_here's idea is probably a better explanation of what I meant. I also agree that Shards with a more negative Intent, like Ruin, might not be able to be shattered this way. However, we haven't exactly seen any negative Intent Shards be shattered yet, either.

 

Also Darnam, you're assuming that because Devotion's power is at a higher level than the small scrap of Odium, that on balance it would cancel it out. What if it's more like a slow poison or chemical reaction? The small amount doesn't matter then, once the reaction is started it might not be able to be stopped. Perhaps in that situation, all you have time to do is make some Splinters and prepare for the end.

[Oudeis]

Also Darnam, you're assuming that because Devotion's power is at a higher level than the small scrap of Odium, that on balance it would cancel it out. What if it's more like a slow poison or chemical reaction?

 

Your theories all seem to boil down to one assumption that I don't understand or accept: Odium destroys the power of other Shards, but other Shards don't destroy the power of Odium. In the case of this "poisoning" you're saying that there's something special about Odium's power. If you put it into Devotion, the scrap will be enough to harm Devotion, but Devotion will be able to do absolutely nothing to harm that scrap. You're saying that the powers are antithetical enough that Odium would harm Devotion, but they aren't so antithetical that Devotion would harm Odium. Well, which is it?

 

You might end up being right, I can't prove you wrong. I'm just saying, if we learn that Odium's master plan to rule the world is "I was made with the power to simply win," it will be very boring and trite, so I hope it doesn't happen. I want it to be more interesting and unique than that.

[Vortaan]

Your theories all seem to boil down to one assumption that I don't understand or accept: Odium destroys the power of other Shards, but other Shards don't destroy the power of Odium. In the case of this "poisoning" you're saying that there's something special about Odium's power. If you put it into Devotion, the scrap will be enough to harm Devotion, but Devotion will be able to do absolutely nothing to harm that scrap. You're saying that the powers are antithetical enough that Odium would harm Devotion, but they aren't so antithetical that Devotion would harm Odium. Well, which is it?

 

You might end up being right, I can't prove you wrong. I'm just saying, if we learn that Odium's master plan to rule the world is "I was made with the power to simply win," it will be very boring and trite, so I hope it doesn't happen. I want it to be more interesting and unique than that.

 

I'm not saying his power is different, I'm saying that his Intent is in general something more... hrm. I guess the word would be inclusive, but I want something better. Insidious? Hatred, especially self-hatred, is a very sneaky thing. It's very very easy to engage in, it's very easy to miss, and it's very easy to make decisions based off of it.

 

One of my main ideas of how you shatter a Shard is to make it so the Intent no longer aligns with the holder's self-image. I don't think Odium is more powerful than other Shards, just that his very particular Intent is much more versatile than say, Preservation or Ruin. For that matter I really think Cultivation has a lot of flexibility, as does probably Endowment (although I also suspect the nature of Endowment ends up with him/her being less powerful at any given time than other Shards). But like your mist spirit theory, this might be one where we agree to disagree until we get some more proof one way or another.

 

EDIT: Just occured to me, sorry, but I also think the Vin/Ruin conflict is an awful example of how to shatter a Shard, since shattering apparently results in the Shard being unable to be picked up again. It's not a matter of opposites, it's a matter of changing viewpoints. 

Edited January 2, 2014 by Vortaan

[Oudeis]

I'm not saying his power is different, I'm saying that his Intent is in general something more... hrm. I guess the word would be inclusive, but I want something better. Insidious?

 

But at the end of the day, you're still just saying that Odium's plan is based on the idea that he was simply made with the ability to kill Shards, that no other Shard has. He didn't think of anything clever or go through anything difficult. Whether it's a difference in his power or his Intent, he's the only Shard that came with a "kill other Shards" button. Like I said, I can't prove you wrong. I just hope Mr. Sanderson has a more creative plan than that in mind.

 

I agree that the Vin/Ruin is a terrible example of how to shatter a shard, since it didn't result in the shattering of a shard. See, we can agree on things.

[Vortaan]

But at the end of the day, you're still just saying that Odium's plan is based on the idea that he was simply made with the ability to kill Shards, that no other Shard has. He didn't think of anything clever or go through anything difficult. Whether it's a difference in his power or his Intent, he's the only Shard that came with a "kill other Shards" button. Like I said, I can't prove you wrong. I just hope Mr. Sanderson has a more creative plan than that in mind.

 

I agree that the Vin/Ruin is a terrible example of how to shatter a shard, since it didn't result in the shattering of a shard. See, we can agree on things.

 

I don't know, creatively working within the limitation placed by the system sounds exactly like a Sanderson plot. As name_here points out though, I bet the method I described wouldn't do a whole heck of a lot to Ruin, or some other negative Intent shards.

[Oudeis]

I don't know, creatively working within the limitation placed by the system sounds exactly like a Sanderson plot. As name_here points out though, I bet the method I described wouldn't do a whole heck of a lot to Ruin, or some other negative Intent shards.

 

How is that "working within the limitation of the system"? It's breaking the system by giving one person a special exception that works simply because plot needs it to.

 

Are you assuming then that Dominion was a "positive" Intent shard?

[Vortaan]

How is that "working within the limitation of the system"? It's breaking the system by giving one person a special exception that works simply because plot needs it to.

 

Are you assuming then that Dominion was a "positive" Intent shard?

 

I equate it a lot to being an Allomancer. A Coinshot has an innate advantage in long range combat, but he's no better at taking a hit than anyone else. A Slider is going to be able to do crazy dodging, but that might not help him very much with convincing someone to relax. All Shards being equal in power does not equate to all Shards being equal in capabilities, which we've seen. Cultivation is better at predicting the future than Honor, and Ruin could talk to his minions while Preservation was better at seeing what they were thinking.

 

I'm actually on the fence on Dominion. I think it could probably be a neutral-Intent. Dominion over others isn't always a bad thing, look at any benevolent king in history. The definition of the word is simply sovereignty or control. That leaves a LOT of room for interpretation. You can make a pretty good argument for Raoden follow the Intent of both Dominion and Devotion, actually.

 

EDIT: I could also make a decent theory that adding hatred to a system based on Dominion could result in shattering it, depending upon how the original holder viewed his Intent.

Edited January 3, 2014 by Vortaan

[Wonko the Sane]

There has to be more to it than acting against your own Intent. In the Vin vs. Ruin example -- which I think we have all agreed is a prime example of how not to Splinter a Shard -- Vin does something very anti-Preservation, and while it ends up killing Vin, Preservation comes out of it fully intact.

However there is the question of what would have happened if Sazed hadn't been there to pick the Shards up.

No, Roshar does not have the same problem. There are some differences going on. (One reason being that the spren are far more extensive on Roshar, and provide something of a "release valve." The Seons and the Skaze on Sel are not numerous enough to fulfill a similar function. Though, of course, that's only one part of the puzzle. Raw power is dangerous.

It's one reason everyone should be thankful Kelsier was around on Scadrial.

Perhaps this is all that's required to Splinter a Shard: to leave it without a guiding consciousness. Certainly, every Splintered Shard we've seen thus far is also dead.

[Oudeis]

Entirely possible.

 

I feel like we on the Fora give too much credit to an Intent. It is, at the end of the day, as Leras proved, nothing more than a strong, STRONG suggestion. A truly strong personality can overthrow it without breaking it.

 

It isn't some obstinate, definable, law-of-physics hard-and-fast rule. Even after millenia, it can be overcome without Splintering.

 

Just my two cents, I suppose.

[Vortaan]

Entirely possible.

 

I feel like we on the Fora give too much credit to an Intent. It is, at the end of the day, as Leras proved, nothing more than a strong, STRONG suggestion. A truly strong personality can overthrow it without breaking it.

 

It isn't some obstinate, definable, law-of-physics hard-and-fast rule. Even after millenia, it can be overcome without Splintering.

 

Just my two cents, I suppose.

 

Wait, how do you figure? Leras had to jump through a ton of hoops to go against his Intent, and he did so while working within the confines of his Intent. Unless you are counting setting the whole thing up as against Preservation?

[Shardlet]

I think a good example of Preservation working outside of his intent is when the mist-spirit stabbed Elend.  Although it could be argued that he did it in order to work to preserve Ruin's prison, The action had no direct effect on that goal.  He was intending to influence Vin, but that outcome was by no means assured.  Indeed, he failed to do so. 'Well,' you might say, 'the Lerasium was there as a backup.'  Yes, but again, in order to get Elend to burn it, he could only try to communicate to Vin, and convince her, that it would save Elend...possibly. 

Edited January 6, 2014 by Shardlet

[Moogle]

I think a good example of Preservation working outside of his intent is when the mist-spirit stabbed Elend.  Although it could be argued that he did it in order to work to preserve Ruin's prison, The action had no direct effect on that goal. 

 

When following your Intent, I'm not so sure it's required that your actions have a direct effect. Ruin could apparently build up things if they lead to greater destruction later. I think in this case, if Leras intended to preserve Ruin's prison by stabbing Elend, then that is sufficient to allow him to do that.

[Oudeis]

Leras was winning. He and Ati were in perfect balance, and that meant nothing changed. That's the definition of Preservation's Intent. Leras managed to fight his Intent to change that, to risk ultimate destruction in the cause of creating something able to grow and evolve. All to change a scenario that was literally his own victory.

[Moogle]

Leras was winning. He and Ati were in perfect balance, and that meant nothing changed. That's the definition of Preservation's Intent. Leras managed to fight his Intent to change that, to risk ultimate destruction in the cause of creating something able to grow and evolve. All to change a scenario that was literally his own victory.

 

So you'd argue each Shard is utilitarian, then? Each Shard wants to maximize their particular Intent in the world? My conception is more that the Shards just demand their holder always act in accord with their Intent, and that so long as you do that, you're good to go, even if you know you're not acting in the best possible way to get your Intent out there.

 

In my view, Leras could very easily upset the power balance between him and Ruin so long as he was focused on something like preserving humanity's rate of evolution.

 

And, this would be why Leras and Ati could create at all. They 'tricked' their Shards by thinking "By creating humans, I'll be able to destroy them/By creating humans, I'll be able to preserve them" rather than consider that they were already at a perfect equilibrium pre-Scadrial, with everything already ruined (because there was nothing there) and everything was preserved (because there was nothing there and nothing was coming into being).

Edited January 7, 2014 by Moogle

[Vortaan]

Leras was winning. He and Ati were in perfect balance, and that meant nothing changed. That's the definition of Preservation's Intent. Leras managed to fight his Intent to change that, to risk ultimate destruction in the cause of creating something able to grow and evolve. All to change a scenario that was literally his own victory.

 

We do have WoB that how someone views their Intent makes a difference. Perfect stasis might not have been how Leras viewed Preservation. Actually, without people or some kind of meaning to the world, what exactly would he be Preserving?

[Shardlet]

And, this would be why Leras and Ati could create at all. They 'tricked' their Shards by thinking "By creating humans, I'll be able to destroy them/By creating humans, I'll be able to preserve them" rather than consider that they were already at a perfect equilibrium pre-Scadrial, with everything already ruined (because there was nothing there) and everything was preserved (because there was nothing there and nothing was coming into being).

 

Their bargain could have been rather early in their shard careers.  That being the case, they would not have been so consumed by their intents that they could have used the power outside of the scope of their shards' intents, similar to how Vin was able to directly act to kill Ati. 

[Oudeis]

So you'd argue each Shard is utilitarian, then? Each Shard wants to maximize their particular Intent in the world? My conception is more that the Shards just demand their holder always act in accord with their Intent, and that so long as you do that, you're good to go, even if you know you're not acting in the best possible way to get your Intent out there.

 

In my view, Leras could very easily upset the power balance between him and Ruin so long as he was focused on something like preserving humanity's rate of evolution.

 

And, this would be why Leras and Ati could create at all. They 'tricked' their Shards by thinking "By creating humans, I'll be able to destroy them/By creating humans, I'll be able to preserve them" rather than consider that they were already at a perfect equilibrium pre-Scadrial, with everything already ruined (because there was nothing there) and everything was preserved (because there was nothing there and nothing was coming into being).

 

I agree with very little of this, particularly how you interpret what I said.

 

My underlying point is, I do not believe that Intents are as all-consuming as they are often portrayed. They are strong compulsions, yes, and taking any single action to directly contradict it (like Preservation attacking and killing Ruin) are the next thing to impossible. I simply see people post their thoughts here on the forum taking it for granted that an Intent is the first, last, and only factor in a Shard's powers, actions, thoughts and deeds, and I don't feel such an all-embracing idea is supported by the text. I think that making the sixteen most powerful beings in the cosmere such one-dimensional beings would make for a very boring story.

[Wonko the Sane]

I agree with very little of this, particularly how you interpret what I said.

 

My underlying point is, I do not believe that Intents are as all-consuming as they are often portrayed. They are strong compulsions, yes, and taking any single action to directly contradict it (like Preservation attacking and killing Ruin) are the next thing to impossible. I simply see people post their thoughts here on the forum taking it for granted that an Intent is the first, last, and only factor in a Shard's powers, actions, thoughts and deeds, and I don't feel such an all-embracing idea is supported by the text. I think that making the sixteen most powerful beings in the cosmere such one-dimensional beings would make for a very boring story.

 

On the contrary, I think it makes them a new and very refreshing kind of god. Far too many fantasy gods are just humans with epic super powers. True, the Shards are less interesting as characters, but you have to bear in mind that they're not entirely characters at all. They're more of a hybrid between characters and setting.

 

That said, while I think the Intent is more imposing than you believe, I do agree that it is far from the all-consuming need that others make it out to be - at least at first. Ati does seem to confirm that, after a while, one does in fact completely become a slave to one's Intent. And given that, apart from Sazed, every known Shardholder has held their Shard for as long as Ati held his, the "one-dimensional being" theory seems like a fairly good approximation.

[Oudeis]

On the contrary, I think it makes them a new and very refreshing kind of god. Far too many fantasy gods are just humans with epic super powers. True, the Shards are less interesting as characters, but you have to bear in mind that they're not entirely characters at all. They're more of a hybrid between characters and setting.

 

That said, while I think the Intent is more imposing than you believe, I do agree that it is far from the all-consuming need that others make it out to be - at least at first. Ati does seem to confirm that, after a while, one does in fact completely become a slave to one's Intent. And given that, apart from Sazed, every known Shardholder has held their Shard for as long as Ati held his, the "one-dimensional being" theory seems like a fairly good approximation.

 

Except your argument falls flat because those are not the two only options. No one is saying that, unless they are Obsessive-Compulsive Deities, they have to be "just human," we've seen that they're not. Yes, they are "setting," as you say (and I am going to steal that particular phrasing and use it a lot from now on, I really really like it. It really does convey an aspect of a Shard in a clearer way than I've ever seen). They're a force, like gravity or atomic bonds. They obey and are subject to certain laws of nature. I personally have enough faith in Mr. Sanderson to assume that he'll manage to find a way to portray them that isn't a one-dimensional obsession with a single word, yet is as epic as a Shard demands, not simply a super-powerful person.

 

I hesitate to assume that Ati's reaction to Ruin is indicative of a larger trend, without someone expressly stating that it is so. Consider the following alternative explanation: Ati broke and went insane. We know from the letter (and presumably trust as true) that Ati was once a kind and generous man. It's been speculated that he was assigned Ruin expressly in the hopes that he'd blunt such a vicious Intent. What if that was his problem? What if he fought directly against the Intent for so long, and was eventually driven insane by it? Perhaps others, like Leras with Preservation, were more naturally in tune with their Intents, and were able to direct them a bit.

 

Think of it like a wild stallion. If you stand in a field and try to simply tackle the horse to the ground, it'll trample you, and then go on its way unchecked. But if you can get on it's back, if you're all right with letting it run in the direction it wants to... you can subtly direct it, influence it, and remain yourself.

[Wonko the Sane]

Except your argument falls flat because those are not the two only options. No one is saying that, unless they are Obsessive-Compulsive Deities, they have to be "just human," we've seen that they're not. Yes, they are "setting," as you say (and I am going to steal that particular phrasing and use it a lot from now on, I really really like it. It really does convey an aspect of a Shard in a clearer way than I've ever seen). They're a force, like gravity or atomic bonds. They obey and are subject to certain laws of nature. I personally have enough faith in Mr. Sanderson to assume that he'll manage to find a way to portray them that isn't a one-dimensional obsession with a single word, yet is as epic as a Shard demands, not simply a super-powerful person.

 

I hesitate to assume that Ati's reaction to Ruin is indicative of a larger trend, without someone expressly stating that it is so. Consider the following alternative explanation: Ati broke and went insane. We know from the letter (and presumably trust as true) that Ati was once a kind and generous man. It's been speculated that he was assigned Ruin expressly in the hopes that he'd blunt such a vicious Intent. What if that was his problem? What if he fought directly against the Intent for so long, and was eventually driven insane by it? Perhaps others, like Leras with Preservation, were more naturally in tune with their Intents, and were able to direct them a bit.

 

Think of it like a wild stallion. If you stand in a field and try to simply tackle the horse to the ground, it'll trample you, and then go on its way unchecked. But if you can get on it's back, if you're all right with letting it run in the direction it wants to... you can subtly direct it, influence it, and remain yourself.

 

Hmm... I hadn't actually thought of that. I think I'm still going to hold with the idea that all of the Shards are now as Intent-driven as Ruin, but I definitely recognize that that's now just a gut instinct of mine, rather than an actual deduction.

[Oudeis]

Hmm... I hadn't actually thought of that. I think I'm still going to hold with the idea that all of the Shards are now as Intent-driven as Ruin, but I definitely recognize that that's now just a gut instinct of mine, rather than an actual deduction.

 

That's an entirely valid stance to take. I myself am rather obsessively convinced of certain facts about internal mental allomancy that I acknowledge have absolutely zero factual basis. Feel free to click the links in my sig if you're curious.

 

I respect your position, and if you turn out to be correct, I hereby entitle you to one hearty "I told you so," at my expense.

[DocHoliday]

So noted Darnam

 

Wonko you may be the first person (I have observed) to get Darnham to at least accept another point of view.

 

Absolutely no disrespect intended Darnam, you're a stubborn bronco but sometimes that's what 17th Shard needs. Upvote included to both of you.

[Oudeis]

So noted Darnam

 

Wonko you may be the first person (I have observed) to get Darnham to at least accept another point of view.

 

Absolutely no disrespect intended Darnam, you're a stubborn bronco but sometimes that's what 17th Shard needs. Upvote included to both of you.

 

That's actually a pretty common stance for me... once someone admits "I personally believe this even though I can't prove it to be true," I give them more-or-less this exact same response. The times I get bull-headed are when people say, "I believe this, also it's entirely correct and proven true despite a lack of evidence," and I try to point out that it's far from proven, and they simply restate their opinion again as though it's fact.

 

"You know how I know it? Because I really think it!" -Karen Walker. (I can't find the exact quote, it may be paraphrased)

[18th Shard]

They may be only allowed to act according to their intent, but there is a bit of wiggle room there. the how of it isn't controlled directly. It's like their Intent is gravity. They have to go down, but how they get down is up to them, How fast, where to land, what to land on.