The Legendary Stubborness of the Stonewards

[DrakeMarshall he/him]

I go for two months without making a new theory, and today I make three. Well, here we go, anyway. This one will be shorter and more straightforward than the other two.

 

According to Words of Radiance, one of the ten orders did not participate in the recreance.

Quote

This act of great villainy went beyond the impudence which had hitherto been ascribed to the orders; as the fighting was particularly intense at this time, many attributed this act to a sense of inherent betrayal; and after they withdrew, about two thousand made assault upon them, destroying much of the membership; but this was only nine of the ten, as one said they would not abandon their arms and flee, but instead entertained great subterfuge at the expense of the other nine.

 

According to Words of Radiance, the stonewards were very much like their patron, Talenel. In particular, they were steadfast and unrelenting.

Quote

Now, as each order was thus matched to the nature and temperament of the Herald it named patron, there was none more archetypal of this than the Stonewards, who followed after Talenelat'Elin, Stonesinew, Herald of War: they thought it a point of virtue to exemplify resolve, strength, and dependability. Alas, they took less care for imprudent practice of their stubbornness, even in the face of proven error.

 

According to the prologue of the Way of Kings, Talenel was left bound in the oathpact when the other nine walked away.

 

It makes sense that the order that is full of stubborn people who would fight to the bloody end would be the ones who don't participate in the recreance. There is also a certain elegant symmetry to the stonewards being the order that did not participate in the recreance, and Talenel being the herald that did not forsake the oathpact many years before the recreance.

 

This is all just speculation of coarse... But in the absence of more information, I think that the stonewards are a pretty good candidate for being the order that didn't participate in the recreance.

[DeTess she/her]

Nice theory. However, this has been discussed before: 

 

The conclusion was that it most likely aren't the stonewards, as in one of Dalinars visions he watched them take part in the recreance.

[DrakeMarshall he/him]

Interesting... Krandacth and I arrived at the conclusion it was the stonewards using different pieces of evidence. I hadn't even thought about how they might have created the stone shamans.

Regardless, a quote in that thread does confirm that the stonewards participated in the recreance. That pretty much invalidates this theory.

[Xaklys he/him]

10 hours ago, Drake Marshall said:

Regardless, a quote in that thread does confirm that the stonewards participated in the recreance. That pretty much invalidates this theory.

Could you maybe find the quote for me?  I would really appreciate it if you, or anyone could.  I agree with the Stonewards being the ones who didn't take part in the Recreance but if that is incorrect, I would like to know because I am working on a Recreance theory and I would like to have all of the information that I can get.  Thanks in advance!

[Spoolofwhool]

30 minutes ago, Xaklys said:

Could you maybe find the quote for me?  I would really appreciate it if you, or anyone could.  I agree with the Stonewards being the ones who didn't take part in the Recreance but if that is incorrect, I would like to know because I am working on a Recreance theory and I would like to have all of the information that I can get.  Thanks in advance!

The evidence is mainly that in Dalinar's vision, he saw Stonewards abandon their shards along with Windrunners. While it's possible, that as people said, some Stonewards didn't participate, and this was their subterfuge, personally I disagree. 

[Xaklys he/him]

32 minutes ago, Spoolofwhool said:

The evidence is mainly that in Dalinar's vision, he saw Stonewards abandon their shards along with Windrunners. While it's possible, that as people said, some Stonewards didn't participate, and this was their subterfuge, personally I disagree. 

I'll reread the vision, I think I remember the mention of the Stonewards but I have only read the books once a piece so a look over wouldn't hurt.  I think there are too many things that point toward the Order that didn't fall being the Stonewards (with the spirit of the stones that Szeth mentions and how they are all that remains of the fallen Knights Radiant), but I could be wrong.  

[Spoolofwhool]

1 minute ago, Xaklys said:

I'll reread the vision, I think I remember the mention of the Stonewards but I have only read the books once a piece so a look over wouldn't hurt.  I think there are too many things that point toward the Order that didn't fall being the Stonewards (with the spirit of the stones that Szeth mentions and how they are all that remains of the fallen Knights Radiant), but I could be wrong.  

If we were to weigh the evidence between the Stonewards giving up their oaths and the Stonewards being the group which didn't, what we would get is evidence which directly states that we see Stonewards give up their shards and oaths and evidence that we have a group with a similar name and have an entity in their religion which has been vague described and which could be one related to the ones bound to the other group or could be one of the other types of which there are many. Looking at this, this is why I think the Stonewards are not the group which didn't give up their oaths. 

[Xaklys he/him]

38 minutes ago, Spoolofwhool said:

If we were to weigh the evidence between the Stonewards giving up their oaths and the Stonewards being the group which didn't, what we would get is evidence which directly states that we see Stonewards give up their shards and oaths and evidence that we have a group with a similar name and have an entity in their religion which has been vague described and which could be one related to the ones bound to the other group or could be one of the other types of which there are many. Looking at this, this is why I think the Stonewards are not the group which didn't give up their oaths. 

I can give you that, like I said, I will reread the vision and see what I think.  I don't have a problem being wrong, especially since it will further narrow down the Orders that did break their Oaths.

[goody153]

Quote

It makes sense that the order that is full of stubborn people who would fight to the bloody end would be the ones who don't participate in the recreance.

Rofl(idk why i  find this funny) but yeah nice theory. It would clash with the stonewards+windrunners leaving their shards but it makes sense if there were stonewards who didn't give up their shards.

[Gilly]

On 10/8/2016 at 2:27 AM, goody153 said:

Rofl(idk why i  find this funny) but yeah nice theory. It would clash with the stonewards+windrunners leaving their shards but it makes sense if there were stonewards who didn't give up their shards.

I always thought it was the Skybreakers that didn't give up their oaths as Nail has been running around trying to stop the reformation of the other orders and there appears to be many members of the Skybreakers.  Wasn't there a theory about Shallan's brother seeking them out? 

Edited October 10, 2016 by Gilly

[Darkness he/him]

3 hours ago, Gilly said:

I always thought it was the Skybreakers that didn't give up their oaths as Nail has been running around trying to stop the reformation of the other orders and there appears to be many members of the Skybreakers.  Wasn't there a theory about Shallan's brother seeking them out? 

This is correct, but many people think that contemporary 'Skybreakers' are more of a vigilante group / secret society than actual surgebinders. Probably because if actual magical abilities were ever shown by these skybreakers (glowing, healing, gravitation and division), they would be remarked upon. What we actually see is a whole bunch of people (even Teft's believers) that think that Radiants had some kind of vague, mythical powers that are completely extinct and haven't been seen in the modern world.

Edited October 10, 2016 by Darkness

[Argel he/him]

Good grief people!! How many times do I have to throw this suggestion out there. Quoting from the same thread mentioned above:

Quote

Where was the subterfuge though? The Skybreakers seem too well known. They would have had to stay hidden long enough to avoid showing up in the history books (or I suppose purge all records back then so no mention of them survived, but that seems too far fetched).

I will throw one out there -- what if the great subterfuge was having most of their order participate in the Recreance -- performing the same betrayal as the rest?

Edited October 10, 2016 by Argel

[DrakeMarshall he/him]

Purging records actually is a real possibility... Because the heirocracy may well have purged the histories of certain events.

[marianmi]

Here we go again

This is one of the questions that can easily go either way

Personally, rather than the great subterfuge being "some stonewards will drop their shards", I think that this is a small subterfuge, with the great subterfuge being "the rest of the order will go to Shinovar, where you can't see spren". Also, indeed, the stonewards spren looks like stone (if you check the ars arcanum tables) - the skybreaker spren should look like smoke.

But I find so many clues to the stonewardens being the ones that did not take part in the recreance, that I actually think BS is trying to trick us :))

[Blightsong he/him]

3 hours ago, marianmi said:

Here we go again

This is one of the questions that can easily go either way

Personally, rather than the great subterfuge being "some stonewards will drop their shards", I think that this is a small subterfuge, with the great subterfuge being "the rest of the order will go to Shinovar, where you can't see spren". Also, indeed, the stonewards spren looks like stone (if you check the ars arcanum tables) - the skybreaker spren should look like smoke.

But I find so many clues to the stonewardens being the ones that did not take part in the recreance, that I actually think BS is trying to trick us :))

Where in the Ars arcanum tables does it say that stoneward Spren should look like stone?

[Spoolofwhool]

31 minutes ago, Blightsong said:

Where in the Ars arcanum tables does it say that stoneward Spren should look like stone?

I think he's pulling from the Ten Essence table, soulcasting properties. Maybe? Because Stone is the property of 9, Tanat, and Smoke is the property of 2, Nan. I don't see how this follows at all since Blood is the property of 6, Shash, and I don't think Pattern looks like blood. I suppose it does hold, very vaguely, for 1, Jez, which is Air, 4, Vev, which is Crystal, and 7, Betab, which is Oil, since Syl is kind of looking like air, Wyndle has crystal studs  and Ivory could look like oil? This honestly very weak to me, but the only connections I could find. As such, I don't think it really is necessary that Stoneward spren look like stone and Skybreaker spren look like smoke. 

[marianmi]

47 minutes ago, Blightsong said:

Where in the Ars arcanum tables does it say that stoneward Spren should look like stone?

It doesn't say exactly, but the soulcasting properties from Ars Arcanum:

http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/stormlightarchive/images/2/29/Ars_arcanum.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130619070807

seem to sometimes fit with spren appearance: e.g. "translucent gas, air" for windrunners or "oil" for elsecallers. Stonewards have "stone" in their names, and soulcasting property is "rock, stone", so I think their spren should look like a rockspren or stonespren.

EDIT: ninja'ed by @Spoolofwhool

Skybreakers: since they can also fly, it would make sense to have a spren that can fly with them too, so smoke or fog (Syl-like but non-translucent) fits pretty well.

Lightweavers: yeah Pattern does not look like anything

Edited October 13, 2016 by marianmi

[Seeker861]

What if the Bondsmiths are the Oder that didn't betray their Oaths? Presumably the Stormfather has been bonded before but he appears to be fine meaning his former Radiant did not break their Oaths. It would also be much easier to hide the fact that three Knights kept their Oaths as opposed to hundreds or thousands.  

[DrakeMarshall he/him]

Bondsmiths are a legitimate candidate too, yes. It fits their temperament a little bit as well, since they bind things together and wouldn't want the radiants to fall apart.

 

Although the cover-up for just three might not be all that easy, now that I think about it. Since there are only three of them, those three are under close scrutiny.

 

It might actually be easier for a different order to let most of their members abandon their oaths while the core of the order secretly keeps their oaths. Even other members of the order would probably not know that some of them didn't abandon the oaths.

 

Still, we shall see what Sanderson does with this in the future.

[marianmi]

Maybe the great subterfuge was not employed by the order itself, but by Brandon Sanderson - he's written that vision specifically with Stonewards to trick us

[Eki]

6 hours ago, Seeker861 said:

What if the Bondsmiths are the Oder that didn't betray their Oaths? Presumably the Stormfather has been bonded before but he appears to be fine meaning his former Radiant did not break their Oaths. It would also be much easier to hide the fact that three Knights kept their Oaths as opposed to hundreds or thousands.  

It's also possible he wasn't bonded at that particular time, or that spren (especially powerful spren like the Stormfather) can survive oathbreaking.

[Yata he/him]

10 hours ago, Seeker861 said:

What if the Bondsmiths are the Oder that didn't betray their Oaths? Presumably the Stormfather has been bonded before but he appears to be fine meaning his former Radiant did not break their Oaths. It would also be much easier to hide the fact that three Knights kept their Oaths as opposed to hundreds or thousands.  

Pattern said in WoR that The Stormfather was one of the few Spren who survived the Recreance, this actually point as "He suffered the Oathbreak but he remained Alive"

[Rasarr she/her]

15 hours ago, Seeker861 said:

What if the Bondsmiths are the Oder that didn't betray their Oaths? Presumably the Stormfather has been bonded before but he appears to be fine meaning his former Radiant did not break their Oaths. 

I would agree with this train of thoughts if it wasn't for the fact that Stormfather is, for one, an extremely powerful spren, and for other, he's implied to have merged with Tanavast's Cognitive Shadow, which would give him an additional "oompf" that could let him survive the Recreance even though he was (apparently) bonded at the time. This being said, I do agree that it'd be easy for three people to hide their oath-keeping, though it would also be easier for other Radiants to check whether the Bondsmiths really did break the bond - after all, three people among thousand to not-Recreancing would find it easier to disappear than three people out of three.

[Yata he/him]

2 hours ago, Rasarr said:

I would agree with this train of thoughts if it wasn't for the fact that Stormfather is, for one, an extremely powerful spren, and for other, he's implied to have merged with Tanavast's Cognitive Shadow, which would give him an additional "oompf" that could let him survive the Recreance even though he was (apparently) bonded at the time. This being said, I do agree that it'd be easy for three people to hide their oath-keeping, though it would also be easier for other Radiants to check whether the Bondsmiths really did break the bond - after all, three people among thousand to not-Recreancing would find it easier to disappear than three people out of three.

But actually its merging was after the Recreance and therefore Stormfather survived the Recreance from its own

Edited October 15, 2016 by Yata

[Eki]

1 minute ago, Yata said:

But actually its merging was after the Recreance and therefore Stormfather survived the Recreance from its own

The merging could have been what "revived" him though.

 

7 hours ago, Yata said:

Pattern said in WoR that The Stormfather was one of the few Spren who survived the Recreance, this actually point as "He suffered the Oathbreak but he remained Alive"

I think he was referring to all sentient spren - not just those who were bonded. So it's possible that when he said "very few survived", he mainly meant those who weren't bonded, or whose Knights never gave up their oaths.