Speculation on Perpendicularities on Therondy

[Silverblade5 he/him]

Disclaimer: This is not a proper theory in the slightest. It is very underdeveloped, and is not backed up by any quotes or WoBs. I am merely trying to get my thoughts out there, so that someone else can make a proper theory out of it.

In Arcanum Unbounded, Khriss stated that the perpendicularities on Therondy are unstable, impossible to predict, and morbid in origin. I am predicting that they form at the moment a person becomes a Shade. That is when the realmatic aspects of the soul would start to separate, but are forced together by latent investiture of the shard Ambition. I believe this is also the instance when the largest concentration of investiture would be present in one place. What do you people think? Any assistance is supporting or debunking this would be appreciated.

[Rathmaskal he/him]

It has been brought up before to some degree.

In this thread for example.

[+Extesian he/him]

Nothing much to add except that's pretty much my head canon (with you adding a decent realmatic explanation for it). I like it, but I fear it will be a long time until we know more. My only qualification is that I'm not sure that just any old shade- transition will do it or I feel there'd be too many?

[Silverblade5 he/him]

11 minutes ago, Extesian said:

Nothing much to add except that's pretty much my head canon (with you adding a decent realmatic explanation for it). I like it, but I fear it will be a long time until we know more. My only qualification is that I'm not sure that just any old shade- transition will do it or I feel there'd be too many?

According to one of my other theories, people can accidentally draw the investiture of Ambition by violating the simple rules. It could be that those who committed large violations or other acts of ambition could end up releasing more investiture when turned.

[Calderis he/him]

3 hours ago, Extesian said:

My only qualification is that I'm not sure that just any old shade- transition will do it or I feel there'd be too many?

If they are short-term and unstable, I don't think this would be a problem. The only time there would be any unusually high numbers of perpendicularities forming is when there are newcomers in the area who are unfamiliar with the simple rules. 

Predetor species have been wiped out by the shades, and the dwellers of the forest abide by the simple rules. 

Other than in rare instances, I think new shades would be an infrequent occurrence. 

[+Lewis Nethur He/Him]

Pretty sure @Calderis is absolutely spot on.  Threnodites aren't dying out, they're expanding.  People who live in the forts don't really have to worry about shades at all, and everyone in the forests know the rules that make the shades leave them alone.  The only real at-risk people are:

1. Children of families not wealthy enough to protect their homes with silver who are too young to fully understand the rules (I'm thinking like 2ish to 6ish? Idk, I don't know much about children)
2. Fugitives/bounty hunters who operate at night
3. Pregnant women unfortunate enough to go into labor at night while far away from a waystation

Besides these at-risk individuals who make up a pretty small portion of the population, I suspect death-by-shade is a relatively infrequent occurrence.  A decent analog would probably be along the lines of: People die by shade-attack on Threnody at a rate similar to the rate of accidental deaths in real life; with a big enough population, yes, you'll get a handful of occurrences a day, but even if they were significantly more common than this, a person traveling via the Cognitive Realm would likely be hard-pressed to find and get to the resulting perpendicularity before it closed.

[MoS03]

#3 is non-violent. Nosebleeds don't break the rules.

[Yitzi2]

On 7/1/2017 at 7:02 PM, MoS03 said:

#3 is non-violent. Nosebleeds don't break the rules.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that giving someone else a nosebleed would break the rules.  (Remember, it's only the blood of another.)

[Calderis he/him]

21 minutes ago, Yitzi2 said:

Actually, I'm pretty sure that giving someone else a nosebleed would break the rules.  (Remember, it's only the blood of another.)

I'm pretty sure he meant a simple nosebleed. Like your nose just starts bleeding for no apparent reason.

Where as you suggest, hitting someone and causing a nosebleed would count as spilling blood

[MoS03]

I chose nose bleed instead of... something else.

[+Lewis Nethur He/Him]

On 7/1/2017 at 5:02 PM, MoS03 said:

#3 is non-violent. Nosebleeds don't break the rules.

I completely forgot about that caveat to be totally honest; point taken, shade creation should actually be slightly rarer than I proposed.  And a good thing too, newborns shouldn't be eaten by ghosts, that'd just be mean.

[GildedBear]

This is my head canon as well.

The idea that death by Shade is about the same as accidental death for us amuses me since the simple rules mean that there will be fewer accidental deaths from things like tripping and falling, fire, and fighting.

As a side thought, is it kindling a fire that enrages shades or is it just fire in general?  I assume that it's fire in general but it amuses me to think that you just can't light new fires.

[Calderis he/him]

24 minutes ago, GildedBear said:

As a side thought, is it kindling a fire that enrages shades or is it just fire in general?  I assume that it's fire in general but it amuses me to think that you just can't light new fires.

There's currently a second thread going on specifically about the simple rules, and it is indeed only the act of creating fire. 

Existing fire gets no reaction. 

[Fezzik]

Doesn't silence specifically say a woman's monthly flow doesn't set off the shades?

[Calderis he/him]

10 minutes ago, john203 said:

Doesn't silence specifically say a woman's monthly flow doesn't set off the shades?

Yes.