Speculation on the Simple Rules

[Silverblade5]

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.

It is my belief that the Simple Rules exist because the Shades of Therondy are attempting to prevent people from accidentally tapping into the latent investiture of the shard Ambition, or trying to prevent large concentrations of investiture gathering in one spot. To review, the simple rules are: Don't kindle flame, don't shed the blood of another, don't run at night.

Flame is the essence of change. By lighting a fire, you could be seen as making a statement that things aren't fine the way they are, and must be changed. Change is also a fundamental part of Ambition, as attempting a change is saying that your vision of the world is superior to what already exists.

Running at night invokes the idea that your destination is the most important and that you have little regard for the way things currently are. When you run, all the disruptions you make from movement are greater. You disturb more earth, your footsteps are louder, and you move with less caution. These are all statements of ambition.

Spilling blood should be pretty obvious. When you spill the blood of another, you are making the statement that your life is more valuable than the one of the person you're killing. That is indeed a very ambitious statement.

In conclusion, the Simple Rules exist to prevent statements of ambition, and it is my belief that they exist to prevent people from tapping into the investiture of the shard. What do you people think? Any assistance is supporting or debunking this would be appreciated.

Edited June 30, 2017 by Silverblade5

[Oversleep]

Yet you can make more fires by lightning it from a previously existing fire.

Yet running is only forbidden at night.

Yet killing another is perfectly fine unless blood flows out - and that's not something I claim to understand since blood flowing out into a closed bag over head was still fine for some reason.

[dashardie]

5 minutes ago, Oversleep said:

Yet you can make more fires by lightning it from a previously existing fire.

Yet running is only forbidden at night.

Yet killing another is perfectly fine unless blood flows out - and that's not something I claim to understand since blood flowing out into a closed bag over head was still fine for some reason.

I actually wonder if the whole spilling blood thing has any link to Hemalurgy, where the magic system is predicated on flowing blood being a link to a person's innate investiture...

[+hwiles]

My interpretation of the Simple Rules was a little different, as they appear to be a set of "rules" developed by the people of Threndoy resulting from observations made about the behavior of the shades, rather than a set of fundamental governing rules of the magic system on the planet; similar to how the grouping of metals on the allomancy charts on Scadrial is an observed "pattern" developed by Scadrians and isn't necessarily representative of allomancy's true governing physics.  In fact, the pattern seems to sort of break down and be a little unintuitive if you pick at it enough (it doesn't include God metals, some of the pairings are a little weird, it doesn't explain why specific alloys work and others don't, ect.)  It's just a convenient model that generally works well enough and provides a good introduction to new initiates.  A good analysis of the Simple Rules ought to be able to make predictions about how the "rules" may be circumvented, or predict new "rules" that Threnodites may not yet be aware of.

My imperfect analysis thus far:

1. Starting a fire upsets shades, but pre-existing fires carried into their presence have no apparent effect.  This sort of implies that the shades are upset by change; fire is a relatively unsustainable, violent, and rapid change in the chemical makeup of a fuel source.  IE: Shades react to rapid/violent change, but they have to "see" the change's initiation, otherwise they perceive it as "normal."
2. Running only upsets shades at night.  Running is an example of rapid change in position relative to a person's normal state of movement, so that fits our theme of the shades reacting to rapid changes; the fact that the shades react less strongly than to fire or blood is an indication that their reaction is based on the severity of the change (Running represents a lesser degree of change in the physical world than burning something or harming something.  The fact that they don't react during the day implies that their power, or perhaps their presence in the physical realm, is strongest at night (why remains entirely unclear to me).
3. Spilling blood really upset shades.  Injury/death represents a powerful metaphysical change in the condition of the world.  The fact that shades don't react if they can't "see" the blood, even if they can literally "see" a person being strangled, indicates that their response is relatively mechanical and unintelligent in its execution.  IE: the shades don't "choose" to attack or, in general, possess the ability to attack on a whim or intentionally show leniency, and they react to obvious visual evidence of powerful change; if this obvious visual evidence is hidden or obscured from them, they will not react.

My predictions based on these observations:

1. If you were completely isolated from shades and started running, then after several minutes you finally passed a shade, it might not attack you.  Similarly, if you began slowing down or came to a stop, they might swarm you.
2. Rapidly affecting your environment might upset shades; IE: using a chainsaw to cut down several trees in a short period of time, eating too much too quickly, making loud noises (screaming), puncturing a pressurized container (without combustion), pouring acid onto a sheet of metal, and so on...
3. Shades might not react to someone lighting a blowtorch, as they can't "see" the fuel before, during, or after it being burned.

Things I'm having trouble reconciling:

1. Extinguishing a fire doesn't seem to upset shades, which is somewhat inconsistent with my proposed model.
2. If you're being chased by shades and you run past new shades that didn't see what you did, and never saw you not running, the new shades are still liable to join in on the hunt.  I can only speculate to why this is.
3. Shades are "weak" during the day, even if they are indoors or in dark places and (apparently) "strong" at night even if they are brightly illuminated.

TLDR:

Shades react to visual stimuli that imply a rapid/powerful change in their environment.  If they are prevented from "seeing" the visual cue, they don't react.

Thoughts, criticisms, or supplements?

Edited June 30, 2017 by hwiles

[Fezzik]

@hwiles, maybe shades have "night vision" so smaller changes, like running, are more likely to not be noticed

[+hwiles]

Just now, john203 said:

@hwiles, maybe shades have "night vision" so smaller changes, like running, are more likely to not be noticed

It's certainly an explanation that would fit the data points we have, and I admit I've considered it.  However, I wanted to limit my budding theory to a short analysis of each rule and its implications, both physical and metaphysical, and a brief set of predictions based on those analyses.  Adding in additional speculation at this point is a little premature, as I don't think I've reconciled the theory with all of the observed phenomena adequately yet.

If you can give some kind of example or argument that indicates how the shades' vision functions or what it's limited to that would certainly be helpful though.

[Yitzi2]

On 6/30/2017 at 0:07 PM, Silverblade5 said:

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.

It is my belief that the Simple Rules exist because the Shades of Therondy are attempting to prevent people from accidentally tapping into the latent investiture of the shard Ambition, or trying to prevent large concentrations of investiture gathering in one spot. To review, the simple rules are: Don't kindle flame, don't shed the blood of another, don't run at night.

Flame is the essence of change. By lighting a fire, you could be seen as making a statement that things aren't fine the way they are, and must be changed. Change is also a fundamental part of Ambition, as attempting a change is saying that your vision of the world is superior to what already exists.

Running at night invokes the idea that your destination is the most important and that you have little regard for the way things currently are. When you run, all the disruptions you make from movement are greater. You disturb more earth, your footsteps are louder, and you move with less caution. These are all statements of ambition.

Spilling blood should be pretty obvious. When you spill the blood of another, you are making the statement that your life is more valuable than the one of the person you're killing. That is indeed a very ambitious statement.

In conclusion, the Simple Rules exist to prevent statements of ambition, and it is my belief that they exist to prevent people from tapping into the investiture of the shard. What do you people think? Any assistance is supporting or debunking this would be appreciated.

Brandon stated that the Simple Rules are (very, very loosely) based on the Jewish rules of the Sabbath, and those rules (especially the ones that are not reflected in the Simple Rules, ironically) are primarily about causing productive change...so I think that counts as support.

[Calderis]

39 minutes ago, Yitzi2 said:

Brandon stated that the Simple Rules are (very, very loosely) based on the Jewish rules of the Sabbath, and those rules (especially the ones that are not reflected in the Simple Rules, ironically) are primarily about causing productive change...so I think that counts as support.

I had not heard that, but it makes so much sense. 

I wonder if that will hold true as technology progresses. Because if so, that would render flashlights unsafe unless they were already on. 

This makes me evaluate the simple rules in a totally new light.

Edit: so if it's based off of the shabbat rules of Judaism prohibiting work, then it yes it focuses on preventing productive change. But it's also based off of a "day of rest." So the running isn't because of sudden change, but because of urgency, or lack of leisure. 

The fire is about creation. So spreading existing fire gets a pass because it is a natural progression, but the spark... That's an act of creation. 

Spilling blood... In Judaism the blood is life. For meat to be kosher it must be killed in a way that the blood drains. Strangling an animal makes it treif (non-kosher) because the animal was killed with the blood, the life, still inside it. So spilling blood allows the shades to see life leaving the body, but if the blood is contained, to their perception, there has been no change. 

Edited July 3, 2017 by Calderis

[Silverblade5]

48 minutes ago, Calderis said:

I had not heard that, but it makes so much sense. 

I wonder if that will hold true as technology progresses. Because if so, that would render flashlights unsafe unless they were already on. 

This makes me evaluate the simple rules in a totally new light.

Edit: so if it's based off of the shabbat rules of Judaism prohibiting work, then it yes it focuses on preventing productive change. But it's also based off of a "day of rest." So the running isn't because of sudden change, but because of urgency, or lack of leisure. 

The fire is about creation. So spreading existing fire gets a pass because it is a natural progression, but the spark... That's an act of creation. 

Spilling blood... In Judaism the blood is life. For meat to be kosher it must be killed in a way that the blood drains. Strangling an animal makes it treif (non-kosher) because the animal was killed with the blood, the life, still inside it. So spilling blood allows the shades to see life leaving the body, but if the blood is contained, to their perception, there has been no change. 

Thanks for taking my ramblings and making something sensible out of them. 

[+hwiles]

A story with a prevalence on silver and suffering horrible punishment for violating the Sabbath...Where oh where have I heard this before...? 

Do you think Brandon is trolling us or are the Johnny Tremain parallels totally coincidental?

[Calderis]

18 minutes ago, Silverblade5 said:

Thanks for taking my ramblings and making something sensible out of them. 

I realize I didn't really say anything different than what you proposed, but to be perfectly honest, I didn't have much of an opinion on the simple rules prior to this. 

@Yitzi2's comment made it all click into place for me though. When I was 13 my family converted to an... Odd form of Judaism that followed all the old testament law, so I suddenly had a drastically different perspective. Having a relevant life experience to base it off of suddenly shoved the simple rules into a framework that made the rationale make sense. 

Edited July 3, 2017 by Calderis

[iamstick]

On 7/2/2017 at 10:53 PM, Calderis said:

my family converted to an... Odd form of Judaism that followed all the old testament law

Karaites? Jews for Jesus? Samaratinism? Rastafarianism? Nazaritism?

[Calderis]

8 minutes ago, iamstick said:

Karaites? Jews for Jesus? Samaratinism? Rastafarianism? Nazaritism?

It's essentially Jews for Jesus. Look up Messianic Judaism if you're interested.

Edited July 7, 2017 by Calderis

[iamstick]

Quote

It's essentially Jews for Jesus. Look up Messianic Judaism if you're interested.

My interest in follow-up questions is totally off topic, so I'll defer them to a more appropriate time and place.

However, what really bugs me about this story, is how does anyone survive toddlerhood in this reality outside of the safe areas? No 2-year-old ever runs and scrapes hisher knee?

[Brightlord M. Alhstrom]

On 7/2/2017 at 11:30 PM, Yitzi2 said:

Brandon stated that the Simple Rules are (very, very loosely) based on the Jewish rules of the Sabbath, and those rules (especially the ones that are not reflected in the Simple Rules, ironically) are primarily about causing productive change...so I think that counts as support.

(emphasis mine)

This makes me think of something. The Jewish Sabbath rules are about not causing productive change (work) on the Sabbath day. We also know that the Simple Rules are based on the Jewish Sabbath rules, with major changes. So, change it from not causing productive change, to not causing destructive/chaotic change, and make it everyday instead of just sabbath and you get something really close to the simple rules:
 - Fire is by and large a strongly destructive and chaotic element. It has uses in changing things (IE forging) but as a general rule, it destroys. The reason why an already lit flame is fine is because this implies a "controlled" environment.
 - Gunpowder is like fire, but 10 times worse. Where fine is occasionally useful, gunpowder is almost completely destructive and chaotic in nature.
 - Running during the day is largely fine, as there are many productive and positive reasons to run during the day. However, once night rolls around, running is almost always associated with chaos and panic. You don't run in the dark unless you have to or you are scared. This would explain why nighttime only applies to running.
 - And blood is another case. Blood implies that a body has been destroyed or harmed. Blood implies chaos. Now, there are many ways to kill without having blood, but most of those things could also be harmless. (IE, strangling could also be seen a hugging, hammering a bag as hammering a nail.) However, blood is always around a wound. The only exception might be when a doctor uses a syringe or has a container of blood. I'm not sure how the simple rules would apply to that.

So, actions that 90% of the time result in chaos and destruction break the simple rules, while other actions that cause chaos and destruction are fine because there are lumped together with non-destructive actions.

[Agent34]

This doesn't add to the overall discussion but according to Silence blood shed in anger and exposed to open air is the worst so I imagine a syringe would be safer so long as no blood spilled outside of the syringe, similar to the tar-lined bags.

[Brightlord M. Alhstrom]

Just now, Agent34 said:

This doesn't add to the overall discussion but according to Silence blood shed in anger and exposed to open air is the worst so I imagine a syringe would be safer so long as no blood spilled outside of the syringe, similar to the tar-lined bags.

I think that an opaque syringe, where you can't see how much blood is in it would work, as long as you made sure that no blood came out of the puncture wound when you take the syringe out. What I'm wondering is whether a typical transparent syringe would work. Does it need to be in contact with the air? Or do you need to be able to see it?

At the same time, that is assuming that the Shades would be bothered by syringes at all, since this is a destructive process. I think it would, since it is too close to other bleeding wounds to be it's own section in a Shade's judgement.