WeiryWriter he/him Posted June 3, 2014 Posted June 3, 2014 We have to remember though, the Lord Ruler WANTED Feruchemists, that way he could create the healing abilities in his Inquisitors. This would imply that the bloodline for Feruchemy might not be as worn down as most of the characters in the book were led to believe Actually he most definitely did *not* want Feruchemists. Yes some Inquisitors had Feruchemical gold spikes, which were created from Feruchemists captured by the Ministry, but the Ministry was not breeding Feruchemists in any way, shape, or form. They wanted to get rid of it, if they came across one they would kill them. So any spikes created are happy accidents for the Lord Ruler and not an on going operation.
Pathfinder Posted June 3, 2014 Posted June 3, 2014 He tried to wipe feruchemists out to prevent others from having compounding like him, thus ensuring his hold on the empire.
nightwatcher he/him Posted June 8, 2014 Posted June 8, 2014 This raises another question for me. It says clearly in Mistborn that you're either a misting or mistborn, with no middle ground. Is the same thing true of feruchemy, though? Could a person posses multiple metals without having all of them? Maybe Feruchemy has some sort of halfway point not seen in allomancy. Is there any WoB, or anything in AoL against that?
Swimmingly he/him Posted June 8, 2014 Posted June 8, 2014 There's nothing explicitly against it. However, I got the impression the Allomancy genes kind of break up the feruchemy genes, applying the "one metal only" modifier. I wonder, if a lerasium Mistborn had a child by a Feruchemist, would it likely be both a Feruchemist and Mistborn?
Cstryon he/him Posted June 8, 2014 Posted June 8, 2014 In the same way we get twinborn, I see no reason why someone born a mistborn couldn't also be a ferring, or even full feruchemist. It would be crazy rare though!
gjustice99 she/her Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 I mean do you really think putting garlic or something like that under your pillow would keep Marsh from killing you if he wanted to? LOL Seriously, can't you just see it? I think it would be funny if Marsh killed someone just to prove that that list is false. (he probably wouldn't though).
Lord Tavash Shar Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 I think it would be funny if Marsh killed someone just to prove that that list is false. (he probably wouldn't though). Just to prove the list false: Never Proving the list false while doing his thing: Easily.
Recommended Posts