Thought

First, sorry, haven't read TES yet, so I skipped your comments regarding that. Second, the problem there is that then shards should gain a degree of sentience if they are believed in deeply by mortals. Certainly possible, but that does seem to eliminate a bit of the need for individuals to hold a shard. Possible, but that doesn't address the noted the asymmetry needed for Preservation and Ruin to create people. Certainly possible, though if so, it seems to add a great deal of complexity. What if Preservation and Endowment had created humans together: would there still have been that conflict? And would this have affected the ability of an unshattered Adonalsium to create sentient creatures? Not that you need to answer these questions. Just that your explanation here seems to raise a good number of curiosities. Perhaps I am just misremembering the books incorrectly, but I had thought that Sazed made it rather clear that asymmetry was a key component in sentience (or, at least, in making human-like sentience). If so, then that precludes this possibility. It was just random information, not directly related to the rest of my response (hence separated by a double break), that still seemed relevant for the conversation. Namely, the tripartite viewpoint is likely the background influence for realmatics. If Sanderson purposely tried to design the cosmere after it, then we could assume that he tried to put a twist on it (your hybrid theory, then, being a twist on both the tripartite and bipartite viewpoints, is more likely). In contrast, if he was not aware of this influence, then it is less likely that he put a twist on it, and so a strict tripartite viewpoint (in which the cognitive aspect of a person is influenced by the other two aspects but still distinct and independent) would be more likely. And, of course, if there is someone out there who is more familiar with the theology than I am, they might be able to offer further similarities or divergences that would make one or the other interpretation more tenable.

Perhaps the shards are divided Realmatically? Yes, this would produce uneven groups, but if I am recalling correctly, Sanderson noted at one point that the reason metals is involved in the Metallic Arts (as opposed to commands or breaths or aons or stormlight or whatever) is because Ruin and Preservation were themselves more strongly tied to the physical realm. Alas, can't find the quote, so I might be full of bunk. If so, then I'd propose something like: Physical Shards *Ruin *Preservation *Cultivation *Something Else *Something Else Still Cognitive Shards *Odium *Honor *Something Else3 *Something Else Else *Somethinger Else *Somethingest Else Spiritual Shards *Endowment *Domination *Devotion *Somethingish Other *Else Something Is One Shard To Rule Them All, One Shard to Find Them, One Shard to Bring Them All, And In The Cosmere Bind Them *Steve The Shard

Oh wow, that was a really confusing mistake, and quite bad of me. ... I mean... *goes back and corrects the error and hopes he didn't make a new one in its place* I have no idea what you are talking about.

Yes, sorry, I was adding my voice in agreement with your assertion to Kythis that this stuff is fundamentally simply, by providing an example that backed your assertion up. Apparently I only made things more complex.

The short answer is: sort of. Both Allomancy and Feruchemy (and, indeed, all shard-based magics [i'm not sure what lightweaving counts as]) in my model should involve the same basic process. That is, the individual is a magic user because they are able to activate gateways through which power from a shard is channeled. Elantrians and Feruchemists would create their own gateways, while Allomancers use ones already in existence (and Hemalurgists do a little of both, depending on how one looks at it). Or, to put it another way, the differences in my model between Allomancy and Feruchemy are akin to the differences between AonDor and Dahkor. After all, I am trying to laydown the commonalities between magic systems, so the similarities, more than the differences, would be highlighted. Only that its wrong and clearly inferior to my own awesometastic suppositions That only works up until about the start of recorded history, since Rome was always heavily influenced by the outside. How rarely were the doors to the temple of Mars closed (the signal that the city of Rome was at peace)! How often was the senate filled with laments about the little-beards and how they were corrupted by outside influences! The only thing we can conclude from this is that Carthage must be destroyed! As I think a lot of our back and forth proves. That was a lot of talk to try to get across what were fundamentally simple systems.

So Kelsier, who no longer has a physical aspect, should also no longer have a Cognitive aspect under that supposition, yes? Why, then, is there a difference between animals on Scadrial (which were created with an equal amount of Preservation and Ruin's presumably spiritual power) and humans (which were created with more of Preservations influence than Ruins) there? From HoA, it is certainly implied that a balance of Preservation and Ruin in people would have made them as nonsentient as animals. And animals there, also being created by shards, should have more of a spiritual than physical aspect, shouldn't they? So they should be sentient, but aren't (that we are aware of, I suppose) Sanderson's system has a nice basis in theology, namely the tripartite viewpoint. This viewpoint holds that people are comprised of three distinct, independent, and separate parts: the body, soul, and spirit (bipartite holds that spirit and soul are the same). I'm not overly familiar with the system, but to my understanding, "physical, cognitive, and spiritual" would be valid adjectives to describe the three. This is certainly less popular in general, but if I understand correctly, it is particularly common among Mormons. This is by no means proof that realmatics is strictly tripartite in nature, but seems like relevant information.

Ah, but since this is an analogy, how allomancy actually works isn't as important as how it analogically works. I'm not trying to say that Feruchemy is Allomancy just with a different type of "fuel." Though, the comparisons between the two seem to be useful for trying to get my point across. Because "similar" is different than "exactly the same"? Both humans and mice are mammals, and as far as similarities go, we're actually quite close. We use mice as subjects for experiments that reveal new information about human reproduction. The oddity there, though, is that adult female humans have periods while adult female mice do not. So so similar, yet still different. If I were to postulate an in-world explanation, I would suspect that feruchemy does indeed have an upper limit. Sanderson's off the cuff figures for compounding, for example, indicates that there is around a 16% loss for simply doubling an attribute, while there is roughly a 24% loss for trippling. This means that compounding has an upper limit of roughly 12.5 times the original. For anything above that, the rate of energy loss is equal to the rate of energy gain (or exceeds, actually, but I am assuming that excessive compounding doesn't start returning negatives). I suspect that in reality, the rate of loss isn't so drastic, but as long as there is that rate of loss, and as long as it is related to the degree of compounding, there is an upper limit. It is just a far more generous upper limit than in Allomancy. Quite true, but didn't AoL say, from Wax's perspective, that he had made himself the same weight as a building? Except that Feruchemy is a particular instance of a larger phenomenon. What you are suggesting is like trying to talk about a book without talking about literature, or talking about Rome without talking about history. True. I should have specified "discussing it well"

An excellent point. That does seem to indicate that it should be possible to draw a permanent aon in the air, or a non-permanent one on stone. Also, I don't blame you for not having the time to read everything. There's been too much said, at this point. That's good, because that isn't what I said at all. Remember, this is all analogy-speak. I had said that if one stored an attribute at a low level over a long period of time, that would produce an "impure" feruchemical equivalent to an allomantic metal. The impurity relates to how much power one can get out at a time. Storing Strongbadium at 50% for two hours would be more impure than storing Strongbadium at 100% for one hour. While you have more of the first sample, it's weaker when you burn it. So, if you are burning the first sample, but want the bonus attribute to be 100% rather than 50%, you'd have to flare it. How did Sanderson describe flaring in the books? As a conscious action that required effort. Or, in other words, an allomancer flaring metals has to spend energy to flare it, and then spend that energy produced from flaring itself. That sounds suspiciously like the Sanderson quote about compounding. Of course, as I noted, this is all an analogy, but it seems to be one that's producing fewer confusions, at least. Wax probably weighs around 150lb, so that would be 37lb that he's storing. Some quick research indicates that a small building (a two story residential house) would weigh around 300,000 lb. That would mean he'd need around 22 years of storing weight to equal that. I don't recall exactly how long he was out in the Roughs, but I got the impression that it was around 10 or so years. There's still the matter of him tapping his weight, too. He does it with such skill and frequency in the few days of the book that we should except that he was doing it rather frequently in the past, too. And since he usually taps at a far far larger rate than he stores, even assuming he kept 3/4 of that is generous. So all in all, he'd be around 15 years short of what you're proposing. But as noted, that was a random musing. Actually, it is rather clear, just not perfectly so. To use the Rube Goldberg example, we know that the Shard is involved at step D, we just don't know if it is exactly where D starts, or where D ends. Our information is specific, but it could be more specific. Wait, what IS the purpose of our discussion then? I was thinking that the goal was rather interpersonal at this point, given that the original topic of the thread seems to have been exhausted and that we're largely just trying to communicate to each other our theories now. So establishing the goals for our systems seems entirely related to the discussion. Meh, you started out with a seriously flawed premise (I was hailing you as gog, as in god and magog, not god!). But then you went on to attempt to apply a principle that, even if correct, is currently only known to be a unique phenomenon to other instances. It's like trying to apply principles you've deduced from apples to oranges. Though, to note, since stormlight has a far more physical manifestation than attributes in a metalmind, your comparison is also flawed in that way. A feruchemist doesn't leak their spiritual energy, yes? So, different behaviors indicates that the two things are likewise different.

Yamato, the actual cost difference between a dead-tree version of a book and an electronic version of the same book is actually relatively minor when compared to the total cost of the book. People expect ethereal things, like ebooks, to cost less than "real" books, because hey, you didn't get anything real. Its harder to sell them at the same price, so often ebooks are slightly discounted. Unfortunately, the margin of profit on books is already relatively small. Companies that deeply discount ebooks essentially give the finger to publishers. If companies like TOR can't make a successful and profitable transaction to the ebook market, then they'll go out of business. That won't be the end of books, of course, but rather the filter between what is worth reading and what is horrible will be removed, making it harder to find anything of value. It will also be harder for good authors to make a living at writing, because instead of having to impress a relatively small industry's worth of editors to be marketed, they have to market themselves against potentially less talented but richer competition.

Please forgive me if I skip much of the quote/response format. I had a bit of inspiration that might help me explain my supposition far more clearly than I have previously been able to, and at the same time gets at most of your questions/objections. I've said that storing an attribute creates a gateway. However, for what I am trying to get at, it is just as valid to say that the stored attribute IS the gateway, in the exact same manner that pewter or aon rao are gateways for their respective magic systems. Storing an hour of strength is almost exactly like putting a bead of atium in your pocket, and tapping that hour of strength is like burning that bead of atium, and compounding that hour of strength is like flaring that atium. How does it account for the initial rate of storage? Same principle as in allomancy: purity. Storing 10% of strength for an hour produces a less "pure" attribute to burn than storing 80% of strength. We know that a really pure piece of metal, for an allomancer, produces a better effect. But it stands to reason that flaring an impure piece of metal will also be less powerful than flaring a piece of pure metal. Indeed, flaring a lot of impure pewter might even produce a smaller effect than normally burning a little pure pewter. Why would there be compounding inefficiency? For the same reason as in allomancy. Flare your steel, and while you can push harder, you can't push for as long, and it is implied that the two are not directly correlated (flaring your steel so you can push twice as hard exhausts your metals at more than twice the speed). What is the exact, nitty gritty cause of this inefficiency? Dunno, but whatever it is, I'd propose that it is the same basic principle as in allomancy (and any other system where we see an inefficiency). Where does a shard step in, exactly, under my system? Exactly the same place as in allomancy (which is less specific than I'd like to be, admittedly). It is a little vague as to if Vin shoved power into Elend, or just opened gateways for him to use, or what. But what she did for allomancy, my theory suggests would be a direct cognate for how it is done in feruchemy. This would indeed indicate (but not necessitate) that a metalmind filled with an impure amount of an attribute would effectively have less power than the same sized metalmind filled with a purer amount of that attribute, because the impurity of time would be taking up more "space" in one as opposed to the other. It would depend on if time takes up space or not. This is a total aside (I think the real answer to your question is contained above), but why must we ask that? From what Sanderson said, storing 10% of strength for 2 hours and then compounding it to a gain of 20% for 1 hour (well, actually probably closer to 50 minutes if his off the cuff figures were accurate) would be less effective than storing 20% for 1 hour and tapping it at the same. But, does that necessitate that storing 10% for one hour on two separate occasions and then tapping both reserves at once also equals inefficiency. In case that isn't clear, in the first example, 2 hours are being compressed into 1 hour, while in the second, 2 hours are not compressed but are occurring simultaneously. Perhaps that is just splitting hairs, but I am not sure if these are the same thing... Sorry, just pondering aloud (well, a-written? a-readened? Something like that). I've taken a look at it, but I seriously doubt my response will be worth your effort. Unfortunately, I'm not really sure what point you were trying to make with Goradel's post. This might be simply because I'm fairly vague on Goradel's own point: it's intuitive, yes, but also seems to apply to any system. If we say that a metalmind is like a repository of buckets of water, for example, Goradel's intuition seems like it could apply there: the energy loss is the result of trying to manipulate two buckets at once with the same strength and dexterity as one (one should expect spillage). So... sorry I don't have anything better to say? Not so much how a shard could fuel it, but where in the process that would occur. Imagine magic is like a Rube Goldberg machine. A causes B causes C caused D causes E causes F causes G, etc. First, it doesn't seem like your system necessitates that either A, B, etc, or G is the Shard, and even if it did, it doesn't seem like it pins down if the Shard actually is A, B, etc. True enough, but I discounted your correction because it seemed to stem more from what is reasonably expected, rather than from your own system. To put it another way, what about your system necessitates that the heating point is where a shard would apply its power? I care more about the specific mechanism because that is what, if we can pin it down, gives us knowledge that we can then apply to other magic systems. How an attribute is stored, to me, is a side issue: a matter of trying to figure out how a specific instance conforms to a universal constant (not to say I have found the universal constant, but I do think my supposition is trying to get at that, whereas yours isn't motivated in the same way). This also means that, I think, my supposition is far more falsifiable than yours. We are unlikely to find out too much more about the exact processes of Feruchemy, especially in the short run, but we are far more likely to find out about other magic systems. If we find out that those systems don't conform to my supposition, then the entire grounds of that supposition vanishes. In contrast, I can't imagine what we could learn about Surgebinding, for example, that would really impact your system. And in reverse, I can't imagine what from your system we can apply to Surgebinding.

Both. E-books are far superior for ease of integration into life (especially if you have a smartphone), while paperbooks are far superior for the collector in me. I would LOVE to pay extra to get both a hard copy and an electronic copy. Alas, companies seem to not want my money. Silly mortals.

More along the lines of your suggestion that, after activation, there is no longer a sustaining force being applied to the aons. Alas, having not yet read TES, I haven't read the rest of your comment and thus must avoid responding to those. For now. Dun dun DUUUUUNNNNN! Actually, I think we agree, but that you are taking a general statement for a specific statement. That is, I am merely claiming that power is involved with color: this might be the power that sustains an object, but it also might be the power that allows for the transfer of breaths around (the power to move investiture, while the investiture itself sustains an object). The latter seems to be what you suggested. My proposition just isn't in general that specific. Its sort of like I am saying that mixing is involved in maxing a cake, but avoiding a statement as to how much mixing is involved, and during what steps. But let's try a different approach: what is your explanation for why colors disappear? We know that without color, Awakening doesn't work, so it must be important. What function is it serving? Not at all. The original proposition, in case you forgot it, was that a feruchemist, by storing an attribute, wrote a gateway onto the metal. If that is accepted, then no additional structure is needed to store intervals of storage: all that information would be inherently coded into the original process. While this does suppose something new (coding gateways), it also eliminates the unnatural aspect of your (and most) models (Shards directly fueling feruchemy in a non-standard way). But, at this point I think we both understand this, and are now reduced to simply disagreeing with the other person's reasoning. To note, the equations are largely separate from this. They are mathematical representations of feruchemical power that should stand up to any model, not just mine. A bit of mathematical fun. I agree that what you describe would be more elegant and natural. However, since it does not account for all the known variables, I must reject it. Both of our models include a greater degree of complexity than what you described above. Mine places that greater degree of complexity at the moment of storage, in order to simplify and include shardic interactions with the system. Simply put, mine makes the entire system predictable. We know every moving part (even if those parts are more complex than is ideal). In contrast, your system keeps storage simpler but places that greater degree of complexity on shardic interactions. Or, more exactly, it doesn't define that interaction, and therefore your system is not predictable. We know that, somehow, a shard can power feruchemy, but we don't know how or where in the process that occurs. You suppose that it can interact anywhere it darn well pleases. In your system, to use the steam-o-mancy example, a shard could help a magic user produce more steam by increasing the heat, decreasing the atmospheric temperature, adding salt to the water, or indeed even change the temperature at which water boils. You system doesn't account for where a shard will interact, and so that factor remains a mystery. Given that Sanderson has tried to make very scientific magic systems, this vagueness seems to be antithetical. That is the advantage of gateways over spirit lockers: gateways pin down where a shard would interact (and it also provides a conceptual framework which can be applied to other magic systems, whereas yours is feruchemically specific). That said, it seems you don't view this lack in your system to be significant, where as I view it as quite significant indeed (in turn, I don't view the complexity of the stored attribute in my system to be significant, whereas you view it to be very significant indeed). Random question: what would it look like for a shard, under any model, to fuel the copper aspect of feruchemy? Would a feruchemist just be able to "tap" a memory without removing it from the metalmind, essentially? Or would new memories appear there? Or something else?

I totally envision you as Christopher Lee saying that. I'm not in disagreement regarding your suppositions, but I'm not sure I buy the distinction you are making. That is, it sounds like we are talking about essentially the same thing. Depends on which post of mine we're talking about I did suggest that the color only allowed the breath to transfer at one point, but generally speaking, I've been arguing for the possibility that in some way, some how, color's involved in producing power. That can work nicely. My proposal is mostly just that if a shard takes an active role, that role will be where it was already taking a passive role. If a shard was passively giving out a five-spot, then it might actively give out a C-note. But if it was passively transporting 3 boxes, then it would actively transport 10 boxes. To try to use a different analogy to illustrate this: lets say we are boiling water with MAGIC. Under my proposal, passively, a shard adds energy to the fire that causes the water to boil and produce steam. We'd expect, then, that an active shard would add more energy to the fire, to produce more heat, to make the water boil more vigorously, to produce more steam. Under your proposal, as I understand it, it sounds like passively a shard would do the same, but actively it would decrease the atmospheric pressure, so that water can boil at a lower temperature, so that more steam can be produced. It's something that we could imagine a shard doing, but if that is how it works, that is unexpected and without precedent. I suppose my main objection to your supposition is that it requires that the shard do something "new." And I find new things to be frightening and scary Actually I think I figured it out a while ago, just was too lazy to post. Basically Effective Energy Output equals the stored attribute over the result of the tap time over the store time, with the result of store time over tap time multiplied by 0.08 being subtracted from the result, assuming that 0<(Tt/Ts)<1 . Or: E=(Ss/[Tt/Ts]) - 0.08(Ts/Tt) If you are wondering, that 0.08 is the closest to the rate of loss that I was able to figure out from Sanderson's off the cuff values. I ran that equation through a few randomly made up examples and it seems to work this time. See, it doesn't matter in that example because, presumable, the feruchemist got money out at an acceptable rate that didn't incur a service charge. But if it really bothers you, the skit example would still work if the feruchemist deposited a ratty old Ten and received a brand spanking new Ten in its place. Both from the same mint. Same "value," "denomination," and same origin, just a different bill. Or, in non-analogy speak, different "energy." Again, I am not saying that fueling magic in your model is impossible for a shard, just that it breaks the expected norm. Its that breaking from what is normal and expect that I am objecting to the most. Also, to note, Ruin altering words doesn't seem to be part of a standard magic system, and so there is no procedural norm for write-o-mancy that Ruin could break.

I'm sure you already know this information, but why should a lost magic sword resurfacing cause there to be a rush to claim it? That is, you have what people are doing, but haven't really gotten what motivates them to do it. It might be useful here to think about when real world civilizations have raced against each other. The race to colonize and exploit "The New World," for example, was driven in part by greed, but also in part by a desire to prevent hated enemies from getting the resources, and in part by a sense of benevolence. USA and USSR raced into space largely out of competition with each other, and less because of curiosity or a desire for scientific discovery. To extrapolate this to a fantasy setting, I'd expect then that people would seek the sword more to beat other nations than to gain the resource itself, which means that the states need to be in fierce competition with each other. Altruistic motivations might be in there as well. As always, of course, this is just a Thought

Keep in mind, an allomancer doesn't immediately know what a power does. When Vin swallowed duralumin, she didn't know that it would increase the power of other metals she burned. So, what this means is that even if Vin and Elend had access to that power, they wouldn't have known what it did. Since both were engaged in life and death situations at the time, that indicates that it would have been an inopportune time to experiment. Further, because they were so focused, they may not have been cognizant of the appearance of new, as of yet untested, powers. Keep in mind that when Kelsier first gives Vin a vial of two metals, she had to concentrate to notice the two different kinds of power. Likewise when she swallowed Sazed's earring. Given that both of them were in highly distracted situations (trying to survive and all), it is quite possible that they didn't notice that they had access to new powers. The short being, if they had access to the powers of the other metals, they were unlikely to notice that at all, and if they did notice, they were unlikely to use them.

The problem there is that he didn't really try to be fair. Generally speaking, if someone was good in the book, they were irreligious, and if they were bad, they were religious. Even if he didn't mean to, that gives the impression that he is attacking religion in general. Since you mentioned the Steel ministry, Sanderson went out of his way (through the characters of Yomen and Sazed) to emphasize that it wasn't all bad. That small difference is was helps prevent Sanderson's work from seeming like a general attack on religion. This nod towards realism was missing in HDM. Indeed, this problem was emphasized by the "good" characters behaving so ridiculously. I already mentioned the problem with Lyra, but there are several just as nutters. Mary Malone, for example, essentially claimed that she stopped believing in god because she likes the taste of marzipan. When the "rationalists" are so nutters, then the "irrationalists" will seem all the more so. And don't get me on the topic of how scary Dust acts!

As a possibly counter-point, we know that the Lord Ruler took steps to reveal his secrets to others. He informed Vin and the others of other allomantic metals that he hoped desperately might help them against Ruin, if he himself were to die. Given how useful nicrosil could have been to people trying to resist Ruin, it seems likely that if it could be created, then he would have mentioned it on one of the plates he left. Since he didn't mention it, it seems likely that it couldn't be created. However, given that it's implied that holding the power of Preservation makes one aware of the in's and out's of allomancy, so he was probably aware, conceptually at least, of what nicrosil could do. Wait, I thought she could? Don't have my books around, alas.

You aren't so much disagreeing as missing the joke: in Dragon Ball Z, powerful characters glow and send out pulses of energy. Your argument essentially mirrored the former, so to attempt to illustrate the oddity of that suggestion, I put forth the latter. As for the hazy second-hand account of Sanderson's words, high investiture doesn't necessitate stronger outcomes. We have a primary source that strongly indicates Allomancy wins in a shoving match, and a secondary source that suggests that Elantrins are dealing with a lot of investiture, and that investiture is hard to handle. Neither statement directly contradicts the other. I agree, there isn't really anything left to argue about.

I've inserted my comments/thoughts: For myself, naming a story/book tends to come dead last. But I do have the following two, one for an Epic Fantasy, and the other for a YA Urban Fantasy: Godbringer Where History Comes Alive

The greatest inventions of human history have been: Spoke Language Written Language The Moveable Type Printing Press The Internet Of these, the Moveable Type Printing Press stands tallest because we understand its impacts the best (ask the question again in another couple hundred years, and the Internet might be ranked more important). This invention didn't just fascilitate modern science, it allowed it to come about. It changed how people thought and acted on a fundamental level. Without that single invention, we'd probably still be in the Middle Ages. The entire field of physics is a fun party trick in comparison.

I read it mostly the same way. However, as an analogy, imagine a lump of metal, on opposite sides of which are a lurcher and an Elantrian. I am sure an Elantrian could create some aons to pull it towards them. I take the AA quote to mean that the lurcher, in our tug of war match, would be able to pull harder. The Elantrian, however, could turn the metal into bread, still pull it, and the lurcher would be left in a lurch. Pound for pound, Allomancy can hit harder, but AonDor can hit smarter. Regarding glowing, don't forget that Allomancers put off powerful shockwaves of magical sound. We never see Awakeners or Elantrians do that.

He said that? Huh, the Alloy of Law Ars Arcanum, at least, implies the opposite, that Allomancy is more powerful than anything found on Sel: From that, I'd really expect a common Pewterarm to have a good chance of beating a Dakhor monk. Regardless, even if a pewterarm can't, I don't doubt that SuperSpook could, with his atium-like awesomeness. And while a common mistborn might have problems, any like Kelsier or Vin (let alone Elend) wouldn't even be challenged.

Would it ruin the story if instead of being the second best swordsman, he starts out as the worst?

Thanks. I had thought about the same, but was having trouble with making it clear (originally she was imagining up George Washington to do that, but then that felt like it was telling us about his character instead of her own). But your concern is the validation I need to go back to the drawing board and work on it more! Thanks again. My concern here is that you have two characters who are exaggerated in exactly the same one (it is just a difference of the amount of exaggeration). At least as I understand this exercise, the goal is to make a character memorable and unique. By having two the same, it seems like it makes it harder for the reader to keep them separate. It sounds like their skills at the sword are fundamental to the story, but is there perhaps some other way you can exaggerate them? Perhaps D-man actually lost his right hand during childhood, but is still the best swordsman around (exaggerating him in a Princess Bride direction)? Or perhaps he's big and strong enough that he can use a zwiehander as easily as a rapier? Or an exaggeration in a different direction? He could be the most stringent follower of the chivalric code. Or, G-man could be any of the above (or more) instead.