Ixthos

For the Yeden part, that makes a lot of sense as a possibility, though it would also require parts of his presentation to be changed so as to portray him as more competent, otherwise it would give the message that when a man was running the rebellion - Marsh - it worked well, but then Yeden took over and the most notable thing done was getting the army destroyed, and having to turn to outsiders for help. Those could both be mitigated by slightly upping Yeden's level of intelligence. I never did like how Yeden seemed so simple, but considering his background it made sense. Docks, however, has a major part of his story involving the loss of a love, someone taken by a nobleman and then killed - that would be harder to do if he was a woman. Otherwise, those two could actually work well. Otherwise, interesting idea, especially on playing up Kelsier's manipulative nature and his willingness to do immoral things.

That is an interesting point, and it raises some questions about Kelsier in Mistborn Secret History, as he lasted much longer than the others who died. Perhaps that is because he was burning Malatium at the time, but it might also be that due to his connection to Preservation as a Mistborn, the investiture that makes up that connection was being consumed to sustain him - in short, if it wasn't because he was burning Malatium at the moment of his death, and as Leras said a Feruchemist would also list longer than a regular person, it could be that the connection to the power gives the soul more power even when the power isn't being used.

@Zachary Holbrook That is a good summary of it, yes :-) That is a good attitude to have. Though Brandon writes the way he does because he wants to give a lot of freedom to the reader, that isn't the only way, and I agree with your view on this, as we have to write with our conscience. I'm still working on the outlines for several things and making sure the setting is consistent. I have a short story I want to get finished before I write anything else, and I'm mainly focused on getting that refined first, but I tend to alternate between different stories. God willing when I get published I will make a thread about it though :-)

That first part is the most anti-intellectual thing I have ever read. There are countless things we think don't exist, but all of them are well defined and thus can be clearly stated to exist or not exist. Ghosts, leprechauns, the kraken, all these are defined and so can be stated whether or not to exist, but that assessement you gave ... is like saying governments don't exist because some people believe a government is a monarchy, others a dictatorship, others believe in group consensus, etc. - they are focusing on the finer details without looking at the commonality. That would be like Jasnah saying she doesn't believe in paying taxes because she has yet to find a consistent definition of government. If I may, what do you believe the term god and worship mean - you personally?

Agreed. As I said, Jasnah and I are in agreement on the shards not being gods. Whether or not that means she worships anything, or will worship anything, knowingly or unknowingly, who can say, but we do agree the shards aren't gods.

@Weltall and @Ookla the Prolific thank you both for clarifying :-) it is fascinating the different beliefs across the world and across time, and the links between them. @Pathfinder Ahhh sorry! I did mean to tag you! Don't know how I made that mistake, so I apologies to both of you! And I agree with your point and Jasnah's, though I think if making regular sacrifices to gravity was a requirement of everyone not drifting off - or shooting off - into space, or even keeping the whole solar system functioning, I think there would probably be a group of people doing so @Honorless To address your point, I often think of a line in The Colour of Magic, by Terry Pratchett who was an atheist. The Lady - a Discworld diety - is talking to Twoflower, who notes that he has never met a god before, and there are no gods where he comes from. She replies that there are gods there - everyone has gods - they just don't think that they are gods. I think that is a point very important point to keep in mind. Its difficult to talk on this subject without filtering everything through the lens of my own belief on the subject, but in essence it is very important to note that languages don't all have the same meanings - there are spheres of meaning and so what one word means in one language, when translated to another, doesn't necessarily cover the same ideas perfectly. @Bliev if I may reframe the situation slightly - and I think you are right about a lot of theists, such as myself, misunderstand that perspective, I also think many atheists don't understand the Christian world view, and I say the Christian world view as that is the world view I believe I can best explain, though I know there are many denominations and many other religions which share some traits and don't share others - the issue can also be understood from this perspective: As I understand it, in Rome, when Christianity was taking root, many Romans were afraid of Christianity because they believed the gods would punish Rome due to the reduction in worship towards them. They called Christians atheists, misconstrued the Christian greetings towards one another as Brother and Sister to mean they were incestuous, and generally thought of them - us - as a threat to their way of life. The main point to focus on, however, is the first point, the idea that a lack of worship would damage Rome, cause Rome to loose wars and suffer hardships. The Roman idea was, in essence, that a lack of worship of their gods would result in turmoil for the land. So that perspective would be like a large storm raging against the walls of a city, worship is building up a barrier to that storm, and these Christians were people who were dismantalling the wall keeping it out. The Christian view is different: a relationship with God is fundamental to maintaining a healthy life - a personal relationship. While there are sides to this which includes God blessing righteous nations, in general a nation doesn't need to be Christian to be good or to receive blessings - though good and righteous are not the same. If I may expand on the healthy life part, and this is my own view on this - I believe we all have three bodies that occupy two worlds (one of the reasons Brandon's writing is so interesting to me is because of how closely it matches some of what I believe). Each of those bodies has organs of sensing, acting, and being. For the physical body those organs are the senses - such as eyes, ears, etc. - muscles, and the internal organs (I don't want to go too much into detail on all of these - I could go on and on for hours!). For the soul - the mind - those organs are the intellect (sensing, and covering memory, logic, etc.), the will (acting), and the emotions (being). The spirit has sensing, acting, being organs as well, and worship is the organ of acting, matching the will and the muscles of the other bodies. All of these bodies have different functions for the entire person, and need different things. The body needs food, exercise. The soul needs puzzles, beauty, etc. - which is why our bodies can be healthy but our minds can be in agony if they aren't allowed to read or work on an idea or experience a beautiful work of art. The spirit needs things to, and one of those is to maintain a healthy relationship in the three directions - towards God, towards one another, and towards the world / plants and animals / nature, etc. From that viewpoint, worship therefore is almost impossible not to do, any more than it is impossible to stand completely still and not move, or to not use your will. You can try, but there will always be a little movement, and it is important to remember that one does need to exercise and to excerise and use ones muscles correctly, to build rather than tear down - so to with worship, the organ of acting. This is already getting a little long and is not exactly the main point of this post or the thread, but the general idea is that many Christians argue or reason or debate with atheists and with people who follow other religions because they want to help those others get into the proper relationship with God, which is important to the spirit of a person and thus to the entire person, as otherwise the spirit of that person remains dead or dying. The fact that for some Christians this is like an overwieight man - currently eating lots of food while talking - trying to get someone onto a diet they themselves haven't been keeping to is what makes me so frustrated, and makes the entire Church look hypocritical whether or not the entire Church is responsible. That is a different topic though. On this subject, I think Jasnah sees worship more as the ritual and attitude of a follower of a religion, which is I think the main viewpoint you were going with, if I understood you.

@Honorless I think the argument would be that Joe Schmoe would no more be worthy of worship as Jane Doe, but the power would be - to those who think shards are gods, the power and the idea the power is tied to as an ideal, are things to worship. They are beyond the vessel, the vessel just giving them expression. However, I am on the side of those who disagree with that :-) I think the key thing to remember, as RShara's quote from the dictionary shows, is that worship has been defined more by what someone does, venerating and giving honour, rather than the reasoning behind it. Typically worship is seen as an act, rather than as a response or motivation. If worship - sacrificing your children, or performing a ritual to gain a fertile harvest when you need a harvest better than last year to survive - is needed for survival, then the explination changes. Not all worship is like that though.

I think Taosim is related to animism, so as I understand it Taosim contains some animist beliefs, but that is a fair point :-) [Edit] I think something important to clear up is what does it mean to worship something - I have my own beliefs on that and what worship is, but not everyone would agree with that, as with many definitions. As such, we should clear up what is meant by that term. What do you feel falls under the category of worship?

If I may add, as a Christian, I don't think the shards are gods, though I understand why characters in the stories think of them as such. There are several possibilities of how the power was originally formed before the shattering (did it make the entire Cosmere universe, or just the cluster? Did it come from outside, or was synonymous with the spiritual realm which then made the cognitive and physical - or is it the centre of the spiritual realm, and did it form there, or did it form the spiritual realm? Did it form the first life, or was it formed by the beliefs and actions, the intentions, of the first life, or did the first life in the Cosmere form into it?), and some of those do come close to the idea of God, and there are several real world religions which reflect certain beliefs about the divine, such as Rock's relation to Syl being seemingly to me to match the beliefs in Shintoism and Taosim - at least as I understand them, and if anyone can correct me on that, please do so. So some cultures in the real world would call even spren as they are portrayed gods, and in StarGate the Ancients and the Ori match the ideas of certain real world religions on gods, it is understandable why some call them and beings less than them gods. Yet, I do not think of them as gods. Indeed, the Unknown God, a name Paul used to describe God to a group of Greeks, referencing a temple they had made to honour the god who they feared they had angered but didn't know, I think is the closest and most accurate description of God in the Cosmere - the God Beyond, I think that is why Brandon inserted that name in there, as he probably deliberately is referring to that story, but won't confirm or deny that The God Beyond exists in the Cosmere - or beyond it but in the setting one could argue. Some call the shards - vessel and power together - gods. Some call only the power a god. But I don't think any of them are gods. Spirits and powers, yes, but not gods. There are people in the real world who would call the spren gods. I am not one of them. There are people who would call the shards gods. That doesn't include me. They don't match what I believe, but they do resemble the idea of powerful spirits and ideas. I can well understand why Jasnah doesn't believe in the divine, and I doubt she will change her mind were she herself to take up all or part of Honour and Cultivation. The only difference between us is that I do believe in God - yet when it comes to the shards, we are both in agreement that they are not.

Amen! That is the same belief I have, and also the motivator behind the idea of Cosmic Hope :-) Ultimately there are threats that humanity can face by itself - after a fashion - but the root of those threats and the greatest danger to all life is something humanity can't face by itself, but that The Living LORD can and does face for us - though we also face it it is only winnable because He is facing it with us - giving us His aid because we can't face them and win by ourselves, but that can be faced and won by Him. Without giving major spoilers, the threat to the entire setting is the embodiment of human corruption, and the forces of humanity - and other species - aren't equipped to fight it, because it represents the flaws within the human soul. However, as in Christianity, my religion, in the setting the whole point is that there is nothing humans can do to fix themselves, but God can. It still involves the characters overcoming, but the main point is it wasn't them overcoming by reaching deep within themselves, but rather embracing the life line given to them. I don't write generally in a "real world" setting, but what I want to imply heavily in my writing is that it is God, with the story itself being in a sense about a broken soul being saved, that broken soul being the soul of all life.

@Kingsdaughter613 fair enough :-) I don't agree with that assessment but you do make compelling points. Hope your new year goes well!

@Kingsdaughter613 That is a compelling argument. However, Brandon has said that Autonomy is an opposite of Honour, and Autonomy is focused on making copies of itself or extensions that think of themselves in the plural. I suspect that Autonomy, Honour, Ambition, and a hypothetical shard of Altruism/Crafting/Forging form a block, all focused on duty and fetters and how that relates to improving oneself. Honour is fettering oneself to improve oneself, Ambition is fettering others and unfettering oneself to improve oneself, Altruism - the hypothetical shard - is fettering oneself to improve others, and Autonomy would be unfettering oneself and others, possibly to help them. I agree Ambition isn't necessarily negative, as no shard is, but as has been shown on Threnody its remains enact restrictions on others and can force changes on them. As the shard Ambition represents an idea that closely matches ambition, but isn't necessarily just ambition but something similar, I don't think it is too much of a stretch. I am not Jewish, but I love the Jewish people and Israel, and I agree that far too many such stereotypes have been promulgated against the Jewish people, and the roles cultures forced on them do not define them. Side note, but based on what you have said, am I right in assuming you have studied the Kabbalah?

Hi everyone, I hope you are well! At the time I am posting this – I wrote this up in advance – it should hopefully be new year here, so I hope you are all having a wonderful new year or tail end to the current one! I hope you have a wonderful and blessed time :-) I am writing this because I feel like sharing something about how I write, but still don't feel comfortable sharing a lot of detailed about my settings. So this is the result – I would like to share my own “genres”, the informal models to how I write, and the philosophy behind them. They aren't really full on genres, but they are a guideline to me personally, though to someone else they could just be seen as a hybrid of existing genres, or subsets of them. Either way this is how I approach writing. They are the names I gave to the ideas of what I write. Both individually or all together, what I write is a mixture of these three. I think that everyone who writes because they enjoy writing does so because, at a certain level, they either want to emulate what they have already read and enjoyed – and so to spread that joy further by both taking part in making something similar to bring joy to themselves, as well as to allow what they have made to add to the volume of the things they love and so bring joy to others – or because what they have read isn't quiet what they themselves want, and so they write to make something which does match what feel should be there for others to read. So we write either to emulate what we like, and or to make sure the itch that hasn't been scratched can indeed be scratched. I think I fit into both categories, along with the enjoyment of reading encyclopedia entries, and so my three genres are a reflection of the genres I myself enjoy reading, and all three are a mixture – with different emphasises – of both hard and soft science fiction, fantasy, and mystery, with all four of those present to various degrees, so all have at least a little fantasy, a little mystery, and so on. So, without further ado, the three genres I personally use as a model are: Cyberlamp Cyberlamp is a combination of the various punk genres – cyber, steam, diesel, magic, and so on – along with the pseudo-fantasy of Girl Genius's gaslamp fantasy, itself a type of steampunk. It is the idea of amazing technology and its aesthetics, the idea of what technology or technological magic can do, while looking cool doing it. The idea that something amazing can be done – a portal, an energy weapon, robots, or even just a radio, which itself can be amazing to people who have never even considered the possibility before – and done with something beautiful, or if ugly, ugly for a reason, that is amazing. A large machine, or small. A machine with many moving parts, or none. One that seems to defy physics, or one that might be an organism in an ecology. Common place to the inhabitants of the world, or exceptional and rare. So long as it inspires awe, to me that is Cyberlamp – technology with a consistent aesthetic for a given origin that does something interesting, and possibly, hopefully, amazing. Tribe Tech Tribe Tech blends well with Cyberlamp in that it is how the technology touches the culture – what sort of people would build a given machine, what species would design it and use it? It is the idea that a given species has needs, and those needs are met with technology, or magic, or something that uses both. It is the idea that within a species there are different cultures with different attitudes, and so they design and use machines that are both similar to those others of their kind use, as well as those that are different. What philosophy is reflected in what they build, and what philosophy does their technology encourage them to embrace? What branching off points were there that made a people go one way while others went another, and how do those cultures interact? And, if they are a people using a certain machine, did they in fact build the original, or are they living in the ruins of another culture, and have repurposed something they don't understand? Or, perhaps, is that other culture still around, and so there is friction between the groups, between philosophies, between ideas? How then does their culture – their language, dress, family, beliefs – touch the others, and shape and be shaped by their technology? And, last but not least, Cosmic Hope Cosmic Hope is the opposite of cosmic horror. Cosmic horror is about the fear of the unknown – strange aliens with alien attitudes, or powerful monsters that don't care about anything smaller than them, which destroy lives and societies when they move, and minds and faiths when seen. Cosmic horror shuns both science, claiming no science can understand the alien world outside of human civilisation, and religion, claiming no faith is true, and those that come close to truth are a threat to everyone by drawing the attention of things that could destroy life in a moment. I reject that view. Cosmic Hope is instead about the opposite. Cosmic horror has aliens that are alien, and powerful creatures that are a threat to all live. Cosmic Hope has those also, but with this key distinction – those aliens aren't always hostile even when they are alien, there are even more powerful beings than the monsters, beings that both frighten them, and have our best interests at heart. It embraces both science and faith, religion and reason, and while there are dangers, terrible, monstrous dangers, there is also hope and awe. Cosmic Hope is about exploring strange worlds, dimensions, realities – the universe is full of wonder! – facing the monsters there, but also gaining an understanding of some of them, and while there are monsters that can't be defeated by humans or aliens, there is someone out there, beyond them, who is stronger then they are, as frightening to them as they are to us, and who is looking out for our interests, even when we shun or reject that help, and bring the monsters to our door. There is terror, dark, malignant terror, but against that terror there is also a much brighter, stronger hope. These three blend together easily, and in many ways touch one another to the extent that one being written requires the others to be as well. The distinction, however, is that of emphasis. Cyberlamp focuses on the technology, the aesthetic of that technology, and what that technology can do, especially with other pieces of technology. Tribe Tech focuses on civilisation and how that technology shapes it, just as it shapes the technology and both interact with other cultures and so on. Cosmic Hope focuses on the unknown and the strange, but with the reminder that in the end everything is in hand and will be brought to vibrant order, though there is darkness that first must be overcome. Those are my three genres. Thank you for reading!

@Ookla the Prolific I know the Unmade match the orders, but I originally thought it was more in the sense of how their powers matched up, rather than in role, like the Midnight Mother for Lightweavers was because of her abilities to make constructs that tried to mimic what she saw, rather than being tied to the idea of making lies real. The idea of the unmade being tied to the way the orders functioned wasn't something I'd previously considered, though in hindsight - if this theory is right - it makes a lot of sense.

@asmodeus Very well spotted! I also especially agree about Progression being a time surge as well as relating to life and possibly the branching possibilities - I think that will tie into both Edgedancers and Truthwatchers abiliites Mistborn spoilers The idea of Moelach being the twisted version of Edgedancers is very very fitting, and suggests the others tie to the other types of Radiants in a similar way, not just in powers but in attitude, being the twisted flip of their role rather than just their capabilities. Again, very well spotted!

Merry Christmas and God bless you!

The writing on that is a little small so I can't make everything out but I think I know what you mean. I think it would be best if you made your own chart, as that chart would match what is important for the story rather than match traits that someone else considered important for their own things. And if you miss something you can always add it in later - the main thing is to make what works for you. Some people use one system and some use another and some use a combination of others. As you said it is part of the process, so start yours and find what works. Something to keep in mind is that - if you are using some sort of absolute level - is that depending on your story not every character would need everything listed, and you might need to keep from superlatives unless you really have them locked down. For example, would Mary Jane Watson have an invincibility and strength bar, when the variables of strength for Marvel characters means for practical purposes both she and the world weightlifting champion might for all intents be exactly the same as far as the Hulk is concerned if you are using a linear graph rather than logarithmic, and if if the Hulk were to be listed as at the very top of the list for strength then if someone new arrives who can bench press continents then you would need to extend the scale, and again if someone arrives who can fight them both off with one finger. So either have an open ended graph - not a maximum value but rather just a number, and lots of room to extend the graph - using a logarithmic scale to allow for the distinction between weaker characters to be represented while stronger characters need to be significantly stronger to be distinct and so to have distinct tiers, or decide ahead of time the maximum values the charts have and don't add anyone stronger afterwards. Though this is just advice, and you are free to do this in what method works for you, and if any of this advice isn't helpful, disregard it and to what works for you.

@1st of Lunch Maybe a little more feedback would help us help you. Could you indicate if what we've said is more or less what you wanted, or if you are looking for something else, etc.?

@King of Herdaz is the answer Can you answer this one? 2, 72, 5184, 640000, 121500000, 32934190464, 12089663946752, ...

Fair enough :-P its a great series though.

@StealthPrincess Welcome to the forum :-) slightly random question, but, based on your name I wonder, are you a fan of the original Thief series, with Garret voiced by Stephen Russel?

If you mean coming up with characters, I think that the best method is to shape a character and a story and a setting together, so that each fits into the other as well as produces points of friction for conflict - characters emerging from the needs of the story or the needs of other characters. Thus you need to identify what traits of the character and characters are best suited for the conflict in the story you are writing, and which are important to make the characters interesting and seem like real people. If you mean traits to list about a character, my own system involves listing (which not every character requiring all of these): Name, origin, date of birth Description / appearance includes species, height, eye colour, what they normally wear, etc. Personality their goals, motivations, general disposition, starting conflicts, what they like and dislike, their hobbies, their flaws and their strengths Relationships who they have relationships with, the relationship dynamic, and if this can tie into their personality Powers and abilities History None of these need to be very detailed, only enough to summarise them and make things clear about the path their story starts at, and the direction they are inclined to walk.

CanDra - a Kandra Rashek employed to pack the canned goods. Nights Radiant - something you say to someone you are flirting with, implying its only radiant because they are there. Aviatar - someone from First of the Sun who is experimenting with heavier than air flight. and @Ookla the Ingeniator, "The planet Elantris takes place on" - something you say to a SkyBroker to make them loose all their stocks :-P

I think Nightblood is fairly similar to a lump of uranium just below critical mass. The original nuclear bombs worked by slamming two such masses together.