Ixthos

@Pagliacci That is a very interesting question, and a very open ended one, as world building can be both an ends and a means. What are your goals? To tell an interesting story? Then world building is a means to make a setting in which to tell it, and a means of enhancing the tale, by giving events weight, history, gravitas. To come up with a story? Then world building is a way to slosh ideas around and find a place in which to set it, and to guide it. To entertain yourself? Then world building is a means of expanding the field and giving it depth. To gain more understanding of existing cultures? Then world building is a method to explore hypothetical cultures, or to model existing ones and see possible ways they have or could have grown or touched one another. All of the above? Then world building is a tool with many uses. As @Ripheus23 and @Xardan Ta'Caran have pointed out, its a means of making something of something with depth and value, and a method of exercise. It is a tool with many uses, and not all of them immediately obvious :-)

I will note that the idea of perpendicularities indicates that the abstract view of them is to be parallel - not that they are parallel worlds, or not necessarily parallel at any rate, in the same way you could argue that the internet is a parallel world to ours, as it is separate to normal life, but touches at computers and runs through it in wires and waves, embedded within ours, part of the physical structure of ours, yet still distinct and inaccessible without those terminals - parallel in the abstract, embedded in the literal. But thinking of them as parallel, not that they are, gives the idea of perpendicularities their meaning, the worlds floating above one another and a spike driven through them all, tying them together, perpendicular to all and bridging them, the direction "space" is bent in each making those bent parts touch.

@Invocation You know, I don't think altered states of consciousness are actually that healthy for writing, whatever some famous artists might say ... :-P Though I am reminded of an expression - "write drunk, edit sober". And that's an important rule. I mean ... not the write drunk part, the writing with abandon, putting things down, and fixing them later. When designing throw things down, and once you are done making things in a haphazard order, pick them up and put them in order, deciding what to keep and how to use it and where to put it afterwards - that is the hard part, organising when you don't feel inspired, but you must power on through.

@Quantus You are thinking of Iron, which stores weight. I am talking about pewter, which bulks up the muscle ;-)

@Xardan Ta'Caran I am reminded of a phrase: "How lazy are you?" "Lazy enough!" :-P You need to be lazy enough to find the simplest and fastest route to a good solution, and the solution that requires the least amount of work overall, both now and later, a solution that doesn't require massive overhauling later - by being a little less lazy now, one can be more lazy in the future, investing in the now so as to collect the investment later. The key is finding out where to be lazy, and when to be lazy. Leaving room where something can slot in latter, and slot in well, is a good type of laziness :-)

@Kaymyth I think the main drag from pewter squared would be wind resistance, what with the increase in mass ;-) I wonder if it is possible to tap so much pewter that one's body can't actually move ... Electrum stores determination, so if one becomes dependent on it one would lose their motivation.

Very nice! I don't have a request - I don't have enough money to make a request :-P - but I do have a suggestion. You mentioned you want to do more people art, but don't enjoy it as much as animal art. Have you considered drawing mythical half-human half-animals, such as centaurs, etc., or animals turning into people or vice versa? Cosmere wise, this could even be for example TenSoon turning from a dog into a human, for example. Thanks for sharing this art, I really like it, and good luck!

@Kureshi Ironclaw Laziness can be helpful :-P it also gives freedom to define it later and so add to it afterwards. A friend bought me a book for my birthday which is two books combined together along with a short story, about a young girl who was drafted by her now deceased grandfather to hunt ghosts who escape from the library where his (and now that she has joined, her) organisation keeps them. While the first half, the first book in the book, hinted that the grandfather had strained relations with her parents due to the lies he told and how frequently he just disappeared, it is the second book which actually shows the attitude her father had to him, and uses that as one of the driving forces in part of her breakdown, which is compounded by revealing that he wasn't as good at displaying a more understandable and normal face to her parents as either he or she thought. While some parts feel like the author went back and re-wrote how some scenes played out (making a few characters shown in the first book come across to me as more villainous or callous) the second novel is able to expand on areas the first didn't need to, but which in retrospect make a lot of sense to have been the case. One thing I don't like though is just changing how things happened in previous books to make the story work later - it can work, and there have been good examples of it, though I prefer when I read I get new data, not get told what I had previously read didn't happen, but there are exceptions :-P ;-)

To add to that, does anyone here watch SFdebris, a web series of reviews? He covered the concept of honour in a rather interesting way, focusing on, of course, the Klingons and on Worf. In particular these two reviews: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnWOHVOVgFQ - on Worf and Klingon honour and https://sfdebris.com/videos/startrek/d449.php - the House of Quark

@Xardan Ta'Caran I think I speak for everyone when I say you are welcome :-) its good for ideas to be sharpened on other ideas, and methods to be improved by learning from other methods. And yes, reverse engineering a culture can be fun! Working out what made a people embrace one thing, or how they developed a technology or custom, can help give a new appreciation for the cultures in the world we live in, as well as make the ones built for a story have more depth, especially when it serves to flow into the rest of the story in a natural way, something which makes sense for the people and so informs how they behave and how others behave to them.

@Xardan Ta'Caran I meant to reply to this yesterday but forgot - sorry about that. That reminds me a bit of how David Eddings did his stories, with each of the companions being archetypal of their nation. It can definitely be useful, though I also like how Brandon has done his, with members of a given nation who are main or secondary characters also being considered atypical of their peoples' usual attitudes. Once you have worked out the basics of a culture based on a character do you use single existing or previous cultures to flesh out that base, or do you try to combine elements from a few cultures for each? When it comes to notes, you have to use what works for you :-P if the method works then it's great! And you two together have a system that works, that's great! Much like in a story where each character plays to their strengths to cover the others weakness (life imitates art? ;-) ) @Kureshi Ironclaw Ahhh I like your approach :-) I'm actually codifying my notes right now, and using some of the earlier ideas as the ideas certain aliens and cultures have about how the meta-setting is constructed, with the older ideas being fairly similar to what the races believe and which isn't entirely incorrect. The misconceptions being told by a character to others does allow for interesting reveals when they discover the information isn't correct, or wonder at a seeming inconsistency, and so can serve as misdirection or red herrings :-) Side note but this actually reminds me a bit of something which I think was in Thud! by Terry Pratchett, where each side believed the other had ambushed them, but in actuality they had just bumped into each other. So misunderstandings like that you would list in the notes? My own notes are written more as though from my perspective, with anything believed to be the case by the characters or species or cultures noted as such with the actual case listed before. Separate beliefs are listed in their own documents. I'll add another thing about how I world build here as well, which I think has helped make the settings I work on more distinct. When I write I find I have a tendency to use certain ideas often, such as the main enemy being extra-dimensional, or teleporter networks. So I made a list of the common elements when I design, and allocated them to different settings, making a list of which idea is used where, and how important it is in the story. While the settings all touch the foundation, each setting instead focuses on one or two or three of these, while other stories focus on other ones, and so each can be developed more distinctly.

We can all agree on one thing, whatever our feelings on Moash and Elhokar: what Elhokar did to Moash's grandparents was wrong, and deserved to be punished for failing in his duties and causing pain to those he was supposed to protect (as Windrunners show, Leadership and Protection are the same). However, he did it without malice, without the intention of harming someone in a permanent way, and he acknowledged his flaws, and wanted to do better. Moash rejects this view, that men are flawed and so aren't responsible for their actions. He killed someone he didn't have to kill, in front of their own child, and before that he was willing to kill someone who had done him no wrong, Kaladin, and who had in fact elevated him and saved him - his desire to sink to the same level of Elhokar, or even lower, meant he embraced his flaws as natural, and right, while Elhokar knows his flaws are things to be ashamed of. And in taking his revenge, he subjected a little boy to the same trauma he suffered, only right in front of his eyes. Elhokar wanted to be better and was sorry for his mistakes. Moash doubled down on his and actively believes that he is absolved of his guilt because everyone is like that. I hope he has a redemption arc, but the first step is for him to realise that not only is he no better than those who wronged him - he already thinks everyone is equally flawed - but that he can be better, that men can be better, that humans must take responsibility for their mistakes, and take their punishment. Everyone is payed back in the end, its just whether you take the punishment now and grow, or later and are destroyed.

I've heard of that. Custom encyclopedia style notes can be both fun and useful, especially in a scholarly sense. Do you write your notes as though from an in-setting perspective, or more as a commentary to yourself, as in notes to yourself by yourself?

I imagine that the same medium that all the mental metals use to either send, receive, or block allomantic pulses. Those same pulses are produced by shards when in or interacting with the physical and cognitive realm, and at least some of their perpendicularities (as the pits didn't seem to produce any, but the well did). It seems like all uses of investiture produce them, but some are easier to sense than others, as Lightweaver applications are less "noisy" than Windrunner applications, and Feruchemists abilities don't seem as energetic as those of an Allomancer. So it likely is either a spiritual thing which manifests in the cognitive as perceivable ripples - or instructions for soulcasting - or is entirely a cognitive wave, equivalent to sound in the physical realm, and possibly similar to whatever allowed someone the ability to get beads in Shadesmar to clump together around a seed bead - investiture infused pulses of an idea directed towards the representation of an objects idea-side nature. Ultimately, we don't know what other items or analogues exist in the cognitive realm, and how they differ from the physical.

Good! You are displaying your autonomy! You might just dominate in that! And that might be very very wise ... assuming wisdom is ... you know ...

You seem to be cultivating a sense of humour! Or were you already endowed with one?

Well, I don't want to Ruin your Hopes, but ....

@Emperor Stick Of course Ati isn't a bad person - its an Aon! ... Wait, that's not what you mean, isn't it?

@RShara I see where you are coming from - I did address this point in the post itself. But what about the other points in the topic, such as people acting or behaving in a certain way opening up access to power in the spiritual realm to a shard that it didn't have access to before, as Brandon has noted shards can do in the physical realm, with regards to shards finding more of their investiture in the physical by reaching out in space, as Autonomy does? Do you therefor disagree with the second possibility, that belief could affect the cognitive landscape in a way that makes the application of a shard's power easier or more difficult, or belief to be a sharpening or blunting effect on the power of a shard? @Karger I need to recheck, but didn't Dalinar experience peace when he met Odium, the golden light, or was that confirmed to be from something else? Also, on that topic of what shards can do, the ability of Vin as Preservation to destroy something in order to Preserve - which I think we were both thinking of with regards to acting outside of the intent - is still an example of shards being able to act outside their intent, to be free. As Brandon had noted, shards are not restricted to only affecting things related to their intent, or else they would be too limited, with the intent rather acting as a guiding influence on their minds, a compulsion they can push against but in no way restricting, for example, Devotion when she was still alive from hypothetically making something even if her intent was about a behaviour. Either way this is unrelated to the main issue, as I am not arguing belief could change a shard, only affect how well it can use its abilities, even if only on those acting in a certain way. @Bigmikey357 I fully agree with what you are saying on all counts. I do wonder, however, if belief from a large group could still have some influence, if only on that group, though the way you describe it seems to lean more to connection than to belief, though I suppose belief can make connections, as Spook showed. With regards to the shards, I think Sazed gave an accurate summary in that the power knows the best way to use its power is to have a mind to direct it, as Preservation for example recognises that just trying to enforce stability without some guide is counterproductive. The shard might find a local maximum result by just applying itself without intelligence, but with intelligence it could in theory find a global maximum. @not an Evil Librarian That was the very quote I was referencing, you don't need to quote it back at me :-P hemalurgy, however, is still building something up even if it is also destroying something, as well as his attempts to build Vin up - Ruin doesn't act mindlessly for destruction, but instead uses intelligence, sometimes climbing the proverbial hills, up being constructive acts where as the power itself wants to go down into the valleys, where down is the destructive ones, knowing that a deeper valley across the plains - a more complete destruction - can be reached if you are willing to actively build for a while before destroying. The fastest way to your destination isn't always as the crow flies if there is a massive wall in the way, but rather one needs to go around it, or even backtrack, to find the way there.

@Pagliacci Indeed! Fully agreed! @Kureshi Ironclaw Good luck with your writing and the methods you use to do so! Out of curiosity, do you usually put everything into a handful of notes now that you are using notes, or do you make a few documents for each topic? I tend to favour the latter, though it also makes keeping things organised more interesting :-P while the latter can make the particulars of something harder to find :-P

I know what you mean - so many good authors, and only so much time available to read :-) I do highly recommend Anne McCaffrey's writing though :-P Happy reading!

Welcome Josh! I hope you enjoy your time here :-) good luck with the writing, and the voice acting! Have you tried any Anne McCaffrey novels, such as the Dragon Riders of Pern? They seem like fantasy at first, but they quickly reveal their science fiction roots, while still having giant fire breathing dragons :-)

It need not be a one way process :-P power can flow both ways Also, Odium doesn't just have to make people angry - he also drains away feelings and pain, as well as thinking he more accurately is passion. Ruin, despite being Ruin, can also build things up, provided they are then used to knock things down. Shards are driven to act a certain way, but they can step outside of that with effort, or side step a more direct path (as in, just destroying for Ruin) in order to better achieve that goal (making agents which have stronger powers so that they can destroy).

This is a somewhat baseless theory (sort of ...) and question - the question being what your opinion on the likelihood, or, if true, your reaction to this idea. The idea is, due to the relation between the cognitive realm and shards, that sufficient belief in a shard, or performing actions associated with the shard, strengthens it. Conversely, actions which break or go against the shards intent could weaken it - for example, Odium getting people to hate one another and fight a war to avenge current or past wrongs with the desire less for justice and more for harming others would fuel him and make him power powerful, or more free to use that power, while conversely getting those fighting to violate the basic tenants of honour, and breaking down the works of others, would weaken both Honour and Cultivation, or interfering with their abilities to use their powers, at least over those who go against them. Support for this comes from a few directions, one of which is the similarities in the cosmere between the cognitive realms belief based structure, and similar systems in the works of Terry Pratchett, David Eddings, and certain wargames. Belief in those settings can be used to fuel or make beings that embody that belief and have power due to it, with insufficient belief once one is made weakening them. While the shards were note made from belief (unless the sixteen members and Hoid and anyone else present performed the shattering by believing the power would shatter ... which isn't entirely unlikely actually ...) they still have a presence in all three of the cosmere's realms, possibly more directly in the cognitive than the physical, and spren and other splinters, such as those within Returned, are susceptible to the beliefs of the people around them, some spren themselves originating from small packets of power shaped by the beliefs of the minds on Roshar. Objections to this idea can include their being a finite amount of investiture available, with each particle polarised to the property of its progenitor piece, and so changing alignments is impossible without distorting the balance in the cosmere - after all, where would this extra investiture come from? However, just because a shard is gaining more power doesn't mean it has increased in investiture volume - it could also relate to how effectively they can use the power they have, or power associated with them elsewhere in the cosmere - physical, cognitive, or spiritual realm - being added to them or brought to their attention to use. It could even just be making the cognitive landscape more amiable for them to further use their powers while weakening the others - like Another argument could be that, for example, in Mistborn when Ruin was destroying the world or the battles were being fought, he didn't gain more power. However, just because there was a lot of ruining occuring doesn't mean that an equal amount of preserving wasn't also happening, people protecting others, for example, or the amount provided to Ruin was, while non-zero, still less than what could accurately be measured in their conflict. So, what do you think? Do you think this is likely, and if it does or does not turn out to be true, what would your opinion on the implications be then?

Another possibility is, if you want the leaving to be more abrupt, to have further experimentation at the location where the first teleportation occurred to later pull her along with it, either her doing further experimenting, or accidentally when she tries to sent the adventurer on their way?