[OB] Shard Categorization - Intents as Drivers of Divine Interaction

[Comatose]

I know there have been a couple topics on this, and a couple that come close to this topic, but I thought I would start a new thread to focus on these categories and they have helped me to articulate how I think intents actually act upon the Vessels.  

For context, back when we didn't have many shards, I believed all of the intents would be active words which drive their vessel towards certain actions.  Ruin is driven to destroy, Preservation is driven to preserve, Cultivation is driven to transform, Honor is driven to promise and honor those promises, Devotion is driven to love, Odium is driven to hate, Endowment is driven to give, and Dominion is driven to dominate (this one in hindsight doesn't work as well), etc.  

Then we started getting ones like "Autonomy" and "Ambition" which are more innate attributes not attached to any particular action.  Then, since Oathbringer, as I've considered the Odium /Passion debate (team Odium all the way), I've rethought how I think about intents.  I still think Shards drive their vessels towards a certain result in a very active way, but how that drive occurs differs depending on which quadrant the shards are located in.

Since we don't have all the Shards, attempts at categorization at this point are inherently flawed, but I'm interested to see where the discussion leads.  

1. Concept

I think that the Intents of Shards are driving the Vessels to become "more divine".  Each Shard had an idea of what "Adonalsium" is as a spiritual ideal, and wants to actualize that ideal by reshaping their vessel.  The individual "intents" are the paths by which each shard strives to reach that ideal.  Over time, the personal motivations of the vessel are eroded and replaced with the motivation to follow path provided by the intent.  The actions the Vessel takes may still be chosen by the Vessel, but whereas before they may have been motivated by love of a friend or family member, or personal gain, those old motivations are increasingly replaced by their intent.  

Each Shard has a different way of laying out it's path.  Some treat divinity or Adonalsium as an active force and focus on acting in the world, some a mandate or objective to be achieved, some see it in terms of the relationships between Adonalsium and mortals, and some see Adonalsium being defined by certain innate and unchangeable attributes.  These distinctions create differences.  Initially, the differences between, say Odium and Devotion and Ruin and Preservation, bothered me because I perceived them to be inconsistent.  But this form of categorization helped me to make sense of the differences.  Shards focused on physical intervention or action or inherently more objective.  Their intent or motivation is to DO something in the universe, and thus the ways in which they interpret their intent, or the actions they take to bring about their divine mandate are more limited to things which bring about the intended result.  Shards with a relational focus have more subjectivity - the actions and results are less of an issue so long as the way in which the Vessel acts accords with its intent.  Shards dealing with innate attributes strive to BE a certain way.  Results are important, but internal, and actions taken in pursuit can vary widely Vessel to Vessel.  

2. Categorization

For now I am going to stay pretty broad and high level, but would love to discuss the specifics of how I've categorized shards based on evidence from WoBs or the books if people are interested or have quibbles.  

(A) Innate (What God "Is"  - Shard drives Vessel to "BE")

Shards: Autonomy and Ambition.  Maybe Honor, Dominion, or the Shard that just wants to survive.  

These Shards drive the vessel to BECOME more divine by focusing in on innate divine qualities.  The Vessel is driven to become, in this case, more autonomous or ambitious, but how they do that can be highly subjective.  These shards are the mostly likely to take a less active role in the world due to the internal nature of their intent.  Vessels with these shards are more likely to lose their sense of self, despite being more "in control" of their actions especially if they do not possess the innate quality or state they are driven to attain.  These Shard sees Adonalsium as Autonomous or Amibtious (and perhaps as Honourable or innately Sovereign).

As most of the Shards I am placing in this category firmly have not been widely observed in text, I am not prepared to comment on the future sight issue.  

(B) Relational (How God Relates to People and the World - Shard drives Vessel to relate in a specific way)

Shards: Odium, Devotion.  Maybe Honor.

These Shards are pieces of how God relates to the Cosmere, and lay out a path towards divinity based interaction with the World.  These Shards are very MOTIVATION focused, and depending on the filter of the Vessel, the outcomes can vary greatly.  This category is arguably the most subjective, and provides the most opportunities for Vessels to maintain some sense of self.  Conversely, the effects of these Shards can be more insidious, and the Vessel may be less aware of how they are being influenced.  This category also gives the Vessel heightened freedom to choose it's goal.  Rayse chooses to try to kill other Vessels, but another holder of Odium might have been driven to act in different ways.  

Due to the focus on the "how" rather than the "what" or "why", I think these Shards may be more likely to have less of an ability to perceive the future due to its relative irrelevance.  

(C) Intervention (What God Does - Shard drives Vessel to perform a certain divine action and intervene in the world)

Shards: Cultivation and Endowment.  

These shards are the doers.  Going back to my original concept of intents, these ones fit the best.  Cultivation cultivates or transforms and Endowment endows or gives.  The Shard drives the vessel to take certain actions, separated from the context of motivations or goals.  These shards also have a great deal of freedom, but their focus is primarily external.    The dangerous aspect of these Shards is that there is no end goal or desired outcome.  The Vessels will continue to be driven to act, no matter how much the world is transformed in the process.  These Shards cannot exist in isolation, and must intervene and change the world around them.  

I think that future sight in this category may have a high level of variance.  If an action requires a great deal of foresight the shard may have superior future sight, but otherwise it may not.  For example, in order to cultivate or transform something, Cultivation must be able to have a concept of what the transformed thing will become, making an increased ability to perceive multiple possible futures necessary.  The gardener must know something of the finished plant when planting the seed.  I do not think a high level of future sight would be necessary for all shards in this category though.  

(D) Mandate (What God's Goals Are or "Why" God acts - Shard drives Vessel to bring about a divine state of being).  

Shards: Ruin, Preservation, Dominion.  

I originally included this section in "Intervention", but the more I thought about it, the more I realized I liked it more as a separate category (and it helped me place Dominion (which I highly prefer to place here rather than as a divine state of being).  Part of me still sees Ruin and Preservation in the former category (Intervention) but I am going to keep thinking about it.   These Shards strive for divinity by attempting to bring about a certain goal or end state.  Ruin wishes to end all things.  Preservation wishes to hold all moments together in unchanging perpetuity.  Dominion wishes to bring about a state of divine sovereignty and rule over its domain.  These shards may utilize a variety of methods or actions to bring about their preferred state, but as the Shard's influence increases, they may become impatient to bring about their goal, despite their indifference to time (see Ruin's drive to reclaim the Atium and end the world immediately, rather than wait for the Ashmounts and Deepness to do the work for him).  These shards can be the most transformative as the Vessel's entire identity, personal motivations and emotions, and agency are all subsumed by its overpowering goal.   

I think on the whole, these Shards would be more likely to have good future sight, with some exceptions.  For example, I believe the reason Preservation has superior future sight whereas Ruin's ability to perceive the future is limited has to do with Preservation's desire to hold things in a state of stasis for forever, and is thus driven to anticipate and prevent change.  Preservation is driven to seek a highly specific future, and thus must avoid all others.  Ruin, on the other hand, is present focus, in that it wants to end the current or present state of being, and bring about an immediate end.  The future is irrelevant, because Ruin's ultimate divine goal is to ensure no futures come to pass.  I know this logic can be applied in the reverse, and have debated with the contrary opinion in the past, but we do know from the books that Preservation's future sight is superior, and this was my rationale for it.  I would predict, on this basis, that Dominion's future sight might be better than Devotion's.  

Note on Honor

I note that I have had trouble placing Honor.  It may drive its Vessel to be more honorable or it may drive its Vessel to proceed in an honorable way.  I'm curious what people think about this.  

3.  What this Means

I think the main take-away is that:

(1) All Shards are reshaping their vessels to be "Adonalsium";

(2) Despite an awareness of and longing for the spiritual ideal of Adonalsium, the Shards provide Vessels with imperfect and flawed understandings of how to effect the desired transformation;

(3) The ways in which the Shards drive their Vessels to perfect their flawed state of divinity varies shard to shard, but the form these motivations take may be used to categorize the Shards. 

It looks like I will need to go back to work without proofreading, so forgive any typos. I also did not have time, like I wanted, to go back and link some of the other topics I have read on this subject, so if you have one in mind, please link it and I will include it in the OP.  

What does everyone think?  Let me know here or on Discord

 

Links to Previous Discussions Involving Different Groupings of Shards:

16, the Shards and Scadrian magic

Fundamental Surges

Unknown Shards

 

 

[Calderis]

I'm not sure how I feel on the categorization itself, I'll try to think about it more and come back to discuss.

I do very much like the idea that different Shard "types" apply pressure to their Vessels in different ways. 

I think this may actually allow for wider degrees of interpretation and, from an external view, seeming variance in some shards between Vessels then you would see in other types. 

I'm very interested to see the discussion here, and why I had more to add in my initial thoughts. 

[Comatose]

An apt metaphor just occurred to me: it’s like if the goal of becoming divine/Adonalsium was becoming muscular, but each Shard only knows how to exercise one muscle group or one nutritional strategy.   They all are trying to achieve the same goal, but come to varied and sometimes opposite results as one only lifts weights to get a big right arm, one only cuts back on fat but doesn’t eat protein, and one only does cardio etc.  

[Argent]

Interesting.

I don't think I agree with much of this, but I find it very interesting, and also very valuable. We don't think about the nature of Shards much these days, so any shake-up to the paradigm is a good thing to have. 

High level thoughts aside, I wonder how you came up with these categories. Did you just look at the Shards we have available, examine what and how they interact with the world, and group them based on similarities? Because every time I see a group of four categories, I try to put them on a push/pull & internal/external kind of table, and while I haven't quite been able to make those fit (in the 3 minutes I spent trying), I was able put them on an internal/external & people/cosmos (or animate/inanimate) one, like so:

• Innate(A): The Shard affects the Vessels own self. This is an animate & internal Shard.
• Relational(B): The Shard affects the Vessel's relationship with others. This is an animate & external Shard.
• Intervention(C): The Shard affects how the Vessel interacts with the Cosmere as a whole. This is an inanimate & external Shard.
• Mandate(D): The Shard affects the Vessel's internal relationship with the Cosmere. This is an inanimate & internal Shard.

Now, I'll be the first to admit this categorization is a little contrived. If I had been able to put these on a push/pull scale I would've been far more sold on the entire idea, but maybe putting your categories on a scale like this one will offer you a different way of looking at those categories, maybe refine some of them a little. In particular, I am not very happy with my own categorization of C and D - both feel more focused on the inanimate (which is fine), but both also feel external. Which, of course, mirrors how I find your C and D more similar than any two other categories.

All this being said, I like the identification of how different Shards seem to affect their Vessels differently. I don't know if I am ready to agree that the Shards are inherently different in such ways (e.g. some change the way the Vessel is, while others change what the Vessel does), it may be that all of the Shards are capable of affecting their Vessels in all of these ways, but we see just one manifestation; Ruin, in the hands of another, maybe could've driven populations to seek the destruction rival nations and worlds, instead of focusing on a more universal, global kind of end of days. But the different interactions, the different categories, are good to pinpoint. 

 

[Comatose]

Very interesting.  Thanks for the thoughts!

3 hours ago, Argent said:

High level thoughts aside, I wonder how you came up with these categories. Did you just look at the Shards we have available, examine what and how they interact with the world, and group them based on similarities?

It came out of my desire to reconcile my issues with the less 'active' intents (Ambition and Autonomy in particular).  I think the intents of the shards we've seen this far in detail are fairly straight forward, but for me these seemed not to fit the established pattern, indicating to me that the pattern I was recognizing was incorrect.  

The idea comes out of two places.  The first is the idea that all of the intents are aspects of Adonalsium, split apart from each other, and lacking the context they once provided to one another.  Based on the diversity we've seen, to me at least it doesn't seem like the "parts" can be fit neatly into a homogeneous category (like the "four elements" or the "surges").  Some specified a certain action, others were more concerned with an attribute, for example.  

The second piece comes with thinking about realmatics.  I started with the idea that all of the intents warp their Vessels towards a certain something, and as I thought about it it seemed reasonable for that thing to be Adonalsium.  I was thinking about the separation between the realms, and how healing magics focus on a spiritual ideal.  Since location and time are compressed or united in the spiritual realm, I realized that there, Adonalsium would still, in some senses be whole, both in the past, and potentially in some of the possible futures.  It also made sense to me that all the Shards, as pieces of a whole, would somewhat perceive themselves as that whole.  

So if Adonalsium is like a spiritual ideal that the intents are working towards, I kind of started thinking about intents as being similar to the cognitive filters that interpret or interfere with one's ability to heal, or change their spiritual ideal.  I am not saying that the intent is cognitive - I think it is all three along with the Shard, and if anything the Vessel's interpretation of the Shard would be cognitive, but I do think the intent might function similarly to a cognitive block or filter.  It's like, if Adonalsium was a  box of blocks with an open lid, each shard is a box with a lid that will only allow one shape of block through, if that makes sense.  Together, the shards could dump out all the blocks (produce Adonalsium), but separate, they can only drive towards one thing.  

Taking these two concepts, I did look at the shards we have thus far, and thought about what they are driving their Vessel towards.  Whereas we have clear goals for Ruin and Preservation, some (even ones we have good descriptions for like Odium) are less clear.  Ruin and Preservation are somewhat objective - they focus on desired states, and there is only so much room for interpretation.  Odium is less clear (assuming he is Odium and not "Passion").  Is he compelled to make people hate, or just to hate, or both?  Breaking the shards into categories helped me make sense of these issues.

That was pretty long and rambly but I hope it makes sense.  

3 hours ago, Argent said:

 Because every time I see a group of four categories, I try to put them on a push/pull & internal/external kind of table, and while I haven't quite been able to make those fit (in the 3 minutes I spent trying), I was able put them on an internal/external & people/cosmos (or animate/inanimate) one, like so:

• Innate(A): The Shard affects the Vessels own self. This is an animate & internal Shard.
• Relational(B): The Shard affects the Vessel's relationship with others. This is an animate & external Shard.
• Intervention(C): The Shard affects how the Vessel interacts with the Cosmere as a whole. This is an inanimate & external Shard.
• Mandate(D): The Shard affects the Vessel's internal relationship with the Cosmere. This is an inanimate & internal Shard.

Now, I'll be the first to admit this categorization is a little contrived. If I had been able to put these on a push/pull scale I would've been far more sold on the entire idea, but maybe putting your categories on a scale like this one will offer you a different way of looking at those categories, maybe refine some of them a little. In particular, I am not very happy with my own categorization of C and D - both feel more focused on the inanimate (which is fine), but both also feel external. Which, of course, mirrors how I find your C and D more similar than any two other categories.

Personally, I think the push/pull variance is more a product of allomancy.  As far as we know, even Feruchemy and Hemalurgy do not have push/pull variances, and we haven't seen that form of categorization in other magic systems (like the surges or the Dor).  I did somewhat see them as external/internal and subjective/objective (I am not a huge fan of inanimate and inanimate, but I am also not a fan of subjective/objective, so if you have any other suggested categories let me know).  

I think it's more like introverted and extroverted (I like these more than internal/external because the words indicate an inclination to either isolate or intervene, but do not preclude internal or external action - it's useful I think to think of intents a little like personalities) and qualitative and quantitative maybe?  

Introverted - inward focus on motivation or self.  Changes what or how a shard is.  

Extroverted - outward focus, acting in the world.  Changes what a shard does or why they do it.  

Qualitative - focus on "how" or "why" rather than "what", making  changes to qualities or attributes rather than substantive ones.  

Substantive - focus on "what" a shard is or does.

I think that, in assigning categories, it is important to me for this theory that all intents lead to Adonalsium, and that should frame how they are structured and explained.  

So:

(a) INNATE - introverted / substantive - becoming divine by changing self - inward focus on a specific result: in this case an attribute or state of being.  Autonomy becomes autonomous.  Ambition becomes ambitious.

(b) RELATIONAL/MOTIVATIONAL - introverted / qualitative - becoming divine by changing how one interacts - an inward focus on changing the quality of the shard's interactions, and by extension, the qualities of the interactions among people.  Odium acts with hatred.  Devotion acts with love.  

(c) INTERVENTION - extroverted / qualitative - seeks to become divine by acting in the world - an outward focus on intervening in the world in a certain way.  Cultivation cultivates things, Endowment gives things.  

(d) MANDATE - extroverted / substantive - seeks to become divine through making substantive changes to achieve a certain result - an outward focus on intervening in the world to achieve a specific result.  Ruin seeks a state of destruction.  Preservation seeks a state of stasis.  

I'm still working through these, and changing things around, so I would appreciate thoughts on these groupings.  

3 hours ago, Argent said:

All this being said, I like the identification of how different Shards seem to affect their Vessels differently. I don't know if I am ready to agree that the Shards are inherently different in such ways (e.g. some change the way the Vessel is, while others change what the Vessel does), it may be that all of the Shards are capable of affecting their Vessels in all of these ways, but we see just one manifestation; Ruin, in the hands of another, maybe could've driven populations to seek the destruction rival nations and worlds, instead of focusing on a more universal, global kind of end of days. But the different interactions, the different categories, are good to pinpoint. 

I agree that all shards are capable of impacting what a shard is and what a shard does, but I think I'm proposing they have different focuses?  So for Preservation, what Leras does is the primary point of friction with his intent (see his inability to stab Elend), but their are ancillary or secondary effects on who he is and how he interacts with people as well, if that makes sense.  

[Argent]

52 minutes ago, Comatose said:

The second piece comes with thinking about realmatics.  I started with the idea that all of the intents warp their Vessels towards a certain something, and as I thought about it it seemed reasonable for that thing to be Adonalsium.  I was thinking about the separation between the realms, and how healing magics focus on a spiritual ideal.  Since location and time are compressed or united in the spiritual realm, I realized that there, Adonalsium would still, in some senses be whole, both in the past, and potentially in some of the possible futures.  It also made sense to me that all the Shards, as pieces of a whole, would somewhat perceive themselves as that whole.  

... ... ...

(a) INNATE - introverted / substantive - becoming divine by changing self - inward focus on a specific result: in this case an attribute or state of being.  Autonomy becomes autonomous.  Ambition becomes ambitious.

(b) RELATIONAL/MOTIVATIONAL - introverted / qualitative - becoming divine by changing how one interacts - an inward focus on changing the quality of the shard's interactions, and by extension, the qualities of the interactions among people.  Odium acts with hatred.  Devotion acts with love.  

(c) INTERVENTION - extroverted / qualitative - seeks to become divine by acting in the world - an outward focus on intervening in the world in a certain way.  Cultivation cultivates things, Endowment gives things.  

(D) MANDATE - extroverted / substantive - seeks to become divine through making substantive changes to achieve a certain result - an outward focus on intervening in the world to achieve a specific result.  Ruin seeks a state of destruction.  Preservation seeks a state of stasis.  

I like the first part (which, ironically, is the second piece). Given how little we know about the Shards in general, I can't afford to be as picky with the theories I espouse, just because there isn't a lot of evidence to go around; but this seems reasonable.

The second part, I think it fits better than before - or at least I understand it better. There's still a little bit of mental gymnastics I need to do between b and c, but overall it works better for me. Reframing the whole things in the context of "this is how this Shard is reaching for divinity" helped a lot.

[Comatose]

I see the issue you are having.  The distinction I had was that (b) is how or why the Shard acts, and (c) is what the shard is doing (but not what they want to accomplish).  Both are qualitative (need a better word) in that they define an action rather than a result, and govern how a shard acts, but... I think I need to think more.  The qualitative/substantive distinction is essentially the journey vs. destination distinction in some ways.  

I feel like in/out categories are not as useful in this context, but I am lacking the vocabulary necessary to articulate what I am getting at.  When I have a moment, I'd like to get back to the original categories and then rethink the groupings.  

[+Extesian]

This is probably the subject I've spent the most time thinking about. Not researching, just... thinking. 

I initially also came from the allomantic breakdown of pushing/pulling and internal/external but also had issues with it. Then i tried more of Matt's approach, except with basic breakdown for output/outcome (my terminology but a similar idea) with further division by emotional and cognitive. That's also a struggle but I quite like your categories Matt, better developed than where I got.

My last idea which I don't believe for a second but I'm fond  of is some wacky idea that some form of energy was applied to adonalsium that, kind of like fission, split it into two, then the two into four, then to 8, then to 16 before no more division could happen. Also being why some are opposites but not all. I've played around with the first division being emotional/ cognitive, or physical/ cognitive or all sorts of others but could never reconcile it into the shards we know. 

So I'm not much help. But there's at least some concepts. Either way I'm very happy to see this being discussed again and ill try to stay in touch with this.