Talk:Odium

Odium is scared of Harmony

In the Waygate foundation Q&A (http://youtu.be/qRhup20Ns1c?t=1h59m35s) Brandon mentions that Odium is scared of Harmony. Unfortunately, I have no idea how to format the ref for this....

World

This page is gonna need to be updated with the new Odium stuff. I tried to change his world to Braise, and the template did not like that one bit. Joe, is there some behind-the-scenes stuff that needs to be done to allow for new worlds in the Shard infobox? --Windrunner (talk) 06:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Shardic Sight Theory - disagreement

I believe that the argument that Ruin was short-shighted is quite wrong - though in the end Leras proved to be more of a schemer it was mentioned enough times for me to recall that Ruin is not a mindless force of destruction and he has indeed been seen to be sly enough - convincing Vin to release him, placing spikes all around, causing chaos at the correct times etc. . Also I'd like to mention that his Power - his body - the atium was taken away from him and hidden thus probably extreamly decreasing his prophetic abilities. My last point is such - though Cultivation and Preservation might have a greater affinity towards foresight and thus their power is attuned to it, Odium, by nature, is likly not to care much of the future, since, atleast to me, hatred is an emotion which rarly has anything to do with logic, planning or insight which are what I see as needed to "realize" the future or the like.

I agree with this. I don't think Ruin was short sighted as he carefully orchestrated events in his favor for thousands of years. The whole section reads like an opinion piece without any sources from Sanderson. I think it should be rewritten. 172.68.154.7 12:51, 11 December 2017 (MST)

I might offer some alternative speculation (having read through book 3) that Odium is the Shard of spiritual-division, where Honor is the Shard of spiritual-binding. He would therefore be attuned to the competing appetites and passions within sentient life, as well as to hatred, manipulation, deception, judgment, atonement, and grief. I consider him a change-oriented Shard. In my opinion, this would give him great knowledge of the future, rivalled by Endowment and Cultivation, but with a blind spot for the possibility of souls to choose not to change or be divided, even when everything pressures them to do so--such as Jasnah's choice of mercy and Dalinar's choice of pain. Ebenezer (talk) 13:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

That's an interesting theory and, if you'd like to discuss it more, the 17th Shard forums would be a great place for that. It's kind of a moot point for the Coppermind now though, since the entire "Shardic Future Sight" section is no longer on the article; probably because it's discussed more generally on the Shard article and felt a bit too speculative for this article.

--Stargazer (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The Thrill

Based on Taravangian's interlude in WoR, the theory that Odium is the direct cause of the Thrill seems to be discounted in favor of a spren, 'Nergaoul', which seems to generate the Thrill simply be being near those around it. This appears to be similar to another possibly related spren, Moelach, causing the death rattles recorded throughout WoK's epigraphs.

Killing a shard

(Proposed edit due to possible invalidation of above theory) --It is expressly stated that the act of killing a Shards vessel is not the reason for Vin's death. Due to the unique set of circumstances present, Vin was both in control of the abilities of Preservation, but not yet fully attuned to it's Intent. Vessels are also allowed to express the Intent of a shard through their own viewpoint. Thus, while the Intent of Preservation is to preserve all things, no matter if they are good or bad, a partially attuned Vin was able to view the destruction of the vessel of Ruin as the correct act of Preservation, from a worldly standpoint, and was able to use the abilities of the Shard to do so. Whereas this act was permitted through her view of Preservation of the world itself, it was counter to the Intent of the Shard she held. Whereas normally, violating the Intent of a held Shard wouldn't be possible, Vin had not fully attuned Preservation and was able to do so. However, in doing so, she caused her own death when the Shard (now an integral part of her existence) was torn away forcefully; the Shard is bound to it's own intent, and cannot possibly remain anywhere where it's intend is violated (similar to how dark and light can't exist in the same space; you can force light to be where the darkness is, but in turn, the darkness cannot remain there, by law of nature). Since there is no other written example of one shard killing another directly, but it is know to have happened off page, and since the systems outlined in the books are seen to not allow loopholes by nature of cosmic balance and mechanics (the actual rules and foundation of the Cosmere), even an indirect method would be the same as a direct. Therefore, it must be possible to do this, and the instance of Preservation and Ruin was an isolated and highly specific incident. As such, I would propose that the above theory be edited to reflect the quantifiable mechanics of the Cosmere, as illustrated in this comment, to not create a situation where readers are given potentially faulty assumptions about the book world. This comment can be removed itself, after the editorial determination is made, as well.--

Arrival on Roshar

The section Battle with Honor states that Odium arrived on Roshar after the humans did. But my read of the Eila_Stele is that Odium arrived with the humans from their previous world (which would imply that they had previously cohabited that world). I'd be curious if anyone knows of sources that add argument either way.

That line specifically refers to, and uses the phrasing of, this Word of Brandon: [1] I think that sentence, as written, is reasonably accurate. -- Chaos2651 (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Ambition

It appears that there is disagreement over the role Odium played in Ambitions destruction. The quote in question "Odium clashed with (and mortally wounded) the shard Ambition here. Ambition would later be splintered, though that act took place in a different location." The quote here does not seem to imply Odium actually killed Ambition, he did mortally wound it (although in terms of Shards that phrase seems a bit odd, consider for example Leras) but that does not mean he killed them. Someone else could have finished off the Shard Ambition before they succumbed to their wounds. This is a line of thinking I personally have seen theorised before the release of RoW and with that release it seems more likely Odium is not the one who actually killed Ambition, in universe this also appears to be the case as on the Roshar essay Khriss doesn't list Ambition as one of Odium's "doubtless" victims, it seems that there is doubt over who actually had killed Ambition. I think it would be best to if not remove the mention of Ambition from the list of his victims to at least add a bit acknowledging this doubt on if Odium actually killed Ambition. --Debarra (talk) 26th Dec 2020

I can definitely see the wiggle room in the mortally wounded quote, for sure. I think this wob is also pretty good evidence though that Ambition was killed by Odium even if if they wasn't listed in Arcanum. It's been believed up till now that Ambition was killed by Odium, I don't think there's anything definitive in RoW that should really changes that belief. LadyLameness (talk) 02:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Personally I'd still see that wob as leaving wiggle room but I'll put my tin foil hat aside. :) Thank you for linking it. --Debarra (talk) 27th Dec 2020

I would still think that the phrase "mortally wound" means that the wound is the cause of death. I did a quick Google search and that's what the phrase means. Certainly I agree we don't know what context Mercy's involvement is, but Odium's wound led to Ambition's death. -- Chaos2651 (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)