The Parshmen and Parshendi

[Daishi5]

One thing has been really bugging me about the Parshendi/voidbringers connection.  The Parshendi seem to have been honorable and upstanding in everything we see of them.  I can't really post this in the Stormlight section since it contains information from the WoR readings.  (At least I think I am supposed to avoid posting WoR stuff down there.)

 

• When they sent Szeth, they required him to wear white so that his target would see him coming.
• They entered into the peace treaty in good faith, only sending Szeth when they learned of new information.
• They publicly owned up to their own assassination. 
• When they fight on the plains, they only start bringing two armies to the fight after the Alethi start bringing two armies.  I have seen suggestions that they did this because they didn't want to provoke the Alethi in to combining forces, but it seems to me that they have been fighting fair fights.
• Kaladins observations of their combat techniques and how they avoid targeting weak and injured Alethi.

Compared to the humans, the Parshendi just don't seem to be tools of Odium at all.  

 

On top of that, spren are mostly Honor, Cultivation, or a mixture of the two.  Apparently there may also be Adonalsium spren (I haven't seen the source for this.)  The Parshendi forms are based on Spren, and one of the forms is a mating form.  

 

So, we have a race that seems to be consistently honorable in their behavior with a lifecycle that is dependent on spren that come from either Honor or Cultivation (or maybe Adonalsium).  

 

My big question is, where did the Parshendi come from, and how are they related to the voidbringers?  Did Honor and Cultivation make them, and then Odium corrupts them?  Maybe voidbringers are not related to Odium at all, maybe that is a mistake that built up through history?  Are the Parshendi the natural forms, and maybe Odium stripped the spren to leave the Parshmen to be taken over?

 

Personally, I think Jasnah is wrong.  Mostly based on the behavior of the Parshendi in the WoK, and a feeling that if the Parsh are the voidbringers it seems too similar to the Kandra in Mistborn.  

[Argent he/him]

I've grown to suspect that the Voidbringers are really "corrupted" Parshendi. Our maybe Parshmen. It's the only thing that makes sense to me (as long as we assume the two are related). Odium would only need to create a single type of spren, one that gives the Parshendi an "odiumform." then all he has to figure out is a way to make the Parshendi adopt it. A process we don't know anything about anyway. But if this is possible, then Odium could've turned Honor's most honorable people into his enemies - all in one small move.

[Gloom he/him]

Actually, he doesn't even have to do that. He can just corrupt an existing spren type and have them hijack the Parsh.

[Argent he/him]

Odium seems ill-fitting note. Laziness would've been more appropriate...

[The Count he/him]

I think I agree with you here, that Jasnah is wrong, or at the very least, that it is not as simple as she believes.

 

I think the problem is Jasnah's heresy and her disbelief in the Almighty. This is leading her to look for more worldly and mundane explanations for the Voidbringers and Desolations.

 

We, as informed readers, know she is wrong on these points.

 

I think she is probably half right, from the information we know,

• Spren can be corrupted
• Parshendi change form by bonding with different spren

It is not a great leap of faith the assume bad stuff will occur when the two are mixed.

 

This doesn't address the fact that, if Parshmen can become Voidbringers, the most logical course of action following the last Desolation would be to kill them all... problem solved. This did not happen, therfore I deduces that Jasnah's logic is flawed in someway. 

 

I would say that Parshmen / Parshendi are merely easier targets for corruption due to their unique bonding relationship. 

[Argent he/him]

I addressed the "we should just kill them all" thing somewhere else, so I'll recap my points against this only briefly:

• The Heralds said we won. The last Desolation was the Last Desolation. Why kill the Voidbringers when we can make them our slaves?
• People are often power-hungry. Maybe if we keep a small enough population under our control we'll be able to tap their powers for our own use.
• This is a genocide - a xenocide even - you are talking about! People might be bad, but they are not that bad.
• Hey, maybe we thought we did kill them all, except for like 20 that we kept for vanity - and those 20 were obviously harmless. Even if they turned all Voidbringery, regular Shardbearers could slay them. Not that this would happen, of course. Those hundreds of thousands of Parshendi living in the former Natanatan? I dunno, we thought we had killed them all.

[hoser he/him]

The Parshendi seem to have been honorable and upstanding in everything we see of them. 

I understand the point being made, but I can't agree with this statement.  They seem honorable in some ways, but not others. 

• There is nothing honorable about breaking a treaty.  If you learn new information, honorable people communicate, negotiate and ultimately cancel the treaty publicly before sending an assassin. 
• There is nothing honorable about sending an assassin to kill an ally. It doesn't matter what color clothing the assassin is wearing.  The fact that the Parshendi have customs for sending assassins proves that they are not consistently honorable. 
• Eshonai doesn't confront Dalinar until he is weakened by prolonged fighting.  If Eshonai had wanted to communicate with Dalinar, she should have done so before there were many thousands of dead around the Tower.  She didn't engage until the Alethi Shardbearers had been weakened by mowing down many thousand Parshendi. 
• The Parshendi seem to have no compunction about killing unarmed bridgeman slaves (although maybe they don't know they are slaves).  Giving them credit for not attacking the weak when they are happy to mow them down under certain circumstances doesn't show the whole picture. 

Edited October 31, 2013 by hoser

[marianmi]

I think I agree with you here, that Jasnah is wrong, or at the very least, that it is not as simple as she believes.

 

I think the problem is Jasnah's heresy and her disbelief in the Almighty. This is leading her to look for more worldly and mundane explanations for the Voidbringers and Desolations.

 

We, as informed readers, know she is wrong on these points.

 

I think she is probably half right, from the information we know,

• Spren can be corrupted
• Parshendi change form by bonding with different spren

It is not a great leap of faith the assume bad stuff will occur when the two are mixed.

 

This doesn't address the fact that, if Parshmen can become Voidbringers, the most logical course of action following the last Desolation would be to kill them all... problem solved. This did not happen, therfore I deduces that Jasnah's logic is flawed in someway. 

 

I would say that Parshmen / Parshendi are merely easier targets for corruption due to their unique bonding relationship. 

 

Humans also bond with spren. They are called surgebinders.

[Scott]

Humans bond with spren a different way.  I'm going to go out on a limb and state that Kaladin didn't walk out into a highstorm as a normal human and emerge with Syl as a Windrunner...

[Gloom he/him]

Agreed, not only is the bonding process different, but a human can ultimately reject the bond.

[The Count he/him]

Humans also bond with spren. They are called surgebinders.

 

True, but the bond is far more intimate with the Parshendi,

 

A Nahel bond is symbiotic (both parties get benefit from the bond)

 

The Parshendi act more like.... living Fabrials... their entire funtion is defined by the Spren they are bonded with.

 

It is even deeper that that though, it is almost as if they are not complete individuals without the spren bond (i.e. they are Parshmen).

 

Asside: I would speculate that the Nahel bond protects the spren from corruption (similar to how it seems to protect Kaladin from the Thrill)

[Shardlet he/him]

I understand the point being made, but I can't agree with this statement.  They seem honorable in some ways, but not others. 

• There is nothing honorable about breaking a treaty.  If you learn new information, honorable people communicate, negotiate and ultimately cancel the treaty publicly before sending an assassin. 
• There is nothing honorable about sending an assassin to kill an ally. It doesn't matter what color clothing the assassin is wearing.  The fact that the Parshendi have customs for sending assassins proves that they are not consistently honorable. 
• Eshonai doesn't confront Dalinar until he is weakened by prolonged fighting.  If Eshonai had wanted to communicate with Dalinar, she should have done so before there were many thousands of dead around the Tower.  She didn't engage until the Alethi Shardbearers had been weakened by mowing down many thousand Parshendi. 
• The Parshendi seem to have no compunction about killing unarmed bridgeman slaves (although maybe they don't know they are slaves).  Giving them credit for not attacking the weak when they are happy to mow them down under certain circumstances doesn't show the whole picture. 

 

By who's definition of honor?  As has been discussed in several other threads, who get's to decide what honorable means?  Is our cultural understanding of honor any better than some other culture's?  Absent an overarching absolute standard of morality given by an ultimate creator, honor and ethics are societally determined constructs.  Whatever a society decides is honorable or moral or ethical is ipso facto honorable or moral or ethical until that society changes it's collective mind.

[hoser he/him]

By who's definition of honor?  As has been discussed in several other threads, who get's to decide what honorable means?  Is our cultural understanding of honor any better than some other culture's?  Absent an overarching absolute standard of morality given by an ultimate creator, honor and ethics are societally determined constructs.  Whatever a society decides is honorable or moral or ethical is ipso facto honorable or moral or ethical until that society changes it's collective mind.

Yes there are some cultural variances and gray areas, but Shardic intent and common sense seems like it should have an effect in this world.  By your argument, you could make the case that Odium's behavior is honorable.  So Odium is the same as Honor and we need another intent for the now intentless Shard once known as Honor. 

The general alethi concept of honor has been corrupted, which we can easily tell.  The Parshendi may be operating under some other corrupted meaning of honor, but the OP seems to be referring to an absolute meaning of honor when he claims they have been completely honorable. 

Syl's consciousness does not seem to have been changed by the corruption in the Alethi concept of honor, so I would argue that from the Shardic point of view, your argument is, at best, partially true. 

[Shardlet he/him]

I agree with you that what is Honorable on Roshar in terms of alignement with Honor is going to be determined by Honor's guiding intent.  The rub is, we don't exactly know what that guiding intent is.  There is a tidbit here and there.  But, it is difficult to describe the picture a puzzle makes when put together if you only have a few of the pieces.

 

Edit: Your example with Odium, is not consistent with my previous post.  Those concepts would be determined by society rather than by individuals such as Odium.  So, absent an overarching morality, if a society of community held behaviors and actions exhibited by Odium to be honorable, then, yes, Odium's actions would be honorable within that society.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Shardlet

[Argent he/him]

WoB says that the Shardic Intent, Honor in particular, is affected by people perceive it. The Shin, for example, have a very different idea about what constitutes honor from the Alethi. It's possible that the Parshendi followed a "for the greater good" kind of logic when they had Gavilar assassinated. In way this could be considered honorable - them taking the blame, facing potential xenocide, because they are willing to accept the consequences for their (justified) actions.

[Shardlet he/him]

I'd like to see the wording on that WoB, Argent.  Do you have a link?  If that is accurate, then it becomes very murky about what constitutes honorable behavior.

[Gloom he/him]

I'm going to give the Parshendi the benefit of the doubt for the following reasons.

 

First, if you were part of an honorable society and felt the need to kill someone immediately that was protected by a vast army, what other option would you have?

 

Second, it seems they went through a great deal of trouble to ensure that the target of the assassination had as good a chance as possible of thwarting the assassination. They ordered Szeth to wear white, they ordered him to be seen, they set it up so that their was enough time for Galivar to not only get suited up in his Shardplate, but create a plan to divert the assassin.

 

Third, they immediately took responsibility for the deed.

 

I won't say that assassination is an honorable action, but I will say that the process they chose to implement the assassination was chosen specifically to ensure that the target had as good a chance at survival as possible while still allowing the attempt a chance at success.

 

Brandon Sanderson

I don't think it's necessary at all. The writer's own fascinations—whatever they are—can add to the writing experience. But yes, some philosophical ideas worked into my fiction. Plato's theory of the forms has always fascinated, and so the idea of a physical/cognitive/spiritual realm is certainly a product of this. Human perception of ideals has a lot to do with the cognitive realm, and a true ideal has a lot to do with the spiritual realm.

This is the best I could find on short notice.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Gloom

[hoser he/him]

First, if you were part of an honorable society and felt the need to kill someone immediately that was protected by a vast army, what other option would you have?

Um.  Talk to them. Communicate. Negotiate.  Let them know why you think it is a bad idea.  Gavilar was completely surprised that the Parshendi were behind the assassination. 

Second, it seems they went through a great deal of trouble to ensure that the target of the assassination had as good a chance as possible of thwarting the assassination. They ordered Szeth to wear white, they ordered him to be seen, they set it up so that their was enough time for Galivar to not only get suited up in his Shardplate, but create a plan to divert the assassin.

They could have sent someone without a Shardblade, or any one of themselves.  Isn't it less honorable to send a slave on a risky and dishonorable assignment than to go yourself?  It just seems confused, like their sense of honor, a corrupted muddle. 

 

Brandon Sanderson

I don't think it's necessary at all. The writer's own fascinations—whatever they are—can add to the writing experience. But yes, some philosophical ideas worked into my fiction. Plato's theory of the forms has always fascinated, and so the idea of a physical/cognitive/spiritual realm is certainly a product of this. Human perception of ideals has a lot to do with the cognitive realm, and a true ideal has a lot to do with the spiritual realm.

Are we saying that the Shards are purely cognitive?  Because if they have a spiritual aspect then this quote argues for Shardic intent being somewhat absolute.  We already know that while the bearer of the Shard is affected by the Intent of the Shard, the Shardic intent is not affected at all by the bearer. 

Edited November 1, 2013 by hoser

[Gloom he/him]

Um.  Talk to them. Communicate. Negotiate.  Let them know why you think it is a bad idea.  Gavilar was completely surprised that the Parshendi were behind the assassination.

 

I'm assuming that they felt that things had already gone too far.

 

They could have sent someone without a Shardblade, or any one of themselves.  Isn't it less honorable to send a slave on a risky and dishonorable assignment than to go yourself?  It just seems confused, like their sense of honor, a corrupted muddle.

 

We don't know that they were aware of the circumstances surrounding Szeth. From what I understand, they used a third party to contract the assassination. It's not only possible, but likely that they never had contact with the actual assassin.

 

The quote was retrieved for Shardlet. It wasn't part of my argument. So, I'm not saying anything in regards to the quote.

[Shardlet he/him]

I hope that isn't the quote that Argent was referencing.  If it was, it was woefully inadequate to support that relationship.

[Windrunner he/him]

Are we saying that the Shards are purely cognitive?  Because if they have a spiritual aspect then this quote argues for Shardic intent being somewhat absolute.  We already know that while the bearer of the Shard is affected by the Intent of the Shard, the Shardic intent is not affected at all by the bearer.

I don't agree with that second part.

Shards affect you over time, but your mind will not leave a permanent effect on the Shard. A holder's personality, however, does get to filter the Shard's intent, so to speak. However, if that holder no longer held that Shard, the Shard will not continue to be filtered by that person.

So the Shardholder's perception of "Endowment" or "Honor" does have some impact on how they go about fulfilling that intent while they hold that Shard.

[Shardlet he/him]

I don't agree with that second part.So the Shardholder's perception of "Endowment" or "Honor" does have some impact on how they go about fulfilling that intent while they hold that Shard.

 

I definitely get behind this.

[Argent he/him]

I apologize for the delay, busy couple of days...

 

It looks like I got the WoB a little off, Shardlet:

 

Q: You have mentioned that certain spren are an embodiment of concepts. How does that work for the concepts like honor, that can mean opposite things to different culture groups?

A: Human perception has a lot to do with why spren act like they do...

 

 

I still believe my original argument holds, but it's not as strong as before. Spren are, as far as we know, Splinters. Splinters pretty much follow their Shard's Intent, though I seem to recall that they are not always 100% in line. So honorspren, being Splinters of Honor, would behave the way he would in more cases than not.

[Shardlet he/him]

Splinters pretty much follow their Shard's Intent, though I seem to recall that they are not always 100% in line.

 

Big words for such a small amount of evidence.  The splinters we know of are Seons (and Skaze), Spren, and Divine Breaths.  Seons exhibit devotion to an extent in that they have a bond-ish relation ship with  single person.  Spren we don't know much about yet.  And Divine Breath...?

[Argent he/him]

I was actually thinking of another WoB, though I can't seem to find it. I am much more vague on this one, so I won't pretend I am sure such a WoB exists. But I'll counter on Seons and Divine Breath. The former are all about devotion - they practically thrive on it. Recall Reoden's (memory of) his conversation with Ien when he wanted to see his Seon free. The latter... Divine Breaths practically exist to be given away, to be endowed upon someone. The Returned come back to life with a purpose - the Hallandren religion and Lightsong's visions both agree on this. And since what makes the Returned what they are is their Divine Breath, it's an obvious conclusion to me that those Breaths come with the same purpose.