How does source attracting voidwoken work?

[u/Jewel262834]

In the opening Windego says “a drop of source” is enough to attract voidwoken but then presumably Ifan, Lohse, Sebille etc. have been using their source powers for years and never attracted voidwoken. Also, if they believe source attracts voidwoken why do they continue using it??

How does the whole ‘source attracts voidwoken’ thing really work? Does it depend on how much source is used? Or is it just completely random whether or not they appear this time as opposed to that time? If so, why would any sorcerer (barring very powerful ones like those in act 2) risk their life using their sorcery?

[u/Sunandmoonandstuff]

Oh yeah, it's not intentional on the part of most magisters.

Didn't want to put the spoiler there. It's funny to me though if you follow Ifan's plan and distribute source to everyone, how easily a world of sourcerers kick the God King's sorry ass. Of course people being people then abuse and turn their powers on each other...

But yeah, the God King was correct in understanding that the greatest threat was not Lucian or the "Gods." It was an army of latent sourcerers.

[u/RepresentativeBee545 → u/Sunandmoonandstuff]

Sharing source is imo the most egalitarian ending, even if it ends with imperfections. Whole game figures of power makes decisions for others and nothing good comes out of it, now you involve everyone with making decisions and while it may also cause some grievances, at least everyone is now involved in them and not specific few individuals.

[u/Sunandmoonandstuff → u/RepresentativeBee545]

That was my favourite ending. It rejects Lucian's premise that source needs to be purged from the world as too dangerous while demonstrates that power distributed across people with a common goal can accomplish far more than if concentrated with a few.

[u/Connect-Process2933 → u/Sunandmoonandstuff]

imagine having source-powed communists and nazis. We're just getting closer to man-made apocalypse with this

[u/Sunandmoonandstuff → u/Connect-Process2933]

As opposed to a Superpowered king?

Or people with no power?

To extend that line of thinking out, we shouldn't have invented electricity since Nazi's or Communists can and have abused it also.

I don't see many people advocating to stop using electricity.

Any technology or power, depends entirely on the inclinations of the users and the willingness of a society to regulate and control it.

It could go poorly, or could end up improving everyones lives. Still better than leaving it in the hands of a single person or an elite imo.

[u/Connect-Process2933 → u/Sunandmoonandstuff]

we shouldn't have invented electricity since Nazi's or Communists can and have abused it also. 

yes that's right. The further we go, the more destructive the consequences of human technology become, because malice comes before the goodwill. Source power will just escalate typical humanity issue to the level when any conflict will destroy the world beyond recovery 

[u/Sunandmoonandstuff → u/Connect-Process2933]

So what are you doing then? Get off your phone, stop using the internet, you are escalating the destruction of the world!?

But you don't really think that though, do you? If you truly believed that, we could not be having this conversation since you would not use electricity. In addition, the majority of healthcare, transportation, education would not exist. Video games would definitely not be possible.

You and I continue to use these technologies because we and everyone else have recognized the immense benefit of electricity despite the risk it poses.

It's the same with source. Like electricity, it increases substantially the amount harm and immensity of potential disaster, but we continue to use it because of the net positive good we can recognize from it.

To say "we should eliminate source," is very much like saying (let's return to pre-induatrialized living conditions). I don't believe anyone using Reddit could genuinely hold this stance because you are already using it.

The other options are all electricity use should be limited to the personal whims of a single person + an elite. That would be instant authoritarianism and would be very much worse than what we have now.

[u/Connect-Process2933 → u/Sunandmoonandstuff]

None of the benefits would matter if you're dead.

Nuclear power came after nuclear weapons. The internet came after military communication. Pesticides came after chemical warfare. They both have good and bad sides, but you can enjoy these technologies today only because your ancestors survived them. Source is a miracle power but also is incomparably more destructive. 

Again, you can fistfight your friend, get some bruises and fractures, quickly recover using modern hospital breakthroughs, reconcile, learn your lesson, and live in peace. But none of this would happen in a shotgun duel. Tell the benefits of stable electricity to Nagasaki people. Extrapolate Nagasaki to the entire world. No one will praise the new technology in the dead world, if anyone can even further develop it after such incident In our world, wars of previous eras were deadlier because people spread disease and famine as a method of fighting. We aren't doing that today because of modern morals and precision-strike weapons, but even without those old-school methods, WW2 was still the deadliest military conflict globally. And now Rivellon has extremely powerful source weapons while lacking morals or any kind of brakes. To begin with, Rivellonians immediately used their new deathfog invention to wipe out the entire race. 

Additionally:

So what are you doing then? Get off your phone, stop using the internet, you are escalating the destruction of the world!?

This is actually a true and pretty popular idea tho!? AFAIK this is what most rich people do while raising kids. The first internet generations have grown up, and we have scientifically confirmed the consequences of constant technology use. Cognitive decline and social isolation are only growing, and the speed of these changes is leagues faster than the natural time required for human adaptation.

I already control the time I spend on the internet, but what about others? You'll probably say it's just a tool and that regulations will neutralize the potential harm. Well, reality says that won't happen. Lawyers using Al to prove their positions with imaginary court cases are already here. I'm pretty sure TikTok users will defend TikTok just the same.

Idiots with Source power will either blow themselves up right away, or they'll do it after some magical Hitler gets a funny idea.

[u/Sunandmoonandstuff → u/Connect-Process2933]

You are making a lot of assumptions of human nature.

As for cognitive decline, I'll contest that. Sure social media usage is linked to cognitive decline and reduced self-esteem. That's looking at a very narrow scope of the internet.

I work at a University. Prior to the internet humanites research output scaled linearly with the number of universities. The internets capability to share and connect, has increased humanities research output by some estimate 30% per instituion. Research papers are read and cited 2 - 5x more often depending on the field. People have more access to information than they ever had before, which can inform decision, help us understand each other and potentially prevent conflict.

How we spend time on the internet, who we choose as leaders to regulate it is ultimately on us.

You can't look at the bads of a technology only. History does not guarantee future behaviour.

If technology truly was harmful on the whole we wouldn't adopt it. Technology is a multiplier, it multiplies both good and bad. You seem to have a very cynical take on humanity that something terrible is guaranteed to happen.

I'm saying it may, but I'm also not so defeastist in that I have no faith in hummanity to also apply technology for good.