PDA

View Full Version : How Can Moiraine Lie?


kenpoguy
03-18-2011, 12:33 AM
I had this thought and wanted to see if anyone else had had it previously. I didn't see anything with a quick search of the forum, so here we go...

How can Moiraine use an alias? Wouldn't her standing in front of someone stating "I am the Lady Alys" be a lie? Anytime she introduces her self as the Lady Alys, she is lying, which is not allowed based on the rules of the Aes Sedai and their oaths.

Does anyone recall if this was explained anywhere? Was Alys a nickname she had, or something like that?

I just had that thought after so many years of reading this series and listening to the audio books and didn't have an answer. Hopefully someone else with a better memory for this stuff has a theory on why.

Weiramon
03-18-2011, 12:52 AM
No doubt she has foresworn the three oaths and gone over to the Shadow.

Here she will be known as Darkfriend.

Isabel
03-18-2011, 12:54 AM
It's quite easy. it's also explained in the books.
She didn't say 'my name is lady Alys', but she said you may call me Lady Alys.
That's a big difference and not a lie.

Terez
03-18-2011, 12:56 AM
This seems to be a popular question lately. There was actually a debate about it on Twitter.

Juan
03-18-2011, 01:56 AM
It's quite easy. it's also explained in the books.
She didn't say 'my name is lady Alys', but she said you may call me Lady Alys.
That's a big difference and not a lie.

Right. I'll admit when reading the books I read the story and I don't look into the mysteries and theories and all that, so that usually results in me not being very observant. Therefore you may be able to find an instance of her "lying."
Note, however, that she can be wrong about things and has been before. But remember that in her mind she was being truthful. As far as I remember there are no instances of her lying. And as to you specific example, Isa has supplied the answer.

Weird Harold
03-18-2011, 03:10 AM
It's quite easy. it's also explained in the books.
She didn't say 'my name is lady Alys', but she said you may call me Lady Alys.
That's a big difference and not a lie.
This is also a very early example of "The truth an Aes Sedai speaks may not be the truth you hear" -- also known as "Aes Sedai Twisting of the Truth."

[Tam Al'thor] "It's good enough. It has to be, doesn't it? You see, lad, Aes Sedai are tricksome. They don't lie, not right out, but the truth an Aes Sedai tells you is not always the truth you think it is. You take care around her."

Mat touched his coat over the dagger, not seeming to realize what he was doing. "'An Aes Sedai's gift is bait for a fish,'" he quoted. "Well, maybe I don't want to put the hook in my mouth. Maybe whatever she wants to do in Tar Valon is worse than if I don't go at all. Maybe she's lying. 'The truth an Aes Sedai tells is never the truth you think it is.'"


Perrin did not ask what news. The women gave the information they brought only to Moiraine.

And the Aes Sedai tells us what she chooses. He thought. Aes Sedai never lied, but it was said that the truth an Aes Sedai told you was not always the truth you thought it was. Too late for qualms, now. Isn't it?

nameless
03-18-2011, 11:12 AM
All she needs is to convince one person to call her Lady Alys. Then she can tell the next person "I am called Lady Alys" and it won't be a lie.

One Armed Gimp
03-18-2011, 03:21 PM
And Lan can always get it started too.

I can't believe this was debated on Twitter.

csarmi
03-18-2011, 04:23 PM
Not to mention the fact that she IS Lady Alys. And why not? I AM csarmi, though that is not my real name. If I gave that on a forum, I wouldn't be lying.

Spasmodean
03-19-2011, 04:09 PM
If you want to talk about Aes Sedai inconsistency with the Oaths I would offer the practise of stilling for discussion.

Weird Harold
03-19-2011, 04:16 PM
If you want to talk about Aes Sedai inconsistency with the Oaths I would offer the practise of stilling for discussion.
Why? How is Stilling relevant to discussion of the Three Oaths?

GonzoTheGreat
03-19-2011, 04:34 PM
Why? How is Stilling relevant to discussion of the Three Oaths?Good question. It's not as if it is "using the OP as a weapon" in any way, is it?
Nor could the weave used be classified in any way as "a weapon for one man to kill another", as it is wielded by women*.

* In the case of stilling instead of gentling, it isn't even wielded against men.

1Powerslave
03-19-2011, 06:00 PM
Good question. It's not as if it is "using the OP as a weapon" in any way, is it?
Nor could the weave used be classified in any way as "a weapon for one man to kill another", as it is wielded by women*.

* In the case of stilling instead of gentling, it isn't even wielded against men.
Lol. Stilling and gentling should be classified as severe battery. Even a switch of air could be used as a weapon.

Spasmodean
03-19-2011, 06:09 PM
Why? How is Stilling relevant to discussion of the Three Oaths?

What does practically Aes Sedai assume stilled woman go off and do?

You can find numerous quotes throughout the books where it's mentioned that stilled women basically crawl away to die.

As a result of the stilling.

It takes some really corkscrewy type logic for an Aes Sedai to detach the practise of stilling from the whole "not killing people with the power except etc etc".

But it's basically execution that takes a while to kick in; and many sisters express views to that effect.

Weird Harold
03-19-2011, 07:57 PM
It takes some really corkscrewy type logic for an Aes Sedai to detach the practise of stilling from the whole "not killing people with the power except etc etc".

Which Oath is about "not killing people with the power?" It isn't the Third Oath:

Upon being raised to the shawl, Aes Sedai swear three oaths on the Oath Rod which binds them to the oaths:

1. To speak no word that is not true.

2. To make no weapon for one man to kill another.

3. Never to use the One Power as a weapon except against Darkfriends or Shadowspawn, or in the last extreme of defending your own life, that of your Warder, or that of another sister.

An executioners axe or a surgeon's scalpel are not "weapons" they are tools for punishment and Stilling is a punishment; one does not use weapons to punish, one uses tools.

Semantic distinctions are the very lifeblood of Aes Sedai when it comes to the Oaths, but they are also the lifeblood civilization.

The Immortal One
04-17-2011, 08:13 AM
An executioners axe or a surgeon's scalpel are not "weapons" they are tools for punishment and Stilling is a punishment; one does not use weapons to punish, one uses tools.

Wait.

You think a surgeon's scalpel is a tool for punishment?

GonzoTheGreat
04-17-2011, 10:48 AM
You think a surgeon's scalpel is a tool for punishment?Does it have any other uses? :eek:

Weird Harold
04-17-2011, 03:56 PM
Wait.

You think a surgeon's scalpel is a tool for punishment?

When used to cause damage it is, much as the OP is a tool for punishment when used to sever someone's connection to the OP.

jana
04-17-2011, 04:17 PM
I feel like I'm in a neverending loop (or wheel, if you will) with these questions.

final death
02-18-2012, 07:40 PM
Wieramon could be right i mean she could be a dark friend. Another possibliity is that she forgot her name and thought it was alys because she just read through the looking glass by lews carol a popular author in the wheel of time who writes nonsensical stories about a girl named alys.

mogi67
02-18-2012, 10:11 PM
Jerry, just remember. It's not a lie if you believe it.
-George Costanza

eht slat meit
02-18-2012, 11:11 PM
An assumed identity is still an identity, even if it's not representative of who one really is. An actor can call themselves by their stage name without it being considered a lie, because it is part of who they are.

Granted, it's easy enough to pin someone down on that with the right questions, but the only people who might bother are Questioners, and then they'd probably consider it an exercise inferior to hot pincers and tongs for effectiveness.

professorskar
02-19-2012, 05:36 PM
The stilling thing still gets me. I've been ignoring posting in that thread just because the premise alone is so odd to me. People constantly look for ways AS are "breaking" the Three Oaths, forgetting exactly how much wiggle room they give (not only the First). The fact that in over twenty years, most people never came to the conclusion that stilling = using the Power as a weapon should show that it's not as self evident as the proponents of that theory claim. There was a guy on Dragonmount one time claiming that the Three Oaths were "bullshit" because the Aes Sedai shouldn't be able to create Warder cloaks otherwise. Because according to that poster, Warder cloaks constitute creating a weapon with the One Power. There's so much wrong with THAT idea I don't even know where to begin. Stilling-as-weapon is a much less goofy case than the cloaks, but I still don't think it holds much weight if you really think about it.

eht slat meit
02-19-2012, 11:09 PM
Ultimately, all of that comes down to what the woman swearing on the Oath Rod believes rather than some all-knowing magic power that lays down the law on a case by case basis. Since they spend decades upon decades in novice and Accepted training being told what to believe and how to think, it's not surprising that there's little diversity in how they perceive their oaths, and why things that seem to be a violation are simply the way things are done. Who's going to tell them different?

GonzoTheGreat
02-20-2012, 05:26 AM
The stilling thing still gets me. I've been ignoring posting in that thread just because the premise alone is so odd to me. People constantly look for ways AS are "breaking" the Three Oaths, forgetting exactly how much wiggle room they give (not only the First). The fact that in over twenty years, most people never came to the conclusion that stilling = using the Power as a weapon should show that it's not as self evident as the proponents of that theory claim.But even if it is not self evident, it would (should) still be possible to reason it out. And once that's been done, there would have been AS for whom it was really important to mention the "stilling is using the OP as a weapon" thing.
I think this is just a plot hole.

There was a guy on Dragonmount one time claiming that the Three Oaths were "bullshit" because the Aes Sedai shouldn't be able to create Warder cloaks otherwise. Because according to that poster, Warder cloaks constitute creating a weapon with the One Power. There's so much wrong with THAT idea I don't even know where to begin.
Why don't you begin with proving that it would be impossible to strangle someone with such a cloak?
If you can manage that, then you'll have gone a long way towards making your case. If you can't, then what's to stop assassins from acquiring such cloaks (on the black market, or from WC horse boot sales, or wherever), and using them both to hide themselves in and as a weapon?

Stilling-as-weapon is a much less goofy case than the cloaks, but I still don't think it holds much weight if you really think about it.
I would say that the weight should be enough to balance the strength of the wish of the AS to go ahead, if they figure out the problems. Considering the fact that the third of those Oaths can actually get them killed simply by not being able to say something when they have to say it, it would seem that it can be a pretty strong barrier if it is invoked.

Ultimately, all of that comes down to what the woman swearing on the Oath Rod believes rather than some all-knowing magic power that lays down the law on a case by case basis. Since they spend decades upon decades in novice and Accepted training being told what to believe and how to think, it's not surprising that there's little diversity in how they perceive their oaths, and why things that seem to be a violation are simply the way things are done.
That is the most believable explanation by far for why this system could work despite the glaring holes.

Who's going to tell them different?
As I've said: someone whose life depends on getting that message across.

Or, in the case of the Warder cloaks: me, if I ever were in a position to do so. I haven't yet worked out how I would then get out of the Tower again, after having screwed up their cloak manufactory in such a way. It'll come to me, though. Hopefully in time, if it ever happens.

Oden
02-20-2012, 11:43 AM
Ultimately, all of that comes down to what the woman swearing on the Oath Rod believes rather than some all-knowing magic power that lays down the law on a case by case basis. Since they spend decades upon decades in novice and Accepted training being told what to believe and how to think, it's not surprising that there's little diversity in how they perceive their oaths, and why things that seem to be a violation are simply the way things are done. Who's going to tell them different?

This is a really good way of saying it. "Custom as strong as law" is a phrase repeatedly used when talking about Aes Sedai regulations. Everyone is adapting to the system and the ones who have ideas for improvements are keeping their thoughts for themselves, most of the times.

Edit: wrote god instead of good

Zombie Sammael
02-20-2012, 12:05 PM
Moiraine doesn't have any physical difficulties that we know of either prior to or following her capture by the Aelfinn, so I'm guessing she can lie anyway she likes: on her side, on her back, on her front using her arms as a pillow, etc. There's even some hints in her last scene in TOM that she'll be doing some spooning in the not-too-distant future.

eht slat meit
02-20-2012, 12:45 PM
That is the most believable explanation by far for why this system could work despite the glaring holes.

The 'glaring holes' are limitations of the OP. While RJ may have used mythological undertones to his writing, in his world, users of the OP aren't gods or goddesses, and to maintain any sense of reality or suspend disbelief, basic rules of OP mechanics have to be maintained. A magic power with the sentience to understand and rigidly interpret oaths on its own, rather than reacting to the person it is interfacing with, would grant anyone with some insight power way beyond what is in the books.

The Oaths, stemming from the OP, are necessarily limited.

Or, in the case of the Warder cloaks: me, if I ever were in a position to do so.

As far as the cloaks, go, well... look at it this way. A pencil, a pillow (friend or otherwise), a bouquet of flowers and a chair are not weapons. Yet I can kill you dead with any one of them.

By such loose definition and reasoning, since anything created by the OP CAN be a weapon, it therefore is a weapon.

Which doesn't really make sense.

Landro
02-20-2012, 01:15 PM
The problem with the Oaths lie is the fact that they depend on the interpretation of the one who took them.

Giving somebody permission to call you by a certain name is not the same as lying that you have a different name.

Elaida could use the OP against Egwene because Elaida believed Egwene to be a DF.

Warder cloaks are not used to kill others. They are merely a tool used by Warders to remain undetected so they can get closer to their target before they attack them with a sword or some other weapon. But we know very little about the Ter'angreal that makes fancloth. For all we know even non-channelers can activate it.

GonzoTheGreat
02-20-2012, 03:11 PM
The Oaths, stemming from the OP, are necessarily limited.
I know. So the supposed Oath against telling lies would not constrain me in the least, as I would reason that any single word could be considered "true" and thus would not be a violation.

By such loose definition and reasoning, since anything created by the OP CAN be a weapon, it therefore is a weapon.

Which doesn't really make sense.
Yes, it does. It means that if you use that interpretation, then you simply can not use the OP to make anything at all. Now the AS can make some things, but not others.

For comparison: Aiel AS would have been able to make spears, axes and arrows, but not swords. After all, the Aiel prejudice against swords stems from the fact that those things are "weapons made to kill men", while all those other things can also be used for other purposes (hunting, propping up your raincoat, whatever).

An even more literal interpretation would allow them to make weapons intended to be used by women to kill men, and weapons intended to be used by men to kill women.
That's not how they choose to interpret their Oath, but it is an interpretation that is not in any way against the actual wording of it.

professorskar
02-20-2012, 07:09 PM
Why don't you begin with proving that it would be impossible to strangle someone with such a cloak?


Well, right here shows the fundamental difference between our thinking. You and I would probably have very different lives if we were bound by the Three Oaths. Can a cloak be used as a weapon? Sure. But it's not inherently a weapon. Lan famously said anything can be used as a weapon if the wielder has the will to use it as such. Does that mean an Aes Sedai can't make ANYTHING with the Power?

If Elayne was bound by the Three Oaths, should the Oath against using the Power to make a weapon prevent her from making the stone ring dream ter'angreal, because someone could use it to choke someone?

EDIT: Ok, sorry, I responded to your post before I read the rest of the thread, where I see you've answered to the points I've made here already. But you seem to think that if you just point out to someone YOUR interpretation of the Oath, it will invalidate theirs. If I was bound by the Oaths, and you came up to me and said "You know, you vowed never to speak a word that is not 'true,' therefore the only word you can speak is the word 'true'. Beat that logic!" I'd still be able to talk due to my OWN interpretation of the Oath. While what you said makes a certain logical sense--an the amusing idea of an Aes Sedai walking around saying "True, true, true"--it wouldn't change the fact that I don't see it that way. Just explaining to AS that YOU feel stilling can be constituted as using the Power as a weapon won't necessarily change the way THEY view it...which is what's important in the Oath. I'm not saying it's impossible to change someone's mind--see Shemerin's acceptance of being demoted--but it's no guarantee that by pointing out something that you feel is a violation of the Oaths that other sisters might not share, that it will somehow cause a domino effect to every sister who's sworn on the Oath Rod.

eht slat meit
02-20-2012, 10:49 PM
I know. So the supposed Oath against telling lies would not constrain me in the least, as I would reason that any single word could be considered "true" and thus would not be a violation.

You'd have to truly and sincerely believe that to keep the Oath from shutting you down. I don't think that most people do, including Aes Sedai. Which is why instead of twisting the philosophy, they twist the truth.


Yes, it does. It means that if you use that interpretation, then you simply can not use the OP to make anything at all. Now the AS can make some things, but not others.

Right, but how many average people see a thing that way? I look at a pencil, and I see a writing utensil. I look at a chair and see something to sit on. A pillow, a place to lay my head. These are so fundamental to how people see things that you have to train them to look at it in a different way, much like with the Seanchan and their "pitcher" training of Egwene.

A trained killer might see them that way, and get pinned by the Oaths. That's probably why Binders were such effective tools for dealing with criminals. Short of changing their world view, they are completely shut down.

It would not surprise me in the least to find out that the Black Ajah was behind that, and integral to the Tower "binding themselves like criminals", radically reducing their lifespans, and swearing to Oaths that would ultimately lower themselves in the public eye.

An even more literal interpretation would allow them to make weapons intended to be used by women to kill men, and weapons intended to be used by men to kill women.
That's not how they choose to interpret their Oath, but it is an interpretation that is not in any way against the actual wording of it.

And that's why the Oaths are worthless on Aiel.

It's like getting a Tinker to swear an Oath against using the power to kill another.

eht slat meit
02-20-2012, 10:55 PM
Now that's a thought that brings to mind an interesting question I don't recall ever seeing addressed.

How would Tinkers react (pre-cleansing) to the discovery of a male channeler among their ranks?

Sounds like a potential horror story.

GonzoTheGreat
02-21-2012, 03:59 AM
How would Tinkers react (pre-cleansing) to the discovery of a male channeler among their ranks?
Read and find out:
Some of the wagons were burning. The dead lay where they had fallen. The horses had already been driven off, except for those still hitched to a few wagons that had been emptied onto the ground. For once he took no notice of the crated things the Aes Sedai had given into Aiel charge, toppled carelessly into the dirt. It was not the first time he had seen that, or dead Aiel, but this time he could not care. The men with the swords and spears and bows, the men who had done the killing, were loading those empty wagons. With women. He watched Rhea, his daughter, shoved up into a wagon box with the others, crowded together like animals by laughing killers. The last of his children. Elwin dead of hunger at ten, Sorelle at twenty of fever her dreams told her was coming, and Jaren, who threw himself off a cliff a year ago, at nineteen, when he found he could channel. Marind, this morning.

WinespringBrother
02-21-2012, 07:51 AM
Talk about following the Way of the Leaf!

Universum
02-21-2012, 11:41 AM
A greater question is how Tamra could lie.

New Spring

New Spring, chapter 2
"Stay!" Tamra barked. [...] "You will tell no one about this, not for any reason. If necessary, lie. Even to a sister. Gitara died without speaking. Do you understand me?


Even if she is just ordering people to say something that is not true, I still think that "Gitara died without speaking" is a pretty much straight out lie. Thoughts?

suttree
02-21-2012, 12:08 PM
A greater question is how Tamra could lie.

New Spring




Even if she is just ordering people to say something that is not true, I still think that "Gitara died without speaking" is a pretty much straight out lie. Thoughts?

The key here is she did not intend it to be believed by Siuan and Moir. It is part of her directive to conceal the info.

Universum
02-21-2012, 12:25 PM
The key here is she did not intend it to be believed by Siuan and Moir. It is part of her directive to conceal the info.

But even so, it is still a lie, and a lie shouldn't be able to cross her lips, even if the ones she's telling knows the truth. A red pen is still red even if I tell someone that the red pen is blue, whether the person knows it or not.

Don't get me wrong - I do not believe Tamra to be a darkfriend; I believe that it is an honest mistake from RJ:s side.

suttree
02-21-2012, 12:30 PM
But even so, it is still a lie, and a lie shouldn't be able to cross her lips, even if the ones she's telling knows the truth. A red pen is still red even if I tell someone that the red pen is blue, whether the person knows it or not.

Don't get me wrong - I do not believe Tamra to be a darkfriend; I believe that it is an honest mistake from RJ:s side.

Well we know Tamra was not a DF else why would the BA need to torture her in an attempt to get info on the DR.

Again it comes down to intent. That is the key. She knew Siuan and Moir knew the truth and did not intend her statement to be believed by them. Much like how RJ said the oaths leave room for sarcasm

Interview: Jan 21st, 2006
Robert Jordan's Blog: IT'S BEEN AWHILE (Verbatim)
...But if someone were to hold up a piece of white cloth and ask whether it was black or white, someone who had sworn the Three Oaths would be capable of saying that it was black as a matter of sarcasm. But not if, for example, the person asking the question was blind and thus might well take the statement for truth rather than sarcasm.

GonzoTheGreat
02-21-2012, 01:20 PM
Even if she is just ordering people to say something that is not true, I still think that "Gitara died without speaking" is a pretty much straight out lie. Thoughts?
I think that she was simply using a variation on the AS approach to truth. We know that they can leave out facts which are relevant, if that suits them. In this case, she left out part of her instructions, because they were obvious to her audience:

New Spring, chapter 2
"Stay!" Tamra barked. [...] "You will tell no one about this, not for any reason. If necessary, lie. Even to a sister. Everyone else has to believe that Gitara died without speaking. Do you understand me?

The bolded part was added by me. I think that Tamra left that out because it was not necessary; they knew the truth anyway, and she knew that they knew.

Universum
02-21-2012, 02:39 PM
I think that she was simply using a variation on the AS approach to truth. We know that they can leave out facts which are relevant, if that suits them. In this case, she left out part of her instructions, because they were obvious to her audience:

New Spring, chapter 2
"Stay!" Tamra barked. [...] "You will tell no one about this, not for any reason. If necessary, lie. Even to a sister. Everyone else has to believe that Gitara died without speaking. Do you understand me?

The bolded part was added by me. I think that Tamra left that out because it was not necessary; they knew the truth anyway, and she knew that they knew.

I never interpreted the "AS approach of truth" like that. I just figure that they are great at twisting and bending words. "Gitara died without speaking" is, to me, a straight out lie, no matter how you twist and turn it.

Grig
02-21-2012, 03:04 PM
"Gitara died without speaking" is, to me, a straight out lie, no matter how you twist and turn it.

Did you read the Jordan quote provided already? It's no more a lie than sarcastically stating that a black cloth is white. The Oath requires intent to deceive, and Tamra didn't intend to deceive Moiraine and Siuan.

Weiramon
02-21-2012, 03:27 PM
Did you read the Jordan quote provided already? It's no more a lie than sarcastically stating that a black cloth is white. The Oath requires intent to deceive, and Tamra didn't intend to deceive Moiraine and Siuan.

Aye, or that a white dress is green.

Heinz
02-21-2012, 03:37 PM
And of course Sheriam doesn't have red hair. She never..

Grig
02-21-2012, 05:34 PM
Of course, Sheriam is a special case. I'd say that Fun with Oaths incident falls in the same category as "will never show the test for Aes Sedai in the books". As little as people like to hear it, Sanderson wasn't Jordan, and in some cases it's obvious where he wrote things or came up with specific plot details.

Verin and the green dress aren't necessarily in the same category (although they probably are), because Egwene has an imperfect knowledge of how the Oaths work. Besides, Verin very quickly followed up with "I'm Black Ajah", which either meant she was still bound to the oaths and telling the truth, or she wasn't bound and thus was Black Ajah since they were the only ones aside from the ferrets who knew about foreswearing.

Universum
02-22-2012, 05:54 AM
Did you read the Jordan quote provided already? It's no more a lie than sarcastically stating that a black cloth is white. The Oath requires intent to deceive, and Tamra didn't intend to deceive Moiraine and Siuan.

Yes, I read the quote. However, to me it feels as if he has "made that up afterwards". I don't think that you should "have" to go to external sources (in a work of fiction) in order to get all the facts straight. Therefore I choose to believe it to be an honest mistake.

Zombie Sammael
02-22-2012, 06:13 AM
Yes, I read the quote. However, to me it feels as if he has "made that up afterwards". I don't think that you should "have" to go to external sources (in a work of fiction) in order to get all the facts straight. Therefore I choose to believe it to be an honest mistake.

You don't have to go to an external source to make a logical deduction on how the oaths work from what Tamra said. Tamra said something that wasn't true. That means either (a) she was BA or (b) the oaths don't work that way, and we know she was not BA. Going to (c) it was a mistake is actually going outside of cannon, because it presumes there is no in-story explanation for why she was able to say what she did. According to your own principle, you should look for an in-cannon reason for how what happened happened before jumping to the interview database or an assumption that it was a mistake. In my view, cannon always trumps word of God (or silence of God, as the case may be).

Grig
02-22-2012, 10:25 AM
Yes, I read the quote. However, to me it feels as if he has "made that up afterwards". I don't think that you should "have" to go to external sources (in a work of fiction) in order to get all the facts straight.

Why should all facts have to be straight in a work of fiction? The very fact that you're looking for hard and fast "fact" on an issue like this in a book that suffers from an non-omniscient narrator renders your crusade against outside sources absolutely silly. We don't have a canon (it's canon, ZS, not cannon) explanation of all the cases in which the oaths kick in and which they do not. We have assumptions from certain characters, some of which are correct and some of which are not. Assuming that because your limited understanding doesn't fit a situation doesn't mean the situation is a mistake.

Zombie Sammael
02-22-2012, 10:45 AM
Why should all facts have to be straight in a work of fiction? The very fact that you're looking for hard and fast "fact" on an issue like this in a book that suffers from an non-omniscient narrator renders your crusade against outside sources absolutely silly. We don't have a canon (it's canon, ZS, not cannon) explanation of all the cases in which the oaths kick in and which they do not. We have assumptions from certain characters, some of which are correct and some of which are not. Assuming that because your limited understanding doesn't fit a situation doesn't mean the situation is a mistake.

It's a cannon when I'm shooting you down with it.

Grig
02-22-2012, 11:31 AM
I like that. I'll have to use it sometime.

The Unreasoner
02-22-2012, 11:24 PM
I think it is remarkable that the Oaths are the central theme of three or four of the current 'active' threads. I wonder why everyone started pondering them at the same time. This thread, the oaths/circles/BA thread, the stilling thread, and the Egwene thread (although it looks like fionwe conceded the point there).

Do we all meditate on the Oaths independently, or does the act of meditation spawn further ponderings?

GonzoTheGreat
02-23-2012, 04:02 AM
Do we all meditate on the Oaths independently, or does the act of meditation spawn further ponderings?
Yes.

In case you're wondering: I saidared that answer.

Edited to add:
We're probably overanalyzing the Three Oaths. RJ tried to make them consistent while also pointing out the inevitable flaws such things would have. He knew there were such flaws; that's both in the books and in the interviews. We know there are flaws, they follow from simple logic. Yet, at the same time, the TO do have a clear and obvious effect, and they mostly do what they were intended to do. Which, of course, means that we're simply arguing over the precise definition of "mostly" in this case. The limits of what the Oaths do and do not allow depend at least in part on the individual AS, and of course on what that AS has learned from observing other AS bound by those Oaths. Which means that somehow the BA Oaths have to include a clause about follow the standard variation as often as possible.
Now, the fact that we won't get anywhere with these discussions because eventually it depends on the interpretation of the author won't stop us from continuing to argue.

final death
03-04-2012, 09:38 PM
From what I read here it sounds like she was telling someone else to lie for her. We know an Aes Sedai can let others lie for her but can they tell others to lie for them. What happens if a Aes Sedai gets dementia. How would that affect the oaths. On another note Rand knows about the BA, but does he know they are not bound by the three oaths. If he does why does he trust the Aes Sedai who swear to him. If he doesn't why for the love of the light can't he use some deductive reasoning and figure that a BA couldn't do darkfriend stuff if they were bound by them.