Aes Sedai and Torture

[DeadZone]

Note: Even though the series has been concluded for years, I just joined this forum and am not sure if I should be avoiding spoilers.   So I'll play it safe and be obtuse about the details...

 

So my son is reading the series for the first time.  And he's near the end of Lord of Chaos.  At this point, there are some Aes Sedai who have a certain main character as a prisoner.  Every day, this character is beaten using flows of air.  So I have to ask... how in the world does this not violate the three oaths?  We know that *some* of these AS are black sisters.  But some are not.  How can they pull this off?  Surely this constitutes using the power as a weapon.

 

My wife made the point that they can use the power in defense of the tower.  (I'm not sure that's accurate, but I'll make her point none the less.)  And that this gives the AS a very wide loophole from which to function.  Also, she makes the point that they can use the power when administering discipline to novices.  So if that's not considered using the power as a weapon, then maybe this isn't either.  I don't buy that either.  Even ignoring the use of the power as a tool to administer discipline, beating a defenseless prisoner must qualify as using the power as a weapon.

 

I've searched the wikis and FAQs for an answer and have come up blank.  If anyone reads these forums this long after the books ended, I sure could use a reference or an answer if you have one.

 

Thanks!

 

[wotfan4472]

Some of the beatings were caused by the two Aes Sedai that lost their Warders when Rand went into a rage after seeing Min and probably felt in danger whenever they were around him. The rest of the beatings were actually caused by the Black Ajah, of which made up the largest group of Aes Sedai that Elaida sent. A smaller minority were disgusted with what was being done to Rand. Don't forget, Mesaana was directly involved with him being captured and held in the first place.

[wheeloftimetv]

If the Aes Sedai doing the toture/beating doesn't believe that what she is doing is using the OP as a weapon then the oath has no power to stop her.

Edited September 30, 2017 by Narg_The_Trolloc

[BFG]

If the Aes Sedai doing the toture/beating doesn't believe that what she is doing is using the OP as a weapon then the oath has no power to stop her.

I would say this. If they consider it to be "discipline" instead of a weapon then the oath won't hold them, and although it's not really comparable the white tower society is ok with corporal punishment and discipline

[jack of shadows]

so,these aes sedai were not torturing rand?they were disciplining him?

how convenient for them!!!

[Sabio]

Again it's how each individual interprets her Oath, one could easily say it's not using it as a weapon.  They may see a weapon as trying to kill someone.As Rand killed some warders trying to escape they could easily see it as simple punishment for murder.  As for the BA I can think of only 3 in the group who were BA, may of been a few unnamed ones that died.  I forget their names but the leader who the shaido captured, Katerine, and Elisa I think their names were.

[Gentled Ben]

If the Aes Sedai doing the toture/beating doesn't believe that what she is doing is using the OP as a weapon then the oath has no power to stop her.

This is it.

 

If you look closely at that oath, you'll see that it refers to using the power as a weapon in defense of your life, your warder's life, or the life of another sister. This would imply using it as a weapon to kill, not to inflict pain. This is why later on, you will see two sisters (well not really, because it happens off screen) use the power to torture a third sister over a period of days. They can do this, despite not being Black Ajah, because they aren't using the power as a weapon. I suppose it's the difference between a cop shooting you with a firearm and tasing you. It would seem that most sisters can freely use the power to tase, but only Black sisters can use the power like a firearm without first having their lives, the life of their warder, or the life of another sister endangered.

[DeadZone]

One could easily make he argument that, "not killing" does not distinguish between weapons an, lets say, "tools."  If I intend to smash someone's ankles (as opposed to their head) with a brick, does that make the brick any less of a weapon?

 

Regardless, I was hoping that there was something that I was missing that cleared this up.  What I think I'm seeing is that at best, this is a gray area.  (How someone could believe that beating someone with flows of air is *not* using the power as a weapon is beyond me.)

 

Thanks, everyone!

[Gentled Ben]

One could easily make he argument that, "not killing" does not distinguish between weapons an, lets say, "tools."  If I intend to smash someone's ankles (as opposed to their head) with a brick, does that make the brick any less of a weapon?

 

Regardless, I was hoping that there was something that I was missing that cleared this up.  What I think I'm seeing is that at best, this is a gray area.  (How someone could believe that beating someone with flows of air is *not* using the power as a weapon is beyond me.)

 

Thanks, everyone!

Of course it does. That's why they can use that same brick to bind someone. Intent is the key here, not the fact of a brick. If they don't see using the power to beat someone the same way they see using the power as a weapon, then beating someone with the power is not using it as a weapon. We see them use the power to strike people repeatedly in the series, not just in the incident that you are referring to here. In fact, just a few books back, Moiraine used the power to smack Rand across the shoulders for being rude. Remember? He thought it was Egwene, but she gave that slight shake of her head...

[BFG]

so,these aes sedai were not torturing rand?they were disciplining him?

how convenient for them!!!

I didn't say I agreed :P

 

But it's a mindset, if they don't view it as a weapon then it doesn't prevent them using the power. Plus the Aes sedai who lost warders would be in shock and shouldn't have been let near him :/

[jack of shadows]

i didn't think you agreed with the aes sedai infinite ability

to manipulate the truth,not for one second *grinning*.

[BFG]

[solarz]

One of the Forsaken (I forget whom) mentioned the "weakness" in those Oaths. It seems that this is one of them. It is indeed a fine line between beating someone with flows of Air, and using the Power as a weapon. Technically, tying someone up with Air also counts as using the Power as a weapon (a non-lethal weapon, but a weapon nonetheless), but the Aes Sedai obviously do not consider it to be so.

 

It's the same deal with the a'dam. If a damane tries to hit the sul'dam with anything, she will not be able to pick that thing up until she completely convinces herself that under no circumstances will she ever use that thing to hit a sul'dam.

[Sabio]

Well the forsaken thought it was rather dumb to intentionally bind oneself like the Aes Sedai did.

Edited October 3, 2017 by Sabio

[jack of shadows]

the aes sedai's ability to make a mockery of the three oaths on a daily

basis render them inefective really.

 

aes sedai third oath says:never to use the one power as a weapon except

against darkfriends or shadowspawn,or in the last extreme defence of her

life,the life of her warder,or another aes sedai,yet,they had no problem

kidnapping a certain individual "for the greater good of humanity",bah.

[Sabio]

Again though comes down to what each Aes Sedai deems a weapon or even defence of her life.  Just meeting a whitecloak could be enough for an Aes Sedai to view her life in danger.  If the power will leave no lasting damage, is it then a weapon?  But you also have to remember many of those Aes Sadai (especially the red) viewed Rand running about by himself and able to channel as a huge danger and putting the world in danger. So I can see them easily being able to see why the power would be needed to subdue and take him to the tower to be guarded.  Using the power to shield and tie someone up isn't a weapon either.

Edited October 3, 2017 by Sabio

[jack of shadows]

@sabio,

you are preaching to the perverted..err,converted here,that's my point exactly.

let me remind you that min was also kidnapped with rand,don't get me wrong,i

know exactly why min was taken,but how do you(aes sedai) justify kidnapping an

innocent person?well that's easy,by declaring she's a darkfriend because she is

wearing breeches all the time,as bfg pointed out,it's a mindset,following this

line of reasoning,one could get away with anything.

 

aes sedai first oath says:to speak no word that is not true-lying by omission is

still lying,telling half-truths is still lying,playing the ambiguity game,i.e.

politician doublespeak is even worse,so tell me,what's the point of having the three oaths?

Edited October 3, 2017 by jack of shadows

[Orderofolde]

Note: Even though the series has been concluded for years, I just joined this forum and am not sure if I should be avoiding spoilers.   So I'll play it safe and be obtuse about the details...

 

So my son is reading the series for the first time.  And he's near the end of Lord of Chaos.  At this point, there are some Aes Sedai who have a certain main character as a prisoner.  Every day, this character is beaten using flows of air.  So I have to ask... how in the world does this not violate the three oaths?  We know that *some* of these AS are black sisters.  But some are not.  How can they pull this off?  Surely this constitutes using the power as a weapon.

 

My wife made the point that they can use the power in defense of the tower.  (I'm not sure that's accurate, but I'll make her point none the less.)  And that this gives the AS a very wide loophole from which to function.  Also, she makes the point that they can use the power when administering discipline to novices.  So if that's not considered using the power as a weapon, then maybe this isn't either.  I don't buy that either.  Even ignoring the use of the power as a tool to administer discipline, beating a defenseless prisoner must qualify as using the power as a weapon.

 

I've searched the wikis and FAQs for an answer and have come up blank.  If anyone reads these forums this long after the books ended, I sure could use a reference or an answer if you have one.

 

Thanks!

This is revisited later when a certain someone sees a need, also in a rage, to discipline a certain disobedient novice.  The oaths are flawed in that a sister can lie if she believes the lie as truth, and can beat a person with the power if they feel it is discipline.  The oaths work on the brain of the sister that takes them and we can see broad differences in many aspects with the sisters.  The moment a thought triggers that it might be crossing a line, that is when the oath holds them back.

[BFG]

@sabio,

you are preaching to the perverted..err,converted here,that's my point exactly.

let me remind you that min was also kidnapped with rand,don't get me wrong,i

know exactly why min was taken,but how do you(aes sedai) justify kidnapping an

innocent person?well that's easy,by declaring she's a darkfriend because she is

wearing breeches all the time,as bfg pointed out,it's a mindset,following this

line of reasoning,one could get away with anything.

 

aes sedai first oath says:to speak no word that is not true-lying by omission is

still lying,telling half-truths is still lying,playing the ambiguity game,i.e.

politician doublespeak is even worse,so tell me,what's the point of having the three oaths?

Apparently it's because they gain the trust of people

 

Everyone knows that Aes sedai spin the truth, but if they make a flat out statement it must be truth etc

[szilard]

 

 

The Aes Sedai who beat Rand in Lord of Chaos did not necessarily violate the Three Oaths. Jordan explained that the Three Oaths are bound by literal intent and perception. He said that the Aes Sedai could have considered the beatings a just punishment rather than the use of a weapon. He also suggested that not everything that harms you need be considered a weapon. I think he gave the example of a whip used lightly not considered a weapon, versus a whip used to flay skin being considered a weapon. On the subject of the first Oath ("to speak no word that is untrue"), Jordan said that Aes Sedai can say something they believe to be true or something they don't mean literally. As an example of the latter, an Aes Sedai can employ hyperbole and say something like, "I'm going to tie your ears over your head," when she means to do no such thing.

 

 

What happens to objects left in Tel'aran'rhiod? Could an AS free herself from the Three Oaths in Tel'aran'rhiod by creating an Oath Rod?

The only way for an object to enter Tel’aran’rhiod would be for it to be carried there by someone who entered physically rather than through a dream state. If left there, it would remain until it was retrieved by someone else who entered physically. And, yes, an Aes Sedai could free herself of the Three Oaths with an Oath Rod created in Tel’aran’rhiod, but remember that relatively few sisters actually have access to the World of Dreams, and for those who do want to remove the Three Oaths – sisters joining the Black Ajah – there is the Oath Rod in the White Tower to serve that purpose.

 

 

 

For Majsju, the oath against lying does leave room for sarcasm. It is intent and result that matter. No sister can intentionally speak an untruth either with the intent of passing on false information or with the belief that false information might be passed on. Thus the careful slicing and dicing of words. 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.

 

 

Robert Jordan

The oaths: They are quite subjective; if an Aes Sedai believes she is not lying, then the Oath doesn't stop her. So, that is what was going on in the torturing part of Lord of Chaos. It depends on the psychology of the individual. It's like spanking a naughty child. Some people regard that as child abuse; some people regard it as reasonable punishment.

 

 

Robert Jordan

No...now you have to be careful with this, because this is a kind of spoiler for people that haven’t read far enough, but the Oath Rod is what was in the Age of Legends called a binder. It was used on criminals. If you committed a violent act, or some sort of criminal act, with a binder, someone who could channel could be constrained from ever doing that again, and the result of having three of the Oaths, is the ageless appearance. One would not produce agelessness, but even one would shorten life, and three of them put a cap on Aes Sedai’s lives, on how long they could live.

Question

Does this mean that the Black Ajah has also at least three oaths sworn on the Oath Rod?

Robert Jordan

Yeah, they do. Just not the same ones.  [laughter]

 

 

Question

Quoting from Tamra in New Spring, "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?" How is it that Tamra can tell Moiraine and Siuan that Gitara died without speaking, when she knows full well that she did speak?

Robert Jordan

It's simple. It is part of her instructions. There are a lot, thousands of loop holes, about that thou will speak no word that is not true. This is part of her instructions, she is telling them what they are to say. She is not saying something she believes, and thus she was able to say it.

Question

I have a follow up to a question you just answered. Based on the Oaths, if a sister asked them, if they were instructed, as to what they have to say, would they be able to say it after taking the Oaths?

Robert Jordan

After taking the Oaths they would find it hard to say, even with instructions, they might not be able to say it at all, because they know it is a lie. That is the key you can't knowingly tell a lie.

 

 

The TOs are just prestidigitation, eye-wash.