Still Fuming About Perrin's Trial (Towers of Midnight)

[Andra]

17 hours ago, Andra said:

But the Whitecloaks had responded to wolves trying to frighten their horses by physically attacking Elyas.  An attack that justified Perrin's response.

 

4 hours ago, KakitaOCU said:

It's  ot both ways.  WC didn't respond to wolves by attacking Elyas.  Unless you think Elyas' actions were just to yell and make noise or something?  He attacked them in what I'm sure were not meant to be lethal,  but assault is assault and no matter intention, swinging a blade is using a lethal implement. 

Elyas may have used violence, but it was aimed only at frightening the horses, and getting the Whitecloaks to leave.  We know this because the wolves tell Perrin that's what they're doing.  They explicitly were not trying to harm the "two legs."  The only Whitecloaks that were even injured were the two Perrin killed.

 

Which makes Elyas' injury an unjustified use of deadly force by the Whitecloaks, and Perrin's use of deadly force in response to be justified.

17 hours ago, Andra said:

But even more, you're ignoring the actual ruling in the trial.

 

4 hours ago, KakitaOCU said:

No, I'm not.  Morgase's ruling was based on the facts she had presented to her in the book.  Adding a bunch of extra details,  like that it was Perrin's side that initiated violence, might have changed her mind.

What I was referring to was the fact that because she applied a different law than what the Whitecloaks had wanted, the charge was no longer "murder."

 

What made the killing illegal was not the killing itself (death in combat isn't murder), but that his use of deadly force was unjustified (since it had only been animals that had been hurt).  Being identified by Morgase as effectively just two groups of unemployed mercenaries, it was only a brawl.  "Who started it" became irrelevant.

 

Bearing that in mind, the first to use deadly force against humans is the only relevant factor.  And going by the original story in EotW, that was the Whitecloaks.

 

 

 

But as I said, those details (among others) were changed, because they didn't lead to the desired outcome of having Galad decide Perrin's fate.  And having Perrin saving Galad and the rest of the Whitecloaks' lives influence that decision.

[Andra]

On 2/10/2022 at 2:52 AM, Asthereal said:

I really thought it happened in Andor. A large part of the Caralain Grass falls under Andor rule, as I remember, and Perrin and Egwene were traveling east from where they crossed the river at Shadar Logoth. Seemed sensible to assume they were still in Andor.

 

On 2/10/2022 at 11:48 AM, Andra said:

At the point they crossed, the river was the border.  And Shadar Logoth was on the Andor side.  So when they crossed the river, they left Andor.

 

And from what I remember of my WoT geography, Braem Wood straddled most of the Andoran border east of Whitebridge.  And the Caralain Grass was entirely north of Braem Wood.  Elyas describes the Grass as being the remains of the long-dead kingdom of Caralain, and as no longer part of any nation.

Again, that is specifically why Hawkwing chose that abandoned stedding as his future capital.  Because no one would see it as being anyone's existing property.  And because he was safe from channelers there.

 

I was thinking about this over the past couple days and got curious whether I had misremembered, or if Sanderson had changed the location.  So I went back to look for specific mentions of the location of the abandoned stedding. 

 

The result?  A resounding "Yes.  No.  Sort of."

 

It's true that in the trial the location is said to be central Andor, which is different from where Elyas said it was - outside of any nation or province at Hawkwing's time, including the province of Andor.  But it's also true that the next time it is given a definitive location in the books (when Elder Haman is notating maps for Rand on the courtyard floor in Caemlyn) it is placed just inside the border, approximately due north of Four Kings.

 

Which is in northeastern Andor, not "the wilds of central Andor."

 

So Jordan changed the location between book 1 and book 6, then Sanderson changed it further in book 13.

 

This is a hazard of having such a large and complex story.  ?

 

[Asthereal]

8 hours ago, Andra said:

I was thinking about this over the past couple days and got curious whether I had misremembered, or if Sanderson had changed the location.  So I went back to look for specific mentions of the location of the abandoned stedding. 

 

The result?  A resounding "Yes.  No.  Sort of."

 

It's true that in the trial the location is said to be central Andor, which is different from where Elyas said it was - outside of any nation or province at Hawkwing's time, including the province of Andor.  But it's also true that the next time it is given a definitive location in the books (when Elder Haman is notating maps for Rand on the courtyard floor in Caemlyn) it is placed just inside the border, approximately due north of Four Kings.

 

Which is in northeastern Andor, not "the wilds of central Andor."

 

So Jordan changed the location between book 1 and book 6, then Sanderson changed it further in book 13.

 

This is a hazard of having such a large and complex story.  ?

 

Indeed. Little things are bound to change in such a long series.

 

Also, "outside of any nation of province at Hawkwing's time" might be quite different from Rand's time. We know Andor sort of took over Manetheren during the time after it's fall in the trolloc wars. It's never made completely clear what other lands Andor consumed, but we know it's a lot bigger than the original province it came from.

[Andra]

1 hour ago, Asthereal said:

 

Indeed. Little things are bound to change in such a long series.

 

Also, "outside of any nation of province at Hawkwing's time" might be quite different from Rand's time. We know Andor sort of took over Manetheren during the time after it's fall in the trolloc wars. It's never made completely clear what other lands Andor consumed, but we know it's a lot bigger than the original province it came from.

No, actually Andor is described as one of few countries constructed after Hawkwing's empire fell that DIDN'T try to get bigger afterward.  When the province of Andor became the nation of Andor, they left their borders where they were, and believed they could be effectively held, then held them.  And built a stable country when other more ambitious countries failed to hold their territory.

It's one of the bits of history that various nobles mentioned to Rand several times while he was occupying the Palace as demonstrating that the Andoran queens were more rational and pragmatic than many of their neighbors.

 

Hawkwing defined Andor as a province made up of territory previously constituting some or all of three previous nations - one of which (Farashelle) had arisen from where Manetheren had once stood.  

 

Hawkwing built Andor (from west to east) from Farashelle, most of Aldeshar, and Caembarin.  It was Caembarin whose northern border ended at the Caralain Grass.

 

Andor did not itself ever take any territory beyond what Hawkwing had formed it from.  And it was Hawkwing who rolled what had once been Manetheren into it.  And Manetheren was long gone before any of this happened.  About 1100 years gone.

Edited February 14, 2022 by Andra

[JyP]

On 2/8/2022 at 8:57 PM, Red Eagle said:

Finally, and this is just an opinion of mine. After all the fear, committed murders, and destruction Perrin's personally witnessed the Whitecloaks cause, the fact he keeps belaboring his guilt over killing two men who intended (at best) to turn him over to torturers on the basis of personal opinion, made this plot-point one of the weakest/most infuriating in the entire series for me.  The 11th hour attempt to rehabilitate the WCs by implausibly making Galad their leader also grated on me. It was like Sanderson (or RJ, if this was in his bequeathed notes) was simply whitewashing all the evils perpetrated by the WCs as a terrorist organization. 

 

Thoughts?

 WCs feel a bit like Teutonic Knights, but it was basically the only political entity dedicated to opposing the Shadow in southern Randland - alongside the White Tower. Northern countries have to battle the Blight anyway. Afterwise it feels like some leadership failures, be it from Pedron Niall or Asunawa. 

 

Moreover, we are talking about a fantasy world where there are 2 kinds of people : nobles and commoners, with the only outliers being Aiels, Atha'an Miere and the Aes Sedai. So the WCs were also a mean to keep nobles on their toes - killing commoners like Tear nobility is doing is not possible further north.

[Asthereal]

4 hours ago, Andra said:

Hawkwing defined Andor as a province made up of territory previously constituting some or all of three previous nations - one of which (Farashelle) had arisen from where Manetheren had once stood.

 

Wow, you're really deep into this lore. ? 

 

I can't seem to find any of this stuff in the regular books. At least, I don't see references to them in the wiki. Did you get this from the Companion?

[KakitaOCU]

On 2/12/2022 at 7:29 PM, Andra said:

Elyas may have used violence, but it was aimed only at frightening the horses, and getting the Whitecloaks to leave.  We know this because the wolves tell Perrin that's what they're doing.  They explicitly were not trying to harm the "two legs."  The only Whitecloaks that were even injured were the two Perrin killed.

 

Which makes Elyas' injury an unjustified use of deadly force by the Whitecloaks, and Perrin's use of deadly force in response to be justified.

Ah, So we know Elyas was being non-lethal based on the testimony of things that can't speak to anyone but Perrin and Elyas and who were already deemed not people for purposes of the trial.  That won't fly.  If Person A swings a knife at Person B to "Scare them" and Person B responds by shooting them.  Person A is the aggressor and in general terms Person B was defending themselves.  Depending on the specific laws Person B might ALSO be guilty of a crime, but Person A definitely is.

Also, to claim Perrin was acting in defense of Elyas would require establishing Perrin KNEW Elyas was injured, which again is only verifiable through the Wolf Bond which is not admissible since it's pure hearsay.
 

On 2/12/2022 at 7:29 PM, Andra said:

What I was referring to was the fact that because she applied a different law than what the Whitecloaks had wanted, the charge was no longer "murder."

 

Again, that was her decision based on the facts given at the time.  No guarantee that would be her decision with more details.  (Not saying right or wrong, but since we don't know it's not a valid base stance for an argument)

 

[Andra]

6 hours ago, Asthereal said:

 

Wow, you're really deep into this lore. ? 

 

I can't seem to find any of this stuff in the regular books. At least, I don't see references to them in the wiki. Did you get this from the Companion?

Some (like the approximate dates) is pretty east to figure from the books.

Others (like the specific names of the old nations) came straight from the WOT Wiki page on Andor.

 

As far as being into the lore ...

Guilty.  And welcome to Dragonmount.  ?

[Andra]

4 hours ago, KakitaOCU said:

Ah, So we know Elyas was being non-lethal based on the testimony of things that can't speak to anyone but Perrin and Elyas and who were already deemed not people for purposes of the trial. 

That won't fly.  If Person A swings a knife at Person B to "Scare them" and Person B responds by shooting them.  Person A is the aggressor and in general terms Person B was defending themselves.  Depending on the specific laws Person B might ALSO be guilty of a crime, but Person A definitely is.

No.  "WE" know Elyas wasn't using deadly force against humans because the book tells us he wasn't.  Because he didn't hurt any humans.  All he and the wolves were doing was frightening horses.  As you stated earlier.

 

The proof of that fact at the trial would be that no Whitecloaks were injured except the ones Perrin killed.  A fact the Whitecloaks themselves acknowledged.

 

Nothing in the trial established that the wolf bond was "hearsay."  Other humans could have been called as witnesses to its veracity.

 

 

 

It's odd that you keep trying to say the Whitecloaks were allowed to respond with deadly force to merely being frightened, but Perrin had to actually see the Whitecloaks trying to kill Elyas in order to be allowed to do the same himself.

Using the "I felt threatened" standard, Perrin would have been completely justified without knowing a single additional fact.  He was there, it was night, and armed men brandished their weapons at him.  You've just defined the Whitecloaks as the aggressors.  And definitely guilty of a crime.

 

On 2/12/2022 at 7:29 PM, Andra said:

What I was referring to was the fact that because she applied a different law than what the Whitecloaks had wanted, the charge was no longer "murder."

 

4 hours ago, KakitaOCU said:

Again, that was her decision based on the facts given at the time.  No guarantee that would be her decision with more details.  (Not saying right or wrong, but since we don't know it's not a valid base stance for an argument)

Again, her decision was based specifically on the fact that the Whitecloaks had no authority where the incident occurred.  No new details could have changed that decision unless they changed whether the Whitecloaks had authority there.  Unless they had been granted such authority from the Queen of Andor, they didn't have it.  And since she was the Queen of Andor at the time, she knew that hadn't happened.

Which would have meant changing the location of the incident to somewhere like Amadicia.

[KakitaOCU]

27 minutes ago, Andra said:

No.  "WE" know Elyas wasn't using deadly force against humans because the book tells us he wasn't.  Because he didn't hurt any humans.  All he and the wolves were doing was frightening horses.  As you stated earlier.

We as readers with outside context.  The WCs don't know he was only targeting horse, nor that he had no intent to hurt.  He was a scary wolf person swinging knives at them.
 

27 minutes ago, Andra said:

The proof of that fact at the trial would be that no Whitecloaks were injured except the ones Perrin killed.  A fact the Whitecloaks themselves acknowledged.

If that were the case, there'd never be any trials for attempted anything.  They don't know he wasn't trying to hurt them, only that he didn't succeed on hurting them.  It's his word as the only actual proof of his intent.
 

27 minutes ago, Andra said:

Nothing in the trial established that the wolf bond was "hearsay."  Other humans could have been called as witnesses to its veracity.

That he has wolf powers and can command them isn't really up for debate.  That they're sentient and think coherently like humans do and can offer meaningful testimony is absolutely in debate for the people in the world.  Even Faile doesn't fully buy into it for most the series.
 

27 minutes ago, Andra said:

It's odd that you keep trying to say the Whitecloaks were allowed to respond with deadly force to merely being frightened, but Perrin had to actually see the Whitecloaks trying to kill Elyas in order to be allowed to do the same himself.

You are unfortunately conflating two concepts.  Perrin, to claim self defense resulting in lethal force would be required to actually understand and know of a real threat to his life.  The only way he has that is through the wolf bond to know Elyas was hurt, or through his knowledge that the wolves are sentient and hurt.  Neither of those are provable in the context of the trial so for him to argue self defense there needed to be a credible threat to his life, not just "I felt afraid" but that there was a valid chance of his life being lost.

The other way around is not the same.  Elyas took weapons and used them.  He presented an actual lethal threat that the WCs witnessed and responded to.  Again, if you swing a knife at me that is a lethal weapon being used as a credible threat.  Your intent is not something I can 100% know at the time and I can respond with self defense.  

Perrin Scenario: My psychic powers tell me Person B's friends hurt my friend and then killed my animal companion, so I murdered them.

WC vs Elyas Scenario: I witnessed a man with glowing eyes leap out with a knife and slash at my men and horses and so we responded with force.

 

  

25 minutes ago, Andra said:

Again, her decision was based specifically on the fact that the Whitecloaks had no authority where the incident occurred.  No new details could have changed that decision unless they changed whether the Whitecloaks had authority there.  Unless they had been granted such authority from the Queen of Andor, they didn't have it.  And since she was the Queen of Andor at the time, she knew that hadn't happened.

Her decision is that she was on Perrin's side and wanted to find any solution that wouldn't involve the WC's killing him.  But at the same time she had a duty to fullfill her role as judge accurately and not ignore facts to find him innocent.  

Galad's response even shows that it's taking some mental gymnastics to get to the logic Morgase sees.

Edited February 14, 2022 by KakitaOCU

[Andra]

4 hours ago, KakitaOCU said:

We as readers with outside context.  The WCs don't know he was only targeting horse, nor that he had no intent to hurt.  He was a scary wolf person swinging knives at them.

So it's not what had actually happened, but what they were afraid of that mattered?

 

I thought Perrins actions were unjustified only because they hadn't *actually* hurt him or any other human?  Neither had Elyas.

 

4 hours ago, KakitaOCU said:

If that were the case, there'd never be any trials for attempted anything.  They don't know he wasn't trying to hurt them, only that he didn't succeed on hurting them.  It's his word as the only actual proof of his intent.

See above.

 

You're applying a standard of what Perrin actually saw as his only justification, but allowing the Whitecloaks to be justified by what they were only afraid of.

 

4 hours ago, KakitaOCU said:

That he has wolf powers and can command them isn't really up for debate.  That they're sentient and think coherently like humans do and can offer meaningful testimony is absolutely in debate for the people in the world.  Even Faile doesn't fully buy into it for most the series.

Sorry, but that's simply false.  By the time of the trial, there are multiple possible witnesses who can confirm that Perrin can communicate with the wolves, and receive accurate information from them.

 

The Whitecloaks acknowledged that, but insisted it proved he was a darkfriend.

 

5 hours ago, KakitaOCU said:

Her decision is that she was on Perrin's side and wanted to find any solution that wouldn't involve the WC's killing him.  But at the same time she had a duty to fullfill her role as judge accurately and not ignore facts to find him innocent.  

Galad's response even shows that it's taking some mental gymnastics to get to the logic Morgase sees.

Neither of those two things is true.

Morgase made clear before agreeing to act as judge that she could not take his side, nor that she would avoid any potential conviction if the facts warranted it.  Literally nothing she said indicated any preference for his side of the case at all.

 

She applied the mercenary code to the case because she knew (as the person who would have granted it to them) that the Whitecloaks had no authority in Andor.

 

And Galad had no problem seeing her logic whatsoever.  No "mental gymnastics" required.  He even explained what it meant to Perrin.

 

 

 

But again, all of this is just noise.

 

The story needed Perrin to have his fate decided by Galad.  Which wouldn't have been the case if he had been acquitted.  So the story ignored potential exonerating evidence to achieve that goal.

[KakitaOCU]

17 hours ago, Andra said:

So it's not what had actually happened, but what they were afraid of that mattered?

 

I thought Perrins actions were unjustified only because they hadn't *actually* hurt him or any other human?  Neither had Elyas.

Already discussed this.

Scenario A: A man with an actual weapon is swinging it at you and your animals in what is a credible threat.  So you fight back and hurt the person who withdraws.

Scenario B: A man with a weapon is asking you to come out of hiding and saying they will not hurt you.  Then one of your animals vicious assaults them and they defend themselves.    THEN you go berserk and murder them.

Perrin's fear is not the same as the WC's fear without our out of world knowledge as readers.
 

17 hours ago, Andra said:

Sorry, but that's simply false.  By the time of the trial, there are multiple possible witnesses who can confirm that Perrin can communicate with the wolves, and receive accurate information from them.

 

The Whitecloaks acknowledged that, but insisted it proved he was a darkfriend.

No, there are multiple possible witnesses who see him command wolves and get general locations of people or creatures from them.  That is NOT the same thing as the wolves are sentient beings, hence why Perrin killing in defense of Hopper is not a valid defense in Morgase's eyes.
 

18 hours ago, Andra said:

Neither of those two things is true.

Morgase made clear before agreeing to act as judge that she could not take his side, nor that she would avoid any potential conviction if the facts warranted it.  Literally nothing she said indicated any preference for his side of the case at all.

Vowing to be impartial doesn't change your allegiances or views.  No single person is ever truly impartial.  There's a reason why we rely on Juries, not Judges, to pass guilt or innocence.  Morgase can have every intention of being fair while still being loyal to Perrin and not wanting him dead because she feels he's too valuable to the cause of the light.  The two aren't incompatible.

Her preference is set by the fact that she is part of his camp, working with his army and wants to see the light win Tarmon Gaiden.  Again, if we wanted to play real life court, she has such a massive conflict of interest that she'd never be allowed to sit on the case.
 

19 hours ago, Andra said:

But again, all of this is just noise.

 

The story needed Perrin to have his fate decided by Galad.  Which wouldn't have been the case if he had been acquitted.  So the story ignored potential exonerating evidence to achieve that goal.

That's a write off answer for everything but the discussion in general focuses on in universe activity.

It's like giving honest critique to Mat's departure in the show.  Yes, it's all noise cause the reality is, the actor left and they had no choice but to write him absent.  But when we discuss it we try to talk through various ways it could go, the ramifications of the Red being involved, etc, etc.  Because we're discussing the actual story, not the rationale behind it.

[Red Eagle]

Apologies,

First version of this reply didn't add much to the discussion.

 

I think one reason the "Clinging guilt over the WC deaths" issue gets under my skin so much, is the whole thing gets used as part of the vehicle to rehabilitate the WCs.

 

When I first read the WoT, I was really hoping the payoff of Galad's experiences with people who seemed on the surface to believe the "everyone should wholly be concerned with doing what is right/moral/proper at all times" ethos he was all about would be his finally realizing that life isn't and can't be black and white.

 

Not that his "Inner Righteousness" would apparently be so awesomely inspiring as to turn an organization of mass-murdering terrorists into Shining Warriors of Good. 

 

Galad's arc with the Whitecloaks felt like the absolute worst kind of SI-type Sue-ness, and the moment Perrin's lingering past with the WCs allowed the hands-down-worst element of the entire series to "Infect" Perrin's arc, I was so genuinely dismayed, I seriously considered not finishing the series. 

 

My suspicion is that Sanderson was given an almost entirely free hand with the resolution of the WCs, as applied to the approaching Last Battle, because RJ described the Whitecloaks as "A Spanish Inquisition analogue." I certainly never had the sense until ToM that anything but a bad end was intended for them.

Edited February 16, 2022 by Red Eagle

[KakitaOCU]

7 hours ago, Red Eagle said:

Not that his "Inner Righteousness" would apparently be so awesomely inspiring as to turn an organization of mass-murdering terrorists into Shining Warriors of Good. 

But they're not an organization of Mass Murdering terrorists.

They're an organization with a fairly benevolent and good ideal that has gone terribly wrong thanks to misunderstanding, fear and individually bad leaders.

The issue here is that there's really no such thing as "evil" people, it's always a choice and almost anyone COULD come back in the right circumstances.  It's hard (hence we only see one real converted DF in the whole series) but it's possible.

Also, Galad's lesson isn't to realize the world isn't black and white, it's to realize that not everyone can find that line as easily as he can and he shouldn't think less of them for not being on his level.

[Kalessin]

Actually, now I go back and look at The Eye of the World, the Waterclosets oops the Whitecloaks record 9 WC deaths from the wolves' attempts to drive them away.

Quote

"Nine men dead, my Lord Captain, and twenty-three injured, seven seriously. All can ride, though. Thirty horses had to be put down. They were hamstrung!" [Byar] emphasized that in his emotionless voice, as if what had happened to the horses were worse than the deaths and injuries to men.

So the wolves had gotten physical in their desperation.

[Stedding Tofu]

On 2/8/2022 at 7:57 PM, Red Eagle said:

 

The problem with this, is it skips over a very important point. "What right did the WCs have to demand ANYTHING, of ANYONE, and what gave them the right to take anyone prisoner? (That's the most generous interpretation of the WCs intentions, had Perrin and Egwene immediately surrendered themselves.) 

< snip >

Finally, and this is just an opinion of mine. After all the fear, committed murders, and destruction Perrin's personally witnessed the Whitecloaks cause, the fact he keeps belaboring his guilt over killing two men who intended (at best) to turn him over to torturers on the basis of personal opinion, made this plot-point one of the weakest/most infuriating in the entire series for me.  The 11th hour attempt to rehabilitate the WCs by implausibly making Galad their leader also grated on me. It was like Sanderson (or RJ, if this was in his bequeathed notes) was simply whitewashing all the evils perpetrated by the WCs as a terrorist organization. 

 

I know this is a couple of months old but I've just finished a re-read and wanted to agree with these parts in particular.

 

The first part is the central problem with the Whitecloaks: they are a cross between the Spanish Inquisition and The Knights Templar who claim authority everywhere and over everyone.  If anyone objects, demurs or criticises them then clearly they don't walk in the light and can be arrested and tortured into confession of their sins unless enough force is around to deter the Whitecloaks. 

 

We understand that there is nothing that Perrin and Egwene can do from the moment the Whitecloaks approach their campsite.  Even if Perrin had not killed two of them any answers they could have given about their reason for being there would only have condemned themselves - as indeed the story they spin Geofram Bornhald does. The personal enmity of Dain Bornhald and Jaret Byar after Falme always seemed a bit contrived to me but it adds further fuel to the fire but the condemnation of Perrin (and Egwene) as Darkfriend(s) is set in stone.  We're meant to realise how terrifying this is and how difficult it is for Perrin to have an axe hanging over his head all the time.

 

For the second part I had an equally incredulous reaction to the notion of the trial.  I had considered the Whitecloak arc in Perrin's story closed with their expulsion from The Two Rivers in TSR. 

 

1) As The Whitecloaks had invaded The Two Rivers on Pedron Niall's orders, cordoned the region off with a blockade of the Taren, effectively instituted martial law in the region and kidnapped and held hostage the Luhhans and Cauthons there seemed no way Perrin or the Two Rivers folk would even entertain this for a moment. 

 

2) Indeed as  Whitecloaks under the command of Padan Fain as Ordeith had murdered Perrin's entire family it seemed far more reasonable to me that Bornhald as the Officer commanding the Whitecloak invasion (1) and with full knowledge of the murders would be trying to keep things quiet.  The fact that he wants justice for his father but denies his Order's responsibility for the murder of civilians in cold blood is hypocritically infuriating.

 

3) Galad is an absurd character in an absurd position.  He is a man whose step-mother and sister trained at Tar Valon, things that are considered crimes by The Whitecloaks, but in response to feeling his sister was used he joins an organisation that would, rather than use her, kill her!  As a member of the royal family of Andor and with a close personal attachment to his step-mother he nonetheless joins an organisation which every ruling family knows makes trouble for them and which nearly unseated Morgase a year ago!?  It's preposterous.  His reaction to learning that the Whitecloaks sent troops into The Two Rivers, an area claimed by Andor, is complete indifference rather than anger at the infringement of Andor's sovereignty.  Learning that his troops ignored Trollocs and left the farmers to fend for themselves he is swayed by two wide-eyed officers, one dumb, the other drunk, both with a grudge, into thinking that refusing to fight Trollocs while they attacked and killed villagers was the right thing because it must be a trap!

 

4) The Whitecloaks have been expelled from Amadicia but they have no problem with appropriating a baggage train and kidnapping it's complement of drivers and camp staff in Ghealdan.  This is a casus belli but the whole thing is portrayed as entirely reasonable military behaviour on The Whitecloaks part rather than in effect an invasion and seizure of Ghealdanin assets.

 

Everything about it annoys me, from the lame way Basel Gill and the supply carts are left to wander on alone for weeks after Malden instead of re-joining the main force so they become an obvious hostage group to the readiness with which Perrin agrees to be tried against everyone else's objections feels contrived.

 

The only things to be said for it are

1) It finally closes out The Perrin vs Bornhald/Byar sub-plot running since TEotW

2) Perrin does bring another group of soldiers into alliance for the larger battle of Tarmon Gai'don without bloodshed

3) Galad's arrival causes Morgase to reveal herself, finally tying off the end of her exile arc begun in TFoH (iirc)

4) It FINALLY allows Perrin to leave Ghealdan where he was sent at the middle / end of ACoS

5) Galad might still have a stick up his butt but he develops some glimpses of judgment and compromise rather than closed minded self-certainty

 

Of course it's the battle where Perrin saves The Whitecloaks from the Trolloc ambush that cements all these things rather than the trial itself but the trial resolves the legal Whitecloak case against Perrin so he gets some personal resolution from it.

 

The "What happens after?" is the big question for The Whitecloaks for me.  They may fight in The Last Battle but the order really needs to be disbanded.  Galad's musings that maybe the Children will set up in The Two Rivers are a pipe dream and nauseating to boot after how they behaved in TSR. No monarch will allow a military order with their own legal code and courts on their territory so unless they can bully their way in - which The Dragon's Peace makes extremely unlikely - they are done for.  Too much to hope for?

[Red Eagle]

My intended and I recently began a re-listening of the entire WoT series on Audible, and I found this part extremely compelling. I remember there was some confusion, as to what exactly the Whitecloak contingent said to Perrin & Egwene, when one of the Whitecloaks spotted them hiding in the broken stone hand from Artur Hawkwing's statue, so here's the precise wording.

 

"You up there, COME DOWN! You will not be harmed, if you walk in the light."

 

(Perrin & Egwene neither move or respond, hoping against hope that the WCs aren't 100% sure someone IS up there, and Perrin's PoV makes clear his certainty that trying to run will just get them run down by men on horses. He looks at the lances the WC's torchlight is glinting off of, and imagines them being used on the two of them, should they try to flee.)

 

There's another couple second pause, then, and with nothing else said beforehand, "Throw down any weapons you have and SURRENDER, or you will be killed!" (In fairness, this second statement wasn't made with obvious audible malice, but it was shouted as an obvious escalation of the Whitecloak position, in response to Perrin & Egwene not budging from their now-revealed hiding spot. 

 

Not trying to carry out the entire debate again, but I remembered this thread when I listened to this part again.

[bringbackthomsmoustache]

On 2/9/2022 at 5:35 PM, KakitaOCU said:

But that's not the same as legal justification.  It's like my cooper and tax collector story.  As a reader I think most of us would side with the cooper.  But from a legal perspective if you start forgiving actual crimes because the circumstances make them sympathetic then you open a door for things to get more and more gray and more and more crimes being allowed.

Except that the majority of readers would support the right to a jury of your peers for a judgement, and a jury is expected to determine the case not solely on the written law (which is an ass) but on what is "just" in all of the circumstances (but only to acquit - they should not convict unless the written law is satisfied).  If they properly understood the situation then a jury would take into account that Perrin actually experienced the injuries and death of the wolves - by modern standards temporary insanity or diminished responsibility.  

[bringbackthomsmoustache]

On 4/27/2022 at 6:44 PM, Stedding Tofu said:

No monarch will allow a military order with their own legal code and courts on their territory so unless they can bully their way in - which The Dragon's Peace makes extremely unlikely - they are done for.  Too much to hope for?

Except that in Europe for centuries the Catholic church did have its own legal system and (at times) military forces.  

[Stedding Tofu]

7 hours ago, bringbackthomsmoustache said:

Except that in Europe for centuries the Catholic church did have its own legal system and (at times) military forces.  

 

Well, the Chuch established ecclesiastical laws over it's lands by special circumstance of it's spiritual role not military force: monks, nuns, friars and run of the mill clergymen not being part of a military order.  That caused a large amount of friction in medieval and early modern Europe (King John, Henry II and Thomas a Becket, Henry VIII and the English Reformation to name a few) but there were no puppet kings like the king of Amadicia.

 

Orders like the Knights Templar or Hospitaller were established specifically to fight for the recovery of Christian lands and they were a military-political-religious force in the lands they conquered with no special laws, courts or powers in Europe proper.

 

There is no equivalent spiritual role for The Whitecloaks to leverage, religion being unorganised in story, and no reason for a ruler to let them in and establish themselves.  The options are force / bullying their way in as Pedron Niall was planning with Andor (first by a coup to unseat Morgase during a period of unrest (TEOTW) and then by blackmailing her into granting him what he wanted when she was his prisoner (later in story)), or by establishing themselves where there is no authority / conquering new lands.  Neither of these options have a great chance of success given how militarised society is after The Last Battle.

 

Plus, in story, their ideology specifically rests on Aes Sedai and all those touching the one power being darkfriends.  With the victory over The Dark One, the cleansing of the source and the growing familiarity of people with Aes Sedai, Asha'man, Windfinders, Wise Ones and even damane, not to mention the example of The Dragon Reborn, it's hard to see how that ideology will win new converts.

[Jsbrads2]

It was in Andor, book 1 page 210, the location is marked on the map, a bit north of the road and about halfway between Whitebridge and Four Kings, well below the border line.

 

Perrin is an Andoran citizen.

Elyas, Perrin and Egwene leave the campsite.

WC discover the campsite and decide to investigate.

 

1. When the WCs find Perrin, they demand he surrender/disarm, or they will murder him.

Open and shut case of self defense.

 

Self Defense is the US is nearly as diverse as there are states. Castle Doctrine allows defending your home. Stand Your Ground laws allow someone in a public setting to act upon an aggressor and doesn’t require retreat. Every case is judged by different degrees in each state based on their laws, precedent, and the biases of the judge, jury and the eloquence of the attorneys (and unfortunately the race of the person who died). 

 

[KakitaOCU]

On 10/13/2022 at 9:36 PM, bringbackthomsmoustache said:

Except that the majority of readers would support the right to a jury of your peers for a judgement,

Not really even going into the rest, but this first sentence.  It's a deflection from the actual discussion.

No, not every reader automatically assumed Jury trial with certain rules.  But aside from that, the situation is already 100% established that Perrin and Galad both accepted Morgase as sole arbiter.  So discussing a jury or not isn't important here.

And you didn't really say anything that counters my original argument.

[Sabio]

Except Perin did attack first and admitted he killed the Whitecloaks for killing wolves and not for defending himself.  He didn't kill in self defense.  Killing someone that killed an animal isn't justfied, even if you feel the animal was your friend.  The Whitecloaks do have a right to be wary when you discover strangers hiding in the darkness.

[Jsbrads2]

Sabio, the events are true, but why did Perrin have to hide? They literally cornered Perrin. They threatened violence, they illegally demanded disarming, they were planning on arresting him, torturing Perrin until he admitted to being a Darkfriend because he wasn’t in a village or on a farm. Perrin’s thought processes are less relevant based on the fact pattern.  

Whitecloaks are the rabid creatures here.

And words exist in the legal world, many know the term assault and battery, which means literally:

Assault: Threatening Speech

Battery: Physical Violence

 

Exodus 22:2-3 “If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed…

A Thief who steals at night is presumed to murder to escape, the Whitecloaks threatened murder illegally and their normative behavior is presuming people are darkfriends and torture people to prove their claim… and only one answer is ever accepted by the torturers.