Compulsion and the Warder Bond

[aevogt]

Three times that I can find, the bond is mentioned as compulsion

 

Moraine tells Lan in TGH "I've never used our bond to compel you"

 

One of the Salidar AS asks Alanna why she didn't use the bond to "compel" Rand in LoC

 

Myrell actually does compel Lan, (or so it appears) to keep him from killing everyone he comes in contact with when he arrives outside of Salidar.

 

So how is this not "Forbidden Compulsion" when it's used by nearly every AS, except, oddly enough, the Reds.  Or are you just not supposed to use compulsion on another Sister?

[Gentled Ben]

Well, "Forbidden Compulsion" is nothing but that, Compulsion, whereas the warder bond is much more, so technically, that would probably be the answer to your question, yet as far as ethically, how is it different, I don't think I can answer. Also, with Compulsion, the one who's compelled doesn't realize it, whereas a warder will notice unless it's done delicately, or at least, I seem to recall that from when Myrelle Compelled Lan in the incident yo mentioned. She was very careful to do it gently so as not to make him aware of it. When Moghedien Compels Nyn and Elayne in Tanchico, she is not the least bit subtle about it, yet they had no idea what was happening to them. That would suggest that the Compulsion aspect of the warder bond acts differently than "Forbidden Compulsion," and therein may lie more of your answer. We also might note that Egwene was disgusted by the Compulsion weave that Moghedien taught her, yet we have no evidence that most, or even any, sisters are repulsed by the warder bond weave when they learn it. My guess is that its' actually quite different, yet has the curious quality of sharing some aspects with Compulsion.  :-\

[Luckers]

Keep in mind that Aes Sedai are experts at prevarication. To them, what isn't forbidden is not only permissable, but they dont even pause to concider the moral or ethical implications. They do it constantly with the three oaths, especially with lying and half truths and so forth.

 

Thats pretty much exactly what they are doing here. In terms of effect this is precisely the same as compulsion, but since its an effect of the warder bond... well thats not compulsion, no sirry bob.

[BKVMC]

the asha man bond seems  more like straight up compulsion to me. and it seems that the sisters who  bonded  asha man  arent able to  control them as well  as the  non channeling warders. 

[Luckers]

Thats because a man wrapped in Saidin cannot be compelled. I theorize that it has to do with the inherent chaotic nature of saidin, or perhaps the 'perpetual fight' mindset of men holding it that disrupts the attempt to control, but either way thanks to Sammael we know it to be fact.

 

The same is not true for women holding saidar... perhaps becuas they surrender, but meh.

 

 

[professorskar]

I agree with Luckers...the Aes Sedai are hypocrites.  Compulsion is banned, but they just don't consider the Warder bond the same type of Compulsion, even if the results are similar.  In defense of the AS however, Warders are supposed to know what they're getting into when they become bonded, so I guess it's just part of the package.

[Gentled Ben]

Lan didn't understand quite what he was getting into. He understood the basic concept, ie, his life before hers, and he understood what her personal mission, her great, Blue Cause was and the dangers inherent in that, but the bond itself and what *that* entailed, well, that was a surprise, and she most decidedly did not mention to him that it conveniently comes with an aspect of Compulsion, and I doubt if most other sisters tell their potential warders that, either. I wouldn't...

[RobertAlexWillis]

It should be noted that while the bond does have the potential for Compulsion, it is very much against tradition (which Aes Sedai view with almost having the force of law) to use it on your Gaidin.  We have two instances of it being attempted (only one, Moiraine's use of it on Lan, being successful ... I view Myrelle's use of it was simply an extension of that) but both of those instances are very much not the norm.

 

The Warder Bond was developed during a time when Aes Sedai did not profess as strongly against Compulsion, and still bonded men against their will.  They probably don't know how to take that aspect out of the weave, even if that is possible.  The current Aes Sedai are not, for the most part, hypocrites in this particular area ... despite the bond containing the potential for Compulsion, the vast majority of Aes Sedai honestly don't use it in that way.  And the majority do regard using the bond that way as being just as bad as using the forbidden Compulsion weave (that none of them know ...  :P )

[Luckers]

I don't know about that. They all seemed to pretty much assume Alanna would compel Rand--indeed they seemed almost disdainful of the fact that she hadn't until they learned that she had tried and failed.

 

Indeed the only comment i remember even relating to a negative reguard of the compulsive aspect of the bond is when Romanda suggested that the bond be altered to make that a requirement and Egwene shot her down. And even that wasn't really related. Other then that the Aes Sedai don't seem to hold use of that form of compulsion in any particular negative light.

[CUBAREY]

You7 have to look at the very technical way at which A.S. view prohibitions.  In modern times a Warder must agree to the bond (it does not matter that they do not know all that entails)thus using the bond to force a Warder to do something is viewed as technically not being compulsion (they already agreed to the bond) therefore its permitted.  That also explains why forcing a bond on an unwilling man is seen as wrong- he has not agreed to it so using the bond on him is "compulsion".  Is this a highly technical way at looking at the issue and is it hypocritical, of course but A.S. in general are hypocrites they mislead at the same time they technically keep the oath against lying.

[RobertAlexWillis]

Indeed the only comment i remember even relating to a negative reguard of the compulsive aspect of the bond is when Romanda suggested that the bond be altered to make that a requirement and Egwene shot her down. And even that wasn't really related. Other then that the Aes Sedai don't seem to hold use of that form of compulsion in any particular negative light.

 

They all seemed to pretty much assume Alanna would compel Rand--indeed they seemed almost disdainful of the fact that she hadn't until they learned that she had tried and failed.

 

Hmmm ... in my searching, it seems that RJ's comments are a bit ambiguous on the subject.  To quote:

 

Although use of the bond in that way (controlling) was not unknown in the past, it came to be regarded as a form of Compulsion to use it so except in the slightest forms. Besides, using the bond to control a Warder all the time is a lot of work. An Aes Sedai wants somebody who can watch her back and keep it safe, not somebody she has to work on all the time. (Which is one of the reasons Aes Sedai stopped bonding men against their will. Not ethical concerns or ethical growth, I'm afraid; it was just not very practical really) Better simply to release the fellow who can't measure up and find another who will.

 

http://www.wotmania.com/faqtopic.asp?ID=152

 

So ... they regard it as Compulsion ... but it is primarily practical concerns, rather than ethical ones, that stop them both from bonding men against their will, and, one assumes, using that bond as Compulsion ...

 

Wow ... I just looked at what I typed, and thats not ambiguous after all.  Its hypocrisy.  Score one for Luckers ... flaming Aes Sedai ...

[Luckers]

On the other hand, they do reguard it as compulsion, so thats a score for you.

 

You7 have to look at the very technical way at which A.S. view prohibitions.  In modern times a Warder must agree to the bond (it does not matter that they do not know all that entails)thus using the bond to force a Warder to do something is viewed as technically not being compulsion (they already agreed to the bond) therefore its permitted.  That also explains why forcing a bond on an unwilling man is seen as wrong- he has not agreed to it so using the bond on him is "compulsion".  Is this a highly technical way at looking at the issue and is it hypocritical, of course but A.S. in general are hypocrites they mislead at the same time they technically keep the oath against lying.

 

Thats very true. Of course its still pretty hypocritical.

[CUBAREY]

Quote:

 

Thats very true. Of course its still pretty hypocritical.

 

Only RAW sincerely believes that A.S. as a whole are not hypocrites.