Jump to content

DRAGONMOUNT

A WHEEL OF TIME COMMUNITY

Sentient Terangreal?


mb
 Share

Recommended Posts

Some terangreal kind of seem sentient.

 

Here are some examples:

-the terangreal that shows fears of the person entering (White Tower's 3 arches)

-the terangreal that shows possible futures of the person entering (Rhuidean's 3 arches)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No, they aren't sentient. There may be some (who knows?) but those ter'angreal don't think, they just show. If someone enters the ones that were (are?) in Rhuidean, it simply shows the many possibilities their life could take from that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-the terangreal that shows fears of the person entering (White Tower's 3 arches)

-the terangreal that shows possible futures of the person entering (Rhuidean's 3 arches)

Another example:

-the terangreal that shows history in perspective of the ancestors of the person entering (Glass Columns)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please, stop replying to this topic and let it die. It cannot be added upon, there can be no discussion that I'm aware of. We all accept that the ter'angreal are not sentient, and it's just going to turn into another thread wherein mb doesn't care what anyone says and continues to post "examples" of ter'angreal that seem sentient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'd all be wrong then. The Nym are sentient ter'angreal. Creations of the power that utilize the Power to a specific purpose--ter'angreal.

 

Though they are correct, mb, that the examples you offer are not sentient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why--constructs of the power that use the power for a specific goal is the definition of a ter'angreal.

 

As for you distinction--is there some comment about the Nym having human souls?

 

Not that i see it as problematic--by definition their sentience suggests a soul, so a sentient ter'angreal would have a soul. Doesn't make them not a ter'angreal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, scratch that. Interesting enough topic has arisen. I just hope mb stays away.

 

The only problem with classifying the Nym as ter'angreal lies in the possible underlying assumption that any type of -angreal is an object.

 

Well, that isn't a problem. You see, people are objects. Whether or not they have a soul is inconsequential. They are objects. As such, the Nym are objects created using the One Power during the Age of Legends to do a particular thing. That is, tend gardens/fields and grow things in general. (At least, I'm fairly certain that was their purpose.)

 

It's quite clear that the Nym are ter'angreal. What you're proposing though, RAW, if I understand you correctly, is that the sentience of the Nym would somehow qualify it for a different prefix besides ter-. I'm not sure why that's a qualification for the creation of a separate category, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have to define angreal of all kinds as things created by those who can channel. People who can channel, by that definition, cannot be angreal. I say we have to define angreal as such because the distinction between ter'angreal and people would be moot if we were to use your definition as you so coyly pointed out. If you wish to use your definition, then certainly a human channeler is just a sentient ter'angreal with a very wide skill set.

 

However, ter'angreal and angreal do the same thing, you're correct. They both use the Power for a purpose. However, angreal and sa'angreal both use the Power for the same purpose whereas ter'angreal do not. That's where the distinction between them lies. Angreal and sa'angreal both increase the upper bounds of a channeler's limits in terms of how much Power they can draw. We know that. A ter'angreal is basically loosely defined as any angreal which doesn't do what the angreal and sa'angreal do.

 

By that definition, a Nym is clearly a ter'angreal. Whether it should attain its own category because it's sentient is a moot point because it doesn't have one. At least, not to our knowledge. Admittedly, though, we have very little information on the Nym. And despite their ability to consciously control their use of the One Power, they can only use it for one purpose. That is to grow things. That distinction alone separates them from channelers on large.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now I have to say you're intentionally obfuscating the argument, RAW.

 

Why not?  If people are objects, then the channeling child of two channelers is a "thing made by channelers".  Just because sex is usually the method of manufacture, it doesn't change the fact that people are made by other people.

 

Forgive, I forgot to add "by using the One Power" into the definition.

 

So, you have to define them differently, because they are inherently different.

 

I say that they must be defined differently because they are inherently different in function. The sentience does not change the function of the Nym, it merely changes the method of control of the function.

 

I didn't say that.

 

I say it is implied. But if you wish to retract the implication, then so be it.

 

An angreal that doesn't do what an angreal does?  I know what you're trying to say, but that isn't a very good definition, since it is self-referential, which defeats the point of defining anything.

 

No, it's not self-referential.

 

Angreal

|

|

|

Angreal; Ter'angreal

|

|

|

Sa'angreal

 

It's a hierarchy. Where you put the sa'angreal actually doesn't matter at all. The point is that "angreal" is both the object which increases the upper limits of the amount of Power a person can channel and the designation for every object created by the One Power. It is a purely arbitrary distinction made for ease of discussion. If you want, you can call the top "angreal" "Flizzerbloops." It amounts to the same thing.

 

I just figured we were both in understanding on that point. Sorry. I hope I've cleared that up now.

 

By that definition, nothing is clear.   Wink

 

Actually, yes. "A ter'angreal is basically loosely defined as any flizzerbloop which doesn't do what the angreal and sa'angreal do."

 

Make more sense now?

 

Yes it does.  The category is "Nym".

 

...*shakes head* There really is no arguing that. There is nothing in the books to suggest that "Nym" is anything but the name of the species of ter'angreal. Living constructs of the One Power. They're ter'angreal, yes. If you want to consider the Nym a separate category, then go ahead. But it's a moot point, as I said before. Then the Trees of Life are also a separate category of ter'angreal and I'm fine with that as well. It's just...irrelevant, really. It doesn't change anything. It's kind of an arbitrary distinction much like "flizzerbloop." Except, this arbitrary distinction doesn't really help ease understanding.

 

Ah well.

 

And they are different from ter'angreal, because they are sentient.

 

I don't believe I ever said they weren't distinct from ter'angreal on large. The difference is that while they are clearly not human, they are ter'angreal. Again, it's a hierarchy.

 

Flizzerbloop

|             \

|              \

|               \

|                \

Angreal   Ter'angreal

|                        |     \

|                        |      \

|                        |       \

|                        |        \

Sa'angreal       Nym     Avendesora*

 

 

If you want to put the Nym into their own category, fine. But they're still ter'angreal no matter how you slice it. And to try to define humans as ter'angreal is intentionally obfuscating things for the sake of the argument rather than for any other reason. Whether or not they can reasonably be defined as such is moot.

 

*It's actually unclear as to whether or not the Avendesora trees are ter'angreal or not. They are certainly constructs of the One Power, and they certainly do have a function (they give whoever sits under their leaves a calming feeling), but whether or not that function is intended is another matter entirely. And whether or not that intended or unintended function makes it a ter'angreal is all debatable.

 

Edit:

Just throwing this out there... But wouldn't Trollocs fall under that category if Nym do? They are constructs, after all.

 

They're not constructs of the One Power. At least, not in the same way that the Nym are. The Trollocs are mostly just mixed human and animal stock. Presumably, the Power was used in combining the human and animal stock, but one would have to stretch the finer points of ter'angreal making to make that point. Though, it could be made. Trollocs would, I imagine, fall under a similar category as the Avendesora trees, depending on the nature of the Avendesora trees' creation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for the double post, but I must make sure this post is read.

 

I just took a shower, and I was thinking about it in the shower and I've come to the conclusion that I'm not necessarily right. I'm not wrong, but I'm not necessarily right as I was putting forth.

 

It all arises from a kind of conflict that comes from the vague definition of the ter'angreal and the vague explanation of what the Nym, Avendesora trees, and gholam are.

 

The ter'angreal are loosely defined as I said previously, that which is a flizzerbloop, but not an angreal. A Nym is defined as merely a construct of the One Power. The omission of the term ter'angreal leads one to believe it is a separate category from the ter'angreal and as RAW has pointed it out, it can be defined as such. However, the loose definition of the term ter'angreal also encompasses things like the Nym.

 

So there are at least two distinct hierarchies which are possible.

 

The one I said before:

 

Flizzerbloop

|             \

|              \

|               \

|                \

Angreal   Ter'angreal _________________

|                        |     \                                   |

|                        |      \                                  |

|                        |       \                                 |

|                        |        \                                |

Sa'angreal       Nym     Avendesora*       gholam

 

And another hierarchy:

 

                         Flizzerbloop

                        /      |     \

                       /       |      \

                      /        |       \

                     /         |        \

        ------/           |         \------------------

          |                    |                                    |

     angreal    ter'angreal                    Living constructs

         |                                                   /         |              \

         |                                                  /           |                \

         |                                                 /           |                  \

   Sa'angreal                          Avendesora     Nym         gholam

 

 

Kind of crazy, eh?

 

Though, trying to fit humans into that hierarchy is still intentionally obfuscating things. :-p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, what's a flizzerbloop? And isn't Angreal a more catch all term than Ter'Angreal? Angreal can mean in general or power amplifiers weaker than the Sa'Angreal.

 

Read all of my posts.

 

LOL ... well, at least I've entertained you for an afternoon, Rox.  I don't really care enough to fight about this one.

 

Well, considering I've already said, "Yeah...you might be right, and I might be wrong..." I don't see how we could continue arguing. :D But yes, you certainly did entertain me for the afternoon. *laughs*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a hierarchy. [...] The point is that "angreal" is both the object which increases the upper limits of the amount of Power a person can channel and the designation for every object created by the One Power. It is a purely arbitrary distinction made for ease of discussion. If you want, you can call the top "angreal" "Flizzerbloops." It amounts to the same thing.

 

If you'd read my posts, you wouldn't be asking that question.

 

It's this post:

 

http://forums.dragonmount.com/index.php/topic,43057.msg1132838.html#msg1132838

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a hierarchy. [...] The point is that "angreal" is both the object which increases the upper limits of the amount of Power a person can channel and the designation for every object created by the One Power. It is a purely arbitrary distinction made for ease of discussion. If you want, you can call the top "angreal" "Flizzerbloops." It amounts to the same thing.

 

If you'd read my posts, you wouldn't be asking that question.

 

It's this post:

 

http://forums.dragonmount.com/index.php/topic,43057.msg1132838.html#msg1132838

 

 

I did, and isn't that what this entire thread is about, what does and doesn't count as some form of Angreal? (Ter'angreal being a form of Angreal)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You asked me what a "flizzerbloop" was. I told you to read my posts. You said you did and asked me what it was again, answering your own question. I directed you directly to my post wherein I said what a flizzerbloop was.

 

You're not adding anything to the discussion anymore. You're just asking questions to which you already know the answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And isn't Angreal a more catch all term than Ter'Angreal? Angreal can mean in general or power amplifiers weaker than the Sa'Angreal.
No. Angreal refers to things that amplify the Power. Objects of the Power that do not amplify it are ter'angreal. There is no catch all term. Well, outside of flizzerbloop, which Roxinos has just made up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...