The Wording of the Third Oath (Full Spoilers)

[Luckers]

For discussion of the change in wording of the Third Oath.

[Eformo]

Suggestion for a new topic:  (Deepest apologies if it turns out I'm being an idiot.)

 

What is the exact wording of the Third Oath? 

 

Or, are Aes Sedai given latitude in the precise wording of the Oaths that they swear?  (It seems to me that the Aes Sedai would be sticklers for exact wording, given that they are experts in veiling truth behind the tiniest variations in wording.)

 

Here's why I ask:

 

In New Spring (Just Before Dawn) Moiraine takes the third Oath with the words, "Under the Light and by my hope of salvation and rebirth, I vow that I will never use the One Power as a weapon except against Shadowspawn, or in the last extreme of defending my life or that of my Warder or another sister."

 

In The Gathering Storm (Sealed to the Flame) Egwene takes the third Oath with the words, "I vow that I will never use the One Power as a weapon except against Darkfriends and Shadowspawn, or in the last extreme of defending my life or that of my Warder or of another sister."

 

I checked with the glossary - books 3-7 include an entry on the Three Oaths (under Oaths, the) which does not mention an exception for Darkfriends.  The Guide also does not include a mention of Darkfriends in the Oath.  However, the encyclopedia WOT (accessed 12 December, 2009), under the Aes Sedai entry does include the disclaimer allowing the Power to be used against Darkfriends. 

 

The difference about the Darkfriends is very important in Chapter 38 of TGS.  Siuan seems to believe that the Three Oaths give an exclusion that allows use of the Power against Darkfriends, because this would give a good excuse for why Elaida was able to use the Power against Egwene the way that she had.  (My own personal reaction to that scene when I first read it was to immediately say, "Wow, Elaida believes that silencing Egwene constitutes the last defense of her life!")

 

[ed2funy]

idk id that is thread worthy (which is why I am not a mod), but it is a good point.

[Eformo]

Actually, I agree that it's not worthy of a whole thread.  But I couldn't find a place where it really fit well into an existing discussion where the spoilers were kosher, and this thing has been driving me up the wall.  I'd love to hear what people's thoughts are otherwise, I'm about ready to email Brandon with the question.  Conflicting reference works always exasperate me.  ???

[Luckers]

I'm not sure if it's worth a thread either, since I think I have an answer to it. I'll give you my answer if you still think there are questions/points to discuss I'll open a thread on the subject.

 

Mine's a fairly simple answer to it--Egwene made that Oath because in tDR Sheriam told her that was what the Oath was. Inclusive of Darkfriends. Every other source on the third Oath speaks differently, including first hand experience and RJ quotes. Keep in mind Egwene had very little formal training, likely none on the Oaths at all--we know that Accepted do undergo specific training (read indoctrination) on the Oaths but Egwene never got that far, its likely all she had on specific wording was Sheriam's comment hanging round in her head.

 

Sheriam could lie--and may simply have mispoke herself. And given what happened directly after Egwene swore the Oath its understandable no one noticed--hell its even possible someone did notice and in light of the BA purge thought it a reasonable addition. Who knows.

 

The difference about the Darkfriends is very important in Chapter 38 of TGS.  Siuan seems to believe that the Three Oaths give an exclusion that allows use of the Power against Darkfriends, because this would give a good excuse for why Elaida was able to use the Power against Egwene the way that she had.  (My own personal reaction to that scene when I first read it was to immediately say, "Wow, Elaida believes that silencing Egwene constitutes the last defense of her life!")

 

Actually you'll note thats Egwene's interpretation of Siuan's comment. Siuan was only trying to convince Egwene she should leave the Tower. Here I'll quote it.

 

"Even a formal censure from the Hall will undermine her," Egwene said. "My resistance, my refusal to break my imprisonment, means something. The Sitters themselves come to visit me! If I were to flee, it would look as though I'd given in to Elaida."

 

"Didn't she declare you a Darkfriend?" Siuan asked pointedly.

 

Egwene hesitated. Yes, Elaida had done that. But she didn't have proof for it.

 

Tower law was intricate, and sorting out the proper punishments and interpretations could be complicated. The Three Oaths would have prevented Elaida from using the One Power as a weapon, and so Elaida must have thought that what she was doing wasn't a violation. Either she had gone farther than she'd planned, or she saw Egwene as a Darkfriend. She could argue for either position to defend herself; the latter would relieve her of the most guilt, but the former would be much easier to prove.

 

"She could succeed at having you convicted," Siuan said, apparently thinking along the same lines. "You would be slated for execution. What then?"

 

All that about Tower law was Egwene's thoughtline, Siuan was only speaking of the possibility of Egwene being convicted as a darkfriend, and thus being executed.

 

And, point in fact, Egwene is wrong, the Third Oath does not stop an Aes Sedai beating someone with the Power. We've seen it time and again. To beat it not to use the power as a weapon, depending on the circumstances and intentions. It was not Elaida's intention to kill Egwene, merely to shut her up--and punish her a little. Indeed Siuan notes that the beating neith broke bone nore broke skin.

 

The reason Elaida's claim that Egwene was a darkfriend was significant was that its illegal to beat an initiate with the Power, but a darkfriend is no longer an initiate. Therefore in terms of what Elaida is culpable for, if Egwene were a darkfriend she would not have commited an illegal act.

[Eformo]

Actually you'll note thats Egwene's interpretation of Siuan's comment. Siuan was only trying to convince Egwene she should leave the Tower. Here I'll quote it.

 

And, point in fact, Egwene is wrong, the Third Oath does not stop an Aes Sedai beating someone with the Power. We've seen it time and again. To beat it not to use the power as a weapon, depending on the circumstances and intentions. It was not Elaida's intention to kill Egwene, merely to shut her up--and punish her a little. Indeed Siuan notes that the beating neith broke bone nore broke skin.

 

The reason Elaida's claim that Egwene was a darkfriend was significant was that its illegal to beat an initiate with the Power, but a darkfriend is no longer an initiate. Therefore in terms of what Elaida is culpable for, if Egwene were a darkfriend she would not have commited an illegal act.

 

You are right on these points, I believe.  Egwene still thought that the use constituted use as a weapon though, otherwise she wouldn't have gone to the Oaths.  This is pretty clearly a "tweener" case where the Aes Sedai's individual interpretation is the issue.  The important part is that Elaida didn't believe that she was using it as a weapon, same as you can beat someone with the power when not defending your life.  It takes out much of the importance of the question, but still leaves the question itself unresolved. 

 

Mine's a fairly simple answer to it--Egwene made that Oath because in tDR Sheriam told her that was what the Oath was. Inclusive of Darkfriends. Every other source on the third Oath speaks differently, including first hand experience and RJ quotes. Keep in mind Egwene had very little formal training, likely none on the Oaths at all--we know that Accepted do undergo specific training (read indoctrination) on the Oaths but Egwene never got that far, its likely all she had on specific wording was Sheriam's comment hanging round in her head.

 

As for Sheriam in the Dragon Reborn, would you be willing to give me a chapter pointer?  I recall that at this time, Sheriam is acting very strangely and the reader is given lots of reasons to be suspicious about her, but I haven't actually read the book in a decade.  It still seems borderline impossible to me that Egwene could have made it through the research that she's done, her deep thinking about the Oaths (that the Three Oaths are what make Aes Sedai and about possibly removing them at retirement), her dreams about becoming Aes Sedai without holding the Oath Rod (and the corresponding questions about the Oaths it seems to have raised in her), her deep research into the history of the Tower, reading Verin's notes on the Black (which would seem to touch on the Oaths at certain points, namely when discussing the Dark Oaths that replace them) and so forth without ever knowing what the Three Oaths actually are.  Not impossible, just extremely implausible. 

 

The only explanation I can see here is that Egwene pointedly skipped over any piece of information she ever came to in her reading regarding the Oaths with the thought of "I already know this, get me to the new stuff."  Egwene's character strikes me as too careful to systematically engage in this sort of evasion.  Over a year has passed since she was raised Accepted, that's over a year for her to think of these things. 

 

Also, if she had been basing her entire belief about what the Three Oaths were on Sheriam's word, wouldn't she have questioned that as soon as she read in Verin's notes that Sheriam was Black?  The sudden realization of "Wow, the woman I've been taking as speaking gospel truth (even though last year I thought she was Black Ajah) on a topic that is dear to my heart really is Black Ajah and really can lie!" ought to shake her belief if she's just taking Sheriam's word for what the Oaths actually say.  If that were the case, wouldn't she more likely clarify what the Oaths were before swearing them?  She also has to consider that if she blunders the Oaths in front of the Hall (as apparently she actually DID) she risks seriously discrediting herself in front of the very people she needs to hold sway over?  She did also miss the Oath part (though not the content) of the other two Oaths as well.

 

Sheriam could lie--and may simply have mispoke herself. And given what happened directly after Egwene swore the Oath its understandable no one noticed--hell its even possible someone did notice and in light of the BA purge thought it a reasonable addition. Who knows.

 

I'd expect that every woman present would have instantly noticed the difference.  You've got Romanda and Lelaine struggling to hold on to their power now that Egwene is back, I'd have thought one of them would have pointed it out just as fast.  There could be a lot to be gained in being the one to point out that the "Amyrlin Seat" didn't even know what the Three Oaths actually were.  If that's the case, I have a hard time believing that Egwene wasn't interrupted on the spot. 

 

Also, I can't believe that Sheriam deliberately lied about this.  To be a successful member of the Black, you'd have to be very careful about when you exercise the ability to lie.  This is not something she had a very good reason to lie about, and it's something that she would have expected to eventually be caught on.  After all, as you mentioned, most of the Accepted receive intensive training on these exact topics, it would never do to have Egwene saying to her instructor, "but Sheriam Sedai told me the Third Oath was...."  It's possible that there is some collusion regarding the Oaths and a twisting of the Oaths (though this is surely at the furthest reaches of the far-fetched theory spectrum).  But it seems that the Shadow would want to see the Oaths twisted to allow fewer loopholes, not more.  Certainly not a loophole that allows people to use the Power as a weapon against you if you're ever outed as black.  Therefore, I conclude Sheriam must have accidentally slipped up on the Oath.  And that pushes the bounds of credibility in my eyes.  How could someone that sloppy have attained the shawl in the first place?  Or survived the dog-eat-dog environment of the Black Ajah (or even the Tower) long enough to attain any prominence?

 

This is the part that I'm hoping to get to the bottom of still.  Egwene could have done the Black Ajah hunting part of her agenda only taking the Oath against speaking untruths.  She also wanted to firmly establish herself as 100% Aes Sedai in this scene.  Either way, she's in a very bad spot vis-a-vis the Oaths, because she's taken three oaths, but not the Three Oaths that every other Aes Sedai in the Tower has taken.  Arguably, she's taken two of the Three, but certainly not all of them. 

 

Any Aes Sedai worth her salt is going to recognize that this creates a massive hole in the Third Oath.  You could not reasonably convince yourself that the person you wanted to attack with the one power was Shadowspawn, but you could reasonably convince yourself someone is a Darkfriend.  Heck, Elaida could have convinced herself that anyone who wasn't clearly on her side was a Darkfriend. 

 

Yes, I can see good reasons to let this slide as an expedient in the moment when Egwene is in the midst of exposing the Black Ajah, but I can't imagine that Lelaine or Romanda or wouldn't want to try a power play on this basis, and I can't imagine that Egwene will get away without the variation ever being noticed... and used against her!

 

At any rate, thanks for all the help.  It's been years since I was actively involved in RASFWRJ, and life hasn't been conducive to keeping as close of tabs on these things as I'd have liked.  I've clearly lost some of the details in the past and appreciate your help in solving this puzzle.  I've long been accepting what Moiraine said in her Oaths as definitive in that sense, but it doesn't seem right that the other Aes Sedai are not paying attention to detail on something so central to who they are.  Perhaps this is because I am one who would be torn between the brown and the white?  Perhaps it's just because I've lost too many details.  No need for an entire thread, though I'm still very interested if someone can give a definitive, verbatim list of the Oaths.  Something here isn't square and maybe it's just a niggling detail, but it could potentially be something much more important.  Thanks for your help in thinking this out!

[Terez]

From what I understand, 13th depository had a list of errors in TGS going, and since this was noticed early on by someone at Theoryland, I mentioned it to Dom in an email and he said he would add it to the list of errors.  They were going to give it to Harriet some time or another, but I think he said there was no rush because they're not going to submit another edition any time soon.

 

ETA for clarity - the 'error' of course being the quote from New Spring.  Dom saw no reason not to add it to the list.

[Terez]

Also, as to why we assume it to be an error....Sheriam's reference to the differently-worded Oath is hardly the only one.  Even Moiraine herself seems to consider the Oath to contain that particular clause, in the same book:

 

TITLE: New Spring - The Novel

CHAPTER: 2 - A Wish Fulfilled

 

It had to be something to make them worry today in particular. She had seen Tamra in the corridors yesterday, and if there had ever been a woman bubbling with confidence, it had been she. So. The battle that had been raging for the last three days. If Gitara really had Foretold the battle, if she really had had other Foretellings, what else might they have been? Guessing would do no good, but reasoning might. The Aiel crossing the bridges and breaking into the city? Impossible. In three thousand years, while nations rose and fell and even Hawkwing's empire was swept away in fire and chaos, no army had managed to breach Tar Valon's walls or break down its gates, and quite a few had tried over that time. Perhaps the battle turning to disaster in some other way? Or something needed to avoid disaster? Tamra and Gitara were the only two Aes Sedai actually in the Tower at that moment, unless some had returned in the night. There had been talk of injured soldiers in such numbers that all sisters with the smallest ability at Healing were needed, but no one had said straight out that that was where they were going. Aes Sedai could not lie, yet they often spoke obliquely, and they were not above misdirection. Sisters also could use the Power as a weapon if they or their Warders were in danger. No Aes Sedai had taken part in a battle since the Trolloc Wars, when they faced Shadowspawn and armies of Darkfriends, but perhaps Gitara had foretold disaster unless Aes Sedai joined. But why wait until the third day? Could a Foretelling be that detailed? Maybe if the sisters had entered the battle earlier, that would have caused...

In the context of her thoughts on Aes Sedai joining the Aiel battle despite the Oaths, she clearly contrasts the Aiel War, where they could fight so long as they or their Warders were in danger, and the Trolloc Wars, where Aes Sedai were fighting Shadowspawn and Darkfriends.

 

The BWB further enforces the point:

 

TITLE - The World of Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time

CHAPTER: 14 - A New Era: The Aiel War

 

The Battle of Tar Valon, also called the Battle of the Shining Walls, the Battle of the Nations, the Battle of the Red Snows, and the Battle of the Blood Snow, began on the morning of the day before Danshu in the Year of Grace 978 of the New Era, when the Aiel were brought to battle by a loose coalition generally called “the Grand Coalition,” or “the Grand Alliance,” although a few have called it “the Third Compact,” a term for which there is no basis in fact.

 

In addition to the surviving forces of Cairhien, the very temporary Alliance consisted of an army raised by Tar Valon and ten other nations as well as the Children of the Light. Though the Children of the Light were disgruntled that the war to save civilization had become a battle to protect the Tar Valon “witches,” they fought alongside the rest. Aes Sedai took part in the battle, but, bound by the Three Oaths, they were largely limited to defending against any thrust at Tar Valon itself; the Aiel were, after all, neither Shadowspawn, nor Darkfriends, though the claim was made, of course. This was by far the closest cooperation between nations since Artur Hawkwing’s empire had collapsed, but it fell apart upon the end of the Aiel War.

 

Niall, leader of the Whitecloaks and hardly uninformed when it comes to these things, also believes that the Oaths contain the Darkfriend clause:

 

TITLE: Dragon Reborn

CHAPTER: Prologue - Fortress of the Light

 

Niall nodded grimly. There had been no male Aes Sedai since the Breaking of the World, but the women who still claimed that title were bad enough. They prated of their Three Oaths: to speak no word that was not true, to make no weapon for one man to kill another, to use the One Power as a weapon only against Darkfriends or Shadowspawn. But now they had showed those oaths for the lies they were. He had always known no one could want the power they wielded except to challenge the Creator, and that meant to serve the Dark One.

Of course, Niall doesn't mention the bit about in defense of their own lives and those of their Warders, but it's easy to see why he wouldn't be concerned with that bit.

 

Also, Rand has that same impression of the Oaths, for what it's worth:

 

TITLE: Fires of Heaven

CHAPTER: 2 – Rhuidean

 

"I do have a plan." If they wanted to know, let them know, and he would be burned if he changed a word. "First, I mean to put an end to the wars and killing, whether I started them or not. If men have to kill, let them kill Trollocs, not each other. In the Aiel War, four clans crossed the Dragonwall, and had their way for better than two years. They looted and burned Cairhien, defeated every army sent against them. They could have taken Tar Valon, had they wanted. The Tower couldn't have stopped them, because of your Three Oaths." Not to use the Power as a weapon except against Shadowspawn or Darkfriends, or in defense of their own lives, that was another of the Oaths, and the Aiel had not threatened the Tower itself. Anger had him in its grip now. Running and hoping, was he? "Four clans did that. What will happen when I lead eleven across the Spine of the World?" It would have to be eleven; small hope of bringing in the Shaido. "By the time the nations even think of uniting, it will be too late. They'll accept my peace, or I'll be buried in the Can Breat." A discordant plunk rose from the harp, and Natael bent over the instrument, shaking his head. In a moment the soothing sounds came again.

 

 

[Luckers]

As for Sheriam in the Dragon Reborn, would you be willing to give me a chapter pointer?  I recall that at this time, Sheriam is acting very strangely and the reader is given lots of reasons to be suspicious about her, but I haven't actually read the book in a decade.

 

I was actually wrong on this, it was stated to Nynaeve and in tGH. Here is the quote. "One other we have in the Tower makes oaths binding. When you are raised to full sisterhood, you will take your final vows holding that ter'angreal. To speak no word that is not true. To make no weapon for one man to kill another. Never to use the One Power as a weapon except against Darkfriends or Shadow spawn, or in the last extreme of defending your own life, that of your Warder, or that of another sister." [tGH: 23, The Testing].

 

It's still viable however that this is the only source of information Egwene would have on the specifics of the Oaths since she never reached the stage in training which dealt with the siginificance and importance of the Oaths. That'd be presuming Nynaeve told her, though I don't see why she wouldn't. Even if not though the point is that it would be easy for Egwene to have been misinformed--as Terez points out, she was not the only character acting under this misbelief.

 

It still seems borderline impossible to me that Egwene could have made it through the research that she's done, her deep thinking about the Oaths (that the Three Oaths are what make Aes Sedai and about possibly removing them at retirement)

 

Egwene hasn't done any 'research' on the Oaths. She didn't even do all that much 'deep thinking'. Siuan gave her that spiel about the Oaths being the defining characteristic of an Aes Sedai, and suddenly she's gung ho behind them. She doesn't even think on them much, other than to re-elucidate her belief in the rightness of their existence in relation to the existence of Aes Sedai.

 

Indeed this is why some have suggested she was compelled into her position by Halima. The sudden one-eighty turn, the subsequent blind absoluteness with which she reguards the issue of the Oaths...

 

I don't know if the compulsion is nessasary, Egwene has a history of completely absorbing herself in what she wants to be, and after Siuan pointed out that the Oaths might be seen as the defining aspect of being an Aes Sedai its entirely possible Egwene's own mental acrobatics would have led to it--but the point here is there was not extensive research or deep thinking, and what thinking she did do had nothing to do with the specific wording of the Oaths, only the reality of swearing them, and the effect they have on the Aes Sedai.

 

her dreams about becoming Aes Sedai without holding the Oath Rod (and the corresponding questions about the Oaths it seems to have raised in her).

 

She didn't dream of becoming Aes Sedai without holding the Oath Rod, it was in her Accepted Test, and as far as I can tell except for the single thought that flashes through her head at the time as 'how is that possible' she never again considers the issue. That still would not have led her to the question of specific wording.

 

her deep research into the history of the Tower, reading Verin's notes on the Black (which would seem to touch on the Oaths at certain points, namely when discussing the Dark Oaths that replace them) and so forth without ever knowing what the Three Oaths actually are.  Not impossible, just extremely implausible.  

 

And her 'deep research in the history of the Tower' consisted to Siuan detailing the actions and failures of past Amyrlin, and there is no reason that would lead to a discussion about the specific wording of the Oaths. And there is even less reason that Verin would bring them up in her documentation on her experiences with the Black Ajah. Next to none, really.

 

The only explanation I can see here is that Egwene pointedly skipped over any piece of information she ever came to in her reading regarding the Oaths with the thought of "I already know this, get me to the new stuff."  Egwene's character strikes me as too careful to systematically engage in this sort of evasion.  Over a year has passed since she was raised Accepted, that's over a year for her to think of these things.  

 

What reading? Egwene had no books, she was being taught by Siuan from memory. And the stuff Siuan was talking to her about were about the use of power or the influence of having sworn the Oaths, not about the specific details of them.

 

Also, if she had been basing her entire belief about what the Three Oaths were on Sheriam's word, wouldn't she have questioned that as soon as she read in Verin's notes that Sheriam was Black?  The sudden realization of "Wow, the woman I've been taking as speaking gospel truth (even though last year I thought she was Black Ajah) on a topic that is dear to my heart really is Black Ajah and really can lie!" ought to shake her belief if she's just taking Sheriam's word for what the Oaths actually say.

 

No, especially if it came secondhand from Nynaeve. But that's irrelevant anyway, why on earth would Egwene doubt Sheriam's idea on the Oaths--nothing ever contradicted the comment, the idea of including Darkfriends is not absurd--why would she even pause and consider the idea?

 

And the exact wording is not dear to her heart. What she's stuck on is the reality of the existence of the Oaths.

 

I'd expect that every woman present would have instantly noticed the difference.  You've got Romanda and Lelaine struggling to hold on to their power now that Egwene is back, I'd have thought one of them would have pointed it out just as fast.  There could be a lot to be gained in being the one to point out that the "Amyrlin Seat" didn't even know what the Three Oaths actually were.  If that's the case, I have a hard time believing that Egwene wasn't interrupted on the spot.

 

I don't. They'd be more curious as to what she's up to than to take notice to a single added word. Besides, in the same breath as swearing she announces that she is not a darkfriend. There were more significant things going on. If--and its a big if--if they even noticed they likely put it aside, or even concluded Egwene was right.

 

And you are ignoring the fact that we've seen Moiraine and Siuan swear the Oaths without the reference to darkfriends with both Romanda and Lelaine present. They did not leap on it then--so either way they've failed to pick up an addition or lack.

 

Also, I can't believe that Sheriam deliberately lied about this.  To be a successful member of the Black, you'd have to be very careful about when you exercise the ability to lie.  This is not something she had a very good reason to lie about, and it's something that she would have expected to eventually be caught on.  After all, as you mentioned, most of the Accepted receive intensive training on these exact topics, it would never do to have Egwene saying to her instructor, "but Sheriam Sedai told me the Third Oath was...."  It's possible that there is some collusion regarding the Oaths and a twisting of the Oaths (though this is surely at the furthest reaches of the far-fetched theory spectrum).  But it seems that the Shadow would want to see the Oaths twisted to allow fewer loopholes, not more.  Certainly not a loophole that allows people to use the Power as a weapon against you if you're ever outed as black.  Therefore, I conclude Sheriam must have accidentally slipped up on the Oath.  And that pushes the bounds of credibility in my eyes.  How could someone that sloppy have attained the shawl in the first place?  Or survived the dog-eat-dog environment of the Black Ajah (or even the Tower) long enough to attain any prominence?

 

 

Dunno, but its true nonetheless--that Sheriam was sloppy I mean. It's rampant throughout CoT. Other sisters are actively embarressed of Sheriam, and avoid looking at her directly.

 

As for the rest, I wasn't suggesting she deliberately lied, I was suggesting she accidentally misspoke herself, which may even be possible under the Oaths. Even if its not though, its no issue, she wasn't bound. But this is a bit of a distraction from the point given my initial mistake.

 

This is the part that I'm hoping to get to the bottom of still.  Egwene could have done the Black Ajah hunting part of her agenda only taking the Oath against speaking untruths.  She also wanted to firmly establish herself as 100% Aes Sedai in this scene.  Either way, she's in a very bad spot vis-a-vis the Oaths, because she's taken three oaths, but not the Three Oaths that every other Aes Sedai in the Tower has taken.  Arguably, she's taken two of the Three, but certainly not all of them.  

 

Yes, that is a fact.

 

Any Aes Sedai worth her salt is going to recognize that this creates a massive hole in the Third Oath.  You could not reasonably convince yourself that the person you wanted to attack with the one power was Shadowspawn, but you could reasonably convince yourself someone is a Darkfriend.  Heck, Elaida could have convinced herself that anyone who wasn't clearly on her side was a Darkfriend.  

 

Only those present when Egwene swore would know of it, and as I stated its highly likely they missed it in light of what occurred. But even if thats true its possible they reguard the addaption as wise in light of the current situation.

 

Yes, I can see good reasons to let this slide as an expedient in the moment when Egwene is in the midst of exposing the Black Ajah, but I can't imagine that Lelaine or Romanda or wouldn't want to try a power play on this basis, and I can't imagine that Egwene will get away without the variation ever being noticed... and used against her!

 

Perhaps. Frankly I don't see the act of swearing the Oaths surviving Tarmon Gai'don.

[yoniy0]

Luckers, any reason why you think Terez is wrong, i.e. that this is anything more than a mistake RJ made in New Spring? Do you have anything else on which to base the non-Darkfriend version?

[Terez]

Luckers, any reason why you think Terez is wrong, i.e. that this is anything more than a mistake RJ made in New Spring? Do you have anything else on which to base the non-Darkfriend version?

I am wondering if he even saw my posts - his post was very long (probably took him a while to write it), and if you notice the times on our posts, they weren't far apart.

[yoniy0]

Yeah, you're probably right. Still, do you (or anybody else) know of another quote to support that non-DF version?

I have to say the wording is so similar that I just assumed it's an error, but that doesn't tell us which version is correct.

So, are there any other places where we see the exact wordings of the oaths? Perhaps when the BA hunters are playing with the oath rod? I don't even remember in which book that was (and besides I seem to recall them only removing and retaking the first oath).

[Terez]

So, are there any other places where we see the exact wordings of the oaths? Perhaps when the BA hunters are playing with the oath rod?

When Seaine and Pevara were discovered by the other four, they only swore the First Oath, without removing any Oaths, and then declared that they weren't Darkfriends or Black Ajah.  When Talene was finally broken, we don't hear her say the Oaths, but Seaine thinks about them:

 

TITLE - Winter's Heart

PROLOGUE: Snow

 

For an instant, it seemed Talene might refuse, but slowly she repeated to oaths that made them all Aes Sedai and held them together. To speak no word that was not true. Never to make a weapon for one man to kill another. Never to use to One Power as a weapon, except in defense of her life, or that of her Warder or another sister. At the end, she began weeping in silence, shaking without a sound. Perhaps it was the oaths tightening down on her. They were uncomfortable when fresh. Perhaps.

She doesn't even mention Shadowspawn in that (the opposite of Niall's omission). 

[Luckers]

Luckers, any reason why you think Terez is wrong, i.e. that this is anything more than a mistake RJ made in New Spring? Do you have anything else on which to base the non-Darkfriend version?

 

I actually did see Terez post, but thought she was suggesting the tGS quote was the mistake. That seemed possible, but I always preferred to go with an explanation that doesn't require a mistake where possible, which I believe there is.

 

Now that I see she was making the reverse point--I still hold to my original belief. The references to the Darkfriend aspect of the third Oath are all from people not really in a position to know--Niall and Rand specifically. As for Moiraine's comment in New Spring, that doesn't speak of them being able to fight Darkfriends with the power due to a loophole in the Oath, just that the last time Aes Sedai fought in battle it was against shadowspawn and darkfriends. Perhaps they did have issues with fighting Darkfriends. We know there are ways around that.

 

The Guide, despite that mention Terez cited, lists the Oaths as without a darkfriend inclusion.

 

THREE OATHS

 

Before being raised to the level of Aes Sedai, each Accepted is required to swear three oaths while holding the Oath Rod, a ter'angreal that makes oaths binding. They are:

 

1. To speak no word that is not true.

2. To make no weapon with which one man may kill another.

3. Never to use the One Power as a weapon except against Shadowspawn, or in the last extreme defense of her own life or that of her Warder or another Aes Sedai.

 

These oaths were not always required, but various events before and since the Breaking caused them to be necessary. The second oath was the first adopted after the War of the Shadow. The first oath, while held to the letter, is often circumvented by careful speaking. It is believed that the last two are inviolable.

 

[The Guide: 24, The White Tower - The Three Oaths; 141]

 

So, I would posit that description of the Aiel war was a mistake by Teresa Patterson, an excess of description. And it's happened before, there is even a reason for it--the Guide was 'supposed to have been written by someone from the World of the Wheel, someone who might make the same mistakes others in that world do. This explanation has been offered before.

 

Meanwhile, everytime we have seen Aes Sedai actually swear the Oath it has contained no mention of darkfriends--and I would point out that that is more than when Moiraine and Siuan swear. We see Pevara and Seaine also reswear the Oath.

 

"You freed yourselves from one of the Oaths?" Zerah sounded startled, disgusted, uneasy, all at the same time. Perfectly reasonable responses.

 

"And took it again," Pevara muttered impatiently. Snatching up the slim rod, she channeled a little Spirit into one end while maintaining Zerah's shield. "Under the Light, I vow to speak no word that is not true. Under the Light, I vow to make no weapon for one man to kill another. Under the Light, I vow not to use the One Power as a weapon except against Shadowspawn, or in the last defense of my life, the life of my Warder, or that of another sister." She did not grimace over the part about Warders; new sisters bound for the Red often did. "I am not a Darkfriend. I hope that satisfies you." She showed Zerah her teeth, but whether in smile or snarl was hard to say.

 

Seaine retook the Oaths in turn.

 

[tPoD: 26, The Extra Bit]

 

There is also the fact that the Glossary Entries also do not speak of Darkfriends.

 

Oaths, Three:

 

The Oaths taken by an Accepted on being raised to Aes Sedai. Spoken while holding the Oath Road, a ter'angreal that makes oaths binding. They are: (1) To speak no word that is not true. (2) To make no weapon with which one man may kill another. (3) Never to use the One Power as a weapon except against Shadowspawn, or in the last extreme of defense of her own life, or that of her Warder or another Aes Sedai. The second oath was the first adopted after the War of the Shadow. The first oath, while held to the letter, is often circumvented by careful speaking. It is believed that the last two are inviolable.

 

The fact is every situation in which the Darkfriends clause is spoken we have the explanation that the person doing it did not know what they were speaking of. With the exception of Sheriam's comment, but I've explained my position on that. But yes, given there is a viable explanation for why people are making this mistake about the Oaths, I prefer to go with that.

 

Otherwise RJ has been going back and forth on this for the whole series--the first description of the Third Oath was in tGH, with Darkfriend, then Glossary tDR and onwards without, Rand and Niall's description with, The Guide, Pevara's, and Moiraine's in New Spring without,  and now tGS with.

 

 

 

 

[Terez]

Why do you think that Niall is not in a position to know?  From his comment, the Oaths are often mentioned by Aes Sedai, and unless he's only heard of them from Darkfriends, then the First Oath would make it true.  Also, why would Rand not be in a position to know?  Moiraine's thoughts might be easily explained away if not for their corroboration in the BWB.

 

Additionally....what would be the point of RJ harping on this?  There's no logical motive for Darkfriends to propagate that particular clause in the Oaths, and what purpose could it serve for the plot?  Combined with the fact that no one protested at her variant wording, I'd say all the evidence points to it being a mistake.

[Luckers]

Why do you think that Niall is not in a position to know?  From his comment, the Oaths are often mentioned by Aes Sedai, and unless he's only heard of them from Darkfriends, then the First Oath would make it true.  Also, why would Rand not be in a position to know?  Moiraine's thoughts might be easily explained away if not for their corroboration in the BWB.

 

Why is Niall not in a position to know? He's no Aes Sedai. Simple as that. And Niall would not be hearing it from any Aes Sedai, darkfriend or not. He'd have heard it through the grape-vine, and thus be open to the failures in that form of communication that are so rampant throughout the series. Same goes with Rand, and for that matter Egwene--that was my point in the beginning--unless you go through the specific training Accepted do in approaching the testing for the shawl your open to recieving misinformation.

 

Additionally....what would be the point of RJ harping on this?  There's no logical motive for Darkfriends to propagate that particular clause in the Oaths, and what purpose could it serve for the plot?  Combined with the fact that no one protested at her variant wording

 

I never suggested Darkfriends are propagating that clause, I suggested initially that Sheriam misspoke without thinking--its not some epic jump, just the inclusion of darkfriends which is in truth a reasonable mental association. Likely based on the same social misunderstanding. It does seem a strange mistake for someone who went through it, but as I pointed out above, Sheriam is known to be... sloppy.

 

And I spoke on the issue of why no one protested. Presuming it even registered (again, Egwene pulled the Oath Rod out of the blue, swears--wait, wha--DARKFRIENDS AND BLACK AJAH AND MONSTERS, OH MY!!!

 

It's not unreasonable that they either a) missed the mention, b) forgot in what took place after, or (less likely) c) thought it an apt change in light of what was going on.

 

I'd say all the evidence points to it being a mistake

 

A mistake? Don't you mean 'I'd say all the evidence points to it being a plethora of mistakes woven throughout the series and companion texts?' Which then becomes the mistake? The Oath Siuan, Moiraine, Pevara, Zerah and Seaine swore? The one listed in the Glossaries? The one listed in the Guide? Or the one spoken of by Rand, Niall and Sheriam? Frankly in that situation the latter seems by far more likely the mistake.

 

But given there is a viable explanation I see no reason to go there.

[emyali]

 

The reason Elaida's claim that Egwene was a darkfriend was significant was that its illegal to beat an initiate with the Power, but a darkfriend is no longer an initiate. Therefore in terms of what Elaida is culpable for, if Egwene were a darkfriend she would not have commited an illegal act.

 

or just maybe Elaida removed her oaths using the oath rod

if she wanted to add a force oath for Obedience, then why not to think of removing her oaths ?!

 

i dont think Elaida believe that Egwene is a darkfriend

and she is not a darkfriend herself

that leaves us with the option that she did remove her oaths using the oath rod in the white tower

[water_seeker]

 

The reason Elaida's claim that Egwene was a darkfriend was significant was that its illegal to beat an initiate with the Power, but a darkfriend is no longer an initiate. Therefore in terms of what Elaida is culpable for, if Egwene were a darkfriend she would not have commited an illegal act.

 

or just maybe Elaida removed her oaths using the oath rod

if she wanted to add a force oath for Obedience, then why not to think of removing her oaths ?!

 

i dont think Elaida believe that Egwene is a darkfriend

and she is not a darkfriend herself

that leaves us with the option that she did remove her oaths using the oath rod in the white tower

 

Actually...

 

The reason Elaida's claim that Egwene was a darkfriend was significant was that its illegal to beat an initiate with the Power, but a darkfriend is no longer an initiate. Therefore in terms of what Elaida is culpable for, if Egwene were a darkfriend she would not have commited an illegal act.

 

See what I did there?  I said you were wrong by using the same quote you were arguing with.

 

As for the rest of this silly argument, it makes way more sense that the ppl who haven't actually taken the oaths (and the distracted BA) are the ones who made the mistake.  I have to agree with Luckers on this.

[Terez]

Why do you think that Niall is not in a position to know?  From his comment, the Oaths are often mentioned by Aes Sedai, and unless he's only heard of them from Darkfriends, then the First Oath would make it true.  Also, why would Rand not be in a position to know?  Moiraine's thoughts might be easily explained away if not for their corroboration in the BWB.

 

Why is Niall not in a position to know? He's no Aes Sedai. Simple as that.

That's a rather weak argument, I think.  Niall is sure to have met many Aes Sedai in his time, if not exactly cordially, and Rand had plenty of opportunities to hear of the Oaths from Moiraine, if no one else.  Also, if Sheriam merely misspoke, how is it that Niall and Rand have also come to this impression about the Darkfriend clause?  This is why I mentioned propagation - because it would be necessary in order to create such a widespread misunderstanding about the Third Oath.

 

I spoke on the issue of why no one protested.

I know you did, but it's simply another point against your argument, that no one in the entire Hall happened to notice that she added extra words to the Oaths, despite their preoccupation.  If it were the only weakness in the argument, then it might be insignificant, but it isn't.

 

I'd say all the evidence points to it being a mistake

 

A mistake? Don't you mean 'I'd say all the evidence points to it being a plethora of mistakes woven throughout the series and companion texts?'

I figure that RJ simply didn't have the Oaths so solidly worked out in his mind as he assumed he did.  He probably wavered at one point on whether or not he would include the Darkfriend clause, and then alternately had moments where he thought he'd included it, and where he thought he hadn't.   

[emyali]

 

See what I did there?  I said you were wrong by using the same quote you were arguing with.

 

As for the rest of this silly argument, it makes way more sense that the ppl who haven't actually taken the oaths (and the distracted BA) are the ones who made the mistake.  I have to agree with Luckers on this.

 

i'm not talking about Elaida's beating to Egwene

im talking about Elaida saying that Egwene is a Darkfriend

 

if Elaida is still holding the 3 oaths, how could she speak the accusation that Egwene is a darkfriend?, while she know she is not..

wont that be a lie the 3 oaths wont allow?

 

[dholm]

You're forgetting Alanna in The Shadow Rising, Luckers -- she speaks of the Children of the Light, and how she can't take revenge on her lost Warder because they aren't Darkfriends.

 

Even if the one without the "Darkfriend" bit is the "true" Oath, as long as the Aes Sedai involved believe that Darkfriends are covered under "Shadowspawn", it doesn't matter.

 

emyali, no. "I accuse you of being a Darkfriend." Not a single untrue word.

[Luckers]

Quote from: Luckers on December 13, 2009, 11:18:22 PM

Quote

Why do you think that Niall is not in a position to know?  From his comment, the Oaths are often mentioned by Aes Sedai, and unless he's only heard of them from Darkfriends, then the First Oath would make it true.  Also, why would Rand not be in a position to know?  Moiraine's thoughts might be easily explained away if not for their corroboration in the BWB.

 

Why is Niall not in a position to know? He's no Aes Sedai. Simple as that.

 

 

That's a rather weak argument, I think.  Niall is sure to have met many Aes Sedai in his time, if not exactly cordially, and Rand had plenty of opportunities to hear of the Oaths from Moiraine, if no one else.  

 

You're right, that is a rather weak argument. Of course that was a rather incomplete quote, so maybe its understandable.

 

I find your position curious. You'd place Rand and Niall's civillian opinion--requiring we presume that they must have a legitimate source for that opinion--above what we directly witness in the swearing of the Oaths? Not just one time, but multiple times? I mean hell, Terez, one of the legitimate sources you'd have us write into the story is Moiraine, who is one of the people we see swear the other Oath. Not only that, but the one whose perspective we're in when it happens.

 

But ok, presuppose RJ's making mistakes all you want--I don't like to, not if we can explain it, but that's me--but are you really sure you're on the right side of this?

 

For the short of it--my argument doesn't suggest events not in evidence occured. Oh, I suggest an explanation, but no 'Niall and Joe-Random Aes Sedai sat down to--incordially--discuss the finer aspects of Aes Sedai doctrine' or 'Moiraine paused in telling Rand about Andoran bath fixtures, "Rand, Aes Sedai can kill darkfriends. Remember that."'.

 

Are you really sure mine is the weak argument?

 

Also, if Sheriam merely misspoke, how is it that Niall and Rand have also come to this impression about the Darkfriend clause?  This is why I mentioned propagation - because it would be necessary in order to create such a widespread misunderstanding about the Third Oath.

 

It's a pretty simple misconception to make. One does not have to do mental acrobatics to associate Darkfriends with the groups that the Aes Sedai are willing to use to power to fight--the Shadow. This does not require propagation, or any sort of active effot at misdirection--the forces of the Shadow are the exception to the Oath, and everyone knows that. The Shadow's armies includes Shadowspawn and Darkfriends. By sequence Aes Sedai fight Shadowspawn and Darkfriends. One would think.

 

It is not even illogical that this is widespread. Aes Sedai are secretive, and strive to keep the specifics about themselves shrouded in mystery. Oh, generalities get out, but not the technicalities which define them. And the general understanding here is that the Shadow are the exception to their Oath against using the Power as a weapon. The technicality would be that it is Shadowspawn, not the Shadow itself, which are the exception.

 

This is where I'd suggest Sheriam slipped up--despite having gone through it. Sloppy, and a bit odd, but hardly out of character for her. It's not absurd either, Sheriam is a result of the same cultural upbringing as anyone in the Wetlands. The Aes Sedai indoctrination doesn't seem to hold in her as well as in others, is all. It would simply be an expression of societal assumption. On her part, on Rand's, on Niall's. And finally on Egwene's.

 

Quote from: Luckers

I spoke on the issue of why no one protested.

 

I know you did, but it's simply another point against your argument, that no one in the entire Hall happened to notice that she added extra words to the Oaths, despite their preoccupation.  If it were the only weakness in the argument, then it might be insignificant, but it isn't.

 

It's a weakness in my argument that they didn't notice due to their preoccupation because they didn't notice despite their preoccupation?

 

I don't think you meant to say that.

 

Quote from: Luckers

Quote from: Terez

I'd say all the evidence points to it being a mistake

 

A mistake? Don't you mean 'I'd say all the evidence points to it being a plethora of mistakes woven throughout the series and companion texts?'

 

 

I figure that RJ simply didn't have the Oaths so solidly worked out in his mind as he assumed he did.  He probably wavered at one point on whether or not he would include the Darkfriend clause, and then alternately had moments where he thought he'd included it, and where he thought he hadn't.    

 

Again though I would ask you, if this is a mistake what makes you think that the inclusion is not the mistake. It is referenced far more clearly (and often) without the reference to Darkfriends than it is with. The references to the non-darkfriend Oath come first hand, in scenes we witness, whereas the darkfriend oaths are all referential, and mostly from characters whose second hand sources we must guess the existence of, or characters whose personal stability is dubious at best.

 

You're forgetting Alanna in The Shadow Rising, Luckers -- she speaks of the Children of the Light, and how she can't take revenge on her lost Warder because they aren't Darkfriends.

 

Even if the one without the "Darkfriend" bit is the "true" Oath, as long as the Aes Sedai involved believe that Darkfriends are covered under "Shadowspawn", it doesn't matter.

 

As I said, if there is a viable explanation I like to go for it. Alanna, like Sheriam, is not the most stable individual. The same logic I was using above for Sheriam can apply to Alanna. More so perhaps, given what Alanna was going through when she was yelling at Perrin.

 

Don't get me wrong--a mistake is definately possible, though given the ongoing switchback, a peculiar one. I just personally prefer to go for the explanation that it is not a mistake, than that it is.

 

If it is though I'd definately sustain that it is the inclusion of the 'darkfriend' which is the mistake.

[Eformo]

Many thanks to all who have provided insight into this question - especially to Terez - the instances of other characters having the same confusion over what the Third Oath actually is leads me to believe that this is a slip by RJ himself.  Wouldn't be the first one by any means.  Why just today I noticed that at the end of chapter 49, Rand puts his head in his hands to think.  In chapter 50, the Access Key glows in Rand's hands as well.  Those are two more continuity errors, albeit very easy to identify as such and will probably be corrected in the next printing.  These things happen, it's just that some of them like the Third Oath go unnoticed for longer periods.

 

Thanks to everyone who has helped me muddle this out!

[Luckers]

Wouldn't be the first one by any means.  Why just today I noticed that at the end of chapter 49, Rand puts his head in his hands to think.  In chapter 50, the Access Key glows in Rand's hands as well.  Those are two more continuity errors, albeit very easy to identify as such and will probably be corrected in the next printing.

 

Actually those are explained. Here are Rand's thoughts in chapter one.

 

Rand al'Thor, the Dragon Reborn, stood, hands behind his back as he looked out the open manor window. He still thought of them that way, his "hands," though he now had only one. His left arm ended in a stump. He could feel the smooth, saidar-healed skin with the fingers of his good hand. Yet he felt as if his other hand should be there to touch.

 

[tGS: 1, Tears From Steel]

 

Rand says it right there, in his mind they are still 'hands'. Plural. Its just in the later scenes he's less aware of his self-deception because he's distracted.

 

 

[yoniy0]

emyali, no. "I accuse you of being a Darkfriend." Not a single untrue word.

 

No, no, no. There is no such thing as an untrue WORD. The oath means they can't knowingly lie. There's no problem here, though. As to the beatings, Elaida just thought of that (as I do, I must confess) as punishment rather than a weapon. As to the accusation, Egwene had just said that barring the (very plausible) possibility that the DO would be ashamed of her, she would call Elaida Darkfriend. I could easily convince myself that anyone saying those things to me is in fact Darkfriend himself, and I'm not paranoid (or the Amyrlin Seat).

 

 

Luckers, everything you say is possible, if not probable IMHO. I don't agree that the SL Sitters would miss or neglect mentioning an error in that situation, and Alanna's thoughts are tougher to explain away, but I won't try to convince you of that. What tilts the scale to the error side for me is the wording. Egwene's oath is SO similar to Moiraine's that I can't imagine her just trying for formalism when vowing what she thinks the oath should mean. She had to have instructions on how to word her oaths (whether in the Tower before she left, which IMO is likely, or since then).

I acknowledge the fact that this argument is subjective, so you might not find it convincing (if what I've read in the forums is any indication, we usually don't agree on interpretations).