The Wording of the Third Oath (Full Spoilers)

[Luckers]

Ok, so presuming it is a mistake--which I'll concede is looking pretty likely at this stage despite my love of maintaining Author Awesomeness--which one do people think is the mistake?

 

For the inclusion of the Darkfriend clause we have Rand and Niall's reference to the belief that Aes Sedai could fight Darkfriends if they chose, as well as a reference in the Guide to the same effect. Then we have Sheriam and Alanna's direct comments on the issue, and finally Egwene's actual onscreen Oath.

 

For the exclusion of the Darkfriend Clause we have the Guide's actual citation of the Oath as well as the citations in the Glossary entries of tDR through aCoS. Then we have Moiraine and Siuan's, then Pevara, Seaine and Zerah's actual onscreen swearing of the Oath.

 

The inclusion is the most recent depiction and has more casual references within the books, whilst the exclusion has the weight of more onscreen airtime, as well as solid citations in companion texts. What do we think?

[TheAngryDruid]

While I put myself in the camp that beliefs this in an error by RJ and maybe BS as well, there is one other explanation.

 

If the person the AS is facing is a Darkfriend, letting them live (to possibly escape later) could reasonably endanger the lives of other sisters in the not so distant future. Particularly if the DF can channel. It's not like Siuan, Moghedein, Logain (twice), and Egwene haven't all escaped from AS.

 

It is fairly weak, but that interpretation, if stretched, could explain most of the quotes.

 

[yoniy0]

TheAngryDruid - that won't work. The oath does state "the last extreme of defending the life of...". Might pose a threat later on isn't enough.

 

I'll go with the inclusion of the Darkfriend clause. The reason is Moiraine's assassination of Be'lal. It's hard to say whether she was in any immediate danger to her life (after all, he only tried to trap her before that - albeit with a nasty trap - and didn't kill the wondergirls, plus she wasn't really a threat to him, except that she knew how to make Balefire, which he probably didn't suspect). Still he is one of the Forsaken, so she might be able to persuade herself that once she entered the room he might kill her. Dunno.

 

Edit: Oh, Moiraine's life wasn't going to be very pleasent after Be'lal would have taken her, but that doesn't matter. All that matters is if she believed he would kill her then and there.

[Luckers]

I'll go with the inclusion of the Darkfriend clause. The reason is Moiraine's assassination of Be'lal. It's hard to say whether she was in any immediate danger to her life (after all, he only tried to trap her before that - albeit with a nasty trap - and didn't kill the wondergirls, plus she wasn't really a threat to him, except that she knew how to make Balefire, which he probably didn't suspect). Still he is one of the Forsaken, so she might be able to persuade herself that once she entered the room he might kill her. Dunno.

 

Edit: Oh, Moiraine's life wasn't going to be very pleasent after Be'lal would have taken her, but that doesn't matter. All that matters is if she believed he would kill her then and there.

 

I'd actually take that scene as exclusion evidence. Moiraine calls out when she could simply have balefire him from the Shadows. Even then, if that was simply a flair for drama manifesting itself inappropriately, she waits for him to raise his hand--waits, in effect, for him to make a threatening move, before she begins her own attack. In fact, she even intentionally waits for him to realise what she is doing before she weaves. The combination of active threat and his perception of her intention is more than enough for me to think she'd feel in danger for her own life.

 

 

[Terez]

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.

Well, you've completely ignored the evidence that Moiraine even seemed to include the justification for using the Power against Darkfriends, and the fact that the BWB does the same (despite quoting the Oaths without the clause).  I'm not asking you to question the veracity of Moiraine's knowledge of Aes Sedai as opposed to that of Rand's and Niall's (and Sheriam's, of course), but instead to question RJ's perfection.

 

It's a matter of the number of references to the Darkfriend clause, direct and indirect.  If there were only one, it could be written off as the error easily, but we have five independent references to the Darkfriend clause (not counting Moiraine's thoughts about the Aiel War, and also not counting Egwene since she might have simply gotten it from Sheriam and no one else).  Sheriam, Rand, Niall, Alanna (thanks to the person who pointed that one out), and the BWB.  So, that leaves us with two options.

 

1.  RJ didn't quite have the Darkfriend clause set in stone in his head.  This is believable to me.

 

2.  RJ deliberately planted these references to the Darkfriend clause for some purpose or another.  I'm assuming that Brandon was going off the notes, so either the Oaths were in the notes that way, or the conspiracy, whateveritis, was in the notes. 

 

Again though I would ask you' date=' if this is a mistake what makes you think that the inclusion is not the mistake.[/quote']

Mostly because I figure Brandon is going off the notes, whether the references to the Darkfriend clause are purposeful or not.  Egwene made the Oaths with the Darkfriend clause, and she even swore them in front of the entire Hall, not once, but twice, as she reswore them in the Tower Hall.

[yoniy0]

I'd actually take that scene as exclusion evidence.

 

I was almost covinced, but then I took another look at the book:

 

Be’lal raised his blade of black fire, snarling. “Take it! Take Callandor and defend yourself? Take it, or I will kill you now! If you will not take it, I will slay you!”

 

"No!"

 

Even Be’lal gave a start at the command in that woman’s voice. The Forsaken stepped back out of the arc of Rand’s sword and turned his head to frown at Moiraine as she came striding through the battle, her eyes fixed on him, ignoring the screaming deaths around her. “I thought you were neatly out of the way, woman. No matter. You are only an annoyance. A stinging fly. A biteme. I will cage you with the others, and teach you to serve the Shadow with your puny powers,” he finished with a contemptuous laugh, and raised his free hand.

 

Moiraine had not stopped or slowed while he spoke. She was no more than thirty paces from him when he moved his hand, and she raised both of hers as well.

 

There was an instant of surprise on the Forsaken’s face, and he had time to scream “No!” Then a bar of white fire hotter than the sun shot from the Aes Sedai’s hands, a glaring rod that banished all shadows. Before it, Be’lal became a shape of shimmering motes, specks dancing in the light for less than a heartbeat, flecks consumed before his cry faded.

 

Be'lal actually told Moiraine that he's not going to kill her, and she iced him nevertheless.

 

Regarding what Terez just said, remember it's very possible that RJ did some of Egwene's plotline in tGS. It surely sounds like him some of the time. So I'm not sure we can involve BS in this.

 

I just had a funny thought. What if (ignoring Sheriam's account in book 3) this is "The Big (Currently) Unoticed Thing In Books 4-6" - that some AS swore one way and some another :).

[Terez]

I think it's been said that most of what RJ wrote was from the prologue (which was split in two; half of it will be the prologue of the next book), and the end of the series.  So I think it's probably pretty safe to say that Brandon wrote that bit.

 

Also, Moiraine really had no reason to believe that Be'lal would not kill her, despite what he said.  If anyone could make her paranoid when it comes to taking statements at face value, the first Forsaken she ever faced makes a good candidate.

[Spilt-pea Soup]

Wow, I certainly hope some of you are pursuing careers in the law, ancient or religious studies, archaeology, or the like.  The exegesis on this topic is amazing.

 

Just a thought--what is the likelihood that something as important (and easy to determine) as one of the three oaths would *actually* have remained inconstant in RJ's mind/notes this far into the series?  I find this incredibly unlikely, especially considering this particular oath determines *how* the characters can act!  This is not a minor thing.  Not only is it very important it's also easily determined/noted (just a written clause!), and probably noted somewhere safe and sound in RJ's notes. 

 

I find it very interesting that the inclusion of "darkfriends" in the oath is referenced by characters but not actually seen given onstage except in tGS.  Isn't it odd that RJ would be so inconsistent with second-hand descriptions of the oath but entirely consistent when it is actually shown being given?

 

That considered, I think the options are:

 

1) There are two versions of the oath, and disagreement among AS as to which version is correct.  Perhaps there have been scholoarly debates and the like on this point, and as the leadership and/or times change, the Oath has changed.  Organizations are very rarely consistent (consider Catholic church.) 

 

2)  Darkfriends are considered "Shadowspawn".  I find this hard to believe because ShadowSPAWN seems to explicitly refer to beings created by the Shadow.  But again, maybe there's disagreement over this, and the inclusion of Darkfriends is viewed as redudant by some sisters because they are considered Shadowspawn once they pledge their lives to the DO. 

 

3)  RJ made a mistake, and BS had no choice but to chose one or the other and he included it.  (Unlikely, as I pointed out above).

 

4)  BS made a mistake and the editors missed this.  (Not sure how likely this is.)

 

 

[Terez]

Just a thought--what is the likelihood that something as important (and easy to determine) as one of the three oaths would *actually* have remained inconstant in RJ's mind/notes this far into the series?  I find this incredibly unlikely, especially considering this particular oath determines *how* the characters can act!

The First Oath is far more relevant to how Aes Sedai act than the Third, I think.  I don't find it all that hard to believe that RJ didn't have this one completely settled in his head, precisely because it's something that he wouldn't feel the need to consult his notes for.

[dholm]

2)  Darkfriends are considered "Shadowspawn".  I find this hard to believe because ShadowSPAWN seems to explicitly refer to beings created by the Shadow.  But again, maybe there's disagreement over this, and the inclusion of Darkfriends is viewed as redudant by some sisters because they are considered Shadowspawn once they pledge their lives to the DO. 

 

I believe this is what's going on -- with the exception that I do not believe the Aes Sedai actually realize this. They aren't conscious that there are two versions of the Oath going around.

 

That is, I think this is the best alternative to a factual error by RJ.

[Bobbun]

Having read all this I'm of the opinion that it's just a mistake by the author(s).  However, I'm going to reconcile it to myself by imagining that the language the characters actually speak has a word that means "minions of the Dark One", and that this word is what's actually used in the oath.  Sometimes the word is being translated into English as "Shadowspawn", and sometimes it's being translated as "Shadowspawn and Darkfriends".  Thus the actual oath taken is the same every time, but the translation I'm reading varies a little!  :D

[Sharaman]

2)  Darkfriends are considered "Shadowspawn".  I find this hard to believe because ShadowSPAWN seems to explicitly refer to beings created by the Shadow.  But again, maybe there's disagreement over this, and the inclusion of Darkfriends is viewed as redudant by some sisters because they are considered Shadowspawn once they pledge their lives to the DO. 

 

I believe this is what's going on -- with the exception that I do not believe the Aes Sedai actually realize this. They aren't conscious that there are two versions of the Oath going around.

 

That is, I think this is the best alternative to a factual error by RJ.

It almost certainly is an author error (Shock! Horror!). AS spend their entire lives logic chopping and parsing verbal statements.

No way they could, as a body, miss this.

Consider for example, the entire discussion of whether the Amyrlin can be raised if she is not full AS. It depends entirely on specific wording of the law. The difference between DF and Shadowspawn is too clearly defined for confusion in the oath.

Either both are included or only SS is.

The former would mean that an AS can kill DFs on sight or rather the moment she identifies them as DF, while the latter means she can only kill trollocs and suchlike.

Too much of a difference and too many inconsistencies in the examples cited.

RJ nods.

 

[Luckers]

Well, you've completely ignored the evidence that Moiraine even seemed to include the justification for using the Power against Darkfriends, and the fact that the BWB does the same (despite quoting the Oaths without the clause).  I'm not asking you to question the veracity of Moiraine's knowledge of Aes Sedai as opposed to that of Rand's and Niall's (and Sheriam's, of course), but instead to question RJ's perfection.

 

I didn't ignore it Terez--as I pointed out, Moiraine never states that the Aes Sedai couldn't fight the Aiel because they weren't darkfriends, she merely states that the Aes Sedai would not fight, and that the last time they had fought had been against Shadowspawn and Darkfriends.

 

I know you reguard the idea that the Guides citing clarifies Moiraine's comment, but I don't see how. The Guide was not written by Moiraine, so how could something within it be used to ammend the interpretation of her thoughts? The fact that they are on the same subject is irrelevant.

 

Quote from: Luckers

Again though I would ask you, if this is a mistake what makes you think that the inclusion is not the mistake.

 

Mostly because I figure Brandon is going off the notes, whether the references to the Darkfriend clause are purposeful or not.

 

The notes from which Hariet compiled the Glossaries and Guide citations? Based on Brandon's comment I don't think RJ's plot notes would be so extensive as to have specific wording. Otherwise I suspect he just copied it from Sheriam, the first citer of the Oaths.

 

Quote from: Luckers on December 14, 2009, 05:28:36 PM

I'd actually take that scene as exclusion evidence.

 

 

I was almost covinced, but then I took another look at the book:

 

 

Quote

Be’lal raised his blade of black fire, snarling. “Take it! Take Callandor and defend yourself? Take it, or I will kill you now! If you will not take it, I will slay you!”

 

"No!"

 

Even Be’lal gave a start at the command in that woman’s voice. The Forsaken stepped back out of the arc of Rand’s sword and turned his head to frown at Moiraine as she came striding through the battle, her eyes fixed on him, ignoring the screaming deaths around her. “I thought you were neatly out of the way, woman. No matter. You are only an annoyance. A stinging fly. A biteme. I will cage you with the others, and teach you to serve the Shadow with your puny powers,” he finished with a contemptuous laugh, and raised his free hand.

 

Moiraine had not stopped or slowed while he spoke. She was no more than thirty paces from him when he moved his hand, and she raised both of hers as well.

 

There was an instant of surprise on the Forsaken’s face, and he had time to scream “No!” Then a bar of white fire hotter than the sun shot from the Aes Sedai’s hands, a glaring rod that banished all shadows. Before it, Be’lal became a shape of shimmering motes, specks dancing in the light for less than a heartbeat, flecks consumed before his cry faded.

 

 

Be'lal actually told Moiraine that he's not going to kill her, and she iced him nevertheless.

 

Terez makes a good point on this, but in addition I'd point out what I was trying to get at in my original post--Moiraine waits--not for his recognising her presense, not for his words, but for the moment he concieves she's a threat to him. That negates whatever he said.

 

I just had a funny thought. What if (ignoring Sheriam's account in book 3) this is "The Big (Currently) Unoticed Thing In Books 4-6" - that some AS swore one way and some another .

 

No one cited the Oaths in books 4-6 unfortunately. Though I suppose Alanna and Rand referenced the Darkfriend Clause.

 

 

[Eformo]

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.

 

I actually thought about Rand's perception before posting that.  You can think of it as your hand, that still doesn't make the air beyond the stump capable of holding anything.  I could see it working for the one about holding the ter'angreal, but putting your head in your hands requires you to actually have two hands, not a hand and a stump you think of as a hand.  Kinda like sword fighting is now more difficult for him, since that depends on things actually being there, not just thought of in Rand's mind as if it were there. 

 

((At any rate, wanna bet that the bit about him thinking of them as his hands was added for exactly this reason - to help explain away continuity errors accidentally raised by speaking of him as having two hands?  I only write non-fiction, but I can believe that referring to hands in the plural is one of those habits that's very hard to break!!))

 

That's my two bits and my last on the topic.

[yoniy0]

Come on Spilt-pea, dholm & Bobbun. We're not splitting hairs. There's an actual difference here - only killing monsters or being able to kill PEOPLE. It's not about identifying them as DF, you only need to convince yourself that they are. That sort of thing is crucial, especially when we get close to TG, I should think. If it's an error, I can live with that. We don't need to smooth this over for BS's sake, though. Let him do his own work, will you? :)

 

Terez, I'm not going to argue that Be'lal is trustworthy. Yes, she might not have believed him, and I couldn't fault her for that. Still, the things he said, if I was going to believe anything out of one of the Forsaken, them telling me how I was to be held and then forcibly converted to the Shadow is probably the first on the list.

 

To sum things up, I'll go with either it's a really well integrated mistake in the books, or there are actually two versions of the oath and the AS learned to live with that (that doesn't conform with Moiraine's actions, given the version we know she took, but as I said I am willing to accept her not trusting Be'lal with her life).

 

Someone should ask BS/Maria to clarify this issue. You guys (Terez and Luckers) are closer to the plate than I am, I believe. Could you see your way to doing that, or passing it along to someone who can?

[Bobbun]

Come on Spilt-pea, dholm & Bobbun. We're not splitting hairs. There's an actual difference here - only killing monsters or being able to kill PEOPLE. It's not about identifying them as DF, you only need to convince yourself that they are. That sort of thing is crucial, especially when we get close to TG, I should think. If it's an error, I can live with that. We don't need to smooth this over for BS's sake, though. Let him do his own work, will you? :)

 

If you wish to hold Mr. Sanderson's feet to the fire, be my guest!  However, I'm fairly skeptical that the use of the power against dark friends is forbidden by the Three Oaths.  As you and others have pointed out there are numerous cases where Aes Sedai, both by their thoughts and their actions, do not feel restricted in this regard.  Off the top of my head, I can't think of any cases of the reverse:  situations where an Aes Sedai has felt inhibited by the Oaths in the use of the power as a weapon against darkfriends.  By no means is this lack of evidence proof but until I read and find out otherwise later, I'm satisfied.

 

A similar but more interesting wording issue, IMO, is the pronouncements made by those freshly re-sworn Aes Sedai in The Path of Daggers, Chapter 26, "The Extra Bit".  Doesine and Yukiri state after reswearing the first Oath that they are "not Black Ajah".  This strikes me as being rather different than stating that they're not darkfriends.  The Black Ajah is an organization with an exclusive membership.  One could conceivably be an Aes Sedai darkfriend without being Black Ajah.  In fact, this sort of statement could potentially be a pretty easy way for Mesaana to slip past the Black Ajah purge in the White Tower, if it's allowed by those in charge of re-administering Oaths.

 

[yoniy0]

Oh, no doubt. She could probably say she's not a Darkfriend and that she's not black Ajah. Remember Lanfear's disdained denial of being a Darkfriend when Mat asked her back in tDR? She was of course able to lie at that time, but I don't believe she was lying. She really thinks of herself as being something else than a Darkfriend. She thinks Darkfriends are Ishamaels minions (as is also apparent in her discussion with Ishamael in TAR, on which Perrin eavesdropped).

 

BTW I can't think of a single time when it is clear that an AS allows herself the privilege of attacking a Darkfriend with the Power, even only in her mind (except that scene with Be'lal, which I already mentioned). Nor can I think on a clear example to the contrary. Otherwise, this discussion would have been moot (I mean, why argue the wording when we have clear examples of AS behavior). You seem to have a few examples in mind. Will you share?

[Terez]

I can't think of a single time when it is clear that an AS allows herself the privilege of attacking a Darkfriend with the Power, even only in her mind.

Don't forget Alanna.

 

@Luckers - I never said that Moiraine stated the Darkfriend clause outright.  She merely implied it.  The reason why I compare her quote to the one in the BWB is that they both deal with the fact that the Aes Sedai would not fight the Aiel with the Power, and they both contrast the Aiel War to a war in which Aes Sedai did fight, because they faced Shadowspawn and Darkfriends.  The implication would only be weak outside the context of the other quotes referencing the Darkfriend clause, but as it is, they lend strength to the idea that RJ was not perfect on this.  Interestingly, Rand's comment is also in reference to the Aiel War, and everyone knows that Niall commanded the alliance on the last day of the war (and chose not to pursue the Aiel). 

 

Also, I would be quite surprised if the Oaths were not in the notes.  RJ's notes on TGS were spotty, but his notes on the series itself were gargantuan - several times as many words as those in the books themselves.

[Bobbun]

There probably are no examples which can't have some hole poked in them.  Moiraine vs. Be'lal is a pretty clear-cut example, with the strong supporting factor that we know Moiraine is bound by the oaths, and the unfortunate drawback that she just might have felt her life was threatened.  I think the Alanna example that has been mentioned is underrated, though. 

 

That actual statement that Alanna makes to Perrin is, "The Children are very nearly as vile as men can be, short of Darkfriends, but they are not Darkfriends, and for that reason they are safe from the Power except in self-defense."  If Alanna is bound by the Three Oaths, she must believe that she can use the power against darkfriends or she could not have made such a direct statement.  She does not feel inhibited against the use of the power against darkfriends and given that the Oaths are normally subject to the interpretation of the person bound by them, she very likely is not.  The weakness of this example is, of course, that Alanna might not be bound by the Three Oaths.

 

Another example that I haven't seen cited is that Eldrene was able to use the One Power to destroy the dreadlords at Aemon's Field.  She was miles away at that time, so there's no chance that her life was in immediate danger.  However, she may predate the Oath against using the Power as a weapon.  We know from the discussion of age among the Kin that at least one Oath had to have been in place during the Trolloc Wars (since Aes Sedai were already dying "young" at that time), but I don't believe that we know specifically that this one was.

 

[Terez]

I have managed to recruit someone to ask Brandon this question at a book signing this Saturday, so hopefully by then we will know what is up.

[Eht Slat Meit]

I think it all comes down to what a sister really believes the oath means - that was made clear enough when Pevara and the others were questioning Rebels. They could not make someone speak a lie that they believed true.

 

One Sedai might believe in a different interpretation of the Oath than another, leading to conflicting statements. In Moiraine's case, I don't see a problem. The oath states "or in the last extreme defense of her life" and I think that most sisters would consider any encounter with the Forsaken "the last extreme" no matter what the Forsake claims about their intentions and react appropriately, if they didn't drop down gibbering in fear. As for Darkfriends, it would simply depends on whether that sister truly believes that Darkfriends aren't simply human Shadowspawn. Some types of Shadowspawn do stretch the line between men and monsters, such as Gray Men.

[Terez]

As for Darkfriends, it would simply depends on whether that sister truly believes that Darkfriends aren't simply human Shadowspawn.

I think Aes Sedai in general would know better.

[Eht Slat Meit]

As for Darkfriends, it would simply depends on whether that sister truly believes that Darkfriends aren't simply human Shadowspawn.

I think Aes Sedai in general would know better.

 

Would they? They're prone to the same failings as everyone else and worse, simply because they think that as Aes Sedai, they are somehow above those failings. Their capacity for self-deceit is as great as their ability to deceive others.

[Terez]

As for Darkfriends, it would simply depends on whether that sister truly believes that Darkfriends aren't simply human Shadowspawn.

I think Aes Sedai in general would know better.

 

Would they? They're prone to the same failings as everyone else and worse, simply because they think that as Aes Sedai, they are somehow above those failings. Their capacity for self-deceit is as great as their ability to deceive others.

Sure, but they are generally more educated than everyone else, and not prone to superstition.  There's a clear difference, from an academic standpoint, between Shadowspawn and Darkfriends, or else we would not be having this debate in the first place.  There might be a small handful of Aes Sedai that would equate Darkfriends and Shadowspawn, but it stretches credulity that there would be a significant number of them.

[Eht Slat Meit]

 

Sure, but they are generally more educated than everyone else, and not prone to superstition.  There's a clear difference, from an academic standpoint, between Shadowspawn and Darkfriends, or else we would not be having this debate in the first place.  There might be a small handful of Aes Sedai that would equate Darkfriends and Shadowspawn, but it stretches credulity that there would be a significant number of them.

 

There's two ways I can put this

 

1. Sedai're surely as prone to superstition as anyone else when they, in defiance of all reason and oaths, refuse to accept the existence of the Black Ajah until being repeatedly beaten over the head with it.

 

2. Our superstition is not the same as Randland superstition. An educated Sedai knows is aware that Shadowspawn exist and, if they accepted the existence of the Black Ajah, a sect of power-wielding Dark One worshipping women, that there's very little fundamental difference between the two. After all, at least a couple of the shadowspawn we're introduced to (Trollocs, maybe Fades, and Gray Men) all appear to have roots in humanity, but twisted by the power. Force a sister to face up to the reality of Black Ajah and or any other darkfriend, and you'd be surprised that they see no line between the two? Reason diminishes the line, not superstition.