A Way to Evade the Oaths (Full Spoilers)

[Sharaman]

Who can say that foreswearing the Oaths gives you extra years to your life. We know that the oaths shorten your life, but does having them removed give them years back, lost from the oaths?

 

The Chosen and other AoL types would know because they regularly used the OR on criminal channelers.

I'd guess that LTT would actually have a pretty good idea about the effect of the OR on lifespan.

Somehow I doubt that Egwene will ask him!

Or wait, perhaps he'll face the Amyrlin's wrath because he'll announce to a bunch of AS exactly what the rod does to lifepan causing the same commotion as he did when he told the Aiel where they came from.

 

[wasted]

 

Come on, you HAVE to know I was only referring to promises and oaths (lower case 'o' to indicate they're not made on the OR) made by someone bound by the first Oath.

Of course if you swore to something on the OR itself, you could never get around that Oath before it's removed (at least not if you believed what you're doind stands in contradiction to that Oath).

 

Wait right there.

I don't think there is a difference between an oath on the OR and an oath sworn after you've sworn "To speak no word that is not true" [exept the aging thing]

 

If you have the first oath in takt and then without the oath rod swear something it is just as binding. If you swore absolute obedience, there's no way around absolute obedience. It doenst matter if you swore on the OR or not [exept when the oaths are removed or you are stilled ect]

 

I don't think that just releasing yourself from the Oaths gives you back all that time you lost living bound by them.

 

Lets look at somethings.

 

Siuan Sanche; stilled - looks like a pretty young girl, presumably like she would have anyway if she'd never sworn on the OR. Seems likely, that she'll now have a longer life and that swearing on the OR again [which she did] will just restart the whole bound ageing process.

 

Setalle Anan; bruned out - looked a good deal younger when she was freshly burned out, went to Ebou Dar, married had kids aged.

 

This pretty old novice [who arranged the novice system in the rebel camp, forgot her name]; interestingly enough, in tGS it is hinted that she looks lees old and has less wrinkles, don't know the exact page now.

 

But!

 

All AS who quickly forswear and then reswear, show none of the stilled or burned out singes [younger face, no longer ageless face ect]

 

So it seems, your aging process and looks are only changed, when something permanently effects your ability to channel. [Getting stilled or burned out will make you younger, but just removing the oaths won't - but we haven't seen a permanent removal of the oaths, maybe then it would just take longer to take effect, since it is not as 'drastic' a change like beeing stilled.

 

Her plan for retirement was that you forswear the oaths when you retire from being AS, just like she won't make the Kin, the Aiel, or the Windfinders take the oaths. She thinks the oaths are important for the image of AS and for the Tower to have legitimacy, but once you are no longer considered an AS because you retired, then you don't need to have the oaths anymore. That way you can live longer.

 

I know of her planes, I just think that she won't implement them. I'm thinking of the shock she was met with and someone saying "I will die as AS". I think she'll find this the common opinion. And I think since that, she has changed her mind aswell. But we'll see...

[Dreamwalker]

All AS who quickly forswear and then reswear, show none of the stilled or burned out singes [younger face, no longer ageless face ect]

 

So it seems, your aging process and looks are only changed, when something permanently effects your ability to channel. [Getting stilled or burned out will make you younger, but just removing the oaths won't - but we haven't seen a permanent removal of the oaths, maybe then it would just take longer to take effect, since it is not as 'drastic' a change like beeing stilled.

 

You make a good point about the BA hunters and others that forswore then reswore. I think the slowly reverting to non-ageless is more likely - just as the old novice is looking younger gradually, I think that someone removed from the oaths (without something drastic like being stilled/burned out) would gradually revert to the way they looked before the agelessness set in. But it could go either way - we actually probably won't even find out the answer to this in the course of the books because the Last Battle is so near.

[yoniy0]

I don't think there is a difference between an oath on the OR and an oath sworn after you've sworn "To speak no word that is not true" [except the aging thing]

Now we're just going in circles. I know you've seen my argument regarding Beonin's actions and explanations, because you quoted that post. Could you explain that away? I have an explanation. While an Oath on the OR is ever binding, the truth changes. If you said something that used to be true, and now it isn't anymore, you didn't break any oaths (at least not the one that matters, the first Oath). THIS is how sisters get around promises they've made, and you can't prevent that from happening unless you make them swear on the OR. Otherwise, if they succeed in convincing themselves that their oaths have a reason to no longer stand, they're free from them.

[ed2funy]

I don't know if anyone said tis, but with those extra Oaths, won't the AS lifespan be cut even more than it always is.

 

60 years after taking the Oaths, you are dead. :P

[dholm]

Well, there is this little issue of whether or not to use the OR with the addition: if they do, it might shorten their lives even more. If they don't, someone might at some point find a reason why her oaths no longer apply.

 

Well - no. With the first Oath that's all taken care of, if you would say "under no circumstances will I ever say the word 'firefighter'"

 

With the first oath intact, you will never be able to say 'firefighter'. You can say fire, you can say fighter, you can say guy who fights the fire, but never firefighter.

 

Also mental gymnastics work for both ways.

With the first oath intact, it doesnt matter if you swear to absolutly obbey the Amyrlin with or without the OR.

But in both cases if you somehow think that the Amyrlin isnt Amyrlin anymore, no method would hold you.

That's quite wrong. If what you were saying was true, they wouldn't need the Oath Rod for the second two Oaths.

 

They can break promises made while having sworn the First Oath. It does not work retroactively. If they make a promise, and later decide that promise does not hold any longer, they aren't bound by it any more than anyone else. Take Beonin as a prime example.

 

The First Oath makes them unable to say a word that is not true. That's it. Once they have spoken it, they can find out that what they said wasn't true, and it doesn't affect them in the least. The same thing goes for oaths and promises -- they decide what is and what is not valid. Of course, it depends on what exactly the Oath is and how it is sworn, and also on the perception of the people involved: If they believe they cannot break a promise, well, then they can't. If they believe they can, they can -- assuming they do not break the First Oath directly by doing so, obviously.

[Agitel]

Well, there is this little issue of whether or not to use the OR with the addition: if they do, it might shorten their lives even more. If they don't, someone might at some point find a reason why her oaths no longer apply.

 

Well - no. With the first Oath that's all taken care of, if you would say "under no circumstances will I ever say the word 'firefighter'"

 

With the first oath intact, you will never be able to say 'firefighter'. You can say fire, you can say fighter, you can say guy who fights the fire, but never firefighter.

 

Also mental gymnastics work for both ways.

With the first oath intact, it doesnt matter if you swear to absolutly obbey the Amyrlin with or without the OR.

But in both cases if you somehow think that the Amyrlin isnt Amyrlin anymore, no method would hold you.

That's quite wrong. If what you were saying was true, they wouldn't need the Oath Rod for the second two Oaths.

 

They can break promises made while having sworn the First Oath. It does not work retroactively. If they make a promise, and later decide that promise does not hold any longer, they aren't bound by it any more than anyone else. Take Beonin as a prime example.

 

The First Oath makes them unable to say a word that is not true. That's it. Once they have spoken it, they can find out that what they said wasn't true, and it doesn't affect them in the least. The same thing goes for oaths and promises -- they decide what is and what is not valid. Of course, it depends on what exactly the Oath is and how it is sworn, and also on the perception of the people involved: If they believe they cannot break a promise, well, then they can't. If they believe they can, they can -- assuming they do not break the First Oath directly by doing so, obviously.

 

Likely an Aes Sedai has to mean the promise at the time it's made for her to speak it. But as is said, the first oath doesn't work retroactively.

[OptimusPrime]

Could it just be that removing the Oaths doesnt remove the Dark Ones oath? Could it just be that Mesaana said she isnt a Darkfriend because whatever Oath she already has to the Dark One overrides any One Power Oath? I just think if Mesaana kept in her mind that she was being forced to betray the Dark One the dark Oath would stop her

[wasted]

Wait a second..

 

Really?

 

So if a AS swore something right out, with the right wording, something that would leave no wriggel room to do mental gymnastics in, she could just change her mind and not do as she by the first oath swore?

 

Thats not how I understood oaths and pladges from AS.

 

Thinking of Moiranie swearing to obey Rand, could she just decide not to do as he told him? Like not standing for hours in the sun till her temper cooled of and only then talk to him?

 

I know that if she would be able to, she still wouldnt have. It would have compromised his new found trust in her; but thats simply not how I understood oaths.

 

Non-OR Oaths from OR bound AS,[even if worded perfectly] arent binding?

Really?

 

Seems so strange to me..

 

Beonin's oath was void because of her mental gymnastics, but do we have one instance where there was a bound AS non-OR oath which she avoided simply by deciding not to do as sworn [no mental gymnastics needed]?

 

This seems to be the general consensus, but if someone could offer absolute prove, I could just say I missed something, instead of feeling like an idiot.

[OptimusPrime]

Cadsuane, in TGS, thought to herself she considered going against her word. I cant remember the context exactly, but IIRC she said she wouldnt do something, then considered doing it.

 

I cant think of any other way Mesaana could have slipped through. The only way to go against the Dark Ones Oath is to be absolutely sure you're going to die within the hour.

[csarmi]

Just to add my 2 cents. I think Luckers might be correct. The easy solution is to compel someone to take the oath in her stead (with a reversed Mirror of Masks if needed).

 

I'm not sure if it'd work, however, if Egwene is being careful (remember, she does know Mesaana and DF may be around, she does know Forsaken know compulsion, mirror of masks and reversing and there is a way to check someone's mind for resonance of saidar even if it's reversed it should show).

 

Egwene acted quite carelessly (regarding the Black Ajah), however so she might have made a mistake.

[yoniy0]

Beonin's oath was void because of her mental gymnastics, but do we have one instance where there was a bound AS non-OR oath which she avoided simply by deciding not to do as sworn [no mental gymnastics needed]?

What you're ignoring here is that deciding not to do as sworn is EXACTLY the mental gymnastics that Beonin DID in order to get out of her oath of fealty. It wasn't some issue with the wording of her oath. She just decided that since Egwene is no longer Amyrlin (which was also just her decision, it wasn't backed by anything formal from the Hall) she shouldn't be held to her oath anymore.

So, if Moiraine was the kind of person to make oaths and then break them, she could have done what you're describing. Only, that kind of person might have trouble MEANING the oath in the first place, and in that point the first Oath would kick in.

[mb]

Speaking something similar to 'I vow to' then saying the oath (while holding the Oath Rod); I think that is all that is required for any oath to be binding.  Adding other words when speaking the oath I think would not make any difference.

 

I take all of the people are bound to the Oaths.  I doubt people would not be able to swear any contradictory oath on the Oath Rod when already having a binding oath.

Belief I now think is the only way to evade the Oaths.

Thus Mesaana believed that she is not a darkfriend.

 

 

Maybe asking if the people are Forsaken/Chosen or not might reveal Mesaana; perhaps after forswearing then re-swearing again.

 

[Sharaman]

What happens if the oath is taken by an insane channeler?

I don't think there's textual info on the subject.

This must have happened sometime pre/post breaking, given that binders were used on men as well.

(Balty went to GLoD because he was bound and wanted out).

Perhaps, a mad person can break the oaths. If so, it's barely possible that Messi is clinically insane (we know she's a mass murderer and all mass murderers are nuts at some level) and can simply slide by.

This is a stretch because she's rational and understands the consequences of her actions but -- it maybe a new line of thought at least.

 

 

 

 

 

[dholm]

Wait a second..

 

Really?

 

So if a AS swore something right out, with the right wording, something that would leave no wriggel room to do mental gymnastics in, she could just change her mind and not do as she by the first oath swore?

It's not that easy to "just change [your] mind"... but yes. There's also another aspect to consider: Most of the characters would hesitate about breaking strong oaths. For an Aes Sedai, increase it by a factor five. They would not want anyone to realize that they can break a promise, for one thing. For another, they might not believe that they can.

 

Thats not how I understood oaths and pladges from AS.

 

Thinking of Moiranie swearing to obey Rand, could she just decide not to do as he told him? Like not standing for hours in the sun till her temper cooled of and only then talk to him?

If she thought she had reason, then yes, she could.

 

I know that if she would be able to, she still wouldnt have. It would have compromised his new found trust in her; but thats simply not how I understood oaths.

No need to feel bad about it. Quite a few people don't understand it.

 

Non-OR Oaths from OR bound AS,[even if worded perfectly] arent binding?

Really?

 

Seems so strange to me..

 

Beonin's oath was void because of her mental gymnastics, but do we have one instance where there was a bound AS non-OR oath which she avoided simply by deciding not to do as sworn [no mental gymnastics needed]?

 

This seems to be the general consensus, but if someone could offer absolute prove, I could just say I missed something, instead of feeling like an idiot.

Moiraine didn't obey Rand in everything -- for instance, she refused to answer a question he asked her about some information he had, saying it was not her secret to reveal.

[Sharaman]

Another far-out possibility. If a channeler has temporarily lost the ability while taking the oath, will the rod work?

If not, somebody under forkroot could slip the oath. Problem being, someboyd else would have to channel spirit into the rod.

 

[dholm]

That's absurd. A channeler does not lose the ability to channel while under the effects of forkroot. They cannot channel while under the effects, but that is not the same thing at all.

[Sharaman]

Temporarily incapacitated, under forkroot yes. Would that be enough to make the rod ineffective?

Channelers obviously have some biological/ neuro difference from non-channelers which makes the rod effective. 

If that circuit or whatever is temporarily shut down, the oath may not take hold.

I don't see it as a likely evasion but why is it downright absurd?

[Dreamwalker]

Temporarily incapacitated, under forkroot yes. Would that be enough to make the rod ineffective?

Channelers obviously have some biological/ neuro difference from non-channelers which makes the rod effective. 

If that circuit or whatever is temporarily shut down, the oath may not take hold.

I don't see it as a likely evasion but why is it downright absurd?

 

Think of it this way - if an AS is shielded or in a stedding is she suddenly free of the oaths? No, only if she is stilled or burned out. The forkroot is the same way - it keeps you from embracing the source, but you still have whatever it is in your brain that makes you physiologically able to channel. The only way the oath rod stops binding you is if that part of you is damaged (as it is when you are stilled or burned out), which is not what forkroot does.

[ed2funy]

Do we know that the Oath Rod only works on channelers?

If the Binder was used on criminals, do we assume all the criminals were channelers?

 

They have not tested it to see if it works on non-channelers.

If I am wrong, someone please provide the quote.

[Sharaman]

Do we know that the Oath Rod only works on channelers?

If the Binder was used on criminals, do we assume all the criminals were channelers?

They have not tested it to see if it works on non-channelers.

If I am wrong, someone please provide the quote.

 

Doesn't Sheriam's 13x13 chat in TGH (?) involve some loop like that? IIRC, she says something like there's stuff only a channeler is vulnerable to. Sorry, can't remember the quote. I've always assumed that the OR was only useful with channelers and only used to bind channeling criminals. I'm presuming non-channeling AoL criminals were simply held normally. 

At some time in history, the AS must have tested the OR with non-channelers but certainly not in the books that I can recall.

 

Think of it this way - if an AS is shielded or in a stedding is she suddenly free of the oaths? No, only if she is stilled or burned out. The forkroot is the same way - it keeps you from embracing the source, but you still have whatever it is in your brain that makes you physiologically able to channel. The only way the oath rod stops binding you is if that part of you is damaged (as it is when you are stilled or burned out), which is not what forkroot does.

 

I know that forkroot will not negate an extant oath. Speculating what happens if the oath rod is used while under the influence of forkroot. Would the oath fail to take hold at all since the channeling ability is switched off at that instant? Anyway, this has never come up in the texts and it would be cumbersome/ impossible for Mesaana in the given circumstances.

The insanity query, nobody has an answer to, but you could surely make a case for split personalities, bipolars and amnesiacs.

Could Mesaana use some form of self-hypnosis to shield her normal persona?

 

 

[mb]

From Thirteen Depository::

The Oath Rod makes oaths binding and only works on channellers (Knife of Dreams, Prologue).

http://13depository.blogspot.com/search/label/Ter%27angreal%20and%20Allied%20Items

 

I take the binding chair is required to bind non-channelers.

 

[ed2funy]

Thanks sharaman and mb.

I retract my statements.

:P

 

On Forkroot: I don't think so. It merely dampens your ability. your head is so clogged you can't even open yourself up to it. It doesn't mean you can't channel later on (like stilling before healing).

[dholm]

There is absolutely no reason to speculate that forkroot will have any effect whatsoever on oaths sworn on a binder, regardless of when it is in effect. The swearer does not have to channel themselves - it uses the swearer's ability to channel, but only requires a bit of spirit channeled into the numerals. Very likely there is some physical difference in channelers which gives them the ability; something in the brain, I should say.

 

As to the soul aspect - perhaps all souls "can" channel, and the case of Aran'gar is only because she was transmogrified rather than allowed to be reborn in usual manner. Though that is pure speculation and should probably be reserved for a different thread.

[yoniy0]

I take the binding chair is required to bind non-channelers.

I thought what Sammael said can be interpreted to mean the Binding Chair can be used to make a non-channeler do your biddings, but not actually bind them like the OR. Therefore, I speculate that a Binding Chair is the device AS use on criminals, that was also used on Talene Minly. It doesn't actually engrave the oaths on somebody's bones the way the OR works, but rather you use torture and conditioning to make them comply. As I think I already said somewhere on these forums, you can use it like they did on the Clockwork Orange.