One Power against animals

[Taura-Tierno]

Could an Aes Sedai use the One Power to kill animals? Would it count as a weapon? Would it matter if she needed to animal for food, or was just annoyed at it?

 

Spontaneously, I'd call it a weapon. But on the other hand, we see Aes Sedai do a lot of things that could count as a weapon. Elaida beating Moiraine and Siuan into weeping piles (Moirane anyway) of bruises, for instance. That definitely seems like a weapon, but apparently not by Aes Sedai standards.

 

So what about animals? Have we seen anything like that in the books?

[idiostock]

It's well within the Oaths. They vow not to make a weapon with a man can use to kill a man.

[Ashandarei]

It's well within the Oaths. They vow not to make a weapon with a man can use to kill a man.

The Three Oaths:

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 Darkfriends or Shadowspawn, or in the last extreme defense of her life, the life of her Warder or another Aes Sedai.

 

Taura is referring to number 3.

 

Could an Aes Sedai use the One Power to kill animals? Would it count as a weapon?¹ Would it matter if she needed to animal for food, or was just annoyed at it?

 

Spontaneously, I'd call it a weapon. But on the other hand, we see Aes Sedai do a lot of things that could count as a weapon. Elaida beating Moiraine and Siuan into weeping piles (Moirane anyway) of bruises, for instance. That definitely seems like a weapon², but apparently not by Aes Sedai standards.

 

So what about animals? Have we seen anything like that in the books?

 

 

¹ I think that this might work the way the first fighting Aiel thought about weapons. Axes didn't count as bad because they could be used to fell trees, belt knives can be used to gut and clean animals for food, spears could be used to hunt for that food etc. Similarly, AS using the OP to kill animals for food might not be considered as breaking that oath. It's all about the user's perspective of course, it is probably a case-by-case thing.

 

² Firstly, Elaida's a crazy b****. I won't try to defend her actions in the least. She's as close as you can get to being a DF without swearing to the DO. She lost any and all perspective from the moment she tortured Siuan/Leane, which was illegal by Tower law- you can't use violence against an initiate of the WT. But you do have a point because when Rand is captured, we see Erian beat him mercilessly with the OP. She's not a DF and doesn't consider Rand a DF. Like I mentioned above, it again comes down to a case-by-case basis. That and how far the AS can stretch the definition of "punishment," like that of a child or pet that misbehaves, without letting themselves see it as brutality/torture.

[Taura-Tierno]

Yeah, I know Elaida's a bit crazy towards the end, but I actually found her more ... ordinary earlier on, if a bit zealous. She did beat Moiraine and Siuan with the intent of preparing them, so I guess that would count as something different than weapons.

 

I find this a bit interesting, too: "Putting someone to the question with the Power violated none of the Three Oaths, but burder using saidar certainly did", from New Spring chapter 18. At least to me, putting someone to the question with the One Power sounds like torturing them, or something dangerously close to it, especially considering the way Moiraine thought about it. Again, I would definitely call using the OP to "put someone to the question" as using it as a weapon. But obviously not by Aes Sedai standards.

[Aliriel]

This is very interesting when you think back on all the times the OP has been used as/or in punishment, I don't have the books infront of me to give any creditable examples, but in general, repeated switches made of air, "bells" going off at random intervals to keep people awake, lights right infront of their eyes, gags of air that make the jaw ache... it all seems to me to be stretching the terms of "punishment".

Personally, one strike with a switch of air is punishment, until they need some sort of ointment/healing is going too far and they others push the boundries of torture. That's just IMHO.

 

A.

[yoniy0]

It's not torture that's forbidden, though, it's using the OP as a weapon. If your intent is not to maim/kill your opponent (causing pain isn't the same as maiming, even if you have to maim them to cause said pain), then it's not a weapon, in my book.

[Mrs. Cindy Gill]

from webster - weapon : something (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy

 

gitmo rules aside, i'd say using the power to torture or in any other way injure, defeat or destroy someone, would violate the three oaths if they actually existed. otherwise, the oaths would have no objective definition and could be used in any way the channeler chose. and we're back to gitmo.

[Mrs. Cindy Gill]

oh, and as for the OP, i think using the power agianst an animal would violate oath 3, which does not specify humans vs animals. a hunting weapon is a weapon.

[yoniy0]

Gitmo or no Gitmo (and let me add that I think Americans get overly excited about that whole story), there's a distinct difference between aiming to injure/destroy someone and aiming to punish/discipline them (even if they do end up injured in the process). A simple ruler could be used as a weapon, sure (as could a toothbrush, I'm sure you're aware), but for the most part it's harmless. And of course the Three Oaths hold only as far as the AS believe them to. That's the whole point.

[Mrs. Cindy Gill]

i think the AS can make a case for punishment under the oaths. but torture, by defniition, aims to injure and defeat.

 

i know it's fiction, and the author decided to write the story how he wanted. i just don't think the way the three oaths are twisted around, or plain ignored at times, is consistent with the way the oath rod is supposed to bind the letter of these laws into the oath taker.

 

and yikes! i don't know too many americans that care at all about gitmo. but i don't think you can be too excited about government approved torture. it's a bad thing. if it's done, it should be done in secrecy and shame. it diminishes us all. but really don't want to argue politics or ethics, so it's cool if you're soft on torture. but within the context of the WOT universe, it should be impossible for an AS who's sworn those oaths to perform. with the one power.

 

because there are a real lot of ways to torture people without magic. worse things than spanking even. so there's no reason to use the one power, the creator's power, to harm a hair on even a trolloc's head. there's fire and metal and bamboo and stuff. just like there's other ways to hunt.

[idiostock]

Because they get to interpret on a case by case basis, I imagine the justification is "I'm using it as a tool.

[Vermillion]

The problem with the oaths is that it's a mental binder. It stops what the AS thinks. For example of one went mad and thought everyone was Trolloc they could blast anyone. There is no magic barrier that prevents actions based on the actions alone.

[mb]

The later books reveal that there is a weave Blues use against flies.

 

And I guess Moiraine used the One Power to get fish during the first days of the journey to Tear.

[Gathering Storman Norman]

i think the AS can make a case for punishment under the oaths. but torture, by defniition, aims to injure and defeat.

 

i know it's fiction, and the author decided to write the story how he wanted. i just don't think the way the three oaths are twisted around, or plain ignored at times, is consistent with the way the oath rod is supposed to bind the letter of these laws into the oath taker.

 

and yikes! i don't know too many americans that care at all about gitmo. but i don't think you can be too excited about government approved torture. it's a bad thing. if it's done, it should be done in secrecy and shame. it diminishes us all. but really don't want to argue politics or ethics, so it's cool if you're soft on torture. but within the context of the WOT universe, it should be impossible for an AS who's sworn those oaths to perform. with the one power.

 

 

because there are a real lot of ways to torture people without magic. worse things than spanking even. so there's no reason to use the one power, the creator's power, to harm a hair on even a trolloc's head. there's fire and metal and bamboo and stuff. just like there's other ways to hunt.

 

I think your definition of torture is close enough to being correct that I would just be splitting hairs.

 

However, interrogation techniques like those used at Gitmo that are designed to stimulate an emotion our physical sense in order to obtain critical intel are just that and aren't torture!

 

There is a fine line between the two and it is easy to cross, but I think three OP can be used to interrogate but not torture. Waking that fine line would similar to using the OP to punish vice injure or kill (ie as a weapon).

 

On topic. If a AS was starving or the animal was threatening her or her Giadin, then I would say she could most definitely use the OP as a weapon.

[Mrs. Cindy Gill]

i won't argue you on that slippery slope

 

re the AS or warder threatened by an animal, it would be within the letter of the oaths to use the power to protect themselves. but if they'd just planned very poorly for the trip, not so much. re starvation, i think if it was their only chance to avoid death, and they couldn't even manage to go as long as les straud without food, an AS could probably use the power to slaughter dinner. it might be less of a violation to use it to attract or even somewhat stupefy prey, but if they can't even speak what they believe to be an untruth without nearly or actually dying, i would expect a similar result for any violation, no matter how tiny.

 

plus it just seems, in ordinary circumstances, that using the power to kill an animal would be monumentally unfair. like hunting with an uzi. seriously, just pack some gorp, a fishing line, and maybe something you can use as a rabbit trap.