Agelessness: What does it look like?

[Azrayne]

Solid effort just repeating the point Suttree has already made.

[bsmnt23]

The Aes Sedai taboo about talking about another sisters' age is probably a holdover from adopting the second oath after the Trolloc Wars. If they made any disgussion about age a social taboo than subsequent generations of sisters would overlook exactly how long the lifespan of the older sisters would compare to those of the Age of Legends. Not only would overlook, but in tried-and-true White Tower tunnle-vission (I call it Tower vission, actualy) they wouldnt even ask why the Aes Sedai were not living as long as they should.

[Byzantine279]

Sigh, Azrayne, of course the oath was bound by the Oath Rod...

[Azrayne]

Sigh, Azrayne, of course the oath was bound by the Oath Rod...

 

Oh cool, I didn't know the presence of a magical artifact which forces you to obey your pledge was part of the definition of 'oath.' Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[Nightstrike]

Yes, they used the oath rod. That's what they refer to, and that's why the oaths work.

 

Before my earlier quote:

Before being raised to the level of Aes Sedai, each Accepted is required to swear three oaths while holding the Oath Rod, ...

 

[Azrayne]

I'm still not sure what point you're trying to make, I think you missed what I was asking entirely.

 

I was wondering whether the oath was initially sworn (back at the Breaking) without the Oath Rod, since for some reason I seemed to remember one of the latter books stating that the Rod was missing until 1500 or so years after the Breaking. I didn't find any statement to that effect from a cursory search though, so perhaps I misread or misremembered it.

[Nightstrike]

I'm still not sure what point you're trying to make, I think you missed what I was asking entirely.

 

I was wondering whether the oath was initially sworn (back at the Breaking) without the Oath Rod, since for some reason I seemed to remember one of the latter books stating that the Rod was missing until 1500 or so years after the Breaking. I didn't find any statement to that effect from a cursory search though, so perhaps I misread or misremembered it.

My point was that that section of text specifically tells us about swearing on the Oath Rod.

[Azrayne]

My point was that that section of text specifically tells us about swearing on the Oath Rod.

 

In reference to current Aes Sedai practices yes, which we already knew. Doesn't say a thing about post-breaking Aes Sedai, which is what was being discussed.

[Nightstrike]

My point was that that section of text specifically tells us about swearing on the Oath Rod.

 

In reference to current Aes Sedai practices yes, which we already knew. Doesn't say a thing about post-breaking Aes Sedai, which is what was being discussed.

Yes, it does specifically say when they started.

[Nightstrike]

Think of it this way: If they swear to each other that they won't make a weapon, then how would that make other people trust channelers? How would it stop them from actually making a weapon? If they swear it, but without punishment, then there's nothing stopping them. If it's outlawed, and punished, then they won't have to swear it. The whole point of using the Oath Rod is that it's binding.

[Azrayne]

Whatever, it's a small hypothetical point hardly worth quibbling over.

[Suttree]

Whatever, it's a small hypothetical point hardly worth quibbling over.

 

Let's do this, why don't you start by finding the quote about when they started using the oath rod. Until you can show us it is wrong, we go with what the BWB and Maria say fairly straight out. After all without evidence to the contrary there is no reason to think they wouldn't use the rod that first time around.

[Azrayne]

Whatever, it's a small hypothetical point hardly worth quibbling over.

 

Let's do this, why don't you start by finding the quote about when they started using the oath rod. Until then you can show us it is wrong, we go with what the BWB and Maria say fairly straight out. After all without evidence to the contrary there is no reason to think they wouldn't use the rod that first time around.

 

Wow, ok, not sure why you're getting so worked up and defensive about this. It's just something I raised because I thought I remembered reading it. Relax. Breath deeply.

[Suttree]

Whatever, it's a small hypothetical point hardly worth quibbling over.

 

Let's do this, why don't you start by finding the quote about when they started using the oath rod. Until then you can show us it is wrong, we go with what the BWB and Maria say fairly straight out. After all without evidence to the contrary there is no reason to think they wouldn't use the rod that first time around.

 

Wow, ok, not sure why you're getting so worked up and defensive about this. It's just something I raised because I thought I remembered reading it. Relax. Breath deeply.

 

Seriously? That's how you react to someone asking you to support a claim(which multiple people have disputed) and you are calling me defensive? Gotta love newbs...

[Azrayne]

Whatever, it's a small hypothetical point hardly worth quibbling over.

 

Let's do this, why don't you start by finding the quote about when they started using the oath rod. Until then you can show us it is wrong, we go with what the BWB and Maria say fairly straight out. After all without evidence to the contrary there is no reason to think they wouldn't use the rod that first time around.

 

Wow, ok, not sure why you're getting so worked up and defensive about this. It's just something I raised because I thought I remembered reading it. Relax. Breath deeply.

 

Seriously? That's how you react to someone asking you to support a claim and you are calling me defensive? Gotta love newbs...

 

It was just an offhand comment I made, then you guys jumped on me and got all aggressive about it. Instead of just doing a quick check and saying 'nope, book says nothing about when the oath rod turns up, you're mistaken,' you gave a bunch of quotes that were completely unrelated to what I said I thought I remembered reading, then got angry when I pointed out that they proved absolutely nothing about what you were trying to say.

 

But after all, I'm a 'newb,' who needs to read what I'm saying? What is this 'Wheels of Time' you speak of? Is that that one book with the dragons and wizards? Sorry I'm kinda confused, I've never posted on an internet forum before and I'm just overwhelmed by all these boxes and buttons and windows.

[Suttree]

It was just an offhand comment I made, then you guys jumped on me and got all aggressive about it. Instead of just doing a quick check and saying 'nope, book says nothing about when the oath rod turns up, you're mistaken,' you gave a bunch of quotes that were completely unrelated to what I said I thought I remembered reading, then got angry when I pointed out that they proved absolutely nothing about what you were trying to say.

 

But after all, I'm a 'newb,' who needs to read what I'm saying? What is this 'Wheels of Time' you speak of? Is that that one book with the dragons and wizards? Sorry I'm kinda confused, I've never posted on an internet forum before and I'm just overwhelmed by all these boxes and buttons and windows.

 

Errmm the quote I gave supports our side. There is no reason to think that they wouldn't have used the rod originally for the first oath. I think we have got to the bottom of it though, somewhat of a disconnect between you thinking people were aggressive, putting a huge image into your post and then blaming everyone else for being defensive? As you've never posted on an internet forum before I'll tell you how it works. You make a claim that runs counter to the other evidence provided, you offer support for said claim. It's not our job to fact check for you.

[Azrayne]

I made a comment, in a discussion, and instead of replying with a comment, people got worked up and angry and responded with quotes that had nothing to do with what I was discussing. Not one of your quotes said 'Immediately following the breaking, the Aes Sedai adopted the practice of swearing oaths on the Oath Rod etc etc.' It mentioned oaths, but no rod, and as I said an oath can be sworn without a rod.

 

Anyway, this discussion has run it's course, but, really not necessary to turn every conversation into a full blown debate.

[Suttree]

I made a comment, in a discussion, and instead of replying with a comment, people got worked up and angry and responded with quotes that had nothing to do with what I was discussing. Not one of your quotes said 'Immediately following the breaking, the Aes Sedai adopted the practice of swearing oaths on the Oath Rod etc etc.' It mentioned oaths, but no rod, and as I said an oath can be sworn without a rod.

 

I know I wasn't, can't speak for others but I've read the posts and they don't come across like that at all. Exasperated maybe because the quote I provided goes without saying that it was on the oath rod, but not angry. Either way if you are disputing a point "I read it somewhere" isn't good enough, you need to back it up. It's a fairly standard request and doesn't mean anyone is upset.

[michellem]

Ok enough, let's get back on topic.

 

 

I am a bit confused honestly about the AS using the Oath Rod right after the breaking. We have been told that what is now called and Oath Rod was called a "binder" in AoL, and was in fact used for punishing criminals. Now, Im not saying that the old AS didn't use the OR, it's just a slight flaw of logic from RJ's side in my eyes.

[Timewalkerauthor]

This will sound strange, but I work in mental health, and I can never tell my clients' ages...I've looked up their demographic data on numerous occasions, only to find myself shocked at their actual ages. I don't have this problem with anyone else. It's not that they all look the same age, but I would say that they either look very young--mid to late twenties--or mid fifties. I've pondered the question of why this is, but I can't pin it down; it does seem that they all (at least those in the "younger" group) have skin that is too smooth for their ages...I can't get any further than that. But it's an interesting parallel (expecially since use of Saidin, until recently, represented the ultimate mental illness in Randland).

[mandersen]

I imagine it's something you'd have to see to understand. I kind of thought along the same lines as earlier in the thread, that it was age minus wrinkles. but there's something more to it. When Rand met Moraine and she's 40 something and at first he thinks she's in her 20s, he notices her eyes right? something about them makes her look older. my guess is wisdom and experience. BUT if she hadn't taken the oaths and had just slowed as other channellers do, wouldn't she appear in somewhere in her late 20s anyway (like suiane post stilling)? and she would've had the same experience thus the same older wiser eyes. I guess my point is that if ageless is simply young face + old eyes, Moiraine would've looked the same with just slowing. I don't know though. maybe at a certain age it amounts to the same thing (hence the aiel comment about wise ones having a similar look as AS that most of us dismissed as an early bookism). when you are old enough to get wise eyes but don't show that age in your face, you've achieved the ageless look. could be, but i think there's more too it. a specific look that's unique to 3 oath sworn.

[michellem]

I have always pictured it was something with the skin; I always imagine them as having extremely smooth, flawless skin; and I've thought this has something to do with the oaths; with the skin-tightening sensation that is felt when taking the oaths. Im not quite sure how to describe it properly...

 

I guess you've all seen over-retouched photopraghies, where the skin almost end up looking like plastic? Sort of like that. This escpecially ties in for me in the cases of Aes Seda that are described that without the AS-face, they would look very bland.