Jump to content

DRAGONMOUNT

A WHEEL OF TIME COMMUNITY

The Black Ajah & Seanchan Morality


Recommended Posts

Dude, as I've been contacted by people about you I've never spoken to before, I'm more than comfortable in what I've just said. If you're not trying to troll, you should learn how to speak to people. As others have said, you're very underhanded in the way you speak to people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

 

or in other words, leashing Aes Sedai only moves the problem to the Sul'dam, it doesn't remove it. Better, then, to either kill all Aes Sedai, for the fearful, or leave them all free and watch them directly for signs of trouble, where possible. No need to include a layer of enslaved people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude, as I've been contacted by people about you I've never spoken to before, I'm more than comfortable in what I've just said. If you're not trying to troll, you should learn how to speak to people. As others have said, you're very underhanded in the way you speak to people.

 

Let me guess who they are :rolleyes: Much like Cads I have little sufferance for kooks. The people that have put in time at this place know what I'm about and have always backed me to the hilt. That's all that truly matters to me.

 

I will say as I've indicated to you in the past I've come to respect your debate style and feel as if we have met in the middle on quite a few topics. Further how many times have I provided you with a piece of info you have been asking about or textual evidence to swing the debate one way or another. You know very well I'm not a troll and really there is no need to be so sensitive. Personnel attacks are one thing, commenting on a debate quite another. I honstly enjoy our talks and really am sorry if you took anything in a negative way.

Edited by Suttree
Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with pointing at Cads and saying see here success gentling is a good thing is that we do not know how her patients/victims lived, we only know they lived longer than normal for men who where gentled and that they managed to deal with it better, they still died and since gentling itself can not kill a person they died either suicide or they mourned themselves to death, they might have had better lives than your average gentled male channeler but they still had pretty bad lives. The only severed channeler who could be said to have a rather good life is one woman who was burned out (I do not know if writing her name her would be a spoiler so I will not.) so yes it can be done, you can have a severed channeler return to a decent life but the chance of it is rather slim.

 

Also one success story and a few who suffered a little less than the rest do not mean that it is not a fate worse than death for most, and one or two success story do not excuse atrocities. Most channelers in Wheel of Time is shown to be terrified of being severed and most would probably gladly be killed instead, the problem is that gentling have become a tradition with the White Tower so it is just done even when there are more merciful things one could do.

 

One more thing about Cads method, even if one can argue back and forth on whatever or not that is better than death, I would probably say that death is better than a few decades of depression and then eventually dying from that but folks might not agree with me there, however this is not the treatment most male channelers are getting, so the way the Tower generally do it the victims of the weave is left in a terrible state where yes death is better. Look at Logain in book 3, would you rather be alive like that or dead? I know I would have chosen dead any day of the week.

 

Now do we have to ague over this and be hostile? We are discussing a fantasy book, can we not just discuss, disagree with one another and have fun with the discussion anyway?

 

In response to the idea of preemptively arresting people: How many of you oppose DUI laws? They are preemptive. We arrest drunk drivers even if they haven't hurt anyone. If they're unlucky enough to be stopped at a DUI check point, we'll throw them in jail even if they weren't driving recklessly. And, as far as I know, DUI laws are quite popular. They make people feel more "safe" on the road.

 

If you drink and drive you are driving reckless, when you are drunk even if you have not been in an accident yet and is not driving like a maniac you have far shorter attention span and it is shown to increase the chance of an accident. Arresting someone for drunk driving is not preemptive, it is arresting someone who is being reckless. Arresting someone preemptively would be if you find out that everyone with a certain eye color have allot higher chance of committing violent crime so you arrest everyone with that eye color before they have done anything, and no I am not in favor of that. Also being a channeler do not mean you are reckless it just mean you are powerful.

 

But, what about drunk drivers who can handle their liquor? There are plenty of drunks out there who will never get into an accident in their lives, so why arrest them? Because they could hurt someone. Society has deemed the risk too great. Hell, you may drive better drunk than most people drive sober, but that won't stop the cops from slapping handcuffs on your wrists.

 

Because while someone have chosen to drink, to dull their brains and therefore increase the chance of having an accident even if they may not have had one yet. It is scientifically proven that everyone have a higher chance of an accident if they have been drinking, reaction time and judgment are poorer and so on, so no one can handle liquor they have just been lucky so far.

 

Point being, if human beings are willing to preemptively arrest and imprison people because they could "potentially" hurt someone while drunk driving, imagine how they'd feel about people who have the ability to rip others to shreds with their minds. Society already finds ways to justify the elimination of potential risks. And, a single Aes Sedai is far more dangerous than an entire highway full of drunk drivers. So, preemptively imprisoning those with the ability to channel would seem like a fairly prudent move.

 

That some societies do eliminate potential risks do not make it morally right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the Kin - I'm not sure that it really serves as an example to anyones cause. Yes the WT allowed a small group of weak channelers to gather as they chose not to make a big deal out of themselves. [Other examples where outside groups have openly channeled have been dispersed (from memory - may be wrong, apologies if so), so although they may not outright say, don't channel much the implication is pretty clear.] BUT, the WT have no idea how many Kin their actually are - and I don't believe it's ever made clear what the traditional (wo Supergirls) WT attitude would be - so it doesn't prove that the WT allow anything other than a (in their opinion) small group of weak channelers.

 

Do the WT have the right to say that if you're not AS you shouldn't be able to call yourself AS, of course.

 

Do they have the right to say that if you're not AS you can't channel - no. But although there's evidence to suggest that the WT do interfere with other groups there's little (that I can remember) that suggests why - it could be that the groups that are pulled down are doing something harmful to others, whereas the Kin aren't and so would have been ignored even if they knew all the facts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

where did I say anything about impersonating AS? Why are you repeating yourself? Unbelievable. You just said something about Cads that was incorrect and I've seen you say it several times on these boards.

 

What was incorrect mate? We have no idea if Emarin is the limit of what can be done. The people Cads has helped could have lived longer and given RJ's notes that seems to be likely. Hag is the one that was incorrect in that Emarin is an exceptional case. Regardless we know that...

 

RJ

but one and all, they made much better adjustments to their fate than is considered normal. They eventually died short of a normal span, but they lived considerably longer than usual.

 

Which is exactly what I said. Look at when men start channeling and if the from the still date they live 10+ years that is just short of normal. @Damer I never intened it to be a panacea for the Gentled but it obviously is a method to be shared with others and is a far better option than killing them out right.

 

 

I totally agree that Cadsuane is doing the best that can be done in these cases, and its a great thing. I am not salndering Cadsuanes efforts, I wish the reds, or the yellows had followed her lead. All I mentioned, as a point of interest, is that you are overestimating the benefit her methods provide. By staying "just short" you intimate that the difference in life span is neglgable, and there is no concrete data to support that. We see a lot of men live into their 70s in Randland, and 10-20 years puts them into their 30s -40s. That's a lot of missing life.

 

As an aside, I agree with Avernite regarding the Ad'am, for the most part. The only difference is that sparkers can help but channel, and RJ has emphasized again and again how addictive using the one power is. Half the training in the Tower seems to focus on self control to combat this problem. Presumably, since Sul'dam don't actually channel themselves, they dont have the pitfalls that channelers do. But in general, sul'dam seem is be an ethical cheat in Seachan culture.... a way to use to power to exert control on a large scale wihout paying the price (i.e. the "sin") of channeling. Power is what corrupts, and kind, not channeling per se.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude, as I've been contacted by people about you I've never spoken to before, I'm more than comfortable in what I've just said. If you're not trying to troll, you should learn how to speak to people. As others have said, you're very underhanded in the way you speak to people.

 

Let me guess who they are :rolleyes: Much like Cads I have little sufferance for kooks. The people that have put in the time at this place know what I'm about and have always backed me to the hilt. That's all that truly matters to me.

 

I will say as I've indicated to you in the past I've come to respect your debate style and feel as if we have met in the middle on quite a few topics. Further how many times have I provided you with a piece of info you have been asking about or textual evidence to swing the debate one way or another. You know very well I'm not a troll and really there is no need to be so sensitive. Personnel attacks are one thing, commenting on a debate quite another. I honstly enjoy our talks and really am sorry if you took anything in a negative way.

I've provided you with information, too. Something about Tenobia and Mat comes to mind which you were incorrect about.

 

You were incorrect here saying that most of the men gentled by Cads live a life of almost normal length.

 

You were incorrect about your statement about the Kin.

 

As for being sensitive. I'm sitting here in my office smiling about this. I find it kinda humorous.

 

Edit to add: it's the back of the Queen Flash Gordon album cover.

Edited by thisguy
Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with pointing at Cads and saying see here success gentling is a good thing is that we do not know how her patients/victims lived, we only know they lived longer than normal for men who where gentled and that they managed to deal with it better, they still died and since gentling itself can not kill a person they died either suicide or they mourned themselves to death, they might have had better lives than your average gentled male channeler but they still had pretty bad lives. The only severed channeler who could be said to have a rather good life is one woman who was burned out (I do not know if writing her name her would be a spoiler so I will not.) so yes it can be done, you can have a severed channeler return to a decent life but the chance of it is rather slim.

 

Also one success story and a few who suffered a little less than the rest do not mean that it is not a fate worse than death for most, and one or two success story do not excuse atrocities. Most channelers in Wheel of Time is shown to be terrified of being severed and most would probably gladly be killed instead, the problem is that gentling have become a tradition with the White Tower so it is just done even when there are more merciful things one could do.

 

One more thing about Cads method, even if one can argue back and forth on whatever or not that is better than death, I would probably say that death is better than a few decades of depression and then eventually dying from that but folks might not agree with me there, however this is not the treatment most male channelers are getting, so the way the Tower generally do it the victims of the weave is left in a terrible state where yes death is better. Look at Logain in book 3, would you rather be alive like that or dead? I know I would have chosen dead any day of the week.

 

Genuinely curious to see how you interperate...

 

but one and all, they made much better adjustments to their fate than is considered normal. They eventually died short of a normal span, but they lived considerably longer than usual.

 

Into meaning what you say above? How could you possibly get there is only one or two success stories from that? We know that Cads has taken down more men than any 10 Red sisters combined ands it says "one and all". Further how would you read the above and think they mourned themselves to death or committed suicide. RJ would not have said "better adjustments" if that was the case. The point here Hag is we know there is a method to improve things and that could have been built upon. It is yet another failure of the AS that they didn't have a system in place to care for these men and build upon Cads' success but it should be clear their is an option better than killing them outright. They have a chance, there is hope.

 

I've provided you with information, too. Something about Tenobia and Mat comes to mind which you were incorrect about.

 

You were incorrect here saying that most of the men gentled by Cads live a life of almost normal length.

 

You were incorrect about your statement about the Kin.

 

Sigh. You just don't feel like grabbing the olive branch and yet I'm the troll? It's really quite humorous that someone who has been here such a short time would attempt to place labels or tell me how to post. Again individuals such as Luckers, Terez, Fish, Barid, Kovan, Mr Ares etc can tell you how absurd it is to throw that my way. Look all I was doing was pointing out trolls wouldn't provide helpful info. I wasn't trying to turn this into some pissing contest so please give over.

 

1. No idea what you are talking about in relation to Tenobia and Mat.

 

2. I said "just short of a normal life span". That is how I intepret RJ's notes and since we have no proof on whether Emarin is the norm not sure how you can possibly make this statement. He did say "one and all". Do you have info about the other men Cads' has helped that shows 10 years is the limit? After all you did say...

 

I thought they mostly lived about 10 years, which is more than a gentled man usually lives.

 

3. What was incorrect about the kin? AS know about them to an extent and allow them to do their work. They do not tell women they need to put a limit on their channeling or face some extreme penalty which was your original point.

 

the Tower will tell you to use your power as little as possible or incur their wrath.

 

Who the hell are they to tell you that?

 

Terez recently shot a statement like that down quite conclusively in another thread and the other posters discussing here make clear it is not the case. Feel free to be annoyed by any number of real faults AS have but let's not make up things in order to toss blame their way.

 

In response to the idea of preemptively arresting people: How many of you oppose DUI laws? They are preemptive. We arrest drunk drivers even if they haven't hurt anyone. If they're unlucky enough to be stopped at a DUI check point, we'll throw them in jail even if they weren't driving recklessly. And, as far as I know, DUI laws are quite popular. They make people feel more "safe" on the road.

 

But, what about drunk drivers who can handle their liquor? There are plenty of drunks out there who will never get into an accident in their lives, so why arrest them? Because they could hurt someone. Society has deemed the risk too great. Hell, you may drive better drunk than most people drive sober, but that won't stop the cops from slapping handcuffs on your wrists.

 

This analogy doesn't fit. You can't compare someone choosing to take intoxicants that can impare their thinking with an inherent trait someone is born with. Further arresting someone preemptively would be done in the bar before they got in the car not while they were already doing the actual deed. Your reasoning about preemptive strikes against channelers is extremely flawed. You can not just start taking action against someone because they have the potential to do harm. An athletic trained swordsman can be very dangerous, shall we chop off their hands to make sure they can't use a sword? Someone being able to channel does not make them anymore likely to do good or bad. You must treat them as individuals and as their actions dictate.

Edited by Suttree
Link to post
Share on other sites

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

 

or in other words, leashing Aes Sedai only moves the problem to the Sul'dam, it doesn't remove it. Better, then, to either kill all Aes Sedai, for the fearful, or leave them all free and watch them directly for signs of trouble, where possible. No need to include a layer of enslaved people.

 

I believe the point of the original post was to say that it is easier to 'take down' a non-channeler is easier than it is to 'take down' a channeler.

 

 

@Sightblinder - I think generally you've argued the Seanchan view pretty well. Yes, in some circumstances it is ok to pre-empt someone (DUI for example), I don't think it's ever ok to enslave someone, especially not the way the Seanchan do it, where they're not just imprisoned but dehumanised. But I don't find it as easy as some others on the board to draw the line between how that is wrong, but gentling is right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Into meaning what you say above? How could you possibly get there is only one or two success stories from that? We know that Cads has taken down more men than any 10 Red sisters combined ands it says "one and all". Further how would you read the above and think they mourned themselves to death or committed suicide. RJ would not have said "better adjustments" if that was the case.

 

First off all what I meant is that in the books only one channeler who have lost the ability to channel do we know have lived into middle years and is continue to living well and seam from descriptions of her to be doing quite well, that is what I meant with success stories and there is hints that other burned out Aes Sedai have managed to do the same, not often but sometimes. Now the only one of Cads victims/patients we know have lived somewhat long died after 10 years. Now yes the quote above could be saying that most lived longer than that but there is no evidence for that. Better adjusted simply mean better than the average gentled male channeler and they are rather messed up. Logain is the average and that mean that about anything is better adjusted than that.

 

Now do I know 100 percent that no one lived past 10 years no, but from the books and the notes and other material I have read I have seen no indication of anything else. I respect your opinion but I do not share your interpretation of the material.

 

Now as for why I say they mourned themselves to death, well they died of something, even if you are right and they have 30 or more years to live and just had somewhat shorter lives then the fact that they where gentled did eventually kill them and we know that what kills a severed channeler is depression meaning that it do eventually catch up with them. Most likely Cads method make them able to handle it better that do not make them okey it makes them, well yes better adjusted.

 

The point her Hag is we know there is a method to improve things and that could have been built upon. It is yet another failure of the AS that they didn't have a system in place to care for these men and build upon Cads' success but it should be clear their is an option better than killing them outright. They have a chance, there is hope.

 

I agree completely that the Aes Sedai should have built on Cads system and offered to all their victims and tried their best to give those men as good a chance as possible, that they just gentle them and either then send them away or give them a room at the Tower and leave them for their own devices is another atrocity, but even with Cads system I do think gentling is a rather horrible fate and that if the Aes Sedai cared to show mercy they should give men the choice, either a quick death, or gentling with then informing them of all that would entail and then use Cads method to improve their quality of life as much as possible.

 

3. What was incorrect about the kin? AS know about them and allow them to do their work. They do not tell women they need to put a limit on their channeling which was your original point.

 

Actually I think they do, now they do not say you may not channel, but they do tell non Aes Sedai channelers to be discreet, basically they do not like none Aes Sedai to be channeling in public since most people can not distinguish between Aes Sedai and other channelers so they know they would get the blame if someone got out of control. A healer who helped out her herbs or a woman who warmed her bath water with the Power when in private that is fine, but a woman who have a habit of entertaining her grandkids by tossing fireballs over a nearby lake would be taken in and get a stern talking to, at least the way I have understood it.

Edited by Hagazussa
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I think they do, now they do not say you may not channel, but they do tell non Aes Sedai channelers to be discreet, basically they do not like none Aes Sedai to be channeling in public since most people can not distinguish between Aes Sedai and other channelers so they know they would get the blame if someone got out of control. A healer who helped out her herbs or a woman who warmed her bath water with the Power when in private that is fine, but a woman who have a habit of entertaining her grandkids by tossing fireballs over a nearby lake would be taken in and get a stern talking to, at least the way I have understood it.

 

Well yeah but that is what I said. We need to use common sense here about what would be exceptable channeling. It certainly isn't a "use as little power as possible" or incur their wrath situation. As long as someone isn't making a spectacle or coming across to the general public as AS they are fine. I mean let's face it, to the world at large any channeling female is AS so they have every right to be wary of how that would be perceived.

Edited by Suttree
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I think they do, now they do not say you may not channel, but they do tell non Aes Sedai channelers to be discreet, basically they do not like none Aes Sedai to be channeling in public since most people can not distinguish between Aes Sedai and other channelers so they know they would get the blame if someone got out of control. A healer who helped out her herbs or a woman who warmed her bath water with the Power when in private that is fine, but a woman who have a habit of entertaining her grandkids by tossing fireballs over a nearby lake would be taken in and get a stern talking to, at least the way I have understood it.

 

Well yeah but that is waht I said. We need to use common sense here about what would be exceptable channeling. It certainly isn't a "use as little power as possible" or incur their wrath situation. As long as someone isn't making a spectacle or coming across to the general public as AS they are fine. I mean let's face it, to the world at large any channeling female is AS so they have every right to be wary of that would be perceived.

 

 

AS have the right to act against anybody calling themeselves AS but aren't. They also have the right to be wary of anyone that may be perceived to be AS that aren't, but if that person hasn't claimed to be AS then they don't have any right to take action. The only thing they have the right to do in this case is to make it clear that the other person isn't AS. IF the other person is acting in a way harmful to others, then they have the right to act against them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well yeah but that is what I said. We need to use common sense here about what would be exceptable channeling. It certainly isn't a "use as little power as possible" or incur their wrath situation. As long as someone isn't making a spectacle or coming across to the general public as AS they are fine. I mean let's face it, to the world at large any channeling female is AS so they have every right to be wary of that would be perceived.

 

I agree with this completely.

 

AS have the right to act against anybody calling themeselves AS but aren't. They also have the right to be wary of anyone that may be perceived to be AS that aren't, but if that person hasn't claimed to be AS then they don't have any right to take action. The only thing they have the right to do in this case is to make it clear that the other person isn't AS. IF the other person is acting in a way harmful to others, then they have the right to act against them.

 

The Aes Sedai's problem is that the general public do not know the difference between a wilder and an Aes Sedai, now theoretically they do not have any right to go after a wilder unless they are claiming to be Aes Sedai or are a danger to others, but if one is drawing allot of attention to herself even if she makes no claims, for example if she likes to toss fireballs out over a lake and other feats of flashy magick then they will probably send someone to have a serious talk with the woman, but as long as a wilder is discreet she can channel as much as she desires.

Link to post
Share on other sites

we KNOW AS DIDNT recruit channelert above age 18 (20+ in EXTREME cases) NOR did is still female channelers that they didnt recruit.

 

we KNOW male channeler pre-cleansing will go mad and KILL anyone near them.

 

the best example regarding today is:

 

u c a man who carry a VERY deadly VERY contagious desease.

will u allow him to interact with other ppl or will u stop him ?

 

(btw Hagazussa -> u stole my answer to the DUI example -> shame on u :))) ).

 

about power corrupt and how channeling is sooo scarryyy... rem the 3 oath the AS took.

randland have NO REASON to fear an AS going rampage o power charge killing sprea.

and thewy KNOW that they CAN call to your freindly neighberhood AS in case of anyone who do go on such a killing sprea (male channeler for example).

 

so yes the AS are overbearing , sneaky , control freaks but they are no life threat (sanity threat i can accept :))) )

Link to post
Share on other sites
As bad as the Seanchan may be, you know there aren't any damane who are going to be making the trip to pledge allegiance to the Dark Lord at Shayol Ghul any time soon
Right. Let's just find a way to keep all the sul'dam from going over to the Shadow and taking their damane with them, and your plan will be the pinnacle of human thought and security in the WoT universe.
Link to post
Share on other sites

the best example regarding today is:

 

u c a man who carry a VERY deadly VERY contagious desease.

will u allow him to interact with other ppl or will u stop him ?

 

Off course I would stop him but I would not rip a piece of his soul out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

so u say that killing a male channeler is prefared over gentling ?

 

i cant c any other sure way to stop a male channeler (beside of turning Far-Medding /stedding into a 24/7 highly secure prison and a life sentence)

Link to post
Share on other sites
so u say that killing a male channeler is prefared over gentling ?

 

Oh hell yes. Think about it this way would you rather have something done to you that a Forsaken refers to as the deepest pain anyone could experience beyond any power to deaden, a thing that not only robs your magickal powers but which also takes from you the ability to feel a pleasure normal men have never known and which will make all other pleasures in your life pale in comparison, and which is also extremely addictive so you will always long for it with all your hearth but which you know you can never experience again. This thing would leave you in a state of despair and in a depression so deep that unless you managed to kill yourself you would most likely die from your body just shutting down from the lack of the will to live in one to three years? Or would you have preferred to just be killed? I know which of the two I think sound like the lesser of two evils.

 

Now with Cads method where former male channelers can live for some years and actually have a life then we can begun talking about it being a more even choice, they still die from depression but can have many good years, more years than they would if they continued to channel, but you still have the whole dying from loss and depression thing which is very little appealing. I think that male channelers should have been given the choice between death and gentling after they where informed about what the weave did and their chances would be and how they would be afterwards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now with Cads method where former male channelers can live for some years and actually have a life then we can begun talking about it being a more even choice, they still die from depression but can have many good years, more years than they would if they continued to channel, but you still have the whole dying from loss and depression thing which is very little appealing. I think that male channelers should have been given the choice between death and gentling after they where informed about what the weave did and their chances would be and how they would be afterwards.

 

We don't know about the depression angle for certain Hag(in fact I don't think RJ's notes would have been worded they way they were if that was the case). No matter how likely in some cases it's still speculation. In addition we do know of situations where people overcame it(Setalle for certain, can we count Siuan and Leane?). The whole choice thing is an interesting angle but again if there is hope like with Cads method I think one needs to explore it.

 

Also curious where does a forsaken describe it as the worst pain imaginable? Would like to read that section again. Thanks!

Edited by Suttree
Link to post
Share on other sites
We don't know about the depression angle for certain Hag(in fact I don't think RJ's notes would have been worded they way they were if that was the case). No matter how likely in some cases it's still speculation.

 

Well we know it is depression that kill them in normal circumstances, that is stated black on white, they either manage to kill themselves or just die because they loose the will to live. Now yes it is not said straight out that it is depression that kill Cads patients/victims however they do die short of normal lifespans so then what kills them? We know they have a condition that the normal outcome is death due to depression that they have been helped to handle it better I would say that it is then rather safe to assume that it is depression do eventually kill them, the only other possibility is if gentling do something more, causes some physical spiritual wound or defect that will eventually kill a person but nothing indicates this.

 

In addition we do know of situations where people overcame it(Setalle for certain, can we count Siuan and Leane?). The whole choice thing is an interesting angle but again if there is hope like with Cads method I think one needs to explore it.

 

There are some very few examples of severed characters who have managed to survive and have good lives, and it is mentioned that those who find something to dedicate themselves to have a chance Setalle with her family, Siuan and Leane with their plots, plans and politics, so yes severing CAN be survived but it is very rare and it is a rather horrible thing that most channeler characters in the book seam to fear as a fate worse than death. Siuan and Leane do rather well and they might have survived but they do not remain stilled for that long a time, we do not know what the long term effect would be with them, but like I said they do have an overwhelming sense of direction and purpose which can save a severed channeler.

 

As for Cads method and whatever it should be explored yes it definitely should, but I still think it should be a choice given and not something forced on a captured channeler, many might then choose to live for the chance of being able to live a reasonable life while quite a few would I assume still would choose to die. I think the most humane way to deal with male channelers would have been to give them the choice of death or gentling and if they choose the latter they got Cads treatment and where taken care of until they got back on their feet.

 

Also curious where does a forsaken describe it as the worst pain imaginable? Would like to read that section again.Thanks!

 

Then I shall find it. The quote is from A Crown of Swords and it is the chapter Mindtrap and the Forsaken in question is Moghedien.

 

No.She knew she was going to die, but this Myrddraal would not eat one shred of her! She reached to embrace saidar, and her eyes bulged. There was nothing there. Nothing! It was as if she had been severed! She knew she had not it was said that tearing was the deepest pain anyone could know, beyond any power to deaden
Link to post
Share on other sites
AS have the right to act against anybody calling themeselves AS but aren't. They also have the right to be wary of anyone that may be perceived to be AS that aren't, but if that person hasn't claimed to be AS then they don't have any right to take action. The only thing they have the right to do in this case is to make it clear that the other person isn't AS. IF the other person is acting in a way harmful to others, then they have the right to act against them.

 

The Aes Sedai's problem is that the general public do not know the difference between a wilder and an Aes Sedai, now theoretically they do not have any right to go after a wilder unless they are claiming to be Aes Sedai or are a danger to others, but if one is drawing allot of attention to herself even if she makes no claims, for example if she likes to toss fireballs out over a lake and other feats of flashy magick then they will probably send someone to have a serious talk with the woman, but as long as a wilder is discreet she can channel as much as she desires.

 

I don't think we're disagreeing here - it is a problem for the AS that people believe any female channeler is AS, but that doesn't mean they have the right to interfere if the other person doesn't claim to be AS. The most they can do is talk to the other person involved.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think we're disagreeing here - it is a problem for the AS that people believe any female channeler is AS, but that doesn't mean they have the right to interfere if the other person doesn't claim to be AS. The most they can do is talk to the other person involved.

 

I do not necessarily think they have the right by Tower law to go after someone who do not claim to be Aes Sedai however if a stern talking to do not help with someone who they see as a problem I do not think that will stop them from taking action, they can always find some justification, or if they do not act against the wilder themselves then they can always bribe local nobility to do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think we're disagreeing here - it is a problem for the AS that people believe any female channeler is AS, but that doesn't mean they have the right to interfere if the other person doesn't claim to be AS. The most they can do is talk to the other person involved.

 

I do not necessarily think they have the right by Tower law to go after someone who do not claim to be Aes Sedai however if a stern talking to do not help with someone who they see as a problem I do not think that will stop them from taking action, they can always find some justification, or if they do not act against the wilder themselves then they can always bribe local nobility to do so.

 

Sorry, I've just realised I deleted bits of my posts, because I wasn't sure of the facts (still not, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) -

 

AS don't have the right to interfere, but that doesn't mean that they don't. The Kin were only allowed to exist as the AS didn't know how big/strong they'd become. There are examples of other groups that have been broken up by AS, Daughters of Silence(?) is the only name I can remember. The reason I kept deleting this part is because I can't remember the reason for the interference, I'm sure that in at least one example the channelers involved were involved in something generally considered bad. I can't remember if that's the case every time, or if I've completely made it up, or if we don't have the information available. (I'm nearing end of LoC so should reread relative bits soon).

 

But in my mind, regardless of what they actually do, it doesn't actually change the fact that they have no right to interfere. The only other in world example of the same sort of thing* is Aludra and the Illuminators. Alludra is not going around telling people that she's an illuminator, but it doesn't stop them from trying to stop her using fireworks altogether. Do the Illuminators have the right of it? In my opinion, again, no, but that doesn't affect their actions. Part of it is no doubt growing up in a culture with competing businesses.

 

EDIT to add * that I can think of

Edited by BFG
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that the Aes Sedai have no right to tell anyone what to do with their channeling abilities as long as they do not claim to be Aes Sedai or are a great danger to everyone around them like with a male channeler, they have no right to tell a wilder not to get involved in her nation's war, join the army and spread a little magickal mayhem to the enemy, they have no right to say that channelers can not form groups, channeling abilities are a part of a person and they should decide for themselves what to do with them as long as they do not go around harming those around them. My point is just that the Aes Sedai do allot of things that they have no right to be doing. But yes for the most part I agree with you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to the idea of preemptively arresting people: How many of you oppose DUI laws? They are preemptive.

No, they're not. They arrest you after you have driven recklessly - that is, under the influence of alcohol.

 

Point being, if human beings are willing to preemptively arrest and imprison people because they could "potentially" hurt someone while drunk driving, imagine how they'd feel about people who have the ability to rip others to shreds with their minds. Society already finds ways to justify the elimination of potential threats. And, a single Aes Sedai is far more dangerous than an entire highway full of drunk drivers. So, preemptively imprisoning those with the ability to channel would seem like a fairly prudent move.
Prudent, perhaps. But you're still talking about locking people up who have not done anything wrong, nor are showing any signs of doing anything wrong. Drunk drivers have had their abilities impaired, therefore they are driving recklessly. There is a quite significant difference between locking up someone for doing something reckless, that endangers their own life and the lives of others, and locking up someone for potentially being dangerous. Further, many dangerous people are permitted freedom.

 

The problem with pointing at Cads and saying see here success gentling is a good thing is that we do not know how her patients/victims lived, we only know they lived longer than normal for men who where gentled and that they managed to deal with it better, they still died and since gentling itself can not kill a person they died either suicide or they mourned themselves to death, they might have had better lives than your average gentled male channeler but they still had pretty bad lives.

The end of your sentence doesn't follow from the premise at the beginning. If we do not know how they lived, how can we be sure they did not conquer the depression? We do not know how they died either - any of them. Therefore we cannot draw conclusions about how they died.
The only severed channeler who could be said to have a rather good life is one woman who was burned out (I do not know if writing her name her would be a spoiler so I will not.) so yes it can be done, you can have a severed channeler return to a decent life but the chance of it is rather slim.
We don't know what the chances are. We have too little information to draw reliable conclusions.

 

One more thing about Cads method, even if one can argue back and forth on whatever or not that is better than death, I would probably say that death is better than a few decades of depression and then eventually dying from that but folks might not agree with me there, however this is not the treatment most male channelers are getting, so the way the Tower generally do it the victims of the weave is left in a terrible state where yes death is better. Look at Logain in book 3, would you rather be alive like that or dead? I know I would have chosen dead any day of the week.
Logain was not a normal male channeler. He was a false Dragon. Therefore, there is a risk to him from people who disapprove of that particular career choice, and a risk to others from him deciding that maybe Gentling doesn't ave to be the end of this "I am the Dragon" lark after all. And therefore, do we know that his treatment was not atypical? They might treat other male channelers differently, and therefore they might end up in a different state.

 

The big problem here is we are having to speculate with very little by way of concrete information. For example, women who are burnt out are sent away from the Tower. What are their survival rates like? The AS don't tend to keep tabs on them - the very subject makes them uncomfortable. Getting rid of them is as much for the peace of mind of the AS as it is the benefit of the women in question. So has Setalle survived an unusually long time? Or about average? For the men who are Gentled - what is life expectancy? What is life expectancy for men brought in by Cadsuane? What is normal human life expectancy? We know none of these. We only know that the men Cadsuane brought in lived longer than the one but less than the other, and we know that one guy lived ten years - but we don't know whether he was unusually long lived, unusually short lived, about average, nor do we know what killed him. Other things besides suicide and just giving in can kill someone, after all. So did Emarin commit suicide, or did he give up and just die, or did he become Cadsuane's Warder and die in the course of his duties? Or in an accident at some point? Or catch a disease? We don't even know much about the causes of the depression - it is solely due to the loss of the Power (and thus is psychological in nature), or is it a physical change? If the former, then someone who had not been channeling long, if at all (for example, if Rand had been Gentled midway through EotW) would be less bothered by it, presumably, while if it is a physical side effect then someone channeling once and then being Gentled is just as prone to it. The morality of Gentling v killing is thus hard to argue, as we don't have the necessary information to weigh one against the other.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...