Jump to content

DRAGONMOUNT

A WHEEL OF TIME COMMUNITY
szilard

Are they dogs/slaves/servants/workers/partners?

Recommended Posts

The Warders. How do you see them?

 

I think it depends on time. Before our story they were practically dogs/slaves/servants but after the books they will be (mostly) workers/partners.

 

Agree or disagree?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree.  Warders by their very nature are physically and mentally strong and rather strong-willed men.  A mental weakling who would be content or event consent to be an Aes Sedai's "dog" or "slave" would not be up to the task of defending his Aes Sedai.

 

Did some AS treat (or try to) some of the Warders as servants, etc.?  Probably.  I like to think most of the Warders just stoicly (sp?) bore it (gritting their teeth or grinning, depending on the situation), and probably played on along on occasion.  Some "battles of will" the AS won, some the Warders won (again, depending on the situation). 

 

Was Lan Moiraine's "dog" or "slave?"  Not on your life. 

 

The Warders have a higher calling than to sweat the small and petty stuff.  They were just as much looking toward the Last Battle as their Aes Sedai and to ensure the Light won, they didn't allow themselves to get sucked into an one-upmanship contest with their AS or worry about what other people thought about the relationship.

We saw most of it from the AS side and we know they liked to color everything in their favor, which would give off the reflection that they were the boss in all things. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they are mostly partners/comrades.  However, the fact that the weave for bonding is designed to include the ability for an Aes Sedai to compel her Warder undermines this somewhat.  We are not often shown this ability during the series.  The only occasions I can recollect are when the Aes Sedai (e.g. Alanna) attempt to compel men who can channel and find it doesn't work, and when Myrelle compels Lan to come to her.  So for most Aes Sedai-Warder bonds I don't think this is much of an issue.  However, the fact that this ability exists, and seems to be seen as totally acceptable by the Aes Sedai leaves a slightly unpleasant taste in my mouth about the whole thing.  They Warders are definitely not equal partners in the relationship while this ability exists.  However, it is somewhat balanced by the fact that Warders can ask to be released - I can't remember whether there request would always be honoured though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they are mostly partners/comrades.  However, the fact that the weave for bonding is designed to include the ability for an Aes Sedai to compel her Warder undermines this somewhat.  We are not often shown this ability during the series.  The only occasions I can recollect are when the Aes Sedai (e.g. Alanna) attempt to compel men who can channel and find it doesn't work, and when Myrelle compels Lan to come to her.  So for most Aes Sedai-Warder bonds I don't think this is much of an issue.  However, the fact that this ability exists, and seems to be seen as totally acceptable by the Aes Sedai leaves a slightly unpleasant taste in my mouth about the whole thing.  They Warders are definitely not equal partners in the relationship while this ability exists.  However, it is somewhat balanced by the fact that Warders can ask to be released - I can't remember whether there request would always be honoured though.

 

Here is what RJ had to say on the topic...

 

 
Interview: Apr 20th, 2004 Week 13 Question
Is the White Tower currently aware of any way to completely dissolve/undo the bond between an Aes Sedai and her Warder so that the link no longer exists and all the positive and negative effects of the bond are removed?
Robert Jordan

Yes, they are. It is called releasing a Warder, and an Aes Sedai who is very old or injured so badly that she knows she is going to die will, if she has the strength, release him so he doesn't suffer from her death. This does require the two of them to be together, and a little more time that laying on the bond. If they are physically apart, or she doesn't have enough time or strength remaining, touch on him.

It has also been used to get rid of a Warder who proved to be unsuitable in some way, such as a man who is discovered to be a thief or who takes reckless chances, a fighter of duels who won't stop without the bond being used to force him. No sister is going to want a Warder who will risk getting himself killed, with all the attendant results to her, for no very good reason.

Although use of the bond in that way (controlling) was not unknown in the past, it came to be regarded as a form of Compulsion to use it so except in the slightest forms. Besides, using the bond to control a Warder all the time is a lot of work. An Aes Sedai wants somebody who can watch her back and keep it safe, not somebody she has to work on all the time. (Which is one of the reasons Aes Sedai stopped bonding men against their will. Not ethical concerns or ethical growth, I'm afraid; it was just not very practical really.) Better simply to release the fellow who can't measure up and find another who will.

By the by, releasing a Warder except for cause (the Aes Sedai's imminent death, his own unsuitability) or because he has asked for release is something that JUST IS NOT DONE! It would gain the sister considerable opprobrium from other sisters. A sister certainly would be looked at askance if she released a Warder who was dying, for example, just to avoid the effects on her of his death. When an Aes Sedai bonds a Warder, she is expected to buy in for the full ride. For that matter, releasing him for unsuitability is considered to reflect on the sister's judgment. She should have known better about him from the start.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Warders. How do you see them?

 

I think it depends on time. Before our story they were practically dogs/slaves/servants but after the books they will be (mostly) workers/partners.

 

Agree or disagree?

Why do you think there would be a huge change? Because I don't see it at all. What has changed?

 

I don't think they were ever slaves or even servants. Out of self-interest very few Aes Sedai would want the guy guarding her back to resent her and to feel mistreated - that's a recipe for a disaster. And with the bond no Aes Sedai would want to feel her Warder's anger or resentment towards her most of the time if they can avoid it.

 

The Warders are junior partners whose opinion matters a lot. The Aes Sedai has the final word, sure, but they are treated well and with respect for the most part. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're slaves, pure and simple. Some AS treat their Warder-slaves better than others, but the fact remains that there is no way to represent this one-sided, Aes Sedai always the boss, relationship as a partnership. At best, they're dogs, but I would never treat a dog like Merise and others treat their Warders. There are a handful of Warders that I see as still having a backbone (like Lan), but with the exception of Lan, none of them would ever stand up to their Aes Sedai, so they're all pretty much broken to their owners' leashes. To the rest of the world, they would seem more like guard dogs - think of the dogs you pay to have trained to rip out someone's throat should you be attacked or give the order to do so - but seeing it from the 'inside' makes them slaves in my book. It disgusts me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're slaves, pure and simple. Some AS treat their Warder-slaves better than others, but the fact remains that there is no way to represent this one-sided, Aes Sedai always the boss, relationship as a partnership. At best, they're dogs, but I would never treat a dog like Merise and others treat their Warders. There are a handful of Warders that I see as still having a backbone (like Lan), but with the exception of Lan, none of them would ever stand up to their Aes Sedai, so they're all pretty much broken to their owners' leashes. To the rest of the world, they would seem more like guard dogs - think of the dogs you pay to have trained to rip out someone's throat should you be attacked or give the order to do so - but seeing it from the 'inside' makes them slaves in my book. It disgusts me. 

 So why are there so many candidates for the job and why do most of those who become Warders stay for life even though RJ said that the usual practice is to release them from the bond if they ask for it? Masochism?

 

Not sure where you get the "with the exception of Lan, none of them would ever stand up to their Aes Sedai". Birgitte did it all the time. One of the BA from Liandrin's coven had to run away from her warder because he wanted to kill her because he suspected she was a Darkfriend. Hell, even Gawyn did to a degree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

They're slaves, pure and simple. Some AS treat their Warder-slaves better than others, but the fact remains that there is no way to represent this one-sided, Aes Sedai always the boss, relationship as a partnership. At best, they're dogs, but I would never treat a dog like Merise and others treat their Warders. There are a handful of Warders that I see as still having a backbone (like Lan), but with the exception of Lan, none of them would ever stand up to their Aes Sedai, so they're all pretty much broken to their owners' leashes. To the rest of the world, they would seem more like guard dogs - think of the dogs you pay to have trained to rip out someone's throat should you be attacked or give the order to do so - but seeing it from the 'inside' makes them slaves in my book. It disgusts me.

So why are there so many candidates for the job and why do most of those who become Warders stay for life even though RJ said that the usual practice is to release them from the bond if they ask for it? Masochism?

 

Not sure where you get the "with the exception of Lan, none of them would ever stand up to their Aes Sedai". Birgitte did it all the time. One of the BA from Liandrin's coven had to run away from her warder because he wanted to kill her because he suspected she was a Darkfriend. Hell, even Gawyn did to a degree.

You want an honest opinion as to why there are so many candidates for the job? Boys are stupid. Promise them super stamina, a job where they get to appear badass, and a woman (you can't tell me some of them don't see the Warder/AS bond thing as a promise for sex, especially if they get bonded by a Green) and they'll hop the train with no concern as to where it leads. Hell, even the AS admit that Warders don't know what they're signing up for when they agree or ask to be bonded, so the women know the men are getting a raw deal; they just don't care.

 

Not all boys are stupid, of course, as proven by some of Gawyn's crowd who decided they would rather be soldiers than AS lapdog/slaves, but the ones who get a light in their eyes when they think about how badass Warders seem to be are too blinded by the promise of glory to pay attention to anything else. As for the rest, I figure there are a few main reasons the men stay for life and don't ask to be released: masochism (which you listed...and Narishma is a submissive masochist to the extreme, for example), honor (they gave their word and won't quit because they learned it wasn't what they thought it would be), and, in my opinion, the bond itself. We already know the bond provides a 'connection' that is so intense that it might be difficult to imagine not having it, even if the situation sucks. Additionally, I've always been of the opinion that one of the things that is kept hidden about the bond (it was stated in an earlier book that no one knew exactly what the AS got from the bond, and though we learned one of the things she gets is the ability to suck his life dry until he's a freaking corpse, I doubt that is the only thing). The fact that almost all Warders have a feeling of pride for being a Warder and feel protective of it as much as they feel protective of their mistresses, screams to me that it is something that is initiated or reinforced by the bond itself. There are, of course, anomalies...

 

And Birgitte is one of those. That is the only Warder bond that is woman-woman, so I don't think her reaction to the bond, and her treatment of Elayne, are good indicators as to how Warders stand up to their AS "all the time". Yes, she does it, but comparing her and Elayne to other Warders and their AS is like comparing apples to fish...they are completely different species. The BA bonded Warder is another anomaly, due to the fact that the woman was Shadowsworn and the man was not. He was, apparently, strong-minded enough to want to do what was right, but I think it was the emotional and instinctual drive to oppose the Shadow that gave him the will (and, therefore, the ability) to oppose her.

 

Edit - added spoiler tags AMOL spoilers

 

 

As for Gawyn, he's a poor example of a man with a spine. He only stood against Egwene before she bonded him. After that, he was basically her trained hound. Yes, he ran off to protect her and ultimately added to her chances of dying, but that wasn't due to him having a spine, it was due to him being a complete and utter buffoon, something he exhibited time and again, bond or not.

 

 

Edited by BFG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that almost all Warders have a feeling of pride for being a Warder and feel protective of it as much as they feel protective of their mistresses, screams to me that it is something that is initiated or reinforced by the bond itself. There are, of course, anomalies...

 

Or you know we could go with the simple answer...they aren't slaves and take pride in the role. RJ has discussed the bond in great detail and nothing like what you claim above is even hinted at.

Edited by Suttree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I mentioned Elayne and Birgitte because it is the Aes Sedai - Warder relationship we see the most of from their own PoV. Sure, they are an unusual case to a large degree, never claimed otherwise.  Nynaeve and Lan aren't exactly master and slave either. None of the pairs which receive significant screentime are. Sure, Merise and Jarishma is revolting, but it's just one example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I mentioned Elayne and Birgitte because it is the Aes Sedai - Warder relationship we see the most of from their own PoV. Sure, they are an unusual case to a large degree, never claimed otherwise.  Nynaeve and Lan aren't exactly master and slave either. None of the pairs which receive significant screentime are. Sure, Merise and Jarishma is revolting, but it's just one example.

 

Nyn and Lan are definitely not master and slave, but I think a lot of the balance in their relationship is due to Nynaeve's desire to honor their marriage vows, which, if you remember, specifically stated that the one who is in charge in public is the one who must obey in private. Do I think Lan would've been a stupid lapdog to her once they were married? Probably not, but he was always very passive with women. When he did want something opposed to what Mo wanted, he became passive-aggressive (teaching Rand how to approach the Amyrlin as a Warder would rather than, the way Mo and Siuan would've wanted it, as a supplicant). The only time he really went off on her was when she rubbed his face in the fact that she was handing him over to another woman as a pet when she died, and that was because he was, quite rightly, irate about it. I think, in general, she treated him with far more respect than any other AS treated her Warder, and even so, she treated him like a servant or guard dog, at best. 

 

I think the problem with analyzing this whole thing is that we very rarely saw a Warder's POV. All we can do is guess, using the interactions between AS and Warders we have seen throughout the series as a basis for what we believe. Personally, I find the nature of the bond repulsive. It's one thing if these women asked men to be their "shields" without the OP aspect of it to basically leash them, but they are, in effect, leashed once they are bonded since the women can kill them at will and control them with Compulsion if it suits them. Giving that kind of power over someone to women with inflated egos (and the belief that everyone who isn't an AS is just a pawn on the board to be sacrificed or controlled on their whims) is a mistake. If the AS bonded men the way Avi and Elayne were bonded together, without one person being completely and undeniably dominant over the other, then it might not be so bad. And, if the bonded AM all did what Androl did to Pevara, I wouldn't have a problem with that either, though I still don't like the fact that, if one dies, the other one might fall completely apart at the seams. It honestly seems like soul rape to me, and is definitely soul rape in the bond where Alanna bonded Rand without permission. That was soul rape, pure and simple, and I found her to be as evil as any DF from then on, especeiially since she showed no remorse for it. I hope before she died she suffered rape, be it physical, mental or emotional, so she understood what she had done to Rand by forcing a bond on him then trying to use it to control him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if they are slaves...looks like RJ considers being one right up there with being able to use magic.

 

David Burke from Northeastern University

Thank you so much Mr. Jordan for writing this series. It has entertained me for a very long time. My question is: If you were to be a member of a group or society represented in your books, which would it be? I think that I would like to be an Ogier because of their simple and peaceful way of life.

 

Robert Jordan

I don't know that I would particularly like to be a part of any of the societies or organizations or groups that I have described. I suppose if I had to choose, it would be a toss-up between being an Asha'man and being a Warder.

 

I think the problem with analyzing this whole thing is that we very rarely saw a Warder's POV. All we can do is guess, using the interactions between AS and Warders we have seen...

Which makes the below claim somehwat odd.

 

but with the exception of Lan, none of them would ever stand up to their Aes Sedai,

You do see the logical fallacy in your opinion correct?

Edited by Suttree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, RJ did also say: 

INTERVIEW: Oct 19th, 1998
 
RAMO FROM MONTREAL, CANADA
 Now, would you care telling us your personal views on "Warderhood," and if such a thing was possible would you be willing to be a Warder?
 
ROBERT JORDAN
Not on your life.
 
However, RJ's willingness or unwillingness is not exactly an indication one way or another. It depends on who he would want to be a warder to, and each person is different in what they would tolerate, and we all know RJ had some peculiar notions. 
 
In any case, putting that aside, I think it's an individual case-by-case thing. Each Warder is treated differently, sometimes in huge degrees. 
 
The 'official' purpose of Warder is more or less a personal guard. They are certainly the lesser partner. To what degree depends on the Aes Sedai. 
 
Some relationships I find distasteful. Others are respectable. Still others I wouldn't be up for, but have no issues with because the man chose and is fine with it. 
 
As a group they are called 'Warders' but I don't really think they can be classified as a group, since each bond is a personal thing. 
 
Now, the Bond itself is a different problem. The implications and uses of the Bond are horrendous. Of course, they have the choice not to use these advantages, however, on an impersonal level, the possibilities make the Bond a monstrous weave that shouldn't be used on anyone. Even though most of the Aes Sedai wouldn't go to the extremes - nobody should have that kind of power over another person on principle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if they are slaves...looks like RJ considers being one right up there with being able to use magic.

 

David Burke from Northeastern University

Thank you so much Mr. Jordan for writing this series. It has entertained me for a very long time. My question is: If you were to be a member of a group or society represented in your books, which would it be? I think that I would like to be an Ogier because of their simple and peaceful way of life.

 

Robert Jordan

I don't know that I would particularly like to be a part of any of the societies or organizations or groups that I have described. I suppose if I had to choose, it would be a toss-up between being an Asha'man and being a Warder.

 

I think the problem with analyzing this whole thing is that we very rarely saw a Warder's POV. All we can do is guess, using the interactions between AS and Warders we have seen...

Which makes the below claim somehwat odd.

 

but with the exception of Lan, none of them would ever stand up to their Aes Sedai,

You do see the logical fallacy in your opinion correct?

 

 

[Removed]

 

It is my opinion, from what I have deduced from observing the AS/Warder relationships in the series and from the nature of the bond -

 

- i.e., a woman bonding a man and being able to use the bond to control him completely and/or suck every last ounce of life out of him at will (this means, in simple terms, that the woman holds the man's life in her hands and that she can cause him to die at any time she decides to do so - and to make things clear, I am not saying that an AS would do that, just that she has the power to do so, much like slaveowners could have done to slaves long ago) -

 

- and the fact that the Warders are, quite clearly, with the exception of Birgitte, who is far from a standard example of a Warder for a many reasons (which I will list in simple and easy to understand terms for you if you feel this, too, is a "logical fallacy" and that, instead, she is somehow a great example of a typical Warder) never treated as equals and, many times, not even treated as partners, but rather as hired hands (which, as far as I know are not guaranteed to receive a salary unless their AS decides to give them one,, which makes them wards of the women who bonded them, sort of like children or pets or, hmm, perhaps human property...which, in history, has normally been referred to as an indentured servant or slave.

 

Now, let's look at what we've got - Warders live at their bondholder's will and can die at her will...they are never treated as equals...some might get paid, some might have to ask their AS for things they want/need, and some, like Narishma only get what their bondholders decide they can have. I'll be generous here and say that soldiers live at their superiors' will and can be sent to their death at their superiors' wills as well, but unless they're receiving a set salary on a regular basis, we can rule out labeling them as soldiers. Understand so far? 

 

Additionally, AS have the ability to use the bond the same way humans use a leash for dogs - i.e., they can force their will on the Warder. Whether they do so or not, the way Merise did to Lan, is beside the point. The bond is a leash/collar combination and it can be used to remove the Warder's free will and make him do something he does not wish to do. You can put a choke collar on the dog and not use it to hurt him, but the point is that the power to do so is there. The control is there. End of story. So, then, taking this into consideration, at best, Warders are pets.

 

If they are like Narishma, where not only are they not allowed free will, but they are also denied the very human expectation to own any property (unless, of course, it comes from Merise's hand, in which case he only owns the property until Merise decides he isn't allowed to have it anymore), and suffer physical and mental humiliation when they fail to do as their bondholder wishes, then I would consider them less than pets (since I have never treated a dog the way Merise treats Narishma and never would because I have no desire to break a dog's spirit) and would consider them, at best, indentured servants. However...

 

Since indentured servants were, in theory, only required to accept enslavement for a set period of time, and a slave was expected to be a slave for life unless his/her owner decided to release him or her - and since Warders are expected to be bound for life - then the ones who are treated as less than pets are not indentured servants at all and are, instead, slaves. 

 

Now, if you choose to believe that all Warders are these great, strong men who will stand up to their AS with no fear and who are treated by their AS as respected and valued partners (outside of the Greens who love to use their Warders as human vibrators), then bully for you. I inferred, from your response to me, that you agreed with the statement that we have not seen enough Warder POVs to really know how most of them feel, which means your assumptions are just that...assumptions. As I explained above, in great detail, my opinions are based on the nature of the bond as well as what I've read. If that's not good enough for you, and you wish to continue to insist that your opinion is correct and anyone who disagrees with you is "illogical", then have fun with that because, now that I've explained why I have the opinion I do,  I'm done. 

 

But, since Barid said it so well, and since he also gave an RJ quote that leaves one to question just how great being a Warder would be considering he himself, the man who understood what was involved far more than you or I, stated he would never agree to it. 

 

 

 

 

To be fair, RJ did also say: 

INTERVIEW: Oct 19th, 1998
 
RAMO FROM MONTREAL, CANADA
 Now, would you care telling us your personal views on "Warderhood," and if such a thing was possible would you be willing to be a Warder?
 
ROBERT JORDAN
Not on your life.
 
However, RJ's willingness or unwillingness is not exactly an indication one way or another. It depends on who he would want to be a warder to, and each person is different in what they would tolerate, and we all know RJ had some peculiar notions. 
 
In any case, putting that aside, I think it's an individual case-by-case thing. Each Warder is treated differently, sometimes in huge degrees. 
 
The 'official' purpose of Warder is more or less a personal guard. They are certainly the lesser partner. To what degree depends on the Aes Sedai. 
 
Some relationships I find distasteful. Others are respectable. Still others I wouldn't be up for, but have no issues with because the man chose and is fine with it. 
 
As a group they are called 'Warders' but I don't really think they can be classified as a group, since each bond is a personal thing. 
 
Now, the Bond itself is a different problem. The implications and uses of the Bond are horrendous. Of course, they have the choice not to use these advantages, however, on an impersonal level, the possibilities make the Bond a monstrous weave that shouldn't be used on anyone. Even though most of the Aes Sedai wouldn't go to the extremes - nobody should have that kind of power over another person on principle. 

 

 

And this was exactly my original point. The bond, in and of itself, is a vile thing that enslaves a human being to another human being. An AS could be the nicest, most pleasant person in the universe, who would never use the bond to its fullest extent, but the very fact that the ability to do so exists makes the whole thing flat out repulsive. 

Edited by Barid Bel Medar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, the Bond itself is a different problem. The implications and uses of the Bond are horrendous. Of course, they have the choice not to use these advantages, however, on an impersonal level, the possibilities make the Bond a monstrous weave that shouldn't be used on anyone. Even though most of the Aes Sedai wouldn't go to the extremes - nobody should have that kind of power over another person on principle. 

I understand your point about nobody should have that kind of power over another person in principle. However, in RJ's world a channeller does not even require a bond to have that kind of power over people. Compulsion does not require the channeller to have an empathic link (which we know gets AS edgy if they do not shield their thoughts from their warders) to their victim.

 

If anyone were to ask me if I were willing to meet someone with the power to take my will and memory away (or incinerate me to ash on the spot - though a knife/gun can give similar results) - I will do my very best to flee. Honestly, I do not know how non-channellers in the WoT manage their nerves.

Edited by James Tham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you mean by this? Yes, channelers are dangerous, but it doesn't diminish the monstrosity of the weave. 

 

There are differences between a  channeler and a weave. One, they are born with the Power, it isn't a choice - it's a choice to learn the weaves. As such, nobody good learns Compulsion or any of the other nasty weaves. Channeling in itself is not dangerous. It is what the people learn to weave that is dangerous. Therefore the creation of a weave that can have such a profound effect on someone is terrible. In some ways, it's worse than mere Compulsion, which is considered extremely evil by the White Tower. 

 

Of course, you are correct in saying Channelers in general are dangerous, most know some form of dangerous weave in the Third Age- and it's interesting you brought up the point about non-channelers. To a degree they ARE like that. They distrust channelers inherently. That's where the Three Oaths originated, from possible misuse of the Power. However, I'd say they can keep their nerve because it's something they have lived with all of their lives. Just as we can live knowing that someone can destroy an entire city with the press of a button.

Edited by Barid Bel Medar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point was that the power granted over a warder [via the bond weave] is irrelevant when you have to trust a channeller not to use things like compulsion - which is far more effective, and does not leave the channeller open to any consequences felt empathically.

 

We know that wilder sparkers tend to learn 2 different things - one is a form of compulsion. Now, I do not think they are necessarily evil. However, to be honest, I do not know how anyone can be made to forget such a weave. Verin believes the WT is successful in getting rid of it. However, Liandrin certainly remembers her trick (and yes, we may argue that she is evil and therefore would have kept it or re-create it). Verin was able to re-create a weak compulsion. 

 

Even if we assume the WT is amazingly successful in getting rid of compulsion and Verin & Liandrin are unusual cases - I think the Blue Ajah fear weave comes pretty close to form of compulsion (even if it may not be as effective). 

 

As far as we know, a weave that grants an empathic link, an ability to share strength, increase vitality and endurance [limited dream immunity to the shadow?] only exist in the warder bond. 

 

However, the fact that it opens a warder up to compulsion to their AS is moot if any AS potentially have the ability to take control anyway. Even if the weave itself does not come with the side effect of being open to the Warder-bond-compulsion, a warder will still have to trust their AS not to use the real compulsion (or trust they do not know it) - which imo is a foolish thing to trust.

 

Once we got to see compulsion on-screen, I had always wondered why it was never added to the oaths. Perhaps it was due to the warder-bond this was never added. Anyway, I am rambling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barid did say it well, in fact him and I are largely aligned in our reasoning. Not sure why you would quote the entire post as it says something very different than what you put forth.
 

- and the fact that the Warders are, quite clearly, with the exception of Birgitte, who is far from a standard example of a Warder for a many reasons (which I will list in simple and easy to understand terms for you if you feel this, too, is a "logical fallacy" and that, instead, she is somehow a great example of a typical Warder) never treated as equals and, many times, not even treated as partners,


Source needed.
 
Btw what "fallacy" exactly would you be referring to above?
 

Now, let's look at what we've got - Warders live at their bondholder's will and can die at her will...they are never treated as equals...some might get paid, some might have to ask their AS for things they want/need, and some,

 
Source needed.
 

Additionally, AS have the ability to use the bond the same way humans use a leash for dogs - i.e., they can force their will on the Warder. Whether they do so or not, the way Merise did to Lan, is beside the point. The bond is a leash/collar combination and it can be used to remove the Warder's free will and make him do something he does not wish to do. You can put a choke collar on the dog and not use it to hurt him, but the point is that the power to do so is there. The control is there. End of story. So, then, taking this into consideration, at best, Warders are pets.


Fair point and I don't think anyone has questiond how bad of a weave the bond has the potential to be. We all know the dynamics of it. There is an interesting quote around how AS view it's use though in relation to control that has already been provided:
 

Although use of the bond in that way (controlling) was not unknown in the past, it came to be regarded as a form of Compulsion to use it so except in the slightest forms.

 

<removed> 

 

 

the man who understood what was involved far more than you or I, stated he would never agree to it.


Except for the fact that I gave a quote from a later date stating that he would.

Edited by BFG
off-topic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got a few thoughts about how Warders fit into the Three Oaths. The Three Oaths are in place to make the common folk accept Aes Sedai, removing the threat of the One Power. But the Warders replace this threat. Aes Sedai constantly use their Warders to intimidate other people. "I can't choke you with the One Power, but I can have my servant cut off your head if you piss me off!" The Warders' presence implies that the Aes Sedai need some kind of protection from normal people; as if the people should trust Aes Sedai, but the Aes Sedai cannot trust the people. I understand the need to ward off bandits and the like, but the message that a personal killing machine brings undermines the appreciation from the people the Aes Sedai (unjustly) demand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I understand the need to ward off bandits and the like, but the message that a personal killing machine brings undermines the appreciation from the people the Aes Sedai (unjustly) demand

 

Curious as to why you claim the bolded?

Edited by Suttree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 It's a basic self-interest for an Aes Sedai to treat her Warder well. 

 

 First of all, she can sense his emotions. Given that, it makes sense they'd much rather have the Warder happy than unhappy. 

 

Second, the Warders are their bodyguards. It's stupid to piss off your bodyguard, the one who has to guard your back and die for you if necessary.

 

 Are there some Aes Sedai who despite this are being stupid about this and are treating their Warders badly? Sure, but it doesn't seem likely that there are that many of these.

 

Yeah, they could kill their Warder at any time. But that would be idiotic since it would hurt them terribly and there's Tower Law against it after all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- and the fact that the Warders are, quite clearly, with the exception of Birgitte, who is far from a standard example of a Warder for a many reasons (which I will list in simple and easy to understand terms for you if you feel this, too, is a "logical fallacy" and that, instead, she is somehow a great example of a typical Warder) never treated as equals and, many times, not even treated as partners,

Source needed.

 

Btw what "fallacy" exactly would you be referring to above?

 

 

<removed>. However, since you insist on pursuing with this one nitpick, I will put it this way:

 

Show me a source that shows most Warders be treated as equals. Hell, show me multiple sources where they're treated as equals - and I do not mean "junior partners", I mean equals - where their voices carry as much weight with their leash holder as the leash holder's voice - and prove me wrong.

 

<removed>. 

 

Unless you can prove otherwise, my opinion that they are never treated as equals (other than Birgitte, who is still treated as "less than" Elayne and has to defer to her almost always), stands. 

Edited by BFG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a basic self-interest for an Aes Sedai to treat her Warder well. 

 

 

 

Or to break him to her will, which we've seen happen at least once. And, since no one really thinks anything about Merise's self-declared habit of breaking her Warders' wills completely, it is likely that it isn't too abnormal. Once the Warder is broken, he will be content in his role, much like damane are once their sul'dam break them. 

Share this post


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...