AGE

[ASHAMAN1282083201]

does the amount of power u can channel relate tp how long u can live :?:

[Narg]

your saying it like "if you can live to 700 years you will be this strong" id say it means "if your this strong you can live this long"

 

both are wrong though and my proof is the kin. they arnet all that strong but they are older than cadsuane.

[Guest Wynne Jessal]

Yes, I recall reading that somewhere. *goes to look it up*

 

P.S. - The Kin are older than Cadsuane due to not having sworn on the Oath Rod, which dramatically shortens the life span.

[Guest Wynne Jessal]

"We slow, Nynaeve. Somewhere between twenty and twenty-five, we begin aging more slowly. How much depends on how strong we are, but when doesn't. Any woman who can channel does it."

 

The conclusion drawn from this statement of Elayne's in ACoS is that the stronger you are, the longer you live.

 

Unless you take oaths on an oath rod, which will halve (approx) your life span.

[Luckers]

I agree, though i dont think its an exact science. My guess is that it would fall within a ranger of no more then fifty years difference between the really strong and the really weak. And then you would have to take in other factors like diet, exercise, climate and so on.

[ASHAMAN1282083201]

the oath rod halves the lifespan is that only for one oath or as many as u want

[Guest Wynne Jessal]

the oath rod halves the lifespan is that only for one oath or as many as u want

 

I THINK' date=' but could have it backwards, that even one oath on the OR will halve your lifespan (and swearing any add'l won't decrease it further--we've have no indication of such at least), but it takes more than one for the 'ageless' look. At least... that latter is what I recall reading somewhere.. Hm. I wonder where... :?: [/color']

[Luckers]

We have never encountered anyone who has sworn only one oath, but we do know that those who have sworn three only lose half their lives not more, and Semirhages thoughts reguarding the swearing of an oath and the approach of death make me doubt that there is any sort of accumulative increase occuring.

 

I think there are two possibilities with the Agelessness.

 

1. We know that the oath rod effects the length of a persons life. Therefore the Agelessness could be a nessasary requirement (i.e. it saps life in order to sustain itself) for the oath rod to function. This would explain why the Agelessness only appears after some time, and would imply that losing the oath does not gain that time back, though if you did lose it it wouldn't sap you further, which is why the Agelessness goes away, because it is no longer sustaining itself.

 

So essentially for every year you live with the oath, the oath rod takes a year in order to power the sustaining of the oaths. This would mean that Suine, who has been an Aes Sedai for twenty years, has lost an additional twenty, and the Agelessness is a side effect of that advanced ageing process. Theoretically if the oaths were removed then the Agelessness should fade, which happens.

 

However there is the problem that when Suine is stilled, and the Agelessness fades, she doesn't just look like an older version of her old self, but rather her entire look has faded. This implies to me some intended force altering the nature of the bone structure and skin and overall look. This could just be a side effect of the forces the oaths exert on the body and face... but the whole Agelessness issue, as well as the lost years, strikes me as too intentional for the Age of Legenders. It doesn't seem like an unintended side effect.

 

2. The oath rod was originally a device used against criminals as a preventative method. However what of punishment? The lost years do strike me as mildly punitive. And given it is used against criminals, what if the Agelessness was a mark of the crime. Akin to being forced to register as a sex-offender. Re-call that it was only used against the worst criminals.

[Guest Wynne Jessal]

Well, apparently RJ had confirmed at book signings that it is the swearing of THREE oaths on the rod that causes the agelessness--not just a single oath.

[Luckers]

Specifically that? Show me this quote.

[ASHAMAN1282083201]

is there any diffrence bewteen the wh oath rod and shaido wise ones :?:

[Guest Wynne Jessal]

http://www.wotmania.com/faqtopic.asp?ID=68

 

Scroll down towards the bottom, paragraph just above "A slight discrepancy".

 

They don't provide the dates and locations, not that it would matter to me.

[RobertAlexWillis]

A few matters for pointless speculation:

 

We now have a few people trotting around sporting an extra Oath; the ones snagged by Seaine's hunters in the Tower. I wonder if they'll start to look even more "ageless"? I wonder how many Oaths a person would have to take before the physiological affect became debilitating? Does being released from the Oaths actually undo the physical damage done, or just prevent further damage? (Actually, Siuan and Leane's situation at least implies that yes, it does actually undo it.) Where's Aginor when you need him!

 

Or at least his lab notes ...

[dimmu666]

hahah talk about a painless makeover.

*hand on oath rod*

"i solemnly swear that when the Dark One comes out of his cubby hole and blackfires my ass to oblivion....im' going to die"

Woohooo agelessnesss!

i bet some girls here would die for that kinda facial treatment.

[Luckers]

“Do they bind themselves like criminals?”…Plainly [Graendal] had not reasoned it out; there was no reason she should. Few people in their time had ever committed one violent crime, let alone more.

 

- Lord of Chaos, Threads Woven of Shadow

 

Sammael reasoned that Aes Sedai used a binder for their Oaths because he recognised the ageless look, having seen criminals in the Age of Legends who committed more than one violent crime and were bound on a binder each time.

 

It takes more than one oath on the Oath Rod to produce the ageless look. Aes Sedai swear three oaths: a classic example of a ter’angreal being used in the Third Age in a way different to that for which it was intended.

 

 

That is not a quote by RJ, but conjecture on behalf of whoever it was who wrote the wotmania wheel of time, and shouldn't be taken as law.

 

Now that being said, this person has noted an interesting thing in what Sammael said. However, that could as easily mean that it took more then one crime to be bound, and therefore use of the binders was incredibly rare. Specifically he might be commenting on Graendals knowledge of binders, and whether she has connected the Three Oaths with the use of a binder. Given he makes no especial indication that he is thinking of the Ageless look specifically, i do not think this can be taken as doctrine... indicative, certainly, but not doctrine...

[Guest Wynne Jessal]

You didn't read far enough.

 

The fact that the ageless look is a result of swearing three oaths (not just an oath) has been confirmed by Jordan at booksignings. This is also why Black Ajah swear a new set of three oaths (A Crown of Swords, Spears) on the Oath Rod to the Dark One - to maintain their ageless look.

 

That was the quote I was actually referencing. Whether you believe it or not... well, I don't really care... this question isn't exactly 'who killed asmodean' for thrills. :roll:

[Thor]

hahah talk about a painless makeover.

*hand on oath rod*

"i solemnly swear that when the Dark One comes out of his cubby hole and blackfires my bunny to oblivion....im' going to die"

Woohooo agelessnesss!

i bet some girls here would die for that kinda facial treatment.

 

From what I gather, agelessness makes you look kind of fakish, kind of like those Final Fantasy characters. Not really good looking per se, but also not old/ugly.

[Luckers]

I didn't say i didn't believe it, i said that mans opinion couldn't be taken as fact. I have little trust of FAQ's, expecially since RJ has stated that only 1/3 of whats in them are true.

 

RJ commenting on it, on the other hand, can be.

[Guest Wynne Jessal]

I didn't say i didn't believe it' date=' i said that mans opinion couldn't be taken as fact. I have little trust of FAQ's, expecially since RJ has stated that only 1/3 of whats in them are true.

 

RJ commenting on it, on the other hand, can be.[/quote']

 

It's not really an opinion. It's a web site saying that someone asked RJ at a book signing if one oath on a binder can cause the agelessness, or if it takes more than one oath. And RJ confirmed that it takes more than one oath.

 

So it's just a matter of taking it with a grain of salt. As in... it may be hearsay. Supposedly it was said, but we can't confirm, and it doesn't say who asked him and when/where. And to my knowledge there isn't anything else anywhere that either confirms or denies that multiple oaths on a binder are needed for the ageless look. (That quote from Sammael is very vague, and I don't consider it proof of anything.)

[Luckers]

Which was not the part i was talking about. As you yourself observed i did not read on. I was refering to the mention by Sammael only, which was a matter of opinion.