Ive been reconsidering my position a little and I have to say the abruptness of the change was actually REQUIRED.... firstly for practical reasons...

Personality shifts or redefinitions can occur either gradually (such as taking several books to go from the naive rand who had just proclaimed himself the DR at the fall of Tear to become the hardass rand we all know and love, during this time we see a gradual shift along with numerous events which support that outlook such as kidnapping, betrayals etc) or else abruptly in which case they need an event that is important to the character (even if no one else) otherwise they seem strangely out of character (such as rands shift from emotionally restrained hardass to barely suppressed sociopath after nearly killing after nearly killing Min)

Given that, his shift towards Zen Rand would fall into the later category, a dramatic triggered personality shift.... however in the case of Dark Rand the change that occurred was that his dominant behaviours (and indeed personality traits) became more pronounced, this made it easier to relate to, given that it was still the same RAND, just with the 'flaws' being more evident. On the other hand, the change to Zen Rand was not a movement in either direction or if so was a massive shift along multiple directions - the result being a CHARACTER that was not Rand as we have come to know him.

To have achieved this same shift using the gradual change approach would have taken a LONG time, so for practical reasons that wasnt appropriate.

The second reason I believe is that the abruptness of the change and Alien-ess of the character that emerged were desired; combined with people reacting more positively to him (though they shouldn't, they should be freaked out - given that he is a male channeller it would be natural to assume he is now mad given his sudden and overwhelming personality change) I believe that this is an attempt by the writing team to support the idea that the traits that made hard and dark Rand (emotional suppression, self flagellation, ruthlessness, Machiavellian tendencies etc) are 'bad' or at the least less desirable than the qualities of this new Zen character.

LTT rewired his brain, that's what happened.

Perhaps LITERALLY - given those lines of power(?) in his brain that Nyn saw. Something that has not cured his madness (the black stuff is still there) yet holds it at bay(?).

First and MOST important - that the next book isnt out yet.

Oh and I suppose after that.... probably Aes Sedai or Egwene... difficult to pick

Personally when I first read about Rand Sedai I felt a very keen sense of disassociation - the Rand that I had spent so many books getting used to, adapting to his subtle changes had abruptly had a massive personality shift and his mannerisms had changed as well, he felt 'alien' after the descent from Dragonmount.

I believe that this is intentional - that the abrupt and jarring shift from the 'dark' to the light Rand was intended to be so marked that it makes the reader re-evaluate their understanding of the character and potentially what it means to be strong or to be a hero. I think it is also intended to ensure that it is too difficult to simply overlook the changes wrought in Rand due to his 'acceptance' (not of his role or his death but perhaps of his nature... its unsure) the sense of unfamiliarity I think is a tool to make the user perceive the actions of this 'new' Rand as being something more or better than what the old rand was capable of (some sort of enlightenment that comes from being 'good')...

I don't much like this new Zen Rand critter... but then again 'like' isn't that important is it?

Lol, true but the 'forms' are all important... the substance.... well not so much ^o^

Lol, well I was using US laws since they were brought up (Im not from the US) as a reference point... however we cannot really argue the specific Andoran legalities of the judgement since we dont know the laws... we ARE told however that the 'inquisition' (whitecloaks) are not completely free to go about their business and we can make certain extrapolations with a reasonable degree of confidence (but even those are not necessarily true... its like any other prediction thread.... making assumptions based on limited evidence)

It might be unintentional provocation (more likely the whitecloaks would think they were actually doing Perrin and Egwene a favour by killing a dangerous animal), so under US law, it is quite likely that the whitecloak's killing of hopper would not constitute 'wrongful conduct' (in that their killing of a wolf would not be construed by a REASONABLE person to be 'wrongful', also, that same reasonable person standard would not usually mitigate the killing of a human due to the killing of an animal) and thus not lead to a manslaughter charge at all.

In terms of US Laws - Therefore instead of provocation, more reasonable grounds for defence include: Abuse (shaky as it would require arguing that the whitecloaks' prior history of abuse constitutes grounds for anyone to kill them), Automatism/Irresistible impulse/Biological/Diminished responsibility (a little more likely, that Perrin was acting under impulses that he could not control his behaviour as a result), Necessity/Competing harms/Justifiable homicide (more likely still - that killing the whitecloaks was neccessary to avoid harm - though this is undermined somewhat by the fact that neither was killed by the whitecloaks), Legal Duty/Resisting unlawful arrest (which would have been great.... had he even known he was an Andoran - that Perrin's actions were in fact in support of the crown of Andor, whom the whitecloaks were trespassing upon).

However, the Imperfect self-defense ("whereby a defendant may mitigate punishment or sentencing imposed for a crime involving the use of deadly force by claiming, as a partial affirmative defense, the honest but unreasonable belief that the actions were necessary to counter an attack" Wiki article of same name) is the most likely grounds however.

I wasnt basing my opinion on the idea of 'downgrading' a charge (this is a process that I abhor as I believe it can either omit circumstances or else lead to inordinate mitigation... I feel that it is a flawed system...), but yes, it highly depends on the system of laws in place... I would however point out that at the time of the trial Morgase had no authority to judge the pair and claiming jurisdiction of Andoran law is in fact illegal (excepting the fact that both agreed to it while outside of Andor).

While the whole aspect of killing the wolf might seem important to an individual, to society it is of negligble importance (though potentially a crime of itself) in 'mitigation' of the crime Perrin committed. No instead, determining a charge should occur after taking into account the circumstances in which the death took place, two youths in the wilderness attempting to hide from a group of men with a very shady reputation for killing people, the group of men find the youths and one attacks after a violent animal that they are fond of is killed.

The level of duress should be taken into consideration prior to determining the charge as otherwise it can predispose the sentence toward either end of the spectrum (either setting in mind that the charge given should be upheld or else giving undue weight to subsequent mitigating factors). Grief over the death of a well liked animal - one belonging to a species well known as being wild and dangerous, who was acting violently towards the whitecloaks; combined with the trepidation of confronting whitecloaks (with their poor reputation) at night in the wilderness and possibly his sense of duty to protect his female companion... offset that with the fact that Perrin attacked first, and that even after Perrin killed the whitecloaks their companions did not kill him in self defence or revenge...

Manslaughter seems reasonable approximation of the level of charge (noting that they might not even HAVE a manslaughter charge in their legal system) brought against Perrin IMO (though I would not have left it to Galad as the whitecloak commander to determine the sentence for that crime, as it seems to discount many of the circumstances in which the deaths took place). I would probably have had Perrin imprisoned, possibly killed - but certainly not just given him to the whitecloaks (who are well known for their torturers, even if Galad didn't have them on side at the time, it shows that the whitecloaks as an institution are not above such things, which given the circumstances of the deaths - potential torture seems uncalled for).

In both cases, the deaths themselves would likely be manslaughter

However in the second case it is more troublesome... in the second land was the hunter acting illegally? The majority of aeil are soldiers that belong to at least two armies (sept (through it clan) and society), so technically the freed aiel was an invader, even if the government had yet to recognise the invasion and declare a state of war; in such a case local lords and almost always empowered to protect the realm from invading forces, even if not in a state of war.

As to whether or not the hunter was given such powers is doubtful, so while the crown might pardon the hunter and even reward him for service, until that time he was not acting as an agent of the crown, so while the initial capture was likely unlawful (as was the death of the other aeil) that act would not be punished in most circumstances (though depending on political pressure, that might not be the case). The whitecloaks themselves can be seen to be a case in point of this in the first (and possibly second) case.

However, when the prisoner was turned over to the locals and imprisoned within the cage, his state of detention was enacted by agents of the crown (the mayor or whatnot would have permission to detain criminals, including members of an invading army); so freeing the prisoner is indeed a crime - regardless of whether or not the hunter was later found to have committed a crime (it is only in western society (and only sometimes then *cough*gitmo*cough*) where we consider polite technicalities of whether or not the wrongful arrest constitutes wrongful detention or whether wrongful detention itself acts as a mitigating factor against acts to free the detainee).

In the case where the hunter is found to have been acting in accordance with the wishes of the crown (likely), AND that the detention by the locals was found to be valid (very likely) AND that the present whitecloaks (even if that presence was illegal) were also found to have been acting in accordance with the wishes of the crown (less likely) then the killing of the whitecloaks would be tantamount to killing those acting as agents of the crown - thus murder as well as a crime against the state (not sure which one).

For me, Faile has the following 'good' personality traits:

• Brave, a hunter of the horn, who makes a sudden decision to abandon her current plans to follow those that might lead her to adventure and though she complains about finding out about the Foresaken being loose, she doesn't leave the group. When Perrin attempts to leave her behind she has none of it, quick to pounce on her (rather mean and dishonest) way to accompany Perrin into the ways (which she knows he must use), facing down whitecloaks and battling darkspawn in edmond's field, even leading an army into battle. At Cairhien she demonstrates her willingness to put herself into danger as an undercover agent and while under Shaido captivity she retains her bravery, keeping it together and the people around her.
  
• Passionate, ignoring Saldean farmgirls for a moment (its difficult I know), she is very driven in what she wants and far from hesitant in expressing it. When she pursues Perrin to Edmond's field, she demonstrates the length's of that passion, through the Ways and into the conflict with the Trollocs, her deft hand in marrying Perrin and later her efforts (mainly) on his behalf in order to cement his position as ruler of the two rivers. Her relationship with Berelain is often quite humorous and adds spice to a relationship that might otherwise seem bland at times; sending Faile into a passionate if jealous rage, though if Perrin is slow to return that passionate expressions for her, then she is capable of becoming increasingly sulky and obstinate. Its also quite possible, given how hesitant Perrin is, that this is precisely the sort of woman needed for him - one who will largely initiate things and makes no bones about expressing her passions.
  
• Supportive, both in public and in private, she is supportive of Perrin (though not neccessarily in the way he expects). In public she is quick to show a unified front, openly supporting her husband through an often deferential role, though when his kindness, naivity or humility get in the way of what she thinks he wants, needs or deserves, she is more than willing to step in with a sometimes smooth, sometimes sharp tongue. In private on the other hand, she gives her support to her husband in a completely different way, instead of focusing on what he espouses, she instead focuses on what is 'better' for him in her opinion, this can mean being ruthless in her pursuit of a better life for the two of them - and that can certainly include making his life misery until she gets the fire she wants and needs from him.
  
• Practical, she is an excellent counterpoint to Perrin's unassertive and often too naive nature, not to mention his inexperience and oft ineptness in matters of politics, governance and administration. She is capable of proving the groundwork capable of fulfilling the vision of the more idealistic Perrin; seeing both what is required in a public setting and what is required in a convert setting.
  
• Cunning, she often demonstrates her sly skills, primarily in supporting her husband - her use of the Faile corp in particular, plans to kidnap or assasinate, these are generally used without Perrin's awareness and permission, but to support him. She is also relatively intelligent, but this is shadowed by how clever she is (which given her priveledged upbringing is quite refreshing, to see a sort of street smart 'lady').