14 hours ago, Effete said:

 

Nah, you did good ?

The way the Aes Sedai skirt the Three Oaths is used cleverly most of the time, which is why this (and a few other cases) sticks out.

 

Another example of this "contradiction" is in The Dragon Reborn when the girls, Verin, and sick Mat are confronted by Whitecloaks, and Egwene causes the ground to burst around their feet. No one is hurt (at least no worse than pinching or switching would cause), but Verin freaks out anyway and says something to effect that they mustn't do that and that the Three Oaths would sort them out. I don't think the intent was to hurt the Whitecloaks, just frighten them and warn them to back off. Yet Verin seems to see it as a violation of the Third Oath.

 

A third example is on the road to Ebou Dar, where Mat is being harassed because he won't give up his medalion. Adeleas uses the Power to fling horse dung at him. The "intent" was not to hurt Mat, so you can make the argument it's not being used as a "weapon," but the action is still an unwarrented assault against Mat (he does not want, nor expect, to be hit by dung), and any civilized society would consider the action to be an attack. So Adeleas, who undoubtedly is familiar with societial expectations and laws, is using the Power as a weapon, if perhaps indirectly... that's not unlike Egwene causing the ground to explode to frighten the Whitecloaks.

 

I'm not saying such things ruin the enjoyment of the story, I'm just pointing out they are inconsistent with what we are led to believe. If the Oaths are so pedantic that sisters can simply rationalize their way around them, then really they are bollocks, meaningless except for (as Suane points out) a common bond between sisters. And perhaps that is the greater point, but it jives with other scenes... like Dumai's Wells, where the AS were unable to use the Power to strike back at the Aiel until one of them was actually killed. Pedantry would dictate that if fireballs and lightning were being flung at you, you're life is in danger; it doesn't take a death to finally confirm it.

I think the second example could be seen as Verin interpreting that action as breaking the Third Oath because of what she believes was Egwene's intent, regardless of Egwene's actual intent. 

Your third example is actually harder to justify because I agree it counts as a weapon by most definitions, but again I think it all comes back to how Adeleas sees her own intent. She probably views it as a teaching tool or at worst a prank. Mental gymnastics could get her around the Three Oaths in this instance.

In my opinion, Dumai's Wells is the best example of the possible inconsistency with the Three Oaths, because I'm pretty sure they don't have to wait for one of their number to be injured/killed to defend themselves any other time. We could probably come up with some sort of justification, but I don't think anything will sound believable.

Personal interpretation of your own actions and the intent behind them is everything to the Three Oaths and I think that actually does make the Three Oaths worthless. Only the Aes Sedai, of all the channelers we meet in various societies, are seen as scheming and untrustworthy, and the Three Oaths are the main reason. I think that must have been Jordan's intent with the Three Oaths, to show that following the letter of the law rather than the spirit, or even having a personal moral code that you hold yourself to, is not good enough and will ultimately lead to efforts to circumvent your own laws. Perhaps that's why he included these seeming inconsistencies, to highlight the flaws in that system. Then again, he could have just had a hard time applying the Three Oaths consistently. It would be hard enough to live like that, imagine having to write a story where a huge chunk of your characters have these rules they absolutely cannot break. Limitations are good and make a story interesting, but I imagine the Three Oaths were a nightmare to write around...

5 hours ago, Effete said:

Yeah, but no.

The context matters, and maybe RJ just worded it poorly, but that's what makes it an inconsistency.

 

"I will speak the words you tell me to speak, and no more." This can be interpretted as not speaking at all until given permission, but the sentence structure more strongly suggests that Elaida is forbidden from repeating what Alviarin says unless Alvi expressly allows it. This is supported by the rest of the narrative, when Elaida enlists Seaine's help, but gives her very little information on what to look for.

 

But the next part, "I will sign what you tell me to sign, and nothing else," only has one interpretation: she cannot sign anything unless Alviarin tells her to. There is no ambiguity there; it's quite clear.

The way I interpret that second part is that it is true when she says it and given how she means it. She doesn't say that she will always sign only what Alviarin tells her to sign so I took it as her having a sort of unspoken way to wriggle out of it due to the way she actually means it. I agree it seems contradictory but I think it's the kind of hair splitting they use when they use a fake name, "You may call me Alys," although not as obvious in the difference. Same thing as them swearing not to use the One Power as a weapon and then spanking, pinching, and otherwise disciplining novices with the OP. Some people might interpret that as a weapon, but all that matters is that the Aes Sedai doesn't see it that way. I hope I explained that well enough and am not just rambling aimlessly......