https://www.tvinsider.com/1107366/the-wheel-of-time-season-2-finale-book-moments-moiraine-lan-mat-seanchan/

confirmed Aiel waste

do you really think that an AS would not be able to use the OP against an unmanned drone? 

against victim would presumably inckude torture and punishment, both of which we know are fine for them

2 hours ago, Scarloc99 said:

I mean it doesn’t fizzle out, she never believes Rand killed her mother. 

no but Gawyn does, and would have been very easy to use that as another conflict

2 hours ago, Samt said:

Generally speaking, the definition of a weapon is not restricted to devices used to hurt or kill people. It also includes devices that are used to cause physical damage to structures, vehicles, etc.  There are lots of modern weapons that are fundamentally anti-vehicle or anti structure weapons.  Oftentimes, that will kill the occupants, but sometimes that is not the intention or result.  Nonetheless, these are definitely weapons.  
 

The Aes Sedai are rather creative with their justifications, but this is a bit tricky.  Even if she knew that everyone on the ship would survive, I’d say she still used the power as a weapon since she used it to disable an enemy in battle.  A big factor here is that they are in the middle of a battle.  

I don't see how disrupting an enemy's attack with no intention to harm them is using it as a weapon. 

16 minutes ago, Gypsum said:

 

I love it when we get to the trolley problem!

 

I enjoyed the whole season and the finale but shared some of the questions about Moiraine's attack on the ships violating her Oaths. That was the one part that made me think, "Eh?" You can try to twist your way around it, but can you really?

 

Western legal systems account for some of these issues -- the difference between first degree murder and criminally negligent homicide and/or manslaughter in some US states, for instance.

 

If I shoot balefire straight at you, and it's not in self-defence or in defence of anyone else, then I've violated the Second Oath. That's first-degree murder, in the statutes of most US states. There's no doubts about my intent (you can't accidentally weave it) or of the lethality of balefire.

 

However, if I channel and create a whirlpool in the river that happens to be next to your boat, and your boat happens to sink, then it gets fuzzier. Arguably, it's criminally negligent homicide or manslaughter. I didn't cause your death directly, like shooting balefire or fireballs at you would, but I knew or should have known that my whirlpool would cause your boat to sink, thereby putting you at significant risk of death.

 

Offhand, I can't remember any scene in the books where an Aes Sedai tries to get around the Oaths by effectively committing CNH or manslaughter, but I'm terrible at remembering those sorts of details.

 

What I do remember, however, is that they can't attack people pre-emptively. There were a few battles where they had to put themselves at risk, in the midst of the chaos, in order to channel fireballs and lightning at their enemies. If your friends and allies are in the middle of a battle, and you're on the outskirts as a sort of long-range artillery, then you know that if they lose, bad things will happen to them and possibly to you. But that didn't seem to be enough to let the Aes Sedai blow stuff up without putting themselves directly in the line of fire.

 

Where does that leave us with Moiraine? If you set a ship on fire, your intent is pretty clear. And it's not like she was futzing around with some weird new ter'angreal and accidentally set the ships alight (whoops). It was all very, very deliberate. Same as if you deliberately set a car or building on fire when you knew there were people in it. That's second or first-degree murder, my friends. 'I didn't think anyone would die when I blew the sh1t out of their ship' does not fly. I'm not sure that the Three Oaths are quite that post-structuralist, where any 'fact' that an Aes Sedai convinces herself to be true (whether it is or not) gets her around them, or where any and all percieved danger allows her to use the Power as a weapon. 'I thought he might at some point kill me/Rand/my warder.' I think it has to be more like actual risk-to-life.

 

So was she channeling fire at those ships because Rand was in danger, and she can use violence to protect herself, her warder, and another Aes Sedai? He's obviously none of those things, but he's the Dragon Reborn, so fair enough. But did she know that the Seanchan were shielding him and intended to gentle him? Er, probably not. Could she see their weaves at that distance? Or did she just guess that those ships were up to no good? A bit of dodgy ground, I think, given the Aes Sedai in the battles could actually see their friends and allies getting killed and injured, and they still had to walk into the middle of the Trollocs.

 

I think the writers did it because it looked cool and let Moiraine do something important in those final scenes, but they  played fast and loose with the Three Oaths and the One Power. Ach well.

I don't think the ships blew up, I think she holed them with a small explosion and they sank. we don't know if people died in explosions or drowned or neither 

https://winteriscoming.net/2023/10/09/the-wheel-of-time-season-3-gets-very-ambitious-lots-new-characters-moiraine-lan/

Lots to chew over here. 

and of course the bait to get the anti-woke warriors to explode is there as well

8 minutes ago, Samt said:

  Hide contents

Pretty sure that M'hael is using Sakarnen at that point.  It's two very powerful channelers each with a very powerful Sa'angreal.  Comments about will power in that context are more flavor than literal, I would say.  That's not comparable to Egwene holding off Ishamael with no real combat training or experience (and being the weaker channeler overall anyways).  

 

starts without, and is gradually being worn down so runs to get it

8 minutes ago, Mirefox said:

We also get the Mat we love prior to Shadar Logoth.  The snow just character assassinated him from the start.

Jon Snow?? 🤔😉😜

1 minute ago, Mirefox said:

Amazon already does that.

not on mine. it starts a trailer but can skip immediately

1 hour ago, Elder_Haman said:

Agreed. And I think there's no better way to do that than via Elayne. Elayne brings her friends to Camelyn hoping her powerful mother will right the ship. Morgase at first seems inclined to help, but is compelled away from that decision by Rahvin. Could be really fascinating tv. 

and I expect them to expand on Elayne thinking Rand killed her mother, which fizzled out in the books 

Ishy and min was needed so we know mat stabbing Rand was Ishy's plan. we only know it from there 

we still don't know how he knows about it though. or what he meant that he knows who kills him - I suspect not this but he means he himself as Moridin in s8e8

1 hour ago, ilovezam said:

That seems plausible on a technicality, but by that logic Aes Sedai could probably just "set my enemy's clothes on fire" or "tighten that dude's belt with great force" or "telekinetically throw a cleaver at this guy" or "summon a meteor in the sky that's only targeted in the general direction of this fortress" and call it a day, I'm not sure the third Oath would have had any meaning in-universe at all whatsoever, and the Ashaman scenes would greatly lose their impact. There's definitely no precedence in the books in this regard, too.
 

The point is the purpose. you can't say shooting someone in the head is not using a weapon, albeit it is to achieve something else. same with setting clothes on fire in order to burn him. however, to set his clothes on fire because you are cold would be fine, even though obviously he will be burned as collateral damage. 

similarly, torturing someone with op is fine. as is beating (eg Rand in the box) as a punishment. doing the same thing because you want to hurt them would not be ok. RJ in one interview said beating them because you hate them would not be permitted iirc. 

58 minutes ago, Samt said:

To be clear, when I say wasted, I mean in ways that didn't actually tell the story.  The whole Lan/Moiraine/Alanna plot this season was pretty pointless.  It was clearly put in to use characters/actors that were available rather than to tell the story.  It was generally seen by most commentators I have heard as weak, confusing, and not important to the story.  

book readers or non? 

the horn is there only for mat

I suspect they had Ingtar reveal, and then unfortunately got cut

1 minute ago, ilovezam said:

The Aes Sedai are really weird about using the Power to "educate" with corporal punishment, and apparently that's a-okay according to RJ.

But I guess plausible deniability can only stretch so far, if Moiraine sinks a ferry with its captain on it that's pretty much a level of oath "violation" that we've not seen in the books, which is what Sando ultimately objected to, and Rafe hashed it out with Team Jordan. In the end the scene featured the boat being sucked down into a whirlpool, Moiraine stops channeling, and the silly captain goes to die with it.

 

I'm pretty sure there's a branch of ethics that goes into this. If I fire a gun with it pointed at someone's head after robbing him, but I claim that "I did not intend to kill him, I just wanted to escape - I would have been even happier if I managed to escape while he stayed alive!", is that a plausible defense? A common answer to that question is that we cannot reasonably expect to not have caused harm in so doing, and therefore my initial claim is a huge load of copium that would have been too convenient if allowed.

I think there would be a difference between attacking a person and doing something to an object that affects the person, especially if you would have done exactly the same had the person not been there. 

22 minutes ago, Mirefox said:

I’m thinking of it more from the lore/worldbuilding point of view.  Had all the writers been familiar with the source material I think we might have a better understanding of how things work in this show.

 

Just look at all the debates we’ve had here; they all involve some of there most fundamental and some of the most thoroughly-explained lore.  Saidin/Saidar, warder bonds, a’dam, the dagger, etc.  We’ve all argued to death over them because they haven’t been well-explained and they’ve been inconsistent.

 

I wish the show had been solid enough that what we were all discussing was the color of Rand’s jacket or how big a Two Rivers bow is like the proper nerds we are but we can’t even get past the things that shouldn’t be debatable.  This is where I think a read of the books by the entire writing team could have helped.

nice idea, but all those years ago there were hundred of similar debates about the books. until people asked RJ at book signings or other occasions, and sometimes he answered, and sometimes the answers were satisfactory. I don't think this type of thing can ever be clear even in a book, and def not in a TV show

52 minutes ago, Mailman said:

If she was to know that throwing something with the power would kill someone and she had a choice not to do so then she is aware of the result of her actions and would be unable to do so. You have in effect chosen to make it a weapon via choice. If she had no choice but to defend herself in a certain way that could cause a collateral injury then the intent is not offensive and would be allowed.

 

With the train again the intent would be on saving lives unavoidable collateral damage would not play a part in it. If your intent was however not on saving lives but causing deaths then your intent/belief is different.

 

If you believe someone is a DF then regardless of it actually being true you could strike them down but you must believe it. It cannot be just a lie you tell yourself it must be what you truly believe.

 

not everything that causes injury or death is a weapon. only if it intended to be used in order to cause... 

sinking a ship because Trollocs could use it is the same purpose whether someone is on board or not. neither one is using it as a weapon

26 minutes ago, ilovezam said:

That's the second oath, the one about creating weapons.

 

The relevant one here is the third one:
"Never to use the One Power as a weapon except against Darkfriends or Shadowspawn, or in the last extreme defense of her life, the life of her Warder, or another Aes Sedai"

Brandon Sanderson straight up objected to an initial script where Moiraine channeled and killed that ferryman in Season 1 Episode 2 and had Rafe check with Team Jordan and get it reworked, because of how that would violate this oath.

because he said he is hyper sensitive to the three oaths, not because it is obviously against them. 

I still don't see the point - if your intent is not on causing deaths but on something else then it is OK. therefore if your intent is to disrupt someone else's activity it is fine, even if it is inevitable they will die. that would be indirect albeit inevitable. 

what about the examples I gave? can an AS push something off a cliff because it is ugly, if she knows someone underneath will die. I don't see how that is using as a weapon. 

and it is explicit in New Spring that can be used to torture, so clearly the point is intent and purpose not result. 

I don't have it with me, but acc to Tar Valon library New Spring ch 18 says that you can punish or torture using the OP, as that is not using it as a weapon

10 minutes ago, Mailman said:

I pointed this out before the fact she says i would kill 1000 innocents would imply she is aware of the danger.

aware but not her purpose

like diverting the train knowing it is likely to kill or injure people on board

could she throw something away from her, because it may hurt her (but not kill), knowing it is certain to hit and injure someone else? I think definitely yes. that is not using the power as a weapon

1 hour ago, Mailman said:

Its a weapon because she is using it to attack the ships or the Seachan channelers.

 

There is no ulterior motive involved here. She can't have thought you know what the ships are lacking is some fire I'll give them some I'm sure that what they really need is some fire because they are sitting in all that water.

 

She could try and save the train because thats what she is intending to do.

 

Intent is key.

so if intending to sink the ships, but no interest in whether that harms the people, how is that different? 

or if Siuan blows Lan away, but doesn't care whether that hurts him or not, she is not trying to hurt him, is that a weapon? 

1 hour ago, Mailman said:

Well its a weapon for sure, it's the target of the weapon that is in question. The fact she says she would kill 1000 innocents before launching the attack would indicate that she was aware the weapon would kill people which makes it a large question mark against the oaths.

 

It's questionable if she could even make the statement itself as she knows she is unable to kill an innocent and she is also under the oath to speak no word that is not true. Although she could just be planning on killing them all without the aid of the power i suppose.

 

is something a weapon if it kills people when that was not the purpose, although you knew it would happen?

could an AS divert a runaway train from hitting people, although it may well kill some of the people on board because she did so? 

5 hours ago, ilovezam said:

https://www.brandonsanderson.com/some-thoughts-from-brandon-on-episode-two/

Here's him writing about a little about the Oaths about that episode on his site.

I believe he goes into more detail in a podcast, I'll add it here if I can find it again

Thank you. very interesting. I don't recall seeing this. 

this gets us into the question (which I was thinking re e8 anyway) - is sinking a ship someone is on "using the Power as a weapon" when you would be perfectly happy for them to survive unharmed, you just want the ship gone?

19 minutes ago, Mailman said:

Thats simply not true.

 

When Mat slashes the Seachan soldier in book 2 the man screams and thrashes before turning black he dies quickly but not straight away.

 

When Fain kills the renegade Ash'aman in Far Madding he manages a few steps before falling to the ground with the wound burning and blackening and then he dies.

 

When Rand is slashed by Fain he immediately screams and starts to succumb to the dagger, but he is then immediately attempted to be healed by Cadsuane . This healing fails and he is then immediately healed again by Corele who is considered to be among the very best of the healers among Aes Sedai even with these attempts they say he is still dying. Corele even says that she believes Rand would have died without the first attempt being so quick. It then requires yet another Power induced healing effort from Flinn to stop the wound from killing him and even then it is not actually healed.

 

Thats how the dagger works in the books.

It's also not a bloody light saber in the books.

book 7 sorry. and clear in the book (ch 36) that Rand does not succumb as quickly as others would have, so I don't really see the problem. Rand has to have his two wounds, though he is getting them in the wrong order here. 

The burning thing they took from the Dark friend knife in the stable, which never fit in in the books at all

the insight I found most interesting in the finale was the point Ishy makes that Rand's friends could be driven to the Dark just like he himself and the others were. 

I had never thought of this parallel before. (also referred to by Lan.) 

I know in the books at least once Lews Therin (not Lews I don't like that) thinks how his arrogance drove them away, but I didn't pick up on that as a comparison between the Forsaken and Rand's friends, only between LTT and Rand