Jump to content




  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Hagazussa

  • Birthday 02/23/1982
  1. Well paying homage to Jordan, no, it is clear from Goodkind's words that he never respected Jordan in the least, that do not make him a ripoff though. The rest of the above I agree with completely. I disagree with you, I do not find the quotes telling, not if you have read any of the quotes by Goodkind on other things, the man is a first grade A hole and will speak derogatory about anyone, that do not mean he have stolen ideas from them, and also have a look at the Fremen and the Aiel for example, they have the exact same concept and the way they react to Rand/Paul is also exactly the same, that is much closer to one another than anything in SoT and WoT. Yeah however I tend to read the books and make up my own opinion instead of listening to what the critics say and I do not really see that either, yes there are superficial similarities between Shannara and Lord of the Rrings, but it is not an ripoff, it is just that Shannara is so very, very generic, it is the fantasy version of plain sponge cake, it is bound to resemble any other cake out there since it is so generic. I think Goodkind is a pretty good author, I really enjoy his books, well when he do not go on political rants, but the first seven or so books of Sword of Truth are excellent. To me however this rage from both camps seam a bit like the Sega/Nintendo fan was of the 1980s and 1990s to me, both series where in competition for a while, they deal with similar themes and basically while WoT have always have a foot ahead the situation is rather similar and just like with such console arguments there where fan rage on both sides. I agree, however I think the problem is the number of similar elements. The series the Banned and the Banished have gender separated magick which is an energy system and the main character is the reincarnation of some legendary mage and is destined to save the world, but everything else in the series is very different, so even if it have those two elements that do not make it to similar to WoT for example, The Riftwar Saga have the characters world invaded by an Ancient China inspired Empire in strange, brightly painted armor, but everything else is different, and so on and so on, all of these things taken by themselves can be coincidence but when to many elements are exactly the same then the work get to be very similar. I think it is the quantity people react to more than single elements, as the single elements are usually rather generic parts of fantasy literature. However I still do not think this makes Sword of Truth a ripoff of WoT.
  2. I look at it this way, look at a garden hose, the hose itself is always there but sometimes you turn it on and then water will flow through the hose, and then you have the neighbors little shit of a kid who comes and tie a knot on the hose and that would be like a shield, however the hose is still there even when it is not in use. Basically channelers in WoT have a connection to the Source and that is always there, unless something tragic happens to them, and this is what they use to shape weaves and see others channel and so on, there is allot of things a channeler can do even when not actively channeling. I mean if they where only connected to the Source when actively channeling then an a'dam for example would not be very useful for then they could take it right off when not channeling. Channelers are a little different from mundanes when when not using their powers. Channelers can even feel this appendix that Whizbang so eloquently put it, if a weave get cut, fails or is interrupted they feel a recoil which can be shocking or painful, damage to their connection is extremely painful and several places it is mentioned a channeler feeling their connection, it is like if they have a non physical part of their bodies which makes them what they are.
  3. I have never liked Goodkind as a person, I will not go so far as to say that someone I have never met is a horrible human being, but I can say that from what I know of him he is not a person that I like, however I do not buy books based on how much I like the personality, ethics, political views or anything else about the author, I buy books based on whatever or not I enjoy them. Clearly mocking someone who is dying id despicable, that do not change the quality of someone's books. Now I am not saying that there are not similarities between WoT and SoT however I do not agree that the overall stories are similar they are not more similar than most stories in the same genre, some elements have a striking similarity yes, we all know the Sisters of the Light is Aes Sedai with the serial numbers filed of, however the similarities between SoT and WoT are less obvious than between WoT and Dune and none of it is so similar as to call it a ripoff, that something is similar do not make it a ripoff, even if you do not like the author who have written it.
  4. Well hope he do not decide to take a spaceship and go visit the WoT world before the end of book nine then for he is the male of his species. :P
  5. Well when Nyn had just healed Logain she shields him and from her point of view she describes feeling like a growing pressure or presence behind that shield, my guess and this is only a guess is that it is the ability to channel itself which is used to break a shield, after all a channeler is always connected to the Source it is just that when shielded they are prevented from actually drawing anything though that connection so my guess is that they use the connection itself, like a spiritual muscle to break a shield.
  6. I am a fan of both Wheel of Time and Sword of Truth in fact they are my two favorite fantasy series and while I like WoT better I do not agree that SoT is bad, however my point with this post is not to argue for the quality of SoT as whatever or not one like a book series is rather subjective. Now to the topic at hand. Yes I can clearly see some similarities between SoT and WoT but many of those similarities are generic to most fantasy of it's type. I have seen it mentioned in this thread the idea of a young nobody who is taken from home by a magickal person, get attacked by strange creatures, learn magic and have a destiny to fight evil, but really this set up is a part of at least 70 percent of all fantasy series I have ever read, are you saying they are all ripping off WoT? And it is not only books, look at for example Star Wars that have the exact same set up, Luke is the nephew of a farmer who have raised him as a son and he gets taken away by a magickal person, get to learn magic and have a destiny to defeat evil. You might as well say that one architect is ripping of another if he to uses four walls and a roof as the ground design for the building. Also if you look at it Lord of the Rings did this as well and that series was published a long time before Wheel of Time, the only difference is that Frodo never learns magic, though he do get several magical items that he uses through the story. Also as for being attacked by strange creatures, the Ringwraiths in Lord of the Rings are much closer to Fades in Wheel of Time that the Gar that attacks Richard near his home in Wizard's First Rule is. Now it is also mentioned that both series have a big bad evil force for the main character to fight against, well this is also very common in most epic high fantasy series, Lord of the Rings have Sauron for example. You can not say that a series that have a big bad evil entity is ripping of WoT since so many series have had that, long before WoT was even published, I mean the idea of man fighting against what is essentially the Devil is something that have been used since mankind first started telling stories, this is not unique to Wheel of Time. Also we have to look at the role of said evil force in the stories, in WoT the main core of the story is that the main character is to fight this being, in SoT the Keeper is sort of just there, sure he do get involved and his agents create trouble, but the main focus is on Richard fighting human beings and trying to bring his idea of justice to the world, both have a Devil like creature as an antagonist yes, but the role of said creature is very different withing the setting. Now prophecy, magic swords, adoptive parents, a magic that have been lost for X number of long times that is not rediscovered, all of this are common elements in high fantasy and are not unique to WoT. Now I once heard similar arguments fro some WoT fans that Eragon is a ripof of WoT since it have an protagonist who is a farmer's son, is destined to save the world, learns magic and oh yes there is dragons and I said but you are basically describing about every high fantasy story out there. WoT do not own the idea of the young nobody who learns magic and saves the world, that archetype have been around far longer than the Wheel of Time series and I do recommend anyone who thinks otherwise to check out A hero with a thousand faces by Joseph Cambell. Now are there some similarities between WoT and SoT however which is not that generic, the idea of gender separated magic, though not unique to WoT is definitely one such thing. However even when there are very similar concepts like for example male channelers vs male confessors the way this is used in the two settings are very different. In WoT the taint on saidin is used as something for the main character to overcome for himself and for others, for SoT there are no male confessor characters, it is rather used as a tragedy to hold over the main character's heads as thee is a prophecy that if they ever have a child it will be a son and then they will be left with a choice, kill this baby or watch him wreck havoc on the world. Now even if male confessors was inspired by male channelers they are so differently used that you can not say they are a ripof. Now as for the Sisters of the Light, yes they are very similar to Aes Sedai...very similar and I agree that that I think Terry Goodkind have gotten the idea from WoT or he might have gotten the idea from Dune which also have a very similar all female order of magic users. In fact one thing that annoy me just a little bit about this thread is that Terry Goodkind is ragged on allot for potentially getting some ideas from WoT and then changing them around quite allot for his own setting, while it is quite okey that Jordan took quite a bit of things from Dune, in fact Dune and WoT are allot more similar than WoT and SoT is. Now my opinion however is that it do not matter if an author have gotten an idea from another work of fiction and then have something similar in his or her own work as long as it is changed around enough to not be a direct ripof and really the Sisters of the Light is the only things that I would consider to be a ripof of sorts from WoT, the rest of the similarities is of the sort that I can nod and say, oh that must have been inspired by WoT, but it is so different as well that it is definitely it's own thing, inspired by is not the same as a rip of. So a'dam and rada'han, yes the rada'han is a rip of, even the name sound similar, that wizards and sorceresses have problems learning from one another is not a ripoff of WoT however, it can be inspired by it, but the magic system and everything around is so different that here we are talking about either coincidence or being inspired by WoT not ripping it of. Now as for Seanchan vs the Order, I do not see the similarities there really other than that they are both empires that want to take over the world. I mean you can not say that since WoT have used this concept no other fantasy can ever use it again, in fact the empire in The Riftwar Saga is much more similar to Seanchan than the Order in SoT is I do not see anyone screaming ripoff there. Yes there are similarities between Sword of Truth and Wheel of Time, but I think that is more that they are of the same genre, there are similarities between most epic high fantasy series. it is the same that there are allot of similarity between CSI and Criminal Minds as they are the same kind of show, that do not mean that one of the ripoff the other, and if one get an idea from some other source of fiction, like I said I see no problem with that as long as it is changed enough to not be a complete copy and for the most part this is the case with SoT.
  7. Sorry for going off topic Barid. Thrasymachus, would you like to continue the debate in the off topic section, if so could you make a thread and just send me a PM about it? And if not then I thank you for the debate, it have been interesting.
  8. Really and how are my moral relativism defeated by my above statement? Now having limitations on body and physical condition do not limit free will, it can limit our ability to act on said will, but it do not limit the will itself. First of all here you are wrong according to your own moral system, you say the highest crime is to force one's will upon another, but that is what you do when you say someone can not be allowed to choose to be a slave if they want to simply because against your moral system. That being said, no the highest wrong is not to impose one's will on another, there is no universal highest wrong, it is wrong in my moral system, but it might not be in yours, there is no contradiction, only a limit in either your ability to understand or my ability to explain. First off all people do wrong that they know is wrong according to their own morals all the times, the husband who cheats on his wife just because he want to, falling for the temptation to download a movie you want to see on pirate bay even if you are against piracy and so on. Yes many justify immoral actions to themselves, but there is no universal law that say all do. Very many do not. Also no, if I hit someone in the face and I did so by a mistake then I would not try to explain it past it being a mistake based on wrong information or other factors, and if I did it knowing it was wrong then certainly there would be no need for explanations. You seam to mix together the tendency for human beings to justify their actions with it being some sort of universal rule that we all do, and are incapable of going against our morals unless some justification is present, which is a just plain a wrong assumption. If I hit someone because I could not think straight then that would be the reason for my action, that do not mean someone can not just decide to do wrong. Now thinking straight is not needed to make an action based on will, your will is always there, you will to hit the other person, what you lack when you make such a decision in anger or confusion is good judgment and the calm to make an informed decision, but it still your will to hit the man, though Aleister Crowley might argue you are not using your true will if influenced by emotion, but off course that is another debate entirely. First of all to answer this we need to clarify what the term evil is to mean for this debate for it is a rather fuzzy concept, but as a base comment I do not agree with you here, many choose to do what go against their moral system, knowing full well that it go against said morals. So you are saying no one ever cheat on their spouse, ever take a life or ever steal knowing it is wrong according to their moral system? I think there is plenty of evidence in all from interviews with criminals one can read to the impulses we all deal with every day to prove that statement to be false. Very often people justify their actions to themselves, but very often do not make it a universal, unbreakable law. I know I have done things knowing they where wrong according to my morals and doing it anyway with no justification and many people do this, you have taken something that is often done and made it into a universal law and that just do not work. No this is just plain incorrect, yes this is a common reaction, but not a universal one. Many people act on things they know is wrong for the simple reason that they will it. I am a honest person but when I was a little girl I stole a toy from a toy shop for example, knowing full well it was wrong and with no justification, I wanted the toy and I took it. Later I regretted my action and went back to the shop and paid for the toy, but that is beside the point, I acted wrong, knowing it was wrong as people often do.
  9. This is not the personal morality I would have chosen but if it is right for you I see no problem with it as long as the things you choose to do is not wrong according to my own morality and affect me or others, then we might have a problem, not because your actions are evil or wrong according to some universal concept of good and evil, but because your will have imposed itself on my will and I personally have a problem with that, if that do not happen however do enjoy.
  10. Off course things without free will can not be moral or immoral, the problem here is that you think it work the other way as well, that one can not have free will unless one is moral which is wrong. Free will allow us to choose morality, but morality is not needed to have free will. It is like this, you need intellect to make tools, but you do not need tools to have intellect. Also the moral system someone chooses with their free will, might not be the same as the one you choose with yours, there is no universal morality, good and evil, right and wrong is made up concepts that beings with free will can choose to adhere to or not, and one do not have any less free will if one choses another set of morals than the ones you have decided are right for you. So you are seriously claiming that a person can not choose to go against their morals, if they do then it is not free will, so if I choose to visit my old family friend in the nursing home and bring her flowers that is free will, but if I choose to hit someone in the face it is not? Then tell me, if only in you opinion good choices are driven by free will, how do a person decide to do evil? I have made many choices in my life that I have known to be the wrong choices when I make them, but I have still done those things as I either wanted to or because I felt they where the best possible choice at the time. Free will include the option to choose to do bad. Yes that is correct, however to be correct is not needed in order to have free will. Also in many cases there is no direct right or wrong. I mean look at the question about gay marriage, many Christians feel it is immoral, as someone who is bisexual I feel that they are wrong, however in moral discussions like that it is not so easy to sit and say I am right and you are wrong, for it really all boil down to opinion. The world is not black and white, right and wrong, good and evil, it is a million shades of gray in between those extremes. And here is the fundamental part where we disagree. I think that you should not accept morality given to you by others, you should use your free will and shape and form your own. You assume that there is an ultimate right and and ultimate wrong, I say there is no such thing, only opinion and the concepts our intellect forms. I say we as individuals decide what is right and wrong for ourselves, not others around us, or ultimately right and wrong are just concepts, and they are concepts we have to choose to adhere to or not. Oh I say 3 in response to the question of what is one plus one quite often when I discuss the more esoteric concepts of the nature of reality with other occultists, doing so in this debate however serves no purpose therefore I choose not to do so, whatever or not it is wrong have nothing to do it it, it would not serve my purpose to do such a thing. I am sitting in the sofa and eating a bag of popcorn, should I do that`No I am overweight I should eat something healthy that would be best for me, but I choose to eat the popcorn since it is my will to do so. Now yes sometimes passion, ignorance strong desires and so on influence or actions for good or ill, and part of our jobs as human beings is to identify these factors that influence us but also to accept them, for they are part of being human, and even if one react in passion one do still act with will, one do not however usually act with to much consideration and intellect. You have your own answer, computers have intellect but no will since they only do what they are programmed to do, they can not deviate from this so they do not have free will, we as human beings can deviate from what we are told, what we have learned and what outside stimuli tell us, we can use our intellect to guide our decisions, but we have free will to decide for ourselves, human beings have intellect with will, a computer have intellect, or at least some kinds of intellect, but not consciousness and not will.
  11. And I would say the same about you. You mix morality and free will into a mess that really say nothing. Free will and morality have nothing to do with one another, they are two different concepts. Actually no it is not the same kind of error, making a logical and mathematical error is not the same as going against one's morality and committing murder. Morality is not a simple thing that can be quantified as easily as you seam to think. Also again this have nothing to do with free will, it have to do with the concept of morality and the two are different concepts, one can be the most immoral bastard in the world and have free will, the only link between free will and morality is that one can use one's free will to choose what morality one want to follow. No intelligence is. True, one can be prevented from acting on one's own free will that do not prevent one from having that freedom. Free will is the ability to think for one self and make decisions for oneself regardless of the influence of others, including concepts such as morality, unless one choose to let these concepts affect one's decisions.
  12. I do not think right and wrong exist outside of individuals and individual societies, right and wrong, good and evil are concepts of the mind, they are not universal truths, we as human beings created these concepts, they exist only as long as we believe in them, and as such in a society that do not believe in them they do not apply. Now off course things you do can be wrong, it can be wrong to your personal morality, and the morality of your society, but I do not think that anything is universally wrong. I am saying that nothing someone do to themselves as long as it do not harm anybody else is morally wrong, that do not make harming oneself for example a good thing in my eyes, but it is not something morality wrong that society have a right to condemn. What I separate between is a bad choice, and a morally wrong choice. Yes I do not think a teenager should cut themselves, I think it would be better for any who have such desires to seek psychiatric help, the same for a rape victim that do things that harm herself to deal with what she have been through, but that do not mean I think these things are morally wrong. I think that everyone have a right to do with their lives as they want, and no once have the right to judge what another person do with themselves as long as it do not harm others, now one can advice, think some choices are stupid or wish they did not make choices that is bad for them, but ultimately as long as a person is of a sane mind and adult enough to choose for themselves, then their choices, even when harmful ones is not morally wrong. I think that if a person want slavery, I am not saying that anyone would, but if they do want it off their own free will then it is nothing wrong with it, I am however saying that to make someone a slave against their will is wrong in a million different ways according to my personal morality. So being free in your mind is being restricted? I respectfully think you misunderstand the difference between restriction and responsibility. To have free will mean to be completely free to act according to one's will and choices but at the same time accept fully the consequences of said choices. Free will is not to follow the pre set assumptions of others as to what is right or wrong and what one should do or should not do, but to form one's own opinion on the matter and act in accordance with those opinions, and then accept the consequences for those choices good or bad. The treatment of what we eat have nothing to do with freedom, it have to do with kindness. How we treat others, animals or other human beings are not a factor in whatever or not we are free, freedom is about the ability to think and act for ourselves and be responsible for our actions. Now don't get me wrong, I think kindness is a wonderful quality that I applaud, but it's presence or absence have nothing to do with freedom. I think again that you misunderstand the difference between moral awareness and freedom. To be one self and live in accordance to one's nature and in accordance with one's own will that is freedom, and as such a lion is usually far more free then most human beings. Now when it comes to the treatment of cattle, most Western nations have standards for how food animals is to be killed, but often the laws concerning how they are kept are rather lacking so how kind humans are with our food animals, that vary allot. Also if I had to choose I would rather be a gazelle free to run with my pack and live a life of freedom on the great plains and then meet my ends at the jaws of a lion then to be a cow that spend my life in a tiny space before I am shipped on in a trailer where I stand like fish in a barrel with other cows and then be shot in the head, even if that death might be a little less painful, I would rather have a painful death after a full life than a painless death after a life in captivity.
  13. If one is going to have true freedom, one have to have the freedom to do anything with one's life, including giving it up or giving up freedom. If someone truly want to be a slave, then it would demean a person's individual rights to choose for themselves far more to deny them to give up their freedom than for them to do it. Is it freedom if rights you do not want is forced on you? I disagree with this strongly. It is not slavery in an off itself which is immoral, thee is nothing immortal in owning a willing slave, it is taking someone against their will which is wrong. If a person truly want to be a slave and give their individual rights up to another, that demean no one, it is making a choice, it do not demean the one that would then own said willing slave as he or she do nothing against anyone who have not consented to it. If one is going to have freedom one have to have the right to give that freedom up, or it is not freedom, just as if one is going to have full ownership of one's life one have to have the right to set oneself in danger or even die. I discussed with someone on another forum a little while ago whatever or not I think Russian rullet should be legal and I say yes it should, personally I think it is absolutely stupid to play with one's life like that, but as long as no one is forced into anything I do not think anyone have the right to say what another person can or can not do with their lives. I do not mean to be rude here but your comment above seam a bit like protecting people from themselves which is something I am completely against, also I do not think it is right to sit and say what would demean others. It is like with prostitution, yes for those who do not want to be in that situation it is horrible and they definitely should be helped out of it, but there are also many who like working as prostitutes and who are proud of their jobs and they also tend to get it thrown at them from well meaning people that poor you, you demean yourself, we should have laws preventing you from doing what we feel is wrong for you. I instead think that as long as everyone involved are willing and consenting and have been given the chance to make an informed decision then no one have a right to judge that decision no matter what it is as long as it do not harm others. So we should have free will, but only be free to choose what the norm consider to be good life choices? There is nothing proven about a universal morality, yes many have written about it and there are quite a few theories out there, but the fact remain that other than a very few points various cultures have had various views on what is moral and what is not. You know I get this allot since me and my hubby is a part of the poly culture, as in we are open for having more than one partner in our relationship. Constantly we are told about how demeaning and horribly immoral it would be if I or my hubby found another partner and we all had a relationship together, and I reply to those that say so, who do we hurt? I do not believe in a universal morality, but if there is one it is about harming others, doing things that the wast majority consider to be bad for you do not harm anyone but possibly yourself and as such is not immoral. What would be immoral about saying I want to be a slave, I have taken an informed decision that I as an individual want this for myself, such a decision do not harm anyone as as such is not immoral. Now perhaps we should move this debate into the off topic section as we have sort of moved away from discussing the relationship between sul'dam and damane and into a debate about personal freedom, morality and what that means which is a bit of a derailing of the thread. It is an interesting topic though.
  14. I can not remember any other than touch being used when it comes to giving damane sensations through the a'dam either but I could have missed something. I do not know about killing the damane through the a'dam, as far as I know that is never mentioned, but if there is no limit to how much pain can be given through the collar then off course that will eventually be fatal. I can not remember any limit being mentioned but I wanted to ask here to see if I had missed something. Thank you both for the replies.
  • Create New...