Skip to main content

the wheel of time - If an Aes Sedai makes a promise, is she compelled to keep it?


The first of the Three Oaths is to "speak no word that is not true." As such, would someone who is bound by this oath be forced to keep their promises? Moiraine makes plenty of off-hand promises, like "I will destroy you before I let the shadow have you" amongst others.


I guess I want to know whether or not the first oath would make all other oaths sworn after that, whether done on the Oath Rod or not, equally binding.



Answer



Intent is a big part of the Oath.



The intent to deceive is what determines whether a word spoken is "not true". If the speaker believes it to be true, it is considered "true" for the purposes of the Oath. If Moiraine believes that she would destroy Rand before letting the Shadow take him, then her uttering that phrase would be true.


However... circumstances change, and words that were true can cease to be true. This does not seem to conflict with the Oath at all.


If an Aes Sedai said "I'm going to put this egg in the basket in the other room", and then went to find that the basket was no longer there, she has not violated her Oath, nor is she now compelled to Quest to find the basket, put it back in the room, and put that egg in it.


It is entirely possible to say you'll do something under the Oath, and then later change your mind and not do it. There's no way the Oath could operate without allowing for that, otherwise the attrition of Aes Sedai who said they were going to do something that they found they could not, or should not, follow through on would be so great that either they would have modified the Oath, or ceased to exist as an organization.


Formal oaths, however, have a stronger weight, and would be amplified by the Oath sworn on the Rod. Someone swearing "by the Light" or other variations of formal oaths would likely be bound to adhere to the terms of those oaths as best they could, if they were an Aes Sedai who had previously been bound by the Three Oaths.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

languages - Do we ever see written English in the Star Wars films?

In Empire Strikes Back , we see a transcription of what R2's beeps and bloops mean, but it's not English (sorry for the low quality, it's from the 2004 DVDs): I'd assume it's what Basic looks like when written, but is there some point in the the Star Wars films we see written English instead? (This sort of spun off from a discussion in How do people understand astromech droids? .) Answer At one point there was English but it has been phased out in subsequent versions of the films. Chris Gould at DVD Active did a comparison of all versions of each of the Star Wars films, and in his comparison of Episode 4 , there are a couple of screenshots showing how the power gauge for the Death Star tractor beam was changed. I imagine there are probably more to be found in his other comparisons but I haven't got around to reading those yet.

Was the "pure soul" of Harry's what had really hurt Voldemort?

In the Order of the Phoenix, Voldemort possesses Harry, and it hurts. Greatly. I think that Dumbledore explained that it was because Voldemort's rotten soul was incapable of assimilating Harry's pure soul, that Voldemort didn't understand the love and friendship etc that Harry has in his heart. But, I think it was a lie. Remember that in Deathly Hallows, while looking for information regarding Horcruxes, it is discovered that it is in fact possible to merge a soul fragment back, but that the process was extremely painful. Now then, if Voldemort tried to possess Harry, and Harry had a fragment of Voldemort's soul, I think that it could have been the true cause of Voldemort's pain: the fact of having his soul so close of another fragment. I think that Dumbledore knew that fact, but had to lie to Harry because it was inappropriate to let him know that he had one of Voldemort's soul fragments at the moment. Is that right? Or was it truly the pure soul of Harry's...

star wars - What "exactly" happens when someone turns to the Dark Side?

When I saw the original Star Wars saga as a kid, the concept of the Dark Side imprinted in me was quite simple. You did a bad thing, so you're a bad person so you go to the Dark Side and keep doing bad things. Now, obviously this doesn't hold true in reality. In my mind it is perfectly reasonable for Luke to kill the Emperor and Vader and then just flee the Death Star and rejoin the Alliance. After all they are at war, those are enemy officers that have captured him and are taunting him by threatening with death of all loved ones and the whole operation was intended to kill the Emperor anyway. The same would hold true for Anakin. He could have killed Mace Windu to save the Chancellor and Padme but that doesn't mean he's going to then go mad and kill all Jedis including children. It doesn't add up from a merely psychological point of view. He had a set of objectives and that made him want to keep the Chancellor alive (quite valid by the way, Mace Windu is quite clums...

star trek - Warning regarding forward saucer section in Nemesis?

In Star Trek: Nemesis , just before the Enterprise rams into the Scimitar, Picard sends a text message from his captain's chair arm pad to Troi — who is manning the helm in lieu of the crewman who was just blown out through what was once the view screen — indicating that she should put full impulse on standby. (Literally, if you watch the scene closely, Troi's console prefaces the order with "TXT MSG" !) My question is: Did Picard also somehow warn crew members in the forward saucer section about what was about to happen? The ramming of the Scimitar was a heat of the moment decision. Considering that he also resorted to calling the auto-destruct sequence shortly after (which ended up being offline), he probably was of the mindset that any losses would be acceptable in order to hault Shinzon's march to Earth. Still, I'm curious. Answer The original script indicates that he called for the crew to " brace for impact ". Whether that call (or the comma...