Active Users:486 Time:02/05/2025 11:08:04 PM
Elaida, oh no you didn't! malekithe Send a noteboard - 04/12/2010 06:38:22 AM
The oath against using the OP as a weapon should have prevented Elaida or any captive Aes Sedai from showing the Seanchan Travelling.

Elaida KNEW what they would do with Travelling, that they would use it to KILL and there is NO WAY they could have possibly made her believe they were going to use it for benign purposes. You can give a hundred excuses for it, but an Aes Sedai who is still bound by the Three Oaths can NOT channel ANY weave that she thinks could be used to kill someone UNLESS in the last defense of her life. Elaida's life was not in danger. Maybe torture as a damane, yes, but they werent about to kill her so she should not have been able to circumvent the Oath.

Teaching dangerous weaves to other Aes Sedai is NOT the same, as the teacher can truthfully believe that the Novice or Accepted she is teaching will not use it to kill unless she also is threatened in her life. The same rule doesnt apply to the Seanchan. Non BA Aes Sedai should not be able to teach the Seanchan dangerous weaves.

We know for a FACT that Aes Sedai captured already have proven that they COULD NOT form weaves to kill. ie they could not hurl fireballs or earth tremors or whatever, and the Seanchan even commented that they were useless for battle. The same principle should hold for Elaida, her most of all. of the captured Aes Sedai.

I feel like this was written so we could see Elaida again, and to get the Seanchan to use Travelling of course, but there should have been some other way it was done. Maybe in front of Elaida refusing to teach it, an Accepted who saw it done is forced to show it. It just shouldnt have been an Aes Sedai to do it.

This message last edited by malekithe on 04/12/2010 at 06:51:57 AM
Reply to message
Elaida, oh no you didn't! - 04/12/2010 06:38:22 AM 2031 Views
The weave will not directly result in death - 04/12/2010 06:54:20 AM 934 Views
Re: The weave will not directly result in death - 04/12/2010 07:08:50 AM 853 Views
Wrong for two reasons - 04/12/2010 09:10:03 AM 1008 Views
Only two? Usually he's wrong for eight reasons. *NM* - 04/12/2010 09:47:37 AM 454 Views
Go jump in a lake - 05/12/2010 08:32:18 AM 737 Views
I wanted to be polite and mentioned just the major ones *NM* - 05/12/2010 10:44:25 AM 413 Views
Thank you, Voscaia Sedai *NM* - 04/12/2010 08:51:58 PM 358 Views
Re: Wrong for two reasons - 05/12/2010 08:39:02 AM 757 Views
you're forgetting she was collared. - 05/12/2010 09:01:27 AM 646 Views
Re: you're forgetting she was collared. - 05/12/2010 09:08:30 AM 738 Views
uhm, no that's not all you're saying. - 05/12/2010 09:14:47 AM 743 Views
Yeah I am - 05/12/2010 09:17:48 AM 675 Views
no. dude i gave you a direct quote from your own statement. that is not what you said - 05/12/2010 09:20:14 AM 805 Views
Go dude yourself brother. - 05/12/2010 09:27:33 AM 670 Views
wow i just...wow. - 05/12/2010 09:33:41 AM 761 Views
Re: wow i just...wow. - 05/12/2010 09:45:47 AM 738 Views
yes well you genuinely seem to be having a problem comprehending your own statements. - 05/12/2010 09:51:18 AM 616 Views
Well you genuinely seem to be retarded. - 05/12/2010 09:59:19 AM 671 Views
I judge this based off your own reactions to other's statements - 05/12/2010 10:05:58 AM 779 Views
I judge you based on your own statements towards me - 05/12/2010 10:16:18 AM 698 Views
if all you did was disagree with me, we would not be having this discussion. - 05/12/2010 10:25:36 AM 616 Views
This is why I replied the way I did *NM* - 05/12/2010 10:51:54 AM 322 Views
go read the boooks more closely - 05/12/2010 02:34:11 PM 1041 Views
Plain wrong. The weave doesn't kill in itself. - 04/12/2010 02:34:00 PM 833 Views
Wrong - 05/12/2010 08:40:40 AM 664 Views
This - 04/12/2010 12:35:04 PM 696 Views
Seconded "This"^ *NM* - 04/12/2010 07:09:17 PM 323 Views
Thirded "This"^ *NM* - 05/12/2010 10:47:56 AM 369 Views
Re: Fourthed "This"^ *NM* - 05/12/2010 08:08:15 PM 326 Views
yep, he was just trolling I guess *NM* - 05/12/2010 01:58:32 PM 322 Views
the oath is very literal and does not forbid indirectly causing death - 04/12/2010 02:55:13 PM 671 Views
Re: the oath is very literal and does not forbid indirectly causing death - 05/12/2010 08:43:48 AM 735 Views
just because they didn't want to doesn't mean they weren't able. - 05/12/2010 09:07:08 AM 701 Views
Re: just because they didn't want to doesn't mean they weren't able. - 05/12/2010 09:11:28 AM 721 Views
well that would explain how santa is able to make his rounds in one night! *NM* - 05/12/2010 09:13:43 AM 265 Views
Yup, I guess that was what Elaida was thinking *NM* - 05/12/2010 09:15:21 AM 343 Views
It's actually come up in the books themselves - 04/12/2010 03:00:03 PM 815 Views
Re: Elaida, oh no you didn't! - 04/12/2010 03:30:57 PM 739 Views
Elaida could teach them balefire and not break the Oaths. *NM* - 04/12/2010 07:24:55 PM 313 Views
Re: Elaida, oh no you didn't! - 05/12/2010 08:32:50 AM 841 Views
There's another way she could have avoided it - 05/12/2010 11:37:09 AM 641 Views
Re: There's another way she could have avoided it - 05/12/2010 01:51:06 PM 1016 Views
Re: There's another way she could have avoided it - 06/12/2010 01:43:45 PM 639 Views
I disagree - 06/12/2010 02:29:46 PM 695 Views

Reply to Message