Active Users:317 Time:15/05/2024 01:41:51 PM
Unlikely.... DomA Send a noteboard - 23/01/2013 08:29:59 PM
Be'lal was a lawyer who switched to the Shadow before Demandred (who was the last meaningful close ally of LTT to do so, mid-war), and we know Callandor was built late in the WOS when the industrial capabilities had already been seriously undermined. This isn't some AS corrupted knowledge, the explanation comes from a Jordan Q&A.

It seems unlikely Be'lal had any aptitude with *angreal, or he would have made a career of that.

We don't have much to go by... san'angreal seem to be a more complex form of angreal. They quite possibly start from a Seed too, perhaps require a circle where an angreal is made by a single person, weakening his/her ability for months. Going from RJ's partial clues, the making of a san'angreal also require some more hi-tech procedure than filling a Seed for months, one for which the AS barely had the capabilities by the end of the war.

It seems likely one of the Chosen managed to sabotage Callandor during its making, but there's no good reason to believe it was Be'lal and not a specialist of *angreal whose little secret died with him without any of the thirteen ever learning of it. There were literally hundreds of thousand Chosen in the AOL - half the Aes Sedai had joined their ranks.

47 Chosen were ever given "officially" the use of the True Power, at least as far as Moghedien knows. That doesn't count for much when you know tons more Chosen might have been granted the same secretly by the DO, for all we know.
This message last edited by DomA on 23/01/2013 at 08:31:28 PM
Reply to message
Be'lal and Callandor? - 23/01/2013 07:09:03 PM 1447 Views
Unlikely.... - 23/01/2013 08:29:59 PM 823 Views
actually - 23/01/2013 10:48:01 PM 978 Views
Re: actually - 23/01/2013 10:58:26 PM 759 Views
It's very possible - 24/01/2013 05:28:53 AM 966 Views
I think your number is wrong there, but I also don't see any of it diminishing the premise - 23/01/2013 10:59:35 PM 936 Views
Re: I think your number is wrong there, but I also don't see any of it diminishing the premise - 23/01/2013 11:20:18 PM 700 Views
You seem to be avoiding the actual matter at hand - 24/01/2013 12:46:08 AM 762 Views
Yes I did - 24/01/2013 12:52:51 AM 753 Views
So, returning to it... - 24/01/2013 01:49:09 AM 766 Views

Reply to Message