Active Users:565 Time:15/10/2025 04:57:06 AM
now you are speculating based on a lack of evidence darius_sedai Send a noteboard - 21/01/2016 10:39:13 PM

View original post
I don't think you can say the Aes Sedai shielding is only male optimized. Nynaeve used a typical AS shield against Moghedien, and Moggy's shield was no different. Nynaeve didn't comment on it. Similarly, no one thought Moggy's shield on Liandrin was different. Only the knot, which was made immensely complex.

Moghedien shielded Nyn in TAR, and she tried to break free and it was a solid wall, no flex reported.


Moghedien's shield never landed on Nynaeve so all we ever saw was that she had an extremely sharp edge to it, as did Nynaeve, but her weaving is a total mystery. Her shield on Liandrin is rather a moot point given the strength difference here, but again, we never saw more than the extremely complex knot she incorporated which speaks more toward skill than anything else. Liandrin's only chance of breaking a shield put in place by someone that much stronger was to pick away the knot. You are assuming that the weave itself was the exact same as the few shields we've seen when it could very well have been of totally different complexity. We have yet another clue from Moghedien herself ... she looks it over and notes that only one of the Forsaken could have escaped her shield, which could imply that the weave itself is of a better quality than the "half trained children" could have managed.

Lanfear's shielding of Asmodean is another hint that shielding was more complex in the AoL ... she managed a partial shield on a man of superior raw strength that held him for months. That goes well beyond an assumption that she used the same weaves as the Aes Sedai to block him from the Source. She also states that his unwillingness to accept pain is why he could not escape, implying there was more to her shield than what we've seen from others. Moghedien escaped Nynaeve's shield in seconds and we all know she doesn't like pain either.

What evidence do you have that shielding was not a result of Aes Sedai searching for effective ways to stop males from destroying the world? We know Aes Sedai did a lot of research around how linking worked as part of stopping mad males, or at least controlling them. Given that Tower law requires a male to be brought to Tar Valon and put on trial, shielding would have been a massively important skill for early Reds to have mastered.

The fact that it also worked on women would have been incidental and what would prompt Aes Sedai to find more effective weaves to block other women. Aside from knowing that there was a lot of politicking in the early days of the Tower and probably more than a few conflicts ending in dead pre-Tower Aes Sedai, there is nothing to suggest Aes Sedai hunted down, shielded and brought to trial women who falsely claimed the Aes Sedai title and even if they did this happened within a very short timeframe so it seems far less likely that women would have spent a lot of time figuring out more effective ways to shield other women. Especially since they were already in large groups and linking was an option.

Domani Drag Queen in the White Tower ... Aran'gar watch out!
Reply to message
Angreal, Sa'angreal and Moiraine at 66 - 11/01/2016 08:53:23 AM 2928 Views
Or we can choose to assume Elayne is incorrect - 11/01/2016 03:50:14 PM 1348 Views
Uhhh... - 12/01/2016 12:07:42 AM 1482 Views
Yet there are problems with either - 15/01/2016 08:52:04 PM 1198 Views
Re: Yet there are problems with either - 16/01/2016 05:29:11 AM 1591 Views
Would you consider... - 17/01/2016 09:06:59 AM 1297 Views
random thought on Shielding - 19/01/2016 07:34:20 PM 1341 Views
You're forgetting the other side, though. - 19/01/2016 08:19:59 PM 1426 Views
yes but it doesn't proactively do this - 19/01/2016 10:06:25 PM 1293 Views
Responding to a shield doesn't require proactiveness - 20/01/2016 05:53:24 AM 1209 Views
it's a visualization thing really - 20/01/2016 04:39:08 PM 1234 Views
Not the crux of the debate... - 21/01/2016 03:37:40 AM 1322 Views
Not really though - 21/01/2016 05:00:34 PM 1080 Views
I always explained it as - 21/01/2016 09:26:35 PM 1339 Views
There's not much to go on since all the shields except Berowyn's are the same - 21/01/2016 09:55:14 PM 1219 Views
That's precisely my point - 21/01/2016 10:09:02 PM 1300 Views
now you are speculating based on a lack of evidence - 21/01/2016 10:39:13 PM 1150 Views
There's actual evidence: - 22/01/2016 06:25:25 AM 1321 Views
what's dense here is that you keep putting in quotes that don't support your position - 22/01/2016 03:28:16 PM 1494 Views
Whoa.. - 22/01/2016 04:24:19 PM 1395 Views
Not at all - 22/01/2016 05:03:50 PM 1353 Views
Wonderful - 22/01/2016 06:30:35 PM 1335 Views
yup that's my argument. that and you're a dick so I'm done with this - 22/01/2016 06:46:23 PM 1149 Views
Re: yup that's my argument. that and you're a dick so I'm done with this - 23/01/2016 02:35:33 PM 1562 Views
Petty much *NM* - 24/01/2016 02:50:32 PM 709 Views
Hmmm.... - 23/01/2016 03:06:15 PM 1540 Views
Let me clear this up - 25/01/2016 04:19:51 PM 1577 Views
Some more quotes - 25/01/2016 05:10:51 PM 1334 Views
none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 25/01/2016 07:19:48 PM 1675 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 03:45:52 AM 1331 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 09:00:55 AM 1639 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 10:39:49 AM 1314 Views
from the very beginning of this conversation I've been saying I'm theorizing - 26/01/2016 04:09:19 PM 1219 Views
Oh well then I agree with you - 26/01/2016 08:50:55 AM 1528 Views
thanks - 26/01/2016 04:26:46 PM 1567 Views
Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 16/01/2016 08:56:15 AM 1141 Views
But additive doesn't explain buffers and being able to overdraw - 16/01/2016 03:02:33 PM 1192 Views
Don't those two facts explain each other? - 16/01/2016 03:24:44 PM 1198 Views
It actually seems counterintuitive to me - 19/01/2016 07:15:37 PM 1137 Views
Simple - 19/01/2016 08:21:11 PM 1261 Views
Not at all - 19/01/2016 10:17:39 PM 1066 Views
Huh? - 20/01/2016 06:01:04 AM 1321 Views
agree to disagree I suppose ... I don't see it this way *NM* - 20/01/2016 04:41:16 PM 693 Views
I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. *NM* - 21/01/2016 12:01:16 AM 658 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 02:07:21 AM 1163 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 03:32:59 AM 1220 Views
I don't necessarily think that's true - 21/01/2016 05:07:40 PM 1270 Views
I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:01:17 PM 1236 Views
Re: I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:16:16 PM 1206 Views
Uhhh... - 22/01/2016 06:51:11 AM 1336 Views
Funny, I just saw this post - 17/09/2016 11:13:09 PM 1083 Views
The very first chapter (the Prologue) disproves this - 03/10/2016 06:56:28 AM 1105 Views
No it doesn't - 05/10/2016 12:47:03 AM 1010 Views
Re: Don't those two facts explain each other? - 08/10/2016 05:06:53 AM 997 Views
Re: Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 08/10/2016 04:52:06 AM 1161 Views

Reply to Message