Active Users:1480 Time:31/10/2025 04:10:50 AM
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. Datakim Send a noteboard - 07/01/2010 12:56:26 AM

Well, same to you. If Robert Jordan meant a single weave of balefire, why did he not say that? He did not say that a hundred thousand people were killed in a single weave. Or a single blast. Or during a single day. Those are NOT the words he used. What he said, is "one go", which to me suggests a momentary instant.


I would say that "one go" is closer to what I think. But whatever. I don't think we are going to agree, and sadly there is no way to ask RJ what he meant exactly.

I would ask BS but there are no signings or opportunities for that where I live.


But there is no reason to believe this can be done, except to satisfy an inconsistency that exists only if you choose to interpret RJ's word in a way that creates an inconsistency in the first place. Far simpler simnply to interpret his words in a way that is consistent, and therefore does not need the introduction of a never before hinted at and unfounded mechanism simply to justify it.


It creates a logical flaw to me if it cannot be done.

We know that Rand had lots of LTT knowledge and would know about balefire and how much damage the pattern can take. He even says it to Cadsuane.

We know that Rand did not want to destroy the pattern yet, he was still gunning for victory.

So why would he have balefired Graendal with a blast sufficient to destroy the world.


Read Rand's battle with Rahvin again, there is no way you will convince me that Rand was holding back. And if he learned in between the two, you'd think it would get mentioned somewhere.


Ofcourse he was not holding back. I never argued that. What I suggest that there is a way to widen the beam. No reason for that here though since Rand knew exactly where Rahvin was. He could see him illuminated in Nynaeves fire. I don't understand what Rahvin scene has to do with anything?

Mentioned like all the other things Rand got from LTT? There are constant mentions of Rand suddenly knowing advanced stuff as memories pass to him from LTT. When did he learn the traveling trick for instance. Or when did he know how to unweave compulsion. None of those are mentioned, and yet Rand learned them somewhere. Learning a technique to better control balefire from LTT could be no different.



It says both sides agreed to stop using it. You cannot stop doing something you are not doing.


Umm. Clarify? Both sides were using it. Both sides wiped out cities. The damage became too much and the pattern began to unravel. People realised what was going on and stopped. Thats how I think it might have happened.


Could be, but that seems ridiculously inefficient. We know for a fact that the Light at least tried to defend its territories, so why would they simply not balefire the attacking channelers rather than balefire some unrelated city? Or are you suggesting that there was never any channelers in the attacked city and that the Light simply went around annihilating entire defenseless cities?


Ok. I admit in all likelyhood, the city annihilation was done mostly by the shadow. Unless the light knew that the city was composed entirely of trollocs with no civilians for instance. I could see them annihilating a city then.

Maybe there was an empty city with millions of trollocs eating dead bodies, and the light took the opportunity to take em out in a single blow.


No, rather imagine a densely populated city. Then imagine two armies shooting bars of balefire at each other through that city. Damage becomes catastrophic in no time.


Well, First of all, have we ever seen a balefire stream kilometers long. No.

Second. Why would they wave around these balefire bars rather than just blowing up the city in an easier, faster and more traditional way.

Do you agree that a circle of 72 channelers armed with the angreal and sa'angrel that AoLers had available, could have destroyed a city by, for example, creating a massive explosion at the center.

Why would they have ever used balefire if it was all slow and cumbersome like you suggest, rather than even quicker and deadlier than the huge megaton explosion, which is what I suggest.




No I didn't. I would never have considered this evidence if you hadn't told me. Even if you were correct, this wouldn't even support your cause. All the existence of this hypothetical city-destroying beam of balefire would prove is the existence of a city-destroying beam of balefire.


Not exactly.

While the balefire argument has taken a life of its own, my original idea was that Rand, not wanting to destroy the pattern, was carefull with his balefire, creating a wider stream to take out the entire palace yes, but keeping the burning back time weak to miminize the damage as much as he could. And that the damage to the pattern was not catastrophic.

If the width of the beam is solely dependent on the power behind the beam, then to create a city-destroying beam of balefire would require more power than AoLers had available, even with links of 72. We can figure this from the fact that even Rand&Angreal could only create a 1 meter thick beam at his most powerfull.

So, if it is possible to create a wide but weak beam to destroy a city, then thats probably also what Rand did Graendals palace since he did not want to destroy the world. And 300 people being burned back only a little, while obviously damaging, would be nothing compared to a HUNDRED THOUSAND being burned.

So essentially. If it is not possible to control the beam(your view), in order to wipe out the entire palace in one go, Rand pumped a huge amound of power into the balefire, burning Graendal and the zombies back days or weeks, causing really serious damage. This would make this a rather evil and psychotic act. My original argument would be incorrect then. Rand should have let Graendal go, even knowing what harm she would continue to do, rather than cause that much damage.

If on the other hand it is possible to control the beam, then Rand was probably carefull, and the damage was not all the significant. In this case the price of removing Graendal from the playing field was probably worth it in the long run and Rand was right.
Reply to message
Rand the psycho? - 06/01/2010 02:53:30 AM 1701 Views
I cannot follow your assumptions. - 06/01/2010 04:07:33 AM 1108 Views
On Balefire - 06/01/2010 04:43:18 AM 1104 Views
Good point - 06/01/2010 05:04:26 AM 1131 Views
On the nature of BaleFire - 06/01/2010 03:32:25 PM 1029 Views
Re: I cannot follow your assumptions. - 06/01/2010 04:59:12 AM 928 Views
Wait! - 06/01/2010 05:10:33 AM 1044 Views
Re: Wait! - 06/01/2010 05:20:02 AM 953 Views
Re: Wait! - 06/01/2010 05:58:00 AM 941 Views
Re: Wait! - 06/01/2010 11:46:13 AM 883 Views
Re: Wait! - 06/01/2010 03:55:01 PM 895 Views
I disagree - 06/01/2010 05:42:44 PM 848 Views
Re: I disagree - 06/01/2010 06:41:08 PM 883 Views
Re: I disagree - 07/01/2010 04:42:40 AM 872 Views
I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 06/01/2010 07:30:56 AM 1001 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 06/01/2010 03:32:24 PM 904 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 06/01/2010 09:52:47 PM 978 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 06/01/2010 11:19:56 PM 908 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 07/01/2010 12:21:50 AM 964 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 07/01/2010 12:56:26 AM 900 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 07/01/2010 01:46:16 AM 960 Views
I agree with Templar - 09/01/2010 04:36:20 PM 870 Views
Re: I cannot follow your assumptions. - 06/01/2010 07:57:54 AM 992 Views
Rand crossed a line - 06/01/2010 02:36:42 PM 1000 Views
Re: Rand crossed a line - 06/01/2010 04:16:12 PM 940 Views
But... - 06/01/2010 04:34:02 PM 1029 Views
Re: But... - 06/01/2010 06:14:25 PM 835 Views
Doesn't Balefire remove your thread from the Pattern permanently? - 06/01/2010 02:55:38 PM 979 Views
No, RJ stated balefired people can be reborn. *NM* - 06/01/2010 03:26:00 PM 476 Views
But not in this turning of the Wheel. So they'd miss out on MANY lifetimes. - 06/01/2010 05:46:04 PM 908 Views
What? - 06/01/2010 06:20:56 PM 922 Views
Where did you get that? - 06/01/2010 07:09:38 PM 873 Views
No, balefire just kills you backwards in time. It is not super-death. *NM* - 06/01/2010 09:58:18 PM 492 Views
LOL ... super-death! - 06/01/2010 11:59:31 PM 844 Views
Hah! *NM* - 07/01/2010 12:06:07 AM 486 Views
It makes me think of History of the World Part 1 - 07/01/2010 12:53:20 AM 864 Views
It makes me think of History of the World Part 1 - 07/01/2010 12:53:33 AM 832 Views
Yes it was. - 06/01/2010 06:51:15 PM 979 Views
Re: Yes it was. - 06/01/2010 07:16:14 PM 902 Views
Re: Yes it was. - 06/01/2010 08:58:40 PM 928 Views
Re: Yes it was. - 06/01/2010 10:47:11 PM 929 Views
let me ask the question in a different way - 06/01/2010 11:26:43 PM 919 Views
Re: let me ask the question in a different way - 06/01/2010 11:40:56 PM 914 Views
actually that quote supports my thoughts - 06/01/2010 11:50:40 PM 960 Views
Re: actually that quote supports my thoughts - 07/01/2010 12:10:07 AM 867 Views
Meh. I just think advocating mass-murder is the opposite direction RJ meant for this to take. - 07/01/2010 12:00:44 AM 982 Views
Sigh. What mass murder? - 07/01/2010 12:15:01 AM 816 Views
you are kidding right? - 07/01/2010 12:19:58 AM 922 Views
In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 03:14:32 PM 883 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 03:57:43 PM 908 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 07:13:21 PM 919 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 07:52:24 PM 857 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 08:56:43 PM 939 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 09:26:01 PM 876 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 09:30:45 PM 810 Views
Personally I'm kind of sick of Rand being the only person killing FS! - 07/01/2010 09:42:57 PM 977 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 09:56:02 PM 925 Views
OK I'm sorry but this gets a huge ROFL :lol: - 07/01/2010 10:30:19 PM 924 Views
Re: OK I'm sorry but this gets a huge ROFL :lol: - 08/01/2010 01:53:25 PM 874 Views
Re: OK I'm sorry but this gets a huge ROFL :lol: - 08/01/2010 02:56:41 PM 908 Views
What might work... - 08/01/2010 12:35:17 PM 818 Views
Re: What might work... - 08/01/2010 11:38:09 PM 836 Views
Yes. Anakin Skywalker all over again - 06/01/2010 11:01:02 PM 1000 Views
Meh - 06/01/2010 11:30:24 PM 838 Views
The worst part about his atrocities is his rationalizing them! - 06/01/2010 11:33:32 PM 840 Views
Re: The worst part about his atrocities is his rationalizing them! - 06/01/2010 11:50:37 PM 928 Views
Re: The worst part about his atrocities is his rationalizing them! - 06/01/2010 11:55:03 PM 894 Views
I do have to guiltily say, though, that if Rand had balefired the Seanchan and THEN became good... - 07/01/2010 12:03:20 AM 906 Views
*laughs behind hand* - 07/01/2010 12:05:54 AM 966 Views
Re: The worst part about his atrocities is his rationalizing them! - 07/01/2010 12:23:11 AM 831 Views
I don't think Rand or LTT (who has/have) little capacity for Healing - 07/01/2010 12:52:25 AM 857 Views
Re: I don't think Rand or LTT (who has/have) little capacity for Healing - 07/01/2010 01:24:32 AM 921 Views
Re: I don't think Rand or LTT (who has/have) little capacity for Healing - 07/01/2010 03:33:52 PM 854 Views
Re: I don't think Rand or LTT (who has/have) little capacity for Healing - 07/01/2010 04:28:18 PM 998 Views
right cause all Generals are so well versed in medical conditions - 07/01/2010 09:44:09 PM 956 Views
Nice way to avoid the argument. - 07/01/2010 10:00:17 PM 900 Views
I'm just done talking in circles. You seem to think that because people - 07/01/2010 11:53:05 PM 929 Views
I concede - 07/01/2010 01:09:11 AM 835 Views
You weren't wrong overall, but there were some serious flaws in your reasoning. - 07/01/2010 02:43:17 AM 964 Views
Tee hee. - 07/01/2010 05:28:52 AM 903 Views
Morals are subjective anyhow, - 07/01/2010 06:23:09 AM 920 Views
Re: Morals are subjective anyhow, - 07/01/2010 03:23:59 PM 842 Views
I have religious beliefs and that is an absurd contention - 09/01/2010 12:00:02 AM 917 Views
Re: I have religious beliefs and that is an absurd contention - 09/01/2010 05:56:16 PM 1093 Views
Re: I have religious beliefs and that is an absurd contention - 18/01/2010 01:00:23 PM 1222 Views
Your assertions weaken your overall argument. - 11/01/2010 04:47:10 PM 814 Views
Re: Your assertions weaken your overall argument. - 18/01/2010 12:49:26 PM 865 Views

Reply to Message