Active Users:820 Time:01/02/2026 11:43:08 PM
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 1766 Views
I cannot follow your assumptions. - 06/01/2010 04:07:33 AM 1175 Views
On Balefire - 06/01/2010 04:43:18 AM 1180 Views
Good point - 06/01/2010 05:04:26 AM 1190 Views
On the nature of BaleFire - 06/01/2010 03:32:25 PM 1108 Views
Re: I cannot follow your assumptions. - 06/01/2010 04:59:12 AM 1007 Views
Wait! - 06/01/2010 05:10:33 AM 1100 Views
Re: Wait! - 06/01/2010 05:20:02 AM 1009 Views
Re: Wait! - 06/01/2010 05:58:00 AM 1001 Views
Re: Wait! - 06/01/2010 11:46:13 AM 958 Views
Re: Wait! - 06/01/2010 03:55:01 PM 970 Views
I disagree - 06/01/2010 05:42:44 PM 924 Views
Re: I disagree - 06/01/2010 06:41:08 PM 958 Views
Re: I disagree - 07/01/2010 04:42:40 AM 941 Views
I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 06/01/2010 07:30:56 AM 1063 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 06/01/2010 03:32:24 PM 962 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 06/01/2010 09:52:47 PM 1067 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 06/01/2010 11:19:56 PM 978 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 07/01/2010 12:21:50 AM 1036 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 07/01/2010 12:56:26 AM 971 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 07/01/2010 01:46:16 AM 1030 Views
I agree with Templar - 09/01/2010 04:36:20 PM 925 Views
Re: I cannot follow your assumptions. - 06/01/2010 07:57:54 AM 1059 Views
Rand crossed a line - 06/01/2010 02:36:42 PM 1071 Views
Re: Rand crossed a line - 06/01/2010 04:16:12 PM 1021 Views
But... - 06/01/2010 04:34:02 PM 1108 Views
Re: But... - 06/01/2010 06:14:25 PM 902 Views
Doesn't Balefire remove your thread from the Pattern permanently? - 06/01/2010 02:55:38 PM 1051 Views
No, RJ stated balefired people can be reborn. *NM* - 06/01/2010 03:26:00 PM 511 Views
But not in this turning of the Wheel. So they'd miss out on MANY lifetimes. - 06/01/2010 05:46:04 PM 968 Views
What? - 06/01/2010 06:20:56 PM 983 Views
Where did you get that? - 06/01/2010 07:09:38 PM 939 Views
No, balefire just kills you backwards in time. It is not super-death. *NM* - 06/01/2010 09:58:18 PM 522 Views
LOL ... super-death! - 06/01/2010 11:59:31 PM 907 Views
Hah! *NM* - 07/01/2010 12:06:07 AM 521 Views
It makes me think of History of the World Part 1 - 07/01/2010 12:53:20 AM 937 Views
It makes me think of History of the World Part 1 - 07/01/2010 12:53:33 AM 899 Views
Yes it was. - 06/01/2010 06:51:15 PM 1048 Views
Re: Yes it was. - 06/01/2010 07:16:14 PM 1000 Views
Re: Yes it was. - 06/01/2010 08:58:40 PM 997 Views
Re: Yes it was. - 06/01/2010 10:47:11 PM 993 Views
let me ask the question in a different way - 06/01/2010 11:26:43 PM 1005 Views
Re: let me ask the question in a different way - 06/01/2010 11:40:56 PM 974 Views
actually that quote supports my thoughts - 06/01/2010 11:50:40 PM 1046 Views
Re: actually that quote supports my thoughts - 07/01/2010 12:10:07 AM 940 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 1045 Views
Sigh. What mass murder? - 07/01/2010 12:15:01 AM 883 Views
you are kidding right? - 07/01/2010 12:19:58 AM 988 Views
In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 03:14:32 PM 951 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 03:57:43 PM 983 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 07:13:21 PM 985 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 07:52:24 PM 913 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 08:56:43 PM 996 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 09:26:01 PM 956 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 09:30:45 PM 881 Views
Personally I'm kind of sick of Rand being the only person killing FS! - 07/01/2010 09:42:57 PM 1045 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 09:56:02 PM 997 Views
OK I'm sorry but this gets a huge ROFL :lol: - 07/01/2010 10:30:19 PM 1007 Views
Re: OK I'm sorry but this gets a huge ROFL :lol: - 08/01/2010 01:53:25 PM 946 Views
Re: OK I'm sorry but this gets a huge ROFL :lol: - 08/01/2010 02:56:41 PM 976 Views
What might work... - 08/01/2010 12:35:17 PM 886 Views
Re: What might work... - 08/01/2010 11:38:09 PM 902 Views
Yes. Anakin Skywalker all over again - 06/01/2010 11:01:02 PM 1072 Views
Meh - 06/01/2010 11:30:24 PM 905 Views
The worst part about his atrocities is his rationalizing them! - 06/01/2010 11:33:32 PM 908 Views
Re: The worst part about his atrocities is his rationalizing them! - 06/01/2010 11:50:37 PM 998 Views
Re: The worst part about his atrocities is his rationalizing them! - 06/01/2010 11:55:03 PM 976 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 968 Views
*laughs behind hand* - 07/01/2010 12:05:54 AM 1039 Views
Re: The worst part about his atrocities is his rationalizing them! - 07/01/2010 12:23:11 AM 893 Views
I don't think Rand or LTT (who has/have) little capacity for Healing - 07/01/2010 12:52:25 AM 934 Views
Re: I don't think Rand or LTT (who has/have) little capacity for Healing - 07/01/2010 01:24:32 AM 991 Views
Re: I don't think Rand or LTT (who has/have) little capacity for Healing - 07/01/2010 03:33:52 PM 918 Views
Re: I don't think Rand or LTT (who has/have) little capacity for Healing - 07/01/2010 04:28:18 PM 1075 Views
right cause all Generals are so well versed in medical conditions - 07/01/2010 09:44:09 PM 1037 Views
Nice way to avoid the argument. - 07/01/2010 10:00:17 PM 973 Views
I'm just done talking in circles. You seem to think that because people - 07/01/2010 11:53:05 PM 1000 Views
I concede - 07/01/2010 01:09:11 AM 906 Views
You weren't wrong overall, but there were some serious flaws in your reasoning. - 07/01/2010 02:43:17 AM 1041 Views
Tee hee. - 07/01/2010 05:28:52 AM 977 Views
Morals are subjective anyhow, - 07/01/2010 06:23:09 AM 982 Views
Re: Morals are subjective anyhow, - 07/01/2010 03:23:59 PM 917 Views
I have religious beliefs and that is an absurd contention - 09/01/2010 12:00:02 AM 994 Views
Re: I have religious beliefs and that is an absurd contention - 09/01/2010 05:56:16 PM 1169 Views
Re: I have religious beliefs and that is an absurd contention - 18/01/2010 01:00:23 PM 1303 Views
Your assertions weaken your overall argument. - 11/01/2010 04:47:10 PM 881 Views
Re: Your assertions weaken your overall argument. - 18/01/2010 12:49:26 PM 918 Views

Reply to Message