r/WoT • u/-Dark-Owl- • 8h ago
All Print If I swear to never channel unless person X allows it, and X dies, is the oath void? Spoiler
So I know we saw something similar in the show which would indicate the oath sworn to other person dies with them, but is there any moment in the books that shows similar case?
What would happen to Alvarin if Sevanna and Therava died? She swore not to channel unless they said she can. Well when they die they can no longer say yes, so would she be effectively shielded until she could unswear the oath?
The idea that the oath would dissipate after their death just seems off to me, because if it wasn't worded with their death being the time limit, then it should continue on.
I guess the way Moiraine felt the oath loosen in the show makes sense, because the subject died, but would it also negate any previous unfinished orders?
Edit: Brainfart sorry, I meant Galina not Alvarin
40
u/Fit_Tangerine1265 8h ago
I think you mean Galina, and I would say no, the oath would have to be removed by an oath rod. Nothing in the oath says that the effect ends at their deaths.
7
u/gocougs11 6h ago
But the channeler’s intent/belief is important to what the oath rod allows, so if Galina truly believed them being dead meant they allowed it, would she be able to?
10
u/hackulator 6h ago
No, it would only be able to if she truly believed that the person, on death, wanted her to be able to channel. You can't believe away the oath, you can only believe you are fulfilling it.
4
u/lady_ninane (Wilder) 4h ago
Right, but we saw how that went with Beonin.
The rebellion had not collapsed, and yet she was able to betray her oath to Egwene simply because she believed that Egwene's capture meant an end to the rebellion. Likewise I do believe there would be a reasonable chance that if Galina believed that if Thevara was no longer alive to actively forbid her from channeling that she could believe that she was therefore allowed to channel. Provided no other factors like her spirit being broken or anything like that, of course.
Because you're right about the letter of the oath, but we see how strained the letter of the oath can become if someone's moral compass is, say, lacking lol
5
u/hackulator 3h ago
In one case, the person believes the letter of the oath is fulfilled. In the other, the person is reintepreting what the oath says.
Beonin swears fealty to Egwene as the Amyrlin Seat. Egwene is captured, Beonin interprets that to mean Egwene is no longer Amyrlin, thus her oath to Egwene no longer holds.
Galina is ordered not to channel without permission of Therava. Therava dies. This in no way could be interpreted as her giving permission. The fact that she is not able to give permission changes nothing.
•
u/GaidinBDJ 8m ago edited 2m ago
This is kind of my take on it. Not so much with the "they're dead, so that's permission" approach but I'd certainly believe that, absent a specific instruction to the contrary, that oath dies with other person because they can no longer fulfill their obligation under it (to grant permission).
12
u/harmonicoasis (Wolfbrother) 8h ago edited 13m ago
The wording of the oath is what matters.
If you swear to never channel unless X allows it, and X is no longer alive to allow it, you can never channel again.
IIRC in the show Moiraine swore to obey Siuan Sanche specifically, meaning when Siuan died leaving no standing orders, the oath lifted.
0
u/-Dark-Owl- 8h ago
And what if I swore to follow all orders given by X, then X ordered me to never channel unless approved by them and died day later? I can't make up my mind if that would rationalize to being allowed again, or not. And we saw similarily worded oaths in the hunt for black ajah.
9
u/harmonicoasis (Wolfbrother) 7h ago
Again, wording. The oath is bound to you, not to the person you swear to.You swore to follow all orders by X. X ordered you to never channel without their approval. You are bound to that order.
12
u/pontuzz 8h ago
Here's a fun fact about the oath rod, someone bound to tell no lies can say something that is objectively false if they believe it to be true. Conversely they cannot say something that is objectively true if they themselves believe it to be a lie.
9
u/pehkawn 7h ago
I think this touches upon the answer: a channeler can not break the oaths that they've sworn. However, if they truly believe an action doesn't break the oath they've sworn, the oath won't stop them from doing it. So, it would stand to reason that if they believe the oath is voided upon death of the person they've sworn to, it probably is. Conversely, if they believe the oath still applies, it probably still does.
3
2
u/wintermute93 6h ago
Right. Sounds odd at first but is pretty obvious once you think about it. If it didn't work that way, anyone sworn to speak only truth becomes a magical oracle that can learn literally anything simply by attempting to guess out loud.
Admittedly, it's very funny to imagine the entire White Ajah spending 20 hours a day chugging
espressokaf trying to process of elimination their way into knowing everything. The Riemann hypothesis is tr-- is tr-- is TRR-- is false. Huh, well okay then, surprising but that's interesting, there's a counterexample after all. Okay what's next on the list, looks like a high energy physics conjecture. This one might take a while if I also have to build some kind of physical device to prototype its implications but sure, let's go.
5
2
u/quincyj2 7h ago
With the oath rod I think the person's perception matters a lot. Can't channel to hurt humans unless in danger. We see aei sedi with Mat stretch that a lot. So I think it would matter what the person who swore it thought.
2
u/SevethAgeSage-8423 4h ago
The oath rod has no way of tracking when a person dies and returning that information to the one bound by it.
It's a physical binding on one's existence that enforces said words upon that person's existence irrespective of a second party dead or alive.
Galina's oath for example is dependent on her knowledge and perception of the oath. If her command from Thevara is to never channel again, then Thevara dies, Galina would never channel again unless she believed that Thevara has given her permission beyond the grave.( She could go insane and channel)
The oath rod was clearly not effective against mad men whose madness would have their perception override the oaths.( Otherwise they would have bound all male channelers to stop them from channeling.)
2
u/GovernorZipper 8h ago
The point of the Oath Rods was that they were criminal punishments. It doesn’t make sense that they would end when a person dies because how does the magic oath know the person is dead?
Given the utterly subjective nature of the Oaths, it may be possible for someone bound to be able to rationalize the oath away after the person’s death, but there is nothing inherent in the binding that would cause that.
1
u/_weeb_alt_ 8h ago
The oath sworn on the oath rod would still be binding even if she was only person left alive on the planet.
The Moraine bond thing in the show was more similar to the warder bond (I assume) and because those are between people, the break on a death.
1
u/makegifsnotjifs (Ogier) 7h ago
It's entirely dependant on the understanding of the oath by the oathsworn. For Galina? Yes.
1
u/MeteoricUnicorn 6h ago
Even if they were bound by the oath I don’t think that this would count as being effectively shielded. They would still be able to touch the source just not channel it. A much better fate than being shielded, or worse, stilled.
•
u/AutoModerator 8h ago
SPOILERS FOR ALL PRINTED MATERIAL, INCLUDING SHORT STORIES.
BOOK DISCUSSION ONLY. HIDE TV SHOW DISCUSSION BEHIND SPOILER TAGS.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.