Re: They could just be forced to take an oath to never touch the OP again.
darius_sedai Send a noteboard - 05/10/2010 04:53:46 AM
No need to comprehend much with that oath
a)Rand touched the OP without knowing it several times in the beginning. Granted, that was when he did not yet know he was a channeler, but some form of madness could easily make an insane male forget and use OP without really knowing which would bypass the oath.
b)It would not actually do any good and would be no different from the easier approach of being gentled. OP is so addictive that virtually everyone who have experienced it must have it again and again or they lose all hope and die. Making an oath to never touch OP would eventually kill the man from lack of OP, just as surely as being gentled would.
A) He only touched it that way before he had control. Once a man has control this is no longer an option.
B). True, but as I noted in the below thread, it seems likely that this solution would still allow a man to link since he doesn't actually seize saidin himself, the woman reaches through him to grab the source. Thus he's still useful and the madness is far less problematic. Of course this is pure speculation.
Domani Drag Queen in the White Tower ... Aran'gar watch out!
Could the Oath Rod have been used on tainted men in the AoL?
- 01/10/2010 07:32:02 AM
887 Views
the oath rod requires comprehension to make it work
- 01/10/2010 08:18:58 AM
614 Views
Remind me some time to show you how to post something so long no one will read it. 
- 01/10/2010 09:46:46 AM
494 Views
- 01/10/2010 09:46:46 AM
494 Views
They could just be forced to take an oath to never touch the OP again.
- 03/10/2010 01:23:27 AM
506 Views
Re: They could just be forced to take an oath to never touch the OP again.
- 03/10/2010 02:12:43 AM
506 Views
Re: They could just be forced to take an oath to never touch the OP again.
- 05/10/2010 04:53:46 AM
473 Views
My bet is it would just kill them quicker.
- 01/10/2010 09:49:25 AM
597 Views
that was two oaths in contradiction though, i think that's different
- 01/10/2010 10:06:08 AM
472 Views
Right, because they had the physical capacity to resist channeling, at least for a while.
- 01/10/2010 10:42:00 AM
453 Views
Did ANY of you recall that IT DOES NOT WORK ON MEN?
- 01/10/2010 11:43:34 AM
557 Views
*NM*
just cause Sammael said that, doesn't make it true *NM*
- 02/10/2010 09:44:17 PM
195 Views
Do you REALLY think that with all the Tower's experiments on linking, they never tried it on men?
- 02/10/2010 10:11:11 PM
469 Views
yes
- 04/10/2010 02:16:52 AM
533 Views
Re: yes
- 04/10/2010 05:06:34 AM
477 Views
there are several ter'angreal that work for both men and women
- 05/10/2010 04:28:01 AM
481 Views
Re: there are several ter'angreal that work for both men and women
- 05/10/2010 04:36:04 PM
465 Views
Surely there must have been male oath rods *NM*
- 03/10/2010 10:37:57 AM
254 Views
Doubtful
- 07/10/2010 12:40:52 AM
484 Views
No. Balthamel was threatened with binding in the AoL. There was a binder of some kind *NM*
- 07/10/2010 01:35:23 AM
245 Views