*Spoilers* AMoL Ending Theory Discussion

[Tazren Talamar]

The DO takes choice, not give it, and is the opposite of balance.

I have not argued against this. Like Toral said: The Dark One is some sort of embodiment of evil. As long as evil exists, it will exist. To kill The Dark One would be to kill evil. What we see as Shai'tan is merely the intelligent embodiment of a much greater force, and that embodiment seeks to expand that force and break balance. The DO wants to crush balance, wants evil to rule absolute. That's a counter to the Light, which wants evil gone. So, evil exists inside the pattern, but the intelligent incarnation of it is sealed outside, to prevent it from tipping the balance.

A person is hungry, and now can either steal something to eat or go ask people. The DO can effect him and make him choose to steal, but he didn't create the choice. The choice is still there, DO or not.

If TDO did not exist, the concept of evil would not exist. The choice wouldn't exist, because no one would think such a thought, because it would be a Pattern without evil. No one would comprehend such a concept.


The Dark One = The very concept of evil. They cannot exist without each other. That is the insight Rand came to.

And there still isn't anything that contradicts this, other than pure will and speculation.

 

[Kerna Shedrian]

The people who "wrote" the BWB may not be like Fel, they may just have been people with too much time on their hands.

 

[Emerald ní Róhan]

Personally, I've never bought into the premise that good cannot exist without evil. I understand why other people think in those terms, but I don't agree with it. I don't agree that light cannot exist without darkness. Light is there. It exists. Darkness is merely a lack of the presence of light. And the only time it makes any difference is in when it's perceived. My personal opinion is that it is the same with good and evil. It is our perception which defines good and evil not the absence or presence of one or the other. However, I recognize that my personal view is in conflict with the revelation in the book, so I accept the premise in this context.

I think that much of discussion about the nature of the Dark One is philosophical in nature (Whether or not he truly needed to be allowed continued existence, for example), Others are more practical (the seals, the taint on Saidin). I think it's easy to muddle it together.

It seems to me that Herid Fel had done a great deal of study, probably more than Lews Therin had time to do once the Bore was opened. He gave them the clue about needing to break the existing seals on the prison. So it seems reasonable to assume that his knowledge was extensive and not wholly unreliable. I also think that LTT had a similar insight as he attempted to break at least one of the seals when Taim brought it to him. Min came to the same conclusion. While this appears to have been Fel's only contribution, his research into it was begun at Rand's behest. Dialogue seemed to indicate that he had already done a great deal of reading about tDO and other things.

That said, I still am unwilling to fully base any argument fully on something in the BWB that does not present itself in the series.

Rand did ultimately figure out how to seal the Dark One's prison again, but he had a lot of help along the way. Could he have done it if the people who made Callandor didn't do what they did? I doubt it. The process itself is what gave him full insight into how to complete the battle successfully. He had to change his original plan on the fly.

As to the question of choice: There are different kinds of choices. Verin had little choice about taking her Oaths, but she took advantage of the situation in a very practical manner and used a loophole in the wording to make good use of it. But she still had to follow orders when given them. Up until the last hour she only had choices when others were not paying attention to her doings.

Ingtar had the same thing. He had his orders to free Padan Fain, and he followed them. It was only in the last hour of his life that he was able to defy everything and face the enemy as he did.

If anything, these examples show that one's personal feelings mean little in the choices you are given by the Dark One. Ingtar's heart may have wanted good things, but he was required to do evil in service of tDO. Same with Verin. It is only more evidence of how tDO takes choices away from his servants.

 

[Aulrick Vendour]

And the Big White Book. And logic. If B is the imbodiment of A, destroying B doesn't mean A doesn't exist. It means it has no phisical imbodiment... Which, as I see it, IS balance, since the creator is MIA (assuming the creator is the "good" choice).
The point is, the pattern has balance without the creator. It is created that way, or at least that's what we're led to believe in the series. The DO is outside the pattern and is, therefor, not part of the balance, but a disruptor of it.

Also - it is also only will and speculation to say that the DO is the imbodiment of evil. We were never told this, not even by Rand's PoV in the last book. That's what we assume by the whole lack of choice thing he though up while fighting the DO. Which, as I keep saying, is no more "fact" then what's written in the Big White Book. It's all theory and speculation. ALL of it.

 

[Seamus1603]

Personally, I've never bought into the premise that good cannot exist without evil. I understand why other people think in those terms, but I don't agree with it. I don't agree that light cannot exist without darkness. Light is there. It exists. Darkness is merely a lack of the presence of light. And the only time it makes any difference is in when it's perceived. My personal opinion is that it is the same with good and evil. It is our perception which defines good and evil not the absence or presence of one or the other. However, I recognize that my personal view is in conflict with the revelation in the book, so I accept the premise in this context.

We're essentially arguing religious POVs, so I will also acknowledge that this is just my personal view.

Where I quibble with you here starts with your statement that '[Light] exists.' I would instead say that existence exists, but Light/Dark and Good/Evil is wholly dependent on perception, on conscious beings. To fully understand either concept, they must be defined. As such, I would contend that it is impossible to define Light without using Darkness. It is impossible to define Good without using Evil. The idea that Light simply exists is what leads to organizations like the Whitecloaks, is what leads to events like the Spanish Inquisition and Salem Witch trials. It is the idea that Good/Light exists outside of definition that leads to divine paradox. Light is Good, so logic and reason can take no part. If Light simply exists, if Good is defined for us as being beyond our comprehension, then Good is not defined by moral acts but is instead defined by obedience. In this example, it is entirely moral and Good to kill off the entirety of humanity save one man's family and their boat of animals because Good says it is Good. Light/Good ceases to mean anything other than 'What that 3rd party says'. I cannot accept that the essence of morality is tyranny. I say the essence of morality is reason. And reason demands definition as part of understanding.

 

[Tazren Talamar]

No, the point is that The Dark One cannot be destroyed without destroying all evil. Perhaps The Dark One is the "source" of evil. Perhaps the embodiment would simply reappear if all evil wasn't destroyed with it.

Rand's PoV indicates that a world without The Dark One is a world without evil. The inference is that The Dark One and the concept of evil are tightly connected. Whether TDO is an embodiment of evil or the source of evil doesn't matter.

The necessity of having a Dark One has always been in the series. It's been implied that it's the antithesis of the Creator, a part of the balance. The Ages are also supposed to be similar to each other; when the same age returns again, similar things will happen that happened before. Such as The One Power being usable, other talents and magics being available to the people ... and The Dark One fighting for his release into the world. The Dark One has always been there for that - destroying The Dark One would disrupt that concept of the same ages and events returning in some fashion

Oh, and you wanted an instance of The Dark One offering a choice?

[quote="TGS, A meeting with Verin Sedai]
She [Vering] looked up, meeting Egwene's eyes. "'I swear not to betray the Great Lord, to keep my secrets until the hour of my death.' That was what I promised. Do you see?"
/../
"A curious whole in the oaths," Verin said softly. "To allow one to effect a betrayal in the final hour of one's life. I cannot help wonderinf if the Great Lord knows of it. Why wouldn't he close that hole?"
[/quote]

Verin asks an extremely intriguing question there. Why, indeed, would the Dark One allow such a huge hole in the oaths, that allows betrayal, not even necessarily by suicide, but late in life or when you're mortally wounded. If The Dark One had no interest in offering choices, but only taking them ... why allow it?

 

[Seamus1603]

And the Big White Book. And logic. If B is the imbodiment of A, destroying B doesn't mean A doesn't exist. It means it has no phisical imbodiment... Which, as I see it, IS balance, since the creator is MIA (assuming the creator is the "good" choice).
The point is, the pattern has balance without the creator. It is created that way, or at least that's what we're led to believe in the series. The DO is outside the pattern and is, therefor, not part of the balance, but a disruptor of it.

I can't see how you can say the Creator is MIA when this entire story exists within the creation of said Creator. Please show me how the pattern has balance without the Creator - without the Creator, the pattern would not exist, so no balance. The best example of this is the Flame and the Void. Balance is achieved by the coexistence of flame (Creator) and void (DO). One does not merely summon a flame. One summons a flame within the void. Existence in nothingness. Making and unmaking. Preservation and Ruin. Rand's options are to either become a God, leaving solely flame; to become nothing, leaving solely Void; or to be the Lord of the Dawn/the Lightbringer and bring the flame within the void. 'Dawn' as the moment when light and dark intertwine illustrates the choice of all sentient beings, the moment of uncertainty, of choice. Light or Dark? Flame or Void? Where is choice if there is no Void? What is death if only the Creator has a hand? Why does being 'outside the pattern' make it 'not part of the balance, but a disruptor of it'? Is not disruption part of balance? I would contend that the pattern is the fulcrum for this balance btw the Creator and the DO - without any 1, there is no balance.

 

[Aulrick Vendour]

No, the point is that The Dark One cannot be destroyed without destroying all evil. Perhaps The Dark One is the "source" of evil. Perhaps the embodiment would simply reappear if all evil wasn't destroyed with it.

Rand's PoV indicates that a world without The Dark One is a world without evil. The inference is that The Dark One and the concept of evil are tightly connected. Whether TDO is an embodiment of evil or the source of evil doesn't matter.

I disagree. I think it's VERY important. If he's the source of evil, like Rand thinks, then killing him indeed destroys all evil in the world/ My feeling is that it's not true, like said in the Big White Book. Evil exists anyway. The DO just enhances it.
That's the WHOLE point, since both theories depend on it. We can say two options are true for sure:
1. If the DO IS the source of all evil, then Rand indeed shouldn't have killed him.
2. If the DO ISN'T the source of evil, and just enhances it, then Rand could have killed him without fear.

My theory is based on the second option (though ofcourse even if the second option is the right one, that doesn't mean that my theory is the correct one. It's just an interpretation).

The necessity of having a Dark One has always been in the series. It's been implied that it's the antithesis of the Creator, a part of the balance.

When on earth was that implied? The creator was always more then the DO. He created it, after all. I also can't seem to remember the balance included the DO at all. Infact, we were told time and time again that the PATTERN is balance, but the DO is OUTSIDE the pattern.

The Dark One fighting for his release into the world. The Dark One has always been there for that - destroying The Dark One would disrupt that concept of the same ages and events returning in some fashion

That logic doesn't work for me. If the DO is a force outside the pattern, like we've been told (and I suppose we've seen, in the last book), then his influence is foreign to the pattern. We see this in the last book, with the pattern trying to correct itself with everything the DO does by changing things around Rand (maybe that's part of what being Ta'veren is all about? I need to think of this. It's another topic though).

Verin asks an extremely intriguing question there. Why, indeed, would the Dark One allow such a huge hole in the oaths, that allows betrayal, not even necessarily by suicide, but late in life or when you're mortally wounded. If The Dark One had no interest in offering choices, but only taking them ... why allow it?

Indeed, this scene was great.. Didn't she always say that she doesn't know WHAT he want? I'd think "wanting to give people a choice between good and evil" is a rather straight forward thing to want, especially for someone as clever as Verin.
I actually believe her, BTW. After so many years of studying, I really do believe her. The DO is not the source of evil, I believe. He's another force. And indeed his will is not understandable. We've seen it in the last book, with the visions he's shown Rand. He has no clear, one objective. There are several things he's looking for.

 

[Hammar O'Justice]

Hi Hammer, nice to have you on the thread :P
I'm sorry to say, your answer made no sense to me
A person is hungry, and now can either steal something to eat or go ask people. The DO can effect him and make him choose to steal, but he didn't create the choice. The choice is still there, DO or not.

If the DO is destroyed, no human mind will perceive theft as an option they could choose to take.

 

[Aulrick Vendour]

That's a fine interpretation... But it's an interpretation just like mine. We have no reason to assume it's true, other then Rand's PoV, which as I've shown through quotes, is also an interpretation of the way Rand thinks the world works.
It's not fact, just an opinion.

 

[Hammar O'Justice]

Yeah, but once you go over, you are not given choices on what to do with your life. You are ordered about and probably killed.

That's not the kind of choice we're talking about. Let's use Moghedien as an example.

Before the Bore opened, Moghedien chose to do bad things. Bad Moggy. Bad!
After the Bore opened, Moghedien continued to to bad things. Bad! She was able to wield the DO's direct touch (the True Power) and make the world materially worse. Worse Moggy!
After the Bore was resealed by Rand, she still chose bad things. Dumb Moggy!

In a world with no DO at all, however, Moghedien would not choose to do any bad things because her mind could not form the intent to do anything that was bad.

 

[Kerna Shedrian]

Aulrick, you're just repeating your arguments (point of debates) in each post in response to others. We hear you. We may not agree but we hear you. Stop flogging the horse, please. We'll get nowhere on this.

 

[Aulrick Vendour]

I agree Kerna :P
The arguments don't change, so niether do my answers :P
Take Hammer's last post, for example. He repeated what he said in his last post, to which I answered. Would I answer him now, my answer would have been the same :P

In the end, all any of us can do is interpret (assuming we have no new information, of course).

 

[Hammar O'Justice]

Take Hammer's last post, for example. He repeated what he said in his last post, to which I answered. Would I answer him now, my answer would have been the same :P

I was clarifying for Emerylde. It helps sometimes to place A and B side by side to make clear the difference between them.

 

[Kerna Shedrian]

I dunno, I liked Hammar's post for the comedy factor in particular. "Dumb Moggy"

 

[Aulrick Vendour]

Well, she got what's comming to her :P

 

[Hammar O'Justice]

So here's another way to approach the question, which we'll restate as: "Did the DO trick Rand?"

Rand decides not to destroy the DO because he believes doing so will remove the ability of humans to make their own decisions between good and evil. He's either right, or he's wrong. For Rand to be correct, several things must be true:

1) Humans can normally make their own decisions
2) Sealing the Dark One will not remove the human capacity to choose evil
3) Destroying the Dark One will remove human capacity to choose evil
4) The human capacity to choose evil is more important than the harm caused by evil choices.

Rand is correct (insofar as this entire analysis is confined to the world of the Wheel of Time; real life theology is off-topic here). I'll address all 4 below.

1) Humans can normally make their own decisions

We are consistently told that the Wheel weaves as the Wheel wills, but it really doesn't seem that way for most decisions. We do know that the Wheel can overpower the will of humans in extremely rare circumstances via mechanisms such as ta'averen persuasion (such as Rand's negotiation with the Sea Folk, or Perrin's rallying of stubborn Two Rivers folk). However I can recall no instance of the ta'averen effect causing a person to outright choose good instead of evil. That's a far cry from a choice between cooperation vs. intransigence in the case of the Sea Folk. Many ta'averen phenomena have good or bad *outcomes* (e.g., treasure discoveries; snapped necks) but they do not involve *choices* made between good and evil. Even if the ta'averen effect does cause an arguable choice (say, the villages where people spontaneously get married after Rand passes through), ta'averen effects are definitely the exception to the rule.

2) Sealing the Dark One will not remove the human capacity to choose evil

This is obviously correct and we even have on-camera demonstration of it in Moghedien's POV. She *knows* the DO is sealed away, she *knows* the Light has won, and she *chooses* to take over the world before getting clamped by history's most deserved fashion accessory.

3) Destroying the Dark One will remove human capacity to choose evil

This is the most contentious issue in this thread, as it should be, but the most likely outcome is that Rand was right. Destroying the Dark One does more than just delete an entity, it throws the entire pattern out of whack and thwarts the intent of the Creator.

Here's why:

3a) The presence of evil as an alternative is an inherent element of Creation as designed by the Creator

We know, as shown in 2) above, that people can always choose to do bad things even when the DO isn't directly touching the Pattern. The current, restored state of the barrier between the Pattern and the DO is plainly the Creator's preference (as it is described as a better-than-patch on the Bore, it is at least as good as or better than ever). It's safe to assume that the Pattern is as close to "original spec" as it's ever been. Yet the capacity for evil remains in the world. If the world is as it was designed to be, and evil remains in it, then logically the world must have been *designed* to have evil in it.

It's important here to remember that the Pattern is not all of Creation. Creation includes the True Source (assuming the TS is not the Creator itself; we may see in the Encyclopedia but that's another thread), the Wheel, the Pattern, and the DO. The Pattern is what the Wheel has woven *in the environment the Creator has made*. We know that evil is not an artifact of the Pattern because the DO is outside the Pattern and the DO is evil. So evil's source is external to the Pattern, but it has at least a passive effect on the Pattern even when the DO is sealed away.

Which brings us to the real point of contention . . .

3b) Destroying the Dark One means destroying Evil itself.

Is the DO the totality of all evil, or just some megaphone?

The Big White Book, as the representation of Third Age accepted truths, suggests the DO merely enhances evil in people. I don't have it in front of me (boo, travel), but my recollection is that the BWB makes no reference whatsoever to the True Power outside of Mierin Sedai's belief men and women will be able to channel the same flows. There is no indication of any understanding that this in any way means the literal channeling of the essence of the Dark One. If so, then it is obvious that the authors of the BWB (possibly including its RL author Teresa Patterson) have no accurate holistic conception of the DO's nature. No character in the entire span of the series (or fictional contributor to the BWB) has any direct (or even secondhand) experience with the DO other than the Forsaken until Rand integrates his LTT memories. It's also made clear that LTT learned very little about what the DO is or was due to the frenzied nature of the Strike on Shayol Ghul (to say nothing of the immediate onset of madness). We therefore have absolutely no reliable source of any kind that can credibly characterize the Dark One prior to the Last Battle. If *any* such source exists prior to the Last Battle, it would be a person who had exhaustively studied Prophecy, intimately knew Age of Legends understandings of the Dark One, and had directly touched the Dark One through the True Power. Only two people fit this description: Moridin and the fully integrated Rand al'Thor. Recall that Rand descends from Dragonmount mere days before walking into Shayol Ghul.

Based on this civilization-wide level of ignorance, it's reasonable that the Third Age scholars believe the DO is merely a megaphone for evil. He is, but he is not *just* that. There's no doubt that the DO is a megaphone. Drilling the Bore led to horrific consequences as the DO enhanced evil thoughts, corrupted plants, bestowed the True Power, and acted very impolitely. These are the results of his *direct touch* on the Pattern.

But Rand now has direct perceptions of what the DO is like *outside* and *inside* the Pattern. *No other entity in the history of the Wheel*, except the Creator itself, has ever been able to observe the DO in both environments. Furthermore, no other entity has had insight into the nature of the Shadow like the fully-integrated Rand al'Thor, who is able to discern the shadow's hold on a person with just a look. Rand's perceptions of the Dark One are hands down the closest humanity will ever come to having an expert opinion on this topic. Unless there's evidence to contradict his conclusions, we should defer to them.

So what does humankind's undisputed expert on the Dark One conclude?

1) The DO is not actually an entity but is a natural force
2) That force is not just described as evil but is in fact actual, literal, Evil.

Rand's insight is that what we call the DO is simply the intellect of an underlying primordial force. Killing that intellect means killing that primordial force. We simply have no evidence and no contradictory authority on which to dispute that conclusion. None whatsoever.

If killing the DO would in fact destroy the primordial force that is Evil, then Evil is no longer an option for humans to consider. Killing the DO therefore removes humanity's capacity for evil acts.

4) The human capacity to choose evil is more important than the harm caused by evil choices.

Assuming that destroying the DO would enable a world in which only good things happen, it seems odd that Rand would prefer to permit evil to continue. He is right to do so.

Comments frequently cite "balance" as a reason why Rand did this. While balance is a theme of WoT, it is not the basis of Rand's motivation, nor should it be. Here are Rand's choices:

#1) Lose to the Dark One. Existence is annihilated. Everyone dies. Rand ruled this out when he sat on Dragonmount and could destroy the Pattern himself with the Choden Kal.

#2) Lose to the Dark One. Everyone serves the Dark One against their informed will. (Meaning they know the DO won and they live in despair). This is the entire point of Tarmon Gaidon if you ask the average combatant in it. Not an option.

#3) Lose to the Dark One. Everyone serves the Dark One because their minds perceive no other way. The world maintains material prosperity but no human is able to comprehend a choice different than what the Dark One prefers.

#4) Destroy the Dark One. Everyone serves the Light because their minds perceive no other way. The world maintains material prosperity but no human is able to comprehend a choice different than what the Creator prefers.

#5) Seal the DO away. Everyone has the choice to do good or evil as befits them.

The DO points out that to humanity, there is not much difference between 3 and 4. He's right, and Rand knows it. Well-fed slavery is still slavery. The outcome of rainbows and unicorns in choice #4 is preferable to kids getting knifed for pickpocketing in World #3 but there is nothing actually human about #4's "victors" of the Last Battle.

The only way humanity survives *as humanity* is for evil to remain an option. The DO must be permitted to live, but he must be banished from being able to *directly influence* the Pattern. It's the humans (and the Wheel) that get to make the decisions, not the Dark One.

 

[Aulrick Vendour]

Hammer - nice post, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, since we have some very basic points on which we differ. I disagree with some of your basic assumptions, but those are not exactly things that one can argue over, as they are assumptions.
Here's an example - why do you assume the DO is what gives people the choice? Maybe the DO doesn't GIVE people the choice, but it is the RESULT of the choice? The Creator created the world, and gave man a choice. The choice to do evil then created a manifestation of this evil. It is out side the pattern, because it wasn't created by the creator as part of the natural order of things, and was therefor locked out side by the creator at the moment of it's creation. That's what people believe, right? That the creator sealed off the DO at the moment of creation... But what if that moment was the moment of the DO's creation, not the whole pattern's creation?
This is just an example, of course, no a theory, regarding my point that there's no way to argue the most basic assumptions without further information.

The way I see it, Rand indeed was granted some insight during his fight. But that fight was very short. Does that make him an expert? No. If I now read a book and get a whole lot of new information, then am told to make a decision based on that information mare minutes after I read the book, does that mean it was an expert decision?

I agree with Kerna, this is getting a little repititive. I have my interpretation, which makes sense to me based on some basic assumptions I've made during my reading of the books. Maybe those assumptions are right, maybe they're wrong, but they're assumptions and interpretation. Giving me another assumption and interpretation and saying that that proves mine as wrong is just not how things work. It's still all just an assumption and an interpretation, just different then mine.

 

[Tazren Talamar]

Hammar: Amazing post. I might just quote it if I end up discussing it elsewhere

Aulrick: I could yield that Rand might not be an expert in the sense that he knows all there is to know on the subject (more or less). But "expert" is a relative term. Compared to everybody else in the series (aside from Ishamael) that we know of, Rand has vastly superior knowledge on the matter after his integration with LTT and having faced the DO in its natural habitat. That makes him an expert, and the authoritative figure on the subject.

Your speculations are very valid, Aulrick. I don't deny that. But there is nothing to contradict Rand's superior insight other than speculation. If you take Mass Effect 3, for instance (which I believe you mentioned earlier?) one ending at least gives good reason to assume that the whole "indoctrination" theory could be true.

AMoL doesn't give any such indications to the reader that Rand was wrong.

 

[Aulrick Vendour]

Not by itself. But the world of Randland is far greater then AMoL. Like I've said, it's a little repititive. I see no reason to disregard theoretical knowledge of 3,000 years because Rand saw the DO in his natural "home." As I've shown in previouse posts, even in those brief few minutes, Rand had been wrong at least once. He has insight, which is important, but the problem with it is that he had no time to put it all together. It was all done in such a short time, that there was simply not enough of it to consider all the possibilities.

Repititive, and theoretical.

I agree with you, however, that IF one would want to consider this using JUST the knowledge given to us in AMoL, then indeed there's no reason to assume Rand is wrong.

I had something new to add about the pattern and balance, but now forgot what it was :desk
God I HATE being senile!