History Headscratchers / SwordOfTruth

23rd Mar '15 2:57:41 PM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message
*** Fair enough, but Ayn Rand's theories and RealLife conditions [[{{Main/Firefly}} ain't exactly ever been similar.]] Not only was the USSR a technological powerhouse, as the OP stated, it was also renowned (even in Rand's time) for its high culture, which has actually ''declined'' since the Iron Curtain came down. (Not defending Soviet communism or anything. It was a horrible, corrupt system that had to go. But that doesn't change the facts.)
to:
*** Fair enough, but Ayn Rand's theories and RealLife conditions [[{{Main/Firefly}} [[{{Series/Firefly}} ain't exactly ever been similar.]] Not only was the USSR a technological powerhouse, as the OP stated, it was also renowned (even in Rand's time) for its high culture, which has actually ''declined'' since the Iron Curtain came down. (Not defending Soviet communism or anything. It was a horrible, corrupt system that had to go. But that doesn't change the facts.)
24th Nov '14 12:55:44 PM MrDeath
Is there an issue? Send a Message
Added DiffLines:
*** Rereading it now, and what Kahlan says is that if you're caught with fire in ''the wrong place'' and ''without approval'', you're dead. So, presumably, Darken Rahl continues to allow his armies to use fire to forge weapons and make food. And at any rate, Rahl's planning to destroy and/or rule the world as a living god within the year, so he couldn't give less of a damn if his edicts make sense.
30th Nov '13 4:37:45 PM Temporary14
Is there an issue? Send a Message
*** I never said that she "charged" into fights to the death regularly, but there have been occasions where she's been forced to fight immediately after using her power, such as when she's fighting against the Imperial Order in the second book. Not her usual actions, but it still shows that she is still capable of intense physical activity. The books never state directly what "losing control" really means, only uses euphemisms like "in the throes of passion," so it may or may not take a full orgasm. In regards to this kind of thing being risky, I'd like to point out, again, that all Confessors turn a man into her slave when they take a mate. Some do it only to criminals or other disposables, but a Confessor is legally within her rights to have ''any'' man she wants, even if he's already married and has a family, and is also legally permitted to confess anyone who objects to her mindraping the man she wants. Even if the methods were "risky" they would still be preferable to this kind of system being in place.\\\
to:
*** I never said that she "charged" into fights to the death regularly, but there have been occasions where she's been forced to fight immediately after using her power, such as when she's fighting against the Imperial Order in the second book. Not her usual actions, but it still shows that she is still capable of intense physical activity. The books never state directly what "losing control" really means, only uses euphemisms like "in the throes of passion," so it may or may not take a full orgasm. In regards to this kind of thing being risky, I'd like to point out, again, that all Confessors turn a man into her slave when they take a mate. Some do it only to criminals or other disposables, but a Confessor is legally within her rights to have ''any'' man she wants, even if he's already married and has a family, and is also legally permitted to confess anyone who objects to her mindraping the man she wants. Even if the methods were "risky" they would still be preferable to this kind of system being in place.\\\ \\\
30th Nov '13 4:14:21 PM Temporary14
Is there an issue? Send a Message
*** I never said that she "charged" into fights to the death regularly, but there have been occasions where she's been forced to fight immediately after using her power, such as when she's fighting against the Imperial Order in the second book. Not her usual actions, but it still shows that she is still capable of intense physical activity. The books never state directly what "losing control" really means, only uses euphemisms like "in the throes of passion," so it may or may not take a full orgasm. In regards to this kind of thing being risky, I'd like to point out, again, that all Confessors turn a man into her slave when they take a mate. Some do it only to criminals or other disposables, but a Confessor is legally within her rights to have ''any'' man she wants, even if he's already married and has a family, and is also legally permitted to confess anyone who objects to her mindraping the man she wants. Even if the methods were "risky" they would still be preferable to this kind of system being in place. Furthermore, there's still the idea of just using the window in which the Confessor is recovering her power, which there still isn't really any real reason not to. It would leave the Confessor vulnerable, yes, but Confessors still regularly use their powers and are left "vulnerable" without them all getting killed. Confessors are cut off from most of society, yes, but there are still exceptions, with Richard/Kahlan and Magda Searus/Merritt being the canonical examples. Confessors are disliked in the Midlands, yes, but part of that is precisely because of the way that they take mates, which involves innocent people being Confessed.
to:
*** I never said that she "charged" into fights to the death regularly, but there have been occasions where she's been forced to fight immediately after using her power, such as when she's fighting against the Imperial Order in the second book. Not her usual actions, but it still shows that she is still capable of intense physical activity. The books never state directly what "losing control" really means, only uses euphemisms like "in the throes of passion," so it may or may not take a full orgasm. In regards to this kind of thing being risky, I'd like to point out, again, that all Confessors turn a man into her slave when they take a mate. Some do it only to criminals or other disposables, but a Confessor is legally within her rights to have ''any'' man she wants, even if he's already married and has a family, and is also legally permitted to confess anyone who objects to her mindraping the man she wants. Even if the methods were "risky" they would still be preferable to this kind of system being in place. \\\ Furthermore, there's still the idea of just using the window in which the Confessor is recovering her power, which there still isn't really any real reason not to. It would leave the Confessor vulnerable, yes, but Confessors still regularly use their powers and are left "vulnerable" without them all getting killed. Confessors are cut off from most of society, yes, but there are still exceptions, with Richard/Kahlan and Magda Searus/Merritt being the canonical examples. Confessors are disliked in the Midlands, yes, but part of that is precisely because of the way that they take mates, which involves innocent people being Confessed.
30th Oct '13 11:44:04 PM Temporary14
Is there an issue? Send a Message
* Seriously, though, the main plot of The Pillars of Creation is completely inconsistent. The Sisters of the Dark come within a hair's breadth of releasing the Keeper of the Underworld through an EvilPlan based on some facts they dug up in one of Emperor Jagang's favorite books. The UnwittingPawn has actually met Jagang, and he knows all about her unique nature which would qualify her for this gambit. Oh, and did we forget that Jagang has the ability to read the Sisters' thoughts at will, and that he's fanatically opposed to the Keeper's agenda? And yet somehow he does nothing whatsoever to stop them from trying to pull it off. What gives?
to:
* Seriously, though, the main plot of The Pillars of Creation is completely inconsistent. The Sisters of the Dark come within a hair's breadth of releasing the Keeper of the Underworld through an EvilPlan based on some facts they dug up in one of Emperor Jagang's favorite books. The UnwittingPawn has actually met Jagang, and he knows all about her unique nature which would qualify her for this gambit. Oh, and did we forget that Jagang has the ability to read lread the Sisters' thoughts at will, and that he's fanatically opposed to the Keeper's agenda? And yet somehow he does nothing whatsoever to stop them from trying to pull it off. What gives?

to:
*** I never said that she "charged" into fights to the death regularly, but there have been occasions where she's been forced to fight immediately after using her power, such as when she's fighting against the Imperial Order in the second book. Not her usual actions, but it still shows that she is still capable of intense physical activity. The books never state directly what "losing control" really means, only uses euphemisms like "in the throes of passion," so it may or may not take a full orgasm. In regards to this kind of thing being risky, I'd like to point out, again, that all Confessors turn a man into her slave when they take a mate. Some do it only to criminals or other disposables, but a Confessor is legally within her rights to have ''any'' man she wants, even if he's already married and has a family, and is also legally permitted to confess anyone who objects to her mindraping the man she wants. Even if the methods were "risky" they would still be preferable to this kind of system being in place. Furthermore, there's still the idea of just using the window in which the Confessor is recovering her power, which there still isn't really any real reason not to. It would leave the Confessor vulnerable, yes, but Confessors still regularly use their powers and are left "vulnerable" without them all getting killed. Confessors are cut off from most of society, yes, but there are still exceptions, with Richard/Kahlan and Magda Searus/Merritt being the canonical examples. Confessors are disliked in the Midlands, yes, but part of that is precisely because of the way that they take mates, which involves innocent people being Confessed.
11th Jun '13 8:09:23 AM MrDeath
Is there an issue? Send a Message
to:
*** She ''doesn't'' "charge into fights to the death" after using her Confessor power--whenever she uses it in combat, it's at or near the ''end'', and she has to rest up afterward. The few times she uses it to start off a fight (like against the Quad in the first book), it's because it's her only option, and she largely leaves the fighting to the guy she Confessed.\\\ And the original question was finding loopholes such that a Confessor could be with someone she loved--having a loveless match solely for reproduction doesn't really help that point. And it's not just orgasm, it's when the confessor loses control, and it doesn't take a full-on orgasm for someone's concentration to slip. A Confessor is a loaded gun. Counting on her mate to be just bad enough of a lover to never make her lose her concentration is like saying you can just walk around twirling a loaded, un-safetied pistol if you're really careful.
10th Jun '13 9:36:13 PM Temporary14
Is there an issue? Send a Message
to:
*** Using her power doesn't make her sick; she can't eat because it distracts her body from regenerating her power. As long as she doesn't try to eat, she doesn't feel any nausea. It tires her out a bit, but if she can engage in fights to the death, she can have sex. Besides, Kahlan's description implies that confession is only released at orgasm, and it's possible for a woman to have sex and even become pregnant without climaxing. Sure, it won't be very satisfying sex for the Confessor, but if it's a choice between that and destroying the minds of innocent men, it shouldn't be a very hard decision. I'll accept that Confessors probably don't fall in love with very many people due to their image, but they could still have mates in loveless matches solely for reproduction without destroying their minds.
18th Apr '13 2:55:34 AM Fireblood
Is there an issue? Send a Message
*** Actually, the guy in the fifth book shatters a sword by parrying it, so it's likely it doesn't have to be "officially" the Seeker. As for why Kahlan was fighting Richard, it was part of a somewhat circuitous (but ultimately unnecessary) plan of Richard's. [[hottip:+:Nicci had held him hostage through a [[{{Synchronization}} Maternity Spell]] to Kahlan. Richard figured if he were wounded badly enough, Nicci would have no choice but to undo the Maternity Spell to free up her power to heal him, so he hid his face and let Kahlan wound him with the sword. Unnecessary because, unbeknownst to Richard, Nicci had ''already'' decided to undo the Maternity Spell.
to:
*** Actually, the guy in the fifth book shatters a sword by parrying it, so it's likely it doesn't have to be "officially" the Seeker. As for why Kahlan was fighting Richard, it was part of a somewhat circuitous (but ultimately unnecessary) plan of Richard's. [[hottip:+:Nicci Nicci had held him hostage through a [[{{Synchronization}} Maternity Spell]] to Kahlan. Richard figured if he were wounded badly enough, Nicci would have no choice but to undo the Maternity Spell to free up her power to heal him, so he hid his face and let Kahlan wound him with the sword. Unnecessary because, unbeknownst to Richard, Nicci had ''already'' decided to undo the Maternity Spell.

* Not that anything in the series is consistent, but the Agiel stand out. It's stated outright that they can't hurt anybody who hasn't been trained by it. So how does Richard's hurt Kahlan when she tries touching it to see how he feels? And how the hell do the Mord-Sith use it as a weapon against Mooks?
to:
* Not that anything in the series is consistent, but the Agiel stand stands out. It's stated outright that they can't hurt anybody who hasn't been trained by it. So how does Richard's hurt Kahlan when she tries touching it to see how he feels? And how the hell do the Mord-Sith use it as a weapon against Mooks?

** Princess Violet usesb the Agiel on Richard and it does not hurt her. A few pages later, Denna explains the rule that using an Agiel does hurt.
to:
** Princess Violet usesb uses the Agiel on Richard and it does not hurt her. A few pages later, Denna explains the rule that using an Agiel does hurt.

* In the first book, Darken Rahl convinced many people from Midlands to join him, by telling them that they will be attacked by evil Westlanders. People believed him, because they were stupid. OK. Now, his ''son'' and ''successor'' Richard is doing ''exactly'' the same thing. He is telling people from Midlands that they will be attacked by the evil Imperial Order and that they have to accept his leadership to survive. The reasonable response to Richard's demands would be: 'Do you really think, we will fall twice to the same trick? Begone!'. Now, however, people who ''don't'' believe him are portrayed as [[TooDumbToLive stupid]]? Richard also states that the Imperial Order is evil, because it has destroyed a city in Midlands. He doesn't seem to remeber that the army, which destroyed the city, consisted mostly of deserters from his own army. Not a very convincing 'proof'.
to:
* In the first book, Darken Rahl convinced many people from Midlands to join him, by telling them that they will be attacked by evil Westlanders. People believed him, because they were stupid. OK. Now, his ''son'' and ''successor'' Richard is doing ''exactly'' the same thing. He is telling people from Midlands that they will be attacked by the evil Imperial Order and that they have to accept his leadership to survive. The reasonable response to Richard's demands would be: 'Do you really think, we will fall twice to the same trick? Begone!'. Begone!' Now, however, people who ''don't'' believe him are portrayed as [[TooDumbToLive stupid]]? Richard also states that the Imperial Order is evil, because it has destroyed a city in Midlands. He doesn't seem to remeber remember that the army, which destroyed the city, consisted mostly of deserters from his own army. Not a very convincing 'proof'.

to:
** That'd be in keeping with the [[UsefulNotesObjectivism Objectivist]] view of communism: that it's an impossible principle to hold consistently, and thus blatant hypocrisy will inevitably result, which seems born out by actual communist states.

** Even in a utopian socialist state, one would still need a reason to make the technological advances. There are two primary reasons why technology increases in the real world. The first is superior military weaponry, the second is to make ones life easier in general. The premise is that the Bandakar are pacifists, and as such, would have no reason for military weaponry. And due to their general value structure and leadership hierarchy (a child under the age of 7 is the leader of all the people?), they have no real incentive to make technological advances for social gains. And anyone who would make something without permission would be risking banishment, the worst form of punishment to the Bandakar. Quite silly, i agree. But putting the far-fetched seeds into the book seal the problem about the technological factor.
to:
** Even in a utopian socialist state, one would still need a reason to make the technological advances. There are two primary reasons why technology increases in the real world. The first is superior military weaponry, the second is to make ones life easier in general. The premise is that the Bandakar are pacifists, and as such, would have no reason for military weaponry. And due to their general value structure and leadership hierarchy (a child under the age of 7 is the leader of all the people?), they have no real incentive to make technological advances for social gains. And anyone who would make something without permission would be risking banishment, the worst form of punishment to the Bandakar. Quite silly, i I agree. But putting the far-fetched seeds into the book seal the problem about the technological factor.

** Actually, the idea that the USSR was a technological powerhouse to rival the USA was a myth- one propogated by the Soviet state and believed by Western sympathisers and enemies alike. It was certainly modernised from the Romanov era (albeit via bloody, violent and not entirely competent process), but other than military and to an extent space tech, it was actually somewhat behind most Western countries in most respects. The Cold War happened because the Soviets had nukes and giant armies and controlled a sizeable portion of the surface of the Earth, and were trying to expand their influence by sponsoring / directing Communist regimes and revolutions around the globe. The economy and technology actually was kindof stagnant by the end, which is a big part of why it collapsed (war, corruption and incompetence included of course, and that is not saying that no technological progress ''at all'' was ever made or would never have been). And several civilizations, even advanced (and non-communal) ones, have went centuries without worrying about advancing all that much, and there is an argument to be made that communal societies really are less likely to innovate (everyone is too content; progress, as it happens, is often a ruthless and pitiless process- which Marx and Engels understood; the British agrarian and industrial revolutions made tons of merchants and artisans redundant, which is where the overworked and underpaid -and underaged- factory workforce came from). Its an obvious Strawman to say that a socialist utopia is by necessity stagnant or primitive, but there is no natural human incentive to innovate or create, especially in a utopia where everyone is happy; Goodkind is simply painting contenment as sloth and backwardness.
to:
** Actually, the idea that the USSR was a technological powerhouse to rival the USA was a myth- one propogated propagated by the Soviet state and believed by Western sympathisers sympathizers and enemies alike. It was certainly modernised modernized from the Romanov era (albeit via a bloody, violent and not entirely competent process), but other than military and to an extent space tech, it was actually somewhat behind most Western countries in most respects. The Cold War happened because the Soviets had nukes and giant armies and controlled a sizeable sizable portion of the surface of the Earth, and were trying to expand their influence by sponsoring / directing Communist regimes and revolutions around the globe. The economy and technology actually was kindof kind of stagnant by the end, which is a big part of why it collapsed (war, corruption and incompetence included of course, and that is not saying that no technological progress ''at all'' was ever made or would never have been). And several civilizations, even advanced (and non-communal) ones, have went centuries without worrying about advancing all that much, and there is an argument to be made that communal societies really are less likely to innovate (everyone is too content; progress, as it happens, is often a ruthless and pitiless process- which Marx and Engels understood; the British agrarian and industrial revolutions made tons of merchants and artisans redundant, which is where the overworked and underpaid -and underaged- factory workforce came from). Its an obvious Strawman to say that a socialist utopia is by necessity stagnant or primitive, but there is no natural human incentive to innovate or create, especially in a utopia where everyone is happy; Goodkind is simply painting contenment contentment as sloth and backwardness.

* In a sea of things which bug me about these books, one that stands out is when Kahlan is beaten. We are constantly told that Kahlan is instantly recognisable to the general populace wherever she goes because she is the only woman allowed to have long hair in the entire world. So, even though her face is unrecognisable to Richard due to the severity of the beating, he should surely have still known it was her instantly because of her hair. Yet he takes some time to realise who she is. ** She is recognizable to everyone in the MIDLANDS due to the length of her hair, and the fact that confessors don't cut their hair. Richard is from Westland, where it doesn't matter how long a woman's hair is nor does it have any bearing in status. Richard just sees the beaten girl on the ground as a beaten girl on the ground. Sad and such, but probably true. The real problem with the scene is that one book prior, Richard points out that he can tell Kahlan's scent as she enters a room without even seeing her. But he can't sense it being that close to her? THAT is a problem...
to:
* In a sea of things which bug me about these books, one that stands out is when Kahlan is beaten. We are constantly told that Kahlan is instantly recognisable recognizable to the general populace wherever she goes because she is the only woman allowed to have long hair in the entire world. So, even though her face is unrecognisable unrecognizable to Richard due to the severity of the beating, he should surely have still known it was her instantly because of her hair. Yet he takes some time to realise realize who she is. ** She is recognizable to everyone in the MIDLANDS due to the length of her hair, and the fact that confessors Confessors don't cut their hair. Richard is from Westland, where it doesn't matter how long a woman's hair is nor does it have any bearing in status. Richard just sees the beaten girl on the ground as a beaten girl on the ground. Sad and such, but probably true. The real problem with the scene is that one book prior, Richard points out that he can tell Kahlan's scent as she enters a room without even seeing her. But he can't sense it being that close to her? THAT is a problem...

* The whole a Confessor can never be with the man she loves thing just bugs the hell out of me for the obvious loop hole no one ever seems to think of, accepting that a Confessor will apparently NEVER be able to hold back her power during sex, it's stated over, and over, and over again that every time a Confessor uses her power, it takes time (depending on how strong the individual Confessor is) for it to build up again, and during this time they are unable to use it. So...why can't the Confessor be with the man she loves, but they just have to only have sex during the window between her using her power on someone and it returning to usable levels. Yes there's the whole, "all male confessors must die" thing, and tradition dictates the father has to do it...but it's TRADITION not a requirement to ensure they die, so there would be ways around that. And not saying it would be the ''ideal'' situation, but it would be better then nothing.
to:
* The whole a "a Confessor can never be with the man she loves loves" thing just bugs the hell out of me for the obvious loop hole no one ever seems to think of, accepting that a Confessor will apparently NEVER be able to hold back her power during sex, it's stated over, and over, and over again that every time a Confessor uses her power, it takes time (depending on how strong the individual Confessor is) for it to build up again, and during this time they are unable to use it. So...why can't the Confessor be with the man she loves, but they just have to only have sex during the window between her using her power on someone and it returning to usable levels. Yes there's the whole, "all male confessors must die" thing, and tradition dictates the father has to do it...but it's TRADITION not a requirement to ensure they die, so there would be ways around that. And not saying it would be the ''ideal'' situation, but it would be better then nothing.

*** No it's been stated that it isn't effective on non-humans, hence why any innocent person who is Confessed gets turned into the animal of his/her choice to allow them to live out the rest of there life. Off course that just means the power won't affect the animal like it does a person...not that trying to do so wouldn't drain the Confessor's power.
to:
*** No it's been stated that it isn't effective on non-humans, hence why any innocent person who is Confessed gets turned into the animal of his/her choice to allow them to live out the rest of there their life. Off Of course that just means the power won't affect the animal like it does a person...not that trying to do so wouldn't drain the Confessor's power.

*** Kahlan stated that "it mostly doesn't work," "a gar likely wouldn't be changed by my touch," and that "It works on some other creatures, but not exactly the same as it does a human" all implying that her touch does actually activate on the animal in question. Her touch also affected Shar, despite that Shar was a night wisp, not a human.
to:
*** Kahlan stated that "it mostly doesn't work," "a gar likely wouldn't be changed by my touch," and that "It works on some other creatures, but not exactly the same as it does a human" all implying that her touch does actually activate on the animal in question. Her touch also affected Shar, despite the fact that Shar was a night wisp, not a human.

*** How is "hearing all their horrible deeds" even in issue in the first place? Why does the Confessor necessarily have to listen to every single nasty thing the Confessed did in their entire lives? A simple "Are you guilty of the crimes you are accused of?" answered with a yes or no should be sufficient, maybe with a "Are there any other crimes you are guilty of that you haven't been brought here for?" And if the person is guilty and a record of all of their crimes needs to be taken, the Confessor can just order them to give a truthful account of all of their crimes to a scribe or jailor or judge or something, and then leave the room.
to:
*** How is "hearing all their horrible deeds" even in issue in the first place? Why does the Confessor necessarily have to listen to every single nasty thing the Confessed did in their entire lives? A simple "Are you guilty of the crimes you are accused of?" answered with a yes or no should be sufficient, maybe with a an "Are there any other crimes you are guilty of that you haven't been brought here for?" And if the person is guilty and a record of all of their crimes needs to be taken, the Confessor can just order them to give a truthful account of all of their crimes to a scribe or jailor jailer or judge or something, and then leave the room.

* The various books make a big deal about the danger of confessors and how they are able to kill anyone in single combat regardless of their skill because once they can touch them they have already won and how the quads are necessary because it is a given that the confessor will touch one who will fight the other three. However what about archers, one good archer versus an unarmored confessor in a distinctive clothes ends in a dead confessor unless the confessor can cover 100 yards faster than an archer can aim. And even if archers are unavailable how would n unarmored person get within arms reach of a skilled soldier with arms of equal length(or more) plus a sword or mace. Also what about spears, or throwing knives, or slingshots, or crossbows, or any other weapon that does not allow the opponent to get within arms reach. Why not give at least one member of each quad one of these. I mean even if the confessor is fast it's difficult to believe that one could avoid a sword or spear or arrow better than anyone else. ** Two things: First, part of being a Confessor is being trained from birth in, among other things, self-defense. So yes, they're better at avoiding swords, spears, and other melee weapons than most other people by virtue of being trained to do just that for their entire lives. Secondly, yes, a crossbow or other long-range weapon would do in a Confessor or Wizard just like anyone else, but that's not the purpose of the Quads. The Quads are as much an instrument of terror as assassination--they're not just there to kill the Confessor quickly, they're there to beat them, humiliate them, rape them, and break them utterly then leave them to die. Recall that the two victims of Quads we hear described (Zedd's wife and Dennee) are still alive when they're found. In fact, if you're doing this to a ''Confessor'', at least one person being Confessed is inevitable because, well, you can't really rape someone without touching them. *** Training does not make you any more able to dodge an arrow if there are multiple archers, also if you can train confessors to avoid spearheads and sword blades and arrows somehow, than you can also train the quads to get around that because you know who else gets a lot of training, heavily armed D'haran crack troops, however I do get that one of the main points of the quads design is to rape and cause terror for which they need a live victim not a corpse. Although wouldn't it be terrifying enough to have quads that just kill confessors without losing a man and can do so consistently, I mean terrifying your opponent is a fine tactic but if your goal is to remove the confessors than wouldn't highly trained archers be more effective than 4 man squads who are guaranteed to lose at least one to the confessor and perhaps more to the confessed man. Especially when sent against the Mother Confessor, the strongest and most dangerous as Rahl surely knows. At the beginning of the first novel when Richard first sees the quad and Kahlan, wouldn't the ability to kill her without getting close be a worthy trade for the loss of the chance to terrorize her, I mean she was the last official confessor.
to:
* The various books make a big deal about the danger of confessors Confessors and how they are able to kill anyone in single combat regardless of their skill because once they can touch them they have already won and how the quads are necessary because it is a given that the confessor Confessor will touch one who will fight the other three. However what about archers, one good archer versus an unarmored confessor in a distinctive clothes ends in a dead confessor Confessor unless the confessor Confessor can cover 100 yards faster than an archer can aim. And even if archers are unavailable how would n an unarmored person get within arms reach of a skilled soldier with arms of equal length(or more) plus a sword or mace. Also what about spears, or throwing knives, or slingshots, or crossbows, or any other weapon that does not allow the opponent to get within arms reach. reach? Why not give at least one member of each quad one of these. I mean even if the confessor is fast it's difficult to believe that one could avoid a sword or spear or arrow better than anyone else. ** Two things: First, part of being a Confessor is being trained from birth in, among other things, self-defense. So yes, they're better at avoiding swords, spears, and other melee weapons than most other people by virtue of being trained to do just that for their entire lives. Secondly, yes, a crossbow or other long-range weapon would do in a Confessor or Wizard just like anyone else, but that's not the purpose of the Quads. The Quads are as much an instrument of terror as assassination--they're not just there to kill the Confessor quickly, they're there to beat them, humiliate them, rape them, and break them utterly then leave them to die. Recall that the two victims of Quads we hear described (Zedd's wife and Dennee) are still alive when they're found. In fact, if you're doing this to a ''Confessor'', at least one person being Confessed is inevitable because, well, you can't really actually rape someone without touching them. *** Training does not make you any more able to dodge an arrow if there are multiple archers, also if you can train confessors Confessors to avoid spearheads and sword blades and arrows somehow, than you can also train the quads to get around that because you know who else gets a lot of training, heavily armed D'haran crack troops, however I do get that one of the main points of the quads design is to rape and cause terror for which they need a live victim not a corpse. Although wouldn't it be terrifying enough to have quads that just kill confessors Confessors without losing a man and can do so consistently, consistently? I mean terrifying your opponent is a fine tactic but if your goal is to remove the confessors than Confessors then wouldn't highly trained archers be more effective than 4 man squads who are guaranteed to lose at least one to the confessor Confessor and perhaps more to the confessed Confessed man. Especially when sent against the Mother Confessor, the strongest and most dangerous as Rahl surely knows. At the beginning of the first novel when Richard first sees the quad and Kahlan, wouldn't the ability to kill her without getting close be a worthy trade for the loss of the chance to terrorize her, I mean she was the last official confessor.Confessor.
18th Apr '13 2:35:59 AM Fireblood
Is there an issue? Send a Message
*** Actually, the guy in the fifth book shatters a sword by parrying it, so it's likely it doesn't have to be "officially" the Seeker. As for why Kahlan was fighting Richard, it was part of a somewhat circuitous (but ultimately unnecessary) plan of Richard's. [[hottip:+:Nicci had held him hostage through a [[{{Synchronization}} Maternity Spell]] to Kahlan. Richard figured if he were wounded badly enough, Nicci would have no choice but to undo the Maternity Spell to free up her power to heal him, so he hid his face and let Kahlan wound him with the sword. Unnecessary because, unbeknownst to Richard, Nicci had ''already'' decided to undo the Maternity Spell]]
to:
*** Actually, the guy in the fifth book shatters a sword by parrying it, so it's likely it doesn't have to be "officially" the Seeker. As for why Kahlan was fighting Richard, it was part of a somewhat circuitous (but ultimately unnecessary) plan of Richard's. [[hottip:+:Nicci had held him hostage through a [[{{Synchronization}} Maternity Spell]] to Kahlan. Richard figured if he were wounded badly enough, Nicci would have no choice but to undo the Maternity Spell to free up her power to heal him, so he hid his face and let Kahlan wound him with the sword. Unnecessary because, unbeknownst to Richard, Nicci had ''already'' decided to undo the Maternity Spell]]Spell.
2nd Sep '12 3:16:07 PM masamune1
Is there an issue? Send a Message
** Actually, the idea that the USSR was a technological powerhouse to rival the USA was a myth- one propogated by the Soviet state and believed by Western sympathisers and enemies alike. It was certainly modernised from the Romanov era (albeit via bloody, violent and not entirely competent process), but other than military and to an extent space tech, it was actually somewhat behind most Western countries in most respects. The Cold War happened because the Soviets had nukes and giant armies and controlled a sizeable portion of the surface of the Earth, and were trying to expand their influence by sponsoring / directing Communist regimes and revolutions around the globe. The economy and technology actually was kindof stagnant by the end, which is a big part of why it collapsed (war, corruption and incompetence included of course, and that is not saying that no technological progress ''at all'' was ever made or would never have been). And several civilizations, even advanced (and non-communal) one, have went centuries without worrying about advancing all that much, and there is an argument to be made that communal societies really are less likely to innovate (everyone is too content; progress, as it happens, is often a ruthless and pitiless process- which Marx and Engels understood). Its an obvious Strawman to say that a socialist utopia is necessarily stagnant or agrarian, but there is no natural human incentive to innovate or create; Goodkind is simply painting contenment as sloth.
to:
** Actually, the idea that the USSR was a technological powerhouse to rival the USA was a myth- one propogated by the Soviet state and believed by Western sympathisers and enemies alike. It was certainly modernised from the Romanov era (albeit via bloody, violent and not entirely competent process), but other than military and to an extent space tech, it was actually somewhat behind most Western countries in most respects. The Cold War happened because the Soviets had nukes and giant armies and controlled a sizeable portion of the surface of the Earth, and were trying to expand their influence by sponsoring / directing Communist regimes and revolutions around the globe. The economy and technology actually was kindof stagnant by the end, which is a big part of why it collapsed (war, corruption and incompetence included of course, and that is not saying that no technological progress ''at all'' was ever made or would never have been). And several civilizations, even advanced (and non-communal) one, ones, have went centuries without worrying about advancing all that much, and there is an argument to be made that communal societies really are less likely to innovate (everyone is too content; progress, as it happens, is often a ruthless and pitiless process- which Marx and Engels understood). understood; the British agrarian and industrial revolutions made tons of merchants and artisans redundant, which is where the overworked and underpaid -and underaged- factory workforce came from). Its an obvious Strawman to say that a socialist utopia is necessarily by necessity stagnant or agrarian, primitive, but there is no natural human incentive to innovate or create; create, especially in a utopia where everyone is happy; Goodkind is simply painting contenment as sloth. sloth and backwardness.
This list shows the last 10 events of 29. Show all.