Sammael's Truce in the FAQ

[Brian Hamner]

I have read the FAQ several times. Why is there a question of whether
or not Rand made a truce with Sam? It seems pretty obvious when he
says He will never aid a forsaken and that the answer is no truce. So
why is that even an issue?

[Jeffton Bopeton]

Post by Brian Hamner
I have read the FAQ several times. Why is there a question of whether
or not Rand made a truce with Sam? It seems pretty obvious when he
says He will never aid a forsaken and that the answer is no truce. So
why is that even an issue?

Especially since the messanger melts. That's pretty badass.

[Duncan J Macdonald]

On 25 Oct 2004 23:52:00 -0700, Jeffton Bopeton said...

Post by Jeffton Bopeton

Post by Brian Hamner
I have read the FAQ several times. Why is there a question of whether
or not Rand made a truce with Sam? It seems pretty obvious when he
says He will never aid a forsaken and that the answer is no truce. So
why is that even an issue?

Especially since the messanger melts. That's pretty badass.

It was also a ploy for Sammael to use in unbalancing his Chosen
competition. If they thought that he had a truce with Rand, then they
would start worrying if he _really_ had been named Naeblis.

In order for the Truce Ploy to work, he had to send a messenger to
Rand. Regardless of Rand's answer, the messenger was deliberately
expendable, just to seal the ruse.

[Tim Bruening]

Post by Brian Hamner
I have read the FAQ several times. Why is there a question of whether
or not Rand made a truce with Sam? It seems pretty obvious when he
says He will never aid a forsaken and that the answer is no truce. So
why is that even an issue?

Later in LOC, Sammael claimed that Rand had agreed to a truce, citing as
evidence the way his messenger died.