Which Bloodguard was assigned to protect Lord Foul?

Post by **aTOMiC** » Tue Jun 01, 2004 6:45 pm

Given the Bloodguard’s obvious dislike of Lord Foul, it would seem to me that while Foul was a celebrated member of the council he would have merited a Bloodguard protector. Which poor Haruchai might have served in this capacity? Did any of the Bloodguard sacrifice his life in protection of Lord Foul? The very notion of this scenario is disturbing. I admit that the full measure of Lord Foul’s treachery had yet to be discovered during his time with the council but he had been the Land’s enemy from the beginning of its existence and must have been regarded with deep distain in any case.

Post by **Variol Farseer** » Tue Jun 01, 2004 6:57 pm

That's a profoundly disturbing question!

It strikes me as just the sort of thing they might have assigned Bannor to do. (1000 years later: 'OK, Bannor, you get to "protect" ur-Lord Covenant. And if he shows signs of going off his trolley like Lord You-Know-Who, you know what to do!') Actually, I have no doubt that Foul's Bloodguard was one of the most senior leaders of the original Haruchai army — there must have been more of them still alive before the Desecration — and no doubt that he died in Treacher's Gorge, trying to snap Foul in two to prevent his treachery, as Thomin did to Lord Verement.

Post by **Durris** » Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:48 pm

Well, if Bannor had had the job that would certainly add resonance--and COST, COST, COST--to his decision in "The Spoiled Plains" not to fight Foul alongside Covenant.

But I'd wondered throughout the mythos what Korik's responsibilities had been early on--for whatever reason he wasn't in the immediate line of succession for First Mark, and had no direct ward in the First Chronicles. If he had been assigned to the incognito Lord Foul, no wonder he needed to attempt to even the score 2000 years later at any and all costs. I'd always wondered whether there was something more to his motivation than the collective Bloodguard need to vindicate themselves.

Post by **[Syl]** » Wed Jun 02, 2004 1:19 am

I seriously doubt SRD ever imagined any of the Bloodguard being assigned to Lord Foul. Having directly served Corruption would have broken their Vow long ago. Also, I'd like to think that Foul would have been afraid to have any of the unblinking, shrewdly observing Bloodguard too close for too long. I'm sure he would have found a clever way to avoid their company.

Post by **Fist and Faith** » Wed Jun 02, 2004 1:47 am

Thank God for Syl!!!! Excellent response to this VERY disturbing idea!!! Durris' thoughts or Korik are extremely good, and I would have gone on being horrified by them if you hadn't given me that out! Between the two Chrons, I think we'd have heard a hint of it if they had warded him. This is a good explanation for why they didn't.

And though I don't want to go off on a tangent already, this brings up the question of Foul's being a Lord - Kevin's right hand, no less. Maybe he was only on for a short time. Short by the standards of Kevin's lifespan. Maybe he appeared to be something of a wunderkind, dazzling everybody. And maybe some didn't think it wise to accept him so easily, and even objected to how quickly Kevin welcomed him into the "inner circle." Maybe the Bloodguard were among these, and didn't ward him before he attacked. After all, they Vowed to protect Kevin and his Lords, not to obey their orders. He could have asked them to ward Lord X, but they might have said, "We are unsure of him."

Post by **matrixman** » Wed Jun 02, 2004 5:34 am

Fist, your hypothesis about Foul sounds very plausible to me. But wouldn't the Bloodguard have warded Foul anyway? Even if they were unsure of him? Indeed, wouldn't they have warded him precisely because they were unsure of him and wanted to keep an eye on him? That's what Bannor was doing in LFB, keeping watch on Covenant to see if the Unbeliever was an agent of Corruption.

Kudos to TOM C for his hair-raising question! I had never considered the scenario of Bloodguard warding Lord Foul! Perhaps SRD never considered it either, as Syl argues. Maybe the scenario has more or less been shot down, but it's still the kind of struggle of conscience that is at home in the moral arena of the Chronicles.

Post by **aTOMiC** » Wed Jun 02, 2004 12:18 pm

I'm happy to see that those of you who have posted to this thread find this scenario as, if not more, disturbing than I do. If I were to guess I'd lean toward the idea that the Bloodguard would have warded Foul under any circumstance. It seems logical to me that Foul would not have discouraged the protection of the Haruchai but rather encouraged it to cement his deception. When I think of the Bloodguard’s role in Foul’s scheme, it is not the idea of service but the concept of mortal sacrifice that bothers me the most.

Post by **danlo** » Wed Jun 02, 2004 7:03 pm

Interesting topic. Perhaps we shouldn't ignore First Mark Tuvor...

Unfortunately, we may never know and will have to lump it in with other famous unanswerable questions like "What is the name of Bannor's Ranyhyn?."

Post by **CovenantJr** » Wed Jun 02, 2004 9:01 pm

...and "What compels Hierachy?"

...and "Where is Skyweir?"

Post by **Revan** » Thu Jun 03, 2004 2:40 pm

danlo wrote:Interesting topic. Perhaps we shouldn't ignore First Mark Tuvor... Unfortunately, we may never know and will have to lump it in with other famous unanswerable questions like "What is the name of Bannor's Ranyhyn?."

Post by **theDespiser** » Fri Jun 04, 2004 2:32 am

well, my memory is sketchy at the moment, as i dont have the books with me at the moment..and havent read them in a while...but...were the bloodguard in existence at that time? i thought they took the vow AFTER fouls time...because of foul, actually...i could just be getting my thoughts crossed, as it has been sucha long time since i read the books...

Post by **Fist and Faith** » Fri Jun 04, 2004 2:50 am

Well, we don't know an exact sequence of events. But we know the Haruchai army that besieged Revelstone was welcomed by Kevin, and that the leaders (hmm, I wonder if it's First Mark, Second Mark, Third Mark, etc) were wined & dined for three days. Not only did the Haruchai commanders NOT mention Kevin being involved in any war at that time, but it doesn't seem likely that he could have given the Haruchai the attention he did if he was. I have no guess on whether or not Foul was already a Lord, but still undercover, or hadn't made an appearance yet.

Post by **CovenantJr** » Fri Jun 04, 2004 7:32 am

Indeed. The reason they took the Vow was nothing to do with Foul. It was more about Kevin's overwhelming wonderfulness

Post by **aTOMiC** » Fri Jun 04, 2004 9:44 am

theDespiser wrote:well, my memory is sketchy at the moment, as i dont have the books with me at the moment..and havent read them in a while...but...were the bloodguard in existence at that time? i thought they took the vow AFTER fouls time...because of foul, actually...i could just be getting my thoughts crossed, as it has been sucha long time since i read the books...

Since it is implied that the Bloodguard believed they should have been at Kevin's side when he enacted the ritual of desecration with Lord Foul (who had revealed himself a short while prior) I would have to assume based on what timeline we have available that the Haruchai had taken the vow while Foul was pretending to be a lord or sometime before which would place him on the council at a time when he would have been assigned Bloodguard protection.

Post by **Variol Farseer** » Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:53 am

TOM C wrote:Since it is implied that the Bloodguard believed they should have been at Kevin's side when he enacted the ritual of desecration with Lord Foul (who had revealed himself a short while prior) I would have to assume based on what timeline we have available that the Haruchai had taken the vow while Foul was pretending to be a lord or sometime before which would place him on the council at a time when he would have been assigned Bloodguard protection.

Indeed. It is specifically stated that the Bloodguard arrived early in Kevin's High Lordship, a thousand years before the Desecration. I very much doubt that Lord Foul was on the Council of Lords for a thousand years. In fact, giving him a seat on the Council seems to have been Kevin's crowning act of complacency, as if to prove that he was so powerful that he did not even fear the Despiser, and could resist him even after giving him unfair advantages.

Kevin's hubris reminds me very much of Beorhtnoth.

Post by **aTOMiC** » Sat Jun 05, 2004 1:06 am

That is fair point of clarification, VF. Your statement does seem to reiforce my scenerio in any case. Thank you.

Post by **Fist and Faith** » Sat Jun 05, 2004 1:47 am

Variol Farseer wrote:I very much doubt that Lord Foul was on the Council of Lords for a thousand years. In fact, giving him a seat on the Council seems to have been Kevin's crowning act of complacency, as if to prove that he was so powerful that he did not even fear the Despiser, and could resist him even after giving him unfair advantages.

As far as anyone (we or any of the characters) is aware, that is certainly not how it happened. Kevin had no idea that this Lord was truly Foul. Kevin was completely hornswoggled.

Post by **theDespiser** » Sat Jun 05, 2004 4:12 am

TOM C wrote:
theDespiser wrote:well, my memory is sketchy at the moment, as i dont have the books with me at the moment..and havent read them in a while...but...were the bloodguard in existence at that time? i thought they took the vow AFTER fouls time...because of foul, actually...i could just be getting my thoughts crossed, as it has been sucha long time since i read the books...
Since it is implied that the Bloodguard believed they should have been at Kevin's side when he enacted the ritual of desecration with Lord Foul (who had revealed himself a short while prior) I would have to assume based on what timeline we have available that the Haruchai had taken the vow while Foul was pretending to be a lord or sometime before which would place him on the council at a time when he would have been assigned Bloodguard protection.

Post by **theDespiser** » Sat Jun 05, 2004 4:13 am

TOM C wrote:
theDespiser wrote:well, my memory is sketchy at the moment, as i dont have the books with me at the moment..and havent read them in a while...but...were the bloodguard in existence at that time? i thought they took the vow AFTER fouls time...because of foul, actually...i could just be getting my thoughts crossed, as it has been sucha long time since i read the books...
Since it is implied that the Bloodguard believed they should have been at Kevin's side when he enacted the ritual of desecration with Lord Foul (who had revealed himself a short while prior) I would have to assume based on what timeline we have available that the Haruchai had taken the vow while Foul was pretending to be a lord or sometime before which would place him on the council at a time when he would have been assigned Bloodguard protection.

ok...for some reason i always thought they took the vow BECAUSE of the ritual of desecration...but then again...why take a vow when everythings dead...so i guess they would have already taken the vow...

Post by **Variol Farseer** » Sat Jun 05, 2004 5:23 am

Fist and Faith wrote:
Variol Farseer wrote:I very much doubt that Lord Foul was on the Council of Lords for a thousand years. In fact, giving him a seat on the Council seems to have been Kevin's crowning act of complacency, as if to prove that he was so powerful that he did not even fear the Despiser, and could resist him even after giving him unfair advantages.
As far as anyone (we or any of the characters) is aware, that is certainly not how it happened. Kevin had no idea that this Lord was truly Foul. Kevin was completely hornswoggled.

Not completely, according to Elena, who knew his mind — and shared his weakness — more than any of the New Lords:

SRD wrote:'If he had a fault, it was in excessive trust — yet how can trust be counted for blame? At the first, it was to his honour that the Despiser could gain Lordship from him — Lordship, and access to his heart. Was not Fangthane witnessed and approved by the orcrest and lomillialor tests of truth? Innocence is glorified by its vulnerability.

'And he was not blind. In the awful secret of his doubt, he refused the summons which would have taken him to his death in Treacher's Gorge. In his heart-wrung foresight or prophecy, he made decisions which preserved the Land's future.'

(The Illearth War, chapter 21: 'Lena's Daughter')

The cardinal difference between Kevin and Beorhtnoth, of course, is that Beorhtnoth exhibited his fatal gallantry towards a known enemy on the field of battle. Kevin had only his suspicions, his fears; but those must have been deep indeed, for the Lords did not lightly subject anyone to the tests of truth. The same kind of bravado that made him refuse to fight the Haruchai must have been at work: he would not take precautions against this new Lord, however his heart misgave him, because 'innocence is glorified by its vulnerability'.

In this he more resembles the figure of King Arthur, deceived by Guinevere and Lancelot, who planted a seed of corruption at the very heart of Camelot which grew until it destroyed his kingdom. But Arthur had no reason for suspicion when he married Guinevere, whereas Kevin appears to have given Lordship to Foul against the better judgement of his heart.

Another case in the literature, drawn from the same well of myth and philosophy, is Tolkien's Ar-Pharazôn, last King of Númenor. He accepted the surrender of Sauron and brought him to Númenor as a prisoner and vassal; and he was fooled into thinking that Sauron's submission was genuine, and that he had reformed and would truly serve the King. The outcome was the Downfall of Númenor, a catastrophe as great as the Ritual of Desecration. This parallel is particularly apposite, given the analogous roles of Foul and Sauron, and the many influences that SRD and Tolkien had in common.

Other parallels could be drawn — Odin and Roland both come to mind as partially analogous cases — but the theme of excessive trust and consequent retribution is a common one in literature, and almost always there are warnings that the tragic hero ignores out of pride. So it was with Kevin: that, at any rate, is how I read the case. It suits the archetypes from which his character is so largely drawn.

Kevin's Watch

Kevin's Watch

Which Bloodguard was assigned to protect Lord Foul?

Which Bloodguard was assigned to protect Lord Foul?