Are the Bloodguard obligated to protect Lord Foul?

[safetyjedi]

Just a question, and it may have been put up before, but I just got through reading Gilden Fire for the first time and was curious.

I believe that Lord Foul was a Lord at the time that they made their vow. If that was the case, would their vow to protect the Lords extend to him as well?

[Lord Mhoram]

safetyjedi,

I imagine that Lord Foul's position as Lord is now null, wouldn't you?

Anyway, to the Bloodguard he is Corruption. They would not protect him.

[safetyjedi]

That was my thought too at first, but I thought it might make an interesting twist.

[Encryptic]

safetyjedi,

I imagine that Lord Foul's position as Lord is now null, wouldn't you?

Anyway, to the Bloodguard he is Corruption. They would not protect him.

I don't doubt that, but what about when he was still a Lord? He obviously managed to pull the wool over Kevin's eyes in order to be admitted to the Council. What would have happened in the hypothetical situation that the Bloodguard had had to defend Foul from something, assuming that they didn't know his true identity.

Not to mention....the Bloodguard resigned their Vow after Korik and the others were made to serve Lord Foul. I wonder what their reaction was to Foul's being revealed as a false Lord.

[safetyjedi]

That was exactly what I was wondering after reading GF and learning more about their history. That may be another reason why Kevin sent them away so they wouldn't have to be put in such a situation.

[High Lord Tolkien]

My opinion is that Foul left *before* Foul tricked the Haruchai er... I mean before the Haruchai arrived at Revelstone.

The Haruchai were enthralled by the Giants, Earthpower, Ranyhim, Lords of such power and Revelstone itself.
I think that if Foul was there too as an active Lord at their arrival the Haruchai might have been a little suspicious or hesitant to utter the Vow.
And a Bloodguard serving Foul seems like TOO big a thing for SRD to leave out.

[safetyjedi]

I thought that it also may have been the reason that Kevin was dismayed at first with the Haruchai's vow as he may have been suspecting Fouls identity at the time.

[Lord Mhoram]

I would be very interested to know the details of Foul's charade as a Lord.

How did he manage to pull that off?

The Lords, especially the Old Lords, were supposed to be the learned, wise leaders of the Land. Surely, they should know their Enemey, the Despiser, when he is within their midst. A being of such negative power, evil, would be quite out of place among the Council, which resonates with Earthpower. One would think.

And you know, I bet we may figure it out, as the Last Chronicles of Thomas Covenant are going to pertain to much of the Land's past.

Good thread, btw.

[wayfriend]

Another related question is this: did the Haruchai renounce Corruption before or after Foul was exposed in the Council?

It may be that their dedicated opposition to Corruption began after Foul had left the Council. In which case, they would probably raise their eyebrow and move on.

The alternative would be that they would have renounced their Vow. That's exactly why they renounced it in the time of TPTP - they found that they could be manipulated into serving Corruption. If they had discovered that they had served and protected Corruption in the very heart of the Council and Revelstone, that would be the same scenario only even worse. The fact that they were gulled would, of course, not be considered by the Haruchai to be a mitigating factor - they don't mitigate!

Was their dedicated opposition to Corruption part of the Vow? Or did that come later?

[Encryptic]

I would be very interested to know the details of Foul's charade as a Lord.

Same here. However....there is a possible hint early on in Lord Foul's Bane, now that I think about it.

During Covenant's stay at Soaring Woodhelven, Baradakas states that Foul was given gifts of lomillialor and orcrest. Even though they were soon lost, they didn't reject him while they were in Foul's possession. Baradakas goes on to say that "It is possible for Despite to wear the guise of truth", in reference to Covenant's "failing" the test of truth.

In that case, I suppose it's not entirely surprising that Foul was able to pull off the charade...?

[matrixman]

Yes, Foul could have overcome the natural resistance of relatively weak objects like the High Wood. However, the Staff of Law has historically always resisted Lord Foul's touch. But you would think that just the mere proximity of the Despiser to something as Earthpowerful as the Staff would have caused it to react in some way. Did Lord Foul excuse himself from the Council every time the Staff was near?

[Variol Farseer]

Perhaps it was Lord Foul's stint on the Council that taught the Staff to resist him. Until he was revealed as the Despiser, the Earthpower had no bone to pick with him; and the Staff was Earthpower.

[Lord Mhoram]

Wayfriend,

Good points.

Farseer,

Perhaps it was Lord Foul's stint on the Council that taught the Staff to resist him. Until he was revealed as the Despiser, the Earthpower had no bone to pick with him; and the Staff was Earthpower.

Interesting; this raises the question: When was he revealed as the Despiser? Was he known in the Land at this point? Even if he wasn't, despite the fact that the Staff of Law had "no bone to pick with him," the Despiser stood for everything that the Staff was against.

Would it have allowed such a corruption of Earthpower on the Council dedicated to its protection? I doubt it.

[Edelaith]

I'm sure the Bloodguard did protect Lord Foul when he was a Lord on the Council of Revelstone. Why not? Foul deceived the Lords, and it's reasonable to guess he deceived the Bloodguard.
I'm sure it stung pretty badly, to learn they have served Corruption. The Bloodguard learned they had done this about the same time Kevin learned.

Yet we see the Bloodguard did not abandon Kevin. Later on, they did abandon the New Lords over something similar. The difference?

I think it was the length of the service that made the difference. After 2,000 years of service, the Bloodguard kept themselves going at least partly with an obsession with the purity of their service.
I mean, they were worn out. Bannor makes that clear. They were running on vapors, to use the expression. Their sense of absolutism helped them cope. Their service was utterly pure. Their service was utterly absolute. That made all their millennia of sacrifice worth it.
Then Foul showed them, once more, that he could twist their service into treason with a flick of his little finger. That was too much for them, and the Bloodguard collapsed.

[safetyjedi]

I knew this was a good question to ask.... I wonder what SRD's thoughts are on this. I also agree that we may find out in the coming series. It may also have something to do with their state in ROTE.

[Guest]

protecting lord foul would contridict the oath

[safetyjedi]

They are obligated to protect the lords without getting involved in the morality of the lords actions. So if Foul were a lord at the time they made their oath, it would stand that they would not raise a hand against them.

[aTOMiC]

I wrote a short fan fiction about this very subject. I tried to explore not only the fact that the Bloodguard would have protected Foul but would have been obligated to give their lives for him. I find the scenerio fascinating and rather ironic.

If you are curious about the story it resides on Jay's www.kevinswatch.com website under fan fiction.

I guess I should have mentioned the title.
"the Warder of Hotash Slay"

[safetyjedi]

I will most definetly check it out!

[Guest]

they [the bloodguard] decided how and in what manner they would honor their vow and they learned that particular lesson the hard way i cannot beleive they would knowingly protect such a threat