The Crime and its punishment? (It's the high-lords' fault)

[shadowbinding shoe]

In the first chronicles, TC rapes an innocent little girl. She goes insane trying to forgive him and all her family gradually fall into perdition. Her mother Atiaran hopes the high lords would pass judgment on TC and punish him like he deserves but this never happens. The high lords covet his help and therefore befriend him and suck up to him instead.

At the end of the first chronicles it appears everyone is happy except perhaps for the dead ghosts of Luny Lena's family but does the High Lords' crime, flaunting justice and letting a criminal walk away unpunished really goes, unpunished?

They ignored the Law of the Land (broke it in fact) for selfish gain (to win the war) and pretty soon the Laws of the Land are twisted into creating the Sunbane. Is the Sunbane the High Lords' punishment (Mhoram chief amongst them) for not giving Lena's family the justice they deserved out of TC?

[drew]

What Law of the Land did they ignore?

They all swore to uphold their Oath of Peace...how would they punish him without breaking their oath?

When Trell destroyed stone, and choked TC, no repercussions came to him, other than other Radhamarel helping him to deal with what he had done.

Would TC have accepted anyone trying to help him get through what HE had done?

[Mr. Broken]

I guess we are forgetting that regardless of what Covenant had done, Drool Rockworm found the staff of Law, at that moment all bets were off, under Fouls influence that would have been enough to destroy the Land.

[Relayer]

They could still have punished him w/out breaking the Oath... for example they could imprison him. Or at least try, since he had white gold Or they could have simply shunned him, ignored his existence.

Spoiler

Like the Masters do to Stave.

But I agree, the people of the Land are all about healing, as they attempted with Trell. If there weren't the exigencies of a war coming at them, it's most likely they would've tried to help Covenant understand and grow from what happened.

[shadowbinding shoe]

What Law of the Land did they ignore?

They all swore to uphold their Oath of Peace...how would they punish him without breaking their oath?

The wording of their Oath of Peace always made me a bit uneasy. They are not pacifists. They believe in minimalism. If they can smack you instead of killing you they gonna smack you. And if they think you need some torturing they're gonna heat up their irons and stuff. After all torture is included in their oath. Is the Oath of 'Peace' a misleading misnomer?

[Mr. Broken]

The Oath of peace, while honorable, and well meant, was as far as Im concerned, a useless gesture. Kevins despair inspired the people of the Land to give up their right to justice, and bare their throats to the Wolf. Every bit as deluded, and self important, as the Oath of the Bloodguard. Nothing is that simple, and this ill conceived notion, removed any capacity that the people of the Land had to defend themselves. A self imposed paradox which helped open the door to the very despite it was intended to protect against. ( Trell, Atirian, Lena, Triock ) Victims of Covenant? No victims of the Oath intended to protect them.

[iQuestor]

In the first chronicles, TC rapes an innocent little girl. She goes insane trying to forgive him and all her family gradually fall into perdition. Her mother Atiaran hopes the high lords would pass judgment on TC and punish him like he deserves but this never happens. The high lords covet his help and therefore befriend him and suck up to him instead.

At the end of the first chronicles it appears everyone is happy except perhaps for the dead ghosts of Luny Lena's family but does the High Lords' crime, flaunting justice and letting a criminal walk away unpunished really goes, unpunished?

They ignored the Law of the Land (broke it in fact) for selfish gain (to win the war) and pretty soon the Laws of the Land are twisted into creating the Sunbane. Is the Sunbane the High Lords' punishment (Mhoram chief amongst them) for not giving Lena's family the justice they deserved out of TC?

I think you are missing some points here:

They ignored the Law of the Land (broke it in fact) for selfish gain (to win the war)

Ummm... it wasnt as if the Lord were going to lose their home or land or water rights if Foul won. -- Lord Foul wanted to destroy the whole earth. Break the Arch of Time. No one would have survived except Foul. I'd hardly call this selfish on the part of the Lords.

Is the Sunbane the High Lords' punishment (Mhoram chief amongst them) for not giving Lena's family the justice they deserved out of TC

Who exactly is doing the punishing here? The creator? nope. He chose Covenant. He wanted the Lord and the Land to help him. They Did. Covenant won. He offered Covenant hero status and to live out his life in the Land as a hero.

The Oath of Peace was bad -- it held the Lords back from Truly defeating despite. Therefore Foul's defeat was temporary.

The sunbane was a direct result of this failure -- because in the millenia after his first defeat by Convenant, Foul was able to slowly and quietly corrupt earthpower to destroy the natural seasons of the Land.

SO if we are talking punishement, then you could argue it was Foul doing the punishing. But he doesnt care about the Lords or petty transgressions or rape-- he just wants free of his prison. The sunbane was his tool.

[shadowbinding shoe]

Ummm... it wasnt as if the Lord were going to lose their home or land or water rights if Foul won. -- Lord Foul wanted to destroy the whole earth. Break the Arch of Time. No one would have survived except Foul. I'd hardly call this selfish on the part of the Lords.

So are you saying that the ends justify the means?

The Oath of Peace was bad -- it held the Lords back from Truly defeating despite. Therefore Foul's defeat was temporary.

The sunbane was a direct result of this failure -- because in the millenia after his first defeat by Convenant, Foul was able to slowly and quietly corrupt earthpower to destroy the natural seasons of the Land.

Hmmm, the Subane was feasible because the Laws of the Land were weakened (the Staff of Law was burned and the Law of Death countermanded). True the Lords were a bit complacent after their ancient seemed to be gone but they didn't help him in any way to create the Sunbane.

The two breakings of the Laws of the Earth are paralleling the human breaking (disregarding) of the laws.

[iQuestor]

Ummm... it wasnt as if the Lord were going to lose their home or land or water rights if Foul won. -- Lord Foul wanted to destroy the whole earth. Break the Arch of Time. No one would have survived except Foul. I'd hardly call this selfish on the part of the Lords.

So are you saying that the ends justify the means?

The Oath of Peace was bad -- it held the Lords back from Truly defeating despite. Therefore Foul's defeat was temporary.

The sunbane was a direct result of this failure -- because in the millenia after his first defeat by Convenant, Foul was able to slowly and quietly corrupt earthpower to destroy the natural seasons of the Land.

Hmmm, the Subane was feasible because the Laws of the Land were weakened (the Staff of Law was burned and the Law of Death countermanded). True the Lords were a bit complacent after their ancient seemed to be gone but they didn't help him in any way to create the Sunbane.

The two breakings of the Laws of the Earth are paralleling the human breaking (disregarding) of the laws.

So are you saying that the ends justify the means?

well lets see --

1. punish a man who raped a girl and destroyed her family, but in doing so, allow the entire world to be destroyed.

-- or --

2 do not punish the man, and allow him to save the enitre world so everyone can remain living.


I'd say yes, saving the world justifies them not holding covenant accountable. absolutely. I am not saying what he did was right, but come on, allowing the destruction of an entire world? What good is Covenant's punishement if there is no world left for him to be punished in?



Foul created the sunbane. yes, the weakened laws allowed him to do it. But, Elena broke the Law of Death, and destroyed the staff, or caused it. How should the Lords be held accountable for these Laws being broken??

[shadowbinding shoe]

well lets see --

1. punish a man who raped a girl and destroyed her family, but allow the entire world to be destroyed.

-- or --

2 do not punish the man, and allow him to save the enitre world so everyone can remain living.

Falling into the narrowing-the-tale-down-into only-two-possibilities-Fallacy?

This is Kevin-wastelandering thinking. Why is it unequivocally necessary to let Covenant go unpunished, reprimanded, or shamed in order to save the Land? Covenant offered his ring to various people time and time again. One of these people could have taken the responsibility on himself while Covenant was being punished.

Covenant could be punished and still save the Land while suffering his punishment (if you trust him with the job)

There are all sorts of possibilities here. It's not just Save the Land or punish the unbeliever.

This is exactly why the ends DO NOT justify the means. The noble ends you wish to achieve are used as an excuse to ignore the sins / crimes you commit. They tend to be shortcuts that ease the path to those noble ends not the axiomatic necessities they are construed into.

Foul created the sunbane. yes, the weakened laws allowed him to do it. But, Elena broke the Law of Death, and destroyed the staff, or caused it. How should the Lords be held accountable for these Laws being broken??

Because Elena was one of them??? Because she was chosen by them to her office and the mission which led to this event?? She was a little mad and therefore not wholly accountable to her actions. If Covenant could see it in a few weeks shouldn't the other Lords (one of them a seer) have been able to see it and take appropriate action in all the years they'd known her?

In any case I said the breaking of the Laws of Earth reflected the breaking of the human laws. The Land works like that (for example Ravers are born out of the crimes humans commit against the One Forest. They reflect the human scene on the deeper level of the Land)

[Sill]

Hey, maybe it's as simple as what happens everytime DEA uses an informant or the D.A. cuts a deal with someone. They used TC - so? like he deserves anything better? He had a "duty to act" - that's our law ( or his if he wants to use the "real" world system of morality and jurisprudence).

[iQuestor]

well lets see --

1. punish a man who raped a girl and destroyed her family, but allow the entire world to be destroyed.

-- or --

2 do not punish the man, and allow him to save the enitre world so everyone can remain living.

Falling into the narrowing-the-tale-down-into only-two-possibilities-Fallacy?

This is Kevin-wastelandering thinking. Why is it unequivocally necessary to let Covenant go unpunished, reprimanded, or shamed in order to save the Land? Covenant offered his ring to various people time and time again. One of these people could have taken the responsibility on himself while Covenant was being punished.

Covenant could be punished and still save the Land while suffering his punishment (if you trust him with the job)

There are all sorts of possibilities here. It's not just Save the Land or punish the unbeliever.

This is exactly why the ends DO NOT justify the means. The noble ends you wish to achieve are used as an excuse to ignore the sins / crimes you commit. They tend to be shortcuts that ease the path to those noble ends not the axiomatic necessities they are construed into.

Foul created the sunbane. yes, the weakened laws allowed him to do it. But, Elena broke the Law of Death, and destroyed the staff, or caused it. How should the Lords be held accountable for these Laws being broken??

Because Elena was one of them??? Because she was chosen by them to her office and the mission which led to this event?? She was a little mad and therefore not wholly accountable to her actions. If Covenant could see it in a few weeks shouldn't the other Lords (one of them a seer) have been able to see it and take appropriate action in all the years they'd known her?

In any case I said the breaking of the Laws of Earth reflected the breaking of the human laws. The Land works like that (for example Ravers are born out of the crimes humans commit against the One Forest. They reflect the human scene on the deeper level of the Land)

SS -- you seem to be missing the point of the series:

1. Only Covenant could use the ring, he *was* the white gold. NO ONE in the land could have taken the ring and saved the world. the series is not about white gold, its about the power of guilt and the powerlessness of innocence. Its not a story about the Land. its a Story about Covenant.

He was there, by their own prophecy, to save or damn the Land. Yes, there were only two choices. And Covenent explicity was part of the two possible outcomes. that was one of the central themes of the story. Perhaps there is insight here -- maybe it was possible he could have damned the land by raping Lena, then being punished, which would prevent him redeeming himself by saving the Land.

Because Elena was one of them??? Because she was chosen by them to her office and the mission which led to this event?? She was a little mad and therefore not wholly accountable to her actions. If Covenant could see it in a few weeks shouldn't the other Lords (one of them a seer) have been able to see it and take appropriate action in all the years they'd known her?

So you want someone to punish the Lords for One member of their order's bad choice and wrong decisions? Yes, maybe they could have seen she was flawed -- but they didnt . And she took up the High Lords position -- she wasn't elected. One so inclined steps up in a time of need. Elena stepped up.

And punishing her for her bad choice -- Thats like saying punish all Cops when one shoots an innocent, or banning baseball playing because one player uses steroids. You seem to be making the case she wasnt responsible for her actions -- yes, she has some issues, and the Lords knew she was a little different, but as far as them being held responsible for her actions -- I completely disagree.

I think the plight of Lena and Elena and their family is a direct extension of covenant's own guilt. they were both symbols of the cosequences of his first choices in the Land.

But Covenant had to grow, to redeem himself. Thats what the first chrons are about. His own journey to redemption. And, as "Or I will Sell My Soul For Guilt" teaches, he had to be guilty in order to have Power.

[shadowbinding shoe]

IQuestor - I know Covenant was the hero of the tale and therefore needs to stay in the center of the story. But...

1. Only Covenant could use the ring, he *was* the white gold. NO ONE in the land could have taken the ring and saved the world. the series is not about white gold, its about the power of guilt and the powerlessness of innocence. Its not a story about the Land. its a Story about Covenant.

Lets break this down:

a)"Only Covenant could use the ring, he *was* the white gold. NO ONE in the land could have taken the ring and saved the world."

Not true! We are told several times that if Covenant freely gives his ring to someone else that someone would be able to use the ring to wield its magic. Whether or not that means that they'll be accessing a part of Covenant's soul while using it is an interesting question. Would Covenant still 'be the white gold' after giving the ring to someone else? I'm not sure and it wouldn't matter much in the practical sense.

b)"the series is not about white gold, its about the power of guilt and the powerlessness of innocence."

This is what Covenant (and the Creator?) believes at the end of the first series. Covenant wasn't good at using the wild magic because he felt guilty. The wild magic always represented the purer side of him. The creative power that made him a writer. What his guilt and suffering gave him was a knowledge of the Despiser's mind and experience in withstanding the havoc he unleashed against Covenant. Would people like Mohram, who transcended their oath of people for the sake of truer service, have been unfit to wield it? Hard to say. We should keep in mind that there are probably other people in the Land who lost their innocence and feel guilty about something.

and c)

He was there, by their own prophecy, to save or damn the Land. Yes, there were only two choices. And Covenent explicity was part of the two possible outcomes. that was one of the central themes of the story. Perhaps there is insight here -- maybe it was possible he could have damned the land by raping Lena, then being punished, which would prevent him redeeming himself by saving the Land.

Letting someone else use the ring was only one of the possibilities I outlined. Is it that impossible to punish him and yet still allow him to save the Land? It worked in the books because he punished himself (mentally). I don't think he would have resented the people of the Land if they had punished him. It might have strengthened his belief in their rightness. They would have not only been spiritually beautiful they would have also been just. You seem to assume that if Covenant is punished at all he must be given the death sentence or some such. A punishment that would make it impossible for him to save the Land. But why think that? As before there are many ways to punish him. A punishment I can think off the top of my head is to mind-meld him with Lena (or some other victim) and let him experience her pain. Or show him a spiritual mirror of himself (a sculpture of him, a painting) depicting the ill in him.

So you want someone to punish the Lords for One member of their order's bad choice and wrong decisions? Yes, maybe they could have seen she was flawed -- but they didnt . And she took up the High Lords position -- she wasn't elected. One so inclined steps up in a time of need. Elena stepped up.

As I remember it, the council of Lords did a collective mind-meld and their collective consciousness chose one of them for the job. I always believed they chose her in part because she was Covenant's daughter. He was supposed to be Berek Reborn and Berek created a dynasty of powerful lords. The new lords tried to repeat history. But Elena wasn't the right choice as became evident to us in the Illearth War. Her origins from rape and a dysfunctional family made her a flawed character.

And punishing her for her bad choice -- Thats like saying punish all Cops when one shoots an innocent, or banning baseball playing because one player uses steroids.

Where did I say Elena should be punished? I was talking about the council of Lords and Thomas Covenant.

I think the plight of Lena and Elena and their family is a direct extension of covenant's own guilt. they were both symbols of the cosequences of his first choices in the Land.

But Covenant had to grow, to redeem himself. Thats what the first chrons are about. His own journey to redemption. And, as "Or I will Sell My Soul For Guilt" teaches, he had to be guilty in order to have Power.

I Agree with you completely. This doesn't however lead to the conclusion that Covenant couldn't be punished. I hope I explained why.

By the way, you don't need to quote my whole post at the start of yours. We're making our posts long enough by ourself. We shouldn't double them with things that are already in the thread.

[iQuestor]

Only Covenant could use the ring, he *was* the white gold. NO ONE in the land could have taken the ring and saved the world."

Not true! We are told several times that if Covenant freely gives his ring to someone else that someone would be able to use the ring to wield its magic. Whether or not that means that they'll be accessing a part of Covenant's soul while using it is an interesting question. Would Covenant still 'be the white gold' after giving the ring to someone else? I'm not sure and it wouldn't matter much in the practical sense.

Again, I think you you are missing the point. Ownership and use of the white ring does not give someone the power to defeat Foul. Yes, they could use the ring, but that isnt enough. WOuld they have power? sure. But you assume someone could use the power of the ring to kill Foul by force. They'd try to blow foul away with brute force, but instead break the arch by using it more and more to try to kill him, which is what Foul wanted.

It was also said Foul could not be killed by that kind of force.

TC said in TPTP:

"I cant kill him. He always survives when you try to kill him. He comes back stronger than ever the next time. Despite is like that. I cant kill him. "

Also the Creator said later that he had to elect someone for the Land. Which I take to mean outside of the Land. I doubt anyone in the Land would have sufficed, but that's just opinion.

Covenant's guilt and self loathing, and eventual acceptance allowed him to realize that he couldn't defeat Foul with the force of White Gold. So he destroyed the Illearth Stone with the White Gold, and then laughed at Despite, taught the Old Lords and FF to laugh at it. That (temporariliy) defeated him. It HAD to be Covenant. NO ONE else could defeat Foul, even with the ring. The ring in anyone elses hands just doesnt matter. It had to be Covenant with the ring. That was one of the whole points of the story.

If someone could take the ring and blow Foul away, then that is a completely different story with a whole different point . You could substitute Covenant with Scwarzzenegger or Eastwood and just have another Sci Fi shootemup. ANyone could write that.

And punishing her for her bad choice -- Thats like saying punish all Cops when one shoots an innocent, or banning baseball playing because one player uses steroids.

Where did I say Elena should be punished? I was talking about the council of Lords and Thomas Covenant.

that was a typo on MY part. It should read:

And punishing THE Lords for her bad choice -- Thats like saying punish all Cops when one shoots an innocent, or banning baseball playing because one player uses steroids.

My point was you can't punish the Lords for Elena's actions. Sorry for the typo.

By the way, you don't need to quote my whole post at the start of yours. We're making our posts long enough by ourself. We shouldn't double them with things that are already in the thread.

That's very rude. Perhaps you think my arguments are personal or condescending -- they aren't. I am just discussing my opinions with you. No need to which I take to be very condescending.

[danlo]

Please calm down a bit. Posters here frequently copy entire posts. That's their perogative-nothing in the guidelines says they can't. We've never had a fight in this forum-this is a very interesting discussion, I'd hate to have to lock it or have to delete stuff.

[Blackhawk]

we need a virtual boxing ring here but maybe with staffs instead of gloves can someone rig up a Rockem sockem robot game?

hehe ...anyway i dont think that TC could be punished anymore than he already was..outside killing him.....he already had been to the brink of death more times than i want to count going to bat for the land and mostly because he wanted to fix the dammage he had done..or at least try to make up for it. he was a hateful leper when he arrived in the land..the land a dangerous illusion he wanted to wipe out, after he did the dammage and he realised it might be real or something worth saving all he could do is make up for his crime which he went above and beyond. the lords gave covenant a plea bargain..not too good of one either considering what could have happened..being hauled up a 500 foot tree by his wrists,starvation, freezing to death, amanibhavam poisoning being punched around, almost sizzling to death in hotash slay and then being subjected to everyone he loves becoming a rotting mass of gangrenous leprosy, false vision but realistic as you could get i imagine. I think he was Owed one..from The land side anyway, and on this side after all he had been through...people putting razorblades in his food as if shunning him was not enough to make anyone go insane after a while, then burning and vandalizing his property and he still has enough human decency to help a child thats been bitten by a snake and in turn poisoning himself though he knew with his cut mouth it would be bad news. I think he is owed hugely...but not by Lena's family..they were as ruined as if the despiser had done it himself.

also consider that fact that the council mainly Mhoram had known the burden Covenant had on his shoulders and doing anything other than support him would have broken that camels back..they would rather him save than damn the land, Mhoram had some insight but not the outcome. had Covenant been boasting about the rape im sure something would have been done..they seem to rely on forgiveness and at the same time have a "Use Necessary Force" policy on direct assault, had someone seen covenant in the act they would have restrained where hurting was not necessary? not sure... I myself would have considered any punishment outside death or dismemberment justifiable during or after the rape. Triock should have beaten the crap out of him while still keeping his oath..do not maim where hurting is enough. if you look at the Oath by levels ..say Level 1. do not hurt where restraining is enough - petty theft or preventing violence
2. do not maim when hurting is enough -protecting family or exacting justice for a crime such as covenants.
3. do not kill where maiming is enough - to Cripple someone or something that wont stop after you have hurt it. say if covenant had been knocked off lena and kept trying to go after her.
4. he who does not have to kill is the greatest warrior. - that one i dont think the battle hardened worried about...the last thing in their mind when they were under assault by Urviles or Cavewites was "maybe i should go for the leg to maim instead of kill" hehe

Though TC paid for his crime ..that early in Triock would have been justified in making a few lumps on TCs face and head while staying well within the Oath of peace only if he had intended no true injury to the unbeliever same with atiaran..they should have both just beaten the crap out of TC and then said..here you go..put hurtloam on this and your cuts will be healed but the crime in your head will not.

[shadowbinding shoe]

That's very rude. Perhaps you think my arguments are personal or condescending -- they aren't. I am just discussing my opinions with you. No need to which I take to be very condescending.

Hey, sorry if I insulted you with my smilies. I never thought your arguments were personal OR condescending. Were they? As you say I thought I was discussing my opinions with you. Anyway, if Danlo says your quotings are okey dokey who am I to argue? That was what I was talking about after all, right? Not your arguments.

I'll reply to the rest of your post later.

[iQuestor]

we need a virtual boxing ring here but maybe with staffs instead of gloves can someone rig up a Rockem sockem robot game?

hehe ...anyway i dont think that TC could be punished anymore than he already was..outside killing him.....he already had been to the brink of death more times than i want to count going to bat for the land and mostly because he wanted to fix the dammage he had done..or at least try to make up for it. he was a hateful leper when he arrived in the land..the land a dangerous illusion he wanted to wipe out, after he did the dammage and he realised it might be real or something worth saving all he could do is make up for his crime which he went above and beyond. the lords gave covenant a plea bargain..not too good of one either considering what could have happened..being hauled up a 500 foot tree by his wrists,starvation, freezing to death, amanibhavam poisoning being punched around, almost sizzling to death in hotash slay and then being subjected to everyone he loves becoming a rotting mass of gangrenous leprosy, false vision but realistic as you could get i imagine. I think he was Owed one..from The land side anyway, and on this side after all he had been through...people putting razorblades in his food as if shunning him was not enough to make anyone go insane after a while, then burning and vandalizing his property and he still has enough human decency to help a child thats been bitten by a snake and in turn poisoning himself though he knew with his cut mouth it would be bad news. I think he is owed hugely...but not by Lena's family..they were as ruined as if the despiser had done it himself.

also consider that fact that the council mainly Mhoram had known the burden Covenant had on his shoulders and doing anything other than support him would have broken that camels back..they would rather him save than damn the land, Mhoram had some insight but not the outcome. had Covenant been boasting about the rape im sure something would have been done..they seem to rely on forgiveness and at the same time have a "Use Necessary Force" policy on direct assault, had someone seen covenant in the act they would have restrained where hurting was not necessary? not sure... I myself would have considered any punishment outside death or dismemberment justifiable during or after the rape. Triock should have beaten the crap out of him while still keeping his oath..do not maim where hurting is enough. if you look at the Oath by levels ..say Level 1. do not hurt where restraining is enough - petty theft or preventing violence
2. do not maim when hurting is enough -protecting family or exacting justice for a crime such as covenants.
3. do not kill where maiming is enough - to Cripple someone or something that wont stop after you have hurt it. say if covenant had been knocked off lena and kept trying to go after her.
4. he who does not have to kill is the greatest warrior. - that one i dont think the battle hardened worried about...the last thing in their mind when they were under assault by Urviles or Cavewites was "maybe i should go for the leg to maim instead of kill" hehe

Though TC paid for his crime ..that early in Triock would have been justified in making a few lumps on TCs face and head while staying well within the Oath of peace only if he had intended no true injury to the unbeliever same with atiaran..they should have both just beaten the crap out of TC and then said..here you go..put hurtloam on this and your cuts will be healed but the crime in your head will not.

Actually, there is a passage somewhere where Mhoram is asked why he doesnt punish TC for the Rape of Lena -- possibly by Trell or Hile. Mhoram says something along the lines of that "he lacks the capacity to judge Covenants actions and leaves that up to a higher power." If someone knows where that is, I'd appreciate a quote.

I do remember Prothall saying "We must trust him" when he TC revealed the White Gold. I dont think they had a choice.

I wouldnt necessarily frowned on TC getting the crap beat out of him by Triock or Trell, but official punishment as administered by the Lords was out of the question. They knew they needed TC, his appearance and role was prophecied.


I agree, TC paid for his crimes, and the redemption of the world is pretty good recompense. After all, he did suffer greatly many many times at the hands of Foul's Ravers.

edit: and your point about TC also being a victim in this world is a good one. I agree it doesnt justify what he did to Lena. But the Lords punishing him doesnt fit with the story or the themes of the book.

[shadowbinding shoe]

Again, I think you you are missing the point. Ownership and use of the white ring does not give someone the power to defeat Foul. Yes, they could use the ring, but that isnt enough. WOuld they have power? sure. But you assume someone could use the power of the ring to kill Foul by force. They'd try to blow foul away with brute force, but instead break the arch by using it more and more to try to kill him, which is what Foul wanted.

It was also said Foul could not be killed by that kind of force.

TC said in TPTP:

Quote:
"I cant kill him. He always survives when you try to kill him. He comes back stronger than ever the next time. Despite is like that. I cant kill him. "

The breaking of the Arch was not really an issue in the first chronicles. Covenant fought with Lord Foul with brute force in tPtP until he wrested the Illearth stone from him and contained him in a forcefield of wild magic. He also unleashes the wild magic power + the Illearth stone power and still nothing happens to the arch of time. The danger of breaking the arch came from Covenant losing control over his power because of the venom bite in the second chronicle.

As for Lord Foul non-killability that's not precisely how I read it. Both Covenant and Lord Foul think Covenant could kill (annihilate?) him after he took the stone from him. What Covenant was referring to with 'despite' was the office of a despiser not Lord Foul the despiser specifically. Covenant believed that if he killed him by violence, using Lord Foul's methods he would create the conditions for the formation of similar being(s). Perhaps he himself would become that being as Lord Foul predicts. I'd say that would still be a big net gain since such replacements would be much less devious than Foul and in the case of Covenant not present in the Land to cause havoc.

Covenant's guilt and self loathing, and eventual acceptance allowed him to realize that he couldn't defeat Foul with the force of White Gold. So he destroyed the Illearth Stone with the White Gold, and then laughed at Despite, taught the Old Lords and FF to laugh at it. That (temporariliy) defeated him. It HAD to be Covenant. NO ONE else could defeat Foul, even with the ring. The ring in anyone elses hands just doesnt matter. It had to be Covenant with the ring. That was one of the whole points of the story.

If someone could take the ring and blow Foul away, then that is a completely different story with a whole different point . You could substitute Covenant with Scwarzzenegger or Eastwood and just have another Sci Fi shootemup. ANyone could write that.

Heh heh. As I said, and as we see in the books themselves Covenant (or someone else with the white gold and a proper attitude) could defeat Lord Foul. The point was that it was not just a superior force victory. It was a moral victory as well. He was 'killed' by non-violent means after Covenant defeated him in battle. All the battles and wars in general that the people of the Land fight against the Despiser's forces would have been very different if they weren't adamantly good people that uphold their oaths of peace above their own self preservation. Winning is not the central issue for them. When they tried to fight dirty like Kevin Landwaster they betrayed themselves. Kevin 'wins' but his victory is seen by everyone (except Elena) as worth only of pity.

My point was you can't punish the Lords for Elena's actions. Sorry for the typo.

Well, that makes more sense. But why shouldn't the Lords be held responsible for their choice of a non fit leader?

[shadowbinding shoe]

Blackhawk - Most of the punishments you mention (hardships anyway) occur long after Covenant's meeting with the Lords. Talking about LFB recently however I'm now not sure. Did the lords know about the raping of Lena during his first visit to the Land? Did Atiaran talk to them before she returned to her home? If not, than they could put him on trial only 40 years after the fact when their High Lord was his daughter Elena.

I wouldnt necessarily frowned on TC getting the crap beat out of him by Triock or Trell, but official punishment as administered by the Lords was out of the question. They knew they needed TC, his appearance and role was prophecied.

<blip> Would Covenant be more impressed with revengeful vigilantism than with true justice? Would he want to serve and save people like that? People that in fact would be similar to the townfolk in his own world?

A just punishment would have been liberating, lightening his load of guilt over his sin. He would have been glad to serve people like that who gave true justice and not the vigilante kind Sheriff Lytton likes to give.