Let's hear if for Mhoram!

[Fist and Faith]

and Donaldson does like to give us back beautiful things broken...

VERY well put!! How true. (But at least he fixed Foamfollower before the end. I guess we should be grateful. )

You will find that my belief in my own arguments are not quite as easily defeated.

Have at thee!! (M' man! )

I am stating an opinion here. The opinion being that although there is great potential for destruction in a certain lore I would not abandon it because of that. Basically I agree with you that it is the choice of the user not to use a lore for ill.

As it happens, I share your opinion. But you and I do not believe that violence is as bad as Mhoram believes it is, and we haven't sworn to avoid it to whatever degree possible every moment of our lives. And that's fine. You and I don't have to try to live up to Mhoram's standards of non-violence (To say nothing of Gandhi's. Yikes!), even if we believe his way is superior. (Which I <I>do</I> believe.) My problem is with the thought that Mhoram's decision is wrong, or weak. Because that is saying that his way of life is wrong, or weak. And it most certainly is not.

As a last point I would like to add that to trust in good motives as a guarantee for good results is foolish and I would like to think that Mhoram had learned at least this much from the results of the actions of Elena and the fate of the Bloodguard.

It's true that good motives do no guarantee good outcomes. No guarantee by a long shot! But do you think a good outcome is more likely if you begin with <I>bad</I> motives? How often do you suppose good motives lead to good outcomes compared to bad motives leading to good outcomes?

And if you aren't given a guarantee either way, which path do you attempt - the one that violates all you are, or the one that confirms it?

I think that most people's motives seem quite good to them.

That's a fantastic point! In fact, that's exactly why the Ravers have the names <I>moksha</I>, <I>samadhi</I>, and <I>turiya</I>. And it's a point that would force me to modify my above quote, or at least make it a little clearer.

But that's really a tangent, because this point, important as it is, doesn't actually apply to this situation. In any situation, Mhoram - all of us - can only do what he believes is the right thing, not what he knows someone else believes is the right thing. Most of you on this thread are saying that he should abandon what he thinks is right for what Kevin thought was right. But by that reasoning, we can just as easily say that Mhoram should abandon what he thinks is right for what <I>the Ravers</I> think is right. Their way is as right to them as Kevin's is to Kevin, as Mhoram's is to Mhoram. You think that is a bad idea only because what Kevin thought was right happens to be much closer to what <I>you</I> think is right. But there is no objective measure of right and wrong. And without that, the only answer is to do what <I>you</I> believe is right, and stick to your guns. (And I can't help but think that someone of strong religious conviction is going to respond to this, starting a whole new conversation. But that's ok, I like that too. )

No I do not mean that the refusal to use violence excludes creativity/potential. What I tried to say was that I believe that the Oath of Peace made it impossible for its adherents to use violence or to feel violently in the same way as the old lords did. To me this feels as if they should have cut off their right hand because they could use it to hold a weapon. I think that trying to live up to an ideal of pacifism would need a lot of creativity, but I also believe that it should be a free choice. The oath of peace took the choice away from its adherents.

I'm still not following you. Yes, pacifism should be a free choice. And taking the Oath is freely choosing that ideal. (Or at least an ideal with similarities to absolute pacifism.) Unless you suspect that some do not <I>freely</I> take, and try to live up to, the Oath? Maybe intense peer pressure is involved?

I do not think that the new lords truly saw the consequences of the oath when they first took it, but they should have known that oaths can have conseqences beyond what is first thought. The example of the Bloodguard should have taught them that.

There can be no question that they did NOT see the consequences. They would not have taken the Oath <B>and</B> tried to learn Kevin's Lore if they had known the two were incompatible. If they had known, I suppose some, not daring to imagine that there could be answers other than Kevin's Lore, would have decided that the Oath wasn't essential. But I'm sure that at least some of them would have taken the Oath, and started looking for other lore then. I think Mhoram would have been one of them.

The key point in my opinion is not the staff itself however but the fact that EARTHPOWER HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BREAK THE LAW. This is demonstrated in TIW, where the seventh ward is used to break the Law of Death.

Just for fun, I'll throw out this theory. I don't see any evidence that SRD viewed it this way, but why should that stop me? Maybe Death is merely shown to be a part of the Earthpower, or an even larger system that includes both. To speculate, some property of quarks may be found that can stop water from becoming ice. No matter what you do with temperature, pressure, and the purity of the water, it will not freeze. This does not mean any law of chemistry has been broken. The laws of chemistry are a subset of the laws of physics, and are subject to that greater body. Maybe Death is a part of the Earthpower, and subject to aspects of it. Especially the ultimate expression of it - the EarthBlood. Maybe the Law of Death wasn't "broken", maybe we just saw an aspect of the entire system that was <I>darned</I> unlikely to come up.

There obviously is a metaphysical system dealing with death and the dead in the land, but nowhere do I see any references to it in the chronicles except when dealing with the law of death and later the law of life. I note that the two laws HAD to be broken to make way for Covenants ultimate solution in White Gold Wielder and that Linden could not fix them without making it impossible. (I am assuming that the combination of White Gold and the new staff would make it possible to do so.)

Well, <I>anything's</I> possible, since SRD makes the rules. But yes, I'm following you. Anyway, my point was merely that the Creator made the Land, the Earthpower, and Death. While creating, either the Creator planned how the <I>Power of Command</I> and the Law of Death were related, and how they would interact, or he did not.

Now I will propose an equally strange theory: What if Kevin was actually quite clever?

Now imagine that High Lord Kevin, having learned by bitter experience who he was dealing with. Now we know that Kevin was a man capable of wonders, he is usually referred to as the most powerful of the old lords and this probably means that he has access to powers never mentioned in the chronicles. Look at what he has done: Amok, the seven wards, the bloodguard etc.

He obviously has the power, and the ability to use it. And because he is wise and strong he knows that this will not be enough. Foul is too strong and failiure will "make the universe a living hell, forever" to quote Lord Foul himself. Now he considers closely his options, which are:

1. Summon the White Gold Wielder himself! Why did he not do this? He could have tried and failed, or he could have considered it an even greater risk than using the seventh ward.

2. Use the seventh ward. When relatively ignorant Elena used the power she wrecked the law of death. What could Kevin, do should he be careless? Also too risky, obviously.

3. Buy some time and hope that someone more clever than himself will come up with a solution. To do this all he has to do is: prepare 7 wards of lore (including Amok) and hide them. Send the Bloodguard into exile. Fool Lord Foul into thinking that he has despaired and DARE him to enact the ritual of desecration. He know Lord Foul is arrogant beyond all earthly measure and who knows, he might even be lucky enough to take him down as well, but the real plan is to buy time for someone to come up with a plan.

The great flaw with this plan is that after the Desecration, even though it does not leave a lasting effect on most of the land, (The preceding war did that, though.) the people of the land is soo scared of the concept of desecration that they willingly remove even the ability to learn it rather than risk it happening again. Thus leaving themselves incapable of learning his lore.

Elena said, "Thomas Covenant, there are some who believe that the Ritual of Desecration expressed High Lord Kevin's highest wisdom. They are few, but eloquent." Personally, I didn't find her explanation of that belief to be particularly eloquent, and it didn't convince me. Maybe she wasn't entirely convinced herself, and, not being very passionate about it, didn't give us the full idea.

<B>You</B>, however, did a <B>great</B> job! In fact, I'm throwing in with you! Unless someone can think of anything that can NOT be interpreted that way, I'm all for it.

It even helps explain why Kevin is considered to be such a hero in the Land. Did we ever hear anyone bad-mouth him? Here's a guy who does almost more damage to the Land than anyone can imagine (they imagine Foul could do more, but that's about it), and after centuries, he has not come to be thought of as a jerk, or idiot, or evil. Is there a figure from our history that destroyed a WHOLE LOT of stuff, but is considered, at worst, a tragic figure? But if people view Kevin through this theory, they wouldn't think ill of him.

I guess the Oath of Peace also helps keep Kevin from becoming a villain in the people's eyes. Not doing violence, always looking for peaceful solutions, applies to this kind of situation as well as physical wars. They are always trying to not hate - even the guy who Desecrated.

My first guess for Option #1, though, would be that Kevin simply didn't know where/how to find white gold. Maybe only other types of beings, like the Creator and Foul, knew.

[duchess of malfi]

I didn't even know you could put a quotebox inside a quotebox inside a quotebox.
Keep at it guys, this is fascinating!!

[[Syl]]

Fist and Faith wrote:

My first guess for Option #1, though, would be that Kevin simply didn't know where/how to find white gold. Maybe only other types of beings, like the Creator and Foul, knew.

Do you know the song, Covenant? There is no white gold in the Land. Gold has never been found in the Earth, though it is said that Berek knew of it, and made the songs.

I wonder if that was a part of the lore he passed on to his descendants, or (more likely) a part of his being seer and prophet.

[vt53]

Instead, Mhoram forgot his own revelation, and believed evil to be utterly defeated. But can evil ever be eradicated? Can we ever abandon all power and believe only in peace?

Mhoram is a fascinating character also because of this, his final error.

I hate to join this so late but this comment does not fit with what I got out of Mhorams speech at Glimmermere, I felt he was taing the lessons learned from Kevin/Elena/TC/Lord Foul etc and saying to all that violence was not the only answer to dispite, that they could preserve the land with lore derived from the oathof peace.

And rememer the oath of pease alows violence, it is just to be avoided.

I also found Mhoram to be one of the most "admirable" characters in TCTC. (as much as you can admire a fictional character )

I do not look on this as his fatal error, that would be blaming him for dispite, the fact that unadded he is unable to defeat dispite.

[Fist and Faith]

Hey duchess, the water's fine.

[KaosArcana]

It's been quite a few years since I read the First Chronicles, but
it seems to me that I'm getting quite a different view of things
than the rest of you did. Not that Mhoram isn't an admirable
character, but rather that his greatest victories came when he
went beyond the restrictions placed on him by the Oath of
Peace. When he returned to it, he inadvertently bequeathed
the legacy of the Sunbane to the Land.

Consider.

Trell discovers the secret that Mhoram has guarded so
closely and is able to use it to trigger enough power that
he threatens Revelstone ... perhaps even the Land itself
with another Ritual of Descretation. Tohrm, Mhoram, and
Amatin are helpless to stop him ... until:

"... a thrill of strength ran through Mhoram. Amatin's protection
steadied, stiffened. Though the force of Trell's attack knocked
Tohrm back into Mhoram's arms, the fire did not touch them.
And Amatin's sudden discovery of power called up an answer in
the High Lord. With a look like joy gleaming in his eyes, he swept
aside all his self-restraints and turned to his secret understanding
of desecration. That secret contained might-- might which the
Lords had failed to discover because of their Oath of Peace--
might which could be used to preserve as well as destroy. Despair
was not the only unlocking emotion. Mhoram freed his own passion
and stood against the devastation of the Close."

Revelstone would have been destroyed utterly if Mhoram had not
embraced the power of Kevin's lore and used it to oppose Trell's
madness.

And then:

"With his new might, he gripped the krill and pulled it easily from the
stone. Its edges were so sharp that when he held the knife in his
hands he could see their keenness. His power protected him from the
heat."

"He turned to his companions with a smile that felt like a ray of sunshine on his face.

"'Summon Lord Trevor,' he said gladly. 'I have-- a knowledge of power that I wish to share with you.'"

Without that knowledge, without the krill, Mhoram could never have
beaten the Giant-Raver. If he had failed, then Revelstone would
have fallen. If Mhoram had not distracted Elena Foul-Wife while
she prepared to use the Staff of Law to destroy the Colossus then
the Ramen, Bannor, and Foamheart would never have been freed
of her control, Triock could never have knocked the white gold out
of her hands, and Covenant could never have lived long enough to
go forward to stop Lord Foul.

Kevin's lore almost destroyed the Land before, but the Oath of
Peace almost handed Foul complete and total victory.

No man or woman of the Land could have beaten Foul even
armed with the white gold. The Oath of Peace would have kept
them from unleashing the power of the wild magic to its fullest
extent. Covenant-- who did not have that Oath-- was able to
overcome both Foul and the Illearth Stone.

Mhoram threw away Kevin's Lore because he felt that it was too
dangerous, but he forgot that ignorance is the greatest danger of
all. Had the Lords stayed wise in Kevin's lore, then they might have
been able to overcome the Sunbane before it became too strong...
before they were subverted into the Clave.

[[Syl]]

extremely well put, Kaos (I know I've seen that name somewhere... here?). i have to agree, though I can't really fault Mhoram for following his convictions.

[Fist and Faith]

It's been quite a few years since I read the First Chronicles, but it seems to me that I'm getting quite a different view of things than the rest of you did. Not that Mhoram isn't an admirable
character, but rather that his greatest victories came when he went beyond the restrictions placed on him by the Oath of Peace. When he returned to it, he inadvertently bequeathed the legacy of the Sunbane to the Land.

That's all true, if you add a word, making it, "his greatest <I>military</I> victories..." His greatest victories, imo (and I think Mhoram agrees), were:
1) Figuring out why they were unable to learn Kevin's Lore.
2) Having the faith and courage to abandon it. He gave up the thing that he, and generations before him, had always considered just about the most important thing in the world; the goal of their lives. Not an easy decision. But he had faith that a less violent way was as capable of protecting the Land as a violent way.

And I agree, despite the outcome. As I said a few posts ago, the fact that the Sunbane came about wasn't because Mhoram's - the Land's - decision was to look for less violent ways. Information was missing, and later generations became less vigilant. There's no reason to believe that the more violent way <I>must</I> be better at protecting. Lore that comes from people who are less violent than Kevin could concentrate on defense, understanding, uncovering evil and lies, and other things.

Although we've been discussing pacifism, Mhoram wasn't a pacafist. (Although there was some common ground.) He was willing to do what was necessary, if it came down to that choice. And in every instance, it was the <I>only</I> way to preserve life. The Old Lords would have taken that course of action much sooner, and wouldn't have been as upset about having taken lives. Kevin's Lore simply didn't work for the former way of life. Mhoram was of the former way of life, and so he had to give up the Kevin's Lore. It was not a matter of being stubborn, and refusing to compromise. He was incapable of taking lives without compunction or regret - And was therefore incapable of using Kevin's Lore.

Remember in <I>Chariots of Fire</I> when Eric Liddell wouldn't run in the heats because they were on Sunday? One of his specific religious conviction does not do such things on the Sabbath, and that's not negotiable. When asked if he had any regrets, he said (something like), "Regrets? Aye. No doubts though." That's exactly what happened to Mhoram. He may have regretted that he had to forget about the Lore that was the focus of their lives, and contained such power, but he didn't have any choice.

Without that knowledge, without the krill, Mhoram could never have beaten the Giant-Raver. If he had failed, then Revelstone would have fallen. If Mhoram had not distracted Elena Foul-Wife while she prepared to use the Staff of Law to destroy the Colossus then the Ramen, Bannor, and Foamheart would never have been freed
of her control, Triock could never have knocked the white gold out of her hands, and Covenant could never have lived long enough to go forward to stop Lord Foul.

That's a great point. I hadn't ever thought of it that way. They were all helpless until Mhoram beat <I>samadhi</I>, thus distracting Elena.

Kevin's lore almost destroyed the Land before, but the Oath of Peace almost handed Foul complete and total victory.

Technically, it was trying to use Kevin's Lore through the filter of the Oath. If they knew about that when the Giants gave them the first ward, they would have done <I>something</I> different, and been much stronger all along.

No man or woman of the Land could have beaten Foul even armed with the white gold. The Oath of Peace would have kept them from unleashing the power of the wild magic to its fullest extent. Covenant-- who did not have that Oath-- was able to overcome both Foul and the Illearth Stone.

Hmmm... I wonder. Covenant was not a particularly violent person. His personal code might not be all that different from the Oath. He was a lot more upset about having killed than anyone else in the books was, even Mhoram, and tried his best to not do it.

Mhoram threw away Kevin's Lore because he felt that it was too dangerous, but he forgot that ignorance is the greatest danger of all. Had the Lords stayed wise in Kevin's lore, then they might have been able to overcome the Sunbane before it became too strong...
before they were subverted into the Clave.

Just a little correction, of sorts. The outcome is the same, but for a different reason. If they had abandoned the Oath of Peace and rediscovered Kevin's Lore, the Sunbane never would have come about. (Although I'm sure Foul would have figured out something else to screw with them.)

[vt53]

I never felt that infiltration of the new lords by a raver, which results in the clave/sunbane, was due to Mhorams Oath of Peace. Kevin allowed Lord Foul into his council, an even greater corruption of the old lore! Just like Kevin the new Lords were decieved by dispite and this time despite was patient and slowly corruped the fundamental law of the land.

Mhorm's legacy just proved that no mater what you do "despite" lives in the world and must be countered by act and deed through all time. Remeber that at the end of each battle with the White Gold Lord Foul is just diminished, not ended, he is not of the world so cannot be removed from the world with out ending the world

[Drinny]

Wow, this is turning out to be one of the most interesting discussions ever.

Ok, I have 2 things to say:

PART I

The parallel between Mhoram and Kevin is very interesting, and crucial. It seems there are two types of people here:

1) Those that see Kevin as erring, and Mhoram as correct: Kevin gave in to his despair and descecrated the Land, whereas Mhoram contained his violent emotions and wished to find a new lore.

2) Those of the opposite opinion - Kevin was right, and Mhoram wrong: Kevin bought the Land some time, delaying the Despiser's utter victory; and Mhoram found the secret of power but abandoned it (at least partly).

(those of type 2 may see Mhoram as one of the most amazing characters of all time; but they still see his final act in TPTP as a mistake)

Ah, what a complex issue... one of the reasons TCTC are so amazing.

Anyhow, I am in camp 2... Kevin did the only thing possible, considering his position; I don't think summoning TC was an option: I've always seen summoning TC as requiring the agreement of the Creator and Despiser to do (to select TC and summon him the first time, not later times, obviously). TC was simply not going to be summoned in Kevin's time, and the Gods alone know why. Kevin saw that "beauty will pass utterly from the Land" (I love that quote... so sad...), as Berek saw before. But Berek was given a way out, the earthpower - which failed Kevin, although he was a supreme master of earthpower and lore.

Allowing Foul to complete his victory - very bad. Possibly irreperable harm. Whereas the Ritual of Desecration allows his some flexibility in preserving parts of the Land (Giants, Bloodguard, etc.). So strategically, I completely agree with Kevin here.

Seriously, what should Kevin have done? Lost with dignity? Would anything have been left to save afterwards? Obviously Kevin did the wise and only thing to do.

And here is my point: the people of the Land see Kevin as someone who erred - by this showing their misunderstanding. Elena was correct in opposing the majority view, but mistaken in what she chose to do with that belief.

The problem with the Oath of Peace is not that it is a form of absoulte pacifism - it isn't. But it does make one see things in a false way, I believe; seeing dying with virtue as better than fighting back no matter what the costs. Kevin chose to fight back the only way he had - Desecrating the Land (anything else would have been to allow Foul to win). Yes, there is something wrong with Descerating the Land; but there is more wrong with Foul winning completely.

PART II

But all this doesn't matter.

TCTC is about life's paradoxes. One is: is the Land real? Or a dream? Covenant wisely realizes BOTH are true. Is pacifism correct? Or being pragmatic? Again, both. Accepting the two opposites is hard, but ignoring the truth of either side of the dilemma is a false solution.

Other examples of such dilemmas (not in TCTC): Do we have free will (as we feel we do, and as ethics requires)? Or is the world mechanistic and impersonal (as science seems to lead us to believe)?

More such problems: God, subjective consciousness, etc.

We must accept the paradox of life and see the truth in each opposing view, like Covenant realized; it is no coincidence that the white gold is a described as a paradox...

[vt53]

The problem with the Oath of Peace is not that it is a form of absoulte pacifism - it isn't. But it does make one see things in a false way, I believe; seeing dying with virtue as better than fighting back no matter what the costs. Kevin chose to fight back the only way he had - Desecrating the Land (anything else would have been to allow Foul to win). Yes, there is something wrong with Descerating the Land; but there is more wrong with Foul winning completely

Do not hurt where holding is enough
do not wound where hurting is enough
do not maim where wounding is enough
and kill not where maiming is enough
the greatest warrior is he who does not kill.

I always felt this made a good set of rules, kind of like the geneva convention for the land. Granted untill Mhoram understood its impact on the lords power it impeded thier strength. but they found a way to merge the two and I think Mhoram's desire was to find a way to serve the land without the the dark side of human nature.

I guess I will say we need a number three:
Those that feel both did their best given the tools at their disposal

[KaosArcana]

Quote:
The problem with the Oath of Peace is not that it is a form of absoulte pacifism - it isn't. But it does make one see things in a false way, I believe; seeing dying with virtue as better than fighting back no matter what the costs. Kevin chose to fight back the only way he had - Desecrating the Land (anything else would have been to allow Foul to win). Yes, there is something wrong with Descerating the Land; but there is more wrong with Foul winning completely


Do not hurt where holding is enough
do not wound where hurting is enough
do not maim where wounding is enough
and kill not where maiming is enough
the greatest warrior is he who does not kill.

I always felt this made a good set of rules, kind of like the geneva convention for the land. Granted untill Mhoram understood its impact on the lords power it impeded thier strength. but they found a way to merge the two and I think Mhoram's desire was to find a way to serve the land without the the dark side of human nature.

But Mhoram and the Lords recognize there is a time when
"maiming is enough" does not apply. There ARE times when
killing and destruction are necessary things. Denying that leads
to a far worse fate than you fear.

As someone else said, "All that's necessary for evil to triumph is
for good men to do nothing."

You can also add, "or not enough" to that.

Would it have been better for the Land if Mhoram had continued to
withhold his knowledge from the other Lords? If he had adhered so
strictly to the Oath of Peace that he was not able to use the krill?



I personally reject the notion that the kind of passion that fueled
Kevin's Lore inevitably leads to desecration and despair.

[Fist and Faith]

Wow, this is turning out to be one of the most interesting discussions ever.

I'm so happy other people are having fun with this too!!

The parallel between Mhoram and Kevin is very interesting, and crucial. It seems there are two types of people here:

1) Those that see Kevin as erring, and Mhoram as correct: Kevin gave in to his despair and descecrated the Land, whereas Mhoram contained his violent emotions and wished to find a new lore.

2) Those of the opposite opinion - Kevin was right, and Mhoram wrong: Kevin bought the Land some time, delaying the Despiser's utter victory; and Mhoram found the secret of power but abandoned it (at least partly).

(those of type 2 may see Mhoram as one of the most amazing characters of all time; but they still see his final act in TPTP as a mistake)

You speak of paradoxes below. Do you allow for this one?-
3) BOTH were right. Mhoram would use as little violence as possible in any given situation. But I never got the impression that any of the Old Lords were particularly bloodthirsty. Kevin didn't laugh at the pitiful <I>Haruchai</I> army when it laid seige to Revelstone, and wipe them out. (Although maybe Loric was a bigot, and he tried to exterminate the viles for no reason, then re-wrote the history books? And that act made them nasty. heh) So I'd say they were willing to do what was necessary, as Mhoram himself was, but maybe they got to that point with less remorse. Maybe they even skipped some other, less violent, options at times. I certainly don't think Kevin was bad in any way. I think he fought the good fight. He just didn't have the ability to see what was going on until Foul was very well-entrenched, or the power to win when Foul was already so many steps ahead. Thanks to Ryzel (reinforced by what you just said that I snipped here), I see the Ritual of Desecration not as a moment of madness and despair, but the only option other than letting Foul rule the Land. Which surely would have been horrifying beyond measure.

And I think Mhoram was right too. I don't find a single thing wrong with what he did. He figured out what was going on with the Lore/Oath problem; using that knowledge, he committed the extreme violence that was, by then, necessary to save the Land; then began looking for answers that would not require anyone to have to commit such violence again. His decision to abandon Kevin's Lore, a decision that everybody agreed with, was not a matter of choice. It was necessary because of their conviction about their way of life.

And this decision was not why Foul was able to return. Mistakes were made, but the decision to find a peace-oriented lore was not one of them. My thinking is this: If Mhoram had abandoned the Oath so that they could use Kevin's Lore, possibly even surpassing Kevin in later generations, there would <I>still</I> have been a 2nd Chronicles. Foul would have returned, one way or another. And then some of us might be saying, "If Mhoram hadn't pursued a way that he knew was inadequate (because Kevin failed with it), but had looked for another answer, possibly one that was compatible with the Oath, they might have found a way to keep Foul away permanently."

Ah, what a complex issue... one of the reasons TCTC are so amazing.

Yup! If literature doesn't make me think, motivate me, amaze me..., I don't know why it's there. I suppose we might want pure escape sometimes, but I can't imagine reading one Harlequin after another.

Anyhow, I am in camp 2... Kevin did the only thing possible, considering his position; I don't think summoning TC was an option: I've always seen summoning TC as requiring the agreement of the Creator and Despiser to do (to select TC and summon him the first time, not later times, obviously). TC was simply not going to be summoned in Kevin's time, and the Gods alone know why.

I'd guess because the Creator knew that Foul was not going to win. He knew that Kevin would find a solution that set Foul back, allowing the future to find a better answer. But when the future <I>didn't</I> find a solution to Foul, when Foul absolutely would have won, white gold was needed.

The problem with the Oath of Peace is not that it is a form of absoulte pacifism - it isn't. But it does make one see things in a false way, I believe; seeing dying with virtue as better than fighting back no matter what the costs.

This is the very crux of this discussion since your first reply to my original post. I don't think that any evidence, historical or from TCTC, supports the idea that lore built on the Oath's principles cannot be as strong as Kevin's Lore. Which is why some of you are saying that Mhoram's decision was wrong. It seems that you think it was the wrong decision because, although you think everyone has the right to be even an absolute pacifist, you think that they are making a false decision. I do <I>not</I> believe that you are simply being stubborn, and are <I>unwilling</I> to give in and say, "All right already. Absolute pacifism is in no way false or inferior to any other view of life." I think that you just don't see how such a thing can be so. But it can. Let me compare the USA and India. Both were ruled by England. Both got their independence only after much blood was shed. Both had people who were willing to die to insure freedom for others. Neither would have taken the war to England if the English had just said, "OK, we're outta here. As far as we are concerned, you are independent," and left.

And the difference?
<B>GANDHI</B>
The man's courage, integrity, and strength cannot be overestimated. There may have been Indians who were took up arms against the English, but Gandhi is why India became independent.

Now, I'm not saying that we should all solve our problems the way he did. I'm not about to let people beat me into bloody unconsciousness without trying to even make them stop, let alone actually fight back. It's not for everyone. What I <I>am</I> saying is that, bizarre as it seems to me, his way worked every bit as well as the method the American colonists used. AND, Gandhi was <I>absolutely true to himself the whole time.</I> He believed that harming another person is wrong. No qualifiers, no exceptions. It is wrong to harm another person. And for him, it did not <I>become</I> acceptable to harm another person when it became uncomfortable, painful, or even deadly, to him.

And he won.

I don't see anything false in there. I just see different. To Gandhi, life was <I>not</I> more important than everything he believed and loved about himself. If you lose all that you are, the cost of staying alive is too great. If you disagree, you just need to think of some aspect of yourself that you would not give up, even for your life. Some Nazis guarded and killed Jews in the camps only because they did not want to die for refusing. They thought doing that was an acceptable trade for staying alive. I don't think that killing innocents is worth my life, but I DO think that fighting back against, even killing, bloodthirsty bastards like the English rulers of India is fine. Gandhi did not. It's not even something he decided on, it's simply what he was. He was not able to do otherwise. And, in my system of values, saying he was wrong is, if you'll excuse the double standard, wrong.

Is pacifism correct? Or being pragmatic? Again, both. Accepting the two opposites is hard, but ignoring the truth of either side of the dilemma is a false solution.

In what way do you believe pacifism is correct? I haven't gotten that from your posts so far. Like I said above, I think you believe everyone has the right to choose pacifism (as though what we believe effects anyone's right to such a thing, eh? ), but it seems you believe they are choosing wrongly.

Other examples of such dilemmas (not in TCTC): Do we have free will (as we feel we do, and as ethics requires)? Or is the world mechanistic and impersonal (as science seems to lead us to believe)?

More such problems: God, subjective consciousness, etc.

<B>Hey, anybody wanna talk about any of that stuff??</B>

We must accept the paradox of life and see the truth in each opposing view, like Covenant realized; it is no coincidence that the white gold is a described as a paradox...

You know what? I never noticed that the words "white gold" were, themselves, a paradox. Or at least an oxymoron of sorts. Like <I>jumbo shrimp</I>, and <I>deafening silence</I>. I can't believe I never realized it! Yet another layer.


BTW, I love your choice of nick. It's amazing how big an impact Drinny made on me with such a small (# of words, that is) role!

[KaosArcana]

And the difference?
GANDHI
The man's courage, integrity, and strength cannot be overestimated. There may have been Indians who were took up arms against the English, but Gandhi is why India became independent.

Now, I'm not saying that we should all solve our problems the way he did. I'm not about to let people beat me into bloody unconsciousness without trying to even make them stop, let alone actually fight back. It's not for everyone. What I am saying is that, bizarre as it seems to me, his way worked every bit as well as the method the American colonists used. AND, Gandhi was absolutely true to himself the whole time. He believed that harming another person is wrong. No qualifiers, no exceptions. It is wrong to harm another person. And for him, it did not become acceptable to harm another person when it became uncomfortable, painful, or even deadly, to him.

And he won.

Hold it right there, Fist.

Even Gandhi himself admitted that his stance only worked because
the people he was opposing had a measure of dignity and compassion
that could be played upon. Gandhi knew that his approach
would not have worked against Hitler or Nazi Germany.

Or in the Land's case, if the Lords had put down their staffs and swords
do you think Lord Foul would have said, "Oh darn. Guess I'll just have to
go away now?"

He would have exterminated them.

And the decision of the Land to turn its back on Kevin's Lore was
described thusly:

"I am Mhoram son of Variol, High Lord by the choice of the Council.
I declare that from this day forth we will not devote ourselves to any
Lore which precludes Peace. We will gain lore of our own-- we will
strive and quest and learn until we we have found a lore in which
the Oath of Peace and the preservation of the Land live together.
Hear me, you people! We will serve Earthfriendship in a new way."

Doesn't exactly sound like a Democratic decision to me.


The thing is, I think Mhoram was wrong in his belief that Kevin's
Lore was incompatbile with the Oath of Peace. I think a way could
have been found to incorporate both. After all, did Tohrm, Mhoram,
and Amatin go out and become mad desecraters after they learned
the secret? No . They used it to preserve what they loved.

And consider this:

Kevin's Lore came from Berek Heartthew. Berek, who the Earth
itself chose to save and impart its wisdom to. If there had been a
better way of preserving the Land, wouldn't Berek have been given
that secret at the dawning of the Lords' history?

[[Syl]]

concerning harlequin novels...

oh yeah? let me tell you about this summer I spent at my aunt's house out in the middle of nowhere with no TV... better yet, I think I'll keep those memories where they belong. repressed.

<B>GANDHI</B>
The man's courage, integrity, and strength cannot be overestimated. There may have been Indians who were took up arms against the English, but Gandhi is why India became independent.

yet look where India is today; the tension between India and Pakistan is so thick you could cut it with a uranium isotope.

but I quibble, really.

damn you all, I no longer have a clue if Mhoram was right or wrong. I know I wouldn't have done what he did, or if I had, I would've done it for different reasons. allow me to skim across my reasoning.

earthpower. the power of the earth that was given to Berek when he asked for it. the earth can be an immensely powerful thing. perhaps too powerful when combined with the fact that the Earth/Land doesn't seem to care one way or another for the life of any organism more complex than the tree.

I believe Mhoram came to seek a more human power, something that was more in line with the needs/beliefs of the people of the Land, not the Land itself. this lore was corrupted and become the sunbane (the blood).

hmm. imagine if it was the use of earthlore that was corrupted and how much more the Land could have been made to suffer.

i'll try to organize my thoughts and post more on this later.

[Fist and Faith]

I personally reject the notion that the kind of passion that fueled Kevin's Lore inevitably leads to desecration and despair.

I agree. I don't think Mhoram thought it was inevitable either:

If Kevin son of Loric had not had that particular capacity for power, he would not have been able to Desecrate the Land.

"<I>Been able to</I>", not "been forced to." And:

He believed intensely that the refusal to share knowledge demeaned both the denier and the denied. By keeping the secret to himself, he prevented Callindrill and Amatin and Trevor and Loerya and every Lorewarden or student of the Staff from finding within themselves the strength to refuse Desecration

He seemed to think that people <I>could</I> be strong enough to refuse, but he didn't want to let them take the chance.

The thing is, I think Mhoram was wrong in his belief that Kevin's Lore was incompatbile with the Oath of Peace. I think a way could have been found to incorporate both. After all, did Tohrm, Mhoram,
and Amatin go out and become mad desecraters after they learned
the secret? No . They used it to preserve what they loved.

Trell, however, became a mad desecrater.

But I don't think you and I have any choice but to believe Mhoram's assessment. SRD says that's the way it is. He wrote TCTC so that we have a choice in what to believe in some cases. Was the Land real or dream? Did Kevin go mad, or sanely salvage the situation in the only way possible? SRD told us the choices, and supported both.

But in this, it is made clear to us. Mhoram was positive that the two were incompatible. Generations of people tried everything they could think of to make Kevin's Lore work. All failed. Then, Mhoram figured it out. He <I>knew</I> it. He, who lived and breathed the Oath, and had been studying Kevin's Lore for decades, felt it in every fibre of his being.

Plus, the truth of it took his prescience from him. Do you suppose he only deluded himself, but his subconscious demanded that he pay a price for the false knowledge, and blocked itself off from the prescience? Conceivable.

NOT!



And finally, Mhoram was able to use Kevin's Lore. Amazingly, he seemed able to use the <I>krill</I>, even though the knowledge to do that was supposed to come only after having mastered Kevin's first six wards. Mind you, it's impossible to say how much he was helped by Covenant's presence in the Land. Still, before he took the <I>krill</I> from his robe, "the only thing which limited his might was his staff itself." Despite their best efforts, nobody since Kevin had been able to wield that much power, until Mhoram figured out the problem.

I think the reason Mhoram didn't despair was... hard to explain. We have to allow that SRD had trouble perfectly explaining complex emotions and moralities of hypothetical situations in a world of powers that, since they don't really exist, we can't completely understand. Is it any wonder that Mhoram "could hardly articulate" how he figured it out? I'm not going to try to explain it step by step. But let me put some things in your mind:

1) Even with the Staff of Law, before they knew the size of the armies Foul had, before she broke the Law of Death, giving Foul even more to throw at them, Elena said, "I must defeat the Despiser using arrows and swords." The situation for Mhoram could not have been worse. And then, at the last minute, absolutely no time to look for something else, Mhoram found a weapon of substance. I would understand, and forgive him, if he set the Oath aside. And, basically, he did - In his heart, which is where it counts. (I think someone who plans and attempts a murder should be tried as a murderer even if they fail. Why should they get off lighter because of incompetence? In his heart, he's a murderer.) He was ready and willing to kill.

<B>BUT</B>, he <I>still</I> gave the creatures a chance to leave him alone in <I>Lord Mhoram's Victory</I>. I don't think Kevin would have. Because of having tried his best to live the Oath his whole life, Mhoram was able to show mercy more.

2) Mhoram was <I>extraordinary!</I>

"Come - can you believe that Lord Mhoram will ever despair?"

"The Bloodguard with me were slain. But when <I>samadhi</I> Raver touched me, he knew me as I knew him. He was daunted."

"Triock, you're making a big mistake if you ever assume that Mhoram is helpless."
"The Unbeliever speaks truly," Foamfollower said. "The son of Variol is a man of many resources. Much that may appear impossible is possible for him."

There was more to Mhoram than anyone else. I'd bet he's just stronger, and more able to deny desecration than Kevin was. Er, although I no longer think Kevin despaired. Anyway, one can't help but wonder what would have happened if <I>he</I> was the son of Loric. Would Mhoram have found a way to defeat Foul if he had inherited the Lore from Loric? (But, of course, the Oath was a part of him. If the Oath was removed, the man is changed. Much more might have been lost than we might assume at first.)

3) Mhoram never got to the point where he <I>knew</I>, without question, that he was going to lose. Whether or not Kevin was every bit as good and strong as Mhoram, he lost, and he knew it.

Hold it right there, Fist.

You want a piece of me? Come on!! LOL (Hey Vain, we need an emoticon with both hands giving the "come on" gesture. )

Even Gandhi himself admitted that his stance only worked because the people he was opposing had a measure of dignity and compassion that could be played upon. Gandhi knew that his approach would not have worked against Hitler or Nazi Germany.

Or in the Land's case, if the Lords had put down their staffs and swords
do you think Lord Foul would have said, "Oh darn. Guess I'll just have to
go away now?"

He would have exterminated them.

I quite agree! I'm not trying to convince anyone that absolute pacifism is a good strategy against Foul. I'm trying to convince people that a set of values that you don't, could never, share (and might even seem to be strange, unnatural, who knows?), might, nevertheless, be every bit as good, useful, and true as yours.

And the decision of the Land to turn its back on Kevin's Lore was described thusly:

"I am Mhoram son of Variol, High Lord by the choice of the Council. I declare that from this day forth we will not devote ourselves to any Lore which precludes Peace. We will gain lore of our own-- we will strive and quest and learn until we we have found a lore in which the Oath of Peace and the preservation of the Land live together. Hear me, you people! We will serve Earthfriendship in a new way."

Doesn't exactly sound like a Democratic decision to me.

Well.. he <I>was</I> chosen to make such decisions because they knew that he would make decisions that they would approve. Or at least he'd do what the majority would want, I guess. The Lords didn't always agree, but they still trusted the High Lord's decisions. And it's not like we choose our leaders in the USA, where they are lying to us at all points in their carreers. Thanks to their mind meld, they know each other to a MUCH greater degree than we know each other. Their melds might even play a role in their decision making.

I wonder... If a minority of the Lords had disagreed with such a gigantic decision, would the rest have let them take the first two wards, so they could relearn it? The Lords who were staying obviusly wouldn't have needed them.

And consider this: Kevin's Lore came from Berek Heartthew. Berek, who the Earth itself chose to save and impart its wisdom to. If there had been a better way of preserving the Land, wouldn't Berek have been given that secret at the dawning of the Lords' history?

Now <B>THAT</B> is a great point!! Damn, I love this site! It's so great to have other people making me think of this stuff in ways I never did before!

[Fist and Faith]

damn you all, I no longer have a clue if Mhoram was right or wrong.

LOL!! Well, my work here is done.

earthpower. the power of the earth that was given to Berek when he asked for it. the earth can be an immensely powerful thing. perhaps too powerful when combined with the fact that the Earth/Land doesn't seem to care one way or another for the life of any organism more complex than the tree.

Right?!?

[[Syl]]

OT gandhi segue
www.plastic.com/article.html?sid=03/01/ ... 684;cmt=37

[MokshaTuriyaSamadhi Raver]

Quote :

"And consider this: Kevin's Lore came from Berek Heartthew. Berek, who the Earth itself chose to save and impart its wisdom to. If there had been a better way of preserving the Land, wouldn't Berek have been given that secret at the dawning of the Lords' history?"

---------------------------------

Argh. I've just forgotten the piece I was going to use. Something like 'power boons the user naught if they don't possess the knowledge of how to use it properly'? You have to earn that sort of power to become like a God. Berek earned what was neccessary to save the land at that time through his abject need.

As time passed and Foul's threat became greater it surpassed the ability of their lore to contain. Kevin's Lore, although *arguably* more powerful than what Berek had to 'command' was still constrained by the fact the upper limit of that power was ordained back with Berek.

The power of desecreation was granted by Kevin's despair. I believe this is a step up from the rest of Kevin's Lore (I'll be proved wrong canonically on this point but I don't care )
Exitus Acta Probat - The Outcome Always Justifies The Means.

That step-up in power did a great job.

Kevin was right to desecrate (which I believe he was), Berek was right to not seek ultimate power when the Earthpower talked to him (which yet again I believe was correct). They did not lack knowledge about the power at their disposal. Only Kevin lacked the knowledge of what his power would cause in backlash.

And Mhoram got the White Gold. Just before denying desecreation in the hope of finding something that didn't lead to despair. Yeehaw!

Argh. Seer and prophet.... forgetting point. Mhoram + Berek (who was also a seer and prophet?) could see what would happen. Berek used this to avoid seeking a power he couldn't control. Mhoram used it to avoid a final desecration (which unlike Kevin's would have sent everything to hell in a handbasket - you can only save the Land in such a way once <another quote that may not neccessarily concern that by extrapolation helps my flawed rants gather false strength > )

I'm still lacking a point here. Hmm...

Looking at it from the harshest point of view..
Berek was a coward, Kevin was deluded and Mhoram was a failure.

But from a fair perspective they all should be absolved of blame for their actions. They all claimed victories, however fleeting and pyrric.

And who knows, if they reached just that little bit further they could have fallen into irrecoverable defeat.

My head hurts. Memo to self never try anything after playing sport all day in 40 degree heat.

[vt53]

people of the land, This is a great series of thought about the books!

Some of the responces are so detailed in responce to the question posed I wonder how you all have time to eat

Back to the questions and opinions I have to agree with Fist and Faith both Lords were right given their surrounding conditions. the diference is Kevin did dispair where Mhoram did not!

Kevin's ritual of desecration is refered to by almost all (with the noteable exception of Elena who has her own issues of worth, being the product of unbelief) felt Kevin dispaired. His Act was at the root of the fall of the Bloodgaurd Vow in that he did not include them in His final battle with Lord Foul.

Mhoram's integration of the oath of peace to the Search for an answer blinded them to the development of the sunbane and the curruption of the Lords commitment to the land.

So both were flawed, hence the need for The White Gold!